Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Tom Stoppard & Roger Michell for Bond 22?


71 replies to this topic

#31 Agent 76

Agent 76

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7080 posts
  • Location:Portugal

Posted 26 May 2006 - 08:50 PM

This is good news, I guess. :tup:

#32 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 26 May 2006 - 09:41 PM

If they could get a Bond out in 2007, that would really cement Craig in the part (if he does a great job - and I think he is and will) in the eyes of the public.


Exactly. Which would be an extremely smart move (the Brosmeister, like him or not, casts a long shadow). Also, it would kind of tie in with the idea (which I think has been stated by Broccoli&Wilson and/or Campbell) of CASINO ROYALE restarting the series, being Bond Volume 2, Episode 1, or Bond 2.1, or whatever you want to call it. After all, the first three films of the old series (DR. NO, FRWL and GOLDFINGER, as though anyone here needs reminding) had gaps between them of only one year. None of the recent one-film-every-three-or-four years business.

Regarding schedules, perhaps this is just me, but are movies being made more quickly these days? MUNICH and UNITED 93 are two examples of productions with very short schedules that come to mind. I realise that Bond is in a rather different league - a league of its own, really - when it comes to scope and scale, but perhaps not all that different when it comes right down to it. I dunno. But we know that work has already started on the followup to CASINO ROYALE courtesy of Messrs P&W, which would be highly unusual if they were planning to follow the recent release patterns (or at least I think it'd be unusual - I freely admit that I don't know much about this process, and am only guessing). Also, the Roger Michell stuff seems extremely legit.

If it's true (and I think there are several large grains of truth in it, at least), then it's funny to think that, before next year is out, two Craig Bond adventures will have been released. And even funnier to think that we know the name of the director of BOND 22 (or BOND 2 :tup: ) even before we know who's singing the CR theme song!

#33 YOLT

YOLT

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1533 posts

Posted 26 May 2006 - 09:42 PM

If I know true, Eon wants to have Bond 25 in 2012: 50 years and 25 films. I think they will make a triology with Craig after Bond 22.

Bond 23: 2009 winter
Bond 24: 2011 summer
Bond 25: 2012 winter

2 year gap after Bond 22, will satisfy Craig I think. And Eon can work on the triology. Also 1,5 years between films will give them extra 6 months.

#34 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 26 May 2006 - 10:05 PM

Regarding schedules, perhaps this is just me, but are movies being made more quickly these days? MUNICH and UNITED 93 are two examples of productions with very short schedules that come to mind. I realise that Bond in a rather different league - a league of its own, really - when it comes to scope and scale, but perhaps not all that different when it comes right down to it. I dunno. But we know that work has already started on the followup to CASINO ROYALE courtesy of Messrs P&W, which would be highly unusual if they were planning to follow the recent release patterns (or at least I think it'd be unusual - I freely admit that I don't know much about this process, and am only guessing). Also, the Roger Michell stuff seems extremely legit.


Well yeah- but how much work is it actually? I mean, I've been following production of the new Dr Who series pretty closely and they'v emanaged to write and plan three series of 13 episodes each plus two Christmas specials, all with hugely differing locations and plots with changing casts and special effects- often planning th enext series whilst the current is shooting; not to mention overseeing tie-in novels comic strips etc. Writing one two hour movie in a year doesn't really seem too impossible. And the crews want to work- they're freelance- there's plenty to do. With a year inbetween releases they wouldn't have needed to be shot back to back- main shooting ends next month I think: that's half a year off for Craig. I can't see there being a problem if they want to do this badly enough.

If it's true (and I think there are several large grains of truth in it, at least), then it's funny to think that, before next year is out, two Craig Bond adventures will have been released. And even funnier to think that we know the name of the director of BOND 22 (or BOND 2 :tup: ) even before we know who's singing the CR theme song!


More importantly, CR could actually end with 'James Bond Will Return In... The Man with the Colourful Noun' (or whatever) for the first time in over twenty years!

#35 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 26 May 2006 - 10:13 PM

Writing one two hour movie in a year doesn't really seem too impossible. And the crews want to work- they're freelance- there's plenty to do. With a year inbetween releases they wouldn't have needed to be shot back to back- main shooting ends next month I think: that's half a year off for Craig. I can't see there being a problem if they want to do this badly enough.


Exactly. I must hold my hand up to, back in the day, knee-jerk poo-pooing the idea of BOND 22 coming out just a year after CR (the very idea! Ridiculous!), but the more one thinks about it the more it does, in fact, seem eminently doable, with a bit of determination, and also a shrewd commercial and creative move.

Let's face it, if they gave us another long (or even "standard") wait between Bond films, the next one'd seem like another series-starting reboot, even though it wouldn't be one*. So far with the Craig era, Sony and Eon have shown so much astonishing ballsiness and willingness to try things differently - from the choice of lead actor to his unconventional teaser poser, and even
Spoiler
, and pretty much everything else in between - that it hardly seems appropriate any more to instantly dismiss the idea of a followup to CR in 2007.

*Although BOND 22 will also continue the origin story theme, insofar as it'll (almost certainly) introduce Moneypenny and Q. All the more reason to get it in cinemas as quickly as possible, then (is it just me, or does the followup to BATMAN BEGINS already seem a little overdue?).

#36 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 26 May 2006 - 10:27 PM

And it would be nice to have someone in the role for a while. Bring back Craig for at least 4 more (I say) if he does a great job.

Regards


Five is what I've been advocating ever since Craig was cast :D Nice to see we agree on somethin :tup:

#37 Lounge Lizard

Lounge Lizard

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted 26 May 2006 - 11:18 PM

Blimey. What's the next step? Harold Pinter for Bond 23? Peter Brook directing? 'Waiting for M'?

Title for No. 22: 'Licence to Kill, or How to Obtain a Working Permit in Isthmus'

Stoppard may be in possession of a 'triple-o licence', having written the spy thrillers The Human Factor, The Russia House and Enigma for the screen, but to me those movies were dull, dull, dull. Mind you, I'm still curious to find out what Stoppard will do with Bourne. And I'm not dead against him doing Bond; especially in The Russia House, there was a sour humor that could work well with Craig's Bond. But since we know so little about Craig's Bond at this point, it's too early for me to speculate about that. Let's just say I revel in all the surprises that James Bond has brought since October 14th. I for one am glad that we now have more fundamental issues to discuss than the credibility of CGI tsunami surfing.

Michell is one of those journeymen directors who is only as good as his script. He's had some bad luck. Changing Lanes had an atrocious script, and I suppose Ben Affleck was forced on him. I agree with the general sentiment about Enduring Love being pretentious and essentially melodramatic- although I still think the opening sequence is powerful cinema, for its deceptive stillness. The Mother, which also stars Craig, is less fussy and brutally honest. Perhaps Michell and Craig will have a blast doing Bond together.

As for 2007- well, I'm not dead set on 'The Year of Bond'. I hope Eon doesn't rush things. But then again: it took three years to develop and realise DAD. I know there are people out there who like or even love it, and I really don't want to take those sentiments away from anyone, but that movie did nothing for me. I'm curious what Eon can offer us within a more tight schedule, with everyone up for it and highly involved.

#38 Stephenson

Stephenson

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 917 posts

Posted 26 May 2006 - 11:45 PM

Will we ever see a fun, unpretentious Bond flick again, the makers of which aren't always banging on about "Bond women, not Bond girls", "peeling back the layers to show the man within", "Bond's dark side", and so on?


Wasn't that DAD? :tup:

Seriously, while much has been said about Craig's acting ability and pedigree, and therefore the (apparent) need to use his talents to the fullest to explore the many facets of "Bond the man", I think the folks over and Eon and Sony really need to go back and watch the early Connery films. What the man did wasn't easy: he never required a mouthful of exposition to show he was pissed off, hurt or about to get violent; he could do it with a look. And then shrug it off and go back to being flippant without appearing heartless. I am fairly confident that Craig could pull it off. IMHO, Bond films can be about something more than tuxedos, women and giant deathrays; there is room for a social conscience and political awareness. But please ... leave the poor man off the couch!

