My guess is P&W come up with a "Treatment" followed by something more complete and if the producers are ok with that at least one additional writer gets brought on board to punch things up. Of course, who is chosen as the director will surely have input.
Although they’ve got a bit of a mixed record, P&W at least understand the Bond franchise and respect it’s history. What they come up with might be mediocre, but it’s unlikely to be offensive.
I have nothing against Purvis and Wade, but their continuing involvement shows how differently Eon operates from other big producers. Reinvention usually means a mostly clean slate. The honchos bring in new, often rising stars or under appreciated journeymen who really get the franchise and then give them a long leash. Michael and Barbara seem to do this with their directors but need P&W behind the scenes for continuity and control. I’d prefer the reverse where new writers come in and everything get directed by Martin Campbell. 😆
P&W handled the reinvention from DAD to CR well enough.
In theory, who better to oversee a reinvention than the ones who are deeply steeped in what came before? There are lots of instances in the film business of folks who think they're breathtakingly original, but in reality just don't know their history.
As I said, I don't dislike Purvis and Wade and suspect they get a lot of grief here for decisions made by Eon's owners. Personally, I think Barbara and Michael should be able to handle the history part of the franchise (they do own it, after all) leaving the writers and the directors more latitude. But I don't know how creative decisions are made at Eon, not having read the Sony leaks. It's hard not to look at the recent series of films with their continuing return to Italy as a setting—when Bond could and should go anywhere in the world—and not think that covering production costs drives many of the artistic choices.
It's hard not to look at the recent series of films.... and not think that covering production costs drives many of the artistic choices.
All films have budgets though, artistic choices are limited by budget all the time. Was Cubby desperate to have great big British Airways and 7-Up adverts in Moonraker? I doubt it.
its not just the plotting though, I've found the dialog really weak for the last umpteen films, it often sounds like they left it for someone else to replace with good dialog later and nobody ever got round to it.
Goldeneye is the last "recent" one with quotable lines, and those were mostly notable for being "meta"
the old good films had highly quotable dialog that was clever and funny, revealed character and advanced the story at a brisk pace as much as the action and the camera work. You could make a radio play of just the dialog in Goldfinger and itd still be an entertaining story.
but I'm guessing Wilson, who wrote the 80s films, is getting kind of elderly and may not be so involved with this reinvention. Maybe Purvis & Wade are the veterans now who will be responsible for passing their knowledge to the next generation. World is Not Enough was what, 1999? their first film was also Desmond Llewelyn's last film, and he was the last of the originals.
Of course they have budgets. I just happen to think Eon is especially focused on maximizing their sponsorship dollars.
Meanwhile the Mission Impossible series has stepped into the spectacle void vacated by Bond by actually filming in exotic locales like Mumbai, Kuala Lumpur, and Shanghai (as well as the usual stand-ins). Meanwhile Eon shipped Craig back to Italy for the fourth time in NTTD. Matera is gorgeous. I didn't mind. But the Bond I grew up on in the '70s on introduced me to a wider world.
I do give credit to Eon for finding ways to film in some interesting places. The meteorite crater (actually extinct volcano) that served as Blofeld's lair in SP was great! But as a fan and filmgoer, I wish Eon spent more on locations and less on things like "the biggest explosion in movie history" (also in SP).
James Bond: [agitated] Do I look like I give a damn?
Le Chiffre: [having coming back to the poker table] You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.
James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.
Dryden: Made you feel it, did he? Well, you needn't worry. The second is...
[Bond draws his gun and kills Dryden. As he falls back, his lifeless hand is seen pushing a photo of himself with his wife and their daughter off the table]
Daniel Craig himself has suggested that the idea of his Bond dying was to allow the producers to radically reboot the franchise with a young Bond in an interview with the LA Times published on 16 November.
"Craig explained why it was important to end his run in that legendary character in such dramatic fashion. “Two things, one for myself and one for the franchise,” Craig said. “One, for the franchise, was that resets start again, which [the franchise] did with me. And I was like, ‘Well, you need to reset again.’ So let’s kill my character off and go find another Bond and go find another story. Start at [age] 23, start at 25, start at 30."
I think 23 is too young, but a young Royal Navy Lt Cmdr, SBS officer in the late 20s, early 30s I thought was a more realistic age range.
DC might see that as an option for the franchise but I think Michael G Wilson's comments in the last year since NTTD was on the screen suggests that they have decided to take a different route for the reinvention.
From BB & MGW's comments, the reinvention seems to be more of a villain centric approach and a focus on "espionage," so more detective Bond, less fantastical Bond, but Bond himself, at his core, will still be the heroic women chasing chauvinist, the essentials of the character are still there, as Barbara Broccoli has stated.
And I was like, ‘Well, you need to reset again.’ So let’s kill my character off and go find another Bond and go find another story. Start at [age] 23, start at 25, start at 30."
There’s an actor with way too much clout right there. I kind of wish he had left after CR. It was such a massive high that everything was downhill after that especially the last two films.
I don’t think so, it was a good way to end it. He’d already had the ‘leaving MI6 and driving off into the sunset(rise)’ ending, there weren’t really many other endings left available. If he’d just become 007 full time again that would undermine everything.
Spot on! That's how I feel too. CR was the last truly great Bond film. After that, EON allowed Craig too much say, including script involvement, bringing in Mendes, killing off Bond, etc.
I remember that a reason given for the turn to the grittier Daniel Craig movies and the end of the Roger Mooresque Pierce Brosnan movies was because of 9/11 and the War on Terror that followed it.
BB said that the Bond movies had to take a different tone. I recognise that DAD came out in 2002 but pre-production would have started shortly after 9/11 and filming began in January 2022.
Following the 9/11 scale attack Israel has seen and the prospect for a wider regional war involving the USA, I wonder if the reinvention of Bond we have heard about will have to reflect the dangerous world we are about to see?
The Bond movies have always reflected the times we live in from the Cold war, to the rise of the drug cartels to the fall of the Soviet Union and the potency of the 21st century terrorist networks, so I don't think EON can ignore all that and go ahead and have a light hearted Bond simply because it will be different to Craig's films' tone.
BTW I don't believe BB's comments about not having started the reinvention yet, it flies in the face of everything we've heard over the last year or so. I think BB just wanted to focus on the TV show and deflect movie questions.
I agree that wars and attacks on national independence sadly will be a feature for years. Ukraine and israel/Palestine and the danger of war in backdrop of Taiwan are the main reason. I don't see Bond inteferingin any way in those conflicts, but it can subtly be the backdrop of the plot . I have suggested a plot where the a company or other organisation are trying to take control of a small fictional country, maybe an island. Criminals can laudre their money, get (diplomatic) passports , hide in this non extradition country etc. I also imagine the country may have valuable natural recourses, maybe under the seabed. The country can use bribes , sabotage, blackmail and all sorts of hybrid warfare, but also military force since it's a mercenary company too. With Wagner this is topical.
It depends on how it's done. If done wrong (too military) it would fit better in a Rambo movie. But if the mercenary army is just a branch of the company it should work. Other branches could be bodyguards, electronic security/surveillance, international banking, mining operations etc.
The worry with any sort of AI / digital bank stuff is that it's not very cinematic. Boris stealing all the money in London over a dial-up modem in GoldenEye just doesn't look as cool as Goldfinger's raid on Fort Knox. It's a bit of a problem.
The only visual aspect really could be bank upon bank upon bank upon bank of computers, which has been done before and still isn't spectacular to look at. In addition, I would hazard that although many people are aware of cryptocurrencies, not many fully understand how it works and it could be a bit of a mind-bender to properly explain blockchains and mining well enough to make it a focal point of a plot, I suppose. Kazakhstan has a massive mining hub of something like 50,000 computers in one place. Put it somewhere semi-fictional and make it larger and protected by a Wagner-like security presence, and you have a couple of elements. It's still very close to previous plot lines, but there's something there, I think, if you want it to be topical.
I think making the enemy more fictional and less readily identifiable as something that is real is preferable, The world is too depressing to watch it played out in something that should help you escape from reality. That was the problem I had with "On His Majesty's Secret Service", not only were the villains connected with real (and named) people and political movements, but it was a bit like reading the Guardian on any given day. Not what I want when I want escapism.
However, a three-legged billionaire butterfly-collector who's cornering the world's crypto-currencies in order to buy Australia, cover the entire place with a Swarovski crystal dome to keep his collection in...that is of interest!
Your point about OHMSS is interesting because I had the exact same feeling with Carte Blanche. A novel I found too long, with a plot and an atmosphere far too realistic to really entertain me. Even the few pieces of escapism (Dubai, South Africa) didn't compensate the total lack of fantasy of the book.
I often use this one as a good example of what I call a "fake" Bond novel. I'm not the biggest fan of the whole Gardner period, but at least the man succeeded to modernize the character without destroying the fantasy of Fleming's universe (his first novels are very pleasant to read). And It's the same with Benson.
Comments
My guess is P&W come up with a "Treatment" followed by something more complete and if the producers are ok with that at least one additional writer gets brought on board to punch things up. Of course, who is chosen as the director will surely have input.
Although they’ve got a bit of a mixed record, P&W at least understand the Bond franchise and respect it’s history. What they come up with might be mediocre, but it’s unlikely to be offensive.
I have nothing against Purvis and Wade, but their continuing involvement shows how differently Eon operates from other big producers. Reinvention usually means a mostly clean slate. The honchos bring in new, often rising stars or under appreciated journeymen who really get the franchise and then give them a long leash. Michael and Barbara seem to do this with their directors but need P&W behind the scenes for continuity and control. I’d prefer the reverse where new writers come in and everything get directed by Martin Campbell. 😆
Martin Campbell.... yes, that's very innovative! 😁😉
P&W handled the reinvention from DAD to CR well enough.
In theory, who better to oversee a reinvention than the ones who are deeply steeped in what came before? There are lots of instances in the film business of folks who think they're breathtakingly original, but in reality just don't know their history.
As I said, I don't dislike Purvis and Wade and suspect they get a lot of grief here for decisions made by Eon's owners. Personally, I think Barbara and Michael should be able to handle the history part of the franchise (they do own it, after all) leaving the writers and the directors more latitude. But I don't know how creative decisions are made at Eon, not having read the Sony leaks. It's hard not to look at the recent series of films with their continuing return to Italy as a setting—when Bond could and should go anywhere in the world—and not think that covering production costs drives many of the artistic choices.
It's hard not to look at the recent series of films.... and not think that covering production costs drives many of the artistic choices.
All films have budgets though, artistic choices are limited by budget all the time. Was Cubby desperate to have great big British Airways and 7-Up adverts in Moonraker? I doubt it.
"For those who think P&W are bad, just remember John Logan's troubled process with Spectre where he had Blofeld as an African warlord and/or a woman"
Probably would have preferred Blofeld as a woman than as Bond's 'brother', but agree some of Logan's ideas were a bit off the mark.
its not just the plotting though, I've found the dialog really weak for the last umpteen films, it often sounds like they left it for someone else to replace with good dialog later and nobody ever got round to it.
Goldeneye is the last "recent" one with quotable lines, and those were mostly notable for being "meta"
the old good films had highly quotable dialog that was clever and funny, revealed character and advanced the story at a brisk pace as much as the action and the camera work. You could make a radio play of just the dialog in Goldfinger and itd still be an entertaining story.
but I'm guessing Wilson, who wrote the 80s films, is getting kind of elderly and may not be so involved with this reinvention. Maybe Purvis & Wade are the veterans now who will be responsible for passing their knowledge to the next generation. World is Not Enough was what, 1999? their first film was also Desmond Llewelyn's last film, and he was the last of the originals.
Of course they have budgets. I just happen to think Eon is especially focused on maximizing their sponsorship dollars.
Meanwhile the Mission Impossible series has stepped into the spectacle void vacated by Bond by actually filming in exotic locales like Mumbai, Kuala Lumpur, and Shanghai (as well as the usual stand-ins). Meanwhile Eon shipped Craig back to Italy for the fourth time in NTTD. Matera is gorgeous. I didn't mind. But the Bond I grew up on in the '70s on introduced me to a wider world.
I know lots of people wince at the line, but I still crack up when I remember, "I thought Christmas only comes once a year" from TWINE.
I think there's still plenty of good bits in there. Look at the word association in Skyfall, very nicely written.
Are you saying Italy sponsored them? Because they also went to Jamaica, Norway, Mexico, Tangier... and that's just in the last couple of films.
Let's just say that Italy has been very welcoming, and not just to Bond:
I do give credit to Eon for finding ways to film in some interesting places. The meteorite crater (actually extinct volcano) that served as Blofeld's lair in SP was great! But as a fan and filmgoer, I wish Eon spent more on locations and less on things like "the biggest explosion in movie history" (also in SP).
Bond: I'm sorry. That last hand... nearly killed me.
Vesper Lynd: Even accountants have imagination. How was your lamb?
James Bond: Skewered! One sympathizes.
Bartender: Shaken or stirred?
James Bond: [agitated] Do I look like I give a damn?
Le Chiffre: [having coming back to the poker table] You changed your shirt, Mr Bond. I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire.
James Bond: A little. But I won't consider myself to be in trouble until I start weeping blood.
Dryden: Made you feel it, did he? Well, you needn't worry. The second is...
[Bond draws his gun and kills Dryden. As he falls back, his lifeless hand is seen pushing a photo of himself with his wife and their daughter off the table]
James Bond: Yes. Considerably.
And those ar just a few examples of quotable lines from one film made after GE.
Daniel Craig himself has suggested that the idea of his Bond dying was to allow the producers to radically reboot the franchise with a young Bond in an interview with the LA Times published on 16 November.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2022-11-16/daniel-craig-glass-onion-knives-out-netflix-james-bond
"Craig explained why it was important to end his run in that legendary character in such dramatic fashion. “Two things, one for myself and one for the franchise,” Craig said. “One, for the franchise, was that resets start again, which [the franchise] did with me. And I was like, ‘Well, you need to reset again.’ So let’s kill my character off and go find another Bond and go find another story. Start at [age] 23, start at 25, start at 30."
I think 23 is too young, but a young Royal Navy Lt Cmdr, SBS officer in the late 20s, early 30s I thought was a more realistic age range.
DC might see that as an option for the franchise but I think Michael G Wilson's comments in the last year since NTTD was on the screen suggests that they have decided to take a different route for the reinvention.
From BB & MGW's comments, the reinvention seems to be more of a villain centric approach and a focus on "espionage," so more detective Bond, less fantastical Bond, but Bond himself, at his core, will still be the heroic women chasing chauvinist, the essentials of the character are still there, as Barbara Broccoli has stated.
And I was like, ‘Well, you need to reset again.’ So let’s kill my character off and go find another Bond and go find another story. Start at [age] 23, start at 25, start at 30."
There’s an actor with way too much clout right there. I kind of wish he had left after CR. It was such a massive high that everything was downhill after that especially the last two films.
I think a 2020s update of the Brosnan era movies, but more coherent and more immersive like most of the Craig movies.
I don’t think so, it was a good way to end it. He’d already had the ‘leaving MI6 and driving off into the sunset(rise)’ ending, there weren’t really many other endings left available. If he’d just become 007 full time again that would undermine everything.
Spot on! That's how I feel too. CR was the last truly great Bond film. After that, EON allowed Craig too much say, including script involvement, bringing in Mendes, killing off Bond, etc.
I would rather NTTD never existed and Craig never got to play Bond again after SP. That was the best way to end his era, and bring in a new Bond.
I remember that a reason given for the turn to the grittier Daniel Craig movies and the end of the Roger Mooresque Pierce Brosnan movies was because of 9/11 and the War on Terror that followed it.
BB said that the Bond movies had to take a different tone. I recognise that DAD came out in 2002 but pre-production would have started shortly after 9/11 and filming began in January 2022.
Following the 9/11 scale attack Israel has seen and the prospect for a wider regional war involving the USA, I wonder if the reinvention of Bond we have heard about will have to reflect the dangerous world we are about to see?
The Bond movies have always reflected the times we live in from the Cold war, to the rise of the drug cartels to the fall of the Soviet Union and the potency of the 21st century terrorist networks, so I don't think EON can ignore all that and go ahead and have a light hearted Bond simply because it will be different to Craig's films' tone.
BTW I don't believe BB's comments about not having started the reinvention yet, it flies in the face of everything we've heard over the last year or so. I think BB just wanted to focus on the TV show and deflect movie questions.
I agree that wars and attacks on national independence sadly will be a feature for years. Ukraine and israel/Palestine and the danger of war in backdrop of Taiwan are the main reason. I don't see Bond inteferingin any way in those conflicts, but it can subtly be the backdrop of the plot . I have suggested a plot where the a company or other organisation are trying to take control of a small fictional country, maybe an island. Criminals can laudre their money, get (diplomatic) passports , hide in this non extradition country etc. I also imagine the country may have valuable natural recourses, maybe under the seabed. The country can use bribes , sabotage, blackmail and all sorts of hybrid warfare, but also military force since it's a mercenary company too. With Wagner this is topical.
Yes that's a good shout: a Wagner-style group is very Bond.
It depends on how it's done. If done wrong (too military) it would fit better in a Rambo movie. But if the mercenary army is just a branch of the company it should work. Other branches could be bodyguards, electronic security/surveillance, international banking, mining operations etc.
Wagner-ish/AI/cryptocurrency: any/all of these will surely feature in the next Bond, you would think.
The worry with any sort of AI / digital bank stuff is that it's not very cinematic. Boris stealing all the money in London over a dial-up modem in GoldenEye just doesn't look as cool as Goldfinger's raid on Fort Knox. It's a bit of a problem.
The newest MI movie managed it, but it's very hard.
The only visual aspect really could be bank upon bank upon bank upon bank of computers, which has been done before and still isn't spectacular to look at. In addition, I would hazard that although many people are aware of cryptocurrencies, not many fully understand how it works and it could be a bit of a mind-bender to properly explain blockchains and mining well enough to make it a focal point of a plot, I suppose. Kazakhstan has a massive mining hub of something like 50,000 computers in one place. Put it somewhere semi-fictional and make it larger and protected by a Wagner-like security presence, and you have a couple of elements. It's still very close to previous plot lines, but there's something there, I think, if you want it to be topical.
I think making the enemy more fictional and less readily identifiable as something that is real is preferable, The world is too depressing to watch it played out in something that should help you escape from reality. That was the problem I had with "On His Majesty's Secret Service", not only were the villains connected with real (and named) people and political movements, but it was a bit like reading the Guardian on any given day. Not what I want when I want escapism.
However, a three-legged billionaire butterfly-collector who's cornering the world's crypto-currencies in order to buy Australia, cover the entire place with a Swarovski crystal dome to keep his collection in...that is of interest!
get Terry Gilliam to do it: he knows how to make a film about banking piracy visually entertaining
in fact, never mind the banking, just get Gilliam to direct Bond26 whatever the plot. At least he can finish a film quicker than EON.
Your point about OHMSS is interesting because I had the exact same feeling with Carte Blanche. A novel I found too long, with a plot and an atmosphere far too realistic to really entertain me. Even the few pieces of escapism (Dubai, South Africa) didn't compensate the total lack of fantasy of the book.
I often use this one as a good example of what I call a "fake" Bond novel. I'm not the biggest fan of the whole Gardner period, but at least the man succeeded to modernize the character without destroying the fantasy of Fleming's universe (his first novels are very pleasant to read). And It's the same with Benson.