Perhaps the question should be "Why hasn't Eon been willing to hire great writers?" - and the answer is, because they are quite satisfied with the end results.
Excellent +1
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
When Cubby was around, it was done more television show style. Cubby was the showrunner and the directors were merely production men. But Cubby really knew what he was doing.
Terence Young was probably more in that new style, but then again, he was heavily influenced by Fleming too.
I agree with this. The Brosnan films were so weak because Barbara and Michael were in charge, and the directors had much less power than they have on Craig's films (especially Mendes).
But Barbara and Michael are still in charge, and the only reason the directors have more power is because they chose to let them have it. The more likely explanation is that after Licence to Kill under-performed, the producers decided to take the Bond films in a safer direction by turning them into more generic action movies with a Bondian overlay. After this type of filmmaking exhausted itself and was rendered old-fashioned by Bourne and Austin Powers, they decided it was time to switch direction and make the series grim and gritty through a Fleming-derived reboot.
That said, the one factor I'm leaving out, and which no one has yet addressed, is the influence of Sony on the modern Bond films. From what I understand, the studio interferes more often than United Artists did back in Cubby's heyday.
The more millions fronted, the more the studio feels they need to have a say to protect investment. It's just business to them. Evil Queen of numbers & all that. )
But Barbara and Michael are still in charge, and the only reason the directors have more power is because they chose to let them have it. The more likely explanation is that after Licence to Kill under-performed, the producers decided to take the Bond films in a safer direction by turning them into more generic action movies with a Bondian overlay. After this type of filmmaking exhausted itself and was rendered old-fashioned by Bourne and Austin Powers, they decided it was time to switch direction and make the series grim and gritty through a Fleming-derived reboot.
That said, the one factor I'm leaving out, and which no one has yet addressed, is the influence of Sony on the modern Bond films. From what I understand, the studio interferes more often than United Artists did back in Cubby's heyday.
Nice post. I think the safer direction came not necessarily just from underperforming but the standard waves that Bond goes in. It was a return to scale, action, adventure and humour. The 6 year gap to me really influenced this especially the idea of "Bond is back".
For me the films seem to follow this ebb and flow of Bond style:
I hate to tell you this but writers are probably the least respected and paid of the "big players" when it comes to making films. Directors, producers, and actors -- even the music composer and special effects director -- usually get paid substantially more.
Part of this is because writing is viewed as a starting, not finishing point. Scripts are rarely held to closely in filming, and because it is a collaborative process, input from directors, producers, and actors can change a script significantly. In fact, many writers are kept away from the set to avoid interfering with filming when lines are changed. Writers are also not as visible in the public eye. Think about it this way: How many times have you seen a commercial for a film that says starring, directed by, or produced by as a marketing point? Compare that to how many times you've see written by. While writers may have big egos, others in the process not only have egos that are bigger, but they are also more used to being in the spotlight and crave it.
There are some big names who have much more authority, often as the result of past success, a great agent, or being personal friends with the people involved. But the reality is that writers are perceived as mostly a dime a dozen. And this is true across the board for writers in any field. The odds of publishing a financially successful novel are about as great as winning the lottery. But even then, when that novel gets turned into a film, the writer is usually the least most important element of the process. And they are always one poor selling book from failure.
In the case of Eon, they've always done things on the cheap when it comes to talent. One of the reasons they look for "unknowns" to play Bond is to get a hungry actor cheap. They then hire that actor to a multi-film contract that, in effect, restricts their pay. That's what happened to Connery and was one of the reasons he was so bitter for years. Craig was hired for exactly the same reason. But now that the films are "A" films again, Eon is putting more into them. This will continue until such time as the films become more commonplace again.
The Bond films haven't required strong writers in at least 30 years. They lucked out with Casino Royale because they had Fleming to cannibalize, and even Purvis and Wade could do that. But once action films became more about the stunts and special effects, the need for a writer of quality diminished. The Lucases and Spielbergs also showed that you could take B movie ideas and just spend more money on them and have greater success than A movie ideas, so we've been in a period of dumbed down, adolescent-driven fare for decades. And here we are. A friend of mine who teaches film writing and has had his scripts optioned -- they came close to filming one as a Columbo episode many years ago, but then Peter Falk retired because of dementia -- also stresses that writing a movie script requires a different way of thinking. For instance, one must always think about budget. As a result, even a great idea can be turned into an average one by the time the money people look at it.
I hate to tell you this but writers are probably the least respected and paid of the "big players" when it comes to making films. Directors, producers, and actors -- even the music composer and special effects director -- usually get paid substantially more.
Part of this is because writing is viewed as a starting, not finishing point. Scripts are rarely held to closely in filming, and because it is a collaborative process, input from directors, producers, and actors can change a script significantly. In fact, many writers are kept away from the set to avoid interfering with filming when lines are changed. Writers are also not as visible in the public eye. Think about it this way: How many times have you seen a commercial for a film that says starring, directed by, or produced by as a marketing point? Compare that to how many times you've see written by. While writers may have big egos, others in the process not only have egos that are bigger, but they are also more used to being in the spotlight and crave it.
There are some big names who have much more authority, often as the result of past success, a great agent, or being personal friends with the people involved. But the reality is that writers are perceived as mostly a dime a dozen. And this is true across the board for writers in any field. The odds of publishing a financially successful novel are about as great as winning the lottery. But even then, when that novel gets turned into a film, the writer is usually the least most important element of the process. And they are always one poor selling book from failure.
In the case of Eon, they've always done things on the cheap when it comes to talent. One of the reasons they look for "unknowns" to play Bond is to get a hungry actor cheap. They then hire that actor to a multi-film contract that, in effect, restricts their pay. That's what happened to Connery and was one of the reasons he was so bitter for years. Craig was hired for exactly the same reason. But now that the films are "A" films again, Eon is putting more into them. This will continue until such time as the films become more commonplace again.
The Bond films haven't required strong writers in at least 30 years. They lucked out with Casino Royale because they had Fleming to cannibalize, and even Purvis and Wade could do that. But once action films became more about the stunts and special effects, the need for a writer of quality diminished. The Lucases and Spielbergs also showed that you could take B movie ideas and just spend more money on them and have greater success than A movie ideas, so we've been in a period of dumbed down, adolescent-driven fare for decades. And here we are. A friend of mine who teaches film writing and has had his scripts optioned -- they came close to filming one as a Columbo episode many years ago, but then Peter Falk retired because of dementia -- also stresses that writing a movie script requires a different way of thinking. For instance, one must always think about budget. As a result, even a great idea can be turned into an average one by the time the money people look at it.
Well said. As a screenwriter who's been optioned and nearly sold a project to producers, I can attest that we are the smallest fish in the artistic sea. Purvis and Wade are the two luckiest buskers on the face of the earth.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I hate to tell you this but writers are probably the least respected and paid of the "big players" when it comes to making films. Directors, producers, and actors -- even the music composer and special effects director -- usually get paid substantially more.
Part of this is because writing is viewed as a starting, not finishing point. Scripts are rarely held to closely in filming, and because it is a collaborative process, input from directors, producers, and actors can change a script significantly. In fact, many writers are kept away from the set to avoid interfering with filming when lines are changed. Writers are also not as visible in the public eye. Think about it this way: How many times have you seen a commercial for a film that says starring, directed by, or produced by as a marketing point? Compare that to how many times you've see written by. While writers may have big egos, others in the process not only have egos that are bigger, but they are also more used to being in the spotlight and crave it.
There are some big names who have much more authority, often as the result of past success, a great agent, or being personal friends with the people involved. But the reality is that writers are perceived as mostly a dime a dozen. And this is true across the board for writers in any field. The odds of publishing a financially successful novel are about as great as winning the lottery. But even then, when that novel gets turned into a film, the writer is usually the least most important element of the process. And they are always one poor selling book from failure.
In the case of Eon, they've always done things on the cheap when it comes to talent. One of the reasons they look for "unknowns" to play Bond is to get a hungry actor cheap. They then hire that actor to a multi-film contract that, in effect, restricts their pay. That's what happened to Connery and was one of the reasons he was so bitter for years. Craig was hired for exactly the same reason. But now that the films are "A" films again, Eon is putting more into them. This will continue until such time as the films become more commonplace again.
The Bond films haven't required strong writers in at least 30 years. They lucked out with Casino Royale because they had Fleming to cannibalize, and even Purvis and Wade could do that. But once action films became more about the stunts and special effects, the need for a writer of quality diminished. The Lucases and Spielbergs also showed that you could take B movie ideas and just spend more money on them and have greater success than A movie ideas, so we've been in a period of dumbed down, adolescent-driven fare for decades. And here we are. A friend of mine who teaches film writing and has had his scripts optioned -- they came close to filming one as a Columbo episode many years ago, but then Peter Falk retired because of dementia -- also stresses that writing a movie script requires a different way of thinking. For instance, one must always think about budget. As a result, even a great idea can be turned into an average one by the time the money people look at it.
Well said. As a screenwriter who's been optioned and nearly sold a project to producers, I can attest that we are the smallest fish in the artistic sea. Purvis and Wade are the two luckiest buskers on the face of the earth.
I truly wish you the best with it, Loeff!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
Cheers, my friend {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This whole conversation reminds me of the Coen Brothers film Barton Fink. About this ambitious Jewish writer, who wants to change the world with his words, hired by a major Hollywood studio to write a B-list wrestling film. Despite all of his friends telling him to simply write a generic script, he works day and night to write the greatest masterpiece script of his life and the studio basically laughs in his face.
People will just settle for a Bond script equivalent to a dumb wrestling movie. Why even have a good story like On Her Majesty's Secret Service when you can just make twice as much money with something like Diamonds Are Forever?
People will just settle for a Bond script equivalent to a dumb wrestling movie. Why even have a good story like On Her Majesty's Secret Service when you can just make twice as much money with something like Diamonds Are Forever?
The script has nothing to do with the box office figures for these two films, it's the lead actor. Can you cite a more relevant example?
The script has nothing to do with the box office figures for these two films
Exactly. You've effectively said it doesn't matter whether Eon has a good script or a lazy script. And in that case, why bother?
If there are other factors to draw people (like Sean Connery's return), no, the script doesn't matter so much. But I don't think DAF had a bad script. It's just a script that's not to your tastes.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,778MI6 Agent
I think another aspect to this is, how do you define scriptwriting for action films? Some are like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, taut, gripping clever - dramas. No action at all. Others are the Con Air, Face Off Expendables type. One stunt sequence or car chase mash up after another. Bond has pivoted from one extreme to the other and as noted, there are lots of factors that govern that, not just who is writing. Or wronging, depending on your opinion!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
This has been the bane of the series existence from its inception. Fleming wrote most of the novels not as action films but as spy stories. Bond would get into tussles and there are action scenes, but usually they are usually more personal and smaller in scale - something that would play fine on TV but not necessarily on a big screen. It's why the first two films stick out from the rest and the only reason they bear any resemblance to their larger brothers since GF is because EON threw in big explosions and action sequences. Imagine FRWL without the boat or helicopter chase and you can see my point.
GF was one of the novels that was more easily adaptable to a big cinema screen and when it made a ton of money, EON seized upon the series cliches and made sure they would be in them from now on. TB itself was already written for the cinema so that was a no brainer. YOLT had to be totally done up as spectacle and bigger than TB since the novel was again, not suitable for the big screen.
Except for films like OHMSS that had the source material, EON only needed writers who could come up with an action film they could insert the Bond cliches in. Since much of the source material had been used, it didn't matter how good it was as long as it was Bond film, because they had a built in audience.
EON finally got CR and realized they could go back to the beginning of the series and Fleming's character. They would still have to update it so the Craig films were still action films, but could inject more character and depth between the stunts. Everything was paired down to appear to be more realistic (ie instead of an army of bad guys to defeat it's only a few, instead of sci-fi Q gadgets we get none or something that can actually exist, instead of Bond leaving a fight with his suit clean he actually gets cut and bruised and his clothes are damaged, etc.).
