190 replies to this topic

[Pushkin]

They do know Bond inside out, but at this point in the franchise, it's really time for a new perspective.  P&W do bring some strengths to the table, but if the reported areas of concern with the current script are accurate, those are areas that are probably P&W's biggest weaknesses as screenwriters.  

I completely agree. Rewrites are common but these two are not the best choices for these issues. 

[Colossus]

at this point it's … eh

[SecretAgentFan]

I think Mendes is a fantastic director.  I think John Logan is a great writer.

 

But...

 

This does not mean they actually are perfect for Bond.  From what I understand SKYFALL already had a script everybody was excited about and which Mendes interested enough to say yes.  He worked with P & W on revisions and then brought in his buddy Logan to polish.  Which means: he made the changes Mendes wanted him to do.

 

This is a common practice: a director getting his go-to-guy to do changes - and the go-to-guy becomes the go-to-guy because he does everything his master wants him to do.

 

If you consider the plot of SKYFALL which is not completely airtight (to put it friendly), it is illogical to blame Purvis & Wade for it.  One has to blame Mendes and Logan - since they were the ones who took over the script and came up with that version.  If they had considered the plot to be in need of changes - why didn´t they do it?  Time was not the issue there at all.

 

So one has to wonder: was the plot in Purvis & Wade´s original draft changed because Mendes cut scenes in favor of adding some which he wanted to have?  Was the final confusion a result of an auteur caring not so much about narrative fluency but showcasing character moments?

 

If you look at Mendes´ films, a cohesive plot is not exactly what he is going for.  And Alan Ball, the writer, was supposedly shocked when he first found out how many scenes Mendes had cut from "American Beauty".  For that film it worked out.  But... 

 

I just want to point out: the status of Mendes does not automatically make him the only chance to save Bond.

 

And John Logan... really, he writes great plays.  But his scripts very often are rewrites.  He comes in because he is very good with directors.  Has he written an original script that actually turned out to be a great movie, without being rewritten himself?  And the one time he went to take a franchise into a new direction it was a huge failure.

 

Just saying.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 29 June 2014 - 08:51 AM.

[jamie00007]

The original report suggests that they're being brought on primarily to work on dialogue, focusing on the Bond/M relationship as well as the "witty repartee" between Bond and Moneypenny and to focus on putting more jokes into the script.

Oh. Oh dear.

[JohnnyWalker]

Still just unsubstantial reports isn't it? Sometimes these stories turn out to be totally different things.

[Colossus]

Wait i thought everyone wanted more jokes this time.

[Monsieur Scaramanga]

http://www.dailymail...ils-thrill.html

Bad news...apparently John Logan's Bond 24 script is in need of some major tweeking...thus Purvis and Wade have been hired to rewrite the script to give it some "punch", according to our trusty Daily Mail correspondent Baz Bamigboye. As a result it looks like the start of filming has been delayed til December..D'oh!! Still, I'd rather they'd take their time in getting the script solid than risk another Quantum of Solace situation.

They seriously suck. Thus why the last several bond movies have being absolute S*** and yes, skyfall for me was utterly bad. I will say the villain was good. The plot was a mock up of Mission impossible and not to mention bond failed ever objective in that movie making him one of the worst secret agents.

Edited by Monsieur Scaramanga, 29 June 2014 - 08:25 PM.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Well I have to say for me personally this news is neither bad nor distressing in the least. Actually I would say it's good news. P & W get too much heat, I'd say unfairly. There was another writer brought in to work with Apted on TWINE to make the film appeal to women and in DAD the biggest issues in that for me have to do with dodgy casting and performances/deliveries and less than adequate visual f/x and CGI that was really jarring. If I am to be totally honest in spite of it's flaws I actually liked a lot of the actual story/ideas in DAD and it even has some pretty good action and while I would never say it's among the best made Bond films, it is still at the very fringe of what would be my list of favorites, essentially a guilty pleasure.

 

I get the feeling that sometimes the writers get both too much credit/ too much blame for the finished product when the whole creative, director, producers, sometimes the lead star and also the heads of various f/x and production departments all get a chance to have their input on the script and sometimes it comes down to the logistics. Supposedly P & W had the DB5 for CR in the script for SF but then Mendes/Logan vetoed that to put in the one from GF. Honestly I can't really complain about that because it was the 50th and all, not to mention it was fun to see, but the continuity OCD in me sometimes makes me wonder and it's things like that and actually hearing P & W speak in behind the scenes footage and interviews that at least for me I trust and welcome them being involved in writing process. All this talk of doom and gloom, but they were there for all three of Craig's films so far, and didn't they all turn out just awful? Again this is good news for me, if anything I was actually a little sad when I heard they were moving on. They seem to have a firm grasp on the more traditional, pulpier, action/adventure conventions that to me make the whole Bond experience all the more special. Just my two cents, opinion on this news.   

