It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
So no, I don't think these two films are going to have the same reputation as time goes on. To some, I actually think SP has made SF look even better. SF is an excellent standalone story (despite idiotic after the fact retrofit). SP can only be enjoyed if one has followed the Craig story in detail (like us obsessed nutters have). Most of the general public don't have such a recollection of all the interconnected mumbo jumbo.
Not to mention that Craig is incredibly fit in SF! I get that Mendes brought "prestige"--in the form of Deakins, Adele, and Bardem--to SF, but increasingly, I'm thinking that that's about it.
SP suffered from lazy casting, IMHO. Waltz, Bellucci are super-obvious choices. Scott was a scenery-chewing joke. And Seydoux...did they think to do any chemistry tests with her and Craig? The best of the cast were left over from previous Bond films (M, White).
For Bond 25 please fire the SP casting director.
SPECTRE had a brilliant cast (save Scott). Regardless of how obvious it may be, a brilliant cast doesn't matter if the script they get to work with doesn't maximize their potential.
I'm not sure what Haggis' contribution to QoS was, just that the writing on that film was very messy. I know he had the "Bond looks for Vesper's child" idea - which was tossed out. Michael G. Wilson came up with the Bolivian water plot idea. Forster and Craig did rewrites while filming. Not sure what Purvis & Wade did.
I think this sums up why SP doesn't seem to hit the mark for a lot of people. It's too forgettable.
It's odd as SP is one of those films that I appreciate less the more I go over it in my head.
+ 1
It didn't do anything for the franchise to warrant its existence, it's purpose was to link the films and bring back SPECTRE but it really didn't work and was shamefully bad at trying to do that.
You can't win 'em all.
SP had lazy casting.
Something of what Purvis and Wade wrote made it to the screen or they wouldn't have been credited. That's how it works. Writing an early draft that goes completely unused does not get you screen credit.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I can speak to this, but I'm pretty sure there are industry regulations that dictate when someone gets a credit, not contracts (though a contract can dictate order or placement, such as when listing the cast).
Which is not to say they didn't still incorporate ideas, writing, or scenes from P&W. Even if MGW came up with the whole Bolivian water idea post P&W, everything up until Haiti could have been from an earlier draft by P&W. We just don't know.
(Not sure how France's case is related though. Several of his ideas made it into the finished film and he received a "Story By" credit. He believes he should have been given a "Written By" credit and he may well be right.)
France's case isn't particularly unusual though. If a script is changed enough by new writers, the original writer will receive "Story By" credit and the new writers will receive "Written By" credits. Having read parts of France's original screenplay, which ran something like a ridiculous 300 pages long, there is a lot of material that did not make it into GoldenEye, and there are definitely plenty of characters, scenes, and ideas in GoldenEye that weren't in France's script.
Ultimately the way the credits read onscreen is probably how they should read. I'm guessing France was probably just upset about how much work he put into GoldenEye and how much the filmmakers changed his script. It's understandable, and if I were in his shoes I'd probably have wanted a "Written By" credit as well.
(Interestingly, some elements of France's original script made their way into other films. Most famously, his bullet train PTS was lifted for the climax of De Palma's Mission: Impossible.)
Conversely, however, I don't believe I've ever seen a case where somebody who did not write the film received a "Written By" credit.
It does sound like Casino Royale is predominantly P&W's with revision work by Paul Haggis and a bit more involvement from Haggis in a few key scenes. I believe I've read that Haggis was instrumental in developing the sinking house sequence in Venice. Could be wrong there.
I know a few good managers and agents. Lemme know and I will arrange!
I'd be quite happy with a Wilson-P&W script with touch up work by Haggis.
Or a Forster-Craig script. That turned out pretty well.
Haha +1
Lol but he forgot to sign the contract so he didn't get any credit
(I really will have to crack into this book from the beginning at some point. Seems like there's a lot of great material in here.)
P u t t I n g d o w n. O t h e r. M e m b e r s
Sounds eeringly familiar