146 replies to this topic

[chanoch]

It means whatever you want it to. Its completely subjective.


0012, I honestly like the "opens up possibilities" POV best, which I echo. That really is the good news and I appreciate that point moreso than any other. I can't say I know what to expect from the next film, and I kinda like that as well. But Casino Royale is not the end-all-be-all Bond film for every man, woman, child and philistine on this earth that its touted to be. In the interest of balance, I chime in for some pitiful, microscopic minority that poses no real threat to these mighty men of renown. And while Craig's appearance doesn't make or break the film, it matters. OK, so what. You don't have to be a tart to be bugged by that.

Moving past that and the color of his hair, it's the joyless excesses and soulless philosophy that I despise, not him. That new "military man" manifesto. That familiar, creatively bankrupt state of schizophrenia made worse by tenacity on one hand and irresponsible disregard for tradition on the other. Where more money is spent on reviews than screenwriters. And lack of vision is applauded as "back-to-basics". Where perfection that is the timeless gun-barrel opening is being embarrassed and maligned (for the second time IN A ROW, as it were) much to its detriment, as if that were a weak link. Who's kidding who. Yes its cyclical with this series but when we start talking about over the top vs realistic, we eventually say who cares, was it any good?! How did Paul put it, you say yes, I say no. And not for a long time now.

So the book has been thrown away and it's exciting and everyone is happy about that, and CR gets points for its abandon and shock value. But do we still have something left that proves worthy of its reputation? Its accumulated affection? I'm not convinced. I'm suspicious that the filmmakers have only stalled for time by making entertainment out of the smashing to pieces yer dad's Bond. An arguably necessary move, the playing of the "last resort" card, the reboot, but out of desperation not for art. Witness Pierce's lack-of-swan song exit and uncouth treatment. Bond fans should not be encouraged to acquiesce to this kind of trite shyte. Even if it is profitable. Y'know the Tonight show was rebooted once and is still going, strong even, but a different animal it is now, a far cry from what it was. That's the best analogy I can think of. And for the record, to my mind, it wasn't Craig that let down Bond. Let's be clear. It was the filmmakers who let down Craig.

And I think Kissy Suzuki would agree with most if not all of my points, give or take..
(..after an admittedly protracted period of labourous translation)
If so, this would, in fact, trump any issues to the contrary. Quite literally, all issues forever, actually.

John Barry for Bond 22

[00Twelve]

Chanoch, I can tell that you're not making provocative jabs, so let me ask a couple of things:

1) Did you have this much problem with Roger Moore's hair (which was as far of the traditional mark as Craig...light brown is no more Bondian than blonde), or the other Bond actors' lack of "untidy commas?"

2) I've tried at length to list my observations and opinions on who Bond is and why I see him as being nailed by our new actor, and on the film itself. Not that I'm putting you on trial , but would you mind at least trying to give us a picture of the same from your POV, and why Craig specifically does not embody the literary agent (besides the obvious cosmetic differences)? I mean more about Bond himself. You've given plenty about the film in your review.

Incidentally, in case you're of the opinion that Craig's Bond acts like a thug, check Bondfiend's thread about how he happened to notice that Bond says "thank you" at least 8 times and always stands up when Vesper leaves a table (and he didn't even have an agenda for looking!). Best manners I've ever seen from an unsophisticated thug.

[RazorBlade]

I've been reading this and laughing my @$$ off. I'm with you 0012. DC is the man in more ways than one. By that I mean that he is Fleming's bond and a real man. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am done with the pretty boys Hollywood has been serving us.

[Dr. Noah]

(blah, blsh, blah...) . I'm suspicious that the filmmakers have only stalled for time by making entertainment out of the smashing to pieces yer dad's Bond. An arguably necessary move, the playing of the "last resort" card, the reboot,

Except their last movie made more money than their previous ones. If they were desperate they would've made another crappy, overblown piece of junk like DAD starring a safe, boring bet like 55-year-old Brosnan wearing an invisible tuxedo, or something. They would've pulled another Roger Moore and waited until nobody cared about Bond again to make a change.

[Loomis]

Hello, I haven't posted here since probably TWINE when balance, discontent and sanity were alive and well in those days.

Since TWINE? So you missed the somewhat negative (albeit slightly delayed - seems to me about 80% of fans liked it on release, with approximately 30% liking it now) fan reaction to DAD?

If I was to say I hadn't seen a Bond film which acheives the tone of what I consider the essence of Bond since...(this is not an easy one, don't hold me to this)...say TMWTGG.

Now we're talking Bond!

There exists an unspoken belief in the "Bond camp" that the older films represent a life-style that is no longer appropriate to modern ethics. Yet, sexism, cigarettes and humorous violence are exactly why these films still have a pusle.

But there's sexism (including sexism coming from Bond) and humorous violence in CASINO ROYALE, unless by humorous violence you mean a comically unconvincing Roger Moore fight (and I love Moore, BTW). As for the cigarette thing, look back on those hallowed '60s films and note exactly how many times you see Connery's Bond with a fag - it's very few and far between. And he barely touches the thing, just holds it like a teenager at a party who's trying to look cool; while Rog's Bond wouldn't know one end of a Benson & Hedges from the other. The only "classic era" 007 who even hinted at Fellminng's chainsmoking King Zog of Albania-style Bond was Lazenby, but even then he was a fagging lightweight more interested in guns, girls, cars and ski chases. The bore.

What I'm trying to say is that fans who bemoan the lack of smoking in the current films are really just looking back through rose-coloured specs on a golden age that never actually existed.

You like AVTAK and DAF, and you think the invisible car in DAD is believable. You think John Barry's score for AVTAK is some of his finest work.

Are you a movie critic in the bizzaro universe?

I, too, like AVTAK and DAF (albeit as goofy entertainments drenched in childhood nostalgia, and not as, if you will, Proper Bond Films™), and I also consider Barry's AVTAK score a corker. As for DAD, well, how can you not like a Bond flick with an invisible car?

Where more money is spent on reviews than screenwriters.

?

And lack of vision is applauded as "back-to-basics".

Can't let this one pass, chief. Lack of vision? LACK?!?!?!?! Now, you may not like the vision displayed in CASINO ROYALE (which is, of course, fine - we've all got our opinions, etc., etc.), but how on earth can you deny that there is any vision in the film? Broccoli, Wilson, Purvis, Wade, Haggis, Campbell, Meheux and co. stamp the picture with more, erm, vision than ever before. Again, it may not be the vision you want, but CR looks and feels like an auteur Bond outing made by non-auteurs.

As for Arnold, I was never a fan (quite the opposite, in fact, he writes TWINE-quotingly).... until CASINO ROYALE, when on his fourth attempt he delivered an absolutely cracking Bond score that's up there with the best of---- well, maybe with some of Barry. Going by present form, I'd pick Arnold over Barry for BOND 22, which is something I never thought I'd type.

[ACE]

There exists an unspoken belief in the "Bond camp" that the older films represent a life-style that is no longer appropriate to modern ethics. Yet, sexism, cigarettes and humorous violence are exactly why these films still have a pusle.

As for the cigarette thing, look back on those hallowed '60s films and note exactly how many times you see Connery's Bond with a fag - it's very few and far between. And he barely touches the thing, just holds it like a teenager at a party who's trying to look cool; while Rog's Bond wouldn't know one end of a Benson & Hedges from the other. The only "classic era" 007 who even hinted at Fellminng's chainsmoking King Zog of Albania-style Bond was Lazenby, but even then he was a lightweight more interested in guns, girls, cars and ski chases. The bore.

What I'm trying to say is that fans who bemoan the lack of smoking in the current films are really just looking back through rose-coloured specs on a golden age that never actually existed.

Well, it's there if one wants to see it.
The only films which do NOT infer/show Bond smokes are as follows:

Thunderball (ironically)
Diamonds Are Forever
For Your Eyes Only
A View To A Kill
GoldenEye
The World Is Not Enough
Casino Royale

All the rest have Bond smoke, carry lighters and/or cigarettes.

I don't think it really matters. Those people who moan about the PC-ness of Bond never complain that we never see him take Benzedrine.
Or drink copious amounts of booze. We selectively rose-tint our memories of Bond.

[Loomis]

There exists an unspoken belief in the "Bond camp" that the older films represent a life-style that is no longer appropriate to modern ethics. Yet, sexism, cigarettes and humorous violence are exactly why these films still have a pusle.

As for the cigarette thing, look back on those hallowed '60s films and note exactly how many times you see Connery's Bond with a fag - it's very few and far between. And he barely touches the thing, just holds it like a teenager at a party who's trying to look cool; while Rog's Bond wouldn't know one end of a Benson & Hedges from the other. The only "classic era" 007 who even hinted at Fellminng's chainsmoking King Zog of Albania-style Bond was Lazenby, but even then he was a lightweight more interested in guns, girls, cars and ski chases. The bore.

What I'm trying to say is that fans who bemoan the lack of smoking in the current films are really just looking back through rose-coloured specs on a golden age that never actually existed.

Well, it's there if one wants to see it.
The only films which do NOT infer/show Bond smokes are as follows:

Thunderball (ironically)
Diamonds Are Forever
For Your Eyes Only
A View To A Kill
GoldenEye
The World Is Not Enough
Casino Royale

All the rest have Bond smoke, carry lighters and/or cigarettes.

I was thinking purely of cigarettes, so if Moore's or Brosnan's Bond is shown with a cigar in a social situation then I don't consider (although I'm aware that many would) that our hero is really being portrayed as a smoker. If memory serves, Bond is presented as a cigarette smoker (of sorts) in the following films:

DR. NO
GOLDFINGER
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE
THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
LICENCE TO KILL

Those people who moan about the PC-ness of Bond never complain that we never see him take Benzedrine.

Quite.

[spynovelfan]

Moving past that and the color of his hair, it's the joyless excesses and soulless philosophy that I despise, not him. That new "military man" manifesto.

What joyless excesses and soulless philosophy? Here's a man who concocts cockatils while battling the villain at cards! Here's a man who smashes up someone's car when they mistake him for a valet and who delights in stealing another man's woman from under his nose, having already won his car off him.

As for the 'new "military man" manifesto', what do you mean? Vesper guesses Bond used to be in special forces, and by his reaction it looks like we are to take it she was right. But is that new? The SAS, for example, takes its officers from all the armed forces, including the Royal Navy. Fleming's Bond was in a military-style fitness regime, used a commando dagger, knew unarmed combat (was writing a book on it, in fact!), attached a limpet mine (SOE creation) to the side of a villain's boat, and did much more besides to suggest he had a background in special forces. So it's not really new. Not new in the films, either: Brosnan went around bungee-jumping off dams and using a machine gun, which is much more commando-ish than anything Craig did in CR.

John Barry for Bond 22

Barry's not interested, though (and hasn't been for some time), and even if he were, do we really want them to simply remake the previous films again and again, with Shirley Bassey singing every song and Blofeld always the villain? I think Babs and Mickey are clever enough to know that that would be the death of the series.

[00Twelve]

Thanks for the benzedrine mention, ACE.

Let's not forget that originally, Bond's calm coolness in dispatching his enemies or battling them at a card table was acheived through popping benzedrine. The pressure of having to put down a Soviet (terrorist today) financier (at his own life's risk) by playing cards for hours and hours made him extremely unnerved. There are a handful of other times Bond had to take benzedrine to stay focused and not lose his nerve. Now in CR, Bond is seen at arguably his most brash and cocky, yet his most unsure and nervous. I mean, he got desperate and impulsive. Like Fleming's Bond occasionally would. He even went after Le Chiffre with a steak knife in what was sure to be a suicide mission. I've never seen anyone replicate the nervous, brash, occasionally unsure agent that Fleming wrote like Craig did in this film.

