21st James Bond film will be titled "Casino Royale"

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.

This is Campbell’s second time as helmer of a James Bond film. In 1995 he directed the hit GOLDENEYE which introduced Pierce Brosnan to the role of 007 with great success.

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 ever hint that Bond 21 would be based around Ian Fleming's first literary 007 adventure "Casino Royale" came in June 2004 when an insider leaked on the MI6 Forums that "elements of the story have been influenced by Fleming's original 007 novel, but it is NOT completely based on it".

You Know Your History, Mr Bond
Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel, "Casino Royale" was published in 1953. The novel was adapted for a 1954 television show and Columbia Pictures' unofficial 1967 spy spoof "Casino Royale," which starred Peter Sellers, Woody Allen and David Niven. In 1999, MGM acquired the title and rights in a settlement with Columbia's Sony Pictures parent. MGM is now in the process of being acquired by a Sony-led investor group.

I thought you were taking the piss when i saw the title, can they really legally use the title 'casino royale' for another film, especially one so similar?
& won't it just be confusing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

I thought you were taking the piss when i saw the title, can they really legally use the title 'casino royale' for another film, especially one so similar?
& won't it just be confusing?

---

I think MGM has bought all rights to use any Flemming novel for a movie.

wow, who do you think the next bond will be? goldeneye was a pretty good movie so i think this will be better than the last 3 bond movies.

Here's another stale franchise that needs putting to sleep. The last film was so over-the-top bad I thought that was the last we'd see of Bond...

the titles were getting really predictable and cliche too. Never Let Them Die Twice Again Tomorrow.

Apparently Quentin Tarrantino first suggested the name as he wanted to make a remake of the original, but he was since rejected as director.

Martin Campbell is a good choice though; Goldeneye is my favorite Bond movie.

@Withcheese

Die another day was a great movie compared to the films after Goldeneye - Good, solid action.

Then again, I might be biased (You ought to watch the opening scene with Bond's surfing stoned :whistling )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barky

Apparently Quentin Tarrantino first suggested the name as he wanted to make a remake of the original, but he was since rejected as director.

Martin Campbell is a good choice though; Goldeneye is my favorite Bond movie.

@Withcheese

Die another day was a great movie compared to the films after Goldeneye - Good, solid action.

Then again, I might be biased (You ought to watch the opening scene with Bond's surfing stoned :whistling )

---

I could muster up some excitement if Quentin had been allowed to direct it. But like my complaints about Straszynski writing a new Star Trek series, why waste a talented person on a stale setting?

That said, I'll still watch it. I just won't be expecting to be blown away...

If you watch any of the old Bond movies they relied on character work, plot and Bond invstigating stuff. Now they have none of that and they use to special effects to get the box office cash in. Goldeneye was also my favourite 'New Bond' film. Im glad the director chose not to use hardly any special effects (CGI) and did alot of the effects in scene with real explosives and tanks and so on.

ya i'd have to say goldeneye was my fav bond movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {I}{K}{E}

...
In 1995 he directed the hit GOLDENEYE which introduced Pierce Brosnan to the role of 007 with great success....

---

maybe he'll keep P.B as james bond...

PB is gettin really old, logically there should be a new Bond. Logically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpt_azad

PB is gettin really old, logically there should be a new Bond. Logically.

---

Logically?

Logically Bond should be an old man. Should be about 80 years old...

Okay, literally he should be dead. But I'm saying that the actor who plays Bond should be someone new, not P.B., logically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpt_azad

Okay, literally he should be dead. But I'm saying that the actor who plays Bond should be someone new, not P.B., logically.

---

Explain why this is the logical thing to do then.

To me it makes no sense to replace a successful actor in the role that people have come to accept as James Bond. Replacing Pierce Brosnan with somebody who might fail at the role seems distinctly illogical.

The age thing has no baring on the character as Sean Connery played Bond as a much older actor.

I say bring back Brosnan and make this the final film of the series, go out on a relative high.

Personally, I think Brosnan is teh best Bond followed by Connery. But trust me on this one, he's not up to the job (and if he is then I'll be really happy, trust me, I'd want him to stay on as Bond, it's what the director might to that's unsettling) as viewed by the industry. I only said it's logical because if Martin C. does direct he'll most likely try and cast someone new. And if Brosnan does end up doing it then I'm sure it'll turn out a hell of alot better than if someone else did it. Either way I'm checking it out, but you're right about one thing WithCheese, this "franchise" is getting old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ofbz

maybe he'll keep P.B as james bond...

---

I read somewhere that P.B only wanted to play Bond again if Tarentino directed the movie