273 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

By "we" you obviously mean the "hard core-Bond fans". Because commercial success is the only thing that matters in the entertainment industry. Even legendary filmmakers can only afford to live on their name for a short time.

Haggis, by the way, delivered with MILLION DOLLAR BABY and CRASH two films that were critically lauded AND brought in money. If he had only done "arthouse" movies which did not deliver at the box office, we probably wouldn

[Zorin Industries]

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.

I would heavily disagree. Look at the scripts Pervis & Staid had written for Bond before CASINO ROYALE and then look at that film. Without a doubt, Haggis turned that script round and vastly improved it. Academy Award winning writers like Paul Haggis do not "tweak". Trust me. I'm a screenwriter.

[Royal Dalton]

That's your prerogative. But without seeing all the drafts, nobody can prove anything either way. So there's absolutely no point in wasting time arguing about it.

[SecretAgentFan]

Trust me. I

[ACE]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='741963' date='25 May 2007 - 10:50']Trust me. I

[Zorin Industries]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='741963' date='25 May 2007 - 10:50']Trust me. I

[ACE]

Zee Eye,

I accept your point about the finessing of the screenplay by Haggis. I am not suggesting that all he did was change dialogue. I do not wish to underestimate his worth to the film.

To your point about last minute changes to the script re: DAD. I am not saying these do not occur either (the entire finale was also changed - from that indoor beach thing to the Antonov). But logistically, the car chase was to take place outdoors only and they brought indoors to make better use of the set. However, this was done while the set was underconstruction (necessitating structural reinforcements). In logistical terms, it probably made more sense, and probably saved on cost.

All film productions evolve somewhat. Cashflow and budget and schedules need to be constantly controlled. Production changes are made at the last minute but almost always to reduce or rationalize the budget and the schedule. Locations are collapsed, action scenes cut all to whittle budgets. Very, very rarely is the production opened up.

Similarly, the finale would be an action scene where plot-wise Bond must accomplish a number of things to resolve the situation. Whether it takes place on a plane or in a base does not, IMHO, radically alter the nature, tone and construct of the piece. I daresay, the Pinewood based finale was cheaper than shooting in Japan and building, filling and shooting the proposed finale at Pinewood.

Set construction began in Prague in October 2005. Locations, hotels and logistics would also have been finalized at this point (and the deals would have been inked before this). Haggis was announced in August 2005. We are talking about 3 months. Now it is true that Haggis could have completely tonally and structurally revamped the script in that time. I submit that the truth is, for us, unknowable, but on the balance of probabilities, he did good solid dialogue, character and detail grace notes and some action (perhaps even the finale). You suggest otherwise.

I really do not think we are going to square this circle!

But an interesting discussion, nonetheless.

[Zorin Industries]

Haggis was announced in August 2005. We are talking about 3 months. Now it is true that Haggis could have completely tonally and structurally revamped the script in that time.

Ace,

"Announcing" Paul Haggis is not the same as "hiring" Paul Haggis, no?

I've been "announced" as a writer with involvement on something, but had actually been part of the project for at least six months.

You're right though - square hole, round peg....

;o)

ZI x

[ACE]

Haggis was announced in August 2005. We are talking about 3 months. Now it is true that Haggis could have completely tonally and structurally revamped the script in that time.

"Announcing" Paul Haggis is not the same as "hiring" Paul Haggis, no?

I've been "announced" as a writer with involvement on something, but had actually been part of the project for at least six months.

You're so right, of course.
But try telling them that at Cannes!
Those "announcements" are so shameless.

You're right though - square hole, round peg....

[Loomis]

Furthermore, Haggis's Oscar cache has little bearing on Eon's choice to hire him. They would have had their sights on him long before he won any trophies for MILLION DOLLAR BABY and CRASH.

Would they? It's possible (prior to those films, Haggis was an established screenwriter, mostly for TV, and neither more nor less famous than other writers employed by Eon, such as Bruce Feirstein, so if Eon had its sights on people like Feirstein it's not out of the question that its sights were also on Haggis), but how can we know that for sure?

