-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
New Casino Royale trailer!
- Thread starter Dan
- Start date
- Status
MaverickX9
Member
DMczaf said:
Is that the poster for the videogame? It looks like it is computer generated.
MaverickX9
Member
I don't know about this one. The trailer makes it seem like the same old, Pierce Brosnan formula.
I haven't seen a Bond in the theater since GoldenEye, though, so I might bite.
I haven't seen a Bond in the theater since GoldenEye, though, so I might bite.
MaverickX9
Member
temp said:
True, but something tells me that it probably won't be much like the novel - outside of the basic plot line.
I must say Eva Green is amazing. I'd also like to thank Bertollucci for his fine filmmaking over the years.
MaverickX9 said:
? This doesn't seem anything like the Brosnan flicks. The only similarities I see are:
1) its a Bond film (so theres some inherent similarities, obviously), and
2) its directed by Martin Campbell
Otherwise, it seems about as different as you can get (no cheeseball lines, not gadget heavy, more serious tone, at least somewhat based on a real Fleming novel) while still being a James Bond movie.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
looks very cool. awesome choice for bond as well.
MaverickX9
Member
Solo said:
All the cheesy overblown car stunts. That whole construction site scene. The whole airport scene. The overblown action scenes have been the plague of the James Bond series for the past twenty years. This one looks no different. All things that look like they were pulled directly out of a Brosnan era Bond film.
The recent Bond formula is this:
Crappy Car Chases + Shady Character Development + Stupid Gadgets + Overblown Action Scenes = Bonds 17-20
I'm not a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino, but I wish to hell that they would have let him write and direct this one. Bond needs a shake up like nothing else.
Brosnan was shit. Far too lightweight. If I bumped into Bronsan in a pub and he spilled my pint, I've no doubt whatsover I could knock him on his arse...he was always far too slight...Connery..Lazanby on the other hand...it would have been "Ruh Rohhh...sorry guys, let me buy you a fresh expensive pint!"... reason I'm glad Clive Owen didn't get the gig..fantastic actor, but too lightweight to be a Bond. Great thing about Craig is he has those serious, "I'll **** you up the arse if you mess with me bitch" eyes.
MaverickX9
Member
COCKLES said:
Brosnan definitely played more to the sauve side of James Bond, but I thought he was perfectly cast in the role. I just thought the movies he was in were shit.
You actually like Lazenby as Bond?
VistraNorrez
Member
COCKLES said:
Do you mean physically lightweight? Clive Owen is like 3 and 1/2 inches taller than Craig for your information, and has quite the imposing figure. Go watch Closer or Sin City, he lucks rough and has crazy eyes. He also happens to be a hell of a lot more suave looking than Craig.
With that said, A good Bond film can overcome a not so well cast Bond, OHMSS is the perfect example. I have hope for this film.
MaverickX9 said:
That would have been the worst thing for the franchise, like, ever. Would you really want to see James Bond slinging around dialogue like Mr Pink or Jules? Come on. I enjoy QT for what he is (great at lifting shots/set-ups/ideas from other movies and infusing them with his own snappy dialogue and direction), but he is so wrong for Bond its not even funny.
COCKLES said:
He actually did get the gig. He turned it down though. Didnt want to sabotage his career by signing a 3 picture deal as Bond. Based on the way his career is rocketing, he probably made the right call.
Looks pretty good. I never really bought Brosnan in the Bond role anyway, so I'm glad to see a new face. The overall look felt nostalgic until it went all crazy at the end with the special effects and Duel of the Fates Bond theme. Hope the movie is much smarter and more clever than recent offerings.
It's always been funny to me that they could Americanize the series so much but still consciously stay away from American directors. Maybe they can get Ms. Lee Tamahori for the sequel, though! Fingers crossed!!Yeah, I dont know if we'll ever see an American director. With Spielberg and Tarantino both given a royal middle finger, one has to wonder if theres anyone the Broccoli/Wilson clan would ever let touch the series. Which is too bad, because, provided they keep the important things in place, theres several American directors I think could pull off a good Bond movie.
