133 replies to this topic

[Greene's Driver]

I think Purvis & Wade will return to write the screenplay for the next movie. The usual procedure. Maybe Steven Knight will later come in to polish the script. Paul Haggis & John Logan surely won`t return, but I would like to see Peter Morgan again. He was shortly involved to write an outline for the later SKYFALL, but dropped out due to the MGM crisis. I think he`s a very good screenwriter.

Edited by Greene's Driver, 13 September 2016 - 12:31 PM.

[Jim]

I suspect you're right. Welcome to CBn, by the way.

[Dustin]

Welcome indeed.

Yes, it seems like the logical way to handle it, a tried team for the overall script and then a technician or two to look at specifics.

[Greene's Driver]

Many thanks for the nice welcome!

 

Maybe they have already started with the writing process? If so, we will know very soon, which writers are involved. And I agree: Purvis & Wade always deliver a solid base. They`re probably not the best screenwriters, but they were successfully involved in six films. Finally they`re the most experienced for this job.

[Red_Snow]

I think Purvis & Wade will return to write the screenplay for the next movie. The usual procedure. Maybe Steven Knight will later come in to polish the script. Paul Haggis & John Logan surely won`t return, but I would like to see Peter Morgan again. He was shortly involved to write an outline for the later SKYFALL, but dropped out due to the MGM crisis. I think he`s a very good screenwriter.

 

According to this interview with 'Screen Daily' Haggis said "he had no connection to Bond anymore". Which is a shame, I thought Casino Royale was brilliant!

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, the main script was by Purvis & Wade - and Haggis did have that idea with Bond finding Vesper´s child, so... 

[Greene's Driver]

But even Purvis & Wade admitted in an interview that Haggis refined the script for CASINO ROYALE. The idea with Vesper`s child was for QUANTUM OF SOLACE, by the way. And it`s just one bad idea. How much bad ideas Purvis & Wade had for DIE ANOTHER DAY?  I do respect their work for the series, but in a direct comparison, I would say that Haggis is a better screenwriter than Purvis & Wade.

[New Digs]

But even Purvis & Wade admitted in an interview that Haggis refined the script for CASINO ROYALE. The idea with Vesper`s child was for QUANTUM OF SOLACE, by the way. And it`s just one bad idea. How much bad ideas Purvis & Wade had for DIE ANOTHER DAY?  I do respect their work for the series, but in a direct comparison, I would say that Haggis is a better screenwriter than Purvis & Wade.

 

I tend to agree. I like what they did on SF, but the script for Spectre was awful in the sense it what such a missed opportunity and riddled with cinematic cliches instead of being a true Bond script in the way CR and OHMSS etc were. I would welcome Haggis adding some input to the next Bond. 

[univex]

The way people talk about these writing gigs...one would think there were no more other writers available. To bad all the good writers in the world are otherwise occupied and employed. Same goes for composers, etc...

[SecretAgentFan]

But even Purvis & Wade admitted in an interview that Haggis refined the script for CASINO ROYALE. The idea with Vesper`s child was for QUANTUM OF SOLACE, by the way. And it`s just one bad idea. How much bad ideas Purvis & Wade had for DIE ANOTHER DAY?  I do respect their work for the series, but in a direct comparison, I would say that Haggis is a better screenwriter than Purvis & Wade.

 

I politely disagree and advise to look at Haggis´ career.

 

Also, DAD was under the strong influence of Lee Tamahori who did what every screenwriter fears when a director comes in: misinterpreting and misunderstanding, forcing his own ideas into everything, thus rendering it terribly different.  The same happened to P & W with TWINE, when Michael Apted let his wife Dana Stevens, a screenwriter herself, rewrite (and brought lots of others in to contribute).

 

As for Bond I would definitely say that P & W are much better Bond film writers than Haggis is.  Without blaming or shaming Haggis, it is very difficult to be good at writing a Bond film.  But you have to know the material and have respect for it, instead of going in thinking "I will shake things up completely and do it totally different".  That approach does not work for Bond at all.

The way people talk about these writing gigs...one would think there were no more other writers available. To bad all the good writers in the world are otherwise occupied and employed. Same goes for composers, etc...

 

That is very true!  There are lots of talents out there who never get the chance because they don´t have the lobby yet.

[Agent 76]

I would give the job of writing a bond script to Jonathan Nolan in a heartbeat. That guy is super talented.

