36 replies to this topic

[cuicui77]

Now, Martin Campbell says there will be no gadgets after he said yes a faw days ago !!!

Here's the link : http://www.comingsoo...ws.php?id=11468

[J J]

Well, they have good experience with virtually no gadgets on OHMSS... the audience loved that back then, or eh... O yes, and they had a new Bond and he was in his late 20s... EON really seems to rediscovered their old full proof recipe for success

Edited by J J, 06 October 2005 - 03:36 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

You might want to re-read that.

Is says "addressed reports that there wouldn't be any gadgets."

As in denied.

[zencat]

Ah, don't beat up on Campbell. He's probably read a dozen drafts, some with gadgets, some without, and after his last comments someone reminded him that in the last story meeting it was agreed to try a "gadget free" draft (hence, Haggis' comment). I'm sure it's still very fluid. But I'll bet you at the end of the day there will be at least some gadgets in CR. I mean, even OHMSS had "radioactive lint" and the safe cracking machine. There really has never been a completely gadget free Bond movie (nor should there be).

[Mister Asterix]

You might want to re-read that.

Is says "addressed reports that there wouldn't be any gadgets."

As in denied.

[mra]His exact statement was "There are certainly no gadgets because there aren

[doublenoughtspy]

Hmm, and yet he told the French on Oct 4 that there WOULD be gadgets.

So yes he is contradicting himself.

Thanks for the link Mr * - the Coming Soon link just gives the vague summary.

[mccartney007]

I'd like to point out that Eon isn't above saying one thing and then doing the complete opposite -- especially at this stage.

Having said that, how can we trust anything that's being said by anyone -- including the production company -- at this point?

We can't.

[H.M.Servant]

There really has never been a completely gadget free Bond movie (nor should there be).

What about Dr.No? Dr.No didn't have any gadgets in it.

[doublenoughtspy]

Agreed. And then there is the Michael Wilson comment "We always start out trying to do FRWL and end up doing Thunderball"

[mccartney007]

Agreed.  And then there is the Michael Wilson comment "We always start out trying to do FRWL and end up doing Thunderball"

I like that quote from Wilson quite a bit. Where is that quote from?

[doublenoughtspy]

I think it's in an issue of Goldeneye. I'll look it up and let you know Jordan, I quote it all the time though, guess I should back it up with my source.

[Ace Roberts]

I know this has been mentioned on another thread in the past, but with all the discussion about gadgets and references to past films, seems like a good time to bring it up again. The Bond films have a history of "going-back-to-the-basics" when introducing a new Bond. Certainly OHMSS was a dramatic 180 degree turn from YOLT, Live and Let Die was more down-to-earth than DAF, The Living Daylights was more story focused, with a lot of emphasis on Bond and Kara than the outlandish AVTAK, and finally GoldenEye was focused on betrayal and in a way revenge. With Casino Royale it seems like the Producers are following the formula and placing the emphasis on the development of the younger Bond and the consequences of his relationship with Vesper - and less on the villian taking over the world and the gadgets that aid Bond in preventing it. My guess is there will be gadgets, but on a smaller scale and by no means outlandish.

[Kingdom Come]

If Campbell says things like 'will be more realistic' he should not be part of Bond.

[Lionheart]

"We always start out trying to do FRWL and end up doing Thunderball"

If they ended up doing Thunderball that'll make my day...

[WC]

There really has never been a completely gadget free Bond movie (nor should there be).

What about Dr.No? Dr.No didn't have any gadgets in it.

Dr No had his metal hands, if you can call them gadgets, and his fire breathing tank.

[Mister Asterix]

There really has never been a completely gadget free Bond movie (nor should there be).

What about Dr.No? Dr.No didn't have any gadgets in it.

Dr No had his metal hands, if you can call them gadgets, and his fire breathing tank.

Good point and Casino Royale had the cane gun. So there are gadgets in the book, just not used by Bond. Perhaps that explains the contradiction?

I more likely think Soup misspoke at one or the other interview. (Probably the one where he said there would be gadgets.)

[Michigansoftball#1]

There really has never been a completely gadget free Bond movie (nor should there be).

What about Dr.No? Dr.No didn't have any gadgets in it.

Would the geiger counter be considered a gadget?

[Roebuck]

Good point and Casino Royale had the cane gun. So there are gadgets in the book, just not used by Bond. Perhaps that explains the contradiction?

I can remember at least four in Casino Royale, from assassination weapons to listening devices, although they're all used by Le Chiffre's people. Bond does have a concealed holster in the Bentley though, so at a stretch I suppose you could count that.

My own view is it's increasingly difficult for spies in the real world to do their job without resorting to devices that would be classed as a gadget by us normal folk; I can't see why it should be different in Bond's world. I would just like to see the toys kept within the scope of conventional technology.

[Moore Not Less]

If Campbell says things like 'will be more realistic' he should not be part of Bond.

I wouldn't be concerned by that quote. After the more outlandish elements in DAD almost anything 'will be more realistic' by comparison. I'd be more concerned that after approx eighteen months and with less than three months to go before filming Eon are still not certain who is going to play James Bond.

[Fixer]

Le Chiffre's thugs use the tack carpet to blow out the tires of Bond's Bentley. That's fairly movie-esque.

[Slaezenger]

Now, Martin Campbell says there will be no gadgets after he said yes a faw days ago !!!

Here's the link : http://www.comingsoo...ws.php?id=11468

...I don't think one should make too much out of it though, because he says he wants to make an excellent film, true to the novel, and that imo is more important as an overarching goal than pinning him down to this or that element in flux.

Edited by Slaezenger, 08 October 2005 - 04:11 AM.

[Slaezenger]

You might want to re-read that.

Is says "addressed reports that there wouldn't be any gadgets."

As in denied.

...To be accurate, in the 9/4 interview with the French Club, Campbell said: "There will be some gadgets in the film,"
http://commanderbond...es/2944-1.shtml

but in the 9/6 interview, he says "There are certainly no gadgets because there aren

[Eye Of The Tiger]

Ah, don't beat up on Campbell. He's probably read a dozen drafts, some with gadgets, some without, and after his last comments someone reminded him that in the last story meeting it was agreed to try a "gadget free" draft (hence, Haggis' comment). I'm sure it's still very fluid. But I'll bet you at the end of the day there will be at least some gadgets in CR. I mean, even OHMSS had "radioactive lint" and the safe cracking machine. There really has never been a completely gadget free Bond movie (nor should there be).

I agree. Even a more serious and realistic Bond film should always have a Q scene, and at least one gadget. If you take away those types of things from the Bond films, then you just have a regular spy movie, but not a Bond movie!

[Eye Of The Tiger]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='6 October 2005 - 11:57'][quote name='doublenoughtspy' date='6 October 2005 - 10:52']You might want to re-read that.

Is says "addressed reports that there wouldn't be any gadgets."

As in denied.

[/quote]


[mra]His exact statement was "There are certainly no gadgets because there aren

[zencat]

Isn't the script being rewritten at this moment? How can you blame Campbell for not knowing exactly what the final film will look like when he's yet to read the latest draft of the script? Also, this is all being said at a Zorro press conference. I think Campbell is having to think on his feet when asked questions about Bond. I'm sure at this moment whether or not CR will have gadgets is NOT his primary concern. As I said in another thread, at least he's trying to give us the best available info (which, yes, can change daily) instead of saying "no comment" and I'm sure Eon would prefer.

How does this get its own thread and not the revalation that CR will film in Italy? Surely if we try hard enough there's something negative we can find in that bit of news.

[killkenny kid]

Isn't the script being rewritten at this moment? How can you blame Campbell for not knowing exactly what the final film will look like when he's yet to read the latest draft of the script? Also, this is all being said at a Zorro press conference. I think Campbell is having to think on his feet when asked questions about Bond. I'm sure at this moment whether or not CR will have gadgets is NOT his primary concern. As I said in another thread, at least he's trying to give us the best available info (which, yes, can change daily) instead of saying "no comment" and I'm sure Eon would prefer.

How does this get its own thread and not the revalation that CR will film in Italy? Surely if we try hard enough there's something negative we can find in that bit of news.

What? Italy you say....When will this madness stop?

[Stax]

I think it depends on the definition of gadget. A card reader that can open a locked door might qualify as a gadget, at least the type they might use in this pared down film. Perhaps the "no gadgets" rule applies to things like a Little Nellie or a watch that blows up when you whistle a certain tune.

Edited by Stax, 07 October 2005 - 07:37 AM.

[Roebuck]

I think it depends on the definition of gadget. A card reader that can open a locked door might qualify as a gadget, at least the type they might use in this pared down film.

The first time I saw a laser sight used (in an episode of ''The Professionals'') or night-vision goggles, they were so leading edge you had no idea if they were real or just props dreamt up for TV. Same goes for the wet bike in TSWLM. Those are the kind of tools I'd like to see 007 using in Casino Royale, rather than the Buck Rogers paraphernalia of late.

[Slaezenger]

How does this get its own thread and not the revalation that CR will film in Italy? Surely if we try hard enough there's something negative we can find in that bit of news.

...I know you are joking here, but people are talking contradictions because there has been a paucity of news since 04, and now that its coming from the horses' mouth, its varying in ways that seem to hit home with some fans. Hence the frustration. There are some people who are really attached to Bond series fixtures like gadgets and gunbarrels. And thats what they are apparently dialing into with Campbells statements. Unless the casting is really polarizing, most all of the nay-bobs will be there to buy a ticket when the picture comes out.

Edited by Slaezenger, 08 October 2005 - 04:39 AM.

[Whalltt]

Well, didn't Campbell said about the regulars, that John Cleese will be in CR?

So, there will be gadgets but hopefully simple ones.