625 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

Love the cows in the background!

[blueman]

I couldn't enjoy the cows due to the choppy editing, too Bourne.

[Captain Tightpants]

Ooh, this is good. No Q or Moneypenny worked fine in CR and QoS. Though, if Craig is James Bond, which he most definitely is anyway, these characters do exist in his universe. Just as they exist in the novels, the Connery era and every other era. They've just been delayed. Villiers did serve the role of Moneypenny, but he wasn't Moneypenny. Just as they've got different continuities in Spider-Man, Batman, etc. All the characters are still there, but done in a different way. We'll get that here, I'm sure.

I still think it would be better to introduce those characters one at a time - bring Q in for BOND 23 and Moneypenny in for BOND 24. That way, the film can take a little more time to explain their origins. Because right now, I'm concerned that they will simply show up.

[Germanlady]

A bit more on not much, but better then nothing...

http://uk.ign.com/vi...-bond-23-update

Edited by Germanlady, 20 July 2011 - 11:58 AM.

[Bucky]

Ooh, this is good. No Q or Moneypenny worked fine in CR and QoS. Though, if Craig is James Bond, which he most definitely is anyway, these characters do exist in his universe. Just as they exist in the novels, the Connery era and every other era. They've just been delayed. Villiers did serve the role of Moneypenny, but he wasn't Moneypenny. Just as they've got different continuities in Spider-Man, Batman, etc. All the characters are still there, but done in a different way. We'll get that here, I'm sure.

I still think it would be better to introduce those characters one at a time - bring Q in for BOND 23 and Moneypenny in for BOND 24. That way, the film can take a little more time to explain their origins. Because right now, I'm concerned that they will simply show up.

Do they really need to explain their origins? They did not have to explain M's origins and I do not think their origins are explained in the novels if i remember correctly. I am actually concerned that they would give them too much attention when they bring in the characters while i would rather have them simply show up.

[Col. Sun]

A bit more on not much, but better then nothing...

http://uk.ign.com/vi...-bond-23-update

Craig seems very confident and happy about the direction of Bond 23 - and, "the script is incredible!" That's a bold statement and Craig seems absolutely genuine about that
and is clearly delighted Sam Mendes is at the helm.

[zencat]

A bit more on not much, but better then nothing...

http://uk.ign.com/vi...-bond-23-update

Craig seems very confident and happy about the direction of Bond 23 - and, "the script is incredible!" That's a bold statement and Craig seems absolutely genuine about that
and is clearly delighted Sam Mendes is at the helm.

[007jamesbond]

It is nice that Craig is still committed to the role after having four movies made before Bond 23 even starting filming ...got to be tiring making movie after movie....

[Dustin]

Well, one might argue it's part of his job. Playing the same character in a series of productions is the exception rather than the rule for most actors.

[Captain Tightpants]

I know people are still questioning the choice of John Logan as screenwriter, but I've found something interesting that I think will ease peoples' doubts. It's lifted from this article, 7 Terrible Early Versions of Great Movies (be aware - it's NSFW). GLADIATOR, the film Logan worked on which is his strognest case for the BOND 23 gig, comes in at number four:

#4 - Gladiator

After the success of Amistad, DreamWorks was ready to give screenwriter David Franzoni a three-picture deal to write whatever the hell he felt like, and what he felt like writing first was a script called Gladiator. It needed work.

What is this!?

One major difference is that the hero of the story, Maximus Decimus Meridius in the finished film, is called Narcissus Meridas in this draft. We can understand why they changed it. Narcissus is a surprisingly Greek name for a Spanish general in the Roman army, and it's a surprisingly wussy name for a gladiator. This is only made worse when he starts his gladiatorial career and is given the nickname "Narcissus the Good," which sounds about as manly and imposing as "Sissypants the Adequate."

