Bookmarks

Yahoo Gmail Google Facebook Delicious Twitter Reddit Stumpleupon Myspace Digg

Search queries

why did Scabbers bite goyle, fuldataler mineralwasser, bikemate fahrradcomputer t52434 anleitung, frank zappa iq 172 liam gallagher 164, "heartbroke kid" "previous episode references", bikemate t52434 anleitung, marietta edgecombe cop out, kaufland autobatterie, nasi goreng in dosen kaufen, micromaxx mm 3544 universalfernbedienung

Links

XODOX
Impressum

#1: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-17 22:26:08 by harry

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

Report this message

#2: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-17 22:57:53 by WQ

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

Report this message

#3: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 01:01:04 by phil.gerrard1

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

Report this message

#4: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 02:03:34 by WQ

<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; Harry wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; Hello.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; I suppose this has been discussed here, but what's the deal with the casino
&gt; &gt; &gt; royale timeline?
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; IMDB says &quot;The very first outing...&quot;
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; Is it the first mision? If so, why is judy dench in it? Is it set in the
&gt; &gt; &gt; 60's? Does it assume the previous films never happened, so we can expect
&gt; &gt; &gt; live and let die to follow?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; --- Yes, it's been discussed to death here from about last Septmeber to
&gt; &gt; a few months ago. Nobody can still figure it out.
&gt;
&gt; Don't be silly, WQ. Almost all of us have had this figured out for
&gt; months.
&gt;
&gt; Harry: it's Fleming's first novel updated to the present day, and yes,
&gt; it's an origin story in the vein of 'Batman Begins', 'Superman' ('78),
&gt; and even 'Batman' ('89). Judi Dench is M in a different timeline as
&gt; Bernard Lee was M for three entirely different Bonds. (If you start
&gt; looking to Bond films trying to establish genuine continuity, it simply
&gt; 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.


&gt;
&gt; Best
&gt;
&gt; Phil

Report this message

#5: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 02:10:23 by phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

&gt; When was Bernard Lee as M in a different timeline? He was only
&gt; 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?

&gt; Other than that, it was pretty much the same chronological timeline in
&gt; 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

Report this message

#6: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 02:25:23 by WQ

<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; When was Bernard Lee as M in a different timeline? He was only
&gt; &gt; looking at a different Bond face with Connery, Lazenby and Moore.
&gt;
&gt; Well, is the different face playing opposite a group of familiar faces
&gt; not a breach of continuity in itself? Or is it just that because it's
&gt; happened a few times you've learned to accept it?

--- Plastic surgery after one too many scars incurred in the field?

&gt; &gt; Other than that, it was pretty much the same chronological timeline in
&gt; &gt; terms of everything moving forward.
&gt;
&gt; To go back to everybody's favourite: Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in
&gt; OHMSS, and IMHO the 'Bond was wearing Japanese disguise in YOLT'
&gt; argument doesn't wash, since to me it's clear that the Japanese makeup
&gt; 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 &quot;becomes&quot; 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?

&gt;
&gt; Best
&gt;
&gt; Phil

Report this message

#7: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 02:28:50 by phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

&gt; He's already
&gt; been a 00 for over 4 decades in real time 1962-2002 and he's only now
&gt; 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

Report this message

#8: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 02:43:03 by WQ

<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; He's already
&gt; &gt; been a 00 for over 4 decades in real time 1962-2002 and he's only now
&gt; &gt; getting his 00 in real time 2006?
&gt;
&gt; So is he immortal or is he a very well-preserved and athletic
&gt; 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.

&gt;
&gt; Best
&gt;
&gt; Phil

Report this message

#9: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 03:05:43 by phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

&gt; --- Consider the 1962-2002 Bond as having lived in real time and in a
&gt; compressed form of that real time in a protracted sense. In other
&gt; words, while everyone in 1962-2002 has lived through real time in one
&gt; ageing speed, Bond lived through that same real time but in a physical
&gt; body that aged much more slowly across the decades. He may've started
&gt; off at the age of 30 in '62 and he probably ended up being 40 in '02,
&gt; but each of the decades were real time decades that he lived through.
&gt; In that sense, that's where the chronology is consistent. But the
&gt; Craig Bond completely breaks from that chronology, so it's not the same
&gt; Bond. With CR, we're starting off in some sort weird parallel
&gt; universe, one that jars with the chronology of the first four decades
&gt; 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

Report this message

#10: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 03:24:35 by Mac

WQ wrote:

&gt; --- Consider the 1962-2002 Bond as having lived in real time and in a
&gt; compressed form of that real time in a protracted sense. In other
&gt; words, while everyone in 1962-2002 has lived through real time in one
&gt; ageing speed, Bond lived through that same real time but in a physical
&gt; body that aged much more slowly across the decades. He may've started
&gt; off at the age of 30 in '62 and he probably ended up being 40 in '02,
&gt; but each of the decades were real time decades that he lived through.
&gt; In that sense, that's where the chronology is consistent. But the
&gt; Craig Bond completely breaks from that chronology, so it's not the
&gt; same Bond. With CR, we're starting off in some sort weird parallel
&gt; universe, one that jars with the chronology of the first four decades
&gt; 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

Report this message

#11: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 03:58:43 by WQ

<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; --- Consider the 1962-2002 Bond as having lived in real time and in a
&gt; &gt; compressed form of that real time in a protracted sense. In other
&gt; &gt; words, while everyone in 1962-2002 has lived through real time in one
&gt; &gt; ageing speed, Bond lived through that same real time but in a physical
&gt; &gt; body that aged much more slowly across the decades. He may've started
&gt; &gt; off at the age of 30 in '62 and he probably ended up being 40 in '02,
&gt; &gt; but each of the decades were real time decades that he lived through.
&gt; &gt; In that sense, that's where the chronology is consistent. But the
&gt; &gt; Craig Bond completely breaks from that chronology, so it's not the same
&gt; &gt; Bond. With CR, we're starting off in some sort weird parallel
&gt; &gt; universe, one that jars with the chronology of the first four decades
&gt; &gt; of Bond.
&gt;
&gt; OK, here's my counter to that. In just a couple of years' time it will
&gt; be impossible that anybody in the 30-40 age range could have been
&gt; involved in covert operations where the Cold War was a backdrop. That
&gt; completely invalidates DN, FRWL, YOLT, TSWLM, FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD, and
&gt; GE at the very least. Now, what's the answer to that? Do you
&gt; retrospectively rewrite the plots of those movies and pretend that they
&gt; weren't Cold-War-based at all or continue with the concept of Bond as a
&gt; 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 &quot;new direction&quot; or &quot;reboot&quot;
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.

&gt;
&gt; Best
&gt;
&gt; Phil

Report this message

#12: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 04:12:37 by WQ

Mac wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; --- Consider the 1962-2002 Bond as having lived in real time and in a
&gt; &gt; compressed form of that real time in a protracted sense. In other
&gt; &gt; words, while everyone in 1962-2002 has lived through real time in one
&gt; &gt; ageing speed, Bond lived through that same real time but in a physical
&gt; &gt; body that aged much more slowly across the decades. He may've started
&gt; &gt; off at the age of 30 in '62 and he probably ended up being 40 in '02,
&gt; &gt; but each of the decades were real time decades that he lived through.
&gt; &gt; In that sense, that's where the chronology is consistent. But the
&gt; &gt; Craig Bond completely breaks from that chronology, so it's not the
&gt; &gt; same Bond. With CR, we're starting off in some sort weird parallel
&gt; &gt; universe, one that jars with the chronology of the first four decades
&gt; &gt; of Bond.
&gt;
&gt; Aside from the fact that the past four decades had little chronology,
&gt; and zero consistency, you're right. This is an alternate universe, this
&gt; is a James Bond joining MI6 in the year 2006 and is headed by
&gt; Barbara Mawdsley. This is a James Bond about to suffer his first
&gt; defeat at the hands of the enemy, the loss of his first love.
&gt;
&gt; 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.

&gt; What this isn't is a James Bond in a world of laser guns; gravity-driven
&gt; spacestations; underwater cities; or a Bond who can, and then
&gt; cannot, disarm a nuclear bomb; study Oriental languages at
&gt; Cambridge, but cannot read a keyboard with Chinese characters;
&gt; go to Japan with M and then later state he's never been to Japan
&gt; 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.

&gt; I don't see the problem. If one is prepared to concoct a half-baked
&gt; HIGHLANDER theory to explain the past 40 years, accepting a alternate
&gt; universe take shouldn't really be a problem.

--- Can you count up to a 100 million?

&gt; --
&gt; --Mac

Report this message

#13: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 04:59:46 by phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

&gt; --- The common ground between cinema Bond and real life is both the
&gt; time frame of real life and whatever his cinematic missions can draw
&gt; upon from that time frame of real life. This is what puts Bond in real
&gt; time which he lives through on screen, but as the cinema Bond ages at a
&gt; much slower rate than we do as real people in real life, his Cold War
&gt; backdrop is still very much relevant within the context of his cinema
&gt; universe, because everyone in that universe ages at a slower rate,
&gt; even if we're moving at a faster one away from that Cold War. Look at
&gt; it as some sort of Star Trek parallel time/universe episode. Right
&gt; now, at the rate that Bond ages, which is 1 year to our 4, he'd be only
&gt; 41 today and only 11 years from the Cold War in his cinema universe,
&gt; which in our parallel real time/universe is actually 44 years ago.
&gt; Yet, he's still very much in tune with our own real time, thanks to the
&gt; miracle of celluloid film and stretches of everyone's imagination.
&gt; None of his past missions are invalidated because they were very much
&gt; valid in the time he undertook them. He was 30 in '62 with Dr. No, and
&gt; 31 in '66 with TB. Whatever missions he took at whatever time were
&gt; reflective, to one degree or another, of that year or era, just as
&gt; DAD's take on North Korean villains worked in 2002 when Bond was 40
&gt; [and don't we see how nasty they can really be these days in real
&gt; life?]. Even the terrorist angle of CR works for Bond in '06. The
&gt; missions are what the missions are, in relation to the time he's in,
&gt; which is the same time we're in. The only difference is that he's
&gt; ageing slower in screen time than all of us are in real time.
&gt;
&gt; But Craig's Bond disrupts that natural ageing process. While he could
&gt; be legitimately viewed as 41 and the CR plot seen as somewhat
&gt; reflective of this year or era, the fact that they're making him start
&gt; at the beginning when he's already 11 years into his 00 life [44 for
&gt; us] is what makes this Bond a new one that goes beyond mere plastic
&gt; surgery. In fact, it's with this Bond that everything from DN to DAD
&gt; doesn't exist because we'll now be entering a new time frame in a new
&gt; parallel Bond universe in which a new Bond history will be created.
&gt; Therein lies the true inconsistency of this &quot;new direction&quot; or &quot;reboot&quot;
&gt; to the series, but it's only an inconsistency if CR is entered as a new
&gt; addition to the original series. Otherwise, if EON emphasizes it as a
&gt; back-to-square-one approach so that there's no misunderstanding or
&gt; confusion about it, then CR could only be viewed as a Bond clone with a
&gt; different slant and one who may age at a different rate, but who
&gt; clearly is not the same Bond we've come to know over the last 11/44
&gt; 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

Report this message

#14: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 05:27:44 by WQ

<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; --- The common ground between cinema Bond and real life is both the
&gt; &gt; time frame of real life and whatever his cinematic missions can draw
&gt; &gt; upon from that time frame of real life. This is what puts Bond in real
&gt; &gt; time which he lives through on screen, but as the cinema Bond ages at a
&gt; &gt; much slower rate than we do as real people in real life, his Cold War
&gt; &gt; backdrop is still very much relevant within the context of his cinema
&gt; &gt; universe, because everyone in that universe ages at a slower rate,
&gt; &gt; even if we're moving at a faster one away from that Cold War. Look at
&gt; &gt; it as some sort of Star Trek parallel time/universe episode. Right
&gt; &gt; now, at the rate that Bond ages, which is 1 year to our 4, he'd be only
&gt; &gt; 41 today and only 11 years from the Cold War in his cinema universe,
&gt; &gt; which in our parallel real time/universe is actually 44 years ago.
&gt; &gt; Yet, he's still very much in tune with our own real time, thanks to the
&gt; &gt; miracle of celluloid film and stretches of everyone's imagination.
&gt; &gt; None of his past missions are invalidated because they were very much
&gt; &gt; valid in the time he undertook them. He was 30 in '62 with Dr. No, and
&gt; &gt; 31 in '66 with TB. Whatever missions he took at whatever time were
&gt; &gt; reflective, to one degree or another, of that year or era, just as
&gt; &gt; DAD's take on North Korean villains worked in 2002 when Bond was 40
&gt; &gt; [and don't we see how nasty they can really be these days in real
&gt; &gt; life?]. Even the terrorist angle of CR works for Bond in '06. The
&gt; &gt; missions are what the missions are, in relation to the time he's in,
&gt; &gt; which is the same time we're in. The only difference is that he's
&gt; &gt; ageing slower in screen time than all of us are in real time.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; But Craig's Bond disrupts that natural ageing process. While he could
&gt; &gt; be legitimately viewed as 41 and the CR plot seen as somewhat
&gt; &gt; reflective of this year or era, the fact that they're making him start
&gt; &gt; at the beginning when he's already 11 years into his 00 life [44 for
&gt; &gt; us] is what makes this Bond a new one that goes beyond mere plastic
&gt; &gt; surgery. In fact, it's with this Bond that everything from DN to DAD
&gt; &gt; doesn't exist because we'll now be entering a new time frame in a new
&gt; &gt; parallel Bond universe in which a new Bond history will be created.
&gt; &gt; Therein lies the true inconsistency of this &quot;new direction&quot; or &quot;reboot&quot;
&gt; &gt; to the series, but it's only an inconsistency if CR is entered as a new
&gt; &gt; addition to the original series. Otherwise, if EON emphasizes it as a
&gt; &gt; back-to-square-one approach so that there's no misunderstanding or
&gt; &gt; confusion about it, then CR could only be viewed as a Bond clone with a
&gt; &gt; different slant and one who may age at a different rate, but who
&gt; &gt; clearly is not the same Bond we've come to know over the last 11/44
&gt; &gt; years.
&gt;
&gt; Um, OK. I congratulate you for your effort.
&gt;
&gt; So audiences watching CR will be utterly confused by the
&gt; straightforward concept of a reboot, but would understand perfectly
&gt; your 'parallel universe' / '11/44' arguments as quoted above?
&gt;
&gt; Which seems the simpler approach here?

--- As I said to Mac just a couple of posts earlier: Can you count to
100 million?

&gt;
&gt; Best
&gt;
&gt; Phil

Report this message

#15: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 05:34:13 by Vince

WQ wrote:

&gt; <a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Harry wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Hello.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I suppose this has been discussed here, but what's the deal with the casino
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;royale timeline?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;IMDB says &quot;The very first outing...&quot;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Is it the first mision? If so, why is judy dench in it? Is it set in the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;60's? Does it assume the previous films never happened, so we can expect
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;live and let die to follow?
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;--- Yes, it's been discussed to death here from about last Septmeber to
&gt;&gt;&gt;a few months ago. Nobody can still figure it out.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Don't be silly, WQ. Almost all of us have had this figured out for
&gt;&gt;months.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Harry: it's Fleming's first novel updated to the present day, and yes,
&gt;&gt;it's an origin story in the vein of 'Batman Begins', 'Superman' ('78),
&gt;&gt;and even 'Batman' ('89). Judi Dench is M in a different timeline as
&gt;&gt;Bernard Lee was M for three entirely different Bonds. (If you start
&gt;&gt;looking to Bond films trying to establish genuine continuity, it simply
&gt;&gt;doesn't work.)
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --- When was Bernard Lee as M in a different timeline? He was only
&gt; looking at a different Bond face with Connery, Lazenby and Moore.
&gt; Other than that, it was pretty much the same chronological timeline in
&gt; terms of everything moving forward. CR rewinds to the beginning but
&gt; keeps it in the present while carrying over an M from the past, who
&gt; used to be in the present with Brosnan. So, Harry, if you've got this
&gt; figured out, you're one up on me.
&gt;
&gt;

Oh please Wilson &amp; 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


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#16: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 05:35:24 by Vince

WQ wrote:

&gt; <a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;When was Bernard Lee as M in a different timeline? He was only
&gt;&gt;&gt;looking at a different Bond face with Connery, Lazenby and Moore.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Well, is the different face playing opposite a group of familiar faces
&gt;&gt;not a breach of continuity in itself? Or is it just that because it's
&gt;&gt;happened a few times you've learned to accept it?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --- Plastic surgery after one too many scars incurred in the field?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Other than that, it was pretty much the same chronological timeline in
&gt;&gt;&gt;terms of everything moving forward.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;To go back to everybody's favourite: Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in
&gt;&gt;OHMSS, and IMHO the 'Bond was wearing Japanese disguise in YOLT'
&gt;&gt;argument doesn't wash, since to me it's clear that the Japanese makeup
&gt;&gt;has gone by the time Bond arrives in Blofeld's control room.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --- Plastic surgery! All that can be explained by Bond's plastic
&gt; surgery. One could even explain Craig's Bond as plastic surgery. The
&gt; difference is, how can one explain that he &quot;becomes&quot; a 007 in CR, when
&gt; he's always been one before, without reverting to a past era, like the
&gt; 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s to show when he becomes it? He's already
&gt; been a 00 for over 4 decades in real time 1962-2002 and he's only now
&gt; getting his 00 in real time 2006? With an M who's been there in real
&gt; time 1995-2002 and who now in real time 2006 acts like her real time
&gt; 1995-2002 never happened, nor 1962-1989 before that? Harry, see what I
&gt; mean?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Best
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Phil
&gt;
&gt;
Vince thowing his hands in the air in disgust

--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#17: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 05:36:17 by Vince

<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:

&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;He's already
&gt;&gt;been a 00 for over 4 decades in real time 1962-2002 and he's only now
&gt;&gt;getting his 00 in real time 2006?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; So is he immortal or is he a very well-preserved and athletic
&gt; 70-year-old?
&gt;
&gt; Best
&gt;
&gt; Phil
&gt;
Just like Superman, Batman have been around for almost 70 years

--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#18: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 05:38:44 by Vince

WQ wrote:

&gt; <a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;--- Consider the 1962-2002 Bond as having lived in real time and in a
&gt;&gt;&gt;compressed form of that real time in a protracted sense. In other
&gt;&gt;&gt;words, while everyone in 1962-2002 has lived through real time in one
&gt;&gt;&gt;ageing speed, Bond lived through that same real time but in a physical
&gt;&gt;&gt;body that aged much more slowly across the decades. He may've started
&gt;&gt;&gt;off at the age of 30 in '62 and he probably ended up being 40 in '02,
&gt;&gt;&gt;but each of the decades were real time decades that he lived through.
&gt;&gt;&gt;In that sense, that's where the chronology is consistent. But the
&gt;&gt;&gt;Craig Bond completely breaks from that chronology, so it's not the same
&gt;&gt;&gt;Bond. With CR, we're starting off in some sort weird parallel
&gt;&gt;&gt;universe, one that jars with the chronology of the first four decades
&gt;&gt;&gt;of Bond.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;OK, here's my counter to that. In just a couple of years' time it will
&gt;&gt;be impossible that anybody in the 30-40 age range could have been
&gt;&gt;involved in covert operations where the Cold War was a backdrop. That
&gt;&gt;completely invalidates DN, FRWL, YOLT, TSWLM, FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD, and
&gt;&gt;GE at the very least. Now, what's the answer to that? Do you
&gt;&gt;retrospectively rewrite the plots of those movies and pretend that they
&gt;&gt;weren't Cold-War-based at all or continue with the concept of Bond as a
&gt;&gt;character, placing him within a modern context?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --- The common ground between cinema Bond and real life is both the
&gt; time frame of real life and whatever his cinematic missions can draw
&gt; upon from that time frame of real life. This is what puts Bond in real
&gt; time which he lives through on screen, but as the cinema Bond ages at a
&gt; much slower rate than we do as real people in real life, his Cold War
&gt; backdrop is still very much relevant within the context of his cinema
&gt; universe, because everyone in that universe ages at a slower rate,
&gt; even if we're moving at a faster one away from that Cold War. Look at
&gt; it as some sort of Star Trek parallel time/universe episode. Right
&gt; now, at the rate that Bond ages, which is 1 year to our 4, he'd be only
&gt; 41 today and only 11 years from the Cold War in his cinema universe,
&gt; which in our parallel real time/universe is actually 44 years ago.
&gt; Yet, he's still very much in tune with our own real time, thanks to the
&gt; miracle of celluloid film and stretches of everyone's imagination.
&gt; None of his past missions are invalidated because they were very much
&gt; valid in the time he undertook them. He was 30 in '62 with Dr. No, and
&gt; 31 in '66 with TB. Whatever missions he took at whatever time were
&gt; reflective, to one degree or another, of that year or era, just as
&gt; DAD's take on North Korean villains worked in 2002 when Bond was 40
&gt; [and don't we see how nasty they can really be these days in real
&gt; life?]. Even the terrorist angle of CR works for Bond in '06. The
&gt; missions are what the missions are, in relation to the time he's in,
&gt; which is the same time we're in. The only difference is that he's
&gt; ageing slower in screen time than all of us are in real time.
&gt;
&gt; But Craig's Bond disrupts that natural ageing process. While he could
&gt; be legitimately viewed as 41 and the CR plot seen as somewhat
&gt; reflective of this year or era, the fact that they're making him start
&gt; at the beginning when he's already 11 years into his 00 life [44 for
&gt; us] is what makes this Bond a new one that goes beyond mere plastic
&gt; surgery. In fact, it's with this Bond that everything from DN to DAD
&gt; doesn't exist because we'll now be entering a new time frame in a new
&gt; parallel Bond universe in which a new Bond history will be created.
&gt; Therein lies the true inconsistency of this &quot;new direction&quot; or &quot;reboot&quot;
&gt; to the series, but it's only an inconsistency if CR is entered as a new
&gt; addition to the original series. Otherwise, if EON emphasizes it as a
&gt; back-to-square-one approach so that there's no misunderstanding or
&gt; confusion about it, then CR could only be viewed as a Bond clone with a
&gt; different slant and one who may age at a different rate, but who
&gt; clearly is not the same Bond we've come to know over the last 11/44
&gt; years.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Best
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Phil
&gt;
&gt;
Another problem DC's Bond only JUST became a &quot;00&quot; at 37?
No way!

