99 replies to this topic

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Right, D. It's a remake, just as NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a remake of THUNDERBALL. I agree with you that "the Fleming novel was (admittedly not very faithfully) adapted for the 1967 movie so in simple definition terms the 2006 production IS a remake".

That's a good point by both of you...but I think most people assume similarities when they hear remake so still it might not be a fair representation, even if it's technically true.

[Agent 76]

My only hope is that they make a terrific movie, but if the press wants to call it a remake, or re-remake, or even trimake, is their problem I don't care about that.

[WC]

Isn't "Casino Royale' technically speaking a remake though? I mean the Fleming novel was (admittedly not very faithfully) adapted for the 1967 movie so in simple definition terms the 2006 production IS a remake.

As such I don't think that EON can actually say that it isn't a remake because (wether we like the idea or not) by the simple definition of "remake" it clearly is.


The fact that the 1967 production was a "comedy" (maybe that's a stretch since I find it very unfunny) and the 2006 film is a serious Bond movie is totally irrlevent.

Just as the 2003 "Italian Job" was a remake of the 1960s Micheal Caine production of the same name - even though they shared VERY LITTLE in common apart from a couple of characters names. So, the press will (correctly) refer to the 2006 'Casino Royale' as a remake.

Sorry if the truth hurts, I don't like it anymore than the rest of you.

Right, D. It's a remake, just as NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a remake of THUNDERBALL. I agree with you that "the Fleming novel was (admittedly not very faithfully) adapted for the 1967 movie so in simple definition terms the 2006 production IS a remake".

So according you, as I mentioned above, the 1989 Tim Burton Batman movie was a remake of the 1966 Adam West version? And if two studios were to independently film a version of a William Shakespeare work, say, several years apart, one would be a remake of the other? Or if two theatre companies were to put on a production of a play, one is a remake of the other?

No. The fact that there is an earlier version of a film based on a source material common to a later work does not make it a remake, unless the later work is using the earlier work as its inspiration, however loosely. As in the Batman example, Tim Burton was giving us a version based on the original comics - a more accurate and proper version that we had never seen before, not a version inspired by or drawing its source from the camp 1966 version. The Tim Burton Batman was not, in any sense, a remake or even a re-imagining of the 60s version. In the same way, the 2006 Casino Royale is based on the original Fleming source material, rather than being inspired by or based upon the 60s spoof Casino Royale. It is what EON/ SONY would refer to as a proper version of the book. In that sense, it is NOT a remake, even technically.

Edited by Welshcat, 12 February 2005 - 10:21 PM.

[Loomis]

So according you, as I mentioned above, the 1989 Tim Burton Batman movie was a remake of the 1966 Adam West version?

It wasn't, but it would have been if both films had been based on a single comic, as opposed to "the comics".

And if two studios were to independently film a version of a William Shakespeare work, say, several years apart, one would be a remake of the other?

Yes.

[Bondian]

So that makes 'The Bourne Supremacy" a remake of 'The Bourne Identity'?.

The only way I'd say the Casino Royale ( which is a bad title considering it's a Sony 'push' ) would be any kind of a remake, it'll be the same stolen elements from all the Fleming novels and previous films.

Don't expect to see a stripped-down serious Bond ( a la Bourne ) because the only way to make these films pay, is to compete with the other blockbuster shoot-em-up's lke "Van Helsinger!".

[Simon]

No. The fact that there is an earlier version of a film based on a source material common to a later work does not make it a remake, unless the later work is using the earlier work as its inspiration, however loosely. As in the Batman example, Tim Burton was giving us a version based on the original comics - a more accurate and proper version that we had never seen before, not a version inspired by or drawing its source from the camp 1966 version. The  Tim Burton Batman was not, in any sense, a remake or even a re-imagining of the 60s version. In the same way, the 2006 Casino Royale is based on the original Fleming source material, rather than being inspired by or based upon the 60s spoof Casino Royale. It is what EON/ SONY would refer to as a proper version of the book. In that sense, it is NOT a remake, even technically.

Yup, that's how I see it.

[zencat]

[quote name='Simon' date='12 February 2005 - 14:48'][quote name='Welshcat' date='12 February 2005 - 22:17']No. The fact that there is an earlier version of a film based on a source material common to a later work does not make it a remake, unless the later work is using the earlier work as its inspiration, however loosely. As in the Batman example, Tim Burton was giving us a version based on the original comics - a more accurate and proper version that we had never seen before, not a version inspired by or drawing its source from the camp 1966 version. The

[Simon]

And if two studios were to independently film a version of a William Shakespeare work, say, several years apart, one would be a remake of the other?

