Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three"

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

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three"

Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224915]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 22:06

jeffwahlman

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117938269?categoryid=19&am p;cs=1&s=h&p=0

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224916 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 22:10

phil.gerrard1

Just to get it in before the oh-so-predictable carping starts:
Fleming's Dr No was bald whereas his Blofeld wasn't, his Largo had wavy
black hair and no eyepatch, his Leiter was a blond Texan, etc, etc,
etc...

Best

Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224917 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 22:22

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Just to get it in before the oh-so-predictable carping starts:
> Fleming's Dr No was bald whereas his Blofeld wasn't, his Largo had wavy
> black hair and no eyepatch, his Leiter was a blond Texan, etc, etc,
> etc...

--- Yeah, but come on, this is a real stretch. From what's supposed to
be the equivalent of the homely, pasty-faced Michelin tire man to the
equivalent of a dashing, slick GQ model? Really. But it all does seem
to be falling in line with the "faithful" version of CR EON intends to
deliver: a blond Bond, a female M, a boy toy-looking villain, multiple
characters not in the book, book characters not in the movie.... At
this rate, I won't be surprised if they choose an Australian aborigine
runway model for Vesper Lynd [they already might've been close to that
with Thandie Newton, or whatever her name is].

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224918 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 22:31

booby

"a blond Bond"

Craig is most definitely dark - dark hair and dark eyebrows:

http://www.ct24.cz/.multimedia/.img/1140031471_craig.jpg

So the blonde Bond never happened, I'm happy to say.:)

LLC

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224919 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 22:36

La La Cupcake (the unknown teletubby) wrote:
> "a blond Bond"
>
> Craig is most definitely dark - dark hair and dark eyebrows:
>
> http://www.ct24.cz/.multimedia/.img/1140031471_craig.jpg
>
> So the blonde Bond never happened, I'm happy to say.:)
>
> LLC

--- It does "seem" darker, but more toward brown than black, though it
could be the lighting effect in the room too and he may still be blond.
But I think they should really pick the bald guy on the left as Le
Chiffre - or is that the director?

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224920 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 22:40

booby

Actually, WQ has a point. If I recall, in Fleming's book Bond was
fairly disgusted by Le Chiffre's appearance. He was an unattractive man
and this was something Bond picked up on, so this Mikklesen chap is
most definitely a different look. He doesn't look like the Fleming's Le
Chiffre or rather the image the reader gets from reading the book. But
times change and I guess the producers want someone who is more Bond's
equal.

LLC

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224921 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 22:44

booby

"But I think they should really pick the bald guy on the left as Le
Chiffre - or is that the director? "

When I first saw the October press conference I was slightly taken
aback when I saw Martin Campbell sans hair! The last ten years have
been a bit harsh on his head.:)

LLC

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224922 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 22:54

Will Traynor

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1140037858.251749.256210 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Just to get it in before the oh-so-predictable carping starts:
> Fleming's Dr No was bald whereas his Blofeld wasn't, his Largo had wavy
> black hair and no eyepatch, his Leiter was a blond Texan, etc, etc,
> etc...
>
> Best
>
> Phil

Good points, but it didn't stop the whining ;-)

>

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224924 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 22:56

David A McIntee

Interestingly, Thandie Newton says she isn't going in for Vesper cos it's
not her thing - even though she screen tested in December. I imagine this
means they say said "don't call us..."

--
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: Immortal Coil (Jeffrey Lang)

http://lonemagpie.livejournal.com

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224926 ]

Mi, 15 Februar 2006 23:07

Mac

M's house comes with Tanqueray cocktail service - LOL

I've said it before....
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas knows M hasn't had a c*nt all day, drinkstable."

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224938 ]

Do, 16 Februar 2006 03:31

JHause

WQ wrote:
>
> --- Yeah, but come on, this is a real stretch. From what's supposed to
> be the equivalent of the homely, pasty-faced Michelin tire man to the
> equivalent of a dashing, slick GQ model? Really. But it all does seem
> to be falling in line with the "faithful" version of CR EON intends to
> deliver: a blond Bond, a female M, a boy toy-looking villain, multiple
> characters not in the book, book characters not in the movie.... At
> this rate, I won't be surprised if they choose an Australian aborigine
> runway model for Vesper Lynd [they already might've been close to that
> with Thandie Newton, or whatever her name is].
>

Your CR script breaks new ground, too: The original story wasn't
written by an idiot.

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224939 ]

Do, 16 Februar 2006 03:32

JHause

David A McIntee wrote:
> Interestingly, Thandie Newton says she isn't going in for Vesper cos it's
> not her thing - even though she screen tested in December. I imagine this
> means they say said "don't call us..."
>
>
> --
> 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: Immortal Coil (Jeffrey Lang)
>
> http://lonemagpie.livejournal.com

It's been hinted that most of the big name actresses mentioned before
wanted profit participation. There's no way that EON will do that.

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224953 ]

Do, 16 Februar 2006 10:35

phil.gerrard1

JHause quoted WQ as saying:

> >At
> > this rate, I won't be surprised if they choose an Australian aborigine
> > runway model for Vesper Lynd [they already might've been close to that
> > with Thandie Newton, or whatever her name is].

WQ, you're out of my killfile temporarily because I would really,
really like to hear your explanation of this statement.

Since this could be taken as meaning that you don't know who Thandie
Newton is - which in itself would be astonishingly ignorant if it's
true - let me clue you in. She's widely considered to be a fine
actress, a very beautiful woman, and her background (posh British
upbringing, Cambridge degree etc) would seem to fit the role of Vesper
perfectly. There's only one 'inappropriate' quality she would share
with the hypothetical Native Australian model to whom you sneeringly
refer, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what that might be.

However, given that your comprehension skills in recent months haven't
been of the best, I suppose I'd better spell it out for you anyway:
what it seems you're saying is that Vesper should not be played by a
black actress, no matter how good she might be in the role.

The number of EON Bond girls who physically resemble their counterparts
in the novels number no more than one or two at best, so your trusty
'it's not faithful to the novel' argument will cut no ice here. Any
whining and bitching about 'political correctness' (big f***ing yawn)
will just show that you've run out of arguments yet again.

Thandie Newton would be the next worst casting for Vesper after an
'Australian aborigine runway model' because...?

And while we're at it, could you tell me which of the four words
'Australian aborigine runway model' was the one you intended to be the
most insulting?

Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224989 ]

Do, 16 Februar 2006 19:58

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> JHause quoted WQ as saying:
>
> > >At
> > > this rate, I won't be surprised if they choose an Australian aborigine
> > > runway model for Vesper Lynd [they already might've been close to that
> > > with Thandie Newton, or whatever her name is].
>
> WQ, you're out of my killfile temporarily because I would really,
> really like to hear your explanation of this statement.
>
> Since this could be taken as meaning that you don't know who Thandie
> Newton is - which in itself would be astonishingly ignorant if it's
> true - let me clue you in. She's widely considered to be a fine
> actress, a very beautiful woman, and her background (posh British
> upbringing, Cambridge degree etc) would seem to fit the role of Vesper
> perfectly. There's only one 'inappropriate' quality she would share
> with the hypothetical Native Australian model to whom you sneeringly
> refer, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what that might be.

--- Of course I knew who Thandie Newton was, and I didn't think much of
her role in MI:2, nor much of MI:2 itself, though admittedly Craig just
may outclass Cruise as a spy, but then that could be true of any actor.
I just wasn't sure for a second if the spelling I had for her name was
correct, that's all. And I gather you don't take too well to biting
sarcasm when I made that Australian aborigine runway model remark
either. Pity. You lose a lot in what a say that way.

> However, given that your comprehension skills in recent months haven't
> been of the best, I suppose I'd better spell it out for you anyway:
> what it seems you're saying is that Vesper should not be played by a
> black actress, no matter how good she might be in the role.

--- Does it matter anymore who should play any character in CR since
none of them remotely fit any of the descriptions of those in the book?
Clearly, EON is throwing the book out the window while at the same
time pretending to rely on it faithfully. So who cares if Vesper is
black, blue, orange or a Martian now. While on the one hand eschewing
the basic ingredients of CR the book is akin to being a stark admission
of EON's inability to faithfully translate it into a movie, on the
other hand it really does intrigue me more - as negative as I may seem
to be about what's going on - as to how all of this will be pulled off
with any kind of freshness that they seem to be aiming at. What stops
me short of wholeheartedly, or any kind of heartedly, approving what
they're doing is the very likely possibility that EON is only spinning
an illusion of refashioning Bond but what we'll end up seeing is
basically all the same allusions to previous Bonds - Craig acting like
Connery here, Brosnan there, Moore in between, and the plot being
little more than a pastiche of stolen and reworked scenes from previous
Bond films. I personally don't think EON has the balls to convert Bond
into one that Craig can own as his very own, separate and distinct from
the other actors' take on the character. That's what I'd really be
interested in seeing, if EON really is planning on that radical route
at all. However, based on the review of the first third of the script,
which, granted, isn't fair to do, but it's all we've got to go by so
far, I'm not impressed with how it starts off. How they handle Bond
making his first two kills could be interesting to watch, the
description of the main title shots reads like it could be interesting
to watch, and the raved-about though undisclosed description of what
happens on the tarmac at the Miami airport could also be interesting to
watch, but everything else in between reads like typical Purvis & Wade
mish-mash. Who knows how much Haggis will contribute to ironing things
out or whatever, who knows what the next two-thirds of the script reads
like, who knows... In the meantime, any and all reaction can only be
responses to what is known, and until the pieces all come together to
paint a clearer picture of what's really going on, the pieces at hand
aren't painting any real picture that convinces me yet that it's all
moving in a direction that will yield a successful outcome, Craig-wise,
plot-wise, overall-wise. It's all going to depend on whether EON
really does take risks or chickens out and this whole reimagining thing
becomes nothing more than just a figment of their own imagination.

