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
If you're jealous that I'm a screenwriter there's not really much I can do to assuage that, other than to suggest you try it yourself.
I would agree. We have no hard evidence, just a flippant line that seems lost in translation to me. I'm not going to start berating the guy without seeing his contribution first.
Perhaps. But what's the purpose of this thread, if not to whip up a bit of hysteria? What's the inherrant virtue in placidly accepting everything that EON and Mendes do as necessarily correct? I for one much prefer a bit of overreaction to just sitting around lapping up the news tidbits that Mendes throws from the table, and insisting that everything is fine. Much more entertaining to blow the slightest bit of news out of all proportion.
It's a Bond fan site - it's only right and proper that we get some OTT reactions. And Butterworth's daft statement was certainly worthy of some heated comment.
Just joking @RC7. Don't take it too serious :-). I admire screenplay writers, because it's the basis of a very good movie. Therefore, for me, the Screenplay-Oscars (Adapted and Original) IMO are the most important Oscars.
Still one could argue that he has failed to deliver a great script since memento (which to me was his only really brilliant works). Take TDK - it is simply three quarters of an hour too long while TDKR is a completely bore fest.
There's a level, though, surely? I personally thought the Hinx casting call was more troubling than this, as it seemed to chime with the misplaced fanboy mentality Mendes showed glimpses of in SF. If anyone imagines Butterworth is going to trawl through a script and remove "conversations with men", I think you need to relax. Stupid comment? Yes, taken at face value, but this guy is a talented writer who I'm pretty confident would ably justify his take on Bond given a platform to do so.
Agree he hasn't written anthing particularly good for a while. Thought the concept for Incpetion was reasonably interesting though, even if the screenplay is may be not all that.
I don't think it's dreadful but it was very disappointing, I love TDK personally it has it's short comings but I can't help but be thrilled by it when I see it but I love Skyfall so go figure.
You're probably right actually. I remember quite enjoying it at the cinema, but haven't seen it since. Bond screenplays have been bad to mediocre since Richard Maibaum did his last one. You'd have thought EON and Mendes would have found a way to fix this but apparently not. I was glad when it was announced P+W had left the series, but not that excited about them being replaced by Logan. And then P+W came back, and now we have Butterworth making idiotic comments that remind me of Mendes's belief that his masterstroke in SF was bringing back the DB5 for the umpteenth time.
It's that narrow fanboy mentality - the misguided idea that Bond has to drive the DB5 (with ejector seat) and doesn't chat to men because he's too busy killing them - that worries me most right now. It has too many echoes of the Brosnan era. Bond movies by checklist.
Problem is that I think P+W are very au fait with Fleming but that in itself does not guarantee anything.
I liked TDKR, but strongly disliked some aspects of it. Like having Batman retire, for instance. For a Batman 4, if there ever is one, I hope they ditch the last film and follow tjene first two, which I think were great.
Anyway I'm off topic. I admire Nolan, but he's too much of a megalomaniac now for Bond.
One focussed entirely on office politics at MI6 perhaps? Lots of screentime for M, Moneypenny and Tanner.
Or one about Bond on his time off - enjoying a wine tour or working on his golf swing.
No. Not unless they want to make short film, an atypical one like Fleming sometimes wrote short stories. But a Bond film needs a villain and a Bond girl.
But then it's also hard to assess P+W's impact on the films. They get a lot of stick for their contribution, but they provided the blueprint for the best Bond film of the last 40 years when they were allowed to rip up the formula. This is helped by the fact it was helmed by a man who was born to direct Bond movies, refusing to allow his ego to impact on the finished product.
It's no guarantee of anything, but if a writer has a grasp of Fleming, not specifics, but the richness of his prose and the ambience of the world he creates, I'd say that's a firmer starting point than an amalgamation of cinematic nostalgia.
You are entitled to this opinion. And I agree that a perfect screenplay, with a masterfully executed plot, is the starting point of a good film. I said it myself in the previous post.
But it's not all. In the end the public decides. THEY are the ones who "decide" on the total package of a film; what their overall impression is they have on that film, what feelings it conveys.
Taking that into account, you are, pure technically, right about the plot/screenplay's of "Skyfall" and "The Dark Knight". But a movie experience is even more so about feelings and emotions. So there must be quite a lot of elements that counterweighted the lack of plot. Acting, charisma of the actor, underlying central themes, drama, near spot-on characterization, good dialogues and conversations. Those elements must have had a very dominant effect on the total movie experience. And I believe that was the case with TDK and SF.
Despite all the technical criticism on plot (and plotholes), apparently people loved those two movies. What more proof do you need? You know the ratings (set in stone), you know the box office figures, you know polls in this forum.
So it puts your black-and-white criticism on screenplays, luckily, into perspective. Because I think it's not that black-and-white and extensively technical. It's more "grey", it's about the total package. For me, and with me a lot of people, SF and TDK worked. For you it didn't. If I have to be black-and-white on one thing, than it has to be the fact that if you wrote a review on Rottentomatoes (critic's choice) or if you posted your rating on IMDB (people's choice), you would be part of a clear minority of people disliking both SF and TDK.
And I know you won't give "a rats ass" about such ratings. Ratings are not always proof, but they at least tell something. My point: It really is about the "global movie experiences" both films conveyed. And then the lack of a "spot-on screenplay/plot" doesn't necessarily translate in a bad movie experience or reviews that show disappointment and anger. "The writings are on the wall" (007 in "GoldenEye") :-).
But it isn't that simple. The cinematic Bond is not always the literary Bond. I would like to have a writer who knows both: Knowledge of Ian Fleming's source material and cinematic experience, in that he knows how to "sell" the film to people. Because a movie foremost is different than a book. You are visually helped and entertained, while with a book you need to use your fantasy more extensively.
If you take into account all the possibilities at dream scenario gives you it is actually quite easy to write a surprising/suspenseful script around it. That's what made the nightmare on elm street movies such a treat. I enjoyed most about inception its bond like looks and landscapes, the rest to me was rather pseudo clever.
P.S.: I also question your use of the word objectively.
You think it's "quite easy" to write a screenplay like Inception? Seriously? Give it a go.
As much as I agree with you on many things I really have to repeat that I think you're doing them gross injustice . The only script they were allowed to work alone (= not falling victim to certain directors and writers vision) TWINE is still the last logically sound script of the franchise and also a story on the height of its time that doesn't need to copy story developments and plot of older movies
And yes, I wouldn't hold much faith in any film ratings websites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB. I would hazard to guess that there are not many films greenlit because their creators got top trumps on a website predicated on rotting vegatation. Their stats count for very little apart from hindsight and what the perceived opinions are from movie reviewers playing the publicity game.
@Gustav_Graves, I very much agree with you, and of course it's a very subjective matter. I fully acknowledge that most people loved SF. Some people saw faults but just felt that overall it just 'worked'. That is definitely a valid explanation of why sometimes a film with perhaps a not great screenplay actually becomes something much bigger and better on screen - great directing, acting, themes, production design and music. I wish I saw SF the same way, but just don't. But I completely accept your point.
I suppose my own equivalent would be QoS. I can see a lot of faults in it, but overall I just think it works. Not that I think it's a classic - I just think it's better than it's often made out to be.
People also love Transformer,Twilight, American Pie and what else garbage. So? Does this make them good? I don't think so!
I said my ideal scenario is to hire a writer who is au fait with Fleming, rather than someone who attacks it from a cinematic perspective. One would expect a screenwriter to know how to write for the screen, that is their job, but a writer who can embody the essence of Fleming is more appealing to me than one who wants to write from the perspective of an eight year old cinema goer. There's obviously crossover, but at a base level a decent writer will want to deliver a blueprint they know will have visual and narrative impact. It's ultimately the director who has to "sell" the story. The writer provides the recipe and the director delivers the finished product, unless they are one and the same.
So....you've answered your own question :-). Well done!
I totally agree. I am no Fleming expert, but I think I know enough to realise that those early Connery movies probably come as close to capturing the essence of Fleming best of all. On reading MR I was really struck by how the Dr No film just seems to 'get' it right from the start. I'd argue that Barry and Ken Adam were an essential part of that success as well though.
I do think the production design and music are two of the magic ingredients that have not quite been on target for a long time.