It's Official: Bond 23 Writers Named

Loeffelholz

http://mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_23_confirmed_writers.php3?t=&s=&id=02274

Purvis & Wade continue to lead charmed lives... X-(

Peter Morgan comes as a bit of a surprise---I haven't seen Frost/Nixon yet, but I really enjoyed The Queen and The Last King of Scotland...

The biggest remaining question: is Paul Haggis out as a polisher? Just yesterday, he was tipped to be involved:

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=7652&t=mi6&s=news

I'm just speculating, but I would guess that Peter Morgan would take on the Haggis role this time round---putting a shine on whatever P&W come up with---but I could well be wrong. Maybe Haggis comes in after P&W&M...? Can there be too many cooks in the kitchen?

Stay tuned, and feel free to express your thoughts...

Dan Same

I can predict that there will be many members who will be less than thrilled at the rehiring of Purvis & Wade. :v ) Personally, It doesn't really concern me either way as while I don't think that Purvis & Wade are great writers, I don't think they're terrible writers either. The series has had vastly superior writers (Richard Maibaum for example), and there are superior writers working today, but I loved the script to TWINE, flaws and all, and so I don't mind welcoming them back.

Morgan is a superb writer, however his speciality is in small character-driven dramas and in theatre. It'll be interesting to see how well he does in relation to a major franchise vehicle and one which doesn't involve a real-life historical person (his previous films have focused on Idi Amin, Queen Elizabeth, Richard Nixon and David Frost, Brian Clough, Anne and Mary Boleyn and Henry VIII).

If Morgan is in, and Haggis is out, then I would be absolutely delighted. My dislike of Haggis is well known and IMO he is the one who should be blamed for IMO the terrible screenplays of CR and QOS. So all in all, I'm extremely happy with this news.

blueman

Great news, solid writers - and isn't this early???

Dan Same

It is extremely early. Hopefully, if everything else is delivered early, we can find out the title sooner rather than later.

Loeffelholz

Seems to me that Morgan will be doing what Haggis did---not so much the broader plot of the piece, but the dialogue and character bits. In that sense, having a theatre background could be beneficial...Haggis isn't admired by all here, of course, but IMO he did a fine job of focusing some of the pieces of CR (especially) where this new Bond was best defined, and the financial success of the Bond films in which he was involved is beyond question. My guess is that somebody heard that an announcement about Bond 23 writers was forthcoming, and it was assumed that Haggis would be involved once again.

All the same, it will be good if the polishing is done by Morgan instead---he's a fantastic writer---as a different flavour will probably strengthen the product.

Mister White

I'm quite happy with this, because unlike some members here I haven't been dissapointed by P&W yet. And though I also haven't seen Frost/Nixon yet I loved the Queen and the Last King of Scotland. So I am quite exited about Morgan coming in.

Barbel

Mister White wrote:

I am quite exited about Morgan coming in.

I'm entranced by it, personally...

( ;% Sorry, can never resist bad puns)

chrisno1

I didn't expect to see this thread here, apologies for posting elsewhere... I must pay more attention.

To re-iterate what I said yesterday, I have no issue with Peter Morgan, his writing is very good and he gets underneath the skin of his characters, so we could be looking at some good personality development for Daniel Craig, which would be excellent.
However, given PM's experience with hierarchical battles (Queen vs Tony Blair, Frost vs Nixon) doesn't this point to more scenes of 007 and M throwing quips and barbs at each other??? Something I'm not particularly in favour of.

I never warmed to P&W although they did a much better job with CR than all their other efforts, chiefly, I think, because CR was based solidly in the realm of Ian Fleming. They seem to struggle when constructing a tale outside of that, making the goings on too confusing and relying on action to propell the plot.

I think MGW and BB are definately going down a "safety first" route here, working with people they know and love. It shows a laziness that Cubby got bogged down with in the dreary 1980s when almost every film was scripted, directed, edited, photographed, designed, by the same people.

Personally, I expected more from these two, who did so well with the "reboot" idea, but look to me to be tailing off a little. I can only wait and see, but after QOS rather tired screenplay and plot (IMO) I had hoped for something better.

I also expect P&W are on board purely to develop the Quantum side of things, which looks like developing into a sort of SPECTRE for DC's Bond. Let's hope they utilise Mr White properly this time around.

Loeffelholz

chrisno1 wrote:

...given PM's experience with hierarchical battles (Queen vs Tony Blair, Frost vs Nixon) doesn't this point to more scenes of 007 and M throwing quips and barbs at each other??? Something I'm not particularly in favour of.

Nor I

In my own humble opinion, that's now officially been done to death. That scene between Bond and M in QoS, just before he climbs over the railing and escapes along the edge of the atrium of the hotel---plus their final scene in Russia, at the film's denouement---ought to define the new parameters of their relationship, putting it pretty much where Bond and M were during the days of Classic Connery Bond. She knows he's the best agent in the service, and she trusts him. Let's move forward from there, and (please) quit trodding over the same ground.

