22 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

A big stink is being made on the Casino Royale board that the producers keep mentioning big changes for the series, yet retain a lot of the creative people responsible for the previous outings. People like: Purvis and Wade, Dench, and even David Arnold. It's my thinking though, that they're slowly going to transition to a new crew of talent, using CR as their transition film.

We are already getting rumors that Purvis and Wade are not writing the script for Bond 22 (or that their script was thrown out). What if Arnold isnt asked back? And what of that rumored plotline that will see Dench's M being killed off (a bit of a stretch on this one, I know, but I still find it interesting). Perhaps I'm jumping the gun here, but maybe I'm right? if CR is a hit perhahps we'll see some of the "shake ups" that the producers have been promising.

[Daniel Craig the cool 007]

Yeah,Casino Royale is definitely a very drastic change(in a good way thou)which is exactly what the series needed to re-boot itself..They are doing a great work re defining Bond in both keeping an old notion of the legacy and bringing a new/different touch(and marrying that concept with the old notion)..Regarding Purvis and Wade, it was about time for them to leave...Thou i like the world is not enough, Purvis and wade made bond look more nostalgic,cliche,silly and parodic...Pierce could have done a much better job if the script wasnt written by Purvis and butt-head...As for Dench, i dont know where they are going with that but im glad she's back even thou i would have wanted a Bernard Lee caliber man to be Daniel's boss...But i feel its keeping in touch with a certain familiar thought of bond and up dating it to a realistic character approach a la batman begins..The "shake-ups" that you are mentioning Jimmy will happen if you look at the way the movie is being shot(b'ack and white style),Bond being more tough,gritty,arrogant than charming,smooth,suave as in the later bond flicks...I think that we are on the verge of something new here and its not all talk and no actions from the producers, it will occur for real...

[Daniel Craig the cool 007]

not to mention the adding on of Chris Cornell to the list of singers performing the lead track for the soundtrack whose credit is notably rock tunes, that ought to change the way one approaches the bond franchise now...

[Orion]

it seems to me that after they came up with the "radical" concept they felt it wasn't enough just to have the script like that as the public would still view it as another Bond film, so they then went furthur by hiring people they wouldn't normally but they still wanted to do something that was familliar to things they had done before just not all at once.
For Bond they hired someone who has been regarded as one of the greatest actors in Britain rather than someone who no-one who just looks good in a tux which is rather like the way the cast Sean in the first place he was an actor rather than a good looking model (Sean connerys press photos for Dr No are not all atractive). They hire an oscar winning Director/writer/producer to do a redraft of the script but that is similar to the hiring of Paul Dehn for work on "Goldfinger" and they hire a singer who wouldn't normally be associated with a bond film rather like Paul McCartnery and the wings for "Live and let die".
Then rather than hiring a british actor for their villian (like all of Pierces had been) they hire the man who could be considered Daniel's Danish counterpart Mads Mikkelsen (i mean that he is well known in his own countrys film industry but wouldn't be known internationally)but that is similar to Licence to Kill where the idea is that the two are mirror images of each other. Then for Felix Leiter rather than hire an actor that no-ones ever heard of they hire a big name american actor who has acted with some of the industrys biggest actors (Will Smith in Ali, Jamie Fox also in Ali, Sameul L Jackson in Shaft) yet the casting of Jeffery wright(someone who has worked with Daniel Craig before giving them a genuine feel to the characters friendship) as Felix Leiter is similar to the casting of David Heddison in Live And Let Die (Moore and Heddison were old friends, so they already had that bond).
Also similar is the fact that all roles have been recast save one (in this case M) this is similar to Goldeneye where all but Q was replaced. This i believe is so that there is a t least one visual connection to the previous films. So this isn't so much a transition as all thats happened has been done before but not all at once on the same film which will give the film a feeling of being different yet somehow familliar.

Edited by Orion, 17 August 2006 - 05:54 PM.

[Daniel Craig the cool 007]

