CASINO ROYALE Pre-release Discussion - Page 3

People who use "meh" should be shot in the kneecaps.

exactly.

I really didn't see anything in that trailer that would lead me to believe that Pierce Brosnan couldn't have done.

It looks like just about every other Bond movie to me. Not that I'm really complaining, I just don't see a huge step anywhere or any reason why it has taken so long to get it out.

Poster, Teaser Trailer, two words to describe both, Fucking Awesome!

I was a bit skeptical at first about Daniel Craig, but after seeing of all things, Layer Cake, I thought that he should be given a chance to be Bond, and it looks like he's a great choice, although his short spiked hair that is very noticable at the end of the trailer wasn't "The James Bond Style" ie. like how all of the previous Bond's have had it, not too short and combed to the side, but I guess this is their way of seperating him from the rest of them.

I'm very curious into how Sebastien Foucan and Parkour plays into the storyline. Le Chiffre being played by Mads Mikkelsen: looks to be a classic villian. IMO: this Bond flick will surprise alot of people, especially the fans. I for one hope it does.

Like all things, even better in English. Giddy like a motherfucking schoolgirl.

Like Connery, he doesn't have a whole lot of hair to work with.

It's even better now that I understand what they are saying.

Although now more than ever it is apparent(to me atleast).....Dench should have been replaced.

As it hasn't been posted here yet, the trailer can be found in English at the official site or as a downloadable direct link here (40 Mb).

Even though I'm still not happy that they decided to stick with Judi Dench, I like the dialogue they've given her.

I get this weird feeling that people will see Daniel Craig and think he's playing the villian.

Fine with me. Bogart, Cagney, Mitchum, Lee Marvin, Connery - all guys who could have been pigeonholed as heavies if no one gave them a shot. I'm tired of pretty boy protags in my action flicks.

That opening scene with M would never have worked with Brosnan.

Craig sounds meaner than Brosnan ever was, and I liked M's dialogue. Deriding him as a "blunt instrument", his retort being a perfect "I heard 00's have a very short life expectancy". That's the perfect justification for his insane lifestyle, but one the movies have rarely if ever explained flat out.

This is looking pretty awesome.

Agreed. Brosnan doesn't play as a thuggish "blunt instrument", and he's too charming for M to have that sort of outright contempt for him. With Craig you believe it, and his seemingly "fuck it" attitude doesn't play with Brosnan either. Craig's casting seems more genius by the day, though he was always my favorite. I want to hear what the "CraigNotBond.com" idiots have to say.

That line works because of Dench, not Brosnan.

Brosnan plays that scene like Fonzie getting a talking to from one of his teachers, who actually really likes him, but can't show it. Dench quickly drops her stern demeanor, offers him a drink, and throughout the series seems to be amused by his antics.

I'm not trashing it, it was good at the time. But I like that they are doing something new and playing to Craig's strengths in a major way.

That life expectancy line was greatness.

Trailer looks pretty good. And Craig will probably do a great job. But the track record speaks for itself. The Brosnan Bond films were mostly ungood despite Brosnan's solid performance. The only thing that will get me psyched to see this is good reviews.

as much as I hate bringing up the fact Die Another Day was Bonds best outing at the box office

to the tune of $431,971,116

Bernard Lee stuck around therefore I have no promblem with Dame Judi staying around, particularly if you give her good materia as the teaser indicates

and how badass would it be if the actual precredit sequence was in black & white

So far, nothing in this trailer seemed overly "Bond-esque" to me. And what was with the black guy doing some serious Spiderman moves?
I'm not terribly excited.
Craig seems like an interesting choice, so I reserve judgement. He seems like a bit of a thug, though.
I don;t know how this is supposed to be a "reboot" of the franchise and getting Bond back to his roots.

Well it is based upon the first novel, and the opening dialogue in the trailer establishes that he doesn't have 00 status yet, I don't see why you're confused.

