Lea Seydoux pretty much confirmed what Baz wrote in an interview. teh producers brought in Phoebe Waller-Bridge very late and Scott Z. Burns before that to fix the script. Of course we don't know what's going on with the script, but there are signs that they are struggling with the script.
Of course we don't know what's going on with the script, but there are signs that they are struggling with the script.
No, there are only signs they are still writing the script. Adding that they are struggling is conjecture.
Perhaps, but you realise your opinion that the script only needs a few lines is at least as much conjecture as my opinion. Has anyone inside the production has said there are no real problems with the scripts? Is there any proof that the script only needs some lines tweaked?
5 writers + Daniel Craig with cameras rolling and no title and you think it's just conjecture?
I absolutely think it's conjecture to say there is a problem for the simple fact that we do not know what the situation is. Conjecture means that you are making a conclusion based on incomplete information, and that is exactly what we have here.
I am not expressing my opinion on what is going on. I am only stating that other possibilities do exist. For instance, still writing could mean they started with a very good script and thought of ways to make it a very, very good script. That would be a very different situation then them having a problem.
Them having 5 writers and still writing? Fact. Them still writing because there's a problem? Conjecture. It is a perfectly valid thing to say.
The title not being released does not mean there is a problem there, either. The last Star Wars and Avengers movies did not release a title until their teasers. It's a marketing decision, for heaven's sake.
Perhaps, but you realise your opinion that the script only needs a few lines is at least as much conjecture as my opinion. Has anyone inside the production has said there are no real problems with the scripts? Is there any proof that the script only needs some lines tweaked?
I would like for you to show everyone where I said that the script only needs a few lines tweaked. I absolutely never said that.
5 writers + Daniel Craig with cameras rolling and no title and you think it's just conjecture?
I absolutely think it's conjecture to say there is a problem for the simple fact that we do not know what the situation is. Conjecture means that you are making a conclusion based on incomplete information, and that is exactly what we have.
I am not expressing my opinion on what is going on, only that other possibilities do exist. For instance, still writing could mean they started with a very good script and thought of ways to make it a very, very good script. That would be a very different situation then them having a troubled production.
Them having 5 writers and still writing? Fact. Them still writing because there's a problem? Conjecture.
The title not being released does not mean there is a problem there, either. The last Star Wars and Avengers movies did not release a title until their teasers. It's a marketing decision, for heaven's sake.
Perhaps, but you realise your opinion that the script only needs a few lines is at least as much conjecture as my opinion. Has anyone inside the production has said there are no real problems with the scripts? Is there any proof that the script only needs some lines tweaked?
Number 24, you have earned a reputation of saying things here that just have very little basis behind them, and this is just the latest example.
I would like for you to show everyone where I said that the script only needs a few lines tweaked. I absolutely never said that.
If I have said something is fact when it wasn't I won't have any problems saying I'm sorry for this, but usually it's about me speculating. I didn't present it as proven fact. I'm frankly getting tired of you nitpicking and frequent negativity towards me. Your claim that I have a reputation of saying things here that just have very little basis behind them is one of many examples of this. I speculate, just like lots of people do on this forum. I never said I know the script is in trouble, I suspect it is. As far as I know the ones who don't think the script is in trouble speculate too.
However it was inaccurate of me using the words "tweaking a few lines" in a post where I replied to you. That phrase was not used by you.
There’s really no sense in worrying about any of it. I was more concerned over the delays, but it looks like the production is doing fine. Phoebe Waller-Bridge said the story was strong (not her exact words) in that BBC interview from earlier this week.
