165 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

I can't believe people are comparing it to DIE ANOTHER DAY already, just based on a simple cast list. There's nothing there that makes me think CASINO ROYALE will be ridiculously over-the-top and overblown like DIE ANOTHER DAY was, and so I don't know where people are getting that connection.

Secondly, I don't honestly see why any of the characters listed prevents this film from being a down-to-earth thriller. I still think we can and are getting a down-to-earth film here (only one explosion, remember), but it just has a lot of characters in it. No problem there.

I'm still very excited to see where this leads. It's a fresher story, so I'm curious about it, and I'm very curious about the direction. Will it really be as gritty as they say (it's very possible to have a serious, down-to-earth, Fleming-esque film with all of those characters), or will it end up being a more stylish, lush thriller like a modern day THUNDERBALL without the big gadgetry?

[Jim]

Quite. When didn't Bond films have large casts? Several of these roles could be really fleeting appearances. I doubt we can really draw anything from this.

[Hitchcock Bond]

[quote name='dinovelvet' date='11 January 2006 - 22:09']

[/quote]

Over-reacting a bit? All the Bond films have many, many villains. Some will have larger roles than others. I suspect at least one of these characters will have little more than five minutes of screen time; for all we know one of them might be only in the pre-title sequence. Demetrius could be the equivalent of, say, the South African gangster Bond punches out in DAD. Pick any Bond film at random, and you'll find it has far more villains than you might have thought. Let's say, FYEO, here are all the evil people in it that Bond goes up against :

Blofeld
Kristatos
Locque
Kriegler
Gonzalez

[/quote]
You are right. I could be over-reacting and the film could work out great. I would suggest that even though there have always been a number of of villains in any Bond film, some are the main villain, whereas some are merely henchmen. If the report is true about the number of villains, of course some may not have much screen time. I feel that introducing other characters may prohibit the development of the relationship between the main characters in the book: Bond, Vesper and Le Chiffre, which could have been interesting and still leave plenty of room for exciting action sequences. If there is to be a new organisation run a young villain that survives to become a recurring character, as someone has suggested, that is fine. However, does this reduce Le Chiffre, who sounds like it may be changed to the Demitrius character, to the same level of Zukovsky in Goldeneye, essentially a minor character or comic relief? Again this could work well. I do believe there was enough material from the novel to build a storyline that would be true to the spirit of Fleming's novel and also be modern and exciting. I have seen plenty of good suggestions posted on various threads. I think it is right that any ideas about the plot or characters that may be leaked over the next few months should be discussed at least. I am sure there will be some who will love what they hear, others will absolutely hate it. I for one will wait and see. However, the argument is academic, as the script should be more or less set at this time, and will only have minor changes during shooting.

[marktmurphy]

Quite. When didn't Bond films have large casts? 

Well, DAD springs to mind. Why does that film, supposedly the biggest, most over the top of them all, feel so small in scale to me? No locations and five characters is all I think of.

[Lounge Lizard]

I guess Casino Royale could work with a younger actor as Le Chiffre (if that's eventually the case), but to me, it would be the project's first rather odd decision (the casting of Craig is offbeat, not odd, I'd say). This is going to be 'Bond Begins', right, and at the same time true to the novel. Well, the key element that made Fleming's Casino Royale a 'Bond Begins' type of story, was Bond's interaction with the veteran spy Le Chiffre. A man who was both a false father-figure and a sleazy mirror-image of what Bond himself might one day become (both liked women, liked gambling, and liked their benzedrine). I always loved that element of the novel, and to me it would be strange if they don't keep it, since it would so obviously strenghten the intended 'Bond Begins' concept.

[Jim]

[quote name='marktmurphy' date='12 January 2006 - 10:08'][quote name='Jim' date='12 January 2006 - 07:07']Quite. When didn't Bond films have large casts?

