526 replies to this topic

[Fro]

Just heard back from a friend I sent the link to (he's a big fan of "24"). He said it looked "badass" and was pumped that this Bond was going to be more ruthless in this movie.

[TheCheat]

that trailer looks fantastic. i cannot wait for the english version to be released but this one will hold me over just fine until then.

[deth]

oh my lord...... while I don't think this is Fleming's Bond..... it IS a least Benson and Gardner's Bond.... which is damn good enough for me!!!


AWSOME trailer.... well put together.... even the gunbarrel works.... and love the music.

[Taylor]

I honestly can't believe how good the trailer looks. I just can't believe it. Please God do not tell me I'm dreaming here. This looks A*W*E*S*O*M*E!!!!! This might sound crazy coming from a 33 year old Bond fan who has been a total Bond geek since he was 7, but I don't think I've ever been this excited about a Bond movie before! Wow! Wow! Wow!

[Adrian Carlisle]

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!!!!

I know hand-to-hand sequences weren't invented by the Bourne movies, but to me the style is similar, the quickness. That one shot in the trailer where Bond takes out two guards at once instantly reminded me of The Bourne Identity.

And I think this is a good thing, to be honest. I'm not one of those fans that subscribes to a rivalry between the series, but for me, Bourne redefined this genre and suddenly made Bond seem old hat (and I know some people on these forums agree). So it's nice to see that with this new one, they're updating the style for a new generation. It's not an issue of one copying the other, but rather an emulation for the good of the genre.

[rdh007]

oh my lord...... while I don't think this is Fleming's Bond..... it IS a least Benson and Gardner's Bond.... which is damn good enough for me!!!


AWSOME trailer.... well put together.... even the gunbarrel works.... and love the music.

Know what you mean about the gunbarrel. When I read a description, I was ready to be upset, but it worked in it's own way.

[luciusgore]

I just watched the French version. Have to say I am NOT impressed. It does NOT look like a James Bond movie. I liked the poster, but this trailer looks like it's for a TRANSPORTER film or something. I don't think CR will be a hit in the USA and Craig won't be accepted as Bond. He doesn't look at all like Bond in the trailer.

[stromberg]

I thought Christmas only comes once a year...

[deth]

I just watched the French version. Have to say I am NOT impressed. It does NOT look like a James Bond movie. I liked the poster, but this trailer looks like it's for a TRANSPORTER film or something. I don't think CR will be a hit in the USA and Craig won't be accepted as Bond. He doesn't look at all like Bond in the trailer.

honestly.... I thought the same thing watching the first half of the trailer.... the whole B&W thing.... the grit..... it seemed like some sort of well.... you said it... other kind of action movie. Then the second half.... that's Bond.... you could see the style, the suavenesss, the girls, the guns, the cars... did I mention the STYLE? ..

....and then when you put both together, you see that the whole damn thing works like a Bond trailer... it's just NOT what you were obviously expecting... but it IS Bond.

I suppose one could say the Bond films have the RIGHT to make something like this... since this is the true character anyway.... it's the others that are spinoffs... Bond's just claiming what's rightfully his.

Edited by deth, 01 May 2006 - 01:59 AM.

[Tiin007]

Well put, stromberg.

[archer1949]

I just watched the French version. Have to say I am NOT impressed. It does NOT look like a James Bond movie. I liked the poster, but this trailer looks like it's for a TRANSPORTER film or something. I don't think CR will be a hit in the USA and Craig won't be accepted as Bond. He doesn't look at all like Bond in the trailer.

Funny you should say that. Although I found The Transporter movies to be boring suckfests, I think Jason Statham would be a pretty good Bond candidate. In this trailer, Craig has many of the same characteristics that Statham could have brought to the character: cold ruthlessness and professionalism.

It's Bond, just a different Bond that people haven't seen in quite a few years.


