Agent ONE Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 The first news about the upcomming 2007 movie: New Threats Face 00722nd October 2005 Back in 1995 when Pierce Brosnan was revealed as James Bond in his first teaser sequence, the "GoldenEye" trailer ran the catchphrase: "It's a new world. With new enemies. And new threats. But you can still depend on one man". Fast-forward ten years, and a new 007 is about to be ushered in again with a similar pretence. During Pierce Brosnan's tenure as Bond, the world has seen an uprising of terrorist activity and a "global war on terror" lead by the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq. Craig's era as 007 will see an overlap with that real world situation. With the story of Ian Fleming's debut 1953 novel set against a Cold War backdrop, which is no longer relevant to today's political and social climate, the writers of "Casino Royale" have brought to story forwards fifty years. Smyert Shpionam The book's villain, Le Chiffre, is an agent of SMERSH whom Bond bankrupts in the casino, ultimately leading SMERSH to assassinate their own man. SMERSH was in fact a real world organisation created by the Soviet Union to carry out acts of vengeance, responsible for ensuring loyalty to the state, and eliminating its enemies. SMERSH is a contraction of Smyert Shpionam (roughly translated - "Death to Spies"), its name was so feared during the Cold War that "no sane man would dare speak it". Ian Fleming utilised this real world threat as Bond's enemy in the early novels, before introducing SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion ) - a private organisation lead by Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade have brought the plot up to date by introducing a new organisation for James Bond to face off against in "Casino Royale" and subsequent movies, much like the Connery era story-arch of SPECTRE in the 1960's. Details on the new villainous organisation are sketchy, but they will take on a terrorist role, based out of a fictitious country. Fact / Fiction The producers were careful not to overlap 007 with certain real-world events back in 2002, following the tragic events of September 11th a year earlier. But "Die Another Day" did contain a subtle reference to the changing times when M meets Bond underground after his time spent captive in North Korea: "While you were away, the world changed." Bond replies, "Not for me." The latest plotline is likely to cause controversy in certain parts of the world, much like the last film "Die Another Day" that cast a North Korean as the central villain with dreams of world conquest. Protests were made in both North and South Korea, countries divided by a demilitarised zone that acted as a centrepiece to (the fictitious) Colonel Moon's plans. Although 007 may see things in black and white, the world around him is far more complex, and "Casino Royale" will be taking a brave step in developing storylines that have significant overlap with today's political climate. Quote
bsu legato Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 I had had a sneaking suspicion that the SMERSH background for Casino Royale would get discarded, and I guess this confirms it. More interestingly will be how they deal with the original novel's complete lack of action scenes, and how Bond fans react to it. Quote
Agent ONE Posted October 22, 2005 Author Posted October 22, 2005 I had had a sneaking suspicion that the SMERSH background for Casino Royale would get discarded, and I guess this confirms it. More interestingly will be how they deal with the original novel's complete lack of action scenes, and how Bond fans react to it. 338841[/snapback] Well the big question for me was when is this movie going to take place... I would have LOVED if they did like an actual post Dr. No timeline movie, so like early cold war. I know they had always said that Bond movies would always be modern day, but this one takes place when Bond just gets his Double O status... so its like a prequel. Quote
bsu legato Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Well, judging from the article you posted, Casino Royale will be a modern day story, but the idea of a true 50's/60's era Bond would be a neat one to try. But I hope they don't go overboard in trying to make this an "origin" story for Bond. In the novel, he was a WW2 veteran and had been a spy for almost 10 years. Casino Royale may have been the first Bond novel, but it wasn't supposed to be his first adventure by any means. Quote
Roy Focker Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Two things I hate about Movies in General I. Even if the film is suppose to take place 10, 20 or 30 years ago they want to have them set in the now. The kids will lose interest if something takes place in 1980s. Everything needs to be bigger, badder and newer. II. Lets avoid any reference to the real world. We don't want to offend anybody. That makes a fictional world wear all the villian in it are just criminals. Make America the villian, make Austrialian Terrorists. Movies are fiction. If some little piss faced hippy makes are fuss fart 'em. When you try not to offend the sissies you end up with something boring. Quote
Agent ONE Posted October 23, 2005 Author Posted October 23, 2005 Well, judging from the article you posted, Casino Royale will be a modern day story, but the idea of a true 50's/60's era Bond would be a neat one to try. But I hope they don't go overboard in trying to make this an "origin" story for Bond. In the novel, he was a WW2 veteran and had been a spy for almost 10 years. Casino Royale may have been the first Bond novel, but it wasn't supposed to be his first adventure by any means. 338919[/snapback] I think it was, he had been in standard inteligence work with HMRN, but had recently been assigned to the double O group. Even in Dr. No, M refers to him as a new agent in the double O group. Quote
Agent ONE Posted October 23, 2005 Author Posted October 23, 2005 Two things I hate about Movies in GeneralI. Even if the film is suppose to take place 10, 20 or 30 years ago they want to have them set in the now. The kids will lose interest if something takes place in 1980s. Everything needs to be bigger, badder and newer. II. Lets avoid any reference to the real world. We don't want to offend anybody. That makes a fictional world wear all the villian in it are just criminals. Make America the villian, make Austrialian Terrorists. Movies are fiction. If some little piss faced hippy makes are fuss fart 'em. When you try not to offend the sissies you end up with something boring. 338924[/snapback] Two great points. Quote
Bob_Coffee Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Cool sounds like there trying to revitalize the bond franchice, good, it needs it. Now lets hope and pray they dont give the bond charicter a unneeded change, and make him a non womanizing, just doing his job bond. keep the womanizing, Martini-sipping, bad ass charicter of bond, that we all know and love(mainly from connery's version of 007) and not make him a modern politically correct metro sissy boy. Bond is ment to be a bad ass womanazing ass kicking spy, as our favorite drunken skull leader Roy fokker in SDF macross is supposed to be a bad ass womanizing drunken pilot. no room for sissified, New age "everything is right in the world" charicters that seem to be the norm these days. Moral of the story: dont make sissified charicters for the sake of political correctness, it offends more than it helps. and its bad for todays kids. i guess thats all for my sermon of the day. Quote
Roy Focker Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 I think they already did that: Isn't this new Bond not going to Smoke? Remember when Golden Eye was coming out they were saying Bond was going to go after less ass? James Bond of the present needs to be screwing every female he encounters while doing Meth. lol! Quote
Keith Posted October 24, 2005 Posted October 24, 2005 Only James Bond movie I need is the original Casino Royal. -David Niven -Peter Sellers -Assorted cast of a sh!tload of other people.. Also has the side-effect of making the new bond every few years thing make sense. Booya! Quote
Agent ONE Posted October 24, 2005 Author Posted October 24, 2005 Only James Bond movie I need is the original Casino Royal.-David Niven -Peter Sellers -Assorted cast of a sh!tload of other people.. Also has the side-effect of making the new bond every few years thing make sense. Booya! 339195[/snapback] That was not a bond movie, it made fun of bond movies, AND was one of the lamest movies of ALL TIME. That movie is a travesty. Quote
uminoken Posted October 24, 2005 Posted October 24, 2005 The ONLY good thing about the Casino Royale dvd was the special feature - first-ever Bond mini-movie of Casino Royale (the book). It was kinda refreshing to see an entirely different (although it was the original) take on Bond. Less action hero, more brains, and it was fun seeing Peter Lorre as Le Chiffre. It was a bit jarring to hear Bond with an American accent tho. Quote
Keith Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 So what you're saying is that the many Bond's of Casino Royale were too "manly" for you! Quote
DeathHammer Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 (edited) Please Delete Thanks Edited February 8, 2010 by DeathHammer Quote
Roy Focker Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 There was actually another Casino Royal before the so called comedy. It was TV movie. Quote
Keith Posted October 25, 2005 Posted October 25, 2005 There was actually another Casino Royal before the so called comedy. It was TV movie. 339480[/snapback] Which is also on the disc with the David Niven version, this was mentioned earlier. Quote
Agent ONE Posted October 25, 2005 Author Posted October 25, 2005 So what you're saying is that the many Bond's of Casino Royale were too "manly" for you! 339466[/snapback] Yeeeaaaaah, thats it. That was just a lame movie, had nothing to do with Bond or the Bond franchaise. Quote
Agent ONE Posted October 25, 2005 Author Posted October 25, 2005 I get the feeling if they shift to a younger Bond, that they'll give him some kind of 'SuperHero' conflict. I.E. Batman watched his parents die, Spiderman was indirectly responsible for his uncle, etc. That way the movie could make Bond into a womanizing non PC superspy and have the audience forgive him for it. Maybe the closest the Bond series got was the end of the Lazenby movie, which honestly was pretty dark for a Bond movie, but it did explain why he was such a phobic about commitment. I wouldn't even be surprised if they made Bond into a woman one day, just shift the character completely. Personally I would think that kind of move would at least be liberating to the writers. Now a female Bond could do anything again. What would be 'arrogant' for a male Bond would simply be 'progressive' for a female Bond. What would be 'sexist' for a male womanizing Bond would be 'breaking stereotypes and gender barriers' for a female Bond. Etc etc etc So yes, one day in the future, thats where I see Bond going one day in this ultra PC, liberal, shock you a minute kind of BS sequelitis Hollywood. Bond one day will be played by Angelina Jolie and she'll be a man hating progressive lesbian who will never do anything wrong while every other incompetent male agent on the face of the planet will bow to her unparalled new age British brillance. This aside from raising two adopted babies at home and verbal sparring with her nagging mother character. The new Bond we are seeing now is just a sign of the times. Movies have gotten so much better in so many ways in the last 20 years. And they have gotten so much worse and look to get progressively so, in so many ways in the last 20 years. 339475[/snapback] I like the thoughts, unfortunately that isn't really the story of Casino Royale. Quote
Agent ONE Posted October 26, 2005 Author Posted October 26, 2005 More news on the movie: Casino Royale - 26-10-05Director Martin Campbell explains the James Bond / Vesper Lynd relationship in Casino Royale Casino Royale, which begins filming in January with newly named Bond Daniel Craig, will be the first of the 007 movies to reveal the hero's origins, director Martin Campbell told USA Today. "We're going toward a much more realistic Bond, much more From Russia with Love than we've had in the past," says Martin, who also directed 1995's GoldenEye with former Bond Pierce Brosnan. Campbell's Legend of Zorro opens Friday, and he says he's ready to trade swords for spies. Casino Royale was first made in 1967 as a spoof of spy movies, with David Niven as Bond. Ian Fleming's first Bond novel, Casino Royale was set during the Cold War and focused on a gambler named Le Chiffre who tries to reclaim a fortune he lost for SMERSH, the Communist secret enforcement unit. "He has to mount a card game in order to win the money back. Bond is sent in to make sure he doesn't win," Campbell says. The 2006 version of Casino Royale eliminates the Cold War setting. Bond is teamed with female agent Vesper Lynd, who later helps him recover after he is brutally tortured. "She's the one who forges him into the Bond that we all know and love," Campbell says. "He certainly falls in love with her, and it does change him forever. It's a genuinely deeper relationship. The film deals much more on a personal level with Bond." The reason the hero treats subsequent love interests as one-night stands also will be revealed. "He talks about how it's too boring to have a relationship," Campbell says. "You meet, and it's all exciting, then it starts to fade, and you go through the uncomfortable part of having to get rid of the girl, etc. It's a very interesting observation, given his sort of misogynistic views." The film also will feature a lot of "embryonic stuff" about why Bond prefers his martini "shaken, not stirred," and why he favors the Aston Martin sports car. But there will be no gadget-master Q. The story is trying to avoid over-the-top weaponry. The production will move among the Bahamas, Prague, Italy and London, says Campbell, now going over action sequences with Million Dollar Baby screenwriter Paul Haggis. Who will play Vesper? Says Campbell: "We were so wrapped up getting Bond, that's what we have to do now." Quote
eugimon Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 hmmm.. I think I saw this movie already.... Oh yeah. I did. It was called Bourne Identity. Quote
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 (edited) But that guy was american, failed his original mission and had his memory phucked up. Bond is different. Edited October 27, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker Quote
Agent ONE Posted October 28, 2005 Author Posted October 28, 2005 Bond News - 26-10-05New 007 Daniel craig hates handguns Daniel Craig will have a problem playing the new James Bond - because he hates guns. The actor will wield 007's famous Walther PPK in the movie Casino Royale - reports the Scotsman. But he revealed in OK! magazine: "I hate handguns. Handguns are used to shoot people and as long as they are around, people will shoot each other. That's a simple fact." He added: "I've seen a bullet wound and it was a mess. It was on a shoot and it scared me. Bullets have a nasty habit of finding their target and that's what's scary about them." Nor does the 37-year-old share Bond's love of Martinis shaken and not stirred. "I love a Martini straight up. I don't think anybody makes a Martini stirred any more," he said. Craig was unveiled earlier this month as the successor to Pierce Brosnan. He will play a tougher, grittier 007 in Casino Royale, which is based on Ian Fleming's first Bond book. The movie is due for release in November next year. Craig is not the first Bond to reveal a hatred of guns. Roger Moore, who played the superspy from 1973 to 1985, said after quitting the role that he hated "that awful pose" of Bond with his gun which has become an iconic movie image. The actor later became an ambassador for children's charity Unicef and declared: "Today I am completely opposed to small arms and what they can do to children. I played every role tongue-in-cheek because I don't really believe in that sort of hero. I don't like guns." Eh, not impressed. Guns keep my Country safe. Quote
eugimon Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 oh lord, not another guns kill people loon... right, because people never killed other people before guns right? let's ban guns so we can go back to shooting them with would sticks or hacing them with sharpened bits of metal the way god intended. Quote
yellowlightman Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 Eh, not impressed. Guns keep my Country safe. 340423[/snapback] Yeah, they've worked well for countries like Japan too... Quote
eugimon Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 Eh, not impressed. Guns keep my Country safe. 340423[/snapback] Yeah, they've worked well for countries like Japan too... 340447[/snapback] weren't guns that let japan down.. it was the lack of natural resources. Quote
yellowlightman Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 Eh, not impressed. Guns keep my Country safe. 340423[/snapback] Yeah, they've worked well for countries like Japan too... 340447[/snapback] weren't guns that let japan down.. it was the lack of natural resources. 340451[/snapback] Uh, no. I meant that Japan is an incredibly safe country despite the fact that guns are illegal there. Anyways, I was just trying to push A1's buttons... Quote
eugimon Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 Eh, not impressed. Guns keep my Country safe. 340423[/snapback] Yeah, they've worked well for countries like Japan too... 340447[/snapback] weren't guns that let japan down.. it was the lack of natural resources. 340451[/snapback] Uh, no. I meant that Japan is an incredibly safe country despite the fact that guns are illegal there. Anyways, I was just trying to push A1's buttons... 340454[/snapback] ah, that probably has something to do with the immense US militaty presence... they have guns. Quote
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted October 29, 2005 Posted October 29, 2005 (edited) http://www.greatdreams.com/global-nwo.htm One of the milestones of completing the American Union will be to outlaw private ownership of firearms by the U.S. citizens. The Elite know that when they finally tell the Americans that they must turn in their arms, that the Militias will very quickly be reconstituted all across the nation in protest to this move. To prepare for this confrontation, the Elite have created the new Office of Homeland Security, not to protect us from terrorists, but to try to control the Militias once they are stirred up about gun confiscation. They have already established concentration camps on military bases in almost every state, in preparation for confining resisters to the transition to the American Union. 4. The C.I.A., F.B.I. and B.A.T.F. will secretly stage numerous bombings and public threats in order to give the president the excuse to declare Marshall Law, and to outlaw private ownership of personal firearms. They will have great difficulty taking over completely as long as the citizens are so well armed. Clinton and past presidents have signed Executive Orders instructing F.E.M.A. to take over absolute control of every critical function in this nation. The president has exclusive authority to declare Marshall Law under severe economic conditions or critical national security reasons. The killer is that the president is the only one authorized to make this determination, and when it happens, we will be immediately under control of a Dictatorship rather than a Constitutional Republic. One very probable severe economic condition that could trigger Marshall Law is very likely to be another Federal Reserve System imposed depression, exactly as they did in the 1929 crash. (The Trade Center and Pentagon air liner crashes are just one more example.) 5. The de-industrialization of the United States will accelerate, which will cause jobs to be scarce, incomes to drop, more homeless people on the streets and on welfare, and crime to grow rapidly, because the unemployed people will do whatever is necessary to survive. 6. Illegal and legal immigration will climb to new heights, so as to increase the demand for jobs, as the number of jobs available decline rapidly due to de-industrialization. The purpose is to completely eliminate the middle-class in the US. The Elite of the Soviet Union could not install communism in their union 70 years ago as long as there was a middle class. The answer was that Joseph Stalin murdered somewhere between 28 and 66 millions of the middle-class citizens in the USSR, with the resulting creation of a two-class system, the Elite and the peasants. We are headed for the same results in this country without the Elite having to fire a single shot. 7. There is a steady movement to require all those on welfare to get a job within the next two years, or lose all benefits. This will cause riots, and social unrest will increase rapidly during the next four years due to the above, which is just what the Elite want to happen, so that they can be justified in the outlawing of personal firearms, and the unrest will be one of the excuses used to declare Marshall Law. The end result will be a US Dictatorship. Will our new Dictator be Bill Clinton or Al Gore? Not likely. The best bet is that they will be forced from office, and possibly indited on a number of charges. The best bet is Gov. George W. Bush, who is now backed by the Elite to become the next president. (I couldn't have called this one any closer.) Possibly, unless he is also indited, as well. Madeline Albright cannot move up to president because she is not a natural born citizen of the US. It could be someone like Jay Rockefeller!!!! Stay tuned. Nelson A. Rockefeller almost made it by devious means, when the Elite manipulated Congress to change the order of succession by passing the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. Fate took his life before he made it into the White House. Is it now Jay's turn to make his play for the office of DICTATOR???? And, reporting directly to the Czar of the Global Union, his brother, David Rockefeller!!!!! Troubled times are just ahead. "Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." - Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates. ^ I think guns are a necessary evil needed in case the UN takes over control. What was the lecture conan's dad gave to his son about steel in the conan movie? (the material needed to forge a weapon to defend yourself) "..but this you can trust." *points to sword* There are many dangerous things in the world, (cars? which people use all the time and die from everyday) but some are worth the risks. Edited October 29, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker Quote
Agent ONE Posted October 29, 2005 Author Posted October 29, 2005 Eh, not impressed. Guns keep my Country safe. 340423[/snapback] Yeah, they've worked well for countries like Japan too... 340447[/snapback] weren't guns that let japan down.. it was the lack of natural resources. 340451[/snapback] Uh, no. I meant that Japan is an incredibly safe country despite the fact that guns are illegal there. Anyways, I was just trying to push A1's buttons... 340454[/snapback] Quote
Agent ONE Posted October 31, 2005 Author Posted October 31, 2005 TIME TO LAUGH: Â Actor News - 30-10-05 Nicolas Cage angry at British typecasting of James Bond role Hollywood actor Nicolas Cage is angry that his American nationality hindered his chance to become James Bond because he thinks the prejudice is petty and stupid - reports Contact Music. The "Con Air" star resents the unwritten rule which states the secret spy can only be played by British actors and is devastated he will probably never get another opportunity to try for the role. He says, "You can cast a Brit to play Bond but you can never cast an American to play him. "I think that is totally unfair." Cage was a "secret contender" to play 007 according to the report, but lost out to "Layer Cake" star Daniel Craig, who was announced as the official 007 #6 earlier this month. Maybe its just me, but Cage isn't good looking or cool, or in any way athletic. At least as far as I have seen. I can't believe how such an accomplished actor has such a skewed view of himself. Quote
bsu legato Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 The "Con Air" star 341140[/snapback] Heh....as somebody who remembers his "accent" in Con Air, I threw up a little when I imagined his take on an English accent. Quote
Agent ONE Posted October 31, 2005 Author Posted October 31, 2005 The "Con Air" star 341140[/snapback] Heh....as somebody who remembers his "accent" in Con Air, I threw up a little when I imagined his take on an English accent. 341152[/snapback] Dude that was nothing compared to his fake Italian accent in Captin Corelli's Mandolin. Quote
eugimon Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 which is odd, considering his family and all... still,I gotta agree nick cage as james bond just doesn't work for me, all sleepy eyed and talking slow. I'm Jhammess... <head bobs a little, a little smiles> Jhames Bond. Quote
uminoken Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 (edited) So let's forget the original Bond was American (in the first Casino Royale), we've had a Scotsman (Connery), an Australian (Lazenby) a Welshman (Dalton), and an Irishman (Brosnan) all play him...but he has to be a Brit!! Edited October 31, 2005 by uminoken Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.