Producers are feeding you bull*****.

[Tojo]

The producers, Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, claimed that Casino Royale would be a bold step into a new direction for James Bond.

Martin Campbell said they would be presenting a gritty, taught thriller-saying, 'There's only so much you can blow up'.

Well, this is all talk. No suprises there. Some of you may know that a script draft was leaked around Christmas time. I have been fortunate to have read this recently, and can clearly state that, while far superior to DAD and slightly better than TWINE & TND(IMO), it is essentially the same old thing. Re-hashed, corny, ridiculous and over-the-top.

I think many of us felt that Oscar winner Paul Haggis would give us something brilliant. Well, since he was bought on board to essentially 'better' the original draft by Purvis and Wade, i shudder to think how bad that draft actually was.

I won't go into major detail, but i will say;

*TOTALLY unneccesary action-What i mean by this, apart from it all being COMPLETLEY over the top(1 example Bond takes out a whole embassy to capture a 'free-runner'. Yes that's right, a free-runner. this was in the trailer, also bulldozes a construction site), is that there are quite a few action beats placed where it really doesn't need to. It's as if they thought,'Oh God we can't have anything low-key here, let's ruin some character development by doing more action'. No. Less really would have been more. I want a Bond who uses intelligence and stealth, not pure brute force. What about you?

Remember in Goldeneye when Bond tanks through that city to rescue Natalya? This is what Campbell was talking about when he said lower-key action(he also said one explosion, but i think he meant 3 or 4). Now he's gone and done the exact opposite to what he said. I suspect those hack producers had something to do with this though.

*No character development after first 15 minutes or so. And i mean NONE.

*Vesper-she's in the last 2/3rds of the film, approx. When she arrives she really does stick around, but her scenes with Bond are short and offer little if no depth to their relationship. It's standard Hollywood b.s in many ways, which pretends to be otherwise. However, i suppose with all the action they had to cram in anything more would be too much for our tiny brains to handle.

*Corny dialogue.....goes hand in hand with a Bond film i suppose. But for once they cld of done without it, because let's face it, it's just not very fu**ing funny. But alas, we are once again lumbered with this ****, despite Campbell's proclamations. It's almost a blueprint of the Brosnan era, with a touch more pseudo-depth. For instance we have Bond once again making a huge deal out of asking for a goddamn Martini. I know this is a key scene in Bond history, but so much more effective if he asks for one like a normal English gent person as opposed to Steve McQueen and rambo's lovechild.

If i say anymore it will be going into too much detail, but it's not what we were told we were gonna get, put it that way. It is in no way a bad script, not by DAD standards anyway, and i think that having a better actor than Brosnan play Bond is going to redeem it slightly-but at the end of day we are getting nothing new here.

Sorry guys and gals.

Still, i expect you to reserve judgment till you have seen the film, because i'm not saying you should all hate what is on the table. It's just that i know alot of us wanted something more radical.

 

[Kritish]

Bond films are supposed to be ridiculous and over-the-top. It's there fancifulness that makes them appealing. Bond isn't Jack Bauer, why do you think they have villains with Metal Teeth in the films?

 

[Tojo]

You missed the point entirely

 

[Agentsands77]

Sorry, Tojo, but I and many others have read the script and very much disagree with you, Including those who have already reviewed it on the web at LatinoReview and IGN and even AICN (though I think the review on AICN really misconstrues the script and totally misinterprets it). In fact, among the fanbase, the script is what really has won over support for the film.

And, for what it's worth, what you read was the December draft. There were quite a few revisions beyond that point, and as things have come out, a number of things have been changed.

Well, this is all talk. No suprises there. Some of you may know that a script draft was leaked around Christmas time. I have been fortunate to have read this recently, and can clearly state that, while far superior to DAD and slightly better than TWINE & TND(IMO), it is essentially the same old thing. Re-hashed, corny, ridiculous and over-the-top.

Hardly. It blows away all of the Brosnan era. You hold up the flaws of the CASINO ROYALE script against the flaws of the Brosnan scripts and CASINO ROYALE wins, hands-down.

*TOTALLY unneccesary action-What i mean by this, apart from it all being COMPLETLEY over the top(1 example Bond takes out a whole embassy to capture a 'free-runner'. Yes that's right, a free-runner. this was in the trailer, also bulldozes a construction site), is that there are quite a few action beats placed where it really doesn't need to. It's as if they thought,'Oh God we can't have anything low-key here, let's ruin some character development by doing more action'. No. Less really would have been more.

The action is great. We have original and cool sequences that are placed throughout, while still largely downsizing the action nature of the Bond films of late.

I want a Bond who uses intelligence and stealth, not pure brute force. What about you?

This Bond *does* use intelligence and stealth.

Remember in Goldeneye when Bond tanks through that city to rescue Natalya? This is what Campbell was talking about when he said lower-key action (he also said one explosion, but i think he meant 3 or 4). Now he's gone and done the exact opposite to what he said. I suspect those hack producers had something to do with this though.

It still is lower-key than the tank chase, especially in how it's approached. The issue with the tank chase in GOLDENEYE was not necessarily the scope (though it's still a lot bigger and more over-the-top than what Bond does in the free-running sequence), but rather that it was done with such a wink-at-the-camera style that it took us out of the film.

*No character development after first 15 minutes or so. And i mean NONE.

Did you actually read the script? How about the whole central romance that dominates the last 2/3rds of the film? There's a whole, subtle character arc here that's almost directly lifted from the novel. It's still a Bond film, you know - it's not going to turn into a drama. But it does have the same amount of character development that, say, OHMSS had, and perhaps more.

