Peter Morgan on Bond 23

PanchitoPistoles

There are so many rumours and misinformations regarding Peter Morgan's involvement in Bond 23! These two videos should clear up a lot:

(About Bond: between 3:18 and 5:35.)


-Morgan wrote a treatment from scratch (he never worked together with Purvis & Wade).
-He did not write a script.
-He suspects they won't use his treatment, because for a moment there was momentum behind his idea and that moment is probably gone.

This one is even more interesting:
(About Bond: between 0:10 and 3:10.)

Samuel001

This was MI6's article on it from October which use of those quotes from the above YouTube videos:

http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_23_report_oct10.php3?t=&s=articles&id=02697

Thanks for posting @PanchitoPistoles, they are indeed good videos that explain a lot.

JBFan626

It's a shame really since he's done Frost/Nixon, the Queen, and The Last King of Scotland, all Oscar nominees. Seems like Barbara and Wilson were eyeing for an Oscar by signing him up. His Bond on the other hand could have been another humorless, downer of a Bond, so I'm not totally sad for his departure.

But he's said what so many have said thus far...he has a lot of faith and confidence in Mendes!

Shark

It's a shame really since he's done Frost/Nixon, the Queen, and The Last King of Scotland, all Oscar nominees.

The Oscars mean, zilch really. All they are Hollywood (or Harvey Weinstein) patting itself on the back. All three of those are trite, sentimental, hagiographraic biopic-dramas, the kind the Academy love.

I'm glad the Bond thing didn't work out, though they've still got another luvvie hack - Sam Mendes. That's bad enough.

JBFan626

Would you prefer Lee Tamahori?

And I don't think John Logan falls into the "sentimental" camp as much. So there could be a good balance.

Shark

Would you prefer Lee Tamahori?

I would. Despite DAD and XXX 2, he's a good director. ONCE WERE WARRIORS, MULHOLLAND FALLS and THE EDGE are all fine films. I bet he'd recognise the mistakes he made in his approach to DAD, and a produce more even, coherent film.

And I don't think John Logan falls into the "sentimental" camp as much. So there could be a good balance.

I don't know enough of his work THE LAST SAMURAI was pretty cliched Hollywood stuff, and the disappointing GLADIATOR was penned by a roster of screenwriters.

PanchitoPistoles

This is what Morgan said about Bond 23 today:

“I wrote a treatment for it, and I believe, I haven’t read the final script, but I believe the core idea of the final script is that. But what then happened was the whole MGM bankruptcy thing happened. And by [the time it was sorted], I was completely snowed under with other stuff, and Sam had a good relationship with John Logan, and I said ‘Look, I can’t do anything with it.’ It’s sad, but what can you do?”

Source: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/frost_nixon_the_queen_scribe_peter_morgan_next_writing_an_original_heist_ac/#

I hope we will find out one day what Purvis & Wade had to do with the script... It looks like Mendes was the one who chose Logan. By the way, has it ever happened before that the director of a Bond film was on board before one of the main writers?

Samuel001

This is what Morgan said about Bond 23 today:

“I wrote a treatment for it, and I believe, I haven’t read the final script, but I believe the core idea of the final script is that. But what then happened was the whole MGM bankruptcy thing happened. And by [the time it was sorted], I was completely snowed under with other stuff, and Sam had a good relationship with John Logan, and I said ‘Look, I can’t do anything with it.’ It’s sad, but what can you do?”

Source: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/frost_nixon_the_queen_scribe_peter_morgan_next_writing_an_original_heist_ac/#

I hope we will find out one day what Purvis & Wade had to do with the script... It looks like Mendes was the one who chose Logan. By the way, has it ever happened before that the director of a Bond film was on board before one of the main writers?

It's been revealed some time ago that after Morgan couldn't do it, Mendes wanted Patrick Marber but he was too busy so he had to settle with Logan.

This does reinforce the whole "big hook" idea from a few months ago. Purvis & Wade's involvement seems minimal but I'm sure they helped shape and write the initial story. They do seem to know their Fleming afterall.

And yes, EON do seem to have given Mendes the power to have whichever writer he wants as the third member of the team. Quite something.

PanchitoPistoles

I'm just curious where Purvis & Wade fit into the picture. Morgan wrote a treatment from scratch, he never worked with Purvis & Wade. Mendes worked with Logan, who finished the script. Logan used the hook from Morgan's treatment.

Did Logan also use some plot elements from Purvis & Wade?

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Would you prefer Lee Tamahori?

I would. Despite DAD and XXX 2, he's a good director. ONCE WERE WARRIORS, MULHOLLAND FALLS and THE EDGE are all fine films. I bet he'd recognise the mistakes he made in his approach to DAD, and a produce more even, coherent film.

And I don't think John Logan falls into the "sentimental" camp as much. So there could be a good balance.

I don't know enough of his work THE LAST SAMURAI was pretty cliched Hollywood stuff, and the disappointing GLADIATOR was penned by a roster of screenwriters.

Looks like you are angry or negative all the time @Shark. I love how you say you would rather have Tamahori over Mendes, because if you are telling the truth you must not be in the right mind set.

Samuel001

Did Logan also use some plot elements from Purvis & Wade?

I would say so. And then in turn Purvis & Wade have helped fine tune Logan's script. Complicated but it does make sense as the most logical thing to have happened.

PanchitoPistoles

I would say so. And then in turn Purvis & Wade have helped fine tune Logan's script. Complicated but it does make sense as the most logical thing to have happened.

I can see Logan using plot elements from Purvis & Wade but I can't see Purvis & Wade fine-tuning Logan's script.

JamesPage

I think it's fair to say that P&W have the most Bond-knowledge out of the group. They know what's been done before and what bits of Fleming are left.

Samuel001

That's what I was getting at @JamesPage. Logan said he was 'embedded' in Bond a while ago but he can never know as much as Purvis & Wade do. That's how they'd fine-tune Logan's screenplay I feel.

tqb

peter morgan doesn't seem to interested in Bond in that interview

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

I think it's fair to say that P&W have the most Bond-knowledge out of the group. They know what's been done before and what bits of Fleming are left.

How do you explain DAD then?

shadowonthesun

Seems like Barbara and Wilson were eyeing for an Oscar by signing him up.

Or maybe they wanted to get the best-possible man for the job.

Risico007

I think it's fair to say that P&W have the most Bond-knowledge out of the group. They know what's been done before and what bits of Fleming are left.

How do you explain DAD then?

Lee tamhori

do you need another explanation?

shadowonthesun

These interviews are a year old - they were uploaded on the 20th and 21st of October 2010. So even though Morgan says that he feels "the moment has gone", comments he has made since then suggest that his central idea has indeed been retained.

However, listening to his comments, I think he missed the point of Bond a little bit. He seemed to want to emphasis Bond as a cultural icon rather than as entertainment. It was almost as if he wanted to portray Bond as someone of historical or political significane and document his life the way he did with Richard Nixon and the Queen - as a person who everyone was aware of, but we did not know too much about them, and so BOND 23 would have tried to shed some light on Bond in an effort to make him more relatable despite his accomplishments. And I think that would have been a mistake.

alphadec

we won't get a good bond script before they have removed "Neal Purvis & Robert Wade".

JBFan626

However, listening to his comments, I think he missed the point of Bond a little bit. He seemed to want to emphasis Bond as a cultural icon rather than as entertainment. It was almost as if he wanted to portray Bond as someone of historical or political significane and document his life the way he did with Richard Nixon and the Queen - as a person who everyone was aware of, but we did not know too much about them, and so BOND 23 would have tried to shed some light on Bond in an effort to make him more relatable despite his accomplishments. And I think that would have been a mistake.

Really interesting point there @shadowonthesun. Based on his comments, I would theorize that Morgan as head-writer, would have induced a bit too much high drama, and self-reverence for the character of Bond and lose the 'fun' of series. His bit about "I personally find it hard to believe a man in a dinner suit saving the world anymore, can you?", is off-putting in the sense that he thinks Bond is somehow dated or unfashionable and irrelevant to the current world. I'm not denying there is any credence to that opinion, but it does suggest that he is not concerned with "entertainment" of Bond as you mention. So in the end, I think we got the best of both worlds: the central idea of Morgan, with the flaire and storytelling of Logan, with finishing Bondian touches by P&W....I mean, I hope it all works out this good anyhow.

It's been revealed some time ago that after Morgan couldn't do it, Mendes wanted Patrick Marber but he was too busy so he had to settle with Logan.

I believe this was only speculation by the Daily Telegraph. EON denied this was ever true.

shadowonthesun

we won't get a good bond script before they have removed "Neal Purvis & Robert Wade".

Purvis and Wade have written three Bond films to date. However, if you actually look at what happened with those film, you'll see they're a soft target.

The original script for THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH really played up the mystery of who was ultimately responsible for the events of the film. Bond did not actually work out that it was Elektra until much, much later in the story (and it was implied that by protecting her, he was actually complicit in the conspiracy). However, when Michael Apted signed on, his wife rewrote the script, emphasising the relationship between Bond and Elektra over the mystery. The infamous shoulder scene was not in the original script.

Likewise, DIE ANOTHER DAY was open to interference from Lee Tamahori. If you actually watch the film, there are several scenes that are considerably stronger than the rest of the film. These are clearly leftovers from the original drafts. The script is not without its flaws, but Tamahori's heavy-handed direction suggests he might have rewritten parts of the script, particularly the bawdy single-entendres that plagued the film (the "Mr. Bond was just explaining his big bang theory." / "Oh, I think I got the thrust of it." in particular reeks of this).

In the case of both TWINE and DAD, it's pretty clear that the scripts were rewritten several times. That's the writer's curse - they have very little creative control, and sometimes they're forced to have their name on a script that they did not actually write.

But when you get to CASINO ROYALE, the script is markedly improved. When it first came out, I remember a lot of people credting Paul Haggis with "writing all the good parts". However, Haggis was only a script doctor - someone employed by the studios to touch up dialogue. He only did enough to the script to earn a screenwriting credit. By the time QUANTUM OF SOLACE came around, I think people were willing to admit Haggis was not as instrumental in writing CASINO ROYALE as first though. And if you watch TWINE, DAD and CR back-to-back, you will see there is a certain intelligence to them (in the case of the first two, it comes sparingly). Purvis and Wade are competent, they just get a rough deal from EON and the directors and that translates into the fans giving them a response they don't necessarily deserve.

Samuel001

It's been revealed some time ago that after Morgan couldn't do it, Mendes wanted Patrick Marber but he was too busy so he had to settle with Logan.

I believe this was only speculation by the Daily Telegraph. EON denied this was ever true.

EON would never comment on this matter though. It has weight because it was mentioned even since before Bond 23 was put on ice when Morgan was rumoured to have left the production. The Daily Telegraph's speculation is most likely true. Marber was definitely wanted by Mendes and for whatever reason we got Logan instead.

@shadowonthesun I was hoping you would give that response. Thank You.

I wonder if Bond 23 works out fine will Purvis & Wade be given another go on their own for Bond 24 to show what they can really do?

shadowonthesun

I think the best approach that EON could take is to have two regular writers and a script doctor the way they did for CASINO ROYALE. That way, Purvis and Wade would submit a script, and then a "guest writer" would come along and tweak the dialogue a little, just to keep it fresh.