84 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

I support Haggis; he seems like a nice fellow, and it's a shame he didn't accept the directorial reigns when he was offered them.

Still, Bond 23, perhaps?

[Harmsway]

I support Haggis; he seems like a nice fellow, and it's a shame he didn't accept the directorial reigns when he was offered them.

A Haggis-helmed Bond would be interesting, and I'd be open to it. But judging by what little of Haggis' directorial effort is out there, I think Forster is the better director.

[Mr. Blofeld]

A Haggis-helmed Bond would be interesting, and I'd be open to it. But judging by what little of Haggis' directorial effort is out there, I think Forster is the better director.

I don't know; Forster's previous film career seems rather like Lewis Gilbert's, and I'd hate Bond 22 to turn out like another YOLT or Moonraker.

Edited by Mr. Blofeld, 18 October 2007 - 05:35 AM.

[Harmsway]

A Haggis-helmed Bond would be interesting, and I'd be open to it. But judging by what little of Haggis' directorial effort is out there, I think Forster is the better director.

I don't know; Forster's previous film career seems rather like Lewis Gilbert's, and I'd hate Bond 22 to turn out like another YOLT or Moonraker.

That seems like an entirely unjustified fear, nor do I see any real similarity to Lewis Gilbert, either in filmography or style as a director. Forster is ten times the director that Gilbert is.

Have you seen much of Forster's ouvre?

[Mr. Blofeld]

I don't know; Forster's previous film career seems rather like Lewis Gilbert's, and I'd hate Bond 22 to turn out like another YOLT or Moonraker.

That seems like an entirely unjustified fear, nor do I see any real similarity to Lewis Gilbert, either in filmography or style as a director. Forster is ten times the director that Gilbert is.

Have you seen much of Forster's ouvre?

I've seen Stranger Than Fiction, which I rather liked in an offbeat sort of way.

Then again, who's to say that's preparation enough for a Bond film? After all, Lewis Gilbert's last film prior to YOLT was Alfie, and I think we all remember how that turned out...

Edited by Mr. Blofeld, 18 October 2007 - 05:47 AM.

[Harmsway]

I've seen Stranger Than Fiction, which I rather liked in an offbeat sort of way.

Ah. It's a good one, but it's not like his other films, which are pretty different from one another, nor do I think it's the most exemplary film as to Forster's quality as an artist.

I'd recommend checking out MONSTER'S BALL, FINDING NEVERLAND, and STAY (not a great film, but a good showcase for some of what Forster can do) to get a sense of Forster as a director. They're all very different from STRANGER THAN FICTION, which is pretty light fare comparatively.

After all, Lewis Gilbert's last film prior to YOLT was Alfie, and I think we all remember how that turned out...

Well, for what it's worth, I really like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. But I hardly think that's what we're looking at here... I have no reason to believe that BOND 22 will throw out plot, character development, and a grounded sensibility in favor of big, overblown nonsense. Quite the opposite, actually, especially since Forster was chosen for his character-driven nature.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, for what it's worth, I really like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. But I hardly think that's what we're looking at here... I have no reason to believe that BOND 22 will throw out plot, character development, and a grounded sensibility in favor of big, overblown nonsense. Quite the opposite, actually, especially since Forster was chosen for his character-driven nature.

Well, if Lewis Gilbert, a great character director who does well in smaller films, could get swallowed up by the enormity of his own film, why not Marc Forster?

Heck, it happened to Mike Newell on Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, for crying out loud!

[Harmsway]

Well, if Lewis Gilbert, a great character director who does well in smaller films, could get swallowed up by the enormity of his own film, why not Marc Forster?

Well, firstly, I think the comparison to Gilbert is problematic just because I don't think he's as good a director as Forster is. He turned in some nice work, but there's still something workmanlike about Gilbert. IMO, that's not at all the case with Forster.

Secondly, it's not like Lewis decided to take YOLT in the huge direction that it went in. That was largely decided for him by Broccoli and Saltzman. It's a different situation with BOND 22, where EON seems to have no intention of getting big and formulaic again.

I reiterate: We have no reason to believe BOND 22 will be overblown. Every comment we've been given points to the opposite conclusion. That fear is entirely unjustified at this point.

Heck, it happened to Mike Newell on Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, for crying out loud!

That's my favorite of the Potter films, for what it's worth. I haven't seen anything else of Newell's.

[Loomis]

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

Precisely. Haggis is far from David Mamet.

Indeed, although, judging by some of the remarks made on this thread, you'd be forgiven for thinking he was Derek Jarman or, I don't know, Gus Van Sant, or someone like that.

Heck, it happened to Mike Newell on Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, for crying out loud!

That's my favorite of the Potter films, for what it's worth. I haven't seen anything else of Newell's.

You haven't seen FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL or DONNIE BRASCO? I'd say the latter is well worth checking out, and I also quite enjoyed PUSHING TIN.

[Judo chop]

Well, if Lewis Gilbert, a great character director who does well in smaller films, could get swallowed up by the enormity of his own film, why not Marc Forster?

