SPECTRE Production Timeline

1229230232234235870

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    http://www.thewrap.com/jude-law-play-thomas-wolfe-alongside-colin-firth-nicole-kidman-genius/

    This article confirms 'Genius' is to begin filming in the UK on October 13, so the casting call for extras has nothing to do with Bond 24.

    Thanks Willy. Good to nip this in the bud before there are ten pages of speculative nonsense.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 3,274
    For me, GP lacked intelligence. Theme-wise it wasn't as multilayered as SF. GP was a great fun ride. But as fun as the Brosnan films: Great formula being done again, without too much intelligence and re-watch-value.

    That's funny. Because for me - it's vice versa. SF will probably go down as one of the least watched Bond movies, for me.

    And sorry, did you just call SF an "intelligent movie"? Don't get me started now, because I felt that it insulted my intelligence in more ways that I can currently count. GP never tried to pass of as an intelligent movie.
  • JamesPageJamesPage Administrator, Moderator, Director
    Posts: 1,380
    Yes, it's for 'Genius', not BOND 24
  • Zekidk wrote: »
    For me, GP lacked intelligence. Theme-wise it wasn't as multilayered as SF. GP was a great fun ride. But as fun as the Brosnan films: Great formula being done again, without too much intelligence and re-watch-value.

    That's funny. Because for me - it's vice versa. SF will probably go down as one of the least watched Bond movies, for me.

    And sorry, did you just call SF an "intelligent movie"? Don't get me started now, because I felt that it insulted my intelligence in more ways that I can currently count. GP never tried to pass of as an intelligent movie.

    Sjee man, relaxx. It's just my opinion. They can differ. But don't let them create a Berlin Wall

    (:|
  • Posts: 3,274
    @Gustav_Graves

    We are all friends ;-), but "intelligent" and "SF" just don't belong in the same sentence.
  • Zekidk wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves

    We are all friends ;-), but "intelligent" and "SF" just don't belong in the same sentence.

    That's your opinion. Let me put it like this then. With every re-watch I discover new tidbits, themes and items that make "Skyfall" so special for me. Intelligent? Perhaps you disagree with that yes, but multi-layered it is I think.....
  • Posts: 3,274
    That's good for you @Gustav_Graves. I actually envy you. Really.

    Last time I tried to watch SF, I was just reminded of it's ludicrousity.

    "Silva is trying to kill us, what shall we do?"
    "Well, let's drive the two of us into the middle of nowhere, with no weapons and backup and let Silva find us with his army. That's a good plan."

    I'd take the unintelligent funride over that ;-)

  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 432
    That's your opinion. Let me put it like this then. With every re-watch I discover new tidbits, themes and items that make "Skyfall" so special for me. Intelligent? Perhaps you disagree with that yes, but multi-layered it is I think.....

    I get that too. There's something special about SF for me as well. I can't get tired of it because it just makes me feel immersed every time.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Zekidk wrote: »
    That's good for you @Gustav_Graves. I actually envy you. Really.

    Last time I tried to watch SF, I was just reminded of it's ludicrousity.

    "Silva is trying to kill us, what shall we do?"
    "Well, let's drive the two of us into the middle of nowhere, with no weapons and backup and let Silva find us with his army. That's a good plan."

    I'd take the unintelligent funride over that ;-)

    It's about a certain kind of intelligence really. You're, like so many, referring to the unexplained villain's plot, that makes Silva's actions rather ludicrous. I then wonder......if it isn't more intelligent if you have to come up with that explanation by yourself this time? If the scriptwriters real purpose is not staring at that "big plothole", but more about the theme of the movie? And I know a few themes here. Perhaps...that's the other kind of intelligence I was referring to.

    For me "Skyfall" was one big poem, one big ode to espionage on the whole and all its necessities in current day's society.

    Yes, there are plotholes. Big ones as you already mentioned (By the way, did anyone ask themselves how people like Stromberg could freely build such a huge "Atlantis"? Did NATO and Italian government agree letting Stromberg build such an enormous monstrous aquatic city? Which stupid Swiss city council let Blofeld import all those viral probes to Piz Gloria? Should president Johnson not have resigned upon the big "Goldfinger" affair, in which the US Army could not even keep the big Fort Knox locked? Or how on Earth did Drax get that space station in a geo-stationary orbit around Earth? NASA? Anyone?? ). But how come that so many people (looking at IMDB ratings, non-Bond fans, RottenTomatoes, newspaper reviews) didn't notice these plotholes? Because in a way director/screenplaywriter/cinematographer managed to let us focus on different things this time around. Perhaps they wanted to convey a more literary approach to this particular Bond film.

