Cinematical Seven: Seven Pieces of Advice for the Makers of Bond '22'
Filed under: Action, MGM, Cinematical Seven, Lists, Daniel Craig

So, the 22nd James Bond film is in pre-production, with director Marc Forster already talking about locations and Bond Girls and more. But there have been disquieting notes and murmurs from the Bond camp -- filling Bond fans with dire contemplation of slightly grim possibility that Casino Royale's excellence may not be so easy to recapture. As a long-time Bond-watcher, I thought I'd draft a sort of open letter to the Bond production team about some very specific things they could do to make sure that Bond 22 maintains 007's freshly-renewed license to thrill. ...
1) Bulk Up the Bad Guy
If one thing hurt Casino Royale's air of excellence, it was the fairly disappointing physical mis-match between Daniel Craig's hulking, burly Bond and Mads Mikkelsen's pallid, frail Le Chiffre. Whoever your bad guys is this time around, please -- cast someone who looks like they could offer Craig's Bond a fairly even match in a fight. (One of the reasons GoldenEye worked as well as it did was Sean Bean's scary-competent, lean and wicked rogue 006 -- an extremely credible nemesis in both the brain and brawn departments.) Film-closing throw-downs aren't just fun, they're necessary -- we all want to see good and evil mix it up -- and nothing deflates the tension in an action film faster than knowing, at one glance, that our villain would fold up like a cheap tent after taking one punch. The producers of Bond 22 could try to save on the budget by hiring an unknown, but they shouldn't skimp on the tension by hiring someone who has less physical presence and capability than the formidable Mr. Craig.
2) Keep it Real ...
The Bond films at the end of the Brosnan run felt less like spy movies and more like idiotic variations on Saturday morning TV -- Die Another Day's plot of gene-spliced villains wearing electricity-shooting exoskeletons felt less like Ian Fleming and more like Stan Lee. And it's hard to imagine audiences accepting something like the plots of The Spy Who Loved Me or Moonraker, either, where the entire world was in peril and every life on the planet depended on Bond saving the day. Casino Royale had the balance right: lives were at stake, yes, but not millions of them; the stakes were comprehensible, and thereby much more affecting than grandiose, Dr. Evil-style schemes.
3) ... But Not Too Real
At the same time, the Bond films can't be too ripped-from-the headlines; escapism (which, at the end of the day, is what the Bond films are) is enhanced by realism, but poisoned by reality. Or, put another way: Do you really want to see Bond in the mountains of Pakistan, hunting Al-Quaeda? Of course not; it's an insult to the audience, the people actually trying to do that job, and pretty much everyone involved. Bond 22 should take place in a world that feels like our own; it should not take place in our world.
4) There's No 'Q' in 'Reboot'
Even with my happy memories of Desmond Llewelen's Major Boothroyd -- 'Q' to friends and co-workers -- you have to admit that those scenes also represented a gear-grinding stall in almost every Bond movie -- narrative momentum given up in favor or raised eyebrows and expensive throw-away sight gags. If the makers of Bond 22 decide to return to the past of the series and give us a 'Q' division scene -- gadgets and exposition, gags and banter -- then they'll find out, to their peril and ours, how swiftly some old roots can strangle the life out of new growth. I'm not saying there's no need for high-tech in the Bond series -- Casino Royale's portable defibrillator was as handy as it was cool -- but you can have high-tech without having high camp.
5) Fire the Writers
Neal Purvis and Robert Wade have written several 007 films -- notably The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day, two of the worst entries in the history of the series. Under Wade and Purvis, the Bond formula became appallingly watered-down and tarted-up. (Plus, they managed to bite that hand that feeds them by taking a break to write the Rowan Atkinson Bond 'spoof" Johnny English, and turn disdain for their other assignment into a paycheck.) I don't know why it is Wade and Purvis keep getting these gigs -- I suspect that the producing team lead by the Broccoli heirs are comfortable with them -- but their familiarity with the series has turned into a kind of contempt for the character and the audiences. They're listed as being on the payroll for Bond 22, and they frankly shouldn't be. I'm not sure who you'd replace them with -- rumors had rom-com expert Richard Curtis being offered a gig on Bond 22 -- but the ugly fact is that they need to be thrown off the series, and fast -- when you know you're riding the gravy train, you're not going to go anywhere interesting.
