Re: Casino Royale
Posted by reaper47 on
Fri Sep 8th 2006 at 9:05pm
2827 posts
1921 snarkmarks
Registered:
Feb 16th 2005
Location: Austria
It can only be better than the last Brosnan movie.
3012 posts
529 snarkmarks
Registered:
Feb 15th 2005
I think it looks like a tremendous improvement. The Brosnan movies never struck me as quite serious or stylish enough.
I'll definitely go see this one, after having ignored every Brosnan movie after Goldeneye.
Re: Casino Royale
Posted by SpiKeRs on
Sat Sep 9th 2006 at 7:58am
193 posts
729 snarkmarks
Registered:
Jun 14th 2003
Apart from the last one, I kinda thought all the Brosnan films were a little too serious with the whole betrayal thing in Goldeneye, etc
Hello there.
Re: Casino Royale
Posted by Naklajat on
Sat Sep 9th 2006 at 8:23am
1137 posts
384 snarkmarks
Registered:
Nov 15th 2004
Occupation: Baron
Location: Austin, Texas
Timothy Dalton > Pierce Brosnan
Sean Connery > Pierce Brosnan
Roger Moore > Pierce Brosnan
I haven't done a Bond-o-thon recently enough to compare the older Bonds to eachother. Brosnan may be a good actor etc. but he's not Bond enough IMO, I just can't get into those movies like I can a Roger Moore or Sean Connery Bond film. A Bond-o-thon sounds like a good idea though...
Trailer looks neat, but you can't really tell if a movie will be good from a trailer.
o
Re: Casino Royale
Posted by Orpheus on
Sat Sep 9th 2006 at 11:46am
Posted
2006-09-09 11:46am
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
2024 snarkmarks
Registered:
Aug 26th 2001
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Actually, I think the guy who did the single movie about Bonds wife was the best of the lot. However, having only made the single movie its really hard to form an opinion.
My favorites are Moore and Connery. Only because they did so many, and all very well.
The best things in life, aren't things.
Re: Casino Royale
Posted by Jimmi on
Tue Sep 12th 2006 at 1:16pm
Jimmi
member
217 posts
22 snarkmarks
Registered:
May 17th 2006
Location: South Africa
It looks excellent compared to the last ones. Truly looks like one of the classic good old ones. Nice to see them cutting back on all the fancy little special effects and crap.
Re: Casino Royale
Posted by Crono on
Wed Sep 13th 2006 at 1:06am
Crono
super admin
6628 posts
700 snarkmarks
Registered:
Dec 19th 2003
Location: Oregon, USA
It isn't a prequel, it's a reboot, like Batman Begins. The other movies never happened ... and never will.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Casino Royale
Posted by reaper47 on
Wed Sep 13th 2006 at 10:43am
Posted
2006-09-13 10:43am
2827 posts
1921 snarkmarks
Registered:
Feb 16th 2005
Location: Austria
The Bond movies have never really been continuous anyway. He'd be almost 80 today.
Re: Casino Royale
Posted by Jimmi on
Sun Sep 17th 2006 at 7:28pm
Jimmi
member
217 posts
22 snarkmarks
Registered:
May 17th 2006
Location: South Africa
I hate it when they do that with sequels and stuff. Have a new one and pretend the other things never happened.
This reminds me a bit of HL2:Ep1. Obviously in those the previous stuff DID happen...but with the Episode 1 word it makes it seem like the other stuff never happened, and this is the first?
Re: Casino Royale
Posted by reaper47 on
Sun Sep 17th 2006 at 8:51pm
2827 posts
1921 snarkmarks
Registered:
Feb 16th 2005
Location: Austria
Episode 1 was a bad name choice (why not Aftermath?).
Re: Casino Royale
Posted by Finger on
Sun Sep 17th 2006 at 9:56pm
Finger
member
672 posts
1460 snarkmarks
Registered:
Oct 13th 2001
I think they chose clear communication over 'coolnes', when picking this name. Otherwise, it could potentially be confusing when trying to market and sell a product that is clearly supposed to be played in chronological order.
Yes, it is sort of generic and I guess they could have tacked on a thematic name as starwars did, 'Episode 1: Alyx Gets Nekkid', or something like that.