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 » This One Stumps Me
This One Stumps Me [message #246632] Fr, 07 April 2006 09:18
WQ  
LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - Daniel Craig has dealt James Bond bosses
another blow - by admitting he can't play poker.

The star - who stunned 007 fans when he revealed he hates guns and
couldn't drive the suave spy's manual Aston Martin DB5 - has to play
cards in an integral gambling scene in 'Casino Royale'.

When film bosses realised Craig was clueless at the game they flew an
expert to his Berlin hotel to give him some last minute tips.

An insider told Britain's The Sun newspaper: "Daniel could not play
cards - it was so funny. It is a critical part of the film, where Bond
shows how cool a customer he is. But it was frustratingly ridiculous
how long it took to teach the cast how to play or behave at a poker
table.

"Everyone at the hotel has been laughing about a Bond who can't play
cards."

Meanwhile, the 37-year-old has also confessed he doesn't even like
007's top tipple - Martini shaken, not stirred.

He revealed: "I don't think anybody makes a Martini stirred any more."

--- What stumps me about this is why is it even necessary to bring in
someone to teach Craig how to play Poker? I wouldn't think you'd even
have to know how to play Poker to do the card-playing scene, just
follow the script is all you'd have to do. It's not the same as
learning how to drive a manual or ride or horse or anything. Just say
the lines, follow the script directions, listen to the director and
that's it. Even I could bluff my way through a card scene like that
and I'm no Poker master at all. It's just a card game, not brain
surgery. Unless Craig is one really clued-out person.
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246633 ] Fr, 07 April 2006 11:50
Guy Clapperton  
You're assuming it's an accurate report, which is actually assuming quite a
lot...


On 7/4/06 08:18, in article
1144394295.461322.102430 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com, "WQ" <wq [at] email.com>
wrote:

> as
> learning how to drive a manual or ride or horse or anything. Just say
> the lines, follow the script directions, listen to the director and
> that's it. Even I could bluff my way through a card scene like that
> and I'm no Poker master at all. It's just a card game, not brain
> surgery. Unless Craig is one really clued-out person.
>
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246634 ] Fr, 07 April 2006 13:36
Big Craigie  
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1144394295.461322.102430 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - Daniel Craig has dealt James Bond bosses
> another blow - by admitting he can't play poker.
>
> The star - who stunned 007 fans when he revealed he hates guns and
> couldn't drive the suave spy's manual Aston Martin DB5 - has to play
> cards in an integral gambling scene in 'Casino Royale'.
>
Snipped

Let me get this straight, Daniedl Craig is an ACTOR pl,aying a part. Was
Jonathan Pryce as dab hand at Desk Top Publishing before he got his role in
TND. Michael Lonsdale couldn't actually play piano as he entertained his
guests and Lois Chiles, well...could she really pilot a shuttle.
They are only acting, whether ot not Craig can play cards or drintks
Martinis shaken or otherwise doesn't matter, it's not as if they actualluy
use the real drink on sets anyway.
BC


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246635 ] Fr, 07 April 2006 13:37
Tom Zielinski  
"Guy Clapperton" <guyclapperton [at] mac.com> wrote in message
news:C05BF474.C93F%guyclapperton [at] mac.com...
> You're assuming it's an accurate report, which is actually assuming quite
> a
> lot...
>
>
> On 7/4/06 08:18, in article
> 1144394295.461322.102430 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com, "WQ" <wq [at] email.com>
> wrote:
>
>> as
>> learning how to drive a manual or ride or horse or anything. Just say
>> the lines, follow the script directions, listen to the director and
>> that's it. Even I could bluff my way through a card scene like that
>> and I'm no Poker master at all. It's just a card game, not brain
>> surgery. Unless Craig is one really clued-out person.



I don't think "clued out" is accurate. Many people don't play poker. I'm
not sure Roger Moore ever defused an atomic weapon (though he is full of
surprises), but understanding the basics of the detonator and what he was
trying to accomplish might help him play the scene convincingly.

