Interview with Purvis and Wade at hmss.com

[Kristatos]

Interesting interview with Peter Purvis and Virginia Wade about their screenplay for CR here.

I was most interested by this quote:

P&W: Our original concept was that it did not need to be a re-boot, and that it could work in the context of the series like this: the Bond we meet at the start of Casino Royale is the same guy that we've always known, a womanizer who never lets women get close - and the reason for this emotional isolation is that he is an orphan who has always fended for himself and not relied on others. But in the course of his relationship with Vesper (who we made into an orphan herself) he suddenly gets an insight into normal life - ie, the possibilities of being part of a family, the thing he has never really known… In OHMSS he married Tracey but he wasn't quitting the job - ie, he didn't give up everything for her… But with Vesper, he knows that to have a chance of a normal life he must give up the career which has always provided his identity and 'family'; and he is prepared to do this for her and the chance of happiness (which he had never expected to happen to him). However, when her past betrayal is revealed - along with the manipulative evil which forced her into it - he realizes that here is a cause to fight, worth donating your life to. In those moments of happiness with Vesper he tasted real life, so he now values the world that he is protecting - whereas before, as Sean, Roger, George, Tim and Pierce, he had done everything just the same, but without understanding in his heart the value of the society he is protecting. So Bond emerges from Casino Royale fully-formed, a man who understands the value of the world that he is out to protect, and the possibility of happiness he is permanently renouncing for himself!

HOWEVER! It was hard to make this very clear in the script, and we all liked the reference in the novel to the two kills that earned him the 'OO', so it was decided to go all the way, show the kills [Yeah, in the fricking pre-credit sequence -K] and start him off again. (The 'philosophical' theory above of course still applies to the character's emotional growth in the film…)

P&W get a lot of flack from Bond fans which I always thought was undeserved, but it does seem from this quote that the reboot was the result of their reach exceeding their grasp. Their original "Last Temptation of Bond" idea sounds a lot better, but by their own admission, they didn't have the chops to pull it off.

[Captain Nash]

A good find Kris, but after reading that I still think they made the right choice.
I'm sure alot will disagree with me.

[stockslivevan]

I always liked their ideas and concepts for Bond but they never got the right execution because of rewrites by so called polishers (Bruce Feirstein) and directors who altered the scripts (Lee Tamahori). Puvis and Wade however are better at structuring stories, they just need someone in to fill the gaps with dialogue and such. However, not a lot of Bond fans are aware of the rewrites and alterations they went through and so they get the blame for bad Bond films like Die Another Day.

The concept of Bond searching for the mole in MI6 for Die Another Day sounded great. The idea of Bond falling in love with the Bond girl who turns out to be the main villian was a good twist. But unfortunately, they both never got the right executions. Same thing happened with Tom Mankiewicz, his scripts had charm with memorable lines and a lot of heart but Guy Hamilton wasn't the right director and so they weren't shown their full potential on screen.

[Kristatos]

A good find Kris, but after reading that I still think they made the right choice.
I'm sure alot will disagree with me.

Yup, me included. For one thing, it strikes me that they could have learned from the wisdom of the Iroquois, whose tribal elders never made a decision without first contemplating what effect it would have on their great-great-great-grandchildren. EON have ruled out re-adapting (is that a real word?) the other Fleming novels, so that effectively means that there are now two James Bonds out there. When somebody asks Craig's successor, or his successor's successor etc, whether he has ever lost someone and he responds in the affirmative, audiences will be left wondering whether this is the Bond who loved and was betrayed by Vesper Lynd, or the Bond who married Tracy di Vincenzo, only to have her murdered by Blofeld. Because unless EON changes their mind about remaking the earlier films, Bond 2.1 will never meet Goldfinger or Blofeld, will never marry Tracy and so on.

[Captain Nash]

But then there's nothing in the Brosnan Bond films to suggest that either.
Other than an odd look in TWINE, there's nothing to suggest he battled Goldfinger or married Tracy.

[Kristatos]

But then there's nothing in the Brosnan Bond films to suggest that either.
Other than an odd look in TWINE, there's nothing to suggest he battled Goldfinger or married Tracy.

Well, the "odd look in TWINE" gave an insight into Bond's motivation in that scene. Bond films are pretty self contained, and don't need references to previous films, but they are something that writers can use if they want to. The reboot now throws an element of confusion into the mix.

[Captain Nash]

But there was no reference to Tracy in any of the Brosnan films. Even Connery in DAF does not mention her or his marriage.
The reboot was needed in order to bring this version of Casino Royale to the screen, we can forever battle who is right or wrong, but at the end of the day you can either accept it and move on, or whinge and moan about it and then move on. Panic not boys and girls there will be another version of your favourite Bond oneday...I'm just trying to work out who a younger type of Pierce is?

[Kristatos]

at the end of the day you can either accept it and move on, or whinge and moan about it and then move on.

I'll take option number 2 please.

[The Sweeney]

at the end of the day you can either accept it and move on, or whinge and moan about it and then move on.

I'll take option number 2 please.

Ok....whinge away

[paco chaos]

But there was no reference to Tracy in any of the Brosnan films. Even Connery in DAF does not mention her or his marriage.
The reboot was needed in order to bring this version of Casino Royale to the screen, we can forever battle who is right or wrong, but at the end of the day you can either accept it and move on, or whinge and moan about it and then move on. Panic not boys and girls there will be another version of your favourite Bond oneday...I'm just trying to work out who a younger type of Pierce is?

I always figured that Connery was out hunting down Blofeld at the beginning of DAF, because of the events in OHMSS, whether it was mentioned or not. a sort of subtle continuity, perhaps. maybe not. but in my mind that's how I percieved it.

[stockslivevan]

That's the thing, Bond may have not met Goldfinger in the new continuity but did meeting him in the old one really effect all the films after? The only reference I could think of was "the bullion job in 1964" in OHMSS, which is understandable since EON tried convincing audiences that Lazenby was the exact same Bond as Connery.

In TWINE they could have mentioned Tracy and not be too concerned with continuity issues since they did the same thing in FYEO and LTK, which had two different Bonds than Lazenby. Afterall, even the title of the film is a reference to the scene in OHMSS.

Besides Bond's marraige with Tracy, Felix Leiter and a few small bits, nothing else has effected Bond in a big way. It wouldn't matter that Bond never met Goldfinger because it never made a difference anyway. Instead of Tracy we have Vesper Lynd until they decide to pull it off once again in the future.

I think with the new continuity they should avoid dating the films like the comic books do. Have a couple of references of Bond's past from time to time but don't date them like Tracy's tomb shows because that would restrict Bond's timeline like it did for Brosnan where they had to reference past events in a more subtle way to confuse less people because Brosnan's Bond sure did not marry in 1969 at such a young age, nor could he have been a 00 agent.

So in the future, EON should avoid the tombstone. Keep his timeline intact but let it flow. If you reference CR in the future films like in 2016, don't have a character say "that was ten years ago" but instead say "years ago" just like they did with Dalton's Bond "He was married once, but that was a long time ago."

[The Sweeney]

I think people who want fixed continuity, tight timelines, references, etc. are in the minority with audiences in general who watch Bond films.

Only a few die-hard Bond fans think continuity is essential, and reboots are blasphemy.

It's taking the whole genre way too seriously, and is not something the Bond franchise has been built on. The series has lasted so long because it has evolved, moved with the times, and each film is a stand-alone piece, and not a follow-on sequel from the previous film.

Bond 22 will be the very first time ever that the film follows on directly from where CR left off, but I don't see any problem with this either.

I doubt audiences will come out of Bond 22 completely baffled, scratching heads and saying `so when does he go to Jamaica to fight Dr. No?'

They'll just come out and say (hopefully) `Wow! That was great. Even better than Craig's last one. I can't wait for the next one.'

It's the only way the franchise has survived so long. Each film is for the moment only, and not to be judged like Rocky Balboa or Star Wars.

The reboot isn't exactly like Episode One - The Phantom Menace, despite the emphasise on CR being Bond at the start of his career.

The small reboot signs are very subtle, and still makes CR a stand-alone Bond film, the same as LALD, OHMSS or TLD. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are reading waaaay too much into their Bond films.

[Dr. No]

Interesting interview with Peter Purvis and Virginia Wade about their screenplay for CR

P&W get a lot of flack from Bond fans which I always thought was undeserved, but it does seem from this quote that the reboot was the result of their reach exceeding their grasp. Their original "Last Temptation of Bond" idea sounds a lot better, but by their own admission, they didn't have the chops to pull it off.

I ve not been a big fan of their work, but it may not be fair to blame them for all the wrongs. someone else had said something along the lines of blaming the producers and directors before the writers adn actors who are only doing the job asked for.
Now the music is another matter, that is solely in the hands of the conductor creating the music. Most of the time the director don't hear the music until the final cut.

Food for though, good point Kristatos

[Kristatos]

I think people who want fixed continuity, tight timelines, references, etc. are in the minority with audiences in general who watch Bond films.

Only a few die-hard Bond fans think continuity is essential, and reboots are blasphemy.

Well pardon me for thinking

If continuity is so unimportant, then why mess with it? It would have been very easy to do CR in a way that would have satisfied both the minority (like myself) who care about such things and the majority who don't. P&W themselves say how it could have been done, but they decided to junk the previous 20 films in the series instead.

[The Sweeney]

I think people who want fixed continuity, tight timelines, references, etc. are in the minority with audiences in general who watch Bond films.

Only a few die-hard Bond fans think continuity is essential, and reboots are blasphemy.

Well pardon me for thinking

If continuity is so unimportant, then why mess with it? It would have been very easy to do CR in a way that would have satisfied both the minority (like myself) who care about such things and the majority who don't. P&W themselves say how it could have been done, but they decided to junk the previous 20 films in the series instead.

Like I said, the `reboot' wasn't really that much of a huge reboot that we were really expecting. For instance, my parents watched it, and I actually had to explain at the end of the film that this was the very first novel Fleming wrote. To them, it was just watching another Bond film.

If EON really wanted a `reboot' Batman Begins style, they would have started the film with Bond as a child, being orphaned, growing up, troubled teenage years at Eton, then joining the military, etc.

But they didn't. Instead, they gave us a film that attempted small signs of a beginning (mainly the pre credit sequence) but in the end is just another Bond film. The real `reboot' is the back-to-basics, bloody, gritty, gadget-less Fleming style that EON have gone with.

But this is nothing new. EON have attempted a return to the back-to-basics Fleming stories many times before in the franchise history - usually following a successful, gadget-laden, sci-fi, OTT stinker of a film!

[Captain Nash]

You mean YOLT followed by OHMSS
MR followed by FYEO
And DAD (ultimate stinkeroo) followed by CR.
Come on The Sweeney that's alot for some of these guys to take in all at once.
In simple terms the reboot wasn't so hard to follow. Or grasp.

[The Sweeney]

You mean YOLT followed by OHMSS
MR followed by FYEO
And DAD (ultimate stinkeroo) followed by CR.
Come on The Sweeney that's alot for some of these guys to take in all at once.
In simple terms the reboot wasn't so hard to follow. Or grasp.

Apparently it was, according to some on here.....

[carl stromberg]

Casino Royale was the most radical of the so-called "re-boots". CR had a new type of Bond (i.e who is short, and not handsome in a conventional sense), has a blond/ginger crewcut, looks like an extra from Pumping Iron); also, it was a "Bond Begins" where a 38 year old Bond (who looks 45) is supposedly a young Bond who has just entered the 00 section. Throw in the bizarre post-modern twists such as no gun-barrel, pre-credit sequence, no Bond music etc, and you have a lot that is "difficult for me to take in all at once".