In all fairness, the real Emperor Commodus really was killed by a man named Narcissus, and there's something to be said for historical accuracy. Then again, the real Commodus was strangled to death in his bathtub, and Narcissus was his wrestling coach, so historical accuracy probably wasn't what Franzoni was going for here. And that's good, because the script is full of what-the- moments in the descriptions:

"Shirtless, but wearing leather-fringed pants, he whirls a rope overhead like Hopaling-ing-Cassidy."

There's also a weird part where the Emperor tries to get Narcissus to take a dive in his big gladiator fight, and another part where Narcissus actually does take a dive, and then tries to slit his own wrists. Finally we have a really weird part where Commodus has the entire Senate, along with his own sister, cooked alive inside a giant brass bull [although this sort of this actually did happen; it was called a brazen bull and it was basically designed to roast people alive].

Oh, and this draft has a happy ending, with Narcissus living out his years in Africa with his very-much-not-dead family. You know, after killing the Emperor of Rome. In front of about ten thousand witnesses.

On the other hand ...

Sequences in the Coliseum feature a clown jumping over a bear, a naked midget riding an ostrich, and a bunch of chimpanzees dressed up as the Roman Senate. We don't need to tell you how awesome that would have been.

The article doesn't mention a) exactly when this script was produced, and when John Logan came on-board. It's entirely possible that this is the very first draft and Franzoni re-wrote it several times until it resembed the film that was actually produced, and Logan didn't come along until the final re-write and only had to change a few words. At the same time, it could have just as easily been the case that this was the script Franzoni turned in and DreamWorks had John Logan on speed-dial.

Okay, I've been reading up on this, and it turns out that John Logan was the first screenwriter called in to re-write GLADIATOR after Franzoni turned in his original script. Based on the Wikipedia article for the film, Logan redid the entire first act of the film and introduced the afterlife subplot. He also did a whole lot of dialogue, since all Franzoni had was dialogue that advanced the plot. Logan later returned to project to Franzoni, and while more re0writes were done (disqualifying Logan from eleigibility for the Oscar), pretty much everything he added to or changed in the film stayed intact. I think BOND 23 is in safe hands.

Do they really need to explain their origins? They did not have to explain M's origins and I do not think their origins are explained in the novels if i remember correctly. I am actually concerned that they would give them too much attention when they bring in the characters while i would rather have them simply show up.

Yes, but Moneypenny and Q haven't been a part of the timeline until now. They can't simply show up and act as if they have always been there, which is what they did with M (since M was a part of MI6 before Bond was hired). I think the characters at least deserve a bit of an explanation as to who they are and where they came from beyond simply being M's secretary and the Quartermaster.

[deth]

Craig has confirmed that it starts shooting in November.

[blueman]

I know people are still questioning the choice of John Logan as screenwriter, but I've found something interesting that I think will ease peoples' doubts. It's lifted from this article, 7 Terrible Early Versions of Great Movies (be aware - it's NSFW). GLADIATOR, the film Logan worked on which is his strognest case for the BOND 23 gig, comes in at number four:

#4 - Gladiator

After the success of Amistad, DreamWorks was ready to give screenwriter David Franzoni a three-picture deal to write whatever the hell he felt like, and what he felt like writing first was a script called Gladiator. It needed work.

What is this!?

One major difference is that the hero of the story, Maximus Decimus Meridius in the finished film, is called Narcissus Meridas in this draft. We can understand why they changed it. Narcissus is a surprisingly Greek name for a Spanish general in the Roman army, and it's a surprisingly wussy name for a gladiator. This is only made worse when he starts his gladiatorial career and is given the nickname "Narcissus the Good," which sounds about as manly and imposing as "Sissypants the Adequate."

In all fairness, the real Emperor Commodus really was killed by a man named Narcissus, and there's something to be said for historical accuracy. Then again, the real Commodus was strangled to death in his bathtub, and Narcissus was his wrestling coach, so historical accuracy probably wasn't what Franzoni was going for here. And that's good, because the script is full of what-the- moments in the descriptions:

"Shirtless, but wearing leather-fringed pants, he whirls a rope overhead like Hopaling-ing-Cassidy."

There's also a weird part where the Emperor tries to get Narcissus to take a dive in his big gladiator fight, and another part where Narcissus actually does take a dive, and then tries to slit his own wrists. Finally we have a really weird part where Commodus has the entire Senate, along with his own sister, cooked alive inside a giant brass bull [although this sort of this actually did happen; it was called a brazen bull and it was basically designed to roast people alive].

Oh, and this draft has a happy ending, with Narcissus living out his years in Africa with his very-much-not-dead family. You know, after killing the Emperor of Rome. In front of about ten thousand witnesses.

On the other hand ...

Sequences in the Coliseum feature a clown jumping over a bear, a naked midget riding an ostrich, and a bunch of chimpanzees dressed up as the Roman Senate. We don't need to tell you how awesome that would have been.

The article doesn't mention a) exactly when this script was produced, and when John Logan came on-board. It's entirely possible that this is the very first draft and Franzoni re-wrote it several times until it resembed the film that was actually produced, and Logan didn't come along until the final re-write and only had to change a few words. At the same time, it could have just as easily been the case that this was the script Franzoni turned in and DreamWorks had John Logan on speed-dial.

Okay, I've been reading up on this, and it turns out that John Logan was the first screenwriter called in to re-write GLADIATOR after Franzoni turned in his original script. Based on the Wikipedia article for the film, Logan redid the entire first act of the film and introduced the afterlife subplot. He also did a whole lot of dialogue, since all Franzoni had was dialogue that advanced the plot. Logan later returned to project to Franzoni, and while more re0writes were done (disqualifying Logan from eleigibility for the Oscar), pretty much everything he added to or changed in the film stayed intact. I think BOND 23 is in safe hands.

Do they really need to explain their origins? They did not have to explain M's origins and I do not think their origins are explained in the novels if i remember correctly. I am actually concerned that they would give them too much attention when they bring in the characters while i would rather have them simply show up.

Yes, but Moneypenny and Q haven't been a part of the timeline until now. They can't simply show up and act as if they have always been there, which is what they did with M (since M was a part of MI6 before Bond was hired). I think the characters at least deserve a bit of an explanation as to who they are and where they came from beyond simply being M's secretary and the Quartermaster.

You mean like:

M - This is my secretary, Miss Moneypenny.

Or:

M - This is the Quartermaster, you can call him Q.

[Captain Tightpants]

No, I mean make them actual characters. Not just people with job descriptions.

[blueman]

No, I mean make them actual characters. Not just people with job descriptions.

Agreed. But they do that (in good films at least) via having them do things and whatnot. You make it sound like you want them to have backstory, why? Just have them show up and start interacting in the story of the film, if it's done well you'll get what you want.

But also agree, having show up and do the same old Penny/Q schtick would be soul-killing.

[Captain Tightpants]

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm getting at. They don't need layers of backstory and motivation for being in the film, but I would like to see them have a little depth. Especially since it would give the actors playing them more space to provide their own interpretations. John Cleese's R was stuffy and clumsy, but he wasn't all that different to Q. But a new Q could be written as someone enlisted by M to clean up the tech department. I must have said this a dozen times, but I'd make him more of a headmaster than anything else, presenting gadgets to Bond because the people who make them - Q-Branch - is populated by geniuses who have conditions in the autism spectrum disorder, and so do not function well in social situations. I just think something like that, something that explains why they've stepped into the new continuity when they were previously absent, is the very least that could be done for them.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I must have said this a dozen times, but I'd make him more of a headmaster than anything else, presenting gadgets to Bond because the people who make them - Q-Branch - is populated by geniuses who have conditions in the autism spectrum disorder, and so do not function well in social situations.

So, he'd be like Tom Smykowski from Office Space?

If layoffs happen due to the downturn, ol' Q'll be in a very rough position:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGS2tKQhdhY

[SecretAgentFan]

So, on the latest poster one can see that the screenplay credits are sorted out like this:

NEIL PURVIS & ROBERT WADE AND JOHN LOGAN


No Peter Morgan credited - and Logan being the Haggis this time.

But P&W remain a major screenwriting element again. Will this silence those who only credit other writers for having the really great ideas? Of course, not. But I doubt that EON gives them this major credit just because they like "the boys".

[Dustin]

People 'in the know' consistently claim it's part of EON's culture to run things in a "family" way. P&W are family and will probably stay as long as they want in that function. Besides: a good screenwriter (or team of) delivers whatever the boss wants. And our all harsh critique on the films doesn't change one simple fact: the outcome of things like TND, TWINE, DAD or QOS was probably every bit what the boardroom wanted, as was GE and CR. EON doesn't change a winning team.

[MattofSteel]

People 'in the know' consistently claim it's part of EON's culture to run things in a "family" way. P&W are family and will probably stay as long as they want in that function. Besides: a good screenwriter (or team of) delivers whatever the boss wants. And our all harsh critique on the films doesn't change one simple fact: the outcome of things like TND, TWINE, DAD or QOS was probably every bit what the boardroom wanted, as was GE and CR. EON doesn't change a winning team.

Perfectly said. No one seems to understand this.

[Matt_13]

Exactly. It was their work that attracted Mendes, not John Logan's. They've done a consistently good job. If it ain't broke...

[Shrublands]

... but Mendes soon started working with Logan, not...

[Matt_13]

It can't hurt to get a second opinion and a polish to bring a script more in line with a directors vision. I don't think Mendes' consulting of Logan was an indicator of the quality of the PW script. His taking on the project in the first place, however, most certainly is. The same can be said for Bardem.

[Shrublands]

Mendes took on the project because he loves Bond and Dan asked him. He knew that with at least a year's work from a good writer (of his choice) it could work.

[MattofSteel]

We have absolutely no way of knowing what the state of the Skyfall script was at the P&W stage. They've been in place as writers for, what, five or six films now - for a reason. Audiences who think they understand the filmmaking process intimately because they watch a bunch of DVD behind-the-scenes featurettes really have no clue just what kind of creative abuse a writer on any project can theoretically go through - especially at the studio level.

I'm not going to sit here and say Die Another Day was a great script. It wasn't. Character arcs were nonsensical and dissipated as the script went on, and the dialogue was truly atrocious. Some of the worst in the Bond series. But I would never claim to know how much of that was their fault, and how much was mandated from a producer or studio point of view. "You're cleverer than you look - better than looking cleverer than you are" is a great exchange and, dare I say it, classic Bond/Q banter. Whereas "Yo' mama, and she told me to tell you she's really disappointed in you," is horrific, and sounds like something a semi-racist studio exec mandated with the reasoning of, "Hey, make Halle Berry talk street in that scene. We need young eyes. They like that stuff, right?"

But the bottom line is: we cannot know what they write, versus what they are told to write. A sad reality of this business is that just because your name's on the front of a script, doesn't necessarily mean it's your script. Unless that name is, maybe, Chris Nolan or Aaron Sorkin.

If I had to evaluate their work from a purely creative standpoint, I'd concede, sure, their strength is not dialogue. But they're more than adept at staging a thrilling plot against interesting backdrops while balancing the very fragile necessity that is any Bond film: combining the nostalgic with the contemporary seamlessly. At the end of the day, their work may not register for everyone - but they don't deserve near the amount of flack they get.

[JCRendle]

Difficult thing with P&W is they have worked with others in each of their films apart from Die Another Day, for which they had sole writing credit. The World is Not Enough was written with Bruce Feirstein, Casino Royale and QoS had Paul Haggis - In my opinion the weakest, scriptwise, is Die Another Day - QoS could have been stronger, but you have to factor in the writers strike and the rushed script, I still think it isn't that bad.

I can't say I know a lot about screenplays and it may be more than meets the eye, that's just how I see it.

[JimmyBond]

With DAD you have to factor in that Tamahori changed the finale of the film. Who knows if the script's finale would have played better or not. But to say DAD is solely the work of Purvis and Wade isn't quite correct.