That is not James Bond.

[king ghosto]

well, but I never noticed that Connery looked like a vulgar russian thug in the Dr No trailer... Thank you I never saw that !

 

[SpyderDan]

well, but I never noticed that Connery looked like a vulgar russian thug in the Dr No trailer... Thank you I never saw that !

Quit your complaining.

 

[DACrowe]

After rewatching the trailer, this is just not working. The action looks great and looks like it is reinjecting the edge Campbell did to the series with Goldeneye that was quickly lost. However, this just doesn't sell itself as a good movie.

Sure Eva Green and the other cchick look hot and the stunts finally look exhilerating again, but c'mon. Am I the only one who finds the black and white scenes bad? They seem really cheesy and trying too hard to be "tough." M's repremanding of 007 is cliched and cheesy. It is like something you expect out of a bad '80s or '90s cop/buddy cop movie. Nothing we haven't heard before. It tried to sound tough as nails but came off as dumb. Her distaste for 007 and his meathods was much more clever and much more INTELLLIGENTLY done in Campbell's last 007 flick, Goldeneye. Where Brosnan's and Dench's chemistry was that of people who didn't like each other but had grudging respect, and 007 came off as a slick bad ass and not a thug.

And what is with the opening scene? Am I the only one who thinks introducing 007 in the first barrel shot in the movie by having him in jeans, a t-shirt and a ragged coat, all done INSIDE A FREAKING BATHROOM to be terribly un-James Bond.

It seems that it is trying too hard to be edgy that it forgets Bond is supposed to be slightly humorous or at the very least cynical. Connery still had a huge sense of humor in the first two and charisma as well as the edge of violence. Brosnan was very cynical in GE and for the first half of TND but still could play up the humor (which unfortunately was all that DAD was).

I mean really, by trying to make him look tough, Craig looks very un-Bondish. Part of it is the hair and part of it is the demeanor. I mean look at him in Munich, he looks much moreo Bondish (though just as blond) with his Steve McQueen look in that movie nad he wore a suit quite well in Layer Cake.

I love the book (but judging form the trailer, this movie will have little resemblence to the best of the Bond novels) and Campbell's style of shooting action movies is great, but the tone just seems a complete miscalculation as does Craig's seemingly humorless and somewhat unattractive performance.

However, I'll reserve final judgement for the final product as the action looks good and I have some faith in Campbell and Green too.

 

[StrainedEyes]

After rewatching the trailer, this is just not working. The action looks great and looks like it is reinjecting the edge Campbell did to the series with Goldeneye that was quickly lost. However, this just doesn't sell itself as a good movie.

Sure Eva Green and the other cchick look hot and the stunts finally look exhilerating again, but c'mon. Am I the only one who finds the black and white scenes bad? They seem really cheesy and trying too hard to be "tough." M's repremanding of 007 is cliched and cheesy. It is like something you expect out of a bad '80s or '90s cop/buddy cop movie. Nothing we haven't heard before. It tried to sound tough as nails but came off as dumb. Her distaste for 007 and his meathods was much more clever and much more INTELLLIGENTLY done in Campbell's last 007 flick, Goldeneye. Where Brosnan's and Dench's chemistry was that of people who didn't like each other but had grudging respect, and 007 came off as a slick bad ass and not a thug.

And what is with the opening scene? Am I the only one who thinks introducing 007 in the first barrel shot in the movie by having him in jeans, a t-shirt and a ragged coat, all done INSIDE A FREAKING BATHROOM to be terribly un-James Bond.

It seems that it is trying too hard to be edgy that it forgets Bond is supposed to be slightly humorous or at the very least cynical. Connery still had a huge sense of humor in the first two and charisma as well as the edge of violence. Brosnan was very cynical in GE and for the first half of TND but still could play up the humor (which unfortunately was all that DAD was).

I mean really, by trying to make him look tough, Craig looks very un-Bondish. Part of it is the hair and part of it is the demeanor. I mean look at him in Munich, he looks much moreo Bondish (though just as blond) with his Steve McQueen look in that movie nad he wore a suit quite well in Layer Cake.

I love the book (but judging form the trailer, this movie will have little resemblence to the best of the Bond novels) and Campbell's style of shooting action movies is great, but the tone just seems a complete miscalculation as does Craig's seemingly humorless and somewhat unattractive performance.

However, I'll reserve final judgement for the final product as the action looks good and I have some faith in Campbell and Green too.

You're an idiot for comparing 4 lines of dialogue in a teaser trailer, to an entire scene in a finished movie.

And if the movie was just the novel, it would be over so quickly. Casino Royale isn't the densest of stories. All the action in the trailer is bassically from the same group of scenes, all of which were added to the story... Meaning the book is in tact, with added footage.


And the gunbarrel scene, he is neither in jeans, nor a t-shirt, nor a ragged coat.. He's in a suit, minus the tie and the top button... Oooo how un-Bond that is.

Grasping at straws.

 

[DACrowe]

You are ann idiot for thinking your opinion is fact and your ego and pompous attitude holds sway over me or anyone you've probably ever met for that matter.

Anyway, the "four lines" of diologue are trying to express the mood of the scene. The black and white are selling the image they are shooting for and a bad line of diologue is a bad line of diologue. This entire tone set is what the script reviews indicate (what with M walking around and fussing how "007 is the biggest screw up we've ever seen.").

She comes off like Sam Jackson in XXX, and given the way they are making Bond wear colorful and decorative t-shirts and jeans, that seems to be the tone they are trying to go for (hard edged, not the punk part). And this is not a good thing.

Besides all that, I said I would go in with an open mind, I'm just saying this is the wrong way to do a Bond movie. And for the record Bond in a t-shirt and jeans while standing in a bathroom is TERRIBLE way to retool the gun barrel (just as bad as the CGI bullet in DAD which was a fair warning for the slowly unravelling trainwreck that followed in that movie).

 

[Jack Napier]

He isn't wearing a T-shirt and jeans in that scene you dumb fuc k.

 

[Palpadious]

For those complaining about Craig's looks, Fleming described Bond as being a somewhat ugly bastard in the novels.

 

[king ghosto]

For those complaining about Craig's looks, Fleming described Bond as being a somewhat ugly bastard in the novels.

Since when " good looking but threatening " means " ugly " ? I don't understand or haven't read the same fleming's book.

since when is this guy ugly ? ( He was the model for fleming's bond )

 

[johnsonuk]

Since when " good looking but threatening " means " ugly " ? I don't understand or haven't read the same fleming's book.

since when is this guy ugly ? ( He was the model for fleming's bond )

actually fleming describes bond of looking like hoagie charmichael

 

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

actually fleming describes bond of looking like hoagie charmichael

Timothy Dalton was said to have closely resembled Fleming's description of Bond. Hoagie Charmichael is also one of the "models" for Fleming's Bond.

 

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

And the gunbarrel scene, he is neither in jeans, nor a t-shirt, nor a ragged coat.. He's in a suit, minus the tie and the top button...

After rewatching the teaser frame by frame, I'm inclined to agree with you.

And for the record Bond in a t-shirt and jeans while standing in a bathroom is TERRIBLE way to retool the gun barrel

It must be pointed out. You are wrong, my friend. Please consider rewatching the teaser, before posting this statement again. Thank you.

 

[the gael]

actually fleming describes bond of looking like hoagie charmichael

Fun, because Cary Grant was fleming personnal choice for Dr No ( but wasn't due to the budget, of course ) Hard to say that he hasn't him in mind.

Strange that his second choice was roger moore but yes, he prefered moore or david niven to sean connery at the beginning ( but the two were also too expensive )

 

[James"007"Bond]

People fail to understand that this is pre-"familiar" Bond.

Its like we're getting, Rocky Maivia before seeing, The Rock.

 

[the gael]

People fail to understand that this is pre-"familiar" Bond.

Its like we're getting, Rocky Maivia before seeing, The Rock.

Oh I understand that he is pre-familiar Bond, what I don't undertstand is his lack of phlegm or class. It's illogical with the books or the previous movies.

And why have craig the chuck norris expression for only expression in the trailer ? Don't say me that he is expressive ! I am very worried with the movie.

 

[DACrowe]

You are correct he is not wearing a t-shirt but he is dressed down and beside the point he is still doing it in a bloody bathroom (real classy, huh?).

And it remains that he still does not look very classy, his diologue with M lacks wit and comes off like an exchange from XXX and the last shot of him in a tux has made an almost unaimous "yuk" across the internet for viewers of this trailer.

I said I would still see it with an open mind because I love the book, think Campbell has made some great, iconic action movies (Goldeneye and The Mask of Zorro), though some duds (Vertical Limit and The Legend of Zorro) and Eva Green is a fine actress. I am just commenting how the general reaction this trailer has been "Uhm, I don't know...." and then a "ew" on the last shot.

For the record, I posted this in another thread but as I have arrgoant pricks who have turned this into name calling in this thread, I bring you the teaser (as well as the trailer) for Goldeneye 11 years ago. This is how Campbell's last introduction of a new Bond in a time of complacency was introduced.

http://www.jamesbond.com/mmpr/index....missions&id=ge

Compare and see which one feels more like a new edgy Bond movie and which seems actually fun.

 

[DACrowe]

And btw, quit comparing Craig to Connery. Connery was rough and "a man's man" as some of you are using (that expression alone is sad) but he still had charm, wit, class and always had a sense of humor in his performance and never came off as a thug. And people certainly were not given a reaction of "meh" when they saw him in a casino and tux for the first time in Dr. No then.

 

[StrainedEyes]

For the record, I posted this in another thread but as I have arrgoant pricks who have turned this into name calling in this thread, I bring you the teaser (as well as the trailer) for Goldeneye 11 years ago. This is how Campbell's last introduction of a new Bond in a time of complacency was introduced.

http://www.jamesbond.com/mmpr/index....missions&id=ge

Compare and see which one feels more like a new edgy Bond movie and which seems actually fun.

Campbell didn't make the teasers, for the most part directors have no say over the trailer footage.

And the reason everyone accepted Connery as bond way back when, was because there were no nagging fanboys around. That was a time when everyone thought everything was good, atleast until they say the finished product.

 

[DACrowe]

I am going in with an open mind. Call me a nagging fanboy but I was never one to ***** about organic webbing, Doc Ock's tenticals, Wolverine not having a mask, the S being too small in Sr, etc.

I am just saying this looks bad but am waiting for the finished product before I pass judgement. However, by comparing teasers GE shows a much more Bondish sense of fun and Brosnan certainly did not have the "ew" reaction in that teaser either though.

 

[cerealkiller182]

I think this movie looks pretty sweet. I have never read the novels but i think it sounds better than the real Bond movies.

I can see a little bit of Connery and a little of Moore in Craig. I would have liked him to have longer darker hair, but I'm already over it. I'm glad its so realistic. The Bond movies were becoming too unusual and over-the-top for its own good.

I do not like that Judi Dench playing M. I know she played M in Brosnan's Bond, they even made reference to how she was new in office. If that is true, why is she M. I thought this was suppose to be Bonds first mission. The only good thing about Dench, is that means Cleese should be playing Q (one of the greatest recasts ever IMO. If anyone would do a better job than Llewelyn(RIP) it was clease) Of course thats not going to happen.

 

[Scooter]

I feel the same way about Pro-Brandon fans.

 

[the gael]

I've nothing against brandon routh. His clark kent look at lot like christopher reeves for me, and it's a good thing.

I never said that the Casino Royale teaser was bad looking, I only said that the restart idea is just plain stupid and that I can't see Craig as Bond at all... Does this make me a " nagging fanboy " ?

 

[Scooter]

Not in my book. Personally though, I think he'll be very good as Bond.

 

[James"007"Bond]

I find the whole restart idea quite silly myself but I think Craig will own this role.

 

[Irony-Man]

One of the problems I think the producers face in the casting of Craig was that no-one was demanding it. When Connery left after YOLT and was replaced by Gearge Lazenby, it was because Connery wanted to go. Lazenby left becuase of his own ego, but the public demanded Connery return. Roger Moore left - at least one film too late - because the public was no longer acccepting him as Bond. Dalton left because of the 6 year time lag between Bonds caused by legal issues.

With Brosnan, there was no outcry to get rid of him. He wanted to return and the majority of the public wanted him to return. Unlike Moore, Brosnan's age was actually working for him in his performances. He presented Bond as a more mature individual dealing with the negative aspects of his job. If the producers had wanted to take a chance and expand on that they could have given Brosnan a fitting sendoff for a character that he had revitalized. Then they could have restarted the character with a new actor.

The second hurdle they face is that of timing. When "GoldenEye" was released, it had been 6 years since a Bond film, and that one, "Licence to Kill" had misfired with audiences. Through carefully managed publicity, not just for this film, but also for the Video release of the series, they built up a huge public expectation for the return of Bond. The casting of Brosnan was an incredibly important part of that. He was widely regarded at the time as being the public's choice for the role. When the teaser hit theatres, with Brosnan shooting the 007 logo and then saying "You were expecting someone else?" to the audience, it signalled that Bond was back. The fact that the film was one of the best of the series helped to cement Bond back into the public consciousness again. Now, after a regular schedule of Bond films, there is not the same public eagerness for the next film. The producer's should have produced a fifth film with Brosnan, and labelled it HIS last. Then after that take a couple of years off and retool the series with their new Bond. Or, if they didn't want to do the fifth Brosnan Bond, they should have delayed this movie until 2007 and then they have a reason to launch a restart.

Everytime a new Bond actor is chosen there are debates about their relative merits. I'm waiting to see how Craig will do before I pass judgement on his protrayal. Where I do have a problem with the film is the suggestion taht this is where Bond becomes Bond. In the novels Bond was Bond in "Casino Royale". Remember he was placed in his late 30's and had been a naval commander. He didn't need to bercome Bond because, quite frankly, by the time you are that age and have that life experience you are the person you are going to be for the rest of your life. Cubby Broccoli had concerns about this idea of showing Bond becoming Bond on his first mission because he felt the audiences wanted to see Bond as Bond not as Bond becoming Bond (I'll try to work some mor "B" words into my next post).

If you want to show Bond becoming Bond, do something radical. Make Bond significantly younger, place him in a naval setting and show how that influenced him. Then do "Casino Royale" as his next film and first official mission as a "00" agent.

 

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

One of the problems I think the producers face in the casting of Craig was that no-one was demanding it. When Connery left after YOLT and was replaced by Gearge Lazenby, it was because Connery wanted to go. Lazenby left becuase of his own ego, but the public demanded Connery return. Roger Moore left - at least one film too late - because the public was no longer acccepting him as Bond. Dalton left because of the 6 year time lag between Bonds caused by legal issues.

With Brosnan, there was no outcry to get rid of him. He wanted to return and the majority of the public wanted him to return. Unlike Moore, Brosnan's age was actually working for him in his performances. He presented Bond as a more mature individual dealing with the negative aspects of his job. If the producers had wanted to take a chance and expand on that they could have given Brosnan a fitting sendoff for a character that he had revitalized. Then they could have restarted the character with a new actor.

The second hurdle they face is that of timing. When "GoldenEye" was released, it had been 6 years since a Bond film, and that one, "Licence to Kill" had misfired with audiences. Through carefully managed publicity, not just for this film, but also for the Video release of the series, they built up a huge public expectation for the return of Bond. The casting of Brosnan was an incredibly important part of that. He was widely regarded at the time as being the public's choice for the role. When the teaser hit theatres, with Brosnan shooting the 007 logo and then saying "You were expecting someone else?" to the audience, it signalled that Bond was back. The fact that the film was one of the best of the series helped to cement Bond back into the public consciousness again. Now, after a regular schedule of Bond films, there is not the same public eagerness for the next film. The producer's should have produced a fifth film with Brosnan, and labelled it HIS last. Then after that take a couple of years off and retool the series with their new Bond. Or, if they didn't want to do the fifth Brosnan Bond, they should have delayed this movie until 2007 and then they have a reason to launch a restart.

Everytime a new Bond actor is chosen there are debates about their relative merits. I'm waiting to see how Craig will do before I pass judgement on his protrayal. Where I do have a problem with the film is the suggestion taht this is where Bond becomes Bond. In the novels Bond was Bond in "Casino Royale". Remember he was placed in his late 30's and had been a naval commander. He didn't need to bercome Bond because, quite frankly, by the time you are that age and have that life experience you are the person you are going to be for the rest of your life. Cubby Broccoli had concerns about this idea of showing Bond becoming Bond on his first mission because he felt the audiences wanted to see Bond as Bond not as Bond becoming Bond (I'll try to work some mor "B" words into my next post).

If you want to show Bond becoming Bond, do something radical. Make Bond significantly younger, place him in a naval setting and show how that influenced him. Then do "Casino Royale" as his next film and first official mission as a "00" agent.

Excellent post