CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › CASINO ROYALE Pre-release Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CASINO ROYALE Pre-release Discussion - Page 7

post #301 of 592
7/30/06 at 10:01pm
Thread Starter 
The 007 soundstage at Pinewood Studios in the UK has been completely destroyed by a fire.

More info here:
http://commanderbond.net/article/3436

Bond 22 is currently scheduled to go head-to-head with Iron Man on May 2, 2008, so it will be interesting to see where the film ends up being made, since practically all Bond films have been filmed on the Pinewood lot.
Reply
post #302 of 592
7/30/06 at 10:09pm
Yikes, I hope this doesn't delay "Casino Royale". They should be done shooting by now right, or very nearly done. Sad, it's probably the most famous soundstage there is. "Batman Begins" shot there too.
Reply
post #303 of 592
7/30/06 at 10:12pm
I saw a clip from a British news channel that said filming there for Royale had completed. Workers were in fact striking rigging when the fire broke out.

Still, that stage has a hell of a lot of history, that's a damn shame.
Reply
post #304 of 592
7/30/06 at 11:08pm
This is the second time it's burned down. The Bond producers rebuilt it after that first fire, too (in about 1985), so this is no huge tragedy.
Reply
post #305 of 592
8/3/06 at 2:18am
Fantastic shot of Craig from the latest Empire
Reply
post #306 of 592
8/3/06 at 6:24am
Cool. Has anyone else noticed how much Craig resembles Vladimir Putin?
Reply
post #307 of 592
8/3/06 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napoleon Rodriguez
Now that is fucking badass. This movie can't come soon enough.
Reply
post #308 of 592
8/3/06 at 7:16pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murdoch
Cool. Has anyone else noticed how much Craig resembles Vladimir Putin?
Actually, Putin looks more like a Bond villain/henchman.



It's a shame these dolphins don't have frickin' laser beams on their heads.

Reply
post #309 of 592
8/10/06 at 2:58pm
Thread Starter 
Cool Japanese poster:

Reply
post #310 of 592
8/10/06 at 3:01pm
Thread Starter 
Also, according to Variety, negotiations with Roger Michell to direct Bond 22 have fallen apart due to "creative differences."

The search continues...
Reply
post #311 of 592
8/10/06 at 4:51pm
Seeing as how he's almost singlehandedly responsible for Craig getting this part, I'd love to see Matthew Vaughn get a shot at this. They keep hiring these safe, middle aged Brits, and I'd like to see a more youthful take on it. Guy Ritchie stay away though, not in a thousand years do I want him near this after "Revolver".

Nice Japanese poster too.
Reply
post #312 of 592
8/10/06 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by moovyphreak
Cool Japanese poster:
I dunno. Looks like one of the marionettes from THUNDERBIRDS to me.
Reply
post #313 of 592
8/10/06 at 5:15pm
It's the eye that does it.
Reply
post #314 of 592
8/11/06 at 11:32am
Pretty Cool EW covers.

http://web.mac.com/zencato/iWeb/Youn...E63137D3F.html
Reply
post #315 of 592
8/11/06 at 11:43am
Cool covers. The other wink-wink stories on all the covers ruins them though. A Brokeback Mountain joke? EW sucks.
Reply
post #316 of 592
8/11/06 at 11:50am
Those faux retro EW covers are fun. Reminds me of the April Fool's redesign of starwars.com when they made it look like a 70's website (green text on black background, gasp!) and had all kinds of cute in-jokes, like a navigation bar linking to all 12 episodes.
Reply
post #317 of 592
8/11/06 at 12:15pm
Thread Starter 

New 007 Craig: Give me a chance

Quote:
NEW YORK (AP) -- Daniel Craig, the new James Bond, wants critics to give him a chance.

"If I went onto the Internet and started looking at what some people were saying about me -- which, sadly, I have done -- it would drive me insane," the British actor says in an interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine, on newsstands Friday.

"They hate me. They don't think I'm right for the role. It's as simple as that. They're passionate about it, which I understand, but I do wish they'd reserve judgment."

A group of James Bond fans have launched a Web site, www.craignotbond.com, to protest Craig replacing Pierce Brosnan in the 007 film franchise, and to boycott "Casino Royale," slated for release November 17.

The fair-haired Craig, whose screen credits include roles in "Munich" and "Layer Cake," was tapped last October to play the secret-agent icon.
While filming "Casino Royale," the 38-year-old actor was uneasy about uttering those famous words, "The name is Bond, James Bond."

"People kept asking, 'Have you done the line yet?' " Craig tells the magazine.

"But honestly, I didn't rehearse it at all. I didn't practice it in the mirror every morning or anything like that. I didn't want to even think about saying it because I didn't want it to be this weight around my neck. I just wanted to get on with it and not blow it."

Craig decided to take Bond in a new direction.

"I watched every single Bond movie three or four times, taking in everything I could about how the character had been portrayed in the past, then threw all that away once I started doing the role," Craig says.

"There's no point in making this movie unless it's different. It'd be a waste of time unless we took Bond to a place he'd never been before."
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movi...anielcraig.ap/
Reply
post #318 of 592
8/11/06 at 12:37pm
Other than the retarded petition people, I don't think the reaction to him has been that bad at all. I mean more so than other famous roles, but it's Bond, of course there's added interest. On the movie boards where people have a clue, I think we're all pretty thrilled.
Reply
post #319 of 592
8/11/06 at 1:52pm
He's different, which is a word that's never used when talking about Bond movies. Christ, one of the praises of Die Another Day was that the plot advanced during the opening credit sequence because it was different. For fuck's sake, each Bond movie should have things that make them different from the other ones. We were praising something that could have happened 20 movies ago.

For some reason my interest in this movie has been very little, but bring on Daniel Craig.
Reply
post #320 of 592
8/11/06 at 9:00pm
Hell Yes. I'm fucking framing that fake EW Lazenby cover when I get mine. I'll hang it in the home theater next to my OHMSS poster.
Reply
post #321 of 592
8/11/06 at 9:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by moovyphreak
Actually, Putin looks more like a Bond villain/henchman.


Yeah, I always thought he looked like Kronsteen.
Reply
post #322 of 592
8/12/06 at 4:49am
I'm not the biggest Bond fan in the world, and I haven't been keeping tabs on this thread, so color me surprised when I just came upon the news today (that rock I've been living under is for sale on Ebay) that Chris Cornell was writing/singing the title track for CASINO ROYALE. Very cool news in my book, considering the man has one of the greatest voices in rock n' roll (not as great as it used to be, but still achingly beautiful). I know he's recording his second solo album soon, so perhaps this new tune will make it on the disc. Anyway, his excitement after seeing a rough cut of the film is probably more reassuring than any review I'd read on AICN.
Reply
post #323 of 592
8/12/06 at 3:15pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul755
I like how they "dated" the headlines.
Reply
post #324 of 592
8/14/06 at 9:30pm
Bookshop across the road had a sale and i managed to snap up most of the Bond books for a fiver a pop. I've been a long time Bondian but I had never read any of the novels until now. Count me in as including Casino Royale as my non-Fountain most anticpiated for this year. Daniel Craig seems perfect for the role in my opinion, particularly after watching Layer Cake a week ago. Pretty happy about the promise to keep the last line in. I could think of no better franchise than Bond to get an injection of shit-hotness and keep running for a bit. Please...there is so little else out there!
Reply
post #325 of 592
8/14/06 at 10:13pm
"There's no point in making this movie unless it's different. It'd be a waste of time unless we took Bond to a place he'd never been before."


This is a great quote. I hope they use this to shake things up a little bit. The Chris Cornell news just makes me want to scream with joy.

I love Pierce Brosnan as 007, but this new guy has me hyped.

Maybe Star Trek can take some of those cues and come back as good as ever.


Are the retro covers still available?
Reply
post #326 of 592
8/15/06 at 3:32pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Zod
Are the retro covers still available?
According to the picture in the link posted above, the retro covers are included in every issue of the EW Fall Movie Preview. Craig is on the front and the rest are inside. Visit your local bookstore chain or newstand to pick it up soon.
Reply
post #327 of 592
8/15/06 at 6:15pm
I grabbed it today. Lots of fun.
Reply
post #328 of 592
8/17/06 at 3:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70sCinema
I grabbed it today. Lots of fun.
Yeah I picked up the issue today also. Love the retro covers. I'm looking for a good way to cut them out without fucking them up. I may just have to remove the binding staples.

Anyway. The problem I've had with CR all along is that it's "Bond Begins" but it's not a retro period piece. They are basically kicking everything before it out the door. In the inside interviews they say the want to get back to the essence of Bond. I think they could have done the essence of Bond without rebooting the whole franchise.

Bah, enough of the ramble.
Reply
post #329 of 592
8/17/06 at 4:00pm
Why does it need to be retro for it to be a reboot? Bond was getting too ridiculous for its own good, and a reboot is exactly what this increasingly-retarded franchise needed.
Reply
post #330 of 592
8/17/06 at 5:51pm
I agree wholeheartedly about the need to restart the Bond franchise. As it now stands, there's no real continuity anyway, just a series of adventures, differing wildly in (among other things) tone and quality. Starting at movie one gives an opportunity to design a true series. I'm just hoping they can maintain a few solid films before screwing it up.

Retro was one option and would have actually been pretty cool under the cold war angle. Still, I can understand why they didn't want to undertake establishing a series that required constant attention to period details.
Reply
post #331 of 592
8/17/06 at 9:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRobotSex
Why does it need to be retro for it to be a reboot? Bond was getting too ridiculous for its own good, and a reboot is exactly what this increasingly-retarded franchise needed.
Because as stated in the Movies themselves, Bond is a product of the cold war.

Adapting Casino Royale and making it fit into current times is no big deal. But if your gonna do that, take out the origin aspects...unless they are in flashbacks. I mean changing aspects of the story such as a female M, Texas Hold 'em insted of Baccarat, etc...dropping the origin aspects wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

For a Bond origin, it should be a full on 50's/60's cold war thriller.
Reply
post #332 of 592
8/17/06 at 10:10pm
The book didn't really have any "origin aspects", though. Those have been tacked onto this story.
Reply
post #333 of 592
8/17/06 at 10:36pm
Right. The book isn't an Origin story at all. It's just the first written adventure. There are a couple of mentions of how he earned the Double-O status, but they don't have anything to do with the story outside of being exposition for the readers.
Reply
post #334 of 592
8/17/06 at 11:08pm
I've got no problem with a modern day reboot. But bringing back the otherwise wonderful Judi Dench as M was a big mistake, in my opinion. If you're going to wipe the slate clean, go all the way.
Reply
post #335 of 592
8/17/06 at 11:30pm
A movie's slate can be squeaky clean, or dirtier than Britney Spears' armpits, and it will still have no bearing on a film's eventual quality. The goodness or shittines of the film won't live or die on the basis of Judi Dench's astonishing time travel paradox abilities, although such dumbass features certainly don't help.

Rewatching the Brosnan ones recently, all have a bland, "in-house" feel to them except for GoldenEye, probably due to Martin Campbell, which bodes well for Casino Royale in the freshness stakes.
Reply
post #336 of 592
8/18/06 at 11:46am
It's been a while since I read Casino Royale so I guess all the "bond Begins" talk has just gotten to me.

But my point reamins. They could have done Casino Royale without completly re-doing Bond.
Reply
post #337 of 592
8/18/06 at 12:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litmus Configuration
I've got no problem with a modern day reboot. But bringing back the otherwise wonderful Judi Dench as M was a big mistake, in my opinion. If you're going to wipe the slate clean, go all the way.
This is the one aspect of the production that troubles me, as well - not so much because it's Dench, but because it could indicate that the producers aren't as committed to a fresh approach as the press releases have indicated.

That small point aside, though, everything else has been encouraging. I'll just look at Dench as the same actor playing the same role in a new series of films.
Reply
post #338 of 592
8/18/06 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richason
This is the one aspect of the production that troubles me, as well - not so much because it's Dench, but because it could indicate that the producers aren't as committed to a fresh approach as the press releases have indicated.
Judi Dench was never what was wrong with the series, they're not keeping her out of some "resistance to change". I agree, I'd rather them have recast with one of the longtime "runner-ups" like Sam Neil, Jeremy Northam, or jason Isaacs, but it's just a personal preference. Fact is, she has always been good in the role, she's a great actress, and I figure they thought it might be a nice way to tie the series together. I was a little bummed by them bringing her back too, but then I heard her narration of the teaser, which reminded me that she can be pretty damn good as M.
Reply
post #339 of 592
8/18/06 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul755
It's been a while since I read Casino Royale so I guess all the "bond Begins" talk has just gotten to me.

But my point reamins. They could have done Casino Royale without completly re-doing Bond.
Sure, but I think it was their intention to reboot the series first, and adapting the first Bond book became some sort of symbolic gesture to that end.
Reply
post #340 of 592
8/18/06 at 8:12pm
Since they have re-boot on their minds, let's get Shirley Bassey back to sing the theme song.
Reply
post #341 of 592
9/7/06 at 4:36am
The full trailer is apparently premiering on AOL tomorrow. I have difficulty watching videos on my circa-1960 computer, so I'll have to wait 'til it appears on Youtube before I see it, so feel free to discuss it here if any of you catch it.
Reply
post #342 of 592
9/7/06 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul McCartney
The full trailer is apparently premiering on AOL tomorrow. I have difficulty watching videos on my circa-1960 computer, so I'll have to wait 'til it appears on Youtube before I see it, so feel free to discuss it here if any of you catch it.
Quote:
Coming Soon reports that Sony Pictures will be releasing the new trailer for the 21st official James Bond film, Casino Royale on Thursday, 7 September 2006. It will premiere on AOL’s Moviefone at 10:30 PM (PST).
http://commanderbond.net/article/3575
Reply
post #343 of 592
9/7/06 at 8:05pm
Apparently the trailer WAS up about 30 minutes ago, but it's down now. Someone over on the Cbn Forums was trying to youtube it. Just waiting on the link.
Reply
post #344 of 592
9/7/06 at 8:09pm
Yeah it was up. Looked pretty good.
Reply
post #345 of 592
9/7/06 at 8:14pm
http://movies.aol.com/movie/casino-r...006/18129/main

Just click on Trailer no.2...it's awesome.
Reply
post #346 of 592
9/7/06 at 8:21pm
That was great. Good to see Mathis' role intact, too.
Reply
post #347 of 592
9/7/06 at 9:02pm
That looks pretty fucking great.
Reply
post #348 of 592
9/7/06 at 9:20pm
I like that we got a little piece of the story in this trailer. Good looking stuff.
Reply
post #349 of 592
9/7/06 at 9:41pm
Yeah, this is looking like the Bond I've been waiting to see pretty much all my life.
Reply
post #350 of 592
9/7/06 at 9:43pm
I was extremely excited before, now I'm positively over the moon. That..looks...awesome.

Loved Craig's dialogue. Loved that tey're implying an uncommonly deep relationship between vesper and Bond. Love the dry wit, and lethal sense of humor. Love the look of the action sequences that Campbell really does know how to do extremely well. It looks rough, nasty, and I love it.

"Doesn't it bother you, killing al those people?"

"Wouldn't be very good at my job if it did."

Classic.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › CASINO ROYALE Pre-release Discussion