66 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Topics merged.

[morganhavoc]

[quote name='Ali Kerim Bey' date='1 November 2005 - 23:36'][quote name='ComplimentsOfSharky' date='1 November 2005 - 18:24']Your observations seemed a bit more like conspiracy theories to me...and if I'm not mistaken the only observations you've made regard how EON was too cheap to get Owen or Jackman.

[tbp82]

Everyone continues to point to bam DAD box office/worldwide gross success. Money does not make a film a good film. It does not make people want to see sequels, buy DVDS etc. In my opinion the financial success of DAD is not a legitimate reason to argue that Bond is not in need of reinventing. First off of the three big spy movies of 2002 DAD had the highest worldwide gross but DAD fell behind both Bourne Identity and XXX in DVD sales. While Bourne Identity was like in the top five rentals of the year as well. Then Bourne Supremacy opened with a higher weekend than any Bond film in history and also outsold DAD on DVD. The success of Bond films will be there because it is Bond. Sure some gross less than others but even the weakest of Bond films at the box office still open at the top of the box office and are still more sucessful than the majority of films out there for the simple fact that it is Bond. Even the highly unsucessful License to Kill still took in 157 million worldwide. Disappointing sure but still not bad by film standards. Bond is Bond and decent box office numbers are guranteed. The time is right for the darker grittier Bond.

[Mister Asterix]

Why does Casino Royale need a reboot?

Needs a new type of wheel too, apparently.

[mra]They

[Streetworker]

Everyone continues to point to bam DAD box office/worldwide gross success. Money does not make a film a good film.

Indeed. But it's all accountants understand. And bloody accountants run the film industry - nay, the world! - today...

[Judo chop]

I'm confused as to what 'reboot' even means? Campbell's been pretty clear that Bond is still going to like his cars and his drinks. He's going to be a licensed to kill spy. He's going to love the girl in a distant sort of way, and when the film's over we'll drop her from our memories to make room for the next girl in the next film - the same as Bond.

So what exactly is going to be rebooted? What critical pieces of Bond The Man are we going to be missing in this new installation? None I think. As Campbell's claims, we'll see how he comes to like his drink and how he comes to like his car. I'm seeing that as a five-line, one shot sequence, and then we're back to a Bond film. How much time can you spend talking about why you prefer an Aston Martin?

We've been told that this film will be loyal to the book, and trusting in that, all this reboot stuff may just be incidental inserts, kind of like the throwback tributes that were smeared all over DAD.
Just keep it reasonable; don't completely saturate us with all the 'whys' and 'hows' of Bond. If they can keep it (the reboot aspects of the film) minimal to flavor what is hopefully already a very good script, then I won't panick about the reboot idea.

[Stratus]

You guys have to keep in mind if a reboot fails its not a simple lets go back to the last continuity. It doesn't work that way, it's called a reboot for a reason.

[Blue07]

It's a very wrong turn of phrase by Campbell and more than a little arrogant. I certainly believe that if it aint broke don't fix it. Although DAD had a lot of problems it is nothing that requires a huge overhaul. Each film can be different - have different styles and mood as imposed by each director and each actor playing Bond. There is no doubt that with Craig as Bond the franchise is going in a different way anyway - and also being based on an original Fleming book it's unlikely that another DAD would happen. So talk of reboot and reinventing etc is unnecessary. A change of direction in the scripts would be more important. What irritates me most about EON's thought process is the fact they seem to ape other sucsessful films out there - wasn't DAD a CGI mess because of XXX? And are they now not influenced by the bare, gritty Bourne films? Why? These films were inspired by Bond in the first place. As someone once said 'Nobody does it better.' Bond should continue along it's very sucsessful path and not try and copy other far inferior films in what seems like a lack of faith in the franchise they have and the fanbase who continue to support it.

[tdalton]

It's a very wrong turn of phrase by Campbell and more than a little arrogant.

You're 100% correct, it's very arrogant of Campbell to make the comments that he did. IMO, it wasn't him that "saved" the franchise in 1995, it was a combination of Cubby, Brosnan, MGM, a public that wanted to see Bond, and Campbell that brought Bond back from the legal troubles that the franchise had faced in the early 1990s.

[Blue07]

It seems a little odd that a lot of faith appears to have been placed in Campbell. I don't mind him as a director and I loved GE so I don't mind the choice but why does every thing I hear about CR seem to come from him? A director shouldn't have this much clout in the Bond franchise. Certainly not a director for hire who seems to be getting ideas above his station.

[luciusgore]

MGM had actually insisted on hiring Dalton back for Goldeneye. Jon Calley, then head of MGM, refused to fund the movie if Brosnan wasn't named the star. That's why Brosnan became Bond. Albert was of course dying at this point.

Calley had a huge falling out with MGM and left for Sony. They made the other three Brosnan Bonds without Calley, who became a sworn enemy of MGM and Eon when he tried to form an alliance with McClory to make a rival Bond series. The lawsuit that resulted ultimately, I think, helped Eon get the full rights to Casino Royale.

In any event, they are moving ahead without any input from Calley, who is no longer at Sony. Amy Pascal is the master of the ship now. Amy Pascal, the woman behind Stealth and XXX: State of the Union. That Amy Pascal. Calley was responsible for Mask of Zorro, a critical and box office success. Pascal was responsible for Legend of Zorro, a critical and box office bomb. Both films had the same director, but different studio heads driving them. Hmmm.

So we all should be a little worried about the reinvention of the wheel happening here. I think another studio head would have handled this situation differently.

[tbp82]

It's a very wrong turn of phrase by Campbell and more than a little arrogant. I certainly believe that if it aint broke don't fix it. Although DAD had a lot of problems it is nothing that requires a huge overhaul. Each film can be different - have different styles and mood as imposed by each director and each actor playing Bond. There is no doubt that with Craig as Bond the franchise is going in a different way anyway - and also being based on an original Fleming book it's unlikely that another DAD would happen. So talk of reboot and reinventing etc is unnecessary. A change of direction in the scripts would be more important. What irritates me most about EON's thought process is the fact they seem to ape other sucsessful films out there - wasn't DAD a CGI mess because of XXX? And are they now not influenced by the bare, gritty Bourne films? Why? These films were inspired by Bond in the first place. As someone once said 'Nobody does it better.' Bond should continue along it's very sucsessful path and not try and copy other far inferior films in what seems like a lack of faith in the franchise they have and the fanbase who continue to support it.

How in the world could XXX have affected DAD? XXX was released in August of 2002 while DAD was released in November. The shooting of DAD had already begun before XXX was released. So are you basically trying to say the the producers of DAD saw XXX and said wait stop everything this is what we need to do go back change everything we already filmed. No? Now you also say not copy far inferior films. We have heard in rumors and from the mouth of Cambell basically four movies have been mentioned as inspiration/copy formulas. These films are Bourne Identity, Bourne Supremacy (The Bourne Series), Batman Begins and From Russia with Love. If those four films are the inspiration for this new reinvention of Bond then I want someone to explain to me why the producers wouldn't go this route. The Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy are both vastly superior to anything Brosnan has done since Goldeneye and are arguably better than Goldeneye. Batman Begins blows all Brosnan's films out the water. From Russia with Love is also better than any of Brosnan's films. Bond needs to be the best spy thriller out there not coming in on a third place finish behind Xander Cage and Jason Bourne.

[Arrant]

The way I read it, the intention is very much a "Bond Begins" movie.

I don't think we are going to see the James Bond we are used to at all. Not until the latter part of the movie. Rather than a typical Bond movie with a couple of throwaway "how I came to like vodka martinis" lines I think the whole thrust of the movie is going to be how Bond went from relatively unsophisticated newly qualified assassin, still under the illusion that a normal life was possible whilst plying such a trade, too the cold hearted womanizing sophisticated bastard of the early Connery films. Along the way I expect we will see him slowly building up the sophisticated, wise cracking veneer which has become his trademark.

