148 replies to this topic

[Jim]

But because it's Haggis - people are acting like there is some significance and that it will have box office or some other consequences.

I'm not. These things are written by an infinite number of monkeys anyway, aren't they?

Do people know / care / remember who writes James Bond films?

[Publius]

Forget the title comment, this is the important part of this article, IMO.

..."I haven’t actually heard from them, other than the fact that it’s going very, very well. And Marc’s doing a great job. That’s what I hear.”

I think this is important, too... but maybe not for the same reason. I guess I'm a little surprised that Haggis hasn't been in more direct contact with the production. Has he already done his script "polish"? I got the impression the script was handed in "under the wire"; I would have thought (hoped) that once the strike was over, Haggis would be available to work on last-minute script and dialogue changes.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic; perhaps the script really was "complete" when he handed it in and no further refinement is necessary.

That's my concern too. Of course Haggis is going to say Forster is doing a great job, it's the fact that he's been out of the loop since October that is the most telling.

[Loomis]

So, Loomis, are you saying that there are no great writers, other than Haggis, out there that Eon can hire?

No. If Haggis were the only talented writer in the world, not just the Bond series but also the film industry would be in severe trouble. But I don't see why we should rush to minimise Haggis' contributions to Bond or to dismiss him as simply a hired gun who's no more important than any other Joe Blow wordsmith just because he may have come out with comments that do not seem 100% respectful to the Church of Broccoli.

DNS, it may be that Haggis is not at liberty to disclose his title for legal reasons.

[HildebrandRarity]

Would it have been front page news had Jeffrey Caine not liked "Goldeneye" - "It wasn't MY title" - no.

Would it have been breaking news had Michael Apted's wife, who script doctored TWINE - said "No comment" when asked about the title. I doubt it.

But because it's Haggis - people are acting like there is some significance and that it will have box office or some other consequences.

Sure, Haggis is hot and talented - but he'll be the first to point out that there was a period where all he was known as was the guy who created Walker, Texas Ranger. (and even that was a joke because it was a writer's guild thing - he had the highest percentage of work on the pilot script - but he didn't create the character).

I too am surprised he wouldn't even acknowledge the source of QOS.

And if his title was so awesome, perhaps he should enlighten us.

Indeed.

Perhaps his working title for Bond 22 was "Crash". O, wait a minute! He already used that title which, funnily, came from the movie of about the same name. You know, the acclaimed film that the other Canadian, David Cronenberg, did back in the early 90s...called, er, "Crash"?

How ing original!

[Shrublands]

it's the fact that he's been out of the loop since October that is the most telling.

The only thing that that is

[HildebrandRarity]

[quote name='Shrublands' post='843309' date='26 February 2008 - 17:25'][quote name='Publius' post='843297' date='26 February 2008 - 17:15']it's the fact that he's been out of the loop since October that is the most telling.[/quote]

The only thing that that is

[Publius]

[quote name='Shrublands' post='843309' date='26 February 2008 - 12:25'][quote name='Publius' post='843297' date='26 February 2008 - 17:15']it's the fact that he's been out of the loop since October that is the most telling.[/quote]

The only thing that that is

[00Twelve]

Once again, it's just quicker to put it in your signature, Hildy.

[doublenoughtspy]

Added a poll.

[zencat]

[quote name='Publius' post='843315' date='26 February 2008 - 09:32'][quote name='Shrublands' post='843309' date='26 February 2008 - 12:25'][quote name='Publius' post='843297' date='26 February 2008 - 17:15']it's the fact that he's been out of the loop since October that is the most telling.[/quote]

The only thing that that is

[HildebrandRarity]

Strike ended on Feb 13.

C'mon, Zencat, tell us how you really feel!

I want an opinion from the man who walked shoulder-to-shoulder with 'da KING as bruddahs-in-arms during the dark times.

What do you think of the fact that the KING knoweth not what it means - given that it ain't his title?

[tdalton]

So, Loomis, are you saying that there are no great writers, other than Haggis, out there that Eon can hire?

