What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
259 Comments
- Ghazi, on 10/12/2007, -13/+76I guess YOU would know more about it than Martin Campbell, the director.
- stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39"How are they gonna sell this one?"
Umm... maybe be telling a good story. You know, the WHOLE POINT OF A FILM. Finally someone in hollywood is realizing that they need to start making good films and you're going to complain? The original book "Casino Royale" is spectacular; I only hope they can remain as true as possible to the original story. - netnifty, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34He never was cast as Q, he was cast as R, who replaced Q.
- sobriquet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Movies such as XXX, while entertaining, were slowly ruining the genre. There is too much crutching on digital effects in film these days. They have their place, but at sacrificing other elements of the film (story and dialogue mostly) many producers are at fault. By getting back to the basics with a modern approach this film should hopefully set a new standard where you can actually belive some of the action. I have to cite Die Hard, where John McClain gets the ***** beat out of him by the end. That's believable.
- Odwalla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27"How are they gonna sell this one?"
They sold "Bond vs. Ted Turner" in Tomorrow Never Dies a few years back. This should be a cake-walk. As for the no gadgets, no MoneyPenny, and No Q comment maybe you should read the article. This Bond film is set at the time that Bond becomes Bond. At the begining of the film he doesn't have his license to kill or his 007 designation from MI6. It wouldn't make sense for him to walk into the MI6 HQ and have his double entendre conversations with MP and his witty banter with Q, as he doesn't know either of them yet, let alone know them well enough to have those types of conversations with them. - catullus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27i wouldn't write it off so quick. read the review, it sounds really good
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25The invisible cars and exploding satelites aren't particularly bad ideas. It was the way they were carried off. The glut of slick (disgustingly slick) gadgets was sick, thrown in front of the camera like candy. Bond's immunity to every bullet and scratch, where he fares better than Superman, was a extreme joke, although this is sadly symptomatic of most Hollywood material.
- patientx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Give me my Jackie Chan and Jet Li with no special effects.They are the real action heroes of the century.
- Col_Jessup, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24No Q? No Problem. No Moneypenny? No problem. No Gadgets? No problem. No CGI? No problem. James Bond driving a FORD!? Problem.
- navster15, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21The guy who plays Q is dead. John Cleese took over Q's duties, as the character R, in Die Another Day and would have continued to be Bond's gadget man had the producers chosen to continue the series with Pierce Brosnan.
- thatjoekid, on 10/12/2007, -13/+31Did you just refer to John Cleese as "the person who plays Q"?
Oh my. - KiwiRed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Hmmm, so what we have is essentially 'Bond Begins'...
- Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19isnt this Bond supposed to be early in the Bond timeline, of course he should have fewer gadgets. As for no CGI, yea sure, CGI isnt bad people, just dontover do it
- kevbob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"Anyone who enjoyed either Bourne Identity movie should be forced to read the books and then reconsider."
I read the Bourne books around when they came out and had fond memories of them. I saw the Bourne movies and enjoyed them, so I picked up the first Bourne book to re-read it. The dialog was so melodramatic and hackneyed as to be nearly unreadable, especially with the lead female character. I stopped after about 1/3 the way through. Although the story was altered significantly, I'd rather watch the movies than read Ludlum's books again. - yongfook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15After seeing Daniel Craig in "The Layer Cake" I have every confidence that he can be a great Bond. Not that the characters were similar, but Craig's performance in the movie was mesmerising - and I think it's that commitment to actually playing a real human character instead of a comic book character like we've seen with Brosnan's Bond, that is going to make this movie one to watch.
I'm expecting the same kind of positive turnaround of a franchise as with Batman Begins. - akatrito, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18um, batman begins flopped?
i thought it was pretty sucessful, especially compared to batman versus robin and batman forever
look, wikipedia even says it was sucessful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Begins - Trjn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Looks to me like they are going back to the books.
And I love that, I've read a fair chunk of the original series, and I have to say that compared to the newer 007 movies (Pierce Brosnan's ones especially), I'll go with the books any day.
A good plot will beat a good special effects budget for me, and hopefully for most other movie goers. - ForbesBingley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Agreed.
I think the interview says it all; after the invisible Aston, where do you go next? Back to the beginning, of course.
Let's face it, Bond films always appeal to the school boy in everyone. And suspending disbelief for the implausible moments is just part & parcel of the exercise, which is pure entertainment.
Only this time, we get some substance with our action.
Can't wait... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Yup, the first Diehard, not its 2 inferior sequels, was a phenominal movie. No CGI, no gadgets, a couple of stuntmen, it was almost perfect.
Now if someone could just do a 'phantom edit' kind of thing and erase that annoying kid in the limo it would be perfect :) - copperhead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Compare that to Dr. No, the first Bond movie, where we find out that Bond had spent a while in the hospital because his gun backfired (or jammed? Hmm... time to watch it again).
Anyway, I like the flawed, mortal Bond character, which is why I think Timothy Dalton was one of the best, playing Bond as a human being with a painful past. - Coletrickle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13great news, James bond is heading downhill for years, lets hope this one can get the level up again :)
Invisible cars *sigh* - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10'You ever talk about a movie with someone who read the book? They're always so condescending, "Ah, the book was much better than the movie." "Oh really? What I enjoyed about the movie? No reading. It only took two hours, and then I could take a nap."'
- gsmithEIDW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10And why is that a problem? he's driven a Citroen 2CV and all manner of other equally less glamourous vehicles.
He will be driving an Aston DBS as well. I think an element of gritty realism might bring james bond closer to other spy films such as the Ipcress File. There was always an element of humour and futuristic technology in Bond films, but things definitly got out of hand with the CGI in the last few Bond films - every fight scene started to look like some cheap clone of the sort of thing you'd see in the Matrix.. slow motion sequences and views from different angles. I absolutly love Aston Martins and always have, but the chase scenes in the last film were so over-produced and CGI influenced that they were shameful to watch. There'd be more realism with Mario Kart and a bottle of Vodka.
John Cleese was never as good a Q, Judy Dench was a poor atempt to inject political correctness into the M role, the Moneypenny thing was just a bit of fun and i dont think it was ever central or important in the films except as a brief comic interlude. - MiamiGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I have a feeling this movie (although not accepted by most media and some bond fans) will do surprisingly better than expected. I was getting tired of the exaggerated things that would happen in Bond. For once I'd like to see something more realistic, with a few gadgets while still maintaing a "cool/creative factor" to them.
I mean what kind of spy is the current Bond? I thought being a spy meant sneaking around not trying to get caught, but in every bond movie he always blows things up and sets off alarms. What kind of spy is that? - spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I agree there. Blanketly stating that there will be no CGI is creating an unnecessary limit on their ability to make the movie come to life. CGI is a tool, just like stunt men or pyrotechnics. It can be used badly or it can be done very well, in which case it should be almost invisible to the viewer.
- CaptainCalculus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I liked Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies. After that James Bond movies became advertisement movies for me... HEY GUYZ BUY THIS NORELCO SHAVER
I am glad we are returning the roots of the Ian Flemming's books.
EDIT: Oh and it is not a remake... The original Casino Royale was a comedy about James Bond always messing up. I do not think the story was written by Ian Flemming. There was a real Bond book written by Fleming entitled Casino Royale which was Bond's first book and first missions. The earlier movie was a farse. - Trjn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8ketsugi, if I remember right, Connery was truer to the original bond from the novels than Brosnan ever was.
Bond is (at least to me) a very rough and imperfect character, that was part of the appeal. As the movie franchise went further along, that part of him was taken away for the more polished suave aspects of his character, and thats what most people are familiar with, and why Brosnan is more easily associated with Bond than Connery. - Lacero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I have a feeling this will be the best Bond movie ever. Craig was awesome in Layer Cake -- he'll be awesome in this movie as well.
- kdivad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Real James Bond fans should know that Q wasn't in Casino Royale the book, and Moneypenny only makes a small appearance!
- ketsugi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I'll agree that Sean Connery is probably the most successful (and most definitive) Bond, but I really prefer Brosnan over Connery as far as James Bond is concerned. Sean Connery, even in his Bond days, always looked a bit old. Brosnan has a much classier look, imho.
This only goes as far as Bond, mind you. Sean Connery is still one of my favourite actors anywhere else. - tito13kfm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"Pierce Brosnan, the most successful of the five Bond actors to date"
Try reading that with a straight face... I dare you.
Yeah I thought so. Sean Connery is the only true Bond. - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6agreed, they shouldn't need to drag out old plot peices (Q), or overdo the GCI to get poeple to watch it. give it some *****, girls with overtly sexual names, car chases, explosions, and above all else, a good story and poeple will want to see it
- staticten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't understand why people are so obsessed with the gadgetry, Q and CGI......
I'm glad they went this direction instead of the Cheesy direction................
let's bring back the old real BOND!! (the one who's a double (00) agent, not a ***** American Idol agent) - sangsara, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The question is whether or not the team can pull it off. Bond hasn't had a good story in years, and frankly I have my doubts whether the producers would know a good story from one that was being supported by effects and action scenes. I'd love to be surprised, mind you, just that I don't expect much from the people who green-lighted the last 5 movies.
- gekkokid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8i'm looking forward to this movie, i hated the recent krud, the bond girls are looking hot and tarty this time round, a few fist fights and im happy
the story of a madman taking over the world is just boring, the genre is poop, - s11mac, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10One word. Boobies.
A whole lot of undiscovered starlets wanting to set foot into stardom. They will do anything ..ANYTHING. Even braindead eye candy parts in a Bond film. Just look at same of the big names today, they had a Bond role during the struggling years. - kamizu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If any of you had half a brain and twice the time to do a little research, you wouldn't be all (too) bothered by the situation.
1. Keep in mind this is the first of the Bond novels, so this should be basically the introductory Bond movie. With this in mind, having no Q and a vast array of gadgets, no Moneypenny and no CGI shouldn't be an issue.
2. Q died and they need a gadget guy, give them a break. The probably improvised on the last movie and now they have to stay consistent, so live with it.
3. True Sean Connery was the one and only decent Bond, but keep in mind that Brosnan's movies were the only ones not based on Ian Fleming's books. Timothy Dalton played the last Ian Fleming book. Brosnan was a Bond only in character. Considering that, they didn't do that bad keeping up the tradition of Bond. Obviously a victim of capitalism in the later movies, but that wasn't surpring either. As if marketing all the Bond cars and constantly flying Pan Am in the earlier movies wasn't obvious advertising.
Roger Moore, however, was a joke. Where Connery and Brosnan had the classy playboy feel to them, Roger Moore was full of lame wit and trashy charm.
All in all, my only problem with the new movie is the actor and the lack of M. As with the latter, I'm just curious how Bond goes around without him. - RevMark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The gadgets must be plausible. Come on, invisible cars? I think the fall of the Bond genre started when Halley Berry did most of her "stunts" in front of a green screen.
What happened to the days when the Bond flicks where filmed on location. People base jumping off the Eiffel Tower. Skydivers, base jumping from mountain tops on snow skies.
They cant even come up with an original script. But no Q or Moneypenny.
Sad. But we will have to see. - schnitzi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Amen, brother. Does anyone feel any dramatic tension in these movies anymore? Do they really think, "Ooh, I know Bond has been in a pickle before, but I don't see how he could POSSIBLY survive this one..."
In recent years -- hell, over the last two decades -- Bond has become an emotionless superman who sleepwalks from one impossible scene to the next. Screw that noise. I'm actually looking forward to this one. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Yea uhhhh Batman Begins was the best Batman movie in the past ten years
- MilitantQueer, on 10/12/2007, -16/+21John Cleese is a great actor and comedian but he should have never been cast as Q, for me Q is and always will be Desmond Llewelyn. When Desmond Llewelyn died they should have put his character (Q) to rest, nobody and i mean nobody could replace Desmond Llewelyn as Q.
- ronmexico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Hell Connery had gray hair in Diamonds are Forever. I think people need to give him a chance and with hold judgement until the movie comes out.
- blueorder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Excellent comment...I just recently saw Layer Cake too and I hadn't heard much about the movie before watching. I came out with 2 opinions after watching. One, what a story. The movie had a great story (which is a rarety in movies that Hollywood is pumping out) and two, Daniel Craig impressed me very much with his abilities and how he played the character. I, for one, am looking forward to see what he can do with James Bond. I'm looking forward to this movie even more after reading this article.
More story...what a novel and refreshing concept... - whackaxe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4well hopefully they won't ***** it up like every other film since goldeneye. who needs gadgets and cgi when you've got a real man on screen
- superjoppe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5He's not a spy, he's an agent. They like to blow up things.
- cyrus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7THANK ***** GOD. Ian Fleming can stop turning in his grave.
- blhack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6why does a post like this:
OMG thats so cool can't wait to masturbate.
a good james bond movie, so awesome.
This will change the way the earth functions for all of time.
get -49 diggs, and a post like this:
Um... considering they had an interview with the person who plays Q the other day talking about the next James Bond, this is clearly *****.
get -78 diggs? The later is an informative post. WTF? - zenghost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4yeah i totally agree...im also starting to like the up and coming tony jaa...they say he's the next jackie chan...
- staticten, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10darker........no invisible cars.............no stupid Austin Powers like *****...........
is definitely ok by me!!! - AltDelete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why can't anyone combine a tried and true story, add reliable and exciting actors, all while pushing the limit on CG technology?
*looks over, sees Peter Jackson. Peter Jackson waves a LOTR box set. Waves.*
Oh. Right.
I don't believe you have to sacrifice plot, story, and significance just because there's a little CG involved. Sure, there are plenty of examples of film where directors relied solely on wizz-bang tech and produced a crummy film, but if looked at as a tool rather than a crutch, CG can be a vital and excellent portion of the story making process.
All that being said I look forward to Casino Royale and it's break from excessive gadgetry and attempts to flesh out his beginnings as a double agent. It will be interesting to see whether or not Bond wants or needs a third dimension. -
Show 51 - 100 of 259 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is