190 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

The problem is that the current films, as good as they can be, never realized their potential because they've always had one-foot still in the past.  The big disappointment that I have regarding Purvis and Wade returning is that it's still a case of EON retreating to the way things used to be done.  For better, or worse, we were going to be getting a Bond film directed by an Oscar-winning director and written solely by an Oscar-nominated writer.  This was going to be the first time that Bond had really broken completely away from the old way of making the films and trying something new.  If it turned out to be a disaster, then they could retreat back to the workman-like way of doing things, hiring a crew that would work on one film after the other, which would result in several films that are inconsistent and disjointed in tone.  But, we'll never find out if such a direction could have yielded results because EON is still making workman-like films, but are simply allowing better talent to come in and put a nice polish on them.  

[LKane]

I think SKYFALL is vastly overrated. So full of clumsy Bond posturing, starting with that very first over the top musical sting of an out of focus Bond sliding into view at the opening, all the way to that painfully forced roaring of the Bond theme towards the end when Silva detonates the Aston Martin. No more Mendes and Logan for me...

[Colossus]

The writing "triumph" of SF also perplexed me.

[Mr_Wint]

Everytime these guys (P&W) are mentioned, I think of the ending in TWINE. How fantastic that the hero did not let the villain blow everything up, but how can we now blow everything up to get a good ending?

Christmas: The hydrogen gas level is too high. One spark and the reactor will blow (Purvis's idea). I have to stop it!
Bond: Go to the top of the submarine. I'll meet you in the torpedo bay. Go!
Bond: The reactor is flooded. So it's safe even if this place blows (Wade's idea).

 

*One spark*

 

Sub blows up.

[Harmsway]

I'm glad P&W are back: they know Bond. Going by interviews that have clarified who was responsible for what, they've been more of an asset to the Craig films than a liability.

I'm less enthusiastic about the emphasis on the "MI6 family" as suggested in the Baz column, but that's an emphasis we've known about since Mendes talked up Skyfall and suggested that the focus of the next one should be on Bond's newfound MI6 colleagues.

[LKane]

Agreed Harmsway.... What the hell does Mendes want to turn the Bond Franchise into? A soap opera about MI6? Get Bond's ass in the field and keep M, Q, and Moneypenny the bloody hell out of it!!!!

[tdalton]

Unfortunately, that's something that the Bond franchise has been moving towards ever since Judi Dench took over the role back in the 90s.  Eventually, in the not to distant future I would imagine, things will become more like Mission: Impossible than anything else, with Bond existing as a part of a larger team that goes out and works on the missions.  

 

While I'd much prefer to see M stay put behind the desk, I'd gladly accept him being more involved like Dench's M if it meant not having Moneypenny and Q appear at all in the next film(s).  While it's clear that Mendes is proud of these characters, I find them to be incredibly annoying and a major stumbling point for Skyfall.  

[Colossus]

i agree.  in fact now i'm second guessing why i made the other threed in this board.

[Turn]

Forget calling the future projects Bond 25, 26 etc. I can see it now "Eon's Agents of Mi6".

 

Let M hand out the assignments, Moneypenny make the flirtatious lines and Q hand out gadgets -- AT HQ, NOT IN THE FIELD.

 

These characters aren't all that interesting. I enjoyed the Desmond Llewellyn Q appearances because they amounted to mostly cameos. Now on with the mission. Spend more time on a memorable villain and plot and not on the supporting players.

[DavidJones]

The problem is that the current films, as good as they can be, never realized their potential because they've always had one-foot still in the past.  The big disappointment that I have regarding Purvis and Wade returning is that it's still a case of EON retreating to the way things used to be done.  For better, or worse, we were going to be getting a Bond film directed by an Oscar-winning director and written solely by an Oscar-nominated writer.  This was going to be the first time that Bond had really broken completely away from the old way of making the films and trying something new.  If it turned out to be a disaster, then they could retreat back to the workman-like way of doing things, hiring a crew that would work on one film after the other, which would result in several films that are inconsistent and disjointed in tone.  But, we'll never find out if such a direction could have yielded results because EON is still making workman-like films, but are simply allowing better talent to come in and put a nice polish on them.  

 

Whether the director or writer has Oscars doesn't interest me; that would be snobbery. If anything, I'd prefer to have a writer who knew the genre and had written for it before instead of a 'Oscar' writer who was writing an action-adventure-thriller for the first time.

[Matt_13]

I think a compelling MI6 side story would be great for maintaining constant momentum and intrigue throughout the film. In any event I'd like to see more of Q and Moneypenny as played by Ben and Naomie. I loved them both in Skyfall.

