Syd Lexia wrote:

I hate Daniel Craig as Bond. I wouldn't give this movie dime one of my hard-earned money ever, even if the producers kidnapped my entire family and threatened to execute them if I didn't pay to see it.

What reference was that? Hostage or that Harrison Ford flick? Wait, that's a little vague...

Alright, I finally watched the video.

Am I the only one who now thinks it looks like a decent action movie? It may not be Bond, but I see ACTION. That's all I right now. Pure, unrealistic action. No more "16 Blocks" or "The Sentinel", I'm talking explosions and people leap frogging off the tops of elevators. Hell yeah!

For the record, my favorite Bond was "License to Kill" so feel free to ignore me.

DarkMaze wrote:

I just saw the American version of that teaser. My brain hurts. Okay, Craig debate aside for one moment... From MovieFone: "There's a new Bond in town: Craig, Daniel Craig. Fitting for a fresh start, 'Casino Royale' takes on the first Ian Fleming novel. We learn the origins of 007: his passion for guns, gambling, glamorous cars and of course, girls. We also learn how M (Judi Dench) gives him his first license to kill -- a bit improper for a Dame, but who are we to judge?" Apparently they're actually doing it as the "origin" story.... But with Judi Dench as M! Now, actors get swapped all the time in a franchise lasting over 40 years. However, GoldenEye made it abundantly clear that Dench's M was the successor to Bernard Lee's M. Now they're completely jettisoning what little continuity they had. So what gives?

Am I the only one who doesn't care? There's only one timeline:
Bond is born -> Bond becomes spy -> Bond meets a bald guy named Blofeld -> Bond gets married (for ten minutes) -> Bond's wife is killed by Blofeld -> Everyone forgets Bond was married -> Bond kills Blofeld in a terribly pussy way -> Cold War ends -> Bond retires friendless and alone just like Weird Al Yankovic.

Everything else is pure speculation at this point. They could cast Sean Connery as the villain for all I care. Besides, Judi Dench kicks ass Vin Diesel style.

DarkMaze wrote:

Hey, don't get me wrong -- I'm a big fan of Judi Dench. I'm just shocked by their blatant disregard for what little continuity they had left. Besides, I'm a former Bond junkie, so I can't help but care. I own a slew of the books and have seen all the movies, including the 1950s made-for-TV "Casino Royale", starring Barry Nelson as "Card Sense Jimmy Bond"...

LOL, yeah, I own two copies of that Bond. As bad as it is, no one beats Peter Lorre for being the best Bond villain EVER. Oddly enough, I do own all the Flemming books, no part of my own though

I'm sorry if my previous post came off a little harsh, but I was just talking about the movie about an hour ago with people who hate it without having seen the trailer. Grrrr, I know I'm already disliking the new Superman, but I know I'll go see it. Twice, most likely.

I wish Bond would bring back Blofeld. Sure, he sucked in every movie but "You Only Live Twice" and when he didn't have a face, but we need that guy back. I'm willing to forget that continunity.

Maybe the new Bond is the origin of the new Bond post-cold war? That would explain why Dench is there.

Gushoshin wrote:

but that is like saying the 90s were cooler than the 80s. (whitch we all know is NOT True. =)

You just made my day. Thank you

It took me a month, but I finally saw the film.

I might just be retarded, but...

SPOILERS



Is SPECTRE supposed to be coming back?



END SPOILERS

Tishwitch wrote:

Talk about reviving an old thread! Tebor... you killed the forum rules!

I didn't just kill it, I assassinated it!

But that raises a good question: how the hell did no one talk about the film when it was actually released?

EDIT: The Film Committee has said that the organization will be SMERSH and not SPECTRE... Which doesn't make a lick of sense as SMERSH is a Soviet group.

Cattivo wrote:

It was called SMERSH in the book in order to be accurate, but the subsequent Bond movies called it SPECTRE in order to distance them from the real Soviet agency. See what I get from reading an Agony Booth Review of the comedy version with Woody Allen?

I went to Wikipedia for further information. They could still do SMERSH if it stood for something different, rather than go through SPECTRE again. Although, as the film is a reboot, starting off with SPECTRE isn't a bad idea. I was unaware that SMERSH was such a threat in the books having been raised on the films and all.

BTW, the opening credits were nice, but nothing took my attention more than seeing Alexander Witt as the second unit director - aka the guy who films all the action scenes - since he directed "Resident Evil: Apocalypse". And seeing Stuart Baird as the editor since he directed "Executive Decision", "U.S. Marshals", and "Star Trek: Nemesis". You know, cause when you're making a Bond movie, you have to hire other film directors to help you bring it to the screen.


EDIT: Back to SPECTRE, because Hollywood legal battles are a beautiful thing, it seems SPECTRE is still under legal uncertainty. Wikipedia gives a nice summary and links to useful sites (including: http://www.ianfleming.org/007news/articles/bondvsony.shtml, which also summarizes things). If I were MGM, SMERSH might be the way to go, just change the acronym. Considering how much "Casino Royale" was changed, where's the harm changing the name of a real defunct Soviet agency? They get to be faithful and have all sorts of SPECTRE fun. Only a few Russkies might take offense.