I was given very good advice in a post from another AJB'er: Don't overreact to anything put out in the tabs. It wasn't long ago that they were trying to bait us into believing that Bond would be reduced to a neutered metrosexual by Waller-Bridge and I would highly doubt that is going to happen. I would not compare the script issues with QOS with whatever may or may not be going on with Bond 25. With QOS there was no finished script and no real professional writers available to finish it due to a strike so Craig, Forster, et al were pressed into service to finish the script. Unless I am misremembering, SPECTRE had a completed script, just not a particularly good one. I totally understand that the existence of any script issues would give any rational person some level of concern. But at least in this instance EON has some real, well regarded writers working on it. If you are convinced that Bond 25 will be a failure or you believe we are heading for another instant classic Bond film, have at it. We will only know for sure in April 2020 and even then I'm would not be surprised that there could be some significant disagreement.
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 honestly don’t understand what you mean. You’re complaining because you’re trying to defend yourself? And you’re defending yourself against people who don’t think you should be disappointed? That’s completely circular, nonsense logic.
Again, and one last time for those who fail to follow; a film being in a franchise which has a different name on the top of it doesn’t make it so that filmmaking methods are completely different. Rheyvuse the same cameras, write the scripts on the same paper. What’s possible for one is possible for the other v
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 honestly don’t understand what you mean.
It's okay if what I'm saying is above your understanding I'll happily hope along with you for the possibility of a rarity for Bond 25.
5 writers + Daniel Craig with cameras rolling and no title and you think it's just conjecture?
I absolutely think it's conjecture to say there is a problem for the simple fact that we do not know what the situation is. Conjecture means that you are making a conclusion based on incomplete information, and that is exactly what we have here.
I am not expressing my opinion on what is going on. I am only stating that other possibilities do exist. For instance, still writing could mean they started with a very good script and thought of ways to make it a very, very good script. That would be a very different situation then them having a problem.
Them having 5 writers and still writing? Fact. Them still writing because there's a problem? Conjecture. It is a perfectly valid thing to say.
The title not being released does not mean there is a problem there, either. The last Star Wars and Avengers movies did not release a title until their teasers. It's a marketing decision, for heaven's sake.
Perhaps, but you realise your opinion that the script only needs a few lines is at least as much conjecture as my opinion. Has anyone inside the production has said there are no real problems with the scripts? Is there any proof that the script only needs some lines tweaked?
Number 24, you have earned a reputation of saying things here that just have very little basis behind them, and this is just the latest example.
I would like for you to show everyone where I said that the script only needs a few lines tweaked. I absolutely never said that.
I understand what your saying, however 5 writers plus the lead actor still writing the script whilst filming is not a good sign. It's not like this is a new problem for Bond, I mean look at Spectre. It had very similar issues. They have a track record of this now so I don't think it's purely speculative to say they're having some issues.
If the lack of a title is a marketing strategy then it is a strange one for Bond. They have had a title almost every time. It doesn't make much sense for them to hold it back given they never have
If the lack of a title is a marketing strategy then it is a strange one for Bond. They have had a title almost every time. It doesn't make much sense for them to hold it back given they never have
It is certainly a first for Bond - unless you ask MGW - but just because they haven't done it that way before doesn't mean they can't change, ya know? It's kind of a new thing these franchise pictures have been doing. Creates 2 days of press coverage rather than 1...
If the lack of a title is a marketing strategy then it is a strange one for Bond. They have had a title almost every time. It doesn't make much sense for them to hold it back given they never have
For better to worse, Bond appears to be following the lead of other major franchises in terms of marketing. And that means getting a title with the first trailer. Five + writers is indeed a bit concerning. The lack of a title is not.
Not to excuse a bad script, but the scripts have never been the strong suit of a classic Bond formula. Most scriptwriters will tell you that having a protagonist sit passively for an hour of screentime doing nothing but observing the plot move forward is a recipe for disaster, yet Goldfinger is regarded as a classic.
Casino Royale had three screenwriters; Skyfall had four. Why is 5 the bridge too far? Die Another Day only had two, so might not want to use the number of screenwriters as some unassailable metric.
If they're unsatisfied with the dialogue, isn't it better that they aren't throwing their hands up and shooting dialogue scenes they're not happy with, and pushing for something better for as long as they can?
As Welshboy says "Cant all be bad. Jamaica filming already wrapped" - that's your sign they're just polishing dialogue. I can't think of a good reason why they shouldn't be tweaking dialogue right up to cameras rolling.
5 writers isn't unprecedented. Thunderball had 5 writers in the credits (Richard Maibaum, John Hopkins, Jack Whittingham (twice!), Kevin McClory and Ian Fleming.
Not to excuse a bad script, but the scripts have never been the strong suit of a classic Bond formula. Most scriptwriters will tell you that having a protagonist sit passively for an hour of screentime doing nothing but observing the plot move forward is a recipe for disaster, yet Goldfinger is regarded as a classic.
Casino Royale had three screenwriters; Skyfall had four. Why is 5 the bridge too far? Die Another Day only had two, so might not want to use the number of screenwriters as some unassailable metric.
If they're unsatisfied with the dialogue, isn't it better that they aren't throwing their hands up and shooting dialogue scenes they're not happy with, and pushing for something better for as long as they can?
As Welshboy says "Cant all be bad. Jamaica filming already wrapped" - that's your sign they're just polishing dialogue. I can't think of a good reason why they shouldn't be tweaking dialogue right up to cameras rolling.
Bond was the protagonist in GF but Goldfinger (check out the title) was the plot driver and the scenes at Goldfinger's Kentucky ranch are about redirecting the plot toward "Operation Grand Slam."
Jimmy Stewart's character in Rear Window is very passive but that movie worked out okay.
Bond was the protagonist in GF but Goldfinger (check out the title) was the plot driver and the scenes at Goldfinger's Kentucky ranch are about redirecting the plot toward "Operation Grand Slam."
But the villain isn't the one we buy our tickets to see...
A Slow build is at least better than a sag right in the middle of the action. I think the PTS, song, some modern threat, an argument with Madeleine, Bond getting his mission, his gadgets and heading off will all occur in the first 35 minutes, similar to Skyfall and Spectre but without Bond being in active duty, the PTS will be cut much shorter.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,707MI6 Agent
If the lack of a title is a marketing strategy then it is a strange one for Bond. They have had a title almost every time. It doesn't make much sense for them to hold it back given they never have
I wonder if the lack of the title has something to do with no mention of the villains name. We know the character name of almost everyone, except Rami Maleks villain. I sit here and wonder which we'll find out first, title of the movie or name of the villain. Unless the villains name is the or part of the movie title.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
5 writers isn't unprecedented. Thunderball had 5 writers in the credits (Richard Maibaum, John Hopkins, Jack Whittingham (twice!), Kevin McClory and Ian Fleming.
It's not really the number of writers that worries me, it's how late in the game they are brought in. I still have a lot of hope for this film, it's a sign that the producers care a lot about getting a good script.
I wonder if the lack of the title has something to do with no mention of the villains name.
this is a good point. As soon as we learned the last film was called SPECTRE, and saw Christopher Waltz at that press conference, the whole world correctly guessed he would be Blofeld.
If this film is called Shatterhand or Garden of Death or anything from that particular Fleming novel, the same thing will happen.
A good argument against using a Fleming title, sad to say. They would be better off using a title with no prior associations, even if they do end up (hopefully) using a Fleming plot.
I for one would rather be taken by surprise, midway through the movie, suddenly recognising a Fleming plot. Like when that Risico plot suddenly appeared almost word for word with no prior warning.
Comments
No, there are only signs they are still writing the script. Adding that they are struggling is conjecture.
To quote from the best - there's an old saying, where there's smoke there's fire.
Perhaps, but you realise your opinion that the script only needs a few lines is at least as much conjecture as my opinion. Has anyone inside the production has said there are no real problems with the scripts? Is there any proof that the script only needs some lines tweaked?
I absolutely think it's conjecture to say there is a problem for the simple fact that we do not know what the situation is. Conjecture means that you are making a conclusion based on incomplete information, and that is exactly what we have here.
I am not expressing my opinion on what is going on. I am only stating that other possibilities do exist. For instance, still writing could mean they started with a very good script and thought of ways to make it a very, very good script. That would be a very different situation then them having a problem.
Them having 5 writers and still writing? Fact. Them still writing because there's a problem? Conjecture. It is a perfectly valid thing to say.
The title not being released does not mean there is a problem there, either. The last Star Wars and Avengers movies did not release a title until their teasers. It's a marketing decision, for heaven's sake.
I would like for you to show everyone where I said that the script only needs a few lines tweaked. I absolutely never said that.
If I have said something is fact when it wasn't I won't have any problems saying I'm sorry for this, but usually it's about me speculating. I didn't present it as proven fact. I'm frankly getting tired of you nitpicking and frequent negativity towards me. Your claim that I have a reputation of saying things here that just have very little basis behind them is one of many examples of this. I speculate, just like lots of people do on this forum. I never said I know the script is in trouble, I suspect it is. As far as I know the ones who don't think the script is in trouble speculate too.
However it was inaccurate of me using the words "tweaking a few lines" in a post where I replied to you. That phrase was not used by you.
Much appreciated.
Good. I hope you read the rest of my post too and think about it.
I sure did...
So I'm going to get on the internet and ...
And all the other fans gonna be like ...
I think this is best dealt with by PMs.
No more about it here.
I honestly don’t understand what you mean. You’re complaining because you’re trying to defend yourself? And you’re defending yourself against people who don’t think you should be disappointed? That’s completely circular, nonsense logic.
Again, and one last time for those who fail to follow; a film being in a franchise which has a different name on the top of it doesn’t make it so that filmmaking methods are completely different. Rheyvuse the same cameras, write the scripts on the same paper. What’s possible for one is possible for the other v
It's okay if what I'm saying is above your understanding
I understand what your saying, however 5 writers plus the lead actor still writing the script whilst filming is not a good sign. It's not like this is a new problem for Bond, I mean look at Spectre. It had very similar issues. They have a track record of this now so I don't think it's purely speculative to say they're having some issues.
If the lack of a title is a marketing strategy then it is a strange one for Bond. They have had a title almost every time. It doesn't make much sense for them to hold it back given they never have
It is certainly a first for Bond - unless you ask MGW
For better to worse, Bond appears to be following the lead of other major franchises in terms of marketing. And that means getting a title with the first trailer. Five + writers is indeed a bit concerning. The lack of a title is not.
Casino Royale had three screenwriters; Skyfall had four. Why is 5 the bridge too far? Die Another Day only had two, so might not want to use the number of screenwriters as some unassailable metric.
If they're unsatisfied with the dialogue, isn't it better that they aren't throwing their hands up and shooting dialogue scenes they're not happy with, and pushing for something better for as long as they can?
As Welshboy says "Cant all be bad. Jamaica filming already wrapped" - that's your sign they're just polishing dialogue. I can't think of a good reason why they shouldn't be tweaking dialogue right up to cameras rolling.
Bond was the protagonist in GF but Goldfinger (check out the title) was the plot driver and the scenes at Goldfinger's Kentucky ranch are about redirecting the plot toward "Operation Grand Slam."
Jimmy Stewart's character in Rear Window is very passive but that movie worked out okay.
But the villain isn't the one we buy our tickets to see...
I wonder if the lack of the title has something to do with no mention of the villains name. We know the character name of almost everyone, except Rami Maleks villain. I sit here and wonder which we'll find out first, title of the movie or name of the villain. Unless the villains name is the or part of the movie title.
If this film is called Shatterhand or Garden of Death or anything from that particular Fleming novel, the same thing will happen.
A good argument against using a Fleming title, sad to say. They would be better off using a title with no prior associations, even if they do end up (hopefully) using a Fleming plot.
I for one would rather be taken by surprise, midway through the movie, suddenly recognising a Fleming plot. Like when that Risico plot suddenly appeared almost word for word with no prior warning.