No. If Haggis were the only talented writer in the world, not just the Bond series but also the film industry would be in severe trouble. But I don't see why we should rush to minimise Haggis' contributions to Bond or to dismiss him as simply a hired gun who's no more important than any other Joe Blow wordsmith just because he may have come out with comments that do not seem 100% respectful to the Church of Broccoli.

DNS, it may be that Haggis is not at liberty to disclose his title for legal reasons.

I think that it's difficult to determine how important Paul Haggis has been in his two films as a writer. I don't think that he's the most important part of the success of CASINO ROYALE, which I would attribute to Craig and to the producers for deciding to take the franchise in a new direction (not to mention that I liked some of the ideas that P&W had for the film more than what Haggis ultimately replaced them with). I think that other writers could be brought in and the franchise wouldn't miss a beat, or perhaps things could actually improve from where they are now. Personally, I think that Steven Zaillian would turn in an absolutely fantastic script for a Bond film, if his prior work is any indication.

I will say, though, that this situation does seem a bit odd to me, as he's apparently not been doing any polishing to the script that he turned in back in October, which I was always under the impression was not a completed draft in the sense that it hadn't had any tweaking done to it.

Edited by tdalton, 26 February 2008 - 06:16 PM.

[Bondian]

Maybe we should give Haggis more credit for being a human being.

Sure. He doesn't know what 'Quantum of Solace' means (neither did we until we had to look it up), and just because he says "it's not my title" does it really matter?.

He probably holds writing for Bond in high regard because of it's history, and he IS a fanwank. (sorry, Paul ). But why insult his writing ability's because he's just doing a human thing by answering a question.

As for the title Quantum of Solace. IMHO, it was tagged onto the movie like a 'happy shopper' price tag. There was absolutely no thought of something unique and original to give the movie more originality.

From what I've seen so far. We're looking at a Bourne meets Rambo revenge movie.

[Leon]

Sorry but why are we voting?

I refuse to cast a vote for such a childish thing. We have no idea what Paul Haggis feels about anything, his replies to this journalist could have been for a number of reasons.

He's an excellent writer and Bond fans should feel lucky that we have him writing Bond films now frankly.

Of course he isn't in on the title deal, he didn't have a part in it, that was done quite some time after he'd handed in his draft. Get over it.

[Loomis]

[quote name='HildebrandRarity' post='843313' date='26 February 2008 - 17:29'][quote name='Shrublands' post='843309' date='26 February 2008 - 17:25'][quote name='Publius' post='843297' date='26 February 2008 - 17:15']it's the fact that he's been out of the loop since October that is the most telling.[/quote]

The only thing that that is

[Mr. Blofeld]

From what I've seen so far. We're looking at a Bourne meets Rambo revenge movie.

Well, I think we all know -- or might suspect, at least -- who polished the script during the writers' strike...

[HildebrandRarity]

[quote name='Loomis' post='843365' date='26 February 2008 - 19:36'][quote name='HildebrandRarity' post='843313' date='26 February 2008 - 17:29'][quote name='Shrublands' post='843309' date='26 February 2008 - 17:25'][quote name='Publius' post='843297' date='26 February 2008 - 17:15']it's the fact that he's been out of the loop since October that is the most telling.[/quote]

The only thing that that is

[tdalton]

[quote name='HildebrandRarity' post='843392' date='26 February 2008 - 15:39'][quote name='Loomis' post='843365' date='26 February 2008 - 19:36'][quote name='HildebrandRarity' post='843313' date='26 February 2008 - 17:29'][quote name='Shrublands' post='843309' date='26 February 2008 - 17:25'][quote name='Publius' post='843297' date='26 February 2008 - 17:15']it's the fact that he's been out of the loop since October that is the most telling.[/quote]

The only thing that that is

[Bondian]

I completely agree with you on your point about Craig. I would much rather keep Craig on board, as he's probably the biggest reason, at least for me, that CASINO ROYALE works as a film. With another actor in the role (and everything else being equal), CASINO ROYALE isn't nearly as good. Craig is what makes it work.