And I agree with your point about Eon's track record of seeking stability with their creative team; as I said in your thread, they seem to like being comfortable---and perhaps there's nothing wrong with that. And P&W seem to be team players who will cash their paychecks, and not get their panties in a bunch, when the script doctor comes a'calling and changes up a few things. And, in all candor, that's the true definition of professionalism.

I've nothing against P&W personally (other than some professional jealousy, which is beyond my control X-( )...but I do think their work improves when someone improves it, ex post facto :v

blueman

I get the feeling P&W figured out not to have the villains' motivations be about hating on their parents (TWINE and DAD): both CR and QOS were thankfully free of such drivel, just had straight-forward bad guys going after the money/power in whatever interesting and clever ways. If they - and Morgan - can continue that old-school-Bond trend in 23 (using QUANTUM, I'd think they'd be primed for that), then I'll be a happy Bond camper indeed. :007)

Hardyboy

Perhaps Morgan is to write the ultimate "hierarchical battle" for a Bond film--between Bond and a terrific villain?

Mister White

Hardyboy wrote:

Perhaps Morgan is to write the ultimate "hierarchical battle" for a Bond film--between Bond and a terrific villain?

This would work very well if they expand on the Guy Haines character. He's part of the same government (same hierarchy) as Bond, wich with Morgan's writing could turn very interesting indeed.

Napoleon Plural

Hardyboy wrote:

Perhaps Morgan is to write the ultimate "hierarchical battle" for a Bond film--between Bond and a terrific villain?

Ah now you're talking. Funny though, and telling, how we actually have forgotten about that. The Bond-M thing is the main relationship of the last few films, and a dreary one at that.

I like Morgan's work, up to a point. The dialogue is very fluent and I liked The Queen, thought it had a Bond flavour to it. But my reservations are the usual; really I would have hired director Stephen Frears for Bond as much as the writer, who does have a certain easy, repetitive style to him. As ChrisNo1 points out, it runs along similar lines whatever film he does. Will we have a dream sequence where the villain phones Bond at his Mayfair abode and berate him, "You lead a charmed life, James, but we were both outsiders once..." )

Yes, I liked Wade and Purvis in TWINE but that was a loooooooooong time ago. And I have a hunch that had a dialogue polish which is why it works a bit better for me on that one. Why does DS hate Haggis? It's hard to tell from CR and QoS what is his work and which is P+W.

QuantumofSolace007

I'm happy with this news and look foward to bond 23

Head of Section

Personally, I'm very sad that Paul Haggis won't be returning. I thought his contributions to Casino were brilliant. Best dialogue in a Bond movie in decades. And I think P&W are dismal, and QoS (A confusing 'Beverly Hills Cop 2 style 'connect-the-dots' story-line with scenes and clues just dropping into Bond's lap, etc. ) is a great example what you get when they are left alone with no Fleming story to work from, and no one to rework their material and polish dialogue.

darenhat

I'm not quick to blame the screenwriters for any of QoS's failings. For the most part, the story/plot was there, but it was hacked beyond recognition by Forster's need for style. As much as I'm surprised to hear myself say this, I'm glad they're keeping P&W...I feel they are less-inclined to take Bond too far from expectations, whereas some of the more 'dramatic' writers might try to put an inappropriate flair on the script.

blueman

Hardyboy wrote:

Perhaps Morgan is to write the ultimate "hierarchical battle" for a Bond film--between Bond and a terrific villain?

Ooooh, very cool thought. In a sense it's what Craig's first two films have been building up to, a raison d'etre showdown between the big bad of Quantum and Bond... on an island in the Sea of Japan... with a Death Castle... and a squid. :v

Loeffelholz

blueman wrote:

Hardyboy wrote:

Perhaps Morgan is to write the ultimate "hierarchical battle" for a Bond film--between Bond and a terrific villain?

Ooooh, very cool thought. In a sense it's what Craig's first two films have been building up to, a raison d'etre showdown between the big bad of Quantum and Bond... on an island in the Sea of Japan... with a Death Castle... and a squid. :v

Certainly works for me B-)

Barbel

darenhat wrote:

I'm not quick to blame the screenwriters for any of QoS's failings. For the most part, the story/plot was there, but it was hacked beyond recognition by Forster's need for style. As much as I'm surprised to hear myself say this, I'm glad they're keeping P&W...I feel they are less-inclined to take Bond too far from expectations, whereas some of the more 'dramatic' writers might try to put an inappropriate flair on the script.

Hear, hear. All the right elements were there, just poorly handled by Forster.

taity

I think that the writers get the job done - you can say that. My problem has never been with the dialogue - its been about the overuse of action scenes in the more recent movie. Something tells me that the film makers just dont know how to work an action sequence.

Take the first 20/25 mins of Quantum Of Solace and you see nothing but action next to action next to brief dialogue ext to action! Its too much, I feel like I never get a chance to digest what's going on. It was like that in Die Another Day and in Quantum Of Solace. I think one of the reasons Casino Royale was such a success was that for once the film makers let Bond sit down for a couple of minutes. The action scenes were still there, only not as often.

In short - I blame the producers and not the script writers. After all, all they do is write the dialogue between action scene to action scene.

zaphod

like others I really hope that the Bond/M relationship is not a prominent factor next time around as this should make it possible to restict the role of M to briefing, mid mission update, and denoument.

Loeffelholz

zaphod wrote:

like others I really hope that the Bond/M relationship is not a prominent factor next time around as this should make it possible to restict the role of M to briefing, mid mission update, and denoument.

And even that is arguably at least one more scene than is needed. Some of the better Fleming novels have M at the beginning, and merely sending a communique at the end...

In that sense, I hope the next M, whenever he/she comes, isn't a celebrated/awarded superstar. I'd prefer a skilled but relatively unknown character actor, so that the writers aren't obligated to 'build up' the part any further than they've already done. But watch and see...the next one will be Helen Mirren )

Loeffelholz

A new wrinkle in the story, so to speak, as Variety.com is reporting that Peter Morgan has bowed out as director of the HBO picture "The Special Relationship"...

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118005290.html?categoryId=14&cs=1

...and MI6 speculates that this may or may not mean that he's going to turn his attention toward Bond sooner than expected...

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=7686&t=mi6&s=news

For what it's worth!

blueman

Sooner is better than later, even if only a day!

Rick Roberts

If Morgan crafts anything like Last King of Scotland for Bond 23, I'll be extremely happy. I wish Pervert and Waste would finally be given the boot but oh well, beggers can't be chosers.

Dan Same

Rick Roberts wrote:

If Morgan crafts anything like Last King of Scotland for Bond 23, I'll be extremely happy. I wish Pervert and Waste would finally be given the boot but oh well, beggers can't be chosers.

I can't say that I quite agree with you, but I've never heard them being described that way. )

Rick Roberts

I must admit I didn't come up with those nicknames myself but they sure do fit.

Loeffelholz

Personally, I was happy to escape elementary school, and I'm not the least bit nostalgic about those days.

JesseDart

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Hardyboy wrote:

Perhaps Morgan is to write the ultimate "hierarchical battle" for a Bond film--between Bond and a terrific villain?

Ah now you're talking. Funny though, and telling, how we actually have forgotten about that. The Bond-M thing is the main relationship of the last few films, and a dreary one at that.

I like Morgan's work, up to a point. The dialogue is very fluent and I liked The Queen, thought it had a Bond flavour to it. But my reservations are the usual; really I would have hired director Stephen Frears for Bond as much as the writer, who does have a certain easy, repetitive style to him. As ChrisNo1 points out, it runs along similar lines whatever film he does. Will we have a dream sequence where the villain phones Bond at his Mayfair abode and berate him, "You lead a charmed life, James, but we were both outsiders once..." )

Yes, I liked Wade and Purvis in TWINE but that was a loooooooooong time ago. And I have a hunch that had a dialogue polish which is why it works a bit better for me on that one. Why does DS hate Haggis? It's hard to tell from CR and QoS what is his work and which is P+W.

TWINE is absolutly the worst Bond movie of alltime and has the least well written script of all the bond movies. The only script Purvis and Wade has written that is any good is CR and that's just an adaption so they should let Purvis and Wade stick to writing Johnny English movies and let Morgan and Haggis write the script for bond 23

superdaddy

Loeffelholz wrote:

zaphod wrote:

like others I really hope that the Bond/M relationship is not a prominent factor next time around as this should make it possible to restict the role of M to briefing, mid mission update, and denoument.

And even that is arguably at least one more scene than is needed. Some of the better Fleming novels have M at the beginning, and merely sending a communique at the end...

In that sense, I hope the next M, whenever he/she comes, isn't a celebrated/awarded superstar. I'd prefer a skilled but relatively unknown character actor, so that the writers aren't obligated to 'build up' the part any further than they've already done. But watch and see...the next one will be Helen Mirren )

Lets save that for when Henry Cavill takes over for Bond 25 or 26.

Loeffelholz

A trickle of a teaser coming from the resurrected MI6, regarding Peter Morgan's remark about Bond 23: "It's a shocking story."

http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_23_report_dec09.php3?t=&s=&id=02434

Also of interest is that apparently Morgan wrote the first draft of #23, from July until October this year. This a departure from the routine of late, where P&W did the first draft and a third party (Paul Haggis with CR and QoS) came in to polish.

So P&W are polishing Morgan? ?:) Go figure.