Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Uhhh, Is The Guy Daniel Craig Plays In This Film James Bond?


102 replies to this topic

#31 Chula

Chula

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 211 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:06 AM

Would the sequence have been more riveting if it was Baccarat?

Yes and this is the serious point. This is what it is all about.

Baccarat and Monte Carlo and Aston Martins and Dom Perignon and women named Domino and villains who drive gold Rolls Royces and Savile Row tailors are what Bond films are. Bond films are not supposed to be pedestrian. Poker equals pedestrian. Baccarat equals a world that book readers and film goers wish to travel into for a few hours. The appeal of Bond is grand escapism. Baccarat is riveting due to its exotic nature. At a baccarat table is where Bond should be. Sophisticated and exotic as opposed to pedestrian. Do you want to see Bond gambling on horses at Ascot or at the local OTB down the road? It really is that simple.

#32 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:10 AM

Texas Hold Em...You said it yourself..."a phenomenon." Trendy. The latest rage. You think a sophisticated, cultured gentleman should be involved in the latest phenomenon?

What is culture other than an institutionalized trend? Besides, it's a trend that's been around for years, and isn't going anywhere for at least a while. And would you not say baccarat was far bigger in the 50s than nowadays?

(Remember Bond's comments regarding the phenomenal Beatles in GOLDFINGER? Bond has no interest in the latest phenomenons.)

And then we got Live and Let Die. And Bond following fads starting with, what, You Only Live Twice? (Even Thunderball was a little more than a self-aware romp, however enjoyable it might be.) Benefit of the doubt, maybe Live and Let Die. Every one of them starting with that, though, has ripped off something big at the time. This movie utterly fails to do the same.

Baccarat and Monte Carlo and Aston Martins and Dom Perignon and women named Domino and villains who drive gold Rolls Royces and Savile Row tailors are what Bond films are. Bond films are not supposed to be pedestrian. Poker equals pedestrian. Baccarat equals a world that book readers and film goers wish to travel into for a few hours. The appeal of Bond is grand escapism. Baccarat is riveting due to its exotic nature. At a baccarat table is where Bond should be. Sophisticated and exotic as opposed to pedestrian. Do you want to see Bond gambling on horses at Ascot or at the local OTB down the road? It really is that simple.

That's not escapism anymore, my friend. That's living in the past. When Fleming wrote, that was not only modern, but out of reach for the vast majority of people. Now we have television, the internet, cell phones, and advanced transportation. The world is now a far smaller place, and the luxuries you mention just unremarkable antiques.

And this movie was still epic, escapist spy fantasy. I think even more so than most of the others.

#33 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:15 AM


Would the sequence have been more riveting if it was Baccarat?

Yes and this is the serious point. This is what it is all about.

Baccarat and Monte Carlo and Aston Martins and Dom Perignon and women named Domino and villains who drive gold Rolls Royces and Savile Row tailors are what Bond films are. Bond films are not supposed to be pedestrian. Poker equals pedestrian. Baccarat equals a world that book readers and film goers wish to travel into for a few hours. The appeal of Bond is grand escapism. Baccarat is riveting due to its exotic nature. At a baccarat table is where Bond should be. Sophisticated and exotic as opposed to pedestrian. Do you want to see Bond gambling on horses at Ascot or at the local OTB down the road? It really is that simple.


But you didnt answer my question, you dodged it. I asked if the sequence would have been as riveting if it had been Baccarat (a card game I pointed out as a glorified Black Jack). Again, it would not, why? Becuase there is much more strategy involved in Poker (all variations) than there is in Baccarat, that's not to say the sequence isnt engaging in the novel, but they were going for a different dynamic in the film. A dynamic that would be lost without Poker.

#34 JCRendle

JCRendle

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3639 posts
  • Location:Her Majesty's England

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:17 AM

How is Bond's taste in food uncultured? - caviar and champagne, or his taste in drinks - the Vesper - or his clothes - Armani, Brioni etc.

And again you keep saying Bond has always ordered his Martinis a certain way, "shaken, not stirred" - but you are forgetting Connery only did this once, and Moore never did it.

#35 Chula

Chula

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 211 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:23 AM

the luxuries you mention just unremarkable antiques.

Man, if you think an Aston Martin or a finely tailored suit or a superb bottle of champagne are "just unremarkable antiques" then we will never agree on anything. An Aston Martin is "unremarkable"? Wow. Most would say "exotic," "superb craftmanship", "superior motor car." You say "unremarkable."

#36 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:33 AM

Man, if you think an Aston Martin or a finely tailored suit or a superb bottle of champagne are "just unremarkable antiques" then we will never agree on anything. An Aston Martin is "unremarkable"? Wow. Most would say "exotic," "superb craftmanship", "superior motor car." You say "unremarkable."

Yeah, because I must have been referring to everything from those "olden days". :)

Look, some things from Fleming's time or even the early days of cinematic Bond are classic. Others are not (including baccarat). Few are all that big a deal to people nowadays, aside from, say, whether they can actually afford an Aston Martin. Far from "exotic".

#37 Chula

Chula

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 211 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:38 AM

But you didnt answer my question, you dodged it. I asked if the sequence would have been as riveting if it had been Baccarat (a card game I pointed out as a glorified Black Jack). Again, it would not

The game in Fleming's novel was quite riveting. He pulled it off with just words on a blank page. I'm sure good screenwriters could also have done it...if they didn't settle for the lowest common denominator, Texas Hold 'Em.

I see what you are saying about the dynamics of poker. But are you going to tell me there are no dynamics present in baccarat? Obviously they will be different dynamics and these are what the screenwriters would have pursued had they not decided to go down the pedestrian route of poker.

Texas Hold 'Em for Bond. What low will come next? So I ask you. Bond gambling on horses at the local OTB is very "Bondian" and fine with you? You've already accepted poker without even the slightest qualm, why not playing the numbers with a bookie on the stret corner? Texas Hold 'Em was a big faux pas for Bond. A terrible faux pas.

#38 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:41 AM

Texas Hold 'Em for Bond. What low will come next? So I ask you. Bond gambling on horses at the local OTB is very "Bondian" and fine with you? You've already accepted poker without even the slightest qualm, why not playing the numbers with a bookie on the stret corner? Texas Hold 'Em was a big faux pas for Bond. A terrible faux pas.


So says you. Besides, didnt Bond bet on a horse in AVTAK? But he was on assignment you may say, well so was he in Casino Royale.

Next. :)

#39 JCRendle

JCRendle

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3639 posts
  • Location:Her Majesty's England

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:41 AM


the luxuries you mention just unremarkable antiques.

Man, if you think an Aston Martin - There's 2, one classic

or a finely tailored suit - Say from Armani or Brioni like in the film.

or a superb bottle of champagne - say Bollinger for example?

are "just unremarkable antiques" then we will never agree on anything. An Aston Martin is "unremarkable"? Wow. Most would say "exotic," "superb craftmanship", "superior motor car." You say "unremarkable."


And, correct me if I am mistaken, doesn't Fleming state that Bond played poker in the novel Moonraker?

#40 Johnboy007

Johnboy007

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6990 posts
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:42 AM

Oooh, "faux pas". The use of French almost makes me take you seriously.

If Daniel Craig isn't James Bond, I don't know who is. Brosnan, Dalton, Lazenby, and Moore (sorry Roger) really don't come close. He had the presence, the physicality, and the delivery.

A man knowing exactly how he wants his martini would seem to scream "cultured taste" to me.

#41 Chula

Chula

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 211 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:53 AM

didnt Bond bet on a horse in AVTAK?
Next. :)

Yes, at ASCOT! Bond didn't lay a bet on a horse with the local bookie on the nearest street corner. Guys who play Texas Hold 'Em do that sort of thing. Oh, wait, the makers of CASINO ROYALE have Bond playing Texas Hold 'Em. You guys are accepting of anything that the filmmakers give to you...even a less sophisticated Bond who now plays poker. Odd.
Next.


If Daniel Craig isn't James Bond, I don't know who is.

Oh, he can be. Just take him out of the hands of screenwriters who feel Texas Hold 'Em and shabby dinner jackets are what Bond is all about.

(And the shabby dinner jacket comes from the fact that Vesper offers him a finer one. Even she sees his pedestrian qualities. Imagine Bond, James Bond actually seen as pedestrian by others in a film. And you all seem to approve of this approach by the filmmakers. Odd.)

#42 belvedere

belvedere

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 151 posts

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:57 AM

I have to weigh in on Chula's debate.

And no, I don't agree with him at all.

This movie works on so many levels, but the best thing is that they broke free of the manacles that constrained Bond movies and turned them into mere folly.

Let's start with the root argument in Chula's initial post: this isn't Fleming's Bond.

Brosnan's Bond in the invisible car in a sinking Ice Castle was?
Dalton's Bond in "Isthmus City" was? (Fleming, to my knowledge - and feel free to correct me if wrong - would never have used a fictional locale.)
Moore's Bond - in, well, any moment on screen was?
Connery's Bond, in, yes, a pink tie (Diamonds are Forever) was?

OK, so you can see that I am making the argument that the cinematic Bond deviated from Fleming long ago.

Now, short of setting the picture in 1953 - which I grant you, they could have done, although I think it would have boxed the filmmakers in with regard to future films - this Bond HAS to be different. It's 53 years later!

Also, remember that in all 21 movies, time has been thrown out. Hell, you have a new Bond, coming of age... and Brosnan's M.

So you have an inherent paradox that the filmmakers are asking you to forgive. The 21st movie is his origin story! Obviously, this is a factor.

Craig's Bond is not Fleming's Bond. He wasn't intended to be. But the movie tries hard, and in my view, succeeds, in keeping with the spirit of Ian Fleming. It is Fleming-esque, but it's not Fleming.

And that's fine with me - obviously, not for Chula, and so be it.

Now, onto the drink argument. I think the scene was nicely captured above - he is forgoing the usual suave coolness because he is so angry. How many times have we seen James Bond angry? (Not too many - one scene comes to mind is in The Living Daylights, in the Prater Park in Vienna...) The mission is getting to him, the tension of the card game - of losing $10 million - is getting to him. The Bond we know and love wouldn't do that. BUT HE IS LEARNING, that's the point!

As for poker, I'm sorry, Chula, but I am waiting for a more eloquent argument. Poker was picked for one reason and one reason only: it's easier to film and draw dramatic tension out of. Think about every baccarat scene you have seen in the Bond movies. Is there one ounce of tension? Absolutely not. About the most riveting baccarat sequence I can remember is if the Contessa in For Your Eyes Only is going to fall out of her dress when she leans over the table! I don't think they bastardized Fleming by changing the game. I think the made a creative decision to make the movie better. And it works. Baccarat wouldn't have worked as well - for so long - you just couldn't have built that tension like they did in this film.

Great thread for a movie that deserves it. I'm not going childish and calling people names, I appreciate different opinions. I'm just thrilled that we have a movie that is worth the arguing.

#43 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:59 AM

There's nothing "low" about a game that involves as much strategy, psychology, and numerical analysis as poker, especially when compared to baccarat.

Or do you just have something against the word "Texas"?

#44 JCRendle

JCRendle

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3639 posts
  • Location:Her Majesty's England

Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:10 AM

I wonder why Chula keeps ignoring my posts when I point out:

Fleming said Bond played poker in Moonraker
Bond orders Caviar and Bollinger Champagne
Bond wears both a Dinner Jacket and suits from Armani and Brioni
The vesper, as ordered by Bond, includes lillet - which isn't exactly something ordered everyday by your average bar drinker.
Bond only wore the short sleved shirt when he was undercover.
Connery only ordered a Martini, Shaken not stirred once and Moore never ordered one.

#45 Chula

Chula

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 211 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:10 AM

I have to weigh in on Chula's debate.

And no, I don't agree with him at all.....

I am not solely looking for agreement. Rather just good, interesting, intelligent responses. Yours was that. Good post.

Simply put, I have no problem tinkering with the series (M a woman, who cares?) But to eschew with the sophistication that IS Bond is not acceptable.

#46 Chula

Chula

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 211 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:24 AM

I wonder why Chula keeps ignoring my posts when I point out:

JCRendle, I am not ignoring your posts. It seems you are ignoring these glaring facts from the current film:

- Bond is given a finer dinner jacket because his is deemed unsuitable for the Casino
- Bond is told he doesn't wear his suits well
- Bond doesn't care how his drink is served
- Bond plays Texas Hold 'Em as the most dramatic moment of the film

These should be seen as unacceptable and examples of horrendous screenwriting.

1. Fleming said Bond played poker in Moonraker
-- Bridge was the main battle between Bond and Drax, Fleming didn't go with pedestrian poker
2. Bond orders Caviar and Bollinger Champagne
-- I've ordered caviar and drank champagne, not a big deal, most people have
3. Bond wears both a Dinner Jacket and suits from Armani and Brioni
-- he is told he wears them poorly
4. The vesper, as ordered by Bond, includes lillet
-- a direct lift from the novel, word for word. This is the true Fleming Bond sophisticate. Not much of him in the new film.

#47 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:25 AM

There are about a zillion things wrong with this film, but I'll try to get some feedback on just one: Was this James Bond?



It was more James Bond than that Nancy-boy that Brosnan portrayed.

#48 Johnboy007

Johnboy007

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6990 posts
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:28 AM


I wonder why Chula keeps ignoring my posts when I point out:


- Bond doesn't care how his drink is served


Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Maybe I just imagined "Vodka with Gordon's and Kina Lillet"?

#49 JCRendle

JCRendle

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3639 posts
  • Location:Her Majesty's England

Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:33 AM

1. Fleming said Bond played poker in Moonraker
-- Bridge was the main battle between Bond and Drax, Fleming didn't go with pedestrian poker Whilst Bridge was the main game, Fleming mentions Bond playing poker.

2. Bond orders Caviar and Bollinger Champagne
-- I've ordered caviar and drank champagne, not a big deal, most people have So what would you have Bond order that's classier?


3. Bond wears both a Dinner Jacket and suits from Armani and Brioni
-- he is told he wears them poorly How someone perceives him wearing them is irrelevant - he wears them and chooses to


4. The vesper, as ordered by Bond, includes lillet
-- a direct lift from the novel, word for word. This is the true Fleming Bond sophisticate. Not much of him in the new film. But he still orders it, regardless of who wrote the lines
[/quote]

#50 CowboyFunk22

CowboyFunk22

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 102 posts

Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:37 AM

No taste...bond creates a martini seamingly off the top of his head that sounds so appealing 3 others at the table order it. I think that is some good taste.

#51 JCRendle

JCRendle

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3639 posts
  • Location:Her Majesty's England

Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:40 AM

exactly, and using an ingredient that those with lesser tastes wouldn't think of - lillet over vermouth

#52 the doctor

the doctor

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 63 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 18 November 2006 - 05:25 AM

chula you obviously have a different perception of what bond is to what the majority of us think as most seem fine with bond in CR, theres no real point to this topic anymore, no one will be able to change each otheres mind. its pointless to continue with this.

#53 Moore Baby Moore

Moore Baby Moore

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 101 posts

Posted 18 November 2006 - 07:08 AM

- Bond playing Texas Hold Em Poker!!!!!!


Thank God for that. I'm beyond sick to death of baccarat. Yeah, it's a game he's good at. That doesn't mean it should be the ONLY game he ever plays! So he plays poker occasionally. Big deal. He should be fluent in as many casino games as possible, considering that his enemies have a taste for gambling and he might get sucked into it at any moment...oh, wait. That's what happens in this movie.

You lose.

#54 DaltonCraig

DaltonCraig

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 182 posts

Posted 18 November 2006 - 07:23 AM

Chula, if you're the Fleming loyalist you claim to be...surely you would have at least enjoyed the fact that this is the first Bond movie in over thirty years to actually use the plot and pulled portions of the script right out of the novel "Casino Royale"...

Whatever...

#55 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 18 November 2006 - 07:27 AM

Cultured taste are an acquired taste. That is exactly what this movie is showing. You're not born with a glass of vodka martini in your hand you know...

#56 Moore Baby Moore

Moore Baby Moore

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 101 posts

Posted 18 November 2006 - 07:32 AM

Chula, if you're the Fleming loyalist you claim to be...surely you would have at least enjoyed the fact that this is the first Bond movie in over thirty years to actually use the plot and pulled portions of the script right out of the novel "Casino Royale"...

Whatever...


He would also have acknowledged Fleming's love of poker and references to Bond being good at it in the books, too. But after seeing other fandoms reject the entire history of the franchise in question even to the point of disregarding the creator's conceptions of the characters in favor of pimping their personal pet vision (*cough*Superman*cough*Batman*cough*), I can't be shocked that a sect of the Bond fandom is quick to disregard Fleming and denounce anything outside of their pet film era (usually Brosnan).

Do I like this mindset? No, I despise it with every fiber of my being. But sadly, it exists.

#57 stamper

stamper

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2994 posts
  • Location:Under the sea

Posted 18 November 2006 - 07:34 AM

PS Texas is probably the best region in the US, I just love Austin, and there is nothing low about it.

#58 Frostyak

Frostyak

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 148 posts

Posted 18 November 2006 - 09:11 AM

Craig is the first actor to play Bond as killer first and a millionaire playboy second. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan all portrayed Hollywood's Bond. Daniel Craig portrayed Fleming's Bond.

- Chris

#59 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 18 November 2006 - 10:21 AM



- when offered a martini shaken not stirred he says to the bartender, "Do I look like I care?"

Only because he's pissed off at that moment in time and just wants a drink. If you were watching, you must have remembered that exceedingly particular Vodka Martini recipe he lists.

Interesting post, Harmsway. I could offer opposite explanations for each of your explanations, but I'll just settle for debunking the one above.

You say Bond says what he says to the bartender because he "just wants a drink." Since when has Bond ever "just wanted a drink"?


'Tomorrow Never Dies', hotel room, Bond taking shots of straight vodka.
You're just ignoring what everyone else is saying; you're not interested in a discussion.

#60 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 18 November 2006 - 10:47 AM



- when offered a martini shaken not stirred he says to the bartender, "Do I look like I care?"

Only because he's pissed off at that moment in time and just wants a drink. If you were watching, you must have remembered that exceedingly particular Vodka Martini recipe he lists.

Interesting post, Harmsway. I could offer opposite explanations for each of your explanations, but I'll just settle for debunking the one above.

You say Bond says what he says to the bartender because he "just wants a drink." Since when has Bond ever "just wanted a drink"?


'Tomorrow Never Dies', hotel room, Bond taking shots of straight vodka.
You're just ignoring what everyone else is saying; you're not interested in a discussion.


Yes and this is the serious point. This is what it is all about.

Baccarat and Monte Carlo and Aston Martins and Dom Perignon and women named Domino and villains who drive gold Rolls Royces and Savile Row tailors are what Bond films are. Bond films are not supposed to be pedestrian. Poker equals pedestrian. Baccarat equals a world that book readers and film goers wish to travel into for a few hours. The appeal of Bond is grand escapism. Baccarat is riveting due to its exotic nature. At a baccarat table is where Bond should be. Sophisticated and exotic as opposed to pedestrian. Do you want to see Bond gambling on horses at Ascot or at the local OTB down the road? It really is that simple.



Funny that- there's a municipal golf course down the road from me filled with chavs knocking balls around with their hired two clubs. And yet James Bond was seen to play this 'pedestrian' game that 'pedestrians' love in Goldfinger.
Bond went to Ascot to gamble on the horses in AVTAK and tht place is filled with your chav types on raceday.
Bond goes to a Las Vegas casino in Diamonds Are Forever and looks ridicuous amoungst the tee-shirted players in his dinner suit.
He goes to tourist photo spots like the Eiffel Tower, on the Vienna ferris wheel, goes to a circus, hangs around Harlem drinking dives, warehouses in St Petersberg, plays video games and so on. I'm not sure you've been paying attention to Bond.


I am not solely looking for agreement. Rather just good, interesting, intelligent responses.


Because your first reply of

You, my friend, should read more Fleming in order to see just how cultured Bond is.


Is polite and not patronising in any way, then? And the fact that everyone else is showing you up as not knowing your Fleming (poker, for example) isn't intelligent enough for you?