Out of place moment in casino royale

James Suzuki

Ive always thought that the scene in the aeroplane, where Bond meets vesper was a bit patchy. I didn't like the 'Sherlock Holmes' part of the scene where Bond looked at vesper and went on about how she was an orphan and she did the thing right back to him. i thought that wasn't really Bond as was more suited in the latest Bendict Cumberbatcht Sherlock BBc, or the robery downey Jr films then James Bond. James Bond has its own style, whats the point copying Sherlock and other detective films.

0073

...... Wait a moment!!!!.....You mean on the train! And people say that DC won't flirt with girls!
I thought it was pretty fun and lighthearted scene which nicely primed the sparkle between 007 and Vesper for things to come later in the movie.

JohnMasterson

0073 wrote:

...... Wait a moment!!!!.....You mean on the train! And people say that DC won't flirt with girls!
I thought it was pretty fun and lighthearted scene which nicely primed the sparkle between 007 and Vesper for things to come later in the movie.

It was still Sherlock Holmes-esque though. Maybe not Robert Downey Jr.-Sherlock Holmes-esque or Hugh Laurie-House M.D.-Sherlock Holmes-esque but still most definitely Sherlock Holmes-esque nonetheless!

Sir Miles

xboy614 wrote:

Ive always thought that the scene in the aeroplane, where Bond meets vesper was a bit patchy. I didn't like the 'Sherlock Holmes' part of the scene where Bond looked at vesper and went on about how she was an orphan and she did the thing right back to him. i thought that wasn't really Bond as was more suited in the latest Bendict Cumberbatcht Sherlock BBc, or the robery downey Jr films then James Bond. James Bond has its own style, whats the point copying Sherlock and other detective films.

I don't think you could be more wrong if you tried...apart from the obvious - getting the mode of transport wrong...makes me wonder if you have watched the film at all...
...Bond is a professional and will need to have his wits about him to *read* both situations and people...it's what keeps him alive in the tough situations...
...touches of Sherlock Holmes..?...undoubtedly...but a full 5 years before the BBC brought us Sherlock...

Thunderpussy

I also think it's a way of Bond introducing "the tell" later on, as He's already shown that
he can read People, so we can believe he's noticed the little touches of his opponent.
Showing one of the many skills any security agent would need to develop.
( I can't believe I'm agreeing with sir Miles. )

The Domino Effect

As Sir Miles pointed out, CR was 5 years before Sherlock and 3 years before Downey's Sherlock Holmes, so you should perhaps accuse those two productions of having "Bond bits" rather than the other way around. Powers of observation are a very important weapon in an agent's arsenal...and powers of deduction aren't exclusive to the Consulting Detective, you know! Besides, that scene established the relationship between Bond and Vesper which was an integral part of the story.

As my nephews like to say: 'Epic fail.'

Mr Beech

I think the point was that it was letting us know how thoroughly Bond reads people by having him vocalize it. The fact that he was saying it to an attractive woman who could read him back made it flirtatious and amusing for both the characters, and the audience.

thesecretagent

I like the scene, and as mentioned shows he can read people for later on in the poker game. I hate the reference to Omega though - it's just a hateful, hateful bit of dialogue IMO. And this is 2006, way before the Sherlock films mentioned.

Mr Beech

thesecretagent wrote:

I like the scene, and as mentioned shows he can read people for later on in the poker game. I hate the reference to Omega though - it's just a hateful, hateful bit of dialogue IMO. And this is 2006, way before the Sherlock films mentioned.

I don't really get why people are so upset about that line. Sure, it ties into product placements, but she mentioned her guess of Rolex and he responds with Omega. Just throwing two of the most chosen Swiss luxury watches. What's the big deal? I don't even think it implies one is better than another really...

Sir Miles

Thunderpussy wrote:

( I can't believe I'm agreeing with sir Miles. )

Me neither...makes me question if I was right )

TonyDP

I absolutely hated that scene. Well, I hated the whole movie but that scene was particularly grating as it was to me a prime example of Haggis' attempts at deconstructing the Bond persona and trying to undo everything the character had become famous for by having yet another intellectual equal dress him down at every turn and show us that (a) Bond is not as smart as he thinks he is and (b) Vesper is Bond's mental match or some other such rubbish. As if once wasn't bad enough, he does the exact same thing again a little bit latter when Vesper gets the better of Bond during with the whole "he gets her a sexy dress only to find out she already got him a fitted tux" tiff.

I also thought the whole explanation of poker and figuring out the tell was misleading at best and pointless at worst since Bond wins the card game not by skill or guile but by the simple luck of the cards. The tell never came into play (except when Bond misread it and got cleaned out) and neither did the whole "playing the man, not the cards" schtick; Bond won because he just happened to end up with the better hand. He got lucky. He should have at least taken a few lessons from Evelyn Tremble.

Mr Beech

I think people aren't considering the fact that this is a reboot, an adaptation of Bond's origin story, and Bond before the Bond we love. Sure, maybe he'll never vocalize his reading of a person anymore, maybe he'll never meet another woman as significant or well-matched to him as Vesper, and we surely know he is supposed to have learned a lot about how he will go forward after the mistakes he made with Vesper.

I think the point is that she was a major turning point for Bond and he became a more independent and developed agent and man. I don't think we'll ever have that kind of scene of connection again with Craig and a Bond girl because the point is that he got a big lesson out of meeting such a match that made him want to trust and care about her.

I think this film is where Bond learned this part about being a spy, "When you work as a spy, it's easy to think of people as assets. Resources to accomplish a goal. Because you don't have a personal relationship with an asset. You don't care about an asset. You don't miss the scent of an asset when she leaves the room." -Burn Notice. A lesson that many good spies need to learn, or so my non-spy brain would think.

zaphod

I think that this scene is one of the standouts across the entire series. The dialogue crackles, sparkles, and fizzes. Superb performances from both, and it setup the whole 'tell' thing very nicely.We learnt a lot about both characters, and it establishes the tension in their relationship, and all with great economy. I can't think of another scene which accomplishes as much in a short space of tme.

James Suzuki

Sorry, probably felt very critical when i wrote that. Just remiding you that even though this was made b4 Sherlock BBC and the robert downey Jr films, this was still apart of sherlock holmes, (read the first chapter of the hounds of the baskervilles)

Moore Than

Mr Beech wrote:

I think people aren't considering the fact that this is a reboot, an adaptation of Bond's origin story, and Bond before the Bond we love.

This is the key point for me. Bond is not yet the finished article. He reads people well which you would expect even of a rookie 00 agent but he can also be fooled as in the 'tell'. And he should not have allowed Vesper to read him so easily (as intelligent as she was). A good scene but spare us the blatant advert.

Napoleon Plural

I agree with xBoy. The scene never felt right with me. We're supposed to think, wow, Bond is real smart being able to guess all that. And double wow, Vesper is even smarter.

But I don't think that. I just think, well these characters have been given dialogue to show how smart they are. There's no way they could guess that in real life, it's just written. What's more, it feels kind of ripped off other movies, including this brilliant excerpt from a not hugley successful film:

Jack does his thing

Blackleiter

Don't worry, Sir Miles. You are absolutely right about the scene. TP was just experiencing one of his rare moments of clarity. (Hell, he has even agreed with ME a couple fo times!) )

Sir Miles wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

( I can't believe I'm agreeing with sir Miles. )

Me neither...makes me question if I was right )

thesecretagent

Mr Beech wrote:

thesecretagent wrote:

I like the scene, and as mentioned shows he can read people for later on in the poker game. I hate the reference to Omega though - it's just a hateful, hateful bit of dialogue IMO. And this is 2006, way before the Sherlock films mentioned.

I don't really get why people are so upset about that line. Sure, it ties into product placements, but she mentioned her guess of Rolex and he responds with Omega. Just throwing two of the most chosen Swiss luxury watches. What's the big deal? I don't even think it implies one is better than another really...

It was shoe-horned in. No woman in history has ever said anything like that! Plus, Omega arent really in the same league or price range as Rolex. It would have worked better the other way round, or compared to something else. But non-watch buffs don't know any makes, but EVERYONE knows Rolex. It just implies the two watches are equal to either a non-watch audience, or an audience who want an Omega because Bond has one. It's a horrid line.

Napoleon Plural

Is Omega gonna be in Skyfall, or is it back to Rolex?

Moore Than

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Is Omega gonna be in Skyfall, or is it back to Rolex?

Omega.

Skyfall Watch
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/37508/skyfall-watch/

Mr Beech

thesecretagent wrote:

Mr Beech wrote:

thesecretagent wrote:

I like the scene, and as mentioned shows he can read people for later on in the poker game. I hate the reference to Omega though - it's just a hateful, hateful bit of dialogue IMO. And this is 2006, way before the Sherlock films mentioned.

I don't really get why people are so upset about that line. Sure, it ties into product placements, but she mentioned her guess of Rolex and he responds with Omega. Just throwing two of the most chosen Swiss luxury watches. What's the big deal? I don't even think it implies one is better than another really...

It was shoe-horned in. No woman in history has ever said anything like that! Plus, Omega arent really in the same league or price range as Rolex. It would have worked better the other way round, or compared to something else. But non-watch buffs don't know any makes, but EVERYONE knows Rolex. It just implies the two watches are equal to either a non-watch audience, or an audience who want an Omega because Bond has one. It's a horrid line.

I thought the fact that her mind ran to Rolex first said that it was of the high luxury that Bond reaches for, and he just happened to pick another luxury watch, perhaps even secondary since it isn't the first she would think of as a knowledgeable woman. I can't imagine anyone but the filthiest rich person who doesn't look at their items or bills in detail wouldn't figure out the differences between the two. And what is wrong with the big push being that Bond has one? In a world where neither has ever been used in product placement, maybe people would choose differently, but I just don't see why there is such a big deal that one of the biggest statement pieces of a man gets named. And how else are you going to know what watch brand he goes with if you are the average moviegoer? It isn't like his cars or electronics where you can see the logos throughout the movie.

I get, to some degree, why some people don't like it mentioned, but I just don't find it that tacky with how quickly it is slipped in behind another brand name of similar nature that isn't involved. It just doesn't seem like a bigger deal than closeups of their Sony devices and Bond in a Ford.

doublenoughtspy

Listed here at #5 on worst moments in Bond history:

http://whatculture.com/film/10-worst-moments-in-james-bond-film-franchise.php

And here is the key quote, from Morgan Spurlock (the documentary film maker behind Super Size Me and The Greatest Show Ever Sold): He said a scene in Casino Royale in which 007 showed off his Omega watch warranted a ‘special place in hell’.

To me, it crosses the line, from product placement, which we've had since 1962 with Dr. No, to the Bond character actually shilling for a product in the middle of a film.

thesecretagent

doublenoughtspy wrote:

Listed here at #5 on worst moments in Bond history:

http://whatculture.com/film/10-worst-moments-in-james-bond-film-franchise.php

And here is the key quote, from Morgan Spurlock (the documentary film maker behind Super Size Me and The Greatest Show Ever Sold): He said a scene in Casino Royale in which 007 showed off his Omega watch warranted a ‘special place in hell’.

To me, it crosses the line, from product placement, which we've had since 1962 with Dr. No, to the Bond character actually shilling for a product in the middle of a film.

Absolutely. That line is terrible - but frankly you either get why or you don't .

Thunderpussy

The next step downwards. DC is to do an ad for Heineken as Bond.

Moore Than

We all know that product placement is nothing new to Bond films. The concern now with the supposed budget cuts is that product placement will feature more prominently in Skyfall than it might otherwise have.

Gala Brand

thesecretagent wrote:

doublenoughtspy wrote:

Listed here at #5 on worst moments in Bond history:

http://whatculture.com/film/10-worst-moments-in-james-bond-film-franchise.php

And here is the key quote, from Morgan Spurlock (the documentary film maker behind Super Size Me and The Greatest Show Ever Sold): He said a scene in Casino Royale in which 007 showed off his Omega watch warranted a ‘special place in hell’.

