Apart from that, I did something I rarely do: checked out an enemy site. And they actually confirm that Boyle/Hodge not only wanted Bond to die at the end, they also had him incarcerated by the enemy for most of the film.
That also is a rumor that was swirling around last year, and I wouldn’t trust that site to actually have the intel to back up this confirmation.
But let’s just think about this for argument´s sake. Bond incarcerated by the enemy for most of the film.
What? It worked well at the beginning of DAD (hey, splendid and novel idea, Boyle & Hodge!). But to have that stretched out for almost two hours? With the inevitable flashbacks to a mission and to the Mi6 team looking for Bond (probably giving them even more screen time)?
Boy, am I relieved that Boyle/Hodge stepped down. And please never let them step near a Bond film ever again.
Also, I am worried that someone still thought this is a great idea, let’s keep it.
Why don’t I want Bond to die at the end? Because it´s a completely fabricated and useless idea. We all know that Bond will live on in the next film - so there is no shock value at all and no emotional investment in that. Well, apart from feeling relieved that the role then would have to be recast.
As I’ve recovered and thought on this date change matter and also given my own history in the entertainment industry, I’m fine with it. As to the writing, P&W have always spun a good tale and given proper flavor to the Bond formula with some fine moments. They’re great collective story tellers which is grand, but they do lack on poignant dialogue. Haggis’ polishing of the Bond/Vesper bit on the train was epic and also brilliantly played IMO in establishment of both characters. Rewrites on set happen and do occur right up to production. “It needs to be punched up” is a tiresome phrase I’ve heard all too many times at table reads. Sometimes a fresh set of eyes and voice are needed.
I’ll just chalk this up to polishing more than rewrite. For my two pence anyway.
With the shooting schedule remaining on track, the stunt choreography in rehearsals, and the sets already built, I would assume the rewrites are nothing drastic. Probably just some dialogue polishing and character building. I’m sure it’ll serve the film well.
They tend to get through scenes and turn corners by having the characters bounce the appropriate hackneyed tropes off of one another, which usually reduces their performances to 2 dimensions.
I’m not really reading any entitlement, or assumption of ownership here. Just folk who want a good movie. Is that too much to ask? Some are questioning Eons management and frankly it’s unfair to say that they don’t have cause to; that there’s nothing going on here, move along! Plenty is going on.
Maybe the idea of getting Bond films forever and ever is just as senseless as expecting new albums from one´s favorite artist.
Maybe a finite number actually is… good? Maybe it makes everything that is already there more valuable. And maybe art just has its hot phase and then stops being interesting. I don’t want to see Bond dead at the end, of course, but maybe it will be time to stop.
There are only so many variations to the formula. And before it all dissolves into totally mindless crap, why bother forcing something as they clearly do since, well, at least SPECTRE. SKYFALL could have been a good ending, SPECTRE a mediocre one.
In this instance the people yelling iceberg own shares in the company that makes the life boats. There may be an iceberg, but maybe get someone else to check first…
There may only be so many variations on the formula that EON has set for the franchise, but I think there could be many different directions, angles, etc. that fresh eyes could bring to the character moving forward.
What a great job he did - it crackles along with wit and tension. There’s real sparring afoot, all the way up to Bond’s wonderful retort in the car to the hotel regarding his preference for married women.