They have no idea where to go

[Jedi007]

Asked whether the Bond he portrays would stay monogamic in the next films, Craig said: "We have plenty of time in the next installment to tell that story [of Bond sleeping with women]. We introduced the "new Bond" properly with these two films, so now everything is possible: hollowed-out volcanoes, undersea lairs, characters such as Q and Moneypenny. All this could return to the franchise. I would love if we reinvented these two charachters. But we would need to get the best actors around for these roles."

Yup. That came from Danny Boy. And I thought they were trying to get away from this kind of stuff. He just have no idea what he is talking about, or they just don't know what to do with the franchise after trying to "Bourne"-ize it and FAILED. Yup. They failed.

http://commanderbond.net/article/5770

And by the way, Danny Boy looks very old and ugly in the background pic.

[Kristatos]

I've heard him make these sorts of statements before. The assumption was that the reboot etc was to please Craig because he's a serious ac-tor and it would be beneath him to participate in a Bond film that the proles could enjoy, but I actually wonder whether that's really the case. He seems more open to making a traditional Bond film than someone like Marc Forster would be.

[katied]

EON have no idea what they are doing.Daniel Craig is just going along with it.Not toeing the EON company line is a bad idea.Not that they would fire him(or would they? ) for buying into their B.S.


I think they DO want to go back to Moneypenny and Q,but I'm a little scared,given the fact that their track record isn't exactly the best as of late

[Blowfeld]

Daniel does look very haggard in their background image.


Unquestionably not the image Ian had in mind for Bond. At all. Hard to believe anyone who takes Ian seriously can consider Daniel as anything more than a lark. Than again these tend to be franchise fans and not necessarily Bond fans pre say.

The whole concept of 'we introduced the new Bond and now can go reintroduce what the fans want', (which is the classic Bond as portrayed by Sean, Pierce and those other blokes) is laughably absurd coming from these people. Especially after their 4 year multimillion dollar campaign to sell the re-branded Bourne-Bond

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

I'm undecided whether Craig enjoys bieng Bond or not. He may be like Pierce Brosnan in that Bond provided the opportunity to step into the spotlight. As Kristatos said, he may not be in Bond simply for the challenge of taking in serious direction and may be open to any type of Bond movie as he enjoys the limelight. Let's be honest, he has nothing else to do.

Eon always had the chance to go back to the classic Bond formula, and that formula will be plucked from the Eon archives and dusted off soon. Unfortunately Daniel Craig will suck all the fun and charm out of it.

[katied]

They'll get desperate, go back to the old(tiredish) formula and have it fail.The diehards and people who like the old school Bond will love it.

[Mazer Rackham]

They are stuck. RoboBond ran out of gas far sooner than they expected. Now they have to go back to the old railing system they tried to wreck, problem is they hired exactly wrong man for the job. The audience wants a charming, charismatic, ultra cool Bond and what they have on hand is Daniel Craig who has the luster of soggy charcoal.

Never forget they fundamentally changed the role, well not just the role the whole damned series to suit a man incapable of portraying the character as it always was. The tag line that Craig is "Bond as Fleming envisions" is complete rubbish. Obvious to anyone who read his books or ever had occasion to talk with the man. But the marketing is stronger than actual history and pop culture welcome revisionists and False memory syndrom sufferers with open arms.

They do not really want to go back to making Bond movies but they ran out of ideas and the loud voice of a dissatisfied public had captured their attention for the moment. But look at who they are trying to hire, artsy directors and writers who really have no clue about Bond or action films. That is why forester went so badly wrong. Unfortunately the current Bond base is where Cubby always dreamed of having it, able to put out absolute crap and still make money. It is not going to last and the franchise will suffer over all because of the Craig experiment.

[katied]

That is why forester went so badly wrong. Unfortunately the current Bond base is where Cubby always dreamed of having it, able to put out absolute crap and still make money. It is not going to last and the franchise will suffer over all because of the Craig experiment.

The Gruesome Twosome(Mikey and Babs) will wind up hiring another Forster type for Bond 23, have the film fail and wonder why it's a flop.Some things never change.

[bjmdds]

Look at a hard boiled egg long enough and you get the same boredom as watching Craig attempting to be a classy Bond. The very fact that he is saying these things proves we were right, Craig and Eon were wrong, and the first step in Bond reunification to normalcy is Craig's departure. IF they keep him, and IF they wait until 2011 to release his You Only Bourne Twice, they will be perpetuating this farce on the historic franchise. Even Sweeney turned on QOS, whether or not Craig was the cause. Broccoli and Wilson made LESS money with a HIGHER budget than CR and FAILED to achieve what they wanted. Craig's 2 films did do over $1 billion at the box office and I still am surprised about that.

[katied]

You Only Bourne Twice will be hated.It will have its defenders, of course

[007]

Never forget they fundamentally changed the role, well not just the role the whole damned series to suit a man incapable of portraying the character as it always was.

Not that they'd ever admit it. You'd think he looked like Cary Grant.

[katied]

I worry about Barbara Broccoli.If Craig is anything to go by, we're in for fugly Bonds until she dies/retires.

[Captain Nash]

Do I see the presence of the mythical dcinb crystal ball at play?

[katied]

Not that they'd ever admit it. You'd think he looked like Cary Grant.

LOL not even from a distance.*especially* not from a distance.

[Mazer Rackham]

I've heard him make these sorts of statements before. The assumption was that the reboot etc was to please Craig because he's a serious ac-tor and it would be beneath him to participate in a Bond film that the proles could enjoy, but I actually wonder whether that's really the case. He seems more open to making a traditional Bond film than someone like Marc Forster would be.

I think he is responding more to the criticism and idea of a next paycheck than any actual affection for or desire to make real Bond movies. This is the guy who came on board and said Bond has got to change and who hadn't watched a Bond movie since the 70's. Who said he watched all of the Movies after he got the role then chucked them out. But still can't name any of them or recognize them plots and set locations without a teleprompter with the answers directly in front of him.

Marc Forster was out of his depth and he knows it. He fallen back on the ol "I won't do the next one because they want to do something different", routine. And it is a good out for him and them. But the truth is he was rubbish and the world knows it.

The problem for Bond fans is the producers were out of ideas long before DAD and were scrambling for years to stay afloat. The reboot was a recent Hollywood kitsch with limited potential. They hit the wall with CR and then beat them selves to a bloody pulp with Quark by slamming it to that brick wall repeatedly.

[carl stromberg]

They really struggled for ideas with Quantum of Solace. They wanted to keep some of the feel of Casino Royale after it's success, but ended padding out the film with mindless action scenes and a muddled continuation of the Casino Royale (the 2006 film) story.

[Captain Nash]

They really struggled for ideas with Quantum of Solace. They wanted to keep some of the feel of Casino Royale after it's success, but ended padding out the film with mindless action scenes and a muddled continuation of the Casino Royale (the 2006 film) story.

It doesn't happen very often, but for once I totally agree with you Stromberg.
QOS was a mess.
Never thought you'd see me say that did ya.

[katied]

They really struggled for ideas with Quantum of Solace.

That's an understatement!

They wanted to keep some of the feel of Casino Royale after it's success, but ended padding out the film with mindless action scenes and a muddled continuation of the Casino Royale (the 2006 film) story.

And therein lies the problem.I'd never thought I'd say this, but there IS such a thing as too much action in the Bond films.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

They really struggled for ideas with Quantum of Solace. They wanted to keep some of the feel of Casino Royale after it's success, but ended padding out the film with mindless action scenes and a muddled continuation of the Casino Royale (the 2006 film) story.

It doesn't happen very often, but for once I totally agree with you Stromberg.
QOS was a mess.
Never thought you'd see me say that did ya.

I thought you gave it a positve review? Did you change your mind on further viewings like The Sweeney?

[katied]

thought you gave it a positve review? Did you change your mind on further viewings like The Sweeney?

I think changing ones' opinion about whether you liked QOS is a pretty common thing