Anyway, to be successful at poker it can't be approached as "just a card
game." Has Bond ever approached gambling in such a way? Baccarat is a much
simpler game for example, and is mostly about luck and having the balls to
"Banco." There really isn't any "bluffing."

There ARE nuances to playing poker, wherein mannerisms are key. Analyzing,
bluffing, being stone-faced, being brazen, being cool are all part of the
game. It'd be important I think to understand at the very least the basic
rules some nuances of the game in order to properly and convincingly act
within such a scene.

Here's betting (and raising) that Craig pulls it off in grand style.




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 if Le Chiffre splashed the pot one more time he was going to
check-raise him pre and post-flop on every hand until he was busted..."
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246636 ] Fr, 07 April 2006 12:25
Sean Black  
In article <1144394295.461322.102430 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, WQ
<wq [at] email.com> writes
>LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - Daniel Craig has dealt James Bond bosses
>another blow - by admitting he can't play poker.
>
>The star - who stunned 007 fans when he revealed he hates guns and
>couldn't drive the suave spy's manual Aston Martin DB5 - has to play
>cards in an integral gambling scene in 'Casino Royale'.
>
>When film bosses realised Craig was clueless at the game they flew an
>expert to his Berlin hotel to give him some last minute tips.
>
>An insider told Britain's The Sun newspaper: "Daniel could not play
>cards - it was so funny. It is a critical part of the film, where Bond
>shows how cool a customer he is. But it was frustratingly ridiculous
>how long it took to teach the cast how to play or behave at a poker
>table.
>
>"Everyone at the hotel has been laughing about a Bond who can't play
>cards."
>
>Meanwhile, the 37-year-old has also confessed he doesn't even like
>007's top tipple - Martini shaken, not stirred.
>
>He revealed: "I don't think anybody makes a Martini stirred any more."
>
>--- What stumps me about this is why is it even necessary to bring in
>someone to teach Craig how to play Poker? I wouldn't think you'd even
>have to know how to play Poker to do the card-playing scene, just
>follow the script is all you'd have to do. It's not the same as
>learning how to drive a manual or ride or horse or anything. Just say
>the lines, follow the script directions, listen to the director and
>that's it. Even I could bluff my way through a card scene like that
>and I'm no Poker master at all. It's just a card game, not brain
>surgery. Unless Craig is one really clued-out person.
>
My thoughts exactly, when I read it. Just another non-story about DC not
being suitable for Bond.

What on earth made them think he would really be playing poker. Must be
a really boring hotel if that's all it takes to get everyone laughing
:-)

--
Sean Black
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246638 ] Fr, 07 April 2006 15:56
Paul Clarke  
OK, the tabloids are officially beyond scraping the bottom of the
barrel. They're well into the ground on which the barrel is standing.
And heading straight into the mantle.

Guy Clapperton wrote:
> You're assuming it's an accurate report, which is actually assuming quite a
> lot...
>
>
> On 7/4/06 08:18, in article
> 1144394295.461322.102430 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com, "WQ" <wq [at] email.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> as
>>learning how to drive a manual or ride or horse or anything. Just say
>>the lines, follow the script directions, listen to the director and
>>that's it. Even I could bluff my way through a card scene like that
>>and I'm no Poker master at all. It's just a card game, not brain
>>surgery. Unless Craig is one really clued-out person.
>>
>
>

