Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Casino Royale

Page: (1)2 3 4 5

22:41 / 27.05.06

SO you can look at a teaser here;

offical sony site link, needs to clear the download but works

I've said it before, I'm a bond fan. But of late, I haven't enjoyed the films. I laughed and thought Goldeneye was fun, I thought that The World is Not Enough was great, but the rest have been a little hit and miss for Brosnan.

Now this. The plan to go back and start again, new actor, fresh opening.

The teaser has me amazingly excited, the opening moments smack of high drama, and the tech and judy dench of it all suggests that, yes it's a new start, but a new start for a new bond taking over from Brosnan's bond, who has what retired, died? Who knows, it won't be mentioned in the film, but the suggestion is enough.

Then some action, and it works. Craig's Bond seems tough, a little unpolished, tasty with his hands. And lots of running and jumping (what Moore lacked as Bond, the ability to move convincingly, and to fight well).

So, Barb - thoughts? Excited or had enough? More a Bourney than a Bondy anyway?

04:27 / 28.05.06

Two things I really enjoyed about the books that never really made it over to the films: Bond being not-so-great sometimes, and because of that, Bond occasionally getting the shit beat out of him in very unelaborate and quite harrowing torture. Bond checking the toilet-water level, or getting caught unawares by a sniper. Bond just sitting around on the beach, philosophizing about French navels. Being human, really, while trying to be the superspy sexgod perfect machismo-inna-suit the world (in his opinion) expects of him.

If the new film and new Bond do that, I'll be that much more satisfied.

09:31 / 28.05.06

I like Bond, so I'm likely to be a pretty easy sell, but I also have a great respect of Craig as an actor - I am looking forward to this...

18:28 / 28.05.06

The teaser looks great, and Eva Green was excellent in The Dreamers, so I'm interested to see what she'll do as a Bond girl, considering most of them end up with pretty weak roles. The final Brosnan ones got so awful and ridiculous (the invisible car, "Saved by the bell"), and considering the fact that it's still the same producing team, I'm a bit skeptical, but I'll at least see the film.

That said, I feel like the Bond movies should remain set in the 60s. The character was built for that time, and the Cold War at least gave him some cultural relevance.

18:56 / 28.05.06

Current political climes give Bond quite a bit of possible cultural and social relevance. Hollywood's just kinda afraid to use that.

19:15 / 28.05.06

Invisible car? Was it like Wonder Woman's invisible jet?

The trailer looks decent...Craig looks like a former boxer to me. Not sure if that's good for Bond or not, but at least it sounds like the producers have finally realized that we want a Bond movie with a little more substance.

19:37 / 28.05.06

Bond was a boxer at eton, I think. He did boxing and judo if memory serves. So it kind of fits that he would have a certain look. I really liked the teaser, thought that it was really well done, showed a restrain lacking from the last film (invisible car, brrrrr! Madonna in soft focus, urgh! cgi windsurfer, oh christ!). I know it's safe hands Martin "not going to change the world through film" Campbell, but it could be very very good.

23:56 / 28.05.06

The logo designer was having the time of his life there. The Os spell 007! The gun turns into a date! Gunnuendo!

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

00:22 / 29.05.06

I'll go and see this. As long as I can at least imagine the producers coming round to my house to apologise for the invisible car in person.

12:44 / 31.05.06

So they're saying, in the film, that different agents wear the Bond suit?

Finally.

12:55 / 31.05.06

>>The teaser has me amazingly excited<<

What, you mean the bit where the new, beefcake Bond comes out of the ocean in his tiny swimming trunks? What the fuck is that, the cover for the latest issue of Gay Times Magazine?

Looks to me like they're attempting a Lazenby/On Her Majesty's Secret Service route...only 36 years late. But I don't see why they have to change the Bond character to do so. Bond is not a muscle-bound, blonde-haired slugger. Change him, you change the franchise, and you're left with just another action movie. Why bother?

I predict this will flop and Brosnan will be brought back for his own Diamonds Are Forever.

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:56 / 31.05.06

OH NOES THEY MADE BOND GAY!!!

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:03 / 31.05.06

I'm actually writing a letter of complain about this. Since when does James Bond wear swimming trunks? Did Sean Connery ever wear trunks? HE DID NOT. Certainly not in Dr No. That would have been HOMOSEXUAL - the kind of thing that only HOMOSEXUALS would want to see. This is a travesty - a pure HETERO icon has been defiled.

Well done, butterguns. Well done.

13:13 / 31.05.06

I look forward to another manly rendition of Diamonds are Forever.

13:14 / 31.05.06

It's gotta be better than the one-piece towling suimsuit Bond wore in Goldfinger...

13:22 / 31.05.06

But I don't see why they have to change the Bond character to do so. Bond is not a muscle-bound, blonde-haired slugger.

What are you on about? I think Daniel Craig looks a lot more like Connery than any of the other actors that have played the character since. I think he's a perfect choice of actor. Was dissapointed by the trailer though, as it just looked like the Brosnan ones, where I was hoping for a darker feel to it and I was hoping they might have set it in the 60s where the character works better.

13:28 / 31.05.06

that was more of a romper suit than a swimsuit i would have said, ideal for manly romping such as like what you might find in gay times magazine.

but yes, i think this film might be quite good. daniel craig is a good enough actor to humanise the character to some degree, i just hope the script dares to delve into the darker side of his personality ... movie bond has too often been a charming cipher: a cardboard cutout slugging his way through exotic locations.

the great thing about book bond is that he has all the jetsetting and lovely ladies, but he's borderline psychopathic into the bargain!

13:41 / 31.05.06

You mean he's Timothy Dalton?

*evil glare* Shaken, not stirred.

14:25 / 31.05.06

As for Bond as a 'bruiser' in the original Ian Flemming books Bond was indeed a bruiser, in fact, it was on of the reasons Flemming was so pleased with Sean Connery's casting as the superspy was that he looked every bit as powerful a thug as Flemming had imagined...

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

14:26 / 31.05.06

I am hoping that this is indeed a reveal that different people through the years have been "James Bond 007". I fear, however, that this might be a poorly handled retcon of all the previous Bond films where this guy IS James Bond and is getting promoted to 00 status near the start of the film.

14:41 / 31.05.06

it was on of the reasons Flemming was so pleased with Sean Connery's casting as the superspy was that he looked every bit as powerful a thug as Flemming had imagined...

I was under the impression that fleming hated Connery, calling him "a great, snorting lorry driver" or something like that, because he didn't think he had the required sophistication. And that it was only after the movie came out that he really warmed to him.

15:57 / 31.05.06

Fleming wanted Cary Grant for the role, but Grant said he'd only do one movie. Fleming's second choice was Roger Moore, but he was tied up with the Saint. So Connery got the role, and it's true Fleming initially wasn't happy with him.

Also, Timothy Dalton was offered the role after Lazenby decided to quit, but felt he was too young for the Bond...so Moore finally got it. However, Fleming was long since dead and never got to see him as Bond.

All this stuff saying the current actor is close to Fleming's vision, etc, it's all bullshit. The movies have nothing to do with the books. Period. I read all the James Bond novels (both Fleming's and Gardner's) when I was a preteen, back when The Living Daylights came out. Even then I could tell Fleming's books were cut from a different cloth. There's no point comparing the two. It's kind of late in the game to try to "get back to the books" with the movie franchise. Audiences expect something else from Bond movies...On Her Majesty's Secret Service attempted to capture the flair of the novels, and though the movie DID NOT bomb as legend has it, it did do worse than any of the previous Connery/Bond movies. So the producers took note of this, and haven't looked back since.

As for the gay comment...good god guys, it was a joke.

Regrettable Juvenilia

16:09 / 31.05.06

Yes. It was a homophobic, bone-headed joke. And you're an immense tool. Glad we cleared that up.

16:26 / 31.05.06

>> It was a homophobic, bone-headed joke. <<

So saying that the image of a muscle-bound, nearly naked guy coming out of the water looks like the cover of a gay magazine is homophobic and bone-headed? Jesus, man. Are you this touchy all the time? I could've said it looked like the cover of Men's Health magazine (which it does), but it wouldn't have been as funny, would it? See, this is what's called humor.

People like you make me sick. You're on this forum which promotes "different" ways of thinking, etc, yet when it gets right down to it, you're just as controlling, judgemental, and opionated as the people/institutions/religions this forum (by nature) is opposed to.

It was a joke. Please stop taking it (and yourself) so seriously. God knows I don't.

16:57 / 31.05.06

It's political correctness gone mad.

17:00 / 31.05.06

Oh wait, we've hit "it was a joke!1!" already have we?

I could've said it looked like the cover of Men's Health magazine (which it does), but it wouldn't have been as funny

Or as offensive. Do you see?

Regrettable Juvenilia

18:25 / 31.05.06

So saying that the image of a muscle-bound, nearly naked guy coming out of the water looks like the cover of a gay magazine is homophobic and bone-headed?

Don't try that disingenuous shit with me. "What the fuck is that" is an expression of disbelief and/or disgust. You were shocked that they had made James Bond look gay (a very oddly canonically Bondish kind of gay, but hey). Speaking of which, it's both gratifying and amusing to know that "people like me" make you sick. And I'm sure your list of people/institutions/religions that Barbelith is "by nature" opposed to would be hilarious - see, nobody's taking anything seriously, sparky - but you might want to note that nowhere in this thread have I tried to "control" you.

Anyway, back to Casino Royale. It looks like fun, doesn't it?

20:12 / 31.05.06

No, I really DON'T see. How exactly is what I wrote offensive? Are the two of you the sort of people who get offended by Family Guy? South Park? Any sort of comedy in general? Do you wish people could just sit around, hold hands, and love one another? Saying that image from the film looks like something from a gay mag is probably the most harmless joke possible. To become offended by it is the epitome of PC-thugishness.

As an experiment I showed the trailer for Casino Royale to a few friends and co-workers, with no set-up. Six of the ten commented on that scene in an unfavorable light. And not in a "homophobic" way, so don't rush for your shotguns just yet.

No, they felt the same way I did when watchiing it -- since when has Bond had Schwarzenegger's build, and why the need for such a beefcake image? Again, it smacks of changing the franchise, which is the heart of the issue, not a bout of nonexistent homophobia. We now have a blonde-haired, muscle-bound lead character, certainly NOT the James Bond of previous films. I say again -- this makes it just another action film. Why bother?

And to curtail your opinion of me, in high school I had a friend who came out, and I'm the only one who stuck up for him. In fact, the few fights I got into in high school were due to defending this guy (who I've lost touch with over the years, unfortunately). So I find it funny that I'm being designated a "homophobe."

But it sounds to me, Flyboy (if that is your real name), like YOU were on the receiving end of some bullying in your day, and those frayed, sensitive nerves haven't gotten over it yet. Lighten up. The world's full of people who don't think and act and talk like you. My joke was harmless and, despite the ensuing nonsense, still funny.

Regrettable Juvenilia

20:18 / 31.05.06

Shocking! Absholutely shocking!

20:53 / 31.05.06

But I don't see why they have to change the Bond character to do so. Bond is not a muscle-bound, blonde-haired slugger. Change him, you change the franchise, and you're left with just another action movie.

I know what you mean, BG. In my mind, James Bond looks a little bit like me, too.

20:56 / 31.05.06

Curious on how others feel about the various Bonds. Here's my take:

Connery: The super-hero Bond.

Lazenby: The human Bond.*

Moore: The goofy Bond, and the closest to Fleming's character (meaning, he's a lazy English assassin who's more interested in the women than the mission at hand)

Dalton: The real-life Bond (If Bond was real, he'd be just like Dalton -- a sardonic, humorless government employee)

Brosnan: The Hollywood Bond? (Brosnan was like an amalgamation of the previous Bonds. And the unfortunate thing was, he always said in interviews how he wanted to get back to the "dark" nature of the earlier films, to get to the heart of the character. But other than a quick scene in GoldenEye, it never panned out. Instead each film got bigger and goofier than the last)

*I say Lazenby was the human Bond due to the scene in On Her Majesty's when Bond is trying to hide from Blofeld's men. Just a great scene, probably my favorite in the Bond series, as Bond is actually scared, with the jump cuts of
Blofeld's men, people skating, the guy in the bear costume, and finally Diana Rigg showing up -- just a perfectly directed scene, made all the more effective because it's (I think) the only time we see Bond actually frightened. But that's just one great scene in a great film -- Lazenby gave his Bond all sorts of hummanity, and it's a shame he figured "Easy Rider" and it's like signaled the end of Bond, and so quit the role.

21:02 / 31.05.06

And as for the new Bond, I think Julian McMahon (Nip/Tuck, Fantastic Four) would've been a perfect choice. I remember reading he was considered for the part. It's too bad they didn't choose him.

21:08 / 31.05.06

Dalton was anything but a 'realistic' Bond - Licence to kill especially was the Bond franchise's attempt to ape the excesses of 80s action flick genre and is totally unforgivable for the sene where Bond orders a budwiser A FUCKING BUDWEISER!

21:55 / 31.05.06

Daniel Craig is just trying to make a living though, BG. The Bond franchise, and his role in it, is possibly something that he cries himself to sleep about, perhaps cuddling his bottles of Night Nurse, vicodin and scotch, but let's not judge him too harshly until the film's come out. IMVHO, this series has been pretty much morbid since the day of it's inception - the world didn't really need to hear from Ian Fleming, it'd have been much better off if it had paid more attention to the work of Plato, Flaubert or Saul Bellow, his tales of dying men. But there isn't much you can do - if this version of Bond seems a bit a)not attractive enough, but b)paradoxically, far too much of an easy-going, swimming trunks type of guy to play the role, and you can't see any way out of that, then what I'd suggest is that it's best not to see it, the new Bond movie. It'll only upset you.

22:38 / 31.05.06

We now have a blonde-haired, muscle-bound lead character, certainly NOT the James Bond of previous films. I say again -- this makes it just another action film.

Of course, given that you've seen the film in question you're more than qualified to make that statement.

Page: (1)2 3 4 5