Well, we are under a month now till bond 22 drops.

I personally can't wait to see this movie. I think it will be another great film and am curious to see how a bond sequel works out since this one picks up after Casino Royale 2 minutes after that one ended.

Could be another great bond film! :-)
[Reply]

The less vices and classic characteristics point to a dwindling respect for the franchise, (not to mention a loss for the character the way Fleming wrote him) for me, rather than a "re-tooling for the current times" or whatever hogwash they are trying to shove down our throats currently. Yes, he is still a misanthropic (for the time being) misfit, but as they lose the hallmarks of the franchise, the new films very well may become nothing more than car chase/shoot'emup/hot chick (no, not a DAMN thing wrong with any of those) action fodder barely above the level of a Vin Diesel film.

I hold hope for the future of the franchise, yet I am not holding my breath.
I will quite happy to spend the dough to see QoS in the theater, but I have reservations about that money being spent and lending credence to the producers stripping down a character that does not need reinvention. By reinvention, BTW, I mean a more classically played Bond, Connery, or even Craig, but without becoming another victim of Political Correctness.
[Reply]

USA Today had an interesting article on the direction of the James Bond. The next three movies should be fun, I know my wife and I looking forward to them.
[Reply]

He's been amped about this movie for months:-). Please, someone engage him in deep meaningful 007 chat or I'll have to hear it. :-)
[Reply]

I've been saying the exact same thing for months, ever since I saw the previews for QoS. Actually I've been saying that for years. Casino Royale has been my favorite of the recent movies, but I'm sure that's entirely because it's based on an Ian Fleming story. For whatever reason they can't or won't find anyone to write a script like he did, and I think it's tarnishing the franchise. All the political correctness in 'The World is Not Enough' made me sick, but Halle Berry sure looked good :-)
[Reply]

That'd be Denise Richards in The World is Not Enough.
[Reply]

Yup and Halle was in one of my least favorite bonds and one of the only ones I don't own on DVD... Die another Day... :-)

As for the recent direction of the bond movies, I have to say I LOVE casino Royale. I have watched that movie like 20+ times and still love every minute of it. It was very well done and Daniel Craig is a better bond than Pierce ever was....

Looking back I though that Pierce did a good job in goldeneye, but every movie after that got worse and worse.

So I have high hope for QoS to be just as good as CR. It could be a let down, but lets hope they stick with the winning formula they had with CR. :-)
[Reply]

Umm... I think I might chat about it with you the next time we have a cigar just to piss ya off... :-):-)
[Reply]

It's been said that Goldeneye was written for Timothy Dalton. Which could explain it being the anomaly of the Brosnan era. :-)


Craig is a great Bond. And if QoS is anything like Casino Royale, I'll be very happy.
[Reply]

I know you will. I just realised this thread only gives you more ideas of things to talk about. :-)
[Reply]

Whoops, I meant Die Another Day. I thought TWINE was better, Denise Richards was a little more eye-candy, little less co-super spy.

I'm of the opposite opinion. I think he over-acted in Golden Eye, was too 'sharp', didn't come off as smooth as he did in the later films, like DAD and TWINE. My least favorite Brosnan film was Tomorrow Never Dies. There was very little worth watching in that movie. Even the car was boring, I want Aston Martin sports cars, not BMW sedans.
[Reply]

I'm really looking forward to this movie. I like the direction that they're taking Bond. Kinda darker, more intense. I read something recently (can't remember where) that said they're doing away with the catch phrases like "Bond, James Bond" and "shaken, not stirred." They still don't have a gadget guy like Q. Anyway, I think Craig is a welcome relief from some of his more recent predecessors.
[Reply]

They are, along with any smoking of any kind, and who knows what else to strip the character of identity.
On a brighter note....Daniel Craig also spoke of putting on weight for the end of the film, to segue the character being less of a gym junkie, and losing the 6 pack.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/..._10034430.html
[Reply]

:-):-)
[Reply]

I would believe that... they typically like to sign a bond for a minimum 3 films and Dalton must have backed out of his third.

In any event I am glad Dalton didn't do it since he was no the best bond... :-)
[Reply]

technicaly this is the 21st Bond Movie, Never Say Never wasnt written or produced by the broccoli prodction company

Can you say bond geek?
[Reply]

While I do agree with you about never say never again not being a bond film... MGM bough the rights back in 1997 and added it officially to the bond films...

so they call it an official one... :-)

But you sir would be correct...

(high fives you as a fellow bond geek). :-)
[Reply]

now... Does the first Casino Royale count? :-)
[Reply]

No. The First Casino Royale was actually a Made for TV movie in 1954 and then again in 1967 Staring David Nevin and Peter Sellers but it isnt considered a Official James Bond Film. :-)

oh and MGM sucks :-) Never Say Never will never be a real bond movie. Didnt Roger Moores , Octo***** come out the same time?
[Reply]

No I believe never say never again was 1983 and was a remake of thunderball. It was made to compete with octo***** which was also 1983 and the second to last roger moore film.

Roger moore's first movie was live and let die in 1973 I believe.

And no casino royale was a TV as was said... the first bond movie was Dr. No in 1962 and still one of the best. :-)
[Reply]