My thoughts (so far) on Casino Royale...

[Drax]

Well I have been stirring up some thoughts about Casino Royale for a while now, so I thought I'd finally share. To best get my opinion across, let me give a few main points:

1. Casino Royale has the potential to be the best James Bond movie since the 1970's.
2. The producers/Eon/Sony should be commended for "listening" to the die-hard fans; with their promises of making one of the most sophisticated Bond movies (in terms of plot and character development) of all time.
3. The producers/Eon/Sony should also be commended for their risky/"ballsy"/crazy/whatever-you-want-to-call-it actions in the past several months.

An explanation of each, all IMHO, of course:
1. Not since the early films has a James Bond movie been completely centered around an Ian Fleming novel. Fleming's pure Bond is what the moviemakers are looking for in Bond 21, which is a rarity. I think everyone here would like to see a Fleming Bond on screen; not so much as the correct actor to fit the role (although it would be nice), but rather a Bond who deals with situations like Fleming's. All for the better, in my opinion. Back to the books!

2. An all out statement by producers, etc. to focus more on plot and character and not 'splosions and CGI is one of the most promising "facts" (fingers crossed) about the movie. In this day and age of action films, CGI and raw effects get the most bang-for-your buck (to an extent) at the box office for a movie company. Sure, a fight scene here and there definitely wouldn't hurt 'Royale' overall, but windsurfing on a glacial wave would. Bond needs to get back to the basics. It's almost as if the character's "aura" and mystique has slightly faded over the past few films. As of now, it seems the character has the ability to recover. The "young" Bond they are allegedly looking for will definitely have an impact on the character and suave of James Bond as we know it today. Positive or negative - only time will tell...

3. Honestly, If you're a financial advisor for Eon/Sony/MGM/the producers/whoever, you have got to be going crazy right now. Brosnan's Die Another Day made $400 million plus. And now he's gone?! Casino Royale is as close to a "movie u-turn" as the series has ever seen between successive films:
- A different Bond.
- Remember those trailers from the 60's Bond movies with ACTION! splattered all over the screen? Probably won't be seeing those in Royale's trailer.
- A film based on a Fleming novel.
- A 180 degree turn in terms of directing (From 'xXx' Tamahori to the blissful 'GoldenEye' Martin Campbell)

The remaining points that will make or break Casino Royale:
1. Title song performer.
2. How true it will be to the novel.
3. The next actor to don the 00-tux.

What I would like for the previous 3:
1. No Garbage or Madonna please. Let's get some brass. An orchestra even.
2. As true as possible.
3. Owen is my top choice for the one's being rumored, but I'd enjoy an unknown to take the helm (a la Connery)

I'd love to see this movie come across as sophisticated with that extra Bond spark that no other film series seems to deliver. Remember the days when Bond movies were nominated for Oscars? (http://www.bondmovies.com/oscar.shtml) Let's get back to them!

[James Connery]

Very good thoughts, hopefully, Casino Royale will be better than the other new one that haven't turned out so good. "Die Another Day, Tomorrow Never Dies etc......" And it will have Martin Campbell who directed Goldeneye, one of my favourite Bond movies. Really hope that it will als be true to Fleming's novel, it was so good, if they ruin it, I will be very very mad

[George Lazenby]

Well I hate sounding too pessimistic BUT


1. EVERYONE was saying, TND will b the best Bond film evere"

2. EVERYONE was saying, "TWINE will be the best Bond film ever"

3. EVERYONE was saying "DAD will be the best Bond film ever"......


To even hammer this home moreso

TWINE was said by the producers and writers to "a down to earth, back to the basics, down-scaled, edgy, gritty spy movie, and to be similar to OHMSS"

DAD was even said by Pierce to, "it's the closest film to FRWL since FRWL"


Now seriously, just because they keep saying this shiet doesn't mean anything will be better or change. I still remember MGM's "Expect exactly more of the same as you got with DAD"

Let's just HOPE the next one is better, but let's not fall for Eon's BULL SHIT anymore either.

This is the same garbage they say before every film.

[Drax]

Well I just don't remember as much focus on going back to the basics in the Brosnan films.

If you look at it mathematically, there are at least 10 or so solid variables that determine a Bond movie's 'greatness,' in my opinion. As of now, less than half are known, with a release date coming up quick.

[George Lazenby]

Well obviously if they blow the Bond pick everything could be ruined.

[Drax]

Eh not necessarily...I could see a movie with Jackman as a sleek and sly Bond being better than a Die Another Day-esque Owen film, and Owen is my first choice...

[Lazenby007]

Originally Posted by thuffner

Well I have been stirring up some thoughts about Casino Royale for a while now, so I thought I'd finally share. To best get my opinion across, let me give a few main points:

1. Casino Royale has the potential to be the best James Bond movie since the 1970's.
2. The producers/Eon/Sony should be commended for "listening" to the die-hard fans; with their promises of making one of the most sophisticated Bond movies (in terms of plot and character development) of all time.
3. The producers/Eon/Sony should also be commended for their risky/"ballsy"/crazy/whatever-you-want-to-call-it actions in the past several months.

An explanation of each, all IMHO, of course:
1. Not since the early films has a James Bond movie been completely centered around an Ian Fleming novel. Fleming's pure Bond is what the moviemakers are looking for in Bond 21, which is a rarity. I think everyone here would like to see a Fleming Bond on screen; not so much as the correct actor to fit the role (although it would be nice), but rather a Bond who deals with situations like Fleming's. All for the better, in my opinion. Back to the books!

2. An all out statement by producers, etc. to focus more on plot and character and not 'splosions and CGI is one of the most promising "facts" (fingers crossed) about the movie. In this day and age of action films, CGI and raw effects get the most bang-for-your buck (to an extent) at the box office for a movie company. Sure, a fight scene here and there definitely wouldn't hurt 'Royale' overall, but windsurfing on a glacial wave would. Bond needs to get back to the basics. It's almost as if the character's "aura" and mystique has slightly faded over the past few films. As of now, it seems the character has the ability to recover. The "young" Bond they are allegedly looking for will definitely have an impact on the character and suave of James Bond as we know it today. Positive or negative - only time will tell...

3. Honestly, If you're a financial advisor for Eon/Sony/MGM/the producers/whoever, you have got to be going crazy right now. Brosnan's Die Another Day made $400 million plus. And now he's gone?! Casino Royale is as close to a "movie u-turn" as the series has ever seen between successive films:
- A different Bond.
- Remember those trailers from the 60's Bond movies with ACTION! splattered all over the screen? Probably won't be seeing those in Royale's trailer.
- A film based on a Fleming novel.
- A 180 degree turn in terms of directing (From 'xXx' Tamahori to the blissful 'GoldenEye' Martin Campbell)

The remaining points that will make or break Casino Royale:
1. Title song performer.
2. How true it will be to the novel.
3. The next actor to don the 00-tux.

What I would like for the previous 3:
1. No Garbage or Madonna please. Let's get some brass. An orchestra even.
2. As true as possible.
3. Owen is my top choice for the one's being rumored, but I'd enjoy an unknown to take the helm (a la Connery)

I'd love to see this movie come across as sophisticated with that extra Bond spark that no other film series seems to deliver. Remember the days when Bond movies were nominated for Oscars? (http://www.bondmovies.com/oscar.shtml) Let's get back to them!

I agree. I believe that Casino Royale has the potential to be as good as TSWLM, simple because it's a classic Fleming title. The opprotunity
to bring the best of Bond back out is right their in front of the producers as well as Purvis and Wade, I hope they make good use of the last Fleming title to enter the series.

[MGS]

If Casino Royale is the best or one of the greatest, everyone's going to be roaring about it, but it'll be lacking one factor.

I think everyone saw DAD because even though it was a Bond movie, it was a big-budget action movie. They took the Bond factor in, and the totally cool action is what made them see it. Sort of like MR, which had a space factor everyone liked.

But films like OHMSS and LTK did not make much money. These were very good films that did poorly. Back in the 60's, there was nothing like the Bond movies! You could have little action, a great story, and the Bond factor, and you had a recipe for sucess. But today, you see tons of action movies! I don't people are interested in seeing a classic spy adventure anymore. Or at least one in a genre that people refer to "action movies".

If Casino Royale doesn't do well, that'll probaly be the end of quality Bond titles. If it is quality at all.

[Quartermaster007]

If EoN and Sony don't make this last Flaming title a good movie. Then I'm going to write an angry letter to them!

[Drax]

Originally Posted by MGS

I think everyone saw DAD because even though it was a Bond movie, it was a big-budget action movie. They took the Bond factor in, and the totally cool action is what made them see it. Sort of like MR, which had a space factor everyone liked.

A valid and interesting point.

[Quartermaster007]

That deserves a rep point

[George Lazenby]

The OHMSS/LTK box office thing is a myth. This has been explained so many times yet people still refuse to accept it.


Take OHMSS for example, Sony would be thrilled and ecstatsic if CR did anything near what that film did in money.

Yet it was "a disaster"

you can't base these films on box office

In the first place no matter what CR is like it wont make the money OHMSS did so the point that people keep making aboutt hat type of film bombing because of OHMSS to me is just not logical

LTK was released in Summer of 89 and had a 1 million north american marketing budget

Titanic would have flopped under those circumstances so again the point is not based on logic

[JohnConner]

Originally Posted by JamesBond

If EoN and Sony don't make this last Flaming title a good movie. Then I'm going to write an angry letter to them!

And I bet you a 100 dollars it will fall on deaf ears

[MGS]

The point is George, with heavy competition, the Bond movies will not suceed with a basic spy adventure anymore. If you ask some random people, some will probaly be surprised that they still make the movies. We got Austin Powers, spoofs on late night sketch tv, and every film building their material, on the original thing. Most people take Bond as a theme instead of a movie franchise.

Back in the 60's, less than a few percent of movies were action. You had thrillers and horrors, but you didn't see much of them. Today, I'd say about 70%-80% of movies are action. Everyone is copying the standard Bond movies set, and in turn, Bond movies have to copy them hust to compete with an audience. That is very sad.

[Drax]

Originally Posted by MGS

Most people take Bond as a theme instead of a movie franchise.

Good call/quote.