526 replies to this topic

[Leon]

Great post Jacanaples.

Imagine after people have seen this film...and after it the next Bond movie was, say, Tomorrow Never Dies or TWINE...it would just be laughable.

I am so happy, finally some proper James Bond films with the Dalton grit, the Connery fantasy and a new kind of modern Fleming-esque twist of character and style...with a great actor in the lead role who looks like he can charm the women but also kick all hell out of the nasties.

The real Commander James Bond.

[Simon]

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.

I think the dear boy must think that if one scene is set in the toilet, then the whole movie must be set there. Thank god he didn't see Connery in the john in Diamonds related trailers...

[trumanlodge89]

its in french, and i dont understand any of the dialogue. but hot damn that was cool.

[JimmyBond]

Wow! I was literally shaking when I viewed that for the first time (I've since viewed it several more ). November cannot get here soon enough!

[JohnBryce]

If they are going for gritty then I suppose him killing his targets won't be easy and it will be similar to that scene from that Hitchcock film (torn curtain?) showing that it can be hard to kill a man,that death can be long and messy.

Having that take place in a mundane place like a toilet adds to that.Just my take though.

[zencat]

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.

I think the dear boy must think that if one scene is set in the toilet, then the whole movie must be set there. Thank god he didn't see Connery in the john in Diamonds related trailers...

M's boss is just our old friend MooMoo. Don't encourage him.

[Bryce (003)]

*Bryce finishes 283rd viewing*

It's Bond.

No two ways about it.

Bond is back...

He's Daniel Craig...

and it's about damn time!









FANTASTIC

[Andrew]

Are we sure that the card ripping shot is Le Chiffre? The suit worn looks similar to the light colored one worn by Craig.

Also, are those shots of the fight in the stairwell from the PTS?

Edited by Andrew, 30 April 2006 - 10:57 PM.

[Jackanaples]

Thanks, Loomis!

[Leon]

Are we sure that the card ripping shot is Le Chiffre? The suit worn looks similar to the light colored one worn by Craig.

Also, are those shots of the fight in the stairwell from the PTS?

According to the Dec draft of the script it is Le Chiffre tearing the card.

The fight in the stairwell is inside the H

Edited by Leon, 30 April 2006 - 11:05 PM.

[double-O-Durg]

it wont let me see the trailer, i hav a powerbook and its not letting me view the trailer, its askin for some kind of quicktime plug in can anyone help me??

[Andrew]

[quote name='Leon' post='549395' date='30 April 2006 - 23:02']
[quote name='Andrew' post='549390' date='30 April 2006 - 23:51']
Are we sure that the card ripping shot is Le Chiffre? The suit worn looks similar to the light colored one worn by Craig.

Also, are those shots of the fight in the stairwell from the PTS?
[/quote]

According to the Dec draft of the script it is Le Chiffre tearing the card.

The fight in the stairwell is inside the H

[double-O-Durg]

it wont let me see the trailer, i hav a powerbook and its not letting me view the trailer, its askin for some kind of quicktime plug in can anyone help me??

[Andrew]

it wont let me see the trailer, i hav a powerbook and its not letting me view the trailer, its askin for some kind of quicktime plug in can anyone help me??

Try the YOUSENDIT link that someone posted a page back.

[ACE]

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.

Excellent post. Insightful and thought provoking. More like this, please.
Nice work Jackanaples.

[Qwerty]

Everything looks amazing!

[double-O-Durg]

O my word!! I have just seen it, absolutely awesome the fight scenes in particular look amazing!! Roll on November

[Vauxhall]

[quote name='Andrew' post='549403' date='1 May 2006 - 00:24']
[quote name='Leon' post='549395' date='30 April 2006 - 23:02']
[quote name='Andrew' post='549390' date='30 April 2006 - 23:51']
Are we sure that the card ripping shot is Le Chiffre? The suit worn looks similar to the light colored one worn by Craig.

Also, are those shots of the fight in the stairwell from the PTS?
[/quote]

According to the Dec draft of the script it is Le Chiffre tearing the card.

The fight in the stairwell is inside the H

[Qwerty]

[quote name='Vauxhall' post='549424' date='30 April 2006 - 20:01']
[quote name='Andrew' post='549403' date='1 May 2006 - 00:24']
[quote name='Leon' post='549395' date='30 April 2006 - 23:02']
[quote name='Andrew' post='549390' date='30 April 2006 - 23:51']
Are we sure that the card ripping shot is Le Chiffre? The suit worn looks similar to the light colored one worn by Craig.

Also, are those shots of the fight in the stairwell from the PTS?
[/quote]

According to the Dec draft of the script it is Le Chiffre tearing the card.

The fight in the stairwell is inside the H

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

http://img174.images...e00100125qx.jpg

Spoiler

That's the Body world scene.

[Publius]

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.

Good God, man, I think you've hit every nail on its head. I'd say this post settles it once and for all.

As for the trailer, I think that settles all the worry about not appealing to the masses, while still giving us a taste of some exciting, maybe even insanely risky new stuff. The excessive use of the Bond theme is surely a means of securing it as a Bond flick in the minds of the public, but the intro definitely tells us that the ideal balance between tradition and experimentation could likely have been struck, and that they're not afraid to put their controversial "foot" forward first.

Now this will probably force the "debate" back to Craig's hair...

[Andrew]

http://img174.images...e00100125qx.jpg

Spoiler

That's the Body world scene.

The link doesn't work for me

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Here's some screenshots I took if anyone's interested.


http://img174.images...e00100125qx.jpg

This the one.

Edited by Agent Spriggan Ominae, 01 May 2006 - 12:15 AM.

[rafterman]

Bloody fantastic trailer. How much longer do I have to wait for this? This is going to be good.

[sharpshooter]

Is it just me, or is that scene with the plane flying over the boat similar to GoldenEye?? A touch from Martin Campbell perhaps?

Just saw the plane is to the side with a white trail, my theory is squashed

Edited by sharpshooter, 01 May 2006 - 12:43 AM.

[Adrian Carlisle]

Fantastic trailer. Bloody fantastic.

Craig looks great in action. Most importantly in my eyes is that this seems like the guy who's a Royal Navy Commander; tougher, grittier, less suaved over like Brosnan became, even down to his new haircut. That is what we needed, I think, for this to be a reboot. We needed to see this, to see how Bond started out before he became "the other guy" later.

And Catalina Murino looks great in action too! Wow!

You can also see them channeling the Bourne movies as well, with the grittier feel and the fighting.

Yeah, this looks like it's going to blow us away!

[Judo chop]

People will be lining up to see this. Pierce who?

[mario007]

God Dammit that looks sooooooooo good! The action looks terrific!!!
I don't see any similarities to the bourn movies at all. Hand to hand combat sequences were not invented by the bourn movies! This is going to be the best bond yet!!!! All the bond elements are present and looks amazing!!!!

[Andrew]

People will be lining up to see this. Pierce who?

I agree. I really think that this trailer will get audiences excited about the film and, as I said in the other thread, Craig will become this generation's Bond.

Also, the fighting sequences shown there remind me more of OHMSS than Bourne.

Edited by Andrew, 01 May 2006 - 01:02 AM.

[CJB]

What an awesome trailer! This will be the best film since Goldeneye.