Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › New Bond Film: Skyfall
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Bond Film: Skyfall

post #1 of 228
6/20/09 at 1:37am
Thread Starter 
Morgan, Purvis and Wade to
work on Bond, James Bond

LOS ANGELES, June 12 – Producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli of EON Productions Ltd and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures have today announced that Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon, The Queen), Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (Quantum of Solace, Casino Royale) will be the screenwriters of the 23rd James Bond adventure.

Daniel Craig will reprise his role as Ian Fleming’s James Bond 007 in the film, which will be a MGM release of an EON production. Bond 23 is the latest installment in the longest-running franchise in motion picture history and will be produced by Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli. A date for the start of production is yet to be confirmed.

“Peter, Neal and Robert are extraordinarily talented and we’re looking forward to working with the three of them,” commented Wilson and Broccoli.

Peter Morgan is the award-winning writer of such films as The Last King of Scotland, The Queen and Frost/Nixon, which was based on his play. He has also scripted the upcoming The Special Relationship for HBO and Hereafter for DreamWorks. He will turn his attention to Bond 23 on completion of these duties. Morgan is represented by UTA (US) and Independent Talent Group (UK).

Since 1991 Neal Purvis and Robert Wade have collaborated on a diverse range of projects including The Italian Job, Johnny English and the past four Bond films. They recently adapted John Le Carre’s The Mission Song and are also working on the upcoming sequel The Brazilian Job. Purvis and Wade are represented by Endeavor (US), Casarotto Ramsay & Associates (UK).

more here
Bond begins anew with scribe trio - Entertainment News, Gotham, Media - Variety
Reply
post #2 of 228
6/20/09 at 2:37am

re: Bond 23

Why is this bad news??
Reply
post #3 of 228
6/20/09 at 4:21am

re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tino
Why is this bad news??
Got me but I'm sure it has something to do with Casino Royale.
Reply
post #4 of 228
6/20/09 at 4:49am

re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tino
Why is this bad news??
That it's actually going to be made.
Reply
post #5 of 228
6/20/09 at 8:32am

re: Bond 23

I have yet to come across a Purvis and Wade Bond picture that I haven't enjoyed. True, The World Is Not Enough doesn't hold up spectacularly well on repeat viewings and Die Another Day is entertaining but riddiculous. But whatever Richard might say, Casino Royale was one of the best Bond films ever, and Quantum of Solace was great "minor" Bond.

Peter Morgan's an interesting choice to replace Paul Haggis on polish duties, though. Nothing in his filmography of very internalized melodramas seems to point to the Bond franchise. It should be interesting.
Reply
post #6 of 228
6/20/09 at 10:50am

re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt
I have yet to come across a Purvis and Wade Bond picture that I haven't enjoyed. True, The World Is Not Enough doesn't hold up spectacularly well on repeat viewings and Die Another Day is entertaining but riddiculous. But whatever Richard might say, Casino Royale was one of the best Bond films ever, and Quantum of Solace was great "minor" Bond.

Peter Morgan's an interesting choice to replace Paul Haggis on polish duties, though. Nothing in his filmography of very internalized melodramas seems to point to the Bond franchise. It should be interesting.

Dang it, Adam. You always seem to just beat me to the post and after I read your posts I don't really have much to add.

I really like the mix of writers that they have on this one. As much as I liked the last two, I thought that going forward they needed to add back some of the lighter, fun elements that have been associated with the franchise. Those associated with the franchise seem to agree. Purvis and Wade are a good choice in that respect and the inertia of the "first two" films should keep them from swinging too far to the ridiculous.

I love the choice of Morgan for polish duties as he'll keep it grounded. I'd hate to see them throw away the character development of the first two movies and that shouldn't happen with Morgan. A specialist in "internalized melodramas" seems a perfect choice to me.
Reply
post #7 of 228
6/20/09 at 11:55am

re: Bond 23

I've enjoyed most of the (Bond) movies Purvis and Wade have been involved with, but I wouldn't credit them with any of that. Sometimes it's more in spite of them.
Reply
post #8 of 228
6/20/09 at 12:51pm
Thread Starter 

re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tino
Why is this bad news??
I suppose a new Bond film is good news, but it's bad news that Purvis and Wade are writing the screenplay. The quality of their work is consistent dreck, but they know how to give the producers what they want. The producers don't need Purvis and Wade. Haggis could have written better scripts for the last two films without them. Peter Morgan can certainly write better scripts without them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
I've enjoyed most of the (Bond) movies Purvis and Wade have been involved with, but I wouldn't credit them with any of that. Sometimes it's more in spite of them.
Astute observation.
Bad writing has plagued the series for a long time. Eon knows that good writing isn't important so long the script creates an event. A Bond film is an event, and they will make just as much money with bad writing as with good.
Reply
post #9 of 228
6/20/09 at 12:51pm

re: Bond 23

Hey, mods, can we change the title of this thread, as I doubt most of us would say the item posted is "bad news"? Maybe just call it "Bond 23"?
Reply
post #10 of 228
6/20/09 at 2:38pm

re: Bond 23

Doesn't sound like bad news to me. I liked CASINO ROYALE (not QUANTUM OF SOLACE, though). But then again, I can watch and appreciate any Bond movie.
Reply
post #11 of 228
6/20/09 at 3:12pm

re: Bond 23

Morgan's an interesting pick as a writer, but it hardly ever matters. The Bond franchise has a long history of picking filmmakers that aren't typically known for making action movies and it's typically hit or miss.
Reply
post #12 of 228
6/20/09 at 7:13pm

re: Bond 23

Not bad news to me either, actually, quite good news. Looking very forward to this as the last two have been some of, if not, the best Bond films todate.
Reply
post #13 of 228
6/20/09 at 8:14pm

re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Favate
Hey, mods, can we change the title of this thread, as I doubt most of us would say the item posted is "bad news"? Maybe just call it "Bond 23"?

Why? The OP thinks it is bad news that two writers he has a low opinion of are going to be involved, yet again, in the new Bond flick. He seems to be a big Bond fan and thinks the last two outings have a lot of problems as Bond films. I agree with some of his points regarding "Casino Royale" and other points I don't. People can disagree with his conclusion that these two writers are "bad news" for the series, but he obviously feels differently and started this thread with that conclusion in mind.
Reply
post #14 of 228
6/20/09 at 9:19pm

re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
Why? The OP thinks it is bad news that two writers he has a low opinion of are going to be involved, yet again, in the new Bond flick. He seems to be a big Bond fan and thinks the last two outings have a lot of problems as Bond films. I agree with some of his points regarding "Casino Royale" and other points I don't. People can disagree with his conclusion that these two writers are "bad news" for the series, but he obviously feels differently and started this thread with that conclusion in mind.

Maybe because given the amount of members this forum has, and its place at the top of similar-type forums, the owners and mods like to keep the number of threads to a minimum. While it's fine for a thread-starter to voice an opinion, I think the community is better served with a neutral thread title--otherwise it's a slippery slope towards "good news for Bond 23," "More bad new for Bond," and "OMG Can U blieve the new bond newz?"
Reply
post #15 of 228
6/21/09 at 8:02am

re: Bond 23

Since this is the first thread on Bond 23 and is likely to be around a while, I think it only fair not to saddle the production and the film with such an unfortunate title to the thread. Given the immense blockbuster status of the last two films, it hardly seems a stretch to say most people won't consider this "bad news."
Reply
post #16 of 228
6/21/09 at 8:40am

re: Bond 23

Then just start a new Bond thread and let this one die. The moderators wont do anything about it unless you bug them.
Reply
post #17 of 228
6/21/09 at 9:28am

re: Bond 23

The title of this thread is just stupid, not to mention very misleading. I clicked on it expecting to read that either the film wasn't being made or Craig would not be reprising his role. It should be called "news about Bond 23" or something to that effect.
Reply
post #18 of 228
6/21/09 at 4:13pm

re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent M
The title of this thread is just stupid, not to mention very misleading. I clicked on it expecting to read that either the film wasn't being made or Craig would not be reprising his role. It should be called "news about Bond 23" or something to that effect.

Amen. Stupid is putting it mildly...
Reply
post #19 of 228
6/21/09 at 4:44pm

re: Bond 23

Just PM the OP, he should be able to go into the edit feature, advanced, and change the title himself.
Reply
post #20 of 228
6/22/09 at 11:22am
Thread Starter 

re: Bond 23

Okay, I adjusted the thread title because some of you are expressing distress and anxiety, and I want everybody to be happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent M
The title of this thread is just stupid,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Hughes
Amen. Stupid is putting it mildly...
Some people have very strong feelings about the Bond films. Some people feel so strongly about Bond films they think it gives them license to insult other people personally instead of discussing / debating the film.

The involvement of Neal Purvis and Robert Wade in the next Bond film is bad news. Really bad news. Hence the original title of the thread. If the mods want to change it to Bond 23, it's okay with me. Changing the title of the thread won't change the fact that the involvement of Purvis and Wade as screenwriters in the next Bond is bad news. Really bad news. Or, the thread title could be changed to Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot! Again! which would give everyone an accurate idea of what to expect from the next Bond script by Purvis and Wade.
Reply
post #21 of 228
6/22/09 at 12:18pm

re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
Okay, I adjusted the thread title because some of you are expressing distress and anxiety, and I want everybody to be happy.
The adjustment in question affects only the initial post, but I can make it global across the thread and will do so, since you asked.

Quote:
Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot! Again!
Credit where credit is due!
Reply
post #22 of 228
6/22/09 at 12:44pm

Re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
Okay, I adjusted the thread title because some of you are expressing distress and anxiety, and I want everybody to be happy.


Some people have very strong feelings about the Bond films. Some people feel so strongly about Bond films they think it gives them license to insult other people personally instead of discussing / debating the film.


For the record, I didn't insult you personally...I just said the title of your thread was stupid and I explained that reasoning in my earlier post.

As far as I'm concerned, if the people that were involved with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are on board for another Bond flick then I'm absolutely THRILLED! Those two flicks are without a doubt better than anything from the Bond franchise in decades so this is anything but "bad news" in my book.
Reply
post #23 of 228
6/22/09 at 6:55pm
Thread Starter 

Re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent M
For the record, I didn't insult you personally...I just said the title of your thread was stupid and I explained that reasoning in my earlier post.
For the record, it amounts to the same thing, as you know very well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent M
As far as I'm concerned, if the people that were involved with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are on board for another Bond flick then I'm absolutely THRILLED! Those two flicks are without a doubt better than anything from the Bond franchise in decades so this is anything but "bad news" in my book.
From a creative and dramatic perspective, and by any standard of professionalism, it is very bad news that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are writing another tiresome, amateur Bond script just like the last four tiresome, amateur Bond scripts. Note that I refer to the scripts, not the actor, director, dp, stuntmen, etc. But you are entitled to your opinion and you are entitled to express your opinion here without anyone calling you or your opinion stupid.
Reply
post #24 of 228
6/22/09 at 10:59pm
Thread Starter 

Re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Dial
I think the community is better served with a neutral thread title--otherwise it's a slippery slope towards "good news for Bond 23," "More bad new for Bond," and "OMG Can U blieve the new bond newz?"
... and then there will be chaos!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Favate
Given the immense blockbuster status of the last two films, it hardly seems a stretch to say most people won't consider this "bad news."
Financial success is no indication of quality. As I indicated below, everyone turns out to see an event knowing it may not be the best film ever made but it will be an event, and that's enough. Going to see the 21st century Bonds is like to going to see an Elvis concert in the 1970s. Everybody is thrilled to be in the same stadium with Elvis. So thrilled they keep cheering him on even though the songs are only 30 seconds long and the show is over in 30 minutes. Why bother to be creative when it doesn't matter. It's not about quality. It's about the event of seeing Elvis live. People accept what they can get.

Further, many people who would like to express their disappointment and disgust with recent Bonds refrain from doing so because they know they will be hammered and called stupid by a small group of particularly vocal Bond buffs who insist that only positive views may be expressed here.
Reply
post #25 of 228
6/23/09 at 5:12am

Re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
Further, many people who would like to express their disappointment and disgust with recent Bonds refrain from doing so because they know they will be hammered and called stupid by a small group of particularly vocal Bond buffs who insist that only positive views may be expressed here.

I think you are free to express that you didn't like the Craig films, or the Brosnan films or any films you didn't like. I simply objected to the subject of the thread mentioning "bad news" when all that happened was that screenwriters were announced.

As someone who has seen every Bond film multiple times, read the books, read the books about the movies, bought the movies on CED, VHS, DVD and BD, and basically studied them decades, I think the Craig films are the best in the series since the initial 3 or 4 Connery movies. Not to dismiss Roger Moore, Tim Dalton, or even George Lazenby (or Pierce Brosnan), but the Craig movies recaptured something that I think had been missing for too long. Not coincidentally, the new films also got rid of the self-parody that was part of the series for far too long.

BTW, I detailed what we know about the production of Bond 23 here, complete with links to the sources:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ed-2011-a.html
Reply
post #26 of 228
6/23/09 at 12:37pm

Re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard--W
For the record, it amounts to the same thing, as you know very well.

Um, no it doesn't and you should know better. If you want to continue with the persecution complex, however, that's fine with me. I don't need to explain myself any more than I already have. Good luck not enjoying the next Bond film!
Reply
post #27 of 228
6/23/09 at 1:50pm

Re: Bond 23

The Bond films have morphed into something that doesn't resemble what a Bond movie used to feel like, if that makes any sense. For me, the ultimate Bond movie is 1981's For Your Eyes Only. The story has an epic feel to it and, more importantly, is just a heckuva alot of fun. Once you take the fun out of these movies, its no longer a Bond film. I, too, feel that this franchise needs a fresh group of writers. However, whoever tackles this job would need to bring the character back to Earth and not have him become some kind of superman or, worse, a Jason Bourne clone. Make him vulnerable somewhat. The idea of a superspy who has an answer for everything, can kick anyone's ass and happens to have just the right gadget on him just when he needs it is not grounded in reality and that aspect of the movies needs to change. Finally, most Bond movies typically run just over two hours, on average. I feel that's about the length ALL Bond movies should be
Reply
post #28 of 228
6/23/09 at 2:28pm

Re: Bond 23

Casino Royal was based an good source material, and cleaned up by a decent writer. Die Another Day is what you get when Purvis and Wade are all you have.

Bond is essentially all these guys do, they're just the producers' henchmen. Show me something good in one of their movies and I'll tell you who else was responsible for it.
Reply
post #29 of 228
6/23/09 at 5:00pm

Re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luisito34
The Bond films have morphed into something that doesn't resemble what a Bond movie used to feel like, if that makes any sense. For me, the ultimate Bond movie is 1981's For Your Eyes Only. The story has an epic feel to it and, more importantly, is just a heckuva alot of fun. Once you take the fun out of these movies, its no longer a Bond film. I, too, feel that this franchise needs a fresh group of writers. However, whoever tackles this job would need to bring the character back to Earth and not have him become some kind of superman or, worse, a Jason Bourne clone. Make him vulnerable somewhat. The idea of a superspy who has an answer for everything, can kick anyone's ass and happens to have just the right gadget on him just when he needs it is not grounded in reality and that aspect of the movies needs to change. Finally, most Bond movies typically run just over two hours, on average. I feel that's about the length ALL Bond movies should be

While For Your Eyes Only is my favorite of all Bond films, and will forever be so, I cannot agree that taking the "fun" out makes them no longer Bond films, in fact, I'd say they make better Bond films, much more real and true to life.
Reply
post #30 of 228
6/23/09 at 6:00pm
Thread Starter 

Re: Bond 23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
Casino Royal was based an good source material, and cleaned up by a decent writer. Die Another Day is what you get when Purvis and Wade are all you have.

Bond is essentially all these guys do, they're just the producers' henchmen. Show me something good in one of their movies and I'll tell you who else was responsible for it.
Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Except I'd have begged and pleaded with Haggis to work longer and harder on pruning and tightening and cleaning up Casino Royale. Perhaps even write it all by himself.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › New Bond Film: Skyfall