|
|
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » casino royale timeline
| casino royale timeline [message #303312] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 22:26 |
|
Hello.
I suppose this has been discussed here, but what's the deal with the casino
royale timeline?
IMDB says "The very first outing..."
Is it the first mision? If so, why is judy dench in it? Is it set in the
60's? Does it assume the previous films never happened, so we can expect
live and let die to follow?
Cheers,
--
Harry Smith
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303313 ] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 22:57 |
|
Harry wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I suppose this has been discussed here, but what's the deal with the casino
> royale timeline?
>
> IMDB says "The very first outing..."
>
> Is it the first mision? If so, why is judy dench in it? Is it set in the
> 60's? Does it assume the previous films never happened, so we can expect
> live and let die to follow?
--- Yes, it's been discussed to death here from about last Septmeber to
a few months ago. Nobody can still figure it out.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Harry Smith
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303317 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 01:01 |
|
WQ wrote:
> Harry wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I suppose this has been discussed here, but what's the deal with the casino
> > royale timeline?
> >
> > IMDB says "The very first outing..."
> >
> > Is it the first mision? If so, why is judy dench in it? Is it set in the
> > 60's? Does it assume the previous films never happened, so we can expect
> > live and let die to follow?
>
> --- Yes, it's been discussed to death here from about last Septmeber to
> a few months ago. Nobody can still figure it out.
Don't be silly, WQ. Almost all of us have had this figured out for
months.
Harry: it's Fleming's first novel updated to the present day, and yes,
it's an origin story in the vein of 'Batman Begins', 'Superman' ('78),
and even 'Batman' ('89). Judi Dench is M in a different timeline as
Bernard Lee was M for three entirely different Bonds. (If you start
looking to Bond films trying to establish genuine continuity, it simply
doesn't work.)
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303321 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 02:03 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > Harry wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I suppose this has been discussed here, but what's the deal with the casino
> > > royale timeline?
> > >
> > > IMDB says "The very first outing..."
> > >
> > > Is it the first mision? If so, why is judy dench in it? Is it set in the
> > > 60's? Does it assume the previous films never happened, so we can expect
> > > live and let die to follow?
> >
> > --- Yes, it's been discussed to death here from about last Septmeber to
> > a few months ago. Nobody can still figure it out.
>
> Don't be silly, WQ. Almost all of us have had this figured out for
> months.
>
> Harry: it's Fleming's first novel updated to the present day, and yes,
> it's an origin story in the vein of 'Batman Begins', 'Superman' ('78),
> and even 'Batman' ('89). Judi Dench is M in a different timeline as
> Bernard Lee was M for three entirely different Bonds. (If you start
> looking to Bond films trying to establish genuine continuity, it simply
> doesn't work.)
--- When was Bernard Lee as M in a different timeline? He was only
looking at a different Bond face with Connery, Lazenby and Moore.
Other than that, it was pretty much the same chronological timeline in
terms of everything moving forward. CR rewinds to the beginning but
keeps it in the present while carrying over an M from the past, who
used to be in the present with Brosnan. So, Harry, if you've got this
figured out, you're one up on me.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303322 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 02:10 |
|
WQ wrote:
> When was Bernard Lee as M in a different timeline? He was only
> looking at a different Bond face with Connery, Lazenby and Moore.
Well, is the different face playing opposite a group of familiar faces
not a breach of continuity in itself? Or is it just that because it's
happened a few times you've learned to accept it?
> Other than that, it was pretty much the same chronological timeline in
> terms of everything moving forward.
To go back to everybody's favourite: Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in
OHMSS, and IMHO the 'Bond was wearing Japanese disguise in YOLT'
argument doesn't wash, since to me it's clear that the Japanese makeup
has gone by the time Bond arrives in Blofeld's control room.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303324 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 02:25 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > When was Bernard Lee as M in a different timeline? He was only
> > looking at a different Bond face with Connery, Lazenby and Moore.
>
> Well, is the different face playing opposite a group of familiar faces
> not a breach of continuity in itself? Or is it just that because it's
> happened a few times you've learned to accept it?
--- Plastic surgery after one too many scars incurred in the field?
> > Other than that, it was pretty much the same chronological timeline in
> > terms of everything moving forward.
>
> To go back to everybody's favourite: Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in
> OHMSS, and IMHO the 'Bond was wearing Japanese disguise in YOLT'
> argument doesn't wash, since to me it's clear that the Japanese makeup
> has gone by the time Bond arrives in Blofeld's control room.
--- Plastic surgery! All that can be explained by Bond's plastic
surgery. One could even explain Craig's Bond as plastic surgery. The
difference is, how can one explain that he "becomes" a 007 in CR, when
he's always been one before, without reverting to a past era, like the
60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s to show when he becomes it? He's already
been a 00 for over 4 decades in real time 1962-2002 and he's only now
getting his 00 in real time 2006? With an M who's been there in real
time 1995-2002 and who now in real time 2006 acts like her real time
1995-2002 never happened, nor 1962-1989 before that? Harry, see what I
mean?
>
> Best
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303326 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 02:28 |
|
WQ wrote:
> He's already
> been a 00 for over 4 decades in real time 1962-2002 and he's only now
> getting his 00 in real time 2006?
So is he immortal or is he a very well-preserved and athletic
70-year-old?
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303330 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 02:43 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > He's already
> > been a 00 for over 4 decades in real time 1962-2002 and he's only now
> > getting his 00 in real time 2006?
>
> So is he immortal or is he a very well-preserved and athletic
> 70-year-old?
