|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » CASINO ROYALE script review
| CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218960] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 13:12 |
|
http://latinoreview.com/scriptreview.php?id=19
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas can't help taking a peak."
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218961 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 13:14 |
|
***SPOILER***
The idea for the credit sequence looks pretty good.
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas is really looking forward to November."
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218964 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 14:03 |
|
But the enemy are boring arms dealers etc.
Surely Bond needs to face a new SPECTRE type organization?
LLC
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218969 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 14:59 |
|
Mac wrote:
> http://latinoreview.com/scriptreview.php?id=19
>
--- Hard to say how those first 39 pages will play out on screen
because of a lot of variables. The impression I got by the description
is that it sounded a bit too "busy", which is the problem with all of
Purvis and Wade's Bond's scripts. Seems like there's too much going on
with too many characters, and needlessly so, to set up things when less
would be more. The "kickass" start of the first third could be the
downfall for the film as a whole as the next third slows down with the
game and the final third probably slows down even more with the
romance. Not to say it can't work, anything's possible I always say,
but if you sort of begin with the climax [all the action stuff] and
then work your way down from there, the non-action stuff had better be
tension-ridden with the game and emotionally intense with the romance
to compensate for the absence of high-octane action so that the viewer
can maintain about the same level of interest or involvement throughout
the whole film, otherwise it's just not going to work. Is Martin
Campbell even a capable enough director to pull off filming three
differently-paced films into one seamless one? I guess we'll just have
to wait and see how the final cut will look.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218970 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 15:20 |
|
"The impression I got by the description
is that it sounded a bit too "busy", which is the problem with all of
Purvis and Wade's Bond's scripts. Seems like there's too much going on
with too many characters, and needlessly so, to set up things when less
would be more. "
I wroe the same thing on IMDB:
"The plot sounds rather complicated too. I can imagine the screenplay
has been endlessly rewritten. You can tell by reading the outline. Bond
follows this guy, meets that guy, does this, does that, M is here, then
she's out there, Bond is a good guy then he's not, then he is. More
complex narrative than some of the other Bond plots."
(for I am net geek 2 over there)
You can tell when a screenplay has been rewritten to the nth degree.
It's full of loads of characters or complex narrative. The early drafts
are often the most loose, and have the most clean narrrative. Once
someone else get the screenplay, they start adding new characters, new
scenes and it get very complicated. M is here, then she's there and oh
look, now she's in the Bahamas! LOL
LLC
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218971 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 15:21 |
|
"The impression I got by the description
is that it sounded a bit too "busy", which is the problem with all of
Purvis and Wade's Bond's scripts. Seems like there's too much going on
with too many characters, and needlessly so, to set up things when less
would be more. "
I wrote the same thing on IMDB:
"The plot sounds rather complicated too. I can imagine the screenplay
has been endlessly rewritten. You can tell by reading the outline. Bond
follows this guy, meets that guy, does this, does that, M is here, then
she's out there, Bond is a good guy then he's not, then he is. More
complex narrative than some of the other Bond plots."
(for I am net geek 2 over there)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/board/thread/35889562?d= 35892050#35892050
You can tell when a screenplay has been rewritten to the nth degree.
It's full of loads of characters or complex narrative. The early drafts
are often the most loose, and have the most clean narrrative. Once
someone else get the screenplay, they start adding new characters, new
scenes and it gets very complicated. M is here, then she's there and oh
look, now she's in the Bahamas! LOL
LLC
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218974 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 15:56 |
|
Talking of about a complex 'busy' screenplay, if that script report is
accurate:
SPOILER ALERT!
CR is set in London, Bahamas, Miami, Gulu in Uganda, Lahore in
Pakistan, Madagascar and Montenegro.
Seems a lot of stuff to cram into a Bond film! But I guess other Bond
films have had many locations. Moonraker seemed to be all over the
place!
LLC
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218975 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 16:46 |
|
Mac wrote:
> ***SPOILER***
>
>
>
> The idea for the credit sequence looks pretty good.
> --
> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas is really looking forward to November."
"Overall, a fantastic read and quite the origin story although
contemporized, which may piss off some fans but for me the story works
because the cold war is over after all. I have a feeling that if Ian
Fleming were alive, he would contemporize the story also to go with
today's times. As of this writing, they still haven't cast the part of
Vesper and Le Chiffre. They are probably shooting the big action set
pieces and chase scenes from Act I that don't require either Vesper or
Le Chiffre."
WOW! An actual story set-up that involves character and conflict. Bond
and M are actually cross with each other.
Really looking forward to it!
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218978 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 17:03 |
|
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote
> The "kickass" start of the first third could be the
> downfall for the film as a whole as the next third slows down with the
> game and the final third probably slows down even more with the
> romance. Not to say it can't work, anything's possible I always say,
> but if you sort of begin with the climax [all the action stuff] and
> then work your way down from there, the non-action stuff had better be
> tension-ridden
It worked for The Empire Strikes Back.