> The number of EON Bond girls who physically resemble their counterparts
> in the novels number no more than one or two at best, so your trusty
> 'it's not faithful to the novel' argument will cut no ice here. Any
> whining and bitching about 'political correctness' (big f***ing yawn)
> will just show that you've run out of arguments yet again.

--- Of course I've mentioned this before, but of course not everybody
picks up on it because not everybody reads every post in this group - I
sure don't, but I think I have rabid stalking fan who goes by the name
of JHause. But let's not get too hung up on the word "faithful" in the
extreme sense here. Faithful in my book does allow for reasonable
differences. While I personally think that actors should look as
faithfully as possible to the lead character[s] of any book, I think
you can be a little looser with subordinate characters. The principle
characters in CR are Bond, Vesper and Le Chiffre, while ongoing
characters are M, Moneypenny, Leiter and, though he's yet to be
introduced anywhere, Mathis. Personally, I feel that there should be
some similarities, if not precise then certainly identifiable, between
at least Bond, Vesper and Le Chiffre and the actors who end up playing
them. For example, what is the real purpose for choosing this Mad
whatever-his-name-is guy to play Le Chiffre, and looking absolutely
nothing like him, when they coudl've gotten any number of actors who
could fit the bill much more closely to the book description of him,
such as Maury Chaykin? Fleming didn't envision Bond confronting a male
model figure of a villain who looks better than himself, he envisioned
a repugnant-looking tub of lard. If you're going to be faithful to
that description, you get an actor who can look repugnant, not a male
model. The repugnancy itself is what adds to Bond's later supposed
chip on his shoulder, the fact that someone as repugnant as Le Chiffre
takes it upon himself to manhandle Bond's manhood with such delight.
That's probably more torture for a heterosexual Bond than the torture
itself. It's not the same when a male model, who can pass for being
female, does it. It may still amount to torture, but it's not as
repugnant coming from a beauty boy, so all the real meaning of that
torture scene risks being lost in the film in that sense.

> Thandie Newton would be the next worst casting for Vesper after an
> 'Australian aborigine runway model' because...?
>
> And while we're at it, could you tell me which of the four words
> 'Australian aborigine runway model' was the one you intended to be the
> most insulting?

--- Sarcasm, Phil. Sarcasm. Get a handle on it. Oh by the way,
thanks for taking me out of your killfile temporarily just for this. I
guess after this I go back into the box, huh?

>
> Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224993 ]

Do, 16 Februar 2006 21:12

Will Traynor

"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1140116331.901708.294150 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>> JHause quoted WQ as saying:
>>
>> > >At
>> > > this rate, I won't be surprised if they choose an Australian
>> > > aborigine
>> > > runway model for Vesper Lynd [they already might've been close to
>> > > that
>> > > with Thandie Newton, or whatever her name is].
>>
>> WQ, you're out of my killfile temporarily because I would really,
>> really like to hear your explanation of this statement.
>>
>> Since this could be taken as meaning that you don't know who Thandie
>> Newton is - which in itself would be astonishingly ignorant if it's
>> true - let me clue you in. She's widely considered to be a fine
>> actress, a very beautiful woman, and her background (posh British
>> upbringing, Cambridge degree etc) would seem to fit the role of Vesper
>> perfectly. There's only one 'inappropriate' quality she would share
>> with the hypothetical Native Australian model to whom you sneeringly
>> refer, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what that might be.
>
> --- Of course I knew who Thandie Newton was, and I didn't think much of
> her role in MI:2, nor much of MI:2 itself, though admittedly Craig just
> may outclass Cruise as a spy, but then that could be true of any actor.
> I just wasn't sure for a second if the spelling I had for her name was
> correct, that's all. And I gather you don't take too well to biting
> sarcasm when I made that Australian aborigine runway model remark
> either. Pity. You lose a lot in what a say that way.
>
>> However, given that your comprehension skills in recent months haven't
>> been of the best, I suppose I'd better spell it out for you anyway:
>> what it seems you're saying is that Vesper should not be played by a
>> black actress, no matter how good she might be in the role.
>
> --- Does it matter anymore who should play any character in CR since
> none of them remotely fit any of the descriptions of those in the book?
> Clearly, EON is throwing the book out the window while at the same
> time pretending to rely on it faithfully. So who cares if Vesper is
> black, blue, orange or a Martian now. While on the one hand eschewing
> the basic ingredients of CR the book is akin to being a stark admission
> of EON's inability to faithfully translate it into a movie, on the
> other hand it really does intrigue me more - as negative as I may seem
> to be about what's going on - as to how all of this will be pulled off
> with any kind of freshness that they seem to be aiming at. What stops
> me short of wholeheartedly, or any kind of heartedly, approving what
> they're doing is the very likely possibility that EON is only spinning
> an illusion of refashioning Bond but what we'll end up seeing is
> basically all the same allusions to previous Bonds - Craig acting like
> Connery here, Brosnan there, Moore in between, and the plot being
> little more than a pastiche of stolen and reworked scenes from previous
> Bond films. I personally don't think EON has the balls to convert Bond
> into one that Craig can own as his very own, separate and distinct from
> the other actors' take on the character. That's what I'd really be
> interested in seeing, if EON really is planning on that radical route
> at all. However, based on the review of the first third of the script,
> which, granted, isn't fair to do, but it's all we've got to go by so
> far, I'm not impressed with how it starts off. How they handle Bond
> making his first two kills could be interesting to watch, the
> description of the main title shots reads like it could be interesting
> to watch, and the raved-about though undisclosed description of what
> happens on the tarmac at the Miami airport could also be interesting to
> watch, but everything else in between reads like typical Purvis & Wade
> mish-mash. Who knows how much Haggis will contribute to ironing things
> out or whatever, who knows what the next two-thirds of the script reads
> like, who knows... In the meantime, any and all reaction can only be
> responses to what is known, and until the pieces all come together to
> paint a clearer picture of what's really going on, the pieces at hand
> aren't painting any real picture that convinces me yet that it's all
> moving in a direction that will yield a successful outcome, Craig-wise,
> plot-wise, overall-wise. It's all going to depend on whether EON
> really does take risks or chickens out and this whole reimagining thing
> becomes nothing more than just a figment of their own imagination.
>
>> The number of EON Bond girls who physically resemble their counterparts
>> in the novels number no more than one or two at best, so your trusty
>> 'it's not faithful to the novel' argument will cut no ice here. Any
>> whining and bitching about 'political correctness' (big f***ing yawn)
>> will just show that you've run out of arguments yet again.
>
> --- Of course I've mentioned this before, but of course not everybody
> picks up on it because not everybody reads every post in this group - I
> sure don't, but I think I have rabid stalking fan who goes by the name
> of JHause. But let's not get too hung up on the word "faithful" in the
> extreme sense here. Faithful in my book does allow for reasonable
> differences. While I personally think that actors should look as
> faithfully as possible to the lead character[s] of any book, I think
> you can be a little looser with subordinate characters. The principle
> characters in CR are Bond, Vesper and Le Chiffre, while ongoing
> characters are M, Moneypenny, Leiter and, though he's yet to be
> introduced anywhere, Mathis. Personally, I feel that there should be
> some similarities, if not precise then certainly identifiable, between
> at least Bond, Vesper and Le Chiffre and the actors who end up playing
> them. For example, what is the real purpose for choosing this Mad
> whatever-his-name-is guy to play Le Chiffre, and looking absolutely
> nothing like him, when they coudl've gotten any number of actors who
> could fit the bill much more closely to the book description of him,
> such as Maury Chaykin?

Maybe because he aced the screen tests over everyone else? Aside from looks
you have to take into consideration the acting. Just curious, but when did
EON say they would be completely faithful to the book? When making a movie,
you can only get so faithful. Since CR by no means resembles a novel that is
easily transferable to the silver screen, being completely faithful wouldn't
cut it for movie audiences. "Somewhat faithful" is about the best you should
hope for, given the source material. Half the book is card playing, so how
long would audiences want that?

> Fleming didn't envision Bond confronting a male
> model figure of a villain who looks better than himself, he envisioned
> a repugnant-looking tub of lard. If you're going to be faithful to
> that description, you get an actor who can look repugnant, not a male
> model. The repugnancy itself is what adds to Bond's later supposed
> chip on his shoulder, the fact that someone as repugnant as Le Chiffre
> takes it upon himself to manhandle Bond's manhood with such delight.
> That's probably more torture for a heterosexual Bond than the torture
> itself. It's not the same when a male model, who can pass for being
> female, does it. It may still amount to torture, but it's not as
> repugnant coming from a beauty boy, so all the real meaning of that
> torture scene risks being lost in the film in that sense.
>

Sorry, but I never considered the male/male sexual repercussions of Bond's
torture. And frankly, I try not to. Did you see photos of Mads Mikkelson ?
He does not look like a female, so I don't know what you are talking about.
Physically, he does not resemble Le Chiffre, but there are ways to make
someone physically unappealing in the films. It's called makeup. Remember
Danny Devito in Batman Returns? Or how about Ralph Fiennes in the Harry
Potter movie? It appears that you have a problem with everything EON is
doing right now, and frankly, it's beginning to be a bit tiresome. Why don't
you wait until you see the movie before making so many assumptions based on
incomplete information? You haven't seen one frame of the film.

>> Thandie Newton would be the next worst casting for Vesper after an
>> 'Australian aborigine runway model' because...?
>>
>> And while we're at it, could you tell me which of the four words
>> 'Australian aborigine runway model' was the one you intended to be the
>> most insulting?
>
> --- Sarcasm, Phil. Sarcasm. Get a handle on it. Oh by the way,
> thanks for taking me out of your killfile temporarily just for this. I
> guess after this I go back into the box, huh?
>
>>
>> Phil
>

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224996 ]

Do, 16 Februar 2006 21:36

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> And I gather you don't take too well to biting
> sarcasm when I made that Australian aborigine runway model remark
> either. Pity. You lose a lot in what a say that way.

I don't have any problem with biting sarcasm but the juxtaposition of
Newton with this hypothetical character looked damn close to being a
racial insult, which I grant may have been inadvertent. Even when
you're being sarcastic - in fact particularly when you're being
sarcastic - it pays to choose your words carefully.

> Clearly, EON is throwing the book out the window while at the same
> time pretending to rely on it faithfully.

Discussed elsewhere. The actors cast of most other Bond films bear
little physical resemblence to their literary counterparts. The films
add scenes, drop others, change those that remain etc. Saying EON are
'clearly' throwing the book out of the window is leaping to conclusions
given that the script summary we've seen covers only the first third of
the book and stops just before the actual adaptation of Fleming's novel
begins.

> What stops
> me short of wholeheartedly, or any kind of heartedly, approving what
> they're doing is the very likely possibility that EON is only spinning
> an illusion of refashioning Bond but what we'll end up seeing is
> basically all the same allusions to previous Bonds - Craig acting like
> Connery here, Brosnan there, Moore in between, and the plot being
> little more than a pastiche of stolen and reworked scenes from previous
> Bond films.

The stolen and reworked scenes mentioned in the script summary
being...? If you can point me to anything there which strikes you as a
reworking of what's gone before, let me know. But be specific. Saying
'M gets pissed off with Bond, as she does in GE', for example, is not
going to convince me.

> It's all going to depend on whether EON
> really does take risks or chickens out and this whole reimagining thing
> becomes nothing more than just a figment of their own imagination.

Unfortunately, I think you've made up your mind about this already and
are looking for things to hate about the film. But I've said that for
a long time and any attempt to get into this discussion will just go
around in circles.

> Personally, I feel that there should be
> some similarities, if not precise then certainly identifiable, between
> at least Bond, Vesper and Le Chiffre and the actors who end up playing
> them.

There aren't even many lead characters in the EON films who truly
resemble the characters as described in the books. There are Honey,
Klebb, Grant, Goldfinger, Oddjob, and um, that's about it. I might
have missed one or maybe two, but I think the point stands that none of
the villains or principal girls in the movies look like their Fleming
originals.

> For example, what is the real purpose for choosing this Mad
> whatever-his-name-is guy to play Le Chiffre, and looking absolutely
> nothing like him,

Um, taking a wild guess, perhaps he was the strongest actor to audition
for the role? That tends to have something to do with it, but always
seems to take second place to looks in your arguments.

> when they coudl've gotten any number of actors who
> could fit the bill much more closely to the book description of him,
> such as Maury Chaykin?

And who says Chaykin was available or wanted the role? You can suggest
as many fantasy castings as you like, but without knowledge of those
actors' availability or willingness to appear in CR, it's a pointless
exercise.

> It's not the same when a male model, who can pass for being
> female, does it.

http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_21_press_confere nce_feb2.php3?t=bond21&s=bond21

If that's your idea of a guy who could pass as female, then to quote
something you said to me once, 'I'll take my women over your women any
day'.

> Oh by the way,
> thanks for taking me out of your killfile temporarily just for this. I
> guess after this I go back into the box, huh?

Nah. I don't like killfiling people 'cause it makes me feel like I've
lost my temper, I don't like hearing about stuff at second or third
hand, and if you make a point I really think requires an answer I don't
want to let it stand because I'm not there to see it. Anybody who
joins this list can see within five seconds that Scojo is a deeply
disturbed troll, but you're plausible and not nearly as stupid as he
is. Well, most of the time. Predictable and repetitive CR-bashing
I'll ignore, I'm not going to get into circular arguments, and
hopefully I'll leave the personal insults alone: everybody here can
make up their own mind about those without my having to prompt them.

Thanks for the courtesy of the explanation.

Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224997 ]

Do, 16 Februar 2006 21:47

phil.gerrard1

Will wrote:
> Sorry, but I never considered the male/male sexual repercussions of Bond's
> torture. And frankly, I try not to.

Not to mention that unless this is to be the first 18-rated Bond film,
EON will have to tone this issue down to a large extent, much as
they've had to tone down most of Fleming's sexually-related material in
the past.

Best

Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224998 ]

Do, 16 Februar 2006 22:22

Will wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1140116331.901708.294150 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> >> JHause quoted WQ as saying:
> >>
> >> > >At
> >> > > this rate, I won't be surprised if they choose an Australian
> >> > > aborigine
> >> > > runway model for Vesper Lynd [they already might've been close to
> >> > > that
> >> > > with Thandie Newton, or whatever her name is].
> >>
> >> WQ, you're out of my killfile temporarily because I would really,
> >> really like to hear your explanation of this statement.
> >>
> >> Since this could be taken as meaning that you don't know who Thandie
> >> Newton is - which in itself would be astonishingly ignorant if it's
> >> true - let me clue you in. She's widely considered to be a fine
> >> actress, a very beautiful woman, and her background (posh British
> >> upbringing, Cambridge degree etc) would seem to fit the role of Vesper
> >> perfectly. There's only one 'inappropriate' quality she would share
> >> with the hypothetical Native Australian model to whom you sneeringly
> >> refer, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what that might be.
> >
> > --- Of course I knew who Thandie Newton was, and I didn't think much of
> > her role in MI:2, nor much of MI:2 itself, though admittedly Craig just
> > may outclass Cruise as a spy, but then that could be true of any actor.
> > I just wasn't sure for a second if the spelling I had for her name was
> > correct, that's all. And I gather you don't take too well to biting
> > sarcasm when I made that Australian aborigine runway model remark
> > either. Pity. You lose a lot in what a say that way.
> >
> >> However, given that your comprehension skills in recent months haven't
> >> been of the best, I suppose I'd better spell it out for you anyway:
> >> what it seems you're saying is that Vesper should not be played by a
> >> black actress, no matter how good she might be in the role.
> >
> > --- Does it matter anymore who should play any character in CR since
> > none of them remotely fit any of the descriptions of those in the book?
> > Clearly, EON is throwing the book out the window while at the same
> > time pretending to rely on it faithfully. So who cares if Vesper is
> > black, blue, orange or a Martian now. While on the one hand eschewing
> > the basic ingredients of CR the book is akin to being a stark admission
> > of EON's inability to faithfully translate it into a movie, on the
> > other hand it really does intrigue me more - as negative as I may seem
> > to be about what's going on - as to how all of this will be pulled off
> > with any kind of freshness that they seem to be aiming at. What stops
> > me short of wholeheartedly, or any kind of heartedly, approving what
> > they're doing is the very likely possibility that EON is only spinning
> > an illusion of refashioning Bond but what we'll end up seeing is
> > basically all the same allusions to previous Bonds - Craig acting like
> > Connery here, Brosnan there, Moore in between, and the plot being
> > little more than a pastiche of stolen and reworked scenes from previous
> > Bond films. I personally don't think EON has the balls to convert Bond
> > into one that Craig can own as his very own, separate and distinct from
> > the other actors' take on the character. That's what I'd really be
> > interested in seeing, if EON really is planning on that radical route
> > at all. However, based on the review of the first third of the script,
> > which, granted, isn't fair to do, but it's all we've got to go by so
> > far, I'm not impressed with how it starts off. How they handle Bond
> > making his first two kills could be interesting to watch, the
> > description of the main title shots reads like it could be interesting
> > to watch, and the raved-about though undisclosed description of what
> > happens on the tarmac at the Miami airport could also be interesting to
> > watch, but everything else in between reads like typical Purvis & Wade
> > mish-mash. Who knows how much Haggis will contribute to ironing things
> > out or whatever, who knows what the next two-thirds of the script reads
> > like, who knows... In the meantime, any and all reaction can only be
> > responses to what is known, and until the pieces all come together to
> > paint a clearer picture of what's really going on, the pieces at hand
> > aren't painting any real picture that convinces me yet that it's all
> > moving in a direction that will yield a successful outcome, Craig-wise,
> > plot-wise, overall-wise. It's all going to depend on whether EON
> > really does take risks or chickens out and this whole reimagining thing
> > becomes nothing more than just a figment of their own imagination.
> >
> >> The number of EON Bond girls who physically resemble their counterparts
> >> in the novels number no more than one or two at best, so your trusty
> >> 'it's not faithful to the novel' argument will cut no ice here. Any
> >> whining and bitching about 'political correctness' (big f***ing yawn)
> >> will just show that you've run out of arguments yet again.
> >
> > --- Of course I've mentioned this before, but of course not everybody
> > picks up on it because not everybody reads every post in this group - I
> > sure don't, but I think I have rabid stalking fan who goes by the name
> > of JHause. But let's not get too hung up on the word "faithful" in the
> > extreme sense here. Faithful in my book does allow for reasonable
> > differences. While I personally think that actors should look as
> > faithfully as possible to the lead character[s] of any book, I think
> > you can be a little looser with subordinate characters. The principle
> > characters in CR are Bond, Vesper and Le Chiffre, while ongoing
> > characters are M, Moneypenny, Leiter and, though he's yet to be
> > introduced anywhere, Mathis. Personally, I feel that there should be
> > some similarities, if not precise then certainly identifiable, between
> > at least Bond, Vesper and Le Chiffre and the actors who end up playing
> > them. For example, what is the real purpose for choosing this Mad
> > whatever-his-name-is guy to play Le Chiffre, and looking absolutely
> > nothing like him, when they coudl've gotten any number of actors who
> > could fit the bill much more closely to the book description of him,
> > such as Maury Chaykin?
>
> Maybe because he aced the screen tests over everyone else? Aside from looks
> you have to take into consideration the acting. Just curious, but when did
> EON say they would be completely faithful to the book? When making a movie,
> you can only get so faithful. Since CR by no means resembles a novel that is
> easily transferable to the silver screen, being completely faithful wouldn't
> cut it for movie audiences. "Somewhat faithful" is about the best you should
> hope for, given the source material. Half the book is card playing, so how
> long would audiences want that?

