James Bond 21 is Casino Royale
 

http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articl...?t=&s=articles

MI6 can confirm that the 21st James Bond film will be titled "Casino Royale" and will be directed by Martin Campbell. Eon Productions officially announced the news in a press release today.

Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, producers of the James Bond films, and MGM announced today that Martin Campbell will direct CASINO ROYALE, the 21st film in the 007 franchise.

Wilson and Broccoli said: “We are thrilled that Martin has accepted our offer to direct CASINO ROYALE. He is an extremely talented director and we believe he will help take our films in a new and exciting direction. He is currently finishing filming ‘Legend Of Zorro’, the sequel to ‘The Mask Of Zorro’, and will be joining EON Productions shortly to work on the development of the script with our writers, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade.”


MGM Vice Chairman and COO Chris McGurk said: “Martin is an incredibly exciting filmmaker. GOLDENEYE was a wonderful movie and helped reinvigorate the Bond franchise. We’re thrilled to have him back to direct the newest Bond.”

Born in New Zealand, Campbell moved to England in 1966 and made his directorial debut on the popular TV series’ ‘The Professionals’ and ‘Minder’. He moved to America in 1986 to direct ‘Criminal Law’ and ‘Defenceless’. Following GOLDENEYE, he went on to direct ‘The Mask Of Zorro’, ‘Vertical Limit’ and ‘Beyond Borders’ and is currently directing ‘Legend Of Zorro’.

CASINO ROYALE will be released in 2006 and distributed world-wide by MGM. No decision has yet been made regarding casting for the role of ‘James Bond’.

Rumours Come True
Campbell directed Pierce Brosnan's "GoldenEye" in 1995 and is set to usher in another new Bond in 2006 with "Casino Royale". Campbell was rumoured to be linked to the production since July 2003, and the Hollywood Reporter announced him as "signed" last month

The first hint that Bond 21 would be based around Ian Fleming's first literary 007 adventure "Casino Royale" came in August 2004 when an insider leaked that "elements of the story have been influenced by Fleming's original 007 novel, but it is NOT completely based on it."

I like it, that'll officially erase the unofficial Casino Royale.

So the same director and writers.

So much for taking Bond in a new direction with a younger star.

This is a crappy situation. Bond needs to be taken away from the Brocolli's.

mgm, do something you'd never consider doing

Set the story in the '50s or whatever period Fleming wrote it

use a classic roadster from that era

martinis, tuxedos, beautiful dames, baccarat

fewer big budget special effects - less is more

shake, pour into a chilled glass, add olives

Ironically, didn't Brosnan want to do Casino Royale or an older style bond? As for Martin Campbell, I will have to say Goldeneye is one of my all-time favorite Bond films. Not sure if that was due to him or not, but I can't fault going back to the well for his direction.

Tarantino had publicly voiced his interest in adapting Casino Royale and shooting it with Brosnan in the lead but the Broc's didn't bite.

Well, in that I liked Mask of Zorro and Goldeneye (save for the horrific soundtrack), I have to say this get the big thumbs up from me.

The big question is: does that mean Pierce might come back? This is one of the more 'down to earth' stories that he was looking to do.

If it was up to Pierce he would be Bond till the day he died.

Goldeneye is my favorite Bond film, so i'm looking foward to this. The last 2 Bond movies have been medicore IMO.

GoldenEye is the only Brosnan Bond flick I genuinely liked, so Campbell returning is good news. Now all they need is a script that takes the material seriously. Oh, and a James Bond. :)

BTW, I can't wait to see how they work the words "Casino Royale" into the title song.

To add to the poster that said it should be in the 50's, I agree. Set it way back in time, but also with a title like casino royale, have it be in Las Vegas. Old Vegas. Rat Pack style. Bond + Old Vegas = gold.

I would've preferred this. Hell, I just want Pierce to be in it.But I thought Barb was the one who agreed with Pierce regarding substance over style..?

I hope this wasn't something thought of just to keep Pierce in the role. I would think Pierce should have some sort of say in who should direct it or write it. Of course, he can still opt out, I guess.

opt out? he can't even opt in! ;)

As long they use actually stunt men doing actual stunts over that goddamn CGI used in Die Another Day...I'm all for it. :up:


Now if I can just get that picture of Woody Allen out of my head after hearing the title....

Thing is, they seem to not want to ever hire an American director for these films. Obviously they don't seem to stick completely with brits, as they've had a few new zelanders (Campbel, Tamahori). But I have heard of a bias against American directors when it comes to Bond films.

Nonetheless, it's too bad that Tarantino didn't get to take a crack at this with Brosnan. Brosnan deserved a great Bond, he was fantastic in the role (even if his films often fell short of being good). But, on the bright side, I never actually expected that would ever happen.

poor choice of actor = Casino Royale w/ cheese.

Why not just set it in Monte Carlo, where the book was set?

Goldeneye is the ONLY Bond movie I've ever been able to sit through. And it was good too boot.

so when does the next reissues of the dvds fall into line with this

GoldenEye was not only the best Brosnan film, but easily one of the all-time best Bond films. I'm thrilled that Campbell is coming back, and I hope Brosnan does too.

I'm glad to see Campbell back. He's quite good at action adventure, given a decent script. Besides Goldeneye which is by far the best Brosnan Bond, his Mask of Zorro was a great piece of fun too.

I just hope Brosnan comes back for at least one more. I'm not really ready for someone new, even if that seems to be the case.

After the last movie, and after the last movie made so much money... I don't have high hopes for this one :(

all I can think of from the title is that ST:TNG episode
therefore I present, the next James Bond:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ga...ost/riker1.jpg

Excellent! Bringing Campbell back is a fantastic choice. Now just get Brosnan back for him to finish his reign with the man he started it with and it'll all be good! :)

the day before EON officially made the Casino Royale and Martin Campbell announcement, Pierce Brosnan officially and irrevocably announced via his official website that his days as James Bond are over.

In an update dated February 1st, 2005, Brosnan concludes:

"I would like to thank all of you who have supported me over the last year or so in regard to my playing Bond. It was a decade of my life that I will always hold dear to my heart and a time that will never be forgotten. And you dear friends stood by me throughout. Many, many thanks! But everything comes to an end, and one must accept this decision which cannot be dealt with in any other way but with some kind of grace and knowledge that I did the job to the best of my ability."

but then again, Sean Connery and Roger Moore made similar pronouncements during their tenure as 007, haven't they? -wink-

According to Brosnan's website, he's gotten the boot (this is new, not from last year's back-and-forth sparring between Brosnan & the Broccoli's):

"I would like to thank all of you who have supported me over the last year or so in regard to my playing Bond. It was a decade of my life that I will always hold dear to my heart and a time that will never be forgotten. And you dear friends stood by me throughout. Many, many thanks! But everything comes to an end, and one must accept this decision which cannot be dealt with in any other way but with some kind of grace and knowledge that I did the job to the best of my ability."

Though I liked Brosnan, I didn't like his Bond films (except for Goldeneye). The recent scripts have become so cliched that they are essentially stealing from past Bond films & are unintentionally making fun of themselves. He was probably canned because of his stand to make the movies more story-centric instead of focusing on special effects.

As for Campbell directing again, it really doesn't matter. Without a good script, Speilberg or Scorsese could direct it and it would suck.

I think Campbell probably got asked because he did such a good job of introducing Pierce as Bond in GoldenEye that they figure he'll do a good job of introducing the next Bond - whether it be Dougray Scott, Hugh Jackman or whomever.

Hopefully, he'll be faithful to Ian's novel and give us a meaner, leaner Bond - instead of the cream puff we've been getting since Timothy Dalton was forced out (Oops...was that outloud? I'm sorry! :))

does anybody agree that Clive Owen would be the perfect replacement for Pierce, especially now that the upcoming movie would be a Casino Royale adaptation? you may want to refer to his breakthrough movie Croupier, which was set mostly inside a casino, with Clive playing the part of the card dealer. the guy can certainly act, and he looks comfortable wearing a tuxedo.

http://www.unl.edu/scarlet/v10n21/croupier.jpg

http://www.cincinnati.com/freetime/m...g/croupier.jpg

plus, he has worked for director Martin Campbell previously in the movie Beyond Borders. when Campbell was promoting the movie, he said of Owen:

'Clive would make a great James Bond. He goes back to the Connery version of Bond. There's a duality in both Connery and Clive. These are guys who onscreen love you one minute and then can kill you in the next. Plus, with Clive, like with Connery, when he hits you, you stay down.' :up: :johnwoo:

oh man! big time bummer about Brosnan not being allowed to continue has Bond.

But these movies made huge money, and brought the franchise back its original cultural luster.

Put yourself in the producer's seat for a moment: Would you change the direction of the scripts when you're being rewarded so heavily?

Not that I condone the filmmaking found in the recent movies, and I understand they they've become way too expensive to produce (hence why they dumped Brosnan). But the producers aren't really the single bad guys here. I blame the audiences too.

Actually, you are quite right. I found Die Another Day to be as bad as View to a Kill but it earned more money than any other Bond flick. [filmsnob]There is no accounting for the taste of the general populace[/filmsnob]

Please, no more Dalton-type Bond movies. If I wanted more of that, I'll just rent a season set of "Miami Vice."

With Clive's Oscar nod, and considering his connection to Campbell, he might be a good possibility. Out of all the names mentioned (besides Brosnan back again), he'd be at the top of my list. All this talk about Hugh Jackman, Jude Law, Ewan McGregor scares me though. Each of those men would be terrible chocies.

Yeah, how about putting an end to the franchise for good. Jackson did it with LOTR. The Wachowskis did it with the Matrix trilogy. Lucas is doing the same with Star Wars once Episode III is done. All are far, far bigger moneymakers than Bond ever was, yet they are all being stopped. I realize Bond is structured differently. They're serial type films, rather than a continuing storyline. But they're all pretty much the same film. I just don't see the need to keep making them. It borders on compulsive behavior.

So why bother? Isn't 20 films enough. Star Trek, Bond, Friday the 13th, Halloween, Nightmare On Elm Street, etc. These are all film series that need to be put to bed, forever.

When the Bond films start reaching Wong Fei-Hung numbers, then we can talk about retiring the franchise. Right now, we're nowhere close.

They will never stop making Bond films until they stop making money. It's pointless to even suggest it.

Nonetheless, I picked this tidbit out.

"Today's Los Angeles Time reported that the screenplay will be written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, who wrote the screenplays for the last two Bond movies."

That doesn't really instill any hope. Hopefully the actor is decent so at least it's a moderately entertaining action film. Who knows. Not too much to get excited about.

With all due respect, I don't care what Wong Fei-Hung numbers are. Bond needs to stop. When you've had 20 films and a Bond spoof like Austin Powers makes more money, then it is time to call it quits.

I know it's pointless. After all, Hollywood is the place that continues to churn out sequels to films that don't even make any money. While Bond is making money, it's hardly setting the box office on fire.

Oh welll, thanks for putting up with my rant.

Very, very well put. I echo the above comments.