526 replies to this topic

[Live&LetDie007]

Damn, DC is STILL an UGLY MF, and not Bond-like, but judging from that trailer Casino Royale is gonna be THE $h!t! Oh my God, I CANNOT wait until November!!!!!

Why couldn't Brosnan have been given a film like this?

[JCRendle]

Screencap of Craig's gunbarrel

Attached Files

•  gunbarrel.jpg   54.31KB   243 downloads

[M's boss]

I hear Craig doesn't even wash his hands after the kill. I am disgusted.

[Timothy]

Anyone else think that Craig's gunbarrel pose is just amazingly perfect?

Me !

However I'm reminded rather of a synopsis between Dalton and Brosnan than Bob Simmons. Got a still:

http://www.beethoven...y/gunbarrel.JPG

Very intense.




The upright position of Brosnan and the shoulders and the turn-around similar to Dalton's.

Edited by Timothy, 30 April 2006 - 09:58 PM.

[Loomis]

The trailer is uninspired, he looks just awful (and I was a fan of his before this) and, most importantly, and awful, over-blown piece of David Arnold muck tracked to it all.

I guess I will have to wait for about nine years for the return of the real James Bond.

Very sad.

As for the music, I like the brooding synth stuff at the start (before it goes into the mindblowingly OTT rendition of The James Bond Theme) - reminds me of the opening music of BLADE RUNNER. If this is Arnold's new sound, I'm all for it.

Craig? Looks good in some bits, and not so good in other bits. C'est la vie, as the man himself observes in LAYER CAKE.

[Blofeld's Cat]

However I'm reminded rather of a synopsis between Dalton and Brosnan than Bob Simmons. Got a still:

http://www.beethoven...y/gunbarrel.JPG

Very intense.

Got one with the lights turned on?.

[fsartono]

I've uploaded the movie here too for those who has trouble viewing avi movies:

http://stair-of-juno...er-trailer.html

or here

[M's boss]

Licenced to pee:

http://img138.images...ndtoilet4eg.png

Are you taking the piss, Mr Bond?

I'd never dream of it.

[Leon]

Anyone else think that Craig's gunbarrel pose is just amazingly perfect?

Yes to your question and YES to the trailer. Jeez that was tasty, this is going to be one kick James Bond film!

OMG thank frick the crummy crummy crum crum films are gone gone gone! aaaargh the last 2-3 did my head in so badly with crummyness. We are entering a golden age of Bond films...

This is niiiice

To those who haven't read the script...you haven't seen nothin' yet. They haven't even shown any of the real old school scenes yet.

Edited by Leon, 30 April 2006 - 10:05 PM.

[Quartermaster007]

The gun barrel scene is certainly elegant - what with the toilet tiles in the background when Craig fires the gun!

And isn't it a wonderful Eon tribute to Ian Fleming to have Bond kill someone in a toilet? I'm sure Ian would have approved.

Not.

Quite right, the opening scene in GoldenEye KILLED the rest of the movie.

[Lazenby880]

I've uploaded the movie here too for those who has trouble viewing avi movies:

http://stair-of-juno...er-trailer.html

or here

Thank you; now I can see it!

And having done so, CASINO ROYALE continues to look like one of the best Bond pictures. Of course, one will not know until the release date; however from the scraps we have I think it will be something very special indeed, successfully complimenting action with atmosphere et al. Harmsway I concur, the gunbarrel sequence is *brilliant*, and I love the curt look to the camera at the end.

Daniel Craig *is* James Bond: dangerous, intense, dangerously intense and intensely dangerous.

Edited by Lazenby880, 30 April 2006 - 10:08 PM.

[Jeff007]

Bloody good. Can't wait for the English trailer. Sooo pumped right now.

[JohnBryce]

Good lord.I just made a little mess in my pants.Awesome-ness and everything I hoped for.This is without any speech i understand yet!

When that score kicks in....ah...welcome back Mr Bond.

[Quartermaster007]

Licenced to pee:

http://img138.images...ndtoilet4eg.png

Are you taking the piss, Mr Bond?

I'd never dream of it.

My gosh you are SO funny!


This trailer is going to be so cool if it ever comes out in English.

Also, I translated a portion of the site that got it online, 'planete007', and it said that the trailer was not supposed to be released yet.

[M's boss]

Okay, serious point - if Bond is known as suave and elegant blah blah blah, why have Bond's first gun barrel scene set in a toilet? Serious question - no troll comment. I find it a bit sad that the iconic Bond - a character known for being smart and elegant - has his first gun barrel scene in a mens room.

Sorry, I think it's a mild insult to the character. Rather tacky and not what Bond's about.

Edited by M's boss, 30 April 2006 - 10:11 PM.

[Johnboy007]

Shut up about the god damn toilet. We get it already.

[Jackanaples]

Must congratulate Eon on casting (arguably) the most unattractive British actor working today as James Bond:

http://img279.images...mtrailer2jh.png

Quite some feat, that.

Wasn't Bond meant to be rather handsome? Guess Babs and Michael forgot that. Casino Royale = flop.

I don't think that's the best shot of Craig, but come on. Bond is supposed to be handsome --not pretty. Daniel Craig looks like a MAN. A man with the capacity to be a charming and ruthless killer as it turns out.

I think audiences expect Bond to be suave and sophisticated. Smooth like Pierce and Roger Moore. For better or worse, that's the general public's expectation of Bond. The ruthless Bond from the Fleming novels would be a stranger to them.

I am not a fan of the Fleming Bond myself.

One can be suave and sophisticated without being pretty or conventionally handsome. The ruthless Bond I'm interested in seeing is the one from the Connery films like DR. NO, where Bond avoids being killed by Professor Dent, tells him "You've had your six," and coldly dispatches him with his silenced Walther PPK.

James Bond has to have that edge, has to be a bit of a bastard --or he's not just not Bond. Over the years this quality (and his snobbish taste for the finer things) has become a bit diluted. Bond's character has become bland as a result.

The movies have suffered creatively precisely because they've tried to give the audience what they expect. They've become staid and routine. I hear the word "formula" tossed around a lot in reference to Bond as if it were a good thing.

Listen up: Formula... is for babies. When you think like that, you're always going to come away with something very uncreative and dull. That kind of thinking leads to most of the Bond movies made in my lifetime (if not all of them).

What I've heard about CASINO ROYALE excites me. It's as if they finally asked themselves the right question. Instead of asking, "What can we do for the next Bond movie?" they asked, "Imagine no one's ever seen a James Bond movie. How would you make James Bond as cool to audiences in 2006 as he was back in 1963?"

Once that question is in the open, a lot of the fat just comes right off. So many of the things that we associate with James Bond (secret volcano bases, the gadgets, evil masterminds) were creative decisions made back then. The gadgets for example. No one had ever seen a screen hero with a car like the Aston Martin before. It was very cool cutting edge at the time.

Now of course these elements are familiar to the point of cliche. And familiarity breeds contempt, especially as regards popular entertainment.

The average 2006 moviegoer's relationship to technology is vastly different to their 1963 counterpart's. My telephone has so many features it might have been designed by Q Branch (or Derek Flint). No doubt yours is comparable. When we all have access to gadgets worthy of 007, seeing them onscreen lacks that frisson of surprise and is a waste of time (i.e. it's a cliche).

In regards to Craig's looks, it's important to note that Bond doesn't pull the birds because he's handsome. He pulls because he's a dangerous and capable and exciting man.

I showed a woman friend of mine the teaser poster and trailer and she remarked that, "It's nice to have a Bond who's not a gelding! Looks like Bond's got his testicles back at last. Bond's refined, but underneath it, you have to believe that he could and would kill a man with his bare hands." She finished by saying if the movie was as good as that trailer looks, she'd see it in the theater for once.

I don't think CASINO ROYALE will turn out to be the kind of Bond movie the average moviegoer thinks they want. The average moviegoer doesn't know what they want until it's given to them. I do however, think it will be the kind of Bond movie they NEED, and they'll love it.

[M's boss]

Indeed, it would have been more faithful to Fleming to have Bond kill his target on the golf course or something like that. Then Bond could shoot the gun. At least a golf course seems a bit more smart than a toilet. Sheesh!

[Quartermaster007]

Yeah, toilets are so stupid.

*cough, cough* moomoo *cough, cough*

Edited by Quartermaster007, 30 April 2006 - 10:18 PM.

[K1Bond007]

Okay, serious point - if Bond is known as suave and elegant blah blah blah, why have Bond's first gun barrel scene set in a toilet? Serious question - no troll comment. I find it a bit sad that the iconic Bond - a character known for being smart and elegant - has his first gun barrel scene in a mens room.

Sorry, I think it's a mild insult to the character. Rather tacky and not what Bond's about.

You seriously won't give a when you see the scene in context.

[Andrew]

Licenced to pee:

http://img138.images...ndtoilet4eg.png

Are you taking the piss, Mr Bond?

I'd never dream of it.

What's funny here is the fact that you have posted this same joke on every OO7 forum, thinking that it's actually funny.

[Leon]

Okay, serious point - if Bond is known as suave and elegant blah blah blah, why have Bond's first gun barrel scene set in a toilet? Serious question - no troll comment. I find it a bit sad that the iconic Bond - a character known for being smart and elegant - has his first gun barrel scene in a mens room.

Sorry, I think it's a mild insult to the character. Rather tacky and not what Bond's about.

Well it's actually a pretty nice and fancy toilet...but it's set in the toilets as a backdrop for a very nasty and unpleasant killing. To give the scenery the link. The second and final kill (to get his 00) is in a very plush and expensive office building and is very neat, quick, silent and efficient...so there is 2 ends of the spectrum.

THAT is why it's like that.

Edited by Leon, 30 April 2006 - 10:28 PM.

[K1Bond007]

Indeed, it would have been more faithful to Fleming to have Bond kill his target on the golf course or something like that. Then Bond could shoot the gun. At least a golf course seems a bit more smart than a toilet. Sheesh!

How the hell is that faithful to Fleming?

[Loomis]

Okay, serious point - if Bond is known as suave and elegant blah blah blah, why have Bond's first gun barrel scene set in a toilet? Serious question - no troll comment. I find it a bit sad that the iconic Bond - a character known for being smart and elegant - has his first gun barrel scene in a mens room.

Sorry, I think it's a mild insult to the character. Rather tacky and not what Bond's about.

An insult so mild that it's hardly worth bothering about, surely? I mean, it's not as though we'll be seeing Bond peeing, doing a number two, or cottaging, is it? In which case, why complain about his being in a men's room?

I presume you also object to scenes of 007 chasing a bad guy through the slums of Madagascar. Slums - not very sophisticated, Flemingian places, are they?

[Tiin007]

Shut up about the god damn toilet. We get it already.

Haha, I cannot stop laughing at this. You phrased that perfectly. Mind if I make it my signature?

[rebeck]

The dialogue in English (taken from the script). Be aware they've edited this dialogue and taken it out of sequence from how it actually plays, as all trailers do:

M: This may be too much for a blunt instrument to understand, but arrogance and self-awareness seldom go hand-in-hand.

BOND: So I should be half-monk, half-hitman?

M: I knew it was too early to promote you.

BOND: Well I understand Double Os have a limited life expectancy.

Actually the last line is better than that: "Well I understand Double O's have a very short life expectancy, so one can hope your mistake isn't long-lived". It has a more "amused" quality to it in the script than in the trailer. (at least in French)

[Loomis]

Must congratulate Eon on casting (arguably) the most unattractive British actor working today as James Bond:

http://img279.images...mtrailer2jh.png

Quite some feat, that.

Wasn't Bond meant to be rather handsome? Guess Babs and Michael forgot that. Casino Royale = flop.

I don't think that's the best shot of Craig, but come on. Bond is supposed to be handsome --not pretty. Daniel Craig looks like a MAN. A man with the capacity to be a charming and ruthless killer as it turns out.

I think audiences expect Bond to be suave and sophisticated. Smooth like Pierce and Roger Moore. For better or worse, that's the general public's expectation of Bond. The ruthless Bond from the Fleming novels would be a stranger to them.

I am not a fan of the Fleming Bond myself.

One can be suave and sophisticated without being pretty or conventionally handsome. The ruthless Bond I'm interested in seeing is the one from the Connery films like DR. NO, where Bond avoids being killed by Professor Dent, tells him "You've had your six," and coldly dispatches him with his silenced Walther PPK.

James Bond has to have that edge, has to be a bit of a bastard --or he's not just not Bond. Over the years this quality (and his snobbish taste for the finer things) has become a bit diluted. Bond's character has become bland as a result.

The movies have suffered creatively precisely because they've tried to give the audience what they expect. They've become staid and routine. I hear the word "formula" tossed around a lot in reference to Bond as if it were a good thing.

Listen up: Formula... is for babies. When you think like that, you're always going to come away with something very uncreative and dull. That kind of thinking leads to most of the Bond movies made in my lifetime (if not all of them).

What I've heard about CASINO ROYALE excites me. It's as if they finally asked themselves the right question. Instead of asking, "What can we do for the next Bond movie?" they asked, "Imagine no one's ever seen a James Bond movie. How would you make James Bond as cool to audiences in 2006 as he was back in 1963?"

Once that question is in the open, a lot of the fat just comes right off. So many of the things that we associate with James Bond (secret volcano bases, the gadgets, evil masterminds) were creative decisions made back then. The gadgets for example. No one had ever seen a screen hero with a car like the Aston Martin before. It was very cool cutting edge at the time.

Now of course these elements are familiar to the point of cliche. And familiarity breeds contempt, especially as regards popular entertainment.

The average 2006 moviegoer's relationship to technology is vastly different to their 1963 counterpart's. My telephone has so many features it might have been designed by Q Branch (or Derek Flint). No doubt yours is comparable. When we all have access to gadgets worthy of 007, seeing them onscreen lacks that frisson of surprise and is a waste of time (i.e. it's a cliche).

In regards to Craig's looks, it's important to note that Bond doesn't pull the birds because he's handsome. He pulls because he's a dangerous and capable and exciting man.

I showed a woman friend of mine the teaser poster and trailer and she remarked that, "It's nice to have a Bond who's not a gelding! Looks like Bond's got his testicles back at last. Bond's refined, but underneath it, you have to believe that he could and would kill a man with his bare hands." She finished by saying if the movie was as good as that trailer looks, she'd see it in the theater for once.

I don't think CASINO ROYALE will turn out to be the kind of Bond movie the average moviegoer thinks they want. The average moviegoer doesn't know what they want until it's given to them. I do however, think it will be the kind of Bond movie they NEED, and they'll love it.

Probably the best post on this thread.

[Johnboy007]

Shut up about the god damn toilet. We get it already.

Haha, I cannot stop laughing at this. You phrased that perfectly. Mind if I make it my signature?

Go for it.

[Tiin007]

Shut up about the god damn toilet. We get it already.

Haha, I cannot stop laughing at this. You phrased that perfectly. Mind if I make it my signature?

Go for it.

Thanks.

[Carver]

Indeed, it would have been more faithful to Fleming to have Bond kill his target on the golf course or something like that. Then Bond could shoot the gun. At least a golf course seems a bit more smart than a toilet. Sheesh!

How the hell is that faithful to Fleming?

Exactly. Remember, we're seeing Bond getting his 00 status in this film so I very much doubt he cares how and where he kills his victims. Yes, Bond is supposed to be suave on occassions, but deep down he's more ruthless and a bit of a bastard really. When it comes down to the kill, Bond doesn't worry about how cool he's looking or anything.