Depending on what kind of deal was made, EON might own the rights to Hodge's script lock, stock and barrel or for a specific period of time.
EON and Craig appear to be getting all the blame for this mess but we just don't know what really transpired. It is possible that EON was just conducting business as usual and wanting to make changes to the script and Boyle, who is used to having total control just couldn't deal with that? Let's face it, scripts being re-written, changed or doctored is common practice and for better or worst there is an especially long history of this with the Bond films. The difference is, Boyle can go back to making smaller films that he has complete control over but EON is left with a huge budget, tent pole film that is the swan song for a very popular Bond actor in the greatest, most iconic film series in history that is literally now stuck in the mud....yikes.
Depending on what kind of deal was made, EON might own the rights to Hodge's script lock, stock and barrel or for a specific period of time.
EON and Craig appear to be getting all the blame for this mess but we just don't know what really transpired. It is possible that EON was just conducting business as usual and wanting to make changes to the script and Boyle, who is used to having total control just couldn't deal with that? Let's face it, scripts being re-written, changed or doctored is common practice and for better or worst there is an especially long history of this with the Bond films. The difference is, Boyle can go back to making smaller films that he has complete control over but EON is left with a huge budget, tent pole film that is the swan song for a very popular Bond actor in the greatest, most iconic film series in history that is literally now stuck in the mud....yikes.
Depending on what kind of deal was made, EON might own the rights to Hodge's script lock, stock and barrel or for a specific period of time.
EON and Craig appear to be getting all the blame for this mess but we just don't know what really transpired. It is possible that EON was just conducting business as usual and wanting to make changes to the script and Boyle, who is used to having total control just couldn't deal with that? Let's face it, scripts being re-written, changed or doctored is common practice and for better or worst there is an especially long history of this with the Bond films. The difference is, Boyle can go back to making smaller films that he has complete control over but EON is left with a huge budget, tent pole film that is the swan song for a very popular Bond actor in the greatest, most iconic film series in history that is literally now stuck in the mud....yikes.
My impression is Boyle and Hodge were a team. Eon must have misread the signals and assumed they could ditch Hodge and his screenplay but still retain Boyle. Turned out Boyle wasn't going to continue without Hodge's screenplay. Perhaps Boyle said to the producers "please reinstate Hodge and I'll stay" - and Eon said no?
We don't know the precise chain of events but it's reasonable to assume Danny Boyle's friendship with John Hodge is more important than making a James Bond film. Boyle could have stuck with the film and directed someone else's screenplay but he decided it wasn't worth it. My guess is most directors would stick it out because of the fee and opportunity to make a James Bond film. Boyle is in his 60s, he's made a lot of films so I guess he doesn't need to make a Bond film. Who knows, perhaps he would have stuck it out (without Hodge) had he been a lot younger with less experience.
Depending on what kind of deal was made, EON might own the rights to Hodge's script lock, stock and barrel or for a specific period of time.
EON and Craig appear to be getting all the blame for this mess but we just don't know what really transpired. It is possible that EON was just conducting business as usual and wanting to make changes to the script and Boyle, who is used to having total control just couldn't deal with that? Let's face it, scripts being re-written, changed or doctored is common practice and for better or worst there is an especially long history of this with the Bond films. The difference is, Boyle can go back to making smaller films that he has complete control over but EON is left with a huge budget, tent pole film that is the swan song for a very popular Bond actor in the greatest, most iconic film series in history that is literally now stuck in the mud....yikes.
My impression is Boyle and Hodge were a team. Eon must have misread the signals and assumed they could ditch Hodge and his screenplay but still retain Boyle. Turned out Boyle wasn't going to continue without Hodge's screenplay. Perhaps Boyle said to the producers "please reinstate Hodge and I'll stay" - and Eon said no?
We don't know the precise chain of events but it's reasonable to assume Danny Boyle's friendship with John Hodge is more important than making a James Bond film. Boyle could have stuck with the film and directed someone else's screenplay but he decided it wasn't worth it. My guess is most directors would stick it out because of the fee and opportunity to make a James Bond film. Boyle is in his 60s, he's made a lot of films so I guess he doesn't need to make a Bond film. Who knows, perhaps he would have stuck it out (without Hodge) had he been a lot younger with less experience.
My guess (and guess is the word here) is that EON more than likely wasn't looking to dump the Hodge script but make some changes, which based upon real factual history is how things are done more times than not on Bond films. Boyle probably wasn't willing to go along with that so therefore a parting of ways. It's also possible that EON initially requested that Hodge make changes in the script and he balked at that. Another guess on my part is that EON probably owns the rights to Hodge's script at least for the next few years and can do what they wish with it. Subsequently, Bond 25 could possibly be just a re-written version of Hodge's script based on an idea by Boyle which could mean that once the changes are made and a director is on board we could be headed for a fall '19 release date. It wouldn't surprise me that the final writing credits for Bond 25 are Screenplay by John Hodge, Danny Boyle and (fill in the blank), unless Boyle and Hodge request to have their names not associated with the film.
It wouldn't surprise me that the final writing credits for Bond 25 are Screenplay by John Hodge, Danny Boyle and (fill in the blank), unless Boyle and Hodge request to have their names not associated with the film.
Writers Guild of America regulations are that if 30% of a script contains material by a single writer or team of writers, they get screen credit. If they want it, of course. EON might still use all or part of the script, in which case we might see Boyle and Hodge's names up on the screen.
^^^^ This. This is pretty much what happened to Edgar Wright on Ant Man; he wrote a script, Marvel wanted changes to it, Wright didn't, so Wright left.
Adam McKay and Paul Rudd did a rewrite of Edgar's script, which is what we got in the end.
I feel like EON will keep the script draft (the structure\base story\story beats) and Purvis and Wade will do a pass on the Hodge script, or possibly John Logan or Jez Butterworth, all names invovled in the last few.
It'd be awesome if they got Christopher McQuarrie to just do a quick draft like Tom Cruise has done for his last couple of movies but I bet that guy's in (a well-deserved) vacation mode right now.
I wonder if as part of Boyle's separation agreement (I am guessing there was probably some financial payment for whatever work he did on the film) there was a confidentiality agreement on both sides to protect the reputation of both Boyle, EON and protect Bond 25. The last thing EON needs is the former director clucking about how great his Bond would have been vs what EON wanted to do. And it wouldn't help Boyle if EON/MGM put word out that Boyle was a difficult, egomaniac who refused to work with others.
Is it possible Michael G. Wilson is working on Hodge's script while they're searching for the new director? It's been a while, but he was very involved in the writing back in the 80's.
Is it possible Michael G. Wilson is working on Hodge's script while they're searching for the new director? It's been a while, but he was very involved in the writing back in the 80's.
He did some writing on Quantum of Solace. The '80s Bond films he co-wrote are some of my favourites, all with excellent scripts. I wish he would contribute writing again, but I don't see him wanting to be involved that way any more.
Danny Boyle spoke to the Radio Times just 5 days before his departure from Bond 25 with an ominous quote about how anyone who is a 007 'aficionado' would struggle to helm or write a film for the series.
He said: ‘The books were everything to me when I was a kid. I read them multiple times. Like everyone else, I saw the films, but I’d already read the books so I had a different relationship with the characters. Although I think it’d be impossible for a Bond aficionado to write or direct a Bond film. You’d be hampered by how much you knew. They want you to bring a freshness to it."
So basically he's too much of a fan to direct a Bond film? It doesn't make any sense. What, so it's better to be totally disinterested in Bond (be it the literary version or the film version) and that gives you a better outlook on making a Bond film?
He's talking nonsense. First class piffle. ) Being a huge fan is an asset. It means you understand the formula, the appeal of the character, what people expect from a Bond film. You can still strive to make your own distinct Bond film (subject to Babs changing it all ). The guy doesn't sound like he knew what the heck he was doing. Based on these recent comments it's for the best he left. Boyle may have given us a different Bond film - the formula altered to suit his sensibilities - but my gut feeling is it would end up deeply flawed.
Sounds to me like Boyle may have been rationalizing his impending departure from Bond 25. I was all for Boyle directing Bond 25 but I always had a very slight bit of doubt based upon his previous reticence about ever directing another "big film". I get the feeling that it might not have taken too much to get Boyle to move on. I wonder if it all was getting to Boyle a bit and he was looking for a way out. Just a wild guess on my part. It all doesn't really matter now, I am really more interested to see what happens now with Bond 25. Other than the possibility that Hodge's script, based upon Boyle's idea may still be the basis for Bond 25, Boyle is just another footnote in the Bond saga.
‘The books were everything to me when I was a kid. I read them multiple times. Like everyone else, I saw the films, but I’d already read the books so I had a different relationship with the characters. Although I think it’d be impossible for a Bond aficionado to write or direct a Bond film. You’d be hampered by how much you knew. They want you to bring a freshness to it."
So basically he's too much of a fan to direct a Bond film? It doesn't make any sense. What, so it's better to be totally disinterested in Bond (be it the literary version or the film version) and that gives you a better outlook on making a Bond film?
actually that makes complete sense to me.
The recent films, since the kids took over, have shown little understanding or even familiarity with the books. They instead measure themselves against what other trendy action franchise is currently most successful. Barbara is more interested into expanding into Oscar-bait artfilms, and Daniel Craig has been given unprecedented power over how the films are made. Most of the creative people that get hired for each new film have no history with the series.
I could totally imagine a situation where a director would want to do something strongly influenced by what Fleming wrote, and Craig and his recent hires respond "Fleming? what's that? did Fleming do his own stunts?"
Do you think Cubby showed how much he cared about Fleming when he made Moonraker?
I'd say CR and QoS were more influenced by Fleming than any Bond movie made in the 70's, 80's and 90's.
there are elements of Fleming in Moonraker, and Cubby had a much better track record over his 16 films than his daughter has had in her eight. He was a fan of the books from the beginning, and was inspired to adapt them into a film series. He sought Saltzman out because Saltzman had acquired the rights but didn't know what to do with them.
I don't see the Fleming in Quantum of Solace, and we have debated it before. There should be a thread on this very topic not buried too far down. The second half of Casino Royale was very reverential, but the first half was a different thing entirely, and even when it came out I did not believe Craig's interpretation of the character had any more to do with what Fleming wrote than what Brosnan had been doing, if anything less: more like Doc Martin with a gun.
The answer is relatively simple, Cubby (and don't forget Harry) had the Fleming books....(which if you want to be honest, they basically threw out for YOLT) but the Fleming was still there. It also doesn't hurt that those films were made closer to the time of the Fleming books.
Also, back in the days of Cubby and Harry making Bond films that closely followed what Fleming wrote film audiences did not expect an explosion every twenty minutes. I'm of the belief that Casino Royale is probably the best at aligning Fleming's story with contemporary blockbuster sensibilities (the script obviously having been written for a younger actor non withstanding) but, maybe because they did not have a Fleming story to use as a framework, they have not been able to replicate that as effectively again, nor do I think they have particularly tried. Craig's Bond has become his own distinct entity.
EON are really stuck between a rock and a hard place as whilst, I believe, it would be best for the Bond franchise to go smaller scale, audiences and the media and therefore EON seem to want it to compete with the likes of MI and the MCU, something the franchise was never really designed to do.
Moonraker "closely followed what Fleming wrote"? Or Octopussy and AVTAK? I don't think so
now now Number24, I did not say "closely followed". There are at least as many elements from Fleming in Moonraker as there have been in these last three films. Or the first three Brosnans.
Before I commit myself too deeply to this argument, let me acknowledge Die Another Day contains the second most Fleming content of any of the eight Broccoli Jr films, so I know just having Fleming content is no guarantee of inherent quality.
But it is not a matter of them having run out of Fleming. I think somewhere upthread I listed an even half dozen Fleming plots that are yet to be filmed, and there are still dozens of smaller ideas left over from the books that have been most faithfully adapted. Going back to Dr No: that giant squid for one.
I think we are more in agreement now.
I'm one of many who wants to see the Garden of Death in a movie.
I would also like to see a version of the brainwashed 00-agent who trives to kill M at the start of LALD.
But I want one of the other 00-agents to be brainwashed and Bond to save him in the PTS. Now that M is Ex-SAS and Moneypenny was an agent the fight in M's office could be even better.
In my opinion there are two things we should get to know within a few weeks:
- Who is the new director?
- What script will be used?
Historically, it is not without precedent that Bond films borrowed unused material from previous script drafts, other submitted scripts and of course unused material from Fleming. It would not surprise me if this was the case with Bond 25. I have a feeling that if EON
liked Boyle's basic idea and Hodge's draft that much to begin with they more than likely will use it as the basis for Bond 25. It could turn out for the best....maybe. Let's assume that Boyle's idea and Hodge's script were fresh and original with a nice dose of Fleming (based upon Boyle's professed love of the novels) but lacking in the action that today's cinematic Bond requires. If EON can punch up the action without straying too far from Hodge/Boyle and get the right director on board we might have the potential for another CR or Skyfall quality film.
P&W are good at scripting action scenes. A Hodge and Boyle script augmented with P&W action scenes could be a winner. Or it could be a Frankenstein's monster of mis-matched components as Specter was.
Comments
I doubt it will ever be seen and all copies likely destroyed, bar maybe one locked in a lawyer's vault somewhere in Hollywood...
EON and Craig appear to be getting all the blame for this mess but we just don't know what really transpired. It is possible that EON was just conducting business as usual and wanting to make changes to the script and Boyle, who is used to having total control just couldn't deal with that? Let's face it, scripts being re-written, changed or doctored is common practice and for better or worst there is an especially long history of this with the Bond films. The difference is, Boyle can go back to making smaller films that he has complete control over but EON is left with a huge budget, tent pole film that is the swan song for a very popular Bond actor in the greatest, most iconic film series in history that is literally now stuck in the mud....yikes.
Crikey, when you put it like that
My impression is Boyle and Hodge were a team. Eon must have misread the signals and assumed they could ditch Hodge and his screenplay but still retain Boyle. Turned out Boyle wasn't going to continue without Hodge's screenplay. Perhaps Boyle said to the producers "please reinstate Hodge and I'll stay" - and Eon said no?
We don't know the precise chain of events but it's reasonable to assume Danny Boyle's friendship with John Hodge is more important than making a James Bond film. Boyle could have stuck with the film and directed someone else's screenplay but he decided it wasn't worth it. My guess is most directors would stick it out because of the fee and opportunity to make a James Bond film. Boyle is in his 60s, he's made a lot of films so I guess he doesn't need to make a Bond film. Who knows, perhaps he would have stuck it out (without Hodge) had he been a lot younger with less experience.
My guess (and guess is the word here) is that EON more than likely wasn't looking to dump the Hodge script but make some changes, which based upon real factual history is how things are done more times than not on Bond films. Boyle probably wasn't willing to go along with that so therefore a parting of ways. It's also possible that EON initially requested that Hodge make changes in the script and he balked at that. Another guess on my part is that EON probably owns the rights to Hodge's script at least for the next few years and can do what they wish with it. Subsequently, Bond 25 could possibly be just a re-written version of Hodge's script based on an idea by Boyle which could mean that once the changes are made and a director is on board we could be headed for a fall '19 release date. It wouldn't surprise me that the final writing credits for Bond 25 are Screenplay by John Hodge, Danny Boyle and (fill in the blank), unless Boyle and Hodge request to have their names not associated with the film.
Writers Guild of America regulations are that if 30% of a script contains material by a single writer or team of writers, they get screen credit. If they want it, of course. EON might still use all or part of the script, in which case we might see Boyle and Hodge's names up on the screen.
Adam McKay and Paul Rudd did a rewrite of Edgar's script, which is what we got in the end.
I feel like EON will keep the script draft (the structure\base story\story beats) and Purvis and Wade will do a pass on the Hodge script, or possibly John Logan or Jez Butterworth, all names invovled in the last few.
It'd be awesome if they got Christopher McQuarrie to just do a quick draft like Tom Cruise has done for his last couple of movies but I bet that guy's in (a well-deserved) vacation mode right now.
He did some writing on Quantum of Solace. The '80s Bond films he co-wrote are some of my favourites, all with excellent scripts. I wish he would contribute writing again, but I don't see him wanting to be involved that way any more.
So basically he's too much of a fan to direct a Bond film? It doesn't make any sense. What, so it's better to be totally disinterested in Bond (be it the literary version or the film version) and that gives you a better outlook on making a Bond film?
He's talking nonsense. First class piffle.
The recent films, since the kids took over, have shown little understanding or even familiarity with the books. They instead measure themselves against what other trendy action franchise is currently most successful. Barbara is more interested into expanding into Oscar-bait artfilms, and Daniel Craig has been given unprecedented power over how the films are made. Most of the creative people that get hired for each new film have no history with the series.
I could totally imagine a situation where a director would want to do something strongly influenced by what Fleming wrote, and Craig and his recent hires respond "Fleming? what's that? did Fleming do his own stunts?"
I'd say CR and QoS were more influenced by Fleming than any Bond movie made in the 70's, 80's and 90's.
I don't see the Fleming in Quantum of Solace, and we have debated it before. There should be a thread on this very topic not buried too far down. The second half of Casino Royale was very reverential, but the first half was a different thing entirely, and even when it came out I did not believe Craig's interpretation of the character had any more to do with what Fleming wrote than what Brosnan had been doing, if anything less: more like Doc Martin with a gun.
EON are really stuck between a rock and a hard place as whilst, I believe, it would be best for the Bond franchise to go smaller scale, audiences and the media and therefore EON seem to want it to compete with the likes of MI and the MCU, something the franchise was never really designed to do.
They had some elements from Fleming, such as Bond telling a resymè of the sort story in OP, but both the tone and story was far from Fleming.
Before I commit myself too deeply to this argument, let me acknowledge Die Another Day contains the second most Fleming content of any of the eight Broccoli Jr films, so I know just having Fleming content is no guarantee of inherent quality.
But it is not a matter of them having run out of Fleming. I think somewhere upthread I listed an even half dozen Fleming plots that are yet to be filmed, and there are still dozens of smaller ideas left over from the books that have been most faithfully adapted. Going back to Dr No: that giant squid for one.
I'm one of many who wants to see the Garden of Death in a movie.
I would also like to see a version of the brainwashed 00-agent who trives to kill M at the start of LALD.
But I want one of the other 00-agents to be brainwashed and Bond to save him in the PTS. Now that M is Ex-SAS and Moneypenny was an agent the fight in M's office could be even better.
- Who is the new director?
- What script will be used?
Historically, it is not without precedent that Bond films borrowed unused material from previous script drafts, other submitted scripts and of course unused material from Fleming. It would not surprise me if this was the case with Bond 25. I have a feeling that if EON
liked Boyle's basic idea and Hodge's draft that much to begin with they more than likely will use it as the basis for Bond 25. It could turn out for the best....maybe. Let's assume that Boyle's idea and Hodge's script were fresh and original with a nice dose of Fleming (based upon Boyle's professed love of the novels) but lacking in the action that today's cinematic Bond requires. If EON can punch up the action without straying too far from Hodge/Boyle and get the right director on board we might have the potential for another CR or Skyfall quality film.