Bond 22. And onward into the abyss?

[UNCLEagent]

So... seen Casino Royale yet?

This movie blows the past forty years out of the water. The ending, the very last two minutes of screen-time were a stand-alone Bond experience that promise a very enriching future for the fans. Or do they?

Where can this series go after today? We saw the rough and tumble beginnings; and the transformation into the Bond we know and love. Or at least, the transformation into the 'cool' before the hairsprays and blowdriers took hold.

Will future films be forced into simply rehashing the uber-cool hero who saves the world? Or will be keep seeing a 'gritty Bond who bleeds?' And how long will (can) that last?

I, as much as anybody, love the larger than life aspect of Bond's world. The quest for global domination, the gadgets and the super bases with their armies. You bet I would love to see Craig in that setting in his dinner jacket!

But how long before we can say "Been there - done that." ?

Leiter has for some time now, suggested going back to Fleming's novels and redoing them in the exact same fashion as we were treated to with Casino Royale.

My initial reactio was "No way!!!!"

In no way did I want to see the glory of Connery's From Russia With Love or Goldfinger bastardized on the scren half a century later. Remakes rarely, RARELY work.

Now, having seen the potential of this all-so-new Bond, I can only imagine, and yes - hope that they do just what Leiter proposes. I see the futility of comparing Connery with Craig. And I can see now that should the books ever be reintroduced to the screen, they can stand alone without detracting from the originals.

I really wish this could be the new direction for the franchise. Otherwise, I fear Bond may be led down the familiar trodden path of past Bonds, or worse, forever being tritely referred to as James Bourne.

You were right, Felix. I'm on board!

[Archangel972]

I lean towards not redoing the books. They've been done. Yes these new films could give them new interpretations but also keep in mind that Craig wouldn't be there for all of them. They have the formula, now they should just keep refining it with the new films. The past is now past, lets move forward!

[LeiterCIA]

Leiter has for some time now, suggested going back to Fleming's novels and redoing them in the exact same fashion as we were treated to with Casino Royale.

My initial reactio was "No way!!!!"

In no way did I want to see the glory of Connery's From Russia With Love or Goldfinger bastardized on the scren half a century later. Remakes rarely, RARELY work.

Now, having seen the potential of this all-so-new Bond, I can only imagine, and yes - hope that they do just what Leiter proposes. I see the futility of comparing Connery with Craig. And I can see now that should the books ever be reintroduced to the screen, they can stand alone without detracting from the originals.

I really wish this could be the new direction for the franchise. Otherwise, I fear Bond may be led down the familiar trodden path of past Bonds, or worse, forever being tritely referred to as James Bourne.

You were right, Felix. I'm on board!

<< Takes a bow!

Yeah... after seeing this last night, I was THRILLED when they were pulling quotes from the book, or creating scenes (dinner with Vesper, the torture scene) that looked EXACTLY how I pictured it in my mind -- it really made me wish they would keep doing that and revisit the original material. This was a a REAL adaptation, like we havent seen since OHMSS. And like many other films are realizing... faithfulness to the inspiration really works!

Speaking of lines from the novel... the people sitting next to me must have looked at me like I was sick when I got visibly giddie when Bond said, "The bitch is dead."

[UNCLEagent]

I got visibly giddie when Bond said, "The bitch is dead."

Okaaay. We have a contender for "Cine Signature of the Month" :D

[BeauButabi]

Speaking of lines from the novel... the people sitting next to me must have looked at me like I was sick when I got visibly giddie when Bond said, "The bitch is dead."
lol! I got a little like that too. Though I was sitting pretty close to the front with no one too near me so I don't think anyone heard my chuckle.

[TrekSucksHard]

The way I see it- the Bond movies always took themselves seriously, all the way to OHMSS- that was the first real attempt to veer away from Connery's mold but they screwed it up when DAF came out- what happened was the Bond films started to parody itself- and things just went downhill since then. Had DAF been a gritty, intense revenge tale about Bond going after Blofeld, I think would have been better.

Now that Casino Royale is out- I do hope they keep at this level instead of regressing back to the old and tired Bond formula. I can see that they were highly influenced by Dr. No and the Jason Bourne movies and I hope it keeps going.

What do I want to see in the next one? Perhaps Bond expressing remorse for all the killings he committed and maybe even experiencing erectile disfunction when he meets the next Bond girl!

[Kara Milovy]

First, they've brought a real enemy organization back, because the machine behind Mr. White has yet to be unravelled.

Second, in #22 they're still introducing Bond. They can still give us a Q and a Moneypenny. They can start to show us how he recreates himself.

Barbara Broccoli has already said no re-filming other books. But I think there's still room to stretch.

[LeiterCIA]

Predictions for future Bonds....

I noticed that Judy Dench seemed to be playing her character very differently. She was already proving she can stand with the big boys... here she takes it to a whole new level. She went from, "...and Bond? Come back alive." to "Utter one more syllable and I'll have you killed."

I got the feeling we're meant to accept this version of Dench's M as a brand new character. Same actress, same character... but different "person" behind the name. Not the one we've seen in 4 prior incarnations. The fact that we didnt see Tanner or Robinson with her drove that point home. I dont think we can expect to see them anymore. The only tiny hole in my theory, was that M's office did look pretty similar to what we've seen before.

I think we can also expect a new Q and a new Moneypenny as well.

I got the vibe that the film-makers wanted a total re-boot in every sense... but they just figured Dench was too good to give up.

[Kara Milovy]

I agree, Leiter. I'll miss Robinson, though. Could have had him there instead of Villiers. We know there will be a new Moneypenny, as Samantha Bond has already said she's out. I assume Cleese is out too, if for no other reason than he was royally pissed at being dropped without so much as a fare-thee-well.

If you look at CBn, Eva Green has dropped intriguing spoilers about Bond 22. Enticing, even.

[Boromir006]

Yeah, it's too bad about Robinson. Villiers made no impact whatsoever, a real bore. As far as I'm aware, Cleese has a three-film contract, and no one from Eon ever said he'd been dropped, they just said that there had been no Q in the book so that's why they weren't using him this time around. Sore spots aside, he may be back.

[Kara Milovy]

Yeah, it's too bad about Robinson. Villiers made no impact whatsoever, a real bore. As far as I'm aware, Cleese has a three-film contract, and no one from Eon ever said he'd been dropped, they just said that there had been no Q in the book so that's why they weren't using him this time around. Sore spots aside, he may be back.

The thing is, there was plenty of room for Q to do the arm implant or the defibrallator.

[Boromir006]

True, but if you have Cleese you'd want to give him more to do than that.

[neglet]

Plus, the fun part of Cleese as Q is the way he snaps at Bond for mucking up his gadgets. In CR, Bond is a new 00-agent, so there's no past relationship on which to base that interplay. And since Bond didn't really get any gadgets except the car, there was no basis for Q to give Bond a warning about abusing the equipment.

I suppose Q could have given Bond the car, but I think his appearance would have been a distraction.

[Archangel972]

Entertainment Weekly did a couple of interviews with Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen (which you can read here (http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1560563-2-3_1||1544792|1_,00.html))

A VERY interesting tidbit was dropped by Green when asked the following (SPOILERS):

EW: How did you manage to keep straight in your own mind Vesper's shifting motivations and loyalties?

Eva Green: I think it's too confusing. But they're going to do a second [movie] where you'll understand what's going on in her mind. It was really hard, and Barbara Broccoli helped me understand. You would think, wait a minute, she had an Algerian boyfriend, and she's been sent on this mission, and then she begins to feel guilty. She's in love with Bond. It's a deep love. The Algerian boyfriend was something light, an affair. So there's an internal conflict. The plan is, the Algerian boyfriend is going to be the baddie in the second Bond, and we'll understand [better]. But you don't have to think about it too much.

Also, Mikkelsen shed some light on Daniel Craig's poker tell:

EW: What was Craig's poker-table ''tell''?

Mads Mikkelsen: Actually, he didn't play that much. He was very disciplined. He had to get up at 5 every morning, while the rest of us might have a couple days off. But he smiles when he has a good hand.

[mckracken]

I saw this last night when I heard the penguins won the weekend totals... "NO WAY" I thought... maybe one person buying two tickets could beat the Happy Feet?

This was a terrific flick! Its at least a twice see (I need a great deal of help when they contenent hop all over the place and the plot really starts movin)

I have one BIG burnin question about that Eva Green comment about a 2nd flick where we'll understand whats going on in her mind, but I wont post it here... it would open a huge pandoras box.

[mckracken]

also Q was just not needed in this flick.

[KingVoyeur]

If they had had Q, that would have required the scene where Q shows Bond all the gadgets he's getting for the current mission, there'd be some humor as techs test out random weapons, Q would chastise Bond for his cavalier attitude towards expensive tech, and the scene would end. It's the same in every Bond film, and is definitely too light a scene for the new Bond. I think if we do get a Q, the tech he gives Bond will be a lot more grounded and gritty rather than stuff that gives the audience a chuckle when he actually gets to use it.

[Kara Milovy]

I disagree with your entire premise, KV. "If they had Q, that would require..."

If they had Bond, that would require silly quips. Except it didn't. If they had M, that would require a scene in M's office where the mission is laid out. Except it didn't. If they had an Aston Martin, that would require a gadget-laden chase. Except it didn't. The character of Q could have been rebooted just as Bond was. I think it's a shame they didn't go that route.

[Archangel972]

They could've done the same thing they did in FRWL, introduce Major Boothroyd in a low key manner. It wasn't until GF that you saw Bond and Q verbally joust. The only thing is that they couldn't have had Cleese as Q. He would've been too distracting and it would've been too much to say that, like Judi Dench, he was playing a different Q and not the one seen in previous films. Oh well, the next film is always there for that introduction. Question is, should Q be played the same way as in the other Bond films or should there be a different slant?

[KingVoyeur]

I disagree with your entire premise, KV. "If they had Q, that would require..."

If they had Bond, that would require silly quips. Except it didn't. If they had M, that would require a scene in M's office where the mission is laid out. Except it didn't. If they had an Aston Martin, that would require a gadget-laden chase. Except it didn't. The character of Q could have been rebooted just as Bond was. I think it's a shame they didn't go that route.

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. In all the past Bonds, that is one of the few scenes that is played the exact same way every time, just with different props. I'm glad they didn't include Q in CR because it's a movie about Bond, not the whole MI6 team. I don't have a problem with bringing him back, I hope they do, but for CR, I think that would have been overstuffing the plot.

[TrekSucksHard]

They should do away with Q- he is the one cliche that Bond doesn't need; when Goldfinger came out it was pretty interesting with the car and all that but that part of the Bond films has run its course- even the filmakers realized it by the time Roger Moore became bond in LALD- the Q section was pretty much played for laughs by then.

[Boromir006]

Eddie Izzard's routine about Q really nails it. I recall that on the commentary track for The World is Not Enough Michael Apted says the Q scene was one of the last to be shot as they weren't sure which gadgets were going to be used in the movie and thought they'd do the setup scene after they knew how the rest of the story would play out.

I'd like to see Q return, but maybe they can revamp those scenes more in line with the new direction they've taken. Maybe get him out in the field like he was in Licence to Kill.

[Kara Milovy]

Eddie Izzard's routine about Q really nails it. I recall that on the commentary track for The World is Not Enough Michael Apted says the Q scene was one of the last to be shot as they weren't sure which gadgets were going to be used in the movie and thought they'd do the setup scene after they knew how the rest of the story would play out.

I'd like to see Q return, but maybe they can revamp those scenes more in line with the new direction they've taken. Maybe get him out in the field like he was in Licence to Kill.

I don't like the out in the field thing.

Quite recently, real MI6 agents were interviewed on the radio for the first time (bizarrely, they're recruiting). And they said that yes, indeed, they have a Q, a gadget master/quartermaster called Q. So of course we need Q, but the character should be revamped and grounded, just as Bond was.

[Space Tycoon]

Does anyone else but me think that now would be the perfect time for a From Russia With Love remake?

What with the whole Litvinenko affair and other suspicious assassinations seemingly emanating from the Kremlin.

The bad old days are back again.

[Kara Milovy]

Does anyone else but me think that now would be the perfect time for a From Russia With Love remake?

What with the whole Litvinenko affair and other suspicious assassinations seemingly emanating from the Kremlin.

The bad old days are back again.

I think a poisoning, Death to Spies type plot would be very timely.

[Boromir006]

Sure, if they can integrate it into the plot of the next one which they've already announced will continue the story set up in Casino Royale as Bond goes after Mr. White's organization.

The original From Russia with Love was perfect. Let it be. If we're talking remakes of old Bonds, why not remake some of the crappier ones instead and make them better? A View to a Kill or The Man with the Golden Gun, anybody?

[Kara Milovy]

Sure, if they can integrate it into the plot of the next one which they've already announced will continue the story set up in Casino Royale as Bond goes after Mr. White's organization.

The original From Russia with Love was perfect. Let it be. If we're talking remakes of old Bonds, why not remake some of the crappier ones instead and make them better? A View to a Kill or The Man with the Golden Gun, anybody?

Actually, the original FAVTAK short story has never been used. It's slight; little more than 2 scenes, but it should really be incorporated into a future movie. TMWTGG, on the other hand, is fundamentally uninteresting. Fleming was very ill and very disinterested when he wrote it. It's back to Jamaica, a reunion with Leiter, a revisiting of locations seen before, of characters seen before (Mary Goodnight had already been in several books). The only thing interesting is the opening assassination attempt, which has already been mined for Die Another Day.

[PhuYuck]

I don't like the out in the field thing.

Quite recently, real MI6 agents were interviewed on the radio for the first time (bizarrely, they're recruiting). And they said that yes, indeed, they have a Q, a gadget master/quartermaster called Q. So of course we need Q, but the character should be revamped and grounded, just as Bond was.

I agree, I'd love to see the character of Q return to the series, but not of the same ilk as the recent movies. I think a revamped, more serious and perhaps less central Q in the mould of DN or FRWL would be perfect. As has been pointed out, he now wouldn't have the relationship history with Bond and there'd be no reason to have Q and Bond chastising each other or jawing at each other for laughs. His role would be much better suited now if he were to be grounded and behind the scenes, and with no prior biased feelings towards Bond. The question is, could Cleese pull this off, he being known entirely as a funny man? Is Cleese that well-rounded?

As for future Bond movies, I'd like to see them stick with the current formula or atmosphere and perhaps tackle some of the non-Fleming books rather than rewrite the movies that have been done, but I suppose due to royalties needing to be paid out, this won't seem a likely route to take.

[Boromir006]

John Cleese is actually an excellent dramatic actor. The problem is people tend to associate him with hilarious stuff and start laughing when he appears on screen, before he even opens his mouth. (see Mary Shelley's Frankenstein).

[Daltons Chin Dimple]

Don't forget that the whole "reboot" thing can now be considered as done. There is no need to mention Bonds recent promotion etc. in Bond 22. Sure, he can still make mistakes etc. but there will be no need to draw attention to the reboot any further in this newly establish Bond-iverse.

So there is no reason why Cleese cannot reprise his role. If Dench can.......

[Kara Milovy]

I think it would be a mistake to put John Cleese as Q in the next Bond movie. I don't think its wrong to give Q a sense of humor but not like in the previous Bond movies. It got pretty ridiculous. Let's bring him down to earth.

Let's get real. Cleese isn't coming back. Wilson and Broccoli deeply insulted Cleese by blowing him off. He found out he wasn't in the movie by reading the gossip rags. If they wanted him back for Bond 22, they wouldn't have done that. And if they wanted him back and screwed up, I doubt very much they can fix it. Cleese has said some pretty bitter things about them.

Barbara & Michael have proven they can make a great movie without their parents, but they haven't proven they know how to treat people.

[Boromir006]

It's always "never say never" with these people, with any movie people. Especially where large sums of cash are concerned.