Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS)
IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS) [message #225151] Sa, 18 Februar 2006 09:13
JHause  
Stax's take on 007's big-screen reboot.
by Stax

February 17, 2006 - Stax here with my reaction to the screenplay for
the next James Bond film, Casino Royale! The 112-page draft by Oscar
nominee Paul Haggis is dated Dec. 13, 2005. It is a rewrite of an
initial draft by veteran Bond scribes Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, based
on the first Bond novel penned by Ian Fleming. The Eon production is
now filming in Prague under the direction of Martin Campbell for a
release by Sony on Nov. 17, 2006.

Daniel Craig has been cast as the silver screen's sixth 007. Dame Judi
Dench reprises her role as Bond's boss, "M." The cast includes Eva
Green (Kingdom of Heaven) as Bond girl Vesper Lynd, Mads Mikkelsen
(King Arthur) as the villainous Le Chiffre, Jeffrey Wright (Syriana) as
CIA agent Felix Leiter, Giancarlo Giannini (Hannibal) as Mathis,
Caterina Murino as Solonge, Simon Abkarian (The Truth About Charlie) as
Dimitrios, Tobias Menzies (Brutus on HBO's Rome) as Villiers, Ivana
Milicevic (Love Monkey) as Valenka, Clemens Schik as Kratt, Ludger
Pistor as Mendel, and Claudio Santamaria as Carlos.

As you may already know, Casino Royale reboots the Bond franchise much
the same way as Batman Begins did Warners' Caped Crusader series. The
earlier Batman films, though, had ended with a boxoffice
underperformer. The Bond series, on the other hand, had its most
successful installment in years with 2002's Die Another Day. So why did
the powers-that-be let Pierce Brosnan go and decide to argue with
success?

The answer is that the Bond producers always did that. After Sean
Connery's Bond ventured into a hollowed-out volcano to battle Blofeld
in You Only Live Twice, he returned in the person of George Lazenby for
the pared down (and more faithful to the source material) On Her
Majesty's Secret Service. After Roger Moore blasted into space in
Moonraker, he came back down to earth in the leaner For Your Eyes Only.
After Moore retired his license to kill following the bloated A View to
a Kill, a surly, no-nonsense Timothy Dalton returned Bond to his gritty
roots in The Living Daylights. And now, after Pierce Brosnan and Halle
Berry raced around in an invisible car in Die Another Day, Daniel Craig
has assumed the mantle of Fleming's secret agent in the back-to-basics
Casino Royale. In each case, a radical directional change was made in
order to remind filmgoers that Bond was a character and not just a
cipher to follow in between action set-pieces.

It should be noted, however, that all of these "back to Fleming"
attempts were not the moneymakers their more over-the-top predecessors
were. I'm no box office prognosticator so I won't venture to guess if
Casino Royale will finally break this streak; I'll just say that Bond
is a far more resilient franchise and brand than its detractors (and
sometimes even its passionate fanbase) give it credit for.

I am trying to avoid as many revealing plot details as I can (Latino
Review's positive review is chock full of specifics if you're
interested). Nevertheless, I am issuing a SPOILER WARNING for the
ultra-sensitive to heed.

~~~~~~~~~~~

First, I want to address some rumors that have been swirling online.
There is no new SPECTRE-like terrorist network here, no fictitious
country that they are operating out of and no evil casino owner. Casino
Royale is not involved in money laundering for the villains. (It's just
a setting and Le Chiffre has no stake in it.) There is a mysterious
villain, Mr. White, who pops up at a few points and might be part of
some larger organization but then maybe he isn't. Being a spectre-like
figure doesn't make one part of SPECTRE.

Jeffrey Wright is playing Felix Leiter but Felix wasn't in this draft,
although there is a character that could be him. Nothing a name change
and a line of dialogue couldn't fix so I assume that's what they've
done. There is no Q and no Moneypenny. That's not to say they don't
exist; it's just that we don't meet them here. The classic Aston
Martin, as well as a new version, are in the story but that doesn't
mean we can't have Q provide Bond with a gadget-laden one down the
line. Speaking of gadgets, there are a few cool ones but nothing
over-the-top. They are all practical and, unlike past Bond movie
gizmos, they are probably already in use.

Casino Royale is the story of a man whose hubris causes him to endure a
tragedy that finally transforms him into the spy he needs to be. That
man just happens to be named James Bond and he likes martinis, Aston
Martins and beautiful women. As director Campbell promised, Casino
Royale is closer in nature to Dr. No and From Russia With Love than to
any of the recent films. Despite several chase scenes and action
set-pieces, this is actually a smaller, more character-driven movie.
It's somewhere between Jason Bourne and John Le Carre.

The plot in a nutshell has Bond, having recently transitioned from the
SAS into the 00 section of MI6, uncovering a terrorist plot whose
agenda he doesn't fully comprehend yet. He's a man whose ego causes him
to make impulsive decisions but, like Captain Kirk, he always manages
to win so it only justifies his cavalier behavior. He prides himself on
being able to read people. He knows all the angles, has it all figured
out; Bond soon learns how arrogant and incorrect that assumption is.

After killing a "hired gun" bomb maker (there is no similarity to the
shooting of an innocent and unarmed man by London police last year so,
muckrakers, please stop claiming there is), Bond wants to find out who
was trying to hire this man and what the target is. 007's investigation
leads him to the Bahamas and Miami where he learns that middleman
Dimitrios (Abkarian) is in cahoots with Le Chiffre (Mikkelsen), a
banker for terrorists and international organized crime who was thought
to have been killed in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was still in power.



In Fleming's book, Le Chiffre is a Communist agent who embezzled funds
from the Soviets and then lost it in a series of brothel investments.
He must then win back his patrons' money in a high-stakes baccarat game
at the titular casino. Bond, the best gambler in the service, is sent
by M to beat Le Chiffre, to humilate him and make sure the Reds don't
get their money back. MI6 doesn't want to kill him because they don't
want to make him a martyr for leftist causes. Obviously, in this
contemporary version, that plot needs to be updated.

Le Chiffre has still lost his clients' money (thanks to the direct
intervention of 007, which is a nice improvement on Flemimg's story),
and needs to win it back in a multi-million dollar poker game at the
Casino Royale in Montenegro. 007 is sent to beat him and to get Le
Chiffre to come over to the Brits; they will offer him safe haven in
return for information. I know what you're thinking. Why don't they
just take him into custody? Why play a game at all? Either way, Le
Chiffre's lost funds that would have belonged to or ended up in the
hands of worse enemies. This could also be said of Fleming's tale.
Bottom line, if there wasn't a match between Bond and Le Chiffre then
there wouldn't be a story. That's just the way it is.

Vesper Lynd (Green) is the treasury bureaucrat sent by the British
government to oversee Bond's allowance; she's the one holding the purse
strings and it is up to her to decide if Bond should be staked any more
funds or not. Like her character in the novel, Vesper is all business
and not easily smitten by Bond but she is now more talkative and
aggressive than her fifties' incarnation. There are hints of mystery
and a troubled past but she's nowhere near being the damaged goods she
was in Fleming's book. Fleming's Vesper was nearly manic depressive in
the end. This Vesper is tragic but never quite as compelling as her
literary ancestor. More on that later.

The villain's plot is perhaps the least impressive but most plausible
one seen in any Bond film yet. It's a "get the money" story, period.
There is no doomsday weapon. No attempt to destabilize a country,
enflame international relations or spark World War III. He's simply a
sleazy rogue trying to save his own ass after he got greedy. This Le
Chiffre is not as grotesque or cartoonish as Blofeld or Jaws but not
quite as mundane as Kristatos in For Your Eyes Only or Sanchez in
License to Kill. He has a few physical oddities befitting any good Bond
villain but you can still believe such a foe could exist.

