Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

MI3 humanizes superspy with GREAT results without radical reboot


380 replies to this topic

#91 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 06 May 2006 - 06:32 PM

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.


I may have been wrong in thinking that M:I-3 could be the better film just based on some of the reviews that we're seeing in this thread (and I'm also reconsidering whether I should go see it or not), but I still think that Craig and Casino Royale are, sadly, going to be a one-off Bond and a one-off Bond film in terms of serious and down to earth. Outside of this forum and maybe 2 people whom I talk to that follow the franchise to any degree, the overall mood I'm finding towards CR is that it's a film that they're probably going to pass on in November. Simply put, I don't think that this film is going to make any money (we're talking somewhere between 25 to low 30 mil on opening weekend at best) and Craig, IMO, will be made the scapegoat when it was EON that put him in a bad position by half-rebooting the series instead of either not rebooting or going all out with the reboot. Fact is, you have to go in one of those two directions, you can't camp out somewhere in the middle and think that the public will buy into it, because they won't.

#92 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 06 May 2006 - 06:32 PM


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).

Your thoughts are exactly the same as mine, Loomis.

#93 J.B.

J.B.

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 297 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 06 May 2006 - 06:33 PM

Hey Hey Hey, Cant we all just get along? :tup:

#94 Jackanaples

Jackanaples

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Location:Hollywood, CA

Posted 06 May 2006 - 06:41 PM

Outside of this forum and maybe 2 people whom I talk to that follow the franchise to any degree, the overall mood I'm finding towards CR is that it's a film that they're probably going to pass on in November. Simply put, I don't think that this film is going to make any money (we're talking somewhere between 25 to low 30 mil on opening weekend at best) and Craig, IMO, will be made the scapegoat when it was EON that put him in a bad position by half-rebooting the series instead of either not rebooting or going all out with the reboot. Fact is, you have to go in one of those two directions, you can't camp out somewhere in the middle and think that the public will buy into it, because they won't.


Wow. The response you're getting is 180 degrees away from the one in my part of the world. People seemed genuinely excited by it.

I'm curious though; I see CR as a 'going all out' style of reboot (and think it a great idea), and not middle of the road. Do you think otherwise? Why, and what do you think a 'going all out' reboot should entail?

Edited by Jackanaples, 06 May 2006 - 06:42 PM.


#95 Leon

Leon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1574 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 06 May 2006 - 06:49 PM

Same here, I know tons of people (mostly friends/students) who can't wait to see how this film comes off.

#96 deth

deth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2651 posts
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 06 May 2006 - 06:51 PM

I can't believe people are bashing the MI:3 score..... my god....

#97 stone cold

stone cold

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 222 posts

Posted 06 May 2006 - 06:52 PM

Nearly everyone i know is hyped by Casino Royale, and psyched to see Daniel Craig as Bond, cos they think the guy is as cool as hell.


And im talking my whole office ( US/UK ) and all my friends ..thats an about 200 people i know who are a cross section of people who know about this film and really want to see it in theatres. They range from hardcore fanboys to japa-horror grit lovers to arthouse people and action-film combat nerds... they all want a piece.

Edited by stone cold, 06 May 2006 - 06:55 PM.


#98 Jackanaples

Jackanaples

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Location:Hollywood, CA

Posted 06 May 2006 - 06:53 PM

I'm going to see THE DA VINCI CODE at the theater in part because I want to gage audience reaction to the CR teaser! How sad is that?

#99 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 06 May 2006 - 06:54 PM

Wow. The response you're getting is 180 degrees away from the one in my part of the world. People seemed genuinely excited by it.

I'm curious though; I see CR as a 'going all out' style of reboot (and think it a great idea), and not middle of the road. Do you think otherwise? Why, and what do you think a 'going all out' reboot should entail?


As much as I hate to say it, I think that the major thing that keeps this from being a total reboot is the casting of Judi Dench as 'M'. I liked her as 'M' during the Brosnan Era (one of the only highlights of that era of "Bond" films), but it just doesn't work with her in the role of 'M' in the reboot.

