51

Re: Question regarding Plot

All I can say guys is there were no unanswered questions about the penguin movie. ajb007/lol

Dan Same wrote:

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?


darenhat wrote:

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.

delon64 wrote:

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

Napoleon Plural wrote:

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.

52

Re: Question regarding Plot

Temper temper...

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017

53

Re: Question regarding Plot

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.

54

Re: Question regarding Plot

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

55

Re: Question regarding Plot

highhopes wrote:

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.

56

Re: Question regarding Plot

highhopes wrote:

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.

highhopes wrote:

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. ajb007/biggrin (Although 2001, an absolute masterpiece IMO, is incomprehensible anyway. Not that it matters. ajb007/wink)

highhopes wrote:

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. ajb007/wink


*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

57

Re: Question regarding Plot

BTW, highhopes, would that duplicate briefcase be able to float or not?  ajb007/wink  ajb007/lol

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017

58

Re: Question regarding Plot

Napoleon Plural wrote:

BTW, highhopes, would that duplicate briefcase be able to float or not?  ajb007/wink  ajb007/lol

An empty one would be more likely to, I think. Don't you? ajb007/biggrin

59

Re: Question regarding Plot

highhopes wrote:
Napoleon Plural wrote:

BTW, highhopes, would that duplicate briefcase be able to float or not?  ajb007/wink  ajb007/lol

An empty one would be more likely to, I think. Don't you? ajb007/biggrin

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?

60

Re: Question regarding Plot

darenhat wrote:

Bear in mind, HH, that the purpose of this forum is to actually 'talk' about Casino Royale...which is what we are doing.

Dan Same wrote:

*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!!!! ajb007/lol

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.

61

Re: Question regarding Plot

darenhat wrote:
highhopes wrote:
Napoleon Plural wrote:

BTW, highhopes, would that duplicate briefcase be able to float or not?  ajb007/wink  ajb007/lol

An empty one would be more likely to, I think. Don't you? ajb007/biggrin

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.

62

Re: Question regarding Plot

Fish1941 wrote:

Why does Mr. White have to get away at the end of the film?  He's chicken feed.  We don't even know if he'll reveal anything about his organization in the next film.

Well, I don't think he's particularly chicken feed, as might play out in Bond 22. However, that is one of the flaws of the film. He's obviously a baddie, but is he THE baddie? Not in CR. Le Chiffre got to torture bond. Gettler put a gun to Vesper's head. Demetrios tried to blow up an airliner. We never truly get a picture of who he is, which to me makes the ending too ambiguous when Bond shoots him in the leg and utter's his iconic line. We can assume that he's a really nasty guy...but the audience shouldn't have to do that. I could have stayed home and assumed what happens in the whole movie and saved myself the price of admission. If you want me to cheer Bond, I'm going to need him to do a lot more than shoot some old guy in the leg. I need to see him be victorious over an enemy that would appear to have Bond down for the count.

Last edited by darenhat (21st Dec 2006 21:17)

63

Re: Question regarding Plot

Napoleon Plural wrote:

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...

Could Vesper not have met LeChiffre before, perhaps through her boyfriend ? Surely that's not too much of a stretch ?
Remember that M tells Bond that some organisation kidnapped Vesper's boyfriend to put pressure on her.

Next problem please ajb007/biggrin

YNWA: Justice For The 96

The Joy Of 6

64

Re: Question regarding Plot

darenhat wrote:

Well, I don't think he's particularly chicken feed, as might play out in Bond 22. However, that is one of the flaws of the film. He's obviously a baddie, but is he THE baddie? Not in CR. Le Chiffre got to torture bond. Gettler put a gun to Vesper's head. Demetrios tried to blow up an airliner. We never truly get a picture of who he is, which to me makes the ending too ambiguous when Bond shoots him in the leg and utter's his iconic line. We can assume that he's a really nasty guy...but the audience shouldn't have to do that. I could have stayed home and assumed what happens in the whole movie and saved myself the price of admission. If you want me to cheer Bond, I'm going to need him to do a lot more than shoot some old guy in the leg. I need to see him be victorious over an enemy that would appear to have Bond down for the count.

Didn't Mr White kill LeChiffre and some of his thugs ? That's pretty nasty - unless it stops you having your bits whacked by a heavy rope ajb007/lol

YNWA: Justice For The 96

The Joy Of 6

65

Re: Question regarding Plot

Fish1941 wrote:
blueman wrote:
darenhat wrote:

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. ajb007/cheers

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! ajb007/wink  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. ajb007/frown  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.


You sound as if you want a movie with no mistakes and in which everything neatly fits everything else.  I have NEVER seen this kind of perfection in any movie to come out of Hollywood or anywhere else in the world.  NEVER.  Even those movies that are deemed among the best have some kind of flaw.

Perfect isn't the issue, appropriate is.  CR is a good film with a tight script for what it is--a Bond movie--IMO.  Nobody yells like Tarzan in it, which IMHO is about as 180 degrees wrong for a Bond film as can be.  I've said CR is flawed, as you so rightly point out that all movies are.  The "flaws" being discussed in this thread, I don't see them as flaws, that's all.  If people don't like the film, for whatever reason, fine.  I was merely making a point about MY acceptable/non-acceptable flaws in a Bond film, and that I just didn't see any flip-me-out-of-my-seat ones in CR.  Dopey sillyness in a Bond film drives me nuts, I just never remember Fleming ever writing Bond like that.  I also never remember him rewriting the same save-the-world plot over and over and over...stuff like that.

Personally, I believe there was just the one suitcase, and Mr. White ended up with it.  Magic?  Great fly fishing skills?  A big magnet?  I don't care, it was a great moment, Bond crying over his lost love and the bad guy getting away (for the moment ajb007/wink ) with the money.  It's easy for me to believe that Mr. White got the money, because that moment was so perfect, it made such good emotional sense I didn't need all the blanks filled in about how it came to be.  Simply, while Bond was after the girl, someone else had been after the money...and all I see is the end result with the dramatic payoff.  Good writing, that. ajb007/wink

66

Re: Question regarding Plot

blueman wrote:

Personally, I believe there was just the one suitcase, and Mr. White ended up with it.  Magic?  Great fly fishing skills?  A big magnet?  I don't care, it was a great moment, Bond crying over his lost love and the bad guy getting away (for the moment ajb007/wink ) with the money.  It's easy for me to believe that Mr. White got the money, because that moment was so perfect, it made such good emotional sense I didn't need all the blanks filled in about how it came to be.  Simply, while Bond was after the girl, someone else had been after the money...and all I see is the end result with the dramatic payoff.  Good writing, that. ajb007/wink

I like that. That's a good explanation of the ending timeline. It's a pity they didn't do it that way.  Your right, it would have been good writing...if it had actually been written. EON should put you on their payroll. ajb007/smile

67

Re: Question regarding Plot

darenhat wrote:

Well, I don't think he's particularly chicken feed, as might play out in Bond 22. However, that is one of the flaws of the film. He's obviously a baddie, but is he THE baddie? Not in CR. Le Chiffre got to torture bond. Gettler put a gun to Vesper's head. Demetrios tried to blow up an airliner. We never truly get a picture of who he is, which to me makes the ending too ambiguous when Bond shoots him in the leg and utter's his iconic line. We can assume that he's a really nasty guy...but the audience shouldn't have to do that. I could have stayed home and assumed what happens in the whole movie and saved myself the price of admission. If you want me to cheer Bond, I'm going to need him to do a lot more than shoot some old guy in the leg. I need to see him be victorious over an enemy that would appear to have Bond down for the count.

I'm sorry Darenhat, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Are you telling me in all seriousness that in, say FRWL, the best the audience could do was "assume" that the guy stroking the goddamn cat was the big cheese in the story, the power behind the throne, while Klebb and Kronsteen were minor players? I think it was obvious that he was and that it was obvious to the audience, too. And it's just as obvious in Mr. White's case. This is exactly the kind of unreasonable complaint that I'm talking about. Maybe EON should put a big sign on Mr. White's neck in Bond 22 that says "great big bad guy" so the audience can figure it out. I'm accused of questionning people's intelligence, but what I'm really questionning is the sincerity of that kind of criticism. It goes beyond common sense. It's one thing to not care for P&W's writing (I'm not familiar with them beyond CR, so you may be right in a general sense), but it's another to let that general perception color your opinion of CR. It deserves a fair shake on its merits.  I get the feeling they could have written "War and Peace" and you'd say it sucked.

Last edited by highhopes (21st Dec 2006 23:29)

68

Re: Question regarding Plot

highhopes wrote:
darenhat wrote:

Well, I don't think he's particularly chicken feed, as might play out in Bond 22. However, that is one of the flaws of the film. He's obviously a baddie, but is he THE baddie? Not in CR. Le Chiffre got to torture bond. Gettler put a gun to Vesper's head. Demetrios tried to blow up an airliner. We never truly get a picture of who he is, which to me makes the ending too ambiguous when Bond shoots him in the leg and utter's his iconic line. We can assume that he's a really nasty guy...but the audience shouldn't have to do that. I could have stayed home and assumed what happens in the whole movie and saved myself the price of admission. If you want me to cheer Bond, I'm going to need him to do a lot more than shoot some old guy in the leg. I need to see him be victorious over an enemy that would appear to have Bond down for the count.

I'm sorry Darenhat, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Are you telling me in all seriousness that in, say FRWL, the best the audience could do was "assume" that the guy stroking the goddamn cat was the big cheese in the story, the power behind the throne, while Klebb and Kronsteen were minor players? I think it was obvious that he was and that it was obvious to the audience, too. And it's just as obvious in Mr. White's case. This is exactly the kind of unreasonable complaint that I'm talking about. Maybe EON should put a big sign on Mr. White's neck in Bond 22 that says "great big bad guy" so the audience can figure it out. I'm accused of questionning people's intelligence, but what I'm really questionning is the sincerity of that kind of criticism. It goes beyond common sense. It's one thing to not care for P&W's writing (I'm not familiar with them beyond CR, so you may be right in a general sense), but it's another to let that general perception color your opinion of CR. It deserves a fair shake on its merits.  I get the feeling they could have written "War and Peace" and you'd say it sucked.

ajb007/smile Of course in this version of War and Peace, a giant satellite utilizing the power of diamonds has threatened all mankind!

Honestly, though, I must admit that I was in a state of utter contempt for P&W after DAD, and after seeing CR for the 4th time I have to say they've made up for it. ajb007/wink

"Guns make me nervous!"

69

Re: Question regarding Plot

zebond wrote:

ajb007/smile Of course in this version of War and Peace, a giant satellite utilizing the power of diamonds has threatened all mankind!

ajb007/lol ajb007/lol ajb007/lol ajb007/lol ajb007/lol

Actually, that not a half bad idea ... (Somewhere in cyberspace, Purvis and Wade are frantically scribbling down your concept ...)

70

Re: Question regarding Plot

zebond wrote:

Honestly, though, I must admit that I was in a state of utter contempt for P&W after DAD, and after seeing CR for the 4th time I have to say they've made up for it. ajb007/wink

Well, I'm with you most of the way - the first hour or so of DAD isn't too bad.
Cr is a great script and, IMO, the best that P&W have managed so far - but just how much of that is down to Haggis ?

YNWA: Justice For The 96

The Joy Of 6

71

Re: Question regarding Plot

Sir Miles wrote:
zebond wrote:

Honestly, though, I must admit that I was in a state of utter contempt for P&W after DAD, and after seeing CR for the 4th time I have to say they've made up for it. ajb007/wink

Well, I'm with you most of the way - the first hour or so of DAD isn't too bad.
Cr is a great script and, IMO, the best that P&W have managed so far - but just how much of that is down to Haggis ?

Good point, and watching DAD again a few days ago I did notice that the beginning wasn't horrible. The fencing scene IMO will go down as perhaps one of the greatest scenes in the franchise. But once they end up at the ice palcace everything they had going for them melted away before their eyes. ajb007/smile

As for the suit case, I'm of the opinion that they wouldn't get too deep into any stories that happened in the previous film, maybe references. The suitcase showing up in Mr. White's hand struck me at first, but soon afterwards I was caught up in the story again so it didn't bother me much.

"Guns make me nervous!"

72

Re: Question regarding Plot

zebond wrote:

Good point, and watching DAD again a few days ago I did notice that the beginning wasn't horrible. The fencing scene IMO will go down as perhaps one of the greatest scenes in the franchise.

IMO, the fencing scene in DAD is one of the single worst scenes in the entire franchise - I can't understand why people like it so much ajb007/confused
There is no conviction to their moves and you can clearly see one wait for the other to get their sword in position - horrible, horrible, horrible ajb007/mad

Anyway....back on track.

YNWA: Justice For The 96

The Joy Of 6

73

Re: Question regarding Plot

Sir Miles wrote:

IMO, the fencing scene in DAD is one of the single worst scenes in the entire franchise - I can't understand why people like it so much ajb007/confused
There is no conviction to their moves and you can clearly see one wait for the other to get their sword in position - horrible, horrible, horrible ajb007/mad

It's not a brilliant scene but I like it because it's an opportunity for Bond to engage in hand-to-hand combat (Well, except he's using a sword.) It's the best scene in DAD IMO.

As for the first half, well, I think that the only good thing about the first half is that it isn't the second half. ajb007/wink

Last edited by Dan Same (22nd Dec 2006 11:30)

"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

74

Re: Question regarding Plot

highhopes wrote:
darenhat wrote:

Well, I don't think he's particularly chicken feed, as might play out in Bond 22. However, that is one of the flaws of the film. He's obviously a baddie, but is he THE baddie? Not in CR. Le Chiffre got to torture bond. Gettler put a gun to Vesper's head. Demetrios tried to blow up an airliner. We never truly get a picture of who he is, which to me makes the ending too ambiguous when Bond shoots him in the leg and utter's his iconic line. We can assume that he's a really nasty guy...but the audience shouldn't have to do that. I could have stayed home and assumed what happens in the whole movie and saved myself the price of admission. If you want me to cheer Bond, I'm going to need him to do a lot more than shoot some old guy in the leg. I need to see him be victorious over an enemy that would appear to have Bond down for the count.

I'm sorry Darenhat, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Are you telling me in all seriousness that in, say FRWL, the best the audience could do was "assume" that the guy stroking the goddamn cat was the big cheese in the story, the power behind the throne, while Klebb and Kronsteen were minor players? I think it was obvious that he was and that it was obvious to the audience, too. And it's just as obvious in Mr. White's case. This is exactly the kind of unreasonable complaint that I'm talking about. Maybe EON should put a big sign on Mr. White's neck in Bond 22 that says "great big bad guy" so the audience can figure it out. I'm accused of questionning people's intelligence, but what I'm really questionning is the sincerity of that kind of criticism. It goes beyond common sense. It's one thing to not care for P&W's writing (I'm not familiar with them beyond CR, so you may be right in a general sense), but it's another to let that general perception color your opinion of CR. It deserves a fair shake on its merits.  I get the feeling they could have written "War and Peace" and you'd say it sucked.

Well, apparently you didn't read my post. I said it was obvious that he was bad. But in FRWL we actually see 'Blofeld' giving orders, setting up the plot to bring down Bond, ordering Kronsteen's death, and sending Klebb on a mission to kill. Mr White on the other hand really just hangs out in the background. The flaw in the writing is this: the film ends with Bond standing over Mr. White and uttering the name 'James Bond', but the story fails to set the stage for that point. The film spends a great deal of time setting up Le Chiffre as the bad guy, some time letting us get to know Demetrios, even the Uganda freedom fighter gets adequate coverage, so there's some payoff for the audience when we see these characters 'get theirs'. When I say 'THE baddie' I primarily mean the 'focus' of the story. I know White is a bad guy, but the confrontation at the end has no drama in it because the story switched gears from the characters the audience had been focusing on for the past two hours.

Bond didn't confront Blofeld in FRWL. Perhaps the reason for that is the screenwriter's knew that the audience would be more interested in seeing Bond take out Grant, Klebb, and the other SPECTRE agents who he actually faced in the film.

The point of my post was that ending lacked any dramatic punch for me simply becuase I wasn't sitting on the edge of my seat through the whole moving saying "I can't wait to see Bond get that Mr White guy!"

Last edited by darenhat (22nd Dec 2006 15:40)

75

Re: Question regarding Plot

Well here's another plot hole! Bond should actually be THANKING Mr White because didn't he come in and save his life and knackers by shooting Le Chiffre.

Daniel Craig - the graceless, ungrateful Bond.

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017