Is Craig too muscle-bound for Bond?

osris

He seems too much of a hulk to be elegant. Connery was well toned to be sure, but didn’t have the muscle mass Craig has. In the novels, Bond isn't described as having the shape of a body builder. It probably isn’t all that important either way, I suppose. I’m just interested in hearing your opinions.

mrbain007

I think in relation to "Fleming's" Bond you may be right.

In all honesty I've always had a hard time believing Fleming would have accepted Craig. I keep remembering the comments he allegedly made of Connery:
"I wanted Commander Bond, not an overgrown stuntman"

Being a somewhat snobby, old-fashioned, gent I believe he would have simply called Craig a "brute".

Connery may have been toned but IMO his physique is still closer to the physical description Fleming gives. He's highly atheletic but not bulging with muscles. In the books Bond is described as someone with black hair and a slim build - closer to Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan.

osris

Yes, I always thought Lazenby’s physique was about right, after Connery’s. He did seem slightly too tall though. Is he taller than Connery? It may have been just an illusion due to his slimness.

People tend to forget that in the books Bond was not an action figure build. I think his exercise regimen merely consisted of around 20 press-ups.

People also forget that to be good at unarmed combat brute physical strength is not essential. For instance, in the films, Bond is often seen outwitting his adversaries when fighting them. If it hadn’t been for the hidden knife in the briefcase in FRWL Bond wouldn’t have survived his fight with Grant.

Gassy Man

Well, the books also tried to keep Bond within a certain longitude of believability, which the early films did as well. Except for his height -- six foot would make him stand out rather obviously in most parts of the world except the west, the even taller movie height even more-- Bond as a person was more or less an "ordinary" man physically.

As years went on, the film Bond became increasingly less believable, even as they cast less "phyisical" actors than Connery/Lazenby/Connery. Craig looks bulky in part because he's shorter than the other actors, but oddly enough, he's a more human Bond.

Compare for instance his lack of reliance on gadgets to his predecessors. One of the things that makes Casino Royale so much a better Bond film than many in years is Bond's conflicts are almost all physical or emotional in nature, as opposed to technological. With only minor adjustment (getting rid of cell phones, for instance), the movie could just as easily been made 50 years ago. So, to me, his physicality is correct for the role as it's been defined. Craig will get more suave as the films progress, which is the beauty of his casting.

Loeffelholz

Gassy Man wrote:

Well, the books also tried to keep Bond within a certain longitude of believability, which the early films did as well. Except for his height -- six foot would make him stand out rather obviously in most parts of the world except the west, the even taller movie height even more-- Bond as a person was more or less an "ordinary" man physically.

As years went on, the film Bond became increasingly less believable, even as they cast less "phyisical" actors than Connery/Lazenby/Connery. Craig looks bulky in part because he's shorter than the other actors, but oddly enough, he's a more human Bond.

Compare for instance his lack of reliance on gadgets to his predecessors. One of the things that makes Casino Royale so much a better Bond film than many in years is Bond's conflicts are almost all physical or emotional in nature, as opposed to technological. With only minor adjustment (getting rid of cell phones, for instance), the movie could just as easily been made 50 years ago. So, to me, his physicality is correct for the role as it's been defined. Craig will get more suave as the films progress, which is the beauty of his casting.

Well said, Gassy. I'm with you {[]

Ricardo C.

osris wrote:

He seems too much of a hulk to be elegant. Connery was well toned to be sure, but didn’t have the muscle mass Craig has. In the novels, Bond isn't described as having the shape of a body builder. It probably isn’t all that important either way, I suppose. I’m just interested in hearing your opinions.

I woul said so. Craig looked like a bruiser. The Bond in the novels had a far more athletic physique like Lazenby or Dalton.

Ricardo C.

Gassy Man. wrote:

With only minor adjustment (getting rid of cell phones, for instance), the movie could just as easily been made 50 years ago.

Casino Royale was very much a modern day action film. There would have been a lot changed had this film had been made 50 years ago. Bond depended heavily on the cell phones to find the bad guys and the onslaught of action was definetly reflecting modern times. Even in the proceeding scenes, I doubt we still would have had the same film.

Loeffelholz

Ricardo C. wrote:

osris wrote:

He seems too much of a hulk to be elegant. Connery was well toned to be sure, but didn’t have the muscle mass Craig has. In the novels, Bond isn't described as having the shape of a body builder. It probably isn’t all that important either way, I suppose. I’m just interested in hearing your opinions.

I woul said so. Craig looked like a bruiser. The Bond in the novels had a far more athletic physique like Lazenby or Dalton.

Here is where it all comes down to perception, I suppose In the Ocean Club scenes, for instance, when Craig is walking around and sneaking in, I simply don't see him as looking like a body builder. He's lean and fit---to me, the very definition of 'athletic-looking.' I think the broad public got hung up on that beach shot; he just looks very fit to me; a bit thick in the chest, but not a problem in the least---far superior, IMO, to some things we've seen in the past, like actors being unwilling/unable to be shown with their shirts off :007)

Ricardo C.

Loeffelholz wrote:

Ricardo C. wrote:

osris wrote:

He seems too much of a hulk to be elegant. Connery was well toned to be sure, but didn’t have the muscle mass Craig has. In the novels, Bond isn't described as having the shape of a body builder. It probably isn’t all that important either way, I suppose. I’m just interested in hearing your opinions.

I woul said so. Craig looked like a bruiser. The Bond in the novels had a far more athletic physique like Lazenby or Dalton.

Here is where it all comes down to perception, I suppose In the Ocean Club scenes, for instance, when Craig is walking around and sneaking in, I simply don't see him as looking like a body builder. He's lean and fit---to me, the very definition of 'athletic-looking.' I think the broad public got hung up on that beach shot; he just looks very fit to me; a bit thick in the chest, but not a problem in the least---far superior, IMO, to some things we've seen in the past, like actors being unwilling/unable to be shown with their shirts off :007)

So many shirtless scenes simply were not written in the previous Bond films. Connery and Lazenby certainly had nothing to be ashamed of. Getting back to Daniel, I don't think he looked like anything but a muscle man through out the film. His physique was just demanding comparisons to Rambo. I think he slimmed down for Quantum of Solace and it was a vast improvement.

Gassy Man

Ricardo C. wrote:

Gassy Man. wrote:

With only minor adjustment (getting rid of cell phones, for instance), the movie could just as easily been made 50 years ago.

Casino Royale was very much a modern day action film. There would have been a lot changed had this film had been made 50 years ago. Bond depended heavily on the cell phones to find the bad guys and the onslaught of action was definetly reflecting modern times. Even in the proceeding scenes, I doubt we still would have had the same film.

The only thing beyond the modern references to change would likely have been aesthetic, not conceptual. That's owing to differences in style not ideas. My point isn't that the exact same movie would have been made. My point is there's almost nothing in the script that would prohibited it from being made 50 years ago and almost completely intact as conceived in 2005.

For instance, Bond could still fight a guy in a lavatory, execute a turncoat agent, chase Mollaka on foot, sneak into a foreign embassy, meet Vesper on a train, play cards against LeChiffre, invent a martini that includes an ingredient they stopped making many, many years ago, fight in a stairwell, save himself from poisoning, chase someone in a car, follow someone in a cab, follow someone in on foot, get betrayed, fight in a collapsing building, find out where a villain is living, and shoot Mr. White from a distance. These key scenes are not at all driven by the technology.

Even some of the action sequences are more modern in their execution than in their conception. For example, the scene at the Miami Airport borrows heavily from the desert chase between Indiana Jones and the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark, a "modern" action sequence somehow still believable in a film made 30 years ago and set in 1936.

There are no trips to outer space, no orbiting satellite based lasers, no plastic surgery altering people's appearances completely, no invisible cars, no hidden fortresses in volcanoes, mountainsides, space-bases, seascapes, or lakes, no stealth boats, no indestructible hench men with metal teeth, no Stinger missiles under headlights, no remote control cars, no vehicles that turn into airplanes, submarines, rocketboats, or hangliders, and so on and on. Except for communication and medical monitoring (much of which could still be replaced by their less portable antecedents), there's nothing in Casino Royale that couldn't have been put into a film in 1960 with no conceptual change -- when even some of the sci-fi-ish technological things that are missing from this film were sometimes seen. Heck, Dr. No from 1962 has more sci-fi trappings than anything in this movie. In this, the script is almost as "timeless" as that of From Russia with Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Licence to Kill, film scripts which also dealt with Bond primarily on a more human rather than technological scale.

Gassy Man

Loeffelholz wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Well, the books also tried to keep Bond within a certain longitude of believability, which the early films did as well. Except for his height -- six foot would make him stand out rather obviously in most parts of the world except the west, the even taller movie height even more-- Bond as a person was more or less an "ordinary" man physically.

As years went on, the film Bond became increasingly less believable, even as they cast less "phyisical" actors than Connery/Lazenby/Connery. Craig looks bulky in part because he's shorter than the other actors, but oddly enough, he's a more human Bond.

Compare for instance his lack of reliance on gadgets to his predecessors. One of the things that makes Casino Royale so much a better Bond film than many in years is Bond's conflicts are almost all physical or emotional in nature, as opposed to technological. With only minor adjustment (getting rid of cell phones, for instance), the movie could just as easily been made 50 years ago. So, to me, his physicality is correct for the role as it's been defined. Craig will get more suave as the films progress, which is the beauty of his casting.

Well said, Gassy. I'm with you {[]

Thanks, Loeff!

Ricardo C.

Gassy Man wrote:

The only thing beyond the modern references to change would likely have been aesthetic, not conceptual. That's owing to differences in style not ideas. My point isn't that the exact same movie would have been made. My point is there's almost nothing in the script that would prohibited it from being made 50 years ago and almost completely intact as conceived in 2005.

Jame Bond foiled a terrorist plot by merely pick up cell phones. That was an idea that could only exist in modern times. In the past, they could not rely on such technology. They would have made the hero use pure instinct and detective skills.

For instance, Bond could still fight a guy in a lavatory, execute a turncoat agent, chase Mollaka on foot, sneak into a foreign embassy, meet Vesper on a train, play cards against LeChiffre, invent a martini that includes an ingredient they stopped making many, many years ago, fight in a stairwell, save himself from poisoning, chase someone in a car, follow someone in a cab, follow someone in on foot, get betrayed, fight in a collapsing building, find out where a villain is living, and shoot Mr. White from a distance. These key scenes are not at all driven by the technology.

