The Casino Royale Thread

[liketom]

So when it was announced that Daniel Craig was to be the next James Bond many people did not like the newest James Bond and said they will not go and see the 21st Bond film Casino Royale -

BUT

The teaser trailer is here and it looks FANTASTIC so they have a maybe cinema viewer here

What do you all think of it ?

here is the link http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casinoroyale/index.html

 

[Abstract]

That photo is so eff'ing cool that you really can't dislike Craig now. After all, the complaints about him being Bond before had nothing to do with him as an actor or a man. Some people are just shallow and don't think he's as good looking as Brosnan, Connery, Dalton, or......"that other guy."

Women and gay men aren't the only ones going to see it, y'know. I don't care if he's the most handsome guy in the world as long as he was decent looking and wearing a cool suit (check and check). He just has to be cooler than us, and he's Bond, so he will be.

Oh, and "Casino Royale" is a cool name. It sounds like a name that has already been used for a Bond film, but apparently it hasn't, so here we are. Bring it.

 

[iMarley]

I seriosuly cannot wait until the release. There is nothing like a good Bond flick.

 

[gauchogolfer]

Some people are just shallow and don't think he's as good looking as Brosnan, Connery, Dalton, or......"that other guy."

Roger Moore??

Oh, and I'm looking forward to the newest 007 film as well.

*opens up new tab to see the trailer*

Edit: what's with the popup asking for 'unrestricted access to my computer'? Sony doesn't exactly have my trust lately. Has anyone had a problem after authorizing this using Safari?

 

[Queso]

Oh, and "Casino Royale" is a cool name. It sounds like a name that has already been used for a Bond film, but apparently it hasn't, so here we are. Bring it.

The name has already been used. There was a spoof Bond film made in 1967 where multiple actors played 007, including David Niven and Peter Sellers. The new film is the same core story, but they've taken it back to the original far darker Ian Fleming book.

 

[Chundles]

OK, so this is basically a re-start of the franchise - A "Bond Begins" if you will, we have a new Bond being promoted to 00 status, an Aston Martin DBS yet somehow Judi Dench is still M?

What's the deal?

 

[Blue Velvet]

Anyone liked the B&W footage better?

Explosions, meh.

 

[nbs2]

OK, so this is basically a re-start of the franchise - A "Bond Begins" if you will, we have a new Bond being promoted to 00 status, an Aston Martin DBS yet somehow Judi Dench is still M?

What's the deal?

And that is what bothers me. Prequels are hard to do, even harder when you wait more than 40 years in a series that is based on current events....

 

[Jaffa Cake]

OK, so this is basically a re-start of the franchise - A "Bond Begins" if you will, we have a new Bond being promoted to 00 status, an Aston Martin DBS yet somehow Judi Dench is still M?

What's the deal?

I remember reading somewhere of the idea that 'James Bond' is a codename assumed by a succession of spies, in the same way that different Secret Service personal have used the M and Q titles over the years. In this instance, Craig's Bond could potentially be a newly assigned agent, given the Bond name and number after his predecessor (presumably Brosnan) was either killed or retired.

 

[Queso]

I remember reading somewhere of the idea that 'James Bond' is a codename assumed by a succession of spies, in the same way that different Secret Service personal have used the M and Q titles over the years. In this instance, Craig's Bond could potentially be a newly assigned agent, given the Bond name and number after his predecessor (presumably Brosnan) was either killed or retired.

Are you sure he doesn't regenerate thirteen times, like a Time Lord?

 

[Sox]

Personally, I think Casino Royale is going to be tremendous. Daniel Craig's a hell of an actor (Tomb Raider nothwithstanding). Anyone who has doubts about his ability to pull off this role needs to see Layer Cake.

That said, I hope this latest Bond movie does indeed stick closer to Fleming's ideals than some of the more recent Pierce Brosnan fare. Even back in the heyday when Connery and Moore were playing Bond, the movies often became too cute. There was too much caricature/comic relief and not enough secret agent. The character Fleming depicted was ruthless and tortured, much more like Ludlum's Jason Bourne - in fact, I've enjoyed the Bourne movies much more than any Bond movie of the last ten years.

 

[Chundles]

I remember reading somewhere of the idea that 'James Bond' is a codename assumed by a succession of spies, in the same way that different Secret Service personal have used the M and Q titles over the years. In this instance, Craig's Bond could potentially be a newly assigned agent, given the Bond name and number after his predecessor (presumably Brosnan) was either killed or retired.

Well that would work and is quite the cool idea.

I liked the look of this film right from the opening black and white footage of the trailer. I really hope they make this one more about the secret agent and less about the gadgets and the gags - Die Another Day was just appalling for that sort of thing, I hope the product placement isn't as rife either.

I do like that they're using a "proper" spy car. None of this "invisible 12 cylinder supercar Aston Martin Vanquish - fast but fat" this time it's the brand new DBS - try and tell me that this won't go like a rat up a drainpipe. Small, light, lithe and it looks tough as nails.

Now, I know it's mean but does anyone else think Craig looks like he's taken a wallop to the head with the ugly stick?

 

[2nyRiggz]

Not interested.....unless bond is ripping fellas heads off and boning more women....i'll pass.


Bless

 

[nbs2]

I remember reading somewhere of the idea that 'James Bond' is a codename assumed by a succession of spies, in the same way that different Secret Service personal have used the M and Q titles over the years. In this instance, Craig's Bond could potentially be a newly assigned agent, given the Bond name and number after his predecessor (presumably Brosnan) was either killed or retired.

Except that it doesn't work unless the Dalton Bond was married and had his wife killed just like the Lazenby Bond. Which, I suppose is possible, but rather unlikely. Also, reference the Brosnan Bond's familiarity with gadgets from the earlier Connery (and I think there was a Moore) Bond's gadgets. Having multiple people play a code name Bond doesn't work in that scenario. There are other, similar, problems, but those are the two that pop out right away.

 

[Jaffa Cake]

~snip~

Granted, the multiple Bond theory does throw up a whole host of inconsistencies and contradictions, like those you mention. On the other hand, having Craig as a newly assigned Bond throws up another set of inconsistencies, like those mentioned earlier by Chundles. I suppose it depends on which inconsistencies you dislike the most!

Certainly, the multiple Bond theory isn't anywhere near being canon – it's an idea that's been mentioned a few times by fans, that's all. Maybe the new film will help settle the issue?

 

[neocell]

...snip
Oh, and "Casino Royale" is a cool name. It sounds like a name that has already been used for a Bond film, but apparently it hasn't, so here we are. Bring it.

It was a James Bond movie, the first actually, but made for tv I believe, in the late 50s or early 60s. Didn't do well

 

[SharksFan22]

Dunno -- still undecided. I will admit that I think the original Sean Connery movies were some of my favorites and everything else doesn't measure up. Of course, when Connery did that disaster "Never Say Never Again" in 1983 (?) it almost ruined the legend. But "Dr. No", "Goldfinger", and "Thunderball" are fantastic movies.

The new guy sort of looks the part, but I'll hold off judgement until the movie is realeased. And, while Judi Dench does a great job as "M", that character MUST be a man. Sorry women, I'm not trying to be sexist, but "M" has to be a stuffy, cranky older Englishman. Now "Q" on the other hand -- John Cleese is the PERFECT replacement for the original (name slips my mind at the moment).

 

[Chundles]

Now "Q" on the other hand -- John Cleese is the PERFECT replacement for the original (name slips my mind at the moment).

Desmond Llewelyn.

 

[iRachel]

Looks like fun - I'll definitely go see it.

I don't think I've seen Daniel Craig in anything before, but I don't mind the "blond Bond."

 

[SharksFan22]

Desmond Llewelyn.

Ah yes, thank you.

 

[nbs2]

Granted, the multiple Bond theory does throw up a whole host of inconsistencies and contradictions, like those you mention. On the other hand, having Craig as a newly assigned Bond throws up another set of inconsistencies, like those mentioned earlier by Chundles. I suppose it depends on which inconsistencies you dislike the most!

Certainly, the multiple Bond theory isn't anywhere near being canon – it's an idea that's been mentioned a few times by fans, that's all. Maybe the new film will help settle the issue?

I know you are being supportive, but the new movie muddles things up for me. I was fine with little issues like Lazenby's comment at the beginning of OHMSS, since it could be somewhat explained away. This movie being a prequel wouldn't be a problem if it was REALLY low tech. But, that hand scanner thingamajig was too much(thingamajig doesn't trigger auto correct...wow!). Maybe I am asking too much for the "original" Bond to be heavier on action and related tech, lighter on sci-fi tech. Batman Begins did this very well. It relied on story and action and tried to push most of the gadgets in line with what could have been designed at the beginning. Maybe if they had adapted the story to be the next chapter instead of trying to make it the first.

 

[Stridder44]

Sexy as hell.

But yes, I think (at least hope) that this will be like another "Batman Begins", aka awesome revamp of the series (I didn't even like Batman before batman begins!)

 

[Abstract]

Dunno -- still undecided. I will admit that I think the original Sean Connery movies were some of my favorites and everything else doesn't measure up.

I saw Goldeneye last week for the first time since it came out (what, like in the mid-90's when I was in high school?), and I have to say that it is/was an awesome Bond movie. Awesome. I don't mind low-tech, but the fact is that the man must be cooler than any man, have cool gadgets, and bone women.

That is all I want from a Bond story. It doesn't need to have invisible cars, but at least gadgets that you can fathom. Invisibility is too far fetched for a movie about the year 2002 (or whenever).

However, I'm afraid this movie won't make Bond "cool." Yes, I'm sure Bourne Identity is a blast (haven't seen it), but I want a cool Bond with some cool gadgets. He is NOT Bourne. He's Bond, and he better act like it. An exploding pen like in Goldeneye is cool, and so is the cool car (although I wish they hadn't used BMW), and doesn't go over the top, which makes it one of the best Bond films, I think.

 

[Stridder44]

I saw Goldeneye last week for the first time since it came out (what, like in the mid-90's when I was in high school?), and I have to say that it is/was an awesome Bond movie. Awesome. I don't mind low-tech, but the fact is that the man must be cooler than any man, have cool gadgets, and bone women.

That is all I want from a Bond story. It doesn't need to have invisible cars, but at least gadgets that you can fathom. Invisibility is too far fetched for a movie about the year 2002 (or whenever).

However, I'm afraid this movie won't make Bond "cool." Yes, I'm sure Bourne Identity is a blast (haven't seen it), but I want a cool Bond with some cool gadgets. He is NOT Bourne. He's Bond, and he better act like it. An exploding pen like in Goldeneye is cool, and so is the cool car (although I wish they hadn't used BMW), and doesn't go over the top, which makes it one of the best Bond films, I think.

Amen. Couldn't of said it better myself.

 

[Chundles]

This movie being a prequel wouldn't be a problem if it was REALLY low tech. But, that hand scanner thingamajig was too much(thingamajig doesn't trigger auto correct...wow!).

That's the thing, it's not a prequel, it's a restart - as if none of the other movies existed and they're saying "OK, it's modern day England and there's this agent called 'James Bond' who's just getting his first mission as an MI6 agent with a license to kill"

It's not a retro film, it's James Bond starting his career in the modern day.