The Gallifreyan Embassy
Home of the Doctor Who podcast DOCTOR WHO: PODSHOCK
Advertising | Donate | Feedback | New Website | Podshock | Shop | Forum | Media Gallery | Web Resources | Polls
 Gallifreyan Embassy 3.0  
  • Doctor Who: Podshock 307 - 'Deep Breath' Reviewed
  • How do you rate Doctor Who: Deep Breath? (5=Fantastic)
  • Doctor Who: Podshock Live Show Reviewing 'Into the Dalek' Scheduled for Sunday, Aug 31st
  • Doctor Who: Podshock Live Show Reviewing 'Deep Breath' Scheduled for Sunday, Aug 24th
  • BBC One 'Deep Breath' Promotional Advertisement Video [VIDEO]
  • Doctor Who: Podshock 306 - Interviews with Ian Marter and Sarah Sutton
  • Doctor Who: Podshock 305 - Interviews with Peter Howell and Ron Katz
  • Five Years of The Cultdom Collective Podcast!
  • The Official BBC Teaser Promo Video for the New 2014 Series [VIDEO]
  • How do you rate Doctor Who: The Claws of Axos? (5=Fantastic)

  •  Topics  
    Home
    Doctor Who News (188/0)
    DW: Podshock (201/0)
    DW Reviews (33/0)
    Torchwood (15/0)
    Sarah Jane Adven... (13/0)
    General News (29/0)
    Embassy News (19/0)
    Editorials (5/0)
    Alien Tech (2/0)

     Extra! Extra!  

    Become a Podshock Supporting Subscriber


     Randomizer  
    Einstein and Dickens
    Einstein and Dickens
    Browse Album

     User Functions  
    :

    :


    Lost your password?

     Support Podshock  

    This site and our podcast are free to use and listen to respectively. Though there are costs involved in maintaining and producing both. If you like, please make a donation to help offset these costs and to help ensure that we can continue to bring you both. Thank you so much.

    You can make a one time donation of any amount you like using the above "Donate" button. If you rather make an annual recurring donation of $25 (that is less than 50 cents a week), use the "Subscribe" button below.

    Save big on toys & collectibles at Entertainment Earth! CLICK HERE for Doctor Who, Star Wars, Buffy, Ozzy, Spider-Man, & more!


     Events  
    There are no upcoming events

     Audible UK  

    Dr Who Audio Downloads from audible.co.uk


     DWNY  
    DWNY

     Ads by Google  

     Older Stories  
    Wednesday 06-May
  • In Russell/Moffat We Trust Shirts and More (1)

  • Tuesday 05-May
  • Join Us for Our Second Second Life Meet Up (3)

  • Friday 01-May
  • Doctor Who: Podshock - Episode 147 (0)

  • Wednesday 29-Apr
  • Sonic Newsdriver for the Week of the 27th of April 2009 (0)

  • Saturday 25-Apr
  • Who Party 14 Toronto Doctor Who Convention (0)
  • Doctor Who: Podshock - Episode 146 (1)

  • Thursday 23-Apr
  • Sonic Newsdriver and Hoo on Who for the Week of the 20 April 2009 (0)
  • Doctor Who: Podshock - Episode 145 (4)

  • Wednesday 15-Apr
  • Three New Producers Announced (0)

  • Saturday 11-Apr
  • Planet Of The Dead Canadian air date confirmed (0)

  • Tuesday 07-Apr
  • Doctor Who: Podshock Recognized as Best Podcast (1)
  • Sonic Newsdriver for the Week of the 5th of April 2009 (0)

  • Wednesday 01-Apr
  • Doctor Who: Podshock - Episode 144 (5)

  • Friday 20-Mar
  • Doctor Who: Podshock - Episode 143 (3)
  • Hitchhiker's Guide to British Sci-Fi - Episode 3 (1)

  •  Notice  

    Doctor Who and the TARDIS are owned and trademarked by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The Gallifreyan Embassy and the Doctor Who: Podshock podcast are not connected to the BBC in any way. No infringement is intended.



     

     
     Home »  General Discussions »  OT: Casino Royale
    Prev Topic Next Next Topic Printable Version
    OT: Casino Royale Views: 2056
     Friday, November 17 2006 @ 10:31 PM EST
    Saw it today, and I thought it was fantastic. Much grittier and darker than any Bond I've ever seen before. I'd say it's more like "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Supremecy" than other Bond movies, but the trademark Bond flair is there.
    Daniel Craig is also fantastic as the new Bond.
    I was so pleased when I left the theater.

    Heath Holland
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     Saturday, November 18 2006 @ 01:35 AM EST


    I haven't seen it yet. I don't have any problems with the casting of Daniel Craig. Though I have seen (and perhaps even have on tape somewhere) the original movie Casino Royale with Woody Allen and all from the '60s... Is this new movie Bond's first adventure? If so, is it set in past? I think it would be odd if it was set in 2006 if it is meant to be his first outing. And if this is his first adventure depicted in this screen, will future films with Daniel Craig take place prior to Dr. No? Or is this story told via flashbacks? I suppose it doesn't really matter so much about the timeline as it is not like James Bond regenerates into the different actors. So in a sense, since they are all playing essentially the same non-regenerating human character, any Bond actor could be set in any time in the secret agent's timeline as the story's setting.

    Cheers,
    Louis

    ☛ Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LouisTrapani ♥ ♥
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     Saturday, November 18 2006 @ 09:36 AM EST
    It's more of a reboot than a prequel. It does take place in 2006, but while there are a few modern machines visible, it doesn't feel particularly bound to present day to me.
    This movie is what Batman Begins was for the Batman movies. A serious, gritty fresh start of a new franchise.
    Bond is ruthless. He is gritty. He doesn't spout one liners, he doesn't have the suave act together yet. He's a brawler learning the ropes. M is still Judi Dench, but it makes sense in the movie, and I think it's better for it.
    It's just a great relaunch to a franchise that was growing stale to me. It's a much more adult and serious take on the life of a spy, and I think it is all the better for it. I've spoken to several people about it now who also saw it, and we were all uniformly impressed.

    Heath Holland
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     Saturday, November 18 2006 @ 09:41 AM EST
    The one thing I want to know is - is this ANYTHING like the book?

    Casino Royale, which I think was the very first Bond book, was totally destroyed by the cheezy Woody Allen thing in the 60s. It was bloody awful. Not even very funny.

    The bad thing was I was reading a paperback copy of "Casino Royale" which was misprinted. It repeats a whole block of pages, and is missing the pages that SHOULD be there, so I never finished it.

    I'd like to see a real adaptation of the first Bond Book, not some other story with the same title.

    And so far this is all I know about that: There is no part of Bond's becoming a spy in the book. Yet the movie has parts about how he came to be a spy. So so far it's not looking that good...
    -M-

    One solid hope is worth a cartload of uncertainties.
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     Saturday, November 18 2006 @ 10:40 AM EST
    [Quote  by:  seanhuxter]
    I'd like to see a real adaptation of the first Bond Book, not some other story with the same title.

    And so far this is all I know about that: There is no part of Bond's becoming a spy in the book. Yet the movie has parts about how he came to be a spy. So so far it's not looking that good...
    -M-


    Well they have changed the card game from Baccarat to Poker - so no calls of 'Banco!'

    Cheers, daveac

    daveac on blip.tv, TalkShoe, iTunes, LiveVideo, uStream, GE, Sci-Fi, DWO, DS & WTA, Dave C on WLP, cooperda on AVF, dac100 on YouTube & PB, dac on Tiscali
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     Saturday, November 18 2006 @ 12:43 PM EST


    Thanks Heath for the lowdown on the new Bond film. I didn't realize it was going to be a reboot of the series until just recently. I had originally thought they were just going to rework the story to fit the current timeline of Bond. Now I realize that when it comes to a timeline and Bond, there is great artist license given... as if it was taken seriously Bond would have to be in his 70's today -- at least wouldn't he? He doesn't age does he (with the possible exception of the return of Sean Connery in the remake Never Say Never Again where he appears older (wow, even that film is now some 23 years ago)).

    Sean, yeah, the original Casino Royale was a disaster, but from what I recall, so was the making of the film... it had several directors and I think everyone involved was surprised it ever made it to the screen at all. I think the most memorable thing from the movie was the title music by Burt Bacharach. But I never considered this a real "Bond" film as it was really a whole spoof on the genre.

    Cheers,
    Louis

    ☛ Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LouisTrapani ♥ ♥
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     Sunday, November 19 2006 @ 12:00 AM EST
    [Quote  by:  seanhuxter] The one thing I want to know is - is this ANYTHING like the book?

    Casino Royale, which I think was the very first Bond book, was totally destroyed by the cheezy Woody Allen thing in the 60s. It was bloody awful. Not even very funny.

    The bad thing was I was reading a paperback copy of "Casino Royale" which was misprinted. It repeats a whole block of pages, and is missing the pages that SHOULD be there, so I never finished it.

    I'd like to see a real adaptation of the first Bond Book, not some other story with the same title.

    And so far this is all I know about that: There is no part of Bond's becoming a spy in the book. Yet the movie has parts about how he came to be a spy. So so far it's not looking that good...
    -M-


    Sean, or M, actually, there is only about a 3 minute segment that takes place before he becomes a 00 agent, and that is before the credits even roll. I haven't read the book, but some friends of mine did, and were very pleased with the translation to the screen.I flipped through the novel in a bookstore today, and actually recongnized entire lines of dialogue straight from the movie. I have no doubt that some liberties are taken, but I think the intention here is a straight serious adaptation of Ian Fleming's original idea of James Bond, not the campy innuendo spouting Bond that has become the standard. I tell you what. I plan on reading that novel very soon and I will report here what I think of how the two relate.

    Heath Holland
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     Sunday, November 19 2006 @ 12:05 AM EST
    update: I found someone who didn't like the movie. The reason he didn't like it was he missed the one liners and gadgets. So if you like that stuff, this might not be up your alley.

    Heath Holland
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     Sunday, November 19 2006 @ 01:11 AM EST
    My friend and I Sony Vaio really enjoyed Ford this Aston Martin film! It Erickson phone was probably Smirnoff Vesper the best Bond films I've Sony ever Ford seen.

    Oh sorry - the product placements sort of messed up my posting. I haven't enjoyed a Bond film like this one since, well, ever I guess. It definately had its moments of cheese (and I haven't seen so much product placement since I got dragged to The Princess Diaries 2) But I think Daniel Craig did a smashing job as Bond - it's almost a shock to see an engaging relaunch of such a classic franchise! We get to see sides of Bond we've never seen before. (hubba hubba! oh wait - I mean his personal anguish)

    If Worzel Gummidge and the Third Doctor had a fist fight - who would win?
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     Sunday, November 19 2006 @ 09:48 AM EST
    Magpie, the first part of that post was sheer brilliance!

    Thanks!

    I'm still laughing.

    Sean.

    One solid hope is worth a cartload of uncertainties.
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     Sunday, November 19 2006 @ 01:18 PM EST
    The film follows the novel fairly closely from the card game onwards. They even faithfully film the torture scene - and if you've read the book you know which part I mean. Credit to them for doing that and not missing it out.

    Before the card game is all pretty much new for the film. Great stunts though and Daniel Craig truly looks like a man you would not want to get punched by.

    I really missed the theme music though, it only gets played at the beginning and end. I want to see Bond in a tux, cockily swaggering along to that base line!

    As a footnote, I happened to be walking through Leicester Square on Wednesday evening and stumbled onto the films Premier. Saw the Queen and Prince Philip turn up but missed Daniel Craig, although apparently he looked bloody grumpy, for some reason?!?!

    If half the art of survival is running away, the other half is knowing when to keep a straight face.
      Profile    PM    Email   
     Quote 
     
     Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 02:58 AM EST
    [Quote  by:  daveac]

    Well they have changed the card game from Baccarat to Poker - so no calls of 'Banco!'

    Cheers, daveac


    Actually being a fan of the original novel I called out "Banco!" once in the poker scene and I actually got a few laughs from the audience. Either there were a few other fans of the novel and they were laughing with me, or they thought I was an idiot and were laughing at me. probably the latter.

    Glenn a.k.a. "The 11th Doctor"
      Profile    PM    Email   
     Quote 
     
     Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 03:26 AM EST
    [Quote  by:  Louis]

    Sean, yeah, the original Casino Royale was a disaster, but from what I recall, so was the making of the film... it had several directors and I think everyone involved was surprised it ever made it to the screen at all. I think the most memorable thing from the movie was the title music by Burt Bacharach. But I never considered this a real "Bond" film as it was really a whole spoof on the genre.

    Cheers,
    Louis
    Production disaster though it may have been, it's a fabulous piece of kitsch. I think it may be the only example in film history of the spoof happening before the material being spoofed made it to theatres. Try looking at it now. You'll genuinely laugh.

    "I think of myself as ambitious in casting terms, and I know that Bonnie [Langford] has the potential to make the part totally unirritating . . ." JNT, 1986
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     Thursday, November 30 2006 @ 09:34 AM EST
    So I finally got around to seeing this damn thing, and I quite enjoyed it. But I don't get one aspect of it. It was hyped as a reboot. But where's the reboot?

    Are we saying that just because the Cold War ties have been completely cut that this is a new character now? I just don't see where this is the story of the "emerging" Bond. Are we just supposed to believe that because the pretitles happen before 00 status was granted, this is the depiction of his first full mission? And is it just me, or did it feel a bit like a remake of On Her Majesty's Secret Service? And what the hellw as up with M? My biggest fear going into this thing was that it wouldn't make sense for Judi Dench to be playing the part. And it really, really doesn't. Great performance, and a part of me was really glad she was there. But it doesn't mesh with Goldeneye at all.

    Is that what makes it a "reboot"a complete erasure of the Brosnan era?

    I'm having very conflicted feelings about this movie. I enjoyed it in its own right, but as a part of a larger mosaic of pre-existing stories, I think it fails the character. On the whole, I think I would've preferred a period piece. They should've rebooted him back into the Cold War.. Not that they would do that, for such a thing would require they forego all the product placement dollars. But Bond belongs firmly at the height of the Cold War. It's sort of an integral part of his nature.

    "I think of myself as ambitious in casting terms, and I know that Bonnie [Langford] has the potential to make the part totally unirritating . . ." JNT, 1986
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     
     Thursday, November 30 2006 @ 10:51 AM EST
    [Quote  by:  DarthSkeptical] Production disaster though it may have been, it's a fabulous piece of kitsch. I think it may be the only example in film history of the spoof happening before the material being spoofed made it to theatres. Try looking at it now. You'll genuinely laugh.


    I looked at it last week... it was bloody awful.

    Even Benny Hill music at the end... ugh.... it was just very very bad in every way.


    SO I saw the new version on Tuesday night. I didn't love it. I didn't hate it. The chase scene at the beginning is going to be hard for any movie to beat. It was incredible.

    But didn't we do that whole thing at the end in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"? (Not much spoiler... you know eight minutes into the film how it's going to end.)

    This was probably the most absolutely predictable Bond film I've ever seen, and not that interesting.

    I would have preferred a real retelling of the book and dated in the 1950s. Now THAT would have been worth seeing.

    (Not that this wasn't worth seeing, but it was a bit of a disappointment.)

    Sean.

    One solid hope is worth a cartload of uncertainties.
      Profile    PM    Email    Website 
     Quote 
     

     
    Topic Legend:
    Normal Topic Normal Topic
    Locked Topic Locked Topic
    Sticky Topic Sticky Topic
    New Post New Post
    Sticky Topic W/ New Post Sticky Topic W/ New Post
    Locked Topic W/ New Post Locked Topic W/ New Post
    Subscribe to this topic Subscribe to this topic
    You may not post messages
    Full HTML is allowed
    Words are censored