# Casino Royale (2006)



## Marky Lazer (Mar 10, 2006)

You might have heard about the plans... Daniel Craig is playing Bond in the new movie Casino Royale. You probably have heard about the not too grateful fans either: http://www.craignotbond.com

Any thoughts?


----------



## ravenus (Mar 10, 2006)

Those fans are utter asses. Craig is a good actor and to me he looks like he could be a dangerous spy type that would snap your neck if he wanted to, which is so much more than I could imagine for milksop Brosnan. Just my 2 bits.


----------



## Adasunshine (Mar 10, 2006)

I think Mr Craig will do a fine job playing Bond.  From a personal point of view, it'll be a bit strange Bond being Blonde but I'm sure I'll get used to it!

He's a good actor and why these idiot fans are going off like this is beyond me!

xx


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 10, 2006)

In my opininion Bond's shelf-life has long since expired. The plots and devices have become more and more ludicrous and the humour more strained in recent years. 

To me, it doesn't matter who plays Bond, better that they finally bury the corpse and let it rest in peace....but I suppose the Cash Cow must be milked


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 11, 2006)

I have to agree. The Bond series was getting week when they ran out of Ian Fleming original novels to work from. A few of the movies were based on short stories and at least one (Octopussy) was based on a short story that James Bond was in but just as a side story. Boycotting formally, on the other hand, is childish. Movies live or die based on attendance. If you don't like a movie or anything about it, just don't go. I won't because I gave up when Sean Connery quit. But I'm not boycotting.


----------



## ravenus (Mar 11, 2006)

I do agree with Foxbat that Bond is a spent force per se. I think the few movies I've seen of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan character render him more attractive as the government agent hero for the new generation. However, I'm NOT interested in Ben Affleck playing this character which is why I gave the Sum of All Fears movie a wide miss.


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 11, 2006)

> I won't because I gave up when Sean Connery quit. But I'm not boycotting.


 
I think that about nicely sums up my position as well


----------



## dreamwalker (Mar 12, 2006)

I think Casino Royale will do for Bond what batman begins did for the Batman saga, or Spider man - the film, did for spiderman.

I've read there'll be next to no gadgets, bond "really" failling in love, bond fumbling around and not being as slick as you'd expect and generally being realisitc, believible and intense in actual action, not visual efffects.

Personally, I can't wait till november...


----------



## weaveworld (Mar 12, 2006)

I think Daniel Craig will be a great additional, and he should be given a chance to show everyone how good an actor he is.  I recently watched 'Layer Cake' and was pleasantly surprised how good an actor he is.

Looking forward to the movie


----------



## polymorphikos (Mar 12, 2006)

I'll definitely see this. They're speaking of taking it in a slightly new direction, more stripped-back, and even though people often complain and box-offices suffer when they do this (_OHMSS_,_ Licence to Kill_), the results are usually actually quite good.

Also, the concept of Bond isn't worn-out, since spy movies are always cool. It's just that, being James Bond films, the popularity of the franchise often renders effort unnecessary. This same popularity also becomes something of a trap, however, as people come to expect certain things and it becomes dangerous to stray too far from the formula.

And _Die Another Day_ was the only genuinely bad Brosnan Bond film, to my mind. Which was a pity since it had a promising premise which the writers proceeded to do nothing with.


----------



## Whitestar (Nov 14, 2006)

I'll start off by stating that I'm a huge James Bond fan. My parents raised me by watching them, starting with Moonraker. Naturally, my favorite Bond was Roger Moore because apart from the fact that I grew up watching him, he added a touch of class and possessed a more gentleman-like manner than the macho Sean Connery lacked. Timothy Dalton was rather wooden, but I at least appreciated that he played the role with a bit realism and grit. However, Pierce Brosnan, he was definitely a worthy successor to Roger Moore. And the less said about George Lazenby, the better. In regards to Casino Royale, I didn't know that it was a prequel to Dr. No, I initially thought that Dr. No was the very first Bond adventure. And while I don't mind this at all, I am somewhat bothered by the fact that the producers are considering this film to be a reboot or a reimaging because this means that all the other films that came before it are void and forgotten. The whole point of doing a reboot/reimaging is to vastly improve on the original concept. The problem is, very few of these reboot/reimaging have been successful. Movies like Starsky and Hutch and Miami Vice tanked at the box office. So far, only the new Battlestar Galactica has been highly successful. But why is there a need to reboot/reimagine the Bond franchise? True, it had its share of flops, but in general, they've done quite well. Even more confusing is why Judi Dench is returning as M when she wasn't Bond's first boss according to the novel? What's up with that? Don't get me wrong, I like her as an actress, but chronologically speaking, she's not supposed to be in this one. And if the film does well at the box office, does this mean that the producers will do a reimaging of Dr. No next?


----------



## BookStop (Nov 14, 2006)

True, for the most part revamped images do nothing for the movie business. It's either broke or it ain't. I don't think the Bond movies have fallen into the broke category at all, so it does seem a little bit ofa na insult to say they need fixing.

Revamping only seems to work occasionally(think Charlies Angels), but more often than not they are complete failures. I hated the second Shining and Amityville, although the originals hold thier creep factor for me. 

I've never been a huge Bond fan, but I had no idea the franchise thought it was suffering losses or anything. I've seen the last couple and they were pretty good (Brosnan makes a brilliant Bond), heck I even saw Die Another Day in the theater, which I nearly never do! Who knows, maybe this new one will be awesome and we'll be thinking, 'Wow, good thing they *rebooted* that image', or this could just be the beginning of the Bond Franchise downfall.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 14, 2006)

Have not yet had a chance to catch this one, obviously, but just wanted to throw out a point or two for discussion. If this is supposed to be a reimaging in the usual manner, then may all the gods help the franchise. If, however, they are trying to get a bit closer to the roots, to the sort of character that Fleming created, then I think it has the potential to be very good. (Note, I do not say it will be, just that it has the potential to be.) And, once I have had a chance to see it, I'll pass on my thoughts. I'm a bit shy about this one, but at the same time, it does look like they at least have read the damned book in the first place! And, for those who care for such minutiae, the order of the series with the original Ian Fleming books (two of which were story collections, not novels) is as follows:

*Casino Royale* (1953)
*Live and Let Die* (1954)
*Moonraker *(1955)
*Diamonds are Forever* (1956)
*From Russia with Love* (1957)
*Dr. No* (1958)
*Goldfinger* (1959)
*For Your Eyes Only* (s.c.; 5 stories) (1960)
*Thunderball* (1961) 
*The Spy Who Loved Me* (1962)
*On Her Majesty's Secret Service* (1963)
*You Only Live Twice* (1964)
*The Man with the Golden Gun* (1965)
*Octopussy* (s.c.) (1966) (originally published as *Octopussy and The Living Daylights*, both titles also contained "Property of a Lady")

One of the things that might work if they are doing a reimaging and try to remain somewhat faithful to Fleming's work, is the way the character grew and changed through the course of the series... it was a very interesting character arc, I think.


----------



## Talysia (Nov 14, 2006)

I like the James Bond films, but not so much that I'd get worked up over the image change.  I've never been a purist for these films, and I've never read the books, so I guess I can't really comment on how faithful a reboot or reimaging would be.  It'll be interesting to see how the new Bond actor fares, though.


----------



## steve12553 (Nov 15, 2006)

I read the Books and stories as a teenager (post Stone Age) and I was a big Sean Connery fan. The movies were obviously more flashy then the books but the Sean Connery version seemed to at least keep the character close to the books. The newer movies starting with Roger Moore seemed to loose it's edginess which to me seemed to define Bond.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 15, 2006)

Of course, if they did do a remake, I simply cannot see any way they'd put the same ending on the screen that Fleming had for Dr. No. The way Bond finally killed him off was ... unique, shall we say?


----------



## Cloud (Nov 15, 2006)

Whitestar said:


> The whole point of doing a reboot/reimaging is to vastly improve on the original concept.


 
Wherever did you get this idea?  Remakes exist for one reason--to exploit a tried and true formula and make money.  

I'm reserving my opinion until I see the movie.  

And Roger Moore wasn't as bad as George Lazenby . . . but he was close.

I happen to have a cd of the music from the Bond movies--not the flashy sung "theme songs" but from the  instrumental scores, and it's one of my all time favorites.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 15, 2006)

Cloud said:


> I happen to have a cd of the music from the Bond movies--not the flashy sung "theme songs" but from the instrumental scores, and it's one of my all time favorites.


 
I assume that the majority of the pieces are by John Barry? I know he did most of the scores for them for quite a long while... and yes, he's done a lot of very good film work, including the score for *The Lion in Winter* (a personal favorite). 'Twould be a nice cd, I'm thinking. I have most of the soundtrack albums on vinyl.... (Yes, I know. I'm a dinosaur.... )


----------



## Cloud (Nov 15, 2006)

I couldn't find the exact cd on Amazon, or I'd post it.  I love movie soundtracks!


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 15, 2006)

Cloud said:


> I couldn't find the exact cd on Amazon, or I'd post it. I love movie soundtracks!


 
I have more than a slight fondness for them myself.....


----------



## Whitestar (Nov 15, 2006)

Cloud said:


> Wherever did you get this idea?  Remakes exist for one reason--to exploit a tried and true formula and make money.
> 
> I'm reserving my opinion until I see the movie.
> 
> ...



Yes, its true that the main purpose of remakes/reimagings is to make money, that's a given. But to do that, they will have to make it better than the original, otherwise, it will flop.


----------



## Stenevor (Nov 15, 2006)

I'm 37 and have never seen a full James Bond film. When I was young my mum wouldnt have them on saying they were rubbish and a succession of girlfriends hated them too. I'm a little more interested in this though as I know Daniel Craig's a good actor. Ill give it a couple of months and see if all these early good reviews are hype and might watch it. Its really hard for me to get excited about Spys and spying though, I find it a really boring subject.


----------



## Cloud (Nov 21, 2006)

Saw it.  It was great! I give it an A-.  Daniel Craig is riveting, and this one seems more "real" than a lot of the cartoonish plots and devices the Bond franchise has suffered through in the past.  

He's a new "00" -- still learning, and makes a number of mistakes in this movie.  A lot of the bond mythos (tuxedo, Aston Martin, martinis) is addressed here.  

Ladies (and inclined men) there is a nude scene of Mr. Craig--but he's being tortured at the time so it takes some of the pleasure out of it.  

Still.


----------



## PTeppic (Nov 21, 2006)

I've always been a fan of the series, so I'm biased but it was superb. The series pretty much started the high-octane spy/thriller films in the mid sixties, with glamourous locations and women, big stunt sequences and the thrills and spills. The problem was that over the years the humour and gadgets got a little in the way occasionally. And CGI should only ever be for touching up, not creating, thank you very much Mr Tamahori.

This one is back to basics in a way that means it can compete with say the Bourne series. It leaves the Mission Impossibles of this world to run with the high gadget content and focuses on a man who works for his country, on his own (mostly) with a car and more sex appeal than every boy-band in the country.

Timeline wise the whole thing is totally screwed, and I don't think they're apologising for it. Each time they changed Bond they did it anyway, slightly, with a younger actor. What they've done is brought the whole franchise bang up to date with a young-ish actor, as the "new" Bond, in both screen time and 00 license, which means they can run with him for another four or five films if they're pretty quick and can keep the reality in the scripts.

As for the film itself, there's girls, cars, action, explosions, chases, fights, stunts, gadgets (despite the suggestions to the contrary), the Martini, and of course, when he kills (in stone cold blood), his self-introduction. Remember - he's Bond, James Bond. And about time too!


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 21, 2006)

Just got back from seeing this one (I know, shouldn't go out in this weather with a cold -- pfui!). Yes, they do take some serious liberties with things here (I won't tell what, because I don't want to spoil anything for those who haven't but will see the film.) However, I will say that they kept the core plot pretty much intact, though upping the ante (so to speak) a bit; and, of course, there are action sequences galore. Nonetheless, this is closer to Fleming's character than I've seen -- in more than flashes, anyway -- in one heck of a long time... and I do think they lived up to the original very well, thank you.

In other words -- yes, I was very pleasantly surprised by the film, I highly recommend it to anyone who likes a good thriller (we're back to the roots on that, at least), and I like the fact that Bond is again a complex character with failings and strengths; make him a heck of a lot more interesting. And, yes, he can be a right brutal s.o.b. when he chooses, and no apologies offered. If they keep up this quality, I feel that the character is, finally, once again in good hands.


----------



## SpaceShip (Nov 21, 2006)

Well, I reckon I'll watch the new one - I've seen all the others including the original Casino Royal with David Niven!!!!

