More on the Writer’s Strike

MI6 has an interesting interview excerpt about the script for Bond 22:

“I just finished the second draft of the Bond movie and was doing the polish when this thing stopped”, Haggis said. “And I don’t want that movie shooting where it says “something happens here.” I’m sure they can figure it out for themselves. It sort of does that at one point. Whatever, I can’t tell you what it is, but it says “something is like that,” and I’m sure they can figure it out for themselves.
—
Haggis went on to say that he has been contacted by the production during the strike, but would not break picket lines to help out Bond 22. “I get calls from Amy (Pascal), I get calls from Michael (Wilson). They hope this thing resolves. They’re really, really good people.”

Thank you, Paul Haggis

Paul Haggis rushed to finish the script of Bond 22, so he could turn it in before the anticipated writer’s strike. Now that the screenwriters have indeed gone on strike, we can all be grateful to the foresight and extra effort.

Phew.

Variety on Bond 22

Commander Bond has the scoop on an extensive Variety interview with the Bond 22 team, including Barbara Broccoli, Paul Haggis, and Marc Foster.

Haggis elaborates, but only slightly: “I can tell you it starts right where ‘Casino’ left off. Yes, Bond will be going after the organization that we hinted at.” So, Bond 22 will be part of an arc, but will the hero now be the fully fledged 007, or will he still be growing into it?
—
“It will be the same Bond you saw in ‘Casino,’ ” Haggis says, “a very human and flawed assassin, a man who has to navigate a morally complex and often cynical world while attempting to hold onto his deep beliefs of what is right and wrong.”

And Daniel Craig weighs in:

Craig, speaking recently to the Chicago Sun-Times, echoes Haggis: “He also has to deal with revenge because he has lost the girl. Bond is still maybe too headstrong, and he doesn’t make all of the right decisions.”

The interview confirms no Q or Moneypenny.

As with “Casino,” the absence of traditional supporting elements like gadget-master Q and Miss Moneypenny will continue: “Certainly, there may come a point where those beloved characters return, but,” Broccoli says, “at the moment, they’re not in 22.”

There’s more. Read the whole thing.

The history of Bond actors (in brief)

When Eon first cast another actor as Bond, lots of folks said it couldn’t be done. If there had been an Internet back then, there would have been ConneryISBond.com. Even with the primitive (teehe) technology available in 1969, a lot of people managed to make their complaints heard. To this day, I run into people who have never seen anyone but Connery in the role, or have reluctantly viewed later movies and found them wanting—mostly, found them wanting a certain Scotsman.

But Lazenby’s casting, unsuccessful though it was, did an interesting thing: It freed Eon. They didn’t feel they had to cast ‘Connery light;’ audiences still came to see a Bond movie without The Man. So they felt confident in changing the game utterly, and casting Roger Moore; long on their list, and an actor absolutely nothing like Sean Connery.

But confidence is a funny thing. Once Moore proved a hit, Eon was reluctant to change. There is no doubt that Moore was way too old to play 007 in A View To a Kill, but I’d argue he was long in the tooth by Octopussy, even though that is a much better movie. Seven movies is probably just too many.

Letting go of Moore finally taught the Bond producers a lesson in letting go; a lesson that perhaps Pierce Brosnan believes they learned too well. Lots of fans (like me) believe that Brosnan had a fifth excellent Bond in him, but it was not to be.

What’s interesting here is the way that Eon was able to move from one actor to the next. Dalton made one successful and one less-than-stellar (financially) movie, and some of us stand by his portrayal. But from Dalton on, the producers have been able to look at each actor as truly a new era, a new Bond, a new interpretation, and allow the movies to shape the actor, and the actor to shape the movies.

Could Pierce Brosnan have made Casino Royale? I believe so. I believe he could have made an outstanding Casino Royale. But he couldn’t have made this Casino Royale; the one Daniel Craig made. It would have been a Brosnan movie, with whatever you feel is good or bad about that. CR is Craig’s movie through and through; I mean, yes, it’s Ian Fleming’s, it’s Martin Campbell’s, it’s Paul Haggis’s, but it’s really Daniel Craig’s. He’s been allowed to interpret the character, to be in his own place with 007, and that has made all the difference.

Paul Haggis Interview

Commander Bond has the goods: Paul Haggis, interviewed on Coming Soon, talks Bond 22.

“It picks up two minutes after the last one, and it’s going to be fun.”

Haggis denies the Clarice Van Houten rumor. and also denies that Bond 22 will be humorous in tone.

Interview with Forster and Haggis

CBn has the scoop. Director Marc Forster and screenwriter Paul Haggis discuss Bond 22. The two items of most interest (to me) are that Haggis was offered the director’s chair, and that Bond 22 will follow CR but not be exactly a sequel.

Paul Haggis (who returns from Casino Royale) was offered the director’s chair for Bond 22 at one point, but insists that he didn’t want the job. ‘There are certain things you can write and there are certain things you can direct. I just felt that it takes a big commitment to direct a Bond film. It’s a 120 day shoot. It’s a two year commitment basically to do it. If you do that on top of writing, it’s almost a three year commitment. So I just didn’t want to dedicate that much time. 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.’

Interesting insight into the process.

One of the biggest news stories from earlier this year was that Bond 22 was set to be a direct continuation from the events that occurred in Casino Royale. 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.’

This is one of those “you have to say it” things, as audiences for sequels drop off.

Paul Haggis for Bond 22! Hurray! Hurray!

CBn is reporting that Paul Haggis is returning for a second shot at script-polishing. His superb work on CR gives this fan high hopes for Bond 22.

I love this quote from Evan Willnow:

Many Bond fans who have been praying for Haggis return have now had those prayers answered with this announced return of the Oscar-winning writer.

I think it’s the religious angle that tickles me so much.

Purvis & Wade Deliver Script for Bond 22

CommanderBond.net is reporting (per Variety) that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, screenwriters (or co-writers) for the last three Bond films, ” have just completed and turned in their draft of the Bond 22 script.”

CBn observes that

Presumably, this is one of the early drafts for Bond 22 (and possibly the first) since the script was previously described as being unfinished as of 23 March

I’m not a Purvis & Wade fan. Most Bond fans I know aren’t. TWINE is not a favorite of mine, and DAD falls apart just past the halfway point. Their only great script is CR, which was co-written by Paul Haggis. And since Haggis is a big time award-winner, I hesitate to credit Purvis & Wade for CR’s excellence.

Still, this draft script will clearly be polished by other hands, as well as by Purvis and Wade, and it is good to know that things are on track.

Short interview with Paul Haggis

Erik Davis of Cinematical has a snippet of an interview with Paul Haggis up. Haggis isn’t currently involved with Bond 22.

As far as Bond 22 goes, Haggis told me with a peculiar smile that he was not involved in the film … yet. Though it seemed to me as if he’d be interested in tackling another re-write should the situation present itself.