The Death of James Bond 007

[Havoc]

Damn you sure are filled with inteligent comments arn't ya?

It's not about the person who created the petition. It's the ammount of signatures it got! A true Bond fan knows that Craig is the worst choice they could make. And before you start making more semi-smart comments, I suggest you look at the site and get your facts straight.

[Nepharski]

After 45 years of loyal service with MI6, the Britisch secret service, 007 has been terminated.
And he hasn't been killed in action by a deadly laser, drowned while escaping from a sub, died in a car crash or just shot. No... it's much worse then that. The producing company responsible for the last few bond movies decided to start the Bond series from scratch. A so called 'reboot'.

"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No, Mr. Bond, I expect your name to be tarnished by half-baked mockery of your original nature."

[Splat]

*sigh* We were doing so well.

Bond's makers have made mistakes in the past. Follow the pattern.
Connery. Good Bond
Lazenby. Bad Bond
Moore.... Good Bond
Dalton.... Bad Bond
Brosnan.. Good Bond
Craig...... ???

I'm not actually saying Craig will be rubbish, but its understandable why people might expect it and it wouldn't be the first time a Bond film has done badly. After Dalton's second film there were six years before the next was made.

[Havoc]

I'm digging this up from the inner depths of the OT boards, to discuss it further now that the movie has hit the theaters. I have just come back from the theather and saw it...

Make sure you're comfortable because I am about to admit I made a mistake and as plenty of people know, I don't do that so easily (make mistakes, I mean, obviously ).

Casino Royal turned out to be a very good Bond movie. While I still think Craig doesn't have the looks to be the defined James Bond, he did play the part very well. Staying true to the original recipe but adding his own twist to it just like everyone else did.
Action scenes were cool but a little overdone at some points. Also the traditional intro (where he shoots into the barrel of the gun after which the movie starts) was left out and placed later into the intro sequence, the blood over the screen was made 3D, which was a VERY bad mistake because it looks very stupid... Putting the traditional intro later was probably done to mark the 'new' era of James Bond, pretty much James Bond V2. Which brings me to me next point:

EON (the producer of the James Bond movies) decided to 'start over' with James Bond. Basicaly going back to the first story that Ian Flemming wrote (Casino Royal) and continue in the universe from there. But instead of the story being set in the 1960's, they put it into modern time. Basicaly there is nothing wrong with this concept, except that it might piss some Bond fans off if they do it wrong, but with this plan they should have casted a new M to go along side it.
The previous Bond films have always been linked to each other in small ways. SPECTRE in the early days, Jaws kept returning later on, Q made some references to older movies from time to time and ofcourse Bond's wife who was referred to from time to time as well. Dispite the gap between Dalton's last film and Brosnan's first film, the two were still linked and set in the same 'universe'.
Judi Dench was cast in Goldeneye as the new M. In the movie both Bond and M made a reference to that fact, making it very obvious that Bond was a 00 before the current M was in place.
Now in Casino Royal, Judi Dench still plays M but she is also the one who assigns him his 00 status. The two timelines and storylines are supposed to be sepperate but it still isn't a very wise move since people get confused a bit. I guess it had to do with contracts and stuff, but it was still a little hick up I would have solved somehow.

There, that are my thoughts on the movie. If you have seen it, what do you think of it?

Havoc

BTW: Can someone change the Title of this topic to 'Casino Royal'? Since the old topic title doesn't realy apply anymore to the discussion? Thnx.

[Mutual Friend]

...Or you could post it in my Have You Seen thread!

Please, let it live!!

[Nate]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but based on the reviews I've been reading, the general theme is that Craig is James Bond but no other actor has been. Simply because this movie is truer to the spirit of the books than any other, in that Bond is an edgy, not particularly likeable character. Not the wisecracking womaniser we know and love.

So whilst you were right that Craig could not play Bond like we know Bond, he does play him as he ought to be.

More on this topic in two weeks when it comes out here.

[Munch's Master]

I've seen the film ,and I think Craig is great as Bond. Rivalling Connery, not quite equal but still very good. The film did have a bit too much action and a bit too little focus on the lesser characters, but I still enjoyed it. Craig's Bond appeals to me because he's a tough, no-nonsense Bond, which is what a secret agent would be like in reality. Also he totally destorys the long-running Bond tradition of 'shaken, not stirred' with
'Shaken or stirred sir?'
'Do I look like I give a damn?'
I think Craig could well be a very good Bond in the future, despite the casting of M and the modern setting making the timeline a little warped.

[Havoc]

'Shaken or stirred sir?'
'Do I look like I give a damn?'

Yea that made me chuckle, but not as much as:

'Hahaha, now everyone is gonna know you died while scratching my balls! Haha!'

Havoc

[Munch's Master]

How did I forget that one? There were a couple other comedy gems in there but I've forgotten them too. Such is the way of things.

[Havoc]

That particular scene made me go into a laughing frenzy, especially because you could just hear all the guys in the theater sweat it out every time he got hit...

'No! No no no!!! Aah no!! A little to the right!'

Ah so priceless...

Havoc