117 replies to this topic

[univex]

Ralph Fiennes, Javier Bardem, Daniel Craig,..., bloody hell, those would be some awesome pretitles to read wouldn´t they?

[Matt_13]

I thought the rumor was garbage too. Guess not. My oh my, Logan, Mendes, Bardem, Feinnes, Deakins, Dench, and Craig. And that's so far! Whether or not they accept the script will mean a lot. Good find, by the way.

[univex]

I thought the rumor was garbage too. Guess not. My oh my, Logan, Mendes, Bardem, Feinnes, Deakins, Dench, and Craig. And that's so far! Whether or not they accept the script will mean a lot. Good find, by the way.

That´s true, if it all falls down, we´re probably in for a bad one - what do you think? Is that fair to assume?

[Shrublands]

I thought the rumor was garbage too. Guess not. My oh my, Logan, Mendes, Bardem, Feinnes, Deakins, Dench, and Craig. And that's so far!

So far is right! As the Mail story has proven to have some truth in it, I find this statement from it very intriguing…
”I’m told a couple of other major names are being courted for roles in the picture.”

[univex]

I thought the rumor was garbage too. Guess not. My oh my, Logan, Mendes, Bardem, Feinnes, Deakins, Dench, and Craig. And that's so far!

So far is right! As the Mail story has proven to have some truth in it, I find this statement from it very intriguing…
”I’m told a couple of other major names are being courted for roles in the picture.”

Bond´s eleven then

[Quantumofsolace007]

with all this talent thrown around one must wonder who on earth is gonna be the bond girls!

[univex]

with all this talent thrown around one must wonder who on earth is gonna be the bond girls!

Natalie Portman, Nicole Kidman, Amy Adams, Annete Bening, Michelle Williams and Jennifer Laurence, of course

[Royal Dalton]

I should think it's 99.9% certain that Roger Deakins is in. Some of the others are a bit more questionable. But we shall see.

[Jack Spang]

Seems to me that CR has less action than QOS. CR is a lot longer. I'm referring to the action to dialogue ratio. CR does have a lot more of those Flemingsque/Bondsque moments and for me it is a much better film than QOS despite the dialogue that is less superior to QOS’s.

"Expect a lot of action in 23."

I would be surprised if you were wrong which is why I no longer look forward to the Bond films. News regarding the new Bond movie no longer excites me like. Seems to me that Eon is now only interested in appealing to the action junkies. Seems like that’s pretty much all that Bond means to them now days. In an interview following the release of QOS, the reporter asked Wilson why QOS had so much action and Wilson replied that CR had a big poker game and as their was no game in QOS then they had to use action to fill up the time instead. One doesn’t have to be a genius to see where he stands on the matter. Blaspheme! David Arnold talked positively about CR. I remember him saying that it actually slowed down and gave you a chance to breath or words to that effect. He said no such thing about QOS or the Brosnan films. Getting another Bond film in the vein of FRWL or even OHMSS (the latter I feel would be perfectly realistic in today’s world given it’s action [there’s a fair bit of it] to dialogue ratio) is entirely unrealistic now days. The fact is that Eon go overbaord and it's like they have forgotten what the Bond films are all about. They certainly never used to be just about endless, mindless action. It’s lucky I still have the literature. Now that excites me! Can’t wait for Carte Blanche.

I would suggest that for a few reasons - some internal, some external - BOND 23 may not be as action packed as SOLACE. It certainly may not push the bar ever higher.

It is not fitting in the current financial climate for one film - even a Bond - to be massively budgeted and the notion that Peter Morgan was even remotely involved suggests to me a slightly smaller, more homelands film. That is not to say it wouldn't have its bombast and globe-hopping exploits nor would it be shoestring in the grand scheme of things but less could well be more on this next one. Even if the ilk of Fiennes and Bardem are being discussed suggests a more - possibly - 'domestic' story with less hyperbole.

Just a thought (from a recent conversation I have had).

Interesting. I've always thought the challenge with filming Bond is externalizing Fleming's very internal world, so much of his writing was the thoughts in Bond's head, his novels always feel short to begin with but edit out Bond's internal monologuing and they become really short. Adding action, even set piece size chunks, to his narratives seems an appropriate filler. Very curious what sort of Bond story these days would need less action, and how the general public might respond to it. Seems whenever they try to do this we get TWINEish bits of spectacle that are wholly unconnected to moving the plot forward, and that would be a shame after the two reasonably (each in their own way) constructed Craig films.

Waiting for this one is getting quite nail-bitey!

Sure, there is nothing wrong with action but why so much? I mean, Eon put more action (with possibly the exception of CR) than what we see in certain other contemporary action films like Nolan's Batman flicks. These Batman movies have a decent action to dailogue ratio and I am perfectly happy with it...and they do very well at the box office!

I would love to see Feinnes in a Bond film. Just hope they don't trim back the drama/thriller aspect again in favour of almost endless explosions and action. If Bond 23 will be another QOS in terms of the latter, then Feinnes should say a firm "NO!" He's too good for that.

Edited by Jack Spang, 15 February 2011 - 09:34 PM.

[Ace Roberts]

This is just my gut feel - and a clue would be a peak at the budget (which as far as I know has not even been hinted at in anything official) but I think we will see a longer film like CR and OHMSS versus QoS. With the acting chops mentioned and Academy Award winning director already on board - Bond 23 sets up perfectly to be an epic adventure with the right blend of drama and action. And with Roger Deakins lighting it - it sets up like a David Lean epic. Plus - believe me - everyone associated with QoS knows they missed the boat trying to emulate Bourne.

[Quantumofsolace007]

This is just my gut feel - and a clue would be a peak at the budget (which as far as I know has not even been hinted at in anything official) but I think we will see a longer film like CR and OHMSS versus QoS. With the acting chops mentioned and Academy Award winning director already on board - Bond 23 sets up perfectly to be an epic adventure with the right blend of drama and action. And with Roger Deakins lighting it - it sets up like a David Lean epic. Plus - believe me - everyone associated with QoS knows they missed the boat trying to emulate Bourne.

this sounds about right I cant wait for bond 23

[blueman]

Plus - believe me - everyone associated with QoS knows they missed the boat trying to emulate Bourne.

Really? You don't think they think they made an awesome like-a-bullet-shot-from-a-gun Bond film? I do, separate POVs on that, I guess.

[byline]

Plus - believe me - everyone associated with QoS knows they missed the boat trying to emulate Bourne.

Really? You don't think they think they made an awesome like-a-bullet-shot-from-a-gun Bond film? I do, separate POVs on that, I guess.

I'm sort of in the middle on this one. While I love "Quantum," I also feel it could've been better (I know, that's true of everything). A little less flash-editing would've helped, IMO.

[Zorin Industries]

Plus - believe me - everyone associated with QoS knows they missed the boat trying to emulate Bourne.

Really? Has everyone associated with that film told you that?

This is just my gut feel - and a clue would be a peak at the budget (which as far as I know has not even been hinted at in anything official) but I think we will see a longer film like CR and OHMSS versus QoS. With the acting chops mentioned and Academy Award winning director already on board - Bond 23 sets up perfectly to be an epic adventure with the right blend of drama and action. And with Roger Deakins lighting it - it sets up like a David Lean epic. Plus - believe me - everyone associated with QoS knows they missed the boat trying to emulate Bourne.

But why would the likes of Roger Deakin automatically suggest David Lean? His CV doesn't really support that. And the budget wouldn't necessarily be indicative of story intent - i.e. the volume of set pieces and action. BOND 23 could end up having a dramatically different budget and agenda to what folk are assuming.

[Sebastian Tombs]

While I'm one of those who does sincerely feel that QOS missed the boat by trying to emulate Bourne, I do feel it's a bit of a stretch to say that everyone involved in it knows it missed the boat, unless they did indeed say so, en masse.

As for Bond 23, I'm hoping for the best, I'll say that. But I'm cautious by nature; there's a few too many times a movie's come along that seemed to have all the right ingredients, but fell flat. An Oscar-winning director and other top talent isn't always a guarantee of an epic film with the perfect balance; sometimes these assemblages end up in a too-many-cooks-spoil-the-broth syndrome. I'm hoping for the best but bracing myself as well.

[Loomis]

Plus - believe me - everyone associated with QoS knows they missed the boat trying to emulate Bourne.

Really? Has everyone associated with that film told you that?

Well, there are probably a few crew members still in denial.

But I too don't understand the Deakins/David Lean comparison. Indeed, Deakins strikes me as much more of a cinematographer for smaller, more intimate films (not that there's anything wrong with that) than a go-to guy for epics.

[Zorin Industries]

Deakins has certainly done his fair share of cinematic vistas - especially for The Coens - but he has also done romantic comedies, British dramas, domestic thrillers, kitchen sink titles and sci-fi. If he ends up getting the Bond gig ("if") then that is probably due to his working relationship with Sam Mendes and the latter's own working habits, requirements and creative trust no doubt well established now with Eon House. It's always as much about personalities and capabilities than CV highlights.

An Oscar-winning director and other top talent isn't always a guarantee of an epic film with the perfect balance; sometimes these assemblages end up in a too-many-cooks-spoil-the-broth syndrome. I'm hoping for the best but bracing myself as well.

But Sam Mendes and the rosta of creative heads will not have been hired to get an Oscar. Mendes is doing a Bond as he is a great force of contemporary talent which is what Bond HQ want - far more than accolades.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Ralph and Javier = Jack and Seraffimo?


perhaps?

[Sebastian Tombs]

Ralph Fiennes? Javier Bardem? As the Spang brothers? As any kind of brothers?

That would be miscasting on an epic level, like John Wayne as Genghis Khan. And Bond 23 would be a laughingstock as a result.

[blueman]

Depends how they write the Spang brothers, eh? Probably be like Fleming's original characters in name only (much like a lot of the films, lol).

[Sebastian Tombs]

Still...the very concept of Fiennes and Bardem playing brothers, even if they manage to explain somehow about how the look nothing alike and have differing accents, just simply LOOKS ridiculous.

I just don't think they'd be that dumb to cast them as brothers. It's bound to be something else entirely, so I think it's safe to dismiss any notion of them as the Spang brothers from our minds.

[Bucky]

Still...the very concept of Fiennes and Bardem playing brothers, even if they manage to explain somehow about how the look nothing alike and have differing accents, just simply LOOKS ridiculous.

I just don't think they'd be that dumb to cast them as brothers. It's bound to be something else entirely, so I think it's safe to dismiss any notion of them as the Spang brothers from our minds.

maybe they will be brothers who used to be korean, i could believe that.

Edited by Bucky, 17 February 2011 - 06:05 PM.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Still...the very concept of Fiennes and Bardem playing brothers, even if they manage to explain somehow about how the look nothing alike and have differing accents, just simply LOOKS ridiculous.

I just don't think they'd be that dumb to cast them as brothers. It's bound to be something else entirely, so I think it's safe to dismiss any notion of them as the Spang brothers from our minds.

u do realize with the spangs one was american and one was british in the novel right?

[Sebastian Tombs]

It's been a long, long, long time since I read DAF, but I don't recall one of them being British. He did operate out of London but I don't recall him speaking with a British accent and being a British citizen et al. (Makes me an Australian friend who lives in France (and is currently applying for French citizenship; she's married to a Frenchman), who says her sister jokes about having a French sibling. If a movie was made about them, they would laugh themselves sick at sisters being played by a French and Australian actress.) I guess I should reread it at some point, but I remember DAF being a dull book and the Spangs were very uninteresting villains.

That said...you do realize that only a very small percentage of the moviegoing public will be familiar with the ethnic disparity of the Spangs? And that an overwhelming majority are hugely likely to laugh at the idea of Fiennes and Bardem playing brothers?

Sorry, no. You can follow folks around, waving your copy of DAF and screaming about the Spangs all you want, but people are still going to think that Fiennes and Bardem would be miscast as brothers. Doesn't matter if it was in the book, doesn't matter if it's Fleming. People are still going to think that it's a stupid idea. And MGM has a LOT riding on this movie, they can't afford to take a chance like that and risk handicapping this film before it's even out of the gate. This is a case where good business sense has to take the front seat, and loyalty to Fleming minutiae has to be demoted.

[Loomis]

I've no desire to see the Spangs onscreen anyway. I don't see the point in inserting Fleming characters just for the sake of it. I gather that an early draft of CASINO ROYALE (2006) contained a character called Fidele Barbey, but fortunately he was scrapped. I'm not saying that Fleming characters or elements should never be used, but they should be used with care, otherwise we're into the pointless realm of fannish trainspottery.

[Sebastian Tombs]

True. They could name the girl "Gala Brand" if they wanted, but unless they take care and actually have be a recognizable version of the character from the novels, then I'd rather they not. If she has no relation to the book character and might as well be called "Jane Jones" then go with something original. Calling a character Gala Brand or Seraffimo Spang or Fidele Barbey or whatever, when they're totally original creations with no connection to Fleming, is fairly pointless and silly. Giving them a Fleming name doesn't make them authentically Fleming in any way, and only calls attention to the fact that they're original creations.

[Jack Spang]

I don't care whether it's a wholly original story without any Fleming characters as long as the film has a decent story and character movement like in the Nolan Batman films without the excessive acton of the Brosnan flicks and QOS (LOL) then I'll be happy.

It would be a shame and a waste to include characters with Fleming names who share little to nothing in common with their literary counterparts.

Speaking of Fidele Barbey, I would love to see part of a Bond film based on the Hilebrand Rarity story. This is probably my favourite Fleming short story. Bond breaking the law and getting rid of Krest's body really gives us a fascinating insight into the character. To see this in a film would be a highly interesting. I think the majority of the masses would respond well to it too.

Edited by Jack Spang, 17 February 2011 - 10:25 PM.

[Guy Haines]

Whether its Bardem, Fiennes or a combination of the two - or neither - I just want a villain who is a challenge for Bond played by an actor who is a challenge for Daniel Craig. I suspect Craig would welcome it too. One of the slight disappointments of recent Bond movies has been the underdevelopment of the villains. It is almost as if the film makers were afraid that the movie would cease being a Bond movie if there was the slightest risk of the leading man being acted off the screen by his main opponent - as if, with an actor like Craig, that is likely to happen!