    I understand that people compare "Skyfall" with "Ghost Protocol". But I prefer to compare "Skyfall" more with "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", "Zero Dark Thirty" and "A Most Wanted Man". "Ghost Protocol" I prefer to compare with movies like "The November Man", "Red 2" and "G.I. Joe: Retaliation".

  • edited September 2014 Posts: 3,274
    @Gustav_Graves. Let's not hijack the thread. All this has been covered many times before here. So my final words on the matter are these:

    I'm a rational thinking person, and can forgive plot holes (where you "fill in the blanks"), but not a lazy narrative. In SF things just don't make any sense what so ever. Like I said earlier - don't get me started. I could give you dozen of "WTF?"- examples, that really insulted my intelligence, besides the example I just mentioned, which are completely devoid of any logic and where I can't "come up with" my own explanation, like you suggest (Silva's scheme is another obvious example), even if I try very, very hard (which I shouldn't).

    So here's a small test for you: Next time you watch SF, and one of the characters are about to make an important decision, pause the movie and wonder "now, what would be the most sensible and intelligent thing to do here?" You'd be surprised how often they then do the exact opposite thing. You certainly don't see the characters acting that dumb in movies like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Not even GP.

  • Zekidk wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves. Let's not hijack the thread. All this has been covered many times before here. So my final words on the matter are these:

    I'm a rational thinking person, and can forgive plot holes (where you "fill in the blanks"), but not a lazy narrative. In SF things just don't make any sense what so ever. Like I said earlier - don't get me started. I could give you dozen of "WTF?"- examples, that really insulted my intelligence, besides the example I just mentioned, which are completely devoid of any logic and where I can't "come up with" my own explanation, like you suggest (Silva's scheme is another obvious example), even if I try very, very hard (which I shouldn't).

    So here's a small test for you: Next time you watch SF, and one of the characters are about to make an important decision, pause the movie and wonder "now, what would be the most sensible and intelligent thing to do here?" You'd be surprised how often they then do the exact opposite thing. You certainly don't see the characters acting that dumb in movies like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Not even GP.

    Okay, I will do just that ;-). If you try to see the movie like I see it hehe.
  • Posts: 9,843
    I think Joanne Froggart is cute and would be fine if she was the main bond girl. Any idea when we will know Title or when one will be rumored?
  • Posts: 15,106
    mcdonbb wrote: »

    Only time Bond looked B movie cheap was in the 80d and especially the Dalton films. And sometimes that sub locations due to safety not just money. Would you really want to film in Afghanistan?

    LALD did too, it is part of its charm.
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 432
    Title should be starting around November. They usually create websites that could reveal it
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I think Joanne Froggart is cute and would be fine if she was the main bond girl. Any idea when we will know Title or when one will be rumored?

    I could see Joanne Froggart being the blond one in this scene ;-):
  • Posts: 2,159
    I watched Mission Impossible 4 the other day and I hope Bond 24 follows in that vein.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited September 2014 Posts: 12,480
    I really hope that Bond 24 feels like a Bond film, not Bourne or MI.
    I hope it has good balance (especially with the humor).

    I don't go to a Bond film to see something that feels like, or looks like, any other action/spy/thriller/adventure film. Bond does have something special and it needs to stay special. I absolutely don't want it copying or looking like MI. I think the music can be key to that, but so of course are the cinematography and editing; all crucial. I hope Mendes has a good vision for this one. And the script! I'm glad Logan is not the sole writer.
  • Posts: 12,526
    JamesPage wrote: »
    Yes, it's for 'Genius', not BOND 24

    Before i saw your post, i was not convinced on the article for Bond 24? Your word is good enough for me! :D
  • At first I was against the idea of Joanne Froggatt as the main Bond girl too, but as time passes I'm getting more convinced that she's the right choice. She cleans up very nicely at those premieres, I just think it's a matter of styling. She's a good actress in Downton Abbey, and because of that I think she deserves more than the role of 'the ugly villainess' or some background character. Some of the most stunning Bond girls couldn't act to save their lives, and in my opinion it's disrupting to the story, even if it's a small part. I recall that hotel receptionist in Casino Royale... pretty indeed, but she had no idea what she was doing and it was annoying. If they choose to make the main Bond girl a three-dimenional character who's of signifigance to the plot, then I hope they choose acting abilities over looks (not that Joanne is lacking in that department). It's hard to find another Eva Green, even if they have many girls to choose from.
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    Bond in Liverpool eh? Now that would of been something! DC parachuting in past the Liver building and taking the Aston for a spin down the otterspool. Purple Aki couldve played the villain.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited September 2014 Posts: 12,480
    I think Joanne is nowhere near ugly; she is quite pretty and cute, and a bit of a chameleon. I simply don't see here as main Bond girl material, because I do prefer someone really more strikingly beautiful/attractive in that role. I do hope whichever main Bond there is, that she can act. There are not many Eva Greens available, so true. But surely there is some actress that would be great for Bond 24. I just don't know who at this point.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I recall that hotel receptionist in Casino Royale... pretty indeed, but she had no idea what she was doing and it was annoying.

    Care to elaborate on this because I don't know what you're talking about here. She was a receptionist and the actress competently performed the part well. Nothing profound or artistically revealing is to be expected from such a simple and minor role. What was so bad about her that annoyed you?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    I was wondering the same thing. I thought she did a fine job with a bit part.
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    I recall that hotel receptionist in Casino Royale... pretty indeed, but she had no idea what she was doing and it was annoying.

    Care to elaborate on this because I don't know what you're talking about here. She was a receptionist and the actress competently performed the part well. Nothing profound or artistically revealing is to be expected from such a simple and minor role. What was so bad about her that annoyed you?

    She seemed very self-aware, like she was busy trying to sell herself, and for those few seconds that did annoy me. If you're cast as a hotel receptionist than be one, I think she was actually posing for a while, and it's not because she was charmed by Bond.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 6,601
    I liked her in the role and thought, she was wasted, because too pretty. She could have been Le Chiffres gf, because that actress was lacking.

    I don't buy the "Its hard to get another Eva Greene". Well, they did for two other films, if you ask me, even though Naomi isn't drop dead gorgeous material either, but then, she is MP in the end. So it shouldn't be a problom in the Bond universe to have both. No problem at all.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    I must ask why Joanne Froggatt has to be a love interest for Bond, should she land a role in Bond 24?
    Can she simply be a female character in the movie perhaps. Helen McCrory wasn't a 'Bond girl' in Skyfall. So maybe the character Ms.Froggatt is being considered for is something else. Maybe an ally, maybe a villain. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
  • Posts: 6,601
    But i think, villains have to be either klebb ugly or beautiful. She is neither.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited September 2014 Posts: 9,117
    Are we really so devoid of information that we have spent the last two or three pages discussing the merits of Joanne Froggatt?

    EON would be laughing to themselves if they read this!

    Germanlady is perfectly right above - she is neither beautiful enough to be a Bond girl or femme fatale nor ugly enough to be a proper villainess.

    So is it really worth all this discussion over someone who might end up playing a similar minor role to Helen Mcrory?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Yes, we are devoid of news and just chatting.
    Basically, you got it in one, Wiz. :)

    I'm excited about news re True Detective right this second. But there is no Bond news. Not even a decent rumor about actresses.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I recall that hotel receptionist in Casino Royale... pretty indeed, but she had no idea what she was doing and it was annoying.

    Care to elaborate on this because I don't know what you're talking about here. She was a receptionist and the actress competently performed the part well. Nothing profound or artistically revealing is to be expected from such a simple and minor role. What was so bad about her that annoyed you?

    She seemed very self-aware, like she was busy trying to sell herself, and for those few seconds that did annoy me. If you're cast as a hotel receptionist than be one, I think she was actually posing for a while, and it's not because she was charmed by Bond.

    Umm no... I have the same problem every freakin' time I travel.. its annoying :P
Sign In or Register to comment.