Time to get rid of Purvis and Wade?

1567810

Comments

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2022 Posts: 7,518
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Purvis & Wade have mentioned in interviews that a lot of the sillier elements got pushed hard by Tamahori. For example, they wrote in the Aston Martin having stealth was based on real life cutting edge tech, but Tamahori interpreted that as invisibility like Harry Potter.

    Despite all that, DAD has aged well, IMO. I now look back on it rather fondly. If LALD was the blaxploitation Bond, FRWL the Hitchcock Bond and LTK the Miami Vice Bond, then DAD is the videogame Bond, a live-action adaptation of something that could have been NightFire. The film is best viewed in a time capsule as a remember-when? for those of us who were actively tweenageing around 2002 in front of their computer or consoles.

    I have not only come to terms with DAD's outrageous silliness, I embrace it. Any less of it, and the film would have been stuck between serious spy work and pastiche, without being either. Now, at least, DAD goes loco big time. It knows what it is, and so do we.

    Don't forget Moonraker, the Star Wars Bond.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,879
    @DarthDimi excellent post on DAD. I have a lot of fun with it too. It's important to have these OTT, escapist entries amongst the more grounded, realistic type. It creates a sort of balance, a flow of harmony. I would not want every film to be as tight as FRWL - that would get monotonous.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,664
    DAD is a lot better on the shelf 20 years later than when it's the current or most recent Bond. It's my most revisited Brosnan.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    DAD is a lot better on the shelf 20 years later than when it's the current or most recent Bond. It's my most revisited Brosnan.

    I’ve said this about SP, which had to hold the brunt of being the most recent film for six years. Now it is NTTD’s turn, for however long.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited November 2022 Posts: 7,518
    Spectre only appreciates with time (you do have to turn your brain off a bit, but Bond is escapism anyways). Maybe it's the same for DAD.
    It's true that whatever Bond film is "on deck" as most recent Bond film exposes itself to extreme scrutiny. People were probably very upset with OHMSS that Lazenby was Bond, and that he was undercover as Bray for the entire film.
  • Posts: 1,545
    PB spoke with Martin Scorcese ? Wow. Blofeld: "Do I make you miserable, James ?" Bond: "You're a miserable person. And misery loves company." Blofeld: "So I am here to make you miserable ? Is that it ? That is my purpose in life ? To be the author of all your pain ?" Bond, after a pause: "Aaaaahhh ! You nearly had me there for a moment !" Pesci as Blofeld, and DeNiro as M ? M: "007, you really have Q in a whirl, destroying another of his cars on that last assignment !" Bond: "A lot ? or a little ?" M: "A little bit, a little bit..."
  • Posts: 1,478
    I would certainly like to see a fresh take on Bond from the writing standpoint. How about Horowitz?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I would certainly like to see a fresh take on Bond from the writing standpoint. How about Horowitz?

    That’s what I keep saying. The problem with Horowitz is that he thinks Bond belongs in the past. EON more than likely won’t agree with that approach. Otherwise I’d say a big YES to him. Either adapting one of his books or writing a original screenplay.
  • Posts: 12,506
    I'm sure P&W will be back to kick things off again whenever the process begins with Babs and MGW?
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 6,665
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    I'm sure P&W will be back to kick things off again whenever the process begins with Babs and MGW?

    Unfortunately yes.

    Biggest problem within the series, those two, IMO.

    I meant P&W, of course.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    Univex wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    I'm sure P&W will be back to kick things off again whenever the process begins with Babs and MGW?

    Unfortunately yes.

    Biggest problem within the series, those two, IMO.

    I meant P&W, of course.

    I got yelled and downright bullied by a fan on another Bond site for suggesting that they take a break from the series. If people want Bond to move forward with the times, these two need to be left behind. They criticized me for saying that it may be best they take a break and gave me a lecture on how they were not too blame. True to a degree, but the writing department needs to change.
  • Posts: 6,665
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    I'm sure P&W will be back to kick things off again whenever the process begins with Babs and MGW?

    Unfortunately yes.

    Biggest problem within the series, those two, IMO.

    I meant P&W, of course.

    I got yelled and downright bullied by a fan on another Bond site for suggesting that they take a break from the series. If people want Bond to move forward with the times, these two need to be left behind. They criticized me for saying that it may be best they take a break and gave me a lecture on how they were not too blame. True to a degree, but the writing department needs to change.

    Not to blame? They start their writing process by reading scientific magazines (nowadays must be youtube videos, I'm sure), then they start to build it from some stupid ideia like a diamond powered sun laser from outer space, then they throw some stupid innuendos and some check list memorabilia from other films in the cannon, then they throw in the kitchen sink and throw out the baby with the bath water... They are cringeworthy bad writers, and the only reason they keep them around is because they can manipulate them whatever and whenever they want to.

    Now, is this mostly pure conjecture from my part? Yes.

    Still dislike them.

    ;)
  • Posts: 1,478
    Time to move on.
  • CrabKey wrote: »
    Time to move on.

    Yes, but move on FROM what, TO what?

    I wonder if it might be best for Bond fandom to move on from finding P&W the root of all problems with modern Bond films. Maybe fixate on the directors chosen? Perhaps blame everything on Brosnan and/or Craig? Or even go directly to the top & gripe about everyone at Eon Productions (hopefully without going all sexist on Barbara Broccoli for the crime of being born a woman)?

    Or maybe, just maybe, we can look at everyone who's ever taken a shot at writing Bond post-Fleming... movies, books, comics, EVERYone everywhere... and realize that it's not all that easy to continue the adventures of the world's most famous secret agent without in some way disappointing a large portion of a very large audience.

    If you want to say, "Hey, let's bring in some fresh blood," then sure, that's understandable. But it seems like P&W have become everybody's favorite whipping boys around here... and I for one would like to thank them for their efforts at helping keep the franchise solvent for the last several decades.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Time to move on.

    Yes, but move on FROM what, TO what?

    I wonder if it might be best for Bond fandom to move on from finding P&W the root of all problems with modern Bond films. Maybe fixate on the directors chosen? Perhaps blame everything on Brosnan and/or Craig? Or even go directly to the top & gripe about everyone at Eon Productions (hopefully without going all sexist on Barbara Broccoli for the crime of being born a woman)?

    Or maybe, just maybe, we can look at everyone who's ever taken a shot at writing Bond post-Fleming... movies, books, comics, EVERYone everywhere... and realize that it's not all that easy to continue the adventures of the world's most famous secret agent without in some way disappointing a large portion of a very large audience.

    If you want to say, "Hey, let's bring in some fresh blood," then sure, that's understandable. But it seems like P&W have become everybody's favorite whipping boys around here... and I for one would like to thank them for their efforts at helping keep the franchise solvent for the last several decades.

    Nicely said @BeatlesSansEarmuffs … It’s hard to write a great script; it gets more challenging under a deadline…. Add on that there are 60 years and 25 films behind the next film and the job is not for the faint of heart.

    These two writers know their Fleming and at least have the knowledge and talent to kickstart the blueprint for the upcoming era. There will always be co-writers (and uncredited script writers along for the ride).

    No one sets out to make a bad film, no matter the genre and making a film shot on a phone, or a $200 million spectacle, it’s a true team game.
  • Posts: 1,478
    If it's not on the page, it won't work on the stage. Regardless of everyone else involved, it begins with the script. Plenty of writing talent in the film community. With the exception of CR, I've not been impressed with any of P&W's Bond scripts. CR succeeded because they had actual source material to adapt. Their other scripts have never felt like Bond films to me. Thank them for their service and start looking for the next writing team capable of injecting new life into the series.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    CrabKey wrote: »
    If it's not on the page, it won't work on the stage. Regardless of everyone else involved, it begins with the script. Plenty of writing talent in the film community. With the exception of CR, I've not been impressed with any of P&W's Bond scripts. CR succeeded because they had actual source material to adapt. Their other scripts have never felt like Bond films to me. Thank them for their service and start looking for the next writing team capable of injecting new life into the series.

    100% agreed.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited December 2022 Posts: 8,255
    CrabKey wrote: »
    If it's not on the page, it won't work on the stage. Regardless of everyone else involved, it begins with the script. Plenty of writing talent in the film community. With the exception of CR, I've not been impressed with any of P&W's Bond scripts. CR succeeded because they had actual source material to adapt. Their other scripts have never felt like Bond films to me. Thank them for their service and start looking for the next writing team capable of injecting new life into the series.

    Very well written scripts have turned into terrible films (one of my favourite scripts was a comedy called Last First Kiss. It was high IQ writing: witty, charming, tight. In the end it became a Will Smith vehicle called Hitch- a vomit-inducing film. Plenty more films that begin with a beautiful script end with films that are clunkers.

    And plenty of terrible scripts have turned around and become excellent films (early drafts of a terrible script called Star Beast turned into Alien)….

    P&W have worked with teams of writers and uncredited script doctors. Yet sole blame goes to these two?

    Like I said, they know their Fleming and I certainly think they have value to kickstart a blue print for the new era. They’ve been a steady hand for the producers, and behind the scenes I’m sure they are very valuable to the productions they’ve worked on.

    It’s not as cut as dry as waving a magic wand and viola, the perfect script emerges. Especially on huge tent pole films such as Bond. As we saw with the Sony leaks: on big budget films, there are many fingers in the pie.

    Get rid of P&W and new writers will come against the same challenges and obstacles…
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    I like Purvis and Wade as ideas men. The issue is that they seem to always be brought in as that, then someone else comes in, and then they're brought back again after the someone else doesn't hit the mark the ideas promised.

    You'd think that would be a good thing, but with deadlines.....not so much.
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 2,752
    I'm honestly fine with P&W staying. Not an opinion I always had but one I've come to over time. One has to remember that scriptwriters on these sorts of films are subject to the demands of directors and producers. DAD, nonsense as it is, has some genuinely really interesting ideas such as Bond getting incarcerated in a North Korean prison, made to hunt for a traitor within MI6, and having to gain information from a sleeper agent in Cuba. If the producers/director had been in a different mindset and not demanded they emphasise the sillier elements of the film we got, we might have ended up with something better.

    Even many of the story ideas in TWINE, a Bond film I genuinely hate, were repackaged and adapted differently in SF, which is personally one of my favourite Bond films. Peter Morgan didn't gel with P&W seemingly because he was interested in crafting a more Le-Carre type script, while P&W preffered to evoke elements of Fleming more. Honestly, that's the sort of stuff I give them credit for, and does genuinely give me some faith in them. Even the weirder ideas of the Craig era are not credited to P&W (wasn't Bond knowing Blofeld as a child MGW's idea? And indeed Bond dying at the end of NTTD the producers'?)
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,895
    The weird thing for me was when P & W said that they write their Bond scripts while listening to The Bourne Identity soundtrack!
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Venutius wrote: »
    The weird thing for me was when P & W said that they write their Bond scripts while listening to The Bourne Identity soundtrack!

    Did they really say that? :))
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2022 Posts: 2,895
    Seems like a rookie gaffe to 'fess it to a journalist, but...
    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-movie-writers-jason-bourne-music-process/
    :-O
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    Wherever inspiration strikes. Capture the Muse, and run.
  • Posts: 6,665
    Time to sack P&W? No! That time was twenty years ago.

    :P Just answering to the topic here.
  • Posts: 9,735
    007HallY wrote: »
    Yes, wasn't DAD originally meant to be a more grounded spy flick in its first drafts? More a sort of Bond version of The Spy Who Came in From The Cold. It's only something I've read on these forums, but I have to say it makes sense. The idea of Bond getting captured, him having to figure out who a mole in MI6 is etc.

    I've always thought the sillier elements of DAD stem from it being what is essentially a loose remake of DAF, which may or may not have been mandated later by producers. The laser satellite involving diamonds, the villain using plastic surgery in his scheme. I dunno, it's fun thinking about an alternative version of the film where perhaps the producers were more willing to lean into the former aspects of the film rather than the latter.

    Die another day was supposed to be to moonraker as Casino Royale 2006 was to well Casino Royale 1953


    Honestly I don’t get the hate for Purvis and Wade and I wonder what would happen if they had a script that wasn’t screwed over by a director
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    Risico007 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Yes, wasn't DAD originally meant to be a more grounded spy flick in its first drafts? More a sort of Bond version of The Spy Who Came in From The Cold. It's only something I've read on these forums, but I have to say it makes sense. The idea of Bond getting captured, him having to figure out who a mole in MI6 is etc.

    I've always thought the sillier elements of DAD stem from it being what is essentially a loose remake of DAF, which may or may not have been mandated later by producers. The laser satellite involving diamonds, the villain using plastic surgery in his scheme. I dunno, it's fun thinking about an alternative version of the film where perhaps the producers were more willing to lean into the former aspects of the film rather than the latter.

    Die another day was supposed to be to moonraker as Casino Royale 2006 was to well Casino Royale 1953


    Honestly I don’t get the hate for Purvis and Wade and I wonder what would happen if they had a script that wasn’t screwed over by a director

    I think the hate for them is down to two things. First, they started off with 2 of the generally worst films. In their defense, their scripts were greatly changed by other people. Second, they never seem to take a break. Even Richard Maibaum took a film off every once in a while! And the three films proved that Bond didn’t need Maibaum to survive. If P & W took a film off, then we could see if our criticism is justified. I’m happy with most of their ideas, but I think at the bare minimum, a one film break from them is what everyone needs.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2022 Posts: 2,895
    Although P & W were given a break after the early drafts of QOS, to be fair. Apparently, Campbell had tried to get them kicked off CR, but Forster actually managed it. After all, once the writers' strike was over, he hired Joshua Zetumer to tweak the QOS shooting script while they were filming, not P & W. The impression I'd got is that P & W were actually done and gone until EON brought them back to go over John Lodge's SF script. Which didn't turn out all bad: I think they came up with the name 'Skyfall', didn't they? I do remember the sinking feeling I got when they were brought back to bale out Lodge when he 'hit the wall' on SP, though! ;)
  • edited December 2022 Posts: 2,752
    Venutius wrote: »
    Although P & W were given a break after the early drafts of QOS, to be fair. Apparently, Campbell had tried to get them kicked off CR, but Forster actually managed it. After all, once the writers' strike was over, he hired Joshua Zetumer to tweak the QOS shooting script while they were filming, not P & W. The impression I'd got is that P & W were actually done and gone until EON brought them back to go over John Lodge's SF script. Which didn't turn out all bad: I think they came up with the name 'Skyfall', didn't they? I do remember the sinking feeling I got when they were brought back to bale out Lodge when he 'hit the wall' on SP, though! ;)

    Actually I think it was Lodge who went over P&W's script for SF. Originally Peter Morgan was commissioned but left pretty soon after. It's debatable how much of the finished script can be attributed to him, and he himself claims that the big hook of the film came from himself, although others including Mendes have denied this. P&W have also openly said Morgan was more steeped in Le Carre whereas they were more inspired by Fleming.

    It does seem the core ideas came from P&W - the idea of Silva targeting M for revenge (which is a premise not dissimilar to the one in TWINE), Bond being presumed dead and injured (again, the latter of which is similar to TWINE), Scotland/Bond's home being the location of the climax etc.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    I’m split on P&W… I’ve read their Bond scripts, and reading is far different than watching films. Scriptwriting is its own craft and artistry in telling a story in a rigid three act structure with the appropriate beats and twists within these confines.

    I find their Bond scripts bloated and busting at the seams. And sometimes dense with descriptions (the art of film writing is to use as little words as possible to create imagery).

    However, writing a spec and writing on assignment are two separate beasts: the producers have hired you so the craftsmanship and artistry are not necessarily needed. The bosses just want the story.

    So it’s hard to judge how good they are as craftsman-writers.

    One thing for sure is, they know Fleming and are able to incorporate his spirit into their scripts. And I believe these scripts may be bloated because they know that this series is a producer-driven and director-driven medium, so the bloat is about giving the director as much as possible to work with.

    And they also know that once the director takes over, it’s his vision that goes on the screen. He can hire new writers, or take his own pen to the story. Once filming begins , he can cut any scene(s), he wants, and get entirely new scenes written on the spot. He may use new locations; cut characters… Amalgamate other characters; change day to night; change a setting from one place to another… (and once you change one thing in a script, there is a domino effect).

    In editing he and the editor can assemble a film that’s of an entirely different tone and even structure from the original script. So here’s where EoN may see much value in this duo’s work: they’re able to supply many scenes, and then some, for the director to then use as he sees fit to support his vision.

    I also suspect they write with speed (not some writers forte— although I know of a certain writer/director on this site that is one of the lucky ones: he writes beautifully and with speed (ahem, @ColonelSun), and; can be called on in a pinch to solve problems.

    These aren’t so much as artistically written scripts as they are material for a director to make a Bond picture. Which is a difficult assignment unto itself.

    A spec script, on the other hand, is a showcase of skill, artistry and craftsmanship because you’re trying to catch the attention of the producers— something I’m sure P&W had to do many times prior to their Bond gig…

    This isn’t an easy job (writing for 007), and likely has many many challenges. I wouldn’t be surprised (nor upset), if EoN went back to these guys to kickstart the next era (but there will be other writers involved at some point— whether credited or uncredited).
Sign In or Register to comment.