Neal Purvis And Robert Wade Turn In 'Bond 22' Script

Qwerty

Neal Purvis And Robert Wade Turn In 'Bond 22' Script

http://commanderbond.net/article/4229

Their new project sounds somewhat interesting as well. I wonder if we'll definitely see Paul Haggis back again for rewrites on Bond 22.

blueman

Haggis rewrites in May again? We can only hope...

Gassy Man

I hope somebody more qualified than these two come in to rewrite the script. "Casino Royale" benefitted from having Fleming as the source and Haggis as an editor -- by themselves, P and W are awful.

DAWUSS

Gassy Man wrote:

I hope somebody more qualified than these two come in to rewrite the script. "Casino Royale" benefitted from having Fleming as the source and Haggis as an editor -- by themselves, P and W are awful.

I'm sure they (EON) could find talent here...

highhopes

If it's like practically any other Hollywood action film, it'll be seen by quite a few eyes before it's finished. I just hope they maintain the more serious, character-driven vibe of CR.

RobertSMiller

I hope so, it would be a terrible shame to go from CR to something like DAD.

Loeffelholz

Qwerty wrote:

Neal Purvis And Robert Wade Turn In 'Bond 22' Script

I'm glad to hear this; it indicates forward momentum....

And, as a writer, I'd give anything to see what passes for a first draft with Eon---at least, to the extent that one receives payment for it...!

Tee Hee

I don't think Dino and Martha know exactly what they have gotten themselves into. )

As for Bond 22, the earlier P & W pump out a first draft, the earlier someone else can get around to editing it. :v )

Moore Not Less

highhopes wrote:

I just hope they maintain the more serious, character-driven vibe of CR.

The producers took quite a gamble with Casino Royale (the re-boot, Daniel Craig) that paid off handsomely both critically and commercially. So I would expect them to maintain the more serious, character-driven vibe of CR, perhaps with some minor alterations. And considering Bond 22 is a direct sequel to CR, it would not make any sense if radical alterations were made.

words

I don't know if anyone can answer this but I am fascinated by P & W's actual input into the creation of ideas for a movie.
I mean, it seems odd that the same people responsible for writing DAD could also do CR. Are they given an outline of plot and set pieces and told 'we are doing a serious Bond this time'. Or do they create the script entirely themselves and just submit it.

What do you think?

John Drake

words wrote:

I don't know if anyone can answer this but I am fascinated by P & W's actual input into the creation of ideas for a movie.
I mean, it seems odd that the same people responsible for writing DAD could also do CR. Are they given an outline of plot and set pieces and told 'we are doing a serious Bond this time'. Or do they create the script entirely themselves and just submit it.

What do you think?

I suspect Barbara B and Michael Wilson pretty much tell P&W in what direction they want the film to go. P&W then have to deliver a script that lives up to their expectations. Or down to them, in the case of DAD.

Barry Nelson

John Drake wrote:

words wrote:

I don't know if anyone can answer this but I am fascinated by P & W's actual input into the creation of ideas for a movie.
I mean, it seems odd that the same people responsible for writing DAD could also do CR. Are they given an outline of plot and set pieces and told 'we are doing a serious Bond this time'. Or do they create the script entirely themselves and just submit it.

What do you think?

I suspect Barbara B and Michael Wilson pretty much tell P&W in what direction they want the film to go. P&W then have to deliver a script that lives up to their expectations. Or down to them, in the case of DAD.

I agree John, in fact Wilson has stated their plan for DAD was to celebrate the 40 years of Bond and for CR their plan was to go in another direction which P&W did. I don't think P&W deserve the criticism they get. I think they have delivered some pretty good films.

Gassy Man

DAWUSS wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

I hope somebody more qualified than these two come in to rewrite the script. "Casino Royale" benefitted from having Fleming as the source and Haggis as an editor -- by themselves, P and W are awful.

I'm sure they (EON) could find talent here...

