More Silly Stuff

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 » More Silly Stuff

More Silly Stuff [message #242664]

Fr, 24 März 2006 04:45

I don't recall any fighting between a blond Bond and a black man taking
place in mid-air on a crane in CR the book.

http://www.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,50001-1216295,00.html

Please, EON! Let's do try to be faithful here!

Looks like EON is getting a little carried away in the action
department again, contrary to its claims of doing a more "grounded"
Bond this time.

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242668 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 06:46

Min L Shaw

>Please, EON! Let's do try to be faithful here!

Circa YOLT, Eon made it clear where they stand on the issue of
"faithfulness." I'm *still* unclear just when the hell this film is
even set; I'm assuming it's contemporary and not set in 1953, so that
alone changes how faithful they can be. Ultimately, I guess we have to
ask not whether the film is a direct translation of the novel (as was
the case with Robert Rodriguez's masterful "Sin City"), but whether the
spirit and guts of the story have been treated well by the different
medium.

And, by the way, how come all the things I've heard about the film
(grittier, more realistic, heightened sexuality, less cartoonish
violence, etc.) are all ideas Pierce Brosnan is on record as having
endorsed and lobbied for for years? It's like they wanted to make the
movie Pierce Brosnan wanted to make, but without Pierce. (Nope,
haven't quite gotten over his firing yet.)

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242671 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 11:07

phil.gerrard1

Min wrote:

> Circa YOLT, Eon made it clear where they stand on the issue of
> "faithfulness." I'm *still* unclear just when the hell this film is
> even set; I'm assuming it's contemporary and not set in 1953, so that
> alone changes how faithful they can be.

Contemporary, without a doubt: references to Saddam, Walther P99, style
of dress, cars used, etc, etc. I don't see how a period piece could be
done, or honestly what the point would be.

> Ultimately, I guess we have to
> ask not whether the film is a direct translation of the novel (as was
> the case with Robert Rodriguez's masterful "Sin City"), but whether the
> spirit and guts of the story have been treated well by the different
> medium.

A direct translation would run for about forty-five minutes tops: sorry
to repeat myself, but there simply isn't enough filmable material in
Fleming's CR to make a two-hour movie, unless you kept all the dialogue
intact and turned it into the Bond equivalent of 'My Dinner with
Andre'.

As for the scenes in the movie which aren't in the book, well, gee,
ain't that radical and shocking. Even the first four movies and OHMSS
are at best two-thirds Fleming, one-third EON: dialogue, characters,
action scenes, plots all vary pretty wildly from their original
sources. From what I've read so far, all the key elements of Fleming's
CR remain intact - the rest is an expansion of the novel.

Finally, CR is a great Bond novel, but simply would not make even a
middling Bond movie if filmed scene-for-scene in a pedantically
faithful manner. Stripped of Fleming's wonderful prose, it would be
flat-out *boring*.

> And, by the way, how come all the things I've heard about the film
> (grittier, more realistic, heightened sexuality, less cartoonish
> violence, etc.) are all ideas Pierce Brosnan is on record as having
> endorsed and lobbied for for years? It's like they wanted to make the
> movie Pierce Brosnan wanted to make, but without Pierce. (Nope,
> haven't quite gotten over his firing yet.)

Well, if he'd wanted to do the movie that badly, he could have been a
little more flexible about his salary demands. He was a great Bond,
he's a fine actor, he strikes me as a nice guy, and the best of luck to
him with his future career, but I don't have a great deal of sympathy
with him in that one regard. I presume he got paid considerably less
for, say, 'The Matador' than he did for his Bond efforts, but he took
the job because he liked the script and the part. For whatever reason,
he wasn't prepared to compromise in the same way for CR. Too bad, but
portraying him as the innocent victim is a little simplistic for my
tastes. He would have known that by demanding a salary hike, he could
be pricing himself out of the market, but he took the risk anyway.
That's business.

Best

Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242675 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 11:32

phil.gerrard1

One further, crucial point: EON and Martin Campbell have said from the
start that the last act / two acts of the movie are the parts which
will be faithful to Fleming's novel. They have never once said that
the entire movie would be a beginning-to-end faithful adaptation. It's
rather pointless to attack them for breaking promises they never made
in the first place.

Best

Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242677 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 11:42

ahk

phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

>One further, crucial point: EON and Martin Campbell have said from the
>start that the last act / two acts of the movie are the parts which
>will be faithful to Fleming's novel.

I hope it's not faithful to the last 1/4 of the novel. The "domestic"
stuff with Vesper is where it runs out of steam.

As far as "becoming Bond", I'm looking forward to his WWII adventures on
screen!

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242678 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 11:54

phil.gerrard1

Adam wrote:

> I hope it's not faithful to the last 1/4 of the novel. The "domestic"
> stuff with Vesper is where it runs out of steam.

On the page, I'm OK with it. On the screen, it would be more Bergman
(Ingmar) than Bond.

> As far as "becoming Bond", I'm looking forward to his WWII adventures on
> screen!

LOL. It'd be like Connery's Bond having flashbacks to his adventures
during Boer War.

Best

Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242679 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 12:00

phil.gerrard1

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242684 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 12:47

phil.gerrard1

Oh, and if you think a fight on top of a crane is too silly and
over-the-top to have a place in a Bond film, well, gee, you're *really*
going to have a problem suspending your disbelief for the rest of the
movies, not to mention three-quarters of Fleming's novels.

Best

Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242687 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 13:43

Rich Handley

"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>I don't recall any fighting between a blond Bond and a black man taking
>place in mid-air on a crane in CR the book.
>http://www.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,50001-1216295,00.html
>Please, EON! Let's do try to be faithful here!
>Looks like EON is getting a little carried away in the action
>department again, contrary to its claims of doing a more "grounded"
>Bond this time.

Dude, this is getting very tired. Give it up, already.

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242688 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 13:43

Rich Handley

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> said:
>One further, crucial point: EON and Martin Campbell have said from the
>start that the last act / two acts of the movie are the parts which
>will be faithful to Fleming's novel. They have never once said that
>the entire movie would be a beginning-to-end faithful adaptation. It's
>rather pointless to attack them for breaking promises they never made
>in the first place.

Bingo.

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242689 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 13:44

Rich Handley

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> said:
>Oh, and if you think a fight on top of a crane is too silly and
>over-the-top to have a place in a Bond film, well, gee, you're *really*
>going to have a problem suspending your disbelief for the rest of the
>movies, not to mention three-quarters of Fleming's novels.

Well said!

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242713 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 19:06

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Oh, and if you think a fight on top of a crane is too silly and
> over-the-top to have a place in a Bond film, well, gee, you're *really*
> going to have a problem suspending your disbelief for the rest of the
> movies, not to mention three-quarters of Fleming's novels.

--- The problem with a fight on a crane is that it is the last thing
anyone would want to do in a "grounded" spy movie. Why even fight on a
crane? Wouldn't it be enough for Bond to just wait on the ground for
the guy to come down, or even shoot the idiot from the ground? Seems
like a simpler and less hazardous way of taking care of the situation.
It's even inexplicable, in any rationale sense, as to how they even end
up on the crane, judging by the pic. Even the fight on the San
Francisco bridge in AVTAK was stupid. So if it was stupid in AVTAK,
and it looks stupid in CR, then I guess we'll be getting more of the
same old stupid high-concept fight scenes with Craig's Bond. The crane
set-up is just another lame excuse for a "spectacular" fight scene,
just like the SF bridge, but it's one that rings hollow because it
looks like a forced creation, just like the SF bridge. I'd much rather
see Bond duking it out with the goon in some cramped quarters, much
like the train fight in FRWL or the elevator fight in DAF. Not only
are those scenes more naturalistic, but they also delivered a
credibility to the situation that only magnified the intensity of the
fight. Being up in a crane only dilutes that intensity because
movements are restricted, the fight can't be as exciting as a result,
all we're going to end up seeing is Bond and the goon taking turns
nearly slipping off the crane while struggling, not fighting, with each
other. Like, great big yawn or what? So no way is CR going to be
anything like the more "grounded" likes of FRWL that EON is spewing
out, via Campbell, in clearly deliberately misleading propagandistic
fashion. I don't know why you just can't see this. It's so blatantly
obvious that CR is going to be more along the lines of a Brosnan Bond
than a Connery one when it comes to action scenes.

