which other Bonds could pull off 'Casino Royale'?
Andy007
Posts: 100MI6 Agent
Got me thinking, out of all the Bond's so far, other than Craig - who could have pulled off 'Casino Royale'? i think this movie has lengendary status in the Bond series. But out of the other Bond's who could have pulled this off. Well Moore & Brosnan couldn't imo. But I could imagine Connery or Lazenby doing well in this. i think Connery and Dalton both have the tension & focus required for the casino scenes. Both would fit in with the tough edge & fight scenes included. I actually think Lazenby could have done ok. His scene in the poker (hotel) & fight after is similar to scenes from 'Casino Royale' - just not as brutal or long. Dalton had scenes in LTK at the poker table and looked the part. You could imagine his tension & determination at wanting to beat Le Chiffre. - In any case i'm so pleased with Daniel Craig's performance in this. It's fantastic and right up there with Connery in his early films, (Dalton in both films), Brosnan in GE. Dalton himself has stated that Craig did a great job.
Comments
Sean Connery co-stars in HELL DRIVERS, ACTION OF THE TIGER (for Terence Young), and ANOTHER TIME ANOTHER PLACE. In the latter film he is well-groomed and suited, playing a broadcast journalist romantically involved with the female lead. He looks just like a very young James Bond.
John Michael Hayes has scored three big hits with his literate, suspenseful, and witty screenplays for Alfred Hitchcock, REAR WINDOW, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, and TO CATCH A THIEF. The latter has a lot in common with Ian Fleming's Bond and will influence EON's approach to the character in 1962.
David Lean has won accolades for SUMMERTIME and BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAII, but has not yet found his next project, which he would not begin until 1959. In terms of storytelling a David Lean film is mature and sophisticated, and in terms of craftsmanship his films are considered the Rolls Royce of movies. The tough, passionate, atmospheric melodramas Lean directs in the 1940s and the dynamic action he will direct in his later epics demonstrate he has the right temperment and style to direct Ian Fleming's first novel.
Speaking in terms of a "what if fantasy" I wish David Lean had directed Casino Royale in 1957-58 from a screenplay by John Michael Hayes with young Sean Connery as James Bond. When I ask myself, how would they adapt the novel into a movie? the answer always comes up right for the 2000s.
I reject EON's 2006 version.
I reject it absolutely and unequivocally.
It is illegitimate and unacceptable.
Richard
Reflections in a double bourbon...
http://youtu.be/cXhBmEloYxE
Makes me want to watch it tonight.
http://youtu.be/iZxe8geo61A
Is this quote in the new issue of Entertainment Weekly? That would explain why Craig's Bond is the way he is. Also, why he will most likely never have the style, elegance, or refinement of the classic Bonds. I hope I'm wrong and the next movie is awesome given the director who should be a fan of the classic Bond films.
Daniel Craig really said that?
Now that I've started to respect his work in other films, and for his Sean Connery impersonation in Quantum of Solace, I read a quote like that.
How utterly devoid of class, good manners, and professional courtesy.
Perhaps my initial impression was the right one after all: Craig's interpretation of James Bond in Casino Royale was utterly clueless, inexcusable and unforgivable.
Richard
When I read Casino Royale for the second time, I kept seeing Dalton in my minds eye. He would have made the lines really stand out to the viewers long after the film had ended, espcially "The B*tch is Dead."
PS: If Casino Royale was made with a different actor playing Bond, I would also like to feature a male M.
You are going overboard with disrespectful insults to a film and actor that the majority of the public including myself find to be an overall positive experience. Say you don't care for it just as Craig says what he personally didn't care much for. You are coming off as unnecessarily hostile by trashing the approach the both EON and Craig took to the character. I personally think Casino Royale is great and is one of the best in the series. Your initial impression is an opinion, not right for anyone but yourself as all opinions are (same goes for my opinions). Different doesn't equal bad.
As for the OP, I can only picture Brosnan really. Maybe just because he is more modern, but any others doing the movie wouldn't be the same or good in the same ways. Craig is a different Bond. He is the close quarters, gritty, and modern Bond. Now if you just mean which Bond could have done the story, not the same film from 2006, well then any of them except Moore. Moore isn't serious enough.
Not to mention letting out his traditional "OOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!" scream from his last two films.
Then again, maybe he really was putting down another professional actor (and legend). But what with the serious approach this guy seems to take to his profession, I seriously doubt that.
Not to mention letting out his traditional "OOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!" scream from his last two films.
Well in AVTAK poor old Rogers Jollies did take a Beating from that ariel
Not necessarily true. We identify with the early Bond as being Connery becasue he was the first and put his iconic look so much on the role that people still saw him as Bond even after the other actors portrayed the role. I was also one of the millions of young lads who saw him as the only Bond - then Lazenby showed up and I realized another actor could also do it. Then Moore showed up and I thought, oh please!..give me back Sean or George! Kidding aside, the producers definitely hit the jackpot by picking Connery. However, if they had found another unknown with as much presence and charisma as Connery, yet was a bit more refined like Brosnan or Lazenby. I think there still would have been a Bondomania, because it had as much do with Bond as it did with the style of film and genre the producers and director had created. If any of the other actors had been at the right age at the time (or in Craig's situation, had been alive at the time!), and had been the first Bond, I'm certain the public would have accepted them as the iconic figure just as they had Connery.
"They believed that a rough tough guy groomed into a gentleman would be more appealing and convincing than taking refined and molding it into tough."
True. Does not necessarily follow that they were right. Dr. No succeded not only because of Connery's presence, but because this was a totally new type of action film with a new type of genre combining the spy/adventure/spectacle films with a new type of editing. As I mentioned above, if someone like Brosnan had been picked and had done the "gentleman in a suit" who could kill, instead of an upperclass Mike Hammer, I still believe the film would have take off as it did, because of its other attributes. Also, an "upper class Mike Hammer" was totally opposite of Flemings idea. As M said in CR, "any thug can kill". Fleming made his creation unique by taking an Englishman educated in upper class schools (though definitely not an "effite upper class" type - Bond seems to have come more from a professional middle class - though perhaps upper middle class background), and had him become a trained spy and assassin. Remember, Bond was kicked out of Eton (like Fleming), and Fleming wrote about how though Bond was a white collar professional, he still looked out of place in surroundings like Blades (Moonraker) amoung the upper class set.