70 replies to this topic

[dodge]

Could something really drastic transform you from a passionate fan into a tooth-and-claw critic, come November 2008?

Forget preferences: I strongly prefer Martin Campbell. I'd prefer Dan to keep his hair short. I'd prefer the second film to be a direct followup to CR. Etc.

Forget even burning desires.

What bottom line, if it's crossed, would send you into a furious state?

Me? A C or a C-minus script, lacking the wit and the sparkle we all loved in CR. A script that failed to develop Bond's unfinsihed business.

You?

[killkenny kid]

A return to the over the top format.

[Zorin Industries]

• A fan-happy return of 'Q'. If the film is to follow on from CASINO ROYALE, then there is no reason to suddenly drop in that character. Which is probably what I would say about MONEYPENNY too.
• Opting for a torch song chanteusse to perform the title track (and that comes from a die-hard Bassey fan). It can sound Bondian, but shouldn't keep harking back to the golden years. Neither should the film either.
• Trying to join up the chronological dots as if DR NO is the starting point. A series that is forever set "five minutes in the future" doesn't need to worry about chronology.
• Locations that serve the tourist industries and not the narrative itself.
• Purvis and Wade resetting the counter to minus ten if they repeat DIE ANOTHER DAY and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. The odds are - unfortunately - that they will. Though it is early days and other involved writers could eventually be announced.
• Making any prop, dialogue or musical nods to the series' past. DIE ANOTHER DAY was the series THIS IS YOUR LIFE moment. We don't need any more.
• And not getting back Paul Haggis back...!

[tdalton]

A return to the over the top format.

That would be the main thing that would make me become uninterested in Bond 22 as well. Casino Royale was a near-perfect mix of action and drama, and another film in a similar style would be ideal.

[jaguar007]

Plese, NO BIG NAME HOLLYWOOD ACTRESS!! CR proved that Bond does not need to have a big Hollywood name involved (although I do think that Halle Barry did help the box office draw of DAD, Denise Richards did nothing to help the numbers of TWINE)

However a big Hollywood legend as a villian is fine with me (someone like Christopher Plummer or Ian McKellan)

[MarkA]

It's funny how no one wants over the top productions, no Moneypenny, no Q. There could be a tendency of throwing the baby out with the bath water here. Sure CASINO ROYALE worked low key, because the story required that approach. But I see no reason why an over the top production with huge sets and gadgets could not work with Daniel Craig's realistic approach. After all, all these things are part of James Bond's universe and are things that separate him from the Jason Bourne's of this world. If done right (GOLDFINGER, THUNDERBALL etc) these could work and be just as much part of Bond's world as Casino Royale. Also I for one would love to see Moneypenny back. She is a Fleming character and deserves to be part of the series.

[killkenny kid]

While, I agree these things are part of the Bond universe. I would say they have not been done right, since TSWLM. I dare say.

[Qwerty]

It's impossible for me to say at this point considering we know very little about the movie.

[SilencedPPK]

Nothing could steer me away from seeing a Bond flick, but if it was anything like Die Another Day, then I think I would be less enthusiastic about it. I do hope that Bond 22 is something original, and has the same feel that Casino Royale had. More than likely, the scripts will get bad again, unfortunately. I can already see it coming, and I dread for that day, and I hope that I am terribly wrong.

[jaguar007]

I have no problem with Moneypenny returning, but if Q returns, they should keep him from simply being comic relief. Perhaps a bit more like in DN and FRWL.

[DaveBond21]

That would be the main thing that would make me become uninterested in Bond 22 as well.

Nothing could make me "uninterested" in Bond 22.


Do some people only like two movies, or something?? OHMSS and CR. I thought Bond fans were supposed to like every minute of every movie??? Obviously not. Wow, it's a long time between drinks for some people. Brosnan-haters had a nightmare between 1995-2002, while I was loving it. CR is fantastic, but I loved it when Octopussy came on VHS, too.

[SilencedPPK]

Nothing could make me "uninterested" in Bond 22.

Support!

I thought Bond fans were supposed to like every minute of every movie???

I love every second of every Bond film. I just have my favorites

Obviously not.

Wow, it's a long time between drinks for some people. Brosnan-haters had a nightmare between 1995-2002, while I was loving it.

I was always really excited and thrilled for new Bond movies!

CR is fantastic.

It is indeed, fantastic!

[Bondesque]

A return to the cartoon non stop orgy of action without relevant storyline or good character development. CR was a great film not just a great Bond film. It had gravity, depth and relevance. If 22 is a return to Bond mowing down hundreds of faceless baddies with a machine gun with his Bond Woman Equal getting her equal amount of body count, then we have a disaster.

Craig is a very gifted actor. Haggis or someone at his level needs to craft a script that takes what CR gave us and enhances it further. CR had adult intellegence, sophisitication, style and took itself seriously. Bond 22 must have more of all of that.

[VisualStatic]

I'm probably one of the few that can say I have enjoyed every Bond movie, granted some more then others.

Whether Q, Moneypenny or the gadgets are there doesn't really matter to me. As long as what is there drives the story and plot, adds to the moment in a way the pushes the story along. Its the willy nilly placement of stuff for the sake of a formula that most know should be dead and gone now.

I think I've heard it stated by Wilson and/or Babs in an interview that the old formula was wearing out and that a change was necessary. CR should have shown them that, they were able to change alot and still produce a great movie and a blockbuster at that.

[DaveBond21]

Wow, it's a long time between drinks for some people. Brosnan-haters had a nightmare between 1995-2002, while I was loving it.
I was always really excited and thrilled for new Bond movies!

Me too, it's great being a Bond fan, with a new movie every 2 or 3 years. I love all the Bond movies and all the actors. I feel sorry for anyone who went to see one at the cinema, and came away disappointed, because that would mean it was at least 4 years between good ones - for them. Not for me though!!!

[JimmyBond]

Then thre are the people who waited 13 years for another quality film while Moore was playing Bond. Not me personally though, I was born when FYEO came out, but I'm just making a point. Just because someone doesnt like something doesnt make them not a Bond fan, that's just ridiculous.

I do admit though, I think Craig would be able to go a long way in making anything watchable. With that said, it would take a huge turn around from what we got in CR, and I mean a huge turn around, to turn me off of the next film.

[MattofSteel]

I don't want a film that's identical to CR, or DAD. I think a logical progression (binge and purge cycle, as it's been referred to) is inevitable, and in my opinion, welcome. Like it's been said, don't bring back Q and Moneypenny for the sake of bringing them back. But also, don't get trapped in a "post Craig debut CR mould" like what happened with the Brosnan era and GoldenEye (not that I didn't love those films in their time).

I think EON and the filmmakers are very aware of CR's success, and why that movie was successful. CR has probably done more for the franchise than any film in recent history - even GoldenEye - because it showed TPTB that even a film with, shall we call it, a more "hardcore fan-oriented attitude" can be (even more than normal!) very successful.

What would make me hate Bond 22? Probably not much, I loved DAD when it came out and still have a soft spot for several sequences, images, etc. But if I had to pick a few things:

-Negligence in letting Dan flex his acting muscles. The man has them, he has delivered a universally acknowledged tremendous performance as James Bond, let him keep doing it.

-Any negligence in the script's dialogue. Casino Royale is, in my sincere opinion, the best dialogue we've seen in the history of the franchise. Keep it going. P&W, I don't want to blame you because you have obvious writing talent, but for heaven's sake many of DAD's lines were almost unforgiveable. IOW, Get Haggis Back!

I guess that's about it.

[Odd Job]

The only thing that could make me turn on Bond 22 would be if the hardcore fanbase whipped itself into a frenzy criticizing the film and anticipating all the things that could go wrong before the script is even written or the cast announced. However as an eternal optimist, I am sure this could never happen.

Regards

Odd Job

[tdalton]

That would be the main thing that would make me become uninterested in Bond 22 as well.

Nothing could make me "uninterested" in Bond 22.


Do some people only like two movies, or something?? OHMSS and CR. I thought Bond fans were supposed to like every minute of every movie??? Obviously not. Wow, it's a long time between drinks for some people. Brosnan-haters had a nightmare between 1995-2002, while I was loving it. CR is fantastic, but I loved it when Octopussy came on VHS, too.

I like most of the films in the franchise, but, and I'm not trying to be negative here for the sake of being negative, but for me prior to Casino Royale, the last real James Bond film was LTK. I enjoyed the Brosnan movies for what they were, and that was a series of action films, but I never got a feeling of them being Bond films. If they were to return to that style of film-making, I would become very uninterested in Bond 22.

[Mr_Wint]

As long as we dont get anything close to the crap film that was LICENCE TO KILL, I'll be happy with whatever they come up with for Bond 22.

[ChronoBreak]

Pretty much everything's been covered, but the key for me is this: The film has to be about James Bond as a character and not the "elements" of Bond that the Brosnan/Moore entries seemed to be more concentrated on. Having Daniel Craig portray James Bond is a huge coup for the franchise, and I sincerely hope they let him shine to his fullest potential.

Simply stated, if Bond 22 becomes a "checklist" Bond movie, I'll be less interested.

[DaveBond21]

I would only be disappointed in Bond 22 if:-



- Bond has laser eyes, and uses them to kill M

- Q is a magic swan with glasses, who delivers gadgets to 007 through dreams

- Jaws returns, played by Richard Kiel, with his pet dog, who also has metal teeth

- 007 in space again

- the double-taking pigeon from Moonraker becomes the new M

[Tiin007]

Nothing could make me "uninterested" in Bond 22.

Support!

I thought Bond fans were supposed to like every minute of every movie???

I love every second of every Bond film. I just have my favorites

Obviously not.

Wow, it's a long time between drinks for some people. Brosnan-haters had a nightmare between 1995-2002, while I was loving it.

I was always really excited and thrilled for new Bond movies!

CR is fantastic.

It is indeed, fantastic!

I completely agree (with everything)!

[Andrew]

The thing that would truely make me turn on B22 would be if they fired Craig and completely forgot about CR but luckily they're smart enough not to do this.

[Thunderfinger]

Bond in drag.

[Four Aces]

They will have to raise the bar even again in order to top CR.

[dee-bee-five]

As long as we dont get anything close to the crap film that was LICENCE TO KILL, I'll be happy with whatever they come up with for Bond 22.

If they equalled the hugely underrated LTK, I'd be happy. But I'd prefer them to match or even surpass the (currently) peerless CR.

[Bondesque]

If they re-hired Lee Tamahori and let him direct in drag would put me off a bit.

[SilencedPPK]

If they re-hired Lee Tamahori

Eww...

and let him direct in drag

would put me off a bit.

It would put everyone off.

[plankattack]

A somewhat defense of LTK.......

Imagine that CR and LTK are a lab experiment. CR is what happens when you take a darker Bond, a more realistic approach and throw in a big wad of original material.

LTK is what happens when you take a darker Bond, a more realistic approach and throw in a big wad of original material AND throw in "expected elements" - MP, jokes with Q, Wayne Newton.

What would make me turn on 22? Hey, let's be like CR but get in casual fans by adding say, a circus, Q in a balloon, and a double-taking pidgeon. Whoops, we were just in Venice......