ROTTEN TOMATOES: Bond Screenwriters Shoot Down "Risico" Rumor

Bond Screenwriters Shoot Down "Risico" Rumor

by Scott Weinberg | January 30, 2007

It was only a few days after "Casino Royale" opened up, but there they were: sequel rumors aplenty, most of which focused on the allegations that "Bond 22" would be based on the old Ian Fleming story "Risico," despite the fact that said source material had already been mined for "For Your Eyes Only" in '81. Confused? Don't worry about it, cuz it was all wrong.

Thanks to DarkHorizons.com, here's what we know now: The next Bonder will have no connection whatsoever to "Risico," but when the series screenwriters (Robert Wade and Neal Purvis) were asked about another rumor, they got all "no comment" and such. (That rumor involves the villain of the next flick being the boyfriend of the girl who was killed in the last flick ... I think.")

Oh, and if you're still wondering when the new Bond flicks will get around to introducing their versions of the Q and Moneypenny characters, we seem to have good news and bad: Moneypenny, maybe ... Q, probably not.

Related Items

Celeb:	Ian Fleming
	Neal Purvis
	Robert Wade
Movie:	For Your Eyes Only
	Casino Royale

(1-9 of 9 posts) | Reply

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on Jan 30 2007 10:21 AM

Thank goodness, I didn't want some stupid redo of a previous film.

(Reply to this)

Vitamin M writes:
on Jan 30 2007 11:07 AM

That chick was hot...and so was the other one...

(Reply to this)

MovieSamurai writes:
on Jan 30 2007 11:35 AM

"(That rumor involves the villain of the next flick being the boyfriend of the girl who was killed in the last flick ... I think.")"
So is that Eva Green's character or the other sultry island babe, I'm confused a bit... but judging by the photo above I would say the sultry island babe.
Can anyone make it clearer for me?

(Reply to this)

Praz writes:
on Jan 30 2007 12:52 PM

From Dark Horizons: 'Wade however could "not comment" on talk that that the Algerian boyfriend of "Casino Royale" love interest Vesper Lynd will be one of the villains.'

(Reply to this)

mojodaddy writes:
on Jan 30 2007 02:36 PM

I want me some Q action.

(Reply to this)

dagreenman18 writes:
on Jan 30 2007 04:44 PM

I hate to say this, but Q was the reason bond was ruined the first time around. no more stupid gadgets, just keep in the same direction with the new Bond, it works perfectly.

(Reply to this)

Holly Jolly writes:
on Jan 30 2007 05:27 PM

In reply to this comment (#854292)
I totally agree, I love Q, but we don't need a new one. Replacing him would be harder then recasting Bond and it would serve no point.

(Reply to this)

WileyMan writes:
on Jan 30 2007 07:01 PM

I agree that Q should be left out of the next movie but I have to admit I missed the gadgets. I don't mean far-fetched ones like invisible cars or dorky guns made of everyday objects but with some creativity I think they could add a gadget or two without it being cheesy.

(Reply to this)

fizzypulp writes:
on Jan 31 2007 02:38 AM

the best thing about Bond was the fact that this one was gritty, violent, hands on...forget the gadgets and keep to the tone of Casino Royale - kept the old fans happy and got a hell of a lot of new ones along the way

(Reply to this)