402 replies to this topic

[Matt_13]

Good enough. Let's get this show on the road. After Logan I'm hoping they consider letting Craig off the chain in a similar fashion. Either way, I'm happy we finally have some progress.

[SecretAgentFan]

Not to be negative - but still, at a time when rumours fly around and facts should be checked...

 

According to deadline.com neither Purvis & Wade, nor their representatives or EON themselves have confirmed that P & W are contracted to write Bond 25:

 

http://deadline.com/...ig-1202040688/

[Tiin007]

That doesn't surprise me. The powers-that-be never confirmed any of Baz's prior reports either (Harris playing Moneypenny?), so it makes sense that they'd stay silent now too. 

[No. 6]

First time posting, long time lurker!

I think this is a sign that EON wish to play things safe... I'm happy with that for now.

[plankattack]

i'm sorry Purvis and Wade will return. Their record has been spotty at best. When you consider the best film they did, Casino Royale had an actual Fleming novel, and it, QOS and Skyfall had other contributors, on the other end they've given us DAD and SPECTRE and TWINE (which could have been better than it turned out)

 

To be fair, SP and TWINE had other contributors too. Apted's wife was asked to take a crack at a large chunk of the latter, notably everything with Electra and Bond, after Brozza's (amongst others) desire to up the drama in comparison with the bullef-fest of TND. DAD is the only film that was solely theirs.

[FlemingBond]

it needed  better thought to the structure 

Edited by FlemingBond, 10 March 2017 - 09:56 PM.

[Desk]

I swear to God, Purvis and Wade either have incriminating photographs of Barbara Broccoli or they sold their souls to the devil.

How they keep returning to scrawl out in crayon the same hackneyed, tired old regurgitated Bond plotlines is beyond me.

The only decent Bond script in recent years was Casino Royale, and that was because of Paul Haggis - not these amateurs.

Desk

[Dustin]

Well, I suppose that's what one would call an opinion.

[Odd Jobbies]

I swear to God, Purvis and Wade either have incriminating photographs of Barbara Broccoli or they sold their souls to the devil.

How they keep returning to scrawl out in crayon the same hackneyed, tired old regurgitated Bond plotlines is beyond me.

No surprises here if i second that.

The only decent Bond script in recent years was Casino Royale, and that was because of Paul Haggis - not these amateurs.

And all 3 writers had a bona fide Fleming novel to adapt and riff upon and remind them how to write.

[DavidJones]

The only decent Bond script in recent years was Casino Royale, and that was because of Paul Haggis - not these amateurs.

 

How do you know it was Haggis' work that you liked?

[sharpshooter]

Makes you wonder how Purvis and Wade will approach the script if they're not sure if Craig is coming back. Do they write something generic, or do they still write it with Craig in mind with a continuation of SPECTRE's themes? Goldeneye featured a new Bond, but you can still feel the ghost of Dalton lingering in the background.

[Ace Roberts]

I wish I could say this is "good news" - but I'm probably in the minority who wish a Christopher Nolan 60's Bond was next up for #25. 

[Napoleon Solo]

That doesn't surprise me. The powers-that-be never confirmed any of Baz's prior reports either (Harris playing Moneypenny?), so it makes sense that they'd stay silent now too. 

 

Here's a specific example. In the summer of 2014, Bamigboye reported that Purvis and Wade had been brought back to rewrite John Logan on SPECTRE. Eon never said anything until December 2014. Even then, it was indirect. The press release issued early that month listed Logan, Purvis and Wade as the writers. Until then, months had gone by with Eon saying nothing. If you weren't familiar with the background, you wouldn't have noticed the backhanded confirmation. 

[SecretAgentFan]

 

The only decent Bond script in recent years was Casino Royale, and that was because of Paul Haggis - not these amateurs.

 

How do you know it was Haggis' work that you liked?

 

 

Exactly.  And as for DAD - or ANY film...  no script is filmed the way it was written.  Actors improvise, producers impose, directors (hello, Mr. Tamahori, thanks for making the car truly invisible...) , studio heads always know it better, and all of their spouses have GREAT ideas, too.  Then the practical problems (bad weather, locations become unavailable, actors get sick etc.) impact also.

