I can. Based on the trailer which I already have seen, this movie is similar to Jason Bourne & Mission Impossible. If you read the novel, its based on the 50's style (which this movie is not). This is the main reason why I dislike the film already. So even if Pierce did this film, I still wouldn't like it.
You want the film to take place in the 50's? That would be far more radical than what they've done. Bond has never been period. Ever.
It's all right. It's quite all right, really. She's having a rest. We'll be going on soon. There's no hurry, you see. We have all the time in the world.
You want more, go to youtube.com/ There is aslo a dedication Fleming fans, but I cannot show you, because a moderater told me not to do so. But I can PM you to do that.
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
You want more, go to youtube.com/ There is aslo a dedication Fleming fans, but I cannot show you, because a moderater told me not to do so. But I can PM you to do that.
That is only a fan trailer, using clips from the Brosnan films and Craig's Layer Cake. We have yet to see Craig in the role of Bond, not XXXX in Layer Cake. Don't you think you are being a little unfair and quick to judgement? Wait till the official trailers come out and decide then.
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
*sigh* No offense, but I already have. Why? Because I have already read the novel(which I assume you haven't).
Daniel Craig is not the only problem I have.
EON has twisted the original version of the series back in the fifties.
Here is the following Tee Hee:
1.Judi Dench is not supposed to be M in the first novel, because the original was a male( and his name was Sir Miles Messervey(Bernard Lee)), so the fact is she didn't show up till Goldeneye.
2.The environment is just wrong! Accoerding to the orginal novel, its supposed to be adapted to the 50's style. This movie looks like it takes place in the present.
3.One major charater is missing! Felix Lither! I can't believe EON forgot about him!
Judi Dench is not supposed to be M in the first novel, because the original was a male( and his name was Sir Miles Messervey(Bernard Lee)), so the fact is she didn't show up till Goldeneye.
This is about your only valid point, Lyle. Still, the producers have addressed it, saying that they're engaging in a bit of "sleight of hand" to deal with the fact they're tinkering with history.
2.The environment is just wrong! Accoerding to the orginal novel, its supposed to be adapted to the 50's style. This movie looks like it takes place in the present.
Using that logic, the only films that would've been any good were Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, and OHMSS, because the novels were written in the 1960s and the films were made in and set during the same era. Come on--the Bond films have ALWAYS updated the Fleming novels to fit the PRESENT.
*sigh* No offense, but I already have. Why? Because I have already read the novel(which I assume you haven't).
Daniel Craig is not the only problem I have.
EON has twisted the original version of the series back in the fifties.
Here is the following Tee Hee:
1.Judi Dench is not supposed to be M in the first novel, because the original was a male( and his name was Sir Miles Messervey(Bernard Lee)), so the fact is she didn't show up till Goldeneye.
2.The environment is just wrong! Accoerding to the orginal novel, its supposed to be adapted to the 50's style. This movie looks like it takes place in the present.
3.One major charater is missing! Felix Lither! I can't believe EON forgot about him!
Sir Lyle, no offense, but your "facts" are mostly wrong, your spelling is terrible, and some of your sentences make no sense whatsoever.
Felix "Leiter" is most definitely in the new movie, however he is an African American actor, so yes this is new and "modern." If you're going to complain about this that's fine, but at least know that what you're complaining about is actually the situation as it exists, not things you're just making up.
You're right about Dench, I can see why some are puzzled and unhappy about this.
And yes, they have made the script adaptable to the world as it exists now, as opposed to the 1950's with the Cold War/Soviet Union, etc. They have replaced that with something about LeChiffre funding terrorist organizations because it reflects the modern times. Somebody else could give you exact specifics on this or the script can be found online. Personally, I believe this change was absolutely necessary and makes perfect sense.
EON has twisted the original version of the series back in the fifties.
I think I know what you mean by this, but the way you stated it makes no sense. There was no EON Bond series back in the fifties. I gathered that you were trying to talk about the setting.
If you are interested, tap into the vast reservoir of knowledge that is AJB. You will be amazed that most people here know everything you could possibly want to know about the new film. All you have to do is ask or search. Then you can dislike it all you want but for the right reasons. Please don't try to just bash the movie based on your false information.
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
*sigh* No offense, but I already have. Why? Because I have already read the novel(which I assume you haven't).
Daniel Craig is not the only problem I have.
EON has twisted the original version of the series back in the fifties.
Here is the following Tee Hee:
1.Judi Dench is not supposed to be M in the first novel, because the original was a male( and his name was Sir Miles Messervey(Bernard Lee)), so the fact is she didn't show up till Goldeneye.
2.The environment is just wrong! Accoerding to the orginal novel, its supposed to be adapted to the 50's style. This movie looks like it takes place in the present.
3.One major charater is missing! Felix Lither! I can't believe EON forgot about him!
Actually Lyle, I have read Casino Royale. I read it just for the occasion of the film. I too am not thrilled about the return of Judi Dench, the absence of Q and Moneypenny, or the placement of the story in the present, but to quote Macbeth: "What's done is done." As mentioned, Felix Leiter is a character in the film, played by African American actor Jeffery Wright. Although it conflicts with my image of Felix Leiter as a white Texan American, the character is there. You have mentioned on another occasion that you are extremely disappointed with the cast. In the beginning I was upset that Craig had been chosen, but a few set photos and footage have reassured me. He knows that this series means a lot to us and he knows he has to get it right. I believe he will. I have also been impressed by the slight glimpse we have been awarded of Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre. Caterina Murino seems like an inspired choice and Eva Green, although not my first choice, will fit the bill IMO. To top it off, Sebastian Foucan will awe us with stunning non-CGI stunts. Despite the obvious flaws, I am excited for this film. It's been 4 years since DAD and I've been going through Bond withdrawals. You bet my butt will be glued to the seat the day CR opens here in America.
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
It's been 4 years since DAD and I've been going through Bond withdrawals. You bet my butt will be glued to the seat the day CR opens here in America.
Man ain't that the truth! Hard to believe it's been that long. Since I joined here a couple of months ago I've been watching the heck out of my DVD collection, and like you also read the CR novel. I can't take this for very much longer LOL! Every week or so there's something to tease us or peak our interest which just makes it worse, but it's worth it. I'm sure we can all agree that they need to get back on the every other year plan, as long as the work doesn't suffer.
I don't know about the Box Office (although I suspect it will dip in the States and hold up elsewhere), but I am certain that the reviews will be better than for some time. It looks like a more 'critic friendly' movie from what we've seen so far.
I think I know what you mean by this, but the way you stated it makes no sense. There was no EON Bond series back in the fifties. I gathered that you were trying to talk about the setting.
If you are interested, tap into the vast reservoir of knowledge that is AJB. You will be amazed that most people here know everything you could possibly want to know about the new film. All you have to do is ask or search. Then you can dislike it all you want but for the right reasons. Please don't try to just bash the movie based on your false information.
None taken, but I will take that as a threat whatsoever. Due to your overactive imagination, this info is not false. May I recommend that you think before you post. Your comment is quite unpleasent & insubordinate. Please don't get involved in situations that anger you. I have the right(aswell as anyone to post what I think or what they think on a film) as are you. If your so rightteous, I don't think you even atleast tried to take a minute what I've posted. So I beg of you please, do not propose contradiction.
Actually Lyle, I have read Casino Royale. I read it just for the occasion of the film. I too am not thrilled about the return of Judi Dench, the absence of Q and Moneypenny, or the placement of the story in the present, but to quote Macbeth: "What's done is done." As mentioned, Felix Leiter is a character in the film, played by African American actor Jeffery Wright. Although it conflicts with my image of Felix Leiter as a white Texan American, the character is there. You have mentioned on another occasion that you are extremely disappointed with the cast. In the beginning I was upset that Craig had been chosen, but a few set photos and footage have reassured me. He knows that this series means a lot to us and he knows he has to get it right. I believe he will. I have also been impressed by the slight glimpse we have been awarded of Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre. Caterina Murino seems like an inspired choice and Eva Green, although not my first choice, will fit the bill IMO. To top it off, Sebastian Foucan will awe us with stunning non-CGI stunts. Despite the obvious flaws, I am excited for this film. It's been 4 years since DAD and I've been going through Bond withdrawals. You bet my butt will be glued to the seat the day CR opens here in America.
