625 replies to this topic

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Here is another interview with Morgan given for a BAFTA conversation. There is a little mention about Bond 23 and Morgans approach/ idea for the film. Apologies if linked before.

[Matt_13]

Can you or someone else write a transcript of the Bond parts?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Can you or someone else write a transcript of the Bond parts?

Will do.

[zencat]

He doesn't really say anything. Let's get back to "story"... blah, blah ... back to earlier movies ... blah, blah.

I have a lot of respect for his work, but I have no idea why they would select him to write Bond.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

As Zencat says there is not a lot mentioned, but it's difficult to do a transcript because it's a very wordy interview.
Morgan was asked basically what was the attraction for writing Bond and what he would have liked to bring to it.
Morgan states his aim would be 'to really focus on a story and to give story primacy and to actually take comfort from some of the earliest bond films….'
He then goes on to mention he has great confidence in Mendes as director and states his belief that with Mendes on the next film it will be more story driven.

[MattofSteel]

Can't argue with said approach, though.

[The Shark]

Bond doesn't need more focus on story - story is merely a plot mechanism. What Bond needs is a stronger focus on character, and that's where CR and QOS are lacking.

[Chief of SIS]

Bond doesn't need more focus on story - story is merely a plot mechanism. What Bond needs is a stronger focus on character, and that's where CR and QOS are lacking.

Can't help agree more with that sentiment but you thought CR and QoS lacked character? Maybe I'm not catching the sense you're using it in. Character as in Bond or character as in integrity and old mechanisms?

[Matt_13]

What good is character if he's not doing anything worth observing.

[Loomis]

He doesn't really say anything. Let's get back to "story"... blah, blah ... back to earlier movies ... blah, blah.

I have a lot of respect for his work, but I have no idea why they would select him to write Bond.

Because he writes critically acclaimed posh British Oscar bait films and Eon nowadays seems desperate to consort with such folk. God forbid that they should ever again be caught dead making good old-fashioned, fun-for-all-the-family, unpretentiously entertaining and unapologetically shallow Bond movie romps like back in Cubby's day.

[Matt_13]

He doesn't really say anything. Let's get back to "story"... blah, blah ... back to earlier movies ... blah, blah.

I have a lot of respect for his work, but I have no idea why they would select him to write Bond.

Because he writes critically acclaimed posh British Oscar bait films and Eon nowadays seems desperate to consort with such folk. God forbid that they should ever again be caught dead making good old-fashioned, fun-for-all-the-family, unpretentiously entertaining and unapologetically shallow Bond movie romps like back in Cubby's day.

That was unfortunately beaten to death in the last era. It would be a terrible move if they dragged Craig away from what he's best at and has been most successful with, bringing Bond back into the doldrums of predictability and light camp. They want to keep pushing Bond to his limits, and I think it's admirable and ballsy. I'm not saying that humor and class needs to be abandoned (Quantum got a bit close on that front), I just think that feeding these films well crafted scripts with crisp, clever dialogue and a plot that may actually test us intellectually is what needs to happen if we want the franchise to remain successful and compelling.

[The Shark]

He doesn't really say anything. Let's get back to "story"... blah, blah ... back to earlier movies ... blah, blah.

I have a lot of respect for his work, but I have no idea why they would select him to write Bond.

Because he writes critically acclaimed posh British Oscar bait films and Eon nowadays seems desperate to consort with such folk. God forbid that they should ever again be caught dead making good old-fashioned, fun-for-all-the-family, unpretentiously entertaining and unapologetically shallow Bond movie romps like back in Cubby's day.

That was unfortunately beaten to death in the last era. It would be a terrible move if they dragged Craig away from what he's best at and has been most successful with, bringing Bond back into the doldrums of predictability and light camp.

I'm not asking for the doldrums of predictability, but I am asking for light camp. In the vein of MOONRAKER, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, THUNDEBRALL, DR. NO, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER.

Serious with a large degree of veracity, while still embracing the fun.

As opposed to such execrably worthy and deadly earnest fare as THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, CASINO ROYALE, and QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

They want to keep pushing Bond to his limits, and I think it's admirable and ballsy.

It stopped being that along time ago.

a plot that may actually test us intellectually

Pretentious drivel. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, DR NO, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and THUNDERBALL didn't test me (or most others) 'intellectually' - It provided fun, pulpy entertainment, but with a heart.

If you want pointless 'intellectual' mind games, action, special effects, and cyphers that serve the plot - but no heart, look to Christopher Nolan's films instead.

[zencat]

He doesn't really say anything. Let's get back to "story"... blah, blah ... back to earlier movies ... blah, blah.

I have a lot of respect for his work, but I have no idea why they would select him to write Bond.

Because he writes critically acclaimed posh British Oscar bait films and Eon nowadays seems desperate to consort with such folk. God forbid that they should ever again be caught dead making good old-fashioned, fun-for-all-the-family, unpretentiously entertaining and unapologetically shallow Bond movie romps like back in Cubby's day.

Exactly.

[Quantumofsolace007]

the problem with family fun bond films is I just don't think it would be profitable. The A-team was fun Bombastic and was well acted and ploted and just a lot of fun... it flopped.... Knight and Day again fun bombastic... it also floped Inception edgy intlectual it did well.


Now mind you I loved both the a-team and Knight and Day but I seem to be the only one.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

He doesn't really say anything. Let's get back to "story"... blah, blah ... back to earlier movies ... blah, blah.

I have a lot of respect for his work, but I have no idea why they would select him to write Bond.

Because he writes critically acclaimed posh British Oscar bait films and Eon nowadays seems desperate to consort with such folk. God forbid that they should ever again be caught dead making good old-fashioned, fun-for-all-the-family, unpretentiously entertaining and unapologetically shallow Bond movie romps like back in Cubby's day.

Exactly.

I agree with Loomis here, but I have some fear that shallow Bond movie romps may not suit today's cinema goers. Maybe I'm wrong, i don't know. But if we had a return to MR & OP would this not be opening of the floodgates to criticism that that's all the Bonds are capable of etc. Would the series be open to further criticism of using the same old formula again and again and then generate the requisite boring comments about the cinematic relevancy of Bond for todays generation. Isn't the world waiting to see exactly how far Craig can take things in a dramatic sense and succeed our expectations?

[The Shark]

Isn't the world waiting to see exactly how far Craig can take things in a dramatic sense and succeed our expectations?

No, that isn't what the world wants, or expects from Bond. That would be antithetical to Fleming.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Isn't the world waiting to see exactly how far Craig can take things in a dramatic sense and succeed our expectations?

No, that isn't what the world wants, or expects from Bond. That would be antithetical to Fleming.

I'm not so sure. Just to make myself clear I don't mean anything like a continuation or development of the Brosnan 'pushing the envelope' scenario. Difficult to explain but I'm thinking more in terms of dramatic realism set against the fantasy world that Bond inhabits. Retaining the escapism but really letting Craig act the part in a world relevant story.

[Cody]

Can you or someone else write a transcript of the Bond parts?

My attempt:

Interviewer: James Bond.

Peter Morgan: Well, that didn't happen.

I: No. What happened there?

PM: I started working with them on it, and then MGM went bankrupt and they're still trying to resolve that. And then, after a while, you just move on and take on other commitments, and I've taken on a lot of other commitments now, so I can't imagine that one coming back.

I: What for you would've been the attraction of Bond, apart from that, obviously, it's a great icon thing, but what would you have wanted, particularly with your kind of writing, to do with it?

PM: Well, I had hoped that after the last one, you know, that they would want to do some writing. And I don't think that was the writers' fault necessarily on the last one, but I think to really focus on a story, and to really give story primacy. And to actually just take comfort from some of the earliest Bond films, where story...

I: The reason why people are doing things, for example, is quite important in a Bond film, isn't it?

PM: I think so, but they all know that. They all know that, and I think they know... you know, if the last film had made less money, it would've been helpful. It made a ton of money, so there's slightly a sense that, you know, it actually doesn't matter. But you know that within the group of people making it... So, I really wanted that and it felt like they would be very ambitious for it, and I think if Sam Mendes directs it, that's exactly, I have great confidence that that's exactly what will happen. They will... That was the attraction, I think the attraction is to get involved in something after they've done something which has not necessarily been entirely successful, just on creative terms. And I would've been much more intimidated about getting involved if they'd just had a huge slam dunk. It felt to me that what they really needed was some new thoughts, and they will have those, Sam will make sure of all that.

[Loomis]

Hmmm.... interesting. Sounds like he's not a fan of QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I'm warming to him.

(And he's absolutely right. There are plenty of [half-developed] ideas and themes in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but no story.)

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Hmmm.... interesting. Sounds like he's not a fan of QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I'm warming to him.

(And he's absolutely right. There are plenty of [half-developed] ideas and themes in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but no story.)

I got that impression but when he says it wasnt the writers fault, I wondered If he was alluding to the writers strike and the time constraints on the film.

[The Shark]

Hmmm.... interesting. Sounds like he's not a fan of QUANTUM OF SOLACE. I'm warming to him.

(And he's absolutely right. There are plenty of [half-developed] ideas and themes in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but no story.)

I got that impression but when he says it wasnt the writers fault, I wondered If he was alluding to the writers strike and the time constraints on the film.