--- Consider the 1962-2002 Bond as having lived in real time and in a
compressed form of that real time in a protracted sense. In other
words, while everyone in 1962-2002 has lived through real time in one
ageing speed, Bond lived through that same real time but in a physical
body that aged much more slowly across the decades. He may've started
off at the age of 30 in '62 and he probably ended up being 40 in '02,
but each of the decades were real time decades that he lived through.
In that sense, that's where the chronology is consistent. But the
Craig Bond completely breaks from that chronology, so it's not the same
Bond. With CR, we're starting off in some sort weird parallel
universe, one that jars with the chronology of the first four decades
of Bond.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303336 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 03:05 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- Consider the 1962-2002 Bond as having lived in real time and in a
> compressed form of that real time in a protracted sense. In other
> words, while everyone in 1962-2002 has lived through real time in one
> ageing speed, Bond lived through that same real time but in a physical
> body that aged much more slowly across the decades. He may've started
> off at the age of 30 in '62 and he probably ended up being 40 in '02,
> but each of the decades were real time decades that he lived through.
> In that sense, that's where the chronology is consistent. But the
> Craig Bond completely breaks from that chronology, so it's not the same
> Bond. With CR, we're starting off in some sort weird parallel
> universe, one that jars with the chronology of the first four decades
> of Bond.
OK, here's my counter to that. In just a couple of years' time it will
be impossible that anybody in the 30-40 age range could have been
involved in covert operations where the Cold War was a backdrop. That
completely invalidates DN, FRWL, YOLT, TSWLM, FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD, and
GE at the very least. Now, what's the answer to that? Do you
retrospectively rewrite the plots of those movies and pretend that they
weren't Cold-War-based at all or continue with the concept of Bond as a
character, placing him within a modern context?
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303340 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 03:24 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- Consider the 1962-2002 Bond as having lived in real time and in a
> compressed form of that real time in a protracted sense. In other
> words, while everyone in 1962-2002 has lived through real time in one
> ageing speed, Bond lived through that same real time but in a physical
> body that aged much more slowly across the decades. He may've started
> off at the age of 30 in '62 and he probably ended up being 40 in '02,
> but each of the decades were real time decades that he lived through.
> In that sense, that's where the chronology is consistent. But the
> Craig Bond completely breaks from that chronology, so it's not the
> same Bond. With CR, we're starting off in some sort weird parallel
> universe, one that jars with the chronology of the first four decades
> of Bond.
Aside from the fact that the past four decades had little chronology,
and zero consistency, you're right. This is an alternate universe, this
is a James Bond joining MI6 in the year 2006 and is headed by
Barbara Mawdsley. This is a James Bond about to suffer his first
defeat at the hands of the enemy, the loss of his first love.
What's wrong with that?
What this isn't is a James Bond in a world of laser guns; gravity-driven
spacestations; underwater cities; or a Bond who can, and then
cannot, disarm a nuclear bomb; study Oriental languages at
Cambridge, but cannot read a keyboard with Chinese characters;
go to Japan with M and then later state he's never been to Japan
before, etc, etc.
I don't see the problem. If one is prepared to concoct a half-baked
HIGHLANDER theory to explain the past 40 years, accepting a alternate
universe take shouldn't really be a problem.
--
--Mac
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303343 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 03:58 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Consider the 1962-2002 Bond as having lived in real time and in a
> > compressed form of that real time in a protracted sense. In other
> > words, while everyone in 1962-2002 has lived through real time in one
> > ageing speed, Bond lived through that same real time but in a physical
> > body that aged much more slowly across the decades. He may've started
> > off at the age of 30 in '62 and he probably ended up being 40 in '02,
> > but each of the decades were real time decades that he lived through.
> > In that sense, that's where the chronology is consistent. But the
> > Craig Bond completely breaks from that chronology, so it's not the same
> > Bond. With CR, we're starting off in some sort weird parallel
> > universe, one that jars with the chronology of the first four decades
> > of Bond.
>
> OK, here's my counter to that. In just a couple of years' time it will
> be impossible that anybody in the 30-40 age range could have been
> involved in covert operations where the Cold War was a backdrop. That
> completely invalidates DN, FRWL, YOLT, TSWLM, FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD, and
> GE at the very least. Now, what's the answer to that? Do you
> retrospectively rewrite the plots of those movies and pretend that they
> weren't Cold-War-based at all or continue with the concept of Bond as a
> character, placing him within a modern context?
--- The common ground between cinema Bond and real life is both the
time frame of real life and whatever his cinematic missions can draw
upon from that time frame of real life. This is what puts Bond in real
time which he lives through on screen, but as the cinema Bond ages at a
much slower rate than we do as real people in real life, his Cold War
backdrop is still very much relevant within the context of his cinema
universe, because everyone in that universe ages at a slower rate,
even if we're moving at a faster one away from that Cold War. Look at
it as some sort of Star Trek parallel time/universe episode. Right
now, at the rate that Bond ages, which is 1 year to our 4, he'd be only
41 today and only 11 years from the Cold War in his cinema universe,
which in our parallel real time/universe is actually 44 years ago.
Yet, he's still very much in tune with our own real time, thanks to the
miracle of celluloid film and stretches of everyone's imagination.
None of his past missions are invalidated because they were very much
valid in the time he undertook them. He was 30 in '62 with Dr. No, and
31 in '66 with TB. Whatever missions he took at whatever time were
reflective, to one degree or another, of that year or era, just as
DAD's take on North Korean villains worked in 2002 when Bond was 40
[and don't we see how nasty they can really be these days in real
life?]. Even the terrorist angle of CR works for Bond in '06. The
missions are what the missions are, in relation to the time he's in,
which is the same time we're in. The only difference is that he's
ageing slower in screen time than all of us are in real time.
But Craig's Bond disrupts that natural ageing process. While he could
be legitimately viewed as 41 and the CR plot seen as somewhat
reflective of this year or era, the fact that they're making him start
at the beginning when he's already 11 years into his 00 life [44 for
us] is what makes this Bond a new one that goes beyond mere plastic
surgery. In fact, it's with this Bond that everything from DN to DAD
doesn't exist because we'll now be entering a new time frame in a new
parallel Bond universe in which a new Bond history will be created.
Therein lies the true inconsistency of this "new direction" or "reboot"
to the series, but it's only an inconsistency if CR is entered as a new
addition to the original series. Otherwise, if EON emphasizes it as a
back-to-square-one approach so that there's no misunderstanding or
confusion about it, then CR could only be viewed as a Bond clone with a
different slant and one who may age at a different rate, but who
clearly is not the same Bond we've come to know over the last 11/44
years.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303344 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 04:12 |
|
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Consider the 1962-2002 Bond as having lived in real time and in a
> > compressed form of that real time in a protracted sense. In other
> > words, while everyone in 1962-2002 has lived through real time in one
> > ageing speed, Bond lived through that same real time but in a physical
> > body that aged much more slowly across the decades. He may've started
> > off at the age of 30 in '62 and he probably ended up being 40 in '02,
> > but each of the decades were real time decades that he lived through.
> > In that sense, that's where the chronology is consistent. But the
> > Craig Bond completely breaks from that chronology, so it's not the
> > same Bond. With CR, we're starting off in some sort weird parallel
> > universe, one that jars with the chronology of the first four decades
> > of Bond.
>
> Aside from the fact that the past four decades had little chronology,
> and zero consistency, you're right. This is an alternate universe, this
> is a James Bond joining MI6 in the year 2006 and is headed by
> Barbara Mawdsley. This is a James Bond about to suffer his first
> defeat at the hands of the enemy, the loss of his first love.
>
> What's wrong with that?
--- What's wrong with that is that only people like you and me and
almost anyone else who frequents newsgroups, fan forums and message
boards are probably the only ones who are aware of that, which in
cinema box office terms adds up to maybe 10,438 people worldwide. The
ordinary Joe Schmo is expecting the same old Bond shenaingans because
he hasn't been told otherwise or doesn't care enough to want to know
more details about what's going on with the movie, and that in cinema
box office terms adds up to the other 100 million people EON is
expecting to suck money from. Even Harry, who started this thread,
doesn't get what's going on with CR's timeline, and this is already 9
or 10 months after the discussion over it has begun, so obviously the
message isn't getting through in a way that a lot of people are
grasping what they should expect. If this isn't sold right, a lot of
people are going to end up being very confused about what the hell is
going on and if anything is going to kill CR quick, it's bad word of
mouth. 100 million people could do more damage to CR than 10,438 can
try to save it.
> What this isn't is a James Bond in a world of laser guns; gravity-driven
> spacestations; underwater cities; or a Bond who can, and then
> cannot, disarm a nuclear bomb; study Oriental languages at
> Cambridge, but cannot read a keyboard with Chinese characters;
> go to Japan with M and then later state he's never been to Japan
> before, etc, etc.
--- What makes you think it won't devolve into that again? I've read
the CR script and I have a very dim view of a few things in it that are
much more overblown than necessary. If you're not expecting any of the
above, I think you're going to be a little disappointed. It won't be
another DAD, but it's far from being another FRWL.
> I don't see the problem. If one is prepared to concoct a half-baked
> HIGHLANDER theory to explain the past 40 years, accepting a alternate
> universe take shouldn't really be a problem.
--- Can you count up to a 100 million?
> --
> --Mac
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303346 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 04:59 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- The common ground between cinema Bond and real life is both the
> time frame of real life and whatever his cinematic missions can draw
> upon from that time frame of real life. This is what puts Bond in real
> time which he lives through on screen, but as the cinema Bond ages at a
> much slower rate than we do as real people in real life, his Cold War
> backdrop is still very much relevant within the context of his cinema
> universe, because everyone in that universe ages at a slower rate,
> even if we're moving at a faster one away from that Cold War. Look at
> it as some sort of Star Trek parallel time/universe episode. Right
> now, at the rate that Bond ages, which is 1 year to our 4, he'd be only
> 41 today and only 11 years from the Cold War in his cinema universe,
> which in our parallel real time/universe is actually 44 years ago.
> Yet, he's still very much in tune with our own real time, thanks to the
> miracle of celluloid film and stretches of everyone's imagination.
> None of his past missions are invalidated because they were very much
> valid in the time he undertook them. He was 30 in '62 with Dr. No, and
> 31 in '66 with TB. Whatever missions he took at whatever time were
> reflective, to one degree or another, of that year or era, just as
> DAD's take on North Korean villains worked in 2002 when Bond was 40
> [and don't we see how nasty they can really be these days in real
> life?]. Even the terrorist angle of CR works for Bond in '06. The
> missions are what the missions are, in relation to the time he's in,
> which is the same time we're in. The only difference is that he's
> ageing slower in screen time than all of us are in real time.
>
> But Craig's Bond disrupts that natural ageing process. While he could
> be legitimately viewed as 41 and the CR plot seen as somewhat
> reflective of this year or era, the fact that they're making him start
> at the beginning when he's already 11 years into his 00 life [44 for
> us] is what makes this Bond a new one that goes beyond mere plastic
> surgery. In fact, it's with this Bond that everything from DN to DAD
> doesn't exist because we'll now be entering a new time frame in a new
> parallel Bond universe in which a new Bond history will be created.
