380 replies to this topic

[Seannery]

Clearly I must be having a blonde moment, but what are you lot on about? Radical changes? Massive reboot? As far as I can see, this is not what's happening in CR. They are updating a little and going back to basics, FRWL style as I understand it, and that can't be a bad thing. I don't see what's so radical about that and it's nothing that hasn't been done to Bond before over the last 40 years. Are you expecting CR to end up resembling Transformers: The Movie? That would be your radical reboot, what we have coming is not, IMVHO.

Exactly, took the words out of my mouth. Seannery what are these "huge" changes to Bond's character you mention? Have I missed something?

Well that's what has been debated--some say Bond is changed a lot in the script and some say not. If they don't change him a lot then it won't be as bad--then it would be more the whole reboot with new timeline zapping out the last 20 movies and a different type of actor playing Bond. I can't be sure how much the character is changed and who is right about that until I see the film in November. And even with a lot of changes CR could work but I submit it is harder to reinvent rather than smartly tweak and freshen a series.

[Bondesque]

I don't find the re-boot concept to be a big deal in the least. Every time a new actor is introduced as Bond it is a "reboot" in many ways. I find the glimpse into how Bond earned his double O status and an early mission rather refreshing. The only real downside that irks me in the least is the return of Dench as M, BUT I CAN ACCEPT THIS AND STILL ENJOY THE FILM!

The Bond films will never withstand intense logical scrutiny. Actually, no film really does.

I found MI3 to be usual way over the top Cruise fare. Some will enjoy it and I am sure it will make tons of cash but it will NEVER be a classic espionage thriller a la FRWL. Casino Royale has the POTENTIAL to be just that. If EON is up to the task.

[Johnboy007]

Based on what i've seen, I don't see how anything in that movie is humanized or particularly realistic. The fact it has Tom Cruise is enough to alienate many moviegoers.

[Seannery]

It's just humanized by giving the characters more emotional investment and interaction--the Tom Cruise part I agree with you(I don't like him but I have to admit he works well in this film).

I predict big money for this film--i'll say at least $200 milion in the USA. Maybe i'm being overly optimistic but that will be my guess.

[kneelbeforezod]

Based on what i've seen, I don't see how anything in that movie is humanized or particularly realistic. The fact it has Tom Cruise is enough to alienate many moviegoers.

He attracts a whole lot more than he alienates. But a minority are always having a pop at him. He may not be Gene Hackman, but he's a very competent actor and a great star.

They definitely injected just the right amount of emotion into MI3 so that you cared more about the crazy action. Fun flick I thought.

[killkenny kid]

It not so much that he alienate poeple. It just for so reason, some think that the $11.50 they paid. Get's them the right to pop off about things that don't a damn thing to do with them. Sadly, it's a game of follow the leader. And no, I'm not a fan. But, I have better things to do, than worry about Tom Cruise at home.

[00-FAN008]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='552226' date='5 May 2006 - 21:13']
[quote name='Seannery' post='552219' date='5 May 2006 - 15:40']
[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='552216' date='5 May 2006 - 21:33']
It seems you and Mr Cruise feel the same way.
[/quote]


Where you a fan of the TV series, Mr*? I liked it and I do agree what they did to Jim Phelps in the first movie sucks.
[/quote]

[mra]In my opinion Mr Cruise bought the M:I franchise because he could not play James Bond. But that

[shady ginzo]

it has always been my understanding that the inspiration to shoot Casino Royale led to the reboot idea, not vise-versa. having only aquired the rights for Casino Royale in recent years I think the producers simply thought the "first" book should be the "first" movie, and there the reboot was born. I agree with this logic but I do respect the opinion that remoulding casino royale's story into the existing timeline would not have been a great sacrifice, and it is simply a matter of opinion whether you see casino royale as on origin story or not.
the powers that be did see it as such, and with the decision made to make a prequel of sorts, they were left with the reboot concept to bring the story into the modern day, or to film it as a straight prequel, which would then mean setting it in the 1960s, I easily come to rest on that issue as a period film would have been just as big a break from tradition in my opinion

Edited by shady ginzo, 05 May 2006 - 10:44 PM.

[JB007YH]

I just got out of the movie and thought if this was the bond movie It wouldve been amazing. the bond producers better learn quick and at least apply it to bond 22. this movie was amazing. The thrills and suspense was unlimited, a truly amazing movie theater experience!

[shady ginzo]

lol sorry for going a bit off topic. JB007YH, I totally agree MI3 was incrediable much better than the first 2 films would lead you to believe, it was to all intents and purposes a re-birth of my enthusiasm without the excess of a re-invention.

[JB007YH]

I was into the making bond more realistic and grittier but im not so into the reboot. I dont like craig as bond, I love him as an actor but dont think he is a good match. Public opinion agrees with it especially everyone I know, mostly in the teenage and upward range. Thats the crowd bond is going after so why choose someone the public doesnt like. The movie is going to do amazing because its a james bond movie and the buzz is that it has an amazing plot, it wont make money or fill seats for the reason of having craig as bond. everyone was going to see it anyway.the producers are going to get a horrible message when they see ticket sales, they think they got something with craig but will be mistaken and it was the film people we're so interested in and not the actor. Every bond actor that has played the role had a certain look and all can be compared in one way or another, thats what a bond should be, someone in the mold of james bond, an actor can play a gritty role no matter how good looking he is(clive owen in the inside man). thats what actors do, play roles that are given to them. You dont have to look like a mugger in a back alley or a smersh agent(craig) to play a gritty role. The bond series wouldve been better off with keeping pierce for one last movie and then get a good actor with bondian looks to take the role,(Jackman- he won a tony, Owen- amazing job in inside man, Law-if they wanted to go really young) im sure these actors wouldve made the movies better in the eyes of the fans and regular moviegoers.

[blofeldblows]

I too saw M:i III today. Took an exam and went to the local theater. The thing that I paid $5.50 for (Matinee!! price) for was to see if Philip Seymour Hoffman was clearly as good as advertised. Having never seen Capote and merely hearing buzz about him, I must say he most certainly delivers the goods in this one. As a movie goer you begin to think that E. Hunt cannot beat him or even have him contained. Hoffman's character of Owen Davian's attitude was something I would have really liked to see in a Bond film. His lines are terrific and to the point and his character almost reminds me of Iago type character from Othello in the sense that his delivery of lines are so ruthless. Worth the $5.50 I paid.

[JB007YH]

By any chance was it the AP American history exam? right when i finished it i got in the car and went to the theater.

[tdalton]

I think that the point that's important here is that, within the Mission: Impossible film franchise is that there has been no reboot. They, supposedly, have added depth to the character without messing up the continuity of the film franchise itself (leaving the TV franchise out of the equation for a moment). Casino Royale should have followed this route, they should have made this a more emotionally driven film without semi-rebooting the franchise. I think that, when it's all said and done with, that Ethan Hunt and Mission: Impossible are going to be more popular after this year than Daniel Craig's James Bond and Casino Royale will be. I think that it's possible that, with as much of an anti-Craig sentiment out there, and even with his supporters having serious questions about his suitability in the role, we may be witnessing a changing of the guard here.

[Dr. Noah]

I was into the making bond more realistic and grittier but im not so into the reboot. I dont like craig as bond, I love him as an actor but dont think he is a good match. Public opinion agrees with it especially everyone I know, mostly in the teenage and upward range. Thats the crowd bond is going after so why choose someone the public doesnt like. The movie is going to do amazing because its a james bond movie and the buzz is that it has an amazing plot, it wont make money or fill seats for the reason of having craig as bond. everyone was going to see it anyway.the producers are going to get a horrible message when they see ticket sales, they think they got something with craig but will be mistaken and it was the film people we're so interested in and not the actor. Every bond actor that has played the role had a certain look and all can be compared in one way or another, thats what a bond should be, someone in the mold of james bond, an actor can play a gritty role no matter how good looking he is(clive owen in the inside man). thats what actors do, play roles that are given to them. You dont have to look like a mugger in a back alley or a smersh agent(craig) to play a gritty role. The bond series wouldve been better off with keeping pierce for one last movie and then get a good actor with bondian looks to take the role,(Jackman- he won a tony, Owen- amazing job in inside man, Law-if they wanted to go really young) im sure these actors wouldve made the movies better in the eyes of the fans and regular moviegoers.

Jeez, thanks for doing all that in-depth popularity polling. You must've spent months interviewing and phoning. Don't you think you'd be more accurate if you waited a few months so that the advertising would be out and people would know what you're talking about?

[jaguar007]

Well instead of simply doing a FRWL they got a new timeline, some say changed the character of Bond to a good degree, got a different looking Bond--not just tweaking there.

I think going from Brosnan to Craig is far less redical than going from Connery to Moore. Apart from hair color, I think Craig has that tough chisled fact that Connery had and looks like Bond. Remember Moore had lighter hair as well and he successfully lasted 7 films.

[Turn]

I think that, when it's all said and done with, that Ethan Hunt and Mission: Impossible are going to be more popular after this year than Daniel Craig's James Bond and Casino Royale will be. I think that it's possible that, with as much of an anti-Craig sentiment out there, and even with his supporters having serious questions about his suitability in the role, we may be witnessing a changing of the guard here.

And if you check the box office stats, both previous MI films made more money than any James Bond film starring Pierce Brosnan. The MI films didn't exactly hurt their box office prospects either. Success breeds success sometimes. By the time CR comes out, people will be ready for another action spy thriller.

Some of you Craig doubters need to keep up with the times. He's gaining support all the time. Craigisnotbond had its Andy Warhol 15 minutes. Why not join us BOND FANS and enjoy the next era rather than living in the past.

[blofeldblows]

Yes, JBY007H it was the AP US History Exam... But you know how it goes... can't tell anyone what was on the test so we'll just leave the day at that...

[Leon]

But Casino Royale isn't re-inventing the character...

[Punisher]

But Casino Royale isn't re-inventing the character...

Yes it is.

It's amazing how the Craig defenders can go on defense with the snap of the fingers. MI:3 was a good film in it's own right, and I agree with Seannary and the others who liked the film.


The movie has a good plot and the character development does take center stage. If CR can do that would be fine, but maybe it's true the reboot idea needn't have happen and just have the gadgets and action scaled back in tone in line of a good story?

It will be really interesting to see if the general audience (semi Bond fans) will like the reboot idea or not. If it does more power to eon but if it doesn't...what then?

[dinovelvet]

I think that the point that's important here is that, within the Mission: Impossible film franchise is that there has been no reboot. They, supposedly, have added depth to the character without messing up the continuity of the film franchise itself (leaving the TV franchise out of the equation for a moment). Casino Royale should have followed this route, they should have made this a more emotionally driven film without semi-rebooting the franchise. I think that, when it's all said and done with, that Ethan Hunt and Mission: Impossible are going to be more popular after this year than Daniel Craig's James Bond and Casino Royale will be. I think that it's possible that, with as much of an anti-Craig sentiment out there, and even with his supporters having serious questions about his suitability in the role, we may be witnessing a changing of the guard here.

Nah - the two Mission Impossible movies out-earned the Bond films that were out around the same time, GE and TWINE, and there was room for both. Yes MI3 will out-earn CR too, but it doesn't mean anything. Look at 2002, we had Bourne Identity, XXX, and Austin Powers in Goldmember which took in $200 mil at the box office, but then DAD came out at the end of the year featuring...a villain with a laser satellite and it sold like gangbusters. Let's not forget the avalanche of spy movies that were out in the 60s competing with Bond. 007 has survived them all.
The only poor move on anyone's part here was that Sony did not release the CR teaser into theatres this weekend. I can't believe the awful trailers I saw - that Jack Black wrestling movie, this year's generic animated movie about cute animals. Just garbage. CR would have been perfect

[Monsieur B]

Are you expecting CR to end up resembling Transformers: The Movie? That would be your radical reboot, what we have coming is not, IMVHO.

Heh, Transformers: The Movie, that was a sweet movie.

Oh! You mean the new one slated for 2007 with Spielberg acting as executive producer? Right on! That'll be a great movie too, I'm sure. Hell, I know I'm seeing it. I love Optimus Prime, he's the best. It sucked that they killed him off in the original Transformers movie THEN continued the series like nothing happened. Talk about your alternate universes (Yes, and I know that his return was because of the huge fan outrage that he was killed in the first place, but still...)!

Anyways, to contribute something to the actual discussion at hand: I really want to see M:I-3, although I hated 2 (as I'm sure most people do) but the first one was a great movie.

Edited by Monsieur B, 06 May 2006 - 02:49 AM.

[thanasis]

@ dinovelvet

Saw MI3 at the Odeon Leicester square ( London) and the first trailer shown was Casino Royale! I was pleasantly shocked and fortunately that wasnt the only highlight since MI3 was quite good. In fact i really enjoyed it, just hope that CR can give us sth different

Edited by thanasis, 06 May 2006 - 02:58 AM.

[dinovelvet]

@ dinovelvet

Saw MI3 at the Odeon Leicester square ( London) and the first trailer shown was Casino Royale! I was pleasantly shocked and fortunately that wasnt the only highlight since MI3 was quite good. In fact i really enjoyed it, just hope that CR can give us sth different

Oh wow...nice! Looks like it will only play in front of the Da Vinci Code in the US

[Pussfeller]

Wow, after three whole films and one actor, it manages to maintain continuity! What an accomplishment!

When the Mission:Impossible series is 50 years old and five other actors have taken over the role of the protagonist, this comparison might make sense. Until then, it's just a matter of comparing apples and oranges. Ethan Hunt is still played by the original (cinematic) actor. The M:I series is three films long. No parts have been recast. It can still maintain a simple continuity. Bond can't, and shouldn't be expected to. With five actors and twenty films behind us, why keep pretending? Does anyone think Brosnan's Bond was married to Diana Rigg? Does it make the films more enjoyable to shoehorn that kind of nonsense into them?

If you love obsessively retconned, convoluted canons spanning decades of self-contradicting events, why not read a Marvel comic book? Or perhaps an episode of Star Trek. The sooner Bond breaks free of fanboyism the better.

[JimmyBond]

Some of you Craig doubters need to keep up with the times. He's gaining support all the time. Craigisnotbond had its Andy Warhol 15 minutes. Why not join us BOND FANS and enjoy the next era rather than living in the past.

Actually tdalton is'nt a Craig hater

But Casino Royale isn't re-inventing the character...

Yes it is.

Snappy come back, but what evidence do you have to support your claims? Did you read the script too? No? Than how do you know if Bond is being reinvented or not? He's not, incidentally.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Gee wiz!

I just see Casino Royale as the 21st Bond movie. Not that it could be a Bond re-boot, re-start, re-birth, re-whatever.

[JimmyBond]

You and me both Blofeld's Cat.

[Blofeld's Cat]

You and me both Blofeld's Cat.

Not just us two either.

[JimmyBond]

You're cat too eh?