In a way, Lea Seydoux and Naomi Harris have sort of confirmed this by saying that the script is constantly changing and that none of the cast are likely to see a complete script.
It's bizarre after Purvis & Wade wrote a script and Scott Burns worked on it and Fukunaga, who is a writer, had time to work on it, that they should be in this situation.
It's all a bit Quantum of Solace like, despite that film having a more compressed production schedule and an unfinished Paul Haggis script hobbled by a writers strike after the P&W script was dumped.
I've just read that Baz Bamigboye article, not quite sure what to make of it, I'd guess "some" script rewrites going on with input from DC but not the "polished sh1t show" mentioned.
This is all bs there just spinning negative stories because really they havent got a clue, and bad news sales better than any news. Reminds me of casino royale and how everyone said craig couldn't do it, well look now most people love him and rank him among the best and find him pretty hard to replace.
Ive said it before and ill say it again bond25
Is going to be up there with the best if not the best yet.
This stuff is usually significantly amped up from the truth and with as much negative spin as possible.
That being said, it would not surprise me if there are re-writes going on as they film. But what they are spinning as
a "s**t show may just be some polishing up of dialogue and plot points. I will reserve judgement until I actually see the film.
I find it ironic the difference between how the production of the last MI film was characterized in the media vs Bond 25.
The fact that the last MI film was basically written on the fly during filming was portrayed like some kind of badge of honor while any little thing regarding Bond 25 is spun with as much negativity as possible.
This stuff is usually significantly amped up from the truth and with as much negative spin as possible.
That being said, it would not surprise me if there are re-writes going on as they film. But what they are spinning as
a "s**t show may just be some polishing up of dialogue and plot points. I will reserve judgement until I actually see the film.
I find it ironic the difference between how the production of the last MI film was characterized in the media vs Bond 25.
The fact that the last MI film was basically written on the fly during filming was portrayed like some kind of badge of honor while any little thing regarding Bond 25 is spun with as much negativity as possible.
And, as I believe you and others have noted, some classic films (from Casablanca to Apocalypse Now) have gone through development hell that continued into shooting.
Meanwhile, many smoothly produced and filmed motion pictures — textbook models of movie-making efficiency — have been unmitigated disasters.
We won't know about Bond 25 until we see the finished product.
And, as I believe you and others have noted, some classic films (from Casablanca to Apocalypse Now) have gone through development hell that continued into shooting.
Meanwhile, many smoothly produced and filmed motion pictures — textbook models of movie-making efficiency — have been unmitigated disasters.
We won't know about Bond 25 until we see the finished product.
The production problems on Apocalypse Now were of epic proportions. Here's just a few highlights of many:
Two weeks into shooting, the star, Harvey Keitel, was fired. His replacement, Martin Sheen, who was going through problems with alcohol had a heart attack during filming. Brando showed up weighing 300 lbs, was totally unprepared and production was halted so Brando could prepare and learn his lines and then after all that, Brando decided he would ad lib all his dialogue.
They still managed to create a classic film.
Looks like they’ve wrapped filming in Jamaica according to Cary Fukunaga on Instagram. I thought they would be there longer.
Where is the bulk of the film going to take place?
As Jamaica seems to be during bond's retirement, Norway for a possible flashback sequence, and Italy apparently the PTS. That only leaves Pinewood... I hope London isn't playing a massive role again, as it was used a lot in SF and SP.
It seems like Jamaica will also stand in for Cuba, Norway might stand in for Austria or perhaps the country isn't mentioned and I wouldn't be surprised if Mantera at least some of the time will stand in for North Africa.
It seems like Jamaica will also stand in for Cuba..
You keep saying this but have no proof besides one picture of a mural that probably isn’t even in the film. This should be renamed the “Bond 25 misinformation thread.”
It seems like Jamaica will also stand in for Cuba..
You keep saying this but have no proof besides one picture of a mural that probably isn’t even in the film. This should be renamed the “Bond 25 misinformation thread.”
Almost no piece of information we have on this movie is definite, so why not keep your cool and roll a bit of assumption-making. -{
Might be Cuba, might not, we‘ll see...
It's not "misinformation" it's just basically people trying to put together some theory/guess as to what is going on based upon what little information is out there. I personally have gotten to a point where I don't need to know a bunch of information. It's nice to see photos from the locations and it's fine that they remain pretty much with no context for me.
And, as I believe you and others have noted, some classic films (from Casablanca to Apocalypse Now) have gone through development hell that continued into shooting.
Meanwhile, many smoothly produced and filmed motion pictures — textbook models of movie-making efficiency — have been unmitigated disasters.
We won't know about Bond 25 until we see the finished product.
The production problems on Apocalypse Now were of epic proportions. Here's just a few highlights of many:
Two weeks into shooting, the star, Harvey Keitel, was fired. His replacement, Martin Sheen, who was going through problems with alcohol had a heart attack during filming. Brando showed up weighing 300 lbs, was totally unprepared and production was halted so Brando could prepare and learn his lines and then after all that, Brando decided he would ad lib all his dialogue.
They still managed to create a classic film.
Indeed Apocalypse Now did have incredibly difficult production problems. However, it was a directed by a master filmmaker at the height of his powers. It's a rarity, a once off that a film with that many issues could be that good. And it is down solely to the fact that it had one of the greatest filmmakers of all time at it's helm.
In fact Coppola was never the same afterwards and went on to direct other films with production issues and produced flawed products every time. Which proves that Apocalypse Now was an anomaly to this rule. Coppola also had Heart of Darkness as a reference and guide for his script as it was based on the book. IMO this is a poor example.
I've seen others on various Bond sites using Casablanca as another example. Likewise, it was directed by a master and it is an absolute rarity. It's not a good example.
History has proven that Bond films need cohesive scripts- the recent ones that have had script issues - TND, QOS and SP have suffered as a result.
If Baz's story is accurate as well as all the other script related articles - then the film is already handicapped. It's just a fact. It's hard enough to create a good film with a completed script, let alone make one whilst making it up on the fly. And to make a genuine masterpiece you would need to be a Coppola or a Curtiz. And no disrespect, but Fukunaga is neither.
If Baz's story is accurate as well as all the other script related articles - then the film is already handicapped. It's just a fact. It's hard enough to create a good film with a completed script, let alone make one whilst making it up on the fly. And to make a genuine masterpiece you would need to be a Coppola or a Curtiz. And no disrespect, but Fukunaga is neither.
As mentioned by others above though, that’s exactly what McQuarrie does every time and they turn out brilliantly. We don’t know if Fukunaga can do it or not yet.
Everyone will bring their own confirmation bias to these news reports, but one metric to note is that Fukunaga hasn't made a bad film yet. One would do better to watch Sin Nombre, Jane Eyre and True Detective to get a sense of what's in store, than to rely on gossip columns.
If Baz's story is accurate as well as all the other script related articles - then the film is already handicapped. It's just a fact. It's hard enough to create a good film with a completed script, let alone make one whilst making it up on the fly. And to make a genuine masterpiece you would need to be a Coppola or a Curtiz. And no disrespect, but Fukunaga is neither.
As mentioned by others above though, that’s exactly what McQuarrie does every time and they turn out brilliantly. We don’t know if Fukunaga can do it or not yet.
Again, just because an Oscar winning script writer chooses to work that way on an unrelated franchise and it happens to work out is totally irrelevant to Bond 25. It has nothing to do with this process and again it is a rarity.
What is relevant is recent history within the Bond franchise. And the 2 films of Craig's era that had script issues during production turned out to be second rate. The 2 Craig films that didn't have those sort of issues are superb success stories.
Fukunanga is talented but so was Marc Forster and Sam Mendes. The general rule for Craig's Bond is that if you don't have a script you don't have a great film. I'm happy for this one to buck the trend but if it's true then it doesn't bode well.