> Therein lies the true inconsistency of this "new direction" or "reboot"
> to the series, but it's only an inconsistency if CR is entered as a new
> addition to the original series. Otherwise, if EON emphasizes it as a
> back-to-square-one approach so that there's no misunderstanding or
> confusion about it, then CR could only be viewed as a Bond clone with a
> different slant and one who may age at a different rate, but who
> clearly is not the same Bond we've come to know over the last 11/44
> years.
Um, OK. I congratulate you for your effort.
So audiences watching CR will be utterly confused by the
straightforward concept of a reboot, but would understand perfectly
your 'parallel universe' / '11/44' arguments as quoted above?
Which seems the simpler approach here?
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303347 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 05:27 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- The common ground between cinema Bond and real life is both the
> > time frame of real life and whatever his cinematic missions can draw
> > upon from that time frame of real life. This is what puts Bond in real
> > time which he lives through on screen, but as the cinema Bond ages at a
> > much slower rate than we do as real people in real life, his Cold War
> > backdrop is still very much relevant within the context of his cinema
> > universe, because everyone in that universe ages at a slower rate,
> > even if we're moving at a faster one away from that Cold War. Look at
> > it as some sort of Star Trek parallel time/universe episode. Right
> > now, at the rate that Bond ages, which is 1 year to our 4, he'd be only
> > 41 today and only 11 years from the Cold War in his cinema universe,
> > which in our parallel real time/universe is actually 44 years ago.
> > Yet, he's still very much in tune with our own real time, thanks to the
> > miracle of celluloid film and stretches of everyone's imagination.
> > None of his past missions are invalidated because they were very much
> > valid in the time he undertook them. He was 30 in '62 with Dr. No, and
> > 31 in '66 with TB. Whatever missions he took at whatever time were
> > reflective, to one degree or another, of that year or era, just as
> > DAD's take on North Korean villains worked in 2002 when Bond was 40
> > [and don't we see how nasty they can really be these days in real
> > life?]. Even the terrorist angle of CR works for Bond in '06. The
> > missions are what the missions are, in relation to the time he's in,
> > which is the same time we're in. The only difference is that he's
> > ageing slower in screen time than all of us are in real time.
> >
> > But Craig's Bond disrupts that natural ageing process. While he could
> > be legitimately viewed as 41 and the CR plot seen as somewhat
> > reflective of this year or era, the fact that they're making him start
> > at the beginning when he's already 11 years into his 00 life [44 for
> > us] is what makes this Bond a new one that goes beyond mere plastic
> > surgery. In fact, it's with this Bond that everything from DN to DAD
> > doesn't exist because we'll now be entering a new time frame in a new
> > parallel Bond universe in which a new Bond history will be created.
> > Therein lies the true inconsistency of this "new direction" or "reboot"
> > to the series, but it's only an inconsistency if CR is entered as a new
> > addition to the original series. Otherwise, if EON emphasizes it as a
> > back-to-square-one approach so that there's no misunderstanding or
> > confusion about it, then CR could only be viewed as a Bond clone with a
> > different slant and one who may age at a different rate, but who
> > clearly is not the same Bond we've come to know over the last 11/44
> > years.
>
> Um, OK. I congratulate you for your effort.
>
> So audiences watching CR will be utterly confused by the
> straightforward concept of a reboot, but would understand perfectly
> your 'parallel universe' / '11/44' arguments as quoted above?
>
> Which seems the simpler approach here?
--- As I said to Mac just a couple of posts earlier: Can you count to
100 million?
>
> Best
>
> Phil
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303348 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 05:34 |
|
WQ wrote:
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>>WQ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Harry wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello.
>>>>
>>>>I suppose this has been discussed here, but what's the deal with the casino
>>>>royale timeline?
>>>>
>>>>IMDB says "The very first outing..."
>>>>
>>>>Is it the first mision? If so, why is judy dench in it? Is it set in the
>>>>60's? Does it assume the previous films never happened, so we can expect
>>>>live and let die to follow?
>>>
>>>--- Yes, it's been discussed to death here from about last Septmeber to
>>>a few months ago. Nobody can still figure it out.
>>
>>Don't be silly, WQ. Almost all of us have had this figured out for
>>months.
>>
>>Harry: it's Fleming's first novel updated to the present day, and yes,
>>it's an origin story in the vein of 'Batman Begins', 'Superman' ('78),
>>and even 'Batman' ('89). Judi Dench is M in a different timeline as
>>Bernard Lee was M for three entirely different Bonds. (If you start
>>looking to Bond films trying to establish genuine continuity, it simply
>>doesn't work.)
>
>
> --- When was Bernard Lee as M in a different timeline? He was only
> looking at a different Bond face with Connery, Lazenby and Moore.
> Other than that, it was pretty much the same chronological timeline in
> terms of everything moving forward. CR rewinds to the beginning but
> keeps it in the present while carrying over an M from the past, who
> used to be in the present with Brosnan. So, Harry, if you've got this
> figured out, you're one up on me.
>
>
Oh please Wilson & co just wanted to keep Judy as M period.
Anyway Bond is a dark role so they cast a Blond actor and don't
dye his hair, never mind DC at 38 has more lines in his face, than I do
at 59. They say they casted an UGLY man since Fleming's 007 isn't
good looking. IMHO they blew it big time.
--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress
http://computerpast.blogspot.com/
Also check out our sales page(s)
http://bondtime.tripod.com/
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303349 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 05:35 |
|
WQ wrote:
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>>WQ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When was Bernard Lee as M in a different timeline? He was only
>>>looking at a different Bond face with Connery, Lazenby and Moore.
