SPECTRE Production Timeline

1231232234236237870

Comments

  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I watched SF again recently and I'd forgotten what a clunker the 'deep water' line is. Really throws you for a second. I hope Mendes doesn't persist with these little Moore-esque flourishes. I'm Moore's biggest fan, but this is Craig. Leave him to what he does best.

    I personally think, one of the biggest problems why the humor in the Craig films, and especially "Skyfall", doesn't work, has to do with the overall screenplay writing process.

    Everytime I think the screenplays of the Craig films are perfect, but perhaps too perfect. If it is Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, John Logan or Robert Wade, it seems that on many occasions the screenplays lack -and here it comes-: spontaneity.

    Many lines are so perfectly well-thought of. And I guess each of every screenplay writer is putting so much attention to detail for especially the more "poetic" lines in Craig's films. Remember the prickly conversation in "Casino Royale" between Bond and Vesper in the Orient Express TGV, when they first meet (typical Paul Haggis)? Truly wunderful. Or M's oration of Tennyson's poem in "Skyfall" (Logan's talent as playwright shows here wunderfully!)?

    BUT, this almost "arty" attention to detail, its almost "playwright-esque" way of writing has got its side-effects on the spontaneity of lines (especially communication between characters in the films).

    I see it for instance in simple scenes, like the first ever Moneypenny-scene for Craig as 007. So many more lines could have been uttered between Moneypenny and Bond, including some nice sexual inuendo ;-). But in the end the screenplay writers (and this goes for Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig too. Craig himself is a unofficial creative consultant as well, and still no Bond fan is mentioning that. Babs & Michael adore him) preferred to maintain a more "visual" image of the scene, in which Moneypenny is carefully, almost too carefully, introduced too us. The net result is a great visual style, but the scene also comes across as rather stiff & humorless.

    Hence the overall lack of humor on the whole in the Craig films. Perhaps they have become a bit too Nolan-esque, too serious.

    So I think humor can still be added, but it depends on the writing process how that will be executed. This is, IMO, a pure writing thing, and I therefore don't believe that "we should leave away all humor". Don't forget that this is most likely the reason that John Logan left as screenplay writer and that this time around Neal Purvis & Robert Wade are the ones to carefully polish the screenplay, so that it has more "spontaneity", more vivid lines, words and text, and therefore also more "humor".

    Remember, the first two Connery Bond films were also very serious. They were also more cold-hearted in its core. Then "Goldfinger" came and things changed. Although Connery was a bit against turning Bond into comedy, his acting skills proved that he uttered all these one-liners, within the context of conversations, perfectly. And with it...."humor" got its true meaning in the Bond franchise.

    Bond 24 most likely will make us laugh much more ;-).

    PS: I still think that elderly couple in "Skyfall" in the metro tube were hilarious: "He's keen to get home :-O!"

    I think what you're trying to say is, tailor the humour to Craig (as it is in CR and QoS). There are too many instances of Moore-Bond wit in SF and it takes you out of the movie.

    Not exactly. I think the actor is there to act. He/she needs to put the screenplay (learning it by heart) into practice. If there's no new, different writing approach visible in the screenplay (like I mentioned in my post, "spontaneity", more vivid lines, words and text), then an actor only can own/act with such a screenplay.

    In that sense, the screenplay is such a huge important part of the overall outcome of the movie. I always consider the screenplay as the most important building block of a movie. And if it's not changed in such a way, then humor still won't appear. That's not Craig's fault, it's a writer's decision. Unless.......if the actor actually can influence the screenplay writer.

    Therefore, I am positive....now Purvis & Wade and Mendes & Craig took the element of humor more serious
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2014 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I watched SF again recently and I'd forgotten what a clunker the 'deep water' line is. Really throws you for a second. I hope Mendes doesn't persist with these little Moore-esque flourishes. I'm Moore's biggest fan, but this is Craig. Leave him to what he does best.

