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
Source? Not saying this isn’t the case. I just have never heard this before. The producers quite clearly have enjoyed working with P&W. However well the final product comes out, the Fleming aficionados among the fan base should find some comfort in knowing that P&W know Fleming well and always try to go back to Fleming. That I think is a better foundation than a writer who perhaps would not.
My source was the book Some Kind of Hero by Matthew Field and Ajay Chowdhury. Casino Royale chapter. My apologies for not putting it in my earlier post.
Thanks! I haven't made it to all of that tome yet. It certainly has a great wealth of information.
They know Fleming well, yet don't know how to adapt Fleming well, as was the case with the utilisation (or lack of it) with YOLT in NTTD, or TMWTGG in SF. Not sure if they have tried to fully adapt Fleming scenes like Maibaum used to do, but are then overruled by committee.
+1
Knowing Fleming well makes them ideal consultants - not necessarily good writers
in my opinion he does not.
On Neal Purvis and Robert Wade’s watch, the secret agent has become a parent, grown his hair and even alluded to gay experiences. It even rains in Bond films now. But after the ending of No Time to Die, even they don’t know what happens next
Here’s another reason to get rid of them.
It's so barely visible as to be unclear as to whether it is/has been raining though.
That's not a reason, no.
Thank you.
You can edit posts by using the edit function, by pressing the cog ⚙️ on the top right side of your post.
I guess Martin Campbell tried to get them fired from the movie. He wanted stronger material, apparently.
Overall I feel they were good for the franchise
I like the world is not enough
Has tamjori left the original script alone many would of loved die another day
Casino Royale and Quantum are fantastic ( I would of preferred they use the character names from the short story quantum of solace but oh well)
Skyfall is good not great
And Spectre I made my comments above
No time to die (did they get credit on that script) well the issue is I am not sure who wrote that one but the ending is bad but I lay blame at Daniel Craig for that one
When it comes to P&W, they ran out of ideas, let P&W rest for a while, refresh some new and unique ideas, then when they're ready then why not? Hire them back.
They won't anymore. I presume.
Although they wouldn't do this (since it makes no sense as Craig will have nothing to do with the production of any upcoming Bond films), I'd love them to stick his name on the credits to watch heads explode, 👍!!
Woah!
You're right: screenwriters can improve on what the storywriters delivered -- or didn't -- or mess it up. And yet I can't shake the akward feeling that P&W struggle with inventing cohesive and original stories. I bet TWINE has something to do with my 'bias'. That story is so weak, in my opinion; so terrifyingly amateurish, in fact, that I have been questioning these fellas' skills since day 1.
I'm probably wrong, at least in the sense that some historic blunders in films like TWINE and DAD are as much the result of poor decisions by other people (e.g. director) than they are theirs. I guess I'm a little quick sometimes to blame these two.
Still, I can't seem to change my mind about P&W. For over two decades now, I've been seeing them as the weakest link in the production of 7 Bond films, 5 of which, I must confess, I really like or even absolutely love.
Agree with you 100%. They should take a break from the series for at least a film or two. Then, we can find out if they are truly fair to criticize.
Absolutely. A small break might do them some good, and (dis)prove my point. Plenty of fish in the sea; except, of course, that the producers like to work with "their" people, which I get and which is fine. But that shouldn't stop them from dipping their toes in different pools. Who knows, someone with fresh ideas might be able to spearhead the next phase, and in a welcome new direction.
And if that doesn't happen, then, at least, the screenwriters should be selected with the greatest care.
How do we feel about the actor who plays Bond having something to say about the script? To my knowledge, Craig has been the only one so far who's actively gotten involved. Actors can have good ideas; as they live and breathe a character, they may end up understanding said character better than anyone else. Then again, Bond has been around for nearly 70 years. Many folks understand him well enough. (Also, is there really all that much to understand about Bond? I get the feeling that many fans prefer Bond as "the guy who does things" rather than as a complicated character whose inner feelings we simply must uncover over the span of several films.) Perhaps I prefer the lead actor to be some sort of gatekeeper, someone who says "no" when others are trying to take a hard turn left or right with the character. I believe Dalton, in some way, was that gatekeeper, demanding that Bond return to Fleming rather than to MR territory.
I hope it doesn't happen again, after the mess that was the second half of NTTD.
That was Craig's stipulation, wasn't it? Another guy might bring a different perspective.