46 replies to this topic

[dodge]

QoS, for me, presents an interesting paradox: crash and thunder are exciting...nonstop, unrelenting crash and thunder can be deeply boring. One cannon going off nearby you may make you jump out of your seat. One going off every other minute may put you to sleep as well as leave you deaf.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The "style" part is ridiculous. QoS and Bond are frothing with style.

Quite.

No fantasy? Did the reviewer have a problem with the lack of fantasy in CR, I wonder?

Well, CASINO ROYALE had more overt fantasy than QUANTUM OF SOLACE (which is one of the reasons I think it went over better with more people). QUANTUM OF SOLACE definitely ramps up the "realism" scale.

Agreed on both counts. QUANTUM OF SOLACE had to ramp up the realism this time around. We've already seen a revenge film (or, at least, what should have been a revenge film) that valued style and flair over realism in Diamonds Are Forever, and that turned out to be a complete and total failure of a film. If they had had Bond out in the field, making quips, joking around, and really living it up only moments after capturing one of the people who was responsible for his ordeal in CR (and that someone could lead him to other responsible parties), would it really be appropriate for Bond to just take everything in stride and by the same old wisecracking Bond we've seen countless times in the past? No, it wouldn't be, and that's why I love this new approach.

But why they have to show Bond, only moments after capturing one of the people who was responsible for his ordeal in CR, it was really artistically that necessary?? Beyond commercial reasons(EON taking advantage of CR's success), I don't think so.

I mean (as other poster pointed out, in another thread), in the novels wasn't necessary that Live And Let Die were a direct sequel to Casino Royale, nonetheless, the character of 007 was quite well developed by Fleming through the series of books.

Although it's true that You Only Live Twice deals with the consequences of Tracy's death, the character of the 2006's Bond film mentioned in QOS, isn't Bond's late wife is- just- Vesper.

I think that they had to show it because by not doing so, the emotional impact of Casino Royale would be lost in the larger context of the new series. I don't think that Vesper would have been all that important in the grander scheme of things if Bond hadn't gone after the people who set the two of them up, and she's a character that should be fairly important in this setup of the new series of Bond films. Also, I think that Bond going after revenge in this instance is an interesting story to tell, simply because it's something that we should have gotten nearly 40 years ago with Diamonds Are Forever. That film should have been a revenge film, and I think that Vesper is probably going to be this series' Tracy, and that there should be a revenge film to follow up the events of Casino Royale. If they had missed the opportunity for a great revenge film (and one that was actually motivated by some kind of real emotion rather than the paper-thin personal vendettas we've gotten over the past decade or so), then the series would have never had the chance to get Bond in a great revenge film, since both of the really important women in Bond's life would have already been portrayed on film, and only a remake would have brought about that chance for a third time.

But then again...why Bond should need a 'revenge film', perhaps the succesor to the movie OHMSS presented that opportunity that could have resulted in a good film. However, I'm quite satisfied with the decision (likely impulsed by Lazenby resigne) to not make a direct sequel with DAF.

Although it's true, most of us we can agree that DAF isn't such a great Bond movie, I don't really think that its main flaws are strictly related with not being a straight continuation to the plot of its immediate predecessor in the series.

Even further, the core of 'the emotional impact of Casino Royale' I think it had to do with Bond's evolution from a blunt instrument to the beautiful machine that we all know and love- in which Vesper had an important role- but that transformation is already finished at the end of CR (just like in the novel of the same name). From this point 007 should be overall the same character onwards, so I don't see any reason to continue in this path.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 19 March 2009 - 12:44 AM.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

QoS, for me, presents an interesting paradox: crash and thunder are exciting...nonstop, unrelenting crash and thunder can be deeply boring. One cannon going off nearby you may make you jump out of your seat. One going off every other minute may put you to sleep as well as leave you deaf.

Nice description! I feel the same way that you do. Action scenes are nice, but when there's an action scene every two minutes, it just gets routine and boring...

[HH007]

The "style" part is ridiculous. QoS and Bond are frothing with style.

Quite.

No fantasy? Did the reviewer have a problem with the lack of fantasy in CR, I wonder?

Well, CASINO ROYALE had more overt fantasy than QUANTUM OF SOLACE (which is one of the reasons I think it went over better with more people). QUANTUM OF SOLACE definitely ramps up the "realism" scale.

Agreed on both counts. QUANTUM OF SOLACE had to ramp up the realism this time around. We've already seen a revenge film (or, at least, what should have been a revenge film) that valued style and flair over realism in Diamonds Are Forever, and that turned out to be a complete and total failure of a film. If they had had Bond out in the field, making quips, joking around, and really living it up only moments after capturing one of the people who was responsible for his ordeal in CR (and that someone could lead him to other responsible parties), would it really be appropriate for Bond to just take everything in stride and by the same old wisecracking Bond we've seen countless times in the past? No, it wouldn't be, and that's why I love this new approach.

But why they have to show Bond, only moments after capturing one of the people who was responsible for his ordeal in CR, it was really artistically that necessary?? Beyond commercial reasons(EON taking advantage of CR's success), I don't think so.

I mean (as other poster pointed out, in another thread), in the novels wasn't necessary that Live And Let Die were a direct sequel to Casino Royale, nonetheless, the character of 007 was quite well developed by Fleming through the series of books.

Although it's true that You Only Live Twice deals with the consequences of Tracy's death, the character of the 2006's Bond film mentioned in QOS, isn't Bond's late wife is- just- Vesper.

I think that they had to show it because by not doing so, the emotional impact of Casino Royale would be lost in the larger context of the new series. I don't think that Vesper would have been all that important in the grander scheme of things if Bond hadn't gone after the people who set the two of them up, and she's a character that should be fairly important in this setup of the new series of Bond films. Also, I think that Bond going after revenge in this instance is an interesting story to tell, simply because it's something that we should have gotten nearly 40 years ago with Diamonds Are Forever. That film should have been a revenge film, and I think that Vesper is probably going to be this series' Tracy, and that there should be a revenge film to follow up the events of Casino Royale. If they had missed the opportunity for a great revenge film (and one that was actually motivated by some kind of real emotion rather than the paper-thin personal vendettas we've gotten over the past decade or so), then the series would have never had the chance to get Bond in a great revenge film, since both of the really important women in Bond's life would have already been portrayed on film, and only a remake would have brought about that chance for a third time.

But then again...why Bond should need a 'revenge film', perhaps the succesor to the movie OHMSS presented that opportunity that could have resulted in a good film. However, I'm quite satisfied with the decision (likely impulsed by Lazenby resigne) to not make a direct sequel with DAF.

I'm not. DAF was a complete missed opportunity, and, if I might add, a travesty. And QoS does not have an action scene "every two minutes." There's a lot of action in the first act, for sure, but in act two it settles down considerably to tell its story.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The "style" part is ridiculous. QoS and Bond are frothing with style.

Quite.

No fantasy? Did the reviewer have a problem with the lack of fantasy in CR, I wonder?

Well, CASINO ROYALE had more overt fantasy than QUANTUM OF SOLACE (which is one of the reasons I think it went over better with more people). QUANTUM OF SOLACE definitely ramps up the "realism" scale.

Agreed on both counts. QUANTUM OF SOLACE had to ramp up the realism this time around. We've already seen a revenge film (or, at least, what should have been a revenge film) that valued style and flair over realism in Diamonds Are Forever, and that turned out to be a complete and total failure of a film. If they had had Bond out in the field, making quips, joking around, and really living it up only moments after capturing one of the people who was responsible for his ordeal in CR (and that someone could lead him to other responsible parties), would it really be appropriate for Bond to just take everything in stride and by the same old wisecracking Bond we've seen countless times in the past? No, it wouldn't be, and that's why I love this new approach.

But why they have to show Bond, only moments after capturing one of the people who was responsible for his ordeal in CR, it was really artistically that necessary?? Beyond commercial reasons(EON taking advantage of CR's success), I don't think so.

I mean (as other poster pointed out, in another thread), in the novels wasn't necessary that Live And Let Die were a direct sequel to Casino Royale, nonetheless, the character of 007 was quite well developed by Fleming through the series of books.

Although it's true that You Only Live Twice deals with the consequences of Tracy's death, the character of the 2006's Bond film mentioned in QOS, isn't Bond's late wife is- just- Vesper.

I think that they had to show it because by not doing so, the emotional impact of Casino Royale would be lost in the larger context of the new series. I don't think that Vesper would have been all that important in the grander scheme of things if Bond hadn't gone after the people who set the two of them up, and she's a character that should be fairly important in this setup of the new series of Bond films. Also, I think that Bond going after revenge in this instance is an interesting story to tell, simply because it's something that we should have gotten nearly 40 years ago with Diamonds Are Forever. That film should have been a revenge film, and I think that Vesper is probably going to be this series' Tracy, and that there should be a revenge film to follow up the events of Casino Royale. If they had missed the opportunity for a great revenge film (and one that was actually motivated by some kind of real emotion rather than the paper-thin personal vendettas we've gotten over the past decade or so), then the series would have never had the chance to get Bond in a great revenge film, since both of the really important women in Bond's life would have already been portrayed on film, and only a remake would have brought about that chance for a third time.

But then again...why Bond should need a 'revenge film', perhaps the succesor to the movie OHMSS presented that opportunity that could have resulted in a good film. However, I'm quite satisfied with the decision (likely impulsed by Lazenby resigne) to not make a direct sequel with DAF.

I'm not. DAF was a complete missed opportunity, and, if I might add, a travesty.

You can say whatever you want about DAF, and of course you're entitled to loathe it. But as I said earlier, I don't really think that its main flaws are strictly related with not being a straight continuation to the plot of its immediate predecessor in the series.

I mean, if DAF would have been similar to- let's say- TSWLM, or even in tone to FRWL, it would be a much more popular movie. Because the usual critic gripe against this movie, is its campy humor, the weak plot, the aspect of Connery, among others; not precisely the lack of continuity with the direct previous adventure.

[tdalton]

The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation of OHMSS isn't it's biggest flaw, but I do agree with HH007 that not having the film be a continuation was just a flat out awful idea. Even had they gone ahead and made a film on par with CR, OHMSS, DN, FRWL, or any of the other "classic" Bond films, it still would have been a terrible move not to have it as a continuation. At that point, had a great film been made as a follow-up, then the main flaw of that film would have been that it was not a direct continuation. The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation is not the main flaw (that would be the dialogue, acting, etc.), but it's still a major flaw with the film.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation of OHMSS isn't it's biggest flaw, but I do agree with HH007 that not having the film be a continuation was just a flat out awful idea. Even had they gone ahead and made a film on par with CR, OHMSS, DN, FRWL, or any of the other "classic" Bond films, it still would have been a terrible move not to have it as a continuation. At that point, had a great film been made as a follow-up, then the main flaw of that film would have been that it was not a direct continuation. The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation is not the main flaw (that would be the dialogue, acting, etc.), but it's still a major flaw with the film.

(Excuse me, for repeat part of my own post but) I think my point remains- because I still don't see any answer to this argument-: the core of 'the emotional impact of Casino Royale' I think it had to do with Bond's evolution from a blunt instrument to the beautiful machine that we all know and love- in which Vesper had an important role- but that transformation is already finished at the end of CR (just like in the novel of the same name). From this point 007 should be overall the same character onwards, so I don't see any reason to continue in this path.

Besides: In the novels wasn't necessary that Live And Let Die were a direct sequel to Casino Royale, nonetheless, the character of 007 was quite well developed by Fleming through the series of books. Although it's true that You Only Live Twice deals with the consequences of Tracy's death, the character of the 2006's Bond film mentioned in QOS, isn't Bond's late wife is- just- Vesper.

[tdalton]

The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation of OHMSS isn't it's biggest flaw, but I do agree with HH007 that not having the film be a continuation was just a flat out awful idea. Even had they gone ahead and made a film on par with CR, OHMSS, DN, FRWL, or any of the other "classic" Bond films, it still would have been a terrible move not to have it as a continuation. At that point, had a great film been made as a follow-up, then the main flaw of that film would have been that it was not a direct continuation. The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation is not the main flaw (that would be the dialogue, acting, etc.), but it's still a major flaw with the film.

(Excuse me, for repeat part of my own post but) I think my point remains- because I still don't see any answer to this argument-: the core of 'the emotional impact of Casino Royale' I think it had to do with Bond's evolution from a blunt instrument to the beautiful machine that we all know and love- in which Vesper had an important role- but that transformation is already finished at the end of CR (just like in the novel of the same name). From this point 007 should be overall the same character onwards, so I don't see any reason to continue in this path.

Besides: In the novels wasn't necessary that Live And Let Die were a direct sequel to Casino Royale, nonetheless, the character of 007 was quite well developed by Fleming through the series of books. Although it's true that You Only Live Twice deals with the consequences of Tracy's death, the character of the 2006's Bond film mentioned in QOS, isn't Bond's late wife is- just- Vesper.

I don't think that the transition is complete at the end of CR. I think that all we see at the end of CR is that Bond is angry, and somewhat closed off. I don't get a sense that he's "the Bond we all know and love". The feeling that I get from watching him deliver the "Bond, James Bond" line is that he's quite angry, and that he's really going to enjoy doing whatever it is he was planning to do to Mr. White. I left the theater immediately thinking that the next film would be a revenge tale, because, to me, that's clearly what's on Bond's mind when he's introducing himself to Mr. White at the villa.

I do, however, see the transformation as complete at the end of QoS. Bond has gotten his closure on the situation, has forgiven Vesper, has becomed emotionally hardened and closed off, and now sees his profession for what it is. The only thing that I see at the end of CR is the presence of an angry Bond who will stop at nothing to get answers for what has happened to him and Vesper.

[Bucky]

DIE ANOTHER DAY almost killed my waning interest in the Bond franchise. Though CASINO ROYALE revitalized my interest to a degree, another DIE ANOTHER DAY would probably finish the job. I'd be outta here.

Completely agreed. Daniel Craig has made me interested again in a series that I thought probably should have just come to a close after DAD. A return to that style of filmmaking will mark the end of my interest in the Bond franchise.

^ Agree with both comments. DAD and Pierce Brozzayawn almost did me in as well.

Despite my hangups with QoS, I could never call it boring. The first 20 minutes is loaded with action...in fact the whole film is a roller-coaster ride of action.

This makes four of us. I almost swore off Bond forever after DAD, but CR and QoS have saved the franchise for me. And as for people complaining about the freefall scene, I saw a couple of lunatics actually do it on a special episode of "Jack " a while back.

i dont get all the hate. it doesnt really seem that different from the fall in the dark knight, and i think they hit the car harder in that movie than bond and camille hit the ground in qos.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation of OHMSS isn't it's biggest flaw, but I do agree with HH007 that not having the film be a continuation was just a flat out awful idea. Even had they gone ahead and made a film on par with CR, OHMSS, DN, FRWL, or any of the other "classic" Bond films, it still would have been a terrible move not to have it as a continuation. At that point, had a great film been made as a follow-up, then the main flaw of that film would have been that it was not a direct continuation. The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation is not the main flaw (that would be the dialogue, acting, etc.), but it's still a major flaw with the film.

(Excuse me, for repeat part of my own post but) I think my point remains- because I still don't see any answer to this argument-: the core of 'the emotional impact of Casino Royale' I think it had to do with Bond's evolution from a blunt instrument to the beautiful machine that we all know and love- in which Vesper had an important role- but that transformation is already finished at the end of CR (just like in the novel of the same name). From this point 007 should be overall the same character onwards, so I don't see any reason to continue in this path.

Besides: In the novels wasn't necessary that Live And Let Die were a direct sequel to Casino Royale, nonetheless, the character of 007 was quite well developed by Fleming through the series of books. Although it's true that You Only Live Twice deals with the consequences of Tracy's death, the character of the 2006's Bond film mentioned in QOS, isn't Bond's late wife is- just- Vesper.

I don't think that the transition is complete at the end of CR. I think that all we see at the end of CR is that Bond is angry, and somewhat closed off. I don't get a sense that he's "the Bond we all know and love". The feeling that I get from watching him deliver the "Bond, James Bond" line is that he's quite angry, and that he's really going to enjoy doing whatever it is he was planning to do to Mr. White. I left the theater immediately thinking that the next film would be a revenge tale, because, to me, that's clearly what's on Bond's mind when he's introducing himself to Mr. White at the villa.

I do, however, see the transformation as complete at the end of QoS. Bond has gotten his closure on the situation, has forgiven Vesper, has becomed emotionally hardened and closed off, and now sees his profession for what it is. The only thing that I see at the end of CR is the presence of an angry Bond who will stop at nothing to get answers for what has happened to him and Vesper.

I definitely don't think so...

Campbell, in the audio commentary for his movie, stated that at the last scene of CR, Bond is finally "the beautiful machine that we all know and love", and I see his vision perfectly reflected on screen- which, by the way, I believe is an adaption of the internal reflection of 007's in the last chapter of the novel about "go after the threat behind the spies"-. Besides, it wasn't until early 2007 when Craig's debut already was a great success, that it was decided to make a direct sequel.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 19 March 2009 - 02:05 AM.

[tdalton]

The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation of OHMSS isn't it's biggest flaw, but I do agree with HH007 that not having the film be a continuation was just a flat out awful idea. Even had they gone ahead and made a film on par with CR, OHMSS, DN, FRWL, or any of the other "classic" Bond films, it still would have been a terrible move not to have it as a continuation. At that point, had a great film been made as a follow-up, then the main flaw of that film would have been that it was not a direct continuation. The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation is not the main flaw (that would be the dialogue, acting, etc.), but it's still a major flaw with the film.

(Excuse me, for repeat part of my own post but) I think my point remains- because I still don't see any answer to this argument-: the core of 'the emotional impact of Casino Royale' I think it had to do with Bond's evolution from a blunt instrument to the beautiful machine that we all know and love- in which Vesper had an important role- but that transformation is already finished at the end of CR (just like in the novel of the same name). From this point 007 should be overall the same character onwards, so I don't see any reason to continue in this path.

Besides: In the novels wasn't necessary that Live And Let Die were a direct sequel to Casino Royale, nonetheless, the character of 007 was quite well developed by Fleming through the series of books. Although it's true that You Only Live Twice deals with the consequences of Tracy's death, the character of the 2006's Bond film mentioned in QOS, isn't Bond's late wife is- just- Vesper.

I don't think that the transition is complete at the end of CR. I think that all we see at the end of CR is that Bond is angry, and somewhat closed off. I don't get a sense that he's "the Bond we all know and love". The feeling that I get from watching him deliver the "Bond, James Bond" line is that he's quite angry, and that he's really going to enjoy doing whatever it is he was planning to do to Mr. White. I left the theater immediately thinking that the next film would be a revenge tale, because, to me, that's clearly what's on Bond's mind when he's introducing himself to Mr. White at the villa.

I do, however, see the transformation as complete at the end of QoS. Bond has gotten his closure on the situation, has forgiven Vesper, has becomed emotionally hardened and closed off, and now sees his profession for what it is. The only thing that I see at the end of CR is the presence of an angry Bond who will stop at nothing to get answers for what has happened to him and Vesper.

I definitely don't think so...

Campbell, in the audio commentary for his movie, stated that at the last scene of CR, Bond is finally "the beautiful machine that we all know and love", and I see his vision perfectly reflected on screen- which, by the way, I believe is an adaption of the internal reflection of 007's in the last chapter of the novel about "go after the threat behind the spies"-. Besides, it wasn't until early 2007 when Craig's debut already was a great success, that it was decided to make a direct sequel.

I haven't heard the commentary, but I don't really agree. I don't see any of the "Bond we all know and love" at the end of CR. To be honest, I don't really see it at all in Craig's performance in either film, but his Bond is closer to it at the end of QoS than he is at the end of CR.

I think that we see the idea of going after the "threat behind the spies" towards the beginning of QoS, when Bond sets out on his mission to find Yusef, who I think is really the "threat" in QoS rather than Dominic Greene or any of his associates or henchmen.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation of OHMSS isn't it's biggest flaw, but I do agree with HH007 that not having the film be a continuation was just a flat out awful idea. Even had they gone ahead and made a film on par with CR, OHMSS, DN, FRWL, or any of the other "classic" Bond films, it still would have been a terrible move not to have it as a continuation. At that point, had a great film been made as a follow-up, then the main flaw of that film would have been that it was not a direct continuation. The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation is not the main flaw (that would be the dialogue, acting, etc.), but it's still a major flaw with the film.

(Excuse me, for repeat part of my own post but) I think my point remains- because I still don't see any answer to this argument-: the core of 'the emotional impact of Casino Royale' I think it had to do with Bond's evolution from a blunt instrument to the beautiful machine that we all know and love- in which Vesper had an important role- but that transformation is already finished at the end of CR (just like in the novel of the same name). From this point 007 should be overall the same character onwards, so I don't see any reason to continue in this path.

Besides: In the novels wasn't necessary that Live And Let Die were a direct sequel to Casino Royale, nonetheless, the character of 007 was quite well developed by Fleming through the series of books. Although it's true that You Only Live Twice deals with the consequences of Tracy's death, the character of the 2006's Bond film mentioned in QOS, isn't Bond's late wife is- just- Vesper.

I don't think that the transition is complete at the end of CR. I think that all we see at the end of CR is that Bond is angry, and somewhat closed off. I don't get a sense that he's "the Bond we all know and love". The feeling that I get from watching him deliver the "Bond, James Bond" line is that he's quite angry, and that he's really going to enjoy doing whatever it is he was planning to do to Mr. White. I left the theater immediately thinking that the next film would be a revenge tale, because, to me, that's clearly what's on Bond's mind when he's introducing himself to Mr. White at the villa.

I do, however, see the transformation as complete at the end of QoS. Bond has gotten his closure on the situation, has forgiven Vesper, has becomed emotionally hardened and closed off, and now sees his profession for what it is. The only thing that I see at the end of CR is the presence of an angry Bond who will stop at nothing to get answers for what has happened to him and Vesper.

I definitely don't think so...

Campbell, in the audio commentary for his movie, stated that at the last scene of CR, Bond is finally "the beautiful machine that we all know and love", and I see his vision perfectly reflected on screen- which, by the way, I believe is an adaption of the internal reflection of 007's in the last chapter of the novel about "go after the threat behind the spies"-. Besides, it wasn't until early 2007 when Craig's debut already was a great success, that it was decided to make a direct sequel.

I haven't heard the commentary, but I don't really agree. I don't see any of the "Bond we all know and love" at the end of CR. To be honest, I don't really see it at all in Craig's performance in either film, but his Bond is closer to it at the end of QoS than he is at the end of CR.

I think that we see the idea of going after the "threat behind the spies" towards the beginning of QoS, when Bond sets out on his mission to find Yusef, who I think is really the "threat" in QoS rather than Dominic Greene or any of his associates or henchmen.

Not really.
Vesper's old boyfriend is more like the bait, and not "the arm that held the whip and the gun. The threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy" to quote Fleming in the novel Casino Royale.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 19 March 2009 - 02:28 AM.

[tdalton]

The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation of OHMSS isn't it's biggest flaw, but I do agree with HH007 that not having the film be a continuation was just a flat out awful idea. Even had they gone ahead and made a film on par with CR, OHMSS, DN, FRWL, or any of the other "classic" Bond films, it still would have been a terrible move not to have it as a continuation. At that point, had a great film been made as a follow-up, then the main flaw of that film would have been that it was not a direct continuation. The fact that DAF is not a direct continuation is not the main flaw (that would be the dialogue, acting, etc.), but it's still a major flaw with the film.

(Excuse me, for repeat part of my own post but) I think my point remains- because I still don't see any answer to this argument-: the core of 'the emotional impact of Casino Royale' I think it had to do with Bond's evolution from a blunt instrument to the beautiful machine that we all know and love- in which Vesper had an important role- but that transformation is already finished at the end of CR (just like in the novel of the same name). From this point 007 should be overall the same character onwards, so I don't see any reason to continue in this path.

Besides: In the novels wasn't necessary that Live And Let Die were a direct sequel to Casino Royale, nonetheless, the character of 007 was quite well developed by Fleming through the series of books. Although it's true that You Only Live Twice deals with the consequences of Tracy's death, the character of the 2006's Bond film mentioned in QOS, isn't Bond's late wife is- just- Vesper.

I don't think that the transition is complete at the end of CR. I think that all we see at the end of CR is that Bond is angry, and somewhat closed off. I don't get a sense that he's "the Bond we all know and love". The feeling that I get from watching him deliver the "Bond, James Bond" line is that he's quite angry, and that he's really going to enjoy doing whatever it is he was planning to do to Mr. White. I left the theater immediately thinking that the next film would be a revenge tale, because, to me, that's clearly what's on Bond's mind when he's introducing himself to Mr. White at the villa.

I do, however, see the transformation as complete at the end of QoS. Bond has gotten his closure on the situation, has forgiven Vesper, has becomed emotionally hardened and closed off, and now sees his profession for what it is. The only thing that I see at the end of CR is the presence of an angry Bond who will stop at nothing to get answers for what has happened to him and Vesper.

I definitely don't think so...

Campbell, in the audio commentary for his movie, stated that at the last scene of CR, Bond is finally "the beautiful machine that we all know and love", and I see his vision perfectly reflected on screen- which, by the way, I believe is an adaption of the internal reflection of 007's in the last chapter of the novel about "go after the threat behind the spies"-. Besides, it wasn't until early 2007 when Craig's debut already was a great success, that it was decided to make a direct sequel.

I haven't heard the commentary, but I don't really agree. I don't see any of the "Bond we all know and love" at the end of CR. To be honest, I don't really see it at all in Craig's performance in either film, but his Bond is closer to it at the end of QoS than he is at the end of CR.

I think that we see the idea of going after the "threat behind the spies" towards the beginning of QoS, when Bond sets out on his mission to find Yusef, who I think is really the "threat" in QoS rather than Dominic Greene or any of his associates or henchmen.

Not really.
Yussef is more like the bait, and not "the arm that held the whip and the gun. The threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy" to quote Fleming in the novel Casino Royale.

I think that, just for the time being in the context of the QoS storyline, Yusef was quite an important character who worked more in the background behind the more visible Quantum members like Mr. White. When I used the phrase "behind the spies", I meant it in a more literal sense, in that Yusef was someone working more behind the scenes, but playing an absolutely pivotal part in the whole scheme. I think that the thinking for Bond was (in addition to simply getting revenge) was that if he could apprehend Yusef, then he could potentially cut-off the possibility of having more government agents like Vesper and Corinne unknowingly recruited into the organization. My thinking was that, if he could stop that flow of unwitting spies for Quantum, then it might make going after the rest of the organization a bit easier.

Of course, though, Yusef is not the head of the organization or the "threat that made them spy". I'm not sure that we're ever going to find that person in the Quantum organization because I doubt that there's any one person that has that much leverage within the organization. It's more likely a board of members that run different aspects of the organization.

I don't really think, though, that Casino Royale the film can be compared against the novel in terms of the development of the Bond character because the film isn't a faithful adaptation of the novel in any way, shape, or form. It features the basic plotline, and a similar plot device with Vesper, but other than that, there's not much similarity.

Edited by tdalton, 19 March 2009 - 02:31 AM.

[ElFenomeno]

when the plane chase started i was kinda bored ... i saw them in that plane .i was 100% sure a plane chase will follow. too bad it wasn't that exciting.the CGI plane when they go up killed it for me.not to mention the fall.
all in all, a pretty mediocre scene.

Edited by ElFenomeno, 19 March 2009 - 08:51 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Of course, though, Yusef is not the head of the organization or the "threat that made them spy". I'm not sure that we're ever going to find that person in the Quantum organization because I doubt that there's any one person that has that much leverage within the organization. It's more likely a board of members that run different aspects of the organization.

True, it could be the case that there isn't only one person (while talking exclusively from the perspective of what is shown in Craig's debut, it's not that clear), however Mr. White is the biggest head of the organization that appears in the entire length of CR. So he can be used as a good example of part of "the arm that held the whip and the gun", described by Fleming. I Mean , Mr. White is definitely not a henchman or a simple spy.

I don't really think, though, that Casino Royale the film can be compared against the novel in terms of the development of the Bond character because the film isn't a faithful adaptation of the novel in any way, shape, or form. It features the basic plotline, and a similar plot device with Vesper, but other than that, there's not much similarity.

I disagree. I think CR is a pretty faithful adaptation of the novel of the same, because basically take the core of the book making it relevant for our time, only adding more action. Hence, it can- and it must- to be compared against the novel in terms of the development of the Bond character.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 19 March 2009 - 10:43 AM.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

I second Loomis' motion.
DAD is easily the most fun Bond film since OP.

I enjoyed QOS plenty, but I won't be buying it.
Much like TMWTGG, it's a middle of the road entry for me.

[jamie00007]

Just watched it for the 4th time (first time on blu Ray) and I have no idea how anyone could call it boring. I find it so fast paced and exciting that I dont even like pausing it for a minute to go to the bathroom. And it just seems to keep getting better with every viewing.

On the topic of the terrible DAD, Ive never understood the "fun" defense. I dont find it fun at all, the characters are too unlikeable to enjoy, the "stunts" are too obviously done on a computer (and badly done at that) to excite, and the action sequences are overlong to the point that I stop caring halfway through them. Thats one Bond movie I have difficulty sitting through to the end.