<LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/arts/ … ref=slogin”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/arts/20arts-005.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</LINK_TEXT>
007 Director Named
Published: June 20, 2007
Marc Foster has been chosen to direct the 22nd James Bond screen adventure. Mr. Foster’s credits include “Stranger Than Fictionâ€
Sweet…I guess…
Dammit, they should just stick with one director.
ehhh…wish they would’ve stuck with Martin Campbell
[quote=“ailemrac07”]
ehhh…wish they would’ve stuck with Martin Campbell
[/quote]
Damn straight. Foster is just far too velveeta-mayo to direct Bond films IMO.
John Glen did like 5 bond flicks in a row. Why can’t they let Campbell do the same?
Who knows.
teaser poster
they better cut the “ooooh, we’re so realistic” bullcrap in this one, and bring back the gadgets. James Bond is supposed to be an charismatic intelligent tough spy who uses gadgets and explosions to kill people, and he treats women like objects. Bring back the old Bond, I say.
[quote=“Crazy Kenneth”]
they better cut the “ooooh, we’re so realistic” bullcrap in this one, and bring back the gadgets. James Bond is supposed to be an charismatic intelligent tough spy who uses gadgets and explosions to kill people, and he treats women like objects. Bring back the old Bond, I say.
[/quote]
I think Inspector Gadget II may be more right up your sleeve.
[quote=“Scarface”]
I think Inspector Gadget II may be more right up your sleeve.
[/quote]
Inspector Gadget is a comedy about a dork. James Bond is about a spy who rules because he can get out of any situation without even a scratch and then goes to fuck a hot woman.
[quote=“Crazy Kenneth”]
James Bond is about a spy who rules because he can get out of any situation without even a scratch and then goes to fuck a hot woman.
[/quote]
He did both in Casino Royale.
i just pointed out the main differences for me between Inspector Gadget and Bond.
Ok, so you just want more gadgets then. Hopefully no invisible cars or submarine Lotuses though.
The gadgets are so fucking cliche’ anyway. Bond always has the perfect gadget at the right time. Lame. It’s like you know exactly what Bond is gonna do later on in some action scene as soon as Q gives him some new toy to play with at the beginning of the film.
a car who can become invisible is a tad too much, but machine guns and missile launchers are standard.
Bond is all about cliches. There should be an bad guy who pets his cat and runs a huge facility that blows up in the end, which ultimately saves the world. there should be sihouettes of naked girls dancing in the opening credits. Bond should make one-liners before killing bad guys and have a smart answer all the time.
Daniel Craig is no english gentelman, he’s a blonde ape. Brosnan was a perfect cast, too bad the last Bonds with him were silly action movies.
I actually liked Casino Royale, but it was not a James Bond movie for me. It will be interesting if this rugged guy Craig portrayed will eventually become more like Bond - worldly and well-mannered.
[quote=“Crazy Kenneth”]
they better cut the “ooooh, we’re so realistic” bullcrap in this one, and bring back the gadgets. James Bond is supposed to be an charismatic intelligent tough spy who uses gadgets and explosions to kill people, and he treats women like objects. Bring back the old Bond, I say.
[/quote]
Firstly, Casino Royale WAS bringing back the old Bond. Go take another look at the pre-Goldfinger films (Dr. No, From Russia With Love). Those films were before the gadgets became so much of Bond. The books were never really like that. Casino Royale was an attempt at bringing back the part of Bond that got lost in later films.
The novel is definitely very sexist also, in a fifties kind of way. That to me is a part of Bond, but also something that doesn’t translate well to modern times.
And even though Bond was “charismatic, intelligent and tough” in the films, I think the Casino Royale film was trying to make true on Ian Fleming’s statement that Bond was never a hero. He was merely a blunt object for the government to manipulate. That’s why he had no trouble with writing the inevitable torture scenes in all his novels.
I think James Mangold would be a good and very plausible choice to direct Bond 23.
That poster makes me think of a tagline: JIMMY CAGNEY… IS… Bond, James Bond Agent 007
can’t wait to see this. the trailers have been great
did I mention I watched this twice in the meantime and fucking loved it? it kicked ass! it was a bit short, and he doesnt get the woman at the end like roger moore always did but still… hell yeah bond!
[quote=“Sebastian”]
did I mention I watched this twice in the meantime and fucking loved it? it kicked ass! it was a bit short, and he doesnt get the woman at the end like roger moore always did but still… hell yeah bond!
[/quote]
Nooooo, you loved Quantum of Solace? I think this was one of the worst films I seen in the cinema last year. It was just another boring action flick with zero story development.