Spyglass near to closing a deal with MGM

[Thunderpussy]

This makes intresting reading,Hopefully Craig will be Buried with work and we can get a Decent Bond.

[Alessandra]

Well said!


For those keeping score at home the important part to pay attention to is "MGM isn't expected to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection officially for several more months"


Of the $500m MGM is getting nearly $300m is going for the Hobbites. They have to have a partner or wait for the money to start rolling in from the Hobbit because there isn't enough left over to make a Bond movie unless they cut Babs graft and Danny boys fees to the bone.

Bringing in a partner has its own set of difficulties MGM doesn't make a dime on the Bond movies until they hit home video in fact the movies often leave the theaters still in the red far as the studios are concerned. Any partner brought on will know this and naturally will try to redraw any agreement to favor themselves, breaking even on an investment is not going to be good enough. Nobody wants another LTK scenario.

Well pointed-out, that part about the bankruptcy is not to be overlooked. Now, they say they need $300m for The Hobbit and $200 mln for Bond. Clearly they cannot spend the entire loan on two movies, without having any money for the rest of business. Which is why they need the 50-50 partner for Bond. About breaking even, wait, I thought QoS cost $200 mln? Which means they DID have a gross that gave them over $300 mln of gain, once it was released worldwide. They were red domestic and never recovered, yes. But with worldwide release they had plenty of gain. Figures below are JUST box office, not DVD sales included.

This is the data according to boxofficemojo (usually it's pretty accurate)

Quantum of Solace

Domestic Total Gross: $168,368,427
Distributor: Sony / Columbia Release Date: November 14, 2008
Genre: Action Runtime: 1 hrs. 46 min.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 Production Budget: $200 million

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $168,368,427 28.7%
+ Foreign: $417,722,300 71.3%
= Worldwide: $586,090,727

Also, interesting thing about the Foreign grosses, the BY FAR biggest share of those foreign grosses is United Kingdom and Ireland and Malta ($80,805,643). The second-largest foreign gross was in Germany and it was HALF what they had in the UK and Malta. I think it is quite telling. (UK is by far the place where Craig is more popular, and other foreign countries didn't do nearly as well). Third-biggest foreign market was France/Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia/Monaco with $30.8 million.

So basically, the problem for the new investor is another, it's that QoS already was down from CR (it should have been the opposite, but clearly the "new Bond movie" effect helped CR, and the fact people had expectations for QoS to be a certain way made them go, only to then be disappointed.. and DVD sales were clear proof of it), so they have no guarantee whatsoever that this new movie, if starring Craig, won't keep going down in terms of revenue. And, until the film is released worldwide, there is no profit anyway. QoS didn't do well at all at US box office. I think the biggest problem really is the fact that QoS already showed signs of weakness AND the DVD sales were incredibly poor. Which means they will have to invest in a new movie (again I'm making this consideration based on Craig being Bond obviously) without any good outlook for the US market for sure, and with an uncertain outlook for the worldwide market.

Now clearly, IF this isn't released by 2012 (and it sure as hell looks like it won't) things completely change because at that point it's extremely unlikely Craig will be able to do it, and with a new actor and an obviously obliged reboot, the scenario would be completely different.

Besides Danny finding time is going to be an issue since Sony has first dibs if they decide to shoot the rest of the Millennium Trilogy, ironically it will likely be Dannos only Trilogy that is in fact a trilogy. Best thing they can do is dump Mendes in the nearest creek and find a director better suited to Bond. But he is Danny's choice and where Danny want to take Bond, not where Bond needs to go or when Eon wants to take the franchise. Bond 23 the way it was shaping up was all about Craig's ego, his pride was damaged by Quark but then he nearly strangled a gay man for complementing him on CR at BAFTA lord only knows what screws are loose in this jokers head.

Hold it. What's this about the gay man? I never knew about this (I steer clear of anything Craig-related LOL). What happened exactly?

LOL Quark, nice one. Dumping Mendes in the nearest creek and finding a better-suited director for Bond surely would be a great idea, unfortunately it seems like Mendes is confirmed? As long as Craig is, I guess. Which again means, if no movie is out by 2012, we may get rid of both Craig and Mendes in one clean swoop.

If there is talk of Mendes not directing, which EON let slip a few months back then it has becoming more likely that Craig will not be coming back. I suspect before things get too serious with production they will be a undeclared emergency that crops up just in time to delay it once more then Craig can graciously bow out, as Dalton did.

