491 replies to this topic

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

I'm more and more convinced that Casino Royale is going to be a disaster at the box office.

Sad.

While I'm looking forward to the film I have to agree with you that I'm not too hopeful of good boxoffice either.

Regardless of the box office, this WILL be the Bond film many have been waiting decades for.

[Harmsway]

Regardless of the box office, this WILL be the Bond film many have been waiting decades for.

Agreed... EON has given the fans what they wanted with CASINO ROYALE. It's not as un-Bond as Merrick's review would have you believe (he even rather misconstrues the tuxedo scene - Bond *has* owned a tux previously, and the scene is actually a statement about Bond and Vesper's relationship rather than Bond's newfound class).

I think it's debatable whether Bond comes across as "working class" at all within CASINO ROYALE. He certainly has a taste for the finer things in life at the very start of the film (and has a very nice display of it that hearkens back to the days of old).

[Loomis]

I'm more and more convinced that Casino Royale is going to be a disaster at the box office.

But why? The script is apparently brilliant, and seems to be generating an awful lot of excitement online and within the movie biz, to a degree that is absolutely unprecedented for a Bond film. The film looks set to cause plenty of controversy and appeal to people who wouldn't normally be interested in Bond (just as BATMAN BEGINS - by being Different And Good™ - won the custom of yours truly, who'd once have laughed in your face had you told me I'd go to the cinema to watch a new Batman flick). There's a respected and fashionable actor making his debut as 007 (and a new Bond actor would in itself be enough to create a crowd-drawing curiosity factor).

So why are you convinced that CASINO ROYALE will be a disaster? I really don't get it. Judging by the grosses of DIE ANOTHER DAY, people are still interested in Bond. They're also interested in Bourne and Jack Bauer, and BATMAN BEGINS did well. Why would viewers turn their noses up at CR?

BUT (to quote Seannery ), I do have a question for those who've read the script, based on an alarming post on the most recent AICN Talkback for CR:

OMG! IS *THIS* THE ENDING?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Now, I know we're already in the spoiler forum, but if this description of the ending is for real, it's so unutterably spoilertastic that I'm taking the additional precaution of making it go like this:

Spoiler

Warning, here be spoilers!****Ending Spoilers**** Yes, he says, "The bitch is dead." He says it while he's lounging on a yacht, talking on a cell phone with M, and staring at a laptop displaying pictures of him and Vesper- laughing and being two crazy kids. He gets all defensive and asks M, "Why should I need more time? The job is done. The bitch is dead." M even gives a little speech after he says it, trying to console him by pointing out that Vesper struck a deal to keep Bond alive. ("Perhaps she even hoped they would let her live, leave you two in peace.") It's just exactly like what Fleming had in mind when he wrote the line. Oh yeah, and Vesper is no longer a double agent. Instead, she's just a girl that was blackmailed into helping the bad guys. It seems they kidnapped her boyfriend (some Algerian guy she met while "on vacation"). As M says, MI6 should have "caught it." No .

If this is true, then I'm well disappointed. Okay,

Spoiler

the famous final line

may be there, but it's in the wrong place and seems totally thrown away. And M's dialogue appears a cringe-inducing case of Spelling. Things. Out. Really. Clearly. To. Really. Thick. Audiences. Heck, why not go the whole hog and add:

BOND: It's so boring here, M. Nothing but spies and poker players. I wish I could find myself a real woman who's every inch my equal.

Cue: female skydiver crashlanding. This lady looks as though she could massacre armies of goons while delivering horrible quips with the best of 'em.

BOND: Who are you?

MONEYPENNY: I ask the questions round here. I need to use your phone. The name's Moneypenny.

I mean, seriously, I think I've just improved that ending. If it's genuine, of course. Well, is it?

[Niwram]

Well, Campbell did say that the final line in the book will be the final line in the film, so that's probably changed from the 13. December draft.

[Harmsway]

Well, Campbell did say that the final line in the book will be the final line in the film, so that's probably changed from the 13. December draft.

Possible, but I'm not so sure. Campbell merely said the line was *in* the film.

