CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › ADD BANKRUPTCY TO THE LIST OF VILLAINS BOND HAS THWARTED
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ADD BANKRUPTCY TO THE LIST OF VILLAINS BOND HAS THWARTED

post #1 of 68
11/6/10 at 2:40pm
Thread Starter 
MGM to bring us more 007

More...
Reply
post #2 of 68
11/6/10 at 2:46pm
Mendes is still involved with this? Cool. Him directing was one of those little risks I love about Craig's run.
Reply
post #3 of 68
11/6/10 at 2:52pm
This is good news, I was looking forward to seeing what Mendes would do with Bond.
Reply
post #4 of 68
11/6/10 at 2:57pm
Thank the gods! What wonderful news, this has already brightened my whole weekend. Thanks to CHUD and JGB for a most welcome update to this (until recently) grave situation that had been weighing heavily on my mind
Reply
post #5 of 68
11/6/10 at 3:27pm
I always had a hard time believing Bond was going to be delayed for very long unless someone was deliberately holding up the process. Though the rumours that we might lose Craig were alarming.

I know there's a lot of hate for Mendes, but I feel like a pulpy action movie might bring out the best in him, sorta like how Paul Haggis sucks when he's doing his own thing yet wrote probably the best Bond script ever.
Reply
post #6 of 68
11/6/10 at 3:32pm
I hope that both...Q and Moneypenny return to Bond. The one thing missing in...Craig's Bond, is...Awesome Q-Branch tech.
Reply
post #7 of 68
11/6/10 at 3:45pm
I'll get excited if I hear Peter Morgan is still scripting, he seemed inspired for a Craig Bond flick.
Reply
post #8 of 68
11/6/10 at 3:46pm
They keep the writer's imagination on a short leash, I'm actually not opposed to a more practical Q branch this go around.
Reply
post #9 of 68
11/6/10 at 3:50pm
Look, if Craig's not available maybe it's time to finally just replace him with the Clive Owen bond that we've always wanted. I mean, I like Craig and all but having recently watched The International I really believe that Owen would have been perfect for the newer, 'grittier' Bond.
Reply
post #10 of 68
11/6/10 at 3:54pm
No.
Reply
post #11 of 68
11/6/10 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontEATnachos View Post
Look, if Craig's not available maybe it's time to finally just replace him with the Clive Owen bond that we've always wanted. I mean, I like Craig and all but having recently watched The International I really believe that Owen would have been perfect for the newer, 'grittier' Bond.
I wanted Owen as Bond until the day I saw LAYERCAKE in 2004. I now want Craig in the role as long as he's physically able to perform the stunts. Owen is a great actor, but IMHO I've come to feel he's wrong for the part. Craig is note perfect

Also.. I really disliked the International, and Owen's character was a bumbler in that film (even when he was shooting people). I didn't look at that and see Bond at all
Reply
post #12 of 68
11/6/10 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontEATnachos View Post
Look, if Craig's not available maybe it's time to finally just replace him with the Clive Owen bond that we've always wanted. I mean, I like Craig and all but having recently watched The International I really believe that Owen would have been perfect for the newer, 'grittier' Bond.
Damn that! Get Michael Fassbender on the line ASAP. Clive Owen is a passe choice. I like Craig and all - but after I saw Fassbender kill the hell out of his scenes in Tarantino's INGLORIOUS BASTEREDS. He'd own as the new Bond should Craig be unavailable. Also, should it be Fassbender, what an an explosive start w/ Mendes directing and Perter Morgan scripting.
Reply
post #13 of 68
11/6/10 at 4:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke fleed View Post
I hope that both...Q and Moneypenny return to Bond. The one thing missing in...Craig's Bond, is...Awesome Q-Branch tech.
Duke you speak the truth.
Reply
post #14 of 68
11/6/10 at 4:06pm
The artsy-fartsy directors always make crappy bond films. I hope Mendes is out.
Reply
post #15 of 68
11/6/10 at 4:16pm
I just have to second (or third, since other people have already voiced support) Mr Fleed's suggestion that Q and Money Penny make a return. As long as Q is not hawking invisible cars, I think having two films without him is enough to ground the series in the real world and I see no reason that the next time Bond gets handed a realistic GPS device (or whatever) it shouldn't come from a guy with a lettered code name... just please don't cast Simon Pegg
Reply
post #16 of 68
11/6/10 at 4:24pm
Am I just imagining things or was Colin Salmon's name thrown about prior to Craig taking the role? He plays M's Chief of Staff in the last few Brosnan films. I know there was a black actor bandied about. I'd like to see him get a "promotion" after Craig, if Craig drops out because of delays or even in a Lazenby-like filler film. His presence in his few scenes is fantastic.
Reply
post #17 of 68
11/6/10 at 4:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post
Am I just imagining things or was Colin Salmon's name thrown about prior to Craig taking the role? He plays M's Chief of Staff in the last few Brosnan films. I know there was a black actor bandied about. I'd like to see him get a "promotion" after Craig, if Craig drops out because of delays or even in a Lazenby-like filler film. His presence in his few scenes is fantastic.

It was, yes, but as I recall the only one playing that up was Mr Salmon himself

He had presence in his brief screen time in the Brosnan flicks, but I've not seen anywhere near enough of his acting to say he's right for the part.
Reply
post #18 of 68
11/6/10 at 4:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post
Am I just imagining things or was Colin Salmon's name thrown about prior to Craig taking the role? He plays M's Chief of Staff in the last few Brosnan films. I know there was a black actor bandied about. I'd like to see him get a "promotion" after Craig, if Craig drops out because of delays or even in a Lazenby-like filler film. His presence in his few scenes is fantastic.
Naw, he was. I liked Salmon for the role, though I first saw him in something of an un-Bond role in Keen Eddie.
Reply
post #19 of 68
11/6/10 at 4:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke fleed View Post
I hope that both...Q and Moneypenny return to Bond. The one thing missing in...Craig's Bond, is...Awesome Q-Branch tech.
Well if these remarks by Craig are worth anything, we might get a much looser entry which I think is natural after how gloomy it got in QOS.

Quote:
And he insisted it won't be a sequel to Quantum of Solace.

"No fucking way. I'm done with that story," said the 007 star.

"I want to lie on a beach for the first half an hour of the next movie drinking a cocktail.

"We've finished this story as far as I'm concerned. We've got a great set of bad guys. There is an organisation that we can use whenever we want to. The relationship between Bond and M is secure and Felix is secure.

"Let's try and find where Moneypenny came from and where Q comes from. Let's do all that and have some fun with it."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...#ixzz14TgnLfSB
Reply
post #20 of 68
11/6/10 at 5:09pm
I knew that Bond wouldnt be dead for long. This is great news. Long live Bond, James Bond.
Reply
post #21 of 68
11/6/10 at 5:14pm
Oy with the trying to replace Craig already. He deserves at least one more Bond, and he's the best thing to happen to the franchise in about 40 years. Settle down.
Reply
post #22 of 68
11/6/10 at 5:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post
Well if these remarks by Craig are worth anything, we might get a much looser entry which I think is natural after how gloomy it got in QOS.
That's a weird set of statements by Craig, because first he says he doesn't want a sequel to QoS, then he says he wants to use Quantum. Which would...y'know...make it a sequel to QoS.

One of many things I was a little disappointed about with QoS was the way Mr White was apparently revealed to be THE big head operative of QoS, which kinda hurts their mystique. I realize you want to make a personal connection with the villain and the hero, but surely there's room for a more Blofeld-esque superbaddie offscreen.
Reply
post #23 of 68
11/6/10 at 5:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post
Well if these remarks by Craig are worth anything, we might get a much looser entry
It's The Sun.

And he supposedly said QoS was going to be "more like Octopussy" before that came out. Let's stop falling for the same bullshit over and over. But I would like Craig to do a balls-out "fun" entry, which is why I keep banging the Neil Marshall drum.
Reply
post #24 of 68
11/6/10 at 6:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
That's a weird set of statements by Craig, because first he says he doesn't want a sequel to QoS, then he says he wants to use Quantum. Which would...y'know...make it a sequel to QoS.
He was referring to the Vesper/Bond Begins storyline that was resolved. The closest the next films could be identified as sequels is the use of Quantum and that's pretty much it. Very much like how SPECTRE was used in the Connery films.

Quote:
And he supposedly said QoS was going to be "more like Octopussy" before that came out. Let's stop falling for the same bullshit over and over. But I would like Craig to do a balls-out "fun" entry, which is why I keep banging the Neil Marshall drum.
I think for this instance he's sincere. Nothing over the top like Octopussy but close to the Connery films in a sense.
Reply
post #25 of 68
11/6/10 at 6:40pm
Huzzah! Now please don't get Mendes for this. Would be nearly as bad as Forster. We need someone with action credentials. My pick? Phillip Noyce.
Reply
post #26 of 68
11/6/10 at 8:17pm
They have a great opportunity to do an epic, 50th anniversary blowout spectacular here. They'd better not squander it. But you know they will, especially with Mendes in charge. Here's what would happen if I were in charge:

1) it would be 2 hours 30 minutes long
2) it would be named SHATTERHAND, a cool-sounding title with a literary pedigree that I'm amazed they haven't used yet
3) it would be funny
4) it would end with an epic battle between two armies, a Bond tradition which sadly hasn't been seen since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS in 1987
5) Judi Dench would die in a mysterious one-car accident prior to shooting and be replaced with Terence Stamp
Reply
post #27 of 68
11/6/10 at 8:27pm
Oh jesus, not again.
Reply
post #28 of 68
11/6/10 at 8:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul McCartney View Post
They have a great opportunity to do an epic, 50th anniversary blowout spectacular here. They'd better not squander it. But you know they will, especially with Mendes in charge. Here's what would happen if I were in charge:

1) it would be 2 hours 30 minutes long
2) it would be named SHATTERHAND, a cool-sounding title with a literary pedigree that I'm amazed they haven't used yet
3) it would be funny
4) it would end with an epic battle between two armies, a Bond tradition which sadly hasn't been seen since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS in 1987
5) Judi Dench would die in a mysterious one-car accident prior to shooting and be replaced with Terence Stamp
I...I approve.
Reply
post #29 of 68
11/6/10 at 11:44pm
For directors there are alot of dream choices, but I don't see why they shouldn't just bring back Martin Campbell. He has successfully rebooted Bond twice, saving the series in the process. Mendes is an interesting choice, but I wonder if it might be better to go with a sure thing when coming off this whole MGM implosion situation. Campbell can do action, and shoot drama well enough for whatever script you craft for him. He's not an auteur, but he's an excellent hack

EDIT: It would also be a firm signal they intend to return to the quality of CR after the lukewarm reception to QOS*

*Which as a long time Bond fan I know is obviously a good entry in the series, it's just slightly disappointing after Craig's first outing
Reply
post #30 of 68
11/7/10 at 2:33am
You stole the Terence Stamp casting from me, you sonofabitch McCartney! I'd rather M die in the film though; no sense wishing death on an actual person.
Reply
post #31 of 68
11/7/10 at 3:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
One of many things I was a little disappointed about with QoS was the way Mr White was apparently revealed to be THE big head operative of QoS, which kinda hurts their mystique.
Then stop being disappointed. Because that's not the case at all. He was just a Quantum agent who knew how to keep cool about things, whether its getting interrogated with a bullet hole in his leg or when someone's trying to flush him out at an opera. Anything else was your imagination.
Reply
post #32 of 68
11/7/10 at 4:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
For directors there are alot of dream choices, but I don't see why they shouldn't just bring back Martin Campbell.
Um...he'll probably be tied up in a little superhero franchise for a while...
Reply
post #33 of 68
11/7/10 at 4:53am
If EON had it their way Martin Campbell would have directed every Bond film since GoldenEye. Campbell just doesn't have that much interest. He only came back to direct Casino Royale just because it was a completely different kind of film from the by-the-numbers Brosnan entries. As far as he is concerned he's said all he could say about Bond on those two flicks.
Reply
post #34 of 68
11/7/10 at 4:59am
Craig will get another film, there should be little doubt of that. But, if for some reason it didn't happen...

Clive Owen wouldn't work at this point. Craig did gritty Bond better than anyone, and Clive would just be a shadow of that. If Owen had accepted the role back in 2005 everything would likely be different. But Owen didn't want the role, Craig did, and the rest is history.

... but if for some reason Craig didn't come back, they'd need to go back to suave, prissy Roger Moore Bond. Someone like Jonathan Ryhs Myers or Henry Cavill. A pretty boy ponce, basically. You can't follow Craig with another grim n' gritty tough Bond, it just won't work.
Reply
post #35 of 68
11/7/10 at 5:03am
Fassbender. obviously.
Reply
post #36 of 68
11/7/10 at 5:51am
With this news of MGM bringing Bond back for Nov 2012 and Craig very likely remaining in the role, it does seem a bit early to speculate on who the next Bond will be. Craig signed a three film contract with an optional fourth. Assuming he does that optional fourth film and bows out after that, the next James Bond actor will not have his debut film until 2016 at the earliest. By that point who knows where Fassbender and Cavill will be? There might even by new names between now and then that will catch our interest. It could be another surprise unknown like Craig. I'm sure nobody in 2000 would have guessed Daniel Craig would be next Bond actor in six years.
Reply
post #37 of 68
11/7/10 at 6:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
You stole the Terence Stamp casting from me, you sonofabitch McCartney!
It's a great idea, that's why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
I'd rather M die in the film though; no sense wishing death on an actual person.
It's the only way. Dench's complete inability to play the role anymore certainly hasn't lost her the gig so far.

What happened to her, anyway? She was at her bulldyke best in DIE ANOTHER DAY, then got all teary and premenstrual in CASINO ROYALE. Maybe she was brain-damaged by a stroke, like Sophia in THE GOLDEN GIRLS.
Reply
post #38 of 68
11/7/10 at 7:27am
I kind of see Bond in the same way I see Batman, it's a charater that can fit pretty much any interpritation of it you want. With that in mind i'd love something less gritty and more "fun" for the next outing.
Reply
post #39 of 68
11/7/10 at 9:48am
I'd Love to see a...Massive base for the, EEEEEEEEEvil Villain's Lair. Maybe, they could go up in space again. The Bad Guy, could take over the...International Space Station or something. A Moonbase would work well too. Also, time to get a...Fun opening song. Katy Perry would be my pick, With, Michael Giacchino composing. Time has past, to dump, David Arnold.
Reply
post #40 of 68
11/7/10 at 10:06am
No space action, please.
It was dumb in MOONRAKER and wouldn't work here.
But I agree the next movie needs to more fun. GOLDFINGER fun though, not OCTOPUSSY fun.
Although the fight on the plane is awesome.
Reply
post #41 of 68
11/7/10 at 11:15pm
And to add something concrete to the thread, count me in the camp looking to see a continuation of what they started on Casino Royale. Maybe I'm a killjoy, but I enjoyed that brand of spyfare. And people are talking about Moore positively? That man was a one man smirking pox on the franchise.
Reply
post #42 of 68
11/8/10 at 12:16am
Ali, Why wouldn't people talk Positively about the...Best 007, Roger Moore? Truly, The Moore The Merrier, fits the,...SAINTly Mr. Moore, to a T! Truly, Carly Simon was right, about Roger Moore as Bond, with the opening song to, The Spy Who Loved Me...Nobody Does It Better!
Reply
post #43 of 68
11/8/10 at 1:05am
I'd rather see Fassbinder play a Bond villain.
Reply
post #44 of 68
11/8/10 at 1:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post
I'd rather see Fassbinder play a Bond villain.
My mind immediately went to 006 when I read that. A second later I realize Alec Trevelyan was a shitty character, so to hell with that. I could see Fassbender as a top agent running an operation for Quantum who'd give Craig's Bond a good fight like how Robert Shaw was for Connery.
Reply
post #45 of 68
11/8/10 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke fleed View Post
Ali, Why wouldn't people talk Positively about the...Best 007, Roger Moore? Truly, The Moore The Merrier, fits the,...SAINTly Mr. Moore, to a T! Truly, Carly Simon was right, about Roger Moore as Bond, with the opening song to, The Spy Who Loved Me...Nobody Does It Better!
I'll be honest: I've never been a huge fan of the franchise. I've found the tropes of Bond that are repeated every outing to be on the boring side, especially when it gets campy. But I think the early Connery outings are stellar, OHMSS to be intriguing, and Dalton was interesting.
Reply
post #46 of 68
11/8/10 at 12:07pm
Everyone loved CASINO ROYALE, and yet the refrain since then seems to have been "That was great! Now bring back the gadgets. And Q. And Moneypenny. And couldn't it be funnier and sillier?" Weird - the franchise successfully reinvented itself to massive acclaim, and all anyone can do is clamour for it to start aping those worn-out old ways again.

Given or take a Dalton we had thirty years of silly, campy, OTT Bond. Can we stick with this iteration for more than two films? Pretty please?
Reply
post #47 of 68
11/8/10 at 12:16pm
High five, Andrew.
Reply
post #48 of 68
11/8/10 at 12:27pm
I've always liked an idea I heard a while back about how to get rid of DAME JUDY DENCH. You have her killed in the pre-title sequence, and have the new M be the villain of the movie who orchestrated her death.

And can we please have a proper gunbarrel sequence in this one. It was fine in Casino Royale but placing it at the end of QOS was asinine. The ending of Casino Royale was supposed to establish him as 007, but then they had to reboot it again. Fuckers. And re-shoot it to slow the tempo down.
Reply
post #49 of 68
11/8/10 at 12:36pm
I honestly wouldn't care if there were no gunbarrel, no M, no headquarters, no mission, whatever. Just tell a good story and stage some good action involving a James Bond who isn't a book of puns with a nice haircut. I am baffled by people's slavish devotion to utlimately insignificant franchise conventions.
Reply
post #50 of 68
11/8/10 at 12:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
I honestly wouldn't care if there were no gunbarrel, no M, no headquarters, no mission, whatever. Just tell a good story and stage some good action involving a James Bond who isn't a book of puns with a nice haircut. I am baffled by people's slavish devotion to utlimately insignificant franchise conventions.
Because the Bourne films do all that and they want some kind of differentiation?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › ADD BANKRUPTCY TO THE LIST OF VILLAINS BOND HAS THWARTED