Well then, Sweet-pants, what are you trying to say? It seems to me, Sugar-buns, that you keep saying it’s not very exciting for the protagonist be the chaser, not the chasee.
You were asked, Honey-lips, whether you were a film-student, not what you did for a living, or what your degree was in.
So, Fancy-butt, if you could stop being so condescending, perhaps we could discuss this like adults.
Not a long time Bond fan, so not sure how worthy my opinion is, but I thoroughly enjoyed the flick like I knew I would.
Loved the parcour, the campiness, Craig. And it definitely catered to the female fans (there were plenty at the theatre I went to), or maybe it’s just catering to Hollywood’s current obsession with fetishizing the male bod, which I fully support.
You’re angry. Be calm.
If I were any calmer, I’d be dead.
You mean the one where the car stops in mid-air, goes backwards and then forwards again, all to the accompaniment of a slide whistle? Yeah, that’s crap, and I say that as an AMC fan. However, that has nothing to do with the chase in the current film. That chase was exciting, just like in Blade Runner when Deckard goes after Zora.
I certainly agree with you there. This is a Bond film aimed firmly at the female and gay constituencies. Personally, I think that’s the influence of Barbara Brocolli and the two exceptionally camp screenwriters coming through. Whether the traditional Bond audience of 12-28 year old males will respond positively is moot. Perhaos this new breakthrough audience will sustain the franchise.
We didn’t have the slide whistle in the soundtrack of the British version. I think that was just for American audiences who are traditionally less advanced. So they would ‘get it’.
Well don’t let me stop you, sugar.
It may be the fetishizing part, as the box office stats are saying the audience for last weekend was 55% male (and mostly over 25, which doesn’t surprise me at all).
From Cranston’s post: The free jumping episode broke every canon of cinematographic progression. Firstly, the villain swanned through it FIRST. in other words, all the thrills and spills to which we were exposed were initiated and completed by him before Bond did them again. Actually, we’ve established that Bond usually doesn’t do the exact same thing the jumper does, so there are elements of surprise in the chase, based on his ability to improvise. Point not valid.Secondly the villain was not set up to be some kind of free-jumping genius (in which case we could have at least admired Bond for keeping up with him). He was just a tramp with a bad face watching a street circus. Bond, for god’s sake, is supposed to he a trained athlete even if he is a new 00 agent. Catching up with the villain should have been a cakewalk. You want backstory on the jumper? And just because Bond is a “trained athlete” automatically means someone can’t be more agile than he? Especially someone who, you know, lives in that environment and may know about ways/directions to elude his pursuer? Frankly, this line of thinking is thoroughly non-sensical.Thirdly Bond is never in peril (not until he gets to the embassy) but the villain is. But we’re supposed to be identifying, aren’t we?, with the hero. I guess the danger of plummeting to his death or making nervy leaps hundreds of feet off the ground don’t qualify as “peril”. And the notion that we automatically must identify with whomever is in more peril is spurious at best.Fourthly, there is no suspense because it’s not Bond being chased.This is probably the most absurd and ridiculous “argument” in your arsenal. The film makers haven’t established any macguffin to explain why it’s a serious matter if Bond catches him or not. So you want a macguffin with motivation? That’s exactly what a macguffin isn’t! The jumper is established as a Bad Guy who Must Not Get Away. At the beginning of the film, when first laying out the story, what more do you need? The backpack’s contents soon reveal what was so important about him.These are basic, stupid film-making mistakes.I’m not a big fan of the film, but if what you say is true (which, sorry, it isn’t), more than half of the Bond franchise is guilty of much worse infractions than this particular “example”.
Cranston, light strand, anyone else taking part in this brouhaha… cool it. Cafe Society is not the forum to take shots at one another; if you want to do that, take it to the Pit.
And, cranston, you were already advised–even if unofficially–to knock it off. Please consider this to be an official request since the first one failed to change anything.
Also, if any of you feel you’re being insulted in this forum, the proper thing to do is to report the post and let the mods handle it. Returning the insults will only get you warned as well. Attacking the work or the artist is within the rules; attacking one another is not.
Agreed. The suspense and the humour, to me, came from the fact that Bond, although physically fit, is not an expert in parkour (FYI the villain is played by parkour pioneerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastien_Foucan]Sebastien Foucan). Also, you know, dangling from great heights and all that. I liked seeing him slip a bit.
No, ‘we’ didn’t establish that.
I’m sorry, that’s not so.
I know I’m supposed to be suspending disbelief and all that, but one thing that drives me nuts, that seems to be a recurring theme in Bond movies, is that someone removes the magazine from a pistol and returns the pistol to its place, and then someone tries to shoot someone else with that pistol and doesn’t realize there is no magazine until it goes “click”. A fully loaded magazine weighs as much as or more than the gun itself. An empty magazine throws off the balance of the gun. Anyone who has ever held a gun could tell immediately upon picking one up that the magazine was empty/missing. Yet Bond does not notice this in Die Another Day, nor does the villain at the beginning of Casino Royale. It just bothers me.
I was very skeptical of Craig as Bond, but it worked. I liked the re-booting of the franchise, and I like the realistic angle of Bond. And, no, I didn’t like Dalton’s Bond at all. However, while I liked the movie, it wasn’t the best. It’s serious flaw came towards the last third beginning where Bond turns over his Aston Marton. It wouldn’t happen in 1964, it’s not going to happen in 2006 (at least not like it happened in the movies).
If the producers are going to reboot the franchise, then the last third of the movie makes sense (establishing/reinforcing the issues of trust, love, revenge and the cold-hearted ruthlessness that is Bond). However, they probably could’ve done it in about 10 mins (or about the time we see him falling in love). The last villan and the way it plays out was way too long. However, I like the bit of cold-hearted revenge that was implied at the end (still it could’ve taken 10 mins to get there).
I’m not sure what’s “not so,” but should you choose to elaborate, please do so in the Pit. The Pit is the forum for all complaints/comments about moderator rulings.
In the meantime, non-compliance with moderator directions and any future attacks on other posters will merit further warnings.
Please follow mod guidelines and do not continue this subject in this thread.
I see you’ve chosen to be a jerk, cranston. If you want to continue on with your posting privileges intact, I suggest that you refrain from further comment in this thread and go play (nicely) in another thread. Further debate or hijacking on your part in this thread is ill-advised and will result in yet another warning and may, in turn, lead to a suspension of your account.
Please don’t be confrontational. Please don’t use personal insults. Allow this thread to get back on track.
One of the things that struck me as interesting about this movie was that the writers and producers insisted that the plot was an attempt to remain faithful to the original book.
For example, the car crash in the film is caused by Bond seeing Vesper tied up in the middle of the road. In the film , it’s actually her; in the book, it’s a dummy that Bond actually runs over. Also - the death of Le Chiffre. In both the book and the film a mysterious ‘enemy of le chiffre’ arrives and just kills him at the moment he is about to kill Bond. Personally I would have found almost any other demise for the chief villain to be more satisfying than this deus ex machina.