Craig is the 'icing on the cake'. If the cake is stale, there's no point in eating the icing.

It was the 'collaboration' that made Casino Royale the film it was, and not an individual person.

Now. Who's for trifle?.

[doublenoughtspy]

Sorry but why are we voting?

I added the poll, Leon, to demonstrate the ridiculous polarity of the two sides.

One camp, the Loomiscrats, seem to think that Haggis is the most critical component in the Casino Royale success equation.

The other camp, the Hildebrepublicans, seem to think that Haggis is of little more importance than the third assistant janitor's dialog coach.

Loomis - are you privy to some details about Haggis' work that the rest of us aren't? I will by no means belittle his contributions - but as HR said - he was one of 4 credited writers on the film. How are you conscious that it was his contributions alone that mattered?

As Jim said - they have whole teams of people that work on these. Joe Public couldn't tell Haggis from Wilson from Maibaum from Fraiser from France from Mather.

We look back with fondness and respect for Maibaum's work, but if you take a famous film like Goldfinger - you'll find that he collaborated with Paul Dehn - and Dehn's work was significant.

They usually had a British writer polish Maibaum's work - Berkley Mather in the early films, Dehn on Goldfinger, Simon Raven on OHMSS, etc. etc.

This time - they have a Canadian polishing the work of British writers.

The fan reaction against Haggis isn't fair I agree.

But surely someone involved with Bond to the extent he has should be aware that no writer associated with Ian Fleming's James Bond post-1964 has 100% say on the title. Be it Amis, Gardner, Benson, Higson, Maibaum, France, Fierstein, Purvis/Wade, etc. None of them got the sole vote.

[tdalton]

I completely agree with you on your point about Craig. I would much rather keep Craig on board, as he's probably the biggest reason, at least for me, that CASINO ROYALE works as a film. With another actor in the role (and everything else being equal), CASINO ROYALE isn't nearly as good. Craig is what makes it work.

Craig is the 'icing on the cake'. If the cake is stale, there's no point in eating the icing.

It was the 'collaboration' that made Casino Royale the film it was, and not an individual person.

Now. Who's for trifle?.

It is a collaboration, but I think that Craig made the script look better than it actually was. I can't imagine someone else delivering the "You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me..." lines. By themselves, they really aren't great lines, but Craig somehow sells them as not sounding hollow. IMO, good actors can make poor material look better than it is, and that's what happened in CASINO ROYALE. Not that the material is poor, but it's not particularly great either, but the actors, particularly Craig and Green, make it better than it is.

[Bondian]

I completely agree with you on your point about Craig. I would much rather keep Craig on board, as he's probably the biggest reason, at least for me, that CASINO ROYALE works as a film. With another actor in the role (and everything else being equal), CASINO ROYALE isn't nearly as good. Craig is what makes it work.

Craig is the 'icing on the cake'. If the cake is stale, there's no point in eating the icing.

It was the 'collaboration' that made Casino Royale the film it was, and not an individual person.

Now. Who's for trifle?.

It is a collaboration, but I think that Craig made the script look better than it actually was. I can't imagine someone else delivering the "You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me..." lines. By themselves, they really aren't great lines, but Craig somehow sells them as not sounding hollow. IMO, good actors can make poor material look better than it is, and that's what happened in CASINO ROYALE. Not that the material is poor, but it's not particularly great either, but the actors, particularly Craig and Green, make it better than it is.

Good point. Making the dialogue sound interesting is one of Craig's strong points. He knows when to make a line effective and when to throw one away.

I love the scene when he asks the receptionist in the hotel about the owner of the Aston. The way he answers quickly and quite naturally "right". A good example of Craig's natural talent for making dialogue believable.

[Harmsway]

Personally, I think that Steven Zaillian would turn in an absolutely fantastic script for a Bond film, if his prior work is any indication.

He'd be a good substitute for Haggis, but their track records are about the same in terms of quality. His track record as a screenwriter is no better than Haggis'. His most recent project, AMERICAN GANGSTER, wasn't particularly well-written, and was rendered watchable only through the talents of the cast and Ridley Scott.

If Haggis doesn't stick around for BOND 23, I could see them picking up Zaillian.

I will say, though, that this situation does seem a bit odd to me, as he's apparently not been doing any polishing to the script that he turned in back in October, which I was always under the impression was not a completed draft in the sense that it hadn't had any tweaking done to it.

Well, I guess they are happy as to how things have developed and didn't feel like they needed Haggis to return since the strike ended.

Well, they're hardly nothing, but I'd rather lose any of those people you mention than Haggis. I mean, look at old veteran Peter Lamont (who did, IMO, his best ever work on CASINO ROYALE) - he's gone, but there hasn't been much of an outcry in fandom. And if, say, Arnold were to leave the series, I'm sure that fandom would by and large get over it pretty quickly and look forward to hearing the new guy's music. Haggis, though, is just getting started, and I reckon there'd be quite a bit of disappointment among Bond fans if it were announced that he wasn't coming back for BOND 23.

Agreed. I'm rather looking forward to what Haggis will bring to this installment, which he had a rather large role in shaping (even though his original idea for the story was thrown out, and seemingly not by him).

[Leon]

Sorry but why are we voting?

I added the poll, Leon, to demonstrate the ridiculous polarity of the two sides.

One camp, the Loomiscrats, seem to think that Haggis is the most critical component in the Casino Royale success equation.

The other camp, the Hildebrepublicans, seem to think that Haggis is of little more importance than the third assistant janitor's dialog coach.

I obviously missed a lot.

The fan reaction against Haggis isn't fair I agree.

But surely someone involved with Bond to the extent he has should be aware that no writer associated with Ian Fleming's James Bond post-1964 has 100% say on the title. Be it Amis, Gardner, Benson, Higson, Maibaum, France, Fierstein, Purvis/Wade, etc. None of them got the sole vote.

I still am missing what he said in this interview to warrant such judgemental talk. Where did he show his annoyance at the title? He merely said "no comment"...this could well be because people keep asking him this question and he's sick of it. He also clearly doesn't know much about the title an it's origin so he can't really comment on it anyway can he?

"The MTV report goes on to state that the screenwriter was less-than-enthusiastic about the choice of “Quantum of Solace”. ‘No comment’ was his official reply."

Here all we have is "no comment", and some hot air about him not liking the title...by MTV. MTV...people here actually believe that they don't slant stories for shock factor? "Bond screenwriter doesn't like new title!! Shock, Horror!"...er no, again all he said was "no comment".

This doesn't make him a bad writer or unfit for Bond, he did an excellent job on CR as the script was blatantly miles better than anything P&W ever did before.

Edited by Leon, 26 February 2008 - 09:39 PM.

[plankattack]

This doesn't make him a bad writer or unfit for Bond, he did an excellent job on CR as the script was blatantly miles better than anything P&W ever did before.

Well said. It feels like there's a lot of revisionism going on today (isn't that what boards are for???). There's another thread running going on about great it is that there are big name/reputation people now involved in a Bond. It does say something about the franchise that after years of John Glen (yep, taken a few shots at him) or Vic Armstrong (yep, taken a few shots at him) or P&W (yep, taken a few shots at them) that it's attracting Forster, Haggis etc. So the latter is suddenly a hack and completely dispensable now that he gave an interview that he didn't proclaim Bond as the centerpiece of his career/life/existence/universive?

And in response we feel that there are plenty of other a-list writers who could bring something to the franchise (agreed - there are). But, let's be fair, Haggis coming onboard CR (which, truth be told, was staffed by EON regulars) helped send the message from the producers that EON was more than willing to now go out-of-house to make the films, and so it's only fair to acknowledge that.

BTW Haggis-critics, I thought Crash was crap, but there you go

And Million Dollar Baby, that was cobblers.

But Walker, Texas Ranger - that's literary gold...,..

