99 replies to this topic

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

I guess the danger of using an old one-liner is that for every person who sees it as a nice tribute to previous films, there will be another who merely sees it as the writers recycling old lines because they can't think of anything better.

Agreed. Last thing people want is a repeat of DAD did a decade earlier.

[thecasinoroyale]

...wash your mouth out Spectre Assassin!

[JCRendle]

I want the "Shocking positive Shocking" line! I think Craig could pull it off

I think it would work better if it was just "Shocking", then walks off.

[Single-O-Seven]

I want the "Shocking positive Shocking" line! I think Craig could pull it off

I think it would work better if it was just "Shocking", then walks off.

Or if the PTS ends in a similar vein to Goldfinger, at which point Craig turns to the camera, winks, and says, "Now this DID happen to the other fella!"

Roll main titles...

[thecasinoroyale]

I want the "Shocking positive Shocking" line! I think Craig could pull it off

I think it would work better if it was just "Shocking", then walks off.

Or if the PTS ends in a similar vein to Goldfinger, at which point Craig turns to the camera, winks, and says, "Now this DID happen to the other fella!"

Roll main titles...

Ha! I do hope so!

[Shrublands]

Yeah, I think they should slip a previous Bond quote in there...true fans would know, it'd cause no harm.

Bad idea – using lines from past Bond films would only serve to suggest a lack of originality in the writing. The “I never joke about my work” in DAD does just that and sets up unflattering comparisons with the new “humour” on display.

What we need is new lines that will be looked back on as classics in the years to come.

[PPK_19]

What we need is new lines that will be looked back on as classics in the years to come.

With those idiots Purvis and Wade still at the writing helm? Can't see it happening. I want fresh scribes. Can't wait to see what Logan's influence has on the script in terms of humour.

[MkB]

I expect the Skyfall one-liners will at least equal this Naked Gun one:

Jane Spencer: Yeah, you know, a white guy. A moustache. About six-foot-three.
Lt. Frank Drebin: Awfully big moustache.

After years and years, it still makes me hoot with laughter...

[SecretAgentFan]

What we need is new lines that will be looked back on as classics in the years to come.

With those idiots Purvis and Wade still at the writing helm? Can't see it happening. I want fresh scribes. Can't wait to see what Logan's influence has on the script in terms of humour.

Those "idiots" are probably responsible for many, many scenes you found extremely enjoyable but credited to others. Or did you read every draft they ever wrote in order to make a fair statement?

[PPK_19]

What we need is new lines that will be looked back on as classics in the years to come.

With those idiots Purvis and Wade still at the writing helm? Can't see it happening. I want fresh scribes. Can't wait to see what Logan's influence has on the script in terms of humour.

Those "idiots" are probably responsible for many, many scenes you found extremely enjoyable but credited to others. Or did you read every draft they ever wrote in order to make a fair statement?

Yep, that's what i did.

All i know is that their writing during the Brosnan period, in TWINE and DAD, was pretty awful. It was only when Haggis came in to polish the scripts for CR and QOS did we see an improvement.

Good to see that they've once again drafted in an experienced screenwriter such as Logan for SF. Can't afford a rubbish script to get in the way of what is looking to be a fantastic film to herald the 50th anniversary.

[SecretAgentFan]

What we need is new lines that will be looked back on as classics in the years to come.

With those idiots Purvis and Wade still at the writing helm? Can't see it happening. I want fresh scribes. Can't wait to see what Logan's influence has on the script in terms of humour.

Those "idiots" are probably responsible for many, many scenes you found extremely enjoyable but credited to others. Or did you read every draft they ever wrote in order to make a fair statement?

Yep, that's what i did.

I am pretty sure you did not.

[S K Y F A L L]

I expect the Skyfall one-liners will at least equal this Naked Gun one:

Jane Spencer: Yeah, you know, a white guy. A moustache. About six-foot-three.
Lt. Frank Drebin: Awfully big moustache.

After years and years, it still makes me hoot with laughter...

It still makes me laugh too, I just loved those movies. Useless fact: I share the same birthday with Leslie Nielsen.

[MattofSteel]

What we need is new lines that will be looked back on as classics in the years to come.

With those idiots Purvis and Wade still at the writing helm? Can't see it happening. I want fresh scribes. Can't wait to see what Logan's influence has on the script in terms of humour.

Those "idiots" are probably responsible for many, many scenes you found extremely enjoyable but credited to others. Or did you read every draft they ever wrote in order to make a fair statement?

Yep, that's what i did.

All i know is that their writing during the Brosnan period, in TWINE and DAD, was pretty awful. It was only when Haggis came in to polish the scripts for CR and QOS did we see an improvement.

Good to see that they've once again drafted in an experienced screenwriter such as Logan for SF. Can't afford a rubbish script to get in the way of what is looking to be a fantastic film to herald the 50th anniversary.

As a working screenwriter, I've learned to not make (and subsequently nothing pisses me off more than) judgements like that.

The general audience has absolutely no clue - no clue - what these development cycles are like behind the scenes. And the bigger the film, the bigger the battles - Bond, I would assume represents a sort of epitome of 'pleasing many masters.' 90% of what a writer does is trying to balance countless different opinions while constantly skirting the line of trying to produce quality, original material while - essentially - taking direct orders about what to write.

You have to pick your battles, and you don't always win. I'm not going to sit here and pretend there aren't some lines and "script" issues in the P&W era that annoy me, but we simply have no way of knowing who was responsible for it. Of all the creatives in the process, the writer might be abused the most that way.

I've full on been instructed before to include lines verbatim to how a producer wants them - knowing full well they're terrible. I had a producer literally rewrite my dialogue once. I'm not generally complaining about what I do - the positives far outweigh the negatives for me - but these realities exist, and I've learned that it takes an exceptional case to really criticize a writer, especially on a studio project.

[PPK_19]

What we need is new lines that will be looked back on as classics in the years to come.

With those idiots Purvis and Wade still at the writing helm? Can't see it happening. I want fresh scribes. Can't wait to see what Logan's influence has on the script in terms of humour.

Those "idiots" are probably responsible for many, many scenes you found extremely enjoyable but credited to others. Or did you read every draft they ever wrote in order to make a fair statement?

Yep, that's what i did.

All i know is that their writing during the Brosnan period, in TWINE and DAD, was pretty awful. It was only when Haggis came in to polish the scripts for CR and QOS did we see an improvement.

Good to see that they've once again drafted in an experienced screenwriter such as Logan for SF. Can't afford a rubbish script to get in the way of what is looking to be a fantastic film to herald the 50th anniversary.

As a working screenwriter, I've learned to not make (and subsequently am pissed off by nothing more than) judgements like that.

The general audience has absolutely no clue - no clue - what these development cycles are like behind the scenes. And the bigger the film, the bigger the battles - Bond, I would assume represents a sort of epitome of 'pleasing many masters.' 90% of what a writer does is trying to balance countless different opinions while constantly skirting the line of trying to produce quality, original material while - essentially - taking direct orders about what to write.

You have to pick your battles, and you don't always win. I'm not going to sit here and pretend there aren't some lines and "script" issues in the P&W era that annoy me, but we simply have no way of knowing who was responsible for it. Of all the creatives in the process, the writer might be abused the most that way.

I've full on been instructed before to include lines verbatim to how a producer wants them - knowing full well they're terrible. I had a producer literally rewrite my dialogue once. I'm not generally complaining about what I do - the positives far outweigh the negatives for me - but these realities exist, and I've learned that it takes an exceptional case to really criticize a writer, especially on a studio project.

That's fair enough. I'm not so deluded to think that what they write is in no way influenced by producers who want things to sound a certain way, or dialogue to be completely re-written, as in your case, but the fact is their names are on it, so they have to take the blame.

[SecretAgentFan]

They have to take the blame because their names are on it?

C´mon. Too easy. And totally wrong.


And MattofSteel, thank you for your wonderful reply. As a fellow screenwriter I can feel your pain.

[MattofSteel]

What we need is new lines that will be looked back on as classics in the years to come.

With those idiots Purvis and Wade still at the writing helm? Can't see it happening. I want fresh scribes. Can't wait to see what Logan's influence has on the script in terms of humour.

Those "idiots" are probably responsible for many, many scenes you found extremely enjoyable but credited to others. Or did you read every draft they ever wrote in order to make a fair statement?

Yep, that's what i did.

All i know is that their writing during the Brosnan period, in TWINE and DAD, was pretty awful. It was only when Haggis came in to polish the scripts for CR and QOS did we see an improvement.

Good to see that they've once again drafted in an experienced screenwriter such as Logan for SF. Can't afford a rubbish script to get in the way of what is looking to be a fantastic film to herald the 50th anniversary.

As a working screenwriter, I've learned to not make (and subsequently am pissed off by nothing more than) judgements like that.

The general audience has absolutely no clue - no clue - what these development cycles are like behind the scenes. And the bigger the film, the bigger the battles - Bond, I would assume represents a sort of epitome of 'pleasing many masters.' 90% of what a writer does is trying to balance countless different opinions while constantly skirting the line of trying to produce quality, original material while - essentially - taking direct orders about what to write.

You have to pick your battles, and you don't always win. I'm not going to sit here and pretend there aren't some lines and "script" issues in the P&W era that annoy me, but we simply have no way of knowing who was responsible for it. Of all the creatives in the process, the writer might be abused the most that way.

I've full on been instructed before to include lines verbatim to how a producer wants them - knowing full well they're terrible. I had a producer literally rewrite my dialogue once. I'm not generally complaining about what I do - the positives far outweigh the negatives for me - but these realities exist, and I've learned that it takes an exceptional case to really criticize a writer, especially on a studio project.

That's fair enough. I'm not so deluded to think that what they write is in no way influenced by producers who want things to sound a certain way, or dialogue to be completely re-written, as in your case, but the fact is their names are on it, so they have to take the blame.

From an industry perspective I simply don't agree, but I understand that an audience of anything - sport, entertainment - needs to assign blame when something goes wrong. I guess to make themselves feel better about it?

No other creative position in the filmmaking process takes as much undeserved blame as the writer - though, let me be clear, I'm not absolving them of everything and the writer oftentimes does need to accept it. Writing is high-risk, high-reward when it comes to receiving credit - either positive or negative. But I think if the average aspiring writer had any idea what the "collaborative process" really means and how little creative control they ultimately have, they'd run for the hills before even getting started. Some of us, of course, weren't so easily dissuaded.

At the end of the day, you can call P&W "idiots" if you like. But they've worked on five Bond films for a reason, and that fact alone makes them not idiots. My specific opinions on some of their work aside, they'll always be idols of mine.

[Leon]

I agree with alot of the comments here, I'd also like to see some restraint in the quips and gags - better to develop some original, genuinely witty conversation where appropriate, and maybe one or two equaly original and amusing one liners. They did this rather well in Casino Royale, ie, the Bahamas scenes with Solange. The lighter hearted chat and good humour was nice and reminiscent of Thunderball. Too much of the Bond-Vesper style rapid fire conversational chessplay can get a bit much, so I feel Craig's Bond needs more of the softer touch. The dark side and brutal nature of his Bond will clearly always be there in spades, so there's no need to worry about that going away.

My favourite style of one liners include some early Connerys, such as,

'I think they were on their way to a funeral.'
or, 'You won't be needing this.. old man!'

Witty, dark, situation appropriate and genuinely funny, but not silly or overtly obvious puns etc. Even the old, 'Sergeant, make sure he doesn't get away...' kind of brief, throwaway quip about some cyanide-contorted corpse in the back seat would suit Craig to the ground.

[J B]

I guess the danger of using an old one-liner is that for every person who sees it as a nice tribute to previous films, there will be another who merely sees it as the writers recycling old lines because they can't think of anything better.

Agreed. Last thing people want is a repeat of DAD did a decade earlier.

I agree too, but I feel like I'm 99% sure that Skyfall will outdo Die Another Day. Now that's what I consider one of the bottom three worst Bond films. I doubt Skyfall will stoop so low.

[S K Y F A L L]

This has been some interesting and entertaining reading for me. When its comes to DAD sometimes I think it was so bad simply because they wanted to get rid of Brosnan. I felt the cast sucked and when Bond got to the DNA splicing center and then the ice palace and discovered Icarus, it all went downhill for me. Might as well been an Austin Powers sequel.
Screenwriter question;
Shouldn't the writers let the producers know when they are writing something for them and that's crap?
Shouldn't have P and W known that DAD was going to be looked at as a piece of crap to a lot of people, isn't that what makes them a writer?
Is that what makes a good writer, saying "no" to writing crap compared to saying yes, just to make the producers happy and keep your job?
It certainly does sound like they have to walk a thin line. I'm no film expert, so sorry if my questions sound ignorant, I'm just curious.

[SecretAgentFan]

Of course, you can say no to a producer. But then the producer will, of course, say no to you as a writer.

Believe me, there are millions of unpaid writers who desperately want a shot at a job. So, a producer will always find someone to deliver what he wants.


But that´s not how EON works.

In hindsight, everybody always knows best. And while some now hate DAD - let´s face it, it was a huge success. Audiences loved this movie.

You, "SKYFALL", did not. And that´s your perfectly fine opinion. But not more than that.

And instead of just dismissing the whole film as crap you should at least have the courtesy to criticize something with the same intelligence you demand from those you fault for their work.

Was DAD going over the top? I do think so. And I also think it was intended to up the ante on everything. To really go for a "greatest hits"-collection, throwing out restraint and do a "fantasy"-Bond for the anniversary. Mind you, it was the time of excess action with not so much interest in character. Again, the Bond films were in synch with the zeitgeist.

Now, I can enjoy this film for what it is. Does that mean it is my favorite Bond? No. Do I enjoy the Craig-Bonds more? Yes.

But I know that everybody involved in a production like this (especially in a Bond film which is lovingly made by people absolutely excited and committed) wants to deliver the best they can do. As for every piece of work this aim sometimes is not achieved, due to lots of factors.

Let me close with a Theodore Roosevelt quote:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

[JimmyBond]

Well said SecretAgenFan, well said.

While not my favorite Brosnan Bond, I really enjoy DAD. It's exactly what it is, a big overblown Bond adventure that dips into silliness on occasion, sure that's not for everybody. And I respect those who dislike it, but when I want a fun Bond adventure that doesn't ask a lot from me, I pop this sucker in.

[S K Y F A L L]

Of course, you can say no to a producer. But then the producer will, of course, say no to you as a writer.
Believe me, there are millions of unpaid writers who desperately want a shot at a job. So, a producer will always find someone to deliver what he wants.
But that´s not how EON works.
In hindsight, everybody always knows best. And while some now hate DAD - let´s face it, it was a huge success. Audiences loved this movie.
You, "SKYFALL", did not. And that´s your perfectly fine opinion. But not more than that.
And instead of just dismissing the whole film as crap you should at least have the courtesy to criticize something with the same intelligence you demand from those you fault for their work.

You had me at your second sentence. I'm not trying to agree with you, I"m just interested in your insight. Don''t get me wrong I loved the film up until a certain point but I just felt the 2nd half wasn't as strong as the 1st. I dismissed it as crap because I didn't find the need to detail everything I didn't like about it, who would care what I think, Its just IMO. I wouldn't describe it as crap but that does seem to be the collective opinion of most of the people here, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. And cool quote!

[SecretAgentFan]

Alright - I did not want to attack you.

But let´s hope that we all can use this message board for intelligent discussion - and not dismissing something just as "crap" without explaining the "crap"-factor itself.

Let´s move on!

[MattofSteel]

Agreed.

So, when Craig says the one-liners are back: I think he means more along the tone of CR. I thought that film was the funniest Bond film in years, actually. Filled with the kind of witty one-liners I'd love to see.

[AMC Hornet]

I agree with you, MoS - and when the sources at EON say 'witty one-liners' I trust that they mean in the same sort of dry style that suits DC, and not that they have Sir Roger Moore doctoring the script with what he might have said, c 1979.

SKYFALL says, "When its comes to DAD sometimes I think it was so bad simply because they wanted to get rid of Brosnan."

You must know that nobody - nobody - deliberately makes a bad* movie simply to 'get rid' of a lead who's making them 1/4 billion dollars per film.

*(IYO)

"I wouldn't describe it as crap but that does seem to be the collective opinion of most of the people here..."

Count me out of your count - as SAF points out: "...while some now hate DAD - let´s face it, it was a huge success. Audiences loved this movie."

That's where you can count me in. Loved it then, love it now.

As for JB:

While not my favorite Brosnan Bond, I really enjoy DAD. It's exactly what it is, a big overblown Bond adventure that dips into silliness on occasion, sure that's not for everybody. And I respect those who dislike it, but when I want a fun Bond adventure that doesn't ask a lot from me, I pop this sucker in.

...That's my opinion of Moonraker. Funny how some people who love MR and all its excesses feel perfectly comfortable dissing on DAD.

I know that there are plenty of posters on this board and others who think they could write a better screenplay than Purvis & Wade, but I am not among them - I am perfectly aware that my own best effort - should I undergo the pointless exercise - would be regarded as 'crap' by the majority, and that it would be rewritten beyond recognition anyway before the first frame ever got filmed. The professional screenwriters among us have already outlined the pitfalls of the industry. If said amateurs think they can fight the studio bosses for the 'integrity' of their brainchild and win, then they haven't been paying attention.

Thank you SAF for your insight - it corroborates a lot of what I've read previously about the process of writing by committee, and about how many writers' contributions were attributed to Christopher Wood, as his name alone appears in the credits of the aformentioned MR. He was no more solely responsible for that 'masterpiece' (or 'piece of crap,' depending on your tastes) than P&W are for DAD or CR.

I trust that Skyfall will be a corker. It doesn't look like anyone on the team is in a hurry to 'get rid' of DC quite yet.

Edited by AMC Hornet, 26 April 2012 - 05:15 PM.

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

...wash your mouth out Spectre Assassin!

ok, judging by your reaction perhaps only myself thought that some of the one-liners were cringe-worthy. I understand it's all in a matter of taste I suppose. I have all the faith that SKYFALL is going to be good.

[Matt_13]

It can be done without being terrible. I think DAD really turned us fans off big time since those were really, really terrible lines. Craig has already demonstrated he can be funny and amiable as Bond (his arrival at the Hotel Splendide is one example). I'm sure it'll be fine.

[Shrublands]

Funny how some people who love MR and all its excesses feel perfectly comfortable dissing on DAD.

Count me as one of them.

The Moonraker script actually contains dialogue that is interesting and genuinely funny – Particularly when Drax is involved. In other key areas, such as music and design, Moonraker is a very, very classy production and endlessly rewarding on the ear and eye.
DAD cannot compete with MR in terms of the above. And it’s remorselessly pretentious for all its supposed big fun, which alienates me.

And whilst on the subject of pretentiousness – It is Brosnan’s most annoying performance; he got worse with each film after being quite promising in GE and the first half of TND.

Moonraker sets out to be fun, epic entertainment and besides a few terrible lapses in judgment (we all know what they are) succeeds for about 90% of its running time. DAD attempts the same (but with added pomposity) and fails for about the same percentage.

[univex]

Funny how some people who love MR and all its excesses feel perfectly comfortable dissing on DAD.

Count me as one of them.

The Moonraker script actually contains dialogue that is interesting and genuinely funny – Particularly when Drax is involved. In other key areas, such as music and design, Moonraker is a very, very classy production and endlessly rewarding on the ear and eye.
DAD cannot compete with MR in terms of the above. And it’s remorselessly pretentious for all its supposed big fun, which alienates me.

And whilst on the subject of pretentiousness – It is Brosnan’s most annoying performance; he got worst with each film after being quite promising in GE and the first half of TND.

Moonraker sets out to be fun, epic entertainment and besides a few terrible lapses in judgment (we all know what they are) succeeds for about 90% of its running time. DAD attempts the same (but with added pomposity) and fails for about the same percentage.

Agreed. I actually like (not adore, like) Moonraker and am a known hater of DUD. It´s possible. I agree with everything you just said Shrublands.

[Pussfeller]

Funny how some people who love MR and all its excesses feel perfectly comfortable dissing on DAD.

Count me as one of them.

The Moonraker script actually contains dialogue that is interesting and genuinely funny – Particularly when Drax is involved. In other key areas, such as music and design, Moonraker is a very, very classy production and endlessly rewarding on the ear and eye.
DAD cannot compete with MR in terms of the above. And it’s remorselessly pretentious for all its supposed big fun, which alienates me.

I don't know why a fan of DAD would even invite the comparison. Even the special effects in MR are better than those in DAD, to say nothing of the music, cinematography, characterization, dialogue, wit, acting talent, and overall watchability. Moonraker has a reputation for extravagance because of its subject matter, but tonally it's a very restrained, subdued film. It's smooth, cool, even quiet, and (like the best of the Moore era) gently surreal.