Fine then, Tee Hee. I respect your point of view. Everyone has their own opinoin.
I hope you're using the word "Insubordinate" without understanding its true meaning, Lyle. It implies refusal to recognize or submit to the authority of a superior. No one on this board is your inferior or of a lower authority. Using such a word can be plain offensive, so please understand its meaning in future.
CR will open well due to the sheer curiosity factor but will not have the legs of Brosnan Bonds and fade sooner than usual.
Daniel Craig will give a suprisingly restrained performance,not without humour,but will wildly overact in at least one scene.At least one person will notice the alarming resemblance between Craig and Officer Andy Renko from Hill St Blues.
Barbara Broccoli will announce that the next James Bond film will be called 'Tomorrow Is Yesterday Forever' and will be directed by Sir Richard Attenborough.
I hope you're using the word "Insubordinate" without understanding its true meaning, Lyle. It implies refusal to recognize or submit to the authority of a superior. No one on this board is your inferior or of a lower authority. Using such a word can be plain offensive, so please understand its meaning in future.
I think Lyle meant that the above poster was forcing an insubordinate label by claiming he hadn't done enough reading.
It's all right. It's quite all right, really. She's having a rest. We'll be going on soon. There's no hurry, you see. We have all the time in the world.
I hope you're using the word "Insubordinate" without understanding its true meaning, Lyle. It implies refusal to recognize or submit to the authority of a superior. No one on this board is your inferior or of a lower authority. Using such a word can be plain offensive, so please understand its meaning in future.
*sigh* Moonraker5, I do understand what insubordination means, my bad, I probably mean to say "injust". Sorry its just that I've been fed up lately. However, I don't mean to be offensive, vulgar, misbehave, or whatsoever. If I have, sorry for my haneous act. I was only proposing my point of view on the film. I do not wish to cause trouble.:)
What I think is interesting to think about is how many of the hardcore "boycotters" of CR will actually stick to their guns and stay away from the theaters. I predict many will go and see the film anyway so they can see for themselves how it turns out. In other words I think they're curiosity will get the better of them. Or maybe they just plan on getting a bootleg disc of the film to watch at home. I guess it will be hard to tell unless you know a boycotter, which I don't, but it would crack me up if I did and I happened to run into them at the cinema. )
It's all right. It's quite all right, really. She's having a rest. We'll be going on soon. There's no hurry, you see. We have all the time in the world.
(I don't believe there are any possible spoilers here, as I've seen the characters and plot points touched on mentioned elsewhere on the bbs.)
I don't mind going "on record" now with predictions of how "Casino Royale" will turn out artistically and otherwise, if for no other reason than to check back here in six months to see where I erred. Feel free to add your own predictions.
First off, I suspect that "Casino Royale" will turn out far better than most people expect. It will do very good business worldwide but probably not as much as "Die Another Day," mostly because some audiences will balk at a new James Bond and a down-to-earth plot. Box office will suffer a bit in the U.S. On the other hand, critics will mostly approve of the new Bond film, though the standard "Should the Bond films be retired already?" question will be raised in more than a few reviews. DVD sales will be quite strong.
Craig will be solid in the Bond role, even if some people will still not accept his performance or appearance. There will be more criticisms of his hair being too light than his ability to embody the character. Some people will still gripe that he isn't quite tall or handsome enough to play Bond. (These criticisms will all but disappear when EON follows "Casino Royale" with a more outlandish, FX-ridden Bond in a couple years.)
Eva Green will be good but not great as Vesper, and the romance between Bond and Vesper will work, but Jeffrey Wright will steal the show as Felix Leiter, as he will have the film's best lines. He won't be the Leiter we're used to, but he'll own the character, and the byplay between him and Bond will rival that between Vesper and Bond. Mads Mikkelsen will be excellent as Le Chiffre, though he will choose to underplay some scenes and seem more brooding than menacing.
Martin Campbell's direction will be a weak point, as his unimaginative camera set-ups will undermine otherwise good Bond moments. The gunbarrel sequence will be retained, an error in my opinion given that this is "Bond Begins." (I much prefer another poster's idea that it be at the end of the film in some way, perhaps with a "real life" version and 007 killing his would-be assassin in the exchange.) The art direction and costuming will be among the best in many years, though this film will still not look as good as the early Bonds it will try to emulate. (The cinematography will be more muted, and Campbell will rely on too many close-ups that keep us from getting a good look at things.) There will be some annoying camerawork, such as staggered quick zooms, but Campbell might wisely go for split screens during the poker game.
Fearing scaring away the teen audience, the film will get a PG-13 rating, meaning it will never quite reach the intensity it should (but under a better director could, even at that rating), but it will be darker in tone than the last couple of Bonds. The film will run slightly over two hours, but the pacing will be uneven, not so much because of the script but because of the editing, which will chop a few scenes that require building emotional intensity into more expository sequences to make room for the action sequences and some obligatory ponderous visuals.
David Arnold will not score this film but will return for the next Bond outting. The producers will hope to get U2 to do the theme song and contribute to the score but will settle for a lesser known pop group because of price, which may also handle orchestrations. There will be more pop music built into the soundtrack than in previous Bonds.
The action sequences will be superb, and there will be no obvious CGI. Craig will shine in the fistfights and driving scenes, despite his supposed inability to drive stick. He'll rely a bit more on martial arts than in previous films.
All in all, "Casino Royale" will be a crowd pleaser, though it will fall just short of the heights it wants to reach. It will bode well for the future of the franchise.
Now, I fully expect to find some of these predictions to be flat out wrong in the next few weeks, if not sooner. I'm a little shaky on who will score the film, for instance, and the producers might, in fact, return to Arnold, who could do the job. But I'm reasonably confident about the rest.
EDIT: Ah, grammar.
There may be possible spoilers below for those yet to see "Casino Royale":
Well, I said I'd revisit this thread to see where I erred. Obviously, David Arnold did, in fact, score this film (and did a good job), Eva Green did better than I expected, the traditional gunbarrel sequence did not return (though obviously its antecedent was there), and, the biggest surprise, Martin Campbell did more as the director than I could ever have predicted.
Your point about 'the standard "Should the Bond films be retired already?" question will be raised in more than a few reviews' is interesting- I haven't seen one suggesting that, whereas they seemed to pop up in every batch of reviews for the last few films. It really does feel like CR has reinvigorated this series.
Yesterday my wife's family was at my house for a little Easter weekend get together. The family is of varying ages and most are avid movie fans. They know I am a Bond fan and after dinner one of them mentioned to me that they had heard their was a new James Bond. I said their was and asked if they wanted to see him. I went to the computer and pulled up some pictures of Craig, including actual shots from CR. The universal response from the three or four folks who were looking was negative. I did not encourage the response. But these were some of the remarks. Who is he? Why did they pick him? He doesn't look like James Bond. He's ugly (yes a female member did say that). He looks like one of the bad guys. Why didn't they bring back Pierce, he was a great James Bond and then the most significant comment. I won't be seeing that one.
Did they go and see it in the end, Barry?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,992Quartermasters
Fascinating thread; thanks for the resurrection {[]
...I've long been of the opinion that Craig's films will get less serious as they go along (assuming he does a second, etc).
The Precious Classic Formula will ultimately triumph, despite these occasional departures. Craig's handling of the requisite humour (however well- or poorly-written), along with matters of charm and suave sophistication, will ultimatley tell the tale as to how successful a Bond he will be. If he succeeds as Bond in the scenes which don't call for ass-kicking and death, I think he'll get a degree of slack for not being as 'terribly handsome' as his predecessors.
Looking back...Perhaps Craigger getting "a degree of slack for not being as 'terribly handsome' as his predecessors" was understating it a bit, as apparently he comes off as quite attractive to more than a few. Who'd have thunk? Not me! ;%
And I do think he did rather well in the scenes which didn't call for "ass-kicking and death"---although he really does seem to excel at the ass-kicking...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I can see CR out-performing DAD at the box office. CR will be different enough from recent Bonds to negate the whole "is Bond dead?" question that reviewers like to bring up with each new film. In stead the write-ups will be about how CR is something new and different, etc.
I think the chemistry between Craig and Green will be explosive, far hotter than anything we've seen in decades from a Bond film (Brosnan was used somewhat as a sex symbol in the first two films, not at all in the last two; I don't remember Dalton being sexy, nor Moore really...all were attractive but where's the raw animal appeal from the Connery/Lazenby haydays? I think we'll get some of that old fashioned "I want to hump the bejeezus outta THAT guy" reaction with Craig, just judging on that swim trunk pic... )
Campbell can do everyone a favor and get out of the way. After the directorial excesses of Tamahori, I think there's a very good chance Campbell will (perhaps even will be told to) tone down any splashy stuff, and just get the dang thing on film. If he does that, let's the actors do their thing and the script carry it, he'll not hurt CR. This is one Bond film where some close control from the producers is appropriate, IMO, and as that's what they seem to do best...
They have a great cast, and reportedly a great script. Get it all in the can and it should be a crowd-pleaser (even with the unfortunate Mr. Craig in it...or perhaps BECAUSE of him ).
Huh. Pretty close, I guess:
Gotta wait on the final box office, but even if it doesn't top DAD it's still doing great. Critics seem to love the new take on Bond.
Craig and Green turned out far sweeter together, also bittersweet, than I imagined. Nice.
Campbell did more than get out of the way, he brought some very nice touches to CR. Again, nice.
And Craig rocks, yep. Kudos to EON for pulling all this off so very very well. {[]
Comments
You want the film to take place in the 50's? That would be far more radical than what they've done. Bond has never been period. Ever.
I'm glad you too are curious. Here's one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiFkety8yT4&search=Casino%20Royale
You want more, go to youtube.com/ There is aslo a dedication Fleming fans, but I cannot show you, because a moderater told me not to do so. But I can PM you to do that.
That is only a fan trailer, using clips from the Brosnan films and Craig's Layer Cake. We have yet to see Craig in the role of Bond, not XXXX in Layer Cake. Don't you think you are being a little unfair and quick to judgement? Wait till the official trailers come out and decide then.
-Roger Moore
Daniel Craig is not the only problem I have.
EON has twisted the original version of the series back in the fifties.
Here is the following Tee Hee:
1.Judi Dench is not supposed to be M in the first novel, because the original was a male( and his name was Sir Miles Messervey(Bernard Lee)), so the fact is she didn't show up till Goldeneye.
2.The environment is just wrong! Accoerding to the orginal novel, its supposed to be adapted to the 50's style. This movie looks like it takes place in the present.
3.One major charater is missing! Felix Lither! I can't believe EON forgot about him!
This is about your only valid point, Lyle. Still, the producers have addressed it, saying that they're engaging in a bit of "sleight of hand" to deal with the fact they're tinkering with history.
Using that logic, the only films that would've been any good were Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, and OHMSS, because the novels were written in the 1960s and the films were made in and set during the same era. Come on--the Bond films have ALWAYS updated the Fleming novels to fit the PRESENT.
No, there's no Felix Lither in the film. I have no idea who he is. Thank goodness there's a Felix Leiter, though. . .
Sir Lyle, no offense, but your "facts" are mostly wrong, your spelling is terrible, and some of your sentences make no sense whatsoever.
Felix "Leiter" is most definitely in the new movie, however he is an African American actor, so yes this is new and "modern." If you're going to complain about this that's fine, but at least know that what you're complaining about is actually the situation as it exists, not things you're just making up.
You're right about Dench, I can see why some are puzzled and unhappy about this.
And yes, they have made the script adaptable to the world as it exists now, as opposed to the 1950's with the Cold War/Soviet Union, etc. They have replaced that with something about LeChiffre funding terrorist organizations because it reflects the modern times. Somebody else could give you exact specifics on this or the script can be found online. Personally, I believe this change was absolutely necessary and makes perfect sense.
I think I know what you mean by this, but the way you stated it makes no sense. There was no EON Bond series back in the fifties. I gathered that you were trying to talk about the setting.
If you are interested, tap into the vast reservoir of knowledge that is AJB. You will be amazed that most people here know everything you could possibly want to know about the new film. All you have to do is ask or search. Then you can dislike it all you want but for the right reasons. Please don't try to just bash the movie based on your false information.
Actually Lyle, I have read Casino Royale. I read it just for the occasion of the film. I too am not thrilled about the return of Judi Dench, the absence of Q and Moneypenny, or the placement of the story in the present, but to quote Macbeth: "What's done is done." As mentioned, Felix Leiter is a character in the film, played by African American actor Jeffery Wright. Although it conflicts with my image of Felix Leiter as a white Texan American, the character is there. You have mentioned on another occasion that you are extremely disappointed with the cast. In the beginning I was upset that Craig had been chosen, but a few set photos and footage have reassured me. He knows that this series means a lot to us and he knows he has to get it right. I believe he will. I have also been impressed by the slight glimpse we have been awarded of Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre. Caterina Murino seems like an inspired choice and Eva Green, although not my first choice, will fit the bill IMO. To top it off, Sebastian Foucan will awe us with stunning non-CGI stunts. Despite the obvious flaws, I am excited for this film. It's been 4 years since DAD and I've been going through Bond withdrawals. You bet my butt will be glued to the seat the day CR opens here in America.
-Roger Moore
Man ain't that the truth! Hard to believe it's been that long. Since I joined here a couple of months ago I've been watching the heck out of my DVD collection, and like you also read the CR novel. I can't take this for very much longer LOL! Every week or so there's something to tease us or peak our interest which just makes it worse, but it's worth it. I'm sure we can all agree that they need to get back on the every other year plan, as long as the work doesn't suffer.
None taken, but I will take that as a threat whatsoever. Due to your overactive imagination, this info is not false. May I recommend that you think before you post. Your comment is quite unpleasent & insubordinate. Please don't get involved in situations that anger you. I have the right(aswell as anyone to post what I think or what they think on a film) as are you. If your so rightteous, I don't think you even atleast tried to take a minute what I've posted. So I beg of you please, do not propose contradiction.
Fine then, Tee Hee. I respect your point of view. Everyone has their own opinoin.
Daniel Craig will give a suprisingly restrained performance,not without humour,but will wildly overact in at least one scene.At least one person will notice the alarming resemblance between Craig and Officer Andy Renko from Hill St Blues.
Barbara Broccoli will announce that the next James Bond film will be called 'Tomorrow Is Yesterday Forever' and will be directed by Sir Richard Attenborough.
I think Lyle meant that the above poster was forcing an insubordinate label by claiming he hadn't done enough reading.
*sigh* Moonraker5, I do understand what insubordination means, my bad, I probably mean to say "injust". Sorry its just that I've been fed up lately. However, I don't mean to be offensive, vulgar, misbehave, or whatsoever. If I have, sorry for my haneous act. I was only proposing my point of view on the film. I do not wish to cause trouble.:)
What's wrong with that statement...
There may be possible spoilers below for those yet to see "Casino Royale":
Well, I said I'd revisit this thread to see where I erred. Obviously, David Arnold did, in fact, score this film (and did a good job), Eva Green did better than I expected, the traditional gunbarrel sequence did not return (though obviously its antecedent was there), and, the biggest surprise, Martin Campbell did more as the director than I could ever have predicted.
How'd everyone else do?
Did they go and see it in the end, Barry?
Looking back...Perhaps Craigger getting "a degree of slack for not being as 'terribly handsome' as his predecessors" was understating it a bit, as apparently he comes off as quite attractive to more than a few. Who'd have thunk? Not me! ;%
And I do think he did rather well in the scenes which didn't call for "ass-kicking and death"---although he really does seem to excel at the ass-kicking...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Huh. Pretty close, I guess:
Gotta wait on the final box office, but even if it doesn't top DAD it's still doing great. Critics seem to love the new take on Bond.
Craig and Green turned out far sweeter together, also bittersweet, than I imagined. Nice.
Campbell did more than get out of the way, he brought some very nice touches to CR. Again, nice.
And Craig rocks, yep. Kudos to EON for pulling all this off so very very well. {[]