A subreddit to discuss anything and everything related to Ian Fleming's James Bond 007.
He said about their work on the Bond films:
"I want to say that delicately, but personally I don't think Purvis and Wade are really doing Bond any favors. What happens with them, I suppose, is that they lay down the basics and inevitably another screenwriter, a Paul Haggis, Jez Butterworth or whatever, always comes in and completely rewrites the script. That seems to be the current pattern, where the director comes in and sort of wants his own writer. Barbara and Michael, to their credit, always accept."
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
It's crazy to me that for a series known for its reinvention, they've allowed the same two scriptwriters to steer the ship for over 20 years while not doing a particularly amazing job - they've overseen some great scripts but also some truly terrible ones.
I've found a forum thread debating whether they should leave the franchise from way back in 2011: https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/1998/time-to-get-rid-of-purvis-and-wade
EON needs new blood. But Bond 26 is being run past them currently.
Whats the source on this please?
A statement from Barbara Broccoli's interview on the Empire podcast in September 2022 foresees the return of Purvis and Wade:
"When you change the actor you have to reimagine the direction the film's gonna go in. [...] We're going to take our time. We want to get a sense of where we want to go with the series and we want to do that before we bring anybody else on. We'll start the process probably with [writers] Rob [Wade] and Neil [Purvis] and we'll see where we go!"
EON basically did the same thing for 20+ years for Richard Maibaum as well. (by Bond 26, Purvis & Wade will have been writing Bond movies as long as Maibaum as well).
You're right - and you've made me realise that Maibaum wrote for many more films than I first thought. Although the range of films he oversaw is so much more diverse, it makes me think he was a more versatile writer. I've sometimes found the tonal shifts of the Craig era quite jarring by comparison.
It could be that he was more versatile, or simply that he was asked to do more types of movies due to the variations in the 60s,70s & 80s etc. In Purvis and Wade's case even when the movies are stylistically different, it's usually because other writers are involved rather than them etc. (since they're usually the rough draft people and occasionally brought in to polish other people's scripts etc.)
In the old days of Hollywood, you’d have writers work on the script for different reasons - you’d have your one good at structure, one good at dialogue etc.
Maybe that’s what Purvis and Wade are for - getting the shape, that the other writers then build on.
Correct
It’s hard for me to know what to think about Purvis and Wade. On one hand, the only movie they received sole credit for was Die Another Day, which featured probably the worst Bond script ever and one of the worst scripts of the past 50 years of moviemaking period. On the other hand, I thought the scripts of the Craig era were pretty good, on balance, so I might conclude from that that whatever scriptwriting division of labor they’ve had in place recently has been working out pretty well. So maybe it’s an “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” situation?
The bottom line is I won’t be too disappointed regardless of which way they decide to go wrt P&W.
I think this is worrying, and it kind of confirms Campbell's comments about them. Namely, that they come up with the idea and then other screenwriters come in and rewrite it. If no other screenwriters come in, then we get DAD.
I realize that this might be a gross generalization, but I have had my doubts about them for some time, after reading some early screenplay drafts for their films. And then, of course, you have Paul Haggis, John Logan, and Jez Butterworth performing rewrites on Casino Royale, Skyfall, and NTTD, and their voice is certainly familiar in those films.
However, I would also point out that the great Richard Maibaum wrote some terrible first screenplay drafts and script treatments. So it seems to be part of the process.
For DAD though, Lee Tamahori apparently took the film in a much campier direction than was intended in the original script. The way that Purvis & Wade Talked about it was basically as Brosnan's License To Kill. ( a lot of the most ridiculous things in the movie were also Tamahori's ideas such as the surfing & invisible car etc.)
A lot seems to have gone wrong during the pre-production and production phases of DAD, so it's hard to find out who's responsible for each issue (let alone the film as a whole).
The beginning of DAD shows that this film could have gone in a far more serious direction. Shame it didn't. The whole idea of Bond betrayed, hung out to dry, and then having to find the mole and claw his way back into MI6's good graces was a superb idea ruined by all the CGI BS unfortunately.
It seems like they didn’t even write the Quantum of Solace script outside of a rough story outline, Paul Haggis did. Which explains why the writing (despite being clearly unfinished) was more sharp, intelligent and understated than many Bond flicks.
I think it's more that Purvis and Wade help the producers translate their ideas into screenplay format
And I don't think it's so much individual directors wanting to bring other writers in than that being an accepted part of the production process
The first draft just seems to be created for budgeting and pre-production purposes
Yeah, I can't blame P&W since I'm confident most of the ideas are coming from the top. Multiple people, including the director, star, writers, editors etc. knew about the "yo mama" line and Brofeld and all the other goofy stuff but went along with it anyway.
Campbell said he wanted Paul Haggis for CR. And Mendes certainly chose John Logan for Skyfall.
John Logan is one of the best in the business.
Yeah, mate
I'm saying the fact other writers will be brought in for later drafts seems to be understood at the point the first draft is commissioned
I'm not arguing that individual directors didn't choose their own writers
Being kind of harsh on Die Another Day, I think. Unless the script itself was somehow a lot worse than the movie would have us believe.
I actually think the start is pretty good, right up until he goes to Cuba. Before that point my biggest complaint is that there’s no Wai Lin cameo.
I found the whole North Korea thing to be amazing
remove the daft Korean man becoming white
the invisible car
give a legit reason for why the baddie is doing what he’s doing
I even don’t mind the theme tune though actually get rid of the entire Madonna cameo
I think the Korean thing is a great opener before the credits. MI6 could trace the source of the diamonds to Graves.
Make Graves an entirely separate character and get rid of the gene therapy thing. Make his motivation a little more egomaniacal and selfish rather than motivated by the Korean DMZ.
You can keep Miranda as a traitor. Keep the ice palace. Get rid of the tsunami iceberg.
All in all, I think DAD had the bones of a fun Bond movie, it just needed to reign in the more out there stuff.
The guy that plays Graves is pretty well born to play villains.
Played one excellently in an episode of Sharpe too.
Yeah, there are good parts through the rest, but I pointed out the start because it’s a good solid chunk of the film with no real drawbacks.
Totally agree first hour or so is one of my favourite openings
Fire Purvis and Wade
Yes and bring back Bruce Feirstein, the only decent scriptwriter the Bond franchise has had since the 90s. He managed to get the balance of tones right for the "world's most famous secret agent".
The problem is that whenever "a Paul Haggis, Jez Butterworth or whatever" comes in and tries to start a film off with a first draft, it inevitably gets trashed or leads the production into trouble/wasted time and money. See Haggis on QOS, the Peter Morgan start on SF, John Logan starting out on Spectre, or John Hodge with NTTD.
It is pretty clear at this point that Eon thinks writing a Bond film is a specialized skill. Could the series use some fresh blood performing the same function as P&W? Yes. And they've made attempts towards that, but it turns out that writing a Bond film is hard.
The QoS script might have worked out if not for the writers strike and it seemed like Hagis and the producers had at least settled on a lot of the main plot points etc. I think for Spectre & NTTD though, there was way more micromanaging from Broccoli and Wilson and more writers kept being brought in to overhaul the script while inserting newly created mandates that often contradicted what came before and led to a jumbled mess for both of those films that felt like a collection of checklists rather than cohesive stories.
I still really wish we got the Peter Morgan script for Bond 23 in 2010, it sounded great and more in line with the tone of CR and QoS than the last three Craig movies. (would have been an uphill battle though because the producers didn't like it).
Yeah, the Sony leaks show what a mess Spectre was due largely to corporate interference. There are tons of talented writers out there, but if they're not allowed to do their thing you're always going to get crummy results. P&W have had more than enough chances.
Personally I'd love to see Steven Moffat be given a shot but if we're stuck with another P&W script after all this time I'm going to be very disappointed.
I also find that with the current movies when they have an issue with a writer's draft, they just keep hiring more writers instead of working with the ones they have to smooth over the script etc. With Haggis they seemed to be willing to work a script out with him, but with Logan for instance, the moment they didn't like he draft, they brought back Purvis & Wade, then a couple more writers after them etc. Granted I'm not a writer, but that sounds like a horrible in terms of trying to make a tightly written script.
I'm guessing they'll probably write a treatment then the new writer will be the one that's actually writing the script proper. Moffat could be interesting. Though if they get somebody like Villeneuve, Nolan or Fincher to direct, those guys might opt to bring in their own writer, which might not be a bad thing actually if EON doesn't interfere too much.
There was sort of vague "middle" period in the development of QOS where Forster said he started with Haggis "from scratch" and that's what I was speaking to:
That's what went south. P&W handed in their draft May 2007. Haggis was on board within the month. Then the above played out. In October Haggis told Esquire that "the original idea for the next 007 adventure was thrown out at the last minute. I thought I had come up with a terrific plot, and we'd worked it all the way through, and yesterday we tossed it out."
"The original idea" being his and Forster's "starting from scratch." When Haggis says they "tossed it out" I take him to mean he then reset and returned to the P&W original script to develop it, probably using a number of ideas from whatever direction he tossed out. That script is recounted in Some Kind of Hero:
Quantum had the bones of an incredible script, in my opinion. It was better than the silly and bloated mess we got with Skyfall.
I don’t think P&W have necessarily done a bad job but it is odd they continue to get the gig.
Campbell can criticize Dalton (to the point of pretending he doesn’t exist), the writers, QoS, and NTTD all he wants, but he still made Green Lantern, and that’s worse than anything the Bond franchise has put out.
That might be true. But Campbell also directed Goldeneye and Casino Royale, rejuvenating the Bond series twice with two of the most beloved films in the franchise.
What is interesting is how different the two films are, which does prove his ability as a director somewhat. Every director has a bad film. I'm pretty sure it was Spielberg who said that.
Really enjoy the Zorro films too...
Love those movies (or the first one, at least)
Also Edge of Darkness and The Foreigner (but I'd still put Goldeneye and the 1998 Zorro movie as Campbell's best.
Off topic but I don’t think Green Lantern is any more or less shitty than all those other marvel/DC movies. The first 2 Iron Man movies, Thor Ragnarok and the Nolan Batman films are the only super hero films that aren’t just a bunch of lame fight scenes.
To be fair Green Lantern was so heavily micromanaged by the studio that it would be basically the same no matter who directed it.
When and why did he criticize Dalton?
And CR is easily the most overrated & flawed of what’s considered the great Bond films.
I agree with this (great films include FRWL, OHMSS, CR, and NTTD)
Where is this quote taken from?
A book called "Scripting 007"
“Apparently Martin Campbell isn’t a fan of Bond screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade”
Is anyone? Their record is patchy at best.
Can't say I blame him.
Yeah, well, I guess people aren’t really fans of people who are distinctly average at their job. Who would have guessed?