SPECTRE Production Timeline

1288289291293294870

Comments

  • Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The ideal scenario in my book would be to hire a writer who is au fait with Fleming, rather than someone who attacks it from a cinematic perspective. It's really that simple, for me.

    But it isn't that simple. The cinematic Bond is not always the literary Bond. I would like to have a writer who knows both: Knowledge of Ian Fleming's source material and cinematic experience, in that he knows how to "sell" the film to people. Because a movie foremost is different than a book. You are visually helped and entertained, while with a book you need to use your fantasy more extensively.

    I said my ideal scenario is to hire a writer who is au fait with Fleming, rather than someone who attacks it from a cinematic perspective. One would expect a screenwriter to know how to write for the screen, that is their job, but a writer who can embody the essence of Fleming is more appealing to me than one who wants to write from the perspective of an eight year old cinema goer. There's obviously crossover, but at a base level a decent writer will want to deliver a blueprint they know will have visual and narrative impact. It's ultimately the director who has to "sell" the story. The writer provides the recipe and the director delivers the finished product, unless they are one and the same.

    I totally agree. I am no Fleming expert, but I think I know enough to realise that those early Connery movies probably come as close to capturing the essence of Fleming best of all. On reading MR I was really struck by how the Dr No film just seems to 'get' it right from the start. I'd argue that Barry and Ken Adam were an essential part of that success as well though.

    I do think the production design and music are two of the magic ingredients that have not quite been on target for a long time.

    I'm thinking a lot lately what Ian Fleming would have thought about the 23 (25 incarnations in total on screen) Bond films so far. I like to think that he looks down on us fans from a cloud "playing a golden harp", smoking an expensive filtered cigarette, with a hugeee smile on his face ;-).

    I think, Ian Fleming would certainly have his list of favourites. Perhaps in chronological order:
    --> FRWL
    --> OHMSS
    --> FYEO
    --> TLD
    --> LTK
    --> CR
    --> SF
    ??

    All the above Bond films give us the best insight in Bond's character (past & present) and how 007 started to become....quite an ordinary human being....with the necessary suave traits of luxury and cold-blooded killing moods where necessary.
  • Posts: 203
    hey guys, it is possible that Butterfingers (or whatever his name is) said what he said in a sarcastic manner? If not, his comments do not bode well for Bond 24. I agree with some of you that SF success has got to Mendes and I am scared how far he will stray with Bond 24.
  • Campbell2Campbell2 Epsilon Rho Rho house, Bending State University
    Posts: 299
    I don't get my knickers in a bunch over Butterworth. It's no big deal people work at scripts till the camera rolls, directors and actors alike if they let them. I'd just like to see one day the scrapped scripts, or hear at least why they were not used.
  • ColonelSun wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »

    If you take into account all the possibilities at dream scenario gives you it is actually quite easy to write a surprising/suspenseful script around it.

    You think it's "quite easy" to write a screenplay like Inception? Seriously? Give it a go.

    I think it's a whole lot easier than to write something restrained by the laws of reality and logic. Of course I do!
  • Matt_Helm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »

    If you take into account all the possibilities at dream scenario gives you it is actually quite easy to write a surprising/suspenseful script around it.

    You think it's "quite easy" to write a screenplay like Inception? Seriously? Give it a go.

    I think it's a whole lot easier than to write something restrained by the laws of reality and logic. Of course I do!

    There's a difference between writing a screenplay and coming up with a story. Having the imagination to come up with the story and concept of Inception is where the real talent is. Writing the screenplay that navigates that story is easy once you have the ideas down.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2014 Posts: 10,512
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »

    If you take into account all the possibilities at dream scenario gives you it is actually quite easy to write a surprising/suspenseful script around it.

    You think it's "quite easy" to write a screenplay like Inception? Seriously? Give it a go.

    I think it's a whole lot easier than to write something restrained by the laws of reality and logic. Of course I do!

    There's a difference between writing a screenplay and coming up with a story. Having the imagination to come up with the story and concept of Inception is where the real talent is. Writing the screenplay that navigates that story is easy once you have the ideas down.

    No, it isn't. The whole thing is a test of endurance and if you come out the other side with anything resembling sense you've done a decent job. None of it is even remotely easy.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »

    If you take into account all the possibilities at dream scenario gives you it is actually quite easy to write a surprising/suspenseful script around it.

    You think it's "quite easy" to write a screenplay like Inception? Seriously? Give it a go.

    I think it's a whole lot easier than to write something restrained by the laws of reality and logic. Of course I do!

    There's a difference between writing a screenplay and coming up with a story. Having the imagination to come up with the story and concept of Inception is where the real talent is. Writing the screenplay that navigates that story is easy once you have the ideas down.

    No, it isn't. The whole thing is a test of endurance and if you come out the other side with any resembling sense you've done a decent job. None of it is even remotely easy.

    I imagine the difficult job is coming up with a great story/plot AND writing fantastic dialogue. One without the other is not much use to any one. Logan writes good dialogue, but IMO most of his stories are pretty derivative/lame. That was very evident in SF, I thought. Poor story, but some nice dialogue along the way.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Having a decent Fleming story to draw on obviously helped some of the previous screenwriters. It certainly shone through in CR.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 2,015
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Also, a writer can become, after months or sometimes even years working on a project, just too close to the material to be truly objective when changes are required or complete re-thinks are asked for.

    And that's why in these days of more and more pressure from the movie producers (I speak about movies generally), it's great to have a novel to rely on - and not just for the fanbase. At least some time ago, a creator could do what he wanted to do with no pressure from outside, in order to put some Chinese sponsor, or to re-use the sets of a less known movie , or to develop the little role of someone who became a star during the production of the movie, etc, etc... And it means somewhere in the creative process, there's a coherent novel.

    And that's why to use again some Ian Fleming Bond novels (even already used, even in disguise), would not necessarily be the boring fest a few here seem to think. They could give a Fleming framework to a movie, even if it's already been used in a 60s Connery movie, and let everyone flourish it, instead of starting with no framework. And I think this can work. Hey, it does look like Casino Royale is the most popular Bond movie in recent memory, for fans as well as non-fans, isn't it ?

    Now imagine a scriptwriter telling EON : "Hey, I've got this idea of a long poker scene...". "What ???"

    Now compare with "Hey, let's change from baccarat to poker". "Good idea !"

    PS : I didn't read Getafix's post when I wrote this :) !


  • edited November 2014 Posts: 2,189
    Why do you think the movie studios turned to comic book superheros? There is a real drought on the media market for new original stories, so I'd say that in the film world, while a good screenwriter is always a valuable thing, right now, a good story is in higher demand.

    SF had a terrible story, (a weird rip-off of Mission Impossible, The Dark Knight, and Home Alone), but it had a good script and beautiful cinematography. For me, I'm willing to see the script sacrificed a little if it means getting a better story in Bond 24. What worries me about having all these writers come in for Bond 24 is that maybe the story still isn't squared away.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 2,015
    With the comic books, they have the challenge to make movies based on stories where no one really dies, it's quite a big movie trope you cannot use !

    So far, in most Mendes movies (all except Away We Go I think ?), a main character dies. Really dies. SF is no exception with the death of M. Will it continue ? Let's see what happens to Tanner in the next one :)
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't see why they can't just rehash some of the Fleming novels as well. Why try and reinvent the wheel everytime? Just take From Russia with Love and remake it with a different name. Why not? If they can rehash the TB/YOLT/TSWLM film plot umpteen times, why not the novels?
  • Posts: 15,125
    Getafix wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »

    If you take into account all the possibilities at dream scenario gives you it is actually quite easy to write a surprising/suspenseful script around it.

    You think it's "quite easy" to write a screenplay like Inception? Seriously? Give it a go.

    I think it's a whole lot easier than to write something restrained by the laws of reality and logic. Of course I do!

    There's a difference between writing a screenplay and coming up with a story. Having the imagination to come up with the story and concept of Inception is where the real talent is. Writing the screenplay that navigates that story is easy once you have the ideas down.

    No, it isn't. The whole thing is a test of endurance and if you come out the other side with any resembling sense you've done a decent job. None of it is even remotely easy.

    I imagine the difficult job is coming up with a great story/plot AND writing fantastic dialogue. One without the other is not much use to any one. Logan writes good dialogue, but IMO most of his stories are pretty derivative/lame. That was very evident in SF, I thought. Poor story, but some nice dialogue along the way.

    Logan's downfall in.pretty much all his stories. This is why I was not too sad when I learned someone would go over his script.

  • Matt_Helm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »

    If you take into account all the possibilities at dream scenario gives you it is actually quite easy to write a surprising/suspenseful script around it.

    You think it's "quite easy" to write a screenplay like Inception? Seriously? Give it a go.

    I think it's a whole lot easier than to write something restrained by the laws of reality and logic. Of course I do!

    There's a difference between writing a screenplay and coming up with a story. Having the imagination to come up with the story and concept of Inception is where the real talent is. Writing the screenplay that navigates that story is easy once you have the ideas down.

