Seems like a realistic synopsis of events.
Absolutely.
As you pointed out, LTK being WilsonĀ“s script mainly, started the going rogue-trope. Back then, it was absolutely earned, interesting for Bond and appropriately motivated.
Then it was revisited for DAD by P&W - and I could imagine Wilson loving a second go at it. I think it was a terrific idea for that film to have Bond captured and then going rogue because M does not know whether she can still trust that probably turned agent.
And then the Craig era used the idea as a continuing storyline. I believe this was motivated by the times in which these films were produced. Also by the ongoing (IMO forced) discussion: is Bond still relevant? Why would he a trusting agent be relevant, serving his superiors without questioning their dark motives?
A little bit of BOURNE definitely will have clouded this as well. A rebel Bond who distrusts his superiors and hates experiencing the fact that he is disposable definitely also appealed to Craig (āHey, Iām not just a guy who does what others want him to do!ā)
In CR going rogue or at least doing things his own way still way motivated well.
QOS needed the rogue idea because that was a continuation of CR with Bond desperately looking for the people behind VesperĀ“s betrayal.
Then SKYFALL centered on the BOND-M relationship, therefore the trust issues again were motivated, IMO.
Butā¦ why introduce them again for SPECTRE? Here it felt totally wrong for me. At the end of SKYFALL Bond was happy to serve M again. M could have easily sent Bond to Mexico in SPECTRE, feeling iffy about Bond wreaking too much havoc there, of course, (as usual) but then sending Bond on his mission to track down that organization. Especially with C breathing down MĀ“s neck. It would have been a welcome change to see Bond and M on the same page (as they are in the second half of the film), conducting their operation secretly behind CĀ“s back.
I donāt think it was P&W who always forced those tropes into these films. I firmly believe it was a combination of all those things I pointed out - and they just went with it. As every writer would have done during that era.
For BOND 25 I expect this not to change, however. For the next era I hope it will be different.
2 Likes
Thanks Gobi-1.
Absolutely hilarious.
Damn near spilled my coffee all over my keyboardā¦
If I recall correctly the rogue stuff really began in the P&W era with DAD; from his escape from his beard in China through his return to London. Wasnāt that the only script The was entirely P&W?
If so then (maybe) that speaks volumes.
1 Like
Itās in TWINE. Which isnāt. And also in LTK prominently, which was written by one proucer and was the first film where the other producer was lead (BB did all the Mexico filming due to her fathers Iāll health)
Where in TWINE? He goes it alone when heās believed killed in the oil pipe blast, but thatās very different to going rogue; disobeying orders/at odds with M.
This Express journalist has obviously been keeping a close eye on these forums:
3 Likes
On the 23rd the Hollywood Reporter claimed an insider said it was being pushed to late 2020. Thereās obvsiously a lot of click bait around this story and will continue to be until an official announcement.
After the titles. Heās told heās off the case until cleared by medical. He ignores this and continues anyway, seduces the medical examiner to get a clean report, breaks into the mi6 server leading him to finding that the money stolen was identical to the ransom demand, he then has a shout down with M, who reinstated him.
I wouldnāt say that was rogue again. ItĀ“s a little more than ConneryBond disobeying every order from M - but thatās BondĀ“s nature.
1 Like
Good to hear!
If that indeed were true it would be a very poor attempt at concealing BlofeldĀ“s appearance againā¦
1 Like
Iām not criticising it, but if you count any of CR, QOS or Skyfall as going rogue, you have to count TWINE, Bond is told heās off the case, continues anyway.
Thanks SAF!!! This make the most sense of any of the āwhat had happenedā theories out there.
This is the point at which they gambled. Good for them a and shame it came unstuck.
Anything can be finessed unless you have those evil Quantum/Spectre stockholders stick their greedy noses in. Bonds next mission should be to Double-0 the lot of them 
Just as likely is that it has less to do with time and more to do with the tried and tested underhanded ploy of calling in new writers to make your changes because the original writer refused to.
A whole lot of movies have been ruined over the years by this too-many-chefs approach. Many producers and execs apparently believe that if you throw lots of writers at a script (one for story, one for action, one for dialogue etc) what you get is a script that does it all. Sadly and inevitably what you usually get is a tonal, uneven bloody mess.
If I were Hodge Iād resist vehemently if I felt with good reason the alterations made it worse. In my humble experience such alterations are to pep up a scene, or add pace because it seems to have slowed down a little. Worse of all to add a āformat pointā they feel should always happen in this scenario or moment. Ripple effect is something execs rarely perceive and by making ātweeksā all they achieve is to undermine the story or the character arc as a whole.
And in turn if I were Boyle Iād stand by my writer having already likely had this discussion with him.
If the producers decision is to then pull rank and declare that theyāre bringing on new writers āTo help out and take some of the strain off of you so you can focus on the imortant stuff, darlingā¦ā
Thatās when, unless you see yourself as simply a gun for hire, itās right to walk.
The most likely scenario for the catalyst. Personally I sympathise with both sides in terms of casting. MGM want a star, Boyle wants the right actor for the part. Eon try to grease the wheels, but the wheels fall off.
A shame, since Kot may have been great! Was Lonsdale a big name in the West before Moonraker? I canāt think of anyone better to play Drax in that iteration of the story. MGM wouldāve refused to let Tarantino cast Waltz in Inglorious Barsteds and insisted upon a marquee name instead: the result, no Oscar.
Aw, cāmon! Boyleās a seasoned pro whose been making successful movies against the odds for decades. Itās unfair and without any merit to call his stamina and commitment into question. His leaving will be down to creative differences and not because heās knackered!
I imagine this is bang on whatās occurring in those ivory towers at this very moment. You have to laugh really - what a farceā¦ Maybe they should cut their losses and shoot a Spinal Tap mockementary of the making of Bond 25 to fill that October 2019 slot!
Hardly a going rogue theme, but I see your point that itās touched upon here 
Did not mean to be unfair or condescending. This, actually, would rather endear him to me. Working full steam ahead on one film and already in preproduction on a monster like a Bond film would burn out everyone. If the thought of living through that onslaught of decisions, problems and unrelenting pressure does not make one nauseous one should check oneĀ“s pulse. And especially if he is/was still putting finishing touches on the musical.
I went through a succession of projects of a much, much, much smaller size - and I still thought: do I really want to go through that grinder again so soon? Would there be a chance to drop out and get a little rest after working non-stop without weekends for months?
4 Likes
Fair enough! I too would be daunted, but then neither of us have a track record like Boyle. I think itās worth giving him the benefit of presuming stamina wasnāt the reason he left.
Iād assume authorship the reason, but of course such a schedule for an already shrinking grip on control would no doubt be an influence on his decision.
I agree. I honestly would like to see Christoph Waltz come back. Just donāt mention their step brothers, more acting effort put in by Waltz, and he can be the modern day Blofeld. Waltz originally said he would come back if Daniel Craig did. Also, he said a lot of things that werenāt true for SPECTRE. Considering his talent, and role as Blofeld, he deserves a second chance. And Jeffery Wright as Felix Leiter. He makes everything better, he should be fighting alongside Daniel Craig. Heās the best Felix along with Jack Lord.
Also, I can see a fourth screenwriter trying to bring the two scripts together. I wonāt be opposed to that. Lastly, I feel that there will still be a connection to DCās previous films, in particular the fact that this is NOW (apparently), his last movie.