Old news is old, but the next Bond film needs to come out asap before Dainel Craig becomes another Timothy Dalton in the Bond Franchise.
^or worse, George Lazenby. MGM played with their money like a piss poor monopoly game. bought everything that had a price tag, then when a legitimate bill came in, they had to mortgage it all just to cover it. i just wish someone would buy the franchise and save it. Daniel Craig impressed me in CR. (that foot chase at the beginning, ftw) and i am intrigued to see where he could take the bond mythos.
Works for me. Craig was terrible and the direction they were going with the franchise was not great either.
And I agree with you. My Father and I were just having a discussion about this topic yesterday, and he said they should sell off the property to someone who will take good care of it, and give it the proper funding it deserves. He also said that while he thought Craig was impressive (and he is), he still prefers Pierce. (We both do.) He made an excellent point "Remember the Superman movies? That last one, it was a sequel to 2 and cut off 3 and 4 like they never existed. They could do that here. People are so stupid anymore, that if the next Bond film was a continuation of Brosnan's last outing, and it was made well enough, people wouldn't even notice." He's right. Now, he wasn't aiming that at us, he could tell from what he read that we're all intelligent enough to pick up on it, but your average movie goer? They don't care. If they're entertained, they just don't care. So, instead of continuing on with Craig's Bond, I'd like to see them go back to a classy Brit, using gadgets, and having a good old time. Though, I will admit, Casino Royale showed me that you could gave a good Bond film without gadgetry and get by on the story, but that was quickly debunked when QoS came along. Gadgets would've been nice just to ensure you didn't fall asleep. And they could put gadgets back in. We've come up with so many new innovations that aren't intrusive, and would fit well with Bond. Heck, if Burn Notice can slap a camera on a toy plane and use it for reconnaissance and have it make for a great moment, they could do the same with a Bond movie. If you change too much of what makes Bond, Bond, you'll end up with The Bourne Identity, and quite frankly, three of those was enough. No thanks.
This "Bond 23" is sounding an awful lot like Goldeneye and Casino Royale. In both cases, years and years had passed since the previous Bond movie, and the producers were assuring us that another movie would be coming. And I have no doubt that another James Bond movie will happen. James Bond will continue to have adventures long after we're all gone. But with both Goldeneye and Casino Royale, too much time had passed and power changed hands too many times. By the time Goldeneye was made, it was no longer the "sequel to License to Kill" that it was supposed to be, and Casino Royale was no longer the "Quentin Tarantino and Pierce Brosnan make a 1960s period piece" it was supposed to be. I have no doubt that Bonds 23, 24, and (eventually) Bond 30 will happen, someday, but Bond 23 currently seems to be fated to be another Goldeneye. That being said, I'd like to see Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig back, but if they're unwilling (or if contractual stuff is too complicated), there was a recent story that Chris Nolan wants to do James Bond. I could think of a worse team than Nolan and Bale working on 007.