CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › New Bond girl will be...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Bond girl will be... - Page 2

post #51 of 69
2/9/06 at 11:16pm
That key roles are still being cast with filming well underway does not bode well...particularly the principle villian. If Le CHiffre is miscast because they have to take what they can get, my hopes for this film vanish.
You might get by with a lackluster Vesper, but not a lackluster Le CHiffre.
Reply
post #52 of 69
2/9/06 at 11:43pm
Thread Starter 
I just looked at the film's page over at IMDb and they don't have Pinewood Studios listed under the "Filming Locations" section. They have a studio in Prague listed as well as South Africa. Surely they are not forfeiting the use of the famous BOND soundstage.

And I have to agree with dudalb. As exciting as Craig's casting was, unless they are being overly secretive, I am starting to get worried about this casting predicament. The release is set for November 17th and I hate to seem them misfire.
Reply
post #53 of 69
2/10/06 at 1:06am
This actually makes quite a bit of sense. When Campbell was directing and making Brosnan's first film with "Goldeneye", they cast a bunch of unknowns. I think they might have the same approach here, not casting huge stars in the supporting roles which might dwarf the largely unknown Craig.

Remember, Izabella Scorupco was an unknown, as were Famke and Sean Bean for the most part. Just because they aren't asting a name doesn't mean they haven't found someone good. I wouldn't expect some big flashy announcement if they cast the largest supporting roles with foreign talent no one's heard of.
Reply
post #54 of 69
2/10/06 at 2:43am
Sean Bean may have not been the biggest star in the US, but remember these movies are by large British, and here, he's had a gigantic fanbase for decades.
Reply
post #55 of 69
2/10/06 at 3:02am


Look, Sharpe!
Reply
post #56 of 69
2/10/06 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Brigden
Sean Bean may have not been the biggest star in the US, but remember these movies are by large British, and here, he's had a gigantic fanbase for decades.
Yeah, that's true, which is why I'm saying just because we haven't heard of the foreign casting, doesn't mean the production is in trouble. On a related note, I finally got access to Netflix and was extremely excited to see that I can now watch all those bean films and mini-series from England that I figured I'd probably never get a chance to see. "Extremely Dangerous" and "Sharpe's ..." for starters.
Reply
post #57 of 69
2/10/06 at 1:26pm
BTW, have you guys seen that script review from Latino Review that AICN is commenting on? I only read a few portions, nothing about plat really, but what I read sounded pretty cool. Moriarty thinks it sounds horrible, but I don't know, the review was positive.
Reply
post #58 of 69
2/10/06 at 1:30pm
Dark Horizons has a review too. Sounds good. I'm very hopeful.
Reply
post #59 of 69
2/10/06 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by moovyphreak
I just looked at the film's page over at IMDb and they don't have Pinewood Studios listed under the "Filming Locations" section. They have a studio in Prague listed as well as South Africa. Surely they are not forfeiting the use of the famous BOND soundstage.

And I have to agree with dudalb. As exciting as Craig's casting was, unless they are being overly secretive, I am starting to get worried about this casting predicament. The release is set for November 17th and I hate to seem them misfire.
They have Pinewood studio space reserved for Bond, so I believe that is just an oversight on (gasp!) IMDB's part.
Reply
post #60 of 69
2/10/06 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew
BTW, have you guys seen that script review from Latino Review that AICN is commenting on? I only read a few portions, nothing about plat really, but what I read sounded pretty cool. Moriarty thinks it sounds horrible, but I don't know, the review was positive.
Mori hates Haggis, much like a lot of folks do, and I hate Purvis & Wade. Fingers crossed.
Reply
post #61 of 69
2/10/06 at 5:51pm
Script reviews are a waste of time anyway, since rewritting goes on during production, even with a "final shooting script" and we have no guarantee that the one posted was the shooting script anyway.
And even the best script can be ruined by bad directing and bad acting.
And Mori does seem to be taking out his own frustrations as a screenwriter in his script reviews.
I am not saying that a unknown cast is a bad idea. It might be great. My concern is that major, pivotal roles are uncast after pricipal photography has begun, that is very unusual and not a good sign. If nothing else, rehersal time is going to be cut down because of the late casting, and that can have a real negative impact on performances.
Reply
post #62 of 69
2/11/06 at 12:51am
I think it happens more than we realize. There are only a few films that are under the radar enough for us to know so much about them when production begins, "Casino Royale" just happens to be one of them. "X-Men" shot for nearly a month before they cast Hugh Jackman almost overnight. "M:I-3" was adding names well into the shooting schedule. Depending on how you look at it, Peter Jackson didn't have his Aragorn until he'd already shot footage with Stuart Townsend.
Reply
post #63 of 69
2/11/06 at 12:22pm
The obvious, seemingly most logical, way to go about the casting is to hire mostly unknowns and sell the franchise rather than the actors. If they got anyone that was known, there would be extraneous baggage attached to the film. Distracting from what it's really all about, which is BOND.

If they did this, ran an extensive, yet simple marketing campaign emphasizing 007 there is no reason they shouldn't be successful.
Reply
post #64 of 69
2/11/06 at 12:38pm
I remember that first teaser for "Goldeneye", talking about how "You can still depend on just one man". A figure blasts the letters on the screen into a "007". Then Brosnan walks up, debonnair as hell in the tux and smirks, "You were expecting someone else?" Then the teaser starts and it is absolutely cool as hell. We didn't know anyone in it, but the action was huge, the music and editing just perfect, and Brosnan looked and acted like Bond.

If they do anything similar with Craig, if they can seel him as Bond to the uninformed, then it doesn't matter who they cast alongside him.
Reply
post #65 of 69
2/11/06 at 1:02pm
Thread Starter 
Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang has always been a solid source for any BOND news.

You uberfans should check it out.
Reply
post #66 of 69
2/11/06 at 1:30pm
The latest and only up to date news on their site was that Craig got the role. www.commanderbond.net had a lot more news.

The most interesting to me? It quotes a Danish newspaper as saying one of its actors, Mads Mikkelson, was close to signing on to play Le Chiffre. Now of course, it's a foreign newspaper, but who knows. He is the Christian Bale esque badass "Tristan" in Fuqua's "King Arthur". I think he'd be a cool choice.
Reply
post #67 of 69
2/11/06 at 1:36pm
Oh, and Campbell says felix Leiter is back! Hell yeah! That could be a pretty sweet little cameo for some American actor, I wonder who it will be. I have my dream picks, but we'll see. Also, no Q this time, which is okay. John Cleese was a poor replacement in my opinion, more slapstick than wit unfortunately. If Desmond is dead, you may as well just retire the character.

Unfortunately, Judi Dench is still M. I hate that. I mean, she's been great. Really. But she's had her time, and if they are starting over, she really makes no sense. I so wish we had gotten one of the "also rans" from over the years. The eternal contenders who never nabbed the role. I'm talking Jason Isaacs, Jeremy Northam, Sam Neil, hell, if they think Dench is fair game, give it to Sean Bean. I'd love to see him as M. But no, Dame Judi it is.
Reply
post #68 of 69
2/16/06 at 1:54pm
Thread Starter 
Well, after yesterday's announcement of the casting of Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre, the Bond baddie, early word was that the producers had narrowed their choices for the female lead to French actress Eva Green and American actress Olivia Wilde.

While no official announcement has been made, sources are saying Sony has chosen Green after flying her to Prague for a screen test with star Daniel Craig. Expect an official confirmation soon.



Frankly, I think she is a fantastic choice. She's still not very well known to mainstream American audiences and has only appeared in handful of films including last year's Kingdom of Heaven, where her role was unfortunately edited down by the studio (early word is that Ridley Scott's Director's Cut coming later this year on DVD remedies that). I think she brings the right amount of sex appeal and intrigue to the table, especially considering her unforgettable debut in Bertolucci's 2003 film The Dreamers.
Reply
post #69 of 69
2/16/06 at 3:48pm
I like Eva Green for this, a great choice IMO. She's young, but not a teenybopper like McAdams and Rose Byrne play as. And as hot as Wilde looks, Green has a femme fatale dangerous quality to her that I like, and she's largely unknown and foreign. I'm sure she'll look smoking hot as Bond girl too.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › New Bond girl will be...