CommanderBond.net

Now on the CBn main page...

Marc Forster And Paul Haggis Discuss 'Bond 22'

'It's going to stand on its own although it does follow right on the heels of Casino Royale.'

So the question now is how much does this film really stand on its own?

Well, I would think so much, that you can undertstand the film without having seen CR.
I assume there might be two or three people out there, who haven`t.
Hard to imagine, though

Haggis did the "stairwell" action stuff? I'm getting more and more excited about the action sequences he helps to come up with. If that stairwell fight was any indicator, we're in for great stuff.

From Paul Haggis

Quote

...It’s going to take me six months to get the script into shape as it is. I think I’ll do that and then I’ll go off into the next project.’

Unquote

Is this something to worry about? Is the script by Purvis and Wade THAT bad, that it needs six months work on it, even for someone of Haggis` calibre?

Or, is it usual for a decent scriptwriter to take six months to get another draft into better shape than the first draft?

Six months takes us into January, which is surprising, as the film is supposed to start filming in December.

What gives?

Thoughts?

Best

Andy

I'm not sure whether or not it's something to worry about, at least not at this stage. I do think, however, that we will know why Haggis needed the six months to rewrite the script come time for preproduction on Bond 23. If the script is so bad that it needs a complete overhaul by Haggis, then I would doubt that we'd see P&W return to write Bond 23. If it's simply just Haggis needing the time for whatever other reason, then we'll probably see P&W return for 23, IMO.

Bond 22 a direct continuation of CR?...

"Not entirely so, according to Haggis: ‘I wouldn’t describe it as such,’he says. ‘I think it’s going to stand on its own although it does follow right on the heels of Casino Royale.’"

Interesting.

At the moment, I'll take that to mean that Bond 23 will take place right after the events of CR, continue some of the story from CR, but that we won't see any direct conclusion to the Bond/Mr. White scene. Thoughts?...

Hmm, seeing as Paul Haggis is involved, they could probably add Constable Fraiser into the storyline. Be Bond's partner, now that would be funny. lol

I just dont see why Eon dont let Purvis and Wade go, i dont think their work as ever been up to scratch nor respectable for that matter, take TWINE for example: Its a good movie on the whole, if you dont count the massive plot holes and the underdevelopment of the characters, and do i even have to go into DAD?
In My opinion Purvis and Wade should be ditched and Eon should give Haggis full responsibility of the screenplay and all of their further projects.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the six months of work just refers to the long extended period of rewrites required by a film's screenwriter. Screenwriters are involved with production even through shooting, for last minute touch-ups and things of that degree. He's just indicating that it's going to be a long process for him, not that it'll take 6 months to produce a workable script.


I agree. Haggis is basically saying that CASINO ROYALE and BOND 22 won't feel like BOND BEGINS: A FILM IN TWO PARTS. Perhaps a good example would be how BOURNE IDENTITY and BOURNE ULTIMATUM fit together - they're standalone films, really, but they do have ties to one another.


P&W are probably kept around for a number of reasons:

1. They're Bond experts. They know their Fleming pretty well, and surely are capable of crafting a story with lots of Flemingesque details. I don't think Haggis is quite so knowledgable about 007.

2. It's possible they're not as bad as the results may indicate. We don't know what their first draft of DIE ANOTHER DAY looked like (interviews from both Tamahori and P&W indicate it was different than we'd expect), and their gritty JINX script was apparently dynamite (enough to get Stephen Frears on board).

I agree. Scripts go through numerous drafts and rewrites and continue right through production sometimes. It's good to know Haggis is on this and not necessarily doing it on the run as production begins as happened with TND, for example.

Things should fall into place nicely. These are seasoned professionals, not first-timers and they will likely want to go off the success of CR and do what they can to equal or top it.

I completely agree. You only have to look at Let Him Have It - they are writers capable of depth and insight. How that gets used is another matter...

With TWINE they were, famously, not the last writers to work on the script. Apted brought in a screenwriter (his wife, did I hear?) to pep up the female characters, and Brosnan's concerns that the film was being slanted towards the women saw Feirstein brought in to get the script in a condition that the actor would sign off on.

(Feirstein, lest we forget, is responsible for the dreary Paris/Bond dialogue. "Too close for comfort", "I'll be right back." A character built, it seems, to speak in clichés.)

Plot holes are often the results of constant rewriting - something that happens on Bond as well as almost any other movie. These guys didn't put M into Elektra's clutches, for example. And with DAD the lads were famously instructed by Tamahori to create that dumb aeroplane climax, to move a car chase indoors (creating an action scene intercut with...the villain packing to leave). Nor can they be held accountable for dreadful CGI.

But if one looks at the IDEAS, the shapes they form in adapting the classic Fleming/Broccoli world for a modern climate, they're a positive factory of interesting concepts. Mooting that Bond be captured, tortured and exchanged is a genuinely inspired present-day concern; how interesting to have it applied to an espionage icon!

That it's poorly directed is another matter entirely...

See also: Elektra turning out to be the villain, DAD's modern way of doing the old-style 'villain changes his appearance' gag, a stealth car (fine before 'stealth' got changed to 'invisible')...on the page, this is all good stuff. I rarely rate what remains of their dialogue, but as storytellers and conceptualists they're undeniably gifted.

Writing credits are strictly arbitrated, and low-level contributors - on GE, TND and TWINE - didn't make the final credits. You have to write a good percentage; if you didn't, no credit and no residuals. Because if it doesn't have to, a production like this won't pay more than it has to. If the bulk of CR could be attributed to Haggis, he'd receive sole credit. (And, for that matter, why then re-hire P&W? Why spend the money there?)

I think we have to acknowledge that significant work in CR was theirs. You can't just scapegoat the bits you didn't care for.

Oh c'