| Why I think "Casino Royale" will rule. [message #219165] |
Mo, 13 Februar 2006 07:02 |
|
OK.. I disagree with the star on some things BUT he has major balls and
isn't afraid to do something controversial, so that could add to his
character... also, maybe after the CGI heavy films of the past few
years, maybe this movie will be a bit more "old school" in less-heavy
effects and a lot of character stuff and old school stuff?
Plus I must admit, he just LOOKS like a BMF as the character.
David
|
|
|
| Re: Why I think "Casino Royale" will rule. [message #224828 ] |
Di, 14 Februar 2006 01:01 |
|
You'll be very pleased, judging from the leaked script and the fact
that there's going to be miminal CGI in this film.
|
|
|
| Re: Why I think "Casino Royale" will rule. [message #224829 ] |
Di, 14 Februar 2006 01:44 |
|
I don't really want to see the script, but do you know how closely the
film will follow the book? I am currently reading the book (for the
second time) and am wondering if they'll embellish and/or change a few
things. The book is great, but light on the action, which is what Bond
movies have really become in a big way.... to my dismay, and I can see
the studios tossing in something more. Minor spoilers are welcome, but
nothing big, please.
Cam
|
|
|
| Re: Why I think "Casino Royale" will rule. [message #224833 ] |
Di, 14 Februar 2006 02:16 |
|
onemarathon wrote:
> I don't really want to see the script, but do you know how closely the
> film will follow the book? I am currently reading the book (for the
> second time) and am wondering if they'll embellish and/or change a few
> things. The book is great, but light on the action, which is what Bond
> movies have really become in a big way.... to my dismay, and I can see
> the studios tossing in something more. Minor spoilers are welcome, but
> nothing big, please.
According to initial reports, first third-to-two-thirds original
material, after which the script follows the book pretty closely. The
script summary which has been published only covers the first third of
the film and seems to tail off just where Fleming's novel begins, but
it suggests that the remainder of the movie contains much of what's in
the book. We shall see.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Why I think "Casino Royale" will rule. [message #224838 ] |
Di, 14 Februar 2006 03:41 |
|
They've added action before the story of the book starts (the first
third of the movie), with 2 major setpieces coming after the pre-title
sequence. I will say it's going to be realistic stuff that drives the
story, not goofy action for the sake of goofy action. I like what
they've done to set up the events of the book and modernize it. The
rest of the movie is supposedly lighter on action than the first third,
although we don't know how light it is.
We do know the major elements in the book are there, and the movie
reportedly ends in the reviewed draft in the same way as the book with
the same final line. It's allegedly fairly true to the book.
|
|
|
| Re: Why I think "Casino Royale" will rule. [message #224867 ] |
Mi, 15 Februar 2006 00:58 |
|
jeffwahlman [at] gmail.com wrote:
> They've added action before the story of the book starts (the first
> third of the movie), with 2 major setpieces coming after the pre-title
> sequence.
I guess that's acceptable. We'll see just what gets tossed into the
mix, but as long as they don't change too much in the latter
two-thirds, I'll be pretty happy. Can't really picture Owen in his
starkers, tied to a chair, and getting his privvies smacked with a
carpet beater, but maybe they'll tone that down somehow.... heh :)
I will say it's going to be realistic stuff that drives the
> story, not goofy action for the sake of goofy action. I like what
> they've done to set up the events of the book and modernize it. The
> rest of the movie is supposedly lighter on action than the first third,
> although we don't know how light it is.
All good to hear. I like the quiet, spy-oriented stuff to the
blow-em-up SFX-driven action. Fingers crossed that it harks back to
films of old.
Thanks for the info to everyone who responded.
Seacrest out,
Cam
|
|
|
| Re: Why I think "Casino Royale" will rule. [message #224870 ] |
Mi, 15 Februar 2006 01:07 |
|
Crap, I said "Owen" again! Sorry, I know Daniel Craig is the man, but
had a brain-fart there.
Slinking away sheepishly.....
Cam
|
|
|
| Re: Why I think "Casino Royale" will rule. [message #224950 ] |
Do, 16 Februar 2006 05:43 |
|
In what universe did the producers select Owen to play 007? You have
mentioned this more than once now and I'd like to know when Daniel Craig got
fired.
Draugnar
"onemarathon" <onemarathon [at] yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1139961528.068671.297610 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> jeffwahlman [at] gmail.com wrote:
>> They've added action before the story of the book starts (the first
>> third of the movie), with 2 major setpieces coming after the pre-title
>> sequence.
>
> I guess that's acceptable. We'll see just what gets tossed into the
> mix, but as long as they don't change too much in the latter
> two-thirds, I'll be pretty happy. Can't really picture Owen in his
> starkers, tied to a chair, and getting his privvies smacked with a
> carpet beater, but maybe they'll tone that down somehow.... heh :)
>
> I will say it's going to be realistic stuff that drives the
>> story, not goofy action for the sake of goofy action. I like what
>> they've done to set up the events of the book and modernize it. The
>> rest of the movie is supposedly lighter on action than the first third,
>> although we don't know how light it is.
>
> All good to hear. I like the quiet, spy-oriented stuff to the
> blow-em-up SFX-driven action. Fingers crossed that it harks back to
> films of old.
>
> Thanks for the info to everyone who responded.
>
> Seacrest out,
>
> Cam
>
|
|
|
| Re: Why I think "Casino Royale" will rule. [message #225020 ] |
Fr, 17 Februar 2006 02:26 |
|
wellllllll..... if you read my post directly before yours, you'd know
that i had just apologized for accidentally typing Owen instead of
Craig. a silly mistake, but i went back and corrected myself.
all is well.
|
|
|
| Re: Why I think "Casino Royale" will rule. [message #227317 ] |
Mo, 20 Februar 2006 19:31 |
|
Sorry bout that. I read and reply to posts in chronological order. This
occasionally means that I reply to something before I see the correction. I
would do it by thread, but hunting through the longer threads looking for
that one post that I haven't read is tedious... My apologies for not having
read your mea culpa before asking about it.
Draugnar
"onemarathon" <onemarathon [at] yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1140139600.246481.147490 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> wellllllll..... if you read my post directly before yours, you'd know
> that i had just apologized for accidentally typing Owen instead of
> Craig. a silly mistake, but i went back and corrected myself.
>
> all is well.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Why I think "Casino Royale" will rule. [message #227350 ] |
Di, 21 Februar 2006 00:33 |
|
Draugnar wrote:
> Sorry bout that. I read and reply to posts in chronological order. This
> occasionally means that I reply to something before I see the correction. I
> would do it by thread, but hunting through the longer threads looking for
> that one post that I haven't read is tedious... My apologies for not having
> read your mea culpa before asking about it.
--- Yes, you do seem to have a tendency to be lax about reading posts
in chronological order, thereby missing significant links in the
discussion which only makes you end up spewing erroneous thoughts,
comments, remarks, judgements, what-have-you. I'd pay more attention
if I were you. It makes you look a little silly otherwise.
>
> Draugnar
>
> "onemarathon" <onemarathon [at] yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:1140139600.246481.147490 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > wellllllll..... if you read my post directly before yours, you'd know
> > that i had just apologized for accidentally typing Owen instead of
> > Craig. a silly mistake, but i went back and corrected myself.
> >
> > all is well.
> >
|
|
|
| Re: Why I think "Casino Royale" will rule. [message #227364 ] |
Di, 21 Februar 2006 07:56 |
|
Yeah. Unless you see the context in which WQ ia accusing Amy Pascal of
distorted genital perspective, or Barbara Broccoli bribing Michael
Wilson so he'd agree to cast her friend in the lead role of their
movie, or complimenting himself on the Casino Royale script he wrote
for no good reason, or complaining that an actress was miscast because
of her hair color, or swearing there's a computer that can take a
blurry overhead security cam image and turn it into an exact likeness
of the subject, you miss the sheer brilliance of his posts.
|
|
|
| Re: Why I think [message #240461 ] |
Do, 16 März 2006 09:57 |
|
It's been a loooong time since i was on this board, but came back to check out
the CR action..
I have to say i also think CR will rule in a big way. I'm excited about this one
in a way i haven't been before - i think craig is perfect for bond, and am
speechless over the stupidity of 'fans' that has surrounded his casting in the
role.
I think they'd have been hard pressed to find a better actress for Vesper.
In short, as a huge fan of the book, i couldn't be happier that they are making
the movie and about the way they are doing it.
end of rant. cheers
>OK.. I disagree with the star on some things BUT he has major balls and
>isn't afraid to do something controversial, so that could add to his
>character... also, maybe after the CGI heavy films of the past few
>years, maybe this movie will be a bit more "old school" in less-heavy
>effects and a lot of character stuff and old school stuff?
>
>Plus I must admit, he just LOOKS like a BMF as the character.
>
>David
>
>
>
|
|
|
