John Logan On Writing Bond 24

http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=11227&t=mi6&s=news

Quote :

Whilst promoting his current cable TV show project 'Penny Dreadful' (starring Bond girl Eva Green amongst a gaggle of Bond alumni), screenwriter John Logan talked to IGN at the Television Critics Association press tour today. Logan is contracted to pen the next two Bond outings, with director Sam Mendes returning from "Skyfall". When questioned about what he could say so far about Bond 24, he said: ""All I can say about Bond is that I'm happily writing it. Sam Mendes would rappel through the window and kill me." "My goal is to write a great movie that's appropriate, to build on what we did on Skyfall, but make it its own unique animal. The themes, ideas and the characters from Skyfall can obviously continue on, because it is a franchise, and it is an ongoing story. So I think there's resonance from Skyfall in the new movie. I grew up on the Bond movies. The first one I saw was Diamonds Are Forever, when I was a kid. I just loved them to pieces. I love all the elements, from the books - mostly from the novels; going back to Ian Fleming is where I started with Skyfall - and there's certainly elements of the movies and the novels that we've brought into the new movie, as they did into Skyfall." Logan rounded out the Bond 24 questioning on the subject of whether or not Blofeld would return to the series now that the legal rights have been cleared up: "You know, I think our villain's appropriate to the story we're telling," he teased.

I really hope he's alluding to making a lighter installment. I feel Craig needs a more jovial film after two three heavy films in a row. Let's see Bond relax with less personal issues. End the flick with him getting the girl, on a life-raft. What tickles me is Logan's shout out to DAF.

I'm all for light-heartedness, but I think it is easy to get carried away. TMWTGG and TSWLM stand out as films that got the balance wrong, like there is too much emphasis on joking around, and it highlights the inconsistencies of the rest of the film. One of my most-hated scenes in the franchise comes when Bond and Anya are being chased through the desert by Jaws and Bond decides to sit there and make jokes rather than do something useful to help escape. On the other hand, I think GE strikes a great balance in tone; the film lets the jokes play out, but it does not draw attention to them.

I think the most important thing is getting the villain right. I saw the new Jack Ryan film today, and it really suffered from a weak villain. Kenneth Branagh is good enough to make standing around and doing nothing look interesting, but his character lacks motivation, and he really suffers for it. Javier Bardem got the right mix of unhealthy obsession, grief and self-loathing when he played Silva, but it worked because the character was right. Stories are only ever as good as their villains, and I think that has to be addressed before you can start thinking of levity. Otherwise, you either do what DAD did and have punch line after punch line until the humour wears thin, or you waste excellent scenes the way GHOST PROTOCOL did.

I doubt they're gonna go light-heartedness in the vein of Moore, more likely an extension of those light moments in CR and SF. Without the "this time is personal/deep/ect" thing, that's what we have.

The world of Bond has been absent for too long imo the franchise has become excessively insular and needs to broaden its horizons again.

Skyfall was a step in the right direction but the need is to take another step imo so I really hope that is the foundation he is inferring they will build on - it's not about taking a lighter touch per se but in delivering a supporting ensemble that has some quirks and character that make them slightly larger than life, environments that function as more than just superficial backdrops, plots that tease the imagination or seem suitably lateral in the way they come together. I think in trying to de-construct Bond too many of the distractions got left by the wayside, but ultimately in review those elements constitute the vast majority of what makes Bond...unique and they are what made Flemings work and the early films so engaging.

Can Logan please insert major stunt action sequence before I get bored to fucking death? Thanks   

What, deliberately crashing a motorcycle to hurl yourself onto a moving train isn't exciting enough for you? How about having the roof of a tunnel collapse so that a whole train comes crashing down into a tunnel?

I think we all appreciate a good stunt sequence, particularly when it is done without computers to augment the scene. But they should compliment the film, rather than dominate it.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

What, deliberately crashing a motorcycle to hurl yourself onto a moving train isn't exciting enough for you? How about having the roof of a tunnel collapse so that a whole train comes crashing down into a tunnel?

Wow, two stunts which lasted seconds each in 150 minutes of film? I am now so enlightened   

I get what you mean, you want a little more spectacle than the last one gave. I think that can be easily done, but hopefully in a way that doesn't overwhelm the film. Looking at the Brosnan era, GE had the right amount, roughly three set pieces, compared to the next three films that threw in more machine gun firing.

