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
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Some thoughts on Casino Royale
Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244429] Fr, 31 März 2006 00:08
Pete  
Well hello all,

I haven't posted on here for ages because, in truth, I'd become a bit
bored with Bond. I doubt any of the old regulars will remember me, but
it's nice to see that a few regular faces are still posting (and still
posting thoughtfully and with good humour). Anyway, I thought that it
was high time to come out of lurker mode since it looks as though Eon
are finally leaking out some info on what's shaping up to be the most
fascinating (not to mention divisive) Bond film in decades.

The news that Daniel Craig had been annointed as the sixth 007 came as
something of a surprise to me - I was familiar of his work in both
Layer Cake and Our Friends in the North, and he was excellent in both
(stole the show completely in OFITN and managed to carry the largely
mediocre Layer Cake despite portraying an unsympathetic protagonist).
But as Bond? It's certainly a departure - and one which, I think, backs
up the series move in a new direction. The actor appointed to play Bond
has always been a fairly good barometer of where the series is heading
- Craig indicates new, character-focussed, and different.

Anyway, a few random thoughts about CR below:

Isn't it interesting the way patterns are visible in everything:
there's that old chestnut about Star Wars films (even films good, odd
films bad). With Bond, it would seem to be odd Bonds popular, even
Bonds unpopular.

Sadly, I can see Craig going the same way as Lazenby and Dalton - and
can even imagine Brosnan 'doing a Connery' and returning for one last
hurrah.

Eon seems to be reacting to current trends in film-making and trying to
replicate the successes of Bourne and Batman.

They certainly ought to be lauded however for changing direction when
the series' box office was in its best condition for decades.

The reboot idea, whilst fascinating, seems more than a little
unnecesary.

And the prequel, or 'Bond Begins', idea is one that - despite Barbara
Broccoli's claims - was rejected by Albert Broccoli back in the 80s as
a bad idea.

The end of the novel hinged on a clever twist - will this be used in
the movie or will they have to add a second twist because the first one
is now so well known (and, thus, won't be a twist at all.


Oh well, bit of a rambling post to reintroduce myself back to afjb, but
no doubt I'll be back with some more coherent thoughts shortly.

Ciao
Pete
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244431 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 01:08
gglave  
> there's that old chestnut about Star Wars films (even films good, odd
> films bad).

Just to be clear, this is Star Trek, not Star Wars. Most people
consider Star Wars 5 to the best of the 6.

Star *Trek* 5 on the other hard was garbage.

Cheers,
Geoff Glave
Vancouver, Canada
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244435 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 02:36
Rich Handley  
"Pete" <P_Smyth000 [at] yahoo.com> said:
>Isn't it interesting the way patterns are visible in everything:
>there's that old chestnut about Star Wars films (even films good, odd
>films bad).

I think you mean Star Trek. With Star Wars, it's "old films good, new
films...eh." :)
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244436 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 02:59
phil.gerrard1  
Pete wrote:

> Sadly, I can see Craig going the same way as Lazenby and Dalton - and
> can even imagine Brosnan 'doing a Connery' and returning for one last
> hurrah.

Sadly is the word if it does happen. I genuinely think that any new
actor playing a long-running role like Bond should be given at least
three goes at it: introduction, expansion, and consolidation, if you
like. IMHO even Moore's Bond didn't really hit his stride until TSWLM.
Connery was Bond from day one, but he had the advantage of being the
first, and although I think Brosnan was very good in GE, he was even
better in TWINE. Who knows what would have happened to Lazenby and
Dalton had they been given such a chance?

However, I'm genuinely starting to think that the anti-Craig hysteria
has been counter-productive, and that long-term Bond fans and even
casual viewers, having recovered from the initial shock a few of them
may initially have felt about his casting, are becoming more prepared
to give the guy a chance. The anti-Craig crowd which remains seems to
be largely composed of disgruntled Brosnan fans, although there's what
I feel is a minority of other nay-sayers, some with genuine points to
make about the kind of Bond they want, a few who are just out to stir
up trouble.

> Eon seems to be reacting to current trends in film-making and trying to
> replicate the successes of Bourne and Batman.

Well, perhaps, but the trends might be leading EON in the right
direction this time. (Also, let's not forget that Cubby's EON often
followed trends as well.) If they've seen that Bourne and Batman can
succeed as darker, more character-driven franchises and taken the hint,
then I'm not for one second going to damn them for taking the same
approach, which leads to the next point -

> They certainly ought to be lauded however for changing direction when
> the series' box office was in its best condition for decades.

Exactly. They could have gone ahead with DAD II, but as has happened
so many times in the past, they've decided to rein the franchise in and
go back to some basics. Again, Cubby's EON did it on more than one
occasion - the films went maybe a little too far, and then they pulled
back again.

> The reboot idea, whilst fascinating, seems more than a little
> unnecesary.

I had (and still have) my doubts, but at this stage in history it seems
to me that Bond's backstory might be in need of a slight rewrite.
Certainly he can no longer be the 'relic of the Cold War' mentioned in
GE, and since he's neither near-as-dammit immortal (Dr Who) or a
complete fantasy figure (Batman), since he operates in an admittedly
very heightened version of the real world, something had to be done to
make him a credible figure for a few more years to come. Now, one
could either rewrite his backstory with every movie to come, or one
could take the opportunity of losing Brosnan to start the character
anew. I hope EON have made the right choice in doing the latter.

> And the prequel, or 'Bond Begins', idea is one that - despite Barbara
> Broccoli's claims - was rejected by Albert Broccoli back in the 80s as
> a bad idea.

True, but at that that time it was less necessary: the Cold War was
still going on, or was a very recent memory, and the events described
in the films and novels could still conceivably have happened to a
thirty-to-forty-something protagonist. Dalton's Bond could conceivably
have undertaken the mission depicted in FRWL. Craig's Bond simply
couldn't. A rewrite of Bond's past is perhaps more necessary now than
it was then.

> The end of the novel hinged on a clever twist - will this be used in
> the movie or will they have to add a second twist because the first one
> is now so well known (and, thus, won't be a twist at all.

I suspect that it might not be as well-known to the majority of casual
moviegoers as it is to the relatively small number of people who've
read CR. In any case, the bleak ending of CR has no parallel in the
movies apart from the final scene of OHMSS, so if they pull it off as
they're intending to - and remember, Martin Campbell has said that the
last line of the movie is the same as the last line of the book - it
will still be the kind of downbeat ending which has happened incredibly
rarely in the films, and should therefore still carry quite an
emotional weight.

> Oh well, bit of a rambling post to reintroduce myself back to afjb, but
> no doubt I'll be back with some more coherent thoughts shortly.

That's what you consider incoherence? Man, those were some very smart
and succinct points, and if that's what you've got to offer to the
group, you're going to be a real asset, so I for one am glad you're
back.

Best

Phil
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244443 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 06:03
Will Traynor  
"Pete" <P_Smyth000 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143756527.510747.254390 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Well hello all,
>
> I haven't posted on here for ages because, in truth, I'd become a bit
> bored with Bond. I doubt any of the old regulars will remember me, but
> it's nice to see that a few regular faces are still posting (and still
> posting thoughtfully and with good humour). Anyway, I thought that it
> was high time to come out of lurker mode since it looks as though Eon
> are finally leaking out some info on what's shaping up to be the most
> fascinating (not to mention divisive) Bond film in decades.
>
> The news that Daniel Craig had been annointed as the sixth 007 came as
> something of a surprise to me - I was familiar of his work in both
> Layer Cake and Our Friends in the North, and he was excellent in both
> (stole the show completely in OFITN and managed to carry the largely
> mediocre Layer Cake despite portraying an unsympathetic protagonist).
> But as Bond? It's certainly a departure - and one which, I think, backs
> up the series move in a new direction. The actor appointed to play Bond
> has always been a fairly good barometer of where the series is heading
> - Craig indicates new, character-focussed, and different.
>
> Anyway, a few random thoughts about CR below:
>
> Isn't it interesting the way patterns are visible in everything:
> there's that old chestnut about Star Wars films (even films good, odd
> films bad). With Bond, it would seem to be odd Bonds popular, even
> Bonds unpopular.
>

Pete, I think you might want to rethink your theory about odd Bonds popular,
etc. Seems to me FRWL, TB, OHMSS, TSWLM, FYEO, or "even" numbered films,
are pretty popular films with fans. I think there are some clunkers on both
sides of the coin.

