380 replies to this topic

[Punisher]

Gee wiz!

I just see Casino Royale as the 21st Bond movie. Not that it could be a Bond re-boot, re-start, re-birth, re-whatever.

You're the first person to not think so.

The villian from MI: 3 is exactly what Bond needs. Someone to put the fear right into James Bond and actually make him afraid for once. I'm talking a villian who dominates 3/4 of the movie and leaves Bond's psyche shaken to where Bond has no choice BUT to confront his fear head on and deal with it.


Put an element like that into a Bond movie and you have the start of something good.

[tdalton]

Gee wiz!

I just see Casino Royale as the 21st Bond movie. Not that it could be a Bond re-boot, re-start, re-birth, re-whatever.

I'd love to be able to think of the film that way. Actually, that was the way that I looked at it for a long time, until all of this nonsense regarding certain theories about the trailer and all that began. I think that, ultimately, Daniel Craig will end up being a good Bond, but I've got concerns about him now that I didn't have even last week. I just don't think that the public is going to accept him as Bond, although I hope I'm wrong, and I'm beginning to wonder if he's even going to get a second shot at the part. For some reason, there's just something about this film that makes it seem like it might be a "one-off" Bond film.

[JimmyBond]

Is that honestly a bad thing though? While I certainly don't wish that on Craig (I hope he does at least five). Just look at OHMSS and Lazenby, many people (even those outside of Bond fandom) are taking second looks at that film and realizing it for the classic it is. I except the same to happen to Craig if that happens.

[Punisher]

Is that honestly a bad thing though? While I certainly don't wish that on Craig (I hope he does at least five). Just look at OHMSS and Lazenby, many people (even those outside of Bond fandom) are taking second looks at that film and realizing it for the classic it is. I except the same to happen to Craig if that happens.

Or critics could Craig as the weirdest choice for Bond ever.

Oh, and you obviously hadn't read Martin Campbell's remarks before filming began have you? Something about taking Bond back to his roots, and I think he did mention the word "reboot"


now, correct me if I'm wrong....but what is that supposed to mean?

[tdalton]

Is that honestly a bad thing though? While I certainly don't wish that on Craig (I hope he does at least five). Just look at OHMSS and Lazenby, many people (even those outside of Bond fandom) are taking second looks at that film and realizing it for the classic it is. I except the same to happen to Craig if that happens.

I hope that he does more than one, but I don't think that he will. Judging from the two trailers, it looks like M:I-3 is going to be the better of the two spy movies this year, honestly. Just something about the whole way they've done Casino Royale just makes it seem to me as though it's going to fail miserably at the box office. It'll have a good opening weekend (25-35 mil or so) and then I have a feeling that the box office takes will significantly decline each weekend after that, and then Craig will be made the scapegoat, and either Butler, Owen, Jackman, McMahon, or Brosnan will come in to "save the franchise".

[killkenny kid]

Is that honestly a bad thing though? While I certainly don't wish that on Craig (I hope he does at least five). Just look at OHMSS and Lazenby, many people (even those outside of Bond fandom) are taking second looks at that film and realizing it for the classic it is. I except the same to happen to Craig if that happens.

I can see what you mean, it my not be a bad thing. But, do we really want a hunt for the next Bond this soon.

[JimmyBond]

now, correct me if I'm wrong....but what is that supposed to mean?

You seem to be insinuating that it means they're changing the character of James Bond, which is pretty much wrong.

[Blofeld's Cat]

For some reason, there's just something about this film that makes it seem like it might be a "one-off" Bond film.

I do too, but not for the same reason you suggest.

I think Bond 22 will be more in the mold of what we're all used to, but still a little held back. The 50-50 Bond movie, if you will. Then Bond 23 will be like Bond of old. Hopefully all involving Danny Craig.

In my mind I just think that the producers have a 3-movie arc planned.

[Punisher]

Ok deconstructing further:

in the film: James Bond the rookie agent

in the novel: James Bond the semi seasoned pro who's never had a really difficult assignment until Le Chiffre.

That's a diffrence. Albeit a small diffrence but a diffrence to the character regardless.

[JimmyBond]

But James Bond isnt a rookie agent. That's a rumor that got turned into fact a while back. James Bond is a new double-O (this much is true) but before the start of the film James Bond is a seasoned agent.

[Jim]

Wouldn't you say that a series was in trouble if it had to "reboot" after two films, never mind twenty?

Wow, after three whole films and one actor, it manages to maintain continuity! What an accomplishment!

When the Mission:Impossible series is 50 years old and five other actors have taken over the role of the protagonist, this comparison might make sense. Until then, it's just a matter of comparing apples and oranges. Ethan Hunt is still played by the original (cinematic) actor. The M:I series is three films long. No parts have been recast. It can still maintain a simple continuity. Bond can't, and shouldn't be expected to. With five actors and twenty films behind us, why keep pretending? Does anyone think Brosnan's Bond was married to Diana Rigg? Does it make the films more enjoyable to shoehorn that kind of nonsense into them?

If you love obsessively retconned, convoluted canons spanning decades of self-contradicting events, why not read a Marvel comic book? Or perhaps an episode of Star Trek. The sooner Bond breaks free of fanboyism the better.

Quite.

[Santa]

You and me both Blofeld's Cat.

Not just us two either.

I'm with you two. This lot are fresh out of the funny farm.

[enigma662]

My brother just got back from seeing MI3, and he told me it was ridiculous. Some garbage about "humpty dumpty sat on a wall"? And the fact that everything in the movie exploded... I'll probably still see it myself, but I don't have high hopes.

[stamper]

I hope that he does more than one, but I don't think that he will. Judging from the two trailers, it looks like M:I-3 is going to be the better of the two spy movies this year, honestly. Just something about the whole way they've done Casino Royale just makes it seem to me as though it's going to fail miserably at the box office. It'll have a good opening weekend (25-35 mil or so) and then I have a feeling that the box office takes will significantly decline each weekend after that, and then Craig will be made the scapegoat, and either Butler, Owen, Jackman, McMahon, or Brosnan will come in to "save the franchise".

You guys never give up, eh ?

Ok deconstructing further:

in the film: James Bond the rookie agent

in the novel: James Bond the semi seasoned pro who's never had a really difficult assignment until Le Chiffre.

That's a diffrence. Albeit a small diffrence but a diffrence to the character regardless.

You forgot to add his hair is blond !

[ACE]

Some of you Craig doubters need to keep up with the times. He's gaining support all the time. Craigisnotbond had its Andy Warhol 15 minutes. Why not join us BOND FANS and enjoy the next era rather than living in the past.

YAY! Well said, Turn

[Johnboy007]

Yes, JBY007H it was the AP US History Exam... But you know how it goes... can't tell anyone what was on the test so we'll just leave the day at that...

Not 'til Monday morning....

[MarcAngeDraco]

Judging from the two trailers, it looks like M:I-3 is going to be the better of the two spy movies this year, honestly.

I have to strongly disagree on that point... From the trailer, MI3 looks like it'll have that same totally ridiculous over-the-top action nonsense. (SSDD, as far as I'm concerned)

[sharpshooter]

Saw MI3 today, and I loved it. Great movie, and very different from the others, for the better.

[J.B.]

You guys are missing the point. Adapting the TV show to Movies is one thing BUT the film series has been continious--MI1 to MI3 haven't rebooted. They just deepened the characters in MI3 to excellent effect. We are talking about the movies and NOT TV.

I gotta disagree. First, if you radically alter the source material -- whether it's from a film, TV show, book, comic, video game -- it's a reboot. Second, they went from Bond rip-off to John Woo action flick to this. All three movies are completely different.

Hopefully CR is RETURNING to the source material. Blonde hair does not constitute a radical reboot.

Well we go disagree then--the movies have changed stylistically some but that's about all. The TV series is irrelevent IMO. And it's clearly more than blonde hair. But CR may work anyway.

I agree with you Seannery. I saw it yesterday as well and while I am not a Cruise fan at all, what I couldnt get away from was the parallels to Bond films. This past week I watched the first two MI's to get back into the series. And in all three films you can see the Bond parallels from the opening sequence that happens before the opening credits, the theme song throughout the film, the one girl interest that Hunt chases and/or catches, the gadgets w/o Q, to the center character moving everything along. I came away thinking this one was the closest to Bond than all the other MI's. What I couldnt help thinking was that Cruise (who produces these films) is a hidden Bond wannabe so he bought this franchise to be a sort of American Bond.

I thought MI3 was a very entertaining film and I definitely saw how Bond could have continued without this massive change of direction everyone says is coming. (we will see how massive in November). I also thought that EON needs to learn about gadgets from this film. They were great! They did some good stuff in this film and it kept you guessing.

It will be interesting to see how CR comes out. I havent read the script so I am in the dark on purpose.

[Natalya]

I just saw MI3 tonight. It was an above average action flick. Not very impressive in my opinion. It was pretty much a 2 hr version of Alias.

[Leon]

But Casino Royale isn't re-inventing the character...

Yes it is.

NO...it isn't! Have you even read the script? It's no different to any other character traits of 007 that we have seen before, just in a newish blend and more balanced.

While Bond is dark and tough as Dalton or some very early Connery moments he also has the classic dry humour and suave sides we all know.
I'm sick of hearing Bond fans who claim to have read the book that Bond isn't at all new to the section, as if you actually read it you'll see how M is trying 007 out on this job. He mentions the Monaco job which people always quote, but nowhere does it say that was when he was a Double O.

It's not re-inventing anything to do with Bond. They are just expanding on the fact that Bond is relatively new to the OO section, AS HE IS IN THE BOOK, if you have read it properly you should know that.

Edited by Leon, 06 May 2006 - 02:53 PM.

[Simon]

The fact it has Tom Cruise is enough to alienate many moviegoers.

But thankfully, for the business people, to attract many more.

[Punisher]

But Casino Royale isn't re-inventing the character...

Yes it is.

NO...it isn't! Have you even read the script? It's no different to any other character traits of 007 that we have seen before, just in a newish blend and more balanced.

While Bond is dark and tough as Dalton or some very early Connery moments he also has the classic dry humour and suave sides we all know.
I'm sick of hearing Bond fans who claim to have read the book that Bond isn't at all new to the section, as if you actually read it you'll see how M is trying 007 out on this job. He mentions the Monaco job which people always quote, but nowhere does it say that was when he was a Double O.

It's not re-inventing anything to do with Bond. They are just expanding on the fact that Bond is relatively new to the OO section, AS HE IS IN THE BOOK, if you have read it properly you should know that.

Yes it is.

In the novel Royale is not Bond's first assignment as a double O agent. He's had two or three previous missions that Mr. Fleming didn't write about or care to mention.

In the movie Royale is Bond's first assignment. So yes Campbell and company are changing the character alittle bit.

But whatever, you're getting a Bond movie right? that should be enough for you and all the fans who don't care to stop and think.

[Bondesque]

I think that most of you are just on an opening weekend MI3 "high". Even Craig supporter, TDalton (who I respect and usually agree with)is thinking CR may be a one shot Bond and that MI3 is the better film.

My dear friends, WE HAVEN'T SEEN CASINO ROYALE YET! There is no way that we can judge it against MI3. I will wager that by November MI3 will be, for some just a nice memory. If Craig delivers the performance he is capable of and if EON is as brave as they seem to be in making this film, then CR will hold up very, very well both financially and with the critics. Sure, Cruise may bring in more money, but CR will also do very well at the box office.

This, coming from someone who wanted, Butler or Jackman in the role over Craig!

Let's all keep a healthey perspective on this.

[Leon]

In the novel Royale is not Bond's first assignment as a double O agent. He's had two or three previous missions that Mr. Fleming didn't write about or care to mention.

Quote me the mention of a previous DOUBLE O assignment that Bond has has in that book. There isn't ONE.

Quote: "And he's got the right man and wants to try him out on the job"

Bond also says to Mathis in hospital how in the last few years he has killed 2 men and was awarded the Double O nuymber for that, earning a reputation for being good and tough. 2 men in the last few years, no more, and those 2 earned him the 00.

In the film Royale isn't his first assignment anyway, we aren't sure what his first assignment is, but it's likely it's shadowing Mollaka with Carter...no?

I say again, they aren't re-inventing the character, they are giving a modern translation of Flemings first book, in which Bond is a relatively new Double O. If you have read the script you'd know that this Bond is no different to the others we have already had on screen.

Edited by Leon, 06 May 2006 - 05:19 PM.

[stone cold]

Recent Brosnan Bond films were so shallow, so cartoonish, so lame that the lengths to which they stretched and ruined the bond universe makes even the idea of continuity pointless. I simply do not see Casino Royale as a stright reboot/begins tale - it is something far more interesting and powerful:

Casino Royale has remained the properly unmade classic Bond book for so long - it has always been waiting there for the producers to reignite Bond when the franchise overstretched itself. I am not talking money here.. no brain Brosnan films made millions..But they threatened the Bond franchise in a different, new way - more insidious than poisoning Bonds iconic image - by being sloppily and cynically made, and misjudged ( to me anyhow ) - selling out everything that made Bond great..and turning it into a cliche, a joke, a cartoon. Sorry - I thought Brosnan was great..he's class, but the last 2 films i cannot abide by. Those pathetic attempts at supermodern hi-tech plots, cgi, high concept ideas in the age of the matrix films,a dangerless Bond with a shallow unexplored magentism.. These Bonds misfired in every way ( except financially ) - i think EON and Sony should be applauded for bringing Bond back from the edge. We would have lost Bond forever if they had gone further down that route. CasinoRoyale is the perfect book to update, the spine of it is the perfect re-introduction to Bond, and its world view is fundermentally more in tune with our times politically - more so than any of this evil mastermind/world domination stuff.. Bond is far more modern in the book - tortured, imperfect, by turns completely deadly, and brought to his knees. It is a masterpiece and seems clearly to have been smartly brought up to date. By taking on Craig, Haggis, Wright, Green etc they are clearly stating their aim to make a high quality film on all counts, one of the most powerful Bond films yet. I cannot wait. So many people go on about reboots, Craig etc.. and many genuinely want more Brosnan, more TWINE etc.. to me it was the 90s Bond that WAS the reboot.. CR is taking it back where it belongs.

Craig is one of the most macho Bonds yet... People discussing other actors seem to pine for a 'young Bond' film.. with a mini male model cast as Bond..whatever appitites this serves it simply isnt Bond to me.. however sadly it is the idea of Bond to the media it seems and maybe a general audience - i dont know.
Daniel Craig - his insanely edgy dangerous presence, his powerful britishness, rugged glamour, wounded interior - is just goddamned perfect. [censored]ing bring it on.

Bond is a force of nature..a panther ..and noone stalks the screen with more class and danger than daniel craig. Watch Munich.. total presence, almost shadow-like. This CR promises to refresh the very idea of continuity in Bond.. its sequels have a far more exciting place to go continuity/plot wise than the one-off, staccato, catch-alls of the last few films.

Tom Cruise, interestingly, also has a very pronounced dark side.. despite his megastar charisma..the man has a dark edge..and he knows it. I cant wait to see his humanised mission impossible. i like seing his approach to action and tension ( collateral ) ..

Edited by stone cold, 06 May 2006 - 06:15 PM.

[Jackanaples]

I saw M:I3 Thursday night, midnight. I was really anticipating it, as LOST is one of my favorite tv shows and I like what J.J. Abrams did with the spy genre in ALIAS.

I would say it's definitely the best of the three. There's a greater emphasis on the team in this film than previous Mission: Impossible films. I like that. The plot with the "Rabbit's Foot" was very cool, a true McGuffin. Philip Seymour Hoffman is as good as everyone says he is: One of the best screen villains in quite some time.

However, something about the movie bugged me. I think it was this--

Spoiler

After stealing the "Rabbit's Foot" the rest of the IMF team agrees that the best thing to do is just allow Ethan to be taken captive and hand over the RF in exchange for his wife. Then they will use a hidden tracking device to find Davian later and get back the RF.

That's his plan.

Does anyone else see a problem with this? Davian is wicked smart and been ahead of our heroes every step of the way. He's clearly familiar with IMF procedure, so wouldn't he anticipate a tracking device?

Also, what's to stop him from verifying that the RF is the real deal (by killing the fake wife) and then killing Ethan and his wife once he's got the bona fides? Davian is a ruthless s.o.b. and doesn't strike me as the type to leave his enemies alive.

I would have liked to see the team work together in the finale to take Davian down, be outthought by him again, and then have the situation (and wife) rescued by Ethan Hunt.

As it is, it just seems that Hunt and the team wuss out.

Edited by Jackanaples, 06 May 2006 - 06:24 PM.

[Punisher]

In the novel Royale is not Bond's first assignment as a double O agent. He's had two or three previous missions that Mr. Fleming didn't write about or care to mention.

Quote me the mention of a previous DOUBLE O assignment that Bond has has in that book. There isn't ONE.

Quote: "And he's got the right man and wants to try him out on the job"

Bond also says to Mathis in hospital how in the last few years he has killed 2 men and was awarded the Double O nuymber for that, earning a reputation for being good and tough. 2 men in the last few years, no more, and those 2 earned him the 00.

In the film Royale isn't his first assignment anyway, we aren't sure what his first assignment is, but it's likely it's shadowing Mollaka with Carter...no?

I say again, they aren't re-inventing the character, they are giving a modern translation of Flemings first book, in which Bond is a relatively new Double O. If you have read the script you'd know that this Bond is no different to the others we have already had on screen.

That remains to be seen.

[Loomis]

I saw MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. One word: overrated.

Agreed. As I just posted in another thread:

A very mixed bag.

To start with, don't believe the hype: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III certainly has its moments, but for the most part it's every bit as loud and incomprehensible as the much-reviled M:I-2. And whatever you think of M:I-2, its undeniable strength is the brilliance of its action scenes and stunts. But thanks to a combination of ropey effects work and shakycam that's so overused as to make THE BOURNE SUPREMACY look like something by Ozu, much of the action in M:I-3 is headache-inducing and even impossible to follow (I'm thinking particularly of the helicopter chase). The concepts of the action scenes are good, and some do work well enough, but the execution tends to leave a lot to be desired. This matters because the film is about 90% action, and it's frequently very hard to tell exactly what's going on. It's a film that reeks of overkill. It's the cinematic equivalent of a huge, ferocious man coming at you with fists failing, shouting threats - you can tell that he's full of sound and fury, but much of what he's saying gets lost in the OTT delivery.

This isn't the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE series given an almighty creative kick up the backside and knocked outta park into a whole new level of class and intelligence - it's simply a blend of the first two. One of the reasons I'd been looking forward to M:I-3 was that it seemed extraordinary that the plot was almost entirely under wraps right up to its release. I pictured a film full of tremendously inventive twists and turns that had been painstakingly kept secret. Turns out that there were no spoilers because there was really nothing to spoil. And forget what you may have read about this being the long-overdue "team movie" for a franchise hitherto hogged by Cruise. Maggie Q, Rhames and Rhys-Meyers have very little to do but make unconvicing attempts to talk Ethan Hunt out of whatever mindblowingly risky thing he happens to be planning. This is every bit as much of a Cruisefest as the others.

Cruise does give a pretty good performance, though, although Hunt remains a fundamentally uninteresting character, despite a bit of delving into his personal life. Fishburne and Hoffman are also good. I'm not normally a viewer for whom a film sinks or swims on its score, but I find the one for M:I-3 so tuneless, derivative and overbearing as to be compelled to comment on its awfulness.

Where M:I-3 really succeeds is in the style and suspense (albeit generally suspense without payoff) that Abrams brings to the table; for a debut feature, this is sometimes pretty impressive stuff. Things like the tracking shot of Cruise running through Shanghai, the way a bad guy dies.... there's some real visual flair here. Too bad that the script is scribbled-on-the-back-of-a-restaurant-napkin nonsense (that still somehow results in a film that feels incredibly overlong).

[JimmyBond]

But whatever, you're getting a Bond movie right? that should be enough for you and all the fans who don't care to stop and think.

No one insulted you so why start with the personal insults? In fact I think Casino Royale is the perfect film for those who want tothink. If you want a film where you don't have to think, go watch the last four films, they don't require brain power.