Slow day: Bond screenwriter announcement causes buzz
The Internet lit up today with MGM’s announcement that Peter Morgan (Froxt/Nixon, The Queen) had joined two of the writers of the last four Bonds, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, to write the screenplay for the as-yet-untitled James Bond 23.
This is slightly more interesting than speculation from two days ago that the next film would have something to with Afghanistan, but James Bond has never been what you’d call a screenwriter-centric series of movies.
Richard Maibaum had a hand in 13 of the first 16 films ranging from the classic (From Russia With Love) to the crap (Octopussy). Besides Roald Dahl who wrote You Only Live Twice (beloved by LiC but disliked most everywhere else), the biggest name (before Morgan) attached to a James Bond screenplay is Paul Haggis (Crash). Writing alongside Purvis and Wade, Haggis’ Casino Royale was a fine springboard promising a bright future for James Bond. The follow-up Quantum of Solace? Not so much. We happened to like Solace more than most folks we know, but we admit it was still a big let down from the hopes inspired by Casino. Same writers, different results and who’s to say who wrote what in the first place?
These are really producer driven pictures with the director, cast and 2nd unit directors playing a big part. Sure, someone has to come up with the story and the dialogue, but I really doubt Morgan will put much of a personal stamp on the film for better or for worse. Nevertheless, the announcement is all over my newsfeed anyway.
Most sites simply recycled MGM’s press release, but several offered their own opinions:
- CHUD’s Devin Faraci thinks playwright Morgan will class the joint up a bit, but how much of a free hand does he think Barbara Broccoli will let Morgan have? Here’s a hint: none.
- MTV’s Adam Rosenberg says “From where I’m sitting, this is fantastic news” mainly because Morgan isn’t Paul Haggis. I don’t like Paul Haggis any more than Rosenberg and it’s tempting to blame Casino and Quantum’s flaws on him, but it’s impossible to prove.
- Empire’s Chris Hewitt enthuses “Morgan is one of the hottest, and best, screenwriters around at the moment, and we can’t wait to see the spin he puts on 007.” There will be no Morgan spin. Morgan will do what the producers tell him to do and happily cash his massive paycheck.
- SlashFilm’s Brendan Connelly: “Morgan’s involvement in a Bond film is very interesting to me. He’s a very strong researcher, though he’d be the first to admit he’ll also abandon that research to boost the drama if called for.” Research. Right.
- Rope of Silicon’s Brad Brevet compares this announcement to other Bond production time lines and concludes this means we’ll be seeing the next Bond in November of 2010. A reasonable assumption I suppose.
- Film School Rejects‘ Cole Abaius wonders if this means Bond 23 will have a political slant. The answer is: no more than ever and probably as little as at any time since the end of the cold war.
Looky there…I went and made a story out of a non-story.
Filed under: Development, News
Tags: James Bond, James Bond 23, Peter Morgan
I’m waiting for the moment when Bond purses his lips together in that silly pout and looks long and forlornly at a lone stag on a hill as the emotions he’s always dutifully suppressed well up inside him. Until of course he pulls some giant machine gun thing out of his suit and blasts the thing to smithereens. Possibly before lassoing it to a helicopter to break into the Kremlin.
I’d just like them to narrow it down from a half-dozen screenwriters to something like one. Maybe if you didn’t have everyone sitting around a table trying to tell a story by committee, some strong storytelling could actually emerge in a Bond film.
Then again, it’s a Bond film. Who really cares about the plot?
I was thinking the same thing about narrowing down the screenwriters, but that’s never going to happen. For better or for worse these are not auteur driven movies.
That might be interesting though. Each movie they hand off the series to a different writer and director….strong ones, not stooges the producers can push around. The ground rules are that you can’t screw with the basic mythology and that’s the only limitation.
Never happen, but I’d buy tickets.
Marc Foster was a nice experiment, even if didn’t turn out as well hoped. I like that they’re trying to continue a search for credible names that aren’t usually associated with things as commercial as Bond.
Morgan will at least bring some character to the next script (even if I don’t think he’s as great and fantastic as they say), and hey, all you need is someone like Martin Campbell and a very good script to have CASINO ROYALE. Hopefully it won’t have the same problem in matching the smarts and the action, as QOS did.
And here’s hoping Michael Sheen takes a role of a British villain. Even if Morgan’s villain is one with an obvious political overtone who is revealed as the evil man who is responsible for the economic downturn and for bankrupting industries and the people and the state of California.
Haha…that’s a great idea to bring in Sheen. It can turn out that Tony Blair is behind Quantum. Seriously though, it would be fun to see him take on something dark.
“I’m waiting for the moment when Bond purses his lips together in that silly pout and looks long and forlornly at a lone stag on a hill as the emotions he’s always dutifully suppressed well up inside him.”
That was hilarious jennybee. And I agree that the lack of creative continuity hurts the franchise. Every time they get one right the next lot take it in a different direction or employ a different style.
As for Morgan, I found both Froxt/Nixon and The Queen dull affairs.
I’d like to see a woman take on Bond either as director or writer.
Or an actress?