251 replies to this topic

[avl]

History has shown that the fortunes of Bond films can fluctuate, depending on who is Bond. Craig has to sell this film on screen and during promotional activity not only to the general public, but to an antagonistic media as well. That's a lot of pressure which could have been lessened with a name or two among the supporting cast. This might have resulted in a more unbalanced film artistically, but makes more sense commercially. Actors with the level of fame of a Christopher Walken or a Halle Berry could have provided a safety net.

As things stand, the untraditional nature of this film is a risky strategy. There is no star wattage in the cast. Craig, Green, and Wright are bravely cast, but are quirky and unconventional. There is no Q or Moneypenny. Judi Dench is back, but her appearance is contradictory in terms of the reboot. Maybe the gamble will pay off, but as a natural worrier please indulge me while I fret a bit.

Don't worry. Your argument is both correct and incorrect. Correct that it all depends on Craig as Bond. Incorrect that "star names" would help. People will go and see this film because it is Bond, and a new Bond at that. We dont need star names to bring the audience in - if anything they would only overshadow Craig, who although a great actor, is not yet a star.

[Seannery]

Yes, Fleming was a racist and yes he did describe Leiter as white, but as a fan of Never Say Never Again I'm extremely happy with the casting of Leiter in this movie.

Slightly off topic here, but related. I'm just curious. If an author describes a character in a novel as being specifically white as opposed to another colour, would people think that it's being racist or exclusive?

And should an author give specific physical descriptions or should they just allow the reader (and film maker) to make their own interpretation?

No it wouldn't be racist. Of course often the race is described in novels and readers would be obliged to go along. A filmmaker adapting it to another medium would have more flexibility. They need to adapt a couple of hundred pages into a couple of hours and a lot goes. They may change some things and ideally(if it's worth it) still get the spirit of the novel. Changing the color of Felix I don't think at all changes the spirit of Casino Royale.

[Red Renard]

The cast may appeal to the more serious fan, but I fear the general public will need more convincing.

The general public won't care about such concerns. They aren't married to the idea that Leiter is white in the books(hell most of them won't remember who he is). MIKKELSEN doesn't look anything like Craig. I haven't seen Green in much, so I can't answer that point. And Craig will prove his detractors wrong (as he was always going to do)

[DLibrasnow]

No it wouldn't be racist. Of course often the race is described in novels and readers would be obliged to go along.

Quite right. Interestingly (and at the risk of taking this thread even more off-topic) when I first read ATLANTIS FOUND by Clive Cussler (a part of the long-running Dirk Pitt series) I pictured Al as being black. It was only later when reading one of the earlier Pitt novels that I found out (jarringly) that Al was white.

Similarly, Jack Schwartzman (sp?) said of their decision to cast Bernie Casey as Leiter in Never Say Never Again that the character may have been described as white in another book, but not in the one they had the cinematic rights to.

[Jim]

The cast may appeal to the more serious fan, but I fear the general public will need more convincing.

The general public won't care about such concerns. They aren't married to the idea that Leiter is white in the books(hell most of them won't remember who he is). MIKKELSEN doesn't look anything like Craig. I haven't seen Green in much, so I can't answer that point. And Craig will prove his detractors wrong (as he was always going to do)

Quite: I remain of the view (and I accept this theory may be utter rubbish and am happy to be persuaded otherwise) that:-

a ) the general public - whatever one of those is - has a hard enough time remembering who played Bond in many of the films, never mind who played anyone else;

b ) and although this b ) doesn't add much to a ), they really don't care.

The only evidence I have for this is that in the weekly pub quiz at me local, last week they had a round on the James Bond films. The mutterings of "completely impossible" in the general direction of the question "in which film is the baddie called Karl Stromberg?" was suggestive. There was almost a lynching (quite popular aound these parts) when "who directed Goldfinger?" came up (loads of people think it was Alfred Hitchcock, and the real answer was met with cries of "who?"). The only question everyone seemed to get right was "who is the new James Bond", albeit that the landlord - questionably - accepted "Craig Daniel" as an answer.

However, I accept the flaw in the experiment. There was once a stand-up fight when one chap insisted that Burma was, in fact, in South America. So the standard may not be that high.

[Simon]

.......... insisted that Burma was, in fact, in ...........

Myanmar??

[Jim]

.......... insisted that Burma was, in fact, in ...........

Myanmar??

My local is - in general attitude and prejudices - somewhere in 1957.

You can imagine how well a black man in a wheelchair went down when first appearing. I still have burns from the wicker man they put me in.

[Simon]

Well, thank god you're a quick study, and didn't correct them then!

[Jim]

The beer is worth the fear.

Wife thinks I'm mad, but they have sort of accepted me and it is fun to watch them. And no, I don't take part in the pub quiz. If the overeducated black cripple had got all those Bond questions right, I fully expect me to have been beaten up in the car park.

Fun place, rural Oxfordshire.

[YOLT]

Great news Less known and international actors and actress like the old days...

A black Felix is fine by me. At least Bond is white, for the moment

[Hawkeye]

.......... insisted that Burma was, in fact, in ...........

Myanmar??

My local is - in general attitude and prejudices - somewhere in 1957.

You can imagine how well a black man in a wheelchair went down when first appearing. I still have burns from the wicker man they put me in.

Kudos Jim, that was a good one.

On the casting - i'm absoloutely thrilled with the choice of actors/actresses. It's like a sheen of lunacy has been lifted. Now for appropriate punishments - the person responsible for casting Halle Berry: seat of honour in Jim's recently vacated Wicker Man.

Great to see Mathis in the film, hopefully he and Leiter will be series regulars for the Craig era.

I wanted Olivia Lee as Vesper but was happy to accept Rose Byrne. But Eva Green gets my blessing now.

Hawk

[Bill]

Tinfinger, I agree, it does appear as if they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Double-Oh-Agent, excellent on all points, except possibly Eva Green. She appears to be really hot in some of the pictures that I have seen on line so far.

Bond Bombshell, I share your apprehension.

And, double-O-Durg, why bother to call him Felix at all? Exactly. It appears that all of these changes which directly contradict all that we have seen before will result in a film that is not really a Bond film.

Bill

[Jim]

It appears that all of these changes which directly contradict all that we have seen before will result in a film that is not really a Bond film.

Bill

Yes, that's interesting - this may well be the case; I guess it depends on which side of the line one falls - that the "Bond film" as it stands is something worth preserving and perservering with or that it is something that does need changing.

Personally, and not to simply gainsay you Bill or throw your words back at you, given what we have been presented with lately as "Bond films", "a film that is not really a Bond film", isn't such a bad idea. But I accept that this is not a universal view.

[Leon]

AMAZING cast! Some people need to get over a black guy being Felix, he's a brilliant actor and his style will bring something really special to the role. Eva is a real beauty with great eyes and a very good actress. Vesper speaks fluent French in the book so, 10 thumbs up!

[DLibrasnow]

Interestingly (at least I think so) Eva Green was described by Bernardo Bertolucci as "so beautiful it's indecent."

I quite agree.

[Bond Bombshell]

Yes, Felix was black in NSNA, but this film was not made by Eon. I am surprised that Eon would nick an idea from their rivals, as opposed to being trend setters.

There's no reason to think they have. If you think they've gone for stunt casting and have cast Wright because of his skin colour (not because the part demanded it, but just for the soundbite), then feel free to say it.

Actually, I think the most likely scenario is that Wright impressed Craig on the set of The Visiting, Eon looked at him on Craig's recommendation and were impressed too. Its just a shame really that this has been done before, because it could be construed as copying a rival.

I prefer to believe that Wright won the part on merit, because the alternative is that Eon felt obliged to cast at least one black character for political reasons, and perhaps with the loss of Robinson in mind. I dislike this approach because it smacks of tokenism, and is in fact patronising to black actors - the inference being that black actors need a leg up because they are not capable of winning roles on their own. This is an idea that is entirely untrue, as black actors have proved themselves as award winners and box office draws.

I don't believe that any fictional role can "demand" a skin colour, or any physical attribute for that matter. Anything goes in the world of make believe, and film makers should be free to pursue their artistic vision. Its then up to the rest of us whether we want to buy into that vision or not.

[TerminalLon3some]

Hmmm, I am a big Leiter fan...and I have always loved the thin-wirey Texan that Fleming described. So this bit from EON casting a black Leiter was more then a bit shocking. I am not sure how I feel about it. I mean Jeffery Wright is definitely a great actor and I wouldn't mind seeing him in a Bond film at all. But I just can't help but feel that he should have been cast in a different role.

I REALLY wanted to see somebody similar to Jack Lord as Felix in this film, but I have a feeling Wright will grow on me as Felix.


EDIT - You know, I just thought of something. Hopefully EON decides to follow the Fleming books in the future movies and if they DO they would base the next film on Live and Let Die. In that case casting Wright would be fantastic because he would be able to give Bond a greater insight into what was going on in Harlem and such, with Mr. Big because he wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb like I always imagined Felix did in the novel.
:-)



Take 'er easy
-matt

Edited by TerminalLon3some, 17 February 2006 - 07:54 PM.

[Mamadou]

Never thought I'd see Wright in a Bond film. He's a tremendous actor- "Angels in America" was a lot to sit through, but Wright's Emmy and Golden Globe-winning performance therein (adapted from his Tony-winning performance in the Broadway production) still hangs on the memory.

I actually just checked my print copy of "Angels in America," in which Tony Kushner prints the opening night casts of Parts One and Two. And guess who played Joe Pitt in the London premiere of Part Two

[DLibrasnow]

[quote name='Mamadou' post='519660' date='17 February 2006 - 15:12']
And guess who played Joe Pitt in the London premiere of Part Two

[Mamadou]

I agree, Bill. This definitely is not the James Bond I grew up with. I do not think James Bond needed rebooting, reinvented, or anything close. All Bond needed was a good storyline and good people to carry it through. I think they threw the baby out with the bathwater here, and I think it's not the way they should have gone. I don't ultimately believe this version will be all that successful, as it goes too against the grain of what people are used to with Bond. I could be wrong, however, and if that happens, I'll be the first one on here to admit it.

I certainly understand your fears, but my read of the landscape is a pop culture that's starting to see 007 as irrelevant. And for that reason alone do I support the reboot idea. I don't want it be "Batman," "XXX" or "The Matrix," but I'm also not particularly worried that it will go in any of those directions. I don't think they would have attracted the cast they did if Bond didn't resemble his usual self. Because one thing that's remained relatively consistent in these last 44 years is that Bond has stayed remarkably the same, while other characters have been subject to more revisionist interpretations than "Hamlet." I hope the reboot only goes as far as establishing Bond's relevance to the 21st century, which is where information from EON and anyone outside Bond forums is seriously lacking.

[Bill]

Jim:

Good point. Let me clarify what I mean by "Bond film".

In terms of scope and scale, Dr. No is a world away from Die Another Day. Over the course of the series, each subsequent film became bigger in terms of spectacle and action then the preceeding one. I doubt that anyone in 1962 would have thought that someday Bond would be driving an invisible car 40 years later.

I also acknowledge that the tone of the films shift from time to time--it is hard to reconcile the James Bond of Octopussy going to the lengths that the James Bond of Licence To Kill did just six years later.

However, there is nothing in the films that states that that we are not watching the same character.

In short, for a film to be a James Bond film it must contain a character named James Bond, Commander, CMG, RNVR. While there need not be any direct references to past adventures, there should be nothing in them which contradicts them. (I know that it has happened once with Blofeld not recognizing him at first in OHMSS.)

Now I could go on, but that those are the only absolutely vital ingredients. He need not even be seen working for MI6, or take orders from M, get his gadgets from Q, or flirt with Miss Moneypenny. In other words, he can be seen to no longer be affiliated with MI6 as long as it is acknowledged that he did work for them in the past.

If the above characters appear in the film, they can be played by anyone. The sexes should remain the same and they should remain roughly the same age (although Moneypenny can be younger) in order for it to be believable that they are the same characters. If M is say a man in the film, it should be made clear that he is not the same M as his female predecessor.

Now, if any past characters appear, nothing should contradict what we have seen before. If they are meeting Bond and it is clear that a previous film introduced them, they should NOT be meeting for the first time. If anything happened to them which would impact on their appearance, that should be reflected--thus if Felix is in the film, he should have a fake leg at the least. As for his race, to build on what I said earlier, ultimately I suppose the leg is more important then him being white or black. However, I hate the whole idea of political correctness and it appears that this piece of CR casting smacks of it.

As for the character of Bond, he needs to be suave, sophisticated, good looking, and basically, tall, dark and handsome. Daniel Craig, as long as his hair is dark, does the minimum to fit into that mold. As for his backstory, he must be an orphan who lost his parents in a mountain climbing accident, and he must have been formally attached to the Royal Navy. He must hold the rank of Commander--and if not, if he is promoted or demoted, that should be acknowledged. Bond must be athletic, and master of many subjects, from fine wines to botany. He can be seen to be a ruthless killer, but not to the extent that he is hated by the audience. Also, Bond should not be receiving any item for what would be an initial appearance, ie the Aston Martin, the Walther PPK or even P99, or having a type of drink, the vodka martini, for example, if he has already done it. In other words, Bond should not be seen to be doing or encountering anything for the first time if he has done so already in the films.

Now that is basically it in terms of story and characters. Aside from this, the movie should have a gunbarrel sequence, pre-title sequennce, title song and somewhere in the film the James Bond theme should be heard.

That really is all. The film can have one explosion, or two hundred thousand. It can be full of fights or have Bond read the paper for two hours. It can go to may exotic locales or take place at a quarry in London.

Now mind you these are the minimum requirements for a Bond film. I know that they are now famous for the scenery and travelogue quality with every dime appearing on screen. However, these types of items are merely adding to the core of what a Bond film is.

All of the above applies if the Bond film is meant to take place subsequent to Die Another Day. However, a Bond film can take place at any time as long as there is nothing that contradicts what will come after or before the film.

Thus you can see that based on what we have read so far, Casino Royale can not be called a true James Bond film.

Bill

Mamadou:

Given the immense success of the four Brosnan films and the DVD sales and the fact that the films show up at least once a month on Spike or AMC now, I do not see how Bond could be seen to be irrelevant to popular culture today

Bill

[DLibrasnow]

In short, for a film to be a James Bond film it must contain a character named James Bond, Commander, CMG, RNVR. While there need not be any direct references to past adventures, there should be nothing in them which contradicts them. (I know that it has happened once with Blofeld not recognizing him at first in OHMSS.)

It's happened a lot more than once Bill....the example that jumps to mind is Bond telling Moneypenny that he studied Oriental languages in college at the beginning of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and then being unable to understand the Chinese characters in TOMORRPOW NEVER DIES.

[Red Renard]

In short, for a film to be a James Bond film it must contain a character named James Bond, Commander, CMG, RNVR. While there need not be any direct references to past adventures, there should be nothing in them which contradicts them. (I know that it has happened once with Blofeld not recognizing him at first in OHMSS.)

It's happened a lot more than once Bill....the example that jumps to mind is Bond telling Moneypenny that he studied Oriental languages in college at the beginning of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and then being unable to understand the Chinese characters in TOMORRPOW NEVER DIES.

Perhaps he studied oriental languages in college, but that doesn't mean he knows every single oriental language going. He might not know Mandarin, for example (or whatever the keyboard is in, but might be able to read other Chinese languages (they have a few I think), Japanese, Korean, Thai etc...

Actually I agree with your point!

[The Dove]

Or how about Bond telling Henderson in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE that he's never been to Japan before, and yet in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, Bond says to Tania that "Once I was with M in Tokyo, I had an interesting experience"!

[Roebuck]

On the casting - i'm absoloutely thrilled with the choice of actors/actresses. It's like a sheen of lunacy has been lifted. Now for appropriate punishments - the person responsible for casting Halle Berry: seat of honour in Jim's recently vacated Wicker Man.

Great to see Mathis in the film, hopefully he and Leiter will be series regulars for the Craig era.

I wanted Olivia Lee as Vesper but was happy to accept Rose Byrne. But Eva Green gets my blessing now.

I'm hard pressed to think of a Bond film that, on paper, had a better cast. Phenomenal.

[Bon-san]

In short, for a film to be a James Bond film it must contain a character named James Bond, Commander, CMG, RNVR. While there need not be any direct references to past adventures, there should be nothing in them which contradicts them. (I know that it has happened once with Blofeld not recognizing him at first in OHMSS.)

It's happened a lot more than once Bill....the example that jumps to mind is Bond telling Moneypenny that he studied Oriental languages in college at the beginning of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and then being unable to understand the Chinese characters in TOMORRPOW NEVER DIES.

Similarly, In YOLT Henderson says, "You've never been to Japan before have you?" To which Bond replies, "No." But in FRWL, in reply to a query from Tatiana, Bond says, "one time when M. and I were in Tokyo...."

[The Dove]

I just said that Bon-san

[DLibrasnow]

Or how about Bond telling Tanaka in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE that he's never been to Japan before, and yet in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, Bond says to Tania that "Once I was with M in Tokyo, I had an interesting experience"!

Similarly, In YOLT Henderson says, "You've never been to Japan before have you?" To which Bond replies, "No." But in FRWL, in reply to a query from Tatiana, Bond says, "one time when M. and I were in Tokyo...."

That's the other one that's commonly mentioned also. And the fact that Bond got a "First" in Oriental Languages Red Renard suggests that he was fluent in them.

I think we can deduce from these examples that the Bond movies have contradicted themselves a number of times.

[Mamadou]

Bill:

Do the repeated showings on TV actually attract new Bond fans? I don't have the answer to this, but whenever I'm at my health club and find that someone has them on, that someone certainly doesn't look like a new fan (i.e. older and appears to know all the familiar elements).

And I don't mean that the Brosnan era was seen as irrelevant (that was my fault--I didn't make it clear). But in the four-year lapse between DAD and CR, I see a culture that's largely moved away from Bond, especially in Hollywood's favorite target audience: teenage boys. I don't know if it's because another film or two has replaced him (only Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, the Matrix and Harry Potter have anything resembling the longevity, but those fans are a bit different from Bond fans), or because the audience has just strayed away from movies entirely. There's TV--but what on TV is so attractive these days? There are also bigger fish to fry politically, at least here in the States, so older adults might want to keep their heads in the game rather than escape to an exotic locale with 007 (however attractive that might be).

Just my $0.02

[WC]

I don't believe that any fictional role can "demand" a skin colour, or any physical attribute for that matter. Anything goes in the world of make believe, and film makers should be free to pursue their artistic vision. Its then up to the rest of us whether we want to buy into that vision or not.

I don't think I can agree with you on that one. What if the author of a book has written a novel about, for example, a fictional Emperor of China who is exiled and forced to travel to America in the 17th century? And let's say he must take up menial work as a servant in a teacup factory and is mistreated by those intolerant of his skin colour and ends up completely in despair. And let's make the title of the book is "Broken China" (an allusion to his nationality, his broken state and to his new-found work).

Could you really say that this fictional role couldn't demand a skin colour? That you could, for example, make this character white or black without completely doing away with the premise and title of the book, and the other themes related to China in it?

I'm not saying that a black Felix is bad here, but I can't agree with your statement that film makers are allowed to have any sort of artistic vision with regard to the book. Otherwise why bother adapting it?