31 replies to this topic

[[dark]]

Interesting questions raised in a few threads regarding that new Brosnan rumour about whether Casino Royale would best be adapted as the final film for Brosnan or the first film for a new actor.

Purely in terms of the story of Casino Royale, and prejudices for or against Brosnan or the usual candidates kept to a minimum, what do you think? Remember, this is not directly asking whether you want Brosnan back or someone else, but rather whether or not the story would work best bidding adieu to a Bond or welcoming another.

cvheady007 made a great first post which has me salivating at the thought of Casino Royale being a final outing for Brosnan.

Fleming's Casino Royale is a fine story in and of itself without the "Bond Begins" stuff thrown in and the introduction and establishment of a new guy.

[I do think Brosnan's era is over and these latest rumours are nonsense - although it is a valid point that Eon haven't said bye-bye to Brozzy in any formal capacity - but I don't think this topic has been considered prior to this]

[templer1972]

CR shud focus on Bond at his prime.If they do it as a first and focus on much younger Bond it could turn off some of long time Bond fan.

[David Schofield]

CR's greatest potential is as a 50's set period piece with a 30 something ageless Bond (as Fleming depicted him).

Then, the movie could be gadget free, but elegant and sophisticated, following the action of the novels and its still-relevant moral highs and lows.

Therefore, that obviously precludes Brozza (come on, no one surely thinks he looks in his 30s) but doesn't exclude anyone age and appearance wise from Haeth Ledger to Owen.

[Gabe Vieira]

It has already been said that Casino Royale will give the series a major makeover, so why hire the same actor to be Bond in Casino Royale who was a totally different Bond in his other films? It just wouldn't make much sense to have Brosnan star as Bond in CR.

[booyeah_]

Brosnan. Simply because I hate the idea of Bond being an ametaur.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]Adapting the novel would definitely work best for a new actor starting out whether you say it was an early mission or not. I think it could work just fine as the last of an actor, but I think a new actor let

[Skudor]

The movie could work either way depending on the script. But considering what has been said about the current script, a new actor would definitely be more suitable.

[Mr. Somerset]

I voted for first time actor, however, if PB does come back, I'm all for it as well.

[Genrewriter]

I think the story definitely works best as a first though I can certainly see how it would work as a last for tyhe entire series. Make Bond ready to retire and have Vesper's suicide dfrive to him to it and you're there.

[SeanValen00V]

They've written Bond with a generic Bond in mind.
Casino Royale can be used to really showcase what a Bond Brosnan can be, it can work as a final piece for him,
or do a whole different story and different title for Brosnan and save Casino for a new Bond later.

But it'll be good to have Casino and Brosnan really having something to do, like the first hour of DAD, as Brosnan continues to grow as Bond with age, age has become a asset with Brosnan.

Edited by SeanValen00V, 05 April 2005 - 04:58 PM.

[Agent 76]

The first Bond film for an actor

[JimmyBond]

Some people are put off by Brosnan's age, but if you really think about it. Brosnan keeps growing into the Bond he sees himself as; a world weary secret agent who knows that each mission may be his last. With that regard, I believe this would be the perfect film for Brosnan, he could showcase the Bond he always wanted to play, and we all know he's wanted to do a straight up spy thriller his entire run. Why not let him do it? What's the harm in having Brosnan back for a fifth, or a sixth?

On the other hand, I can see the argument for why a new actor would be great too, but at the end of the day, I love Brosnan and if there's an oppertunity for him to do another, I'd love to see it taken.

[Bondian]

I've been hovering around this topic all day, and I now think I have a viable idea.

OK, if Casino Royale is either going to be a kind of restart or finish of an 'era', how about having Brosnan back to end the series as we know it.

Brosnan's performance as Bond is a mixture of Connery, Moore and Dalton. So, in fact, the producers could make Casino Royale a one-off 'complete' film.

I cannot think of any other actor that would blend any of the previous Bond actors in their performance.

Maybe Die Another Day was an end of the old 'era'.

I'm probably not explaining myself very well, but I know what I'm trying to say may sound crazy.

Can someone help me out here please.

[SeanValen00V]

I've been hovering around this topic all day, and I now think I have a viable idea.

OK, if Casino Royale is either going to be a kind of restart or finish of an 'era', how about having Brosnan back to end the series as we know it.

Brosnan's performance as Bond is a mixture of Connery, Moore and Dalton. So, in fact, the producers could make Casino Royale a one-off 'complete' film.

I cannot think of any other actor that would blend any of the previous Bond actors in their performance.

Maybe Die Another Day was an end of the old 'era'.

I'm probably not explaining myself very well, but I know what I'm trying to say may sound crazy.

Can someone help me out here please. 

I agree, basically your saying, a Bond film that bascially shows how cool Bond is, the brosnan hasn't had that chance to showcase Bond the he way he wants, and he'll do a good job, given how confident he's gotten with each film, Connery and Dalton I thought nailed it from the first scene, but Brosnan had 50/50 scripts to work him, so it's take him more time, now if Casino is written well, Brosnan may get his magical Bond out and tenture would have a good close to it. Die Another Day shouldn't be a Bond to go out with, considering the success and popuality Brosnan has gotten over his tenture, too many people expected and expect at least one more. It wouldn't of been as bad as if DAD was properly written and treated with care.

Edited by SeanValen00V, 05 April 2005 - 07:42 PM.

[Bondian]

Excellent. That's exactly what I wanted to say.

Brosnan is a familiar Bond, and Casino Royale is a familiar book. I think it would make sense to have Brosnan make his definitive Bond film, then EON can change the 'mould' for Bond 22.

Cheers,


P. Brosnan.

I agree, basically your saying, a Bond film that bascially shows how cool Bond is, the brosnan hasn't had that chance to showcase Bond the he way he wants, and he'll do a good job, given how confident he's gotten with each film, Connery and Dalton I thought nailed it from the first scene, but Brosnan had 50/50 scripts to work him, so it's take him more time, now if Casino is written well, Brosnan may get his magical Bond out and tenture would have a good close to it.  Die Another Day shouldn't be a Bond to go out with, considering the success and popuality Brosnan has gotten over his tenture, too many people expected and expect at least one more. It wouldn't of been as bad as if DAD was properly written and treated with care.

[Aussie21]

In my opinion, Casino Royale is the ideal film to have the audience be introduced to a new Bond. Bringing back Brosnan may seem like a step backward, since CR is supposed to bring the franchise back to it's roots. Though I think Brosnan could pull it off, and I'd love to see his Bond go out on a high note, I'd like to see a new actor in the role when CR premieres.

[Stephenson]

Although I find the older Bond in CR concept interesting, I still say go with a younger actor. This experience is central to the character of Bond, what helps form him. And as sad as I may think it is that Brosnan never had a chance to do "his" Bond, the time has come and gone. Besides, I really think that giving CR a tone of "aging Bond on his last mission" would be very detrimental to the franchise. At least Moore played it straight right to the end of his tenure: his "Bond" would never retire. You think people have problems with continuity now ....

[Gabe Vieira]

Brosnan. Simply because I hate the idea of Bond being an ametaur. 

Well, in Casino Royale Bond will be an amataur. The idea is that Bond just became a Double-Oh not long before the events of the movie, so it would seem stupid to see Brosnan, who has played Bond for nearly ten years, play him in CR.

[JackChase007]

This is a movie that I would really love to see Brosnan in. And if not him, then I'd really like to see Owen as Bond, especially for this one.

But I know they'll end up casting someone I won't like as much anyway. Oh well.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]I don

[cvheady007]

I'm happy to see my first post helped create such a thought-provoking follow-up post!

Honestly, I agree with the general consensus - it goes either way.

Personally, as you know, I would love to see Pierce end his James Bond career with this movie, because Casino Royale has so much potential...and it is a way to fit Judi Dench, John Cleese, and Samantha Bond in there one last time. Certainly, none of those characters have much basis in the novel, yet it would be a good way to tie-in to the Brosnan era.

As for, let's say, Clive Owen stepping in, I think it is a great way to re-start the franchise and have a new Bond...BUT personally, I don't think a re-start is necessary. Did Die Another Day make the most money of any James Bond movie or not? I don't agree with the whole formula of DAD, but I also don't think they have to set it in stone that Casino is going to take place at the beginning of Bond's career...the whole franchise has been pretty aloof of time: James Bond was born in the roaring 20's, yet his career begins on the baccarat tables against Le Chiffre in 2006...

[Bondian]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='5 April 2005 - 21:25'][mra]I don

[Quartermaster007]

I think that it would be better for an actor to play CR first, it is a great book, and will probably be a great movie! Therefore it would jumpstart their carreer as Bond

[Bondian]

James Bond was born in the roaring 20's, yet his career begins on the baccarat tables against Le Chiffre in 2006...

Now, that's a good point.

So, are we going to see Bond in the future in this one?.

[J.C.D'Arc]

Well, in Casino Royale, Bond will be an amateur. The idea is that Bond just became a "Double-O" not long before the events of the movie...

Uh... Says who? Not that I'm disagreeing with your thesis that Brosnan shouldn't be the one to play Bond in Casino Royale, but I haven't heard that there's a final script yet. And in the book, Bond has been performing missions since during WWII, so he's not really a "recent addition to the 'Double-O' section."

I also (respectfully) disagree with those who feel that Bond is what he is in later books (and/or movies) because of the events of Casino Royale. The impression I got from the book was that by the end of it he'd been through quite a bit of physical, mental and emotional stress and injury. His resolve was to use himself--his training, talents and aptitudes--as a weapon against the enemies of his country. At least those who fell within his reach as an agent of his Service. To me, the events of Casino Royale harden him in his resolve to do the best job he can at the job he is in. He turns his back on the option of resignation; he wants to get on with the task at hand.

I guess maybe we'll all find out when the movie's (finally) released...

[Mister Asterix]

James Bond was born in the roaring 20's, yet his career begins on the baccarat tables against Le Chiffre in 2006...

Now, that's a good point.

So, are we going to see Bond in the future in this one?.

Except we all know the Bond was born 10 November 1948.

[Bondian]

Except we all know the Bond was born 10 November 1948.

The literary Bond perhaps, but the cinematic seems to change his age and physical appearance over so many years.

[Stephenson]

Well, in Casino Royale, Bond will be an amateur. The idea is that Bond just became a "Double-O" not long before the events of the movie...

Uh... Says who? Not that I'm disagreeing with your thesis that Brosnan shouldn't be the one to play Bond in Casino Royale, but I haven't heard that there's a final script yet. And in the book, Bond has been performing missions since during WWII, so he's not really a "recent addition to the 'Double-O' section."

I also (respectfully) disagree with those who feel that Bond is what he is in later books (and/or movies) because of the events of Casino Royale. The impression I got from the book was that by the end of it he'd been through quite a bit of physical, mental and emotional stress and injury. His resolve was to use himself--his training, talents and aptitudes--as a weapon against the enemies of his country. At least those who fell within his reach as an agent of his Service. To me, the events of Casino Royale harden him in his resolve to do the best job he can at the job he is in. He turns his back on the option of resignation; he wants to get on with the task at hand.

I guess maybe we'll all find out when the movie's (finally) released...

Excellent points! One thing: I don't want to attack creative expression, but the font you chose makes it very hard to read your post.

[SeanValen00V]

Hey aren't we all forgeting, if they wanna go with a new Bond, why still have Dame Judi Dence as M? She's meant to come back, we had a thread on this already.
Since their updating Casino Royale to the present day, they can get away with having a maturer Bond, they are heavily going to rewrite the book, so why not treat it as the next bond adventure, rather then when he's starting out, it's not like they are going to do a faithful adaption, they will borrow alot of things though, they can twist it either way.

Excellent. That's exactly what I wanted to say. 

Brosnan is a familiar Bond, and Casino Royale is a familiar book. I think it would make sense to have Brosnan make his definitive Bond film, then EON can change the 'mould' for Bond 22.

Cheers,


P. Brosnan. 

I agree, basically your saying, a Bond film that bascially shows how cool Bond is, the brosnan hasn't had that chance to showcase Bond the he way he wants, and he'll do a good job, given how confident he's gotten with each film, Connery and Dalton I thought nailed it from the first scene, but Brosnan had 50/50 scripts to work him, so it's take him more time, now if Casino is written well, Brosnan may get his magical Bond out and tenture would have a good close to it.  Die Another Day shouldn't be a Bond to go out with, considering the success and popuality Brosnan has gotten over his tenture, too many people expected and expect at least one more. It wouldn't of been as bad as if DAD was properly written and treated with care.

[J.C.D'Arc]

...One thing: I don't want to attack creative expression, but the font you chose makes it very hard to read your post.

I've gotten that before; all I can say is that on the computer here at work and the one at home my posts just show as being in Courier font, slightly larger than the default font for posts here. I chose the Courier font for my posts since it's probably closer to what would be on documents coming across M's desk with things on them like:

To: M.
From: Head of S.
Subject: A project for the destruction of Monsieur Le Chiffre (alias 'The Number', 'Heir Mummer', 'Herr Ziffer', etc.), one of the Opposition's chief agents in France and undercover Paymaster of the 'Syndicat des Ouvriers d'Alsace', the Communist-controlled trade union in the heavy industries of Alsace, and as we know, an important fifth column in the event of war with Redland...

What, exactly is wrong with the appearance of my posts? Are the letters too small to see? Are they "fragmented-looking?" Apparently I'm not seeing the same thing that you are.