Page 1 of Casino Royale Anticipation Thread

Looked for one, couldn`t find it so I started a fresh `un.

Is anybody looking forward to this? I`m not sure I am. There`s a new script review online that frankly - given the movie`s casting to date and all the other considerations - may make me walk away from the Bond franchise after thirty-two glorious years.

I have to say I`m not looking forward to Daniel Craig as 007. I have been far from impressed with his track record (quite apart from my favourite for the part being Nip&Tuck`s Julian McMahon). I`m doubly depressed by the insistence of "going back to basics" yet again. The Broccolis always get jittery this way and decide to rein 007 in for an outing that inevitably takes less at the box-office than the three-ring-circus made previously that shook their confidence. I have to say I`m familiar with these crises of confidence myself as a writer, but I`m also familiar with the fact you inevitably talk yourself full circle eventually.

The Bond films have a formula that doesn`t need messing with. If the franchise pulled audiences in on the joke of the formula and everybody could just enjoy a barmy action-adventure based on a barmy premise, then the people who whinge about such things could bugger off and whine about the Bourne movies for a change.

I`d have enjoyed Austin Powers more if Mike Myers wasn`t so completely self-indulgent. If those movies had been played with atom-bomb-defusing seriousness, they`d have been hilarious. Similarly, the Bond movies are always best when they`re fun and not trying to get back to Ian Fleming basics. If Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson want to go back to basics, why don`t they go the whole hog, do a Granada and start making accurate period-piece movies (like the Poirot or Sherlock Holmes tv series)? Why f*** up a franchise which has been happily divorced from its source novels since 1964?

J Mark Oates

---

Watch Out Watch Out Watch Out Watch Out
There`s A Humphrey About.

My Column Isn`t Dead, It`s In Hiding Here

I have to admit it isn`t top of my wishlist, but after the complete disaster that was Die Another Day (after I`d loved the previous 3 bond movies with Brosnan in) then my hopes aren`t very high.

If it looks better than D.A.D I`ll go and see it. If it looks worse, it`s accomplished a much harder task

I`ve read the script reviews, and it will either be a wonderful film or a complete disaster. Remembering that Martin Campbell is directing, there is always going to be a comic touch (the man can`t do serious, f*ck sake, he made Vertical Limit :p ). I don`t hold any of the Bond films with much respect, they are what they are, wham-bang-comedies that sometimes try to be serious. My two favourite Bond films are Goldeneye and On Her Majesty`s Secret Service (despite Lazenby being, well, a plank).

The new Bond sounds a lot like Batman Begins in structure and it`s goals. But Batman Begins had an excellent director that made the film mythic and far better than any of the Burton films (lets forget Schumacher). And Mark, the Adam West Batman should be considered a different entity from the work Frank Miller did (and others ;) ). Bond is not, and never has been a rich or deep character on film. Perhaps the books, but not film. So rebooting him could prove to be the death of the franchise or the best thing they have ever done.

But at the end of the day I`m not anticipating this at all. It`s a Bond film, it needs to do something worthwhile to catch my attention. The Bourne films should not be compared to Bond, because Bourne is the Melies to Bond`s Lumiere.

---

My DVD Collection

Quote:
Is anybody looking forward to this? I`m not sure I am.I am - as a life-long Bond fan, it is my second most looked forward to movie of the year (after "Superman Returns").

Quote:
I have to say I`m not looking forward to Daniel Craig as 007. I have been far from impressed with his track record (quite apart from my favourite for the part being Nip&Tuck`s Julian McMahon).I was very pleased with the choice of Craig (especially considering some of the others that were rumoured for the part - ie. Clive Owen! :o ). McMahon was my first pick too, but because of his TV commitments, was never seriously considered for the role. I think Craig will do a great job though.

Quote:
I`m doubly depressed by the insistence of "going back to basics" yet again. The Broccolis always get jittery this way and decide to rein 007 in for an outing that inevitably takes less at the box-office than the three-ring-circus made previously that shook their confidence.Yeah - but they always usually "ground" Bond after a more fantastical/OTT film - eg. "OHMSS" after "You Only Live Twice", "For Your Eyes Only" after "Moonraker", "The Living Daylights" after Moore`s last two movies. I wouldn`t worry - I don`t think they`ll do anything too drastic. I think it just keeps the franchise fresh - and they like mixing it up every so often.

Quote:
The Bond films have a formula that doesn`t need messing with. If the franchise pulled audiences in on the joke of the formula and everybody could just enjoy a barmy action-adventure based on a barmy premise, then the people who whinge about such things could bugger off and whine about the Bourne movies for a change.Absolutely - the Bourne movies are totally different things to Bond (and not half as good/entertaining!). If people want a "serious" plotted spy thriller, then go see a Bourne movie. If, however, you want to be entertained for 2 hours with OTT stunts, action, double entendres, great baddies and babes etc, then Bond wins every time :) .

Quote:
Similarly, the Bond movies are always best when they`re fun and not trying to get back to Ian Fleming basics. If Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson want to go back to basics, why don`t they go the whole hog, do a Granada and start making accurate period-piece movies (like the Poirot or Sherlock Holmes tv series)? Why f*** up a franchise which has been happily divorced from its source novels since 1964?Yep, well said - the most successfull Bond movies have been the OTT fun ones - "Thunderball", "Moonraker", and yes, "Die Another Day". If it ain`t broke after 40+ years, why fix it?

Quote:
I have to admit it isn`t top of my wishlist, but after the complete disaster that was Die Another Day (after I`d loved the previous 3 bond movies with Brosnan in) then my hopes aren`t very high.DAD does divided critics sharply - you either love it or hate it. Personally, I loved it and thought it was one of the very best in all 20 movies. And judging by the huge BO, so did the paying public.... ;) .

Quote:
But at the end of the day I`m not anticipating this at all. It`s a Bond film, it needs to do something worthwhile to catch my attention. Well obviously, if you`re not that much of a Bond fan, you wouldn`t go and see it. It doesn`t have to do anything "worthwhile" to catch my attention - it`s a Bond movie: as with the others, people will either go to see it, knowing full well what they will be getting... or they won`t. Pretty simple really. Chewie - like me, you`re a Star Wars fan - having loved all the others, would you honestly not go to a new Star Wars if it didn`t do something "worthwhile to catch your attention"? I would go, whether it looked fantastic or s***e regardless, because I love the Star Wars movies - and basically just want more of the same....

Quote:
The Bourne films should not be compared to Bond, because Bourne is the Melies to Bond`s Lumiere.I agree, they shouldn`t - they are two entirely different types of movies. I know people on this site seem to have a hard-on for Bourne - but in reality, he couldn`t carry Bond`s jock-strap... :)

---

This item was edited on Sunday, 19th February 2006, 13:11

I think we should have a movie anticipation thread in the special forum, for Bond, Harry Potter, Star Wars, and any other big named movies.

floyd

Hulk, of course I`m gonna see it, in the cinema. But then that`s just cause it`s expected. I`m just not paying it any attention (apart from here ;) ). It just seems to want to be "gritty" and "dark", words that I`d NEVER associate with Bond. In other words, it wants to achieve the same critical success as the Bourne films received. Bourne is picking up a huge following, you just have to look at the increase in box office more Identity to Supremacy. So the people want something that`s a bit deeper and doesn`t rely on superficial booms and bangs, or at least the 007 producers hope so.

I enjoy the Bond films, but 75% of them left no impression. Ultimately, I do hope Casino Royale is great. But the more pessimistic I am the greater chance there is that I`ll like it. But put it this way, I won`t be downloading the trailer ;)

---

My DVD Collection

Quote:
It just seems to want to be "gritty" and "dark", words that I`d NEVER associate with Bond....that`s just to p***-off Mark (Oates) though... ;)

Quote:
In other words, it wants to achieve the same critical success as the Bourne films received. Bourne is picking up a huge following, you just have to look at the increase in box office more Identity to Supremacy. So the people want something that`s a bit deeper and doesn`t rely on superficial booms and bangs, or at least the 007 producers hope so....but I just don`t think people/Bond fans want something that is deeper/less superficial - as Mark pointed out, they`ve been a great success for 40 years because they stick to the same basic formula and people know what they are getting. Leave "dark and gritty" to Bourne and other thrillers.

Interestingly, the last time they made a slight departure for the Bond films and made it more real/serious was for "Licence To Kill" which wasn`t very well received by the general public or BO. I think the producers should just admit: the Bond audience likes OTT and fantasy and action/stunts - rather than a more serious "believable" type thriller (that`s not what the Bond movies are about...). As I said - just look at "Thunderball", "Moonraker" and "Die Another Day" - all fun, OTT/fantasy type adventures - and three of the biggest ever Bond hits. :)

---

Quote:
but I just don`t think people/Bond fans want something that is deeper/less superficial

Kinda my point, they`re ignoring their own financial success and wanting critical success, believing it won`t have an effect. Bond is big and silly, appeals to all ages. Just because I don`t get a lot out of it millions of others do, and I think that the producers are trying to hard to gain respect when they should just be happy that their films make huge amounts of wonga. Of course, many disagree, they want something more. They wanted that Tarantino Casino Royale. Instead they`re getting a Mr Paul Mediocre Haggis script that rips off lots of other films in a less than subtle way.

---

My DVD Collection

Quote:
...that`s just to p***-off Mark (Oates) though...

ROFL!

I think a Tarantino-written and directed Bond would probably trash every other movie released the same year. Ditto (TBH) a Spielberg directed one. Both directors have shown a distinct sympathetic nature toward the franchise that currently BB and MGW don`t seem to be showing. I honestly think a period-piece Bond showing his first assignment would be fantastic. Unfortunately nothing that has been said about the picture suggests they will do anything other than blow away the last forty years of continuity and try to make out James Bond joined MI6 in 2006.

Back to Tarantino, though. I think he`d make a fantastic Bond movie which would press all the right buttons. The man`s steeped in film lore and is possibly the greatest film geek on the planet, so we wouldn`t be looking at Kill Jim Pt 1 - Licenced To F***ing Kill. I think he`d have delivered something along the lines of Goldfinger - hard, yes, not as fanciful as say Moonraker, but certainly not as desperately mundane as CR sounds. Please - no more of these police-action Bonds going after drug barons. Somebody out to rule the world at the very least!

The problem as I see it (and I apologize if I`m going over the same ground again), isn`t nessecelery dark or gritty (wot??), but the makers` desire to drag 007 down to Earth. 007 is a superhero in a tuxedo. He needs to be surrounded by big explosions, oddball villains and impossibly beautiful women to make him look normal. If you put him in an ordinary mundane storyline (like investigating money-laundering), it becomes all too obvious what a daft cypher the character is. Trying to turn him into a human being stops him being the idiot who strips out of a wet suit to reveal a dry tux underneath. Real people don`t ski down mountains on one ski, fall out of aeroplanes and wrestle for parachutes, they don`t fight big bastards with steel teeth and survive. They get thoroughly duffed up or killed, and any idiot can do that.

CR sounds like the same kind of disaster that LTK nearly was. Note I say nearly. LTK had enough traditional Bond elements and enough sheer oomph (or in the case of Sanchez at the end whoomph) to make it a damn good entry into the series. CR sounds like it will shed the traditional Bond elements, and I suspect that will stop it being a proper Bond picture. It needs M, Q and Moneypenny (even if they`re new actors) to ground the movie in the Bond paradigm. Without them, he`s just a bloke who happens to be called James Bond. Even if they`re only in a short sequence (based on the one in Dr No where he gets issued with his Walther), that will be enough.

I have grave misgivings about them doing a Bond Begins. They should leave that to Charlie Higson.

J Mark Oates

---

Watch Out Watch Out Watch Out Watch Out
There`s A Humphrey About.

My Column Isn`t Dead, It`s In Hiding Here

Funnily enough, I watched the Bourne Supremacy this weekend and I still think that bond could learn a thing or too.

Not a wholesale rip-off, after all, we still want Bond to be Bond, but it could take a cue from its darker and grittier elements...lol......no.......joking........ahem.......

Actually, theres a similar theme with Collateral. I want Bond to get his Bondness back. In Collateral, Vincent takes out all those people with nothing but planning and a 9mm. Same with Bourne.

I want Bond to be the best super spy there is, not a p*** takingly lucky bastard, who succeeds through pure spawnyness and a series of increasingly unlikely plot crutches.... I mean `Gadgets`.......

Like the Train Scene in Bourne Supremacy. Its really tense, because you dont know whats going to happen next, but thanks to `Mouse Trap` style planning, Bourne evades capture. He doesnt twist a button on his belt and go-go-gadget jetpack out of there.

I think it devalues the character, to be perfectly honest.

Like I said, I dont want him to lose his Bondness, but I do want him to become a spy again, rather than a gadget reliant, lucky bastard.

I know that the most successful Bonds have been the most cartoony, but, rarely have they been the best recieved. After all, Titanic is still one of the most popular films ever and westlife go to no.1 with every release.

Take Dr. No for example. Pure, pretty much dead straight Bad Assery. Same with FRWL and, for me, they are two of my favourites. A perfect balance of pure Kick-arse spy action and tongue in cheek humour.

---

What im listening to (if youre interested)

This item was edited on Monday, 20th February 2006, 09:55