It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Ridley Scott sounds like a much better idea to be honest. Just provide him with a good script.
I can think of worse: Nolan actually makes the film but it’s worse than TENET.
Yeah, I like Tony Scott. He might have started all those Michael Bay visuals.....difference is, he doesn't make it too juvenile like Bay....especially the jokes. But still he doesn't care that much about story, only style like Bay.
And that’s fine. Some Bond movies really are more about style than story, such as the Lewis Gilbert flicks. Tony Scott would have delivered in that wheelhouse.
True. Gilbert was the one Cubby & Harry went for, when they wanted the bombastic over story. So Tony Scott would have been a Gilbert to Bond.
I watch the movies and they work, that's for sure! That's why they are serviceable.
;)
Reading a script and seeing the finished product as a film are two separate beasts.
who cares? scripts are not made to be read.
EDIT: the smartest thing my first agent ever said to me was: just because you watch films doesn’t mean you know anything about screenwriting.
And the second smartest thing he said was: read scripts, learn about film-story and screenplay writing.
Cameron too.
From an idea, to a story, to creating characters and building their entire lives (through the work audiences don’t see (but I get a sense they “feel” the work), like character bios); outlines after outlines; Figuring out “plants” or “Chekhov’s Gun” in the first act, to be paid off in the third act; to explore secrets and plot twists, and what is the Inciting Incident; the timing of Plot Point One, Mid Point Twists and Plot Point Two, which leads to Climax, Resolution and wrapping up whatever story you’re telling.
In a script meeting you will be peppered with questions going down to the very last detail— and the writer better have done their homework and is ready to answer any and all questions…
It has to be a journey, and what @DEKE_RIVERS doesn't understand is that scripts ARE meant to be read because every film he’s ever watched came from this process, this journey. Hundreds of people on any given project are combing through the written words on the page, to try and bring it all to reality.
But, Deke does really know all, 😂.
There are some other great writers on this site too, who may also have issues with what the great Deke is saying… But it’s clear that he is the ruler of his own universe, and what he says, is law— whether based in reality or not.
Have you ever watched Andrew Ellard's YouTube essay on QoS, Peter? He's a script editor in the UK and he used to give really fascinating notes on various films and TV shows: he's a real fan of QoS, and although I don't share that, it is very interesting to watch him pull out the various themes and bits of structure of the QoS script which really do work well.
Ok I get it. James Cameron is not good enough for James Bond.
I haven't seen Andrew Ellard's essay on QoS, but, I'm Day Two of a ruthless cold/flu, and I'm in no shape to do my work, so I will seek it out today!
EDIT:
@DEKE_RIVERS , I didn't say Cameron wasn't "good enough for James Bond", but I did say I was a fan of his earlier work, not so much a fan post The Abyss, but, I also stated, at least he knows how to entertain, unlike Nolan (IMO), but his original scripts are a mess (read his SPIDERMAN as an example), and I did admit, after the question was posed, that I'd take a running leap off a building, if Cameron was ever chosen to direct Bond.
Nothing I wrote above had anything to do with Cameron being "good enough for Bond", and had everything to do with how important scripts are-- you know, the things you claimed are "not made to be read" (so do actors just come up with their own lines? Even when improvising, it's based on what was in the script. Do stories just magically appear on screen?... Do you see how your statement is a little bit... Naive?)
That sounds good; is there a particular film you've done that with which you've found particularly interesting?
Oh sorry to hear that, I hope you're feeling better soon. Here it is, I found it a very interesting watch because he knows what he's talking about when it comes to story construction.
It's hard to find things like that: I've always been a bit fascinated with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, because it's a formulaic adventure script which should be sort of easy to get right if you just follow the rules, and yet it's a dreadful mess with missing motivations, characters who act oddly, a plot which isn't joined together etc. I tried a podcast called something like Script Doctors where they said they'd be talking about how it could be improved, and all they came up with was 'put Short Round in it' 8-| :))
There was an excellent, excellent, excellent script called FIRST LAST KISS (I love that title), and it’s a rom-com— which is NOT my genre (but I READ all genres). This incredible script that was poignant, beautiful, genuinely laugh-out-loud funny turned into the…… Will Smith film, HITCH, which, to me, was the antithesis of the script it was born from. The final film, although having basic story and many scenes that were familiar to the script, were interpreted as loud, brash, annoying, lacking in genuine laughs, lacking in true characterization…. This is the example I always use when I can point to why the script was far better than the film.
Thanks for posting the essay— I’m going to watch it right now!! Thanks again!!
Naive? Well, Cameron is doing fine with his scripts. Maybe it's magic too.
Thanks, those sound fascinating- I didn't know that about Hitch, that sounds mad. I'll definitely look into those.
I’m also enjoying Andrew’s corrections, how he takes what’s there and makes a few chops (the PTS we have now, for example, and starts the PTS with the rooftop battle with Mitchell; from a story perspective Andrew is using start late/leave early (which should be the tact we use for story, and for every single scene).
This is brilliant; Andrew has a high IQ when it comes to the anatomy of a film story and I can’t really argue against his criticisms, nor can I pick apart his suggestions on how to improve Quantum. He’s pretty bang-on!!!
I’ll be finishing this later today, but thank you again for posting this. I love how an expert on story can really dig-in and gives us a great analysis of what we have, what we likely had in earlier drafts, and what could have been done to accentuate the positives of this film…
He used to do reviews and 'tweetnotes' on Twitter to various films and TV: I love this comment about Skyfall which I must admit I never noticed- "A neat one - having gone home for the finale, Bond only gets his aim back when he picks up his father's rifle. Fab"
You can read some collected tweets here: Skyfall,
Spectre
Spectre review
As you say, I just find there's some great insights there.
💯 💯 💯 😂
Would it be interesting or "good"? That's to taste and chance. But it won't happen, because as has been outlined, Cameron doesn't seem very interested, and frankly the producers probably aren't interested in working with him just based on his reputation and tendency lately to delay his projects for ever-expanding scope. They're hopefully headed in the opposite direction.
I do worry Bond will get much more American influence behind the camera going forward, though I'm not sure I trust British culture to be any better to ground Bond in these days.
Sometimes I think a big director means a big film. As a kid I appreciated a lean film like FRWL as opposed to a big film like Lawrence of Arabia. Loved both. Yet each felt right in its own way. Those older, earlier Bond films always left me wanting more, whereas more recent films have oddly left me wanting less. I don't need a Bond film on an epic scale, nor do I need a directorial statement.