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242719 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 21:57

phil.gerrard1

WQ, man, I was about to get started on a list of Bond moments both from
Fleming and the '60s films which make as little or less sense than a
fight on a crane - and there are literally *scores* of those - but if
you can't see those for yourself, then I don't think there's much point
in my arguing about this one any more. I'm just too tired of all this
to care much any more.

Since every last detail which gets leaked about CR sends you into such
paroxysms of hatred and despair, and leaves you determined to 'prove'
that everything about the film is misbegotten, since you clearly see no
hope for the franchise, since you've cast yourself as Cassandra and the
rest of us poor ignorant feebs as the Chorus (or to choose a less
highborow analogy, yourself as Kevin McCarthy and the rest of us as the
pod people), it ain't going to matter a damn what I say, so I'm just
going to save my breath, or rather my brain and fingers.

Best

Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242723 ]

Fr, 24 März 2006 22:52

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ, man, I was about to get started on a list of Bond moments both from
> Fleming and the '60s films which make as little or less sense than a
> fight on a crane - and there are literally *scores* of those - but if
> you can't see those for yourself, then I don't think there's much point
> in my arguing about this one any more. I'm just too tired of all this
> to care much any more.

--- Hey, don't get me wrong, which you apparently do quite often, hence
the drawback to even writing anything in a groups context, and who
knows why I even bother to write in this group or why anyone else does
for that matter since no one seems to ever get anything straight even
when people are in agreement. I'm not discounting any ridiculous
action stuff done before in other Bond films, I'm basically saying that
if EON now has an opportunity to do Bond right, then what I'm really
seeing is their backing off from that by resorting to the same old
action shenanigans of the past. This is why I don't buy this whole EON
claim of a return to "Bond basics", because when you really think about
it, what are the "Bond basics" that they're referring to? Everyone in
this group has their own idea of what that could be and probably none
of that is what EON might have in mind as what it means to them. "Bond
basics" to me is the pedestrian police investigator that Bond started
out to be in DN and then gradually morphed into the more adventuresome
figure he was between FRWL and OHMSS. And I'm sure that's different
from your notion of Bond basics and others as well. So before you and
everyone else so sheepishly buys into this vague idea of "Bond basics",
there must be a common understanding of what EON means by that. And by
what EON has been slipping out through pix and clips and news items,
their definition of Bond Basics still clashes with my definition of it
and, if you really put some thought into it yourself, perhaps your
defintion as well.

> Since every last detail which gets leaked about CR sends you into such
> paroxysms of hatred and despair, and leaves you determined to 'prove'
> that everything about the film is misbegotten, since you clearly see no
> hope for the franchise, since you've cast yourself as Cassandra and the
> rest of us poor ignorant feebs as the Chorus (or to choose a less
> highborow analogy, yourself as Kevin McCarthy and the rest of us as the
> pod people), it ain't going to matter a damn what I say, so I'm just
> going to save my breath, or rather my brain and fingers.

--- Oh, you're just putting words into my mouth. Again your hysteria
about my negativity towards anything and everything CR is exaggeration
at its paranoia best borne out of a total misunderstanding of where I'm
coming from, hence again the ridiculousness of discussing anything in a
groups context, especially when there are arguments to be made.
Although, I do think your analogy of my being Kevin McCarthy seeing
everyone else as pod people is somewhat accurate in an amusing sort of
way. Look, it's a fact CR is being filmed, it's a fact EON is doing it
the way it's going to want to do it regardless of whatever definition
anyone has of "Bond basics", it's a likely fact the film will be
completed and finally released, and there's nothing I nor anyone else
can say in this group that will change any of that. But it doesn't
mean I have to like it just for the sake of liking it just because it's
a new Bond movie going off in a supposedly new direction. A lot of
people are just too gullible about things like that, too desperate to
want to believe that it's just gotta work, that it can't fail. Well,
if it's just not hitting me in that way, because it's contrary to my
view of Bond basics, then so be it, that's how I'm reacting to it.
Aside from a black-and-white PTS, I haven't seen, heard or read
anything markedly different between this film and just about any
Brosnan Bond to create a sense or feeling that this is going to be a
re-imagined, rejuvenated, restructured, recreated, re-whatever Bond.
Personally, I think Brosnan could've done this movie and it probably
would've ended up pretty much the same way as it will with Craig.
There might've had to have been a bit of story tweaking done, but you
know, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if most of the script
actually reads generic enough to allow Brosnan do it just as well as
Craig. So what, then, is the real difference? What is it that you're
expecting out of CR that's going to distinguish this film from other
Bonds? The best you can hope for is that it ends up being at least on
a par with Campbell's GE, and hopefully, personally speaking, much
better than GE as well. But that's all going to depend on how they
piece together all the stuff that I'm seeing right now that's not
really appealing to me that much.

And besides, if I have a contrary point to make, and I keep making
contrary points between now and Timbuktu, there's no reason why I
shouldn't make them, just as there's no reason why you or anyone else
shouldn't consistently rant on in glowing, posiitve terms. To create a
balance in a discussion, there must be opposing views, otherwise you
just end up with a kind of one-sided, smug, pseudo-intellectual
arrogance. Neither side is really right anyway, at least until the
film comes out.

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242735 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 02:18

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> So before you and
> everyone else so sheepishly buys into this vague idea of "Bond basics",
> there must be a common understanding of what EON means by that.

Believe me, I don't buy into *anything* sheepishly. I'm an opinionated
and stubborn little bastard. However, I also recognise that if a
Fleming novel or EON film gets even 60% of things right by my
estimation, then they're doing a pretty good job, given the huge
diversity of views among Bond fans. Even my favourite albums have
tracks I could live without. You live with that.

> And besides, if I have a contrary point to make, and I keep making
> contrary points between now and Timbuktu, there's no reason why I
> shouldn't make them

Of course not, so now that I've calmed down a tad (do sheepish people
need time to calm off?) I just want to address a couple of specific
points about the crane scene you mentioned:

If you look at the clips and photos so far posted - especially the
clips - you'll note that the guy Bond's facing on the crane is
*clearly* the same guy he's holding in custody, shepherding through the
embassy, and shielding from gunfire. Hence, it's obvious that Bond is
trying to capture the guy alive. Does that not go some way towards
explaining why Bond follows him up to the crane, and doesn't simply
shoot him or let him go?

Plot-wise it seems perfectly clear that Bond's intention is to capture
rather than kill the guy at that moment in time - otherwise why would
he be protecting him from hostile gunfire in another shot from the same
sequence?

If you still think the crane scene is too silly, there's nothing I can
say to alter that. If you want a Bond adventure entirely shorn of
spectacular and slightly improbable moments, there's nothing I can say
to alter that either, except that maybe you'd be better off with Le
Carre (not that he's half as probable and realistic as he'd like to
claim).

Best

Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242740 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 03:21

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > So before you and
> > everyone else so sheepishly buys into this vague idea of "Bond basics",
> > there must be a common understanding of what EON means by that.
>
> Believe me, I don't buy into *anything* sheepishly. I'm an opinionated
> and stubborn little bastard. However, I also recognise that if a
> Fleming novel or EON film gets even 60% of things right by my
> estimation, then they're doing a pretty good job, given the huge
> diversity of views among Bond fans. Even my favourite albums have
> tracks I could live without. You live with that.

--- Hmm, I wonder what percentage will be retained from CR, seeing how
sliver-thin that book is on useful material from EON's p.o.v..

> > And besides, if I have a contrary point to make, and I keep making
> > contrary points between now and Timbuktu, there's no reason why I
> > shouldn't make them
>
> Of course not, so now that I've calmed down a tad (do sheepish people
> need time to calm off?) I just want to address a couple of specific
> points about the crane scene you mentioned:
>
> If you look at the clips and photos so far posted - especially the
> clips - you'll note that the guy Bond's facing on the crane is
> *clearly* the same guy he's holding in custody, shepherding through the
> embassy, and shielding from gunfire. Hence, it's obvious that Bond is
> trying to capture the guy alive. Does that not go some way towards
> explaining why Bond follows him up to the crane, and doesn't simply
> shoot him or let him go?

--- Where's the guy going to go anyway? He's on a crane. What
dramatic tension, rooted in any kind of credibility, are they trying to
create here? The guy can't go anywhere, so what's Bond going to try to
prove other than show off some histrionic heroics in capturing him when
he could just as well wait it out on the ground because, like I said,
the guy's just not going anywhere, so what's the motivation for Bond to
go up on the crane with him? I don't know if you see the
ridiculousness of the whole crane thing to begin with.

> Plot-wise it seems perfectly clear that Bond's intention is to capture
> rather than kill the guy at that moment in time - otherwise why would
> he be protecting him from hostile gunfire in another shot from the same
> sequence?

--- Yeah, but unless it's explained in some way that makes perfect
sense, then for the guy to run up the crane with no exit from there
without killing himself is in and of itself kind of stupid.

> If you still think the crane scene is too silly, there's nothing I can
> say to alter that. If you want a Bond adventure entirely shorn of
> spectacular and slightly improbable moments, there's nothing I can say
> to alter that either, except that maybe you'd be better off with Le
> Carre (not that he's half as probable and realistic as he'd like to
> claim).

--- It's interesting that you should have that all figured out just by
looking at several photos and not from having read the script.
Personally, I just don't get why you're defending the scene when you
have no real basis as to what it's all really about. My question still
remains: why a crane? What nutcase trying to escape would want to go
up a crane to do so in the first place, unless he belongs in a loony
bin? Are we, and Bond, going to be subjected to dumbed-down villains
now? EON had just better have a good explanation for this nonsensical
scene if I'm going to buy into it.

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242743 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 03:52

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> --- It's interesting that you should have that all figured out just by
> looking at several photos and not from having read the script.

Well, you haven't read the script either, WQ, so you're in no position
to damn me here. However, I did in fact spot that Bond is clearly
trying to apprehend the guy on the basis of the other clips and photos
we've seen. I'm looking for clues as to why this should be - you're
looking for reasons to condemn the film in advance based on little more
than your own prejudice.

> Personally, I just don't get why you're defending the scene when you
> have no real basis as to what it's all really about.

The fact that I noticed that Bond is trying to keep his adversary alive
in another shot might suggest that I'm a little more clued-up regarding
what the scene is about than you are.

> My question still
> remains: why a crane? What nutcase trying to escape would want to go
> up a crane to do so in the first place, unless he belongs in a loony
> bin? Are we, and Bond, going to be subjected to dumbed-down villains
> now? EON had just better have a good explanation for this nonsensical
> scene if I'm going to buy into it.

Why not hold a seance and ask Fleming about the fight with the octopus
in DN, the escape by weather balloon in YOLT, the shop dummy tied to
the railroad tracks in TMWTGG, the smuggling of a defector via the
friggin' high-profile Orient Express in FRWL, etc, etc? This is of
course the tip of the iceberg, and I'm just citing the first few cases
which come to mind. As I said, there are scores more examples in
Fleming's work alone. All are many times more sensationalistic,
unlikely, and unrealistic than the idea of a pursued suspect ending up
in a potentially dangerous place.

Leaving Fleming aside, if you can't live with the crane idea because
it's too unrealistic, then it's bye-bye to such cinematic classics as
'White Heat' and 'North by Northwest' for you.

You want to know something? There are plenty of very smart and
knowledgable people on this list, hardcore Fleming fans, who would
normally have been very quick to cry foul about what's potentially
wrong with CR - but your incessant nay-saying and wanton pessimism have
probably driven them to champion the film more than they would
otherwise have done. In fact, that's the way I feel myself.

Best

Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242754 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 05:22

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- It's interesting that you should have that all figured out just by
> > looking at several photos and not from having read the script.
>
> Well, you haven't read the script either, WQ, so you're in no position
> to damn me here. However, I did in fact spot that Bond is clearly
> trying to apprehend the guy on the basis of the other clips and photos
> we've seen. I'm looking for clues as to why this should be - you're
> looking for reasons to condemn the film in advance based on little more
> than your own prejudice.

--- Well, your looking for clues and my ridiculing the setups both
really add up to nothing anyway since we both could be wrong as to
what's really going on. You're trying to connect the dots that would
justify the crane scene, I'm looking at it from a logical point of view
of why anyone - and I mean anyone - would try to get away from someone
by going up a crane, even if it does take place in a fictional Bond
film. That's no escape route under any circumstance, just face it.
Would you run up a crane to get away from Bond? I'm certainly a hell
of a lot smarter than that, that's for sure. Seriously.

> > Personally, I just don't get why you're defending the scene when you
> > have no real basis as to what it's all really about.
>
> The fact that I noticed that Bond is trying to keep his adversary alive
> in another shot might suggest that I'm a little more clued-up regarding
> what the scene is about than you are.

--- How do you know the shots you're seeing are going to be lined up in
the final print in the chronological order you think they'll be in?

> > My question still
> > remains: why a crane? What nutcase trying to escape would want to go
> > up a crane to do so in the first place, unless he belongs in a loony
> > bin? Are we, and Bond, going to be subjected to dumbed-down villains
> > now? EON had just better have a good explanation for this nonsensical
> > scene if I'm going to buy into it.
>
> Why not hold a seance and ask Fleming about the fight with the octopus
> in DN, the escape by weather balloon in YOLT, the shop dummy tied to
> the railroad tracks in TMWTGG, the smuggling of a defector via the
> friggin' high-profile Orient Express in FRWL, etc, etc? This is of
> course the tip of the iceberg, and I'm just citing the first few cases
> which come to mind. As I said, there are scores more examples in
> Fleming's work alone. All are many times more sensationalistic,
> unlikely, and unrealistic than the idea of a pursued suspect ending up
> in a potentially dangerous place.

--- Much has been said how EON is taking its cues from the Bourne films
in order to "ground" Bond. After all, what the hell has all this been
about anyway when they came up with Craig and decided to retool and
reboot the series? The issue is not what Fleming wrote or what other
past Bond films engaged in when it comes to outrageous fight scenes or
whatever, the issue is the "grounding" of Bond. We're supposed to be
starting off with a fresh, clean slate here. Or are we all being
misled by EON into believing that Bond will be "grounded", or not as
fantastical as in the past? If EON is serious about "grounding" Bond,
then an inexplicable run up the crane merely for what would seem to be
sensationalistic purposes and not any real logic goes against that
"grounding". What you're doing is trying to rationalize what EON is
doing, no matter what it is they're doing. What I'm doing is calling
EON on the bull they keep spewing about wanting to "ground" Bond but
seemingly, as far as I can see, are doing everything to keep him
ungrounded. Instead of running up a crane to nowhere, wouldn't it make
more sense and be more action-packed exciting if the goon - logically
thinking - ran through the sewer system instead? Sure, it's been done
before, but the point is this: it makes more sense to try to evade
capture in a sewer system where the opportunities to escape are far
greater than being stuck on a crane. The Third Man was an excellent
example of how a sequence like that could be shot and made fascinating
to watch. You can't do anything with a crane - it's stupid and it's
boring. Why not see it for what it really is: a vacant action piece
dead end.

> Leaving Fleming aside, if you can't live with the crane idea because
> it's too unrealistic, then it's bye-bye to such cinematic classics as
> 'White Heat' and 'North by Northwest' for you.

--- The great thing about White Heat is that while it didn't seem to
make sense for Cagney to run up the oil tower, the scene worked
beautifully for the big bang irony it delivered along with his last
words yelled as he blasted away. It was over the top but it was also
brilliantly classic. As for North by Northwest, not only did the plot
work in the direction of the climactic finale on Mt. Rushmore, but the
setting and situation were also used for the specific purpose of
generating terrific suspense, leaving the viewer wondering how the hell
are they going to get out of this one. And again, the wrap-up was
sheer classic. Hitchocock decided that it didn't matter how they got
out of it, as impossible as it looked to do so, it just mattered that
they did. It was a perfect relief counterpoint to the unnerving
suspense built up on the cliff. It's highly unlikely that the crane
scene in CR will amount to being anywhere near the classic level of
either film, especially since it doesn't look like it will serve as a
climactic conclusion to anything anyway.

> You want to know something? There are plenty of very smart and
> knowledgable people on this list, hardcore Fleming fans, who would
> normally have been very quick to cry foul about what's potentially
> wrong with CR - but your incessant nay-saying and wanton pessimism have
> probably driven them to champion the film more than they would
> otherwise have done. In fact, that's the way I feel myself.

--- Well, unlike most of the rest of the people in this group, I at
least commend you for having a braver gut than them in throwing your
two cents' worth at me in the hope of invalidating my two cents' worth.
I'm a tough nut to crack, but whenever I see you're right, you better
believe I'll let you know that. Just try to be right sometimes.

> Best
>
> Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242771 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 14:11

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> --- How do you know the shots you're seeing are going to be lined up in
> the final print in the chronological order you think they'll be in?

Chronological order doesn't matter - the fact remains that he's trying
to keep his adversary alive for as long as it's possible for him to do
so. Why would he change his mind about that mid-scene?

> --- Much has been said how EON is taking its cues from the Bourne films
> in order to "ground" Bond.

There's 'grounded' as in mimicking Bourne and there's 'grounded' as in
returning to Fleming / early EON roots. As much as I like the Bourne
films, I would prefer EON to take the latter approach than the former.

Also, if you think that the Bourne films are plausible, realistic
portrayals of the world of espionage, or that there's nothing in those
films which is as unlikely as a fleeing suspect climbing up a crane,
then I've got a subscription to the Weekly World News to sell you..

> You can't do anything with a crane - it's stupid and it's
> boring. Why not see it for what it really is: a vacant action piece
> dead end.

You're basing this assertion - that it will be vacant, stupid, and
boring - on what? The innumerable crane fight scenes that have been
seen in the movies? For me, it's something different, which is in
itself intriguing. Let's now wait and see what they do with it.

As for this action scene being more akin to Brosnan's films than
Connery's, you have *got* to be kidding.

Furthermore, and in fact above all, you're talking about a scene which
will amount to one or two minutes' worth of a two-hour movie at most.
If you're prepared to damn the whole enterprise on that basis - no, in
fact, on the basis of two or three out-of-context stills - well, I'm
sorry, but that's the height of nitpicking as far as I'm concerned.

Best

Phik

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242777 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 16:32

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- How do you know the shots you're seeing are going to be lined up in
> > the final print in the chronological order you think they'll be in?
>
> Chronological order doesn't matter - the fact remains that he's trying
> to keep his adversary alive for as long as it's possible for him to do
> so. Why would he change his mind about that mid-scene?

--- I didn't say anything about changing his mind. I'm talking about
the dumbness of the goon ending up on a crane thinking he can get away
that way. Add to that the the dumbness of even having a fight on a
crane. Why even fight the guy on the crane? The goon's not going
anywhere. And if anything, Bond risks losing the guy in a fight when
he's supposed to be trying to keep him alive, as you claim. This is a
stunt scene that amounts to little more than cheap thrills that's not
rooted in any logic of why it should even take place on a crane.

> > --- Much has been said how EON is taking its cues from the Bourne films
> > in order to "ground" Bond.
>
> There's 'grounded' as in mimicking Bourne and there's 'grounded' as in
> returning to Fleming / early EON roots. As much as I like the Bourne
> films, I would prefer EON to take the latter approach than the former.

--- Yeah, but how do you know you're going to get your kind of Bond, or
I'm going to get my kind of Bond, from EON, when they probably have
their own idea of what makes for a return to a "grounded" Bond? To
Barb and Mike, that could mean what was done in FYEO and not FRWL. Or
worse, TMWTGG.

> Also, if you think that the Bourne films are plausible, realistic
> portrayals of the world of espionage, or that there's nothing in those
> films which is as unlikely as a fleeing suspect climbing up a crane,
> then I've got a subscription to the Weekly World News to sell you..

--- Compared to Bond lately, you better believe the Bourne films are
more plausible and realistic. I had a couple of minor qualms about
them, but they amounted to insignificant complaints considering the
films' overall strengths. Although, I really wasn't too keen on Bourne
using a goon for cover as he went plummetting with him down about a
dozen flights of stairs while blasting away at the other goon trying to
get him, then landing flat on top of the cover goon as both hit the
ground floor. That was stupid and a case of lazy scripting in trying
to figure out how to get Bourne out of there.

> > You can't do anything with a crane - it's stupid and it's
> > boring. Why not see it for what it really is: a vacant action piece
> > dead end.
>
> You're basing this assertion - that it will be vacant, stupid, and
> boring - on what? The innumerable crane fight scenes that have been
> seen in the movies? For me, it's something different, which is in
> itself intriguing. Let's now wait and see what they do with it.

--- So, what? You're still comparing the crane scene to the climax of
North by Northwest and White Heat? Or even the potential to be like
either of those climaxes? I think you fail to understand what makes
scenes involving heights work. It's not the fact of it being a scene
involving height and thus creationg some sort of sense of peril, it's
what supports the rationale for even having a scene with height. You
still evade the question: Why does the goon run up a crane believing
he's actually going to get away when a crane is just obviously such a
dead end route for escape? Until you can answer that, your supporting
the crane scene is just support for the sake of support, it has no
rhyme nor reason, it's not rooted or grounded in the logic of the
character's action.

> As for this action scene being more akin to Brosnan's films than
> Connery's, you have *got* to be kidding.
>
> Furthermore, and in fact above all, you're talking about a scene which
> will amount to one or two minutes' worth of a two-hour movie at most.
> If you're prepared to damn the whole enterprise on that basis - no, in
> fact, on the basis of two or three out-of-context stills - well, I'm
> sorry, but that's the height of nitpicking as far as I'm concerned.

--- Well, you're still looking at it from the point of view of some
sort of spectacular stunt as opposed to how I view it, being the
illogic of someone trying to escape by trying to do so on a dead-end
crane. Again, this is where I can skip over from a to c and right away
get the dumbness of the scene whereas you're determined to go from a to
b to c before you get the dumbness of the scene. Maybe this is why
we'll always be at an impasse over things like this.

>
> Best
>
> Phik

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242780 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 20:21

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> Again, this is where I can skip over from a to c and right away
> get the dumbness of the scene whereas you're determined to go from a to
> b to c before you get the dumbness of the scene.

As I've said before, this amounts to claiming to have psychic powers.
On the basis of a solitary still, you've arrived at a detailed
assessment of the logic, style, and quality of an entire movie which
isn't due to be released until November. That's not going merely from
A to C, that's going from A to Z, missing out all twenty-four letters
in between. You can call it gut instinct if you like, but I'd be more
inclined to call it blind prejudice.

Best

Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242782 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 21:07

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > Again, this is where I can skip over from a to c and right away
> > get the dumbness of the scene whereas you're determined to go from a to
> > b to c before you get the dumbness of the scene.
>
> As I've said before, this amounts to claiming to have psychic powers.
> On the basis of a solitary still, you've arrived at a detailed
> assessment of the logic, style, and quality of an entire movie which
> isn't due to be released until November. That's not going merely from
> A to C, that's going from A to Z, missing out all twenty-four letters
> in between. You can call it gut instinct if you like, but I'd be more
> inclined to call it blind prejudice.

--- Frankly, I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that I've
got the entire movie figured out on the basis of a single still. I
thought we were discussing the crane scene, nothing more, nothing less,
that's why I'm limiting my powers of perception to only point c and not
z. And the gut instinct also draws from past viewing experience of
sitting through the more recent Bond misfires, so it can hardly be
called blind prejudice. For example, in TND, was it really necessary
to have the garage scene with Bond being a back seat driver in his
remote-controlled car while goons all around him were blasting away at
him? Of course it wasn't. The scene was an excuse to show off the
car, rather than it being a natural extension of the plot with the car
being used to show off its toys in a scene that made sense and relevant
use of the car. The Aston in GF showed how it should be done. There's
a difference between the two. Once the garage scene was over, nothing
was really made of it. Bond could've left that garage without that
whole sequence ever taken place and we still wouldn't've missed out on
anything in the plot. That's what's called gratuitous meaningless
action - action for the sake of it, without rhyme or reason.
Unfortunately, too many people have become brainwashed into accepting
it because there's been so much of it and no one really seems to
question it anymore, including yourself. Now, I don't dismiss the
possibility that the crane scene in CR can work - I don't dismiss the
possibility of anything or everything working in CR - but EON is going
to have get past my skepticism, borne out of a lot of bad EON-produced
Bond films, by proving that the crane scene makes sense, that there
really is a rationale behind the madness of trying to escape on a
crane. You still haven't figured out what that rationale is, neither
have I. Something has to motivate the goon to want to run in the
direction of the crane to believe that he's actually going to get away
from Bond. What is that something that motivates him? The only thing
I can think of, and it would be just another cliche, is if it's been
planned beforehand that a helicopter comes around to lift him off of
it, leaving Bond empty-handed. In one still there is a view of a
helicopter in the background, but I originally thought that might be
for filming purposes. However, even if they used the helicopter ploy,
then it'd still add up to one, big ho-hum. I've seen helicopter
escapes dozens of times before already. Wasn't there even one in LTK?
So again, it stumps me as to why you're so accepting of what so clearly
appears to be a bargain basement, cheap thrills, logic-bereft stunt,
believing that this is probably going to be some sort of spectacular
event in the film. Sure, we'll see how it'll all look in the final
print and I might be proven wrong, but unfortunately, on the basis of
past viewing experience with the Brosnan Bonds [hence, my extraordinary
powers of perception and gut instinct], I can't give EON much credit in
being able to be clever about this or be all that much different from
Brosnan Bonds with CR. But I'll sure as hell be surprised if they pull
it off against all the odds.

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242783 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 22:06

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> For example, in TND, was it really necessary
> to have the garage scene with Bond being a back seat driver in his
> remote-controlled car while goons all around him were blasting away at
> him? Of course it wasn't. The scene was an excuse to show off the
> car, rather than it being a natural extension of the plot with the car
> being used to show off its toys in a scene that made sense and relevant
> use of the car. The Aston in GF showed how it should be done. There's
> a difference between the two. Once the garage scene was over, nothing
> was really made of it. Bond could've left that garage without that
> whole sequence ever taken place and we still wouldn't've missed out on
> anything in the plot. That's what's called gratuitous meaningless
> action - action for the sake of it, without rhyme or reason.

You're *seriously* claiming that none of the Aston Martin scene in GF
could be described as action for action's sake? That it was all
somehow a natural, organic extension of the story? Oh, *please*.
Literally three-quarters of that sequence could be cut from the film
without any damage whatsoever being done to the plot. If you're
complaining about action for action's sake, then how can you accept,
for example, the helicopter and boat scenes at the end of FRWL, which
add nothing to Fleming's original except, as you put it, some cheap
thrills?

Again, what strikes me is that you're hurling around criticisms which
could be levelled against so *many* Bond films and books that I wonder
how you can sit through any of them.

> The only thing
> I can think of, and it would be just another cliche, is if it's been
> planned beforehand that a helicopter comes around to lift him off of
> it, leaving Bond empty-handed. In one still there is a view of a
> helicopter in the background, but I originally thought that might be
> for filming purposes. However, even if they used the helicopter ploy,
> then it'd still add up to one, big ho-hum. I've seen helicopter
> escapes dozens of times before already.

Again, you've made a huge A to Z leap here in suggesting that such a
thing might happen. In addition, you've clearly forgotten the script
report you were so eager to tear apart just a few weeks ago. Bond's
quarry does *not* survive this chase.

This is the point, WQ: not only are you leaping to conclusions, you're
reaching these conclusions without any reference whatsoever to context
(other clips and stills, the draft script). Doesn't it strike you that
paying attention to that context might make your predictions a little
more likely to be accurate?

> Wasn't there even one in LTK?

No.

Best

Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242784 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 22:28

phil.gerrard1

The point is, if you're going to watch Bond films or read Bond novels,
you are going to get some unlikely, improbable, or over-the-top stuff.
That's always been the case and always will be the case. Heightened
reality is part of what makes the Bond universe what it is, and with
heightened reality you get things which simply don't happen in the
world the rest of us inhabit. That's part of the thrill and appeal.
Fleming was the first to hold his hand up and say that his books went
'wildly beyond the probable'. After that it's a question of degrees -
ie how far is too far? If you're going to complain about anything the
slightest bit improbable, unlikely, or gratuitously thrilling yet
spectacular - and really, a fight on top of a crane is as nothing
compared to much of what's in the Bond novels alone - I can't
understand why on earth you'd want to watch any Bond film or read any
Bond novel in the first place.

Best

Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242785 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 22:33

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > For example, in TND, was it really necessary
> > to have the garage scene with Bond being a back seat driver in his
> > remote-controlled car while goons all around him were blasting away at
> > him? Of course it wasn't. The scene was an excuse to show off the
> > car, rather than it being a natural extension of the plot with the car
> > being used to show off its toys in a scene that made sense and relevant
> > use of the car. The Aston in GF showed how it should be done. There's
> > a difference between the two. Once the garage scene was over, nothing
> > was really made of it. Bond could've left that garage without that
> > whole sequence ever taken place and we still wouldn't've missed out on
> > anything in the plot. That's what's called gratuitous meaningless
> > action - action for the sake of it, without rhyme or reason.
>
> You're *seriously* claiming that none of the Aston Martin scene in GF
> could be described as action for action's sake? That it was all
> somehow a natural, organic extension of the story? Oh, *please*.
> Literally three-quarters of that sequence could be cut from the film
> without any damage whatsoever being done to the plot. If you're
> complaining about action for action's sake, then how can you accept,
> for example, the helicopter and boat scenes at the end of FRWL, which
> add nothing to Fleming's original except, as you put it, some cheap
> thrills?
>
> Again, what strikes me is that you're hurling around criticisms which
> could be levelled against so *many* Bond films and books that I wonder
> how you can sit through any of them.
>
> > The only thing
> > I can think of, and it would be just another cliche, is if it's been
> > planned beforehand that a helicopter comes around to lift him off of
> > it, leaving Bond empty-handed. In one still there is a view of a
> > helicopter in the background, but I originally thought that might be
> > for filming purposes. However, even if they used the helicopter ploy,
> > then it'd still add up to one, big ho-hum. I've seen helicopter
> > escapes dozens of times before already.
>
> Again, you've made a huge A to Z leap here in suggesting that such a
> thing might happen. In addition, you've clearly forgotten the script
> report you were so eager to tear apart just a few weeks ago. Bond's
> quarry does *not* survive this chase.
>
> This is the point, WQ: not only are you leaping to conclusions, you're
> reaching these conclusions without any reference whatsoever to context
> (other clips and stills, the draft script). Doesn't it strike you that
> paying attention to that context might make your predictions a little
> more likely to be accurate?

--- Ok, let me limit this to just this relevant point. So Bond's
quarry doesn't survive the chase. That only adds fuel to my fire.
What made the quarry believe he could actually escape Bond by ending up
on a crane? You still haven't answered that question. What was he
thinking? What's the rationale? Again, forget about the other movies.
They've been done, flaws and all. CR is supposed to be - if we're to
believe it at all - a fresh new start. So how come EON is still making
the same goofs indistinguishable from a Brosnan Bond or even a Moore
one?

> > Wasn't there even one in LTK?
>
> No.

--- Actually, there were two helicopter scenes, in the beginning, but
Bond was in it and it had nothing to do with escaping, and at the end,
in the chase with an oil tanker. I guess that's what led me to believe
at first that one had been used for an escape.

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242786 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 22:42

JHause

WQ wrote:
>
> --- Ok, let me limit this to just this relevant point. So Bond's
> quarry doesn't survive the chase. That only adds fuel to my fire.
> What made the quarry believe he could actually escape Bond by ending up
> on a crane? You still haven't answered that question. What was he
> thinking? What's the rationale? Again, forget about the other movies.
> They've been done, flaws and all. CR is supposed to be - if we're to
> believe it at all - a fresh new start. So how come EON is still making
> the same goofs indistinguishable from a Brosnan Bond or even a Moore
> one?
>

What's the rationale for trying to beat LeChiffre at cards and possibly
losing millions of dollars to the enemy when you could just offer him
diplomatic immunity to escape the bad guys and bring him to Bond's
side? The whole story is an idiot plot. Most Bond movies -- most spy
movies -- have idiot plots. Either accept it or shut up.

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242787 ]

Sa, 25 März 2006 23:29

JHause wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> >
> > --- Ok, let me limit this to just this relevant point. So Bond's
> > quarry doesn't survive the chase. That only adds fuel to my fire.
> > What made the quarry believe he could actually escape Bond by ending up
> > on a crane? You still haven't answered that question. What was he
> > thinking? What's the rationale? Again, forget about the other movies.
> > They've been done, flaws and all. CR is supposed to be - if we're to
> > believe it at all - a fresh new start. So how come EON is still making
> > the same goofs indistinguishable from a Brosnan Bond or even a Moore
> > one?
> >
>
> What's the rationale for trying to beat LeChiffre at cards and possibly
> losing millions of dollars to the enemy when you could just offer him
> diplomatic immunity to escape the bad guys and bring him to Bond's
> side? The whole story is an idiot plot. Most Bond movies -- most spy
> movies -- have idiot plots. Either accept it or shut up.

--- The rationale - from an early 50s mindset via Fleming and
considering the Cold War of the times - was that it was deemed more
favourable to both Britain and NATO that Le Chiffre be "ridiculed and
destroyed, that his Communist trade union should be bankrupted and
brought into disrepute, and that this potential fifth column, with a
strength of 50,000, capable in time of war of controlling a wide sector
of France's northern frontier, should lose faith and cohesion. All
this would result if Le Chiffre could be defeated at the tables."
Apparently, from a 50s Cold War mindset, offering diplomatic immunity
would fail to achieve all those ends. But since CR the movie takes
place in the 21st century, I believe I read that Le Chiffre will now be
offered diplomatic immunity as a politically correct way out. Yawn,
how uninspired. Makes me long for the more duplicitous and conniving
Cold War years again.

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242797 ]

So, 26 März 2006 01:41

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> --- Ok, let me limit this to just this relevant point. So Bond's
> quarry doesn't survive the chase. That only adds fuel to my fire.
> What made the quarry believe he could actually escape Bond by ending up
> on a crane? You still haven't answered that question. What was he
> thinking? What's the rationale?

I don't know. Neither do you. Here's a radical idea: shall we watch
the movie and see whether it works before making these judgements?

> Again, forget about the other movies.
> They've been done, flaws and all. CR is supposed to be - if we're to
> believe it at all - a fresh new start. So how come EON is still making
> the same goofs indistinguishable from a Brosnan Bond or even a Moore
> one?

Or a Connery or Lazenby movie or Fleming novel. You're evading a very
important point here, WQ. Is the idea of Bond chasing a suspect onto a
crane inherently more unlikely than everything that Fleming wrote or
that EON made during the 'golden years'? If it isn't, then I don't
think you've got much of an argument.

Just a few examples to refresh your memory: Samurai Blofeld, fight with
an octopus, smuggling a defector out by the luxurious and far from
anonymous Orient Express, Grant's bullet magically striking the exact
spot where it would do no damage to Bond, mistaking a dummy tied to a
train track for your girlfriend, death by guano, robbing Fort Knox,
converting a lesbian, coincidentally ending up at the same health farm
as a key member of a SPECTRE conspiracy... and I haven't even really
gotten started. There are twenty pages' more of this stuff, and so far
I've been choosing examples from Fleming alone.

> --- Actually, there were two helicopter scenes, in the beginning, but
> Bond was in it and it had nothing to do with escaping, and at the end,
> in the chase with an oil tanker. I guess that's what led me to believe
> at first that one had been used for an escape.

Nope, no helicopter in the tanker chase either. Yet again, check your
facts before posting.

Best

Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242802 ]

So, 26 März 2006 04:15

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Ok, let me limit this to just this relevant point. So Bond's
> > quarry doesn't survive the chase. That only adds fuel to my fire.
> > What made the quarry believe he could actually escape Bond by ending up
> > on a crane? You still haven't answered that question. What was he
> > thinking? What's the rationale?
>
> I don't know. Neither do you. Here's a radical idea: shall we watch
> the movie and see whether it works before making these judgements?

--- Guess that's ultimately the only way it'll have to be if we're both
clued out about it.

> > Again, forget about the other movies.
> > They've been done, flaws and all. CR is supposed to be - if we're to
> > believe it at all - a fresh new start. So how come EON is still making
> > the same goofs indistinguishable from a Brosnan Bond or even a Moore
> > one?
>
> Or a Connery or Lazenby movie or Fleming novel. You're evading a very
> important point here, WQ. Is the idea of Bond chasing a suspect onto a
> crane inherently more unlikely than everything that Fleming wrote or
> that EON made during the 'golden years'? If it isn't, then I don't
> think you've got much of an argument.

--- I said forget the other movies. That's not the point I'm pursuing.
What I'm doing is calling on EON's ridiculous statements about
starting fresh with Bond. One can argue that using Craig is really
starting fresh, albeit on the wrong foot. But then, one can also argue
that he seems to be increasingly trapped by all the familiar stale
elements that have restricted Bond's growth, like nonsensical
hyperactive action stunts, the same old musical composer, the same old
M, the same old scriptwriters [essentially], etc. If EON really wanted
to start fresh with Bond, they'd be making a much more concerted effort
in that direction, i.e. a complete overhaul in casting, scriptwriters,
musical composer, and overall vision for what Bond should be all about
and should be doing. Otherwise, why even bother putting out to the
world that this is going to be a "new" kind of Bond? What I fear is
that Craig will only come off looking like a poor man's Brosnan, who
himself was a poor man's Connery - or even Moore.

> > --- Actually, there were two helicopter scenes, in the beginning, but
> > Bond was in it and it had nothing to do with escaping, and at the end,
> > in the chase with an oil tanker. I guess that's what led me to believe
> > at first that one had been used for an escape.
>
> Nope, no helicopter in the tanker chase either. Yet again, check your
> facts before posting.

--- Ok, the second one was a plane. Cut me some slack, will you? It's
been at least a decade since I last saw LTK, and it doesn't help when
it wasn't that memorable a film for me to begin with. But this is
interesting here, from http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/movies/ltk.php3

"The original title of the movie was to be "Licence Revoked", but
results of a survey which showed that approximately 50% of Americans
did not understand the term "revoked" allegedly lead to the change. A
fierce battle was fought for the title to be Americanized to "License
To Kill" (with an "s"), but the British version won out. The title is
referred to by M when 007 quits the secret service - "effective
immediately, your licence to kill is revoked"."

It astounds me - well, actually, it shouldn't - that half of Americans
surveyed didn't understand the word "revoked", but even more so that
the studio and/or EON actually thought that they might lose half their
audience because the Bond film title wouldn't be understandable, thus
scaring them into actually changing it. It's also interesting to note
once again that EON exerted its "creative rights" muscle to ensure that
"Licence to Kill" was spelled the British way, not American. But I
wonder if half of American audiences who saw LTK still understood what
was actually meant when M told 007 that his licence to kill has been
"revoked".

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242803 ]

So, 26 März 2006 04:39

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> --- I said forget the other movies.

Then you have to do the same. Don't bring up GF to try to trash my
points about CR - which you did just a few posts ago. You're making up
the rules as you go along.

> --- Ok, the second one was a plane. Cut me some slack, will you?

Until you're prepared to cut me some slack, why the hell should I offer
you the same courtesy?

> It's
> been at least a decade since I last saw LTK, and it doesn't help when
> it wasn't that memorable a film for me to begin with. But this is
> interesting here, from http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/movies/ltk.php3
>
> "The original title of the movie was to be "Licence Revoked", but
> results of a survey which showed that approximately 50% of Americans
> did not understand the term "revoked" allegedly lead to the change. A
> fierce battle was fought for the title to be Americanized to "License
> To Kill" (with an "s"), but the British version won out. The title is
> referred to by M when 007 quits the secret service - "effective
> immediately, your licence to kill is revoked"."
>
> It astounds me - well, actually, it shouldn't - that half of Americans
> surveyed didn't understand the word "revoked", but even more so that
> the studio and/or EON actually thought that they might lose half their
> audience because the Bond film title wouldn't be understandable, thus
> scaring them into actually changing it. It's also interesting to note
> once again that EON exerted its "creative rights" muscle to ensure that
> "Licence to Kill" was spelled the British way, not American. But I
> wonder if half of American audiences who saw LTK still understood what
> was actually meant when M told 007 that his licence to kill has been
> "revoked".

What the fuck is this about? Where did this come from? What on earth
has it got to do with the points we were discussing? Oh, I get it -
I've pointed out something you got wrong about LTK, so in order to
defend yourself you've dug up some meaningless trivia about the film in
a desperate attempt to distract attention. This is a total digression
and a painfully transparent diversionary tactic, and I also notice you
haven't once tried to address my points about the lapses in probability
in Fleming's novels or the early EON films.

WQ, you're clutching at straws here, and in addition you're changing
the grounds of your argument with every post you make. Sorry, man, but
this is just getting pathetic and desperate now, and I'm fucking tired
of indulging you.

Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242806 ]

So, 26 März 2006 05:24

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- I said forget the other movies.
>
> Then you have to do the same. Don't bring up GF to try to trash my
> points about CR - which you did just a few posts ago. You're making up
> the rules as you go along.

--- My posts, my rules. But okay, you got me on that one. Maybe I
should've mentioned the Mustang in Bullit instead.

> > --- Ok, the second one was a plane. Cut me some slack, will you?
>
> Until you're prepared to cut me some slack, why the hell should I offer
> you the same courtesy?

--- All right, I accept your shortcomings.

> > It's
> > been at least a decade since I last saw LTK, and it doesn't help when
> > it wasn't that memorable a film for me to begin with. But this is
> > interesting here, from http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/movies/ltk.php3
> >
> > "The original title of the movie was to be "Licence Revoked", but
> > results of a survey which showed that approximately 50% of Americans
> > did not understand the term "revoked" allegedly lead to the change. A
> > fierce battle was fought for the title to be Americanized to "License
> > To Kill" (with an "s"), but the British version won out. The title is
> > referred to by M when 007 quits the secret service - "effective
> > immediately, your licence to kill is revoked"."
> >
> > It astounds me - well, actually, it shouldn't - that half of Americans
> > surveyed didn't understand the word "revoked", but even more so that
> > the studio and/or EON actually thought that they might lose half their
> > audience because the Bond film title wouldn't be understandable, thus
> > scaring them into actually changing it. It's also interesting to note
> > once again that EON exerted its "creative rights" muscle to ensure that
> > "Licence to Kill" was spelled the British way, not American. But I
> > wonder if half of American audiences who saw LTK still understood what
> > was actually meant when M told 007 that his licence to kill has been
> > "revoked".
>
> What the fuck is this about? Where did this come from? What on earth
> has it got to do with the points we were discussing? Oh, I get it -
> I've pointed out something you got wrong about LTK, so in order to
> defend yourself you've dug up some meaningless trivia about the film in
> a desperate attempt to distract attention. This is a total digression
> and a painfully transparent diversionary tactic, and I also notice you
> haven't once tried to address my points about the lapses in probability
> in Fleming's novels or the early EON films.
>
> WQ, you're clutching at straws here, and in addition you're changing
> the grounds of your argument with every post you make. Sorry, man, but
> this is just getting pathetic and desperate now, and I'm fucking tired
> of indulging you.

--- You see what I mean about discussing anything within this group
context? Maybe we should just restrict ourselves to spouting off
shallow one-liners instead of attempting to reason out things because
clearly your reaction here is just totally off the mark to what I
brought up. The quote above was one I came across when I went to the
MI6 site to refresh my memory on the LTK synopsis and how many copters
there were in it, one or two. Finding the quote above amusing myself,
I thought I'd just throw it in as a humourous aside - which apparently
escaped your humourless sense of humour - to LTK. Seems you're more
interested in coming up with befuddled retorts or misinterpretations of
what I write than just simply reading what's really there. You're just
way too overly defensive, man, and we're only talking about Bond. Hate
to imagine what you're like about more serious subjects.

>
> Phil

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242812 ]

So, 26 März 2006 06:57

ahk

phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

>You're *seriously* claiming that none of the Aston Martin scene in GF
>could be described as action for action's sake? That it was all somehow
>a natural, organic extension of the story? Oh, *please*. Literally
>three-quarters of that sequence could be cut from the film without any
>damage whatsoever being done to the plot. If you're complaining about
>action for action's sake, then how can you accept, for example, the
>helicopter and boat scenes at the end of FRWL, which add nothing to
>Fleming's original except, as you put it, some cheap thrills?

FRWL is a favorite movie, but I'm with Hitchcock on the helicopter scene.
Yeah, that was a ripoff of "North by Northwest". That scene doesn't work
for me at all.

Loved the end of FRWL. Actually, when Rosa Kleb poisons him in the novel,
it always made be cringe.

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242813 ]

So, 26 März 2006 07:00

ahk

phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

>. . . Is the idea of Bond chasing a suspect onto a crane inherently more
>unlikely than everything that Fleming wrote or that EON made during the
>'golden years'? If it isn't, then I don't think you've got much of an
>argument.

>Just a few examples to refresh your memory: Samurai Blofeld, fight with
>an octopus, smuggling a defector out by the luxurious and far from
>anonymous Orient Express, Grant's bullet magically striking the exact
>spot where it would do no damage to Bond, mistaking a dummy tied to a
>train track for your girlfriend, death by guano, robbing Fort Knox,
>converting a lesbian, coincidentally ending up at the same health farm
>as a key member of a SPECTRE conspiracy... and I haven't even really
>gotten started. There are twenty pages' more of this stuff, and so far
>I've been choosing examples from Fleming alone.

He's James Bond! Of course he can convert lesbians.

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242818 ]

So, 26 März 2006 08:09

JHause

WQ wrote:
>
> --- The rationale - from an early 50s mindset via Fleming and
> considering the Cold War of the times - was that it was deemed more
> favourable to both Britain and NATO that Le Chiffre be "ridiculed and
> destroyed, that his Communist trade union should be bankrupted and
> brought into disrepute, and that this potential fifth column, with a
> strength of 50,000, capable in time of war of controlling a wide sector
> of France's northern frontier, should lose faith and cohesion. All
> this would result if Le Chiffre could be defeated at the tables."
> Apparently, from a 50s Cold War mindset, offering diplomatic immunity
> would fail to achieve all those ends. But since CR the movie takes
> place in the 21st century, I believe I read that Le Chiffre will now be
> offered diplomatic immunity as a politically correct way out. Yawn,
> how uninspired. Makes me long for the more duplicitous and conniving
> Cold War years again

Then why didn't the Russians humiliate Philby and the other defecting
British agents at the time of CR, instead of letting them defect?
Possibly because their secrets of British Intelligence were more
valuable than "humiliating" them? Do you even believe your own crap?

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242824 ]

So, 26 März 2006 13:14

Jabei

I agree with most of what you say Phil...apart from he's a good Bond and a
fine actor....I don't think EON wanted to go gritty with him because they
didn't believe he could pull it off...and I agree

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1143194855.942366.140780 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Min wrote:
>
>> Circa YOLT, Eon made it clear where they stand on the issue of
>> "faithfulness." I'm *still* unclear just when the hell this film is
>> even set; I'm assuming it's contemporary and not set in 1953, so that
>> alone changes how faithful they can be.
>
> Contemporary, without a doubt: references to Saddam, Walther P99, style
> of dress, cars used, etc, etc. I don't see how a period piece could be
> done, or honestly what the point would be.
>
>> Ultimately, I guess we have to
>> ask not whether the film is a direct translation of the novel (as was
>> the case with Robert Rodriguez's masterful "Sin City"), but whether the
>> spirit and guts of the story have been treated well by the different
>> medium.
>
> A direct translation would run for about forty-five minutes tops: sorry
> to repeat myself, but there simply isn't enough filmable material in
> Fleming's CR to make a two-hour movie, unless you kept all the dialogue
> intact and turned it into the Bond equivalent of 'My Dinner with
> Andre'.
>
> As for the scenes in the movie which aren't in the book, well, gee,
> ain't that radical and shocking. Even the first four movies and OHMSS
> are at best two-thirds Fleming, one-third EON: dialogue, characters,
> action scenes, plots all vary pretty wildly from their original
> sources. From what I've read so far, all the key elements of Fleming's
> CR remain intact - the rest is an expansion of the novel.
>
> Finally, CR is a great Bond novel, but simply would not make even a
> middling Bond movie if filmed scene-for-scene in a pedantically
> faithful manner. Stripped of Fleming's wonderful prose, it would be
> flat-out *boring*.
>
>> And, by the way, how come all the things I've heard about the film
>> (grittier, more realistic, heightened sexuality, less cartoonish
>> violence, etc.) are all ideas Pierce Brosnan is on record as having
>> endorsed and lobbied for for years? It's like they wanted to make the
>> movie Pierce Brosnan wanted to make, but without Pierce. (Nope,
>> haven't quite gotten over his firing yet.)
>
> Well, if he'd wanted to do the movie that badly, he could have been a
> little more flexible about his salary demands. He was a great Bond,
> he's a fine actor, he strikes me as a nice guy, and the best of luck to
> him with his future career, but I don't have a great deal of sympathy
> with him in that one regard. I presume he got paid considerably less
> for, say, 'The Matador' than he did for his Bond efforts, but he took
> the job because he liked the script and the part. For whatever reason,
> he wasn't prepared to compromise in the same way for CR. Too bad, but
> portraying him as the innocent victim is a little simplistic for my
> tastes. He would have known that by demanding a salary hike, he could
> be pricing himself out of the market, but he took the risk anyway.
> That's business.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242829 ]

So, 26 März 2006 17:39

JHause wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> >
> > --- The rationale - from an early 50s mindset via Fleming and
> > considering the Cold War of the times - was that it was deemed more
> > favourable to both Britain and NATO that Le Chiffre be "ridiculed and
> > destroyed, that his Communist trade union should be bankrupted and
> > brought into disrepute, and that this potential fifth column, with a
> > strength of 50,000, capable in time of war of controlling a wide sector
> > of France's northern frontier, should lose faith and cohesion. All
> > this would result if Le Chiffre could be defeated at the tables."
> > Apparently, from a 50s Cold War mindset, offering diplomatic immunity
> > would fail to achieve all those ends. But since CR the movie takes
> > place in the 21st century, I believe I read that Le Chiffre will now be
> > offered diplomatic immunity as a politically correct way out. Yawn,
> > how uninspired. Makes me long for the more duplicitous and conniving
> > Cold War years again
>
> Then why didn't the Russians humiliate Philby and the other defecting
> British agents at the time of CR, instead of letting them defect?
> Possibly because their secrets of British Intelligence were more
> valuable than "humiliating" them? Do you even believe your own crap?

--- It's Fleming's rationale, not mine, turd brain. Argue with him.

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242830 ]

So, 26 März 2006 18:13

JHause

WQ wrote:
>
> --- It's Fleming's rationale, not mine, turd brain. Argue with him.

I wouldn't argue with him. He'd probably chuckle and AGREE.

He wanted to write a story based on an experience he had during the war
where he played cards with a Nazi he recognized in a casino, and then
made up a plot to fill out the story into a novel. The plot is just an
excuse to write about the card game, and doesn't hold up to much
scrutiny.

These are called idiot plots. Why? Because idiots will tell you they
make perfect sense "in a cold war setting," while complaining in the
same story that it's illogical for a guy Bond is chasing to jump from
crane to crane as he tries to escape -- in a sequence the complainer
hasn't seen yet anyway, to KNOW if it's illogical.

Having written the perfect "screenplay" to this story, you must have
noticed the flaws in logic, right?

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242831 ]

So, 26 März 2006 18:45

JHause wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> >
> > --- It's Fleming's rationale, not mine, turd brain. Argue with him.
>
> I wouldn't argue with him. He'd probably chuckle and AGREE.
>
> He wanted to write a story based on an experience he had during the war
> where he played cards with a Nazi he recognized in a casino, and then
> made up a plot to fill out the story into a novel. The plot is just an
> excuse to write about the card game, and doesn't hold up to much
> scrutiny.
>
> These are called idiot plots. Why? Because idiots will tell you they
> make perfect sense "in a cold war setting," while complaining in the
> same story that it's illogical for a guy Bond is chasing to jump from
> crane to crane as he tries to escape -- in a sequence the complainer
> hasn't seen yet anyway, to KNOW if it's illogical.
>
> Having written the perfect "screenplay" to this story, you must have
> noticed the flaws in logic, right?

--- Idiot plot or not, that's still Fleming's rationale. There can
still be a rationale to the idiot crane scene, too, but on the face of
it for now, the crane scene makes no sense other than to grasp at
cheap, empty thrills. The whole point being, that if EON is going to
start fresh with this new Bond, as they keep whining, then get rid of
all the unrationalized idiot stuff relied on in the past and start
doing things right, otherwise Craig's just going to be stuck in the
same old same old and they might as well have had Brosnan for one or
two more if that's going to be the case 'cause what's the diff?

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242858 ]

Mo, 27 März 2006 03:12

JHause

WQ wrote:
>
> --- Idiot plot or not, that's still Fleming's rationale. There can
> still be a rationale to the idiot crane scene, too, but on the face of
> it for now, the crane scene makes no sense other than to grasp at
> cheap, empty thrills.

You can say the same thing about the entire plot.

> The whole point being, that if EON is going to
> start fresh with this new Bond, as they keep whining, then get rid of
> all the unrationalized idiot stuff relied on in the past and start
> doing things right, otherwise Craig's just going to be stuck in the
> same old same old and they might as well have had Brosnan for one or
> two more if that's going to be the case 'cause what's the diff?

So they should NOT do Fleming stories, then?

Re: More Silly Stuff [message #242865 ]

Mo, 27 März 2006 05:11

JHause wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> >
> > --- Idiot plot or not, that's still Fleming's rationale. There can
> > still be a rationale to the idiot crane scene, too, but on the face of
> > it for now, the crane scene makes no sense other than to grasp at
> > cheap, empty thrills.
>
> You can say the same thing about the entire plot.

--- The way EON is rewriting it, I guess you can.

> > The whole point being, that if EON is going to
> > start fresh with this new Bond, as they keep whining, then get rid of
> > all the unrationalized idiot stuff relied on in the past and start
> > doing things right, otherwise Craig's just going to be stuck in the
> > same old same old and they might as well have had Brosnan for one or
> > two more if that's going to be the case 'cause what's the diff?
>
> So they should NOT do Fleming stories, then?

--- They can do whatever stories they want, I don't care, so long as
they don't do them stupidly. I just don't want to see any Sheriff
Pepper characters, Bond in a clown suit, Bond snowboarding to a Beach
Boys song, Bond cellocaseboarding down a mountain and across a border,
Bond in an invisible car [and how does he become invisible as well?],
or even a foot chase that ends up in a dead-end on top of a crane when
that's the last place a guy trying to escape from Bond would want to
run to.

Seiten (2): [1 2 > »]

Vorheriges Thema:	BBC CR story
Nächstes Thema:	Where are you from?

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 22:52:06 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06308 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.