If they don't find this 50% partner in record time, that is probably how things will go, in order to avoid public "scandals" and fights. If they do find the 50% partner then chances are we get a crappy Bond 23 with Craig in 2012. Either way, we have only one more year, which frankly is all that matters to me. If Craig does Bond 23 by 2012, so be it. That'll be it anyway for him, and I just want this horrid Craig era to end. I just wouldn't like it for YET another actor to be forced to bow out or to be treated the horrid way they did with Pierce. I am no fan of Craig at all, and I suspect Pierce isn't a fan AT ALL either. But I hate to see people mistreated, and I have nothing personal against Craig per se, just against him as Bond. Either way, I think this is a very possible scenario if this production partner doesn't show up real quick.

The math doesn't support the status quo Bond budgets -almost 400m spent on Quark. Bond needs to trim the fat which they honestly can't do with with Craig attached. The series needs to be restarted and a new actor is the sure fire way to do it. They lost 10m people in the last outing setting up Bond 23s attendance to fall below that. They said they fired Brozza because of budget concerns (a lie) now they need to let Craig go so the series has fighting chance in the next decade.

Ok wait. I'm lost here. Boxofficemojo says they spent $200 mln on Quark (LOL). You say $400 mln? Where does that come from? Because if that's the accurate figure, then QoS didn't do nearly as well as it seemed to me so far at the box office? I've always heard $200 for the budget though? I'm curious because if I considered things starting from a wrong initial budget, then I'll have to review my assessments. It seems strange to me though that even the site reports $200 mln, so pretty much that had to be the figure? Or did they say after that it was far more than what was declared initially? (which wouldn't surprise me, considering just and only how much extra time they had to spend filming near my house on Lake Garda because the weather was NASTY that spring. Not to mention the accidents).

The budget concerns over Pierce were utter BS. Pierce wanted a decent movie and he had EARNED it, A)because he's the one who saved the franchise and made it rise from the freaking ashes and B)because he managed to make them make more money than they ever had dreamed of before even with that NASTY second half of DAD. Thing is, he was too powerful AND he didn't even take a second look at Babs So Babs went for her crush toy boy.

If they need to trim the fat the first thing to do is hire ACTUAL screen writers who do NOT take a freaking year for a script. I can't get over that one, it's absolutely inconceivable. Six months is a huge amount of time already... if they had script writers doing the job in that much time, that would already HALVE the costs in that department. So that for starters. Then obviously, new young actor with a multi-year contract that allows them to contain costs. AND with another production partner, freaking Babs won't get nearly as much either. One can only hope that sooner or later people at MGM wake the hell up. Luckily they will be forced to in this case so that may work in our favor for a new young actor to take over the role and for an actual Bond movie to hit screens next time.

[Thunderpussy]

ALE, please forgive me if this is a Stupid Comment,as I know nothing about screen righting.But surley the producers expected to make another Bond Film,so almost like a TV series wouldn't they have some semblence of a script almost ready to go for the next outing.Or as we've been told with this Re-Boot they must of had some idea of where the Story line was going from CR to QOS to Bond 23.
The more I read about this "New Bond Series" The more I'm convinced they Only had an idea for one film,and are just winging it since.Infact I'm so dismayed I think even a change of actor will not change the thinking at EON. They will keep picking Arty Directors and trying a metrosexualising of the Character until Bond is just another Generic Action Figure.
I've often used this example.
OHMSS costs to make = $8m made over $85m aprox ( figures from memory)
and this is called a flop
QOS cost to make = $230 amd made over $580
and is called a huge hit

But for every Dollar spent on OHMSS they got at least $10 back, while with QOS for every Dollar spent thay got way less than $3 back. Now my basic Bussiness Teaching says that for every Dollar spent in your Bussiness you have to make three back. $1 to pay for your product, $1 to pay the governement, and the last $1 is your proffit.
So for Bond 23 I'd expect major cut Backs.and I'm sure any investor will also be pulling on the purse strings, or demanding more of a say in the finished Movie.

[Alessandra]

It's not a stupid comment at all and you're right on the fact for every dollar you need to make three, and that it doesn't make sense to call something a flop and another thing a hit when the percentage of profit is way higher on the first one. Truth is though the industry has changed meantime, so profits now aren't nearly as big as they used to be. That said, they surely will want more guarantees for the upcoming movie in order to invest in it.

Regarding the script.. you're way too optimistic in terms of them mapping things out. This isn't a TV series and it's EON we're talking about. They had ONE movie mapped out, and that was CR. That was it. They do things one at a time and each script is a separate business. They made it clear they don't have anything ready or even at the first stages. Unless something magically appears that nobody had knowledge of, this is where things stand. They haven't even HIRED script writers for Bond 23. And no, they won't keep going with this direction because it won't bring in money anymore. See, even EON aren't THAT stupid and there have already been declarations after QoS that they want to go back to a more traditional Bond. They know it. Also, the fact new investors are going to have a say in this will force them to take another direction. Heck even Craig knows and said they need more humor and a more traditional Bond for his next one (hopefully there won't be a next one for him, but if he does do 23, that's what he wants).

They pretty much always had this pattern. "darker" then "lighter". They overdid it with the dark three times. OHMSS, Dalton movies (though they were STILL Bond movies and I do enjoy them, but truth is they WERE too serious and dark) and Craig movies. And every time after those it was back to a more traditional Bond. They'll do it again this time too... especially since other partners will demand it. There are quite a few new TV shows that have become MAJOR hits and critic darlings exactly because they do things the Bond way: style and humor plus the badass dose. One example is Mad Men, the other is White Collar. I hate the new Nikita but it's definitely a hit and it completely fits the formula. Vampires are all over the place because they follow five basic rules: romantic triangle, BEAUTIFUL actors, SEXY scenes, a definite STYLE to them, plus the KILLING and MYSTERY tied to the story. Remind you of something? yeah, Bond formula. You can stay assured they'll go back to it, because all of TV and Hollywood is going back to that.

[FormerBondFan]

They pretty much always had this pattern. "darker" then "lighter". They overdid it with the dark three times. OHMSS, Dalton movies (though they were STILL Bond movies and I do enjoy them, but truth is they WERE too serious and dark) and Craig movies.

But Pierce wanted a darker direction for Bond.

[Alessandra]

They pretty much always had this pattern. "darker" then "lighter". They overdid it with the dark three times. OHMSS, Dalton movies (though they were STILL Bond movies and I do enjoy them, but truth is they WERE too serious and dark) and Craig movies.

But Pierce wanted a darker direction for Bond.

Yes because he was the "lighter" one and of course after DAD he wanted to do something that was more serious! DAD was an effing joke in the second half. Darker than THAT was more than fine and it STILL would have kept a very traditional Bond. If an actor has a long run he's bound to want different things. Craig got way too dark and now he wants lighter, having only done two movies. Actors DO realize when things go overboard.

[Mazer Rackham]

About breaking even, wait, I thought QoS cost $200 mln?

It is a twisted rabbit hole if you want to go down it.
The cost numbers are fudged, massaged by of all people Sony. The same folks responsible for the magic Spider-man 3 budget. Once over budget then suddenly much slimmer on the "official" count.

The real cost out of pocket was $280, they will admit to $230 however the actual costs were higher. BO Mojo seems to have gone with the lowest of the low ball numbers out there. The $230 is a solid number, however the $280 number is also (now) substantiated with public sources.
On top of the aparently bloated budgets is a advertising budget of at least $120m. (P&A Budget) Even if Quark was made for the rock bottom price of $200m, if there were $80m in tax incentives and other currency slight of hand was correct the studio is still over 300m in the red, they get under 50% of the gross BO. The gross BO looks healthy but it is not the whole story. The new Trek movie didn't break even until Home Video entered the frame and Inceptions cost were under estimated on "Official" numbers. Bond isn't alone in this subterfuge.

Hold it. What's this about the gay man? I never knew about this (I steer clear of anything Craig-related LOL). What happened exactly?

Early 2007 Craig lost his cool when he didn't win a BAFTA for his performance in CR later he almost went off on a well know gay columnist who approached to congratulate Craig as well as praise his swim trunk scene. I don't remember all the details off hand but someone close to Craig led him away to cool off. I have fun bringing it up time to time but it was an actual event.

If they don't find this 50% partner in record time, that is probably how things will go, in order to avoid public "scandals" and fights. If they do find the 50% partner then chances are we get a crappy Bond 23 with Craig in 2012. Either way, we have only one more year, which frankly is all that matters to me. If Craig does Bond 23 by 2012, so be it. That'll be it anyway for him, and I just want this horrid Craig era to end. I just wouldn't like it for YET another actor to be forced to bow out or to be treated the horrid way they did with Pierce. I am no fan of Craig at all, and I suspect Pierce isn't a fan AT ALL either. But I hate to see people mistreated, and I have nothing personal against Craig per se, just against him as Bond. Either way, I think this is a very possible scenario if this production partner doesn't show up real quick.

No Pierce isn't a fan, he has not and will not watch the movies, even the screener sent out for (QOS's ) Oscar consideration. The quote Craig attributed to Pierce telling him to go for it (re: Bond ) essentially giving Craig his blessing was taken out of context, some early interviews Craig admitted he probably didn't give Brozza any option and Brozza would've "probably" liked to have decked him.

I don't see Craig lasting beyond a next outing, for one he doesn't like Bond and almost walked off after CR, he used that threat to negotiate a stronger contract. I do think he'd like to avoid the stigma of being a Dalton and to have a better send off. However I don't see it as mistreatment if he is summarily let go, his benefactor is wildly enamored with him "pestering him to take the role" however Bond is a business and he should be let go for the betterment for the franchise. The last movie did actual damage to the franchise better for a clean break the audience is expecting after the delay was announced. Craig for his part had his career made, he went form an awkward looking unknown to a awkward looking controversial actor with a string of flops
The main difference I see Brosnan was actually promised a 5th movie and was working towards that goal at a time when the producers were concentrating their considerable efforts on a Jinx spin off. Besides Craig and Mikey said they were not making a trilogy. The way I see it Craig booked up his schedule knowing it might lead to a conflict while Brosnan kept his open.

The budget concerns over Pierce were utter BS. Pierce wanted a decent movie and he had EARNED it, A)because he's the one who saved the franchise and made it rise from the freaking ashes and B)because he managed to make them make more money than they ever had dreamed of before even with that NASTY second half of DAD. Thing is, he was too powerful AND he didn't even take a second look at Babs So Babs went for her crush toy boy.

If they need to trim the fat the first thing to do is hire ACTUAL screen writers who do NOT take a freaking year for a script. I can't get over that one, it's absolutely inconceivable. Six months is a huge amount of time already... if they had script writers doing the job in that much time, that would already HALVE the costs in that department. So that for starters. Then obviously, new young actor with a multi-year contract that allows them to contain costs. AND with another production partner, freaking Babs won't get nearly as much either. One can only hope that sooner or later people at MGM wake the hell up. Luckily they will be forced to in this case so that may work in our favor for a new young actor to take over the role and for an actual Bond movie to hit screens next time.

I would have made DAD without the Sci-fi elements, for some reason the wonder twins were dead set on showing off. Not sure what they were showing off besides their own ineptitude. Although the Matrix was the biggest thing Hollywood had seen in a fortnight. I suppose it was the Sci-fi element or hunting down Orks

There are people out there with some very good ideas for Bond the crying shame is they are not the same people running the franchise. Good script writing doesn't necessitate hiring a Hollywood ringer to come and polish the script. EON is bankrupt in more than one way. A side from Babs fascination with Germanic henchmen they would be without any direction at all. They need fresh blood and they absolutely have to trim the fat. Copying off Jason Bourne's paper isn't going to cut it.

[katied]

Ah yes, the Johan Hari incident. Though if you look him up, he's like that all the time. But he should have known better than to p!ss Craig off.

[Alessandra]

It is a twisted rabbit hole if you want to go down it.
The cost numbers are fudged, massaged by of all people Sony. The same folks responsible for the magic Spider-man 3 budget. Once over budget then suddenly much slimmer on the "official" count.

The real cost out of pocket was $280, they will admit to $230 however the actual costs were higher. BO Mojo seems to have gone with the lowest of the low ball numbers out there. The $230 is a solid number, however the $280 number is also (now) substantiated with public sources.
On top of the aparently bloated budgets is a advertising budget of at least $120m. (P&A Budget) Even if Quark was made for the rock bottom price of $200m, if there were $80m in tax incentives and other currency slight of hand was correct the studio is still over 300m in the red, they get under 50% of the gross BO. The gross BO looks healthy but it is not the whole story. The new Trek movie didn't break even until Home Video entered the frame and Inceptions cost were under estimated on "Official" numbers. Bond isn't alone in this subterfuge.

Makes perfect sense now. I'm sure they don't include advertising costs in production costs. So even considering 230 the actual figure, if you had 120 to it, that goes to 350. Oh, and right, they get 50% of the gross BO so yeah, they're definitely in the red. I can't believe I didn't think it over more thoroughly. And I didn't even consider that right, they don't get 100% of Box Office gross obviously. So this big success wasn't a big success at all for the studio. Also, DAD figures adjusted for inflation are better than the QoS ones. The mere total gross adjusted for inflation is more or less the same, except DAD didn't cost nearly as much as QoS. The proportion obviously is very different, since DAD cost considerably less. Cost $160 and made $431 mln back then. Movie grossed 2.69 times as much as production costs. And it then had huge DVD and game sales. While QoS cost $230 mln at best and made $586 mln, that's 2.54 times as much. And it had disastrous DVD sales. So in short, it isn't nearly the big success some claim it was at all.

Early 2007 Craig lost his cool when he didn't win a BAFTA for his performance in CR later he almost went off on a well know gay columnist who approached to congratulate Craig as well as praise his swim trunk scene. I don't remember all the details off hand but someone close to Craig led him away to cool off. I have fun bringing it up time to time but it was an actual event.

seriously? I had no idea about this. I remember him being far from thrilled about not winning a BAFTA, but that was about it. Not like I pay a lot of attention to British Awards.. but seriously? This is beyond bad. What a tool.

No Pierce isn't a fan, he has not and will not watch the movies, even the screener sent out for (QOS's ) Oscar consideration. The quote Craig attributed to Pierce telling him to go for it (re: Bond ) essentially giving Craig his blessing was taken out of context, some early interviews Craig admitted he probably didn't give Brozza any option and Brozza would've "probably" liked to have decked him.

And he totally should have. Except Pierce is an actual gentleman, unlike Craig. But I would have liked to see that just so all of those Craig fans would have had to shut up forever about Craig being physically "tougher" and all that ridiculousness. I remember him not watching the movies, as he should have done but I think that's more out of how despicable EON has been with him. Still, I also suspect he isn't a Craig fan at all. His Bond is nothing like Bond should be. And Pierce knows this better than anyone.

I don't see Craig lasting beyond a next outing, for one he doesn't like Bond and almost walked off after CR, he used that threat to negotiate a stronger contract. I do think he'd like to avoid the stigma of being a Dalton and to have a better send off. However I don't see it as mistreatment if he is summarily let go, his benefactor is wildly enamored with him "pestering him to take the role" however Bond is a business and he should be let go for the betterment for the franchise. The last movie did actual damage to the franchise better for a clean break the audience is expecting after the delay was announced. Craig for his part had his career made, he went form an awkward looking unknown to a awkward looking controversial actor with a string of flops

I think Craig saw the opportunity to quickly become incredibly famous and make lots of money. So he did it mainly for those two reasons. There's nothing wrong with those reasons per se, one doesn't act to not be paid and remain unknown, the problem is those were his main reasons, and as you said he certainly isn't a Bond fan (unlike Pierce). Well, whether he'd like to avoid the stigma of being a Dalton or not, he won't be the one who gets to decide about it in the end... thankfully. I absolutely agree he should be let go for the betterment of the franchise. I just don't want that to be done via last-minute tricks, which is what would make it unfair. If he is let go and they just tell him now or in a reasonable time-span then it's all good. He can't be so stupid as to not understand that QoS wasn't good at all for either the franchise or him. He's well-aware I'm sure (Which is also probably why he'd do a third one, as you said). So if things were handled timely, I'm pretty sure he couldn't say much about it.

The main difference I see Brosnan was actually promised a 5th movie and was working towards that goal at a time when the producers were concentrating their considerable efforts on a Jinx spin off. Besides Craig and Mikey said they were not making a trilogy. The way I see it Craig booked up his schedule knowing it might lead to a conflict while Brosnan kept his open.

Agreed. The way they treated Brosnan was LOUSY. Pierce deserved FAR more than that and they know it d**n well just like we all do. I was talking about wrongdoing in case they make up a last-minute excuse or delay for Craig, which would still not be as bad as the Pierce scenario, but it would be a wrong way of treating Craig regardless. If they just tell him "we're replacing you, sorry" in due time, then I don't have a problem with it at all.

I would have made DAD without the Sci-fi elements, for some reason the wonder twins were dead set on showing off. Not sure what they were showing off besides their own ineptitude. Although the Matrix was the biggest thing Hollywood had seen in a fortnight. I suppose it was the Sci-fi element or hunting down Orks

That's what happens when we deal with the bunch of monkeys that Eon people have proven to be.

There are people out there with some very good ideas for Bond the crying shame is they are not the same people running the franchise. Good script writing doesn't necessitate hiring a Hollywood ringer to come and polish the script. EON is bankrupt in more than one way. A side from Babs fascination with Germanic henchmen they would be without any direction at all. They need fresh blood and they absolutely have to trim the fat. Copying off Jason Bourne's paper isn't going to cut it.

Very well said. I don't understand why so far they never got the idea that good script writing does NOT come with famous names in Hollywood, especially when it's a Bond movie we're talking about. They don't need art, they need a freaking decent plot AND A GOOD 2nd UNIT DIRECTOR. Jason Bourne is passé already so they know they can't do that anymore. It's all different now, it's vampires and romance all over the place. Which as I said in another thread bears a lot of resemblance to the traditional Bond formula. Beautiful looks for both men and women, a definite style, romance, plus the killings. They know they need to get back to that at this point... whether Babs likes it or not her German henchman (LMAO that is one great definition) will have to go after another movie at best. They do need fresh blood and yeah, trimming the fat. I am pretty sure anyhow that given the current situation they will be forced to get to it. So while it's bad, in a way it may turn up to be good for us... no more Craig, back to traditional Bond and clearly a new Bond actor.

Katie I had no idea about that incident, I swear. Shows what I do when I see "Daniel Craig" pop up. I click elsewhere!

[FormerBondFan]

They pretty much always had this pattern. "darker" then "lighter". They overdid it with the dark three times. OHMSS, Dalton movies (though they were STILL Bond movies and I do enjoy them, but truth is they WERE too serious and dark) and Craig movies.

But Pierce wanted a darker direction for Bond.

Yes because he was the "lighter" one and of course after DAD he wanted to do something that was more serious! DAD was an effing joke in the second half. Darker than THAT was more than fine and it STILL would have kept a very traditional Bond. If an actor has a long run he's bound to want different things. Craig got way too dark and now he wants lighter, having only done two movies. Actors DO realize when things go overboard.

Pierce got no control over the Bonds he starred in.

[Thunderpussy]

I agree Unlike DC Brosnan had very little or no say in his Bonds,I remember reading They even turned Down his suggestions for leading Ladies.

[Alessandra]

I think Brosnan did give good contribution, very simply Barbara Broccoli is an idiot so the moment she needed to listen to him the most, obviously she didn't.

[FormerBondFan]

I think Brosnan did give good contribution, very simply Barbara Broccoli is an idiot so the moment she needed to listen to him the most, obviously she didn't.

And thanks to Babs, those minions blamed Pierce for the things he had no control over his Bonds. Because of this, I refuse to give my money to see DC's Bonds, and my money goes to other franchises, which include Harry Potter.

[Alessandra]

Why do some think that producing a movie is a process that would easily be done from now to 2012 without much effort? I'm amazed at the naivete of some. I checked the past stories about the script for Bond 23, and there is a particularly interesting one from the LA Times from August, earlier this year:

But while MGM's financial woes have been a focus of much of the news coverage — which alternately have had the movie "canceled" and "suspended" — sources say that those difficulties have not been the only hold-up. The secrecy valued by EON scares off most public comment on the film's status, but sources familiar with the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity say that creative discussions among the writers and producers have also hampered the process.

Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes worked on the script last spring, the sources said, polishing the contributions of "Frost/Nixon" screenwriter Peter Morgan. Morgan, in turn, had rewritten parts of an earlier screenplay by Bond veterans Neal Purvis and Robert Wade.

EON has typically developed a script to a point of their satisfaction before sending it to the studio that will finance and distribute the given film (a pairing of MGM and Sony Pictures for the past two films). That has yet to happen with the new Bond, which is to be financed and distributed by MGM.

So they were clearly having major problems with it AND then it was all totally dropped because of the bankruptcy situation, and as of now, there are no official writers for the movie. Also I can't remember what other person was added by MGM to change the script in the early summer, and that didn't quite work out well. In short, it looks like a bloody mess at the moment. Granted, if someone injects some freaking common sense in them things could start moving, but when has that ever happened before with EON?

And this is from an October piece from none other than the forum that shall not be named... we all know how close they are to EON and how they try to spin things in the most positive possible way:

Wilson also admitted that the script isn’t currently being worked on. “The script’s been in development for some time. We often start the scripts about a year before pre-production has begun. So the script has been in development but it’s been halted for the time being.”

If THEY have such a quote from Wilson, it means the situation with the script is beyond bad.

[Captain Nash]

So long as they get rid of Purvis and Wade from writing duties, then the problems should be halved. After that Arnold can be given the boot to. Bond needs new writers and a new sound.
It's not the fans who want the Bournesque storylines. But the writers who create the plots for these films. Craig himself has said in the past he'd like to go back to the formula type Bond film.
Hopefully with the lengthy break between QOS and B23 EON gets a new team to fashion a good old forumla Bond adventure.
Using FRWL, OHMSS , TSWLM and TLD to inspire them.

[shaken not stirred]

So long as they get rid of Purvis and Wade from writing duties, then the problems should be halved. After that Arnold can be given the boot to. Bond needs new writers and a new sound.
It's not the fans who want the Bournesque storylines. But the writers who create the plots for these films. Craig himself has said in the past he'd like to go back to the formula type Bond film.
Hopefully with the lengthy break between QOS and B23 EON gets a new team to fashion a good old forumla Bond adventure.
Using FRWL, OHMSS , TSWLM and TLD to inspire them.

Thing is I don't get why eon opted for bourne storylines and whatnot in bond, a few years back most movie franchises were just trying to find better ways to improve but not change their formula instead of trying to be something it's not, it's like watching inception and saying in the next film bond should jump into peoples minds and plant dreams because it worked in inception or getting bond to punch through a wall like he's the hulk in cr (oh wait that bit happened ) or watching chuck norris roundhouse kick a group of people and possibly a house (j/k) why doesn't bond do that etc..I'm glad eon hasn't watched michael bays transformers yet.

Sorry last 2 examples went too far.

[katied]

Definitely get rid of Purvis and Wade.


If they do any of the Bond Hulk smash stuff again I will walk out of the movie and ask for my money back.

[Alessandra]

Definitely get rid of Purvis and Wade.


If they do any of the Bond Hulk smash stuff again I will walk out of the movie and ask for my money back.

I didn't go to the movies for QoS in the first place, so I certainly won't have that problem. But if I were you, I'd do what you're saying

So long as they get rid of Purvis and Wade from writing duties, then the problems should be halved. After that Arnold can be given the boot to. Bond needs new writers and a new sound.
It's not the fans who want the Bournesque storylines. But the writers who create the plots for these films. Craig himself has said in the past he'd like to go back to the formula type Bond film.
Hopefully with the lengthy break between QOS and B23 EON gets a new team to fashion a good old forumla Bond adventure.
Using FRWL, OHMSS , TSWLM and TLD to inspire them.

Agreed on the inspiration and on COMPLETELY dumping the ridiculous Bourne angle. Craig isn't stupid, he understood they got way too far with QoS and he does see the necessity to go back to a more traditional Bond film.

I'm not entirely sure Purvis & Wade are at fault for most of the crap. I think the biggest problem with CR and QoS was Haggis. He's got ZERO Bond vision and I think for QoS in particular, a lot of the mess was his fault, not theirs. That said, those two certainly AREN'T the best around. They should hire writers from TV, end of the story. The best talent is there now (especially since TV now has more money than cinema), those who do well then start doing Hollywood productions too (like JJ Abrams), but they keep doing TV as a main. Much more interesting products and stories on TV now than at the movies in most cases (with, of course, exceptions, but in general...) And TV writers work at triple the speed at least.

Arnold sucks. John Barry is what always worked so they need to get back to that type of composer. Or even better, hire Michael Giacchino. He's got bigger fish to fry now though (he was the composer for Alias, which had brilliant soundtrack. And he's done movies and gotten nominations and awards since).

[FormerBondFan]

Purvis & Wade, along with Babs & Mikey, are ones responsible for screwing up Pierce. They should be removed from their positions and replaced by completely new people just like Batman and Star Trek.

[katied]

There's a lot of good writers out there, so why the Gruesome Twosome have stuck with Purvis and Wade so long I will never know.