[Colossus]

Agreed Agent Spriggan Ominae (?!) i have no problem with this either, as you say the pulpy aspects is something i think are the more important than even the "human" factor, or seriousness, etc. It is what sets Bond apart from Bourne. And we should embrace this stuff , in fact i dub it "FRWL syndrome" where people get hopped up on that movie and want everything to be just like THAT. ONE. MOVIE. C'mon guys. 

[The Dove]

 

http://www.dailymail...ils-thrill.html

Bad news...apparently John Logan's Bond 24 script is in need of some major tweeking...thus Purvis and Wade have been hired to rewrite the script to give it some "punch", according to our trusty Daily Mail correspondent Baz Bamigboye. As a result it looks like the start of filming has been delayed til December..D'oh!! Still, I'd rather they'd take their time in getting the script solid than risk another Quantum of Solace situation.

They seriously suck. Thus why the last several bond movies have being absolute S*** and yes, skyfall for me was utterly bad. I will say the villain was good. The plot was a mock up of Mission impossible and not to mention bond failed ever objective in that movie making him one of the worst secret agents.

 

 

Wow....   Sorry that you feel that way,

[Janus Assassin]

 

 

http://www.dailymail...ils-thrill.html

Bad news...apparently John Logan's Bond 24 script is in need of some major tweeking...thus Purvis and Wade have been hired to rewrite the script to give it some "punch", according to our trusty Daily Mail correspondent Baz Bamigboye. As a result it looks like the start of filming has been delayed til December..D'oh!! Still, I'd rather they'd take their time in getting the script solid than risk another Quantum of Solace situation.

They seriously suck. Thus why the last several bond movies have being absolute S*** and yes, skyfall for me was utterly bad. I will say the villain was good. The plot was a mock up of Mission impossible and not to mention bond failed ever objective in that movie making him one of the worst secret agents.

 

 

Wow....   Sorry that you feel that way,

 

 

Seriously, I can understand that some people didn't like Skyfall, but if the last "several" has Casino Royale on that list then... wow.

[00Twelve]

Such panic.

 

Obviously, P&W weren't solely (or even majorly) responsible for all the rewrites that gave us the last two Brosnan gems. TWINE had at least several rewrites and DAD had a couple as well (every major tentpole release like this does). P&W aren't in any way the root of the problems of those last several Bond films.

 

My understanding is that P&W are being brought back because they know the history of Bond and can insert some relevance to the character's history (not in clunky, on-the-nose references) and make sure this Bond is the one we recognize from Fleming. They didn't write every bad pun between the MI6 regulars, so I can't imagine it being a sign of that schtick automatically making a comeback.

 

Best not to worry, it won't change the film.

[Iceskater101]

Such panic.

 

 

Best not to worry, it won't change the film.

I also think people need to calm down.. I mean maybe you may not like the writers for whatever the reason may be, but this doesn't mean the Bond movie is going to be horrible.

[SecretAgentFan]

The funny thing is: if BOND 24 will go into production with Logan´s script rewritten by Purvis & Wade people here will still claim that the good parts are written by Logan.

[LKane]

Agree with everything you posted, Secret Agent Fan. Especially about Mendes and Logan not necessarily being good for the Franchise in the long run. I would suspect that Purvis and Wade are more attuned to what a Bond film is than Logan - who may be Oscar nominated scribe but probably doesn't have the first clue about Bond. Hence the rewrites...
I also get the sense that these rewrites are more than just inserting some humor between Bond and Moneypenny and Bond and M's relationship. If it were that simple would there really be a 2 to 3 month delay in shooting start date? I have a feeling these rewrites are more extensive than reported....

[Shrublands]

Agree with everything you posted, Secret Agent Fan. Especially about Mendes and Logan not necessarily being good for the Franchise in the long run. I would suspect that Purvis and Wade are more attuned to what a Bond film is than Logan - who may be Oscar nominated scribe but probably doesn't have the first clue about Bond. Hence the rewrites...
I also get the sense that these rewrites are more than just inserting some humor between Bond and Moneypenny and Bond and M's relationship. If it were that simple would there really be a 2 to 3 month delay in shooting start date? I have a feeling these rewrites are more extensive than reported....

 

My reading of the situation is just the opposite. There was already going to be a delay until a November start of filming (Baz reported this a few months ago) so this latest delay for the script revision represents only a few more weeks.

 

I suspect that this is what Mendes was talking about last month when he talked about "plugging holes" in the script. As I understand it, he has worked very closely with Logan on all stages of the Bond 24 screenplay from the inception of the idea right through to the last delivered draft, so he is not likely to be that unhappy (or surprised) by the way it has turned out. I think they all just want some fresh eyes on the material before they commit to filming it.

 

Also, and I suspect that this has been a factor too, all the heads of department have been contributing ideas lately (from special effects, production design to second unit and stunts) that's a lot of input from a lot of disparate sources. P&W are very experienced in working with all this kind of stuff and incorporating it into a workable script, It's a job they have done many times.

 

I'd say there is no need to panic, they are just making certain the script is in good shape before it is too late. Re-writes such as this and small delays to principal photography are very, very common in the film industry. 

[SecretAgentFan]

 

Agree with everything you posted, Secret Agent Fan. Especially about Mendes and Logan not necessarily being good for the Franchise in the long run. I would suspect that Purvis and Wade are more attuned to what a Bond film is than Logan - who may be Oscar nominated scribe but probably doesn't have the first clue about Bond. Hence the rewrites...
I also get the sense that these rewrites are more than just inserting some humor between Bond and Moneypenny and Bond and M's relationship. If it were that simple would there really be a 2 to 3 month delay in shooting start date? I have a feeling these rewrites are more extensive than reported....

 

My reading of the situation is just the opposite. There was already going to be a delay until a November start of filming (Baz reported this a few months ago) so this latest delay for the script revision represents only a few more weeks.

 

I suspect that this is what Mendes was talking about last month when he talked about "plugging holes" in the script. As I understand it, he has worked very closely with Logan on all stages of the Bond 24 screenplay from the inception of the idea right through to the last delivered draft, so he is not likely to be that unhappy (or surprised) by the way it has turned out. I think they all just want some fresh eyes on the material before they commit to filming it.

 

Also, and I suspect that this has been a factor too, all the heads of department have been contributing ideas lately (from special effects, production design to second unit and stunts) that's a lot of input from a lot of disparate sources. P&W are very experienced in working with all this kind of stuff and incorporating it into a workable script, It's a job they have done many times.

 

I'd say there is no need to panic, they are just making certain the script is in good shape before it is too late. Re-writes such as this and small delays to principal photography are very, very common in the film industry. 

 

I hope you´re right and that I only have needlessly panicked!

[Turn]

Ah, the information age. We hear something and the speculation begins.

 

It would have been fun if we had the Internet back in 1975/76 when Harry Saltzman split, followed by the multiple drafts for TWSLM by various writers and then EON hires the guy who became famous writing smut novels.

[Shrublands]

Here P&W talk about their work on Skyfall and how the script work went between them and Logan. How Logon took over from them and worked for 9 months, then they came back to do a bit more before filming... then a bit more from Logan. I think it shows that them returning for Bond 24 at this stage is nothing to be too surprised or worried about. 

 

[sharpshooter]

Yeah, I'm honestly not too worried about this. It could turn out to be a good thing. 

[S K Y F A L L]

I could just see the meeting take place were P&W are asked back, "With pleasure. Baz, With pleasure." Or maybe it was more like Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd; "Heartwarming, Mr. Wade." "A glowing tribute, Mr. Purvis." I read a lot about "who knows who writes what" but not between P&W, which is anyone's guess.

[JoeMI3]

I was about to ask, is this rewrite all because Cleese brought attention to the Moderne Bond. I disagree with Cleese on this one... some what. They don't just write Bond with alot of action sets for the Asian markets... but it certainly is something in the back of the studio's mind. For example, too make more profit during the finacial difficulties, MGM's very watered down remake of Red Dawn was originally with the Chinese Communists. They realized the size of the audience in China so they changed the Chinese to the North Koreans in post-production by digitally changing flags, redubbing the Chinese etc. My buddies and I laugh at the idea of the Koreans taking over the U.S. they can't even launch a missle correctly hahaha. Anyways, John Cleese ins't entirely wrong about it, but they do treat Bond witj way more respect than a remake of a Dated Pop cultural 80s film.

Edited by JoeMI3, 03 July 2014 - 04:25 AM.

[DavidJones]

Cleese's comment was a perceptive one, I think. I, at any rate, didn't consider that they may have make special considerations for the Asian market.

[FOX MULDER]

Humour is the essence of the Bond movie character. Without it, he's just another secret agent. I'm all for anything that points us back in the direction of the classic character of earlier films, and away from Bourne, Jason Statham, and all the other tedious action men.

Edited by FOX MULDER, 03 July 2014 - 09:20 PM.

[jamie00007]

I laughed more in the Craig films than I ever did in the Brosnan films. Give me that dry wit over cheesy puns anyday. 

[SecretAgentFan]

Returning to the topic of script revision - I don´t know, maybe I´m just cranky right now... but in former times Bond films could be delivered every two years and still turn out - mostly - very entertaining.

 

These days, one has to wait for a director until he feels the need again to come back from his other projects, and in the meantime the high class writer has to find time to fit in work on the script - and still cannot deliver what is needed.

 

Wouldn´t EON be better off with getting back to a more workman-like approach, delivering solid entertainment instead of trying to craft something that reviewers will also like?

 

Wouldn´t it be better for the films if directors and writers were hired who consider it an honor to work on a Bond film, clearing their schedules for it at once?  I don´t think the people involved in the new "STAR WARS" films thought: well, yeah, for the money and fame, okay - but first I have to concentrate on another play which is much more important to me anyway?

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 06 July 2014 - 03:28 PM.

[S K Y F A L L]

I love it SAF!

[tdalton]

These days, one has to wait for a director until he feels the need again to come back from his other projects, and in the meantime the high class writer has to find time to fit in work on the script - and still cannot deliver what is needed.

I don't think that this is something that can really be blamed on Mendes.  He told EON that he wouldn't return when they offered him the director's chair for Bond 24 immediately after Skyfall's release.  I think it was EON's indecision for a year or so that led to Mendes' return more than anything else.  By the time that they approached him again, he was in a better frame of mind regarding the idea of directing a Bond film (as I'd expect that not many people would want to jump right back into it after having just completed work on one of these films), and accepted.  I think they would have been better off simply hiring another director for this upcoming film and then brought Mendes back for Craig's finale in Bond 25.

 

I will agree on the writing.  There's no excuse for the script not to be done now.  The only excuse I could think to make for Logan is that perhaps EON got cold feet when presented with a new direction in which to take the franchise, as I'd expect that someone of Logan's caliber would have some ideas as to where to take things that are a bit different than what the series has been used to at this point, and then decided to go back to Purvis and Wade to give it a feeling of familiarity.  I feel that's the wrong choice at this point, as with all of the goodwill that Skyfall has brought to the franchise, this is the time to experiment with it, not the time to bring back more painfully cliche dialogue with Moneypenny and more trust issues with M.

 

Wouldn´t EON be better off with getting back to a more workman-like approach, delivering solid entertainment instead of trying to craft something that reviewers will also like?

According to the general public, they were able to accomplish both with Skyfall.  If they think they've found a way in which to deliver great entertainment to the masses while also garnering favorable reviews and/or award recognition, then they should continue down that path.  The workman-like approach eventually led to apathy and diminishing returns (at least in the eyes of the general public and a good number of Bond fans), and really kept some of the films from being everything that they could have been.  Had EON given Dalton a crew that was completely on board with his take on the character, I can only imagine how much better The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill could have been, as great as they are in their current form.  

 

  

 

 

[SecretAgentFan]

True.  But the "workman-like approach" I meant delivered such great films as the Dalton movies which can still hold their own with if not tower over anything since.  That kind of Bond film I would love to see again.

 

I´m not flip-flopping here, I do like the Craig movies.  But in retrospect, they all are flawed, maybe even as much as the Brosnan movies.  They all have great moments and ideas, but... CR is neither here nor there, tries to be everything and goes on for too long with pacing problems.  QOS is miraculously good, considering its production history, but still could have been so much better with more attention to the plot.  And SF has lots of great sequences - but they are strung together with sheer force of will, not narrative elegance.

 

As for Logan - I must say that people seem to admire him.  Yet, which movie did he actually write on his own to justify his acclaim?  GLADIATOR always comes up - but that script was re-written ad nauseam by tons of writers.  THE AVIATOR?  Another project that originated with Michael Mann who did extensive work on that before Scorsese guided it even more intensively, with not much room for an author.  STAR TREK: NEMESIS - yes, that one seems to have been Logan, mostly, but... 

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 06 July 2014 - 07:54 PM.

[LKane]

Secret Agent Fan, I agree with all your points... Wholeheartedly.