It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I do think the climax should have been in Morocco, with London as a coda. The whole exploding MI6 building sequence, and London in the film in general, is such a bore. They should have gone with the traitor within MI6--M, Tanner?--on the bridge. C is completely unnecessary.
The purpose of C was to have an MI6 traitor without it being Tanner or M. They must’ve thought about doing that. M as a traitor would have been horrible and Tanner would have been too wet.
But Guy Haines had already been exposed in QOS. (Otherwise yes, I'd rather have had Guy Haines, Paul Ritter is a far better actor imo and looks far more menacing).
Yes but not followed up on. Hence why Bond and Tanner are onto him but nobody else. Build in some exposition about the previous M's Intel being dismissed by the PM or some such.
It's true that Haines could have defended himself and got away with it. I've never been a fan of Andrew Scott and never convinced by his evil civil servant shtick. Paul Ritter has the right gravitas and veneer of authority. Plus Guy Haines sounds more menacing than Max Denbigh.
You could have had both, definitely Ritter back as GH and had him being involved with Denbigh. Though Denbigh is more Mallory's age and from his past, M would trust his old friend and wouldn't realise till it was too late.
Gary Oldman, Mark Strong or Jason Isaacs for this role.
It would be quite easy to explain GH alluding being arrested due to his connections with the PM, it would also tie nicely into Dench's M investigating Quantum and secretly since QOS. Bond could have just been reassigned after then. When White comes on his radar through his Pale King name is Bond's first hint that Quantum is still active.
Bond although rogue still with Q would save the day. The story would act as opportunity to get Mallory to stage where he'd trust Bond and recognise his worth.
Come the next film no awkwardness to each just mutual respect, a relationship can begin just like Sean, Lazenby and Roger had with Bernard Lee had.
https://comicbook.com/2019/02/21/james-bond-25-working-title-revealed/
Old “‘news.” Been the working title for a long time.
To be honest, the title was discussed so much by fans after Spectre was released that I wouldn't be surprised if this was added in all the confusion.
They're got this from Production Weekly, which we've used for this bit of news since August.
so Bond 26 can be Smersh
Bond 27 Stavro
Bond 28 Shadow
lets just see how man one word s titles we can do ….
Bond films end in two ways: 1. A final battle (Bond going to someone or something, for confrontation); 2. A getaway (Bond trying to escape with someone or something, and being chased). I think we have seen too little of the latter (a la FRWL). SP would have worked great with this latter type of climax in mind.
There's a terribly edited scene in Steve Jobs, the one with the flashback over the board meeting during a stormy night in 1985 where Jobs was fired, interspersed with a conversation in "present times" (1998) between Jobs and John Sculley (Jeff Daniels). It's actually one of the few times during the film where Danny Boyle tries to shine over the script by Aaron Sorkin, and it's a pathetic failure. The guy is no David Fincher. This and the amount of hyperactive moments in the editing and camera work of Slumdog Millionaire were enough to make me sigh with relief the very minute Danny Boyle left the project.
I don't think that the editor is directly to blame for the way the flashback is woven into the story. The scene just rings fake by itself, due to the dramatic licence. For starters, why would a board for a quite large company meet in the middle of the night on a one hour notice? Even if it's an emergency, it's not as if nuclear missiles were about to strike the Silicon Valley. Couldn't they wait until morning at least? And then, there's the fact it takes place in the middle of a storm. Yeah, we get it. The meeting was conflictual. We know it from the melodramatic music and the fact that your characters state repeatedly it was a violent confrontation. Danny, you didn't need to bring something more to symbolize obviousness.
Do we know that this scene was the fault of Boyle and not Sorkin?
Because Sorkin is certainly capable of being pretty bloody awful himself.
If Boyle read in the original script that the board meeting was supposed to take place at night in the middle of a storm, it is his duty to tone this thing down, because Sorkin was being too much on the nose. That's what a director is supposed to do. Or maybe it wasn't actually in the script and he decided on his own to make the flashback even more dramatic. Actually, the score emphasizes even more the drama, and it was Boyle's full responsibility. So, Boyle supported the idea.
Steve Jobs may be a much more interesting person than Mark Zuckerberg, but The Social Network is a much better film than Steve Jobs, partly because Sorkin had managed to stay out of his usual pet peeves and to write a truly illuminating work on our times, and partly because David Fincher removed some stuff, on-the-nose statements that worked on a blank page but not on the screen, and developed the visual aspect of the film instead, making it his own.
And I agree that Sorkin can be bloody awful. In his own Molly's Game, the scene at the ice rink between Molly and her father is just laughable, as it spells out for the audience everything we are supposed to think about the character, the entire message of the film. Any good director would have torn these pages of dialogue.
To go back to Bond (in some way...), Cary Fukunaga had second thoughts over the script for True Detective. He thought there were too many conversations in closed rooms, which could end up being boring, and he decided to add the police raid in the bikers camp, which was barely related to the main plot, to introduce a change of pace and to give him an opportunity to shoot a long take on the project. These changes, which resulted in one of the most fondly remembered sequence in the first season, were heresy to writer Nic Pizzolatto, and his relationship with Fukunaga deteriorated during production. When Fukunaga won an Emmy for directing, he didn't mention Pizzolatto in his speech.
But Pizzolatto was more important to the show than Cary for HBO. Fukunaga wasn't asked back (he may have turned down the offer anyway) for season 2, and Pizzolatto wrote into the plot an Asian-American director wearing his hair in a bun, that everybody in the season describes as a pretentious jerk. On season 3, Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) was supposed to shoot three episodes. He left production after completing two, over "scheduling conflicts" or, as reported by various trade magazines, creative differences with Pizzolatto.
Even in a franchise run by producers such as Bond, there are power struggles. It's more difficult to put precise responsibilities on a mess. TWINE was ruined mostly due to poor casting choices (Denise Richards, of course) and characterization (Renard worked better in theory than in execution). DAD had a run of the mill script, but also fake-looking CGI, idiotic action scenes (the tsunami surfing of course, but the car chase INSIDE the ice palace may be the icing on the crap cake), and a terrible song by Madonna. And whoever let Lee Tamahori get away with the CGI bullet on the barrel roll deserves to be shot.
Pierce could, as shown in Goldeneye, be a fine, even great, Bond. But he never managed to express convincingly his opinion about the scripts he had to work with in the next entries. Craig has had some misfires, but you get a sense that he has a clear idea of what Bond would or wouldn't do in a particular situation and that he managed from day one to get adjustments on the character to suit his style, something that Roger Moore needed three entries to get. In a few years, we may know the truth about his involvement with the Spectre script, and how much he was happy with the foster brother turning out to be the head of SPECTRE angle, but there are a lot of moments where his acting is flat, something he had never done on his other films, as if he didn't even try to bother with the non-sense. And then, there are a few glimpses of his better take on Bond, the conversation with Moneypenny or Mister White, the drunken words to the mouse in the hotel. On Logan Lucky, however, he truly has a blast with the character. He needs a good script or some scenes he can relate to, to shine with a part.
Yep. We don't see enough of Bond being chased full stop. Although SP had the car chase, which was rubbish.
The Sean and Rog films were really tense when Bond was being pursued through a crowd or on foot.
Perhaps OHMSS has the best example of all, with the extended chase on skis, foot and by car. Awesome and so tense.
Roger had his portrayal in place within minutes of LALD, IMO.
This was good food for thought; thanks. I tend to agree with you on these points. And I already had heard a bit about season 1 True Detective and Pizzolatto continuing to be sometimes difficult for others, not just Cary.
If Rami Malek is already signed, the big question is whether it is relevant to make an announcement next week or later. If he wins the Oscar, they'd be foolish not to reveal in the wake of the ceremony that he's got the part. If he loses, they'd need to wait a little longer, so they can get away with coverage such "He may have not won the Oscar, but he got a pretty good consolation prize with playing the villain in the new Bond film."
If he's truly signed, and it's not officially announced, I'd be very surprised if it doesn't at least "leak."
That's on Boyle (whether or not you accept the clearly expressionistic flashback from Steve's perspective, which is a recurring motif throughout the film). The technical assembly of the scene however is on point and has terrific energy, and hits the key beats. To be able to contain and focus Boyle's proclivities towards semi- or un-motivated unorthodox shots and find the associative power of those images (the cuts to Winslet in the scene you mentioned for example) would indicate that Graham knows what he's doing. Either way his ability to assemble a genre piece, more relevant to us here, will be on display in a few weeks with Captain Marvel
Too good to be true for the press conference of B25 I think. You’d think that wouldn’t happen until late March at earliest now.