CommanderBond.net

Variety Blows The Lid Off 'Bond 22'

Broccoli, Wilson, Forster, Haggis and Pascal discuss 007 - and whether Moneypenny and Q will return

Mostly it's a very reassuring insight into the current state of play and mind-set at Eon as they go through pre-production on Bond 22.

It is interesting to see that as of writing there is no Q or Moneypenny in it but it does have a Bond who Haggis describes as

"a very human and flawed assassin, a man who has to navigate a morally complex and often cynical world while attempting to hold onto his deep beliefs of what is right and wrong."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111797150...=1&nid=2562

Wilson on Fleming material in the new script “…Without getting specific, maybe there will be references to certain episodes. The approach to it is that Fleming is very much in the fabric of it."

This post has been edited by [dark]: 7 September 2007 - 16:45

I'm 100% there, they will use things from Live and Let Die and probably Goldfinger I'm sure. We wil have fun uncovering it on this board.

I must say that I always assumed BOND 22 would feature Moneypenny or Q, possibly both, but certainly one or the other, and that Craig would be playing a more or less "established" Bond, the same seasoned pro we see in the films DR. NO - DIE ANOTHER DAY. But now it looks as though BOND 22 will truly be CASINO ROYALE 2, and that CR will, therefore, not be the series' one and only BOND BEGINS outing. To echo a point I think was made by tdalton a while ago, I don't want the Craig era to be just an origin story era.

I know what you mean but... I feel sometimes people get too hung up on this idea that Daniel Craig will evolve "into the Bond we know and love"... I mean, maybe the Bond of Casino Royale is the new Bond, maybe he won't change all that much. It's not as if he's a bumbling idiot in CR. He is pretty much everything I want James Bond to be in that film.

Do I want to see him evolve into an invulnerable superspy? Not really.

This post has been edited by kneelbeforezod: 7 September 2007 - 12:51

I hear what you say man, people constantly thinking of Craig's Bond as a work in progress ... maybe that's how he'll be from now on as long as Craig's in the role. Wouldn't disappointed me much though, seeing Bond a little rougher around the edges works for me.

Indeed, zod, me neither.

CR is the origin point of the Craig era; I don't get the sense that they are aiming for an end point where Craig is recognisibly "the Bond we know and love" (whichever version of Bond that is ). He is going to continue on the arc set up in CR, slightly reckless, cocky, with emotional undertones, and presumably hiding some of the darkness under Bond's trademark defense mechanisms of booze, wit and womanizing

has it ever been confirmed that EON Productions actually stands for everything or nothing or anything for that matter?

good article although most of it was information from others we had already seen. since a lot of people read variety it will make them aware of all the stops EON seems to be pulling on Bond 22 (can we just get a title already please).

Well, it's not as if CR featured a wee little boy learning to walk. As you say, Craig is pretty much the pro, only the fresh pro. I think CR was the start of a different kind of way to tell Bond's story. Maybe that will change again in the future. But as it is, there seems to be a demand for this different direction at least for a couple of films. As far as I'm concerned I couldn't be more happy. On the other hand characters such as Monneypenny and Q can easily be introduced into the Bond 22 script and the whole tone of the next film altered should the need arise. We'll see what kind of movie will hit cinemas in '08.

I don't want anymore of those "Bond we know and love". That character have been emptied out, and rendered soulless ages ago. It's a boring, traditional, molded, unsurprising, predictable, yawning character only people who love institutions care about, and Bond was never supposed to be as boring as an institution. I wouldn't mind if they burned the negatives of all the Bond films past the sixties. It was all hapless, a travesty of the original, honest and original series, copy after copy after copy of everything that was done before.

Only seeing CR I got that brilliant sense of originality back. The connection have been reetablished to OHMSS. So sod the other Bond movies from the 70s, 80's, 90s, and let the golden age live again.

I like that article. Keep up the good work Barbara. Your mom and dad would have been very proud.

Didn't we get to see that type of Bond in Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, and You Only Live Twice- ie the Golden Age?

This post has been edited by Mike00spy: 7 September 2007 - 15:20

Well put, Stamper, I couldn't have said it better. I don't know about burning ALL the movies after the 60's... maybe just most of the Moore/Brosnan ones.