273 replies to this topic

[Skudor]

Phew.

Not to hot on any of the directors. But then again I wasn't hot on Campbell returning either, and look at what happened.

Phew. Again.

[darkpath]

This is outstanding news and it does tend to support DC's claim that the script for Bond 22 isn't finished.

[Judo chop]

I hope Haggis has 100% control over any Bond-villain banter scene.

P&W write: Bond enters SMERSH lair. Encounters #1. Witty dialogue ensues. <Now, Mr. Haggis, if you would be so kind?...>

[Harmsway]

[quote name='Loomis' post='741213' date='23 May 2007 - 06:02']While I'd love to see the return of Campbell, I was hoping more for the return of Haggis.[/quote]
It's certainly more critical. BOND 22 needs a great script.

[quote name='Loomis' post='741213' date='23 May 2007 - 06:02']Like Bucky, I'd be surprised if Baird hasn't been considered for the director's chair. Not only did he edit CASINO ROYALE, but he's an accomplished and successful (if not particularly prolific) director in his own right (EXECUTIVE DECISION shows he can handle Bondian action flicks, while STAR TREK: NEMESIS proves he can direct franchise fare), and he's even old and British (fitting the Traditional Eon Director Profile

[Zorin Industries]

with any luck they can break the pattern of an actors second Bond film not being as good (or as successfull) as his first, so far only Sean did that with FRWL.

Well for the record, I feel TOMORROW NEVER DIES is vastly superior, slicker and tighter than GOLDENEYE and is indeed Brosnan's best Bond by far.

Actually - thinking about it - I don't think the Sophamore rule applies here to the Bond films at all.

[Fro]

Great news... this pretty much ensures a quality film is forthcoming. Just need a director who won't screw it up.

Definitely shows that EON is willing to spend money to maintain or improve the film quality, which is something completely different.

Edited by Fro, 23 May 2007 - 05:59 PM.

[Orion]

with any luck they can break the pattern of an actors second Bond film not being as good (or as successfull) as his first, so far only Sean did that with FRWL.

Well for the record, I feel TOMORROW NEVER DIES is vastly superior, slicker and tighter than GOLDENEYE and is indeed Brosnan's best Bond by far.

Actually - thinking about it - I don't think the Sophamore rule applies here to the Bond films at all.

well if going by poular opinion the first bond film is better than the second (i must admit i prefer LTK to TLD)

[Loomis]

Same here. I also find THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN far superior to LIVE AND LET DIE.

However, the problem this time round is that they set the bar so high with CASINO ROYALE, making probably the best Bond film ever. I don't think they've ever had such a hard act to follow.

[jaguar007]

I think Mickey and Babs know that much is riding on Bond 22 to be as good as CR, and they are willing to do what it takes. It is kind of the film that will make the Bond series thier own and not just Dad's hand me down. They need to prove that they can keep the quality alive for successive films.

[killkenny kid]

*killkenny kid gets up and begins to do the dance of joy.*

Now all we need is a return run from a re-energized Campbell...

indeed, we can all hope.

[Shamelord]

[quote]I completely agree. Campbell certainly surpassed himself with CASINO ROYALE, but I don't think he should return just yet. The next Bond film needs to ramp it up emotionally and tonally. Campbell is still a tad mainstream for my tastes (and this poster still hasn't forgiven him for the turgid TV movie that was GOLDENEYE...!).[/quote]

Regarding GoldenEye, that was my thought. I didn't quite exactly find it very original. Barely above TV standards is really the definition of that movie. But yes, he proved himself great on Casino Royale, and maybe he can also evolve emotionally. I must even say I was scared when he was announced as the director for Daniel Craig's first Bond and I ended up being quite surprised by the amount of emotion in the film. Plus it was a really beautifully shot motion picture this time. So his hiring could be recommended for Bond 22.

[quote]Well for the record, I feel TOMORROW NEVER DIES is vastly superior, slicker and tighter than GOLDENEYE and is indeed Brosnan's best Bond by far.


Same here. I also find THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN far superior to LIVE AND LET DIE./quote]

Ah, well, we may not be a majority here but I have to say I agree on both counts!

Edited by Shamelord, 23 May 2007 - 04:48 PM.

[JimmyBond]

I'm really excited about this news, Casino Royale is probably one of the best written Bond films in quite a while, and to know that we might just get another caliber outing this time has me sweating with anticipation

As for directors, at first I scoffed at the idea of Tony Scott, but the more I think about it the more intrigued I am to see what kind of Bond film he could give us.

[tdalton]

I'm really excited about this news, Casino Royale is probably one of the best written Bond films in quite a while, and to know that we might just get another caliber outing this time has me sweating with anticipation

As for directors, at first I scoffed at the idea of Tony Scott, but the more I think about it the more intrigued I am to see what kind of Bond film he could give us.

I wouldn't mind Tony Scott as a Bond director. At least he would certainly give the film a much different look and feel to it, and might even manage to break the series out of the cut-and-paste way that they have been made for a long time, if he were given enough room in which to do his own thing. As good as CR may have been (although I find it to be right alongside GF as the most overrated in the series), EON still needs to take even more risks and break the franchise even further out of the formulaic structure that the films tend to have in order to keep them fresh.

[Harmsway]

However, the problem this time round is that they set the bar so high with CASINO ROYALE, making probably the best Bond film ever. I don't think they've ever had such a hard act to follow.

Agreed. They have to be feeling the pressure to make a damn good BOND 22.

[Harmsway]

I wouldn't mind Tony Scott as a Bond director. At least he would certainly give the film a much different look and feel to it, and might even manage to break the series out of the cut-and-paste way that they have been made for a long time, if he were given enough room in which to do his own thing.

While I'm all for Bond to getting a fresh directorial feel (and I think CASINO ROYALE really started to do that... it didn't feel like it had been directed by a "workhorse" director), I don't think Tony Scott is the man to do it. He's way too flashy, and it's always bothered me. I've never thought much of him.

[DLibrasnow]

I'm personally hoping that the involvement of Haggis will be incentive enough for Campbell to return to the directors seat. One of the complaints some people had about the Brosnan entries was that there was a different director each time.

Still a return by Haggis is great news.

[tdalton]

I wouldn't mind Tony Scott as a Bond director. At least he would certainly give the film a much different look and feel to it, and might even manage to break the series out of the cut-and-paste way that they have been made for a long time, if he were given enough room in which to do his own thing.

While I'm all for Bond to getting a fresh directorial feel (and I think CASINO ROYALE really started to do that... it didn't feel like it had been directed by a "workhorse" director), I don't think Tony Scott is the man to do it. He's way too flashy, and it's always bothered me. I've never thought much of him.

I felt as though CR was stuck somewhere in the middle, between being directed by a "workhorse" director and being directed by someone that could bring about a fresh directorial feel to the film. Had Domino been the last Tony Scott movie that I'd seen, I would have been 110% opposed to him directing a Bond film, but I thought that Deja Vu was fantastic, and I loved Man on Fire as well, and I would rather see a Bond film in this style rather than just more of the same. CR tried to break away from the "more of the same" feel of many of its predecessors, but it didn't quite achieve that, IMO, and if it takes something as radical as bringing Tony Scott on board to give the film an entirely different look and feel in order to make the series fresh again, then I'm all for it.

[Harmsway]

I felt as though CR was stuck somewhere in the middle, between being directed by a "workhorse" director and being directed by someone that could bring about a fresh directorial feel to the film.

I thought it was a directorial job that many higher-grade directors would have been proud to accomplish. It was so good, I had a hard time believing that Martin Campbell, same director of GOLDENEYE and BEYOND BORDERS, accomplished it.

Had Domino been the last Tony Scott movie that I'd seen, I would have been 110% opposed to him directing a Bond film, but I thought taht Deja Vu was fantastic, and I loved Man on Fire as well, and I would rather see a Bond film in this style rather than just more of the same.

I thought both DEJA VU and MAN ON FIRE were mediocre.

CR tried to break away from the "more of the same" feel of many of its predecessors, but it didn't quite achieve that, IMO, and if it takes something as radical as bringing Tony Scott on board to give the film an entirely different look and feel in order to make the series fresh again, then I'm all for it.

I don't want an entirely different look or feel, at least not when it's connected to a specific director. Because then it becomes an auteur franchise, where this becomes "Tony Scott's Bond" rather than just Bond.

I'm all for innovation and freedom from formula in BOND 22. Heck, I'd be glad if it's edgier and bolder than CASINO ROYALE ever was. But I don't think we need to go to overly stylistic and radical direction styles to accomplish that. You wanna bring in good, higher-grade directors? Fine. Let's get a Matthew Vaughn or a Stephen Frears or something like that, who'll do a good job without doing distracting camera and editing tricks. After all, the primary battleground for making Bond "fresh" is the script, not stylized direction.

[Stephenson]

I would always be in favor of a Peter Weir Bond. IMHO, the tone of his films so far would suggests he would really suit the more realistic approach of Craig's acting and Haggis's writing.

[tdalton]

I'm all for innovation and freedom from formula in BOND 22. Heck, I'd be glad if it's edgier and bolder than CASINO ROYALE ever was. But I don't think we need to go to overly stylistic and radical direction styles to accomplish that. You wanna bring in good, higher-grade directors? Fine. Let's get a Matthew Vaughn or a Stephen Frears or something like that, who'll do a good job without doing distracting camera and editing tricks. After all, the primary battleground for making Bond "fresh" is the script, not stylized direction.

I don't think that Vaughn would be a very good choice at all for a Bond film. The only thing that I found enjoyable about Layer Cake was Daniel Craig's performance. The rest of it was instantly forgettable. I don't know anything about Frears' work, so I can't judge him, but I was not the least bit impressed by Layer Cake, and I think that a Bond film done in that way would do nothing to move the franchise forward in a new direction, which it so desperately needs.

Sadly, I can't find myself getting too excited about Bond 22 for some reason. I honestly feel as though the franchise needs a major shake-up in order to stay fresh, and I feel as though the talents of Daniel Craig are being wasted on material that isn't quite up to par, which a large part of CR, honestly, isn't. Bond 22 needs to be a MAJOR improvement over CR, and it needs to break out of the cut-and-paste mold that the series has found itself in recently, dating all the way back to even the pre-Dalton films.

[Harmsway]

I would always be in favor of a Peter Weir Bond. IMHO, the tone of his films so far would suggests he would really suit the more realistic approach of Craig's acting and Haggis's writing.

Now there's an interesting suggestion.

[Harmsway]

I don't think that Vaughn would be a very good choice at all for a Bond film. The only thing that I found enjoyable about Layer Cake was Daniel Craig's performance. The rest of it was instantly forgettable. I don't know anything about Frears' work, so I can't judge him, but I was not the least bit impressed by Layer Cake, and I think that a Bond film done in that way would do nothing to move the franchise forward in a new direction, which it so desperately needs.

I'll agree that LAYER CAKE isn't the best film in the world, but Vaughn's direction was great. It was constantly stylish and "cool", taking a so-so screenplay and making it pretty enjoyable to sit through. Give the man a great Bond script and he'll hit it out of the park.

Sadly, I can't find myself getting too excited about Bond 22 for some reason. I honestly feel as though the franchise needs a major shake-up in order to stay fresh, and I feel as though the talents of Daniel Craig are being wasted on material that isn't quite up to par, which a large part of CR, honestly, isn't. Bond 22 needs to be a MAJOR improvement over CR, and it needs to break out of the cut-and-paste mold that the series has found itself in recently, dating all the way back to even the pre-Dalton films.

Honestly, the material of CASINO ROYALE is with the best of the franchise (probably the best), and I really don't see how that cannot be acknowledged if we're taking a very honest look at the quality of these films from 1962 on.

[tdalton]

Honestly, the material of CASINO ROYALE is with the best of the franchise (probably the best), and I really don't see how that cannot be acknowledged if we're taking a very honest look at the quality of these films from 1962 on.

I just can't agree. The first hour of Casino Royale is very action oriented, and the goal of these sequences is to excite the audience. I find the first hour of the film to be extremely boring and uninteresting. For me, after the short PTS, the film doesn't begin until we see the train in Montenegro. Everything after that is up there with the best, but isn't as great as it could have been. Everything preceding the train scene (excluding the PTS), is extremely boring to me.

Honestly, I'm tired of the formula. Just because they toyed with it in CR doesn't mean that it wasn't there (we still had "the line", the "shaken or stirred" line, and all of the staples of the franchise), and of course the usual structure of the film: big action sequence followed by an attempt to develop the characters, which is cut short in favor of another action sequence, and repeat. I want to see that change in favor of something a bit more original.

[Loomis]

For me, Scott is largely a director of flashy tat. Plus, he's a famous name and presumably used to having a fair bit of creative control. I don't see why he'd be interested in working for Eon, and I don't see why Eon would be interested in him, when there are plenty of less well-known and less expensive directors who'd be less likely to rock the boat. That said, I'm somewhat certain that he was considered for DIE ANOTHER DAY. Maybe he's an easy-to-work-with, pleasant chap who's always wanted to make a Bond film and who gets on like a house on fire with Broccoli and Wilson. Still, he strikes me as too big a name, too American in style (ironically enough, since he's a Brit) and just too darn flashy. I hope it isn't him.

[Harmsway]

I just can't agree. The first hour of Casino Royale is very action oriented, and the goal of these sequences is to excite the audience. I find the first hour of the film to be extremely boring and uninteresting. For me, after the short PTS, the film doesn't begin until we see the train in Montenegro. Everything after that is up there with the best, but isn't as great as it could have been. Everything preceding the train scene (excluding the PTS), is extremely boring to me.

I'll agree the film really gets going once we hit the train scene, but the material before that I still find great. It's a little more tradition action-oriented Bond, but it's great stuff.

The Parkour chase? One of the best action scenes Bond has ever had in the franchise. It's a little over the top, but man, it's so intense that who cares? It's absolutely thrilling. The scenes in the Bahamas? Stylish, beautiful... with an old style flair. It all moves a little fast, but it's still full of classic little bits. "Guten Abend"; Bond winning Dimitrios' car, then taking Solange out for a spin; Bond and Solange in the room (as sexy a scene the Bond films have had, IMO); Bond in Bodyworlds; Bond pursuing Carlos through the airport... I mean, just lots of good material, right after the other.

Honestly, I'm tired of the formula. Just because they toyed with it in CR doesn't mean that it wasn't there (we still had "the line", the "shaken or stirred" line, and all of the staples of the franchise), and of course the usual structure of the film: big action sequence followed by an attempt to develop the characters, which is cut short in favor of another action sequence, and repeat. I want to see that change in favor of something a bit more original.

I don't know that there's anything usual about the structure of CASINO ROYALE. You have an action-loaded first third, then a following section that's based entirely around a card game at which point the villain dies (and not at Bond's hand), and then there's a really extended end section following Bond's relationship with Vesper. Pretty crazy structure, if you ask me.

And there was more than a toying with of the formula, to boot... the villain was a man on the run, Bond isn't really the hero who comes in and just saves the day, the girl was quite different, the film's central plot is about gambling as opposed to a doomsday plot, there's no Q or Moneypenny, the car chase is a fake-out, etc. and so on.

CASINO ROYALE has a lot of breaks from the formula. And I hope we see it kept up. I hope we don't get the line in BOND 22, I hope we don't see a tux in BOND 22, etc. and so forth... but I think that risk-taking already stems out of what CASINO ROYALE was doing.

[Stephenson]

I've been thinking about him for a while. He can do emotion and action better than most (Gallipoli, The Year of Living Dangerously, Witness, Mosquito Coast) and Master and Commander shows he still has it going on.

Unfortunately, it looks like he's booked solid for a while.

[tdalton]

I just can't agree. The first hour of Casino Royale is very action oriented, and the goal of these sequences is to excite the audience. I find the first hour of the film to be extremely boring and uninteresting. For me, after the short PTS, the film doesn't begin until we see the train in Montenegro. Everything after that is up there with the best, but isn't as great as it could have been. Everything preceding the train scene (excluding the PTS), is extremely boring to me.

I'll agree the film really gets going once we hit the train scene, but the material before that I still find great. It's a little more tradition action-oriented Bond, but it's great stuff.

The Parkour chase? One of the best action scenes Bond has ever had in the franchise. It's a little over the top, but man, it's so intense that who cares? It's absolutely thrilling. The scenes in the Bahamas? Stylish, beautiful... with an old style flair. It all moves a little fast, but it's still full of classic little bits. "Guten Abend"; Bond winning Dimitrios' car, then taking Solange out for a spin; Bond and Solange in the room (as sexy a scene the Bond films have had, IMO); Bond in Bodyworlds; Bond pursuing Carlos through the airport... I mean, just lots of good material, right after the other.

I wish that I could see it that way (and I especially disagree on the Parkour chase), but I'm honestly more entertained by the first half of DAD than I am by the first half of CR, and I don't think that it's a secret what I think about DAD as a film. Hopefully Haggis will really make this a good, thrilling spy film rather than an overdone action-adventure.

[dodge]

For me, Scott is largely a director of flashy tat. Plus, he's a famous name and presumably used to having a fair bit of creative control. I don't see why he'd be interested in working for Eon, and I don't see why Eon would be interested in him, when there are plenty of less well-known and less expensive directors who'd be less likely to rock the boat. That said, I'm somewhat certain that he was considered for DIE ANOTHER DAY. Maybe he's an easy-to-work-with, pleasant chap who's always wanted to make a Bond film and who gets on like a house on fire with Broccoli and Wilson. Still, he strikes me as too big a name, too American in style (ironically enough, since he's a Brit) and just too darn flashy. I hope it isn't him.

I agree, though True Romance is one of my favorite films. His recent bounty hunter film was repellant to look at and herky-jerky in its editing. If that's the direction he's going, it's good for Bond to say goodbye.

[Roebuck]

How about the fourth member to the team? Any chance of getting Fleming back for Bond 22? There's a quote in the new Radio times from Martin Campbell to the effect that ''When you read Casino Royale it's very dated , simply because it's set in the Cold War. But all the principal plot points of the book - they remain exactly the same.'' Having the Fleming elements at its core (and used properly) was the difference in Casino Royale.

[Harmsway]

Hopefully Haggis will really make this a good, thrilling spy film rather than an overdone action-adventure.

We'll see. I have to confess I'm not particularly excited about BOND 22, either. It's not because I don't love CASINO ROYALE, because I do. I just can't get shake the gut feeling that BOND 22 will be anything other than a disappointment. It wouldn't take much to dispel that, though - perhaps a good script review that demonstrated BOND 22 is going to be a really great, edgy follow-up.