No Time To Die: Production Diary

1177117721774177617772507

Comments

  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,422
    St_George wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    EoN really need to detach themselves from Purvis and Wade. Seriously.
    Why? Purvis and Wade are seemingly the only writers who actually know Fleming very well. Of course they also write according to demands from producers or directors, so we can´t blame them alone for some content. If they lack in certain areas, have the script polished by someone else. But I see no reason to drop P&W altogether.

    Why? Because they're stale. I don't care how much Fleming they know, the fact is since they've come on board they've pretty much recycled the same tired tropes for every film. I doubt they're the only writer's on the planet that know Fleming. EoN need to step outside their comfort zone, pony up and really look and invest in committed writers who can more importantly tell a gripping spy story. Purvis and Wade fail for the most part in this regard and them knowing all there is about Fleming obviously isn't helping matters. What they've written is nothing that any competent script writer couldn't have done. EoN need to detach from those guys and really invest in better writers.

    How do you know that Purvis and Wade aren't constantly writing their scripts within the constraints (the tropes you mention) put on them by Eon itself? Chances are that's exactly what happens, in the main. Plus, most of the Bond scripts in which they've been involved have been kicked-off by them and polished by others or ends up a result of their own contractually-obliged on-set rewrites, meaning what ends up on the screen isn't often what P&W originally envisaged.

    Fundamentally, screenwriters aren't solely - or often even primarily - responsible for the regurgitation we all experience in the storytelling of modern blockbusters. In the end, it's the people who put up the cash who are most responsible. Because it's their money that's being spent and they're the ones who hire and fire - so it's them who put demands on everyone creative who works beneath them (directors included, of course).

    Welcome back @St_George. It's been a long time old man. :)

  • peter wrote: »
    Once again, just piecing together what we've pretty much known for weeks:

    1/P&W write a script.
    2/Boyle and Hodge come aboard to polish that script with a new idea that's massaged into this script.
    3/The producers want polishers to polish this draft.
    4/B&H bolt
    5/The hunt for a new director
    6/P&W's back on board. I find it hard to believe they're going back to a page one re-write. It makes no sense at all.
    7/Speculation: if the producers, MGM, Universal didn't think they could hit their target dates, they would have pulled the plug-- giving them breathing room, and no rush to find a director.
    8/But they haven't pulled the plug, and they are making great efforts to hire their new director.
    9/More Speculation: if they haven't pulled the plug because all of the Powers on this film (including the new distributors), think they can hit release dates, I assume they will hire a director who is also agreeable to these deadlines.
    10/they don't find an agreeable director, they now can't hit target dates, they pull the plug, and revamp their search for a director and carve out a new release date.

    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.

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited September 2018 Posts: 4,343
    First, P&W wrote a treatment, as Baz said.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,454
    Brimar wrote: »

    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.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,884
    So writers Purvis and Wade originally wrote a treatment sans Fleming material, Hodge then used this treatment as a basis for his script, but now Purvis and Wade have returned to polish it back to its original state (perhaps with some parts of Hodge's trial) due to Boyle not wanting to incorporate another writer. Is that the consensus?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited September 2018 Posts: 4,343
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    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.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,684
    Brimar wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Once again, just piecing together what we've pretty much known for weeks:

    1/P&W write a script.
    2/Boyle and Hodge come aboard to polish that script with a new idea that's massaged into this script.
    3/The producers want polishers to polish this draft.
    4/B&H bolt
    5/The hunt for a new director
    6/P&W's back on board. I find it hard to believe they're going back to a page one re-write. It makes no sense at all.
    7/Speculation: if the producers, MGM, Universal didn't think they could hit their target dates, they would have pulled the plug-- giving them breathing room, and no rush to find a director.
    8/But they haven't pulled the plug, and they are making great efforts to hire their new director.
    9/More Speculation: if they haven't pulled the plug because all of the Powers on this film (including the new distributors), think they can hit release dates, I assume they will hire a director who is also agreeable to these deadlines.
    10/they don't find an agreeable director, they now can't hit target dates, they pull the plug, and revamp their search for a director and carve out a new release date.

    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.

    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.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    MooreFun wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    EoN really need to detach themselves from Purvis and Wade. Seriously.
    Why? Purvis and Wade are seemingly the only writers who actually know Fleming very well. Of course they also write according to demands from producers or directors, so we can´t blame them alone for some content. If they lack in certain areas, have the script polished by someone else. But I see no reason to drop P&W altogether.

    Why? Because they're stale. I don't care how much Fleming they know, the fact is since they've come on board they've pretty much recycled the same tired tropes for every film. I doubt they're the only writer's on the planet that know Fleming. EoN need to step outside their comfort zone, pony up and really look and invest in committed writers who can more importantly tell a gripping spy story. Purvis and Wade fail for the most part in this regard and them knowing all there is about Fleming obviously isn't helping matters. What they've written is nothing that any competent script writer couldn't have done. EoN need to detach from those guys and really invest in better writers.

    I, personally, can’t wait for a plot of Bond going rogue, MI6 in crisis, and This Time It’s Personal™️ . It will be so fresh and original.

    If they could throw in a mole and an independent Bond girl, then we re talking!
  • Posts: 1,454
    matt_u wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • ColonelSun wrote: »
    Brimar wrote: »

    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.

    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?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited September 2018 Posts: 4,343
    So writers Purvis and Wade originally wrote a treatment sans Fleming material, Hodge then used this treatment as a basis for his script, but now Purvis and Wade have returned to polish it back to its original state (perhaps with some parts of Hodge's trial) due to Boyle not wanting to incorporate another writer. Is that the consensus?

    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).
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    Yes. The best option would be a director able to do it without hiring another fellow screenwriter.

    (Chris McQuarrie) XD.
  • Posts: 1,454
    Brimar wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Brimar wrote: »

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 9,785
    matt_u wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    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.

    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
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited September 2018 Posts: 4,343
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I seem to recall one of the initial announcements post-Boyle departure saying that EON were looking for a possible writer/director. If they had always planned to go back to P&W to polish Boyle/Hodge, then I'm curious as to why they would have specifically been looking for such a combination.

    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?
    matt_u wrote: »
    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.
    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.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 618
    Aren't P&W the two clowns who said they couldn't write a Bond script in the Age of Trump?

    If I were EON, I would have shown both of them the door after that statement.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2018 Posts: 6,010
    peter wrote: »
    But until that happens, it's safe to assume that EoN, MGM, Universal want this out on the dates they reserved-- if they thought this target was impossible to hit, they would have already called for a delay (with or without a director).

    ^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.

  • Escalus5 wrote: »
    Aren't P&W the two clowns who said they couldn't write a Bond script in the Age of Trump?

    If I were EON, I would have shown both of them the door after that statement.

    Brexit was another hangup for them, yeah. It's obvious they're creatively worn out.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I can see a 'less budget SP' arriving,with all this pissing about.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 5,767
    MooreFun wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    EoN really need to detach themselves from Purvis and Wade. Seriously.
    Why? Purvis and Wade are seemingly the only writers who actually know Fleming very well. Of course they also write according to demands from producers or directors, so we can´t blame them alone for some content. If they lack in certain areas, have the script polished by someone else. But I see no reason to drop P&W altogether.

    Why? Because they're stale. I don't care how much Fleming they know, the fact is since they've come on board they've pretty much recycled the same tired tropes for every film. I doubt they're the only writer's on the planet that know Fleming. EoN need to step outside their comfort zone, pony up and really look and invest in committed writers who can more importantly tell a gripping spy story. Purvis and Wade fail for the most part in this regard and them knowing all there is about Fleming obviously isn't helping matters. What they've written is nothing that any competent script writer couldn't have done. EoN need to detach from those guys and really invest in better writers.

    I, personally, can’t wait for a plot of Bond going rogue, MI6 in crisis, and This Time It’s Personal™️ . It will be so fresh and original.

    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.



    matt_u wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    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.
    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.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    TSWLM and Moore his childhood favourites? At least from my perspective, that's very encouraging. I'm in favour of his appointment, at least based on this.
  • Posts: 9,785

    A good sign?
  • Posts: 19,339
    He has hardly done anything though has he ?
  • Escalus5 wrote: »
    Aren't P&W the two clowns who said they couldn't write a Bond script in the Age of Trump?

    If I were EON, I would have shown both of them the door after that statement.

    Why?
  • Nice to see this thread open again, and wonderful that @ColonelSun has rejoined the discussion. Cheers!

    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!

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    bondjames wrote: »
    TSWLM and Moore his childhood favourites? At least from my perspective, that's very encouraging. I'm in favour of his appointment, at least based on this.

    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
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    barryt007 wrote: »
    He has hardly done anything though has he ?

    Quality, not quantity.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    matt_u wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    TSWLM and Moore his childhood favourites? At least from my perspective, that's very encouraging. I'm in favour of his appointment, at least based on this.

    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
    Well, I hope he hasn't grown up too much. ;)
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Big Cullum fan here.
Sign In or Register to comment.