>>
>>Well, is the different face playing opposite a group of familiar faces
>>not a breach of continuity in itself? Or is it just that because it's
>>happened a few times you've learned to accept it?
>
>
> --- Plastic surgery after one too many scars incurred in the field?
>
>
>>>Other than that, it was pretty much the same chronological timeline in
>>>terms of everything moving forward.
>>
>>To go back to everybody's favourite: Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in
>>OHMSS, and IMHO the 'Bond was wearing Japanese disguise in YOLT'
>>argument doesn't wash, since to me it's clear that the Japanese makeup
>>has gone by the time Bond arrives in Blofeld's control room.
>
>
> --- Plastic surgery! All that can be explained by Bond's plastic
> surgery. One could even explain Craig's Bond as plastic surgery. The
> difference is, how can one explain that he "becomes" a 007 in CR, when
> he's always been one before, without reverting to a past era, like the
> 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s to show when he becomes it? He's already
> been a 00 for over 4 decades in real time 1962-2002 and he's only now
> getting his 00 in real time 2006? With an M who's been there in real
> time 1995-2002 and who now in real time 2006 acts like her real time
> 1995-2002 never happened, nor 1962-1989 before that? Harry, see what I
> mean?
>
>
>>Best
>>
>>Phil
>
>
Vince thowing his hands in the air in disgust
--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress
http://computerpast.blogspot.com/
Also check out our sales page(s)
http://bondtime.tripod.com/
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303350 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 05:36 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
>
>>He's already
>>been a 00 for over 4 decades in real time 1962-2002 and he's only now
>>getting his 00 in real time 2006?
>
>
> So is he immortal or is he a very well-preserved and athletic
> 70-year-old?
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>
Just like Superman, Batman have been around for almost 70 years
--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress
http://computerpast.blogspot.com/
Also check out our sales page(s)
http://bondtime.tripod.com/
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303351 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 05:38 |
|
WQ wrote:
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>>WQ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>--- Consider the 1962-2002 Bond as having lived in real time and in a
>>>compressed form of that real time in a protracted sense. In other
>>>words, while everyone in 1962-2002 has lived through real time in one
>>>ageing speed, Bond lived through that same real time but in a physical
>>>body that aged much more slowly across the decades. He may've started
>>>off at the age of 30 in '62 and he probably ended up being 40 in '02,
>>>but each of the decades were real time decades that he lived through.
>>>In that sense, that's where the chronology is consistent. But the
>>>Craig Bond completely breaks from that chronology, so it's not the same
>>>Bond. With CR, we're starting off in some sort weird parallel
>>>universe, one that jars with the chronology of the first four decades
>>>of Bond.
>>
>>OK, here's my counter to that. In just a couple of years' time it will
>>be impossible that anybody in the 30-40 age range could have been
>>involved in covert operations where the Cold War was a backdrop. That
>>completely invalidates DN, FRWL, YOLT, TSWLM, FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD, and
>>GE at the very least. Now, what's the answer to that? Do you
>>retrospectively rewrite the plots of those movies and pretend that they
>>weren't Cold-War-based at all or continue with the concept of Bond as a
>>character, placing him within a modern context?
>
>
> --- The common ground between cinema Bond and real life is both the
> time frame of real life and whatever his cinematic missions can draw
> upon from that time frame of real life. This is what puts Bond in real
> time which he lives through on screen, but as the cinema Bond ages at a
> much slower rate than we do as real people in real life, his Cold War
> backdrop is still very much relevant within the context of his cinema
> universe, because everyone in that universe ages at a slower rate,
> even if we're moving at a faster one away from that Cold War. Look at
> it as some sort of Star Trek parallel time/universe episode. Right
> now, at the rate that Bond ages, which is 1 year to our 4, he'd be only
> 41 today and only 11 years from the Cold War in his cinema universe,
> which in our parallel real time/universe is actually 44 years ago.
> Yet, he's still very much in tune with our own real time, thanks to the
> miracle of celluloid film and stretches of everyone's imagination.
> None of his past missions are invalidated because they were very much
> valid in the time he undertook them. He was 30 in '62 with Dr. No, and
> 31 in '66 with TB. Whatever missions he took at whatever time were
> reflective, to one degree or another, of that year or era, just as
> DAD's take on North Korean villains worked in 2002 when Bond was 40
> [and don't we see how nasty they can really be these days in real
> life?]. Even the terrorist angle of CR works for Bond in '06. The
> missions are what the missions are, in relation to the time he's in,
> which is the same time we're in. The only difference is that he's
> ageing slower in screen time than all of us are in real time.
>
> But Craig's Bond disrupts that natural ageing process. While he could
> be legitimately viewed as 41 and the CR plot seen as somewhat
> reflective of this year or era, the fact that they're making him start
> at the beginning when he's already 11 years into his 00 life [44 for
> us] is what makes this Bond a new one that goes beyond mere plastic
> surgery. In fact, it's with this Bond that everything from DN to DAD
> doesn't exist because we'll now be entering a new time frame in a new
> parallel Bond universe in which a new Bond history will be created.
> Therein lies the true inconsistency of this "new direction" or "reboot"
> to the series, but it's only an inconsistency if CR is entered as a new
> addition to the original series. Otherwise, if EON emphasizes it as a
> back-to-square-one approach so that there's no misunderstanding or
> confusion about it, then CR could only be viewed as a Bond clone with a
> different slant and one who may age at a different rate, but who
> clearly is not the same Bond we've come to know over the last 11/44
> years.
>
>
>>Best
>>
>>Phil
>
>
Another problem DC's Bond only JUST became a "00" at 37?
No way!
--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress
http://computerpast.blogspot.com/
Also check out our sales page(s)
http://bondtime.tripod.com/
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303361 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 12:10 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- What's wrong with that is that only people like you and me and
> almost anyone else who frequents newsgroups, fan forums and message
> boards are probably the only ones who are aware of that, which in
> cinema box office terms adds up to maybe 10,438 people worldwide. The
> ordinary Joe Schmo is expecting the same old Bond shenaingans because
> he hasn't been told otherwise or doesn't care enough to want to know
> more details about what's going on with the movie,and that in cinema
> box office terms adds up to the other 100 million people EON is
> expecting to suck money from. Even Harry, who started this thread,
> doesn't get what's going on with CR's timeline, and this is already 9
> or 10 months after the discussion over it has begun, so obviously the
> message isn't getting through in a way that a lot of people are
> grasping what they should expect. If this isn't sold right, a lot of
> people are going to end up being very confused about what the hell is
> going on and if anything is going to kill CR quick, it's bad word of
> mouth. 100 million people could do more damage to CR than 10,438 can
> try to save it.
The early publicity has already started mentioning that CASINO ROYALE
is Bond's first adventure and how he got his licence to kill. The reviews
will all mention it in their first line, guaranteed, because the press
launch material in November puts it up front and centre. As far as the
rest of it goes, it *is* the same old Bond shenanigans.
You're over-reacting. Joe Schmo is unlikely to say: "Hey! Why hasn't he
got a white Felix and a male M?! That's it! I'm not going!" If the film is
good, he, and she, will go.
--
--Mac
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303362 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 12:13 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- As I said to Mac just a couple of posts earlier: Can you count to
> 100 million?
But it wasn't a persuasive or convincing argument then either.
--
--Mac
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303363 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 12:23 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> So audiences watching CR will be utterly confused by the
> straightforward concept of a reboot, but would understand perfectly
> your 'parallel universe' / '11/44' arguments as quoted above?
>
> Which seems the simpler approach here?
The truth is the mainstream audience will not care that M is Judi
Dench anymore than they cared Blofeld '71 looked like the guy
from YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and never looked the same twice.
Nor were they concerned OCTOPUSSY looked like that chick from
THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. They don't assuage their
concerns with elaborate theories regarding time, space and plastic
surgery, they GO ALONG FOR THE RIDE. And in November, they'll
do the same.
The one criticism they are sure get is that "Bond is copying
BATMAN BEGINS," which is a shame as EON thought of
the idea 20 years ago.
--
--Mac
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303368 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 12:59 |
|
Mac wrote:
> The one criticism they are sure get is that "Bond is copying
> BATMAN BEGINS," which is a shame as EON thought of
> the idea 20 years ago.
In fact, doesn't Michael Wilson suggest on the TLD DVD that the idea of
exploring Bond's origins had been mooted more than once in the past?
Best
Phil
2,756,377... 2,756,378,,, 2,756,379...
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303369 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 15:39 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>
>> The one criticism they are sure get is that "Bond is copying
>> BATMAN BEGINS," which is a shame as EON thought of
>> the idea 20 years ago.
>
> In fact, doesn't Michael Wilson suggest on the TLD DVD that the idea
> of exploring Bond's origins had been mooted more than once in the
> past?
He doesn't suggest, he states categorically one concept he and Richard
Maibaum pitched for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was to have Bond as a
rebellious young naval officer who eventually redeems himself when
his grandfather gets him a placement as an agent(!). This has been
documented several times.
Needless to say, Cubby didn't like the concept. Nor do I to be honest.
--
--Mac
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303375 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 17:56 |
|
Actually, I have it on good authority that at the end of CR, Daniel
Craig wakes up in bed with Suzanne Pleshette, and the Bond series turns
out to have been all a dream...
Perhaps I should have noted that this was a spoiler.
Mac wrote:
>
> I don't see the problem. If one is prepared to concoct a half-baked
> HIGHLANDER theory to explain the past 40 years, accepting a alternate
> universe take shouldn't really be a problem.
> --
> --Mac
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303378 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 19:04 |
|
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- What's wrong with that is that only people like you and me and
> > almost anyone else who frequents newsgroups, fan forums and message
> > boards are probably the only ones who are aware of that, which in
> > cinema box office terms adds up to maybe 10,438 people worldwide. The
> > ordinary Joe Schmo is expecting the same old Bond shenaingans because
> > he hasn't been told otherwise or doesn't care enough to want to know
> > more details about what's going on with the movie,and that in cinema
> > box office terms adds up to the other 100 million people EON is
> > expecting to suck money from. Even Harry, who started this thread,
> > doesn't get what's going on with CR's timeline, and this is already 9
> > or 10 months after the discussion over it has begun, so obviously the
> > message isn't getting through in a way that a lot of people are
> > grasping what they should expect. If this isn't sold right, a lot of
> > people are going to end up being very confused about what the hell is
> > going on and if anything is going to kill CR quick, it's bad word of
> > mouth. 100 million people could do more damage to CR than 10,438 can
> > try to save it.
>
> The early publicity has already started mentioning that CASINO ROYALE
> is Bond's first adventure and how he got his licence to kill. The reviews
> will all mention it in their first line, guaranteed, because the press
> launch material in November puts it up front and centre. As far as the
> rest of it goes, it *is* the same old Bond shenanigans.
--- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and who's
in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is being
made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's a
retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, "Huh?
Why?". You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so. There are a lot of
people out there, perhaps too many, who enjoy remaining blissfully
ignorant of what goes on in the world, not caring in the least of the
latest Hollywood developments especially.
> You're over-reacting. Joe Schmo is unlikely to say: "Hey! Why hasn't he
> got a white Felix and a male M?! That's it! I'm not going!" If the film is
> good, he, and she, will go.
--- Well, he still might go, but by the count I've been getting, I
doubt if there'll be a lot of shes going.
> --
> --Mac
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303380 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 19:44 |
|
WQ wrote:
> --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
> surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
> who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
> being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
> a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, "Huh?
> Why?". You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
> publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
a back to the beginning for Bond.
On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
--
--Mac
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303382 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 20:06 |
|
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
>
>>--- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
>>surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
>>who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
>>being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
>>a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, "Huh?
>>Why?". You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
>>publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
>
>
> I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
> the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
> mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
> a back to the beginning for Bond.
>
> On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
> production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
> until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that the
opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would think the
guy was XXX.
--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress
http://computerpast.blogspot.com/
Also check out our sales page(s)
http://bondtime.tripod.com/
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303384 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 20:27 |
|
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
> > surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
> > who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
> > being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
> > a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, "Huh?
> > Why?". You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
> > publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
>
> I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
> the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
> mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
> a back to the beginning for Bond.
--- Yes, but that's you. And I've seen a fair amount, too. But only
if you're looking for it or that kind of stuff appeals to you beyond
what the average moviegoer is really into when it comes to movies or
Bond specifically. A lot of people who go see Bond films don't give a
damn about production news and don't really follow the series'
behind-the-scenes stuff. They're just not into it. So a lot of that
publicity will just whiz right past them because they're really not
tracking it since they really don't care in the way we track it and
sort of care, and that's most of the cinema population. The real
measure of whether the message will get across successfully or not will
be in the pre-launch promo blitz. It'll be interesting to see how EON
will really hype the return to basics theme through their tsunami of TV
promos in the weeks leading up to the film's premiere and whether
audiences will buy it or not.
> On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
> production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
> until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
--- Exactly.
> --
> --Mac
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303385 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 20:48 |
|
Mac wrote:
> You're over-reacting. Joe Schmo is unlikely to say: "Hey! Why hasn't he
> got a white Felix and a male M?! That's it! I'm not going!" If the film is
> good, he, and she, will go.
> --Mac
Joe Schmo here and I'm glad that Daniel Craig is Bond and that Judi
Dench is back as M and that Jeffrey Wright is Felix Leiter. All three
are really good actors. When CR comes out I'll shell out my $10 or
$11 and make my decision then if the movie is good or bad or somewhere
in between.
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303386 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 21:11 |
|
VINCE wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>
>> WQ wrote:
>>
>>
>>> --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
>>> surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
>>> who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
>>> being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
>>> a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, "Huh?
>>> Why?". You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
>>> publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
>> the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
>> mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
>> a back to the beginning for Bond.
>>
>> On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
>> production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
>> until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
>
>
> That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
> publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that the
> opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would think the
> guy was XXX.
I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If memory
serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares "Agent XXX,
respond please" (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he is lying back in
bed while she fawns over him, clearly a mise-en-scene designed to
mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX. It's only at the end of the scene
that she leans over and answers the call.
--
==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 putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.”
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303387 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 21:13 |
|
Paul Clarke wrote:
>
>
> VINCE wrote:
>
>> Mac wrote:
>>
>>> WQ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
>>>> surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
>>>> who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
>>>> being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
>>>> a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, "Huh?
>>>> Why?". You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
>>>> publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
>>> the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
>>> mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
>>> a back to the beginning for Bond.
>>>
>>> On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
>>> production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
>>> until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
>>
>>
>>
>> That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
>> publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that
>> the opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would think
>> the guy was XXX.
>
>
> I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If memory
> serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares "Agent XXX,
> respond please" (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he is lying back in
> bed while she fawns over him, clearly a mise-en-scene designed to
> mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX. It's only at the end of the scene
> that she leans over and answers the call.
>
>
NAAAA!
--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress
http://computerpast.blogspot.com/
Also check out our sales page(s)
http://bondtime.tripod.com/
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303389 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 21:15 |
|
VINCE wrote:
> Paul Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> VINCE wrote:
>>
>>> Mac wrote:
>>>
>>>> WQ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
>>>>> surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
>>>>> who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
>>>>> being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
>>>>> a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, "Huh?
>>>>> Why?". You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
>>>>> publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
>>>> the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
>>>> mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
>>>> a back to the beginning for Bond.
>>>>
>>>> On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
>>>> production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
>>>> until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
>>> publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that
>>> the opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would
>>> think the guy was XXX.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If memory
>> serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares "Agent XXX,
>> respond please" (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he is lying back
>> in bed while she fawns over him, clearly a mise-en-scene designed to
>> mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX. It's only at the end of the
>> scene that she leans over and answers the call.
>>
>>
> NAAAA!
Anyone with a more recent viewing of TSWLM under their belt have a, uh,
more reasoned response?
--
==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 putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.”
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303390 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 21:16 |
|
Paul Clarke wrote:
>
>
> VINCE wrote:
>
>> Mac wrote:
>>
>>> WQ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
>>>> surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
>>>> who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
>>>> being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
>>>> a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, "Huh?
>>>> Why?". You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
>>>> publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
>>> the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
>>> mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
>>> a back to the beginning for Bond.
>>>
>>> On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
>>> production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
>>> until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
>>
>>
>>
>> That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
>> publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that
>> the opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would think
>> the guy was XXX.
>
>
> I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If memory
> serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares "Agent XXX,
> respond please" (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he is lying back in
> bed while she fawns over him, clearly a mise-en-scene designed to
> mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX. It's only at the end of the scene
> that she leans over and answers the call.
>
>
Anyway I guess Joe Smo or whoever might have seen it that way.
But then again there are still folks here who think Robert Brown's
M is the same character he was in TSWLM.
--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress
http://computerpast.blogspot.com/
Also check out our sales page(s)
http://bondtime.tripod.com/
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303391 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 21:22 |
|
Paul Clarke wrote:
>
>
> VINCE wrote:
>
>> Paul Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> VINCE wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mac wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> WQ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
>>>>>> surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
>>>>>> who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
>>>>>> being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
>>>>>> a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, "Huh?
>>>>>> Why?". You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
>>>>>> publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
>>>>> the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
>>>>> mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
>>>>> a back to the beginning for Bond.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
>>>>> production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
>>>>> until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
>>>> publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that
>>>> the opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would
>>>> think the guy was XXX.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If
>>> memory serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares
>>> "Agent XXX, respond please" (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he
>>> is lying back in bed while she fawns over him, clearly a
>>> mise-en-scene designed to mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX. It's
>>> only at the end of the scene that she leans over and answers the call.
>>>
>>>
>> NAAAA!
>
>
> Anyone with a more recent viewing of TSWLM under their belt have a, uh,
> more reasoned response?
>
>
I don't see the point in such a setup seeing as most viewers knew
Barbara was XXX going in.
--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress
http://computerpast.blogspot.com/
Also check out our sales page(s)
http://bondtime.tripod.com/
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303392 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 21:26 |
|
Paul Clarke wrote:
>>> I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If
>>> memory serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares
>>> "Agent XXX, respond please" (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he
>>> is lying back in bed while she fawns over him, clearly a
>>> mise-en-scene designed to mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX.
>>> It's only at the end of the scene that she leans over and answers
>>> the call.
>>>
>>>
>> NAAAA!
>
> Anyone with a more recent viewing of TSWLM under their belt have a,
> uh, more reasoned response?
I agree with you. It's patently obvious it was scripted and directed as
such. That the later publicity damaged the gag (in the same way the
GOLDENEYE reviews revealed the villain) is neither here nor there.
--
--Mac
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303393 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 21:27 |
|
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1153169872.963913.35480 [at] 35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip>
>
> --- Yes, it's been discussed to death here from about last Septmeber to
> a few months ago. Nobody can still figure it out.
:) I'd have thought the makers would have explained it, to generate interest
at least.
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303394 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 21:35 |
|
Harry wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1153169872.963913.35480 [at] 35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> <snip>
>
> >
> > --- Yes, it's been discussed to death here from about last Septmeber to
> > a few months ago. Nobody can still figure it out.
>
>
> :) I'd have thought the makers would have explained it, to generate interest
> at least.
--- Apparently not, judging by how it's still being discussed to death
to no one's satisfaction in the thread you started. The consensus
here, it seems, is that it'll all boil down to the weeks leading up to
the film's release and how successful, or not, EON will be in promoting
it as a retooled Bond. That's what I'm really eager to see more than
all the rush-job teasers to date.
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303395 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 21:36 |
|
Mac wrote:
> Paul Clarke wrote:
>
> >>> I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If
> >>> memory serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares
> >>> "Agent XXX, respond please" (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he
> >>> is lying back in bed while she fawns over him, clearly a
> >>> mise-en-scene designed to mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX.
> >>> It's only at the end of the scene that she leans over and answers
> >>> the call.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> NAAAA!
> >
> > Anyone with a more recent viewing of TSWLM under their belt have a,
> > uh, more reasoned response?
>
> I agree with you. It's patently obvious it was scripted and directed as
> such. That the later publicity damaged the gag (in the same way the
> GOLDENEYE reviews revealed the villain) is neither here nor there.
---- Mac, you check your email?
> --
> --Mac
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303396 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 21:38 |
|
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1153177264.126304.37200 [at] i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> WQ wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Harry: it's Fleming's first novel updated to the present day, and yes,
> it's an origin story in the vein of 'Batman Begins', 'Superman' ('78),
> and even 'Batman' ('89). Judi Dench is M in a different timeline as
> Bernard Lee was M for three entirely different Bonds. (If you start
> looking to Bond films trying to establish genuine continuity, it simply
> doesn't work.)
Right. So its definitely 'all' set in the present day - not just the black
and white bit (with perhaps a younger looking judy dench and set in the past
but not necessarily in the 60s), then a jump to the present day, which is
what I was beginning to think?
So they could then, in theory, redo some of the novels? As Batman Begins is
doing with the Joker?
Personally, I'm not too bothered what they do with the timeline, characters
etc, so long as they make a decent film - I was just curious what is was
they 'were' doing, seeing as how they don't seem to have gone out of their
way to make it at all clear.
cheers,
Harry
|
|
|
| Re: casino royale timeline [message #303398 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 21:58 |
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:22:36 -0400, VINCE <Holvbphoto [at] optonline.net>
wrote:
>I don't see the point in such a setup seeing as most viewers knew
>Barbara was XXX going in.
You might as well question why they pretended to kill Bond at the
beginning of YOLT or why he's missing in action at the end of TLD.
They're simply plot devices. Not everyone would have known *exactly*
what was going to happen.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mi Feb 8 16:17:23 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04346 Sekunden |
