Peter Morgan says his `big hook’ is part of Bond 23 script

Peter Morgan, the prestige screenwriter originally hired to write Bond 23, says the movie retains his “big hook,” according to an interview on the Digital Spy Web site.

An excerpt:

“I hear that an idea, the central idea, is still there but not one similar thing other than that. I think they’ve still kept the big hook, which I’m not going to tell you!” (Morgan) said.

Of course, this was the same Peter Morgan who declared in another interview that that James Bond is dated and didn’t sound like he particularly cared for the character.

Morgan dropped out after financial problems, would lead to a short stay in bankruptcy court, at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. forced Bond 23 to shut down for almost a year. When MGM and Eon put out a release early this year that Bond 23 was back on, it said the script would be written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan, with no mention of Morgan.

How much of this is hype, how much is real is anybody’s guess. But, from our standpoint, the hiring of Morgan — whose previous work is lathered in politics — was very suspect. His involvement is part of a broader trend where Eon seems desperate for prestige, rather than concerned about putting out an entertaining movie.

About these ads

2 Responses

  1. Kudos again to you all for saying what must be said (and to some of us, is so painfully obvious) – yet too often isn’t.

    It has certainly felt to me that a great many at the helm haven’t respected or even liked the “James Bond” character since the time of “Die Another Day” (by which I mean post-release, but I’m open that it might include the production itself). One might even argue that it started with “GoldenEye.”

    I don’t need to be lectured by Judy Dench (on-screen, to be sure; but the contempt she shows seems heartfelt beyond acting). I find Agent 007 neither a misogynist, nor an extraneous “relic” of anything. (Keenly aware of the date on which I make this post.)

    I also don’t need to be lectured in interviews about how little any of us (or, for that matter, by extension: Cubby Broccoli and anyone else who’s watched the films since the 1960s) “really” knew about James Bond.

    Nope. Not until “Casino Royale” explained it to us in 2006 was there ever a 007 legacy.

    Further, recent posts on “The HMSS Weblog” regarding “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” provided a real ah-ha moment for me on this. The new movie “a period piece,” you say? “The success of ‘Mad Men'” as model? James Bond, or, rather, Ian Fleming, literally invented all that.

    But, no! “Jason Bourne” was blindly followed as “the model.” Meantime, the success of the “Austin Powers” movies is dismissed as mere parody.

    For James Bond, gadgets are feared as something that might upstage the actor. Odd character obsessions perpetuate. Eva Green was every bit as unappealing as Ian Fleming described Vesper; so I’d say that giving her such importance in “Quantum of Solace” should be added to the long list of reasons that movie fell short.

    (And, for goodness sake: Will someone please *read* the original “Quantum of Solace” short story and quit embarrassing yourselves by misuse of the phrase to justify inexplicable use of the title on-screen?)

    Oh, my–.

  2. [...] he had devised a “shocking” story for the then-untitled Bond 23. He later said his idea his main idea was still in the script (now with John Logan in place of Morgan). The small amount of publicity relative to previous 007 [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers

%d bloggers like this: