Daniel Craig will return for a third outing as James Bond in 2012, EON Productions and MGM announced yesterday. daniel_craig Take 23: 'You and I have some unfinished business' The future of the franchise was looking uncertain last year as MGM battled with $3.7bn debt, leading to the indefinite postponment of Bond 23. …
Title / plot?
Title / plot? Why worry?
The title just needs to key in a few buzzwords and as for the plot... who cares? It'll be a hammy bad guy who calmly tells his nefarious scheme to Bond et al before leaving them in an easy to escape situation to later wreak havoc in his plans for world domination.
The important things are the girls, the cars and gadgets, the odd one liner quip and stunts that aren't so stupid that they rely on oodles of CGI - the latter is something that unfortunately the most recent films have suffered from.
The next title is easy to determine.
Just use the James Bond Random Movie Title Generator :-)
I think it will be "You Only Live Twice Again"
I don't know what it is but there seems to just be tonnes of really obvious CGI work going on in films these days. Not even done well like in Lord of the Rings. Must be a big step up in budget or skill to get the computer stuff looking half-decent.
In action scenes in QoS and the recent A-Team it's almost like they just shake the camera around and go "look at all this impressive action" but you can't even see what's going on.
The action film that bucked this trend was surprisingly... The Expendables. The computer effects were pretty decent and not too obvious. Well not as appalling as I thought they were going to be.
Remember in the late 80s to mid 90s when they had to put some thought into the stunts and effects, like actually blowing things up to make explosions? Them were the days!
Yeah, I agree with you.
I'm glad it's not just me who prefers the classic Bond format and also doesn't like CGI in Bond films. One of the things Bond films were well known for was doing the visual effects and stunts for real/using miniatures. The surfboarding CGI in “Die Another Day” was laughable it was so cringworthy. But I suppose the reason the Bond films haven’t been as good since “Golden Eye”, was because Cubby Broccoli died shortly afterwards.
Oh, decent villain characters is a must too. They should bring back Richard Kiel ("Jaws"). :)
Re: CGI sucks
Seriously? The Expendables? The effects were awful. Most unconvincing explosions I've ever seen. Fire that looked like it was done in Paint. Awful. But then there is absolutely nothing that redeems that film. Terrible berserker editing (might as well not bother choreographing a fight if you're going to smash it to visual smithereens), laughable script, baffling lack of story, crappy performances - ooh except for Mickey Rourke's little soliloquy in the middle.
Everything else about it was inexcusably dire. And no, it's not because I'm a girl and I prefer lovely films about love. It was a poorly-made piece of crap by any serious standards *sniff* .
Bond movie generator gem
Tomorrow Never Says Never Die Another Day
Aided by beautiful villainess Kissy O'Toole, Auric Scaramanga attempts to hijack an American missile by using an army of brainwashed agents.
I'd watch that.
you didn't have to go that far
All you had to say was:
"It had Syl Stallone in it."
That's enough to let everyone know that it's total crap.
The laughable back projection whilst sly's trying to climb in the back of the plain towards the end!
It's worse than most of the "classic Bonds" which at least have the excuse of it's the best available at the time - road height out the rear window didn't line up with car and the number of turns made without a single steering wheel adjustment is phenomenal!
That James Bond movie name generator is awesome...
...the next film should be called: Thunderpussy Royale.
CGI & Greenscreen on TV
I'm amazed at how much CGI and Greenscreening goes on in ordinary TV shows.
Have at look at this showreel.
There's some suprising shows in there.
''Fire that looked like it was done in Paint'.
Quote of the week, had me in stitches, nice one.
Although Mr Craig is a fine actor, the new Bond does not have enough gadgets for my taste. I mean every one has a phone like James bond now. Where are the lasers and exploding shoes?
You'd think with the budget, they could've made it a little less obvious that Avatar was all CGI.
"no details on the film's title or plot"
That's never stopped them
... just let it be better than QOS. But then, how could it be worse?
Bond assigned to kill bad guy.
Bond meets beautiful woman. Bond shags beautiful woman, who it then transpires is in some way associated with bad guy.
Bond captured by bad guy.
Bond escapes bad guy, kills bad guy, optionally blows up secret lair.
Bond reunited with now redeemed beautiful woman and fully expects to shag her during closing credits.
Nearly, but not quite...
Bad girl is turned by Bond and so gets killed by bad guy.
Bond rescues a different but totally inocent girl (who is somehow caught up in the bad guys plans) whilst blowing up the bad guys lair... and fully expects to shag her during the closing credits.
You got everything else spot on. :-)
Paris - might be able to play the bad girl?
"Paris - might be able to play the bad girl?"
Nah - she can't do an English accent
heh, Paris can hardly speak English.
They were fairly far advanced in pre-production before MGM got into serious trouble- the script is written.
American Beauty 2
Bond meets beautiful teenage nymph. Bond has a go at shagging beautiful teenage nymph but then thinks better of it and leaves her all frustrated and that. Girls in the audience sigh "Aahh". Blokes in the audience wonder if Bond has gone all gay.
Bond went gay when they introduced Shrek as the new bond on Casino Royale. Glittery focus shot of him emerging from the sea in tight trunks (the sun bursting through behind his ears), then starts crying when he has his balls tickled tied to a chair necked (for goodness sake!), goes all girly in the shower sucking fingers. Camp as a branch of Millets.
Re: Think pink.
Tell me more about these disturbing feelings of attraction to Daniel Craig. It's OK. This is a safe space. There's a box of tissues here if you need them for OH GOD NO PUT IT AWAY
Camp as a branch of Millets!
Love it! :-)
Nah. Craig doesn't do anything for me at all. Now Pierce Brosnan on the other hand.....
Bond's been gay all along
Check out Sean Connery's amazing baby-blue one-piece in "Dr No". Even in nineteen-sixty-whatever, this was not normal wear for the heterosexual male.
A big giant thing that cost 70 billion to make is hoovering up smaller things. The bad guy demands 5 MILLION dollars to stop.
Hannibal Lecter is sent to dispatch the villains in gruesome ways while making jokey comments.
So same as usual.
Oh stop whining about CGI, it's here to stay. CGI is cheaper and safer than live stunts. Visual stunts had to be done in the old because there wasn't any other way.
As for story, I'd prefer currency with real life security concerns around nuclear threat from extremists. In fac it would be good to see Bond semi fail to make it realistic before going on to save the world from a worse threat.
The main mission or fans should be to say "NO! NO! NO! to 3D". Keep Bond 2D.
"Oh stop whining about CGI, it's here to stay. CGI is cheaper and safer than live stunts. Visual stunts had to be done in the old because there wasn't any other way."
But one of the things that appeals so much about real stunts is that you understand how difficult and dangerous it was to make. CGI seems like a cop-out.
Also, is it me, or is the CGI in later films a lot more noticeable that in older films? Surely it should have gotten better over time, not worse?
The random Bond movie generator just came up with Goldfingerpussy... ye Gods.
I've not seen some of the Brosnan ones never mind Craig.
I'm not a fan of the modernisation of Bond, it just puts it in the same category as all the other trashy CGI flicks with their rapid machine gun edits and wobby "in the thick of it" action shots.
There's not been a decent Bond theme tune since Goldeneye either.
"There's not been a decent Bond theme tune since Goldeneye either." - The World Is Not Enough wasn't bad IMHO. But you're spot on about the rest of them!
There's nothing wrong with CGI - *IF IT DOESN'T LOOK FAKE!!!!!!*
Check the first two LotR films. Massive use of miniatures, looks great. Plentiful use of CGI too, but it's mostly used to fill out the scene and it's pretty much seamless. Then look at the third LotR. Suddenly they've discovered that CGI lets them do tracking shots following a boulder through the air - and it all screams "fake!"
Or there's Aliens, which is still the greatest SF action film ever made. Not a single CGI effect in the whole thing - every single thing you see is a real item with real light on it, shot by a real camera on real film. The alien queen is a huge puppet that takes 16 people to move it. But they get people to make the monstrous puppet, and they get 16 good people to make it move right. It rocked then, it rocks today after 25 years, and it'll still rock in 100 years time. Compare it to the CGI aliens in Alien 4, and they're not even close - they looked fake at the time, and they even look fake now on the small screen compared to current Star Trek TV work.
That said, the biggest problem with Quantum of Solace wasn't the FX, it was the plot. Or more accurately the lack of one - even by Bond standards it was weak. After Casino Royale I was expecting them to have realised that using old-fashioned writing, acting and stunt work was more profitable than FX. Sadly QoS was a return to previous form for a lame franchise.
A new bond film.
Its amazing how far £2.50 budget will stretch what with with the bankrupt studio :)
It's being made by EON? Should be electrifying, or maybe a gas.
Why not leave the stunts real but CGI Bond?
Then you could have somebody that could act - and you wouldn't have to replace them every few films when their salary demands got too high
Pity. I'd rather Bond came to an end than continue to be played by the thug Craig.
..and Stirred. Of course.
A more mature Bond
Bond became a cartoon. The last of the Bronsnan flicks was an utter shite-fest.
Casino Royale was a mature story and a great production.
QOS was less so... let's hope that the new one is as good as Casino Royale.
I'd rather watch a modern bond than the disney productions my kids want to see or the vomit inducing chick flicks the other half wants....
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- RUMPY PUMPY: Bone says humans BONED Neanderthals 50,000 years B.C.
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Review Vulture trails claw across Lenovo's touchy N20p Chromebook