189 replies to this topic

[SeanValen00V]

I hardly think smoking contributes THAT much to the character.

But you don't deny that it contributes?

If there taking risks lol with casino, I thought they would start with actually doing the things flemming writ him as, drinking booze isn't something to promote to the world either, but Bond's a drinker and they don't ban him drinking, womanising, I call it creative comprimise.

[Publius]

He should be definitely shown wearing a tux at one moment. If they mess with the formula too much, they're going to mess it up. If Brosnan had starred, then maybe. But they have a new actor. It won't even be a Bond film if they mess with the formula too much. It'll be another LTK failure, which is what it's looking like.

I think after losing money on TWINE and making a paltry profit with DAD, the powers that be would be content with something along the lines of the critically successful, relatively profitable LTK.

In any case, and on second thought, I wouldn't be surprised if Craig was either just toying with the media or simply incorrect. After all, as has been pointed out (by ACE, I believe), he would have had to have been fitted for a tux for that publicity photo. This could very well be yet another largely empty "scoop" in an ever longer line of them (Judi Dench, anyone?).

Also, apologies for my last spoiler. The line blurs in my mind after being awash in a sea of leaks and inside information.

[Frankie]

I hardly think smoking contributes THAT much to the character.

I do. I don't smoke and hate to be around smokers in real life. But in a movie an occasional smoke does give Bond an edgier look. Much like Clint Eastwood's man with no name. Fleming's Bond was a many-packs a day smoker. The movie Bond needs not be that. But he should have a few vices.

[Harmsway]

I hardly think smoking contributes THAT much to the character.

I do. I don't smoke and hate to be around smokers in real life. But in a movie an occasional smoke does give Bond an edgier look. Much like Clint Eastwood's man with no name. Fleming's Bond was a many-packs a day smoker. The movie Bond needs not be that. But he should have a few vices.

He already does have vices without smoking.

And in the majority of the films, he doesn't smoke. It's never been an intregal part of the character.

[EyesOnly]

Ya know, so many things get blown out of proportion. Yeah, he said no suite...but he could be pulling our chains! Sometimes I wish the internet wasn't around for people to be picking their brains about nothing!

[EyesOnly]

No tux I mean*

[Alex Zamudio]

I think after losing money on TWINE and making a paltry profit with DAD, the powers that be would be content with something along the lines of the critically successful, relatively profitable LTK.

I Know you will go into a very highly detailed financial explanation on why TWINE and DAD were Box office disappointments, I also have info on why they were highly succesful films, but that is besides the point. The producers are not looking for a relatively profitable LTK, no way, not again, EON is and will always be a business, if they are shaking up the formula, it is because they think is right way to go to attract public and make more money.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Does one wear a tux when playing poker?

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Does one wear a tux when playing poker?

You could. There is no set dress code so I would assume it all depends on the situation and context of where the game is being played.

[Stax]

It sounds like the same thing Eon did when they introduced Moore. No references to Connery's Bond. In Craig's case maybe they don't want to evoke Brosnan's image too much. Then again when I saw Haggis speak a few months back and he did say CR would show why Bond wears a tux (for the first time).

[Harmsway]

It sounds like the same thing Eon did when they introduced Moore. No references to Connery's Bond. In Craig's case maybe they don't want to evoke Brosnan's image too much. Then again when I saw Haggis speak a few months back and he did say CR would show why Bond wears a tux (for the first time).

It's possible we'll see a tux, it's possible we won't. I personally found the news shocking - to secure Craig as Bond in the minds of the public, the iconic tux would certainly help.

But then again, I also understand the reverse logic for it (and have said as much previously). It has the "want to make him different from Brosnan" argument, the "CASINO ROYALE presents Bond as a product of contemporary society, and the tux is an old-style thing" argument, and the "the tux isn't necessarily the most flattering item of clothing on Craig" argument all going for it.

We'll see what the end result is.

[Skudor]

It's interesting (if true...) that Bond should not wear a tux in a movie that revolves around a Casino (to a fairly large extent at least) - but in general I've been hoping that they'd make a Bond film that dispenses with at least one or two of the cliches.... I really don't want Bond to visit a casino in every movie, or wear a tux and order a vodka martini - it's silly. By all means, never dispense with all of the cliches, just don't repeat all of them every time. But no tux in Casino Royale seems odd. But it's hardly a disaster.

PS - would DC really know this already?

[SteveKingCool]

So much is said about what he isn't wearing how about speculation about what will he be wearing?

A suit with a tie or open collar is fine.

[Double-O-Section]

I would have preferred them getting rid of some of the other cliches than this one, just because the film is called Casino Royale and it does seem a shame not to have him in a tux for it. Most of the other casino scenes in the series have been because of the book this is based on, so it seems a pity that the one that really should have the full treatment won't get it!

Still, it's not make or break stuff. If the film is good, we probably won't even notice.

[spynovelfan]

If there taking risks lol with casino, I thought they would start with actually doing the things flemming writ him as, drinking booze isn't something to promote to the world either, but Bond's a drinker and they don't ban him drinking, womanising, I call it creative comprimise.

I see from your profile that you're in your mid-20s, SeanValen00V, so presumably your spelling and grammar errors are because you're not a native English-speaker. Nevertheless, I think your argument that the film-makers should have Bond act as he does in Fleming's novels would be a little stronger if you spelled Fleming's name correctly.

[fatima]

No tux, so what? We already have the spectacle of James Bond played by an actor with the nick-name 'Mr Potato Head'

I actually think Casino Royale will be a good film and that Craig will be good in it.

But please EON just come clean, what you are really doing is launching a whole new action franchise with a whole new hero in it and useing the 007 brand name to floggit.

'Jinx the Movie' anyone?

[spynovelfan]

But please EON just come clean, what you are really doing is launching a whole new action franchise with a whole new hero in it and useing the 007 brand name to floggit.

Because Craig might not wear a tux and Craig has a silly nickname?

It is a film about British agent James Bond, based on the first Ian Fleming novel, made by the people who have been making Bond films for the last 40 years.

Where's the new hero bit?

[Loomis]

It sounds like the same thing Eon did when they introduced Moore. No references to Connery's Bond. In Craig's case maybe they don't want to evoke Brosnan's image too much.

Indeed. And very sensible.

Re: the smoking issue, as I think someone has pointed out on this thread, it's not as though we ever saw the screen Bond puffing away all that much even in the "golden age" of the series. And here's an interesting quotation:

Not right now, thank you.

- Connery's Bond (yes, Connery's Bond - y'know, the ultimate, the Master, etc.), on being offered a cigarette, 1983

Now, I do understand where people are coming from when they call for Bond to smoke cigarettes in CASINO ROYALE, but then again I do suspect that most of those people are quite happy to overlook Bond's failure to smoke cigarettes in the Brosnan and/or Moore eras.

As for the matter of Bond's clothing in CR, I suspect that Craig was just "having a laugh".

[Tarl_Cabot]

I think Craig looks a little awkward in a tux.  Casino Royale.

Than should he have been cast as James Bond?

[Loomis]

I think this is just the first of many stories about how 007 trademarks are going to be dropped in Casino Royale.

Just look at all the "007 trademarks" that were dropped in GOLDENEYE. Barring the possible introduction of explicit dialogue about Bond being a new recruit, CASINO ROYALE seems no more radical a shakeup than GOLDENEYE, which was a "reboot" in all but name.

[hcmv007]

If this is true, it could be a sign that the producers want to escape the 'Bond formula' that has been established. Look at today's fashions, and the top TV shows, high rollers aren't strolling into casinos wearing tuxes, but very nice personally tailored suits. Bond should reflect this change as well. But I will miss it in this film, but let's face it, just how much does he wear the tux in any of the films, a few scenes, nothing more.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Babs, just because I wanted you to make Bond movies more like Bourne doesn't mean I said you drop the tux... sheesh.

[spynovelfan]

Could it be he doesn't wear a tux because he's wearing a uniform?

Or because Daniel Craig has just joined CBN and wanted to see how we'd all react?

[Tarl_Cabot]

Could it be he doesn't wear a tux because he's wearing a uniform?

Or because Daniel Craig has just joined CBN and wanted to see how we'd all react?

funny.

If I were the new Bond I'd have a few laughs messing with fanboys' heads too.

[David Schofield]

I think this is just the first of many stories about how 007 trademarks are going to be dropped in Casino Royale.

Just look at all the "007 trademarks" that were dropped in GOLDENEYE...which was a "reboot" in all but name.

Not sure which trademarks were missing, Loom - Q, silver Aston Martin, martini shaken, not stirred, Moneypenny, casino, baccarat, over-wearing of suits, etc.

I'd have thought Goldeneye was packed with trademarks. You know - its a changing world, he's been away for six years, but you can still rely on 007, and his trademarks, no?

[Tarl_Cabot]

I think this is just the first of many stories about how 007 trademarks are going to be dropped in Casino Royale.

Just look at all the "007 trademarks" that were dropped in GOLDENEYE...which was a "reboot" in all but name.

Not sure which trademarks were missing, Loom - Q, silver Aston Martin, martini shaken, not stirred, Moneypenny, casino, baccarat, over-wearing of suits, etc.

I'd have thought Goldeneye was packed with trademarks. You know - its a changing world, he's been away for six years, but you can still rely on 007, and his trademarks, no?

but M became a woman and he was also driving a BMW, wearing a Omega("new model" line denoted that Bond stopped wearing rolexes in the 80's) and started acting like a wuss(sauna scene).

[Loomis]

I think this is just the first of many stories about how 007 trademarks are going to be dropped in Casino Royale.

Just look at all the "007 trademarks" that were dropped in GOLDENEYE...which was a "reboot" in all but name.

Not sure which trademarks were missing, Loom - Q, silver Aston Martin, martini shaken, not stirred, Moneypenny, casino, baccarat, over-wearing of suits, etc.

I'd have thought Goldeneye was packed with trademarks. You know - its a changing world, he's been away for six years, but you can still rely on 007, and his trademarks, no?

Well, the following trademarks are missing:

- A male M

- The James Bond Theme (mostly missing, anyway [David Arnold made up for it - more than made up for it - in the followups to GOLDENEYE], with a decidedly odd interpretation of the opening gunbarrel music)

- Cigarettes

- Felix Leiter

- SPECTRE, SMERSH, Tracy and various parts of the usual Bond background (which are present and correct - albeit only in the form of vague references - in the Dalton era, with the exception of SPECTRE)

And perhaps a couple of others that aren't coming to mind right now.

[David Schofield]

I think this is just the first of many stories about how 007 trademarks are going to be dropped in Casino Royale.

Just look at all the "007 trademarks" that were dropped in GOLDENEYE...which was a "reboot" in all but name.

Not sure which trademarks were missing, Loom - Q, silver Aston Martin, martini shaken, not stirred, Moneypenny, casino, baccarat, over-wearing of suits, etc.

I'd have thought Goldeneye was packed with trademarks. You know - its a changing world, he's been away for six years, but you can still rely on 007, and his trademarks, no?

Well, the following trademarks are missing:

- A male M

- The James Bond Theme (mostly missing, anyway [David Arnold made up for it - more than made up for it - in the followups to GOLDENEYE], with a decidedly odd interpretation of the opening gunbarrel music)

- Cigarettes

- Felix Leiter

- SPECTRE, SMERSH, Tracy and various parts of the usual Bond background (which are present and correct - albeit only in the form of vague references - in the Dalton era, with the exception of SPECTRE)

And perhaps a couple of others that aren't coming to mind right now.

Not sure much of that holds water, Loom

Male M, sure, but Rog never sparked up, Leiter appeared twice from 1973 to 1989, SPECTRE not at all, SMERSH (?) - do you include Gogol?

IMO, Goldeneye re-introduced more Bond trademarks - Brozza as a more tradtionally dressed man for starters - than LTK. If anything, LTK was a reboot in that it took the series back toward Fleming: Goldeneye brought the series back to EON-land.

Don't mean to be pedantic, Loom, but I can't agree. LALD is more a reboot: Rog clearly does not bring any Conneryesque baggage.

[Seannery]

I think this is just the first of many stories about how 007 trademarks are going to be dropped in Casino Royale.

Just look at all the "007 trademarks" that were dropped in GOLDENEYE...which was a "reboot" in all but name.

Not sure which trademarks were missing, Loom - Q, silver Aston Martin, martini shaken, not stirred, Moneypenny, casino, baccarat, over-wearing of suits, etc.

I'd have thought Goldeneye was packed with trademarks. You know - its a changing world, he's been away for six years, but you can still rely on 007, and his trademarks, no?

Well, the following trademarks are missing:

- A male M

- The James Bond Theme (mostly missing, anyway [David Arnold made up for it - more than made up for it - in the followups to GOLDENEYE], with a decidedly odd interpretation of the opening gunbarrel music)

- Cigarettes

- Felix Leiter

- SPECTRE, SMERSH, Tracy and various parts of the usual Bond background (which are present and correct - albeit only in the form of vague references - in the Dalton era, with the exception of SPECTRE)

And perhaps a couple of others that aren't coming to mind right now.

I agree Loomis--though you may if you do through all the films find a number Bond traditions not there. There is a lot of them you know.

[JameswpBond]

Tuxedos are too uncool these days.