[tdalton]

 

The problem is that the current films, as good as they can be, never realized their potential because they've always had one-foot still in the past.  The big disappointment that I have regarding Purvis and Wade returning is that it's still a case of EON retreating to the way things used to be done.  For better, or worse, we were going to be getting a Bond film directed by an Oscar-winning director and written solely by an Oscar-nominated writer.  This was going to be the first time that Bond had really broken completely away from the old way of making the films and trying something new.  If it turned out to be a disaster, then they could retreat back to the workman-like way of doing things, hiring a crew that would work on one film after the other, which would result in several films that are inconsistent and disjointed in tone.  But, we'll never find out if such a direction could have yielded results because EON is still making workman-like films, but are simply allowing better talent to come in and put a nice polish on them.  

 

Whether the director or writer has Oscars doesn't interest me; that would be snobbery. If anything, I'd prefer to have a writer who knew the genre and had written for it before instead of a 'Oscar' writer who was writing an action-adventure-thriller for the first time.

 

 

I guess I'm a "snob" then, as I'd very much like to see exactly that, although Logan would be far from my first choice of writers to take on solo writing responsibilities on a Bond film.

[SecretAgentFan]

Considering the recent craze for universe building I could imagine Sony wishing for more spin-offs: a Q film, another agent besides 007, with M and Moneypenny at the base.

I just hope that Eon will say no to that.

[Mr_Wint]

Considering the recent craze for universe building I could imagine Sony wishing for more spin-offs: a Q film, another agent besides 007, with M and Moneypenny at the base.

I just hope that Eon will say no to that.

 
Well, they tried to get that Jinx movie out (written by P&W, directed by Stephen Frears) and they got quite far with it as I understand. Thankfully, MGM stopped the project.

[Flemingonly]

It's probably a good thing. I don't want a stage play and Mendes will lean toward that... how many stagey moments did Skyfall have instead of progess story development? I mean really almost every scene with Silva was a stage moment. Watching Skyfall next to Casino Royale and Bond had so much more to do in CR. That said, Purvis and Wade are hacks. They may have a good idea or two that works within a Bond movie, but they are hardly good writers who won't be derivative. Really after Die Another Day they shouldn't be in the film industry anymore. So if another really good writer(s) was brought in to punch things up, that would be better news. I agree with another post that said they've had 3 years, it should be done (and great)

[SecretAgentFan]

This Purvis/Wade hate must stop.
Why?
Because it is simply pointless to judge the quality of a scriptwriter based on the final film.
Why?
Too many cooks in the kitchen. You can NOT know whose ideas it were which made you criticize it.
Also, the writers have ZERO power. The director, the producers and the studio decide, often with conflicting agendas.

Okay? Let's repeat it: The writers were NOT to blame for DAD. They were not even to blame for any other element you hated in the other films because BEFORE you saw the final film, too many other people higher up on the food chain said: I want this!

[clublos]

This Purvis/Wade hate must stop.
Why?
Because it is simply pointless to judge the quality of a scriptwriter based on the final film.
Why?
Too many cooks in the kitchen. You can NOT know whose ideas it were which made you criticize it.
Also, the writers have ZERO power. The director, the producers and the studio decide, often with conflicting agendas.

Okay? Let's repeat it: The writers were NOT to blame for DAD. They were not even to blame for any other element you hated in the other films because BEFORE you saw the final film, too many other people higher up on the food chain said: I want this!

 

Good post, SecretAgenFan. I was worried there weren't any level-headed people left here.

[Janus Assassin]

This Purvis/Wade hate must stop.
Why?
Because it is simply pointless to judge the quality of a scriptwriter based on the final film.
Why?
Too many cooks in the kitchen. You can NOT know whose ideas it were which made you criticize it.
Also, the writers have ZERO power. The director, the producers and the studio decide, often with conflicting agendas.

Okay? Let's repeat it: The writers were NOT to blame for DAD. They were not even to blame for any other element you hated in the other films because BEFORE you saw the final film, too many other people higher up on the food chain said: I want this!

 

Tamahori was to blame for DAD.

[JohnnyWalker]

 

This Purvis/Wade hate must stop.
Why?
Because it is simply pointless to judge the quality of a scriptwriter based on the final film.
Why?
Too many cooks in the kitchen. You can NOT know whose ideas it were which made you criticize it.
Also, the writers have ZERO power. The director, the producers and the studio decide, often with conflicting agendas.

Okay? Let's repeat it: The writers were NOT to blame for DAD. They were not even to blame for any other element you hated in the other films because BEFORE you saw the final film, too many other people higher up on the food chain said: I want this!

 

Tamahori was to blame for DAD.

 

Tamahori was definitely to blame for DAD, but i think the series needs new writers, inspired writers full of ideas.

[SecretAgentFan]

Ideas have to pass by the powers that be.

And to clear this up: I do think that EON has lots of great ideas and a firm concept of what 007 should and could be.

But these days the movie industry is totally wrecked by financiers who determine what a film should be like - although these people have no creative knowhow. Steven Soderbergh did not joke when he said he quit the world of cinema because he did not want to be second guessed by twentysomethings in suits who never made a movie but think they know better because they know how to play the stock market.

Imo, Eon like any other producing entity has to put together a package that makes financiers think: this will guarantee success. Hence the award winning directors, writers and actors. And since Skyfall went through the roof they are trapped in this strategy. However, as soon as a success as big arrives it makes everybody involved greedy and nervous. So... everything is slowed down by even more second guessing than usual.

Gone are the days of Cubby going for what he feels is right. Sadly.

[tdalton]

Imo, Eon like any other producing entity has to put together a package that makes financiers think: this will guarantee success. Hence the award winning directors, writers and actors. And since Skyfall went through the roof they are trapped in this strategy.
 

 

I'm not sure that this is a bad thing, though.  The artistic successes of the Craig films, and the box office validation of that approach with the $1 billion that Skyfall raked in, has put the franchise in a place where the top talent in the world actually wants to work on the films.  I'd much rather wait 3 years for a film that features Oscar-caliber talent than wait 2 years for a film made in a more workman-like manner. 

[SecretAgentFan]

As long as the film is good I'd agree.

But although I like Skyfall, I think it falls apart on subsequent viewings because it's mostly great sequences strung together by weak ones. If the A-list talent cannot come up with something better despite having so much time I have to question the necessity of that talent.

Also, the auteur who takes on pulp always tries to elevate it to his vision. But is this good for Bond?

I' m sure a Tarantino, a Coen bros., heck even a Godard Bond would be interesting. But I doubt it would be a great Bond film.

[Colossus]

Who had that wonderful quote that said "the trick to making a good Bond movie is to do the same thing but do it differently", there is something in there, and i think it is a positive quote. There is definitely an invisible structure at play that audiences subconsciously enjoy that has kept this series afloat for decades to come, because of this one must pay heed to "tradition" and never turn its back on it. That is why the whole "let Tarantino do it!" would have been way detrimental to the series. It is something people cannot admit , of course they will say it they want new and fresh stuff here on the boards but deep down everyone just wants that keeping the British end up and all of that good stuff. Of course the very best people like are FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, but those movies still followed in line despite being more down to earth, thy were not as far off in tradition from the YOLTS or the towering and starry-sky'ed Moonrakers.

 

Also i like Die Another Day's stuff in the first half so what do i know?

[tdalton]

As long as the film is good I'd agree.
 

 

The film stands a better chance of being good when the talent involved is better, IMO.  The workman-like directors, writers, etc. that populated the Bond franchise for the first 20 films made their fair share of terrible films in the franchise.  Even though Skyfall is a failure in terms of its story, it's a heck of a lot more impressive in other areas than the terrible films made by EON pre-Craig.

 

The newfound gloss on the Bond franchise will eventually fade and the films will return to being made by the workman-like filmmakers.  But, while Bond is respected and financially viable, why not swing for the fences by getting the best filmmakers on board as possible?

[007jamesbond]

I guess EON don't have time to hire new writers to rewrite the script...........we found out if this is true or not in a few months 

[SecretAgentFan]

As long as the film is good I'd agree.

The film stands a better chance of being good when the talent involved is better, IMO. The workman-like directors, writers, etc. that populated the Bond franchise for the first 20 films made their fair share of terrible films in the franchise. Even though Skyfall is a failure in terms of its story, it's a heck of a lot more impressive in other areas than the terrible films made by EON pre-Craig.

The newfound gloss on the Bond franchise will eventually fade and the films will return to being made by the workman-like filmmakers. But, while Bond is respected and financially viable, why not swing for the fences by getting the best filmmakers on board as possible?

But wouldn'r you agree that John Glen made at least two of the best films (TLD & LTK) as a workman-like director, with Maibaum and Wilson as writers who were veterans of the series?

That's what I think is important for Bond films - the sense of talent being immersed in the films for years, coming up the ranks. Peter Hunt doing OHMSS is another example.

Too many A-listers may become obstacles for a sensible way to move forward. I believe the casting of Judi Dench was responsible for the overuse of the Bond-Mother M-dynamic. As Wilson said: you do not cast Dench and not use her. The same will be true with Fiennes.

IMO it would be better to have these roles cast with unfamiliar actors. That does not equate with lesser actors.