Well, after seeing the teaser in english, and finally understanding what Dame Judi, and The Craig are saying, I have to agree that they're dialogue together is awesome. I like how he doesn't have 00 status yet, and how she treats him like a thug, and since Craig doesn't have that pretty boy look to him, it doesn't make you think otherwise.

Stew was right in saying that his casting is becoming more genius by the day, however my first choice was The Owen, although that didn't work out, Craig is definitely becoming a superior choice since he doesn't have that well known status, much like Timothy Dalton before him, and this is really working to the advantage of the film. Can't wait till the movie comes out November 17th.

If the pretitle's sequence is in black and white, would one think that they might pull a "Sin City" and have Craig's eyes blue throughout it? I don't think that they would ever dare do a stunt like that, but in today's world, one never really knows.

Mmmm, well, having Judy Dench as M seems a tad out of place. If this is supposed to be about the origins of Bond, shouldnt M be a guy? I never read the book so please tell me if im wrong.
I dont understand the need to basically shit on 30 years of Bond lore. What this movie is doing is telling us that all of the other movies are irrelevant, and I dont like that one bit.
And plus, if you're going to reboot a franchise like this, wouldnt it seem like a good idea to bring something new to the table besides a different actor to play Bond? It just seems like another Bond film with all of the trappings that people are crying about with the more recent ones: very little spying, explosions in nearly frame and him constantly beating the crap out of people, and too many special effects.
So...what's new and why was this "re-boot" necessary?

What's different about this take? Gee, let's look at it:

a)Bond looks to be treated more as an assassain, not a superhero.

b) More brutal, make-you-feel-the-punches fights. No Bond easily disposing of a thousand faceless henchmen.

c) Him apparently actually going undercover with an assumed name, rather than walking up to the main villian and saying "Hello, I'm James Bond. I'll be your foil for the evening."

d) No ice palaces. No laser beams. No goofy clones. No secret underwater fortresses. No villians with special video game-type powers. No Jaws. I'd say that's a pretty fresh take then most of the Bond films we've had for the past, say, 30 years.

The dialogue in the trailer made me start to think about the novel and the one line that always stuck with me since the first time I read it.

"Surround yourself with people, James. They are far easier to defend than principles."

I think that's at the heart of the dilemma of the Bond character and I really hope that line is in the film. Every time Fleming's Bond started a doomed relationship or went out to avenge a friend or keep a promise that line was in the back of my mind as his motivation. If they that line in, show how the relationship with Vesper basically ruined him on women forever, and give us a couple of scenes of Bond palling around with Felix, It'll do more to make audiences undestand the series and the character than any number of Brosnan's 'alone with a bottle' scenes.

It's sad to think that after this, the series might degenerate back to that, although I always did like Jaws, and some of the later "Big Movies" like Octopussy, The Spy Who Loved Me, A View To A Kill, Moonraker, and The Living Daylights are really good. I'm not even going to go into detail about Die Another Day, other than it's an ok movie, with a lot of way over the top even for Bond standards shit in it.

According to Campbell, it is. I don't think it's very spoilerific to hypothesize that what we saw was basically the precredits sequence. Bond kills someone, (maybe in order to get 00 status) has to fend off some henchman in a nasty bathroom brawl, and then at the end, whirls into the gunbarrel shot. That's my idea, and no, I've read no script reviews.

Then you must have hated the last couple decades' worth of Bond films.

The most infuriating shortcoming of this "series" has been the complete and utter ack of continuity. Only in the very early Connery films did the events of the previous film even get mentioned in the next. Both of the last two Brosnan films passed up tailor made opportunities to refer to OHMSS and Tracy, a refusal that burned me up both times. The films haven't cared about what came before in any way. So any attempt to give these films a touch of continuity is welcome in my book. Plus, the origins of a man like Bond are worth exploring. And again, it's not like they're abandoning some long-running plotline.


From that teaser alone, the filmmaking techniques involved give the film a very different look than the previous Bond films. Black and white, the reworked gun barrel, the casino table shot, the action sequences. The entire tone was different. There was more depth to that trailer than all of "Die Another Day". That's what people are excited about.

You just named some of the very worst Bond movies as "really good", but said it would be sad if the series ever degenerated back into the territory.

Thing is, the degeneration was slow. If "Casino Royale" sets a new standard and is a success, I think it will be quite a while before filmmakers go into a Bond film with such lazy intentions again.

Well I just happen to like them and think they're really good in my own opinon of course in spite of what everyone else may think about them. I genuinely enjoy Octopussy, Moonraker, and even A View To A Kill, but that one's to a lesser extent, and when I said that it would be sad if it degenerated into that territory, I mean on a Die Another Day scale, and not those which are ridiculous, but not to that extent, so I guess I'm guilty of liking these "bad movies" and at the same time wanting something different.

Thanx. It helped somewhat.

actually the only one that belongs in the "really great" club is the TSWLM

I thought Die Another Day was going to better Tommorow Never Dies and GoldenEye then we left London for Cuba and things got slighty worse and then we got Iceland and the shit hit the fan.

You know, that's a good point. While there is definitely some goofy shit right from the beginning (and some atrocious CGI), DAD wasn't terrible at first. The London stuff, by and large was cool at first. I still dig the sword fight, and Gustav Graves seemed like a classic Bond villain when he was parachuting in with a Union Jack parachute. But then then went to Cuba, and then they went to Iceland, and Mr. Kill, and Halle, and....

I need to go watch the "Casino Royale" trailer again, stat.

Even though I like these other big movies, nothing and I mean nothing tops Licence To Kill for me, and that was as Stew has said, a small scale Bond film. From what I've seen in the trailer for Casino Royale, it's starting to resemble the look and feel of that Bond movie for me.

I think Die Another Day takes way too much crap. Yes, it does go downhill a bit after the interesting first act, but it's still quite entertaining.

Who's this Mr. Kill that I always hear people talk about? If there was a character by that name I must have napped through his introduction.

Isn't Mr. Kill the guy with the dreadlocks who tries to take out Jinx with that laser device?

Indeed he is. "My name is Mr....Kill."

Bond: "Now there's a name to die for."

Oh. My. God.

I know he's not very well liked around these parts, but thank God Haggis did a rewrite for Purvis & Wade.

I second Stew's thought. That dialogue he just posted is beyond horrendous. Here's hoping there's not anything like that in Casino Royale, and just from the seriousness of the trailer, it doesn't seem like there will be any.

There you go. Rewrite half the dialogue in Die Another Day and you'd have a pretty decent flick. The double entendres were easily the worst of the series, especially when he first meets Jinx. This is pretty awful too:

[In greeting]
Miranda Frost: Mr. Bond. And Miss...?
Jinx: Swift, "Space and Technology" magazine.
Miranda Frost: Really? I take it Mr. Bond's been explaining his Big Bang theory?
Jinx: Oh yeah, I think I got the thrust of it.

Larger photos of the Ashton Martin used in the new film

That is one sexy vehicle. With the more realistic, covert approach to the character, I'm curious if they'll bother to explain why he always gets issued a car that like 15 people in the world can afford.

Huh. Is that even different to the one in DIE ANOTHER DAY?

The exterior looks a lot like the one in the previous film, but the interior is vastly different from what I can tell. Is that fabric on the dashboard?

DIE ANOTHER DAY


CASINO ROYALE


New car has a few more angles it seems.

It just looks like they've changed the image size in Photoshop.

Underwhelming, but then Bond hasn't had a cool car for decades.

I'm not much of a car guy, but that is a nice looking automobile.

the first is a Vanquish

the second is the new DBS, which is apprently a suped up DB9 the model below the Vanquish

a Vanquish cost about 210,00
a DB9 cost about 150,000
an AMV8 cost about 85,000

i think they should of gave him an AMV8, and its the best looking of the new astons, the cheapest, and doesnt look like the vanquish which DAD has ruined forever, it also looks like the DB5 will be appearing as well



the new DBS is more aggresive whis does fit Craig like a glove I do admit

I did, didn't I?

Nice.