I like how he “famously bleached his hair for Quantum of Solace.” How can we ever forget?
Didn’t Pierce have a bit of gray on the edges in DAD?
1 Like
Craig’s Blond hair was a non issue in Casino Royale so if he’s showing gray in Bond 25 it won’t bother me either.
1 Like
They started talking about the hair, and it looks like they’re gunna end talking about the hair. Full circle.
2 Likes
Considering what the ending may be, I’m okay with them fine tuning the exact details of it - if that’s what these changes are about. Once a film has been made it has been made. Especially if this is Craig’s last. So I’m not panicking just yet - it may just be the seven weeks. This may turn out for the best.
Yes, the days when Bond films used to lead and not to follow are definitely over, ever since the self-parody that was DAD was given a run for the money (okay, not box-office wise) by The Bourne Identity, which came out half a year before (and the attempt to match it with CR no less than four years later. But as they say, “The revolution is like Saturn, it will devour all its children.” The Bond movies set the standard in the days of old, but they are somehow caught in the corset of tradition, whereas other franchises simply don’t have that kind of ‘pedigree’ as a ballast.
Still, the term ‘this looks/sounds like it’s from a Bond movie’ still lives on. All we can do is hope that the prolonged wait helps to re-establish it… 
4 Likes
I’m still highly suspicious of the original source…but comingsoon.net are normally very good at actually reporting news rather than click bait…
but for now though I’m still a bit dubious.
Quite, McQuarrie and the cast have been very open about this, even having to reshoot things to fit new rewrites. It’s why Jeremy Renner is not in the film - the rewriting and reshooting as they went meant he couldn’t give firm dates for Renner to be away from Avengers: Endgame
The difference, of course, is that on that film there were only two people who decided its fate: Tom Cruise and McQuarrie who was director and writer.
I agree with the position that there is not yet a reason to panic (“OOOH, NOW THEY WILL DELAY THE FILM EVEN FURTHER OR CALL IT OFF!”). And yes, Bond films were always re-written by a myriad of writers, often called in at the last minute.
But they still kept their shooting and release dates. Because they were planned out far in advance.
Of course, we only have rumors now which could be untrue.
Just for argument´s sake, however, let’s consider the idea that Burns indeed was called in because the script was not making people happy.
Which people could that be?
Studios complain about scripts because the action depicted is too expensive. That’s what ruined SPECTRE´s last act: the paring down.
Producers complain about scripts for the same reason because they see trouble during shooting and want to keep things as manageable as possible - perfectly understandable, of course. But they also want to do the project, so they will push forward, even with a script that is not quite there yet. No successful producer has ever delayed a film because they thought they could get a better script. (Yeah, they might say that to the press just to toot their own horn, but it´s always a lie.)
Directors - well, they LOVE to delay and push back and make it all look as if their HIGH quality standards just cannot be met by anyone else.
The same goes for actors.
So we have two winners here, in my highly subjective if battle-worn and weary opinion.
Craig pushing for a new writer? Very possible. He never seemed to show much love for P&W anyway.
Fukunaga demanding a rewrite while the start of principal photography is inching closer and closer? Yes, absolutely.
And let’s not forget: BOND 25 is the biggest project Fukunaga has ever tackled. The other big budget film he was involved with was IT - and that had him step away when his ideas weren’t met with confidence. Could it be that he is feeling the heat right now and that he is trying to assert his influence just as a power move? Yeah, absolutely. Wouldn’t be the first insecure director trying to do that.
Again, all of this is just my personal view on this matter. Feel free to debate me and to tear all those arguments to pieces.
But one argument just does not hold any water for me: “it´s better that they take their time to make things better” or “if Burns has better ideas why not include them?”
Let me tell you about high paid script doctors.
They are a sham.
Yes, very often they are good, even great writers. But the idea that to bring them in at the last minute will rescue a script is plain nonsense. It is just a power move, distorting the reality, meaning: a script will never satisfy everyone. And to think that a script doctor can magically solve things in a few weeks which could not be solved in the previous months is ludicrous.
Full disclosure: I was brought in to save a script many times as well. And while the money is always great and I only took assignments when I thought I really could improve the script, in the end I knew that all I did was just enforcing my own point of view. Which was as valid or invalid as anyone else’s. And everybody involved knows this. But nobody wants to admit it. This script doctoring always happens during a crisis when the people involved have clashed and found it impossible to get all their ideas mix well. So a guilty party has to be found. No, never the egos of directors, producers, actors or studio executives. Always the script. The writer. Get rid of this entity and find another one.
How can anybody believe that the script for BOND 25 could actually be improved within the next four weeks when it had months to be prepared?
It´s absurd. It´s just jittery movie making.
Is it so hard to write a Bond film? No, not really. And no Bond script has ever really reached such a quality that you would think: oh, yeah, that must have taken a lot of work to reach that level of superiority.
In the end it´s all about a production process that has gone out of hand. And yes, I blame EON for that. They are not running as tight a ship anymore as Cubby did.
How to solve that? Get into the rhythm of producing a film in a fixed amount of time. If not every two years then at least every three years. But stick to that. By developing scripts which are not changed due to the whimsy of directors or actors.
Which also means: hiring a main actor who loves being Bond and gets no veto right. Sure, he can give input. But nobody should guarantee him that every single thing he says will be realized.
And as for the director: get people who want to do Bond films as well and who work within your system instead of those who try to change that system. That does not mean workman-people who do what they are told and stay quiet. It means talented people who love this job and do not think how their status within the industry will change if they stick to the work instead of their persona.
Oh, and one more thing: whoever thought that Bond dying at the end of BOND 25 was a good idea should be fired immediately. I sincerely hope that this movie was not worked and reworked and rewritten and rewritten while keeping that insanely dumb idea intact.
8 Likes
Given how much of FRWL was taken from North by Northwest (as you yourself have pointed out as I recall) i’d argue Bond movie have always been quite magpie like.
1 Like
I’d agree, given how subjective a medium we’re talking about, the idea of parachuting in a writer to rescue a script is ludicrous, and more often done by studios to “remind” the production who signs the pay checks. It is, as you say, a power move - one Disney and Universal are VERY fond of. Indeed Universal did it with this “highly sought after writer” on Bourne Ultimatum.
I’m still slightly dubious of this story because of the initial source BUT I can see this as a move by Universal, who like I said, have hired this writer to do this before…
Not sure I agree about Craig having script opinions, he’s always struck me as someone who cares more about the director he’s working with rather than the perceived quality of the script.
3 Likes
As frustrating as it is to hear that Scott Burns, the famous Hollywood scripted rescuer has been drafted in to “save” the script no-one was happy with- it doesn’t change much from a fan point of view.
As SAF said in his incredibly insightful post above, Bond films are hardly known for their cracking screenplays. Egos everywhere- Babs, Michael, CJF, (Craig himself?), either one of them or all of them saw something they did not like about it and deemed it prudent for a mid-scale re-write.
As long as they stick to their April 8 release date, I’m fine with this.
1 Like
Personally my biggest fear over 25 has been going back to P&W yet again. I know I’ll be hammered in some quarters for bashing them, but I’m afraid my opinion of their scripts began with reservations and has gotten worse the more I’ve seen.
My hope was that CJF’s writing chops may negate some of the cheese, tropes and darn cringeworthy dialogue with a rewrite. If that was even attempted it appears to have been in vein. I must say I’m relieved that someone, somewhere has bitten the bullet (probably CJF and or Craig) and pushed back release to do a rewrite. Sure April is a better time to open, but imo that’s a happy accident, as I doubt they’re rewriting just because they can, but because they have to.
And by accounts it may be a pretty substantial rewrite with some reporting that Burns could get primary credit. If true that’s not a studio request to pair down action because it’s too expensive, or a tweak of story to address some notes.
Is it only some of the fans here that saw P&Ws appointment as desperate and doomed? Are Eon that deaf and blind to their shortcomings? Of course the reports could be false, but this all rings a bit too true.
Note, I’m not trying to kick the duo while they’re down. Making it as writers in the business in any capacity is something to be very proud of, but top tier writers of billon $ movies they’re not.
Btw, thank god for Craig refusing to dye his grey away. It’s suggests that perhaps some poweful quarter of the production has learned nothing from the farce of Moore’s latter movies trying to present him as an in prime specimen, bedding women young enough to be his granddaughter. Wanting those grey hairs gone may simply be an after thought, or could be a clue to some still not getting it; had Moore’s latter films been about an agent his age fighting on they’d be far more watchable now.
I suspect P&W are hired because they do what they’re told rather than put their own thoughts and feelings into the script, but given how divisive any writer/director who has their own clear voice ends up being on the internet, I too would rather have writers who just do what they’re told if I’m going to have to listen to fan boy tantrums anyway.
Let´s remind ourselves: no reliable source has reported those rumors - and rumors they are, nothing more.
Craig´s hair? Please, that is nothing that would trouble EON.
Is it a full rewrite? Hardly in four weeks, with all locations locked, stunts being prepared, casting definitely over.
If Burns indeed was brought in, it must have been just to polish dialogue and tweak here and there.
It might very well be the release date change which allowed someone to say: hey, in that time we can bring in another writer to go over the script once more.
P&W are used to delivering early drafts on Bond films and then get rewritten heavily. Again, blaming them for the end result is like blaming yourself for ordering a dish which many cooks then alter and present to you, resulting in a mishmash that does not taste like it was advertised on the menu.
If there is a press conference (and with all the problems surrounding this production since last year I’m beginning to doubt that) it will be most interesting. Unless there is a gag order which prohibits journalists from asking the good questions.
5 Likes
I’m remembering Craig’s announcement of ‘05 where a “journalist” from the scum kept asking dick questions.
Yeah, those questions sometimes are asked, too.
I have some sympathy for those fans who may lapse into percieved ‘tantrum’. It does appear to be a right royale you know what. My reaction isn’t quite as melodramatic, more of a sad sigh of ‘here we go again…’
I’m going by The Playlist saying ‘it’s an overhaul and wouldn’t be surprised if Burns gets the primary credit.’ Of course that’s their opinion and they may be wrong. Personally I’d suspect there right in that they’ve probably given Burns liceience to change whatever he needs to (considering they’ve apparently wanted him on Bond for some time). That could well be a thourough overhaul in which case he’ll nab the credit. Otherwise I suspect he’ll settle for no credit as he’s done in the past.
That could indeed be the case.
The ship that EON is running these days isn’t tight at all. It’s taking on water at an alarmingly absurd rate it seems like.
At the end of the day, they need to get whatever issues have plagued the creative process of these films in the Craig era, especially those that have cropped up during Spectre and Bond 25, and figure out a way to fix them going forward. Whether it’s true or not, the problems they’ve had the last two times out (combined with MGM’s financial issues, and the now seemingly minor issues they had getting Quantum of Solace to the screen) give off a stench of incompetence that really doesn’t allow for any confidence in the process when films like Spectre are the end result.
4 Likes
I thank the stars we are not as rabid fans of Top Gun 2 or the last Mission Impossible that equally have and had date shifts.
Or that the last MI was filming as the script developed (into one of the most satisfying and complex stories ever seen in spy fiction).
I do wonder of all that has been said above, and if Anyone from the B25 production reads this, whether in fact, Anything of what has been said is accurate. And if not, whether they are laughing derisively.
As to our interest, does ‘interest in’ denote ‘ownership of’?
Does not the ongoing striving towards artistic and profitable perfection likely offer a stronger film, and equally the likely promise of Bond 26?
Nothing happening here that a drink won’t offset.
Im in Britain, bit early in the day for what is at most a theoretical conversation about something we have no ownership or control over. I may get a GnT from thenlounge of solace in 4 hours, until then, its a coffee chat.
Though i too wonder if there are Fast and Furious fans panicking over a release date change…
1 Like