And, aside from that, the film probably will end up being a total reboot to the franchise, but EON and Sony are doing a lousy job of letting the public know that is what they're going for. Honestly, the trailer:
Spoiler
, and I think that it's confusing the general public. While yes, Campbell did come out and say that the film is a reboot, but the only people who really saw that comment in print are those of us who follow the franchise very closely. What EON needs to do, and they'll have a prime opportunity to do so when Entertainment Tonight visits the set on May 22, is to set the record straight and say that this is a reboot, because otherwise they're giving credence to a possibility that should never have been raised in the first place.

#100 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 06 May 2006 - 07:13 PM

I hold a great deal of respect for you tdalton, I really do. We share opinions on a lot of things James Bond. However in this instance, I really think you're blowing things out of proportion. You read a thread where a poster mentions that the teaser (while viewed a certain way) implies that Daniel Craig is playing a new "007" who has just recently been promoted. I really think that's much ado about nothing, even the poster of that thread mentioned they didnt buy into that theory.

Nowhere (outside of limtited spots on fandom) have I heard anyone mention that they thought Craig was playing a new character in the Bond universe. In fact everyone that I have mentioned the reboot premise too, has said "Hey that sounds pretty cool" One of my friends even looked at Craig and said "Wow, he looks like he'll be a much better Bond than Brosnan was."

#101 Jackanaples

Jackanaples

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Location:Hollywood, CA

Posted 06 May 2006 - 07:23 PM

Ah, well if those are your concerns I don't think you need to worry about it. No casual moviegoer is going to think about Tamahori's code-name theory when they see the teaser. People are used to Bond being recast by now, and you have to be a hardcore Bond fan to have heard of the theory. I don't even think it was original with Tamahori. That anyone could even posit it is proof alone that a reboot is an excellent idea.

The people I've talked to (and I am probably boring everyone I know with it) seem to be aware that it's a reboot. A couple take a wait and see attitude on Craig, and only one has said he's a bad choice (but her opinion on such matters is woeful so I take it as a good sign).

Anyway, a teaser trailer should put questions and anticipation in someone's mind, not answers. What the teaser poster and trailer lack (the name James Bond, a tagline, an announcer's voiceover) indicate to me just how strong a thing EON and Sony think they have on their hands with CASINO ROYALE and Daniel Craig as Bond. It's going to be so good, they don't feel the need to bolster it with extraneous clutter.

#102 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 06 May 2006 - 07:34 PM

I'm going to try to clarify my stance on this a bit:

The first few seconds of the trailer are brilliant. In fact, some of the best Bond footage I've ever seen. And then the trailer moves into color shots, and it goes downhill from there. I don't know what it is about it, but I was expecting more from it. After my initial joy of finally seeing new footage of Bond finally wore off, I was left very unenthused about the trailer for several reasons. First of all, that sequence with the guy jumping all around the screen looks a bit ridiculous. Sorry, it just does IMO. Secondly, look at Craig when he has the knife pulled on him. He's got that deer caught in the headlights look to him that James Bond, rookie-agent or not, should never have. And, for all of the promise of this film being faithful to the novel (yes, I know updated, but still mostly faithful), none of the stuff in the trailer appears to be taken from the novel. And, lastly, that arm scan thing looks like an unused idea for Die Another Day.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about the film, and I certainly hope that I am, but it just doesn't seem to excite me as much as it once did. Another concern is the "one-off" vibe that I get from the trailer. It really feels like something that's so much of an experiment that they're just going to turn around and just go back to Brosnan Territory after this one.

#103 Dr. Noah

Dr. Noah

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 06 May 2006 - 07:56 PM

That remains to be seen.


Hasn't stopped people from complaining about it.

#104 Jackanaples

Jackanaples

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Location:Hollywood, CA

Posted 06 May 2006 - 08:00 PM

I'm going to try to clarify my stance on this a bit:

The first few seconds of the trailer are brilliant. In fact, some of the best Bond footage I've ever seen. And then the trailer moves into color shots, and it goes downhill from there. I don't know what it is about it, but I was expecting more from it. After my initial joy of finally seeing new footage of Bond finally wore off, I was left very unenthused about the trailer for several reasons.

First of all, that sequence with the guy jumping all around the screen looks a bit ridiculous. Sorry, it just does IMO.

I doubt you'll feel that way when you see it on film. Have you ever seen free running or parkour as it's also known? Damned impressive. Check these clips out. They feature David Belle, the guy who invented the sport alongside... Sebastian Foucan, who plays Mollaka in CR:

http://www.videosift...ory.php?id=1178



I realize that it looks a bit strange because you only see it for a couple seconds in the teaser, but the man is doing all his own stunts. No cgi. A guy doing this stuff well really looks like a live Spider-Man.

Secondly, look at Craig when he has the knife pulled on him. He's got that deer caught in the headlights look to him that James Bond, rookie-agent or not, should never have.


Here we disagree. I think he shows little to no reaction to having a knife pulled on him because he knows he's going to turn around, take the knife and shove it down that dude's throat.

And, for all of the promise of this film being faithful to the novel (yes, I know updated, but still mostly faithful), none of the stuff in the trailer appears to be taken from the novel.


As it's been stated before, the teaser shows us stuff from the first third of the movie. They can hardly tease with what isn't done filming yet.

And, lastly, that arm scan thing looks like an unused idea for Die Another Day.

To me it looks like a high resolution digital x-ray machine. That's not outside the realm of possibility. It's no invisible car, surely.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about the film, and I certainly hope that I am, but it just doesn't seem to excite me as much as it once did. Another concern is the "one-off" vibe that I get from the trailer. It really feels like something that's so much of an experiment that they're just going to turn around and just go back to Brosnan Territory after this one.

Hmmm. I think just the opposite. CASINO ROYALE is a going to be a smart, saavy reboot that makes Bond more exciting than it's been in decades.

Cue new Bond craze.

Edited by Jackanaples, 06 May 2006 - 08:05 PM.


#105 Dr. Noah

Dr. Noah

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1405 posts

Posted 06 May 2006 - 08:03 PM

As a total reboot, I will only go see the film if M is played by Bernard Lee's corpse.

#106 Punisher

Punisher

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 71 posts

Posted 06 May 2006 - 09:07 PM


I'm going to try to clarify my stance on this a bit:

The first few seconds of the trailer are brilliant. In fact, some of the best Bond footage I've ever seen. And then the trailer moves into color shots, and it goes downhill from there. I don't know what it is about it, but I was expecting more from it. After my initial joy of finally seeing new footage of Bond finally wore off, I was left very unenthused about the trailer for several reasons.

First of all, that sequence with the guy jumping all around the screen looks a bit ridiculous. Sorry, it just does IMO.

I doubt you'll feel that way when you see it on film. Have you ever seen free running or parkour as it's also known? Damned impressive. Check these clips out. They feature David Belle, the guy who invented the sport alongside... Sebastian Foucan, who plays Mollaka in CR:

http://www.videosift...ory.php?id=1178



I realize that it looks a bit strange because you only see it for a couple seconds in the teaser, but the man is doing all his own stunts. No cgi. A guy doing this stuff well really looks like a live Spider-Man.

Secondly, look at Craig when he has the knife pulled on him. He's got that deer caught in the headlights look to him that James Bond, rookie-agent or not, should never have.


Here we disagree. I think he shows little to no reaction to having a knife pulled on him because he knows he's going to turn around, take the knife and shove it down that dude's throat.

And, for all of the promise of this film being faithful to the novel (yes, I know updated, but still mostly faithful), none of the stuff in the trailer appears to be taken from the novel.


As it's been stated before, the teaser shows us stuff from the first third of the movie. They can hardly tease with what isn't done filming yet.

And, lastly, that arm scan thing looks like an unused idea for Die Another Day.

To me it looks like a high resolution digital x-ray machine. That's not outside the realm of possibility. It's no invisible car, surely.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about the film, and I certainly hope that I am, but it just doesn't seem to excite me as much as it once did. Another concern is the "one-off" vibe that I get from the trailer. It really feels like something that's so much of an experiment that they're just going to turn around and just go back to Brosnan Territory after this one.

