Peter Morgan's "central idea" "the big hook" remains in Bond 23 script

Quote :

Peter Morgan has revealed that his original story concept is the only element that remains in the script for Daniel Craig's James Bond 23.

Speaking to Digital Spy at the London Film Festival launch, Morgan hinted that the screenplay for Sam Mendes's spy movie - worked on by John Logan, Patrick Marber, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade - took one key element from his Bond treatment.

"I hear that an idea, the central idea, is still there but not one similar thing other than that. I think they've still kept the big hook, which I'm not going to tell you!" he said.

Daniel Craig's third outing as James Bond, co-starring Ralph Fiennes, Javier Bardem and Judi Dench, will open in cinemas on October 26, 2012.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a339194/daniel-craigs-james-bond-23-retains-peter-morgan-plot-idea.html

I felt that Morgan's hiring was a sign that Eon was more concerned about getting respect than turning out an entertaining movie (as if they were mostly concerned about Morgan's resume). It sounds like there isn't that much of Morgan's work being used but I didn't mind it at all when he exited. He was the one who, in an interview, said he didn't actually like the character of Bond that much.

The big hook? Lemme guess. This time it's personal? :roll:

Loomis wrote:

The big hook? Lemme guess. This time it's personal? :roll:

Any ideas or suggestions as to what the "the big hook" is? Could we see Bond's son show up in this one? Maybe Taylor Lautner will play a 16 year old son of Bond that he didn't know he had from a fling while he was in the Navy. Maybe Bond has to kill M.

I *think*, and this is only a wild guess, that M will somehow be revealed as the leader of either Quantum or some other big crime syndicate. She'll turn out to be a traitor and Bond will have to kill her. Before he kills her the Bond Girl will ask him how he can be so cold about killing M. Bond: "It's what keeps me alive". Bond GIrl: "No, it's what keeps you alone."

The film will end atop a tall building or land mark, M dangling off the edge, asking Bond: "For England, James?" Bond replies: "No. For me. For calling me a sexist, misogynistic dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War. For leaving me to rot in a prison cell in North Korea and then rescinding my 00-status, only to turn around and ask for my help in bringing down Gustav Graves, but not having done due diligence and learned that Graves and Miranda Frost were on the Olympic Fencing team together, thereby allowing her to nearly kill me several times over. And for making me put on a dress, high heels, pumps, and a platinum blond wig and humiliate myself in front of millions of men and women in a television ad sponsoring International Women's Day. Bitch." Bond lets M fall to the ground. Annnnnnd....end scene.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I *think*, and this is only a wild guess, that M will somehow be revealed as the leader of either Quantum or some other big crime syndicate. She'll turn out to be a traitor and Bond will have to kill her.

That would also be my guess - and I think that, done properly, it could be an excellent idea (although quite how they'd keep it secret during filming I have no idea). For some reason, I had a hunch that they'd do it at the end of DIE ANOTHER DAY, but, obviously, they didn't.

Mind you, that would be a twist, not a hook, would it not? Is a hook something different? Something that the audience knows upfront and finds intriguing enough to plunk down its hard-earned dollars, pounds or renminbi, e.g. "MI6 gives Bond a new partner.... a talking dinosaur." Or: "Bond fights a madman planning world domination.... by entering his dreams." Or: "Bond dies and is reincarnated to fight evil using newfound supernatural powers, with one snag.... he's been reincarnated as a manic depressive ninety-year-old rabbi played by Mel Brooks." Something like that, perhaps? Something that when it goes out via press conference in a couple of months is going to make people think: "Gee, this new Bond movie - what is it? The twentieth by now? The thirtieth? Well, regardless, this new Bond movie sure sounds something different!"

