50 replies to this topic

[Quantumofsolace007]

Peter Morgan has revealed that his original story concept is the only element that remains in the script for Daniel Craig's James Bond 23.

Speaking to Digital Spy at the London Film Festival launch, Morgan hinted that the screenplay for Sam Mendes's spy movie - worked on by John Logan, Patrick Marber, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade - took one key element from his Bond treatment.

"I hear that an idea, the central idea, is still there but not one similar thing other than that. I think they've still kept the big hook, which I'm not going to tell you!" he said.

Daniel Craig's third outing as James Bond, co-starring Ralph Fiennes, Javier Bardem and Judi Dench, will open in cinemas on October 26, 2012.

http://www.digitalsp...-plot-idea.html


Thoughts?

[MattofSteel]

Must mean it's a good one, then.

[Captain Tightpants]

Well, I do recall him saying it would be "shocking", or a similar adjective. Sounds good.

[Pussfeller]

I agree with MattofSteel. This doesn't tell us much.

But if you're in the mood for some wild speculation, Morgan's choice of words is somewhat suggestive. Except for his basic idea, he says that "everything else" has been changed. If all the particulars in a Bond story are taken away, what remains is the formula itself. So maybe Morgan's idea involves the formula. The word "hook" implies a plot twist or a change of direction. That lines up with the buzz about Moneypenny, and the possibility that there may be a changing of the guard at MI6. Morgan's "big hook" may involve a departure from the format of the last two films, a shakeup of the recurring cast, etc.

[Captain Tightpants]

If all the particulars in a Bond story are taken away, what remains is the formula itself. So maybe Morgan's idea involves the formula. The word "hook" implies a plot twist or a change of direction.

I disagree. I think Morgan's "hook" is the basic story idea, the thing meant to grab audiences by the throat and drag them in. If you could condense each Bond film down to a single line that described its plot in the most simplifed terms, then that's the hook (ie FRWL - SPECRTE attempt to humiliate and assassinate James Bond with a beautiful Russian spy; OHMSS - Blofeld holds the world to ransom with a virus that will destroy crops and livestock; TLD - Bond aids a Soviet defector who claims the KGB have reinstated an assassiantion program). I think Morgan is talking about the central idea that the entire film revolves around, and some of his comments suggest it's something bigger and more shocking than some of the ideas we've seen in the past.

[Matt_13]

If all the particulars in a Bond story are taken away, what remains is the formula itself. So maybe Morgan's idea involves the formula. The word "hook" implies a plot twist or a change of direction.

I disagree. I think Morgan's "hook" is the basic story idea, the thing meant to grab audiences by the throat and drag them in. If you could condense each Bond film down to a single line that described its plot in the most simplifed terms, then that's the hook (ie FRWL - SPECRTE attempt to humiliate and assassinate James Bond with a beautiful Russian spy; OHMSS - Blofeld holds the world to ransom with a virus that will destroy crops and livestock; TLD - Bond aids a Soviet defector who claims the KGB have reinstated an assassiantion program). I think Morgan is talking about the central idea that the entire film revolves around, and some of his comments suggest it's something bigger and more shocking than some of the ideas we've seen in the past.

This.

[DaveBond21]

If all the particulars in a Bond story are taken away, what remains is the formula itself. So maybe Morgan's idea involves the formula. The word "hook" implies a plot twist or a change of direction.

I disagree. I think Morgan's "hook" is the basic story idea, the thing meant to grab audiences by the throat and drag them in. If you could condense each Bond film down to a single line that described its plot in the most simplifed terms, then that's the hook (ie FRWL - SPECRTE attempt to humiliate and assassinate James Bond with a beautiful Russian spy; OHMSS - Blofeld holds the world to ransom with a virus that will destroy crops and livestock; TLD - Bond aids a Soviet defector who claims the KGB have reinstated an assassiantion program). I think Morgan is talking about the central idea that the entire film revolves around, and some of his comments suggest it's something bigger and more shocking than some of the ideas we've seen in the past.

Agreed. I would say this is what he is referring to, and he seems quite pleased that they have kept his idea.

-

[MattofSteel]

Yeah, I'm sure he means the central premise.

[Captain Tightpants]

Okay, with all Morgan's talk of a big hook in the film and how the storyline is shocking, I've come up with an idea as to what it might be. It's something that we've never seen before, despite the fact that it would be very, very interesting to see. The idea?

Bond fails his mission.

We've never seen this before. Bond always intervenes in time. Most of the time, if a villain's plan reached maturity, then that plan would have permanent global consequences. For example, if Orlov's bomb had been detonated in OCTOPUSSY, forcing the withdrawal of NATO forces, then the course of the Cold War would have changed entirely. It's obviously not something that the film could explore, least of all because EON went to great lengths to ensure Bond never directly confronted the Soviet Union. Even when there was a Russian villain - like Orlov - the film made it pretty clear that he was acting alone.

But there are other films where Bond's failure would not have been so catastrophic. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is first and foremost among these. If Aris Kristatos had sold the ATAC device to Moscow, then there would of course be consequences; the British fleet would have been completely incapacitated. But at the same time, it would not have been an unmitigated disaster the way the detonation of a nuclear device over a major city would be. If the ATAC device had been sold, there would have been potential for some interesting character development. How would Bond respond to the knowledge that he had failed? What would M do? How would the story evolve, and would Bond be able to overcome it? And if he did overcome it, would that be enough to compensate for the intial failure?

If you look at all of the best Bond films - FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, GOLDENEYE and CASINO ROYALE (and, if you're me, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH) - you'll notice that they are not films with a massive scope. They don't have those far-reaching global consequences the way YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MOONRAKER, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and DIE ANOTHER DAY do. So there's that potential for failure on Bond's part that makes him feel more grounded. When the world is at stake, Bond has to prevail, because the alternative is catastrophic. But when the plot is not so far-reaching, the scope of the plot is narrower, but the leeway is greater. That's why I think BOND 23 might have Bond failing his mission.

I think the best way to do this would be to model it on CASINO ROYALE's structure. CASINO ROYALE has two very distinct chapters - the airport chapter and the casino chapter - that are linked by common characters, but almost tell separate stories. We know what happened with the story when Bond stopped the airliner prototype from being blown up, but what would have happened if he had been unsuccessful? What if he had pursued Carlos across the tarmac, but Carlos had too great a head start for Bond to do anything? Where would the story have gone from there? I think Morgan might have set BODN 23 up with this two-chapters approach, but just when it looks like Bond is about to succeed, everything falls apart and the second chapter deals with Bond trying to make things right.

[hoagy]

Good grief -- everyone so far has missed it completely, and the fellow quite clearly stated the thing: the villain will have a hook, perhaps two...Dr. No in the book did not have the metal hands used in the movie (and used effectively), he had hooks. Furthermore, he will be portrayed by two actors well known for their portrayal of the most well-known hooked person in fiction and cinema-- Dustin Hoffman (for the villain in his later years) and Jason Isaacs (throwing him a bone for not getting the 007 role himself).
It is astounding that it took this long into the thread for these obvious points to be explicitly stated.
You see, having remade Casino Royale -- the first of the books -- they now will remake Dr. No -- the first of the films. Sir Sean Connery will be dragged out of reitrement (with a promise that shooting will be on time and finished efficienty) to portray M, and Roger Moore, joke-master extraordinaire, will play (and for his sense of humor "play" is the better term) The Armourer.
Oh, quite sorry, I really should have put one of those fancy internet thingy "spoiler alert" cloaks, shouldn't I ? Well, they'll be changing the script now for sure, which will only prove, once the film premieres, how very correct I presently am.
You know, when you think about, Dr. No should have a Smee-type right-err, -hook man, shouldn't he ? Perhaps Mr. Lazenby would be available. As for Dalton and Brosnan, they're saving them to portray Wint and Kidd in a Diamonds Are Forever remake. No, wait, Crispin Glover should get to play his father's part, right ? OK, give me a moment, I can make this work...

[Captain Tightpants]

Good grief -- everyone so far has missed it completely, and the fellow quite clearly stated the thing: the villain will have a hook, perhaps two.

Huh? Are you taking the mickey? Nowhere in the article does Morgan say "the villain will have a hook".

[Pussfeller]

I like your idea, Tightpants. If done properly, and if they really commit to Bond's failure, it would make a really fresh, interesting approach. The danger is that they would chicken out, for fear of making Bond "feckless", and pin the failure on external forces, leaving Bond's infallibility intact. A lot of Bond films have presented temporary setbacks, close calls, near misses, and so forth. So the idea of "Bond failing" is not really unprecedented. But if they really committed to it, and built up to a big failure fairly late in the film, I suppose that would be new and startling.

[Captain Tightpants]

I'm of the belief that if an event is a real game-changer, then it shouldn't come late in the narrative. It should come somewhere in the middle, so that the consequences of that event - and the effects of those consequences on the characters - can be properly explored.

[SecretAgentFan]

Good grief -- everyone so far has missed it completely, and the fellow quite clearly stated the thing: the villain will have a hook, perhaps two.

Huh? Are you taking the mickey? Nowhere in the article does Morgan say "the villain will have a hook".

C´mon, Captain. Hoagy made a perfect joke.

[Captain Tightpants]

I have a hard time telling sometimes.

[Shrublands]

The big impetus when it comes to Bond is to go for the villains plot when it comes to describing the central premises or hook. However, I would argue that that is not always the best way to pin it down.

For example, with the SWLM it could be put something like this.
James Bond, warrior of the cold war, is forced to abandon the norms of his profession and work closely with a beautiful yet deadly Russian spy to defeat a common enemy.

But then MR, a very similar movie in many regards, would be best described not mentioning the relationship with Holly and focusing on Drax’s plot.

[Bond... Raybond]

For example, with the SWLM it could be put something like this.
James Bond, worrier of the cold war, is forced to abandon the norms of his profession and work closely with a beautiful yet deadly Russian spy to defeat a common enemy.

The Cold War Worrier, well I guess the Cold War had most of us worried, and Bond worried alot of his enemies. . Sorry to nitpick, but could not resist.

[Shrublands]

For example, with the SWLM it could be put something like this.
James Bond, worrier of the cold war, is forced to abandon the norms of his profession and work closely with a beautiful yet deadly Russian spy to defeat a common enemy.

The Cold War Worrier, well I guess the Cold War had most of us worried, and Bond worried alot of his enemies. . Sorry to nitpick, but could not resist.

Nitpick away, I deserve it. Bloody spell check altered it to the wrong word and I didn’t read it through.

[David Schofield]

Hope we're all not expecting something too revolutionary with thies "shocking" concept.

There are certain things you can and can't do with James Bond. And remember, the parametres are even narrower for cinematic Bond than the literary version; cinema Bond has, essentially, got to make A LOT of money and that means giving multi-plex audiences world wide, particularly in the USA, exactly what they'd expect from a Bond movie. In the past even slight variations on the ticks-all-boxes tradition have not performed as well as others.

So we are not going to find out M is a Quantum agent. Moneypenny is a lesbian-man hater (if you wanted one of those, surely you wouldn't need to use the name), Bond fails his mission (what, the bomb goes off and millions die: surely Bond MUST save the day in the end!). Bond turns out to be a tea-total homosexual? I think not. Bond has contracted aids due to his promiscuity? No. Bond has a brother called Reg who works in a humdrum job in a bank in Staines, has a fat wife that hates him and two dreadful daughters, all of whom try it on with Uncle JB; nah.

In fact, the widest parameters you could actually use I can suggest come straight from Fleming: Bond sufferes from accidie/ennui big time and becomes more reliant on booze (only to come off it because he gets stimulated by a new case) or Bond appears to die at the end of the movie (even then, of course, we know he can't as EON'll need the cash registers to keep turning for #24).

So realistically, our version of what would be shocking just can't happen, can it?

[Zorin Industries]

It is maybe not so much shocking as the next stage in the evolution of Bond via the Daniel Craig EraTM. What Peter Morgan's "idea" is / could well be the one thing that upsets some and brings others to a veritable frenzy. And it is not rocket science to work out what the Morgan involvement is/was or might well be - nor the direction the new Bond film is headed in when you look at the inevitable internal/external factors governing this new 007 movie. So he maybe did more than an outline after all (!).

[Captain Tightpants]

Well, maybe when filming starts and EON calls a press conference, we'll get a brief outline of the story to go with the (possible) title and casting.

[SecretAgentFan]

It is maybe not so much shocking as the next stage in the evolution of Bond via the Daniel Craig EraTM. What Peter Morgan's "idea" is / could well be the one thing that upsets some and brings others to a veritable frenzy. And it is not rocket science to work out what the Morgan involvement is/was or might well be - nor the direction the new Bond film is headed in when you look at the inevitable internal/external factors governing this new 007 movie. So he maybe did more than an outline after all (!).

So it is Bond campaging for PM?

[Pussfeller]

No, more like mayor of London.

