82 replies to this topic

[Rolex]

I was not a advacate of Bond Begins scenario however it seems to be. The interesting thing now is what the EON are going to say at the press conference when they start shooting the movie?

[Gri007]

After reading the Casino Royale productiond diary #2 over at mi6.

Daniel Craig has said that CR will be different from any other Bond movie and it will be a reboot.

WEll, I've had change of heart. Glad to say that CR has won me over.

After all CR will be a Bond begins, and all we've go to do is go along with it.

I'll just have to put the film to one side when it comes out on DVD. It won't obvoiusly blend in with the last thwenty films would it.

Bond 22 could well be Live And Let Die and hope it is. CR is going to be the first film of a completly new Bond Franchise.

I hope some of you will have a change of haert and decide to like it.

[Gernot]

hola!
i'm sorry, english is not my mother-tongue, that's why i have a question about this mtv-interview with craig. here at CBn everyone talks about that "bond begins" approach. but craig says in the interview (as we all know):

"There's a lot of similarities with the book but yes, of course it's been updated. It has to be. It's a suspension of disbelief that we're renewing Bond, and that this is the first time you see him."

isn't it possible that he just means with "It's a suspension of disbelief..." that this "bond begins"-approach and that we see 007 in CR the first time etc... is just a rumour?!

i am not sure, but in german i would translate it like that...?!


btw: merry christmas from vienna

Edited by Gernot, 24 December 2005 - 02:00 PM.

[Harmsway]

Can't compare Bond Begins to Batman Begins. The Batman series kicked off by Tim Burton wasn't faithful to Bob Kane's origin story. Batman Begins is Kane's Batman. Also since Batman exists in a fictional world they can get away with anything.

I am a HUGE Batman fan (bigger than I am a Bond fan) and BATMAN BEGINS is just another reinterpretation of the comic book Batman. BATMAN BEGINS is hardly faithful to Bob Kane's Batman - especially with the the whole Bruce Wayne seeks to kill Joe Chill as a college student angle. Or with him being trained by Ra's Al Ghul. Or any of that stuff. When you get down to it, BATMAN BEGINS and Tim Burton's BATMAN are both faithful in their own ways, and deviate in others. I'd even make a case that Burton's BATMAN has more in common with Kane's Batman comic run than BATMAN BEGINS did.

James Bond exists in a fictional world as well - a world full of hollowed-out volcanoes and submarine cars.

[Harmsway]

The problem is where do they go from there? If they don't remake any of the old Bond movies then it's like asking us to forget any of Fleming's work and the classic Bond movies ever existed. The worst part of this deal is that some of us are in our 30s to 50s. We don't get to see Bond complete his arc and instead we are taken back to the beginning and will all be too old or dead by the time the new rebooted Bond has any character arc. So like I said, they kill off the classic Bond and the fans who made Bond a success in the first place.

The problem with that is? And besides, I don't genuinely think the character is at all connected. As I've said before, there's no way that I'm ever going to think that Timothy Dalton's Bond and Roger Moore's Bond are the same character.

And you also suggested showing Bond's childhood - that's a big mistake, IMO. Bond is not a character where you explore his childhood, since it didn't really have an effect on him as much would think. With Batman, his childhood experience drives him. With Bond, it's unnecessary information.

And I think by what Daniel Craig means "suspension of disbelief" that this is Bond starting out, that we're just supposed to take it as it is, kind of as a one-off. Then we'll go back to just more original Bond movies in the new direction that CASINO ROYALE started. Because it's definitely still supposed to be part of the EON series.

[Stratus]

Burton is more akin with FINGER's origin vision. I don't think anyone wants to be similar to Kane's origin vision. It was bloke in a red jump suit with "wings". He resembled Robin moreso than anything. But Begins is more akin to with the more evolved version of Batman in the late 70s to the mid 80s, than in the mid 90s (Long Halloween). From the what I understand they are going more towards the detective route in the sequel since they expanded on the origin (you have to save material for later use), like Loeb's material.

Given the last 60 years of material, pre/post crisis, I think Goyer/Nolan did a better job "compressing" MORE material and retooling them into a single entity (as a movie) more respresentative of the Batman lore. If they tried to be anymore faithful the film would have hit 3 to 4 hours. I saw the film as a compression itself of two films, the first 45-50 minutes would have made a great film if it got expanded on. The second half was really partially Miller's Year One (I emphasize PARTIALLY).

Henri Ducard's character along Ra's Al Ghul were obviously compressed, despite that twist that character had some overlapping characteristics (taking human life, doing what is necessary, Nietschian take in life and their understanding of Bruce despite their differences). The creator of Ra's Al Ghul, O'Neil, himself was quite happy with the modification of his character because it help serve the narrative.

