The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Feel free to discuss pricing and specific dealers. But 'for sale' postings, commercial solicitation and ads are not allowed. Full archive of all messages is accessible through options in the Search and Preferences features. Privacy, policies and administrivia are covered in the Terms of Use.
For the answer to the NUMBER #1 most frequently asked question here--for details or value of a specific older Omega watch you have--go to: Tell Me About My Omega. | Learn more about How To Include Photos and HTML In Your Postings. | To contact someone with a question not relevant to other readers of the forum, please click on their email address and contact them privately. |
Post-Craig announcement interviews tend to suggest that "Casino Royale" probably won't be "going back in time," so to speak. I think the producers stopped giving more than a passing nod to Fleming's books w/ "The Spy Who Loved Me." In other words, title only.
The "obsession" (my word) w/ (re-)making "Casino Royale," I think, is most firmly rooted in that the last Bond producer Cubby Broccoli has so desired to do it, but could never get the rights. He died, of course, after "Goldeneye." His step son and daughter now control the franchise, such as anyone can control this mini-empire under Sony. Another reason is to "set the record straight" vis-a-vis the existing Woody Allen take, which is a put off to most 007 fans (including yours truly).
So any desire to follow the "truth" of "Casino Royale" is likely to be in character development. You have already seen that in "Tomorrow Never Dies" through the Paris love-interest (ie, Bond's past catching up w/ him), and even "Die Another Day" (ie, the capture, torture, and then how does that impact the character in going forward?).
In the last week or so, I've seen Pierce Brosnan quoted as saying he believes the producers are "scared sh--less" (his words). I agree. I also think Sony is going to be all over this one, and wouldn't be surprised if it's messed up. "Goldeneye" was weak, the franchise clearly lost its footing after the 6 years post-Dalton; and it showed. Now that director is back (dumb move!). "Die Another Day" never seemed to know what it was after, was uneven; but it succeeded because of being #20 and the retrospectives (hundreds of past-movie references salted throughout).
Brosnan too old? Keep your powder dry. Just as Connery successfully returned after "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" in "Diamonds Are Forever," don't be surprised if Brosnan comes back for #22. One of Roger Moore's best Bond films, "For Your Eyes Only," was made when he is older than Brosnan is now.
Rather than hiding from the age difference, they dealt w/ it directly, when "Bibi," the Olympic skater "made him an offer" (from his onw bed), and he demured, offering instead to buy her an ice cream.
And who played a key Moore love interest in that film, by the way? None other than the late Mrs. Pierce Brosnan (Cassandra Harris).
Chronocentric and zOwie site design and contents (c) Copyright 1998-2005, Derek Ziglar; Copyright 2005-2008, Jeffrey M. Stein. All rights reserved. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the terms of use. | CONTACT | TERMS OF USE | TRANSLATE |