Judging by the standard of previous P&W scripts then they could easily have knocked out 2 or 3 first drafts in those 12 days 
1 Like
Better ones than the Hodge draft⌠
âŚhow lucky that every writer on a Bond film since 99 has uploaded every script they did for people on a forum to judgeâŚohâŚrightâŚ
Boyle is certainly as you say âan art house darlingâ and with very good reason. He has genuine talent and has worked hard to preserve his vision, which is well recognised as a very powerful vision. From Trainspotting to Slumdog to 127 Hours to Steve Jobs his track record is more impressive than Mendes and Forster combined.
âArt Houseâ really isnât the derogatory term youâre suggesting. You may well know some directors that abuse the term (there are many), but do you know Boyle? Evidence suggests that heâs not an abuser of the term, but a proven example of why this vital testing ground of cinema should be respected.
My point was one of naivety. Hiring Boyle for bond and sacking him when it turns out that he wants to make the movie his own way reminds me of the Frog and the Scorpion fable⌠hereâs the important parts:
âHellooo Mr. Frog!â called the scorpion across the water, âWould you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?â
âWell now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?â asked the frog hesitantly.
âBecause,â the scorpion replied, âIf I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!â
Now this seemed to make sense to the frogâŚ
âŚHalfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frogâs back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
âYou fool!â croaked the frog, âNow we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?â
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frogâs back.
âI could not help myself. It is my nature.â
Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.
You could see either B.B. or Boyle as the naive frogâŚ
Donât hire Boyle unless youâre willing to let him do it his way. And equally, donât sign up for bond unless youâre willing to make consessions to BB.
Perhaps he agreed to be flexible and changed his mind. Iâm more willing to believe that Eon convinced themselves they could âfinesseâ things once he was onboard, so eager were they to nab him. With hindsight that would seem naive.
But either way itâs Bond 25 thatâs up that murky river without a paddle, while Boyle is now free to make his own movie. So ultimately Iâd say B.B. is the more naive party here and Iâm sure sheâs kicking herself for it.
I hope the reflex isnât to return to directors for hire, but to try again.
Difference between Boyle and Nolan is Nolan has done the toeing the company line approach with both Insomnia and Batman Begins, so had earnt that trust from WB to trust his judgement, as did Jonathan Nolan, as you can see over the course of Person Of Interest, which begins as a case of the week police procedural but by the end is tackling the heavier ideas that Westworld would. Boyle has never done that well and not coped with having a boss. Nolan would be far less put off by having producers with a strong voice than Boyle is. I mean he had directorial duties on the crown jewel of comic book properties, he WILL have had studios breathing down on him at all times.
1 Like
In the industry most people seem to think Nolan would ask for the producer role. And thatâs what would be the dealbreaker.
I wouldnât agree here - it´s mainly a question of whether one likes his movies or not. I donât. IMO, Mendes and Forster are much more interesting, but thatâs just my taste.
And again: BB is neither frog nor scorpion here. Boyle decided to leave at a very bad time, leaving lots of peopleâs employment situation in limbo. That is something a director has to take into account, too, and I would not have expected this from someone who gave himself a particular image.
It also is simply unfair and incorrect to paint BB or EON as an evil entity which tries to swallow the poor creative filmmaker. Boyle might make an unconventional Bond film, thatâs for sure, but maybe only one the lackluster numbers of his last movies will attend. EON needs to reach a mass audience, however. I would have thought Boyle knows that he cannot tackle a Bond film like one of his small personal films.
Exactly.
And understandably so. Nolan wants his independence. And EON does not want to give up theirs. They know from THUNDERBALL how lovely it is to have another producer come in and usurp their property.
It is the position theyâre in regarding whether Nolan directs Bond or not, you dont want a Nolan film that happens to have Bond in it, but at the same time having a Bond film with Nolanâs name just on it for the hell of it, it is equally pointless. Theyâd have to find a compromise to make it worthwhile for either side and the audience. It would have to be a Christopher Nolan Bond film, anything else is a waste.
2 Likes
I meant in terms of critical recognition and, regardless of box office numbers, the places these movies take in popular culture (often because of awards hype and originality). In these regards Forster really only has Monsters Ball and Mendes American Beauty (to a far lessor extent Road to Perdition). I admire both filmmakers a lot and would personally be happy to see either direct another Bond.
But Boyle in is a league of his own - an art house - power house who often produces works that capture zeitgeist and awards via his shear singular vision. If you hire that, then thatâs what youâre buying. I was shocked, surprised and delighted by his hiring and, sadly now not at all surprised by these events.
Nor do i wish to paint either party as evil. It was a gamble by both sides which failed and both sides are no doubt kicking themselves for believing the cards would fall in their favour in such a stacked deck as franchise-meets-boyle.
I mean Iâm not sure in what world Nolan doesnât make commercial movies though? Itâs not like Hollywood is scared of his ideas - he makes big, expensive, event spectacle films, he is most producerâs dream director in that regard - they donât have to interfere too much. EON wonât want to cede their control to him though, so i would guess heâs very unlikely unless its a Joaquin Phoenix Joker-esque one shot
All that said, while its unfortunate it didnât work out, I donât think its really fair to suggest Boyle should put his name to a film he doesnât believe in anymore because he calls himself a âsocialistâ either (odds are most people hired on a Bond film pre-production are not exactly hurting for employment and will all get paid, its the life of a freelancer that some gigs donât work out) - especially since in all likelihood it was more like they came to an impasse and he could either quit or be fired (EON would look a lot worse if they fired him, so this was better for both parties)
Quite, and certainly the films that connected Nolan with Bond in general audience minds are easily his most commercial - films Bond copied at that so its not radical change of direction and style a typical Danny Boyle film wouldve been.
I respectfully disagree.
How would one measure âcritical recognitionâ or âplaces in popular cultureâ anyway? It´s all highly subjective, depending on one´s taste and knowledge of film history. I would argue that Boyle only has made two films that planted their flag in popular culture: âTrainspottingâ and âSlumdog Millionaireâ. âShallow Graveâ put him on the map, true, but ask the larger audience to remember that one. The rest came and went by without making much impact.
And the fact that we argue about it even highlights how different one will judge the merits of Mr. Boyle.
Well, not the well-known department heads. But think about all the people who actually work under those. It is always heartbreaking for me when I talk to people in those positions: how little they actually get paid, how much time they have to put in, and how difficult it is to find jobs at the right time so they have a rather steady income.
One might adopt the cynical stance: well, if you donât like it, look for another profession. But a job on a Bond film should be a more certain prospect than a job on any other movie. And if it falls through due to a director who⌠Oh, well, here I go again.
im not cynical in fact im one of them, i know what its like - iâm sure noone likes it - BUT you are seemingly scapegoating this all on Boyle because heâs a shock gasp âsocialistâ? I know itâs a bit of a dirty word in the UK, but why arenât you blaming it on EON who knew what they were signing up for and then put everyoneâs jobs in jeopardy because they didnât give him the creative freedom they must have promised to get him to sign up in the first place? Itâs their company and Boyle isnât the one paying the bills⌠heâs just another department head - be realistic here
No, that would be misinterpreting me.
To clarify: Iâm going by the official statement made by EON and Daniel Craig, according to which it was Danny Boyle who decided to leave the project.
The term socialist is not dirty for me at all, since Iâm from Germany, and the socialistic ideals are part of our society, and I consider them absolutely important.
Whether Boyle calls himself or is called a âsocialistâ is of no relevance for me. The mere fact that he was the one to leave BOND 25 at this point in time, putting his âcreative ideasâ above the people who signed up for this production to keep their lives afloat leaves a very sour taste in my mouth.
I am also surprised at how fast some are taking Boyle´s side trying to see the blame on EON´s side. Again, the statement is very clear about this being Boyle´s decision. Also, why does one automatically assume that Boyle had all the great, risky ideas that would have made BOND 25 so much better than EON wanted it?
I´m not talking at you, aus89, Iâm just generally asking people to at least contemplate the possibility that Boyle´s and Hodge´s ideas were not good enough or unfitting for the task at hand.
Just because a director and/or writer have delivered good work in the past does not mean that they are always better than the rest.
As for EON - yes, I do not like every decision they made in the past. But one thing remains undeniable: they have managed to keep this franchise alive and well for 56 years now. They know what they are doing and what they have to do.
3 Likes
Fair enough and apologies for a few assumptions I made in my comment:
When you say âThat is something a director has to take into account, too, and I would not have expected this from someone who gave himself a particular image.â - I got a little confused as I was sure Iâd seen you say something about Boyle being a socialist but I probably just got mixed up in the Jonathan Pryce discussion.
I donât think theres any one bad guy here and EON have done well by the franchise before (with Spottiswoodeâs âideasâ for example in TND) - but youâre clearly giving blame to Boyle over EON here saying he shouldnât quit because he shouldnât endanger their jobs. Why did EON ramp up into production without knowing they were 100% happy with what film they were making? Why did they meddle at the late stage, youâre assuming Boyle is the immovable object.
Why are EONâs employees jobs Boyleâs problem alone? EON and Boyle are equally to blame for the delay is what Iâm saying and Boyle (just another employee) shouldnât have these peopleâs jobs on his hands in this discussion - they were clearly both immovable here at this point so he had to go one way or another whether he âquitsâ (in a PR statement) or is fired is semantics
Anyway, I appreciate your point and agree its not EON or Boyleâs fault alone- I didnât mean to be argumentative @secretagentfan so apologies for that
Bank holiday or not, Iâm sure every entertainment desk in the media currently has its hounds off the leash to sniff out the matter from all possible angles. But since weâre talking Eon here itâs not very likely they would pick anything up before Eon wants them to.
Then again, logically, what would there be to report? If production were halted a number of freelancers and members of Eonâs âfamilyâ would be in the market for fresh jobs. That would be instantly noticed; it could hardly escape the Bondgazers at the various newspapers and industry gazettes. I should think weâd already know then.
If, on the other hand, thereâs still hope to land a coup with a replacement director and keep the schedule, as we hope and think they may, then the usual suspects must be given opportunity to see the script and the current state of production and a little time to make up their minds and negotiate their contract. If they are even willing to take a look and state their terms chances are an agreement can be found. And for any of the mentioned directors it would be a huge opportunity that could boost their careers.
So if weâre at this point currently, the phase where they negotiate the takeover, then the silence shouldnât keep on much longerâŚ
2 Likes
Iâm measuring boyleâs impact against other bond directors, in particular Mendes and Forster. Surly that last sentence of yours applies even more so to Mendes and Forster? It would seem a little dissengenous to infer that more of the cinema going public would be just as familiar with the works of Mendes and Forster as they are with Boyelâs.
That is how Iâd suggest the measure of a directorâs place in popular culture might be measured. Mr pop culture auteur himself, Tarantino is a name known to all because his movies are widely talked about; to a lessor extextent are Boyleâs; to a far lessor extent are Mendes and Forsters.
As for a measure of critical recognition thatâs perhaps an even less subjective affair: Simply read what the critics have written and count how many awards the respective filmmakers have collected. I confess Iâve taken a punt that Boyleâs favourable reviews and awards far outweigh Mendes and Forsters.
To my mind for Boyle to have achieved that much in the art house margins is at once why BB wanted him and why BB probably shouldnât have hired him and that of course is easy for me to say in hindsight.
Rumour: Production Weekly (which I understand gets its info directly from studios) is listing Bond 25âs working title as âShatterhandâ
3 Likes
Perhaps that long and boring post I made yesterday about Boyle doing YOLT and the dark end of that novel being what B.B. meant as âregenerating bondâ wasnt just my fanfic after all.
Or was this P&Ws abandoned and now returned to first draft?
Either way Iâm all for it. Who knows, maybe B.B. got the notion of introducing bond 7 this way from these very forums 