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

The film will end atop a tall building or land mark, M dangling off the edge, asking Bond: "For England, James?" Bond replies: "No. For me. For calling me a sexist, misogynistic dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War. For leaving me to rot in a prison cell in North Korea and then rescinding my 00-status, only to turn around and ask for my help in bringing down Gustav Graves, but not having done due diligence and learned that Graves and Miranda Frost were on the Olympic Fencing team together, thereby allowing her to nearly kill me several times over. And for making me put on a dress, high heels, pumps, and a platinum blond wig and humiliate myself in front of millions of men and women in a television ad sponsoring International Women's Day. Bitch." Bond lets M fall to the ground. Annnnnnd....end scene.

Well I guess their trust issues might be done then. ie no trust. Considering the case you've made against her, GS, I think she's long overdue for elimination, but will Bab's allow such a thing?!
No chance. More of the same Dench M , no doubt.
The big hook, though? Who cares. Since when have Bond films been about big hooks? Are they mystery thrillers now?
Won't be losing any sleep, over the hook.

Morgan's first comments about the screenplay had me interested, especially the "big surprise" that he described. So when he walked from the project, I was a little disappointed that we'd never know what he was talking about. It's cool, though, that his original idea is still there. Like others have mentioned, I'd guess that Morgan's big hook has something to do with M being killed. I wonder if Morgan will receive a writing credit during the titles?

Still...I'm a little concerned that the film so far has had five writers (Morgan, Marber, Logan, Purvis, and Wade). That being said, Mendes doesn't strike me as the type of guy that would commit to a project without a script or with a bad script. Hopefully, he doesn't disappoint.

Hell, he doesn't have to kill M, the big hook could be him getting brainwashed to kill her and failing, a la the GOLDEN GUN novel. I have a hard time imagining them spending 9 figures on THE IPCRESS BOND, but that could just be the aspect retained, but not in the same measure -- might have been a larger aspect in Morgan's draft, and could well just be a b-plot in this one.

I'm hoping it isn't just a topical political hook; that's not particularly germane to Bond unless it is end-of-cold-war-level history.

Loomis wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I *think*, and this is only a wild guess, that M will somehow be revealed as the leader of either Quantum or some other big crime syndicate. She'll turn out to be a traitor and Bond will have to kill her.

That would also be my guess - and I think that, done properly, it could be an excellent idea (although quite how they'd keep it secret during filming I have no idea). For some reason, I had a hunch that they'd do it at the end of DIE ANOTHER DAY, but, obviously, they didn't.

Mind you, that would be a twist, not a hook, would it not? Is a hook something different? Something that the audience knows upfront and finds intriguing enough to plunk down its hard-earned dollars, pounds or renminbi, e.g. "MI6 gives Bond a new partner.... a talking dinosaur." Or: "Bond fights a madman planning world domination.... by entering his dreams." Or: "Bond dies and is reincarnated to fight evil using newfound supernatural powers, with one snag.... he's been reincarnated as a manic depressive ninety-year-old rabbi played by Mel Brooks." Something like that, perhaps? Something that when it goes out via press conference in a couple of months is going to make people think: "Gee, this new Bond movie - what is it? The twentieth by now? The thirtieth? Well, regardless, this new Bond movie sure sounds something different!"

You're right. It's more of a twist than a hook, unless they let the word get out early on that she's going to be the villain. I have to say, though, that that would be a very cheap, tawdry, awful way to send Dench out of the series. She has been a great addition to the films and I think, God help them, that if EON had M be the head of Quantum or any other criminal organization that I'd probably quit the series. Dench and the fans deserve better.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I have to say, though, that that would be a very cheap, tawdry, awful way to send Dench out of the series. She has been a great addition to the films and I think, God help them, that if EON had M be the head of Quantum or any other criminal organization that I'd probably quit the series. Dench and the fans deserve better.

