Another one for highhopes...

Napoleon Plural

Life's been lacking a certain something for me lately, then I realised, I haven't been sparring with my old nemesis highhopes.

So to mark the anniversary of the release of Casino Royale, here's another nitpick with Craig's debut.

It's when Bond meets Le Chiffre for the first time. The dialogue goes something like, "Good to meet you, Mr Beach..." Bond looks daggers at him. "Oh, or is it Bond? I get confused." Bond replies "Well, we wouldn't want that would we..."

Now, when I saw this in a preview clip, it sort of made sense. The villain is doing that old trick of getting your enemy's name slightly wrong to undermine or unsettle them. Churchill pronounced it Hisler for instance, Blair called the 9/11 planner Ben Laden, Thatcher called her interviwer Sir Robin "Mister Day" supposedly... Le Chiffre is trying to rattle Bond ahead of their big game, plus it may be a not very funny nod to someone not knowing who Bond is when he's in a tux and being all iconic, cos he isn't quite Bond yet...

But in the film, of course, it turns out that Mr Beach is Bond's cover name. Then he changes it in an overcomplicated sort of plot strand, cos he thinks Le Chiffre knows who he is anyway... So he goes back to being Bond...

That being so, Le Chiffre's teasing seems fair enough, it seems to me. Why so churlish, Bond? It's rather like if I showed up on this site as, say, "Nelson Singular", then got found out. Hardyboy later jokingly refers to me as Napoleon "or should I say, Nelson...?"

What do you reckon, highhat?

Dan Same

I think you're being awfully generous connecting Churchil and Blair's mispronounciations to strategic gameplaying. )

BTW, I too miss my arguments with HH (yes, HH, M should have fired Bond for breaking into her apartment! )

Napoleon Plural

In the Ultimate Edition, an edited scene shows Bond going on to do the dirty with M in her apartment on the couch, after which she gives him 'one last chance...' )

Dan Same

Napoleon Plural wrote:

In the Ultimate Edition, an edited scene shows Bond going on to do the dirty with M in her apartment on the couch, after which she gives him 'one last chance...' )

Please tell me that's not true! )

Sir Hillary Bray

)
Not sure which is funnier -- Nap posting a thread just to bait highhopes, or Nap calling him "highhat".
)

I eagerly await what will no doubt be an equally spirited reply! Who needs boxing as a spectator sport when we have AJB? {[]

darenhat

Yes, NP. You're absolutely right about the flubbed name. I wrote it off as LC trying to unsettle Bond by subtly saying "I know who you really are!" But what didn't make any sense is that apparently Bond is such a lousy secret agent that the WHOLE casino actually knows who he really is!

But of course, that's the theme of the movie, right? - You Know My Name - which, as we all know, is SOP for undercover agents. 8-)

Napoleon Plural

Ah well, to be fair darenhat (or should that be darenhopes? I seem a little mixed up ), Bond is calling himself Bond at that point, not Beach. So LC would know who he is... or was he not supposed to know about Bond's cover name Beach, and does it to show he knows anyway?

It's another echo of DAD, where Bond and the young, feckless looking villain trade petulant barbs from the off

Loeffelholz

[post deleted]

emtiem

Napoleon Plural wrote:

That being so, Le Chiffre's teasing seems fair enough, it seems to me. Why so churlish, Bond? It's rather like if I showed up on this site as, say, "Nelson Singular", then got found out. Hardyboy later jokingly refers to me as Napoleon "or should I say, Nelson...?"

So, er, what's your issue? I don't see what your point is- Bond is told to use a false name, he rejects it, Le Chiffre obviously sees this and mentions that Bond's name has changed. That's what happens, that's what you said happens... so... ?

Napoleon Plural

It's the way Bond looks daggers at LC as if he's bang out of line, when LC's jibe seems fair enough really...

emtiem

Napoleon Plural wrote:

It's the way Bond looks daggers at LC as if he's bang out of line, when LC's jibe seems fair enough really...

Nah, I don't think he does; he's feeling all full of confidence as he thinks he's confused Le Chif: 'well we wouldn't want that'- he's looking all smug. And even if he did look daggers at Le Chif, him being behind a load of terrorist naughties is probably reason enough!

darenhat

The whole Beech/Bond thing is simply unwieldy. Why mention that Bond is to be undercover as Beech if Bond is going to sign in as 'Bond'...the whole scene in the car seemed a setup for the Stephanie Broadchest joke. Le Chiffre mentioning Bond's name is of no great note...since that's the name Bond signed in at the hotel. All I feel it really accomplished was Bond 'officially' blew any cover he had at that point - to no real advantage IMO.

emtiem

darenhat wrote:

The whole Beech/Bond thing is simply unwieldy. Why mention that Bond is to be undercover as Beech if Bond is going to sign in as 'Bond'...

Because it shows Bond's arrogance and his extreme self confidence: it's a character moment and also a moment which helps to define his and Vesper's early relationship. It's Bond playing poker with Le Chiffre before the game's even started; which is sort of what the film's about!

darenhat

emtiem wrote:

darenhat wrote:

The whole Beech/Bond thing is simply unwieldy. Why mention that Bond is to be undercover as Beech if Bond is going to sign in as 'Bond'...

Because it shows Bond's arrogance and his extreme self confidence: it's a character moment and also a moment which helps to define his and Vesper's early relationship. It's Bond playing poker with Le Chiffre before the game's even started; which is sort of what the film's about!

I agree with that is what the film is about...but I feel the it was poorly executed of in regards to how the Bond/Beech switch affected the unfolding of the plot. Obviously, Le Chiffre would have already known who Bond was because either Mathis or Vesper (the jury is still out) were posed to double-cross Bond anyway. If it was truly Bond's arrogance that caused LC to actually gain the upperhand, and thus force Bond to 'change his ways', that would have been great...but that's not the way the story happened.

Bond's signing in at the hotel under his own name is a great scene. It demonstrates Bond's ego. This, and his blatant assualt in front of the embassy cameras, captures a man who doesn't quite grasp the concept of being a 'secret' agent. The title song and opening credits speak of a man who values his own identity. M, on the other hand, has grown to cherish her anonymity ("utter one more syllable and I'll hve you killed"). It's a great concept for a 'Beginning Bond' but unfortunately the plot doesn't carry it out.

emtiem

You've lost me. I'm a bit baffled as to what this thread is about- everything that happens is clearly explained in the film and it all makes perfect sense.

Loeffelholz

[post deleted]

emtiem

I dunno; I like it, but I can see its flaws- I don't think the Bond Begins thing is as explored as it could have been, there could have been a little more charm, it's too long and the house scene could have been dropped, the 'Mathis?!' bit makes no sense to me, the timing of the Miami scene is dubious, I don't understand how anyone can make a significant amount of money on shares by selling them before they lose value, I don't think Eva Green is all great at sparkling dialogue etc. but equally I can find plenty of fault in Goldfinger and (especially) From Russia With Love. The perfect Bond film hasn't arrived yet, but CR is as close as we've been in twenty years.

However; I see nothing hard to understand about this scene. It does exactly what it says on the tin. Bit of a long winded way of saying it, but there you go- I have time on my hands.

Loeffelholz

[post deleted]

emtiem

Very true.

Seriously though; how do you make money by selling shares before they lose value?

Sir Hillary Bray

emtiem wrote:

I'm a bit baffled as to what this thread is about

Well, to me, it is about a semi-tongue-in-cheek Nap using an obvious nitpick to have a light-hearted go at highhopes. Pity HH isn't around to respond with equal lightness and that others' responses are heavier -- you'd think the Vatican cardinals were defending an attack on Catholicism.

taity

emtiem wrote:

I don't understand how anyone can make a significant amount of money on shares by selling them before they lose value.

Its called short selling. Essentially what happens is that one person offers to sell a quantity of shares to another person at an agreed price (for example, $30 per share.) After the stock hits rock bottom they still have an aggrement to buy them at $30 per share irregardless of current trading price (it could be something like $3 per share)

I can imagine that Le Chiffre had aggreed to sell the shares like this - it could explain how it would work. They didnt go into any major detail, but thats pretty much how it acts.

Loeffelholz

[post deleted]

Sir Hillary Bray

Loeffelholz wrote:

Rather more like the St. Louis Cardinals defending 81 attacks on Busch Stadium, during a very long season

Fair point...although remind me again who triumphed in the Fall of 2006? Not like you're backing a loser here.

Loeffelholz wrote:

You're a very lucky man, Sir Hillary, that your sense of humour never---ever---fails you

Oh, my wife would beg to differ, Loeff -- it's failed me (and her, and many others) far too many times to count. By the way, what exactly is humour? Is that an Illinois thing?

Loeffelholz wrote:

As a Catholic, I congratulate you on your wit; way to 'keep it light.'

'Taint my wit, it's Nap's -- a far brighter light than any candle I can hope to burn. {[]

Loeffelholz

...

emtiem

Sir Hillary Bray wrote:

emtiem wrote:

I'm a bit baffled as to what this thread is about

Well, to me, it is about a semi-tongue-in-cheek Nap using an obvious nitpick to have a light-hearted go at highhopes. Pity HH isn't around to respond with equal lightness and that others' responses are heavier -- you'd think the Vatican cardinals were defending an attack on Catholicism.

Blah. Typical ajb.
I just said that I don't understand his point at all: light-hearted or not it helps to make some sense. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquistion!

taity wrote:

emtiem wrote:

I don't understand how anyone can make a significant amount of money on shares by selling them before they lose value.

Its called short selling. Essentially what happens is that one person offers to sell a quantity of shares to another person at an agreed price (for example, $30 per share.) After the stock hits rock bottom they still have an aggrement to buy them at $30 per share irregardless of current trading price (it could be something like $3 per share)

I can imagine that Le Chiffre had aggreed to sell the shares like this - it could explain how it would work. They didnt go into any major detail, but thats pretty much how it acts.

Ah okay- thanks for that. So he'd have asked for the price that it seems to be in the future- so if it's $2 but seems like it might rise to $3 next week, he had an agreement to sell for $3? Is that futures trading? (I have no idea about all this stuff! ). So why does it matter if the stock falls, as with the planned drop in Skyfleet shares- how does that help Le Chiffre after he's sold them?

Solaris

I thought the shares thing was that the Skyfleet stock was only going up. LeChiffre sold his stock for high prices because the stock was going up knowing that as soon as he had sold them all the stocks were going to crash.

taity

Solaris wrote:

I thought the shares thing was that the Skyfleet stock was only going up. LeChiffre sold his stock for high prices because the stock was going up knowing that as soon as he had sold them all the stocks were going to crash.

I believe M makes reference to shorting the stocks (or saying that about 9/11 and same happening to skyfleet - or was supposed to)

Maybe the best way to pretend this would work is by an example...

Lets pretend that I (the overly nice Taity) meets Emtiem. I mention that theres a company called AJB pty. ltd. who's shares are trading at $20.34 per share. We both believe that the shares are going up, and I agree to sell them to Emtiem at $20.40 in one week from today. Emtiem believes that in one week's time the current price will be more than that - so by buying them at $20.40 he will be getting a bargin. We both sign saying that we will trade the shares at that price and on that date - sign a binding contract.

If in theory the share price collapses (something like SiCo quits and the board turns into a Jenny Flex shrine,) we still have a binding contract saying that Emtiem will still buy my shares at $20.40, irregardless of what their current price is.

That is essentially what Le Chiffre had planned to happen. However when the share price did not collapse he then had to spend the 100 mil to honour his debts. It is a very complicated principal, and one that is actually very rarely seen in trading - mainly because it assumes the vendor has some inside knowledge. they glossed over it in the movie, but mainly because if they went into it in great detail it would have bored the audience. Pretty much just take out of it "Bond made Le Chiffre lose alot of money"

highhopes

emtiem wrote:

You've lost me. I'm a bit baffled as to what this thread is about- everything that happens is clearly explained in the film and it all makes perfect sense.

I'll tell you what the thread's about, Emtiem. The Unholy Three -- the Abominable Mr. Hat, Dastardly Dan Same and Napoleon Plural (I'm still working on the appropriate alliterative assignation for Mr. Plural) -- have once again been confronted with the overwhelming Bondian brilliance that is Casino Royale, and been left confounded by its epistemological depths. Try as they might to shake the film's profundities -- and Daniel Craig, the Sun King of Bond actors -- from their minds with memories of a simpler time, when gun barrel sequences, Moneypenney and inane jokes could be counted on to appear on cue (or is that Q?) and be digested as easily as a fistful of buttered popcorn, Casino Royale refuses to yield. And so, like moths before the flame, like tongues running obsessively over the broken tooth, they return to it over and over. And once again, against their will, they find they must cry out to the Forces of Light -- me -- for the explanation that will heal the latest fissure in their intellectual world.

I am currently formulating one.

Napoleon Plural

"You're a little late to be joining the table, highhats, wouldn't you say... And is that a change of shirt I see?"

Alex

highhopes wrote:

I'll tell you what the thread's about, Emtiem. The Unholy Three -- the Abominable Mr. Hat, Dastardly Dan Same and Napoleon Plural (I'm still working on the appropriate alliterative assignation for Mr. Plural) -- have once again been confronted with the overwhelming Bondian brilliance that is Casino Royale, and been left confounded by its epistemological depths. Try as they might to shake the film's profundities -- and Daniel Craig, the Sun King of Bond actors -- from their minds with memories of a simpler time, when gun barrel sequences, Moneypenney and inane jokes could be counted on to appear on cue (or is that Q?) and be digested as easily as a fistful of buttered popcorn, Casino Royale refuses to yield. And so, like moths before the flame, like tongues running obsessively over the broken tooth, they return to it over and over. And once again, against their will, they find they must cry out to the Forces of Light -- me -- for the explanation that will heal the latest fissure in their intellectual world.

I am currently formulating one.

Not to be overly fawning, but best comeback ever

highhopes

Napoleon Plural wrote:

"You're a little late to be joining the table, highhats, wouldn't you say... And is that a change of shirt I see?"

Sorry, Nape -- I've been away for a while. There are so many things in the world that cry out for my input ... ) But Highhopes has returned. And I missed sparring with you, too.

Change my shirt? Naw -- still wearing it.