42 replies to this topic

[smartz]

I was wondering quite how graphic Casino could be. It will obviously be a big event movie and in typical tradition these big hitters normally get away with more graphic scenes despite their certification.

There are several scenes within the book which dependant on how they are translated to film could be extremely violent...

On a connected note I was watching a US version of Goldeneye and it contained several small scenes which were not in the Uk version. One that sticks in my mind is when Onatopp head butts Natalya after coming down the helicopters zip line. Apparently here in the UK the British Film board clasiffication does not permit headbutting in films under a cert 15. Another strange cut in Goldeneye from the DVD release is when the tiger helicopter does a loop-the-loop over the bay in Monaco. I remember seeing the film when it came out and remember seeing this when watching a made for ITV "making of programme" which stated that one of the reasons they opted for this particular Eurocopter was its ability to fly upside down- was this bit removed for running time?

I find the different cuts of Bond film versions extremely interesting is anyone else aware of differences?

It would be great to perhaps list them in detail across all of the films.

[Tinfinger]

Well, ABC used to do horrible hatchet jobs on the films when they showed them. The fight scenes were chopped up, and in some cases, entire pre-title sequences. Dr Shatterhand's Garden website used to have a great article up about the handling of the Bonds by ABC

[[dark]]

I believe the chopper doing the loop-the-loop was shot, appeared in the trailer, but never made it into the film.

[Loomis]

....these big hitters normally get away with more graphic scenes despite their certification.

Very true. I can't understand why TERMINATOR 3 is only a 12. Then again, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II is a 15, for some reason, so perhaps it isn't the case that the BBFC always gives blockbusters a pass.

I hope - but don't expect - that CASINO ROYALE will be a 15 (same as LAYER CAKE, which film gets away with an awful lot considering its certificate).

[Peter Franks]

Apparently here in the UK the British Film board clasiffication does not permit headbutting in films under a cert 15.

Damn man, I will never be on Brit tv again as that guy Connery gave me three headbutts.

[Gabriel]

The problem with modern Bonds is that they're supposed to appeal to children as well. The original Bonds were grown up films. The Bourne films got a UK 12/12A certificate, though, and they're pretty damn adult!

[SteveKingCool]

The problem with modern Bonds is that they're supposed to appeal to children as well. The original Bonds were grown up films. The Bourne films got a UK 12/12A certificate, though, and they're pretty damn adult!

Don't want to offend any Bourne fans in case there are some here but I don't find the Bournes adult or entertaining. The college boy look of Matt Damon is not very credible and neither are the villains he has been up against. In Identity I recall how easily the men in black fell over like ragdolls with the most flimsiest of punches. In Supremacy there is a scene of him and his Bourne girl driving away in a landrover across a bridge. The girl is shot by an assassin and the landrover ends up in the river. Next we see Bourne sitting on the bank of the river looking depressed which is very daft because his mind should be on the sniper who could be anywhere nearby. There was a good car chase in one of them but one car chase does not make a series or a movie good.

[Judo chop]

The problem with modern Bonds is that they're supposed to appeal to children as well. The original Bonds were grown up films. The Bourne films got a UK 12/12A certificate, though, and they're pretty damn adult!

Don't want to offend any Bourne fans in case there are some here but I don't find the Bournes adult or entertaining. The college boy look of Matt Damon is not very credible and neither are the villains he has been up against. In Identity I recall how easily the men in black fell over like ragdolls with the most flimsiest of punches. In Supremacy there is a scene of him and his Bourne girl driving away in a landrover across a bridge. The girl is shot by an assassin and the landrover ends up in the river. Next we see Bourne sitting on the bank of the river looking depressed which is very daft because his mind should be on the sniper who could be anywhere nearby. There was a good car chase in one of them but one car chase does not make a series or a movie good.

I'm not offended, but I couldn't begin to guess what spy films you DO like if you truly don't find either of the Bournes entertaining.

[smartz]

I have to say that I am a large Bond fan and went to see the Bourne Identity when it was still a sleeper movie on the second day of release. I was to be frank blown away with the movie and the performances in particular Brian Cox. It really was a rare treat and in my mind ( not that they are comparable) is a far superior film to Die Another Day.