To me, it crosses the line, from product placement, which we've had since 1962 with Dr. No, to the Bond character actually shilling for a product in the middle of a film.

Absolutely. That line is terrible - but frankly you either get why or you don't .

It's a variation on the "As you know, Bob" type of bad dialogue where a character says something that they wouldn't/shouldn't say, but it's shoe-horned in for no other reason but to provide information to the audience. It was particularly bad because it did come off as shilling for a product.

That said, CR is a terrific movie and my favorite Bond film.

oscar rubio

I love that scene, both groping and I think it's a great scene in that movie

Mr Beech

Have none of you ever heard anyone lightly mention "...so lose the Armani suit," or "You're so out of touch strutting around here in your Dolce & Gabbana shoes..." or "What is that, an iPhone?" No? My point is, it just doesn't seem as wild as people seem to think. I really don't think it's that unusual for a piece or statement item made by a brand of status to get mentioned in conversation, especially by someone who is making a judgment like Vesper was.

Sure, we know why it is in the film. I just don't find it that awful or unrealistic like people say. It's not as bad as ads or logos for Omega being shown in a shop window behind Bond and Vesper in front of a store or something to try and make up for the fact that they are a major product from the film that has no way of including their logo like Sony or Aston Martin can.

We've already seen a bus in the background of Skyfall's sets with a Sony PS Vita ad on it. I hope things don't get too plastered over due to the record-setting Skyfall placements deals.

Heineken. Because Bond always struck you as a beer man.

Lexi

zaphod wrote:

I think that this scene is one of the standouts across the entire series. The dialogue crackles, sparkles, and fizzes. Superb performances from both, and it setup the whole 'tell' thing very nicely.We learnt a lot about both characters, and it establishes the tension in their relationship, and all with great economy. I can't think of another scene which accomplishes as much in a short space of tme.

Totally agree. I love this scene... it's clever from the standpoint that we learn a lot about both characters in a very short space of time... plus we get the set up for Vesper not giving in to Bond's charms... that she is willing to bring her own take to the situation..and she does it well. But in a way that is not overly aggressive (something that Jinx suffered from apparently, although I'm still a bit baffled by most mens dislike of her )

That scene was sharp, sizzling and sexy - just how a Bond girl should be....

Blackleiter

I agree with Lexi and Zap - I think the scene was a great way of conveying alot about the two characters in a short period of time. And to Lexi's point about Jinx - I, for one, didn't hate the character. But I do think that Halle Berry's performance was lacking. The way she said some of her lines was downright amateurish for an actress of her experience. I've seen her do much better (e.g. Jungle Fever and Monster's Ball).

Lexi wrote:

zaphod wrote:

I think that this scene is one of the standouts across the entire series. The dialogue crackles, sparkles, and fizzes. Superb performances from both, and it setup the whole 'tell' thing very nicely.We learnt a lot about both characters, and it establishes the tension in their relationship, and all with great economy. I can't think of another scene which accomplishes as much in a short space of tme.

Totally agree. I love this scene... it's clever from the standpoint that we learn a lot about both characters in a very short space of time... plus we get the set up for Vesper not giving in to Bond's charms... that she is willing to bring her own take to the situation..and she does it well. But in a way that is not overly aggressive (something that Jinx suffered from apparently, although I'm still a bit baffled by most mens dislike of her )

That scene was sharp, sizzling and sexy - just how a Bond girl should be....;)

Moore Than

Blackleiter wrote:

And to Lexi's point about Jinx - I, for one, didn't hate the character. But I do think that Halle Berry's performance was lacking. The way she said some of her lines was downright amateurish for an actress of her experience. I've seen her do much better (e.g. Jungle Fever and Monster's Ball).

Agreed. Halle Berry's performance was lacking. In her defence, some of the script/dialogue was appalling. But she failed to rise above it which is surprising considering the experience and standing she had at that point. Perhaps some of the blame lies with Lee Tamahori for not getting a better performance out of her?