> Well, I'm waiting to hear what Sam or Stephen or Dave has to say about the new James Bond. Or anyone else who has an opinion.

I have less to say about the new Bond than I do about everything else that's been announced regarding the direction of the series. But first things first -- I don't know Daniel Craig. I saw him in "Road To Perdition" (in fact, so did you, with Leen and me, when you came to NH last) but I don't really remember him in it. The film that prompted the buzz about him is "Layer Cake." I haven't seen it, but those who have seem to be able to imagine him transitioning into Bond rather well. All I have to go on at the moment is what he looks like in photographs that accompany the news articles. He doesn't seem to have the look for Bond to me, and I'm not just talking about the blond hair. But I have an open mind.

The other news about the series that's come out is more remarkable to me. There's a link to a BBC news article at the end of this post that spells out some of the details.

The main thing is that they're shifting gears into a darker, less fantastic spy hero and making this fresh start by adapting Ian Fleming's first Bond book, Casino Royale, which has been adapted twice before but never in the official canon of the film series. The book is by far the darkest of the series, and it's a great story choice for doing what the producers say they want to do -- take Bond back to his roots and build it all up again.

What confuses me is that they've chosen Martin Campbell as the director to lead the series into this new direction. Campbell did a fine job with the first Zorro movie (dunno yet about the second), but Goldeneye was the weakest of the Brosnan Bond flicks, and nothing in Campbell's filmography suggests he can do grit and subtlety. The right man for the job actively campaigned for it and was turned down -- Quentin Tarantino, who specifically wanted to adapt Casino Royale and take the character in a new direction. It would have been great.

Other odd decisions: Moneypenny and Q won't appear in the next movie. I understand the desire to cut down on the gadgets, but you don't need to toss Q to get realistic, nor do you need to toss Moneypenny if you want to cut down on the frivolous wordplay.

All the same, I hope they pull it off. The Bond series has made this dramatic shift to forego comic spectacle in favor of gritty realism twice before -- first, with For Your Eyes Only; second, with Licence To Kill. Both moves were applauded by the critics and the fans but resulted in reduced box office. I have to commend the producers for making this same basic decision for a third time, when they must surely know what the financial consequences are likely to be. The reality is that "Die Another Day" was the most profitable Bond film in history and considered by many critics and fans (including me) to be the best of the four. It was a strange time to decide to dump Brosnan and change gears. I was not ready to see Brosnan go, but I understand the dilemma of the filmmakers: how do you follow up "Die Another Day" *without* shifting gears?