190 replies to this topic

[Odd Jobbies]

Blimey, Oddjobies sounds bitter. He's rubbishing P&W and praising Logan's script without even reading it.

I don't think i'm going out on a limb in rubbishing DAD - they may well be lovely chaps, but DAD is a pretty awful script that necessitated a franchise reboot. As for Logan's script , if you read my post the part about Logan's script starts with the phrase 'My guess..."   Need i say more?

[Janus Assassin]

We can speculate all we want. But we don't know squat about what this film we be about. Craig and Mendes will not let it go to S***. But we will most likely get a snow sequence. I read today that they mentioned the Austrian Alps as a location.

[DavidJones]

 

Blimey, Oddjobies sounds bitter. He's rubbishing P&W and praising Logan's script without even reading it.

I don't think i'm going out on a limb in rubbishing DAD - they may well be lovely chaps, but DAD is a pretty awful script that necessitated a franchise reboot. As for Logan's script , if you read my post the part about Logan's script starts with the phrase 'My guess..."   Need i say more?

 

 

DAD was indeed a mis-step (although the first quarter was rather good, with a bit of grit too, and the sword fight was terrific). The sci-fi elements were prepostrous, but having an American Bond girl was forced upon them. We mustn't, though, make the mistake in believing that Logan's script was good. It has, after all, been scrapped. All we know is it lacked thrills and humour. It just goes to show that a 'serious' writer can't neccessarily be good at 'genre' films, and that Bond films are harder to write than most people might think.

Edited by DavidJones, 03 August 2014 - 11:14 PM.

[007jamesbond]

We can speculate all we want. But we don't know squat about what this film we be about. Craig and Mendes will not let it go to S***. But we will most likely get a snow sequence. I read today that they mentioned the Austrian Alps as a location.

 

where did you find the info about Austrian Alps as a location 

[Shrublands]

 

We can speculate all we want. But we don't know squat about what this film we be about. Craig and Mendes will not let it go to S***. But we will most likely get a snow sequence. I read today that they mentioned the Austrian Alps as a location.

 

where did you find the info about Austrian Alps as a location 

 

 

it's been talked about for a few weeks now after Gary Powell let slip that he and Alexander Witt were visiting there (along with Rome and Morocco) then yesterday there was info from Norway that that location had been abandoned in favour of the Austrian Alps. It is not clear if this is due to cutting costs or a re-write or both. I think Austria might be doubling for Norway. There is still a possibility that some filming will take place in Norway (second unit?)

 

Here is a link to a translation of the Norwegian Bond Club article where much of this report started. There was also an interview that  film facilitator Jason Roberts gave to Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet.

He'd been asked to provide visual material of Svalbard and places that could double for Svalbard in Norway. He has now been told that this is no longer the plan and that Bond 24 will shoot in the Austrian Alps instead. 

 

 

http://translate.goo...t=safari&rls=en

[SecretAgentFan]

Lovely - so maybe we will get a ski sequence this time?

[MkB]

Rome is being considered? Oh, this does sound good! 

[Shrublands]

Rome is being considered? Oh, this does sound good! 

 

Yes, we also have confirmation of this possibility from the head of the Film Commission in Rome. He has met with Barbara Broccoli and Michael G.Wilson to discus various permissions to film in the city. 

[Odd Jobbies]

 

 

Blimey, Oddjobies sounds bitter. He's rubbishing P&W and praising Logan's script without even reading it.

I don't think i'm going out on a limb in rubbishing DAD - they may well be lovely chaps, but DAD is a pretty awful script that necessitated a franchise reboot. As for Logan's script , if you read my post the part about Logan's script starts with the phrase 'My guess..."   Need i say more?

 

 

We mustn't, though, make the mistake in believing that Logan's script was good. It has, after all, been scrapped. All we know is it lacked thrills and humour. It just goes to show that a 'serious' writer can't neccessarily be good at 'genre' films, and that Bond films are harder to write than most people might think.

 

You're taking it for granted that Logan's script was scrapped because it was bad, but isn't that an assumption in itself, unless of course you've read it.

 

I'm guessing the reason isn't quality but rather its tone and genre. MGM probably want an action movie since that always sells more tickets in Hollywood logic, but Logan gave them a thriller - perhaps a very good thriller, but not the spectacle tentpole movie that MGM wanted. If the script for FRWL was presented to them they'd probably turn that down too, saying it didn't have enough thrills and humour.

 

But like i said we'll no doubt see the script in the fullness of time (maybe Wikileaks should get on the case

 

Btw, how exactly do we all know that Logan's script lacks thrills and humour?

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 04 August 2014 - 09:57 PM.

[sharpshooter]

Lovely - so maybe we will get a ski sequence this time?

I am optimistic.

[Shrublands]

 

 

 

Blimey, Oddjobies sounds bitter. He's rubbishing P&W and praising Logan's script without even reading it.

I don't think i'm going out on a limb in rubbishing DAD - they may well be lovely chaps, but DAD is a pretty awful script that necessitated a franchise reboot. As for Logan's script , if you read my post the part about Logan's script starts with the phrase 'My guess..."   Need i say more?

 

 

We mustn't, though, make the mistake in believing that Logan's script was good. It has, after all, been scrapped. All we know is it lacked thrills and humour. It just goes to show that a 'serious' writer can't neccessarily be good at 'genre' films, and that Bond films are harder to write than most people might think.

 

You're taking it for granted that Logan's script was scrapped because it was bad, but isn't that an assumption in itself, unless of course you've read it.

 

 

 

Exactly. In fact there are a few assumptions here. Firstly, just because it wasn't good enough to call the "Locked Draft" and ready to film, doesn't make it bad.

It could just mean that there was room for improvement and that the addition of some fresh imaginative ideas would be all for the good in the collaborative process of film making. 

 

The next assumption is that it was totally scrapped. My reading is that it has been redrafted (yes, substantially perhaps) but I bet that there will still be enough of the Logan script still there for him to get a credit as cowriter of the screenplay. Last time P&W's script was redrafted by Logan, this time it's the other way round. No big deal, just the way a script is developed in the run up to production. 

[tdalton]

I've got to admit that I'm slightly confused as to where all of the worry is coming from regarding P&W joining Logan in scripting the film.  Given the amount of adulation that Skyfall gets around here, I'd think that almost everyone would be thrilled that the team that brought the world the first $1B Bond film are returning for another go at it.  

 

P&W wouldn't be my first choice to come in and give Logan's script an overhaul (and, come to think of it, Logan is far from my top choice to write the Bond films anyway), but after some thought on the matter, I don't think that they're as bad as everyone claims they are.  Yes, they were involved in Die Another Day, but by that standard, everyone else involved with that film should be given the same amount of blame that they tend to get.  Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson were involved in that film, yet they tend to escape unscathed from the blame game surrounding Die Another Day.

 

P&W brought us a pretty good script for Casino Royale, but they tend to get no credit for that, simply because Academy Award winner Paul Haggis' name appears alongside theirs in the credits.  Same goes for Quantum of Solace, where the successes in the script tend to be attributed to Haggis and the perceived failures go to P&W.  

 

I think after listening to the arguments about their return, I've come around on P&W.  They're not my first choice to take on the writing chores for Bond 24, as I think it's time for a fresh voice after a five film run, but they don't deserve the amount of criticism that has been levied at them by a good number of fans, including myself.

[sharpshooter]

Ultimately, I'm sure people will see Purvis and Wade coming on board as a good thing. Especially when the movie comes out. We'll probably be able to see the bare bones of Logan's original script, and where it was expanded upon and bettered. If Logan's script had issues, I'd rather somebody work them out. We should be glad they did something about it instead of settling for second best.

[SecretAgentFan]

I still wonder why Logan was considered as the prestige talent that would save a Bond script.  Because of his stellar work on "Star Trek: Nemesis"?  And please, "Gladiator" was a huge mix of many scriptwriters with Logan only part of them.  

 

Logan is great at attaching himself to big name directors (Scott, Scorsese, Mendes).  But obviously his relationship with Mendes has suffered - so the golden boy who milked the media coverage for himself as being the mastermind behind SKYFALL (look at the recent Empire piece on him) was dropped/exposed as not up to the task.

 

Sorry, that sounds mean and full of bile - but as a fellow screenwriter I have encountered many of Logan´s kind: people who charm their way in by being yes-men for the director, taking over a fine script, doing the director´s biddings and letting themselves being celebrated as the saviour or even originator of the final script.

 

I believe Purvis & Wade were treated excruciatingly bad during the last years, always being dropped and doctored by higher profile writers when they actually did the work that was applauded afterwards.  Michael Apted brought in his wife (!) to doctor "THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH", Lee Tamahori changed major plot points and ideas for "DIE ANOTHER DAY", Paul Haggis was brought in to suggest Bond is now OSCAR-worthy and changed the script for "CASINO ROYALE" - but he was not gelling with Marc Forster so he brought in his own yes-man Zetumer.

 

But I´m absolutely sure that people will blame P & W again for BOND 24 and cling to the absurd belief that John Logan´s original script was so much better.  When it obviously was not.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 05 August 2014 - 10:27 AM.

[thecasinoroyale]

Didn't everyone start this when 'Skyfall' started to be developed script-wise? We all know how THAT turned out.

 

I can't say much more at such an early stage, but we really need to have faith in talents like Purvis and Wade. NO-ONE can say they have given us a bad Bond film.

 

Directors, editors, cinematographers, VFX artists may have given us awful Bond films (to some) along the way as they interpret the script, but Purvis and Wade are not to blame. And if they are going to get blamed, then the whole crew should who actually create the points we pick apart more than the story itself.

[DavidJones]

The only reason P&W get blamed for anything is snobbery. Those who drooled at the idea of an Oscar-nominated writer handling the script are snobs. A non Oscar-nominated writer could well turn in a script which is equal or perhaps even better than what Logan does.

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree absolutely.  It´s like any great actor or director who never got the Oscar.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 05 August 2014 - 04:16 PM.

[Iceskater101]

We can speculate all we want. But we don't know squat about what this film we be about. Craig and Mendes will not let it go to S***. But we will most likely get a snow sequence. I read today that they mentioned the Austrian Alps as a location.

 

 

Lovely - so maybe we will get a ski sequence this time?

 

 

YAY! I want Bond to ski. That would be fantastic.

[glidrose]

Count me among those who was never thrilled about Logan to begin with. Like tdalton, I never really cared for P&W, but am slightly pleased that they're back on the case.

But yeah, fresh blood is needed. Unless they bring Haggis back.

[tdalton]

The only reason P&W get blamed for anything is snobbery. Those who drooled at the idea of an Oscar-nominated writer handling the script are snobs. A non Oscar-nominated writer could well turn in a script which is equal or perhaps even better than what Logan does.

 

Completely disagreed.  It's far too general a statement to say that every person who was excited for an Oscar recognized talent to be taking on the writing duties of a Bond film is a snob.  That's just an unfair generality that borders on hyperbole.  Sure, there are some that such a statement would apply to, but it doesn't apply to all of us.  

 

The writers who tend to earn accolades, such as Academy Awards, generally write in different genres to the action genre.  Following that train of thought, it would stand to reason that such a writer would be able to bring something different to the table in terms of what kind of Bond film they would write, and that's what I find exciting about such a writer taking on Bond.  We've seen the all-out action flicks, we've seen the borderline science-fiction films that happen to star Bond, and so on.  Bringing in someone who doesn't hail from the traditional genres that Bond tends to operate from was an exciting prospect because, for the first time in a while, we might not know what to expect from a Bond film.  That's what was exciting about such a prospect, not simply the snobbery of being able to say that the film had Oscar-caliber talented working on it.

[Jim]

The only reason P&W get blamed for anything is snobbery. Those who drooled at the idea of an Oscar-nominated writer handling the script are snobs. A non Oscar-nominated writer could well turn in a script which is equal or perhaps even better than what Logan does.

"Only" reason.

Is of itself snobbery.

Bond film gets written. Makes money. No-one knows who wrote it. Or cares.

[AMC Hornet]

'cept around here.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

The only reason P&W get blamed for anything is snobbery. Those who drooled at the idea of an Oscar-nominated writer handling the script are snobs. A non Oscar-nominated writer could well turn in a script which is equal or perhaps even better than what Logan does.

 

Completely disagreed.  It's far too general a statement to say that every person who was excited for an Oscar recognized talent to be taking on the writing duties of a Bond film is a snob.  That's just an unfair generality that borders on hyperbole.  Sure, there are some that such a statement would apply to, but it doesn't apply to all of us.  

 

The writers who tend to earn accolades, such as Academy Awards, generally write in different genres to the action genre.  Following that train of thought, it would stand to reason that such a writer would be able to bring something different to the table in terms of what kind of Bond film they would write, and that's what I find exciting about such a writer taking on Bond.  We've seen the all-out action flicks, we've seen the borderline science-fiction films that happen to star Bond, and so on.  Bringing in someone who doesn't hail from the traditional genres that Bond tends to operate from was an exciting prospect because, for the first time in a while, we might not know what to expect from a Bond film.  That's what was exciting about such a prospect, not simply the snobbery of being able to say that the film had Oscar-caliber talented working on it.

 

 

You´re right.  It could have worked or still could work.  But I think Haggis and Logan were not the kind of people who were needed to achieve that.  Steven Zaillian or Richard LaGravanese, yes, their work would suggest that they really could bring something exciting and new to the table while still working within the Bond universe.

[Agent 76]

I couldn't care less who writes the movie. I just want a good action/adventure Bond thrill ride, a good combination of action and suspense.

[Odd Jobbies]

The only reason P&W get blamed for anything is snobbery. Those who drooled at the idea of an Oscar-nominated writer handling the script are snobs. A non Oscar-nominated writer could well turn in a script which is equal or perhaps even better than what Logan does.

Well that's just a little patronising!

 

The reason i personally was happy to have Haggis on board was because he'd recently written two very solid scripts, Crash and Million Dollar Baby, whereas P&W had recently written DAD.

 

Talking about snobbery may well fit your argument, but i'm afraid you're going to have to give a little more credence than that to the opinions of others.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 06 August 2014 - 07:47 PM.

[freemo]

Haven't they been involved in all the Craig films so far? Is "the same people from last time fronting up again" really so shocking?

 

They've had their names on good Bonds and on not so good Bonds. But then so have a lot of people. Recent ones with their involvement seem to have hit the spot. What's the big deal?

[SecretAgentFan]

 

The only reason P&W get blamed for anything is snobbery. Those who drooled at the idea of an Oscar-nominated writer handling the script are snobs. A non Oscar-nominated writer could well turn in a script which is equal or perhaps even better than what Logan does.

Well that's just a little patronising!

 

The reason i personally was happy to have Haggis on board was because he'd recently written two very solid scripts, Crash and Million Dollar Baby, whereas P&W had recently written DAD.

 

Talking about snobbery may well fit your argument, but i'm afraid you're going to have to give a little more credence than that to the opinions of others.

 

 

Your derisive comments on P & W are, of course, welcome since they are your opinion.  But on a message board opinions tend to get challenged.  In that spirit, if you keep on blaming P & W for your displeasure with DAD, contrasting it with Haggis´ "Crash" (a very controversial choice, by the way, since so many hated that film) and "Million Dollar Baby", you should also take into account that Haggis contributed scripts for "Walker, Texas Ranger".

[Shrublands]

Haven't they been involved in all the Craig films so far? Is "the same people from last time fronting up again" really so shocking?

 

They've had their names on good Bonds and on not so good Bonds. But then so have a lot of people. Recent ones with their involvement seem to have hit the spot. What's the big deal?

 

i agree. The same writing team as Skyfall (and major contributors to CR's script) is good news. Yes, I was very critical of P&W back in DAD days, as they were credited as the only writers on that film, but a lot has happened since then and most of it very good.

 

Mendes worked very closely with P&W on the Skyfall script for over a year, so would be very conscious of what they brought to that very successful party. I'd say that whatever the Logan draft lacked, he clearly knew where to find it. 

We are going to to get a script that was written by Logan with a substantial redraft by Purvis and Wade, all supervised by Mendes from the outset. I for one see no reason not to be pleased.

[Turn]

There's nothing wrong with pairing an acclaimed writer with genre writers with direct experience in a franchise. The Bond series has always been about a team approach with lots of input from the producers and director if not others. In other words, the praise and blame should be passed all around depending on a project's reception.

 

While I appreciate the resume of somebody like Paul Haggis, I don't look at somebody like him as invaluable. I've never seen Crash, but I have seen Million Dollar Baby and find it one of the most overpraised films of recent years. The whole thing is a series of clichéd situations and characters with a twist that in retrospect isn't that shocking.

[Odd Jobbies]

 

 

The only reason P&W get blamed for anything is snobbery. Those who drooled at the idea of an Oscar-nominated writer handling the script are snobs. A non Oscar-nominated writer could well turn in a script which is equal or perhaps even better than what Logan does.

Well that's just a little patronising!

 

The reason i personally was happy to have Haggis on board was because he'd recently written two very solid scripts, Crash and Million Dollar Baby, whereas P&W had recently written DAD.

 

Talking about snobbery may well fit your argument, but i'm afraid you're going to have to give a little more credence than that to the opinions of others.

 

 

Your derisive comments on P & W are, of course, welcome since they are your opinion.  But on a message board opinions tend to get challenged.  In that spirit, if you keep on blaming P & W for your displeasure with DAD, contrasting it with Haggis´ "Crash" (a very controversial choice, by the way, since so many hated that film) and "Million Dollar Baby", you should also take into account that Haggis contributed scripts for "Walker, Texas Ranger".

 

Fair enough, but i think you'll find i that was indeed changeling an opinion myself - that which had cast all who aren't P&W fans as snobs.