105 replies to this topic

[sorking]

[quote name='dodge' post='755860' date='17 July 2007 - 20:36']Will Forster co-rewrite B22? Here, in all their 'ridiculous' glory, are two of numerous posts claiming that he will be.

Remember: just because it appears in print doesn't mean that it's not true.

Marc Foster, better known for Finding Neverland and Monster

[Santa]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='755843' date='17 July 2007 - 19:57'][quote name='dodge' post='755839' date='17 July 2007 - 12:44'][quote name='Judo chop' post='755834' date='17 July 2007 - 17:17']Makes sense to me.[/quote]

Gee, Judo, what's going on? You were able to agree in under 1000 without using the words ridiculous or nonsense against anyone who disagrees with you.
[/quote]
I gotta be honest

[dodge]

[quote name='sorking' post='755879' date='17 July 2007 - 20:11'][quote name='dodge' post='755860' date='17 July 2007 - 20:36']Will Forster co-rewrite B22? Here, in all their 'ridiculous' glory, are two of numerous posts claiming that he will be.

Remember: just because it appears in print doesn't mean that it's not true.

Marc Foster, better known for Finding Neverland and Monster

[sorking]

[quote name='dodge' post='755895' date='17 July 2007 - 21:45'][quote name='sorking' post='755879' date='17 July 2007 - 20:11'][quote name='dodge' post='755860' date='17 July 2007 - 20:36']Will Forster co-rewrite B22? Here, in all their 'ridiculous' glory, are two of numerous posts claiming that he will be.

Remember: just because it appears in print doesn't mean that it's not true.

Marc Foster, better known for Finding Neverland and Monster

[dodge]

To all other readers: I apologise profusely for the coming response. It is measured and I believe accurate, but directed at one user rather than forming part of the existing debate.

If any of my previous posts have offended anyone else, I likewise apologise. I'm also sorry about the recurring typos.

In the interests of fairness, Dodge should be allowed to respond - and make whatever claims he feels necessary about me. But at that point I hope any further personal comments and indictments can be left behind in favour of an intelligent discussion of the topics art hands. Which is all I came here for in the first place.

You know, your threads grow longer and longer each day. When you stop using words like "ridculous" and "nonsense", I'll respond to you. If you're some sort of industry poobah, declare your qualifications, please, for telling me and others that we lack your expertise and don't understand the process. You do? How so?

Help me out here - which was annoying you most? The fact that you got caught out being wrong so many times in one post, or the fact that my posts take more time to read than you're willing to spend considering a second viewpoint? :-)

The 'Forster writing' rumour IS ridiculous. It's been made clear repeatedly. Though I never claimed you started it...

And the Ezesterhas fact IS nonsense. It just is. You made it up to prove a point, and you got caught.

The post did go on a bit, I know. But you pack a lot of sweeping claims and statements into a tight space. Refuting some of them takes longer, as this response shows! I thought the post itself responded accurately to your suggestions - a response that was, in fact, requested; I thought you wanted to debate those issues. Long-winded it may be but I'd happily stick by my accuracy.

Declare my qualifications? Last time I did that on here, I was told I could be making it all up - because, mediocre though my career is, it IS a career in the media and somehow it sounds like boasting when you lay it all down. But I could be making it all up, still. Of course I could. How am I to prove otherwise and remain anonymous?

I'm no poobah, nobody's heard of me. I'm just a lackey. But here's the simple truth: I've had a very fortunate few years. I've been honored to work as lead creative producer and director for DVD content on a dozen bestselling chart titles. I have also written broadcast mainstream TV drama for a long-running UK show. I currently freelance as a script editor for one of the main British stations, having performed the same role on a franchise feature film and a forthcoming series. I have a masters degree in cinema. I have been lucky enough to work with some of the Bond crew on other projects. My fifth is in Kriegler by not in Stamper. Who am I?

So - does that entitle me to my opinion, and a reasonable response? Or should I just join in with the making stuff up? :-)

It entitles you to the same humble everyone else is entitled to here. Not to the high-handed, industry-approach you habitually take.

[dodge]

[quote name='sorking' post='755899' date='17 July 2007 - 20:53'][quote name='dodge' post='755895' date='17 July 2007 - 21:45'][quote name='sorking' post='755879' date='17 July 2007 - 20:11'][quote name='dodge' post='755860' date='17 July 2007 - 20:36']Will Forster co-rewrite B22? Here, in all their 'ridiculous' glory, are two of numerous posts claiming that he will be.

Remember: just because it appears in print doesn't mean that it's not true.

Marc Foster, better known for Finding Neverland and Monster

[sorking]

I never stated 'rewrite by himself'. One posting referred to overseeing. The other to co-rewriting. As usual, you turn the facts on their hands, then in the all the huff and puffery, you try to get away without answering.

What? Okay, well, I never claimed you stated solo-rewriting. "Writing himself" means directly writing. It's not the same thing as "writing BY himself".

But you did claim he was one of the writers performing the rewrite. Which I dispute.

The first quote you raised SPECIFICALLY attributes the rewrite to Haggis alone. It has a possessive apostrophe and everything. The rewrite belongs to the writer. It is overseen by the director. Forster's not taking the draft and adding his own lines.

The second says "working soon with Paul Haggis to rewrite". And as I say, the second quote, already sourced originally to a BBC report, is a rewrite of the first, more accurate, quote. It doesn't definitively state that Forster is writing anything. Only that he'll be working with Haggis on the rewrite. 'Overseeing' him, you could say.

You claim that oversee does not mean rewrite, while the second post claims Forster will be involved. Long before I posted these two quotes, you ridiculed me for suggesting that Forster would be involved. I repeat my challenge: hard proof backing your right to that insult, please. Give me a source that I can verify proving that Forster will not be assisting in the rewrite.

I didn't ridicule your suggestion of his involvement. I downright put down your repeat of the rumour that he was co-writing. Because he isn't. Still. And it's bizarre that a bit of clumsy English in a news report can cause a thing like this to landslide.

I never claimed he wasn't involved in the process. Simply that he wouldn't be performing the re-writes himself. Eon have made no such statement, there is no directly attributable quote. Just bad copy duplicated from numerous online sources and traced back to a press conference where nobody said anyone but Haggis would be writing directly.

So - proof on non-involvement? Seriously? As in 'Eon productions would like to make the following statement: here is a list of writers who will not be writing on Bond 22." You can't prove a non-fact, as I'm sure you know. Now please prove that Eastenders writer Tony Jordan will also not be contributing.

Still, we can all figure out why this isn't going on. Because a) it would have been bigger news, the first director to also write for the franchise would require at least a specific statement from Eon, something quotable rather than re-re-re-reported; Haggis never said anything about writing with his director, there's no quote; c) Forster never said anything about writing with an Oscar winner, ditto. And as an added bonus, d) IMDb Pro lists only the three named writers.

As for your credentials, no mockery from me. Good for you. But you've haven't told us anything that justifies the condescending tone you've used, not just me but with Stamper and several others.

Well, see my previous post. I did apologise. I feel bad about it. Seriously.

Can we stop with the personal attacks now?

Edited by sorking, 17 July 2007 - 09:47 PM.

[sorking]

Okay, this and I'm done.

As an example of the messy, confused copy that causes this kinda stuff:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/6220890.stm

Two lines will suffice:

"It will be based on a script developed by Forster and Crash director Paul Haggis - one of the writers behind last year's hit Bond outing Casino Royale."

Developed could mean anything, obviously, but 'development' is commonly the period before pre-production. Producers and directors develop without writing. But the two names, together like this, is the source of much internet follow-on reports, where it was further mangled until Forster seemed to be co-writing.

The first half doesn't mention the original writers, though this does conclude the article:

"Bond 22 will begin filming at Pinewood Studios in London in December, based on a screenplay drafted by Neil Purvis and Robert Wade."

Oh, so no Haggis at all?

You see what I mean - this hastily-written news copy is messily put together and can be misleading if not watched closely.

A piece from Empire, finally; who are pretty reliable:

http://www.empireonl...y.asp?nid=20805

Directing. No mention of writing. Which is as close to proof of a non-fact as I can get. Sorry.

Again, sorry this seems to have turned into a flame war. I'll leave it alone now.

[blueman]

So at this point, we know:

P&W turned in a script then moved on to other projects.

Haggis got hired to polish, develop it, whatever. He's said he'll be doing that for the next 6 months.

Forster got hired to direct, and he and Haggis are--at minimum--talking about the script, batting ideas back and forth I would imagine, stuff artistic types do like that.

And of course there's Mikey and Babs, and I'd imagine at some point Craig would at least read some of it if he hasn't already, give input, etc.

Sounds good to me, what's the problem?

[Harmsway]

What Forster is doing is overseeing. In a sense, it is collaborating with Haggis on the script (he'll be coming up with plenty of ideas, to be sure, and informing Haggis what he wants), but he won't actually do any of the writing himself.

It's kind of how Ridley Scott collaborated with Steven Zaillian on HANNIBAL. Scott never wrote a word, but he and Zaillian spent weeks discussing what Scott wanted in the script. They were both working on the script, so to speak, but Scott never became the screenwriter.

[RazorBlade]

A director overseeing a project can mean anything from Hitchcock deserving co-writer on most of his movies to a hack mumbling "huh-uh".

I was thinking that for the size and scope of the production if CR or Bond 22 only had 3 writers it's not only a minor miracle it's a matter of thrift. Most large action movies, especially franchises have anywhere from 9 to 15 writers on them.

There were 12 on ERASER. I want some of that money.

[Judo chop]

A director overseeing a project can mean anything from Hitchcock deserving co-writer on most of his movies to a hack mumbling "huh-uh".

I was thinking that for the size and scope of the production if CR or Bond 22 only had 3 writers it's not only a minor miracle it's a matter of thrift. Most large action movies, especially franchises have anywhere from 9 to 15 writers on them.

There were 12 on ERASER. I want some of that money.

Writers on Eraser? That

[hugo]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='756052' date='18 July 2007 - 15:33'][quote name='RazorBlade' post='756020' date='18 July 2007 - 06:05']A director overseeing a project can mean anything from Hitchcock deserving co-writer on most of his movies to a hack mumbling "huh-uh".

I was thinking that for the size and scope of the production if CR or Bond 22 only had 3 writers it's not only a minor miracle it's a matter of thrift. Most large action movies, especially franchises have anywhere from 9 to 15 writers on them.

There were 12 on ERASER. I want some of that money.[/quote]
Writers on Eraser? That

[kneelbeforezod]

I took part in a film quiz today and was so very proud to know that the line "You're luggage" came from Eraser.

In other news: Sorking, you are the new Yoda of this site, I hereby strip Harmsway of his title. Although I am pretty fickle, so don't rest on your laurels.

[LadySylvia]

I had hoped that BOND 22 would both stylistically and thematically be a continuation of CASINO ROYALE. The idea of a trilogy for Craig's tenure had appealed to me and seemed like something new for the Bond franchise. EON Productions and Craig had hinted at this happening ever since CASINO ROYALE's release last November. And now to find out that BOND 22 might not be a direct continuation of CASINO ROYALE strikes me as a little disappointing. Unless . . . I may have misread Forster's commments? I hope?

[tdalton]

I had hoped that BOND 22 would both stylistically and thematically be a continuation of CASINO ROYALE. The idea of a trilogy for Craig's tenure had appealed to me and seemed like something new for the Bond franchise. EON Productions and Craig had hinted at this happening ever since CASINO ROYALE's release last November. And now to find out that BOND 22 might not be a direct continuation of CASINO ROYALE strikes me as a little disappointing. Unless . . . I may have misread Forster's commments? I hope?

I would also be disappointed if Craig's first three films did not form the trilogy that has been talked about before as well. I do think, though, that what Forster and Haggis mean when they say that this film will stand on its own is that it will be a film that people who did not see Casino Royale will be able to watch and enjoy on its own, but it will follow some of what was begun in CR as well. Judging from those comments, I wouldn't expect a PTS that begins right after Craig's delivery of "Bond, James Bond" from CR, but I would imagine that it will take some of the elements of CR to craft a storyline that both stands on its own and serves as a continuation of CR's storyline, such as Bond's quest to take down Mr. White's organization.

[blueman]

However the "continuation" continues, I expect those pleased by CR will be at least as pleased with Bond 22 and 23. Just a hunch.

[Loomis]

Maybe it's just me, but I can't think of anything worse than for BOND 22 to begin right where CASINO ROYALE left off, HALLOWEEN II-style, with a gun battle at Mr White's villa. There is no need for BOND 22 to be any more of a "direct" continuation than FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is from DR. NO. I hope we get an "all-new" PTS with some cool stunts, and then an "independent" adventure (albeit featuring the same mysterious organisation from CR, but even then it might be refreshing if Bond never gets to the bottom of what White and co. were really up to and who's behind them).

[Judo chop]

Maybe it's just me, but I can't think of anything worse than for BOND 22 to begin right where CASINO ROYALE left off, HALLOWEEN II-style, with a gun battle at Mr White's villa. There is no need for BOND 22 to be any more of a "direct" continuation than FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is from DR. NO. I hope we get an "all-new" PTS with some cool stunts, and then an "independent" adventure (albeit featuring the same mysterious organisation from CR, but even then it might be refreshing if Bond never gets to the bottom of what White and co. were really up to and who's behind them).

Oh, Loomis

[Zorin Industries]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='756258' date='19 July 2007 - 14:23'][quote name='Loomis' post='756250' date='19 July 2007 - 07:35']Maybe it's just me, but I can't think of anything worse than for BOND 22 to begin right where CASINO ROYALE left off, HALLOWEEN II-style, with a gun battle at Mr White's villa. There is no need for BOND 22 to be any more of a "direct" continuation than FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is from DR. NO. I hope we get an "all-new" PTS with some cool stunts, and then an "independent" adventure (albeit featuring the same mysterious organisation from CR, but even then it might be refreshing if Bond never gets to the bottom of what White and co. were really up to and who's behind them).[/quote]
Oh, Loomis

Edited by Zorin Industries, 19 July 2007 - 01:40 PM.

[dodge]

[quote name='Zorin Industries' post='756262' date='19 July 2007 - 13:38'][quote name='Judo chop' post='756258' date='19 July 2007 - 14:23'][quote name='Loomis' post='756250' date='19 July 2007 - 07:35']Maybe it's just me, but I can't think of anything worse than for BOND 22 to begin right where CASINO ROYALE left off, HALLOWEEN II-style, with a gun battle at Mr White's villa. There is no need for BOND 22 to be any more of a "direct" continuation than FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is from DR. NO. I hope we get an "all-new" PTS with some cool stunts, and then an "independent" adventure (albeit featuring the same mysterious organisation from CR, but even then it might be refreshing if Bond never gets to the bottom of what White and co. were really up to and who's behind them).[/quote]
Oh, Loomis

[Judo chop]

[quote name='Zorin Industries' post='756262' date='19 July 2007 - 08:38'][quote name='Judo chop' post='756258' date='19 July 2007 - 14:23'][quote name='Loomis' post='756250' date='19 July 2007 - 07:35']Maybe it's just me, but I can't think of anything worse than for BOND 22 to begin right where CASINO ROYALE left off, HALLOWEEN II-style, with a gun battle at Mr White's villa. There is no need for BOND 22 to be any more of a "direct" continuation than FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is from DR. NO. I hope we get an "all-new" PTS with some cool stunts, and then an "independent" adventure (albeit featuring the same mysterious organisation from CR, but even then it might be refreshing if Bond never gets to the bottom of what White and co. were really up to and who's behind them).[/quote]
Oh, Loomis

[Loomis]

Zorin, there've been numerous reports that the opening for 22 had already been filmed.

How reliable were those reports, though?

[dodge]

Zorin, there've been numerous reports that the opening for 22 had already been filmed.

How reliable were those reports, though?

I don't know, it's been a while. Strictly supposing, though...if you're willing to entertain the mere possibility: Eon isn't known for throwing away money. If the footage had been shot, as reported, in your own opinion: would they be willing to throw it away? Would they need to give Campbell credit?

[00Twelve]

I also would like nothing less than to see B22 pick up Halloween II-style, but if Mr. White is not to be seen again, I only request no gaping plot holes. If we just never hear about him again, after the most cliffhanger ending since or before OHMSS, I would consider that an inexcusably huge plot hole. Just me.

[dodge]

I also would like nothing less than to see B22 pick up Halloween II-style, but if Mr. White is not to be seen again, I only request no gaping plot holes. If we just never hear about him again, after the most cliffhanger ending since or before OHMSS, I would consider that an inexcusably huge plot hole. Just me.

No, it's not. Deal me in. Somehow, I believe, we'll get a film that stands on its own--but without leapfrogging from the last cliffhanger ending. Let the PTS make the connection without wearing a Halloween hat, then move on.

[dinovelvet]

Count me in as not wanting to to see B22 start off halfway through Bond and Mr.White's little chat. THAT SCENE ENDS PERFECTLY!!!! We don't need to see anything else. The movie can start off after some time has passed, with references to "the information Mr.White gave up under...pressure". BTW despite cryptic comments from Haggis, Forster, and whoever, I suspect Bond 22 really will be about what we all expect - Bond going after White's terror organization.

[Loomis]

Zorin, there've been numerous reports that the opening for 22 had already been filmed.

How reliable were those reports, though?

I don't know, it's been a while. Strictly supposing, though...if you're willing to entertain the mere possibility: Eon isn't known for throwing away money. If the footage had been shot, as reported, in your own opinion: would they be willing to throw it away?

If it conflicted with El Forsterino's vision of the film and with any better ideas that have arisen since then, I think that they would throw it away, yes. No film company, or indeed company, is known for throwing away money, but it's a sad fact of life that money does get thrown away sometimes - I mean, look at all those deleted scenes on all those DVDs out there. Some films have whole half-hours sliced off them, not just five- or ten-minute pre-credits sequences. (Look at all those deleted scenes on the LICENCE TO KILL UE - there's several hundred thousand pounds' worth of footage right there, and in 1989 it certainly wasn't deliberately shot to be included as "deleted scenes" to pad out the DVD release, as a lot of film companies allegedly do nowadays. At the time, it was all just an honest mistake.)

And Eon has thrown away money before, has it not? Just look, for example (and this is obviously only one of many examples in the world of Bond of money being spent on something with no obvious return at the end of the day), at the JINX screenplay and all those development meetings with director Stephen Frears (and, presumably, with Halle Berry or her reps) - I guesstimate that not bringing JINX to the screen must have cost a couple of mil, all told. Obviously, Eon didn't intend it to be wasted cash at the time, though.

So, no, I don't believe that BOND 22 is wedded to this hypothetical PTS (that as far as I can see was never officially confirmed) just because money was spent on it. If it exists and Forster and co. want to use it, great. If they want to chuck it because they've got better ideas, I'm sure they will.

Would they need to give Campbell credit?

I don't think so. Plenty of films credited to a single director feature footage shot by other directors. HALLOWEEN II, for instance, which John Carpenter allegedly directed quite a bit of (not just the opening). Campbell might get some kind of "thank you" thingy (along the lines of Simon Raven's additional dialogue credit on OHMSS) buried somewhere in the credits, e.g. "ADDITIONAL MATERIAL DIRECTED BY MARTIN CAMPBELL", or perhaps at a push "PRE-TITLES SEQUENCE DIRECTED BY MARTIN CAMPBELL", but it would be a minor and unobtrusive thing and would not be allowed to overshadow Forster's far greater contribution to the film. We certainly wouldn't end up with a "DIRECTED BY MARTIN CAMPBELL AND MARC FORSTER" (or vice-versa) co-credit just because the first few minutes had been directed by Campbell.

Count me in as not wanting to to see B22 start off halfway through Bond and Mr.White's little chat. THAT SCENE ENDS PERFECTLY!!!! We don't need to see anything else. The movie can start off after some time has passed, with references to "the information Mr.White gave up under...pressure".

My feelings exactly. What would be so wrong with this?

[dodge]

Zorin, there've been numerous reports that the opening for 22 had already been filmed.

How reliable were those reports, though?

I don't know, it's been a while. Strictly supposing, though...if you're willing to entertain the mere possibility: Eon isn't known for throwing away money. If the footage had been shot, as reported, in your own opinion: would they be willing to throw it away?

