Reinventing the Bond series

faceman

Ok first off, i know there are casino royale threads but my thread is somewhat different so please dont lock!

Im not a big fan of the bond series. They became jaded quite rapidly and by the time pierce took over, they were almost a weak satire of themselves with dodgy scripts, and far too much reliance on in jokes.

however i saw Casino Royale the other day and it, well, blew me away. Granted its a remake of Never say never (which some class as not a true bond film as it was a different studio me thinks?) but you really felt like Bond was re-born.

Bond was a new man. You felt like he was only starting his 007 career and i like the way they left playing his theme tune till the end - after he 'earned' it.

However sony need to be careful. There are pitfalls. Where would you like to see the series go?

Karl Hungus

faceman wrote:

Granted its a remake of Never say never

Eh, no it's not. Where did you get that information?

faceman

Karl Hungus wrote:

Eh, no it's not. Where did you get that information?

Its based around a similar plot. I will root out me linkies with others of similar belief!

Karl Hungus

faceman wrote:

Its based around a similar plot. I will root out me linkies with others of similar belief!

It's based on the first Bond novel that Fleming ever wrote. Never Say Never Again was infact a remake of Thunderball. I think you're getting mixed up somwhere.

Vokes

Theres a casino called Casino Royale in Never Say Never Again, but thats about the only link, right..?

Pigman II

Wasn't Never Say Never the remake itself? (of Thunderball IIRC)

Anyway I liked Casino Royale up until the end of the gambling sequence. It felt fresh and exciting and dangerous. However after that if just sort of fell apart and seemed to be threading familiar water again.

I'd like to see more bond movies done in the Dalton mould. They're the only ones I can really watch these days without reaching for the remote long before the end.

faceman

Karl Hungus wrote:

It's based on the first Bond novel that Fleming ever wrote. Never Say Never Again was infact a remake of Thunderball. I think you're getting mixed up somwhere.

hmmm now i am confused. I searched my history folder for my sources but not having any joy.

Until i do therefore, i will retract that comment for the moment and apologise!

Anyway back to the discussion...

Running Bing

faceman wrote:

however i saw Casino Royale the other day and it, well, blew me away. Granted its a remake of Never say never (which some class as not a true bond film as it was a different studio me thinks?)

Where the hell did you get that from? Never say never again was a dodgy tongue-in-cheek remake of thunderball. The casino royale novel the movie is based on was written before thunderball.

faceman

Babybing wrote:

Where the hell did you get that from? Never say never again was a dodgy tongue-in-cheek remake of thunderball. The casino royale novel the movie is based on was written before thunderball.

Ahem (see previous post)

[\moves along swiftly]

Sad Professor

Casino Royale was previously made as a spoof on the Bond series in 1967 with Peter Sellers as Bond.

Am I the only one who really can't stand the Dalton movies? I loved Dalton and thought he had a lot of potential in the role but the films were awful bland affairs IMO.

I was re-watching On Her Majesty's Secret Service recently and while I can understand the POV that Lazenby may not have the best Bond, I still think it's the best Bond *film* made to date. I'd love to the Craig movies keep going in a similar direction where Bond is made more vulnerable and human. The two dimensional comic book character that Bond was for most of the 60's and 70's just doesn't work anymore IMO.

faceman

Dudes, looks like i got my facts wrong on the casino royle / never say never again comparison so i humbly apologise.

Sad Professor, i like OHMSS too, altho i dont think lazenbury was that bad. He was post Connery so had a BIG job to do. I always found (and i will get lambasted for this) the Bond that connery played to be far too invincible and cocky. Sure it made great on screen antics but it grew jaded.

Craig certainly showed a vunerable bond and how the aftermath was alot more realistic. I dont know how to hide my spoiler text in a post but anyone who has seen the film will know what im talkin about.

MisterAnarchy

Pigman II wrote:

I'd like to see more bond movies done in the Dalton mould.

I agree ,Dalton's films had the right balance between hard edge and suaveness.
I didnt think much of Casino Royale .Craig was too thuggish.

faceman

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I agree ,Dalton's films had the right balance between hard edge and suaveness.
I didnt think much of Casino Royale .Craig was too thuggish.

interesting point about craig, but i felt that his ruthless nature was mix of his cockiness and the fact he was only promoted to 00 status.

Running Bing

faceman wrote:

Ahem (see previous post)

[\moves along swiftly]

Well you still seemd a little unsure. I was just confirming the fact.:)

Sad Professor

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I agree ,Dalton's films had the right balance between hard edge and suaveness.
I didnt think much of Casino Royale .Craig was too thuggish.

It's worth keeping in mind though that Craig doesn't truly become Bond till the very end. Casino Royale is his first mission, so it's his first time to experience love, betrayal, torture. The character is very cocky and perhaps thuggish in the beginning but over the course of the film has all his defenses stripped away from him, making him very vulnerable. That's not to say he won't show similar attributes in the sequel but I think it will be laced with a certain caution and humility. His experiences will make him much colder but even more vulnerable underneath.