The story is everywhere just now, and I was trying to avoid it, but I read it over at USA Today and it actually sounded quite interesting, here’s some of the key points from Martin Campbell:
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.
I’m quite interested in this, from the point of view to see where this character came from and how he was formed…that’s it though. Is that enough to be interested in a movie?
Thanks Simone good to be back, Italy is great but a bit crazy and tiresome after 20 days. I did not even peep at the movieblog while there even when we had internet in the room. So I am a bit out of the loop but I will try to post something witty and inteligent when I can.
{{{Crackerjack}}} How was the honeymoon buddy? *winks* Weak on the knees still?
Welcome back and come on, let’s make a lot of highly-opinionated posts together! LOL
Morbius I just have to express my appreciation for someone else who has read the books. Most Bond conversations only deal with the movies which I enjoyed since childhood but now that I read the books the movies fall a bit flat. I understand that the books would not adapt well in todays cinema especialy as they took place in the 1950’s and the technology and plots are laughable by todays standards. I enjoy the books immensely and would like to see Casino stay as true to Flemmings story as possible in a modern telling. The most important thing in the books is Bond’s character and the Brosnan films had forgoten that by his last few, I hope in Casino they tone down the action and consintrate more on character. (Which by the way was not Brosnan’s fault, all fault lay with the directors and the producers who allowed the movies become cartoonish.) Also while there is someone else who has read the books I would like to mention one of Bond’s trademarks, the martini. In every book he orders a different drink including just a simple beer, in many he likes to try a new drink from whatever region he is in. I know the line is his most famous but in the books he rarely ever mentions it. Ok enough for now.
So basically you also answered question number 2? *winks*
Simone, they stopped adapting Ian Flemings Bond Novels to films years ago. While most of the Connery films were reasonably faithful to the books (You Only Live Twice was one exception) by the time of Live and Let Die little of the novels remained. Films like the Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker had virtually nothing of the novels except perhaps for a few character names.
I have read four or five of the Fleming Novels. Of those On Her Majestys Secret Service is very close to the book. (Goldfinger was fairly close but there was a bit added and left out here and there.)
Some of the films had titles taken from short stories. (Octopussy A View to a Kill and The Living Daylights IIRC?) “The World is Not Enough” is Bonds family moto mentioned in “On her Majestys Secret Service”.
Goldeneye was the name of Ian Fleming’s home.
License to Kill and Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day (hate that title, too similar to Tomorrow Never Dies) are I believe not from Fleming Novels.
The next movie Casino Royale was the title of the first Bond Novel and of course was the name of the 60’s spoof Bond movie which had little to do with the book. Much like the new film no doubt!
I have a few legitimate Bond questions.
1. How many of the Bond novels written by Ian Fleming have been adapted to film?
2. What happens when all of the novels have been exhausted, does that mean the end of the franchise?
It has shades of the scenes in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade which explained his scar, fear of snakes and the name “Indiana”.
The big difference of course is that that was the third film, not the 21st in a 43 year old franchise.
I think people are overreacting to what’s being billed as “explaining it all”. The plot points they mention all follow the original book’s story, which was a fun read. I think if they follow that, it’ll be all right (assuming Daniel Craig does a good enough job).
Ive just been discussing this with Morbius and I said 9although I never had a problem with it) that it’s like what they did to the Force in Star Wars, with the midichlorian theory explained in The Phantom Menace, suddenly, to the purists the Force doesnt seem to be that mysterious anymore.
But surely, this could be an interesting thing about Bond, I dont mind dissecting the Bond psyche, so let’s wait till they’ve actually ruined it! LOL
I agree with Morbius. Go explain something else and don’t bother me with it.
Bond is just Bond. That’s why the franchise remains popular.
This whole idea of making Bond human, starting with those last two Brosnan flicks, is just boring. The man isn’t human. I mean he stays young and he changes face on a regular basis. We do not need any explanations it’s the mystery and the incredibility of Bond over the years that makes it fun to watch.
I hope I’m wrong, but I think this will suck.
And Bond already had a Deep Love Interest in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” Contessa Teresa ‘Tracy’ Di Vicenzo was killed by Blofeld. So the deep love angle is nothing new.
I am guessing Morbius is very, very happy! LOL
Wow, this sounds really, really dreadful!
After 20 movies, why all of a sudden does Bond need to be explained???
Ahhhhhh….so Bond was in love! I want to see this to use it in future relationships! LOL
Sounds good, in a Batman Begins sort of way. They can’t think of a better word for it than ’embryonic’?