I sorta get where Ms. Bitch is coming from ... outside of the pre-credits sequence, Bond's pursuit of Silva through the Underground to the enquiry/the subsequent firefight and the finale at Skyfall itself, the remaining action could best be described as 'snippets' and I wouldn't have minded a little more myself. But it's a minor gripe.

I know I'm a bit late but I'm fully in support of Bond 24 taking a less personal and lighter route. However, in the days post-Bourne post-Nolan's TDK trilogy it seems a bit much to ask.

Xenia93 wrote:

I know I'm a bit late but I'm fully in support of Bond 24 taking a less personal and lighter route. However, in the days post-Bourne post-Nolan's TDK trilogy it seems a bit much to ask.

Does anyone even remember those movies? I reckon Bond could go lighter without losing a cent at the box office.

I'd rather have the (relatively) more organic and paced action of Skyfall, to the discontinuous, often tediously over-long, ludicrously irrational action sequences that blight the 5 films that precede it.

It's a balancing act. You want to impress the audience, but I think there is a point where they hit that apex of excitement and quickly fall into boredom. It's Michael Bay Syndrome: easy to get a little too carried away with scenes that the writer and/or director think are awesome, and taken in isolation, they may well be. Having Bond escape certain death in a jet-powered ice dragster is good. Having Bond caught on an exposed cliff face and forcing him to improvise a parasail is also a good idea. They have the potential to be great on their own; maybe Bond is caught in the ice palace with a massive bomb and the only thing that can get him clear of the blast is the dragster. It is short, simple and effective. But when you take that sequence and force it into your other awesome sequence, it becomes painful.

I think the key is in something organic. The action needs to come out of the story. If the story has to stop so the action can take place, then it is a bad idea. I think SKYFALL nailed this with the collapsing tunnel - Silva needed to cause a distraction so that he could get close to M at the hearing. It had to be something big to tie up all of the London emergency services, so some kind of disaster was in order. He was going to blow the tunnel up regardless as to whether or not Bond was there. So while the idea itself is over the top, it fits into the context of the story and makes it work.

Originality is also important. I think one of the main reasons why people disliked the foot chase in QOS was because there was a foot chase in CR (plus steadicam, plus the way it followed a car chase), and it spoiled the gallery fight. A better way to do it would have been to have Bond and Mitchell escorting White to a helicopter on the roof, having Mitchell kill an escort and Bond tackling him into the skylight.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

It's a balancing act. You want to impress the audience, but I think there is a point where they hit that apex of excitement and quickly fall into boredom. It's Michael Bay Syndrome: easy to get a little too carried away with scenes that the writer and/or director think are awesome, and taken in isolation, they may well be. Having Bond escape certain death in a jet-powered ice dragster is good. Having Bond caught on an exposed cliff face and forcing him to improvise a parasail is also a good idea. They have the potential to be great on their own; maybe Bond is caught in the ice palace with a massive bomb and the only thing that can get him clear of the blast is the dragster. It is short, simple and effective. But when you take that sequence and force it into your other awesome sequence, it becomes painful.

I think the key is in something organic. The action needs to come out of the story. If the story has to stop so the action can take place, then it is a bad idea. I think SKYFALL nailed this with the collapsing tunnel - Silva needed to cause a distraction so that he could get close to M at the hearing. It had to be something big to tie up all of the London emergency services, so some kind of disaster was in order. He was going to blow the tunnel up regardless as to whether or not Bond was there. So while the idea itself is over the top, it fits into the context of the story and makes it work.

Originality is also important. I think one of the main reasons why people disliked the foot chase in QOS was because there was a foot chase in CR (plus steadicam, plus the way it followed a car chase), and it spoiled the gallery fight. A better way to do it would have been to have Bond and Mitchell escorting White to a helicopter on the roof, having Mitchell kill an escort and Bond tackling him into the skylight.

Agreed Bay demonstrates that bigger and more spectacular can actually have the opposite effect to that expected or desired.

I'm not so convinced by the underground train sequence of Skyfall (I'd have preferred the relatively simple explosion and cave in) but it is at least commendably swift in the way it plays out.

One of QOS strengths, imo, is that it does spread its action out pretty evenly the sequences are more frequent but shorter and sharper, the foot chase is perhaps the exception and as you say it follow so rapidly from the disorienting car chase that it probably sours/distances viewers when the film most needs to be engaging them. On balance I prefer its approach to action (although not in the way it is filmed) to that of its immediate predecessors in that the interminably long action set pieces have been relegated to the right moments. However it is Skyfall that hits the nail on the head in terms of not only pacing the occurrence of action but also in ensuring it doesn't outstay its welcome - however that may be a balance that is down to the individual, many films today strike me as obnoxiously loud OTT and boring just when they seem most desperate to excite (Transformers and Avengers notably among them).

I think there is a key difference between TRANSFORMERS 3 and THE AVENGERS that makes THE AVENGERS a superior film, and excuses its extended set-piece finale.

TRANSFORMERS 3 revolves around an alien invasion, and the film really plays up the idea that the earth is under threat. A lot of the film revolves around how the heroes save the planet. The problem with this is that everyone knows the heroes are going to win, and so the entire final sequence is just tedious. THE AVENGERS, however, knows that this is a problem. It knows that no matter what happens, the heroes are going to win, so rather than concentrate on how the heroes stop the threat, it looks at how the heroes get to the point where they *can* stop the threat. I know that example is a little too low-brow for some, but consider this: William Shakespeare did exactly that in ROMEO AND JULIET. The opening chorus gives away the ending, that Romeo and Juliet will take their own lives. By doing that, we stop wondering whether or not Romeo and Juliet will get to be together, and instead critically examine how circumstances played out in such a way that the committed suicide. It is a much more sophisticated approach.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I think there is a key difference between TRANSFORMERS 3 and THE AVENGERS that makes THE AVENGERS a superior film, and excuses its extended set-piece finale.

TRANSFORMERS 3 revolves around an alien invasion, and the film really plays up the idea that the earth is under threat. A lot of the film revolves around how the heroes save the planet. The problem with this is that everyone knows the heroes are going to win, and so the entire final sequence is just tedious. THE AVENGERS, however, knows that this is a problem. It knows that no matter what happens, the heroes are going to win, so rather than concentrate on how the heroes stop the threat, it looks at how the heroes get to the point where they *can* stop the threat. I know that example is a little too low-brow for some, but consider this: William Shakespeare did exactly that in ROMEO AND JULIET. The opening chorus gives away the ending, that Romeo and Juliet will take their own lives. By doing that, we stop wondering whether or not Romeo and Juliet will get to be together, and instead critically examine how circumstances played out in such a way that the committed suicide. It is a much more sophisticated approach.

tbh I confess I haven't seen Transformers 3 I was actually considering the comparison with Transformers 1&2, but while I take your point about knowing the outcome, that criticism can be levelled at most if not all action franchises, the key is investment in the characters, realisation of the threat and imagination in the denouement all of which is absent from the noisy superficial cgi drivell of Transformers, Gi Joe, Nu-Trek, Avengers et al.

The Avengers is one of my favorite comic book movies of all time. You have to remember that it's just that: a comic book movie.

It involves superheroes. And not just superheroes, The Avengers. A team of "earth's mightiest" superheroes. I want that shit noisy. It made me remember the awe I had over superheroes when I watched the cartoons and read the comics as a kid.

None of them are anywhere near as compelling, thrilling, or moving as MAN OF STEEL -- the finest blockbuster of 2013.

Largo's Shark wrote:

None of them are anywhere near as compelling, thrilling, or moving as MAN OF STEEL -- the finest blockbuster of 2013.

I know most people thought MoS was pure shit but I loved it for more or less the same reasons I loved Avengers. It has spectacle and pure, absolute thrill. It's the first time we've ever gotten to see Supes (on the big screen at least) "flex his muscles" so to speak.

It's becoming very apparent: I am a sucker for comic book blockbusters. My childhood hobbies are showing through.

I have yet to see Man of Steel, such was the Avengers/Transformers affect that such superficial cgi slam-fests lost all appeal and much of the advertising for MoS seemed to suggest it was more of their ilk, than even Nolan's presence might suggest.

I take Xenia's point about spectacle, but the characters have to have some depth or resonance to bring it to life imo. Equally the physical threat has to be a valid motivator, in the case of Avengers it was a profoundly inept and simply existed as a frame for faddy slow-mo, cheap audience gratification and excessive posing. I would also question the entire philosophy of heroism in Avengers, albeit the overriding sense of self import seems a guiding light for today's core demographic....that is one area I do expect MoS to be divergent.

The first TRANSFORMERS film is actually quite a bit of fun, probably because it's a riff on the story of a boy and his dog and a boy trying to impress a popular girl. But I worked out what makes the second and third ones suck so much: the characters talk at a million miles an hour. The films are filled with rapid-fire dialogue, and every character is grossly exaggerated. It's like everyone is there for comic relief, and then explosions. I appreciate that you want to fill your world with embarrassing parents, lunatics with access to guns and government secrets, and so on and so forth, but Bay just takes it to extremes. And then rather than develop what he has, he just starts another fight scene with no context and confusing camera angles.

What makes them all the more frustrating is the way the films do have some interesting ideas in them, but are too lazy to follow through on them. Would it have killed them to shorten the fight scenes by two minutes and take the time to explain the villain's motivations?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The first TRANSFORMERS film is actually quite a bit of fun, probably because it's a riff on the story of a boy and his dog and a boy trying to impress a popular girl. But I worked out what makes the second and third ones suck so much: the characters talk at a million miles an hour. The films are filled with rapid-fire dialogue, and every character is grossly exaggerated. It's like everyone is there for comic relief, and then explosions. I appreciate that you want to fill your world with embarrassing parents, lunatics with access to guns and government secrets, and so on and so forth, but Bay just takes it to extremes. And then rather than develop what he has, he just starts another fight scene with no context and confusing camera angles.

What makes them all the more frustrating is the way the films do have some interesting ideas in them, but are too lazy to follow through on them. Would it have killed them to shorten the fight scenes by two minutes and take the time to explain the villain's motivations?

Agreed and I also quite enjoyed the first Transformers, I think in many cases greater directorial freedom ends up negatively impacting on their work (Burton, Scott, Lucas, Spielberg etc etc) in this case someone needed to be there to reign Bay in, to force him to question some of his choices and generally coax him to create a leaner and more coherent product.

It should not be hard. REVENGE OF THE FALLEN could have made itself more interesting by explaining that the Fallen had no idea life existed on Earth when he placed the sun-destroying machine here. When it came time to switch the machine on, the other Primes found life had since evolved, and accused the Fallen of knowing it and withholding that information. Blaming humanity for his downfall, he plotted to turn the machine on and destroy the race that destroyed him, and the entire Autobot-Decepticon conflict was born out of the Transformers disagreeing over whether the Fallen was innocent. When Sam picked up the shard of the cube, it not only gave him the location of the machine, but the horrifying knowledge that the Fallen had been falsely accused, which is the burden of leadership among the Transformers. This marks him as a leader among the Transformers, thus explaining why he goes to alien robot ghost heaven for no reason at all explosion explosion.

Seriously, that is straight off the top of my head. If I can do it, anyone can. REVENGE OF THE FALLEN should be compulsory viewing for any screenwriter as an example of what not to dom

I'm watching the Olympics and the snowboard slopestyle just wrapped up. I cannot help but think to AVTAK and the snowboarding sequence, which was, at the time, something that had never really been done on film. I think CR did the same sort of thing, with the free-running sequence. I am really hoping BOND 24 can do something new. I remember EON rejected an ice-sailing sequence from one of Dalton's films because it was not consistent with the tone of his character. Maybe BOND 24 should reconsider that. I would also love to see a proper horseback chase (AVTAK's ended before it started), and some kind of free-diving sequence. It would beat the foot and motorcycle chases that have dominated the recent films.

Craig is overdue a 'snowbound' action sequence, so I will restate my desire to see a full-blown snowmobile chase in a Bond film. They're involved in AVTAK, TWINE and DAD a little, but I'm thinking of Bond pursued by 3-4 henchmen and some quick-witted nifty manoeuvring to get him out of trouble and them driving into freezing water, ice walls etc.