268 replies to this topic

[Moore Not Less]

[quote name='Seannery' date='30 January 2006 - 09:56'][quote name='Jack Spang' date='26 January 2006 - 08:07']I have cut and pasted this from another Bond forum.

[blueman]

If there's been a lack of romance in the screentests, I'd look at who they're testing with Craig, he's proven he can do both lust and love convincingly. A lot of actresses don't seem to have a clue about the latter, IMHO, and rely solely on the former. Vesper may well prove to be the toughest bit of casting in franchise history, she's just not your usual Bond girl, IMO.

Also, that bit about cutting back on the romance is not credible, IMO, it's THE motivation for Bond in the story. What, they're gonna come up with some other reason he wants to leave the service? Sounds like glorified canteen chatter.

Edited by blueman, 30 January 2006 - 04:52 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Also, I find it hard to believe that they had Craig doing screen tests and decided him to be their new Bond only to discover now in another screen test that he didn

[blueman]

Actually, I'm going with total bunk for this "Insider scoop," especially as dude's not been heard from again...(to my knowledge)

[luciusgore]

This "scoop" sounds like garbage. There are MANY qualified actresses out there for the role. Sure, the big names are turning it down. They always do. The only reason Berry didn't is she hadn't won her Oscar by the time DAD started filming. Also, the idea of a new Bond starring alongside a huge name female celeb is just strange. Imagine Pierce Brosnan starring with Julia Roberts in Goldeneye. It would have been lame. Better to have a no-name actress anyway.

[zencat]

Interesting that this "insider" refers to the gambling scene as "the card game" instead of a poker game or a game of baccarat. Wouldn't this insider know exactly what this game is? Seems more likely he does not want to confirm a genuine CBn scoop that the featured card game in CR is poker, while at the same time he does not want in invalidate his info by saying it's baccarat. This feels very carefully put together and suspicious. And, ultimately, just an insidious way to bash Craig.

After the Pierce B debacle (and the attempt by "Pinewood Insider" to do to CBn what Pierce B did to AJB), I discount anyone who posts "inside information" anonymously, even if it contains some truth. They can really turn a board upside-down, which I think is their intention. There are plenty of reliable and real inside sources to turn to for news. I'll listen to them.

[Stax]

Bottom line: every production has a rough ride to fruition, some worse than others (can you imagine if there were bloggers back when the notoriously troubled Gone With the Wind was made?!). All that matters is what ends up onscreen. The rest is gossip.

It was a mistake to approach A-list actresses to begin with. They don't want to share the limelight like that; they want it to be solely on them. Now the filmmakers have learned that the hard way and have caused some bad buzz. BTW, those actresses would've turned down CR even if it was Pierce playing 007. It's Bond they're rejecting not Craig.

Edited by Stax, 30 January 2006 - 06:08 PM.

[zencat]

Bottom line: every production has a rough ride to fruition, some worse than others (can you imagine if there were bloggers back when the notoriously troubled Gone With the Wind was made?!). All that matters is what ends up onscreen. The rest is gossip.

It was a mistake to approach A-list actresses to begin with. They don't want to share the limelight like that; they want it to be solely on them. Now the filmmakers have learned that the hard way and have caused some bad buzz. BTW, those actresses would've turned down CR even if it was Pierce playing 007. It's Bond they're rejecting not Craig.

Well said, Stax. I agree.

[Ace Roberts]

Bottom line: every production has a rough ride to fruition, some worse than others (can you imagine if there were bloggers back when the notoriously troubled Gone With the Wind was made?!). All that matters is what ends up onscreen. The rest is gossip.

It was a mistake to approach A-list actresses to begin with. They don't want to share the limelight like that; they want it to be solely on them. Now the filmmakers have learned that the hard way and have caused some bad buzz. BTW, those actresses would've turned down CR even if it was Pierce playing 007. It's Bond they're rejecting not Craig.

Well said, Stax. I agree.

I agree about the gossip part - some of that is fun and humourous when taken in the right context - but occasionally it gets out of hand and gets downright ugly. Then it's sad to be associated with it!! I just hope Eon gets to a point soon that they feel "comfortable" in sharing what is going on - and squashes all the speculation and guess-work.

[blueman]

Stax, you need a disclaimer: IF EON even appraoched any A-list actresses...that's a mighty big "IF" IMHO, as there's been no verification from anyone on if any of those A-listers were asked to play Vesper, just tabloids and "insiders" casting pebbles in the pond. Whatever.

[JameswpBond]

It's going to be a long wait!

[Seannery]

Bottom line: every production has a rough ride to fruition, some worse than others (can you imagine if there were bloggers back when the notoriously troubled Gone With the Wind was made?!). All that matters is what ends up onscreen. The rest is gossip.

It was a mistake to approach A-list actresses to begin with. They don't want to share the limelight like that; they want it to be solely on them. Now the filmmakers have learned that the hard way and have caused some bad buzz. BTW, those actresses would've turned down CR even if it was Pierce playing 007. It's Bond they're rejecting not Craig.

Well said, Stax. I agree.

Yes I agree--I lean towards it's just gossip......though i'm not 100% sure. Stax is right especially in that we will know for sure when CR comes out. If it ends up with a ton of action and little romance then maybe this has some validity. BUT now im with you guys and vote that its bull.

[Harmsway]

MI6 is reporting that the DBS will be outfitted with all sorts of gadgets for a car chase.

I hope not. If true, that news is quite disappointing.

[tdalton]

[quote name='Jack Spang' date='28 January 2006 - 15:58']Yes, on the forum I took it from, many are taking it quite seriously including the chief editor (or atleast this is what it sounds like).

Edited by tdalton, 31 January 2006 - 03:40 AM.

[Harmsway]

Anyway, a sad turn of events if true, and events that will mark the end of my viewing of new Bond films.  Sadly, it looks like the last true Bond film was the awful Die Another Day.

I've never understood fans who say they'll walk away from the franchise. It's not that bad, and even if things go sour, in the words of our favorite 00-agent, "Hope springs eternal."

[tdalton]

[quote name='Harmsway' date='30 January 2006 - 22:45'][quote name='tdalton' date='30 January 2006 - 21:02']Anyway, a sad turn of events if true, and events that will mark the end of my viewing of new Bond films.

[Harmsway]

[quote name='tdalton' date='30 January 2006 - 21:48']I just can't watch another Brosnan Era-style Bond film.

[Harmsway]

MI6 is reporting that the DBS will be outfitted with all sorts of gadgets for a car chase.

I hope not. If true, that news is quite disappointing.

Now that I've said that, I thought about it for a bit. I have no interest in seeing a gadget-laden car chase. We had two really big ones in the Brosnan era with TOMORROW NEVER DIES and DIE ANOTHER DAY, and I feel that the gadget car thing has gone about as far as it can go.

But it probably wouldn't ruin the film. Even the gritty THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS had a gadget-laden car chase.

[Jack Spang]

Yes, I think it's bloody stupid. Even Albert R Broccoli departed form the tired old formula now and then. We never saw a gadget littered car in more than two consecutive films if my memory serves me correctly. Now, this will be the 5th (if you count GE) if this news is true! Eon need to learn to not follow the formula so damn closely.

I also find it hard to believe Craig didn't have chemistry. If they are scaling back on the character movement and injecting in an abundance of action yet again, like they always do at the last minute it seems, then it is probably because Eon once again got cold feet. This unfortunately wouldn't surprise me at all. TWINE was a prime example of this. They are so damn reluctant to take risks. What a terrible shame if they waste this wonderful book. Someone else made an excellent point however about all the trouble they went to with Haggis etc. I don't know. The only thing that makes me unsure is the fact that James Page from Mi6 has hinted several times that the news is true. How much is this guy in the know or does he also have a disliking to Daniel Craig? Although one would think he was more professional and less bias. Or maybe he just wants to keep the thread going by throwing in uncertainty and thus keeping the argument going?

If this film is yet again in the same vein as the Brosnan movies, even if the action is grittier and Craig plays a tougher Bond (which I

Edited by Jack Spang, 31 January 2006 - 07:18 AM.

[Harmsway]

The only thing that makes me unsure is the fact that James Page from Mi6 has hinted several times that the news is true.  How much is this guy in the know or does he also have a disliking to Daniel Craig?  Although one would think he was more professional and less bias. Or maybe he just wants to keep the thread going by throwing in uncertainty and thus keeping the argument going? 

MI6 has had some fairly bogus insider reports in the past, so I'm not necessarily willing to lend them a whole lot of credibility.

Until I have solid proof otherwise, I believe that CASINO ROYALE is still in good hands.

But then again, I'm still willing to settle for a decent, better-than-the-Brosnan-films, Bond movie. I don't need another OHMSS to satisfy me (though it'd be nice, make no mistake about it). At the very least, I have confidence that CASINO ROYALE will be the best Bond film since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. I can live with that.

[Streetworker]

[quote name='Harmsway' date='31 January 2006 - 08:05'][quote name='Jack Spang' date='31 January 2006 - 01:02']The only thing that makes me unsure is the fact that James Page from Mi6 has hinted several times that the news is true.

Edited by Streetworker, 31 January 2006 - 08:27 AM.

[fatima]

Well, I guess all the time the film makers are getting 20 or 30 million dollars from the likes of BMW or Ford to feature their cars in the film, then BMW and Ford etc are going to get a say in what is in the films (gadget laden cars, wild and whacky car chases). So we end up with a horrible mess of serious and silly like TWINE.

If Michael and Barbara were serious about making a whole new tough, gritty Bourne-style franchise, with a completely new kind of star, then they should have had the courage of their convictions and not made it a Bond film with all the inevitable baggage that comes with it.

But then I guess the 007 brand name is where the dollars are......

[Lounge Lizard]

I just wish that Casino Royale didn't feel so, I dunno... so joyless, somehow. The whole production is giving off an aura, at the moment, of being dour.

I see what you mean, Streetworker, and although I'm supportive of Craig and a 'new direction' for Bond, I have to agree with you there. 'Joyless' is the right word.

Since the 14th October news conference, EON has been silent, and those present at the conference itself seemed very reluctant to talk. It wasn't just Craig who was uncommunicative there: Barbara Broccoli hardly said anything, Martin Campbell looked very nervous, and Michael G. Wilson... well, with all due respect to him as a writer / producer / private person / human being, but as a public figure, he is as boring as they come. There was really something special about the 'showman' flamboyance of Broccoli and Saltzman.

[tdalton]

I just wish that Casino Royale didn't feel so, I dunno... so joyless, somehow. The whole production is giving off an aura, at the moment, of being dour.

I see what you mean, Streetworker, and although I'm supportive of Craig and a 'new direction' for Bond, I have to agree with you there. 'Joyless' is the right word.

Since the 14th October news conference, EON has been silent, and those present at the conference itself seemed very reluctant to talk. It wasn't just Craig who was uncommunicative there: Barbara Broccoli hardly said anything, Martin Campbell looked very nervous, and Michael G. Wilson... well, with all due respect to him as a writer / producer / private person / human being, but as a public figure, he is as boring as they come. There was really something special about the 'showman' flamboyance of Broccoli and Saltzman.

EON has been too quiet, as you say, and it once again appears as though they've gotten cold feet and are going to make another cookie-cutter, Brosnan Era-style, over the top action film that doesn't at all resemble the type of Bond film that we were promised back in October. I mean, seriously, what's next? Are they going to have Le Chiffre using tripod machines like in War of the Worlds being operated by clones in order to help him take over the world? After the ludicrousness of Die Another Day's dive into science fiction, that really wouldn't be too illogical a leap for them if they are truly going to continue on in that direction.

What gets me, however, is the hiring of Paul Haggis. For all of the complaints that people make about P&W, you have to admit that they do one thing well, and that is the over-the-top action style films of the Brosnan Era. That's what they do well, simply put. But now, EON hired Paul Haggis, who we learned today has garnered mutliple Academy Award nominations (picture, director, screenplay, amongst others) to supposedly flesh out the story in the script. But if they've gone back to a Brosnan-style Bond film, that would mean that a supposedly great script from the often copmlained about P&W has been turned into a Brosnan-style film by an Academy Award nominated writer and director. If that's not irony, then I don't know what is, and I find it to be quite sad for the Bond franchise if that turns out to be the case.

[Harmsway]

EON has been too quiet, as you say, and it once again appears as though they've gotten cold feet and are going to make another cookie-cutter, Brosnan Era-style, over the top action film that doesn't at all resemble the type of Bond film that we were promised back in October.  I mean, seriously, what's next?  Are they going to have Le Chiffre using tripod machines like in War of the Worlds being operated by clones in order to help him take over the world?  After the ludicrousness of Die Another Day's dive into science fiction, that really wouldn't be too illogical a leap for them if they are truly going to continue on in that direction.

We really don't have a whole foundation to believe that it's going to be another cookie-cutter entry. If anything, the believable sources have indicated otherwise, like IGN's script report.

What gets me, however, is the hiring of Paul Haggis.  For all of the complaints that people make about P&W, you have to admit that they do one thing well, and that is the over-the-top action style films of the Brosnan Era.  That's what they do well, simply put.  But now, EON hired Paul Haggis, who we learned today has garnered mutliple Academy Award nominations (picture, director, screenplay, amongst others) to supposedly flesh out the story in the script.  But if they've gone back to a Brosnan-style Bond film, that would mean that a supposedly great script from the often copmlained about P&W has been turned into a Brosnan-style film by an Academy Award nominated writer and director.  If that's not irony, then I don't know what is, and I find it to be quite sad for the Bond franchise if that turns out to be the case.

This is all wild speculation. Paul Haggis likely very much improved the script, not turned it into something else. We haven't read the P&W drafts, and we don't have the current draft. All we have is the IGN report, which by all means sounds encouraging and exciting.

And everyone refers to this as "Brosnan-style". Honestly, even with just the casting of Craig, the film will be different enough to not be associated with Brosnan. It might still represent some of the same problems as Brosnan's era, but because the Bond himself is different, the films of each will feel quite different.

[Harmsway]

Given that I believe Licence To Kill and all four Brosnan Bonds are better than the middling TLD, I'm hoping you're right...!

I believe that THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is superior to every film that followed it, and especially superior to the Brosnan films.

I just wish that Casino Royale didn't feel so, I dunno... so joyless, somehow. The whole production is giving off an aura, at the moment, of being dour.

True, likely because it's silent and there's no interviews giving us exciting buzz, and rumors, though likely untrue, seem to be indicating negative things. Heck, the only person speaking out with positive vibes lately is Daniel Craig, who seems to have some genuine excitement for taking on the role of James Bond. Hopefully a press conference will alleviate this negative vibe and get us pumped up.

[Streetworker]

Given that I believe Licence To Kill and all four Brosnan Bonds are better than the middling TLD, I'm hoping you're right...!

I believe that THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is superior to every film that followed it, and especially superior to the Brosnan films.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Even taking the Brosnan films out of the debate, I personally thought Licence To Kill was better than The Living Daylights, which was good, but, for me, suffered from a convoluted storyline and a lack of focus when it came to the villains. Linear storytelling is a much-maligned form and, personally, I prefer a Bond storyline with clean lines.

Edited by Streetworker, 31 January 2006 - 05:10 PM.

[blueman]

Oh c'mon: up one day because Stax read a few pages of the script and thought they were excellent, "joyless" the next because of some "insider" report (has this guy ever come back and posted again???) about supposed set troubles and all. Fickle fickle...

They've started filming CR, with a new Bond, at some lovely locations, and seem to be doing their darndest to find the right Vesper. I'm still a walking geekout machine, have been since they cast Craig (even Campbell directing can't seem to bring me down any ). The only HARD evidence we've seen is all to the positive, there's no spilt milk that I can see to warrant all this boo-hooing...but carry on with your bad selves!

[Streetworker]

Oh c'mon: up one day because Stax read a few pages of the script and thought they were excellent, "joyless" the next because of some "insider" report (has this guy ever come back and posted again???) about supposed set troubles and all.  Fickle fickle...

They've started filming CR, with a new Bond, at some lovely locations, and seem to be doing their darndest to find the right Vesper.  I'm still a walking geekout machine, have been since they cast Craig (even Campbell directing can't seem to bring me down any ).  The only HARD evidence we've seen is all to the positive, there's no spilt milk that I can see to warrant all this boo-hooing...but carry on with your bad selves!

You have missed my point utterly. My reference to the whole production seeming, at this moment, to be "joyless", is that no-one involved seems to be having fun. I haven't even taken the so-called "insider" report into account because it feels bogus to me. Eon used to be so adept at the chuzpah; but, alas, that seems to have withered on the vine.

No-one will be happier than me if Casino Royale blows me away. Hell, I'd love to be thinking Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever five years down the line. But the jury's going to be out on that for a long while yet (it always is when there's a change of actor). But I have to say no amount of wishful thinking by anyone on this site, me included, is going to make the movie a success. And, with respect, "some lovely locations" do not a classic make.

[blueman]

My comments were directed to lots of folks. Not sure how you get to "no one involved is having any fun," though. Didn't they just have a big kickoff party? Sounds like fun to me, but then again I live under a rock... Again, my point is we're all projecting, both positively and negatively. All we know for certain is: filming has begun! Yippee!