That's an interesting character development/trait. Certainly more interesting and faithful to the original idea of the man than I've seen in I-don't-know-when. Not a heresy.

[HildebrandRarity]

Sounds and SMELLS like a thread from a Mario Bruno who forgot his addition from kindergarten (Unless he has an 'in' to Craig quitting/being dumped after the '08 release).

Loser!

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 08 May 2007 - 02:18 PM.

[dodge]

Sounds and SMELLS like a thread from a Mario Bruno who forgot his addition from kindergarten (Unless he has an 'in' to Craig quitting/being dumped after the '08 release).
Loser!

Thanks for getting the thread back on point. This should not be allowed to drift from thread founder's professed loathing for CR...hatred of Dan Craig...and absolute contempt for anyone else who loves either and wants Craig back for 23.

Don't let him off that easily. Those are the issues and you've spoken well.

[HildebrandRarity]

Don't let him off that easily.

Umm...We won't.

;-)

[mrsbonds_ppk]

LMAO at this stuff on here. Well, simply put, the majority of us Bond fans on this site love Casino Royale and many but not all love Daniel Craig.


We Are Passionate About Our Bond


Keep it coming I'm loving this....

Edited by mrsbonds_ppk, 11 May 2007 - 06:56 AM.

[chanoch]

00Twelve, apologies for the silence on your questions. I've been away.

1) Good question regarding Roger's hair, and no I didn't have a problem with it. Because it is genius and ability with the ladies that make Bond for me, not hair color. And Roger had that in spades. That may or may not be literary, so you see I can't really back that up. Anyway, technically he wasn't truly blonde. I would also add, with some reluctance, that any elder ally knows something of the symbolism. It just doesn't feel right on 007. Sorry for that, but my point stands.

2) What is it about Craig? See above, then factor in that, previous to Mr. Craig, Bond never struck me as a former rugby player type. To me, he was more a dapper bookworm, hardened by experience. Not the reverse. At the end of the day Daniel Craig just doesn't inspire me. Say what you want about Brosnan, but I looked forward to his portrayal.

HildebrandRarity makes an excellent point when using the term loser. The "unless" part of your post rings true and you get points for the decipherment. Unfortunately, those points are deducted for speaking like the wife of a philistine.


Loomis, thanks for your points. I am with you on the Vanish. I recall you from way back, you've been here a while. While your right on the ciggy point, I'm still holding out for a chain smoking Bond. Yes it would make me happy. Turkish please.


Dodge, it aint over til you say so, brother.


I still haven't got around to my DAF thought, which I don't believe I've ever heard anyone mention. I will try to get around to this soon. I never said it was my favorite for those who are on ADD med. Just that I believe there is a stranger than fiction element buried in the narrative. I almost dare not say.

Edited by chanoch, 22 May 2007 - 04:37 AM.

[00Twelve]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, you're most welcome to wait until Dan's done to get revved up for a new Bond film again. Taste is taste. I, of course, will be reveling for the next few films (as long as the tone stays consistent). But that's alright. Bond strikes us each differently. I'll defend CR to the death, but if one just doesn't like it, then so be it. We differ.

But do let me stand with spynovelfan and say that Bond's background in the Royal Navy and in his ground battles always played more of a part in his espionage and fighting tactics in the novels than they ever have on screen. Until this film. And those of us who can see that are pleased to see that the filmmakers saw fit to reintroduce that part of Bond's personality.

[chanoch]

Yes, but at a ponderous and jarring expense of continuity. Point taken, though.

Still, there may be no such thing as post-Craig. I wonder if his last mission will culminate at Megiddo.

[Dr. Noah]

Sounds and SMELLS like a thread from a Mario Bruno who forgot his addition from kindergarten (Unless he has an 'in' to Craig quitting/being dumped after the '08 release).

Loser!

How much did Mario lose that election by, anyway?

Just imagine if the voters knew he was spending all of his time at work running a gay-bashing website protesting the choice of a friggin' movie actor! What a tool...

[dodge]

00Twelve, apologies for the silence on your questions. I've been away.