How can we be certain that Haggis' Oscar cachet was an irrelevance to Eon? I imagine it was an important factor - one among several, but an important factor nonetheless.

In any case, ACE says Haggis was almost certainly brought to the production by Campbell, not Eon.

[Zorin Industries]

Furthermore, Haggis's Oscar cache has little bearing on Eon's choice to hire him. They would have had their sights on him long before he won any trophies for MILLION DOLLAR BABY and CRASH.

Would they? It's possible (prior to those films, Haggis was an established screenwriter, mostly for TV, and neither more nor less famous than other writers employed by Eon, such as Bruce Feirstein, so if Eon had its sights on people like Feirstein it's not out of the question that its sights were also on Haggis), but how can we know that for sure?

How can we be certain that Haggis' Oscar cachet was an irrelevance to Eon? I imagine it was an important factor - one among several, but an important factor nonetheless.

In any case, ACE says Haggis was almost certainly brought to the production by Campbell, not Eon.

Eon do not wait on the Oscars before they hire their creative teams, believe me. And Eon only hire individuals they and they alone have wanted. I would imagine the script (and Haggis's involvement in it) was worked before Martin Campbell signed up.

[Loomis]

Eon do not wait on the Oscars before they hire their creative teams

I'm not saying they do, but at the same time how can we dismiss the idea that Haggis' Oscar acclaim was a factor in his hiring? Seems odd that so-and-so is hired and it's purely a coincidence that he just happens to be the hottest name in Hollywood at that particular moment in time. If the Eon eye was on Haggis for a long time, why wasn't he employed on, say, TOMORROW NEVER DIES or TWINE? (Looking at his pre-MDB credits on the IMDb, I doubt he'd have refused the work.) It's like saying Barbara Broccoli wanted Craig solely because she thought he'd be great as Bond, and no one paid any regard to his considerable critical reputation as a dramatic actor on his way to great things.

And Eon only hire individuals they and they alone have wanted.

Sure, they hire who they want, but how can you know that they never take advice or recommendations from others? To do otherwise would be arrogant, foolish and just plain bad business practice. I believe Broccoli and Wilson are smart enough to know they don't know it all and that it sometimes makes sense to listen to the views of collaborators.

I would imagine the script (and Haggis's involvement in it) was worked before Martin Campbell signed up.

No date to quote off the top of my head, and I can't search for one now 'cause I've got to go somewhere in a minute, but I believe Campbell signed up for CASINO ROYALE long before anyone else (other than the likes of David Arnold and Judi Dench), and certainly before Haggis became involved. I think the script (then a P&W-only affair) was in its infancy when Campbell came onboard.

[plankattack]

I have been hard on P & W at times, and at the same time I'm curious as to how big a differece Haggis makes. But if the end result is a script of CR's quality, and there are times in the movie when the writing is very good indeed, then I don't blame EON for attempting to repeat the process in Bond 22. However we all feel about P,W, & H as individual writers, it would appear that they work well as a team. P&W (at least in public -see HMSS interview linked in previous posts) have little ego in handing over their work, and H at least is comfortable tweaking/polishing/pick your verb, what they produce. If what P&W turned in was complete tosh, H wouldn't go anyway near it, in case he ended up with some of the blame, and likewise H hasn't given any indication that he wants to work alone on a Bond script (and with his reputation, if he offered, does anyone think Sony/EON would refuse?).

Chemistry comes from indviduals and styles that mesh, and more often than not the end result is more than the sum of the parts. The PW&H collaboration worked well once - let's hope it does again.

[Marquis]

Fantastic news!

[rodiii]

I, for one, am quite excited about Haggis' return.

Who knows how involved he really is? His involvement shows a committment by Eon to have a 'credible product'. They felt pretty confident they had a winner in CR pre-release. But I think they may have been surprised by the critical acclaim.

Something a Bond film has not had in MANY MANY years.

I think CR didn't get nominated for many of the awards and get some of the 'critical acclaim' because it's a Bond film, and the preconceived notions about what a Bond film was got in the way. But I think when the dust settled, everyone realized we had a good film on our hands. Hollywood just takes a little longer to realize what's going on out there sometimes.

So, that being the case....

I think the producers see a great opportunity here. They suprisingly turned a few heads, so why not continue on that path? Create something worthy of gettting nominated (and perhaps collecting) some of the awards. And who better than the guy that wrote the Best Screenplay two years in a row, which has never been done before him?!?

I believe the push on Bond 22 is to make it a critical success. They could have EASILY not hired someone like Haggis, who no doubt is costing them a small fortune just to have his name attached to it. Is this not a screaming announcement that perhaps we're going to have ourselves a very fine movie in 2008.

Also, one last point. One thing that has been understated throughout all the post-CR hooplah, and the excitement for Bond 22, is Sony's involvement. The female head of the studio, I forget her name, apparently pushed on a few things to tighten up this movie. Sony's involvement in the franchise, in my very humble opinion, has had as much to do with the improvement in quality as anything. They've wanted their hands on Bond for years. And now that they've got it, they want to turn it into something special.

So Sony's involvement, Haggis' involvement, and Craig's insistence on quality will give us a very fine outing for Bond 22. I, for one, can't wait to see the product they put out on the screen. This is quite possibly the most I've anticipated a Bond movie in a couple of decades, which is not a small statement!!!

[Judo chop]

I have extrapolated from the tremendous amount of insight posted here to come up with, what I hope is, a fair approximation to the distribution of credit deserved by the creative minds involved in the final product of CR.

31% - EON (includes all other production team members not specifically listed below)
22% - Pervis & Wade
18% - Ian Fleming
13% - Paul Haggis
8% - Martin Campbell
6% - Daniel Craig
2% - Other (Input from other cast members, various rumors started by Pierce Brosnan, the Newtonian-like tendencies that franchise films have to appear otherwise as a reaction to their predecessors and competing films, divine intervention and crap luck.)
<1% (otherwise negligible) - Sony

Everything that I know of the filmmaking process I have just learned in the past 15 minutes. I understand that much is unknown, nearly all is subjective, and that square things do not fit into round holes

[HildebrandRarity]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='742043' date='25 May 2007 - 16:39']I have extrapolated from the tremendous amount of insight posted here to come up with, what I hope is, a fair approximation to the distribution of credit deserved by the creative minds involved in the final product of CR.

31% - EON (includes all other production team members not specifically listed below)
22% - Pervis & Wade
18% - Ian Fleming
13% - Paul Haggis
8% - Martin Campbell
6% - Daniel Craig
2% - Other (Input from other cast members, various rumors started by Pierce Brosnan, the Newtonian-like tendencies that franchise films have to appear otherwise as a reaction to their predecessors and competing films, divine intervention and crap luck.)
<1% (otherwise negligible) - Sony

Everything that I know of the filmmaking process I have just learned in the past 15 minutes. I understand that much is unknown, nearly all is subjective, and that square things do not fit into round holes

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 25 May 2007 - 05:02 PM.

[Dr. Noah]

Well, considering they asked Haggis to direct this time as well as rewrite the script, I'd say his imprint on the last film was pretty large.

[dodge]

This seems to be devolving from a welcome back, Paul Haggis thread and a serious debate about the size of his contribution...into something else. Craig's contribution is neglible now? And Haggis did nothing but sprinkle a little confectionary on the great cake baked by P&W? To return to my earlier posting re team play: high props, by all means, to the owners of the team and their great decision to bring on superior talent this time. But let's work on those percentages and get them more in line.

We can always start an Eon thread to shower them with praise. But here...Say 20% for Paul Haggis?

[Santa]

I'm thinking more like 15% P&W and 15% Haggis, and at least 10% for Daniel Craig. Let's face it, if CR had been , everyone would have been happy to make his share of the blame at least 70%.

[ACE]

I'm thinking more like 15% P&W and 15% Haggis, and at least 10% for Daniel Craig. Let's face it, if CR had been , everyone would have been happy to make his share of the blame at least 70%.

I think that's scientific enough, don't you?

[Judo chop]

This seems to be devolving from a welcome back, Paul Haggis thread and a serious debate about the size of his contribution...into something else. Craig's contribution is neglible now? And Haggis did nothing but sprinkle a little confectionary on the great cake baked by P&W? To return to my earlier posting re team play: high props, by all means, to the owners of the team and their great decision to bring on superior talent this time. But let's work on those percentages and get them more in line.

We can always start an Eon thread to shower them with praise. But here...Say 20% for Paul Haggis?

I think just about everyone agrees that Paul

[Loomis]

I'm giving "Paul" at least 90%. Peak-form Oscar botherer joins the team behind a Bond flick and it turns out to be the best one ever by about a million miles - coincidence? Pah! To quote DIE HARD 2, you need a slide rule to figure this out?

[Judo chop]

I'm giving "Paul" at least 90%.

...leaving only 10% to go around for the rest of the lot?! Loomis has both

[Harmsway]

I'm giving "Paul" at least 90%. Peak-form Oscar botherer joins the team behind a Bond flick and it turns out to be the best one ever by about a million miles - coincidence? Pah! To quote DIE HARD 2, you need a slide rule to figure this out?

Haggis' contribution aside, everyone was in "peak form" on CASINO ROYALE. We had producers daring to take risks and do something bold and original, a director turning in his best work, the highest-caliber cast a Bond film has ever had, an excellent stunt coordinator, one fantastic editor, a cinematographer doing the best work of his career... heck, everybody showed up and did their job on CASINO ROYALE, and that is what made CASINO ROYALE great.

[Judo chop]

I'm giving "Paul" at least 90%. Peak-form Oscar botherer joins the team behind a Bond flick and it turns out to be the best one ever by about a million miles - coincidence? Pah! To quote DIE HARD 2, you need a slide rule to figure this out?

Haggis' contribution aside, everyone was in "peak form" on CASINO ROYALE. We had producers daring to take risks and do something bold and original, a director turning in his best work, the highest-caliber cast a Bond film has ever had, an excellent stunt coordinator, one fantastic editor, a cinematographer doing the best work of his career... heck, everybody showed up and did their job on CASINO ROYALE, and that is what made CASINO ROYALE great.

Harmsway, you play with the mechanism of mathematical reality like it were a child

[rodiii]

I'm giving "Paul" at least 90%. Peak-form Oscar botherer joins the team behind a Bond flick and it turns out to be the best one ever by about a million miles - coincidence? Pah! To quote DIE HARD 2, you need a slide rule to figure this out?

Haggis' contribution aside, everyone was in "peak form" on CASINO ROYALE. We had producers daring to take risks and do something bold and original, a director turning in his best work, the highest-caliber cast a Bond film has ever had, an excellent stunt coordinator, one fantastic editor, a cinematographer doing the best work of his career... heck, everybody showed up and did their job on CASINO ROYALE, and that is what made CASINO ROYALE great.

Which is why I think this next one will rock. There is SO much external pressure to make this one special. More than usual. Craig calling it out saying so I think speaks volumes about that realization.

[Loomis]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='742065' date='25 May 2007 - 19:34'][quote name='Loomis' post='742064' date='25 May 2007 - 13:23']I'm giving "Paul" at least 90%.[/quote]
...leaving only 10% to go around for the rest of the lot?! Loomis has both

[Blofeld's Cat]

Well, considering they asked Haggis to direct this time as well as rewrite the script, I'd say his imprint on the last film was pretty large.

Not necessarily. Haggis's 20% (or whatever) may have been fully 100% appreciated while P&W's 80% (likewise, whatever) was much less so. Having worked on the previous Bond and knowing he's also a top director it wouldn't have been hard to put the "hard word" on Haggis to direct.

Not that one could ask the same of P&W.

[Double-0-Seven]

This is excellent news! Looks like Bond 22 will have a solid script.

Interesting that they offered him to be the director. At least he's back for the script though. I'll be eager to see now who they end up choosing for a director. Martin Campbell coming back would almost be even better news than this.