103 replies to this topic

[Seannery]

Loomis almost all Bond films go the low key route with the supporting roles and villians....

Excluding, of course, the most recent couple of Bond films.

True but that doesn't change the point-- The Bonds would then just have to follow their storied past with regards to supporting roles and not the Bournes.

[Mister Asterix]

There isn't a thing in that AICN scooper's "report" that I didn't already write about days before on IGN or that the British press hasn't already revealed days before.

It is very suspitious. Seems like this insider just read your report, and either got things wrong or jumped to their own conclusions. But like all reports of this kind I take it as a suggestion until proven gospel.

[Seannery]

Just seems a shame, though. Le Chiffre is a Fleming name. Why not use it? What disadvantage does it have? Alternatively, what benefit doe "Demetrious" bring?

EXACTLY.

Demetrius sounds like a villain from a third-rate, discount Bond knock-off from 1966.

Dare I say that Tybalt never has his name changed!

Ah but Bon-san--Bond isn't quite Shakespeare.

Perhaps not. But my respect for Ian Fleming is not exceeded by my respect for Willy Shakespeare.

I take it you are not an English professor then.

No, although I did take a minor in English in college. Read lots and lots of Willy. Wonderful, brilliant stuff. So is Fleming's.

Well we agree on Willy--Ian is good but not nearly that good IMO.

[Seannery]

There isn't a thing in that AICN scooper's "report" that I didn't already write about days before on IGN or that the British press hasn't already revealed days before.

It is very suspitious. Seems like this insider just read your report, and either got things wrong or jumped to their own conclusions. But like all reports of this kind I take it as a suggestion until proven gospel.

Yes it will be interesting to see if this is correct or not concerning there being no Le Chiffre or not. It should be a matter of days.

[Ace Roberts]

Correct me if I'm wrong though, both the Bourne series and Batman Begins used named actors in supporting roles. Clive Owen, Brian Cox, Julia Styles, Joan Allen , Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson.

Well, the Bournes are less star-studded than BATMAN BEGINS, and I think CASINO ROYALE will take the Bourne approach to casting rather than the BB approach. I'm not sure that Owen was all that well-known when he appeared in THE BOURNE IDENTITY, and the likes of Allen and Cox may be familiar to audiences but are definitely not "stars" like Angelina Jolie and Naomi Watts.

Can Casino Royale be successful with Judi Dench and Craig as the only name stars?

I think so. Look at THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. Or GOLDENEYE. Or quite a few other Bond films. I'm firmly of the belief that "James Bond" is the only "name" the filmmakers need, and Craig's star power will effectively be doubled on this occasion since the novelty value of a new Bond actor will be a powerful audience draw. "Stars" are not needed, and I don't think the filmmakers should look around for another Sophie Marceau or Halle Berry to play Vesper.

Don't take my back and forth as being combative - just healthy dialougue - see I disagree because TLD had named actors Joe Don Baker & John Rhys-Davies that US audiences recognized as did GoldenEye in Sean Bean and (again) Joe Don Baker. So far, I haven't seen an actor or actress mentioned that will be recognized other than Craig & Dench. I just wonder if they would be better off with (say) a Anthony Hopkins or named actor in a limited villian role.

[Loomis]

Loomis almost all Bond films go the low key route with the supporting roles and villians....

Excluding, of course, the most recent couple of Bond films.

True but that doesn't change the point-- The Bonds would then just have to follow their storied past with regards to supporting roles and not the Bournes.

Okay, but I think it's a fair bet (although not, obviously, a certainty) that a fair few similarities to the Bournes will be evident in CASINO ROYALE. "Grittiness", a reasonably youthful hero, etc. Of course, we could call it the Bond series dipping back into its own past (FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, LICENCE TO KILL, etc.), but I'm not sure that it's a coincidence that Bourne appears and is commercially successful and critically acclaimed, and all of a sudden the Bond people start shouting about how their next one is going to be very different to yer usual invisible car fest and low-key and realistic, etc.

[Loomis]

Correct me if I'm wrong though, both the Bourne series and Batman Begins used named actors in supporting roles. Clive Owen, Brian Cox, Julia Styles, Joan Allen , Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson.

Well, the Bournes are less star-studded than BATMAN BEGINS, and I think CASINO ROYALE will take the Bourne approach to casting rather than the BB approach. I'm not sure that Owen was all that well-known when he appeared in THE BOURNE IDENTITY, and the likes of Allen and Cox may be familiar to audiences but are definitely not "stars" like Angelina Jolie and Naomi Watts.

Can Casino Royale be successful with Judi Dench and Craig as the only name stars?

I think so. Look at THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. Or GOLDENEYE. Or quite a few other Bond films. I'm firmly of the belief that "James Bond" is the only "name" the filmmakers need, and Craig's star power will effectively be doubled on this occasion since the novelty value of a new Bond actor will be a powerful audience draw. "Stars" are not needed, and I don't think the filmmakers should look around for another Sophie Marceau or Halle Berry to play Vesper.

Don't take my back and forth as being combative - just healthy dialougue

Absolutely. I don't take it as combative. And the same goes for my own posts, of course.

TLD had named actors Joe Don Baker & John Rhys-Davies that US audiences recognized as did GoldenEye in Sean Bean and (again) Joe Don Baker. So far, I haven't seen an actor or actress mentioned that will be recognized other than Craig & Dench.

True. And I'm in the UK, but I'd heard of Baker, Rhys-Davies, Bean and co. long before THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and GOLDENEYE (but then, I am a movie geek). But I hadn't heard of any of the rumoured cast of CASINO ROYALE before reading about them in recent days on CBn.

I just wonder if they would be better off with (say) a Anthony Hopkins or named actor in a limited villian role.

Well, it probably wouldn't hurt, but, like I say, I really don't think CR needs any star power, any more than, say, ROCKY BALBOA requires any big name other than Sylvester Stallone. Perhaps CR's box office take will indicate that my assumptions are wrong, though. But my feeling is that a Hopkins would cost Sony and Eon a pretty penny without really making all that much difference to the film's performance. And they definitely need to keep the focus on Craig this time out. I say the smart thing for The Powers That Be to do would be to keep the possibility of hiring someone like De Niro or Hopkins as the villain up their sleeves for BOND 22.

[Seannery]

Loomis almost all Bond films go the low key route with the supporting roles and villians....

Excluding, of course, the most recent couple of Bond films.

True but that doesn't change the point-- The Bonds would then just have to follow their storied past with regards to supporting roles and not the Bournes.

Okay, but I think it's a fair bet (although not, obviously, a certainty) that a fair few similarities to the Bournes will be evident in CASINO ROYALE. "Grittiness", a reasonably youthful hero, etc. Of course, we could call it the Bond series dipping back into its own past (FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, LICENCE TO KILL, etc.), but I'm not sure that it's a coincidence that Bourne appears and is commercially successful and critically acclaimed, and all of a sudden the Bond people start shouting about how their next one is going to be very different to yer usual invisible car fest and low-key and realistic, etc.

Well, I think you overstate the Bourne thing because of your obvious fondness for that OK(I'll duck as you throw something at me ) series. They may glance at Bourne a little but they have always changed things up by at times by going more low key and gritty. No need to posit a big Bourne influence to explain that. Maybe Bourne gave them a little nudge and a few tiny hints but I think(and hope) that is about it. Bond can handle change without looking elsewhere--the series is big and wide enough to easily make strong changes based on its own prodigious strengths.

[Tarl_Cabot]

The report didn't say Le Chifre wasn't in the film. It said he wasn't the 'main' villian. I don't really have a problem with that since Le Chifre wasn't a huge character in CR.

[Seannery]

Back to Le Chiffre--IF they change the name of the main villian to Demetrius it wouldn't necessarily dilute the Fleming flavor(for those most worried about that) of CR. That would depend on the whole script NOT just a simple name change.

[Streetworker]

Just seems a shame, though. Le Chiffre is a Fleming name. Why not use it? What disadvantage does it have? Alternatively, what benefit doe "Demetrious" bring?

EXACTLY.

Demetrius sounds like a villain from a third-rate, discount Bond knock-off from 1966.

Dare I say that Tybalt never has his name changed!

Ah but Bon-san--Bond isn't quite Shakespeare.

Perhaps not. But my respect for Ian Fleming is not exceeded by my respect for Willy Shakespeare.

I take it you are not an English professor then.

No, although I did take a minor in English in college. Read lots and lots of Willy. Wonderful, brilliant stuff. So is Fleming's.

Well we agree on Willy--Ian is good but not nearly that good IMO.

Oh, I don't know... I've got both on my shelves, but I know whose work I reach for most...

[Seannery]

The report didn't say Le Chifre wasn't in the film. It said he wasn't the 'main' villian. I don't really have a problem with that since Le Chifre wasn't a huge character in CR.

The AICN mole says the main villian is no longer Le Chiffre--but now called Demetrius. Perhaps this is wrong but if right then no Le Chiffre.

[Streetworker]

Back to Le Chiffre--IF they change the name of the main villian to Demetrius it wouldn't necessarily dilute the Fleming flavor(for those most worried about that) of CR.  That would depend on the whole script NOT just a simple name change.

It all comes down to class. Le Chiffre is a clever flemingian name. Demetrius sounds like a thug from a particularly poor episode of The Professionals.

As you say, a name doesn't make a jot of difference to a script. But, in that case, why change it? (If, indeed, they have).

[Seannery]

Just seems a shame, though. Le Chiffre is a Fleming name. Why not use it? What disadvantage does it have? Alternatively, what benefit doe "Demetrious" bring?

EXACTLY.

Demetrius sounds like a villain from a third-rate, discount Bond knock-off from 1966.

Dare I say that Tybalt never has his name changed!

Ah but Bon-san--Bond isn't quite Shakespeare.

Perhaps not. But my respect for Ian Fleming is not exceeded by my respect for Willy Shakespeare.

I take it you are not an English professor then.

No, although I did take a minor in English in college. Read lots and lots of Willy. Wonderful, brilliant stuff. So is Fleming's.

Well we agree on Willy--Ian is good but not nearly that good IMO.

Oh, I don't know... I've got both on my shelves, but I know whose work I reach for most...

Well it's not knocking anyone to say they aren't as good as Shakespeare. And what one enjoys, well that is subjective--to each their own.

[Streetworker]

Just seems a shame, though. Le Chiffre is a Fleming name. Why not use it? What disadvantage does it have? Alternatively, what benefit doe "Demetrious" bring?

EXACTLY.

Demetrius sounds like a villain from a third-rate, discount Bond knock-off from 1966.

Dare I say that Tybalt never has his name changed!

Ah but Bon-san--Bond isn't quite Shakespeare.

Perhaps not. But my respect for Ian Fleming is not exceeded by my respect for Willy Shakespeare.

I take it you are not an English professor then.

No, although I did take a minor in English in college. Read lots and lots of Willy. Wonderful, brilliant stuff. So is Fleming's.

Well we agree on Willy--Ian is good but not nearly that good IMO.

Oh, I don't know... I've got both on my shelves, but I know whose work I reach for most...

Well it's not knocking anyone to say they aren't as good as Shakespeare. And what one enjoys, well that is subjective--to each their own.

Absolutely, and I love them both. But I admit I've had more fun from Ian than Bill.

[Harmsway]

Wasn't Gala Brand supposed to be Rosamund Pike's character in DIE ANOTHER DAY, but they changed the name after she complained it sounded like a pork pie?

Or some story along those lines.

The official story was that the name was changed because Gala Brand was originally the heroine of DIE ANOTHER DAY, with Jinx as the baddie. When the roles were switched, it was decided the name was inappropriate for Rosamund Pike's character because she was now a baddie.

Though I wouldn't put the pork pie story past EON.

[Qwerty]

It will be surprising if they don't keep the name Le Chiffre (although Loomis' points on page one of this thread are interesting). No matter what, as long as the villains are strong in this film, the name change is not a big deal to me.

[marktmurphy]

But Goldfinger, Drax and Mr. Big are "easier" names than Le Chiffre. I'm just thinking that the (pathetic) mentality of "But Americans won't understand the word 'revoked'" may be at work here, with the filmmakers assuming that audiences would find Le Chiffre too difficult to pronounce or something (not that audiences have to pronounce his name, of course, but you get my drift).

I don't think they think people are that stupid. After all, the big American audience coped with a film in which the bad guy(s) were called Ra's Al Ghul and Henri Ducard last year; I'm sure Eon don't think they're stupid (anymore).

[hcmv007]

I think Tiberius is a more menacing name than Demetrius. Or maybe we need a Lucifer, or somethin like that. Afterall, us dumb, stupid Americans cant't( ) tell teh difference between Revoked and um and um and um....?

As long as they keep the story of the CR novel intact, if they want to change a villains name, it is OK

[Gobi-1]

There is absolutely NO reason why Le Chiffre's name shouldn't be included. Can you imagine if they didn't use the names Goldfinger, Dr. No, or Blofeld? One of the great pleasures of the original films was seeing these great characters leap from the page to the screen. These are iconic names and iconic characters and die hard fans have been waiting 40 years for Le Chiffre to join their ranks. To deny the fans this would be a slap in the face.

Let me just add that the character of Jaws became a huge icon despite the fact his Fleming name was Horror. However TSWLM was considered a disappointment by Fleming and fans so not using the original story and character names for the film was met with no complaints. Casino Royale on the other hand is a literary classic and deserve enough respect to retain the original character names for the big screen adaptation.

[hcmv007]

There is absolutely NO reason why Le Chiffre's name shouldn't be included. Can you imagine if they didn't use the names Goldfinger, Dr. No, or Blofeld? One of the great pleasures of the original films was seeing these great characters leap from the page to the screen. These are iconic names and iconic characters and die hard fans have been waiting 40 years for Le Chiffre to join their ranks. To deny the fans this would be a slap in the face.

Let me just add that the character of Jaws became a huge icon despite the fact his Fleming name was Horror. However TSWLM was considered a disappointment by Fleming and fans so not using the original story and character names for the film was met with no complaints. Casino Royale on the other hand is a literary classic and deserve enough respect to retain the original character names for the big screen adaptation.

Very good point, there kind sir.

[dunmall]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='19 January 2006 - 03:52'][mra]So instead of a villain whose name means

[tdalton]

There is absolutely NO reason why Le Chiffre's name shouldn't be included. Can you imagine if they didn't use the names Goldfinger, Dr. No, or Blofeld? One of the great pleasures of the original films was seeing these great characters leap from the page to the screen. These are iconic names and iconic characters and die hard fans have been waiting 40 years for Le Chiffre to join their ranks. To deny the fans this would be a slap in the face.

Well said.

[Simon]

The only reason I can see for the name change is to distance the character from Orsen Welles in the 1967 film.

Hmm, so you'll be expecting a film title change soon then?

I'm sure if the title remains the same, the villain's name will be weathered.

[Harmsway]

There is absolutely NO reason why Le Chiffre's name shouldn't be included. Can you imagine if they didn't use the names Goldfinger, Dr. No, or Blofeld? One of the great pleasures of the original films was seeing these great characters leap from the page to the screen. These are iconic names and iconic characters and die hard fans have been waiting 40 years for Le Chiffre to join their ranks. To deny the fans this would be a slap in the face.

Most of the fan base of the early Bond movies hadn't read the books. The pleasure of seeing those villains on screen for most is that they were just done so well - not seeing them transferred from book to screen.

Casino Royale on the other hand is a literary classic and deserve enough respect to retain the original character names for the big screen adaptation.

CASINO ROYALE is certainly a spy-thriller classic, but let's not fool ourselves. This isn't adapting one of the most beloved books of all time. Bond's success lay primarily outside of the novels and in the EON films.

[DLibrasnow]

I would have thought this was pretty obvious (that there is no Le Chiffre).

[dinovelvet]

There is also the possibility that there will be some kind of twist regarding Le Chiffre (remember Purvis and Wade wrote the basic outline of the movie, both of their Bond films featured twists regarding the villain's true identity). So maybe Demetrius is the red herring. We still know almost nothing about the other villain role apart from who has been auditioning for it, so let's get all the facts in first before we start condemning EON.

[deth]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='18 January 2006 - 12:52'][mra]So instead of a villain whose name means

[Bon-san]

Just seems a shame, though. Le Chiffre is a Fleming name. Why not use it? What disadvantage does it have? Alternatively, what benefit doe "Demetrious" bring?

EXACTLY.

Demetrius sounds like a villain from a third-rate, discount Bond knock-off from 1966.

Dare I say that Tybalt never has his name changed!

Ah but Bon-san--Bond isn't quite Shakespeare.

Perhaps not. But my respect for Ian Fleming is not exceeded by my respect for Willy Shakespeare.

I take it you are not an English professor then.

No, although I did take a minor in English in college. Read lots and lots of Willy. Wonderful, brilliant stuff. So is Fleming's.

Well we agree on Willy--Ian is good but not nearly that good IMO.

Oh, I don't know... I've got both on my shelves, but I know whose work I reach for most...

Well it's not knocking anyone to say they aren't as good as Shakespeare. And what one enjoys, well that is subjective--to each their own.

I wasn't there at the time, but I understand Mr. Shakespeare's plays were regarded by his contemporaries as entertaining-for-the-masses stuff, rather than instantly classic, timelessly brilliant, top-shelf masterworks.

So in 500 years, perhaps some will regard Fleming as.........

[Harmsway]

I wasn't there at the time, but I understand Mr. Shakespeare's plays were regarded by his contemporaries as entertaining-for-the-masses stuff, rather than instantly classic, timelessly brilliant, top-shelf masterworks.

So in 500 years, perhaps some will regard Fleming as.........

It's a nice thought. Doubtful, though. The one book of Fleming's that is really more than just a well-written, entertaining read is YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (which, IMO, is also Fleming's masterpiece and the pinnacle of Bond fiction to date).