625 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

As a screenwriter, you'll actually have very little control over the direction the script goes unless you have the virtue of directing it. A lot of scriptwriters get very frustrated when producers and directors interfere with their work.

And a lot learn very quickly that this is par of the course and get used to it.

[MattofSteel]

Indeed they do.

[Zorin Industries]

And it becomes as much a part of the process as writing.

[MattofSteel]

Indeed it does.

[zencat]

You know, there must be a script by now. They may even be a few drafts into it.

[The Shark]

First draft was finished in October IIRC, so they may be on the second or third.

[MattofSteel]

I'd have to assume so as well. At the very least, they'll have a very, very developed idea at this point.

The MGM situation could be an inadvertent blessing in disguise, from a script standpoint. With the usual production progress held up by the unavailability of funds (IE naming Mendes a 'consultant' to avoid that first trigger payment), it almost kind of forces them to focus hard on the script/preliminary stage.

Not that I'm naively suggesting they aren't doing anything else, but there certainly won't be any "rushed script" excuse floating around after the film is released.

[byline]

A lot of people attribute the "good dialogue" of CASINO ROYALE to Paul Haggis, but Haggis was only a script doctor. He came in and re-touched the dialogue throughout the film, but I would be very surprised if he re-did lengthy sections of the film. The scene in M's apartment is very Haggis-esque given his contribution to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but I think you'll find the scenes where Bond seduces Solange, when he first meets Mathis and the torture sequence are Purvis & Wade's work. Those are largely guesses, mind you; based largely on syntax and word choice. But each screenwriter has his or her own particular style, which is why some of the dilogue in TWINE and most of it in DAD is jarring: it's not written by Purvis & Wade.

I'd be willing to bet that he came up with the idea of Bond sucking the "blood" off Vesper's fingers in the shower scene, too. That's straight out of an episode of "Due South" ("Victoria's Secret") in which Fraser tracks a suspect, Victoria. The two of them end up trapped in a mountainside cabin during a snowstorm, and he licks her fingers to keep her from freezing to death.

[The Shark]

A lot of people attribute the "good dialogue" of CASINO ROYALE to Paul Haggis, but Haggis was only a script doctor. He came in and re-touched the dialogue throughout the film, but I would be very surprised if he re-did lengthy sections of the film. The scene in M's apartment is very Haggis-esque given his contribution to QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but I think you'll find the scenes where Bond seduces Solange, when he first meets Mathis and the torture sequence are Purvis & Wade's work. Those are largely guesses, mind you; based largely on syntax and word choice. But each screenwriter has his or her own particular style, which is why some of the dilogue in TWINE and most of it in DAD is jarring: it's not written by Purvis & Wade.

I'd be willing to bet that he came up with the idea of Bond sucking the "blood" off Vesper's fingers in the shower scene, too. That's straight out of an episode of "Due South" ("Victoria's Secret") in which Fraser tracks a suspect, Victoria. The two of them end up trapped in a mountainside cabin during a snowstorm, and he licks her fingers to keep her from freezing to death.

Yes, that bit is decidedly Haggis. Also, he rejected the initial idea of using the novels ending for something more climatic, choosing a sinking house in Venice.

[MattofSteel]

Ultimately a choice that paid off, I think.

[The Shark]

Ultimately a choice that paid off, I think.

I'm not too keen on it. Probably the weakest segment of CR IMO.

[MattofSteel]

Maybe, but IMO like saying it's the worst player in the hall of fame.

The reasoning apparently being that the ending of CR's novel wasn't considered overly cinematic, which I'd agree with easily.

[The Shark]

Maybe, but IMO like saying it's the worst player in the hall of fame.

The reasoning apparently being that the ending of CR's novel wasn't considered overly cinematic, which I'd agree with easily.

What's not cinematic about Bond discovering Vesper's body (perhaps in the shower), and gently holding her body, with the allusion to the earlier scene?

[Lachesis]

Ultimately a choice that paid off, I think.

I'm not too keen on it. Probably the weakest segment of CR IMO.

I agree the whole sequence seems overly contrived, though given the breakneck action earlier in the film it would make for a very uneven pace from beginning to end..... I dont really like the shift in the emotional bias of the film either so all the changes were for the negative imho...but I guess that will be considered sacraligious =/.

[MattofSteel]

What's not cinematic about Bond discovering Vesper's body (perhaps in the shower), and gently holding her body, with the allusion to the earlier scene?

Nothing's wrong with it. I'd love to see that. But the question they had to ask themselves was whether the 'masses' would be let down by a such a low-key ending for a Bond film that is, for the most part, devoid of any real dramatic climax.

They made their choice, and I think it was the right one. They weren't making a 1953 novel, they were making a 2006 blockbuster film. The fact that the novel was adapted even as closely as it was might be considered remarkable.

[tdalton]

They made their choice, and I think it was the right one. They weren't making a 1953 novel, they were making a 2006 blockbuster film. The fact that the novel was adapted even as closely as it was might be considered remarkable.

I don't find it amazing at all because the novel really isn't all that closely adapted on screen. The three main cogs of the original novel are there (card game, torture sequence, the novel's final line), but the rest of it is just glossed over.

The decision to switch the novel's focus to terrorism wasn't a particularly inspired choice. By the time that the film came out, such a direction was a rather obvious and cliche direction for them to go, and there were several other directions that they could have gone for instead that would have made the film more faithful to the novel.

Also, the writers could have still managed to have retained the novel's original ending while also having their action-packed finale. Having Vesper meet her demise in the context of an all-out action sequence was a monumental mistake, and one that will prevent me from ever ranking Casino Royale as my favorite Bond film. That moment, the emotional climax of the film, falls so completely flat that it really does let down everything that had built up to that moment. Also, the decision to condense the final third of the novel into roughly ten minutes of screen-time did not help the film at all. Cutting out one of the overlong action set-pieces at the beginning of the film would have allowed them to further develop the final third of the novel on the screen, and that would have significantly improved the overall quality of the film.

[Zorin Industries]

They made their choice, and I think it was the right one. They weren't making a 1953 novel, they were making a 2006 blockbuster film. The fact that the novel was adapted even as closely as it was might be considered remarkable.

I don't find it amazing at all because the novel really isn't all that closely adapted on screen. The three main cogs of the original novel are there (card game, torture sequence, the novel's final line), but the rest of it is just glossed over.

The decision to switch the novel's focus to terrorism wasn't a particularly inspired choice. By the time that the film came out, such a direction was a rather obvious and cliche direction for them to go, and there were several other directions that they could have gone for instead that would have made the film more faithful to the novel.

Also, the writers could have still managed to have retained the novel's original ending while also having their action-packed finale. Having Vesper meet her demise in the context of an all-out action sequence was a monumental mistake, and one that will prevent me from ever ranking Casino Royale as my favorite Bond film. That moment, the emotional climax of the film, falls so completely flat that it really does let down everything that had built up to that moment. Also, the decision to condense the final third of the novel into roughly ten minutes of screen-time did not help the film at all. Cutting out one of the overlong action set-pieces at the beginning of the film would have allowed them to further develop the final third of the novel on the screen, and that would have significantly improved the overall quality of the film.

There is more of ROYALE the book in ROYALE the film than people give it credit for. The whole tone and timbre of the novella is there in the film. The importance placed by Fleming on hotel foyers and late night dinners, tree lined European boulevards, the clean slate of the first novel and the first new Bond actor and villainous types conveyed only by ominous car headlights.

There was no way every tick of the novel could be used in 2006. Films adapt not recreate their source literature. For me ROYALE the film is as close to perfection when it comes to aligning the requirements of the book and the familiar expectations of the films. They are two very separate beasts and rarely in the series do they work together. Of course I wanted a simple VESPER suicide but that is no climax for a multi million dollar action film. As it happened the sinking Venetian house does make way for VESPER's simple suicidal gesture of not opening the submerged elevator.

In 2006 what else could a villain/s be involved with if not terrorism? Identity theft? Sex traffickers? Dodgy second hand car racket? It has to be villainous behaviour that translates instantly to everyone watching (terrorism is a global currency....sadly) and it has to serve the mechanics and expectations of a Bond film.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

They made their choice, and I think it was the right one. They weren't making a 1953 novel, they were making a 2006 blockbuster film. The fact that the novel was adapted even as closely as it was might be considered remarkable.

I don't find it amazing at all because the novel really isn't all that closely adapted on screen. The three main cogs of the original novel are there (card game, torture sequence, the novel's final line), but the rest of it is just glossed over.

The decision to switch the novel's focus to terrorism wasn't a particularly inspired choice. By the time that the film came out, such a direction was a rather obvious and cliche direction for them to go, and there were several other directions that they could have gone for instead that would have made the film more faithful to the novel.

Also, the writers could have still managed to have retained the novel's original ending while also having their action-packed finale. Having Vesper meet her demise in the context of an all-out action sequence was a monumental mistake, and one that will prevent me from ever ranking Casino Royale as my favorite Bond film. That moment, the emotional climax of the film, falls so completely flat that it really does let down everything that had built up to that moment. Also, the decision to condense the final third of the novel into roughly ten minutes of screen-time did not help the film at all. Cutting out one of the overlong action set-pieces at the beginning of the film would have allowed them to further develop the final third of the novel on the screen, and that would have significantly improved the overall quality of the film.

There is more of ROYALE the book in ROYALE the film than people give it credit for. The whole tone and timbre of the novella is there in the film. The importance placed by Fleming on hotel foyers and late night dinners, tree lined European boulevards, the clean slate of the first novel and the first new Bond actor and villainous types conveyed only by ominous car headlights.

There was no way every tick of the novel could be used in 2006. Films adapt not recreate their source literature. For me ROYALE the film is as close to perfection when it comes to aligning the requirements of the book and the familiar expectations of the films. They are two very separate beasts and rarely in the series do they work together. Of course I wanted a simple VESPER suicide but that is no climax for a multi million dollar action film. As it happened the sinking Venetian house does make way for VESPER's simple suicidal gesture of not opening the submerged elevator.

In 2006 what else could a villain/s be involved with if not terrorism? Identity theft? Sex traffickers? Dodgy second hand car racket? It has to be villainous behaviour that translates instantly to everyone watching (terrorism is a global currency....sadly) and it has to serve the mechanics and expectations of a Bond film.

Well said Zorin

[MattofSteel]

There is more of ROYALE the book in ROYALE the film than people give it credit for. The whole tone and timbre of the novella is there in the film. The importance placed by Fleming on hotel foyers and late night dinners, tree lined European boulevards, the clean slate of the first novel and the first new Bond actor and villainous types conveyed only by ominous car headlights.

There was no way every tick of the novel could be used in 2006. Films adapt not recreate their source literature. For me ROYALE the film is as close to perfection when it comes to aligning the requirements of the book and the familiar expectations of the films. They are two very separate beasts and rarely in the series do they work together. Of course I wanted a simple VESPER suicide but that is no climax for a multi million dollar action film. As it happened the sinking Venetian house does make way for VESPER's simple suicidal gesture of not opening the submerged elevator.

In 2006 what else could a villain/s be involved with if not terrorism? Identity theft? Sex traffickers? Dodgy second hand car racket? It has to be villainous behaviour that translates instantly to everyone watching (terrorism is a global currency....sadly) and it has to serve the mechanics and expectations of a Bond film.

Terrific post. Word for word how I see it.

Personally, I was hoping for a MLM/pyramid scheme where Le Chiffre is trying to push free international long distance on unsuspecting civilians at such dastardly prices, he undercuts every major wireless carrier!

[Royal Dalton]

I don't find it amazing at all because the novel really isn't all that closely adapted on screen. The three main cogs of the original novel are there (card game, torture sequence, the novel's final line), but the rest of it is just glossed over.

That's about the size of it. They could have made a film much closer to the novel if they'd wanted to. But they do like their noisy action scenes and explosions.

[MattofSteel]

No doubt many of us hardcores would have preferred Dan and Eva to stand there reading directly from the Fleming paperback.

But as it happens, near $600 million worth of people seem to like their noisy action scenes, too.

[dodge]

And it becomes as much a part of the process as writing.

Bravo, Zorin. I salute you. Brevity is the soul of with-it-ness. And this is only two words too long to appear in Espresso Central.

[Bucky]

They made their choice, and I think it was the right one. They weren't making a 1953 novel, they were making a 2006 blockbuster film. The fact that the novel was adapted even as closely as it was might be considered remarkable.

I don't find it amazing at all because the novel really isn't all that closely adapted on screen. The three main cogs of the original novel are there (card game, torture sequence, the novel's final line), but the rest of it is just glossed over.

The decision to switch the novel's focus to terrorism wasn't a particularly inspired choice. By the time that the film came out, such a direction was a rather obvious and cliche direction for them to go, and there were several other directions that they could have gone for instead that would have made the film more faithful to the novel.

Also, the writers could have still managed to have retained the novel's original ending while also having their action-packed finale. Having Vesper meet her demise in the context of an all-out action sequence was a monumental mistake, and one that will prevent me from ever ranking Casino Royale as my favorite Bond film. That moment, the emotional climax of the film, falls so completely flat that it really does let down everything that had built up to that moment. Also, the decision to condense the final third of the novel into roughly ten minutes of screen-time did not help the film at all. Cutting out one of the overlong action set-pieces at the beginning of the film would have allowed them to further develop the final third of the novel on the screen, and that would have significantly improved the overall quality of the film.

pretty much sums up my feelings about casino royale. it is one of my favorites but the lack on consistency and overlong action scenes keeps it from being my favorite.

[Zorin Industries]

Also, the writers could have still managed to have retained the novel's original ending while also having their action-packed finale. Having Vesper meet her demise in the context of an all-out action sequence was a monumental mistake, and one that will prevent me from ever ranking Casino Royale as my favorite Bond film.

But the film already has five natural endings (winning the poker, the torture scene, the clinic, the sinking house and the aftermath). Another one would never have worked.

And VESPER's death in the novel is as much about 1950's 'manners' and notions of decency and honour amongst agents. That would not translate to today's world let alone cinema.

[The Shark]

Also, the writers could have still managed to have retained the novel's original ending while also having their action-packed finale. Having Vesper meet her demise in the context of an all-out action sequence was a monumental mistake, and one that will prevent me from ever ranking Casino Royale as my favorite Bond film.

But the film already has three denouements (the clinic, the sinking house and the aftermath). Another one would never have worked.

To be fair, I think tdalton was talking about replacing the sinking house set-piece, with the quieter discovery of Vesper's body.

And VESPER's death in the novel is as much about 1950's 'manners' and notions of decency and honour amongst agents. That would not translate to today's world let alone cinema.

Perhaps. But we still have EMOS, wrist-cutting galore, and teenage suicide. Despite neither VESPER or BOND being that age, there is a counterpart today, at least sort of.

[Loomis]

Also, the writers could have still managed to have retained the novel's original ending while also having their action-packed finale. Having Vesper meet her demise in the context of an all-out action sequence was a monumental mistake, and one that will prevent me from ever ranking Casino Royale as my favorite Bond film.

But the film already has five natural endings (winning the poker, the torture scene, the clinic, the sinking house and the aftermath). Another one would never have worked.

Why not? I mean, if you're going to have five "endings", then I guess you may as well sneak in a sixth.

CASINO ROYALE plays some odd games with structure (frontloading the action, with each successive action sequence [barring the PTS, obviously] seemingly shorter and less elaborate than its predecessor, and changing halfway through from being a tongue-in-cheek Hollywood action thriller to being a poignant European drama), but to my mind it all works beautifully. And I honestly believe it'll one of these days be widely recognised as one of the best films of the "noughties".

And it's still one of the more faithful Fleming adaptations. I can't think of any elements from the book that ought to have been in the film but aren't.

[Zorin Industries]

And VESPER's death in the novel is as much about 1950's 'manners' and notions of decency and honour amongst agents. That would not translate to today's world let alone cinema.

Perhaps. But we still have EMOS, wrist-cutting galore, and teenage suicide. Despite neither VESPER or BOND being that age, there is a counterpart today, at least sort of.

I fail to see where that has any relevance to my sentiment. Why would some media scaremongering about some youth 'movements' affect or dictate what happens in a James Bond film?

[tdalton]

But the film already has five natural endings (winning the poker, the torture scene, the clinic, the sinking house and the aftermath). Another one would never have worked.

Maybe, maybe not. The five "endings" that are currently in place, however, don't all work particularly well as it is. Losing one of those endings (I'd prefer to lose the aftermath of the sinking house) and substitute that with a faithful adaptation of Vesper's demise would have gone a long way towards helping the film.

[The Shark]

And VESPER's death in the novel is as much about 1950's 'manners' and notions of decency and honour amongst agents. That would not translate to today's world let alone cinema.

Perhaps. But we still have EMOS, wrist-cutting galore, and teenage suicide. Despite neither VESPER or BOND being that age, there is a counterpart today, at least sort of.

I fail to see where that has any relevance to my sentiment. Why would some media scaremongering about some youth 'movements' affect or dictate what happens in a James Bond film?

No. But it affects or dictates what happens in that specific climactic scene the debate is about. Actually CASINO ROYALE 06 is very much influenced by the movements and demands of today's teenage audience.

If they're be Parkour chases, explosions, a post-grunge theme song, Miami tarmac rolling, the anti-authoritarian breaking into M's apartment, muted, desaturated cinematography, mobile phone tinkering, and CGI sinking houses - why no TWILIGHT-esque suicide messages, and EMO notions of tragedy and young heartbreak?

[tdalton]

In 2006 what else could a villain/s be involved with if not terrorism? Identity theft? Sex traffickers? Dodgy second hand car racket? It has to be villainous behaviour that translates instantly to everyone watching (terrorism is a global currency....sadly) and it has to serve the mechanics and expectations of a Bond film.

I think that the trafficking idea would have been a much more relevant topic, one that hadn't been covered over-and-over by mainstream Hollywood, and one that would have allowed the film to be much more faithful to the novel. We've seen the terrorism angle done over-and-over in films, be it Bond or otherwise, but we haven't seen anything on trafficking. In the novel, Le Chiffre's losing of money in his brothel business ventures could have been updated to be Le Chiffre being rather unsuccessful in the human trafficking trade. That would have been something we haven't seen in a Bond film before, would have been more faithful to the novel, and also would have had Bond actually paving the way in terms of going somewhere that mainstream Hollywood hasn't really ventured too many times, all while putting the spotlight on yet another world problem that doesn't get the attention that is needed to fight it.