I liked that scene in OP, where Moore tells the tiger to "Sit!"
However I don't understand at all WHY the tiger sat? I mean, what was it's motivatation? Wasn't it working for Kahn? It should have tore Bond to pieces. Was the tiger betraying Kahn? Was it's mate being held against it's will by Octopussy's circus, and was scheming for his release? Was there a relation between the tiger and the trophy rug that Bond used as a diversion in the Monsoon Palace. This whole bit really lessens my viewing enjoyment of OP!
And furthermore, I think the biggest plot hole (if you consider it to be one) is how Mr White managed to get hold of the money (or at least the case he has which is implied to be the money).
He either had a team of frogmen on standby or is very good at hook-a-duck
Yeah, it looked like it was pretty much lost in the sinking house. Assuming of course that it is indeed the money, a quick shot of someone escaping with the case would be nice. Again, as highhopes says, we have to wait until Bond 22 for the answers. ?:)
My bet is that there were two suitcases, and the one she gave to Gettler was empty. Mr. White got the real suitcase, for which he agreed not to kill Bond.
But we won't know for sure until Bond 22 -- or at least we better. I know I'll be very disappointed if the Vesper-LeChiffre-Mr White-Gettler relationship isn't explained. But I'm pretty sure that's why Eva is slated to be back for Bond 22.
And frankly, the final scene in CR is basically Bond on his way to getting answers. I think it's pretty exciting to have a Bond film like that.
When he saw what was going on, all he had to do was wait to see what would happened. It's easy to assume that he must have spotted the case of money in the water and took it, while Bond was being distracted by Vesper.
My point is that Mr White is stood in the other building, bone dry and seemingly with the money. It just doesn't tie up as the case was dropped inside the house as it was crumbling and there would be far from any guarantee that the case would have floated outside and conveniently to somewhere near the baddie of the piece. But I suppose these things happen in films with little or no explanation!!
They purposely showed us a shot of the suitcase falling in the water and floating away. My first impression was that they were just trying to show that nobody got the money...tying up a small loose end kinda. It wasn't until later that I realized that people were talking about the case 're-surfacing' (no pun intended) in Mr. White's hands. Were the filmmakers trying to raise a question mark for Bond 22? Or are we supposed to tell ourselves the money is simply lost? I dunno.
I liked that scene in OP, where Moore tells the tiger to "Sit!"
However I don't understand at all WHY the tiger sat? I mean, what was it's motivatation? Wasn't it working for Kahn? It should have tore Bond to pieces. Was the tiger betraying Kahn? Was it's mate being held against it's will by Octopussy's circus, and was scheming for his release? Was there a relation between the tiger and the trophy rug that Bond used as a diversion in the Monsoon Palace. This whole bit really lessens my viewing enjoyment of OP!
Just think it's funny is all, you going on about character motivation and good story-telling when three of your top five Bond films are Glen Bonds, all of which I can hardly consider films much less Bond films they're so across-the-board bad IMO--writing, acting, directing, the whole deal...:s But to each his or her own. {[]
I'm pretty sure the whole point of there being questions at the end of CR is that they'll get answered in the next one...and there certainly seem to be enough variations to choose from that members of this board can think of, simple thru complex. Can't imagine Bond 22 won't tie those loose ends up in a nice neat package--for Bond to burst through! In other words, we're SUPPOSED to be left wondering...and if that doesn't work for you then it doesn't work for you. For me, I understood that:
Vesper betrayed Bond and stole the money, and;
Mathis may or may not have also betrayed Bond, separately or in cahoots with Vesper.
Doesn't seem like rocket science, just spy film stuff. For the rest, Vesper in the road, etc., well it is a movie, guess those points don't register with or bother me, the filmmakers had me and I zipped right along with them. Nothing stuck out and shattered the verisimilitude like, oh, Bond asking a wild tiger to sit, and the tiger sits. That kinda stuff makes me check out from the film for the next 20 or 30 minutes, as obviously nothing happening in the film really matters, the filmmakers just told me so by inserting abject sillyness. Oh yeah, the Tarzan yell...classic Bond. Those moments don't bother you, okay. We have different standards and expectations regarding good story-telling I guess.
I know exactly what you mean. For me it's about expectations. The Glen films I enjoy very much, particularly the Moore outings but for different reasons. These are films that I can watch with my tongue in my cheek...something that is not the intent with the 'grittier' CR. I can watch the films over and over, and simply enjoy myself. The films have an outlandish nature to them which allows for the more silly moments. OHMSS, which also ranks high on my list, isn't laced with these kind of sentiments, and I think the film is better for it. It's a much more dramatic story that focuses on characters, not whiz-bang action.
The tone of CR is built around a much more darker and stronger tone, and to the films credit, it is not cumbered down with these farcical elements.
Nowhere in my questions about CR have you seen me post that I wished Le Chiffre had a laser beam that shot from his eye, or see Bond's Aston Martin sprout wings to leap over Vesper. I'm merely saying that in order for me to 'accept' Bond in a much more realistic world, it helps to have much more realistic behaviour in the script's characters.
So often I hear others say that CR is the best Bond film ever, but whenever I ask a question or pose a viewpoint, others tend to reply "So what, all the Bond films are like that?" If that's the case, what makes this film any different? Nothing, really.
Again, it boils down to expectations. I was hoping for something really hard hitting, something 'gritty' that knocks my socks off...but I didn't get it.
I'm not saying that the film is bad, I just didn't enjoy it. I'm not saying you're wrong to like it. Quite the opposite actually...I'm glad others can enjoy it. But I simply can't say a story is brilliant on the merits that others say so. My opinions are formed from my own experiences. If I can ascertain through our discussions the merits of what I see on the screen, than that would be great. To often, however, people simply say "Well, maybe Bond 22 will explain it all". All that signifies to me is that CR is incomplete, so as a stand alone film, CR is a grave disappointment for me.
Fair enough, dh. And you're very right, it is really about expectations. CR met mine (yes, even as a stand-alone Bond film). If they never made another Bond film, the whos and whats in CR left dangling still wouldn't bother me. Different strokes. {[]
But frankly most of what we're talking about here isn't loose ends or part of the cliffhanger approach - it's just shoddy writing! Waiting for Bond 22 is a variation on the 'better luck next time' theme...
I agree with darenhat about all this, the plotholes on film are unrivalled except perhaps by DAD. It's partly Campbell's tone that's to blame - he has this gritty, take it or leave it stark quality but it's never backed up by verisimilute or realism. GE was like that imo, but I thought that new writers on CR and a new brief would work with his style...
Shoddy... Just don't get it. CR is as well-written as any of Connery's best (DN thru TB), or OHMSS, and arguably ups the ante in the character development department. It fits very well in with those five films mentioned IMHO, and I don't think of any of them as shoddy. Just good films and good Bond films.
Shoddy... Just don't get it. CR is as well-written as any of Connery's best (DN thru TB), or OHMSS, and arguably ups the ante in the character development department. It fits very well in with those five films mentioned IMHO, and I don't think of any of them as shoddy. Just good films and good Bond films.
Well maybe if there had been the 'net back then, there would be lots of plot holes talked about on Dr No and questions needing 'clarification' regards various things. To me, however, it's shoddy and only DAD and CR are getting this treatment, it's just on the latter it's like people are thinking it's their fault for being slow, rather than anything with the film...
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
I'm not saying that the film is bad, I just didn't enjoy it. I'm not saying you're wrong to like it. Quite the opposite actually...I'm glad others can enjoy it. But I simply can't say a story is brilliant on the merits that others say so. My opinions are formed from my own experiences. If I can ascertain through our discussions the merits of what I see on the screen, than that would be great. To often, however, people simply say "Well, maybe Bond 22 will explain it all". All that signifies to me is that CR is incomplete, so as a stand alone film, CR is a grave disappointment for me.
An excellent piece there, darenhat - if only more people took that view !
I love CR and I like the fact that I'm not spoonfed the actions and motives of the various characters. I also like the idea that the film isn't all tied up with a nice bow at the end - it's great to read other peoples comments on what they thought happened. It will be good to see Bond go after the real villians of CR in Bond22. I do hope they manage to explain some of the elements left open from CR, but I don't need to know why LeChiffre left Vesper tied up in the road - he did, and thats that !
I'm not really bothered if you enjoyed CR or not - it's a shame, but I'm not bothered. I hope you like the next one, but if Eon stay true to form at the minute, odds are you won't.
I'm not saying that the film is bad, I just didn't enjoy it. I'm not saying you're wrong to like it. Quite the opposite actually...I'm glad others can enjoy it. But I simply can't say a story is brilliant on the merits that others say so. My opinions are formed from my own experiences. If I can ascertain through our discussions the merits of what I see on the screen, than that would be great. To often, however, people simply say "Well, maybe Bond 22 will explain it all". All that signifies to me is that CR is incomplete, so as a stand alone film, CR is a grave disappointment for me.
An excellent piece there, darenhat - if only more people took that view !
I love CR and I like the fact that I'm not spoonfed the actions and motives of the various characters. I also like the idea that the film isn't all tied up with a nice bow at the end - it's great to read other peoples comments on what they thought happened. It will be good to see Bond go after the real villians of CR in Bond22. I do hope they manage to explain some of the elements left open from CR, but I don't need to know why LeChiffre left Vesper tied up in the road - he did, and thats that !
I'm not really bothered if you enjoyed CR or not - it's a shame, but I'm not bothered. I hope you like the next one, but if Eon stay true to form at the minute, odds are you won't.
Heres to differences -{
Right on, Sir Miles. I've got to say that some of the so-called "questions" have pretty obvious answers IMO. For example, is it so difficult to divine that there were two suitcases(Vesper giving the suitcase with the money to Mr. White --which she agreed to do to save Bond -- and an empty one to Gettler, which is what M meant by going to her death)? Or that Vesper was put in the road to make Bond stop and that LC had no reason to believe Bond would crash? It's like going to the movies with one of those friends (we all have one) who from the moment the titles begin elbows you and starts asking "why is he doing this ... I don't get that ... why is this? What did she say?" At some point you feel like saying, "why don't you just watch the freaking movie. The characters are doing what they are doing because that's what they did." Actually, I think in some cases it's nit-picking by hypercritical people or people who are used to having their movies spoonfed to them, as you say. No amount of explaining is ever going to make sense to them.
But for the rest of us, be assured that CR is going to have a sequel. That means everything in CR shouldn't be explained. Mr. White's organization is supposed to be mysterious and shadowy -- Finally, some real continuity between Bond films. I would think some people on the site would be doing cartwheels. We don't have the whole story in CR because the story ain't over. But we do have enough for a satisfying resolution, I think. )
But while we're talking about what makes sense and what doesn't, I have an idea: since the very character of James Bond makes no sense in the real world (he doesn't), let's end the series, burn the movies, shut down AJB and move on with our lives. )
Right on, Sir Miles. I've got to say that some of the so-called "questions" have pretty obvious answers IMO. For example, is it so difficult to divine that there were two suitcases(Vesper giving the suitcase with the money to Mr. White --which she agreed to do to save Bond -- and an empty one to Gettler, which is what M meant by going to her death)? Or that Vesper was put in the road to make Bond stop and that LC had no reason to believe Bond would crash? It's like going to the movies with one of those friends (we all have one) who from the moment the titles begin elbows you and starts asking "why is he doing this ... I don't get that ... why is this? What did she say?" At some point you feel like saying, "why don't you just watch the freaking movie. The characters are doing what they are doing because that's what they did." Actually, I think in some cases it's nit-picking by hypercritical people or people who are used to having their movies spoonfed to them, as you say. No amount of explaining is ever going to make sense to them.
But for the rest of us, be assured that CR is going to have a sequel. That means everything in CR shouldn't be explained. Mr. White's organization is supposed to be mysterious and shadowy -- Finally, some real continuity between Bond films. I would think some people on the site would be doing cartwheels. We don't have the whole story in CR because the story ain't over. But we do have enough for a satisfying resolution, I think. )
But while we're talking about what makes sense and what doesn't, I have an idea: since the very character of James Bond makes no sense in the real world (he doesn't), let's end the series, burn the movies, shut down AJB and move on with our lives. )
HH, I have two objections to what you just said:
1)Many of the questions that people are asking are not obvious; at least they are not to the people who are asking them. Is it possible to ask 'obvious' questions on a fan site without being made to feel like one is stupid? Also, it's not nick-picking. Nit-picking would be criticising Craig for wearing a red tie when a blue tie is much more realistic; or something like that.
2)Although I am yet to see CR again (which will clarify my feelings), I do agree with DH and NP that the script is quite flawed. I think the film leaves too many unanswered questions. One could say, "wait until you see Bond 22" which might be fine if Bond 22 truly answered all the questions and if all of the unasnwered questions were deliberate. However IMO, some of them are just sloppy and as a stand-alone film, I don't think it fully works. Also, CR is no Citizen Kane or The Godfather. The fact that some of us might have problems with it is not because we want to be spoonfed; perhaps we just think it is a very flawed film.
HH, I know that you love the film. That's great. But please don't imply that those who don't think it's a masterpiece are stupid or prefer to be spoon-fed. We might just instead think it is a pretty flawed film.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
No hh, it' s difficult to divine that, so to speak, just a lot of trouble for no real benefit at the end. Like I say, I can't be sure, as I'm not on absolutely Bourne or the equivalent, but I don't come out of other films scratching my head etc - and a lot of these questions actually HAVEN'T been answered, besides, many of your responses have this mysterious clairvoyancy talent: LC knew Bond would figure out the message to Vesper would trigger Bond into action as he'd then realise Mathis is a fraud, V had two briefcases blah blah blah, and how did V get recruited as a double agent when Bond only ran into LC in the last fornight, that's pretty fast work...
The reason I see things like the 'suitcase' as signs of flawed writing is that they don't add anything to the story, like suspense or intrigue. They really only tend to distract and muddy what really should be the point of the film - i.e. the characters. These kind of elements are best to have answers supplied easily and simply so that there not dangling loose ends. If the point was that the audience is supposed to wonder about these things, than the story should be more clear about it IMO.
i am with darenhat all the way here and have exactly the same feelings...carried away with euphoria i quite enjoyed my first viewing of cr but after seeing it several times...it is far from a masterpiece and the muddied storyline and over written sequences such as the train meeting are the main reason...with all the loose ends leaving me very unsatisfied
GF has one flaw often cited, about the villain explaining his plan to the gangsters, then killing them... but that's about it, and could be explained away as an eccentricity on his part, obv it's necessary for exposition...
Other stuff in later films is just as 'flawed' but as they occupy a more cartoony world, the films obey their internal logic.
HH, I know that you love the film. That's great. But please don't imply that those who don't think it's a masterpiece are stupid or prefer to be spoon-fed. We might just instead think it is a pretty flawed film.
I'm not implying you're stupid, Dan. I am saying, explicitly, that we're so used to juvenile plotting in films, especially action films, that we've become lazy. Anything that requires a little imagination or an appreciation for sublety strikes us as incomprehensible. I shudder to think what the reaction would be if a movie like "Blow up" or "2001: A Space Odyssey" were released today (and I'm not comparing CR to those) when some people can't even figure out on their own that Vesper was in love with Bond because she never said "I'm in love with you, Bond." Or that she could both be in love andbetray him. Conflicting feelings in a human being? How can that be?
The reason I see things like the 'suitcase' as signs of flawed writing is that they don't add anything to the story, like suspense or intrigue. They really only tend to distract and muddy what really should be the point of the film - i.e. the characters. These kind of elements are best to have answers supplied easily and simply so that there not dangling loose ends. If the point was that the audience is supposed to wonder about these things, than the story should be more clear about it IMO.
i am with darenhat all the way here and have exactly the same feelings...carried away with euphoria i quite enjoyed my first viewing of cr but after seeing it several times...it is far from a masterpiece and the muddied storyline and over written sequences such as the train meeting are the main reason...with all the loose ends leaving me very unsatisfied
No hh, it' s difficult to divine that, so to speak, just a lot of trouble for no real benefit at the end. Like I say, I can't be sure, as I'm not on absolutely Bourne or the equivalent, but I don't come out of other films scratching my head etc - and a lot of these questions actually HAVEN'T been answered, besides, many of your responses have this mysterious clairvoyancy talent: LC knew Bond would figure out the message to Vesper would trigger Bond into action as he'd then realise Mathis is a fraud, V had two briefcases blah blah blah, and how did V get recruited as a double agent when Bond only ran into LC in the last fornight, that's pretty fast work...
