39 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat on the thread "TSWLM - as close to perfect as a 007 movie can be" (http://forums.comman...&threadid=10765)

Structurally SPY is flawless.  

This prompts me to ask: which Bond film has the best script? THE SPY WHO LOVED ME? I read somewhere once that the three most important elements of a good screenplay are structure, structure and structure.

The question is directed at zencat, since he is - as far as I know - the only professional screenwriter who posts on CBn, and his opinion on scripts is that of an expert with years of experience. No offence to or exclusion of other members intended, though. I'd like to read comments from as many posters as possible, as well as zencat's views.

[zencat]

It's a hard question because many (most) of the Bond scripts are excellent...but if forced to choose I'd say SPY is the best script. FRWL, GF, OHMSS, and OP are also right up there. But just looking at dialogue alone (which does not a script make), I really love DAF. Very sharp and witty.

[Ed King]

Originally posted by zencat
It's a hard question because many (most) of the Bond scripts are excellent...but if forced to choose I'd say SPY is the best script. FRWL, GF, OHMSS, and OP are also right up there. But just looking at dialogue alone (which does not a script make), I really love DAF. Very sharp and witty.

Interesting... I'm not a professional, but don't you think OP is kinda confusing? And... do you think there's a bad Bond script?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

It's a hard question because many (most) of the Bond scripts are excellent...but if forced to choose I'd say SPY is the best script. FRWL, GF, OHMSS, and OP are also right up there. But just looking at dialogue alone (which does not a script make), I really love DAF. Very sharp and witty.  

Thanks, zencat. Personally, I have no idea which Bond film has the very best script of the bunch. As you point out, most are excellent.

While I've never read it (or any Bond scripts, come to that), I'd guess that the GOLDFINGER screenplay has to be among the best, particularly in view of the improvements it makes to Fleming's story (changing Goldfinger's scheme from stealing the Fort Knox gold to contaminating it).

[zencat]

Originally posted by Ed King

Interesting... I'm not a professional, but don't you think OP is kinda confusing? And... do you think there's a bad Bond script?

No, I don't find OP confusing. It could be, but it's not, and that's one of the reasons I think it's so good. The build up of tension is OP is also incredibly well crafted (both by the writers and the director).

I don't know if I'd call any Bond script "bad.

[zencat]

Originally posted by Loomis
While I've never read it (or any Bond scripts, come to that), I'd guess that the GOLDFINGER screenplay has to be among the best, particularly in view of the improvements it makes to Fleming's story (changing Goldfinger's scheme from stealing the Fort Knox gold to contaminating it).

Goldfinger is certainly the best adaptation. No question. It's right there beside SPY as the best. Could very well be the best in some people's eyes, but I like the relationship better in SPY.

[Genrewriter]

Well, there are a few ways to judge a screenplay. Structure-wise, I would say that Spy Who Loved Me, OHMSS and Goldfinger are the stringest with Goldeneye coming in right behind them.

As far as adaptations go, I think From Russia With Love is the closest to the original text. Goldfinger is certainly the best adaptation in terms of changes.

For sheer quality of story, I think that Octopussy is very strong, juggling what could have been a massively confusing story and presenting it in a clear, concise manner.

Dialogue-wise, I like Live and Let Die and Diamonds Are Forever.

[zencat]

The only thing I would disagree with you on is GoldenEye. I love that movie, love the dialogue, love the characters and the tone, but I wouldn't say it was one of the better structured films.

But everything else you said...yes, right on.

[Ed King]

Thanks for your answer, zencat. Now, could you (or Genrewriter) explain me what is structure exactly?

[Kingdom Come]

I agree with Zencat re. TLD / TWINE, as being a tad convoluted. Writers and this one included, have a tendency to become blinded by being too close - too many characters and not enough screen time to develop them they way they should. I think TWINE is without doubt the best example of this - did we really need Renard AND Electra - Bull? Christmas Jones? AND on top of this, the development of M - AND the return of Zukovsky?

I must say I think DAD is in the top 10 of the best screenplays in the Bond series. Some great fantasy ideas. I mean take the hour in Iceland -I think [by the way 'I think' is a phrase that I cannot get away from and I have tried!] it is one of the finest hours ever - it's like another world.

I also liked Christopher Wood's dialogue and the wittiest of the Bond writers, Tom Mankiewicz.

I must say I do wish Purvis/Wade and any other writers who join in the years to come, to try and avoid that irritating moment when Bond and Moneypenny meet for the first time in each new film - where she seems always to say "James"! and he "Moneypenny"! Why do they need to say each other names so often!? As far as the public is concerned there is no need.

[zencat]

I'll let Genrewriter handle that one. I'm off to see TOMB RAIDER 2 (and not for the structure).