*Vesper-she's in the last 2/3rds of the film, approx. When she arrives she really does stick around, but her scenes with Bond are short and offer little if no depth to their relationship. It's standard Hollywood b.s in many ways, which pretends to be otherwise. However, i suppose with all the action they had to cram in anything more would be too much for our tiny brains to handle.

Nah. Her stuff with Bond is the highlight of the script - charming and touching.

*Corny dialogue.....goes hand in hand with a Bond film i suppose. But for once they cld of done without it, because let's face it, it's just not very fu**ing funny. But alas, we are once again lumbered with this ****, despite Campbell's proclamations. It's almost a blueprint of the Brosnan era, with a touch more pseudo-depth.

Uh, most of the dialogue is great. There's perhaps two incidents of which I can think the dialogue is corny, but they've mostly done away with the corny puns and innuendo. Most of it is really great dialogue - and it's nothing like the awful stuff Brosnan had to spit out, even in GOLDENEYE.

The dialogue in this film is still a lot less corny than the stuff Bond was spewing in OHMSS, and that film's still an undisputed classic among the Bond fanbase.

For instance we have Bond once again making a huge deal out of asking for a goddamn Martini.

That moment is one of the best in script. I laughed out loud when I read it.

If i say anymore it will be going into too much detail, but it's not what we were told we were gonna get, put it that way. It is in no way a bad script, not by DAD standards anyway, and i think that having a better actor than Brosnan play Bond is going to redeem it slightly-but at the end of day we are getting nothing new here.

Yes we are! We have subdued scale as far as the film goes that we haven't seen since LICENCE TO KILL, a consistent *humanized* but still cool Bond characterization, a romance which takes most of the focus of the film, and a very gritty tone. Essentially, what we're getting is another FOR YOUR EYES ONLY/THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS-style Bond flick that has more of an edge on it.

 

[Green Lantern]

For instance we have Bond once again making a huge deal out of asking for a goddamn Martini.

Have you read the book "Casino Royale"? He makes a big deal in that too.

'A dry martini,' he said. 'One. In a deep champagne goblet.'
'Oui, monsieur.'
'Just a moment. Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large slice of lemon peel. Got it?'

 

[BULLITT]

This is only a movie, right?

 

[Green Lantern]

It was a book 50 years ago, if thats what you're asking

 

[Kritish]

For god's sake, if you want a realistic spy film go watch The Bourne Identity. Don't go see a film with villains with gold fingers and creepy cats.

 

[chaseter]

The producers, Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, claimed that Casino Royale would be a bold step into a new direction for James Bond.

Martin Campbell said they would be presenting a gritty, taught thriller-saying, 'There's only so much you can blow up'.

Well, this is all talk. No suprises there. Some of you may know that a script draft was leaked around Christmas time. I have been fortunate to have read this recently, and can clearly state that, while far superior to DAD and slightly better than TWINE & TND(IMO), it is essentially the same old thing. Re-hashed, corny, ridiculous and over-the-top.

I think many of us felt that Oscar winner Paul Haggis would give us something brilliant. Well, since he was bought on board to essentially 'better' the original draft by Purvis and Wade, i shudder to think how bad that draft actually was.

I won't go into major detail, but i will say;

*TOTALLY unneccesary action-What i mean by this, apart from it all being COMPLETLEY over the top(1 example Bond takes out a whole embassy to capture a 'free-runner'. Yes that's right, a free-runner. this was in the trailer, also bulldozes a construction site), is that there are quite a few action beats placed where it really doesn't need to. It's as if they thought,'Oh God we can't have anything low-key here, let's ruin some character development by doing more action'. No. Less really would have been more. I want a Bond who uses intelligence and stealth, not pure brute force. What about you?

Remember in Goldeneye when Bond tanks through that city to rescue Natalya? This is what Campbell was talking about when he said lower-key action(he also said one explosion, but i think he meant 3 or 4). Now he's gone and done the exact opposite to what he said. I suspect those hack producers had something to do with this though.

*No character development after first 15 minutes or so. And i mean NONE.

*Vesper-she's in the last 2/3rds of the film, approx. When she arrives she really does stick around, but her scenes with Bond are short and offer little if no depth to their relationship. It's standard Hollywood b.s in many ways, which pretends to be otherwise. However, i suppose with all the action they had to cram in anything more would be too much for our tiny brains to handle.

*Corny dialogue.....goes hand in hand with a Bond film i suppose. But for once they cld of done without it, because let's face it, it's just not very fu**ing funny. But alas, we are once again lumbered with this ****, despite Campbell's proclamations. It's almost a blueprint of the Brosnan era, with a touch more pseudo-depth. For instance we have Bond once again making a huge deal out of asking for a goddamn Martini. I know this is a key scene in Bond history, but so much more effective if he asks for one like a normal English gent person as opposed to Steve McQueen and rambo's lovechild.

If i say anymore it will be going into too much detail, but it's not what we were told we were gonna get, put it that way. It is in no way a bad script, not by DAD standards anyway, and i think that having a better actor than Brosnan play Bond is going to redeem it slightly-but at the end of day we are getting nothing new here.

Sorry guys and gals.

Still, i expect you to reserve judgment till you have seen the film, because i'm not saying you should all hate what is on the table. It's just that i know alot of us wanted something more radical.

What Bond movie in history has never been over the top with explosions, car chases, un-necessary deaths and destruction???