58 replies to this topic

[Scorpion]

A quote from me (post 14 in this thread):

I'm not saying you can't make a really terrific 007 adventure with only one explosion...it's just that it flies in the face of established success.

[Simon Beavis]

What's with the panic button, I figure this adventure will probably be a little bit like film version 24 which is a good thing. If Bond is to keep going, he needs to channel a bit of Jack Bauer (who is a gritty character).

Edited by Simon Beavis, 04 November 2005 - 05:31 AM.

[Genrewriter]

I love the idea, a good action movie doesn't live or die on explosions alone.

[Jim]

I think Campbell is going to blow up the franchise

So, that's two explosions.

Just as well the 'paper didn't pick up on the full quote "...and we've replaced all the explosions with musical numbers".

[DavidSomerset]

It is not the size of the explosion that matters, but what you do with it - Freud.
Maybe they will have Bond bore Le Chiffre to death by playing cards with him. Isnt this Vesper Lynd thing a mix of the Electra (TWINE) and Frost (DAD) characters? So what is this big hoohaa about this character?
Maybe they are trying to make a ultra low budget movie and the budget has enough money for one stick of dynamite only.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I don't see what the big deal is. So what if Casino Royale has only one explosion? If the rest of the movie holds together well, great. Besides, it sounds like EON is going to film the last 2/3 of the book as is, and the entire book only has one explosion in it anyway. I, for one, will be happy if that one explosion is the same one that occurs in the book.

And it's not as if Le Chiffre has a hidden fortress with world destructive capabilities that needs to be blown up to save mankind. Casino Royale is the smallest scale of any of Ian Fleming's books. Character and suspense is more important to the story than action or explosions.

You don't need lots of explosions to have good action anyway. You can have car chases, foot chases, fist fights, knife fights, gun fights, falls from great heights, etc., any of which can be exciting. Of course, most of those things would have to take place in the first third of the movie if EON sticks to their plan. But if the script is as good as has been rumored, the lack of explosions will not matter.

Edited by Double-Oh Agent, 04 November 2005 - 08:25 AM.

[Streetworker]

I don't see what the big deal is. So what if Casino Royale has only one explosion? If the rest of the movie holds together well, great. Besides, it sounds like EON is going to film the last 2/3 of the book as is, and the entire book only has one explosion in it anyway. I, for one, will be happy if that one explosion is the same one that occurs in the book.

And it's not as if Le Chiffre has a hidden fortress with world destructive capabilities that needs to be blown up to save mankind. Casino Royale is the smallest scale of any of Ian Fleming's books. Character and suspense is more important to the story than action or explosions.

You don't need lots of explosions to have good action anyway. You can have car chases, foot chases, fist fights, knife fights, gun fights, falls from great heights, etc., any of which can be exciting. Of course, most of those things would have to take place in the first third of the movie if EON sticks to their plan. But if the script is as good as has been rumored, the lack of explosions will not matter.

You are absolutely right and I don't think anyone who doubts the wisdom of the alleged "reboot" or "reinvention of the wheel" or whatever Mr Campbell is calling it this week should read too much into this particular comment.

Edited by Streetworker, 04 November 2005 - 08:32 AM.

[DavidSomerset]

And it's not as if Le Chiffre has a hidden fortress with world destructive capabilities that needs to be blown up to save mankind.

If that is the case, then why do we need James Bond to save the day? Send in any Tom, Dick or Hari. If he is not a megalomaniac then even Sydney Bristow will kick this Le Chiffre's behind in the first 10 minutes of Alias.

Bond is needed only when the villian has a hollowed volcano with sharks & frikking lasers. Next they will say that the Bond babe will be played by Helen Hunt (part of the realism crap).

[rubixcub]

Dr. No had 2- the car going over the embankment, and Dr. No's lair at the end. The problem with the Brosnan Bonds was explosions being employed too often- where do you go from there? TWINE was a perfect example- EVERY action scene contained or ended with explosions- how do you build on that to make the final scene a fitting climax? Dr. No had few action scenes, and the biggest explosion was at the end. IMO Bonds are at their best when they don't shoot start with the big stuff, but rather let each top the previous, instead of making each one contain explosions, thus creating sameness rather than build, or worse, creating a downward spiral in which action scenes become disappointments compared to the action scenes that just preceded them (TWINE, DAD's climax).

Dave

[Streetworker]

And it's not as if Le Chiffre has a hidden fortress with world destructive capabilities that needs to be blown up to save mankind.

Bond is needed only when the villian has a hollowed volcano with sharks & frikking lasers. (part of the realism crap).

He wouldn't be very busy then, would he? But surely the strength of the series is that it has been able to embrace different styles - FRWL and Moonraker, for instance. And this is why I'm so against the "reboot" threat. They can have everything they seem to want from Casino Royale - tough, gritty Bond, few or no gadgets, realism, ect - without resorting to the "first mission" nonsense.

[Leon]

Dr No only had one explosion, at the end. FRWL only had one major explosion, 2 with the heli (but both close together at the end again...erm Goldfinger had the one at the beginning in the PTS.

There will surely be the car chase in which 007 is captured by Le Chiffre, and they have said the film has plenty of action. However it seems it will be more along the lines of the very first Bond films action ("more like FRWL"). Explosions mean nothing, action means nothing, Bond means nothing without a reason and without plenty of real acting and story and emotion which build to them and make them more powerful.

Sounds good to me anyways.

[DanMan]

People bitched about too many explosions. Now there bitching about too little explosions. If anything this tells us that the action is gonna be more original and inventive as opposed to random things just blowing up on screen over and over again.

[Simon]

One big bang is fine with me, as long as it's well timed and has a sense of real dread, no point in just giving us the old picturesque great balls of fire.

To wit, the one small, pocket sized, hide it in your cummerbund, hand grenade that gave rise to the cataclysmic, earth breaking explosion in TWINE just as Bond was skiing over the rise to effect a perfect jump with the rainbow in the background, the starlings to the left and a ticket in his left hand for the first free drink back at the lodge.

Was that what you were referring to?

[Simon]

I think we're going to get the real deal with this outing - I reckon they're going to have the same control over the explosions as they will do over the CGI.

[Simon]

2007 will be year for concentrating...........
2008 will be a year for soul searching
2009 will be a year of wondering how...........
2010 will be a year of getting financing .......
2011 they will announce Bond # 7 with everyone incorrectly blaming .....
2012 an old-style Bond 22 with lots.......... and explosions.

Grief, I woke up this morning full of the joys of Autumn.

Now I feel really depressed.

[tdalton]

While I am in favor of there just being on explosion in the film, I would rather Martin Campbell have not said that in the interview and let people be surprised when they saw that there was only one. But I doubt that they only have one. I mean there's only one scheduled at the moment, the same way that Die Another Day was meant to be a serious Bond movie.

[Roebuck]

While I am in favor of there just being on explosion in the film, I would rather Martin Campbell have not said that in the interview and let people be surprised when they saw that there was only one. 

If the rest of the action sequences are strong enough, I wonder if the absence of explosions would have registered with people unless it was pointed out to them? For sure I couldn't tell you how many were in the last action flick I saw.

Still, it surprises me that Campbell makes such an emphatic statement when he and Haggis are reportedly still working on the action scenes.

[Scorpion]

I got it! I finally KNOW how they are going to portray the action ... and even why he's going to take the route he's said he's gonna take!

Campbell's going to go the implosion route.

Truly. To hell with the previous (mostly) successful 20 movies. They are going to laiden the damn production with implosions until there's nothing left.

The box office, naturally (and probably even intentionally), will try to emulate the implosive 'action' of the film but, alas, won't be able to because all the die hard fan boys will have bought at least one ticket to see history in the making.

Of course, (and here's the 'payoff'), Cubby will turn over in his grave and rise from the dead so that his Eon can start making 'proper' 007 adventures like Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me and The Living Daylights with lots and lots of explosions! LOL

Yes! I finally got it! Campbell's been hired to invoke the resurection of Albert R Broccoli...



;-)

Edited by Scorpion, 06 November 2005 - 02:01 AM.

[Harmsway]

For the final time:

# of explosions = totally insignificant detail altogether

Action or Bond requires no explosion, and explosions are hardly a staple of James Bond. Honestly, some of the best action sequences I've ever seen relied on no explosions whatsoever.

[Jack Bauer]

So other Bond films have had more than one explosion...let's go and make this just like the other 20.

One explosion is PLENTY. For God's sakes, let them try something original. I would much prefer a character-driven, intense Bond film than one where everything's exploding in a complete CGI mess. This isn't a Tamahori work, this film won't have laser beams shooting glaciers from space. And thank God.

Edited by Jack Bauer, 06 November 2005 - 07:26 AM.

[killkenny kid]

Well, since we are working from the Bourne playbook. Someone check and see how many explosion was in The Bourne Supremacy. One will do.

[Scorpion]

So that's what it's come down to, has it?

You fans just want to carbon copy the style of J Bourne and J Bauer...to hell with the 'style' of the J Bond movies (which are a genre unto themselves).

Fine let's just mix 'em all up. I mean these three characters have the same bloody initials any way...

I wonder who copied whom when it came to the initials stakes...hmm. JB, JB, JB...er, who cares, they're all the same supposedly. Might as well not even bother buying a ticket next November and watch my first episode of this other JB on t.v.

Pathetic.

[Lounge Lizard]

So that's what it's come down to, has it?

You fans just want to carbon copy the style of J Bourne and J Bauer...to hell with the 'style' of the J Bond movies (which are a genre unto themselves).

Fine let's just mix 'em all up. I mean these three characters have the same bloody initials any way...

I wonder who copied whom when it came to the initials stakes...hmm. JB, JB, JB...er, who cares, they're all the same supposedly. Might as well not even bother buying a ticket next November and watch my first episode of this other JB on t.v.

Pathetic.

I dislike the 'you fans' and the 'pathetic' part, Scorpion. Don't throw all the fans on one big pile. I'm in favour of there being less explosions, because I think there's other and more inventive ways to do action- but Bond doesn't have to become Bauer or Bourne to me. To me, the point of the whole 'One Explosion Debate' is precisely this: James Bond is enough. He doesn't need to be anyone else, AND there's no need to obscure the character with deafening noise and flying debris, not if we can have suspense, cool action moves, exotic locales and the likes. And I don't think anyone on these boards has explicitly stated that he or she wants the Bond character to become 'more like Bourne and Bauer'. And if people have, it's an opinion, not something to be simply dismissed as 'pathetic'.

I won't question your thorough knowledge of the 'Bond movie formula', Scorpion, but would it really be such a sin if there was some deviation, just to keep things fresh and exciting? Yes, even Cubby liked to shake things up once in a while- after all, he greenlit LTK- which did have explosions, but deviated from the formula nonetheless. And I know that it wasn't a big success, but if we are discussing Bond movies on these boards only on the merits of their financial success, we might just as well only post statistics and let those speak for themselves. I'm here to talk about why I love Bond and what I would love to see, I'm not here to think like an exec.

Edited by Lounge Lizard, 06 November 2005 - 03:44 PM.

[Lounge Lizard]

One big bang is fine with me, as long as it's well timed and has a sense of real dread, no point in just giving us the old picturesque great balls of fire.

To wit, the one small, pocket sized, hide it in your cummerbund, hand grenade that gave rise to the cataclysmic, earth breaking explosion in TWINE just as Bond was skiing over the rise to effect a perfect jump with the rainbow in the background, the starlings to the left and a ticket in his left hand for the first free drink back at the lodge.

Was that what you were referring to?

Er, I guess!

[Leon]

Erm, no I don't think any Bond fans want a copy of Bourne or anything else, you will find many of us either want a more Fleming esque Bond film which we have not had properly at all, only had a peak in with early Connery and Dalton, or an old school Bond film (a la early Connery but jazzed up for today) or simply a more real Bond film with real characters and a great storyline, not just bothered about blowing things up.

All of those views interconnect, personally I am a Fleming fan and I have been wanting to see a real James Bond film for a long time. The only thing I am properly unhappy about with this film is the fact Campbell is so against 007 lighting a few cigarettes, which IMO is a very narrow view, getting on your high horse for an ideal which is in fact not true, losing a large part of Flemings character and artistic licence (the kids who will try smoking will do it anyway even if Bond doesn't, the kids who never try smoking don't no-matter what, we all know them). That's for another topic however.

Anyway, I am hoping the explosion will be based on the attempted assassination in the book. That's the one explosion in the book as mentioned in the article.

Edited by Leon, 06 November 2005 - 04:12 PM.

[Jack Bauer]

So that's what it's come down to, has it?

You fans just want to carbon copy the style of J Bourne and J Bauer...to hell with the 'style' of the J Bond movies (which are a genre unto themselves).

Fine let's just mix 'em all up. I mean these three characters have the same bloody initials any way...

I wonder who copied whom when it came to the initials stakes...hmm. JB, JB, JB...er, who cares, they're all the same supposedly. Might as well not even bother buying a ticket next November and watch my first episode of this other JB on t.v.

Pathetic.

*sigh*

[GreggAllinson]

And it's not as if Le Chiffre has a hidden fortress with world destructive capabilities that needs to be blown up to save mankind.

If that is the case, then why do we need James Bond to save the day? Send in any Tom, Dick or Hari. If he is not a megalomaniac then even Sydney Bristow will kick this Le Chiffre's behind in the first 10 minutes of Alias.

Because that's the way Ian Fleming wrote it, and if you don't like it, you might as well take a torch to each and every Bond video or DVD you own, because without him, you wouldn't even have them.

Am I the only one that remembers that there was only one explosion in the outstanding novel Casino Royale?

[GreggAllinson]

So that's what it's come down to, has it?

You fans just want to carbon copy the style of J Bourne and J Bauer...to hell with the 'style' of the J Bond movies (which are a genre unto themselves).

Fine let's just mix 'em all up. I mean these three characters have the same bloody initials any way...

I wonder who copied whom when it came to the initials stakes...hmm. JB, JB, JB...er, who cares, they're all the same supposedly. Might as well not even bother buying a ticket next November and watch my first episode of this other JB on t.v.

Pathetic.

Well, quite frankly, the Bourne films and 24 are closer to the spirit and style of Fleming's novels than %90 of EON's output has been, so if EON is looking to them for inspiration, good for them. The only thing better would be taking a closer look at the source material- eg Fleming's novels...

[B5Erik]

I have no problem with having only 1 explosion in the movie. I'd rather have 3 or 4 (as in LTK), but 1 is fine - as long as there are other types of action scenes in the movie.

My gripe about DAD was that the action scenes from Iceland on were very unrealistic and broke the laws of physics. For Casino Royale I would like to see realistic action sequences, much like in FRWL, LTK, and FYEO. If that means only 1 explosion, then so be it. As long as there are enough action sequences to pace the movie properly (and that is where I would use The Bourne Supremacy as something to look at - the pacing was great).

I obviously have had some serious reservations about the casting of Daniel Craig, but I love the direction that they seem to be going in.