105 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

Marc Forster And Paul Haggis Discuss 'Bond 22'

'It's going to stand on its own although it does follow right on the heels of Casino Royale.'

[Andrew]

So the question now is how much does this film really stand on its own?

[Germanlady]

Well, I would think so much, that you can undertstand the film without having seen CR.
I assume there might be two or three people out there, who haven`t.
Hard to imagine, though

[00Twelve]

Haggis did the "stairwell" action stuff? I'm getting more and more excited about the action sequences he helps to come up with. If that stairwell fight was any indicator, we're in for great stuff.

[Auric64]

From Paul Haggis

Quote

...It

[tdalton]

Is this something to worry about? Is the script by Purvis and Wade THAT bad, that it needs six months work on it, even for someone of Haggis` calibre?

Or, is it usual for a decent scriptwriter to take six months to get another draft into better shape than the first draft?

Six months takes us into January, which is surprising, as the film is supposed to start filming in December.

What gives?

Thoughts?

Best

Andy

I'm not sure whether or not it's something to worry about, at least not at this stage. I do think, however, that we will know why Haggis needed the six months to rewrite the script come time for preproduction on Bond 23. If the script is so bad that it needs a complete overhaul by Haggis, then I would doubt that we'd see P&W return to write Bond 23. If it's simply just Haggis needing the time for whatever other reason, then we'll probably see P&W return for 23, IMO.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Bond 22 a direct continuation of CR?...

[color="#F4A460"]"Not entirely so, according to Haggis:

[NVT]

Hmm, seeing as Paul Haggis is involved, they could probably add Constable Fraiser into the storyline. Be Bond's partner, now that would be funny. lol

[DamnCoffee]

Is this something to worry about? Is the script by Purvis and Wade THAT bad, that it needs six months work on it, even for someone of Haggis` calibre?

I just dont see why Eon dont let Purvis and Wade go, i dont think their work as ever been up to scratch nor respectable for that matter, take TWINE for example: Its a good movie on the whole, if you dont count the massive plot holes and the underdevelopment of the characters, and do i even have to go into DAD?
In My opinion Purvis and Wade should be ditched and Eon should give Haggis full responsibility of the screenplay and all of their further projects.

[Harmsway]

I'm not sure whether or not it's something to worry about, at least not at this stage. I do think, however, that we will know why Haggis needed the six months to rewrite the script come time for preproduction on Bond 23. If the script is so bad that it needs a complete overhaul by Haggis, then I would doubt that we'd see P&W return to write Bond 23. If it's simply just Haggis needing the time for whatever other reason, then we'll probably see P&W return for 23, IMO.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the six months of work just refers to the long extended period of rewrites required by a film's screenwriter. Screenwriters are involved with production even through shooting, for last minute touch-ups and things of that degree. He's just indicating that it's going to be a long process for him, not that it'll take 6 months to produce a workable script.

Bond 22 a direct continuation of CR?...

"Not entirely so, according to Haggis: 'I wouldn't describe it as such,'he says. 'I think it's going to stand on its own although it does follow right on the heels of Casino Royale.'"

Interesting.

At the moment, I'll take that to mean that Bond 23 will take place right after the events of CR, continue some of the story from CR, but that we won't see any direct conclusion to the Bond/Mr. White scene. Thoughts?...

I agree. Haggis is basically saying that CASINO ROYALE and BOND 22 won't feel like BOND BEGINS: A FILM IN TWO PARTS. Perhaps a good example would be how BOURNE IDENTITY and BOURNE ULTIMATUM fit together - they're standalone films, really, but they do have ties to one another.

I just dont see why Eon dont let Purvis and Wade go, i dont think their work as ever been up to scratch nor respectable for that matter, take TWINE for example: Its a good movie on the whole, if you dont count the massive plot holes and the underdevelopment of the characters, and do i even have to go into DAD?
In My opinion Purvis and Wade should be ditched and Eon should give Haggis full responsibility of the screenplay and all of their further projects.

P&W are probably kept around for a number of reasons:

1. They're Bond experts. They know their Fleming pretty well, and surely are capable of crafting a story with lots of Flemingesque details. I don't think Haggis is quite so knowledgable about 007.

2. It's possible they're not as bad as the results may indicate. We don't know what their first draft of DIE ANOTHER DAY looked like (interviews from both Tamahori and P&W indicate it was different than we'd expect), and their gritty JINX script was apparently dynamite (enough to get Stephen Frears on board).

[Turn]

I'm not sure whether or not it's something to worry about, at least not at this stage. I do think, however, that we will know why Haggis needed the six months to rewrite the script come time for preproduction on Bond 23. If the script is so bad that it needs a complete overhaul by Haggis, then I would doubt that we'd see P&W return to write Bond 23. If it's simply just Haggis needing the time for whatever other reason, then we'll probably see P&W return for 23, IMO.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the six months of work just refers to the long extended period of rewrites required by a film's screenwriter. Screenwriters are involved with production even through shooting, for last minute touch-ups and things of that degree. He's just indicating that it's going to be a long process for him, not that it'll take 6 months to produce a workable script.

I agree. Scripts go through numerous drafts and rewrites and continue right through production sometimes. It's good to know Haggis is on this and not necessarily doing it on the run as production begins as happened with TND, for example.

Things should fall into place nicely. These are seasoned professionals, not first-timers and they will likely want to go off the success of CR and do what they can to equal or top it.

[sorking]

1. They're Bond experts. They know their Fleming pretty well, and surely are capable of crafting a story with lots of Flemingesque details. I don't think Haggis is quite so knowledgable about 007.

2. It's possible they're not as bad as the results may indicate. We don't know what their first draft of DIE ANOTHER DAY looked like (interviews from both Tamahori and P&W indicate it was different than we'd expect), and their gritty JINX script was apparently dynamite (enough to get Stephen Frears on board).

I completely agree. You only have to look at Let Him Have It - they are writers capable of depth and insight. How that gets used is another matter...

With TWINE they were, famously, not the last writers to work on the script. Apted brought in a screenwriter (his wife, did I hear?) to pep up the female characters, and Brosnan's concerns that the film was being slanted towards the women saw Feirstein brought in to get the script in a condition that the actor would sign off on.

(Feirstein, lest we forget, is responsible for the dreary Paris/Bond dialogue. "Too close for comfort", "I'll be right back." A character built, it seems, to speak in clich

[blueman]

Oh c'mon now: good ideas are a dime a dozen, I'm sure many board members crap better ideas than P&W come up with. It's not the idea, but how it's handled. I'm not gonna hold P&W responsible for a screenplay that somebody else worked on after they did, but I'm curious why their screenplays always get rewritten or go unproduced...something's up with that, if their drafts were all that there'd be less reason to rewrite so extensively. I also realize directors and producers and even actors can ask for/demand rewites for whatever reasons, but bottom line is they have contributed to far more bad Bond writing than good Bond writing, the only good (IMO) being CR, which had an Oscar-calibre writer in for a polish. Sometimes, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Hey, maybe they write Bond better than Fleming, just odd that we've never seen it IMHO.

[Double-0-Seven]

Interesting that it will be a standalone film, and not a fully direct sequel to Casino Royale.

As for the Purvis and Wade issue, I don't think they are bad writers. Die Another Day may have had some cheesy dialogue, but cheesy dialogue was hardly the biggest problem in the film. Most of the problems came from the CGI, Lee Tamahori, and Halle Berry.

[sorking]

It's not the idea, but how it's handled. I'm not gonna hold P&W responsible for a screenplay that somebody else worked on after they did, but I'm curious why their screenplays always get rewritten or go unproduced...something's up with that, if their drafts were all that there'd be less reason to rewrite so extensively.

By that token you could equally argue that every single Bond writer to date is incompetent. In fact if you can find me a single mainstream action or franchise movie in the last 20 years that didn't undergo major rewrites, I'll buy you a cookie.

When David Mamet adapted Hannibal, but was then replaced with Stephen Zallian, are we to infer that Mamet is a talentless hack? Or simply that this was a franchise film that had to please major leading actors, heavyweight producers, the director, studio heads , licensees AND the various distributors worldwide?

Bond movies aren't made in a vacuum. Nor do they only serve creativity. These are MOVIES. Things change when casting is altered, when budgets shift, when locations change, when a new action scene is created (often by people other than the writers). Their job is to please everyone.

The only people who think it's easy to do better is the people who've never worked in that environment.

I also realize directors and producers and even actors can ask for/demand rewites for whatever reasons, but bottom line is they have contributed to far more bad Bond writing than good Bond writing, the only good (IMO) being CR, which had an Oscar-calibre writer in for a polish. Sometimes, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

...then it's probably movie critique from an armchair pundit? :-)

I'll say it again - you don't hire people who can't do the job. You just don't; it would be a poor allocation of funds, and just plain stupid. P&W have been the most consistently-employed Bond scribes since Maibaum. You think a fan knows more about how well they work, about what their full abilities are, based solely on final films over which they have zero creative control?

If CR were their first Bond, we'd all be cheering their name. Now, I find TWINE underrated by hardcore fandom (and let's face facts, the Brosnan films all did just dandy art the box office, so the public seemed okay with it all), and, okay, DAD is a botch job that got lucky thanks to the previous film's popularity and some smart marketing...

...but Maibaum's name is on TMWTGG. He was the final writer on that messy, uninspired script. Ditto Moonraker. Does that make him lousy at his job? Does it make OHMSS a blip? Of course not.


Aaaaaaaanyway, to get back on topic - this first little moment with the press is gently optimistic for me. Nice to see that Forster mentions the action stuff - aware that it's new for him, but naming exactly the right touchstones (Bond and Indy).

The Haggis six months makes sense, seeing as they're bound to want him available for the bulk of the shoot - for exactly the reasons (budgets, schedules, casting, approvals) mentioned above. Good stuff.

[Harmsway]

When David Mamet adapted Hannibal, but was then replaced with Stephen Zallian, are we to infer that Mamet is a talentless hack? Or simply that this was a franchise film that had to please major leading actors, heavyweight producers, the director, studio heads , licensees AND the various distributors worldwide?

Well, actually, we should infer that Mamet's draft was a horrible adaptation (and a bad script in its own right) that barely resembled the novel of the same name. It's true... the script's online. But still, one bad script doesn't make Mamet a bad screenwriter. Far from it in fact.

And trust me, Mamet's HANNIBAL is bad.

The only people who think it's easy to do better is the people who've never worked in that environment.

No kidding.

Now, I find TWINE underrated by hardcore fandom (and let's face facts, the Brosnan films all did just dandy art the box office, so the public seemed okay with it all),

Well, tripe like FANTASTIC FOUR and X3: THE LAST STAND also did just dandy at the box office.

...but Maibaum's name is on TMWTGG. He was the final writer on that messy, uninspired script. Ditto Moonraker. Does that make him lousy at his job? Does it make OHMSS a blip? Of course not.

Agreed. And a lot of the awkward one-liners from OHMSS weren't even in his script... they were dubbed in later when some people complained there wasn't enough humor.

[LadySylvia]

[quote]One of the biggest news stories from earlier this year was that Bond 22 was set to be a direct continuation from the events that occurred in Casino Royale. Not entirely so, according to Haggis:

[tdalton]

[quote name='LadySylvia' post='753371' date='8 July 2007 - 00:25'][quote]One of the biggest news stories from earlier this year was that Bond 22 was set to be a direct continuation from the events that occurred in Casino Royale. Not entirely so, according to Haggis:

[JimmyBond]

I think it's too early to be taking his comments literally yet. With that said, we can still have a stand alone film that carries over themes and plotlines from Casino Royale.

[tdalton]

I think it's too early to be taking his comments literally yet. With that said, we can still have a stand alone film that carries over themes and plotlines from Casino Royale.

That's true. It could be that they're looking to make a film that continues on from what Casino Royale was while still being able to entertain and engage in the storyline those who did not see Casino Royale. Hopefully that's the case, as I think that they have a great opportunity here to make the film that should have been made following On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

Continuity from CR is welcomed, as long as it doesn't mean we'll be treated to a James Bond ravaged by pangs of guilt and heartache each time he slips into, or even so much as glances at a tux.

Haggis's stairway sequence was dramatically useful in displaying the not oft-seen unglamorous side of a day in the life of 007.
However, as an action scene it fails to impress.
Then again, that would be more Campbell's fault than anyone else.

Edited by Roger Moore's Bad Facelift, 08 July 2007 - 06:52 AM.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

and, okay, DAD is a botch job that got lucky thanks to the previous film's popularity and some smart marketing...

Based on what?
For the career DAD naysayers , here's a fun alternative to spewing invective.
Next time, before offering the respective domestic box office tallys of DAD and CR as validative proof of one's superiority over the other, try factoring in inflation first.
Believe it or not, but movie ticket prices have spiked considerably since 2002.

I saw DAD 4 times during its release in a large metropolitan city.
It was recieved with cheers at the end of each showing.
A bonafide crowdpleaser if I ever saw one.

Edited by Roger Moore's Bad Facelift, 08 July 2007 - 06:52 AM.

[byline]

Haggis's stairway sequence was dramatically useful in displaying the not oft-seen unglamorous side of a day in the life of 007.
However, as an action scene it fails to impress.

Perhaps that's true for you, but I was fairly impressed . . . not to mention white-knuckling my armrests through the entire thing. I still gasp at two places: when Bond's head smacks against the wall, and Obanno's machete goes whizzing past Vesper, mere inches from her head.

[Harmsway]

I think it's too early to be taking his comments literally yet. With that said, we can still have a stand alone film that carries over themes and plotlines from Casino Royale.

That's true. It could be that they're looking to make a film that continues on from what Casino Royale was while still being able to entertain and engage in the storyline those who did not see Casino Royale. Hopefully that's the case, as I think that they have a great opportunity here to make the film that should have been made following On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

That's what I think Haggis means here. Haggis in his quotes pretty much says that BOND 22 continues from CASINO ROYALE (

[dinovelvet]

[quote name='Harmsway' post='753472' date='8 July 2007 - 10:29']That's what I think Haggis means here. Haggis in his quotes pretty much says that BOND 22 continues from CASINO ROYALE (

[DaveBond21]

Interesting news. I did say in another thread that Bond 22 would have to be able to stand alone. It's just that every Bond film is someone's first, and there will be another group of kids who were too young for CR, who will get into Bond 22.

And with DAD the lads were famously instructed by Tamahori to create that dumb aeroplane climax

Indeed, and Tamahori admitted before the film's release that he was the one who turned Gustav Graves into Robocop at the end.

[sorking]

And trust me, Mamet's HANNIBAL is bad.

I would be fascinated to read it - I've always been a fan of Mamet's, but I've never read this. Can it really be so dreadful? Any chance of a link by PM?

Well, tripe like FANTASTIC FOUR and X3: THE LAST STAND also did just dandy at the box office.

Ooh, ah, yes, well - I have a point about this. And it's not all about lowest common-denominator box-office appeal honest! Stay tuned for the rest of this post...

and, okay, DAD is a botch job that got lucky thanks to the previous film's popularity and some smart marketing...

Based on what?
For the career DAD naysayers , here's a fun alternative to spewing invective.
Next time, before offering the respective domestic box office tallys of DAD and CR as validative proof of one's superiority over the other, try factoring in inflation first.
Believe it or not, but movie ticket prices have spiked considerably since 2002.

Not sure what the rise in ticket prices has to say about the success of either film, given that they both made a pile of cash. (My post, you'll notice, didn't compare the BO of Bonds 20 and 21, and I see both as huge cash successes.) Still, I concur that box-office only proves popular success, not artistic brilliance.

Still, I made a sweeping statement as part of a different discussion and I'll happily expand on it.

Now, I was all with the Bond fever when DAD came out. GE totally refueled my interest in the franchise, and TND thrilled me at the time. Flawed they may be, but at the time I was pumped. TWINE only continued that, and the DAD trailers had me ready to go.

And I genuinely left the cinema feeling...flat. Not ruined, just deflated. Weak actions sequences poor style decisions generally led to disappointment, in myself and the people I saw it with. (All non-fans.) Which is a personal reaction, I admit.

But, like the Jar Jar Binks reaction, the voice of common opinion soon becomes clear. Loads saw DAD, but there's a reason that the film press flagged up the invisible car as the moment the Bond film went to the point of NEEDING a reboot.

So, given the poor word of mouth, what made for DAD's success? Brosnan's popularity in the role, surely. And the canny marketing of the 20th anniversary really helped.

But - as X3 and Fast and Furious 3 demonstrate - the popularity of a previous film can really drive the commercial success of a sequel. If you can drive that momentum, well, your weak film can still get a good return. (This isn't just a sequel thing, either; Fantastic Four's success came off the back of Marvel's recent golden status - especially with the similarly-toned Spider-Man series...ooh, where films 2 and 3 shared a key writer, who you won't hear made scapgoat for film 3's problems.)

Which suggests that joe public liked TWINE just fine, enough to see what came next. Which is all I was really getting at there.

Still, my point was mainly about the writers' contribution to a film - that while many of the P&W concepts have made for public appeal, the execution depends on wider factors than just their skills. You'll hear many screenwriters liken assessing their scripts based on the final movie as like, say, assessing beauty of a tree based on a table made out of it...

Edited by sorking, 09 July 2007 - 12:24 AM.

[Harmsway]

And trust me, Mamet's HANNIBAL is bad.

I would be fascinated to read it - I've always been a fan of Mamet's, but I've never read this. Can it really be so dreadful? Any chance of a link by PM?

Heck, I'll link it here. No need to be hush-hush about it.

http://www.dailyscri...unproduced.html

Mamet doesn't even know how to properly spell "Lecter."

[plankattack]

How about Mamet for Bond? "Spartan" anyone....?

The key for me is not that CR and 22 are linked thematically - it's will they be linked stylistically? And I think the fact that Haggis is back, and Forster has been hired, indicates that EON are looking to make another film where plot and character are inextricably linked.

P & W - why fire them? They earn their money by providing a framework that others flesh out/improve (which is how 99% of all films are developed). They know their Fleming, and their recent Bond work has been good. I'm all for slagging off DAD when I'm having a bad day, but honestly, how long are we going to hang that around their necks?

Give the boys a break (today is a good day!!!).

[HildebrandRarity]

Die Another Day and The World Is Not Enough were total blasts and I remember watching them on opening night followed by more theatrical viewings in the weeks that followed for each.

P+W are okay with me.