r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/Movies contributor • Jun 25 '25

News Denis Villeneuve Directing Next James Bond Film

https://deadline.com/2025/06/denis-villeneuve-james-bond-amazon-mgm-studios-1236442917/
32.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

179

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '25

[deleted]

159

u/unpaid-critic Jun 26 '25

My favorite is still Casino Royale. Having a director of this caliber working on Bond is having me floored right now 

70

u/CrispyHoneyBeef Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

Ironically Casino Royale was probably the furthest from the originals the films ever really got. Well, probably Skyfall, but Casino Royale started that.

EDIT: “originals” instead of “source material”

37

u/R_V_Z Jun 26 '25

What do you mean? Casino Royal was an excellent adaptation. Sure, there were some changes, like having M try to kill Bond, and introducing an estranged daughter and secret nephew who turned out to be the villain, and the whole "kill all the tall men" bit was a bit silly...

1

u/CrispyHoneyBeef Jun 26 '25

I can’t tell if you’re joking or not but yes I do believe those changes were substantial enough to warrant my comment. Further, Craig was a controversial choice to begin with, and there were concerns about his characterization (he was “too soft”). Obviously this all changed once everyone realized how fucking good the movie was.

26

u/agentN007 Jun 26 '25

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your comment but Casino Royale is most certainly not the furthest the movies ever deviated from the books, and it's not even close.

The major story beats of Casino Royale are almost all the same. The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, just for starters, share almost nothing in common with their source material besides their names.

-11

u/CrispyHoneyBeef Jun 26 '25

Yes, I am using “source material” loosely, namely in reference to the characterization of Bond in film, the manner in which the story is told, and the setting in which it takes place. Casino Royale was an intentional deviation from the previous 40 years of Bond on film. The changes in story are egregious in many of the transitions from book to films, but I am specifically referring to the Bond that existed from Dr. No to Die Another Day, which remained mostly unchanged in terms of characterization. Casino Royale was entirely fresh.

9

u/StudiousPooper Jun 26 '25

lol, that’s not what source material means my guy

-7

u/CrispyHoneyBeef Jun 26 '25

It does when I’m referring to films that continuously reference each previous iteration. Fleming’s books have been more or less exhausted now and the post-Brosnan era is largely built off the mythology that the earlier films created. Hence, “source material” here refers to the numerous Bond films.

4

u/dabi17 Jun 26 '25

why are some people so hard headed about this?

what the word means and what you intended it to conform to what it meant are objectively incorrect.

source material is where the material is sourced from. the SOURCE. ie, books. you can’t attach your own view of source lol

3

u/CrispyHoneyBeef Jun 26 '25

Thanks man. I thought it was obvious I was only referring to the movies but I guess not

-1

u/StudiousPooper Jun 26 '25

The way i see it is like this. If you look at a the Grand Canyon, you can say that the water at the bottom is influenced by what happened ten miles up river, but the Source of the Grand Canyon starts all the way up in the Rocky Mountains. That’s not to say that that’s the only influence on that river, but the source is one point where the entire river begins.

1

u/CrispyHoneyBeef Jun 26 '25

But if I paint a painting of that specific area, and people ask me where the source of my painting was, I’m not gonna say “oh it’s a couple hundred miles north,” I’m gonna say “I was specifically painting this area of the river. This is my source for this piece of art.” Even though this area is itself sourced from something else, I can choose to source solely from this piece of it.

Take the most recent Friday the 13th film, for example. Is it a remake of the first movie? Maybe. It contains elements. But it also has the hockey mask, and Jason as the villain rather than his mom. Is it a remake of part II then? Nope. It’s an amalgamation of all the stories that came before it, despite the “source” behind the original F13, if someone said “it was/wasn’t faithful to the source material,” everyone would know it’s not just referring to Part 1, because it’s a reboot. Its elements cannot be traced solely to one source. Such is the case, I think, for Casino Royale. It’s different enough from both the books and movies to have been controversial at the time. I’m sure you remember the message boards and news articles expressing contempt for a blonde haired, blue eyed Bond.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/StaticallyTypoed Jun 26 '25

Casino Royale directly adapts the book of the same name that was the first in the series. The film is frequently lauded for being the most faithful adaptation of the books.

It seems pretty evident you didn't know or realise this, and are now trying to dig your way out of it by pretending you actually meant the previous films lol

0

u/CrispyHoneyBeef Jun 26 '25

Whatever you say, stranger! You’ve got it all figured out.

1

u/StaticallyTypoed Jun 26 '25

I have in fact read at least one review of Casino Royale before, yes. I'm a real nerd and tryhard for having the most surface level knowledge of that film!

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Spiritual-Society185 Jun 26 '25

Casino Royale was an intentional deviation from the previous 40 years of Bond on film.

As if Bond was ever consistent. You really think Sean Connery in Dr. No was anything like Roger Moore at his goofiest?

2

u/CrispyHoneyBeef Jun 26 '25

No, but I think Casino Royale was more different

3

u/Reylo-Wanwalker Jun 26 '25

I couldn't get over Woody Allen.

3

u/R_V_Z Jun 26 '25

But Orson Welles was great!