268 replies to this topic

[medrecess]

I don't know why but to me this movie seems not only inspired by FRWL but also to be a lot like it.
I think Craig is a lot like Sean Connery.The suicide bombers funding thing is a welcome change from the plots based on nuclear weapons.

[Roebuck]

from what I've read it seems to be keeping the spirit of the book rather than the details...

I'm a lot more encouraged by this news than I was by initial plot leaks from DAD. It does sound like their aim is to tidy up and expand upon the book but leave the core intact. Bond trying to prevent terrorist attacks against civilian targets feels more a more relevant story line than (for instance) another chase across the globe looking for space lasers.

What I'm hoping for next is some indication as to what we can expect in the way of action sequences. I was watching the Due South pilot episode the other night and Haggis ends it with a Bondian snowmobile chase, including an OHMSS rip where a bad guy goes sailing off a cliff.

[ACE]

It's suck. Kidnap Le Chiffre, get his money, get information out of him, that should be the mission. The mission goes wrong when the double 0 agents die one by one because Vesper is telling the criminals who they are but she doesn't reveal Bond because she fancies him. Bond wants to get the job over and done with, faces Le Chiffre off in the casino not to play poker for millions with government money (dumb [censored]ing idea, if public heard government was spending money like that they would rampage) but just to look Le Chiffre in the eye just the same way Bond always faces his enemies in other movies. This is a killer plot, very realistic.....then Bond has let his identity slip by facing Le Chiffre so Vesper is kidnapped because she didn't tell the truth about him. Then Bond gets kidnapped etc and the rest

I think I will start writing spy novels better than Fleming

Who is this guy? Who does he think he is?
He obviously knows nothing about Bond, Fleming or Casino Royale.

[Loomis]

Firstly, let me say that I've never been a prophet of doom regarding CASINO ROYALE (or at least I don't think I've been one). I'm very pro-Craig, and have a good feeling about the film. I doubt it'll be in the FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE/ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE league of quality, but I reckon it'll at least be up to the LIVING DAYLIGHTS/LICENCE TO KILL standard, and that's something I thought I'd never think about a new Bond film.

However....

This latest report does have me feeling a little underwhelmed. What's everyone seeing in it that's so exciting?

Bond psychoanalysed by the filmmakers, a glimpse of his real emotions, the "chip on his shoulder", terrorist villains, the possibility that Vesper may be another "buttkicking babe".... there's nothing conclusive, of course, but am I the only one who feels this could turn out to be TWINE 2?

Still, good work, Stax.

[ACE]

but am I the only one who feels this could turn out to be TWINE 2?

Come on, Loomis!

Talk about glass half empty!

We have a modern yet faithful adaptation of the novel, CR.
We have a new Bond where character and nuance and wit appear to be to the fore.
We have an interesting, Hitchcock-ian (think Cary Grant meeting Eva Marie Saint)train sequence.
We have an interesting (although probably substituted) location.
We have an actor to play Bond who recalls the sensibility of the best Bond of all, Dalton (yeah, I'm ducking the tomatoes being thrown at me).
We have as strong a creative team as have ever worked on a Bond.

I agree, it could go tits up but based on the information we have and the track record, surely they will produce something that we shall savour for another 40 years?

"If it seems like I've been lost
In let's remember
If you think I'm feeling older
And missing my younger days
Oh, then you should have known me much better
'Cause my past is something that never
Got in my way
Oh no

You can get just so much
From a good thing
You can linger too long
In your dreams
Say goodbye to the
Oldies but goodies
'Cause the good ole days weren't
Always good
And tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems"

Keep the faith, kids....

[Roebuck]

This latest report does have me feeling a little underwhelmed. What's everyone seeing in it that's so exciting?

Chiefly I'm relieved to have confirmation they haven't jettisoned the plot of the Casino Royale novel but are instead updating it for the modern era. If Purvis and Wade were the sole writers then the hints at lengthy dialogue/ character scenes would be putting up warning flags for me right now; the fact of Haggis (and probably others) making significant revisions to the original draft helps to put my mind at ease.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

This latest report does have me feeling a little underwhelmed. What's everyone seeing in it that's so exciting?

Chiefly I'm relieved to have confirmation they haven't jettisoned the plot of the Casino Royale novel but are instead updating it for the modern era. If Purvis and Wade were the sole writers then the hints at lengthy dialogue/ character scenes would be putting up warning flags for me right now; the fact of Haggis (and probably others)making significant revisions to the original draft helps to put my mind at ease.

Here's an interesting interview with P&W on how they updated CR. It's very promising and I thought I should point out in case some haven't read it.

http://www.ianflemin...ent/000246.html

[ACE]

What doesn't come across in their films (which get rewritten and knocked around) is that Purvis and Wade are BIG Bond fans. They really know their Bond and their Fleming. Their criticisms of DAD are, in places, as cutting as ours.

I think (for reasons not unrelated to the death of unsung Bond matriarch, Dana Broccoli - Cubby's widow) that the franchise is being taken out for a creative spin. Barbara and Michael are sophisticated people with tastes of their own and they really want to make the film they perhaps have always wanted but for reasons of duty and faith, could not.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

What doesn't come across in their films (which get rewritten and knocked around) is that Purvis and Wade are BIG Bond fans. They really know their Bond and their Fleming. Their criticisms of DAD are, in places, as cutting as ours.

I think (for reasons not unrelated to the death of unsung Bond matriarch, Dana Broccoli - Cubby's widow) that the franchise is being taken out for a creative spin. Barbara and Michael are sophisticated people with tastes of their own and they really want to make the film they perhaps have always wanted but for reasons of duty and faith, could not.

Yeah. I don't consider P&W hacks. They come up with decent ideas. The main problem with DAD was not the writing IMO but Lee Tamahori's direction and "input" to the script. I think that you're right that Babs and Michael are finally getting to do what they've wanted to do since TLD. Depending in which context you look at everything thats happening with CR(the whole reboot, losing Brosnan, getting Craig, a back to the basics story) it all makes sense. Now with Cubby and Dana(when did she die? I kind of stopped reading Bond news for a while after DAD came out) gone and with a new owner(Sony) and some backlash from DAD, they have justification and momentum to finally bring there interpetation of the character to the big screen. It seems since TLD they've been slowly trying new things like little baby steps, experimenting and then after DAD it was it's now or nerver.

[Leiter]

As someone else pointed, Felix saves Bond. Sure,in a way, I like how it's going but I would have preferred something original instead of screwing around with my favorite Bond novel.

[ACE]

As someone else pointed, Felix saves Bond. Sure,in a way, I like how it's going but I would have preferred something original instead of screwing around with my favorite Bond novel.

Yeah, but Casino Royale would never be made virgo intacto

I don't know about "screwing around", but in the last film version, it was gang raped!

[Roebuck]

What doesn't come across in their films (which get rewritten and knocked around) is that Purvis and Wade are BIG Bond fans. They really know their Bond and their Fleming. Their criticisms of DAD are, in places, as cutting as ours.

My concerns in relation to the current film were that dialogue and female characterisation are noticeable weak spots in Purvis and Wade's work, but both are key to a successful adaptation of Casino Royale. Also, as they confessed themselves, Purvis and Wade are pretty hopeless when it comes to action scenes. Yes, they're solid ideas men; but I wouldn't shed a tear if they never wrote another Bond film.

[Hawkeye]

Have just browsed through everyone's posts very quickly and read the article at IGN. All i can say is bugger me backwards with a blunt market vegetable if this doesn't sound fantastic. This is the most excited i've been since they announced they were doing the novel. Bring on, bring on.

Hawk

[SecretAgentFan]

What doesn't come across in their films (which get rewritten and knocked around) is that Purvis and Wade are BIG Bond fans. They really know their Bond and their Fleming. Their criticisms of DAD are, in places, as cutting as ours.

My concerns in relation to the current film were that dialogue and female characterisation are noticeable weak spots in Purvis and Wade's work, but both are key to a successful adaptation of Casino Royale. Also, as they confessed themselves, Purvis and Wade are pretty hopeless when it comes to action scenes. Yes, they're solid ideas men; but I wouldn't shed a tear if they never wrote another Bond film.

Well, the dialogue has been polished by Haggis as well as the female role. And concerning the action sequences you might want to know that these are never really conceived by the writers but by the stunt coordinator.

And wait for CR - although most people will probably say: it is brilliant because of Haggis, not because of Purvis and Wade...

[Roebuck]

Well, the dialogue has been polished by Haggis as well as the female role. And concerning the action sequences you might want to know that these are never really conceived by the writers but by the stunt coordinator.

And wait for CR - although most people will probably say: it is brilliant because of Haggis, not because of Purvis and Wade...

I have to admit that the double whammy of Paul Haggis and Daniel Craig was what first got me excited about this movie.

[Judo chop]

Holy this is big news!

STAX! STAX! STAX! STAX! STAX! STAX! STAX! STAX!

I sure picked a bad time to quit my lamaze classes...

[Judo chop]

But, as in Fleming's novel, Bond does not initially beat Le Chiffre at the gaming table. This sobering defeat gnaws at 007, exposing his arrogance and impatience, and forcing him to ask Vesper for more funds.

I love this touch here. I love that they insert a little more character developing drama between his initial loss to LeChiffre and the saving compensation that follows. This film is really feeling very strong to me.

I think at this point, if you're not feeling hopeful, no news will ever satisfy until the film itself. My advice would be to admit this now and spare yourself the agony for the next 8 months.

[blueman]

Thank you, ACE, for that Billy Joel interlude. Just what this thread needed, IMHO.

This still all sounds fantastic!

[zencat]

First of all, fantastic scoop.

I stopped reading at the bottom of the first page, because I didn't want to know everything. But I see here there's something about Bond being in the SAS. There is a precedent for that, in a way:

'Twice a year [Bond] disappeared for a fortnight to SAS headquarters in Herefordshire...'
LICENCE RENEWED by John Gardner, Chapter Two, 'Thoughts In A Surrey Lane'

I think - although I may very well be wrong - that "Scorpius" also mentions this, with villains trying to assassinate Bond as he's driving back to London from one of his SAS HQ training trips.

But this is, of course, very different to saying that Bond was ever in the SAS. As far as I'm aware, this has never been stated or suggested in any of the books or films (although I haven't read all the continuation novels).

So I'll ask the obvious question:

SINCE WHEN WAS JAMES BOND EVER EX-SAS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Still, this is evidently Eon's rebooted Bond's backstory, not Fleming's Bond's backstory, Benson's Bond's backstory.... So fair enough, I suppose.

Yes, and in No Deals Mr Bond, 007 works with the SBS (Special Boat Squadron).

Does it matter? I always loved the fact that Gardner had Bond seconded to SAS, SBS and train with them. It was so right for the character. I think they will have Bond in Commander's uniform in CR.

Don't fixate on this SAS thing, guys. According to Stax, these are only 8 pages of script and it could very well just be a throwaway reference from someone calling Bond a former "SAS type." Don't freak. It's all good.

[ACE]

Thank you, ACE, for that Billy Joel interlude.   Just what this thread needed, IMHO.

This still all sounds fantastic!

BJ for JB!

Er, no, not really!

I agree, Zencat. "Fixate"? No. Ruminate? Yes.
S'all good.

[K1Bond007]

First of all, fantastic scoop.

I stopped reading at the bottom of the first page, because I didn't want to know everything. But I see here there's something about Bond being in the SAS. There is a precedent for that, in a way:

'Twice a year [Bond] disappeared for a fortnight to SAS headquarters in Herefordshire...'
LICENCE RENEWED by John Gardner, Chapter Two, 'Thoughts In A Surrey Lane'

I think - although I may very well be wrong - that "Scorpius" also mentions this, with villains trying to assassinate Bond as he's driving back to London from one of his SAS HQ training trips.

But this is, of course, very different to saying that Bond was ever in the SAS. As far as I'm aware, this has never been stated or suggested in any of the books or films (although I haven't read all the continuation novels).

So I'll ask the obvious question:

SINCE WHEN WAS JAMES BOND EVER EX-SAS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Still, this is evidently Eon's rebooted Bond's backstory, not Fleming's Bond's backstory, Benson's Bond's backstory.... So fair enough, I suppose.

Yes, and in No Deals Mr Bond, 007 works with the SBS (Special Boat Squadron).

Does it matter? I always loved the fact that Gardner had Bond seconded to SAS, SBS and train with them. It was so right for the character. I think they will have Bond in Commander's uniform in CR.

Don't fixate on this SAS thing, guys. According to Stax, these are only 8 pages of script and it could very well just be a throwaway reference from someone calling Bond a former "SAS type." Don't freak. It's all good.

As I've pointed out before, there are a couple of passages where Fleming starts talking about how when Bond was in the RNVR (Navy) he was off behind enemy lines shooting a bazooka in the middle of the Ardennes. Now, admittingly, I'm not too knowledgeable of the British military etc, but a guy in the RNVR in the middle of the Ardennes sounds like rubbish to me. The point here is that one could probably contend that Bond was in some sort of special forces (given Fleming -- SOE) from day 1. If you update that for today, it probably would be the SAS. Doesn't that make more sense? I don't really see a guy making a jump from the RNVR to the 00 Section, but joining as RNVR, becoming SOE, and then a 00. That's logical. To me anyway.

After becoming a 00 he works with the SAS and the SBS per Gardner, which I don't think would be out of the ordinary.

[Loomis]

First of all, fantastic scoop.

I stopped reading at the bottom of the first page, because I didn't want to know everything. But I see here there's something about Bond being in the SAS. There is a precedent for that, in a way:

'Twice a year [Bond] disappeared for a fortnight to SAS headquarters in Herefordshire...'
LICENCE RENEWED by John Gardner, Chapter Two, 'Thoughts In A Surrey Lane'

I think - although I may very well be wrong - that "Scorpius" also mentions this, with villains trying to assassinate Bond as he's driving back to London from one of his SAS HQ training trips.

But this is, of course, very different to saying that Bond was ever in the SAS. As far as I'm aware, this has never been stated or suggested in any of the books or films (although I haven't read all the continuation novels).

So I'll ask the obvious question:

SINCE WHEN WAS JAMES BOND EVER EX-SAS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Still, this is evidently Eon's rebooted Bond's backstory, not Fleming's Bond's backstory, Benson's Bond's backstory.... So fair enough, I suppose.

Yes, and in No Deals Mr Bond, 007 works with the SBS (Special Boat Squadron).

Does it matter? I always loved the fact that Gardner had Bond seconded to SAS, SBS and train with them. It was so right for the character. I think they will have Bond in Commander's uniform in CR.

Don't fixate on this SAS thing, guys. According to Stax, these are only 8 pages of script and it could very well just be a throwaway reference from someone calling Bond a former "SAS type." Don't freak. It's all good.

Personally, I don't think I'm freaking (and, ACE, I agree with your points in your reply to my "TWINE 2" post - basically, my faith in CASINO ROYALE remains as strong as ever), but what I will say is that:

For the first time (and, yes, I know there's been plenty of gossip, and we've all had many months to get used to the "reboot" idea) it's really hit me that the Bond of CR will be a character we've never seen before. Now, this is, of course, exciting, but it's also strange and will take some getting used to, particularly if, like me, you're a lifelong Bond fan and have always known the character as, for want of a better expression, "basically the same person".

Now, granted, it's hardly as though they're going to turn him into, say, a kleptomaniac ex-wrestler who drinks nothing but chocolate milk (and I think Jim has pointed out on this thread that the SAS thing is really no bigger a change than the Oriental languages thing in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE), but, still, it really does look as though the filmmakers are taking every reasonable measure to "shake things up" with the character. And, yes, this is all good, and I'm looking forward to it. But, still, it's odd.

James Bond 007, an SAS man (possibly - your point about this not necessarily being set in stone is taken, zen) who joins the British secret service in his late 30s, working under a female M, and who does not (presumably) marry Tracy or know who people like Blofeld and Felix Leiter are (granted, much of that also applies to Brosnan's Bond, but, frankly, that's one reason why Brosnan's Bond never really strikes me as the real deal).

It's not Fleming. It's not even Gardner (although it does seem vaguely Gardneresque, for some reason). It's Eon's Bond, 21st century model. I think we could be in for some real surprises this November.

Which is, of course - let me say for the umpteenth time - all fine and dandy.

[Shrublands]

Being in the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserves (RNVR) is not going to be that much of a big deal in peacetime, is it?

James Bond of the

[triviachamp]

If Le Cheffe doesn't owe anyone money.  How does the story work?

Bond should just shoot him and be done with it.  Same result.  He get's no money and is dead as well.

Everyone could save 2 hours.

Do we know Le Chiffre owes no money?

I suppose they would rather have terrorists kill their own in order to cause trouble in their networks instead of a simple assassination which would make him a matyr.

[Stax]

Zencat's right, guys. Don't obsess on the SAS thing. It was just a line of dialogue ... then again since I didn't read the first 40 pages I don't know if it opens with 007 being in the SAS. That said, stop worrying.

[Loomis]

I'll be very surprised if, when we first see him in CASINO ROYALE, Bond isn't a member of the SAS, or a naval officer, or some such.

So much has been made of the BOND BEGINS concept, which looks like it'll be going boldly ahead instead of (as many fans, including myself, have predicted from time to time) being watered down, that it seems inconceivable that the filmmakers will pass up the opportunity to show the screen Bond - for the very first time - as something other than a fully paid-up member of the British secret service. Apart from anything else, it's just too good a chance to waste.

Why open with Bond as a new recruit at MI6 when you can have that as the second scene he appears in and start with him on a mission with his former employers, the armed forces? (Possibly doing something exceptionally heroic that saves his comrades' skins and brings him to the attention of MI6.)

And if Bond is to be a product of the SAS, it'll sure put the balaclava assassination scene in LAYER CAKE in a whole new light!

'course, I gather that members of the SAS are not supposed to tell anyone about it, so I guess that would explain why we've known Bond for decades yet this is the first we've heard of it.

[zencat]

You know, it's funny, I'm sure Eon will consider this story a major leak (we all know how they feel about script pages getting into the hands of the great unwashed irresponsible rabble otherwise known as Bond fans ), but just look at this thread. This is the best press and the best reactions to any Casino Royale news...ever!

[DanMan]

It's just too good.

[1q2w3e4r]

As I've pointed out before, there are a couple of passages where Fleming starts talking about how when Bond was in the RNVR (Navy) he was off behind enemy lines shooting a bazooka in the middle of the Ardennes. Now, admittingly, I'm not too knowledgeable of the British military etc, but a guy in the RNVR in the middle of the Ardennes sounds like rubbish to me. The point here is that one could probably contend that Bond was in some sort of special forces (given Fleming -- SOE) from day 1. If you update that for today, it probably would be the SAS. Doesn't that make more sense? I don't really see a guy making a jump from the RNVR to the 00 Section, but joining as RNVR, becoming SOE, and then a 00. That's logical. To me anyway.

After becoming a 00 he works with the SAS and the SBS per Gardner, which I don't think would be out of the ordinary.

OO7 was never in the SAS.

As Zencat has pointed out. It could very well simply be a scipt point that describes Bond as being an SAS type.

The Commando unit Fleming was refurring to was his own 30 AU group attached to the Admirality.

[Mercator]

OO7 was never in the SAS.

As Zencat has pointed out.  It could very well simply be a scipt point that describes Bond as being an SAS type.

The Commando unit Fleming was refurring to was his own 30 AU group attached to the Admirality.

I agree with the last post.