--- To say that he "aced" the screen tests over everyone else is
meaningless. Who exactly was he up against, other model types? Then
yeah, sure, he's likely to ace the screen tests. And my understanding
of CR being somewhat faithful to the book goes back to one of Martin
Campbell's earlier claims about it being such shortly after he came on
board. When the guy says it, I guess he sort of means it ... no? If
not, then why even say it in the first place? But if one really wanted
to do a "somewhat faithful" film version of the book, it's possible to
do it - so long as you stick to true storytelling in the cinematic
sense and not be distracted by such petty nuisances as trying to appeal
to a younger and ADD-ridden audience expecting CGI overkill in the and
what-have-you in the conveying of that story on screen.

> > Fleming didn't envision Bond confronting a male
> > model figure of a villain who looks better than himself, he envisioned
> > a repugnant-looking tub of lard. If you're going to be faithful to
> > that description, you get an actor who can look repugnant, not a male
> > model. The repugnancy itself is what adds to Bond's later supposed
> > chip on his shoulder, the fact that someone as repugnant as Le Chiffre
> > takes it upon himself to manhandle Bond's manhood with such delight.
> > That's probably more torture for a heterosexual Bond than the torture
> > itself. It's not the same when a male model, who can pass for being
> > female, does it. It may still amount to torture, but it's not as
> > repugnant coming from a beauty boy, so all the real meaning of that
> > torture scene risks being lost in the film in that sense.
> >
>
> Sorry, but I never considered the male/male sexual repercussions of Bond's
> torture. And frankly, I try not to. Did you see photos of Mads Mikkelson ?
> He does not look like a female, so I don't know what you are talking about.
> Physically, he does not resemble Le Chiffre, but there are ways to make
> someone physically unappealing in the films. It's called makeup. Remember
> Danny Devito in Batman Returns? Or how about Ralph Fiennes in the Harry
> Potter movie? It appears that you have a problem with everything EON is
> doing right now, and frankly, it's beginning to be a bit tiresome. Why don't
> you wait until you see the movie before making so many assumptions based on
> incomplete information? You haven't seen one frame of the film.

--- Make-up has value when applied to actors taking on extraordinary
roles, specifically characters that are essentially cartoon or comic
book-based, fairy tale-based, for horror or sci-fi films, or for even
biographical films where an actor is made to appear to look somewhat
like the real person. Le Chiffre is not based on an outrageous comic
book character or cartoon that would require extensive makeup, nor
could he be considered as a horror or sci-fi character in the gory
sense, and he's not a real person, but as a fictional character he is
grounded in being a real kind of person. I don't know what kind of
makeup they could possibly use on Mads to make him resemble, even in
the slightest, Le Chiffre as depicted in the book. And if they are
going to do that, it would seem to be easier to just get a fat man to
play the part - I mean, just think of the time and expense saved by not
having an actor in the makeup chair for hours each and every day. And
if they're not going to use any makeup on the guy, then you know that
EON is just playing fast and loose with CR and it'll probably be just
as faithful, or why not let's just say recognizable, to the book as
TSWLM was.

> >> Thandie Newton would be the next worst casting for Vesper after an
> >> 'Australian aborigine runway model' because...?
> >>
> >> And while we're at it, could you tell me which of the four words
> >> 'Australian aborigine runway model' was the one you intended to be the
> >> most insulting?
> >
> > --- Sarcasm, Phil. Sarcasm. Get a handle on it. Oh by the way,
> > thanks for taking me out of your killfile temporarily just for this. I
> > guess after this I go back into the box, huh?
> >
> >>
> >> Phil
> >

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #224999 ]

Do, 16 Februar 2006 23:22

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > And I gather you don't take too well to biting
> > sarcasm when I made that Australian aborigine runway model remark
> > either. Pity. You lose a lot in what a say that way.
>
> I don't have any problem with biting sarcasm but the juxtaposition of
> Newton with this hypothetical character looked damn close to being a
> racial insult, which I grant may have been inadvertent. Even when
> you're being sarcastic - in fact particularly when you're being
> sarcastic - it pays to choose your words carefully.

--- If you've been contributing to groups long enough, then I think you
should know by now that no matter what is said, sarcasm or otherwise,
it's always going to be misconstrued by somebody. This is a
no-holds-barred arena and people get loose with their words, and
whereas sometimes they may mean something in one sense, it can often be
misinterpreted in an unintended sense. That's the problem with the
written word, especially in groups like this, there are no proper
inflections that can be injected into the writing, it's left up to the
reader to give the content those inflections. I can't help how you end
up reading what I or anybody else writes, it's just up to me to correct
you when you get it wrong. Now, if we were to actually have a
face-to-face verbal conversation, inflections and gestures and all, I
probably wouldn't be surprised if we might actually end up agreeing on
more than you think. But in the meantime, that's the shortcoming of
doing it this way, so if you don't get the sarcasm, then just take
everything I say with a grain of salt.

> > Clearly, EON is throwing the book out the window while at the same
> > time pretending to rely on it faithfully.
>
> Discussed elsewhere. The actors cast of most other Bond films bear
> little physical resemblence to their literary counterparts. The films
> add scenes, drop others, change those that remain etc. Saying EON are
> 'clearly' throwing the book out of the window is leaping to conclusions
> given that the script summary we've seen covers only the first third of
> the book and stops just before the actual adaptation of Fleming's novel
> begins.

--- Yeah, I know all that stuff. But I also know you can be truer to
the source material if you really wanted to be. The first third of the
CR script is largely a fabrication that's not based on anything much
that's recognizable with the book. And to add to that, they go ahead
and ruin one of my favorite images in the CR book by having Bond meet
Vesper in a train rather than at a bar. Just read what happens when
Bond is seated by the window at the Hermitage bar in the book:

"Bond's eye was caught by the tall figure of Mathis on the pavement
outside, his face turned in animation to a dark-haired girl in grey.
His arm was linked in hers, high up above the elbow, and yet there was
a lack of intimacy in their appearance, an ironical chill in the girl's
profile, which made them seem two separate people rather than a
couple."

Now, I don't know about you, but this first sight of Vesper on Bond's
part potentially packs a cinematic image punch that can convey to the
audience so much of what lies ahead for Bond. It begins with Bond
seeing her arm in arm with another man, which itself is almost
treasonous if Bond has already taken a fancy to her. But then he's
assured that the "lack of intimacy" with Mathis gives Bond a chance to
have his own way with her. And that "ironical chill" of hers suggests
some sort of innate barrier or wall about her that he will have to
overcome. It's in the reading of that first impression, of that first
sight of Vesper that, if captured right by a director who knows his
stuff, would give the Bond-Vesper relationship its credence and wallop.
I don't know if you can capture that on a train just as effectively.
Is she going to be walking down the aisle with Mathis, or whomever, arm
in arm to Bond's seat or table, fumbling along the way as the train is
moving? How will he see the "ironical chill" of her profile that way
in his first sight of her? Or will she already be seated at the table,
or at a seat, and how boring is that? Film is about what you can do
with it, not merely the fact of recording images. Now in my script
version, the bar scene - or more like outdoor cafe [yeah, I know, I'm
not being faithful to the bar] - is there, because it's an important
scene to duplicate as it was originally written. In CR's script, I
fear they're just going to record the fact of the meeting rather than
capture the feeling of it. And I think that pretty well synthesizes my
point about the whole script in general.

> > What stops
> > me short of wholeheartedly, or any kind of heartedly, approving what
> > they're doing is the very likely possibility that EON is only spinning
> > an illusion of refashioning Bond but what we'll end up seeing is
> > basically all the same allusions to previous Bonds - Craig acting like
> > Connery here, Brosnan there, Moore in between, and the plot being
> > little more than a pastiche of stolen and reworked scenes from previous
> > Bond films.
>
> The stolen and reworked scenes mentioned in the script summary
> being...? If you can point me to anything there which strikes you as a
> reworking of what's gone before, let me know. But be specific. Saying
> 'M gets pissed off with Bond, as she does in GE', for example, is not
> going to convince me.

--- I said it's a likely possibility that's what'll happen. We'll see
the final product and then I'll tell you if that's what they actually
did. I mean, just look at DAD - that laser scene with Jinx strapped to
a table was a direct steal from GF and the fight with Mr. Kyl was a
redo of the fight with Oddjob. Neither of which, of course, proved to
be anywhere as interesting as the original.

> > It's all going to depend on whether EON
> > really does take risks or chickens out and this whole reimagining thing
> > becomes nothing more than just a figment of their own imagination.
>
> Unfortunately, I think you've made up your mind about this already and
> are looking for things to hate about the film. But I've said that for
> a long time and any attempt to get into this discussion will just go
> around in circles.

--- EON is making up my mind for me by doing what they're doing. I'm
just trying hard to get past what they're feeding me to try to see
something that's going to work with this film. I keep saying it, the
more crap they keep throwing at me, the more I find my curiousity
piqued as to how well they can pull this off and turn it into a bang-on
Bond film. The first kudos will come from me if they do it.

> > Personally, I feel that there should be
> > some similarities, if not precise then certainly identifiable, between
> > at least Bond, Vesper and Le Chiffre and the actors who end up playing
> > them.
>
> There aren't even many lead characters in the EON films who truly
> resemble the characters as described in the books. There are Honey,
> Klebb, Grant, Goldfinger, Oddjob, and um, that's about it. I might
> have missed one or maybe two, but I think the point stands that none of
> the villains or principal girls in the movies look like their Fleming
> originals.

--- I've already explained that further above and if it hasn't sunk in
by now, I can't help you there.

> > For example, what is the real purpose for choosing this Mad
> > whatever-his-name-is guy to play Le Chiffre, and looking absolutely
> > nothing like him,
>
> Um, taking a wild guess, perhaps he was the strongest actor to audition
> for the role? That tends to have something to do with it, but always
> seems to take second place to looks in your arguments.

--- As I responded to Will, strongest actor to audition against whom?
Other male models? If EON was only looking at male model types to play
Le Chiffre, then to say that he was the strongest to audition means
nothing because sure he'll win against other model types. But he's
still not Le Chiffre and everything that represents Le Chiffre going by
Fleming's view of him, which I've also expalined earlier.

> > when they coudl've gotten any number of actors who
> > could fit the bill much more closely to the book description of him,
> > such as Maury Chaykin?
>
> And who says Chaykin was available or wanted the role? You can suggest
> as many fantasy castings as you like, but without knowledge of those
> actors' availability or willingness to appear in CR, it's a pointless
> exercise.

--- He may've been available, he may've not, he may've wanted the role,
he may've not, EON may've had him in mind or didn't think of him at
all, everything's may've. My suggestion is only a suggestion, not a
directive, but Chaykin, regardless of the may'ves, on physical
characteristics alone is far closer a match to the description of Le
Chiffre than Mad's. In fact, Chaykin almost played a Le Chiffre-like
character in Sean Connery's Entrapment. In that one, you could see how
he could've delivered a perfectly eccentric and repulsive Le Chiffre.
I'll be totally surprised if Mads comes anywhere near that, my take is
that he'll just be a clone of the nondescript Gustav Graves.

>
> > It's not the same when a male model, who can pass for being
> > female, does it.
>
> http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_21_press_confere nce_feb2.php3?t=bond21&s=bond21
>
> If that's your idea of a guy who could pass as female, then to quote
> something you said to me once, 'I'll take my women over your women any
> day'.

---- Sarcasm, Phil. Sarcasm. Get a handle on it.

> > Oh by the way,
> > thanks for taking me out of your killfile temporarily just for this. I
> > guess after this I go back into the box, huh?
>
> Nah. I don't like killfiling people 'cause it makes me feel like I've
> lost my temper, I don't like hearing about stuff at second or third
> hand, and if you make a point I really think requires an answer I don't
> want to let it stand because I'm not there to see it. Anybody who
> joins this list can see within five seconds that Scojo is a deeply
> disturbed troll, but you're plausible and not nearly as stupid as he
> is. Well, most of the time. Predictable and repetitive CR-bashing
> I'll ignore, I'm not going to get into circular arguments, and
> hopefully I'll leave the personal insults alone: everybody here can
> make up their own mind about those without my having to prompt them.
>

--- Yeah, I know what you mean, I'm kind of a hard habit to break.

> Thanks for the courtesy of the explanation.

--- Does this mean we've kissed and made up?

>
> Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225008 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 01:38

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> --- If you've been contributing to groups long enough, then I think you
> should know by now that no matter what is said, sarcasm or otherwise,
> it's always going to be misconstrued by somebody. This is a
> no-holds-barred arena and people get loose with their words, and
> whereas sometimes they may mean something in one sense, it can often be
> misinterpreted in an unintended sense. That's the problem with the
> written word, especially in groups like this, there are no proper
> inflections that can be injected into the writing, it's left up to the
> reader to give the content those inflections. I can't help how you end
> up reading what I or anybody else writes, it's just up to me to correct
> you when you get it wrong. Now, if we were to actually have a
> face-to-face verbal conversation, inflections and gestures and all, I
> probably wouldn't be surprised if we might actually end up agreeing on
> more than you think. But in the meantime, that's the shortcoming of
> doing it this way, so if you don't get the sarcasm, then just take
> everything I say with a grain of salt.

Well, I've been here and on other NGs for a while, and I know well
enough to let most of it slide. This was one of a very few examples
where I thought a line might have been crossed, and rather than
hot-headedly killfiling you as I had done before, I thought I'd give
you the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification, albeit in a
somewhat more aggressive manner than I might usually have done.
Anyway, I'm prepared to let that one go if you are.

> --- Yeah, I know all that stuff. But I also know you can be truer to
> the source material if you really wanted to be. The first third of the
> CR script is largely a fabrication that's not based on anything much
> that's recognizable with the book. And to add to that, they go ahead
> and ruin one of my favorite images in the CR book by having Bond meet
> Vesper in a train rather than at a bar.

Does that minor change make so much of a difference that it's worth
trashing the film over it without having seen a single frame? Is it a
worse desecration of the book than, say, Bond meeting Pussy Galore on
Goldfinger's plane rather than at the hoods' conference, wherein Tilly
Masterson is still alive and gets the hots for her? That's a far more
drastic change to the original than changing the location of Bond and
Vesper's first meeting, but does that invalidate GF for you? Those are
the kind questions I'd ask about a lot of your complaints regarding
what you know about CR at this early stage.

> --- I said it's a likely possibility that's what'll happen. We'll see
> the final product and then I'll tell you if that's what they actually
> did. I mean, just look at DAD - that laser scene with Jinx strapped to
> a table was a direct steal from GF and the fight with Mr. Kyl was a
> redo of the fight with Oddjob. Neither of which, of course, proved to
> be anywhere as interesting as the original.

So after the first third of the film, in which you don't appear to be
able to find reworkings of bits of earlier EON films, the rest is going
to be nothing but - despite the fact that the script review we've seen
suggests that this part of the movie is pretty faithful to the novel?
Is that *really* likely?

> The first kudos will come from me if they do it.

Well, I hope so, I really do. Unfortunately, since our views about the
EON films or what would constitute a good filmic version of CR don't
coincide, we might well be having the same arguments after the movie is
released.

> --- As I responded to Will, strongest actor to audition against whom?
> Other male models? If EON was only looking at male model types to play
> Le Chiffre, then to say that he was the strongest to audition means
> nothing because sure he'll win against other model types.

Firstly, he's an actor, and a damn good one, not a male model, and he
isn't even what I would call classically handsome based on most of the
shots I've seen of him. (I don't want to pursue that line of argument
too far for fear of ending up on Planet Scojo.) Secondly, when you
look at the other names who were in the frame - Jurgen Tarrach, for
example - would you really consider them to be male model types?

> --- Does this mean we've kissed and made up?

'Made up?' No way. 'Kissed?' Um, no thanks. I do now think I was
hotheaded in killfiling you, although I would probably defend having
done so in the heat of the moment. However, I would rather treat my
killfile as a lunatic asylum, a way of confining those, such as Scojo,
who I think are completely insane. You, on the other hand, I merely
disagree with, sometimes violently...

Best

Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225019 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 02:22

phil.gerrard1

Just one further bit of clarification when it comes to arguments about
whether an actor is 'miscast'. The single, simple criterion I would
use to determine the answer to that question is to ask 'do I believe
that this person could do or say what he or she is doing or saying
right now?' That's something which can't be determined or perhaps even
speculated upon until the film is right there in front of you.

Best

Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225025 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 02:48

JHause

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Just one further bit of clarification when it comes to arguments about
> whether an actor is 'miscast'. The single, simple criterion I would
> use to determine the answer to that question is to ask 'do I believe
> that this person could do or say what he or she is doing or saying
> right now?' That's something which can't be determined or perhaps even
> speculated upon until the film is right there in front of you.
>
> Best
>
> Phil

WQ's nitwit advice for the day: Don't hire the best actor -- hire the
one who looks closest to the book description.

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225028 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 03:18

Will Traynor

"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1140124940.207359.92470 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Will wrote:
>> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140116331.901708.294150 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>> >> JHause quoted WQ as saying:
>> >>
>> >> > >At
>> >> > > this rate, I won't be surprised if they choose an Australian
>> >> > > aborigine
>> >> > > runway model for Vesper Lynd [they already might've been close to
>> >> > > that
>> >> > > with Thandie Newton, or whatever her name is].
>> >>
>> >> WQ, you're out of my killfile temporarily because I would really,
>> >> really like to hear your explanation of this statement.
>> >>
>> >> Since this could be taken as meaning that you don't know who Thandie
>> >> Newton is - which in itself would be astonishingly ignorant if it's
>> >> true - let me clue you in. She's widely considered to be a fine
>> >> actress, a very beautiful woman, and her background (posh British
>> >> upbringing, Cambridge degree etc) would seem to fit the role of Vesper
>> >> perfectly. There's only one 'inappropriate' quality she would share
>> >> with the hypothetical Native Australian model to whom you sneeringly
>> >> refer, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what that might be.
>> >
>> > --- Of course I knew who Thandie Newton was, and I didn't think much of
>> > her role in MI:2, nor much of MI:2 itself, though admittedly Craig just
>> > may outclass Cruise as a spy, but then that could be true of any actor.
>> > I just wasn't sure for a second if the spelling I had for her name was
>> > correct, that's all. And I gather you don't take too well to biting
>> > sarcasm when I made that Australian aborigine runway model remark
>> > either. Pity. You lose a lot in what a say that way.
>> >
>> >> However, given that your comprehension skills in recent months haven't
>> >> been of the best, I suppose I'd better spell it out for you anyway:
>> >> what it seems you're saying is that Vesper should not be played by a
>> >> black actress, no matter how good she might be in the role.
>> >
>> > --- Does it matter anymore who should play any character in CR since
>> > none of them remotely fit any of the descriptions of those in the book?
>> > Clearly, EON is throwing the book out the window while at the same
>> > time pretending to rely on it faithfully. So who cares if Vesper is
>> > black, blue, orange or a Martian now. While on the one hand eschewing
>> > the basic ingredients of CR the book is akin to being a stark admission
>> > of EON's inability to faithfully translate it into a movie, on the
>> > other hand it really does intrigue me more - as negative as I may seem
>> > to be about what's going on - as to how all of this will be pulled off
>> > with any kind of freshness that they seem to be aiming at. What stops
>> > me short of wholeheartedly, or any kind of heartedly, approving what
>> > they're doing is the very likely possibility that EON is only spinning
>> > an illusion of refashioning Bond but what we'll end up seeing is
>> > basically all the same allusions to previous Bonds - Craig acting like
>> > Connery here, Brosnan there, Moore in between, and the plot being
>> > little more than a pastiche of stolen and reworked scenes from previous
>> > Bond films. I personally don't think EON has the balls to convert Bond
>> > into one that Craig can own as his very own, separate and distinct from
>> > the other actors' take on the character. That's what I'd really be
>> > interested in seeing, if EON really is planning on that radical route
>> > at all. However, based on the review of the first third of the script,
>> > which, granted, isn't fair to do, but it's all we've got to go by so
>> > far, I'm not impressed with how it starts off. How they handle Bond
>> > making his first two kills could be interesting to watch, the
>> > description of the main title shots reads like it could be interesting
>> > to watch, and the raved-about though undisclosed description of what
>> > happens on the tarmac at the Miami airport could also be interesting to
>> > watch, but everything else in between reads like typical Purvis & Wade
>> > mish-mash. Who knows how much Haggis will contribute to ironing things
>> > out or whatever, who knows what the next two-thirds of the script reads
>> > like, who knows... In the meantime, any and all reaction can only be
>> > responses to what is known, and until the pieces all come together to
>> > paint a clearer picture of what's really going on, the pieces at hand
>> > aren't painting any real picture that convinces me yet that it's all
>> > moving in a direction that will yield a successful outcome, Craig-wise,
>> > plot-wise, overall-wise. It's all going to depend on whether EON
>> > really does take risks or chickens out and this whole reimagining thing
>> > becomes nothing more than just a figment of their own imagination.
>> >
>> >> The number of EON Bond girls who physically resemble their
>> >> counterparts
>> >> in the novels number no more than one or two at best, so your trusty
>> >> 'it's not faithful to the novel' argument will cut no ice here. Any
>> >> whining and bitching about 'political correctness' (big f***ing yawn)
>> >> will just show that you've run out of arguments yet again.
>> >
>> > --- Of course I've mentioned this before, but of course not everybody
>> > picks up on it because not everybody reads every post in this group - I
>> > sure don't, but I think I have rabid stalking fan who goes by the name
>> > of JHause. But let's not get too hung up on the word "faithful" in the
>> > extreme sense here. Faithful in my book does allow for reasonable
>> > differences. While I personally think that actors should look as
>> > faithfully as possible to the lead character[s] of any book, I think
>> > you can be a little looser with subordinate characters. The principle
>> > characters in CR are Bond, Vesper and Le Chiffre, while ongoing
>> > characters are M, Moneypenny, Leiter and, though he's yet to be
>> > introduced anywhere, Mathis. Personally, I feel that there should be
>> > some similarities, if not precise then certainly identifiable, between
>> > at least Bond, Vesper and Le Chiffre and the actors who end up playing
>> > them. For example, what is the real purpose for choosing this Mad
>> > whatever-his-name-is guy to play Le Chiffre, and looking absolutely
>> > nothing like him, when they coudl've gotten any number of actors who
>> > could fit the bill much more closely to the book description of him,
>> > such as Maury Chaykin?
>>
>> Maybe because he aced the screen tests over everyone else? Aside from
>> looks
>> you have to take into consideration the acting. Just curious, but when
>> did
>> EON say they would be completely faithful to the book? When making a
>> movie,
>> you can only get so faithful. Since CR by no means resembles a novel that
>> is
>> easily transferable to the silver screen, being completely faithful
>> wouldn't
>> cut it for movie audiences. "Somewhat faithful" is about the best you
>> should
>> hope for, given the source material. Half the book is card playing, so
>> how
>> long would audiences want that?
>
> --- To say that he "aced" the screen tests over everyone else is
> meaningless.

No, it's not meaningless. It means he can act, hopefully. I'm sure there
were several reasons why they picked him, which we don't know. But I'm sure
acting was part of the reason.

> Who exactly was he up against, other model types?

You don't know, I don't know, so it's pure speculation.

> Then
> yeah, sure, he's likely to ace the screen tests. And my understanding
> of CR being somewhat faithful to the book goes back to one of Martin
> Campbell's earlier claims about it being such shortly after he came on
> board. When the guy says it, I guess he sort of means it ... no? If
> not, then why even say it in the first place? But if one really wanted
> to do a "somewhat faithful" film version of the book, it's possible to
> do it - so long as you stick to true storytelling in the cinematic
> sense and not be distracted by such petty nuisances as trying to appeal
> to a younger and ADD-ridden audience expecting CGI overkill in the and
> what-have-you in the conveying of that story on screen.
>

"Somewhat faithful" to me means they are going to take certain liberties
with the source material, as they've done with all of Fleming's novels.
There are a few movies that come to mind that are not even close to the
book, such as YOLT and TSWLM. As I said before, CR as a novel would not play
well as a movie. It wasn't written with that in mind. But I would like to
see Campbell's quote where he said they would produce a movie that is
completely faithful to the book. Like you, however, I hope they stay away
from the extended action sequences and focus on characterization and
suspense. There are plenty of ways to create tense action without
sacrificing story. We don't need 10-minute hovercraft chases over a
minefield or invisible cars.

>> > Fleming didn't envision Bond confronting a male
>> > model figure of a villain who looks better than himself, he envisioned
>> > a repugnant-looking tub of lard. If you're going to be faithful to
>> > that description, you get an actor who can look repugnant, not a male
>> > model. The repugnancy itself is what adds to Bond's later supposed
>> > chip on his shoulder, the fact that someone as repugnant as Le Chiffre
>> > takes it upon himself to manhandle Bond's manhood with such delight.
>> > That's probably more torture for a heterosexual Bond than the torture
>> > itself. It's not the same when a male model, who can pass for being
>> > female, does it. It may still amount to torture, but it's not as
>> > repugnant coming from a beauty boy, so all the real meaning of that
>> > torture scene risks being lost in the film in that sense.
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, but I never considered the male/male sexual repercussions of
>> Bond's
>> torture. And frankly, I try not to. Did you see photos of Mads Mikkelson
>> ?
>> He does not look like a female, so I don't know what you are talking
>> about.
>> Physically, he does not resemble Le Chiffre, but there are ways to make
>> someone physically unappealing in the films. It's called makeup. Remember
>> Danny Devito in Batman Returns? Or how about Ralph Fiennes in the Harry
>> Potter movie? It appears that you have a problem with everything EON is
>> doing right now, and frankly, it's beginning to be a bit tiresome. Why
>> don't
>> you wait until you see the movie before making so many assumptions based
>> on
>> incomplete information? You haven't seen one frame of the film.
>

> --- Make-up has value when applied to actors taking on extraordinary
> roles, specifically characters that are essentially cartoon or comic
> book-based, fairy tale-based, for horror or sci-fi films, or for even
> biographical films where an actor is made to appear to look somewhat
> like the real person. Le Chiffre is not based on an outrageous comic
> book character or cartoon that would require extensive makeup, nor
> could he be considered as a horror or sci-fi character in the gory
> sense, and he's not a real person, but as a fictional character he is
> grounded in being a real kind of person. I don't know what kind of
> makeup they could possibly use on Mads to make him resemble, even in
> the slightest, Le Chiffre as depicted in the book. And if they are
> going to do that, it would seem to be easier to just get a fat man to
> play the part - I mean, just think of the time and expense saved by not
> having an actor in the makeup chair for hours each and every day. And
> if they're not going to use any makeup on the guy, then you know that
> EON is just playing fast and loose with CR and it'll probably be just
> as faithful, or why not let's just say recognizable, to the book as
> TSWLM was.

Not exactly, do you remember Robert DeNiro in The Untouchables or Raging
Bull? They were certainly not cartoon characters. I'm not saying they are
going to make the guy fat, but they can make him more unappealing with
proper makeup. And makeup is not a big expense in the face of a $125 million
movie, come on. I'm sure EON can find some cash for a makeup job. Once
again, this entire conversation is based on pure speculation and frankly,
I've had it. You can continue to complain all you want. I'm STILL waiting to
see the movie before I make up my mind.

>
>> >> Thandie Newton would be the next worst casting for Vesper after an
>> >> 'Australian aborigine runway model' because...?
>> >>
>> >> And while we're at it, could you tell me which of the four words
>> >> 'Australian aborigine runway model' was the one you intended to be the
>> >> most insulting?
>> >
>> > --- Sarcasm, Phil. Sarcasm. Get a handle on it. Oh by the way,
>> > thanks for taking me out of your killfile temporarily just for this. I
>> > guess after this I go back into the box, huh?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Phil
>> >
>

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225029 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 03:24

JHause wrote:
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> > Just one further bit of clarification when it comes to arguments about
> > whether an actor is 'miscast'. The single, simple criterion I would
> > use to determine the answer to that question is to ask 'do I believe
> > that this person could do or say what he or she is doing or saying
> > right now?' That's something which can't be determined or perhaps even
> > speculated upon until the film is right there in front of you.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Phil
>
> WQ's nitwit advice for the day: Don't hire the best actor -- hire the
> one who looks closest to the book description.

--- Yep, some of the stellar best actor for the job picks by EON:

Izabella Scorupco, Alan Cumming, Minnie Driver, Jonathan Pryce, Robert
Carlysle, Denise Richards, Halle Berry, Toby Stephens, Rick Yune ...
each delivering an unintentionally laughable, painfully generic or
eminently forgettable performance, or worse, all three at the same
time.

And let's add Samantha Bond [too smarmy as Momeypenny] and Judi Dench
to the list [too robotically stiff as M for an actress of her calibre].

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225031 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 04:04

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- If you've been contributing to groups long enough, then I think you
> > should know by now that no matter what is said, sarcasm or otherwise,
> > it's always going to be misconstrued by somebody. This is a
> > no-holds-barred arena and people get loose with their words, and
> > whereas sometimes they may mean something in one sense, it can often be
> > misinterpreted in an unintended sense. That's the problem with the
> > written word, especially in groups like this, there are no proper
> > inflections that can be injected into the writing, it's left up to the
> > reader to give the content those inflections. I can't help how you end
> > up reading what I or anybody else writes, it's just up to me to correct
> > you when you get it wrong. Now, if we were to actually have a
> > face-to-face verbal conversation, inflections and gestures and all, I
> > probably wouldn't be surprised if we might actually end up agreeing on
> > more than you think. But in the meantime, that's the shortcoming of
> > doing it this way, so if you don't get the sarcasm, then just take
> > everything I say with a grain of salt.
>
> Well, I've been here and on other NGs for a while, and I know well
> enough to let most of it slide. This was one of a very few examples
> where I thought a line might have been crossed, and rather than
> hot-headedly killfiling you as I had done before, I thought I'd give
> you the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification, albeit in a
> somewhat more aggressive manner than I might usually have done.
> Anyway, I'm prepared to let that one go if you are.
>
> > --- Yeah, I know all that stuff. But I also know you can be truer to
> > the source material if you really wanted to be. The first third of the
> > CR script is largely a fabrication that's not based on anything much
> > that's recognizable with the book. And to add to that, they go ahead
> > and ruin one of my favorite images in the CR book by having Bond meet
> > Vesper in a train rather than at a bar.
>
> Does that minor change make so much of a difference that it's worth
> trashing the film over it without having seen a single frame? Is it a
> worse desecration of the book than, say, Bond meeting Pussy Galore on
> Goldfinger's plane rather than at the hoods' conference, wherein Tilly
> Masterson is still alive and gets the hots for her? That's a far more
> drastic change to the original than changing the location of Bond and
> Vesper's first meeting, but does that invalidate GF for you? Those are
> the kind questions I'd ask about a lot of your complaints regarding
> what you know about CR at this early stage.

--- That minor change, as you put it, IS the film. If you don't
believe in the relationship, if you don't believe in how it gets
started, if you don't believe what it is about Vesper that makes Bond
click over her, then the whole premise of what the first Bond story is
about, of how he got to be the Bond we've all come to know, as Campbell
and Craig have said so many times, just all falls flat, it all becomes
hollow, nothing more than just another film knock-off of a 007 escapade
which, incidentally, just so happens to find him fall for yet another
interchangeable girl. This is supposed to be THE girl, the one that
gets him going, sets him in motion, so to speak. So if they're going
to do this right, they have to film it right. If I don't believe that
first meeting the way they end up shooting it, then yeah, the film with
respect to Bond's relationship with Vesper becomes a failure. It may
still work on an action level, but whatever intensity of the
relationship between Bond and Vesper that transpires will seem
superficial and then how Bond becomes what he becomes after her death
will feel unconvincing.

> > --- I said it's a likely possibility that's what'll happen. We'll see
> > the final product and then I'll tell you if that's what they actually
> > did. I mean, just look at DAD - that laser scene with Jinx strapped to
> > a table was a direct steal from GF and the fight with Mr. Kyl was a
> > redo of the fight with Oddjob. Neither of which, of course, proved to
> > be anywhere as interesting as the original.
>
> So after the first third of the film, in which you don't appear to be
> able to find reworkings of bits of earlier EON films, the rest is going
> to be nothing but - despite the fact that the script review we've seen
> suggests that this part of the movie is pretty faithful to the novel?
> Is that *really* likely?
>
> > The first kudos will come from me if they do it.
>
> Well, I hope so, I really do. Unfortunately, since our views about the
> EON films or what would constitute a good filmic version of CR don't
> coincide, we might well be having the same arguments after the movie is
> released.

--- Won't that be fun.

> > --- As I responded to Will, strongest actor to audition against whom?
> > Other male models? If EON was only looking at male model types to play
> > Le Chiffre, then to say that he was the strongest to audition means
> > nothing because sure he'll win against other model types.
>
> Firstly, he's an actor, and a damn good one, not a male model, and he
> isn't even what I would call classically handsome based on most of the
> shots I've seen of him. (I don't want to pursue that line of argument
> too far for fear of ending up on Planet Scojo.) Secondly, when you
> look at the other names who were in the frame - Jurgen Tarrach, for
> example - would you really consider them to be male model types?
>

--- And yes, Tarrach looks like he would've made a terrfic Le Chiffre,
at least in physical terms. What exactly is EON's thinking in choosing
Mikkelsen instead is beyond me, since he leans more towards the bland
Gustav Graves look. We've already had Gustav Graves, do we need
another one like him? And I don't buy this may-the-best-actor-win bit
because, as you well know yourself, EON has picked some real "best
actor" stinkers in the past - does Halle Berry and Denise Richards come
readily to mind, among others? Seriously, how impactful were their
auditions?

> > --- Does this mean we've kissed and made up?
>
> 'Made up?' No way. 'Kissed?' Um, no thanks. I do now think I was
> hotheaded in killfiling you, although I would probably defend having
> done so in the heat of the moment. However, I would rather treat my
> killfile as a lunatic asylum, a way of confining those, such as Scojo,
> who I think are completely insane. You, on the other hand, I merely
> disagree with, sometimes violently...

--- It's only Bond. Nothing to really get violent over.

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225036 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 06:49

JHause

WQ wrote:
>
> --- Yep, some of the stellar best actor for the job picks by EON:
>
> Izabella Scorupco, Alan Cumming, Minnie Driver, Jonathan Pryce, Robert
> Carlysle, Denise Richards, Halle Berry, Toby Stephens, Rick Yune ...
> each delivering an unintentionally laughable, painfully generic or
> eminently forgettable performance, or worse, all three at the same
> time.
>
> And let's add Samantha Bond [too smarmy as Momeypenny] and Judi Dench
> to the list [too robotically stiff as M for an actress of her calibre].

Let's add WQ as Rupert Pupkin.

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225038 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 06:55

JHause

He's a complete nitwit, Will. If they went strictly by book
descriptions in creating the films, then Sean Connery never would have
been James Bond. The actor who played 007 never would have uttered a
single quip or punchline. He never would have had any "optional extras
installed" in his Aston Martin. And we wouldn't have had a Bond film
since 1989.

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225044 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 11:03

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> --- That minor change, as you put it, IS the film. If you don't
> believe in the relationship, if you don't believe in how it gets
> started, if you don't believe what it is about Vesper that makes Bond
> click over her, then the whole premise of what the first Bond story is
> about, of how he got to be the Bond we've all come to know, as Campbell
> and Craig have said so many times, just all falls flat, it all becomes
> hollow, nothing more than just another film knock-off of a 007 escapade
> which, incidentally, just so happens to find him fall for yet another
> interchangeable girl. This is supposed to be THE girl, the one that
> gets him going, sets him in motion, so to speak. So if they're going
> to do this right, they have to film it right. If I don't believe that
> first meeting the way they end up shooting it, then yeah, the film with
> respect to Bond's relationship with Vesper becomes a failure. It may
> still work on an action level, but whatever intensity of the
> relationship between Bond and Vesper that transpires will seem
> superficial and then how Bond becomes what he becomes after her death
> will feel unconvincing.

All this based on whether Bond and Vesper first meet in a bar or on a
train? Words fail.

Best

Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225046 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 11:23

booby

"Craig is most definitely dark - dark hair and dark eyebrows:

http://www.ct24.cz/.multimedia/.img/1140031471_craig.jpg

So the blonde Bond never happened, I'm happy to say.:) "

LLC
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------

Sorry, I was wrong, Craig is more ginger brown as this photo shows:

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/396/jamesblonde1qb8if.jpg

Craig would appear to be the first ginger/brown combo Bond.:)

LLC

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225048 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 12:22

phil.gerrard1

How about a compromise: what if Bond, Vesper, and Mathis meet in a bar
on a train?

Best

Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225049 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 12:22

JHause

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> All this based on whether Bond and Vesper first meet in a bar or on a
> train? Words fail.
>
> Best
>
> Phil

You can read his entire "script," where words will fail for 120 pages.

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225065 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 15:22

Will Traynor

"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140155750.138926.233440 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> He's a complete nitwit, Will. If they went strictly by book
> descriptions in creating the films, then Sean Connery never would have
> been James Bond. The actor who played 007 never would have uttered a
> single quip or punchline. He never would have had any "optional extras
> installed" in his Aston Martin. And we wouldn't have had a Bond film
> since 1989.
>

You are right: If my memory is correct I remember reading something where
Fleming initially didn't think Connery would be a good fit. But after
meeting him and seeing his performance in DN he changed his mind rather
quickly. I just watched DN the other night and Connery was just perfect in
that movie.

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225066 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 15:27

phil.gerrard1

Will wrote:

> You are right: If my memory is correct I remember reading something where
> Fleming initially didn't think Connery would be a good fit. But after
> meeting him and seeing his performance in DN he changed his mind rather
> quickly. I just watched DN the other night and Connery was just perfect in
> that movie.

Hence Bond's previously unmentioned Scottish heritage in Fleming's YOLT
and TMWTGG...

Best

Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225069 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 16:44

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> How about a compromise: what if Bond, Vesper, and Mathis meet in a bar
> on a train?

--- I think a more important question is why on a train at all? Not
knowing why Bond is even on a train when there is no train travel
involved in the book, it makes me wonder if it's just not yet another
allusion to a past Bond film, FRWL, or even TSWLM.

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225071 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 17:06

Mac

WQ wrote:

> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>> How about a compromise: what if Bond, Vesper, and Mathis meet in a
>> bar on a train?
>
> --- I think a more important question is why on a train at all? Not
> knowing why Bond is even on a train when there is no train travel
> involved in the book, it makes me wonder if it's just not yet another
> allusion to a past Bond film, FRWL, or even TSWLM.

Or NORTH BY NORTHWEST or THE LADY VANISHES. The central
part of the film takes place in a casino, and one sequence occurs
in an embassy, so of course there will be allusions to Bond films
of the past, there are two right there. To insist that every scene
occur where no Bond film has gone before or the film becomes
forfeit is unrealistic and deliberately contentious.

You keep going on about the book when you know full well that
the demands of a James Bond film, especially one being released in
cinemas in 2006, is such that any adaptation of 'Casino Royale' is
not going to be an exact screen translation of the book.

I sometimes wonder that if an actor more to your liking had been
cast as Bond if you'd be doing half the complaining.

--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas is very busy, he spends all his time attending Lisa
Marie Presley weddings."

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225072 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 17:08

JHause

WQ wrote:
> --- I think a more important question is why on a train at all? Not
> knowing why Bond is even on a train when there is no train travel
> involved in the book, it makes me wonder if it's just not yet another
> allusion to a past Bond film, FRWL, or even TSWLM.
>
>

YEAH! A SCENE ON A TRAIN! THAT WOULD BE HORRIBLE!!!

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225079 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 17:49

Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> >
> >> How about a compromise: what if Bond, Vesper, and Mathis meet in a
> >> bar on a train?
> >
> > --- I think a more important question is why on a train at all? Not
> > knowing why Bond is even on a train when there is no train travel
> > involved in the book, it makes me wonder if it's just not yet another
> > allusion to a past Bond film, FRWL, or even TSWLM.
>
> Or NORTH BY NORTHWEST or THE LADY VANISHES. The central
> part of the film takes place in a casino, and one sequence occurs
> in an embassy, so of course there will be allusions to Bond films
> of the past, there are two right there. To insist that every scene
> occur where no Bond film has gone before or the film becomes
> forfeit is unrealistic and deliberately contentious.
>
> You keep going on about the book when you know full well that
> the demands of a James Bond film, especially one being released in
> cinemas in 2006, is such that any adaptation of 'Casino Royale' is
> not going to be an exact screen translation of the book.
>
> I sometimes wonder that if an actor more to your liking had been
> cast as Bond if you'd be doing half the complaining.

--- I guess you haven't read much about my bitching about Brosnan, have
you? Moore was no favourite either. Obviously I know liberties are
going to be taken in screen translations of books [how many times do I
have to repeat that before everyone here gets it?], but whereas a
number of select hardcore Bonders here appear to go into this CR
filming blindly, preferring to believe that all will turn out well, or
more like desperately wishing to believe that all will turn out well by
some of the more vociferous defendants of a film that they themselves
haven't yet seen, and that no discussion to the contrary is acceptable,
I take the more pragmatic view, which is seeing things as they hit me.
If I'm hit with what I sense are bad decisions by EON with respect to
casting and scripting, I'll make that known. If I'm hit with good
decisions, I'll make that known as well. So far, the best I can say
about what direction they're heading in is that I'm neutral in a
positive way towards Eva Green being chosen and positive about
Giancarlo Giannini being picked as well, even though he - guess what? -
doesn't look like Mathis in the book! Go figure. Well, it's easy for
me to figure it because even though he doesn't look like Mathis, I can
see a Mathis in him. But I can't say the same about Mads Mikkelsen
being picked to play Le Chiffre.

As for allusions to past films, it's fine to use the same type of
settings, but if the settings are used only to replicate what happened
before, then that's called script cheating in my book. That's what
happened with using the train scene in TSWLM where Bond fights Jaws.
Hey, didn't another train fight happen in FRWL? Maybe even in the same
compartment? DAD was especially notorious for script cheating,
stealing from both DN with the Jinx intro on the beach and GF with Jinx
strapped down and about to be lasered - yeah, but I know, it wasn't
Bond about to be lasered this time. Same difference. And sure, casino
scenes have been used multiple times in Bond films, but this will be
the first time when it will be used extensively and for a specific
purpose and not just as a backdrop. Anyway, that's what will, or at
least should, make that casino scene different from others.

>
> --
> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas is very busy, he spends all his time attending Lisa
> Marie Presley weddings."

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225080 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 17:57

JHause

WQ wrote:
> --- I guess you haven't read much about my bitching about Brosnan, have
> you? Moore was no favourite either. Obviously I know liberties are
> going to be taken in screen translations of books [how many times do I
> have to repeat that before everyone here gets it?], but whereas a
> number of select hardcore Bonders here appear to go into this CR
> filming blindly, preferring to believe that all will turn out well, or
> more like desperately wishing to believe that all will turn out well by
> some of the more vociferous defendants of a film that they themselves
> haven't yet seen, and that no discussion to the contrary is acceptable,
> I take the more pragmatic view, which is seeing things as they hit me.

Why wouldn't we want it to turn out well, you friggin' imbecile? That's
why we post in this newsgroup. (I love how "there's no scene on a train
in the book, so it's bad" is pragmatic, BTW.)

> If I'm hit with what I sense are bad decisions by EON with respect to
> casting and scripting, I'll make that known.

And we'll make it known that you're a friggin' imbecile.

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225081 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 18:07

JHause

Hey, I just read there's going to be BACKGROUND MUSIC in this film!!!
There's no music following Bond around in the book! Why are they
changing everything!

And there are CLOSE-UPS! Fleming doesn't have any close-ups in the
book! WHEN WILL THEY STOP??? This thing is going to SUCK!!!

Re: Mads Mikkelsen IS Le Chiffre... Vesper narrowed down to "two or three" [message #225082 ]

Fr, 17 Februar 2006 18:19

Mac

WQ wrote:

> --- I guess you haven't read much about my bitching about Brosnan,
> have you? Moore was no favourite either.

You have waited until you've seen their completed films, though. I
certainly don't recall this level of naysaying from you before either DIE
ANOTHER DAY or THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH had shot a foot of
film.

>Obviously I know liberties
> are going to be taken in screen translations of books [how many times
> do I have to repeat that before everyone here gets it?],

Maybe when you stop referring sneeringly to how "faithful" the film
will be. Especially as you are aware changes will be made.

> but whereas a
> number of select hardcore Bonders here appear to go into this CR
> filming blindly, preferring to believe that all will turn out well, or
> more like desperately wishing to believe that all will turn out well
> by some of the more vociferous defendants of a film that they
> themselves haven't yet seen, and that no discussion to the contrary
> is acceptable, I take the more pragmatic view, which is seeing things
> as they hit me. If I'm hit with what I sense are bad decisions by EON
> with respect to casting and scripting, I'll make that known. If I'm
> hit with good decisions, I'll make that known as well.

Their attitude is no different to yours. Other than they are optimistic
and you are pessimistic; you are just as critical of a film you haven't
seen yet either.

> best I can say about what direction they're heading in is that I'm
> neutral in a positive way towards Eva Green being chosen and positive
> about Giancarlo Giannini being picked as well, even though he - guess
> what? - doesn't look like Mathis in the book! Go figure.

What does Mathis look like in the book?

> same compartment? DAD was especially notorious for script cheating,
> stealing from both DN with the Jinx intro on the beach and GF with
> Jinx strapped down and about to be lasered - yeah, but I know, it
> wasn't Bond about to be lasered this time. Same difference.

The other difference is that the DIE ANOTHER DAY's allusions were
intentional. You knew that, right?

As for the CASINO ROYALE train scene, is there a fight?
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas is the producer of the Broadway smash, 'The Henchman
Monologues,' starring Oddjob and Jaws"

Seiten (3): [1 2 3 > »]

Vorheriges Thema:	Moneypenny: A loyal Brosnanist
Nächstes Thema:	New photo of Craig as Bond - looks hideous

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 08:11:57 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11851 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.