Casino Royale Remake--So, How Would It Go?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Milliardo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Milliardo

Guest
Well, for any Bond fans out there, there’s a remake of Casino Royale coming out. I’m not sure how it will go for Bond fans though; after a very successful run by Pierce Brosnan (some might disagree, but he’s how I always imagine Bond’s supposed to be, even back in Remington Steele), I don’t know how Daniel Craig will handle the character.
 
Brosnan always struck me as being too soft. I don’t like the looks of Daniel Craig, he’s too short, too ugly and just doesn’t look sophisticated enough to be Bond but if they stick to the book the movie should be okay. I can’t wait until the 17th.
 
dympnha said:
I don’t like the looks of Daniel Craig, he’s too short, too ugly and just doesn’t look sophisticated enough to be Bond but if they stick to the book the movie should be okay. I can’t wait until the 17th.
Click to expand...
Dympnha, just get it off you chest.😃
 
I don’t know if I would go so far as to call this a remake. The original Casino Royale was a spoof of the Bond flicks. This is really the first movie of Fleming’s novel. I’ve seen the previews and I’d have to say that Craig is a return to a “harder” Bond but he doesn’t look particularly sophisticated. I’ll watch it though.
 
brotherhrolf said:
I’ve seen the previews and I’d have to say that Craig is a return to a “harder” Bond but he doesn’t look particularly sophisticated. I’ll watch it though.
Click to expand...
Sophistication is something that Brosnan brought into the character, again something that I like, but maybe that’s just me.
 
To my surprise, I thought the previews looked great and I’ll likely see it. I haven’t seen a Bond movie in the theater in years (waited for video) and I’ll probably go for this one.

I like Brosnan, but he comes off as prissy when he plays Bond.
The new guy seems tough enough and suave enough to pass the test.

(not the biggest thing on my mind right now, but you asked;) )
 
Sean Connery is THE quintessential Bond . . .sorry! Though Roger Moore made an excellent Simon Templar his Bond was too humorous; though Pierce Brosnan has an engendered suavity he falls short as well (and I don’t even want to discuss the ‘lesser’ one-hit wonder and the wannabe, the one between Sean and Roger so to speak and the other between Roger and Pierce. As for Daniel, “Blond, James Blond”. . .uh-uh. )

Fleming’s Bond is very much a man of the 50s-60s. Sean and Roger were of that generation themselves and it showed. The others are not. While I would not necessarily say that the character is dated in say the way of Buck Rogers (who after all was based on ‘The Future’ anyway), the persona–his mores, his actions, his raison d’etre–are very specifically 50s-60s; from the Cold War to the gadgetry, the interchangeable “Bond girls” and the hard hitting, hard drinking, hard bitten Bond himself.

After the FIRST Star Trek, we didn’t come back with a James Kirk in the late 80s who was played by a different actor–we came back with a completely different captain. . .someone who had in essence ‘moved on’ into even another century. . .

I don’t know; for me, I’d rather see Bond STOP. The stories have literary merit, and the films artistic merit (some of them anyway). But isn’t it time that we stop resurrecting EVERYTHING from the PAST? We have already turned Bond into a caricature IMO.
 
brotherhrolf said:
You didn’t find Sean Connery sophisticated?
Click to expand...
He is; however, from the moment I saw Remington Steele, I thought that if there’s someone who’ll play Bond next, he would be the one. It took awhile, but I was vindicated, so to speak, when it finally happened.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
After the FIRST Star Trek, we didn’t come back with a James Kirk in the late 80s who was played by a different actor–we came back with a completely different captain. . .someone who had in essence ‘moved on’ into even another century. . .
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is more or less what they’re trying to do with the new actor - modernise the character a bit. After all, they did to a certain degree with casting Judi Dench as M.

The problem with James Bond is that you couldn’t keep the movie within the genre or the brand if the lead character had a different name, unlike with Star Trek.

Besides which, sophistication comes across more in the way someone moves and speaks than their looks. Sean Connery, as perfect as he was for the character, wasn’t exactly classically handsome as Bond, at least not to my eye, though he was far from butt-ugly of course.

I’ll admit I’m woefully ignorant of the new guy’s previous work, so I’ll leave the call until I see at least a longer snippet of film than I have so far.
 
Two points from one (me) who has read every James Bond novel dozens of times:
  1. I wish with all my heart that the Brocolli family would abandon James Bond and do a series of movies about his child by Kissy Suzuki. Now THAT would be a sexy agent!–half Brit, half Japanese. Well-versed in both British and Asian fighting techniques.
The only problem is, we’re never told whether the baby was a boy or a GIRL! Jamie Bond, anyone? Could be cool, although considering how Terminator 3 bombed with a woman, could be wretched.
  1. I don’t see how the new movie could possibly be faithful to the book Casino Royale. There is an excruciating chapter in this book devoted to Le Chiffre beating James Bond’s private parts to shreds with a carpet beater. I can’t imagine any man wanting to watch this, and the only women that would enjoy watching it would NOT like the book’s treatment of Bond’s woman, Vesper Lynd.
 
I think it’s really cool that their going back to basics with Bond. I mean, Pierce Brosnan did a great job as James, but his movies got way to fantastical for me. An invisible car?
This guy reminds me of the Sean Connery style James Bond, which is a good thing. I’m really looking forward to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top