
The next installment in the long-running James Bond franchise (for now referred to as simply Bond 23), has had its screenwriters announced. They are the returning Neil Purvis and Robert Wade (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace), with a new addition of Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon, The Queen, The Last King of Scotland). Daniel Craig will of course be reprising his role as 007, and the film will be produced by Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli.
| |
Purvis and Wade are no strangers to the Bond franchise, having already helped to co-write the last four Bond movies together (on top of Daniel Craig’s first two Bond films, they also wrote The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day). So in light of that we can rest easy that the franchise is in experienced hands. But Morgan is the new addition, with his recent Oscar attention (he was nominated for both The Queen and Frost/Nixon) probably being a factor in his being chosen for Bond 23. This will mark the first of the new Bonds (since the Craig “reinvisioning”) that hasn’t had Crash writer/director Paul Haggis helping to pen the screenplay – only time will tell if his absence will be noticeable.
Other than the screenwriters, and that Craig is playing 007 again, we don’t have much other info on Bond 23. We don’t know what the plot of the film is, who will be playing the villain or the obligatory love interest, or even who the director is. But the confirmation of the trio of screenwriters is a strong sign that more information should be released soon.
Even though it seems strange that they would suddenly ditch Haggis as a screenwriter when he co-wrote the last two movies, I am very happy with the addition of Morgan. I always find that he takes subjects and events that seem hard to make into a workable movie and makes them very interesting and tense (the verbal battles in Frost/Nixon are phenomenal). Even if his movies haven’t been action-oriented so far, I still think his style of writing will suit the Bond franchise very well.
As far as the direction Bond 23 should take the legendary spy character, I would like to see Craig’s portrayal become a bit more reminiscent of what we’ve known of the character for years before he came along. Don’t get me wrong, I love Craig’s portrayal of 007 – to quote John Campea of The Movie Blog, “Finally a Bond who looks like he can kick my ass instead of kiss it.” – and don’t want him to fall back completely into the mold of past Bonds. But I would still like to see a bit more of the suave, playful, “lighter” side of the character. I hope the addition of Morgan to the writing roster can accomplish the right balance of the two extremes.
What do you think of the three writers that Bond 23 has acquired, particularly Peter Morgan? What direction would you like to see them take 007 in the next movie?
A production date on Bond 23 has yet to be set.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or if you want more frequent updates follow us on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!




39 Comments
I wouldn’t mind seeing a gadget or two as well as one or two of the classic lines, but just adding a tad of the old bond in with this new style would be a good balance IMO.
I’ve really liked the last 2 Bond films (although QOS was not as good as CR), but I would also like to see a bit more of the suave Bond. I love Craig as Bond, but we need to start seeing him evolve into the sophisticated Bond. Doesn’t matter, really though, because my butt will be in the theater when this comes out….even if it has a weird name like Quantum of Solace!
I’d just like to say that I agree with you on both points.
I am a huge fan of Peter Morgan and feel he will be put to good use on Bond 23. After all a Bond film is really only as good as it’s script and leading man. Which brings me to the second point. I agree that Craig’s Bond should once again have a bit more suave and humor. But I also must caution against adding too much lighter aspects from past films into charactor or storyline.I mean who wants to see Craig get lost in the gadgets the way Brosnan and Connery did. That would be a real shame.
Let’s just hope they get a good action movie director instead of that hack Marc Forster who should stick to his artsy dramas… or whatever type movies he’s good at making, I haven’t seen any of his stuff so sorry if I can’t accurately describe them, lol. But all I know is that he sucks at action, as apparent with QoS.
We got to see the “lighter side” of Bond in CR when that guy mistaken him for a valet, lol.
I really don’t care that much anymore about Bond. I thought CR was just excellent, a new direction, just more serious and I liked it a lot. And then came QoS, and they just started doing what they’ve always done in the Bond franchise, I just didn’t like it at all. So maybe I’ll pass to this one in theaters.
What’s not to like about QoS? I mean besides that it had absolutely no plot and was just one chase scene leading to the next chase scene… lol
As long as they keep up with the same level of quality as CR and QOS, I’ll be happy.
I think they need to bring the “obligatory love interest” back up to par…
Well I’m hoping for CR quality, not QoS, because that’s MUCH lower than CR. QoS was LITERALLY just a bunch of chase scenes weakly tied together with a weak plot. The action scenes, especially the hand to hand stuff, was not at all up to par with CR either.
@Ken J
Agree big time about QoS.
Vic
I acutally enjoyed QoS as much as CR..It’s Bond people it’s not like we are talking high art..it’s just action movies with cool tech..I enjoy it for what it is..
I DONT KNOW WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK, MAYBE ITS JUST ME MISSING IT, BUT I MISS THE COOL WEAPONS AND GADGETRY HE EMPLOYED, I MEAN, NOWADAYS BOND IS A BRUISER, HE;S A SPY, HE’S BRUTAL..ITS A CHANGE, ITS COOL..BUT I DO MISS THE TECH.
The problem with the tech is that it started to seem like bond RELIED on the tech, as if he wouldn’t be able to complete his missions without them. I think that takes away from the character, in CR it showed that he can succeed on his resourcefulness and physique alone. It makes it much more personal and much less a display of gadgetry, and take was what made CR so exciting when contrasted against the older bond movies.
Don’t get me wrong, having him use some gadgets wouldn’t ruin the movie, but you have to admit that it was starting to get really out of hand with the invisible cars and what-not…
I would like it if the gadgets he uses would be limited to maybe intel devices like thermo-imaging devices to see people through walls, laser sound amplifiers (working off water or glass) to hear far away conversations, or bugs, tracking devices, etc. etc. I liked that he fought his battles on his own, shot people without any help, etc. etc.
I agree about the gadgets. In CR there were almost no gadgets, and especially none that were out of the normal, like an invisible car. And it did make it more personal, you got to know Bond, what HE can do and who he is.
Ok, the first 20 Bond films were Bond-films, but I really hoped they maintained the fresh style of CR. I always compared it to Batman, you have the old more cartoony films, and now the dark and more serious films. Just that differnt style made me want to go and see this franchise again, it just had more depth for me.
For horrible split-second I thought the title of this was “Bond Has 23 Screenwriters.” That’s a relief then…
Bring it! I’m ready!!
Craig’s won his spurs proving he can ACT as Bond. Now let’s see him be a little more humorous, a little more Roger Moore-like in his interactions. Also, PLEASE Ms. Broccolli and Mr. Wilson, please bring back a titanic military scene in #23 along the lines of the one in Thunderball, YOLT, or TSWLM. I’d love to see our man Craig jumping out of a C-130 with an SAS unit to take on the villain’s minions. Looking forward to it regardless !
Definitely bring back (or start to introduce) gadgets, as well as the Bond charm (on women). After all, these are what Bond is famous for, or otherwise, this will just be another Jason Bourne film…
I will see the next Bond film on opening day, no matter who’s writing or directing. I think the casting of Craig as Bond was the best thing to ever happen to the franchise.
I do agree that Q of S was
I will see the next Bond film on opening day, no matter who’s writing or directing. I think the casting of Craig as Bond was the best thing to ever happen to the franchise.
Though I do agree that Q of S was not as strong a film as CR, I still enjoyed it. The whole opera sequence was absolutely brilliant – I could watch that part again and again and each time find something new to marvel at.
And I agree that more levity will benefit the next film. The ever-present verbal sparring between Bond and M will contribute to that.
Is he going to grunt and grimace his way thru another Bond film the entire time with cuts on his forehead or is he going to actually do or say something charming maybe just a hint of a smile? Loved Layer Cake and I really liked Casino Royale but Connery he ain’t. Too bad too because I think Craig can be rather charming and witty (again see Layer Cake) Just watched Goldfinger Blu-Ray on my 73″ mitsu DLP, stunning!!!! And it reminded me who the real James Bond is. Not just Connery because I thought George Lazenby was the essence of Bond too and Roger Moore in The Spy Who Loved Me also had it and Prince Baron Dalton in his films. We shall see with this next one. See if they have the balls to throw Bond against, oh I don’t know North Korean’s threatening Nuclear devastation in the Sea of Japan or trying to get to a smuggled Nuke out of Korea before it gets to Islamic fanatics. (Not like this isn’t a very very real possibility in the news everyday) or will he fight some evil whitecollar mastermind partnered with our govt bent on eco-devastation of some poor misunderstood terrorist third world country (cause we are the bad guys you know!!) Sigh,…… Maybe to satisfy the ultra zeolot lefties who only get their news thru the daily Koz, the writers can make the middlemen evil, white-euro, ex bankers mad becuse Prince Obama ousted them from their former Banking CEO posisitons, and they decide to help the terrorists get a Korean Nuke into the country to bomb the Treasury Building?? And Bond has to team with Leiter(because he is the only rightous Intelligence guy in our whole evil (except Obama, and Congress)country that believes Bond and is willing to help fight the misunderstood Islamic Fanatics who only want to Bomb the treasury building because evil white-Euro fatcats manipulated them into doing so? Dunno sounds like a pretty typical Haggis script to me
We should just nuke N. Korea and get it over with… We’ll work with Russia and all of the other countries that have the technology to track where the missile originated, or we’ll launch from a submarine, and simply deny that we were the ones that did it, lol.
Just nuke N Korea and get it over with. Then we’ll just lie about doing it… Lol…
^
I’m glad the only button you have control over is “post comment”.
Your my pick Ken J for future Screen Rant blogger turned real life Bond Villain… Your lol,
at the end of everything you type reminds me of John Wayne Gacy’s sad clown paintings.
790, THAT’S FUNNY (about the button comment) lol
It probably is a good thing I don’t have any say in those things, lol.
790 you crack me up dude!!
and I didn’t mean that emoticon in any sociopathic kind of way..
er that one either..
Ken J for president. Alot of you younger guys in the forum might change your tune if that crazy ass N. Korean tranny invades the DM zone or does something wonky with a nuke and all of the sudden we need a national draft
Sorry Lord garth, but we (US) no longer need nukes to wipe out a 3rd world country. And you just can’t nuke anyone these days without causing massive worldwide fallout.
We could take N Korea out in less then 30 min using EMP weapons and a couple Delta Force teams…
Its 2009 folks.
Lol, I’m a man of action! The correct action? Maybe not, but action none-the-less!
EMP? That’s assuming N. Korea relies on technology…
And plus, if the weapon is too sophisticated it’ll be hard for us to deny it was us who launched it…
What’s to deny Ken…I mean Iraq..look at Iraq(zero WMD)…no fallout from that from the global community..Plausible deniability has not been a concern in the world these last 8 years
Yah, it’s too bad the media chose not to focus on the things they DID have which were against countless sanctions placed on them.
Missiles with a range longer than 90 miles: check
Terrorist training camps (with fresh footprints when we got there): check
One of the world’s top most wanted terrorist for the past 30 years Abu Nidal aka Sabri Al-Banna: check
Mass graves: check
Nope forget all of those, WMD WMD WMD!!! lol, I found it hilarious. I’m sure you found it pretty amusing too no?
But it’s ok, the way things are going, we’ll probably try to make N. Korea happy by giving them billions of dollars of borrowed money…
(Yah, it’s too bad the media chose not to focus on the things they DID have)
The media is controlled…
I’m reaching for my Team America dvd.
Craig’s Bond should definitely start to evolve from the “weapon in a tux” into something resembling Connery’s Bond, just without the misogyny. Basically less brute force, more charm/wit, but none of that “he’s attempting reentry, Christmas comes once a year” crap.
I hope the kep the whole continuity going from the past two movies. I liek the idea they had in Q of S and thought the movie was still good but it could not compete with CR. I would like to see them talk more about the secret organization and unravel teh mystery behind them. Also, they could bring back the past Bond girl and have her be the Bond girl for 2 movies…which has yet to be done. Bond didnt bump uglies with her in teh last movie and maybe we could see that happen in this movie
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!