84 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

With most people so humpy on Paul Haggis on these forums, one can only hope and pray that the lack of Fleming won't mean that we're going down the route of realism.

James Bond has always been about aspiration: The good life, sexy women, a sense of the fantastic, scope.

Haggis (whose films I have yet to see simply because they do nothing for me i.e. the likes of Crash and Million Dollar Baby) has just come off a real box office bomb in In The Valley Of Elah.

One can safely say that the failure is not a result for a lack of star power as there are some well known names in the movie.

Haggis has had his share of stinkers/embarrasments/failures so let's hope that the name "James Bond" carries the day for Bond 22 and he does not ruin the movie with an overdose of realism. He does not have Fleming to bail him out this time...so let's see.

I want to "look forward" to Bond 23 (hopefully in 2010) with relish instead of merely "hoping" that Craig's third revitalizes the series...a series which was always built on ENTERTAINMENT and not an abundance of base reality and brooding characterizations.

PS

Just because some guy wins an oscar it doesnt mean that they can write an entertaining James Bond action adventure which audiences will love. Haggis didnt write Casino Royale...the spine and spirit of it is down to Ian Fleming...let's not forget that.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 05 October 2007 - 05:53 PM.

[LadySylvia]

It could be that IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH's subject (Iraq veteran murdered by his platoon upon return to the States) is one that no one wants to see. People probably think it might be depressing. But I wouldn't dismiss it altogether. There is still the award season to consider.

Haggis has had his share of stinkers/embarrasments/failures so let's hope that the name "James Bond" carries the day for Bond 22 and he does not ruin the movie with an overdose of realism. He does not have Fleming to bail him out this time...so let's see.

I think this is a bit unfair to say about Haggis. I think that his contribution to the script made CASINO ROYALE more of a success than Fleming's novel. If they had filmed CR as Fleming had written it . . . I think that the movie would have been a mess.

Edited by LadySylvia, 05 October 2007 - 06:00 PM.

[erniecureo]

A good screenwriter (and I think we can agree that Haggis is good), can write in many genres--it's about story and character development. In addition, filmmaking is collaborative--as we all know, the director of a film can make a huge difference in the finished product, as can the DP, SFX, music, etc.

Whether a movie is "good" shouldn't depend on its box office. I agree with LS thatValley of Elah simply may not be what people want to see right now. Who knows, in ten years it could be accepted as a cinematic icon. Look at Casablanca, and Citizen Kane for examples of that phenomenon.

For me the bottom line is this: Haggis hit one out of the park in his first involvement with a Bond film. Why wouldn't anyone think he'll do the same with the next?

Just because some guy wins an oscar it doesnt mean that they can write an entertaining James Bond action adventure which audiences will love. Haggis didnt write Casino Royale...the spine and spirit of it is down to Ian Fleming...let's not forget that.

While an Oscar is no guarantee (there aren't any), I'll take a guy with a track record like Haggis' over most people! And while Haggis didn't write the book Casino Royale, he did write the film (along with Wade and Purvis). Let's not forget that.

[kneelbeforezod]

You do appreciate that Elah was never intended to be a huge box office hit don't you? I don't think anyone will be too surprised that it isn't making much money due to the extremely traumatic subject matter. It's a more prestigious, art house film, that the studios hope will make a small profit over a longer period of time, especially if it receives Oscar nominations (and the film has been well received). It certainly wouldn't have cost much to make.

Calling it a bomb seems a bit unfair when the intention was never to make huge amounts of money. It's a bit like saying Steven Spielberg doesn't know how to make a box office hit because Munich didn't make much money.

It also seems odd to me that you seem to have a problem with Haggis having seen none of his films, and don't give him any credit for Casino Royale.

Haggis was brought onto Bond to give the characters and the dialogue some wit, intelligence and emotional depth, in order to make audiences actually feel something, as opposed to the Brosnan films where occasionally people felt like they were watching a cartoon. And sure enough, there was a considerable step forward in the quality of the dialogue and the characters in Casino Royale, which consequently had much more emotional impact on the viewer. Seems reasonable to attribute some of this to Haggis doesn't it? Fleming didn't write the dialogue did he?

And why do you think that he will suddenly inject too much "realism" into Bond? Although he might inject a little, in that we won't get any invisible cars, the balance of realism and fantasy will presumably be similar to Casino Royale. Why would it be otherwise? Haggis isn't an idiot, he knows the difference between a film like Elah and a film like Bond. Talented writers can work in more than one genre.

To use the Spielberg analogy again, it's like worrying that Jurassic Park 2 would be traumatic and depressing because his previous film was Schindler's List. (Although some would argue that The Lost World was traumatic and depressing )

[Cody]

It doesn't help that Elah is on less than 1000 screens. (Though I'm not disagreeing that it has a low per screen average.) I would have to travel 90 miles to get to a theatre showing it.

[HH007]

To use the Spielberg analogy again, it's like worrying that Jurassic Park 2 would be traumatic and depressing because his previous film was Schindler's List. (Although some would argue that The Lost World was traumatic and depressing )

I certainly would.

As for Haggis, let's not forget he wrote Million Dollar Baby, which won the best picture Oscar. Then he co-wrote and directed Crash, which also won the best picture Oscar. Plus he was just nominated for Clint Eastwood's WWII films. As for Valley of Elah, the subject matter alone meant that this film doesn't have "box office smash" written all over it. It's a film that's made for prestige, not for profit, nobody expected it to be a $100 million+ smash. It's obvious Haggis is a talented chap. Afterall, I have no doubt that it was his contributions to the script of CR that helped make it the best damn Bond film in decades, so I am very comfortable with him handling writing duties for Bond 22, no matter what the B.O. receipts for Elah are.

Edited by HH007, 05 October 2007 - 08:13 PM.

[dinovelvet]

Hildebrand, sometimes movies are made for reasons other than money. I think its a safe bet that the studio put up the budget for this flick on the understanding that it would not make 'Transformers' money. From your other thread, Shoot 'em up was made as a mainstream movie to rake in money, and it did not. This is a different situation, for one thing Elah looks like a movie for adults, so it isn't going to make a lot of noise at the box office. Given its pedigree however, I would expect it to grab an Oscar nomination or two (Haggis seems to have a seat permamently reserved at the ceremony these days).

On another note, I suspected that Luciusgore had started this thread when I clicked on it

[Righty007]

Haggis (whose films I have yet to see simply because they do nothing for me i.e. the likes of Crash and Million Dollar Baby) has just come off a real box office bomb in In The Valley Of Elah.

One can safely say that the failure is not a result for a lack of star power as there are some well known names in the movie.

Haggis has had his share of stinkers/embarrasments/failures so let's hope that the name "James Bond" carries the day for Bond 22 and he does not ruin the movie with an overdose of realism. He does not have Fleming to bail him out this time...so let's see.

What makes you think you can judge Haggis if you've never seen Crash or Million Dollar Baby? Those films are great especially Crash which deserved that Oscar.

"stinkers/embarrasments/failures"? Please list them.

Every single one of the films he's worked on since 2004 have been successes except his new one apparently. That makes him a bad screenwriter/director?

All great actors, directors, screenwriters, etc. have at least one bomb if not more during their career.

[stamper]

Yawn.

Don't these people think about who is going to see their movies ? At least, the Bond producers do, even when they produce crap like DAD.

Haggis is a nobody, just some guy who gets lucky to be considered by real people like Eastwood or the Bond producers.

Craig, with his ill fated choices, should also consider what he does in between. All these craps movies with big stars might lead him on the road of Laz when he is finished with Bond. He should have done 3 small independent movies already, with no stars, but real talent. Hell, I could direct Craig and make more money than Golden bollocks with any of my subjects.

Daniel : change agent.

Haggis : not hungry anymore, and that is scary thought, because all the best movies ever made were made by hungry people.

[HH007]

"stinkers/embarrasments/failures"? Please list them.

I was just about to ask that myself.

Craig, with his ill fated choices, should also consider what he does in between. All these craps movies with big stars might lead him on the road of Laz when he is finished with Bond. He should have done 3 small independent movies already, with no stars, but real talent. Hell, I could direct Craig and make more money than Golden bollocks with any of my subjects.

Daniel : change agent.

With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about? Road To Perdition... Layer Cake... Munich... Infamous... they might not all have been box office smashes, but they're hardly "craps (sic) movies." We can forgive him The Invasion because he made it before Bond and from what I hear he's hardly in it anyway. If anything, he's had the most diverse career of any Bond actor, with the possible exception of Dalton.

[dinovelvet]

Haggis is a nobody, just some guy who gets lucky to be considered by real people like Eastwood or the Bond producers.

I think this is just beyond comment, so I'll settle for a

[00Twelve]

Good call, dino. Haggis is the kind of nobody I wanna be.

[stamper]

Me too. The Craig movies you mention were prior CR. The latest crap with Nicola shagTomman, the less said about it the better

[Righty007]

Good call, dino. Haggis is the kind of nobody I wanna be.

Yes. Haggis helped write one of the best Bond scripts ever. <-- PERIOD!

[LadySylvia]

Road To Perdition... Layer Cake... Munich... Infamous... they might not all have been box office smashes, but they're hardly "craps (sic) movies.

I don't know about the rest of them, but I do recall that THE ROAD TO PERDITION had opened to Number 2 or 3 during its first week . . . and eventually rose to Number 1 the following week. It stayed Number 1 for at least another 2 or 3 weeks. That is how successful it was.

[HH007]

Road To Perdition... Layer Cake... Munich... Infamous... they might not all have been box office smashes, but they're hardly "craps (sic) movies.

I don't know about the rest of them, but I do recall that THE ROAD TO PERDITION had opened to Number 2 or 3 during its first week . . . and eventually rose to Number 1 the following week. It stayed Number 1 for at least another 2 or 3 weeks. That is how successful it was.

I know Road To Perdition was successful financially. But even though the other movies weren't as big at the b.o., I kind of doubt he regrets doing them. Infamous (the other Capote movie), for example, got him an Independent Spirit Award nomination. So aside from The Invasion, I just wonder what Stamper meant by crap movies.

[K1Bond007]

I'm not sure how anyone can really gauge that it has bombed thus far. First off this isn't a movie that I would consider to make a ton of money at the box office especially as it launched with a very limited release. It only opened in 9 theaters, thus why the numbers are so low to begin with. Every weekend after that has seen an increase too as it adds more theaters so it's not like it's sputtering out. Hardly a bomb (thus far anyway). I bet the budget was pretty small too. Maybe 20 million. DVD sales etc should make it a success. That's more than I can say for The Invasion. What a travesty that movie was, though that was more of a victim of the studio intervening.

[Col. Sun]

"In the Valley of Elah" has been opened on a limited US release in selected screens which draw a more adult, serious audience. The studio do this to build word of mouth and (hopefully) strong reviews so that the more average cinema goer's interest is piqued so that when the film opens wider the broader audience are drawn to a "serious natured" filmed which they perhaps would not go and see otherwise.

The reviews for Haggis' film are very positive - some excellent - and the BO healthy for a very limited number of screens. So it is not a bomb as someone here gleefully claims. The film goes wider in the couple of weeks I believe. It probably won't be a blockbuster or even close -- but I doubt that anyone involved thought it ever would be. Films are business - but that business works when a film is not a big budget and is made on a lower budget -- then even if the BO is small, the film still sells world wide and makes money -- following up with DVD, TV, Cable etc. The studio also hopes that awards will generate further business and increase a film's value.

And don't forget some of the greatest movies ever made BOMBED or did only average business when they first came out -- that includes Blade Runner, It's A Wonderful Life, Vertigo, Chinatown, The Producers (the original) Ed Wood -- and many, many more fiilms which are now considered classics.

I'm looking forward to Haggis's film. It sounds like powerful stuff and a film which is about something -- which is a rare beast indeed in these souless, action, game, comic book movie days.

[Jim]

Curious sort of thread.

[OmarB]

Sucess does not solely depend on how much cash it rakes it man. Maybe they in fact have done what they set out to do with the mocie and told the story they wanted to tell.

I'll be the first to admit that Crash and Million Dollar Baby were good movies, well written but I didn't enjoy them. I can recognize a well put together story but they are not what I call fun or are movies I would go to the theater and watch. Hey, if I'm going to the theater I'm seeing something fun, not something adult and serious, this new one I'll see on DVD too.

[Germanlady]

Yawn.

Craig, with his ill fated choices, should also consider what he does in between. All these craps movies with big stars might lead him on the road of Laz when he is finished with Bond. He should have done 3 small independent movies already, with no stars, but real talent. Hell, I could direct Craig and make more money than Golden bollocks with any of my subjects.

Daniel : change agent.

This year he has done a small independant film (Flashbacks of a fool) being even co-producer and now is shooting "Defiance", which is considered so far even as Oscar material. And as it

[HildebrandRarity]

Well...Haggis does movies that "the James Bond audience" en mass don't particularly care for. I see a hell of a lot of movies first run and the subject matter for his films do nothing for me.

As far as Oscars are concerned...well...the fact that Casino Royale was not nominated for one means that the Oscars are meaningless pieces of politically-correct and hyped/funded fare for a minority of self-promoting eliteist and arty snobs.

Barabara and Michael had better have some control over Bond 22 and make it entertaining and fun instead of letting this guy run the franchise into the ground with an overdose of unwanted morose and depressing realism.

[Harmsway]

Well...Haggis does movies that "the James Bond audience" en mass don't particularly care for.

Perhaps so, but that's a strength, not a weakness.

As far as Oscars are concerned...well...the fact that Casino Royale was not nominated for one means that the Oscars are meaningless pieces of politically-correct and hyped/funded fare for a minority of self-promoting eliteist and arty snobs.

Did you even see the films you're decrying as "meaningless pieces of politically-correct and hyped/funded fare"? Just curious.

Barabara and Michael had better have some control over Bond 22 and make it entertaining and fun instead of letting this guy run the franchise into the ground with an overdose of unwanted morose and depressing realism.

I don't see any indication that Haggis will do that. He didn't do it for CASINO ROYALE (in fact, he was responsible for a good deal of the humor in that), and he won't do it in BOND 22.

[Righty007]

Barabara and Michael had better have some control over Bond 22 and make it entertaining and fun instead of letting this guy run the franchise into the ground with an overdose of unwanted morose and depressing realism.

Did we see the same Casino Royale? It is entertaining and fun.

[Loomis]

Well...Haggis does movies that "the James Bond audience" en mass don't particularly care for.

Perhaps so, but that's a strength, not a weakness.

As far as Oscars are concerned...well...the fact that Casino Royale was not nominated for one means that the Oscars are meaningless pieces of politically-correct and hyped/funded fare for a minority of self-promoting eliteist and arty snobs.

Did you even see the films you're decrying as "meaningless pieces of politically-correct and hyped/funded fare"? Just curious.

Barabara and Michael had better have some control over Bond 22 and make it entertaining and fun instead of letting this guy run the franchise into the ground with an overdose of unwanted morose and depressing realism.

I don't see any indication that Haggis will do that. He didn't do it for CASINO ROYALE (in fact, he was responsible for a good deal of the humor in that), and he won't do it in BOND 22.

Hildebrand, I get the sense that you have for some strange reason formed the impression that the Paul Haggis of BOND 22 is all of a sudden a completely different creative individual to the Paul Haggis who worked on CASINO ROYALE, a film that, if memory serves, you (quite rightly) went beserk with enthusiasm for. Where's the reason for panic, exactly?

BTW, bought FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA on DVD the other day - anyone here seen 'em? Any good? Don't know how well they did at the B.O., but I doubt that their performance will have had any effect on what Haggis is putting into his BOND 22 script, or indeed on the theatrical takings of BOND 22.

[dinovelvet]

Hildebrand, I get the sense that you have for some strange reason formed the impression that the Paul Haggis of BOND 22 is all of a sudden a completely different creative individual to the Paul Haggis who worked on CASINO ROYALE, a film that, if memory serves, you (quite rightly) went beserk with enthusiasm for. Where's the reason for panic, exactly?

BTW, bought FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA on DVD the other day - anyone here seen 'em? Any good? Don't know how well they did at the B.O., but I doubt that their performance will have had any effect on what Haggis is putting into his BOND 22 script, or indeed on the theatrical takings of BOND 22.

They weren't much cop at the box office, but since we're on the subject, Haggis was nominated for an Oscar yet again for Letters.

[Turn]

Well...Haggis does movies that "the James Bond audience" en mass don't particularly care for. I see a hell of a lot of movies first run and the subject matter for his films do nothing for me.

But for a writer, how is this a bad thing? Does 98 percent of the Bond audience that doesn't hang around forums such as this even have a clue who Paul Haggis is? Just mentioning "Oscar-winning" and "Oscar-nominated" perks up ears whether they know what for or like the subject matter.

[HildebrandRarity]

To Harmsway: Yes I actually saw The Departed...on opening day. How It won an Oscar while Casino Royale didnt even get a mention says everything you need to know about Oscars.

To Righty007 and Loomis: Yes I liked Casino Royale but it was (if memory serves) MOSTLY an Ian Fleming and Purvis and Wade story/screenplay. It was NOT mostly Haggis. Ian Fleming and P+W at least have given us "action adventure entertainment"...Haggis does other stuff which I generally would not bother shelling out any money for at the theatre.. It's as plain as that.

The last time I checked, I (and millions upon millions of others) go see James Bond films because of the unique aspirational elements of a franchise that is steeped in the "action adventure entertainment" segment of the market.

I hope that Bond 22 is fantastic entertainment and not some boring, depressing drama based in everyday reality (Haggis' forte'). Bond is NOT about everyday reality and I hope Bond 22 maintains the tradition of the 21 that passed before it.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 07 October 2007 - 08:36 AM.

[Harmsway]

BTW, bought FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA on DVD the other day - anyone here seen 'em? Any good?

I liked them. They're not "brilliant," and showcase some of Haggis' penchant for heavy-handedness in his stories, but I think there's enough there to make them worthwhile viewing (morso in the case of LETTERS than FLAGS).

To Righty007 and Loomis: Yes I liked Casino Royale but it was (if memory serves) MOSTLY an Ian Fleming and Purvis and Wade story/screenplay.

Nonsense. The more we find out about Haggis' contributions, the more substantial his impact appears. There's no reason to divy up credit the way you do.

Furthermore, Ian Fleming ultimately had very little to do with CASINO ROYALE beyond providing the basic concept. I just gave it a watch the other day... The film is a wholly different animal that takes the basic skeleton of Fleming's work and then takes it in different directions throughout.

Ian Fleming and P+W at least have given us "action adventure entainment"...Haggis DOES NOT. It's as plain as that.

No, it's not as plain as that. For what it's worth, after doing his initial work on the script (which was a substantial rewrite, not just a quick touch-up as some have suggested), Haggis was brought back to help retool the action scenes.

[kneelbeforezod]

Barabara and Michael had better have some control over Bond 22 and make it entertaining and fun instead of letting this guy run the franchise into the ground with an overdose of unwanted morose and depressing realism.

I'm just gonna say what everyone is thinking: ridiculous comment. You haven't seen any of his films, you have no idea what is talents are as a writer, or what his contribution to Casino Royale was. A teeny bit ignorant in fact.

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 07 October 2007 - 05:08 AM.