625 replies to this topic

[Trident]

I still find it odd that three writers were announced to write Bond 23. What's Peter Morgan bringing to the table that Purvis and Wade are not able to?

While I think that Morgan will certainly do much more than a polish of P&W's work on the script, I do think that his involvement was brought about because of the success that EON has had with outside writers teaming up with P&W on the last two scripts. Although I'm not a fan of all of the things that Haggis added and deleted from the Casino Royale script, his involvement did help bring instant credibility to the project. Since he's no longer on board, they've turned to Peter Morgan to help P&W craft a good storyline and a good script. More simply, he's there because he's a critically acclaimed screenwriter, and it definitely is a good thing to have someone of that quality working on the script.

I'm curious if he was brought on for more than just that he tend to write politcal drama and one of Quantum's operatives is one of the prime ministers closest advisors.

Well I will divulge something here...

Peter Morgan is co-writing a Bond film where the villain is a 1960's Governmental lawyer struggling with his conscience who starts to manage a Northern football team before reluctantly becoming Henry VIII's doomed lover. THAT is why Peter Morgan came on board.

Now that you mention it it's pretty clear. Strange it wasn't realised earlier...

[JimmyBond]

I bet Bond will be the Quarterback.

[Panavision]

I recently read Corsica '72 by Purvis and Wade.

Not a bad effort, was voted number #2 in the Brit list (scripts championed by agents). This script is the best I've read from them. It's got problems, but it shows what they are capable of away from 007.

[Loomis]

I recently read Corsica '72 by Purvis and Wade.

Not a bad effort, was voted number #2 in the Brit list (scripts championed by agents)

This list seems to be a roundup of unproduced scripts by people who've already had a fair degree of success in "the industry". I'd be more interested in awards for the best screenplays by total unknowns.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I still find it odd that three writers were announced to write Bond 23. What's Peter Morgan bringing to the table that Purvis and Wade are not able to?

While I think that Morgan will certainly do much more than a polish of P&W's work on the script, I do think that his involvement was brought about because of the success that EON has had with outside writers teaming up with P&W on the last two scripts. Although I'm not a fan of all of the things that Haggis added and deleted from the Casino Royale script, his involvement did help bring instant credibility to the project. Since he's no longer on board, they've turned to Peter Morgan to help P&W craft a good storyline and a good script. More simply, he's there because he's a critically acclaimed screenwriter, and it definitely is a good thing to have someone of that quality working on the script.

I'm curious if he was brought on for more than just that he tend to write politcal drama and one of Quantum's operatives is one of the prime ministers closest advisors.

Well I will divulge something here...

Peter Morgan is co-writing a Bond film where the villain is a 1960's Governmental lawyer struggling with his conscience who starts to manage a Northern football team before reluctantly becoming Henry VIII's doomed lover. THAT is why Peter Morgan came on board.

Now that you mention it it's pretty clear. Strange it wasn't realised earlier...

So the fact that guy haines is one of the prime ministers closest associates has no connection to the fact that Peter morgan has a history of writing about goverment and goverment officals. Really ok sure whatever floats your boat i guess.

[Vauxhall]

So the fact that guy haines is one of the prime ministers closest associates has no connection to the fact that Peter morgan has a history of writing about goverment and goverment officals. Really ok sure whatever floats your boat i guess.

I think it's likely to be a coincidence. Peter Morgan has also written about football managers and royalty. I would be very surprised indeed if the character of Haines had a prominent role in BOND 23.

[JimmyBond]

I still find it odd that three writers were announced to write Bond 23. What's Peter Morgan bringing to the table that Purvis and Wade are not able to?

While I think that Morgan will certainly do much more than a polish of P&W's work on the script, I do think that his involvement was brought about because of the success that EON has had with outside writers teaming up with P&W on the last two scripts. Although I'm not a fan of all of the things that Haggis added and deleted from the Casino Royale script, his involvement did help bring instant credibility to the project. Since he's no longer on board, they've turned to Peter Morgan to help P&W craft a good storyline and a good script. More simply, he's there because he's a critically acclaimed screenwriter, and it definitely is a good thing to have someone of that quality working on the script.

