CNN reports that the legal battle over the rights to Ian Fleming's Casino Royale is over and that will be the next Bond film. I had heard they were wanting to do a prequel and if you have read the book, this would be a good idea. Of course, something is bound to louse it up.
I rememeber first reading Casino Royale and found it boring a few years later I reread it and loved it. I wonder how the screen treatment would take it probably more action scenes.
Err...
Why do they even bother? I mean other than the title and maybe the basic idea, the movies don't really have much in common with the novels, do they? I remember I once flipped through the book Moonraker (Flemming's novel, not the novelization of the film) and not only was it written long before the space shuttle was even invented, the plot was nothing like the film. True, I only skimmed a few pages, but it didn't seem like they used anything other than the title and maybe a character or two.
Does this version count as a remake? (:
Err...
The title CASINO ROYALE was used in 1967 for a James Bond spoof movie which starred David Niven, Peter Sellers, Woody Allen, and Ursula Andress among other notable cast members.
When I inquired if the new James Bond movie was going to be a remake, it was a joke.
Err...
You... said, Casino Royale... right...?
Err...
IMDB Casino Royale (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061452/)
Next... Bond, flick... Casino...Royale...?
Oh God, I'm... I'm shocked... Oh, s**t...
New Bond movie, old title (http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/04/film.bond.reut/index.html)
Great. Just freakin great.
Oh well, I did thnk Die Another Day would be terrible, but now I think it is one of the best Bond films made.
But my favourite is GoldenEye.
Right as I made this last post at work, the automation system began playing "the Look of Love" by Dusty Springfield from the movie Casino Royale . LOL. Unfortunatly, the version we have in the automation system is the 45 single version with ( I believe) Sounds Incorporated backing her. I prefer the soundtrack version where she is backed by Burt Bacarach (sp), Vic Flick and Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass, because it has that cool Alpert trumpet solo at the end.
...huh...?
Sorry, I didn't catch it.
He is using a computer at work. While he was writing a post about CASINO ROYALE, the music system started playing a song that was used in the 1967 movie CASINO ROYALE. (Creepy, man. They're out to get you.)
By the way, Dusty Springfield is another entertainer who died too young.
I,ve never seen the movie, but it sounds like a great piece of music to combine Dusty Springfield, Burt Bacharach, and Herb Alpert.
Okay, now THAT is what I call freaky.
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.
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!!
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...
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.
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.
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.
Good Ol' Quent to direct a Bond movie? Hey, that ain't so bad...
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.
>Bond needs to be a harsh bastard who makes a couple of one-liners,
[cough]Timothy Dalton[cough]
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!
What made it controversial in the 50s was SMERSH stripps Bond and the girl, Vesper Lynn, naked and beats them with a rug beater.
Now that sounds like my kind of movie.
Why the f**k does everyone hate Dalton's 007? Huh?!
Well...why not?
There wasn't anything f**king wrong in the poor bastards performance! That's why f**king not!
I don't believe anybody has a problem with Dalton's performance, I actually like him as an actor. I think that Bond fans just didn't like the direction in which the films were going at the time.
Ah. okay. Sorry then, Menard.
>What made it controversial in the 50s was SMERSH stripps Bond and the girl,
>Vesper Lynn, naked and beats them with a rug beater.
Damn, I can't believe I passed up the opportunity to watch this on one of the pay channels a couple years ago! :)
>Why the f**k does everyone hate Dalton's 007? Huh?!
I liked Dalton as Bond. I thought he seemed more competent than Moore or Brosnan.
That only happens in the book.
Proof that they need to follow the book more closely.
>That only happens in the book.
I guess I can skip the movie then...
Well, they ran out of books a couple of films back, and DAD didn't use a short story by Fleming, so that means that apart from Casino Royale, they are just making them up as they go along.