273 replies to this topic

[dinovelvet]

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!

Both Crash and Million dollar baby were worldwide hits. Like it or not, Haggis is about the biggest deal in town.

[Royal Dalton]

I suspect Haggis' polish was along similar lines to Bruce Fierstein's one for GoldenEye. A few plot alterations here and there, and some tweaking of the dialogue, but overall, not that dissimilar to the script he inherited.

[dodge]

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.

It's fascinating to note that two of the Dream Team's top players had to be actively courted. While so many are scrambling for the job security of a golden franchise, Craig and Haggis both needed persuading. Of what? That it was worth their while. That's rare. Yet all reports I've read indicate that both men had serious doubts, the hell with the big money. The other fascinating thing is this very independence, and insistence upon Quality, drove Eon right up the wall with desire.

Your last point scores too. A gag rule of sorts seems to be in effect. I can understand professionals not putting down others' work. But if P&W really had done a simply sensational job that only needed 'fine-tuning'...then why can't we see their script? Why don't they hasten to show it? If nothing else, why not a few samples? Here are your three favorite scenes, they might say--and here is how we wrote them.

My question is, to you pros: is there a legally binding gag rule? Or why can't we get hold of the original script?

[Harmsway]

I suspect Haggis' polish was along similar lines to Bruce Fierstein's one for GoldenEye. A few plot alterations here and there, and some tweaking of the dialogue, but overall, not that dissimilar to the script he inherited.

Maybe, maybe not. If it was so very similar to the previous draft, though, then why is EON spending big bucks to get him back? They could very clearly get a fairly competent dialogue polisher that they wouldn't have to pay through the nose for.

I think it's very telling that they wouldn't give Daniel Craig the P&W script to get him on board for CASINO ROYALE. They waited until they had the Haggis re-write in hand.

[HildebrandRarity]

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.

Not true. I saw DAD 6 times and TWINE 5 times and TLD 5 times and Moonraker 4 times...at the theatre. Haggis was nowhere to be seen.

There are a fair amount of James Bond fans worlwide who watched the likes of Thunderball and TSWLM without the help of Paul Haggis.

You over-rate his contribution to the success of Casino Royale. I merely put his contribution in perspective.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 24 May 2007 - 07:27 PM.

[Orion]

but i suppose we will never know, just be glad that all three writers from CR are working on it, as then it has a chance of being as good, in the end it doesn't really matter how much each contributed to the previous script.

[Harmsway]

Not true. I saw DAD 6 times and TWINE 5 times and TLD 5 times and Moonraker 4 times...at the theatre. Haggis was nowhere to be seen.

But they're all mediocre films. Putting my Bond fandom aside, even I must admit that my beloved THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is a mediocre film. CASINO ROYALE is the first time in a while we've actually had a good Bond film.

You over-rate his contribution to the success of Casino Royale. I merely put his contribution in perspective.

I don't overrate his contribution to the commercial success of CASINO ROYALE at all, since that was never what I was talking about. I'm evaluating his contribution to the quality of CASINO ROYALE.

And anyhow, I think it's arguable that with such a risky frontman as 007, quality was immensely important in making CASINO ROYALE the smash it was.

[Orion]

Harmsway has a point there.

[HildebrandRarity]

People have forgotten that Haggis joined AFTER Daniel Craig signed on...and DC only signed on AFTER giving the script a huge thumbs up...and that thumbs up was for a Fleming & P+W script.

Why have people forgotten that?

Obviously Harmsway has his view and I have my own view. He rates Haggis' contribution to CR very highly whereas I give PH 'some' credit...but the credit comes AFTER giving Eon, Fleming, DC and P+W the billing without forgeting Arnold's cues during Dinner Jackets and Vesper and Aston Montenegro which add enormous flavour to the film. Haggis, also, (likely) had nothing to do with all the fantastic stuntwork surrounding CR.

Interesting how we've forgotten.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 24 May 2007 - 07:48 PM.

