CommanderBond.net

Campbell Chats 'Casino' "Bond is essentially starting out in his career and has just recently become part of the double-0 section."

This is truly great news for true Bond fans who want more character driven and down to earth type Bond films. As stated it will take Bond back to his early days as Bond when he first became 007. The casting of Bond is all the more interesting now to see who they choose to play this younger Bond. I would expect that Clive Owen is out (41 years old) of the running as is Dougray Scott. It will be exciting to see who they choose as the next 007.

This post has been edited by Forever007: 25 February 2005 - 19:02

I have to admit that I've got somewhat mixed feelings about this news. I'm not sure that it's a good thing or a bad thing. Accentuating the positive, it's refreshing to think that EON is finally shaking up the old formula. Yet, I'm concerned that they might screwup their experiment and we'll end up with a horrible film.

The implication seems to be that 'Casino Royale' will be a prequel to the Bond films we know and love. Yet, Campbell hinted at ditching the Cold War setting of the novel...thus giving CR a contemporary setting? I'm wondering how this is going to jive with what little continuity the series has had. If they are to do a prequel, I say do it right and set the film in the late 1950s, early 1960s. I suggest this with a good deal of trepidation though, as I've always felt that a timeless quality to the Bond films accounts for the series' enduring longevity. I also suspect that a prequel Bond might be too jarring for audiences, whether it's a contemporarily set prequel, or a flashback prequel.

I don't think EON will cast Orlando Bloom as Bond, but I'm deathly afraid that they might cast someone who's just as fresh faced and boyish as Bloom. If EON were to go with an actor in his late 20s to early 30s, that would be fine. In such a case, one might still get the sense that the new Bond is slightly younger than Connery was in 'Dr. No'. Going with an actor in his early 20s would blatantly come off as pandering to young audiences. EON simply should'nt go there.

Prequels seem to be all the rage these days. Star Wars, the forthcoming Batman and the forthcoming Superman...all prequels that I'm eagerly looking forward to. Yet, for now, I'm gonna reserve judgement on a prequel Bond.

I bet Campbell's only talking about a tiny flashback scene or maybe the pre-titles sequence. He's been watching Indy and the Last Crusade.

Remember in 2001 when everyone was seeing photos of Brosnan and his straggly beard? It was thought that he was going to spend the entire film in a Korean prison. This'll turn out to be the same thing.

This post has been edited by Atticus17F: 24 February 2005 - 15:39

Hmmm.... an "origin story", a la THE SUM OF ALL FEARS, contradicting all the previous films without actually being a period movie or prequel. Don't like the sound of that.

I guess this is the beginning of an all-new Bond series, then, rather than the 21st in the current series. Why? Because it'll be the first time ever a Bond film has explicitly broken with the events established by its predecessors.

The Bond series we all know and love is over. Er, well, long live the new one, I suppose.

I like the sound of "gritty", "serious", etc., though. And having just re-read "Casino Royale", I hope they'll stick as close to the novel as possible and not make a hash of it.

So, then, Bond.... Davenport? Gruffudd?

Hmmm...there's something in that - the plot of Casino Royale condensed into a 20 minute pre-title sequence (which I guess is feasible, because it's not as if the book really has much plot) and then years later older, wiser, Bond hunts down an aged Le Chiffre to exact "revenge" and finds out Vesper Lynd has been alive all this time and is a villainess of some sort and there's explosions 'n' emotional wrangling 'n' stuff. (This does mean casting two people who look reasonably similar as James Bond, one 15 years older (say) than the other)

There's nothing in the interview that says it's in the 1950s/1960s. The stuff about changing the Cold War vibe also suggests a non-period Bond.

Jonathan Rhyes-Meyers will be the new Bond.

Exactly. Eon's messed with continuity before, but this would be too much, even for them. Can't see it happening, meself.

It is not a period piece.

Ahh yes, Ioan Grufford has to be Bond now!

Anyways, quite glad to get some new insight into what to expect out of Casino Royale, when Campbell mentioned "We'll be getting away from the huge visual effects kind of films." Whoo, thats def'n good to hear!!

But the comments that will def'n arouse controversy would be bringing Bond into his original roots. Very similar to the situation in Batman Begins. This is certainley a great way to explore the character, but can be risky. A good indication is to see how Batman turns out amoung movie-goers, hopefully the outcome is good.

Far too blatant a ripoff of INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE to even be considered, one would have thought. Hoped.

If it's done well this could be good. But part of me says James Bond shouldn't really be a 'character', he should just be a stylish, funny uber-cool cypher who people go to the cinema to watch rather than emphasise with. But this might work.

Atticus that is an interesting point--I didn't think of that. It's possible and maybe this interview leak is a little twist to provoke interest BUT also throw people a little off the trail of the new Bond actor and his film.

Don't live in hope.

Don't live in Tamworth, either.

But...I dunno. Perversely I sorta like it (not just because I bunged that onto here). Except for the emotional wrangling bit. And Sean Connery playing his dad... damn, what a giveaway.

Although if it is total restart, aren't they missing a trick by not having it in 007... 2007?