Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Full 'Casino Royale' Script Review!


491 replies to this topic

Poll: If it's true...

...what do you think?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#121 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 05:57 PM


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.





And frankly Loomis it's more a test of the general fan who likes the more breezy hyped up Bond than hardcores such as on this site who many may like it darker and sombre. A BIG RISK.

#122 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 05:59 PM

And frankly Loomis it's more a test of the general fan who likes the more breezy hyped up Bond than hardcores such as on this site who many may like it darker and sombre. A BIG RISK.

I think this is a bigger risk than they've ever taken with the series - and I love it.

#123 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:00 PM


And frankly Loomis it's more a test of the general fan who likes the more breezy hyped up Bond than hardcores such as on this site who many may like it darker and sombre. A BIG RISK.

I think this is a bigger risk than they've ever taken with the series - and I love it.



You're a maniac Harmsway, but I respect that! :tup:

#124 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:01 PM

And frankly Loomis it's more a test of the general fan who likes the more breezy hyped up Bond than hardcores such as on this site who many may like it darker and sombre. A BIG RISK.


Yes.

#125 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:02 PM


And frankly Loomis it's more a test of the general fan who likes the more breezy hyped up Bond than hardcores such as on this site who many may like it darker and sombre. A BIG RISK.


Yes.





Do you mean, "In a word...yes." :tup:

#126 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:02 PM



And frankly Loomis it's more a test of the general fan who likes the more breezy hyped up Bond than hardcores such as on this site who many may like it darker and sombre. A BIG RISK.

I think this is a bigger risk than they've ever taken with the series - and I love it.



You're a maniac Harmsway, but I respect that! :tup:

Hey, for a man who was about ready to walk away from the franchise and was bored to tears, it suddenly got incredibly exciting. I'm on board. Bond needed some shaking up, and EON just shook it up more than I ever thought possible.

Since when did EON get this gutsy?!

#127 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:03 PM

Well, for the moment, I'm not reading the Latino Review report (or this thread--I'm averting my eyes). Part of the fun for me is piecing together clues throughout the year. I actually had the scripts to AVTAK and TLD long before the movies came out and I never opened them (well, I did allow myself to read the PTS).

Not sure how I can navigate on CBn now with so many knowing so much. Hmmm, tricky. A great scoop for our friends at Latino Review, but I sort of wish this didn't happen.

#128 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:03 PM


And frankly Loomis it's more a test of the general fan who likes the more breezy hyped up Bond than hardcores such as on this site who many may like it darker and sombre. A BIG RISK.

I think this is a bigger risk than they've ever taken with the series - and I love it.



[mra]I

#129 Shrublands

Shrublands

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4012 posts
  • Location:Conveniently Near the NATO Base

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:03 PM




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! :tup:


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.


I am not certain what you mean, but Haggis is enough of a professional to know that the page-a-minute rule is universally excepted and an important tool in film production. If his action descriptions are written in paragraphs, I would suspect he has organized the use of his prose to account for this.

#130 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:05 PM





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! :tup:


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.


I am not certain what you mean, but Haggis is enough of a professional to know that the page-a-minute rule is universally excepted and an important tool in film production. If his action descriptions are written in paragraphs, I would suspect he has organized the use of his prose to account for this.

Not necessarily true. When screenwriters get famous, they start breaking with format and doing whatever they want honestly (ala Tarantino). It seems Haggis has done the same and writes his stage direction in large paragraphs instead of breaking it up into little points as is standard. That means we get a lot more information on one page than on the standard screenplay.

#131 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:05 PM


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.


I don't know. Seems pretty on par with Fleming (although as the reviewer states: contemporized). Fleming was the one that went into detail about Bond killing a man in his sleep with a knife to earn his stripes (in addition to killing another for betraying the service - which is apparently in the script). So I don't know about "more brutal." This is only different than previous Bond films which tend to be light.

I think bottomline here is that if you don't like Casino Royale, you're most likely going to see Bond as he always is in Bond 22 regardless (unless of course you don't like Daniel Craig, in which case you're screwed for another 2 films at least). The origin story is pretty much over at that time and it'll just be Bond back to same ol same ol. I kind of like that they're trying something different here and it's not just a cookie-cutter Bond film. 40+ years, 20+ films etc I think they can afford to take one risk.

