120 replies to this topic

[killkenny kid]

Now on the CBn main page...

'Bond 22' Filming Begins

Jeffrey Wright confirmed to be returning; female lead decision in two weeks

http://www.variety.c...4...yid=13&cs=1

Great news, Jeffrey Wright will return as Flex Leiter in Bond 22.

Edited by Righty007, 03 January 2008 - 05:39 AM.

[MkB]

Well, I can live with that. But truly, I'm not a Leiter fan (be it Jeffrey Wright or anyone else).

[Mr. Blofeld]

Yay! Continuity reigns in the Bond series at last!

[tdalton]

I think that this is probably the only good news I've heard so far regarding Bond 22. Jeffrey Wright was underused in Casino Royale, and an actor of his quality should have more screentime than he had the last time around.

[DaveBond21]

Well, I can live with that. But truly, I'm not a Leiter fan (be it Jeffrey Wright or anyone else).

I agree. But I am fine with this news. He was good as Leiter and so it will be nice to see him again in Bond 22. About the same amount of screen time would be good, although I guess Bond and Leiter will start to become friends in this one.

[killkenny kid]

Yay! Continuity reigns in the Bond series at last!

Indeed, and any scenes between Craig and Wright would be highlights of Bond 22 to me.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Yay! Continuity reigns in the Bond series at last!

Indeed, and any scenes between Craig and Wright would be highlights of Bond 22 to me.

Hmmmm... perhaps they'll take a page from Live and Let Die; I'm sure old Leiter doesn't need an arm and a leg, anyway, right?

[MicroGlobeOne]

Jeffrey Wright is a fine actor, and his turn as Felix Leiter was a definite bonus in Casino Royale. I'm really looking forward to seeing him return. This is great news.

[Double-0-Seven]

Excellent news!

I enjoyed his portrayal of Leiter, despite the fact that it was a fairly small part, so I am excited to see what Bond 22 brings for the character. It's also nice to finally have proper continuity with the character, as opposed to a different actor always playing him (not counting David Hedison).

[DaveBond21]

2 of the nice surprises for me in Casino Royale were:-


1) I had forgotten that Felix was in the movie and so I got a surprise when he introduced himself to Bond (as the film-makers intended for the audience)

and

2) I didn't know who Jeffrey Wright was, at the time, so didn't have my memory jogged about Felix being in it...

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

'Bond 22' Filming Begins

Jeffrey Wright confirmed to be returning; female lead decision in two weeks

[Harmsway]

I think that this is probably the only good news I've heard so far regarding Bond 22.

What? Marc Forster isn't good news? The fact that P&W's work on the film was entirely thrown away isn't good news? That it seems we'll have a rollicking, classy chase in Siena isn't good news?

There hasn't been much news on BOND 22, admittedly, but I think it's all been good so far.

[Righty007]

I think that this is probably the only good news I've heard so far regarding Bond 22.

What? Marc Forster isn't good news? The fact that P&W's work on the film was entirely thrown away isn't good news? That it seems we'll have a rollicking, classy chase in Siena isn't good news?

There hasn't been much news on BOND 22, admittedly, but I think it's all been good so far.

Good news? All the news on Bond 22 has been GREAT!

[tdalton]

I think that this is probably the only good news I've heard so far regarding Bond 22.

What? Marc Forster isn't good news? The fact that P&W's work on the film was entirely thrown away isn't good news? That it seems we'll have a rollicking, classy chase in Siena isn't good news?

There hasn't been much news on BOND 22, admittedly, but I think it's all been good so far.

I'm not particularly happy about P&W's work being completely thrown out. After hearing their original ending for Casino Royale and that Haggis rewrote that part of the film (which was mentioned in an article about Haggis that was debated here a few weeks ago), I have much more faith in P&W than I do in Haggis. I'd rather have P&W remain with the franchise rather than bringing Haggis back on for Bond 22.

I'm also not sold on Forster either (although I've previously said that he's a good choice for director). The more I think about it, the more I think that it's going to be just like every other time a director who was brought on to "peel back the layers" and make the franchise serious again. This will just turned into a slightly better version (hopefully) of TWINE. In the end, this will be a Bond film, which means certain elements of the formula will have to be checked off on the checklist, and there's only so many ways this can be done before it has become stale, and that is something that happened over a decade ago.

[Harmsway]

After hearing their original ending for Casino Royale and that Haggis rewrote that part of the film (which was mentioned in an article about Haggis that was debated here a few weeks ago), I have much more faith in P&W than I do in Haggis.

