99 replies to this topic

[Tim007]

[dark] has found this article from 'The Times' this morning (which can be found in our Quick News).

Especially interesting:

Even the producers behind James Bond admitted yesterday that the remake of Casino Royale might not be based at its historical home of Pinewood Studios.

1) First off: Casino Royale might get a publicity problem, if the press is going to call it "the/a remake"

2) What do you think of leaving Pinewood? Justified/Unjustified? Where to go?

[Agent 76]

where to go? -> Australia, or just come to my country: Portugal. That would be really cool! It's pretty cheap to film here, tell that to the producers.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

where to go? -> Australia, or just come to my country: Portugal. That would be really cool! It's pretty cheap to film here, tell that to the producers.

Portugal might be cool, just to establish that OHMSS-CR connection that there is in the books (just backwards). Though I still say set it in France.

[[dark]]

1) First off: Casino Royale might get a publicity problem, if the press is going to call it "the/a remake"

That's just it; they should be pushing this film's connection to Fleming, even if that means trotting out the old "back to Fleming" clich

[Agent 76]

We have some really nice spots here. just some photos, for those who don't know Portugal too much:

Portim

[Prav_007]

I like Agent 76, after mentioning the tropical regions of Fiji, this certaintly doesn't look bad at all.

[Tim007]

Hey Agent76, I have been to both Sesimbra and Cascais in the 90s (we stayed in Peniche or Nazar

[stromberg]

1) First off: Casino Royale might get a publicity problem, if the press is going to call it "the/a remake"

2) What do you think of leaving Pinewood? Justified/Unjustified? Where to go?

1) The danger of this had been mentioned before, but the standard respons has always been: "C'mon, 90% of the general audience isn't aware of the two previous versions...". But it was clear from the beginning that the press would jump on this. It gives them something to write and to prove themselves as wisecrackers. Be sure that we'll get to hear enough of the two other Casinos before the release of CR06. (mark my words, Tim, we'll get to see CR54 on German television. My prediction is a "Themenabend" on "arte"... ). But it's right, EON has to be aware of that (I'm sure they are) and will have to deal with it.

2) Nothing new, they went away for MR and GE as well (LTK too?). At the end of the day, it's all a question of money, and if they can save some bucks with that... well, deep inside, everyone's a Ferengi.

Where to go? There has been the Prague discussion, of course.
And, Tim, you should remember that story about the Wowereit/Sony talks for a future Bond shooting at the Berlin Babelsberg studios from November 2002
Another option would be Bavaria Studios in Munich. But I don't expect that shooting at a German studio would come that much cheaper.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

I love the pic of Cascais Agent76! Is the building at the bottom a hotel?

[Qwerty]

Very nice pics there Agent76, once again. I suppose I'm fine if it isn't shot at Pinewood. I'm just hoping to see some real exotic locations and the like where it is shot at, and not just imitated by somewhere else.

[Agent 76]

I love the pic of Cascais Agent76!  Is the building at the bottom a hotel?

I'm not sure, but I think is kind of a little hotel maybe.

[DLibrasnow]

1) First off: Casino Royale might get a publicity problem, if the press is going to call it "the/a remake"

Yet, there was no mention of Fleming in the Eon's press release, and I'm reading more articles referring to the '67 Casino Royale than to Fleming's original novel.

Right, I mentioned that the new James Bond film was 'Casino Royale' to a friend of mine and they scrunched up their face and said they had seen the "horrible David Niven movie" and had no intention of seeing "a remake of such trash."

[Pussfeller]

,12 February 2005 - 08:00]

1) First off: Casino Royale might get a publicity problem, if the press is going to call it "the/a remake"

Yet, there was no mention of Fleming in the Eon's press release, and I'm reading more articles referring to the '67 Casino Royale than to Fleming's original novel.

Right, I mentioned that the new James Bond film was 'Casino Royale' to a friend of mine and they scrunched up their face and said they had seen the "horrible David Niven movie" and had no intention of seeing "a remake of such trash."

I assume you corrected this friend of yours, didn't you? I've been correcting all sorts of misconceptions over the past few weeks.

[Righty007]

1. Casino Royale is not a remake!

2. It's a shame they won't be using Pinewood Studios but I don't think that will effect the quality of Casino Royale. Since most of Casino Royale will probably take place in France they may want to use a French studio like they did with Moonraker.

[Triton]

Didn't we hear a few months ago that the production of Bond XXI would be headquartered in Prague? Many big budget Hollywood films have recently made use of the studio there, such as Blade II.

The rumors concerning Prague make a lot more sense if Eon Productions wants to avoid paying tax that they would be charged if they remained at Pinewood.

[zencat]

1) First off: Casino Royale might get a publicity problem, if the press is going to call it "the/a remake"

I was just thinking the same thing yesterday.

I also think there is building public backlash against how many remakes are being done by Hollywood. If the press keep calling CR a "remake" it could get caught in this.

[WC]

1) First off: Casino Royale might get a publicity problem, if the press is going to call it "the/a remake"

I was just thinking the same thing yesterday.

