146 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

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.

Personally, yes, it would sit okay with me, just as A VIEW TO A KILL sits okay with me (well, reasonably okay) even though it's a complete repudiation of, say, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and everything that the shortlived Laz era stood for.

[Harmsway]

Personally, yes, it would sit okay with me, just as A VIEW TO A KILL sits okay with me (well, reasonably okay) even though it's a complete repudiation of, say, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and everything that the shortlived Laz era stood for.

Agreed. These radical shifts in Bond-dom are part of the fun.

[Dr. Noah]

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.

This from a guy who says a Bond movie isn't relevant unless he smokes.

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.

Yeah. $600 million worth of insignificance.

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.

So is "attack Daniel Craig at all costs." He doesn't look like enough of a bookworm??? LOL

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.

I bet that's what they wrote about you in your high school yearbook.

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

The only time I've seen him do any was in Casino Royale, which makes your point ridiculous, doesn't it...

[chanoch]

Stepford

[Dr. Noah]

Stepford

Well, a Stepford Wife (which I assume is what you're talking about, but unfortunately it doesn't make any more sense than any of your other posts) would say "Bond must be exactly like every Bond who came before...add nothing new...must look perfect -- no hair out of place -- and have encyclopedic knowledge...don't stray from the formula...Re-boot is wrong..."

Sound familiar?

[mrsbonds_ppk]

CASINO ROYALE is perhaps the most fun I've had watching a Bond film, in addition to being the most complex Bond film.

Ha, it certainly wasn't the most fun I've had watching a Bond movie. I did find Craig's performance some what breath-taking, but other than that just another Bond movie like Dr. No. No better than OHMSS, FYEO, FRWL, or GE to me. This is all just my opinion though. I don't post these things to change anyone else's mind.

[00Twelve]

Chanoch,

Many of the Bond films have unofficially rebooted continuity; It takes quite a bit of wishful imagination to assume that either Dalton's or Brosnan's Bond once led a team of gray-suited ninjas in a hollowed-out volcano or told a 19-year old he'd buy her an ice cream if she'd get dressed. The only difference with CR is that it finally makes the reboot official.

I honestly can't find anything in CR I could truly call pretentious. What I find patently pretentious is a tuxedo-clad government assassin who is an expert in botany, lepidoptery, nuclear fission, 10+ languages, art, marine biology, aeronautics, and surfing.

The only reason Daniel Craig receives defense in the first place is that he has come the absolute closest to the original intention of Bond. Just as many Batman fans want to see the Batman of the comics on screen, so do many Bond fans want to see Fleming's Bond. While Cubby's Bond is more glamorous and enviable, Fleming's Bond is more intimidating, realistic, and interesting. The difference between Fleming's Bond and the films' is like the difference between Grant and say, Stamper. The latter is bigger, stronger (don't know about smarter), and better looking, but the former is simply more engrossing, more original, and more dangerous. Stamper is merely a dazzling reflection of his character's inspiration. Heresy, you say? Listen, I love Sean and Rog and the rest to an immeasurable degree, and no one will cause me to forget their impact or love their films any less than I always have, but no Bond film has ever had me white-knuckled with tension the way the books have...until this past November. It was just an entirely different experience and raised the bar for Bondian satisfaction. Just me.

[Santa]

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.

Well, the problem here is that you only see your own reasons, isn't it? I'm perfectly happy for anyone to criticise CR, and have criticisms of my own, but unfortunately some of your particular criticisms are nonsensical e.g. Craig isn't enough of a bookworm - oh, hang on a minute, this film was about getting back to Fleming, who clearly stated that Bond wasn't a reader. Which is the senseless argument there?

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.

So I imagine you felt similarly stupid, desperate and undermined in LALD, TLD and GE? I don't remember being told in CR that none of the previous adventures never happened. Where was that part? Was there a little man standing in the bottom right hand corner of the screen, like the Channel 4 sign language man, instructing us? I missed him, how careless of me.

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.

Is it Daniel Craig or the producers? I'm all for Fleming purity but let's be realistic. In this day and age a man who needs to be at Bond's level of physical fitness is highly unlikely to smoke.

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

You say this as if you know Bond personally. Is he your best mate? Do you go to the pub together? Are you his wing man when out on the pull? Tell me how you've come to this conclusion and I'll be quite happy to agree with you, as long as your evidence holds more weight than most of your previous arguments. If you mean he practices shooting on the range, fair enough, but much as I'd like Bond to be a reader, he's not. As stated by his creator. Do you know better than Ian Fleming, Chanoch?

Oh, and it's aforementioned, not 'afformentioned'.

[Matt_13]

...What she said.

[chanoch]

Santajosep, unlikely to smoke, that's a good one. Bond is now a fitness guru. And of course, your right, he doesn't read. I concede. This is the kind of twisted bias that plagues many of these rebukes. It is not the fact that you and your ilk so want to see Flemming's Bond that I find fault with. It is your flippant regard or lack thereof and damn-near ridicule of the much loved cinematic character that is so bewildering to me. Its as if some of you don't even like the series. This strikes me as GENERATION GAP. And I really don't have the inclination to carry this forward on those grounds. For to offer any more thoughts would be to throw them away. As for my spelling, "does it look like I give a damn.."

O'twelve, I appreciate your tone. It seems birds of prey are circling. Whether I could see Brosnan or Dalton flying little nellie is not a realistic expectation. And until recently, it never HAD to be. What you consider patently pretentious also doesn't have to be if handled in the right spirit of innovation. As I mentioned before, Tarrantino demonstrates for us one way to reinvigorate something old and cliche while KEEPING ITS KITSCHE VALUE INTACT. This has not been done in CR successfully IMO. Of course the series should and must reinvent itself regularly. Of course. This is a key to its longevity. But let's please not encourage this bashing of the wonderful CINEMATIC character which shows far more disrespect for the legacy of artists, writers, directors than anything I could say about measely CR. This is why I am tempted to excercise my escape route here. I don't so much mind the insulent tone and incredibly short-sighted, inanely innaccurate arguments against me from "bond fans" unlike yourself. But I will not listen to those who would belittle possibly the most artistically volumous series of films of all time and its celebrated protagonist, all for the need to elevate the current incarnation to some PRETENTIOUS level of excellence. I don't hate Daniel Craig, though I may loathe CR. Truth be told it reminds me most of NSNA - ie: an unofficial entry. I am glad you enjoyed it. We all are owed some compensation after TWINE. More later.

[RazorBlade]

If only there were only 23 posts to this thread. I'll drink to that. While I read a book.

[Dr. Noah]

This strikes me as GENERATION GAP. And I really don't have the inclination to carry this forward on those grounds. For to offer any more thoughts would be to throw them away. As for my spelling, "does it look like I give a damn.."

Yeah, we get your views:

--It was an act of desperation by the producers, even though their last movie grossed $450 mil.
--It could be the end of the franchise, even though it grossed $600 mil and received a 94% critical approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes -- garnering the best critical reaction in the history of the franchise.
--You complain that the continuity is ruined, but can't explain how Bond can be age 60 in AVTAK then age 40 two years later in TLD, or how Bond can battle commies at age 35 in FRWL, then spy in the post-Soviet Union in GE at age 35, and can't seem to put together any continuity at all.
--Bond should be more of a "bookworm," even though this is the only film where we actually see him read.

You call it a "generation gap." We call it dementia: "What should we do about 'chanoch'? It's sad to look at him act that way!" ... "Should we put chanoch in a home...?" Meanwhile you sit unaware, dribbling soup and babbling about haircuts and how James Bond should smoke.

[Loomis]

It's not unlikely that Craig's Bond would smoke - it's unthinkable.

All I care about is whether CASINO ROYALE is a good film (and I think it is one). Being able to think of it as, say, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY 9 or the 17th sequel to THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.... well, that don't really matter to me. For the record, though, I do think of CR as being part of the same great big series, reboot or no reboot (and it's just one of several reboots in Eon's history).

If Craig's blond hair is an issue for some fans, why can't they just pretend that Bond dyes it black offscreen at another time? Or that Craig's Bond is actually the same old dark-haired 007 as always, but has for reasons unknown dyed his locks blond by the time of the CR mission? Something like that. Problem solved.

[Harmsway]

If Craig's blond hair is an issue for some fans, why can't they just pretend that Bond dyes it black offscreen at another time? Or that Craig's Bond is actually the same old dark-haired 007 as always, but has for reasons unknown dyed his locks blond by the time of the CR mission? Something like that. Problem solved.

Eh, let the fans who have an issue with it suffer, since there isn't any widespread issue over it.

I like the blonde hair. A lot. And it looks best on Craig that way.

[Loomis]

If Craig's blond hair is an issue for some fans, why can't they just pretend that Bond dyes it black offscreen at another time? Or that Craig's Bond is actually the same old dark-haired 007 as always, but has for reasons unknown dyed his locks blond by the time of the CR mission? Something like that. Problem solved.

Eh, let the fans who have an issue with it suffer, since there isn't any widespread issue over it.

Fair enough, but the point I was trying to make is that you can easily fanwank CR into The Hallowed Continuity™, just as many other Bond films need a spot of fanwanking in order to chime with DR. NO, although for some strange reason many anti-CR Bond fans seem to think all the others just fit in smoothly as DR. NO sequels that are clearly All About The Same Man™, whereas CR sticks out like a sore thumb. If you follow what I'm trying to say.

[Harmsway]

I follow. And agree.

As far as the blonde look goes, though, I've grown quite fond of it.

[Loomis]

Well, if pushed - if pushed, mind - I'd have Craig dye his hair darker for BOND 22. Just for the sake of it, really, and not because I'm hung up on the idea of Fllemmmming's Bond having jet black hair. Still, it's hardly an issue, 'cause, for one thing, Craig isn't really all that blond. He's not Max freakin' Zorin! I expect Moore has shown just as much blondishness in certain 007 outings.

[spynovelfan]

Santajosep, unlikely to smoke, that's a good one. Bond is now a fitness guru. And of course, your right, he doesn't read. I concede. This is the kind of twisted bias that plagues many of these rebukes. It is not the fact that you and your ilk so want to see Flemming's Bond that I find fault with. It is your flippant regard or lack thereof and damn-near ridicule of the much loved cinematic character that is so bewildering to me. Its as if some of you don't even like the series. This strikes me as GENERATION GAP. And I really don't have the inclination to carry this forward on those grounds. For to offer any more thoughts would be to throw them away. As for my spelling, "does it look like I give a damn.."

O'twelve, I appreciate your tone. It seems birds of prey are circling. Whether I could see Brosnan or Dalton flying little nellie is not a realistic expectation. And until recently, it never HAD to be. What you consider patently pretentious also doesn't have to be if handled in the right spirit of innovation. As I mentioned before, Tarrantino demonstrates for us one way to reinvigorate something old and cliche while KEEPING ITS KITSCHE VALUE INTACT. This has not been done in CR successfully IMO. Of course the series should and must reinvent itself regularly. Of course. This is a key to its longevity. But let's please not encourage this bashing of the wonderful CINEMATIC character which shows far more disrespect for the legacy of artists, writers, directors than anything I could say about measely CR. This is why I am tempted to excercise my escape route here. I don't so much mind the insulent tone and incredibly short-sighted, inanely innaccurate arguments against me from "bond fans" unlike yourself. But I will not listen to those who would belittle possibly the most artistically volumous series of films of all time and its celebrated protagonist, all for the need to elevate the current incarnation to some PRETENTIOUS level of excellence. I don't hate Daniel Craig, though I may loathe CR. Truth be told it reminds me most of NSNA - ie: an unofficial entry. I am glad you enjoyed it. We all are owed some compensation after TWINE. More later.

If you won't listen to views other than your own, why are you on a discussion forum? You said you loathed CASINO ROYALE - so those of us who liked it are trying to defend why we did.

Spelling doesn't matter so much - we're on the interweb, we're typing fast, and it's the points we make that counts. But I like the irony that you quoted CASINO ROYALE to defend your poor spelling. A greater irony is that you can't spell Ian Fleming's name correctly and yet you're castigating the producers for not having Bond smoke Turkish cigarettes because he does so in the books!

[Santa]

I know, the spelling was a cheap shot, but as in this case he doesn't make up for it by making valid points, I thought he deserved it

[byline]

Like an anti-christ, you think your getting the real thing, but you've been duped. Kudos to those who noticed the switch.

See, I have no problem with anyone disliking "Casino Royale." What I do have a problem with is someone superimposing his own opinion on others and presuming that if we don't see the film as you do, then we must have been "duped." There's no other alternative.

Here's the problem: My husband is a longtime fan of the franchise, and for him Craig's Bond was the one he'd been waiting for. Obviously, you don't agree, but that doesn't mean your version of Bond is the "real" one; it's simply the one you prefer.

I know you'll probably chalk mine up as another post bolstering your point, since I'm a woman. But I'd like to know where it's written that Bond can be appreciated only by men, or that Bond must be restricted only to your perception of who the character should be. Ironically, many of the very qualities you cite are those I found represented in Craig's Bond. So I feel like you just missed it. But then, I'd be superimposing my own perceptions onto you, which is the very thing I find wrong in your critique. Want to criticize the film? Fine; you're very much on terra firma there. But the only mind you can know is your own; there's simply no way for you to know the basis for why others find "Casino Royale" so appealing. Yet you seem committed to strike those opinions down, simply because they don't match your own.

If there has been a "switch" pulled on us, it happened years ago and not with this entry, unless you count dropping the placeholding cookie-cutter brand of the 90s in favor of the real quality seen here.

And if I were to hold it against Bond movies for not keeping to the style and philosophy of the early years, I couldn't enjoy most of them. The Brosnan flicks feel very different from those of Dalton, whose feel worlds apart from those of Moore, whose were nothing like those of Lazenby or Connery. I could even cite numerous examples of eras divided within (DAF versus TB, say, or FYEO versus TSWLM).

Exactly!

[byline]

"We should always wonder exactly how his hair is still in place and his collar isn't ruffled despite the fact he just saved the world. He would be annoying in real life, but we would have no choice but to bow down."