EON and the writers and Craig are still trying to throw Fleming's character up on the screen but now that CR has been done they're left with mining Bond's background and using unused scenes from the novels to base their ideas on. Could they write better screenplays? Of course, but as it has been mentioned, the trick is writing one in the first draft that's stellar enough so by the time it goes through everyone's input and revisions its at least still a B film by the time it gets to the screen. As long as EON produces the series as B action films dressed up as A films, the writing is never going to excel I'm afraid.
Yes, there are really good screenwriters but they don't normally write action films and this is why. Ever notice how many A list actors and directors are doing cable television now? It's because compared to big blockbuster cinema, films and series done for television don't have to bring in a ton of gold, and the producers of these projects really do want them to have a high level of quality in respect to plot, character and the written word. It's also why small indie films have become more attractive in the last few decades. It's easier to keep the script close to the screenwriter's original intent because there isn't a lot of money mucking up the process. It's why A list actors are willing to do them for a regular salary (or sometimes don't even care about the salary) because they really do appreciate a good screenplay and small, well crafted films.
EON gets well know actors in their series because its a part of film history. They grew up watching and enjoying the series and to be a part of it is a personal achievement in their careers. The scripts? Well, no, they're not the golden standard, but so what? It's a BOND film!
I don't know why this bothers me so much. I guess I, like Barton Fink, think that good writers are underappreciated. It's kind of like with the music industry, with talented hard-working indie artists struggling while lazy autotune rappers make millions.
According to some Spectre reviews I've read, the plot and characters are of secondary importance to the action. Even so, I'm not worried. Movies like The Spy Who Loved Me were formulaic but also really good.
And I wonder why they need BOTH Purvis and Wade? Do they pay them the equivalent of two screenwriter's pay? Seems like a waste.
Great post by Gassy Man, a dim view, but it makes perfect sense
As Gassy Man says, writers don't get paid as much as the other big creators of the films, so why not pay 2 writers, or 5?
Skyfall has at least four writers: Logan, Purvis, Wade, and Butterworth. Mendes obviously had input as, apparently, did Craig. Jesper Christiansen apparently re-wrote some of his dialogue and I'm sure Michael Wilson had input.
I bet there are a couple of more who did some "sweetening" or "tweaking" that we'll never know about.
Why are action movies able to spend 100+ million dollars on CGI, set pieces and such, but will barely spend any money hiring a good writer?
Writing is one of the most important parts of film, and it effectively dictates both the characters and the atmosphere. The fact that they get paid probably as much as just a stunt car or two.
If you put Cart in charge of Eon: Day 1 - I will host an open contest on who can write the absolute best most original Bond script possible. The winner gets $10 million dollars. Or if that's not feasible, I'd hire award-winning novelists - not film writers - to write the script.
When I look at the Bond films, a lot of the action is unrivaled, but how many of them can I say are original, fresh, unique or intellectually stimulating. In fact, a dozen of them are Goldfinger clones. A franchise that's a household name with so many resources available to it, unable to take big creative risks is not easy for me to accept. A number of directors and actors declined (or almost declined) because they knew what a Bond film entailed.
With the Bond franchise, once you've seen one or two, you've seen most of them. The plots are predictable. We know one Bond girl will die and one will be Bond's lover. We know Bond will cordially meet a villain, snoop on his activities, get kidnapped by him, escape and then kill him. We know the movie will have a chase sequence in the middle, an evil lair at the climax and a happy ending. How many Bond movies were there in which one wouldn't be able to predict what happens to the characters in the 2nd half? What's the incentive of watching a SPY film if you've already figured out the mystery.
How many Bond movies can I say had a story that was exceptional?
From Russia With Love
Goldfinger
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
The Living Daylights
The World Is Not Enough
Casino Royale 2006
That's only 6 films out of 23.
I can still appreciate movies like Live and Let Die, which are super-fun, but when the majority of films end up like that, it's simply a matter of which films do the formula best. And as a result, you have clear winners like The Spy Who Loved Me. And clear losers like Die Another Day and Diamonds Are Forever. I'm a fan of the series. I'm not trying to bash it - just providing some constructive criticism.