> Sadly, I can see Craig going the same way as Lazenby and Dalton - and
> can even imagine Brosnan 'doing a Connery' and returning for one last
> hurrah.
>

I have read that Craig has already signed to do at least one if not two more
films already. I wasn't terribly upset that Brosnan left the series. He did
a good job but I felt very little connection with him as Bond. His tenure
was marked with some missed opportunities, IMHO. He's a pretty good actor,
has some onscreen charisma, but the writers and directors let him down.
Brosnan always talked about humanizing Bond and giving him more character,
but I don't think he was very successful, overall. When I first heard he was
going to be Bond I was pretty excited. By the time DAD came out I was
extremely disenchanted with his run. I put most of the blame on EON,
however. Brosnan did a pretty good job with what he was given.

> Eon seems to be reacting to current trends in film-making and trying to
> replicate the successes of Bourne and Batman.
>

I don't think that's a bad thing. Those films garnered critical acclaim as
well as some box office success.

> They certainly ought to be lauded however for changing direction when
> the series' box office was in its best condition for decades.
>
> The reboot idea, whilst fascinating, seems more than a little
> unnecesary.
>
> And the prequel, or 'Bond Begins', idea is one that - despite Barbara
> Broccoli's claims - was rejected by Albert Broccoli back in the 80s as
> a bad idea.
>
> The end of the novel hinged on a clever twist - will this be used in
> the movie or will they have to add a second twist because the first one
> is now so well known (and, thus, won't be a twist at all.
>
>
> Oh well, bit of a rambling post to reintroduce myself back to afjb, but
> no doubt I'll be back with some more coherent thoughts shortly.
>
> Ciao
> Pete
>
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244444 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 06:26
Mike Vincitore  
Another one returning to the NG... Glad to see my good friend Tom Z. hasn't
changed a bit...

My take on some of the thoughts in this thread:

>> Sadly, I can see Craig going the same way as Lazenby and Dalton - and
>> can even imagine Brosnan 'doing a Connery' and returning for one last
>> hurrah.

Unlikely.
Craig has a multi-picture deal (three if memory serves), and Barbara
Broccoli has said they're already starting work on Craig's second film.
Lazenby quit due to bad advice (CURSE Ronan O"Reilly!), and Dalton resigned
because of EON's litigation that held up his third so long he got tired of
waiting.

> Sadly is the word if it does happen.
Although I am a big Brosnan fan-

absolutely right.

However, the rift between Brosnan and the Broccolis almost certainly
precludes such a scenario, In the final analysis, they treated Pierce like
s*** even though he arguably helped save the franchise, and Brosnan's
outspokenness (witness the multiple "f*** you"s in the Playboy interview)
probably burned any vestige a bridge left.

> Who knows what would have happened to Lazenby and
> Dalton had they been given such a chance?

BOTH would have been terrific... and we'd have had a much better DAF
according to Peter Hunt's vision.


> (Also, let's not forget that Cubby's EON often
> followed trends as well.)

Once the series went into decline (*after* OHMSS), yes. But the true glory
days were when Bond SET the trends under the guiding hands of Cubby, Harry,
Terence Young, Peter Hunt, Dick Maibaum and Ken Adam, to name but a few.


>> They certainly ought to be lauded however for changing direction when
>> the series' box office was in its best condition for decades.

Agreed.

Tom Mankiewicz once said, "If you present people with a certain thing, and
they present you back with a hundred million dollars, it's very difficult
not to try and do it again."

I applaud their intentions... I wish they'd had the guts to try it *before*
"Batman Begins". Now they can't help but be painted as copycats. Hunt and
Young constantly reminded the producers that "we must not become imitators
of our imitators". Now that's exactly what it looks like.


> In any case, the bleak ending of CR has no parallel in the
> movies apart from the final scene of OHMSS, so if they pull it off as
> they're intending to - and remember, Martin Campbell has said that the
> last line of the movie is the same as the last line of the book - it
> will still be the kind of downbeat ending which has happened incredibly
> rarely in the films, and should therefore still carry quite an
> emotional weight.

Oh Lord I hope so.

Mike Vincitore
"Worry is a dividend paid to disaster before it is due"
(Ian Fleming's 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', Ch. 1)
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244447 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 08:26
Garmt de Vries  
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 06:03:32 +0200, Will <willt65 [at] comcast.net> wrote:

>
> "Pete" <P_Smyth000 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1143756527.510747.254390 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Isn't it interesting the way patterns are visible in everything:
>> there's that old chestnut about Star Wars films (even films good, odd
>> films bad). With Bond, it would seem to be odd Bonds popular, even
>> Bonds unpopular.
>
> Pete, I think you might want to rethink your theory about odd Bonds
> popular,
> etc. Seems to me FRWL, TB, OHMSS, TSWLM, FYEO, or "even" numbered films,
> are pretty popular films with fans. I think there are some clunkers on
> both
> sides of the coin.

I think Pete was talking about actors, not films. Connery, Moore and
Brosnan were popular, Lazenby and Dalton weren't.

--
Garmt de Vries
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244448 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 10:47
phil.gerrard1  
Mike wrote:

> and Brosnan's
> outspokenness (witness the multiple "f*** you"s in the Playboy interview)
> probably burned any vestige a bridge left.

I think I said this before, but IMHO those 'f*** you's weren't directed
at EON specifically: it was, rather, a generalised rant against
critics, directors, producers etc who had previously considered Brosnan
a lightweight.

> Tom Mankiewicz once said, "If you present people with a certain thing, and
> they present you back with a hundred million dollars, it's very difficult
> not to try and do it again."
>
> I applaud their intentions... I wish they'd had the guts to try it *before*
> "Batman Begins". Now they can't help but be painted as copycats. Hunt and
> Young constantly reminded the producers that "we must not become imitators
> of our imitators". Now that's exactly what it looks like.

It's unfortunate timing in that sense, but the alternative - continue
in the direction set by DAD - wasn't really viable. (Even many of
those of us who broadly speaking liked DAD said at the time that the
next film would have to be a lot more down-to-earth.)

> "Worry is a dividend paid to disaster before it is due"
> (Ian Fleming's 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', Ch. 1)

Always loved that sig. Good to hear from you again, Mike.

Best

Phil
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244459 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 16:37
Will Traynor  
"Garmt de Vries" <garmtdevries [at] googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:op.s69lhwekjsw2os [at] nautilus...
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 06:03:32 +0200, Will <willt65 [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Pete" <P_Smyth000 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1143756527.510747.254390 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Isn't it interesting the way patterns are visible in everything:
>>> there's that old chestnut about Star Wars films (even films good, odd
>>> films bad). With Bond, it would seem to be odd Bonds popular, even
>>> Bonds unpopular.
>>
>> Pete, I think you might want to rethink your theory about odd Bonds
>> popular,
>> etc. Seems to me FRWL, TB, OHMSS, TSWLM, FYEO, or "even" numbered films,
>> are pretty popular films with fans. I think there are some clunkers on
>> both
>> sides of the coin.
>
> I think Pete was talking about actors, not films. Connery, Moore and
> Brosnan were popular, Lazenby and Dalton weren't.
>
> --
> Garmt de Vries

Ah, ok. His entire post about odd/even, Star Wars/ Bond thing lost me a
little.
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244469 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 19:37
Will Traynor  
"Mike Vincitore" <amvee [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:8c2Xf.9866$8Y2.5903 [at] fed1read03...
> Another one returning to the NG... Glad to see my good friend Tom Z.
> hasn't changed a bit...
>
> My take on some of the thoughts in this thread:
>
>>> Sadly, I can see Craig going the same way as Lazenby and Dalton - and
>>> can even imagine Brosnan 'doing a Connery' and returning for one last
>>> hurrah.
>
> Unlikely.
> Craig has a multi-picture deal (three if memory serves), and Barbara
> Broccoli has said they're already starting work on Craig's second film.
> Lazenby quit due to bad advice (CURSE Ronan O"Reilly!), and Dalton
> resigned because of EON's litigation that held up his third so long he got
> tired of waiting.
>
>> Sadly is the word if it does happen.
> Although I am a big Brosnan fan-
>
> absolutely right.
>
> However, the rift between Brosnan and the Broccolis almost certainly
> precludes such a scenario, In the final analysis, they treated Pierce like
> s*** even though he arguably helped save the franchise, and Brosnan's
> outspokenness (witness the multiple "f*** you"s in the Playboy interview)
> probably burned any vestige a bridge left.
>


Well, you can look at it another way: EON saved Brosnan's acting career,
which was going nowhere before Bond. I think both sides helped each other
out in the end. Brosnan was treated poorly, but his insistent hand-wringing
in the press was downright childish, IMHO. EON made PB a lot of money and
boosted his career overall, so he needs to get over it.

>> Who knows what would have happened to Lazenby and
>> Dalton had they been given such a chance?
>
> BOTH would have been terrific... and we'd have had a much better DAF
> according to Peter Hunt's vision.
>
>
>> (Also, let's not forget that Cubby's EON often
>> followed trends as well.)
>
> Once the series went into decline (*after* OHMSS), yes. But the true glory
> days were when Bond SET the trends under the guiding hands of Cubby,
> Harry, Terence Young, Peter Hunt, Dick Maibaum and Ken Adam, to name but a
> few.
>
>
>>> They certainly ought to be lauded however for changing direction when
>>> the series' box office was in its best condition for decades.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Tom Mankiewicz once said, "If you present people with a certain thing, and
> they present you back with a hundred million dollars, it's very difficult
> not to try and do it again."
>
> I applaud their intentions... I wish they'd had the guts to try it
> *before* "Batman Begins". Now they can't help but be painted as copycats.
> Hunt and Young constantly reminded the producers that "we must not become
> imitators of our imitators". Now that's exactly what it looks like.
>
>

Couldn't agree more. The Bourne movies also successfully brought the
spy/action genre up to date. Bond, meanwhile, was following the style put
forth by such movies as XXX, which are considered mindless fun. EON was
following rather than leading. I remember watching GE and thinking, "Ok,
this brings Bond up to date." But I haven't seen much envelope-pushing since
then.

>> In any case, the bleak ending of CR has no parallel in the
>> movies apart from the final scene of OHMSS, so if they pull it off as
>> they're intending to - and remember, Martin Campbell has said that the
>> last line of the movie is the same as the last line of the book - it
>> will still be the kind of downbeat ending which has happened incredibly
>> rarely in the films, and should therefore still carry quite an
>> emotional weight.
>
> Oh Lord I hope so.
>

God knows it can't be any worse than tedious Christmas jokes.

> Mike Vincitore
> "Worry is a dividend paid to disaster before it is due"
> (Ian Fleming's 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', Ch. 1)
>
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244482 ] Sa, 01 April 2006 03:18
phil.gerrard1  
Will wrote:

> Well, you can look at it another way: EON saved Brosnan's acting career,
> which was going nowhere before Bond. I think both sides helped each other
> out in the end. Brosnan was treated poorly, but his insistent hand-wringing
> in the press was downright childish, IMHO. EON made PB a lot of money and
> boosted his career overall, so he needs to get over it.

I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is here. A guy walks into an
office and says 'I want a raise'. The boss says 'Why?'. The guy says
'I've made you a lot of money, and other people in equivalent positions
in other companies are getting paid a lot more than me.' The boss says
'Well, the company's made a lot of money, and while you've contributed
to that, and we're grateful for that you can't prove how much of that
is your doing alone. This is the raise we're prepared to offer you.'
The guy says 'Not enough, and I want some other changes made around
here.' The boss says 'Well, we're not prepared to go that far. If
you're really not happy you can always go elsewhere and see how well
you do.' Who's going to decide who's right or wrong here? Isn't this
just the way capitalism works?

There are a few echoes of the Connery / EON schism here IMHO. Connery
and Brosnan helped the films immensely, but they weren't the only
people who made those movies work and turned them into the successes
they were.

Brosnan was the star of the films which turned the franchise around,
and he made a very significant contribution in that respect. However,
he didn't save the series single-handedly, and I think it's overstating
the case to make such claims on his behalf, as some have done.
(Incidentally, I betcha any money that a couple of disgruntled Brosnan
fans would have started a daltonnotbond site had it been possible to do
so in 1987.) I genuinely believe the Bond movies would have survived
in one form or another even without Brosnan on board, and in fact
Brosnan's said so himself, giving most of the credit for GE to Martin
Campbell.

Here's my problem. Regardless of what I think of the films in which
they appeared or are going to appear, I think Dalton was an excellent
Bond, I think Brosnan was an excellent Bond, and I think Craig's going
to be an excellent Bond. I think EON have made very fine casting
decisions in all three cases. If I'm asked to take sides, choose EON
over a particular actor, one actor over another, or the actors over
EON, then I can't and won't make that choice. AFAIC I'm not
fence-sitting, I'm just not recognising that grey comes in many shades,
some almost indistinguishable from each other.

Best

Phil
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244493 ] Sa, 01 April 2006 17:23
edrhodes  
Will wrote:
> "Pete" <P_Smyth000 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1143756527.510747.254390 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > Well hello all,
> >
> > I haven't posted on here for ages because, in truth, I'd become a bit
> > bored with Bond. I doubt any of the old regulars will remember me, but
> > it's nice to see that a few regular faces are still posting (and still
> > posting thoughtfully and with good humour). Anyway, I thought that it
> > was high time to come out of lurker mode since it looks as though Eon
> > are finally leaking out some info on what's shaping up to be the most
> > fascinating (not to mention divisive) Bond film in decades.
> >
> > The news that Daniel Craig had been annointed as the sixth 007 came as
> > something of a surprise to me - I was familiar of his work in both
> > Layer Cake and Our Friends in the North, and he was excellent in both
> > (stole the show completely in OFITN and managed to carry the largely
> > mediocre Layer Cake despite portraying an unsympathetic protagonist).
> > But as Bond? It's certainly a departure - and one which, I think, backs
> > up the series move in a new direction. The actor appointed to play Bond
> > has always been a fairly good barometer of where the series is heading
> > - Craig indicates new, character-focussed, and different.
> >
> > Anyway, a few random thoughts about CR below:
> >
> > Isn't it interesting the way patterns are visible in everything:
> > there's that old chestnut about Star Wars films (even films good, odd
> > films bad). With Bond, it would seem to be odd Bonds popular, even
> > Bonds unpopular.
> >
>
> Pete, I think you might want to rethink your theory about odd Bonds popular,
> etc. Seems to me FRWL, TB, OHMSS, TSWLM, FYEO, or "even" numbered films,
> are pretty popular films with fans. I think there are some clunkers on both
> sides of the coin.
> >

I don't think he's talking odd and even number "films" as much as he's
talking about odd and even number "actors!"
Some Bad News [message #244500 ] Sa, 01 April 2006 18:43
Tom Zielinski  
To the Group,

I must say goodbye to many of my friends here. I can't get into it, but
sadly, this is my last post on AFJB.

It's been a long time together. I am sincerely thankful to all for the many
years of correspondence. I've learned a great deal and made some phenomenal
friends. All things must pass though.

I'm sure some here won't miss me a bit. And might even be glad I'm leaving.

Well, to those I just say...



























April Fool's!




Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that he wasn't sure if there was an apostophe in "Fool's"..."
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #244524 ] So, 02 April 2006 06:17
Mike Vincitore  
Phil wrote:
>
>> and Brosnan's
>> outspokenness (witness the multiple "f*** you"s in the Playboy interview)
>> probably burned any vestige a bridge left.


> I think I said this before, but IMHO those 'f*** you's weren't directed
> at EON specifically: it was, rather, a generalised rant against
> critics, directors, producers etc who had previously considered Brosnan
> a lightweight.

You are no doubt correct. But one could read it either way.

> It's unfortunate timing in that sense, but the alternative - continue
> in the direction set by DAD - wasn't really viable.
> (Even many of those of us who broadly speaking liked DAD said at the time
> that the next film would have to be a lot more down-to-earth.)

Oh, unquestionably. The moment the chases in Iceland began DAD lost me.

Love the first half, but I rank the second half lower than... I don't know
what. The series never stooped so low as the second half of DAD. I still
watch the DVD, but I always stop after the *delicious* Q scene, because I
know what's to come.


>> "Worry is a dividend paid to disaster before it is due"
>> (Ian Fleming's 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', Ch. 1)
>
> Always loved that sig. Good to hear from you again, Mike.

Thanks, Phil.
I'll ty to stop by more often.
Re: Some Bad News [message #244525 ] So, 02 April 2006 06:21
Mike Vincitore  
"Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e6WdnTGpuaswMLPZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> To the Group,
>
> I must say goodbye to many of my friends here. I can't get into it, but
> sadly, this is my last post on AFJB.
>
> It's been a long time together. I am sincerely thankful to all for the
> many years of correspondence. I've learned a great deal and made some
> phenomenal friends. All things must pass though.
>
> I'm sure some here won't miss me a bit. And might even be glad I'm
> leaving.
>
> Well, to those I just say...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> April Fool's!
>
>
>
>
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay
> this
> particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands'
> three
> ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
> delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
> that he wasn't sure if there was an apostophe in "Fool's"..."
>
>

You RAT SO-AND-SO!

I actually believed you for about twelve seconds.
Re: Some Bad News [message #244529 ] So, 02 April 2006 07:01
Rich Handley  
"Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net> said:
>April Fool's!

How smarmy!
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #246125 ] Do, 06 April 2006 23:38
Tom Zielinski  
"Mike Vincitore" <amvee [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:8c2Xf.9866$8Y2.5903 [at] fed1read03...
> Another one returning to the NG... Glad to see my good friend Tom Z.
> hasn't changed a bit...


Whaddya mean?! I'm older, angrier, and decidedly less witty.

;)

Good to see you here, Mike.




Tom
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #246647 ] Sa, 08 April 2006 10:50
The Shadow  
Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "Mike Vincitore" <amvee [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> news:8c2Xf.9866$8Y2.5903 [at] fed1read03...
>
>>Another one returning to the NG... Glad to see my good friend Tom Z.
>>hasn't changed a bit...
>
>
>
> Whaddya mean?! I'm older, angrier, and decidedly less witty.
>
> ;)
>
> Good to see you here, Mike.
>
>
>
>
> Tom




....and a bit slower I might add. ;-)

Then again, so am I.
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #246659 ] Sa, 08 April 2006 22:57
Mike Vincitore  
As am I - therefore:

...."I shall cut out the white bread, shir"

--
Mike Vincitore
"Worry is a dividend paid to disaster before it is due"
(Ian Fleming's 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', Ch. 1)

"The Shadow" <miehls [at] bright.net> wrote in message
news:K9ydnaD3X9qi5KrZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d [at] bright.net...
> Tom Zielinski wrote:
>> "Mike Vincitore" <amvee [at] cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:8c2Xf.9866$8Y2.5903 [at] fed1read03...
>>
>>>Another one returning to the NG... Glad to see my good friend Tom Z.
>>>hasn't changed a bit...
>>
>>
>>
>> Whaddya mean?! I'm older, angrier, and decidedly less witty.
>>
>> ;)
>>
>> Good to see you here, Mike.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom
>
>
>
>
> ...and a bit slower I might add. ;-)
>
> Then again, so am I.
>
>
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #246663 ] So, 09 April 2006 10:00
ahk  
At 3:08pm -0800, 03/30/06, gglave [at] softtracks.com wrote:

>>there's that old chestnut about Star Wars films (even films good, odd
>>films bad).

>Just to be clear, this is Star Trek, not Star Wars. Most people
>consider Star Wars 5 to the best of the 6.

>Star *Trek* 5 on the other hard was garbage.

That film has the reputation of AVTAK.

I feel obliged to defend it. I don't think it's as bad as its reputation
would have one believe. VI was an ok film, but I have trouble accepting
the fool for love that Mr. Spock made of himself. Damn the plot was
obvious.

And what the hell did Kirk do to rate a real galley? On all his other
missions, he ate replicated slop same as everyone else in the fleet. No
fresh food!

II and IV were entertaining, even though they tampered heavily with II's
backplot. (No Mr. Checkov in the Star Trek universe in "Space Seed".) Save
the whales!

There was no excuse for III: Let's take the weak aspects of II and build a
bad plot.

VII had its moments, but as a taxpayer, I demand someone be court
martialed for crashing the Enterprise D. They shouldn't have killed the
Duras sisters, who always cracked me up. VIII had no redeeming value.
Moore's performances (was: Some thoughts on Casino Royale) [message #246664 ] So, 09 April 2006 10:10
ahk  
phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>Pete wrote:

>>Sadly, I can see Craig going the same way as Lazenby and Dalton - and
>>can even imagine Brosnan 'doing a Connery' and returning for one last
>>hurrah.

>Sadly is the word if it does happen. I genuinely think that any new
>actor playing a long-running role like Bond should be given at least
>three goes at it: introduction, expansion, and consolidation, if you
>like. IMHO even Moore's Bond didn't really hit his stride until TSWLM.

Moore has been criticized for bad performances in LALD and TMWTGG and
praised for giving a better performance in TSWLM. I'm sorry, but I don't
see it at all. He has a few good scenes with Daisy Duke's sister. I like
his confrontation with Stromberg. Is he required to act dramatically at
any other moment in the movie?

In the first two movies, did Moore make them worse? Actually, TMWTGG had
potential and LALD could have recaptured the spirit of DN. Both suffered
from bad scripts and worse editing. I don't think Connery would have made
them better.
Re: Moore's performances (was: Some thoughts on Casino Royale) [message #246681 ] So, 09 April 2006 20:17
Eric Grayson  
Moore has a good, strong knack for comedy that is probably better than
anyone else in the series. It's pretty clear from the way DAF was
going that they wanted to steer the series in that direction.

I don't think Connery would have been as good as Moore at doing the
scenes that they wrote for him. However, knowing that Moore WAS good
at comedy might have encouraged them to steer it a little more in that
direction than they might otherwise have done.

The quote from Connery about the role was somthing to this effect:
"Roger sees the part as completely ridiculous, but tries to make it as
believable as possible. I see the part as basically serious, but try
to make it as humorous as I can."

If I wanted to shoot a complete spoof of the Bond series and lampoon
every convention it has, I'd hire Moore to do it. He has the ability
to see through the silliness of the part.

Alas, I wish he'd played some of the stuff they wrote for him a little
LESS silly, but when you're faced with crap like Moonraker and A View
to a Kill, what's an actor to do?

Eric
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #246687 ] So, 09 April 2006 23:49
Rich Handley  
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com> said:
>VIII had no redeeming value.

Wow, you think so? I think it's the third best in the series, right behind
II and IV.
Re: Some thoughts on Casino Royale [message #246937 ] Di, 11 April 2006 00:31
ahk  
At 5:49pm -0400, 04/09/06, Rich Handley <rhandley [at] optonline.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com> said:

>>VIII had no redeeming value.

>Wow, you think so? I think it's the third best in the series, right behind
>II and IV.

I thought it dragged.
Vorheriges Thema:WORLD EXCLUSIVE - CRAIG AS BOND AT THE CASINO - PHOTO
Nächstes Thema:Lucky Number Slevin
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 23:37:40 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,37437 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered