84 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

Nonsense?

Will anyone here provide us with a draft of Casino Royale pre-Haggis and then another one post-Haggis?

If people here are so "in" with what his contribution was to the last James Bond film then let's see it.

I mean this site is a logical place to have such things revealed, is it not?

And why are people on this site seeing his work only on DVD (mainly on the back of his Bond association) as opposed to seeing it first run on the big screen.

Oh sure, there might be one or two who saw Crash or MDB or Iwo Jima or Valley Of Elah upon realease but they seem to be few and far between.

And no one has still been able to explain why Casino Royale didnt get an Oscar nomination (which leads one to suggest that Oscar credentials should be let on the door mat when discussing how to write an entertaining James Bond movie)

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 07 October 2007 - 01:12 PM.

[MarkA]

Oh sure, there might be one or two who saw Crash or MDB or Iwo Jima or Valley Of Elah upon realease but they seem to be few and far between.

I have seen all of the above films. Some might be a bit heavy handed but all are fascinating extremely well made films. BUT I HAVE SEEN THEM. I have no truck with people who pass judgement without first taking in what they criticise.

Comparing CASINO ROYALE to the two previous Purvis and Wade Bond's I would surmise that Haggis' contribution was pretty significant.

I have always thought that the Oscar's were an extremely political award ceremony and very suspect. Explain how Scorcese lost out for years with brilliant ground breaking movies, and then gets one for a fairly average remake. Don't worry about the Oscars they are often wrong. If you enjoyed it fine, that's what it

Edited by MarkA, 07 October 2007 - 10:01 AM.

[Loomis]

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.

There I actually agree with you. CASINO ROYALE is ten times the film THE DEPARTED is. I also think - and I'm being quite serious - that ROCKY BALBOA deserved a couple of nominations (Stallone for Best Director, Best Screenplay and Best Actor, and maybe the cinematography could also have been nominated), but I guess that's just me.

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.

Actually, I'm not a Haggis fan - I disliked MILLION DOLLAR BABY and CRASH, but I am a fan of Haggis when he's wearing his James Bond hat. He didn't screw up CASINO ROYALE (quite the reverse), so I don't see why he'd screw up BOND 22.

I don't know why you're implying that Haggis' contribution to CASINO ROYALE was minimal, or that all the good bits came courtesy of Fleming and P&W. I admit that I don't have a pre-Haggis draft and a post-Haggis one in order to make comparisons, but have you? As Harmsway says, there's no reason to divvy up the credit the way you're doing.

I hope that Bond 22 is fantastic entertainment and not some boring, depressing drama based in everyday reality (Haggis' forte').

You could also say that this is Craig's forte - look at films like THE MOTHER, ENDURING LOVE and LAYER CAKE, and TV shows like OUR FRIENDS IN THE NORTH. He's not exactly Steve Martin, is he? And yet he doesn't bring excessive amounts of this, his stock-in-trade, crashing down with the dead hand of the Serious Ac-tor™ when he's doing Bond, because he's, well, he's making a Bond film. And Haggis works in a similar way, i.e. The Principle of Horses For Courses - when you're writing for Eastwood, you do something a bit heavy and Oscar-baiting, when you're writing for Bond, you write in a different style, and when you're writing for WALKER, TEXAS RANGER, you do something else entirely.

Besides, a couple of films ago the Bond series was "boring, depressing drama based in everyday reality": THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. Which Haggis had nothing to do with, but P&W had quite a bit to do with.

[bond 16.05.72]

I really don't see Haggis giving us boring everyday sombre kitchen sink drama's. HR didn't you read the interviews with him, if I recall he looks at the Bond scripts as fun and doesn't see them in the more heavy drama's mode he's been acclaimed for.

CR was great fun but it also had more substance than any Bond film had in decades. I personally found CR just about perfect, I had no problem with the script like some, I personally don't expect Robert Towne Chinatown quality scripts.

CR is a Bond film when all said and done but Haggis gave it the kind of feel it hasn't seen since OHMSS.

Although Connery's FRWL performance is my fav I still think as a whole Majesty's is was my fav entry. This is because it was invested with emotion and substance and that for me though a rarity defines Bond better than the widely excepted tenplate of say GF, YOLT or SWLM.

CR struck the best balance between all the elements I wanted in a Bond film and I think the combination of Forster & Haggis will be even better.

The fact CR delivered spades more quality than any of PB's entries and that PH was involved tells me he was more than just involved with a mere polish of the material.

So what if they have no more Fleming to rely on, it's not like anything has even resembled any of his original work since OHMSS until CR anyway.

I'd rather see an original idea with the spirit of Fleming contained than some film with one of his titles which bore no resemblance to the source material.

Also those who moan about the way CR was updated, if you read FRWL in particular, there's none of the action sequences in the book. The film captures the essences of the book but that wonderful PTS isn't even in there.

If you take into account the time the bits inserted into the film FRWL not in the novel FRWL is no more diverting from the novel than CR 06 diverted from Fleming CR.

This criticism of CR to me seems ridiculous when you've got MR & LALD which bare hardly any similarity to Fleming's work yet are given his titles.

LTK had elements of LALD in it and in my opinion it's better either of those films.

I believe you may well see some Fleming in Haggis's & P&W's script.

Having a Fleming novel's to use as a basis for a film doesn't mean it automatically is gonna be good as a number of entries in the series have proved.

For this fact alone I think it's being a bit premature writing Bond 22 off as a failure just cause a Fleming novel doesn't appear to be the basis of it's conception.

[Royal Dalton]

When it comes down to it, the only thing that matters for Bond 22, is what the script for Bond 22 is like.

Every other film Haggis has written, how much money they've made, and the number of trophies he's got on his mantelpiece, is irrelevant.

I recommend waiting to see how the script turns out before bitching about it, or, indeed, kissing his bum for writing it.

[Rusty Cage]

I just saw In The Valley Of Elah the other night. Honestly, it may be the best movie I've seen this year.

[Johnboy007]

I remember reading a very positive review of it in Atlanta Journal Constitution a few days ago.

Still, if we must call it a "bomb", The "Legend of Zorro" was a definite bomb but didn't really affect Campbell.

[HH007]

My local critic only gave Elah 2 out of 4 stars... but he tends to be harsh on Oscar bait type movies.

As far as Haggis's contribution to CR, I remember the producers saying that he not only polished the dialogue, he helped flesh out the characters and their relationships. And it sounds like this is what he's doing with Bond 22, letting P&W lay down the foundation for him to build on.

[NVT]

Does anyone remember Due South?
Was not that created by Haggis, one of the few decent TV shows from the 90s's.

Maybe he could make a movie version of it, the mountie is transfered to the CSIS. The name is Fraiser, Benton Fraiser.

[HildebrandRarity]

Well well...

Look at the top story on page 1.

Haggis' plot was tossed in the garbage bin and he finds Bond 22 to be tough going because he does not have Fleming to bail him out.

Looks like i was correct about my reservations about this guy.

He writes about boring that i can switch on the t.v. and get.

James Bond is about action adventure entertainment and aspirational elements to boot and Haggis knows nothing in this regard.

Leave him to come up with lame dramas which sniff the oscar voters bums and hire a writer that can give us some terrific Bondian entertaiment.

[Righty007]

Well well...

Look at the top story on page 1.

Haggis' plot was tossed in the garbage bin and he finds Bond 22 to be tough going because he does not have Fleming to bail him out.

Looks like i was correct about my reservations about this guy.

He writes about boring that i can switch on the t.v. and get.

James Bond is about action adventure entertainment and aspirational elements to boot and Haggis knows nothing in this regard.

Leave him to come up with lame dramas which sniff the oscar voters bums and hire a writer that can give us some terrific Bondian entertaiment.

This is complete garbage. Nothing you say about Haggis can be respected until you see Crash and/or Million Dollar Baby. Opinions are fine. Opinions based on nothing are annoying.

Your only experience with him is Casino Royale and I find it hard to believe that you don't enjoy watching that film.

[HildebrandRarity]

I do enjoy watching it...i saw it 6 times in the theatre. But unlike like you I put Casino Royale down to Ian Fleming, Eon, Daniel Craig and P+W. In that order.

Now that Haggis doesnt have an Fleming book in front of him, the going seems much tougher...He's admitting it.

[Judo chop]

Well well...

Look at the top story on page 1.

Haggis' plot was tossed in the garbage bin and he finds Bond 22 to be tough going because he does not have Fleming to bail him out.

Looks like i was correct about my reservations about this guy.

He writes about boring that i can switch on the t.v. and get.

James Bond is about action adventure entertainment and aspirational elements to boot and Haggis knows nothing in this regard.

Leave him to come up with lame dramas which sniff the oscar voters bums and hire a writer that can give us some terrific Bondian entertaiment.

Seriously Hildy

[HildebrandRarity]

The dialoge might well be sparkling and witty and crackingly good...but if the story is not entertaining in an action adventure sort of way (or ends up being dour, boring and overly dramatic) then...we'll just have to see.

Obviously they already threw his first draft in the garbage bin...it's getting late in the day. It might make sense for Eon to hedge their bets and get some other talent in the pipeline ready to go.

Eon are, after all, in the business of making blockbuster entertainment with a style unto itself. They have no history in making dramatic art house flicks which only the oscar voters and their mums are interested in seeing.

[Harmsway]

Obviously they already threw his first draft in the garbage bin...

From what it seems, they didn't toss his draft in the bin. Just the story he was writing from, and we have no idea how much of the story was actually thrown out (because I highly doubt this will bear no resemblance to what has come before).

[Robinson]

Eon are, after all, in the business of making blockbuster entertainment with a style unto itself. They have no history in making dramatic art house flicks which only the oscar voters and their mums are interested in seeing.

"With a style unto itself" has to be taken with a grain of salt. EON is quite willing to take its cues from certain bandwagons/movements when it needs to:

• Blaxploitation (Live and Let Die) & SciFi (Moonraker)
• The post-HIV/AIDS mid-eighties environment (The Living Daylights)
• The post 9/11 world (Die Another Day)
• The Reboots/Re-imagination phenomena (Casino Royale)

That "style unto itself" had also been called formulaic and chliched during Brosnan's tenure (post Goldeneye). EON knew they needed to punch up the dialogue for CR & make it, dare I'd say "adult sounding," so Haggis got the call.

Yeah, it's easier when you've got Fleming matierial to work with. Given that rationale, you could also turn your ire to Purvis & Wade, Babs Brocoli & Michael G. Wilson and even Cubby Brocoli for their post TLD work. Filmmaking's a collaborative effort & no one individual can lay sole claim to a film that's successful (or one that's not).

To harp on Haggis' box office "failures" and the fact that 22's first draft (a FIRST draft) was tossed as a sign of his ineptness, is akin to the anti-Craig bashing that went on when he assumed the mantle. IHMO it has nothing to do with anything.

To that, I say your entitled to your opinion but I also say context is everything. What has EON done outside of the Bond franchise? Have they produced anything to mainstream acclaim and big box office besides a Bond film? Here's Babs' resume courtesy of IMDB:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0110483/

Here are Michael G. Wilson's credits:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0933865/

The answer: NOTHING. But that does nothing to diminish their respective abilities as writers and producers. So I don't think Haggis' lack of Box Office cache makes him ill-served to contribute something to the script and screenplay for Bond 22.

[dodge]

Dear God, what have I returned to after my cross-country move? Has my old friend Hildebrand really started THIS--trashing poor Paul Haggis as an Oscar bum-sniffer, etc.?

Haggis did LESS work on CR than is generally thought? I hardly know how to respond to this charge, since P&W have never come close to the flash and pizzazz of CR. And I can't recall a lick of CR's bountiful humor in the book. Or the superb characterizations, particularly the young Bond.

Anyway, I'll be anxious to see how Marc Forster's own latest Oscar bum-sniffer fares: The Kite Runner, in the trailers I've seen, looks as guilty as all get-out on the same charges raised against Haggis.

For the record: I've actually seen In The Valley of Elah. And, while I can understand, why it didn't make a lot of money (bad title, downbeat tone, Tommy Lee Jones looking long in the tooth, etc.), I'm glad I saw the film and glad that it got made.

CR didn't reach the heights it reached in spite of Paul Haggis. It reached the heights, in large part, because of his contribution. When all is said and done, at this point, he's no less a Party Animal than our possibly Auteur Director. Since most-everyone's on the Marc Wagon, despite his completely lack of experience in the "aspirational action" genre, why not extend the same courtesy to Paul Haggis?

After all, Haggis did make his bones with CR. Since when do No Credentials trump Limited Credentials?

[Mr. Blofeld]

After all, Haggis did make his bones with CR. Since when do No Credentials trump Limited Credentials?

When Lewis Gilbert got the nod for YOLT instead of Peter Hunt, I guess.

Haggis has some experience, but Forster is a complete unknown. Sure, Stranger Than Fiction was a pretty good drama, but, then again, so was Alfie.

[Dr. Noah]

Hey, HR:

If you think Haggis is a bad choice to write the film because he only writes Oscar contenders and Eon tossed out one of his plot ideas, then why champion P&W -- they wrote Jinx, and Eon apparently tossed out their entire script for 22!

[Qwerty]

I saw this last night and really enjoyed it. It works particularly well thanks to the performances by Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron.

[Loomis]

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).

Having now seen FLAGS, I'd agree that it's eminently watchable, but certainly not "brilliant". It's co-produced by Spielberg, and I could easily believe he'd directed it, too, since it:

- Boasts some extremely PRIVATE RYANish battle scenes.

- Has an absolutely riveting, and very stylish, first half hour or so that completely eclipses everything else. I find this fairly typical of Spielberg's films - they start out superbly, but then sort of.... well, see below:

- Begins to lose its way pretty badly round about the midway point, petering out into an overextended, sluggish ending in which points and morals that should already be crystal clear to even the dimmest viewer are unnecessarily hammered home with sledgehammer-like subtlety while gallons of sentimentality are ruthlessly discharged.

But it was, as we know, directed by Clint. And, like I say, it's still a decent flick. (BTW, how hard would we have laughed if, twenty years ago, we'd been informed that Clint Eastwood, of all people, would be one of the most acclaimed directors of the early 21st century?) And while the somewhat STAND BY ME-esque script verges on making the bizarre assertion that war is a good thing because it leads to close male bonding, co-writer Haggis most certainly does not come out of this one looking like some kind of nefarious arthouse merchant who's poised to ruin James Bond with his obscure and fancy ways. On the contrary, he looks as mainstream and conservative and commercial as they come - just the sort of guy who should be writing for folks like Eastwood and Spielberg. And 007.

[Harmsway]

Having now seen FLAGS, I'd agree that it's eminently watchable, but certainly not "brilliant".

I largely agree with your assessment of FLAGS. As far as a "written by Paul Haggis" film, I find FLAGS more watchable and enjoyable than his two more-acclaimed efforts, MILLION DOLLAR BABY and CRASH.

For what it's worth, I find LETTERS to be a big step up from FLAGS, for what it's worth (they're both remarkably different). It's avoids the "subtle as a sledghammer" quality that FLAGS has.

I've yet to see IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, but I've heard good things about that one (though I understand, that like many of Haggis' films, it's pretty heavyhanded in its message).

On the contrary, he looks as mainstream and conservative and commercial as they come - just the sort of guy who should be writing for folks like Eastwood and Spielberg. And 007.

Precisely. Haggis is far from David Mamet.

[HildebrandRarity]

Hey, HR:

If you think Haggis is a bad choice to write the film because he only writes Oscar contenders and Eon tossed out one of his plot ideas, then why champion P&W -- they wrote Jinx, and Eon apparently tossed out their entire script for 22!

me...where o where have I championed P+W in this thread?

I, on the other hand, DO NOT relish the idea of a James Bond movie ENTIRELY penned by Haggis (Read: ENTIRELY).

Haggis on board obviously provides "academy cred" which, I imagine, helps when it comes to getting good pub from the critics. And yes he's an acclaimed writer, blah, blah, blah...

...but I would like someone other than just Haggis to be along for the ride. Not Haggis ONLY.

I hope i'm making myself clear.

I mean how many times do I have to keep repeating the same thing over and over again: Haggis' 'expertise' lies in areas* other than what i've termed in this and another thread as "aspirational action adventure entertainment".

*CR being an exception where he was 'helped' by Ian Fleming, P+W and Eon's desire to take chances and challenge themselves.



And by the way, Jinx was tossed out because Tomb Raider 2 and Charley's Angels 2 were box office failures and Berry was demonstrating a propensity of not being able to open a film. Believe me, i'm not defending P+W 'cause they can defend themselves if they so choose.

Also, I dont think Casino Royale sold any more tickets* than Die Another Day other than in the growing markets of Russia/Eastern Europe, India and China. This coupled with an ever declining US Dollar v other currencies helped CR's box office AS I HAD PREDICTED ($550 million) on these threads (just as I had predicted that DAD would go above 400m worldwide back in the early fall of 2002 as "ray t" on these threads.)

People were pooh-poohing those predictions on these threads in 2002 and 2006 until they both came about.

So I think i'm entitled to my opinion and concerns about Bond 22 solely being penned by Paul Haggis.

*England and Denmark being an exception because of nationality w respect to DC and Mads.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 18 October 2007 - 12:25 AM.

[Dr. Noah]

Hey, HR:

If you think Haggis is a bad choice to write the film because he only writes Oscar contenders and Eon tossed out one of his plot ideas, then why champion P&W -- they wrote Jinx, and Eon apparently tossed out their entire script for 22!

me...where o where have I championed P+W in this thread?

I, on the other hand, DO NOT relish the idea of a James Bond movie ENTIRELY penned by Haggis (Read: ENTIRETY).

Haggis on board provides "academy cred" which, I imagine, helps when it comes to getting good pub from the critics. And yes he's an acclaimed writer, blah, blah, blah...

...but I would like someone other than Haggis to be along for the ride too. Not Haggis ONLY.

Have I made myself clear?

I mean how many ing times do I have to keep repeating the same damn thing over and over again: Haggis' 'expertise' lies in areas* other than what i've termed in this and another thread as "aspirational action adventure entertainment".

*CR being an exception where he was 'helped' by Ian Fleming, P+W and Eon's desire to take chances and challenge themselves.

You have never made yourself clear. And, you'd have to have watched one of Haggis' movies first to have any kind of worthwhile point. Why should anybody value an opinion based on nothing? What is your point? That they should dig up Fleming and ask him what to do? Or do you have any other writers whose work you've never seen that you would recommend?

[Harmsway]

...but I would like someone other than just Haggis to be along for the ride. Not Haggis ONLY.

On a Bond film, there always is. EON, the director, and the writer(s) collaborate on the story. The Bond plots are hammered out and evolve in committee discussions. It's not like Haggis is wielding singular control over BOND 22's script (though I'd be fascinated to see what BOND 22 would like if he was).

Haggis' 'expertise' lies in areas* other than what i've termed in this and another thread as "aspirational action adventure entertainment".

Perhaps he hasn't had a ton of films produced in that area, but that hardly means he's incapable of handling it. And he at least had a starter course in tackling such "aspirational action adventure entertainment." Yes, he was helped, but maybe that serves as training for taking a bigger role, given that they were (and I was) happy with what he provided the last time around.

[HildebrandRarity]

I went back to edit my post. I apologise for it's initial tone.

[Dr. Noah]

No offense taken. You were denigrating Haggis, not me.

I'm fine with having one writer on the film, especially a proven writer. IMO the worst films of the series, like MWTGG, DAF, TND, had a lot of writers on them. Too many cooks. Not enough of the original vision.

By the way, if what was posted here is true -- that Haggis was the creator of the staircase scene and the resulting shower scene afterwards, I'd say he's responsible for the key moment in Casino Royale, if not the entire emotional core of the film, with her witnessing, then aiding in a murder, followed by her reaction to it in the shower and his response. None of it was in Fleming's book, either, and the story is much better for it. I liked Vesper in the film much more than in the book -- maybe liked is a bad word -- I found her more interesting in the film than in the book.

So I'm looking forward to Haggis' take. I look forward to other peoples' takes, too, in future movies. There's been 23 of them so far (counting NSNA, which is another take I enjoyed), and it could easily get redundant and boring, so it's nice to see how different people handle the character.

[HildebrandRarity]

Yes...I've enjoyed all the different takes including The Spy Who Loved Me which, btw, has everyone and their grandmother involved in writing, credited and uncredited.

I think it would be 'interesting' to see Haggis take a shot at doing Bond 22 ON HIS OWN ONLY...but 'interesting' might not necessarily translate into 'terrific' and successful in a James Bond sort of way.

Perhaps my judgement is clouded by my complete disinterest in paying to see movies such as Crash, MDB, Iwo Jima/Flags and Valley of Elah.

So there you have it.

[Dr. Noah]

Yes...I've enjoyed all the different takes including The Spy Who Loved Me which, btw, has everyone and their grandmother involved in writing, credited and uncredited.

I think it would be 'interesting' to see Haggis take a shot at doing Bond 22 ON HIS OWN ONLY...but 'interesting' might not necessarily translate into 'terrific' and successful in a James Bond sort of way.

Perhaps my judgement is clouded by my complete disinterest in paying to see movies such as Crash, MDB, Iwo Jima/Flags and Valley of Elah.

So there you have it.

I don't mind bringing in people from different disciplines to do these films. Who would've believed the director of SWINGERS would create such a good Bourne film?

TSWLM did have a lot of different writers, including Burgess and John Landis, etc., but most of them were writing their takes at the development stage, and their ideas were completely discarded. The final story was supposedly written in a room with Cubby, Wood and the director. At least as far as I've heard.

[Harmsway]

By the way, if what was posted here is true -- that Haggis was the creator of the staircase scene and the resulting shower scene afterwards, I'd say he's responsible for the key moment in Casino Royale, if not the entire emotional core of the film, with her witnessing, then aiding in a murder, followed by her reaction to it in the shower and his response. None of it was in Fleming's book, either, and the story is much better for it. I liked Vesper in the film much more than in the book -- maybe liked is a bad word -- I found her more interesting in the film than in the book.

Haggis was indeed responsible for that bit, and yes, I agree that its effect is phenomenal. It improves Fleming's story and takes the intimacy between Bond and Vesper to a new level.

But that's among the more "dramatic" material. Haggis is also responsible for a great deal of work on the action scenes, the humorous dialogue, among other things. He played a great part in shaping CASINO ROYALE into what it was... it was not, as some believe, a simple "dialogue polish."

Yes...I've enjoyed all the different takes including The Spy Who Loved Me which, btw, has everyone and their grandmother involved in writing, credited and uncredited.

Yeah, but the "story" is hardly one of TSWLM's strong points. And ultimately, there were a lot of writers, but the drafts were so wildly different from eachother, they can hardly be considered rewrites as much as they are entirely separate drafts. Wood and Cubby then hashed together a film picking bits from each of them.

I think it would be 'interesting' to see Haggis take a shot at doing Bond 22 ON HIS OWN ONLY...but 'interesting' might not necessarily translate into 'terrific' and successful in a James Bond sort of way.

I'd be willing to take the risk. If it fails, it fails, but it's hardly the end of the world. But I don't see any indication that Haggis would lead us into unBondian territory.