I didn't much care for the final shot,either but I really don't think that that would be part of the finished film. I don't like the hair in that. Not the color, just the style. I hope he grows it out a bit for the casino sequences.

Other than that, everything looks tip-top.

[luciusgore]

I just watched the French version. Have to say I am NOT impressed. It does NOT look like a James Bond movie. I liked the poster, but this trailer looks like it's for a TRANSPORTER film or something. I don't think CR will be a hit in the USA and Craig won't be accepted as Bond. He doesn't look at all like Bond in the trailer.

Funny you should say that. Although I found The Transporter movies to be boring suckfests, I think Jason Statham would be a pretty good Bond candidate. In this trailer, Craig has many of the same characteristics that Statham could have brought to the character: cold ruthlessness and professionalism.

It's Bond, just a different Bond that people haven't seen in quite a few years.

My own take on this is that the film is going to be maybe a good Bond-like action film. But that's it. It won't be a Bond film, not unlike Licence to Kill. This trailer reminded of Licence to Kill. Good, but not really Bond. I don't think it will be a hit. It won't be a total bomb but it will be Craig's first and only turn at the role.
I didn't much care for the final shot,either but I really don't think that that would be part of the finished film. I don't like the hair in that. Not the color, just the style. I hope he grows it out a bit for the casino sequences.

Other than that, everything looks tip-top.

[Natalya]

I think very few of the modern audiences still consider the ruthless Fleming Bond as "their" Bond. Bond is usually associated (for better or worse) with the sophisticated suave portrayals by Roger Moore and Pierce Bronson.

Craig's deadly version of Bond may put off some audiences. I am...a little uneasy myself.

[Monsieur B]

I'm just a little curious as to some specifics as to what M and Bond actually say. You know, rather than generally speaking? Being a bit of a Francphone, I gather something along the lines of:

M: It is more [something, I'm guessing this is about his 'bulldozer tactics and how he needs to learn discretion]. Regardless of [what you think?] [Something more about his methods]

Bond: You mean I should act more like a monk?

M: I mean you need to be more mature, more professional to deserve this promotion.

Bond: I was under the impression that 00's did anything and everything in their power to get their job done.

Sounds like a pretty intense dialogue between Craig and Dench. If anyone of you other Francophones out there could maybe verify or even be more accurate in the translations then I then that would be awesome as you can see the first few lines were a tad sketchy.

Again, an excellent trailer. I can't wait to see the English version.

I think very few of the modern audiences still consider the ruthless Fleming Bond as "their" Bond. Bond is usually associated (for better or worse) with the sophisticated suave portrayals by Roger Moore and Pierce Bronson.

Craig's deadly version of Bond may put off some audiences. I am...a little uneasy myself.

Yeah, this ain't your Daddy's 007!

Or if you want to look at it from a Yogi Bear perspective: He's deadlier than your average Bond. Eh, Boo-Boo?

[EyesOnly]

This trailer is fantastic...it seriously has me drooling! And call me stupid, and may very well be in the minority here, but the last shot of Craig (camera zooming in) reminds me of a very intense Sean Connery kinda look! His hair does look a little off in that pic though, but nothing to worry about! Kick trailer!

Edited by EyesOnly, 01 May 2006 - 02:45 AM.

[bweurk]

#347 Andrew

Andrew

Lt. Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 1274 posts

Posted 01 May 2006 - 02:45 AM

Harmsway has posted the ACTUAL dialogue somewhere in this thread, if you're looking for that.

• Back to top

---

#348 Adrian Carlisle

Adrian Carlisle

Sub-Lieutenant

• 
• Crew
• 
• 157 posts

Posted 01 May 2006 - 02:46 AM

I think very few of the modern audiences still consider the ruthless Fleming Bond as "their" Bond. Bond is usually associated (for better or worse) with the sophisticated suave portrayals by Roger Moore and Pierce Bronson.

Craig's deadly version of Bond may put off some audiences. I am...a little uneasy myself.

Yeah. Although I don't mind myself, I showed the trailer to two semi-Bond fan friends of mine and they liked it, but they both said "This doesn't look like James Bond." I think the "popular" image of Bond is still deeply etched in the mindset of conventional audiences, to be honest.

• Back to top

---

#349 Natalya

Natalya

Sub-Lieutenant

• 
• Crew
• 
• 107 posts

Posted 01 May 2006 - 03:00 AM

[/quote]
Yeah. Although I don't mind myself, I showed the trailer to two semi-Bond fan friends of mine and they liked it, but they both said "This doesn't look like James Bond." I think the "popular" image of Bond is still deeply etched in the mindset of conventional audiences, to be honest.
[/quote]

I think its important to note that the Bond series is not the Bourne series, people (children included) come to watch Bond perform ridiculously cool stunts with beautiful woman in a suave fashion. They are not entirely looking for realism here. That's the charm of the Bond series. It's clean escapist fun.

Daniel Craig is unfortunately not handsome (sorry, just my opinion)and the entire "reboot" concept would confuse many viewers. Remember...many of todays fan's first Bond film was "Goldeneye" in which Judi Dench played Bond's newboss. How are they going to react when they see the timeline readjusted here? How will the parents explain to their children to this little contradiction? (kids are a lot more aware than many people give them credit for)

• Back to top

---

#350 Alex Zamudio

Alex Zamudio

Lieutenant

• 
• Crew
• 
• 513 posts

• Location:Mexico

Posted 01 May 2006 - 03:05 AM

FANTASTIC, this is a fantastic trailer, man! we live in exciting times for 007 fans!!

Regards.

• Back to top

---

#351 killkenny kid

killkenny kid

Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 6607 posts

• Location:Albany, New York

Posted 01 May 2006 - 03:15 AM

Wow, a lot of new names around here. Oh well, that's fine. Because I love the trailer, and I'm still on a all time high.

• Back to top

---

#352 Adrian Carlisle

Adrian Carlisle

Sub-Lieutenant

• 
• Crew
• 
• 157 posts

Posted 01 May 2006 - 03:20 AM

I think its important to note that the Bond series is not the Bourne series, people (children included) come to watch Bond perform ridiculously cool stunts with beautiful woman in a suave fashion. They are not entirely looking for realism here. That's the charm of the Bond series. It's clean escapist fun.

Daniel Craig is unfortunately not handsome (sorry, just my opinion)and the entire "reboot" concept would confuse many viewers. Remember...many of todays fan's first Bond film was "Goldeneye" in which Judi Dench played Bond's newboss. How are they going to react when they see the timeline readjusted here? How will the parents explain to their children to this little contradiction? (kids are a lot more aware than many people give them credit for)

Well, first, to me Judi Dench being there isn't a big deal. And this is coming from a Star Trek fan, so I usually am a huge stickler for continuity. But I really don't think it will matter to the masses. The Flemingesque fans will be bothered by anything and everything (yet they still show up...I wonder why?). I was 11 when I saw GoldenEye, and I didn't care about Judi Dench to tell you the truth. As long as the kids understand that different actors play Bond, it's fine. The readjustment should be minimal.

Second, I disagree that Bond and Bourne shouldn't be fused, especially now. I mean, how would you have viewed GoldenEye if it had been slapstick like some of Moore's 70's films? Bond was redone because it needed to move with the times. And yes, while there should always be a few things that should remain unequivocally "Bondian," but like I said earlier upthread, when I saw the Bourne Identity, it made Bond look, to me, like old hat stuff. It was suddenly out of style. Sure I still loved Bond, but I thought Bourne was oh so cool and I wished Bond would emulate that style. Well, it seems that they have, and I'm all for it, let me tell you! It looks great!

That's not a popular viewpoint I know, but that's how I feel.

• Back to top

---

#353 Monsieur B

Monsieur B

Lieutenant

• 
• Crew
• 
• 532 posts

• Location:C'wood, ON, Canada

Posted 01 May 2006 - 03:32 AM

i m sorry but your translation is a bit wrong, especially for the last part, Bond says: "i ve heard that 00 agents have a rather limited lifetime"
something else almost nobody noticed: this is not a real dialogue between M and Bond, it is a montage, i am not sure you'll hear those sentence in the same order or even in the same scene in the movie

Sorry, my interpretation skills are terrible! I thought I heard 'vie' and 'limitee' in that last line but I pushed them aside thinking, "That can't be what he's meaning."

Boy, do I look like a tool...

Edited by Monsieur B, 01 May 2006 - 03:52 AM.

• Back to top

---

#354 luciusgore

luciusgore

Lt. Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 1032 posts

Posted 01 May 2006 - 03:44 AM

I think its important to note that the Bond series is not the Bourne series, people (children included) come to watch Bond perform ridiculously cool stunts with beautiful woman in a suave fashion. They are not entirely looking for realism here. That's the charm of the Bond series. It's clean escapist fun.

Daniel Craig is unfortunately not handsome (sorry, just my opinion)and the entire "reboot" concept would confuse many viewers. Remember...many of todays fan's first Bond film was "Goldeneye" in which Judi Dench played Bond's newboss. How are they going to react when they see the timeline readjusted here? How will the parents explain to their children to this little contradiction? (kids are a lot more aware than many people give them credit for)

Well, first, to me Judi Dench being there isn't a big deal. And this is coming from a Star Trek fan, so I usually am a huge stickler for continuity. But I really don't think it will matter to the masses. The Flemingesque fans will be bothered by anything and everything (yet they still show up...I wonder why?). I was 11 when I saw GoldenEye, and I didn't care about Judi Dench to tell you the truth. As long as the kids understand that different actors play Bond, it's fine. The readjustment should be minimal.

Second, I disagree that Bond and Bourne shouldn't be fused, especially now. I mean, how would you have viewed GoldenEye if it had been slapstick like some of Moore's 70's films? Bond was redone because it needed to move with the times. And yes, while there should always be a few things that should remain unequivocally "Bondian," but like I said earlier upthread, when I saw the Bourne Identity, it made Bond look, to me, like old hat stuff. It was suddenly out of style. Sure I still loved Bond, but I thought Bourne was oh so cool and I wished Bond would emulate that style. Well, it seems that they have, and I'm all for it, let me tell you! It looks great!

That's not a popular viewpoint I know, but that's how I feel.

The bottom line isn't the movie itself, but really how Craig looks in the role in the trailer. He looks bad. Sorry, he does. We have to accept it. Clive Owen in the role, would've bought it. Hard not to think they didn't write this movie for Clive, and got turned down. Once he said no, they should have waited and made a Brosnan Bond as 21, CR as 22. They didn't. Craig will not be accepted and CR is going to be a LTK-level dud, looking at this trailer.

• Back to top

---

#355 TheCheat

TheCheat

Sub-Lieutenant

• 
• Crew
• 
• 494 posts

• Location:Maryland

Posted 01 May 2006 - 04:14 AM

I think its important to note that the Bond series is not the Bourne series, people (children included) come to watch Bond perform ridiculously cool stunts with beautiful woman in a suave fashion. They are not entirely looking for realism here. That's the charm of the Bond series. It's clean escapist fun.

Daniel Craig is unfortunately not handsome (sorry, just my opinion)and the entire "reboot" concept would confuse many viewers. Remember...many of todays fan's first Bond film was "Goldeneye" in which Judi Dench played Bond's newboss. How are they going to react when they see the timeline readjusted here? How will the parents explain to their children to this little contradiction? (kids are a lot more aware than many people give them credit for)

Well, first, to me Judi Dench being there isn't a big deal. And this is coming from a Star Trek fan, so I usually am a huge stickler for continuity. But I really don't think it will matter to the masses. The Flemingesque fans will be bothered by anything and everything (yet they still show up...I wonder why?). I was 11 when I saw GoldenEye, and I didn't care about Judi Dench to tell you the truth. As long as the kids understand that different actors play Bond, it's fine. The readjustment should be minimal.

Second, I disagree that Bond and Bourne shouldn't be fused, especially now. I mean, how would you have viewed GoldenEye if it had been slapstick like some of Moore's 70's films? Bond was redone because it needed to move with the times. And yes, while there should always be a few things that should remain unequivocally "Bondian," but like I said earlier upthread, when I saw the Bourne Identity, it made Bond look, to me, like old hat stuff. It was suddenly out of style. Sure I still loved Bond, but I thought Bourne was oh so cool and I wished Bond would emulate that style. Well, it seems that they have, and I'm all for it, let me tell you! It looks great!

That's not a popular viewpoint I know, but that's how I feel.

The bottom line isn't the movie itself, but really how Craig looks in the role in the trailer. He looks bad. Sorry, he does. We have to accept it. Clive Owen in the role, would've bought it. Hard not to think they didn't write this movie for Clive, and got turned down. Once he said no, they should have waited and made a Brosnan Bond as 21, CR as 22. They didn't. Craig will not be accepted and CR is going to be a LTK-level dud, looking at this trailer.

as much as i love clive owen and wanted him to be james bond i could not see him doing better than daniel craig in this film from what i have seen so far and am very happy with the choices they have made.

• Back to top

---

#356 K1Bond007

K1Bond007

Commander RNVR

• 
• Commanding Officers
• 
• 4932 posts

• Location:Illinois

Posted 01 May 2006 - 04:15 AM

The bottom line isn't the movie itself, but really how Craig looks in the role in the trailer. He looks bad. Sorry, he does. We have to accept it. Clive Owen in the role, would've bought it. Hard not to think they didn't write this movie for Clive, and got turned down. Once he said no, they should have waited and made a Brosnan Bond as 21, CR as 22. They didn't. Craig will not be accepted and CR is going to be a LTK-level dud, looking at this trailer.

Please don't say 'we'. The feedback from the teaser alone (not just from this board) is overwhelmingly positive from what I've seen. And, for the record, 'I' thought he looked fantastic. 'I' think you need to accept that.

The statement about this script being written for Clive is just ignorant. Sorry, to throw that out there, but it's the truth. I definitely could see Craig for this script.

• Back to top

---

#357 zencat

zencat

Commander GCMG

• 
• Commanding Officers
• 
• 25814 posts

• Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 01 May 2006 - 04:20 AM

Broke down and watched it...

Love it.

Gunbarrel is my fav part. Craig's pose is perfect.

The music sounds a lot like the Bond theme mix from Licence To Kill to me.

Final shot is obviously not from the movie but made for the trailer.

Hope to see a high-res English version soon.

• Back to top

---

#358 tdalton

tdalton

Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 11680 posts

Posted 01 May 2006 - 04:22 AM

The bottom line isn't the movie itself, but really how Craig looks in the role in the trailer. He looks bad. Sorry, he does. We have to accept it. Clive Owen in the role, would've bought it. Hard not to think they didn't write this movie for Clive, and got turned down. Once he said no, they should have waited and made a Brosnan Bond as 21, CR as 22. They didn't. Craig will not be accepted and CR is going to be a LTK-level dud, looking at this trailer.

Please don't say 'we'. The feedback from the teaser alone (not just from this board) is overwhelmingly positive from what I've seen. And, for the record, 'I' thought he looked fantastic. 'I' think you need to accept that.

The statement about this script being written for Clive is just ignorant. Sorry, to throw that out there, but it's the truth. I definitely could see Craig for this script.

Well said, K1Bond007.

I think that Craig looks fantastic in the trailer, much better in motion than he looks in still photographs from the film.

• Back to top

---

#359 The Dove

The Dove

Commander

• 
• Veterans
• 
• 16671 posts

• Location:Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 01 May 2006 - 04:32 AM

Somebody bring the smelling salts, I think I've fainted!!! I'm knocked out!! This trailer is exceeding my expectations 100 times over!! WOW!!! Ladies and Gentlemen, Bond is BACK!!!

• Back to top

---

#360 JB007YH

JB007YH

Sub-Lieutenant

• 
• Crew
• 
• 343 posts

• Location:Woodmere, New York

Posted 01 May 2006 - 04:42 AM

Why did the french get the first teaser trailer before England or America? those would be the two at least in my mind that would pull in the biggest audience for the film.

• Back to top

---

[Andrew]

Harmsway has posted the ACTUAL dialogue somewhere in this thread, if you're looking for that.

[Adrian Carlisle]

I think very few of the modern audiences still consider the ruthless Fleming Bond as "their" Bond. Bond is usually associated (for better or worse) with the sophisticated suave portrayals by Roger Moore and Pierce Bronson.

Craig's deadly version of Bond may put off some audiences. I am...a little uneasy myself.

Yeah. Although I don't mind myself, I showed the trailer to two semi-Bond fan friends of mine and they liked it, but they both said "This doesn't look like James Bond." I think the "popular" image of Bond is still deeply etched in the mindset of conventional audiences, to be honest.

[Natalya]

[/quote]
Yeah. Although I don't mind myself, I showed the trailer to two semi-Bond fan friends of mine and they liked it, but they both said "This doesn't look like James Bond." I think the "popular" image of Bond is still deeply etched in the mindset of conventional audiences, to be honest.
[/quote]

I think its important to note that the Bond series is not the Bourne series, people (children included) come to watch Bond perform ridiculously cool stunts with beautiful woman in a suave fashion. They are not entirely looking for realism here. That's the charm of the Bond series. It's clean escapist fun.

Daniel Craig is unfortunately not handsome (sorry, just my opinion)and the entire "reboot" concept would confuse many viewers. Remember...many of todays fan's first Bond film was "Goldeneye" in which Judi Dench played Bond's newboss. How are they going to react when they see the timeline readjusted here? How will the parents explain to their children to this little contradiction? (kids are a lot more aware than many people give them credit for)

[Alex Zamudio]

FANTASTIC, this is a fantastic trailer, man! we live in exciting times for 007 fans!!

Regards.

[killkenny kid]

Wow, a lot of new names around here. Oh well, that's fine. Because I love the trailer, and I'm still on a all time high.

[Adrian Carlisle]

I think its important to note that the Bond series is not the Bourne series, people (children included) come to watch Bond perform ridiculously cool stunts with beautiful woman in a suave fashion. They are not entirely looking for realism here. That's the charm of the Bond series. It's clean escapist fun.

Daniel Craig is unfortunately not handsome (sorry, just my opinion)and the entire "reboot" concept would confuse many viewers. Remember...many of todays fan's first Bond film was "Goldeneye" in which Judi Dench played Bond's newboss. How are they going to react when they see the timeline readjusted here? How will the parents explain to their children to this little contradiction? (kids are a lot more aware than many people give them credit for)

Well, first, to me Judi Dench being there isn't a big deal. And this is coming from a Star Trek fan, so I usually am a huge stickler for continuity. But I really don't think it will matter to the masses. The Flemingesque fans will be bothered by anything and everything (yet they still show up...I wonder why?). I was 11 when I saw GoldenEye, and I didn't care about Judi Dench to tell you the truth. As long as the kids understand that different actors play Bond, it's fine. The readjustment should be minimal.

Second, I disagree that Bond and Bourne shouldn't be fused, especially now. I mean, how would you have viewed GoldenEye if it had been slapstick like some of Moore's 70's films? Bond was redone because it needed to move with the times. And yes, while there should always be a few things that should remain unequivocally "Bondian," but like I said earlier upthread, when I saw the Bourne Identity, it made Bond look, to me, like old hat stuff. It was suddenly out of style. Sure I still loved Bond, but I thought Bourne was oh so cool and I wished Bond would emulate that style. Well, it seems that they have, and I'm all for it, let me tell you! It looks great!

That's not a popular viewpoint I know, but that's how I feel.

[Monsieur B]

i m sorry but your translation is a bit wrong, especially for the last part, Bond says: "i ve heard that 00 agents have a rather limited lifetime"
something else almost nobody noticed: this is not a real dialogue between M and Bond, it is a montage, i am not sure you'll hear those sentence in the same order or even in the same scene in the movie

Sorry, my interpretation skills are terrible! I thought I heard 'vie' and 'limitee' in that last line but I pushed them aside thinking, "That can't be what he's meaning."

Boy, do I look like a tool...

Edited by Monsieur B, 01 May 2006 - 03:52 AM.

[luciusgore]

I think its important to note that the Bond series is not the Bourne series, people (children included) come to watch Bond perform ridiculously cool stunts with beautiful woman in a suave fashion. They are not entirely looking for realism here. That's the charm of the Bond series. It's clean escapist fun.

Daniel Craig is unfortunately not handsome (sorry, just my opinion)and the entire "reboot" concept would confuse many viewers. Remember...many of todays fan's first Bond film was "Goldeneye" in which Judi Dench played Bond's newboss. How are they going to react when they see the timeline readjusted here? How will the parents explain to their children to this little contradiction? (kids are a lot more aware than many people give them credit for)

Well, first, to me Judi Dench being there isn't a big deal. And this is coming from a Star Trek fan, so I usually am a huge stickler for continuity. But I really don't think it will matter to the masses. The Flemingesque fans will be bothered by anything and everything (yet they still show up...I wonder why?). I was 11 when I saw GoldenEye, and I didn't care about Judi Dench to tell you the truth. As long as the kids understand that different actors play Bond, it's fine. The readjustment should be minimal.

Second, I disagree that Bond and Bourne shouldn't be fused, especially now. I mean, how would you have viewed GoldenEye if it had been slapstick like some of Moore's 70's films? Bond was redone because it needed to move with the times. And yes, while there should always be a few things that should remain unequivocally "Bondian," but like I said earlier upthread, when I saw the Bourne Identity, it made Bond look, to me, like old hat stuff. It was suddenly out of style. Sure I still loved Bond, but I thought Bourne was oh so cool and I wished Bond would emulate that style. Well, it seems that they have, and I'm all for it, let me tell you! It looks great!

That's not a popular viewpoint I know, but that's how I feel.

The bottom line isn't the movie itself, but really how Craig looks in the role in the trailer. He looks bad. Sorry, he does. We have to accept it. Clive Owen in the role, would've bought it. Hard not to think they didn't write this movie for Clive, and got turned down. Once he said no, they should have waited and made a Brosnan Bond as 21, CR as 22. They didn't. Craig will not be accepted and CR is going to be a LTK-level dud, looking at this trailer.

[TheCheat]

I think its important to note that the Bond series is not the Bourne series, people (children included) come to watch Bond perform ridiculously cool stunts with beautiful woman in a suave fashion. They are not entirely looking for realism here. That's the charm of the Bond series. It's clean escapist fun.

Daniel Craig is unfortunately not handsome (sorry, just my opinion)and the entire "reboot" concept would confuse many viewers. Remember...many of todays fan's first Bond film was "Goldeneye" in which Judi Dench played Bond's newboss. How are they going to react when they see the timeline readjusted here? How will the parents explain to their children to this little contradiction? (kids are a lot more aware than many people give them credit for)

Well, first, to me Judi Dench being there isn't a big deal. And this is coming from a Star Trek fan, so I usually am a huge stickler for continuity. But I really don't think it will matter to the masses. The Flemingesque fans will be bothered by anything and everything (yet they still show up...I wonder why?). I was 11 when I saw GoldenEye, and I didn't care about Judi Dench to tell you the truth. As long as the kids understand that different actors play Bond, it's fine. The readjustment should be minimal.

Second, I disagree that Bond and Bourne shouldn't be fused, especially now. I mean, how would you have viewed GoldenEye if it had been slapstick like some of Moore's 70's films? Bond was redone because it needed to move with the times. And yes, while there should always be a few things that should remain unequivocally "Bondian," but like I said earlier upthread, when I saw the Bourne Identity, it made Bond look, to me, like old hat stuff. It was suddenly out of style. Sure I still loved Bond, but I thought Bourne was oh so cool and I wished Bond would emulate that style. Well, it seems that they have, and I'm all for it, let me tell you! It looks great!

That's not a popular viewpoint I know, but that's how I feel.

The bottom line isn't the movie itself, but really how Craig looks in the role in the trailer. He looks bad. Sorry, he does. We have to accept it. Clive Owen in the role, would've bought it. Hard not to think they didn't write this movie for Clive, and got turned down. Once he said no, they should have waited and made a Brosnan Bond as 21, CR as 22. They didn't. Craig will not be accepted and CR is going to be a LTK-level dud, looking at this trailer.

as much as i love clive owen and wanted him to be james bond i could not see him doing better than daniel craig in this film from what i have seen so far and am very happy with the choices they have made.

[K1Bond007]

The bottom line isn't the movie itself, but really how Craig looks in the role in the trailer. He looks bad. Sorry, he does. We have to accept it. Clive Owen in the role, would've bought it. Hard not to think they didn't write this movie for Clive, and got turned down. Once he said no, they should have waited and made a Brosnan Bond as 21, CR as 22. They didn't. Craig will not be accepted and CR is going to be a LTK-level dud, looking at this trailer.

Please don't say 'we'. The feedback from the teaser alone (not just from this board) is overwhelmingly positive from what I've seen. And, for the record, 'I' thought he looked fantastic. 'I' think you need to accept that.

The statement about this script being written for Clive is just ignorant. Sorry, to throw that out there, but it's the truth. I definitely could see Craig for this script.

[zencat]

Broke down and watched it...

Love it.

Gunbarrel is my fav part. Craig's pose is perfect.

The music sounds a lot like the Bond theme mix from Licence To Kill to me.

Final shot is obviously not from the movie but made for the trailer.

Hope to see a high-res English version soon.

[tdalton]

The bottom line isn't the movie itself, but really how Craig looks in the role in the trailer. He looks bad. Sorry, he does. We have to accept it. Clive Owen in the role, would've bought it. Hard not to think they didn't write this movie for Clive, and got turned down. Once he said no, they should have waited and made a Brosnan Bond as 21, CR as 22. They didn't. Craig will not be accepted and CR is going to be a LTK-level dud, looking at this trailer.

Please don't say 'we'. The feedback from the teaser alone (not just from this board) is overwhelmingly positive from what I've seen. And, for the record, 'I' thought he looked fantastic. 'I' think you need to accept that.

The statement about this script being written for Clive is just ignorant. Sorry, to throw that out there, but it's the truth. I definitely could see Craig for this script.

Well said, K1Bond007.

I think that Craig looks fantastic in the trailer, much better in motion than he looks in still photographs from the film.

[The Dove]

Somebody bring the smelling salts, I think I've fainted!!! I'm knocked out!! This trailer is exceeding my expectations 100 times over!! WOW!!! Ladies and Gentlemen, Bond is BACK!!!

[JB007YH]

Why did the french get the first teaser trailer before England or America? those would be the two at least in my mind that would pull in the biggest audience for the film.