it seems to me that after they came up with the "radical" concept they felt it wasn't enough just to have the script like that as the public would still view it as another Bond film, so they then went furthur by hiring people they wouldn't normally but they still wanted to do something that was familliar to things they had done before just not all at once. For Bond they hired someone who has been regarded as one of the greatest actors in Britain rather than someone who no-one who just looks good in a tux which is rather like the way the cast Sean in the first place he was an actor rather than a good looking model (Sean connerys press photos for Dr No are not all atractive). They hire an oscar winning Director/writer/producer to do a redraft of the script but that is similar to the hiring of Paul Dehn for work on "Goldfinger" and they hire a singer who wouldn't normally be associated with a bond film rather like Paul McCartnery and the wings for "Live and let die". Then rather than hiring a british actor for their villian (like all of Pierces had been) they hire the man who could be considered Daniel's Danish counterpart Mads Mikkelsen (i mean that he is well known in his own countrys film industry but wouldn't be known internationally)but that is similar to Licence to Kill where the idea is that the two are mirror images of each other. Then for Felix Leiter rather than hire an actor that no-ones ever heard of they hire a big name american actor who has acted with some of the industrys biggest actors (Will Smith in Ali, Jamie Fox also in Ali, Sameul L Jackson in Shaft) yet the casting of Jeffery wright(someone who has worked with Daniel Craig before giving them a genuine feel to the characters friendship) as Felix Leiter is similar to the casting of David Heddison in Live And Let Die (Moore and Heddison were old friends, so they already had that bond). Also similar is the fact that all roles have been recast save one (in this case M) this is similar to Goldeneye where all but Q was replaced. This i believe is so that there is a t least one visual connection to the previous films. So this isn't so much a transition as all thats happened has been done before but not all at once on the same film which will give the film a feeling of being different yet somehow familliar.

!Great insight indeed.

[Orion]

it seems to me that after they came up with the "radical" concept they felt it wasn't enough just to have the script like that as the public would still view it as another Bond film, so they then went furthur by hiring people they wouldn't normally but they still wanted to do something that was familliar to things they had done before just not all at once. For Bond they hired someone who has been regarded as one of the greatest actors in Britain rather than someone who no-one who just looks good in a tux which is rather like the way the cast Sean in the first place he was an actor rather than a good looking model (Sean connerys press photos for Dr No are not all atractive). They hire an oscar winning Director/writer/producer to do a redraft of the script but that is similar to the hiring of Paul Dehn for work on "Goldfinger" and they hire a singer who wouldn't normally be associated with a bond film rather like Paul McCartnery and the wings for "Live and let die". Then rather than hiring a british actor for their villian (like all of Pierces had been) they hire the man who could be considered Daniel's Danish counterpart Mads Mikkelsen (i mean that he is well known in his own countrys film industry but wouldn't be known internationally)but that is similar to Licence to Kill where the idea is that the two are mirror images of each other. Then for Felix Leiter rather than hire an actor that no-ones ever heard of they hire a big name american actor who has acted with some of the industrys biggest actors (Will Smith in Ali, Jamie Fox also in Ali, Sameul L Jackson in Shaft) yet the casting of Jeffery wright(someone who has worked with Daniel Craig before giving them a genuine feel to the characters friendship) as Felix Leiter is similar to the casting of David Heddison in Live And Let Die (Moore and Heddison were old friends, so they already had that bond). Also similar is the fact that all roles have been recast save one (in this case M) this is similar to Goldeneye where all but Q was replaced. This i believe is so that there is a t least one visual connection to the previous films. So this isn't so much a transition as all thats happened has been done before but not all at once on the same film which will give the film a feeling of being different yet somehow familliar.

!Great insight indeed.

Why thank you

[JimmyBond]

Don't you people use paragraph breaks? It's really annoying reading large bodies of text like that.

[Orion]

Don't you people use paragraph breaks? It's really annoying reading large bodies of text like that.

apologies i got rather caught up in what i was saying

[JimmyBond]

It's fine, probably a bit rude of me to mention it in the first place, apologies on my part too.

[DamnCoffee]

a really good insight

[Orion]

a really good insight

once again i give profound thanks

[Publius]

I sure hope so. I'm not a fan of P&W (though I don't hate them like some do, they're just the George Lucases of Bond), and I'd rather they drop Arnold unless he can really prove himself with CR.

As for Dench, I enjoyed her potrayal, but her time passed with Brosnan's, so writing her out wouldn't be a bad idea. Killing her off outright would be one of the few firsts left in the Bond universe, and would sure come as a shock to those used to her gentle, if stern, consistent presence. Even more so if they do it a la TMWTGG (boy, that would make for something of a plot...the "rogue agent" angle of LTK, which was only scratced at there, fleshed out into its own movie).

Anyway, I think there's a reasonable chance we'll at least see some turnover come 2008. After all, EON has shown a remarkable willingness to take its fair share of chances now for the first time since 1989 (which was the first time since 1969), and its first ever under Barbara and Michael, so I wouldn't put it above them. Beyond CR, we have the prospect of a sequel or even an overarching continuity, something not seen since the 60s, and a return to at least one summer release, following but an 18 month gap, no less.

Put simply, it would take a move on the order of disassembling EON itself for me to be surprised at this point.

[DamnCoffee]

i wouldn't mind M been killed off actually it would be a first i agree

[Thunderfinger]

i wouldn't mind M been killed off actually it would be a first i agree

Why mharkin!I thought you had a crush on Judi Dench.
But I agree.Kill her!
M stands for Man,anyway.

[DamnCoffee]

LOL It was just a phase Thunderfinger - I swear anyway i think it would be a good storyline if Bonds Boss was killed it would be great to see him hunt down the people who was involved thats all

[Orion]

I'd quite like a story line featuring that, then we have Bill Tanner temporarily acting as head until a replacement is found. I think we could have a brilliant scene in which Tanner is adressing all the 00 agents.

[Pussfeller]

Yes, M's assassination would make for an interesting story, and it is one of the few things never done before. If I were writing it, I wouldn't even worry about a rogue agent angle -- that's been done to death. I would just have M assassinated by an enemy. The department is thrown into chaos. Tanner takes temporary command. Bond hunts down and defeats the villain. Just a straight-ahead revenge story. It's not even a personal revenge, but a "political" revenge, with Bond simply doing his job. It would be interesting because Bond would basically be working without real leadership or orders, notwithstanding Tanner's nominal authority. By defeating M's killer, Bond would restore the department's confidence. M is not replaced until the next film, wherein no mention is made of the assassination, except perhaps in passing.

I like the idea. Of course, I doubt it would be seriously considered. The producers like Dench and would probably let her "gracefully retire" off-camera, or perhaps make some kind of sentimental exit along the lines of Desmond Llewellyn. If I were playing a character, though, I would be excited to get killed in the line of duty. Maybe Dench herself will push for it.

Not bloody likely.

[Double-0-Seven]

Yes, M's assassination would make for an interesting story, and it is one of the few things never done before. If I were writing it, I wouldn't even worry about a rogue agent angle -- that's been done to death. I would just have M assassinated by an enemy. The department is thrown into chaos. Tanner takes temporary command. Bond hunts down and defeats the villain. Just a straight-ahead revenge story. It's not even a personal revenge, but a "political" revenge, with Bond simply doing his job. It would be interesting because Bond would basically be working without real leadership or orders, notwithstanding Tanner's nominal authority. By defeating M's killer, Bond would restore the department's confidence. M is not replaced until the next film, wherein no mention is made of the assassination, except perhaps in passing.

I like the idea. Of course, I doubt it would be seriously considered. The producers like Dench and would probably let her "gracefully retire" off-camera, or perhaps make some kind of sentimental exit along the lines of Desmond Llewellyn. If I were playing a character, though, I would be excited to get killed in the line of duty. Maybe Dench herself will push for it.

Not bloody likely.

That would be an awesome storyline! Very original and interesting.

[kneelbeforezod]

Yes, M's assassination would make for an interesting story, and it is one of the few things never done before. If I were writing it, I wouldn't even worry about a rogue agent angle -- that's been done to death. I would just have M assassinated by an enemy. The department is thrown into chaos. Tanner takes temporary command. Bond hunts down and defeats the villain. Just a straight-ahead revenge story. It's not even a personal revenge, but a "political" revenge, with Bond simply doing his job. It would be interesting because Bond would basically be working without real leadership or orders, notwithstanding Tanner's nominal authority. By defeating M's killer, Bond would restore the department's confidence. M is not replaced until the next film, wherein no mention is made of the assassination, except perhaps in passing.

You make that sound bloody excellent!

Something like that would really inject some powerful drama into the series, which is what it needs.

[DamnCoffee]

agreed that sounds really good, I really hope eon sees this and i would love for tanner to be promoted to 'M' that aswell would be brilliant

[The Richmond Spy]

It's not even a personal revenge, but a "political" revenge, with Bond simply doing his job.

That would be a good idea! If M (Dench) had been assassinated in the Brosnan era then it would almost have to be a personal revenge because of the closer relationship they had. As long as M and Bond don't have a personal relationship in CR (I haven't read the script), then an assassination story with a "political revenge" would work greatly for the Craig era.

[bernsmartin007]

I believe that they are going to go to a more dark spy thriller rather than the action man antics of the Brosnan era. I think Casino Royale is very much a transition to this, because Daniel Craig suits that more. A more character based, darker, hard edged spy thriller with intruigue and mystery.

I believe Bond 22 will show the full new style to Craig's films, and Casino Royale sees a subtle building of the character. Bond in the script doesn't learn how to do everything, the audience learn about Bond, that's the common missunderstanding.

CR is not rookie Bond, it's a development of the character based much more heavily on Fleming. Craig's next 2 (hopefully a couple more!) will show the full scope of his James Bond.

I can't wait!

[JimmyBond]

I believe Bond 22 will show the full new style to Craig's films, and Casino Royale sees a subtle building of the character.

Kind of how The Living Daylights was still a Moore-esque Bond film with Licence to Kill being a full on Dalton film. I like that idea.