401 replies to this topic

[DaveBond21]

Quantum of Solace = "measure of comfort" = quality of comfort.

My measure of comfort will be not having to take a bathroom break!

[DLibrasnow]

Whatever happened to Purwis and Wade writing 22 immediately after CR? In the end, they waited until the last minute and Haggis couldn't really complete his rewrite.

Actually MGW said at the Oct. 14, 2005 press conference that introdiced Danial Craig as the new 007, that work was already well underway on the script for Bond 22. The only thing one can assume is that the script produced was thrown out. Haggis could not complete his polish because of the writers strike, which cannot be laid solely at the feet of MGW and Babs.

Purvis and Wade have got the principal writing credit on the film. So, a good deal of what they wrote must have made it through to the final shooting script.

Yes, I did not mean to infer that Haggis had written the entire movie, just that the script Purvis and Wade were writing in 2005 had been largely thrown out. I am sure Purvis and Wade returned to work on it again.

There is a tradition in Bond movies of taking what worked in an old script and utilizing it in a new script (e.g. the supertanker with a hull that opens in Diamonds Are Forever showing up in The Spy Who Loved Me.

[triviachamp]

Purvis and Wade have got the principal writing credit on the film. So, a good deal of what they wrote must have made it through to the final shooting script.

From what I have read about the WGA just writing the first draft pretty much guarantees writing credit no matter how much of it was used.

[Colossus]

This could also be a marketing reason since studios want shorter movies to have more runtimes in theaters.

[CamExam]

I honestly dont see how this movie could have a better plot then CR with a 106 minute run time. This movie better not dissapoint

[Professor Dent]

At first glance, it seems short when you account for the beginning & ending credits. Not sure how much "character development" we are going to see. For an action movie, a two hour run time seems right - removing the credits, you get about an hour & 50 minutes. But, I'll leave the second guesses until after I see it. At least cutting one famous line saved about six seconds.

[Cruiserweight]

I really don't care about the run time. Sure a longer run time might mean a little extra fun with more movie to watch but i'm just glad a new bond will be here soon!

[Mr. Blofeld]

Purvis and Wade have got the principal writing credit on the film. So, a good deal of what they wrote must have made it through to the final shooting script.

From what I have read about the WGA just writing the first draft pretty much guarantees writing credit no matter how much of it was used.

What about Zetumer, however? Doesn't he get a credit?

[sorking]

Purvis and Wade have got the principal writing credit on the film. So, a good deal of what they wrote must have made it through to the final shooting script.

From what I have read about the WGA just writing the first draft pretty much guarantees writing credit no matter how much of it was used.

If you use characters, situations, etc. generally it's a 'story by' credit only. If most of your draft gets thrown out, you lose your screenplay credit. They still need to use a decent sliver of story/character/event/dialogue to be credited that way. They may not have a single line left in the movie, but if the villain's scheme, character choices and story structure remain theirs, say, that's still 'written by' creditworthy.

They wrote. Haggis rewrote. What interests me is whether Joshua Zetumer will be credited after arbitration.

If you check the deleted scenes for TND, you'll find there wasn't any extra plot development that was taken out due to pacing reasons, just dumb jokes which were better out of the film. And TND was longer than QOS.

Not every scene cut from TND was included on the DVD. The Stamper pain/pleasure stuff was definitely filmed (note how the edit avoids shots that go too close on his differently-coloured eyes).

Before that, the last Bond under two hours was DAF and in their desire to deliver a shorter film after OHMSS, they left the film with some annoying plot holes in it. Before that, YOLT was't precisely a very well plotted film either.
The fact the first three Bonds were under two hours is no guarantee for QOS.

Neither is it a guarantee that QoS won't work.

It baffles me how people will choose to ignore basic facts - the very different screenplay structure CR had, the fact that the filmmakers might just know what they're doing with the script better than the fans who've watched a trailer or two. Even the fact that the runtime quote we have may or may not include titles and/or credits.

But then, I'm also concerned by how much store is being put into the "twice as much action" quote. Let's be clear here, this is the producer talking to the press, and one quick comment. The substance of it alone is meaningless: what is 'twice as much action?' Is it in terms of running time? Intensity? Number of people/vehicles involved?

What's twice as big as CR's stairwell fight? Four bad guys rather than two? A fight that lasts twice as long? Or just twice as many stairs to fall down? It's a nonsense marketing phrase and should be filed right next to Cubby saying "He's the closest actor to how Fleming imagined the character" about every 007 he ever cast.

Edited by sorking, 23 September 2008 - 12:01 AM.

