SPECTRE leaked documents -- MAJOR SPOILERS

All of these leaks...not just Bond, but all of them relating to SONY...I wonder if it was worth it just to get a Seth Rogen film made that no one was ever going to watch anyway. The irony is that the film will get terrible reviews, make $5 million dollars worldwide, but the damage to careers and projects at SONY will be worth over $1 billion. North Korea made a mountain out of a molehill; definitely gave this film waaay more publicity than it was ever going to get.

On the other hand, Disney seems to be gaining something from it due to Sony now having to go to Marvel about possibly selling the film rights of Spider-Man back.

I'm not so sure that it's the same group. The original breach came from a collective calling itself the "Guardians of Peace", but this set of leaks came from another group.

The project sounds like a group of people trying to be too clever one too many times. A $300 million dollar movie that brings back the most iconic evil organisation/villain in cinematic history (other than, perhaps The Empire/Darth Vader) and Mendes and company want to play it down and barely reference Blofeld (if at all)?

It all sounds horribly, horribly dreadful. Too much time in the script wasted on trying to establish a back story for SPECTRE and  Blofeld...ret-conning SPECTRE's involvement in the previous three films (this is a Bond film, not a soap opera!!!)....Bond quitting the service for the first time since the last time he did it in OHMSS and LICENSE REVOKED We *KNOW* Bond will be back, so why follow through on the pointless, hollow mellow drama? It is tedious pablum that sounds like yet again another mountain of pretentious shite. We're still going on and on and on about Vesper? Green and Craig had good chemistry and a fairly good script, but the one thing I never believed in and still don't to this day was that Bond loved her so much, in such a short time, that he was willing to resign from the service, and I never believed that her betrayal shattered his view of the world (rather than reinforced it) and changed him as a man, when it was established that he was already a somewhat cold-hearted bastard to begin with. I mean, are we really, really going to go down this road yet again? I had hoped QUANTURD was the end of it all. We've wasted all this time on Vesper when Bond could have moved forward on a story arc that brings Tracy back into the picture; a chance at redemption and love again; a chance for YOLT/THE GARDEN OF DEATH to be what QUANTURD should have been.

I complained vocally during the making of SKYFALL, never believing that the shiz I was spouting off was actually true (i.e. M being the lead Bond Girl; Bond having mommy issues, etc...), but somehow Mendes pulled it together (I didn't even mind that the film borrowed heavily from TWINE). But trying to get lightning to strike twice is extremely difficult, and as gifted as Mendes is, even the best directors have their limits.

If the script problems were still present at the beginning of filming, it's probably too late to do much about them other than film the scene and hope it works out or is corrected in the editing room; this train has already left the station. But you'd think that they'd have learned something after the problems with QUANTUM OF BOLLOCKS and waited another 6-12 months to get the script right. Instead, they've locked themselves into a release date and now there's no going back.

All of these leaks just sound like totally 100%, pure, unadulterated, grade-A trash nonsense. SPECTRE/Blofeld doesn't need a coy director trying to engage in audience misdirection. This film should have shot out of the gate with the audience's general knowledge of SPECTRE intact as used as a way for the audience to get into the plot. A movie called SPECTRE is somewhat blunt about what, and who, it is. Does SPECTRE really need this much explaining and exposition?

We're already reading that SONY has contemplated sharing their control of SPIDER-MAN with MARVEL, and part of that is due to the way they've run SPIDER-MAN into the ground with the series getting all *EMO* right around SPIDER-MAN 3, and right on through to the end of the horrible AMAZINGLY AWFUL SPIDER-MAN 2. The ret-conning of the Andrew Garfield series, the destruction of his character and the constant drumbeat of the self-conflicted, self-tortured lead character has alienated fans. SONY runs the same risk with 007.

I'll be back later to complain some more as thoughts occur to me.

And yes, I'll be in theater on opening day. Duh!

Well put. I don't understand the need for the backstory. Especially when the film is called SPECTRE. As with SF referencing GF. I wish they'd would have SPECTRE rising from the ashes as an already established organization. To hell with the reboot. I like to pretend that CR/QOS is the origin and the other films up to DAD came after even despite the male/female M problem. The cryptic message could be about Tracy as referenced in the teaser poster. A new backstory would have been okay but the whole daddy didn't like me us straight out of Austin powers.

But time shall tell. It will be interesting to say the least.

.

Glad to hear that. Would be a bummer otherwise.

.

Harmsway wrote:

If you want to get a sense for how bad Logan messed up, his original idea was to have Blofeld as an African warlord. Hence the rumors that Ejiofor was in the mix. When that idea was scrapped, Ejiofor was put in the running for Scott's role instead of Blofeld, but that didn't pan out because he cost too much.

Can't wait to read the autopsy reports on this film after it comes out. Will be fascinating to read the draft Logan turned in. Question is, though: doesn't the studio have some sort of rough idea what the script is going to be like/about? Don't the writers have to pitch a story outline?

I can see problems with the story already: #1 Nobody was going to believe that the world's most powerful, sophisticated criminal/terrorist organization in the world was  being operated out of Africa, or by an African warlord. Maybe Hong Kong...Moscow...maybe in Dubai....Kuala Lampur....surely D.C., London, Paris, or  New York...places were there is abundant access to capital, both financial and intellectual. Very little of that can be found in Africa.

#2 We've already had a black Felix, a black Moneypenny and then they were going to have a black Blofeld? I'd love to see Amy Pascal's emails about THAT casting decision, but I highly doubt Ejiofor's salary was the reason he wasn't cast. In fact, I'm sure of it. They won't admit it publicly, but someone had to have had 2nd thoughts about casting yet another white character with a black actor; they just won't come out and say it (but time will tell if it was mentioned at all in private emails). Ejiofor couldn't have cost any more money than Waltz, and he's hardly a household name here in the U.S. Idris Elba would have been a more bankable name than Ejiofor. He would have taken the role for half a million. On a film that was ballooning up to $350 million dollars in production costs, how does Ejiofor's salary make any difference.

I'm calling SHENANIGANS! on that.

#3 EON may have wanted to avoid racial stereotyping by avoiding having an African overlord as their main villain; too fraught with potentially risky political incorrectness.

#4 I just don't understand how you get SPECTRE wrong? I know I'm not a writer, but it can't simply be this hard. These people are making it way more complicated than it is or needs to be.

Erm, Ejiofor's salary was the reason why he wasn't cast in what is now Andrew Scott's role - not Blofeld.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Erm, Ejiofor's salary was the reason why he wasn't cast in what is now Andrew Scott's role - not Blofeld.

I find it hard to believe that his salary - $1m more - was an issue when the budget was over 300 times that. Oh wow, $1m saved from $300m plus.

Exactly where is all that money going, apart from Bautista's protein shakes

They'll make it back so big deal.

.

http://www.007.com/statement-on-spectre/

They have released a brief, official statement on the script leak. As usual with EON, they are tight lipped. Just a "don't publish this or we'll sue you" statement.

Moore wrote:

http://www.007.com/statement-on-spectre/

They have released a brief, official statement on the script leak. As usual with EON, they are tight lipped. Just a "don't publish this or we'll sue you" statement.

I was relieved to see 'early version.'

Largo's Shark wrote:

Erm, Ejiofor's salary was the reason why he wasn't cast in what is now Andrew Scott's role - not Blofeld.

Yes, I got that. And my points still stand.

Black Blofeld = not believable (at least not originally written) and too politically incorrect for SONY to handle
Ejiofor "high salary" as Denbeigh (or Blofeld) = not believable particularly in light of them casting Waltz, who appears to have a significant fan base of some sort (though I've never seen him in anything). If Ejifor's salary was too high (and how high could it have really been? Maybe asking for $1 million dollars as an Oscar nominated actor for 12 YEARS A BUTLER?) That doesn't seem all that high. And if Mendes, Wilson or Broccoli really wanted him as much as they acted like, how come none of them took a salary cut in order to get Ejiofor on board?

The black Blofeld angle would simply be one too many black actors taking on roles that were expressly written as white characters just in the Craig series alone. Why not an Asian Blofeld? A Russian Blofeld? A Canadian Blofeld? Hell, at this point I'd love, absolutely be thrilled from my follicles down to my bollocles if we could just get an Austrian Blofeld. But I digress.

None of that really will matter about a black Blofeld or salary issues if they try and play coy with Blofeld in this movie. They owe the fans this film. We've gone along with their little schemes of having every Bond Girl so far get killed or commit suicide or dump Bond at the end; we've worked through M's mommy issues with Bond; we've waited patiently for iconic villains with big plans for world domination; we've put up with no gun barrel opening in any of the three Craig films. ENOUGH!!! If you screw up SPECTRE, God help you! No more experimenting. No more story arcs. No more twists and turns and double agents. No more personal angst and self-doubt. No more growing up. No more coming to terms with Vesper or M's death. Get on with the business of getting on in life. Quit having this character moping around, looking for revenge, going out on personal vendettas, over some bird he shagged for a few weeks almost 10 years ago. The fans deserve a balls-to-the-wall action spectacle; we don't need to see how, or why, SPECTRE came into existence. This isn't THE PHANTOM MENACE. Give us Blofeld immediately. Now!!! Seriously!! I'm fed up with this crap from EON! Seriously EON, you need to get your crap together! This has gone on long enough!

To be fair, Ejiofor is a damn good actor. Especially in villainous roles, like The Operative in SERENITY and AMERICAN GANGSTER. I'm pretty confident that if he landed the role, he'd bring a lot to the film. If Eon ever wanted to revive Mr. Big, Ejiofor should be their man.

Also, I'm bemused that you want SPECTRE to be a "balls-to-the-wall action spectacle". Isn't that what the the first forty-five minutes of QUANTUM OF SOLACE tried to be?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

To be fair, Ejiofor is a damn good actor. Especially in villainous roles, like The Operative in SERENITY and AMERICAN GANGSTER. I'm pretty confident that if he landed the role, he'd bring a lot to the film. If Eon ever wanted to revive Mr. Big, Ejiofor  should be their man.

Also, I'm bemused that you want SPECTRE to be a "balls-to-the-wall action spectacle". Isn't that what the the first forty-five minutes of QUANTUM OF SOLACE tried to be?

I don't necessarily mean non-stop action and no plot. I just meant that I want it to go full-throttle at being a real Bond film; I want a real and proper James Bond movie, not something that hints and foreshadows about 007. Not holding back on being a Bond film. I think we're way past trying to establish him in the character and in his own universe and timeline.

I'm also really, really, really, really, really concerned about the forced attempt at revisionist history being presented in SPECTRE. I have no problem with SPECTRE emerging from the ashes of QUANTUM, or QUANTUM morphing into SPECTRE, or the two merging, but to go back and try and make it appear that SPECTRE was behind all the events of the 3 Craig films is LUDICROUS with a capital "l".

Look at the statement from Eon - the leaked e-mails referred to an early draft.

And look at what was actually leaked - character names in particular have clearly changed, supporting the idea that it is an early draft.

So if things like that are subject to change, how do you know the rest is intact? And even if it is intact, how do you know it will be poorly executed?

For example, there is a big difference between:

Spoiler:

And:

Spoiler:

Is there any substance to that second spoiler or is that just your hope how it is executed? if there is some truth to it, I would be pleased with it as it sounds quite good.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Look at the statement from Eon - the leaked e-mails referred to an early draft.

They have an incentive to make it appear that the first draft was trashed. Let's hope so, but they're not exactly an unbiased observer, are they? They've got skin in the game.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

And look at what was actually leaked - character names in particular have clearly changed, supporting the idea that it is an early draft.

So if things like that are subject to change, how do you know the rest is intact? And even if it is intact, how do you know it will be poorly executed?

