49 replies to this topic

[Bon-san]

[quote name='Shrublands' post='527301' date='4 March 2006 - 06:32']
This story has made the front page of today

[J.B.]

This is so ridiculous it is almost sickening! What you are seeing is the response to the ow ow 7 stories. They are playing this up to make him look tough since the media has had a time with him.

[FLEMINGFAN]

The camera went pretty low(too low for me ) on Connery in DAF.

Amen to that!!!

[Mr Malcolm]

While I'm a bit dubious about the reliability of this story, I reckon that Craig will probably show a bit more than his predecessors, especially in That Scene. There might even be a brief bit of frontal nudity, as in That Scene, it's not in a sexual context.

After all, Bob Hoskins got away with it in Mrs Henderson Presents, and that was a 12A...

[killkenny kid]

[quote name='Bon-san' post='527337' date='4 March 2006 - 10:12']
[quote name='Shrublands' post='527301' date='4 March 2006 - 06:32']
This story has made the front page of today

[Bon-san]

[quote name='killkenny kid' post='527354' date='4 March 2006 - 12:08']
[quote name='Bon-san' post='527337' date='4 March 2006 - 10:12']
[quote name='Shrublands' post='527301' date='4 March 2006 - 06:32']
This story has made the front page of today

[killkenny kid]

Well Bon-san, I don't think that Craig would say these things, Just another made up lie.

[Bon-san]

Well Bon-san, I don't think that Craig would say these things, Just another made up lie.

Ah, then we're in agreement.

[stamper]

Hello, is the american goldeneye DVD cut ? What extra footage is there ? I dunno as I never really watched the movie more than twice.

[Orion]

I imagine we'll see a brief shot (with the camera at a suitably polite distance) of Craig nude from behind, with his bare bottom visible, as he's pushed into the chair. That should keep things within the boundaries of the 12 (or is it 12A?) certificate (the UK equivalent of PG-13, and the same rating as for DIE ANOTHER DAY, Bourne, T3 and so on), and if it doesn't then expect it to be cut.

On the other hand, it may be that the filmmakers are prepared to go with a 15 certificate for CASINO ROYALE (same as MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II and, of course, LICENCE TO KILL), although I doubt it. If so, LAYER CAKE shows you can get away with a heck of a lot with a 15 certificate (I'm very surprised that it's a 15 rather than an 18, but then I'm also surprised that T3 is a 12 and not a 15, and I don't understand why M:I-2's a 15 and not a 12 - still, I'm hardly the only one who finds some of the British Board of Film Classification's decisions questionable in the extreme).

the british board of film classification works on a point system, so having swearing is like 10 points, hinted sex is worth 5, comic violence (no blood) is worth 2 and graphic violence (teeth flying out) is worth 6. it because you see sean ambrose having two teeth punched out that Mission Impossible 2 is JUST a 15 (I believe there only one point over

[Doctor Shatterhand]

Not sure about that but a few russian bare butts were shown in The Living Daylights. During the airfield fight a bulldozer knocks over a structure that has showering russians.

Exactly. This is most likely the way Daniel will be shown. 2 seconds of his buttocks as he is forced down into the chair.

[Loomis]

I imagine we'll see a brief shot (with the camera at a suitably polite distance) of Craig nude from behind, with his bare bottom visible, as he's pushed into the chair. That should keep things within the boundaries of the 12 (or is it 12A?) certificate (the UK equivalent of PG-13, and the same rating as for DIE ANOTHER DAY, Bourne, T3 and so on), and if it doesn't then expect it to be cut.

On the other hand, it may be that the filmmakers are prepared to go with a 15 certificate for CASINO ROYALE (same as MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II and, of course, LICENCE TO KILL), although I doubt it. If so, LAYER CAKE shows you can get away with a heck of a lot with a 15 certificate (I'm very surprised that it's a 15 rather than an 18, but then I'm also surprised that T3 is a 12 and not a 15, and I don't understand why M:I-2's a 15 and not a 12 - still, I'm hardly the only one who finds some of the British Board of Film Classification's decisions questionable in the extreme).

the british board of film classification works on a point system, so having swearing is like 10 points, hinted sex is worth 5, comic violence (no blood) is worth 2 and graphic violence (teeth flying out) is worth 6. it because you see sean ambrose having two teeth punched out that Mission Impossible 2 is JUST a 15 (I believe there only one point over

Ah. Cheers for that, Orion. I think the BBFC is also very hot on what it calls "imitable violence" (imitable by the young, one supposes), which is why headbutts are routinely cut out of films with large teen audiences such as GOLDENEYE (although I seem to recall reading somewhere that the fact that it was a woman headbutting another woman made it worse in the eyes of the BBFC) and ATTACK OF THE CLONES, and why the Board used to have a zero tolerance policy towards martial arts weaponry in movies (the theory apparently being that kids could and would cobble together makeshift nunchakus and the like if they saw them; I've a vague memory of reading - in "Censored", Tom Dewe Matthews' excellent book about film censorship in the UK - that the BBFC even went as far as to remove a shot in the Dan Aykroyd/Tom Hanks DRAGNET in which could be seen a poster - just a poster, mind you! - of ENTER THE DRAGON showing Bruce Lee wielding chainsticks, although this sounds so nutty that perhaps my memory is playing false).

But, yes, I imagine M:I-2 only just qualified as a 15.

[Alex Zamudio]

Yes, and yes.
I saw the full-length LTK and the full-length GOLDENEYE on video in Japan, having seen both films dozens of times, and although we're only talking about a few seconds of missing footage (which isn't even that graphic, and in any case has no bearing on the plot), it did make a difference. LTK, in particular, seemed much more powerful and less of the halfhearted compromise of a (TV) movie it's often slammed as in fandom - "the film it was supposed to be", you might say.

Wait!! what are those scenes??? Please elaborate!

[Moore Not Less]

The subject of nudity in Casino Royale featured in Katie Nicholl's column in today's Mail On Sunday newspaper. The accuracy of the article is certainly open for debate. Nevertheless......

***CONTAINS SPOILERS***

007 bares all to prove he's man enough for the job

JAMES BOND, the world's sexiest spy, is about to get even sexier. In an attempt to leave cinema audiences shaken and stirred, I can reveal that 007 debutant Daniel Craig and his love interest Eva Green will feature in a series of steamy full-frontal scenes in the new film Casino Royale.

In one, Craig is filmed naked on a yacht with slinky Eva dressed in just a sarong which Bond then whips off before the pair indulge in some naughty skinny-dipping. Movie insiders say the instruction to make Bond as sexy as possible comes straight from the top. Barbara Broccoli, who runs the Bond franchise, is said to be furious that Craig, 38, is considered mis-cast as the smooth talking secret agent. 'Barbara want's to show all Bond fans that Craig is man enough,' says one spy.

'There's been a lot of sexing up in this movie. Craig's the most passionate Bond yet.'

Craig, who has been pumping iron to get in shape for the part, and 25-year-old Eva, who plays Russian spy Vesper Lynd, shot the skinny-dipping scene in the Bahamas. They and the film crew were surrounded by the entire Bahamian army to ensure maximum privacy.

'It was an incredibly sexual scene,' says my insider. 'Craig has said he has no problem with full-frontal nudity and whips off his clothes without a second thought. The scene was shot amid very tight security because they did not wan't any paparazzi pictures. Daniel and Eva both agreed to appear naked as long as they had a closed set.'

According to production notes, other scenes are equally raunchy. One script reads: 'Scene 175 - in private hospital room - Bond and Vesper make reckless love and destroy room.' I'm told: 'It's frenzied and very passionate and a lot stronger than anything audiences have seen in the past.'

But there is a possibility that fans may not get to see the new 007's best-kept secret. If the producers wan't Casino Royale to have a 12 certificate like previous Bond films, the most revealing scenes may end up on the cutting-room floor.

[Ourobouros]

Clearly the torture couldnt have been all that bad

[Craig'sGIrl]

Whew... if there is a shred of truth in that story.....

I'm beginning to wonder if the producers are entertaining the thought of an R-rating here in the States. If so, I'll be more than fine with it.

Just as long as there is an unrated DVD edition later.

[Pussfeller]

I would like to see actual nudity in a Bond film, but I don't think they'll do it. Remember those pictures of DC and Eva Green in flesh-colored wetsuits? I think Drudge heard something about simulated nudity during the swimming scene, then jumped to the conclusion that we'd be seeing a close-up of Craig's wang.

We might see a brief shot of Craig's posterior during the torture scene, but I don't think that's what Drudge is talking about.

[EyesOnly]

I cannot believe there is any truth to this story! I just have trouble fathoming this!

Edited by EyesOnly, 19 March 2006 - 07:13 PM.

[Dr. Noah]

LOL

Solid journalism. They're doing nude scenes that they're planning to cut out before release. Riiiiight....

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Has anyone seen The Serpent and the Rainbow? The film is rated R but there is a scene where the main character is strapped into a chair naked and has his genitals tortured. The scene was rather chilling and disturbing but if not for the language, graphic violence, and sexual content from other scenes it could have gotten by with a hard PG-13. Perhaps this is how they will handel the scene in Casino Royale.