Would be interesting to find out how much the original film cost to make and what the rebooted/reimaged one would!


----------



## PTeppic (Nov 21, 2006)

I believe (extras on "Goldeneye" or "Tomorrow Never Dies"?) that "Dr No" was made for a million dollars. When it was successful they doubled the budget for "From Russia With Love"... but you're talking about "Casino Royale" I guess....


----------



## Rosemary (Nov 21, 2006)

I have read all of the books and watched the movies as well.  In my opinion even Roger Moore (sigh, bring back Simon Templer!) didn't make the grade as Bond.  Sean Connery IS THE James Bond for me...


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Nov 21, 2006)

I'm with Cloud and PTeppic and J.D.; I thoroughly enjoyed the latest film.  Daniel Craig is excellent (and such piercing blue eyes).  

But the song that plays over the opening credits is boring.  And there's one dialogue exchange that bugged me:  the gorgeous female lead introduces herself to Bond by saying "I'm the money," and he responds by saying "And worth every penny."  That exchange seems to allude to Moneypenny, who isn't in the film, so it threw me out of the moment.


----------



## Cloud (Nov 21, 2006)

oh, that's a clever thing to notice--perhaps it was just a tribute.  A lot of the campier things we're used to in the franchise are gone.  thank goodness


----------



## Dave (Nov 21, 2006)

I just saw this, but everything I was going to post was just about covered by P'Teppic, J.D., Cloud and Brown Rat. I liked it a lot, never much liked Roger Moore's portrayal as his films began to spoof themselves. Craig is much more like a younger Connery, and there are no invisible cars or submersible cars in this, just the Aston Martin he wins in a Poker game. 

There were a few other references as well as the Moneypenny part mentioned, the OO status, the martinis; he also meets Felix Leiter (though he must have the same doctor as Michael Jackson because he looks very different.) The Judi Dench as M in a prequel also rests uneasy with me.

I liked the fact it was a back-to-basics good story. I'm hesitant to say that there are no special effects, since I don't imagine that they really destroyed that building in Venice, but the effects move the story, the don't become the story.

Unfortunately there is some of the usual product placement - the new model Mondeo, Sony Vaio laptops and the Airbus. Did anyone else spot Richard Branson in the metal detector at Miami airport security? I expect that there were other Easter Eggs too but I missed them.


----------



## PTeppic (Nov 22, 2006)

I agree Dave - having seen some of the "making of" videos a week ago (two different channels, different subjects, same production company) the effects doing things like digitisising out the safety wires when Bond and the free runner go clambering up the crane in the opening sequence. That's what I call appropriate use of CG in a Bond movie. Not kite-surfing on a broken ice-sled or destroying an aircraft whilst flying through a solar energy beam (me, have a go at Mr Tamahori, your honour?)

I thought the Branson thing was quite funny - kind of "he might be the owner of the airline but he still has to get wanded down like everyone else" and it was a blink and you miss it cameo.

I'm presuming the collapsing building (external shots) was done as a miniature (perhaps with overlay of real canal footage/people) which would have been very brave: water is notoriously difficult to scale up/down.


----------



## roddglenn (Nov 24, 2006)

I finally got to see it last night.  I thought it was absolutely brilliant.  Daniel Craig brought an edge and realism that has been missing from all the previous Bonds.  The fight scenes were nasty and bloody, as any fight scene should be.  The action was relentless.  Even during the poker games the tension was always high.  Most of the gadgets were stripped away and that I think helped give us a much better insight into the persona of Bond, not to mention the events in the film helping shape the man too.  Daniel Craig certainly made me believe that he was an out and out killer.  Job done.

There was a lot of product placement in the film, but I didn't feel that it detracted anything from the film.  I did see Branson too fleetingly.  I thought he was going to have a word or two to say but it was just blink and you miss him.  I too thought the use of CGI was minimal and appropriate.


----------



## severian83 (Nov 24, 2006)

Well I loved it! I went to see it on opening night being slightly Bond-obsessive (and not missed an opening night since Goldeneye), and have to say I wasn't disappointed at all. The title song is great, an edgy, rocky song to go with the newer style of Bond. The absence of Q and Moneypenny didn't bother me as much as I thought it would.
Bond has always been updated with the times, and after the appalling Die Another Day, something drastic had to be done to reinvigorate the format. I think Casino Royale is the Batman Begins of the franchise, and Daniel Craig has the potential to be a three-dimensional, more human Bond.


----------



## The Upright Man (Nov 25, 2006)

*Casino Royale: a reboot/reimaging*



Cloud said:


> Roger Moore wasn't as bad as George Lazenby . . . but he was close.
> 
> 
> > You f**king what, RM is Close as being as bad as GL, did you miss Dalton there somewhere or is it my imagination that you say he was better than Moore.
> ...


----------



## The Upright Man (Nov 26, 2006)

severian83 said:


> The absence of Q and Moneypenny didn't bother me as much as I thought it would.
> Bond has always been updated with the times, and after the appalling Die Another Day, something drastic had to be done to reinvigorate the format. I think Casino Royale is the Batman Begins of the franchise, and Daniel Craig has the potential to be a three-dimensional, more human Bond.


 

well said there. im glad someone has something positive to say about Craig and not the usual rabble that he's not dark haired, not "Bond" enough, too macho, doesnt wear the typical Bond dress (que only 20mins of film in Hawaiian shirt and not all 2.5 hours in a tux), and drinking Rum and coke while in the Carribean and not his famous "Vesper" all the time.

i have talked to many of a die-hard bond fan that will not see this film even when released on DVD because of the before mentioned reasons and i find it pathetic.  If people cast their mind back to Dalton they will see the same "mistakes" with Dalton as with Craig, except Craig can act and has Bond humour and style and chic.


----------



## jackokent (Nov 26, 2006)

Just got back from seeing this (oh and a few hours in the pub in between) and thought it was great.  I normally hate remakes but this James Bond was my favorite by far.  Whilst I love all the Bond movies I am unusual in that I can't stand Sean Connery.

I loved all the action in this film, loved the actor, the only thing I found a bit weak was the amount of romance.  It was a bit too much for me in such a full on action film.


----------



## PTeppic (Nov 26, 2006)

The Upright Man said:


> Cloud take your head out of your name for a minute and consider that Mooreis ranked 2nd outa all 6 Bond, connery being first, Brosnan 3rd, Craig 4th and Dalton and Lazenby joint 5th.



Calm down a touch - the above ranking is only opinion: even if based on the opinion of a thousand people others may disagree. I do, for example. I'd go more for Craig, Connery/Brosnan, Dalton, Lazenby, Moore.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 26, 2006)

jackokent said:


> I loved all the action in this film, loved the actor, the only thing I found a bit weak was the amount of romance. It was a bit too much for me in such a full on action film.


 
Actually, I'd have said that was one of the film's great strengths: it shows Bond as a human being subject to the same pitfalls as any other; and it also has a lot to do with his learning to be a double-0... I thought the character development was quite essential to showing the man behind the gun, and how this experience turned him just a little colder, a little more ruthless, in his work, caused him to be more distant emotionally ... even from those he might normally have allowed in. It may sound odd to say this, but it adds a shade of realism to the character, if not the stories, of the films.

And just be glad they didn't go for the full torture sequence Fleming had in the novel ... I've a feeling that most of the male audience members would not have handled that one too well.....


----------



## jackokent (Nov 26, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> Actually, I'd have said that was one of the film's great strengths: it shows Bond as a human being subject to the same pitfalls as any other; and it also has a lot to do with his learning to be a double-0... I thought the character development was quite essential to showing the man behind the gun, and how this experience turned him just a little colder, a little more ruthless, in his work, caused him to be more distant emotionally ... even from those he might normally have allowed in. It may sound odd to say this, but it adds a shade of realism to the character, if not the stories, of the films.


 
I didn't mind that it was romance, not against that generally, and I didn't mind the character developement stuff but I didn't think it was as well done as the action bits.  It felt a bit a stilted and contrived.  

But generally I throught it was mych closer to Flemmings origional


----------



## Lucien21 (Nov 26, 2006)

PTeppic said:


> Calm down a touch - the above ranking is only opinion: even if based on the opinion of a thousand people others may disagree. I do, for example. I'd go more for Craig, Connery/Brosnan, Dalton, Lazenby, Moore.


 

I agree.

Except I'd put Connery and Craig the other way round at the moment.

Moore was comedy bond. He was just embarassingly bad.


----------



## Dave (Nov 26, 2006)

The Upright Man - please mind your language and respect the views of others however much they may diverge from your own. 

Anyway, who says George Lazenby was so bad  

Speaking of which, wasn't that when he married Diana Rigg? So, Romance in Bond films is nothing new.





jackokent said:


> I didn't mind that it was romance, not against that generally, and I didn't mind the character development stuff but I didn't think it was as well done as the action bits. It felt a bit a stilted and contrived.


 I forgot to say that I loved the character analysis and summing-up scene on the train between Vesper and Bond.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 26, 2006)

And, yes, *On Her Majesty's Secret Service* was where Bond married Tracy ... they were on the way to their honeymoon when she was shot and killed. The man just does _not_ have good luck with women he falls in love with.....

Incidentally, that has been cited as one of the reasons that film did so poorly, and Lazenby wasn't given another chance... because people didn't want to see a "humanized" Bond. Seems we've come out of that at this point (thank goodness), otherwise the character was likely to just get flatter and flatter. Now there can be some blood pumping through those veins....

And I keep thinking ... if they actually had the chutzpah to go ahead and do remakes that were actually closer to the novels (as this one was with the basic plot and no few of the incidents) ... what a pleasant surprise it would be. Lots of surprises for those who are only used to the film version. A lot grittier, and a lot tougher ... and, whereas I never really felt anything much threatened Bond in the films so far, in the novels it was quite different. Fleming certainly didn't mind putting his character through hell on more than one occasion..... Ah, well, dream on.......


----------



## ravenus (Nov 26, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> Incidentally, that has been cited as one of the reasons that film did so poorly, and Lazenby wasn't given another chance... because people didn't want to see a "humanized" Bond.


From my experience of the film I'd say it was because the movie had a boring story and Lazenby had zero charisma as Bond.


----------



## jackokent (Nov 26, 2006)

I have to agree.  I thought Lazenby was rubbish. 

I have no problem with humanising bond, I have a problem with not humanising bond well. I guess whether you thought is was done well or not is a matter of opinion.

With the latest one I did think they humanised him well but I still found some of the dialogue bits the most contrived parts of the film.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 26, 2006)

jackokent said:


> I have no problem with humanising bond, I have a problem with not humanising bond well. I guess whether you thought is was done well or not is a matter of opinion.
> 
> With the latest one I did think they humanised him well but I still found some of the dialogue bits the most contrived parts of the film.


 
I can see where that would be the case. A bit wooden, in other words. Fair point.


----------



## Delvo (Nov 27, 2006)

I don't really get how this is a reboot or different from before...

I wonder, though, why they would do it. They're not going to pick up new fans who didn't already like James Bond before, so all they can do is lose the established ones.


----------



## Cloud (Nov 27, 2006)

Wow, this is just my week for being dumped on here.  Not sure why I continue to visit, since I seem to be pretty unpopular, but . . . 

I didn't like George Lazenby as Bond at all.  I'm entitled to my opinion, whether or not you agree, ESPECIALLY since I saw "On Her Majesties Secret Service" in the theater the year it was released.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 27, 2006)

Cloud said:


> Wow, this is just my week for being dumped on here. Not sure why I continue to visit, since I seem to be pretty unpopular, but . . .
> 
> I didn't like George Lazenby as Bond at all. I'm entitled to my opinion, whether or not you agree, ESPECIALLY since I saw "On Her Majesties Secret Service" in the theater the year it was released.


 
Cloud: Sorry it's been this way this week. As for your opinion on Lazenby ... Yes, you are certainly entitled to your opinion on that, and I agree that the above comment was unnecessary. I'm not particularly impressed with him in the role myself; I just thought that it was an interesting comment that I'd come across in a few places, and thought I'd share it. I think I like the _idea_ of the film, and the plot and some other aspects ... but George Lazenby himself simply didn't fit, I agree.


----------



## PTeppic (Nov 27, 2006)

Delvo said:


> I don't really get how this is a reboot or different from before...
> 
> I wonder, though, why they would do it. They're not going to pick up new fans who didn't already like James Bond before, so all they can do is lose the established ones.



A couple of reasons, perhaps. Firstly, the series was heading out of control up its own imagination: gadgets, humour, over the top stunts, impregnable hero etc. It was it's own cliche. Secondly they chose Casino Royale where Bond gets his 00 status. Obviously they could have rewritten that bit, but have clearly decided to go with it. By deciding to combine the two halves of the argument, spiced up with recent successes (particularly Nolan's "Batman Begins") that involved reinventing existing franchises, it was a clear path. As I've put before, although the franchise has a good history, recent films have looked creaky against the rest of the market (e.g. the Bourne franchise) which are more rooted in reality. So going for a new, leaner, more physical, slightly frailer Bond (for me) was a good idea.


----------



## The Upright Man (Nov 27, 2006)

ye im sorry to Cloud, im having a rough week at home and i shouldnt have taken it out on you


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Nov 27, 2006)

Cloud and J.D., just thought I'd mention that I'm with you in your reaction to Lazenby.  I like the Christmas angle in OHMSS, Diana Rigg is amazing, and I'm always a sucker for romance--but Lazenby's performance seems wooden and (to me) boring.  I read someplace that Diana Rigg didn't much care for Lazenby, either:  didn't she eat garlic before their kissing scenes, in order to razz him?


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 27, 2006)

Brown Rat said:


> I read someplace that Diana Rigg didn't much care for Lazenby, either: didn't she eat garlic before their kissing scenes, in order to razz him?


 
Taking the thread _waaaay _off-topic for the moment... Reminds me of something Joss Whedon said about Gellar and Boreanaz having a "gross-off" before their first kiss was shot ... eating garlic, onions, what-have-you, to see who would flinch first..... Apparently this is (though for different reasons) nothing new..... 

And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic.....


----------



## Cloud (Nov 28, 2006)

The Upright Man said:


> ye im sorry to Cloud, im having a rough week at home and i shouldnt have taken it out on you


 
thanks.


----------



## intheknow (Dec 8, 2006)

i think he's the best bond yet..out with the old in with the blonde


----------



## Lenny (Jan 14, 2007)

He's more like Connery than, say Brosnan, simply because he's taken Bond back to being the gritty, tough guy - he's not got the looks to pull of handsome, suave, sophisticated bond, but he's sure got it right for Bond who jumps in guns a-blazing.

I don't know if it's got anything to do with Dr. No, but the next Bond film may be based on Flemming's short story _Risico_, which Sony very recently acquired the film-rights to. I might be wrong, but isn't Risico something of a direct sequel to Casino Royale?


----------



## Kanazaka (Jan 14, 2007)

I saw this film opening weekend, and liked it very much.  Daniel Craig delivered an excellent performance, and I liked many of the action sequences (although I felt that the airport chase scene dragged on for a bit too long--nice conclusion to it, though  ).  I also liked the James/Vesper relationship, and Bond's dismissal of her at the end of the film really struck a nerve with me.  Judi Dench as M doesn't make sense chronologically, though the filmmakers could have explained that James Bond is a code name that accompanies 007 (kind of like Kei and Yuri accompany the code name Lovely Angels in *The Dirty Pair*, for those of you who are aware of *DP Flash*).


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 15, 2007)

Lenny said:


> He's more like Connery than, say Brosnan, simply because he's taken Bond back to being the gritty, tough guy - he's not got the looks to pull of handsome, suave, sophisticated bond, but he's sure got it right for Bond who jumps in guns a-blazing.
> 
> I don't know if it's got anything to do with Dr. No, but the next Bond film may be based on Flemming's short story _Risico_, which Sony very recently acquired the film-rights to. I might be wrong, but isn't Risico something of a direct sequel to Casino Royale?


 
No, "Risico" is one of the stories included in the collection *For Your Eyes Only*. While the books were a series, the connections were incidental things until you reach *Thunderball*; after the oddity of *The Spy Who Loved Me*, *On Her Majesty's Secret Service* was a sequel to *Thunderball *(featuring Blofeld again), and *You Only Live Twice *brought that set to a close with Blofeld's death (and Bond's amnesia). If you'd like a quick synopsis of the stories in the collection, check here:

For Your Eyes Only - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Thadlerian (Jan 15, 2007)

Watched this movie some months ago. It was cool enough, but it didn't quite work out as a Bond movie for me. I missed all those underground bases with little monorails and electric cars, and men running around in orange overalls. Those are what defines Bond for me. Casino Royale felt more like a generic action movie; the protagonist could have been anyone else.


----------