--
Redemption 07 - B5 B7 and Beyond, 23-25 February 2007.
http://www.smof.com/redemption
"Do you wanna continue this theological discussion in the car, or at the
jailhouse with the cops?" [Vincent Vega]
Book At Bedtime: Goldfinger (Ian Fleming)
http://lonemagpie.livejournal.com
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218979 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 17:04 |
|
I hereby rename this movie Casino Reboot.
That is all.
--
Redemption 07 - B5 B7 and Beyond, 23-25 February 2007.
http://www.smof.com/redemption
"Do you wanna continue this theological discussion in the car, or at the
jailhouse with the cops?" [Vincent Vega]
Book At Bedtime: Goldfinger (Ian Fleming)
http://lonemagpie.livejournal.com
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218981 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 17:28 |
|
David A McIntee wrote:
> I hereby rename this movie Casino Reboot.
>
> That is all.
>
>
> --
> Redemption 07 - B5 B7 and Beyond, 23-25 February 2007.
> http://www.smof.com/redemption
>
> "Do you wanna continue this theological discussion in the car, or at the
> jailhouse with the cops?" [Vincent Vega]
>
> Book At Bedtime: Goldfinger (Ian Fleming)
>
> http://lonemagpie.livejournal.com
The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
say that about?
It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218983 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 17:49 |
|
JHause wrote:
>
> The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> say that about?
>
> It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
> for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
> to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
--- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
it to work with.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218984 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 17:58 |
|
WQ wrote:
> JHause wrote:
>
> >
> > The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> > good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> > say that about?
> >
> > It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
> > for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> > characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
> > to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
>
> --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
> reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
> Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
> all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
> by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
> first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
> any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
> win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
> see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
> it to work with.
You stand by your opinion based on three minutes of "Tomb Raider."
Thanks for the input.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218986 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 17:58 |
|
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote
> The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> say that about?
Oh, I certainly agree it sounds fab - just the right level of new angle-ness
about it.
I still dunno about Daniel Craig (just saw his TV debut in Drop The Dead
Donkey the other day!) but everything else I hear about the movie makes me
look forward to it.
--
Redemption 07 - B5 B7 and Beyond, 23-25 February 2007.
http://www.smof.com/redemption
"Do you wanna continue this theological discussion in the car, or at the
jailhouse with the cops?" [Vincent Vega]
Book At Bedtime: Goldfinger (Ian Fleming)
http://lonemagpie.livejournal.com
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218987 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 18:06 |
|
WQ wrote:
> JHause wrote:
>
>
>>The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
>>good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
>>say that about?
>>
>>It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
>>for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
>>characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
>>to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
>
>
> --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
> reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
> Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
> all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
> by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
> first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
> any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
> win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
> see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
> it to work with.
>
And if it was trashing the CR script, would you offer the same cautions?
Doubtful. From what I can figure of the plot from the review, I'm pumped.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218988 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 18:06 |
|
JHause wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > JHause wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> > > good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> > > say that about?
> > >
> > > It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
> > > for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> > > characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
> > > to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
> >
> > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
> > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
> > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
> > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
> > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
> > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
> > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
> > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
> > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
> > it to work with.
>
> You stand by your opinion based on three minutes of "Tomb Raider."
> Thanks for the input.
--- Was that how long he was in it? I still can't recall what part he
played. But the opinion is also based on 2 hours of Layer Cake and
about the 10 or 15 minutes he was in Road to Perdition. Hasn't won me
over yet with what he's done.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218989 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 18:15 |
|
David A McIntee wrote:
> "JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote
> > The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> > good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> > say that about?
>
> Oh, I certainly agree it sounds fab - just the right level of new angle-ness
> about it.
>
> I still dunno about Daniel Craig (just saw his TV debut in Drop The Dead
> Donkey the other day!) but everything else I hear about the movie makes me
> look forward to it.
>
>
> --
> Redemption 07 - B5 B7 and Beyond, 23-25 February 2007.
> http://www.smof.com/redemption
>
> "Do you wanna continue this theological discussion in the car, or at the
> jailhouse with the cops?" [Vincent Vega]
>
> Book At Bedtime: Goldfinger (Ian Fleming)
>
> http://lonemagpie.livejournal.com
Yeah. Another nice aspect is that they're finally remembering after 15
years of "Thunderball" retreads that a government issuing a license to
kill might actually be CONTROVERSIAL. Which you'd think they'd
remember, as it's THE POINT OF THE CHARACTER. Heck, in some of the
films he's walking around like a friggin' celebrity. "THE James
Bond???" "Is he?" "Are you?" "And I'm Dick Tracy." Nice undercover
work, James.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218990 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 18:17 |
|
WQ wrote:
> JHause wrote:
> > WQ wrote:
> > > JHause wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> > > > good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> > > > say that about?
> > > >
> > > > It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
> > > > for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> > > > characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
> > > > to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
> > >
> > > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
> > > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
> > > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
> > > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
> > > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
> > > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> > > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
> > > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
> > > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
> > > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
> > > it to work with.
> >
> > You stand by your opinion based on three minutes of "Tomb Raider."
> > Thanks for the input.
>
> --- Was that how long he was in it? I still can't recall what part he
> played. But the opinion is also based on 2 hours of Layer Cake and
> about the 10 or 15 minutes he was in Road to Perdition. Hasn't won me
> over yet with what he's done.
Yes. Youe script review of "Casino Royale" is that you didn't like
"Layer Cake." You're an idiot.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218991 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 18:21 |
|
Paul Clarke wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > JHause wrote:
> >
> >>The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> >>good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> >>say that about?
> >>
> >>It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
> >>for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> >>characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
> >>to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
> >
> > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
> > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
> > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
> > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
> > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
> > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
> > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
> > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
> > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
> > it to work with.
> >
>
> And if it was trashing the CR script, would you offer the same cautions?
> Doubtful. From what I can figure of the plot from the review, I'm pumped.
--- If they trashed it but I read something in their summation of it
that I thought could work very well for a Bond film, then I'd be just
as cautious about it. It's not who's praising or trashing it that
counts for me, because I don't know who this guy is who read the script
or what his leanings are, it's what I get out of what I read that
counts. And what I read of his summation of the script led to my
impressions as I described earlier on. But it looks like it doesn't
take much to pump you up.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218992 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 18:22 |
|
JHause wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > JHause wrote:
> > > WQ wrote:
> > > > JHause wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> > > > > good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> > > > > say that about?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
> > > > > for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> > > > > characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
> > > > > to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
> > > >
> > > > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
> > > > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
> > > > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
> > > > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
> > > > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
> > > > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> > > > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
> > > > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
> > > > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
> > > > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
> > > > it to work with.
> > >
> > > You stand by your opinion based on three minutes of "Tomb Raider."
> > > Thanks for the input.
> >
> > --- Was that how long he was in it? I still can't recall what part he
> > played. But the opinion is also based on 2 hours of Layer Cake and
> > about the 10 or 15 minutes he was in Road to Perdition. Hasn't won me
> > over yet with what he's done.
>
> Yes. Youe script review of "Casino Royale" is that you didn't like
> "Layer Cake." You're an idiot.
--- Back to losing a grasp on your mind again, I see.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218993 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 18:24 |
|
WQ wrote:
> Paul Clarke wrote:
> > WQ wrote:
> > > JHause wrote:
> > >
> > >>The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> > >>good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> > >>say that about?
> > >>
> > >>It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
> > >>for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> > >>characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
> > >>to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
> > >
> > > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
> > > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
> > > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
> > > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
> > > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
> > > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> > > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
> > > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
> > > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
> > > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
> > > it to work with.
> > >
> >
> > And if it was trashing the CR script, would you offer the same cautions?
> > Doubtful. From what I can figure of the plot from the review, I'm pumped.
>
> --- If they trashed it but I read something in their summation of it
> that I thought could work very well for a Bond film, then I'd be just
> as cautious about it. It's not who's praising or trashing it that
> counts for me, because I don't know who this guy is who read the script
> or what his leanings are, it's what I get out of what I read that
> counts. And what I read of his summation of the script led to my
> impressions as I described earlier on. But it looks like it doesn't
> take much to pump you up.
SO WHY THE HELL DID YOU READ IT, THEN? WHY ARE YOU HERE?
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218994 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 18:28 |
|
JHause wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > Paul Clarke wrote:
> > > WQ wrote:
> > > > JHause wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> > > >>good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> > > >>say that about?
> > > >>
> > > >>It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
> > > >>for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> > > >>characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
> > > >>to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
> > > >
> > > > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
> > > > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
> > > > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
> > > > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
> > > > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
> > > > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> > > > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
> > > > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
> > > > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
> > > > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
> > > > it to work with.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And if it was trashing the CR script, would you offer the same cautions?
> > > Doubtful. From what I can figure of the plot from the review, I'm pumped.
> >
> > --- If they trashed it but I read something in their summation of it
> > that I thought could work very well for a Bond film, then I'd be just
> > as cautious about it. It's not who's praising or trashing it that
> > counts for me, because I don't know who this guy is who read the script
> > or what his leanings are, it's what I get out of what I read that
> > counts. And what I read of his summation of the script led to my
> > impressions as I described earlier on. But it looks like it doesn't
> > take much to pump you up.
>
> SO WHY THE HELL DID YOU READ IT, THEN? WHY ARE YOU HERE?
--- IT'S A FREE NEWSGROUP! IT'S A FREE COUNTRY! I MEAN, I HAVE TO
TOLERATE YOU TOO, YOU KNOW. DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE TO IRAN OR BOTSWANA!
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218995 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 18:37 |
|
WQ wrote:
> JHause wrote:
> > WQ wrote:
> > > Paul Clarke wrote:
> > > > WQ wrote:
> > > > > JHause wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> > > > >>good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> > > > >>say that about?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
> > > > >>for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> > > > >>characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
> > > > >>to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
> > > > > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
> > > > > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
> > > > > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
> > > > > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
> > > > > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> > > > > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
> > > > > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
> > > > > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
> > > > > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
> > > > > it to work with.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And if it was trashing the CR script, would you offer the same cautions?