[Orion]

Also a good point, but you have to remember after Die Another Day most people cant seem to think that Purvis and Wade can do a thing right despite the fact the bad stuff in DAD they were told to put in by Tamahori. Let him Have it is a good example of how good P&W are when left to their own devices and with out director intervention. Saying that having Haggis do a "polish" is a good thing, as it sometimes helps when a fresh eye goes through something like this.

[Harmsway]

People have forgotten that Haggis joined AFTER Daniel Craig signed on...

You have your facts mixed up, my friend. Haggis wrote the draft Craig read. Haggis signed on in August, Craig was signed later than that. Furthermore, when praising the script in interviews, Craig clearly noted that it was the excellent script "by Paul Haggis" that won him over.

Haggis, also, (likely) had nothing to do with all the fantastic stuntwork surrounding CR.

News reports indicated that after his initial work on the CR script, EON brought him back to help re-tool the action sequences.

[dinovelvet]

People have forgotten that Haggis joined AFTER Daniel Craig signed on...and DC only signed on AFTER giving the script a huge thumbs up...and that thumbs up was for a Fleming & P+W script.

Nope. It was reported that Haggis was hired on 30 Aug, 2005.

http://commanderbond...=Story&SID=2905

Daniel Craig was announced as James Bond on 14th October.

http://commanderbond.net/article/2949

[kneelbeforezod]

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.

How odd... why on earth judge Haggis in terms of box office all of a sudden? The debate is about how much be brought to the table creatively, and you seem certain that he brought very little, for reasons I can't quite fathom.

[Orion]

does it really matter who contributed how much? as long as they contribute just as much for the next film we have nothing to worry about.

[HildebrandRarity]

People have forgotten that Haggis joined AFTER Daniel Craig signed on...

You have your facts mixed up, my friend. Haggis wrote the draft Craig read. Haggis signed on in August, Craig was signed later than that. Furthermore, when praising the script in interviews, Craig clearly noted that it was the excellent script "by Paul Haggis" that one him over.

Haggis, also, (likely) had nothing to do with all the fantastic stuntwork surrounding CR.

News reports indicated that after his initial work on the CR script, EON brought him back to help re-tool the action sequences.

I stand corrected. You win. Haggis is the King!

;-)

[dodge]

People have forgotten that Haggis joined AFTER Daniel Craig signed on...and DC only signed on AFTER giving the script a huge thumbs up...and that thumbs up was for a Fleming & P+W script.

Nope. It was reported that Haggis was hired on 30 Aug, 2005.

http://commanderbond...=Story&SID=2905

Daniel Craig was announced as James Bond on 14th October.

http://commanderbond.net/article/2949

Dino, you and Harmsway rock. Now, would one of you giants be kind enough to answer my question above: is there a gag rule prohibiting P&W and/or Haggis from discussing who did what?

[Harmsway]

Dodge, I don't think there's any official gag rule. I just don't think they've really had the opportunity (or desire) to go in-depth over who did what, and it's not like Paul Haggis would ever come out and say, "They had this mediocre script that they wanted me to make something good out of" - at least not while he's working with them.

[plankattack]

I'm always more concerned about the producers state of mind than the writers, but regardless of where we all stand on how good/worth the money Haggis is, I find it refreshing that EON are at least attempting to bring in personnel that have a reputation (whether deserved or not, depending on your point of view) of critical "acclaim."

EON has too often been a closed shop (remember Spielberg asking Cubby to direct back in the late 70s) going with no-names (yes Campbell was a no-name in 95, John Glen anyone? Tamahori, wow that's some resume) who will tow the company line rather than bring their own vision. If nothing else it means EON want Bond to be taken seriously as a franchise, rather than back in the 70s and 80s when the critics pretty yawned whenever a Bond came out and basically dismissed the films as entertainment for adolescents.

Bringing in the likes of Haggis at least makes the statement that they're out to make great films, rather than just great Bond films. That's got to be good for us fans, and the general audience alike.

[blueman]

If Haggis's contribution on CR was as minimal as some are suggesting, why would EON hire him back? Just stick with the in-house crew then, and save the money. We may never know the entire story, but Haggis clearly brought something to CR the current EON team values highly. Having a script for Bond 22 as good as the script for CR (same setup, Haggis "polishing" a P&W first draft) can only be a very good thing for the franchise IMO. EON looks to be doing what they need to for that to happen, and good on them.

Is it just me, or does EON post-DAD seem to be a very different beast? Whatever's going on with that, bring me more please!

EDIT: plank, you read my mind, your post came up while I was typing mine. Very different--and welcome--way to do business now, agree.

Edited by blueman, 24 May 2007 - 09:32 PM.

[Loomis]

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.

Why would he care, though? Prior to Bond, he'd already written two consecutive Best Picture winners and established himself as an Oscar-winning screenwriter and Oscar-nominated director. Doubtless he was also very wealthy. While I personally dislike MILLION DOLLAR BABY and think CRASH is mediocre, and while I love CASINO ROYALE, I'd say that Bond was actually a step down for Haggis, certainly in terms of industry and critical kudos.

I'm amazed he's back for BOND 22. He could have rested on his laurels and gone down in history (most likely) as the acclaimed writer of The Only Good Bond Film™, the brilliant scribe who condescended to drop in on the 007 franchise for a giggle and penned a superb screenplay before shooting through to do more worthy motion pictures a la CRASH and his Eastwood dramas. Wonder what he's being paid for BOND 22 - and would it be more than Purvis and Wade are getting?

Very interesting if Haggis was indeed offered the director's chair on BOND 22.

[Harmsway]

Wonder what he's being paid for BOND 22 - and would it be more than Purvis and Wade are getting?

Almost certainly.

Very interesting if Haggis was indeed offered the director's chair on BOND 22.

That's the most interesting aspect of the whole article, if you ask me.

I wonder what BOND 22 will be like if we really do get Marc Forster on board as director (personally, I like him... questions about action scenes aside, he's a strong choice for director). With MONSTER'S BALL and FINDING NEVERLAND, he has oodles of credibility within the industry, and with Paul Haggis' working on the screenplay, BOND 22 would start feeling like the "arthouse" Bond flick.

[Qwerty]

P&W did briefly mention how all three of them had some lines in the Vesper entrance sequence: http://www.hmss.com/...yale/interview/

[ACE]

[quote name='dodge' post='741766' date='24 May 2007 - 21:16']Dino, you and Harmsway rock. Now, would one of you giants be kind enough to answer my question above: is there a gag rule prohibiting P&W and/or Haggis from discussing who did what?[/quote]They have almost certainly signed a confidentiality agreement. I would guess they probably signed one before they even had their first meeting with Eon.

Firstly, see SecretAgentFan's terrific post here

Film is SO collaborative. It is on record that Haggis was brought on to do a dialogue polish. It is fairly certain that he did not drastically change the structure. Remember, films are budgeted from the approved screenplays and the schedule is set from them. Any major changes affect other departments and the budget signed off upon. The art department probably begins construction about 2-3 months ahead of principal photography and locations are normally set in advance. The majority of the logistics of a major film production are set in stone well before commencement of principal photography. Now, of course, in previous Bonds this has not always been the case but a screenplay like this does not get drastically rewritten at such a late stage in the game, normally (if such a word can be applied to the film industry).

I don't think anyone is arguing that Haggis was a major box office draw to the average, non-cinephile cinemagoer (and how anyone can comment on his (excellent) body of work while only seeing CR is surprising). More that his contribution and inclusion is an industry beacon and magnet for other talents. Paul Haggis is an extremely well respected and probably powerful player within the film industry right now.

Haggis was brought into CR almost certainly by Martin Campbell but approved by MGW and BB. Haggis probably likes the Bond series and it is a chance for him to get involved in some highly paid doctoring work. He gets to be involved with something iconic and it also shows his range as a writer. Remember, it's the movie business - he's only a writer (in his Bond capacity only). However, anyone involved in screenwriting will tell you that structure and story are far more important and less malleable than dialogue.

