007°'' hat geschrieben:Das wäre eigentlich eine schöne Theorie. Das blöde ist nur, dass es im Originalen sich so anhört: "Purvis says it would be easier to add Moneypenny to the storyline" Demnach wird Moneypenny wenn überhaupt nur eine kleine Rolle haben, in deiner Theorie ist dies fast auszuschliessen.

Zudem halte ich es für völlig verrückt, Q nicht wieder auftreten zu lassen. Andere Filme mögen zwar nun auch Gadgets haben, doch gerade der Charakter von Q hebte die Bondfilme noch etwas von der billigen Konkurenz ab.

007°'' hat geschrieben:Eigentlich sollte den Drehbuchautoren während dem Fertigstellen des Werkes einen passenden Namen einfallen. Oder zumindest ein paar Vorschläge, die danach sicherlich noch mit den Produzenten besprochen werden. Der Regisseur hat meines Erachtens keinen Einfluss auf den Titel.

HMSS hat geschrieben:HMSS: Once work commenced on Bond 21, did you begin creating an original story, or did you know from the beginning that you would be adapting Casino Royale? As Fleming fans, that must have been quite a thrill.

Purvis & Wade: We were in LA working on the "Jinx" script (with Stephen Frears and the producers) when there was a bit of a lull as we waited for Halle Berry to be able to read it, and Barbara and Michael simply smiled and said 'It's time to re-read Casino Royale. I remember very clearly sitting on a hotel balcony looking at the ocean, reading the book, and thinking 'this calls for a cigar'. At that stage there was no discussion of the approach, but we had all really enjoyed crafting a fairly down-to-earth espionage picture in the "Jinx" project and this was obviously going to be in the same vein.

HMSS: After all these years, what sparked the decision to do Casino Royale? Or did everybody just get tired of hearing Quentin Tarantino talk about it?

P&W: Each film seems to have to outdo the previous one; Die Another Day was a big success but there was no way of making a 'bigger' film without it becoming a total comic-book. But now the producers had the rights to Casino Royale so what better way to bring it down to earth than to do the first novel (and the last novel it would be possible to adapt). We had said to Pierce the Neal Purvisfirst time we met him how great it would be to do Casino Royale - but in those days the rights weren't owned by Michael & Barbara. So we had always wanted to do it - amazingly, even before Tarantino!

HMSS: It's widely understood that Casino Royale, in "rebooting" the franchise, essentially becomes the first entry in a new James Bond movie series. "Bond 2.1" as opposed to "Bond 21," as it were. Just so we're on the same page, James Bond (as played by Daniel Craig), has never met Dr. Julius No or Auric Goldfinger or Elektra King or Miss Moneypenny or Q; he has never met or married Theresa Draco. Is this a correct statement?

P&W: Our original concept was that it did not need to be a re-boot, and that it could work in the context of the series like this: the Bond we meet at the start of Casino Royale is the same guy that we've always known, a womanizer who never lets women get close - and the reason for this emotional isolation is that he is an orphan who has always fended for himself and not relied on others. But in the course of his relationship with Vesper (who we made into an orphan herself) he suddenly gets an insight into normal life - ie, the possibilities of being part of a family, the thing he has never really known… In OHMSS he married Tracey but he wasn't quitting the job - ie, he didn't give up everything for her… But with Vesper, he knows that to have a chance of a normal life he must give up the career which has always provided his identity and 'family'; and he is prepared to do this for her and the chance of happiness (which he had never expected to happen to him). However, when her past betrayal is revealed - along with the manipulative evil which forced her into it - he realizes that here is a cause to fight, worth donating your life to. In those moments of happiness with Vesper he tasted real life, so he now values the world that he is protecting - whereas before, as Sean, Roger, George, Tim and Pierce, he had done everything just the same, but without understanding in his heart the value of the society he is protecting. So Bond emerges from Casino Royale fully-formed, a man who understands the value of the world that he is out to protect, and the possibility of happiness he is permanently renouncing for himself!

HOWEVER! It was hard to make this very clear in the script, and we all liked the reference in the novel to the two kills that earned him the 'OO', so it was decided to go all the way, show the kills and start him off again. (The 'philosphical' theory above of course still applies to the character's emotional growth in the film…)

So it is a re-boot. But the audiences that have grown up on Bond HAVE met the characters you mention and that is something we cannot fail to be aware of. And when Bond orders his drink we know already what he drinks. So we can laugh/ be surprised at his reply. That's a pretty strange and perhaps unique aspect of the relationship between the cinema audience and a Bond movie.

HMSS: Some of the more literal-minded fans theorize that "James Bond" is a character the British Secret Service maintains as a sort-of assassin/super agent, periodically brought to active life by different agents who assume his identity. This serves to explain the longevity of his career, and his occasional (now six) changes in physical appearance. Can you confirm or deny this theory in your official capacity as the screenwriters for the Eon-produced film series? (For the record, we think the theory is hokum.)
and we hope that answers THAT!
P&W: We don't believe Bond is just a transferable codename - and don't like the idea at all. Bond is a character, a special individual, who happens to have been played by different actors.

HMSS: Having addressed the previous two questions, is there an explanation for the character "M" being played by Judi Dench in both series of films? Or is it a case of having the same actor playing two different characters, who happen to have the same job, in two different films series? Or should we not think that hard about it, lest we go all cross-eyed?

P&W: Judi Dench is the same actress playing a different role - called M. I think you're right not to think about it too much. But Judi's presence is the single on-screen continuity between the previous and new film (apart from the MI-6 offices) and in a sense performs something of the role that Desmond Llewelyn did when an otherwise all-new cast was introduced in GoldenEye.

HMSS: Did casting decisions affect the development of the script? Did you know you wouldn't be writing for Pierce Brosnan?

P&W: We knew we weren't writing for Pierce. We didn't know for sure we were writing for Daniel. We were writing (as best we could) for the man James Bond, as he was described in the novel. We wanted to start the picture with the free-running because it immediately said 'this guy is young and explosive and very physical'. Daniel embodied all of the above - and, as they say on American Idol, 'made it his own'.

HMSS: How do you feel about Paul Haggis' contributions to the script?

P&W: Paul made the dialogue… fizz. Due to circumstances beyond our control we were never able to do a polish - a shame after two year's work on the project. He did the polish - and did a good job. He's also a nice guy. So we can't complain.

HMSS: How much fun is it to watch the finished product of your script on-screen?

P&W: It's always not quite the film you shot in your head but that's not to say we aren't extremely happy with it - and very proud. Daniel and Eva performed fantastically and it was amazing to win the Golden Tomato for best reviewed film in wide release for 2006, get 9 BAFTA nominations and be the number one movie in our home country for the year. To do so well critically and financially is what you dream of when you start writing a script. When you started writing, period.

HMSS: It was great to see Felix Leiter again, as well as Fleming's character Rene Mathis. Will both be returning in Bond 22 and perhaps beyond? Have you ever considered bringing in some other Fleming characters we've not yet seen? Ronnie Vallance, or Sir James Moloney, or, dare we hope, Gala Brand?

P&W: We were pleased to see those characters appear - we can't say what will happen now. Sorry. Things can change even after this interview so we'd hate to get anyone's hopes up.

HMSS: Are there any other elements from the Fleming novels you'd like to use?

P&W: There's a few morsels but you'd have to say the carcass has been pretty stripped. There are still a few details from the short stories that it would be nice to use. At one point Fidel Barbey was in Casino Royale but sadly he got killed off.

HMSS: Casino Royale is one of the best-reviewed films of the year. Did this huge critical success take you by surprise? Has the bar been set really high for Bond 22, impacting the writing of the screenplay? Where are you currently in that process?

P&W: The critical success was incredible. Yes, it has made it difficult. But on the other had it's great to continue in the same vein that we started. It was an attitude that began with the Jinx script and we have continued through CR to this new one. We're close to finishing the script. Very close.

HMSS: Casino Royale ends with something of a cliffhanger. Can you share anything regarding a continuing story arc? Into the next film, or perhaps a trilogy?Robert Wade

P&W: Bond has unresolved issues. The arc continues on its curve.

HMSS: Any truth to the rumors that the next James Bond movie will be Fleming's "Risico" or "Property of a Lady"?

P&W: Currently those titles and stories are not under consideration.

HMSS: Ian Fleming had the advantage of being able to take a whole chapter of his novel Casino Royale to explain the rules of Baccarat. Was it difficult to write the Poker scenes in such a way that a general audience would understand what was going on?

P&W: [We're] not sure many people do understand exactly what is going on in the poker scenes. What we hope they understand is what is going on between Bond and Le Chiffre.

HMSS: Terence Young and Sean Connery famously changed the script's dialogue during filming. Are you actively involved in on-the-fly rewrites during production? Any examples?

P&W: I don't think there was any on-the-fly writing on CR. Maybe the odd line but I understand the script was locked prior to shooting. It isn't really a situation you want (or enjoy). 'Keep the fruit' was ad-libbed by Jeffrey Wright, and gets the biggest laugh as far as I can tell.

HMSS: Help us to settle a bet, please: Was the "I'm the money/Every penny of it" line an intentional nod to the Miss Moneypenny character?

P&W: We wrote 'I'm the money', Paul wrote the retort. We don't know whether it was a nod or not.

HMSS: Did you envision and write the pre-title sequence as a black-and-white, noir-ish, piece? It's distinctly unusual for a James Bond movie, although it works spectacularly.

P&W: Yes, we came up with the black-and white. Just thought it was an interesting way of starting afresh - we hoped it would have a strange cold war, yet modern, resonance.

HMSS: What's your working practice? How do you actually, physically write? Pencil and paper? Computer? Do you use an index card system?

P&W: No index cards. Basic scene breakdown, then we break it down further - split the scenes between each other (approximately 5 pages) and write individually. Email those pages to one another - rewrite. Then rewrite. Then rewrite. Ad infinitum.

HMSS: When working on a script, how do you divide the labor? Who writes the music and who writes the lyrics?

P&W: Neal writes the music and Rob writes the lyrics. We both have a go at the guitar solos.

HMSS: Have you ever come up with an idea or James Bond scenario that the producers (or studio) rejected? Just for fun, can you give us an example?

P&W: Too numerous to mention. Hard to pluck one out..

HMSS: Going back to your previous James Bond movie, was Die Another Day re-written to accommodate Halle Berry? The first half of that film (which is terrific) has a decidedly different feel than the second. Can you elaborate?

P&W: Not really - although in one scene we did give her a few more lines after she won the Oscar! It seemed ridiculous for an Oscar winner to remain almost silent in a scene. We agree DAD is a film of two halves. The first we thought was great - but still veering close to comic book-like. In the second half the comic book took over. Could you have done the same story in a different way? Who knows? It was certainly (again) different to the one we shot in our heads. But it was extremely successful and liked by a lot of people (perhaps not the hard core Bond fans). We wanted to make a YOLT-type story but even we were surprised how 'big' it became.

HMSS: Previous Bond screenwriter Roald Dahl recounted for Playboy magazine his encounter (on You Only Live Twice) with "The Bond Blueprint" codified for the film series. (Sacrificial lamb, number of Bond girls, insertion of action scenes, etc.) Prior to Casino Royale, did you ever feel compelled to stick to the tried-and-true formula? In light of the "reboot" of the series, how far do you want to wander from what a Bond film traditionally, and uniquely, is?

P&W: We had never been tied to a formula but we were aware of audience expectations - Q scene, Moneypenny scene. M scenes. CR was a release from that. We'd like to stay away from the comfortable elements. This is a chance to do that. How far we do, how far we are allowed to go - everyone shall have to wait and see. Including us.

HMSS: Do you have any un-produced scripts? Do you ever write on spec? Besides the next Bond, what else are you working on?

P&W: We have about four small indie movies in development (they take a back seat to Bond) and a big one which we will do after Bond 22 that we can't yet name. We like to think it's nice to balance films that everybody sees with films that nobody goes to see.

HMSS: Thanks guys!

But Judi's presence is the single on-screen continuity between the previous and new film (apart from the MI-6 offices) and in a sense performs something of the role that Desmond Llewelyn did when an otherwise all-new cast was introduced in GoldenEye.

bondf@n_AK hat geschrieben:

But Judi's presence is the single on-screen continuity between the previous and new film (apart from the MI-6 offices) and in a sense performs something of the role that Desmond Llewelyn did when an otherwise all-new cast was introduced in GoldenEye.

Wow.. wenn ich das Ganze richtig verstehe, bestätigt das meinen Verdacht, das Judi Dench für Bond22 nicht mehr auf der Cast-Liste stehen wird. Sie sollte nur ein Übergang in die "neue" Bond-Ära sein. Ich denke wir können uns dann auf eine(n?) neue(n?) M gefasst machen...

MfG
der Fan