144 replies to this topic

[Lounge Lizard]

Miss Walden was probably writing about a Derek Flint reboot.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

a villain called Bin Sane.

Oh Brother

Just when you thought you'd hit rock bottom of henchmen names...

[blueman]

How is it worse than Pussy Galore or Goldfinger? Or Dr. No, another inversion on a culturally-specific name? (I won't even mention Onatopp... )

Edited by blueman, 27 November 2005 - 10:04 PM.

[triviachamp]

The worst name since Mr. Kyl
I suppose this name is leftover from the third Dalton movie.

[blueman]

Oh, I don't like it that much, just seems middlin', as opposed to really stupid.

What they should do is come up with something that doesn't sound like a bad SNL pun on a high-profile dude, but still has something Fleming-like about it.

Edited by blueman, 27 November 2005 - 10:39 PM.

[triviachamp]

What they should do is come up with something that doesn't sound like a bad SNL pun on a high-profile dude

Yes exactly! It reminded of "Saddam Insane" or "Saddam Huinsane" in the cleverness department.

[triviachamp]

Perhaps future villain names will be Muhammad Zarcrazy, Tony Bliar, George W. Moron, John McFrenchfry and Crazillary Clinton!

[Gabe Vieira]

How about the names Mitur Bin Esderty or Seemee Indalabie?

You have to say them out loud.

[Jim]

In today's Sunday Mirror (I only read this because my son Giacomo brings this home after his paper round... honest...)

The set from the defunct UK Channel 5 soap opera "Family Affairs" has been acquired by the Bond people, who will be blowing it up...

Given that I suspect the set is of a residential UK street, an "ordinary street" as such, could this be scene setting - that there is a terrorist strike in the UK and this triggers the plot off, in some way? That could be a litte controversial, could it not?

[Loomis]

In today's Sunday Mirror (I only read this because my son Giacomo brings this home after his paper round... honest...)

The set from the defunct UK Channel 5 soap opera "Family Affairs" has been acquired by the Bond people, who will be blowing it up...

Given that I suspect the set is of a residential UK street, an "ordinary street" as such, could this be scene setting - that there is a terrorist strike in the UK and this triggers the plot off, in some way? That could be a litte controversial, could it not?

Controversy aside, I just can't imagine an ordinary British street in a Bond film, or ordinary people, or ordinary anything. Still, this is supposed to be "the gritty one", so who knows?

[Jim]

In today's Sunday Mirror (I only read this because my son Giacomo brings this home after his paper round... honest...)

The set from the defunct UK Channel 5 soap opera "Family Affairs" has been acquired by the Bond people, who will be blowing it up...

Given that I suspect the set is of a residential UK street, an "ordinary street" as such, could this be scene setting - that there is a terroist strike in the UK and this triggers the plot off, in some way? That could be a litte controversial, could it not?

Controversy aside, I just can't imagine an ordinary British street in a Bond film, or ordinary people, or ordinary anything. Still, this is supposed to be "the gritty one", so who knows?

I suspect that we might not have to put up with the ordinariness for long - if it's being blown up. Bet it's full of cheery coppers and red buses (although that may be a little close to home, given July 7th) and cheeky scamps of chimberly sweeps ready to clean yer flue for a fiver - or is that rentboys, who knows?

[Mr Malcolm]

That's certainly intriguing. Although you're right, Jim and Loomis, that surely would be rather close to the bone.

And Jim, as you say, it is in the Mirror, so who knows? Does anyone wish to own up to watching Family Affairs to clarify things?

[marktmurphy]

I used to work there. Ambled down the street in question more than a few times. I suppose it isn't impossble, but it does seem very unlikely somehow. I've no idea how it was constructed, but it was just a load of half-a-houses leaning against a warehouse (you never saw above the roofline onscreen). It wasn't built to be transportable or to be blown up I would hazard a guess. And you can't blow up a row of houses in the middle of a packed industrial estate in Merton.