    I personally think, one of the biggest problems why the humor in the Craig films, and especially "Skyfall", doesn't work, has to do with the overall screenplay writing process.

    Everytime I think the screenplays of the Craig films are perfect, but perhaps too perfect. If it is Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, John Logan or Robert Wade, it seems that on many occasions the screenplays lack -and here it comes-: spontaneity.

    Many lines are so perfectly well-thought of. And I guess each of every screenplay writer is putting so much attention to detail for especially the more "poetic" lines in Craig's films. Remember the prickly conversation in "Casino Royale" between Bond and Vesper in the Orient Express TGV, when they first meet (typical Paul Haggis)? Truly wunderful. Or M's oration of Tennyson's poem in "Skyfall" (Logan's talent as playwright shows here wunderfully!)?

    BUT, this almost "arty" attention to detail, its almost "playwright-esque" way of writing has got its side-effects on the spontaneity of lines (especially communication between characters in the films).

    I see it for instance in simple scenes, like the first ever Moneypenny-scene for Craig as 007. So many more lines could have been uttered between Moneypenny and Bond, including some nice sexual inuendo ;-). But in the end the screenplay writers (and this goes for Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig too. Craig himself is a unofficial creative consultant as well, and still no Bond fan is mentioning that. Babs & Michael adore him) preferred to maintain a more "visual" image of the scene, in which Moneypenny is carefully, almost too carefully, introduced too us. The net result is a great visual style, but the scene also comes across as rather stiff & humorless.

    Hence the overall lack of humor on the whole in the Craig films. Perhaps they have become a bit too Nolan-esque, too serious.

    So I think humor can still be added, but it depends on the writing process how that will be executed. This is, IMO, a pure writing thing, and I therefore don't believe that "we should leave away all humor". Don't forget that this is most likely the reason that John Logan left as screenplay writer and that this time around Neal Purvis & Robert Wade are the ones to carefully polish the screenplay, so that it has more "spontaneity", more vivid lines, words and text, and therefore also more "humor".

    Remember, the first two Connery Bond films were also very serious. They were also more cold-hearted in its core. Then "Goldfinger" came and things changed. Although Connery was a bit against turning Bond into comedy, his acting skills proved that he uttered all these one-liners, within the context of conversations, perfectly. And with it...."humor" got its true meaning in the Bond franchise.

    Bond 24 most likely will make us laugh much more ;-).

    PS: I still think that elderly couple in "Skyfall" in the metro tube were hilarious: "He's keen to get home :-O!"

    I think what you're trying to say is, tailor the humour to Craig (as it is in CR and QoS). There are too many instances of Moore-Bond wit in SF and it takes you out of the movie.

    Not exactly. I think the actor is there to act. He/she needs to put the screenplay (learning it by heart) into practice. If there's no new, different writing approach visible in the screenplay (like I mentioned in my post, "spontaneity", more vivid lines, words and text), then an actor only can own/act with such a screenplay.

    In that sense, the screenplay is such a huge important part of the overall outcome of the movie. I always consider the screenplay as the most important building block of a movie. And if it's not changed in such a way, then humor still won't appear. That's not Craig's fault, it's a writer's decision. Unless.......if the actor actually can influence the screenplay writer.

    Therefore, I am positive....now Purvis & Wade and Mendes & Craig took the element of humor more serious

    The actor is there to bring a character to the screen. If they feel an action or line of dialogue is at odds with the 'character' they will flag it with the director and they will work it through - particularly in a relationship such as Mendes/Craig - with Mendes having final say. It's also common for director/actor to workshop in the moment, if the scene isn't flowing, lacks dynamism or doesn't convey the atmosphere the director is trying to conjure, etc. Whether Mendes/Craig do this, I'm not sure, but the likelihood is that they have and will do so again in future, it's pretty inevitable.

    As for the screenplay, it's constantly in flux on most movies, particularly franchise movies such as Bond. You have to accommodate more than just the director's vision.