 

So - if anyone actually wants to criticize ANY writer - please do so on the basis of their first draft.  Because only that first draft is reflecting what the writer actually envisioned.  Before reality set in. 

Makes you wonder how Purvis and Wade will approach the script if they're not sure if Craig is coming back. Do they write something generic, or do they still write it with Craig in mind with a continuation of SPECTRE's themes? Goldeneye featured a new Bond, but you can still feel the ghost of Dalton lingering in the background.

 

I´m sure EON has given them a clear mandate - and this will probably be: write it as if Daniel will be in it.  He is the one we want back, so this script has to enthuse him.  If he says no we´re back to the drawing board anyway.

 

That doesn't surprise me. The powers-that-be never confirmed any of Baz's prior reports either (Harris playing Moneypenny?), so it makes sense that they'd stay silent now too. 

 

Here's a specific example. In the summer of 2014, Bamigboye reported that Purvis and Wade had been brought back to rewrite John Logan on SPECTRE. Eon never said anything until December 2014. Even then, it was indirect. The press release issued early that month listed Logan, Purvis and Wade as the writers. Until then, months had gone by with Eon saying nothing. If you weren't familiar with the background, you wouldn't have noticed the backhanded confirmation. 

 

 

Based on the past scoops from Bamigboye I guess he is on the money with his tweet.  However, the question remains: is he in an inofficial way tied to EON and allowed to post things?  Or does he just have great sources?

 

Another question: has Bamigboye ever tweeted something about Bond that was untrue?

[Dustin]

It's fairly reasonable to assume Eon is aware of Bamigboye's work. And since it's been going on for some years we may also assume they are not averse to it. Otherwise they'd have closed up the source. Also, Bamigboye's info usually is interesting for the fanbase, but never damaging to the affair as a whole. It's a win-win situation and nothing indicates that would have changed behind the scenes.

[Odd Jobbies]

... if anyone actually wants to criticize ANY writer - please do so on the basis of their first draft.  Because only that first draft is reflecting what the writer actually envisioned.  Before reality set in. 

 

 

There's absolutely no disputing that scripts change through various factors, but by that token one cannot credit a writer for a good script either. So what's the point of the Oscars, Baftas, or SGA ever awarding a script?    Surely these awards recognise that most of what appears on screen is derived from the writer and if they can be awarded for good work, they can be called out for bad work without hiding behind the excuse of the filmmaking process - they do have to take some responsibility. Although that's problematic when many writers work on a script.

 

And a ramification of defending writers on the basis of the filmmaking process altering the original draft is that if you're saying that P&W's first drafts are good, then tampered with and ruined down the line, then the producers are very poor indeed and need to look at their decision making. When the script appears weak you can't have it both ways - either it was written poorly, or the producers don't know a good script when they see one and enabled it's ruination down the line.

 

SS-GB is a useful 'test control' in that P&W are the only writers. On top of that they are 2 of the 4 Executive Producers on the show. I work on Beeb productions and know the politics (not in drama, but the political inner-workings at the Beeb are rife with Exec micromanagement) and believe me P&W are wielding a lot of power on this show as Writers AND Exec Producers. So it's highly probable that everything we're seeing and hearing is exactly the way they want it -- it's a great acid test for the pair.

 

Frankly it's an awful show - opaque and confusing, yet obvious and predictable. The dialogue and plotting is hackneyed, cheesy, lowest common denominator, yet sold as gritty, tough and clever -- it is not. Watch SS-GB and see everything that fails in the Bond scripts they've worked on. Coincidence? They deal in tropes - they learn the lore - the formula of tropes - and reassemble them according to the derivitive plot hatched for that particular outing. 

 

One might say that's exactly how Bond movies are made. Well, i say that's how the bad ones are made.

 

Are any of P&W's first drafts available online? Or something that reveals their contributions to existing Bond scripts?

 

I hope i don't sound like i've got it in for them - good luck to the guys! I know how hard it is to be a writer - even if you do come up with something good, which involves many unpaid hours, you've then got to try and sell it without getting ripped off/plagiarised; there's a lot of unscrupulous people in the biz. But... there's simply so much speculation in these threads regarding their input it'd be incredibly beneficial to the debate to know the truth.

