625 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

It's only because Bond himself wasn't particularly compelling as a character before that they've had to bolster it up with all the usual rubbish and hope they get away with it again.

Completely agreed, although I would say that there were times during the first 20 films where the Bond character was somewhat interesting. DN, FRWL, TLD, and LTK come to mind as times during which the Bond character was a character that was quite interesting, but for the most part, the Bond character wasn't anywhere near as interesting as he currently is with Craig in the role. At this point in the franchise, I agree that they don't need Q (or Moneypenny for that matter), and really shouldn't bring either character back into the fold.

[blueman]

Wouldn't be against Moneypenny being a bigger role in 23, ala Goodnight in TMWTGG (the novel not the film). No Q though, just anonymous peeps like in CR/QOS will do fine again.

[Royal Dalton]

You lot are probably going to be disappointed, then. Since Craig's already said that he wants to bring Q back.

[Pierce - Daniel]

Here's some Youtube stuff of Morgan

I like the fact he's a Brit, clearly a rather posh gent, who's born in the 60s and gre up with Bond. He likely understands the character and knows exactly what he's doing.

But he is my probelm. The best Bond movies, FRWL, GF, TSWLM, TLD and CR, have one major thing in common. There scripts are so damn good. But not only becasue of the emotion and the hard hitting brutality ot the whole thing, but becasue the films have a real sence of wit about them, not the cheesy pun like humour of the latter Moore years and DAD, but real genuine wit, sharp as as tact sort of comedy, but not out-and-out belly laughs, but cool charismatic dialgoue that can't help but make you want to be Bond.

Morgan seems a brilliant writter, but by bringing to much emotion and heartarche to Bond, we may have to take away alot of that brilliant snappy dialgoue......before people insist the Craig era is more introverted adn about acting and portrayal, as they need to do is see CR, it was packed with wit, look at all those scenes with Vesper (the best scenes in the movie by far) as well as everything Mathis does (Arresting MGW and the body in the boot). It's a very charimatic way of execution while avoiding the purposfull moments that intend to get laughs.
I hope Morgan gets this and strikes a balance between the rougher more psychological Bond as well as the classic wit and style.
I think it encouraging after seeing FRost/Nixom. I always thought it was the strongest out of all the Oscar movies. Slumdog was good but not worth its hype, Button missed it's own point entirely, and Milk was also a strong contender imo. Frost is a playboy, but Morgan is ablet o pitch him as a guy very much out of his depth, e thinks he can take on the world and get the Nixon interviews depite being told its not the grestest of ideas but still he pursues it, only latter to notice he can't pack a punch to his guy. I think Ron Howard described the film as "Rocky in armchairs" and he is so right. It's a battle of wits and the script is so sharp yet hard hitting, my hope is the producers saw the movie and Morgan is able to give us something more in the vein of this.

My two cents.

[Leon]

Jeez, what are P&W doing to keep hold of their job? They are bloody awful.

Every Bond film they have written has been poor, very poor. The latest two were quite obviously heavily altered by Paul Haggis and frankly I bet I could point out every crummy bit of evidence of their writing that's in those two films.

Royale was really good, but could have been a lot better potentially, and they already had an entire, and particularly cool, novel to work from.

I don't know anything about this new guy, but it seems the more hands go into a screenplay the more messy it turns out, despite their writing ability, and we all know how many people end up having their way with Bond screenplays. Therefore I completely reserve any judgement of this news, God knows what will happen, it could just be another huge mess.

Have ONE designated screen writer, a good one. I'm sick of Purvis&Wadehead spewing their trash into the Bond series.

[jrcjohnny99]

I think Morgan's a wonderful choice;
I also thought "Frost/Nixon" was the best pic of last year and a large part of that pics greatness lies in it's script.
Now all they have to do is get Tony Gilroy in as director....

[DamnCoffee]

Jeez, what are P&W doing to keep hold of their job? They are bloody awful.