    The other process that can happen is shooting alternative cutaways, so with the 'deep water' line I mentioned, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an alternative line shot so Mendes could assess its impact in the edit (and made a bad call imo).

    The humour is about delivery and, more importantly, context. The combination of character work from both writers and Craig has meant the Bond of 2014 is a more rounded, three dimensional being. Any humour, whether through action or dialogue has to feel like it is something Craig-Bond would say or do. There are instances in SF where Mendes betrays this rule, by tacking on flippancies that we don't believe Craig-Bond would say. The scene in CR where he smashes up the Range Rover and tosses the keys is classic Craig-Bond humour, conveyed through action. The QoS scene where he delivers the line 'We're teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery' is perfect Craig-Bond humour, conveyed through dialogue. Notice both scenes are irrelevant to the plot, but they offer a fleeting insight into his 'character', they feel like things Craig-Bond would do or say. Saying 'I got into some deep water' in SF, at such a pivotal moment of the plot is nonsense. It goes against everything we'd expect Craig-Bond to do in such a situation.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I watched SF again recently and I'd forgotten what a clunker the 'deep water' line is. Really throws you for a second. I hope Mendes doesn't persist with these little Moore-esque flourishes. I'm Moore's biggest fan, but this is Craig. Leave him to what he does best.

    I personally think, one of the biggest problems why the humor in the Craig films, and especially "Skyfall", doesn't work, has to do with the overall screenplay writing process.

    Everytime I think the screenplays of the Craig films are perfect, but perhaps too perfect. If it is Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, John Logan or Robert Wade, it seems that on many occasions the screenplays lack -and here it comes-: spontaneity.

    Many lines are so perfectly well-thought of. And I guess each of every screenplay writer is putting so much attention to detail for especially the more "poetic" lines in Craig's films. Remember the prickly conversation in "Casino Royale" between Bond and Vesper in the Orient Express TGV, when they first meet (typical Paul Haggis)? Truly wunderful. Or M's oration of Tennyson's poem in "Skyfall" (Logan's talent as playwright shows here wunderfully!)?

    BUT, this almost "arty" attention to detail, its almost "playwright-esque" way of writing has got its side-effects on the spontaneity of lines (especially communication between characters in the films).

    I see it for instance in simple scenes, like the first ever Moneypenny-scene for Craig as 007. So many more lines could have been uttered between Moneypenny and Bond, including some nice sexual inuendo ;-). But in the end the screenplay writers (and this goes for Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig too. Craig himself is a unofficial creative consultant as well, and still no Bond fan is mentioning that. Babs & Michael adore him) preferred to maintain a more "visual" image of the scene, in which Moneypenny is carefully, almost too carefully, introduced too us. The net result is a great visual style, but the scene also comes across as rather stiff & humorless.

    Hence the overall lack of humor on the whole in the Craig films. Perhaps they have become a bit too Nolan-esque, too serious.

    So I think humor can still be added, but it depends on the writing process how that will be executed. This is, IMO, a pure writing thing, and I therefore don't believe that "we should leave away all humor". Don't forget that this is most likely the reason that John Logan left as screenplay writer and that this time around Neal Purvis & Robert Wade are the ones to carefully polish the screenplay, so that it has more "spontaneity", more vivid lines, words and text, and therefore also more "humor".

    Remember, the first two Connery Bond films were also very serious. They were also more cold-hearted in its core. Then "Goldfinger" came and things changed. Although Connery was a bit against turning Bond into comedy, his acting skills proved that he uttered all these one-liners, within the context of conversations, perfectly. And with it...."humor" got its true meaning in the Bond franchise.

    Bond 24 most likely will make us laugh much more ;-).

    PS: I still think that elderly couple in "Skyfall" in the metro tube were hilarious: "He's keen to get home :-O!"

    I think what you're trying to say is, tailor the humour to Craig (as it is in CR and QoS). There are too many instances of Moore-Bond wit in SF and it takes you out of the movie.

