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
As you perhaps know, Forster wanted to have the four elements in the movie, and he also wanted to have a feeling behind everything. Something that P&W didn't had in their script.
Well bashing the heck out of the new guys is tradition. Every time we (the fans) do it and every time we walk out (on the large part) of the cinema we're happy.
Heck its not just bond, Doctor Who fans were saying that Tennant and Smith (especially the later) would ruin the role, and now they are (almost) universally loved.
That's a bit premature, considering we don't know how well Logan's work will contribute to the franchise. Fan fiction? They've only solely written two Bond films together where all their material was used, one was solid and the other was great, so that's a bit too harsh.
It's just my opinion. 8-|
I know, I apologise. I'm just curious to know why you think so. They've only done one original story, and I thought it was rather good. So I'm just curious as to why you think they should be removed? 8-|
Many people said that they "Get" what Bond is about but I heavily disagree. Now my Morgan and Logan opinion may seem premature but from what I know and have seen from Skyfall It's going to be a winner for sure. Morgan's Hook for Skyfall is still part of the film and Logan has a good background. Purvis and Wade came out of nowhere. But the previous Bond writers were all known and very successful before they had a go at Bond.
That is my reasons behind my opinions. I may be wrong on some parts but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Well for a testament to their story skills I think The World is Not Enough is a good example. This is where they had sole control over everything, and despite the odd hammy line here and there, it's a pretty good script in my opinion.
Die Another Day, the majority of the worst parts were conceived by Tamahori, you're right. (Including the CGI Parasailing, which wasn't even in the original script, and the invisible car.) They did go overboard on the sex puns, but that's one of a few problems with Die Another Day.
The thing is with Casino Royale, all the bad dialogue came from Haggis, including the "I'm yours" speech, which is just as bad as anything from the Moore/Brosnan era. Purvis and Wade did a fantastic job updating the story to a modern setting,
Everybody knows what happened with Quantum. Purvis and Wade didn't actually write the script, they just conceived the story outline.
Don't get me wrong, it's great that people like Logan and Morgan are interested in Bond, but I think Purvis and Wade have done a reasonably good job with Bond so far, with the only major hiccup being Die Another Day.
But that's just my opinion, I'm very willing to accept your disappointment with them. :)
Agree with this. Haggis was a good influence on Purvis and Wade. Mind you, the origina; Fleming story was the strength.
It looked good on paper, but everything e;se let it down. There were still alot of plotholes though. Why did Goldie let that bomb off in the safehouse? What is his motivation?
FEW?????? DAD is riddled with so many problems basically it self destructs with every scene. Tamahori thinking he was making a Carry On film with cgi is mainly to blame. But its hardly an original script? Another death spewing satellite? Another trip to Cuba?
There are also many many example of excellent dialogue in CR. Bond and Vespers dissection of each others characters aboard the train is a classic scene. I particularly like "Your ego cant cope!" when he loses first time around. The dialogue is naturalistic.
Nothing wrong with the dialogue in QoS. I particularly like the "cheap wine" scene with Mathis and girlfriend in Como. Maybe abit to much geopolitics for those who love their silly oneliners.
I think they need a break. Looking forward to Logan. Please let it be a CR not a TWINE...
Agree, Haggis is a good influence as he knows how to develop characters. But he also has a tendency to dive into sentimentality once too often.
TWINE is unfairly maligned. There aren't that many plotholes. Goldie set off the bomb because the chopper blades had failed to kill Zuvkovsky the night before. Now that Elektra knew that Bond was alive, the bomb would have killed both Bond and Zuvkovsky. His motivation? He's a henchman, he does what he's told to do.
Yeah I don't have any issue with the dialogue in QOS, its quite snappy and natural, especially between Bond and M. It's the overall story that I have issues with, with many scenes defying any sort of logical sense.
They've had a break. A four year break.
Spot on. Haggis' dialogue has its highs (the train exchange) and its lows ("little finger").
And without having every draft before us, it's hard to know who's responsible for which dialogue.
And then who knows what was changed by the directors and the actor. It's instructive to watch the CR train scene and track the Haggis script at the same time. Green says the dialogue almost verbatim whereas Craig has a little more wiggle room.
But I know I'd take Purvis & Wade/Haggis dialogue over Purvis & Wade/Feirstein dialogue any day. The last line in TWINE tainted the entire movie.
I know, it's a real shame because we can't really judge who is giving the goods and who isn't.
But I agree, the last line of TWINE was a real clanger. Such a shame, because there actually was some pretty good dialogue in that film, but because the bad dialogue was SO BAD, that's all that's remembered.