[marktmurphy]

[quote name='Jim' date='12 January 2006 - 11:48'][quote name='marktmurphy' date='12 January 2006 - 10:08'][quote name='Jim' date='12 January 2006 - 07:07']Quite. When didn't Bond films have large casts?

[Jim]

Oh yeah- absolutely agree; all Bond films have a fair few people in 'em; I'm not worried by CR's list at all. It was just a general point about DAD feeling so small really. The main cast just seems so much more separate than usual, do you know what I mean?

Gotcha, and agreed. Given that the plot, as such, is North Korea invading South Korea and Japan (is it? Something like that) the opportunity to have a million chaps dressed up as North Korean soldiers running wild seems to have been wasted. But I guess that's more politicial than portly blokes in orange jumpsuits / costs more than some special effects. But yeah, it did all seem to come down to about five people.

[Bon-san]

I can't believe people are comparing it to DIE ANOTHER DAY already, just based on a simple cast list. There's nothing there that makes me think CASINO ROYALE will be ridiculously over-the-top and overblown like DIE ANOTHER DAY was, and so I don't know where people are getting that connection.

Secondly, I don't honestly see why any of the characters listed prevents this film from being a down-to-earth thriller.

I read the report and caught a vibe. Sort of like when one walks into a room and senses danger, for no explicable reason. One might be wrong about it. One hopes so. It's called gut reaction, and debating it seems pointless.

[SteveKingCool]

I can't believe people are comparing it to DIE ANOTHER DAY already, just based on a simple cast list. There's nothing there that makes me think CASINO ROYALE will be ridiculously over-the-top and overblown like DIE ANOTHER DAY was, and so I don't know where people are getting that connection.

Looks just as over the top than Die Another Day from the cast names, Texas Hold 'Em, the number of femmes, and the budget and the Aston Martin. The same recipe for the same cake. It tastes like more of the same as usual. Can still be very much fun to watch like Die Another Day is if you don't mind action movies.

Edited by SteveKingCool, 12 January 2006 - 02:17 PM.

[SteveKingCool]

You know it has a computer game to accompany it so you have to accept more villains because each villain is an end of level boss to fight.

[Lounge Lizard]

You know it has a computer game to accompany it so you have to accept more villains because each villain is an end of level boss to fight.

That depresses me. A little.

[DLibrasnow]

Hmmm....interesting that the name of the villain from the novel has been changed from Le Chiffre to Demetrius.

[Mister Asterix]

Hmmm....interesting that the name of the villain from the novel has been changed from Le Chiffre to Demetrius.

Now where does it say that?

[Simon]

I'm sure it will be true that if the title of the film following CR is given at the end credits, this too will be reviewed and dissected to death before the CR DVD release date has been set.

[DLibrasnow]

Hmmm....interesting that the name of the villain from the novel has been changed from Le Chiffre to Demetrius.

Now where does it say that?

The description of Demetrius sounds a lot like Le Chiffre...think about it.

It makes sense though, with the movie not set in France there is no reason for the villain to have a French name.

[blueman]

That cast of characters makes me think more of FRWL than DAD...Doh!

Edited by blueman, 12 January 2006 - 05:30 PM.

[Shrublands]

Hmmm....interesting that the name of the villain from the novel has been changed from Le Chiffre to Demetrius.

Well, strictly speaking Le Chiffre is not his name in the novel too. It

[Loomis]

I can't believe people are comparing it to DIE ANOTHER DAY already, just based on a simple cast list. There's nothing there that makes me think CASINO ROYALE will be ridiculously over-the-top and overblown like DIE ANOTHER DAY was, and so I don't know where people are getting that connection.

Secondly, I don't honestly see why any of the characters listed prevents this film from being a down-to-earth thriller.

I read the report and caught a vibe. Sort of like when one walks into a room and senses danger, for no explicable reason. One might be wrong about it. One hopes so. It's called gut reaction, and debating it seems pointless.

It looks as though CASINO ROYALE will have a few obvious plot similarities (which have been widely discussed in fandom) with both THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and DIE ANOTHER DAY, to the point where TWINE, DAD and CR may come to be thought of as constituting an unofficial trilogy within the series (a la the Tom Mankiewicz "era"), thematically linked and whatnot (okay, don't get carried away - Ed.).

But for all the talk about DAD being "ridiculously over-the-top and overblown", I find its predecessor, TWINE, much more ludicrous, perhaps because it puts up so much front about being "gritty" and "serious" while undercutting those qualities at every possible moment with "audience-pleasing" humour and (decidedly bargain basement - see the naff parahawk sequence) spectacle. It's a film in which Bond falls in love, is betrayed and tortured, yet there's still plenty of time for sight gags featuring our hero straightening his tie underwater and faffing about with John Cleese and a stupid inflatable jacket. And, alas, I fear that CR may turn into another TWINE. I'd much rather they made another DAD.

[Peaceful]

Well ... it could be worse. The only thing that bothers me, and I'm glad that some agree, is the casting of a young villian. Le Chiffre should be 45-50. I too am over this "young villian thing" that's going on at the moment.

But as I said it could be worse.

Fingers crossed for Rachael as Vesper.

[Judo chop]

How are people coming to think that the young villian in that list is going to be LeChiffre? Wouldn't it make much, much more sense to guess (and all we can do is guess at this point) that the older Demetrius is the LeChiffre character? Yes, the name is different, but it's already been pointed out that this makes sense since the character is probably not French anymore.

I am not at all concerned from what I've read that they're casting a young buck as LeChiffre. For the record, I would NOT approve if they did. But I don't think that's where the signs are pointing.

[Ace Roberts]

Well ... it could be worse. The only thing that bothers me, and I'm glad that some agree, is the casting of a young villian. Le Chiffre should be 45-50. I too am over this "young villian thing" that's going on at the moment.

But as I said it could be worse.

Fingers crossed for Rachael as Vesper.

Again, not to sound like a broken record, is the concern about Le Chiffre not being 45 to 50 because of the novel? Or because recent films like DAD had a younger villian? Because as I stated in a post above, Robert Shaw was 36 when FRWL came out. That is pretty dang close to Craig's age now. So why all the fuss if the villian is late twentties to mid thirties?

[Mister Asterix]

Hmmm....interesting that the name of the villain from the novel has been changed from Le Chiffre to Demetrius.

Now where does it say that?

The description of Demetrius sounds a lot like Le Chiffre...think about it.

It makes sense though, with the movie not set in France there is no reason for the villain to have a French name.

[mra]So then who

[tdalton]

Well ... it could be worse. The only thing that bothers me, and I'm glad that some agree, is the casting of a young villian. Le Chiffre should be 45-50. I too am over this "young villian thing" that's going on at the moment.

But as I said it could be worse.

Fingers crossed for Rachael as Vesper.

Again, not to sound like a broken record, is the concern about Le Chiffre not being 45 to 50 because of the novel? Or because recent films like DAD had a younger villian? Because as I stated in a post above, Robert Shaw was 36 when FRWL came out. That is pretty dang close to Craig's age now. So why all the fuss if the villian is late twentties to mid thirties?

For me, the problem is both of the reasons that you cite. The last couple of films have had fairly young villains (King, Renard, Graves, Zao, Moon, Frost) and with Le Chiffre, there was a golden opportunity to go back towards more of a Stromberg type villain in that he was an older person and more in the classic Bond villain mold. And, by having the older villain, it would also fit in more with the Le Chiffre of the novel.

[Ace Roberts]

Well ... it could be worse. The only thing that bothers me, and I'm glad that some agree, is the casting of a young villian. Le Chiffre should be 45-50. I too am over this "young villian thing" that's going on at the moment.

But as I said it could be worse.

Fingers crossed for Rachael as Vesper.

Again, not to sound like a broken record, is the concern about Le Chiffre not being 45 to 50 because of the novel? Or because recent films like DAD had a younger villian? Because as I stated in a post above, Robert Shaw was 36 when FRWL came out. That is pretty dang close to Craig's age now. So why all the fuss if the villian is late twentties to mid thirties?

For me, the problem is both of the reasons that you cite. The last couple of films have had fairly young villains (King, Renard, Graves, Zao, Moon, Frost) and with Le Chiffre, there was a golden opportunity to go back towards more of a Stromberg type villain in that he was an older person and more in the classic Bond villain mold. And, by having the older villain, it would also fit in more with the Le Chiffre of the novel.

So I went and looked at several of the classic Bond's to see the ages of the villian - and touche - I see your point. Forbe was 51 when Goldfinger came out, Wiseman was 44 as Dr. No, Adolfo Celi was 43 as Largo. OK - i get the concern. Not that I was pro - or con on the age of the villian, anyway. I just didn't get it!!

[zencat]

For me, the older villain is important for the whole James Bond dynamic. Bond is a young knight (powered by his sexuality and awareness of the "now") who goes up against symbols of old corrupted power (fueled by wealth, obsession, perversion). The henchman can be Bond's age, (Red Grant), but Bond should ultimately battle a corrupt father figure. That's the job of the "son." That's the ritual of Bond movies (and books). Part of the weirdness of DAD (and one of the reasons PB seemed "old" in that film) is he is combating the plans of a younger generation. That just doesn't seem to work as well, IMO. (Actually, in DAD, he's combating the plans of a corrupt son, which really scrambles the subtext.)

True, there have been films (and books) where he hasn

[Loomis]

Part of the weirdness of DAD (and one of the reasons PB seemed "old" in that film) is he is combating the plans of a younger generation. That just doesn't seem to work as well, IMO.

Funnily enough, we'd seen that exact same thing before, almost 20 years earlier (and it didn't work any better back then). There's a criticism of A VIEW TO A KILL in that ghastly "Martini, Girls & Guns" book to the effect of: "One of the film's chief flaws is that Zorin and his team are young and vibrant, while Bond and the forces of good are old and clapped-out." (And I can't be bothered to check the relevant actors' ages, but aren't the villains in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH also somewhat younger than 007?)

And given how much older than his years Craig seems, perhaps the new Bond formula is: ageing, embittered secret agent takes it out on the young.

[tdalton]

And given how much older than his years Craig seems, perhaps the new Bond formula is: ageing, embittered secret agent takes it out on the young.

That's actually what it's starting to look like. I don't mind younger villains in the films, but when we have 3 consecutive films with the villains being considerably younger than the actor playing James Bond, that's a bit much.

[zencat]

And given how much older than his years Craig seems, perhaps the new Bond formula is: ageing, embittered secret agent takes it out on the young.

That's actually what it's starting to look like. I don't mind younger villains in the films, but when we have 3 consecutive films with the villains being considerably younger than the actor playing James Bond, that's a bit much.

One place this isn't an issue is the Young Bond series of books. Here, the villain can only always be a "senior" to Bond. Maybe that's why, despite what some view as a concept that cannot be "Bond", they actually work better than some of the recent Bond films. The key story "ritual" is correct.

But now I'm OT.

[DLibrasnow]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='12 January 2006 - 13:22'][quote name='DLibrasnow' date='12 January 2006 - 11:11'][quote name='Mister Asterix' date='12 January 2006 - 11:37'][quote name='DLibrasnow' date='12 January 2006 - 09:53']Hmmm....interesting that the name of the villain from the novel has been changed from Le Chiffre to Demetrius.

[/quote]


Now where does it say that?

[/quote]

The description of Demetrius sounds a lot like Le Chiffre...think about it.

It makes sense though, with the movie not set in France there is no reason for the villain to have a French name.

[/quote]


[mra]So then who