|
Post by smartboy on Jun 30, 2008 7:32:50 GMT -5
For me it looks to much like Casino Royale, im still not convinced or won over by Craig, the trailer has all the action bits in but i feel nothing different or fresh about the film.
|
|
|
Post by eblofeld on Jun 30, 2008 7:54:01 GMT -5
The trailer is edited together very quickly. To quickly for me. It's to hard to see what is going on, and furthermore what the finished film might look like. However from what I have seen, I might enjoy this entry more than the much hyped Casino Royale. At least the action looks to be upto a Bondesque standard. And hopefully the Bond theme can be used more in this film. I wonder why the villains are so underused in the teaser though? Is this something to worry about? No doubt other sites will be getting into a frenzy with the teaser trailers release. Thank goodness there is a place to get away from all that.
|
|
FormerBondFan
00 Agent
Posts: 5,455
Favourite James Bond Films: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Mission: Impossible and any upcoming action films starring Pierce Brosnan (no, it's not James Bond which is good because he'll need it to expand his reputation as an actor, especially in the action realm)
Favourite Films: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Harry Potter, Middle-Earth, The Matrix, Mission: Impossible
|
Post by FormerBondFan on Jun 30, 2008 9:26:08 GMT -5
Hello all, E.Blofeld here. Lurking for a while, and liking what I see. For those of you that care, the trailer for the next James Bond film (haha) is on youtube www.youtube.com/watch?v=45Yl87N4kOkSpectre strikes! Great or not, the trailer is nothing special. In the old saying, BOYCOTT THIS MOVIE!!!!!!
|
|
FormerBondFan
00 Agent
Posts: 5,455
Favourite James Bond Films: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Mission: Impossible and any upcoming action films starring Pierce Brosnan (no, it's not James Bond which is good because he'll need it to expand his reputation as an actor, especially in the action realm)
Favourite Films: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Harry Potter, Middle-Earth, The Matrix, Mission: Impossible
|
Post by FormerBondFan on Jun 30, 2008 9:28:48 GMT -5
Also, I want to add that I sense the great evil is coming.
|
|
|
Post by smartboy on Jun 30, 2008 9:45:29 GMT -5
Still lacking the James Bond feel film,yet again it still feels the wrong actor is playing Bond, its so annoying!
|
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Jun 30, 2008 11:22:20 GMT -5
Regarding the Marc Forster interview: I went over it twice. Thought I missed something because Forster's interview was bland and didn't have anything spectacular, by my reading at any rate. If anything, some of his comments raise disturbing things.
On the film: "Stylistically, it will be very different. I approached the film very differently and it’s going in a different direction."
I thought they established the direction in CR--the whole idea was to reboot the franchise with the concept of a rookie Bond within the framework of gritty realism. Presumably, they were going to continue in this direction and explore the evolution of this rookie Bond. So what happened to that direction?
"There was more action in Casino Royale, but my goal was to bring it back to the 60s and early 70s. I was always inspired by the early Bond films – Dr. No, Goldfinger - and the sets designed by Ken Adams. I want to go back to the feel of the old set designs, which were incredibly interesting and ahead of their time. I felt the look of the Bond franchise was a little bit neglected in the last decade - to make a more stylish Bond is a little more interesting."
According to M.G. Wilson and Barbara B., QOS would have twice the action of CR. So why is Forster implying that there is less of it in QOS? I personally thought CR didn't have enough action, it had too much pointless dialog, a long poker sequence, and not enough action and suspense apart from a couple of major action setpieces. Did they scale back during the production of QOS? If so, why in heck did it still cost $200 million to make?
As for bringing the film back to the 60s and early 70s...those films had a lot of fantastical elements, so again this is in contradiction to the intention of a gritty rebooted series. If anything, in CR Eon deliberately distanced themselves from those old set designs as if they're embarrased by them. The old style of Bond films were too ridiculous, so the marketing theme went, and it is only Craig and the new gritty approach that reign supreme to save the franchise! To me, I thought there were many moments when CR didn't have this big screen scope and felt more like a TV movie. Now here they are embracing that old style. The problem with this approach: these fantasical elements will clash with the dour style of Craig and the whole gritty realism thingie. Back in 1989, Richard Maibaum said that one of the problems with Licence To Kill was that Sanchez's Olympiatec Meditation Institute and those weird-looking pyramids were too fantasical and didn't fit the darker realistic mood of the rest of the film. QOS may suffer the same fate.
Forster's last line is hilarious: "I felt the look of the Bond franchise was a little bit neglected in the last decade - to make a more stylish Bond is a little more interesting." In other words, he's going for style over substance. And "style" for him is all about emulating those fantasical Ken Adam set designs of yore. He's only interested in the look of the film. Whatever happened to a good story and interesting characters? Did they all see, during the rushes or dailies, that this film had a useless story and just didn't work, so off they went into this direction, focusing on glitz instead? Forster is also contradicting his eariler statements about exploring Bond's psyche as the inner terrain to explore. Based on his excitement over set designs, he seems to have abandoned his original intention.
He basically babbles in response to the question about bringing back the "suave, ladies' man Bond": in fact, he doesn't really address the question. Instead, he talks about the role of the Bond girl and the usual claptrap about today's Bond girl as smart and sexy. Yawn.
On the major action setpieces: "There’s an airplane sequence that’s a real cat-and-mouse game. I think it’s really breathtaking and a lot of fun. Another scene is the finale of a foot chase in Vienna during which they crash into a cathedral and there’s a fight. I really like that sequence; I feel I haven’t seen it in any film before."
These action scenes sound like over-the-top stuff--which was apparently the unpardonable sins committed by the Brosnan 007 films. Now they're suddenly back. And a fun airplane sequence as a cat-and-mouse game? Yeah, that's right, they've gone back to Fleming and are now presenting cartoon cat-and-mouse games. Crashing into a cathedral for a fight is also true clandestine spying. It all sounds like the continuation of the idiocy of CR, only bigger and wrapped in fantasy setpieces, with more marketing cash to sell it all like some kind of high art to snow the mainstream media and generate postive buzz. Anyway, that's my cycnical take on things. As William Goldman said, nobody knows anything in Hollywood. And neither do I.
|
|
|
Post by smartboy on Jun 30, 2008 12:35:35 GMT -5
It dosent feel any different for the last film, the trailer is to similar, that a bit dissapointing
|
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Jun 30, 2008 15:37:54 GMT -5
Bad trailer. It's cobbled togethered like a rehash of the one for CR, only without the black-and-white footage. Fast-paced images, some voice-over particularly from Judi Dench, which quite frankly makes the whole thing corny, especially when she says something like "Get Bond!" and there's an image of Craig walking over a desert mound holding a high-powered rifle. And what's with that rifle? What happened to the dashing agent with the striking Walther-PPK pose? Fleming's Bond is long gone, Terrence Young's vision of Bond, which still had its spirit in the previous actors, is long gone. Eon has given us a muscled brute with a rifle, fighting villains dumber than himself. At every moment, you get the feeling they were ripping off the Bourne films with the grungy interior scenes and action scenes set in cramped confines, and Craig himself is looking more and more like a Russian version of a Bourne wannabe. What happened to the exotic settings? I didn't see any. The main emphasis is that friggin' desert, which looks like a landfill in, oh I don't know, say Arizona. It's not even clear what the story is about, and (unless I missed something) they forgot to include the villain played by the French guy Matthew what's-his-name. They seem to be selling this movie on the merits of its action style. Unfortunately, the film is too reminiscent of not only Bourne, but the Transporter films and any recent action film, including whatever Van Damme has released direct to video. The color of this Bond film has a kind of dirty cheap look with some saturated reds that also rendered CR. Once again, you don't hear the Bond theme until the logo appears, and then it's just a fragment of the famous piece--it's almost as if Eon is embarrassed to admit that this is a Bond movie.
|
|
|
Post by smartboy on Jun 30, 2008 15:55:07 GMT -5
Somehow it would seem strange with the bond theme playing threw it with Craig in the picture, he doesent match up to the mood of Bond, like you say hes more like a russian looking spy, thats why i cant take this as Bond flick!
|
|
alex
Commander
Posts: 344
|
Post by alex on Jun 30, 2008 15:58:08 GMT -5
Bad trailer. It's cobbled togethered like a rehash of the one for CR, only without the black-and-white footage. Fast-paced images, some voice-over particularly from Judi Dench, which quite frankly makes the whole thing corny, especially when she says something like "Get Bond!" and there's an image of Craig walking over a desert mound holding a high-powered rifle. And what's with that rifle? What happened to the dashing agent with the striking Walther-PPK pose? Fleming's Bond is long gone, Terrence Young's vision of Bond, which still had its spirit in the previous actors, is long gone. Eon has given us a muscled brute with a rifle, fighting villains dumber than himself. At every moment, you get the feeling they were ripping off the Bourne films with the grungy interior scenes and action scenes set in cramped confines, and Craig himself is looking more and more like a Russian version of a Bourne wannabe. What happened to the exotic settings? I didn't see any. The main emphasis is that friggin' desert, which looks like a landfill in, oh I don't know, say Arizona. It's not even clear what the story is about, and (unless I missed something) they forgot to include the villain played by the French guy Matthew what's-his-name. They seem to be selling this movie on the merits of its action style. Unfortunately, the film is too reminiscent of not only Bourne, but the Transporter films and any recent action film, including whatever Van Damme has released direct to video. The color of this Bond film has a kind of dirty cheap look with some saturated reds that also rendered CR. Once again, you don't hear the Bond theme until the logo appears, and then it's just a fragment of the famous piece--it's almost as if Eon is embarrassed to admit that this is a Bond movie. I saw the trailer about twenty minutes ago. I jokingly called it the new James Bourne trailer the other day but even I was suprised by the extent of the Bourne influence. Craig's delivery is very mannered still and please spare us from the tedious M portrayed by Judi Dench. Don't they allow MI6 bosses to ever retire? The action is slick enough but nothing really stood out.
|
|
|
Post by smartboy on Jun 30, 2008 16:02:29 GMT -5
They should be making this a separate movie, not Casino Rayale p2, that could be a mistake!
|
|
|
Post by smartboy on Jun 30, 2008 16:04:17 GMT -5
What i mean it looks flat, just the same as the last one, each film should look bigger and better than the last!
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Jun 30, 2008 16:22:46 GMT -5
I know it was rumored that they were heavily trying to copy The Bourne Ultimatum, but I wasn't expecting it to this extent.
The shot of Bond on a motorcycle is a direct copy of the scene in Ultimatum. And we already know there's a big footchase over rooftops ala Bourne in Tangier.
Then we have M in the role of Pamela Landy, urging everyone to find Bond and track his passports.
We also have Bond asking, "How long have I got?"...just as Bourne asked Nicky Parsons in Ultimatum.
|
|
|
Post by smartboy on Jun 30, 2008 16:33:28 GMT -5
This is just not Bond we are seeing, at the first look the trailer looks full of action, but when you watch it more times you think to yourself havent i seen this before?
|
|
|
Post by harrypalmer on Jun 30, 2008 17:46:39 GMT -5
Kadov wrote: and there's an image of Craig walking over a desert mound holding a high-powered rifle. And what's with that rifle? What happened to the dashing agent with the striking Walther-PPK pose? Fleming's Bond is long gone, Terrence Young's vision of Bond, which still had its spirit in the previous actors, is long gone. Eon has given us a muscled brute with a rifle
, I agree with this! It's not the image of Bond I have. If you are a Craig as Bond fan, you will be excited by the trailer, if you are not, then the trailer is just a bit annoying. I'm in the second category!
|
|