SPECTRE Production Timeline

1397398400402403870

Comments

  • bondjames wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    Don't forget Babs is still running this show. She's Cubby's blood progeny.
    She's not going to do anything crazy. She is connected to the original films and the Fleming legacy via her dad.
    The crazy will come down the road, when Eon is run by persons less connected to the character's literary and cinema roots.
    .

    I don't really feel this is about family ties. To me B.B. doesn't seem to have such a coherent idea and vision of the way James Bond should be and develop.
    After all Bond became blond,more average looking and tougher when two other blond,rather average looking guys were seriously kicking arse leaving the classic take on Bond look a bit sedated. And if you look how jumpy the direction of the different Bonds was in this century, well that's quite the opposite way her old man did it ( not that I would claim he was faultless - just the opposite in fact).

    to me, the character of Bond and the stories in this Craig era have stayed fairly consistent...

    the real issue Babs and MGW had was taking over from their dad in the 90s with Pierce - those movies felt so drastically different in tonality between one another, that it seemed they never knew what direction they wanted to go...

    they finally got their act together with CR which was fantastic.. QOS was a bit of a misstep due to the writer's strike, but it still made really good money.. and SF (despite your opinion) was a critical and box office smash... so whatever they are doing now, they are doing right..

    Still all they did with CR was to jump on the 24/Bourne train. In QoS (which I regulary defend) they allowed Forster to cut out a 100 Millions worth of scenery and to bring cutting to a new extreme and Mendes was allowed to almost completely alter the script especially after Bond comes to Shanghai (thus rendering the movie a logical disaster) and blow the new timeline with the GF DB5. I haven't even dwelled on DADs 180 turn in the middle of the movie which probably also director induced ( just as the Vanish). To me this doesn't look like a strong and coherent vision of their product.

    I'll admit that a lot of the reason for the success for the reboot is Daniel Craig. He almost single handedly held together QoS with his steely, determined, focused performance. Almost unanimously, folks have said Craig was very solid in QoS, despite that movies flaws (which were mainly editing related - it was pretty coherent plot wise).

    So you have a point. Once Craig is gone, there are risks to the franchise.

    Bond is bigger than any actor. Actors become legends by playing 007, not the other way around. Well,exept Connery that is, there it is a case of vice versa. I'm also not aware of any of Craigs non Bonds overperforming at the box office.
  • timmer wrote: »
    @matthelm
    My point re Babs is that she is not going to allow anything crazy radical to go down, like Mi6 stalwarts such as very traditional M or Fleming mainstay Bill Tanner be revealed as Blofeld. Nuts. Down the road, though, who knows.

    Ok,I see.
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    I know he played Moriarty but... can you see him looking threatening towards Craig, Waltz, Fiennes?
    With a good direction, anything can happen. Really. I can't imagine how to make it threatening right now, but I'm not a director.

    I know people here don't mean it, but each time I read "such plot development will NEVER be in a Bond movie", I basically read that Sam Mendes cannot do anything special. Hey, he just did a billion dollar movie with no story :)

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    Don't forget Babs is still running this show. She's Cubby's blood progeny.
    She's not going to do anything crazy. She is connected to the original films and the Fleming legacy via her dad.
    The crazy will come down the road, when Eon is run by persons less connected to the character's literary and cinema roots.
    .

    I don't really feel this is about family ties. To me B.B. doesn't seem to have such a coherent idea and vision of the way James Bond should be and develop.
    After all Bond became blond,more average looking and tougher when two other blond,rather average looking guys were seriously kicking arse leaving the classic take on Bond look a bit sedated. And if you look how jumpy the direction of the different Bonds was in this century, well that's quite the opposite way her old man did it ( not that I would claim he was faultless - just the opposite in fact).

    to me, the character of Bond and the stories in this Craig era have stayed fairly consistent...

    the real issue Babs and MGW had was taking over from their dad in the 90s with Pierce - those movies felt so drastically different in tonality between one another, that it seemed they never knew what direction they wanted to go...

    they finally got their act together with CR which was fantastic.. QOS was a bit of a misstep due to the writer's strike, but it still made really good money.. and SF (despite your opinion) was a critical and box office smash... so whatever they are doing now, they are doing right..

    Still all they did with CR was to jump on the 24/Bourne train. In QoS (which I regulary defend) they allowed Forster to cut out a 100 Millions worth of scenery and to bring cutting to a new extreme and Mendes was allowed to almost completely alter the script especially after Bond comes to Shanghai (thus rendering the movie a logical disaster) and blow the new timeline with the GF DB5. I haven't even dwelled on DADs 180 turn in the middle of the movie which probably also director induced ( just as the Vanish). To me this doesn't look like a strong and coherent vision of their product.

    I'll admit that a lot of the reason for the success for the reboot is Daniel Craig. He almost single handedly held together QoS with his steely, determined, focused performance. Almost unanimously, folks have said Craig was very solid in QoS, despite that movies flaws (which were mainly editing related - it was pretty coherent plot wise).

    So you have a point. Once Craig is gone, there are risks to the franchise.

    Bond is bigger than any actor. Actors become legends by playing 007, not the other way around. Well,exept Connery that is, there it is a case of vice versa. I'm also not aware of any of Craigs non Bonds overperforming at the box office.

    You're obviously correct. That's not my point.

    My point is that despite producer/director mistakes in QoS and plot holes in SF, it is Daniel Craig who holds this era together.

    I'll contend that he has been more effective in this 3 movie arc than Connery was during his first 3, because there were far less mistakes made during that early 4 movie arc in the 60's than are being made now. Connery had a superb team around him on all first 4 Bond movies and a clear vision driving the character by Cubby/Harry.

    Craig's era has had a more uneven start (the team was very good in CR, a bit off in QoS and a new take in SF that met with broad appeal by the public). Despite the misteps, it's Craig that's the glue.

    Your box office point actually proves my point. He is most successful in his James Bond portrayal. He owns it. They will have trouble replacing him.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I know he played Moriarty but... can you see him looking threatening towards Craig, Waltz, Fiennes?
    With a good direction, anything can happen. Really. I can't imagine how to make it threatening right now, but I'm not a director.

    I know people here don't mean it, but each time I read "such plot development will NEVER be in a Bond movie", I basically read that Sam Mendes cannot do anything special. Hey, he just did a billion dollar movie with no story :)

    With a good direction and a great actor who can be imposing. I am sure he can be... but I find it unlikely opposing such actors.

    And the character's name is Denbigh.
  • Risico007 wrote: »
    you know bond had missions in between films why can't he have a DB5 built with weapons?
    I don't want to give the bean counter,but have you guys any idea, what this conversion would cost? Since we all know Bond is supposed to live quite well and luxurious but never was meant to be rich and MI5 certainly wouldn't alter a private Oldtimer just to be located in England, these are simply ridiculous theories,defending the undefendable.Sorry to be so blunt,but that's just how it is. Remember, Bond officially is not even allowed to work in England and the times when you had your car flying with are long gone ( if they ever existed at all).

  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Murdock wrote: »
    The DB5 can be easily explained in two possible ways.

    1. It was modified by Q Branch so Bond could stop destroying DBS's

    2. Alexander Demitrios already had it decked out with weapons and gadgets seeing as he's an arms smuggling criminal.

    Or... there was two Aston Martins. Easy.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    have you guys any idea, what this conversion would cost? Since we all know Bond is supposed to live quite well and luxurious but never was meant to be rich and MI5 certainly wouldn't alter a private Oldtimer just to be located in England, these are simply ridiculous theories,defending the undefendable.Sorry to be so blunt,but that's just how it is. Remember, Bond officially is not even allowed to work in England
    Uh, excuse me, I'm sorry, are you actually trying to somehow compare Bond films to real life---???
    =))
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    The DB5 can be easily explained in two possible ways.

    1. It was modified by Q Branch so Bond could stop destroying DBS's

    2. Alexander Demitrios already had it decked out with weapons and gadgets seeing as he's an arms smuggling criminal.

    Or... there was two Aston Martins. Easy.

    I believe it's the same one from CR.
  • Posts: 9,847
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    you know bond had missions in between films why can't he have a DB5 built with weapons?
    I don't want to give the bean counter,but have you guys any idea, what this conversion would cost? Since we all know Bond is supposed to live quite well and luxurious but never was meant to be rich and MI5 certainly wouldn't alter a private Oldtimer just to be located in England, these are simply ridiculous theories,defending the undefendable.Sorry to be so blunt,but that's just how it is. Remember, Bond officially is not even allowed to work in England and the times when you had your car flying with are long gone ( if they ever existed at all).

    the weorld is in crisis and the only way to save it is to add gadegts to an old Aston Martin the bean counters would shut up and say ok I am sure.

  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Tuulia wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    Damn I was scouring this thread to see who the title song artist was but it turns out that it's "has been chosen" not "who has been chosen"

    It looks like everyone got the ball rolling early on this one so no writers strike mess that was QOS and 50th anniversary obligations of SF, just a plain sailing adventure.

    I'm really hoping for Muse

    Muse would be a great choice. And definitely much better than Sam Smith, in my opinion.
    There is no way that Andrew Scott is Blofeld. Not when you have Waltz in the same film. Blofeld might not even be played by Waltz. For all we know Blofeld might not even be in the film! So many questions...

    I agree on all points.

    As someone who works in the EDM music industry there are three names who are rumoured to sing the theme Emily Sandie, Sam Smith and Adele. I believe its more than likely Adele will return having postponed her album until next year.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    P.S as for Muse I have always thought the track Stockholm Syndrome had Bond track written all over it.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    have you guys any idea, what this conversion would cost? Since we all know Bond is supposed to live quite well and luxurious but never was meant to be rich and MI5 certainly wouldn't alter a private Oldtimer just to be located in England, these are simply ridiculous theories,defending the undefendable.Sorry to be so blunt,but that's just how it is. Remember, Bond officially is not even allowed to work in England
    Uh, excuse me, I'm sorry, are you actually trying to somehow compare Bond films to real life---???
    =))

    Isn't it the Craig era that is supposed the realistic one? You know - not gadget driven,sans tongue in cheek style. It is as always and everywhere in life: you can't have your cake and eat it too, but those SF supporters are certainly trying.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    For gods sakes Helm do bog off, you poison every thread with your negativity, have you ever had anything positive to say? I could go into all the Brosnan threads and spread my hate but I don't because I have a life, for someone who clearly hates this era of Bond you don't half have a lot to say about it, are you obsessed or do you secretly love Skyfall, you certainly constantly have it on your mind

    Bond is fiction not real life, it's utterly ridiculous and always should be, you can't precious over this, even the grounded ones wouldn't happen in real life as someone said a secret agent going round using his real name is far fetched nonsense.

    I'm sorry before anyone take offense, I've been a Bond fan for over 35 years but not under any illusions that these films are hardcore gritty realism.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Germanlady wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    Hopefully she has kids who can carry the legacy forward.

    No, only Michael has a son, who is already working for them.

    Not true. She has a daughter, Angelica, 22, who as of 2012 is studying writing at NYU.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I'm sorry before anyone take offense, I've been a Bond fan for over 35 years but not under any illusions that these films are hardcore gritty realism.
    If they were, they never would have lasted this long. We can laugh about inconsistencies, or point out things that rub us personally the wrong way, but to deem certain Bond movies as 'terrible' is to miss the point of what Fleming created in the first place.
    Outrageousness.
    ;)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2014 Posts: 24,184
    @Matt_Helm, this is ridiculous.

    "Realistic" Bonds can be interpreted in many ways; it doesn't have to mean literally ripped from our world. The fact that Bond isn't the one-dimensional superman he was in some previous films, the fact that MI6 isn't untouchable, the fact that even good and beloved characters can die and that our hero can't save everyone, ... all of these things make a film more realistic already. Meanwhile it's okay to create a parallel universe in which some aspects of life are romanticised or simplified to fit the escapist tone of the film. As long as the story obeys its own internal logic, we're good.
    Why do people often call Nolan's Batman films "realistic"? Not because everything that takes place in these films happens in real life too, but rather because characters are faced with more dilemmas and contradiction, because actions have far-reaching consequences which the story won't simply ignore, because we are asked much less to suspend our disbelief concerning Batman's gadgets than before, etcetera. But if you really want to be the one with the adverse opinion, you can of course focus on one stupid detail, enlarge it and then make the case that these films are totally unrealistic and whatnot. That's usually the role little children play: they don't understand that even when the hero dies, a film can still have a happy end, that even when the laws of physics are sporadically defied, a film can still be more realistic because much more nuance and causality is built in.

    Also, SF can hardly be called 'gadget driven'. That one brief moment where the DB5 pulls a goldfinger surely isn't enough to make the film "gadget driven". It's neither a plot point nor a game changer. This is like saying that because of Linda Hamilton's nipples being visible during her love making scene with Michael Biehn, The Terminator is a porn film.

    People need to roll with it. Even a film as serious as SF is allowed a few wink-winks to the fans. LTK went further still. That film is about as serious and brutal as they come, yet Q brings explosive toothpaste in the mix, and that's before he dresses up as a local and talks in a broomstick. And as for continuity, bringing continuity issues to a Bond related debate means you lose before you've begun. The weakest arguments are usually the continuity ones. We know by now that more than half of the Bond films suffer from continuity issues. We know by now that if continuity is what you seek, you might as well never watch a Bond film apart from perhaps the first five. Generally beloved films like OHMSS, TLD and CR have some serious continuity issues in that respect. Are we going to call them out on those or are we going to watch them as intended? If you must insist on explaining where the DB5 got its makeover from since the gamble session with Dimitrios - and you're unhealthily obsessive about these things if you do - then accept the fact that some tech geek at MI6 fixed it for Bond and let it go. Seriously, you have no business watching Bond films if you are so exhaustingly strict about these things. Before CR, James Bond healed from cuts and bruises almost from one scene to the next. He could be drugged or knocked out but before CR it never took him much time to recover; he'd wake up and operate at full capacity almost immediately. James Bond could receive instructions from M in London, take the first plane to another country and almost immediately find M and his entire MI6 crew fully equipped and stationed in some local HQ. If any of those things bother you, stay away from the Bond films. They must be an intellectual torment to you; in fact, I'd hate to be your psychiatrist.

    Lastly, the same people who complain about SF being a dire, unpleasant, bleak movie, now attack it on the basis of its little nudge to Goldfinger. Wow. And not even in a SF thread but in a Spectre related thread, barely a day since the press conference! Talk about obsession...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Matt_Helm, this is ridiculous.
    "Realistic" Bonds can be interpreted in many ways; it doesn't have to mean literally ripped from our world.
    LOL, yeah- imagine a TOTALLY 'realistic' Bond movie.... it would be boring as Heck. Lots of surveillance & intel gathering & interpreting... maybe some deep cover work... not so much getting laid or stuck in car chases or directly confronting the head of a secret evil society much less killing him...
    Let's not even discuss Ethan Hunt locked up at Guantanamo or Bruce Wayne committed...

    :))
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 11,119
    By the way. Where is @RC7? I kinda liked his critical approach towards the Bond films. I do not always agree with him, but that's not bad I think. Thanks to him I have re-assessed "Skyfall" slightly. And, like @RC7, I think a more detective-esque, complex, but believable plot is what we can actually expect for "SPECTRE".
  • Posts: 1,970
    Why are some people saying Craig is leaving the role after SPECTRE? Is is contracted for Bond 25 as well so we have him for 1 more film after this one
  • fjdinardo wrote: »
    Why are some people saying Craig is leaving the role after SPECTRE? Is is contracted for Bond 25 as well so we have him for 1 more film after this one

    I don't understand it either. Man, with such unprecedented success for the Bond films with Craig in it, I'm not even thinking about a replacement for Craig. He can do 3 more if you ask me. Like Connery and Moore.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    I want Craig to do as many as Moore and Connery. He deserves to do as many as the greats. However, at the rate they're taking to make them these days, he'll be in a wheelchair by then, sadly.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 908
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Matt_Helm, this is ridiculous.

