78 replies to this topic

[Dr. Noah]

Yup.

All I can say is. if you didn't think CR had strong enough pacing, or character, or a convincing romance...

...You must not have liked a Bond film in the last 40 years...

Ridiculous comment. It really escapes me why it is so important for everyone to love the new movie. It certainly hasn't been similarly important in regards to DAD these past few years.

The wringing of hands, and hurling of invective over someone else's opinions in regards to art is baffling.

Can we not allow respected members of our community the right to their opinions? Must we badger and bludgeon at every hint of dissent?

Let's revel in our communal interest in Bond, and celebrate said interest in all its many different forms.

What the heck did I do here? I didn't insult him -- I compared the quality of the CR story to other Bond films. Isn't that what we're SUPPOSED to be doing here?

[Bon-san]

Noah,

I think it's ridiculous to insinuate (sarcastically or otherwise) that Seannery doesn't like Bond films.

And I stand by the rest of my post. You and others have, for many months, tirelessly attacked anyone critical of Craig or Casino Royale. Clearly many of those on the receiving end of these comments have been trolls. Many however, have not. It's not in the spirit of CBn to attack other members for their legitimately held 'Bond opinions'. Certainly we all engage in a bit of friendly sparring. That's what makes things interesting. But to continually hammer against those who don't share your views is a different animal. It gets tiresome, and the cumulative effect is to foster negativity and divisiveness rather than inclusion and camraderie. I'm not out to start a kumbaya party here. But I will defend the likes of Seannery against what I consider maltreatment.

I respect your passion for Bond. And I know you can express yourself eloquently without resorting to harrasment.

If you want to discuss this further you can send me a PM.

[Seannery]

In the flush of a new Bond, I fear a lot critics and fanboys have ALMOST criminally overrated Casino Royale.

Sorry ACE, I just think a lot have overrated it--my opinion wrong or right. It's not like all Bond fans must like CR. It's decent(6 out of 10) but thats all. Perhaps I wrote the sentence too dramatically but hey no one is perfect. It still makes my essential point. I'm fine if you disagree--I for one won't return the scoff.

[ACE]

Perhaps I wrote the sentence too dramatically ...

Perhaps?

Sorry, Seannery. I disagree with your review but I do think it is very well written and considered. I respect your opinion.

I accept that some people like the film less than others.
However, I was supporting yolt13's post about saying the film is "overrated" which implies that the persons praising the film (must they only be "fanboys"?) are somehow wrong.

For example, if I say that I like the film very much, it is different to saying that you have "criminally (my emphasis) underrated" the movie and are not a fan (mirroring your statement in the negative).

Sophistry sometimes deserves to be scoffed at. yolt13 made a very good point. If you don't prefer the film, that's fine.

Anyway, I know a lot of people who do not think CR is all that. I took a bunch of civilians with me to see the movie and the opinion was mixed. While most loved Craig, some people thought the movie was too Bondian and others thought it was not Bondian at all. A lot of the women did not like the female leads and thought them retrograde after Halle Berry and Michelle Yeoh. Go figure!

[Seannery]

Sorry, Seannery.

I accept that some people like the film less than others.
However, I was supporting yolt13's post about saying the film is "overrated" which implies that the persons praising the film (must they only be "fanboys"?) are somehow wrong.

For example, if I say that I like the film very much, it is different to saying that you have "criminally (my emphasis) underrated" the movie and are not a fan (mirroring your statement in the negative).

Sophistry sometimes deserves to be scoffed at. yolt13 made a very good point about your post. If you don't like/prefer the film, that's fine but do not seek to place a motivation behind those that do like the film.

Anyway, I know a lot of people who do not think CR is all that. I took a bunch of civilians with me to see the movie and the opinion was mixed. While most loved Craig, some people thought the movie was too Bondian and others thought it was not Bondian at all. A lot of the women did not like the female leads and thought them retrograde after Halle Berry and Michelle Yeoh. Go figure!

No problem ACE but I think I answered yolt13 straight-on. I put NO motivation against those who loved CR(DID NOT employ sophistry just my opinion)--just said I thought(clearly in my own opinion) that they overrated it. And I mentioned that a lot of people who loved and disliked the film do this--they say in person or in post that hey I think you are wrong about this film. Which is fine. The problem ,in my opinion, is when people dismiss by scoffing or try to explain away by saying one has a psychological block, less intelligence or whatever. Agree or disagree, I DON'T put any motivations on anybody--just purely saying imo that CR has been overrated by some. Of course it's subjective--clearly it is.

[ACE]

Hey Seannery, no problem.

Funny thing is, it doesn't matter what we think. It matters what the civilians think. How many times will you see the film at the cinema?

[Seannery]

ACE i'll definitely see it at least one more time in the theater. And yes I agree regardless of how good we think CR is individually(the debatable part), that it is doing well at the box office is a good thing. That means more Bond films.

[ACE]

[Dr. Noah]

Noah,

I think it's ridiculous to insinuate (sarcastically or otherwise) that Seannery doesn't like Bond films.

I don't even think I was talking about Seanery. Anyway, the quote is "All I can say is. if you didn't think CR had strong enough pacing, or character, or a convincing romance...You must not have liked a Bond film in the last 40 years..." He and whoever complained about that deficiency in CR is free to argue with me -- but I just saw Moonraker and AVTAK tonight on Spike TV, so my argument seems very strong at this particular moment.

[VeteransAbroad]

The comment about the cell phone is interesting. I didn't see the film in English but, if I did, I would have thought it strange for two British people to use the American word "cell phone". The Germans use the word "Handy" which is a derivative of the Handy Talkie which was the post-war Germany improved version of the WW2 Walkie Talkie. The Germans could not say "Zell Telefon" because phone booths are Telefonzellen in German (and Phone Boxes in British I think).

Incidentally, to carry the tangent further: The Swedes called their cell phones Fick Telephones for quite awhile before their German born queen asked them politely to stop calling them what Germans heard as F&ck Telephones (fick in Swedish means spark/signal but something entirely different in German). Now the Swedes just call them "Yuppy Toys."

I am going to have to see CR in English before I can comment on whether the train scene was cool enough to start a romance. It seemed OK that she sparred with him, especially since they both knew they would be working together. It is not as if he had a choice to ask for her phone number or not. ;-)

And its not as if she sparred with him on whether England deserved the London bombings or not. I've met more than one British man who told me that this kind of talk was a reason for not asking someone for her phone number. So there is sparring and then there is sparring.

Back to the tangent:

And for insomniacs, the Russians call a cell phone mobilnik while the Ukrainians use the feminine form mobilnika. In both languages, the plural would be mobilniki.

If you still can't sleep, here is an interesting fact: The first phrase they used to teach US Army Russian linguists was "Ne strelayete, Ya znau sekreti" (Don't Shoot, I know Secrets). I am not kidding. Like college hazing rituals, that was once a tradition that would have been frowned upon by the higher ups, but was still practiced because it was funny. ;-)

Edited by VeteransAbroad, 29 November 2006 - 04:25 PM.

[Atomic Agent]

On my first watch, I would agree with you, Seanerry. I picked it apart, and felt a mild disappointment set in. When I left, I felt quite odd. But the next day, I wanted to see it again.

The second time I watched it--- I loved it. And the third.

I still agree about Bond and Vesper's meeting. It seems contrived. Forced. Trying TOO hard to be clever. I also didn't care for them trying to play up the fact that this is 007's FIRST mission. Its not. But that can be overlooked.

I also felt like the movie was too much. They tried to fit a whole lot into the time they had.

I loved the title sequence, and I even thought the song was well written (although Cornell proved me right and just had to yell at the end of it). I still think someone else should have provided vocals.

Those things being said, it does get better with each viewing. And considering what we've been given for the past 30 years, this is a triumph.
The action is TOO good to ignore. No blue screens or CGI. The original story is great, and this does take a lot from that story.

I could go on and on, but I don't see the point. This is as close to the 'classic' 007 films as we're going to get.

Give it another try.

cheers

[License To Kill]

I am going to have to see CR in English before I can comment on whether the train scene was cool enough to start a romance. It seemed OK that she sparred with him, especially since they both knew they would be working together. It is not as if he had a choice to ask for her phone number or not. ;-)

Veterans, I think the train scene was sheer brilliance and obviously a product of Haggis' exception writing abilties. I just felt there was so much sexual tension building up between Bond and Vesper that made the exchange so much more believable. They called each other as they saw, and it was ingenious.

It is definitely the perfect starting scene for a romance.

[yolt13]

Well I see your point but honestly almost everyone who loved CR has at the same time given an often strong critique of the views of those who didn't and vice versa--including yourself.

And there you have me wrong. I have only given "strong critiques" to those who present their negative opinions without respect to the feelings of others. I have disagreed, presented my own opinions and inferred from the language of the negative reviews that I've read that those who didn't like it prefer other types of Bond films, but I haven't been confrontational or overly pointed toward anyone except those who figuratively roll their eyes, shout defensive obscenities, or demonstrate a lack of hard knowledge about the character and his history while simultaneously declaring CR "Not a Bond film!" If you'll look back over this thread, you'll see that my initial post was in response to Dr. Doak's comments, not yours. If my words seemed a "strong critique", that severity was in response to his own admission that he approached CASINO ROYALE with a predisposition against the reboot element and a preference for a Brosnan return. All I pointed out in that post was that his sentiments were common to the negative reviews I'd read, and that, while entitled to his opinion, he's being a bit presumptuous to tell other fans they are "overrating" the movie when approaching it from such a perspective.

I save my harsh words for guys like steve234, templer1972, and Mercator. They deserve a good, strong critique because they appear to have no idea how to express their opinions without insulting others.

[Seannery]

Well I see your point but honestly almost everyone who loved CR has at the same time given an often strong critique of the views of those who didn't and vice versa--including yourself.

And there you have me wrong. I have only given "strong critiques" to those who present their negative opinions without respect to the feelings of others. I have disagreed, presented my own opinions and inferred from the language of the negative reviews that I've read that those who didn't like it prefer other types of Bond films, but I haven't been confrontational or overly pointed toward anyone except those who figuratively roll their eyes, shout defensive obscenities, or demonstrate a lack of hard knowledge about the character and his history while simultaneously declaring CR "Not a Bond film!" If you'll look back over this thread, you'll see that my initial post was in response to Dr. Doak's comments, not yours. If my words seemed a "strong critique", that severity was in response to his own admission that he approached CASINO ROYALE with a predisposition against the reboot element and a preference for a Brosnan return. All I pointed out in that post was that his sentiments were common to the negative reviews I'd read, and that, while entitled to his opinion, he's being a bit presumptuous to tell other fans they are "overrating" the movie when approaching it from such a perspective.

I save my harsh words for guys like steve234, templer1972, and Mercator. They deserve a good, strong critique because they appear to have no idea how to express their opinions without insulting others.

Yolt13 I like how you dissect a film and express it well but I do think you have overrated CR(no offense at all towards you or anyone--it's just a movie afterall). Just me opinion. And like you I then went into the points why.

I agree there are some that pro OR con just bash or knock--as long as someone doesn't outright dismiss or attack i'm fine if they think I underrated CR. This is what people and mates do when they talk films in general--say things like nah, I can't see how you can like this film so much...people either outright or implicitly do(since film is a social event)compare and contrast views. Part of the fun of films--a little respectful rough and tumble. A little debate.


Atomic Agent--i'm going to see CR again. I'm definitely giving it another chance. Again I feel it was pretty good, I just didn't go wild for it.

[VisualStatic]

Although, I liked it more then Seannery did, on one point I do somewhat agree. I thought the story could have been tighter and flowed better, but that could be do to editing as well. Still I found it one of the best, but not the best or atleast not my favorite, Bond movies in a long time.

[pedroarmendariz]

i think seannery as his name implies can't swallow the truth that for the very first time the gaunlet has been thrown by connery and an actor has not only challenged, but also beaten him as the best bond. i couldn't remember a single bond movie that quite captivated me as cr did and i felt dirty for it because it takes my devotion to the previous 20 movies and flushes it down the toilet. i'm pretty sure that mr. connery is happy that somebody has finally given him a run for his money because he's place is secure in the annals of bond history so he won't be forgotten easily. hell, even the beatles knew that eventually somebody would come along and take over the #1 spot from them. unfortunely for them it was themselves who did it 30 years later. we should be happy and proud that our favorite heroe will continue well into the future and that even though one movie shook the foundations of the longest and most successful franchise in the history of hollywood, it was a james bond movie that did the shaking.

[Seannery]

i think seannery as his name implies can't swallow the truth that for the very first time the gaunlet has been thrown by connery and an actor has not only challenged, but also beaten him as the best bond. i couldn't remember a single bond movie that quite captivated me as cr did and i felt dirty for it because it takes my devotion to the previous 20 movies and flushes it down the toilet. i'm pretty sure that mr. connery is happy that somebody has finally given him a run for his money because he's place is secure in the annals of bond history so he won't be forgotten easily. hell, even the beatles knew that eventually somebody would come along and take over the #1 spot from them. unfortunely for them it was themselves who did it 30 years later. we should be happy and proud that our favorite heroe will continue well into the future and that even though one movie shook the foundations of the longest and most successful franchise in the history of hollywood, it was a james bond movie that did the shaking.

I certainly didn't review/watch the film worrying about Sean Connery. Just simply my take on CR. Hey, we all have our own minds and think differently on things.

[The Richmond Spy]

I must admit I loved the film so I disagree, but I was concerned when EVERYONE said they loved the film. It almost seemed as if they wanted to accept Craig so bad (and maybe I was part of this too) that they gave it 10/10 automatically. Maybe this is typical after a Bond film comes out, I don't know. Good to see some different opinions though.

[AgentPB]

It was a very good Bond film. It had my new favorite Bond girl and a pretty good story and acting. It is not my favorite I do not think it is the best. Craig was much better then I thought he would be (I though he would be pretty good!) . I do believe that people are going a bit overboard on this whole best Bond ever stuff. Wait a few decades like with Connerys Bond's and see if it still sits wit you well. On my third and latest viewing i did start to notice a drop in my attention span, will the story end up dragging on upon home viewing?