106 replies to this topic

[FlemingBond]

When they bring back Q , i think they need a regular actor, not a comedian. Remeber, Q didn't become purely comedic till the Brosnan films. It'll be interesing what back story they give Moneypenny. If they do.
I think the next film needs to be a little lighter, without being "funny". Goldfinger has a light tone, but it's not a comedy. I think they need to go with fun, flirty Bond. Craig is compared with Connery, and he can do fun, without being silly.
The next film also has to be real good. As much as people like Craig, if the next film is mediocre....

[HH007]

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.

Yeah, I think it's lukewarm to negative word of mouth has hurt the overall B.O. in the States (I thought it would make $200 million easy when it first came out, now I'm not so sure), which is a shame, because I think it's a really good Bond film. It's just so stylistically different from the others that some have found it a little jarring. I do not accept this ripping off Bourne argument because this Bond is still Bond. He still has the humor, charm, and charisma that Bourne has lacked completely in his last two movies.

As for directors, since Forster was such a left field choice, I'm not even going to try and guess who they might get. I would suggest Michael Mann, who is adept at both drama and action, but I doubt he'd be interested. John McTeirnan hasn't (imo) made a decent movie since "The Hunt For Red October" twenty years ago... isn't he in jail or something, anyway? The only thing of Donaldson's that I liked was "Species", and even that was kind of silly. Never saw "No Way Out". Frankly I wouldn't mind if they brought back Martin Campbell.

[Colonel Moon]

When they bring back Q , i think they need a regular actor, not a comedian. Remeber, Q didn't become purely comedic till the Brosnan films. It'll be interesing what back story they give Moneypenny. If they do.
I think the next film needs to be a little lighter, without being "funny". Goldfinger has a light tone, but it's not a comedy. I think they need to go with fun, flirty Bond. Craig is compared with Connery, and he can do fun, without being silly.
The next film also has to be real good. As much as people like Craig, if the next film is mediocre....

What a bu........
Have you ever seen Connery movies or Moore movies

[Eurospy]

I don't understand why Craig's words might come as a surprise.

I mean, we all know that his character arc was completed at the end of QOS. It could even have been completed with the first one only.

Even Dalton wanted to make a lighter Bond after LTK. It's a natural course to follow, I guess. As long as they don't try to deviate from Craig's take on the character.

In the next one they will probably try to find the right balance in tone, etc. I do dread the memory, where they seemed to try having the best of both worlds with DAD, and ended up with different portions of extremes.

[TheREAL008]

I wouldn't mind having Q and Moneypenny back, but they have to be new actors for the role. Clease and Samantha were good for the nineties, but we're past that now.

Who was it here who wanted Alan Rickman for the part of Q? That might be a good idea, just as long as he doesn't dress in black from head to toe and mistakingly call Bond "Mr. Potter."

As for Moneypenny, hire a complete UNKNOWN who resembles Lois Maxwell.


For a plot: Have Quantum hatch a scheme that's akin to FRWL, but with heavy emphasis on originality.

[Mojito133]

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!

Seconded, thirded, fourthed and fifthed.
I just can't imagine Craig's Bond and Q together in the same scene.
Monneypenny - Ok, Q - please no.

[__7]

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.

Agreed. I'm afraid if they go Roger Moore/fun outing on us that it is going to seem very awkward with Craig. Hopefully we're misinterpreting this and that they'll just change the plot line instead of changing the tone. A plot say where Bond just gets called into M's office and gets an assignment, rather than going rogue - a Drax or Goldfinger type villan instead of a threat from Quantum (perhaps they have to regroup after QoS and return for Bond 24) - but with all of this, they need to keep the serious, gritty tone of the last two. As has been said, you can't go back to the old ways after these last two, it just won't play.

[Quantumofsolace007]

altough if the go for a goldfingeresque bond 23 perhaps It would be wise to finnaly use Shatterhand..

Dr Gutham Von Shatterhand being the main baddy of bond 23 would be interesting.


i'm personally hoping for a bond film with risks in it and a fleming title (prefferably the hilderbrand Rarity)

but then again that is just me.

[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!

YES to your NO!

I take your joking, Zorin when you say that but I've no problem if they are done right Q & MP returning but Basil Fawlty as Q is not good.

[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!

I take your joking, Zorin when you say that but I've no problem if they are done right Q & MP returning but Basil Fawlty as Q is not good.

I was agreeing that it was a terrible idea...

[uvhadyrsix]

Too soon to bring in Q or Moneypenny i wanted the third act where maybe while chasing the head villian Bond is captured by Mr.whites Bad guys and brain washed to terminate M then fails mission sent off to be accessed if he can keep his double O's.

Who need laughs, if so bring back Brosnan make Connery a master Villian and Moore takes over as M go so far as Dalton being the P.M and Lazenby taking over as Mr Fix It L.

Graig's comments worry me, is he aging quicker than he expected, after his third film is he going to jump ship, then we wait another 2 to 4 years for the Brocolli twins to decide who will be next, atleast with the Bourne people we know its real no laughs and once again Matt Damon will be in it,what's so hard about that.

When i watch Quantum i felt there were still loose ends that have to be followed and just to end it like that don't you feel cheated i know i do.

[Harmsway]

Craig has made similar comments elsewhere, about moving towards a more relaxed style for BOND 23, and seeking after a different kind of intensity than the what CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE presented. I think that's all very well and good, and I'm hoping that BOND 23 gives Craig's Bond a bit more ease. Maybe something, for example, like Fleming's THUNDERBALL, which had a nice relaxed quality to it. I want to see Bond enjoy things a bit more.

Craig sure has made a big deal about Moneypenny and Q though. He brings 'em up every interview.

[kneelbeforezod]

Who need laughs, if so bring back Brosnan make Connery a master Villian and Moore takes over as M go so far as Dalton being the P.M and Lazenby taking over as Mr Fix It L.

Why do so many people jump to the conclusion that a slight adjustment in tone automatically means a return to the Moore/Brosnan style of films? All it means is that, having been through a lot in QOS, Bond will perhaps enjoy himself a bit more in the next one, be a little more comfortable in his skin, a little less tortured.

Graig's comments worry me, is he aging quicker than he expected, after his third film is he going to jump ship, then we wait another 2 to 4 years for the Brocolli twins to decide who will be next, atleast with the Bourne people we know its real

Um... what?

[Mr_Wint]

Craig sure has made a big deal about Moneypenny and Q though. He brings 'em up every interview.

Yes, I think it is a little bit too much to have an extended background story for Q/Moneypenny and I don't see how they can build a good Bondfilm around that. After all, these are just small cameos.

[Loomis]

Craig has made similar comments elsewhere, about moving towards a more relaxed style for BOND 23, and seeking after a different kind of intensity than the what CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE presented. I think that's all very well and good, and I'm hoping that BOND 23 gives Craig's Bond a bit more ease. Maybe something, for example, like Fleming's THUNDERBALL, which had a nice relaxed quality to it. I want to see Bond enjoy things a bit more.

Craig sure has made a big deal about Moneypenny and Q though. He brings 'em up every interview.

I want a camp, lighthearted, fun-for-all-the-family Bond flick, with humour, goofy gadgets, Q, Moneypenny, the gunbarrel at the beginning, and all the works. It's time for Craig to give us Moore, much Moore!

[[dark]]

I want a camp, lighthearted, fun-for-all-the-family Bond flick, with humour, goofy gadgets, Q, Moneypenny, the gunbarrel at the beginning, and all the works. It's time for Craig to give us Moore, much Moore!

Oh, Loomis...

[Harmsway]

I want a camp, lighthearted, fun-for-all-the-family Bond flick, with humour, goofy gadgets, Q, Moneypenny, the gunbarrel at the beginning, and all the works. It's time for Craig to give us Moore, much Moore!

I assume you're being tongue-in-cheek, especially since prior to QUANTUM OF SOLACE you were stating that you wanted Craig's Bond to stay within certain limits (ala, not being able to fly a plane). But I can never tell with you, since your opinions sometimes change rapidly, and you have a streak for crazy ideas.

Anyway, I love MOONRAKER and other such light entertainments of the franchise, but I don't have an interest in seeing Craig in that type of flick. I don't think it plays to his strengths (which are clearly the more dramatic aspects of the character), and would probably be something of a disaster, both in the eyes of the fans and the general public.

[plankattack]

I think GF is about outlandish as it's going to get. The character more relaxed and at ease, but still that "gentleman killer" edge that the early Connerys had about them. There'll never be another MR, with the tongue firmly in cheek (MR at least know it's being silly; it's modern equivalent DAD, on the other hand), because Austin Powers sent it up. And you can't go back....

[[dark]]

Anyway, I love MOONRAKER and other such light entertainments of the franchise, but I don't have an interest in seeing Craig in that type of flick. I don't think it plays to his strengths (which is clearly the more dramatic aspects of the character), and would probably be something of a disaster, both in the eyes of the fans and the general public.

Absolutely. What's more, we only just got away from that kind of silliness a mere two films ago. I think Eon's New World Order - of a gritty tone and of respected filmmakers coming on board - will prohibit anything more outlandish than what plankattack predicts...

I think GF is about outlandish as it's going to get. The character more relaxed and at ease, but still that "gentleman killer" edge that the early Connerys had about them. There'll never be another MR, with the tongue firmly in cheek (MR at least know it's being silly; it's modern equivalent DAD, on the other hand), because Austin Powers sent it up. And you can't go back....

The tone of Goldfinger is as outlandish as I want to see the Craig era get (and even that might have a bit too much silliness in it for a contemporary audience). I think Casino Royale strikes the tonal balance rather perfectly (slight downer of an ending aside).

[Harmsway]

Here are Craig's similar comments from the Rotten Tomatoes interview he gave recently, which nuances these comments a bit more:

"We should give Q to a good actor. We should find an actor and find out what they think and find a good story. If we just drop it in there and then go to the basement and there is Q with exploding bananas, it is not going to work. Q has been done and it has been done brilliantly and with great humour. We have to find a way to bring Q into it properly. I think we owe it to the franchise."

"I don't dislike [Bond] I just don't want to judge him really. I think he is totally morally ambiguous as a character; he kills people for a living. If I start judging him or taking the piss out of him, which would be the worst thing to do, then it is all over and there is no room to go. I think it would be nice to get to know him a bit more in the next movie. I think he could be relaxed. I do think Quantum of Solace is the end of this sort of intensity. The next version of the intensity we will come from a different angle. It won't be so balls to the wall. It will hopefully be something that we can slowly come into and explore in a different way. Also, there will be a lot more gags."

[Quantumofsolace007]

whatever keeps loomis away from his Stallone as the head of quantum ideas i'm happy with


I fear this will finnaly allow wilson's third dalton film to be realized.


Not that i mind it mind you a lot of it is very good just the robot love slave thing was too weird even for bond but if they drop that part out and allow for the eltronic warfare to be the main focus (while getting rid of the bits used in goldeneye-die anotherday) with some classic and unsued bit from bond novels used might make for a great bond film.

[Loomis]

Well, guys, to be fair, that ghastly "freefall" business in QUANTUM OF SOLACE has already blown the Craig era's pretensions to seriousness out of the water. For me, at least. They may as well embrace the lunacy now.

Also, I do want to see fun brought back to the franchise. I like QUANTUM OF SOLACE (but not the way I love CASINO ROYALE), but it did occasionally strike me as excessively Ingmar Bergmanesque and Joy Divisionish.

And, seriously, how do we know that Craig wouldn't be absolutely terrific at Moore-ish comic buffoonery if he tried his hand at it?

Still, the Bond people are probably much better off not listening to the likes of me.

[Harmsway]

Well, guys, to be fair, that ghastly "freefall" business in QUANTUM OF SOLACE has already blown the Craig era's pretensions to seriousness out of the water. For me, at least. They may as well embrace the lunacy now.

Not from where I'm standing. Just because they made a mistake in QUANTUM OF SOLACE doesn't change the overall impression of the film (which was about as dark and bleak as Bond's ever been), or that it was, in fact, a mistake. Surely the response should be to backpedal, rather than push into even more ludicrousness.

Also, I do want to see fun brought back to the franchise.

Sure. And that's what Craig is talking about, especially when he suggests that Bond relax for the next installment, and that they have a bit more fun with it. But since when did "fun," by nature, suggest a Moore-esque camp flick, devoid of character?

And, seriously, how do we know that Craig wouldn't be absolutely terrific at Moore-ish comic buffoonery if he tried his hand at it?

We don't know for sure, but it's my educated guess that he'd be awful at it. He's great at comedy, but I've seen nothing to suggest he can handle that kind of comedy.

At any rate, Craig has already said that "taking the piss out of [Bond]...would be the worst thing to do." So I've no worries on that front.

[[dark]]

Well, guys, to be fair, that ghastly "freefall" business in QUANTUM OF SOLACE has already blown the Craig era's pretensions to seriousness out of the water. For me, at least. They may as well embrace the lunacy now.

I agree that that sequence is the one Quantum of Solace could stand to lose the most, but it's surely no reason to call for Eon to completely Moore-ise the Craig era.

Also, I do want to see fun brought back to the franchise. I like QUANTUM OF SOLACE (but not the way I love CASINO ROYALE), but it did occasionally strike me as excessively Ingmar Bergmanesque and Joy Divisionish.

To be honest, the bits that were "Ingmar Bergmanesque and Joy Divisionish" were the parts I enjoyed the most!

And, seriously, how do we know that Craig wouldn't be absolutely terrific at Moore-ish comic buffoonery if he tried his hand at it?

Is it worth the risk? Casino Royale beautifully restored a sense of credibility to the series that it hasn't had in decades. Sure, Quantum of Solace might have put Bond back on the critical tightrope, but sending Bond back down roads that are already well-traversed is recipe for stagnation, surely.

[B. Ret Smythe]

For the next bond movie 'agent under fire' I would like to see Bond meet and team up with 006 Alex Travelan. This would set up the friendship we see in goldeneye which I have always found weird since in 1985 where the pre-titles sequence was set - Bond was still roger moore and in A View to a Kill he did not even mention that he was best mates with 006.

Maybe 006 can begin to go to the dark side when Quantum starts to make him bad but then they stop being his friend so he begins to set up Janus and only we the audience will know what happens next because we have already seen goldeneye.

I also hope that Q will return and give James Bond some control mines like in goldeneye.

[Bondian]

I want to see (in the pre-title) sequence, 'Q' and 'Moneypenny' growing-up. Going through primary/secondary school, puberty, their first sexual experience, how they threw-up once after their first pint, then collage and eventually how they got their respected jobs at MI6.


Do we need to see this? No.

Was this post necessary? No.



Just do not see the point in bringing back these characters whether their good actors or not.

[HH007]

For the next bond movie 'agent under fire' I would like to see Bond meet and team up with 006 Alex Travelan. This would set up the friendship we see in goldeneye which I have always found weird since in 1985 where the pre-titles sequence was set - Bond was still roger moore and in A View to a Kill he did not even mention that he was best mates with 006.

The continuity in the pre-Craig Bond films is really next to non-existent. When GOLDENEYE told me that 007 and 006 were best mates who went way back, I just said "okay" and accepted it, without really thinking about the other movies. Also since GOLDENEYE came out in '95, I believe the opening scene took place in '96, when Bond was between actors.

[AgentBentley]

Bond 23 will at least need to continue some aspects of CR and QoS, in particular Quantum: I would expect Mr White to pop up again, and 'Guy Haines' to play a more prominent role, as the bad guy in the neighborhood so to speak, the bad guy who can have an immediate impact on Bond because he's so close.
I don't mind Q or Moneypenny returning, as long as they're serious characters and not just the same of old, the funny guy exploding things and the woman sitting behind the desk.

[001carus]

Bond 23 will at least need to continue some aspects of CR and QoS, in particular Quantum: I would expect Mr White to pop up again, and 'Guy Haines' to play a more prominent role, as the bad guy in the neighborhood so to speak, the bad guy who can have an immediate impact on Bond because he's so close.
I don't mind Q or Moneypenny returning, as long as they're serious characters and not just the same of old, the funny guy exploding things and the woman sitting behind the desk.

Entirely agreed.

[00Twelve]

I can't really see anywhere to go but "more relaxed." There's nary a less-relaxed Bond film than QOS. I probably don't want to see something as tonally lightweight as the third story in EON's canon, but more in line with the third story in Fleming's canon.

I've said how tonally similar QOS is to Fleming's second story, LALD, what with the Fleming sweep and brutality and big network of baddies and such. The third novel, Moonraker (a far cry from the film, for those that haven't read it), was scaled back quite a bit in terms of scope and action content.

I'm not suggesting a re-tread of the plot (it's been loosely done in both GE and DAD), but the tone of the novel was really nice and there wasn't very much globe-trotting. Also, there was a big glimpse of Bond's London life and his routine at the MI6 office. Perfect opportunity for an introduction of staffers like Q and Moneypenny.

Also, there's a pronounced 'M' role (I'm sure the producers don't want to scale back Judi very much) and a baddie who wasn't directly linked to the enemy organization from the first two films.

There's still some intense sequences and a big climax, so it's not totally devoid of these elements. There's also a great card-playing battle which followed CR in a wonderful way, not treading on what happened in that story at all. The Cliffs of Dover would make for a pretty fantastic setting, too, as they were in the book.

Again, I'm talking about this type of tonal adaptation, with maybe some of these sequences included. NOT the exact story. I think it would be more appropriate than a movie as tonally light as GF.