17 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=29610

"The great thing about it is that he makes mistakes and screws up. Bond finds violence hard to take, he won't admit to that. He has to do two killings, one is very messy. He falls in love with a girl, genuinely falls in love," director Martin Campbell explained.

From "Casino Royale" (chapter 20, "The Nature of Evil"):

"It was a pretty sound job. Nice and clean too. Three hundred yards away. No personal contact. The next time in Stockholm wasn't so pretty. I had to kill a Norwegian who was doubling against us for the Germans. He'd managed to get two of our men captured - probably bumped off for all I know. For various reasons it had to be an absolutely silent job. I chose the bedroom of his flat and a knife. And, well, he just didn't die very quickly.

"For those two jobs I was awarded a Double O number in the Service."

Now, could this partially explain why the pre-credits sequence will be in black-and-white? To soften the visual impact of, say, Bond standing in a gigantic pool of blood in the lavatory at a Pakistani cricket ground, watching with alarm as his victim simply refuses to die quickly?

Also:

"There will no computer generated imagery and the stunts will be real."

No CGI? Seriously?

[MooreisMore]

I think there will be CGI but it'll be the main titles.

It'd be great if the intro was pretty violent (yes, Brozza Bond gunning down everything in sight was violent but not as violent as repeated cuttings with a knife and howls of pain).

[Publius]

"... the 21st installment starring newcomer Daniel Craig ... will show a kinder, gentler side of the famous English spy."

I don't know about that. Broken and vulnerable, sure, but "kinder" and "gentler"? Have these people not seen, oh, every Bond movie starring someone other than Connery?

Edited by Publius, 12 March 2006 - 03:55 PM.

[Loomis]

It'd be great if the intro was pretty violent (yes, Brozza Bond gunning down everything in sight was violent but not as violent as repeated cuttings with a knife and howls of pain).

It'd be an extraordinary thing to even attempt. There'd be the risk of audiences starting to laugh at a "messy" killing, assuming it was supposed to be funny. And then the sight (one presumes) of Bond not only slaying a man in cold blood, but botching it (slightly) and looking horrified and out of his depth. Remember he's the hero of the piece - we're supposed, after all, to sympathise with him (and, indeed, to admire him, since he's Bond). Followed, mere minutes later, by the sight of the fully paid-up James Bond 007 emerging into the famous gunbarrel, a sight we're presumably supposed to find very cool and cheer at. A very strange mixture indeed. And hellishly risky - they're launching the new 007 star, a guy they hope will be just as popular as Connery, Moore and Brosnan, and right from the get-go what do we see him doing? Awesomely cool stunts like skiing off cliffs or riding bikes into falling planes? Landing on yachts and effortlessly seducing babes with his cheeky banter? Nope, we see him just bumping people off and getting the hell out of there - more Michael Myers than James Bond. AND IN BLACK AND WHITE!!!!!!!!

Well, ya can't say they're playing it safe.

[JimmyBond]

It's risky introducing a new Bond in such a controversial film, but if it succeeds. Well the producers, writers, and even Craig will be praised for months for breathing life into the tired franchise. It will be a second renisiannce

[Loomis]

Well, I think they've been planning to "go very risky and life-breathing" for a very long time. For the umpteenth time, I'll mention that Tamahori interview in "Sight and Sound" around the time of the release of DIE ANOTHER DAY, where he let slip that the director of the Bond flick after DAD would have the opportunity to shake up the formula to an extraordinary degree and be even more innovative than Campbell had been on GOLDENEYE (but he didn't explain why that was so). I suspect that Tamahori himself was in the frame to direct BOND 21 at that point (long before the announcement of Campbell's return, a very trustworthy CBn staffer with good connections reported on this site that Tamahori was offered BOND 21, and accepted, but the situation evidently changed) - funny that the guy who ended up being hired to (so to speak - this is not a quotation) "do a Campbell again but outCampbell Campbell" was.... Campbell.

What I'm wondering is how on earth they'll manage to top CASINO ROYALE, in terms of story, innovation and quality. I don't envy the task facing the makers of BOND 22.

[Harmsway]

Sounds good. All of CASINO ROYALE is sounding quite excellent.

[Harmsway]

What I'm wondering is how on earth they'll manage to top CASINO ROYALE, in terms of story, innovation and quality. I don't envy the task facing the makers of BOND 22.

Great point... we'll see what happens with that.

[Qwerty]

No CGI? Seriously?

[sir_hilary_bray]

If it's true that the pre-title sequence will be shot in black and white, I totally approve. And not because it softens the horror of the messy killing. I think that by shooting it in black and white, you are giving the killings a sense of history. This is just before Bond earns his 00, and we as the audience are only being given a glimpse back to before he is 007. We really are not suppossed to be able to see this, and it's just a special treat for us. Personally, I would rather leave it to the imagination of the novel. But, oh well. It kind of reminds me of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I really didn't need to know how Indiana got a scar, or why he learned to use a bull whip, or why he is scared of snakes. For me, you don't have to have a reason to be scared of snakes. It's primal instinct. And, I would just figure that Indiana bought a cool bull whip in some bazzar when he was younger because it was cool. I would have. And, his scar. best left to imagination. Just my take on things. Maybe if all of us die hard Fleming fans are lucky, Craig will end up with a permanent scar on his face by movie's end. (Not a real one! Even though the way things are going, I wouldn't rule that out either!)

Edited by sir_hilary_bray, 13 March 2006 - 03:08 AM.

[Loomis]

I think that by shooting it in black and white, you are giving the killings a sense of history. This is just before Bond earns his 00, and we as the audience are only being given a glimpse back to before he is 007. We really are not suppossed to be able to see this, and it's just a special treat for us.

Excellent point.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Very interesting news. I love the idea of the PTS being in black and white. Agree with sir_hilary_bray that it gives the scene an historic, "legendary" feel to it. Might be even more creative if, after Bond has killed the second guy, the last shot before we cut to the main titles is in colour, or the only colour we see is the crimson pool on the floor (which, I suppose, could somehow "bleed" into the opening credits to tie it together).

Although I have to admit that my immediate reaction to this news was "That's very Kill Bill, isn't it?"

[Loomis]

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again: throw a brick in a video shop and you'll hit at least six colour films with black-and-white prologues.

Still, I count at least two good reasons for one this time round.

[krypt]

Might be even more creative if, after Bond has killed the second guy, the last shot before we cut to the main titles is in colour, or the only colour we see is the crimson pool on the floor (which, I suppose, could somehow "bleed" into the opening credits to tie it together).

... "Sin City" ... !

[stamper]

Hey Loomis, I doubt that we will go in the pre credits from a botching job bond to bond in tux thru the gunbarrel, it doesn't make any sense, on the contrary, the gunbarrel will be a big surprise, and in synch with the pre-credits.

Also I doubt audiences will laugh at the pre-credits, the filmmakers aren't idiots (apart from Lee Tamahori), they on the contrary will surprise audiences with a scene that will have them on the edge of their seats by it's simplicity and horrific content, before launching into the credits. This Bond, back to the early Sean days, will be REAL. I find myself eagerly awaiting this bond for the first time since Dalton was in.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Might be even more creative if, after Bond has killed the second guy, the last shot before we cut to the main titles is in colour, or the only colour we see is the crimson pool on the floor (which, I suppose, could somehow "bleed" into the opening credits to tie it together).

... "Sin City" ... !

Yeah, I sort of realised after I had typed it that it would probably be seen as a direct rip-off of Sin City.

Still, that'll be a mighty cool PTS if it's done in B&W.

[double-O-Durg]

The way they are describing Bond's second kill as a pre double-O reminds me of Hitchcock's Torn Curtain with Paul Newman, it that it shows how hard it is to kill someone and the guy takes ages to die. It deglamourised Hollywood violence and in my view was one of the high points of the film. It made it more real, which i think Bond has been crying out for in recent years.

[Mister Asterix]

The way they are describing Bond's second kill as a pre double-O reminds me of Hitchcock's Torn Curtain with Paul Newman, it that it shows how hard it is to kill someone and the guy takes ages to die. It deglamourised Hollywood violence and in my view was one of the high points of the film. It made it more real, which i think Bond has been crying out for in recent years.

[mra]That