[Greene's Driver]

Also, DAD was under the strong influence of Lee Tamahori who did what every screenwriter fears when a director comes in: misinterpreting and misunderstanding, forcing his own ideas into everything, thus rendering it terribly different.  The same happened to P & W with TWINE, when Michael Apted let his wife Dana Stevens, a screenwriter herself, rewrite (and brought lots of others in to contribute).

But is that not a little bit too easy? Writers are good, directors are evil. You can also judge it the other way round. Purvis & Wade`s drafts were never that good, so they had to be changed. Marc Forster also said in an interview, that Purvis & Wade`s final draft for QUANTUM OF SOLACE was largely unusable. So Haggis came back to do a complete rewrite.

 

I agree that they are the most experienced for the job. And I don`t think they are bad writers, but you can not argue that they did everything right. In DIE ANOTHER DAY there is so much silly dialogue. It was surely not only Tamahori`s fault. We also should not forget the producers at that point. They knew every draft version too.

 

After all Purvis and Wade had a positive effect on the series, I think.They brought calmness and routine back to the writing process, after Maibaum passed away and Wilson retired from writing. The script work for the first two Brosnan films was almost chaotic with nearly a dozen writers changing things all time.

Edited by Greene's Driver, 15 September 2016 - 09:19 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

Also, DAD was under the strong influence of Lee Tamahori who did what every screenwriter fears when a director comes in: misinterpreting and misunderstanding, forcing his own ideas into everything, thus rendering it terribly different.  The same happened to P & W with TWINE, when Michael Apted let his wife Dana Stevens, a screenwriter herself, rewrite (and brought lots of others in to contribute).

But is that not a little bit too easy? Writers are good, directors are evil. You can also judge it the other way round. Purvis & Wade`s drafts were never that good, so they had to be changed. Marc Forster also said in an interview, that Purvis & Wade`s final draft for QUANTUM OF SOLACE was largely unusable. So Haggis came back to do a complete rewrite.

 

It´s not "writers are good, directors are evil" - it´s "directors will decide what and how it will be done, writers can´t".  Never blame a scriptwriter if a film does not work - it is always those who have the power (director, producer or studio executive) who will determine everything and therefore have to be the ones to blame.

 

As for Marc Forster: he´s definitely known for being one of those directors who join a project and immediately throw everything out which was done before.   Just to ascertain that they are now in control and can save everything.  Not that Forster actually succeeded in that (the WWZ-producers in the end threw him out.)  P & W actually had a very interesting story mapped out as a direct continuation of CR, with Vesper in the focus of the proceedings.  Haggis was brought in due to his at that point still great, Oscar-worthy name, but with the upcoming writers´ strike he could not really finish his work, leaving the production scrambling by.  (To be fair, I love how QOS turned out nevertheless.)

 

 

And to be clear: I´m neither P nor W.

[Tiin007]

Can you elaborate on P&W's "very interesting story mapped out as a direct continuation of CR, with Vesper in the focus of the proceedings"? I know Haggis eventually added the Vesper's baby plot device, but what was in P&W's earlier draft? 

[SecretAgentFan]

Seek out "The James Bond Archives".  According to that P & W had convinced EON that the story of CR would demand a direct sequel and were contracted to write both scripts.

 

In the CR-follow-up Bond was going in search of Vesper´s boyfriend and found himself "embroiled in a multi-layered charade involving stolen antiquities, arms dealing, precious metals, nerve gas, the CIA and a mysterious organization similar to SPECTRE."  It had "closer links to CR" and Eva Green was contracted to appear in flashbacks haunting Bond.

[Major Tallon]

Sounds like a sadly missed opportunity.

[Greene's Driver]

"Stolen antiquities, arms dealing, precious metals, nerve gas, the CIA and a mysterious organization": Also sounds like an overloaded story with structural weaknesses. It`s impossible to judge, as we don`t have the script. And as far as I know their final draft version of BOND 22 (April 2007) was never leaked, right?

And of course you can blame a writer partially for a bad film. Because nobody knows all the earlier draft versions or the final script of a movie. So which other possibility I have to decide if someone is a good writer than watching the movie? Following your argumentation everyone would be a good writer, because the producers and directors have the power and make the mistakes. I mean, even a producer will watch a film and say to himself: "Pretty good story, fine dialogue. Let`s offer the man our project X." I can`t imagine the producer asking a colleague to hand him all the script versions of that movie just to judge the writers talent rationally.

[SecretAgentFan]

I´ll bite.

 

1. Sounds like an overloaded story with structural weaknesses?  You can´t honestly conclude that from those elements.  Would you say the same about "Star Wars" if you read: robots, religion, pirate with furry friend, a farm boy being led by a wise old man on a quest to rescue a Princess opposed to a death ray-spewing artificial planet?

 

2. In this business, producers know very well that they can´t watch a movie and think: yeah, great writing, let´s hire this one.  Producers will ask for sample scripts - and even more important - ask around how it is to actually work with that particular writer.  P&W obviously are very good to work with, i.e. they are open to suggestions and know how to respond to those by working those into the scripts. 

 

Now how can the audience judge a writer without reading the script?  Only by assuming that the structure, the characterization and the dialogue were adequately realized in the film.  But it will always be an inaccurate judgement.  Because the structure of a story often gets totally changed in the editing room, and the characterization and the dialogue are so dependent on the particular actor who by the way love to change things on the spot  (I suspect Jinx´ "Yo mama" was another example for that.)

 

Joss Whedon famously said this about the "Alien Resurrection" for which he wrote the script: "Everything was kind of there - but so completely different from what I intended."

[Greene's Driver]

1. Sounds like an overloaded story with structural weaknesses?  You can´t honestly conclude that from those elements.  Would you say the same about "Star Wars" if you read: robots, religion, pirate with furry friend, a farm boy being led by a wise old man on a quest to rescue a Princess opposed to a death ray-spewing artificial planet?

As I said before: It`s impossible to judge. But you can also not conclude that they had a very good story just from those very vague story elements. Sorry, at that point I`ll bite too.

 

I can understand that you are defending Purvis & Wade as they are harshly criticized by the fandom, but I wouldn`t praise them as brilliant writers. I think they`re medicore talented. If they really would be brilliant writers, why did they then purchased no great reputation outside the series? It`s the same as with John Glen. He was good director while he was onboard of the bond train. As he dropped out all his follwing films were failures. So I think that speaks for Eon Productions. They create a cocoon with ideal conditions for everyone being involved in the series.

Edited by Greene's Driver, 15 September 2016 - 01:58 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

The reality of the business is: just to break through with one particular project is a major success.  You can be brilliant and nobody will ever greenlight your film.  Because it is not about brilliance, it is about the marketplace.

 

The directors who have a string of hits are an absolute rarity, the writers who do even more so.  And even those successful artists have failures again and again.

 

You should not be so harsh on any of them.

[Greene's Driver]

I understand your point. Nevertheless the movie world is like any other buisness. There are excellent, medicore and bad work. And one can judge about it. I would never consider Uwe Boll as a genius though he broke through with a number of films.
 

Of course I was a too harsh, you are right. As I said before, I don`t think Purvis & Wade are bad writers at all and I agree that they know the bond material as good as no other writer. I would like to see them returning, but I also think that a third writer would be an asset. I understand you don`t like Paul Haggis and it`s unlikely that John Logan will return, so I suggested Peter Morgan.

[plankattack]

P&W are consistently lightning rods/whipping boys/all depends on your perspective, in these here parts for many years.

 

I've tended to come down on their side and IMHO they fill (capably) the role of Maibaum as in-house EON scribes. Not everyone they've done has been brilliant - I have no doubt DAD didn't read that badly on the page! - but unlike novelists, Hollywood script-writing is a "team game" even if as a writer within the process you have no idea who your teammates actually are, at the time or after. If I remember correctly, there was some communication between P&W and Logan on SF, but on CR, P&W were done by the time Haggis got a hold of it (could be wrong there, please correct me if the case).

 

I think it's nigh-on impossible for those of us on the outside to really ascribe success or failure to a writer's work when all we have to go on is the name on the poster. Take QoS - sure Haggis has publically owned the "Vesper's child" idea, and in interviews P&W have owned that they'd thrown around Dench-M's death for that film, not SF where it finally ended up. But beyond that we know nothing. Conventional wisdom has it tha DC, Forster, and another writer whose name escapes me, were responsible for writing/rewriting much of the film on-set due to the strike, so to say that the names on the credits are good/crap is almost impossible or disingenuous at best.