I understand now why Mikkelsen was cast rather than some sweaty,
gnome-like Peter Lorre wannabe. Le Chiffre and Bond spend most of their
time glaring across a table at each other; they are both arrogant men
who believe they can calculate and beat the odds. There is a chilling
stillness needed to play Le Chiffre, a sense of menace even when he's
just sitting there playing cards and Mikkelsen seems to have that.

Overall, I quite enjoyed the back to basics nature of the story. The
action scenes of the first forty pages compensate for the more talky,
character-driven later acts. Bond drives the action, undergoes a
character change, all that text book stuff screenwriters are supposed
to accomplish. But at the heart of both this story and Fleming's novel,
and this is what separates Royale from the other Bond books and movies,
is the love story between 007 and Vesper.

Ultimately, I'm not sure I bought the relationship here between Bond
and Vesper. There were some moments but it was never as poignant or
genuine as the romance depicted in the book, or even between Lazenby's
007 and Tracy in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. That remains the
definitive Bond screen romance, the most moving and real one. Casino
Royale is far better in this department than any other Bond film in the
last 20 years, but there are certain changes and omissions from
Fleming's story that I felt were not for the best.

What makes Fleming's novel and his relationship between Bond and Vesper
work is that Bond, the ultimate misogynist who initially seems like he
wants to bed Vesper as if to punish her for not falling for his charm,
is forced to establish a genuine emotional connection with her after
being robbed of his manhood (yes, the carpet beater scene is still here
but it's not nearly as squirm-inducing as in the book). Bond falls in
love, he changes; he cares for a woman rather than just lusts after
her. They make love, laugh, quarrel but there is a friendship and
tenderness between them. That makes the outcome of the story and Bond's
infamous last line all the more hearbreaking.

Unfortunately, in this draft, Bond's post-torture recovery scenes are
so brief that it seems like we're no sooner seeing Bond wake up in the
hospital than he and Vesper are frollicking and making love. In the
book, Bond suffers genuine emotional trauma as a result of torture; the
story is about the deconstruction of a man and the rediscovery of his
sense of purpose. He literally and metaphorically gets his balls back.

I didn't feel that way about this script's version. It felt rushed,
incomplete. Worse, the wonderful scene in the book between Bond and
Mathis, where 007 doubts his function in the world and wonders whether
he is a good or a bad man, has been turned into a suspense scene
instead. That scene between a wounded Bond and Mathis is crucial in the
book because it sets up Bond's transformation at the end of the novel
when he vows to go after the threat behind the threat.

Vesper's meltdowns? Gone. There are some hints of inner trauma (and her
eventual fate is far more cinematic than what Fleming concocted) but I
never sensed the tremendous, crushing despair that bedeviled Vesper in
the book. Fleming's Vesper does not truly belong in the world of
espionage and she eventually cracks under the pressure. Ultimately, she
was a victim of circumstance. The Vesper of this script is shaken by
the taking of human life but I missed that heavy burden she was
carrying in Fleming's novel. Without it, she's almost Vesper Lite.

I would have liked more time (just another five-to-ten pages) spent on
Vesper and Bond establishing an ever deeper emotional rapport. It was
because they could only connect as people before they could as lovers
that Bond fell for Vesper. That's almost glossed over here, which is a
shame because so much else was done right.

Casino Royale successfully reintroduces James Bond as a serious and
seriously cool secret agent for modern audiences. Respect is shown to
the past films, and enough of Fleming's slim novel remains intact that
I didn't feel it was bastardized. That said, I'm confused as to why
Bond and Vesper's emotional connection was rushed through. After all,
that is the heart of this story, what makes it different from almost
all other Bond movies and what this new screen version will live or let
die by. - STAX
Re: IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS) [message #225162 ] Sa, 18 Februar 2006 16:54
phil.gerrard1  
Interesting. Quick thoughts:

Not the script they're filming. No Felix. No mention of Mathis as far
as one can see. (The reviewer mentions him in passing as a character
from the novel, but he's nowhere in the precis of the actual script.)
These characters - so important to the novel - seem to have been added
since December, so unless they've hired Wright and Giannini to do, say,
ten lines each, there's no way that this is the finished film, and we
should expect a lot of other changes besides.

The loss of the 'nature of evil' discussion - sorry to say I expected
that. Ten pages of two guys having a philosophical discussion in a
hospital works fine in a novel, but translated to the screen it becomes
ten minutes of talking heads. Either you abbreviate it, and lose the
half of the important points, or you drop it altogether. I'm sorry to
see it go, but it just doesn't translate to the screen any more than
Bond sitting in the departure lounge in Miami Airport and thinking
about life and death. The way it seems to have been translated in the
script is to show some of Bond's initial arrogance being knocked out of
him, which is the pretty much the effect that Fleming was going for in
the book IMHO. The 'nature of evil' speech, as Fleming makes clear in
the final pages of CR, represents a hubris on Bond's part from which
Vesper's death is the wake-up call. Similar idea, different execution.

The carpet-beater scene not being nearly as 'squirm-inducing' as in the
book - two letters, two numerals: PG-13, or in English terms, 12. Do
the whole thing as written and you're into adults-only territory.

I'm not sure about the reviewer's interpretation of Fleming's Vesper as
a damaged, full-on manic depressive. As their relationship
deteriorates, Vesper gets mysteriously upset and withdraws from Bond,
but 'meltdowns'? Those I don't recall. IMHO the point is that there
is a facade there which shows moderate cracks, and that Bond can't
figure out what's really wrong until it's too late. 'Manic depressive'
suggests to me far more flamboyant displays of emotion than appear in
Fleming's CR, and the more you turn her quiet, very English
disintegration into an all-out breakdown, the less her suicide comes as
a brutal shock.

A lot of it's going to be in the playing of the roles anyway.
Relationships in film (or theatre) are only half-created on the page,
and the other half is contributed by what the actors bring to their
roles.

No explicit mention of her suicide, but Stax couldn't imply it more
strongly if he tried. Interested to know what the more cinematic fate
might be, as I couldn't see the film ending as the book does with
nearly sixty pages of action-free angst-ridden talk scenes. Again,
great for a novel, but do that on screen and it becomes more Bergman
than Bond (or even Bourne or Le Carre).

Nice to see a report about the film by somebody who knows and has
opinions about the novel, though. (Same goes for the Latino Review
piece.) These days it's alarmingly rare for any kind of entertainment
writer to know what the hell they're talking about.

Best

Phil
Re: IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS) [message #225169 ] Sa, 18 Februar 2006 18:18
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Interesting. Quick thoughts:
>
> Not the script they're filming. No Felix. No mention of Mathis as far
> as one can see. (The reviewer mentions him in passing as a character
> from the novel, but he's nowhere in the precis of the actual script.)
> These characters - so important to the novel - seem to have been added
> since December, so unless they've hired Wright and Giannini to do, say,
> ten lines each, there's no way that this is the finished film, and we
> should expect a lot of other changes besides.
>
> The loss of the 'nature of evil' discussion - sorry to say I expected
> that. Ten pages of two guys having a philosophical discussion in a
> hospital works fine in a novel, but translated to the screen it becomes
> ten minutes of talking heads. Either you abbreviate it, and lose the
> half of the important points, or you drop it altogether. I'm sorry to
> see it go, but it just doesn't translate to the screen any more than
> Bond sitting in the departure lounge in Miami Airport and thinking
> about life and death. The way it seems to have been translated in the
> script is to show some of Bond's initial arrogance being knocked out of
> him, which is the pretty much the effect that Fleming was going for in
> the book IMHO. The 'nature of evil' speech, as Fleming makes clear in
> the final pages of CR, represents a hubris on Bond's part from which
> Vesper's death is the wake-up call. Similar idea, different execution.

--- The nature of evil discussion could've been handled in a succinct 3
1/2 pages. I should know, I did it. But I had to stray from doing it
in the hospital room, though. So there's no magic about trying to get
that scene done right. I just suspect EON doesn't want any real
talking heads moments in a Bond film.

> The carpet-beater scene not being nearly as 'squirm-inducing' as in the
> book - two letters, two numerals: PG-13, or in English terms, 12. Do
> the whole thing as written and you're into adults-only territory.

--- How do you know? Where did you read the details to that scene not
being as squirm-inducing? I don't think I came across it in any of the
two reviews. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they watered it down.

> I'm not sure about the reviewer's interpretation of Fleming's Vesper as
> a damaged, full-on manic depressive. As their relationship
> deteriorates, Vesper gets mysteriously upset and withdraws from Bond,
> but 'meltdowns'? Those I don't recall. IMHO the point is that there
> is a facade there which shows moderate cracks, and that Bond can't
> figure out what's really wrong until it's too late. 'Manic depressive'
> suggests to me far more flamboyant displays of emotion than appear in
> Fleming's CR, and the more you turn her quiet, very English
> disintegration into an all-out breakdown, the less her suicide comes as
> a brutal shock.

--- As I mentioned in my review of La La Cupcake's first posting of the
link to this Stax review, that part of the script could be read as a
working blueprint since it was written before they picked a girl for
the role. Now that they have one, it really will be smart of them to
try to do a bang-on job on her as well as the relationship, both of
which, by my reading, appear to be the weakest part of the script, and
that ain't good when it's also supposed to be the one that cements the
whole Bond being into place. Let's see if they really do whip it all
that into shape.

> A lot of it's going to be in the playing of the roles anyway.
> Relationships in film (or theatre) are only half-created on the page,
> and the other half is contributed by what the actors bring to their
> roles.
>
> No explicit mention of her suicide, but Stax couldn't imply it more
> strongly if he tried. Interested to know what the more cinematic fate
> might be, as I couldn't see the film ending as the book does with
> nearly sixty pages of action-free angst-ridden talk scenes. Again,
> great for a novel, but do that on screen and it becomes more Bergman
> than Bond (or even Bourne or Le Carre).

--- I suspect the last third of the film will be only 20 minutes long.
There'll be 4 acts in this movie. The first act which we've already
read, the second and third act amounting to really an elongated second
act but split more or less evenly between the casino action and more
fabricated outside action [which Stax seems to suggest is there], and
then the wrap-up in the last 20 minutes or so which would be,
supposedly, the heart and soul of the book itself. I don't think EON
has the guts to make an New Wave art Bond film, or anything that even
steps into that realm. It'll surprise me if they do, but they're track
record to date doesn't make me hold my breath.

> Nice to see a report about the film by somebody who knows and has
> opinions about the novel, though. (Same goes for the Latino Review
> piece.) These days it's alarmingly rare for any kind of entertainment
> writer to know what the hell they're talking about.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
Re: IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS) [message #225171 ] Sa, 18 Februar 2006 18:27
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> --- How do you know? Where did you read the details to that scene not
> being as squirm-inducing? I don't think I came across it in any of the
> two reviews. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they watered it down.

>From the script review: '(yes, the carpet beater scene is still here
but it's not nearly as squirm-inducing as in the book)'.

As for watering it down, yes, what a *pity* they've had to do that.
Let's introduce full-frontal nudity and full-on, explicit sexual
violence to the Bond franchise. Let's see the blood dripping to the
floor from Bond's beaten genitals. Fun for all the family!

Of course it's going to be watered down from Fleming's orginal version.
Every EON film which was adapted from a Fleming novel watered things
down, from the nudity to the graphic violence to the language. What's
your point here?

Best

Phil
Re: IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS) [message #225173 ] Sa, 18 Februar 2006 18:32
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> --- How do you know? Where did you read the details to that scene not
> being as squirm-inducing? I don't think I came across it in any of the
> two reviews. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they watered it down.

>From the script review: '(yes, the carpet beater scene is still here
but it's not nearly as squirm-inducing as in the book)'. Guess you
missed that.

As for watering it down, yes, what a *pity* they've had to do that.
Let's introduce full-frontal nudity and full-on, explicit sexual
violence to the Bond franchise. Let's see the blood dripping to the
floor from Bond's beaten genitals. Fun for all the family!

Of course it's going to be watered down from Fleming's orginal version.
Every EON film which was adapted from a Fleming novel watered things
down, from the nudity to the graphic violence to the language. What's
your point here?

Best

Phil
Re: IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS) [message #225174 ] Sa, 18 Februar 2006 18:37
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- How do you know? Where did you read the details to that scene not
> > being as squirm-inducing? I don't think I came across it in any of the
> > two reviews. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they watered it down.
>
> >From the script review: '(yes, the carpet beater scene is still here
> but it's not nearly as squirm-inducing as in the book)'.
>
> As for watering it down, yes, what a *pity* they've had to do that.
> Let's introduce full-frontal nudity and full-on, explicit sexual
> violence to the Bond franchise. Let's see the blood dripping to the
> floor from Bond's beaten genitals. Fun for all the family!
>
> Of course it's going to be watered down from Fleming's orginal version.
> Every EON film which was adapted from a Fleming novel watered things
> down, from the nudity to the graphic violence to the language. What's
> your point here?

--- The point is you mentioned it not being squirm-inducing as if
you've somewhere read the details on it being so. I guess you were
only speculating on it not being squirm-inducing rather than relying on
any fact, right? Actually, that scene was the toughest one for me to
figure out myself. Even now I'm not sure I've got it right, it's one of
a few that I still have to go back to and try to firm up somewhat. I'm
interested to see how they'll be giving it the family-friendly
treatment of it.

>
> Best
>
> Phil
Re: IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS) [message #225176 ] Sa, 18 Februar 2006 18:49
phil.gerrard1  
WQ wrote:

> --- The point is you mentioned it not being squirm-inducing as if
> you've somewhere read the details on it being so. I guess you were
> only speculating on it not being squirm-inducing rather than relying on
> any fact, right?

Sigh. Dead wrong. It's *right there* in the script report, and I just
provided the relevant quote for your benefit, although I admit it got
screwed up in the formatting when the message finally arrived. If you
didn't read the report carefully enough to notice it, there's nothing I
can do about that.

Best

Phil
Re: IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS) [message #225177 ] Sa, 18 Februar 2006 18:51
phil.gerrard1  
WQ, if you're reading through Google groups, it may be that the
relevant part of the report is only visible when you click the 'read
more' link at the bottom of the message.

Phil
Re: IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS) [message #225181 ] Sa, 18 Februar 2006 19:03
WQ  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ, if you're reading through Google groups, it may be that the
> relevant part of the report is only visible when you click the 'read
> more' link at the bottom of the message.

--- Oh, okay, I went back to the site and found it. It was really late
at night when I originally got around to it when the link was first
posted, guess my eyes weren't picking up everything noted in brackets.

>
> Phil
Re: IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS) [message #225187 ] Sa, 18 Februar 2006 20:49
jeffwahlman  
After having my enthusiasm tempered a bit from being skyhigh after the
cast reveal and the first script review, I'm back to being pretty
positive above this.

It's a book to film translation, so you're not going to see the book
filmed out scene for scene. Some things just work better on film than
in the book. It sounded like the "Nature of Evil" stuff was still in
the film, just moved into a different context where the reviewer didn't
think it worked as well as the book.

The script's description of the torture scene and the Vesper/Bond
romance will be filled out by:

1) The performances of the actors
2) The shots Campbell sets up to show them for maximum effect
3) The score

All those elements will add a lot back into the scene.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Vesper/Bond romance is fleshed out a bit
more, since Haggis has been working on the script an additional two
months, plus Felix Leiter has been added. Perhaps they decided to go
for a richer story after striking out on some of the big name actresses
they allegedly wanted, or Haggis convinced them to add some things in
from the book.

Actually, EON would be idiots not to go ahead and script/film whatever
additional talky scenes with Craig and Green that are needed to flesh
out the story. Then, if it doesn't work, add it in a "Extended Cut"
DVD of Casino Royale. That's what a writer/director with creative
control would do in trying to adapt this.

Again we have confirmation this is a more "back to basics" story, but
they've hit a good balance between that while keeping some good action
in the film.

I suspect Vesper's suicide will be more spectactular than in the novel
as drinking poison is probably the most boring way to die cinematically.
Re: IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS) [message #225192 ] So, 19 Februar 2006 00:48
JHause  
WQ wrote:
> --- The nature of evil discussion could've been handled in a succinct 3
> 1/2 pages. I should know, I did it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

"Mom! I wrote the nature of evil scene in three pages! Get a magnet and
put it on the fridge!!!"

> But I had to stray from doing it
> in the hospital room, though. So there's no magic about trying to get
> that scene done right. I just suspect EON doesn't want any real
> talking heads moments in a Bond film.
>

Yeah, so they avoided hiring a genius like you.

>
> --- How do you know? Where did you read the details to that scene not
> being as squirm-inducing? I don't think I came across it in any of the
> two reviews. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they watered it down.
>
> > I'm not sure about the reviewer's interpretation of Fleming's Vesper as
> > a damaged, full-on manic depressive. As their relationship
> > deteriorates, Vesper gets mysteriously upset and withdraws from Bond,
> > but 'meltdowns'? Those I don't recall. IMHO the point is that there
> > is a facade there which shows moderate cracks, and that Bond can't
> > figure out what's really wrong until it's too late. 'Manic depressive'
> > suggests to me far more flamboyant displays of emotion than appear in
> > Fleming's CR, and the more you turn her quiet, very English
> > disintegration into an all-out breakdown, the less her suicide comes as
> > a brutal shock.
>
> --- As I mentioned in my review of La La Cupcake's first posting of the
> link to this Stax review, that part of the script could be read as a
> working blueprint since it was written before they picked a girl for
> the role. Now that they have one, it really will be smart of them to
> try to do a bang-on job on her as well as the relationship, both of
> which, by my reading, appear to be the weakest part of the script, and
> that ain't good when it's also supposed to be the one that cements the
> whole Bond being into place. Let's see if they really do whip it all
> that into shape.
>

If only they used you instead of the guy nominated for an Oscar in each
of the last two years.

>
> --- I suspect the last third of the film will be only 20 minutes long.
> There'll be 4 acts in this movie. The first act which we've already
> read, the second and third act amounting to really an elongated second
> act but split more or less evenly between the casino action and more
> fabricated outside action [which Stax seems to suggest is there], and
> then the wrap-up in the last 20 minutes or so which would be,
> supposedly, the heart and soul of the book itself. I don't think EON
> has the guts to make an New Wave art Bond film, or anything that even
> steps into that realm. It'll surprise me if they do, but they're track
> record to date doesn't make me hold my breath.
>

Not as strong as yours in your mom's basement.
Re: IGN: Script Review of Casino Royale (SPOILERS) [message #225194 ] So, 19 Februar 2006 01:01
JHause  
WQ wrote:
>
> --- The point is you mentioned it not being squirm-inducing as if
> you've somewhere read the details on it being so. I guess you were
> only speculating on it not being squirm-inducing rather than relying on
> any fact, right? Actually, that scene was the toughest one for me to
> figure out myself. Even now I'm not sure I've got it right, it's one of
> a few that I still have to go back to and try to firm up somewhat. I'm
> interested to see how they'll be giving it the family-friendly
> treatment of it.
>

Somehow I imagine your entire "script" is squirm-inducing.
Vorheriges Thema:Update on Pierce Brosnan's "The Matador"
Nächstes Thema:Young Bond book #2, BLOOD FEVER
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 08:31:42 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03673 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered