SPOILER: The threat is...
#31
Posted 21 October 2005 - 05:29 PM
My own original titles for Bond 22 and 23.
Casino Royale - 2006 - New terrorist group introduced.
Serpent's Head - 2007? - Bond meets the leader of the terrorist group.
State of War - 2009? - Bond travels to the terrorist state, defeats them and kills their leader.
#32
Posted 21 October 2005 - 05:29 PM
For the last few months it has been mentioned that my friend actor Gulshan Grover is being considered for a part in CR.His name is even on the official website (He is being considered).I was wondering if terrorism is part of the plot,then it will have some sort of Al Qaeda kind of organisation.That is the reason i feel an Indian Actor is being considered.Grover told me that there will be two villians.One will be Le Chiffre and the other will be the Russian Agency he works for.Since CR wll be updated to these times,there will be no Russian organisation.Instead it will be some sort of Middle eastern organisation like Al Qaeda on whose behalf Le Chiffre works and that is why an asian actor is being considered.
Let's try to keep that kind of discussion in this thread, medrecess.
#33
Posted 21 October 2005 - 05:50 PM
#34
Posted 21 October 2005 - 06:02 PM
Hence the change from Baccarat (which would be limited to the casino's bank) to "no-limit" hold'em poker. It's all starting to fall into place now.I ask, as I guess, (I could be wrong) that there is a limit that someone can win on a gaming table, (in one card game - otherwise the bank would be broken). So we`re not talking many millions here. Is the final winning amount going to be realistic for Le Chiffre and this new organisation to use?
(I'm assuming it's okay to talk about other spoilers in a spoiler thread?)
Edited by The Silver Beast, 21 October 2005 - 06:03 PM.
#35
Posted 21 October 2005 - 06:44 PM
#36
Posted 21 October 2005 - 07:04 PM
#37
Posted 21 October 2005 - 07:09 PM
#39
Posted 21 October 2005 - 07:41 PM
Cool. I love the fact that this thread has this neat "SPOILER" background color scheme. Looks sweet - I am guessing we have Mr. * to thank!
The red is nice. Kind of makes me wish every thread was a spoiler.
As long as the movie is not set in this fictitious country, I'm okay with it. Just have M tell Bond about this new terror organization "with ties to zebba zebba" and then get on with it.They should lose the fictitious country angle. Just make it a SPECTRE-like group based here and there, providing arms to al Quaeda.
Hey, do you think this new organization will be called OCTOPUS (the SPECTRE replacement in FRWL vg)?
Let's not give them any ideas....hahaha...
Although I do like the name "Zebba Zebba" for the fictional country.
#40
Posted 21 October 2005 - 08:00 PM
#41
Posted 21 October 2005 - 09:01 PM
I mean, they were already getting there by using the North Koreans as the baddies in the last one.
Either way, for me, this is a fantastic step in the right direction.
#42
Posted 21 October 2005 - 09:15 PM
Nahhhh, too cheesy.
#43
Posted 21 October 2005 - 09:20 PM
Okay, sorry for the negativity. I just had to get it out of my system. Maybe it won't be as bad as I imagine.
#44
Posted 21 October 2005 - 09:40 PM
This really bothers me. Why undercut all of the film's alleged "realism" and "grittiness" by introducing a damn imaginary country? Why not an independent organization with links to (or in the pay of) other, REAL terrorist groups?
I guess it's just a vague attempt at realism without damaging the escapist aspect of Bond too much. Personally I think a real organization would work better. Tim against the Russians in Afghanistan was always good for me.
So much for reality; bring on the soldiers in red jumpsuits...
Sweet! Red like this forum....which I love btw. (I miss the hordes of men in jumpsuits just a little bit actually.)
#45
Posted 21 October 2005 - 11:57 PM
"Terrorism"... wow!
#49
Posted 22 October 2005 - 12:51 AM
One question I have, however, is if this is supposed to be a Bond Begins (prequel?) and this terrorist organization does turn out to be involved in a trilogy, do all those films come before Dr. No? Or is this, in fact, all a part of a reinvention aka reboot? Unfortunately, it sounds more like the latter.
By the way, I too like the spoiler background. Very nice.
#50
Posted 22 October 2005 - 01:43 AM
(I miss the hordes of men in jumpsuits just a little bit actually.)
Truth be told, so do I. Don't get me wrong; I'm very much in favor of a more realistic, down-to-earth Bond movie. But I still have this longing to see another YOLT/TSWLM/MR "good guys" vs "bad guys (in bad jumpsuits)" battle scene in a sprawling setpiece....
But, back on topic, if it's handled well maybe this "fictitious country" thing won't be too much of a distraction.
#51
Posted 22 October 2005 - 01:44 AM
#53
Posted 22 October 2005 - 01:50 AM
Campbell must know how strongly he would be criticised if he made a movie that dumped continuity purely for the sake of dumping it -
I pray to God that this isn't a prequel - this doesn't need to be his first mission. Maybe M sends him on an 'easy' mission after DAD and he stumbles onto a bigger plot ?
#54
Posted 22 October 2005 - 02:01 AM
#55
Posted 22 October 2005 - 02:08 AM
I just got an idea. What if this new organization was an anti-terrorism terrorist group - "good" terrorists combating "bad" terrorists. Kind of like the Black Cell organization in the movie Swordfish. What if Le Chiffre were working for those guys? Like Gabriel Shear said, just a thought.
#56
Posted 22 October 2005 - 04:32 AM
I think the creation of a new SPECTRE-like organization makes senese, particularly given the terrorism of today. Fictional countries are a little gay though.
I have never considered the sexual preference of fictional countries, but it's an amusing notion.
Narnia is patently lesbian.
And Middle Earth is largely homoerotic.
#57
Posted 22 October 2005 - 05:03 AM
#58
Posted 22 October 2005 - 05:11 AM
#59
Posted 22 October 2005 - 05:34 AM
I think the creation of a new SPECTRE-like organization makes senese, particularly given the terrorism of today. Fictional countries are a little gay though.
I have never considered the sexual preference of fictional countries, but it's an amusing notion.
Narnia is patently lesbian.
And Middle Earth is largely homoerotic.
...and San Monique is bi-curious, Isthmus is - ooh - so very terribly butch and (albeit not a country) Royale-les-Eaux is in denial for the sake of its marriage. The un-named place that might be Cuba or Argentina at the start of Octopussy, however, is an asexual hermaphrodite.
Not worried about the fictional country at all. There's precedent and it's not as if, when they've picked a real country in the past, it's not been presented in a fictional, fantastical - and often a bit silly - way (India in Octopussy "e.g.")
#60
Posted 22 October 2005 - 05:53 AM