Sir Ian Fleming is doing 140 RPMs in his grave about now (or if not, Cubby Broccoli damned sure is)

[thatcrazycajun]

Verdict on the new so-called James Bond movie, Casino Royale: It's new. It's fresh. But it's not Bond:
Bored with Bond? No problem. We've got a shiny new one—Bloomberg.com

Call me a cranky old fart if you will, but some of us liked the old 007 just damned fine, thank you very much. Some of us don't want four decades of character history and basic elements of the series chucked out the window for the sake of attracting today's 18-24 male demographic, most of whom weren't even gleams in their daddies' eyes when the real Bond made his bones. No Q (not even the John Cleese version)? No Miss Moneypenny? No gadgets to speak of? Not even the usual "dry martini—shaken, not stirred"? WTF?!

Too many perfectly good concepts are being remade these days for the sake of remaking them (and cashing in on "the brand"), when they were gotten right the first time: Battlestar: Galactica (well, okay, I'll concede this one isn't bad), The Omen, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Texas Chainsaw Massacre...the list goes on. Producers and executives too often feel that the old version can't cut the mustard with the younger generation, can't be salvaged. Did they even fucking try?! Chalk this one up as another needless (and inferior) makeover of a quality original.

Somehow I don't think I'll be queuing up for this one. Now excuse me while I go watch my DVD of Thunderball.

Comments

[wolfette]

I gave up on the movie Bonds somewhere around the time they introduced Roger Moore. Timothy Dalton was briefly interesting in "License to Kill", but this is the first set of Bond movie trailers that make me think I want to see the movie in a cinema.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Given that the Bond of the films bears no more than a passing resmblance to the Bond of the books, I doubt he's spinning all THAT rapidly.

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

filkerdave brings up the critical point. As far as I can tell, they're trying to align the movies more to the Bond novels. And given that the novel Casino Royale (the first Bond book, by the way, which tracks with Bond being a newly-promoted Double-0 Agent) is described as "Most atmospheric of all the novels; most serious and violent of all the novels; Bond at his coldest and most ruthless," I'd say they're probably doing that part accurately. ISTR that the early movies didn't have Q Division either.

Let's face it--forty years of history are all well and good, but Die Another Day was a two hour advertisement for the Ford Motor Company performance car division. Maybe it's time for a reboot. After all, as the review asserts, it ends with at least one part of the old series that just isn't going away...they haven't stripped everything away.

I think Broccoli is the one spinning, not Fleming. But it's not really Broccoli's creation.

By the way, I'd put up a mild spoiler warning about that review.

(Oh, and the new Battlestar Galactica isn't just "not bad," it's brilliant, as you well know.)

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Stipulated that the new BSG is better than "not bad." But for every one of those, there's a new DUKES OF HAZZARD movie. Just sayin'.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

Craig's Bond a a vicious, violet S.O.B. (an even darker version of my favorite Bond, Timothy Dalton).
Nothing cute about Bond.
No stupids joke or gadgets (part of the only reason I liked "For Your Eyes Only" do you recall the scene when Bond pushes the car off the cliff WITH the enemy agent in it?)

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, Old Son. This is the first Bond film i've been *really* looking forward to in quite a while. But I was a fan of the novels, and feel that most of the films fall short. While I have the Bond films immensely, I think this is a great direction to go, and I will be there.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

While I still think that a remake of Casino Royale is disturbing, just because the first was such a terrific departure from the so-serious nature of the other flicks, this one seems to be adequate. Aside from a blond Bond, that is. But at least he's not some movie-gorgeous fancy boy, like the others (and so unlike the Hoagy Carmichael looks as described by Fleming).

Also, I have to disagree with you about Willy Wonka... It was perfectly reasonable to make a movie that was closer to the book. It's a shame it fell so short, though again, it's okay if you don't expect it to be a fair translation of the book to the screen. (I really disliked Johnny Depp's characterization; Willy Wonka was far more assertive and confident -- that was the best part of Gene Wilder's Wonka.)