 

P&W's early projects (that they were attached to), Let Him Have It and Plunkett and Maclaine are well regarded and clearly they tick the boxes that EON demand. To echo SAF, it's difficult to judge but one thing is for certain - screenwriting is a complex and difficult task. Otherwise any of us who can string a sentence together would be giving it a go......    

[SecretAgentFan]

I understand your point. Nevertheless the movie world is like any other buisness. There are excellent, medicore and bad work. And one can judge about it. I would never consider Uwe Boll as a genius though he broke through with a number of films.
 

Of course I was a too harsh, you are right. As I said before, I don`t think Purvis & Wade are bad writers at all and I agree that they know the bond material as good as no other writer. I would like to see them returning, but I also think that a third writer would be an asset. I understand you don`t like Paul Haggis and it`s unlikely that John Logan will return, so I suggested Peter Morgan.

 

I do like some of Paul Haggis´ work - and what he did to CR and QOS I like as well.  I just don´t think that he is someone who could write a great Bond film on his own.  Neither could John Logan.  And Peter Morgan - no way.  Nor would he be interested in this.

 

It´s got to be someone who knows that Bond is pulp fiction with a very special set of requirements.

[Dustin]

Just so. It's much like the demands on the literary Bond, you wouldn't get a good Bond novel out of John Irving or Kurt Vonnegut. Likewise, Fleming would have been miserable at writing Slaughterhouse Five. It's a specific genre in print and for the screen, and both call for a specific language and mindset.

[Tiin007]

Seek out "The James Bond Archives".  According to that P & W had convinced EON that the story of CR would demand a direct sequel and were contracted to write both scripts.

 

In the CR-follow-up Bond was going in search of Vesper´s boyfriend and found himself "embroiled in a multi-layered charade involving stolen antiquities, arms dealing, precious metals, nerve gas, the CIA and a mysterious organization similar to SPECTRE."  It had "closer links to CR" and Eva Green was contracted to appear in flashbacks haunting Bond.

 

From your description, one almost gets the impression that the working title was "The Property of a Lady." 

[Greene's Driver]

Maybe they really considered that title because of Vespers algerian love knot? If I recall it right, Haggis` working title was "Sleep of the Dead" (also a reference to the dead Vesper), by the way. He later admitted that he was not happy with the final Fleming title. I think it was the idea of Broccoli and Wilson to use "Quantum of Solace", as Purvis & Wade were not involved anymore at that time and Haggis and Forster seemed not to be very familiar with Flemings work.

[Odd Jobbies]

Just so. It's much like the demands on the literary Bond, you wouldn't get a good Bond novel out of John Irving or Kurt Vonnegut. Likewise, Fleming would have been miserable at writing Slaughterhouse Five. It's a specific genre in print and for the screen, and both call for a specific language and mindset.

Oh, the idea of a Bond novel that has Bond randomly shifting between different adventures throughout his lifetime is mouth watering... though i'm sure i'd be the only reader; Slaughter 5 is perhaps my favourite novel

[hoagy]

Today's big news is that it quite appears -- busy schedule aside -- that Craig is IN for Bond 25 !  As for his busy schedule, perhaps it will encourage the producers to get things together, run a tight ship and address something which troubled Connery years ago -- an overly long shooting schedule !

 

So -- ideas...

 

Running Madeline Swann through the Tracy-arc would be awfully repetitious of what we've already seen, with this Bond-universe, of the Vesper story line.  But -- Blofeld is there to be used, and can be used independently of a re-run of the Blofeld-murders-Tracy aspects of OHMSS.  I think it quite feasible that Swann and Bond agree, onscreen or off, that she was right when she figured she had to get out of this life....and that Bond could not, like it or not, try as he might...Killing her would be cruel and repetitious, and unnecessarily "lose" her for possible re-appearance later on.

 

Idris Elba -- everyone see him training in kick-boxing in Thailand ?  He looks fantastic, but he is not getting any younger.  Felix Leiter ?  A LALD-inspired storyline ?  The producers already have done it, so perhaps this time around, a wrinkle...as in, Bond sympathizes with (Elba-character's) motives and mission, and they form an alliance.  I realize -- somewhat reminiscent of the "who's really the villain, and who's your friend" aspect of FYEO.

 

At any rate -- great news !!!

[Dustin]

I'd rephrase that, Craig seems not to be out. But BOND 25 itself seems to be still a long way into the future. We may have yet to wait a year or more before anything of substance surfaces.

[blueman]

Or not...stay tuned.