526 replies to this topic

[EyesOnly]

Found this on another site...I'm posting it because I think Craig's gunbarrel is awesome! http://img199.images...682/crcr9ic.gif

[JB007YH]

Is it my imagination or is the gunbarrel scene taking place in a bathroom. It got me excited when i saw it, but then I realized the room looked like a bathroom.

[Jackanaples]

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.

According to both EON and Clive Owen himself, he was never approached to play Bond. Ever. I thought he'd be perfect for it too, until I saw the CR trailer. Daniel Craig as Bond has an intense physicality that only George Lazenby has come close to.

Incidentally, Pierce Brosnan is is going to be 53 this year. FIFTY-THREE! He's old enough to be my father (I'm 35) and that means he's too old to play James Bond. That sucks, but there it is. Let it go. He's a better Thomas Crown anyway, and they're making a sequel to that.

The Bond movies have been playing it safe for over thirty years. No surprise then that they've lost prestige and cultural cachet in the eyes of the public. Bond is seen as a series that saw its best moments before most of us were born.

All these decades later and THUNDERBALL is still the biggest hit (both culturally and box office wise) they've ever had. That's very telling.

Most people (including those who by their own admission don't really care about Bond) seem to be really enthused by this trailer. It's easy to see why.

In the past EON always sought to make the same old Bond movies in a contemporary setting. They followed the "formula" and this is why even when they got a promising actor to play Bond --nothing really exciting ever happened. Bond looked very tired compared to Indiana Jones or Jason Bourne, etc. It wasn't Bond that was tired though, just the execution.

Now they've hit upon the idea of updating the Bond concept (whilst taking it back to it's core elements), keeping what works, and losing the cliches that have weighed the movies down like a wardrobe full of cement shoes.

CASINO ROYALE looks like a bracing bit of entertainment. It promises to be James Bond for the 21st century as opposed to 1960s Bond done in the 21st century if you get my meaning.

Bottom line: I think you'll find that CASINO ROYALE is going to be the biggest Bond movie since THUNDERBALL. I've never been this excited by a Bond film in my life, and I've been obsessed with the character since I was seven.

For myself, I have a big evening planned for Nov. 17th: I'm going to deck myself out in a dashing and well-cut suit, get together with a bunch of friends to see CASINO ROYALE (at the Arclight Cinerama Dome in Hollywood if possible), and then repair to Musso & Frank's for steaks and martinis.

[fsartono]

For those of you who missed or can't the see teaser for whatever reason, here it is again:

http://www.youtube.c...ch=casinoroyale

and

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

Edited by fsartono, 01 May 2006 - 05:17 AM.

[mccartney007]

Fantastic -- looks VERY stylish! The more I see and the more I read, the more I think this is going to make all the other Bond films look like crap in comparison.

[Jackanaples]

Fantastic -- looks VERY stylish! The more I see and the more I read, the more I think this is going to make all the other Bond films look like crap in comparison.

I am with you there.

[Natalya]

[/quote]

The Bond movies have been playing it safe for over thirty years. No surprise then that they've lost prestige and cultural cachet in the eyes of the public. Bond is seen as a series that saw its best moments before most of us were born.

All these decades later and THUNDERBALL is still the biggest hit (both culturally and box office wise) they've ever had. That's very telling.

Most people (including those who by their own admission don't really care about Bond) seem to be really enthused by this trailer. It's easy to see why.

In the past EON always sought to make the same old Bond movies in a contemporary setting. They followed the "formula" and this is why even when they got a promising actor to play Bond --nothing really exciting ever happened. Bond looked very tired compared to Indiana Jones or Jason Bourne, etc. It wasn't Bond that was tired though, just the execution.
[/quote]

Actually, Die Another Day is the highest grossing Bond film of all time. Not Thunderball. While, I admit that a lot of people may think Bond as being passe, fan support for Bond remains at a record high as ever. Almost EVERY Bond film in the series has done well (albeit moderately).

I do see the need for Bond to reinvent himself for the new milennium however. y problem is with Craig, he does not look like the typical image of Bond and (while mainly positive) a lot of my friends after seeing the trailer thought that it did not "feel" like a Bond flick.

[Adrian Carlisle]

Actually Natalya, adjusted for inflation, the (US) domestic totals for Thunderball are in the $478 million range. That beats Die Another Day's WORLDWIDE gross ($431 million).

[triviachamp]

Edit: Nevermind. Adrian answered it.

Looking good.

Edited by triviachamp, 01 May 2006 - 05:53 AM.

[K1Bond007]

Actually, Die Another Day is the highest grossing Bond film of all time. Not Thunderball.

Only if you don't take inflation into account. Otherwise it's Thunderball. Thunderball is the big-daddy of Bond. 166 million people saw it worldwide in the theaters. Die Another Day didn't even reach half that number. Hell, more people saw GoldenEye than Die Another Day; DAD is actually kinda middle of the road for Bond in terms of viewers (and thus with inflation counted in gross).

[SecretAgent007]

A heck of a lot more tickets were sold for Thunderball than for DAD. You can't compare grosses when tickets in 65 were a fraction of what they cost today

[triviachamp]

A heck of a lot more tickets were sold for Thunderball than for DAD. You can't compare grosses when tickets in 65 were a fraction of what they cost today

Not to mention half as many people in the world at the time. Probably fewer people could get access to movies. And inflation.

[00-FAN008]

This trailer looks crazy-amazing. Looks like the Bond franchise is gonna take the right turn!

[Natalya]

This trailer looks crazy-amazing. Looks like the Bond franchise is gonna take the right turn!

I'll admit that the Trailer was most encouraging. The key thing is Craig I think. Will the audiences accept him as Bond? It's less than clear.

[00-FAN008]

I'll admit that the Trailer was most encouraging. The key thing is Craig I think. Will the audiences accept him as Bond? It's less than clear.

Yes, I hope fans look more for his character rather than his physical appearance. It's not like he can help it if people think his face looks weird or whatever; he'll just have to play it smooth.

[I Like Sharks]

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.

Craig gets his gunbarrel scene in a bog! You could'nt make it up!

[tdalton]

I might be in the minority on this one, I'm not sure, but I actually like the gun barell in this teaser. It's different, yes, but I like the concept behind it, with Craig obviously being surprised by someone coming up behind him, and then turning around in what has to be the best gun barell pose of the six Bonds. Great stuff.

Something else, also, about the last shot of the trailer. I read somewhere that someone was saying that it looks like Craig is tired. If you recall the beginning of Ian Fleming's Casino Royale, when he talks about the smell of smoke and sweat in the casino and how James Bond was feeling tired. I think that that shot harkens back to that opening bit of Fleming's novel, and when looking at it from that context, I like it even more (because it didn't really bother me from the outset like it has done for some).

[Live&LetDie007]

Like I said, the film itself looks amazing, but Craig still looks painfully out of place as JAMES BOND. As any other action hero, he'd be perfect, but I'm still not seeing the character of James Bond. In the trailer I see just a random guy who looks like a blonde, big nosed chimpanzee, pretending to be James Bond.

[Harmsway]

I might be in the minority on this one, I'm not sure, but I actually like the gun barell in this teaser. It's different, yes, but I like the concept behind it, with Craig obviously being surprised by someone coming up behind him, and then turning around in what has to be the best gun barell pose of the six Bonds. Great stuff.

I concur. However, I think there's the possibility of the CGI graphics on the gunbarrel proper being unfinished and thus it looking somewhat different in the final film. Otherwise, though, I think it'll be great.

Craig's pose, as you said, is astoundingly perfect.

[Adrian Carlisle]

Like I said, the film itself looks amazing, but Craig still looks painfully out of place as JAMES BOND. As any other action hero, he'd be perfect, but I'm still not seeing the character of James Bond. In the trailer I see just a random guy who looks like a blonde, big nosed chimpanzee, pretending to be James Bond.

*sigh* The blond stuff is SERIOUSLY getting old. It's HAIR COLOR. Get over it.

[Live&LetDie007]

Like I said, the film itself looks amazing, but Craig still looks painfully out of place as JAMES BOND. As any other action hero, he'd be perfect, but I'm still not seeing the character of James Bond. In the trailer I see just a random guy who looks like a blonde, big nosed chimpanzee, pretending to be James Bond.

*sigh* The blond stuff is SERIOUSLY getting old. It's HAIR COLOR. Get over it.

It's not just the hair color, it's how he looks. He looks like some ugly young punk, not Ian Fleming's classically handome, deadly, and sophisticated James Bond.

[tdalton]

Like I said, the film itself looks amazing, but Craig still looks painfully out of place as JAMES BOND. As any other action hero, he'd be perfect, but I'm still not seeing the character of James Bond. In the trailer I see just a random guy who looks like a blonde, big nosed chimpanzee, pretending to be James Bond.

*sigh* The blond stuff is SERIOUSLY getting old. It's HAIR COLOR. Get over it.

It's not just the hair color, it's how he looks. He looks like some ugly young punk, not Ian Fleming's classically handome, deadly, and sophisticated James Bond.

I think that he looks very good in the black and white shots, and most of the color shots are the ones where it looks like he's kind of working undercover and not running around in the jungle wearing a suit like they would have done if this was "just another Bond movie". I think that once we get some footage of the gambling sequence (if we they actually let us see that before the film is released, of course) or when we get some footage of Craig doing more "elegant" Bond stuff, then he'll look more like the typical James Bond.

[Adrian Carlisle]

^ Well, if you're really that bothered by it, it's your prerogative to not see the film. I, for one, think it's a tired criticism to make of a character who has been played by 5 different men. And in my opinion, only Dalton and Craig look like real-life SPIES.

Craig looks rough and dangerous. And this is his first mission as a double-0, so of course he's going to be a young punk. That's the point of what they're trying to do here. They're trying to show his evolution into the guy we know as James Bond.

[Live&LetDie007]

Like I said, the film itself looks amazing, but Craig still looks painfully out of place as JAMES BOND. As any other action hero, he'd be perfect, but I'm still not seeing the character of James Bond. In the trailer I see just a random guy who looks like a blonde, big nosed chimpanzee, pretending to be James Bond.

*sigh* The blond stuff is SERIOUSLY getting old. It's HAIR COLOR. Get over it.

It's not just the hair color, it's how he looks. He looks like some ugly young punk, not Ian Fleming's classically handome, deadly, and sophisticated James Bond.

I think that he looks very good in the black and white shots, and most of the color shots are the ones where it looks like he's kind of working undercover and not running around in the jungle wearing a suit like they would have done if this was "just another Bond movie". I think that once we get some footage of the gambling sequence (if we they actually let us see that before the film is released, of course) or when we get some footage of Craig doing more "elegant" Bond stuff, then he'll look more like the typical James Bond.

I REALLY hope your right, but judging from the final shot of the trailer, Craig looks his most terrible, IN the tux, during the casino scene. (Or at least what we saw anyway)

[tdalton]

I REALLY hope your right, but judging from the final shot of the trailer, Craig looks his most terrible, IN the tux, during the casino scene. (Or at least what we saw anyway)

I think that shot of Craig actually harkens back to the opening of Fleming's Casino Royale, where he talks about Bond being tired, and it looks like Craig is very tired in that final shot. I'll admit, that shot does seem very out of place (they probably should have ended the teaser at the Casino Royale logo), and perhaps it's not even supposed to be in the finished teaser, since it has yet to be officially released. But, if Craig were to look like that after the gambling sequence, then I wouldn't mind, because the look does appear to be inspired by Fleming himself.

[Live&LetDie007]

^ Well, if you're really that bothered by it, it's your prerogative to not see the film. I, for one, think it's a tired criticism to make of a character who has been played by 5 different men. And in my opinion, only Dalton and Craig look like real-life SPIES.

Craig looks rough and dangerous. And this is his first mission as a double-0, so of course he's going to be a young punk. That's the point of what they're trying to do here. They're trying to show his evolution into the guy we know as James Bond.

Well, 007 isn't a real life spy, is he? The James Bond films are PURE fantasy and escapist entertainment. Broccoli and even Fleming to an extent, had the right idea: Bond is ageless, and he should alway be portrayed as a veteran character; where he came from isn't that important.

[Jim]

Hmm, fair enough but I very much doubt that he'll look like that in the casino scene - after all, he's not going to deliver a line to camera...

...is he?

Strikes me that it's just a hastily shot representative little tag to convince people why the film should be called Casino Royale and yet, to that point, the trailer has not featured one. Or that Bond will be out of his head on benzedrine after all.

[Rolex]

After watching it numerous times i have the following points
1. Unique teaser trailer in the Bond franchise
2. It sets up audiences that this Bond is a reboot. Bond character and not Craig looks less refined
3. There is less quantity of storyline than DAD teaser trailer for members to guess about.
Did i like it ? Yes but would have prefered a little more in the trailer.

[Harmsway]

I REALLY hope your right, but judging from the final shot of the trailer, Craig looks his most terrible, IN the tux, during the casino scene. (Or at least what we saw anyway)

He looks fine in a tux in the original promo shot and looked *great* in a tux on the teaser poster. That one shot for the trailer is just very poorly lit and poorly filmed - it was clearly filmed just for the trailer and may have been rather hastily put together. I also don't think he looks *that* terrible in the final shot. Awkward? Yeah, but not appalling.

[Adrian Carlisle]

^ Well, if you're really that bothered by it, it's your prerogative to not see the film. I, for one, think it's a tired criticism to make of a character who has been played by 5 different men. And in my opinion, only Dalton and Craig look like real-life SPIES.

Craig looks rough and dangerous. And this is his first mission as a double-0, so of course he's going to be a young punk. That's the point of what they're trying to do here. They're trying to show his evolution into the guy we know as James Bond.

Well, 007 isn't a real life spy, is he? The James Bond films are PURE fantasy and escapist entertainment. Broccoli and even Fleming to an extent, had the right idea: Bond is ageless, and he should alway be portrayed as a veteran character; where he came from isn't that important.

It's a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the "pure fantasy and escapist" entertainment first peaked with the silliness of Moore, then after ebbing through Dalton, went up again with Brosnan, culminating in the retch-fest that was Die Another Day. Personally, I hated how silly Die Another Day turned out to be, and after seeing it, I just shook my head, because I had seen The Bourne Identity previously that summer, and it made Bond look almost silly.

So in my opinion at least, Bond needed a change. Could we have handled another CGI glacier-surfing sequence? I don't know...