Also, a director and sometimes a star always try to bring in other writers to "improve" the project. But ultimately nobody ever discusses on a Bond who wrote or did what specifically. There are certain ideas in CR left over from the DAD and TWINE scripts.

To try to ascribe the majority of credit to one named party in absence of the facts leaves one open to filtering the information through one's own prejudices. Regardless of what Haggis' prior work was, he had not worked on a major action film before. This was probably a good thing. Similarly, regardless of P & W's contributions to previous Bond films, the brief on this one was probably incredibly different. I daresay, had exactly the same script been handed in for any of the Brosnan films, it would NOT have been greenlit. Besides, P & W's first produced feature was a very gripping dramatic piece. It is impossible to judge and weight the individual contributions without bringing our own prejudices to the table.

What is far easier to do is to appreciate the combined team efforts both artistically and commercially. And to this long term (i.e. chronic ) Bond and Fleming fan, this 21st film delivered a Royale flush.

BTW, Eon have never officially released or published a full script and I doubt they will start doing so in the immediate future.

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='741667' date='24 May 2007 - 14:43']Interesting! Will check it out to see if it

[Loomis]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Haggis is a box office draw (and how anyone can comment on his (excellent) body of work while only seeing CR is surprising).

Okay, then, I'll argue he was a box office draw. Not a huge one, but I imagine that news of the participation of the Oscar-winning writer and director of CRASH would have pricked up the ears of a lot of people who thought Bond was just a load of old rubbish. Haggis probably brought in a few more bums on seats - just a few, but better than nothing.

While the hiring of someone like Haggis (in a credited capacity anyway - I gather all sorts of great and famous names worked on THE SPY WHO LOVED ME) was a radical move for Eon, there seems to be a tradition for hugely respected A-list screenwriters to work on "popcorn" or franchise fare, e.g. Steven Zaillian (SCHINDLER'S LIST) on CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, Robert Towne (CHINATOWN) on MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE I & II, Alvin Sargent (PAPER MOON, ORDINARY PEOPLE) on SPIDER-MAN 2 and 3, and Paul Attanasio (QUIZ SHOW, DONNIE BRASCO) and Tom Stoppard (SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE) on THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM. Bond - as ever - is just bandwagon-jumping.

[Harmsway]

It is on record that Haggis was brought on to do a dialogue polish.

It's also on record that after his initial "dialogue polish," EON brought him back to do more work on the script.

Remember, it's the movie business - he's only a writer .

But he's not only a writer. He's also a director (with an Oscar-winning film under his belt, no less) and a producer.

It is impossible to judge and weight the individual contributions without bringing our own prejudices to the table.

Agreed. But I think we can all agree that Haggis' contributions were weighty enough that EON was willing to pay to get him back.

[ACE]

Firstly, see SecretAgentFan's terrific post here

I don't think anyone is arguing that Haggis is a box office draw (and how anyone can comment on his (excellent) body of work while only seeing CR is surprising).

Okay, then, I'll argue he was a box office draw. Not a huge one, but I imagine that news of the participation of the Oscar-winning writer and director of CRASH would have pricked up the ears of a lot of people who thought Bond was just a load of old rubbish. Haggis probably brought in a few more bums on seats - just a few, but better than nothing.

Agreed. But your post above suggests you did not think he was a major box office draw. I have edited my post to qualify what I meant.

It is on record that Haggis was brought on to do a dialogue polish.

It's also on record that after his initial "dialogue polish," EON brought him back to do more work on the script.

I refer you to paragraph 3 of my post above. I agree he did more than just a dialogue polish but I submit that due to the nature of film-making on this scale and the timing and duration of his involvement, Haggis cannot have drastically altered large sections of it. BTW, I understand that P & W returned to do further rewrites once Haggis was gone. I think he probably added character notes. I doubt very much he changed the structure or spine of the piece. But I'm grateful he did work on it.

Remember, it's the movie business - he's only a writer .

But he's not only a writer. He's also a director and producer.

Of course, but I was speaking about his involvement in the Bond. And for the Bond, he was more than just the average writer but even then, in the food chain of a franchise picture - even doctoring by Spielberg would render hims "just a writer". I was also being ironical about the perceived worth of a writer in film - it was not a dig at Haggis.

