96 replies to this topic

[luciusgore]

When the history is written about CASINO ROYALE (2005), it might read something like this:

The producers turn down hundreds of other screenwriters in favor of Purvis and Wade, the screenwriters responsible for the awful WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY stories.

They give Purvis and Wade the creative licence to write Q out of the story and maybe even have an Indiana Jones-style youth flashback.

The producers fire their star, Pierce Brosnan, the man arguably responsible for resurrecting the series after the disaster known as LICENCE TO KILL nearly put it out of business. He's unceremoniously shown the door because he's "too old."

They put high-forehead, "Nip Tuck" TV actor Julian McMahon at the very top of the list of contenders to replace him.

They turn down Oscar winner Quentin Tarantino, who begs them for the opportunity to write and direct the film. Every one of Tarantino's films has been a box office success and critical triumph. Instead, they hire the director of VERTICAL LIMIT to helm the feature. (OK, so he also made Goldeneye, which is a plus, not a minus. But Campbell has made failed pictures for sure.)

They decide to make the feature CASINO ROYALE, best known as a 1960s Bond spoof and a box office bomb in its own right, bringing up images of Austin Powers and Burt Bacharach.

The makers say that the new Bond movie will be a "prequel" of sorts set in the present day, even though the series has been around for over 40 years. So presumably other entries in the franchise such as "Dr. No" are set in the future, sometime around 2025? Weren't apes supposed to have taken over the world by then, or is that when Captain Kirk is travelling the galaxy?

So the question goes: How big of a bomb is this movie going to be? HEAVEN'S GATE sized, or just LICENCE TO KILL sized? Will fans remember it as the very worst of the series, or maybe just one of the lowest two or three?

Purvis. Wade. McMahon. Three names that should not spell relief to James Bond fans.

[SecretAgent007]

"How many times can one man leave you breathless?"...........18 1/2

Does anyone know how to summon the ghost of Dick Maibaum and Cubby?

Oh, well. At least we have Superman 2 1/2 to look forward to.

[Seannery]

If they pick a topflight Bond star that can make up for a lot of flaws and make this a success--otherwise this has the potential to be a worse than Lazenby box office disappointment.

[Qwerty]

I don't think we know enough yet to tell whether it will be a bomb or total success.

[mccartney007]

When the history is written about CASINO ROYALE (2005), it might read something like this:

The producers turn down hundreds of other screenwriters in favor of Purvis and Wade, the screenwriters responsible for the awful WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY stories.

While I'm not going to say I'm pro-Purvis & Wade, there are many people that like the two films they worked on. I know very few people that think of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY as awful.

They give Purvis and Wade the creative licence to write Q out of the story...

So? Is Q really THAT important? I like John Cleese and I like Q, but if Q's the casuality of a more serious story then that's fine by me.

The producers fire their star, Pierce Brosnan, the man arguably responsible for resurrecting the series after the disaster known as LICENCE TO KILL nearly put it out of business. He's unceremoniously shown the door because he's "too old."

How was Pierce Brosnan fired when he didn't even have a contract with them? Whilst I'd love to see CASINO ROYALE with Brosnan, I can see why they didn't hire him back if the story calls for a younger Bond.

They decide to make the feature CASINO ROYALE, best known as a 1960s Bond spoof and a box office bomb in its own right, bringing up images of Austin Powers and Burt Bacharach.

You know, I could ask everyone in my office right now about a film called CASINO ROYALE and maybe one of them would know what the hell I was talking about. I really don't think it's that well known of a film.

Oh, and CASINO ROYALE made the equivalent of $129,381,671.11 in 1967. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE may have made a lot more, but CASINO ROYALE still did well.

The makers say that the new Bond movie will be a "prequel" of sorts set in the present day, even though the series has been around for over 40 years. So presumably other entries in the franchise such as "Dr. No" are set in the future, sometime around 2025? Weren't apes supposed to have taken over the world by then, or is that when Captain Kirk is travelling the galaxy?

I really don't see your point? We're talking about a man who was to have dealt with the 70's energy crisis, underwater lairs, double-taking pigeons, the Cold War, volcanic lairs, the end of the Cold War, space travel, invisible cars, space lairs, a man who had a head with and without hair every couple of years and couldn't recognize his own enemy wearing a pair of glasses and sporting a fake accent. And all the while he remained about the same age while all the people around him age noticeably.

So the question goes: How big of a bomb is this movie going to be? HEAVEN'S GATE sized, or just LICENCE TO KILL sized? Will fans remember it as the very worst of the series, or maybe just one of the lowest two or three?

I don't see how you think this film is going to bomb? Especially since we know very little about the film right now.

[Sam Fisher]

Depends on the strength of the script really. But aside from that it's too early to tell.

[Bon-san]

Put me on the record with an emphatic statement that Casino Royale will not bomb.

I of course can't comment on the quality of a yet-to-be-made film. But a bomb?

No way.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]Well if this thread

[TGO]

A Bond outright flopping? Impossible. It will probably make "less then expected", but it will not flop.

[XXX]

If by "bomb" you mean "a gigantic financial and creative success", then it'll "bomb" bigtime!

[The Dove]

Some people are just being too negative by automatically asuming that Casino Royale will flop! I for one am pretty optimistic that we'll get a great film. Gotta keep an open mind about this.

[luciusgore]

OK, I admit I'm being a bit negative. But McMahon? Come on! Bringing back Purvis and Wade for another go was a bit enough mistake.

[Zing!]

I don't see Casino Royale bombing - at least not in the Hollywood sense. It will suffer from decreased ticket sales because Pierce was dropped perhaps - but that may be nullified by the interest in the new Bond. It may not make the $160 millionn of DAD, but it could compare to Goldeneye. I think it will make at least $100 million USA - which gives it 'blockbuster' status. The second film of the new Bond era (Bond 22) will be the true test of 007's box office longevity.

[zencat]

It won't "bomb." It will do just fine. No better or worse than most of the Pierce era Bonds. With the huge marketing push Sony will give it, and with a curiosity factor of a new Bond (not to mention higher ticket prices), it will probably top DAD...just. But it will still struggle to make it across the magic $200 mil U.S.

It will be with Bond 22 that we'll discover if the public have embraced the new Bond and new series direction. They'll come to check it out once (as they did with TLD). But if it doesn't spark, they won

[Righty007]

Casino Royale won't bomb but it will be the bomb.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Casino Royale won't bomb but it will be the bomb.

Absolutely not. This is going to be SOAF all over again.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]I

[Jack Bauer]

Casino Royale won't bomb but it will be the bomb.

Absolutely not. This is going to be SOAF all over again.

Different actor, different script = Not part of the series?

Every time they shift actors and stuff like this, the series changes a little. I don't think it'll be the Sum of All Fears, not at all. It'll be different, yes, but not too drastic.

[Bondian]

I think the only "bomb" that will be associated with this movie is how much it's going to cost to make.

Zencat's very correct when he mention about "No better or worse than most of the Pierce era Bonds. With the huge marketing push Sony will give it, and with a curiosity factor of a new Bond (not to mention higher ticket prices), it will probably top DAD...just. But it will still struggle to make it across the magic $200 mil U.S".

I think a James Bond film ( however bad ) will always make money due it it's global publicity expenditure.

Let's face it folks, if we're hypnotised ( like we are on every new Bond ) "this is the best Bond ever", we're going to believe it, and part with our cash. And buy the DVD because it's part of your collection.

James Bond is not only a secret agent, he's a money collector.

[Righty007]

I think the only "bomb" that will be associated with this movie is how much it's going to cost to make.

Zencat's very correct when he mention about "No better or worse than most of the Pierce era Bonds. With the huge marketing push Sony will give it, and with a curiosity factor of a new Bond (not to mention higher ticket prices), it will probably top DAD...just. But it will still struggle to make it across the magic $200 mil U.S".

I think a James Bond film ( however bad ) will always make money due it it's global publicity expenditure.

Let's face it folks, if we're hypnotised ( like we are on every new Bond ) "this is the best Bond ever", we're going to believe it, and part with our cash. And buy the DVD because it's part of your collection.

James Bond is not only a secret agent, he's a money collector. 

[Loomis]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='14 March 2005 - 23:21'][mra]I

[Bon-san]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='14 March 2005 - 18:21'][mra]I

[Seannery]

The question shouldn't be will it bomb--of course not. It should be--Will it under perform? That is possible BUT with the right actor it won't. If the actor has the Bond magic it overcomes a lot even a mediocre script and a dicey idea. And Loomis, Campbell is no hack.

[Martin Mystery]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='14 March 2005 - 23:21'][mra]I

[Mister Asterix]

[quote name='Loomis' date='15 March 2005 - 09:12'][quote name='Mister Asterix' date='14 March 2005 - 23:21'][mra]I

[Loomis]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='15 March 2005 - 16:45'][quote name='Loomis' date='15 March 2005 - 09:12'][quote name='Mister Asterix' date='14 March 2005 - 23:21'][mra]I

[luciusgore]

The big problem with the reboot concept, is that with the Sum of All Fears, Jack Ryan wasn't nearly the iconic character James Bond is. A lot of people probably went into that movie not knowing who the hell Jack Ryan was. Virtually everyone knows who James Bond is. James Bond has been around, doing his thing, for 40 years. Now, suddenly, the producers want to say that in 2006 he is having his very first mission! This is like LICENCE TO KILL. When that film came out, the producers were overwhemed by the success the RAMBO franchise had. I remember that "A View to a Kill" and "Rambo" came out the samae day, in fact, and "Rambo" was Number 1 at the box office, while "View" was Number 2. Four years later, "Licence to Kill" is the Rambo Bond. It bombs, basically. Now, Bond is getting beaten by Bourne. So what do they do? They want a young actor, they want to "reboot" the franchise, they want to emulate Bourne. It's the agent's first mission, etc. Bad idea. People go to Bond films because they are Bond films. It's supposedly the same character who battled Goldfinger.

That's why I think "Casino Royale" could be a disaster. A "reboot" is a terrible idea, especially when you have the scribes of "The World Is Not Enough" in charge of the reboot, and are considering actors like McMahon. This is not good.

[trumanlodge89]

didnt DAD make more money than any of the other bond films?


and i see CR as almost being like a star wars situation. its been 4 LOOOOOOONG years since theres been a new bond adventure, so the casual fan will come see the movie. the hardcore fans will see it more than once im sure. therefore i dont think it is possible for it to bomb.



and i hate to say it, but i look at the series having been reboot 3 times. i mean, how many times was auric goldfinger mentioned in a moore film? how many times has brosnan said to dench in a movie, "this is just like when i fought blofeld in a hollowed out volcano"? if there are any referances that i have missed, someone please point them out.

[Atticus17F]

and i hate to say it, but i look at the series having been reboot 3 times. i mean,how many times was auric goldfinger mentioned in a moore film? how many times has brosnan said to dench in a movie, "this is just like when i fought blofeld in a hollowed out volcano"?

Did you never see the "villain's gallery" poster for TMWTGG? Or all the references to Tracy in Moore's, Dalton's and Brosnan's films? Or LazenbyBond with his desk full of ConneryBond memorabilia?

[Martin Mystery]

The trouble with THIS reboot IMO, is that -by being Bond's first mission, and set in present day- it overwrites all the other movies in the series.

MM