Hmmm. I think just the opposite. CASINO ROYALE is a going to be a smart, saavy reboot that makes Bond more exciting than it's been in decades.

Cue new Bond craze.


I think Casino Royale will have a lukewarm recieving at best. Audiences will either like the film for it's merit or look at Craig and think "He's Bond? this is a reboot? what about the other missions?" You know, thoughts like that.

#107 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 06 May 2006 - 09:20 PM

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.


Yeah that sums it up for me too. Though I had a good time watching it, its nothing I'm going to pick up on DVD, might watch it again when it hits cable a year from now, etc. But back to the Alias bit, yep pretty much everything that happened in MI3 was lifted from a past episode of Alias - the countless times Sydney and her team infiltrate a posh European party to steal something, being strapped into a chair and tortured, the relationship between Ethan Hunt and his girlfriend/wife was a typical Sydney/Vaughn episode. Basically if you recast MI3 thusly...

Jennifer Garner as Tom Cruise
Michael Vartan as Michelle Monaghan
Victor Garber as Ving Rhames
Ron Rifkin as Laurence Fishburne
Greg Grunberg as Jonathan Rhys Meyers (and instead of the cameo he made at the party at the beginning!)
Mia Maestro as Maggie Q
Kevin Weisman as Simon Pegg (this character was LITERALLY the exact same one as Marshall!)

...you would have ALIAS The Movie.
Anyway, what was the deal with Philip Seymour Hoffman's character? Yes he gave a strong performance, but what was his character actually about? We don't find much out about him other than he's a bit of a prick. At least with the recent Bond films we knew what the villains were doing and why... :tup:

#108 Jackanaples

Jackanaples

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Location:Hollywood, CA

Posted 06 May 2006 - 09:41 PM

No one thought that with BATMAN BEGINS, it's highly unlikely they will with CR. The casual moviegoer doesn't care if the new Bond movie somehow fits in with GOLDENEYE or THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.

You know what this reminds me of? Marvel Comics. A few years ago Marvel announced their new 'Ultimate' line. New comic series of Spider-Man, The Avengers (called THE ULTIMATES in the new line), and X-Men; these would start over from square one, begin a new continuity, and basically revitalize the characters and make them more contemporary.

Well, you can imagine the next part. Fans bitched. They set the internet on ablaze with their moaning, whingeing, complaining, etc. There was a horrible slap in the face to the fans and original creators, no one would ever go for this, blah blah blah. ALL before the books were published.

When the books came out... SURPRISE! They were a big hit. The fans were excited by how the reboot freed the creators to tweak and in many ways improve on the characters and situations that had become stale after almost 40 years of continuity. (Sound familiar?)

I'm hoping that CASINO ROYALE does the same. If so, we're in for some seriously good Bond movies. A Bond reboot is a fantastic idea and will only spur EON's James Bond movies to greater creative heights.

Edited by Jackanaples, 06 May 2006 - 09:45 PM.


#109 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 06 May 2006 - 09:47 PM

You know what this reminds me of? Marvel Comics. A few years ago Marvel announced their new 'Ultimate' line. New comic series of Spider-Man, The Avengers (called THE ULTIMATES in the new line), and X-Men; these would start over from square one, begin a new continuity, and basically revitalize the characters and make them more contemporary.

Well, you can imagine the next part. Fans bitched. They set the internet on ablaze with their moaning, whingeing, complaining, etc. There was a horrible slap in the face to the fans and original creators, no one would ever go for this, blah blah blah. ALL before the books were published.

When the books came out... SURPRISE! They were a big hit. The fans were excited by how the reboot freed the creators to tweak and in many ways improve on the characters and situations that had become stale after almost 40 years of continuity. (Sound familiar?)


Yup. Hell, its even happened in the Bond world before - look at Silverfin. When it was announced that there would be a new line of Bond books about a 13 year old James Bond at school, there was much whining and moaning, you can probably still find evidence of this on old forum posts here! Surprise surprise, when the book finally arrives, it is embraced by the majority of fans and sells like hot cakes.

#110 Johnboy007

Johnboy007

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6990 posts
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted 06 May 2006 - 09:47 PM



I'm going to try to clarify my stance on this a bit:

The first few seconds of the trailer are brilliant. In fact, some of the best Bond footage I've ever seen. And then the trailer moves into color shots, and it goes downhill from there. I don't know what it is about it, but I was expecting more from it. After my initial joy of finally seeing new footage of Bond finally wore off, I was left very unenthused about the trailer for several reasons.

First of all, that sequence with the guy jumping all around the screen looks a bit ridiculous. Sorry, it just does IMO.

I doubt you'll feel that way when you see it on film. Have you ever seen free running or parkour as it's also known? Damned impressive. Check these clips out. They feature David Belle, the guy who invented the sport alongside... Sebastian Foucan, who plays Mollaka in CR:

http://www.videosift...ory.php?id=1178



I realize that it looks a bit strange because you only see it for a couple seconds in the teaser, but the man is doing all his own stunts. No cgi. A guy doing this stuff well really looks like a live Spider-Man.

Secondly, look at Craig when he has the knife pulled on him. He's got that deer caught in the headlights look to him that James Bond, rookie-agent or not, should never have.


Here we disagree. I think he shows little to no reaction to having a knife pulled on him because he knows he's going to turn around, take the knife and shove it down that dude's throat.

And, for all of the promise of this film being faithful to the novel (yes, I know updated, but still mostly faithful), none of the stuff in the trailer appears to be taken from the novel.


As it's been stated before, the teaser shows us stuff from the first third of the movie. They can hardly tease with what isn't done filming yet.

And, lastly, that arm scan thing looks like an unused idea for Die Another Day.

To me it looks like a high resolution digital x-ray machine. That's not outside the realm of possibility. It's no invisible car, surely.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about the film, and I certainly hope that I am, but it just doesn't seem to excite me as much as it once did. Another concern is the "one-off" vibe that I get from the trailer. It really feels like something that's so much of an experiment that they're just going to turn around and just go back to Brosnan Territory after this one.

Hmmm. I think just the opposite. CASINO ROYALE is a going to be a smart, saavy reboot that makes Bond more exciting than it's been in decades.

Cue new Bond craze.


I think Casino Royale will have a lukewarm recieving at best. Audiences will either like the film for it's merit or look at Craig and think "He's Bond? this is a reboot? what about the other missions?" You know, thoughts like that.


90% of those seeing the movie aren't going to be aware it's a reboot and 90% of those seeing the movie won't give a crap if it is anyway. They're not fans, they don't seek continuity. Not that there ever has been.

#111 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 06 May 2006 - 09:57 PM

90% of those seeing the movie aren't going to be aware it's a reboot and 90% of those seeing the movie won't give a crap if it is anyway. They're not fans, they don't seek continuity. Not that there ever has been.


Bingo. Its important to remember that Bond is NOT a fanboy-driven or an internet-centric franchise. Any good or bad buzz about Bond on the net is completely meaningless in the real world. It always has, and always will be a 'general public' movie, if you see what I mean. I guarantee you that a large number of people will show up on opening day only vaguely aware that some new guy is Bond. And I've seen this with my own eyes - there are STILL vast numbers of moviegoers who just turn up at a movie theatre on a Friday night and just choose to see whatever movie sounds cool, one of my local theatres has a little 'info sheet' that briefly describes the plot of each movie for these people. When people see the words "Bond" and "James", they'll be in.

#112 Bondesque

Bondesque

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 428 posts

Posted 06 May 2006 - 11:39 PM

Casino Royale will be a box office hit. The opening weekend will be in the 45-55 million plus range. This is due to the fact that people will be curious to see a new actor in the role. Some will go in with the pre-determined thought that Craig and CR is already the best film in movie history. Others will go in firmly beleiving that Craig is the ugliest man in the universe and perhaps the anti-christ. There will be pro re-booters, anti re-booters and mostly film goers who don't have any idea about a re-boot and don't give a damn anyway.

After a very nice opening weekend the film will stand on it's own merits! I'm sure that it will break even financially even if it sucks due to the fact that Bond is the most recognized character on the planet with the longest tenure in series history.

Yes, the teaser is a mixed bag:

1. Love the courage to do the B&W opening. Hate the fact that Dench is still playing M. (I admit I never liked her playing M ever and think she would have made a great first female villian in the series)

2. Am encouraged to see Craig, looking better than expected, buff, serious, and deadly. I don't care for the hawaiian shirt sequences. The action seems good but Magnum PI Bond?....Hopefully there is a reason he is dressed so horridly.

3. Am very encouraged to see the apparant return of Bond girls. Sexy, seductive and european. There wasn't one shot of a "Bond equal" beating up some male henchman three times her size with a single karate chop.

4. Encouraged by everything I have read regarding the script and the tone of the film. What we have in the teaser are a few shots from the pretitle sequence and first third of the film. The vast majority of the movie will be hopefully better paced and dwell on depth, suspense and plot. I am fearful that Campbell will be able to maximise a very good script. IMHO, his work has never shown me any depth as a director. He tries (Beyond Borders)but just can't seem to pull it off. Greengrass, Lyman, and about eight other (EON realistic--not Speilberg, Scorseci, etc)directors would have given me more confidence. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

For those of you who are bugged by the continuity of Dench just remember this: Joe Don Baker was two different people in three different Bond films. Maude Adams was two differnt Bond girls. Charles Grey....my point is that there really hasn't been any serious attempt at continuity in the history of the series.

I am looking forward to Casino royale with optimistic excitement, but I am reserving jusgement.

I do love all this fan debate among my fellow Bondophiles!

#113 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 07 May 2006 - 12:11 AM

2. Am encouraged to see Craig, looking better than expected, buff, serious, and deadly. I don't care for the hawaiian shirt sequences. The action seems good but Magnum PI Bond?....Hopefully there is a reason he is dressed so horridly.


I haven't looked into spoilers about this, but I presume in these scenes he is supposed to look like a tourist or regular person so as not to draw attention to himself, like Pierce wore a touristy shirt when he arrived in Cuba in DAD. Of course if this was a Roger Moore film he'd be jumping on the crane in his tux :tup:

3. Am very encouraged to see the apparant return of Bond girls. Sexy, seductive and european. There wasn't one shot of a "Bond equal" beating up some male henchman three times her size with a single karate chop.


Good point, I hadn't even thought of that, I guess EON finally got all that out of their system with Jinx; though there is one other female role in CR that we (or at least me) don't know much about.

#114 kneelbeforezod

kneelbeforezod

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1131 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 07 May 2006 - 12:15 AM

Can we ban the word "reboot" from the site please?

And also the word "continuity". Cheers.

#115 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 07 May 2006 - 02:48 AM

and I think that it's confusing the general public. While yes, Campbell did come out and say that the film is a reboot, but the only people who really saw that comment in print are those of us who follow the franchise very closely. What EON needs to do, and they'll have a prime opportunity to do so when Entertainment Tonight visits the set on May 22, is to set the record straight and say that this is a reboot, because otherwise they're giving credence to a possibility that should never have been raised in the first place.

You keep going on about how you think the general public and Joe Sixpack moviegoer isn't going to buy CR and EON is being deceptive and all that. The flaw in your thinking is that the average moviegoer will even think about it. They will likely see James Bond and 007, fast action cuts, beautiful girls and exotic locations and know there is a new film out there and that will be enough for a lot of them. They may wonder about it being a new guy, but the name recognition will be enough.

They'll see the Bond marathons on cable television and advertisements and magazine covers, rereleased DVDs and all the accompanying hype and there will be one thought -- Bond is back.

The Bond audience is made up of generations of people who just want to see something familiar to them. It's a tradition. So it may take a new direction or not feature a lot of gadgets, but people will get the general ingredients of what makes a Bond film a Bond film. So why bring Oliver Stone theories into it?

#116 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 07 May 2006 - 02:54 AM

I guess my main problem is with EON, not with Daniel Craig. Craig's a fantastic actor, and he'll play Bond in whatever style that EON wants him to. But, judging from the promises of "back to the basics" before during the Brosnan Era, I'm nervous and afraid that they're just going to do the same thing they did then, start out with something serious and then turn it into something else entirely by the time the film is completed. I thought that they were going to breathe some new life into this franchise, and it looks as though they might have with some of the B&W stuff, but the color stuff in the trailer looks to be as bland as ever, just more action upon more action, and I have serious doubts as to whether it'll even resemble Fleming's Casino Royale once they're done with the film.

#117 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 07 May 2006 - 03:00 AM

I just want to say--I HAVE NO IDEA HOW CR WILL DO IN THE BOX OFFICE. NO ONE HERE KNOWS WITH ANY CERTAINTY. It may do well--i'm just saying it is taking chances with the reboot and the unconventional looking largely unknown new Bond. That said it could very well work great. I'm just not sure. One is not on some anti-Craig brigade if they have some doubts about the whole operation. It's not an either or operation. No need to line up on 2 sides and begin to fire upon one another. :tup: We all just have some differing opinions here.

#118 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 07 May 2006 - 03:04 AM

I guess my main problem is with EON, not with Daniel Craig. Craig's a fantastic actor, and he'll play Bond in whatever style that EON wants him to. But, judging from the promises of "back to the basics" before during the Brosnan Era, I'm nervous and afraid that they're just going to do the same thing they did then, start out with something serious and then turn it into something else entirely by the time the film is completed. I thought that they were going to breathe some new life into this franchise, and it looks as though they might have with some of the B&W stuff, but the color stuff in the trailer looks to be as bland as ever, just more action upon more action, and I have serious doubts as to whether it'll even resemble Fleming's Casino Royale once they're done with the film.

Come on, you knew this was never going to be a 100 percent faithful adaptation of CR. None of the EON series entries have been.

This is where you are putting too much thought into the negative. It's marketing. They HAVE to show some action stuff. Bonds are action pics, make no mistake; they will lose a big part of the audience if they don't include it. They never said it was going to be a Hitchcock psychological suspense flick all the way around. CR just may hold the promise of a better blend of this and action.

#119 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 07 May 2006 - 03:10 AM


I guess my main problem is with EON, not with Daniel Craig. Craig's a fantastic actor, and he'll play Bond in whatever style that EON wants him to. But, judging from the promises of "back to the basics" before during the Brosnan Era, I'm nervous and afraid that they're just going to do the same thing they did then, start out with something serious and then turn it into something else entirely by the time the film is completed. I thought that they were going to breathe some new life into this franchise, and it looks as though they might have with some of the B&W stuff, but the color stuff in the trailer looks to be as bland as ever, just more action upon more action, and I have serious doubts as to whether it'll even resemble Fleming's Casino Royale once they're done with the film.

Come on, you knew this was never going to be a 100 percent faithful adaptation of CR. None of the EON series entries have been.

This is where you are putting too much thought into the negative. It's marketing. They HAVE to show some action stuff. Bonds are action pics, make no mistake; they will lose a big part of the audience if they don't include it. They never said it was going to be a Hitchcock psychological suspense flick all the way around. CR just may hold the promise of a better blend of this and action.


I never said that it was going to be 100% faithful. But, nothing in this trailer even looks like it could have been inspired by Casino Royale either. Hopefully the trailer we get in September or October will be better and feature better action (because the action that they're showing in this trailer is quite ridiculous) and something that looks as though they could have come up with the idea by reading Casino Royale.

But, I will go back on a previous comment and say that I now believe that CR will probably be a better film than MI3, judging from the horrific reviews that it's getting both on this site and elsewhere.

#120 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 07 May 2006 - 03:22 AM

I never said that it was going to be 100% faithful. But, nothing in this trailer even looks like it could have been inspired by Casino Royale either. Hopefully the trailer we get in September or October will be better and feature better action (because the action that they're showing in this trailer is quite ridiculous) and something that looks as though they could have come up with the idea by reading Casino Royale.

The reason nothing in the trailer looks like it was from CASINO ROYALE is because it's from the first third - the all-original stuff. Once action heads to the casino, things start following the book quite faithfully.

And I love the action we're getting in the preview - the free running sequence looks like it'll be an absolute blast.