Casino Royale (2006)

[Marky Lazer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[j d worthington]

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.....