491 replies to this topic

[Jack Spang]

Yes, it's a shame the media has to disclose part of the plot of the film. That annoys me. The level of emotional involvement with the character of Vesper depends on how well and the extent to which her character is developed. Infact if they don't develop her character to any great extent, then the suicide will be almost laughable. The audience will be saying, "well, we didn't even see or know much about her anyway. Don't know what the point in all that was."

[Blofeld's Cat]

What I'm not too keen on is how much they're grounding the film. CNN.com breaking a story about a British assassin?

It reminds me of that great line by M in Tomorrow Never Dies: "Unlike the Americans we prefer NOT to get our bad news from CNN."

Not saying it's an intentional nod though.

[Publius]

What I'm not too keen on is how much they're grounding the film. CNN.com breaking a story about a British assassin?

It reminds me of that great line by M in Tomorrow Never Dies: "Unlike the Americans we prefer NOT to get our bad news from CNN."

Not saying it's an intentional nod though.

Heh. You mean GoldenEye.

And maybe this is just the writers' way of explaining why Bond is the most well-known secret agent in the world during all his other adventures. It is an origin story, after all...

[Blofeld's Cat]

What I'm not too keen on is how much they're grounding the film. CNN.com breaking a story about a British assassin?

It reminds me of that great line by M in Tomorrow Never Dies: "Unlike the Americans we prefer NOT to get our bad news from CNN."

Not saying it's an intentional nod though.

Heh. You mean GoldenEye.

Yes I did. Cheers.

[booyeah_]

Assuming this is all true, I guess I have to be a bad guy:

What I liked: Uganda as a setting(really beautiful and exotic place), action in Miami sounds intriguing from the way the guy praises it; the LeChiffre angle is much better than I was expecting(instead of funding suicide bombers--->arms) and his past, etc.


What I disliked: Reboot;Bond fighting M/being a rebel for no reason(enough with the rogue elements in plots ); Bond being being ID'ed by the whole world, WTF?; main title seems cheesy with the stamping

[K1Bond007]

What I disliked: Reboot;Bond fighting M/being a rebel for no reason(enough with the rogue elements in plots ); Bond being being ID'ed by the whole world, WTF?; main title seems cheesy with the stamping

Few things here. 1) "Rebel for no reason." Not sure how you can come to that conclusion - that it's for no reason, anyway. The review here is hacked and lacking details. He goes from presumably having a lead to breaking into M's house in the review. Theres gotta be a reason here. That'd be a pretty major oversight for "no reason." 2) Bond isn't ID'd by the whole world according to the review - a "blurry" image of him killing an embassy employee. Only identification here is that the employee is essentially executed presumably by a British agent (thus the uproar: "Our Secret Murder Squad"). Bond specifically isn't ID'd. I'm not a know-it-all on killing people, but nevertheless I believe the rule of thumb is not to be seen at all regardless; thus M's anger. The anger may go back to my number 1 here - perhaps he was disavowed or something. Then later he's needed when M learns Bond is the best at cards / sharking etc. Maybe. More details needed for motive. 3) about the main title, perhaps, however, I have faith in Daniel Kleinman. He's made great titles for all 4 Brosnan films, IMHO even when I didn't care for the music (e.g. Die Another Day). I'm sure he has a lot of say on this part.

[Harmsway]

I was thinking to myself today about the script review and how cocky and arrogant Bond is during the draft. I was just wondering how much more that could enhance Vesper's effect on him. Here's this cocky secret agent, and then he finds himself falling for a beautiful girl who's really the first woman he ever loved.

As Fleming writes:
"But he was honest enough to admit that he had never yet been made to suffer by cards or by women. One day, and he accepted the fact, he would be brought to his knees by love or by luck. When that happened he knew that he too would be branded with the deadly question-mark he recognized so often in others, the promise to pay before you have lost: the acceptance of fallibility."

[Niwram]

I asked EL Mayimbe what kind of gadgets there were, and he answered with to words: No gadgets.
In the same message I asked if the script said what kind of gun Bond will use (not that I care), but he didn't answer to that.

[Roebuck]

I asked EL Mayimbe what kind of gadgets there were, and he answered with to words: No gadgets.

Interesting that he doesn't consider the subdermal tracking device to be a gadget. Makes me wonder if there are any other spy toys he's discounted.

[DanMan]

I like how Haggis has multiple unrelated characters and subplots in ACT I that all weave into eachother once we get to the casino. Sounds like he's taking the same approach as Crash.

[Jack Spang]

It was Purvis and Wade who wrote the story. Haggis just polished up the dialogue didn't he?

[K1Bond007]

It was Purvis and Wade who wrote the story. Haggis just polished up the dialogue didn't he?

Uh well.. Fleming wrote the story. The adaptation was by Purvis and Wade with Haggis doing polish work on the dialogue (supposedly). The thing to note here is that Haggis (of all the screenwriters) is a "name." Thus he's going to get a lot more attention from the media for it. This happens all the time. Philip Kaufman for instance. He practically wrote Raiders of the Lost Ark (most of the ideas, save for the character Indiana), but Lucas tends to get all the credit in the media.

[Gobi-1]

Actually Lawrence Kasdan wrote the final screenplay for Raiders of the Lost Ark although Lucas and Kaufman worked on the story (and probably some rough drafts) together.

Legendary screenwriter Leigh Brackett has a screenplay credit for The Empire Strikes Back despite the fact her script was completely re-written by Kasden. She died before the film was released so Lucas gave her a credit to honor her memory.

I imagine the credit for Casino Royale will be "Screenplay by Robert Wade & Neal Purvis and Paul Haggis" or vice versa.

[K1Bond007]

Oh I guess I wasn't aware of Kasdan. The story idea of having Indy go after the Ark of the Covenant was Kaufman though. That I know. I think the point is still valid though. Two relative unknowns vs George Lucas and Lucas tends to get most if not all of the credit in the media...

[Harmsway]

It was Purvis and Wade who wrote the story. Haggis just polished up the dialogue didn't he?

Initially that was all he called to do, but then reports came out that he was redrafting action scenes and other things. He's been working on the script for months and months now and I have a feeling Haggis' influence is pretty huge.

[Jack Spang]

That's certainly encouraging news. What we need is some great, realistic dialogue and atleast the same amount of character movement as OHMSS to do this book any justice at all. Damn I hope Eon hasn't ordered it to all be removed and replaced with action again as they so often do in the last hour. Or I hope they don't get the editors to cut it all out in post and make it into a fast paced, tightly edited action flick yet again!

Another of my fears is why so many big name actresses were reluctant to take the role of Vesper? Have they made her into another shallow piece of eye candy? If the cinematic character is faithful to the character in the book you'd think most actresses would want to play the part. Unless of course these big name players mentioned in the press hadn't actually been offered the role at all and it was just rumours. Campbell did say he wanted relatively unknown European actresses didn't he? Or was it just an issue of money? Did Eon refuse to pay them enough? Dear god, I hope it's the latter. In any case, I'm pleased they are going for unknowns as it gives the film more realism.

Edited by Jack Spang, 15 February 2006 - 08:47 AM.

[killkenny kid]

I guess I could use Mr. Wolfe's great line from Pulp Fiction. You know the one about jumping the gun. But, I'll wait. I need more than this.

[Qwerty]

yesyesyesyesyes

[morganhavoc]

Is the page count correct? 112 pages is short for a feature and really short for a Bond film. One page of script equal 1 minute on screen on average (Doesn't matter if it is dialogue or action scenes).

[Harmsway]

Is the page count correct? 112 pages is short for a feature and really short for a Bond film. One page of script equal 1 minute on screen on average (Doesn't matter if it is dialogue or action scenes).

I collect screenplays, and the page count can end up quite different than the length of the film. Screenplay length depends on the amount of dialogue, depends on the amount of action, depends how everything is written, etc.

[DLibrasnow]

In any case, I'm pleased they are going for unknowns as it gives the film more realism.

Well Eva Green (who has apparently been cast as Vesper) is hardly an unknown. She was amazing in the movie THE DREAMERS.

[spynovelfan]

In any case, I'm pleased they are going for unknowns as it gives the film more realism.

Well Eva Green (who has apparently been cast as Vesper) is hardly an unknown. She was amazing in the movie THE DREAMERS.

Why would an amazing performance matter? Okay, she's not a complete unknown, like Andress or Bianchi. But she's under most people's radars. She's been in three films to date. Most people will not know her name.

[Jack Spang]

If the screenlay is only 112 pages and Haggis has used quite alot of space describing action sequences, then this may mean there isn't much dialogue e.g. character movement. Bit of a worry.

Yes it sounds like Eva Green has been cast as Vesper. Great news. She has the right look and is very beautiful. Well worth the wait. I'm so glad they are going for unknowns. Certainly helps the realism.

Man I hope this film doesn't have to much action like the last four outings. This worries me. If we don't have atleast the same amount of character movement as OHMSS then they really won't have done the novel any justice at all.

Edited by Jack Spang, 17 February 2006 - 01:02 AM.

[Kristian]

Greetings all.... It's that time again, when we gather for the countdown to another Bond flick, and Kristian has returned....

I am encouraged thus far by what I know from this flick. Tickled pink that Daniel Craig was chosen. I also was pleasantly surprised by Eva Green's casting. THAT came out of left field. I was afraid it would be Thandie NEwton (who is quite lovely and talented, but so five minutes ago), or Rachael Stirling (who I do not find too striking).

Eva reminds me actually of Sophie Marceau...

So is there another BOnd girl, or is Vesper pretty much the only major female character?

[Emma]

[quote name='Harmsway' post='515810' date='10 February 2006 - 10:37']
[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='515804' date='10 February 2006 - 05:32']
This really sounds interesting and just the way to do justice to the novel while updating it. Also it seems to be the most realistic Bond film since TLD, but tougher than the first Dalton outing - and more fun than LTK. Craig seems to be absolutely the right guy for this. The only question will be: Will the audience go along for such a down-to-earth spy thriller? They went with "Bourne" - and that

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

So is there another BOnd girl, or is Vesper pretty much the only major female character?

Yes, there is. Italian actress Catarina Murino will be the love intrest in the first act. She will play Solonge, the wife of villain Alex Demitrios.

[Roebuck]

But it's the general public who will determine whether or not this film is a success. I really am interested in how they will react when they see that Casino Royal is more of 'character' driven story. Will they think "What the hell happened to all the action?"

Personally I would rather see Bond remain a viable and successful success in theatres not just in terms of DVD sales.

From a box-office point of view Eon are probably on the right track.
Like I said in an earlier post, the public mood right now appears to be for reality based spy drama rather than the over the top fantasy style of DAD. As far as I could tell from the two script reviews all the important elements are still in place, it's only the tone that's slightly changed .

[Emma]

But it's the general public who will determine whether or not this film is a success. I really am interested in how they will react when they see that Casino Royal is more of 'character' driven story. Will they think "What the hell happened to all the action?"

Personally I would rather see Bond remain a viable and successful success in theatres not just in terms of DVD sales.

From a box-office point of view Eon are probably on the right track.
Like I said in an earlier post, the public mood right now appears to be for reality based spy drama rather than the over the top fantasy style of DAD. As far as I could tell from the two script reviews all the important elements are still in place, it's only the tone that's slightly changed .

Well that remains to be seen. I looked at the final box office talley for some of the highest grossing films of 2005, and many of them had strong fantasy elements. And despite the bashing of DAD that goes on, on this site there is no denying that the film made a lot of money. Please remember people go to films for escapism and entertainment. While I have no problems in bringing the film back down to earth. There's still a lot in this film missing that will apeal to a general audience---especially women. I am very anxious to see the box office receipts for this film.

[Roebuck]

Well that remains to be seen. I looked at the final box office talley for some of the highest grossing films of 2005, and many of them had strong fantasy elements.

That's true, but pretty much all of the top ten were aimed at family/ younger audiences. The Bond franchise gathers most of its box-office from the twenty-five plus demographic, much like the Bourne films did. Would we ever expect a Bond movie to out-perform Star Wars?

[Loomis]

Please remember people go to films for escapism and entertainment.

Which CASINO ROYALE will still provide in spades, even with a grittier edge, a back-to-basics approach, and so on. I mean, it's hardly DOWNFALL. Look at the Bournes - they did superbly, and they didn't even have the massive Bond brand and "legacy" behind them. Craig may or may not end up as another iconic 007 in the Connery or Moore league, but I don't see any reason why CR wouldn't be a megahit.