[tdalton]

 

 

As long as the film is good I'd agree.

The film stands a better chance of being good when the talent involved is better, IMO. The workman-like directors, writers, etc. that populated the Bond franchise for the first 20 films made their fair share of terrible films in the franchise. Even though Skyfall is a failure in terms of its story, it's a heck of a lot more impressive in other areas than the terrible films made by EON pre-Craig.

The newfound gloss on the Bond franchise will eventually fade and the films will return to being made by the workman-like filmmakers. But, while Bond is respected and financially viable, why not swing for the fences by getting the best filmmakers on board as possible?

But wouldn'r you agree that John Glen made at least two of the best films (TLD & LTK) as a workman-like director, with Maibaum and Wilson as writers who were veterans of the series?

That's what I think is important for Bond films - the sense of talent being immersed in the films for years, coming up the ranks. Peter Hunt doing OHMSS is another example.

Too many A-listers may become obstacles for a sensible way to move forward. I believe the casting of Judi Dench was responsible for the overuse of the Bond-Mother M-dynamic. As Wilson said: you do not cast Dench and not use her. The same will be true with Fiennes.

IMO it would be better to have these roles cast with unfamiliar actors. That does not equate with lesser actors.

 

 

Regarding The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill, yes I'd agree that Glen, Maibaum, and MGW did make two of the best films in the series despite not being A-list artists.  That said, though, those films could have also been taken to a whole different level had Broccoli gone outside the family and surrounded Dalton with some filmmakers who were willing to craft a film around Dalton's take on the character, like what they've done to a degree with Craig, rather than having Dalton have to try to pull the whole thing in that direction on his own.  Licence to Kill is a great Bond film, but it also could have been even better in the hands of a better director and writer.

 

I'm not suggesting that EON simply take a list of recent Oscar nominees and choose their directors, writers, and supporting cast from there.  But, those that they choose should be of a similar quality now that they have a star in Craig who can attract that kind of talent as well as the box office clout that shows that such attempts at "artistry" are agreeable with the general public.  I'd never heard of Mads Mikkelsen before Casino Royale, but they found a great villain in his take on Le Chiffre.  Same with Mathieu Amalric, who I think was nominated prior to Quantum of Solace, but did not overshadow Craig or the film in any way. 

[blueman]

The problem is that the current films, as good as they can be, never realized their potential because they've always had one-foot still in the past.  The big disappointment that I have regarding Purvis and Wade returning is that it's still a case of EON retreating to the way things used to be done.  For better, or worse, we were going to be getting a Bond film directed by an Oscar-winning director and written solely by an Oscar-nominated writer.  This was going to be the first time that Bond had really broken completely away from the old way of making the films and trying something new.  If it turned out to be a disaster, then they could retreat back to the workman-like way of doing things, hiring a crew that would work on one film after the other, which would result in several films that are inconsistent and disjointed in tone.  But, we'll never find out if such a direction could have yielded results because EON is still making workman-like films, but are simply allowing better talent to come in and put a nice polish on them.  

Oddly the recent Bond film I think strayed the furthest from the blessed-be formula is the one most fans come down on the hardest, QOS.  I thoroughly enjoyed the "like a bullet shot from a gun" approach to everything from the writing - yes Craig and Forster worked on it during the shooting, along with an uncredited Joshua Zetumer - to the directing and action sequences and editing.  It's the best plotted Bod film in decades (forget liking or not liking it, look at how each story element is only introduced when Bond himself comes into contact with it, that's straight from thriller writing 101 and something most Bond films sadly ignore).  I think the urgency of production required a focus on plot essentials without a lot of extraneous sub-plotting, and that's what we got.  But I guess box office talks, and Skyfall type writing is what's to be expected.

 

Not all that bummed about Purvis and Wade coming on board for a polish, at least their heavy-handed soap opera style plotting won't be in there (one hopes).  Be nice if SF represented the burying of the hatchet in the Bond family drama plots.

[Colossus]

They should have added the infamous line in CR's finale for SF's finale too. She should've stayed for BrozBond solely, and this coming from a BrozBond fan.

[dtuba]

So P&W "know Bond". So what? Surely by now there must be a number of screenwriters that have the chops and history to work on a Bond script; aren't there? At least there should be. 

"Knowing Bond" does not equate the bad jokes, clumsy dialogue and endless variations on the theme of "I don't trust you/you don't trust me" that we've seen from these two. 

I understand that a screenwriter is just a small part of the creative process of film making. I get that. But why these two? Isn't there anyone else on earth who is capable of polishing a bond script? 

 

Just hurry up and make the g*d d*mn film already. It's not like we all won't be there on opening night anyway.