491 replies to this topic

[Auric64]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='515958' date='10 February 2006 - 16:01']
Man, this IS geekish, Auric 64. If they re-invent Bond coming from SAS instead of Navy - does this really ruin the film for you? Get a life!

And Moriarty and Ain

[TaoMike]

Well, I'm not sure what I was expecting... but this isn't it. And I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

But I really, really, really hope it's a good thing.

And, just an aside, mention is made of a tracking chip put into Bond's hand. Could this possibly tie into the rumour of the "medical implant" in Bond's arm which he uses to transmit his medical condition to MI6?

[Qwerty]

Could it be that we're in in for at least some 150 minutes...?

That's what I'm wondering - just how long is this movie going to be?

But whatever the case, this sounds outstanding!

[Rolex]

Do we know from previous Bond scripts , how much of the storyline ends up on the screen ? Also , members who have posted positively so far would you be p**ed if what you have read does not end up on the screen ? I for one would like to see some changes to what i have read , i dont like the M scenes with Bond, i would prefer no scene at all between them in this movie.

[Bondesque]

Seems very very smart and has some depth. It was just an article but it appears that CR may bring us out of the kiddie-Bond DAD era and enter an adult post 9/11 world. If it is as good as the gems in the article I'm going to love it!

[The Dove]

WOW!!! This sounds terrific!! I'm now 100% sold and convinced that Casino Royale will be one of the best Bond films we've had in a long, long time!! The part of 007 sounds like Daniel Craig fits it perfectly!! And I'm glad to see that there will definitely be a pre-titles sequence (so we can end some of that speculation that the gunbarrel will not be in this movie). Bravo!!!

[daman3755]

[quote name='Auric64' date='10 February 2006 - 11:25' post='515977']
[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='515958' date='10 February 2006 - 16:01']
We all have freedom of speech, that is why we live in a democracy. I have as much right to criticise the script of CR just as much as you have the right to praise it.
[/quote]

See, some of us Americans would say that we don't live in a real democracy anymore but...to support what you said, I'll let that go under the constant surveillance.

I don't know, I was excited about that review at first. Something about how much it was different. Now that I think about it, I'm kind of iffy on parts of it. Guess I'm a traditionalist in some aspects. I like my Bond movies the way they've been since I started watching them. (Of course my first Bond movie was a Brozzer...but I was raised a Connery fan.) I'll be the first in line at the local cinema for this one in November. It'd just be nice to round out the rest of that damn cast already. Are we still forgetting about Felix?!

And SecretAgentFan, of course Harry is all worked up he can't get invited to film previews anymore while rivals LatinoReview and JoBlo had the inside track on everything. If Harry was able to get his fat outta his office chair, mmmaaayyybbbeee that'd be a start for him. Too bad that will never happen.

[Skudor]

I have to admit, the SAS bit bothers me too, when I think about it. Bond is a naval commander, it seems silly to move away from that. Of course, there might be plenty of ways that the two are compatible.

[Seannery]

My initial reaction is not one of elation or dismay. I'm still neutral--I have to see how this plays on the screen. Presentation is key. Just strictly with the written word it doesn't jump off the page and grip me--again on screen it may or may not.

That said I still don't dig the Bond Begins elements--unnecessary and overdone in cinema recently. I don't like Dench with a new 00 Bond--too jarring a discontinuity with the rest of the series.






MY BIGGEST PROBLEM is starting Bond as an OVERLY ARROGANT(and authority defying) prick and having the LAME SCENE IMO with him busting M's place and illegally using her property. This rings false(not true to Fleming either) that this military man would do that--seems straining to shoehorn Bond into modern sensibilities(making him seem like every other anti-hero Johnny Bad Boy you see today). I assume this is to create an arc where he learns humility with his punishment and with Vesper. A lesson in quotation marks and PSYCHOLOGICAL GROWTH--i'll pass on that(this stuff is done to death in films). Forced and unnecessary.






I'll still hope the presentation of this works but I don't really like the way they are representing Bond--at least how this leak represents it.

I'll cross my fingers and hopes it ends up a strong Bond.

[marktmurphy]

Well, I'm not sure what I was expecting... but this isn't it. And I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

But I really, really, really hope it's a good thing.

