It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I don't know, I prefer DAD of the three:
Brosnan was still in shape and youthful looking, good cinematography, interesting first half, have chemistry between Brosnan and Halle Berry, good action scenes (I'm lying if I say I didn't enjoyed the action scenes), and fun all-around then fast paced makes for a good watch whatever mood I'm in.
Both AVTAK and DAF have old actors who are too old to be convincing as Bond, slower pacing, not so good cinematography, lacks in vigor and vibrancy, and the action scenes were poorly shot.
No scenes in both DAF and AVTAK could beat the North Korean scenes in the first half (DAD), sorry even if Moore tried to bring in the Beach Boys, or James Bond being famous through a Playboy Card.
As strong as the was script and creative vision for the film was, the weakest aspect is that it is framed as a somewhat "origin" story, doubling down on a quick passage from the book which could have easily been dropped altogether. Flemings Bond was sometimes reckless and wasn't afraid of getting roughed up, but in the film I think they go overboard to really drive home that Bond is completely single-minded. I think it underminds the character quite a bit, when he's throwing himself off cranes and smashing through walls, leaving a woman to die to avoid losing his lead. I think the story would actually work better as a older Bond who thinks hes seen it all, but falls for a beautiful young woman in a Cary Grant/Audrey Hepburn dynamic. More of a wistful, romance tale than the somewhat rebellious early 00's green day inspired tone.
Excellent take.
We could avoid the demure flappery of Quantum, and possibly lose SF and its unfortunate influence.
Mind, Brosser would be in Roger dotage mode by 2006 (55) and it'd spoil the romance with Vesper.
Some nice shots in AVTAK but it's an interior Bond, as Grace Jones' bedwear would attest to.
That's what OHMSS was supposed to be.
I very much agree to this.
To be honest, I'd liked to see Brosnan in Casino Royale, not that I'm not a fan of Craig's version although I have some qualms with that film, but I couldn't have said it better myself, you've explained it very well.
Brosnan in DAD was nearing his 50s and he still looked young then, still in better shape and was convincing, unlike Connery in DAF or Moore in AVTAK, I even think that Brosnan is aging a bit better than Craig.
It would not spoil the romance, I think.
The only problem I could think of Brosnan doing CR was the implication of it to his Bond: we have Elektra King betraying Bond in TWINE already that I think it would be just a redundancy to see him go through it all again with Vesper that it would no longer be devastating, the point of CR was to show why Bond doesn't trust anyone and never let himself fall in love, but we have seen it all in TWINE, so what's the point of Bond losing Vesper?
I think CR is very much a first chapter sort of Bond adventure though. It’s not an origin story - neither the book or ‘06 film are. But I can see why they decided to reboot the franchise using that novel. I think it was ultimately the best choice financially and creatively.
More than Brosnan, I would have preferred a 1960s version with Connery. It almost happened, by the way.
From what I can gather it came about because Miramax considered getting the rights when they were still up in the air (EON I believe had a deal with the Fleming estate where they actually paid them not to sell the book's rights to anyone else, so it obviously wasn't an uncommon thing for studios to consider, and hence why nothing ever came about). I don't know how involved Tarantino was, but obviously he knew about it and may well have wanted to direct if it was possible.
The problem is that was in the mid 90s. There's an interview where Tarantino even talks about 'nearly doing CR' in '97. He claims Vesper is killed by Bond at the end of the book, and to be honest from the way he talks about it I get the sense he's not read it or hasn't done so in a long time. No mention of doing it with an older Bond, again certainly not with Brosnan. By the time CR is in development that's when he goes around spouting off ideas in public like a CR set in the 60s with an older Brosnan and Uma Thurman as Vesper... Not exactly original, and there's no way he could have done it as the rights were with MGM, so it's all hypothetical. I agree it was probably a wish, but likely not very well thought out.
It's a bit weird and contradictory. I'm not sure I buy his claim that he was the reason EON did CR in the 2000s!
Yes.
They were trying to ice Bond so the audience would embrace the new 007 and take off from there. Testing the water. It didn't work.
Also, they missed a trick affter the credits. Bond should have been alive, weepjng hysterically in his Chelsea flat and wearing Vesper's underwear. Vesper is still alive, too, donning Dominic Greene's head as a hat. They both start dancing to no music after Bond pours himself another Fanta.
Exeunt.
Yea, it is not an origin tale but a reboot. Slight nerdish difference which even I don't understand.
I don't doubt that it was more apt for the times to steer into the anarchic Green Day/Linkin Park spirit. But I think in retrospect it does come off a little juvenile, and like I said, undermines the character to a degree. Book bond is not afraid of a scrap, acts impulsively at times but I have a hard time imagining him throwing himself off cranes with abandon and running through walls as a matter of course. It just comes off as a bit over the top in order to tie in the notion that he's a hothead, which doesn't feel that necessary overall.
I have no idea what that means, haha. Not sure that describes what's going on with CR.
I mean, I have a hard time imagining the literary Bond going into space or doing many of the things he's done in the films. I don't think it's inherently a bad thing they decided to adapt the character in the way they did (ie. his recklessness and 'do whatever it takes to get the job done at the expense of authority figures' was something we'd seen going back to Dalton and even in the Brosnan era. As I said in the First Light thread it's a pretty organic trajectory. I wouldn't say he's a hothead though, just more of a loose cannon who's a bit more harder edged, and that's fine. All part of adapting the character in each new version).
I mean, I'm glad they stuck to making Bond arrogant but in that charming way the films have honed. I think it would have been very bizarre seeing Craig's Bond get stroppy about a woman being sent to assist him as per the novel!
I agree, but most of all, for me of what makes Casino Royale is the fact that it's written as a sophisticated and classy spy thriller and the 2006 film just toned down that aspect a bit in favor of Craig's style that's more edgy and extreme, Casino Royale revolves around mystery, style, and class, but the 2006 version made it looked like a generic modern action film similar to Liam Neeson's.
It's one of the reasons of why I consider the 1954 version as more closer to the book, it got everything right from the atmosphere even to the execution of not having so much action, I know they've possibly added bombastic and flashy action sequences in 2006 as not to bore the audience (even Vesper's death which was done in a very over the top way that even to this day I'm still not on board with, I just don't liked how it handled her death), but that's not the point of the whole book, the 2006 film made it more complicated, I'm not saying that the 2006 film is bad or me disliking it, I think it's a great film and Craig was great in it, all of the cast were all great, but I think that they've strayed too far from what Casino Royale really is, as Fleming wrote it, and yes, @Mendes4Lyfe's view is very much on point regarding Bond acting a bit recklessly and aggressively too much, it made him more like an action hero more than a 'Secret' Agent.
That's why Brosnan starring in Casino Royale would've made more sense considering that for me, he could fit in with the sophistication and class that in my opinion, Craig lacked, Craig comes off as too edgy, too much of a fighter, always extreme and brutal, even that Poker scenes with Le Chiffre, or when he's in the Royale Les Eaux, it's always intense when the atmosphere of the scenes with Bond in the book are always calmed, yet, there's an underlying danger, intrigue and mystery leaving the readers wanting to know more and get hooked by following the story, in the film we could always hope for gun shots and fight scenes, always action.
I may not be a huge fan of Goldeneye, but the Casino scenes between Bond and Xenia got it right, there's a mystery, an intrigue yet underneath, there's danger, a feeling that something's not right, it's telling not showing unlike in 2006 film, the action scenes carried it all, it's too much bombastic.
Although like what I've said, @Mendes4Lyfe, the problem with Brosnan starring in CR was the fact that the message behind Vesper's death would be pointless, Vesper's death signified Bond's distrust, she made Bond of how we know him: uses women and never allowed himself to be involved with any person, emotionally. She betrayed him, but the fact that it happened before with Elektra King, we've seen it all before with TWINE, Bond fell in love with Elektra King, she betrayed him, Bond killed her and felt a remorse towards her death, an anger, then to see it again with Vesper would make it more of a repetition, redundance, the effect of Vesper's death and the implications it could've on Bond would not be that powerful and effective as people would only remind it of Elektra King in TWINE, almost same scenario.
Thats the difference though, Bond isn't a rookie in any of those movies and yet the stories still work. That's the framing argument for the discussion - the rookie aspect isn't necessary, but I can see why they went with it considering the rebellious, angsty, cultural mood at the time, Linkin Park/Green Day etc.
The only problem of Brosnan being in CR would be of handling the Vesper's betrayal angle, that whole falling in love thing only to see Bond get betrayed by the woman he loved and how it could affect Bond, how it could change him, but since that same angle already happened with Elektra King, it would be a bit pointless, it would be just the same old story, "why Bond hadn't learned his lesson with Elektra King and still trust Vesper?" Wouldn't it make Bond a bit fool?
Okay, I know Bond became a hopeless romantic in the books after CR and fell in love many times in the subsequent books, but in this case, he already suffered a betrayal before CR, and he was shown outright killed Elektra King, he have shot her dead, and if Tarantino's statement is going to believe that he initially have Bond killing Vesper, to have it done all over again, where would it that lead? Just wouldn't make any sense.
CR would've worked with Brosnan had TWINE not been made, no Elektra King.
As much as it's interesting to see Brosnan in CR (I liked it too, why not, I think he fits in with the tone and atmosphere with CR than Craig did), but considering the narrative, it wouldn't make a bit sense.
He wasn't a rookie in CR if that's what you're getting at. A new 00, but the film depicts him as a ruthless professional who's highly competent. I think that's a reason the film works. It's not an origin story or even a 'Bond begins' type thing. It's just a new, rebooted Bond era. I think it's tricky to make a Bond origin story or rookie Bond work as a film (it seems they found a way of doing it with First Light, which makes sense as you have to play the game to attain 00 status/see Bond develop as you play, which I think works in that medium).
At any rate that side of Craig's Bond didn't go away with CR. It's there in all his Bond films.
It would have been a very odd way of finishing Brosnan's tenure at any rate. I don't know if it would have been done in practice even if he had stayed.
As for Tarantino's statement about Vesper, it wasn't about what he was going to do, it's what he believed the novel did.
I think its a bit pedantic but if you want to use the word "newbie" instead of rookie, thats fine with me. The film presents Bond earning his 00 status, his guns blazing attitude is portrayed as a problem he needs to mature out of (the chase at the beginning), at the same time his niavity and lack of professionalism is what gets Solange killed and allows him to let his guard down around Vesper (and why he loses initially at poker). It's why Bond has several conversations about trust and why M tells him he's "learned in lesson" in the end. Clearly him being at the start of his career plays a big role in the story as its presented, whether you think "rookie" is the right word to call it or not. The cradling of Vespers body where you see the gears turning, followed by getting back at Mr White and then "Bond, James Bond" and credits does imply that Bond is now the legend we know and love.
@SIS_HQ My idea of a Peirce Brosnan Casino Royale would be a lot more striped down, with him closing in on the twilight of his career and wondering if perhaps its time he hung up the holster before he begins to lose his edge. But then he meets Vesper and the age difference would really work to his advantage, because she is young but very mature, and he finds her both challenging and rewarding. What is it that Edna from the incredibles says about men of a certain age being prone to weakness? All of a sudden they are on a crazy high stakes mission, and Bond feels like he has new life, he is falling in love, and then the inevitable betrayal and the guilt knowing that he indeed did start to lose his edge, and his complacency got a woman killed. It could be a 2hr film with a short epilogue similar to the last scene of Quantum where Brosnan avengers Vesper, drawing a curtain on his tenure.
I think with Brosnan it would be a more wistful film, but you could cut out a lot of the discussions about trust with M and the Linkin Park moody teenage dialogue, "do I look like I give a dam?!", "you want half monk, half hitman?" "I've got no armour left, I'm yours".
Interesting, and I think it would've been good indeed, there's no doubt about it, but still, how we could explain to people complaining that it's just been a repeat of TWINE with Elektra King? He was betrayed before, people expect him to learn his lesson and not to easily give in, especially that in this conceptual film, he's expected to be wise due to his age and given his experiences, I think it would make his Bond a bit foolish to some people given of again, what happened to his relationship with Elektra, he fell in love with her only for Elektra to betray her, so that would serve as a lesson for him not to fall in love with anyone, he would probably flirt here and there, but not to easily give in, we probably need that kind of angle where maybe Vesper would make him open up for a new relationship, to have him fall in love again after he was betrayed, I don't know how it would work, but it's interesting, I'm actually 50-50 on this.
I think it's less of a 'becoming Bond' thing, but sure, you can say the fact that it's Bond in his first year as a 00 is significant and he becomes a lot more world weary by the end (although I'm not sure if his 'gun blazing attitude' is something he has to overcome in this film as you said - he's ultimately proven right for doing what he does, and again, Craig's Bond continuously goes against his superiors to get the job done in later films, often to the point those at MI6 have to learn to trust Bond, rather than the other way around). I still wouldn't use the term newbie or rookie, and I don't think it'd be the film it is if it were a Bond origin story.
Anyway, I'm not sure I see what your issue is with that characterisation of Bond even if it were about a rookie Bond. Not sure if you're a gamer, but is this is a potential issue you have with the idea for First Light? Just trying to understand...
To be fair, they didn't make Casino Royale right away. They made DAD first.
They even said it was unfilmable!
Aye, the character feels as though their arc is completed. It's no wonder the opening portion of QOS is Bond going all 'deep' again.
CR's third act sinks the film. It really does suck the arse of itself.
I think it's a bit strange that Tarantino seems so adamant in saying he was the reason they did it. They got the rights in 1999, and the contractual negotiations with Brosnan would have affected what they did story wise (I doubt they would have done CR with him and it seems to be the case they would have always kept it for a new Bond). And at any rate even if EON did do CR because of him (big if) what he wanted to do bears no resemblance to the CR we got.
But Tarantino's a strange dude anyway, and maybe it's an ego thing. Must say I sympathise with EON. I suspect they got quite a few big directors wanting to make Bond films but essentially giving them the same ideas every time! (ie. a period piece Bond movie).
I agree about the third act, that's where it gone down the rails for me, I don't liked how they've handled Vesper's death, removing the emotional atmosphere for some unnecessary action scenes, the sinking house was just too much, I prefer the book, but again, in general, for all of the merits of Casino Royale 2006, I still prefer the book.
The film focused on action too much that they've forgotten to upped the gravitas, the building up of mystery and intrigue, atmosphere, and depth that were all present in the book, instead we're only shown the facade in the film.
To be fair as well I get the sense the only people who have an issue with it are those who've read the book. Which I understand isn't an unreasonable basis to have that criticism (I did at one point), but ultimately film and books are different things, and this particular Bond film and its source material are certainly different.
Evidently, EON wasn't going to make a Bond film with Tarantino. We know what kind of directors they chose. But it's true that they considered the novel unfilmable. They changed their minds at some point.