News on NO TIME TO DIE (no spoilers)

Films No Time To Die (No spoilers)
3216

BOND 25 in its current form and schedule - with its current distribution structure and finance, too - stands and falls with Craig. Without him the schedule cannot be kept, MGM cannot ask their share of the box office, longtime distribution ventures are threatened to fall through.

In short, everything would be delayed for years, with repercussions on MGM and a much more vocal and demanding studio; also where Bond 7 is concerned. A time consuming casting of the lead actor would result, numerous essential decisions would have to be taken, reboot or not, tone and direction of future productions and so on.

With Craig all that can be shelved until after BOND 25 premiers.

1 Like
3217

Which gives Mr. Craig enormous power…

No fun to deal with a main actor who has that.

1 Like
3218

So Craig (on his 5th Bond film) is to blame for siding with his long term employers (both of whom have, for over 50 years, lived in what making a Bond film entails) that the director (who has never made a Bond movie) will need his script rewritten by someone else, rather than just his old friend (who also has never made a Bond movie) because the script as it currently stands is not fit for task? What a bastard!

image

4 Likes
3219

Patriot is the best show i’ve seen in several years. It’s truly amazing.

1 Like
3220

I agree. Shame he died before Eon decided to aim higher with their directors.

But talking of French Connection I’d really love to see Friedkins Bond movie.

1 Like
3221

Just to clear up my remarks: I agree with your assessment - this was most likely not an ego trip by Craig.

But the more power an actor gets the more difficult they tend to become to deal with. I hope Craig knows that with great power comes you know the rest…

3 Likes
3222

All producers love writers like that, because it means they can have everything they want in the script and everything the studio want. Everyone’s happy! Everyone except the audience who are given a tonal mess that crams in everything but the kitchen sink.

I don’t think anyone here has called, or suggested that Hodge and Boyle are infallible. But I will say that P&W are bottom draw writers who are only hired because of the above; they do what they’re told. Good work is rarely produced by committee. And if knowing and loving Fleming were the only criteria every member here would be a Bond screenwriter.

SAF, I admire your long standing dogged defence of the duo and admire any writers that make a living out of this very hard trade - P&W have made a very decent living. But for the writers on so many Bond movies, an extremely high profile gig, over almost 20 years to have in that time done nought else but Johnny English and a tv series makes me ask why? Why isn’t Hollywood banging down their door to write their blockbusters?

They’re simply not very good. They obviously toe a great line in knocking together a format to Eons, Sony’s etc demands, but have little talent for original, cohesive and engaging narrative (SS-GB is far from engaging) and I’m afraid none at all for dialogue - theirs is some of the most hackneyed you’ll find this side of Moore’s Bond movies. If Bond returned to light comedy then P&W would probably own it in terms of pastiche.

2 Likes
3223

…Great pay packets!? :wink:

3224

The thought that he is doing this for the future of his upcoming second child and it’s a series of positive and negative experiences he’ll probably never do again is no doubt going to be on his mind.

3225

Thanks, I’ll look it up :eyes:

1 Like
3226

But you don’t know that! You’re relying purely on gossip from fan sites, most of whom know nothing about how the film was made. It’s the no.1 rule of professional writing you will write far more than you’ll get credited for, and even more than will be produced. Also their credited contributions to Bond films, on those rare occasions we find who did what, have been the best received things such as Casino Royale’s loyalty to its source material, or the elements of Moonraker in Die Another Day’s first half.

2 Likes
3227

Well obviously nothing they’re proud of or played big enough a part of or they and their agents would make it known. By this logic we might assume that Hodge had a hand in writing Get Out. We can only form opinions based on what we know, so mine is based upon the known credits of P&W.

3228

Which state they wrote the most acclaimed parts of the last 6 Bond films whilst other writers or the director have asked for references to previous movies or cgi surf scenes. Also their own, acclaimed, tv series and an ability to write that 5 out 6 directors on Bond have been happy to use their scripts, or hire them for rewrites.

2 Likes
3229

We had that argument before, right? “SS-GB” drew rave reviews and was a ratings success. You hated it - and that’s perfectly fine but no objective base to conclude P&W are bad writers.

Neither is the idea that they did not get many more projects green lighted. They were sought after by the major studios and developed several big projects (i.e. the “Barbarella”-remake) but as most writers in Hollywood they experienced that most projects just do not get past the developing phase for several reasons.

Also, they were pretty busy with Bond for the last decades, and that work is time consuming. And since they are not living in Hollywood they are at an disadvantage anyway. As you know, if you want to stay on the hot list you have to be there and available to meet again and again.

By the way, I am neither P nor W. I just hope to point out how easy it is to put the blame on someone because one thinks he/she is responsible for something one does not like. Let’s just not disregard the facts. And as long as we haven’t read the current P&W draft or the work by Hodge nothing should be taken for granted.

But I am pretty sure that EON would not fire a writer who is also the director’s favorite a few weeks before a very important production begins just because they did not like him. They must have seen grave problems (and Craig as well) in order to ask for a new writer.

Does that mean Hodge´s script was bad? No. But it at least means that it did not meet the requirements.

Hodge might have written a totally irreverent script that would have pushed Bond into completely new territory, and some people might have been ecstatic about it.

But not the needed mass audiences. And Bond films, whether we like it or not, have to be comfort food for the masses. At least as long as they are supposed to be tentpoles and blockbusters.

If at some point the mass audience cannot be bothered with EON Bond films anymore and the rights revert to the public domain, with a tv station or a streaming service getting the idea: hey, this old British spy agent-idea could. now be reinvented, everything will be game.

But not now.

2 Likes
3230

Not sure I’m following you. I think you’re saying they’ve written some bond that was good and directors wanted them the rewrites. The latter is speculative - do we know this? Producers may have foisted them upon the directors (probably the main reason Boyle left).

3231

Not probably, Sir. That is just your assumption.

3232

Mendes and Tamahori bothsaying what things they added told me that. Campbell and Mendes both hired other writers, but kept much of P&W work from those scripts - which we know from the other writers telling us what they added in their draft.

3233

Should say; the irreverent remark wasn’t directed at you, so much as the Daily Mail article. That was my bad, should’ve made that clearer.

1 Like
3234

Didn’t say I thought that was speculative - said I thought knowing that directors were happy to have P&W do the rewrites was speculative. Just saying :slight_smile:

3235

This is a very fair point and of course mine and my tv colleagues poor opinion of the show certainly do not nessisarily mirror the general public; those who make tv usually view things far differently, particularly for those in documentary the standards of realism and authentic dialogue are higher, and arguably unfairly so when applied to scripted melodrama.

My main issue with it was summed up by this part of the Guardian newspaper review:

…It’s marred by dialogue that is sometimes inaudible (as with Happy Valley, Taboo and 10 Rillington Place, I’m using subtitles) and, when audible, often hackneyed thriller speak.

The latter being equally true of their bond scripts imho. But I’m not suggesting that Guardian snippet is proof of a widespread dislike - rotten tomatoes rate it highly after all - just a reflection of my critique.

I sympathise with this predicament - suffered it myself - but once is bad luck, several times as you say rings alarm bells for me. Look, sure they could be that unlucky, but I’m opting to bet it’s that the quality of writing generally isn’t selling the product to everyone. Unfortunately I know all too well how hard it is to get a film made, but with bond script credits to your name it must be that much more possible if the scripts are good enough.

Of course I’m speculating a lot, but it’s all speculation unless anyone here can say otherwise.

Finally, SAF, you’re quite right, this is an old argument that only really pops up in times of slow news. I wrote that up before my first coffee of the day and should’ve known better :slight_smile:

2 Likes