[The Richmond Spy]

Less Run Time = More Viewings = More $$$$$ = No more taking a backseat to a bunch of Penguins

This time it's personal.

Penguins



(Seriously, I don't care about the run-time...it will be okay)

[Gabriel]

One, there were no Moneypenny or Q scenes in "CASINO ROYALE". The two characters were barely present in the other long Bond film - "ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE". Two, the casino sequences were NOT unecessary. They played an important part in the story. The casino scenes in Montenegro were the conerstone in CR's entire story.

I presume you're being as sarcastic as I was, otherwise I'd have to rate you as a complete wit! I know there were casino scenes in Casino Royale! You'd have to be a bit of a head not to notice when the film's called CASINO Royale! I was talking about Quantum of Solace and how you could shoehorn all of old Bond's most eye-rollingly dull conventions back in to drag it out to an excessive runtime, not commenting on Casino Royale! I thought that would have been obvious to anyone with the tiniest modicum of a sense of humour!!

And, quite frankly, if you can't write characterisation into a 106-minute film, then you must be incompetent and shouldn't be writing movies! People's reactions also seem to be involving a common misunderstanding that Bond films are somehow special and deserve to be treated differently from other films. Newsflash! They're not! They're as important to their owners as DC Comics adaptations are to Warners or Star Trek and Mission: Impossible are to Paramount.

QoS was always intended to be a bullet of an intense film. That the director aimed for less than two hours before shooting and delivered a 106-minute film means he got everything he wanted into it and achieved his aims. The duration is an extremely positive sign. Had he said he wanted to make a 150-minute film and we landed up with a 106-minute film, then people would be suspicious that the studio had forced cuts on the film.

People need to chill out! The hardcore fans can see the film twice in one day and not risk eyestrain!

[Bondian]

A shorter Bond should mean a tigher movie, but more 'extras' on the DVD.

As Quantum of Solace is a follow-up to Casino Royale, would we really want a two-and-a-half hour revenge movie?

[DR76]

I presume you're being as sarcastic as I was, otherwise I'd have to rate you as a complete wit! I know there were casino scenes in Casino Royale! You'd have to be a bit of a head not to notice when the film's called CASINO Royale! I was talking about Quantum of Solace and how you could shoehorn all of old Bond's most eye-rollingly dull conventions back in to drag it out to an excessive runtime, not commenting on Casino Royale! I thought that would have been obvious to anyone with the tiniest modicum of a sense of humour!!

You need to chill out. My God! Is this type of commentary in which members insult others allowed in this forum?

Edited by DR76, 23 September 2008 - 12:34 AM.

[DaveBond21]

A shorter Bond should mean a tigher movie, but more 'extras' on the DVD.

As Quantum of Solace is a follow-up to Casino Royale, would we really want a two-and-a-half hour revenge movie?

Good point, Bondian. Lots of deleted scenes, including Daniel introducing himself as "Bond, James Bond" once or twice!

[DR76]

I'm not going to pretend that a movie with a 106 minute running time will obviously be better than CASINO ROYALE, in order to feel good about it. But since it is a Bond movie, I won't dismiss QUANTUM OF SOLACE, either. I can't say that I'm happy with this new knowledge, but I guess I'll just wait and see how this movie turns out.

Edited by DR76, 23 September 2008 - 12:40 AM.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Purvis and Wade have got the principal writing credit on the film. So, a good deal of what they wrote must have made it through to the final shooting script.

From what I have read about the WGA just writing the first draft pretty much guarantees writing credit no matter how much of it was used.

If you use characters, situations, etc. generally it's a 'story by' credit only. If most of your draft gets thrown out, you lose your screenplay credit. They still need to use a decent sliver of story/character/event/dialogue to be credited that way. They may not have a single line left in the movie, but if the villain's scheme, character choices and story structure remain theirs, say, that's still 'written by' creditworthy.

They wrote. Haggis rewrote. What interests me is whether Joshua Zetumer will be credited after arbitration.

If you check the deleted scenes for TND, you'll find there wasn't any extra plot development that was taken out due to pacing reasons, just dumb jokes which were better out of the film. And TND was longer than QOS.

Not every scene cut from TND was included on the DVD. The Stamper pain/pleasure stuff was definitely filmed (note how the edit avoids shots that go too close on his differently-coloured eyes).

Before that, the last Bond under two hours was DAF and in their desire to deliver a shorter film after OHMSS, they left the film with some annoying plot holes in it. Before that, YOLT was't precisely a very well plotted film either.
The fact the first three Bonds were under two hours is no guarantee for QOS.

Neither is it a guarantee that QoS won't work.

It baffles me how people will choose to ignore basic facts - the very different screenplay structure CR had, the fact that the filmmakers might just know what they're doing with the script better than the fans who've watched a trailer or two. Even the fact that the runtime quote we have may or may not include titles and/or credits.

But then, I'm also concerned by how much store is being put into the "twice as much action" quote. Let's be clear here, this is the producer talking to the press, and one quick comment. The substance of it alone is meaningless: what is 'twice as much action?' Is it in terms of running time? Intensity? Number of people/vehicles involved?

What's twice as big as CR's stairwell fight? Four bad guys rather than two? A fight that lasts twice as long? Or just twice as many stairs to fall down? It's a nonsense marketing phrase and should be filed right next to Cubby saying "He's the closest actor to how Fleming imagined the character" about every 007 he ever cast.

I've got the TND final shooting script and it's got no reference whatsoever to Stamper's predicament. It definitely was in the script at some earlier point but how do you know it was actually filmed?

[trevanian]

Purvis and Wade have got the principal writing credit on the film. So, a good deal of what they wrote must have made it through to the final shooting script.

From what I have read about the WGA just writing the first draft pretty much guarantees writing credit no matter how much of it was used.

If you use characters, situations, etc. generally it's a 'story by' credit only. If most of your draft gets thrown out, you lose your screenplay credit. They still need to use a decent sliver of story/character/event/dialogue to be credited that way. They may not have a single line left in the movie, but if the villain's scheme, character choices and story structure remain theirs, say, that's still 'written by' creditworthy.

They wrote. Haggis rewrote. What interests me is whether Joshua Zetumer will be credited after arbitration.

Actually in order to lose a screenplay credit you have to be rewritten to a tune of like 75%. The first writers almost always get credit because the system is set up that way (and it explains why certain terrible writers get other work or even get oscars, because they are being awarded for the work of others, like Logan for the Scorsese movie -- he hadn't worked on the Hughes pic since 1996, there were a million other, probably better writers than him.)

I wonder if Zetumer will get a credit like Tom M. got on SUPERMAN, a sort of creative consultant credit.

[Gabriel]

You need to chill out. My God! Is this type of commentary in which members insult others allowed in this forum?

Omigod! You mean you weren't joking when you replied to my post?!! Omigod!!! ROTFLMAO!!!! That's priceless!!! I honestly thought you were kidding, hence the tone of my -mark laden reply! I thought you were having a laugh and I kidded back!

Dude, really, read what I said again and you'll realise there was a form of low-quality humour at play there!

[Mr Gabriel exits stage left, shaking his head, gobsmacked!]

[The Richmond Spy]

I love sitting there in the theater for a few seconds and thinking, "Wow, I'm sitting here watching the new Bond film..."

Knowing that I will have less time to have that thought makes me sad...then again, if I have time to daydream about what I'm doing more than just a few times...

...it must be getting long

[DR76]

You need to chill out. My God! Is this type of commentary in which members insult others allowed in this forum?

Omigod! You mean you weren't joking when you replied to my post?!! Omigod!!! ROTFLMAO!!!! That's priceless!!! I honestly thought you were kidding, hence the tone of my -mark laden reply! I thought you were having a laugh and I kidded back!

Dude, really, read what I said again and you'll realise there was a form of low-quality humour at play there!

[Mr Gabriel exits stage left, shaking his head, gobsmacked!]

I'm sorry, but your sense of humor doesn't appeal to me. Why don't we leave it at that? Okay?

[Gabriel]

Good point, Bondian. Lots of deleted scenes, including Daniel introducing himself as "Bond, James Bond" once or twice!

I wouldn't be so sure. Aiming a film at little under two hours and achieving that target comfortably implies they won't have been casting aside many scenes. We might get a few trims here and there, but I suspect that this film will actually be lighter or bereft of deleted scenes.

[Bondian]

A shorter Bond should mean a tigher movie, but more 'extras' on the DVD.

As Quantum of Solace is a follow-up to Casino Royale, would we really want a two-and-a-half hour revenge movie?

Good point, Bondian. Lots of deleted scenes, including Daniel introducing himself as "Bond, James Bond" once or twice!

Yes, Sir.

I love sitting there in the theater for a few seconds and thinking, "Wow, I'm sitting here watching the new Bond film..."

Knowing that I will have less time to have that thought makes me sad...then again, if I have time to daydream about what I'm doing more than just a few times...

...it must be getting long

LOL. Good point. With the shorter running time. If this movie's that good, they'll be more screenings a day. More screenings = more Bond, but more time to worry about how much this is costing you = less sadness.

[Gabriel]

I'm sorry, but your sense of humor doesn't appeal to me. Why don't we leave it at that? Okay?

[Even more staggered and slightly disorientated, to boot!]

Um, okay! If you check the control panel I think you can make my posts invisible, if I upset you so much! Wasn't intended! Just didn't expect someone to take a remark that was so obviously sarcastic seriously!

[Bondian]

I'm sorry, but your sense of humor doesn't appeal to me. Why don't we leave it at that? Okay?

[Even more staggered and slightly disorientated, to boot!]

Um, okay! If you check the control panel I think you can make my posts invisible, if I upset you so much! Wasn't intended! Just didn't expect someone to take a remark that was so obviously sarcastic seriously!

Come on, guys. Please don't stoop to an argument. Bond fans have more class ya know.

[Professor Dent]

A shorter Bond should mean a tigher movie, but more 'extras' on the DVD.

This would be nice but if they follow the Casino Royale DVD blueprint (bare bones disc first followed by more elaborate disc), we will be waiting two more years for those extras. Assuming they even include them.

[sorking]

Purvis and Wade have got the principal writing credit on the film. So, a good deal of what they wrote must have made it through to the final shooting script.

From what I have read about the WGA just writing the first draft pretty much guarantees writing credit no matter how much of it was used.

If you use characters, situations, etc. generally it's a 'story by' credit only. If most of your draft gets thrown out, you lose your screenplay credit. They still need to use a decent sliver of story/character/event/dialogue to be credited that way. They may not have a single line left in the movie, but if the villain's scheme, character choices and story structure remain theirs, say, that's still 'written by' creditworthy.

They wrote. Haggis rewrote. What interests me is whether Joshua Zetumer will be credited after arbitration.

Actually in order to lose a screenplay credit you have to be rewritten to a tune of like 75%. The first writers almost always get credit because the system is set up that way (and it explains why certain terrible writers get other work or even get oscars, because they are being awarded for the work of others, like Logan for the Scorsese movie -- he hadn't worked on the Hughes pic since 1996, there were a million other, probably better writers than him.)

That's still writing 25% of the film. If the other two writers each cover the other 37.5% each, that's not SO much more than P&W. I guess what I'm saying is, I'd still describe 25% as a 'substantial portion' of the screenplay, rather than just tokenism for the original writer(s). Because there is a threshold they could drop beneath to be dropped to 'story' credit, it's not a bottomless, un-loseable credit.

Of course this is partially because '25% of the screenplay' is tough to pin down, when you get, say, a scene where X confronts Y in the original draft. Then the location is changed by the second writer, and the dialogue is changed by the third writer...the original writers still outlined a confrontation scene, so it's partly still theirs.

But sure, one man's 'pretty substantial contribution' is another's 'only a quarter of the film'. Fair enough.

[DR76]

According to the Wikipedia site, Joshua Zetumer is listed as one of the screenwriters. But the IMDB site doesn't list him.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

Whatever happened to Purwis and Wade writing 22 immediately after CR? In the end, they waited until the last minute and Haggis couldn't really complete his rewrite.

Actually MGW said at the Oct. 14, 2005 press conference that introdiced Danial Craig as the new 007, that work was already well underway on the script for Bond 22. The only thing one can assume is that the script produced was thrown out. Haggis could not complete his polish because of the writers strike, which cannot be laid solely at the feet of MGW and Babs.

Purwis & Wade delivered their draft so late there's no way they started the actual writing immediately after done with CR and that was really a missed opportunity. Bond scripts should be written way in advance of filming in order to do as little rewriting during filming. The script writing scenario for QOS also smells suspiciously of the TND chaos, where more writers than ever before had to be brought to polish the mess before it was too late.

[mario007]

what is the impact of shorter scenes? eg. the freefall scene according to dan 'blink and you will miss it' what the ? why am I paying to see a film when the scenes last only for seconds at a time! Granted CR casino scenes dragged on sometimes! I think a bond film should at least be two hours ... with the pretitles, song etc ... I am not happy with the 106 min run-time, comedies are usually 90 min!

Edited by mario007, 23 September 2008 - 01:08 AM.

[DR76]

Granted CR casino scenes dragged on sometimes!

Actually, the casino sequences didn't seem that long upon the viewings after the first. The casino moments kept being interrupted by other action or dramatic scenes. And it seemed a hell of a lot better than the 1967 version in which Bond and Le Chiffre's encounter went by so fast, I barely had time to blink.

Edited by DR76, 23 September 2008 - 01:10 AM.