If it conflicted with El Forsterino's vision of the film and with any better ideas that have arisen since then, I think that they would throw it away, yes. No film company, or indeed company, is known for throwing away money, but it's a sad fact of life that money does get thrown away sometimes - I mean, look at all those deleted scenes on all those DVDs out there. Some films have whole half-hours sliced off them, not just five- or ten-minute pre-credits sequences. (Look at all those deleted scenes on the LICENCE TO KILL UE - there's several hundred thousand pounds' worth of footage right there, and in 1989 it certainly wasn't deliberately shot to be included as "deleted scenes" to pad out the DVD release, as a lot of film companies allegedly do nowadays. At the time, it was all just an honest mistake.)

And Eon has thrown away money before, has it not? Just look, for example (and this is obviously only one of many examples in the world of Bond of money being spent on something with no obvious return at the end of the day), at the JINX screenplay and all those development meetings with director Stephen Frears (and, presumably, with Halle Berry or her reps) - I guesstimate that not bringing JINX to the screen must have cost a couple of mil, all told. Obviously, Eon didn't intend it to be wasted cash at the time, though.

So, no, I don't believe that BOND 22 is wedded to this hypothetical PTS (that as far as I can see was never officially confirmed) just because money was spent on it. If it exists and Forster and co. want to use it, great. If they want to chuck it because they've got better ideas, I'm sure they will.

Would they need to give Campbell credit?

I don't think so. Plenty of films credited to a single director feature footage shot by other directors. HALLOWEEN II, for instance, which John Carpenter allegedly directed quite a bit of (not just the opening). Campbell might get some kind of "thank you" thingy (along the lines of Simon Raven's additional dialogue credit on OHMSS) buried somewhere in the credits, e.g. "ADDITIONAL MATERIAL DIRECTED BY MARTIN CAMPBELL", or perhaps at a push "PRE-TITLES SEQUENCE DIRECTED BY MARTIN CAMPBELL", but it would be a minor and unobtrusive thing and would not be allowed to overshadow Forster's far greater contribution to the film. We certainly wouldn't end up with a "DIRECTED BY MARTIN CAMPBELL AND MARC FORSTER" (or vice-versa) co-credit just because the first few minutes had been directed by Campbell.

Count me in as not wanting to to see B22 start off halfway through Bond and Mr.White's little chat. THAT SCENE ENDS PERFECTLY!!!! We don't need to see anything else. The movie can start off after some time has passed, with references to "the information Mr.White gave up under...pressure".

My feelings exactly. What would be so wrong with this?

Nothing wrong with it in itself--and thanks for your other feedback. Very helpful and perceptive. But, just out of curiosity: if the movie were to begin with a slam-bang gun fight on Whites' estate--brilliantly done and followed by a hair-raising escape, the likes of which we've never seen...would you feel disappointed?

[Loomis]

But, just out of curiosity: if the movie were to begin with a slam-bang gun fight on Whites' estate--brilliantly done and followed by a hair-raising escape, the likes of which we've never seen...would you feel disappointed?

In a way. I want to be surprised by the opening of BOND 22.... although I guess it'll all be leaked months in advance, whatever it turns out to be. If it were indeed "brilliantly done and followed by a hair-raising escape, the likes of which we've never seen", then of course I'd enjoy it, but in some ways.... ah, I don't know. I want BOND 22 to stand apart from CASINO ROYALE more than many other fans do. There's no logical reason for this, I guess, since I absolutely love CR, but I don't want it to be like KILL BILL VOL. 1 and VOL. 2. I suppose I want the Craig films to ultimately be things you can watch alongside the earlier Bond outings, and not some kind of LOTR trilogy-type thing that's too jarring if you want to double bill, say, BOND 23 with THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, or TOMORROW NEVER DIES, or whatever.

I want BOND 22 to be as much of a stand-alone as possible, not as much of a CR sequel as possible. Not that that would necessarily make for a better film, but it's just my gut feeling. So, yes, I suppose I would be disappointed by the PTS you've just described, if only because I don't think Eon should be in the business of pandering to fan expectation. I mean, it's the obvious way to expect BOND 22 to begin if you believe it's going to be an immediate continuation of CR, so for them to actually do it that way.... I dunno. I'd like them to surprise us with an "all-new" PTS - well, insofar as anything these days can possibly be a surprise, what with the internet and its leaks.