220 replies to this topic

[Dekard77]

I agree with the earlier poster about Craig looking a bit old as opposed to seeing a Botox star on screen. Also it does add to Bond toughness and weariness. Sheaefer's is far more stylistic than Meheux but the latter has a good eye for action scenes.
QOS looks extremely fresh, no Bond film has looked that stylistic. The closest I can come to is GF. There is am immediate feeling your watching a movie that of some style. When I watched CR I felt like watching the glory days of TB/Dr.No mixed with OHMSS which is why people who had seen it for the first time liked it so much including casual fans.
Isn't it a bit unfair to use images of Craig in sky dive scene since he is being simulated via industrial fans to give free-fall look?

[Tybre]

I'd take your post more seriously Shark, if you hadnt picked a majority of action shots out of QoS, and then compared them to shots where Craig is not IN MOTION in Casino Royale.

Seems you stacked the deck in your favor there.

To make things fairer, stills from both films, during the early foot chases:

http://screenmusings...ges/CR_0151.jpg
http://screenmusings...ges/CR_0145.jpg
http://screenmusings...ges/CR_0143.jpg
http://screenmusings...ges/CR_0183.jpg
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0238.jpg
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0204.jpg
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0187.jpg
http://screenmusings...es/QoS_0210.jpg

[JimmyBond]

Sorry, I still think the shots from QoS look better.

And isnt it possible that Craig looks a tad older because he has a longer haircut? I know that whenever I get my haircut it makes me look younger than I normally look with longer hair.

[HildebrandRarity]

Really you guys? Let it go, just because you don't like the way he posts doesnt mean you have to get all up in arms about it. At a board I used to visit there was a rule: "Discuss the post, not the poster."

Is it too hard to do that?

I think we should be allowed to have differing opinions. I like Mr Beech and Mr Wint. Why do I like them? Well, because they are 'fans' of the same literary/cinematic character and series who take time out of their schedule to post here. For them to do that is good enough for me to 'like' them is some capacity.

As per the posts, I was merely commenting on the cinematography -and not other posters. My opinion is that Quantum Of Solace is superior in this regard than most other James Bond films.

If people were offended by my 'methods'...well...I really don't know what to say. I'm not ordinarily known as a sensitive man - other than to my dear beloved off-spring.

So...all I can say is don't be offended...and don't take my view on Meheux's work in the Hotel Splendide Limo scene as a personal attack on any poster here at CBn.

Thanks for reading and have a good day.

[tdalton]

I know you're backing up my argument here tdalton, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with your assessment of Casino Royale. I think it's one of the most faithful adaptions of a Fleming novel since OHMSS. Ok so it's updated a bit, and stuff has been added to make it more cinematic. But the moment Bond gets to Montenegro the film follows the book virtually beat for beat.

I don't really see much in the second half of the film that is really all that faithful to Fleming's novel. Sure, the bare bones of the novel are there: the poker game, the torture scene, and the finale line. It's the execution of these things, however, that are not in any way faithful to the novel, and key elements of the novel are left out because they had to front-load the film with bloated action sequences in order to make the transition from the Brosnan Era to the Craig Era.

There's really very little about CASINO ROYALE that is faithful to the novel. The very core of the film is changed, as Le Chiffre in the novel is not a terrorist, as he is in the film. In the novel, he runs a bunch of unsuccessful brothels. By "updating" the film to make Le Chiffre a terrorist (which he is, as he plans the attack in Miami in the film), they're fundamentally changing the Le Chiffre character. What should have been done to update the film would have been to make Le Chiffre involved in a human trafficking operation, and using that to keep his business from the novel running. That change makes things considerably different, and I think that it goes beyond just changing things to make it more cinematic. They take Le Chiffre from being a rather original and interesting villain who is truly desperate, and turn him into a rather generic villain who could really be featured in any other action film and not really miss a beat.

Aside from changing Le Chiffre's scheme, they chop out the entire motivation for Vesper to take her own life in the novel. In the novel, she's scared of Gettler, and that is because he stalks Bond and Vesper during their together. Her fear there is her motivation. We don't get any of that in the film, and it completely changes the entire ending of the film, and makes her death one of convenience for her so that she doesn't have to face MI6 and, more importantly, Bond after they've realized what she had done. If anything, it's her fear of Bond that causes her to do what she does, rather than her fear of Gettler and SMERSH (or QUANTUM, in the case of the film).

There are other significant changes, but I think that these are major enough to say that the film is not a faithful adaptation. Seeing as how they changed the villain's scheme and the entire post-torture segment of the novel, I can't really bring myself to call CASINO ROYALE a faithful adaptation of the novel. It's a good movie, but faithful to Fleming's novel it's not.

[Mr_Wint]

The very core of the film is changed, as Le Chiffre in the novel is not a terrorist, as he is in the film. In the novel, he runs a bunch of unsuccessful brothels. By "updating" the film to make Le Chiffre a terrorist (which he is, as he plans the attack in Miami in the film), they're fundamentally changing the Le Chiffre character. What should have been done to update the film would have been to make Le Chiffre involved in a human trafficking operation, and using that to keep his business from the novel running. That change makes things considerably different, and I think that it goes beyond just changing things to make it more cinematic. They take Le Chiffre from being a rather original and interesting villain who is truly desperate, and turn him into a rather generic villain who could really be featured in any other action film and not really miss a beat.

Fleming was still experimenting and I don't think he got the character completely "right". Brothels? Please! No class at all. As for the films, I hope we will never see human trafficking or prostitution in a Bondfilm. Despite Daniel Craig, they should try to maintain some class and dignity to Bond's adventures.

The version of Le Chiffre that we got in the 2006 film is ok, but nothing special. I would've been more happy with someone slightly older and less good-looking. And some actual character development wouldn't hurt either. However, in this era of terrible dull villains, Mikkelsen's villain seems like a strike of genius so I am not going to complain.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Despite Daniel Craig, they should try to maintain some class and dignity to Bond's adventures.

Hey, what the hell? We're discussing Schaefer's cinematography, not attacking the current Bond! Based on your posts, it certainly seems as if it is you, sir, who has no class. For shame, Wint!

[HildebrandRarity]

We have to give Mr Wint the benifit of the doubt.

I am sure he didn't meant it the way he wrote it out.

Right, Mr Wint?

[tdalton]

[edit]

[The Shark]

This thread's getting weirder and weirder.

[blueman]

I blame Mikey. Or Babs. Really really hope they get their ducks in a row for 23, the series is in a sad, sad spot right now.

Oh wait...