    Not exactly. I think the actor is there to act. He/she needs to put the screenplay (learning it by heart) into practice. If there's no new, different writing approach visible in the screenplay (like I mentioned in my post, "spontaneity", more vivid lines, words and text), then an actor only can own/act with such a screenplay.

    In that sense, the screenplay is such a huge important part of the overall outcome of the movie. I always consider the screenplay as the most important building block of a movie. And if it's not changed in such a way, then humor still won't appear. That's not Craig's fault, it's a writer's decision. Unless.......if the actor actually can influence the screenplay writer.

    Therefore, I am positive....now Purvis & Wade and Mendes & Craig took the element of humor more serious

    The actor is there to bring a character to the screen. If they feel an action or line of dialogue is at odds with the 'character' they will flag it with the director and they will work it through - particularly in a relationship such as Mendes/Craig - with Mendes having final say. It's also common for director/actor to workshop in the moment, if the scene isn't flowing, lacks dynamism or doesn't convey the atmosphere the director is trying to conjure, etc. Whether Mendes/Craig do this, I'm not sure, but the likelihood is that they have and will do so again in future, it's pretty inevitable.

    As for the screenplay, it's constantly in flux on most movies, particularly franchise movies such as Bond. You have to accommodate more than just the director's vision.

    The other process that can happen is shooting alternative cutaways, so with the 'deep water' line I mentioned, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an alternative line shot so Mendes could assess its impact in the edit (and made a bad call imo).

    The humour is about delivery and, more importantly, context. The combination of character work from both writers and Craig has meant the Bond of 2014 is a more rounded, three dimensional being. Any humour, whether through action or dialogue has to feel like it is something Craig-Bond would say or do. There are instances in SF where Mendes betrays this rule, by tacking on flippancies that we don't believe Craig-Bond would say. The scene in CR where he smashes up the Range Rover and tosses the keys is classic Craig-Bond humour, conveyed through action. The QoS scene where he delivers the line 'We're teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery' is perfect Craig-Bond humour, conveyed through dialogue. Notice both scenes are irrelevant to the plot, but they offer a fleeting insight into his 'character', they feel like things Craig-Bond would do or say. Saying 'I got into some deep water' in SF, at such a pivotal moment of the plot is nonsense. It goes against everything we'd expect Craig-Bond to do in such a situation.

    I think we mostly agree then :-). Off course the actor is there to bring a written scene to life.

    I also think it's a matter of taste. The examples you mention....are perhaps indeed humour according to the "Craig-Playbook". But I think so much more can be done with screenplay, like I mentioned before.

    Yes, everything has to be seen as a total package, within the context of other aspects. Having said that, perhaps for you the scene where Bond utters the line "We're teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery" works perfectly.

    I just think more can be done with words and lines to create more humour. I know, Craig has the acting capabilities to be utterly funny. But then there still needs to be the guy who can write something like "Do you know something about guns Mr Bond? 007: No, but I know a little about women." So far, apart from a great actor capable of delivering that, I haven't really heard Mankiewicz-esque line that instantly create laughter (Apart from the "That's because you don't know what I can do with my little finger", but again, that's taste :-)).

    So in that writing process, much more can be done to add humour. It's not the actor who's wrong here. Otherwise John Logan didn't need to go no? In any case, we mostly agree.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    But then there still needs to be the guy who can write something like "Do you know something about guns Mr Bond? 007: No, but I know a little about women.

    Ok, I get where you're coming from. This is a great line and would absolutely work for Craig. I'm all for humour if it works in favour of Craig's portrayal and feels seamless. My worry is that on the evidence of SF, Mendes seems absolutely fine about Craig delivering cheap gags, as opposed to clever retorts, and that is worrying. I really hope they've upped their game on B24. And for the record I don't blame Craig; it's Mendes' ultimate responsibility.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited September 2014 Posts: 4,528
    I have problems with Skyfall because of some plot points, M spoilers, Eve.

