51

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

I was 15 the Year it was released  ajb007/crap  ajb007/lol

1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger

52

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

I was 15 the Year it was released  ajb007/crap  ajb007/lol

It gets worse - I was 22.  ajb007/lol

Writer/Director @ The Bondologist Blog (TBB)
On Twitter: @Dragonpol 
'Like' TBB on FB: TBB Update Page
"The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).

53

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

.....  ajb007/crap


http://s18.postimg.cc/wmdpdeead/aa_old_man.jpg

54

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Barbel was 85 when CR was in the cinemas  ajb007/biggrin

President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
-------Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!------
FIRST TO DISCOVER substantial evidence that Chew Mee is in fact not totally nude in the TMWTGG pool scenes!

55

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

True, and I thought David Niven did a good job of it.

56

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Barbel wrote:

True, and I thought David Niven did a good job of it.

ajb007/lol

I particularly liked Peter Sellers  ajb007/martini

YNWA: Justice For The 96

The Joy Of 6

57

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Wow.  I was in 8th grade when Casino Royale came out.

58

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

CR is my favorite Bond film.  The two cons are 1. The 3rd act dragged.  If we don't believe they're in love at that point, we never will; and 2. The idea that if Bond loses, "The terrorists will have won" is too general.  It shoudl've been something like the terrorist will have enough money to buy a stolen nuclear bomb and set it off in London.

The main pro for me is the way that the action sequences are used to advance the plot and show character.  The opening parkour chase isn't just a great chase but we learn that Bond is brave (natch), determined, athletic, and reckless (runs through walls and blows up embassies).  The action scene at the airport also shows that Bond is cunning and a little cruel (the smile on Craig's face when the guy blows himself up was worthy of Connery).

And I thought the Craig-Greene chemistry was by far the best of any Bond film.

59

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Gala Brand wrote:

The idea that if Bond loses, "The terrorists will have won" is too general.  It shoudl've been something like the terrorist will have enough money to buy a stolen nuclear bomb and set it off in London.

I agree that there could've been a greater penalty to failure to accidentally financing terrorism (the USA does this all of the time, and we're still in one piece).

But the nuclear bomb thing, absolutely not.  That's more along the lines of the Connery movies, less grounded in reality and more geared toward the Cold War era.

60

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Gala Brand wrote:

And I thought the Craig-Greene chemistry was by far the best of any Bond film.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/jamesbond/images/9/99/Quantum_of_Solace_-_Dominic_Greene_and_Bond_fighting.jpg/revision/latest/zoom-crop/width/320/height/320?cb=20130225160411

61

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

But a Nuclear Bomb is still feasible in todays World.

1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger

62

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

People frequently get the point of the book and movie wrong.  Defeating LeChiffre is not the primary issue.  The mission to beat LeChiffre is just a maguffin.  The primary issue is Bond's relationship with Vesper and how it will shape the man he becomes.  That's why the last line of the book is "The bitch is dead."  That's the reason why I keep saying the romance should have been handled better in Casino Royale than it was -- while I understand Bond falls in love and is betrayed for all the right reasons, I didn't necessarily feel it as strongly based on what was shown. 

But, then, the novel was aimed at adults while the movie included younger viewers.  Younger viewers tend to want to see emotional issues reduced to action, and while they can intellectualize what love and betrayal are, many have not had enough life experience to completely comprehend the emotional toll.  That's not a criticism of younger people.  We can only process fully what our experiences have prepared us for.  But it would affect how the writers and producers might choose to present the material to the audience, including whether the romance would get more or less screen time.

Casino Royale is my favorite Bond book because it is not only the most hard-hitting, but it is also -- with the possible except of its bookend, On Her Majesty's Secret Service -- the most dramatic of Fleming's Bond books.  The rest are pure melodramas, but Casino Royale drifts into real drama territory by focusing almost entirely on Bond's character instead of the mission.  Sure, it has the trappings of melodrama, too -- consider the genre -- but Fleming seems far more interested in developing James Bond as a man than he does on the race against the clock to defeat some nefarious villain.

Casino Royale the movie is good because it retains a lot of these qualities.   The two that follow are not so good because they do not, instead paying lip service to the ideas when the scripts do not completely integrate them.

63

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

CR is basically a Love story that lays beneath the Spy and Espionage Elements.

1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger

64

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Gassy Man wrote:

Casino Royale the movie is good because it retains a lot of these qualities.   The two that follow are not so good because they do not, instead paying lip service to the ideas when the scripts do not completely integrate them.

In a sense, I agree.  Quantum of Solace is very un-Bond-like in some ways.  James Bond is a man of leisure, who kills for a living, but would much rather smoke a nice cigar and play poker than spend 40 hours in a desert hunting for a corrupt environmentalist jf given the choice.

65

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

QOS would have benefited from some extra Time in Development.

1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger

66

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Quantum of Solace is very un-Bond-like in some ways.  James Bond is a man of leisure, who kills for a living, but would much rather smoke a nice cigar and play poker than spend 40 hours in a desert hunting for a corrupt environmentalist jf given the choice.

I see QoS as a VERY Bondian film...it's almost 'pure Bond' for me...but I understand it's all about opinions and is subjective... ajb007/martini

YNWA: Justice For The 96

The Joy Of 6

67

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Sir Miles wrote:
Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Quantum of Solace is very un-Bond-like in some ways.  James Bond is a man of leisure, who kills for a living, but would much rather smoke a nice cigar and play poker than spend 40 hours in a desert hunting for a corrupt environmentalist jf given the choice.

I see QoS as a VERY Bondian film...it's almost 'pure Bond' for me...but I understand it's all about opinions and is subjective... ajb007/martini

I agree that it is a very Bondian film. It's the only one of Craig's Bond films so far to follow the classic formula. That is something that can be proven, it's not an opinion. But I wish Craig's Bond films would explore more of what Bond likes to do for fun, like have him play golf. I could just imagine if a Bond film with Daniel Craig featured him playing golf everyone on this board would immediately take up golf.

68

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Would rather he played rugby  ajb007/biggrin

Instagram - bondclothes007

69

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Well Bond smokes and drinks ( yet I don't ) Bond has loads of sex
As I've been married for years, ...... I don't have any sex !  ajb007/lol  so I
don't care if Bond ever plays golf again.  ajb007/wink

“I didn’t lose a friend, I just realised I never had one.”

70

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

I wouldn't mind seeing Bond and Tanner enjoying a round of golf, only to be interrupted by a crisis a la Colonel Sun (as long as it's not M being kidnapped again).

71

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Gassy Man wrote:

People frequently get the point of the book and movie wrong.  Defeating LeChiffre is not the primary issue.  The mission to beat LeChiffre is just a maguffin.  The primary issue is Bond's relationship with Vesper and how it will shape the man he becomes.  That's why the last line of the book is "The bitch is dead."  That's the reason why I keep saying the romance should have been handled better in Casino Royale than it was -- while I understand Bond falls in love and is betrayed for all the right reasons, I didn't necessarily feel it as strongly based on what was shown. 

But, then, the novel was aimed at adults while the movie included younger viewers.  Younger viewers tend to want to see emotional issues reduced to action, and while they can intellectualize what love and betrayal are, many have not had enough life experience to completely comprehend the emotional toll.  That's not a criticism of younger people.  We can only process fully what our experiences have prepared us for.  But it would affect how the writers and producers might choose to present the material to the audience, including whether the romance would get more or less screen time.

Casino Royale is my favorite Bond book because it is not only the most hard-hitting, but it is also -- with the possible except of its bookend, On Her Majesty's Secret Service -- the most dramatic of Fleming's Bond books.  The rest are pure melodramas, but Casino Royale drifts into real drama territory by focusing almost entirely on Bond's character instead of the mission.  Sure, it has the trappings of melodrama, too -- consider the genre -- but Fleming seems far more interested in developing James Bond as a man than he does on the race against the clock to defeat some nefarious villain.

Casino Royale the movie is good because it retains a lot of these qualities.   The two that follow are not so good because they do not, instead paying lip service to the ideas when the scripts do not completely integrate them.

I wonder if this has to do with the possibility that Fleming intended this to be just one novel.
He had mentioned on different occasions prior to writing it that he wanted to write a spy novel, but he never hinted at writing an entire series with the same character.  If this was supposed to be a one shot creative piece it might explain why it was done in the manner you outlined.

You're spot on in your first paragraph.  The story was about those two, not the villain.  Also, Le Chiffre was just a criminal helping to fund SMERSH operations (like Mr. Big).  The film Le Chiffre was similar and I didn't have a problem making him a terrorist financier or having QUANTUM (SPECTRE, whatever) being the replacements for the Soviets.  However, you're right in that Bond's romance/betrayal was given short shift to that because they didn't spend enough screen time building it up.  I don't remember how much time they were together after Bond recovered in the novel, but I'm certain it was more than what appeared as they showed in the film, which to me seemed like a long weekend, because when M called Bond about the bank account, it was clear not much time had passed.

72

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Absolutely_Cart wrote:
Gassy Man wrote:

Casino Royale the movie is good because it retains a lot of these qualities.   The two that follow are not so good because they do not, instead paying lip service to the ideas when the scripts do not completely integrate them.

In a sense, I agree.  Quantum of Solace is very un-Bond-like in some ways.  James Bond is a man of leisure, who kills for a living, but would much rather smoke a nice cigar and play poker than spend 40 hours in a desert hunting for a corrupt environmentalist jf given the choice.

A lot of that is due to the fact it didn't have Fleming's material to use as they did in CR.  Granted, a lot of the script for CR was added to frame action scenes, but Fleming's story was
there.  QOS suffered from the lack of Fleming's pen - even though they borrowed elements of the end of TSWLM (the burning cabins and fight with the two goons) for the third act.  It also doesn't seem like Fleming because Bond did not seek revenge for Vesper after CR.  He moved on when we caught up with him in LALD and she became just a bitter memory.  EON is making Craig's films into a continuing story thread (with QUANTUM/SPECTRE pulling the strings), rather like Fleming did with TB/OHMSS/YOLT - only they mixed up the plots. 
CR is like OHMSS - Bond loses the heroine and goes after the people responsible (QUANTUM); QOS is like TB - the heroine loses family to villain(s) and gets involved with them so she can kill them and Bond comes in to defeat them (and help her revenge) and
squash their plot (blackmail with nuclear bombs or water supply); SF is like YOLT/MWTGG- though Bond does not lose his memory.  He does disappear from duty after being injured and
when he returns M sends him on a mission to see if he can still hack it as a 00.

So EON is using some of Fleming's ideas but they're mixing them up - and of course not really using his actual writing - and that's why though the QOS/SF use the same ingredients from those novels, the finish dish doesn't taste as good.  It's like asking a cook at a chain restaurant to create a dish similar to that of a five star chef.  It will be palatable - it just won't be as savory or amazing.

73

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Well said CA  ajb007/martini

1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger

74

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Matt S wrote:
Sir Miles wrote:
Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Quantum of Solace is very un-Bond-like in some ways.  James Bond is a man of leisure, who kills for a living, but would much rather smoke a nice cigar and play poker than spend 40 hours in a desert hunting for a corrupt environmentalist jf given the choice.

I see QoS as a VERY Bondian film...it's almost 'pure Bond' for me...but I understand it's all about opinions and is subjective... ajb007/martini

I agree that it is a very Bondian film. It's the only one of Craig's Bond films so far to follow the classic formula. That is something that can be proven, it's not an opinion. But I wish Craig's Bond films would explore more of what Bond likes to do for fun, like have him play golf. I could just imagine if a Bond film with Daniel Craig featured him playing golf everyone on this board would immediately take up golf.

+1!  Would love to see him playing with Tanner - even if it was just a minute or two of screen time.  That's all it would take to show that he does have a life outside being a 00.  Even playing cards at his club or with some friends as he does in the novels.  One gets the idea from EON's CR that M assigns him to play against Le Chiffre only because he supposed to be the best player in the Service.  It never was shown he did it a lot as a hobby - even the quick game where he wins the DB5 merely seems like a typical Bond playing casino cards scene - we alread know from the series he's a good card player, but they never show that he does it on a regular basis - just like his golf.  Some scenes of him doing this in the future would be a nice addition to the EON series - even if Craig is not the one that gets to do it (though I would like to see that).

75

Re: Pros and Cons: Casino Royale (2006)

Barbel wrote:

I wouldn't mind seeing Bond and Tanner enjoying a round of golf, only to be interrupted by a crisis a la Colonel Sun (as long as it's not M being kidnapped again).

+1...or what about a drone attack on the golf course?