33 replies to this topic

[Eurospy]

Rumour has it that Forster ditched Purvis and Wade's draft completely.

Does anyone know how different it was from the final version?

I presume there were no invisible cars... But nonetheless I'm curious about the plot differences.

If anyone can shed some light I would be quite thankful.

[Righty007]

They're credited for Quantum of Solace so I can't imagine their entire script was thrown out.

[Mr. Blofeld]

My guess is that "Strawberry" Fields was their idea; a sort of homage to the character of Mary Ann Russell from the short story From a View to a Kill.

Of course, I could be wrong...

[tdalton]

My guess is that "Strawberry" Fields was their idea; a sort of homage to the character of Mary Ann Russell from the short story From a View to a Kill.

Of course, I could be wrong...

Agreed. "Strawberry" Fields was probably their idea, but it's actually one of their better original characters. Certainly much better than Jinx, Christmas Jones, etc.

[CaptainPower]

I like the fact that "Strawberry" is never mentioned in the film, but at the same time it's sort of a shame that it'll be missed by many people who don't stick around for the credits.

[dogmanstar]

My guess is that "Strawberry" Fields was their idea; a sort of homage to the character of Mary Ann Russell from the short story From a View to a Kill.

Of course, I could be wrong...

Why Mary Ann? I don't quite see the connection?

[DamnCoffee]

"So, Fields what is your first name?"
"It's embarrasing"
"I won't laugh, promise"
"Lets just say..... I was concieved at a beatles concert"
"Well... for everything your name is worth, you certainly taste like it."

^ If Purvis and Wade had full control.

[HH007]

They're credited for Quantum of Solace so I can't imagine their entire script was thrown out.

That doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. Dan O'Bannon has sole screenwriting credit on "Alien", despite the fact that the shooting script only bore a vague resemblance to what he wrote. And Oliver Stone has a co-writing credit on "Evita", despite having not worked on that script at all. Sometimes credits are completely meaningless.

[Mr. Blofeld]

My guess is that "Strawberry" Fields was their idea; a sort of homage to the character of Mary Ann Russell from the short story From a View to a Kill.

Of course, I could be wrong...

Why Mary Ann? I don't quite see the connection?

She's a secretary who works at the station and whom Bond makes light banter with, and she later gets into the action by injuring a villain threatening Bond; it's not a stretch to turn her light overcoat into Fields' trenchcoat...

[dogmanstar]

My guess is that "Strawberry" Fields was their idea; a sort of homage to the character of Mary Ann Russell from the short story From a View to a Kill.

Of course, I could be wrong...

Why Mary Ann? I don't quite see the connection?

She's a secretary who works at the station and whom Bond makes light banter with, and she later gets into the action by injuring a villain threatening Bond; it's not a stretch to turn her light overcoat into Fields' trenchcoat...

Oh, thanks!

[Mr. Blofeld]

My guess is that "Strawberry" Fields was their idea; a sort of homage to the character of Mary Ann Russell from the short story From a View to a Kill.

Of course, I could be wrong...

Why Mary Ann? I don't quite see the connection?

She's a secretary who works at the station and whom Bond makes light banter with, and she later gets into the action by injuring a villain threatening Bond; it's not a stretch to turn her light overcoat into Fields' trenchcoat...

Oh, thanks!

Have you read the story? Using the name of the character probably could have tied it even further to Fleming, and the murder of the motorbike couriers from the same short story could easily play into the plot of a future Bond film...

[Zographos]

Rumour has it that Forster ditched Purvis and Wade's draft completely.

I don't think there was ever such a rumour. I think you misread something from the CBn main page like this:

"...while another interview from September hinted the film’s plot had been “tossed out” at some point during development."

Which was actually a reference to Haggis' idea (to feature Vesper's child):

"In a previously undiscovered interview, Bond 22 writer Paul Haggis revealed to Esquire that his original storyline for the film was “tossed out” during development."

[Eurospy]

Purvis and Wade getting credit might be simply a contract clause, it happens many times. Many times indeed.

And the rumour, well, it wasn't just on CBn, I read about in other places as well.

The way the fim industry works is the reason why I don't blame Purvis and Wade as much. It happens frequently, to have a couple of other writers or script doctors that contribute to the dialogue or other types of polishing or slight rewrites without receiving any kind of official credit.

Edited by Eurospy, 18 December 2008 - 12:40 AM.

[Kristian]

Purvis and Wade getting credit might be simply a contract clause, it happens many times. Many times indeed.

And the rumour, well, it wasn't just on CBn, I read about in other places as well.

The way the fim industry works is the reason why I don't blame Purvis and Wade as much. It happens frequently, to have a couple of other writers or script doctors that contribute to the dialogue or other types of polishing or slight rewrites without receiving any kind of official credit.

The EMPIRE magazine article on QOS states that Forster took one look at P&W's draft and "demanded a complete rewrite." I believe that's what the quote was. Can't confirm at the moment, because the mag is on my desk at work.

So, for better or worse, it sounds like it was Marc Forster's call.

[Harmsway]

The EMPIRE magazine article on QOS states that Forster took one look at P&W's draft and "demanded a complete rewrite."

Yup, and Forster backed that up in other interviews. When EON came to him with the P&W draft, he was very unhappy with it. That's part of the reason he was keen to have Haggis come on board to make things work.

Now, folks are also right to comment that Haggis' work was somewhat tossed out halfway through, too (largely because Haggis had introduced the idea of Vesper's child into the mix, and it was eventually shot down). So the history of QUANTUM OF SOLACE's screenplay is quite tumultuous.

[TheREAL008]

The EMPIRE magazine article on QOS states that Forster took one look at P&W's draft and "demanded a complete rewrite."

Yup, and Forster backed that up in other interviews. When EON came to him with the P&W draft, he was very unhappy with it. That's part of the reason he was keen to have Haggis come on board to make things work.

Now, folks are also right to comment that Haggis' work was somewhat tossed out halfway through, too (largely because Haggis had introduced the idea of Vesper's child into the mix, and it was eventually shot down). So the history of QUANTUM OF SOLACE's screenplay is quite tumultuous.

I'm sure it's not the first time a Purvis and Wade script had been called to rewrite. What I can't understand is why do they keep coming back?

[Captain Tightpants]

Virtually all scripts go through numerous re-writes before a final shooting script is decided. Look at TOMORROW NEVER DIES: it originally started out about the exchange of Hong Kong from Britain to China. Elliot Carver was originally Sir Elliot Harmsway, a man whose family had been instrumental in taking Hong Kong from an uninhabited island to the prosperous centre that it was circa 1997. Sickened by the loss of the island that had made his family name, Harmsway decided to give it back to the Chinese just the way his family had found it: a barren rock. The device that would become the Sea Drill was originally a long and highly flexible "worm", a device with a cutting edge made of depleted uranium that Harmsway used to bore into British ships transporting gold from Hong Kong to England. He then intended to use it to carve a hole into a nuclear reactor on the island and cause a catastrophic meltdown and irradiate the island.

That script was pulled when the producers were advised it was a bad idea to centre the plot around a terrorist attack on Hong Kong at the moment of the handover, because it would not look good for them if something did happen.

When Forster took "one look" at P&W's script, it's not like he read the cover page and then ordered it shredded, burned and the ashed flushed down the toilet. Chances are he read it, and felt that it did not explore he story that he wanted to tell; Bond's emotional state and his quest for answers as to the death of Vesper Lynd were what convinced him to sign up for a film in a series he would not normally want anything to do with.

I'm sure it's not the first time a Purvis and Wade script had been called to rewrite. What I can't understand is why do they keep coming back?

Because despite all their criticism, they can actually write some decent stuff. For all its faults, the exchange between Bond and Renard in the missile silo - the one where Renard asks "How does it feel, knowing that I broke her in for you?" - is one of the high points of TWINE, and certainly one of the best exchages between hero and villain.

[eddychaput]

Agreed with the Captain. Purvis and Wide aren't as bad as people claim they are. I always thought the script to TWINE was pretty solid. Fince, they gave us the rubbish that was DAD, but still. I'd be very curious to read what the original screenplay was, if it ever surfaces of course.

All this discussion about rewrites confirms, in my opinion at least, that QOS was a bit of a rushed job. The producers had to take the writers strike into consideration and gambled on what they had as a story just before the clock struck to begin the strike. That arguably explains why QOS feels a bit like a missed opportunity as a cohesive story.

[BlackFire]

"So, Fields what is your first name?"
"It's embarrasing"
"I won't laugh, promise"
"Lets just say..... I was concieved at a beatles concert"
"Well... for everything your name is worth, you certainly taste like it."

^ If Purvis and Wade had full control.

Awesome

[blueman]

Craig commented recently, he and Forster rewrote a lot of QOS on-set. Also I remember, Joshua Zetumer was supposed to have been working on-set doing rewrites as they were filming. And (to counter an above post) it does indeed show: QOS is the best-crafted Bond script/story since the 60s IMHO. I don't think all those folks take the time to do all that work unless they care about it. Just my read on it.

[MattofSteel]

P&W aren't terrible writers, and we can't forget that a writer is at the beckon of a director (and producer) just like everyone else behind the camera. When Lee Tamahori or Barbara/Michael said "let's push DAD into the realm of fantasy," Purvis & Wade had to oblige.

Whether that makes 'yo' mama!' forgivable is another debate .

And they have to get some credit for at least writing Casino Royale. They seem to be fairly good at plotting and mapping out action beats/concepts. I'd wager that Quantum's overall structure (vis a vis locations and set pieces) was their doing, and that the content gaps/stylistic choices were the influence of Haggis, Forster, etc. But then again I wasn't there, so I don't know.

[Captain Tightpants]

Craig commented recently, he and Forster rewrote a lot of QOS on-set. Also I remember, Joshua Zetumer was supposed to have been working on-set doing rewrites as they were filming. And (to counter an above post) it does indeed show: QOS is the best-crafted Bond script/story since the 60s IMHO. I don't think all those folks take the time to do all that work unless they care about it. Just my read on it.

And it's not like they spent a week filming a scene and the Forster and Craig decided they didn't like it and so re-wrote it with a new setting, which directly influences everything from that point on. More likely they simply touched up the dialogue in places.

[SecretAgentFan]

P&W aren't terrible writers, and we can't forget that a writer is at the beckon of a director (and producer) just like everyone else behind the camera. When Lee Tamahori or Barbara/Michael said "let's push DAD into the realm of fantasy," Purvis & Wade had to oblige.

Whether that makes 'yo' mama!' forgivable is another debate .

And they have to get some credit for at least writing Casino Royale. They seem to be fairly good at plotting and mapping out action beats/concepts. I'd wager that Quantum's overall structure (vis a vis locations and set pieces) was their doing, and that the content gaps/stylistic choices were the influence of Haggis, Forster, etc. But then again I wasn't there, so I don't know.

Very fair assessment. Also, I think "yo` mama" could have been a typical actor´s idea...

[Bonita]

Purvis and Wade getting credit might be simply a contract clause, it happens many times. Many times indeed.

And the rumour, well, it wasn't just on CBn, I read about in other places as well.

The way the fim industry works is the reason why I don't blame Purvis and Wade as much. It happens frequently, to have a couple of other writers or script doctors that contribute to the dialogue or other types of polishing or slight rewrites without receiving any kind of official credit.

Final credits are not determined by "contract clauses" but by the Writers Guild. The producers submit credits to the Guild and the Guild then provides an opportunity to the writers to object. Regardless, the first writers on a project are offered "irreducible story minimum" which means no matter how much is tossed out, they get a "story by" credit.

I did not hear of arbitration on QoS, so likely Eon submitted these credits and no on objected.

Keep dancing...

[blueman]

P&W aren't terrible writers, and we can't forget that a writer is at the beckon of a director (and producer) just like everyone else behind the camera. When Lee Tamahori or Barbara/Michael said "let's push DAD into the realm of fantasy," Purvis & Wade had to oblige.

Whether that makes 'yo' mama!' forgivable is another debate .

And they have to get some credit for at least writing Casino Royale. They seem to be fairly good at plotting and mapping out action beats/concepts. I'd wager that Quantum's overall structure (vis a vis locations and set pieces) was their doing, and that the content gaps/stylistic choices were the influence of Haggis, Forster, etc. But then again I wasn't there, so I don't know.

QOS has a much more cohesive structure than CR, or straight P&W scripts. Don't care for their dialogue or their Oprah-styling "family drama" plots.

[Vauxhall]

Also, I think "yo` mama" could have been a typical actor´s idea...

Yes, was about to say the same thing. I believe the script said "your mother", and "yo mama" was Halle Berry's attempt at inspired improvisation.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

"So, Fields what is your first name?"
"It's embarrasing"
"I won't laugh, promise"
"Lets just say..... I was concieved at a beatles concert"
"Well... for everything your name is worth, you certainly taste like it."

^ If Purvis and Wade had full control.

Awesome

I think that is spot on and epitomises P&W for me! I think they are good ideas writers, but when it comes to sharp good dialogue they fall short IMO.

Total film reports Craig and Forster spent weeks with the sketched out script handed to them by Haggis.
They also quoted Amalric 'We said to the new writer (zetumer) who was on the set we had invented this thing... its very intimate but I think its a reason to kill somebody: does he make her come?'.

Esquire quotes Forster as saying Haggis gave them an unfinished script that wasn't ready to be shot

Empire quotes "The pernickety director wasn't messing, either, demanding a complete rewrite of the first draft (by regugular duo P&W) from Paul Haggis
I also read somewhere the idea that Greene was an expert fighter was ditched by Haggis in his rewrite, but can't locate where I read it

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 07 January 2009 - 12:01 PM.

[MattofSteel]

QOS has a much more cohesive structure than CR, or straight P&W scripts. Don't care for their dialogue or their Oprah-styling "family drama" plots.

It's definitely a more tightly-plotted thriller, and by definition a simplistic story. Perhaps the rushed nature of the script shows in spots, and perhaps the quantity of dialogue is less than CR, but these elements in no way amount to it being bad. Were the filmmakers to have said "there were never script problems, we shot exactly what we wrote," some people would probably praise it for the same things it's currently being condemned for.

[Captain Tightpants]

I also read somewhere the idea that Greene was an expert fighter was ditched by Haggis in his rewrite, but can't locate where I read it

I seem to recall reading that Greene's complete inability to fight - ie no formal training - was something created in part by Amalric in an effort to make the character different in his own way. As he proved, a weapon in untrained hands is just as dangeous to the person using it as it is to his intended target.

[Eurospy]

Indeed. A person that's on full panic/rage/adrenaline mode doesn't need to be a good fighter in order to be extremely dangerous, even without a weapon.

I think that P & W are competent writers and get too much hatred. There's a tendency to associate Haggis with the more dramatic/dialogue mainly, but I read a couple of things recently that I'm sure most already knew. That it was Haggis that came up with the staircase fight in CR, and it was his idea to have the crumbling house finale (and Vesper's role was also extended up to that point).

It seems that - maybe - P & W have little chance to rewrite their drafts. One of them said so in some interview. And I think a writer should always get a chance to do some polishing in his own work. Guess I'm from the "writing is rewriting" school of thought.

Edited by Eurospy, 08 January 2009 - 07:31 PM.