#39 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 26 May 2006 - 11:51 PM

If true, these two guys could bring something fresh to the series. :tup: I thought Purvis and Wade had already started writing the script for Bond 22, though?



Purvis and Wade were working on the Bond 22 script last October as was confirmed at the press conference.

My guess is that Stoppard has been brought on board to polish a script that Purvis and Wade have already completed.

#40 Fro

Fro

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 741 posts

Posted 27 May 2006 - 02:14 AM

Tom Stoppard's a great choice... another guy with a gold statuette for writing, as Paul Haggis had.

I'm not sold on Roger Michell.

They certainly seem far enough along to get Bond 22 out in 2007.

#41 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 27 May 2006 - 03:30 AM

Exactly. I must hold my hand up to, back in the day, knee-jerk poo-pooing the idea of BOND 22 coming out just a year after CR (the very idea! Ridiculous!), but the more one thinks about it the more it does, in fact, seem eminently doable, with a bit of determination, and also a shrewd commercial and creative move.


After the four year gap between DAD and CR I think the producers will want to get the next one out as soon as possible to get Craig in people's minds. After all, as someone above said, Brosnan has cast a long shadow over the role.

Let's face it, if they gave us another long (or even "standard") wait between Bond films, the next one'd seem like another series-starting reboot, even though it wouldn't be one*. So far with the Craig era, Sony and Eon have shown so much astonishing ballsiness and willingness to try things differently - from the choice of lead actor to his unconventional teaser poser, and even

Spoiler
, and pretty much everything else in between - that it hardly seems appropriate any more to instantly dismiss the idea of a followup to CR in 2007.


I imagine the next one, as you suggest, will be more of a traditional Bond film.

*Although BOND 22 will also continue the origin story theme, insofar as it'll (almost certainly) introduce Moneypenny and Q. All the more reason to get it in cinemas as quickly as possible, then (is it just me, or does the followup to BATMAN BEGINS already seem a little overdue?).


To me, Batman is still Michael Keaton, and I think that has to do with the fact that Batman: Begins, while a good movie in it's own right, is fading from my memory.

#42 Ouroboros

Ouroboros

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 55 posts
  • Location:New Mexico

Posted 27 May 2006 - 03:52 AM

Hmm. Really can't say how I feel about this news.

MICHELL: Eternal Love didn't strike me as that bad from a directing standpoint. In truth, I think the Bond series works best with directors who do straight-up work and don't try to add much pizzazz. Tamahori, with all his slow-mo and speed-ups seemed like an advertisement for why we don't want this sort of director, which is why I am adamantly opposed to a Tarantino or Woo Bond movie (despite liking the directors). The only reason I can think of for not hiring Michell is hesitancy about whether or not he can do action. Bond movies are in great part driven by their action scenes, so a director must be able to competently film one, without either over-jazzing it, or mis-editing.

STOPPARD: Resencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard? No. No, no, no. I also wouldn't refer to him as "The Bourne Guy," even though he's writing the newest one. I think "The Bourne Guy" is Tony Gilroy, who would make a good Bond writer, by the way. I'd just be a little concerned that Stoppard might make the script a little too quirky ("quirky" is the screenwriter equivalent of pizzazz). Granted I haven't seen The Russia House, but I've heard it was good, and it was an adaptation, which is what he's working with now...so maybe...

All in all, I'm not horrified, but this news, if true, is far from blowing me away.

#43 rubixcub

rubixcub

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 27 May 2006 - 04:04 AM

Which one is the tabloid, the Daily Mail or the Daily Mirror? I get them mixed up, not being a subscriber of either. I thought the Mirror was the tabloid and the Mail was a legit paper. Is the Daily Mail a reliable source?

These rumors don't seem as sensational as the headline-grabbing ones like Angelina, Tarantino, etc. Hard to imagine someone starting these rumors just for rumor's sake.

It'd be silly not to have a 007 in 2007. I assumed that production of CR in '06 precluded that possibility. I'll be glad to be proved wrong, so long as Craig's sophomore effort isn't a turkey.

Dave

#44 J.B.

J.B.

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 297 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 May 2006 - 04:40 AM

Well, if this is true and they have the writer for the Bourne films now working on Bond films then I guess what many have said in these forums is true: EON's future goal with recreating Bond was simply to make the series a Bourne clone. How sad! Again, if this is true, then I think these folks are idiots and obviously are clueless with how to see what works and what doesnt work. EON WAKE UP!!!! HELLO?

I dont mean that they wont make money off the series but what I do mean is that I think they are going to kill off what is so unique to Bond and what has made the franchise so popular and money making. Bourne was not that successful. The last two Bond films, that everyone here at Cbn has been quick to denounce as not well made or written, beat out the Bourne films (which I for one enjoyed personally). However, Bond is different. Please find someone else to work on the script. Anyone else...Call me up and I will do it! :tup:

#45 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 27 May 2006 - 04:53 AM

Do you suppose maybe they hired Tom Stoppard, cause you know...he's actually good?

I doubt the fact that he's writing the newest Bourne film has anything to do with it.

#46 TheCheat

TheCheat

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 494 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 27 May 2006 - 04:54 AM

this is excellent news if it is true. i had included michell in my list of 15 directors that i would like to direct the next bond film. i think he could bring something special to the film

in addition to working with daniel craig in a couple of films david arnold was also the composer for his film changing lanes.

#47 Cody

Cody

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1393 posts

Posted 27 May 2006 - 05:16 AM

Sounds good to me.

I liked Enduring Love and Changing Lanes both quite a bit.

Edited by Cody, 27 May 2006 - 05:17 AM.


#48 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 27 May 2006 - 05:17 AM

Well, if this is true and they have the writer for the Bourne films now working on Bond films then I guess what many have said in these forums is true: EON's future goal with recreating Bond was simply to make the series a Bourne clone. How sad! Again, if this is true, then I think these folks are idiots and obviously are clueless with how to see what works and what doesnt work. EON WAKE UP!!!! HELLO?

I dont mean that they wont make money off the series but what I do mean is that I think they are going to kill off what is so unique to Bond and what has made the franchise so popular and money making. Bourne was not that successful. The last two Bond films, that everyone here at Cbn has been quick to denounce as not well made or written, beat out the Bourne films (which I for one enjoyed personally). However, Bond is different. Please find someone else to work on the script. Anyone else...Call me up and I will do it! :D


I see. So you're basically telling me that Casino Royale is nothing but a Walker, Texas Ranger clone with added casino scenes. [censored]ing EON. Paul Haggis, :tup: you too. We've been had!

On a related note, not to dismiss this report, but I can't find this anywhere on their website. Only ajb's forums has it with a copy floated to MI6, where it was picked up and put on IGN Filmforce. That just seems odd. Consider me skeptical. I don't know what to think, one way or another. I don't have a problem with Stoppard. I just hope that Purvis and Wade work with someone who can make great improvements to their writing, like Haggis did. I don't really care for Michell though. I thought Matthew Vaughn was a good idea when he was rumored a while back.

#49 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 27 May 2006 - 09:57 AM

Blimey. What's the next step? Harold Pinter for Bond 23? Peter Brook directing? 'Waiting for M'?


LOL, Lounge Lizard! There must be a thread in there!


Well, if this is true and they have the writer for the Bourne films now working on Bond films...


The reductiveness of Bond fans! I'm sure Stoppard will be amused at how his career is boiled down. The above sentence is like saying Shakespeare is dat Briddish guy who wrote dat Leonardo DiCaprio flick! (Well, Stoppard is not quite Shakespeare but you get my point!) Gilroy is the real writer of the Bournes and presumably Stoppard must have been brought on to "Haggis-ize" the script. (Stoppard has an enduring relationship with Connery which includes surviving suing each other)


If the DM story is true (a big "if"), it's a terrific, terrific sign for the new Bond direction. If someone had told me 5 years ago Stoppard was in talks to polish/co-write a Bond, I would have thought they were a looney from Palookaville.

Michell is intriguing and probably standard Eon procedure.

But for old and enduring Bond watchers like me it says one thing: everything I thought I knew is wrong.

CR appears to have re-written the Bond development rule book.

Someone has been doing a lot of thought and planning since DAD and 2002...

...and nobody does it better!

#50 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 27 May 2006 - 10:09 AM

Which one is the tabloid, the Daily Mail or the Daily Mirror? I get them mixed up, not being a subscriber of either. I thought the Mirror was the tabloid and the Mail was a legit paper. Is the Daily Mail a reliable source?

These rumors don't seem as sensational as the headline-grabbing ones like Angelina, Tarantino, etc. Hard to imagine someone starting these rumors just for rumor's sake.


Both the Mail and Mirror are tabloids; it's just that the Mail pretends to be more grown-up. The Mail was the first paper to identify Craig as the new Bond (although not this writer) and, as you say, this news sounds pretty realistic although I'm sure nothing's near being signed or sealed.

On a related note, not to dismiss this report, but I can't find this anywhere on their website. Only ajb's forums has it with a copy floated to MI6, where it was picked up and put on IGN Filmforce. That just seems odd. Consider me skeptical.



I had a flick through the paper yesterday and it was there; no pics or anything, but there it was- the main story on Baz's double page spread.

#51 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 27 May 2006 - 10:27 AM


Will we ever see a fun, unpretentious Bond flick again, the makers of which aren't always banging on about "Bond women, not Bond girls", "peeling back the layers to show the man within", "Bond's dark side", and so on?


Wasn't that DAD? :D


Well, yes, it was, to a large extent. :D Although I suspect that the filmmakers did talk about those things I've mentioned in interviews during its production/release - it's almost as though they're contractually obliged to spout stuff like "This is a character-driven story", "The women in this film are very much Bond's equal", and so on. :D :tup:

#52 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 27 May 2006 - 10:40 AM

MICHELL: Eternal Love didn't strike me as that bad from a directing standpoint. In truth, I think the Bond series works best with directors who do straight-up work and don't try to add much pizzazz. Tamahori, with all his slow-mo and speed-ups seemed like an advertisement for why we don't want this sort of director, which is why I am adamantly opposed to a Tarantino or Woo Bond movie (despite liking the directors). The only reason I can think of for not hiring Michell is hesitancy about whether or not he can do action. Bond movies are in great part driven by their action scenes, so a director must be able to competently film one, without either over-jazzing it, or mis-editing.


The worrying thing is that it almost looks as though they're hiring Michell because he can't do action:

"'Barbara's got a team who know the action side of it back to front and Roger can come in and pull it all together.'"

Now, okay, perhaps most of the major action stuff is always done by second (and third, fourth....) unit directors and crews anyway (or maybe not - I don't really know, but I do remember Tarantino sneering at Bond directors recently by saying something along the lines of "They just direct the talky scenes, while other people go off and do all the exciting bits"), but for me this was the big problem with TWINE: Apted seemed out of his depth with/fundamentally uninterested in action scenes, so regardless of who actually went out and shot them they didn't blend well with the rest of the film - they're just sorta hanging there awkwardly, and it's as though Apted's "serious", "dramatic", "peeling back the layers", zzzzzzzz Bond film comes to an abrupt halt every so often, and then there's some halfhearted obligatory "thrills and spills" that you suspect the director's rolling his eyes at, and then the film gets going again, although it doesn't really because nothing really hangs together.

The beginning of ENDURING LOVE is good, but after that.... I think it is mostly bad from a directing standpoint (because many things about the story and characters simply don't make sense - you could say it's a writing problem, but I feel they're things that a competent director should iron out), and I do seem to recall the flashy use of slo-mo and other tired examples of "technique". As for CHANGING LANES, I found it overwrought and boring (rather like ENDURING LOVE), despite - again - a very intriguing premise.

#53 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 27 May 2006 - 12:14 PM

...but for me this was the big problem with TWINE: Apted seemed out of his depth with/fundamentally uninterested in action scenes, so regardless of who actually went out and shot them they didn't blend well with the rest of the film - they're just sorta hanging there awkwardly, and it's as though Apted's "serious", "dramatic", "peeling back the layers", zzzzzzzz Bond film comes to an abrupt halt every so often, and then there's some halfhearted obligatory "thrills and spills" that you suspect the director's rolling his eyes at, and then the film gets going again, although it doesn't really because nothing really hangs together.


Exactly. Totally agree.

#54 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 27 May 2006 - 04:05 PM

.................. but I do remember Tarantino sneering at Bond directors recently by saying something along the lines of "They just direct the talky scenes, while other people go off and do all the exciting bits"), but for me this was the big problem with TWINE: Apted seemed out of his depth with/fundamentally uninterested in action scenes, so regardless of who actually went out and shot them they didn't blend well with the rest of the film - they're just sorta


Thought they did blend well.

The talky bits were uninteresting. And the actiony bits were uninteresting.

All seemed to blend together very well, I thought....

#55 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 27 May 2006 - 04:27 PM

Michael Apted: Just plain uninteresting :tup:

#56 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 27 May 2006 - 06:22 PM


On a related note, not to dismiss this report, but I can't find this anywhere on their website. Only ajb's forums has it with a copy floated to MI6, where it was picked up and put on IGN Filmforce. That just seems odd. Consider me skeptical.



I had a flick through the paper yesterday and it was there; no pics or anything, but there it was- the main story on Baz's double page spread.


Cool. Thanks for clearing that up. Still a little skeptical. We all know how rumors and so forth go when concerning Bond. Could hold some weight. Who knows...

#57 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 28 May 2006 - 01:38 AM

Regarding Tom Stoppard, I know he's a big-time writer but I'm afraid I can't remember anything he's done other than The Russia House (and I had to be reminded of that) but I was disappointed with that film. Still, his pedigree is really good so I would have to be positive/optimistic with his possibly co-writing Bond 22.

As for Roger Michell, I can't say I'm all that thrilled. Notting Hill was really good, but it's not an action film. I did see Changing Lanes but found it only okay. He may know and get along with Daniel Craig, but I hope he doesn't get the job.

The best thing about this article for me is that it says that Bond 22 will be released in 2007. :D :tup:

#58 ACE

ACE

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4543 posts

Posted 28 May 2006 - 12:42 PM

Thought they did blend well.

The talky bits were uninteresting. And the actiony bits were uninteresting.


LOL :tup:

Normally, I hate such cynical put downs on a fan site but artfully done, Simon!
Don't agree about the talky bits but then I love hearing Sophie talk...

#59 Peter Guillam 006

Peter Guillam 006

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 50 posts

Posted 28 May 2006 - 12:57 PM

Stoppard could make the one liners swallowable

#60 crashdrive

crashdrive

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1233 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Posted 28 May 2006 - 03:02 PM

I think this is great news. I've always been a big fan of the idea of Stoppard and Michell working on a Bond film.

Here's what I wrote about Tom Stoppard on March 1st 2003 in the thread My Dream Crew Bond List

Screenwriter
Let's keep this simple and discuss just one writer; Tom Stoppard. An amazing Academy Award winning writer, who was responsible for modern classics like 'Brazil', 'Empire of the Sun' & 'Shakespeare in Love'. Wrote two of the best Bondian thrillers not part of the franchise; 'The Russia House' starring Sean Connery & 'Enigma' directed by Michael Apted. Perfect for the job.

As for Michell, well he's number 8 on our Pick Your Bond 21 Director List (compiled by Loomis & yours truly) posted on February 1st 2003. I haven't seen Enduring Love, but I do think Notting Hill is one of the best films in it's genre and I'm a big fan of Changing Lanes (eventhough Loomis thought is was boring :tup:).

If this turns out to be true, I think the casting of Craig and the hiring of Haggis were just the first signs of a new golden age for the Bond series. Let's just hope moviegoers are ready for it.