55 replies to this topic

[Pussfeller]

I prefer a hefty dose of sex and violence. Where can we get that?

Fleming's books.

Of course the original novels are chock-full of blood and guts and raunchy details. I meant in terms of what country tolerates both in their films? It seems to me if we had plenty of both, the spirit would be closer to the original Fleming.

[Snake]

Which one is the goriest?

[Janus Assassin]

When you think about it... Die Another Day was about to get an R rating for the sex scene with Bond and Jinx. But the censors cut it to make it PG-13. This is the same that will happen with the torture sequence in Casino Royale in which the censors will make it work so that young people won't be traumatized by it. For me it doesn't matter what rating it will get cuz I'll be 18 when it's released. But I know that EON won't make it an R rated Bond movie.

[Qwerty]

Which one is the goriest?

Don't think it's a matter of gore, but merely the description.

[Seannery]

I still don't think we need a torture scene in 2 straight Bond films.

[Qwerty]

If it's Casino Royale they're making, I think an exception should be made. That is a standout in the novel I'd say, it's often discussed.

[Seannery]

If it's Casino Royale they're making, I think an exception should be made. That is a standout in the novel I'd say, it's often discussed.

Yah, I understand that--BUT knowing that they almost certainly won't be real faithful to the novel(they never really are) I wish they would bypass this part even with it being essential to the novel. Afterall in adapting they can always shift and alter major parts and still get the essence of the piece if they are creative and smart enough about it. Just personally I would rather not see another torture scene.

[Qwerty]

"The duo also confirmed that the most iconic elements of Fleming's novel are in the current incarnation of the script, including the infamous torture sequence ("If it is done the right way, there are going to be a lot of crossed legs in the cinema," said Wade) and Bond's final line of dialogue. The writers also commented that the action in Casino Royale would also take a step back, featuring a more realistic style of violence and fewer quips from Bond."

I'm hoping it's done effectively and faithful.

[Seannery]

Yes I heard that--i'm hoping that ends up getting excised. But hey to each his own.

[Qwerty]

Fair enough.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I prefer a hefty dose of sex and violence. Where can we get that?

Fleming's books.

Of course the original novels are chock-full of blood and guts and raunchy details. I meant in terms of what country tolerates both in their films? It seems to me if we had plenty of both, the spirit would be closer to the original Fleming.

Many apologies 'feller, I was just being slightly facetious.

[tdalton]

I still don't think we need a torture scene in 2 straight Bond films.

They have to have the torture sequence in Casino Royale as it is such a pivotal part of the novel. I would argue that the torture sequence is really what Casino Royale was all about along with the bacarrat sequence. It's just so pivotal for the plot that they cannot exclude it.

[booyeah_]

"The duo also confirmed that the most iconic elements of Fleming's novel are in the current incarnation of the script, including the infamous torture sequence ("If it is done the right way, there are going to be a lot of crossed legs in the cinema," said Wade) and Bond's final line of dialogue. The writers also commented that the action in Casino Royale would also take a step back, featuring a more realistic style of violence and fewer quips from Bond."

I'm hoping it's done effectively and faithful.

Unfortunately, I doubt we'll truly know the nature of the adaption until all the casting is finished and shooting begins.

[Bondian]

Too true booyeah_ my friend.

[Qwerty]

"The duo also confirmed that the most iconic elements of Fleming's novel are in the current incarnation of the script, including the infamous torture sequence ("If it is done the right way, there are going to be a lot of crossed legs in the cinema," said Wade) and Bond's final line of dialogue. The writers also commented that the action in Casino Royale would also take a step back, featuring a more realistic style of violence and fewer quips from Bond."

I'm hoping it's done effectively and faithful.

Unfortunately, I doubt we'll truly know the nature of the adaption until all the casting is finished and shooting begins.

You are most probably right booyeah_. Still, it leaves room for that continued speculation alot of fans are used to now.

[007forever]

BRING IT ON!!!=)

I am too old alreayd....feel free to make it 25+ rating, hahahah
and i will be there;)

[Skudor]

I still don't think we need a torture scene in 2 straight Bond films.

I'd agree that repeating too many elements time after time is annoying, and something as important as this hits the mark. But to agree with you I'd have to go one further and say that they shouldn't do Casino Royale next. I think it's fine as it's in the book. It's DAD that shouldn't have had the torture (thinking ahead? Eon? Never.)

There's a new 12A rating in the UK (seemed to be created for LOTR...), I'm not sure how it works, but it might help things get past. I say film it all and have it on the DVD... Director's cut!

[00-FAN008]

This is the same that will happen with the torture sequence in Casino Royale in which the censors will make it work so that young people won't be traumatized by it.

You know, I'm thinking the filmmakers won't even bother with the scene in the Casino Royale film. Probably too graphic for theatres, I would think. They'll probably just replace it with a sequence of Bond escaping an impossible predicament.

I mean, for 's sake... he gets whipped in the chach!!!

[Blofeld's Cat]

It hasn't happened to Bond before, so why pass up on the oportunity to be different/original?

[Cabainus]

Ok judging by the previous posts I dont expect many people to agree with me on this but here goes.

Maybe if it hadn't already been done to death in the last two films I would think different, but I agree with Seannery that the torture scene should be omitted.
I accept the fact though that it is an integral part of the book, but the fact of the matter is that this isn't the literal James Bond
its the cinematic one.

In LTK The producers have already gone down the road of making a darker, grittier Bond film and it panned. (despite the fact this happens to be one of my favourite Bond films)

As for those that hope CR will be an 18 cert film, its rightfully not going to happen. Tweak the formula that has worked for 33 years by all means, but alienating half your audience and changing the context of the film entirely would not be the brightest move.

With every new Bond actor its imperative the first film gets off to a winning start, and they must simply take as few gambles as possible.

[Tanger]

I still don't think we need a torture scene in 2 straight Bond films.

I'd agree that repeating too many elements time after time is annoying, and something as important as this hits the mark. But to agree with you I'd have to go one further and say that they shouldn't do Casino Royale next. I think it's fine as it's in the book. It's DAD that shouldn't have had the torture (thinking ahead? Eon? Never.)

There's a new 12A rating in the UK (seemed to be created for LOTR...), I'm not sure how it works, but it might help things get past. I say film it all and have it on the DVD... Director's cut!

Actually the 12A rating was introduced for Spider-Man. It allows children under the age of 12 to be accompanied by a parent or guardian to the film. Whereas before with the 12 rating, no child under that age would be admitted with or without a parent. The same goes for 15 and 18.

[00-FAN008]

It hasn't happened to Bond before, so why pass up on the oportunity to be different/original?

It's just that I think the torture scene should only be left to the imagination, not graphically depicted in a movie. And besides, how can James Bond make love to all his women with a sore penis???

I still don't think we need a torture scene in 2 straight Bond films.

You mean three straight Bond films. He almost got choked to death in TWINE.

[hrabb04]

It can now be revealed that Bond will be strapped into the most uncomfortable chair imaginable and, with his eyes taped open, forced to watch the CGI effects reel for Die Another Day ad nauseum.

[Pussfeller]

I still don't think we need a torture scene in 2 straight Bond films.

How about we just declare DAD to not be a Bond film?

[TheBritishEnd]

To be honest, I would be surprised if they actually had the balls to go through with it (no pun intended).

But I have to agree, it's not really something I need to see in a Bond film. There are some things that should be reserved for the books, and if someone's going to adapt it, I'd rather it not be Purvis and Wade. In their hands, I think it will seem more like a cheap stunt than anything else. I just don't understand how people who hated DAD can willingly support the notion of these two adapting any of Fleming's works.

Sure, it's integral to the book, but this isn't the book we're talking about. For one thing, it's not the 1950's anymore and we're unlikely to get a very faithful translation.

There's also the matter of why it was integral to the book, and I don't really think it will apply as much to the film. And do we really need to see Bond laid up in a hospital, worrying if he'll be able to deliver again? Or taking weeks to recover? Would today's audiences really be surprised by Vesper's 'revelation'?

Not to mention, unless the rumor is true (and they completely disregard the previous continuity), Vesper is going to be following Tracy this time. As a result, there's only so much emotional investment that Bond can allow himself, as no one will ever be able to be closer to him than his wife. So right away, any film loses a huge amount of the book's significance.

And when you consider that Tracy has been the one thread that has (however loosely) held the series together, I think it would be wrong to simply toss her history out.

[00-FAN008]

I still don't think we need a torture scene in 2 straight Bond films.

How about we just declare DAD to not be a Bond film?

Uh... no. I can't agree with that.