Next Bond film title: Casino Royale

[Jack Corbett]

Okay, now THAT is what I call freaky.

[Ozzymandias]

I work at an adult contemporary radio station. I thought most people who read the board knew that -  maybe not (BTW, raitings came out yesterday and we came up to 7th out of 17 stations in the market).

Yes, the scene is great. Ursala Andress seduces Peter Sellers in her apartment, which in grand 60s movie tradition has a large fish tank in it.  She motions for Sellers to come to follow her. She walks past the tank in slow motion and Sellers follows but is distracted by a fish going by.  Sexy without any sex.

Sellers is a nerdy card shark, who Andress ask to impersonate James Bond at a SMERSH run casino. Sellers at this point begins doing a Sean Connrey imitation.

This, nor much else in the movie have anything to do with the book.

[dean]

I enjoyed bits of Die Another Day, but the series is way too commercial for my tastes nowadays [the advertisments is the important bit, and being all cool gadgets and such, there is a line that they shouldn't cross technological wise]

The one way that they would make Casino Royale work was to get Tarantino [as he apparently stated he wanted to] or perhaps Steven Soderbergh to direct it, just for a bit of class!  Or set it in the past, not contemporary times.  Casino Royale is not and will never follow the same formula as most of the Bond films.  At least most of the novels had a vague similarity to their movie counterparts [but then again that similarity was really small!]

If they made Casino Royale like they have the last few Bond films, it will be crap.  What it needs is style, substance and grit.  Bond needs to be a harsh bastard who makes a couple of one-liners, not a PC wannabe.  Don't get me wrong, I loved Pierce Brosnon's work, but I want a more down and dirty Bond.

But that being said, now I can't get the spoof version's main song out of my head.  Aargh!!

[Jack Corbett]

dean, apart from Goldeneye and Die Another Die (to an extent, Tomorrow Never Dies), the only bad Bond film was The World is Not Enough. The other new one were cool. And good, lets not forget good.

You can kill me now...

[dean]

I liked Die Another Day and all the new Bond films, but other than Goldeneye and to an extent World is not Enough, I got the feeling that the franchise was getting too commercial and not really that memorable.  I guess, overall, too formulaic. I just got this really bad feeling after Die Another Day in which I thought: how exactly can they possibly continue the series after this?

They need to reinvent Bond again, I think, and to do that Casino Royale is a way to go, but not if they follow the same formula as the last few films: beautiful love interest, lots of bad guys to shoot, lots of gadgets and a villain who really is just a clone of all the other bad guys from the last few films.  They need to take risks in this version, and invariably the people who produce these don't like taking risks. And by risks I don't mean having an interracial sex scene ala Die Another Day, it's not like Bond hasn't done that sort of thing before [thinking of Grace Jones...trying to forget] after all, they made a big deal about how that scene in Die Another Day was so risky and risque.  But really, what I'm looking for is actual substance to my Bond films.

They need to simplify is my basic preferance.  After all, Bond may have cool gadgets, but he doesn't need, for example, cloaking technology on a car.  That was a little too riduculous, whether it's scientifically possible or not.

[Jack Corbett]

The cloaking technology in DAD is plausible.

Q says that a tiny camera on one side reflects what it sees onto the other side, which is built a little like a TV screen. This works everywhere on the car. That is why different patches show up when it decloaks.

I like GoldenEye as it is the first Bond film I ever saw, and I saw it because of the poster. I swear, I thought it was called "Zero Zero Gun". Heh heh heh... I was funny as a five year old.

[BoyScoutKevin]

I agree. That's why I wish they had brought Quentin Tarantino in to write the screenplay and direct. He might have done something darker. Like the television version of "Casino Royale" w/ Ed Nelson as Bond and Peter Lorre as the villain.
But with the director and screenwriters who worked on the earlier Brosnan Bond films, the film probably won't be any worst then those, but also probably not any better neither.

[Jack Corbett]

Good Ol' Quent to direct a Bond movie? Hey, that ain't so bad...

[AD]

I'm going to steal this from another board...

"Bond faces his greatest adversity yet -- a man who CHEATS at cards".

Casino Royale boils down to Bond bankrupting a French guy who is bankrolling SMERSH operations and is suspected to be a SMERSH operative himself, but he cheats at cards and is a compulisive gambler - he's lots virtually all his money - now Bond must bank-rupt him, expose the connection and let SMERSH handle the disposal of the French bloke.

I've summarised it, but that's it - I think.

[JohnL]

>Bond needs to be a harsh bastard who makes a couple of one-liners,

[cough]Timothy Dalton[cough]

[dean]

You know I didn't actually mind Timothy Dalton.  He played Bond more like the way he seems in the novels rather than, say, Roger Moore.

Casino Royale was the first Bond novel, and as such was about his first proper mission as a double-O agent.  Therefore he is young, makes many mistakes etc.  I'm not too sure how or if it would work as a contemporary Bond film, since there's alot of emphasis on cold war/Smersh etc but I sense it may be a prequel, with a young handsome new Bond.  Not too sure whether that is such a bad thing yet!

[Ozzymandias]

What made it controversial in the 50s was SMERSH stripps Bond and the girl, Vesper Lynn, naked and beats them with a rug beater.

[Menard]

Now that sounds like my kind of movie.

[Jack Corbett]

Why the f**k does everyone hate Dalton's 007? Huh?!

[Menard]

Well...why not?