 

I would honestly love to read a P&W first draft, or a P&W rewrite as compared to a previous draft and find it great, or even good (hell i'd be pleasantly surprised with OK) and come back here far more positive about their hiring ('though that would obviously raise the question of just who is screwing them up after the first draft, putting Eon and Sony squarely in the cross hare). But after putting myself through the excruciating SS-GB i have to say it's unlikely i'll find P&W's first drafts to be of any quality.

 

However, it may be the case that they just missed the mark on SS-GB and their Bond contributions have been good! Who can say without seeing their work firsthand?

 

E.g were they responsible for Spectre's Italian funeral? The Italian Spectre meeting? The silhouetted killing of Bellucci's 2 assassins? Personally i found these scenes rapturously classy, smart, elegant, witty and exciting. If so then they are most welcome back.

 

Or did they fall back on the lazy tropes of Bond having a fat, slow fiat driver in front of his aston martin? Or the amateurish script-hacking that has Bond search a derelict MI6 for Swann; to give up the search on the roof only to find she just happens to be in the room right beside him...?    That's some of the laziest writing in the cannon - harking back to Brossa's poor script service: A henchman that can't feel pain, yet the only time it's used is picking up a hot rock to show off and an S+M scene with Electra that contains hideously cheesy dialogue? Gimmicks, tropes, cliche and cheese.

 

Be good to know who really did what, but in lieu of solid evidence SS-GB is a 'solid clue'.

[Harmsway]

The first draft of TWINE isn't readily avaliable, but it's floating around out there.

[SecretAgentFan]

@ OddJobbies:

 

You are operating on many misconceptions.

 

1.  Awards recognize greatness.  -  They do not.  They recognize public perception.  Every award show is a popularity contest the nominees or would-be-nominees actively campaign for like political candidates.

 

2.  Writers have to take responsibility for the finished film.  -  Why?  They have NOTHING to do with the actual production and post-production process.  They simply deliver a starting point - and even that is constantly fighting off influences beyond their control.  If an architect delivers a concept for building a house and then delivers this to the actual building crew which does what it is told by the house owners who demand drastic changes and in the end paint and decorate it in a way that the architect never intended - would the architect still be responsible if someone looked at the house and said: gee, that looks awful?

 

3.  You don´t like SS-GB, therefore you decide: P & W are bad writers.  - If someone did like it, and the BBC obviously did, would that then be a reason to declare: P & W are great writers?

 

 

As a writer myself - sorry for dropping that again - I almost constantly encounter people who believe they know a script because they have seen the movie.  It is a common misconception, based on the lack of knowledge about how the movie production process actually works. 

[Orion]

What SAF said, if you want an idea of just how much others add to scripts, listen to the director commentaries on DAD and Skyfall - both point out things they had added - Tsunami surfing being a big offender.

 

If you want to go non-bond I'd recommend Alex Proyas commentary on I, Robot. Seemingly every man and his dog insisted on their ideas being in the film.

Best example I've just remembered is Moonraker, where the commentary Lewis Gilbert, Christopher Wood and MGW are talking about the mother's list conversation. Wood and Gilbert were STILL arguing about it. MGW interrupts to tell the listener that this what the production meetings sound like.   

[Odd Jobbies]

@ OddJobbies:

 

You are operating on many misconceptions.

 

1.  Awards recognize greatness.  -  They do not.  They recognize public perception.  Every award show is a popularity contest the nominees or would-be-nominees actively campaign for like political candidates.

 

2.  Writers have to take responsibility for the finished film.  -  Why?  They have NOTHING to do with the actual production and post-production process.  They simply deliver a starting point - and even that is constantly fighting off influences beyond their control.  If an architect delivers a concept for building a house and then delivers this to the actual building crew which does what it is told by the house owners who demand drastic changes and in the end paint and decorate it in a way that the architect never intended - would the architect still be responsible if someone looked at the house and said: gee, that looks awful?

 

3.  You don´t like SS-GB, therefore you decide: P & W are bad writers.  - If someone did like it, and the BBC obviously did, would that then be a reason to declare: P & W are great writers?

 

 

As a writer myself - sorry for dropping that again - I almost constantly encounter people who believe they know a script because they have seen the movie.  It is a common misconception, based on the lack of knowledge about how the movie production process actually works. 