Yes.

Well, for whatever reason you seem to believe that Loomers, for the purposes of this current topic (if not thread title) you will never have reporters calling those two Shakespeare films " a film and a remake". Whereas, you are saying that Casino Royale will and should be called a remake.

Where does this effectively start and finish????????? It's indefineable, so the result should be that it is a re-imagining or just a new film.

[Loomis]

Whereas, you are saying that Casino Royale will and should be called a remake.

Well, I'd say that the Matt Damon version of THE BOURNE IDENTITY is a remake of the Richard Chamberlain version, even though there's a big difference between the two in terms of fidelity to Robert Ludlum's novel.

Why not call Eon's CASINO ROYALE a remake of a film that's based on the same source material?

[Bondian]

Why not call Eon's CASINO ROYALE a remake of a film that's based on the same source material?

Oh, they will my friend.

I can hear Michael G. Wilson on the DVDs commentary track to EON's Casino Royale say "we thought we'd go back to the Ian Fleming novels!". Although he mentions this quite a lot, it never happens.

Martin Campbell watched From Russia With Love the day before he started filming Goldeneye, but that didn't help one bit.

Let's hope that Campbell and EON use their creativity only, instead of pulling things from past movies and novels.

If "Bond exists one minute in the future", then make it so, and not in the past.

Cheers,


Ian

[Bon-san]

[quote name='zencat' date='12 February 2005 - 17:50'][quote name='Simon' date='12 February 2005 - 14:48'][quote name='Welshcat' date='12 February 2005 - 22:17']No. The fact that there is an earlier version of a film based on a source material common to a later work does not make it a remake, unless the later work is using the earlier work as its inspiration, however loosely. As in the Batman example, Tim Burton was giving us a version based on the original comics - a more accurate and proper version that we had never seen before, not a version inspired by or drawing its source from the camp 1966 version. The

[zencat]

Had Eon taken the trouble to mention Ian Fleming and the book Casino Royale in their press release, I doubt there would be this "remake" confusion on the part of the press. I wonder how many of these reporters even know there was a book called Casino Royale.

[Bondian]

Had Eon taken the trouble to mention Ian Fleming and the book Casino Royale in their press release, I doubt there would be this "remake" confusion on the part of the press. I wonder how many of these reporters even know there was a book called Casino Royale.

Do you mean the remake Casino Novel, or the Ian Fleming original?. LOL

Just kidding!!!.

BTW...where is Blofeld's Cat these days?.

[Jack Bauer]

I think a remake would follow the original more closely. And I don't see Bond 21 being a comedy, so in my opinion, it's not a remake.

[brendan007]

This remake discussion is kinda silly. Just a few years ago when Red Dragon came out nobody was really fussed that it was remade, they just wanted to see Hopkins as Lechter.
I think the same basic principles will apply here, those who have heard of the 67 version will be happy to see it done officially, while those who havent heard of it likely couldnt care less.

[hrabb04]

Let's be blunt. Who gives a flying if it is a remake or not? Why don't we debate on whether it will be a good movie instead?

[[dark]]

I have to say, I think this is going to develop into one of those schools-of-thought, along with:

• Did John Cleese play "Q"'s assistant or "R" in The World Is Not Enough?
• Is Robert Brown's "M" Admiral Hargreaves or Sir Miles Messervy?
• Is Never Say Never Again an official film?

Everyone has an opinion, and they'll be damned if they're going to change it.

...and for what it's worth, Casino Royale (2006) isn't a remake.

[Janus Assassin]

I wonder if in the credits they will say

Whoever is 007

in Ian Fleming's

Casino Royale

Just a thought

[Righty007]

Casino Royale (2006) is not a remake of Casino Royale (1967). They simply have the same name.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) is a remake of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971).

[Righty007]

Let's be blunt.  Who gives a flying if it is a remake or not?  Why don't we debate on whether it will be a good movie instead?

Why do we give a "flying " about this? Because Casino Royale won't get the respect it deserves if the general public especially the press think it is a remake of Casino Royale (1967).

[JimmyBond]

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) is a remake of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971).

No it isnt. The Tim Burton film is simply another film based on the book. Just the same as with Casino Royale now.

[DLibrasnow]

Right, D. It's a remake, just as NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a remake of THUNDERBALL. I agree with you that "the Fleming novel was (admittedly not very faithfully) adapted for the 1967 movie so in simple definition terms the 2006 production IS a remake".

That's a good point by both of you...but I think most people assume similarities when they hear remake so still it might not be a fair representation, even if it's technically true.

It's technically speaking a remake of the 1967 movie.

I really don't understand how someone can say it is not a remake when (in simple definition terms) it clearly is.

[DLibrasnow]

Casino Royale (2006) is not a remake of Casino Royale (1967).

So following your logic then:

Never Say Never Again was not a remake of Thunderball.

You cannot say "yes" to one and "no" to the other or your argument falls apart at the seams.

[XXX]

It's actually very easy. The film will be a remake, but not a remake of the '67 film.
The story of the book has been made into a movie before, so the story is "remade" into a movie.
However, since the new CR will not be based on the the '67 adaption, the '67 film is not "remade" and hence not a remake of the 67 movie.

That's how I see it.

Edited by XXX, 13 February 2005 - 12:23 PM.

[stromberg]

Casino Royale (2006) is not a remake of Casino Royale (1967).

So following your logic then:

Never Say Never Again was not a remake of Thunderball.

You cannot say "yes" to one and "no" to the other or your argument falls apart at the seams.

Got ya! TB and NSNA are even based on the same screenplay (yes, McClory used to claim that he has 15 different screenplays, but it's all just variations of TB), therefore, NSNA is in all terms a remake of TB (not going to start a discussion on quality with you, D. that would lead us to nowhere).

CR67 is an adaption of source material and CR06 will be a different adaption of the same source material. (following the "Remaker's" theory, both movies are remakes of CR54 anyway).

In my book, a remake of a movie is something that is done to recreate another movie. If a book ais filmed several times, this is not necessarily a remake. How many versions of "The Hound of The Baskervilles" are out there. Ever considered one of those a remake of another one?

[Loomis]

[quote name='Righty007' date='13 February 2005 - 04:38'][quote name='hrabb04' date='12 February 2005 - 21:13']Let's be blunt.

[Righty007]

[quote name='Loomis' date='13 February 2005 - 08:14'][quote name='Righty007' date='13 February 2005 - 04:38'][quote name='hrabb04' date='12 February 2005 - 21:13']Let's be blunt.

[Righty007]

[quote name='Righty007' date='13 February 2005 - 09:07'][quote name='Loomis' date='13 February 2005 - 08:14'][quote name='Righty007' date='13 February 2005 - 04:38'][quote name='hrabb04' date='12 February 2005 - 21:13']Let's be blunt.

[Janus Assassin]

Wasn't CR67 a spoof? Nothing to do with the Ian Fleming book. CR06 will be a remake of the book(which was never made into an EON movie)

CR67 has nothing to do with the James Bond franchise. Thats what they mean by a remake of the book... not the '67 movie

[Loomis]

Got ya! TB and NSNA are even based on the same screenplay (yes, McClory used to claim that he has 15 different screenplays, but it's all just variations of TB), therefore, NSNA is in all terms a remake of TB (not going to start a discussion on quality with you, D. that would lead us to nowhere).

CR67 is an adaption of source material and CR06 will be a different adaption of the same source material. (following the "Remaker's" theory, both movies are remakes of CR54 anyway).

I don't understand from the above why NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN is a remake of THUNDERBALL (both based on the same source material - a screenplay), but CASINO ROYALE 2006 isn't a remake of CASINO ROYALE 1967 (both based on the same source material - a novel).

I mean, if someone bought the rights to, say, HALLOWEEN, and made a version of the story set in New York City, with Michael Myers being the same character, but Dr Loomis a 30-year-old American instead of a Brit pushing 60, and two female babysitters and one male one instead of three female babysitters (with Laurie Strode turned into a Chinese American character), and basically kept the same story while adding, say, a long car chase in the middle.... well, it'd still be a remake of John Carpenter's film, wouldn't it?

First of all it is being produced by a respectable company which has produced many great Bond films. In my opinion, twenty great Bond films. Casino Royale also has a good director and has a script with good source material. Right now this film looks like it will be very good which means it deserves more respect than that piece of garbage that came out in 1967 (and I'm not talking about You Only Live Twice).

I'd say 19 good-to-great Bond films, rather than 20 great Bond films.