So we are 5 months away from a new Bond film, Casion Royale, the first Bond film, since License to Kill, to be based on an original Fleming Novel and the first Bond film to star Daniel Craig as everyone's favourite martini drinking, womanising, secret agent.
Controvery has dogged this film for numerous reasons. Firstly the annoucement that Craig would be portraying Bond was met, by some purists, with much distain. Arguments are as follows, Craig's acting career, he has yet to be a leading man (at 37), and in he is mostly known for playing criminals or at least "bad guys", murders, pedofiles, drug dealers, etc.
Until his recent role roles in Munich and Layer Cake, Craig's highest billed perfomance was as co star to Angelina Jolie in, the much maligned, Lara Croft Tomb Raider. Further to this fans have cited the, even more petty, arguement of Craig's lack of resembelance to the literary description of Bond.
He's the shortest actor to portray Bond 5'11", his hair is fair, and it has been stated (rather cruelly) by some, that he is "flat faced" and "scrawy", the current trailer on the official website gives evidence to contray of the latter arguement.
Secondly, critics have panned the news that Casino will be a "Reboot" of the franchise, according to producers Barbera Brocolli and Micheal G wilson, much in the same way that Batman Begins was. Essentially this will mean taking all of the previous continuity of the MGM Bond films to date, and starting afresh.
This has meant that EON has had to take certain liberties with the history of Bond. Casino takes place in the present day, and Bonds history, career and indeed age and date of birth have been re written, Bonds accepted age is 37 so if Casino is set in present day then Bonds new birth date is sometime in early 1969.
However even thought the franchise has been rebooted, certain elements will remain, for example, Judy Dench's M will appear this time as the first M to have been Bond's employer. No doubt Dench remains in the role due to a massivley positive fan reaction to her portrayal.
Reasons have abounded for a reboot to the franchise. Some have stated that the continuation of a franchise which harkens back to the 60's, alienates new viewers, others argue that in a world of Jason Borne and Jack Bauer, 007's "olde worlde" ways simply don't fit in. Add to this the fact that casual fans aren't happy to accept certain "unbelieveibilities" such as Bond's seemingly timeless age, for the sake of enjoying the film and reasons more or less explain theselves.
However, I argue that the reason for a reboot are seated far "far" deeper and even fringe on the political, ideological, and sociological. The last 4 Bond films althought not failures, have underperformed. Die Another Day, which many fans seem to feel is one of the weakest entries in the series, is the most succesful Bond film to date. However this is not compensating for inflation.
Some fans ventured that, at least the last two films, The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day failed on account, of bad writting and lower production values than most fans were used to, the late Cubby Brocolli's ultimatum that "Every penny should go on screen" seemed to have been swayed a little.
Controvery particularly dogged the stunts or rather, special effects, of the latest two films, and some pointed out that, when the Bond films tried, they could still make a damm good action sequence the old fashioned way, so clearly they simply weren't putting the effort in, compare the pre credit sequence of Die Another Day with the Surfing scene.
Even though MGM hinted that these changes, use of CGI in favour of stunts, for example, were put in place in order for Bond to compete with highly succesful sci-action films such as The Matrix trilogy, the also publicley sated that the inclusion of CGI in favour of real stunts was a mistake that would not be repeated. Hence the anouncment that Casino Royale will focus more on charater and plot that stunts and action pieces.
This may seem like some what of a tangent but, my argument is as follows, all of the above reasons for rebooting the franchise are valid and I'm sure that they all played a part of in MGM's decision, however I believe the main reasons for the rebbot is that Bond's world of 1962 simply does not exist anymore. This statement is all the more true due to the events of the last 17 years, the fall of the Eastern Block, the newly founded Muslim "rouge" states and even 9/11.
Bond's world was one of KGB agents and shadowy Soviet assasins, those days are gone and it would be more than difficult, nigh on impossible to accept these events without completely precluding the continuity of the 62' to 2002 franchise. Bond needs to be updated for the modern world, because he is a hero (albeit a somewhat ethically flexible one) and a hero needs villains. Bond's villians have stepped into the 21st century so Bond must aswell.
Conclusion, the reboot to the franchise is a good idea and Craig is a good choice to play Bond as a less model looking more believeble Bond, for a more intelligent, more scrutinising audience. This film is a sure fire success.
Controvery has dogged this film for numerous reasons. Firstly the annoucement that Craig would be portraying Bond was met, by some purists, with much distain. Arguments are as follows, Craig's acting career, he has yet to be a leading man (at 37), and in he is mostly known for playing criminals or at least "bad guys", murders, pedofiles, drug dealers, etc.
Until his recent role roles in Munich and Layer Cake, Craig's highest billed perfomance was as co star to Angelina Jolie in, the much maligned, Lara Croft Tomb Raider. Further to this fans have cited the, even more petty, arguement of Craig's lack of resembelance to the literary description of Bond.
He's the shortest actor to portray Bond 5'11", his hair is fair, and it has been stated (rather cruelly) by some, that he is "flat faced" and "scrawy", the current trailer on the official website gives evidence to contray of the latter arguement.
Secondly, critics have panned the news that Casino will be a "Reboot" of the franchise, according to producers Barbera Brocolli and Micheal G wilson, much in the same way that Batman Begins was. Essentially this will mean taking all of the previous continuity of the MGM Bond films to date, and starting afresh.
This has meant that EON has had to take certain liberties with the history of Bond. Casino takes place in the present day, and Bonds history, career and indeed age and date of birth have been re written, Bonds accepted age is 37 so if Casino is set in present day then Bonds new birth date is sometime in early 1969.
However even thought the franchise has been rebooted, certain elements will remain, for example, Judy Dench's M will appear this time as the first M to have been Bond's employer. No doubt Dench remains in the role due to a massivley positive fan reaction to her portrayal.
Reasons have abounded for a reboot to the franchise. Some have stated that the continuation of a franchise which harkens back to the 60's, alienates new viewers, others argue that in a world of Jason Borne and Jack Bauer, 007's "olde worlde" ways simply don't fit in. Add to this the fact that casual fans aren't happy to accept certain "unbelieveibilities" such as Bond's seemingly timeless age, for the sake of enjoying the film and reasons more or less explain theselves.
However, I argue that the reason for a reboot are seated far "far" deeper and even fringe on the political, ideological, and sociological. The last 4 Bond films althought not failures, have underperformed. Die Another Day, which many fans seem to feel is one of the weakest entries in the series, is the most succesful Bond film to date. However this is not compensating for inflation.
Some fans ventured that, at least the last two films, The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day failed on account, of bad writting and lower production values than most fans were used to, the late Cubby Brocolli's ultimatum that "Every penny should go on screen" seemed to have been swayed a little.
Controvery particularly dogged the stunts or rather, special effects, of the latest two films, and some pointed out that, when the Bond films tried, they could still make a damm good action sequence the old fashioned way, so clearly they simply weren't putting the effort in, compare the pre credit sequence of Die Another Day with the Surfing scene.
Even though MGM hinted that these changes, use of CGI in favour of stunts, for example, were put in place in order for Bond to compete with highly succesful sci-action films such as The Matrix trilogy, the also publicley sated that the inclusion of CGI in favour of real stunts was a mistake that would not be repeated. Hence the anouncment that Casino Royale will focus more on charater and plot that stunts and action pieces.
This may seem like some what of a tangent but, my argument is as follows, all of the above reasons for rebooting the franchise are valid and I'm sure that they all played a part of in MGM's decision, however I believe the main reasons for the rebbot is that Bond's world of 1962 simply does not exist anymore. This statement is all the more true due to the events of the last 17 years, the fall of the Eastern Block, the newly founded Muslim "rouge" states and even 9/11.
Bond's world was one of KGB agents and shadowy Soviet assasins, those days are gone and it would be more than difficult, nigh on impossible to accept these events without completely precluding the continuity of the 62' to 2002 franchise. Bond needs to be updated for the modern world, because he is a hero (albeit a somewhat ethically flexible one) and a hero needs villains. Bond's villians have stepped into the 21st century so Bond must aswell.
Conclusion, the reboot to the franchise is a good idea and Craig is a good choice to play Bond as a less model looking more believeble Bond, for a more intelligent, more scrutinising audience. This film is a sure fire success.
