No Time To Die: Production Diary

1136913701372137413752507

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Unless I’m mistaken (I can’t recall the details) but I don’t believe Nolan ever inferred that he’d pitched his concept to EON, merely that they’d spoken (informally). Either way, I don’t believe someone in his position would do that. He doesn’t need to ‘pitch’ in the manner a Demange, or even a Boyle would. I believe the concept is something that is evolving in his mind and will be fully revealed to EON when (if) the time is right.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    Unless I’m mistaken (I can’t recall the details) but I don’t believe Nolan ever inferred that he’d pitched his concept to EON, merely that they’d spoken (informally). Either way, I don’t believe someone in his position would do that. He doesn’t need to ‘pitch’ in the manner a Demange, or even a Boyle would. I believe the concept is something that is evolving in his mind and will be fully revealed to EON when (if) the time is right.
    I agree with you. I believe it was informal discussions prior to SP when they were still trying to get Mendes. I can't recall reading of any further discussions from any of the big and reputable sources since then.

    --
    Regarding Boyle: I ask again for those who are familiar with his output and approach: Do you see this gelling well with Craig's style? Current Craig that is, and not Craig from 10 years ago? Does this seem like a good fit?

    Regarding the entire story of Boyle: To those in the industry, does anything about this story seem unusual or strange to you? How common is it for something like this to happen at this stage, where a previously announced and familiar writing team (and possible director) are seemingly tossed out for a new concept? I would have thought that after about a year with the previous group that ideas had been formalized and vetted. Moreover, this Bond idea of Boyle's apparently originated in his head in 2012, and yet he only brought it up to them recently?

    My point is, does this current Boyle narrative and how it came about seem plausible to you and what could have necessitated it?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    talos7 wrote: »
    I just listened to David Arnold’s scores for CR and QoS; both are outstanding. Arnold should be brought back for Craig’s curtain call, with an Arctic Monkies collaboration as the title song!

    Yes!
  • Posts: 5,767
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ve said it before - I still don’t understand the now accepted view that ‘if’ Nolan does it, he’ll do a trilogy. If the guy has anything about him and is as savvy in his knowledge of the films as he claims then I don’t see why a trilogy is appealing. I would like to think that any Bond fan worth their salt understands that the films operate best in a standalone form - one that allows them to shift the tone, style, scale etc from film to film. It’s why the series is such a rich tapestry, with FRWL on one side and MR on the other.

    I’m still convinced Nolan just has a singular vision for how he would do ‘his’ Bond film. A trilogy would insinuate an interconnected narrative, which however bold the idea may be, doesn’t sit well with me.

    As a director surely you want to be known for making ‘that’ Bond film.
    And I still don´t understand how anybody at all can be so convinced that Nolan is even remotely qualified to make a Bond film.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Unless I’m mistaken (I can’t recall the details) but I don’t believe Nolan ever inferred that he’d pitched his concept to EON, merely that they’d spoken (informally). Either way, I don’t believe someone in his position would do that. He doesn’t need to ‘pitch’ in the manner a Demange, or even a Boyle would. I believe the concept is something that is evolving in his mind and will be fully revealed to EON when (if) the time is right.
    I agree with you. I believe it was informal discussions prior to SP when they were still trying to get Mendes. I can't recall reading of any further discussions from any of the big and reputable sources since then.

    --
    Regarding Boyle: I ask again for those who are familiar with his output and approach: Do you see this gelling well with Craig's style? Current Craig that is, and not Craig from 10 years ago? Does this seem like a good fit?

    Regarding the entire story of Boyle: To those in the industry, does anything about this story seem unusual or strange to you? How common is it for something like this to happen at this stage, where a previously announced and familiar writing team (and possible director) are seemingly tossed out for a new concept? I would have thought that after about a year with the previous group that ideas had been formalized and vetted. Moreover, this Bond idea of Boyle's apparently originated in his head in 2012, and yet he only brought it up to them recently?

    My point is, does this current Boyle narrative and how it came about seem plausible to you and what could have necessitated it?

    What do we think about it being continuation? Is that dead and it's a standalone or is Boyle a genius and has come up with a way to dig them out of brothergate that is actually good which is what spurred them to tear up P&W's scribblings and say 'Go for it Danny'.
    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ve said it before - I still don’t understand the now accepted view that ‘if’ Nolan does it, he’ll do a trilogy. If the guy has anything about him and is as savvy in his knowledge of the films as he claims then I don’t see why a trilogy is appealing. I would like to think that any Bond fan worth their salt understands that the films operate best in a standalone form - one that allows them to shift the tone, style, scale etc from film to film. It’s why the series is such a rich tapestry, with FRWL on one side and MR on the other.

    I’m still convinced Nolan just has a singular vision for how he would do ‘his’ Bond film. A trilogy would insinuate an interconnected narrative, which however bold the idea may be, doesn’t sit well with me.

    As a director surely you want to be known for making ‘that’ Bond film.
    And I still don´t understand how anybody at all can be so convinced that Nolan is even remotely qualified to make a Bond film.

    Well if people who think making Blofeld Bond's stepbrother is a good idea are qualified then anyone is qualified.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Unless I’m mistaken (I can’t recall the details) but I don’t believe Nolan ever inferred that he’d pitched his concept to EON, merely that they’d spoken (informally). Either way, I don’t believe someone in his position would do that. He doesn’t need to ‘pitch’ in the manner a Demange, or even a Boyle would. I believe the concept is something that is evolving in his mind and will be fully revealed to EON when (if) the time is right.
    I agree with you. I believe it was informal discussions prior to SP when they were still trying to get Mendes. I can't recall reading of any further discussions from any of the big and reputable sources since then.

    --
    Regarding Boyle: I ask again for those who are familiar with his output and approach: Do you see this gelling well with Craig's style? Current Craig that is, and not Craig from 10 years ago? Does this seem like a good fit?

    Regarding the entire story of Boyle: To those in the industry, does anything about this story seem unusual or strange to you? How common is it for something like this to happen at this stage, where a previously announced and familiar writing team (and possible director) are seemingly tossed out for a new concept? I would have thought that after about a year with the previous group that ideas had been formalized and vetted. Moreover, this Bond idea of Boyle's apparently originated in his head in 2012, and yet he only brought it up to them recently?

    My point is, does this current Boyle narrative and how it came about seem plausible to you and what could have necessitated it?

    What do we think about it being continuation? Is that dead and it's a standalone or is Boyle a genius and has come up with a way to dig them out of brothergate that is actually good which is what spurred them to tear up P&W's scribblings and say 'Go for it Danny'.
    I never thought about it that way. It's certainly a possibility. However if this is, as has been reported, an idea that originated prior to SF's release then I think it's more likely to be a standalone idea that predates the self imposed narrative cul-de-sac they find themselves in.

    The fact that Apocalypse Now is his favourite film has me thinking though. A crazy Blofeld, disguised and hidden away somewhere remote? Bond dispatched to investigate & then realizing who he's up against. A chance to finally even old scores?.... Tempting as it may seem, I think it's more likely we get a fresh story.

    I'm still curious as to what people think about this seemingly 'sudden' change. It's all explained very conveniently in Baz's article, but I'm sure there's more to it. I don't believe this is normal at this stage in the process.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    B25 will have nothing to do with SP
  • Posts: 11,425
    Walecs wrote: »
    Boyle has a habit of starting the film with something from the middle of the narrative, then recapitulating. (Haven t seen many of his films, so don t know if that is very consistent). Wonder if he will keep that up.

    Interesting, as Fleming had the habit as well. I think it shows up in Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and You Only Live Twice (and possibly other books). Not sure how that would work in a Bond film, but if executed well it could be cool.

    I didn’t know the novels had these narrative jumps through time. I don’t think the films have ever done anyothing than straight conventional linear narratives. CR is probably the only film to feature a sort of ‘flashback’ sequence in the PTS but chronologically it’s totally conventional. B25 might be a first if Boyle starts to play around with that a little bit.
    bondsum wrote: »
    I agree with @RC7. I don't see Nolan making anymore than one simple, standalone Bond picture for Eon, if he does indeed sign up for the next Bond caper.

    Back to Danny Boyle. Is anyone curious as to what Boyle and Hodge's idea might entail? It's mentioned that the two of them didn’t have much faith in the outcome of their meeting with Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, but were unexpectedly surprised when they were both fascinated by it. Makes me wonder just how off-the-wall the concept is.

    I think others here have touched on how the narrative might be different to any of the previous Bonds with Danny Boyle at the helm. Could it be that B25 has a retrospective narrative with a much older 007 reflecting on how it all went so badly wrong for him, finally leading up to Madeleine's eventual demise? A basic concept whereby we the audience are constantly misled into thinking one way, when in reality, something else is happening. Perhaps something more akin to Jacques Tourneur's 1947 movie Out of the Past? It's a guess of course, and perhaps some might say a tad too similar to the Atomic Blonde narrative, which was hardly anything new to begin with. Or, maybe I'm completely off the mark and B25 is just a simple, straightforward caper.

    Not a bad idea. Old Craig Bond sat on a terrace in the south of France thinking back over his career.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    Hopefully the "pure movie gold" idea has to do with the villain and his plan rather than with Bond or MI6. Ignoring the stepbrother stuff, that Apocalypse Now-like premise would be the good kind of idea. The bad kind would be pairing Bond with a kid or something, or more MI6-related sheanigans. But I do get the feeling any personal stuff in Bond 25 will derive from the mission and how Bond deals with it. The other type of scenario has been played out.

    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ve said it before - I still don’t understand the now accepted view that ‘if’ Nolan does it, he’ll do a trilogy. If the guy has anything about him and is as savvy in his knowledge of the films as he claims then I don’t see why a trilogy is appealing. I would like to think that any Bond fan worth their salt understands that the films operate best in a standalone form - one that allows them to shift the tone, style, scale etc from film to film. It’s why the series is such a rich tapestry, with FRWL on one side and MR on the other.

    I’m still convinced Nolan just has a singular vision for how he would do ‘his’ Bond film. A trilogy would insinuate an interconnected narrative, which however bold the idea may be, doesn’t sit well with me.

    As a director surely you want to be known for making ‘that’ Bond film.
    And I still don´t understand how anybody at all can be so convinced that Nolan is even remotely qualified to make a Bond film.
    I wonder about this too. Beyond the most superficial analysis, how do people here --and in the film business-- extrapolate from someone's career to determine whether they're right for a certain type of project?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ve said it before - I still don’t understand the now accepted view that ‘if’ Nolan does it, he’ll do a trilogy. If the guy has anything about him and is as savvy in his knowledge of the films as he claims then I don’t see why a trilogy is appealing. I would like to think that any Bond fan worth their salt understands that the films operate best in a standalone form - one that allows them to shift the tone, style, scale etc from film to film. It’s why the series is such a rich tapestry, with FRWL on one side and MR on the other.

    I’m still convinced Nolan just has a singular vision for how he would do ‘his’ Bond film. A trilogy would insinuate an interconnected narrative, which however bold the idea may be, doesn’t sit well with me.

    As a director surely you want to be known for making ‘that’ Bond film.
    And I still don´t understand how anybody at all can be so convinced that Nolan is even remotely qualified to make a Bond film.
    I wonder about this too. Beyond the most superficial analysis, how do people here --and in the film business-- extrapolate from someone's career to determine whether they're right for a certain type of project?
    Wouldn't it be logically based on variety of prior output as well as the story idea in question? In Nolan's case I think there's a lot of evidence from his big budget entries that he has the directorial chops to handle a project like a traditional Bond film.

    Certainly far more evidence than say Mendes, Forster or even Boyle prior to their respective entries being made and released.

    Would you not agree?
  • Posts: 4,619
    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ve said it before - I still don’t understand the now accepted view that ‘if’ Nolan does it, he’ll do a trilogy. If the guy has anything about him and is as savvy in his knowledge of the films as he claims then I don’t see why a trilogy is appealing. I would like to think that any Bond fan worth their salt understands that the films operate best in a standalone form - one that allows them to shift the tone, style, scale etc from film to film. It’s why the series is such a rich tapestry, with FRWL on one side and MR on the other.

    I’m still convinced Nolan just has a singular vision for how he would do ‘his’ Bond film. A trilogy would insinuate an interconnected narrative, which however bold the idea may be, doesn’t sit well with me.

    As a director surely you want to be known for making ‘that’ Bond film.
    And I still don´t understand how anybody at all can be so convinced that Nolan is even remotely qualified to make a Bond film.
    Not only is Nolan qualified to make a Bond film, he is more qualified to do so than ANY director has ever been in cinema history. He is a huge Bond fan, has lots of experience directing big budget movies, pretty much all his movies are at least good, and his style fits Bond perfectly.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    bondjames wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ve said it before - I still don’t understand the now accepted view that ‘if’ Nolan does it, he’ll do a trilogy. If the guy has anything about him and is as savvy in his knowledge of the films as he claims then I don’t see why a trilogy is appealing. I would like to think that any Bond fan worth their salt understands that the films operate best in a standalone form - one that allows them to shift the tone, style, scale etc from film to film. It’s why the series is such a rich tapestry, with FRWL on one side and MR on the other.

    I’m still convinced Nolan just has a singular vision for how he would do ‘his’ Bond film. A trilogy would insinuate an interconnected narrative, which however bold the idea may be, doesn’t sit well with me.

    As a director surely you want to be known for making ‘that’ Bond film.
    And I still don´t understand how anybody at all can be so convinced that Nolan is even remotely qualified to make a Bond film.
    I wonder about this too. Beyond the most superficial analysis, how do people here --and in the film business-- extrapolate from someone's career to determine whether they're right for a certain type of project?
    Wouldn't it be logically based on variety of prior output as well as the story idea in question? In Nolan's case I think there's a lot of evidence from his big budget entries that he has the directorial chops to handle a project like a traditional Bond film.

    Certainly far more evidence than say Mendes, Forster or even Boyle prior to their respective entries being made and released.

    Would you not agree?
    Sure. It's safe to say Nolan can make a cracking large-scale thriller. But there is always some sort of grey area in which you don't know how the filmmaker --Nolan in this case-- might perform. For instance, I find the humor in some of Nolan's films a tad too understated, and the tone too serious. His action scenes, while generally good, have at times left something to be desired in terms of choreography and editing (shared responsibilities here, of course). Also, I don't get a sense of real joy out of Nolan's films (not that they need it, but I think Bond does, no matter how serious the film might be). If these points are valid, he could very well overcome them, but then again, maybe not. I find people's problems with Spectre, as expressed here, often have to do with small details that are wrong. It's a number of small mistakes (apart from the reveal that one might call the elephant in the room) that when put together weaken the film as a whole.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    S**T happens in the film industry-- I can attest with my experiences. I have no where the history of @ColonelSun or @RC7, and don't claim to be on their level.

    I am just a very not famous working writer.

    About ten years ago my agent told me that a company was interested in horror pictures and told me to go write one.

    It's not my genre, but I was desperate for any sale (the wolves were knocking at the door).

    So I watched some horror films (HALLOWEEN is really a classic), started crafting a story based on the childrens game, Bloody Mary (look in the mirror and say her name three x and Bloody Mary would come out and kill you-- ohhhh so original).

    This wasn't going to be Shakespeare, so I did my best and banged out a script and some polishes as fast as I could.

    It sold, I was paid, my wife, and (at the time), only one kid, was gonna stay, and we lived happily ever after.

    Not quite.

    During post production, I heard through the grape-vine that they changed the title from BLOODY MARY to DEAD MARY since there was a competing company also doing a film based on the same idea and it was called Bloody Mary.

    Fine.

    Then I got copies of the finished film delivered to my home (this was straight to DVD fair with Dominique Swain starring). I ripped open the package, and the front cover showed the lead actress and a very bad graphic of "Dead Mary". Cool.

    I popped the disk in the player and watched... Credits and I see my name. Really cool. But there's another writer's name there too...

    Huh?...

    Okay, very long story short: this 2 million dollar feature cut as many corners as they could, took a third of my original script and stretched into a way over long 105 minutes, or whatever, and, the kicker: although the Dead Mary character burst with all her glory on the DVD cover, she is NEVER seen in the film! She was cut. Actually, she was NEVER filmed. Too expensive. And all the other stuff that I wrote (apart from a third), all that action down by the lake, with paranormal witch-happenings and all kinds of nasty spells put on our leads (after all Bloody Mary was a witch) and so on? Cut too.

    Some time during production, I found out, they hired another writer to chop and dice and mix and shake the script to fit their ever-changing budget; expanding on one idea found in only one section of the original script.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Mary

    A similar thing is now happening on another project of mine-- since this is optioned, I can't go into too much detail, but it IS a script based in my genre (thriller/action), with the idea that it is a healthy budget film. A director has been brought on, and, with all of our phone conferences, the notes he is giving me is, in this option period, kinda/somewhat/really starting to change the original script.

    But, I've been paid, I'm under contract, I do as I say until I will most likely be "replaced" down the line (if it does indeed go "down the line"). That's right, the first credited writers on a lot of projects were also the first ones "replaced" with other writers, down the line.

    RC7 can correct me, but this happens more often than not.

    I'm not surprised that EoN would continue looking at, or hearing pitches from reputable creative talents like Boyle and Hodge, since there is still enough time before pre-production proper is to take place.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ve said it before - I still don’t understand the now accepted view that ‘if’ Nolan does it, he’ll do a trilogy. If the guy has anything about him and is as savvy in his knowledge of the films as he claims then I don’t see why a trilogy is appealing. I would like to think that any Bond fan worth their salt understands that the films operate best in a standalone form - one that allows them to shift the tone, style, scale etc from film to film. It’s why the series is such a rich tapestry, with FRWL on one side and MR on the other.

    I’m still convinced Nolan just has a singular vision for how he would do ‘his’ Bond film. A trilogy would insinuate an interconnected narrative, which however bold the idea may be, doesn’t sit well with me.

    As a director surely you want to be known for making ‘that’ Bond film.
    And I still don´t understand how anybody at all can be so convinced that Nolan is even remotely qualified to make a Bond film.
    I wonder about this too. Beyond the most superficial analysis, how do people here --and in the film business-- extrapolate from someone's career to determine whether they're right for a certain type of project?
    Wouldn't it be logically based on variety of prior output as well as the story idea in question? In Nolan's case I think there's a lot of evidence from his big budget entries that he has the directorial chops to handle a project like a traditional Bond film.

    Certainly far more evidence than say Mendes, Forster or even Boyle prior to their respective entries being made and released.

    Would you not agree?
    Sure. It's safe to say Nolan can make a cracking large-scale thriller. But there is always some sort of grey area in which you don't know how the filmmaker --Nolan in this case-- might perform. For instance, I find the humor in some of Nolan's films a tad too understated, and the tone too serious. His action scenes, while generally good, have at times left something to be desired in terms of choreography and editing (shared responsibilities here, of course). Also, I don't get a sense of real joy out of Nolan's films (not that they need it, but I think Bond does, no matter how serious the film might be). If these points are valid, he could very well overcome them, but then again, maybe not. I find people's problems with Spectre, as expressed here, often have to do with small details that are wrong. It's a number of small mistakes (apart from the reveal that one might call the elephant in the room) that when put together weaken the film as a whole.
    I get where you're coming from (particularly about the little but numerous problems sprinkled throughout SP) and your concern could very well be valid should Nolan get the keys to Bondom.

    However, I think a key point to note is that he has never made a Bond film. We are only inferring from other films he has made which have nothing to do with Bond. Most of his films are quite sombre in tone, but then again they are also serious business. Existential even. Having said that, I found quite a lot of humour sprinkled throughout the Bat trilogy which I really enjoy. It's subtle, but it's there in the interactions. I certainly enjoyed the Bat humour far more than anything in SP, which I found rather ham fisted. Strange, because I enjoyed the humour in SF, and it was made by the same team.

    Regarding his action sequencing: I've read this before from others so I suppose there is something to it, but I have never had any problems with how he handles action personally. I've said this before, but I think some of the set pieces in his films are truly awe inspiring (truck flip and sky hook in TDK, plane heist in TDRK, nearly anything in Inception etc.). In particular, the cinematography blows me away, so I guess it's just different strokes. One thing I'm reasonably sure of is that he wouldn't ever give us any overly predictable and linear action sequences as dull as those in SP, because I've yet to be bored by action in his films to that extent.

    You could very well be correct mind you. I suppose I just think the concerns can be overcome.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    That was a very interesting read, @peter.

    Looking forward to your new film project.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Thank you @ClarkDevlin ... fingers crossed on this and a TV series I've just developed (and is being submitted to producers as we speak).
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,117
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Hopefully the "pure movie gold" idea has to do with the villain and his plan rather than with Bond or MI6. Ignoring the stepbrother stuff, that Apocalypse Now-like premise would be the good kind of idea. The bad kind would be pairing Bond with a kid or something, or more MI6-related sheanigans. But I do get the feeling any personal stuff in Bond 25 will derive from the mission and how Bond deals with it. The other type of scenario has been played out.

    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I’ve said it before - I still don’t understand the now accepted view that ‘if’ Nolan does it, he’ll do a trilogy. If the guy has anything about him and is as savvy in his knowledge of the films as he claims then I don’t see why a trilogy is appealing. I would like to think that any Bond fan worth their salt understands that the films operate best in a standalone form - one that allows them to shift the tone, style, scale etc from film to film. It’s why the series is such a rich tapestry, with FRWL on one side and MR on the other.

    I’m still convinced Nolan just has a singular vision for how he would do ‘his’ Bond film. A trilogy would insinuate an interconnected narrative, which however bold the idea may be, doesn’t sit well with me.

    As a director surely you want to be known for making ‘that’ Bond film.
    And I still don´t understand how anybody at all can be so convinced that Nolan is even remotely qualified to make a Bond film.
    I wonder about this too. Beyond the most superficial analysis, how do people here --and in the film business-- extrapolate from someone's career to determine whether they're right for a certain type of project?

    Memento, The Prestige, BB, TDK, Inception, Dunkirk all brilliant.

    Insomnia, TDKR, Interstellar less so but still pretty good.

    If Nolan isn't qualified in what universe is someone like Demange qualified?

    I'll grant you I have reservations over Nolan with regard to handling of humour, action sequences, and the sexlessness of his worlds.

    But given we've just come off brothergate and some of the most pedestrian action of the series it's a rush more than worth taking.

    peter wrote: »
    S**T happens in the film industry-- I can attest with my experiences. I have no where the history of @ColonelSun or @RC7, and don't claim to be on their level.

    I am just a very not famous working writer.

    About ten years ago my agent told me that a company was interested in horror pictures and told me to go write one.

    It's not my genre, but I was desperate for any sale (the wolves were knocking at the door).

    So I watched some horror films (HALLOWEEN is really a classic), started crafting a story based on the childrens game, Bloody Mary (look in the mirror and say her name three x and Bloody Mary would come out and kill you-- ohhhh so original).

    This wasn't going to be Shakespeare, so I did my best and banged out a script and some polishes as fast as I could.

    It sold, I was paid, my wife, and (at the time), only one kid, was gonna stay, and we lived happily ever after.

    Not quite.

    During post production, I heard through the grape-vine that they changed the title from BLOODY MARY to DEAD MARY since there was a competing company also doing a film based on the same idea and it was called Bloody Mary.

    Fine.

    Then I got copies of the finished film delivered to my home (this was straight to DVD fair with Dominique Swain starring). I ripped open the package, and the front cover showed the lead actress and a very bad graphic of "Dead Mary". Cool.

    I popped the disk in the player and watched... Credits and I see my name. Really cool. But there's another writer's name there too...

    Huh?...

    Okay, very long story short: this 2 million dollar feature cut as many corners as they could, took a third of my original script and stretched into a way over long 105 minutes, or whatever, and, the kicker: although the Dead Mary character burst with all her glory on the DVD cover, she is NEVER seen in the film! She was cut. Actually, she was NEVER filmed. Too expensive. And all the other stuff that I wrote (apart from a third), all that action down by the lake, with paranormal witch-happenings and all kinds of nasty spells put on our leads (after all Bloody Mary was a witch) and so on? Cut too.

    Some time during production, I found out, they hired another writer to chop and dice and mix and shake the script to fit their ever-changing budget; expanding on one idea found in only one section of the original script.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Mary

    A similar thing is now happening on another project of mine-- since this is optioned, I can't go into too much detail, but it IS a script based in my genre (thriller/action), with the idea that it is a healthy budget film. A director has been brought on, and, with all of our phone conferences, the notes he is giving me is, in this option period, kinda/somewhat/really starting to change the original script.

    But, I've been paid, I'm under contract, I do as I say until I will most likely be "replaced" down the line (if it does indeed go "down the line"). That's right, the first credited writers on a lot of projects were also the first ones "replaced" with other writers, down the line.

    RC7 can correct me, but this happens more often than not.

    I'm not surprised that EoN would continue looking at, or hearing pitches from reputable creative talents like Boyle and Hodge, since there is still enough time before pre-production proper is to take place.

    Interesting story @peter. I think you should be overjoyed you actually got paid rather than sued for plagiarism by the makers of Candyman.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Yes, that was indeed an interesting read. If I'm not mistaken, I've read something like this from P&W themselves regarding SP, when they commented on how they were brought back in at 11th hour to fix things and had to work with set pieces that had already been devised etc. I have no doubt that the creative process can be tumultuous at times. As long as the writers are paid for their time and effort I suppose it's par for the course, and we know that SP in particular was a difficult process.

    Ok, so based on that we can assume that this completely new script is not unusual, at least at this stage. Even if it's one that apparently doesn't rely on anything that has been conceptualized up to this point by the original team, but rather something that was initially contemplated in 2012 by someone else. A different scenario to what happened on SP.

    I'm assuming they still have to start filming in January or thereabouts. Working backwards re: casting, location scouting and what not, I assume they will have to get that going by July or so. Script greenlight should presumably come in the next two months then.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,509
    ha! I was very happy to be paid @TheWizardOfIce; and you're correct in thinking that this, on the surface, could be the same film. But film companies are loaded with lawyers to make sure charges of this type don't happen (that's why unsolicited material is never accepted).

    I didn't watch CANDYMAN, but my story was, in essence, based on a childrens game/urban legend spooky story (at least known here in North America); but that was a hook to tell a "witch story". I'm assuming my original script looked nothing like CANYMAN's finished product.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    peter wrote: »
    ha! I was very happy to be paid @TheWizardOfIce; and you're correct in thinking that this, on the surface, could be the same film. But film companies are loaded with lawyers to make sure charges of this type don't happen (that's why unsolicited material is never accepted).

    I didn't watch CANDYMAN, but my story was, in essence, based on a childrens game/urban legend spooky story (at least known here in North America); but that was a hook to tell a "witch story". I'm assuming my original script looked nothing like CANYMAN's finished product.

    I guess in the straight to video market these ideas get recycled endlessly and no one really cares that much.

    Maybe if Dead Mary had broken the billion dollar mark then it might have been worth Candyman's lawyers getting involved.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited March 2018 Posts: 3,157
    The idea that having Nolan would mean a Hans Zimmer score makes me upset, though.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Boyle has a habit of starting the film with something from the middle of the narrative, then recapitulating. (Haven t seen many of his films, so don t know if that is very consistent). Wonder if he will keep that up.

    Interesting, as Fleming had the habit as well. I think it shows up in Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and You Only Live Twice (and possibly other books). Not sure how that would work in a Bond film, but if executed well it could be cool.

    I didn’t know the novels had these narrative jumps through time. I don’t think the films have ever done anyothing than straight conventional linear narratives. CR is probably the only film to feature a sort of ‘flashback’ sequence in the PTS but chronologically it’s totally conventional. B25 might be a first if Boyle starts to play around with that a little bit.

    Yeah, CR opens with Bond in the casino itself, then goes back to M's briefing. LALD and YOLT do something similar.
    TSWLM opens with Vivienne at the motel where the book's climax is set, with her recollecting her previous love experiences and her life up to that moment.
    OHMSS opens with Bond and Tracy on the beach being kidnapped by Draco's men, then Fleming goes back to Bond's arrival at Royale-Les-Eaux and Bond and Tracy's lovemaking. The movie does its own thing as the beach scene is both shown and set before the casino scenes.
    I forgot to mention Octopussy as well. In the short story Bond meets Major Dexter Smythe and then Fleming flashes back to a few years earlier detailing Major Smythe's encounter with Oberhauser.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Another question. Does it seem plausible that Boyle can get this other project over and done with and get moving directly on Bond thereafter? Does that make sense from a scheduling and timing perspective, or is it cutting it very thin?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    ha! I was very happy to be paid @TheWizardOfIce; and you're correct in thinking that this, on the surface, could be the same film. But film companies are loaded with lawyers to make sure charges of this type don't happen (that's why unsolicited material is never accepted).

    I didn't watch CANDYMAN, but my story was, in essence, based on a childrens game/urban legend spooky story (at least known here in North America); but that was a hook to tell a "witch story". I'm assuming my original script looked nothing like CANYMAN's finished product.

    I guess in the straight to video market these ideas get recycled endlessly and no one really cares that much.

    Maybe if Dead Mary had broken the billion dollar mark then it might have been worth Candyman's lawyers getting involved.

    I think you're right on the mark there, @TheWizardOfIce. But, at the same time (and I'm just guessing at this point), two films can have the same hook (look at the two volcano films in the 90s), but are very different.

    I knew of Candyman, but, to this day, have never watched it. I'm assuming (again), that my original script (essentially about a witch, who had her own, unique background story (that I told in flashbacks before our leads "play" the game)) and Candyman, are very much not alike, other than our hooks.

    And, Bloody Mary is a story/urban legend in North America that's well known. So, I'm guessing in your scenario above (about hitting the billion dollar mark), "our" lawyers could turn around and say there is no case since Candyman's concept was taken from this childrens tale too; that they don't "own" the right to this legend; that the legend is in the public domain.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited March 2018 Posts: 8,195
    bondjames wrote: »
    Another question. Does it seem plausible that Boyle can get this other project over and done with and get moving directly on Bond thereafter? Does that make sense from a scheduling and timing perspective, or is it cutting it very thin?

    Well, Spielberg made Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List st the same time .

    .https://www.google.com/amp/s/decider.com/2015/06/11/steven-spielberg-jurassic-park-schindlers-list-1993/amp/
  • Posts: 3,333
    That's a reasonable question to ask @bondjames. I'm willing to take a stab at Boyle's longtime collaborator John Hodge being the main man that's pulling it all together, so I highly doubt that Boyle working on All You Need Is Love this summer will detract too much from B25. I'm also willing to surmise that the Richard Curtis musical will be a pretty small-scale affair with a short production schedule that's typically associated with a lot of these British productions today. Therefore, if and when their B25 treatment gets the green light, then I'm sure Boyle will be ready to move into the pre-production stage of setting up the movie. Clearly, Boyle has the appetite for it, otherwise he wouldn't have put his idea forward.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    talos7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Another question. Does it seem plausible that Boyle can get this other project over and done with and get moving directly on Bond thereafter? Does that make sense from a scheduling and timing perspective, or is it cutting it very thin?

    Well.....https://www.google.com/amp/s/decider.com/2015/06/11/steven-spielberg-jurassic-park-schindlers-list-1993/amp/
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Victor Fleming directed GONE WITH THE WIND and THE WIZARD OF OZ (two massive and problematic undertakings, if you know anything of the Golden Era of Hollywood) in the same year (albeit with some high powered assistance). Boyle should be able to handle two projects such as this. Particularly as EON (as with O'Selznik in 1939) has its own production team that can do much of the location work (as per usual with these films) in Boyle's absence.
    bondsum wrote: »
    That's a reasonable question to ask @bondjames. I'm willing to take a stab at Boyle's longtime collaborator John Hodge being the main man that's pulling it all together, so I highly doubt that Boyle working on All You Need Is Love this summer will detract too much from B25. I'm also willing to surmise that the Richard Curtis musical will be a pretty small-scale affair with a short production schedule that's typically associated with a lot of these British productions today. Therefore, if and when their B25 treatment gets the green light, then I'm sure Boyle will be ready to move into the pre-production stage of setting up the movie. Clearly, Boyle has the appetite for it, otherwise he wouldn't have put his idea forward.
    Thanks gents. That's very interesting and reassuring. I was not aware that Spielberg made those two giant entries in the same year, and similarly Victor Fleming. It's true also that the Curtis musical isn't all that large of a project.

    Something else has been going through my mind since Baz's scoop.

    Has Universal got the gig, and greenlighted the Curtis 'passion' project if Boyle agreed to do Bond? I wonder if they are the elusive foreign 'distributor'.

    In this scenario EON are happy, Universal is happy, and most importantly Boyle is happy.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 2,115
    Birdleson wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Another question. Does it seem plausible that Boyle can get this other project over and done with and get moving directly on Bond thereafter? Does that make sense from a scheduling and timing perspective, or is it cutting it very thin?

    Victor Fleming directed GONE WITH THE WIND and THE WIZARD OF OZ (two massive and problematic undertakings, if you know anything of the Golden Era of Hollywood) in the same year (albeit with some high powered assistance). Boyle should be able to handle two projects such as this. Particularly as EON (as with O'Selznik in 1939) has its own production team that can do much of the location work (as per usual with these films) in Boyle's absence.

    Sam Wood was among the other (uncredited) directors of Gone With the Wind. He and production designer William Cameron Menzies ended up working together on other projects, including Pride of the Yankees and For Whom the Bells Toll. For Pride of the Yankees,
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 9,843
    I hate to be that guy but why are we assuming purvis wade and Newman are out of a job?

    After all ignoring mr reddit it could be Boyle loved Purvis and Wade’s idea and brought Hodge in to rework the script so the final film writing credits would be

    Purvis Wade and Hodge

    We assume Boyle won’t use Newman cause we don’t like him but he could of loved his work or worse could love Eric Sierra
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Risico007 -- I think P&W have completed and have been paid for their work. Perhaps it's safe to say that no matter what happens, P&W have completed the job they were hired to do.

    Their script, on the other hand, which is owned by EoN, is the thing in a holding pattern at the moment. It sounds like Boyle made an awesome pitch; it sounds like EoN would like to do it. Everything is leaning this way, with an intelligent writer now executing the pitch in script form.

    It sounds like this is the direction they're going in.

    But, no matter what one thinks about EoN, if this finished script is not up to their liking, they will go back to the P&W script and move into production.

    But like I said, P&W have done their job, and, once again, it sounds like they delivered their script. They're free agents no matter what happens (unless the director hires them back for polishes, which I doubt would happen (I imagine a director would bring on a writer(s) of his own choosing to do polishes)).

    Re: Newman: I'm assuming he came with Mendes as they've collaborated in the past. I suppose EoN could have an appetite to bring him back (but, with no knowledge whatsoever, I just don't think this is the case).
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Newman is out - I am very sure he is. With P&W I dunno since BB and MGW are loyal to long-time collaborateurs ... the „Bond family“ so to speak. Could be that in the end there will be shared writing credit ...

    But for the score I am 100% sure it won‘t be Newman again and would be more than happy with Arnold returning.
Sign In or Register to comment.