And, just an aside, mention is made of a tracking chip put into Bond's hand. Could this possibly tie into the rumour of the "medical implant" in Bond's arm which he uses to transmit his medical condition to MI6?

It's a bit too similar not to, really.

[Jim]

Poll added.

[Dunph]

If this all turns out to be true, then potentially we have a very good film on our hands. Exciting times. Rather this unofficial slywinking news then official gumph, I say.

Good call on the poll.

[FriendsFriend]

I read a Casino Royale script that was dated 2004 that killed this piece of [censored]e. I have a theory that it is the Tarantino version never made, not sure who wrote it since there was no name on it. It was also a reboot but it was set in the Cold War. It starts with Bond after the war, he is gambling in Kingston, Jamaica when he is called to London to talk about a new job. He does the job and becomes 007. He meets the other agents. Really good scene here as they talk about the 00 section and Bond says something to the effect that he doesn't like it but someone has to do it. The whole thing fit in perfectly into the James Bond series. It had none of the crazy ideas like implants and breaking into M's house like this one has. I have never read the book by Fleming so I can't compare it to that. It was tense. It has less action than this script review and a lot of character exploration. The last half is like Marnie the Hitchcock movie with Connery in it. Not saying anymore except that the script that has been revealed by that site is scruffy. It has a Bond who sounds too childish to have been a commander or even a street cop.

[Rolex]

The pre credit seems a bit dull although relavent to understanding how Bond gets his double status . Killing a guy a in rest room at a cricket match just does not seem to be the right tempo. Imagine Bond killing the guy then making a quip , or flushing the toilet then fading to the title sequence , it seem more in line with a Harry Palmer than a Bond movie.

[whitesox]

Could this "implant story" on the hand be a re-invention/new interpretation/reference to the scar that SMERSH do on Bond's hand in Fleming's C.R.?

[Harmsway]

Getting things like Bond once being in the SAS, when no mention before of this happening in 20 previous Bond films is simply bad, lazy scriptwriting. Period. And I don`t care if Paul Haggis has won an Oscar, there is no substitute for getting things right, especially if you are trying to delve into Bond`s character, as well as making a Bond film better than the previous one.

This is a reboot. They're updating Bond so he's no longer a product of the 60s and rather a product of contemporary society. So they have actually chosen to rewrite Bond's background.

This is NOT the same Bond that Connery was - this is a new breed of James Bond. A reinvention, a "remastering" as Campbell put it. This is the Bond of the modern age, not the Bond of the Cold War. And I think that sounds awesome.

The pre credit seems a bit dull although relavent to understanding how Bond gets his double status . Killing a guy a in rest room at a cricket match just does not seem to be the right tempo. Imagine Bond killing the guy then making a quip , or flushing the toilet then fading to the title sequence , it seem more in line with a Harry Palmer than a Bond movie.

Eh, it sounds to me like terrific Bond stuff. Remember that's not all there is to it - there are TWO Bond killings. Bond pre-title sequences have gotten out-of-hand, anyhow. They were cooler when they were little, small sequences like in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or GOLDFINGER. They shouldn't have to be ridiculous action blowouts.

Could this "implant story" on the hand be a re-invention/new interpretation/reference to the scar that SMERSH do on Bond's hand in Fleming's C.R.?

I don't think so. I think it serves it's own purpose.

[marktmurphy]

Could this "implant story" on the hand be a re-invention/new interpretation/reference to the scar that SMERSH do on Bond's hand in Fleming's C.R.?

Fascinating thought. I suppose, if the baddies have to kidnap Bond as they do, it would make sense to cut a tracker out. Leaving an 's' shaped scar, perhaps?

[Gabe Vieira]

Could it be that we're in in for at least some 150 minutes...?

That's what I'm wondering - just how long is this movie going to be?

I'm betting that it will be longer than the previous ones. Bond films are usually right over or under 2 hours. Casino Royale might be around the 2 hours, 30 minute mark.

[DLibrasnow]

I couldn't resist checking this out....personally though I think it sounds like a P.O.S.

It's hard to determine just reading about the script, but nothing I read sounded appealing - though I do like the reboot idea.

[Harmsway]

I couldn't resist checking this out....personally though I think it sounds like a P.O.S.

It's hard to determine just reading about the script, but nothing I read sounded appealing - though I do like the reboot idea.

Why the dislike? What didn't you like? I loved pretty much everything I read, so I'm wondering why you didn't feel the same way.

[double-O-Durg]

I'm sure that they can think of other ways to create Bond for the modern age insatead of ditching evrything we no and love about Bond. The script sounded solid the only niggles i had with it were the need for this to be a reboot - i still dont know why they are doing it?? Why have Dench's M in Bonds first mission???? I don't give me that Codename crap, i want Bond not some imitation.

PS You can be a Naval Commander and join in the SAS - due to the SAS bein a top secret unit, you cant publicise it. The reason Bond wears his naval uniform is for cover. In TND, and SWLM he isnt a naval commander anymore but he still wears it

[Skudor]

I couldn't resist checking this out....personally though I think it sounds like a P.O.S.

It's hard to determine just reading about the script, but nothing I read sounded appealing - though I do like the reboot idea.

Interesting angle ... like the reboot, hate the story.

[Seannery]

I couldn't resist checking this out....personally though I think it sounds like a P.O.S.

It's hard to determine just reading about the script, but nothing I read sounded appealing - though I do like the reboot idea.

Dlib making Bond an arrogant anti-authoritarian bad , breaking into M's place would be a point that would back up your statement IMO. Some of it can be good but that stance towards Bond seems troubling.

[Harmsway]

I'm sure that they can think of other ways to create Bond for the modern age insatead of ditching evrything we no and love about Bond.

They're hardly ditching everything we known and love about Bond.

[Shrublands]

Could it be that we're in in for at least some 150 minutes...?

That's what I'm wondering - just how long is this movie going to be?

But whatever the case, this sounds outstanding!

The stranded rule in the industry is one page one minute.

So 112mins, short by Bond film standards!

[FriendsFriend]

I'm sure that they can think of other ways to create Bond for the modern age insatead of ditching evrything we no and love about Bond.

They're hardly ditching everything we known and love about Bond.

What does it sound like they kept apart from his name?

I see nothing.

[Harmsway]

Could it be that we're in in for at least some 150 minutes...?

That's what I'm wondering - just how long is this movie going to be?

But whatever the case, this sounds outstanding!

The stranded rule in the industry is one page one minute.

So 112mins, short by Bond film standards!

But Haggis apparently "paragraphs" his direction, which shortens a screenplay substantially.

[Loomis]

They're hardly ditching everything we known and love about Bond.

Well, to be fair, they're ditching an awful lot, and also (apparently) making Bond more unlikeable, more of a loose cannon and more brutal than he's ever been. When you add to that the fact that Craig is so different to the five previous Bonds on a visual level, this seems more like spynovelfan's idea of a Double-O franchise starring new agents than a Bond film.

Frankly, it looks as though they've deliberately conceived CASINO ROYALE to be the ultimate test of fan loyalty.

[K1Bond007]

Sounds really good to me. I've never been all that crazy about the reboot idea, but .. I mean if they do it right and with justice.. kind of like Batman Begins then I'll definitely go along for the ride.

The review was worth reading alone for this line: "Bond has a thing for married women because it keeps things simple." - Brilliant. I like this reviewer.

[Harmsway]

They're hardly ditching everything we known and love about Bond.

Well, to be fair, they're ditching an awful lot, and also (apparently) making Bond more unlikeable, more of a loose cannon and more brutal than he's ever been. When you add to that the fact that Craig is so different to the five previous Bonds on a visual level, this seems more like spynovelfan's idea of a Double-O franchise starring new agents than a Bond film.

Frankly, it looks as though they've deliberately conceived CASINO ROYALE to be the ultimate test of fan loyalty.

True, but the concept (according to Campbell) is that he's really arrogant during CASINO ROYALE, but by the end, he's been taught a lesson of sorts. So that in the next Craig film we see him in, he's going to be toned down a bit. This is just initial, "rookie" Bond. Not a permanent characterization. For once they're actually giving Bond a character arc.