Interview with Purvis & Wade
Barbel
ScotlandPosts: 36,344Chief of Staff
From The Guardian, an interesting interview with the writers-
Goldfingers: meet the writers of every James Bond film this century | James Bond | The Guardian
Comments
Every time I say their names it's from the defunct For Your Ears Only podcast: Purvis...Wade...Grrrrrr.
Interesting interview. Not really anything Earth shattering, but I would be in their notes for CR.
Some really interesting information here, so thanks.
- Phobe Waller-Bridge wrote most of the Paloma stuff, probably the most popular new character in the movie.
- They wrote the outline for NTTD in 2017!
- The new Bond actor won't be chosen until next year. I expected that, but it's nice to get a confirmation from a good source. If they actually get that done by next year that's great.
I feel Purvis and Wade know a lot about Bond and are very invested in the character, but they're hooked on changing the Bond formula like a drug. Some change is neccessary, but like any drug the need to increase the dose is overwhelming.
Yes. interesting.
That's my impression too. I respect them for knowing their Fleming, but the uses they've put him to have been questionable at times. On the other hand, they can't be be blamed for writing what they've been told to write. Brofeld was not their idea, and the ending of NTTD was apparently mandated by Craig and the producers. We might learn more about what they really think about the producers, and the handling of their scripts, after they've definitely left the series.
If they come back, I hope they'll stop asking "What emotional journey can Bond go on?". Bond has done too much of that sort of traveling and the results have grown contrived. You can have emotional moments in a Bond film that aren't tied into any emotional journey or character arc.
According to P & W they wrote the outline of NTTD in 2017 and showed it to Craig who loved the idea of the ending. The way I understand it the idea was theirs.
I agree that Bond shouldn't have an emotional Journey or arch in every movie. It works with Jason Bourne, but there are so many Bond movies it can't be done. Bond doesn't have emotional archs in GF, TSWLM and lots of other great movies. It's like having him go rogue. It's a nice change from time to time, but it should be the exeptions that proves the rule.
From what I've read elsewhere, Craig stipulated that he would return for a fifth film if it ended the way seen in NTTD. Presumably then P&W wrote an outline with that ending and showed it to Craig. The article states "They flew to New York to pitch the full outline to Craig ('He embraced it immediately,' Purvis says) and to work with him on finessing it."
Craig said he suggested the ending of NTTD not after CR was made, so you're probably right.
Not sure any Bond actor should have any involvement in the actual story. Act and leave the story to the screenwriters.
He’s an exec producer as well though.
I rather like the stories they’ve come up with, I never quite understand the hostility. I enjoy Bond having dramatic storylines too.
Yes, but how can they top the emotional journey of NTTD? Was NTTD the Moonraker/DAD of emotional journeys? Is it even possible to "up the dosage" next time?
I'm not saying NTTD was neccessarily a mistake, but I suspect they have to dial it down a lot in Bond26. In fact, like many others I hope they focus on the mission next time.
I don't think they have to top it particularly. But as it's a new Bond I think it's likely he'll have a personal storyline of some kind to engage with him on. I don't think that's a bad thing at all; it's how Fleming started out after all.
I, like many many other paying cinemagoers, have enjoyed the focus on drama over the last 15 years.
I've enjoyed much of it too, bit I think the series has come to rely on it too much.
P&W don't have to increase the emotional journey dosage in a scriptwriting sense. I don't even know if it's possible. But I sometimes suspect they (and the producers) feel they have to.
I find it curious to say that a drama relies on drama too much. It's not as if they didn't even increase the comedy aspects over the run anyway.
I don't know how we can pretend to know what the producers feel they need to do.
I don't know what the producers and writers feel either, but a fan forum seems the right place to speculate about it. It's also the perfect place to discuss what they do.
But isn't James Bond's genre action, not drama? I do agree they have increased the comedy.
I don't just want action though, I want tension and excitement. Casino Royale had a long and extremely key poker sequence: not really 'action' but it was brilliant.
I don't feel like P&W feel they have to increase the emotional journey dosage: I think they've had it right for the last few films and I suspect they probably know that. It may well go somewhere completely different with the next incarnation but I can't guess what they'll do.
While Bond movies should have elements from other generes such as comedy and drama, I remember Bond movies were in the action shelf in the video rental.
I hope they don't go in a completely different direction, but they should do something new.
No one is suggesting they remove all action. But they are based around dramatic confrontation, they always have been. And they remain entirely plot -rather than character- based.
Basically the argument seems to be that they should be less dramatic, and I can't really understand it. It's like watching, I dunno, Endgame and saying 'I cared for the characters too much, I just wanted superheroes punching each other'.
I'm glad someone else felt NTTD was the Moonraker of emotional journeys. That's my feeling as well. It's taken that approach as far it can go, to a literal dead end. Taking a break from forced emotional journeys might result in films that touch on emotion without having to engage in labored arcs.
No, no-one is suggesting to remove all the action. Drama is still one of the ingredients, but keep making the emotional journies longer and more dramatic isn't the way forward after NTTD.
But Bond is basically an action franchise, not The English Patient or Kramer vs. Kramer.
I don't want it to be basically anything, I want it to be the sophisticated mix of action, drama, comedy, adventure, style etc. I loved all these years. Adjusting the mixture over the course of it is no problem to me: I love Moonraker just as much as For Your Eyes Only.
Again, no one has suggested making the emotional journies longer or more dramatic, but also I'd have no problem with it. I enjoy being connected and engaged with characters in movies, I can cope with that perfectly well. I don't watch OHMSS and think 'yawn, why are they getting married when he could be machine gunning more baddies'.