"Poorly executed"? If the script is trash, no matter how richly executed the direction is, it's still going to be well directed trash. Sam Mendes is a good director, but he ain't a miracle worker.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

For example, there is a big difference between:

Spoiler:

And:

Spoiler:

Your spoiler is almost no better than the spoiler from the first daft. In your spoiler it almost sounds like something out of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2, where Peter has to investigate the connections between his father and Oscorp. Is Bond now to going to have to investigate the connection between his father and Franz Oberhauser and Blofeld? We're spending so much time on back-story that we're not dealing with present-story or future-story. Which I think was what one of the complaints was in the emails at SONY: that not enough happens to justify the third act. You've got a ton of back-story taking place, and then on page 100 suddenly the villain reveals what he's after and everybody whose read the script says that the last third is just awful. There's not enough time to flesh anything out. Motivations are sketchy and unclear. The 3rd act feels forced. The audience won't feel as if the movie has sufficiently earned the audience's trust to do what it is about to do.

I think the notes and concerns of the people involved in the project are the most telling, because once you whittle away the financial concerns and just focus on plot structure, it's clear the script has come up wanting.

We haven't seen Blofeld in an official capacity since 1971, so it would be a huge shame and letdown if the powers that be bring Blofeld on for a one-and-done film, and it would a huge catastrophe if we've waited 44 years for a steaming pile of s***. It shouldn't be this hard. The audience has a leg up on the film. We know what SPECTRE is. We don't need a re-imagining of SPECTRE. All this time devoted to building up SPECTRE is for nothing. The movie needs to just get at it. Start off with a dastardly, evil plan; hold the world hostage and only Bond can save it. Have "M" give him his assignment and let's get on with it. All this literary foreplay is a waste of time. Let's get down to business.

Harmsway wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I'd love to see Amy Pascal's emails about THAT casting decision, but I highly doubt Ejiofor's salary was the reason he wasn't cast.

The salary was the reason he wasn't cast in Scott's role (currently named Denbigh, head of MI5). They scrapped the Blofeld-as-African-warlord idea before they seriously got down to negotiation.

It was a concession made to Sony during budget negotiations because it's something Sony expressly asked for, and EON just caved. Sony's demands to slice down the budget didn't exactly make a lot of sense ("narrow the train fight down to three cars instead of four" was another demand; doesn't seem like *that* would affect the bottom line much, either).

I dunno Harms… I'm thinking Ejiofor's agent was pushing for the Blofeld role when that idea was being considered, and when that idea fell through, the agent then decided not to put Ejiofor forward/seriously consider Ejiofor for a supporting character as he has had leading roles in films, and is Oscar worthy. It would be a pretty shitty agent to downgrade the actor from a lead to supporting for a smaller wage, than to hold off on the possibility that another opportunity will pop up for a lead again down the track in a Bond film, or that a lead role in another film with just as competent film makers while they're shooting SPECTRE.

And Gravity, I think we see eye to eye on what we want from SPECTRE.

GS:

Spoiler:

Quote :

We haven't seen Blofeld in an official capacity since 1971, so it would be a huge shame and letdown if the powers that be bring Blofeld on for a one-and-done film, and it would a huge catastrophe if we've waited 44 years for a steaming pile of s***. It shouldn't be this hard. The audience has a leg up on the film. We know what SPECTRE is. We don't need a re-imagining of SPECTRE. All this time devoted to building up SPECTRE is for nothing. The movie needs to just get at it. Start off with a dastardly, evil plan; hold the world hostage and only Bond can save it. Have "M" give him his assignment and let's get on with it. All this literary foreplay is a waste of time. Let's get down to business.

I agree. SF had references to Goldfinger. I like to pretend CR/QoS is the origin story and DN-DAD happened in between QoS and SF. I'd rather them have SPECTRE rise from the ashes, a relic of Bond's past. We all know SPECTRE. We know their past efforts. Blofeld kill Bond's wife. Just merge the old and new and give us a great SPECTRE Bond film.

We don't need an elaborate backstory for why they are evil and do bad things. They just are. And that's fine. We know that.

I love what they did with Skyfall, but it would be nice to get back to traditional Bond now. I want the gunbarrel at the start. I want Bond to just receive a mission from M without having to delve into his father and his past in such depth.

So, uhh, any indication from the leaks that the gunbarrel is finally going to be back at the beginning?

Jack Wade wrote:

So, uhh, any indication from the leaks that the gunbarrel is finally going to be back at the beginning?

No, it seems to be stuff Sony have taken issue with because of budget overrun concerns.