My boycott of Wendy’s is still in force. Despite the cravings, the throbbing pain in my left temple, the itching, the shakes, and the fact that Wendy’s stock is up just over a dollar since my announcement, I will persevere. They’ll see. They’ll see.
They’ve released the first trailer for Casino Royale. After seeing Layer Cake and this trailer, I’m a lot more confident than I was last fall that Craig can be a good 007. Based on what else I’ve learned of the movie, producers Broccoli and Wilson seem to be serious about once again making Bond movies that “feel” like the Fleming novels, for the first time in a while.
But the Fleming novels haven’t been bestsellers in decades, whereas the Brosnan Approach, aka “Fighter Jets Explode When Struck By Ejector Seats,” was earning $350 million per film. Hopefully the producers will stick with the new approach even if the new movie doesn’t earn as much as the explosion-fests.
The black-and-white footage and the different gun-barrel shot make it look like they’re actually giving the directors some creative license. And there are rumors that they’re going to release the sequel in 2007, which would (A) make perfect marketing sense and (B) absolve me from fulfilling 2006 Resolution #10. Everything is falling into place.
I do have one concern: the two major “Bond Girls” look too similar at first glance. How are we supposed to tell them apart? Their names? Come on, it’s a Bond movie—even the non-suggestive female names tend to run together after a while, don’t they? For example: Who really remembers the difference between “Fiona Volpe,” “Domino Derval,” and “Patricia Fearing” from Thunderball? Answer: No one. But they do remember “That Red-Headed Evil Motorcycle Chick,” “That Hot Brunette with the Half-See-Through Swimsuit,” and “That Blonde Masseuse Who Gets Cast Aside After Five Minutes.” Red-head, brunette, blonde, nice and easy.
Since it’s probably too late to recast either Bond Girl, I propose that they use CGI to give one of them an eyepatch so we can easily tell them apart without having to remember their names.
Either way, here’s hoping they stick to the spirit of the novel as closely as possible.
This is agonizing… I’m sitting in a Panera Bread and there are three girls studying for the APUSH exam two tables away, who can’t figure out what the Seven Years’ War has to do with American history. “That’s Britain and France, what does that have to do with us?” I miss teaching.
2 Responses to “Day Four.”
- aabrock Says:
May 4th, 2006 at 7:55 PM
Not having read Casino Royale I don’t have a position on how faithful the movie should be; I do concur that I am sick to death of constant, massive, inexplicable explosions as the entire world hangs in the balance. Continue to mock me if you will, but I appreciate the small scale plot of “License to Kill” more than any Brosnan Bond. I mean, isn’t Bond a spy? Doesn’t that imply some level of sneakiness, cunning, stealth? And please, no gadgets!
Okay, I’ll continue to mock you, but I don’t see what bearing that has on anything else…
I’d say the only Bond movies that felt like Fleming novels were everything before Diamonds Are Forever, plus Live and Let Die, For Your Eyes Only, and the Dalton movies. My only current problem with Licence to Kill was that M ordered his agents to fire on Bond, and refused to let Bond avenge Leiter… what crap. No wonder they replaced him with Judi Dench.