ROTTEN TOMATOES: Bond 22 Less Serious, More Comedic; Bond 23 Set for 2010 Comments

Bond 22 Less Serious, More Comedic; Bond 23 Set for 2010

by Alex Vo | July 16, 2007

Summary

After the overtly gritty and serious Casino Royale, I personally predicted that after a few dark Bond movies they'd try to pump in goofy humor again. Turns out they are, and could actually start as early as the next Bond. Back to Article

(1-76 of 76 posts) | Reply

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 16 2007 03:53 PM

WHAAAAT?!?!??!

(Reply to this)

zeromark16 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 04:17 PM

what do they mean, exactly, by jokes?

Last time they did that, it turned into Die Another Day. Simply atrocious.

(Reply to this)

the-russian writes:
on Jul 16 2007 04:18 PM

Yeah, um, "less serious, more comedic," isn't that how we got from Goldeneye to Die Another Day?

(Reply to this)

uhhuhnads writes:
on Jul 16 2007 04:25 PM

***, they are screwed.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 16 2007 04:27 PM

In reply to this comment (#935213)
If they mean 'smart humor' or 'homages' then I'll be fine. If they mean '****ty puns that ****ed Batman and Robin' then I'm not.

(Reply to this)

Dominem007 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 04:30 PM

This doesnt sound good at all...but have faith people, I m pretty confident that they movie will still be gritty, dark and realistic like Casino Royale was, just with a little more humor to keep people entertained from start to finish.

(Reply to this)

taran72 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 04:31 PM

Interesting choice of director, that's for sure. They shoulda begged the Royale guy to come back. Campbell is the man.

(Reply to this)

nathanpoitras writes:
on Jul 16 2007 04:32 PM

Oh no, here we go again!

(Reply to this)

taran72 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 04:35 PM

Interesting choice of director, that's for sure. They shoulda begged the Royale guy to come back. Campbell is the man.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Jul 16 2007 04:45 PM

Might as well let Bay direct it if they want to finally kill the Bond franchise. At least then they could blame it on a momentary lapse of sanity.

(Reply to this)

vivawheels writes:
on Jul 16 2007 04:50 PM

I sincerely hope that this announcement is the extent of the "humor" attached to the forthcoming Bond films. They'd finally gotten the proper feel for Bond with CR; a less intense approach will point the franchise back towards mediocrity. My fingers remain crossed that future Bond films reflect the tone of CR.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jul 16 2007 04:50 PM

In reply to this comment (#935310)
I still have hope. I just hope that they don't take it too far.

(Reply to this)

lavatory love machine writes:
on Jul 16 2007 05:08 PM

good thing they decided to make more stupid, now I won't have to spend money on the dvd

(Reply to this)

jmo2ski writes:
on Jul 16 2007 05:18 PM

Yeah, this is bad, really bad. And if they make a title by "***** galore" i think it would mislead some viewers to think that it is a porno. And i guess it would be a big box-office hit.

(Reply to this)

Brad 3000 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 06:00 PM

Wow. This sucks. Why did they even do the reboot in the first place if they're just going to turn around and put the franchise right back where it was?

(Reply to this)

Matthew writes:
on Jul 16 2007 06:04 PM

Jmo2ski I think it's a fallacy that sex sells. If sex purely by itself sold, then X rated movies would do Harry Potter numbers.
A bit of sexiness, a bit of titilation as the spice in a broader mix is what the masses like.

Back on topic the idea of going back to a jokey, goofey Bond is franchise suicide. Are they stupid or what? We want some gritt, edge & realism in our Bond films now. We got that with the relaunch which is why it was so successful. Why the hell would they want to go away from that!?

(Reply to this)

Matthew writes:
on Jul 16 2007 06:05 PM

Jmo2ski I think it's a fallacy that sex sells. If sex purely by itself sold, then X rated movies would do Harry Potter numbers.
A bit of sexiness, a bit of titilation as the spice in a broader mix is what the masses like.

Back on topic the idea of going back to a jokey, goofey Bond is franchise suicide. Are they stupid or what? We want some gritt, edge & realism in our Bond films now. We got that with the relaunch which is why it was so successful. Why the hell would they want to go away from that!?

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jul 16 2007 06:27 PM

Do they mean "Moonraker" funny? Ugh...

Don't worry, once they get to Bond 48, they'll realize that they need to pump new life into the series again and will make a grittier, more serious Bond.

(Reply to this)

steveholt writes:
on Jul 16 2007 06:34 PM

I hope this is the joke

(Reply to this)

LAZARUS007 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 06:36 PM

HELL NO, THEY NOT BOUT T' DO THAT??? I mean imagine why Casino Royale did so good, because they showed bond in a different light; a cold *** assassin. They need to chill with that rico swave comedic **** and bring some o that grit for real.
Excuse my anger, but i cant allow my casino royale experience to be ruined by a crappy sequel.

(Reply to this)

LAZARUS007 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 06:36 PM

OH, HELL NO!!!! THEY NOT BOUT T' DO THAT??? I mean imagine why Casino Royale did so good, because they showed bond in a different light; a cold *** assassin. They need to chill with that rico swave comedic **** and bring some o that grit for real.
Excuse my anger, but i cant allow my casino royale experience to be ruined by a crappy sequel.

(Reply to this)

sarlaccpit_48 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 06:37 PM

In reply to this comment (#935108)
Yay more worthless jokes
just like those in POCT:AWE.

I wonder if they'll have midgets with large guns
flying all over the place?

(Reply to this)

LAZARUS007 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 06:38 PM

.....AND WHATSUP WITH THE "SUBMIT" BUTTON?

(Reply to this)

LAZARUS007 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 06:38 PM

.....AND WHATSUP WITH THE "SUBMIT" BUTTON? It keeps repeating my clicks...see!!

(Reply to this)

Exode writes:
on Jul 16 2007 06:44 PM

Damn it.

(Reply to this)

RT-News writes:
on Jul 16 2007 06:54 PM

In reply to this comment (#935644)
We're transitioning to a new comments system. We're ironing out the kinks and they'll be fixed shortly.

(Reply to this)

killermonkey8822 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 07:10 PM

well as long as they don't take it too far....... but "Casino Royale" still had some comedy (torture scene for example)added in..... just not too the point where it was silly...... so i think that they should do the same formula as the other one.

(Reply to this)

Product_of_You writes:
on Jul 16 2007 07:35 PM

This is very disappointing. The reason that Casino Royale was far beyond any of the other bond films is because of the seriousness and grit of it. They are going to completely ruin it now. Figures.

(Reply to this)

tabascoman77 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 07:48 PM

Everyone needs to relax...

Has anybody caught on to the fact that this article is by a British TABLOID???

The Daily Express is hardly "news" to me. They're sensationalist bull**** **** onto a page. If I'm not mistaken, they're among the Brit rags that reported all the negative press about the last movie...which panned out to be completely false.

I don't believe this article and the fact that RT continues to report crap found in the daily supermarket sloprags just amazes me to no end.

(Reply to this)

dolby70mm writes:
on Jul 16 2007 07:52 PM

Barbara Broccoli, "We need to do something snazzy to bond...something that we haven't tried before."

Michael G. Wilson, " I know! Let's make him GAY!"

(Reply to this)

dolby70mm writes:
on Jul 16 2007 07:54 PM

Next Bond title - "THUNDERBALLS"

(Reply to this)

dolby70mm writes:
on Jul 16 2007 07:59 PM

Another Bond title - "Never Do Her Twice"

(Reply to this)

Bathazar B writes:
on Jul 16 2007 08:37 PM

I don't know. I have faith in Craig and Haggis and Forster. With a line-up like that, a polar shift would be required to result in crap.

(Reply to this)

bastard_guy180 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 08:54 PM

THIS BETTER BE THE ONLY JOKE. WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS.

(Reply to this)

tabascoman77 writes:
on Jul 16 2007 09:03 PM

And...like I said...the report is from a British tabloid rag of a paper that reported negative crap about the last movie.

Come on, guys...

I really can't believe RT reports this garbage.

(Reply to this)

jmo2ski writes:
on Jul 17 2007 03:31 AM

In reply to this comment (#935554)
I was saying that i guess (meaning i don't thinkg) it would make big box-office numbers.

(Reply to this)

Robocop Terminator writes:
on Jul 17 2007 05:09 AM

i like the aspect of this coming out 4 years after casino royale...rushing through this franchise like the brosnan films is a horrible idea, but what are the producers thinking reverting back to a moore style bond?!?!?! casino royale was the best bond film yet and nearly flawless. I and everyone I speak to agrees...this could all just be rumours though so who knows. if the producers are listening, you have time! don't screw up bond!

(Reply to this)

Robocop Terminator writes:
on Jul 17 2007 05:10 AM

i like the aspect of this coming out 4 years after casino royale...rushing through this franchise like the brosnan films is a horrible idea, but what are the producers thinking reverting back to a moore style bond?!?!?! casino royale was the best bond film yet and nearly flawless. I and everyone I speak to agrees...this could all just be rumours though so who knows. if the producers are listening, you have time! don't screw up bond!

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jul 17 2007 06:33 AM

i think they just mean it'll be more of a BOND film than a Bourne film, like the last one was. it just didn't feel like a Bond film because there wasn't that sarcastic wit and charm EVERY other bond had. while it was still good, it wasn't exactly the Bond we're used to. i think they're somewhat going to go with that kind of routine instead of this robotic like guy. least thats what i'm hoping...

(Reply to this)

RiddleofSteel writes:
on Jul 17 2007 06:40 AM

Ugh. They bring back the Bond series by making it more serious and believable and now they intend to ruin it? Seriously what are these producers smoking? The last bond was perfect, serious but it still had a few light moments. Well if they go through with this horrible idea they've lost my ticket money, and I thought them not bringing back the same director was bad enough.

(Reply to this)

arpeggio191 writes:
on Jul 17 2007 06:48 AM

terrible idea.

(Reply to this)

rgallitan writes:
on Jul 17 2007 07:12 AM

In reply to this comment (#936123)
tabascoman77,

Isn't it amazing that RT posted your comment three times and STILL everybody seems to have missed it?

(Reply to this)

bluestar50 writes:
on Jul 17 2007 07:23 AM

What do they mean "the Bond jokes will be flipped on their heads?" This doesn't sound good at all.

(Reply to this)

Vitamin M writes:
on Jul 17 2007 08:07 AM

hmmm...this must be why they brought in Marc Foster....
This bond will feature daniel craig undercover as a irs agent who starts hearing voices telling him to act more like Will ferrell...the part of the voices will be played by the idiot producers that messed up the other bond films...

(Reply to this)

Vitamin M writes:
on Jul 17 2007 08:08 AM

hmmm...this must be why they brought in Marc Foster....
This bond will feature daniel craig undercover as a irs agent who starts hearing voices telling him to act more like Will ferrell...the part of the voices will be played by the idiot producers that messed up the other bond films...

(Reply to this)

BuckyUnderbelly writes:
on Jul 17 2007 08:19 AM

Ungh! PLEASE let this be an unsubstantiated rumor or a bit of poor tabloid reportage! I loved Casino Royale precisely BECAUSE they got rid of all the things about the Bond franchise that drove me absolutely nuts. And at the top of that list was the supposed "comedy." I absolutely LOVED how hard-edged and decidedly un-corny the new movie was. Here's the thing ... these movies don't NEED any comedy.

Let me say that again, in case the producers are reading.

THESE MOVIES DON'T NEED COMEDY!

In fact, they're much better without it. When I go to the multi-plex to see a big action/spy movie ... I'm going for the thrills and the action! I'm NOT there for the jokes! If I want to laugh, I'll see what Will Ferrell or Judd Apatow are up to. The inane quips and groaningly stupid "gags" were the things that, in my mind, went a long way toward ruining many, many previous installments in the Bond franchise.

After receiving near universal critical acclaim, audience praise and boffo box office numbers for Casino Royale ... why, oh, why would these producers stick their thumbs in our eyes and undo all the good they've done?

Or are they just doing it to piss me off?

(Reply to this)

Holly Jolly writes:
on Jul 17 2007 09:27 AM

The article certainly expresses it in a horrible way.

Casino Royale was funny, but only because it used gags that poked fun at the older Bond films. They can't do that forever.

If it's Connery type humor and not over the top pun work like Moore's films then it will be fine.

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on Jul 17 2007 10:27 AM

[i]but "Casino Royale" still had some comedy (torture scene for example)[/i]

I think you and I are the only ones who laughed during that scene. I was especially amazed at Le Chiffre's aim, each... and... every... time! Hilarity.

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on Jul 17 2007 10:29 AM

[i]but "Casino Royale" still had some comedy (torture scene for example)[/i]

I think you and I are the only ones who laughed during that scene. I was especially amazed at Le Chiffre's aim, each... and... every... time! Hilarity.

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on Jul 17 2007 10:46 AM

[i]but "Casino Royale" still had some comedy (torture scene for example)[/i]

I think you and I are the only ones who laughed during that scene. I was especially amazed at Le Chiffre's aim, each... and... every... time! Hilarity.

(Reply to this)

DarthTall writes:
on Jul 17 2007 11:54 AM

In reply to this comment (#935310)
Well put. Damn I needed a good laugh...

(Reply to this)

DarthTall writes:
on Jul 17 2007 11:59 AM

In reply to this comment (#936186)
Outstanding! Two for two! Why is this crap so funny to me? I must be overly tired...

(Reply to this)

Sputnik99 writes:
on Jul 17 2007 12:42 PM

C'mon, everyone! Don't sound so negative! The next movie is gonna be like "Octopussy" and we know what a super Bond classic that piece of **** is!

Why don't people ever realize that it's better to just leave well enough alone? The new Bond format worked. Why mess with it? Stupid, stupid producers.

(Reply to this)

Leaffan07 writes:
on Jul 17 2007 12:59 PM

Well like many of you I'm not very happy about this.. but as Dominem said we have to have faith and hope that it turns out well.. but yeah if it turns out like any of the Brosnan movies (after Goldeneye) then this is not good at all.

I was happy with dark and gritty..and actually there were still SOME funny parts in Casino Royale

(Reply to this)

CannibalPenguins writes:
on Jul 17 2007 01:00 PM

[b]OMG[/b]

OCTOPUSSY 2!!!

(Reply to this)

deneco4 writes:
on Jul 17 2007 02:01 PM

Big budget movie trying to be funny... UH OH!!

Hahah, remember when they spent 200 million on a comedy that wasn't funny? I believe they called it "Evan Almighty".

I sure hope they are all politically correct jokes and FCC approved!

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jul 17 2007 02:43 PM

Oh come on. As if James Bond isn't allowed to have a sense of humor. Seriously, I doubt they'll be turning it into Austin Powers anytime soon. But please, Bond is nothing without a LITTLE cheese, and a good helping of double entendre.

(Reply to this)

Makeshift Python writes:
on Jul 17 2007 08:26 PM

I can't believe RT actually bought into this tabloid rubbish. Daniel was clearly joking and it has been taken out of context. The Daily Express really twisted his words. Here is the real interview from INTERVIEW MAGAZINE!

Q: You managed to make it(the role) your own.
A: We will see.

Q: You've already done it--we don't have to see. And the only contentious issue when you were offered the part was the fact that you're blond.
A: They just want more gags. The next one's going to be a lot funnier.

Q: Octopussy kind of gags?
A: Yeah. Octopussy. ***** Galore. They're all great names. But that's the thing; all the Bond jokes have been flipped on their heads. They've all gone beyond... Should we order a bit more wine, so I can think straight? (Food is delivered to the table.)

(Reply to this)

Dominem007 writes:
on Jul 17 2007 10:42 PM

Whoever is worried about this really shouldnt be. I have read articles time and time again, (recently) stating that Bond 22 will continue the story arc of Casino Royale and that subsequent Bond outings will follow the exact style and themes created in the first one which basically began a brand new series of Bond films (Just like Batman Begins). Because he "became" Bond in the first one, it gives him more incentive to use one liners and crack jokes just like traditional Bonds did. Sean Connery used to make corny jokes all the time and wasn't always all that serious either, just like Moore. Its just the character that Bond is and has become from Casino Royale. With Paul Haggis back on board, and Morc Forster directing, Craig will have no problem astounding us once again with this new Bond.

(Reply to this)

bigape04 writes:
on Jul 18 2007 12:46 AM

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't mess up what Casino Royale started!!!

Casino Royale, imho, is the best Bond film ever....and I've seen all of them, most twice!

Keep it dark and gritty people!! Please don't F with what works!!!

(Reply to this)

tabascoman77 writes:
on Jul 18 2007 04:08 AM

In reply to this comment (#938131)
No, I hadn't noticed, rtalligan.

I'm not much of a lifer on these boards. I don't guage my popularity with how many reactions I get...but thanks for noticing.

(Reply to this)

juggaloclown420 writes:
on Jul 20 2007 10:57 AM

ok.... fair enough?

(Reply to this)

pinkincide writes:
on Jul 22 2007 12:12 AM

So I guess we can look forward to Daniel Craig saying stupid lines like "you get the point" when he offs someone. Casino Royale worked because they cut all that crap out and didn't patronize the audience for once. It's maddening to think how much the people making these movies actually loathe the people who watch them.

(Reply to this)

AbecedariusRex writes:
on Jul 22 2007 09:02 AM

Aw, Damn!

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Casino Royale

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links