If Baz's story is accurate as well as all the other script related articles - then the film is already handicapped. It's just a fact. It's hard enough to create a good film with a completed script, let alone make one whilst making it up on the fly. And to make a genuine masterpiece you would need to be a Coppola or a Curtiz. And no disrespect, but Fukunaga is neither.
As mentioned by others above though, that’s exactly what McQuarrie does every time and they turn out brilliantly. We don’t know if Fukunaga can do it or not yet.
Again, just because an Oscar winning script writer chooses to work that way on an unrelated franchise and it happens to work out is totally irrelevant to Bond 25. It has nothing to do with this process and again it is a rarity.
Again, you don’t know what this director is capable of. A rarity is still a possibility.
What are you aiming for here? For us all to say ‘oh no; you’re right- it might suck!’? Where does that get us? We can’t change anything and we know even less, so we may as well hope for the best.
As mentioned by others above though, that’s exactly what McQuarrie does every time and they turn out brilliantly. We don’t know if Fukunaga can do it or not yet.
Again, just because an Oscar winning script writer chooses to work that way on an unrelated franchise and it happens to work out is totally irrelevant to Bond 25. It has nothing to do with this process and again it is a rarity.
Again, you don’t know what this director is capable of. A rarity is still a possibility.
What are you aiming for here? For us all to say ‘oh no; you’re right- it might suck!’? Where does that get us? We can’t change anything and we know even less, so we may as well hope for the best.
Again, citing unrelated examples from unrelated franchises is no valid argument and you trying to ignore that doesn't give you the high ground.
What I am aiming for is for those on here such as yourself to not rally against people simply because they are feeling disappointed with the troubled production of the script.
I know everyone after Spectre probably took a year or so off of Bond to due to burn out and whatever else happened behind the scenes of that film but when did they actually start working on B25's story? Feels like they should've had a air tight script long before cameras started rolling.
I know everyone after Spectre probably took a year or so off of Bond to due to burn out and whatever else happened behind the scenes of that film but when did they actually start working on B25's story? Feels like they should've had a air tight script long before cameras started rolling.
I'm sure they had a rough story and direction ages ago, I can well believe that the script is being tweaked as filming goes on, if nothing more than some lines may just not work in practice as they do on paper, I think this is pretty normal. Even from some of the Indiana Jones making of features Spielberg would introduce bits that weren't scripted. There are many examples of onset add ins and famous movie lines that werent in the original script.
Comments
Taxi for kennedy
. Risico.
Gun In My Hand
Never Dream of Dying
Bond looks looks at Rami and says "Scaramango, Scaramango, will you do the fandango?"
I'll get my coat and join you...
More thought and preparation went into the mango/coconut posts than the press event.
That's probably true
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7012949/BAZ-BAMIGBOYE-Bond-25-script-endlessly-written.html?fbclid=IwAR2qIkVYl88iV-gDJvUqmEW33oww3T3Q1BjoTcPEaLp6ZlVgqfPt6XlAF-A
In a way, Lea Seydoux and Naomi Harris have sort of confirmed this by saying that the script is constantly changing and that none of the cast are likely to see a complete script.
It's bizarre after Purvis & Wade wrote a script and Scott Burns worked on it and Fukunaga, who is a writer, had time to work on it, that they should be in this situation.
It's all a bit Quantum of Solace like, despite that film having a more compressed production schedule and an unfinished Paul Haggis script hobbled by a writers strike after the P&W script was dumped.
Ive said it before and ill say it again bond25
Is going to be up there with the best if not the best yet.
Bring on bond25 i cannot f##kin wait.
That being said, it would not surprise me if there are re-writes going on as they film. But what they are spinning as
a "s**t show may just be some polishing up of dialogue and plot points. I will reserve judgement until I actually see the film.
I find it ironic the difference between how the production of the last MI film was characterized in the media vs Bond 25.
The fact that the last MI film was basically written on the fly during filming was portrayed like some kind of badge of honor while any little thing regarding Bond 25 is spun with as much negativity as possible.
And, as I believe you and others have noted, some classic films (from Casablanca to Apocalypse Now) have gone through development hell that continued into shooting.
Meanwhile, many smoothly produced and filmed motion pictures — textbook models of movie-making efficiency — have been unmitigated disasters.
We won't know about Bond 25 until we see the finished product.
The production problems on Apocalypse Now were of epic proportions. Here's just a few highlights of many:
Two weeks into shooting, the star, Harvey Keitel, was fired. His replacement, Martin Sheen, who was going through problems with alcohol had a heart attack during filming. Brando showed up weighing 300 lbs, was totally unprepared and production was halted so Brando could prepare and learn his lines and then after all that, Brando decided he would ad lib all his dialogue.
They still managed to create a classic film.
Where is the bulk of the film going to take place?
As Jamaica seems to be during bond's retirement, Norway for a possible flashback sequence, and Italy apparently the PTS. That only leaves Pinewood... I hope London isn't playing a massive role again, as it was used a lot in SF and SP.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
You keep saying this but have no proof besides one picture of a mural that probably isn’t even in the film. This should be renamed the “Bond 25 misinformation thread.”
Almost no piece of information we have on this movie is definite, so why not keep your cool and roll a bit of assumption-making. -{
Might be Cuba, might not, we‘ll see...
IG: @thebondarchives
Check it out, you won’t be disappointed
If it's not Boats, Chainsaws and medieval cryptozoology He hasn't a clue.....
... although I do respect his research on possible Bond girls :007)
Finally someone figured out why I'm here
Indeed Apocalypse Now did have incredibly difficult production problems. However, it was a directed by a master filmmaker at the height of his powers. It's a rarity, a once off that a film with that many issues could be that good. And it is down solely to the fact that it had one of the greatest filmmakers of all time at it's helm.
In fact Coppola was never the same afterwards and went on to direct other films with production issues and produced flawed products every time. Which proves that Apocalypse Now was an anomaly to this rule. Coppola also had Heart of Darkness as a reference and guide for his script as it was based on the book. IMO this is a poor example.
I've seen others on various Bond sites using Casablanca as another example. Likewise, it was directed by a master and it is an absolute rarity. It's not a good example.
History has proven that Bond films need cohesive scripts- the recent ones that have had script issues - TND, QOS and SP have suffered as a result.
If Baz's story is accurate as well as all the other script related articles - then the film is already handicapped. It's just a fact. It's hard enough to create a good film with a completed script, let alone make one whilst making it up on the fly. And to make a genuine masterpiece you would need to be a Coppola or a Curtiz. And no disrespect, but Fukunaga is neither.
As mentioned by others above though, that’s exactly what McQuarrie does every time and they turn out brilliantly. We don’t know if Fukunaga can do it or not yet.
Again, just because an Oscar winning script writer chooses to work that way on an unrelated franchise and it happens to work out is totally irrelevant to Bond 25. It has nothing to do with this process and again it is a rarity.
What is relevant is recent history within the Bond franchise. And the 2 films of Craig's era that had script issues during production turned out to be second rate. The 2 Craig films that didn't have those sort of issues are superb success stories.
Fukunanga is talented but so was Marc Forster and Sam Mendes. The general rule for Craig's Bond is that if you don't have a script you don't have a great film. I'm happy for this one to buck the trend but if it's true then it doesn't bode well.
Again, you don’t know what this director is capable of. A rarity is still a possibility.
What are you aiming for here? For us all to say ‘oh no; you’re right- it might suck!’? Where does that get us? We can’t change anything and we know even less, so we may as well hope for the best.
Again, citing unrelated examples from unrelated franchises is no valid argument and you trying to ignore that doesn't give you the high ground.
What I am aiming for is for those on here such as yourself to not rally against people simply because they are feeling disappointed with the troubled production of the script.