And yes, Loomis, that is the use of that. A somewhat anticlimactic use, to be sure, but let me explain:

Here, I'm going to explain all that, but some non-topic-related spoilers ahead:

Spoiler

The reason for all the exposition from M is that up 'till that point, the audience and Bond are led to believe that it was all a straight-up betrayal. That exposition, while a little crowded, really kind of needed to go there to clear it up.

But in the sequence before, Bond is deliciously cold. He thinks she's betrayed him, and so he spares her no mercy. You honestly think he's going to kill her. He's brutal and he's absolutely cold.

[Loomis]

And yes, Loomis, that is the use of the line.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!



Oh, well. When's the next Bourne out?

Still, cheers for the response, Harmsway.

[JimmyBond]

And yes, Loomis, that is the use of the line. A somewhat anticlimactic use, to be sure, but you she the absolute brutality of the sequence before when he puts together all of Vesper's betrayal...

I was afraid that the ending spoiler would actually spoil the final act of the film, alas I was lucky...this time

As for the way the line is used, well I'm disappointed too. But I think it might have been a bit presumptious of us to assume that the line would be used exactly the way it was in the book, at least he still says it to someone on a phone, wish it would have been a contact rather than M though.

But hey, this is better than having just a title of a Fleming novel eh

[Loomis]

And yes, Loomis, that is the use of the line. A somewhat anticlimactic use, to be sure, but you she the absolute brutality of the sequence before when he puts together all of Vesper's betrayal...

I was afraid that the ending spoiler would actually spoil the final act of the film, alas I was lucky...this time

As for the way the line is used, well I'm disappointed too. But I think it might have been a bit presumptious of us to assume that the line would be used exactly the way it was in the book, at least he still says it to someone on a phone, wish it would have been a contact rather than M though.

But hey, this is better than having just a title of a Fleming novel eh

Let me guess what the final final line of the film will be: "Oh, James!"

So, anyone prepared to spill a few details on the scene that happens after this one?

[Seannery]

I'm more and more convinced that Casino Royale is going to be a disaster at the box office.

Sad.

While I'm looking forward to the film I have to agree with you that I'm not too hopeful of good boxoffice either.

Regardless of the box office, this WILL be the Bond film many have been waiting decades for.

I don't know if CR will be a box office disaster but I do largely agree with Dlib and triviachamp. I don't see very encouraging box office and personally i'm not too encouraged by this AICN news. I disagree with ASO that this is the Bond "many" have been waiting for--it seems it's the Bond a segment(not all) of fanboys want not the general fan. A number of people who I RESPECT saw the script and really liked it--the script may be good but it seems to have messed too much with cinematic Bond and the franchise.

I agree with the AICN guy that this is quite a gamble--an unnecessary gamble that is potentially very dangerous. He's dead on in saying the mammoth changes to the character and series were completely unnecessary--that they aren't required to bring a franchise freshness or a shot of adreneline. I love him bringing how they changed MI3--"it shifts more to the characters and doesn't start from scratch. It gives emotional resonance to the action, not mere spectacle. These differences are simple yet profound--and it falls in nicely with what Bond could have done." Heavyhanded change and outsmarting the formula is what I always was very leery of.

To make cinematic Bond into someone audiences today can relate to INSTEAD of the classic Bond that one can aspire to to me is fundamentally wrongheaded and misreads cinematic Bond. It takes the worst excesses of the Dalton/Brosnan angsty Bond and runs full bore with it. Now we get a cinematic Bond who isn't the cool, confident, suave, fearless superspy BUT instead full of pain, insecure, a little crazed, sad, lonely and frustrated(and he looks different too)--and not just at the beginning of the movie but even more so in the end. I mean you can make a really good movie out of that kind of character but it's not Bond of the cinema. Just a bloke they gave the name Bond to. The Bond the cinema goers expect is not there. New Coke fell flat. Will new Bond?

And the point is they could have created a lot of changes without going to this almost panicky big time changing route. Freshness and new energy could have been done without throwing much of cinematic Bond away. Keep Bond aspirational not a relatable jangle of angst, pain and frustration.

Hell i'll still see the movie and stay open minded until I see it BUT i'm more pessimistic after reading this--it seems to go in the excessive directions I was concerned about from the beginning. Maybe when on screen it won't come off as extreme as the page but on the otherhand the full bore angsty Bond seems to be there. I'll wait and see. I might like this character they call Bond but who isn't BUT I won't love it if it turns away from the qualities that made Bond a hero and phenomena. And I fear the general audience may go the same way--the thrill(the fizz) may be gone. Too soon to say but to me it's not looking that great right now. Lets hope they prove me wrong.

[Harmsway]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Loomis, buddy, I'm sure you'll get a kick out of what happens previously (big spoilers for the end, people, and stuff you're probably better off not knowing):

Spoiler

Vesper's taken hostage at the end:

GETTLER: I'll kill her.

BOND: Allow me.

Vesper's eyes widen as James raises his weapon to fire.

Or later, when Bond finds her in an old disfunct cage elevator after chasing her and her captor.

Vesper lies on the floor, propped against the wall, her mouth bloodied. She sees the hatred in Bond's eyes.

VESPER: James...

James slams the accordion elevator door shut.

BOND: Don't go anywhere, dear. You're the big picture. Now where is your--?

Vesper's eyes widen. Bond twists in time to avoid the blade in his back.

[Loomis]

*Yawn* TWINE ripoff, blah blah blah.



Do keep these coming, though, Harmsway.

Now we get a cinematic Bond who isn't the cool, confident, suave, fearless superspy BUT instead full of pain, insecure, a little crazed, sad, lonely and frustrated(and he looks different too)--and not just at the beginning of the movie but even more so in the end. I mean you can make a really good movie out of that kind of character but it's not Bond of the cinema. Just a bloke they gave the name Bond to. The Bond the cinema goers expect is not there. New Coke fell flat. Will new Bond?

Judging by the success of Bauer and Bourne.... I very much doubt it. Listen, I'm a hardcore Bond fan (as all of us are), and I couldn't be more excited about the changes to the character. I doubt casual viewers will mind them, indeed I'm sure they'll also be excited. No, it ain't gonna be Roger Moore in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, but I can't see this being anything other than a commercial and critical winner.

[JimmyBond]

And the point is they could have created a lot of changes without going to this almost panicky big time changing route.

I don't understand this attitude regarding the producers and the reboot. Nowhere have I seen that they did this because they were afraid, or panicky etc. They decided to do this reboot because they felt the series was getting stale and wanted something new. After 20 films I don't blame them wanting to try something new.

[Seannery]

*Yawn* TWINE ripoff, blah blah blah.



Do keep these coming, though, Harmsway.

Now we get a cinematic Bond who isn't the cool, confident, suave, fearless superspy BUT instead full of pain, insecure, a little crazed, sad, lonely and frustrated(and he looks different too)--and not just at the beginning of the movie but even more so in the end. I mean you can make a really good movie out of that kind of character but it's not Bond of the cinema. Just a bloke they gave the name Bond to. The Bond the cinema goers expect is not there. New Coke fell flat. Will new Bond?

Judging by the success of Bauer and Bourne.... I very much doubt it. Listen, I'm a hardcore Bond fan (as all of us are), and I couldn't be more excited about the changes to the character. I doubt casual viewers will mind them, indeed I'm sure they'll also be excited. No, it ain't gonna be Roger Moore in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, but I can't see this being anything other than a commercial and critical winner.

Always the optimist Loomis. Bond isn't Bauer or Bourne. And my point is this is more a fanboy's dream change rather than the general fans. It is simply very risky to change the character of an established franchise so much. You really don't see the risk? As you point out Bond has stayed popular in wasn't in need of a big time reboot. I'm more confident in Abrams approach in MI3.

[Harmsway]

Always the optimist Loomis. Bond isn't Bauer or Bourne. And my point is this is more a fanboy's dream change rather than the general fans. It is simply very risky to change the character of an established franchise so much. You really don't see the risk? As you point out Bond has stayed popular in wasn't in need of a big time reboot. I'm more confident in Abrams approach in MI3.

Bond really isn't unrecognizable, IMO. He was Bond for me on the page. Sure, he's a little more contemporary in some respects, but he does strike me as exceedingly Flemingesque with some Connery-like elements and some really awesome physical prowess as far as fighting goes. But a Bourne/Bauer clone? Nah. I don't think so.

[Seannery]

And the point is they could have created a lot of changes without going to this almost panicky big time changing route.

I don't understand this attitude regarding the producers and the reboot. Nowhere have I seen that they did this because they were afraid, or panicky etc. They decided to do this reboot because they felt the series was getting stale and wanted something new. After 20 films I don't blame them wanting to try something new.

Firstly I said almost panicky. It was unnecessary as the writer of AICN says you can make subtle yet strong changes to create energy and freshness--no need to mess with changing the character of Bond. Instead just bring him out more.

[David Schofield]

I do wonder if all the doom and gloom merchants would have quite so bleak an outlook for CR if Daniel Craig wasn't so physically different to Brozza: if we had a Brozza-clone as Bond - say Owen, Jackman, McMahon - I'm sure many of the naysayers would have been placated simply because these guys to many would have been considered conventionally handsome and therefore typical - traditional- Bond, regardless of how radical a reboot.

Just a thought.

[Loomis]

It is simply very risky to change the character of an established franchise so much.

But the character has been changed several times already during the 40-year course of the franchise. The hero of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER has little in common with the hero of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (watch the two and tell me that Connery is playing the same character). The hero of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME bears virtually no resemblance to the hero of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. And so on.

Actually, Bond is incredibly changeable. That's one of the things that has ensured the longevity of the series.

You really don't see the risk?

Well, there's always a bit of risk in everything. The only risk I can see is that Craig may not become a super-successful, "iconic" Bond like Connery, Moore and Brosnan, but I have no doubt that CASINO ROYALE will be a smash (perhaps I'm not explaining this perfectly, but I'm sure you see the distinction I'm trying to make).

Look at it this way: hardcore fans (by and large) don't mind the apparent changes to Bond in CR, indeed are excited by them; surely the public at large won't care, unless it's more wedded to "traditional Bond" than we are (which seems bizarre but I guess is, in a way, possible; but I doubt that it could be true to the extent of damaging box office).

As you point out Bond has stayed popular in wasn't in need of a big time reboot. I'm more confident in Abrams approach in MI3.

So why was MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE in need of a reboot? Both films were massive, indeed I believe M:I-2 was the biggest-grossing movie of its year.

[Seannery]

Always the optimist Loomis. Bond isn't Bauer or Bourne. And my point is this is more a fanboy's dream change rather than the general fans. It is simply very risky to change the character of an established franchise so much. You really don't see the risk? As you point out Bond has stayed popular in wasn't in need of a big time reboot. I'm more confident in Abrams approach in MI3.

Bond really isn't unrecognizable, IMO. He was Bond for me on the page. Sure, he's a little more contemporary in some respects, but he does strike me as exceedingly Flemingesque with some Connery-like elements and some really awesome physical prowess as far as fighting goes. But a Bourne/Bauer clone? Nah. I don't think so.

Harmsway I hope you are correct but I have doubts--November will indeed tell. Are they trying to turn suave, cool, confident cinematic Bond into a more real, angsty, pained Bond--too much literary Bond(which of course at least fanboys love). A little in this direction is fine--I fear it will be too far and heavyhanded. Again we shall see.

[DLibrasnow]

I'm more and more convinced that Casino Royale is going to be a disaster at the box office.

Sad.

How do you think you'll percieve the movie though?

Isn't that irrelevent though.

What is important is how well it does at the box office to secure the chance of more 007 movies.

[Harmsway]

Harmsway I hope you are correct but I have doubts--November will indeed tell. Are they trying to turn suave, cool, confident cinematic Bond into a more real, angsty, pained Bond--too much literary Bond(which of course at least fanboys love). A little in this direction is fine--I fear it will be too far and heavyhanded. Again we shsll see.

For most of it, I think Bond is very suave, cool, and confident. He's got that in spades and it comes out time and time again in the script. And it's not a fake cool, either - it's a genuine cool. There are moments in this film that Harry Knowles will undoubtedly go geektastic over.

There's touches of angst, but Bond mostly internalizes things, so we don't really get big displays of it. He's mostly cold and aloof from such things, and even the "shower scene" as cited before works a lot differently in the script than you might think.

[Seannery]

It is simply very risky to change the character of an established franchise so much.

But the character has been changed several times already during the 40-year course of the franchise. The hero of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER has little in common with the hero of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (watch the two and tell me that Connery is playing the same character). The hero of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME bears virtually no resemblance to the hero of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. And so on.

Actually, Bond is incredibly changeable. That's one of the things that has ensured the longevity of the series.

You really don't see the risk?

Well, there's always a bit of risk in everything. The only risk I can see is that Craig may not become a super-successful, "iconic" Bond like Connery, Moore and Brosnan, but I have no doubt that CASINO ROYALE will be a smash (perhaps I'm not explaining this perfectly, but I'm sure you see the distinction I'm trying to make).

Look at it this way: hardcore fans (by and large) don't mind the apparent changes to Bond in CR, indeed are excited by them; surely the public at large won't care, unless it's more wedded to "traditional Bond" than we are (which seems bizarre but I guess is, in a way, possible; but I doubt that it could be true to the extent of damaging box office).

As you point out Bond has stayed popular in wasn't in need of a big time reboot. I'm more confident in Abrams approach in MI3.

So why was MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE in need of a reboot? Both films were massive, indeed I believe M:I-2 was the biggest-grossing movie of its year.

Firstly MI3 isn't a reboot--part of my point. Both series were popular--really no need for a reboot. Just a smart change.

The hardcore is geeked up with changes that get more of a real and Fleming Bond--very well could be the general fan likes the outlandish and heroic. Especially since that has always been a fundamental for Bond and his enduring appeal.

Bond(cinematic Bond) is flexible but his fundamental traits I would argue(ESPECIALLY WHEN SUCCESSFUL) are rather constant--cool, suave, heroic, witty, handsome, confident etc...

And David i'm not doom and gloom but not particularly optimistic--and of course I can be wrong. BUT I agree having all these changes plus an unconventional looking Bond makes it a double risk. THOUGH even with a more conventional looking Bond this is a risky move--one that IMO wasn't really necessary. I'm for smart changes--not unnecessary ones.

[Harmsway]

Bond(cinematic Bond) is flexible but his fundamental traits I would argue(ESPECIALLY WHEN SUCCESSFUL) are rather constant--cool, suave, heroic, witty, handsome, confident etc...

He's all of that and more in CASINO ROYALE.

And I know it's somewhat moot to keep harping on this, because I'm still just "another opinion" on this script, but it really does seem like he has all those traits in spades.

[David Schofield]

And David i'm not doom and gloom but not particularly optimistic--and of course I can be wrong. BUT I agree having all these changes plus an unconventional looking Bond makes it a double risk. THOUGH even with a more conventional looking Bond this is a risky move--one that IMO wasn't really necessary. I'm for smart changes--not unnecessary ones.

But isn't the clue to the change in MGW words to the effect that EON were fed-up with the Brozza-style Bond and while successful weren't motivated by it to make CR in that style.

If the very makers of the movie can't be bothered with tried and tested and need a more radical change than usual, then surely its fair enough.

They way up the risk. And any risk is worth more than the alternative, simply saying we're jaded out, out of ideas and so we'll stop making the films.

[Seannery]

Harmsway I hope you are correct but I have doubts--November will indeed tell. Are they trying to turn suave, cool, confident cinematic Bond into a more real, angsty, pained Bond--too much literary Bond(which of course at least fanboys love). A little in this direction is fine--I fear it will be too far and heavyhanded. Again we shsll see.

For most of it, I think Bond is very suave, cool, and confident. He's got that in spades and it comes out time and time again in the script. And it's not a fake cool, either - it's a genuine cool. There are moments in this film that Harry Knowles will undoubtedly go geektastic over.

There's touches of angst, but Bond mostly internalizes things, so we don't really get big displays of it. He's mostly cold and aloof from such things, and even the "shower scene" as cited before works a lot differently in the script than you might think.

Well Harmsway I will be glad to be proven wrong. I see a bunch of red flags but as I said firstly we have to see how the page(which has been interpreted in different ways already) translates on screen--it could turn out fine. I do question the direction and risk(and how well CR will do) but maybe it will click on screen. Pessimistic to a degree but once in the cinema it's all up to CR.

[JimmyBond]

I'm more and more convinced that Casino Royale is going to be a disaster at the box office.

Sad.

How do you think you'll percieve the movie though?

Isn't that irrelevent though.

No, because I'm interested what *you* think of how the film is shaping up, not how others may or may not.

[Seannery]

And David i'm not doom and gloom but not particularly optimistic--and of course I can be wrong. BUT I agree having all these changes plus an unconventional looking Bond makes it a double risk. THOUGH even with a more conventional looking Bond this is a risky move--one that IMO wasn't really necessary. I'm for smart changes--not unnecessary ones.

But isn't the clue to the change in MGW words to the effect that EON were fed-up with the Brozza-style Bond and while successful weren't motivated by it to make CR in that style.

If the very makers of the movie can't be bothered with tried and tested and need a more radical change than usual, then surely its fair enough.

They way up the risk. And any risk is worth more than the alternative, simply saying we're jaded out, out of ideas and so we'll stop making the films.

It all comes down to me if they changed too much of Bond or not--Harmsway thinks not while others think yes. You can have smart changes away from Brosnan or Moore or whoever without going unnecessarily too far. Eon may have outfoxed themselves. If not then i'll applaud them. Otherwise i'll bring the bricks. The proof is in the finished movie--no free passes for Eon.

[David Schofield]

And David i'm not doom and gloom but not particularly optimistic--and of course I can be wrong. BUT I agree having all these changes plus an unconventional looking Bond makes it a double risk. THOUGH even with a more conventional looking Bond this is a risky move--one that IMO wasn't really necessary. I'm for smart changes--not unnecessary ones.

But isn't the clue to the change in MGW words to the effect that EON were fed-up with the Brozza-style Bond and while successful weren't motivated by it to make CR in that style.

If the very makers of the movie can't be bothered with tried and tested and need a more radical change than usual, then surely its fair enough.

They way up the risk. And any risk is worth more than the alternative, simply saying we're jaded out, out of ideas and so we'll stop making the films.

It all comes down to me if they changed too much of Bond or not--Harmsway thinks not while others think yes. You can have smart changes from Brosnan or Moore or whoever without going unnecessarily too far. Eon may have outfoxed themselves. If not then i'll applaud them. Otherwise i'll bring the bricks. The proof is in the finished movie--no free passes for Eon.

Well, I admire their more radical approach here. I think all the "soft approaches" to change had pretty much been used up.

I'm with Harmsway and the rest. From what I've read, things are looking good. And I'm with MGW in that I really could not stand another Brozza, or Brozza substitute with McMahon or Jackman, for example.

It may seem heavy handed, but I think the Craig approach was the kill or cure for the franchise. Cure, I believe. Rather that than watch the patient in Brozza style gradually wither away.

[Seannery]

That's where we disagree David--no need for a radical change. In fact I see an almost infinite amount of smart, subtle, fresh changes that can be made.

[David Schofield]

That's where we disagree David--no need for a radical change. In fact I see an almost infinite amount of smart, subtle, fresh changes that can be made.

OK, such as? I happy to admit to a lack of imagination but how could a subtle change have worked? At the very least it wouldn't have got so much publicity, surely?

[Loomis]

Firstly MI3 isn't a reboot--part of my point. Both series were popular--really no need for a reboot. Just a smart change.

It may not be an origin story (although I gather that we'll learn quite a bit about Ethan Hunt's background), but it does seem sufficiently different to M:I-2 (briefly, it looks as though M:I-3 is quite a "smart" film, in sharp contrast to its lamebrain actionfest predecessor) as to be a reboot in all but name.