He hardly snuck into the embassy. He blew it to kingdom come while being chased by several men with machine guns; This is the adkin to the spectacle akin to modern day actions. The same goes for chasing Mollaka in the first place. As the rest of your examples, they are far too broad to make your case. You might as well just say "Look he's walking, ! That would have been done in the 60's !".

Even some of the action sequences are more modern in their execution than in their conception. For example, the scene at the Miami Airport borrows heavily from the desert chase between Indiana Jones and the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark, a "modern" action sequence somehow still believable in a film made 30 years ago and set in 1936.

I am quite familiar with Raiders and there was no simularity. Raiders added some sort of comedic element to all it's large scale action scenes and though it was comedy, those moments actually increase the tension and humanity of the hero. You felt Indy was really being put through hell. The Miami Airport sequence was something out of Die Hard, an action hero plowing through a sea of explosions. There was no style. It was all terrbly generic.

And really, the situation with Jetliner was so damn generic you could have just put John McClane in there instead. Craig might as well have been an American cop who stumbled on a terroirist plot and given the stupidity of the terrorists leaving their key information on cell phones, it just further makes my case. That whole situation had nothing to do with the world of espionage, it was a "action man" episode. Again citing Indiana Jones, the situation was distinctive of the character. He was on mission to stop Nazis from unleashing unimagniable terror among the world in the form of the Ark of Covenant. You could only picture Indy in that scenario.

There are no trips to outer space, no orbiting satellite based lasers, no plastic surgery altering people's appearances completely, no invisible cars, no hidden fortresses in volcanoes, mountainsides, space-bases, seascapes, or lakes, no stealth boats, no indestructible hench men with metal teeth, no Stinger missiles under headlights, no remote control cars, no vehicles that turn into airplanes, submarines, rocketboats, or hangliders, and so on and on. Except for communication and medical monitoring (much of which could still be replaced by their less portable antecedents), there's nothing in Casino Royale that couldn't have been put into a film in 1960 with no conceptual change -- when even some of the sci-fi-ish technological things that are missing from this film were sometimes seen. Heck, Dr. No from 1962 has more sci-fi trappings than anything in this movie. In this, the script is almost as "timeless" as that of From Russia with Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Licence to Kill, film scripts which also dealt with Bond primarily on a more human rather than technological scale.

If Casino Royale was made in the 1960's, the writers would have had the good sense to make the film a thriller. Just because they were not heavy on the sci-fi dosen't mean the film didn't reflect the mundanity of the modern action film.

mrbain007

Ricardo C. wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

The only thing beyond the modern references to change would likely have been aesthetic, not conceptual. That's owing to differences in style not ideas. My point isn't that the exact same movie would have been made. My point is there's almost nothing in the script that would prohibited it from being made 50 years ago and almost completely intact as conceived in 2005.

Jame Bond foiled a terrorist plot by merely pick up cell phones. That was an idea that could only exist in modern times. In the past, they could not rely on such technology. They would have made the hero use pure instinct and detective skills.

For instance, Bond could still fight a guy in a lavatory, execute a turncoat agent, chase Mollaka on foot, sneak into a foreign embassy, meet Vesper on a train, play cards against LeChiffre, invent a martini that includes an ingredient they stopped making many, many years ago, fight in a stairwell, save himself from poisoning, chase someone in a car, follow someone in a cab, follow someone in on foot, get betrayed, fight in a collapsing building, find out where a villain is living, and shoot Mr. White from a distance. These key scenes are not at all driven by the technology.

He hardly snuck into the embassy. He blew it to kingdom come while being chased by several men with machine guns; This is the adkin to the spectacle akin to modern day actions . As the rest of your examples, they are far too broad to make your case. You might as well just say "Look he's walking, ! That would have been done in the 60's !".

Even some of the action sequences are more modern in their execution than in their conception. For example, the scene at the Miami Airport borrows heavily from the desert chase between Indiana Jones and the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark, a "modern" action sequence somehow still believable in a film made 30 years ago and set in 1936.

I am quite familiar with Raiders and there was no simularity. Raiders added some sort of comedic element to all it's large scale action scenes and though it was comedy, those moments actually increase the tension and humanity of the hero. You felt Indy was really being put through hell. The Miami Airport sequence was something out of Die Hard, an action hero plowing through a sea of explosions. There was no style. It was all terrbly generic.

That was to do more with precious Sony advertising their products.

I funnily enough love the Miami Airport sequence. Its tense and brilliantly filmed. However I can see where Ricardo is coming from. Its not that hard to imagine a younger Bruce Willis doing something similar.

The "generic-ness" in CR wasn't as bad as the next film however.

There are no trips to outer space, no orbiting satellite based lasers, no plastic surgery altering people's appearances completely, no invisible cars, no hidden fortresses in volcanoes, mountainsides, space-bases, seascapes, or lakes, no stealth boats, no indestructible hench men with metal teeth, no Stinger missiles under headlights, no remote control cars, no vehicles that turn into airplanes, submarines, rocketboats, or hangliders, and so on and on. Except for communication and medical monitoring (much of which could still be replaced by their less portable antecedents), there's nothing in Casino Royale that couldn't have been put into a film in 1960 with no conceptual change -- when even some of the sci-fi-ish technological things that are missing from this film were sometimes seen. Heck, Dr. No from 1962 has more sci-fi trappings than anything in this movie. In this, the script is almost as "timeless" as that of From Russia with Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Licence to Kill, film scripts which also dealt with Bond primarily on a more human rather than technological scale.