I quite agree; I suspect, to some degree, this already happens, as writers -- for the sake of argument, let's put P and W into that category -- trawl boards like these to see what people are talking about and for "inspiration."

Willie Garvin

Barry Nelson wrote:

John Drake wrote:

words wrote:

I don't know if anyone can answer this but I am fascinated by P & W's actual input into the creation of ideas for a movie.
I mean, it seems odd that the same people responsible for writing DAD could also do CR. Are they given an outline of plot and set pieces and told 'we are doing a serious Bond this time'. Or do they create the script entirely themselves and just submit it.

What do you think?

I suspect Barbara B and Michael Wilson pretty much tell P&W in what direction they want the film to go. P&W then have to deliver a script that lives up to their expectations. Or down to them, in the case of DAD.

I agree John, in fact Wilson has stated their plan for DAD was to celebrate the 40 years of Bond and for CR their plan was to go in another direction which P&W did. I don't think P&W deserve the criticism they get. I think they have delivered some pretty good films.

I also agree.Purvis and Wade have given their employers exactly what their employers have requested.As screenwriters, they don't enjoy the luxury of being able to tell Eon what will be in the next movie prior to discussing that with the producers.And P&W aren't in a position to determine the overall direction or style of any of the Bond films.Instead,their role is to shape the story and provide scenes and dialogue.That's all.If the general public finds some of P&W's 007 films to be less creatively successful than others, then,in all fairness, the responsibilty for that situation really rests with Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli.As the Bond producers, it is they who ultimately okay the contents of each screenplay, and it is they who decide to make each film.Also,as matter of course,in general terms,screenplays are usually rewritten--and often by people other than the individuals who originated them.This is usually not meant to be a reflection on the writers who authored the initial material,but is instead an attempt at having the material looked at by more objective eyes.Additionally,successful screenwriters are not always available to do rewrites because they're usually working on more than one project.

It's an extremely rare instance when a screenplay is filmed without ever undergoing changes of any kind.Such exceptions only happen when noted writers are able(because of their fame within the industry)to obtain written legal guarantees from a film's producers that nothing of theirs will ever be altered during the course of filming.

If Wilson and Broccoli can take the credit for their successes, then surely they can also do the same for their relative failures.The Bond films have always been producer-driven films.By contrast,the voices of the actors,directors and screenwriters are not as important.These movies have always been rewritten--sometimes on the spur of the moment,in order to accomodate a producer's ideas,as with Diamonds Are Forever for example,which was reportedly rewritten extensively in order to not only turn it into a sequel to OHMSS but also to turn it into a farce incorporating--among other things-- Cubby Broccoli's suggestion that the film include a Howard Hughes-like character within the storyline.And the contents of the screenplay for The Spy Who Loved Me were contributed by at least eight different writers,before Eon was finally satisfied enough to turn that raw material over to Christopher Wood for a final draft.

Cubby Broccoli used to claim that everyone at Eon had a say in deciding on the final contents of each movie Eon made--in retrospect,maybe that wasn't always such a good idea...

jetsetwilly

I've always felt that Purvis and Wade got unfair treatment. I remember the indignation when Bruce Feirstein was brought in to rewrite TWINE; the feeling at that time was that he would be disastrous for the existing script, based on his previous efforts. It's easy to ignore the fact that Richard Maibaum wrote FRWL and OHMSS, as well as TMWTGG and AVTAK. He may be the Godfather of Bond writing, but Maibaum was still subject to the whims of his producers, and was always vocal in his disapproval for the way scripts with his name on turned out. As WG pointed out, Bond movies are made through comittees - look at the arguments as to who was responsible for Blofeld being based in a volcano for an example...

