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

If the "hook" is really going to be 'shocking", it is probably something that nobody has or will come up with on this forum (hopefully).

Shrublands wrote:: 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.

Or was it possible that EON took his draft because they thought there might not be time to go through other writers or as for rewrites before MGM's money problems inevitably ground the process to a a halt? We saw what happened when they rushed the script job on QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Jaguar007 wrote:: If the "hook" is really going to be 'shocking", it is probably something that nobody has or will come up with on this forum (hopefully).

Eh.....I'd love to believe that, I really would. But you have to figure that somewhere in cyberspace somebody has figured it out even if they don't know they've figured it out. And I'm disinclined to believe that EON can truly surprise or shock me in a good way anymore. The only things they've done lately that have shocked and surprised me have annoyed and irritated me more than anything else.

Cipher Clerk Posts : 101 Member Since : 2011-08-20

[quote="Gravity's Silhouette"]

Shrublands wrote:: Eh.....I'd love to believe that, I really would. But you have to figure that somewhere in cyberspace somebody has figured it out even if they don't know they've figured it out. And I'm disinclined to believe that EON can truly surprise or shock me in a good way anymore. The only things they've done lately that have shocked and surprised me have annoyed and irritated me more than anything else.

I'd love to believe that they could as well, but EON is not capable of surprising or shocking anyone. Even for someone like me who thinks that both CR and QOS are excellent films and are eager to see them continue with the style of film they're currently making (although they do need to radically shake up how they are telling these stories), they are really just your standard Bond film bogged down by their check-lists. The only truly shocking thing about CR (and maybe it really wasn't that shocking) was that they managed to turn what was supposed to, at least at one point, an origin story into a standard, check-list Bond film that managed to check off every item on that list other than Moneypenny.

Shrublands wrote:: 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.

This sounds about right. What we will end up with is the Mendes/Babs supervised treatment. Actually because Mendes is probably a god in Bab's mind, he can probably get whatever he wants, by her. He just has to push her right buttons.
B23 will be a Mendes Bond film. Make no mistake.
As for the hook, its either M gets killed (who cares) or Babs instructs Mendes to borrow from Fleming's TMWTGG, Bond-as-brainwashed assassin. Babs does like to get her props from the Fleming crowd.
IMO, all Bond filmmakers and actors should be banned from reading the Fleming novels. They will just end up with deep, dark, very bad, bastardized attempts at finding Fleming's deeper Bond.
All they need really do is watch Goldfinger the film, and there's your screen Bond in all his bum- slapping, confident, alpha-male glory. The tried, true and loved Bond persona. Just ask Pussy, Dink and Jill.
Michael Wilson, who has a history with good Bond films, could pull out some Fleming bits and instruct the filmmakers to work them in.

'R' Posts : 236 Member Since : 2011-09-07

Also remember the whole "shocking" angle came from Peter Morgan in an interview. It could have just been hype on his part.

The other thing about Morgan's participation was how Eon rushed out a press release before he had ever turned anything in. He had pitched his idea, Eon liked it and they put out a press release. That press release even said Morgan (and for that matter, Purvis and Wade) had other projects they had to do first.

Imagine if Eon had sent out a press release that Anthony Burgess was writing The Spy Who Loved Me before he submitted any kind of treatment. That's roughly happened with Morgan. Months went by and Morgan got no fruther than a treatment, saying later he never made it to the script stage (and also saying he was happy to be off the project, he really didn't believe in the concept of Bond, etc, etc., etc.)

I just don't want M to be a Quantum operative. Enough is enough with corrupt English spies/double agents. Further, they just settled everything down at the end of Quantum Of Solace. Why ignite some new dilemma about trust so soon after they resolved their issues?

So, I guess I'm also saying that the story of Fleming's The Man With The Golden Gun should be left untouched for a while... Maybe this could be the story to adapt when introducing a new M?

FieldsMan wrote:: So, I guess I'm also saying that the story of Fleming's The Man With The Golden Gun should be left untouched for a while... Maybe this could be the story to adapt when introducing a new M?

One scenario that I would be down with, would be if MGW allowed the TMWTGG scenario to be introduced but with a twist. That being, Bond just blows away M.... because. She's given him plenty of reason without being a Quantum operative.

I can see it now. Tanner rushes into the room, takes in the scene, reflects for a moment, turns to 007 and says:

"Good job Bond!............... Oh Bond. For England?"
"No, for me, Bill."
"Jolly good then Bond. Best be getting out of here about now, but do skip the customary by-play with Moneypenny. Oh never mind, we have no Moneypenny anymore. Must look into that."

I want royalty payments if they make M the villain. Nicking off Bourne once is coincidence, nicking off Bourne again is happenstance. Nicking off me? Enemy action. I had M as a Quantum Op over a year ago in my own "script".

I still say kill the annoying old tw*t though. ;)

Here's a twist to throw at the assassination thing, courtesy of the end of WHERE EAGLES DARE.

MI 6 not only knows Bond is brainwashed, they know he is there to kill M. And they're going to let it happen, because they don't want to go through the publicity of a trial when all her sins are publicly (when I first typed that, it was pubicly, not publicly) remembered. Not only that, but M. knows what he is coming to do as well, and she also prefers this to the trial scenario. You can do a lot of this just with looks and cutting, too. You don't need a voiceover from Martin Sheen saying, 'even the jungle wanted her dead.'

So they all do the stiff upper lip thing while Bond, the only one who doesn't really know what is going on, does a bit of tidying up for her majesty. You could give Dame Judy a helluva monolog here (possibly on the other side of the bulletproof glass, which stops Bond's first shot), and then she could RAISE the glass and tell him to get on with it.

trevanian wrote:: Here's a twist to throw at the assassination thing, courtesy of the end of WHERE EAGLES DARE.

MI 6 not only knows Bond is brainwashed, they know he is there to kill M. And they're going to let it happen, because they don't want to go through the publicity of a trial when all her sins are publicly (when I first typed that, it was pubicly, not publicly) remembered. Not only that, but M. knows what he is coming to do as well, and she also prefers this to the trial scenario. You can do a lot of this just with looks and cutting, too. You don't need a voiceover from Martin Sheen saying, 'even the jungle wanted her dead.'

So they all do the stiff upper lip thing while Bond, the only one who doesn't really know what is going on, does a bit of tidying up for her majesty. You could give Dame Judy a helluva monolog here (possibly on the other side of the bulletproof glass, which stops Bond's first shot), and then she could RAISE the glass and tell him to get on with it.

I like this idea. Very inventive!
Let the search begin for a proper misogynist M with a decent dead-butterfly collection.

Posts : 18 Member Since : 2011-09-09

Either M being a Quantum operative (as has been said, she was not killed when the opportunity arose in QoS) or the TMWTGG scenario would be great. It would be most effective if the audience doesn't learn Bond has been brainwashed until after the attempt.

I'm getting tired of Dench's M. Too involved in the stories. And I still think it odd that they used her for the reboot.

Shrublands wrote:: 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.

I personally think it's still just a case of Babs unfathomably refusing to fire Pervert & Waste after the awful TWINE and DAD, instead very unsubtly bringing in luvvie/Oscar/BAFTA-associated writers to try and polish P&W's turds. And, as each new film continues to have noticeable flaws, Babs' answer to this is to simply bring in more and more writers. What she doesn't seem to understand is that by simply bringing in one quality genre-specific thriller writer, you likely end up with a great Bond script which plays to the strengths of the best Bond films and the best Bond novels. But instead, she ends up with four or five writers without a brilliant thriller credit between them all trying to force a square peg into a round hole by trying to marry BAFTA-baiting "emotional drama" with big dumb explosions, videogame platform-jumping chases and CGI set-pieces, all of this never helped by the fact that Babs constantly hires drama directors to make what ultimately always just becomes a dumbass action movie. No pegs fit in the right holes here.

dalton wrote:: trying to fit some decent character moments around some out-of-place and overly elaborate set pieces

^Yeah, this.

The films will continue to be flawed as long as this futile (and TBH slightly embarrassing and woefully transparent, not to mention utterly dumb, misguided and unsuited to the character) quest for BAFTA approval continues. And this is why the scripts still don't seem finished when we're sat there watching the film, because they're basically just a pile of different bits from a pile of unsuitable out-of-genre writers all just lobbed together in the hope that the whole thing will work. The moment Babs accepts that Bond is not award-worthy drama, the better. She can then get on with hiring a proper experienced thriller writer and give us a proper bloody espionage thriller with a story involving, engaging and suspenseful enough to need no cracks being papered over by technology, stupid amateur attempts at psychological evaluation or silly OTT action. Lose the writers, Dench and David Arnold, hire a proper genre-specific thriller writer, a strong but far less focal M and FFS anyone else to score the whole thing just to give us a fresh and much-needed change of aural atmosphere. Then they might be onto something.

Cipher Clerk Posts : 101 Member Since : 2011-08-20

Lazenby. wrote:

dalton wrote:: trying to fit some decent character moments around some out-of-place and overly elaborate set pieces

^Yeah, this.

The films will continue to be flawed as long as this futile (and TBH slightly embarrassing and woefully transparent, not to mention utterly dumb, misguided and unsuited to the character) quest for BAFTA approval continues. And this is why the scripts still don't seem finished when we're sat there watching the film, because they're basically just a pile of different bits from a pile of unsuitable out-of-genre writers all just lobbed together in the hope that the whole thing will work. The moment Babs accepts that Bond is not award-worthy drama, the better. She can then get on with hiring a proper experienced thriller writer and give us a proper bloody espionage thriller with a story involving, engaging and suspenseful enough to need no cracks being papered over by technology, stupid amateur attempts at psychological evaluation or silly OTT action. Lose the writers, Dench and David Arnold, hire a proper genre-specific thriller writer, a strong but far less focal M and FFS anyone else to score the whole thing just to give us a fresh and much-needed change of aural atmosphere. Then they might be onto something.

I would actually welcome them going completely in the direction that they seem to want to go in, which is to make a critically acclaimed Bond film that is actually award-worthy. I'm not saying it should be a permanent direction for the franchise, but since it's something that they appear to be interested in doing at the moment. Such a thing will never happen, though, until the checklist is abandoned. What I'd like to see EON do is bring in an entirely new creative team and allow them to make a quality film without forcing them to check certain elements off of the list. They should abandon the notion, at least for a film, that there needs to be a certain number of action sequences and they should abandon the notion of the set-piece.

It is the check-list in my opinion that is holding the franchise back from being what it could be rather than the direction that EON wants to take it at the present moment.

dalton wrote:: Such a thing will never happen, though, until the checklist is abandoned. What I'd like to see EON do is bring in an entirely new creative team and allow them to make a quality film without forcing them to check certain elements off of the list. They should abandon the notion, at least for a film, that there needs to be a certain number of action sequences and they should abandon the notion of the set-piece.

It is the check-list in my opinion that is holding the franchise back from being what it could be rather than the direction that EON wants to take it at the present moment.

Everything you've said I agree with and it's one reason why I believe the period-piece/reboot/MAD-MEN-ripoff could have worked a few years ago (before MAD MEN came along and stole all the thunder). I have no problem with a thorough re-imagining of the series, even if means stripped down budgets and less action and no girls named Mahogany Hardwood. However, by striving to make the first Oscar/Golden Globe/BAFTA-award winning Bond film, I could kind of foresee a day when Babs sends out an email telling the "fans" that they don't need to show up at the premiere or at the box office, because we're not indicative of the demographic she's trying to appeal to.

'R' Posts : 236 Member Since : 2011-09-07

A mini-essay from October 2010, when Bond 23 was still shut down, about Eon and its longing for prestige:

http://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/eons-drive-for-respect-and-how-it-affects-the-007-film-franchise/

So what items are on this checklist, dalton?

Cipher Clerk Posts : 101 Member Since : 2011-08-20

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:: So what items are on this checklist, dalton?

It's the standard formula that they've been following since GF really. The films follow a rather rigid structure when it comes to how they are laid out, with the actual story being forced to find its way into the film around pre-conceived set pieces that are sometimes recycled from other films. Prime example of this would be the helicopter fall in QOS, which, if I'm not mistaken, was at one point meant to be in GE. The writers, directors, and whoever else basically have to fit their story into the already established template of the films which very much inhibits the storytelling process. The basic template is: action sequence, quick character/story development, even bigger action sequence, quick character/story development, and even bigger action sequence which is then followed by a couple of more such scenes before the end credits roll.

'R' Posts : 236 Member Since : 2011-09-07

dalton wrote:

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:: So what items are on this checklist, dalton?

It's the standard formula that they've been following since GF really. The films follow a rather rigid structure when it comes to how they are laid out, with the actual story being forced to find its way into the film around pre-conceived set pieces that are sometimes recycled from other films. Prime example of this would be the helicopter fall in QOS, which, if I'm not mistaken, was at one point meant to be in GE. The writers, directors, and whoever else basically have to fit their story into the already established template of the films which very much inhibits the storytelling process. The basic template is: action sequence, quick character/story development, even bigger action sequence, quick character/story development, and even bigger action sequence which is then followed by a couple of more such scenes before the end credits roll.

While he didn't openly diss his employers, Roger Spottiswoode, on his TND commentary track, talked about how exchausting it was to film big action sequences; you'd be setting up for hours for a few seconds of screen time. He says something to the effect it was more relaxing to have a few days scheduled of filming actors in the studio. At the very end, he's asked if he'd like to direct another Bond film. "I don't think so," he says initially before backpedaling a bit. I don't want to give the wrong impression. Elsewhere on the commentary track, he compliments Eon. But I got the impression that for him, once was enough.

I suspect Spottiswood was dam' well compensated for his onerous labors.

Guest

I think we can forget M being assassinated and Bond being brainwashed

It seems that when Morgan was first formulating his pitch and central idea, the question he kept asking himself was, “Do I think it’s still believable that a British secret agent is saving the world?” and the answer was “No”.

Therefore, I think it’s reasonable to assume that his big, clever idea involves a way of making this credible in his eyes.

Guest

Shrublands wrote:: It seems that when Morgan was first formulating his pitch and central idea, the question he kept asking himself was, “Do I think it’s still believable that a British secret agent is saving the world?” and the answer was “No”.

Therefore, I think it’s reasonable to assume that his big, clever idea involves a way of making this credible in his eyes.

Morgan wondered how Bond could apologise for British colonialism - you know, all the cruel stuff like a saving the world from Nazism and spreading a global language, democracy and system of justice - and came up with a set piece where Bond indulges in self-immolation. As he dies, 007 screams for forgiveness from all the women he's wronged.

Apparently Babs was moved to tears.

Posts : 18 Member Since : 2011-09-09

The British saving the world is a little odd. The line in DAD where Moon talks about the American's and Brit's policing the world never rang true with me.

00 Agent Posts : 10588 Member Since : 2011-03-14

Well, in the aftermath of 9/11, that was a view shared by many critical of so called "Western Imperialism" ™.

If that line were in QOS, it'd be coming from Bond.

Sad but true.

Guest

I suppose the question that springs to my mind is – Given the sort of movie we’re talking about, who does Morgan think could save the world convincingly?

00 Agent Posts : 10588 Member Since : 2011-03-14

George Monbiot. Obviously.