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
Boyle/Hodge script or Fleming's?
Both are interesting, but I think of that one of Fleming as unpolished compared to the actual novel he wrote, that's complete, and the policewoman that was hinted at the script in my mind was Gala Brand, and there's Hugo Drax, it's would still be close to the original novel that we've got, the only differences was the lack of M and Moneypenny and having Bond an ally called Tosh, a sharp card player, between those unreleased script and the actual novel, I'll better go with the novel.
The Boyle/Hodge was a lot more fascinating to me, it has ideas that we've never heard of, it's pretty unique and quite different to the formulaic Bond that we have, it's more interesting, I just want to find out, that script in my opinion was an enigma, a mystery for me.
And those rumours sounds familiar to me.
Well, in the trivia for The World Is Not Enough by imdb, it's said that:
'It was rumored this movie originally had a different plot, and that it was going to be dark like Licence to Kill (1989) and GoldenEye (1995), and that it was going to focus on James Bond's offspring (the main villain) and it would be revealed Bond had fathered a child he never knew existed, and that the child was given up for adoption, hence the title "The World is Not Enough", which is Bond's family motto, and that the original plot was rejected.
So here, Bond also has a child with an old flame, but much more interesting here was the child turned out to be the villain.
I've read this one many times, and it's not impossible for them to use this idea.
But I also found this one interesting.
I'm thinking if they could do it to Mathilde? I wonder if they're going to set her up as a future Bond Villain?
For Bond fans who want a Bond film that heralds back to the Moore era, TSWLM specifically, I genuinely feel that Phoebe Waller-Bridge is THE writer who could make that happen, at least on the page.
Phoebe Waller Bridge is a great dialogue writer, but I don't know why many people are calling her woke, blaming her for the outcome of the film that they didnt liked, when her job was only to write the dialogues of the film, does she have another part in the film other than to write the dialogues?
Not a fan of NTTD, but I'm not calling her woke or something, I think some of the dialogues that she put in the film really worked.
Prefer some of the dialogues here in NTTD than to those in Casino Royale, that little finger line anyone?
But as much as she is a great dialogue writer, Tom Mankiewicz for me was still the best dialogue writer, Phoebe Waller Bridge lacks some of the one liners that Mankiewicz wrote.
I suspect the Fleming Moonraker script is probably interesting to Bond/Fleming fans, but not necessarily to anyone wanting to read a good script. The complaints at the time seem to have been that it was too prose-like and was too long at 150 pages. It might read well, but good scripts engage you differently than novels do, so how well it worked in this format is debatable. I know fans get excited by the idea of lost Fleming material, and there's a tendency to speculate whether this or Fleming's other unused writing might be worth mining for a future Bond film. I suspect the script is un-filmable unfortunately and there wouldn't be much in there that could be used.
The Boyle/Hodge script would probably be a bit incomplete, but I think it would read a lot better (ie. it'd be more concise, modern and more visual). I mean, in theory we could see scraps of this film make its way into future Bond instalments, little bits of dialogue, small plot details/character ideas etc. I do want to see what Boyle and Hodge specifically were trying to do though. My theory has always been that it started to get too weird for Craig/the producers, and with a Bond film that already had him dying and having a kid it would have been a bit too much.
I really enjoyed reading your thoughts!!
That said I still would very much like to read the Fleming screenplay over the Boyle/Hodge script. It would be fascinating to compare the screenplay to the novel and as you said see which bits could be mined for future films or novels.
I felt the same, I watched a few Brosnan Bonds after I saw NTTD. I haven't watched a Craig Bond since the film's release, actually.
Indeed. NTTD wasn't the film to go "full Moore era" comedy obviously, but PWB can certainly deliver a script closer to that of TSWLM.
It will be really hard to match Tom Mankiewicz' capabilities at writing good one liners, but it would be fun to see PWB give it a try!
P&W/Eon/Craig apparently pushed for Bond dying. Boyle/Hodge were the ones who brought in his child.
https://theplaylist.net/scott-z-burns-writing-no-time-to-die-climate-change-projects-interview-20210930/
It's a safe bet that Scott Burns worked on the nanobots.
So that means that PWB had to stitch together the various storylines.
Yes, I heard the same - I think someone said that P&W had originally pitched it during the Brosnan era.
P&W actually said it.
A good script shouldn't truly engage you though--it's a blueprint for the film and not meant as a literary work in its own right. Fleming's script sounds like a literary work and should prove a fascinating "alternate universe" version of one of his best novels, as well as a very different "alternate universe" version of the film of Moonraker. Additionally, it's a lost work by the man who created Bond and the DNA of the film series. For me that's a considerably more interesting than the Boyle/Hodge script, especially since what I've heard about the latter doesn't sound particularly appetizing.
*And they will probably use parts in future films.
I suspect they will as well.
That actually depends. Reading something like Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon script, you're right, it's more a blueprint for the film than an engaging read. This can happen when the director has a hand or is the sole writer of the script. They can afford to use the script as merely a blueprint.
It's usually different when a scriptwriter is working on the script independently from the director. In my experience just to attract producers/directors onto a project the script needs to be engaging. By this I mean it needs to be easy to follow, suitably visual (ideally without anything technical like the type of shots or camera movements required etc.), concise, well paced, strong story, suitable dialogue etc. If it lags you lose the reader and won't get the film picked up. It's still a blueprint for the film but ideally in this scenario it should give deeper ideas for the overall film than just the simple plot - ie. tone, visual ideas, character etc. Sometimes good scripts can be heavily descriptive, even more prose-like in parts, but this is discouraged, and rarely results in strong scripts.
150 pages is rather long, especially for a film at this time. Arguably it would have fallen into the trap you mentioned - becoming a literary work on its own rather than something inherently filmable. I don't think any filmmaker in the 50s would have taken Fleming's script seriously unfortunately. It's interesting, no doubt, but if it was never released and I only had the MR novel, I wouldn't shed any tears.
Yes, the either/or is too stark. I'd like to know what Boyle/Hodge had done (even if mainly for curiosity's sake tbh), but the MR script is unpublished Fleming - come on!
To be fair the question was which one would you rather read if you had to pick... I'd personally be happy to read both if I could.
I'd also say that just because it's unpublished Fleming doesn't mean it's up to the writer's standards. Writers go through numerous drafts and abandon many projects within their careers. Often the latter is for a reason; they can't make it work, it's not up to publishable standards, it's simply not their best work etc. Having looked into it, the Moonraker script isn't even as much a 'what could have been' because it was never going to be made. It was likely not up to the standards of a usable screenplay because it was not Fleming's medium and was ignored for this reason. If MR had been commissioned for a film at this time, this script would not have been used and instead rewritten by a professional screenwriter.
I mean, if one wants to 'take a peek' and view Fleming's, or indeed any other author's, rough drafts or unpublished works, then fine. But it will be only for this - curiosity. Most of the time they won't be enjoyable to read or shed light on the author's published works. Speaking as someone who enjoys reading screenplays (often for films which were not made) if the script is unengaging or has noticeable problems which detract from the reading experience then that curiosity for 'what could have been' wears very thin. The Boyle/Hodge drafts, on the other hand, are certainly an indication of what could have been for Bond 25, and perhaps even give us clues as to why NTTD ended up being the way it did. They are also written by a professional screenwriter so will likely read better as scripts, which helps things.
I think Fleming wanted to be like Graham Greene and to lesser extent, Ernest Hemingway.
But unlike Greene and Hemingway, Fleming never got a chance to have a film that has a script written by him, he only wrote some but never filmed.
Fleming tried to write some scripts for films, he wrote novels and hoped that it would be filmed.
Graham Greene was also the same, probably the first before Fleming.
Graham Greene wrote a novel called The Man From Havana and after the novel has been published, he wrote the script for the film adaptation and have Carol Reed as the director.
Also Ernest Hemingway who was a writer who also wrote some screenplays and film adaptations.
Both Hemingway and Greene succeeded in these but Fleming never got a chance.
But at least his novels are adapted.
It's really interesting that it's not just Fleming, there so many authors who are also scriptwriters or screenplay writers.
To some extent; I think Fleming mostly wanted the books to be made into films/TV shows because of financial motivations- he tried to get it to happen for years. Nothing wrong with that, but scripts written by him were probably done so in order to get the thing made rather than any huge artistic reasons.
I get that. Still, I think among fans there's a tendency to assume that Fleming's unpublished work is all wonderful and this MR script would even potentially make a good basis for a future Bond film, when from what I can tell this will most likely not be the case. Sometimes when we pull back that curtain we can be disappointed with what we find. I guess this is why I'd personally rather read the Hodge/Boyle script when all is said and done.
That said, it'd be interesting to see if they ever released Fleming's script. Would the quality factor into a decision to ultimately not do so? Heck, would be interesting to see if we ever get released drafts of Boyle's Bond 25, which is more likely but further down the line.
Fleming was *desperate* to have his ideas made into films. That's why CR and MR originally went to other producers. That's why the TB process was such a mess, and the stress ultimately killed him.
Hollywood has chewed up and spit out many successful authors, most famously Fitzgerald. And look at West's The Day of the Locust.
But if we look at where the culture is headed now: are more people reading Greene or Hemingway...or watching a Bond film?
Fleming may have the last laugh, and he would certainly be happy to be getting the last dollar.
The ending of Skyfall was a high that seems all the more nostalgic after the endings of both it's sequels left me feeling a bit deflated as I left the cinema. The sky seemed like the limit; new MI6 regulars, references to past films for the 50th, Craig’s Bond seemingly on a new path. I liked many aspects of SP and especially NTTD, but in the end both disappointed me in that respect.
Thanks very much! I'm glad folks are still my enjoying my post, despite its punishing length. I had the same reaction after Skyfall--the series had completed its reboot and could ascend to a new plateau. When Blofeld's return was rumored in Spectre I was confident the filmmakers would triumphantly re-invent him--I said so on this very board. And now I owe an apology to every naysayer I criticized! Nor did I expect NTTD's more accurate titles would really be The Spectre Reclamation Project and Definitely Time To Die. I also liked many aspects of both films (NTTD more so than the lethargic SP) but I look forward to the series moving in another direction; hopefully a more rewarding one. Though they're very different films, MR and NTTD both represent the exhaustion of a certain approach to making Bond films. After both films it was impossible to take either approach any further.