That is not James Bond.

[DACrowe]

Well said Irony Man. And you make a good point how though Bond was one to make mistakes in the book CR, he was James Bond and the Bond we know today. When

Spoiler

he lost Vesper after her suicide as a double agent

it only cemented what was already there. By trying to make this a "Bond Begins" they are running risky groungds IMO.

We'll see though.

 

[Agentsands77]

Well said Irony Man. And you make a good point how though Bond was one to make mistakes in the book CR, he was James Bond and the Bond we know today. When

Spoiler

he lost Vesper after her suicide as a double agent

it only cemented what was already there. By trying to make this a "Bond Begins" they are running risky groungds IMO.

We'll see though.

What you suggested with CASINO ROYALE is precisely how it works in the film according to the December screenplay. Bond starts as Bond and finishes as Bond, with the events of the story just cementing what was already there. The "Bond Begins" nature of CASINO ROYALE has been very overstated - it's actually handled in a fairly subtle fashion and the arc of the film is *extremely* close to the book.

 

[the gael]

What you suggested with CASINO ROYALE is precisely how it works in the film according to the December screenplay. Bond starts as Bond and finishes as Bond, with the events of the story just cementing what was already there. The "Bond Begins" nature of CASINO ROYALE has been very overstated - it's actually handled in a fairly subtle fashion and the arc of the film is *extremely* close to the book.

interesting, if only it was true... But this doesn't stop my fear of a charmless and without any kind of phlegm rude bond ( as seen in the teaser )

Bond isn't an ox

 

[Agentsands77]

interesting, if only it was true...

It is true. CASINO ROYALE, as written, really doesn't play up the "Bond Begins" thing. His character arc is pretty subtle and very close to what Fleming had on the page. From the start of the film, he's recognizeable as the Bond we all know and love.

And your fears about a charmless Bond? It's hard to tell from a few spliced moments of dialogue from a single scene in the film where Bond isn't supposed to be all that charming anyhow.

Bond isn't an ox

Well, not precisely, but he is a bit of a thug. Director Terence Young (of DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, and THUNDERBALL - the man who *defined* Connery's Bond) described Bond as a thug in a dinner jacket.

 

[DACrowe]

'Tis true, but Bond had a sense of humor (if a bit dark in Dr. No and From Russia With Love, though decidely ironic self-mocking with Goldfinger and onward). And he has always been charming.

But maybe that is just the trailer. However, I would have had the last shot (obviously made for the trailer) to have a bit of humor. A wink, a "Bond James..." etc. or something. Hopefully they'll display this in the full trailer at the end of the summer then.

 

[Agentsands77]

However, I would have had the last shot (obviously made for the trailer) to have a bit of humor.

I didn't like the last shot much myself - though Craig's eyes certainly are quite piercing. It just looks awkward, is horridly lit, and just looks really cobbled together and really doesn't fit with the rest of the footage (which looked great, BTW). I do agree though, a nice smile on Craig's face would have worked.

 

[Kritish]

At least Roger Moore isn't doing it anymore.

 

[Furious Styles]

At least Roger Moore isn't doing it anymore.

*Sighs*

Are you using the whole Moonraker argument? Or have you actually seen The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy?

 

[Agentsands77]

Are you using the whole Moonraker argument? Or have you actually seen The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy?

There's nothing wrong with disliking Moore's more campy take on the role. I happen to love it, though.

 

[DACrowe]

Yes. Moore played it up to camp heights but was still quite good as he could sometimes get a little more grounded (the first half of The Spy Who Loved Me and more notably For Your Eyes Only).

And even as pure camp the second half of TSWLM and LALD are still gold. But a humorless Bond was attempted before (Dalton) and failed. Of course Dalton had some nice attributes but he played Bond like he had stick up his ass the whole time and a chip on his shoulder, which Bond does but he hides and can only be seen in glimpses like with Connery and to a certain extent Brosnan. Dalton was boring by just playing him like that.

So hopefully there won't be a repeat with Craig doing this then.

 

[Agentsands77]

So hopefully there won't be a repeat with Craig doing this then.

Nah... Bond in the script is full of witty dialogue and humor. He's hardly the fuddy-duddy that Dalton was - the Bond of CASINO ROYALE plays out more like a humanized version of Connery's Bond, if that makes any sense. There's still a very dry sense of humor there. They've definitely eased up on the cringe-worthy puns, though.

 

[Furious Styles]

There's nothing wrong with disliking Moore's more campy take on the role. I happen to love it, though.

There's more to Moore than simply his "campy take." TSWLM and FYEO can easily be considered Top 5, where Moore plays an older, more serious Bond while keeping the wit and charm he is known for.

Moonraker was campy. So was Diamonds Are Forever. Connery hammed up the role in DAF just as much as Moore did in MR. When people give the whole "Moonraker" argument, it isn't a correct assessment of Moore's overall performance because 5 of the other 7 movies were done in a more serious tone.

To judge Moore on his one performance is stupid, because that's like me judging Connery on his work in DAF.

 

[Agentsands77]

There's more to Moore than simply his "campy take." TSWLM and FYEO can easily be considered Top 5, where Moore plays an older, more serious Bond while keeping the wit and charm he is known for.

Moonraker was campy. So was Diamonds Are Forever. Connery hammed up the role in DAF just as much as Moore did in MR. When people give the whole "Moonraker" argument, it isn't a correct assessment of Moore's overall performance because 5 of the other 7 movies were done in a more serious tone.

To judge Moore on his one performance is stupid, because that's like me judging Connery on his work in DAF.

MOONRAKER isn't the only film where Moore is campy, I'd say. There's a certain element of campiness to even Moore's more "serious" portrayals. Part of it is just the films he was in (aside from FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, all of Moore's films carried an element of camp), but there's just a touch in his performance as well. Still, Moore's pure gold, but there is definitely a camp element to what we was doing with the role.

Personally, while I love THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and MOONRAKER (I think MOONRAKER features Moore's best performance), I find FOR YOUR EYES ONLY to be a terrible bore of a film with little of interest in it.

And of course, Connery camped it up in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (that may just be the campiest Bond film, well, aside from MOONRAKER that is).

 

[BULLITT]

LMAO.......what a thread.......

 

[Amm-arD]

yup...alot of hate going around haha, but i think we should all give him a chance as he is a great actor

 

[Kritish]

I just saw the teaser, and for a long time now I have been disgusted by the casting choice they made of that blonde UGLY idiot playing Bond.

He is not 007, doesn't look like him, nothing like him, it is not James!!!

I don't care what anyone says, I won't give it a chance. Even though there's alot of complaining about Brandon Routh as Superman, I can still see him as Supes, this guy as Bond just aint doing it.

He looks like a Bond villian but, not Bond.

That last scene of him at the poker table or whatever, he looked so freaking ugly.

Just a shame. You know someone screwed up when they had to ask Roger and Peirce to try and talk pissed off fans into giving him a chance. So other than some internet weirdos that aren't real fans and don't get it, noone likes that guy playing Bond.

The true fans know that new guy sucks and isn't 007. I won't even say his name and I've forgotten it by now anyway 'cause I could care less. Clive Owen would've been better than this guy even.

Women aren't wooed by his dashing good looks. Didn't you ever see the Sean Connery films? It was his charm that wooed them. And if you actually care how "sexy" he looks I'm a little worried.

 

[crimefighter43]

Ian Fleming's mentioned a few times that his ideal James Bond looked somewhat like Hoagy Carmichael.

http://www.hoagy.com/catalogue.htm

 

[LastSunrise1981]

That's pure James Bond there. He looks like him in this picture.

All Bonds have been fairly good(IMO). This one, however, looks a lot more grittier and physical when compared to the other films.

I remember how people were worrid about Bronsan as Bond, and look how he turned out. Unfortunately the James Bond series got campier, dumber, and less intelligent with each sequel that included Pierce.

GoldenEye was the first real Bond that included Pierce.

I'm very excited to see how Casino Royale will turn out on November 17th.

 

[thedarks0ldier]

This coming from a guy who supports MICHAEL KEATON as Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Whenever Morgoth talks i just know not to listen. This is a guy who is so close minded he puts on his rants "to try to tell me otherwise, i wont listen."

 

[Kurosawa]

yup...alot of hate going around haha, but i think we should all give him a chance as he is a great actor

Agreed. And although Connery was good-looking, he certainly wasn't a pretty-boy. Nor was Laz.

 

[Bondreader007]

That's pure James Bond there. He looks like him in this picture.

All Bonds have been fairly good(IMO). This one, however, looks a lot more grittier and physical when compared to the other films.

I remember how people were worrid about Bronsan as Bond, and look how he turned out. Unfortunately the James Bond series got campier, dumber, and less intelligent with each sequel that included Pierce.

GoldenEye was the first real Bond that included Pierce.

I'm very excited to see how Casino Royale will turn out on November 17th.

Well I think Bond would have shaved befor putting on a tux. And a blonde Bond? No excuse for that.

 

[AndrewBerger]

Much better.

And a blonde Bond? No excuse for that.

There are a few things that are more important than the hair color of the actor.

 

[Mentok]

Lazenby left becuase of his own ego

'Why did I leave after one film? It was the times mostly. I didnt see a character like James Bond being that popular with the changing audience... Was it a mistake? Yeah. The biggest of my career' - George Lazenby.

 

[Henry Hill]

James Bond is a flexible character as far as the films are concerned. Like Rock & Roll, no matter how much you hate the present incarnation, it's still a form of itself.