If Casino Royale was made in the 1960's, the writers would have had the good sense to make the film a thriller. Just because they were not heavy on the sci-fi dosen't mean the film didn't reflect the mundaity of the modern action film.

mrbain007

"Jame Bond foiled a terrorist plot by merely pick up cell phones".

That was to do more with precious Sony advertising their products ).

I funnily enough love the Miami Airport sequence. Its tense and brilliantly filmed. However I can see where Ricardo is coming from. Its not that hard to imagine a younger Bruce Willis doing something similar.

The "generic-ness" in CR wasn't as bad as the next film however.

Alex

mrbain007 wrote:

"Jame Bond foiled a terrorist plot by merely pick up cell phones".

Yes, and then he texts M his resignation.

I wonder if he added a ":)" to soften the blow.

mrbain007

Alex wrote:

mrbain007 wrote:

"Jame Bond foiled a terrorist plot by merely pick up cell phones".

Yes, and then he texts M his resignation.

I wonder if he added a ":)" to soften the blow.

Correction: He E-MAILED her his resignation :v

Alex

mrbain007 wrote:

Alex wrote:

mrbain007 wrote:

"Jame Bond foiled a terrorist plot by merely pick up cell phones".

Yes, and then he texts M his resignation.

I wonder if he added a ":)" to soften the blow.

Correction: He E-MAILED her his resignation :v

Sorry, my bad.

He was using a laptop, correct? Perhaps that explains my faulty memory.

Either way, it's not a favorite. I'd prefer man to mom

Ricardo C.

Alex wrote:

mrbain007 wrote:

Alex wrote:

Yes, and then he texts M his resignation.

I wonder if he added a ":)" to soften the blow.

Correction: He E-MAILED her his resignation :v

Sorry, my bad.

He was using a laptop, correct? Perhaps that explains my faulty memory.

Either way, it's not a favorite. I'd prefer man to mom

And it was such a banal and underplayed act like he was quitting Wal-Mart. Remember when in OHMSS Bond quitting the service was actually played as , I don't know, signifigant ? Yeesh.

Gassy Man

Ricardo C. wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

The only thing beyond the modern references to change would likely have been aesthetic, not conceptual. That's owing to differences in style not ideas. My point isn't that the exact same movie would have been made. My point is there's almost nothing in the script that would prohibited it from being made 50 years ago and almost completely intact as conceived in 2005.

Jame Bond foiled a terrorist plot by merely pick up cell phones. That was an idea that could only exist in modern times. In the past, they could not rely on such technology. They would have made the hero use pure instinct and detective skills . . .

Once again, you're talking mostly about aesthetic differences, not conceptual ones. The one difference is the one you've mentioned several times -- cell phones -- which I already said -- several times -- would have to be adjusted.

In the 1960s, they could just as easily have worked in a regular phone, "bug," or some invention that essentially did the same thing, a la the pen phones in The Man from UNCLE.

There's no reason, for instance, that Vesper couldn't have received a note at the dinner table that Mathis wants to see her rather than a text. There's no reason Bond had to get White's address out of a phone -- he could have found it when going through Versper's purse. He could have made a long distance call to M, and so on and so forth.

The rest of what you post again owes itself to the execution of the idea, and not the idea itself.

There's nothing "modern" about the idea of James Bond chasing a guy on foot or playing cards. That it might become a 20 minute action sequence is how a modern filmmaker chose to do it, not an issue of "a chase or card playing wouldn't have been done" in that time period.

(And he did sneak into the embassy--that's why the clerical worker in the hallway gives him a curious but not frightful look; he only "blew it up" after he revealed his presence.)

Watch the Miami sequence again with the fuel truck, and then watch Indiana Jones driving the truck in the desert sequence of Raiders of the Lost Ark while fighting the Nazis. You'll see remarkably similar choreography, not limited to:

1) Punching and fighting in the cab while trying to drive.
2) Someone being kicked out the passenger door, whose hinges will fail.
3) Pursuers chasing the truck and firing machine guns at it, only to one by one be put out of the chase.
4) Our hero having to come up the back of the truck, run over its top, and then flip himself into the cab to once again fight (though Indy comes through the driver's side while Bond comes through the front.)
5) The windshield being broken out.
6) The truck crashing into various obstacles along the way.

Now, don't just watch for the individual concepts, look to see the order in which they appear and where approximately in the chases they occur. Is it identical? No. But they're a lot closer in everything except aesthetic to anything in the Die Hard films. I've shown the two sequences in many classes, and even my students laugh at the similarities.

But Bond in the 1960s driving an invisible car and being taken in any way seriously? Hardly.

Ricardo C.

Gassy Man wrote:

Once again, you're talking mostly about aesthetic differences, not conceptual ones. The one difference is the one you've mentioned several times -- cell phones -- which I already said -- several times -- would have to be adjusted.

In the 1960s, they could just as easily have worked in a regular phone, "bug," or some invention that essentially did the same thing, a la the pen phones in The Man from UNCLE.

In order to bug the correct phone, one would have to do some investigation. The cell phones were simply left lying around for Bond to pick up. They were red herrings and they were made too obvious. Bond was merely sent to one guy and he exposed an entire network of terrorist by merely picking up celll phones.

There's no reason, for instance, that Vesper couldn't have received a note at the dinner table that Mathis wants to see her rather than a text. There's no reason Bond had to get White's address out of a phone -- he could have found it when going through Versper's purse. He could have made a long distance call to M, and so on and so forth.

Really, it was stupid in the first place that Vesper even knew who White was and Bond being given this vital information on the cell phone just harkened back to the stupidity earlier displayed in the film. As for your other examples, so what ? They didn't really mean much to the film as a story so there is no need to even cite them. Sure Vesper could have gotten the forged note from Mathis, and ? At that point, I would have expected them just to use convential methods of communications for the time.

There's nothing "modern" about the idea of James Bond chasing a guy on foot or playing cards. That it might become a 20 minute action sequence is how a modern filmmaker chose to do it, not an issue of "a chase or card playing wouldn't have been done" in that time period.

You again are trying to make things broad as possible. That wasn't just a foot chase, it was a series of over the top action stunts. As for the playing of cards, that was one of the many things bastardized from the book. Baccarat became Texas Poker.

(And he did sneak into the embassy--that's why the clerical worker in the hallway gives him a curious but not frightful look; he only "blew it up" after he revealed his presence.)

Incorrect. He just walked right in. That isn't sneaking in last time I checked and he made no effort to "sneak out" either.

1) Punching and fighting in the cab while trying to drive.
2) Someone being kicked out the passenger door, whose hinges will fail.
3) Pursuers chasing the truck and firing machine guns at it, only to one by one be put out of the chase.
4) Our hero having to come up the back of the truck, run over its top, and then flip himself into the cab to once again fight (though Indy comes through the driver's side while Bond comes through the front.)
5) The windshield being broken out.
6) The truck crashing into various obstacles along the way.

Now, don't just watch for the individual concepts, look to see the order in which they appear and where approximately in the chases they occur. Is it identical? No. But they're a lot closer in everything except aesthetic to anything in the Die Hard films. I've shown the two sequences in many classes, and even my students laugh at the similarities..

You really need to see Raiders again because they did it so much more style, regardless of simularities. Indiana Jones was forced to venture inside and outside of that truck. The whole centerpiece was Indy hanging on that truck for dear life because he needed to comendeer it to escape with it's contents. Also remember the soliders were in there guarding the ark and they slowlly may their made to the drivers seat trying to stop Indy. The scene was made as intimately as possible. The noise was focused on the truck and not much else outside.

The Airport stuff was pure Die Hard with it's sea of explosions, crashing vechicles, and gun fire. That truck simply had to be stopped and they even threw in a huge jetliner that narrowly escapes colliding with vechicle and incidentally diposes of the police vechicles pursuing it. You really can't any more generic in action then that. It really just fusterating to see such action in a James Bond film when you can easily see Riggs and Murtaw doing the same exact thing. However, I am glad you brought up Raiders though just to prove mundanity of Casino Royale's action sequences as opposed to a really creative and great action/adventure.

Thunderpussy

As Eon are looking for younger fans,The Movies are becoming more like computer games. Bond picks up Phones and Guns when he needs them,all that's missing is a little chirpy noise when he does so. ) and at the sme time trying to be deep with Emotional scenes and eco messages, the kids love that. )

Dalton is king of the hil

"I wanted Commander Bond, not an overgrown stuntman" did Fleming really say that? Oh my... Hm... Yes Craig is too much of a muschle man. Remember that Bond is almost an alcoholic in his sparetime. So maybe he should not look like Dolph Lundgren. But Craig looks good in a tuxedo. I'd say that Dalton was about perfect. And yes, for those in doubt, I'm pretty sure that Lazenby was taller than Connery. Jaws would have looked like nothing had he met Lazenby. I think the problem with Pierce Brosnan was that he was maybe a bit too handsome for the part. And no, I am not a homosexual but it just seems to me that Brosnan would stand out a lot. Dalton didn't have that handicap. Connery also stands out but not as much as Brosnan. I don't know about Lazenby. In the one movie he did, he seems to fit in everywhere he goes. Maybe the casting is just awesome.

mrbain007

Dalton is king of the hil wrote:

"I wanted Commander Bond, not an overgrown stuntman" did Fleming really say that? Oh my... Hm... Yes Craig is too much of a muschle man. Remember that Bond is almost an alcoholic in his sparetime. So maybe he should not look like Dolph Lundgren. But Craig looks good in a tuxedo. I'd say that Dalton was about perfect. And yes, for those in doubt, I'm pretty sure that Lazenby was taller than Connery. Jaws would have looked like nothing had he met Lazenby. I think the problem with Pierce Brosnan was that he was maybe a bit too handsome for the part. And no, I am not a homosexual but it just seems to me that Brosnan would stand out a lot. Dalton didn't have that handicap. Connery also stands out but not as much as Brosnan. I don't know about Lazenby. In the one movie he did, he seems to fit in everywhere he goes. Maybe the casting is just awesome.

Apparently he did, however he accepted Connery after watching him in Dr No (or so the story goes). His initial choices were David Niven or James Mason. Yes, I agree Dalton was a great choice physically.

In regard to Brosnan I don't think he was "too handsome" as such when he eventually played the role, but he might have been had they chosen him in 1987 when he was much more youthful.

I thinK Dalton, Lazenby and Brosnan (maybe Moore aswell but not quite as much?) all had that "Commander Bond" look Fleming would have wanted though obviously I can't be sure.

Gassy Man

Ricardo C. wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Once again, you're talking mostly about aesthetic differences, not conceptual ones. The one difference is the one you've mentioned several times -- cell phones -- which I already said -- several times -- would have to be adjusted.

In the 1960s, they could just as easily have worked in a regular phone, "bug," or some invention that essentially did the same thing, a la the pen phones in The Man from UNCLE.

In order to bug the correct phone, one would have to do some investigation. The cell phones were simply left lying around for Bond to pick up. They were red herrings and they were made too obvious. Bond was merely sent to one guy and he exposed an entire network of terrorist by merely picking up celll phones.

There's no reason, for instance, that Vesper couldn't have received a note at the dinner table that Mathis wants to see her rather than a text. There's no reason Bond had to get White's address out of a phone -- he could have found it when going through Versper's purse. He could have made a long distance call to M, and so on and so forth.

Really, it was stupid in the first place that Vesper even knew who White was and Bond being given this vital information on the cell phone just harkened back to the stupidity earlier displayed in the film. As for your other examples, so what ? They didn't really mean much to the film as a story so there is no need to even cite them. Sure Vesper could have gotten the forged note from Mathis, and ? At that point, I would have expected them just to use convential methods of communications for the time.

There's nothing "modern" about the idea of James Bond chasing a guy on foot or playing cards. That it might become a 20 minute action sequence is how a modern filmmaker chose to do it, not an issue of "a chase or card playing wouldn't have been done" in that time period.

You again are trying to make things broad as possible. That wasn't just a foot chase, it was a series of over the top action stunts. As for the playing of cards, that was one of the many things bastardized from the book. Baccarat became Texas Poker.

(And he did sneak into the embassy--that's why the clerical worker in the hallway gives him a curious but not frightful look; he only "blew it up" after he revealed his presence.)

Incorrect. He just walked right in. That isn't sneaking in last time I checked and he made no effort to "sneak out" either.

1) Punching and fighting in the cab while trying to drive.
2) Someone being kicked out the passenger door, whose hinges will fail.
3) Pursuers chasing the truck and firing machine guns at it, only to one by one be put out of the chase.
4) Our hero having to come up the back of the truck, run over its top, and then flip himself into the cab to once again fight (though Indy comes through the driver's side while Bond comes through the front.)
5) The windshield being broken out.
6) The truck crashing into various obstacles along the way.

Now, don't just watch for the individual concepts, look to see the order in which they appear and where approximately in the chases they occur. Is it identical? No. But they're a lot closer in everything except aesthetic to anything in the Die Hard films. I've shown the two sequences in many classes, and even my students laugh at the similarities..

You really need to see Raiders again because they did it so much more style, regardless of simularities. Indiana Jones was forced to venture inside and outside of that truck. The whole centerpiece was Indy hanging on that truck for dear life because he needed to comendeer it to escape with it's contents. Also remember the soliders were in there guarding the ark and they slowlly may their made to the drivers seat trying to stop Indy. The scene was made as intimately as possible. The noise was focused on the truck and not much else outside.

The Airport stuff was pure Die Hard with it's sea of explosions, crashing vechicles, and gun fire. That truck simply had to be stopped and they even threw in a huge jetliner that narrowly escapes colliding with vechicle and incidentally diposes of the police vechicles pursuing it. You really can't any more generic in action then that. It really just fusterating to see such action in a James Bond film when you can easily see Riggs and Murtaw doing the same exact thing. However, I am glad you brought up Raiders though just to prove mundanity of Casino Royale's action sequences as opposed to a really creative and great action/adventure.

Well, you have your point of view and I have mine. For example, I'd say hiding on the back of the van past the embassy gates and jumping over a wall so as not to be seen is sneaking in, but apparently you see that as just walking in. Your choice, but that's why opinions can be individual. My opinion is this is probably the best Bond movie in 25 years. And I still believe the script could easily have been made into a film 50 years ago with only some unimportant changes.

Ricardo C.

Gassy Man wrote:

Well, you have your point of view and I have mine. For example, I'd say hiding on the back of the van past the embassy gates and jumping over a wall so as not to be seen is sneaking in, but apparently you see that as just walking in. Your choice, but that's why opinions can be individual. My opinion is this is probably the best Bond movie in 25 years. And I still believe the script could easily have been made into a film 50 years ago with only some unimportant changes.

Okay I just watched the scene again just to make sure. Bond did not sneak in. The reason why he grabbed on that moving van was because Bond wanted to simply catch up with Mollaka. When James saw that Mollaka enter the embassy, he jumped over the wall in plain sight. Avoiding the main entrance was incidental. Bond just wanted to nab him and he certaintly made no effort to be inconspicuous.

Gassy Man

Ricardo C. wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Well, you have your point of view and I have mine. For example, I'd say hiding on the back of the van past the embassy gates and jumping over a wall so as not to be seen is sneaking in, but apparently you see that as just walking in. Your choice, but that's why opinions can be individual. My opinion is this is probably the best Bond movie in 25 years. And I still believe the script could easily have been made into a film 50 years ago with only some unimportant changes.

Okay I just watched the scene again just to make sure. Bond did not sneak in. The reason why he grabbed on that moving van was because Bond wanted to simply catch up with Mollaka. When James saw that Mollaka enter the embassy, he jumped over the wall in plain sight. Avoiding the main entrance was incidental. Bond just wanted to nab him and he certaintly made no effort to be inconspicuous.

While he may have jumped on the van to also catch up, he's also hiding in the back and peering surreptitiously at Mollaka -- he then crawls on top and jumps off and over the wall. The whole point of doing so was to show that he was sneaking in. If he was just walking in, he would have gone through the gate. Certainly a man who "blows the embassy up" to paraphrase your assessment could have handled two guards if he wasn't instead trying to get in without being noticed doing so. And that's the point -- he takes the embassy by surprise.

There's actually a bit more to the scene than made it into the movie. During one of the making-of videos Craig is shown for a little longer after he comes up from jumping over the wall, and his eyes basically scan carefully from one side to the other to see if he has been noticed. One does not require a ninja suit and the black of night to be shown sneaking about.

mrbain007

Gassy Man wrote:

Ricardo C. wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Well, you have your point of view and I have mine. For example, I'd say hiding on the back of the van past the embassy gates and jumping over a wall so as not to be seen is sneaking in, but apparently you see that as just walking in. Your choice, but that's why opinions can be individual. My opinion is this is probably the best Bond movie in 25 years. And I still believe the script could easily have been made into a film 50 years ago with only some unimportant changes.

Okay I just watched the scene again just to make sure. Bond did not sneak in. The reason why he grabbed on that moving van was because Bond wanted to simply catch up with Mollaka. When James saw that Mollaka enter the embassy, he jumped over the wall in plain sight. Avoiding the main entrance was incidental. Bond just wanted to nab him and he certaintly made no effort to be inconspicuous.

While he may have jumped on the van to also catch up, he's also hiding in the back and peering surreptitiously at Mollaka -- he then crawls on top and jumps off and over the wall. The whole point of doing so was to show that he was sneaking in. If he was just walking in, he would have gone through the gate. Certainly a man who "blows the embassy up" to paraphrase your assessment could have handled two guards if he wasn't instead trying to get in without being noticed doing so. And that's the point -- he takes the embassy by surprise.

There's actually a bit more to the scene than made it into the movie. During one of the making-of videos Craig is shown for a little longer after he comes up from jumping over the wall, and his eyes basically scan carefully from one side to the other to see if he has been noticed. One does not require a ninja suit and the black of night to be shown sneaking about.

Doesn't Craig at one point crouch right infront of a security camera? If so thats hardly being discreet!

Gassy Man

I don't think he does in that particular sequence, but I could be wrong . . . we see him get up from the tumble and then the next moment he's walking toward the office with Mollaka and past the woman who takes a look at him. Later, after he grabs Mollaka, there's a close up of a klanxon before they finally make their way to the courtyard, where if I recall correctly, we see a camera for the first time.

Ricardo C.

Gassy Man wrote:

Ricardo C. wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Well, you have your point of view and I have mine. For example, I'd say hiding on the back of the van past the embassy gates and jumping over a wall so as not to be seen is sneaking in, but apparently you see that as just walking in. Your choice, but that's why opinions can be individual. My opinion is this is probably the best Bond movie in 25 years. And I still believe the script could easily have been made into a film 50 years ago with only some unimportant changes.

Okay I just watched the scene again just to make sure. Bond did not sneak in. The reason why he grabbed on that moving van was because Bond wanted to simply catch up with Mollaka. When James saw that Mollaka enter the embassy, he jumped over the wall in plain sight. Avoiding the main entrance was incidental. Bond just wanted to nab him and he certaintly made no effort to be inconspicuous.

While he may have jumped on the van to also catch up, he's also hiding in the back and peering surreptitiously at Mollaka -- he then crawls on top and jumps off and over the wall. The whole point of doing so was to show that he was sneaking in. If he was just walking in, he would have gone through the gate. Certainly a man who "blows the embassy up" to paraphrase your assessment could have handled two guards if he wasn't instead trying to get in without being noticed doing so. And that's the point -- he takes the embassy by surprise.

There's actually a bit more to the scene than made it into the movie. During one of the making-of videos Craig is shown for a little longer after he comes up from jumping over the wall, and his eyes basically scan carefully from one side to the other to see if he has been noticed. One does not require a ninja suit and the black of night to be shown sneaking about.

How could he have been hiding with no possible cover ? He was merely viewing to see where Mollaka went and he hopped on the van out of convience. I already explained why didn't use the gate so I don't know why you keep pressing the issue, he saw the guy and followed him just like he did during the entire perusit. You also seem forget the vast destruction Bond caused before at the construction site and putting god knows how many innocent people in danger as he persued this guy and, by and large, following the same pattern Mollaka did while he ran. For him to all of a sudden apply tact in the situation in question would be really lousy writing unless you admit that was the case. As for the "scanning of the area", he was wanted to again see where Mollaka headed off to.