Edited by plankattack, 26 February 2008 - 09:57 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

He also clearly doesn't know much about the title an it's origin so he can't really comment on it anyway can he?

Is it reasonable to expect that a Bond screenwriter, be, oh I don't know, familiar with Fleming's work?

Here all we have is "no comment", and some hot air about him not liking the title...by MTV. MTV...people here actually believe that they don't slant stories for shock factor? "Bond screenwriter doesn't like new title!! Shock, Horror!"...er no, again all he said was "no comment".

This doesn't make him a bad writer or unfit for Bond, he did an excellent job on CR as the script was blatantly miles better than anything P&W ever did before.

And here you are making the assumption that because Haggis worked on it - all the good parts must be his and all the bad parts must belong to P&W.

Do I have to point out all the times the same set of writers & production personnel worked on two or more films yet we got radically different results quality wise?

AVTAK & TLD - Maibaum/Glen on both - radically different result.

Goldfinger & TMWGG - Maibaum/Hamilton on both - radically different result.

People seem to be falling over themselves to say that "ooh - they brought in Haggis - that showed they meant business. He's the king!"

Well, let's see - they brought in Oscar Winner (ooh!) Paul Dehn to polish Goldfinger.

Should we give all credit of Goldfinger's success to Dehn?

[DaveBond21]

I think that as long as the film is great, I won't care who wrote what.

[Loomis]

Loomis - are you privy to some details about Haggis' work that the rest of us aren't? I will by no means belittle his contributions - but as HR said - he was one of 4 credited writers on the film. How are you conscious that it was his contributions alone that mattered?

I'm not, and I don't think I've ever said that it was only his contributions that mattered.

Neither do I think that Haggis was "the most critical component in the Casino Royale success equation". I'd guess that his contribution was secondary to that of Campbell.

What I do keep saying, and what I stand by, is that Haggis seems to me the most important member of the current Bond creative team (by which I mean - and, sorry, I guess I should have defined this before - the lineup of talent that has to date worked on more than one Bond movie apart from QoS and looks likely to be employed again on Bond in the future - which excludes Forster).... after Broccoli and Wilson.

Craig I do not include in my definition of "creative team" - perhaps I should include him. But I don't, since's he's an actor, not behind-the-scenes talent. I mean, he doesn't write, direct, compose, decide the roadmap for the series, etc. Still, I'd obviously rather keep him around than Haggis, if it were necessary to choose between the two.

Above all, though, I'm trying to defend Haggis against attacks that I do not consider warranted.

[freemo]

I'm the one who voted "Haggis is more important than Ian Fleming".

Something about the strong phrasing, seemingly an effort to prevent any sort of positive Haggis result. It was almost daring me to vote for it. A poll made to prove a point rather than gather fan sentiment. I couldn't help myself.

I think alot of the "ridiculous polarity" is imaginatry. Any comment remotely prasing Haggis is construed as an extreme one. If you like Haggis and dare to suggest he made a nice contribution to the CR script (a not unreason assuption as the other credited writers on the script were the people who brought you such classics as The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day) then you must think him to be "important than Ian Fleming", and "the most critical component".

Hell, maybe he was "the most critical component". I don't know that he was, but I don't know that he wasn't either. I mean, of all the critical componets, someone must has been the "most" critical.

Do I have to point out all the times the same set of writers & production personnel worked on two or more films yet we got radically different results quality wise?

AVTAK & TLD - Maibaum/Glen on both - radically different result.

Dalton is the difference between those two films. The writing and directing are much of a muchness. Dalton elevates TLD to a higher level than it deserves. I give him all the credit for TLD. All of it. Including that nice bit of camera work when Saunders is killed. "Dalton more important than Ian Fleming". You can quote me on that*.

* - Don't quote me on that.

From now on, I'm going to write Haggis as "Hagggggggggggggis", to emphasise his importance (13 g's. No more, no less). I encourage you all to do the same.

Go Hagggggggggggggis!

[Bondian]

Here's a good question for ya. Could Ian Flemmmmmmmmming write a better screenplay that Haggis?.