106 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

A Fresh Start For 'Bond 23', Says Daniel Craig

'We've finished this story as far as I'm concerned.'

[Vanish]

'I’m done with that story. I want to lie on a beach for the first half an hour of the next movie drinking a cocktail.’

Awesome line from DC there.

I'm glad that 23 will be a fresh start, more or less. QoS was good, but I felt that it made it very clear that the Vesper/CR plotline could only stretch so far.

[Quantumofsolace007]

interesting so i wonder then what does this mean for bond 23.


Very Exciting news.

[sharpshooter]

Craig wants a change of pace after two bruising and draining films. Understandable and entirely fine. It will be interesting and very exciting how they handle Q and Moneypenny if they go ahead with it, too.

[honour]

It wouldn't be a Bond film without at least a few action scenes, but it would be kinda cool to see bond on vacation.

[BlackFire]

They can do something original, fresh and new using Quantum, but not making Bond 23 a direct sequel to Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

Very good news indeed.

[BamesJond007]

This announcement has made my day. I really hope they keep john cleese and Samantha bond for #23. I think it would just be nice to keep the same actors... they kept Judy, why not keep the others. I think john cleese was great at it.

[deth]

This announcement has made my day. I really hope they keep john cleese and Samantha bond for #23. I think it would just be nice to keep the same actors... they kept Judy, why not keep the others. I think john cleese was great at it.

Samantha Bond doesn't want to do it. She said her Moneypenny was for Pierce and that's that. Also, she's too old anyway. I think Cleese might be too overthetop for the current series... I did love him in the role, however.

[Joey Bond]

I'm having mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it's a shame seeing how there are still some unfinished stories, especially the fate of Mr White. But on the other hand, I would welcome a more 'traditional' Bond film with Q and Moneypenny (and the gunbarrel at the start? I hope so)

Great line from Craig about the cocktail drinking indeed. Made me laugh out loud.

[dogtherock]

FINALY! All I can say.

[Kristian]

What I'd like to see for Bond 23:

1. A thriller with action (FRWL, CR, TWINE, TLD, LTK), not an actioner with some suspense (TND, GE, QOS, TSWLM) - Bond should do more sleuthing and less jumping.

2. More elegant editing - I was fine the Bourne-on-Speed approach this time, and it was appropriate for QOS, but I would really like to see a return to a more graceful editing style a la CR.

3. No more Bourne Envy - I was fine with QOS being atypical because it was a rare bird in the pantheon, but for the next one let's hope the producers won't be so deadset on one-upping Bourne. Go your own way and back to the basics all at the same time, Babs. Leave Bourne behind. The public will not accept any substitutes for Bourne, so you might as well be different - and proud of it. Stop trying to court Matt Damon's crowd.

4. Two Bond Girls are who are deeply involved in the plot (like TWINE, LTK, GE, FRWL). Camille and Vesper were fine in QOS and CR, but Solange and Strawberry were criminally underutilized. The sacrificial lamb is getting old. Let's have two Bond girls who don't easily fit any niche.

5. A director who is savvy with action AND character - like John McTiernan or Roger Donaldson (NO WAY OUT).

6. Can Paul Haggis, Purvis, and Wade. Get in some new blood.


I love QOS, but I think the reason it is not the B.O. dynamo folks had hoped is partly because The Bourne contingent want the real thing, and a lot of the Bond contingent are put off by its unconventional approach. The other day, I asked a colleague if he'd seen QOS and he said "yes" but he's been advising others not to see it because it tries too hard to be Bourne. Then he gushed eagerly about the next Bourne installment coming out in 2010. You have to wonder how many examples like that are occuring across the States?

I think Babs and EON should just forget about Bourne - they should control their budgets, and spending, and just shoot for B.O. in the $130 - $160 range. In the U.S., Bourne will always win that pissing contest. Overseas may be a different story, but still.....

[Mr_Wint]

'No f—king way'

I get a feeling that Craig is not so happy with QOS.

[sharpshooter]

'No f—king way'

I get a feeling that Craig is not so happy with QOS.

Really?

