On another site, several posters who said they had seen different versions of the script said Purvis and Wade introduced the Blofeld/Bond foster relationship.
I don't know how much of that is true, hence the term "apparently."
Whoever it was should never be allowed near another movie script and should have their brain drilled to clear their minds of all such moronic thoughts.
Watched Spectre again yesterday and still find that Drilling torture scene
very disturbing.
For me it's really flaccid, a poor CR redux. I don't watch Bond for realism, but getting up without any I'll effect with barely a headshake is shoddy. I never felt that Bond was in danger, which is odd with a drill going into his skull.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
SPECTRE rocked. Full stop. Thin story, yeah, but Dan MADE it work. The asymmetric love story worked for me too, because of Lea. I could analyze it to death, but I care NOT to, because on every level that matters to ME, it scored. :x
SPECTRE rocked. Full stop. Thin story, yeah, but Dan MADE it work. The asymmetric love story worked for me too, because of Lea. I could analyze it to death, but I care NOT to, because on every level that matters to ME, it scored. :x
Not much point in discussing it then is there.
No, because if you disagree, you are wrong. )
Good. That's settled then. Great to have closure and clarity. Now if you could turn your Laser like focus on Global conflict and third world debt I'd be awfully greatfull B-)
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Hello Sanscuba,
Welcome to AJB, I'm one of the site moderators. I've had to delete your post, would you please contact me by private message?
Thanks,
Barbel
So now that Daniel is recognized as being just like Pierce in that they both got 4 movies, the first was their best, the last their steaming pile, and their entire tenures seen for the directionless commercialism that they were, does the Craig bashing start soon? I mean Brosnan's been bashed to death now, and we'll be needing a new whipping boy.... )
So now that Daniel is recognized as being just like Pierce in that they both got 4 movies, the first was their best, the last their steaming pile, and their entire tenures seen for the directionless commercialism that they were, does the Craig bashing start soon? I mean Brosnan's been bashed to death now, and we'll be needing a new whipping boy.... )
[Eyes his stopwatch]
I really wanted Craig to do at least five to further differentiate himself
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
So now that Daniel is recognized as being just like Pierce in that they both got 4 movies, the first was their best, the last their steaming pile, and their entire tenures seen for the directionless commercialism that they were, does the Craig bashing start soon? I mean Brosnan's been bashed to death now, and we'll be needing a new whipping boy.... )
[Eyes his stopwatch]
I really wanted Craig to do at least five to further differentiate himself
Sadly, because it now takes 3-4 years and hundreds of millions of dollars (along with endless committee re-writes) per picture to produce such consistently high quality product no actor gets more than four anymore.
So now that Daniel is recognized as being just like Pierce in that they both got 4 movies, the first was their best, the last their steaming pile, and their entire tenures seen for the directionless commercialism that they were, does the Craig bashing start soon? I mean Brosnan's been bashed to death now, and we'll be needing a new whipping boy.... )
[Eyes his stopwatch]
I really wanted Craig to do at least five to further differentiate himself
Though Craig and Brosnan have done the same number of Bond films, Craig has had a longer tenure as Bond, so he has that over Brosnan. The number of years Craig has owned the role is only second to Moore. Or maybe second to Connery if you count the many people who never accepted anyone else in the role until Craig came along.
Though Craig and Brosnan have done the same number of Bond films, Craig has had a longer tenure as Bond, so he has that over Brosnan.
Matt, what???
In what way does length of productions trump # of completed movies? ?:)
Since October 2005 Daniel Craig has been James Bond. Even though in 2013 and 2014 when he wasn't doing anything as Bond, Craig was still Bond in the public's eye. It was his role in that time, and Craig is still James Bond until he or EoN says otherwise. That counts for something. Being James Bond is a full time job like being President, and Craig has held office slightly longer than Brosnan has. Like some presidents, Connery wasn't in office as long as others but managed to get a lot accomplished during his time in office compared to some of his successors.
Would Brosnan's video games count? Or the public's desire to be Bond after Rog?