#132 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:05 PM

Well, for the moment, I'm not reading the Latino Review report (or this thread--I'm averting my eyes). Part of the fun for me is piecing together clues throughout the year. I actually had the scripts to AVTAK and TLD long before the movies came out and I never opened them (well, I did allow myself to read the PTS).

Not sure how I can navigate on CBn now with so many knowing so much. Hmmm, tricky. A great scoop for our friends at Latino Review, but I sort of wish this didn't happen.



[mra]Doubt you

#133 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:09 PM

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='516061' date='10 February 2006 - 19:03']
[quote name='Harmsway' post='516050' date='10 February 2006 - 11:59']
[quote name='Seannery' post='516048' date='10 February 2006 - 12:57']
And frankly Loomis it's more a test of the general fan who likes the more breezy hyped up Bond than hardcores such as on this site who many may like it darker and sombre. A BIG RISK.
[/quote]
I think this is a bigger risk than they've ever taken with the series - and I love it.
[/quote]


[mra]I

#134 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:10 PM

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='516061' date='10 February 2006 - 18:03']
[quote name='Harmsway' post='516050' date='10 February 2006 - 11:59']
[quote name='Seannery' post='516048' date='10 February 2006 - 12:57']
And frankly Loomis it's more a test of the general fan who likes the more breezy hyped up Bond than hardcores such as on this site who many may like it darker and sombre. A BIG RISK.
[/quote]
I think this is a bigger risk than they've ever taken with the series - and I love it.
[/quote]


[mra]I

#135 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:13 PM

[quote name='Loomis' post='516069' date='10 February 2006 - 19:10']
[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='516061' date='10 February 2006 - 18:03']
[quote name='Harmsway' post='516050' date='10 February 2006 - 11:59']
[quote name='Seannery' post='516048' date='10 February 2006 - 12:57']
And frankly Loomis it's more a test of the general fan who likes the more breezy hyped up Bond than hardcores such as on this site who many may like it darker and sombre. A BIG RISK.
[/quote]
I think this is a bigger risk than they've ever taken with the series - and I love it.
[/quote]


[mra]I

#136 Auric64

Auric64

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 362 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:13 PM

[quote name='Harmsway' date='10 February 2006 - 17:37' post='516022']
[quote name='Auric64' post='515977' date='10 February 2006 - 11:25']
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.[/quote]
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.




Harmsway,

You can`t just ignore 40 years of 20 Bond films. Even they, over the years have harked back to other Bond movies. Most notably in OHMSS, with Bond picking up Honey`s belt, Grant`s wrist watch and the TB breather. Then there`s the nod to Tracy`s death, in Spy, Eyes and LTK. Bond`s 40 year heritage cannot and shouldn`t be ignored.

Bond is also not a product of the 60`s. Connery made Bond his own in the 60`s as Moore did in the 70`s. Both played Bond completely different and were successful in their own right. I cannot see how you think that Moore/Dalton/Brosnan played Bond the same as when Connery did in the 60`s. Times changed as did the actors/stories.

This is simply Wilson wanting everything his own way, and wanting his Batman Begins story, albeit 20 years after he first mooted the idea for Daylights.

I will give him the kudos of wanting to try and break the formula, but this is too radical. I think CR filmed like this has a good chance of alienating its audience, first with Craig, and with the script of how Bond is being re-invented.

Audiences don`t want a deep thinking emotional Bond. We the fans do, but they don`t. They want to pay their money at the entrance and be entertained for two hours.

That was what hurt Dalton`s films. Making them too PC and worried about AIDS and such like. Bond films are primarily fantasy, where Bond doesn`t have to worry about picking up a STD, etc. etc. As soon as that was thrown out with GoldenEye, the public knew they had their Bond back.

Regardless of what people feel about the Brosnan movies, they made money and allowed another film to be made every couple of years or so. Audiences went back to them because they knew what they were getting and they liked it.