[DLibrasnow]

I think OP has some serious flaws that were mentioned at length in the Roger Moore forum....I think under the "How would you fix Rogers worst Bond movie" thread.

[Kingdom Come]

I have to say that some films are 'made' by their dialogue - as humans communicate mostly through speech and not though actions. Have any of u read Julian Mitchell's stunning dialogue to Wilde? or Kurt Ludedtke's Out Of Africa? Or James Goldman's stunning dialogue to The Lion In Winter - then tell me that dialogue does not a film make!!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

I'm off to see TOMB RAIDER 2 (and not for the structure).  

Well, not the structure of the screenplay, anyway. Let us know whether you agree with the scathing review at AICN (http://www.aint-it-c...ay.cgi?id=15728).

Originally posted by Kingdom Come

I have to say that some films are 'made' by their dialogue - as humans communicate mostly through speech and not though actions. Have any of u read Julian Mitchell's stunning dialogue to Wilde? or Kurt Ludedtke's Out Of Africa? Or James Goldman's stunning dialogue to The Lion In Winter - then tell me that dialogue does not a film make!!

Dialogue is important, but cinema is not theatre or television. It's a visual medium, and there's nothing worse than a film that's too "talky", filled with lines that are there only to explain things to the audience that should communicated by images, or relate to matters that viewers aren't being credited with enough intelligence to figure out for themselves. Cinema should show, not tell.

[Genrewriter]

Structure is essentially the way the film is divided up. In a two hour film, you have three acts. Act one is the first half hour, Act 2 is the next hour and the final half hour is the third act. Naturally for a longer film, the times vary. In the first act, you have to introduce the main characters and get them started on the road to whatever goal has been set up, whether its finding the Lost Ark or was behind the set up in North Korea.

In act 2, there are confrontations over the goal which can be either action or dialogue sequences. Also the minor plots are added and built on, romance, etc. The midpoint of act 2 introduces an element that changes the goal somewhat, sometimes a surprise villain. The act culminates in a low point for the hero in which he is at the point of defeat. Act 3 tends to pick up with ther hero summoning his resolve and moving on to the finale. Typically he gets halfway to his goal at the midpoint of the act, then everything wraps up in the end.

This is the basic structure of any story, regardless of genre.

To sum up:

Act I-Introduction of main characters and primary storyline.

Act II-Stroy advfances through confrontation and minor plot points are developed. Twist in middle of act that upsd the stakes, act ends with hero at his low point.

Act III-Hero comes back for finale and all points are wrapped up.

[Xenobia]

OK then, for all the screenwriters here:

What makes a script "perfect" to you?

-- Xenobia

[Genrewriter]

Well, I think that a well structured story is the most important aspect. You need something that will grab the viewer's attention at the beginning andf sustain it until the end. After that, characters need to be strong and well drawn with depth. The dialogue needs to be good and suited to the personality of each character.

[Kingdom Come]

Loomis, all the above films I mentioned; Wilde / The Lion In Winter / Out Of Africa, are top heavy with dialogue and all recieved acclaim. However you should be on the recieving end of Script/Story Editors, who batter writers like myself into continually spelling everything out to the audience. I agree with you. It is an awful situation and very depressing.
It is always someone other than the writer who ruins things.

Genrewriter is correct - [not too sure about all points wrapped up in the 3rd act though!] but I must say that Text Book way of writing itself, can be overly simplistic to the audience and I usually like to shake that about a bit until someone [Script Editor] pushes me back into 'spelling it out'. One thing I have learned is to simplify everything. A complex piece [which I love] will only bring wrath. Bacically the people in charge or in positions of power "Know nothing" - as William Goldman says "No one knows nothing" or No one knows anything.

I personally am not so sure stories these days are that important, simply because every story has been told every which way, so you look in other areas and for me it is the very best in dialogue. If I can say that, without sounding like a Tit.

Also you really have to try and hide a story...

What makes a script perfect? There are very few. The Lion In Winter is perhaps the best written and acted film I've ever seen. It is simply smashing. As someone like me who loves 'dialogue' I doubt I can think of anything else that is as good. In Britain, we have a writer called Jimmy McGovern and he has written for television and is probably the best television writer in this country. He has a talent for ALL the major things a writer needs talent in! Also a brilliant conveyor of emotion. Another is Raymond Bowers, who if you could imaginea contempory, Oscar Wilde, that's how Bowers wrote - shear beauty and both of these writers influenced me and certainly I would not be a writer, only for them.

What a shame British Television is so rotten today. The Americans have rightly made it their own and the brilliance is oozing from your side of the pond.

[DLibrasnow]

Cinema should show, not tell.

I quite agree.

[ACE]

Structure is probably the most important thing to crack in a screenplay.
Once structure is in place, the details can be kneaded like dough (and on most screenplays, are, even if (and this is rare) the rewrites are done by the same writer).

Dialogue usually comes last and is the most malleable element. On action films, dialogue is largely expository although this can be be done artfully and entertainingly. Personally, I think all the Brosnan films needed more expository dialogue if only to place the threat of the caper into context and understand the danger.

On other films, dialogue has other functions. Character, plot, feeling, nuance and on the best action films, the dialogue serves this purpose too.

I think Goldfinger is the best structured and plotted screenplay and visually the most accomplished. It is also very economical.

OHMSS has a masterful script and dialogue but could have tighter - some of the action distracts from the plot. After Goldfinger, I would say this is the best script.

I agree Diamonds has wonderful dialogue.

Octopussy has a wonderful plot expertly realized and exposited visually.

I think the last Bonds have actually been more writers' films than most Bonds. There are attempts at internal character arcs and nice character and plot references. Additionally, the films have been based around the writing. By this I mean that say in the 1970's, the films were seemingly more based around the locations. Now, if the plot demands they go to Siberia, Saigon or Kazakstan, the production creates this reality rather than change the script to accomodate where they can go. Also, if an action sequence is written, it seems they are now trying to use the technology available (however flawed) to realize that rather than film what they can actually do.

Originality is something I also give credit for. Within the filmic universe of Bond, to come up with something original yet Bondian is very hard. Anyone who has tried to write their own Bond stories will agree with me.

A simple exercise is to visualize a simple sequence.
Say, Bond getting a microdot of Middle Eastern terrorist safe houses in Europe.
Write a 10 line summary of the scene.
Make it simple yet original, visually stimulating, filmable and intriguing.

I am not what you would call a professional screenwriter but I did sell a feature script at Cannes a few years ago and am actively producing feature films. I have written readers reports and plough my way through a lot of the scripts that get sent to me. I've also read all the basic screenwriting texts and know one thing:

NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING*

*William Goldman

ACE

Edited by ACE, 01 December 2005 - 08:25 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

Spy borrows so heavily from YOLT that I don't see how that could be the best script.

I also don't see how FRWL could be the most faithful since it changes who the main villain is (SPECTRE as opposed to The Russians).

[DLibrasnow]

I think Goldfinger is the best structured and plotted screenplay and visually the most accomplished. It is also very economical.

Interesting....the book also has a strong structure too.

[ACE]

Spy borrows so heavily from YOLT that I don't see how that could be the best script.

I also don't see how FRWL could be the most faithful since it changes who the main villain is (SPECTRE as opposed to The Russians).

I agree.

SWLM is nice but original, no. There is a nice relationship and arc between Anya and Bond but the rest does fall away on repeat viewings. That does not take away from it being a superb piece of entertainment and structurally, it is interesting in the set-up.

No Bond has ever been super faithful to the source material. Dr No, Goldfinger and OHMSS are more faithful than FRWL but all keep to the spirit and essence of what Fleming wrote.

FYEO is, in some ways, a very clever Fleming adaptation as is Octopussy (less so).

[ACE]

I think Goldfinger is the best structured and plotted screenplay and visually the most accomplished. It is also very economical.

Interesting....the book also has a strong structure too.

The film changes important elements from the novel.
A really good guide on this is the Adrian Turner book on Goldfinger. The essay and analysis of the screenplay and trawl through the evolution of the drafts is excellent, excellent reading.

[DLibrasnow]

FYEO is, in some ways, a very clever Fleming adaptation as is Octopussy (less so).

Good point ACE. Its interesting how they tried to tie together the Fleming short stories FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and RISICO into a movie script.

[marktmurphy]

I actually quite like the story of Licence To Kill. It all hold together well and each of the action sequences actually mena something important to the story- especially Bond's theft of Krest's money- which sets up the whole infiltration of Sanchez's organisation and putting doubt on Krest.
Unfortunately the story works better than the movie as a whole, but never mind.

[Royal Dalton]

Talking of Krest, for some strange reason he's called Milford Krest in the Licence to Kill script.

[Bon-san]

Spy borrows so heavily from YOLT that I don't see how that could be the best script.

Well the TSWLM script improves on the YOLT script, IMO.

[triviachamp]

Hello Bondfans, what Bond films do you think had the Best scripts?
Or the worst?

Personally I think both DR. No or FRWL had great scripts.

As for worst I think it is a tie between Pervert and Waste's efforts or Tom Mankiewicz's.
Sorry but I think LALD and TMTWGG had terrible scripts, just a clothesline for whatever action sequence they thought up. TMTWGG has the Solex Agitator plot in for no reason except the Sacred Formula required it. Mr. Big being Kanaga is a lame twist and his scheme makes no economic sense at all.

Edited by triviachamp, 02 December 2005 - 09:17 PM.

[triviachamp]

Oops, is this redundant?