--
==007===
"My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
That's as bad as recycling the garbage that tabloids serve up."
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246639 ] Fr, 07 April 2006 17:09
WQ  
Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "Guy Clapperton" <guyclapperton [at] mac.com> wrote in message
> news:C05BF474.C93F%guyclapperton [at] mac.com...
> > You're assuming it's an accurate report, which is actually assuming quite
> > a
> > lot...
> >
> >
> > On 7/4/06 08:18, in article
> > 1144394295.461322.102430 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com, "WQ" <wq [at] email.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> as
> >> learning how to drive a manual or ride or horse or anything. Just say
> >> the lines, follow the script directions, listen to the director and
> >> that's it. Even I could bluff my way through a card scene like that
> >> and I'm no Poker master at all. It's just a card game, not brain
> >> surgery. Unless Craig is one really clued-out person.
>
>
> I don't think "clued out" is accurate. Many people don't play poker. I'm
> not sure Roger Moore ever defused an atomic weapon (though he is full of
> surprises), but understanding the basics of the detonator and what he was
> trying to accomplish might help him play the scene convincingly.
>
> Anyway, to be successful at poker it can't be approached as "just a card
> game." Has Bond ever approached gambling in such a way? Baccarat is a much
> simpler game for example, and is mostly about luck and having the balls to
> "Banco." There really isn't any "bluffing."
>
> There ARE nuances to playing poker, wherein mannerisms are key. Analyzing,
> bluffing, being stone-faced, being brazen, being cool are all part of the
> game. It'd be important I think to understand at the very least the basic
> rules some nuances of the game in order to properly and convincingly act
> within such a scene.
>
> Here's betting (and raising) that Craig pulls it off in grand style.

--- Ok, this is true. Maybe it's in teaching the nuances of the game
rather than the game itself that Craig is being given lessons on. But
wouldn't even the director have to be taught as well? It would seem to
me that if Campbell knew anything about Poker it would be his job to
relay to Craig all the right moves or nuances he'd have to project in
the playing of the game, no special tutor would be required for that.
Of course, EON could've saved themselves all this trouble by simply
sticking with the original and comparatively "much simpler" Bacccarat
game which would've required no "special skills" at all to be taught.


>
>
>
>
> 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 if Le Chiffre splashed the pot one more time he was going to
> check-raise him pre and post-flop on every hand until he was busted..."
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246642 ] Fr, 07 April 2006 20:43
rene  
>> LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - Daniel Craig has dealt James Bond bosses
>> another blow - by admitting he can't play poker.

I don't think Maryam D'Abo could play cello when she was signed for The
Living Daylights
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246644 ] Fr, 07 April 2006 21:42
Paul Clarke  
Exactly. Another non-story from the hot air factory.

RenÂŽ van den Abeelen wrote:
>
>>> LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - Daniel Craig has dealt James Bond bosses
>>> another blow - by admitting he can't play poker.
>
>
> I don't think Maryam D'Abo could play cello when she was signed for The
> Living Daylights
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246645 ] Sa, 08 April 2006 00:57
Kent  
>>LIFE STYLE EXTRA (UK) - Daniel Craig has dealt James Bond bosses
>>another blow - by admitting he can't play poker.
>>
>>The star - who stunned 007 fans when he revealed he hates guns and
>>couldn't drive the suave spy's manual Aston Martin DB5 - has to play
>>cards in an integral gambling scene in 'Casino Royale'.

This story is garbage. Aside from, as others have stated, it not being
relevant whether DC is a card shark or not, this 'story' is still rolling
with the DC can't drive a manual car, when EON have already responded to
that claim as being rubbish. And the gun thing -- as previously discussed
in this NG -- is taken out of context.

cheers

Kent
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246660 ] So, 09 April 2006 05:21
Gavin Christie  
"Paul Clarke" <jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zcuZf.9927$4S.5434 [at] edtnps82...
> OK, the tabloids are officially beyond scraping the bottom of the
> barrel. They're well into the ground on which the barrel is standing.
> And heading straight into the mantle.


you hit the nail on the head there. by this logic they want him to play
cards for real. are they just going to do take after take until he actually
wins the Aston or something?? no wonder Bond films cost so much to make of
this is how they do things. Mindbendingly retarted reportage The collective
intelligence of us all has been insulted. He has no more need to learn to
play cards than he has to learn to kill folk with his bare hands. he's an
actor for fuck's sake. Too many wankers with journalism degrees if you ask
me. Even Blojo wouldnt come out with this kind of crap.

G
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246675 ] So, 09 April 2006 11:14
ahk  
At 6:37am -0500, 04/07/06, Tom Zielinski <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote:

>I don't think "clued out" is accurate. Many people don't play poker. I'm
>not sure Roger Moore ever defused an atomic weapon (though he is full of
>surprises), but understanding the basics of the detonator and what he was
>trying to accomplish might help him play the scene convincingly.

Heh. Good point.

>Anyway, to be successful at poker it can't be approached as "just a card
>game." Has Bond ever approached gambling in such a way? Baccarat is a much
>simpler game for example, and is mostly about luck and having the balls to
>"Banco." There really isn't any "bluffing."

There's no Baccarat playing in the script?
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246680 ] So, 09 April 2006 18:45
WQ  
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> At 6:37am -0500, 04/07/06, Tom Zielinski <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >I don't think "clued out" is accurate. Many people don't play poker. I'm
> >not sure Roger Moore ever defused an atomic weapon (though he is full of
> >surprises), but understanding the basics of the detonator and what he was
> >trying to accomplish might help him play the scene convincingly.
>
> Heh. Good point.
>
> >Anyway, to be successful at poker it can't be approached as "just a card
> >game." Has Bond ever approached gambling in such a way? Baccarat is a much
> >simpler game for example, and is mostly about luck and having the balls to
> >"Banco." There really isn't any "bluffing."
>
> There's no Baccarat playing in the script?

--- Haven't you heard? They're being "faithful" to the book, that's
why it's going to be Poker.
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246932 ] Mo, 10 April 2006 08:16
Lee Edward McIlmoyle  
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in
news:1144601153.054852.133020 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:

>
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> At 6:37am -0500, 04/07/06, Tom Zielinski <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't think "clued out" is accurate. Many people don't play
>> >poker. I'm not sure Roger Moore ever defused an atomic weapon
>> >(though he is full of surprises), but understanding the basics of
>> >the detonator and what he was trying to accomplish might help him
>> >play the scene convincingly.
>>
>> Heh. Good point.
>>
>> >Anyway, to be successful at poker it can't be approached as "just a
>> >card game." Has Bond ever approached gambling in such a way?
>> >Baccarat is a much simpler game for example, and is mostly about
>> >luck and having the balls to "Banco." There really isn't any
>> >"bluffing."
>>
>> There's no Baccarat playing in the script?
>
> --- Haven't you heard? They're being "faithful" to the book, that's
> why it's going to be Poker.

Well, in all fairness, they're also trying to make it relevant for tday.
Who the hell other than Ian Fleming fans and people who have trolled
European casinos in previous decades even KNOW what baccarat is, let
alone the rules? It might as well be a sequence where Bond starts
talking in fluent Finnish without subtitles. Seriously.

I prefer baccarat, thought I dislike all card games, really, and I
especially dislike both poker and the fact that it is the hip thing for
card players at the moment. However, it IS fashionable, it IS relevant
to today, and it's a more widely recognized card game in the western
world these days than baccarat. Sad but true.

I will always have trouble seeing it as being half as prestigious as
baccarat (ou chemin de fir), but then, I'm already a fan, so I don't
need converting. I'm going to see the movie and know that it's supposed
to be baccarat, unlike the guy beside me with his girlfriend, thinking
how she might find him more sexy if he gets really good at playing cards
with his buddies on Friday, and she'll 'do certain things' for him. And
that's not going to work if he doesn't even udnerstand the game. At
least poker he knows of, and probably knows someone who actually went
and bought one fo thsoe ridiculously overpriced poker tables.

Lee Edward McIlmoyle,
not surprised
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #246933 ] Mo, 10 April 2006 09:01
WQ  
Lee Edward McIlmoyle wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in
> news:1144601153.054852.133020 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >> At 6:37am -0500, 04/07/06, Tom Zielinski <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I don't think "clued out" is accurate. Many people don't play
> >> >poker. I'm not sure Roger Moore ever defused an atomic weapon
> >> >(though he is full of surprises), but understanding the basics of
> >> >the detonator and what he was trying to accomplish might help him
> >> >play the scene convincingly.
> >>
> >> Heh. Good point.
> >>
> >> >Anyway, to be successful at poker it can't be approached as "just a
> >> >card game." Has Bond ever approached gambling in such a way?
> >> >Baccarat is a much simpler game for example, and is mostly about
> >> >luck and having the balls to "Banco." There really isn't any
> >> >"bluffing."
> >>
> >> There's no Baccarat playing in the script?
> >
> > --- Haven't you heard? They're being "faithful" to the book, that's
> > why it's going to be Poker.
>
> Well, in all fairness, they're also trying to make it relevant for tday.
> Who the hell other than Ian Fleming fans and people who have trolled
> European casinos in previous decades even KNOW what baccarat is, let
> alone the rules? It might as well be a sequence where Bond starts
> talking in fluent Finnish without subtitles. Seriously.

--- When I saw my first Bonds just a month shy of my 13th year I knew
what Poker was, but I hadn't a clue what Baccarat was, as I'm sure a
lot of people didn't know even in the mid-60s, and yet they still
showed it in Dr. No and it didn't ruffle my feathers, or disturb
anybody else, in the least. You make it sound as if you're justifying
the dumbing down [or "relevancy" as you call it] of Bond just because a
lot of people today might not know what Baccarat is and Poker is
something that would be better or more easily "accepted". In fact,
it's in the not knowing about something and learning about it that
makes Bond's world more interesting and more exotic to watch. For EON
to water it all down into relateable terms on a mass audience level
just to appease moviegoers with fragile intellects is to simply turn
Bond into the spy equivalent of a McDonald's.

> I prefer baccarat, thought I dislike all card games, really, and I
> especially dislike both poker and the fact that it is the hip thing for
> card players at the moment. However, it IS fashionable, it IS relevant
> to today, and it's a more widely recognized card game in the western
> world these days than baccarat. Sad but true.

--- Yes, sad but true, but again, it won't be as interesting or exotic
to sit through, which is what will be missed, and that's a cinematic
loss. Also, showing Baccarat could've been a game that a lot of people
could've learned, or become familiar with, in the process while
watching the action, which in turn maybe even could've had the effect
of popularizing it.

> I will always have trouble seeing it as being half as prestigious as
> baccarat (ou chemin de fir), but then, I'm already a fan, so I don't
> need converting. I'm going to see the movie and know that it's supposed
> to be baccarat, unlike the guy beside me with his girlfriend, thinking
> how she might find him more sexy if he gets really good at playing cards
> with his buddies on Friday, and she'll 'do certain things' for him. And
> that's not going to work if he doesn't even udnerstand the game. At
> least poker he knows of, and probably knows someone who actually went
> and bought one fo thsoe ridiculously overpriced poker tables.

--- I wonder how cool Craig will come across in the scene, especially
if he's going to wear a tux - or will dress rules be relaxed in the
Casino Royale to allow him to look more pedestrian? The epitome of
Bond cool at cards was that opening shot of Connery in Dr. No,
appearing so blas=E9 as he did in it. Even Lazenby projected a coolness
of his own in OHMSS, in a detached sort of way.


>=20
> Lee Edward McIlmoyle,
> not surprised
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #248117 ] Fr, 14 April 2006 00:39
Lee Edward McIlmoyle  
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in
news:1144652497.432389.222770 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> --- When I saw my first Bonds just a month shy of my 13th year I knew
> what Poker was, but I hadn't a clue what Baccarat was, as I'm sure a
> lot of people didn't know even in the mid-60s, and yet they still
> showed it in Dr. No and it didn't ruffle my feathers, or disturb
> anybody else, in the least. You make it sound as if you're justifying
> the dumbing down [or "relevancy" as you call it] of Bond just because
> a lot of people today might not know what Baccarat is and Poker is
> something that would be better or more easily "accepted". In fact,
> it's in the not knowing about something and learning about it that
> makes Bond's world more interesting and more exotic to watch. For EON
> to water it all down into relateable terms on a mass audience level
> just to appease moviegoers with fragile intellects is to simply turn
> Bond into the spy equivalent of a McDonald's.

I couldn't agree with you more on this, actually. It's not my movie,
though, and I'm not counting on making back a 100 million in a month on
it. No doubt it's a sop to the producers at Sony.

> --- Yes, sad but true, but again, it won't be as interesting or exotic
> to sit through, which is what will be missed, and that's a cinematic
> loss. Also, showing Baccarat could've been a game that a lot of
> people could've learned, or become familiar with, in the process while
> watching the action, which in turn maybe even could've had the effect
> of popularizing it.

Agree 100%.

> --- I wonder how cool Craig will come across in the scene, especially
> if he's going to wear a tux - or will dress rules be relaxed in the
> Casino Royale to allow him to look more pedestrian? The epitome of
> Bond cool at cards was that opening shot of Connery in Dr. No,
> appearing so blasé as he did in it. Even Lazenby projected a coolness
> of his own in OHMSS, in a detached sort of way.

Three for three.

I trust they'll keep the casino scenes realtively formal, if relaxed.
Connery and Lazenby... heck, I even liked Moore and my fave Bond Dalton
in the casino scenes (Brosnan hardly did any, though I'm sure that
wasn't due to anything he said. He seems game for anything that adds
flavour to his portrayal). They make it Bond. I figure that, so long as
Broccoli and Wilson remember that DN, GF and TB all had the nice mix of
dress-up-dress-casual (we've seen Craig dressed casual so far. Now bring
on the suit!), we'll make it out alright.

It's not that hard a piece of the formula to work with, even during a
reinvention phase. Moore hardly wore any formalwear in FYEO, but he was
still immaculately tailored thorugh much of it, and yet wore fairly
streetworthy clothes thorugh at least half of it. And even Brosnan got
to essay some casual wear in DAD. If anything, it didn't get hammy and
unbelievable until after he put on the tux and came down for dinner in
the ice palace.

So long as they resist the urge to make the second half of DAD, it
should work out fine. Paring back on the sugary parts of the formula
should make for s suitably tight thriller for a change. It might upset
Mike Feeney, but I think even he will appreciate that the film will be
stronger for being entertaining but gripping. Or not. But Mike's an odd
duck. The rest of us just want to see Bond demonstrate that he could
woop any other action hero's ass in the field, and look good doing it.

Lee Edward McIlmoyle,
patiently waiting
Re: This One Stumps Me [message #248131 ] Fr, 14 April 2006 04:33
WQ  
Lee Edward McIlmoyle wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in
> news:1144652497.432389.222770 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > --- When I saw my first Bonds just a month shy of my 13th year I knew
> > what Poker was, but I hadn't a clue what Baccarat was, as I'm sure a
> > lot of people didn't know even in the mid-60s, and yet they still
> > showed it in Dr. No and it didn't ruffle my feathers, or disturb
> > anybody else, in the least. You make it sound as if you're justifying
> > the dumbing down [or "relevancy" as you call it] of Bond just because
> > a lot of people today might not know what Baccarat is and Poker is
> > something that would be better or more easily "accepted". In fact,
> > it's in the not knowing about something and learning about it that
> > makes Bond's world more interesting and more exotic to watch. For EON
> > to water it all down into relateable terms on a mass audience level
> > just to appease moviegoers with fragile intellects is to simply turn
> > Bond into the spy equivalent of a McDonald's.
>
> I couldn't agree with you more on this, actually. It's not my movie,
> though, and I'm not counting on making back a 100 million in a month on
> it. No doubt it's a sop to the producers at Sony.
>
> > --- Yes, sad but true, but again, it won't be as interesting or exotic
> > to sit through, which is what will be missed, and that's a cinematic
> > loss. Also, showing Baccarat could've been a game that a lot of
> > people could've learned, or become familiar with, in the process while
> > watching the action, which in turn maybe even could've had the effect
> > of popularizing it.
>
> Agree 100%.
>
> > --- I wonder how cool Craig will come across in the scene, especially
> > if he's going to wear a tux - or will dress rules be relaxed in the
> > Casino Royale to allow him to look more pedestrian? The epitome of
> > Bond cool at cards was that opening shot of Connery in Dr. No,
> > appearing so blas=E9 as he did in it. Even Lazenby projected a coolness
> > of his own in OHMSS, in a detached sort of way.
>
> Three for three.