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
So now that Daniel is recognized as being just like Pierce in that they both got 4 movies, the first was their best, the last their steaming pile, and their entire tenures seen for the directionless commercialism that they were, does the Craig bashing start soon? I mean Brosnan's been bashed to death now, and we'll be needing a new whipping boy.... )
[Eyes his stopwatch]
I really wanted Craig to do at least five to further differentiate himself
Whatever happens next he does not need to differentiate himself. I always saw Pierce as a Caretaker, or interim Manager, steering the ship until the real guy came along. Don't mean to diss him, and I enjoyed his Bond, and share the view that he was better than he got the opportunity to be. The same is true of Georgie Boy, terrific, and I would not want anyone else in OHMSS, but he was really playing Connery playing Bond. Daniel however really put his mark on Bond, he shifted the Paradigm. I as you know, I appreciate his qualities, but am far from a Fan-boy but he He really has made an impact, and one all of his own.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Nah, the hack writing of CR contributed to Craig's version more than anything else.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Nah, the hack writing of CR contributed to Craig's version more than anything else.
We disagree; I give Craig much more credit than that. IMO, every Bond has had to overcome the material at some point, and for me CR was probably his best-written Bond (granted, I'm out on a limb there, as opinions and mileage will vary).
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Nah, the hack writing of CR contributed to Craig's version more than anything else.
We disagree; I give Craig much more credit than that. IMO, every Bond has had to overcome the material at some point, and for me CR was probably his best-written Bond (granted, I'm out on a limb there, as opinions and mileage will vary).
CR is easily Craig's best-written Bond since the main story all makes sense (thanks to Fleming). It's the dialogue that is Craig's worst.
Watched SPECTRE again over the weekend and I realize why I have such mixed feelings on the film.
First and foremost, it's all down to the script. I can understand the desire to bring back Blofeld and SPECTRE to the series, but I thought this was a limp and unnecessary way to do it. When Fleming had Blofeld killing off Tracy then had Bond strangling him to death in YOLT, it was a circle of life/death, personal story that Fleming entwined into Bond's professional life which he used in order to show his readers (in the way he tried in TSWLM) that he could write something more meaningful than just Bond being sent out on missions and slaying the world's nasties. It seemed like he wanted to end the series having Bond leaving the soul eroding life of a spy by having him lose his memory of it and settling down to the simple life of a peasant and starting a family. In a strange way, they did this in Craig's films after CR. They used Vespers' death as a reason for him to avenge it by going after QUANTUM, then had his personal story continued in SF (using the end of YOLT and TMWTGG as a template) by bringing in his childhood and almost leaving his job, but this time return to kill the villain for causing the terrorizing and eventual death of M, his pseudo mother figure.
Had they dropped that story arc then and there, everything would have been fine. They could have introduced Waltz as Blofeld along with SPECTRE and explained that QUANTUM was taken over by Blofeld and replaced by his organization. With that, they could have ditched the whole backstory of him being Oberhauser and pulling the strings of the first three films and just had let this entry be a straight out mission. That way they also could have had the desert scene as the third act. She and Bond are held prisoner, Blofeld shows that he is behind Nine Eyes and purged and swallowed up QUANTUM, compliments Bond on his giving QUANTUM a black eye, Craig tosses the watch at one of Blofeld's bodyguards during his speech and escapes, then ends it by showing Craig drive off with her at the closing credits. This would have made more sense for me, with Bond having no personal interest in Blofeld other than being a threat to democracies and their intelligence services. It's why I enjoyed the last two Mission Impossible films. They were straight up "stop the bad guy" plots with great locations, stunts and characters, and yet they would still stick in a few quiet, revealing character moments without interfering with the main plot. That's how the Bond films should run for me. The first three Craig films introduced us to a new Bond and peeled away some of his personal life and how and why he became who he is. They didn't need to stir that drink any more - I already tasted it and it was fine, but with the last film instead of a GF or LALD we get another smoothie (looks good and tastes just - ok) with left over ingredients from Fleming's last novels again.
Lastly, as much as I like Bond's supporting characters at MI6, for me they should not be involved in the film's action. That's what the MI films are for. It's fine if they show them communicating with him during the plot in or from London - in which it would give the actors plenty enough extra screen time, but not immersing them within the action with Bond. Again, that just turns them into a pseudo IMF team. I don't need that and it certainly does not keep in line with how Fleming wrote his character and his plots.
As much as I enjoy certain aspects of SPECTRE - the action scenes, quality of production and acting, locations, etc., I'm afraid it's turned into to another TND for me - an entry I will watch very seldom and then mostly only certain segments of it.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Watched SPECTRE again over the weekend and I realize why I have such mixed feelings on the film.