You didn't leave Bourne scratching your head because you weren't meant to. As for my "clairvoyant" responses, if you read my posts more thoroughly (or at least more thoroughly than you watched CR), you would understand that I am not saying "this is the way it is," but rather that all of these questions can be easily explained, but the correct explanation has been withheld on purpose. But then there are questions that really do not require a specific answer, unless you want to sit through an additional hour of useless explanations. Questions such as
"How did V get recruited as a double agent when Bond only ran into LC in the last fornight?"
Are you saying, NP, that your imagination simply cannot conceive of any plausible way (not "likely way," mind you -- this is a Bond film) V might have been recruited????????? (And this is not answered in the book, either, probably because it's not a serious question)
It's that kind of thing that drives me nuts. Some of the questionners act as if the script practically rewrote the laws of physics (well, maybe the crane sequence, but all action films do that -- including Mr. Bourne, as you will see below). I'm saying it does not. It leaves a few open questions, but all all of them relate to a couple central facts that are deliberately withheld from the viewer: The particulars of Vesper's treachery and Mr. White's role. But just because there are questions left unanswered does not mean CR's story doesn't resolve on its own. CR is about Bond defeating LC and falling in love with a woman who betrays him. All that is perfectly clear and resolved in the movie. That's the end of CR.
The unanswered questions, the exact nature of Vesper's treachery and Mr. White's role -- the particulars of it -- are the seed for Bond 22. Things like the suitcase do add to the story, but that story won't be told until the next movie.
Frankly -- it's a clever way of setting up 22. And if that doesn't add suspense to the film, I don't know what would. Far from being a fault of the script, it's a strength. But if you're used to M setting up the whole caper in his or her office in the first 20 minutes of the film, yeah, the approach is going to be a little unsettling.
Remember "Back to the Future," when the professor shows up at the end and says: "You're kids are in trouble Marty; you've got to go back" and they take off in the flying car without further explanation. Same deal here. Not a plot hole, just a set up for the next film.
Now, NP and Darenhat, you guys admit you don't know if 22 will answer your questions, but that doesn't stop you from talking as if it won't. Kind of like the Craig bashers who said he couldn't be Bond before even seeing the film. Now if 22 doesn't address the particulars of Vesper's treachery, I will offer you apologies and congratulate you on your clairvoyance. But until then, I'm going to assume all will be revealed in our next thrilling episode.
Now for your precious Mr. Bourne, NP:
You didn't have any questions about Bourne? Well, I wondered how our unconscious hero stayed afloat -- in a storm no less -- and drifted out to sea long enough to be rescued by a freighter (and fat-free bodies like Damon's don't float even in salt water, so don't even try it, mister)? Chew on that one a while and get back to me.
That's what makes the 'Acceptable-Unacceptable' thread so interesting...there are times when you can get away with stuff, and sometimes not. CR wanted the virtue of being a more 'realistic' Bond film, but with the tack there arise some real challenges. For some reason, when Bond wreaks mayhem and destruction in some films, there's a tendency to 'play it up' and laugh about it. But in a Bond film where 007 bleeds, where every punch is meant to be felt, the audience tends to realize that there are consequences to these actions. When Bond creates an international incident by storming an embassy with a gun and attempting to abduct someone from their grounds, I think 'He can't do that...The PM would have both his and M's heads on a platter". But when Bond drives a jetboat through the London streets, I laugh and think it's funny. For me, CR fails to reach the golden standard in my mind. If I'm expected to believe that Bond is fallible, that Bond bleeds, that Bond is in mortal peril during a torture sequence, then in my mind the rest of the 'rules' of reality must apply.
I highly doubt Vesper had two identical suitcases
Bond might have noticed she was travelling with two identical suitcases when they loaded up the yacht
anyway Bond was following her down an alley before she made the payoff, she didnt have two suitcases then
come to think of it she didnt have any suitcases when she left the hotel: is that how the banks give out huge payouts in cash these days, with a free suitcase?
what is that suitcase anyway? is really full of 1.2 million in bills, bursting at the seams like the one in Kubricks The Killing?
