82 replies to this topic

[[dark]]

Daniel Craig Dishes the Dirt on 'Casino'
"It's going to be very different from anything else..."

[K1Bond007]

Sounds cool. At least he's talking now

(Note: Article points to wrong forum thread)

Oh.. and

Dear Mr. Grover,

You suck at lying.
Stop.
No! <imagine a finger in your face wagging too and fro>

Yours Truly,
K1Bond007

Edited by K1Bond007, 22 December 2005 - 11:57 PM.

[[dark]]

All fixed. Cheers!

[dinovelvet]

Nice. Go for it, Dan! One thing you know for sure, his Bond is not going to be an imitation of anyone else's. One way or the other, Daniel Craig will be a new and distinctive 007.

[Turn]

It's usually a good sign to hear an actor talk highly about the script. People can criticize Eon all they want, but hiring a screenwriter such as a Paul Haggis tells me they want at least some high-calibre talent behind the camera.

[Harmsway]

Finally, Craig is starting to really talk about CASINO ROYALE, and with praise, no less. It's great to hear that he has such a high opinion of Haggis' dialogue and the script overall. I like what I'm hearing.

This sounds interesting and very exciting:
"It's going to be very different from anything else," Craig said. "It will have certain elements that will make it a Bond movie."

And this as well:
"It's a Bond film. We're making a Bond movie first and foremost."

So according to Craig, we're getting a fresh approach with CASINO ROYALE, but it's not losing its Bond-ness. Good news, and hopefully that's the case.

The best comment, I think, though is this one:
"Yes, I could fail miserably, but maybe I can do something that's different and make the franchise last another 30 years

[tdalton]

I'm not sure that we've learned anything new through this article. Other than Daniel Craig finally being open and willing to talk about Casino Royale nothing really has changed. I think that we all knew that the film would be different, but would still have Bond elements, we knew it was "Bond Begins", and we knew that Daniel Craig really liked the script, so I'm not sensing much new material here.

But, it is nice to hear Daniel Craig actually sound like he's happy to be a part of this project.

[Harmsway]

[quote name='tdalton' date='22 December 2005 - 20:59']I'm not sure that we've learned anything new through this article.

[tdalton]

[quote name='Harmsway' date='22 December 2005 - 22:04'][quote name='tdalton' date='22 December 2005 - 20:59']I'm not sure that we've learned anything new through this article.

[blueman]

Nice. Good things to hear.

[Tinfinger]

Will there still be a gun barrel? Is the lead's name still James, or shall we call him Jimmy?

[deth]

Will there still be a gun barrel?  Is the lead's name still James, or shall we call him Jimmy?

better yet, let's call him Jimbo!

[Tinfinger]

Oh, wow, this just keeps getting stranger and stranger. I don't know what this movie is gonna look like!

[Alex Zamudio]

It is going to be a very exciting but nerve wrecking year, the wait for Casino Royale is going to be very interesting, great news!

Regards and Season Greetings from M

[Tinfinger]

Feliz Navidad, as they say. We are not allowed to say Merry Christmas here in America, and Santa Clause is the Devil. On another note, it'll be fun once filming starts. I still have no idea how they are going to make this novel work as a movie.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Yes, this is good stuff to hear. I like what Daniel Craig said. It's nice of him to speak out about Casino Royale but since Munich is out (Friday) and Bond is his next role, it's only logical that he would begin talking about 007.

The only thing that upsets me from this story is that Judi Dench, who has earlier said she is returning, will play 'M' in this "Bond Begins" story and that is just not right. If this truly is to be Bond's first mission, then 'M' should be Miles Messervy, not Barbara Mawdsley. It makes no sense otherwise--just like the idea for a reboot. A period or modern-day prequel is what I want to see and makes the most sense if Casino Royale is not to be a continuation film.

[David Schofield]

Wonder who/what the "or last another three" line was a dig at?

Not a fan of DAD, then, Daniel? Or Bond in it? Try convincing some of the Brozza fanatics round here.

[Peter Franks]

"It will have certain elements that will make it a Bond movie."

Not an adaptation of Casino Royale then?

"[Screenwriter] Paul Haggis has done a rewrite of the script and has written great dialogue. The lead girl part is fantastic, the characters are all fantastic. It's a Bond film. We're making a Bond movie first and foremost."

Haggis is a moron of a writer. Go ahead and point out those two stupid movies he did. Did he PGify the dialogue in the book to make it great for kids? lol

Furthermore, the actor reiterated the controversial "Bond Begins" approach will, indeed, be taken for Casino Royale.

Oh no. They will tell us why Bond likes Aston Martins according to Campbell. He obviously didn't watch Goldfinger. Q is the one who likes Aston Martins.

"There's a lot of similarities with the book but yes, of course it's been updated. It has to be. It's a suspension of disbelief that we're renewing Bond, and that this is the first time you see him."

This is the first time we see him? So what was he doing for years? Will Dr. No happen in the future? lol

It's great to see them treat the franchise as if it is Batman set in a fictional world of Gotham City.

[Peter Franks]

It's usually a good sign to hear an actor talk highly about the script. People can criticize Eon all they want, but hiring a screenwriter such as a Paul Haggis tells me they want at least some high-calibre talent behind the camera.

Haggis is patronising rubbish. Did you see Million Dollar Baby and Crash? Pathetic what people praise.

[Tinfinger]

Is it too early to cancel Peter Franks' invitation to the Casino Royale premiere?

[Peter Franks]

You guys fall for the most hype even after years of being fed the same lines.

Paul Haggis writes patronising politically correct rubbish.

It's Bond Begins. It's the first time we ever see Bond. We get shown his first Aston Martin, according to Campbell it is Bond who chose them. Goldfinger, one of the best movies ever, never happened. Sceptre never happened. Marriage to Tracy never happened. Last one is serious problem.

It's rated PG.

It costs almost the same as DAD.

Serious actresses are rejecting it.

And it has a computer game version of it The one full of Haggis' great dialogue.

[Niwram]

It's rated PG.

So are all the other Bond movies.

Serious actresses are rejecting it.

It's just rumors from The Sun, just like when Craig was announced, they made up these stories about all these famous people rejecting the part.
And they probably will keep saying how all the rumors they've spread about people rejecting the part of Vesper were true, even after it's been officially announced that Cecile de France has been cast, and EON has said that she was chosen in October, and that they would never offer the role to famous actresses.( That's what I think will happen)

Edited by Niwram, 23 December 2005 - 11:54 AM.

[Peter Franks]

So are all the other Bond movies.

Mmm, do you get the point of me saying so then? If it's unlike anything then how come the PG rating, hair brained writers and computer games?

Answer the real serious issues: Sceptre never happened. Marriage to Tracy never happened. Tracy's death never happened.

A reboot is unfeasable unless they want to kill the older established Bond fans off for good in favour of the next generation of kids. In Batman Begins this doesn't happen because the new reboot was more faithful to the original Batman than the series with Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney. With Casino Royale they literally want to kill off Ian Fleming's Bond for good.

You can keep Bond around the same age all the time and pretend his past is all recent but you can't reintroduce him in a way that erases the most important parts of Fleming's creation: Tracy, his parent's death, his love of Bentleys not Aston Martins, Blofeld, etc

This is criminal.

[Tinfinger]

Well, Peter Franks, another thing that comes up is, is now that you have rebooted Bond, where do you go from here? Do you adapt the novels all over again, only this time in order, but modernize all of them?

[Peter Franks]

[quote name='Tinfinger' date='23 December 2005 - 13:26']Well, Peter Franks, another thing that comes up is, is now that you have rebooted Bond, where do you go from here?

Edited by Peter Franks, 23 December 2005 - 12:45 PM.

[spynovelfan]

Brosnan and Connery were right about these idiots.

Are you going to be posting this sort of thing all the way to November? Can't wait.

And who or what is 'Sceptre'? You've referred to it a few times.

[Peter Franks]

Brosnan and Connery were right about these idiots.

Are you going to be posting this sort of thing all the way to November? Can't wait.

No, I have a life

And who or what is 'Sceptre'? You've referred to it a few times.

OK.

[Harmsway]

Answer the real serious issues: Sceptre never happened. Marriage to Tracy never happened. Tracy's death never happened.

You mean SPECTRE?

And what's the big deal with Tracy having not happened? In Fleming's novels, Tracy didn't show up until the very end of the series. In Fleming's novels, it was Vesper Lynd's death that had the greater effect on 007.

[Peter Franks]

Answer the real serious issues: Sceptre never happened. Marriage to Tracy never happened. Tracy's death never happened.

You mean SPECTRE?

And what's the big deal with Tracy having not happened? In Fleming's novels, Tracy didn't show up until the very end of the series. In Fleming's novels, it was Vesper Lynd's death that had the greater effect on 007.

That's why I said OK. Fubared on the spectre of my sceptre. I don't care if Tracy doesn't show up until the end of the Fleming's series. This is the movies right? Campbell gave us a line of brainwash hogcrap that he will explain how Bond loves Aston Martins etc. That doesn't fit into the movies or the books. Vesper Lynd's death had no effect on Bond at all. He just got pissed off that he lowered his guard for a few weeks to a spy. Big effect (sarcasm).

This is why a reboot is unfair to most of us. I must explain the way I feel properly.

A character has an arc. We got to see a glimpses of his arc in the aftermath of Tracy's death like when he visited her grave or when someone would mention if he ever lost anything valuable. Aside from that it has been slap up entertainment. We need to be given the rest of his character arc otherwise we're left with half a developed character and then a reboot that creates a completely new type of child friendly computer game Bond who would never touch a cigarette. I want to see the Bond we already know develop. I want him to explain why he cut down on cigarettes, refer to his old enemies and how they made him grow as a person, how the new era of espionage is different from a decade ago if it is, and I want to see him finally find a love that reminds him of Tracy and makes him feel full again. Without the rest of the character arc we are being told to forget the original James Bond and accept a reinvention for the sake of making profits from a new generation. They can do that another day. No, let me say it again: The classic Bond we know can die another day. There's no reason for not giving us the rest of his arc BEFORE they reboot the series in a childish way for the computer game generation.

[Peter Franks]

Answer the real serious issues: Sceptre never happened. Marriage to Tracy never happened. Tracy's death never happened.

You mean SPECTRE?

And what's the big deal with Tracy having not happened? In Fleming's novels, Tracy didn't show up until the very end of the series. In Fleming's novels, it was Vesper Lynd's death that had the greater effect on 007.

That's why I said OK. Fubared on the spectre of my sceptre. I don't care if Tracy doesn't show up until the end of the Fleming's series. This is the movies right? Campbell gave us a line of brainwash hogcrap that he will explain how Bond loves Aston Martins etc. That doesn't fit into the movies or the books. Vesper Lynd's death had no effect on Bond at all. He just got pissed off that he lowered his guard for a few weeks to a spy. Big effect (sarcasm).

This is why a reboot is unfair to most of us. I must explain the way I feel properly.

A character has an arc. We got to see a glimpses of his arc in the aftermath of Tracy's death like when he visited her grave or when someone would mention if he ever lost anything valuable. Aside from that it has been slap up entertainment. We need to be given the rest of his character arc otherwise we're left with half a developed character and then a reboot that creates a completely new type of child friendly computer game Bond who would never touch a cigarette. I want to see the Bond we already know develop. I want him to explain why he cut down on cigarettes, refer to his old enemies and how they made him grow as a person, how the new era of espionage is different from a decade ago if it is, and I want to see him finally find a love that reminds him of Tracy and makes him feel full again. Without the rest of the character arc we are being told to forget the original James Bond and accept a reinvention for the sake of making profits from a new generation. They can do that another day. No, let me say it again: The classic Bond we know can die another day. There's no reason for not giving us the rest of his arc BEFORE they reboot the series in a childish way for the computer game generation.