Daniel Craig says he doesn't want to do another Bond; Spectre may be his last

145791035

Comments

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,399
    Getafix wrote: »
    Purvis and Wade were actualy sacked after SF but when Mendes rejoined for SP they were rehired.

    well..... it wasn't that simple..

    they were indeed given their walking papers after SF, as Mendes has had a closer (and until this time, better) working relationship with John Logan... after turning in a few really subpar drafts of the script for SP, Mendes freaked out - sacked Logan, then (for all intents and purposes) went crawling back to Purvis and Wade to rewrite the mess Logan had created.. then after they were done, he brought in Jez Butterworth to do touch up work on their draft..

    honestly, i feel like it's time for the series to move beyond P&W - and i think they had planned on it, but Logan really served up a sh**burger for Mendes and company... but it's also been well documented here on these boards that previous issues with DAD and even TWINE might have had more to do with the directors of said films changing things around to suit what they wanted to do with the film... christ, Tamahori pretty much took a chainsaw to their script for DAD - and we see how that turned out... and QOS was pretty much a disaster from the jump, since they rushed and didn't allow Haggis to do his full rewrite on it.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    But the worship towards BB and Craig from many here and at the same time being totally uncritical to what EON has given us since 2008 is as shocking as some of my opinions may be.

    :)) :)) you obviously haven't been here for very long then..

    QOS holds a special place in a lot of people's hearts on this forum... and SF has it's fair share of detractors as well.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    Craig isn't my favorite Bond, or even my second favorite, but I will miss his run as Bond. I hope he does at least one more. If he does that then the next Bond film will be out around 2017 or 2018. Then we can move on to our next Bond and by that time Matthew Lewis, from the Harry Potter films, will be just old enough for the role.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm convinced Craig will do Bond 25 in 2018, maybe wanting to keep Craig will speed things up so a 2018 release seems realistic.

    But if Spectre is his last, what do you people think about the supporting cast??

    Should Ralph Fiennes, Rory Kinnear, Ben Whisaw, Neomie Harris stay around and welcome the new Bond actor or should they all get the boot for a completely new era?

    That was what I was thinking as well. Does Wishaw see this as a long term gig that will keep him ticking over while he does other more serious stuff on the side? It is a nice gig to have tbh. He is never likely to be a leading man himself and has a promising career as a character actor ahead of him. A permanent job as Q is quite desirable for an actor in his position.

    I like to think EON has the main supporting cast on long term multi-film contracts.

    Idris Elba with Naomi Harris? ;)

    That's what John Cleese thought hahaha!
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Murdock wrote: »
    I love Craig as Bond and his films. No complaints from me. :D

    2nd that! DC da man!
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    NicNac wrote: »
    Late 2016, BB + MGW will have finished counting their dollars or dusting their mansions or whatever.
    Maybe, m a y b e, then they will start thinking about the next Bond movie if we are lucky.

    Anyone who believes the next movie will be out before 2018 is delusional. I'd even wouldn't be surprised if it would take them 4 years again.
    Maybe you should be a little more grateful that these people actually control the franchise. The alternative could be quite unpalatable.

    To set the record straight:
    BB + MGW did everything right up to 2006. I still think casting Craig was a mistake, he was already too old (38) for a rookie 00 agent and the reboot thing was an idiotic idea.
    Nevertheless they did everything else perfectly, cast, director, music, etc.
    Casino Royale is their legacy.

    Then everything went wrong. QOS never should have been allowed to happen the way it is. And Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts...I wonder why they still have that job. In any other production company they would have been sacked long ago.
    The 3 year gap between SF and SP is inexcusable, especially because we all know it only happened because BB once again had to have one of her darlings doing the movie (Mendes).

    Simply put: BB + MGW had their times when they were young, fresh and good.
    That was up to 2006, since then they have tunnel-vision, no ability for innovation, they don't recognise obvious problems (writing issues) anymore.
    They should retire or they will bury the franchise. Especially when BB is alone at the helm which inevitably will happen.

    The alternative could be unpalatable yes. Do I want Disney to take over the Bond franchise? I don't know, they can show us now what they are capable of with Star Wars.
    I don't see why giving the Bond franchise to another production company should automatically get negative results.

    That's not 'setting the record straight', it's just your opinion.
    Over a 50 year period all the Bond producers have made mistakes and errors of judgement. And you seem to think DAD was a right move? Seriously?

    Well, as I say that's an opinion and shouldn't be rammed down our throats as 'fact'.

    My opinion is that they recognised that they were going in the wrong direction after DAD and did something about it. They took the bold step to cast Craig, which proved to be the right decision and are now riding the wave of critical and commercial success.

    That's my opinion of course.

    And if you give the likes of Disney the franchise, any lingering resemblance the franchise now has to Ian Flaming can be kissed goodbye.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited September 2015 Posts: 2,138
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Late 2016, BB + MGW will have finished counting their dollars or dusting their mansions or whatever.
    Maybe, m a y b e, then they will start thinking about the next Bond movie if we are lucky.

    Anyone who believes the next movie will be out before 2018 is delusional. I'd even wouldn't be surprised if it would take them 4 years again.
    Maybe you should be a little more grateful that these people actually control the franchise. The alternative could be quite unpalatable.

    To set the record straight:
    BB + MGW did everything right up to 2006. I still think casting Craig was a mistake, he was already too old (38) for a rookie 00 agent and the reboot thing was an idiotic idea.
    Nevertheless they did everything else perfectly, cast, director, music, etc.
    Casino Royale is their legacy.

    Then everything went wrong. QOS never should have been allowed to happen the way it is. And Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts...I wonder why they still have that job. In any other production company they would have been sacked long ago.
    The 3 year gap between SF and SP is inexcusable, especially because we all know it only happened because BB once again had to have one of her darlings doing the movie (Mendes).

    Simply put: BB + MGW had their times when they were young, fresh and good.
    That was up to 2006, since then they have tunnel-vision, no ability for innovation, they don't recognise obvious problems (writing issues) anymore.
    They should retire or they will bury the franchise. Especially when BB is alone at the helm which inevitably will happen.

    The alternative could be unpalatable yes. Do I want Disney to take over the Bond franchise? I don't know, they can show us now what they are capable of with Star Wars.
    I don't see why giving the Bond franchise to another production company should automatically get negative results.

    That's not 'setting the record straight', it's just your opinion.
    Over a 50 year period all the Bond producers have made mistakes and errors of judgement. And you seem to think DAD was a right move? Seriously?

    Well, as I say that's an opinion and shouldn't be rammed down our throats as 'fact'.

    My opinion is that they recognised that they were going in the wrong direction after DAD and did something about it. They took the bold step to cast Craig, which proved to be the right decision and are now riding the wave of critical and commercial success.

    That's my opinion of course.

    And if you give the likes of Disney the franchise, any lingering resemblance the franchise now has to Ian Flaming can be kissed goodbye.


    The guy doesn't know anything, he is coming on a fan forum quoting matters of fact. Then saying dumb stuff like Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts
    WRONG John Logan wrote Skyfall, Purvis & Wade only touched up the last draft the same with Spectre.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Late 2016, BB + MGW will have finished counting their dollars or dusting their mansions or whatever.
    Maybe, m a y b e, then they will start thinking about the next Bond movie if we are lucky.

    Anyone who believes the next movie will be out before 2018 is delusional. I'd even wouldn't be surprised if it would take them 4 years again.
    Maybe you should be a little more grateful that these people actually control the franchise. The alternative could be quite unpalatable.

    To set the record straight:
    BB + MGW did everything right up to 2006. I still think casting Craig was a mistake, he was already too old (38) for a rookie 00 agent and the reboot thing was an idiotic idea.
    Nevertheless they did everything else perfectly, cast, director, music, etc.
    Casino Royale is their legacy.

    Then everything went wrong. QOS never should have been allowed to happen the way it is. And Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts...I wonder why they still have that job. In any other production company they would have been sacked long ago.
    The 3 year gap between SF and SP is inexcusable, especially because we all know it only happened because BB once again had to have one of her darlings doing the movie (Mendes).