Well, firstly, I think the comparison to Gilbert is problematic just because I don't think he's as good a director as Forster is. He turned in some nice work, but there's still something workmanlike about Gilbert. IMO, that's not at all the case with Forster.

Secondly, it's not like Lewis decided to take YOLT in the huge direction that it went in. That was largely decided for him by Broccoli and Saltzman. It's a different situation with BOND 22, where EON seems to have no intention of getting big and formulaic again.

I reiterate: We have no reason to believe BOND 22 will be overblown. Every comment we've been given points to the opposite conclusion. That fear is entirely unjustified at this point.

The only thing I

[Judo chop]

You haven't seen FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL or DONNIE BRASCO? I'd say the latter is well worth checking out, and I also quite enjoyed PUSHING TIN.

I found that Brasco doesn

[Loomis]

Oh, I'm certainly not saying that DONNIE BRASCO is GOODFELLAS (although I do recall my then-girlfriend and I both being so impressed with it on release that, having taken in a showing, we went right back and saw it again the next day, which was pretty unusual). Neither is PUSHING TIN anything especially amazing. I was just trying to find a couple of relatively bright spots in the Newell oeuvre for the Harmsmeister to tuck away in the "reasonably decent flicks to rent on DVD and watch on a rainy afternoon" file.

[Judo chop]

I was just trying to find a couple of relatively bright spots in the Newell oeuvre for the Harmsmeister to tuck away in the "reasonably decent flicks to rent on DVD and watch on a rainy afternoon" file.

Well, in that case... it just so happens that I

[Daddy Bond]

It could be that IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH's subject (Iraq veteran murdered by his platoon upon return to the States) is one that no one wants to see. People probably think it might be depressing. But I wouldn't dismiss it altogether. There is still the award season to consider.

Haggis has had his share of stinkers/embarrasments/failures so let's hope that the name "James Bond" carries the day for Bond 22 and he does not ruin the movie with an overdose of realism. He does not have Fleming to bail him out this time...so let's see.

I think this is a bit unfair to say about Haggis. I think that his contribution to the script made CASINO ROYALE more of a success than Fleming's novel. If they had filmed CR as Fleming had written it . . . I think that the movie would have been a mess.

Absolutely Agree

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, let's just hope that Purvis and Wade's contributions to Casino Royale were the few cringeworthy portions... such as the complete irrelevance (in hindsight) of ELLIPSIS in Madagascar, the earpiece shenanigans, and the casting of French Charlie Sheen as the casino dealer.

[kneelbeforezod]

such as the complete irrelevance (in hindsight) of ELLIPSIS in Madagascar

It wasn't irrelevant... it was the security code that enabled Bond to pursue the bomber at Miami airpot wasn't it?

[dodge]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Couldn't agree more. I haven't loved all of Haggis' films or even liked them all equally. But if we consider the entire opus, including CR, Haggis has the creds: from snappy dialogue to action (In the Valley of Elah may not be the quickest-moving mystery in town, but it's lively enough and does contain one jawdropping fight scene.) He'll be wearing his Commercial hat and out to entertain. So far he's done nothing that's made me yawn louder or longer than the trailer for The Kite Runner. Or the entire beginning, middle or ending of any Forster film.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Couldn't agree more. I haven't loved all of Haggis' films or even liked them all equally. But if we consider the entire opus, including CR, Haggis has the creds: from snappy dialogue to action (In the Valley of Elah may not be the quickest-moving mystery in town, but it's lively enough and does contain one jawdropping fight scene.) He'll be wearing his Commercial hat and out to entertain. So far he's done nothing that's made me yawn louder or longer than the trailer for The Kite Runner. Or the entire beginning, middle or ending of any Forster film.

If you feel such a way about Forster, is there any chance (in your mind) that his direction might bog down the picture?

[HildebrandRarity]

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

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

"If it fails, it fails"? LOL...It's a good thing you're not bankrolling the film...

Imagine a stake-holder in Bond 22 saying that!

I would reccommend that Eon and co. ought not to be "willing to take the risk". I mean i'd want to ensure a good deal of financial success for the picture and leaving a writer who does art-house stuff that all of 50 people or so are willing to pay to see in the theatre (like 'Valley Of Elah' and Flags Of/Iwo Jima)...to pen the whole thing on his own should actually be quite worrying.

If there's a material drop-off commercially for Bond 22, I guarantee the knives will come out and every dirty little tabloid in England will lay the blame (wrongly) on Craig...those pathetic rags can turn on a dime when it comes to DC if you've noticed...and then where would that leave Bond 23?

Remember too that Dalton's maiden outing was quite successful but the experiment that was LTK proved costly for both him and for the film-makers primarily as a result of US numbers.

You'd be happy with a similar result "if it fails"?

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 22 October 2007 - 05:21 PM.

[Harmsway]

"If it fails, it fails"? LOL...It's a good thing you're not bankrolling the film...

Well, CASINO ROYALE was somehow approached from that perspective. Wilson (or was it Campbell?) admitted that he wasn't sure the film would be successful. CASINO ROYALE was a risk, and I'd like BOND 22 to be a risk too. If anything, BOND 22 should take more risks than CASINO ROYALE did because it has more room to maneuver.

I mean i'd want to ensure a good deal of financial success for the picture and leaving a writer who does art-house stuff that all of 50 people or so are willing to pay to see in the theatre (like 'Valley Of Elah' and Flags Of/Iwo Jima)...to pen the whole thing on his own should actually be quite worrying.

I don't think so. Haggis is as good a screenwriter for it as any other, and is far from an "arthouse" figure. Those films are actually pretty commercial as far as "art" goes. Furthermore, I'd argue that the people with art cred often have a better handle on what makes a good film then the "entertainment hacks." I love it when artists get involved with pure entertainment... the results are often great.

But as has been said, Haggis really isn't on his own, so this discussion is pretty moot. It would have been cool to see him take a stab on it on his own (as writer/director, as was initially offerred him), but I'm also quite enthusiastic about how BOND 22 is shaping up. Given the locations, it seems like BOND 22 will be as elegant as we want, with Forster at the helm, BOND 22 seems set to be full of great performances and visuals, and with Haggis on the script, it seems like we'll have a film that crackles with humorous wit and intense action while still maintaining an emotional core.

You'd be happy with a similar result "if it fails"?

I'd be far happier with a risk-taking venture that fails and destroys the Bond franchise forever than with another "safe" Bond film that keeps Bond afloat.

Not that I think either is a possible scenario. Regardless of what BOND 22 looks like, it'll be successful. I don't think we're looking at another LICENCE TO KILL here. CASINO ROYALE was so bloomin' successful that it practically paved the way for BOND 22 financially.

[LadySylvia]

I don't know; Forster's previous film career seems rather like Lewis Gilbert's, and I'd hate Bond 22 to turn out like another YOLT or Moonraker.

Gilbert had also directed the excellent THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.

[kneelbeforezod]

I mean i'd want to ensure a good deal of financial success for the picture and leaving a writer who does art-house stuff that all of 50 people or so are willing to pay to see in the theatre (like 'Valley Of Elah' and Flags Of/Iwo Jima)...to pen the whole thing on his own should actually be quite worrying.

I don't think so. Haggis is as good a screenwriter for it as any other, and is far from an "arthouse" figure. Those films are actually pretty commercial as far as "art" goes.

Absolutely. I'm sick of hearing Hildebrand repeat this assertion that Haggis is arthouse. Its as if you can't make a film about a serious subject without being accused of being "arthouse" or "pandering to Oscar voters". I really liked Crash and Million Dollar Baby, and I'm about the least arthouse cinemagoer there is.

The daft logic seems to be SERIOUS SUBJECT + LOW BOX OFFICE = ARTHOUSE RUBBISH that must be avoided. If that's the case then god forbid he see such films as Munich or The Lives of Others or The Insider.

There's something so ignorant about dismissing a writer's body of work without seeing any of it. And the simple fact is, Hildebrand is obviously an intelligent chap, if he bothered to sit down and watch either of the aforementioned films he would probably enjoy them.

[HH007]

Hildebrand, Elah was a movie that was only going to have a limited audience to begin with. So your saying that Haggis shouldn't write Bond 22 because Elah hasn't made hundreds of millions of dollars is a bit like saying Steven Soderbergh shouldn't directed the next Ocean's 11 sequel because Bubble didn't do well. They're two completely different types of movies. And the fact that Haggis can write successfully about L.A. race relations, female boxing, WWII, and Bond (to me, CR proved he can), shows that he is ONE HELL OF A SCREENWRITER. Let's see Purvis and Wade write a movie like Crash, then tell me who the better writer is. Don't go asking me to show you an early draft and a later draft of CR. The difference in writing quality between that film and TWINE and DAD is obvious. And that is due to Paul Haggis.

(P.S.- Thus far, none of the serious Oscar Contender movies, Michael Clayton, Gone Baby Gone, The Assassination of Jesse James, Rendition, Into The Wild, have been breaking box office records, so give Elah and Haggis a break)

[Mr. Blofeld]

I don't know; Forster's previous film career seems rather like Lewis Gilbert's, and I'd hate Bond 22 to turn out like another YOLT or Moonraker.

Gilbert had also directed the excellent THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.

Which included Bond tossing a fish out of his car window, the double-taking wino, and a villain with a giant harpoon gun strapped to the bottom of his dining table; for all we know, Gilbert could have thrown in a couple of ill-tempered mutant seabass and no one would be the wiser.

[byline]

You haven't seen FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL or DONNIE BRASCO? I'd say the latter is well worth checking out, and I also quite enjoyed PUSHING TIN.

Holy cow, the same guy directed both films? They have about as much in common as . . . well, "Stranger than Fiction" and Bond 22.