Writers Officially On Board for Next Bond Film

Why does everyone call the forthcoming Bond installment Bond 23? By all accounts, 2006's Casino Royale was a reboot of the franchise. Thus shouldn't the next one be referred to as Bond 3? I know, I know. Being a total dork about this.

While we're on the subject of 007, either the Broccolis genuinely love their work or Robert Wade & Neal Purvis have incriminating photos of them having sex with retarded babies. AKA: The writing team behind the last decade's worth of Bond films have been hired to yet again pen the exploits of everyone's favorite sexist cold-blooded British secret-agent. To be fair, they did have a big hand in Royale and most folks are of the opinion that it's the series' finest hour - myself included.

Even more encouraging is Peter Morgan (screenwriter behind The Queen, Last King of Scotland and Frost/Nixon) has also been tapped for screenwriting duties. Although not specified, it certainly sounds like this will be not unlike the role that Paul Haggis played on Royale and Quantum of Solace who came in after Wade & Purvis were done with their drafts.

Honestly, if there's anything I really don't want to see is the inclusion of long-time Bond staples Q and Miss Moneypenny in Bond 3 - who were absent from the last two films. Say what you will about Solace (which I personally liked a lot), but it and its predecessor Royale showed one could make an effective Bond film without having to include those characters for "the sake of tradition."

Now all you hear from fans is, "Oh come on. Bring back Q and Moneypenny, guys!" Sorry, but I loved how Martin Campbell (and later Marc Forster) established Daniel Craig's James Bond as someone flying by the seat of his pants and always having to rely on his wits to avoid being killed instead of yet another wacky gadget of Q's that conveniently saves his ass right in the nick of time.