    One action scene more closer to the end (or make it possible the end starts 10 minutes earlier), more Eve and not that line at the end with her and other music in some parts the movie already have been much better. Some people already said i before, how amazing it have been if the we get Severine delete scene on the rolling stairs. Whyle of course you stil have plot holes.

    I whant to see Bond have trouble with M her death, Malory not know where he is. Not something silly like Greece Cnn shit in Skyfall.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    But then there still needs to be the guy who can write something like "Do you know something about guns Mr Bond? 007: No, but I know a little about women.

    Ok, I get where you're coming from. This is a great line and would absolutely work for Craig. I'm all for humour if it works in favour of Craig's portrayal and feels seamless. My worry is that on the evidence of SF, Mendes seems absolutely fine about Craig delivering cheap gags, as opposed to clever retorts, and that is worrying. I really hope they've upped their game on B24. And for the record I don't blame Craig; it's Mendes' ultimate responsibility.

    I'm quite confident @RC7. Still, what you are saying is very vital too. Craig delivers humour out of certain action sequences perfectly. That should not be entirely deleted. Just....a bit more "verbal zest" would do fine.
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,343
    Is anyone worried that Morocco will double for the Middle-East, involving an al-Qaida terrorist plot? For me, Bond films should be pure and slightly over-the-top escapism, I would not feel very much entertained if they bring current crises into the plot.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 157
    Bounine wrote: »
    "We wouldn't want that" was one of the bad lines from CR. No Bond film is perfect. Atleast there was no one liner following the death of someone in these two films.

    "She's sea sick" was a bad one from QOS.

    I agree with that. For me, the humour that worked in CR and QOS were bon motes like the following:

    'That last hand. Nearly killed me.'

    'When someone says "We've got people everywhere", you expect it to be hyperbole! Lots of people say that. Florists use that expression.'

    'Somos maestros en año sabático, y nos ganamos la lotería'

    Or the visual gag of Bond pretending to be a valet and setting off the car alarms.

    Edit: See RC7 has already brought those up. Good call.
  • zebrafish wrote: »
    Is anyone worried that Morocco will double for the Middle-East, involving an al-Qaida terrorist plot? For me, Bond films should be pure and slightly over-the-top escapism, I would not feel very much entertained if they bring current crises into the plot.

    I have a feeling Morocco will have a role in the PAST or only the first half of the film. Regarding geopolitical developments. I slightly disagree. Current day politics can be molded in such a way that they fit what you like to call "escapism".
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Cubby always took pride, that the Bond films were apolitical, and I'm sure MGW and Babs are continuing the family tradition.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 3,278
    Everytime I think the screenplays of the Craig films are perfect, but perhaps too perfect. If it is Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, John Logan or Robert Wade, it seems that on many occasions the screenplays lack -and here it comes-: spontaneity
    (...)
    Great comment of yours.

    Watched a 3-hour "making of" TSWLM recently. One of the things I remember was how they made several lines up, as they went along, adding humour and one-liners when necessary and/or appropriate. I wish Mendes would "loosen up" for Bond 24, like Gilbert used to do.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Everytime I think the screenplays of the Craig films are perfect, but perhaps too perfect. If it is Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, John Logan or Robert Wade, it seems that on many occasions the screenplays lack -and here it comes-: spontaneity
    (...)
    Great comment of yours.

    Watched a 3-hour "making of" TSWLM recently. One of the things I remember was how they made several lines up, as they went along, adding humour and one-liners when necessary and/or appropriate. I wish Mendes would "loosen up" for Bond 24, like Gilbert used to do.

    Bare in mind this is Roger Moore, not Daniel Craig. I imagine Craig is actually a funny bloke, but in a cynical, ironic manner. Roger was/is a raconteur, for whom turns of phrase and witty asides are second nature. Let loose with Craig by all means, but there would have to be a measured level of improvisation regards humour.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Everytime I think the screenplays of the Craig films are perfect, but perhaps too perfect. If it is Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, John Logan or Robert Wade, it seems that on many occasions the screenplays lack -and here it comes-: spontaneity
    (...)
    Great comment of yours.

    Watched a 3-hour "making of" TSWLM recently. One of the things I remember was how they made several lines up, as they went along, adding humour and one-liners when necessary and/or appropriate. I wish Mendes would "loosen up" for Bond 24, like Gilbert used to do.

    I think one of the best writers who mastered the "humour" section in the writing process was then, in 1971, newcomer Tommy Mankiewicz. I remember very well how he had so much joy as a young wacky ex-student when he entered the Bond family. Mankiewicz: “I was like a kid in a candy store, I couldn’t believe I was there as the writer of a Bond movie.

    And, like I said many times, and also Mankiewicz said on many occasions: “I think Bond changed with the Aston Martin in 'Goldfinger'.....since then they became almost Disney entertainment”.

    Now I do NOT want that Bond becomes as ridiculously cheesy in those Guy Hamilton Bond films. But I do think Mendes, Craig, Purvis & Wade can learn a bit from what Mankiewicz had to say here. He actually brought that "spontaneity" to the lines/words in the scripts:




    Sadly, Mankiewicz is not alive anymore. He understood back in the 1990's already that Bond had to much competition. But IF Mankiewicz could have seen what has happened ever since "Casino Royale", I think he would be a very happy man.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Craig ' s "well we wouldn't want that" line was a good line imo. I've never regarded it as a line meant to be humorous but a piece of dialogue that encapsulates the sort of straight up man, Craig's Bond is and him simply being a bit of a dick to Le Chiffre.
  • Posts: 2,599
    Yeah, obviously the Bond films became much more comical following the excellent FRWL. Shame. I would have liked to have seen all of Connery's films in the same vein as DN and FRWL.

    The "...teachers on sabbatical..." line in QOS never bothered me even though it was on the cheesy side. I thought it was a little funny. It was justified cheesiness because it was in response to Field's comment earlier one, so it was fine for me. The "that last hand nearly killed me" in CR was excellent and certainly appropriate for obvious reasons. However, the '"throw away" one liners just don't work for Craig and shouldn't be there.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 6,844
    I found the "teachers on sabbatical" line hilarious, especially the way Craig rattles it off in perfect Spanish and throws it in Fields' face. That in my opinion is a perfect example of humor that feels both spontaneous and natural for Craig's Bond. I'm also a huge fan of: "You're Miss Stephanie Broadchest—," "Do I look like I give a damn," "If they wanted his soul they should have made a deal with the priest," and other similarly clever lines. The kind of "humor" I am NOT a fan of includes: "It's the circle of life," "I got into some deep water," and "Last rat standing." Basically, the puns that aren't remotely clever or funny. Connery, Moore, and Brosnan were able to pull off the puns by virtue of their comedic panache. With a wink and a grin, they could sell what would otherwise be some pretty lame jokes. George "Gate-crasher/Lotta guts!" Lazenby and Timothy "He got the boot" Dalton clearly could not transform the puns with anywhere near the same success. (Although, I think Dalton managed to work his way rather nicely around the requisite punnery in Licence to Kill by going completely cold-blooded with his character and his delivery: "Bon appétit," "Compliments of Sharkey," and "Watch the birdie, you bastard.") In Skyfall, Craig appeared to be attempting the Connery/Moore/Brosnan style of punning (by smirking and "winking"), and not only did this come off as clunky and unnatural for his Bond, but it clashed rather fiercely with the heavier tone of the film as well. I'm all for humor in Bond 24—in fact, I'm hoping the film will have me rolling with laughter—but that humor will have to be of the smarter, more natural, more spontaneous variety seen in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, two films I happen to find rather funny.
  • You're naming a lot examples, but let's focus on the solutions on how to make Bond 24 more....funny? I guess Tom Mankiewicz advice about writing hasn't been watched :-)?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think some of you are confusing yourselves with some of Craig's quips. For the most part they're not meant to be funny or hilarious as such but rather a conveying of dead pan wit, showcasing he has more of a sardonic personality and isn't just a killing machine. Where they've tried to give him the cheesy Moore/Bosnian treatment it comes off as "off". They need to keep Craig's personality with the quips in a sardonic fashion as it suits his style.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I think the cuff straightening was great, I know it's not to some tastes but Craig apparently came up with it himself. Yes some of the humour seems somewhat forced but I'm seeing nothing as cheesy as Brosnan and for the record some of Moore's pure gold as some call make me groan and feel very embarrassed, some of it is just plain dreadful and he comes across like a dirty old man.

    The problem is some of you want classic Bond but then when they throw something harking back you complain, as I said I'm glad this forum has nothing to do with the making of Bond 24, it would be a weird Frankenstein of fan wankery.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I said I'm glad this forum has nothing to do with the making of Bond 24, it would be a weird Frankenstein of fan wankery.

    Who needs fans when you've got Sam 'DB5' Mendes.

  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I think some of you are confusing yourselves with some of Craig's quips. For the most part they're not meant to be funny or hilarious as such but rather a conveying of dead pan wit, showcasing he has more of a sardonic personality and isn't just a killing machine. Where they've tried to give him the cheesy Moore/Bosnian treatment it comes off as "off". They need to keep Craig's personality with the quips in a sardonic fashion as it suits his style.

    Sean Connery also "changed" during his reign as James Bond 007. From a cold-hearted brutal assassin in DN and FRWL to a more suave, comical, person from GF onwards. And guess what, we all accepted it, because it was Connery. It's exactly what Tom Mankiewizc said, and still no one saw/heard what he had to say.

    I think people think way too black and white about certain actors playing Bond. Roger Moore was indeed the most comical Bond of all. Almost a British clown to some people. But then again, Richard Maibaum wrote a more tense, colder screenplay for FYEO. And although Roger Moore wasn't very find of kicking the Mercedes from that cliff, I think on the whole it kinda worked and in thát particular film Bond is more Fleming-esque, more of a cold-hearted assassin (if you ask me, Moore's best film).

    So if you say "For the most part they're not meant to be funny or hilarious as such but rather a conveying of dead pan wit", then you're already limiting yourself as a writer tremendously. As if Daniel Craig must stay the same as he was in CR, QOS and SF. As if now we just can not add more humour again, "because it didn't work in SF". I think that's too black and white and shows some lack of creativeness.

    Because I FIRMLY believe in the writing process humour can be added. I firmly believe it. But we need to have a less black-and-white approach towards Craig as Bond and we need to be open for some changes. Will it work to add more humour to the screenplay, so that on the whole Bond 24 becomes actually more funny compared to Craig's previous 3 outings? We can only guess.

    But my examples above (Connery turning more "comical" film after film, Moore turning more cold-hearted in FYEO) show that it is possible. As long as we don't limit our creativeness due to what has happened to Daniel Craig as 007 in the past.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Because I FIRMLY believe in the writing process humour can be added. I firmly believe it.

    It's just a case of whether this is where they should concentrate their energy? Wouldn't mind an innovative and genuinely intriguing plot this time around. They can forget the attempts at humour for my money, unless they have some absolute zingers that aren't just one liners for the sake of 'tradition'.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    Because I FIRMLY believe in the writing process humour can be added. I firmly believe it.

    It's just a case of whether this is where they should concentrate their energy? Wouldn't mind an innovative and genuinely intriguing plot this time around. They can forget the attempts at humour for my money, unless they have some absolute zingers that aren't just one liners for the sake of 'tradition'.

    True. But still, due to "circumstances" John Logan left as 1st screenplay writer and Neal Purvis & Robert Wade did a major rewrite of the screenplay. And we all know why....

    I think, when it comes to the plot and actual story, not that much has changed :-). I expect an intriguing plot from Logan/Purvis/Wade. Perhaps it'll give us a very slow introduction to Blofeld and SPECTRE ;-).
  • According to JamesBond.de, Bond24 film set being built in Obertilliach, Austria, possibly doubling for Spitsbergen..

    http://www.jamesbond.de/2014/09/25/wir-haben-das-erste-foto-eines-bond-24-sets-drehstart-am-6-12-roger-deakins-nachfolger-gefunden/
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    According to JamesBond.de, Bond24 film set being built in Obertilliach, Austria, possibly doubling for Spitsbergen..

    http://www.jamesbond.de/2014/09/25/wir-haben-das-erste-foto-eines-bond-24-sets-drehstart-am-6-12-roger-deakins-nachfolger-gefunden/
    Translation, please??
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    @Gustav it's got nothing to do with applying limitations. Bond from the novels isn't a smirking, quipping character, cracking one liners like deadpool. The films added humour coming from Bond himself is something Young and Connery added because it was part of Connery's nature anf thought it would be a good idea to implement. They customised Bond to suit Connery and ran with it ever since. So in fact, every actor Post Connery is playing Connery - Bond in a way; as opposed to really Ian Fleming's Bond.
    I'm not and wasn't saying Craig should remain as he was in CR and QoS; obviously as a character there should be development, however, just because Connery changed it doesn't mean it should be the rule. The films should focus on what works and dispense with what doesn't. There needs to be a natural progression and an organic execution of conveying character delivery. Shoe - Horning tropes for the sake of tradition or because actor x did it so that means actor b needs to do it is not the way to go about things. I think a conscious effort to take the character and the movies closer to a more Fleming - esque feel is what suits Craig and it works. Variation is a key component to cinematic Bond's longevity, each actor has been different to some degree and the style and character disposition of Bond in CR/QoS is what the Craig era needs to adhere to and expand upon without jarring character alterations and again I really don't care if Connery went through it; just because he did it doesn't mean he should have.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Can Obertillack really double for Spitsbergen? Spitsbergen looks completely different. See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Longyear-Town-Centre.jpg
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,119
    ggl007 wrote: »
    According to JamesBond.de, Bond24 film set being built in Obertilliach, Austria, possibly doubling for Spitsbergen..

    http://www.jamesbond.de/2014/09/25/wir-haben-das-erste-foto-eines-bond-24-sets-drehstart-am-6-12-roger-deakins-nachfolger-gefunden/
    Translation, please??

    I speak/read very good Germán. Basically it is not confirmed yet if Obertillach will double for Spitsbergen.

    What I did read was the following:

    A) Like with Bond's Skyfall manor house, they are now actually building a similarly big building/villa/wintery log cabin villa that most likely will be covered in snow. This could mean that Obertilliach will feature in the 2nd half of the movie. Could it be the villain's lair?

    B) Apparently, the whole set will also be destroyed in the end. Most likely by an airplane or airliner. Causing a lot of destruction. Again, this could mean that Austria will be the main location, used in the 2nd half of the movie?

    Looking at the picture, I think they are only building one building/log cabin/villa. Especially the choices of wood.....typical Alpine.

    I must say, thrilling news!! I think today, just for fun, I will call the movie firm "Snow Business" in Gloucestershire, UK. They did a lot of Hollywood productions, including the last Bond film with winter scenery, "Die Another Day" ;-). The firm produces lots of snow, on location.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 4,619
    Again, this could mean that Austria will be the main location, used in the 2nd half of the movie.

    Why is that?
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 212
    ggl007 wrote: »
    According to JamesBond.de, Bond24 film set being built in Obertilliach, Austria, possibly doubling for Spitsbergen..

    http://www.jamesbond.de/2014/09/25/wir-haben-das-erste-foto-eines-bond-24-sets-drehstart-am-6-12-roger-deakins-nachfolger-gefunden/
    Translation, please??

    Sorry, I'm not fluent at speaking German.



Sign In or Register to comment.