is it the same miniATM suitcase we saw the banker entering the passwords into? wasnt that his property? he didnt mention he'd lost it when he and Bond spoke on the phone
maybe it was the mysterious glowing suitcase from Pulp Fiction
anyway the 2 suitcases theory is the overly complicated explanation, that would get thrown out in writing up any scientific experiment as unparsimonious
its easier to believe the suitcase floated out a window while the building was collapsing and Mr White scooped it up
Bond should have done so, as it was Secret Service funds, but he was preoccupied with saving his ladyfriend, and everybody else was preoccupied with firing nailguns at him as he did so
someone else asked above how Vesper could have been forcibly recruited by the baddies with such short notice, given that Bond had only heard of Le Chiffre days before
the same question could be asked of the book, but she was. she was potentially useful to SMERSH, and they kept an openended threat hanging over her imprisoned lover waiting til the day when she'd come in useful
I assumed SMERSH had potentially thousands of such unwilling agents scattered round the Western world, in place like pawns to be used or not used as the big game was played
this is even easier to believe in the movie, as she is a treasurer of some sort for the British government, a very useful mole for a shadowy criminal organisation in need of funds
It's that kind of thing that drives me nuts. Some of the questionners act as if the script practically rewrote the laws of physics (well, maybe the crane sequence, but all action films do that -- including Mr. Bourne, as you will see below). I'm saying it does not. It leaves a few open questions, but all all of them relate to a couple central facts that are deliberately withheld from the viewer: The particulars of Vesper's treachery and Mr. White's role. But just because there are questions left unanswered does not mean CR's story doesn't resolve on its own. CR is about Bond defeating LC and falling in love with a woman who betrays him. All that is perfectly clear and resolved in the movie. That's the end of CR.
Bear in mind, HH, that the purpose of this forum is to actually 'talk' about Casino Royale...which is what we are doing. I suppose in your mind, that means we should be doing nothing but PRAISING CR for what a fantastic life event it is. I apologize if I don't fall into some 'Emperor's New Clothes' mindset. We discuss the ideas, where we think there are flaws, and maybe even getting some insight into the story. The one thing neither I nor NP or Dan Same have said is that people who disagree with us 'lack imagination' or 'need to be spoon-fed.'
We are simply asking questions about the movie...questions that no one seems to have the answers to. That's okay. At least we are 'attempting' to make sense of with what we know. But trying to invalidate the mental capacity of the person asking the question is a poor way of convincing yourself the question isn't valid.
I'm not implying you're stupid, Dan. I am saying, explicitly, that we're so used to juvenile plotting in films, especially action films, that we've become lazy.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that the plotting in CR is juvenile, however I do think it's very flawed.
Anything that requires a little imagination or an appreciation for sublety strikes us as incomprehensible. I shudder to think what the reaction would be if a movie like "Blow up" or "2001: A Space Odyssey" were released today (and I'm not comparing CR to those)
Thank goodness that you're not. (Although 2001, an absolute masterpiece IMO, is incomprehensible anyway. Not that it matters. )
when some people can't even figure out on their own that Vesper was in love with Bond because she never said "I'm in love with you, Bond." Or that she could both be in love andbetray him. Conflicting feelings in a human being? How can that be?
I am unconvinced (although I've only seen the film once and my view might change) that Vesper loved Bond. It's not because of the script but rather because of Green's (IMO) ordinary performance.
*HH, I know (and hope) that your intention isn't to be condescending and to imply that the other person is stupid but your constant use of sarcasm sends out those signals to me. The reality is that while you consider the script to be of particularly high quality, other people such as myself, do not. I would hope, considering that this is a film and not Peace in the Middle East, you at can at least accept that there is a difference of opinion.
*No offence meant; just stating my honest feelings.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
BTW, highhopes, would that duplicate briefcase be able to float or not? )
An empty one would be more likely to, I think. Don't you?
Now THAT would be a well-written ending. Vesper, who introduced herself as 'The Money', dies by drowning...the suitcase, full of money, is seen sinking slowly under the water, to be lost forever. What's wrong with the symbolism in that?
*HH, I know (and hope) that your intention isn't to be condescending and to imply that the other person is stupid but your constant use of sarcasm sends out those signals to me. The reality is that while you consider the script to be of particularly high quality, other people such as myself, do not. I would hope, considering that this is a film and not Peace in the Middle East, you at can at least accept that there is a difference of opinion.
*No offence meant; just stating my honest feelings.
None taken Dan, but you guys seem to be miffed at me for stating my honest feelings. I understand the purpose of the site, and I don't feel I'm abusing it. Talking is all I'm doing, though I'm disagreeing strongly with your positions (on these particular points -- I'm sure I've agreed with you guys on many issues, which means your brilliance has never really been in doubt as far as I'm concerned; you're just occasionally misguided) just as you disagree with mine. As for my tone, it used to be people complimented me about being too polite, which led me to think I wasn't expressing myself strongly enough; now I'm too sarcastic. Hopefully, I'll strike the right balance someday.
As for praising CR, Darenhat: nothing short of WORSHIP will do!!!! )
I don't think CR or any Bond film is a masterpiece, but I feel compelled to defend the scriptwriters just as I felt compelled to defend Craig from what I felt (and yes, this is only my opinion) were unfounded complaints. If Bond 22 appears and some of these questions are still out there, I will lead the chorus of disatisfied posters. But until then, I will continue to say that the things you guys characterize as "plot holes" are for the most part a way of setting up the next film.
BTW, highhopes, would that duplicate briefcase be able to float or not? )
An empty one would be more likely to, I think. Don't you?
Now THAT would be a well-written ending. Vesper, who introduced herself as 'The Money', dies by drowning...the suitcase, full of money, is seen sinking slowly under the water, to be lost forever. What's wrong with the symbolism in that?
Nothing. It would be a great ending if the story was meant to end right there. But I don't believe it was. Having the slippery Mr. White, the representative of a mysterious organization Bond is expected to battle in the next film, walk off with the money is a better ending under the circumstances because it presages the upcoming film while underscoring the power of the organization White works for (Everyone -- Bond, Vesper, LC -- loses something except the organization, which comes out smelling like a rose). And the more powerful the organization, the better Bond looks. How many films did it take Bond to defeat Blofeld? Sure, he won the battles, but Blofeld always won the war by escaping. It made SPECTRE all the more sinister. How long did it take Sherlock Holmes to go over the falls with Moriarty?
Again -- I don't know any better than you do how or if P&W will resolve these questions in Bond 22. But I think the safe bet is to say that's the plan. The question marks are too broad and easy to explain to be simply careless errors. That's why I object so strongly to them being referred to as "plot holes," as if they're some sort of screw up that no one noticed until now.
But if I'm wrong and they don't, then I will be the first in line to cast stones, believe me. I expect continuity between Bond 21 and 22 -- and that means explaining the LeChiffre-Vesper-Mr. White-Gettler relationship.
Comments
However I don't understand at all WHY the tiger sat? I mean, what was it's motivatation? Wasn't it working for Kahn? It should have tore Bond to pieces. Was the tiger betraying Kahn? Was it's mate being held against it's will by Octopussy's circus, and was scheming for his release? Was there a relation between the tiger and the trophy rug that Bond used as a diversion in the Monsoon Palace. This whole bit really lessens my viewing enjoyment of OP!
I prefer calling him Tanner, it makes sense.
My bet is that there were two suitcases, and the one she gave to Gettler was empty. Mr. White got the real suitcase, for which he agreed not to kill Bond.
But we won't know for sure until Bond 22 -- or at least we better. I know I'll be very disappointed if the Vesper-LeChiffre-Mr White-Gettler relationship isn't explained. But I'm pretty sure that's why Eva is slated to be back for Bond 22.
And frankly, the final scene in CR is basically Bond on his way to getting answers. I think it's pretty exciting to have a Bond film like that.
My point is that Mr White is stood in the other building, bone dry and seemingly with the money. It just doesn't tie up as the case was dropped inside the house as it was crumbling and there would be far from any guarantee that the case would have floated outside and conveniently to somewhere near the baddie of the piece. But I suppose these things happen in films with little or no explanation!!
Just think it's funny is all, you going on about character motivation and good story-telling when three of your top five Bond films are Glen Bonds, all of which I can hardly consider films much less Bond films they're so across-the-board bad IMO--writing, acting, directing, the whole deal...:s But to each his or her own. {[]
I'm pretty sure the whole point of there being questions at the end of CR is that they'll get answered in the next one...and there certainly seem to be enough variations to choose from that members of this board can think of, simple thru complex. Can't imagine Bond 22 won't tie those loose ends up in a nice neat package--for Bond to burst through!
Vesper betrayed Bond and stole the money, and;
Mathis may or may not have also betrayed Bond, separately or in cahoots with Vesper.
Doesn't seem like rocket science, just spy film stuff. For the rest, Vesper in the road, etc., well it is a movie, guess those points don't register with or bother me, the filmmakers had me and I zipped right along with them. Nothing stuck out and shattered the verisimilitude like, oh, Bond asking a wild tiger to sit, and the tiger sits. That kinda stuff makes me check out from the film for the next 20 or 30 minutes, as obviously nothing happening in the film really matters, the filmmakers just told me so by inserting abject sillyness.
The tone of CR is built around a much more darker and stronger tone, and to the films credit, it is not cumbered down with these farcical elements.
Nowhere in my questions about CR have you seen me post that I wished Le Chiffre had a laser beam that shot from his eye, or see Bond's Aston Martin sprout wings to leap over Vesper. I'm merely saying that in order for me to 'accept' Bond in a much more realistic world, it helps to have much more realistic behaviour in the script's characters.
So often I hear others say that CR is the best Bond film ever, but whenever I ask a question or pose a viewpoint, others tend to reply "So what, all the Bond films are like that?" If that's the case, what makes this film any different? Nothing, really.
Again, it boils down to expectations. I was hoping for something really hard hitting, something 'gritty' that knocks my socks off...but I didn't get it.
I'm not saying that the film is bad, I just didn't enjoy it. I'm not saying you're wrong to like it. Quite the opposite actually...I'm glad others can enjoy it. But I simply can't say a story is brilliant on the merits that others say so. My opinions are formed from my own experiences. If I can ascertain through our discussions the merits of what I see on the screen, than that would be great. To often, however, people simply say "Well, maybe Bond 22 will explain it all". All that signifies to me is that CR is incomplete, so as a stand alone film, CR is a grave disappointment for me.
I agree with darenhat about all this, the plotholes on film are unrivalled except perhaps by DAD. It's partly Campbell's tone that's to blame - he has this gritty, take it or leave it stark quality but it's never backed up by verisimilute or realism. GE was like that imo, but I thought that new writers on CR and a new brief would work with his style...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well maybe if there had been the 'net back then, there would be lots of plot holes talked about on Dr No and questions needing 'clarification' regards various things. To me, however, it's shoddy and only DAD and CR are getting this treatment, it's just on the latter it's like people are thinking it's their fault for being slow, rather than anything with the film...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
An excellent piece there, darenhat - if only more people took that view !
I love CR and I like the fact that I'm not spoonfed the actions and motives of the various characters. I also like the idea that the film isn't all tied up with a nice bow at the end - it's great to read other peoples comments on what they thought happened. It will be good to see Bond go after the real villians of CR in Bond22. I do hope they manage to explain some of the elements left open from CR, but I don't need to know why LeChiffre left Vesper tied up in the road - he did, and thats that !
I'm not really bothered if you enjoyed CR or not - it's a shame, but I'm not bothered. I hope you like the next one, but if Eon stay true to form at the minute, odds are you won't.
Heres to differences -{
Well, that's cheering! 'Tis the season of good swill...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Right on, Sir Miles. I've got to say that some of the so-called "questions" have pretty obvious answers IMO. For example, is it so difficult to divine that there were two suitcases(Vesper giving the suitcase with the money to Mr. White --which she agreed to do to save Bond -- and an empty one to Gettler, which is what M meant by going to her death)? Or that Vesper was put in the road to make Bond stop and that LC had no reason to believe Bond would crash? It's like going to the movies with one of those friends (we all have one) who from the moment the titles begin elbows you and starts asking "why is he doing this ... I don't get that ... why is this? What did she say?" At some point you feel like saying, "why don't you just watch the freaking movie. The characters are doing what they are doing because that's what they did." Actually, I think in some cases it's nit-picking by hypercritical people or people who are used to having their movies spoonfed to them, as you say. No amount of explaining is ever going to make sense to them.
But for the rest of us, be assured that CR is going to have a sequel. That means everything in CR shouldn't be explained. Mr. White's organization is supposed to be mysterious and shadowy -- Finally, some real continuity between Bond films. I would think some people on the site would be doing cartwheels. We don't have the whole story in CR because the story ain't over. But we do have enough for a satisfying resolution, I think.
But while we're talking about what makes sense and what doesn't, I have an idea: since the very character of James Bond makes no sense in the real world (he doesn't), let's end the series, burn the movies, shut down AJB and move on with our lives.
1)Many of the questions that people are asking are not obvious; at least they are not to the people who are asking them. Is it possible to ask 'obvious' questions on a fan site without being made to feel like one is stupid? Also, it's not nick-picking. Nit-picking would be criticising Craig for wearing a red tie when a blue tie is much more realistic; or something like that.
2)Although I am yet to see CR again (which will clarify my feelings), I do agree with DH and NP that the script is quite flawed. I think the film leaves too many unanswered questions. One could say, "wait until you see Bond 22" which might be fine if Bond 22 truly answered all the questions and if all of the unasnwered questions were deliberate. However IMO, some of them are just sloppy and as a stand-alone film, I don't think it fully works. Also, CR is no Citizen Kane or The Godfather. The fact that some of us might have problems with it is not because we want to be spoonfed; perhaps we just think it is a very flawed film.
HH, I know that you love the film. That's great. But please don't imply that those who don't think it's a masterpiece are stupid or prefer to be spoon-fed. We might just instead think it is a pretty flawed film.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
GF has one flaw often cited, about the villain explaining his plan to the gangsters, then killing them... but that's about it, and could be explained away as an eccentricity on his part, obv it's necessary for exposition...
Other stuff in later films is just as 'flawed' but as they occupy a more cartoony world, the films obey their internal logic.
CR doesn't, imo.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'm not implying you're stupid, Dan. I am saying, explicitly, that we're so used to juvenile plotting in films, especially action films, that we've become lazy. Anything that requires a little imagination or an appreciation for sublety strikes us as incomprehensible. I shudder to think what the reaction would be if a movie like "Blow up" or "2001: A Space Odyssey" were released today (and I'm not comparing CR to those) when some people can't even figure out on their own that Vesper was in love with Bond because she never said "I'm in love with you, Bond." Or that she could both be in love andbetray him. Conflicting feelings in a human being? How can that be?
You didn't leave Bourne scratching your head because you weren't meant to. As for my "clairvoyant" responses, if you read my posts more thoroughly (or at least more thoroughly than you watched CR), you would understand that I am not saying "this is the way it is," but rather that all of these questions can be easily explained, but the correct explanation has been withheld on purpose. But then there are questions that really do not require a specific answer, unless you want to sit through an additional hour of useless explanations. Questions such as
"How did V get recruited as a double agent when Bond only ran into LC in the last fornight?"
Are you saying, NP, that your imagination simply cannot conceive of any plausible way (not "likely way," mind you -- this is a Bond film) V might have been recruited????????? (And this is not answered in the book, either, probably because it's not a serious question)
It's that kind of thing that drives me nuts. Some of the questionners act as if the script practically rewrote the laws of physics (well, maybe the crane sequence, but all action films do that -- including Mr. Bourne, as you will see below). I'm saying it does not. It leaves a few open questions, but all all of them relate to a couple central facts that are deliberately withheld from the viewer: The particulars of Vesper's treachery and Mr. White's role. But just because there are questions left unanswered does not mean CR's story doesn't resolve on its own. CR is about Bond defeating LC and falling in love with a woman who betrays him. All that is perfectly clear and resolved in the movie. That's the end of CR.
The unanswered questions, the exact nature of Vesper's treachery and Mr. White's role -- the particulars of it -- are the seed for Bond 22. Things like the suitcase do add to the story, but that story won't be told until the next movie.
Frankly -- it's a clever way of setting up 22. And if that doesn't add suspense to the film, I don't know what would. Far from being a fault of the script, it's a strength. But if you're used to M setting up the whole caper in his or her office in the first 20 minutes of the film, yeah, the approach is going to be a little unsettling.
Remember "Back to the Future," when the professor shows up at the end and says: "You're kids are in trouble Marty; you've got to go back" and they take off in the flying car without further explanation. Same deal here. Not a plot hole, just a set up for the next film.