First and foremost, it's all down to the script. I can understand the desire to bring back Blofeld and SPECTRE to the series, but I thought this was a limp and unnecessary way to do it. When Fleming had Blofeld killing off Tracy then had Bond strangling him to death in YOLT, it was a circle of life/death, personal story that Fleming entwined into Bond's professional life which he used in order to show his readers (in the way he tried in TSWLM) that he could write something more meaningful than just Bond being sent out on missions and slaying the world's nasties. It seemed like he wanted to end the series having Bond leaving the soul eroding life of a spy by having him lose his memory of it and settling down to the simple life of a peasant and starting a family. In a strange way, they did this in Craig's films after CR. They used Vespers' death as a reason for him to avenge it by going after QUANTUM, then had his personal story continued in SF (using the end of YOLT and TMWTGG as a template) by bringing in his childhood and almost leaving his job, but this time return to kill the villain for causing the terrorizing and eventual death of M, his pseudo mother figure.
Had they dropped that story arc then and there, everything would have been fine. They could have introduced Waltz as Blofeld along with SPECTRE and explained that QUANTUM was taken over by Blofeld and replaced by his organization. With that, they could have ditched the whole backstory of him being Oberhauser and pulling the strings of the first three films and just had let this entry be a straight out mission. That way they also could have had the desert scene as the third act. She and Bond are held prisoner, Blofeld shows that he is behind Nine Eyes and purged and swallowed up QUANTUM, compliments Bond on his giving QUANTUM a black eye, Craig tosses the watch at one of Blofeld's bodyguards during his speech and escapes, then ends it by showing Craig drive off with her at the closing credits. This would have made more sense for me, with Bond having no personal interest in Blofeld other than being a threat to democracies and their intelligence services. It's why I enjoyed the last two Mission Impossible films. They were straight up "stop the bad guy" plots with great locations, stunts and characters, and yet they would still stick in a few quiet, revealing character moments without interfering with the main plot. That's how the Bond films should run for me. The first three Craig films introduced us to a new Bond and peeled away some of his personal life and how and why he became who he is. They didn't need to stir that drink any more - I already tasted it and it was fine, but with the last film instead of a GF or LALD we get another smoothie (looks good and tastes just - ok) with left over ingredients from Fleming's last novels again.
Lastly, as much as I like Bond's supporting characters at MI6, for me they should not be involved in the film's action. That's what the MI films are for. It's fine if they show them communicating with him during the plot in or from London - in which it would give the actors plenty enough extra screen time, but not immersing them within the action with Bond. Again, that just turns them into a pseudo IMF team. I don't need that and it certainly does not keep in line with how Fleming wrote his character and his plots.
As much as I enjoy certain aspects of SPECTRE - the action scenes, quality of production and acting, locations, etc., I'm afraid it's turned into to another TND for me - an entry I will watch very seldom and then mostly only certain segments of it.
Excellent post {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As much as I enjoy certain aspects of SPECTRE - the action scenes, quality of production and acting, locations, etc., I'm afraid it's turned into to another TND for me
ME TOO!
Heh, but the thing is that I love TND.... ) :007)
Comments
Whoever it was should never be allowed near another movie script and should have their brain drilled to clear their minds of all such moronic thoughts.
very disturbing.
For me it's really flaccid, a poor CR redux. I don't watch Bond for realism, but getting up without any I'll effect with barely a headshake is shoddy. I never felt that Bond was in danger, which is odd with a drill going into his skull.
drilling in to your head, makes me wince.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Good. That's settled then. Great to have closure and clarity.
Hello Sanscuba,
Welcome to AJB, I'm one of the site moderators. I've had to delete your post, would you please contact me by private message?
Thanks,
Barbel
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Disagree with Brosnans first being his best but you sum up SPECTRE well
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
[Eyes his stopwatch]
I really wanted Craig to do at least five to further differentiate himself
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Though Craig and Brosnan have done the same number of Bond films, Craig has had a longer tenure as Bond, so he has that over Brosnan. The number of years Craig has owned the role is only second to Moore. Or maybe second to Connery if you count the many people who never accepted anyone else in the role until Craig came along.
