29 replies to this topic

[Odd Jobbies]

Bond 22 is going to be a far more difficult movie than CR to get right.

CR is about the EVENTS that, by the stories end, have placed the Bond character on a particularly ruthless and vengeful path. However the next Bond story must show how he IS our Bond 'en route to revenge' (and no, that shouldn't be the title).
There's lots of talk about how we see Bond 'form' in CR. Don't get me wrong, CR is a resounding triumph that gets better with each viewing, but we DON'T see Bond 'form'. In fact we see him 'de-form' (no Daniel Craig jokes here please). We see him start as a 'Pre-Bond' cocky young geezer having fun overseas, but in danger of getting out of his depth (which is exactly what he does by getting emotionally involved with Vesper). By the end he's broken somewhere inside - his confidence in his own judgement fractured; as M says '...you don't trust anyone now...

[The Richmond Spy]

Well, I agree there is a problem when making Bond 22. Casino Royale kicked so much that it will be extremely difficult to follow up. I don't see how they can do it, but I know the people involved are exponentially better at filmmaking and storyline development than myself. So, I think we'll be fine and I look forward to it.

[stamper]

If they take the Layer Cake director and do a movie along the same clever and funny lines, totally different from CR, I wouldn't mind. I think each movie should have it's own identity by now.
Dr No was different from Russia with Love and from Goldfinger from Thunderball from YOLT from OHMSS, they only started to get generic by DAF

[crheath]

I agree about Martin Campbell needing a rest. Nothing against the guy. He did the best directing job on a Bond movie in years. But I just don't like the idea of someone directing two Bonds in a row, which is why he passed on TND.

[dodge]

I think they'll do fine if they treat 22 as the second film in a three-story arc. If Bond were to change completely into the "Bond we all know and love" in 22, that would be too much, too fast. Nobody changes overnight, not even after being betrayed by delicious Eva Green and then watching her drown. And 22 starts off, they've set, right after CR. Craig may stay on for 4 or more films, but I'd love it if the first three were a perfect trilogy about Bond's transformation from mere mortal into myth.

[Odd Jobbies]

I think they'll do fine if they treat 22 as the second film in a three-story arc. If Bond were to change completely into the "Bond we all know and love" in 22, that would be too much, too fast. Nobody changes overnight, not even after being betrayed by delicious Eva Green and then watching her drown. And 22 starts off, they've set, right after CR. Craig may stay on for 4 or more films, but I'd love it if the first three were a perfect trilogy about Bond's transformation from mere mortal into myth.

I agree, a trilogy would be an excellent prospect, particuarly if its theme was indeed Bond's development: So far DC's portrayed a man who's been broken and is no longer the man he was. B22 should be about him becoming who he now is, James Bond - if this takes two films then all the better.

The unique aspect of this character is that he is classicly defined by failure as well as success - all of his missions have a downside - a tragidy, or something very dark he discovers within. The Vesper story is an easy way to illustrate this, but without her the writers must find more subtle ways to keep Bond interesting. Having said that, its all there in the books; his masocism; alcoholism; drug abuse; his contradictions - a snob as well as anti-authoritarian; cultured as well as barbaric. All very British.

[moorebond82]

The thing is CR is such a huge hit that people are going to be expecting the next movie to be even better then CR. So they have to be careful when going about making bond 22.

[00Twelve]

I posted a thread about this in the Bond 22 area. It's called something like Perilous Plotting Pitfalls, and it's about this very subject...how not to screw up by succumbing to the pressure to make Bond 22 "bigger and brighter."

[dodge]

I posted a thread about this in the Bond 22 area. It's called something like Perilous Plotting Pitfalls, and it's about this very subject...how not to screw up by succumbing to the pressure to make Bond 22 "bigger and brighter."

Thanks for pointing that out. Is there a simple way for us newbies to find out if a prior thread exists? I tried a key word search on a different subject but found nothing. But it would help us all save space if you have a trick or two.

[JimmyBond]

I think they'll do fine if they treat 22 as the second film in a three-story arc. If Bond were to change completely into the "Bond we all know and love" in 22, that would be too much, too fast.

Craig himself has said there's still more to explore within the character, still mistakes (for the character) to make, before he's molded into the agen "we all know and love." Daniel Craig won't agree to a script that makes Bond a cold bastard over night, he's an "actor" he wants challenges, it's an intriguing situation Eon have gotten themselves into: they got a great actor who also wants to make sure the script is excellent before agreeing to it.

[Emma]

I think they'll do fine if they treat 22 as the second film in a three-story arc. If Bond were to change completely into the "Bond we all know and love" in 22, that would be too much, too fast. Nobody changes overnight, not even after being betrayed by delicious Eva Green and then watching her drown. And 22 starts off, they've set, right after CR. Craig may stay on for 4 or more films, but I'd love it if the first three were a perfect trilogy about Bond's transformation from mere mortal into myth.

I agree. I read a piece on the film, where one of the writer said that he'll still have issues in Bond 22. I really think that EON have ripped a page from the Batman Begin's production team. BB is meant to be a trilogy as well.

Frankly, I loved Craig so much in this film. I hope to God he doesn't change. I liked him the way he is. Not to say that there isn't room for improvement. But I liked it that he was a flesh and blood human being. If they want to go back to 'SuperBond', please let them do so after Craig has gone. I maintained before seeing the film as I do now, that it would be a disaster for Craig to try and closely follow what came before him. I like Daniel but he isn't 'Mr. Slick'. Like Connery, Moore and Brosnan.

[Warpechowski]

I

Edited by Warpechowski, 22 December 2006 - 11:00 PM.

[Turn]

I think there are pluses and minues going into Bond 22.

The pluses are Craig wants to make it even better, and the critical and financial success of CR can only energize the creative team to top the film. I hope it's the Bond series' Empire Strikes Back to CR's Star Wars, or FRWL to its DN. Knowing they will likely have a success on their hands based on CR should be a way of getting people to perform at peak level, rather than just "Come on guys, time to crank out another Bond film."

The possible minuses will Purvis and Wade be able to live up to the pinnacle of CR, and if you don't have a Paul Haggis-type helping out, will that hurt the script? Also, CR was based on a story with well defined characters and an interesting backstory, the Fleming touch, that could be adapted from. I'm not sure what the next film could borrow from that hasn't already been done or adapted already.

It will be a tough job to be sure, but who isn't looking forward to the results?

[Odd Jobbies]

I really think that EON have ripped a page from the Batman Begin's production team. BB is meant to be a trilogy as well.

I agree Emma, i think they definitely have a trilogy as their business plan - i just hope they don't get cold feet and rely on the misleading notion that they should 'put the money on the screen...' They need to put the money into pre-production: a great writer first and foremost; a great director and cast will always be attracted to a great script. So often they've tried to save budget at this stage and its always provided shaky foundations.
I would love to see something along the lines of the story arch created between the novels TB and YOLT (missing out OHMSS for now as this is too close to CR). At the end of his next film Craig believes he's killed his nemesis rsponsible for Vesper, but in his 3rd outing he discovers that a new threat is actually the same nemesis who's survived, but finally dispatched him, only to go missing himself at the end of the movie (as in YOLT). Then follow with Fleming's story arch in THMWTGG: Craig returning to HQ and M after a mysterious absence and tries to assassinate M. In the novel M sends him on a suicide mission to kill the menace Scaramanga (as it's better for Bond than early retirement). However, for Craig's 4th film, after the brainwashing is hoped to have been undone (causing interesting mentle intability and character exploration throughout the film - which Craig will love), he's sent to find his brainwashers - finally the people behind Le Chiffe and his 'puppet master' of the previous two films. This is the root of the organization that employs brainwashing as well as blackmail etc and is so insideous that it penetrates in a Watergate fashion into goverments and inteligence agencies around the world - some are blackmailed, others brainwashed sleeper agents, turned on and off like light switches; cue to-the-death combat with other 00's who like Craig are brainwashed.
See Brit spy series Spooks for fairly decent conspiracy scripts that remain entertaining and action-packed as well as tense and thrilling. Then again jsut watch a series of 24!
Sorry for rambling, i'm a frustrated Bond scriptwriter.

I like Daniel but he isn't 'Mr. Slick'. Like Connery, Moore and Brosnan.

Too right. For the first time ever i left the movie theatre after a Bond film having seen a 3-dimensional character unfold. Not to ridicule his excellent predecessors, but Craig has elevated the franchise into something new. They can never go back to the cartoon-strip without seeming to step backwards. Eon's big problem is that they now have to make character driven Bond (just like the novels are in truth character driven). Problem is that many people feel they've already done all the novels. Personally i think there's stacks in the novels that hasn't been used, or was so botched in the adaptation that a truer adaptation would barely resemble the previous attempts. Failing this they need to fork out the dosh for real writers of characters, like haggis. Perhaps if he's unavailable they could try writer Shane Black: Disillusioned with Hollywood he quit a while ago, but returned with the fantastic 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' which he also directed. Despite being the best comedy AND the best thriller of 2005 it didn't make big bucks, so he may be open to doing Bond for non-extortionate amounts. He did the great Lethal Weapon scripts (as well as the bad Lethal Weapon scripts!) also the excellent 'The Last Boy Scout'; he wrote 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' - a script so good that even the lumbering hack Renny Harlin managed to make a good film out of it (his only decent movie).

And Emma (nice Emma Peel photo by the way:) try the Fleming novels again - it takes a little time and dedication to get into the slower 1950's pace that's as fascinated with exotic food and travel, as it is with espionage and death. But once there you want the books to go on forever.
Without exception they are better than the comic-strip movies (up to CR 2006 that is). They have a real flesh and blood - and alcohol and nicotine and Benzedrine character at their core; just like CR 2006 - I love the look of danger-addiction in Craig's eye's throughout - this is at the heart of understanding why he does this job, why he suceeds where others fail, and why a normal job and normal relationship would be too umbarably dull for him. It's this addiction, or perverse psychosis in Bond's caharacter that makes him equal to the ruthlessnes of his enemies, a dangerous man. It's tested and proven by his reaction to the torture - to embrace the bad as well as the good and somehow, masocisticly learn to enjoy it.
Unlike the movies, it's very important to read the books in sequence; they really do follow one another, regularly referencing the previous book/mission and charting Bond's slow disintegration.

Some of Fleming's endings are stunning: FRWL is so unbelievable that you pick up the next book instantly - a luxury his contemporary readers didn't have; YOLT does likewise - the final revelation is a corker. I wouldn't say that Fleming was a great writer, but he was a great writer of thrillers and Bond is one of the best characters ever written; Fleming obviously had an intimate knowledge of the man. For me CR has the best ending i've ever read - pulls the carpet right out from under you with that unexpected killer line - this is the only thing i thought they got wrong in the film. The line's so good it doesn't need any distractions, but they tried to fit far too much emotional and expositional content into that last conversation with Judi Dench and the line was lost somewhere inside it all. It was as though Eon were embarrassed, or scared of the that line '...The bitch is dead.' They knew they couldn't leave it out and tried to bury it a little, afraid of alienating the audience too much. They should have let it stand there in all its glory swinging in the wind for all and sundry shouting, "this is me, James Bond and i'm now a ruthless barsted, take me or leave me i couldn't give a toss, but you know you'll want to watch me piss all over my enemies in the next instalment precisely because i'm now such a ruthless barsted and you're not - that's the kind of twisted escapism you really love when it comes down to it."

Fleming certainly understood his audience. I just hope that Eon do...

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 23 December 2006 - 12:37 PM.

[supernova]

I think they'll do fine if they treat 22 as the second film in a three-story arc. If Bond were to change completely into the "Bond we all know and love" in 22, that would be too much, too fast. . . .

I read recently (I can't remember where) that Craig himself said he 'didn't want to drop the ball' and WE HAVE TO ENSURE THERE ARE EVEN BIGGER STUNTS IN THE NEW MOVIE.' That makes me a bit nervous - don't start getting weird on us you guys!

I agree with your three-story arc - that would be perfect BUT hope they realise they should either bring back Haggis or invite another good writer to collaborate with the screenplay writers' Purvis and Wade.

[Cody]

I read recently (I can't remember where) that Craig himself said he 'didn't want to drop the ball' and WE HAVE TO ENSURE THERE ARE EVEN BIGGER STUNTS IN THE NEW MOVIE.' That makes me a bit nervous - don't start getting weird on us you guys!

I've read that he said that it has to be an even better movie, I've never seen it said as needing to make sure there's bigger stunts... But even so, if there is an attempt to make a great film, combined with bigger stunts than in CR (without going overboard), that's not necessarily a bad mix.

[callmejames]

Another question that remains is how to deal with the woman issue. Each Bond film or book has had a new female conquest for Bond, but if Bond 22 is about revenge surrounding Vesper, they will have to tread carefully to allow him to seduce another woman in the same story. However, a lot could be done with his inability/unwillingness to get close to that woman in the wake of CR. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[SirCliff]

I dont envy the people who have to put Bond 22 together not only as they have a lot to live up to but they also need to make Bond likable in a way. He is a killer yes, but people need to warm and relate to Bond otherwise it will fail, if Bond goes out on a killing spree kill bill style then people will walk out not liking the character anymore. Yet he is clearly on a vengenful path at the moment...who knows how they will do it. My guess is that it will be a completely new story line with little or no references to Vesper eg DAF after OHMSS yet keeping the frailty and vunerability which we saw in CR.

[Odd Jobbies]

...However, a lot could be done with his inability/unwillingness to get close to that woman in the wake of CR. It will be interesting to see what happens.

This will be the essence of Bond22 (like Bond and Vesper's relationship is the true core of CR). Craig will be wanting to discover for us how Bond relates to the next woman that tries to get close to him. How Craig and the writer handle this will define Bond for his foreseeable future. It's complex, but good actors love 'complex'.
Vesper's made him colder and tougher, So he has to show us how he doesn't let the next woman get close, but at the same time let us get close. A great performance gets us under the skin of the character; Craig managed this in CR (the first time i feel its ever been achieved with the Bond character and Craig deserves an Oscar for it), but its the skin of a man falling in love, so this makes him vulnerable, letting us in. In B22, the point is that he’s not letting anyone in – he’s making himself invulnerable, yet he must find a vulnerability that lets us in if the character is to remain as 3-dimensional as he is in CR.
Jason Bourne in the 'Identity' movies has his amnesia as brilliant device to make him vulnerable while exploring the killer instincts that are simultaneously making him invulnerable. So the writer's of the next script have a lot to achieve without employing such a device (which itself Ludlum may have first seen 6 years earlier in Fleming’s 1965 novel TMWTGG). I hope they don't use a gimmick, but instead achieve this through great dialogue; honest and unfussy - no double meanings, just straight talking about Bond's contradictions. Although I’d like to see the brainwashing story done in a few films time!

I don’t envy the people who have to put Bond 22 together not only as they have a lot to live up to but they also need to make Bond likable in a way. He is a killer yes, but people need to warm and relate to Bond otherwise it will fail, if Bond goes out on a killing spree kill bill style then people will walk out not liking the character anymore. Yet he is clearly on a vengeful path at the moment...who knows how they will do it. My guess is that it will be a completely new story line with little or no references to Vesper e.g. DAF after OHMSS yet keeping the frailty and vulnerability which we saw in CR.

I think the only reason many films have to have a central character who's bad deeds are balanced by good ones, so that the audience know who to like, is a lack of writing and directing talent and a lead actor who isn't charismatic enough for us to care despite his actions.
Malcolm McDowell in a Clockwork Orange has no redeeming qualities, yet we still root for him - enjoy watching him. It's partly down to his charisma and part due to the horrible world he lives in which give his actions a context, if not justification. It's a world that the talents of Burgess and Kubrick have rendered, that allows us to enjoy McDowell. Likewise its the talents of Haggis and Campbell that allow us to enjoy Craig as a 'Barsted-Bond'. Without talent like this onboard - people that understand the character - then B22 is in perilous waters.
The well realized concept of 'a bad man in a bad world' is both glamerous and gritty: He's a survivor – a beautifully elegant killer in the wild - something we all identify with at a very primal level and something we love to watch, but with a safety barrier between. Bond kills for his country, but he’s not supposed to enjoy it, however he’s so good at it that there’s some kind of beauty, or coolness. This under-cuts our preconceived moral selves – cuts to a truth we don’t like to get too close to, but still there's a need to enjoy it catharticly through the bars of a zoo, or on the screen. James Bond can satisfy that need very well with the right team behind it.
When this taste for aesthetically pleasing, cool killing became rampant in our culture from the Spaghetti-westerns onwards, Eon got a little lost and tried to balance it with comedy (just as the inferior of the Spaghetti-westerns tried to). But it’s this relationship with death and women that has kept us fascinated with Fleming and Bond for so long, proven by the success of dark and complex Craig and Casino Royale. For B22 to keep up the standard i believe that they'll have to hit even harder with the dark emotional text, rather than start to pull their punches in order to bring Bond into line with the friendly pre-Craig Bond. We're heading towards a far grittier and truer-to-Fleming Bond than ever before and many fans will be hoping that Eon stay the course.

Until now, no Bond actor since Connery has really had the tools to handle this.

Sean had only moments to express this, such as the cold-blooded shooting of Prof. Dent (he'd had his six). But times weren't ready for any real focus on this defining aspect of Bond - the ease with which he kills, and his uncertainty as to what keeps him doing such a job. As the Burgeoning TV culture exposed us all to the horrors of war and violence, Eon decided that what the audience wanted was escapism and moved even farther from Fleming. They chose comedians and light entertainers rather than actors and kept the audience laughing.
Eon recognized the downward spiral they were in after Moonraker, but failed to get adequately gritty in FYEO. They wrote as if Connery were back, but Moore wasn't Connery and the film feels flat in many ways.
In answer they hired James Brolin for Octopussy. He came closest, since Connery, to an actor capable of portraying the condradictions of a very violent and ruthless 'good-guy'. Of course they went with Roger in the end - a missed opportunity perhaps, but given the films dire script, including a jungle-swinging Tarzan impression, It was just as well (although i did make my dad take me to see it twice!). It’s no use having the right actor, without the right script.
But Eon have learnt a thing or two and weren't to make the same mistakes again when facing a similar dilema after Die Another Day...

Maybe Brolin never really had the acting chops of Connery, but Dalton certainly could have had, if not for his own apparently rigid set of moral values; a side-effect of the politically correct 80's in Britain which meant that Bond couldn't smoke, shag or kill without a bloody good reason and only then in self-defence. Bond had gone farther than ever from Flemming and become 'ethical'!. We never really believed his portrayel because we were all wondering how a man who hates murder and womanising so much can survive as a spy and assassin!
It's true that Fleming's Bond hated cold-blooded murder, but he was good at it and he hated being beaten more than he hated killing. This contradiction, or moral-glitch was the character's enigma - the stories real mystery that kept us hooked – even if he survives the villain, how will he survive himself. Bond's so addicted to the excitment and simplicity of 'kill or be killed' that nothing short of death will slow him down and make him appreciate the gentler things such as a family. In the novels Bond barely expects to make it to his forties, when one gets slower than the other guy. It's a fatalistic and dark way to see life, but it puts him into context. As Craig says, ‘Double O’s have a very short life expectancy…’ So why does he do it – certainly not for Queen and country – there’s something gratifying for him in surviving the odds, over-coming and ultimately destroying his enemy. In Craigs ruthless stubbornness there's the feeling that he knows he may die and has to play to win. As Fleming describes him, he's a ‘blunt instrument’.

With Dalton and Brosnan this contradiction was never really explored, just avoided, or given a cheesy moment here and there, which was particularly unfair to Brosnan, as he's sinse proven in The Matdor that he can really act and was often vocal about wanting the chance to explore the charactor with harder hitting scripts. The only time Brosnan was ever allowed to explore the psychology of a Spy was in 'The Tailor of Panama'. His character was ferosiously manipulating, unpredictable and exciting - a great performance that Fleming would have relished.

But, finally we have an actor whom undoubtably has the chops and hunger to explore these dark motivations; we have an audience expecting it and Producer's talking it up. So I’d expect things to get far more interesting onscreen for Commander Bond. I expect to see a story arch continue into Bond 22 and perhaps (I hope) beyond. And I expect to see a great writer hired to pen, or at least doctor the next script (I’d like to see the same writer do the next 2). I expect to see Bond and his contradictions stay at the centre of the movie, rather than retreating back to the periphery of cheesy, melodramatic moments-out-of-the-plot…

If a great writer isn't appointed, and soon, expect me to be wrong on all counts.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 24 December 2006 - 03:54 PM.

[FullMetalJacket]

Hey everyone! I'm new to the forum, but I've read the posts for a while and look forward to my time here.

I agree about Martin Campbell needing a rest. Nothing against the guy. He did the best directing job on a Bond movie in years. But I just don't like the idea of someone directing two Bonds in a row, which is why he passed on TND.

But really, what's the problem with directing two Bonds in a row? It isn't unheard of by any means. Terence Young directed Dr. No and FRWL back-to-back, Lewis Gilbert directed TSWLM and Moonraker back-to-back, and John Glen directed every Bond film of the 1980s-- five movies in a row!

[Odd Jobbies]

Hey everyone! I'm new to the forum, but I've read the posts for a while and look forward to my time here.

I agree about Martin Campbell needing a rest. Nothing against the guy. He did the best directing job on a Bond movie in years. But I just don't like the idea of someone directing two Bonds in a row, which is why he passed on TND.

But really, what's the problem with directing two Bonds in a row? It isn't unheard of by any means. Terence Young directed Dr. No and FRWL back-to-back, Lewis Gilbert directed TSWLM and Moonraker back-to-back, and John Glen directed every Bond film of the 1980s-- five movies in a row!

Perhaps you just proved 'Full Metal Jackets's' point, that 2 in a row is bad: Gilbert making the terrible MR after the excellent TSWLM! Hard to chart Glen's demise as all of his films were poor and unispired - should've stuck to the editing. However, Terence Young massively improved things with FRWL, and i'd compare Campbell to Young, rather than Glen or Gilbert, so its very hard to predict. Exhaustion may have been his reason for not doing TND, but a comatosed Campbell may well have made a far better film than the very patchy TND turned to be!

[pedroarmendariz]

bond 22 is too early to bring dc's bond to the form that we've known for more than 40 years. bond 22 needs to be about duty to the job at hand more than revenge because the bond we saw close cr seemed less in love and more hateful towards himself for being weak and letting a girl let his guard down. martin campbell would be a good choice since he directed cr and might know what direction the character is taking. overall though any director that takes the job for bond 22 needs to watch cr thoroughly and find what the fans liked about this new bond so he won't kill the excitement that's building up to the next film. it's true that making bond 22 will be more difficult than making cr so those in charge need to tread carefully lest they kill the franchise.

[Turn]

bond 22 is too early to bring dc's bond to the form that we've known for more than 40 years. bond 22 needs to be about duty to the job at hand more than revenge because the bond we saw close cr seemed less in love and more hateful towards himself for being weak and letting a girl let his guard down. martin campbell would be a good choice since he directed cr and might know what direction the character is taking. overall though any director that takes the job for bond 22 needs to watch cr thoroughly and find what the fans liked about this new bond so he won't kill the excitement that's building up to the next film. it's true that making bond 22 will be more difficult than making cr so those in charge need to tread carefully lest they kill the franchise.

Excellent post.

It seems like so many fans are bent on this Bond revenge scenario they felt they were denied when DAF didn't follow Bond's vengance of Tracey for an entire film that they don't want to settle on anything less.

LTK was about revenge. The Brosnans all had "this time, it's personal" themes to one degree or another and it got old. I am confident Craig and the creative team will be energetic about finding what direction to take the character without having to resort to the overused revenge scenario to make a satisfying Bond film.

[stamper]

"It's what makes me feel alive"
"It's what makes you alone"

WOAH HAHAHAHAHAHAH !

Most ridiculous Bond scene in the entire franchise. Even worse than Moore squeezing the balls of a sumotori.

Hail Craig for shooting kneecaps !

[dodge]

Purvis and Wade...Purvis and Wade...Bond 22 will be just fine--if Eon, Craig, the director and another polished, proven screenwriter sit hard on Purvis and Wade.

This is not to belittle their talents, which are considerable. Pacing, plotting, structure are all feathers in their caps. But their previous Bond films before CR offer zero evidence of the sophistication, complexity and emotional depth that have kept us all buzzing for months on this site. So it's a fair assumption that we can thank Mr. Haggis for those, along with the great dialogue.

Good as they are, P & W simply aren't equipped--at least as a duo--to tackle the main problem addressed on this thread: how far exactly show Bond grow in 22...then 23. That will require a sophisticated and very subtle mind.

P.S.: Odd Jobbies, I don't know how highlight sections of a post and didn't want to reproduce all of yours. But I agree with you about Shane Black: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang shows what a difference a great screenplay makes: action/mystery/humor/romance--and dazzling verbal fireworks.

[Odd Jobbies]

Hail Craig for shooting kneecaps !

LOL

[Odd Jobbies]

Purvis and Wade...Purvis and Wade...Bond 22 will be just fine--if Eon, Craig, the director and another polished, proven screenwriter sit hard on Purvis and Wade.

This is not to belittle their talents, which are considerable. Pacing, plotting, structure are all feathers in their caps. But their previous Bond films before CR offer zero evidence of the sophistication, complexity and emotional depth that have kept us all buzzing for months on this site. So it's a fair assumption that we can thank Mr. Haggis for those, along with the great dialogue.

Good as they are, P & W simply aren't equipped--at least as a duo--to tackle the main problem addressed on this thread: how far exactly show Bond grow in 22...then 23. That will require a sophisticated and very subtle mind.

P.S.: Odd Jobbies, I don't know how highlight sections of a post and didn't want to reproduce all of yours. But I agree with you about Shane Black: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang shows what a difference a great screenplay makes: action/mystery/humor/romance--and dazzling verbal fireworks.

Absolutely right Dodge. Also its good to hear someone speak well of Shane Black - for a film that was critically hailed as a triumph, it, along with Black seem to have again sadly dropped off the radar. I'd love to see him involved in someway with a Bond movie.

[Blisster Shoots]

The unique aspect of this character is that he is classicly defined by failure as well as success - all of his missions have a downside - a tragidy, or something very dark he discovers within. The Vesper story is an easy way to illustrate this, but without her the writers must find more subtle ways to keep Bond interesting. Having said that, its all there in the books; his masocism; alcoholism; drug abuse; his contradictions - a snob as well as anti-authoritarian; cultured as well as barbaric. All very British.

Excellent point of view. A Bond like this would be totally fascinating and interesting.

[Odd Jobbies]

Excellent point of view. A Bond like this would be totally fascinating and interesting.

Thanks Blisster, i hope that Eon think so too.

[WhoIs005?]

This is a great thread. There is definitely a lot of expectation going into Bond 22. The key here is that they make it organic, that they allow for the character and the stories to develop in their own right. They shouldn't aim for a trilogy, but just allow this Bond-transformation to fall where it will. As long as too many schemes and bad corporate decisions don't get anyway, they have all of the tools necessary to make Bond 22 worthwhile.