Bad institutions (such as lazy movie writing) only exist because we stand for them.
I do agree with you that the Bond franchise has suffered from some very formulaic, cliché ridden scripts. In that regard the Brosnan years were abysmal, with the exception that you mention (TWINE), the very worst being TND which is the absolute bottom of the barrel in all 23 official movies.
I would argue that the combination of Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson were very successful during the 80s combining Fleming short stories and original material to create really good movies. With the exception of AVTAK, their 80s output was of a very high quality. TLD, but also FYEO, OP and LTK are good.
During the 60s they had the advantage of having all the Fleming novels to choose from,so it's natural that they mostly seem fresh. Even movies like TB and YOLT were original back then. Fifty years and 24 movies later, it's harder to find original stories, of course.
That's why the Craig years are exceptional. CR has the advantage of using the Fleming novel, but in SF they managed to come up with a genuinely surprising story. Hopefully with SPECTRE they'll manage use old characters to tell new stories.
Dahl had to write a whole new script for YOLT because OHMSS had not been filmed yet, so in the filmic Bond universe Tracey hadn't died and Bond hadn't fallen apart and there was no revenge motive. Take all that away the novel YOLT and you're left with a travelogue.
I do agree with you that the Bond franchise has suffered from some very formulaic, cliché ridden scripts. In that regard the Brosnan years were abysmal, with the exception that you mention (TWINE), the very worst being TND which is the absolute bottom of the barrel in all 23 official movies.
I would argue that the combination of Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson were very successful during the 80s combining Fleming short stories and original material to create really good movies. With the exception of AVTAK, their 80s output was of a very high quality. TLD, but also FYEO, OP and LTK are good.
During the 60s they had the advantage of having all the Fleming novels to choose from,so it's natural that they mostly seem fresh. Even movies like TB and YOLT were original back then. Fifty years and 24 movies later, it's harder to find original stories, of course.
That's why the Craig years are exceptional. CR has the advantage of using the Fleming novel, but in SF they managed to come up with a genuinely surprising story. Hopefully with SPECTRE they'll manage use old characters to tell new stories.
I think the 80's scripts being solid adds to why I like the entire decade.
As for Skyfall I quite liked the dialogue but not the plot and story
And if Absolutely_Cart is right about the plot and characters being secondary to the action, then it's back to the routine Bond film. However, this time from the trailer clips the acting and dialogue seems exceptional
It would seem with Spectre all the pseudo intellectuals on AJB, who want
Character over action. Will not be disappointed with Spectre, as most reports
Say character development is very strong in the film.
Which you can't argue with ......... but I'm certain some will. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
It would seem with Spectre all the pseudo intellectuals on AJB, who want
Character over action. Will not be disappointed with Spectre, as most reports
Say character development is very strong in the film.
Which you can't argue with ......... but I'm certain some will. )
That made me laugh particulary the "pseudo interllectuals"
) ) ) )
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I think it boils down to, two completely different starting points.
Some are able to clinically appreciate the Bond films, easily
Dissecting those part they like, dislike, would drop, would change.
Where as I simply love them, and love can't be explained or
Departmentalised into lists of likes and dislikes. The films can be
studied that way, but not loved !
What some might see as a blemish on a loved one's face, could
infact be the very nuance, that gives the face its character, and indeed
your subconscious reason for loving them.
I do enjoy reading these posts of why and how things could have been
improved, but can't understand how some can be so clinical in their
approach. For me it's just enjoyment of the series, I'm not trying to
impress anyone with my knowledge of writing skills or directors.
Although I guess I'll just have to accept that some look at these wonderful
films, as a series of boxes to be ticked off, as an almost film school lesson.
Rather than the gut feeling, instinctual, appreciation that some of the rest
of us have.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,778MI6 Agent
edited October 2015
To be honest Pussy, I think the way we are encouraged to look at films these days has a lot of that box ticking as you put it, especially Bond due to its longevity, and competition. It's like the National Gallery scene in SF. Bond sees "a bloody big ship." Q2 sees the artistry, symbolism and poetry within the painting and can appreciate it in different ways. Q2 clearly celebrates the experience far more as you and I do.