Both of the Bourne films are highly enjoyable and remarkable well shot, acted and produced. I would recommend them to any bond or spy genre fan and cannot see why it is being criticised here!

[Judo chop]

Back to the original topic though...

I had said it before, but I think the torture scene is going to be critical for this film. I don't think the actual contact between carpet beater and... uh... the "carpet"... needs to be shown on camera, but I do seriously feel there needs to be blood. Even if only after the scene is done and Bond is dragged away. A ball-whacking torture scene may draw laughter if done too lightly. Cringing laughter, maybe... but no laughter can be good cause we're trying to re-create Bond here, right? He needs to be psychologically affected by this. It needs to be the final shaping of "the Bond we know and love". We need to be convinced that REAL mutilation is being done, and the dialogue between Bond and LeChifre needs to be strong enough to effectively convey the psychological damage, as it was in the book.

Which is why we need to see blood. A sicko Frenchman whacking Bond's privates is not serious enough (although I think Craig is going to be FANTASTIC at portraying the pain. I'm both frightened and excited.) We need evidence that it goes beyond the S of S&M. In reading the book, I was disturbed at the torture scene, but it was description of the pool of blood on the floor that totally convinced me it was no laughing matter.

When I've heard Campbell talk about donig this scene, I can't quite decide whether he's taking it seriously or if he's taking it like a little boy with a new toy. It makes me nervous. Do NOT do a shot of a house from a distance with screaming. (I truly hope he was kidding about that.)

[Mercator]

I do not think it will be that graphic.

Martin Campbell said at the press conference it will be implied and PG13.

After all, Bond would smoke otherwise.

[SteveKingCool]

[quote name='Judo chop' date='5 January 2006 - 14:38']I'm not offended, but I couldn't begin to guess what spy films you DO like if you truly don't find either of the Bournes entertaining.

Edited by SteveKingCool, 05 January 2006 - 03:56 PM.

[Harmsway]

[quote name='SteveKingCool' date='5 January 2006 - 09:53'][quote name='Judo chop' date='5 January 2006 - 14:38']I'm not offended, but I couldn't begin to guess what spy films you DO like if you truly don't find either of the Bournes entertaining.

[MarcAngeDraco]

I don't think they'll make CR substantially more graphic than the recent films...

[Stephenson]

[quote name='SteveKingCool' date='5 January 2006 - 09:53'][quote name='Judo chop' date='5 January 2006 - 14:38']I'm not offended, but I couldn't begin to guess what spy films you DO like if you truly don't find either of the Bournes entertaining.

[Judo chop]

[quote name='Stephenson' date='5 January 2006 - 11:20'][quote name='SteveKingCool' date='5 January 2006 - 09:53'][quote name='Judo chop' date='5 January 2006 - 14:38']I'm not offended, but I couldn't begin to guess what spy films you DO like if you truly don't find either of the Bournes entertaining.

Edited by Judo chop, 05 January 2006 - 04:46 PM.

[Qwerty]

The problem with modern Bonds is that they're supposed to appeal to children as well.

Which can be so problematic if taken too far. Batman & Robin is a good case here. The studio wants to jump on the success of the recent (and far better) Batman Forever and thus makes Batman & Robin a "toyetic" and joyless two hours of torture. There are few saving graces. One of the main reasons why - to turn this superhero into a fun and friendly family affair.

I'm expecting to see a PG-13 and 12A (I believe that is the UK rating equivalent) for Casino Royale.

[JameswpBond]

They should release it on all formats on the same day and push it to its limits.

[Qwerty]

They should release it on all formats on the same day

Looks like we're going to be seeing some varied release dates once again: http://commanderbond...es/3000-1.shtml

[JameswpBond]

They should release it on all formats on the same day

Looks like we're going to be seeing some varied release dates once again: http://commanderbond...es/3000-1.shtml

I'm always missing things!

[SteveKingCool]

They should release it on all formats on the same day

Looks like we're going to be seeing some varied release dates once again: http://commanderbond...es/3000-1.shtml

What about filming date?

[dunmall]

my old VHS version of LTK should Krest's head exploding (literally) my DVD version however omits this shot, instead we cut to either Bond or one of the henchmen watching/wincing and we hear the "bang" next shot the window is covered in blood....
oddly enough these DVD version extends the bedroom scene between Bond and Lupe slightly compared to my older VHS version, they now exchange about two more lines of dialogue before going to bed...
My VHS version of TND featured the ninja star to the guard's neck and Bond stomping on the 2nd guard's face as he starts to come to.
My DVD version omits these, the guard with the star simply falls down after wai lin throws something at him, while bond doesn't knock the guard out (we still see the guard start to wake up mind you!)
Oh and these are version released in Australia if you are interested.

[K1Bond007]

As far as Casino Royale goes, I don't think we'll see anything more graphic than previous Bond films. In the end, I'm expecting the torture scene to be somewhat similar to Han Solo's in Empire Strikes Back where the viewer gets an idea of what's going to happen and the picture cuts away to the exterior of the room and we just hear him screaming.

The problem with modern Bonds is that they're supposed to appeal to children as well. The original Bonds were grown up films.

I disagree with this. I don't think theres been a change at all. Perhaps unintentionally (IMO), they've always been made to appeal to children, specifically males. I think that's the appeal of Bond films in general; that they can appeal to just about anyone. I can't even begin to count how many people I know that saw a Bond film in theaters before they were the age of 10 (roughly anyway).

[Number 6]

[quote name='SteveKingCool' date='5 January 2006 - 09:53'][quote name='Judo chop' date='5 January 2006 - 14:38']I'm not offended, but I couldn't begin to guess what spy films you DO like if you truly don't find either of the Bournes entertaining.

[booyeah_]

I think they'll cut away from Bond getting beaten similar the way in Dr. No, if they even have the torture scene in there. I mean they have to keep it at least PG13 and if smoking is censored by Cambell, why wouldnt graphic torture?

[Jack Spang]

I was just reading a review of "Legend of Zorro" it said the action was often very cheesy and unrealistic because the film is aimed at kids. Do you think Casino Royale will suffer from the same types of action sequences? What with Martin Campbell behind it and the fact that he has clearly stipulated the film is aimed at kids aswell and that is why he is doing away with the smoking. For me, this is a real worry. I'm starting to wish someone like Christopher Nolan was behind this. I can live with Bond not smoking but the action as originally penned by Purvis and Wade was suppose to be more down to earth and contained. What are others thoughts on this?

I don't like to be negative but I personally just can't see the book getting the jutice it deserves. How can it when it will be aimed at kids? What I hope Campbell and Eon realise is that Batman Begins was quite dark and more realistic and gritty without the cheesiness, it even showed Batman on fire and kids loved this film. It was very popular. It only had an M 15+ certificate, the same as DAD funnily enough.

Edited by Jack Spang, 06 January 2006 - 12:25 AM.

[Polynikes]

Harmsway

Bourne is created for a more mature audience than the MI flicks...

You're kidding surely.

The Bourne movies were for children mainly - the action sequences (especially the one in the first movie where he escapes from the US embassy) are from the Matrix school of reality.

I would question whether the Bourne movies starring Matt Damon are spy movies anyway - the fact that Bourne is an ex-spy is hardly relevant at all...

Richard Chamberlain made the first film version of "The Bourne Identity" in a TV movie and it engaged the brain far more than Damon's version(s) did.

Matt Damon is simply 20 years too young to play Jason Bourne - who is a highly trained agent but NOT superman - he wins through attention to detail and precise planning rather than gymnastic level acrobatic fighting techniques.

The man to have played Jason Bourne would be someone like Ed Burns (if he could lose his Brooklyn accent).

Matt Damon is just a young, fresh face that appeals to kids...and the movies were written by scriptwriters who deliberatly accented the action (even if it was quite meaningless) & marginalised anything resembling plot development and character building.

[Gabriel]

The Bourne of the movies was always intended to be young, a little bland and look like a boxer. He was supposed to be a blank slate, personality-wise, who has all this ultraviolent programming he accesses, but doesn't entirely understand! A bit like 'James Bond' was intended to be a very bland, nondescript name.

But there's no way that the Bourne movies are "for children mainly".

And Bond movies were originally targeted at an adult audience in the era of From Russia . . . and the like.

I'm also hoping that M:I III being made by the Alias team will mean it is returning to the 60s team formula with a modern twist!

Far from being concerned about too many spy films coming up, I'm jazzed at the thought of getting a Bond film and an M:I film in 2006 plus a possible Bourne and Alias film in 2007!!

Good times potentially lie ahead, folks.

[K1Bond007]

I was just reading a review of "Legend of Zorro" it said the action was often very cheesy and unrealistic because the film is aimed at kids. Do you think Casino Royale will suffer from the same types of action sequences? What with Martin Campbell behind it and the fact that he has clearly stipulated the film is aimed at kids aswell and that is why he is doing away with the smoking.

Well, first off, lets get the incorrect statement out of there. Campbell is not "getting rid of the smoking," thats been gone for quite sometime (moreso if you disregard Dalton). A cigar, in the traditional sense of Bond, does not count as smoking. We're talking about a guy who smoked up to 60 (according to Thunderball) cigarettes a day, not cigars. Even according to Bond in Tomorrow Never Dies, it was a "filthy habit." This isn't a problem of the filmmakers, this is a problem with society - a society where smoking on film or just about anywhere is bad, while killing and sex on film is glamorized and accepted. That's just how it is. Bond adapts.

Second, The Legend of Zorro and Bond are two different franchises. I've yet to see the Legend of Zorro, but the Mask of Zorro rarely (if ever) had Zorro sticking his sword through a guy. Most of the time they ran into their own swords, their comrade's swords, or were merely wounded to the point of not being able to continue the fight (as far as sword fights went). Also don't count out GoldenEye. Look what Campbell did there and that was a Bond film. Regardless of everything said here, theres not going to be a lot of action in this film anyway. I hate to break it to you, but they've already confirmed theres only 1 explosion and that the majority of the film is faithful to the book (theres only 1 explosion in the book and that's a critical scene).

Edited by K1Bond007, 06 January 2006 - 01:54 AM.

[Stephenson]

Harmsway

Bourne is created for a more mature audience than the MI flicks...

You're kidding surely.

The Bourne movies were for children mainly - the action sequences (especially the one in the first movie where he escapes from the US embassy) are from the Matrix school of reality.

I would question whether the Bourne movies starring Matt Damon are spy movies anyway - the fact that Bourne is an ex-spy is hardly relevant at all...

Richard Chamberlain made the first film version of "The Bourne Identity" in a TV movie and it engaged the brain far more than Damon's version(s) did.

Matt Damon is simply 20 years too young to play Jason Bourne - who is a highly trained agent but NOT superman - he wins through attention to detail and precise planning rather than gymnastic level acrobatic fighting techniques.

The man to have played Jason Bourne would be someone like Ed Burns (if he could lose his Brooklyn accent).

Matt Damon is just a young, fresh face that appeals to kids...and the movies were written by scriptwriters who deliberatly accented the action (even if it was quite meaningless) & marginalised anything resembling plot development and character building.

Obviously, we all have different ways of perceiving a film, but I can see a number of ways in which the Bourne films, especially the second, are meant to appeal to a more mature audience than the MI films, especially the second, and a number of the Bond films.

Compared to Bond or Hunt, Bourne is far from being superhuman: the man can be physically hurt, and obviously feels emotional pain. Compare Bourne's reaction to his loss to Bond's loss of Paris (five minutes later he's barrelling around in his toy car laughing like a kid in an arcade), or Bond's miraculous escape after 18 months of torture to Bourne's continuing limp after his getaway, or Ethan's ability to completely disguise himself behind a rubber mask and apparently grow 6 inches in a matter of minutes to Bourne's ability to drift in and out of a crowd, or Bourne's escape from the embassy to Hunt's break-in at the CIA or the bio research lab. I'd have to say I find Bourne more realistic.

This is not to take anything away from Bond or the MI movies by comparison; they are all enjoyable in their particular ways, which is why I am also excited about the movie prospects of the next few years . I simply feel that Bourne is geared to a more mature audience than either MI or the more recent Bond's (LTK and TWINE being possible exceptions), and the Bourne series' (surprising?) success has probably led more production companies and studios than just Eon to re-evaluate their approach to action/spy films. Obviously the Bond we see in CR, regardless of how much torture is actually shown, will be exhibiting more classic (read Connery era) Bond characteristics. Which is just fine by me!