12 replies to this topic

[Moore Baby Moore]

So far we've seen a number of complaints about Casino Royale for being faithful to the Fleming text. In fact, one such dissenter copied and pasted his gripes against the film in no less than five different threads.

The complaints from this crowd are as follows:

- no Q and Moneypenny scenes

- no gadgets

- no "take over the world" master plan

- no sex puns

- Bond doesn't get the girl at the end

- no evil mastermind front and center

- no climactic battle at the villain's hideout

- Bond loses his cool under pressure and gives in to anger and emotion at times

- Bond gets beaten up and battered instead of always staying clean and pristine with every hair in place

Now, every last one of these elements is in the original Fleming text. To those who think that this film betrays everything about the James Bond series (including the person who went so far as to claim that Fleming would have despised his own story being put on film), I just have to ask...what did you want? What were you expecting this movie to be? Obviously you wanted radical changes from the Fleming text, but just HOW did you want the story changed? Leave the casting aside for now, this is a story issue. You folks clearly think Fleming's story as written has no right to be part of the series. So I'm asking, point blank, what DO you want the film's story to be? HOW did you want it changed? I think if you're going to trash what Fleming himself is responsible for, those who wanted to see Fleming's work faithfully translated deserve to know what you wanted.

The ball's in your court.

[Moore Baby Moore]

So...no takers?

[Mercator]

- no Q and Moneypenny scenes

- no gadgets

- no "take over the world" master plan

- no sex puns

- Bond doesn't get the girl at the end

- no evil mastermind front and center

- no climactic battle at the villain's hideout

- Bond loses his cool under pressure and gives in to anger and emotion at times

- Bond gets beaten up and battered instead of always staying clean and pristine with every hair in place


The ball's in your court.

I thought you had disagreement with me on these points, Moore Baby Moore. But yes, I have agreement with you on your list of criticisms.

I still like the film - it is Bond after all.

[ACE]

I don't think you've understood this thread, Mercator.
Is your signature some sort of irony?

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Is your signature some sort of irony?

Oh good I wasn't the only one who was wondering that!

[Moore Baby Moore]

- no Q and Moneypenny scenes

- no gadgets

- no "take over the world" master plan

- no sex puns

- Bond doesn't get the girl at the end

- no evil mastermind front and center

- no climactic battle at the villain's hideout

- Bond loses his cool under pressure and gives in to anger and emotion at times

- Bond gets beaten up and battered instead of always staying clean and pristine with every hair in place


The ball's in your court.

I thought you had disagreement with me on these points, Moore Baby Moore. But yes, I have agreement with you on your list of criticisms.

What in God's name are you talking about? I wasn't agreeing with your ridiculous complaints! I was CHALLENGING them! I was taking you and your ilk to task for ripping Fleming a new one and demanding that you tell us what YOU wanted the movie to be! And you actually think I was agreeing with you?

You know what? I've had enough. You're not worth trying to debate. Yio're deliberately and knowing misreading people's posts to make it look like we're agreeing with your demands to turn Bond into a repetitive, stale joke of a franchise. As such, yoe not worth my time or anyone else's.

Shame on you.

[VeteransAbroad]

I think that's a bit harsh. Mercator might be a very nice person. If he isn't just messing with you about wanting to see Bond fight without getting bloodied, he just seems to be of the preference to have a more x-rated and/or campy Bond franchise which we may get to see in spoof form some day. I can see Steve Martin or even Leslie Neilsen doing a Bond spoof.

While Mercator is at least pretending that he hasn't read Fleming, a lot of the fault for the attitude he expresses here (but doesn't necessarily really mean) would be in the producers for the past 30 years who were, in several important ways, doing a spoof franchise (Roger Moore as clown, Denise Richards and Halle Barre as Bond Women, Jaws, Invisible Cars, Walking on Top of the Golden Gate Bridge, etc).

[Zorin Industries]

Probably a remake of "NEVER SAY WARHEAD 2000 AGAIN 3"....

[pedroarmendariz]

before seeing cr, my brother asked me what i wanted to get out of it. i simply told him that i wanted to see a fair treatment of casino royale and then a good bond movie. i got more than enough of my goals satisfied. i couldn't asked for a better bond except for maybe this movie back in '62 when the series started, but we would need a time machine and more understanding censors to allow the violence to be done the way they did it. i think that now that we got dc's introduction out of the way, the other essential elements can return again. besides q the way we know him in the movies isn't like that in the books. neither is moneypenny. john gardner's bond was the closes that both of them got to meeting each other in one medium. eon pulled the rug from under everyone and now are having the last laugh and i'm happy for it because their gamble paid off. as for the casino royale, i'm more than happy to know that whenever we speak of cr, we'll be discussing daniel craig's movie not the horrible spoof of a movie that was loaded with stars. the casino royale name has been vindicated at last.

[Mercator]

- no Q and Moneypenny scenes

- no gadgets

- no "take over the world" master plan

- no sex puns

- Bond doesn't get the girl at the end

- no evil mastermind front and center

- no climactic battle at the villain's hideout

- Bond loses his cool under pressure and gives in to anger and emotion at times

- Bond gets beaten up and battered instead of always staying clean and pristine with every hair in place


The ball's in your court.

I thought you had disagreement with me on these points, Moore Baby Moore. But yes, I have agreement with you on your list of criticisms.

What in God's name are you talking about?

So I cannot say that I did not prefer this film?
I am sorry I misunderstand the thread, I did not read carefully.
Have some respect for fellow posters - we cannot all speak English so good.
And Moore Baby Moore, I only posted on the thread. I explained why. On other threads you post my private messages? What in God's name is wrong with you? You are trying to force only one opinion. Why on earth did you post this thread if you disagree with it so much? Shame on you for not allowing others to disagree. You are not even trying to debate but you are being intolerant.
I like Casino Royale it is Bond. But I am used to what they have been giving me when I became James Bond fan. Is that a crime.
I gotted some things wrong - but I am not the big bond fan like others here.

Edited by Mercator, 06 December 2006 - 06:50 PM.

[A Kristatos]

Just curious Mercator. Apparently you are so used to the "formula" that you're not that receptive to change. My question is, are you not open to seeing a Bond movie done from a different perspective, that may actually be of higher quality than what you have been used to seeing?

Edited by A Kristatos, 06 December 2006 - 07:05 PM.

[J.C.D'Arc]

'To those who object to the film's story, Just what did you want?'

Then:

- no Q and Moneypenny scenes

- no gadgets

- no "take over the world" master plan

- no sex puns

- Bond doesn't get the girl at the end

- no evil mastermind front and center

- no climactic battle at the villain's hideout

- Bond loses his cool under pressure and gives in to anger and emotion at times

- Bond gets beaten up and battered instead of always staying clean and pristine with every hair in place

Well, frankly, I liked all those aspects of Casino Royale, the movie. However, I wasn't best pleased that Mathis was turned into just 'your contact here' as opposed to an officer in the Deuxieme Bureau--and turned into a suspect in the matter of the compromise of Bond's mission to add insult to injury; that they decided to move the game from France to Montenegro (why?); that M patently doesn't trust Bond; that Vesper is from the Ministry of Finance or whatever instead of 'personal assistant to Head of S.' as in the book, making her a go-no-go decision-maker for the card game mission, but taking away her function as a mole in MI6, as in the book, which made her betrayal far more perfidious; I also didn't like how the bad guys get Bond's picture in the papers as a 'British agent kills unarmed prisoner'--how did they know he was British? Reputable papers don't publish stories without double and triple-checking their sources. And if it wasn't a reputable paper, who would give a ? I didn't like how the car rolled and rolled and rolled when Bond swerved to avoid hitting Vesper in the middle of the road. That's more the behaviour one would expect of a Citroen Deux Cheveaux (top-heavy) or Chevrolet Corvair (unsafe at any speed) than a world-class GT car. The whole blow-up-the-plane-at-Miami-International subplot was frustratingly far-fetched, too. I don't mind Bond knowing where M lives, it's possible he might've been over for a drink (with others from the office) but how does he know how to get into her private computers, etc.? It starts undercutting the 'grittiness' when they make multiple silly mistakes like that.

The writers and producers need to stick more closely to Fleming, in my opinion, and think things through more thoroughly before filming.

I fully realize that just directly translating Casino Royale the book into screenplay format simply wouldn't work (unless you were doing a period-piece costume drama) in this day and age, but, although I enjoyed the film immensely, and think it's one of the better Bond movies, I feel a little let down by the execution of Casino Royale, the movie's story.

[Moore Baby Moore]

'To those who object to the film's story, Just what did you want?'

Then:

- no Q and Moneypenny scenes

- no gadgets

- no "take over the world" master plan

- no sex puns

- Bond doesn't get the girl at the end

- no evil mastermind front and center

- no climactic battle at the villain's hideout

- Bond loses his cool under pressure and gives in to anger and emotion at times

- Bond gets beaten up and battered instead of always staying clean and pristine with every hair in place

Well, frankly, I liked all those aspects of Casino Royale, the movie. However, I wasn't best pleased that Mathis was turned into just 'your contact here' as opposed to an officer in the Deuxieme Bureau--and turned into a suspect in the matter of the compromise of Bond's mission to add insult to injury; that they decided to move the game from France to Montenegro (why?); that M patently doesn't trust Bond; that Vesper is from the Ministry of Finance or whatever instead of 'personal assistant to Head of S.' as in the book, making her a go-no-go decision-maker for the card game mission, but taking away her function as a mole in MI6, as in the book, which made her betrayal far more perfidious; I also didn't like how the bad guys get Bond's picture in the papers as a 'British agent kills unarmed prisoner'--how did they know he was British? Reputable papers don't publish stories without double and triple-checking their sources. And if it wasn't a reputable paper, who would give a ? I didn't like how the car rolled and rolled and rolled when Bond swerved to avoid hitting Vesper in the middle of the road. That's more the behaviour one would expect of a Citroen Deux Cheveaux (top-heavy) or Chevrolet Corvair (unsafe at any speed) than a world-class GT car. The whole blow-up-the-plane-at-Miami-International subplot was frustratingly far-fetched, too. I don't mind Bond knowing where M lives, it's possible he might've been over for a drink (with others from the office) but how does he know how to get into her private computers, etc.? It starts undercutting the 'grittiness' when they make multiple silly mistakes like that.

The writers and producers need to stick more closely to Fleming, in my opinion, and think things through more thoroughly before filming.

I fully realize that just directly translating Casino Royale the book into screenplay format simply wouldn't work (unless you were doing a period-piece costume drama) in this day and age, but, although I enjoyed the film immensely, and think it's one of the better Bond movies, I feel a little let down by the execution of Casino Royale, the movie's story.

Is this some kind of trend, deliberately misreading posts to make it look like the topic starter is actually lobbying for a formulaic Bond movie? The purpose of this topic was to CALL OUT those who want a paint-by-numbers Bond flick and put them on the spot. I'm not the one calling for the formula stuff to come back. I'm insulting the people who want that and challenging them to tell us what THEY expected this movie to be. You, sir, have no right whatsoever to (a) ignore the meat of my post and try to paint me as being one of the people I am VERY clearly mocking and ( chastising me for stuff I never said and am not in agreement with.

You owe me an apology.