Lets be honest! If they are not going to attempt something like that, then what is the point of sticking to the idea of Casino Royale as Bonds first 00 mission. Why not just stick together some P&W action sequences, call it Casino Royale

[Streetworker]

The way I read it, the intention is very much a "Bond Begins" movie.

I don't think we are going to see the James Bond we are used to at all. Not until the latter part of the movie. Rather than a typical Bond movie with a couple of throwaway "how I came to like vodka martinis" lines I think the whole thrust of the movie is going to be how Bond went from relatively unsophisticated newly qualified assassin, still under the illusion that a normal life was possible whilst plying such a trade, too the cold hearted womanizing sophisticated bastard of the early Connery films. Along the way I expect we will see him slowly building up the sophisticated, wise cracking veneer which has become his trademark.

This sums up just about everything I don't want to see in Casino Royale...

[blueman]

Hmmm...I thought Campbell's comments meant Bond might be a little more rash, hot under the collar. The events of CR chill him out, so to speak. That's pretty much the novel, if I remember it, also how Bond is in many of the early novels (he seems to burn out a bit circa GF). I dunno, could be cheese, could be a damn good film. Guess we'll see.

[Blue07]

It's a very wrong turn of phrase by Campbell and more than a little arrogant. I certainly believe that if it aint broke don't fix it. Although DAD had a lot of problems it is nothing that requires a huge overhaul. Each film can be different - have different styles and mood as imposed by each director and each actor playing Bond. There is no doubt that with Craig as Bond the franchise is going in a different way anyway - and also being based on an original Fleming book it's unlikely that another DAD would happen. So talk of reboot and reinventing etc is unnecessary. A change of direction in the scripts would be more important. What irritates me most about EON's thought process is the fact they seem to ape other sucsessful films out there - wasn't DAD a CGI mess because of XXX? And are they now not influenced by the bare, gritty Bourne films? Why? These films were inspired by Bond in the first place. As someone once said 'Nobody does it better.' Bond should continue along it's very sucsessful path and not try and copy other far inferior films in what seems like a lack of faith in the franchise they have and the fanbase who continue to support it.

How in the world could XXX have affected DAD? XXX was released in August of 2002 while DAD was released in November. The shooting of DAD had already begun before XXX was released. So are you basically trying to say the the producers of DAD saw XXX and said wait stop everything this is what we need to do go back change everything we already filmed. No? Now you also say not copy far inferior films. We have heard in rumors and from the mouth of Cambell basically four movies have been mentioned as inspiration/copy formulas. These films are Bourne Identity, Bourne Supremacy (The Bourne Series), Batman Begins and From Russia with Love. If those four films are the inspiration for this new reinvention of Bond then I want someone to explain to me why the producers wouldn't go this route. The Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy are both vastly superior to anything Brosnan has done since Goldeneye and are arguably better than Goldeneye. Batman Begins blows all Brosnan's films out the water. From Russia with Love is also better than any of Brosnan's films. Bond needs to be the best spy thriller out there not coming in on a third place finish behind Xander Cage and Jason Bourne.

What I was suggesting is a following of fads by the Bond producers - films of the like of XXX all seemed to be overblown CGI messes and that seemed to be the trend - also people went to see them. That is why I think DAD become what it did - not necessarily as a direct result of XXX - that was merely the most obvious example of another overblown action/spy film. I have no problem with moving into the style of the Bourne films of even Batman begins - I think it's what the franchise needs but what I don't want to see is a wholesale change of what we know and love about Bond. The series has always been far better than all its imitators who have come and gone and I don't see that they need to be copying other sucsessful films out there. Mood, characterization, direction (and hopefully script) can all be changed as much as they want but I'm just concerned that the Bond formula will be watered down so much as to be removed from what we know and love. Maybe it won't happen, there has been talk like this before - but with a new Bond, and various comments made from EON and Campbell it looks like it might - that I think is wrong for the series. There is a huge amount they could change but still keep the film in the Bond framework - I just hope they do. Other spy/action films will come and go - Bond has lasted so long for a reason. If they take that reason away why would the punters still turn up at the cinema. It's all 'ifs' and 'buts' and we will have to see but talk like Campbells is not encouraging.

[tdalton]

The way I read it, the intention is very much a "Bond Begins" movie.

I don't think we are going to see the James Bond we are used to at all. Not until the latter part of the movie. Rather than a typical Bond movie with a couple of throwaway "how I came to like vodka martinis" lines I think the whole thrust of the movie is going to be how Bond went from relatively unsophisticated newly qualified assassin, still under the illusion that a normal life was possible whilst plying such a trade, too the cold hearted womanizing sophisticated bastard of the early Connery films. Along the way I expect we will see him slowly building up the sophisticated, wise cracking veneer which has become his trademark.

This sums up just about everything I don't want to see in Casino Royale...

I'm in agreement here. That's exactly what I don't want to see from Casino Royale as well.

[Auric64]

Ali ,You may have noticed that it seems that only a certain few are allowed to express themselves freely on this board. The rest of us are subject to thier less than witty put downs . I personally thought the pics were funny.

[/quote]


[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='2 November 2005 - 15:42'][quote name='Blofeld's Cat' date='2 November 2005 - 04:24'][quote name='Auric64' date='2 November 2005 - 18:08']Why does Casino Royale need a reboot?

[/quote]
Needs a new type of wheel too, apparently.

[/quote]

[mra]They

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Explain to me how what they said is a put down.

[Mister Asterix]

[quote name='Auric64' date='3 November 2005 - 13:52']Ali ,You may have noticed that it seems that only a certain few are allowed to express themselves freely on this board. The rest of us are subject to thier less than witty put downs . I personally thought the pics were funny.


[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='2 November 2005 - 15:42'][quote name='Blofeld's Cat' date='2 November 2005 - 04:24'][quote name='Auric64' date='2 November 2005 - 18:08']Why does Casino Royale need a reboot?

[/quote]
Needs a new type of wheel too, apparently.

[/quote]

[mra]They

[Auric64]

As I am sure you are aware, when humour is used, either by someone for their own use, or replying to somebody else`s thread, what usually follows is

Had followed your comments, I (and perhaps others) would have seen it for what it is: a humourous remark. As wasn`t used, I had no other reason to believe that the comments were nothing more than derogatory to my post.

It is different when one person speaks to another, face to face, you get an idea as to which way a comment can be said and meant. With situations like this, the written word, quotes like the two used by Mr. McAleer and Mr. Willnow, can be taken differently.

There has already been another poster who has remarked that there are people on this forum who seem to be a law unto themselves, (I quoted that person at the beginning of my post) so I do not believe that I might (to some who read this) be over reacting to the comments made to my post.

Might I suggest to everyone in future, if you wish to make humourous remarks to a thread, please use a clickable smilie to show there is no ill will to that person.

As I said earlier, we are all fans of James Bond, that is why we are here. We all have different opinions as well. I would wish to be treated on this forum in the same courteous way as I would treat others. Politeness costs nothing.

Auric64

[marktmurphy]

I prefer to treat people with intelligence. If they can't work out that I'm being humourous without smilies (and yes, I do bear in mind that writing is very different to talking), then I don't feel the need to converse with them.

[Tarl_Cabot]

That's a great pic of Craig...I'd much rather see Brosnan in a dark alley than that guy.

Craig may not look very Bondish now bc he's filming something but remember Bros had a beard and long hair weeks prior to filming...I'm sure they'll darken him up and make him look more Bondian come January.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

The Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy are both vastly superior to anything Brosnan has done since Goldeneye and are arguably better than Goldeneye. Batman Begins blows all Brosnan's films out the water. .

Don't agree with any of this, I'm afraid.

[Blofeld's Cat]

There's too much stock being put into this "reinventing the wheel" quote.

[Harmsway]

The Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy are both vastly superior to anything Brosnan has done since Goldeneye and are arguably better than Goldeneye. Batman Begins blows all Brosnan's films out the water. .

Don't agree with any of this, I'm afraid.

I do. Brosnan's films have been relative shams, and yes, THE BOURNE IDENTITY and THE BOURNE SUPREMACY had better action, better scripts, better acting, and were far more gripping than any of Brosnan's Bond films. Likewise for BATMAN BEGINS.

[Stephenson]

I do find it ironic that Campbell is apparently trying to say all those things that should appeal to the Bond fan: using DAD as a benchmark for all that is "wrong" with the franchise, name dropping certain films that seem to be favored by the majority of fans (FRWL, the Bournes, BB), using words like "gritty", "realistic" and "dark", talking about bringing Bond back to basics. It would appear that someone has been on the forums taking notes. But then he slides into an abyss of his own making by repeating insistantly that CR is about "Bond earning his stripes", that he is inexperienced and needs his "rough edges knocked off" and stating that the wheel can be "reinvented". IMHO, only four revolutions of the "Bond wheel" had problems, and they only needed some judicious realignment: DAF, MR, AVTAK, and DAD. And by realignment, I do NOT mean re-invention. I can't give Campbell (Ditto Babs and Mike) too much credit for "re-invention" or "rescuing Bond" when it comes to GE: it was, IMO, essentially as good a movie as TLD, with a worse opening stunt (plane) and a better ending. The credit, for me at least, really does belong to Brosnan. I guess my question, in the end, is: what exactly makes Campbell think he is qualified to reinvent anything? I do believe Craig is the man to do it however, and (thankfully) he's wisely keeping his mouth shut, presumably so his performance can speak for itself.

[Simon Beavis]

As soon as I saw that remark that he made about reinventing the wheel I thought to myself "Well, I'm quite happy with the wheel as it is, and I don't want Bond to be reinvented, keep your darn hands off of it Campbell!" 

You gotta change with the times. If you do a Bond film the same way you did in 1971, then you lose to more modern approaches to the genre, such as Alias, 24, and Bourne. TPTB need to take a look at what those aforementioned examples are doing, really do their homework, as way of staying fresh.

And they should get JJ Abrams to do Bond 22.

[DavidSomerset]

James Bond is James Bond. Jason Bourne is Jason Bourne. They are two different types. Just as a hollowed volcano in a Jason Bourne wovie will not work, similarly a 15 minute talking and card playing scene in James Bond movie will suck. Remember how people cring when they se the sentimental stuff in OHMSS ( and how that movie was a financial mess even though it was good).
JB is like a QuarterPounder with Cheese. You dont order it rare, medium or well done. You just eat it.
And for a realistic piece you need an equally talented director. Not a hack (with a series of flops) like Martin Campbell.
Batman Begins is cool because of the director. If Martin Campbell had made Batman Begins it would have made as little money as Legend of Zorro has.

[Simon Beavis]

James Bond is James Bond. Jason Bourne is Jason Bourne. They are two different types. Just as a hollowed volcano in a Jason Bourne wovie will not work, similarly a 15 minute talking and card playing scene in James Bond movie will suck. Remember how people cring when they se the sentimental stuff in OHMSS ( and how that movie was a financial mess even though it was good).
JB is like a QuarterPounder with Cheese. You dont order it rare, medium or well done. You just eat it.
And for a realistic piece you need an equally talented director. Not a hack (with a series of flops) like Martin Campbell.
Batman Begins is cool because of the director. If Martin Campbell had made Batman Begins it would have made as little money as Legend of Zorro has.

You already said this in another thread, word for word.

And James Bond could learn alot from Jack Bauer. Jack embodies everything a post Cold War spy should be.