CASINO ROYALE Pre-release Discussion

I really like the pics we've been getting. Craig looks like one slick mother, and I remain pleasantly surprised that they didn't give him some bad dye job (a la Tom Jane in "Punisher). The dirty blonde thing works. I'm also a little surprised that we've yet to see a tuxedo shot, though I assume that's just filming later. Craig's Bond is already dressing a little bit hipper and more casual than Brosnan's.

Gotta be honest: Although I was (and still am) supportive of a thorough Bond reboot, I don't particularly like what little I've been seeing from and hearing about CASINO ROYALE. I remember seeing the very first photos of Timothy Dalton in action at Gibraltar in the L.A. Times and thinking, "That's Bond." I'm not getting the same vibe from Daniel Craig so far but I'm certainly willing to give him a fair shot.

However, the people I'm not willing to give yet another shot to are Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson. In my mind, they have creatively derailed and cheapened what used to be a series of films I was always excited about.

So I was thinking, how much would you be willing to change the rules of Bond? How far is too far? Consider:

- Not opening the film with the trademark gunbarrel.
- Not opening with a teaser action sequence.
- Not spending precious screentime on lavish title sequences.
- Not having Bond go up against an egomaniacal supervillain.
- Not having Bond use any one-liners.
- Not having Bond use any Q Branch gadgets or vehicles.

And perhaps, the most painful but perhaps bold move of all...

- Not using the trademark James Bond theme.

Just for a moment, consider retooling the 007 universe to the same extreme that BATTLESTAR GALACTICA was so amazingly retooled. DIE ANOTHER DAY was the first post-9/11 Bond film and one throwaway line of dialogue aside ("The world changed while you were gone,") it utterly failed to capitalize on the dramatic potential of that changed world.

I have a hard time believing that Broccoli and Wilson have changed Bonds for any other reason than that Brosnan had become too expensive and vocal in his dissatisfaction with how they were handling the series. Or that they went with CASINO ROYALE for any other reason than it was merely a ready-to-go storyline that had never been properly adapted for the big screen.

I feel that people have become tired of Bond mostly because each recent film has become a Xerox of a Xerox of a Xerox. Bond -- both the character and the franchise -- needs to become dangerous again.

I totally agree with this. Bond just became bland. I hope than can regain a sense of danger in the franchise, but it will probably be the same stuff just with a different Bond.

I actually get a nice "Bond vibe" from the pics. Like they commented over at AICN, the shots of him coming out of the ocean are very "Dr. No", and the shots of him getting out of the plane look very slick. I think the somewhat cheesy tuxedo persona has gotten a bit stale, and especially if they are doing his "becoming" 007, it makes sense if he's a bit more casual. What I do like is how many shots we've gotten of him bloodied up. The mortal, destructible quality is a lot of what made Dalton's Bond so much more compelling.

Yes, I agree. But keep in mind that MGM is now a Sony child, and Sony and Amy Pascal are the ones who let Raimi do his thing with "Spider-Man" and from the early rumors, are the ones who first got excited about Daniel Craig. I think being under Sony, and therefore not being solely responsible for keeping MGM afloat as the Brosnan films were, they are maybe a bit more likely to experiment. Keep in mind, Wilson was a big backer of the "Licence to Kill" approach. I see in the hiring of Craig and Paul Haggis that someone is forcing them to do things a bit differently. I would certainly hope they realize that people will not tolerate another DAD.

You have to maintain certain stylistic elements, otherwise it just isn't Bond. People aren't tired of the main theme, the gunbarrel, or even the precredits action sequence. What they are tired of is lazy writing, lazy acting, and overall lazy, safe films. I don't think this film looks to have an egomaniacal supervillain. I would also say that yes, the title sequences need to go. I find myself hitting the "next" button when I watch them on DVD, and they are almost stupid in this day and age.

