No Gap Between Bond 22 & Casino Royale

Published 8 years ago by , Updated February 9th, 2012 at 9:41 pm,

casino royale ending No Gap Between Bond 22 & Casino RoyaleAccording to Paul Haggis, screenwriter on the next James Bond movie (for now known only as “Bond 22″), the next film “picks up 2 minutes after the last one.”

If you recall, Casino Royale ended with Bond fully becoming 007 (for lack of a better phrase) with the movie fading to black while finally playing the familiar theme at the very end of the film. I thought Casino Royale was excellent and was just what the franchise needed to rejuvenate it (much like what I’m hoping J.J. Abrams will be doing with the upcoming Star Trek movie).

I’m a bit torn regarding the next film picking up right after the end of the previous one, though. On the one hand it’s a cool idea watching 007 on his next adventure right after he fully comes into his own. But on the other hand, I kind of wanted to see Daniel Craig portraying Bond as a more seasoned 007… say, a couple of years later so we could see what a full-on Craig-Bond would be like as a comparison to other actors who’ve portrayed the character.

I consider Casino Royale to be the Batman Begins of the Bond franchise: A journey of self-discovery showing the man growing into the well-known character he will become. Because I still think that Craig is the closest thing to early Sean Connery as Bond, I’d love to see him portray the character in full-on, “Bond… James Bond” mode.

Oh, and Haggis did reiterate that although “Bond 22″ will be grounded in reality, that this one would be “fun.” I don’t mind a sly bit of humor here and there, but if they go too far I think it’s a bad idea.

Source: Superherohype

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Like I said, in small doses and properly applied, I don’t mind. Sean Connery level humor = good, Roger Moore level humor = bad.


  2. grounded in reality but “fun”
    sounds like they wanto insert roger moore type humor inside a movie with a serious plot
    not so sure I like the sound of that

  3. Sean Connery humor would fit his character and definately fit the movie — but I think his lines would be too controversial nowadays.

    Given, my favourite line out of any James Bond movie was when the lead female asks Sean if he prefers blondes or brunettes — he hesitates for a moment, looks up, and very calmly answers “Well, if the cuffs and callers match…”

    The sexist humour that is James Bond would be seen as too far in today’s society, so I fear that Gary could be right, and it will be Roger Moor humour.


  4. >

    By picking up two minutes after, we (hopefully) get to see Craig BECOME a more seasoned agent. If they play this right, it will all be about drama and character development versus plot for the sake of plot. Character and plot. That’s what I want.

  5. MP, oh sure, I agree! Character development and plot are huge in my book and no amount of special effects or gadgets can make up for the lack of either of those.

    If you notice, I didn’t say I disliked the idea… I said I was torn. :-)


  6. Well, let’s see what they do with the character this time! Much like Vic I enjoyed Casino Royale a lot – although at first I had to get used to the concept of skinny women being “sexy”. ;)

    The only thing that I did not like was to use Judy Dench again. A slightly younger M would have made more sense. I know, she somehow connects the “older” Bond-movies with this relaunch.

    But the father-son-relationship between Bond and M is one of the more interesting side-aspects in the novels. This could have been used to advantage as well.

    Unfortunately, they did not stress the relationship between Bond and M clearly enough – more time for decent character development sometimes makes sense!

    After Casino Royale I was wondering, what exactly IS the reason that M is protecting Bond? He’s clearly going to far when he uses her notebook without her authorisation! Something is missing.

    Either they explain the relationshop a little more in the next movie OR (what I fear will be exactly the case) they just keep on going.

    Either way, I’m willing to give the next movie a chance!


  7. Making it a ‘fun’ movie would be most unfortunate. I think that having the character be a ‘weapon’ rather than ‘playboy’ style works best for this actor; Craig clearly has the ability to do that, given the right script. There was more action in the first fifteen minutes of CR than in the first 90 minutes of most of the Bond flicks. Overall, the character in CR was extraordinarily believable.

    Like ZAR, though, and others, I’m sure that I’ll give the next one a chance — they’ve raised the bar considerably.

  8. I think that one issue they’ll have with the next film picking up directly after the previous one will in fact be the “playboy” nature of Bond. He’s still freshly devastated over the death of the leading lady from the first film.