It has been a while since we heard anything solid about a new James Bond installment. We know that MGM has been having some issues and Daniel Craig has stated several times that he doesn't mind being replace. So what's really going on?
After their performances in the Broadway play "A Stead Rain," both Craig and Hugh Jackman were outside signing autographs and posing for photos with fans. That's when a woman in the crowd asked Craig when a new James Bond film will be released.
"We start at the end of next year," he replied. Watch the video below to see whole thing for yourself. His answer is at the 55 second mark.
This will be the third James Bond film starring Craig. The first was "Casino Royale," which earned $594 million; the second was "Quantum of Solace," which took in $586 million.
thebreachwrites: on October 23rd, 2009 at 6:41:41 PM
i liked them both and i think craig makes one the the best bonds behind sean connery. casino royale was better, it had better characters and script. looking forward to the next one. i think they will fix any errors from the last one
About time, good thing is it won't be the director from Quantum, sad thing is they won't bring back Casino's director. Hated the second loved the first, so I guess this will be the decider for me on his Bond movies.
Well... QoS couldn't have sucked that bad. It almost made $600mil. as well. I know, I know, people go out of loyalty and they get your money first before you find out a movie sucks. But still... if it sucked THAT bad, word-of-mouth would have cost some at the box office. Apparently it didn't.
nope.comwrites: on October 23rd, 2009 at 9:05:07 PM
Loved Casino Royale, liked QoS... now get Bond to being the Bond we know (gadgets, Q, Moneypenny, etc)
vwkombiwrites: on October 23rd, 2009 at 9:36:42 PM
I never watched Quantum of Solace, but Casino Royale was the cinematic equivalent to my Year 10 English class. Sucky as hell.
Yeah i have no idea what the hell people are on about when they say it sucked or it was the worst movie ever. Seriously, it wasn't that bad, and it was pretty dam good. A lot of cmplaints came from not having the opening bond montage, when he shoots at teh camera. Seriously who give the f*ck?
The thing about QoS is that it never works a Bond film, because of the constant Casino Royale references. However if the film is watched as an extension to Casino Royale, and I mean as a double bill, it works wonders.
P.S: I still dont give a sh*t about the Bolivian water supply.
lawmanwrites: on October 24th, 2009 at 12:41:36 PM
I thought they both were fantastic. Casino Royale was the better of the two but they both were very good. I never was a big JB fan until these movies. JB always came off as campy most of the time (and yes, I have watched them all). I think Craig is the best bond so far. Dont get me wrong, Connery was great, but you would think a super spy would be a little more, well, mean and gritty. Craig is it. I like the fact that he seems well trained in something other than being smooth and f*cking chicks (not that that is bad training for one to have). Connery fought in his movies but it was always like a scared, dodgy, brawl. Craigs Bond fights like someone has taught him some violent sh*t! I digress, I am looking forward to the next bond.
Your raves for Craig are very well founded, but know that he evolved from the Connery Bond. Everything you said about the old Bonds was true (and Connery's Bond's fighting) - campy, etc.
But Craig is what he is because he's the evolution of the standard that Connery set (and all other Bonds (except maybe Lazenby) failed to meet.
Craig is the best thing to happen to Bond since Connery not doubt. But comparisons aren't that fair. They each had their unique contributions to the character.
And because MGM runs their finances about as well as Nick Coppola... a lot of the future may sit on Craig's broad shoulders.
vwkombiwrites: on October 24th, 2009 at 11:23:00 PM
While i agree with your sentiments on the evolution of James Bond, i still feel Casino Royale was an extremely pointless movie.
What made the original James Bond so great were the women, the gadgets, the suave smooth talking and the general over the top style.
Casino Royale however, scrapped all that. They turned James Bond into a poor Bourne imitation, made the villian a sissy emo kid and replaced chases scenes with epic scenes of poker playing.
The entire film felt like an insult to my intelligence. I was suppose to believe that instead of shooting the terrorist in the face ("Assassinate him") they would send a secret agent to stop him from winning money to fund his organization. But not only that, they would send a secret agent who plays great poker as oppose to an actual poker player who could mop the floor with the emo kids bitch haircut.
Casino Royale was flawless. I remember going to see it opening weekend with my dad (who I watched every single James Bond film with during my adolescence) and we were just blown away. Unbelievable story, incredible action, and a great turn by Craig who I had seen before, but to my dad he was an unknown. He had never proved himself in anything I had seen him in prior (Road to Perdition, Layer Cake) but I thought (and think) he makes a fantastic Bond. Quantum of Solace suffered because of it's runtime in my opinion. There was never time to breathe, plus making it a direct sequel was not a smart move. I had so many friends tell me it was the worst movie they'd ever seen because they couldn't remember all the trivial events of Casino Royale (I myself did because I've seen the film about 20 times since its initial release). Quantum of Solace was decent, but definitely a disappointment and not nearly as good as Casino Royale. My dad enjoyed it and said it was fun, but I went in hoping for something equivalent to Casino Royale, but instead I got an 100 minute action sequence with no familiar "Bondisms." I'm gonna hope they'll spend time on this one.