251 replies to this topic

[Bill]

Thanks to all who pointed out the YOLT/TND contradiction.

As soon as I posted, I remembered that. So there may be at least two contradictions.

However, Raymond Benson in his novelization of TND does explain that Bond had lied about his first in Oriental languages at Cambridge.

As for the M in Tokyo reference, can we really say that Bond was not telling Tatiana a story, especially given M's quick order for Moneypenny to leave the room. And Tokyo does not have to mean the Japanese city anyway.

However, I do acknowledge that there may be more contradictions throughout the series. I will also put forth that the continuity elements are far stronger then any contradictions to that continuity. Also, a quip about M does nowhere near the damage then 007 being introduced to Felix in 2006 when we all know that he was the best man at his wedding 16 years earlier!

And Mamadou, if the reruns of the films are not popular, why do the cable networks continue to show them? As for the state of popular culture, I see no reason why another Bond film featuring the elements of Bond as discussed above can not succeed in today's climate.

Bill

Edited by Bill, 17 February 2006 - 09:18 PM.

[DLibrasnow]

However, Raymond Benson in his novelization of TND does explain that Bond had lied about his first in Oriental languages at Cambridge.

I know, but it's a VERY weak attempt to explain away the contradiction and if you sit and think about it, it simply doesn't make sense.

Now, if we want to start listing the contradictions in the novels, we would be here all day. The most glaring example (to my mind) is that in THE MONEYPENNY DIARIES we are told that James Bond isn't even his real name.

[Harmsway]

I'm glad we're getting a film that is a film starring James Bond, as opposed to a film that is a "Bond film". But by all means, CASINO ROYALE does seem to have most of the typical "Bond film" hallmarks at any rate. It just reboots continuity.

And that's fine. In my mind, there have already been a bunch of different reboots of Bond - Fleming's Bond, Gardner's Bond, Benson's Bond, the Daily Mail comic strip Bond, the EON Bond (which has had its own previous reboots and only has a loose continuity - which is more self-reference than an actual timeline with character development), the NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN Bond, etc.

Bond is Bond, regardless of continuity. And frankly, I thought the EON formula was more than a little played-out. It's had a good run, but it needs some serious tinkering to give it some life again.

[MrMoneypenny]

Green was fabulous in THE DREAMERS, she had real presence in it, and (apart from the nudity) was the most memorable thing in the movie.

I couldn't agree with you more. I didn't like DREAMERS, thought it was pretendious and a waste of time. BUT the only good thing in that movie was the gorgeous and talented Eva Green. I love it when they cast actresses of her caliber as Bond-girls, because they are not being cast for their looks, but more for their acting abilities. To me, it all started with Michelle Yeoh. When she was announced as the next Bond-girl, I was like "But, she doesn't look like a Bond-girl!". Was I wrong about that one!

[DLibrasnow]

I'm glad we're getting a film that is a film starring James Bond, as opposed to a film that is a "Bond film". But by all means, CASINO ROYALE does seem to have most of the typical "Bond film" hallmarks at any rate. It just reboots continuity.

And that's fine. In my mind, there have already been a bunch of different reboots of Bond - Fleming's Bond, Gardner's Bond, Benson's Bond, the Daily Mail comic strip Bond, the EON Bond (which has had its own previous reboots and only has a loose continuity - which is more self-reference than an actual timeline with character development), the NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN Bond, etc.

Bond is Bond, regardless of continuity. And frankly, I thought the EON formula was more than a little played-out. It's had a good run, but it needs some serious tinkering to give it some life again.

Thats possibly the best post in this entire thread. Amen to that Harmsway.

[Loomis]

And Tokyo does not have to mean the Japanese city anyway.

Well, it could be a bar or restaurant or something, but, frankly, that's a bit of a stretch, no?

[spynovelfan]

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.

Don't these two paragraphs rather contradict each other? How would someone similar to Jack Lord resemble a wiry Texan?

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.
:-)

But Felix and Bond *do* stick out like sore theumbs in Harlem in the novel - no need to imagine it. It's expressly stated.

[Moore Not Less]

It looks like being a hard sell for Sony/Eon now that all the major roles have been cast. With no big names to attract a bigger audience they will have to sell Casino Royale based on the strength of the name James Bond and the strength of the script/storyline. And hopefully, enough of the potential audience will buy into that, along with Daniel Craig as 007 and the re-boot.

I had never heard of any of the cast (obviously apart from Judi Dench) before they were either rumoured to be in the running or were actually cast. Not good for box office perhaps, but could be very good in terms of acting/performance. I certainly hope so.

[Bond Bombshell]

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?

The point I was making was a general point about freedom of choice. In a free society film makers should be able to pursue their vision, even if this is obviously stupid to everyone else, as in the example you quote. Likewise, an audience should be free to reject a work of art without censure, which they would surely do in your example. I am sorry if you thought that my post was a vote for political correctness, because this was certainly not my intention.

In the case of a black Felix, what I'm saying is that Eon are entitled to change the character as they see fit. We, the audience, are entitled to say we approve or that we would prefer Felix to stay as originally conceived. There is far too much rot on message boards regarding justification for changing or not changing race. Fiction is not an exact science, and there are no absolute rights and wrongs. What it actually boils down to is personal preferences.

[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?

The point I was making was a general point about freedom of choice. In a free society film makers should be able to pursue their vision, even if this is obviously stupid to everyone else, as in the example you quote. Likewise, an audience should be free to reject a work of art without censure, which they would surely do in your example. I am sorry if you thought that my post was a vote for political correctness, because this was certainly not my intention.

In the case of a black Felix, what I'm saying is that Eon are entitled to change the character as they see fit. We, the audience, are entitled to say we approve or that we would prefer Felix to stay as originally conceived. There is far too much rot on message boards regarding justification for changing or not changing race. Fiction is not an exact science, and there are no absolute rights and wrongs. What it actually boils down to is personal preferences.

I wasn't accusing you of being politically correct. But I was disagreeing that "anything goes" in fiction. Fiction may not be exact, but there are some things in it which have to obey certain rules of every day life, depending on the genre. For example, in a spy genre which is meant to be realistic, Bond cannot suddenly take off and fly like Superman to escape danger or lift a bulldozer on the tip of his finger. In a different genre (eg sci-fi) this might work.

Similarly, when adapting a work of fiction, a film maker has to stay within certain limits. He cannot, for example, if he is making a film about the first female President, cast a man in the role just because of personal preferences.

Fiction still has to stay within bounds otherwise the work becomes nonsensical and so arbitary that it has little value. Who would want to, for example, see a version of CR where "anything goes", and James Bond is after Le Chiffre, but then in the next scene Le Chiffre turns into Vesper, and Bond realises that the martians forgot to water her (Bond's) plants so that's why M sent him after the toilet roll in the first place?

[Bond Bombshell]

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?

The point I was making was a general point about freedom of choice. In a free society film makers should be able to pursue their vision, even if this is obviously stupid to everyone else, as in the example you quote. Likewise, an audience should be free to reject a work of art without censure, which they would surely do in your example. I am sorry if you thought that my post was a vote for political correctness, because this was certainly not my intention.

In the case of a black Felix, what I'm saying is that Eon are entitled to change the character as they see fit. We, the audience, are entitled to say we approve or that we would prefer Felix to stay as originally conceived. There is far too much rot on message boards regarding justification for changing or not changing race. Fiction is not an exact science, and there are no absolute rights and wrongs. What it actually boils down to is personal preferences.

I wasn't accusing you of being politically correct. But I was disagreeing that "anything goes" in fiction. Fiction may not be exact, but there are some things in it which have to obey certain rules of every day life, depending on the genre. For example, in a spy genre which is meant to be realistic, Bond cannot suddenly take off and fly like Superman to escape danger or lift a bulldozer on the tip of his finger. In a different genre (eg sci-fi) this might work.

Similarly, when adapting a work of fiction, a film maker has to stay within certain limits. He cannot, for example, if he is making a film about the first female President, cast a man in the role just because of personal preferences.

Fiction still has to stay within bounds otherwise the work becomes nonsensical and so arbitary that it has little value. Who would want to, for example, see a version of CR where "anything goes", and James Bond is after Le Chiffre, but then in the next scene Le Chiffre turns into Vesper, and Bond realises that the martians forgot to water her (Bond's) plants so that's why M sent him after the toilet roll in the first place?

I hate to be pedantic, but you are still clearly missing the point I was making. The point was not that all casting decisions and plots automatically make sense, but that in a free society film makers are free to throw their money away, and make a totally senseless film if they so desire. Who's to tell them they can't? You? Me? The Government? You state that fiction has to stay within "bounds", but who sets the parameters? What may work for one person, may not work for somebody else. I'm sure that we can all come up with examples of films that some people like, and others find nonsensical. In theory, Eon are free to make the film you describe, but, as you say, we wouldn't want to see it, and we are free to reject it. (Actually, I thought your script for CR was better than the real one!)

Of course, we are talking about absurdities and extremes and things that would never happen in real life. You need to apply what I'm saying to a real life casting decision, such as a black Felix, in order to understand what I'm saying. Here is a case where some fans think "bounds" have been exceeded, others don't agree. Eon/Sony have creative control and have the right and the freedom to make Felix black if they so desire. We have the freedom to say we like the change or we don't like it. Fans are arguing about the justification for the change, but neither side has a winnable argument. This is because Felix is a fictional character and there are no absolute right and wrongs in his depiction. It boils down to personal preferences and the freedom to make a choice.

Edited by Bond Bombshell, 18 February 2006 - 04:19 PM.

[jimsmith]

A woman for M and a black dude for Felix. This is such a "politically correct" Bond as has been for the last number of flims. I think Ian Fleming must be turning in his grave. Obviously I think the casting for M and Felix suck. Just my 2 cents.

[Jim]

A woman for M and a black dude for Felix. This is such a "politically correct" Bond as has been for the last number of flims. I think Ian Fleming must be turning in his grave.

I wonder how he would turn if Felix Leiter were to be physically handicapped and played by a physically handicapped actor?

[dinovelvet]

A woman for M and a black dude for Felix. This is such a "politically correct" Bond as has been for the last number of flims. I think Ian Fleming must be turning in his grave. Obviously I think the casting for M and Felix suck. Just my 2 cents.

Eh? If the flim is politically correct, where's the token Asian actor? Or Latino? Seems to me that these EON people are being racist by ignoring these two ethnic groups for their flim. How dare they!

FYI, Fleming also initially disapproved of the casting of Sean Connery, until he saw him in action in the flim Dr.No. How about you take a cue from him and do the same?

[Harmsway]

A woman for M and a black dude for Felix. This is such a "politically correct" Bond as has been for the last number of flims. I think Ian Fleming must be turning in his grave. Obviously I think the casting for M and Felix suck. Just my 2 cents.

Ian Fleming is hardly God, and frankly, I think the Bond series in its entirety would make him turn over in his grave. I love it nonetheless.

[triviachamp]

I think the Bond series in its entirety would make him turn over in his grave.

Probably as soon as YOLT was released. Or Roger Moore.

[jimsmith]

Eh? If the flim is politically correct, where's the token Asian actor? Or Latino? Seems to me that these EON people are being racist by ignoring these two ethnic groups for their flim. How dare they!

I'm sure we'll hear a couple more additions that will fit the bill soon....if not, I'm sure we'll see some hispanics and asians as minor characters in the movie.

FYI, Fleming also initially disapproved of the casting of Sean Connery, until he saw him in action in the flim Dr.No. How about you take a cue from him and do the same?

Well, there's a big difference from that vs. going from a white male character to a woman and a black dude.

And I've already seen the actors in action, they may be good actors, but they don't fit in a Bond movie IMO. Putting Judi Dench was clearly a politcally correct move. Look at her statements about Bond being a "dinosaur". Plus there's some inconsistency b/c this is supposed to be young James Bond when M was a man.

[DLibrasnow]

Plus there's some inconsistency b/c this is supposed to be young James Bond when M was a man.

This statement makes no sense because this is a reboot, a restart with James Bond as a 21st Century character just now in 2006 entering the secret service.

[jimsmith]

This statement makes no sense because this is a reboot, a restart with James Bond as a 21st Century character just now in 2006 entering the secret service.

Yes and no. It's a restart in that it's with Daniel Craig as James bond in a "grittier and less gadgety Bond". No, in that it's Casino Royale, the first James Bond novel and it's about how "he became the James Bond that we know and love" through the other movies. You can think of it as the "origin" or "Prologue" of James Bond. And who was M in all of the early Bond movies? It was a man. When Judi Dench first appeared in Goldeneye, it was very clear and evident that she was replacing a male M. Very inconsistent of them to recast her when they aren't even putting in a Moneypenny or Q, no?

[DLibrasnow]

This statement makes no sense because this is a reboot, a restart with James Bond as a 21st Century character just now in 2006 entering the secret service.

Yes and no. It's a restart in that it's with Daniel Craig as James bond in a "grittier and less gadgety Bond". No, in that it's Casino Royale, the first James Bond novel and it's about how "he became the James Bond that we know and love" through the other movies. You can think of it as the "origin" or "Prologue" of James Bond. And who was M in all of the early Bond movies? It was a man. When Judi Dench first appeared in Goldeneye, it was very clear and evident that she was replacing a male M. Very inconsistent of them to recast her when they aren't even putting in a Moneypenny or Q, no?

No....This is a James Bond who is joining the secret service as a rookie agent in 2006, I see no issue with their being a female M in 2006.

And since this is a re-boot we cannot turn around and say this is the same M as in the Brosnan movies because IT IS A REBOOT! Forget that the movies from 1962 to 2002 ever existed because this is a reboot.

I really see the female M issue as a non-issue, I have no problem believing that the head of SIS in 2006 is a female.

[JimmyBond]

I really see the female M issue as a non-issue, I have no problem believing that the head of SIS in 2006 is a female.

Well put, I have no issue with Dench being back as M either. In fact I enjoyed M in the Brosnan films so I imagine it will be no different here. Besides I'm sure she's still here to have at least one familiar face back, perhaps her rapport with Craig will be different than Brosnan? I imagine it will be if her character isnt quite the same character we've come to know.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Forget that the movies from 1962 to 2002 ever existed because this is a reboot.

What a sad and terrible thing to read!

[Hawkeye]

I've read nothing to suggest we should forget 1962-2002 from anything i've read, and i have been following this all very closely. Reboot/re-imagining - it's the origin story yes, and would have been even if Brosnan were doing the flick i'd imagine. Female M is a mistake this time round. I expect come Bond 22 he'll be the Bond who lost his wife and dumped Blofeld down a chimney. We're just being asked to suspend our disbelief over chronology for one film. The way we do each time Bond is re-cast and miraculously gets younger.
Should have re-cast M with a male, then re-cast the role again come bond 22. Or perhaps they should just have not made this an origin story at all and just done it as Bond's latest mission.
I shall be viewing it as just a continuation of the 40+ year story of an SIS agent.

[Pussfeller]

I guess people are very attached to their canon, but to me it seems very silly to worry about how it "fits together". The simple answer is that it doesn't, and that doesn't matter. Bond has had six different faces. He's been in his forties for fifty years. How is a reboot a violation when Lazenby's casting was not? How does the canon account for Bond's mysterious de-aging every few years?

I see no need for the producers to "respect the history". All I ask is that the films are true to the characters and themes, and that each obeys an internal continuity.

Hell, it's not as though the Bond series has built up to anything! Bond is as static a character as they come. You could watch the films in any order and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

[Jim]

Hell, it's not as though the Bond series has built up to anything! Bond is as static a character as they come. You could watch the films in any order and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

I want your babies.

[Santa]

Hell, it's not as though the Bond series has built up to anything! Bond is as static a character as they come. You could watch the films in any order and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

I want your babies.

Me too. And I have the equipment for it.

[Pussfeller]

Goodness.

[Jim]

Hell, it's not as though the Bond series has built up to anything! Bond is as static a character as they come. You could watch the films in any order and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

I want your babies.

Me too. And I have the equipment for it.

We can always adopt.

[Santa]

Whoops, got a bit carried away. What I meant to say is that I agree 100% with your post.

[JimmyBond]

Forget that the movies from 1962 to 2002 ever existed because this is a reboot.

What a sad and terrible thing to read!

It's not like the producers are going to go into your home and steal the first 20 films and say they don't exist. They will still be there, nothing about this reboot is saying the films don't exist. Despite what DLibrasnow said