Hardyboy

Good points, WG and Jetset, and might I add that pretty much all movie scripts are committee efforts. This weekend I watched the Vietnam vet drama, Coming Home (1978), and of course I had to watch the "making-of" featurette. According to this, the first version of the script was a 250-page affair tailor-made for Jane Fonda; though Jane stayed on the film the rest of the cast changed and so a second draft, written by someone else, was ordered, and this became a political diatribe. The cast and producers decided the film needed to be more of a love story, so a third writer was brought in to turn the script into its final form. Still, the cast members talked about how much of what made it to the film was improvised, either by themselves or by director Hal Ashby. Scripts are starting points and are never treated as holy writ by anyone on the set.

blueman

Wasn't it Maibaum's idea to have Goldfinger's brother as the baddie in DAF, and a big boat chase across Lake Tahoe for the finale?

I can see some of this relating to P&W, be interesting to see if EON hires a Haggis-type to rewrite, who directs, etc. I can easily agree that TWINE and DAD are hard to judge.

HowardB

That's interesting that there was a boat chase climax originally in the script of DAF. I wonder how much of that was reworked and used in Live and Let Die? Not a big fan of DAF. The final script IMO seemed more tailored for Roger Moore than Connery. Would have been nice if Connery would have hit the gym a little bit before shooting (he looked better in NSNA IMO). As far as Purvis and Wade, who knows....just as the other posts have indicated, alot of hands get involved with a script, even during shooting. I do hope Haggis gets involved with Bond 22. I'm guessing his greatest asset is in punching up the dialog. The quality of dialog in CR was a huge step-up from previous Bonds that P and W were involved with. EON really needs to get it right again after the success of CR both artistically and at the boxoffice. Everyone's expectations are now very high for Bond 22. It's going to have to improve on CR much like FRWL improved upon Dr No IMO...and that will start with a very good script.

highhopes

I'm glad to hear so many people sticking up for Purvis and Wade. I've always felt that blaming them for the perceived shortcomings of past Bond films was unfair. I'm not sure they deserve all the credit for CR, either. Eon has always held onto Bond with something of an iron fist, but even the most independent production is a collaborative affair. Who knows exactly who contributed what to what? But since not knowing what I'm talking about has never stopped me before, I'm going to proposed who I think is most responsible for the various qualities of the script.Casino Royale was a fine effort in my view, with an involving plot that skillfully updated the Fleming story, better-drawn characters and the proper tone for a Bond film: realistic, but fanciful at the same time. My guess would be P&W were most responsible for be the updating and plot (they would almost have to be, given that Bond 22, which they were slated to write, continues the story of CR) Eon the tone, and Haggis the dialogue and characterization tweaks.

7289

I am afraid that Casino Royale may turn out to be a happy accident. Given the track record of the producers over the past twenty years, I am worried that Bond 22 cannot possibly come up to the high standard of casting, plot and writing the bar has been set to high.

blueman

Ah but Babs seems to be taking a much stronger role in things now. I put CR's success on her primarily, and Wilson, and am hoping they do that voodoo again.

darenhat

I am always particularly interested in 'the second film' of any Bond actor. When a new Bond actor premieres, I think they try a little harder than usual. For me, the true test is in what comes next. Will they fall back on pre-established ideas? Will they raise the bar? Will they see which way the wind is blowing, and try to make a Bond film that matches? We shall see...

kpefkaros

I think Craig will be up to that challenge (I seem to remember him saying he wanted to focus on what makes the man tick), the question is will the story and writing allow him to do that with the character.

taity

I dont look at the track record over 20 years. After all, these producers have only been Bonding since 1995. That said, alot of people deem TND/TWINE/DAD to be weak entries to the series. I dont like that hit/miss ratio.

As for casting, I'll disagree. I think that since these producers took over theres only been a few miscastings - primarily Jinx, but it wouldnt be fair to blame all her problems on Berry.

JennyFlexFan

TWINE? Many people praise that as one of Brosnan's best alongside Goldeneye, due to the alleged "Tracy-esqueness" of Elektra (though I've never been much of a fan). I like TWINE, but elements of it did not appeal to me.

TND and DAD however, are usally hailed as poor entries.

And to blueman's post about voodoo, I KNEW that Baron Samedi (haunting me since the end of Goldeneye 007) had to have been behind the success of Casino Royale.