[Mr Teddy Bear]

'No f—king way'

I get a feeling that Craig is not so happy with QOS.

I don't get that at all. In all the post-release interviews he has seemed positive and enthusiastic about the film. Just because he doesn't want to continue the same plot line every time it doesn't mean he doesn't like QoS.

[DamnCoffee]

Very interesting and exciting news. I would prefer it if they used Quantum though. But hey, If we get a fantastic, traditional Bond movie with Craig, I can't complain.

[Captain Tightpants]

'No f—king way'

I get a feeling that Craig is not so happy with QOS.

Really?

Yes, but Mr_Wint is notorious for his intense dislike of the film. He's grasping at whatever he can get his hands on to further his anti-QOS sentiments; in this case, putting words in Daniel Craig's mouth.

[Hitch]

It'll be very interesting to see how Bond 23 integrates old characters such as Q and Moneypenny. It's essential, as Daniel Craig has said, that they appear because they are needed; they must be integral to the story. Whether Quantum is used or not, it might be a nice touch if MI6, realising that they're up against some very clever people, decided to give Bond a little technical help. Whether he likes it or not will be a moot point!

A more relaxed story will give the franchise some tonal variety after the last two grittier films - as long as they don't forget that the current incarnation of 007 is yer actual blunt instrument. This could be fun.

[double o ego]

This only confirms what I've always been saying. Bond 23 will be back to business as usual. The whole knowing and understanding of why Bond is the way he is, has now been covered, no need to stretch it. Vesper and the origins are done. Now, I just hope there isn't some massive emphasis and making something unecessarilly big out of introducing Q and moneypenny. Obvioulsy it has to be done right but lets not lose focus here. They're just 2 minor supporting characters who represent hallmarks of the series.

For this new outing, I think the producers really need to ape the first 4 Bond movies for real inspiration just to kill off any doubt that this isn't Bourne-inspired.

[SecretAgentFan]

'No f—king way'

I get a feeling that Craig is not so happy with QOS.

Really?

Yes, but Mr_Wint is notorious for his intense dislike of the film. He's grasping at whatever he can get his hands on to further his anti-QOS sentiments; in this case, putting words in Daniel Craig's mouth.

Agreed. I think Craig just wants to grow even deeper into the franchise instead of sticking to an origin story that has found its conclusion.

[jamie00007]

I think Craigs reaction there has NOTHING to do with his feelings about the quality of QoS more the sheer physicality of the performance (which he pretty much confirms with his following comment).

[bond 16.05.72]

This announcement has made my day. I really hope they keep john cleese and Samantha bond for #23. I think it would just be nice to keep the same actors... they kept Judy, why not keep the others. I think john cleese was great at it.

NO!

[SecretAgentFan]

I liked Samantha Bond but she definitely is too old now for Craig´s Bond. It will be tough to reinvent her character, though. Another Moneypenny who tries to hold her own against Bond but secretly has the hots for him? I hope not.

My idea were this: Moneypenny is not "M"´s secretary anymore but a field operative who will be a contact for Bond.

I also liked Cleese as "R" or "the new Q". But again - to bring back this character without re-imagining it completely would look stale to me. "Q" could rather be a young techno-geek, a kind of Mackenzie Crook (THE OFFICE).

[Zorin Industries]

This announcement has made my day. I really hope they keep john cleese and Samantha bond for #23. I think it would just be nice to keep the same actors... they kept Judy, why not keep the others. I think john cleese was great at it.

NO!

YES to your NO!

[001carus]

I'm not sure I'm TOO thrilled about this. I may be looking to far into the 'fresh start', but the Bond franchise has come too far to go back to anything prior to Craig's era now. While I don't think it's necessary to directly tie story elements from QOS into Bond 23 (as QOS did to CR), I think it'd be nice to keep Quantum.

We have a very sinister organization that's been stressed over two movies now, and I think it's important for Bond to go deeper into Quantum. It'd familiarize audiences and I think any other villain would pale in comparison. I also think it's important to build a full storyline around Craig's Bond, to make it seem like a level above the rest. This is how I feel anyway.

If we are going to scrap Quantum for now, and introduce Moneypenny and Q, I think they're somewhat treading on dangerous waters, and it's very, VERY important they keep the serious tone. There will be nothing worse than seeing Daniel dressed up in a clown outfit. I know I may be jumping to pretty large conclusions, but I can't stress this enough. Right now I see Craig's era as a cut above the rest. Takes itself more seriously. It feels like a more epic saga. More human episodes.

Basically to sum up, I'm hoping they follow through with Quantum, but if they don't, I think it's very important they stick to the serious and human side to Bond. I want his character to DEVELOP by the end crawl. I don't want it to simply be "One of those Bond adventures where Bond has some fun and stops some maniac." Any story that goes up on that screen should be worthy enough to be there. I want to see Bond and the world around him change. I want an epic entry into the series.

[JADSTERSDAD]

Music to my ears. Let's hope the new theme song will be too!!

[Skudor]

I'd quite like a dose of Goldfinger for the next Bond installment. Quantum of Solace was great, and Quantum should make a return, several times, in the future. But for B23 I'd like a good old fashioned story, with some sleuthing, a more traditional plot, a bit less action (a good rule of thumb would be to cut 1 or 2 of the action sequences in the final draft (would have improved both of the last two films), and a story that doesn't focus on a Bond character-arch.

None of that means the return of Die Another Day. I'd also be fine with Q and Moneypenny not making a return at all.

[YouKnowTheName]

The most important thing is to keep the focus on Bond. The things which make the Craig films so much better than the rest is that they are ABOUT Bond, they don't just feature him. The last thing we need is to return to a Brosnan-like formula. They have to be VERY careful bringing back old characters. Moneypenny could work reasonably well without too many changes, but Q means stupid gadgets, so unless they keep it like he was in his few novel appearances (or an early Connery) we're running back to formula, which is never good, but... not sure.

A recast is vital. Bringing back Cleese or Bond (Samantha) would obviously be lunacy. We need new, and VERY different actors, to make it work. Even so, I'm not convinced. I think the Craig reboot is the best things to happen to the series ever, and the only reason it is still alive, and moving toward to 'old' way is a bad thing all round. DON'T kill the goose that laid the golden egg!

Edited by YouKnowTheName, 08 December 2008 - 01:42 PM.

[Skudor]

Good point above on what makes Craig work as Bond - part of his success is the material he's been given, but I don't think it needs to be as dramatic going forward (I don't think it can be). I could do without him going rogue or falling in love etc. etc. next time round. Another aspect of Craig's talents for the job are in the determination he has in the action sequences - so he doesn't really need friends and loved ones dying left right and center to give him something to play with.

[001carus]

Good point above on what makes Craig work as Bond - part of his success is the material he's been given, but I don't think it needs to be as dramatic going forward (I don't think it can be). I could do without him going rogue or falling in love etc. etc. next time round. Another aspect of Craig's talents for the job are in the determination he has in the action sequences - so he doesn't really need friends and loved ones dying left right and center to give him something to play with.

True, but I still think dramatic things need to happen to him. I don't like this idea of not even trying to top the predecessor. Of course, one could say CR was trying to "top" DAD in terms of incredible feats etc, which, in turn, made the film more epic - but that's a different story.

I think it's important for the Craig films to stay on track and do the things that they do well - great emotional and human development with epic action pieces in a human, realistic, and gritty world. I hope Bond 23 isn't just the "let's take a break from all of that and just have a fun outing." Bond 23 should feel like the stakes have been raised.

[Bryce (003)]

Just my own take here, which I beleive I stated in another Bond 23 thread somewhere -

Much like Goldfinger, I think Craig's third Bond should have nothing to do with Quantum, much like GF had nothing to do with SPECTRE. Give us a good villain who is strictly out for his (or HER )own personal gain, yet is a viable threat to the UK on an international level.

Maybe have the CIA and Felix get the tip, but, for whatever reason, have their hands tied up and turn to MI6 (read: Bond) to take up the slack.

Maybe something to do with nuclear power in the USA...

Just a thought.