Both Batman and Batman Begins are origin films. Begins is more obvious but if you pay attention to Batman - Commissioner Gordon meets Batman for the first time at the Axis Factory. The Bat Signal was first introducted. There was News Reports that the Bat appeared less than 6 months ago. Of course there is the "Joker killed parents" thing. Burton played the "myth of Batman" (towards the public) better than Nolan I think.

I have been getting into the Bat stuff lately, it has to a certain degree drawn me further from the Bond stuff

Edited by Stratus, 24 December 2005 - 05:22 PM.

[Harmsway]

Burton is more akin with FINGER's origin vision. I don't think anyone wants to be similar to Kane's origin vision. It was bloke in a red jump suit with "wings". He resembled Robin moreso than anything. But Begins is more akin to with the more evolved version of Batman in the late 70s to the mid 80s, than in the mid 90s (Long Halloween). From the what I understand they are going more towards the detective route in the sequel since they expanded on the origin (you have to save material for later use), like Loeb's material.

Well said, especially about Bill Finger's work being Burton's primary influence. The Batman of Nolan's vision was primarily the one from the past thirty years, borrowing from the wealth of Batman lore (not the least of which was, as you mentioned, Miller's "ultimate" BATMAN: YEAR ONE). Jeph Loeb's THE LONG HALLOWEEN will likely come into play as a greater influence with the next two installments, and from the rumors, it seems like that's the case.

It was an amazing feat that Nolan and Goyer could fit so much into one film, and thus, as a Batman fan, I was in heaven. I especially loved the one wink to Jeph Loeb's Scarecrow: "Dr. Crane isn't here right now, but if you'd like to make an appointment..."

Given the last 60 years of material, pre/post crisis, I think Goyer/Nolan did a better job "compressing" MORE material and retooling them into a single entity (as a movie) more respresentative of the Batman lore. If they tried to be anymore faithful the film would have hit 3 to 4 hours.

As a die-hard Batman fan, a four-hour Batman epic would've suited me fine. I would have loved an extended development for Bruce Wayne, as well as a much more developed run in Gotham.

Henri Ducard's character along Ra's Al Ghul were obviously compressed, despite that twist that character had some overlapping characteristics (taking human life, doing what is necessary, Nietschian take in life and their understanding of Bruce despite their differences). The creator of Ra's Al Ghul, O'Neil, himself was quite happy with the modification of his character because it help serve the narrative.

The combination of Ducard and Ra's ended up definitely being mostly Ra's, though. Aside from a few things about Ducard, the character of Ducard is barely there in Nolan's algamation of the characters. Nolan's Ra's altogether was an excellent adaptation that perfectly captured the essence of the character, IMO, and was played excellently by Neeson.

I'm definitely looking forward to BB2 and BB3, which I think will improve upon the foundation Nolan and Goyer laid with their first installment. If the rumors are true, the storyline will be much more original this time out.

[Bond Bug]

Maybe Craig wants to play Bond for 30 years. What a great career that would be. Regular employment until he retires at age 68.

[TheREAL008]

"Yes, I could fail miserably, but maybe I can do something that's different and make the franchise last another 30 years

[TheREAL008]

Maybe Craig wants to play Bond for 30 years. What a great career that would be. Regular employment until he retires at age 68.

Please, there are children present. DOn't scare them that badly.

[Peter Franks]

Maybe Craig wants to play Bond for 30 years. What a great career that would be. Regular employment until he retires at age 68.

Please, there are children present. DOn't scare them that badly.

And adults!

[KM16]

I just hope they don't touch any of the other novels. It's one thing to reboot, but to go along and remake the others is 1) an insult to the other actors, 2) an insult to Cubby, imo, and 3) completely insane, especially for the ones that were adapted so well in my eyes; all the Connery's, OHMSS, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM (which is still to this day my favorite along with FRWL). It would be VERY mind-numbing and confusing to a lot of people. I say if they are going to do ANYTHING, do original stories or hell, some of the novels. Do COLONEL SUN, or some of the good early Gardner ones or even some of the good Benson ones (which are very few, but the ones that ARE good are VERY good).

I am OKAY with the idea of Bond Begins and the hanging up of disbelief AS LONG as they do it RIGHT. I mean, what are they going to do if CASINO ROYALE fails? Try again with a reboot or cast it aside like NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN and continue on from DAD?

[Tinfinger]

Ahhhh, but Casino Royale WON'T fail. No Bond film has ever failed yet! Failure is not an option!

[dinovelvet]

I just hope they don't touch any of the other novels. It's one thing to reboot, but to go along and remake the others is 1) an insult to the other actors, 2) an insult to Cubby, imo, and 3) completely insane, especially for the ones that were adapted so well in my eyes; all the Connery's, OHMSS, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM

Have you even read those last three? TSWLM just uses the title and has nothing to do with the book, and LALD/TMWTGG bear little resemblance to the novels other than a couple of character names and a location or two. LTK is a better adaptation of Fleming's LALD!

[Flash1087]

I, personally, was always a big fan of the theory in which Bond 22 picks up after DAD. Let's face it, the franchise has always been as timeline-agnostic as it could, so putting Casino Royale in the present day and then reverting to a point in the timeline AFTER DAD is nowhere near as preposterous as the idea of a man not aging a day in 44 years.

[Streetworker]

Setting aside my own personal loathing of reboots, which is subjective, my real objection to a "Bond Begings" scenario is practical. Reboots or new beginnings are the last refuge of a franchise in trouble. Sometimes it works ( Batman Begins), but often it doesn't (The Sum of All Fears).

The truth is, the Bond series doesn't need a reboot from a commercial standpoint if the success of the last film is anything to go by. And Casino Royale could easily deliver everything the producers seem to want from it, particularly a new grittier Bond, and still maintain some sense of continutity. As it is, by continually banging on about the need to reboot or restart the series, the producers and director are putting out, unintentionally, a sense of crisis to the outside world where none exists.

[KM16]

I just hope they don't touch any of the other novels. It's one thing to reboot, but to go along and remake the others is 1) an insult to the other actors, 2) an insult to Cubby, imo, and 3) completely insane, especially for the ones that were adapted so well in my eyes; all the Connery's, OHMSS, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM

Have you even read those last three? TSWLM just uses the title and has nothing to do with the book, and LALD/TMWTGG bear little resemblance to the novels other than a couple of character names and a location or two. LTK is a better adaptation of Fleming's LALD!

I didn't say they were true adaptations, I just said they were adapted well to the silver screen. My point was, I would be highly and massively P.O.ed if they turned say, the Blofeld and Dr.No and Goldfinger characters, into characters like Elliot Carver and Renard just so they'd fit with our new modern 007 as they were brought to the silver screen perfectly and still to this day are some of the most famous and coolest movie villains of all time.

And when I said if CASINO ROYALE fails, I meant if it becomes the next DIE ANOTHER DAY. And please don't try and tell me it won't likely happen, because this IS Babs and Mikey we're talking about. *rolls my eyes* They could take a golden nugget and turn it into .

Edited by KM16, 27 December 2005 - 07:33 PM.

[Harmsway]

I, myself, would not be opposed to EON borrowing from books that weren't faithfully adapted for the screen and using elements of them. However, I don't want it to be remakes of earlier material. I would like more adaptations in the way DIE ANOTHER DAY was an adaptation of Fleming's MOONRAKER, though perhaps with more faithfulness.

[TheREAL008]

I'm waiting to see if the reboot theory pays off or not. I'm not even sure if Sony has Eon's back on this since Craig was casted as Bond for the films. I know someone from Sony has to be feeling slightly disappointed at the lack of reasonable choice.

Could CR fail? It's a possibility. No one here wants to talk about if it is but it's there believe it or not.

At this stage I hardly care. Superman Returns will make more than CR will. Maybe even HIGHLANDER THE SOURCE might make more than CR, time will tell.

Edited by TheREAL008, 27 December 2005 - 09:45 PM.

[Andrew]

If Sony didn't believe what EON was doing in casting Craig then they wouldn't have funded the film. It's that simple.

[Stratus]

If Sony didn't believe what EON was doing in casting Craig then they wouldn't have funded the film. It's that simple.

Sony isn't exactly the paragon of sound decision making. Why should I trust them?

Stealth. xXx 2.

They were wondering why the film did so badly too. Maybe they sucked?

One of their MOST reputable franchise, Spider-Man, was successful was because of minimal inteference by the company ironically. They did not want Tobey, but did it stop Raimi from pushing for him? Bond is well known as Spidey and yet in the first and second Spidey film, most of the people are relatively unknown.

If they trust EON and the casting of Craig, they would not force EON in the first place to push for some "name" American actress for the leading role. It's not the first time EON cast an unknown for Bond. Hell I don't think they ever cast a known for the leading role (Roger Moore included).

Edited by Stratus, 27 December 2005 - 10:37 PM.

[Andrew]

I didn't say that Sony has made wise decisions in the past. The previous poster said that they doubted Sony backed Craig.

[SecretAgentFan]

Nobody knows anything. Neither Sony nor Universal or Paramount or any other studio... or us. The film business is incredibly unpredictable. All the Sony films could have been huge hits this year. They weren