First line of dialogue reported

Quote :

DANIEL Craig's chiselled jaw grinds aggressively on a wad of chewing gum as he awaits his call to action.

The air is cold and damp on the set, the actor is deep in the bowels of the London Underground, reconstructed on the 007 stage at Pinewood Studios.

Daniel Craig limbers up, swaying his hips from side-to-side and stretching his arms across his chest before assuming his starting position, tensing every muscle in his body to become James Bond.

As the camera rolls he snaps his Walther PPK up from his hip and locks his target in his sights. "I've got bad news, Silva," he warns. "Me too," comes Javier Bardem's villainous reply.

Seconds later a bomb rips through the roof of the tunnel.

Insider is on the London set of the new James Bond film Skyfall - the 23rd instalment of the spy franchise which opens in Australia in November.

Back in the real world Bond fans are preparing to face their own bombshell. The spoiler mill went into overdrive this week with reports that Judi Dench's MI6 matriarch character M doesn't make it through the film alive.

"We've just filmed M's death scene. Judi Dench is leaving the franchise," a member of the Skyfall production crew apparently told British film website Best In Film. That is bad news. But is it true?

Interviewed by Insider at Pinewood on Wednesday, Dench whose character has managed to stay alive through six Bond films since Goldeneye in 1995 says the plot, and her character's fate, remained classified. "I'm sorry, it's ridiculous, it's absurd, but that's the nature of Bond," she says.

Script security is paramount on any 007 set, but with the added expectation of the release coinciding with Bond's 50th anniversary on the big screen, nothing has been left to chance.

Dench recalled the day her Skyfall script arrived, playing out like a scene dreamt up by Bond author Ian Flemming himself. The 77-year-old was entertaining people in her garden when a shadowy figure strode through the gate.

"We were all talking and having a drink and suddenly we looked and there was a man completely in black with script under his arm.

"He never spoke and he darted out and I said to the others, 'That, believe it or not, is the Bond script'."

Despite the secrecy, two things about Dench's role are clear. It will be the biggest part she has played during her Bond career and that her relationship with her pet agent becomes a lot more complicated.

The synopsis of Skyfall reveals that Bond's loyalty to M is tested when her past comes back to haunt her. With MI6 under attack it is up to agent 007 to "destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost".

Interrogated about M's past during an interview between gun battles, Daniel Craig drew on his secret service experience to throw his questioner off course. "She was a stripper in Morocco," he says with characteristic Bond cheek.

Taking a more serious tone, Craig says though there would be plenty of action in the film, it would also take its audience on an emotional journey. So what could the cast and crew reveal? Well, it is in fact Bond who strips, again. "There is a swimming pool scene ...any opportunity to get him to take his clothes off,'' producer Barbara Broccoli says.

Craig has been training hard to maintain a toned torso for the shoot. Though she kept his measurements confidential, costume designer Jany Temime describes his body as "wonderful''.

Even Bardem, who plays super villain Silva, has apparently been turning his head, telling Insider: ``Daniel, man, he is working hard, this guy is in really good shape.''

The woman likely to get closest to those muscles is French-Cambodian actress Berenise Marlohe, the latest Bond girl. But for now her lips remain sealed.

While admitting she thoroughly enjoyed "interacting'' with Craig and Bardem, she said of Bond: "Is he good in bed? I don't know''. Perhaps their romp is alfresco?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/insider/new-bond-daniel-craig-packing-a-lot-more-muscle-in-skyfall/story-e6frewt9-1226326592186

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

Taking a more serious tone, Craig says though there would be plenty of action in the film, it would also take its audience on an emotional journey. So what could the cast and crew reveal? Well, it is in fact Bond who strips, again. "There is a swimming pool scene ...any opportunity to get him to take his clothes off,'' producer Barbara Broccoli says.

"Any opportunity to get him to take his clothes off" . . . You are rather transparent, aren't you Babs?

Anyway, I think the "emotional journey" comment means more emo garbage, in spite of Craig's earlier comments to the contrary.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

You are rather transparent, aren't you Babs?

So you criticise Babs for being covert about showing Craig's arse off ... and when she admits to it, you criticise her for being transparent?

The woman just can't get a break, can she?

Back on the actual topic, "I've got bad news, Silva." / "Me, too." sounds like a great line.

The line seems a little Brosnan. Which makes sense. It was probably written by Purvis and Wade, not Logan. Craig will do it justice though.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Back on the actual topic, "I've got bad news, Silva." / "Me, too." sounds like a great line.

It's all in the delivery, I imagine.

Brosnan, in intense moments, seemed to yell his lines a lot. I imagine this one would be no different.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Back on the actual topic, "I've got bad news, Silva." / "Me, too." sounds like a great line.

If that qualifies as a great line then scriptwriting is a whole lot simpler than I ever imagined!

Yeah, I hope that exchange isn't one of the script's shining moments.

Amazing how all of seven simple words are being adjudicated upon.... :suspect:

It'll be a passing moment in the film, an innocuous exchange between Bond and Silva that won't make or break anything. I wouldn't have commented on it if Prisoner Monkeys hadn't singled it out as an exciting bit of dialogue.

"Ian Flemming"

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

It's all in the delivery, I imagine.

Well, that's what came to mind - Bond, confident that he has his man, and Silva, completely unconcerned about it. To me, it suggests a return to an intelligent villain, someone to whom Bond is only a minor inconvenience.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

It's all in the delivery, I imagine.

Well, that's what came to mind - Bond, confident that he has his man, and Silva, completely unconcerned about it. To me, it suggests a return to an intelligent villain, someone to whom Bond is only a minor inconvenience.

That could easily work. I'm thinking of a scene from TND that had very similar dialogue (though with the roles reversed):

Carver: [Shoots Gupta] You see Mr. Bond, I have a back-up plan.

Bond: Yeah . . . so do I [Sets off grenade]

On paper, the lines are stupid, but onscreeen, I think that's the most effective moment in the otherwise rather overblown TND climax. The lines we're hearing from SF could work if, say, Bond is pissed and Silva nonchalant.

And yeah, it would be nice to have an intelligent villain after the idiocy of Dominic Greene (images of him incompetently swinging an axe and making girly noises still haunt me).

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

On paper, the lines are stupid, but onscreeen...

If they're stupid on paper, then there's a good chance it'll be stupid on screen.

But, this isn't at all surprising. Look who's writing the script again, FFS.

Mr. Brown wrote:

But, this isn't at all surprising. Look who's writing the script again, FFS.

It might say "by Purvis and Wade" on the TWINE and DAD scripts, but they don't necessarily deserve all the credit for them. Bruce Feirstein was brought in to do several rewrites of TWINE's script. Michael Apted's wife was asked to do some dialogue between Bond and Elektra, so as to emphasise their relationship. And as for DAD, that reeks of Lee Tamahori. There's a few scenes that stand out as being substantially better than the rest of the film, which I think was mostly down to Tamahori thinking audiecnes wanted crass humour and cheap CGI. As for CR, I remember everyone saying that Paul Haggis "wrote all the goos bits" when it came out, but looking back at the film after the preachy QOS, I'm prepared to give Purvis and Wade more credit for CR than they were originally given.

So it's all just a big conspiracy to marginalise P&W? All I know for sure is that their breakthrough screenplay/film (LET HIM HAVE IT) was forgettable rubbish.

No, it's not a conspiracy to marginalise them. It's simply a case of EON doing what they think is best for the film - but they don't always do the right thing. They've been criticised for their choice of director, of composer, of actors and so on before ... why can't they be criticised for the choice of behind-the-scenes people as well?

The dialogue quoted isn't stupid. It's just kind of bland.

"This isn't about oil." / "Well, that's good, because there isn't any." sounded pretty bland at first, but Craig delivered it perfectly and was perhaps the most Connery-like of any Bond before him.

I guess if there was a similar newspaper article back in 1969 with brief mention of one line such as this...

"This never happened to the other fella"

It would also be balked at as pretty ordinary and evoke groan-out-alouds...

Until it was seen in context in the film.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

But, this isn't at all surprising. Look who's writing the script again, FFS.

It might say "by Purvis and Wade" on the TWINE and DAD scripts, but they don't necessarily deserve all the credit for them. Bruce Feirstein was brought in to do several rewrites of TWINE's script. Michael Apted's wife was asked to do some dialogue between Bond and Elektra, so as to emphasise their relationship. And as for DAD, that reeks of Lee Tamahori. There's a few scenes that stand out as being substantially better than the rest of the film, which I think was mostly down to Tamahori thinking audiecnes wanted crass humour and cheap CGI. As for CR, I remember everyone saying that Paul Haggis "wrote all the goos bits" when it came out, but looking back at the film after the preachy QOS, I'm prepared to give Purvis and Wade more credit for CR than they were originally given.

But Purvis and Wade were also on board for QOS, and the ludicrous psychobabble, intrusive stretches of inept dialogue, inconsistent and poorly timed humour and inexplicably half baked themes have been an escalating feature of Bond at the very least since TWINE. P & W are present over a period which at the very best can be described as inconsistent which really belies any positive value they bring, save perhaps them being the ultimate yes men....even being charitable there is no reason to credit them for sporadic and erratic successes given their consistent presence.....they may be a positive influence of course, but the evidence and the odds really do not favour that conclusion.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I guess if there was a similar newspaper article back in 1969 with brief mention of one line such as this...

"This never happened to the other fella"

It would also be balked at as pretty ordinary and evoke groan-out-alouds...

Until it was seen in context in the film.

I'll grant you that and it may turn out to be a great scene with that line in it......but in no way can it be described as a great line by itself, at this stage or any other as it really conveys so little.

With all the talk about QoS getting too real with the way it addresses the CIA and governmental get-in-bed-withs and suchlike, you can go back to nutty fluff like MOONRAKER and still see an acknowledgement of reality when Bond ID's Holly's stuff as coming from CIA with his, "I have friends in low places." (though I know that isn't the line in the novelization, it DOES ring true to the era given the disclosures that starting happening in mid-decade.)

I just always hope they don't re-use lines from past Bond flicks. The most painful moment in TLD for me is when Dalton has to do the 'full of it' line - which is from GOLDEN GUN. And then he messes up 'Bon Appetit' in LTK, which makes sense because NOBODY is EVER going to be cooler saying that than Sean in YOLT ... which is just another reason (besides 'for the sake of creativity') why you should not reuse it.

Mr. Brown wrote:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

On paper, the lines are stupid, but onscreeen...

If they're stupid on paper, then there's a good chance it'll be stupid on screen.

But, this isn't at all surprising. Look who's writing the script again, FFS.

With all due respect, this line https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ViLDPBaIO-E#t=180s must have looked awfully stupid on paper, and yet Jeremy Irons delivers it in such a way that it practically makes the movie.