Casino Royale - Best 007 movie in years [some spoilers]

[Klaus]

I can't believe people complain about Bond being blond now, but never complain about Bruce Wayne nothaving black hair and blue eyes...

 

[RangerWickett]

I can't believe people complain about Bond being blond now, but never complain about Bruce Wayne nothaving black hair and blue eyes...

Hey Claudio, you have dark hair and dark eyes. You should play the next Bond!

 

[DonTadow]

I always just looked at it that there were a lot of guys who took the name "James Bond" upon entering the service, and I personally doubt that the British government has "dark hair" as a job requirement.

NOthing in the series says that James Bond is not one man, so I kinda take it like that, this is one guy. Thus its like seeing batman in a red cape. the batman in other medias is usually pretty close.

 

[bytor4232]

NOthing in the series says that James Bond is not one man, so I kinda take it like that, this is one guy. Thus its like seeing batman in a red cape. the batman in other medias is usually pretty close.

No according to the creators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond_(character)#Alternative_biographies_and_theories

Tamahori explained the theory: "My idea was basically that there have been several Bonds. It's just a prefix and a code name. Even James Bond is not the guy's name. That's the way I've always been able to view these things from when Connery left and Lazenby and Moore took over, right up to Brosnan. How could this guy be so young still? Of course to me, it is just a prefix and a code name. That means that Connery either died or retired, Moore died or retired and so on. Following that, that allows you to have possibly two James Bonds in a movie. What happened to the others? Were they retired from active service or were they killed? That's where I came from."

The theory, as well as the intent to have Connery cameo in Die Another Day, was rejected by producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson (although a televised news report during production reported erroneously that Connery had filmed a cameo as Bond's father). One and probably the only evidence to support this theory is George Lazenby's final line in the pre-title sequence of On Her Majesty's Secret Service where the Bond girl runs away after Bond is ambushed on a beach: "This never happened to the other fella." The theory is largely denounced by fans and usually discredited by the light continuity in subsequent films when Bond's wife, Tracy, or his marriage in general (from On Her Majesty's Secret Service) is mentioned (most notably in The Spy Who Loved Me when Moore's Bond reacts emotionally when the death of his wife is mentioned; in the later For Your Eyes Only he is seen attending Tracy's grave; Felix refers to Bond's marriage in Licence To Kill). The theory tends to be a hot topic that was given a boost because the latest film, Casino Royale, is a reboot of the film series and features the same female M who oversaw Pierce Brosnan's version of the character (as opposed to the male M who was in place in the original book). The idea that the James Bond name has been given to subsequent agents was also featured in the 1967 spoof film of Casino Royale, where the original James Bond is an elderly gentleman who won a VC at the Siege of Mafeking, and other MI6 agents assigned the name "James Bond 007" include Vesper Lynd, baccarat expert Evelyn Tremble and a seal.

 

[bytor4232]

Casino royal seems to take away too much of what made bond bond, yes it was the cheesiness. Where were the cool gadgets that are used in ways unintentioned, the shaken and stirred line was a stab in the gut because thats a typical bond thing. The blond hair was silly, and equivalent to batman wearing a red cape and dungarees. Bond should try to be like Bond and not Jason Bourne.

Dude, Ian Flemmings novels were NEVER cheesey. The gadgets and silliness were added as a product of the 60's and 70's. In fact I read somewhere that in the novels there was little in terms of gadgets.

 

[Piratecat]

I
Casino royal seems to take away too much of what made bond bond, yes it was the cheesiness. Where were the cool gadgets that are used in ways unintentioned...

Good news for me! They're issuing a dvd boxed set next year of every single Get Smart episode made. I'll get my gadgets and silliness there; I prefer my Bond gritty.

 

[Storm Raven]

Dude, Ian Flemmings novels were NEVER cheesey. The gadgets and silliness were added as a product of the 60's and 70's. In fact I read somewhere that in the novels there was little in terms of gadgets.

The gadgets and silliness were not even part of the early movies. Watch Dr. No, or From Russia With Love, you will find a very limited number of gadgets, and not a lot of cheesiness. Every Bond movie seemed to up the ante a little bit (Goldfinger had a little more gadgetry, Thunderball a little more, and so on).

 

[DonTadow]

Dude, Ian Flemmings novels were NEVER cheesey. The gadgets and silliness were added as a product of the 60's and 70's. In fact I read somewhere that in the novels there was little in terms of gadgets.

Lets keep this all in context. This was the 60s and 70s and when i say cheesieness that is what I"m talking about. The novels were very much cheesy compared to today and they are pretty much in line with the movies. Not saying bond's not gritty, but there are elements of a bond movie that make it a bond movie, else you just got another spy movie.

 

[Krafus]

I'll take the new, grittier, less gadget-oriented Bond over outright over-the-top silliness like Die Another Day any day.

 

[DonTadow]

My thing is when i go to see a bond movie i want to see bond. I want to see the suped up cars, over the top spy action and comic book like villians. The good movies always had a good balance of these elements and were not over the top.

I love the more serious spy movies but if I pay to see a bond movie i want to see a bond movie, not a bond movie pretend to be like another movie.