I am VERY glad Spielberg never got to do Bond. He did Indiana Jones instead with George Lucas. If Spielberg did Bond he likely would have never done Indiana Jones and George Lucas would have done Raiders with total creative control and used a puppet director(ala ESB & ROTJ).
So thank you for hating Americans EON, it gave me Spielberg directed Raiders of the Lost Ark.
So thank you for hating Americans EON, it gave me Spielberg directed Raiders of the Lost Ark.
MaverickX9
Member
Solo said:
Quentin Tarantino would have been the best thing to happen to Bond since Sean Connery was given the role in Dr. No. If Tarantino can one thing better than most directors of the day, it is his ability to create deep characters. Actual characters. With more than one dimension.
There are no characters in James Bond movies. Just stupid plot devices that have the ability to converse with and shoot at James Bond.
To think that Tarantino would have Pulp Fiction like dialogue in a Bond movie is off base. There is no way that they would make an R rated James Bond movie.
MaverickX9 said:
:lol No, just no. And Terence Young is more responsible than Connery for Connery's Bond. Give the respect where its really due.
His characters are about as deep as my kitchen sink. There is nothing deep about any of them. QT creates interesting and quircky characters, Ill say that, but deep? Come on. His characters are completely superficial stereotypes who sling off "cool" monologues.
Right. Because Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill were all so restrained in comparison, right? If QT writes it, you know its gonna be similar.
Anyways, as I already said, its a moot point, as QT will never do a Bond movie. So this "debate" is about as pointless as arguing that Scorsese should direct Scary Movie 5.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
There's no point arguing about which high profile director should direct the next Bond. Especially when we know that James Cameron is the best choice. TRUE LIES FTW!:lol
MaverickX9
Member
Solo said:
Whatever - I don't see Terence Young out there on camera. A director is only as good as his actors.
Really, it is besides the point who made Connery's Bond. Connery, in the public's eye, is the all time legend of the Bond universe. If Connery were to come back and do Bond 22 (even at the age of 70 or whatever he is), people would be going nuts in anticipation.
:lol No, just no.
Vincent Vega and Jules Winfield are superficial stereotypes? Please.
They are hitmen on the surface. Philosophers, literary savants, movie experts, and skilled dancers on the inside. They are far from simple hitmen. You need to watch Pulp Fiction again.
You need to get something straight - we are not talking Reservoir Dogs. We are not talking Pulp Fiction. We are not talking Inglorious Bastards. We're talking James Bond.
Last time I checked, most of Tarantino's films are "original" creations (original as you can get with a Tarantino film). He has the authority to make his characters speak as they will. He does not carry that same authority over to a James Bond movie.
To think that he would have Bond come out and start spewing expletives like they are nothing is ludicrous. To compare Tarantino's previous work of his own doing with an adaptation of an Ian Flemming novel doesn't make any sense. He said in interviews that he wanted to make a REAL James Bond movie - a James Bond straight out of Fleming's novels.
I don't see how you can make that assumption given the franchise he would be working with.
Jules and Vincent are not suave spies, they are California hitmen. Jackie Browne is not an international agent. They speak as they do based on the world they live in.
MaverickX9 said:
Young groomed a rugged, rough Connery, who was nothing like the Bond onscreen, into the suave, sophisticated man you ended up seeing onscreen. Young was basically James Bond incarnate (minus being a spy, naturally).In this case, the actor (or performance, if you wish) was forged by the director. Connery even himself credits the late Young. Its also no surprise that Young's Bond movies (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Thunderball) were Connerys best outings as Bond.
As for the rest of your points, we are doing a square dance here, to no end. Obviously we're not gonna agree, so lets just stop. And I most certainly do not need to see Pulp again. Ive almost seen it too many times already.
- Status