> > > > Doubtful. From what I can figure of the plot from the review, I'm pumped.
> > >
> > > --- If they trashed it but I read something in their summation of it
> > > that I thought could work very well for a Bond film, then I'd be just
> > > as cautious about it. It's not who's praising or trashing it that
> > > counts for me, because I don't know who this guy is who read the script
> > > or what his leanings are, it's what I get out of what I read that
> > > counts. And what I read of his summation of the script led to my
> > > impressions as I described earlier on. But it looks like it doesn't
> > > take much to pump you up.
> >
> > SO WHY THE HELL DID YOU READ IT, THEN? WHY ARE YOU HERE?
>
> --- IT'S A FREE NEWSGROUP! IT'S A FREE COUNTRY! I MEAN, I HAVE TO
> TOLERATE YOU TOO, YOU KNOW. DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE TO IRAN OR BOTSWANA!
Yeah, it's a free newsgroup talking about script reviews that you say
you discount, talking about movies that you don't like, and
performances that you can't remember. You come here so that we can
discuss how to either avoid you or call you a moron. Try stamp
collecting or something.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #218998 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 18:50 |
|
JHause wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > JHause wrote:
> > > WQ wrote:
> > > > Paul Clarke wrote:
> > > > > WQ wrote:
> > > > > > JHause wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> > > > > >>good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> > > > > >>say that about?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
> > > > > >>for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> > > > > >>characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
> > > > > >>to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
> > > > > > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
> > > > > > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
> > > > > > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
> > > > > > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
> > > > > > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> > > > > > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
> > > > > > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
> > > > > > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
> > > > > > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
> > > > > > it to work with.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And if it was trashing the CR script, would you offer the same cautions?
> > > > > Doubtful. From what I can figure of the plot from the review, I'm pumped.
> > > >
> > > > --- If they trashed it but I read something in their summation of it
> > > > that I thought could work very well for a Bond film, then I'd be just
> > > > as cautious about it. It's not who's praising or trashing it that
> > > > counts for me, because I don't know who this guy is who read the script
> > > > or what his leanings are, it's what I get out of what I read that
> > > > counts. And what I read of his summation of the script led to my
> > > > impressions as I described earlier on. But it looks like it doesn't
> > > > take much to pump you up.
> > >
> > > SO WHY THE HELL DID YOU READ IT, THEN? WHY ARE YOU HERE?
> >
> > --- IT'S A FREE NEWSGROUP! IT'S A FREE COUNTRY! I MEAN, I HAVE TO
> > TOLERATE YOU TOO, YOU KNOW. DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE TO IRAN OR BOTSWANA!
>
> Yeah, it's a free newsgroup talking about script reviews that you say
> you discount, talking about movies that you don't like, and
> performances that you can't remember. You come here so that we can
> discuss how to either avoid you or call you a moron. Try stamp
> collecting or something.
--- The concept of free speech appears to elude you. You can blabber
inanities but I can't express contrary opinions. Okay. I guess we see
who's the Saddam Hussein-wannabe in this group.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219000 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 19:03 |
|
I clicked on the link, read the supposed script review. My only real
complaint is that I don't like the idea of an "origin" story for Bond.
It's unnecessary, which is why Fleming never gave us one. Background
information is fine, even a flashback to his "first" mission would be
acceptable, but to sell this as "The Beginning of James Bond" is, well,
44 years too late. I prefer, instead, the tried and true method of
side-stepping continuity altogether. I mean, really, other than Sylvia
Trench, Dench's "M," and Cleese's "Q," there have never been any
efforts to establish a sense of succession, and I fail to understand
why we need one now.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219001 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 19:04 |
|
I clicked on the link, read the supposed script review. My only real
complaint is that I don't like the idea of an "origin" story for Bond.
It's unnecessary, which is why Fleming never gave us one. Background
information is fine, even a flashback to his "first" mission would be
acceptable, but to sell this as "The Beginning of James Bond" is, well,
44 years too late. I prefer, instead, the tried and true method of
side-stepping continuity altogether. I mean, really, other than Sylvia
Trench, Dench's "M," and Cleese's "Q," there have never been any
efforts to establish a sense of succession, and I fail to understand
why we need one now.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219006 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 19:30 |
|
WQ wrote:
> JHause wrote:
> > WQ wrote:
> > > JHause wrote:
> > > > WQ wrote:
> > > > > Paul Clarke wrote:
> > > > > > WQ wrote:
> > > > > > > JHause wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> > > > > > >>good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> > > > > > >>say that about?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
> > > > > > >>for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> > > > > > >>characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
> > > > > > >>to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
> > > > > > > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
> > > > > > > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
> > > > > > > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
> > > > > > > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
> > > > > > > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> > > > > > > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
> > > > > > > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
> > > > > > > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
> > > > > > > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
> > > > > > > it to work with.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And if it was trashing the CR script, would you offer the same cautions?
