|
|
Post by Lauryn on Feb 24, 2005 19:29:08 GMT -5
Has anyone heard this breaking news? www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/283759p-243109c.htmlHere's a choice pull quote from Casino Royale director Martin Campbell: "In the new film, Bond is essentially starting out in his career, and has just recently become part of the double-0 section," says Campbell, who is finishing "The Legend of Zorro," the sequel to "The Mask of Zorro."
"The idea is to put a bit of the dash back in Bond. By the end of the movie, the character will have been forged into the wiser, harder Bond we know." Of course, we've all wondered if CR might be envisioned as an "origin story" and this isn't the first time it's been mooted. Didn't Michael Wilson and Dick Maibaum write a "Bond's beginnings" spec script back in the '80's (which Cubby Broccoli, who always thought Bond should be presented as a seasoned veteran, rejected)? One could add that given the current pandemic of pre-quel-itis in films (see Star Wars/Batman) the notion isn't so ground-breakingly original anymore. A grain of salt is always required with this kind of thing and Bond directors have certainly talked through their hats before, especially when it comes to making "grittier, tougher and more realistic Bond movie " as Campbell vows.
But oh my... it does sound as if Babs and Mikey may really be waiting for the young Bond's chest hair to bloom <wink to Ace>
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Feb 24, 2005 19:35:21 GMT -5
I read it and it just left me with questions. How are they going to reconcile a green Bond to the 20 films and 40 plus years that came before? What are they going to do with Judi Dench as M or John Cleese as the new Q? Or even the years of flirting with Moneypenny? How can they both be there at the start if Bond isn't really "Bond" yet? Are they just going to ignore them for this film and then jump forward 10 years in the film after it? As for putting "dash" back in the Bond. What does that mean? Brosnan is nothing if not dashing. Feh.  Ace |
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Feb 24, 2005 20:11:32 GMT -5
The time-line / continuity problems and confusions are indeed endless, including the Star Wars conundrum of “origin” characters with more a modern milieu and technology than their “forebears”. (Campbell says they’ll not take CR back to the Cold War.) And, as you note, what’s a producer to do (oy!) with recurring characters from the previous twenty films?
Bond has such an established history and image and it’s not (Moonraker aside, LOL) science fiction or comic book fantasy.
What makes this idea, on its face, an exercise in futility is Campbell’s assertion:
"By the end of the movie, the character will have been forged into the wiser, harder Bond we know."
If that’s the case why put such an irrevocable and disruptive kink in the timeline to get to the same end result? Just to introduce a new fresh-faced Bond in some splashy way?
Beats me. Wouldn’t something less drastic (even with a somewhat younger Bond) be more sensible?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Feb 24, 2005 21:28:41 GMT -5
Bond: Origins -- Abolute gack. This isn't Batman needing to be resuscitated after four measly films the last two being abominations. It isn't even Harrison Ford turning into Ben Affleck in a series that had three different lead actors in 4 films.
This is just the idea that Cubby vetoed for TLD, he said Bond should always look forward not go backward, that the world didn't want a green Bond. And if they're going to cure his greenness in one film (pretty cheesy) what exactly as you say is the point? A cheap stunt? And for that they're going to sacrifice years of history?
And who are they going to get to play this young Bond, surely not the craggy--with hair plugs- 41 year old Owen. Maybe they will wait for Bloom to grow some chest hair, though if he hasn't by age 28 it's pretty much not going to happen. ;D
Ace
|
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Feb 25, 2005 21:09:53 GMT -5
I still think the idea of getting rid of Pierce is vomitt worthy, but the way they are spinning this movie almost demands having a young man playing the role.
Clearly, a young double-oh, unsure of his decision is going to rethink his choice at every turn, and when "normalacy" appears, you think love and marriage can make everything you did on the job all alright. There are just few problems with this whole scenario:
1) Everything I have ever read about Bond (and some may say, I have read too mich), has reminded me that Bond's days as outsider began not with his start as Double-Oh but his birth, the son of two people who couldn't be more different: Swiss Catholic vs Scottish Protestant, oh yeah, the colours of the rainbow don't cover this. Pushed and pulled between the two families, orphaned, and thrown out of school, with a military career we can only guess at, he is the classic outsider.
2) Had one bothered to read Casino Royale and clearly BB (which now stands for Bitch Barbara), and everyone else associated with this film, has not. When the novel starts Bond is not a newly minted Double-Oh, he has been at it for a while -- my rough guess is two or three years.
3) Had one bothered to read Casino Royale, which clearly the folks associated with the movie have not, Bond is not a happy man even as the novel begins, let alone at the end. Bond is a borderline misanthrope, and true it does get worse as his life goes on, but Vesper's actions are not the root cause.
4) Had one bothered to read Casino Royale, which clearly the folks associated with the movie have not, (can I make that point any clearer), they would see that Bond was not serious about marrying Vesper. He bantered the proposal but didn't mean it. See the novel (and movie) On Her Majesty's Secret Service, for when he means it.
At this point, every mistake they make makes me very happy. I would like to think that I am above enjoying someone else's failure, but this time, I will laugh as Eon crashes and burns.
And boy...does it feel good to talk about Bond again. I haven't written like this in about six months.
-- Barbara
|
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Feb 26, 2005 19:47:42 GMT -5
Sounds suspiciously like that, doesn’t it? Despite my winking at it I don’t think they’d go for someone as downy-cheeked and soft as Orlando Bloom. (Sizeable numbers of the young Bond fan demographic, not just their parents, would roll their eyes at this suggestion.) Unless he’s a decided late comer at MI-6, I don’t see the long-in-the-tooth Clive Owen, but they could still go with someone in-between.
Though I’m sure the producers are mucking things up just fine on their own I do wonder if the brass at Sony might be planting a few seeds, too. Given how territorial the film business can be maybe the new studio wants to put its imprint on the character, mark the territory by making this new incarnation of Bond stand alone as “theirs” -- or at least with less reference to what came before. And with a young Bond, in their way of thinking, you get optimum synergy with their video game platforms, a long term and wider range of “youth market” licensing opportunities, etc. Sony is very sold on that philosophy, given their product lines, etc.
Quite so, he’s not a neophyte. I think in the novel he talks of “several years” and he’s already made two kills before he’s given the Le Chiffre assignment. In that span and in his prior military career he’s bound to have lost some illusions along the way.
With the younger Bond, I would hope they at least stay rather vague and mysterious on his background rather than trying to consciously update his naval career, for example. It’s a rather timeless fantasy on most levels, after all. We know that in film Bond has often woken up years, even decades younger and no one seemed bothered by it. If they feel new explanations / chronologies are now due, well, this sort of “re-inventing the wheel” is what they deserve by making where Bond is in his career so explicit. (Does it not cross their minds that they may lose much of the Bond mystique in the process?)
Part and parcel, as you say, of his upbringing and inclinations. He’s nothing if not a creature of habit and by his career at MI-6 he’s already rather hidebound in his attitudes. Not to say they don’t get shaken and stirred occasionally. But, as I remember in the novel, when Bond questions the meaning and value of his service it has little to do with Vesper. She doesn’t even enter his thoughts during the “nature of evil” dialogue with Mathers (when Bond says he’s resigning).
Indubitably. In CR he also tells Vesper he would have married her near the end but he’s also desperate to find out what terrible secret she’s hiding. Once he finds out, though her betrayal is personal and bitter, he can more easily push that aside than the thought of all the people and operations she’s put at risk. Thinking of the damage she’s caused knocks him out of his malaise and spurs him after the next target.
I’m no expert but this is one Bond novel I went back to recently (after discussing parts of it with Ace and finding out my memory of it was full of holes, LOL!) Half of the others I read in my years in junior high school. Vicariously loved the adventures while, in my innocent but questing way, I memorized the naughty bits. Hmm. Back on topic, all I can say is you’re right about CR. These are all rather central points that they stand ready to misconstrue.
Schadenfreude. It’s what’s for dinner, LOL!
|
|
