Bond movies: Where to go next?

[TheLuckyOne]

Just curious to see what people think; obviously Casino Royale made a gazillion bucks and was beloved by critics and moviegoers alike, and will make a zillion more on DVD. It also was clearly set up for a direct sequel, an extreme rarity in Bond movies. So, the question is: where would you like to see the franchise go next?

Here are the options as I see them:

-Continuation. If this is the case, the next movie might continue directly from Casino Royale, but then any movies afterward would be new stories taking place after the other 20 (Connery, Moore, Brosnan, etc.) Bond movies.

-Complete reboot. On this path, the next film would continue directly from Casino Royale, then all subsequent movies would go from there with stories of young Bond, treating the 20 earlier movies as if they never happened.

-Revision. In this direction, they go back and remake many of the earlier Bond movies, attempting to follow Casino Royale's example by making them closer to the original Fleming novels in tone and continuity. So, the next film might be Casino Royale 2, but after that would be a remake of Live and Let Die, followed by Moonraker, Diamonds Are Forever, etc.

Of course, if you think of additional directions they could go in, feel free to list those. I'm just curious to see what people's opinions are. Remember, this isn't what you THINK they're going to do, but what you WANT them to do.

-D

[StarOpal]

Revision.

I don't believe in "either" "or" when it comes to remakes or revisions as long as both are good and distinctly different. I think the old Bonds can stand on their own for what they are and of their time. But I would also like to see this Bond's grittier approach.

Plus, after Goldeneye, none of the original title movies really excelled. Call me wary, but I don't trust the writers to not completely mess things up.

(I honestly think that if they had not cast Denise Richards in The World is Not Enough, and had less Halle Berry and more Peirce Brosnan in Die Another Day they both would've great Bond movies. But oh well.)

[eatmyshorts]

I'd say continuation. I'm not a big fan of remakes in any franchise or genre, and I think it would be very shameful to the series and unoriginal if they just remade all the old ones.

[PoolMan]

I'm going with reboot... it's not as though the previous 20 movies made huge deals out of acknowledging their precursors as it is. They've already established a new and enjoyable continuity, may as well run with it!

But I sure agree with EMS... no remakes. Glargh.

[eatmyshorts]

well yeah, reboot was my other choice, but that's only if they have all new storylines but still having the old feel. I don't want another dumb bourne supremacy/mission impossible type series...james bond was always unique and wasn't like those others, and I felt casino royale was good and it was acceptable to be a bit like those kinds of spy movies because he wasn't actually Bond yet. I hope the next movies are like the old installments but with great, original plots.

[Head Mutant]

I heard there are about four short stories about James Bond written by Ian Fleming that have yet to make the screen... might be an idea to do those.

[StarOpal]

Now that I would go for. I really just have no confidence in the writers' ability to tell certain parts of their anatomy from a hole in the ground when it comes to writing an original Bond story. I'd rather see some high quality revisions then watch the series get run into the ground.

But like I said, I don't mind revisions and remakes if they're done right. Then again, I know some people just plain hate them.

[starwenn]

I'm gonna say reboot or revision. I agree that writers have not always had the easiest time crafting original Bond stories. (My then-boyfriend and I went to see "The World Is Not Enough" when it debuted in theaters. His response to "James Bond will be back": "Is that a threat?")

Maybe they could try adapting the James Gardiner novels, or they could expand and adapt those four original short stories that never made it to the screen. Worst comes to worst, they could revise some of the cheesier films (like the much-critised "Diamonds Are Forever" and "Moonraker").

[Ellielator]

I think he should move to that pond and have a mental breakdown in some one-person shack... and about 15-minutes into the movie, Fran Drescher should show up as his door looking to get a Nanny-ing job for his imaginery children. They could be hunters and fishers in the woods and she would spout little Jewish words while he pretended he was all poetic and deep. And then one day Michael Myers and Leatherface have a big Versus battle in the woods near their shack and Fran has to yell out at them to keep the racket down. And the next day, all 4 of them wake up (and the imaginery children) in the middle of a futuristic city where people are all robots and drive hover-cars. And eat Soilent Green. And suddenly God comes down and disapproves of all the robots and turns them into cartoon frogs. Then the 4 of them have to eat Soilent Frogs. And Doc Hopper, the Frog Legs guy, is President of the United States of Futurama - the one human allowed to live. And Futurama is invaded by aliens, which look a lot like human beings... from the 1960's, wearing hippie clothes. And dancing '60's dances. And they put flowers in all the frogs' mouths. Which they immediately choke to death on. So the alien-hippies take over the world with '60's dances. And they eat rainbow beams - which taste like disinfectant spray.

And the moral of the story is - there's always something ugly underneath what looks to be lovely or pleasent.

[Al]

That... um... wow.

[Ellielator]

Thank you.