Look at that documentary Jonathan Ross did. He is a professional opinion (my college lecturer's mantra, "there is no such thing as a professional critic, only professional opinions") and the first thing he does after his usual nonsense is prattle about the Bond formula. - A self congratulatory critics tick sheet they all use. Lazy analysis to save time, and talk at the masses. It like the opinion that says Sci Fi has to border on fantasy like Star Wars, OR be so scientifically accurate it's painful like 2001. Often assumed boring too, and the latter actually has a more fantastic concept! One Interstellar tried to repeat. There is no give or take between these analytical extremes.
What with the Internet, newspaper reviews, Facebook comments, radio reviews and such tv "specials" glutted at us, it's no surprise the mainstream audience, and a few of us who know Bond, start check listing ourselves. Often knee jerking reacting as a response. The net is the worst, as The House Of Eon shrewdly observed when casting Mr Craig in the first place. It's films like Batman Begins (the only good Nolan Bats film in my book) CR-06 and Star Trek 09 that reminded me not to go with a shopping list of tropes! B Begins and CR-06 lacked them and were great films regardless. Trek 09 was overloaded with them and is utter sh*t!
Every film should be judged and either enjoyed or condemned on its own merits. In spite of my own Skyfall infused concerns, I hope Spectre is a highly enjoyable and fun Bond film, whether it has hit and miss pieces in places.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
I can of course understand both your points, although it's like asking
Someone to make a list of why they love their wife, boyfriend etc.
If you can do it, I'd suggest you're not really in love at all. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
Excellent +1
Terence Young was probably more in that new style, but then again, he was heavily influenced by Fleming too.
"Better make that two."
But Barbara and Michael are still in charge, and the only reason the directors have more power is because they chose to let them have it. The more likely explanation is that after Licence to Kill under-performed, the producers decided to take the Bond films in a safer direction by turning them into more generic action movies with a Bondian overlay. After this type of filmmaking exhausted itself and was rendered old-fashioned by Bourne and Austin Powers, they decided it was time to switch direction and make the series grim and gritty through a Fleming-derived reboot.
That said, the one factor I'm leaving out, and which no one has yet addressed, is the influence of Sony on the modern Bond films. From what I understand, the studio interferes more often than United Artists did back in Cubby's heyday.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Nice post. I think the safer direction came not necessarily just from underperforming but the standard waves that Bond goes in. It was a return to scale, action, adventure and humour. The 6 year gap to me really influenced this especially the idea of "Bond is back".
For me the films seem to follow this ebb and flow of Bond style:
DN-FRWL: source material.
GF-YOLT: formula, scale.
OHMSS: source material.
DAF-TMWTGG: humour.
TSWLM-MR: formula, scale.
FYEO-LTK (maybe not OP): darker, source material.
GE-TND: formula, scale.
TWINE: darker, source material.
DAD: formula, scale.
CR-SF: darker, source material.
SP: darker, formula???
"Better make that two."
Part of this is because writing is viewed as a starting, not finishing point. Scripts are rarely held to closely in filming, and because it is a collaborative process, input from directors, producers, and actors can change a script significantly. In fact, many writers are kept away from the set to avoid interfering with filming when lines are changed. Writers are also not as visible in the public eye. Think about it this way: How many times have you seen a commercial for a film that says starring, directed by, or produced by as a marketing point? Compare that to how many times you've see written by. While writers may have big egos, others in the process not only have egos that are bigger, but they are also more used to being in the spotlight and crave it.
There are some big names who have much more authority, often as the result of past success, a great agent, or being personal friends with the people involved. But the reality is that writers are perceived as mostly a dime a dozen. And this is true across the board for writers in any field. The odds of publishing a financially successful novel are about as great as winning the lottery. But even then, when that novel gets turned into a film, the writer is usually the least most important element of the process. And they are always one poor selling book from failure.
In the case of Eon, they've always done things on the cheap when it comes to talent. One of the reasons they look for "unknowns" to play Bond is to get a hungry actor cheap. They then hire that actor to a multi-film contract that, in effect, restricts their pay. That's what happened to Connery and was one of the reasons he was so bitter for years. Craig was hired for exactly the same reason. But now that the films are "A" films again, Eon is putting more into them. This will continue until such time as the films become more commonplace again.
The Bond films haven't required strong writers in at least 30 years. They lucked out with Casino Royale because they had Fleming to cannibalize, and even Purvis and Wade could do that. But once action films became more about the stunts and special effects, the need for a writer of quality diminished. The Lucases and Spielbergs also showed that you could take B movie ideas and just spend more money on them and have greater success than A movie ideas, so we've been in a period of dumbed down, adolescent-driven fare for decades. And here we are. A friend of mine who teaches film writing and has had his scripts optioned -- they came close to filming one as a Columbo episode many years ago, but then Peter Falk retired because of dementia -- also stresses that writing a movie script requires a different way of thinking. For instance, one must always think about budget. As a result, even a great idea can be turned into an average one by the time the money people look at it.
" We're on the minor technical awards, best writer I think's next !"
Well said. As a screenwriter who's been optioned and nearly sold a project to producers, I can attest that we are the smallest fish in the artistic sea. Purvis and Wade are the two luckiest buskers on the face of the earth.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Great post by Gassy Man, a dim view, but it makes perfect sense
As Gassy Man says, writers don't get paid as much as the other big creators of the films, so why not pay 2 writers, or 5?
People will just settle for a Bond script equivalent to a dumb wrestling movie. Why even have a good story like On Her Majesty's Secret Service when you can just make twice as much money with something like Diamonds Are Forever?
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
The script has nothing to do with the box office figures for these two films, it's the lead actor. Can you cite a more relevant example?
Exactly. You've effectively said it doesn't matter whether Eon has a good script or a lazy script. And in that case, why bother?
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
If there are other factors to draw people (like Sean Connery's return), no, the script doesn't matter so much. But I don't think DAF had a bad script. It's just a script that's not to your tastes.
GF was one of the novels that was more easily adaptable to a big cinema screen and when it made a ton of money, EON seized upon the series cliches and made sure they would be in them from now on. TB itself was already written for the cinema so that was a no brainer. YOLT had to be totally done up as spectacle and bigger than TB since the novel was again, not suitable for the big screen.
Except for films like OHMSS that had the source material, EON only needed writers who could come up with an action film they could insert the Bond cliches in. Since much of the source material had been used, it didn't matter how good it was as long as it was Bond film, because they had a built in audience.
EON finally got CR and realized they could go back to the beginning of the series and Fleming's character. They would still have to update it so the Craig films were still action films, but could inject more character and depth between the stunts. Everything was paired down to appear to be more realistic (ie instead of an army of bad guys to defeat it's only a few, instead of sci-fi Q gadgets we get none or something that can actually exist, instead of Bond leaving a fight with his suit clean he actually gets cut and bruised and his clothes are damaged, etc.).
EON and the writers and Craig are still trying to throw Fleming's character up on the screen but now that CR has been done they're left with mining Bond's background and using unused scenes from the novels to base their ideas on. Could they write better screenplays? Of course, but as it has been mentioned, the trick is writing one in the first draft that's stellar enough so by the time it goes through everyone's input and revisions its at least still a B film by the time it gets to the screen. As long as EON produces the series as B action films dressed up as A films, the writing is never going to excel I'm afraid.
Yes, there are really good screenwriters but they don't normally write action films and this is why. Ever notice how many A list actors and directors are doing cable television now? It's because compared to big blockbuster cinema, films and series done for television don't have to bring in a ton of gold, and the producers of these projects really do want them to have a high level of quality in respect to plot, character and the written word. It's also why small indie films have become more attractive in the last few decades. It's easier to keep the script close to the screenwriter's original intent because there isn't a lot of money mucking up the process. It's why A list actors are willing to do them for a regular salary (or sometimes don't even care about the salary) because they really do appreciate a good screenplay and small, well crafted films.
EON gets well know actors in their series because its a part of film history. They grew up watching and enjoying the series and to be a part of it is a personal achievement in their careers. The scripts? Well, no, they're not the golden standard, but so what? It's a BOND film!
And there you have it....
According to some Spectre reviews I've read, the plot and characters are of secondary importance to the action. Even so, I'm not worried. Movies like The Spy Who Loved Me were formulaic but also really good.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
I bet there are a couple of more who did some "sweetening" or "tweaking" that we'll never know about.
I do agree with you that the Bond franchise has suffered from some very formulaic, cliché ridden scripts. In that regard the Brosnan years were abysmal, with the exception that you mention (TWINE), the very worst being TND which is the absolute bottom of the barrel in all 23 official movies.
I would argue that the combination of Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson were very successful during the 80s combining Fleming short stories and original material to create really good movies. With the exception of AVTAK, their 80s output was of a very high quality. TLD, but also FYEO, OP and LTK are good.
During the 60s they had the advantage of having all the Fleming novels to choose from,so it's natural that they mostly seem fresh. Even movies like TB and YOLT were original back then. Fifty years and 24 movies later, it's harder to find original stories, of course.
That's why the Craig years are exceptional. CR has the advantage of using the Fleming novel, but in SF they managed to come up with a genuinely surprising story. Hopefully with SPECTRE they'll manage use old characters to tell new stories.
I think the 80's scripts being solid adds to why I like the entire decade.
As for Skyfall I quite liked the dialogue but not the plot and story
And if Absolutely_Cart is right about the plot and characters being secondary to the action, then it's back to the routine Bond film. However, this time from the trailer clips the acting and dialogue seems exceptional
Character over action. Will not be disappointed with Spectre, as most reports
Say character development is very strong in the film.
Which you can't argue with ......... but I'm certain some will.
That made me laugh particulary the "pseudo interllectuals"
Some are able to clinically appreciate the Bond films, easily
Dissecting those part they like, dislike, would drop, would change.
Where as I simply love them, and love can't be explained or
Departmentalised into lists of likes and dislikes. The films can be
studied that way, but not loved !
What some might see as a blemish on a loved one's face, could
infact be the very nuance, that gives the face its character, and indeed
your subconscious reason for loving them.
I do enjoy reading these posts of why and how things could have been
improved, but can't understand how some can be so clinical in their
approach. For me it's just enjoyment of the series, I'm not trying to
impress anyone with my knowledge of writing skills or directors.
Although I guess I'll just have to accept that some look at these wonderful
films, as a series of boxes to be ticked off, as an almost film school lesson.
Rather than the gut feeling, instinctual, appreciation that some of the rest
of us have.
Look at that documentary Jonathan Ross did. He is a professional opinion (my college lecturer's mantra, "there is no such thing as a professional critic, only professional opinions") and the first thing he does after his usual nonsense is prattle about the Bond formula. - A self congratulatory critics tick sheet they all use. Lazy analysis to save time, and talk at the masses. It like the opinion that says Sci Fi has to border on fantasy like Star Wars, OR be so scientifically accurate it's painful like 2001. Often assumed boring too, and the latter actually has a more fantastic concept! One Interstellar tried to repeat. There is no give or take between these analytical extremes.
What with the Internet, newspaper reviews, Facebook comments, radio reviews and such tv "specials" glutted at us, it's no surprise the mainstream audience, and a few of us who know Bond, start check listing ourselves. Often knee jerking reacting as a response. The net is the worst, as The House Of Eon shrewdly observed when casting Mr Craig in the first place. It's films like Batman Begins (the only good Nolan Bats film in my book) CR-06 and Star Trek 09 that reminded me not to go with a shopping list of tropes! B Begins and CR-06 lacked them and were great films regardless. Trek 09 was overloaded with them and is utter sh*t!
Every film should be judged and either enjoyed or condemned on its own merits. In spite of my own Skyfall infused concerns, I hope Spectre is a highly enjoyable and fun Bond film, whether it has hit and miss pieces in places.
I can play clinition with the best of 'em, but really, it all boils down to ESCAPIST FUN. B-)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Someone to make a list of why they love their wife, boyfriend etc.
If you can do it, I'd suggest you're not really in love at all.