They were well into filming CR when Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen were cast, so not necessarily.
From the Baz article:
Scott Z. Burns has been reworking an earlier script by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, but the last I heard heâs only halfway through it.
With approximately 6 weeks until cameras roll and Baz apparently halfway through can we make a guess at how long heâs been working on it?
Iâd assume theyâd want his full draft at least a week or two before they roll, for tweaks, read-through etc. So Iâll take a punt at him having been working on it for around a month so far.
Of course halfway may refer to page count rather than time on the job. If so perhaps the beginning needed more work, with the second half being a quicker job. However, changing the front will likely mean changing the end and anyhow itâs usually endings that need reworking, the ripple effect then moving backwarks through the script. Quite a headache.
All in all though I imagine Baz is speaking of the time Burns has been given rather than page count.
Never heard of that before, even though I usually have a good knowledge of old-time songs. But this could be a possible explanation. He may have heard it during his time in Berlin or KitzbĂźhel and kept it in mind.
Unfortunately, I cantâ remember were exactly I read that story.
The young target audience may not be into Karl May that much as they used to be, but the association will still be there - and be sure that âthe mediaâ will make a big fuss of it.
2 Likes
Although re-writing means going through the whole script from page 1 the expression âheâs halfway throughâ wonât mean that he is only at, well page 60. It will rather mean that the re-write process is about halfway done, meaning after Burns turning in his first re-write version everybody is chiming in and he will have to do a lot more work rewriting his rewrite.
This is the thing with scripts revisions: its not about the great script doctor going in, doing his version and going back home.
It´s the same process as writing the different drafts of any script. People will weigh in and utter their wishes, the writer has to respond and work all those ideas in there somehow.
Baz reporting that Burns is working from the P&W script, not the Boyle/Hodge draft, really is reassuring, by the way. No Bond dying at the end, no whole time incarceration.
Burns rewriting the script also can mean that he is tailoring the script to the cast. Maybe the idea of casting Lupita Nyong will have necessitated a major rehaul of that character, and if Malek is indeed coming on board, Iâm sure he will have had his ideas and needs them to be realized. So⌠business as usual. And Burns could be the magnet for those talents.
Of course, everything that people will hate about BOND 25 will still be P&W´s fault.
3 Likes
Absolutely! Thanks for clarifying that.
Iâve not rewritten other peopleâs scripts, but Iâve picked up other peoples edits to recut. At first itâs quite nice gig because you come to it with fresh eyes and all the heavy lifting is done.
But it can get trickier after that first viewing of the recut, when tptb see what they wanted you to do for the first time. Some of their changes will have worked and others not so much. And you knew as you did it which oneâs donât.
If youâve worked with the producers before youâll have already changed the stuff that didnât work and theyâll trust you. But if itâs your first gig with them theyâll need to see for themselves what doesnât work. Itâs a hoop you have to jump through, or else theyâll always think any problems are due to their wishes not being fully realised.
Then you can suggest your alternative to the notes that didnât work.
So the first recut is the producersâ and the second is yours. If thatâs at all comparable to a writer reworking anotherâs script, then perhaps halfway means that Burns his now doing his version. Which is pretty much what you already said 
1 Like
Ummm, I would say that the first version always is the writer´s version - because you bring your own ideas to the table. And then you are at the mercy of all the other people. So, the best way to judge a writer, IMO, is always the first draft (for your own ideas) and then the last draft (to find out how well you as a writer can make others happy by integrating their ideas into yours).
2 Likes
Hmm, Graham is arguably a gamble on Bond. But maybe a good one?
Since he cut Steve Jobs and Trust for Boyle (as well as producing on Trust) Iâm assuming he was brought on by Boyle. If so would Eon have kept him onboard; wouldnât CJF have wanted to select an editor. Well he did uncredited editing on CJFs Beasts of No Nation, which probably means he was brought on the âfixâ stuff. Perhaps CJF was happy with his contribution.
At a stretch, could it be that Boyle had already brought Graham onboard and it was Grahamâs experience with CJF on Beasts that brought CJF into the loop?
RE Grahamâs editing chops. I donât recall Steve Jobsâ edit, but the film had Boyleâs usual playful story telling.
Most of the credits Mi6 cite are not sole editor credits so itâs impossible to judge him by them. Heâs only got sole editing credit on 5 films, none of them approaching the scale of Bond. He shares the credit on the forthcoming Captain Marvel which will definitely be of a large scale, as he did on the appalling mess Superman Returns; Bryan Singer really got that film wrong, but the edit is equally poor, with serious pacing issues. But thatâs not necessarily a bad thing; whatâs important is that Graham learnt from it and if so there was certainly a lot to learn from that debacle.
Grahamâs co-editor on Captain Marvel is Debbie Berman. A quick peruse on IMDB shows that she has Visual Effects experience, whereas Graham doesnât. However he is also a producer, so my guess is that Graham is on Captain Marvel for Story and Performances and Berman for the action. Thatâs likely true for Grahamâs other co-editing credit on Superman and Additional Editing on X-Men 2.
Btw, X-Men 2 is the only one thatâs really any good (Matt Vaughnâs First Class coming second), and itâs the only one Graham worked on; could that movieâs anomerlously higher quality be down to Graham having better Story chops?!
Bond 25 is a big leap for Graham to cut solo - hopefully heâll shine. Or could Eon see him as good at the drama, with an eye to bring on another editor for the action? It was their MO in the bad old days of hiring a Director such as Apted to direct the drama, with Armstrong seemingly in total control of the action, resulting in a huge tonal inconsistency (imho).
I really hope the latter is not the plan nor becomes necessary.
I got that too
Iâd agree with that. The gap between the two is often swearing.
Iâve never done a full re-write of anotherâs work, closest would be work as the âpracticality of lifeâ writer, for want of a better term where youâre handed the scene and a shopping list of everything (or more often actors) they have available that day as well as quick convo with the director about what they feel NEEDS to be conveyed from a scene.
1 Like
Speaking only of situations in which writers are parachuted in to do a rewrite, doesnât the writerâs autonomy depend upon how many notes the producers already have on the script youâre picking up? Can you really be doing your version first if it comes with a set of specific instructions?
When they do the handover theyâre gonna sayâŚ
âWe donât like it because of this and that. Can you fix it, please?â
And/orâŚ
âWe want it to do this and that instead?â
In the edit itâs usually a combo of both, but depending upon the personalities involved it can often begin with the producers wanting you to do specific things, rather than asking you to do your version.
1 Like
Yeah, absolutely - the script doctor does not get carte blanche at all. He is called in because everybody has an opinion and wants someone else to fulfill their wishes.
So Burns will not do his own take on Bond. He will first of all try to make everyone happy. Which never works. But this late in the game he will at least be able to do what he feels must be done and can be done in that short amount of time and collect good money for that.
Sometimes, not enough time, is a very good thing for a writer who is drafted for that job. Too much time and the writer will be terrorized as much as any guy came before.
3 Likes
According to The Playlist they have been courting Burns for months. He became available right after Sundance, at the beginning of February. So itâs possible he has been writing for two, almost three weeks now. The Playlist claimed he had at least four weeks to work on the script, and now Baz is saying heâs halfway through it. Theyâre not necessarily contradicting each other.
What fascinates me is that theyâve been courting Burns for months. Why wait so long? Why not go for another script doctor? Or maybe they did go for another writer in the meantime, which would explain the Paul Haggis rumour.
3 Likes
Most of the time it´s about whoâs playing well with others.
Burns has the connection to Fukunaga and Craig - so that probably sealed the deal.
1 Like
Most sought after quality in this business, how much itâs found is relativeâŚ
2 Likes
Much more interesting than this is the tweet below that links to our friends from Brazil. I took the opportunity to start a (possible) spoiler image thread:
https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/t/bond-25-production-pictures-spoilers/1201/2
3 Likes
Am intrigued how Bond Brazil always seems to have early access to / advance knowledge of so much.
I mean Brazil! Itâs not exactly Bond Pinewood, or Bond Piccadilly, or Bond LAâŚ
1 Like
Looks like a nice cozy homestead for Mr & Mrs Bond.
My thoughts exactly.
By the way, what exactly is âProduction Weeklyâ? Iâve never heard of it. Is it a reliable source?
BBC news has picked up the Shatterhand working title, too.
They must research hereâŚ
3 Likes