That's a lot to judge without actually having read what they did with it. What they might have done with might sound okay in summary (I thought having Vesper physically confess to Bond sounded terrible, myself, entirely ruining the effect of her death), but P&W simply can't execute their own ideas very well. It's no use having good ideas if you can't execute them properly.

And even then, on CR, they were adapting a novel. Do you really think their entirely original stuff was likely to have been that good? Remember, these are the chaps that had Bond pursue the Cigar Girl in a jetpack in the first draft of TWINE.

I'd rather have P&W remain with the franchise rather than bringing Haggis back on for Bond 22.

[tdalton]

After hearing their original ending for Casino Royale and that Haggis rewrote that part of the film (which was mentioned in an article about Haggis that was debated here a few weeks ago), I have much more faith in P&W than I do in Haggis.

That's a lot to judge without actually having read what they did with it. What they might have done with might sound okay in summary (I thought having Vesper physically confess to Bond sounded terrible, myself, entirely ruining the effect of her death), but P&W simply can't execute their own ideas very well. It's no use having good ideas if you can't execute them properly.

I haven't (and most likely will never) had the opportunity to read what they had in mind for the ending of Casino Royale, so the idea is the only thing that I can go on. But, their idea is, IMO, infinitely better than what Haggis came up with for the end of Casino Royale. If P&W can't bring their idea to the script in an effective way, then I'd like to see someone brought on board to assist in getting those ideas effectively placed into the script, rather than to just simply toss that idea out and start over. I think that P&W have shown that they have a lot of great ideas, and I'd like to see more of their ideas in future Bond films. Haggis' ending for CR, however, wasn't very good, IMO, and I would have much rather seen P&W's ending filmed for the screen.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I haven't (and most likely will never) had the opportunity to read what they had in mind for the ending of Casino Royale, so the idea is the only thing that I can go on. But, their idea is, IMO, infinitely better than what Haggis came up with for the end of Casino Royale. If P&W can't bring their idea to the script in an effective way, then I'd like to see someone brought on board to assist in getting those ideas effectively placed into the script, rather than to just simply toss that idea out and start over. I think that P&W have shown that they have a lot of great ideas, and I'd like to see more of their ideas in future Bond films. Haggis' ending for CR, however, wasn't very good, IMO, and I would have much rather seen P&W's ending filmed for the screen.

Golly, you're negative, eh?

[Harmsway]

I haven't (and most likely will never) had the opportunity to read what they had in mind for the ending of Casino Royale, so the idea is the only thing that I can go on. But, their idea is, IMO, infinitely better than what Haggis came up with for the end of Casino Royale. If P&W can't bring their idea to the script in an effective way, then I'd like to see someone brought on board to assist in getting those ideas effectively placed into the script, rather than to just simply toss that idea out and start over. I think that P&W have shown that they have a lot of great ideas, and I'd like to see more of their ideas in future Bond films. Haggis' ending for CR, however, wasn't very good, IMO, and I would have much rather seen P&W's ending filmed for the screen.

Golly, you're negative, eh?

Ah, yes, TDalton, our resident disillusioned Bond fan and moviewatcher.

(All meant in good fun, TD.)

[Mr. Blofeld]

Ah, yes, TDalton, our resident disillusioned Bond fan and moviewatcher.

(All meant in good fun, TD.)

As do I; no offense taken, I hope?

[Fro]

Great news... I figured Wright would return since he didn't have anything in production for this period, but it's nice to have it confirmed.

[sharpshooter]

Hooray for Jeffrey Wright's return, hope he gets some good screentime. He is a brilliant Felix Leiter

[tdalton]

I haven't (and most likely will never) had the opportunity to read what they had in mind for the ending of Casino Royale, so the idea is the only thing that I can go on. But, their idea is, IMO, infinitely better than what Haggis came up with for the end of Casino Royale. If P&W can't bring their idea to the script in an effective way, then I'd like to see someone brought on board to assist in getting those ideas effectively placed into the script, rather than to just simply toss that idea out and start over. I think that P&W have shown that they have a lot of great ideas, and I'd like to see more of their ideas in future Bond films. Haggis' ending for CR, however, wasn't very good, IMO, and I would have much rather seen P&W's ending filmed for the screen.

Golly, you're negative, eh?

Ah, yes, TDalton, our resident disillusioned Bond fan and moviewatcher.

(All meant in good fun, TD.)

I think that the disillusionment stems from the fact that I really wanted Craig and Casino Royale to be a great film. I supported Craig from pretty much the beginning of his "candidacy" for the role, and Casino Royale has long been one of my favorite novels (not just Bond novels, but all other books included) of all-time. And, IMO, both Craig and the film did not live up to expectations (or even get anywhere close to approaching them), and it's left me a bit underwhelmed with the Bond franchise as a whole because of it. A truly gifted actor like Daniel Craig, along with a brilliant piece of source material in Ian Fleming's Casino Royale should result in a great film, not a mess of a film that isn't too much better (if at all better) than the few films that preceeded it.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I think that the disillusionment stems from the fact that I really wanted Craig and Casino Royale to be a great film. I supported Craig from pretty much the beginning of his "candidacy" for the role, and Casino Royale has long been one of my favorite novels (not just Bond novels, but all other books included) of all-time. And, IMO, both Craig and the film did not live up to expectations (or even get anywhere close to approaching them), and it's left me a bit underwhelmed with the Bond franchise as a whole because of it. A truly gifted actor like Daniel Craig, along with a brilliant piece of source material in Ian Fleming's Casino Royale should result in a great film, not a mess of a film that isn't too much better (if at all better) than the few films that preceeded it.

Well, you (aside from CraigIsNotBond.com) appear to be one of the only Bond fans who disliked it.

I don't think I could ever fully understand why: We all have our moments where our Bond virginity, of sorts, is broken, and Casino Royale, for me, was that film.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I think that the disillusionment stems from the fact that I really wanted Craig and Casino Royale to be a great film. I supported Craig from pretty much the beginning of his "candidacy" for the role, and Casino Royale has long been one of my favorite novels (not just Bond novels, but all other books included) of all-time. And, IMO, both Craig and the film did not live up to expectations (or even get anywhere close to approaching them), and it's left me a bit underwhelmed with the Bond franchise as a whole because of it. A truly gifted actor like Daniel Craig, along with a brilliant piece of source material in Ian Fleming's Casino Royale should result in a great film, not a mess of a film that isn't too much better (if at all better) than the few films that preceeded it.

Well, you (aside from CraigIsNotBond.com) appear to be one of the only Bond fans who disliked it.

I don't think I could ever fully understand why: We all have our moments where our Bond virginity, of sorts, is broken, and Casino Royale, for me, was that film.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I think that the disillusionment stems from the fact that I really wanted Craig and Casino Royale to be a great film. I supported Craig from pretty much the beginning of his "candidacy" for the role, and Casino Royale has long been one of my favorite novels (not just Bond novels, but all other books included) of all-time. And, IMO, both Craig and the film did not live up to expectations (or even get anywhere close to approaching them), and it's left me a bit underwhelmed with the Bond franchise as a whole because of it. A truly gifted actor like Daniel Craig, along with a brilliant piece of source material in Ian Fleming's Casino Royale should result in a great film, not a mess of a film that isn't too much better (if at all better) than the few films that preceeded it.

Well, you (aside from CraigIsNotBond.com) appear to be one of the only Bond fans who disliked it.

I don't think I could ever fully understand why: We all have our moments where our Bond virginity, of sorts, is broken, and Casino Royale, for me, was that film.

[Tim007]

I just added to the article, that

in related news, director Marc Forster has stated in an interview with Swiss online magazine "20min.ch" that he intends a running time for the finished film of exactly 120 minutes - and not a minute longer.

.

[Tim007]

I just added to the article, that

in related news, director Marc Forster has stated in an interview with Swiss online magazine "20min.ch" that he intends a running time for the finished film of exactly 120 minutes - and not a minute longer.

.

[JimmyBond]

Interesting news that. Perhaps that means we'll get less action scenes this go around? Still, it's rather intriguing to get the running time confirmed this early on, hopefully this means the script is pretty tight.

[coco1997]

Hmmm...He must have a real vision for this film if he knows exactly how long he wants it to be and filming hasn't even started yet!

Anyways, two hours is a solid length. I adore "CR" but I could see how some people could consider it a tad too lengthy. But let's hope Forster doesn't cut corners, either.

[Barman]

Yay! Felix is back! Short though his scenes were I thought Wright gave a good performance and I think there's potential there for Bond and Leiter to develop a nice buddy/buddy relationship. With Craig's 007 being all cold and emotionally shut off it'd be nice for him to have just one mate he could prop up a bar with....oooh, that'd be a nice little scene. Felix and James bemoaning the state of international espionage over a couple of drinks and a bowl of peanuts.