Au contraire. I will dance in the theatre aisles if Dench M is booted from the series in this manner, "tawdry and cheap" Love it. Good riddance.
Actually I like Ambler's M breastfeeding Craig/Bond imagery, even though it gives me nightmares.
What a fitting way that would be to send the two of them off into the sunset though - riding atop the Indian Railways car, trust issues resolved.:twisted:
Sorry, I am being harsh but I haven't much fondness for Dench/M or Craig/Bond.
I'm just riding out this chapter of the Bond film-odyssey and making the best of it, until the next actor is cast.

tiffanywint wrote:

What a fitting way that would be to send the two of them off into the sunset though - riding atop the Indian Railways car, trust issues resolved.:twisted:
Sorry, I am being harsh but I haven't much fondness for Dench/M or Craig/Bond.
I'm just riding out this chapter of the Bond film-odyssey and making the best of it, until the next actor is cast.

I'd like to run Barbara and Michael out on a rail, but not Dench. She's a national treasure even in America. I love her. I think she's the best M we've ever had. But I do think it's time she moves on after this film.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I'd like to run Barbara and Michael out on a rail, but not Dench. She's a national treasure even in America. I love her. I think she's the best M we've ever had. But I do think it's time she moves on after this film.

To each his own, but I'm sticking my fingers in my ears when you say that.

I don't see how she could be anything other than a mid-level QUANTUM ... she's just not that good. She'd seem better at her job if she was that major of a long-term deep-cover. The only thing that would perhaps permit it would be if she had gotten turned fairly recently, like before promoting Bond to Double-0 -- that might explain her inconsistent performance a lil bit. In fact, it'd be a GREAT bit if this were the case, and that Bond was expected to hamhand things up. But that would ascribe motives and capabilities to screenwriters past and present who simply haven't demonstrated the slightest indication they could game something like this out. That'd be more Nolan/Nolan/Goyer than P&W plusORminus Haggis.

//I *think*, and this is only a wild guess, that M will somehow be revealed as the leader of either Quantum or some other big crime syndicate. She'll turn out to be a traitor and Bond will have to kill her.//

Kind of like the new Hawaii Five-0 series where the Governor turns out to be working for Wo Fat....

I still don't think M as a Quantum baddie makes any sense, even within the limited two history picture of the re-boot. As annoying as she is, she still seems to be very pro-Mi6 and quite anti-Quantum.

She certainly didn't provide the bad guys any help in l'affaire Le Chiffre or L'affaire Greene Planet.

The fact she didn't get offed during the botched interrogation of Mr White is enough circumstantial stuff to script around her loyalties. Also, she could be playing both sides, trying to figure out which one will come out on top, and only side with Bond after she realizes just how good he is at surviving and escaping.


All of this would require a GHOST STORY-sized flashback (20min?) or a JJ Abrams-style mindmeld to make play for the audience of a third Craig movie, and that just ain't gonna happen.


I've had difficulties reconciling her panicked/surprised reaction to QUANTUM's scale and activities in QOS considering that six has been investigating tangential stuff relating to them going back to before the start of CR.

tiffanywint wrote:

I still don't think M as a Quantum baddie makes any sense, even within the limited two history picture of the re-boot. As annoying as she is, she still seems to be very pro-Mi6 and quite anti-Quantum.

She certainly didn't provide the bad guys any help in l'affaire Le Chiffre or L'affaire Greene Planet.

I don't see her as a Quantum ally either. It would just be too hard to reconcile with her actions over the past couple of films. Had they decided to set up such an idea going back to CR, then it would have been an idea that I could get behind, especially as it would have been a way to transition into a new character as M.

dalton wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

I still don't think M as a Quantum baddie makes any sense, even within the limited two history picture of the re-boot. As annoying as she is, she still seems to be very pro-Mi6 and quite anti-Quantum.

She certainly didn't provide the bad guys any help in l'affaire Le Chiffre or L'affaire Greene Planet.

I don't see her as a Quantum ally either. It would just be too hard to reconcile with her actions over the past couple of films. Had they decided to set up such an idea going back to CR, then it would have been an idea that I could get behind, especially as it would have been a way to transition into a new character as M.