I also think there is building public backlash against how many remakes are being done by Hollywood. If the press keep calling CR a "remake" it could get caught in this.

Yeah, Casino Royale isn't a remake, anymore than Spider-Man was a remake of the 1970s tv series with Nicholas Hammond, or Batman (1989) a remake of the 1966 Adam West movie. Unfortunately, the press can't always make that distinction - they see one name similar to another, and they automatically assume "remake".

I think how a film qualifies for a remake is if they use the original film for the source material. If, however, they use the original literary source, and they tell their own version/interpretation of that story (regardless of whether there has been an earlier film version), then it's not a remake.

[Triton]

Because the press and Average Joe Movie Goer are already starting to believe that the next James Bond film is a re-make of Charles K. Feldman's 1967 spy spoof/psychedelic mess Casino Royale, I seriously doubt that the finished film will be titled Casino Royale.

If Eon Productions doesn't see anything wrong with the title, I presume that the marketing managers at Sony/MGM/UA are going to object to the title when they start creating promotional artwork, posters, or marketing/promotion materials for the film, or the firms that will sign product placement/product pomotion agreements with Eon will object to the title.

Not much marketing cache if consumers have images of the 1967 film instead of the Eon Productions Bond. "James Bond's Choice" has little marketing impact if consumers have images of Woody Allen in nehru jacket as Jimmy Bond.

I presume that we will see a press release in the next couple of weeks stating that the film has been retitled and that the film will just incorporate some elements of the Ian Fleming novel Casino Royale.

[Pussfeller]

Triton, I think you overestimate the renown of the 1967 film. I doubt that the average young movie-goer today has even heard of it. I have no doubt that the film will be titled Casino Royale.

[zencat]

1) First off: Casino Royale might get a publicity problem, if the press is going to call it "the/a remake"

I was just thinking the same thing yesterday.

I also think there is building public backlash against how many remakes are being done by Hollywood. If the press keep calling CR a "remake" it could get caught in this.

Yeah, Casino Royale isn't a remake, anymore than Spider-Man was a remake of the 1970s tv series with Nicholas Hammond, or Batman (1989) a remake of the 1966 Adam West movie. Unfortunately, the press can't always make that distinction - they see one name similar to another, and they automatically assume "remake".

I think how a film qualifies for a remake is if they use the original film for the source material. If, however, they use the original literary source, and they tell their own version/interpretation of that story (regardless of whether there has been an earlier film version), then it's not a remake.

I'm not arguing that CR is a remake. It's clearly not. But that's doesn't seem to be stopping the press from using the word "remake", and my fear is it will get unfairly tarnished with the growing negative connotation of the word.

In their next press release Eon needs to clearly state that "CR is NOT a remake of the 1967 film, but the first serious adaptation of Ian Fleming's classic James Bond novel."

[hrabb04]

Back on topic,

According to www.numbnutsscoops.com, in order to cut costs, most of Casino Royale will be shot literally in Michael G Wilson's house and backyard. Instead of bacarrat, the game will be poker. The torture scene will be in the movie and is due to be filmed in Wilson's toolshed. More to come later.

[WC]

1) First off: Casino Royale might get a publicity problem, if the press is going to call it "the/a remake"

I was just thinking the same thing yesterday.

I also think there is building public backlash against how many remakes are being done by Hollywood. If the press keep calling CR a "remake" it could get caught in this.

Yeah, Casino Royale isn't a remake, anymore than Spider-Man was a remake of the 1970s tv series with Nicholas Hammond, or Batman (1989) a remake of the 1966 Adam West movie. Unfortunately, the press can't always make that distinction - they see one name similar to another, and they automatically assume "remake".

I think how a film qualifies for a remake is if they use the original film for the source material. If, however, they use the original literary source, and they tell their own version/interpretation of that story (regardless of whether there has been an earlier film version), then it's not a remake.

I'm not arguing that CR is a remake. It's clearly not. But that's doesn't seem to be stopping the press from using the word "remake", and my fear is it will get unfairly tarnished with the growing negative connotation of the word.

In their next press release Eon needs to clearly state that "CR is NOT a remake of the 1967 film, but the first serious adaptation of Ian Fleming's classic James Bond novel."

I'm not disagreeing with you. I was merely adding to what you were saying.

As for not being filmed at Pinewood studios - well, wasn't Goldeneye not filmed there either, because of First Knight occupying the stages? I'm sure it will be fine without Pinewood. It's not Pinewood that will make or break the film - it's the script, among other things.

[Loomis]

I'm not arguing that CR is a remake. It's clearly not. But that's doesn't seem to be stopping the press from using the word "remake", and my fear is it will get unfairly tarnished with the growing negative connotation of the word.

In their next press release Eon needs to clearly state that "CR is NOT a remake of the 1967 film, but the first serious adaptation of Ian Fleming's classic James Bond novel."

I've told a couple of people that the next Bond flick will be CASINO ROYALE - response: "Didn't they do that one already?" (And I don't think they're thinking of the 1967 spoof, they assume CASINO ROYALE was the title of some Roger Moore outing, something in the official series. In other words: "Ho-hum, a remake, have they finally run out of ideas?")

Certainly, unless Eon's CR is astonishingly good, you can bet that many, many critics will be "wittily" (lazily) comparing it unfavourably to the '67 film. You know the sort of thing: "Makes you long for the comedy version of Casino Royale", "Doesn't even manage to get as close to the old Bond magic as the spoof did", etc.

And you can also bet that, when Eon's CR makes it into "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide", they'll add "Remade in 2006" to the end of the review of the '67 version.

[DLibrasnow]

Isn't "Casino Royale' technically speaking a remake though? I mean the Fleming novel was (admittedly not very faithfully) adapted for the 1967 movie so in simple definition terms the 2006 production IS a remake.

As such I don't think that EON can actually say that it isn't a remake because (wether we like the idea or not) by the simple definition of "remake" it clearly is.


The fact that the 1967 production was a "comedy" (maybe that's a stretch since I find it very unfunny) and the 2006 film is a serious Bond movie is totally irrlevent.

Just as the 2003 "Italian Job" was a remake of the 1960s Micheal Caine production of the same name - even though they shared VERY LITTLE in common apart from a couple of characters names. So, the press will (correctly) refer to the 2006 'Casino Royale' as a remake.

Sorry if the truth hurts, I don't like it anymore than the rest of you.

[Simon]

When hasn't the PR machine been astonishingly good?

It's the same as all those that said "the title Die Another Day was just 'crud'. Doesn't tell ya nutten!". And yet once it has been marketed, posterised, fonted and used often enough, it is thus part of the established canon.

They're only saying remake to ensure that the knowledge of said reporter can be seen to be up to snuff. Wow, this guy's up to speed. Rubbish.

I'll guarantee you there won't be any problem with the marketing, and all these questions will have all the ready made answers tripping off the tongues of all the cast and crew within minutes of their being hired.

"It's a wonderful opportunity, I'm a Bond woman of the 21st Century, it's a family this here crew, it's not a remake."

And there you go. The first five minutes of every interview covered off for you.

[DLibrasnow]

But, it clearly is a remake Simon (see post above)

[zencat]

Isn't "Casino Royale' technically speaking a remake though? I mean the Fleming novel was (admittedly not very faithfully) adapted for the 1967 movie so in simple definition terms the 2006 production IS a remake.

As such I don't think that EON can actually say that it isn't a remake because (wether we like the idea or not) by the simple definition of "remake" it clearly is.

The fact that the 1967 production was a "comedy" (maybe that's a stretch since I find it very unfunny) and the 2006 film is a serious Bond movie is totally irrlevent.

Just as the 2003 "Italian Job" was a remake of the 1960s Micheal Caine production of the same name - even though they shared VERY LITTLE in common apart from a couple of characters names. So, the press will (correctly) refer to the 2006 'Casino Royale' as a remake.

Sorry if the truth hurts, I don't like it anymore than the rest of you.

So by your definition, every Dracula movie, no matter how different in content and tone, has been a "remake" of the 1931 film as opposed to a new adaptation of the original novel?

[Simon]

From the point of view of the reporters, they won't be saying it to report it as a faithful, line for line, comedy remake, or indeed the re-imagining of the title, as the newish explanation for such things goes.

No, as above, my impression of such a reporting is just to impress upon whomever that they know there has been an initial production of this title and nothing more.

Those that say this will be the third time the title will have been used and that the very strong likelihood is that this will be the first serious offering of said title, will be when I start to read with interest.

[Loomis]

Isn't "Casino Royale' technically speaking a remake though? I mean the Fleming novel was (admittedly not very faithfully) adapted for the 1967 movie so in simple definition terms the 2006 production IS a remake.

As such I don't think that EON can actually say that it isn't a remake because (wether we like the idea or not) by the simple definition of "remake" it clearly is.


The fact that the 1967 production was a "comedy" (maybe that's a stretch since I find it very unfunny) and the 2006 film is a serious Bond movie is totally irrlevent.

Just as the 2003 "Italian Job" was a remake of the 1960s Micheal Caine production of the same name - even though they shared VERY LITTLE in common apart from a couple of characters names. So, the press will (correctly) refer to the 2006 'Casino Royale' as a remake.

Sorry if the truth hurts, I don't like it anymore than the rest of you.

Right, D. It's a remake, just as NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a remake of THUNDERBALL. I agree with you that "the Fleming novel was (admittedly not very faithfully) adapted for the 1967 movie so in simple definition terms the 2006 production IS a remake".

[Bondian]

'Casino Royale' is not a remake because the 1967 version was an unofficial Bond film.

However, I still feel that CS will not be based on Ian Fleming's original novel. Just the tile will be used because quite frankly EON have been racking their brain for years to come up with an original title.

"Tomorrow Never Dies?".

"The World i s not Enough?".

Cheers,


Ian