SPECTRE Production Timeline

1234235237239240870

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    the set construction is for the villain lair located in Austria.

    Has this definitely been suggested? All I took from bits I've read are 'potential crash' and 'set building' - of which there are no specific details such as 'villains lair', the only time that's been mentioned, that I've seen, is just by fans on here.

  • Zekidk wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves
    Are you referring to the so-called car chase in SF, that lasted 15 seconds? It doesn't really take a lot to better it! Actually I haven't seen Craig in a "proper" car chase, yet. The one in QoS was ruined by the editing. Let's hope they get it right with Rome this time.

    In other news, this is actually quite funny, if true:
    "Daniel Craig travels incognito by assuming Bond characters
    To ensure he doesn’t get caught out, Daniel often chooses names featured in older Bond movies. He recently travelled to Morocco, where he apparently pretended to be called Kananga – the villain in 1973 movie Live and Let Die.

    “The limo driver picked up this Kananga and didn’t think anything of it, then realised it was Daniel Craig,” the source giggled."
    http://www.themalaymailonline.com/showbiz/article/daniel-craig-travels-incognito-by-assuming-bond-characters

    Danny Craig is, like us ánd previous Bond actors like Sir Moore, quite a nerdy Bond fan too :-P. It's funny, the guys who've been 007, actually start behaving like the iconic spy :-P. Same goes for directors. Terence Young himself was an admirer of the franchise, and he always wanted to indulge in Bond-esque luxury. I remember Luciana Paluzzi (Fiona Volpe) saying that she felt so...ehm....400% woman on set. Wunderful little behind-the-scenes tidbits are these >:D<
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 4,619
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Apparently something about a plane crash if I had to guess this PURE SPECULATION but if i am right..
    I am guessing if there is a plane crash it is the catalyst that throws bond into action. If quantum is back Perhaps the plane was carrying sensative information and Quantum is selling it to the highest bidder?

    Bringing Quantum back would be the worst thing they possibly could do. I trust Mendes is more intelligent than that, so I have no worries.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 9,847
    why? Seriously an organization that can manipulate the US goverment and the British Goverment into doing anything they want and yet that isn't cool enough for you?

    If you don't like a film cool i get it but to say an orgnization that has Controlled the event of the first two Daniel Craig films to at points you really arent sure if Bond even is doing the right thing isn't intelligent or smart? Why?

    there are literally endless amounts of stories you can do with that kind orgnization you can up the tension and fear in these films.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Risico007 wrote: »
    why? Seriously an organization that can manipulate the US goverment and the British Goverment into doing anything they want and yet that isn't cool enough for you?

    If you don't like a film cool i get it but to say an orgnization that has Controlled the event of the first two Daniel Craig films to at points you really arent sure if Bond even is doing the right thing isn't intelligent or smart? Why?

    there are literally endless amounts of stories you can do with that kind orgnization you can up the tension and fear in these films.

    Agreed. I think some people are just blinded by nostalgia goggles.
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2014 Posts: 10,512
    Murdock wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    why? Seriously an organization that can manipulate the US goverment and the British Goverment into doing anything they want and yet that isn't cool enough for you?

    If you don't like a film cool i get it but to say an orgnization that has Controlled the event of the first two Daniel Craig films to at points you really arent sure if Bond even is doing the right thing isn't intelligent or smart? Why?

    there are literally endless amounts of stories you can do with that kind orgnization you can up the tension and fear in these films.

    Agreed. I think some people are just blinded by nostalgia goggles.

    I just want standalone films, with standalone villains. Decent stories with a beginning, middle and a kick ass denouement. No f*cking about with returning villains or story strands. Fresh, interesting, exciting and most importantly 'individual'. The gaps between these films are going to be at least 3 years from here, if not more. I want to sit down and enjoy a two hour romp that is set up and resolved in that period of time. No Blofeld, no Quantum, no copying, rehashing or blatant tributes harking back to yesteryear. It's that simple for me.

    Oh, and you can add 'memorable villain' to that list. No one who looks like he's a school teacher or government official. These are Bond films.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 4,619
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed. I think some people are just blinded by nostalgia goggles.

    I think the fans who are blinded by nostalgia goggles are exactly the ones who want Quantum to return. I say let's move forward, instead of connecting Bond 24 to a movie most of the audience wants to forget (QOS).
    Risico007 wrote: »
    and yet that isn't cool enough for you?

    It's not that it isn't cool enough, it's that it isn't cool at all.
  • Murdock wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    why? Seriously an organization that can manipulate the US goverment and the British Goverment into doing anything they want and yet that isn't cool enough for you?

    If you don't like a film cool i get it but to say an orgnization that has Controlled the event of the first two Daniel Craig films to at points you really arent sure if Bond even is doing the right thing isn't intelligent or smart? Why?

    there are literally endless amounts of stories you can do with that kind orgnization you can up the tension and fear in these films.

    Agreed. I think some people are just blinded by nostalgia goggles.

    Yup! Why not explore this omnipresent organisation further, now that it's here. Leave an eventual reboot to one of Craigs successors. There is plenty of time for it. After all,we all do hope that there are still Bond movies in the far far future,don't we?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited September 2014 Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed. I think some people are just blinded by nostalgia goggles.

    I think the fans who are blinded by nostalgia goggles are exactly the ones who want Quantum to return. I say let's move forward, instead of connecting Bond 24 to a movie most of the audience wants to forget (QOS).

    How? The only reason I want Quantum back was because they had left that story arch open ended. You know? Like how OHMSS had left a story open ended and DAF just pretended it never happened. I don't want that to happen. At least Craig's films have been trying to have solid continuity. Either finish them in b24 or have Bond completely wipe them out in b25. It would be nice to have Bond catch the man ultimately responsible for Vesper's suicide. Mr. White. So much potential ultimately wasted because a minority of people didn't like QOS. Big whoop.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Murdock wrote: »
    At least Craig's films have been trying to have solid continuity. Either finish them in b24 or have Bond completely wipe them out in b25. It would be nice to have Bond catch the man ultimately responsible for Vesper's suicide.

    I don't think Mendes gives two hoots about CR and QoS, hence zero continuity in SF. I expect this to continue. Bond found his Quantum of Solace - story arc completed. Happy for them to give us fresh ideas.
  • marketto007marketto007 Brazil
    Posts: 3,277
    Wow, a week off and all this fantastic Bond news, that's amazing. BTW, I was there, last weekend in the James Bond event in Sweden, when Per Hallberg confirmed he would be working on B24. It was surreal. :D
  • Posts: 4,619
    It's better to build on solid foundations (Skyfall) than on a shabby one (the combination of Quantum of Solace and Skyfall). Anyway, i'm not worried since I'm pretty sure Quantum won't return. Not with Mendes directing the movie.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited September 2014 Posts: 16,351
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    At least Craig's films have been trying to have solid continuity. Either finish them in b24 or have Bond completely wipe them out in b25. It would be nice to have Bond catch the man ultimately responsible for Vesper's suicide.

    I don't think Mendes gives two hoots about CR and QoS, hence zero continuity in SF. I expect this to continue. Bond found his Quantum of Solace - story arc completed. Happy for them to give us fresh ideas.

    There were several references to both CR and QoS. And to be fair, you can't really be sure what Mendes thinks.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Murdock wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    At least Craig's films have been trying to have solid continuity. Either finish them in b24 or have Bond completely wipe them out in b25. It would be nice to have Bond catch the man ultimately responsible for Vesper's suicide.

    I don't think Mendes gives two hoots about CR and QoS, hence zero continuity in SF. I expect this to continue. Bond found his Quantum of Solace - story arc completed. Happy for them to give us fresh ideas.

    There were several references to both CR and QoS. And to be fair, you can't really be sure what Mendes thinks.

    References, but no continuity. Like I said, the Vesper story arc is closed. Unless they're all out of original ideas there's no reason to feature Quantum again.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    The Vesper Arc is, but not Mr. White or Quantum. :)>-
    I'd rather see them again than SPECTRE or Blofeld.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    why? Seriously an organization that can manipulate the US goverment and the British Goverment into doing anything they want and yet that isn't cool enough for you?

    If you don't like a film cool i get it but to say an orgnization that has Controlled the event of the first two Daniel Craig films to at points you really arent sure if Bond even is doing the right thing isn't intelligent or smart? Why?

    there are literally endless amounts of stories you can do with that kind orgnization you can up the tension and fear in these films.

    Agreed. I think some people are just blinded by nostalgia goggles.

    I just want standalone films, with standalone villains. Decent stories with a beginning, middle and a kick ass denouement. No f*cking about with returning villains or story strands. Fresh, interesting, exciting and most importantly 'individual'. The gaps between these films are going to be at least 3 years from here, if not more. I want to sit down and enjoy a two hour romp that is set up and resolved in that period of time. No Blofeld, no Quantum, no copying, rehashing or blatant tributes harking back to yesteryear. It's that simple for me.

    Oh, and you can add 'memorable villain' to that list. No one who looks like he's a school teacher or government official. These are Bond films.

    Wow, that's basically a rant against Ian Fleming's storytelling. The novel trilogy TB/OHMSS/YOLT in my opinion has never been executed correctly. And all you say now is that you prefer 100% standalone films? I think by saying this, you are limiting yourself, and the franchise, to Brosnan/Moore-esque standalone films again.

    And in all honesty, I don't understand your remark. "Skyfall" is most certainly a standalone film, with only some minor references to Bond's love past ("I know when a girl is afraid"). From my point of view, you seem greatly unhappy after three Daniel Craig Bond outings. Why is...that. Tell me....:-).
  • Posts: 9,847
    plus Wilson said Quantum is still out there and might be back for bond 24 during the press for Skyfall
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Risico007 wrote: »
    plus Wilson said Quantum is still out there and might be back for bond 24 during the press for Skyfall

    ^This! :)
  • Posts: 4,619
    Risico007 wrote: »
    plus Wilson said Quantum is still out there and might be back for bond 24 during the press for Skyfall

    He said that because that's what the people from the press wanted to hear.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Risico007 wrote: »
    plus Wilson said Quantum is still out there and might be back for bond 24 during the press for Skyfall

    He said that because that's what the people from the press wanted to hear.

    How do you know? Are you Michael Wilson?
  • Posts: 15,125
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    why? Seriously an organization that can manipulate the US goverment and the British Goverment into doing anything they want and yet that isn't cool enough for you?

    If you don't like a film cool i get it but to say an orgnization that has Controlled the event of the first two Daniel Craig films to at points you really arent sure if Bond even is doing the right thing isn't intelligent or smart? Why?

    there are literally endless amounts of stories you can do with that kind orgnization you can up the tension and fear in these films.

    Agreed. I think some people are just blinded by nostalgia goggles.

    I just want standalone films, with standalone villains. Decent stories with a beginning, middle and a kick ass denouement. No f*cking about with returning villains or story strands. Fresh, interesting, exciting and most importantly 'individual'. The gaps between these films are going to be at least 3 years from here, if not more. I want to sit down and enjoy a two hour romp that is set up and resolved in that period of time. No Blofeld, no Quantum, no copying, rehashing or blatant tributes harking back to yesteryear. It's that simple for me.

    Oh, and you can add 'memorable villain' to that list. No one who looks like he's a school teacher or government official. These are Bond films.

    In the first decade or so of Bond movies, the stories were not completely standalone, neither were the villains, minus GF. Blofeld and/or SPECTRE were ever present. The potential problem with standalone villains is that they end up being the villains of the week. With a recurring, resilient threat, you add an extra layer of menace.
  • Posts: 15,125
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    why? Seriously an organization that can manipulate the US goverment and the British Goverment into doing anything they want and yet that isn't cool enough for you?

    If you don't like a film cool i get it but to say an orgnization that has Controlled the event of the first two Daniel Craig films to at points you really arent sure if Bond even is doing the right thing isn't intelligent or smart? Why?

    there are literally endless amounts of stories you can do with that kind orgnization you can up the tension and fear in these films.

    Agreed. I think some people are just blinded by nostalgia goggles.

    I just want standalone films, with standalone villains. Decent stories with a beginning, middle and a kick ass denouement. No f*cking about with returning villains or story strands. Fresh, interesting, exciting and most importantly 'individual'. The gaps between these films are going to be at least 3 years from here, if not more. I want to sit down and enjoy a two hour romp that is set up and resolved in that period of time. No Blofeld, no Quantum, no copying, rehashing or blatant tributes harking back to yesteryear. It's that simple for me.

    Oh, and you can add 'memorable villain' to that list. No one who looks like he's a school teacher or government official. These are Bond films.

    Wow, that's basically a rant against Ian Fleming's storytelling. The novel trilogy TB/OHMSS/YOLT in my opinion has never been executed correctly. And all you say now is that you prefer 100% standalone films? I think by saying this, you are limiting yourself, and the franchise, to Brosnan/Moore-esque standalone films again.

    And in all honesty, I don't understand your remark. "Skyfall" is most certainly a standalone film, with only some minor references to Bond's love past ("I know when a girl is afraid"). From my point of view, you seem greatly unhappy after three Daniel Craig Bond outings. Why is...that. Tell me....:-).

    Not to mention SMERSH, who was the threat Bond faced in three of the first Bond novels.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    why? Seriously an organization that can manipulate the US goverment and the British Goverment into doing anything they want and yet that isn't cool enough for you?

    If you don't like a film cool i get it but to say an orgnization that has Controlled the event of the first two Daniel Craig films to at points you really arent sure if Bond even is doing the right thing isn't intelligent or smart? Why?

    there are literally endless amounts of stories you can do with that kind orgnization you can up the tension and fear in these films.

    Agreed. I think some people are just blinded by nostalgia goggles.

    I just want standalone films, with standalone villains. Decent stories with a beginning, middle and a kick ass denouement. No f*cking about with returning villains or story strands. Fresh, interesting, exciting and most importantly 'individual'. The gaps between these films are going to be at least 3 years from here, if not more. I want to sit down and enjoy a two hour romp that is set up and resolved in that period of time. No Blofeld, no Quantum, no copying, rehashing or blatant tributes harking back to yesteryear. It's that simple for me.

    Oh, and you can add 'memorable villain' to that list. No one who looks like he's a school teacher or government official. These are Bond films.

    Wow, that's basically a rant against Ian Fleming's storytelling. The novel trilogy TB/OHMSS/YOLT in my opinion has never been executed correctly. And all you say now is that you prefer 100% standalone films? I think by saying this, you are limiting yourself, and the franchise, to Brosnan/Moore-esque standalone films again.

    And in all honesty, I don't understand your remark. "Skyfall" is most certainly a standalone film, with only some minor references to Bond's love past ("I know when a girl is afraid"). From my point of view, you seem greatly unhappy after three Daniel Craig Bond outings. Why is...that. Tell me....:-).

    How on earth is that a rant against Ian Fleming's storytelling? This has got nothing to do with Fleming. The fact the Blofeld trilogy wasn't committed to the screen with the reverence it deserved is irrelevant. The novels remain unchanged, untainted and the genius of Fleming endures.

    Note I didn't say SF wasn't a standalone, it's exactly the kind of approach I'm advocating. A self contained story that is resolved within its time frame. If anything this is exactly the blueprint they should continue with IMO.

    Why do you think QoS is so divisive? Because of the weight of expectation that came with it, not in terms of spectacle, but story. Everyone had a different opinion on the route it should take in dealing with the fallout from CR. Even now we have people who are unhappy because they perceive an element of 'unfinished business'. They don't need to risk going down this route again.

    In my opinion the continuity that Bond should deliver is in the character of 'Bond' himself. A sense of development from film to film, but with each film delivering new, exciting challenges, unrelated to those which have gone before.

    After all, that is the lifeblood of Bond and I believe that's why it survived. I think it's probably a blessing that McClory forced EON's hand as SPECTRE would've eventually been the downfall of the cinematic franchise.

  • Posts: 15,125
    But why NOT go back to Fleming's roots and use a recurring adversary? Especially if they use the same approach as Fleming.
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2014 Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    why? Seriously an organization that can manipulate the US goverment and the British Goverment into doing anything they want and yet that isn't cool enough for you?

    If you don't like a film cool i get it but to say an orgnization that has Controlled the event of the first two Daniel Craig films to at points you really arent sure if Bond even is doing the right thing isn't intelligent or smart? Why?

    there are literally endless amounts of stories you can do with that kind orgnization you can up the tension and fear in these films.

    Agreed. I think some people are just blinded by nostalgia goggles.

    I just want standalone films, with standalone villains. Decent stories with a beginning, middle and a kick ass denouement. No f*cking about with returning villains or story strands. Fresh, interesting, exciting and most importantly 'individual'. The gaps between these films are going to be at least 3 years from here, if not more. I want to sit down and enjoy a two hour romp that is set up and resolved in that period of time. No Blofeld, no Quantum, no copying, rehashing or blatant tributes harking back to yesteryear. It's that simple for me.

    Oh, and you can add 'memorable villain' to that list. No one who looks like he's a school teacher or government official. These are Bond films.

    In the first decade or so of Bond movies, the stories were not completely standalone, neither were the villains, minus GF. Blofeld and/or SPECTRE were ever present. The potential problem with standalone villains is that they end up being the villains of the week. With a recurring, resilient threat, you add an extra layer of menace.

    There was a recurring threat for the first 9 years of the franchise. I don't see how you can say standalone villains become 'villains of the week' when the main villain of every film from 1973 has appeared in their singular film. Like I said above, continuing with SPECTRE would have been the death knell.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Because they overused SPECTRE. That doesn't mean you cannot use a recurring menace. It brought a sense of continuity to the earlier Bond movies AND gave SPECTRE/Blofeld at least until DAF an aura of menace.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    Wow, a week off and all this fantastic Bond news, that's amazing. BTW, I was there, last weekend in the James Bond event in Sweden, when Per Hallberg confirmed he would be working on B24. It was surreal. :D
    Welcome back, friend!
    Amazing travel you had! Lucky you!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because they overused SPECTRE. That doesn't mean you cannot use a recurring menace. It brought a sense of continuity to the earlier Bond movies AND gave SPECTRE/Blofeld at least until DAF an aura of menace.

    In the era of Marvel, continuity is the new buzzword. Bond should be the exact opposite. Two hours of standalone fun every couple of years.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because they overused SPECTRE. That doesn't mean you cannot use a recurring menace. It brought a sense of continuity to the earlier Bond movies AND gave SPECTRE/Blofeld at least until DAF an aura of menace.

    In the era of Marvel, continuity is the new buzzword. Bond should be the exact opposite. Two hours of standalone fun every couple of years.

    By jolly, your black-and-white approach.......not my cup of tea....
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because they overused SPECTRE. That doesn't mean you cannot use a recurring menace. It brought a sense of continuity to the earlier Bond movies AND gave SPECTRE/Blofeld at least until DAF an aura of menace.

    In the era of Marvel, continuity is the new buzzword. Bond should be the exact opposite. Two hours of standalone fun every couple of years.

    Bond films can have continuity and be fun. You say it like it's a bad thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.