[Mr Malcolm]

More to the point, don't terrorists tend to go for large, symbolic targets? That way, they get maximum impact from any one attack. Blowing up a random suburban street doesn't seem their style.

Maybe they're just eeeeeeevil film-style terrorists (as opposed, obviously, to evil real ones).

[Four Aces]

Good topic.

Some thoughts:

1. No fictitious country is needed, nor any country at all for that matter. Terrorists are "filibusterers" and therefore by definition do NOT wage war on behalf of any country - their own or anyone else's.

2. Texas Hold'Em is the right choice of game. Those of you who think this is a US game are not in touch with modern casino life around the world. Hold'Em is the game of choice now in most high-end card rooms around the world such as: Baden-Baden, Monte Carlo, Aviation Club de Paris, etc. One has to remember that Bond is originally a movie series for grown-ups. Think back to the 60's - this was the case, and us grown-ups are taking the franchise back Grown-ups get to go to casinos to see reality, so we know these things, children and teens don't

3. I do not think Eon will be able to keep to the CR script as per the novel. The novel will not play well as a movie. Instead, I think it makes more sense for Bond to lose the poker game, and for LeChiffre to take the winnings and use these in an effort to purchase some type of WMD. The thriller comes in thwarting the destruction that may be wrought by the WMD. That plays better than the CR novel, if one has read it.

4A

Edited by Four Aces, 19 December 2005 - 08:32 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

More to the point, don't terrorists tend to go for large, symbolic targets?  That way, they get maximum impact from any one attack.  Blowing up a random suburban street doesn't seem their style.

Maybe they're just eeeeeeevil film-style terrorists (as opposed, obviously, to evil real ones).

[mra]Perhaps the target is a mistake and this

[Loomis]

I do not think Eon will be able to keep to the CR script as per the novel.  The novel will not play well as a movie. 

I'm probably in a tiny minority here, but I actually think a faithful (and, of course, period) adaptation of the novel could play well as a movie. It would require a lot of panache, though, and a truly world class director, and would be so far removed from most people's concept of a James Bond movie that Eon would be ill-advised to even attempt it. Even so, it could work.

[Four Aces]

I do not think Eon will be able to keep to the CR script as per the novel.  The novel will not play well as a movie. 

I'm probably in a tiny minority here, but I actually think a faithful (and, of course, period) adaptation of the novel could play well as a movie. It would require a lot of panache, though, and a truly world class director, and would be so far removed from most people's concept of a James Bond movie that Eon would be ill-advised to even attempt it. Even so, it could work.

Agreed, as you have written.

4A

[Loomis]

Having posted that, I wondered whether I was just stating the bleedin' obvious. After all, virtually any book can be adapted successfully to the screen (in reasonably faithful form, that is) if done well enough, by a director and co. who are sufficiently talented - I mean, it doesn't really need to be said, does it?

But where I was coming from was: well, it seems to me that there's a general view that "Casino Royale" is some kind of desperately dated and dull (and exceptionally short) novel that would need to be altered radically and padded out in order to work as a film (although, strangely enough, there seems simultaneously to be a heck of a lot of whining about Eon's apparent plan to alter the book and pad it out and add lots of "new stuff" ). It's obvious that you've read the book, 4A, and that you don't subscribe to the myth that a faithful film version would necessarily be like watching drying paint, but I think a lot of people do.

Having re-read "Casino Royale" recently, I was struck by just how much it isn't dated or dull, and by how "filmic" it is. It remains gripping, violent, sexy stuff - a heady brew that still packs a punch, with a lot of edge-of-seat and shocking moments that could make for great cinema in - so to speak - raw form. And I don't think that's true of all the Flemings, by any means. Moving on to "Live and Let Die" and "Moonraker", I found them silly, old-fashioned and boring in places. Okay, we've all got our own individual likes and dislikes when it comes to the novels (and anything, come to that) - one man's "You Only Live Twice" (the all-time solid gold classic, IMO) is another man's "Moonraker" (the total snooze of the bunch, as far as I'm concerned*), but the point I'm ambling towards is that it's not that I'm so in awe of Fleming that I think any of his works would make for absolutely riveting cinema if adapted faithfully. It's just that I think CR still works, still holds up, and that it isn't the unfilmable (without colossal changes) antique it's often made out to be.

Still, I'm definitely not calling for a faithful adaptation of CR. Why not? Well, basically because I think Broccoli, Wilson and co. should do their own thing, as Eon has nearly always done. Bring on the creativity, the fresh take! YOLT is by far my favourite of the novels, yet the fact that the movie is nothing remotely like it (well, it isn't, actually - there's a lot more fidelity to the book than meets the eye, but that's another post) doesn't prevent my considering it one of the finest Bond flicks ever. And why should it? The books are the books, and the films are the films.

I'm perfectly happy with the way next year's big screen 007 outing seems to be shaping up. Craig, Dench, a nonsmoking Bond, a first mission reboot, the Bahamas or wherever instead of France, poker.... hey, whatever. All that matters is: will it be a good, entertaining film? Forget Fleming (and also Brosnan or Connery or whatever else), and judge it on its own merits.

*Although the Blades stuff is superb. Not the card game, so much as the descriptions of the club and its history and culture - a wonderful glimpse into an exclusive world beyond the reach of the average Joe reader.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

They should lose the fictitious country angle. Any small nation that backed terrorism would be invaded by George W. Bush tomorrow. Heck, even a nation that doesn't back terrorism -- but we suspect does -- will be invaded.

If that were true we would have invaded Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea by now. I Think its a good idea to make it a fictitious nation, most likely to avoid the NK backlash of DAD like others have said but also they could create a hybrid country that contains elements of several real world terrorist states. Take Syria for instance, officers from their intellegence service were involved in the car bombing of the former prime minister of Lebanon and had agents on the groud in Iraq training insurgents. Iran is also not too friendly, last year a truck was intersepted crossing the Iran/Iraq border containing explosive devices made by the Iranian army destained for use by insurgents. Lets not forget that it was Saudi money that funded the 9/11 attacks and countless others.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

More to the point, don't terrorists tend to go for large, symbolic targets?  That way, they get maximum impact from any one attack.  Blowing up a random suburban street doesn't seem their style.

Maybe they're just eeeeeeevil film-style terrorists (as opposed, obviously, to evil real ones).

Perhaps if it is true that they will blow up the old sets it won't be a terror attack but more along the lines of what happened with the Madrid terror cell that blew themselves up when cornered by Spanish police. They caught the whole thing on tape. It was an ordinary street with a row of town houses where the terrorists were holed up and when the cops started to advance they blew the whole thing up.

[triviachamp]

[quote] it seems to me that there's a general view that "Casino Royale" is some kind of desperately dated and dull (and exceptionally short) novel that would need to be altered radically and padded out in order to work as a film (although, strangely enough, there seems simultaneously to be a heck of a lot of whining about Eon's apparent plan to alter the book and pad it out and add lots of "new stuff"

Edited by triviachamp, 03 January 2006 - 04:38 AM.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

[quote name='triviachamp' date='2 January 2006 - 18:37'][quote] it seems to me that there's a general view that "Casino Royale" is some kind of desperately dated and dull (and exceptionally short) novel that would need to be altered radically and padded out in order to work as a film (although, strangely enough, there seems simultaneously to be a heck of a lot of whining about Eon's apparent plan to alter the book and pad it out and add lots of "new stuff"

[triviachamp]

Yep, just like the old saying the grass is always greener on the otherside. Some people will never be satisfied.

Besides the fanboys the film critics are particularily guilty of this. They, for example, usually complain about how Comic Book Movies are juvenile trash. But they then complain about Batman Begins for not being like the Adam West show!

[Stax]

Agreed, triviachamp. The same ones who trashed camp crap like Batman & Robin panned Batman Begins for taking itself too seriously. It's the genre -- some people will never give genre stuff a fair shake.