> > > > > > Doubtful. From what I can figure of the plot from the review, I'm pumped.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- If they trashed it but I read something in their summation of it
> > > > > that I thought could work very well for a Bond film, then I'd be just
> > > > > as cautious about it. It's not who's praising or trashing it that
> > > > > counts for me, because I don't know who this guy is who read the script
> > > > > or what his leanings are, it's what I get out of what I read that
> > > > > counts. And what I read of his summation of the script led to my
> > > > > impressions as I described earlier on. But it looks like it doesn't
> > > > > take much to pump you up.
> > > >
> > > > SO WHY THE HELL DID YOU READ IT, THEN? WHY ARE YOU HERE?
> > >
> > > --- IT'S A FREE NEWSGROUP! IT'S A FREE COUNTRY! I MEAN, I HAVE TO
> > > TOLERATE YOU TOO, YOU KNOW. DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE TO IRAN OR BOTSWANA!
> >
> > Yeah, it's a free newsgroup talking about script reviews that you say
> > you discount, talking about movies that you don't like, and
> > performances that you can't remember. You come here so that we can
> > discuss how to either avoid you or call you a moron. Try stamp
> > collecting or something.
>
> --- The concept of free speech appears to elude you. You can blabber
> inanities but I can't express contrary opinions. Okay. I guess we see
> who's the Saddam Hussein-wannabe in this group.
The concept of blow-hard appears to elude you. Free speech means you
CAN post here. Free speech means I can call you a blowhard with your
"creative rights" BS that you obviously don't have a clue about. It's
not about free speech. I'm asking you why, if you don't like the
Broccolis, if you haven't liked a Bond film in forty years, if you
discount script analysis by people who have actually read the script in
deference to your own opinion based on nothing, WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING
TO POST HERE?
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219007 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 19:27 |
|
**SPOILER WARNING**
Since the "OO" designation is a licence to kill. How much sense does it
make that you have to kill two people to get the "OO"?
Also, Bond's personal car was never an Aston Martin. It was always
the car assigned to him. I love Aston Martins. But if they are trying to
return Bond to his roots, he should have won the new Bently sport coupe.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219008 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 19:35 |
|
Min L Shaw wrote:
> I clicked on the link, read the supposed script review. My only real
> complaint is that I don't like the idea of an "origin" story for Bond.
> It's unnecessary, which is why Fleming never gave us one. Background
> information is fine, even a flashback to his "first" mission would be
> acceptable, but to sell this as "The Beginning of James Bond" is, well,
> 44 years too late. I prefer, instead, the tried and true method of
> side-stepping continuity altogether. I mean, really, other than Sylvia
> Trench, Dench's "M," and Cleese's "Q," there have never been any
> efforts to establish a sense of succession, and I fail to understand
> why we need one now.
You have a point. But he IS only talking about the first act, which is
usually just the first 20-25 minutes. He says the second act is mostly
the card game and character development. HELL, THEY'RE EVEN USING THE
CARPET BEATER!
And most importantly, he says it's a good script. He complains about
the style of writing, but when the writer has an Oscar nomination for
each of the last two years, I think you let him write in the style he
wants!
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219009 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 19:35 |
|
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1139593811.763258.303930 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> JHause wrote:
>> WQ wrote:
>> > JHause wrote:
>> > > WQ wrote:
>> > > > Paul Clarke wrote:
>> > > > > WQ wrote:
>> > > > > > JHause wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >>The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a
>> > > > > >>really
>> > > > > >>good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years
>> > > > > >>can you
>> > > > > >>say that about?
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a
>> > > > > >>character arc
>> > > > > >>for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
>> > > > > >>characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson
>> > > > > >>would try
>> > > > > >>to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's
>> > > > > > only one
>> > > > > > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards
>> > > > > > Bond.
>> > > > > > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for
>> > > > > > yourself,
>> > > > > > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still
>> > > > > > stand
>> > > > > > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's
>> > > > > > summation of the
>> > > > > > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
>> > > > > > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting
>> > > > > > than
>> > > > > > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still
>> > > > > > needed to
>> > > > > > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my
>> > > > > > hands to
>> > > > > > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they
>> > > > > > have in
>> > > > > > it to work with.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And if it was trashing the CR script, would you offer the same
>> > > > > cautions?
>> > > > > Doubtful. From what I can figure of the plot from the review,
>> > > > > I'm pumped.
>> > > >
>> > > > --- If they trashed it but I read something in their summation of
>> > > > it
>> > > > that I thought could work very well for a Bond film, then I'd be
>> > > > just
>> > > > as cautious about it. It's not who's praising or trashing it that
>> > > > counts for me, because I don't know who this guy is who read the
>> > > > script
>> > > > or what his leanings are, it's what I get out of what I read that
>> > > > counts. And what I read of his summation of the script led to my
>> > > > impressions as I described earlier on. But it looks like it
>> > > > doesn't
>> > > > take much to pump you up.
>> > >
>> > > SO WHY THE HELL DID YOU READ IT, THEN? WHY ARE YOU HERE?
>> >
>> > --- IT'S A FREE NEWSGROUP! IT'S A FREE COUNTRY! I MEAN, I HAVE TO
>> > TOLERATE YOU TOO, YOU KNOW. DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE TO IRAN OR BOTSWANA!
>>
>> Yeah, it's a free newsgroup talking about script reviews that you say
>> you discount, talking about movies that you don't like, and
>> performances that you can't remember. You come here so that we can
>> discuss how to either avoid you or call you a moron. Try stamp
>> collecting or something.
>
> --- The concept of free speech appears to elude you. You can blabber
> inanities but I can't express contrary opinions. Okay. I guess we see
> who's the Saddam Hussein-wannabe in this group.
>
You are out of line comparing a poster here with Saddam Hussein. Grow up.
Let's keep it civil.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219011 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 19:40 |
|
WQ wrote:
>
> --- If they trashed it but I read something in their summation of it
> that I thought could work very well for a Bond film, then I'd be just
> as cautious about it. It's not who's praising or trashing it that
> counts for me, because I don't know who this guy is who read the script
> or what his leanings are, it's what I get out of what I read that
> counts. And what I read of his summation of the script led to my
> impressions as I described earlier on. But it looks like it doesn't
> take much to pump you up.
No, just a Bond film that goes in a different direction, with actual
characterization.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219012 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 19:41 |
|
Richard B wrote:
> **SPOILER WARNING**
>
>
>
> Since the "OO" designation is a licence to kill. How much sense does it
> make that you have to kill two people to get the "OO"?
>
I don't think it was ever elaborated on in the novels. CR says he had
two kills -- one was the Japanese guy in New York, and the other was
"messier," I think it said.
> Also, Bond's personal car was never an Aston Martin. It was always
> the car assigned to him. I love Aston Martins. But if they are trying to
> return Bond to his roots, he should have won the new Bently sport coupe.
Maybe he does. He wins the Aston in a card game in the first act.
If he doesn't own a Bentley, however, it really doesn't bother me,
because Bentley's are prized by an entirely different class of driver
now, and it might seem odd for a 30-year-old to drive one today.
The other is from Q, which IS in the books.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219013 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 19:42 |
|
Richard B wrote:
>
> **SPOILER WARNING**
>
>
>
> Since the "OO" designation is a licence to kill. How much sense does it
> make that you have to kill two people to get the "OO"?
>
Perhaps it should be 3: Once is coincidence; twice is happenstance; the
third time is enemy action.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219014 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 19:52 |
|
Will wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1139593811.763258.303930 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > JHause wrote:
> >> WQ wrote:
> >> > JHause wrote:
> >> > > WQ wrote:
> >> > > > Paul Clarke wrote:
> >> > > > > WQ wrote:
> >> > > > > > JHause wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >>The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a
> >> > > > > >>really
> >> > > > > >>good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years
> >> > > > > >>can you
> >> > > > > >>say that about?
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a
> >> > > > > >>character arc
> >> > > > > >>for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> >> > > > > >>characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson
> >> > > > > >>would try
> >> > > > > >>to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's
> >> > > > > > only one
> >> > > > > > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards
> >> > > > > > Bond.
> >> > > > > > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for
> >> > > > > > yourself,
> >> > > > > > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still
> >> > > > > > stand
> >> > > > > > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's
> >> > > > > > summation of the
> >> > > > > > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> >> > > > > > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting
> >> > > > > > than
> >> > > > > > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still
> >> > > > > > needed to
> >> > > > > > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my
> >> > > > > > hands to
> >> > > > > > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they
> >> > > > > > have in
> >> > > > > > it to work with.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > And if it was trashing the CR script, would you offer the same
> >> > > > > cautions?
> >> > > > > Doubtful. From what I can figure of the plot from the review,
> >> > > > > I'm pumped.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --- If they trashed it but I read something in their summation of
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > that I thought could work very well for a Bond film, then I'd be
> >> > > > just
> >> > > > as cautious about it. It's not who's praising or trashing it that
> >> > > > counts for me, because I don't know who this guy is who read the
> >> > > > script
> >> > > > or what his leanings are, it's what I get out of what I read that
> >> > > > counts. And what I read of his summation of the script led to my
> >> > > > impressions as I described earlier on. But it looks like it
> >> > > > doesn't
> >> > > > take much to pump you up.
> >> > >
> >> > > SO WHY THE HELL DID YOU READ IT, THEN? WHY ARE YOU HERE?
> >> >
> >> > --- IT'S A FREE NEWSGROUP! IT'S A FREE COUNTRY! I MEAN, I HAVE TO
> >> > TOLERATE YOU TOO, YOU KNOW. DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE TO IRAN OR BOTSWANA!
> >>
> >> Yeah, it's a free newsgroup talking about script reviews that you say
> >> you discount, talking about movies that you don't like, and
> >> performances that you can't remember. You come here so that we can
> >> discuss how to either avoid you or call you a moron. Try stamp
> >> collecting or something.
> >
> > --- The concept of free speech appears to elude you. You can blabber
> > inanities but I can't express contrary opinions. Okay. I guess we see
> > who's the Saddam Hussein-wannabe in this group.
> >
>
> You are out of line comparing a poster here with Saddam Hussein. Grow up.
> Let's keep it civil.
Yeah, WQ. Let's keep the argument to you claiming I limit your free
speech by calling you a blow-hard.
I'm fine with him calling me Hussein. It beats having to read his
interpretation of creative rights and theories on "genital
perspectives."
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219015 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 19:58 |
|
JHause wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > JHause wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a really
> > > > > > > >>good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years can you
> > > > > > > >>say that about?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a character arc
> > > > > > > >>for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> > > > > > > >>characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson would try
> > > > > > > >>to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's only one
> > > > > > > > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards Bond.
> > > > > > > > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for yourself,
> > > > > > > > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still stand
> > > > > > > > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's summation of the
> > > > > > > > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> > > > > > > > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting than
> > > > > > > > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still needed to
> > > > > > > > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my hands to
> > > > > > > > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they have in
> > > > > > > > it to work with.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And if it was trashing the CR script, would you offer the same cautions?
> > > > > > > Doubtful. From what I can figure of the plot from the review, I'm pumped.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- If they trashed it but I read something in their summation of it
> > > > > > that I thought could work very well for a Bond film, then I'd be just
> > > > > > as cautious about it. It's not who's praising or trashing it that
> > > > > > counts for me, because I don't know who this guy is who read the script
> > > > > > or what his leanings are, it's what I get out of what I read that
> > > > > > counts. And what I read of his summation of the script led to my
> > > > > > impressions as I described earlier on. But it looks like it doesn't
> > > > > > take much to pump you up.
> > > > >
> > > > > SO WHY THE HELL DID YOU READ IT, THEN? WHY ARE YOU HERE?
> > > >
> > > > --- IT'S A FREE NEWSGROUP! IT'S A FREE COUNTRY! I MEAN, I HAVE TO
> > > > TOLERATE YOU TOO, YOU KNOW. DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE TO IRAN OR BOTSWANA!
> > >
> > > Yeah, it's a free newsgroup talking about script reviews that you say
> > > you discount, talking about movies that you don't like, and
> > > performances that you can't remember. You come here so that we can
> > > discuss how to either avoid you or call you a moron. Try stamp
> > > collecting or something.
> >
> > --- The concept of free speech appears to elude you. You can blabber
> > inanities but I can't express contrary opinions. Okay. I guess we see
> > who's the Saddam Hussein-wannabe in this group.
>
> The concept of blow-hard appears to elude you. Free speech means you
> CAN post here. Free speech means I can call you a blowhard with your
> "creative rights" BS that you obviously don't have a clue about. It's
> not about free speech. I'm asking you why, if you don't like the
> Broccolis, if you haven't liked a Bond film in forty years, if you
> discount script analysis by people who have actually read the script in
> deference to your own opinion based on nothing, WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING
> TO POST HERE?
--- Who says this group is just for appeasers and ass-kissers? People
can care about something enough to criticize it. I care about seeing
what makes Bond work, but if the people who are in charge aren't doing
it right from my p.o.v., then I can call it as I see it. Who says
you're any more right than I am? If you want to ass-kiss EON, go
ahead, fine by me, I'll let you lick 'em up as much as you want. But
if I see they're on the wrong track, I'm not going to hold back. Why
should I? And that's what free speech is all about, criticizing as
well as praising whether or not you like to read either one. You can
praise, I can criticize = free speech. As for the guy who read the
Bond script, again the question is: who is this guy? What's his own
Bond leanings? How old is he? And did he really read a Bond script or
is it just a prank? How do you know? You don't. But we're playing
along just the same. You see what you want to see in what the guy said
about the script, I scrutinize [and not just see] what should be
scrutinized based on my past viewing experiences of Bond films. You
arrive at your conclusion, I arrive at mine. They're both going to be
different to whatever degree. That's free speech. It's not about what
you just want to read and accept. You've got take the good, the bad
and the ugly when it comes to free speech. I take it coming from you,
so be a man and take it from me too.
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219016 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 20:10 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- Who says this group is just for appeasers and ass-kissers?
HUH? to WHO???
> People
> can care about something enough to criticize it. I care about seeing
> what makes Bond work, but if the people who are in charge aren't doing
> it right from my p.o.v., then I can call it as I see it.
Again.... SO WHY ARE YOU POSTING HERE?
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219018 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 20:23 |
|
Paul Clarke wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> >
> > --- If they trashed it but I read something in their summation of it
> > that I thought could work very well for a Bond film, then I'd be just
> > as cautious about it. It's not who's praising or trashing it that
> > counts for me, because I don't know who this guy is who read the script
> > or what his leanings are, it's what I get out of what I read that
> > counts. And what I read of his summation of the script led to my
> > impressions as I described earlier on. But it looks like it doesn't
> > take much to pump you up.
>
> No, just a Bond film that goes in a different direction, with actual
> characterization.
--- But remember, that's what they said about DAD: characterization in
the first half, but then a quagmire of stunts and special effects
followed in the second. Are they planning on the reverse this time
around with CR?
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219019 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 20:24 |
|
JHause wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > --- Who says this group is just for appeasers and ass-kissers?
>
> HUH? to WHO???
>
> > People
> > can care about something enough to criticize it. I care about seeing
> > what makes Bond work, but if the people who are in charge aren't doing
> > it right from my p.o.v., then I can call it as I see it.
>
>
> Again.... SO WHY ARE YOU POSTING HERE?
--- Just to irritate you. Just to irritate you. Happy?
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219020 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 20:27 |
|
JHause wrote:
> Richard B wrote:
> > **SPOILER WARNING**
> >
> >
> >
> > Since the "OO" designation is a licence to kill. How much sense does it
> > make that you have to kill two people to get the "OO"?
> >
>
>From the novel:
Bond frowned. 'It's not difficult to get a Double O number if you're
prepared to kill people,' he said. 'That's all the meaning it has. It's
nothing to be particularly proud of. I've got the corpses of a Japanese
cipher expert in New York and a Norwegian double agent in Stockholm to
thank for being a Double 0. Probably quite decent people. They just got
caught up in the gale of the world like that Yugoslav that Tito bumped
off. It's a confusing business but if it's one's profession, one does
what one's told. How do you like the grated egg with your caviar
|
|
|
| Re: CASINO ROYALE script review [message #219021 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 20:28 |
|
Will wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1139593811.763258.303930 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > JHause wrote:
> >> WQ wrote:
> >> > JHause wrote:
> >> > > WQ wrote:
> >> > > > Paul Clarke wrote:
> >> > > > > WQ wrote:
> >> > > > > > JHause wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >>The really cool aspect of the article is that he says it's a
> >> > > > > >>really
> >> > > > > >>good script -- and how many Bond scripts in the last 20 years
> >> > > > > >>can you
> >> > > > > >>say that about?
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>It's probably the first Bond script in a long time with a
> >> > > > > >>character arc
> >> > > > > >>for Bond, since maybe LTK or even OHMSS. Actual thought-through
> >> > > > > >>characterizations -- who would've guessed Broccoli and Wilson
> >> > > > > >>would try
> >> > > > > >>to improve on their dad's work? NICE!!!
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --- Now, now, don't get too carried away with yourself. It's
> >> > > > > > only one
> >> > > > > > reader's opinion and who knows what his own biasness is towards
> >> > > > > > Bond.
> >> > > > > > Without you actually reading the script itself to judge for
> >> > > > > > yourself,
> >> > > > > > all you're doing is riding a wave of wishful thinking. I still
> >> > > > > > stand
> >> > > > > > by my own initial cautious impressions of the reader's
> >> > > > > > summation of the
> >> > > > > > first third of the script, being that I'm still not sold on it,
> >> > > > > > certainly not by what comes across as more mish-mash concocting
> >> > > > > > than
> >> > > > > > any sort of clear-headed plotting. More convincing is still
> >> > > > > > needed to
> >> > > > > > win me over and it'd be nice to get a copy of the script in my
> >> > > > > > hands to
> >> > > > > > see for myself if there really is anything worthwhile that they
> >> > > > > > have in
> >> > > > > > it to work with.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > And if it was trashing the CR script, would you offer the same
> >> > > > > cautions?
> >> > > > > Doubtful. From what I can figure of the plot from the review,
> >> > > > > I'm pumped.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --- If they trashed it but I read something in their summation of
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > that I thought could work very well for a Bond film, then I'd be
> >> > > > just
> >> > > > as cautious about it. It's not who's praising or trashing it that
> >> > > > counts for me, because I don't know who this guy is who read the
> >> > > > script
> >> > > > or what his leanings are, it's what I get out of what I read that
> >> > > > counts. And what I read of his summation of the script led to my
> >> > > > impressions as I described earlier on. But it looks like it
> >> > > > doesn't
> >> > > > take much to pump you up.
> >> > >
> >> > > SO WHY THE HELL DID YOU READ IT, THEN? WHY ARE YOU HERE?
> >> >
> >> > --- IT'S A FREE NEWSGROUP! IT'S A FREE COUNTRY! I MEAN, I HAVE TO
> >> > TOLERATE YOU TOO, YOU KNOW. DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE TO IRAN OR BOTSWANA!
> >>
> >> Yeah, it's a free newsgroup talking about script reviews that you say
> >> you discount, talking about movies that you don't like, and
> >> performances that you can't remember. You come here so that we can
> >> discuss how to either avoid you or call you a moron. Try stamp
> >> collecting or something.
> >
> > --- The concept of free speech appears to elude you. You can blabber
> > inanities but I can't express contrary opinions. Okay. I guess we see
> > who's the Saddam Hussein-wannabe in this group.
> >
>
> You are out of line comparing a poster here with Saddam Hussein. Grow up.
> Let's keep it civil.
--- You should keep track of the language JHause uses. By comparison,
I'm actually complimenting him calling him that.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Mai 24 21:27:19 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06338 Sekunden |