Agreed. I think the casting of Craig is definitely in the right direction, and I find it hard to believe they would go with him if not to take the series in a more serious, dangerous direction. They could have easily cast Gruffudd, McMahon, Gerard Butler, or a whole host of brighter, more Brosnan-esque actors, but they didn't. Daniel Craig does not play like a Pierce Brosnan, so I think the films are going to reflect that, as they should. "The Bourne Identity" should be all the writing on the wall the producers need to change the series.

Certainly, and I've got nothing against stylistic consistency. But I am tired of the predictable elements of the Bond films. The opening 20 minutes of DIE ANOTHER DAY was a nice, if compromised, change of pace. (In the script, Bond was in prison for 3 years; in the film, only half that.) But it was followed but such a non-stop imaginatively-bankrupt cliché-fest that any points Broccoli, Wilson, Wade & Purvis scored were quickly forgotten about.

I guess I'm tired of them being used as a crutch...as some sort of a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval that asks us to hold the story that follows to an easier standard merely because it's part of a franchise that's proven itself in the past.

I know many people hate the way ALIEN 3 started, by killing off Newt and Hicks, but I applauded it because the film instantly told me that all bets were off. That I had no security blanket...no safety net. That I was in a dangerous world.

I just wish Bond still gave me that thrill. The gun barrel, the theme, the other staples...all they tell me is that I'm watching an EON production of Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in his latest adventure, EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OK.

But with already a third BOURNE film in the works, is it too little, too late?

That's my main beef with Purvis and Wade. TWINE and DAD both features interesting concepts i.e. Bond with a serious injury and Bond dealing with being tortured. Both were great premises, but were completely ignored for the rest of the film. The one thing they did right was the make the pre-credits sequence mean something. Look at Dalton's films too, both use the pre-credits sequence to further the story, and "The Living Daylights" in particular was pretty intense.


I don't get this feeling. Well, maybe in the last 2. I think the issue is still how they deal with the rest of the 110 minutes. I mean, seeing Bond walk in front of the gun barrel is still awesome, and the main theme is still badass. When they betray the history of Bond in the rest of the film, yes, they feel like hollow panderings to our former love of the character, but if they make a good Bond film, I want those staples to be included.



I agree with what you're wanting. They need to shake it up, to do something interesting and unpredictable that isn't just a gimmick. But I think they can easily do that and maintain the feel of the series, like in OHMSS.

Well, being slightly predictable isn't the kiss of death. Connery's films all followed basically the same formula, but were by and large good films and highly entertaining. I think the appeal of Bond, really, is that preditability, that knowledge that the elements you've loved are going to be present. Hence the anticipation surrounding who will be the Bond Girl, the Villain, the Henchman, Felix, M, what luxury car he'll drive, what gadgets he gets, what new locations are they shooting.

It's the variations on established formulas that we go see. Bond has never been a series that pushed the envelope time in and time out.



My point being, the series has always adapted to mirror, at least in some way, cinema at large. Hence "Moonraker" aping "Star Wars", "Licence to Kill and "Tomorrow Never Dies" have a far more "Die Hard"/"Lethal Weapon" feel, and "You Only Live Twice" tried to cash in on the kung-fu resurgence going on at the time. People expect serious, gritty spy films these days and are enjoying them. When your trade is the world's greatest superspy, I think you naturally have to amend him towards the seriousness of the Bourne series.

Halle Berry's bathing suit had a "Dr. No" resonance as welll.

I'm damn curious to see how Daniel Craig does. Sunburn, knocked out teeth - it's his first rodeo, it doesn't affect the film. I'm more pissed that they didn't go ahead and make it a Cold War period piece.

Out of the list of things I'd be willing to see go away, the gadgets and the one liners are about it (see "From Russia With Love". Shit, see it twice.). There's no shame in coloring inside the lines. It's all about what crayons you choose.

All good points, Stew. But let me just focus on one of them...

But see, that's the thing. When Connery was following the Bond formula, there had only been a few films. Now we're into our 21st official Bond film, 44 years into the filmed franchise. There's a point when something is new and exciting. There's a point when something is broken-in and comfortable. And then there's a point when something is worn-out and threadbare.

I feel like the traditional Bond formula is now in that latter stage. I still love the character and his place in the world. But I wouldn't mind seeing his world, and everything we've come to expect from it, turned upside down and inside out.

I get what you're saying, but there are elements and characteristics of a Bond film that make it a "Bond film". He hasn't existed for 44 years by constantly changing, he's survived because of what they have maintained. We can bitch all we want, but the gun barrel, the music, the "shaken not stirred", big villains, bigger henchman, all the things that "Bond film" draws to mind is one hell of a successful formula. I want them to branch out and try dangerous things, but I don't mind having the constants woven in throughout. Dalton's films did this quite well IMO. LTK is one of the most offbeat films in the series, but it still maintains, in retinkered form, Felix, M, the one-liners, henchman, and a lot of the classic elements.

If you take away these tried and true characteristics, then I think it ceases to be a Bond film. He becomes just another action hero.

I think "Goldeneye" did a nice job of this. Of Brosnan's films, it's possibly the most classic in its adherence to the "formula". The difference was, unlike his later films, they nailed everything in an interesting way. They acknowledged the changing world landscape, and shook things up a bit with 006.

From Super Hero Hype.....

It wouldn't be a terrible jumping off point. The original films took their own liberties and used the book as a jumping off point themselves. You could take the rough premise and create an entirely different film. Look at 1967 "Casino Royale" vs. the approach they are taking with this one.

If they were to remake the books all over again, then I wish they had done a true reboot (as I believe you suggested) and recast M, along with severing any other casting/location/design ties to the first 20 films. But it would be interesting to see remakes of some of the more radical adaptations, such as MOONRAKER.

ComingSoon has a lot of stills from the film that looks great. Mainly Craig looking beat up and badass.

http://www.comingsoon.net/cgi-bin/im.../Casino_Royale

I especially like the one attached below.

I find it interesting how Bond has been perceived over the years, in the beginning he was a spy but as the years went by he's become essentially a government assassin, I don't think Bond has done any real spy work since 'From Russia with Love'

A couple interesting tidbits gleaned from various interviews opooing up on the net. Apparently the pre-credits sequence is going to be shot in black and white, which sounds very interesting. And the infamous carpet "sack beater" scene is being filmed last. Campbell says Bond will be naked and that he's hoping to make it the most graphic and siturbing sequence of the series i.e. Felix eaten by a shark.

I'm excited.

Um....
http://commanderbond.net/Public/Stories/3141-1.shtml

Granted we haven't seen one frame of Craig as Bond...but yeah...I'll believe it when I see it.

Those are some strong and interesting words from Campbell. I agree with him on his appraisal of the series, I'm just wondering exactly how "out there" the producers are game for. The pics look great, I love the cut up face Craig has in the pics with M. And a B&W precredits sequence sounds pretty cool.

And I agree with him about Craig. I suppose idiots will still bitch about his looks or something, but as an actor, I don't know that they have ever landed better.

Re: the pics of Craig.

THAT is James fucking Bond.

It's weird being genuinely excited about an upcoming Bond film again. That hasn't happened to me since Goldeneye and that had a lot to do with the six year absence of the character and the casting of Pierce Brosnan. Hopefully Casino Royale will actually be able to distance itself from the current state of the franchise and all this talk of going back to the roots is true.

I have no doubts regarding Daniel Craig. He's already proven himself to be a great actor and who gives a crap what color his hair is.

As for Brosnan, it's sad to see him go - he never got the great Bond film he deserved IMO - but clearly a new actor was needed to properly restart the franchise and I'd rather see them take the first steps toward better films than another Bond with Brosnan. And with films like The Matador he seems to be better off without the burden of having to do a 007 film every few years.

EDIT: It seems the craignotbond.com folks are not the only ones with too much spare time judging by this fan trailer that splices scenes from Layer Cake with recent Bond films:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OiFkety8yT4

Le Chiffre:



Looks like he knows how to handle a carpet beater.

Roundabouts what I expected. I like it. I think he's a nice pick for the villain, mainly that he's an unknown, also because he was cool in the one thing I've seen him in ("King Arthur"). Cool look.

Fucking badass. This is starting to really shape up.

I just finished re-reading Casino Royale again, and that means I'll have to re-read the entire series for the first time since High School. Anyhow, this:

"The last line of the book will be the last line of the film."

Has me saying HELL YES.

Yeah, that last line could prove kind of badass.

I recently leafed through the final "romance at seaside motel" portion of CR, and found a really strange scene where Bond, the morning after sex, "strokes his memories".

So, in many ways, he is one of us.

After checking a few of the links, my expections are on a serious upswing.

I wonder when we find out who is doing the title song? It's one of those things I actually wouldn't mind seeing go away, but I think that's probably a long shot. I'm hoping they get someone who can do a good song rather than go absurdly pop (Madonna and DAD) or old by the time the song comes out (Garbage). I mean, if "Tomb Raider" lands a U2 song, why can't Bond? Or some other decent, long-standing Brit or group. Bowie? The Stones? Something halfway serious.

Bono and the Edge wrote "Goldeneye", I'm guessing they're done.

It is a weird perception that people have. In the books - at least the five that I've read - Bond is an assassin, and not much more. His missions are pretty much - "Kill Commie X." He's a spy by accident - at best.

Really? I did not know that. Interesting though, I wonder if they originally intended to sing it too? I know "Ace of Base" did one too. I'm just saying, if they have to have a song, can we get someone decent?

Yessir. Dunno if they ever intended to perform it; it sounds pretty diva-ish, as if it was made for a Shirley Bassey or Tina Turner...

I think you meant A-Ha? Their song ("The Living Daylights") was possibly the worst of all of them.

"The World Is Not Enough" had a classic-enough Bond song feel, but Moby's cover of the classic theme was the last fun Bond theme I recall hearing.

I was referring to the Ace of Base song "The Juvenile" which starts out with a very Bond-esque sound to it. It was supposed to be the title track to "Goldeneye" but when it was rejected, as a lot of other artists have had songs rejected for the films, they changed the lyrics and put it on their own album. And actually, I've always really liked "The Living Daylights". It's catchy in that 80s way and isn't entirely ridiculous like a lot of the songs.

The sound of TWINE was better than the song itself. David Arnold turned it into a pretty nice cue for the film, something he refused to do in DAD because he hated Madonna's title track so much. At this point I think you either land an A-list legend type to sing "Casino Royale" or you don't bother. If they are aiming at bringing a little respect and prestige to the franchise, which seems to be the underlying intent, then they need to avoid kneejerk flavor of the month artists forever sullying the opening to the picture.

Oof. I'll give it a listen.


Should be another thread, I guess, but who do you think would be a good candidate? Bowie's not a bad choice, Cousteau wouldn't be bad, but no one knows them.

I wouldn't mind if the opening title music follows in the footsteps of OHMSS, meaning that there is no pop song but a full-blown suite from David Arnold's score. I'm sure he'd be up for it. His TOMORROW NEVER DIES song, "Surrender" (performed by k.d. lang) is one my all-time favorite Bond songs. Such a shame it got bumped to the end credits.

There were rumors of Seal doing it.

Seal has at least been around a while in different degrees of stardom, and I don't hate him. All I really know is "Kiss From a Rose", but I guess they've done worse. He's somewhat offbeat though which is what I like in the Bond songs.

I really hold out hope for a major name though. One that shows they are serious, not that they landed another B or C list musician. Bowie, U2, the Stones, they all could be good, and all have long ago sold out far worse than Bond, so it is a possibility. I sort of like the Strokes, maybe they could do a cool one.

Or even The Music, but that's going very obscure.

A Bjork bond song would be amazing.

Hell yes.

Goldfrapp: The girl's vocals are just amazing; it's sexy as hell, original, they could make a great, lush, Bond song. I think it perfectly fits the direction they're trying to go in. If you haven't heard of them check em out. I wanna listen to this while bangin a high class london stripper and sipping pink champagne in the back of my Aston Martin stretch limo...

I listened to this last night to see what it's like.

And holy fuck what a truly awful song it is!!

True the first couple of bars do sound like a Bond song but after that it degenerates into the typical euro-pop shite that flooded the UK pop charts in the early/mid nineties...

My vote goes to either Tony Bennet or another stint from Tom Jones, something really ballsy and classy...

...my only concern now with the reboot is that Bond is now ex-SAS rather than an ex Naval Commander - I think he looses alot of the upper class attitude and snobbery inherent in the character - a Shirley Bassey number certainly wouldn't work for an ex-SAS type no matter how much you dress him up and put him in an Aston...

...and come on, can you really see an ex-SAS bloke asking a barman for a Vodka-Martini???

Not bashing the whole Bond film, justg a little nitpick...

I think ex-SAS works much better than ex Naval Commander. It gives him a bit more grounded, working class feel that I think fits well with Craig's natural presence. I never really understood how naval commander really translated to cladestine covert operative anyways. This makes a ton more sense, its potential incompatibility with the vodka martini notwithstanding. I'm very ready to have a Bond who is charming for being an ultra confident badass, not a dandy with a knowledge of fine wines.

Michael Buble seems like an obvious for Bond song, since he's sort of done one already.

A brief clip of footage from Casino Royale, in about the worst quality imaginable. Quick shots of a fistfight.

Edit: Some more, better behind the scenes footage (spoilers, maybe?)

That's the thing...there are alot of little thing that are nitpickish enough to make a distraction. The biggest for me is Judi Dench returning as M.

For the song. I'd love to hear the Rolling Stones do it. And I'm really surprised that to this point they haven't done one.

The following is a post i put on a James Bond forum that I hoped would get a bit more feedback than it did - maybe because it's a load of crap or maybe because no one cared, anyway, here's my thoughts on Bond being ex-SAS ant not a naval commander:

One of the main points I think needs to be made (if it hasn't already - haven't read ALL of the eposts above) is that the difference between a Navy Commander and an SAS soldier are huge.

SAS soldiers come from any class(working, middle, upper) and are possibly the hardest people you will ever meet in your life. They would be more at home drinking in a local boozer than sipping Martinis in a gentleman's club (which dosn't mean they're brawlers - they're just not pretentious enough to sip cocktails). They can certainly handle themselves in any situation but what they generally lack is the British upper class authority/snobbery - they're just very tough blokes.

British Navy Commanders are by-and-large of the stiff-upper-lip, upper class very British type. All of them have got to where they are through hard graft - but, and its a big but - their class/breeding and who they know and who their family know etc, all help a great deal - they are generally upper class and have that upper class authority/snobbery that makes them believe that they can handle any situation, simply because they are very British upper class - the whole history of the British Empire is in their viens.

This is what I think makes Bond so... Bond. In his viens he's British upper class - through and through - he's part of the establishment.

Making Bond ex SAS takes away the thing that makes Bond so (in the audience's eyes) so unattainable. You may be as tall as Bond, have the good looks and charm etc - but you will never, ever be upper class.
I'm not upper class - far far from it - neither am i saying how much better the upper classes are - but if you're not British, it's hard to understand the concept of the class system.

In his heart Bond thinks he's better than most - he's upper class.

Any of this make sense???

I don't know. In the novels Bond's military experience was I believe primarily from the Second World War and afterwards, so that may have been a different ballgame. And while he was an orphan presumeably raised in boarding schools and coming from some money, It's made apparent that he despises the snobbish nature of the British upper class.

I don't think he was supposed to have gotten much from his family in terms of breaks or benefits. On the rare occasion that the stories do delve into his past, they make him seem like he had a pretty rough and tumble youth that would not make him dissimilar from an SAS agent the way you describe them.
Bond lives like a millionaire when he can because it's often part of his mission to rub shoulders with the high and mighty and to pose as someone of wealth and importance.