Aha!bjmdds wrote:Wikipedia claims Craig signed a 5 film contract in 2005. I hope this is not the case or else this forum, this Dumbledore's army of Bond fans, will have our work cut out for us over the next 6-7 years!

Finally!

Aha!bjmdds wrote:Wikipedia claims Craig signed a 5 film contract in 2005. I hope this is not the case or else this forum, this Dumbledore's army of Bond fans, will have our work cut out for us over the next 6-7 years!
I don't have much venom for Purvis and Wade because really, they never truly had a script that went unaltered. TWINE was rewritten by Bruce Feirstein (probably the worst scriptwriter in the series), DAD by Tamahori and possibly other blokes. And finally CR and QOS by Paul Haggis and from what I understand practically none of their work ended up on the final product. What's interesting about Bond 23 is that Purvis and Wade are actually working with Peter Morgan instead of the usual deal with their script being taken over like in the previous films.Kristatos wrote:And yet Purvis and Wade seem to get all the blame. As with CR, their original script sounds a lot better than the finished product.stockslivevan wrote: I remember they waited til 2002 purely so that they could do the 20th film on the 40th anniversary. From what I understand, the original script by Purvis and Wade had Bond trying to track down a mole in MI6, the same person who turned him over to the Koreans. I believe M even rendezvoused with Bond in the abandoned subway station because it was better that the mole wouldn't be aware of Bond returning to MI6. However, once Lee Tamahori came on board and took over, the producers gave him a lot of freedom for changing the script to his liking (snip)
It's not true. He signed a 3 picture deal, which was standard according to Craig, then he blackmail his way to new contract and a 4 picture total deal. The head of MGM a few years back said it was 5 picture deal but hey this is the head of MGM were are talking about here. He was corrected shortly there after.bjmdds wrote:Wikipedia claims Craig signed a 5 film contract in 2005. I hope this is not the case or else this forum, this Dumbledore's army of Bond fans, will have our work cut out for us over the next 6-7 years!I might have to send FBF and Captain Kirk to do something about this if it is true.
You mean in 2007.bjmdds wrote:Wikipedia claims Craig signed a 5 film contract in 2005.
I hope this is not the case or else this forum, this Dumbledore's army of Bond fans, will have our work cut out for us over the next 6-7 years!I might have to send FBF and Captain Kirk to do something about this if it is true.
I won't argue with that, though I think CR had some pacing problems and didn't carry me along the way FRWL or even FYEO did. I was merely disputing Jack Wade's claim that CR had more action than any previous Bond film.The Sweeney wrote:To me this was one of the big plus points of CR - less action, and more focused on the novel Fleming wrote.Kristatos wrote:How do you figure that? It only had 3 major action setpieces (the African embassy scene, the Miami airport chase and the Venice climax) and the last of those was largely redundant. Most of the movie was based around a poker game.JackWade CIA wrote:
Where did CR lose you? It has plenty of action and was more of action flick than the last 20.
I hope the Rackham is correct. Three was too much, let alone 5.Mazer Rackham wrote:It's not true. He signed a 3 picture deal, which was standard according to Craig, then he blackmail his way to new contract and a 4 picture total deal. The head of MGM a few years back said it was 5 picture deal but hey this is the head of MGM were are talking about here. He was corrected shortly there after.bjmdds wrote:Wikipedia claims Craig signed a 5 film contract in 2005. I hope this is not the case or else this forum, this Dumbledore's army of Bond fans, will have our work cut out for us over the next 6-7 years!I might have to send FBF and Captain Kirk to do something about this if it is true.
Battling with you for another 6 years? I want Jackman or the next Bond reuniting all of us so we all can enjoy Bond, the way it was meant to be, cinematically.The Sweeney wrote:Aha!bjmdds wrote:Wikipedia claims Craig signed a 5 film contract in 2005. I hope this is not the case or else this forum, this Dumbledore's army of Bond fans, will have our work cut out for us over the next 6-7 years!
Finally!
CR had 10 too many lulls to be a good action film. A few parts they tired to cram it in only added to the determent of the movie and Bond Image.Kristatos wrote:I won't argue with that, though I think CR had some pacing problems and didn't carry me along the way FRWL or even FYEO did. I was merely disputing Jack Wade's claim that CR had more action than any previous Bond film.The Sweeney wrote:To me this was one of the big plus points of CR - less action, and more focused on the novel Fleming wrote.Kristatos wrote:How do you figure that? It only had 3 major action setpieces (the African embassy scene, the Miami airport chase and the Venice climax) and the last of those was largely redundant. Most of the movie was based around a poker game.JackWade CIA wrote:
Where did CR lose you? It has plenty of action and was more of action flick than the last 20.
Will a new site be created to mark this event?bjmdds wrote:Battling with you for another 6 years? I want Jackman or the next Bond reuniting all of us so we all can enjoy Bond, the way it was meant to be, cinematically.The Sweeney wrote:Aha!bjmdds wrote:Wikipedia claims Craig signed a 5 film contract in 2005. I hope this is not the case or else this forum, this Dumbledore's army of Bond fans, will have our work cut out for us over the next 6-7 years!
Finally!
"Oooo - they got a new Mexico!" - Homer Simpsonbjmdds wrote:How are things in New Mexico Koko? Welcome and sign in often.
"Baja?"......"I haven't got anything in Baja".....katied wrote:An "I didn't know that!"..I found out that the oil rig scenes in DAF were filmed off the coast of Oceanside(where I live!) Granted,I didn't live here then!
I thought The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a great film IMO.bjmdds wrote:Where are you off to Python? Maybe off to see The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen for your film studies degree? What a poor film. It is on AMC quite a lot now. Connery hated it but was quite agile at 73.