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
Don't forget Moonraker, the Star Wars Bond.
I’ve said this about SP, which had to hold the brunt of being the most recent film for six years. Now it is NTTD’s turn, for however long.
It's true that whatever Bond film is "on deck" as most recent Bond film exposes itself to extreme scrutiny. People were probably very upset with OHMSS that Lazenby was Bond, and that he was undercover as Bray for the entire film.
That’s what I keep saying. The problem with Horowitz is that he thinks Bond belongs in the past. EON more than likely won’t agree with that approach. Otherwise I’d say a big YES to him. Either adapting one of his books or writing a original screenplay.
Unfortunately yes.
Biggest problem within the series, those two, IMO.
I meant P&W, of course.
I got yelled and downright bullied by a fan on another Bond site for suggesting that they take a break from the series. If people want Bond to move forward with the times, these two need to be left behind. They criticized me for saying that it may be best they take a break and gave me a lecture on how they were not too blame. True to a degree, but the writing department needs to change.
Not to blame? They start their writing process by reading scientific magazines (nowadays must be youtube videos, I'm sure), then they start to build it from some stupid ideia like a diamond powered sun laser from outer space, then they throw some stupid innuendos and some check list memorabilia from other films in the cannon, then they throw in the kitchen sink and throw out the baby with the bath water... They are cringeworthy bad writers, and the only reason they keep them around is because they can manipulate them whatever and whenever they want to.
Now, is this mostly pure conjecture from my part? Yes.
Still dislike them.
;)
Yes, but move on FROM what, TO what?
I wonder if it might be best for Bond fandom to move on from finding P&W the root of all problems with modern Bond films. Maybe fixate on the directors chosen? Perhaps blame everything on Brosnan and/or Craig? Or even go directly to the top & gripe about everyone at Eon Productions (hopefully without going all sexist on Barbara Broccoli for the crime of being born a woman)?
Or maybe, just maybe, we can look at everyone who's ever taken a shot at writing Bond post-Fleming... movies, books, comics, EVERYone everywhere... and realize that it's not all that easy to continue the adventures of the world's most famous secret agent without in some way disappointing a large portion of a very large audience.
If you want to say, "Hey, let's bring in some fresh blood," then sure, that's understandable. But it seems like P&W have become everybody's favorite whipping boys around here... and I for one would like to thank them for their efforts at helping keep the franchise solvent for the last several decades.
Nicely said @BeatlesSansEarmuffs … It’s hard to write a great script; it gets more challenging under a deadline…. Add on that there are 60 years and 25 films behind the next film and the job is not for the faint of heart.
These two writers know their Fleming and at least have the knowledge and talent to kickstart the blueprint for the upcoming era. There will always be co-writers (and uncredited script writers along for the ride).
No one sets out to make a bad film, no matter the genre and making a film shot on a phone, or a $200 million spectacle, it’s a true team game.
100% agreed.
Very well written scripts have turned into terrible films (one of my favourite scripts was a comedy called Last First Kiss. It was high IQ writing: witty, charming, tight. In the end it became a Will Smith vehicle called Hitch- a vomit-inducing film. Plenty more films that begin with a beautiful script end with films that are clunkers.
And plenty of terrible scripts have turned around and become excellent films (early drafts of a terrible script called Star Beast turned into Alien)….
P&W have worked with teams of writers and uncredited script doctors. Yet sole blame goes to these two?
Like I said, they know their Fleming and I certainly think they have value to kickstart a blue print for the new era. They’ve been a steady hand for the producers, and behind the scenes I’m sure they are very valuable to the productions they’ve worked on.
It’s not as cut as dry as waving a magic wand and viola, the perfect script emerges. Especially on huge tent pole films such as Bond. As we saw with the Sony leaks: on big budget films, there are many fingers in the pie.
Get rid of P&W and new writers will come against the same challenges and obstacles…
You'd think that would be a good thing, but with deadlines.....not so much.
Even many of the story ideas in TWINE, a Bond film I genuinely hate, were repackaged and adapted differently in SF, which is personally one of my favourite Bond films. Peter Morgan didn't gel with P&W seemingly because he was interested in crafting a more Le-Carre type script, while P&W preffered to evoke elements of Fleming more. Honestly, that's the sort of stuff I give them credit for, and does genuinely give me some faith in them. Even the weirder ideas of the Craig era are not credited to P&W (wasn't Bond knowing Blofeld as a child MGW's idea? And indeed Bond dying at the end of NTTD the producers'?)
Did they really say that? :))
https://screenrant.com/james-bond-movie-writers-jason-bourne-music-process/
:-O
:P Just answering to the topic here.
Die another day was supposed to be to moonraker as Casino Royale 2006 was to well Casino Royale 1953
Honestly I don’t get the hate for Purvis and Wade and I wonder what would happen if they had a script that wasn’t screwed over by a director
I think the hate for them is down to two things. First, they started off with 2 of the generally worst films. In their defense, their scripts were greatly changed by other people. Second, they never seem to take a break. Even Richard Maibaum took a film off every once in a while! And the three films proved that Bond didn’t need Maibaum to survive. If P & W took a film off, then we could see if our criticism is justified. I’m happy with most of their ideas, but I think at the bare minimum, a one film break from them is what everyone needs.
Actually I think it was Lodge who went over P&W's script for SF. Originally Peter Morgan was commissioned but left pretty soon after. It's debatable how much of the finished script can be attributed to him, and he himself claims that the big hook of the film came from himself, although others including Mendes have denied this. P&W have also openly said Morgan was more steeped in Le Carre whereas they were more inspired by Fleming.
It does seem the core ideas came from P&W - the idea of Silva targeting M for revenge (which is a premise not dissimilar to the one in TWINE), Bond being presumed dead and injured (again, the latter of which is similar to TWINE), Scotland/Bond's home being the location of the climax etc.
I find their Bond scripts bloated and busting at the seams. And sometimes dense with descriptions (the art of film writing is to use as little words as possible to create imagery).
However, writing a spec and writing on assignment are two separate beasts: the producers have hired you so the craftsmanship and artistry are not necessarily needed. The bosses just want the story.
So it’s hard to judge how good they are as craftsman-writers.
One thing for sure is, they know Fleming and are able to incorporate his spirit into their scripts. And I believe these scripts may be bloated because they know that this series is a producer-driven and director-driven medium, so the bloat is about giving the director as much as possible to work with.
And they also know that once the director takes over, it’s his vision that goes on the screen. He can hire new writers, or take his own pen to the story. Once filming begins , he can cut any scene(s), he wants, and get entirely new scenes written on the spot. He may use new locations; cut characters… Amalgamate other characters; change day to night; change a setting from one place to another… (and once you change one thing in a script, there is a domino effect).
In editing he and the editor can assemble a film that’s of an entirely different tone and even structure from the original script. So here’s where EoN may see much value in this duo’s work: they’re able to supply many scenes, and then some, for the director to then use as he sees fit to support his vision.
I also suspect they write with speed (not some writers forte— although I know of a certain writer/director on this site that is one of the lucky ones: he writes beautifully and with speed (ahem, @ColonelSun), and; can be called on in a pinch to solve problems.
These aren’t so much as artistically written scripts as they are material for a director to make a Bond picture. Which is a difficult assignment unto itself.
A spec script, on the other hand, is a showcase of skill, artistry and craftsmanship because you’re trying to catch the attention of the producers— something I’m sure P&W had to do many times prior to their Bond gig…
This isn’t an easy job (writing for 007), and likely has many many challenges. I wouldn’t be surprised (nor upset), if EoN went back to these guys to kickstart the next era (but there will be other writers involved at some point— whether credited or uncredited).