Every Bond film they have written has been poor, very poor. The latest two were quite obviously heavily altered by Paul Haggis and frankly I bet I could point out every crummy bit of evidence of their writing that's in those two films

....

Have ONE designated screen writer, a good one. I'm sick of Purvis&Wadehead spewing their trash into the Bond series.

I completely agree. I HATE Purvis and Wade. Yes, the understand the novels, but come on! It's actually disgraceful how EON can hold on to them. They're TERRIBLE writers, and I can't stress that enough.

The worst thing is, Broccoli and Wilson know it. The fact that their work is lacking, (and always has been) makes me wonder what kind of bloody spell they've cast over the producers. I mean, they've even had to bring in another screenwriter(s) to polish their work. TWICE.

I don't understand why Broccoli and Wilson don't drop them. For them to bring in other script writers to polish their work, obviously gives the impression that they aren't happy.

That press release should say either 'Peter Morgan' or 'Paul Haggis and Peter Morgan'
not 'Peter Morgan and Neal Purvis and Robert Wade'.

I dread to think what the first drafts of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were like. Haggis is gold. The producers should hang onto him.

Ditch the Jesters for a King, imo.

[JimmyBond]

While I'm not fan of TWINE, I don't think the blame lies squarely at their feet. In fact one sequence I dislike the most out of that film (the Caviar factory sequence) wasnt even their creation, it was a sequence that I believe Wilson wanted to shoehorn into the film since they wanted to do an action sequence with those helicopters as far back as Goldeneye.

As for DAD, it's been well documented that a few of the changes in the latter half of the film were creations of Tamahori and not necessarily Purvis and Wade themselves. In fact the climax as envisioned by them would have been stronger than the one we ended up with.

[Bucky]

purvis and wade probably cost less so the producers have them come up with the overall story and an initial draft and pay another writer to clean it up which i assume costs less then having that writer do the entire script. its usually all about money.

[Leon]

While I'm not fan of TWINE, I don't think the blame lies squarely at their feet. In fact one sequence I dislike the most out of that film (the Caviar factory sequence) wasnt even their creation, it was a sequence that I believe Wilson wanted to shoehorn into the film since they wanted to do an action sequence with those helicopters as far back as Goldeneye.

As for DAD, it's been well documented that a few of the changes in the latter half of the film were creations of Tamahori and not necessarily Purvis and Wade themselves. In fact the climax as envisioned by them would have been stronger than the one we ended up with.

That may be so, but there is one overlooked and very solid bit of evidence here - they were the designated screenwriters who created the scripts. There is always going to be directors, producers, actors etc messing with a writers screenplay, that's pretty standard.

The fact remains that these two ARE NOT good Bond writers, I have read early drafts of a couple of their scripts that have floated about the net and have seen the finished products. I am a budding writer myself and can spot strong similarities between all of their films, including CR and QoS. The single overshadowing similarity between every Bond film since they came aboard is the messy narrative structure - the horribly paced bounding between dozens of locations involving very obviously forced action sequences and an overwhealming lack of personality displayed by the written character of 007 himself. Daniel Craig does his best but anyone who knows his talent and the general art of conveying film characters through dialogues and physical direction will realise that even with Paul Haggis on board there is relatively little there. They also seem to just create stories with a general tone and feel that is far removed from Fleming's hard-edged, seriously cool and genuinely witty character. They create this kind of globetrotting, messy, un-british tripe. Sure it's set in the UK here and there with British actors, but the tone itself is very American and not that British. Even the Daltons had a more British tone than any of these guys films.

I don't care how many OTHER people are to blame for bad scenes, these guys were the main writers. If they wrote great films and had them changed into turds by everyone else I'd love to see the evidence (it doesn't exist, because they suck )

[Pierce - Daniel]

I think the P&W hate is crazy.
Firstly I come from the camp that really enjoyed TWINE. The script had a great plot, brilliant villians, and great plot twist. Brosnan is very good in the film and Marceau is a spot on villian, one of the series best. The script is great ly handled, that entire opening at the bank, Brosnan is picture perfect, when he holds the gun to teh bakers head "You can count to 3 can't you?" Fantastically done. It had the Bond tics but was very indepth and interesting and strung together by Apted perfectly, great movie. The script was great, it explored Bond alot more and was not only a good Bond movie, but a really good movie on it's own standing.

DAD....I stand that the first hour of DAD is great, it starts totally from the left field wit the torture and imprisonment but you also get the whole Cuba element where the plot and glamour picks up the film does though suffer from bad scripted after that point the final M and Frost scene is the film's last good scene then it all falls apart rather quickly, the script is sloppy the plot is cut and pasted together, the acting is shoddy, and the directing is distractingly bad, but we know that Tamahori is pretty much to blame for DAD's second act so I can happily forgive Neal and Robert.

As for CR, the best elements of the film are the Bond and Vesper scenes by a long shot. But remember Haggis wrote them all after all he was hired only to script those scenes. And what a terrific job he did, but the plot points were P&Ws. The black and white opening intergrated with Bond's first kills and the gunbarrel was there idea and it was perfect, they too came up with the idea of the Parkour chase. There not fools, they sorted the story out and kept it's beat going and what a great job they did on that film.

It's anyones guess who wrote QOS. Was it Haggis (despite an unfinished script) was it Zetumer, P&W, or Forster and Craig? I think they all had a hand. I think the script was good. But I prefer TWINE's and the opening hour of DAD's (not to say they were better films, I prefer QOS, as Forster's direction is brilliant and the look of the film is inspiring), but there was some great dialgoue reserved for Greene, and Dan steals the show with his small monalogue scenes.

[JimmyBond]

I don't care how many OTHER people are to blame for bad scenes, these guys were the main writers. If they wrote great films and had them changed into turds by everyone else I'd love to see the evidence (it doesn't exist, because they suck )

An opinion is an opinion, and I would never try to change yours. No matter how much it is based on mere generalizations and not on any factual evidence. Sure there early drafts of TWINE were not outstanding, but it was much better than the finished project. In fact there early draft of TWINE was much better than Fierstiens first draft of TND (go read it, that's the real mess).

To lay all the praise at the feet of Haggis while dismissing there contributions to the last two films is a little narrow minded. And I'd definately take Purvis and Wade over the likes of Tom Mankiewicz, I never did care for his writing, even if I do put TMWTGG up near the top of my list.

[Leon]

I personally thought TWINE had a terrible plot, full of nonsense and a really bad narrative structure, of the quality of something like Johnny English.

I won't even bother with DAD, it'd take too long.

The last two were better but the influence of Haggis is extremely evident throughout and also the quality of those films was boosted by Fleming source materiel and better production and actors.

I don't hate P&W, I just think they shouldn't still be writing Bond films.

An opinion is an opinion, and I would never try to change yours. No matter how much it is based on mere generalizations and not on any factual evidence. Sure there early drafts of TWINE were not outstanding, but it was much better than the finished project. In fact there early draft of TWINE was much better than Fierstiens first draft of TND (go read it, that's the real mess).

To lay all the praise at the feet of Haggis while dismissing there contributions to the last two films is a little narrow minded. And I'd definately take Purvis and Wade over the likes of Tom Mankiewicz, I never did care for his writing, even if I do put TMWTGG up near the top of my list.

Narrow minded? I look into Bond films considerably more than most people, so that automatically is not narrow minded in relation to what we are discussing. I have read an early draft of TWINE and it was still bad.

I don't care who's draft of what un-related film was worse than the others, I am talking about their films and objectively saying what I dont like about them. I think TND is a pretty poor film as well, I'm not taking sides here.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I think the P&W hate is crazy.
Firstly I come from the camp that really enjoyed TWINE. The script had a great plot, brilliant villians, and great plot twist. Brosnan is very good in the film and Marceau is a spot on villian, one of the series best. The script is great ly handled, that entire opening at the bank, Brosnan is picture perfect, when he holds the gun to teh bakers head "You can count to 3 can't you?" Fantastically done. It had the Bond tics but was very indepth and interesting and strung together by Apted perfectly, great movie. The script was great, it explored Bond alot more and was not only a good Bond movie, but a really good movie on it's own standing.

DAD....I stand that the first hour of DAD is great, it starts totally from the left field wit the torture and imprisonment but you also get the whole Cuba element where the plot and glamour picks up the film does though suffer from bad scripted after that point the final M and Frost scene is the film's last good scene then it all falls apart rather quickly, the script is sloppy the plot is cut and pasted together, the acting is shoddy, and the directing is distractingly bad, but we know that Tamahori is pretty much to blame for DAD's second act so I can happily forgive Neal and Robert.

As for CR, the best elements of the film are the Bond and Vesper scenes by a long shot. But remember Haggis wrote them all after all he was hired only to script those scenes. And what a terrific job he did, but the plot points were P&Ws. The black and white opening intergrated with Bond's first kills and the gunbarrel was there idea and it was perfect, they too came up with the idea of the Parkour chase. There not fools, they sorted the story out and kept it's beat going and what a great job they did on that film.

It's anyones guess who wrote QOS. Was it Haggis (despite an unfinished script) was it Zetumer, P&W, or Forster and Craig? I think they all had a hand. I think the script was good. But I prefer TWINE's and the opening hour of DAD's (not to say they were better films, I prefer QOS, as Forster's direction is brilliant and the look of the film is inspiring), but there was some great dialgoue reserved for Greene, and Dan steals the show with his small monalogue scenes.

I'm going to say this right now.. I'm extremly Excited Purvis and Wade are coming back. and Honestly i think them and Morgan are gonna come up with a great script.


As for this Purvis Wade hate i don't get it. I really don't.

[Leon]

As for this Purvis Wade hate i don't get it. I really don't.

It's really really simple, some people, who are very passionate Bond fans, think the films they wrote suck. That's it, that is all there is to take on board.

The producers themselves decided CR and QoS needed heavy revising by a much more expensive writer (Haggis) - I didn't choose that, the people making the film did, and that says something alone.

But the fact remains, nobody hates them, some people just think they should be replaced. Personally I strongly think that a single, quality screenwriter would be much better than getting various extra people (ontop of two!) to constantly revise and change their work to make it better. With all the script manipulation from various members of the Bond production team ontop of that it's a wonder we get anything at all coherent.

Honestly i think them and Morgan are gonna come up with a great script.

It's nice to see the optimism, but personally I think we'll get the same as before:

P&W will write some trash that Morgan will heavily revise over to try and improve, which he probably will, but it still can never be as good as a single, quality writer's vision pitched to the producers and overseen in it's mutations with that single vision in mind. The more writers you put into anything, the more it will lose coherence, the more you will get dialogues and character directions which don't seem to hold the same consistent tone or arc and the more you lose that all important single 'vision' which great works all come from in any art form.

This is the basis behind the saying too many cooks spoil the broth, and with writing in particular it is very true. I still lament the unreached potential of the Casino Royale film, despite how cool it was at first.

[JimmyBond]

The producers themselves decided CR and QoS needed heavy revising by a much more expensive writer (Haggis) - I didn't choose that, the people making the film did, and that says something alone.

You don't know that. For all we know that was the plan all along, to have Purvis and Wade write a first draft and have someone else come in to punch it up a bit.

[DaveBond21]

It's great to get this nice snippet of Bond 23 news. It's interesting that Purvis & Wade will be back. There have been many discussions on this site about how much of the scripts of CR and QOS were their own work, and how much was Paul Haggis? I'd love to be able to find out what is their work and what is not.

Is it fair to say that Purvis & Wade wrote the screenplays for both the last two movies, and in particular the action scenes, while Haggis edited the dialogue for both?

[Royal Dalton]

The producers themselves decided CR and QoS needed heavy revising by a much more expensive writer (Haggis) - I didn't choose that, the people making the film did, and that says something alone.

Richard Maibaum had loads of his Bond scripts rewritten by other hands, as well. It's par for the course.

[Leon]

The producers themselves decided CR and QoS needed heavy revising by a much more expensive writer (Haggis) - I didn't choose that, the people making the film did, and that says something alone.

You don't know that. For all we know that was the plan all along, to have Purvis and Wade write a first draft and have someone else come in to punch it up a bit.

So it was their plan all along to hire a far more expensive/quality writer ontop of the existing two and have him perform more than one set of revisions on the script because they knew P&W wouldn't be good enough by themselves, despite having a full Fleming novel as source materiel?

It certainly is possible. Don't fool yourself here, there is only one reason for another writer to be hired to perform revisions and to polish a screenplay. It's because it wasn't good enough. They don't spend all that money just because they feel like it or for a laugh.

What I am saying is that they should have one writer who is already good enough to pen a really good Bond film. You may dissagree and enjoy TWINE et al to your heart's content, but I guarentee that if it happens you will see an incredible difference in the quality of the narrative, tone and overall coherence of the Bond films. That's an instant given, ignoring the fact that a better suited, lone writer would likely come up with better stories in the first place.

Richard Maibaum had loads of his Bond scripts rewritten by other hands, as well. It's par for the course.

It happens with many films, but not all. You will find that most of the finest films came from a single artistic vision. Anyhow, I'm not talking about Richard Maibaum, I'm talking about P&W, and I actually think most of the Bond films could have been much better, it's just that P&W take the biscuit for me.

[AgentV]

We all know that Sheen worked with Morgan on Frost/Nixon, but it should also be noted that Morgan wrote the screenplays for quite a few more of Sheen's films: The Damned United, The Deal, The Queen, and up-coming film The Special Relationship. The "special relationship," it appears, exists between Sheen and Morgan, and Hewitt's interpretation of Morgan's involvement with the next James Bond flick entails an inclusion of Michael Sheen for a part.

(interesting casting idea - I like it )

Eh? Peter Morgan is not a casting director. This is as absurd as saying that Clint Eastwood was going to be the villain in QOS just because Paul Haggis wrote it.

The usual lazy speculations have to be tolerated, I suppose.

I don’t see why such speculation is absurd or lazy. Writers and directors are part of the casting process sometimes, and do have some say for the casting director. In fact, I’ve heard Morgan talk about casting choices in some interviews.

Partnerships are always made in Hollywood, especially with people who have some artistic power, which arguably, Morgan has right now. There's no reason to think that a) Morgan couldn't persuade someone like Sheen, who he has worked with more than enough times before, to do it if the role/script is good enough (even if it is a cameo, or something), and b ) is not like a casting director or the studio would decline if Morgan is able to do so. Indeed, this is like calling someone’s argument absurd because he or she suggested that Martin Scorsese might make another film with Leonardo DiCrapio, who has made as many films with Scorsese as Morgan has with Sheen by now. The fact that Morgan’s debut as a director will include Sheen again should be telling.

Now, it might not happen. Bond films might not interest someone like Sheen (I don’t know, but I think he would see it as something fun, I suppose). And I’m pretty sure that this is sensational talk to start a rumor of some sort. But there’s no reason to think that the suggestion is somehow absurd because it uses Morgan as the main point of argument, when they’ve worked together in four film-projects (the last one is going to be with Morgan as the director) and one stage-play.

And yes, I see what you did there with the bad analogy between Eastwood and Haggis.

[danslittlefinger]

We all know that Sheen worked with Morgan on Frost/Nixon, but it should also be noted that Morgan wrote the screenplays for quite a few more of Sheen's films: The Damned United, The Deal, The Queen, and up-coming film The Special Relationship. The "special relationship," it appears, exists between Sheen and Morgan, and Hewitt's interpretation of Morgan's involvement with the next James Bond flick entails an inclusion of Michael Sheen for a part.

(interesting casting idea - I like it )

Eh? Peter Morgan is not a casting director. This is as absurd as saying that Clint Eastwood was going to be the villain in QOS just because Paul Haggis wrote it.

The usual lazy speculations have to be tolerated, I suppose.

I don’t see why such speculation is absurd or lazy. Writers and directors are part of the casting process sometimes, and do have some say for the casting director. In fact, I’ve heard Morgan talk about casting choices in some interviews.

Partnerships are always made in Hollywood, especially with people who have some artistic power, which arguably, Morgan has right now. There's no reason to think that a) Morgan couldn't persuade someone like Sheen, who he has worked with more than enough times before, to do it if the role/script is good enough (even if it is a cameo, or something), and b ) is not like a casting director or the studio would decline if Morgan is able to do so. Indeed, this is like calling someone’s argument absurd because he or she suggested that Martin Scorsese might make another film with Leonardo DiCrapio, who has made as many films with Scorsese as Morgan has with Sheen by now. The fact that Morgan’s debut as a director will include Sheen again should be telling.

Now, it might not happen. Bond films might not interest someone like Sheen (I don’t know, but I think he would see it as something fun, I suppose). And I’m pretty sure that this is sensational talk to start a rumor of some sort. But there’s no reason to think that the suggestion is somehow absurd because it uses Morgan as the main point of argument, when they’ve worked together in four film-projects (the last one is going to be with Morgan as the director) and one stage-play.

And yes, I see what you did there with the bad analogy between Eastwood and Haggis.

Exactly.

[JimmyBond]

So it was their plan all along to hire a far more expensive/quality writer ontop of the existing two and have him perform more than one set of revisions on the script because they knew P&W wouldn't be good enough by themselves, despite having a full Fleming novel as source materiel?

Now you're putting words in my mouth. It's par for the course on big budget films such as these for other writers to come in and do a polish.

What I am saying is that they should have one writer who is already good enough to pen a really good Bond film.

That will never happen on a Bond film. In fact that rarely happens on any big budget film, smaller films maybe, but Bond films are blockbusters, the producers want the script to be the best it can before it goes before cameras.

Richard Maibaum had loads of his Bond scripts rewritten by other hands, as well. It's par for the course.

Anyhow, I'm not talking about Richard Maibaum, I'm talking about P&W, and I actually think most of the Bond films could have been much better, it's just that P&W take the biscuit for me.

Royal Dalton brings up a very good point and you dismiss it. Why?

[Zorin Industries]

Jeez, what are P&W doing to keep hold of their job? They are bloody awful.

Every Bond film they have written has been poor, very poor. The latest two were quite obviously heavily altered by Paul Haggis and frankly I bet I could point out every crummy bit of evidence of their writing that's in those two films

....

Have ONE designated screen writer, a good one. I'm sick of Purvis&Wadehead spewing their trash into the Bond series.

I completely agree. I HATE Purvis and Wade. Yes, the understand the novels, but come on! It's actually disgraceful how EON can hold on to them. They're TERRIBLE writers, and I can't stress that enough.

The worst thing is, Broccoli and Wilson know it. The fact that their work is lacking, (and always has been) makes me wonder what kind of bloody spell they've cast over the producers. I mean, they've even had to bring in another screenwriter(s) to polish their work. TWICE.

I don't understand why Broccoli and Wilson don't drop them. For them to bring in other script writers to polish their work, obviously gives the impression that they aren't happy.

That press release should say either 'Peter Morgan' or 'Paul Haggis and Peter Morgan'
not 'Peter Morgan and Neal Purvis and Robert Wade'.

I dread to think what the first drafts of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were like. Haggis is gold. The producers should hang onto him.

Ditch the Jesters for a King, imo.

Eon have a good working relationship with Purvis and Wade. There is no doubt a creative shorthand to their collaborations and the duo obviously bring things to the table that Eon rate and admire.

Getting in anyone else to script polish is not an automatic sign of creative weakness. Other factors come into play too - writers move on and are not available, studio 'interference' / involvement dictates certain creative paths and a different take is needed to help a script. For example, on THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, Purvis and Wade saw Michael Apted's wife come on board and allegedly tidy up and polish the femaleness of the script (bearing in mind there was a female protagonist).

Also, a Bond film needs polishing all the time. It is how they are created. But there are only so many hours in a day that writers can do that, but if a shooting schedule is looming, then other writers may be called in. And certain writers are great at seeing the wood for the trees and being able to silently cut and mend. Some writers just do that for a living, and rarely get any notice.

I am though not one of Purvis and Wade's biggest fans. I heard that they are penning THE BRAZILIAN JOB which is interesting as word on the street was they were sacked from THE ITALIAN JOB - though that could be for a myriad of reasons (one being studio interference). I do know that they have been removed from a few projects - though that in itself means nothing about their qualities.

[BoogieBond]

I am disappointed Haggis is not on board for Bond 23. I feel he has done well on the last 2. But we move on.
I feel P&W are EON favourites, but they have done reasonably well in the last 2 as well. Peter Morgan seems talented, I did like Frost/Nixon and The Damned United. So I have high hopes for Bond 23.

[Zorin Industries]

Morgan finds the humanity in any scenario. He is very adept at locating the human drama / struggle / dilemma and victory in the most apparently banal of places and exchanges. He could well provide what Eon have been striving for without the emotional fanfare - i.e. emotional involvement BEYOND the VESPER arc.

Morgan can also be quite a "light" writer. He doesn't let his work run away from itself towards the door marked "important". This could work in a Bond film's favour as he - despite his topics of choice - threads a universality into his work - which is exactly what a Bond film needs.

[Orion]

Almost every news outlet in Britain has an aritcle on this now. What other film franchise makes the news just because it hires a new writer? It makes me proud to be British when i see how important Bond is to Britain.

[Zorin Industries]

Good point Orion.

And that is the attitude to remember when other folk are quibbling over titles and editing decisions.

[SecretAgentFan]

Morgan finds the humanity in any scenario. He is very adept at locating the human drama / struggle / dilemma and victory in the most apparently banal of places and exchanges. He could well provide what Eon have been striving for without the emotional fanfare - i.e. emotional involvement BEYOND the VESPER arc.

Morgan can also be quite a "light" writer. He doesn't let his work run away from itself towards the door marked "important". This could work in a Bond film's favour as he - despite his topics of choice - threads a universality into his work - which is exactly what a Bond film needs.

Exactly. Morgan is a fantastic choice for the next Bond. I recently saw "Frost/Nixon" and just loved the way Morgan had written the moments in which drama and comedic elements were intertwined for maximum emotional impact. That´s what Bond 23 can use.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Almost every news outlet in Britain has an aritcle on this now. What other film franchise makes the news just because it hires a new writer? It makes me proud to be British when i see how important Bond is to Britain.

While that is nice Not a single one is willing to guess at the films title Really? I mean Surely the sun or one of those mags has an "insider"


yeah i know in 3 weeks i'll be up to my neck in title and cast and director rumours.

[Zorin Industries]

Almost every news outlet in Britain has an aritcle on this now. What other film franchise makes the news just because it hires a new writer? It makes me proud to be British when i see how important Bond is to Britain.

While that is nice Not a single one is willing to guess at the films title Really? I mean Surely the sun or one of those mags has an "insider"


yeah i know in 3 weeks i'll be up to my neck in title and cast and director rumours.

Why? There could well not be another announcement for a year. Sorry.