Now, NP and Darenhat, you guys admit you don't know if 22 will answer your questions, but that doesn't stop you from talking as if it won't. Kind of like the Craig bashers who said he couldn't be Bond before even seeing the film. Now if 22 doesn't address the particulars of Vesper's treachery, I will offer you apologies and congratulate you on your clairvoyance. But until then, I'm going to assume all will be revealed in our next thrilling episode.
Now for your precious Mr. Bourne, NP:
You didn't have any questions about Bourne? Well, I wondered how our unconscious hero stayed afloat -- in a storm no less -- and drifted out to sea long enough to be rescued by a freighter (and fat-free bodies like Damon's don't float even in salt water, so don't even try it, mister)? Chew on that one a while and get back to me.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Bond might have noticed she was travelling with two identical suitcases when they loaded up the yacht
anyway Bond was following her down an alley before she made the payoff, she didnt have two suitcases then
come to think of it she didnt have any suitcases when she left the hotel: is that how the banks give out huge payouts in cash these days, with a free suitcase?
what is that suitcase anyway? is really full of 1.2 million in bills, bursting at the seams like the one in Kubricks The Killing?
is it the same miniATM suitcase we saw the banker entering the passwords into? wasnt that his property? he didnt mention he'd lost it when he and Bond spoke on the phone
maybe it was the mysterious glowing suitcase from Pulp Fiction
anyway the 2 suitcases theory is the overly complicated explanation, that would get thrown out in writing up any scientific experiment as unparsimonious
its easier to believe the suitcase floated out a window while the building was collapsing and Mr White scooped it up
Bond should have done so, as it was Secret Service funds, but he was preoccupied with saving his ladyfriend, and everybody else was preoccupied with firing nailguns at him as he did so
someone else asked above how Vesper could have been forcibly recruited by the baddies with such short notice, given that Bond had only heard of Le Chiffre days before
the same question could be asked of the book, but she was. she was potentially useful to SMERSH, and they kept an openended threat hanging over her imprisoned lover waiting til the day when she'd come in useful
I assumed SMERSH had potentially thousands of such unwilling agents scattered round the Western world, in place like pawns to be used or not used as the big game was played
this is even easier to believe in the movie, as she is a treasurer of some sort for the British government, a very useful mole for a shadowy criminal organisation in need of funds
Bear in mind, HH, that the purpose of this forum is to actually 'talk' about Casino Royale...which is what we are doing. I suppose in your mind, that means we should be doing nothing but PRAISING CR for what a fantastic life event it is. I apologize if I don't fall into some 'Emperor's New Clothes' mindset. We discuss the ideas, where we think there are flaws, and maybe even getting some insight into the story. The one thing neither I nor NP or Dan Same have said is that people who disagree with us 'lack imagination' or 'need to be spoon-fed.'
We are simply asking questions about the movie...questions that no one seems to have the answers to. That's okay. At least we are 'attempting' to make sense of with what we know. But trying to invalidate the mental capacity of the person asking the question is a poor way of convincing yourself the question isn't valid.
Thank goodness that you're not.
I am unconvinced (although I've only seen the film once and my view might change) that Vesper loved Bond. It's not because of the script but rather because of Green's (IMO) ordinary performance.
*HH, I know (and hope) that your intention isn't to be condescending and to imply that the other person is stupid but your constant use of sarcasm sends out those signals to me. The reality is that while you consider the script to be of particularly high quality, other people such as myself, do not. I would hope, considering that this is a film and not Peace in the Middle East, you at can at least accept that there is a difference of opinion.
*No offence meant; just stating my honest feelings.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
An empty one would be more likely to, I think. Don't you?
Now THAT would be a well-written ending. Vesper, who introduced herself as 'The Money', dies by drowning...the suitcase, full of money, is seen sinking slowly under the water, to be lost forever. What's wrong with the symbolism in that?
As for praising CR, Darenhat: nothing short of WORSHIP will do!!!!
I don't think CR or any Bond film is a masterpiece, but I feel compelled to defend the scriptwriters just as I felt compelled to defend Craig from what I felt (and yes, this is only my opinion) were unfounded complaints. If Bond 22 appears and some of these questions are still out there, I will lead the chorus of disatisfied posters. But until then, I will continue to say that the things you guys characterize as "plot holes" are for the most part a way of setting up the next film.
Nothing. It would be a great ending if the story was meant to end right there. But I don't believe it was. Having the slippery Mr. White, the representative of a mysterious organization Bond is expected to battle in the next film, walk off with the money is a better ending under the circumstances because it presages the upcoming film while underscoring the power of the organization White works for (Everyone -- Bond, Vesper, LC -- loses something except the organization, which comes out smelling like a rose). And the more powerful the organization, the better Bond looks. How many films did it take Bond to defeat Blofeld? Sure, he won the battles, but Blofeld always won the war by escaping. It made SPECTRE all the more sinister. How long did it take Sherlock Holmes to go over the falls with Moriarty?
Again -- I don't know any better than you do how or if P&W will resolve these questions in Bond 22. But I think the safe bet is to say that's the plan. The question marks are too broad and easy to explain to be simply careless errors. That's why I object so strongly to them being referred to as "plot holes," as if they're some sort of screw up that no one noticed until now.
But if I'm wrong and they don't, then I will be the first in line to cast stones, believe me. I expect continuity between Bond 21 and 22 -- and that means explaining the LeChiffre-Vesper-Mr. White-Gettler relationship.