Another Bond Flick Already in the Works?

The globetrotting Stax over at IGN FilmForce has uncovered what appears to be plans to shoot yet another "Bond" movie following the still-being-filmed "Casino Royale," to hit theaters in, yes, the year 2-007.

According to, a "source" told Britain's Daily Express that a sequel is already being planned to "Casino Royale" -- the 21st in the franchise's history, and the first to star the notoriously blond Daniel Craig. "Casino Royale" is to be released this November, so if this tip is true, the Broccolis better get a move on.

From "A source told Britain's Daily Express newspaper: 'The next one will be in 2007 - Bond's year. It will mean back-to-back shooting but then the next film will pick up where 'Casino Royale' leaves off anyway.'"

While we wait for the official word on "Casino Royale 2," or whatever "Bond 22" will be called, there's plenty to get excited about over November's release -- including the just-released teaser trailer, here!



Robert Kimberlin

[b]Bond 2007[/b]
I would like to see all of the actors that played Bond in the movies appear in cameos in this next Bond film. That would be awesome. It would also mean big box office.

May 4 - 04:17 PM


Eric Schulze

Good Idea! That would be funny as hell. Does anyone think that the series should end after the Casino Royale II?? I think it would be a fitting end. It is by far the best bond book. so why not?

May 4 - 04:21 PM


Omar Gonzalez

But see, if the series ends that means after a couple of years they'll start remaking the old ones again, we can't have that...

May 4 - 05:37 PM


Omar Gonzalez

But see, if the series ends that means after a couple of years they'll start remaking the old ones again, we can't have that...

May 4 - 05:37 PM


Jeremy Appleyard

I see no reason for the series to end, it looks like they're trying to get a fresh start. I was a little leery of the whole "we're taking Bond back to the beginning" idea at first, but after seeing the trailer I think it could work. The trailer has me optimistic.

I'd like Bond to become a little more believable that some of the previous movies. Still the crazy stunts and womanizing, that I don't mind, but the bad-guy-built stealth ships or space stations or ice palaces can go. The best Bond movie is For Your Eyes Only, precisely because it's more gritty and realistic.

Basically, the new Bond should take a good long look at the Bourne movies and see why they are so good.

May 5 - 05:16 AM


Adam Collins

As long as the budgets stay low, like $75 million, they will make money hand over fist.

I agree that For Your Eyes Only is the best.

May 5 - 05:24 AM


Josh Jones

[b]Back To Basics[/b]
If you know your Bond history, you'll know that they wanted to go "back to the basics" when they made For Your Eyes Only, because they felt the series had gone too over the top by the time Moonraker came out. The result: FYEO is a lot of people's favorite movie. Then it got all crazy again. New Bond, new "gritty" "back to the basics" flick, we get The Living Daylights, again high on the list of a lot of people's favorite Bond movies. Next movie... not so much. Next Bond, new movie, and while they didn't ever say they were trying to tone it down, many people love Goldeneye. Again, it later got over the top.

So the question now is, how much will history repeat itself? We have a new Bond, a VERY new attempt at going back to the original books, and thus Casino Royale has the potential to be very good. (We can only hope.) So will it live up to these expectations, and then will the following ones finally show the creators have learned their lesson? Time will tell.

And no they shoudn't remake movies they already made.

May 5 - 09:46 AM


Mike Erali

[b]New Bond[/b]
I don't think its really back to the beginning of Bond. Why then would they have Judi Dench as M and John Cleese as Q? The side characters are really who you can judge the passage of time with. Desmond L was Q for a long time, while bond after bond comes and goes. Now we have a new bond, thus back to the beginning, although I think casino royale was the first bond book, thus its also the introduction to bond in literary form.

If it was truly from the beginning, there would be no judi dench, no cleese, just a complete redo of all actors. Since they are there, its a continuation with a new bond, thus the line, "I understand double O's have a very short life expectancy."

Anyway, Goldfinger is the best bond, end of discussion. The Roger Moore Bonds are almost unwatchable for me, and Timothy Dalton? C'mon.

May 5 - 11:52 AM


Ken Schrock

If Casino Royale is good, I will be damn happy after watching it to know that there is another all ready in the works. But only if it's good, if it's not then I'll just be iritated that there's another one on the way.

May 6 - 12:30 PM

What's Hot On RT

Total Recall
Total Recall

Ethan Hawke's 10 Best Movies

The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games

New Mockingjay teaser trailer


Full 2014 nominations list

Planet of the Apes
Planet of the Apes

Watch interviews with the cast

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile