› ›

Time to get rid of Purvis and Wade?

12357…11

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Wouldn't mind seeing what Joel Schumacher could do with a Bond flick. Just kidding1

    That just makes me think of the fake nipple from The Man With The Golden Gun. [-(
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Bring back CHrispher Wood.

    Lets see what he can do with a more serious Bond.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited June 2012 Posts: 11,425
    I was trying to think of a current script writer who can actually string a sentence together and tell a story. Aaron Sorkin to write, any one? His dialogue is excellent by current standards and he would bring in quality humour that did not rely on bad one-liners and sight gags.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    The more I think about it the more it makes me angry that this pair are still hanging around. It's time these dimwits were dumped. For good!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited September 2012 Posts: 24,188
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Wouldn't mind seeing what Joel Schumacher could do with a Bond flick. Just kidding1
    Don't even joke about that.

    The mere thought frightens me. :(
    Getafix wrote:
    The more I think about it the more it makes me angry that this pair are still hanging around. It's time these dimwits were dumped. For good!

    It should have happened after TWINE.
    Getafix wrote:
    I was trying to think of a current script writer who can actually string a sentence together and tell a story. Aaron Sorkin to write, any one? His dialogue is excellent by current standards and he would bring in quality humour that did not rely on bad one-liners and sight gags.

    Maybe yes. Sorkin is a talented guy.

    Seriously, I'd rather have Kevin Smith write another Bond screenplay than P&W.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Time to get rid of Purvis and Wade!

    Time to hire Logan and Morgan!
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    what exactly are they required for? teaching new writers the format to a jb film?
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited September 2012 Posts: 4,521
    After CR > Lindy Hemming / Peter Lamont
    After QOS > David Arnold
    After Skyfall > Judi Dench ?

    After Bond 25 > Daniel Craig ?

    After Bond 24 > Pervis and Wade ?
  • oo7oo7
    edited September 2012 Posts: 1,068
    who really cares, skyfall might be suitable interesting as it supposedly deviates from formula. though in saying that it just means james bond goes rogue. which has happened 10 times now? i thinkevery second film he is going rogue. i wonder how many times hes faked his own death...prehaps once in each film....so when i really think about it whats it matter who leaves the same formula will play out
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    You'd think after Die Another Day, Babs and Michael would have given them the boot and fed them to the piranhas. Their writing for Bond is very generic, predictable and fan-fiction grade.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    i think outside of the type of people who are on these boards not that many people would know that they stopped making the books into films years ago... even pierce was not sure how many there were
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    M_Balje wrote:
    After CR > Lindy Hemming / Peter Lamont
    After QOS > David Arnold
    After Skyfall > Judi Dench ?

    After Bond 25 > Daniel Craig ?

    After Bond 24 > Pervis and Wade ?

    Classic Balje!!!! Much as I despise P & W even I think that a Hemming/Lamont writing tag team might not be that brilliant. That said if it got rid of the unsackable clowns (theres a film title there - I'm going to start workign on a plot outline) I would be preapred to give it a try.

    After intially thinking a modern update of Sherlock Holmes would be diabolical and then seeing what they did with it and how faithful they were to the character I'm coming round to the thought that Moffat and Gatiss have to be given the job sooner rather than later. They might need a bit of supervision that they dont camp it up too much into Roger territory but I'm sure they would piss all over P&Ws spewings at the very least.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    Maybe before getting rid of them shoot em in the ass!
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    This is the same thing with hiring top-flight directors on Bond films instead of these...less than talented fellows. The Broccolis are either too cheap or not willing to give up control of the franchise to more talented people.

    Let the Coen Brothers write a Bond film for Ridley Scott to direct, for example, but that's not gonna happen.

    We're stuck with these guys.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited September 2012 Posts: 11,425
    What mysterious hold do these ex Status Quo roadies have over Babs and MGW. Do they have a copy of some video of MGW in a compromising situation? There is no way to explain the continued involvement of these muppets. Seriously there is better writing talent on this site.
  • WhatwouldrogerdoWhatwouldrogerdo
    Posts: 69
    Ha ha just discovered this post and have been thinking the same thing for years. Even bringing in talent like Paul Haggis and John Logan hasnt made these two get the hint.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Look at them, all they have to do is just stare into MGW and Babs soul and there hooked.
    NealPurvisRobertWade.jpg
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited September 2012 Posts: 11,425
    They look like total muppets. Would love to see them sacked and then given henchmen cameos in the next movie so that Bond can kill them off and get revenge for years of awful scripts. This time it really would be personal.

    Need to come up with an appropriate one liner.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited September 2012 Posts: 14,596
    Getafix wrote:
    They look like total muppets.
    You have to give them points for going back and re-reading all the Fleming novels.

    http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width_scaled/hash/b7/02/b70241c3a9ab178bbf8dbe06f06f691b.jpg
  • TPM007TPM007
    edited September 2012 Posts: 183
    The thing with Purvis and Wade is that the only time their script has any 'good-ness' in is when someone has helped them (Paul Haggis, Bruce Feirstein, John Logan). When left to their own devices you get lines like -

    "I'm Mister Kil." "Now there's a name to die for"
    or
    "Who sent you?" "Yo mama!"

    Now I know a lot of people will disagree with me here when I say I think the remake of The Italian Job was a surprisingly good movie. However, Purvis and Wade were originally hired to write it, but the script was terrible and were let go by Paramount (Their names are still on some promotional posters). God knows what mess the film was in before Donna and Wayne Powers stepped in.
    I just think that these two have a very good relationship with EON and EON are afraid to (to paraphrase Mr Dalton) give them the boot.
  • dchantrydchantry
    Posts: 278
    not sure why Eon would be afraid to give them the boot, they did it with Brosnan after he just made the most succesful Bond movie ever. Irrespective of the reasons (which have proven just) that takes balls.
    Personally, I think P+W come up with the plot brief and then it goes out to others to put real meat on the bones.
    That given, they should have been booted after the mess that was plot of QoS.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Here's a couple of interviews with them.

    Before DAD's Release.
    http://www.hmss.com/films/dad/p&w/

    After CR's Release.
    http://www.hmss.com/films/casinoroyale/interview/
  • wildboonjivewildboonjive
    Posts: 299
    I'll share something some of you might find interesting. About three years ago myself and two friends met Purvis & Wade. We started asking them about Casino Royale, and in particular, how much involvement Paul Haggis had had on the script. Though I found them to be pleasant chaps, on this point Wade got very defensive and quite stern. He made it a point to tell us how the script was practically entierly theirs, and that Haggis had just worked on a scene or two. He was quite firm about it.

    Naturally, what was he going to say? Anything less than that would've been an easy way to put his foot in his mouth. However, his passion on the subject struck me somewhat, and I guess there's always a chance that we'll never fully know how exactly it was all done.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited September 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I like 2 of Purvis and Wades Bond films, TWINE and CR. Both of those films had different writers helping them.

    The only time they were the only credited writers of a Bond film was DAD. That should tell us all we need to know about them.

    I really hope they get new writers for Bond 24.
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Shark wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    TWINE is a great film...

    Now I've read it all.

    Maybe not. According to @thelivingroyale, Never Say Never Again is Connery's best.

    Ah that was when I was on my NSNA craze. I still enjoy it but now I think TB, YOLT and FRWL are better Connery films.

    I still think TWINE is great though. Honestly don't understand why it gets so much criticism.
  • TPM007TPM007
    Posts: 183
    wildboonjive wrote:
    I'll share something some of you might find interesting. About three years ago myself and two friends met Purvis & Wade. We started asking them about Casino Royale, and in particular, how much involvement Paul Haggis had had on the script. Though I found them to be pleasant chaps, on this point Wade got very defensive and quite stern. He made it a point to tell us how the script was practically entierly theirs, and that Haggis had just worked on a scene or two. He was quite firm about it.

    Naturally, what was he going to say? Anything less than that would've been an easy way to put his foot in his mouth. However, his passion on the subject struck me somewhat, and I guess there's always a chance that we'll never fully know how exactly it was all done.

    That is interesting. Perhaps he's sick of Haggis getting most of the credit for the film, because lets face it, he does, and probably will for a long time, and that's simply because of Purvis and Wade's reputation since DAD. The only way to redeem themselves is to write a damn good script, without anyone else attached. Then they'll get more credit where credit's due.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    TPM007 wrote:
    wildboonjive wrote:
    I'll share something some of you might find interesting. About three years ago myself and two friends met Purvis & Wade. We started asking them about Casino Royale, and in particular, how much involvement Paul Haggis had had on the script. Though I found them to be pleasant chaps, on this point Wade got very defensive and quite stern. He made it a point to tell us how the script was practically entierly theirs, and that Haggis had just worked on a scene or two. He was quite firm about it.

    Naturally, what was he going to say? Anything less than that would've been an easy way to put his foot in his mouth. However, his passion on the subject struck me somewhat, and I guess there's always a chance that we'll never fully know how exactly it was all done.

    That is interesting. Perhaps he's sick of Haggis getting most of the credit for the film, because lets face it, he does, and probably will for a long time, and that's simply because of Purvis and Wade's reputation since DAD. The only way to redeem themselves is to write a damn good script, without anyone else attached. Then they'll get more credit where credit's due.

    And that's never gonna happen.

    They're not even good at coming up with new stories, let alone fleshing them out.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    QBranch wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    They look like total muppets.
    You have to give them points for going back and re-reading all the Fleming novels.

    http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width_scaled/hash/b7/02/b70241c3a9ab178bbf8dbe06f06f691b.jpg

    I would be seriously shocked if they had not actually read the books. That said, if this was the sole qualification for scripting a Bond film then half the members on here could have got the job.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/park-chan-wook-signs-on-to-direct-a-black-list-script-by-a-pair-of-bond-screenwriters-called-corsica-72
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    oo7 wrote:
    http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/park-chan-wook-signs-on-to-direct-a-black-list-script-by-a-pair-of-bond-screenwriters-called-corsica-72

    Wouldnt mind him having a crack at a Bond film actually - very good director.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,218
    I really would love to know who they paid off to get the job in the first place. I'm not having a go at their writing but they literally did come from almost nowhere to writing these films. It's even weirder when you look at their IMDb credits and there's only one proper feature length film script to their name.
Sign In or Register to comment.