In what way does length of productions trump # of completed movies? ?:)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Since October 2005 Daniel Craig has been James Bond. Even though in 2013 and 2014 when he wasn't doing anything as Bond, Craig was still Bond in the public's eye. It was his role in that time, and Craig is still James Bond until he or EoN says otherwise. That counts for something. Being James Bond is a full time job like being President, and Craig has held office slightly longer than Brosnan has. Like some presidents, Connery wasn't in office as long as others but managed to get a lot accomplished during his time in office compared to some of his successors.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Whatever happens next he does not need to differentiate himself. I always saw Pierce as a Caretaker, or interim Manager, steering the ship until the real guy came along. Don't mean to diss him, and I enjoyed his Bond, and share the view that he was better than he got the opportunity to be. The same is true of Georgie Boy, terrific, and I would not want anyone else in OHMSS, but he was really playing Connery playing Bond. Daniel however really put his mark on Bond, he shifted the Paradigm. I as you know, I appreciate his qualities, but am far from a Fan-boy but he He really has made an impact, and one all of his own.
We disagree; I give Craig much more credit than that. IMO, every Bond has had to overcome the material at some point, and for me CR was probably his best-written Bond (granted, I'm out on a limb there, as opinions and mileage will vary).
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
CR is easily Craig's best-written Bond since the main story all makes sense (thanks to Fleming). It's the dialogue that is Craig's worst.
First and foremost, it's all down to the script. I can understand the desire to bring back Blofeld and SPECTRE to the series, but I thought this was a limp and unnecessary way to do it. When Fleming had Blofeld killing off Tracy then had Bond strangling him to death in YOLT, it was a circle of life/death, personal story that Fleming entwined into Bond's professional life which he used in order to show his readers (in the way he tried in TSWLM) that he could write something more meaningful than just Bond being sent out on missions and slaying the world's nasties. It seemed like he wanted to end the series having Bond leaving the soul eroding life of a spy by having him lose his memory of it and settling down to the simple life of a peasant and starting a family. In a strange way, they did this in Craig's films after CR. They used Vespers' death as a reason for him to avenge it by going after QUANTUM, then had his personal story continued in SF (using the end of YOLT and TMWTGG as a template) by bringing in his childhood and almost leaving his job, but this time return to kill the villain for causing the terrorizing and eventual death of M, his pseudo mother figure.
Had they dropped that story arc then and there, everything would have been fine. They could have introduced Waltz as Blofeld along with SPECTRE and explained that QUANTUM was taken over by Blofeld and replaced by his organization. With that, they could have ditched the whole backstory of him being Oberhauser and pulling the strings of the first three films and just had let this entry be a straight out mission. That way they also could have had the desert scene as the third act. She and Bond are held prisoner, Blofeld shows that he is behind Nine Eyes and purged and swallowed up QUANTUM, compliments Bond on his giving QUANTUM a black eye, Craig tosses the watch at one of Blofeld's bodyguards during his speech and escapes, then ends it by showing Craig drive off with her at the closing credits. This would have made more sense for me, with Bond having no personal interest in Blofeld other than being a threat to democracies and their intelligence services. It's why I enjoyed the last two Mission Impossible films. They were straight up "stop the bad guy" plots with great locations, stunts and characters, and yet they would still stick in a few quiet, revealing character moments without interfering with the main plot. That's how the Bond films should run for me. The first three Craig films introduced us to a new Bond and peeled away some of his personal life and how and why he became who he is. They didn't need to stir that drink any more - I already tasted it and it was fine, but with the last film instead of a GF or LALD we get another smoothie (looks good and tastes just - ok) with left over ingredients from Fleming's last novels again.
Lastly, as much as I like Bond's supporting characters at MI6, for me they should not be involved in the film's action. That's what the MI films are for. It's fine if they show them communicating with him during the plot in or from London - in which it would give the actors plenty enough extra screen time, but not immersing them within the action with Bond. Again, that just turns them into a pseudo IMF team. I don't need that and it certainly does not keep in line with how Fleming wrote his character and his plots.
As much as I enjoy certain aspects of SPECTRE - the action scenes, quality of production and acting, locations, etc., I'm afraid it's turned into to another TND for me - an entry I will watch very seldom and then mostly only certain segments of it.
Excellent post {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Heh, but the thing is that I love TND....
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS