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
Welcome back @St_George. It's been a long time old man. :)
Just a friendly question and honestly not wanting to start a fight, but if Boyle/Hodge came in to polish P & W’s earlier script or treatment and add into that their “Golden idea” wouldn’t WGA rules mean that when Eon made their press announcement in May they would have had to give the original writers credit even if the new writers used only a tiny portion of the source material?
Seems like since CR we’ve seen at least 3 writers credited on all films with up to 4 on SP.
Second, we don't know if Hodge based his script on P&W treatment. It seems to me really hard to believe that Boyle "the independent filmaker" would've incorporated his "golden idea super standalone" into a script based on a P&W treatment, described unofficially as something really classical like a direct sequel to Spectre. I don't know, seems strange to me. Plus, in the announcement they weren't even mentioned. So Hodge's script was hardly the result of polishing P&W's treatment.
In the end P&W are probably goin to incorporate some elements of Hodge's script in this final version, which uses as a backbone their original (and well developed, as Baz said) treatment.
Just a friendly question and honestly not wanting to start a fight, but if Boyle/Hodge came in to polish P & W’s earlier script or treatment and add into that their “Golden idea” wouldn’t WGA rules mean that when Eon made their press announcement in May they would have had to give the original writers credit even if the new writers used only a tiny portion of the source material?
Seems like since CR we’ve seen at least 3 writers credited on all films with up to 4 on SP.
[/quote]
You're correct. If Eon retained any elements of the Hodge draft, then he will be credited for it, and, depending on his deal, have a percentage of the Principle Photography payment which is common. If, however, Eon junk ALL of Hodge's work and P&W's version is 100% their own work (obviously working with Eon etc.), then Eon would not be obliged to give Hodge a credit.
Exactly. BTW last time a Bond movie was 100% their work was Die Another Day.
Ouch.
I agree with you @Bimar, sounds fishy-- I'm just repeating what was reported (I could never quite figure out this P&W script being polished by Hodge who had a golden idea...)
But I suppose they could have taken elements of the P&W script, and, in the finished film, we would have seen P&W credited in some fashion... If this is the case, so long as they're credited in the final film, I'm not sure it was necessary to say anything about them in the May release...
Flip-side to that, if anything from Hodge's draft remains, we will also see him get credited in the final film as well.
If they could throw in a mole and an independent Bond girl, then we re talking!
Yes, ouch! I'll bet when P&W deliver - the director, whoever he or she is, will bring on their own writer to polish and re-shape material to suit the director's tastes and strengths. Mendes knew his strength was drama and performance and so SF really focused on that. SP wobbled in that department, and I suspect Mendes knew that and that's where some reported on-set tensions stemmed from.
You're correct. If Eon retained any elements of the Hodge draft, then he will be credited for it, and, depending on his deal, have a percentage of the Principle Photography payment which is common. If, however, Eon junk ALL of Hodge's work and P&W's version is 100% their own work (obviously working with Eon etc.), then Eon would not be obliged to give Hodge a credit.
[/quote]
Thanks for the info!
I completely agree with you that some of the rumors we’ve read - credible as they may be - don’t add up, like scrapping an entire script with a central idea all seemed to really like - even if it needed polishing for say more action - to go back to treatment that will take months to get into screenplay form. Can’t imagine hitting even a January start date if that’s the case.
To me, it’s more likely that there is a large part of the bigger picture we don’t yet know that may tie these seemingly contradictory rumors together, because most don’t jive with each other.
Weren’t they casting in Finland last week?
Pretty much!
Still, I don't really think Hodge used P&W script as a backbone. Maybe that was the idea, originally. But I don't see Boyle making a Bond movie which uses a treatment by P&W as the backbone of his film. Maybe just some loose parts.
Plus, P&W "Shatterhand" treatment was described like a OHMSS remake, a direct sequel to Spectre. Things change, but I don't see P&W coming up with something "sans Fleming material" with a title like Shatterhand (which was confirmed to be given as a working title by the production).
Yes. The best option would be a director able to do it without hiring another fellow screenwriter.
(Chris McQuarrie) XD.
Thanks for the info!
I completely agree with you that some of the rumors we’ve read - credible as they may be - don’t add up, like scrapping an entire script with a central idea all seemed to really like - even if it needed polishing for say more action - to go back to treatment that will take months to get into screenplay form. Can’t imagine hitting even a January start date if that’s the case.
To me, it’s more likely that there is a large part of the bigger picture we don’t yet know that may tie these seemingly contradictory rumors together, because most don’t jive with each other.
Weren’t they casting in Finland last week?[/quote]
I agree, something doesn't fit. If Bond 25 makes a Jan shoot date, then I'd say Hodge's draft was built upon, in some part at least, the previous P&W version (whether it was a treatment or a full draft), and when Eon wanted P&W to return to polish Hodge's version, Boyle walked (for that and other reasons re: budget, casting etc.). And now P&W are onboard just as Eon, and Craig it seems, wanted. And that's why they are still striving to meet the release dates.
Hey I liked the first two thirds of it if the climax had been closer to Moonraker (where almost the entire film came from) Brosnan would of ended on a high
Yes this is probably the best resume possible.
Even if P&W treatment was described like a direct sequel to SP or something, I still think there's zero chance Blofeld, Hinx, SPECTRE and Madeleine will come back in 25.
Even with a working title like Shatterhand.
So it's possible that things have progressed in the last couple of weeks, and P&W, while perhaps not the initial choice at the time of Boyle's departure, are now back in the mix in a larger manner.
Could this development favour Clarkson or Demange over Layton I wonder?
Neither do I. Just pure speculation, but I think P&W returning to the fold is something relatively new. Boyle said something about the film makers wanting something 'fresh' in one of his last comments on the subject. Going back to P&W for that seems odd.
If I were EON, I would have shown both of them the door after that statement.
^This.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders so they will try to hold to the release date if at all possible. We've seen no evidence of the date moving.
Brexit was another hangup for them, yeah. It's obvious they're creatively worn out.
https://www.list.co.uk/article/103917-bart-layton-is-in-discussions-about-replacing-danny-boyle-as-bond-25-director/
As mentioned above already, those ideas don't necessarily come from the writers. Fact is we don't actually know which parts are by whom, wether P&W invented a certain element, or another writer did, or the producers or the director demanded it.
If you are a bit familiar with DAD's production history, you'll know that BB and MGW are on record that there was no script prior to production. So the most likely scenario in that case was that producers, director and writers all sat together and brainstormed up a script, which then was put into written words by P&W. What we definitely can't say is that DAD was P&W's baby alone, merely on the basis that they got sole writing credit.
A good sign?
Why?
Just a few quick observations and questions that have been nagging at me.
- I'm happy to see Neal and Rob back on the project. They're very knowledgeable Bond fans, first and foremost—and (in my own personal and humble opinion) excellent writers who seem underappreciated by the collective fanbase for all the work they've done on 007.
- Related: being a writer on these projects is an extraordinarily difficult job. Writing a great feature screenplay, on its own, is no easy task. Add in all the external influences, requirements, and direction that one is forced to factor in and you're facing a veritable riddle of a creative assignment. Mad respect for anyone who completes it, let alone repeats it.
- Related again: Neal and Rob, in particular, seem to absorb a lot of heat related to creative choices that were not—as verified on the record, in some cases—theirs.
- Specific to Bond 25, one thing I'm progressively feeling is that the collective discussion is really taking on certain assumptions as if they're fact. I feel like we could all attempt to course correct here a bit.
Example: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's been a single reliable report from a legitimate source about Neal & Rob's work being an actual OHMSS remake, a SPECTRE sequel, etc. I don't think we genuinely know a thing that could be considered verifiable about Bond 25's story at this point, other than what might be inferred from some of the leaked casting details. And yet we seem to speak with such certainty about it. "Most odd." ;)
- One of those Bond 25 'rumors' in particular makes no sense to me. This phrase "OHMSS remake." Happy to take this to another thread, but in the scheme of the Craig era, couldn't SPECTRE actually already be considered the loose OHMSS remake? Bond falling in love, making a deal with the love interest's father, Alpine set pieces, Blofeld confrontation, rumored "We have all the time in the world" line being cut from the film's final scene. I'm just trying to figure out why this "OHMSS remake" language has any legs at all in the current discussion.
Sorry for the long post. But there's been plenty to think about of late!
This part is also encouraging: "Was it 'The Spy Who Loved Me' with the car that went underwater? For me, it didn't get better than that. But of course as you grow up, you realise maybe there were better ones."
XD
Quality, not quantity.
Big Cullum fan here.