85 replies to this topic

[00Twelve]

How does Craig look stupid or clumsy or whatnot on the construction site? I don't understand.

Same for the airport.

I took the breaking in to M's apartment and embarrassment at the embassy to be stupid moves as well. But they were called stupid moves in the film. I thought they were supposed to be rash, unprofessional things to do. I though that was the point. I thought that was part of how he's not "the Bond we all know and love" yet. He makes mistakes and does rash, ill-planned, ego and testosterone driven things...

[Dr. Noah]

Oddly, Brosnan's bond also chasing the assassin in a boat and adjusting his tie is crazy fun true.

We definitely have different interpretations of "true." Not only is it not true in any sense to me, nothing in that PTS feels true. And it's loooooooooong! There's not a single memorable moment, yet it's the longest one of the series. It finally ended and I thought the movie was over!

The "rogue agent" elements of the writing like breaking into M's office and attacking an embassy though just make the character look stupid. Even Craig's acting can't save the scene from bad plotting.

So when the character does a rash, stupid thing and his boss yells at him for it, you somehow think the writers weren't aware of it and it was bad plotting?

It's a shame so many are so disappointed and the film has disappeared to such terrible reviews.

[Willowhugger]

How does Craig look stupid or clumsy or whatnot on the construction site? I don't understand.

Same for the airport.

I took the breaking in to M's apartment and embarrassment at the embassy to be stupid moves as well. But they were called stupid moves in the film. I thought they were supposed to be rash, unprofessional things to do. I though that was the point. I thought that was part of how he's not "the Bond we all know and love" yet. He makes mistakes and does rash, ill-planned, ego and testosterone driven things...

1. Essentially, we're dealing with a chase sequence that logic dictates any intelligent person would be able to formulate a plan around to avoid following the fellow and instead heading him off. We're supposed to believe this Bond is a former SAS operative. SAS operatives are the best of the best in the world and they're treating him as a rank amateur in tactics.

Not to mention his big "plan" is to run after the guy.

2. The whole thing looked silly to me. Bond climbing around on the back of a truck and then offing the enemy using his own Bomb attached to him. It's like Roger Moore's ghost was possessing Daniel Craig at the time....except Craig is no Roger Moore. He can't do over the top.

3. Calling attention to a stupid move doesn't necessarily make it any less stupid. It just highlights that the character doesn't have the discipline to make it past boot camp let alone being a former member of the Special Forces.

[dodge]

Thank you. Especially liked your reminder that Craig's Bond's 'awkwardness' in some of the stunts was grounded in the character. Craig's a great enough actor to have done a fine impression of Jackie Chan if Campbell and he had decided on that. Instead, we get a brutal guy willing to try anything--without stopping to straighten his tie.

Uh huh, now apparently Craig can do Jackie Chan? Now that's just silly talk. Frankly, Daniel can look intimidating and throw a punch but the awkwardness wasn't the deliberately choreographed trouble on the construction site but how he looked silly in the chase sequence at the airport and the machine gun trail.

I'm reminded of that South Park song "What would Brian Boitano do?" Some of the love here is a little over the top.

What would Daniel Craig do if he were here right now? He'd make a plan and he'd follow through that's what Daniel Craig would do.

When Daniel Craig was in the Alps fighting grizzly bears...

Oddly, Brosnan's bond also chasing the assassin in a boat and adjusting his tie is crazy fun true. The "rogue agent" elements of the writing like breaking into M's office and attacking an embassy though just make the character look stupid. Even Craig's acting can't save the scene from bad plotting.

What's next? Craig attacks an American military base?

willow, you've gone from even trying to look like you are reasonable to being outright rude. Point was, that if the script ahd called for Craig to be more graceful or Jackie Chan-like, he'd have been obliging. And in the film, as it stands, he shows more athletic prowess than Connery displayed in his six films. If you can't stop compulsively attacking Daniel Craig, please mind your manners on the site.

[Willowhugger]

willow, you've gone from even trying to look like you are reasonable to being outright rude. Point was, that if the script ahd called for Craig to be more graceful or Jackie Chan-like, he'd have been obliging. And in the film, as it stands, he shows more athletic prowess than Connery displayed in his six films. If you can't stop compulsively attacking Daniel Craig, please mind your manners on the site.

I'm not insulting Daniel Craig. He's a great actor. However, it's insulting to his talents and what he's worked very hard to achieve as a man of great skill at conevying emotional depth that he's somehow possessed of superhuman ability to do whatever is required from the role. Jackie Chan is one of the world's greatest martial arts stuntmen (even if he's now a bit long in the tooth). To suggest that Daniel Craig could do that sort of thing insults two great artists in very different fields.

I don't mean to be so negative. I loved the film and could talk all day about its virtues. I do feel the need to bring down people's expectations a bit and remind them that the previous films were not some weird parody that is so terribly far removed from Casino Royale.

[Publius]

Some of the love here is a little over the top.

Hmm, I'd say your...well, not-love is even more eccentric. You're really grasping at straws trying to compare the action and story of Casino Royale to the Brosnan and Moore eras, when frankly there is little reasonable comparison to be made. It seems you expected far too much gritty realism out of this film, for reasons I can't even begin to understand. Bond simply is fantasy, even when he's more grounded, serious, and humanistic than usual.

Honestly, it looks to me like you've just been arguing for argument's sake, and based on what you've said here, have also been viewing the past movies through rose-tinted glasses, while leaving no stone unturned for this one. I don't get it, and if it seems like others here have been jumping all over you, it's probably because they don't get it either. Just saying.

[Willowhugger]

I'm not arguing for argument's sake. I must confess though that if I felt more strongly against Casino Royale then I might have more to state. I loved the film though and loved Daniel Craig in the role. A lot of people are asking me questions about why I wasn't more impressed with the works as if I'm supposed to see a tremendous difference from this film and Goldeneye/TWINE.

No, Daniel Craig is nothing like the Moore era except for the airport stunt. I do think that the movie is very similiar to the Brosnan era and a continued progression of the 'experimentation' they were doing with the formula that happens with every new Bond film since LALD.

I enjoyed the film but it wasn't anything new to me. It furthermore had some very flawed sequences that I felt could be improved.

Here's a thread about what I did like http://debrief.comma...showtopic=37637

Edited by Willowhugger, 16 December 2006 - 01:08 AM.

[Publius]

A lot of people are asking me questions about why I wasn't more impressed with the works as if I'm supposed to see a tremendous difference from this film and Goldeneye/TWINE.

I see a world of difference from both of those. Here, we have a very different actor with a new (yet classic) take on the role, excellent source material, and for once what seems to be genuine interest on the part of everyone involved in making a damn great film. So many cylinders were firing at full-speed, I couldn't help but notice the radical difference in energy, enthusiasm, boldness, and creativity.

I do think that the movie is very similiar to the Brosnan era and a continued progression of the 'experimentation' they were doing with the formula that happens with every new Bond film since LALD.

Yes, there are similarities between the action of Casino Royale and some moments in the Brosnan era. But not a whole lot, and the general difference in approach (physical actor, plausible stunts with real consequences) makes it all click and hold together, and I contend that a frequent failure to achieve that was the chief flaw of what we've often seen in recent years.

Oh, and I absolutely loved the Miami sequence, even if it was nothing too original. Simply fun, exciting action, but with plot relevance, plus an added treat for us Miami natives. So come to think of it, maybe I'm just biased about that.

[JimmyBond]

I do feel the need to bring down people's expectations a bit and remind them that the previous films were not some weird parody that is so terribly far removed from Casino Royale.

And that is why you are rubbing a lot of people (me included) the wrong way. If I want to feel that Casino Royale is the best Bond film, than that is my opinion. Not only my opinion, but my right. For you to tell me that I'm wrong is downright insulting.

You don't share my opinion, leave it at that.

[Willowhugger]

And that is why you are rubbing a lot of people (me included) the wrong way. If I want to feel that Casino Royale is the best Bond film, than that is my opinion. Not only my opinion, but my right. For you to tell me that I'm wrong is downright insulting.

You don't share my opinion, leave it at that.

Uhhh Jimmy, by expressing one's opinions on a message board....one sort of invites criticism and argument. If you're insulted by the fact I disagree and say why then its sort of an odd location to express it isn't it?

You're welcome to think Casino Royale is better than sliced bread but if you don't want to hear a dissenting opinion then why are you in a thread called "Casino Royale is not the most serious Bond story"?

I apologize again for the Wheel of Fortune joke BTW

[MrDraco]

is it just me or has the whole idea of being a Bond fan turned into some type of Partisan game of politics..."Your either in the craig came or not...the Love casino royale camp or wish to destory it camp."
Seemed like simpler times when DAD was heading to theaters...

Just let Craig's Bond be Bond and craig be bond...

[Willowhugger]

Die Another Day seemed to have split fans very poorly. Then again, there was always a "fandom" to begin with. The venom against Roger Moore whom hasn't been Bond in two decades is telling.

[Jim]

Die Another Day seemed to have split fans very poorly.

Seemed to do it pretty successfully.

[stamper]

3. Calling attention to a stupid move doesn't necessarily make it any less stupid. It just highlights that the character doesn't have the discipline to make it past boot camp let alone being a former member of the Special Forces.

That the biggest crock of babble I read on this thread. So you think people in boot camp and special forces are all law obeying people, doing everything their superior says by the book, and know about discipline ? There's never a loose cannon in there ? Do you live in the real world ?

It's like saying kids in school are all good workers doing their homework at night.

[JimmyBond]

You're welcome to think Casino Royale is better than sliced bread but if you don't want to hear a dissenting opinion then why are you in a thread called "Casino Royale is not the most serious Bond story"?

I don't mind a dissenting opinion, you apparently missed the point of my post. Let me reiterate, here's what you said:

I do feel the need to bring down people's expectations a bit and remind them that the previous films were not some weird parody that is so terribly far removed from Casino Royale.

You feel the need to remind people something that is merely their opinion. If a person wishes to feel that the previous odd number of films is some "weird parody" that is their opinion, it's neither right nor wrong but is is valid. So stating that you want to remind them that they arent, is essentially saying that their opinion is wrong. Try to pretty it up any way you want, but that is what you are saying, and that is what I am at odds with.

[Willowhugger]

You feel the need to remind people something that is merely their opinion. If a person wishes to feel that the previous odd number of films is some "weird parody" that is their opinion, it's neither right nor wrong but is is valid. So stating that you want to remind them that they arent, is essentially saying that their opinion is wrong. Try to pretty it up any way you want, but that is what you are saying, and that is what I am at odds with.

Yes, it's my opinion they're wrong. I am attempting to change their opinion. I attempt to do this by presenting facts and framing evidence in a certain manner. This is called arguing or presenting a dissenting opinion. I believe that by doing so, it is possible (however unlikely), that people who do not enjoy previous Bond films because they believe Casino Royale is a total remake of the series are doing themselves a disservice.

They can rebuttal me by not being convinced.

A similiar action would be stating that I think a person who didn't enjoy say...Schindler's List...might re-examine why they did not do so.

That the biggest crock of babble I read on this thread. So you think people in boot camp and special forces are all law obeying people, doing everything their superior says by the book, and know about discipline ? There's never a loose cannon in there ? Do you live in the real world ?

It's like saying kids in school are all good workers doing their homework at night.

Yes. I also note that one doesn't stay in the Special Forces let alone get promoted to the most sensetive post in the British government (the securing of British interests via fairly unlimited authority) without presumably being capable of towing the line. Obeying orders is hardly a bad thing in the military.

[stamper]

Yes, but Bond is not, and was never, a guy who followed the rules in his youth. "A wild goose that couldn't get disciplined" is how Michael G Wilson and Robert Maibaum described Bond in their original 1985 treatment of "Bond Begins". I presume they knew a bit about the character.

[Willowhugger]

I have no problem with Bond being something of a loose canon. There's a difference between Bond's exceeding of his orders (which he does every mission to great effect) as well as barely disguised snark to M with breaking into her house.

Of course, you're right that violating an embassy on national television (which should ruin his reputation as a secret agent) is probably only on par with demolishing Saint Petersburg.

[Jet Set Willy]

I'm not arguing for argument's sake. I must confess though that if I felt more strongly against Casino Royale then I might have more to state. I loved the film though and loved Daniel Craig in the role. A lot of people are asking me questions about why I wasn't more impressed with the works as if I'm supposed to see a tremendous difference from this film and Goldeneye/TWINE.

No, Daniel Craig is nothing like the Moore era except for the airport stunt. I do think that the movie is very similiar to the Brosnan era and a continued progression of the 'experimentation' they were doing with the formula that happens with every new Bond film since LALD.

I enjoyed the film but it wasn't anything new to me. It furthermore had some very flawed sequences that I felt could be improved.

Here's a thread about what I did like http://debrief.comma...showtopic=37637

I actually think this movie is light years away from Brosnan's reign. The closest relation it has is probably LTK, and then OHMSS way back in 1969. We never once saw Brosnan get dirty, have his hair ruffled, look bloody and battered, torn, sweaty. We never saw the gritty, REALISTIC performance that Craig mananged to deliver. Brosnan always looked like he was trying too hard to play his performance - Craig is the most natural actor to play Bond since Connery.

The action is also executed in a much different manner to the slick, trashy, cheap way the action was served up to us during the terrible Brosnan era. True, the action scenes are just as big, but related to the audience in a much different manner. Dare I say realism has played a part here, trying to make the scenes more credible, believable. This has helped in no small part to the conscious effort to dump the awful CGI that was so clearly evident during the Brosnan years, and rely more on actual stunt work.

The humour is almost non-existent to the trashy, cheap, tacky humour that was thrown at us during the Brosnan era.

Gone too is the stupid, OTT gadgets. CR has almost none, whereas during Brozza's reign, we were overwhelmed with them, and stupid many of them were. Even Moore's films, that have often been accused of having too many gadgets, had nothing as ludicrous as what we saw during DAD.

And we have scenes taken directly from Fleming's material, something that never happened during the Brosnan era - and (tellingly) this only happened during the Brosnan era.

Edited by Jet Set Willy, 17 December 2006 - 10:06 AM.

[JimmyBond]

You feel the need to remind people something that is merely their opinion. If a person wishes to feel that the previous odd number of films is some "weird parody" that is their opinion, it's neither right nor wrong but is is valid. So stating that you want to remind them that they arent, is essentially saying that their opinion is wrong. Try to pretty it up any way you want, but that is what you are saying, and that is what I am at odds with.

Yes, it's my opinion they're wrong. I am attempting to change their opinion.

Well you see, that right there is what I'm hung up on. You're missing my point about opinions, they are not right or wrong. If someone doesnt feel the way you do, leave it at that, you're just bugging people by badgering them over and over again about how wrong they are.

[Jim]

Yes, it's my opinion they're wrong. I am attempting to change their opinion.

Blimey.

World domination. Same old dream.

[JWM]

Then he dodges through Machine Gun fire JUST LIKE BRONSAN'S BOND....and then there's the strategically placed propane tanks that he can use to make his daring escape.

Yes, because every action movie where the hero dodges machine gun fire is paying homage to Brosnan's Bond. Look, you attempt to make a good point, but the reasons you cite don't add up.

Lets look at what this movie has that Brosnan's movies will never have:

-Genuine humor
-Great action sequences
-A great love story
-Fleming material.

But can Mr.Brosnan really be blamed for the lack of those things that you mentioned. After all he didn't write the scripts.

[JimmyBond]

Please tell me where I said it was Brosnan's fault. I'd like to know because I certainly don't feel that way.

[Willowhugger]

Well you see, that right there is what I'm hung up on. You're missing my point about opinions, they are not right or wrong. If someone doesnt feel the way you do, leave it at that, you're just bugging people by badgering them over and over again about how wrong they are.

Uh huh....very well. I shall not try to persuade anyone. Instead, I ask everyone who can to persuade me that I am wrong with the cavaet I may explain why I feel differently.

That better?

[JimmyBond]

I don't think you're wrong, if you feel Casino Royale is on par with TWINE than so be it. You've already shown us that you hold TWINE up to be a great film. I wish I could to, the film presents some interesting ideas, in my opinion they're not executed well enough to make for an interesting whole.

[gkgyver]

1. Essentially, we're dealing with a chase sequence that logic dictates any intelligent person would be able to formulate a plan around to avoid following the fellow and instead heading him off. We're supposed to believe this Bond is a former SAS operative. SAS operatives are the best of the best in the world and they're treating him as a rank amateur in tactics.

Not to mention his big "plan" is to run after the guy.

Are we really trying to justify an action scene in a Bond film with pinpoint logic? CR shakes up "the formula", but it's still a BOND formula.
It seems almost unbelievable for such a fan of logic to miss the fact that Bond's original plan to catch Mollaka (whatever it was) got shattered to dust seconds before the chase begins.

2. The whole thing looked silly to me. Bond climbing around on the back of a truck and then offing the enemy using his own Bomb attached to him. It's like Roger Moore's ghost was possessing Daniel Craig at the time....except Craig is no Roger Moore. He can't do over the top.

That thrilling ending of the airport chase was black and macabre humor that even Dalton couldn't hope to convey. That sadistic smile is right up there with the pretitle sequence. And it greatly describes Bond's ego, who will always go for the personal victory.

Pretty soon Willowhugger will complain that Craig doesn't look like he belongs into a tux.

The mere attempt to compare Casino Royale with Brosnan's guilty pleasures (although DAD was more like a guilty pain in the ***) totally misses the point CR is so desperately trying to make.