    "Realistic" Bonds can be interpreted in many ways; it doesn't have to mean literally ripped from our world. The fact that Bond isn't the one-dimensional superman he was in some previous films, the fact that MI6 isn't untouchable, the fact that even good and beloved characters can die and that our hero can't save everyone, ... all of these things make a film more realistic already. Meanwhile it's okay to create a parallel universe in which some aspects of life are romanticised or simplified to fit the escapist tone of the film. As long as the story obeys its own internal logic, we're good.
    Why do people often call Nolan's Batman films "realistic"? Not because everything that takes place in these films happens in real life too, but rather because characters are faced with more dilemmas and contradiction, because actions have far-reaching consequences which the story won't simply ignore, because we are asked much less to suspend our disbelief concerning Batman's gadgets than before, etcetera. But if you really want to be the one with the adverse opinion, you can of course focus on one stupid detail, enlarge it and then make the case that these films are totally unrealistic and whatnot. That's usually the role little children play: they don't understand that even when the hero dies, a film can still have a happy end, that even when the laws of physics are sporadically defied, a film can still be more realistic because much more nuance and causality is built in.

    Also, SF can hardly be called 'gadget driven'. That one brief moment where the DB5 pulls a goldfinger surely isn't enough to make the film "gadget driven". It's neither a plot point nor a game changer. This is like saying that because of Linda Hamilton's nipples being visible during her love making scene with Michael Biehn, The Terminator is a porn film.

    People need to roll with it. Even a film as serious as SF is allowed a few wink-winks to the fans. LTK went further still. That film is about as serious and brutal as they come, yet Q brings explosive toothpaste in the mix, and that's before he dresses up as a local and talks in a broomstick. And as for continuity, bringing continuity issues to a Bond related debate means you lose before you've begun. The weakest arguments are usually the continuity ones. We know by now that more than half of the Bond films suffer from continuity issues. We know by now that if continuity is what you seek, you might as well never watch a Bond film apart from perhaps the first five. Generally beloved films like OHMSS, TLD and CR have some serious continuity issues in that respect. Are we going to call them out on those or are we going to watch them as intended? If you must insist on explaining where the DB5 got its makeover from since the gamble session with Dimitrios - and you're unhealthily obsessive about these things if you do - then accept the fact that some tech geek at MI6 fixed it for Bond and let it go. Seriously, you have no business watching Bond films if you are so exhaustingly strict about these things. Before CR, James Bond healed from cuts and bruises almost from one scene to the next. He could be drugged or knocked out but before CR it never took him much time to recover; he'd wake up and operate at full capacity almost immediately. James Bond could receive instructions from M in London, take the first plane to another country and almost immediately find M and his entire MI6 crew fully equipped and stationed in some local HQ. If any of those things bother you, stay away from the Bond films. They must be an intellectual torment to you; in fact, I'd hate to be your psychiatrist.

    Lastly, the same people who complain about SF being a dire, unpleasant, bleak movie, now attack it on the basis of its little nudge to Goldfinger. Wow. And not even in a SF thread but in a Spectre related thread, barely a day since the press conference! Talk about obsession...

    So following your reasoning they actually can do whatever they want because it's Bond anyway.
    Why don't you just say so? This would make almost any kind of arguing and debating the movies obsolete, and so many people here claiming how sophisticated Mendes' approach is could use their time for something else.(again - it's exactly this attitude that angers me. If people just said:" hey, it's story is trash but,but it's beautifully filmed and very stylish so I like it" I would still shake my head, but I would accept it!)
  • Posts: 2,402
    Something that I thought of, from all the reporting and discussion: shouldn't the film's title be SPECTRE, all capitals, since SPECTRE is an acronym?
  • Something that I thought of, from all the reporting and discussion: shouldn't the film's title be SPECTRE, all capitals, since SPECTRE is an acronym?

    I said exactly the same thing today. It's not Spectre, but SPECTRE.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Anyone who wanted this, here's the Nobody does it better montage from the conference, one of the best I've seen.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    That song is just so damn good. No body does it better & TSWLM - one of the most iconic Bond films ever in my opinion.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    bondjames wrote: »
    That song is just so damn good. TSWLM - one of the most iconic Bond films ever in my opinion.

    The funny thing is, I didn't notice much of the song before the conference, but hearing it with this excellent Bond montage, with this sheer fanboy enthusiasm and emotion of what was coming up next, it suddenly hit me, and yes it is amazing.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I loved how well the song made the Craig portion of the montage all the more awesome. :)
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Murdock wrote: »
    I loved how well the song made the Craig portion of the montage all the more awesome. :)

    It's weird because it's a slower, more moving song, yet seeing Craig with the montage was just infinitely badass.
Sign In or Register to comment.