6) No Funny Stuff
There's been some contention of if Daniel Craig was joking when he offered in an interview with The Daily Express that "They [the producers] just want more gags. The next one's going to be a lot funnier. Octopussy and Pussy Galore-style gags. They're all great names -- but that's the thing, the Bond jokes will be flipped on their heads. ... " Was Craig joking? Well, I hope so; if anything killed the Bond series, it was the focus on comedy that came with the aging of the wheezy, crepuscular Roger Moore -- who, as the series progressed, became much more comfortable with a limp one-liner than a stiff right cross. That's not to say that you can't have bleak comedy in a modern Bond -- Dame Judi Dench, playing the busy, harried head of intelligence, spitting out her sentiment "Christ, I miss the Cold War. ..." was a wickedly sharp laugh line that also help define the film's feel -- but the second you start going for laughs in and of themselves, you might as well just put Mike Myers in the role.
7) Keep Daniel Craig Happy
By which I mean, ask him about what he'd like to see in the films; ask him if he things plot points x or y are a good idea; where he'd like to see Bond's character go. Brosnan grew amazingly frustrated with the Broccoli's insistence that Bond couldn't have a history or a sense of a past -- and that frustration is no doubt what led to his sleepwalking through his last two films, trading actual work for paycheck-earning clock-punching. Right now, for better or for worse (and I'd say 'better,') Craig is Bond -- and if you want him to be good in the films, and you want him to keep making the films, then start asking him what he wants, and soon -- before he, too, turns into a tuxedo-clad cutout you can move from scene to scene, joke to joke, with his broken spirit slashing the life out of the series.
Do you think there's anything that the people behind Bond 22 need to keep in mind as they prepare to launch?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-20-2007 @ 12:11PM
matthew m. barnes said...
i agree with much of what you say, but i loved the Q scenes almost every time and i missed them in Casino Royale. bring Q back. the rest, i agree with.
Reply
8-20-2007 @ 11:35AM
sean said...
"And it's hard to imagine audiences accepting something like the plots of From Russia With Love or Moonraker, either, where the entire world was in peril and every life on the planet depended on Bond saving the day."??
Have you actually seen From Russia With Love?
It's one of the best AND smallest in scope of the Bond films, a wonderful little squabble between secret service agencies (British, KGB/SMERSH, and SPECTRE).
It's totally not what you made it out to be here.
Reply
8-20-2007 @ 11:50AM
James Rocchi said...
Sean: You're right -- I was thinking of The Spy Who Loved Me, and the article's been amended. I'm a huge fan of From Russia With Love (esp. Robert Shaw as Red Grant,) but 'Love' makes fools of us all. ...
Thanks,
James
Reply
8-20-2007 @ 11:55AM
YouFaceTheTick said...
I agree with everything but the fist-fight showdown climax crap with the nemesis. I despise how most action/thriller/spy movies end that way. Totally hate it.
Reply
8-20-2007 @ 1:11PM
David Lee said...
Regarding your comments on Purvis & Wade, you are clearly not in the loop as to how Die Another Day and Johnny English developed. Read their interviews! DAD was taken over by Lee Tamahori and he brought in the stupid CGI ice surfing and invisible car. Johnny English was a totally different film before a director and new writer were brought onboard post 9/11. So next time you leve criticsims, aim in the right place :)
Reply
8-20-2007 @ 9:02PM
mike green said...
the best advise is always keep it serious
in casino royale bond was a devil on the side of the angels, it should stay that way
Reply
8-20-2007 @ 4:35PM
LordPaul said...
Point 1:
I'm pretty sure bond only fights hand to hand with a few of the main badguys - mot have henchmen to do their bidding or guns/weapons. I like it when the main baddie is an intellectual with power hunger (& I think that's usually the point)
Reply
8-20-2007 @ 5:50PM
David Cornelius said...
I'm with the other commenters re: point 1. The Goldeneye fight was an exception, not a rule (although a very good exception it was). There's something far more sinister about a frail man like Le Chiffre being able to best a physical specimen like Bond.
(Of course, the best way to do it is to change it up every film, so bad guys don't come off like carbon copies of each other...)
Reply
8-20-2007 @ 7:48PM
katied said...
1)Re the "more humour" thing"..it was a JOKE!!!!!!Also, the article did NOT originate in the Daily Excess,I mean Express.It was in a Interview article.Do you d@mn research.
2)The producers haven't indicated that either Q or Monneypenny are coming back.
3)Daniel Craig HAS had some say about what goes in the films(the posters for one thing)
4)Trust me, EON(the producers of the Bond films) learned their lesson with Die Another Day.
Reply
8-21-2007 @ 10:41PM
Lillian said...
Before this version of Casino Royale came along, I couldn't have cared less about James Bond, even with the hiring of the very talented Mr. Craig. I wouldn't have paid to see it. I wouldn't have bought the special two-disc DVD. I probably wouldn't have even rented it as a two-for-one.
It was Mads Mikkelsen's reputation as an actor and the promise of an un-Bond-like villain that convinced me to see the the movie. Once I saw the on-screen chemistry between him and Daniel Craig, I was sold on the new Bond.
I plan on seeing #22, but without as complex and intriguing a villain as LeChiffre....
By the way, Mr. Mikkelsen was a competitive gymnast in his youth, a professional dancer for eight years, and is still an avid athlete. I think that physical confidence translates well on-screen. Maybe it's just me, but even though LeChiffre needed to use an inhaler he never came across to me as physically weak. And in the torture scene when he pulled out a knife it didn't look like he was afraid to do his own "wet" work. I'd venture to say he made his bones just like Bond did.
Reply
8-21-2007 @ 3:22AM
bongo123 said...
I loved Casino Royale, defo best bond yet but am i the only guy on the planet that actually thought Timothy Dalton played an fantastic bond as well, i loved his darker more menacing bond over the rest except of course the excellent Craig
Reply
8-21-2007 @ 7:40AM
Benjamin said...
I'd agree that Le Chiffre fizzled out. But, just to be clear, that was a fault with the writing and not with Mikkelsen, who could have been as tough as you like. If you can bear the thought, re-watch the recent King Arthur and you'll see what I mean.
Reply
8-21-2007 @ 11:17AM
Mark1959 said...
I would say that firing the writers is simply not going to happen this time, as the script is finished. Fortunately, Haggis is going to do a script polish, so I expect another fine movie. I like your points about keeping it real but not too real. It is a fine line, but CR did it well. As for no Q or Moneypenny, I don't know: certainly Q was an invention of the movie makers. There was an armourer named Boothroyd in the books, but he was a relatively minor character who did not appear in them all and certainly did not provide all the fantastic movie gadgets. It could be done well, I think. For instance, though the non-speaking character has no name in CR, when Craig gets the tracking device inserted into his arm and says "Owww" , the look on the technician's face is priceless. A few offhand lines there would not have slowed things down. But the one thing you did omit was time. CR flew by for me, but was a tad lengthy. I repeatedly heard folks say it was about twenty minutes too long. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Reply
8-21-2007 @ 11:59AM
bill said...
They should bring Q back. CR had the best dry or British wit type of humor since the 60s. Since GE Brosnan never had a good Q scene because they were always forced into the movie. It got ridiculous with how many 'staples' of the series were forced into TND-DAD. A good Q scene like in FRWL or something would be great. To go along with that I hope that classic type gadgets will be included like FRWL's attache case, Thunderball's rebreather, etc.
Also Purvis and Wade did a good job with TWINE's original script. They made it much rougher/grittier/ with much more character development. Then we got a script re-write which took the scipt they had and added the horrible ending, more Christmas Jones, and all the horrible mess that overloaded Brosnan's era. Then with DAD, most of it was their fault, but the director was the one who wanted all the CGI. With Paul Haggis back on board (who polished CR's script) we should get a movie with the same quality as CR.
Reply
8-21-2007 @ 2:53PM
L.G. said...
Very cool, insightful post. I'm sure everyone's thinking along these same lines and if they're not they need to grow a brain.
I only take issue, somewhat, with your withering viewpoint on the Q scenes and your cynical opinion of Brosnan in the his later Bond pictures.
Desmond Llewelyn, and later, John Cleese, were definite highlights of previous Bond films and the interplay between them and the various Bonds was terrific. It was just the gadgets that had the propensity for high camp.
As for Brosnan and his amazing, effortless take on 007, I love how he always managed to imbue Bond with a sense of history and storied existence, despite being so crippled by episodic, outrageous films very much beneath him. He did better than anyone could have wished amidst the decline of his Bond run and I never ever got the impression that he was anything but passionate for and adoring of the role.
MAJOR kudos for knocking the Purvis/Wade hacktastic tag-team. I was simply stunned by the ineptitude gripping the Bond producers that would possess them to, after suddenly and unceremoniously firing Pierce Brosnan in a tragically LAME, woefully misguided attempt to stoke the fires of creativity and reinvigorate the franchise by its studio and producers, somehow come to the conclusion that Brosnan, who was constantly trying to get the filmmakers to massively rejigger the series, was responsible for the critical fallout and staleness and, therefore, was the one who needed to be given the boot and not these two butcher bozos.
When I heard they were still going to be the attached writers on "Casino Royale", I was almost ready to surrender all hope. When everyone was unreasonably and idiotically bitching and moaning about Daniel Craig donning the tux, I was desperately worried about the real problem: Purvis/Wade. I love Daniel Craig and have for a long time but I figured he would only suffer the troubles Brosnan faced and be hamstrung by a crap script and wind up completely squandered, even with Academy Award-winning Paul Haggis onboard for revisions and polish and goods-deliveryman Martin Campbell at the helm.
When "Royale" wound up being completely brilliant, it was quite bittersweet because it made me ponder just how heartbreaking it was that Pierce Brosnan didn't get a proper swan song as Bond and that a Bond film right up his alley had finally been made. Without him.
And, to a somewhat lesser extent, its success made me all wistful for all-that-could-have-been-but-alas-never-will-be because it's existence makes that of Quentin Tarantino's proposed faithful, gritty, potentially R-rated adaptation of the novel with Brosnan returning as 007 a complete impossibility.
I know "Casino Royale" was amazing but why, oh, why couldn't they just hold off for awhile on that and offer Tarantino and Brosnan the chance to make that movie? It would have been a foolproof idea, especially seeing as Tarantino only wanted a budget of around 30-35 million. The film would have easily even doubled that number in its domestic opening weekend and Tarantino solemnly swore to do the character and series justice and treat the property with nothing but respect, admiration and enthusiasm. On top of that, you would have had a immensely gifted actor who had been wholeheartedly hungry for quite some time for the meaty, realistic, fresh new take on the Bond mythos that Tarantino promised and which he could really sink his teeth into.
Reply
8-21-2007 @ 4:37PM
freakere said...
Casino Royale was a great retooling of the Bond series (I still think that Dalton's last Bond movie was well done, the outrageous semi-truck wheelie stunt was horrible, but Bond actually bled!) But a scaled-back Q would be a nice addition. I agree with the statement that they should give Craig more input into film.
The campyness of the Roger Moore's Bond is what essentially killed it (for me, at least) Those were great movies if you were in the 10-12 year-old age demographic.
The dry humor that was prevalent in the first couple of Connery's outing as Bond was excellent (but the one-liners, not so much) Please don't fall into the Bourne-like shaky-cam film technique (it makes most people nauseous) but the Bourne-like realistic hand-to-hand combat would be a welcome addition. And contrary to what Bond films have been in the past, maybe they'll stay away from the typical Bond-vs-Villan final fight scene, which has grown so stale over the years, and makes most viewers say to themselves, 'Oh, I wonder how Bond will dispatch of this one?'
Bond films were always wonderful in that they always filmed in some unknown and exotic locales. It's getting a little harder to do these years.
Reply
8-21-2007 @ 7:07PM
yolt13 said...
Everybody's an expert on Bond...
You raise some fair points in this article, but you also make some rather silly ones.
As many have pointed out, there is nothing more ridiculous than a fistfight between a hero and his less physical villain at the climax of an action film. GOLDENEYE worked because Trevalyan was a 00, not because Sean Bean is just a badass. Proof? See THE ISLAND, in which Bean plays a greedy businessman who caps off nearly two and half hours of virtually incomprehensible stupidity by inexplicably deciding to go to the basement and duke it out with Ewan MacGregor personally. Can you imagine Gert Frobe or Curt Jurgens locked in mortal combat with 007? Of course not, because they aren't trained secret agents and wouldn't last fifteen seconds.
As a Bond fanboy, I'm a bit tired of hearing this "No Q!" nonsense. Major Boothroyd was a character in Ian Fleming's novel, and the Quartermaster section is vital to the operation of MI6. It boggles the mind to see the same fans who a year ago were convinced that the series couldn't be returned to a grittier tone after DIE ANOTHER DAY now saying that it is impossible to bring Q (or Moneypenny) back into the series without letting things get too silly. Why is it that people who don't make movies always assume that people who do have no idea how to do it, even when all the evidence (CASINO ROYALE, in this case) is to the contrary?
No funny stuff? This one baffles me most of all. CASINO ROYALE was loaded with humor, all of which was handled exceptionally well. By and large, the 007 franchise has always handled its comedic elements with great skill, adjusting the style and level of humor to fit the plot and the culture of the times. Again, I'm not sure why people who have seen CASINO ROYALE automatically assume that it was some sort of fluke and the next movie will be DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (an hysterically funny, terribly underrated film). Isn't there a point in which rampant cynicism should be checked with a little logic and common sense?
Finally, firing Wade and Purvis is ridiculous. Putting aside the fact that Bond has enjoyed unprecedented financial success during their run (in a time when people seem to declare the character antiquated and dead on an almost daily basis), there also remains the truth that much of what they are blamed for comes from other sources - directors, producers, actors, etc. Even if all of their "crimes" were their own and were as bad as some folks seem to feel they are, they have contributed much to the franchise that is positive, too, including many of the more serious moments in the Brosnan films.
Reply
8-21-2007 @ 9:10PM
Miss Moneypenny said...
As long as Daniel Craig is Bond, there is little you can do that would bring the series back to its old place of glory. Fire Craig, bring back Q and Miss Moneypenny, add plenty of gadgets and over-the-top villians and then we'll have a great Bond again. As it stands, I look forward to the next cartoon character destined to beat Bond 22 at the U.S. box office, just like the animated penquins beat Casino Royale. Go Mumbles!
Reply
8-24-2007 @ 5:08AM
Coolio said...
Still no Bond girls & Villian annouced including the Bond 22 title still not annouced yet. I was dissapointed that Q & Miss Moneypennt will still not be in it. How would 007 be without any safty to his life? Bond fan will want James Bond with gadgets.
Reply
9-02-2007 @ 1:40PM
pf said...
No you're NOT the only one who liked Timothy Dalton's darker, deeper portrayal. I did too, despite the fact that I didn't think the movies themselves were as good as they could have been.
Reply