I'm curious if he was brought on for more than just that he tend to write politcal drama and one of Quantum's operatives is one of the prime ministers closest advisors.

Well I will divulge something here...

Peter Morgan is co-writing a Bond film where the villain is a 1960's Governmental lawyer struggling with his conscience who starts to manage a Northern football team before reluctantly becoming Henry VIII's doomed lover. THAT is why Peter Morgan came on board.

Now that you mention it it's pretty clear. Strange it wasn't realised earlier...

So the fact that guy haines is one of the prime ministers closest associates has no connection to the fact that Peter morgan has a history of writing about goverment and goverment officals. Really ok sure whatever floats your boat i guess.

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

[double o ego]

Personally, I think the next adventure shouldn't be so heavily set with quantum influence. We need a snappy and gripping adventure that encapsulates what Bond is al about.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Personally, I think the next adventure shouldn't be so heavily set with quantum influence. We need a snappy and gripping adventure that encapsulates what Bond is al about.

oh like Casino royale and Quantum of solace?

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Personally, I think the next adventure shouldn't be so heavily set with quantum influence. We need a snappy and gripping adventure that encapsulates what Bond is al about.

You mean like a Goldfinger-type movie?

[DamnCoffee]

Personally, I think the next adventure shouldn't be so heavily set with quantum influence. We need a snappy and gripping adventure that encapsulates what Bond is al about.

oh like Casino royale and Quantum of solace?

Yes, because both of these movies have naff all to do with Quantum...

[Quantumofsolace007]

Mhrakin I was mearly pointing ot to me CR and QOS get to the heart of 007's character. I don't see the need to drop quantum like a hot potato we have questions about this orgnization and to either ignore them or drop them seems lazy to me.

[The Shark]

Mhrakin I was mearly pointing ot to me CR and QOS get to the heart of 007's character.

No the they don't. Go re-watch "Dr No", "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" or "From Russia With Love".

[Quantumofsolace007]

Mhrakin I was mearly pointing ot to me CR and QOS get to the heart of 007's character.

No the they don't. Go re-watch "Dr No", "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" or "From Russia With Love".

and if i fail to see a difference in the bond character?

[tdalton]

Mhrakin I was mearly pointing ot to me CR and QOS get to the heart of 007's character.

No the they don't. Go re-watch "Dr No", "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" or "From Russia With Love".

and if i fail to see a difference in the bond character?

There is little to no difference, really. The only possible difference is that the Bond in CR and QOS is a bit more of a fully rounded and dynamic character whereas the Bond of the first 20 films (including all of the films except for, perhaps, OHMSS) is a fairly static character.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Mhrakin I was mearly pointing ot to me CR and QOS get to the heart of 007's character.

No the they don't. Go re-watch "Dr No", "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" or "From Russia With Love".

and if i fail to see a difference in the bond character?

There is little to no difference, really. The only possible difference is that the Bond in CR and QOS is a bit more of a fully rounded and dynamic character whereas the Bond of the first 20 films (including all of the films except for, perhaps, OHMSS) is a fairly static character.

whew for a second i was worried people were gonna drag out the "your not a real bond fan" banner


I just don't see why we need to jump tracks. Lets have bond 23 be goldfinger? why so bond 27 can be diamonds are forever?

We have an orgnization we know nothing about We don't know who the head is. If there is a head people assume Mr whtie is important? Is he is he not? WHo knows. lets have one more quantum film before we start talking about a break.


Actualy if we're gonna harken back to an earlier bond film FRWL is where bond should be headed. We are at the perfect time to have a fit strong sadistic Red grant type villian perhaps with the name Jed Midnight (A friend on here suggested the name for my character it's from Ian Fleming's Novel Goldfinger)


We have to utlize the fact Quantum is probably pissed so we could have Bond as a target of some sort. perhaps even use the ending of FRWL for the film imagine a bond film that end with bond breathing his last with "James bond will return?" flashing across the screens. We know he will but the general audience won't and now is the perfect tiem to add that and a few other horror elements to the franchise.