SAF, i'm not arguing with any of your points as i tend to agree with them - as a writer myself between editing gigs. I'd agree that awards are PR, but many take them at face value - i'm glad to hear you know better.

 

Everything you say about the process in your 2nd point is spot on; in bygone years i've written, directed and edited and i can attest to the fluid state of the script until picture lock. But this general truth of the process doesn't necessarily reflect nor have any baring upon P&W's particular contributions.

 

It's easy to shoot a good script badly - much harder to shoot a bad script well. So, although it's nigh impossible to glean script quality through the smoke and mirrors that follow it's drafting, if it's a bad  draft then it is hugely culpable in the blame game if the finished film is bad.  As i said, only reading P&W's actual contributions can speak of their skill set.

 

As for SS-GB: Absolutely this is my personal opinion. But what use is there in the Beeb's opinion of the show? They're not about to say 'This is our new drama, and btw, we're not very impressed with it...' No, they'll stick it in the best Emperor's new clothes and promote the hell out of it hoping that no one notices it's shortcomings. Unfortunately for them many have noticed. And P&W's Exec roles mean they really do have to take the credit and the blame for their writing on this one.

 

Everything you say about screenwriting resonates completely with my experience, but i'm talking about the attributes of P&W, not about the writer's lot in general.

What SAF said, if you want an idea of just how much others add to scripts, listen to the director commentaries on DAD and Skyfall - both point out things they had added - Tsunami surfing being a big offender.

Lol

The first draft of TWINE isn't readily avaliable, but it's floating around out there.

Thanks for the tip - i'll engage my limited google skills

 

EDIT:

 

Snippets from SS-GB reviews that resonate with Bond's shortcomings:

 

The Guardian:

"All this makes for a terrifically engaging thriller, but it’s marred by dialogue that is sometimes inaudible (as with Happy Valley, Taboo and 10 Rillington Place, I’m using subtitles) and, when audible, often hackneyed thriller speak."

 

TheTelegraph:

"All credit to the cast and to scriptwriters Robert Wade and Neal Purvis, who’ve co-written five Bond films, for translating it into such engrossing TV drama."

 

The Spectator:

"A drama set in Nazi-occupied Britain really shouldn’t be this dull" "And for too much of the time, a similar woodenness was shared by the direction and script, which have still to make life under occupation feel like a fully realised dramatic world rather than just a backdrop."

 

Denofgekk.com:

"They’ve even left in dialogue so generically familiar it continually verges on parody"  "...habit of behaving like a textbook baddie and speaking fluent cliché."

 

For a taste of audience reaction:

IMDB review:

"How on earth is this such a boring 'drama'?! The writers had the irresistible backdrop of Nazi-occupied London and licence to create any related storyline that they could conjure. So how have we ended up with this dried up, bumbling series of uninteresting scenes? I cannot be alone on not giving a monkey's about what is happening."

 

"I read the book when it was first released and thoroughly enjoyed it. Sadly this rubbish is not remotely enjoyable. The characters in this TV drama are so dull compared to the characters in the book.."

 

I've not tried to find only bad reviews - the telegraph like it and rotten tomatoes seem to love it. My point is that having watched it the negative points above have genuine credence, such as the over use of cliche, and that these points resonate with the inconsistency in recent Bond films.

[SecretAgentFan]

OddJobbies - thank you for debating with me in a civilized manner, and that´s why we found out that we actually do agree on many points.

 

As for SS-GB: what I meant to say was that everyone´s personal opinion on any work of art is just that: an opinion.  It is not a measure of quality in general.  If you did not like it - and the BBC liked it enough to actually develop it and put it on the air, then this only comprises two opposing opinions.  

 

I did not have the chance yet to watch SS-GB.  I might hate it.  I might love it.  But it would only influence my opinion on P & W in one regard: they pulled off this project well or badly.

 

As for their work on Bond films: reading the available scripts I notice an impressive storytelling quality and a firm grasp on what the literary Bond was and the movie Bond has to be.

 

That´s why I am not surprised that EON loves to work with these guys.  Also, they can work fast and under pressure in order to deliver drafts that help a big budget movie not to derail before shooting.  That is a quality, too.

 

Would I like other writers to give the movie-Bond a new spin?   Absolutely.  And quite frankly, I am disappointed that EON is playing it safe rather than daring to shake things up.  

 

But hiring P & W, IMHO, is not the problem.  It is EON´s insistence on making THE BIG BUDGET EVENT MOVIE EXTRAVAGANZA, instead of paring things down for good.  Been there, done that.  I think that LOGAN actually proves that a franchise movie does not have to repeat the same over and over again to be successful.

[Greene's Driver]

As a writer myself - sorry for dropping that again - I almost constantly encounter people who believe they know a script because they have seen the movie.  It is a common misconception, based on the lack of knowledge about how the movie production process actually works. 

That sounds interesting. So you made similar experiences in the buisness? The final result being far away from your own vision?

[SecretAgentFan]

Oh, yesssss.

[Professor Pi]

I'm okay with Purvis & Wade coming back.  Aside from Secret Agent Fan's points about their flexibility in working with EON, they've worked on every Daniel Craig film.  So it makes sense for them to see him out.  If their best work was adapting CR, maybe they can pull off a similar accomplishment in adapting the YOLT novelisation.  I'm just glad some headway on BOND 25 is starting to be made.

[DavidJones]

If I was a screenwriter, I think I would listen to the producers too. Otherwise, I would be fired.

 

Writers are so under-powered in Hollywood, it's ludicrous. All the actors, when asked, say they pick a film because of the script. And yet director's get the glory and are credited with pace, plot twists, everything, while the writers are routinely dismissed.

 

I like to support P&W, for those reasons, and will watch the show and see how it is for myself.

 

It would be interesting, though, if Eon got spy novelists like Charles Cumming or Jeremy Duns to come up with a story. They wouldn't have to use it - just see what happens.

Edited by DavidJones, 11 March 2017 - 06:01 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

...Would I like other writers to give the movie-Bond a new spin?   Absolutely.  And quite frankly, I am disappointed that EON is playing it safe rather than daring to shake things up.  

 

But hiring P & W, IMHO, is not the problem.  It is EON´s insistence on making THE BIG BUDGET EVENT MOVIE EXTRAVAGANZA, instead of paring things down for good.  Been there, done that.  I think that LOGAN actually proves that a franchise movie does not have to repeat the same over and over again to be successful.

Couldn't agree more.

 

As for their work on Bond films: reading the available scripts I notice an impressive storytelling quality and a firm grasp on what the literary Bond was and the movie Bond has to be.

I'd love to find this out first hand - i must endeavour to find one of their drafts.

 

 Also, they can work fast and under pressure in order to deliver drafts that help a big budget movie not to derail before shooting.  That is a quality, too.

A very enviable quality indeed.

 

OddJobbies - thank you for debating with me in a civilized manner, and that´s why we found out that we actually do agree on many points.

Always a pleasure, SAF 

[Odd Jobbies]

maybe they can pull off a similar accomplishment in adapting the YOLT novelisation.

The holy grail! If only they'd greenlight that.

[# 11]

As much as I trust Baz Bamigboye, I think he got some parts wrong in the timeline.

It's simply not plausible that PW were just hired now, one year after Gregg Wilson said something like "We're looking for a new threat" (or something in this vein). They surely must have asked somebody to write down some basic ideas. Just beginning now to write a script means no movie in 2018.

 

Maybe it was like this and he got reminded by a fan that in past days he used to have scoops on Bond. (Remember the "long way off"-tweet?) He than began reconnecting and all he got was a short text from Babs (I truly believe he's just the unofficial Eon news agent ) that he actually could release the information about PW, something they decided a long time ago.

 

Plus, is nobody confused he got Purvis' name wrong? Baz, it's 'Neal', not 'Neil'.

Edited by # 11, 12 March 2017 - 10:39 AM.

[Odd Jobbies]

Or maybe there's other reasons why they'd already decided they would release in 2019, such as waiting on Craig's desire to do some other projects first and possibly the availability of a busy director, such as Nolan. I'd be happy waiting til '19 if it were Nolan.

[Dustin]

It doesn't actually have to be their first script they commissioned - but why would they have? With all players tied up in their own game there would have been no need to act sooner. Since MGM shows no signs of getting ready to do business it may still be a just-in-case move to not lose more time than necessary once they do get real.

For my part I'd be far more interested in the studio that is supposedly so close to the franchise. And how come they comment on future replacements for Craig...