Gassy Man

Ricardo C. wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Ricardo C. wrote:

Okay I just watched the scene again just to make sure. Bond did not sneak in. The reason why he grabbed on that moving van was because Bond wanted to simply catch up with Mollaka. When James saw that Mollaka enter the embassy, he jumped over the wall in plain sight. Avoiding the main entrance was incidental. Bond just wanted to nab him and he certaintly made no effort to be inconspicuous.

While he may have jumped on the van to also catch up, he's also hiding in the back and peering surreptitiously at Mollaka -- he then crawls on top and jumps off and over the wall. The whole point of doing so was to show that he was sneaking in. If he was just walking in, he would have gone through the gate. Certainly a man who "blows the embassy up" to paraphrase your assessment could have handled two guards if he wasn't instead trying to get in without being noticed doing so. And that's the point -- he takes the embassy by surprise.

There's actually a bit more to the scene than made it into the movie. During one of the making-of videos Craig is shown for a little longer after he comes up from jumping over the wall, and his eyes basically scan carefully from one side to the other to see if he has been noticed. One does not require a ninja suit and the black of night to be shown sneaking about.

How could he have been hiding with no possible cover ? He was merely viewing to see where Mollaka went and he hopped on the van out of convience. I already explained why didn't use the gate so I don't know why you keep pressing the issue, he saw the guy and followed him just like he did during the entire perusit. You also seem forget the vast destruction Bond caused before at the construction site and putting god knows how many innocent people in danger as he persued this guy and, by and large, following the same pattern Mollaka did while he ran. For him to all of a sudden apply tact in the situation in question would be really lousy writing unless you admit that was the case. As for the "scanning of the area", he was wanted to again see where Mollaka headed off to.

I'm not pressing any issue but simply expressing why I see it differently, though I do believe the way I'm seeing it is how the film is intending it.

He's hunched up against the back of the van -- he's not on top riding it in plain site or hanging off it's side so that he can get a better view. He doesn't choose to get off the van when it passes the gate.

Within the limits of the time of day and in a busy location, he's being as careful as he can. This is reinforced by the fact that no one apparently catches him on the grounds before he makes his way into the embassy office building, even though we're led to believe there are cameras as well as armed guards in force there.

From the rather lacksadaisical behavior of the guards, they don't even seem aware of the destruction at the work site. For that matter, neither did most of the workers, who seem to be busy about their jobs inside the building while things are exploding outside of the building. Is that lousy writing? No more so than any action movie, but one could make the point that the characters in the scene are never as fully aware of the situation as the viewer watching it unfold.

As was written earlier, you're entitled to your opinion.

Ricardo C.

Gassy Man wrote:

Ricardo C. wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

While he may have jumped on the van to also catch up, he's also hiding in the back and peering surreptitiously at Mollaka -- he then crawls on top and jumps off and over the wall. The whole point of doing so was to show that he was sneaking in. If he was just walking in, he would have gone through the gate. Certainly a man who "blows the embassy up" to paraphrase your assessment could have handled two guards if he wasn't instead trying to get in without being noticed doing so. And that's the point -- he takes the embassy by surprise.

There's actually a bit more to the scene than made it into the movie. During one of the making-of videos Craig is shown for a little longer after he comes up from jumping over the wall, and his eyes basically scan carefully from one side to the other to see if he has been noticed. One does not require a ninja suit and the black of night to be shown sneaking about.

How could he have been hiding with no possible cover ? He was merely viewing to see where Mollaka went and he hopped on the van out of convience. I already explained why didn't use the gate so I don't know why you keep pressing the issue, he saw the guy and followed him just like he did during the entire perusit. You also seem forget the vast destruction Bond caused before at the construction site and putting god knows how many innocent people in danger as he persued this guy and, by and large, following the same pattern Mollaka did while he ran. For him to all of a sudden apply tact in the situation in question would be really lousy writing unless you admit that was the case. As for the "scanning of the area", he was wanted to again see where Mollaka headed off to.

I'm not pressing any issue but simply expressing why I see it differently, though I do believe the way I'm seeing it is how the film is intending it.

He's hunched up against the back of the van -- he's not on top riding it in plain site or hanging off it's side so that he can get a better view. He doesn't choose to get off the van when it passes the gate.

Within the limits of the time of day and in a busy location, he's being as careful as he can. This is reinforced by the fact that no one apparently catches him on the grounds before he makes his way into the embassy office building, even though we're led to believe there are cameras as well as armed guards in force there.

From the rather lacksadaisical behavior of the guards, they don't even seem aware of the destruction at the work site. For that matter, neither did most of the workers, who seem to be busy about their jobs inside the building while things are exploding outside of the building. Is that lousy writing? No more so than any action movie, but one could make the point that the characters in the scene are never as fully aware of the situation as the viewer watching it unfold.

As was written earlier, you're entitled to your opinion.

Yep. No more than any other action film. Bond basically plowed through a field of extras like any standard action film which made no effort to really exploit it's atmosphere other than being merely a backdrop for stunts. Hell, that's the case of the entire film. No location in Casino Royale seemed anything more than superfical. That is unlike classic Bond films, and Fleming's books, which would squeeze every drop out of the locales. Anyway, I am tired of discussing this. Let's just agree to disagree, sexy.