    But you see the whole plot of inception is just not that original. All of the nightmare on Elm Street movies deal with this "true or dream" dilemma and you probably won't claim that the drama part of the story (= coping with loss) is that new.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »

    If you take into account all the possibilities at dream scenario gives you it is actually quite easy to write a surprising/suspenseful script around it.

    You think it's "quite easy" to write a screenplay like Inception? Seriously? Give it a go.

    I think it's a whole lot easier than to write something restrained by the laws of reality and logic. Of course I do!

    There's a difference between writing a screenplay and coming up with a story. Having the imagination to come up with the story and concept of Inception is where the real talent is. Writing the screenplay that navigates that story is easy once you have the ideas down.

    No, it isn't. The whole thing is a test of endurance and if you come out the other side with anything resembling sense you've done a decent job. None of it is even remotely easy.

    I still would prefer script writers to adhere to a little higher standard than "anything resembling sense". Not that anybody in the movie business seems to give a rats arse about what I like or not.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »

    If you take into account all the possibilities at dream scenario gives you it is actually quite easy to write a surprising/suspenseful script around it.

    You think it's "quite easy" to write a screenplay like Inception? Seriously? Give it a go.

    I think it's a whole lot easier than to write something restrained by the laws of reality and logic. Of course I do!

    There's a difference between writing a screenplay and coming up with a story. Having the imagination to come up with the story and concept of Inception is where the real talent is. Writing the screenplay that navigates that story is easy once you have the ideas down.

    No, it isn't. The whole thing is a test of endurance and if you come out the other side with anything resembling sense you've done a decent job. None of it is even remotely easy.

    I still would prefer script writers to adhere to a little higher standard than "anything resembling sense". Not that anybody in the movie business seems to give a rats arse about what I like or not.

    My point is that it's difficult, clearly.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »

    If you take into account all the possibilities at dream scenario gives you it is actually quite easy to write a surprising/suspenseful script around it.

    You think it's "quite easy" to write a screenplay like Inception? Seriously? Give it a go.

    I think it's a whole lot easier than to write something restrained by the laws of reality and logic. Of course I do!

    There's a difference between writing a screenplay and coming up with a story. Having the imagination to come up with the story and concept of Inception is where the real talent is. Writing the screenplay that navigates that story is easy once you have the ideas down.

    No, it isn't. The whole thing is a test of endurance and if you come out the other side with anything resembling sense you've done a decent job. None of it is even remotely easy.

    I still would prefer script writers to adhere to a little higher standard than "anything resembling sense". Not that anybody in the movie business seems to give a rats arse about what I like or not.

    My point is that it's difficult, clearly.

    I absolutely have no doubt. Really.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 4,619
    Here you can briefly see Hoyte van Hoytema shooting with an IMAX camera during the production of Interstellar. I really hope they will use IMAX cameras on Bond 24, it would be great!

  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited November 2014 Posts: 1,756
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »

    If you take into account all the possibilities at dream scenario gives you it is actually quite easy to write a surprising/suspenseful script around it.

    You think it's "quite easy" to write a screenplay like Inception? Seriously? Give it a go.

    I think it's a whole lot easier than to write something restrained by the laws of reality and logic. Of course I do!


  • Here you can briefly see Hoyte van Hoytema shooting with an IMAX camera during the production of Interstellar. I really hope they will use IMAX cameras on Bond 24, it would be great!


    Can I add one more thing to this? I have the entire BluRay-50th-anniversary-box now. I have compared the pixel densities and resolution of each film. And you know what stroke me? Especially when comparing Craig's last three outings? "Skyfall" truly stands out here. I really think the digital camera's for "Skyfall" made that happen. I know that for "QOS" and "CR" certain filters were used to give the image a more "rougher grittier texture". But it's not only that. Overall I think digital camerawork can add such distinct brightness that even a BluRay disc can not show.

    I hope Hoyte will also use digital camera's.
  • Posts: 4,619
    I hope Hoyte will also use digital camera's.

    You can hope that all you want but it's 100% sure that they will be shooting on film. Whishes and hopes are fine but they are kind of useless once we have actual confirmations.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Of course shooting digital can look great in the right hands but shooting film has advantages, you are not limited by the resolution in which the film was shot. @PanchitoPistoles you have intel that Hoytema will shoot film, right?
  • I hope Hoyte will also use digital camera's.

    You can hope that all you want but it's 100% sure that they will be shooting on film. Whishes and hopes are fine but they are kind of useless once we have actual confirmations.

    No such thing has been confirmed. Hoyte van Hoytema specifically said that he has experience in both: Film & Digital. And as both Michael Wilson and Barbara Brocolli were impressed by the quality of Digital filming, I'm quite sure that they will ask van Hoytema to use digital. Moreover, he did it with "Interstellar".
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I hope Hoyte will also use digital camera's.

    You can hope that all you want but it's 100% sure that they will be shooting on film. Whishes and hopes are fine but they are kind of useless once we have actual confirmations.

    No such thing has been confirmed. Hoyte van Hoytema specifically said that he has experience in both: Film & Digital. And as both Michael Wilson and Barbara Brocolli were impressed by the quality of Digital filming, I'm quite sure that they will ask van Hoytema to use digital. Moreover, he did it with "Interstellar".

    Interstellar is shot on film.
  • Posts: 4,619
    No such thing has been confirmed. Hoyte van Hoytema specifically said that he has experience in both: Film & Digital. And as both Michael Wilson and Barbara Brocolli were impressed by the quality of Digital filming, I'm quite sure that they will ask van Hoytema to use digital. Moreover, he did it with "Interstellar".

    It has been confirmed by several people that Bond 24 will be shot on film. No, the producers won't ask Hoytema to use digital, it has already been decided that the movie will be shot on film. (By the way, it's mainly the director who decides what format to use and not the producers.) And you clearly have no idea what you are talking about as Interstellar was shot on standard 35 mm film and IMAX 70 mm film.

    They may use digital cameras for some sequences (like in the case of QOS) but most of the film (and by that I mean more than 90 %) will be shot on film.

  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    edited November 2014 Posts: 2,044
    I hope Hoyte will also use digital camera's.

    You can hope that all you want but it's 100% sure that they will be shooting on film. Whishes and hopes are fine but they are kind of useless once we have actual confirmations.

    No such thing has been confirmed. Hoyte van Hoytema specifically said that he has experience in both: Film & Digital. And as both Michael Wilson and Barbara Brocolli were impressed by the quality of Digital filming, I'm quite sure that they will ask van Hoytema to use digital. Moreover, he did it with "Interstellar".

    Deakins confirmed earlier this year that B24 will be shot on film.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,119
    No such thing has been confirmed. Hoyte van Hoytema specifically said that he has experience in both: Film & Digital. And as both Michael Wilson and Barbara Brocolli were impressed by the quality of Digital filming, I'm quite sure that they will ask van Hoytema to use digital. Moreover, he did it with "Interstellar".

    It has been confirmed by several people that Bond 24 will be shot on film. No, the producers won't ask Hoytema to use digital, it has already been decided that the movie will be shot on film. (By the way, it's mainly the director who decides what format to use and not the producers.) And you clearly have no idea what you are talking about as Interstellar was shot on standard 35 mm film and IMAX 70 mm film.

    They may use digital cameras for some sequences (like in the case of QOS) but most of the film (and by that I mean more than 90 %) will be shot on film.

    I really thought "Interstellar" was shot digitally. Sorry about that. But to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about is simply overreacting. All we know know is this:
    --> Deakings confirms Bond 24 will be shot on film? Really, the man who didn't want to return decides that? He decides, an not van Hoytema himself? I'm sceptical. Maybe Deakins also confirms that Bond 24 will not be shot in 3D :-)?
    --> Hoyte van Hoytema can shot BOTH on film AND digital. That's the only thing we know.
    --> "confirmed by several people"...nice, but links please??
    --> Producers have a lot of influence. Initially Roger Deakins was NOT keen about transferring to the IMAX format. But Sony and the producers insisting on it, as IMAX means "money". So to say that producers "have nothing to do with it" also shows a bit "having no ideas about it".

    Let's wait and see. But for now I only know that it can be either digital or film. Hoyte van Hoytema can do both.
  • Posts: 5,745
    No such thing has been confirmed. Hoyte van Hoytema specifically said that he has experience in both: Film & Digital. And as both Michael Wilson and Barbara Brocolli were impressed by the quality of Digital filming, I'm quite sure that they will ask van Hoytema to use digital. Moreover, he did it with "Interstellar".

    It has been confirmed by several people that Bond 24 will be shot on film. No, the producers won't ask Hoytema to use digital, it has already been decided that the movie will be shot on film. (By the way, it's mainly the director who decides what format to use and not the producers.) And you clearly have no idea what you are talking about as Interstellar was shot on standard 35 mm film and IMAX 70 mm film.

    They may use digital cameras for some sequences (like in the case of QOS) but most of the film (and by that I mean more than 90 %) will be shot on film.

    I really thought "Interstellar" was shot digitally. Sorry about that. But to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about is simply overreacting. All we know know is this:
    --> Deakings confirms Bond 24 will be shot on film? Really, the man who didn't want to return decides that? He decides, an not van Hoytema himself? I'm sceptical. Maybe Deakins also confirms that Bond 24 will not be shot in 3D :-)?
    --> Hoyte van Hoytema can shot BOTH on film AND digital. That's the only thing we know.
    --> "confirmed by several people"...nice, but links please??
    --> Producers have a lot of influence. Initially Roger Deakins was NOT keen about transferring to the IMAX format. But Sony and the producers insisting on it, as IMAX means "money". So to say that producers "have nothing to do with it" also shows a bit "having no ideas about it".

    Let's wait and see. But for now I only know that it can be either digital or film. Hoyte van Hoytema can do both.

    Check the opening post! I update it with every story with links. That's the point of this thread..

    "-Roger Deakins, who was Cinematographer on the digitally shot Skyfall, mentioned on his blog that Bond 24 will be shot on film, though he won't be returning as Cinematographer."

    http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2977
  • Posts: 4,619
    --> Deakings confirms Bond 24 will be shot on film? Really, the man who didn't want to return decides that? He decides, an not van Hoytema himself? I'm sceptical. Maybe Deakins also confirms that Bond 24 will not be shot in 3D :-)?

    Are you dense? No, Deakins did not decide that Bond 24 should be shot on film but he did talk to people (like SAM MENDES) who made that decision.
  • JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    No such thing has been confirmed. Hoyte van Hoytema specifically said that he has experience in both: Film & Digital. And as both Michael Wilson and Barbara Brocolli were impressed by the quality of Digital filming, I'm quite sure that they will ask van Hoytema to use digital. Moreover, he did it with "Interstellar".

    It has been confirmed by several people that Bond 24 will be shot on film. No, the producers won't ask Hoytema to use digital, it has already been decided that the movie will be shot on film. (By the way, it's mainly the director who decides what format to use and not the producers.) And you clearly have no idea what you are talking about as Interstellar was shot on standard 35 mm film and IMAX 70 mm film.

    They may use digital cameras for some sequences (like in the case of QOS) but most of the film (and by that I mean more than 90 %) will be shot on film.

    I really thought "Interstellar" was shot digitally. Sorry about that. But to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about is simply overreacting. All we know know is this:
    --> Deakings confirms Bond 24 will be shot on film? Really, the man who didn't want to return decides that? He decides, an not van Hoytema himself? I'm sceptical. Maybe Deakins also confirms that Bond 24 will not be shot in 3D :-)?
    --> Hoyte van Hoytema can shot BOTH on film AND digital. That's the only thing we know.
    --> "confirmed by several people"...nice, but links please??
    --> Producers have a lot of influence. Initially Roger Deakins was NOT keen about transferring to the IMAX format. But Sony and the producers insisting on it, as IMAX means "money". So to say that producers "have nothing to do with it" also shows a bit "having no ideas about it".

    Let's wait and see. But for now I only know that it can be either digital or film. Hoyte van Hoytema can do both.

    Check the opening post! I update it with every story with links. That's the point of this thread..

    "-Roger Deakins, who was Cinematographer on the digitally shot Skyfall, mentioned on his blog that Bond 24 will be shot on film, though he won't be returning as Cinematographer."

    http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2977

    By jolly, just have a clear look at the link you just posted. It's a forum. Only one forummember on that cinematographer-forum, named "Octopoli" said "All I know is 100% shooting back on film as I know the lab handling it". If you can confirm this was said by Roger Deakins, even then I find it rather "fishy" coming from his mouth. Deakins is out. Hoyte van Hoytema is in. He directs it, not Deakins.

    http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/her-cinematographer-hoyte-van-hoytema-to-fill-roger-deakins-shoes-on-sam-mendes-bond-24?hf_source=HitFixUserShare&hf_medium=Twitter&hf_campaign=KristopherTapley&hf_exp=social_title_on&title=Who has Sam Mendes tapped to fill Roger Deakins' shoes on Sam Mendes' Bond 24?
    "I can't confirm it but I've heard that the Bond series will also be going back to film with this installment. Van Hoytema obviously shot "Interstellar" on film, given that Nolan remains one of the most outspoken worshippers of celluloid there is, as well as "Tinker Tailor." "Her," however, was filmed digitally via the Arri Alexa. All of that just goes to show that he knows how to give you an arresting image whatever the medium"
Sign In or Register to comment.