491 replies to this topic

[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.

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?

You'd keep the same Bond but have him have his character explored with a 1000 different gradiations in plot, dialogue, humor, production, issues, acting, locations, etc--all the elements of a Bond movie can be twisted in a ton of ways. You just need smart script writers. You don't need to reboot--definitely not in my opinion.

[Loomis]

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.

And remind us why you think CR will be a disaster, D. "Disaster" - that's a strong word. To me, CR looks as though it has its finger firmly on the pulse of what's currently popular (Bourne, Bauer, BATMAN BEGINS), although of course the same could have been said of LICENCE TO KILL (LETHAL WEAPON, DIE HARD, erm, "Miami Vice").

[Seannery]

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.

Still definitely not a reboot--things are tweaked and expanded on but not fundamently altered.

[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.

Still definitely not a reboot--things are tweaked and expanded on but not fundamently altered.

Okay, but what exactly is being (to our knowledge) "fundamentally altered" in CASINO ROYALE? Bond doesn't smoke. Big deal. Still the same old Jimbo, as far as I can tell.

(And surely M:I-3 is fundamentally altering things, insofar as the last one didn't have a script and the hero was just a boring cardboard cutout, and those things are - hopefully - not true this time round.)

[Seannery]

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.

Still definitely not a reboot--things are tweaked and expanded on but not fundamently altered.

Okay, but what exactly is being (to our knowledge) "fundamentally altered" in CASINO ROYALE? Bond doesn't smoke. Big deal. Still the same old Jimbo, as far as I can tell.

It's a new world and timeline--which can still work if they DON'T change the character of Bond. That's the question--some who have seen the script say they have and some that they haven't.

And no MI3 isn't fundamentally changing anything--Loomis you can't twist it into a reboot.

[stone cold]

This movie is looking better and better with every new piece of information.. it sounds very bold, smart, sophisticated, dangerous and classic.. like nothing we have seen for a long time. Of course this movie is modernising the franchise - the changes are very smart ones, and the decision to cast Daniel Craig and others shows they mean business in creating a modern, heavyweight and serious movie. More power to them if they liberally sprinkle this new lean mean Bond with wit, entertaining writing, scenes and villains.. It IS a Bond film after all and i like the way they are splicing these 2 sides of Bond together - challenging, engaging and entertaining - more so seemingly that the last few.. lightweight dinnerjacket Bond in some garish lightweight dangerless cartoon again? no thanks - thats not Bond to me. They are not ruining Bond, they are saving it. And CR doesnt sound like some dour arthouse movie or anything like that. Quite the opposite of a misjudgement - this new Bond film finally gives me faith in the people behind Bond. The scene with Bond walking with the knife toward 3 bad guys..that sounds as thrilling a moment as has ever been in Bond movie - it gives me a shiver of excitement, a sliver of the dangers of classic Bond films. Also Daniel Craig is the kind of actor you truly root for..i mean shouting at the screen support for this guy..once audiences see him as Bond, as an actor he fits this through-the-ringer type plot. Remember that early Bond books were all about a sadistic treatment by villains of Bond while we are indulged in this man's qualities.. This CR sounds perfect in this respect. Fun, classic action Bond and adult,deep origin Bond in one movie?!!.. CR makes me think this is possible, DC makes me think this is possible - as an actor he is the perfect physical, sleak presence but also a deeply engaging interior actor, and the looks, voice to completely nail everthing about Bond.. IMO the dude is [censored]ing perfect and most young people feel the same except airhead dip[censored]s who think Paul Walker should be Bond. off. I hope DC can prove the doubters wrong..we will see.

Modernise Bond after the lame megabucks cartoons of the last 10 years - risk all to bring in a unpredictable, charismatic, dangerous heavyweight actor who young people click with to play Bond.. bring back the classic thrills and danger of old... EON and Sony are serious about this. I couldnt support them more. Up to this point i see no evidence they are not shaping up one of the best Bond movies ever, with the one of the best Bonds, the best actors, the best script. If they screw this up i will be gutted - cos if us Bond fans can't back them in this then that is sad to me - IMO they are resurrecting Bond after years of money-spinning cynical low-quality Bond films. I believe the scepticism of some people over CR is misplaced.. to me this new classic Bond sounds awesome and CR the perfect vehicle for his deliverence. if you want cartoon Bond back go and watch TWINE, but I want Bond back, i want a serious, classic action thriller Bond movie again..Casino Royale literally seems to be my dream Bond movie. I have been so suprised and delighted by what they have done with this movie thus far that now my life is a constant tension of worrying they will mess it up - this one chance. The smart and brave changes and the new direction have already resulted in a torrent of bad press, sniping, mumbled misgivings, speculation, portents of doom etc... I cant wait to see them prove them wrong - they have no choice but to do this now, really. but nothing can really dent my certainty that they want to make a great Bond film, and they will. Now, like the guy said..if they can only hold their nerve, we will have our Bond movie.

Edited by stone cold, 25 April 2006 - 04:16 PM.

[jake speed]

I spy trouble ahead for CR too.While the good people of CBN have admirably rallied around Craig we all know deep down he's not an obvious sell,especially in the American marketplace.CR will have to garner some astonishing reviews in order to have the box-office legs of recent Bonds.

Can someone explain the scene where Bond tries on a tux and admires himself? I'm guessing that there is a reason for this beyond the way it comes off in a script review.Bond got a small inheritance didn't he? Public school.Royal Navy.This isn't the first time he's really worn a tuxedo is it?

[JimmyBond]

Can someone explain the scene where Bond tries on a tux and admires himself? I'm guessing that there is a reason for this beyond the way it comes off in a script review.Bond got a small inheritance didn't he? Public school.Royal Navy.This isn't the first time he's really worn a tuxedo is it?

Harmsway did, earlier up in the thread, and here's the necessary quote:

- 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).

[Loomis]

And no MI3 isn't fundamentally changing anything--Loomis you can't twist it into a reboot.

I can and I did.

Say they did another POLICE ACADEMY, and the humour was genuinely sophisticated, the characterisation deep, and the script extremely clever - wouldn't it be fair to call it a "reboot"?

[Seannery]

And no MI3 isn't fundamentally changing anything--Loomis you can't twist it into a reboot.

I can and I did.

Say they did another POLICE ACADEMY, and the humour was genuinely sophisticated, the characterisation deep, and the script extremely clever - wouldn't it be fair to call it a "reboot"?

Loomis--the king of bad analogies. MI3 isn't nearly(not even close) changed as much as that make believe.

[Leon]

EDITED by me

Edited by Leon, 25 April 2006 - 06:00 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

I spy trouble ahead for CR too.While the good people of CBN have admirably rallied around Craig we all know deep down he's not an obvious sell,especially in the American marketplace.

Well, Pierce Brosnan is not an obvious sell either, especially in the American marketplace where a new face like Craig always gets lots of attention and can be marketed very well.

[Niwram]

http://commanderbond...es/3141-1.shtml

Martin Campbell said that "The last line of the book will be the last line of the film.

Aha! I told ya!



Anyway, I just have to post what I posted on MI6:
I LOVED the humor in this movie. It's definitely the best humor of the Bond films. Bond is a very funny guy(when he's not dead serious). There is some cheesy humor in the first act that reminds you of the DAD humor( But not quite like that), probably written by P&W, but most of the dialoge seems to be Haggis's work. It's just too different from P&W's work to be theirs.

So, humor and dialoge: 11/10

Yes, really!



(I won't be posting too much stuff about the script)

Edited by Niwram, 25 April 2006 - 06:45 PM.

[JimmyBond]

I'm starting to get kind of curious how everyone is getting there hands on the script.

[Publius]

This latest review hasn't much affected my guarded optimisim about Casino Royale. Some things I think I'll enjoy (dialogue, genuine action), others I'm not so sure (rebooting one thing too many, like the tux bit, which I hope Harmsway's assessment is correct about).

I've never been a fan of "peeling back the layers" or "resetting" the series, but it seems that they're at least finally doing the concept justice, judging by the near-consensus among those who have read the script.

Don't care for the gunbarrel "explanation." Hell, I might even rather they just did away with it. Has become just that much of a gimmick.

As for those prophesizing doom and gloom, not even close. CR has its work cut out for it if it wants to top Brosnan-era ticket sale numbers in an age of a general box office slump, but it also has to be an absolutely ATROCIOUS affair to not turn a tidy profit.

It would have to lose well over half, probably more, of its audience since Die Another Day, even in spite of a four-year gap, an exciting new (and talented!) actor in the role (who most people, frankly, are simply neutral and ignorant about, other than being unsure of his blonde-ness), a high probablity of more critical acclaim than any Bond movie since On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and the promise all that brings of new, interested fans to the theater.

That's a considerably large net loss you have to argue to make the case this film will come anywhere near "bombing."

So, weaknesses or not, CR looks to be coming along well enough that we needn't worry in the slightest about Bond 22 & beyond. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for the use of the novel's final line as that of the movie's, before cueing the Monty Norman theme and JAMES BOND WILL RETURN IN...

[Harmsway]

http://commanderbond...es/3141-1.shtml

Martin Campbell said that "The last line of the book will be the last line of the film.

Aha! I told ya!

Either they've changed the end of the script (entirely a possibility) or something else. If it is the end, I find that somewhat disappointing. There's some nice stuff afterwards. Furthermore, it's not easily apparent to see how the ending would be reworked to do that. It would require a big restructuring of the ending of the film to get that to work.

But Campbell did say it, unless he was just flat-out lying.

[Harmsway]

Some things I think I'll enjoy (dialogue, genuine action), others I'm not so sure (rebooting one thing too many, like the tux bit, which I hope Harmsway's assessment is correct about).

I'm tempted to just write out the tux scene here so everybody's fears will be put to rest. Merrick's reading clearly goes against what the script is doing.

[DanMan]

Do it!!!!!!!

[Mister Asterix]

Some things I think I'll enjoy (dialogue, genuine action), others I'm not so sure (rebooting one thing too many, like the tux bit, which I hope Harmsway's assessment is correct about).

I'm tempted to just write out the tux scene here so everybody's fears will be put to rest. Merrick's reading clearly goes against what the script is doing.

[mra]Don

[Leon]

Haha, I'm sure he was just saying that.

I agree with him, the tux thing is not corny, it's subtle and cool. He HAS worn a dinner jacket before and knows his way around tailors...also a la carte menus, wine lists etc.

He isn't described as working class either, his fancy education etc is mentioned.

[Harmsway]

Haha, I'm sure he was just saying that.

Yup. I wouldn't dream of it. I remember the legal hell CBN went through during DIE ANOTHER DAY.

It was just a statement that I was more or less confident that nobody would have a problem with it if they actually read the scene.

[kneelbeforezod]

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.

I don't think these two sides to Bond's character are mutually exclusive.

I'm sure he will be as suave and cool as ever, but we will see that behind this he does have feelings of angst etc, which in turn can make him a bit a bastard. A cool, suave, confident bastard though.

That to me is a lot more interesting than a one-dimensional, supercool superhero.

[kneelbeforezod]

also since so many of you you have read the script... can you maybe give the rest of us a cryptic hint as to where you got it? (Sony's lawyers have no problems with cryptic hints...)

[JimmyBond]

also since so many of you you have read the script... can you maybe give the rest of us a cryptic hint as to where you got it? (Sony's lawyers have no problems with cryptic hints...)

No joke, it seems like everyone and there mothers have the script!

[stromberg]

also since so many of you you have read the script... can you maybe give the rest of us a cryptic hint as to where you got it? (Sony's lawyers have no problems with cryptic hints...)

No joke, it seems like everyone and there mothers have the script!

Everyone and their mothers? Brings me to the idea that maybe Daniel Craig's mom might have sold them cheaper by the dozen.

But, seriously, I'm a bit concerned that so many people seem to have that script. Not a good job when it comes to security. And it is slowly starting to spoil the fun (for me, at least). Whith DAD, there was a lot of stuff that remained secret until we all saw the film No one had heard of the parasurfing scene before, for example (okay, that's not a good one). There was a lot of fun and speculation, and now? Just ask any highly spoileristic question, and you'll have an answer in less than 5 minutes. Okay, all these answers seem to be based on a script draft from December, and there may be a number of changes, but still...

And the above mentioned Sword of Damocles of a possible intervention by Sony/MGM's lawyers doesn't make all this any better.

[JimmyBond]

Maybe all those who have read the script should be more careful in revealing information. If I had the script I'd have no problem keeping it a secret from everyone, but that's just me.

As for DAD, I spoiled that film when I read the novelization, I really don't see how that's any different from people having the script...and who knows, maybe EON leaked the script to drum up interest for the film.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

and who knows, maybe EON leaked the script to drum up interest for the film.

That's what I was wondering. Look at other films likw MI-3 and Spiderman 3. They've had no problem keeping the script under wraps. If EON ddn't want the script out, I don't think it would be.

[Orion]

and who knows, maybe EON leaked the script to drum up interest for the film.

That's what I was wondering. Look at other films likw MI-3 and Spiderman 3. They've had no problem keeping the script under wraps. If EON ddn't want the script out, I don't think it would be.

If you care to look at the evidence, you'll find the script is fake. for example Bond supposedly admires himself in a tux despite the fact that Daniel Craig has said that Bond doesn't where a tux in this? certain script scenes show nudiity, which has also been dubunked by Daniel Craig and Martin Campbell who have Both said in Interviews, "of course theres no nudity, we've been told we're to get a 12 rating"
Don't believe this "leaked" script when it clearly contradicts what we know as fact

[stromberg]

If you care to look at the evidence, you'll find the script is fake. for example Bond supposedly admires himself in a tux despite the fact that Daniel Craig has said that Bond doesn't where a tux in this? certain script scenes show nudiity, which has also been dubunked by Daniel Craig and Martin Campbell who have Both said in Interviews, "of course theres no nudity, we've been told we're to get a 12 rating"
Don't believe this "leaked" script when it clearly contradicts what we know as fact

Weak evidence, I'd say. We knew long ago that Craig's tux comment was merely a joke. Also, script scenes can imply very much that there's nudity in a scene. But it doesn't tell how it will be executed in the finished film. If you read earlier Bond scrits, you'll surely find scenes that contain nudity, but still each of them got his 12 rating. How come...?

[Skudor]

As long as Mr Craig keeps his little friend out of sight and the females keep their nipples out of shot they'll get away with pretty much anything - if the story justifies it (e.g. important shower scene, torture etc.).

There's no way they'd ever take the risk of introducing a new Bond and the whole back to basics approach without even a hint of a tux. Especially with a significant Casino scene. Although I did take it seriously at the time, it's pretty clear now that it was a joke.