Page 1 of 1
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:41 pm
by Leisher
Reviewed here.
Trailer.
I'm watching the trailer thinking, it looks ok outside of the tribute to Ursula Anderson done by the guy (ugh).
But the final imagine shows you why this guy shouldn't be Bond. Bond is not a troll with bad complexion. Trolls with bad complexions don't charm every woman they meet unless they're drug dealers and then its just about the money.
Edited By GORDON on 1163985415
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 8:16 pm
by Leisher
Just read an interview with the people behind the new Bond. According to them, they cast Craig because this is movie is about the origin of 007.
That's why they went with a younger actor and why they don't mind him being blonde and not as good with the ladies.
Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 3:24 pm
by TPRJones
Wait, wasn't the original Casino Royale a movie that parodied the James Bond movies? So, like, they're diong an official James Bond movie remake of a movie that made fun of James Bond to begin with?
There's something absurd going on here.
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 12:15 am
by Selby
Wait, wasn't the original Casino Royale a movie that parodied the James Bond movies?
I believe that Casino Royale was the first James Bond book ever published by Ian Fleming and that's why they are making this movie slightly different than the rest in the series. I know the movie you are talking about and I don't think it's Casino Royale (I may be wrong 
).
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 6:56 am
by thibodeaux
You're both right. It was the first book, and it was a spoof movie. Wikipedia has the scoop.
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 1:38 pm
by TPRJones
Ah, okay. As long as they aren't remaking a parody of themselves, that'd just be silly. 
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 6:38 pm
by WSGrundy
Trolls with bad complexions don't charm every woman they meet unless they're drug dealers and then its just about the money.
But I think trolls who can tell chicks that they have a license to kill and can hope a private jet and fly to anywhere in the world and is a super spy with slick cars can.
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 8:55 pm
by TPRJones
I bet Edward James Olmos could have almost any woman he wanted. And he's got one of those complexions and then some.
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 9:08 pm
by Leisher
But I think trolls who can tell chicks that they have a license to kill and can hope a private jet and fly to anywhere in the world and is a super spy with slick cars can.
I bet Edward James Olmos could have almost any woman he wanted. And he's got one of those complexions and then some.
As actors? Yeah.
But let's see them score with those looks and a plumber's license.
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:52 am
by Leisher
It doesn't matter if you like Daniel Craig as Bond or not, he's already doing another.
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:17 pm
by Vince
But let's see them score with those looks and a plumber's license.
Plumbers make good money
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:16 pm
by Leisher
True, but they don't pull down the type of women that actors do...not saying that's necessarily a bad thing.
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:48 pm
by GORDON
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:13 pm
by GORDON
Bumped because I just made a front-page review of the flick.
From here.
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:40 pm
by WSGrundy
As far as your continuity question is concerned as far as the books go it is the same guy from what I can tell. I haven't read them all but enough and I never got the impression or ever read that it was a new guy who is just given the name James Bond. I am sure there are multiple people who had the 007 number though. There was a 006 right? I assume that when the current guy with the 007 code dies the next guy who is hired gets it. The books cover a shorter amount of time but even then I got it seemed like bond was never really aging either.
As for the films it always seemed to me that the timeline and stuff wasn't a concern to the filmmakers. He is the same guy but this time he is young and blond using modern weapons and another film he is older and brown hair and using 60s weapons. Kind of not going to let someone age or looks get in the way of making a good movie.
At least that is how I have seen it.
Edited By WSGrundy on 1163986985
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 pm
by thibodeaux
It's really supposed to be Chemin de Fer, but I guess that's a form of Baccarat.
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:30 am
by Leisher
I have read in interviews with the creators that this is a "reinventing" of sorts for Bond.
"Casino Royale" is considered, by them, to be a prequel to all the other movies.
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:29 pm
by Malcolm
We just have yet to see if this will be a Timothy Dalton reinventing or a Pierce Brosnon reinventing.
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:02 am
by thibodeaux
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:15 pm
by GORDON
Leisher wrote:I have read in interviews with the creators that this is a "reinventing" of sorts for Bond.
"Casino Royale" is considered, by them, to be a prequel to all the other movies.
Judy Dench makes them pretty stupid for saying that, then.