Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Bruce Feirstein's 'Bond 18' script discussion
http://www.universalexports.net/scripts/tnd.pdf
This makes really interesting reading. The final Roger Spottiswoode product by far exceeds the rather generic (and slightly dull) Feirstein draft. what's clear is that the film really utilized this draft and actually crafted something far superior, while TND is far from perfect this draft proves that a lot worse was initially planned.
Here's some of my thoughts for those who don't feel bothered to trawl through the whole thing:
- The opening is great. The pre-titles are well structured and each segment (Bond climbing, the arms bazzaar and the dog fight) would have indivudally made great openings and all together really kick the thing off really well. It's a shame the opening on the mountain-climb was never filmed it would have been an amazing tense opener that would have really topped GE's dam jump. Hopefully future Bond movies could use it.
-The actual structure of the script is awful. After the pre-titles Bond is is given his mission by M and he discovers that he needs to investigate Stamper and Yung; he then heads to Venice and meets Paris Harmway at a masked-ball party. The masked-ball scene is great, I'd have loved it be be used; it reminded me of something Hitchcock would have done. However, the entire first act of the script is useless. Bond achieves nothing. we have a feeble introduction to the villain and the girls dies - that's it - there's no plot and not story. The funny thing is as soon as Paris dies, we then cut to the HMS Devonshire (or whatever its called in the script) crashing and soon after Bond is back in London getting briefed by M. But hang on...didn't we just do all of this earlier? The second act of the film practically re-starts the movie and this time actually remembers to introduce some plot, essentially rendering the entire first act redundant (theres even a great introudction for Harmsway in act 2). Furthermore throughout the 2nd act there is hardly any Bond and the main Bond girl dosen't actually turn up in the script till near the end of the second act and essentially does nothing throughout the script. This makes it all very difficult to give a shit about her.
-The script (and even the movie to an extend) is really a cookie-cutter Bond film. It feels like its been written by the accountants. It really is rather episodic, it plays like a tv show with high production-values. There is no jeporady that makes the audience really want to partake in the character's journey, it just seems like another day in the office for Bond. The whole film feels like an excuse to push the Bond brand further opposed to forcing the character into any interesting direction. it's what SF did well; it told a story that felt necessary opposed to merely being made to keep the dollars coming in. There's an awful scene with the new Q a guy called Saunders, an even worse scene with the original Q and all Carver's villainous scenes are lifted straight from Blofeld's antics from the Connery days. The script is a cliché ridden mess and undoes a lot of the good work done with the Timothy Dalton films and Campbell's GE. Furthermore Feirstein has written some really bad campy action sequences that really feel like they belong to the Roger Moore- Moonraker era. In fact the whole script reads like a bad MR type affair.
-Bond does literally nothing. He just makes glib throwaway lines that are really cringeworthy. I know, I know, that's his thing but in this script it's literally ALL he does. He just sits and witnesses all the stuff happening around him. He's completely stagnant throughout the entire movie and has absolutely no character development. If I was Pierce and read this script I would be so angry. Bond has literally nothing to do. He's the least interesting character in the movie, even the dismal Sidney Winch is more interesting. There's a vague attempt at giving him an arch with the introduction of Paris but the pair spend literally no time together and even then it's not enough for the audience to actually care when M warns Bond not to treat this mission as one of personal vengeance (there's a lot of potential in the relationship with Bond and Paris that is squandered). It seems such a shame after GE - which actually made Bond an interesting man in a new post-Cold War world.
-Carver (or shall we cay Harmsway) is actually a rather good villain in both the script even if his plot is nonsensical.
Anyway, I encourage people to give it a read and I look forward to reading your reviews.
This makes really interesting reading. The final Roger Spottiswoode product by far exceeds the rather generic (and slightly dull) Feirstein draft. what's clear is that the film really utilized this draft and actually crafted something far superior, while TND is far from perfect this draft proves that a lot worse was initially planned.
Here's some of my thoughts for those who don't feel bothered to trawl through the whole thing:
- The opening is great. The pre-titles are well structured and each segment (Bond climbing, the arms bazzaar and the dog fight) would have indivudally made great openings and all together really kick the thing off really well. It's a shame the opening on the mountain-climb was never filmed it would have been an amazing tense opener that would have really topped GE's dam jump. Hopefully future Bond movies could use it.
-The actual structure of the script is awful. After the pre-titles Bond is is given his mission by M and he discovers that he needs to investigate Stamper and Yung; he then heads to Venice and meets Paris Harmway at a masked-ball party. The masked-ball scene is great, I'd have loved it be be used; it reminded me of something Hitchcock would have done. However, the entire first act of the script is useless. Bond achieves nothing. we have a feeble introduction to the villain and the girls dies - that's it - there's no plot and not story. The funny thing is as soon as Paris dies, we then cut to the HMS Devonshire (or whatever its called in the script) crashing and soon after Bond is back in London getting briefed by M. But hang on...didn't we just do all of this earlier? The second act of the film practically re-starts the movie and this time actually remembers to introduce some plot, essentially rendering the entire first act redundant (theres even a great introudction for Harmsway in act 2). Furthermore throughout the 2nd act there is hardly any Bond and the main Bond girl dosen't actually turn up in the script till near the end of the second act and essentially does nothing throughout the script. This makes it all very difficult to give a shit about her.
-The script (and even the movie to an extend) is really a cookie-cutter Bond film. It feels like its been written by the accountants. It really is rather episodic, it plays like a tv show with high production-values. There is no jeporady that makes the audience really want to partake in the character's journey, it just seems like another day in the office for Bond. The whole film feels like an excuse to push the Bond brand further opposed to forcing the character into any interesting direction. it's what SF did well; it told a story that felt necessary opposed to merely being made to keep the dollars coming in. There's an awful scene with the new Q a guy called Saunders, an even worse scene with the original Q and all Carver's villainous scenes are lifted straight from Blofeld's antics from the Connery days. The script is a cliché ridden mess and undoes a lot of the good work done with the Timothy Dalton films and Campbell's GE. Furthermore Feirstein has written some really bad campy action sequences that really feel like they belong to the Roger Moore- Moonraker era. In fact the whole script reads like a bad MR type affair.
-Bond does literally nothing. He just makes glib throwaway lines that are really cringeworthy. I know, I know, that's his thing but in this script it's literally ALL he does. He just sits and witnesses all the stuff happening around him. He's completely stagnant throughout the entire movie and has absolutely no character development. If I was Pierce and read this script I would be so angry. Bond has literally nothing to do. He's the least interesting character in the movie, even the dismal Sidney Winch is more interesting. There's a vague attempt at giving him an arch with the introduction of Paris but the pair spend literally no time together and even then it's not enough for the audience to actually care when M warns Bond not to treat this mission as one of personal vengeance (there's a lot of potential in the relationship with Bond and Paris that is squandered). It seems such a shame after GE - which actually made Bond an interesting man in a new post-Cold War world.
-Carver (or shall we cay Harmsway) is actually a rather good villain in both the script even if his plot is nonsensical.
Anyway, I encourage people to give it a read and I look forward to reading your reviews.
^ 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
It would seem that way. But the footchase in QOS was also inspired by the omitted rooftop chase from OHMSS.
But the chase in QOS is punchy and rather brutal (if not disorientating) all the stuff with the cape and the big thugs crashing through roofs of muesuems in the TND script is so absurd and sounds like a Roger Moore fight. I'm starting to think the big enemies of the Brosnan era may have been Feristien and Tamahori.
Also, the PTS before the gunbarrel? Hmm...
We have seen the whole film happen from the exposition to resolution before the gun barrel, so I don't think that is so unusual.
That's the best review of the script I think we're going to get.
It does read like a fan fiction. It's full of cliches, the 'number 1' thing is really the tip of the iceberg. All Carver's early scenes are essentially ripped off from Goldfinger's fallout with Mr Solo and Blofeld's brief cameo from TB. Also the film is packed with awkward GE references which just feel a bit reheated and stale.