ROTTEN TOMATOES: Next Bond Flick to Be a Direct "Casino Royale" Sequel

Next Bond Flick to Be a Direct "Casino Royale" Sequel

by Scott Weinberg | March 19, 2007

To those who were wondering what direction the 22nd James Bond movie would take, it seems that production designer Peter Lamont has a little info for you: The next 007 adventure WILL be a direct follow-up to "Casino Royale."

Although early pre-production has begun on "Bond 22," you shouldn't expect any big revelations just yet. Lamont confirmed the "sequel" approach ... which would be a first for the Bond series. This ties in with comments made last year by Barbara Broccoli, who mentioned phrases like "unfinished business" in regards to the next Bond.

Quite the deviation from established formula, but James Bond seems to be undergoing a lot of successful changes these days, so why not keep shaking things up?

Sources: Cinematical, CommanderBond

Related Items

Celeb:	Peter Lamont
Movie:	Casino Royale

(1-20 of 22 posts) | Reply

okito writes:
on Mar 19 2007 04:11 AM

who gives a fuck just make a great movie like the way casino was made and please DONT SCREW THIS UP.
I BOUGHT MY TICKET ALREADY. bond, james bond.

(Reply to this)

mojodaddy writes:
on Mar 19 2007 05:38 AM

That's cool. We can find more about Mr. White.

(Reply to this)

arpeggio191 writes:
on Mar 19 2007 06:17 AM

yeah... wasn't this supposed to be a continuation on Vesper Lynd's boyfriend's kidnapper, or something like that? Eva Green friggin rules by the way.

Casino Royale is the best Bond film to date... totally bought that dvd the first day and got my sweet austin martin collector hotwheel!

(Reply to this)

puablo writes:
on Mar 19 2007 07:42 AM

It makes perfect sense, Bond is trying to track down the ringleaders of a worldwide terrorist operation. SPECTRE, anyone? Obviously for legal reasons it can't actually be SPECTRE but they can easily make this a good follow-up to the exceptional Casino Royale.

Also if you watch the first handful of Bond movies, there are many references to the previous films, albeit minor and not indicative of direct sequels. I think this is a great move, provided that they know when to quit and not drag out several movies as direct sequels if the story dies off. But I'm sure they would.

(Reply to this)

COME ON! writes:
on Mar 19 2007 08:50 AM

[b]Good news[/b]
Now we just need Martin Campbell back.

(Reply to this)

narcissusbleh writes:
on Mar 19 2007 09:00 AM

[b]Eh[/b]
I remember everyone was bitching about Daniel Craig being the next Bond. Lames.

I thought Casino Royale was a bit overrated. The best action scene was at the beginning of the movie. Enough said.

(Reply to this)

skasforfags writes:
on Mar 19 2007 09:02 AM

As long as there are no 5-hour long and unrealistic poker scenes or 4 different endings it sounds good.

(Reply to this)

Fozzybear writes:
on Mar 19 2007 09:43 AM

[b]Kickass[/b]
As long as there isn't another last-act melodramatic love-fest in the next one, it'll be even better. There also needs to be a traditional gunbarrel sequence in this one...Not that the one in CR wasn't awesome or anything, it's just that you can't do it twice...

(Reply to this)

ck100 writes:
on Mar 19 2007 10:05 AM

If you watch "From Russia With Love" you hear one of the characters mention how Bond was away in Jamaica for 6 months. The previous movie, "Dr. No", had Bond away in Jamaica so technically "From Russia With Love" is a sequel to "Dr. No".

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on Mar 19 2007 10:21 AM

As long is there is zero character development, a paint by numbers plot and only action, I'm there.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Mar 19 2007 01:18 PM

In reply to this comment (#858536)
Wow you are a loser. How was the poker scene unrealistic?

(Reply to this)

bodymassagemachinego writes:
on Mar 19 2007 02:30 PM

[b]not the first direct sequel[/b]
Diamonds are Forever picked up james bond's hunt for Blofeld in order to get revenge for what he did to Bond's wife in the previous movie, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Sounds like a direct sequel to me.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Mar 19 2007 03:23 PM

In reply to this comment (#858540)
Yeah, I didn't see a whole lot wrong with the poker scene EXCEPT that no one in their right mind in a high-stakes game would hold on to the cards Bond did to win the last hand (I think it was a 5 and 7, if I remember right) But I just thought it showed that Bond could be reckless and still come out on top, so it certainly didn't bother me to any degree.

(Reply to this)

skasforfags writes:
on Mar 19 2007 03:56 PM

I have been playing poker for 4 years and any time they put poker on film it is unrealistic. I mean, do you remember the scene where Bond went broke?

One dude had JJ, Bond had AK, he ends up with the second best full-house possible that can ONLY be beat by THREE hands: AA, JJ, or a Royal Flush. The chances of another played having one of those three hands is ridiculously unlikely, and then the dialog afterwards: "You thought I was bluffing." No, numb-nuts, NO ONE is going to fold that hand unless you have x-ray glasses. The betting was out of proportion, also. Betting 300,000 into like a 10 million-dollar pot? Yeah, okay. The table actions were also very rigid, etc...

Poker, in any movie with the exception of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels will always be unbelievable. It could be Rounders, TILT (a la ESPN), The Stu Unger Story (how obscure) and yes, even Bond. I understand the game needed to happen that way for dramatic effect, but as someone who plays, it made me cringe.

So, with that said, go fuck yourself.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Mar 19 2007 05:50 PM

In reply to this comment (#858543)
Dumbass, you are the biggest loser ever.

(Reply to this)

skasforfags writes:
on Mar 19 2007 05:51 PM

Glad to have your opinion, sir.

(Reply to this)

mojodaddy writes:
on Mar 19 2007 06:11 PM

To aknddon- Don't start calling people names. You do it on every thread and it really gets tiresome when someone can't say their opinion without you calling them a fag or a dumbass.

To Skasforfags- I've never really played poker before, but I guess I can understand your frustration with it not being authentic. That being said, I don't think they could've put too much poker lingo, like the AA JJ Flush stuff, because they wouldn't want to confuse the complete poker noobs like myself.

(Reply to this)

UselessRob writes:
on Mar 19 2007 07:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#858543)
Completely agree. But movies are always overblown and unrealistic. It's like working on the internet industry and then going to see "The Net". It makes you suicidal.

But Bond is a repeat offender when it comes to a lack of realism. I've been working for MI-6 for years now and my watch doesn't shoot lasers, it only shoots darts. How silly!

Uh oh.. I've said too much.

(Reply to this)

Mono2k6 writes:
on Mar 19 2007 07:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#858530)
This is great news if you ask me. I'm glad they're sticking with the new formula.

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on Mar 19 2007 08:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#858543)
You watched a James Bond film and complained that the POKER was unrealistic? Can anyone tell us what is wrong with this statement?

On a completely different note, I've been a superhero for several years now and found both Spiderman and Superman completely unrealistic. Batman Begins was somewhat realistic. The rest made me cringe.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com