It was a combination of Logan's weak script combined with Baird's lack of Star Trek knowledge and mishandling of the cast. Anyway let's not turn this thread into a Nemesis bashing thread because it has the potential for that to happen!
David Franzoni (who first pitched the idea) wrote the first draft of Gladiator. Ridley Scott then hired Logan to rewrite it. Most of Logan's revisions dealt with the dialogue and the first act, and it was his idea to kill off Maximus's family. The script was again rewritten, this time by William Nicholson, and then David Franzoni came back and revised a lot of Logan's and Nicholson's rewrites. Then the script went through various rewrites/revisions during filming. So while Logan did contribute to the screenplay, he wasn't the only writer, nor was he even the one who came up with the idea, even though he seems to have gotten the majority of the credit. However, Logan has also contributed to the screenplays for The Aviator, The Last Samurai, and Sweeney Todd, so I'm looking forward to seeing what he brought to Skyfall.
So saying that something was lacking with some ones former work which could impede on their future work is bashing now? So has Bonz just not got round to giving you green yet?
^ He didn't accuse anyone of bashing, he merely said that this had the potential to turn into a NEM bashing thread. Which it may well do, given that we've had almost a full page of discussion of Logan's career (and I'm guilty of contributing to it too). Hell, the thread about the possible Doctor Who movie seems to have turned into a 'What's your favourite Star Trek movie?' thread...
Until we find out more facts about Skyfall, discussing Logans previous writing credits and what his strengths/weaknesses and what he could bring to the table would be a legitimate line of discussion and yes it could have gone that way, but it's no where near "bashing" territory yet. Oh and it's only been half a page for me I've not really paid attention to that thread. And as you asked. It's Nemesis
^ Well, like I say, Admiral Young didn't accuse anyone of NEM bashing, just suggested that we didn't let this thread go that way. A reasonable suggestion, in my book. And, yes, discussion of Logan's credits is quite reasonable. As has been pointed out, he seems to work best when coming in and polishing or doctoring someone else's script - e.g. Gladiator. And that's what he'll be doing here - adding to a script by 007 regulars Wade and Purves. So here's hoping he can redeem himself in the eyes of genre fans.
Indeed. I never accused anyone of Nemesis bashing. I just suggested that we not let this thread devolve into a Nemesis bashing feast because of John Logan's involvement. I also never said we couldn't discuss Logan's merits or faults either...but that ultimately usually leads to bashing Nemesis. Hopefully he hasn't turned what was originally reported to be a great script from Wade and Purves into...well a bad movie.
It seems the recent James Bond movies have had a small "Nemesis" connection. Stuart Baird served as editor for "Casino Royale" and did a fantastic job. But "Star Trek: Nemesis" was a mess
Some more pictures of London filming. It's a radical departure (referring to the stubble) for a Bond film. Not sure I'm sold on it yet. And of course, not sure how long he keeps it in the film.
^ Re Nemesis: Tom Hardy for the next 007! Re the stubble: It makes Craig look a lot older, with all the gray in his beard. Maybe they're pulling a Dark Knight Rises and jumping forwards by 8 years!
^ Nope. Michael Fassbender!! Hardy can be the next Bond villain. The stubble makes him look distinguished in my opinion and of course Brosnan had a full blown beard after his torture session at the start of "Die Another Day".
Yeah, it was a fake one. If I remember correctly, he said so in the audio commentary. And my vote for next Bond goes to Jamie Bamber.
Fassbender for me (always assuming he learns to keep his natural accent in check- I swear in every film I see him in he's brilliant then just goes Irish for no readily apparent reason- just to stress I'm not saying his Irish accent is a bad thing, it's the consistency of the performance that worries me) The notion of Hardy appeals, though he might be a touch too seedy for Bond. Fassbender's Bond vs Hardy's villain in a 006/007 Goldeneye kind of way would be a mouthwatering prospect. Not that I really want Craig to go anywhere just yet. I do wonder about the stubble, will he have it the whole film?
^ You're quite right about Fassbender's accent. The weird thing is that in the movie Hunger, he did a pitch-perfect Belfast accent, which is a lot more different than his own Kerry accent and difficult to perfect than non-Irish readers might imagine. Of course, Brosnan's irish accent frequently came through his 007 performance too and as for Connery... Well, nuff shaid! I think Hardy has more of the physicality that Bond may require than Fass does. Although they're only about 6 months apart in age, I also think Hardy looks a lot younger than Michael, so by the time Craig leaves, he'd (TH) probably look closer to the right age than MF. Having said all of that, a Hardy Bond might be more in the vein of Craig, so it's likely that Eon will cast someone different next time out, just like Craig differed from Brosnan, Dalton differed from Moore, Moore differed from Connery etc. (IMHO, Brosnan and Dalton were the most alike back-to-back Bonds) Like you, I'm quite happy for Craig to remain there for some time yet.