    Simply put: BB + MGW had their times when they were young, fresh and good.
    That was up to 2006, since then they have tunnel-vision, no ability for innovation, they don't recognise obvious problems (writing issues) anymore.
    They should retire or they will bury the franchise. Especially when BB is alone at the helm which inevitably will happen.

    The alternative could be unpalatable yes. Do I want Disney to take over the Bond franchise? I don't know, they can show us now what they are capable of with Star Wars.
    I don't see why giving the Bond franchise to another production company should automatically get negative results.

    That's not 'setting the record straight', it's just your opinion.
    Over a 50 year period all the Bond producers have made mistakes and errors of judgement. And you seem to think DAD was a right move? Seriously?

    Well, as I say that's an opinion and shouldn't be rammed down our throats as 'fact'.

    My opinion is that they recognised that they were going in the wrong direction after DAD and did something about it. They took the bold step to cast Craig, which proved to be the right decision and are now riding the wave of critical and commercial success.

    That's my opinion of course.

    And if you give the likes of Disney the franchise, any lingering resemblance the franchise now has to Ian Flaming can be kissed goodbye.


    The guy doesn't know anything, he is coming on a fan forum quoting matters of fact. Then saying dumb stuff like Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts
    WRONG John Logan wrote Skyfall, Purvis & Wade only touched up the last draft the same with Spectre.

    I'm not convinced that's true of SP and it definitely isn't true of SF.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited September 2015 Posts: 2,138
    RC7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Late 2016, BB + MGW will have finished counting their dollars or dusting their mansions or whatever.
    Maybe, m a y b e, then they will start thinking about the next Bond movie if we are lucky.

    Anyone who believes the next movie will be out before 2018 is delusional. I'd even wouldn't be surprised if it would take them 4 years again.
    Maybe you should be a little more grateful that these people actually control the franchise. The alternative could be quite unpalatable.

    To set the record straight:
    BB + MGW did everything right up to 2006. I still think casting Craig was a mistake, he was already too old (38) for a rookie 00 agent and the reboot thing was an idiotic idea.
    Nevertheless they did everything else perfectly, cast, director, music, etc.
    Casino Royale is their legacy.

    Then everything went wrong. QOS never should have been allowed to happen the way it is. And Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts...I wonder why they still have that job. In any other production company they would have been sacked long ago.
    The 3 year gap between SF and SP is inexcusable, especially because we all know it only happened because BB once again had to have one of her darlings doing the movie (Mendes).

    Simply put: BB + MGW had their times when they were young, fresh and good.
    That was up to 2006, since then they have tunnel-vision, no ability for innovation, they don't recognise obvious problems (writing issues) anymore.
    They should retire or they will bury the franchise. Especially when BB is alone at the helm which inevitably will happen.

    The alternative could be unpalatable yes. Do I want Disney to take over the Bond franchise? I don't know, they can show us now what they are capable of with Star Wars.
    I don't see why giving the Bond franchise to another production company should automatically get negative results.

    That's not 'setting the record straight', it's just your opinion.
    Over a 50 year period all the Bond producers have made mistakes and errors of judgement. And you seem to think DAD was a right move? Seriously?

    Well, as I say that's an opinion and shouldn't be rammed down our throats as 'fact'.

    My opinion is that they recognised that they were going in the wrong direction after DAD and did something about it. They took the bold step to cast Craig, which proved to be the right decision and are now riding the wave of critical and commercial success.

    That's my opinion of course.

    And if you give the likes of Disney the franchise, any lingering resemblance the franchise now has to Ian Flaming can be kissed goodbye.


    The guy doesn't know anything, he is coming on a fan forum quoting matters of fact. Then saying dumb stuff like Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts
    WRONG John Logan wrote Skyfall, Purvis & Wade only touched up the last draft the same with Spectre.

    I'm not convinced that's true of SP and it definitely isn't true of SF.

    Skyfall and Spectre were both Logan stories, Purvis and Wade were only brought in to beef up both. Hence following Skyfall Purvis and Wade were dropped only for it to then be discovered the Logan's story was thin on his own, a grovelling apology later Purvis and Wade agreed to touch up Spectre.

    An old Logan interview http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-features/9940386/John-Logan-on-Peter-and-Alice-I-loved-writing-Skyfall-but-theatre-is-my-world.html
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited September 2015 Posts: 2,138
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Purvis and Wade were actualy sacked after SF but when Mendes rejoined for SP they were rehired.

    well..... it wasn't that simple..

    they were indeed given their walking papers after SF, as Mendes has had a closer (and until this time, better) working relationship with John Logan... after turning in a few really subpar drafts of the script for SP, Mendes freaked out - sacked Logan, then (for all intents and purposes) went crawling back to Purvis and Wade to rewrite the mess Logan had created.. then after they were done, he brought in Jez Butterworth to do touch up work on their draft..

    honestly, i feel like it's time for the series to move beyond P&W - and i think they had planned on it, but Logan really served up a sh**burger for Mendes and company... but it's also been well documented here on these boards that previous issues with DAD and even TWINE might have had more to do with the directors of said films changing things around to suit what they wanted to do with the film... christ, Tamahori pretty much took a chainsaw to their script for DAD - and we see how that turned out... and QOS was pretty much a disaster from the jump, since they rushed and didn't allow Haggis to do his full rewrite on it.

    Yeah, Mendes and Logan are peas in pods. Following Skyfall with the TV series Penny Dreadful together I think they though cut out Purvis & Wade again and let Logan have free reign, however I think Logan can be guilty of self indulgence and his script for Spectre was over theatrical and lacked human element and humour, hence bring in Purvis in Wade to macho it up a bit and add a bit of wit.
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2015 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Late 2016, BB + MGW will have finished counting their dollars or dusting their mansions or whatever.
    Maybe, m a y b e, then they will start thinking about the next Bond movie if we are lucky.

    Anyone who believes the next movie will be out before 2018 is delusional. I'd even wouldn't be surprised if it would take them 4 years again.
    Maybe you should be a little more grateful that these people actually control the franchise. The alternative could be quite unpalatable.

    To set the record straight:
    BB + MGW did everything right up to 2006. I still think casting Craig was a mistake, he was already too old (38) for a rookie 00 agent and the reboot thing was an idiotic idea.
    Nevertheless they did everything else perfectly, cast, director, music, etc.
    Casino Royale is their legacy.

    Then everything went wrong. QOS never should have been allowed to happen the way it is. And Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts...I wonder why they still have that job. In any other production company they would have been sacked long ago.
    The 3 year gap between SF and SP is inexcusable, especially because we all know it only happened because BB once again had to have one of her darlings doing the movie (Mendes).

    Simply put: BB + MGW had their times when they were young, fresh and good.
    That was up to 2006, since then they have tunnel-vision, no ability for innovation, they don't recognise obvious problems (writing issues) anymore.
    They should retire or they will bury the franchise. Especially when BB is alone at the helm which inevitably will happen.

    The alternative could be unpalatable yes. Do I want Disney to take over the Bond franchise? I don't know, they can show us now what they are capable of with Star Wars.
    I don't see why giving the Bond franchise to another production company should automatically get negative results.

    That's not 'setting the record straight', it's just your opinion.
    Over a 50 year period all the Bond producers have made mistakes and errors of judgement. And you seem to think DAD was a right move? Seriously?

    Well, as I say that's an opinion and shouldn't be rammed down our throats as 'fact'.

    My opinion is that they recognised that they were going in the wrong direction after DAD and did something about it. They took the bold step to cast Craig, which proved to be the right decision and are now riding the wave of critical and commercial success.

    That's my opinion of course.

    And if you give the likes of Disney the franchise, any lingering resemblance the franchise now has to Ian Flaming can be kissed goodbye.


    The guy doesn't know anything, he is coming on a fan forum quoting matters of fact. Then saying dumb stuff like Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts
    WRONG John Logan wrote Skyfall, Purvis & Wade only touched up the last draft the same with Spectre.

    I'm not convinced that's true of SP and it definitely isn't true of SF.

    Skyfall and Spectre were both Logan stories, Purvis and Wade were only brought in to beef up both. Hence following Skyfall Purvis and Wade were dropped only for it to then be discovered the Logan's story was thin on his own, a grovelling apology later Purvis and Wade agreed to touch up Spectre.

    An old Logan interview http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-features/9940386/John-Logan-on-Peter-and-Alice-I-loved-writing-Skyfall-but-theatre-is-my-world.html

    The nugget of 'M's' death is a Logan idea as far as I'm aware, in conjunction with Mendes, but regard the screenplay it is a combination of work from Logan and P+W. These films aren't the work of a singular voice. Also, you'll note that P+W are credited ahead of Logan in the title sequence, the credits themselves are verified by the WGA, so if Logan felt he was the majority 'voice' in that screenplay he would certainly have raised it with them. P+W didn't 'touch up the last draft'. If you're merely polishing it's unlikely you would receive a credit, and you certainly wouldn't get top billing. I believe SP will see a similar scenario. P+W will have restructured parts of the film, I have no doubt.
  • Posts: 820
    I not believing this. Skyfall was going to be last but he sign for 2 more. SPECTRE & BOND 25. I think Bond 25 will be his last.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 1,661

    BondJasonBond006 wrote:

    Should Ralph Fiennes, Rory Kinnear, Ben Whisaw, Neomie Harris stay around and welcome the new Bond actor or should they all get the boot for a completely new era?

    If Daniel Craig does retire from the role I'd favour full recasting of M, Moneypenny, Q, the look of MI6. I suppose if Bond 25 is SPECTRE part 2 then it would make sense to keep as much of the cast but if a new Bond actor takes over I wouldn't mind a clean slate approach. Judi Dench was a fine M but, said in hindsight, I don't think Casino Royale would have been noticeably worse had they recast M. Recasting M in Bond 25 wouldn't be a big deal.
  • you beat
    RC7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Late 2016, BB + MGW will have finished counting their dollars or dusting their mansions or whatever.
    Maybe, m a y b e, then they will start thinking about the next Bond movie if we are lucky.

    Anyone who believes the next movie will be out before 2018 is delusional. I'd even wouldn't be surprised if it would take them 4 years again.
    Maybe you should be a little more grateful that these people actually control the franchise. The alternative could be quite unpalatable.

    To set the record straight:
    BB + MGW did everything right up to 2006. I still think casting Craig was a mistake, he was already too old (38) for a rookie 00 agent and the reboot thing was an idiotic idea.
    Nevertheless they did everything else perfectly, cast, director, music, etc.
    Casino Royale is their legacy.

    Then everything went wrong. QOS never should have been allowed to happen the way it is. And Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts...I wonder why they still have that job. In any other production company they would have been sacked long ago.
    The 3 year gap between SF and SP is inexcusable, especially because we all know it only happened because BB once again had to have one of her darlings doing the movie (Mendes).

    Simply put: BB + MGW had their times when they were young, fresh and good.
    That was up to 2006, since then they have tunnel-vision, no ability for innovation, they don't recognise obvious problems (writing issues) anymore.
    They should retire or they will bury the franchise. Especially when BB is alone at the helm which inevitably will happen.

    The alternative could be unpalatable yes. Do I want Disney to take over the Bond franchise? I don't know, they can show us now what they are capable of with Star Wars.
    I don't see why giving the Bond franchise to another production company should automatically get negative results.

    That's not 'setting the record straight', it's just your opinion.
    Over a 50 year period all the Bond producers have made mistakes and errors of judgement. And you seem to think DAD was a right move? Seriously?

    Well, as I say that's an opinion and shouldn't be rammed down our throats as 'fact'.

    My opinion is that they recognised that they were going in the wrong direction after DAD and did something about it. They took the bold step to cast Craig, which proved to be the right decision and are now riding the wave of critical and commercial success.

    That's my opinion of course.

    And if you give the likes of Disney the franchise, any lingering resemblance the franchise now has to Ian Flaming can be kissed goodbye.


    The guy doesn't know anything, he is coming on a fan forum quoting matters of fact. Then saying dumb stuff like Skyfall is such a disappointment in the writing department.
    And they still have the same ole P+W writing the scripts
    WRONG John Logan wrote Skyfall, Purvis & Wade only touched up the last draft the same with Spectre.

    I'm not convinced that's true of SP and it definitely isn't true of SF.

    You beat me to it. And SKYFALL really IS a huge disappointment in the writing dept., even though Logan's history doesn't really suggest otherwise (his main 'win' credits are mostly for films that were rewritten by other people, while the stuff that was filmed intact turned out to be the end of STAR TREK for nearly a decade and BATS.)
  • RC7 wrote: »
    The nugget of 'M's' death is a Logan idea as far as I'm aware,

    I thought that was the single item retained from Peter Morgan's time writing SF.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    trevanian wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The nugget of 'M's' death is a Logan idea as far as I'm aware,

    I thought that was the single item retained from Peter Morgan's time writing SF.

    Ah yes, you're right I think.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    Judi Dench thought it was time to go, too, did she not?
  • With Skyfall, Purvis and Wade wrote first, John Logan was brought in to rewrite.

    Meanwhile, I wonder if Logan is being made a bit of a scapegoat. Supposedly, Logan was working closely with Mendes during the SPECTRE scripting process. If they worked *that closely* what Logan turned in shouldn't have been that much of a surprise.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Well, whatever the precise details it seems pretty clear that EON are in a bit of a mess in the screenwriting department. Something is not working. I am not an expert but IMO most of the scripts since P+W have been involved have not been brilliant. All their Brosnan era work is pretty diabolical. CR had the benefit of a Fleming plot and Haggis dialogue. QoS is IMO much better than people give it credit for but again had the benefit of Haggis (were P+W actually involved?). SF plot and story is all over the place IMO althoigh there are occasional nice bits of dialogue (probably thanks to Logan and Butterworth). I am reserving judgement on SP but clearly the writing process was again pretty fraught.

    P+W are plodding journeymen. They write hackneyed, derivative plots and stories and have absolutely no talent for dialogue. They should be working on daytime TV not Bond.

    Logan occassionaly writes some brilliant, memorable dialogue, but is also pretty awful at plot and story.

    Bond deserves a lot better.

    Bringing in Peter Morgan for SF was a really positive move and its a shame that didn't work out. He is good at plot and story and writes solid, unflashy dialogue.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Getafix wrote: »
    Well, whatever the precise details it seems pretty clear that EON are in a bit of a mess in the screenwriting department. Something is not working. I am not an expert but IMO most of the scripts since P+W have been involved have not been brilliant. All their Brosnan era work is pretty diabolical. CR had the benefit of a Fleming plot and Haggis dialogue. QoS is IMO much better than people give it credit for but again had the benefit of Haggis (were P+W actually involved?). SF plot and story is all over the place IMO althoigh there are occasional nice bits of dialogue (probably thanks to Logan and Butterworth). I am reserving judgement on SP but clearly the writing process was again pretty fraught.

    P+W are plodding journeymen. They write hackneyed, derivative plots and stories and have absolutely no talent for dialogue. They should be working on daytime TV not Bond.

    Logan occassionaly writes some brilliant, memorable dialogue, but is also pretty awful at plot and story.

    Bond deserves a lot better.

    Bringing in Peter Morgan for SF was a really positive move and its a shame that didn't work out. He is good at plot and story and writes solid, unflashy dialogue.

    Should give Mark Gatiss the gig. Talent writer, understands what excites and audience has amazing film knowledge massive Bond fan recently did this Bond program http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02x2jbn was hailed for his guest writing on Doctor Who.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    I would go with Gatiss. He can combine drama, excitement and humour. And as you say a massive Bond fan.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I haven't seen much Of his work but would be open to the idea.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    NicNac wrote: »
    I would go with Gatiss. He can combine drama, excitement and humour. And as you say a massive Bond fan.

    I love Sherlock and dislike Dr. Who. Torn.
  • Posts: 9,784
    Wait are we seriously discussing who should write the next bond film it's Chris Mcquarrie Usual Suspects and Mission Impossible Rogue Nation are two of the smartest best written films I have ever seen. Get Chris discussion over ;)
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Purvis and Wade were actualy sacked after SF but when Mendes rejoined for SP they were rehired.

    well..... it wasn't that simple..

    they were indeed given their walking papers after SF, as Mendes has had a closer (and until this time, better) working relationship with John Logan... after turning in a few really subpar drafts of the script for SP, Mendes freaked out - sacked Logan, then (for all intents and purposes) went crawling back to Purvis and Wade to rewrite the mess Logan had created.. then after they were done, he brought in Jez Butterworth to do touch up work on their draft..

    honestly, i feel like it's time for the series to move beyond P&W - and i think they had planned on it, but Logan really served up a sh**burger for Mendes and company... but it's also been well documented here on these boards that previous issues with DAD and even TWINE might have had more to do with the directors of said films changing things around to suit what they wanted to do with the film... christ, Tamahori pretty much took a chainsaw to their script for DAD - and we see how that turned out... and QOS was pretty much a disaster from the jump, since they rushed and didn't allow Haggis to do his full rewrite on it.

    Yeah, Mendes and Logan are peas in pods. Following Skyfall with the TV series Penny Dreadful together I think they though cut out Purvis & Wade again and let Logan have free reign, however I think Logan can be guilty of self indulgence and his script for Spectre was over theatrical and lacked human element and humour, hence bring in Purvis in Wade to macho it up a bit and add a bit of wit.

    did you follow any of the drama that went on during preproduction on SP?.. i just have to ask...

    because what i was saying wasn't a loose opinion, or a glossing over of details... Logan's draft of SP was garbage, and P&W were brought back to completely overhaul it... and when i say that, i'm not talking as if Mendes was somewhat just a little unsure with John's script - or he was having small minor issues with it.. no, he apparently didn't like any of it - no one did - not Sam, not Dan, not Babs or Michael..... I'm sure there is still plenty of Logan's work in there, but it's mostly P&W's now....

    the only one brought in to do a little "beefing up" was Jez Butterworth, and that was after P&W had already finished their version of the script.

    this was one of the reasons production was delayed - the script kept being rewritten.. it went from September to October to December, and basically literally right before they started shooting was the script finally as finalized as it was going to be..
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    No problem with Gatiss at all, with that producer credit thinking maybe talk of this being Craig's last might be premature, could be he got this to persuade him to stay on for at least one more.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,399
    delete
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Getafix wrote: »
    Well, whatever the precise details it seems pretty clear that EON are in a bit of a mess in the screenwriting department. Something is not working. I am not an expert but IMO most of the scripts since P+W have been involved have not been brilliant. All their Brosnan era work is pretty diabolical. CR had the benefit of a Fleming plot and Haggis dialogue. QoS is IMO much better than people give it credit for but again had the benefit of Haggis (were P+W actually involved?). SF plot and story is all over the place IMO althoigh there are occasional nice bits of dialogue (probably thanks to Logan and Butterworth). I am reserving judgement on SP but clearly the writing process was again pretty fraught.

    P+W are plodding journeymen. They write hackneyed, derivative plots and stories and have absolutely no talent for dialogue. They should be working on daytime TV not Bond.

    Logan occassionaly writes some brilliant, memorable dialogue, but is also pretty awful at plot and story.

    Bond deserves a lot better.

    Bringing in Peter Morgan for SF was a really positive move and its a shame that didn't work out. He is good at plot and story and writes solid, unflashy dialogue.

    Should give Mark Gatiss the gig. Talent writer, understands what excites and audience has amazing film knowledge massive Bond fan recently did this Bond program http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02x2jbn was hailed for his guest writing on Doctor Who.

    i've always said give Paul Haggis another real shot at it..

    he may have had some really "far out" and crazy ideas that no one would like - thankfully EON checked him at the door when it came to those..

    but i believe CR's great story and writing was due in large part to him... i dont even count QOS as being written by him - because it pretty much wasn't.. i don't even think he made it halfway through his rewrite before being forced to turn back in - and a lot of that movie was rewritten on set while they were filming (now thats a clusterf*ck)

    so i say let the man have another go, and lets see what he can really do..
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Another I fancy for screen play is Alex Gansa who adapted the novel prisoners of war in to Homeland. Thought he created a great drama and understands suspense and action.
  • Forster was more interested in the themes of fire-water-earth-air than in an actual story. I think that had as much, if not more, to do with the situation than the writer's strike.
This discussion has been closed.