Hello folks, Ahnold here. I'm sorry to have start a new thread about this, but I really wanted to know what you guys think; am I the only one that has major concerns about Bond 21?
Around February time, I was really optimistic about Bond 21 for the first time since I heard the terrible news about Brosnan being fired from the part. After all, the Brocollis had just made what is {in my view} a very smart decision by deciding to hire Martin Campbell to direct the next Bond film; since he also directed "Goldeneye" {which is, IMHO, not only a terrific film in its own right, but also the last truly great Bond film}, I was understandably excited. What's more, he later announced that Bond 21 was to be "Casino Royale"; for me, this was also good news, since "CR" is not only the first Bond novel that Ian Fleming ever wrote, but also the only one that hasn't been faithfully adapted to the big screen {i.e. discounting the madcap 1967 spoof}. Things were looking up.
Then, for me at least, it all went horribly wrong. First, it was announced that "CR" was to be a prequel, set before all the other Bond films {indeed, set at a time when James Bond had just qualified to the ranks of the British Secret Service}; I know that I was hoping for the producers to take Bond in a slightly different direction after the disappointing, gadget laden, and ever so slightly camp "DAD", but this wasn't what I had in mind! A prequel?! Set before the adventures of Connery {hence potentially rendering ALL Bond films null and void}?! That's just not on!!! They also said that Bond's character would "evolve" into that of the man that we know and love over the course of the film; that's not I wanted either! Bond is SUPPOSED to be a hard-edged, womanising, cold and distant man - THAT'S the man we grew to like, and THAT'S what made the first 20 films so successful, and I can't for the life of me see why they'd want to change that winning formula now!
__________________
Ahnold Sez: (From "The Expendables 2"): "My *shoe* is bigger than this cahr!"
Second, there is the uncertainty regarding just who the hell is going to be playing James Bond. Recently, Aint It Cool News said that the decision had come down to two actors: Daniel Craig, and Julian McMahon {go here: http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=19636 for that article}. Of all the actors in the world that they could've chosen who would've been so convincing in the part {such as Eric Bana, Hugh Jackman, and even Clive Owen}, I honestly can't understand why they picked these two actors. They both just seem wrong for the role. Sure, Daniel Craig was alright in "Layer Cake", but I just don't think that he's either cool enough, or sufficiently well known; and as for Julian Mcmahon, he may be suave, but the "Nip/Tuck" actor is just a bit too sleazy for my liking.
And finally, along comes this latest news about Q not being in "CR". To tell you the truth, I wouldn't really have minded if John Cleese wasn't in the next film, but the decision to not include Q AT ALL seems, well, wrong {considering that Q has been in every Bond film bar two, and one of those was Dr. No!}. What's next? No Moneypenny? No M? Bearing in mind that Samantha Bond has already stated that she will NOT be returning to the role of Moneypenny without Pierce Brosnan, it just seems to me that any further tinkering with a well-established formula can only end badly.
Oh, and I'm also not too enamoured with the fact that "CR" is being written by Neil Purvis and Robert Wade, the guys who wrote the less than stellar "TWINE" and "DAD"!
Forgive my complaining {and the rather overlong double post}, but after three months of being away, there's a lot that I wanna get off my chest!
Do other people agree with me?
__________________
Ahnold Sez: (From "The Expendables 2"): "My *shoe* is bigger than this cahr!"
I'm not convinced fully that they are indeed making a pur sang prequal though, in an interview the writers said that they won't let the movie take place in the '50s but that it would be modern... if they make it modern it can't be anything but staying in the timeline. I mean... in Dr No you clearly see it's made a long time ago and now Bond 21 gets a modern layer? doesn't work
I think they might tell a "normal" bond story but that it will reveal his past in some aspects... certainly because the writers said they had Pierce in mind while writing it means that they can't go to a bond who just joined the service
about your second post:
NEVER trust AICN! they ONLY get their stories right AFTER it has been confirmed by official sources, so certainly don't go and believe them, they also said Bloom would be Bond, remember?
and as last: I already posted and pleaded to people NOT to believe the Q-story!
it is LITERALLY the quote Cleese gave way back in October-November when the first draft was finished and Pierce was still Bond... Ananova just brought it back to boost ratings. In the meantime, I'm quite sure they included him already
But yerss, director Martin Cambell himself has confirmed that this will indeed be a prequel. And even if the film is being modernised, that doesn't mean that it can't be set outside the established timeline {i.e. set before "Dr. No", at a time when Bond had just entered the ranks of the 00 agents}. Even if the older films physically LOOK older nowadays, that won't necessarily stop the producers. It's certainly been done before. I mean, look at Batman Begins - that's set before all the other Batman films, yet has been brought to the modern day. It's the same with Superman Returns - that's also been brought to the modern day, yet is set before the events of Superman III and IV.
And to be honest, I'm not fully convinved about your last point. I thought that it was only confirmed that the film would be "Casino Royale" AFTER Brosnan said that he had been fired from the role? So how could he have initially been in mind when the script hadn't even been written yet? Sadly, I highly doubt that this will be just another Bond story with elements of the past thrown in ...
Don't get me wrong, yerss; I'm certainly not happy about all of this. But it just seems to me that everything is pretty much clear cut ...
__________________
Ahnold Sez: (From "The Expendables 2"): "My *shoe* is bigger than this cahr!"
Believe me when I say this guys and gals, there will be no prequel. Casino Royale is the very first Bond adventure, however a prequel will not work considering that the character has already been established. The news will change that it will follow Die Another Die as yet another Bond film sequel. They only have one more chance to save the Bond franchise and they will not risk it all on an idea that will destroy it!
And one more thing: Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. will rise again!
Not only that... If they are pushing for this prequel idea, chances are, we won't see any opening gun barrel shot and title theme sequences. They will, however, be seen at the end of the movie. Prequels are the fad in Hollywood these days, just like prequels to Star Wars, Star Trek Enterprise, and Batman with a modern touch to name a few...
for this, ahnold, I rather believe the writers who are (hopefully) constantly working on the script instead of a director who, to my understanding, hasn't read the drafts yet... if they modernise it, the Broccolis HAVE to understand it would rediculouse to see Bond driving in a brand new car, using a mobile phone and stuff while (in the time line) a few movies later he has to use this massive thing that isn't even working alright.
and it's not because we only recently knew the title would be CR that they didn't. They wrote the story directly after DaD got out but it all got postponed by Sony taking over MGM.
To be fair, yerss, AICN does SOMETIMES get good scoops. It is, after all, one of the most well known film websites in the world; many of its readers have inside connections.
Oh, and as you can see from my other thread, the Orlando as 007 rumour is {horrifyingly} still apparantly a possibility ...
But I didn't hear that from Ananova. I heard it from Dark Horizons only a few weeks ago; I thought this was a fresh quote?
But if Q IS in it, so much the better !
__________________
Ahnold Sez: (From "The Expendables 2"): "My *shoe* is bigger than this cahr!"
Question: why does everyone assume that, even though Bond 21 is being set in modern times, it still has to fit in with the timings of all the other Bond films to date {i.e. it MUST be followed by Dr. No, which obviously takes place in the 60's - hence the nonsensical concept}. Has anyone considered that {gasp} the other films might be disregarded entirely? That this might be a total re-start for the franchise? I hope not, but that was my understanding ...
__________________
Ahnold Sez: (From "The Expendables 2"): "My *shoe* is bigger than this cahr!"
well, when you do nothing but write about movies, at least SOME things have to be right, ahnold, that's not that hard still, I wouldn't believe them until others confirm.
perhaps DH took it from there? I just know that Ananova posted it a few weeks ago and gave the exact quote Cleese gave in october or something about his role in CR, so unless I actually see it written down with the exact date, I take they just bumped it
and for your question: simply cause I don't want them to re-start the franchise, I don't want them to disregard the other movies. I want continuity! Showing his past: ok. Being a dark movie: great, I loved LTK. But to throw out 20 movies just cause you screwed up big time: no chance in hell I want that
Me too. Even though I do trust Dark Horizons to provide up to date news, we shall see how this develops ...
Oh, and please don't get me wrong yerss; I don't want the past 20 films to be erased either! That would be the biggest mistake that the producers could possibly make {even more so than the pigeons doing double takes in "Moonraker"} ...
__________________
Ahnold Sez: (From "The Expendables 2"): "My *shoe* is bigger than this cahr!"
Reading this golden oldie, I can't help but laugh at how way off the mark most (though not all ...) of us were before "Casino Royale" came out - myself especially! Two quotes in particular that made me chuckle were:
and ...
There ya go - official proof that I didn't know what the hell I was talking about .
In all seriousness, though, when you look back on "Casino Royale", do you think that it was right for the producers to disregard all the previous Bond films, and hence - as I put it - render them "null and void"? Though it may have been a necessary move in order to do justice to the story of the novel, did they ultimately make the correct decision in "re-booting" the franchise (a concept that many of us obviously didn't seem to grasp at the time !). Relatively minor issues like Q and Moneypenny's absence obviously didn't hurt "CR" (or "Quantum Of Solace", for that matter), but, in dumping all the established continuity of the movies up to that point, did the Bond franchise lose something in the process?
__________________
Ahnold Sez: (From "The Expendables 2"): "My *shoe* is bigger than this cahr!"
Nice to see your mea culpa. More members here need to do that.
At the time, I was on the fence about Daniel Craig's casting. Now he can lay claim to being the most definitive Bond.
And your worry over continuity isn't neccessary. The Bond series has always been VERY loose on it. Essentially, the formula was just make the same film over and over again; change locals and villains, and count the money. Minor exceptions were making a Blofeld trilogy (You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Diamonds Are Forever) and a reference in License To Kill about Bond having been married before but lost his wife (OHMSS). How could the events stay canon, when they span 40 years of film history and the character doesn't age?
After the success of Batman Begins, we saw the value of not doing sequels or prequels, but rather what a reboot can do, and it has been more than worth it. Characters like Q and Moneypenny are likely to come down the line. Give the new series time to grow everything anew.
__________________
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
Just to add: in The Spy Who Loved Me, Major Amasova also mentions Bond was married once but that she died. (I only know that because the movie was on last week )
I like that they showed the "birth" of the wodka-martini ("Does it look like I give a damn?"), but I would definitly have liked a lot more nods to the older movies, just to pay respect to the character (and yes, eventhough it's a reboot).
__________________ Kyuzo: Don't you see? A real sword will kill you. Mr. Earl Brooks: If I were here to kill you, you would already be dead. Mercedes: My mother told me to be wary of Fauns. Mr. Le Chiffre: No, I believe in a reasonable rate of return. James Bond: Now the whole world will know you died while you were scratching my balls!
KMC Community Forums
I Fear For Bond 21 ...
Mar 26th, 2005 05:01 PM
!
still, I wouldn't believe them until others confirm.
