Martin Campbell reflects on Casino Royale's origin story origins
"We even discussed doing it as a period piece."
#1
Posted 27 January 2010 - 10:26 AM
#2
Posted 27 January 2010 - 10:32 AM
And I am certainly looking forward to him reworking his own EDGE OF DARKNESS..
#3
Posted 27 January 2010 - 10:42 AM
There you see what my feeling is worth.
#4
Posted 27 January 2010 - 11:05 AM
#5
Posted 27 January 2010 - 12:34 PM
#6
Posted 27 January 2010 - 01:22 PM
Martin Campbell reflects on Casino Royale's origin story origins
As did we. Here on Commander Bond. For months. Well before the announcement in mid 2005!
Appearently so did a guy called Tarantino.
And, appearently, so did a guy called Brosnan - after he was no longer being invited to sign off on any new Eon contracts...
So, what's new?
#7
Posted 27 January 2010 - 01:27 PM
Am I correct in saying this is the first time it's been hinted at that it was considered (even if only briefly) to adapt Casino Royale as a period piece?
I think so, yes. Indeed, I believe that insofar as there was ever any "official" comment on the subject, it was always stated that one thing it could never be was a period piece. (I vaguely recall Broccoli, Campbell or someone making a throwaway comment a few years ago along the lines of: "Of course, we weren't ever going to set it in the past.")
This is rather surprising news.
#8
Posted 27 January 2010 - 01:37 PM
#9
Posted 27 January 2010 - 01:50 PM
#10
Posted 27 January 2010 - 05:14 PM
It has been pointed out already, the actual 'consideration' may just have been a very short moment during the first brainstorming in which Broccoli, Wilson and the other present characters just threw everything into the ring.
#11
Posted 27 January 2010 - 06:56 PM
It has been pointed out already, the actual 'consideration' may just have been a very short moment during the first brainstorming in which Broccoli, Wilson and the other present characters just threw everything into the ring.
So why is it that it seems to be briefly considered every time the franchise is in transition? Cubby and Michael both considered this exact same scenario when they were prepping THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, and were trying to figure out what to do with the role of 007 now that Roger Moore was no longer attached.
Well, because this is exactly what you do when you feel your venture has reached a certain point, businesswise, from an artistic p-o-v and so on. You examine every element, consider them carefully, you analyse the situation of your property and the prospects it may or may not have. That 'period' as a possibility turns up, maybe again turns up, would not necessarily mean it was actually fitting any better into the EON series (which has to cater to a market) than a contemporary film. It was a possibility that didn't promise a realistic prospect in EON's opinion at that time and that's it.
It may or may not turn up yet again any number of times, if the series is once more in a similar situation, sure. But I suspect if it's not felt that 'period' can be successful on the market on a constant basis, then I wouldn't count on it ever being realised.
Part of the series' appeal is the setting 'five minutes into the future' as well as the different locations for each entry. Period would eliminate the first and vastly limit the options for the second. Shooting on location would become the exception, not the rule. It's certainly possible to do it in some way and do the period aspect in some number cruncher SFX-factory. But the effect would be entirely different from the series' core, its key elements. Guy Ritchie's Holmes supposedly does a great job in creating an 1880's London and people are crowding to see it, fine. Will they be as eager after the third, the fifth film? When the appeal of the 130-year-old setting has faded?
The truth is, Ian Fleming's Bond has *NEVER* been shown on screen, and until we get an actor in his early to mid-30's with a comma of black hair over his right eye and a scar down his cheek, etc...we can't truly say we've "gone back to the books".
Authenticity is certainly a desireable value, but one would have to make compromises in the entertainment industry. I for one prefer an actor in the role who actually can act to anybody merely looking the part, even if the look is 150 per cent ultra-pure Flemmmmmmming-ish.
I mean, where would one draw the line? Black hair? Check. Scar? [draws razor] Check. Torture experience? [draws carpet beater] Check. Poison experience? [draws Fugu fish] Check. Surely you can't claim to have 'gone to the books' without all these, can you? I understand, even support, the wish for something closer to the original source, but one must also take into account the necessities and limits one has to deal with in reality. And EON simply has to consider the larger scale of their series beyond the, in the end very specific, wishes of the fanbase. These films have to work on all different kinds of levels, for all different kinds of audiences. They will always be a compromise, sometimes more to our liking, sometimes less.
But apparently, despite many an outcry and lots of complaints, they succeeded in keeping us interested in them.
#12
Posted 27 January 2010 - 10:54 PM
"Forgive me, my mind was elsewhere."
Edited by O.H.M.S.S., 27 January 2010 - 11:29 PM.
#13
Posted 28 January 2010 - 04:03 AM
They never trash bad ones either. Lather rinse repeat has made EON more money than "ideas."One thing we know about EON is that they never trash a good idea; they keep it in a mental rolodex and use it somewhere else down the line.
#14
Posted 28 January 2010 - 05:34 AM
Who cares if Indiana Jones has already done it. Bond would take a totally different approach.