[tdalton]

We have to utlize the fact Quantum is probably pissed so we could have Bond as a target of some sort. perhaps even use the ending of FRWL for the film imagine a bond film that end with bond breathing his last with "James bond will return?" flashing across the screens. We know he will but the general audience won't and now is the perfect tiem to add that and a few other horror elements to the franchise.

I like the idea of using FRWL's cliffhanger ending as an ending to BOND 23. That could end up being one of the better moments in the franchise, although I doubt they would use it after the underwhelming reception for the risks taken in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Still, a very good idea, though, and one that I'd be 110% in support of.

[Quantumofsolace007]

We have to utlize the fact Quantum is probably pissed so we could have Bond as a target of some sort. perhaps even use the ending of FRWL for the film imagine a bond film that end with bond breathing his last with "James bond will return?" flashing across the screens. We know he will but the general audience won't and now is the perfect tiem to add that and a few other horror elements to the franchise.

I like the idea of using FRWL's cliffhanger ending as an ending to BOND 23. That could end up being one of the better moments in the franchise, although I doubt they would use it after the underwhelming reception for the risks taken in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Still, a very good idea, though, and one that I'd be 110% in support of.

Eon will do what it will do they don't listen to really anyone but themselves i mean look at DAD to CR they have no problem taking risks .


One can only hope

[tdalton]

We have to utlize the fact Quantum is probably pissed so we could have Bond as a target of some sort. perhaps even use the ending of FRWL for the film imagine a bond film that end with bond breathing his last with "James bond will return?" flashing across the screens. We know he will but the general audience won't and now is the perfect tiem to add that and a few other horror elements to the franchise.

I like the idea of using FRWL's cliffhanger ending as an ending to BOND 23. That could end up being one of the better moments in the franchise, although I doubt they would use it after the underwhelming reception for the risks taken in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Still, a very good idea, though, and one that I'd be 110% in support of.

Eon will do what it will do they don't listen to really anyone but themselves i mean look at DAD to CR they have no problem taking risks .


One can only hope

True, but I think that the risks taken in CASINO ROYALE were calculated ones to take advantage of cinematic trends at the time. When CR was in its early stages of planning, the Bourne films were the hot thing in the action/adventure game, and they went that route. I think that, after the underwhelming reaction to QUANTUM OF SOLACE and its rather downbeat tone, the possibility of having Bond potentially being deceased at the end of a Bond film would be more in line with QUANTUM OF SOLACE's tone rather than that of CASINO ROYALE, which is the tone I think they're going to strive to recapture in BOND 23. Still, I think that having Bond's status up in the air would be a brilliant artistic move, but probably not one that would be a commercially viable way to go. Still, like I said, it would be a brilliant move just from a creative standpoint.

[danslittlefinger]

We have to utlize the fact Quantum is probably pissed so we could have Bond as a target of some sort. perhaps even use the ending of FRWL for the film imagine a bond film that end with bond breathing his last with "James bond will return?" flashing across the screens. We know he will but the general audience won't and now is the perfect tiem to add that and a few other horror elements to the franchise.

I like the idea of using FRWL's cliffhanger ending as an ending to BOND 23. That could end up being one of the better moments in the franchise, although I doubt they would use it after the underwhelming reception for the risks taken in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Still, a very good idea, though, and one that I'd be 110% in support of.

Hmm. Interesting idea especially when I think Craig will only do three films.
Might make it an interesting subliminal idea to make fans wonder about a fourth Craig film.

As for QoS, totally agree. Very underwhelming. Saw more credible and explicable action at my local library.

[tdalton]

We have to utlize the fact Quantum is probably pissed so we could have Bond as a target of some sort. perhaps even use the ending of FRWL for the film imagine a bond film that end with bond breathing his last with "James bond will return?" flashing across the screens. We know he will but the general audience won't and now is the perfect tiem to add that and a few other horror elements to the franchise.

I like the idea of using FRWL's cliffhanger ending as an ending to BOND 23. That could end up being one of the better moments in the franchise, although I doubt they would use it after the underwhelming reception for the risks taken in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Still, a very good idea, though, and one that I'd be 110% in support of.

Hmm. Interesting idea especially when I think Craig will only do three films.
Might make it an interesting subliminal idea to make fans wonder about a fourth Craig film.

As for QoS, totally agree. Very underwhelming. Saw more action at my local library.

Well, I didn't find QUANTUM OF SOLACE to be underwhelming (it's tied with LTK as my favorite Bond film), but I do agree 100% with the idea that it was generally underwhelming in terms of the general public as a whole as well as (at least as far as I can tell) half of the fan base.

[double o ego]

Personally, I think the next adventure shouldn't be so heavily set with quantum influence. We need a snappy and gripping adventure that encapsulates what Bond is al about.

You mean like a Goldfinger-type movie?

Yep, to some extent. Like I said, I don't want the movie to be so heavily set with quantum influence. Obviously, given the nature of quantum, it may be hard to completely leave them out of the picture, it was much easier to that with spectre but with quantum, I think it makes sense to have them in the film to some capacity but I don't want quantum to be a focal point of thorough investigation.

[danslittlefinger]

Was passed this little snippet - nothing exciting. Talking about potential Oscar host next February. Not zoning in on that Craig will do it but the other sentence.

http://www.hitfix.co...emy-awards-host

"Daniel Craig
- He's not a song and dance man like Jackman, but 007 is arguably funnier that the Aussie and could bring even more class to a night that stakes it reputation on it. Even better, he won't be busy shooting the next James Bond movie."

I think he will be shooting Dream House but the point is no Bond shooting as usual at that time, who knows how long that will take. So the window of filming is now down to mid 2010 onwards.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I beleive the release date is around the rumoured November 18th 2011

Less then 2 years away i'm ok with it.

[danslittlefinger]

Just saw this


"Rittenhouse has Daniel Craig signing for "James Bond Heroes & Villians" and has moved the release from Apr 28 to May 26 to give him time."

I assume to help with the Craig's Bond filming schedule also?

[Matt_13]

Just saw this


"Rittenhouse has Daniel Craig signing for "James Bond Heroes & Villians" and has moved the release from Apr 28 to May 26 to give him time."

I assume to help with the Craig's Bond filming schedule also?

What is that in reference to? Give him time for what? April/May of what year? And what is Rittenhouse? Is it an autograph sort of thing? These questions aren't at all intended to be looked upon as malicious, though from reading the text it looks very much like I'm interrogating you. I just have no idea what any of that stuff means and was hoping you could enlighten me. Anything to keep my hopes that we'll be seeing Bond again sometime within the next couple of years is always appreciated.

[danslittlefinger]

Just saw this


"Rittenhouse has Daniel Craig signing for "James Bond Heroes & Villians" and has moved the release from Apr 28 to May 26 to give him time."

I assume to help with the Craig's Bond filming schedule also?

What is that in reference to? Give him time for what? April/May of what year? And what is Rittenhouse? Is it an autograph sort of thing? These questions aren't at all intended to be looked upon as malicious, though from reading the text it looks very much like I'm interrogating you. I just have no idea what any of that stuff means and was hoping you could enlighten me. Anything to keep my hopes that we'll be seeing Bond again sometime within the next couple of years is always appreciated.

Well I saw it on Twitter I'm afraid and I think it's in reference to the release date being put back to allow for scheduling conflicts on Craig's schedule?
If you know what I mean.
So maybe this has to do with giving Craig more time to film 'Aliens' after 'Dream House' (which finishes in April) which might influence the filming time-line of Bond.
"Aliens' may take another 4-5 months, say June - September which might look good for Bond to be filmed over the Christmas period.
'Aliens' was originally scheduled for release July 29, 2011.

Sorry, I'm onto my 5th cup of Expresso. so I could totally way off target which I feel I am.
I haven't a clue what or who Rittenhouse is.

[AgentPB]

Okay I really hope P&W are just laying the Bondian groundwork. Why do they still use those two? Really the best Bond movie they wrote was Johnny English! I hope that this is the last movie they do. I'm going to wait till the director is hired and brings his own writer on hopefully. I liked the Queen enough although it had some pacing issues as did Frost Vs Nixon. Hopefully Morgan can polish the dialogue as that is what Purvis and Wade are lacking in (The one liners in the Brosnan era were terrible!) in the Bond efforts!

[Zorin Industries]

Okay I really hope P&W are just laying the Bondian groundwork. Why do they still use those two? Really the best Bond movie they wrote was Johnny English! I hope that this is the last movie they do. I'm going to wait till the director is hired and brings his own writer on hopefully. I liked the Queen enough although it had some pacing issues as did Frost Vs Nixon. Hopefully Morgan can polish the dialogue as that is what Purvis and Wade are lacking in (The one liners in the Brosnan era were terrible!) in the Bond efforts!

Purvis and Wade have a very good working relationship with the Bond producers. THAT is why they keep returning and those loyalties mean a lot at Bond HQ. Peter Morgan is writing the script WITH Purvis and Wade. Peter Morgan is a VERY GOOD coup for the Bond franchise. He is one of the hottest and most talented writers in the world and successfully takes well known subjects and creates very good, original and often simple screenplays around them - which is sort of useful for a Bond film.

Writers are not hired to be the credited writers and just do "lay the groundwork". It doesn't work like that, thankfully.

[Captain Tightpants]

Okay I really hope P&W are just laying the Bondian groundwork. Why do they still use those two? Really the best Bond movie they wrote was Johnny English! I hope that this is the last movie they do. I'm going to wait till the director is hired and brings his own writer on hopefully. I liked the Queen enough although it had some pacing issues as did Frost Vs Nixon. Hopefully Morgan can polish the dialogue as that is what Purvis and Wade are lacking in (The one liners in the Brosnan era were terrible!) in the Bond efforts!

Both THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY reek of constant last-minute script adjustments by a third party. Michael Apted's wife wrote the "dramatic" dialogue in TWINE and Lee Tamahori's fingerprints are all over DAD, especially in the film's chonic use of single-entendre gags. TWINE, I believe, has a very strong baic plot; trying to hijack a monopoly on the West's oil supplies by staging an accident to contaminate Istanbul is right up there with Orlov's plot to force NATO out of West Germany in terms of sheer brilliance. As for DAD, look at some of the scenes, like when Bond is seducing Miranda Frost. Granted, he dialogue isn't the greatest, but by the film's standards, it's downright sophisticated. Damien Falco also stands out because of his basic characterisation: he's a bureaucrat who has mastered the art of delegation and never accets responsibility for his own mistakes. His dialogue is harsh and clunky - that has to do more with Madsen's delivery than anthing else - but the basic character is just out of place for the film.

A lot of people attribute the "good dialogue" of CASINO ROYALE to Paul Haggis, but Haggis was only a script doctor. He came in and re-touched the dialogue throughout the film, but I would be very surprised if he re-did lengthy sections of the film. The scene in M's apartment is very Haggis-esque given his contribution to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but I think you'll find the scenes where Bond seduces Solange, when he first meets Mathis and the torture sequence are Purvis & Wade's work. Those are largely guesses, mind you; based largely on syntax and word choice. But each screenwriter has his or her own particular style, which is why some of the dilogue in TWINE and most of it in DAD is jarring: it's not written by Purvis & Wade.

I think the problems with the scripts by Purvis & Wade have less to do with their ability - or lack thereof - as screenwriters, and more to do with the fact that they kept getting shafted as by the higher-ups. As a screenwriter, you'll actually have very little control over the direction the script goes unless you have the virtue of directing it. A lot of scriptwriters get very frustrated when producers and directors interfere with their work.