Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Who Should write Bond 25?
Before we discuss Directors etc I think the first thing to discuss is really writers.
Personally I would love to see this in the credits look like this
Screenplay by
Chris Mcquarrie Tony Gilroy and Luc Besson
Story elements by Ian Fleming and Michael G Wilson
:D that would make me happiest. How about you?
Personally I would love to see this in the credits look like this
Screenplay by
Chris Mcquarrie Tony Gilroy and Luc Besson
Story elements by Ian Fleming and Michael G Wilson
:D that would make me happiest. How about you?
^ 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
Or was it always Maibaum who was the important voice in licking all those scripts into shape?
Great idea!
Also, what of Bruce Feirstein? :)
Sir, after this suggestion a part of my anatomy is like Pinocchio's nose when lying. >:)
Here's what I'd like to see.
Story by Ian Fleming and Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, based on the novel "You Only Live Twice"
Screenplay by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and S. Craig Zahler*
*based upon seeing his movie Bone Tomahawk, which is a wonderfully atmospheric journey-through-hell to the surreal villain's lair which strongly parallels with YOLT
The problem with SP was they left Logan too long until they realised what a mess he'd written, it was too late to start again so P&W along with Butterworth did their best to cobble it together with Craig and Mendes input.
Logan clearly didn't know his Fleming and was trying to inject his own version into the script that was clearly not in the spirit of the author and more influenced by Nolan's bat films.
I'm sorry but I can't see the usual process not being adhered to though, P&W start it, then they give it to a more renowned script writer to pep it up, they let that guy go and then bring someone else in to work on it.
The fact they let an outside script writer to the Bond family start it from scratch and it's turned out like it did, makes me think they'll stick with P&W to flesh it out. Mendes was no doubt the reason they were let go for Logan to take it on but I don't think SM will be able to justify such a move again in light of the SP script travesty.
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10843/bond-25-production-diary-new-distributor-to-be-chosen-by-februrary#latest
I would like no further involvement with Logan as he has already failed the grade.
Do not want Haggis back either.
There is some great banter in SP!
My thoughts precisely. I thought the whole point of this thread was to get an alternative to P&W but people seem more than happy.
What logic is this? If Fleming knowledge is all that's required I'll do the job or any of us here. Shouldn't writing ability be the key criteria?
But it'll probably be Purvis, Wade and Butterworth.
I am of two minds when it comes to purvis and Wade the fact that is the two films they had the most control over had the most Fleming in them in a while (die another day and casino Royale) however I honestly believe if say Chris Mcquarrie wrote the script considering how much of the original show he tried to put in the film (the record store scene was so much like the show I would be shocked if it wasn't lifted from an episode) he wouldn't just throw out Fleming and do his own thing. Actually I think like Craig and Dalton he probably would read all the novels to get a sense of the character and what Fleming hasn't been done and then go from there. Heck he may even push for the film to be titled The Hildebrand rarity.
For me whoever writes bond what I want is a good story that has strong ties to Fleming and a strong Fleming title (sorry to people who claim that grabbing from Fleming now is scraping the bottom of the barrel there is in my opinion at least 24 good titles from Fleming that haven't been used) whoever can deliver that I am happy with personally I have no hatred toward Purvis and Wade and don't consider Die Another day their fails as really everything up untill the climax in North Korea isn't too horrible (clearly the bad cgi was just a nod toward the bad back dropping of dr. No lol) and I don't believe Paul Haggis wrote Casino Royale by himself because he didn't. He said the climax (which some don't like and feel is too much) and some of the train dialogue was his and that is it but if you talk to some people he wrote the whole film lol.
So to sum up what I want is a good story that is dark serious and has serious tension about it (something similar in my opinion to Casino Royale And Quantum of Solace) with a good Fleming title and a better score then what we got in Spectre add in some great locations a rock theme (Paul MCartney for a second time please) and I will be very happy.
Bring Haggis back and give him enough time, for Christ´s sake. He´s more than able to deliver a good one.
Couldn't agree more.
I used to defend them, but it's fairly clear now that a new team is needed. SPECTRE managed to turn out pretty decent all things considered, but the script was a complete mess.
To quote Bond in the DB10
NOOOOO!
As for Bond 25 writers: I just don't want Logan or P&W to return. Jez Butterworth writes good dialogue, but little else. Steven Zaillian might be an interesting choice, but he is likely to expensive for Eon to hire.
You're right: The record store scene in MI:5 is from the very first episode of the Mission Impossible TV series and is a clever homage by Christopher McQuarrie. But, sadly, McQuarrie is already tied-up with MI:6 so he is out of the game for Bond 25.
Having let my feelings on SPECTRE settle I say get rid of them, once I found out they were responsible for the Oberhauser nonsense and not Logan.
To me this is bigger than any crime they've committed this era and outweighs all of Newman's people harp on about. Making Blofeld Bond's childhood rival is one of the worst things ever committed in Bond history and these 2 jokers were responsible.
As much as I liked Skyfall Mendes needs to go as well, new blood is required.
Zallian is a possibility but Gattis would be great. Maybe try coming up a script writer that can come up with an idea that they don't need to polish or rewrite, I know I'm asking for far too much.
That was the clincher for me as well, although I would have still leaned towards moving on from them anyway. Thankfully not much time is devoted to the idea of the relationship between Bond and Oberhauser, as more time spent on it could have really destroyed the film.
There are plenty of flaws in SPECTRE, some of which greatly detract from the film, but harping more on the Bond/Oberhauser relationship would have been something that the film could not have overcome.
Mendes wanted this, he thought it was some fantastic thing that would make people go WOW! he actually referred to it as depth charge.
Nothing in SPECTRE compares with M's death on that scale. The problem is though it's out there and if this era continues it's too tempting for future contributors not to use it again.
It should have never happened it just undermines things. The next problem is the lame way they linked everything together.
This could have been a masterstroke in the right hands but the ring nonsense with Q working it out on his lap top was utter rubbish. Why couldn't we have seen Bond discover this and peel back the mystery as the film unfolded.
Scott was just one note and sneery, they could have tried to make the Max Denbigh character not so obvious and had him seem an ally to M and then pull the rug from underneath him to reveal his true intentions later in the film. You could have had the MI6 element all play out in London while Bond got on with his mission minus personal involvement. Nine Eyes being taken down could have been Team MI6.
Discovering who was behind everything and confronting them would be Bond. No Q in the field.
Pretty much agreed with everything.
I think that they could have really built SPECTRE into a solid mystery film had not everything been so on-the-nose.
First, and foremost, had they could have helped the big reveal of the film by not naming the film "SPECTRE" and simply alluded to the idea that Bond was chasing after a dark secret or mystery that had frightening global implications. They could have had two big reveals this way, the first being that the new villainous organization that was behind everything bad going in the world was indeed "SPECTRE" and then, the last big reveal could have been the identity of its leader, Blofeld.
They could have built some mystery into whether or not such an organization exists while also setting up several people to be Blofeld. Since Blofeld takes up aliases in the novels, they could have revealed just about anybody to be Blofeld, which could have been part of the fun of the film. Instead, we know from the jump that we're dealing with SPECTRE and, by the virtue of that, we also know that the guy sitting at the end of the table, bathed in darkness, is a certain character.