Perhaps he just blames Marc Forster.

[Matt_13]

He doesn't really say anything. Let's get back to "story"... blah, blah ... back to earlier movies ... blah, blah.

I have a lot of respect for his work, but I have no idea why they would select him to write Bond.

Because he writes critically acclaimed posh British Oscar bait films and Eon nowadays seems desperate to consort with such folk. God forbid that they should ever again be caught dead making good old-fashioned, fun-for-all-the-family, unpretentiously entertaining and unapologetically shallow Bond movie romps like back in Cubby's day.

That was unfortunately beaten to death in the last era. It would be a terrible move if they dragged Craig away from what he's best at and has been most successful with, bringing Bond back into the doldrums of predictability and light camp.

I'm not asking for the doldrums of predictability, but I am asking for light camp. In the vein of MOONRAKER, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, THUNDEBRALL, DR. NO, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER.

Serious with a large degree of veracity, while still embracing the fun.

As opposed to such execrably worthy and deadly earnest fare as THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, CASINO ROYALE, and QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

They want to keep pushing Bond to his limits, and I think it's admirable and ballsy.

It stopped being that along time ago.

a plot that may actually test us intellectually

Pretentious drivel. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, DR NO, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and THUNDERBALL didn't test me (or most others) 'intellectually' - It provided fun, pulpy entertainment, but with a heart.

If you want pointless 'intellectual' mind games, action, special effects, and cyphers that serve the plot - but no heart, look to Christopher Nolan's films instead.

So anything that compliments high octane action with meaty dialogue and a shocking, character driven story is pretentious? Anything that isn't laden with artificial set designs, linear, by the books action sequences, and poorly drawn caricatures labeled as "characters" is high art, unwelcome in the realm of Hollywood grandeur? A James Bond film can't be smart, exciting, AND have an emotional pulse? I'm not looking for a deep, reflection based actioner, just something with some meat on it's bones, something that actually hands us stakes, characters we can connect with, and a sense of awe. Bond has been down the pulp road of familiarity enough, and one day he'll revert back to it. Right now, why not see where creativity can take the franchise? I don't understand how you can be against something that entertains more than just the eye. If I want to watch pulp trash I'll turn my attention to the Fast and Furious franchise, they have that entertainment in spades. And we can argue that Fleming didn't intend for his character to be taken "seriously," buried in a world just as gritty and frightening as our own, but I do think he wanted the character to be contemporary. It's been said that we live in dangerous times, and that our heroes, in order to have hold some relevancy, need to reflect that modern edge, that danger. Craig has succeeded in doing not only that, but keeping Bond a modestly sophisticated, effortlessly cool guy, someone that the average movie goer sees and says "I want to be that." That's what Bond is. Intellect can have heart. It's a balancing act, and I think the EON team can pull that off. They are a very talented bunch, whose main folly was rushing the last film out to make a dime off the success of the prequel. We won't be seeing that again. Let them work.

[jaguar007]

Bond doesn't need more focus on story - story is merely a plot mechanism. What Bond needs is a stronger focus on character, and that's where CR and QOS are lacking.

CR had some of the best character focus and development of the entire Bond series. That is one reason I like it so much, the characters are more three dimensional and less cardboard cut out like so many of the other entries.

[The Shark]

So anything that compliments high octane action with meaty dialogue and a shocking, character driven story is pretentious?

The second half, yes. And to be honest I'd rather have one or the other, not both. High octane action and soap opera drama don't mix, as one can see with TWINE and QOS.

Anything that isn't laden with artificial set designs, linear, by the books action sequences, and poorly drawn caricatures labeled as "characters" is high art

Sounds the last couple of Bond films to me. Peter Lamont and Denis Gassner's cold, unimaginative sets and Neil Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis's clichéd cyphers.

But no, pretentious doesn't mean high art. It means something with a phoney pretence of high art, whereas the end result is anything but that, and is in the case of Bond films - it's often compromised by the screenplays and 'high octane action'.

unwelcome in the realm of Hollywood grandeur?

Bond should never try match, imitate, look up to, or a appease Hollywood blockbusters. Bond should better be something entirely different, and uniquely British. Something that's been forgotten circa 1995.

A James Bond film can't be smart, exciting, AND have an emotional pulse?

Oh it can. It's just we've had too much a non-stop 'emotional pulse' since 1987. It would be nice to return to missions that aren't of a personal nature to Bond.

Bond has been down the pulp road of familiarity enough, and one day he'll revert back to it. Right now, why not see where creativity can take the franchise?

I'm asking for creativity, but the franchise doesn't need to be shaken up, or transformed. We've had enough of that as of late. Time to return to some steady ground.

I don't understand how you can be against something that entertains more than just the eye.

What I was getting at in that remark, was that I don't want to be entertained intellectually. I want to be done so emotionally. That is, watch our swashbuckling modern day St. George with exhilaration, jubilation, excitement and fear, in an exotic thriller-adventure. I also want want Bond to take itself less seriously, to be able to laugh at itself.

Bond doesn't need more focus on story - story is merely a plot mechanism. What Bond needs is a stronger focus on character, and that's where CR and QOS are lacking.

CR had some of the best character focus and development of the entire Bond series. That is one reason I like it so much, the characters are more three dimensional and less cardboard cut out like so many of the other entries.

Well, I think Vesper's psychological decline was handled clumsily, to say the least. The same with the contrived 3rd act. Apart from Bond, Vesper, M and some extent Le Chiffre - the secondary characters were mostly cardboard cuts out. There to serve various plot points and very little more.

[Matt_13]

Well like I said, it's a delicate balancing act. TWINE was off the mark because the drama was clumsy and the action was bland and repetitive, no exactly helped along by Arnold's score. TWINE, while moderately enjoyable in its own right (largely for the nostalgia on my end) it's a sloppy, boring film. Quantum zips along at a marvelous pace, and while I agree that the drama could have been handled better, keep in mind the time constraints on the scripts the producers had to work with. It's a miracle we actually got something as good as we did. Nonetheless, I think it can most certainly be done given enough time and planning.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, I think Vesper's psychological decline was handled clumsily, to say the least. The same with the contrived 3rd act. Apart from Bond, Vesper, M and some extent Le Chiffre - the secondary characters were mostly cardboard cuts out. There to serve various plot points and very little more.

That´s what secondary characters are there for.

Could you give an example for a movie in which secondary characters are "fully fleshed out" as the cliché goes and do more than serve the plot?

[Zorin Industries]

Bond doesn't need more focus on story - story is merely a plot mechanism. What Bond needs is a stronger focus on character, and that's where CR and QOS are lacking.

Disagree. BOND's character is deliberately sparse and has been since 1962. The story is vital and what the series needs more of if it is to continue and evolve to ensure its survival. Bond-as-screen-icon only works if Bond himself is left alone and the story works almost around him.

God forbid that they should ever again be caught dead making good old-fashioned, fun-for-all-the-family, unpretentiously entertaining and unapologetically shallow Bond movie romps like back in Cubby's day.

But we are not in 1974 anymore. It worked in those films as the series was barely 15/20 years old. The franchise has to facilitate moving on. The entertainment angle is there and can be there some more (and no doubt will be in BOND 23) but "shallow romps" don't cut it - certainly not for the creatives needing to keep creating new Bond films and probably for an increasingly fragmented audience.

[MattofSteel]

At one point I wrote an overlong post somewhere on here detailing how I actually found Bond's character arc to be fairly well mapped throughout QOS - albeit executed very subtly.

But, Zorin's right - it's somewhat beside the point. Regardless of handling, QOS had some legitimate character development on Bond's part and I find it hard to criticize the film for it when - in the case of some of the older flicks - there was absolutely zero. Both on execution, and intent.

[JimmyBond]

At one point I wrote an overlong post somewhere on here detailing how I actually found Bond's character arc to be fairly well mapped throughout QOS - albeit executed very subtly.

But, Zorin's right - it's somewhat beside the point. Regardless of handling, QOS had some legitimate character development on Bond's part and I find it hard to criticize the film for it when - in the case of some of the older flicks - there was absolutely zero. Both on execution, and intent.

I get tired of arguing about QoS anymore because I know how I feel about it, and I know how others feel about it. I don't feel any need to try and change anyones mind.

With that said though I still find it to be one of the funnest Bond films produced in the last twenty or so years. It moves along at a great pace, has a Bond who I enjoy watching, and (in my opinion) has some of my favorite action sequences (I never get tired of watching that opening car chase).

Do I feel it could be better? Sure, for all I enjoy about the pace of the film I do wish it could have slowed down a bit, maybe fleshed out some more details, there's really no reason it couldn't have clocked in at a steady two hours and still been entertaining.

As for the lack of Bond elements, I feel the Bond theme made some nice appearances, sure it wasn't as in your face as it has been in past films, but I felt it had more of a prsence than in CR, and for all this back and forth on the gunbarrel. While in theory I don't mind it not opening the film, watching the QoS version on youtube does make me wish it did open the film. Here's hoping they open Craig's next film with it.

[deth]

I'm not asking for the doldrums of predictability, but I am asking for light camp. In the vein of MOONRAKER, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, THUNDEBRALL, DR. NO, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER.

Serious with a large degree of veracity, while still embracing the fun.

Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever had veracity?!