The Bond you refer to is the Bond that I consider "the parody Bond". If you watch the train fight in FRWL, Bond certainly has his hair messed and his clothes are ruffled. I also suggest reading some of Fleming's books, Bond lives in a very rough world and is not walking out of violent situations unscathed.

True enough. And what about the original Bond film, "Dr. No," after he kills the spider? He's sweating buckets, then stumbles into the bathroom to vomit. Not exactly an unflappable superhero there, either. And for good reason: He just barely escaped death.

[byline]

I do have a hard time understanding where the people who think Bond isn't "sophisticated enough" in CR think he got that sophistication from.

I agree with all the points you made, but will just add that "Casino Royale" helps us understand the genesis and refinement of Bond's tastes. As you note, Bond is already dressing, eating and drinking quite well by the time we see him. But it's Vesper, in part, who enhances his appreciation for the finer things. Once she teaches him the lesson about the dinner jacket, it's not like he's going to go back to anything less. Likewise with his "Vesper" drink. Bond came up with that, and now that he has, he's not going back.

The earlier Bond films make it seem like, as you say, Bond popped out of the womb wearing tuxedos and ordering his martinis "shaken, not stirred." Obviously that's not the case, and "Casino Royale" shows us that work in progress, not fully formed as we first saw Bond in "Dr. No."

[byline]

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,

But he sure did perk up when he found that "Playboy" magazine. Must've been for the reviews!

[chanoch]

Thanks for your thoughts byline. Of course you would find it appropriate that Bond should learn his refinement from a woman. Yet another kick in the family jewels.

For Bond was but a simple, jar-headed jock before the poetic transformation that was Casino Royale. Not buying it.

I suppose I WAS guilty of making this thread about more than just a Bond movie, and more about what devo once termed "DE-EVOLUTION". Fight the future.



Here here, a bit of the alright and all that.

[byline]

Thanks for your thoughts byline. Of course you would find it appropriate that Bond should learn his refinement from a woman. Yet another kick in the family jewels.

Well, that certainly was predictable, and I can't say I didn't expect it. You might try reading my post a bit more carefully (but then, of course, that would defuse your point). I didn't say that Bond learned his refinement only from a woman. I said that one of the lessons he learned came from Vesper in the form of the dinner jacket. Take note, also, of the fact that I said Bond came up with the Vesper drink, and that once he did that, he wasn't going back. That means he was developing his tastes as he went along, which makes perfect sense for that character.

Too bad that that's the sum total of your response, because that's precisely the kind of attitude, IMO, that would have kept Bond a caricature, rather than a character. Few men are only "jar-headed jocks" . . . and even the Bond I read about in the novel was far more complex than that. "Simple, jar-headed jocks" don't bother themselves with issues of good and evil, morality and so on (all of which Bond explores with Mathis in great depth in the novel).

FWIW, those are my husband's thoughts as well, not only mine.

Edited by byline, 24 June 2007 - 03:50 PM.

[Harmsway]

I didn't say that Bond learned his refinement only from a woman. I said that one of the lessons he learned came from Vesper in the form of the dinner jacket.

More or less, and it's not really much of a lesson. Bond already knew how to recognize tailoring, so Bond's hardly illiterate in fashion. That's actually pretty sophisticated knowledge.

Are we supposed to believe that Bond is the king of all taste, fashion and otherwise, and that no-one could ever one-up him? I don't think that's really true of any of the Bond incarnations, and it certainly shouldn't be true of a more grounded take on the character.

He picks out his dinner jacket, and thinks it does the job just well... and Vesper picks out one that's even better. It's a one-up that's delightfully humorous (Craig plays the frustration so well), and no more of a slight on James Bond's knowledge and sophistication than it is when Anya Amasova corrects him about the location of the Stromberg Laboratories in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.

Take note, also, of the fact that I said Bond came up with the Vesper drink, and that once he did that, he wasn't going back. That means he was developing his tastes as he went along, which makes perfect sense for that character.

That's straight out of Fleming, and for that reason alone, gets a pass. For me, it doesn't so much show Bond developing sophistication (the sophistication is not in the recipe, but in the ability to create the recipe - an ability he already had), but it demonstrates Bond discovering something new.

[byline]

I agree with your points, Harmsway. But I think the examples we're discussing, and others, also show a Bond who is keenly observant and picks up on many external cues. He will either discard them if he feels they are of no use to him, or integrate them into his internal toolbox for later use. I agree that Bond had already achieved a certain level of sophistication by the time we see him in "Casino Royale" . . . but he's not the be-all and end-all of that term, and is still growing, still learning, still working out what he needs to know. For me, that's a far more believable character than one who shows up in every film, seemingly knowing all the answers without any real intuitive analysis of the people he's with . . . or himself.