--- Geez, nice to know somebody else sees things straight around here,
unlike a particular clique of self-appointed naysayers ever ready to
pounce on any deemed unpolitically correct contrary view of Bond.

> I trust they'll keep the casino scenes realtively formal, if relaxed.
> Connery and Lazenby... heck, I even liked Moore and my fave Bond Dalton
> in the casino scenes (Brosnan hardly did any, though I'm sure that
> wasn't due to anything he said. He seems game for anything that adds
> flavour to his portrayal). They make it Bond. I figure that, so long as
> Broccoli and Wilson remember that DN, GF and TB all had the nice mix of
> dress-up-dress-casual (we've seen Craig dressed casual so far. Now bring
> on the suit!), we'll make it out alright.
>
> It's not that hard a piece of the formula to work with, even during a
> reinvention phase. Moore hardly wore any formalwear in FYEO, but he was
> still immaculately tailored thorugh much of it, and yet wore fairly
> streetworthy clothes thorugh at least half of it. And even Brosnan got
> to essay some casual wear in DAD. If anything, it didn't get hammy and
> unbelievable until after he put on the tux and came down for dinner in
> the ice palace.

--- The closest I saw Craig to looking dapper was in a brief scene in
Road to Perdition. It was also the closest to his looking Bond-like as
he could look, but he struck me more as a 1950s Bond actor type in that
scene than a 21st century one - he just has that kind of time-warped
face. He probably would've fit in perfectly well as Bond had CR been
made in 1956 instead of now in 2006.

> So long as they resist the urge to make the second half of DAD, it
> should work out fine. Paring back on the sugary parts of the formula
> should make for s suitably tight thriller for a change. It might upset
> Mike Feeney, but I think even he will appreciate that the film will be
> stronger for being entertaining but gripping. Or not. But Mike's an odd
> duck. The rest of us just want to see Bond demonstrate that he could
> woop any other action hero's ass in the field, and look good doing it.

--- I'll just be pleasantly surprised if everything about the film is
pulled off satisfactorily. Regardless of what EON and others have been
saying about their filming some sort of "faithful" version of CR, I'm
sure they're taking a lot of liberties with the novel, since it's not
much of a story, so expect to see a lot of concocted things for the
film. The recently discussed foot chase is a perfect example of
something being in the film that's not in the book - never mind that
the foot chase heads towards and ends on a construction crane. Nobody
here has still been able to explain why someone running away from Bond
would run into a dead-end situation like that, atop a construction
crane. I certainly wouldn't get on top of a construction crane to get
away from someone. This is the kind of nonsensical stuff I'm not
looking forward to - although I'm sure EON must have a perfectly good
explanation for how and why that scene happens the way it does, other
than just being there as a cheap thrills action stunt.


--- =20
>=20
> Lee Edward McIlmoyle,
> patiently waiting
Vorheriges Thema:Was able to finish it
Nächstes Thema:Was able to finish it
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 00:58:58 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,84707 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered