273 replies to this topic

[Dr. Noah]

Fleming only wrote about a half hour of what we saw in CR. They did a pretty good job with Africa, Miami and Venice. Can't wait for the next one, personally.

[RazorBlade]

Latest word is, he'll get round to polishing the script, as soon as he's finished polishing his head.

I still think there are some great writers out there who could do a smashing job.

Zorin Industries wrote
"Like who?"

I have been over other writers on other threads and they've been cussed and discussed but to recap some of them:

Shane Black
Nick Kazan (& Robin Swicord?)
Scott Rosenberg
And tons of writers who post here. Why not get a new writer a chance? We're cheap.

As for Haggis, we just got THE BLACK DONNALLYS a show about a bunch of people who weren't black. It wasn't a very good show and didn't last very long. Thank goodness. Maybe everyone cheering for Haggis needs to remember that it's Paul Haggis, a writer with his own string of hit or miss (speaking of Tony Scott) projects, not Bill Shakespere.

Edited by RazorBlade, 24 May 2007 - 07:32 AM.

[blueman]

Should I be disappointed that Haggis is back? Upset? I like what he brought to CR, glad he's on board for Bond 22. After decades of crappy scripts, CR's was most welcome. I'll gladly take another serving of Haggis.

[Zorin Industries]

I would always be in favor of a Peter Weir Bond. IMHO, the tone of his films so far would suggests he would really suit the more realistic approach of Craig's acting and Haggis's writing.

Peter Weir...now there's a good thought...

[thecasinoroyale]

Great news, and one that is bosting my hopes for an even better Bond than Casino Royale. Building on what works is the way forward!


I say building, not repeating.

[ACE]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='741592' date='24 May 2007 - 07:21'][quote name='dinovelvet' post='741578' date='24 May 2007 - 04:27']

You've got to wonder exactly what WOULD be good enough for certain people. EON could resurrect Ian Fleming and get him to write the script, get the ghosts of Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick to co-direct it, Elvis Presley to do the theme song and Beethoven to score it, and someone would still be complaining that Felix is black.[/quote]

You

[Royal Dalton]

What an erudite, intelligent and well-argued post, SecretAgentFan

I'll second that.

[SecretAgentFan]

[quote name='ACE' post='741630' date='24 May 2007 - 10:16'][quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='741592' date='24 May 2007 - 07:21'][quote name='dinovelvet' post='741578' date='24 May 2007 - 04:27']

You've got to wonder exactly what WOULD be good enough for certain people. EON could resurrect Ian Fleming and get him to write the script, get the ghosts of Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick to co-direct it, Elvis Presley to do the theme song and Beethoven to score it, and someone would still be complaining that Felix is black.[/quote]

You

[ACE]

Cheers SecretAgentFan

I have some involvement in screenwriting and film production and have to endure a lot of scripts. Purvis and Wade are constantly working and hired by other directors to write different types of material. How many of the other, regular Bond screenwriters can one say that about? (Maibaum had a career pre-Bond but not much post, Mankiewicz had some notable post-Bond successes - that's all, I think).

They are huge Fleming and Bond fans who really know their stuff and, I understand, are very nice, down-to-earth people.

Thanks for the book tip.

P and W also talk about their work in a British equivalent of your recommended book http://www.amazon.co...n...5762&sr=8-1

[SecretAgentFan]

Interesting! Will check it out to see if it

[dodge]

The minor Haggis backlash is interesting, lively...and even welcome because it's so well-expressed by those in the field. But let's not be too quick to trash P&W entirely--or to rule out the real possibility that Haggis' CR rewrite was an enormous improvement. Screenwriting's a collaborative effort. Okay. No doubt P&W were forced to make countless compromises. Happens all the time. But where in their past efforts is anything approaching the levels of accomplishment and sophistication seen in CR? Not just the dialogue, the emotional intensity, etc. I don't see a trace of it. On the other hand, with Haggis, I do in both Crash and Million Dollar Baby, the two films of his that I've seen.

P&W may be stronger than PH in laying out a Bond-type tale and getting down the beats. But I believe Eon's paying Haggis the big bucks for more than fiddling with the dialogue and lending his cachet.

Can we all meet somewhere in the middle? Props to P&W, hopefully, for the plot line, structure and characters. Props to Haggis for transforming it all into dazzling adult magic.

[Harmsway]

The minor Haggis backlash is interesting, lively...and even welcome because it's so well-expressed by those in the field. But let's not be too quick to trash P&W entirely--or to rule out the real possibility that Haggis' CR rewrite was an enormous improvement. Screenwriting's a collaborative effort. Okay. No doubt P&W were forced to make countless compromises. Happens all the time. But where in their past efforts is anything approaching the levels of accomplishment and sophistication seen in CR? Not just the dialogue, the emotional intensity, etc. I don't see a trace of it.

Agreed. That said, their "gritty" JINX script was apparently good enough to get Stephen Frears on board, and they didn't have any help with that. From recent interviews, it seems that P&W are, for the first time, free to experiment (they seemed very anxious to stay away from the safe and formulaic elements of the franchise).

But I believe Eon's paying Haggis the big bucks for more than fiddling with the dialogue and lending his cachet.

You know it.

[plankattack]

Everyone's very educated opinions on the roles of P&W, Haggis, are making this thread great reading. I know someone else has said it, but ultimately the influence of the aforementioned trio, and the to-be-named director, is all controlled by the length of leash allowed by Babs and Michael. As is always said, these are producers' films (something which has on occasion been to the series' detriment). While discovering who did what re: the script, who polished who's thingys, who came up with what structure, is fascinating in itself, the major factor will be, where do the producers stand? What type of film has been commisioned.

Take things like the inclusion of Q or Moneypenny. These decisions are ultimately made by Babs and Michael - the writers' job to make it work. The much-maligned DAD, for example - many of us have taken our shots at P, W, Lee, and Halle, but at the end of the day, it's EON's call to make a tribute movie that attempted to keep all corners of the fanbase happy, leading to the sometimes questionable quality up on-screen. Babs and Michael decided to make CR in as true to the spirit of the novel as they could - so while the three amigos get credit for bringing that to fruition, the lion's share of credit should go to Fleming and EON.

Sure, I hope Bond 22 is a good story, don't we all? But in my mind, the question that I want answered is what type/style of story are we going to get? P,W, and now H, are the workmen to an extent, Babs and Michael the ultimate architects. If they decide we're going to be served a space-laser adventure with family-style humour, then to a point it doesn't matter who is writing and who is directing. I have no doubt Haggis can pen a groaner of a pun as well as P, W, Mankiewicz, or Wood.

[00Twelve]

I have no doubt Haggis can pen a groaner of a pun as well as P, W, Mankiewicz, or Wood.

He's got nothing on Fierstein, though.

[dodge]

Now that Plank has raised the T word--and let's hear it for Teamwork!--may I play with the ball? Hey, thanks.

Babs and Michael are indeed the owners of the team. Big-time props to them, I say. But I'm sure Plank never meant to suggest that all the owners need to do is give the order to make a great film. They can hire a new coach. Study past plays and decide on new directions. They must constantly make wise decisions: No date rape or forcible shower sex, boys. No Ron Artest behavior. And Toby Bryanting.

Still, the team that has a Magic has much better odds. And a Magic in conjunction with a LeBron James and a Steve Nash...is already close to unbeatable.

I doubt Babs and Michael ever hoped for anything less than a great film. But the Dream Team dynamic has eluded them for years. Now it's here, including great passes, so far, from P&W to Haggis.

[Santa]

Now that Plank has raised the T word--and let's hear it for Teamwork!--may I play with the ball? Hey, thanks.

Babs and Michael are indeed the owners of the team. Big-time props to them, I say. But I'm sure Plank never meant to suggest that all the owners need to do is give the order to make a great film. They can hire a new coach. Study past plays and decide on new directions. They must constantly make wise decisions: No date rape or forcible shower sex, boys. No Ron Artest behavior. And Toby Bryanting.

Still, the team that has a Magic has much better odds. And a Magic in conjunction with a LeBron James and a Steve Nash...is already close to unbeatable.

I doubt Babs and Michael ever hoped for anything less than a great film. But the Dream Team dynamic has eluded them for years. Now it's here, including great passes, so far, from P&W to Haggis.

What language are you speaking here, my Dodgy friend?

[dodge]

Now that Plank has raised the T word--and let's hear it for Teamwork!--may I play with the ball? Hey, thanks.

Babs and Michael are indeed the owners of the team. Big-time props to them, I say. But I'm sure Plank never meant to suggest that all the owners need to do is give the order to make a great film. They can hire a new coach. Study past plays and decide on new directions. They must constantly make wise decisions: No date rape or forcible shower sex, boys. No Ron Artest behavior. And Toby Bryanting.

Still, the team that has a Magic has much better odds. And a Magic in conjunction with a LeBron James and a Steve Nash...is already close to unbeatable.

I doubt Babs and Michael ever hoped for anything less than a great film. But the Dream Team dynamic has eluded them for years. Now it's here, including great passes, so far, from P&W to Haggis.

What language are you speaking here, my Dodgy friend?

Basketball stuff, dearest darling. To clarify: Magic, LeBron and Steve Nash are regarded as truly exceptional players. Toby Bryant was recently sued for date rape. Ron Artest is quite the thug.

[00Twelve]

Kobe Bryant.

[Judo chop]

Toby Bryant was recently sued for date rape. [/color]

Kobe Bryant.

This is sounding like something out of Roots now.

[Orion]

Everyone's very educated opinions on the roles of P&W, Haggis, are making this thread great reading. I know someone else has said it, but ultimately the influence of the aforementioned trio, and the to-be-named director, is all controlled by the length of leash allowed by Babs and Michael. As is always said, these are producers' films (something which has on occasion been to the series' detriment). While discovering who did what re: the script, who polished who's thingys, who came up with what structure, is fascinating in itself, the major factor will be, where do the producers stand? What type of film has been commisioned.

Take things like the inclusion of Q or Moneypenny. These decisions are ultimately made by Babs and Michael - the writers' job to make it work. The much-maligned DAD, for example - many of us have taken our shots at P, W, Lee, and Halle, but at the end of the day, it's EON's call to make a tribute movie that attempted to keep all corners of the fanbase happy, leading to the sometimes questionable quality up on-screen. Babs and Michael decided to make CR in as true to the spirit of the novel as they could - so while the three amigos get credit for bringing that to fruition, the lion's share of credit should go to Fleming and EON.

Sure, I hope Bond 22 is a good story, don't we all? But in my mind, the question that I want answered is what type/style of story are we going to get? P,W, and now H, are the workmen to an extent, Babs and Michael the ultimate architects. If they decide we're going to be served a space-laser adventure with family-style humour, then to a point it doesn't matter who is writing and who is directing. I have no doubt Haggis can pen a groaner of a pun as well as P, W, Mankiewicz, or Wood.

Here here

[dodge]

Kobe Bryant.

The letters T and K are side by each on my keyboard...when I've had more than two lattes. Best I can do to get out of that typo. Please tell me it's o...'k'!

[00Twelve]

It's ekskusable, I suppose.

[dodge]

It's ekskusable, I suppose.

Thanks, friend. It's all the more embarrassing because I'm such a huge fan of Spiderman's Kobe Maguire.

[Harmsway]

I want to say something in defense of Paul Haggis, because I think he takes a pretty undeserved beating.

While he's not the almighty king of screenwriters, he's had a pretty decent and impressive track record, which is usually not the case for screenwriters. Even the allegedly "great" screenwriters ala David Mamet have huge ups and downs on their resume (Mamet's draft of HANNIBAL is a terrible, terrible script). And Haggis' most recent work, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, was truly phenomenal. As far as artistic credibility goes, Paul Haggis is by far the best screenwriter Bond has ever had, and we should be thanking our stars that a screenwriter of his caliber is involved with Bond.

[spynovelfan]

When something goes wrong, Purvis and Wade are the first to get it and take full responsibility. But when something goes right, it's likely to lose them and they get no credit.

Ah, but some fans can't get used to something so right.

[HildebrandRarity]

I want to say something in defense of Paul Haggis, because I think he takes a pretty undeserved beating.

While he's not the almighty king of screenwriters, he's had a pretty decent and impressive track record, which is usually not the case for screenwriters. Even the allegedly "great" screenwriters ala David Mamet have huge ups and downs on their resume (Mamet's draft of HANNIBAL is a terrible, terrible script). And Haggis' most recent work, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, was truly phenomenal. As far as artistic credibility goes, Paul Haggis is by far the best screenwriter Bond has ever had, and we should be thanking our stars that a screenwriter of his caliber is involved with Bond.

I have not been beating up on him...merely pointing out the fact that Casino Royale was effectively penned by Ian Fleming in content and spirit and by P+W in content.

Perhaps we are lucky that we have Paul Haggis...but perhaps Paul Haggis is lucky to be involved with a franchise that had it's two recent films gross more than $1 Billion world wide. He hasnt gotten a sniff of such a number in film...ever...not even close.

In addition, the Bond franchise is the only "adult" franchise available to him on a mega/commercial scale...everything else is cartoon or CGI or fantasy and I doubt he'd want to associate himself with the likes of wizards, penguins, cars, ogres or zombie pirates...Bond is the only big franchise in town available to him. It's commercially proven whereas nothing he's done has been a world-wide hit. I couldn't care less for Crash or Million Dollar Baby or Iwo Jima...Couldn't!

So...he is lucky too, i'd say. Lucky that he's got the bright shining light of a generation like Daniel Craig to write for as well.

CR was all primarily down to Eon and to Ian Fleming, then P+W, then Haggis with Daniel Craig's gravitas thrown in there somewhere along the line. In that order. I don't think people should forget that.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 24 May 2007 - 06:48 PM.

[Harmsway]

I have not been beating up on him...merely pointing out the fact that Casino Royale was effectively penned by Ian Fleming in content and spirit and by P+W in content.

I don't know how sure we are of the P&W and Haggis roles in this production. You act as if you were there behind the scenes, watching what changed when Haggis came on board. Haggis had to be courted back to BOND 22 by EON, and I'm sure there was a lot of financial incentive for him to come back, as the article suggests. Maybe even creative incentive, because I doubt someone with as busy a schedule and with as much creative freedom as Haggis has would want to be entirely creatively shackled by working in the traditionally very restricted position of Bond screenwriter.

Why would EON drop so much to get him? Well, it's not like his name honestly helped sell CASINO ROYALE (beyond some film geeks, I doubt most people even knew Haggis worked on the film). Their interest in Haggis specifically is more likely due to his actual work and influence.

In addition, the Bond franchise is the only "adult-oriented" franchise available to him on a mega scale...everything else is cartoon or CGI or fantasy and I doubt he'd want to associate himself with the likes of wizards, penguins, cars, ogres or zombie pirates...Bond is the only big franchise in town available to him.

Maybe he doesn't want to be involved with franchises, period? It's not like Paul Haggis was running around saying ot himself, "Oh, I hope I get involved in a movie franchise along the line!" I think he'd be perfectly content if he never worked on a franchise, ever.

He is lucky too, i'd say.

Nonsense. Working on Bond really isn't so much of a privelege, especially since you're very restricted by the producers. Blockbuster franchise or not, Bond had to court Haggis, Haggis didn't have to court Bond.

CR was all primarily down to Eon and to Ian Fleming, then P+W, then Haggis. In that order.

Until you've read the draft of CASINO ROYALE pre-Haggis, you can make no such assertion.

[HildebrandRarity]

I have not been beating up on him...merely pointing out the fact that Casino Royale was effectively penned by Ian Fleming in content and spirit and by P+W in content.

I don't know how sure we are of the P&W and Haggis roles in this production. You act as if you were there behind the scenes, watching what changed when Haggis came on board. Haggis had to be courted back to BOND 22 by EON, and I'm sure there was a lot of financial incentive for him to come back. Why would EON drop so much money on him? Well, it's not like his name honestly helped sell CASINO ROYALE (beyond some film geeks, I doubt most people even knew Haggis worked on the film). Their interest in Haggis specifically is far more likely due to his actual work.

In addition, the Bond franchise is the only "adult-oriented" franchise available to him on a mega scale...everything else is cartoon or CGI or fantasy and I doubt he'd want to associate himself with the likes of wizards, penguins, cars, ogres or zombie pirates...Bond is the only big franchise in town available to him.

Maybe he doesn't want to be involved with franchises, period? It's not like Paul Haggis was running around saying ot himself, "Oh, I hope I get involved in a movie franchise along the line!" I think he'd be perfectly content if he never worked on a franchise, ever.

He is lucky too, i'd say.

Nonsense. Working on Bond really isn't so much of a privelege, especially when you're as restricted by the producers as you are on the Bond franchise. Blockbuster franchise or not, Bond had to court Haggis, Haggis didn't have to court Bond.

CR was all primarily down to Eon and to Ian Fleming, then P+W, then Haggis. In that order.

Until you've read the draft of CASINO ROYALE pre-Haggis, you can make no such assertion.

I don't share your views...I've seen nothing by Haggis (I view CR as Fleming & P+W) and I see a lot of movies upon theatrical release...Nothing he's done (fully on his own without the help of Eon/Fleming) is of any consequence commercially as far as i'm concerned.

How about posting the pre-Haggis draft?

(But what would that prove anyway since 90 percent of the Bonds have their drafts worked on even into filming (including and especially Brosnan's best TND)?)

I did not shell out for umpteen CR tickets because of Haggis, my friend. It was down to James Bond first and Daniel Craig second and the Fleming inspired story and the great stunt work/music/titles and supporting cast and locales next. Haggis would be 12th or 13th down the list.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 24 May 2007 - 07:15 PM.

[Orion]

The more crew from CR that work on Bond 22 the better, they pulled off an incredible film and hopefully would do again. Here's hoping they can cast as well as they did the last time.

Edited by Orion, 24 May 2007 - 07:18 PM.

[Harmsway]

I don't share your views...I've seen nothing by Haggis and I see a lot of movies upon theatrical release...

So? His films are very influential. MILLION DOLLAR BABY, CRASH, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA... those are some big releases.

Nothing he's done is of any consequence commercially as far as i'm concerned.

Commercial success rarely determines who's a heavy hitter in the film industry. And who gives a damn about commercial success, anyway? We're looking at talent and what he brings to the table as a screenwriter and an artist. Not as a commercial draw.

How about posting the pre-Haggis draft?

Nobody has it. So that's what I'm saying... nobody, save EON, knows how much P&W was responsible for and how much Haggis was responsible for. We can only guess at how much was P&W and how much was Haggis, not make absolute statements. Your view that CR = Fleming + P&W is a hypothesis, not a substantiated idea.

(But what would that prove anyway since 90 percent of the Bonds have their drafts worked on even into filming (including and especially Brosnan's best TND)?)

We do have the Haggis draft from December, pre-filming. It's really close to the finished thing.

I did not shell out for umpteen CR tickets because of Haggis, my friend. It was down to James Bond first and Daniel Craig second and the Fleming inspired story and the great stunt work/music/titles and supporting cast and locales next. Haggis would be 12th or 13th down the list.

Almost everything you cited would be for naught if we didn't have a solid script to work from, which is where Haggis comes in.