And it's just not a terribly original idea either. We've already had 006, Elektra, Miranda, and Vesper betray Bond. That's 4 betrayals in the last 6 films.

But he also said it would "shocking" and a "hook"...maybe she's murdered in the PTS and Bond is framed for it and is on the run trying to prove his innocence. It's just hard to imagine anything that could shock audiences these days; I think we've seen it all.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

dalton wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

I still don't think M as a Quantum baddie makes any sense, even within the limited two history picture of the re-boot. As annoying as she is, she still seems to be very pro-Mi6 and quite anti-Quantum.

She certainly didn't provide the bad guys any help in l'affaire Le Chiffre or L'affaire Greene Planet.

I don't see her as a Quantum ally either. It would just be too hard to reconcile with her actions over the past couple of films. Had they decided to set up such an idea going back to CR, then it would have been an idea that I could get behind, especially as it would have been a way to transition into a new character as M.

And it's just not a terribly original idea either. We've already had 006, Elektra, Miranda, and Vesper betray Bond. That's 4 betrayals in the last 6 films.

But he also said it would "shocking" and a "hook"...maybe she's murdered in the PTS and Bond is framed for it and is on the run trying to prove his innocence. It's just hard to imagine anything that could shock audiences these days; I think we've seen it all.

It won't be shocking in any sense of the word. The Bond franchise as it is currently set up is incapable of providing a story that could shock the audience. As great as I think CR and QOS are (and they have both, IMO, breathed some new life into what had become a very stale and tired franchise), they still fit very much into the cookie-cutter mold of all the other Bond films. The only thing that could truly shock me in a Bond film would be if they threw the checklist away and actually focused on making a good movie rather than trying to fit some decent character moments around some out-of-place and overly elaborate set pieces, which has been the case dating back to at least the 1980s.

I could see her getting killed and Bond set-up as killer. That might fit with the "schock" angle. That scenario would only require Bond be cleared at some point and a new M be introduced. Hopefully one that reminds more like Bernard Lee.

tiffanywint wrote:

I could see her getting killed and Bond set-up as killer. That might fit with the "schock" angle.

That's, more or less, how the first season of the new Hawaii Five-0 ended (. It turned out the Governor was on Wo Fat's payroll. McGarrett went to confront her. He got knocked out by Wo Fat, who then killed the Governor and framed McGarrett.

Forget the M traitor idea. The days of bad women in Bond are over. EON is a follower of The Bourne Principle:

Men = evil
Women = good.

Madame M cannot be a traitor for the very reason Dinkarice mentions. But I think a brainwashed Bond attempting to rub M out is entirely possible given the current ideological bent of Eon. This, however, is hardly a hook--much more the central pivot of the plot. And it's hardly original to Morgan given that Fleming penned this scenario in The Man with the Golden Gun.

Morgan said in an interview last year that he had pitched an idea for a Bond story to Eon and they had liked it – that’s how his involvement started. Apparently, he felt that there was a lot of “momentum” behind this concept amongst the people at Eon. He then wrote a treatment based on this idea between the summer of 2009 and the November of the same year.

It seems that during December 2009 and January 2010 Sam Mendes came aboard.

Morgan (in late 09) expected to return to work on the full screenplay in February 2010, but he never did. This is when MGM’s financial problems come into play and obscure things - The project was suspended on 20th April. But according to Morgan, at some stage, he made it known that when MGM did sort things out, he probably would not be interested in returning to the project. When did he change his mind and why?

A source told the trade press last summer, that Mendes had worked on the script during the late winter/spring of 2010. P and W have worked on it and this year John Logan. Now we find out that all they have been working with is Morgan’s initial idea, not the treatment he spent 3 or 4 months writing.

I suspect that the 2009 Morgan treatment was not liked by Mendes (and/or the people at Eon) But that they still all thought that the originally pitched premises was good and had potential in other hands.