Purvis & Wade out - John Logan in for Bond 24

Pierce2Daniel

http://www.universalexports.net/scripts/twine.pdf

Here's there TWINE script. It's actually rather well done. But I've always been a big TWINE fan.

TheWizardOfIce

SaintMark wrote:

It makes wonder where the expense is that that the movies apparently seem to cost?

Well first is the fact there is a CGI element in practically every shot.

Then there is all this top talent you are paying for - Mendes, Deakins, Bardem, Finney, Dench, Fiennes and DC himself. None of those are going to come cheap. A big change from the days of Adolfo Celi, Charles Gray, Alec Mills and John Glen where most of the budget could then be spent on sets and action. With SF there wasn't that much left as most of it had been paid out on talent before they started.

Whether you agree with this policy or not is a moot point the fact is that EONs current signing stars strategy is vastly different to Cubbys put it all up on the screen ethos.

Difficult to say if one method is better than the other. SF certainly had the best cast and acting of the series. Did it have the best story and action though? Don't think so. I guess it depends what sort of a fan you are.

SaintMark

That said I prefer the older 007 movies as the mood of the various locations was done so well, and made you want to go there. With SF you felt that the Shanghai location was not real, the Island location not real, Scotland was not really used as such.

For me Craigs tenure suffers from a lack of decent use of location. When QoB had iconic locations that got mangled in the editing suite. Heck Top Gear made better use of the desert locations.

And for me the big stars do not add all that much, and how the world ended when Pierce asked for a payrise. The older 007 movies used great actors and they never made the movies excessive expensive over the telling and showing of a Bondmovie.

Mishkin

After all, that is where the finished script Risico requires only a small improvement in the part drama. http://www.unseen64.net/2012/09/14/james-bond-007-risico-raven-software-cancelled-xbox-360-ps3/

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Mishkin wrote:

After all, that is where the finished script Risico requires only a small improvement in the part drama. http://www.unseen64.net/2012/09/14/james-bond-007-risico-raven-software-cancelled-xbox-360-ps3/

It's a shame. This game looked amazing.

Mishkin

I meant that there is a decent free game scenario. It can be used for the film.

Matt_Helm

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

SaintMark wrote:

It makes wonder where the expense is that that the movies apparently seem to cost?

Well first is the fact there is a CGI element in practically every shot.

Then there is all this top talent you are paying for - Mendes, Deakins, Bardem, Finney, Dench, Fiennes and DC himself. None of those are going to come cheap. A big change from the days of Adolfo Celi, Charles Gray, Alec Mills and John Glen where most of the budget could then be spent on sets and action. With SF there wasn't that much left as most of it had been paid out on talent before they started.

Whether you agree with this policy or not is a moot point the fact is that EONs current signing stars strategy is vastly different to Cubbys put it all up on the screen ethos.

Difficult to say if one method is better than the other. SF certainly had the best cast and acting of the series. Did it have the best story and action though? Don't think so. I guess it depends what sort of a fan you are.

I would still very much prefer them to invest their Money in Intelligent scripts and REAL exotic locations. None of the classic Bond Flics needed Superstars to get audience in the cinemas. Instead they chose simply talented and convincing Actors, took a highly talented Screenplay Writer and some solid directors and showed us the most beautiful places on the Planet. And guess what - it worked, still does with me!

StirredNotShaken

You know, I just finished reading the CR script and I know Haggis did some revisions, but I gained a LOT of respect for P&W. Yes, they're responsible for some inexcusable trash in the series, but you're a fool to say that they don't know the character. That bit near the end, to paraphrase "M realizes that she has sacrificed a man to create a spy" is absolutely brilliant. Best bit of insight I've ever read in a script. Yes, I still think their departure is overall a good thing for this series, but perhaps I don't find them as insipid as I once did.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

In many situations when one is dissatisfied with a product, it's easier to blame the issue on shortcomings and avoid recognizing the strengths. And all too often in this world, the people on the lower end of the food chain get the blame for decisions those above them have made. That said, P&W have gotten more than their fair share of abuse and while many times it's been deserved, I'll always feel they made an honest attempt to do the best they could and were grateful for the opportunity. I absolutely agree that they did their homework as far as knowing the Bond character and they did do some really good things within their scripts. The problem with them as I saw it is that they needed oversight from a third person, because left to their own devices they proved to have some trouble distinguishing good ideas from bad ideas (DAD) and at times they couldn't seem to properly flesh out their more ambitious characters (TWINE) in a believable fashion, and tended to shortcut the better possibilities on where to take them.

I think it was time for the series to get some fresher perspectives as P&W have written or co-written the past 7 films and their involvement in Skyfall showed me they had run out of ideas and were clearly rehashing ideas from other franchise films. They've indicated that they were fine with moving on after QOS and I'm sure that the rejection of their original script for that film probably stung their professional pride a bit. The fresher ideas in SF thus clearly came from John Logan. The producers and some of the directors have to share in some of the blame directed solely at P&W, because ultimately they allowed some of the bad ideas to move forward or changed some of the good ones. As the movies have been bottom line financially successful, they've escaped criticisms because whenever QOS is brought up, I always look far more at their poor decisions as opposed to blaming P&W or a shorter time frame.

M_Balje

There wrote 5 Bond films, not 7. For part i agree about that there mabey run out of ideas. Also with help of Johh Logan Skyfall faild a bit.

CR whas inspyred by GE and Twine. Updated with more violence les drama. Weak Bond girls and weak promotion (Title song not on the soundtrack). QOS by TMND and old style of earlier Bond movies, strong acting-cinematography,production design, better hide humor like TMND and also for me reasen why it is my favorite Bond movie of DC era. To short movie and nice look not be enough to survive.

Skyfall be dificult to place, the strong point of use of gritty, England and M in Twine disapointed at the end. Again week points girls and no title song on the soundtrack. Take over the in my opnion work better small use of locations in QOS but turn out very weak in Skyfall. Week points of DAD, include there tru to some olde style Bond remembers. The return of Q/new Mi6 bulding be nice, but no realy work out because of the negatief attraction of the rest. This made it for me not easy to get in movie.

That media/fans atack not start yet is thanks to Daniel Craig, it be his 3th movie/waiting on return of Quantum/ Camile.

WillyGalore

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

In many situations when one is dissatisfied with a product, it's easier to blame the issue on shortcomings and avoid recognizing the strengths. And all too often in this world, the people on the lower end of the food chain get the blame for decisions those above them have made. That said, P&W have gotten more than their fair share of abuse and while many times it's been deserved, I'll always feel they made an honest attempt to do the best they could and were grateful for the opportunity. I absolutely agree that they did their homework as far as knowing the Bond character and they did do some really good things within their scripts. The problem with them as I saw it is that they needed oversight from a third person, because left to their own devices they proved to have some trouble distinguishing good ideas from bad ideas (DAD) and at times they couldn't seem to properly flesh out their more ambitious characters (TWINE) in a believable fashion, and tended to shortcut the better possibilities on where to take them.

I think it was time for the series to get some fresher perspectives as P&W have written or co-written the past 7 films and their involvement in Skyfall showed me they had run out of ideas and were clearly rehashing ideas from other franchise films. They've indicated that they were fine with moving on after QOS and I'm sure that the rejection of their original script for that film probably stung their professional pride a bit. The fresher ideas in SF thus clearly came from John Logan. The producers and some of the directors have to share in some of the blame directed solely at P&W, because ultimately they allowed some of the bad ideas to move forward or changed some of the good ones. As the movies have been bottom line financially successful, they've escaped criticisms because whenever QOS is brought up, I always look far more at their poor decisions as opposed to blaming P&W or a shorter time frame.

A schoolboy error on your part I'm sure @SirHenry ;-)