If CR tanks, you can bet your bottom dollar that the next film will be straight back to the type that DAD offered. Outrageous stunts, gadgets and villians and, with or without a return for Brosnan, that will be the type of Bond film that audiences will flock back to see.

Best
Andy
Auric64

#137 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:13 PM

...while part of me wishes they were making Craig the same Bond as the other five and the film just another regular entry in the eternal series (albeit with stylistic modifications for a new era, a la THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS).


[mra]That

#138 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:15 PM

Harmsway,

You can`t just ignore 40 years of 20 Bond films. Even they, over the years have harked back to other Bond movies. Most notably in OHMSS, with Bond picking up Honey`s belt, Grant`s wrist watch and the TB breather. Then there`s the nod to Tracy`s death, in Spy, Eyes and LTK. Bond`s 40 year heritage cannot and shouldn`t be ignored.

Out of 20 Bond films, the references in continuity were minor, insignificant, and infrequent. Most of the Bond films are entirely independent of eachother. Losing continuity is no loss at all, IMO.

#139 Bryan Harris

Bryan Harris

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 103 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:15 PM

This review makes the script sound promising. It seems to be credible; the reviewer complains at some point about the way Haggis describes the action scenes in long paragraphs, which seems like an odd detail to fabricate.

However, as welcome as the general atmosphere of the script seems to be, I think there are some unwelcome elements. Firstly, the plot point about Le Chiffre's supposed murder by Saddam Hussein and his 9/11-related insider trading, based as it is on the urban legend about airline stock manipulation prior to 9/11, strike me as being in dubious taste.

Details like this may be somewhat useful in adding to a quasi-realistic milieu for the story, but they could be seen as exploitative and distasteful in the American market, where feelings about the tragedy and the war are still fairly raw.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that assessment, because these details strikes me not as convincing but merely topical in a shallow way, like LTK's useless plot thread about Sanchez buying Stinger missiles from the Nicaraguan contras. Ooh, Le Chiffre was handling Saddam's money and he knew about September 11th in advance! He's eeeeevil! I tend to think there are subtler ways to evoke a believable sense of the current terrorism-conscious atmosphere.

Also-and this may just be a consequence of reading the somewhat jumbled plot summary instead of the full script-but the dynamic between M and Bond seems largely nonsensical. In the course of the first act, Bond manages to unwittingly compromise Her Majesty's Government, chase leads entirely on his own with no consultation or oversight, and invade his boss' home. This is apparently an attempt to show Bond as headstrong and even a little reckless, but on the basis of the summary, M comes across as weak and irresponsible for giving Bond so much leeway, especially as she's not supposed to have any sense of his capabilities and personal boundaries (at least in OHMSS, DAD, or even LTK, a case can be made that M has a well-founded expectation that Bond won't screw up too badly when he "goes off the reservation", and that any actions he takes will be deniable). Apparently, she even feels she needs to kit him out with an electronic tracer like a parolee; can't she just suspend him (or, as would seem more likely, drum him out of SIS for his mistakes)?

These points aside, it's highly probable that the script (if this review even reflects the most current draft) will change somewhat before the film is finished, so my comments could be premature. On the whole, the script sounds lively and fairly clever.

#140 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:16 PM

Audiences don`t want a deep thinking emotional Bond. We the fans do, but they don`t. They want to pay their money at the entrance and be entertained for two hours.


Gosh. Were it so easy to speak for millions we wouldn't need democracy, eh?

#141 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4932 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:16 PM


Harmsway,

You can`t just ignore 40 years of 20 Bond films. Even they, over the years have harked back to other Bond movies. Most notably in OHMSS, with Bond picking up Honey`s belt, Grant`s wrist watch and the TB breather. Then there`s the nod to Tracy`s death, in Spy, Eyes and LTK. Bond`s 40 year heritage cannot and shouldn`t be ignored.

Out of 20 Bond films, the references in continuity were minor, insignificant, and infrequent. Most of the Bond films are entirely independent of eachother. Losing continuity is no loss at all, IMO.


This is so true it kind of hurts. I understand wanting to keep Bond the way he is, but this statement is 100% true. No one can deny it no matter how much you try.

#142 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:19 PM


Harmsway,

You can`t just ignore 40 years of 20 Bond films. Even they, over the years have harked back to other Bond movies. Most notably in OHMSS, with Bond picking up Honey`s belt, Grant`s wrist watch and the TB breather. Then there`s the nod to Tracy`s death, in Spy, Eyes and LTK. Bond`s 40 year heritage cannot and shouldn`t be ignored.

Out of 20 Bond films, the references in continuity were minor, insignificant, and infrequent. Most of the Bond films are entirely independent of eachother. Losing continuity is no loss at all, IMO.



The continuity is in the character of James Bond--who now looks more different and presumably if this leak is true--acts different.

#143 Shrublands

Shrublands

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4012 posts
  • Location:Conveniently Near the NATO Base

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:22 PM






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! :tup:


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.


I am not certain what you mean, but Haggis is enough of a professional to know that the page-a-minute rule is universally excepted and an important tool in film production. If his action descriptions are written in paragraphs, I would suspect he has organized the use of his prose to account for this.

Not necessarily true. When screenwriters get famous, they start breaking with format and doing whatever they want honestly (ala Tarantino). It seems Haggis has done the same and writes his stage direction in large paragraphs instead of breaking it up into little points as is standard. That means we get a lot more information on one page than on the standard screenplay.


Well, I take your point to some extent and I expect he may have been more carefree and avant gard when he was writing Crash, so possibly he may well have paid no heed to it.

However, when working for an organization like Eon, where everything will be broken down and assigned to different units, costed in terms of 10s of millions of dollars, story boarded to the finest detail and so on, he would have to pay attention to industry rules of thumb.

Also the printing of the script for distribution to production personnel would take this all into account, in terms of its mise en page; font size and layout would be altered if need be.

Edited by Shrublands, 10 February 2006 - 06:27 PM.


#144 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:25 PM



Harmsway,

You can`t just ignore 40 years of 20 Bond films. Even they, over the years have harked back to other Bond movies. Most notably in OHMSS, with Bond picking up Honey`s belt, Grant`s wrist watch and the TB breather. Then there`s the nod to Tracy`s death, in Spy, Eyes and LTK. Bond`s 40 year heritage cannot and shouldn`t be ignored.

Out of 20 Bond films, the references in continuity were minor, insignificant, and infrequent. Most of the Bond films are entirely independent of eachother. Losing continuity is no loss at all, IMO.



The continuity is in the character of James Bond--who now looks more different and presumably if this leak is true--acts different.

Yes, but I also want to suggest that because this is Bond becoming Bond - it's not the finished product. He's supposed to get there by the end of the film. It's even possible that this first act he's really out there, and then in the second act he's even closer to the suave, secret agent we know and love.

Besides, I see INCREDIBLY Bondian actions here. Beating a man at cards, taking his car, and then his wife? Whoa. That's classic Bond right there.

Well, I take your point to some extent and I expect he may have been more carefree and avant gard when he was writing Crash, so possibly he may well have paid no heed to it.

However, when working for an organization like Eon, where everything will be broken down and assigned to different units, coasted in terms of 10s of millions of dollars, story boarded to the finest detail and so on, he would have to pay attention to industry rules of thumb.

Also the printing of the script for distribution to production personnel would take this all into account, in terms of its mise en page; font size and layout would be altered if need be.

But the script review expresses that I'm right. It states it right there in the review that Haggis writes his action in paragraphs - and they've actually seen the script.

It's also not that unusual for screenplays to sometimes go out of format. Even with the big franchise film MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 did the paragraph blocking, just like Haggis apparently has, and that chopped the script's length down to an extremely short amount.

The one-minute/one-page rule is very loose.

#145 kevrichardson

kevrichardson

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2156 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:28 PM

If this is true . Then Bravo for EON and Craig .

#146 Hawkeye

Hawkeye

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 183 posts
  • Location:Up on the Downside

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:29 PM

I'm psyched for the film after reading this. This is looking like it will exceed my expectations. As regards complexity, personally i like it when it's a bit more complex; TLD, FRWL, TWINE are my top 3 fave entries in the cannon and they err toward the more complex angle. As for AICN, as much publicity as that site gets, it is for the most part a waste of bandwith even when it comes to comic book related news and reviews.

Hawk

#147 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:29 PM




Harmsway,

You can`t just ignore 40 years of 20 Bond films. Even they, over the years have harked back to other Bond movies. Most notably in OHMSS, with Bond picking up Honey`s belt, Grant`s wrist watch and the TB breather. Then there`s the nod to Tracy`s death, in Spy, Eyes and LTK. Bond`s 40 year heritage cannot and shouldn`t be ignored.

Out of 20 Bond films, the references in continuity were minor, insignificant, and infrequent. Most of the Bond films are entirely independent of eachother. Losing continuity is no loss at all, IMO.



The continuity is in the character of James Bond--who now looks more different and presumably if this leak is true--acts different.

Yes, but I also want to suggest that because this is Bond becoming Bond - it's not the finished product. He's supposed to get there by the end of the film. It's even possible that this first act he's really out there, and then in the second act he's even closer to the suave, secret agent we know and love.

Besides, I see INCREDIBLY Bondian actions here. Beating a man at cards, taking his car, and then his wife? Whoa. That's classic Bond right there.




I see your point but firstly I dislike this whole need to explain and psychoanalyze Bond--I find it dreary. And the very process of explaining him IMO changes the character as it has been and changes the essential part of Bond that has had an enduring appeal. I'll grant you this--maybe if they tread very lightly on this it might turn out okay BUT I see it very easily being heavyhanded and fundamentally NOT Bondian.

#148 fatima

fatima

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 193 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:30 PM

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!


But isn't James Bond a Royal Navy Officer, that is who he is (as Fleming was), you know Brittania College Dartmouth, the Senior Service and all that, not some SAS pongo.

Is this James Bond or Andy McNab?

How far can they screw with the actual character of James Bond and it still be James Bond? not a completely different character that just happens to be called James Bond (trading off the brand name?)

But this script review does sound very encouraging. It sounds as though they are actually trying to make a proper thriller rather than a series of action sequences loosely held together by a daft plot. I just hope they can control their natural instincts to descend into the silly comedy moments that ruined LTK and TWINE. And that Campbell can give it some of the tension and atmosphere of Edge of Darkness rather than the comedy romp style of Zorro or the OTT melodrama of Beyond Borders.

It should be very interesting film, but could be RIP Commander James Bond RNVR :tup:

#149 Auric64

Auric64

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 362 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:31 PM


Harmsway,

You can`t just ignore 40 years of 20 Bond films. Even they, over the years have harked back to other Bond movies. Most notably in OHMSS, with Bond picking up Honey`s belt, Grant`s wrist watch and the TB breather. Then there`s the nod to Tracy`s death, in Spy, Eyes and LTK. Bond`s 40 year heritage cannot and shouldn`t be ignored.

Out of 20 Bond films, the references in continuity were minor, insignificant, and infrequent. Most of the Bond films are entirely independent of eachother. Losing continuity is no loss at all, IMO.


OK, but how is Leiter`s entrance in CR going to be handled? Is he going to walk in with a limp, (after what happened to him in LTK?) or will he have no limp, with no reference to LTK?

If they do the former, then CR can`t be a reboot with Bond on his first mission. If they do the latter, then that is a major plot point from a previous film they are simply throwing out and saying, "Well, don`t worry about LTK. What happened in it and what happened to the characters doesn`t matter anymore. This is the new Bond."

Sorry, but as I`ve said before, there is too much of Bond`s history in the films to just forget about any of it just like that.

Best
Andy
Auric64

#150 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:32 PM

I see your point but firstly I dislike this whole need to explain and psychoanalyze Bond--I find it dreary.

Well that comes into conflict with the Fleming Bond, which many of us no and love. Bond got quite a bit of psychoanalysis in the Fleming novels, especially in the more defining ones like CASINO ROYALE and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

Besides, it doesn't seem to me like they're going overboard. I mean, we'll see, but I don't get that vibe yet.