It is impossible to judge and weight the individual contributions without bringing our own prejudices to the table.

Agreed. But I think we can all agree that Haggis' contributions were weighty enough that EON was willing to get him back.

Of course. I was not suggesting otherwise. His involvement alone makes the industry take note. But I am just saying that we cannot know who deserves more credit. After all, P & W were again given first crack of it.

I love Paul Haggis' work in general. And I understand the prior-Bond criticisms of P & W's work. And it is easy to overemphasize the credit or blame of one party. I'm just saying that attempts to do so without the facts reveal one's own prejudices. I, for example, do not prefer TWINE and do like DAD. However, I can appreciate and see what P & W brought to the party. Having seen their other work and scripts, I also know that they can write good material. I think Haggis undoubtedly brought zing to the dialogue and probably character elements of CR. Just saying that I give them all credit. I'm certainly glad Haggis is back for Bond 22.

[Loomis]

Agreed. But your post above suggests you did not think he was a major box office draw.

Ah, you're right. I was just trying to counter HildebrandRarity's point about his not getting a sniff of multibillion-dollar grosses.

For what it's worth, I'm delighted Haggis is back, but then I'm also delighted Purvis and Wade are back. I'm glad they're all involved in the script. I think they're all great (and P&W are certainly great Bond fans).

[Bucky]

overall i think this move is a very good sign that eon is making a larger effort to provide quality bond films during the daniel craig era.

im not sure about anybody else but i was afraid that since they had craig signed for two more movies no matter what that they would not worry at all about the quality of the script and other aspects of the film. this first large move for bond 22 thankfully puts many of those worries to rest.

[JP007]

Just wanted to say I agree with all your posts Harmsway. Ok, done my little contribution on the subject. Cary on guys, brilliant arguing being done here. And these news are very good news as far as I

Edited by JP007, 24 May 2007 - 11:45 PM.

[Harmsway]

It is on record that Haggis was brought on to do a dialogue polish.

It's also on record that after his initial "dialogue polish," EON brought him back to do more work on the script.

I refer you to paragraph 3 of my post above. I agree he did more than just a dialogue polish but I submit that due to the nature of film-making on this scale and the timing and duration of his involvement, Haggis cannot have drastically altered large sections of it.

Perhaps not, though I'm not entirely sure you're correct... there was plenty of time to have changed a good amount of stuff around in his initial polish back in September. But the true greatness of a screenplay often lies not in the basic structure, but in the details.

Personally, though, I'm glad P&W are around. I don't think Paul Haggis is any sort of Bond expert, and P&W are (and devoted Fleming fans at that). They've also expressed a lot of desire to be riskier than they were allowed to on previous entries, and obviously their gritty JINX script was good enough to get talent like Stephen Frears on board that film.

[BTW, I understand that P & W returned to do further rewrites once Haggis was gone.

I've never heard that. From what I know of events, that doesn't add up to me. Haggis, after his initial draft, stuck around almost through the rest of production.

And considering the December draft was his, it makes any chance of work by P&W seem exceedingly minor, since the December draft matches up with the finished film almost exactly (and most of what doesn't match up was actually filmed and removed in the editing process, not at the script stage). Haggis did some revisions beyond the December draft, which I imagine brought the film even closer to the shooting script, so I find it remarkably hard to believe that P&W would really have been brought back at all after Haggis was involved.

I, for example, do not prefer TWINE and do like DAD.

I dislike both of them, but of the two, TWINE is the really, really bad one (and actually, P&W's draft on TWINE, while still pretty flawed, was better than the end result, so I don't blame them for that one at all).

For what it's worth, I'm delighted Haggis is back, but then I'm also delighted Purvis and Wade are back. I'm glad they're all involved in the script. I think they're all great (and P&W are certainly great Bond fans).

Yeah. P&W are sure to be the ones to pack the scripts full of Flemingian gems, not Haggis. It'll be interesting to see the extent of Haggis' involvement on this film, though.