1) Good question regarding Roger's hair, and no I didn't have a problem with it. Because it is genius and ability with the ladies that make Bond for me, not hair color. And Roger had that in spades. That may or may not be literary, so you see I can't really back that up. Anyway, technically he wasn't truly blonde. I would also add, with some reluctance, that any elder ally knows something of the symbolism. It just doesn't feel right on 007. Sorry for that, but my point stands.

2) What is it about Craig? See above, then factor in that, previous to Mr. Craig, Bond never struck me as a former rugby player type. To me, he was more a dapper bookworm, hardened by experience. Not the reverse. At the end of the day Daniel Craig just doesn't inspire me. Say what you want about Brosnan, but I looked forward to his portrayal.

HildebrandRarity makes an excellent point when using the term loser. The "unless" part of your post rings true and you get points for the decipherment. Unfortunately, those points are deducted for speaking like the wife of a philistine.


Loomis, thanks for your points. I am with you on the Vanish. I recall you from way back, you've been here a while. While your right on the ciggy point, I'm still holding out for a chain smoking Bond. Yes it would make me happy. Turkish please.


Dodge, it aint over til you say so, brother.
I still haven't got around to my DAF thought, which I don't believe I've ever heard anyone mention. I will try to get around to this soon. I never said it was my favorite for those who are on ADD med. Just that I believe there is a stranger than fiction element buried in the narrative. I almost dare not say.

When you learn how to write, let me know. I've moved on.

[LadySylvia]

Your response is to insult Chanoch's writing?

[chanoch]

The purpose of his response was to live up to his screen name by making it about my vernacular. At least he got the thread "back on point".


R.I.P "Here's to Bond 23"

[JimmyBond]

R.I.P "Here's to Bond 23"

Hear hear Aside from TWINE, the actor's third Bond film is the one where they usually hit it out of the park. Glad to see we're on the same page about Craig chanoch.

[dodge]

Your response is to insult Chanoch's writing?

Well, here we are again, Lady S, with you playing the insult card. Wasn't it you who once began a post stating "I don't mean to be rude. But I will be."????

But to respond to the facts: Chanoch, whom I was leaving alone while minding my own business, called my name with a remark that I took exception to.

I responded not with an insult but a request that he get back to me when he'd learned how to write. To clarify: I don't mean fine writing skills. I'm not looking for dazzling metaphors or similes. I am looking for positions that are clearly and concisely expressed in a friendly spirit. I stated my preference to deal with reasonable, clear-thinking people.

This is certainly a lot politer than you're remark to Stephenson: "Tell me another." The expression means, of course, that the poster's last remark was a lie--i.e., that he is a liar. Do you really not consider that insulting?

[Harmsway]

What is it about Craig? See above, then factor in that, previous to Mr. Craig, Bond never struck me as a former rugby player type. To me, he was more a dapper bookworm, hardened by experience. Not the reverse.

Really? Fleming's Bond always struck me as the opposite of being a bookworm. He's always going on about how he hates the reading material and paperwork and is an adrenaline addict. And didn't Fleming say he boxed during his education?

[Dr. Noah]

What is it about Craig? See above, then factor in that, previous to Mr. Craig, Bond never struck me as a former rugby player type. To me, he was more a dapper bookworm, hardened by experience. Not the reverse.

Really? Fleming's Bond always struck me as the opposite of being a bookworm. He's always going on about how he hates the reading material and paperwork and is an adrenaline addict. And didn't Fleming say he boxed during his education?

LOL

I think he reads a book on cards at one point in the novels. Fleming said Bond hardly read at all.

The word here is "projection."

[chanoch]

Let me just remind fans of illiteracy that the Bond of the Connery-Moore years possessed what could be described as "encyclopedic knowledge" on a variety of subjects. Now I know that may seem silly to come away from the films with that "projection", but it was something of a staple for ...oh maybe 30 some odd years.

[Dr. Noah]

Let me just remind fans of illiteracy that the Bond of the Connery-Moore years possessed what could be described as "encyclopedic knowledge" on a variety of subjects. Now I know that may seem silly to come away from the films with that "projection", but it was something of a staple for ...oh maybe 30 some odd years.

LOL

Sean Connery: Bookworm. Connery and Moore knowing what year a wine is made constitutes "bookworm?" I know when I watch Connery and Moore as Bond, I, too, think of them spending all their free time at the library.

"I'd like to battle crime now and save the world, but the new 1500-page Thomas Pynchon novel is out."

[Dr. Noah]

BTW, even though I never saw Connery, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan picking up a book, and only saw George Lazenby trying not to fall asleep while researching in a heraldry book, Daniel Craig is researching and reading CONSTANTLY in this film, on computers -- hacking into websites, reading up on the bad guys, finding out where M lives and what her last name is...

So not only are you projecting onto Bond, your entire point is wrong to begin with, anyway. He's the most well-read of the bunch.

[spynovelfan]

Yes, but at a ponderous and jarring expense of continuity. Point taken, though.

Because OHMSS to DAF's continuity wasn't at all jarring? Or even Fleming's CR to LALD?

There have been special forces/commando references in many of Fleming's books, and in many of the films: some of them end in commando-style raids (OHMSS, for example), which this one didn't. CASINO ROYALE portrayed special forces activity with far greater fidelity to both reality and Fleming's original inspirations than the often forced and stereotypical gung-ho machine-gunning everyone in camo gear scenes we saw in the Brosnan era.

You bring up the fact that you want Bond to chain-smoke Turkish cigarettes as though that's a criticism of CASINO ROYALE, but it applies to every single film in the series. You feel that greater fidelity to the special forces mentality of the novels was a jarring break with continuity - so wouldn't that also be the case if they suddenly had Bond chain-smoking Morlands?

[chanoch]

All any of this proves is that if one criticizes CR here, he can expect to be countered senselessly, even at the expense of reason.

Spynovelfan, these transitions you mention were in fact jarring in tone, YES. However, in none of the afformentioned was the audience asked to pretend as if none of the previous adventures ever happened. That is stupid, desperate and undermining. Mark my words, while you applaud it now, there will come a time when you will be encouraged to forget that there ever was a reboot. And this bold direction may well be rendered insignificant. Would that sit with you guys ok? Tell the truth.

I only say this because I'd love to see Bond films really be relevant again, not superficially so, as with CR.

My wish to see Bond smoke is a criticism of the neo-Bond-manifesto philosophy of the producers which existed long before CR. Can we expand outside of "defend Daniel Craig at all cost!" It's boring.

LISTEN, at the end of the day, I didn't think Casino Royale was a very good film. Like I didn't think TWINE was a very good film. These excursions into character essence are interesting, important points, to be sure, but they are not the crux of my discontent. I will concede to a variety of tones and interpretations IF THE FILM IS ANY DAMN GOOD. Casino Royale was not any damn good. It was dull, dreary, awkward and pretentious.


Noah, Bond DOES in fact do lots of homework when not on assignment, brother. Don't be daft.

[Harmsway]

However, in none of the afformentioned was the audience asked to pretend as if none of the previous adventures ever happened. That is stupid, desperate and undermining.

Why? Franchises get rebooted all the time. Batman is currently a hell of a lot better for it, and I'd argue Bond is too. It allows Bond to start over, no strings attached... they now have complete freedom to do what they want with the character.

LISTEN, at the end of the day, I didn't think Casino Royale was a very good film. Like I didn't think TWINE was a very good film.

I think TWINE is an abortion of a Bond film, but CASINO ROYALE is better than it in every aspect. Script, direction, performances, cinematography, score, action...

Casino Royale was not any damn good. It was dull, dreary, awkward and pretentious.

See, that's where we all disagree. CASINO ROYALE is perhaps the most fun I've had watching a Bond film, in addition to being the most complex Bond film. It's exciting, vibrant, fun, and suprisingly moving, engaging character without ever losing sight of its place as entertainment for grown-ups.