[SecretAgentFan]

Jokes aside, what would be the logical consequence?

Quantum, I suppose, being entangled within world politics. Mi6 being part of the conspiracy. With M maybe contributing so that CraigBond at the end will have to face her and bring her to justice - even killing her?

Somehow that would make sense to me: a Bond film in which M sends him on a mission that is supposed to be his death (hey, aren´t they all like that?). Of course, M would have to do it, not like to to do it. The one agent she kind of has grown attached to is the one she has to sacrifice - but he is going to sacrifice her.

Too much?

[Matt_13]

Somehow that would make sense to me: a Bond film in which M sends him on a mission that is supposed to be his death (hey, aren´t they all like that?). Of course, M would have to do it, not like to to do it. The one agent she kind of has grown attached to is the one she has to sacrifice - but he is going to sacrifice her.

[Royal Dalton]

Bond pulls off rubber mask to reveal he was Michael Sheen as Tony Blair all along.

[Pussfeller]

Since CraigBond has basically been M's padawan disciple for the last two films, I could easily imagine her character meeting a self-sacrificial Kenobi-type destiny. The last two films have set up M as a character who is frequently harassed and obstructed by political intrigues. That interference now threatens to paralyze her entirely and force her to abet something nefarious. Therefore M has no choice but to order Bond to eliminate her, thus "scuttling" MI6.

Or something.

My gut tells me that M is destined for some sort of hard- self-immolation in the line of duty, if not in the next film then at some point down the line. Her character is too intense to simply be retired.

[J B]

I really hope that this will be one of the best James Bond films to come since GoldenEye (I'm still not entirely convinced by Casino Royale just yet, maybe I should watch it again). Hopefully, Bond 23, whatever the title may be, does not disappoint. Daniel Craig seems to be a pretty good Bond actor so far. This movie will make him one of the best, or put him down the list of Bond actors a little, depending on it's success.

[DaveBond21]

Jokes aside, what would be the logical consequence?

Quantum, I suppose, being entangled within world politics. Mi6 being part of the conspiracy. With M maybe contributing so that CraigBond at the end will have to face her and bring her to justice - even killing her?

Somehow that would make sense to me: a Bond film in which M sends him on a mission that is supposed to be his death (hey, aren´t they all like that?). Of course, M would have to do it, not like to to do it. The one agent she kind of has grown attached to is the one she has to sacrifice - but he is going to sacrifice her.

Too much?

Yep, and Bond has M strapped to a table with a laser about to cut her in half:-


M: If you can't tell your friends from your enemies, it's time to go...

Bond: See ya then

M: Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!



_________________________________________________________________________________

[Loomis]

Hope we're all not expecting something too revolutionary with thies "shocking" concept.

There are certain things you can and can't do with James Bond. And remember, the parametres are even narrower for cinematic Bond than the literary version; cinema Bond has, essentially, got to make A LOT of money and that means giving multi-plex audiences world wide, particularly in the USA, exactly what they'd expect from a Bond movie. In the past even slight variations on the ticks-all-boxes tradition have not performed as well as others.

So we are not going to find out M is a Quantum agent. Moneypenny is a lesbian-man hater (if you wanted one of those, surely you wouldn't need to use the name), Bond fails his mission (what, the bomb goes off and millions die: surely Bond MUST save the day in the end!). Bond turns out to be a tea-total homosexual? I think not. Bond has contracted aids due to his promiscuity? No. Bond has a brother called Reg who works in a humdrum job in a bank in Staines, has a fat wife that hates him and two dreadful daughters, all of whom try it on with Uncle JB; nah.

In fact, the widest parameters you could actually use I can suggest come straight from Fleming: Bond sufferes from accidie/ennui big time and becomes more reliant on booze (only to come off it because he gets stimulated by a new case) or Bond appears to die at the end of the movie (even then, of course, we know he can't as EON'll need the cash registers to keep turning for #24).

So realistically, our version of what would be shocking just can't happen, can it?

Judging the recent Eon films against the recent IFP novels, I'd say that the literary franchise is even more conservative than the film franchise. Besides, if there's one thing you can't say about the Craig era it's that it's risk-averse. So M as a villain? Yeah, I think they could pull that off, at this point in time (frankly, I think it would be more than in keeping with her characterisation so far, which is that of an absolute bitch who's also incredibly self-righteous and certainly incompetent enough to be led astray).

Still, I hope Morgan's big idea is rather more imaginative and surprising.