nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Spectre (Bond 24)

Sad Professor

A bit early for this perhaps, but with production set to start next Autumn for a 2014 release, we'll probably start to hear announcements re: title and director shortly.

Any thoughts on who - realistically - should direct? Keeping in mind that the director is usually British Commonwealth, or non-American at the very least. Mendes seems to have already ruled himself out.

I'd love to see Joe Wright do it. A great dramatic director (Atonement) who can also do action (Hanna). As a prominent British director, I'm sure he's already on their list, but he might be a bit too art-house for Eon.

It would be great to see Campbell come back, of course, but he's getting old and probably isn't interested in doing another Bond.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

OldeCinemaSoz

Possibly more to basics with FRWL like?!?!?

eviltimeban

Why not just watch FRWL then? Don't you want to see something new?

Jose Mourinho GOAT

Skyfall was rubbish. They need bring in some sort of Hank Scorpio character as the evil villain with a doomsday weapon built at a secret installation..

Jose Mourinho GOAT

FunLover18 wrote: »

Well, the Bond in a car thing had been done to death all together . But it you're referring to FYEO, Craig's favourite Bond is Moore so it wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to pay some sort of homage to that.

I hate when they "pay homage", what's the point, just make the bloody movie in its own terms.

FunLover18

Jose Mourinho GOAT wrote:

I hate when they "pay homage", what's the point, just make the bloody movie in its own terms.

One of the reasons I didn't like Skyfall, just one huge homage to 25 years when CR and QoS had done so well to distance themselves from all the silliness

ricero

The biggest problem with the latest films is he's not getting his end away enough. He needs to be riding more.

BuilderPlumber

astrofool wrote: »

Quantum of Solace basically had no villain, scream loudly and axe my own foot guy doesn't really count.

(and no, it didn't really work)

I enjoyed this film but there was no villain as such. Or plot. Bond was fighting an organisation like Irish Water rather than ISIS!

BuilderPlumber

An earlier poster noted that in reality, Bond would be fighting ISIS, al Qaeda and other 'Islamic' extremists. The films have never really focused on this theme and have rarely been set in the Middle East. Some hinted: here's a history of Bond's association with the Middle East:

From Russia with Love: actually set in Turkey moreso than Russia. But villains in it were Russians and SPECTRE.
Diamonds are Forever: Undisclosed locations some say was Japan and Iran at the beginning where Bond knocks Blofeld around a bit? But no reference to either of these as the location and no reference to any politics.
The Man with the golden gun: Lebanon features briefly but no mention of its politics.
The Spy Who Loved Me: set in Egypt but no Muslim Brotherhood working with Stromberg to be seen!
Octopussy: perhaps the closest Bond has come to battling al Qaeda apart from one later exception? Set in India mostly and featuring an exiled Afghan politician working with dissident Russians as the villain.
The Living Daylights: one of only 2 Bonds where actual ancestors of al Qaeda and Taliban feature. Set in Afghanistan, the story like Octopussy is based around dissident hardline Russians plotting to take over from the moderates but Bond has help from what to all intents and purposes were al Qaeda/Taliban (right down to the bin Laden supplied trucks!) to win the battle. This of course was in 1987 when al Qaeda were friends of the West!
Tomorrow never dies: Prior to 9/11, we see Bond uncover a nuclear weapon in Afghanistan where what basically are al Qaeda have set up an arms deal. Bond kills the terrorists and recovers the weapon and then this story is not continued for the rest of the film which focuses on a madman trying to cause a war between the West and China. The film has a few anti-Iran propaganda lines thrown in. Someone working out of Tehran is the line I think.
The World is not Enough: Set in Azerbaijan. Another anti-Iran and anti-Iraq remark features 'past the terrorists in Iran and Iraq' but the story then is based on non-political issues. The villain seems partly based on Serbian warlord Arkan who was one of the West's most dangerous enemies of the time.

The book Devil May Care was set in 1960s Iran. Iran under the Pahlavis was a Western ally. The book does not deal with 'Islamic' extremists in Iran and mainly deals with Russian villains.

The main reason for this? Early on, Islamic extremism was not a major issue. The West's main concerns were the communists and Russians. Later on, it was just feared. A book or film putting such 'Islamic' fascists as al Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban or Revolutionary Guards as the main enemy would not rest easy and would cause repercussions no one wants to risk. Ask Salman Rushdie when his life was changed by the Revolutionary Guards (and bear in mind, the RGs are the most moderate of the organisations listed here!). So, we will not be seeing Bond go to Syria and Iraq to tackle some self styled caliph with a nuclear device ready to wipe out London or wherever anytime soon.

Hidalgo

eviltimeban wrote: »

Also done in The Bourne Identity.

Just because small-car chase has been done before doesn't mean a new one can't be good.

Italian Job came waay before any Bourne car chase. (Chase in Paris with Bourne was top notch btw)

eviltimeban

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

'Islamic' extremists.

Two words: True Lies.

BuilderPlumber

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

Possibly more to basics with FRWL like?!?!?

Every time a new Bond film comes along, comparisons to older ones are inevitable. True, From Russia with Love was the second in the series and still one of its very best entries. Full of action, believable storylines and with Connery at his best, this set in motion for what was to come. Goldfinger came next and was another excellent entry. Dr No was a solid beginning but pales compared to FRWL and Goldfinger.

Already even by Thunderball, comparisons were being made and it is not perceived to be as good as its two predecessors. Although I don't see why this is the perception as it continues the excellence. You only live twice perhaps was the first to stray from Ian Fleming's original book a bit but both the film (more lighthearted than the revenge based book) and the book (a film of Bond focused on revenge for the killing of his wife like the YOLT book did was not made and was badly needed) were both excellent. On her majesty's secret service was almost identical to the book and is underrated mainly for 2 reasons: Connery is replaced and Bond does not win this time: he loses his wife in a hitman attack by his enemies at the film's end which was more of a Love/Hate ending than a Bond ending in style.

After this, the series kind of lost its way a little. Diamonds are forever had its moments but was too lighthearted as a follow up to its darker predecessor. As said, a revenge focused film was needed here and DAF was more a lighthearted action meets comedy film. Either was, it was Connery's last for a long time. Live and let die was Roger Moore's first and arguably best film. A non-nonsense thriller, it contrasted starkly with his next entries. The man with the golden gun was perhaps the weakest entry of the earlier Bonds. Not much action, not much of a plot (Scaramanga just seems to want to use solar power!) and copies of everything from Smokie and the Bandit to Bruce Lee, it was a long way from Ian Fleming's excellent last full book of the same name.

Then, the remakes kind of started. The spy who loved me was a good action film but it was Blofeld and SPECTRE revamped. Thunderball, YOLT and OHMSS rolled into one? Yes. Moonraker was TSWLM meets Star Trek/Star Wars complete with a SPECTRE-type enemy set in space. Again, a good action film but formulaic.

After this, attempts were made to bring the series back to basics. For your eyes only seemed to be an attempt to capture the feel of FRWL and it was a good entry. Octopussy was a good action film and worked well to combine Moore's two styles of film: TSWLM and FYEO. Obviously, the cold war was thawing by these films and the West and USSR helped each other out: Bond kills the bad Afghan exile but the good Russians take out the bad Russian general. A view to a kill sees Moore's Bond tired and largely out of the action. A good film but it was the villain Max Zorin who stole the show. Zorin shooting his own men with a machine gun went further than before in terms of violence. Never say never again meanwhile saw a remake of Thunderball and albeit good, it seemed that remakes seemed to be too common in this era.

Timothy Dalton took over next in The Living Daylights, an excellent film which again focused on bad v good struggles within Russia's establishment. The Afghan civil war features of course and the film had a Fleming feel to it. Licence to kill came next. A great film albeit one with more Miami Vice than Bond.

Pierce Brosnan's Goldeneye perhaps was the first ever not to have some Fleming basis. LTK was not a Fleming title but was based on a few Fleming short stories. Bond at last goes to Russia and the feel is part Roger Moore and part regular 1990s action film overall. Overall, I like. Tomorrow never dies was perhaps the best Brosnan Bond entry and overall had the feel of YOLT. The next 2 entries were poor: The world is not enough seemed to lack something and bordered on a silliness not seen in years. Much worse was Die another day with its invisible cars and North Koreans turning into English noblemen in disguise. Definitely, the worst entry.

Casino Royale then changed things. Daniel Craig's Bond was refreshing and revamped things after Brosnan had lost his way from 2 strong to 2 poor entries. Excellent action and updated but loyal to Fleming's original book, one can't help but wonder why it took so long to have this entry? A silly 1960s comedy version of CR does not count. Quantam of solace was a good action entry and a sure favourite of anti-Irish Water people! The enemy seemed to be only intent on accumulating water. John Tierney v 007 anyone!! It lacked a real plot but with all the explosive action, it kind of got away scot free with its poor storyline. Did not see Skyfall yet.

eviltimeban

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

snip

Good review. I largely agree with you; the Moore era was rather silly and even as a child seeing them in the cinema I thought some of them were a bit dumb. Too many double entendres and one liners, the very stuff that Austin Powers took the p*ss out of.

I think you'll like Skyfall. It has really grown in my estimation since it came out - it took me a few views to really like it though. There's good action, good acting, nice locations (the London setting is unique but pretty cool) and though the plot is a bit ridiculous in places the overall tone is good. Its a strong movie and obviously was crazy successful. They can pretty much go anywhere with the franchise now, though I'm glad Craig is playing Bond for the next two (at least).

conorhal

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Casino Royale then changed things. Daniel Craig's Bond was refreshing and revamped things after Brosnan had lost his way from 2 strong to 2 poor entries. Excellent action and updated but loyal to Fleming's original book, one can't help but wonder why it took so long to have this entry? A silly 1960s comedy version of CR does not count. Quantam of solace was a good action entry and a sure favourite of anti-Irish Water people! The enemy seemed to be only intent on accumulating water. John Tierney v 007 anyone!! It lacked a real plot but with all the explosive action, it kind of got away scot free with its poor storyline. Did not see Skyfall yet.

Quantam of Solace gets a bad wrap but it's really 'part 2' of Casino Royale. I like to think of it as a film that really needs to be watched directly after it's predecessor rather then a film in it's own right.

I have to say that I liked the 'Bourne-ing' of the series, while not quite breath of fresh air, it dispensed with the baggage and most of the really improbable and downright silly guff that had jut become cliche by that point of the series, which is why I really could not stand Skyfall, yes it was an anniversary Bond so of course there were going to be nods the rest of the series, but it's stupid villians with their overly elaborate and ill concieved plots, over the top stunt work and indestructible Bond felt like a step backwards rather then forwards.

eviltimeban

conorhal wrote: »

indestructible Bond felt like a step backwards rather then forwards.

I think the "showing Bond washed up" part was pretty good - he's pretty wrecked looking during the training in Mi6 section. Takes him a while to get his mojo back. Bond is normally suave and perfect in the other movies.

Wedwood

It's difficult, maybe unfair to compare 50 years of Bond films, as each was made in a different era and style of the day.

I'd like to think that whoever succeeds Craig as Bond might be placed back into the 1960's to give Bond a full re-boot.

BuilderPlumber

eviltimeban wrote: »

Good review. I largely agree with you; the Moore era was rather silly and even as a child seeing them in the cinema I thought some of them were a bit dumb. Too many double entendres and one liners, the very stuff that Austin Powers took the p*ss out of.

I think you'll like Skyfall. It has really grown in my estimation since it came out - it took me a few views to really like it though. There's good action, good acting, nice locations (the London setting is unique but pretty cool) and though the plot is a bit ridiculous in places the overall tone is good. Its a strong movie and obviously was crazy successful. They can pretty much go anywhere with the franchise now, though I'm glad Craig is playing Bond for the next two (at least).

I look forward to Skyfall and will buy it at Christmas. I know it is a good entry and I am just waiting for a time to watch it over Christmas on DVD. Daniel Craig is an excellent Bond and a great actor.

Roger Moore's films while many were good did suffer from daft attempts at comedy. Especially between him and either M or Q. I know that this was always part of things even in Ian Fleming's books (and a bit of comedy is always good in serious thrillers when placed strategically: I love that part of the second series of Love/Hate where Nidge's son goes to the toilet on an annoyed Santa and Nidge grins and says 'sorry Santa'!) but Moore took it too far and it kinda took from the films. I like Austin Powers too and he took it from Moore's comedy attempts. I sometimes wonder was that David Niven version of Casino Royale the influence on Moore's humour!!

Timothy Dalton was a very good Bond too. He was totally different to Moore and played an excellent revenge orientated Bond. He'd have been excellent in a sequel to OHMSS out to do in Blofeld for once and for all. The contrast with Moore was massive and I would have liked to have seen him do a few more.

BuilderPlumber

conorhal wrote: »

Quantam of Solace gets a bad wrap but it's really 'part 2' of Casino Royale. I like to think of it as a film that really needs to be watched directly after it's predecessor rather then a film in it's own right.

I have to say that I liked the 'Bourne-ing' of the series, while not quite breath of fresh air, it dispensed with the baggage and most of the really improbable and downright silly guff that had jut become cliche by that point of the series, which is why I really could not stand Skyfall, yes it was an anniversary Bond so of course there were going to be nods the rest of the series, but it's stupid villians with their overly elaborate and ill concieved plots, over the top stunt work and indestructible Bond felt like a step backwards rather then forwards.

I agree with this. Quantom of Solace is a sequel and needs to be viewed with a knowledge of Casino Royale. It is overall a great action film and has the distinction of being one of the shortest in the series too.

Before CR, the series had lost its way. There had been poor entries in the series (The man with the golden gun, The world is not enough) but nothing prepared us for Die another day. Not even the comedy CR from 1967. Die another day with invisible cars, North Korean English villains, a silly fencing sword fight and cliches from Dr No and other films, it really did feel like a bad ending to a great series back in 2002. While other entries were poor (meaning they were not the best but had some redeeming feature: a good chase, a good fight, a standout shootout, a good pretitle, a good villain or something), this thing had nothing to offer and is the only Bond film that is totally bad imo. Thankfully CR came along and rescued the series.

Iranoutofideas

The Brosnan films, apart from Goldeneye, are the worst in the series. From such a promising start they nosedived horribly.

BuilderPlumber

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

The Brosnan films, apart from Goldeneye, are the worst in the series. From such a promising start they nosedived horribly.

I like Goldeneye and Tomorrow never dies. Then, The World is not enough was very poor but Die another day took bad Bond film to a whole new dimension. I think the series was brave in 1987 when Timothy Dalton brought a new feel to things. But after License to kill, they got cold feet and went back to a film with the feel of Octopussy or The Spy Who loved me with Goldeneye (a good entry but very different to its more gritty 2 predecessors). While Goldeneye and Tomorrow never dies had the feel of one of Roger Moore's better films, The world is not enough had the feel of a poor 1990s formulaic action movie. And Die another day took things to a new level entirely. But why? How did the series nosedive so quickly back then?? But it takes a bad Bond film to have a good one. Everyone knew that Die another day was a misfire and the decision was either to end the series or reinvent.

No excuses can be made either for Brosnan's 2 last films: the actor was not getting old, he was not jaded out by Bond (he only made 4 films, the last 2 of which were the worst in the entire series) and he could not blame them as a product of the times (which can be used for The golden gun or for anyone who does not care for Moonraker).

Iranoutofideas

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I like Goldeneye and Tomorrow never dies. Then, The World is not enough was very poor but Die another day took bad Bond film to a whole new dimension. I think the series was brave in 1987 when Timothy Dalton brought a new feel to things. But after License to kill, they got cold feet and went back to a film with the feel of Octopussy or The Spy Who loved me with Goldeneye (a good entry but very different to its more gritty 2 predecessors). While Goldeneye and Tomorrow never dies had the feel of one of Roger Moore's better films, The world is not enough had the feel of a poor 1990s formulaic action movie. And Die another day took things to a new level entirely. But why? How did the series nosedive so quickly back then?? But it takes a bad Bond film to have a good one. Everyone knew that Die another day was a misfire and the decision was either to end the series or reinvent.

No excuses can be made either for Brosnan's 2 last films: the actor was not getting old, he was not jaded out by Bond (he only made 4 films, the last 2 of which were the worst in the entire series) and he could not blame them as a product of the times (which can be used for The golden gun or for anyone who does not care for Moonraker).

Tomorrow Never Dies was awful as well. Elliot Carver? Bond vs Rupert Murdoch for heavens sake

It was boring, remote control BMW included.

eviltimeban

Never saw TND or DAD.

Iranoutofideas

eviltimeban wrote: »

Never saw TND or DAD.

Die Another Die is the only movie that made me walk out of a cinema. It was that bad.

dastardly00

From The Irish Examiner:

The title of Bond 24 is to be announced this week at a special press conference attended by Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig.

Fans will have a feverish wait until Thursday when the name of the 24th film will be announced during an event to be broadcast live online from Pinewood Studios, which has long been the home for 007 hits.

Members of the cast will be present as the production team assembles at the studio to launch the follow-up to Skyfall at 11am. Filming will begin four days later.

BuilderPlumber

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

Tomorrow Never Dies was awful as well. Elliot Carver? Bond vs Rupert Murdoch for heavens sake

It was boring, remote control BMW included.

I admit I enjoyed Tomorrow Never Dies but see what you mean here. The positives about the film included good action sequences and it had the feel of a Bond movie. But there were negatives and these planted the seeds for the next 2 disasters: yes, the remote control car was tacky and the Rupert Murdoch villain was silly and I don't really see what this Rupert Murdoch gone Blofeld actually meant? Plus the storyline was heavily borrowed from You only live twice and also Bond girl was akin to The spy who loved me (except she was Chinese instead of Russian). Basically, in my view the film was good and entertaining but not original and diverted to silliness every now and again. Certainly FAR from being the best in the series but definitely not the worst either. The worst parts of this film were exaggerated for the next 2 of course: remote control car became an invisible one.

With regard to Goldeneye: good too overall but did also show signs of silliness that sowed the roots for Brosnan's last 2 disasters. The 00 agent who goes to the bad side and hardly recognised by Bond for example. This only egged them on to have story which features a North Korean wannabe dictator turn into an Englishman! I can't see Kim do that and go unnoticed somehow!

BuilderPlumber

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

Die Another Die is the only movie that made me walk out of a cinema. It was that bad.

It is an awful film. I watched it several times and tried to like it or see something good in it (The world is not enough is my second least favourite but even here, there's not much good but it has a few ok moments whereas Die another day has nothing). At the start, we have a poor homage to POW and Rambo type films with a deshevelled Bond locked in a prison camp. Then he gets out in a prisoner swap and we get repeats of the plots of Moonraker, Diamonds are forever, Goldfinger and others as well as direct copies of scenes from Dr No and others. Then, its invisible cars, silly sword fights and silly chameleon villains. The climax is also boring and an anticlimax (as was the case with The world is not enough) plus the film is overlong. Brosnan seemed not all that pushed about his role either. Poor, poor Bond film (in direct comparison, The man with the golden gun is a classic) and one of the worst films of its era and type.

eviltimeban

dastardly00 wrote: »

From The Irish Examiner:

Getting back to speculation, I wonder will they announce that this will be a two-parter? That's the rumour anyway. PLUS, I reckon they'll end part one on a cliff hanger - that'd be pretty good.

wowy

Andrew Scott (Irish actor, played Moriarty from Sherlock) rumoured to be playing a villain.

SimonTemplar

Brosnan's movies got progressively worse. GoldenEye is one of my favorites. Tomorrow Never Dies had some decent elements (Michelle Yeoh's character, media magnate creating news, Dr Kaufman scene). The World Is Not Enough was very messy and Die Another Day wasn't even watchable.

I think Brosnan was very unlucky with the scripts he had to work with. He is a very capable actor but the poor writing has tainted his era as Bond. I think he would have excelled with more realistic and gritty movies. Also Quantum of Nonsense had all the hallmarks of a bad Brosnan movie.

ricero

new bond movie called spectre

fantastic cast also announced christoph waltz, andrew scott and of course wwe wrestler dave batista

dastardly00