--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#19: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 12:10:47 by Mac

WQ wrote:

&gt; --- What's wrong with that is that only people like you and me and
&gt; almost anyone else who frequents newsgroups, fan forums and message
&gt; boards are probably the only ones who are aware of that, which in
&gt; cinema box office terms adds up to maybe 10,438 people worldwide. The
&gt; ordinary Joe Schmo is expecting the same old Bond shenaingans because
&gt; he hasn't been told otherwise or doesn't care enough to want to know
&gt; more details about what's going on with the movie,and that in cinema
&gt; box office terms adds up to the other 100 million people EON is
&gt; expecting to suck money from. Even Harry, who started this thread,
&gt; doesn't get what's going on with CR's timeline, and this is already 9
&gt; or 10 months after the discussion over it has begun, so obviously the
&gt; message isn't getting through in a way that a lot of people are
&gt; grasping what they should expect. If this isn't sold right, a lot of
&gt; people are going to end up being very confused about what the hell is
&gt; going on and if anything is going to kill CR quick, it's bad word of
&gt; mouth. 100 million people could do more damage to CR than 10,438 can
&gt; 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: &quot;Hey! Why hasn't he
got a white Felix and a male M?! That's it! I'm not going!&quot; If the film is
good, he, and she, will go.
--
--Mac

Report this message

#20: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 12:13:24 by Mac

WQ wrote:

&gt; --- As I said to Mac just a couple of posts earlier: Can you count to
&gt; 100 million?

But it wasn't a persuasive or convincing argument then either.
--
--Mac

Report this message

#21: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 12:23:35 by Mac

<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:

&gt; So audiences watching CR will be utterly confused by the
&gt; straightforward concept of a reboot, but would understand perfectly
&gt; your 'parallel universe' / '11/44' arguments as quoted above?
&gt;
&gt; 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 &quot;Bond is copying
BATMAN BEGINS,&quot; which is a shame as EON thought of
the idea 20 years ago.
--
--Mac

Report this message

#22: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 12:59:21 by phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

&gt; The one criticism they are sure get is that &quot;Bond is copying
&gt; BATMAN BEGINS,&quot; which is a shame as EON thought of
&gt; 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...

Report this message

#23: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 15:39:46 by Mac

<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:

&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; The one criticism they are sure get is that &quot;Bond is copying
&gt;&gt; BATMAN BEGINS,&quot; which is a shame as EON thought of
&gt;&gt; the idea 20 years ago.
&gt;
&gt; In fact, doesn't Michael Wilson suggest on the TLD DVD that the idea
&gt; of exploring Bond's origins had been mooted more than once in the
&gt; 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

Report this message

#24: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 17:56:10 by Mark

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:

&gt;
&gt; I don't see the problem. If one is prepared to concoct a half-baked
&gt; HIGHLANDER theory to explain the past 40 years, accepting a alternate
&gt; universe take shouldn't really be a problem.
&gt; --
&gt; --Mac

Report this message

#25: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 19:04:28 by WQ

Mac wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; --- What's wrong with that is that only people like you and me and
&gt; &gt; almost anyone else who frequents newsgroups, fan forums and message
&gt; &gt; boards are probably the only ones who are aware of that, which in
&gt; &gt; cinema box office terms adds up to maybe 10,438 people worldwide. The
&gt; &gt; ordinary Joe Schmo is expecting the same old Bond shenaingans because
&gt; &gt; he hasn't been told otherwise or doesn't care enough to want to know
&gt; &gt; more details about what's going on with the movie,and that in cinema
&gt; &gt; box office terms adds up to the other 100 million people EON is
&gt; &gt; expecting to suck money from. Even Harry, who started this thread,
&gt; &gt; doesn't get what's going on with CR's timeline, and this is already 9
&gt; &gt; or 10 months after the discussion over it has begun, so obviously the
&gt; &gt; message isn't getting through in a way that a lot of people are
&gt; &gt; grasping what they should expect. If this isn't sold right, a lot of
&gt; &gt; people are going to end up being very confused about what the hell is
&gt; &gt; going on and if anything is going to kill CR quick, it's bad word of
&gt; &gt; mouth. 100 million people could do more damage to CR than 10,438 can
&gt; &gt; try to save it.
&gt;
&gt; The early publicity has already started mentioning that CASINO ROYALE
&gt; is Bond's first adventure and how he got his licence to kill. The reviews
&gt; will all mention it in their first line, guaranteed, because the press
&gt; launch material in November puts it up front and centre. As far as the
&gt; 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, &quot;Huh?
Why?&quot;. 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.

&gt; You're over-reacting. Joe Schmo is unlikely to say: &quot;Hey! Why hasn't he
&gt; got a white Felix and a male M?! That's it! I'm not going!&quot; If the film is
&gt; 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.

&gt; --
&gt; --Mac

Report this message

#26: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 19:44:28 by Mac

WQ wrote:

&gt; --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
&gt; surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
&gt; who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
&gt; being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
&gt; a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, &quot;Huh?
&gt; Why?&quot;. You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
&gt; 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

Report this message

#27: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 20:06:15 by Vince

Mac wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;--- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
&gt;&gt;surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
&gt;&gt;who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
&gt;&gt;being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
&gt;&gt;a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, &quot;Huh?
&gt;&gt;Why?&quot;. You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
&gt;&gt;publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
&gt; the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
&gt; mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
&gt; a back to the beginning for Bond.
&gt;
&gt; On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
&gt; production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
&gt; 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


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#28: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 20:27:13 by WQ

Mac wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
&gt; &gt; surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
&gt; &gt; who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
&gt; &gt; being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
&gt; &gt; a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, &quot;Huh?
&gt; &gt; Why?&quot;. You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
&gt; &gt; publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
&gt;
&gt; I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
&gt; the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
&gt; mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
&gt; 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.

&gt; On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
&gt; production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
&gt; until the publicity machine starts closer to release.

--- Exactly.


&gt; --
&gt; --Mac

Report this message

#29: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 20:48:54 by BTS

Mac wrote:
&gt; You're over-reacting. Joe Schmo is unlikely to say: &quot;Hey! Why hasn't he
&gt; got a white Felix and a male M?! That's it! I'm not going!&quot; If the film is
&gt; good, he, and she, will go.
&gt; --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.

Report this message

#30: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 21:11:42 by Paul Clarke

VINCE wrote:
&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
&gt;&gt;&gt; surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
&gt;&gt;&gt; who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
&gt;&gt;&gt; being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
&gt;&gt;&gt; a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, &quot;Huh?
&gt;&gt;&gt; Why?&quot;. You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
&gt;&gt;&gt; publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
&gt;&gt; the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
&gt;&gt; mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
&gt;&gt; a back to the beginning for Bond.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
&gt;&gt; production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
&gt;&gt; until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
&gt; publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that the
&gt; opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would think the
&gt; 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 &quot;Agent XXX,
respond please&quot; (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.”

Report this message

#31: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 21:13:19 by Vince

Paul Clarke wrote:

&gt;
&gt;
&gt; VINCE wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, &quot;Huh?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Why?&quot;. You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
&gt;&gt;&gt; the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
&gt;&gt;&gt; mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
&gt;&gt;&gt; a back to the beginning for Bond.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
&gt;&gt;&gt; production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
&gt;&gt;&gt; until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
&gt;&gt; publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that
&gt;&gt; the opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would think
&gt;&gt; the guy was XXX.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If memory
&gt; serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares &quot;Agent XXX,
&gt; respond please&quot; (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he is lying back in
&gt; bed while she fawns over him, clearly a mise-en-scene designed to
&gt; mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX. It's only at the end of the scene
&gt; that she leans over and answers the call.
&gt;
&gt;
NAAAA!

--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#32: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 21:15:36 by Paul Clarke

VINCE wrote:
&gt; Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; VINCE wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, &quot;Huh?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Why?&quot;. You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; a back to the beginning for Bond.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
&gt;&gt;&gt; publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that
&gt;&gt;&gt; the opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would
&gt;&gt;&gt; think the guy was XXX.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If memory
&gt;&gt; serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares &quot;Agent XXX,
&gt;&gt; respond please&quot; (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he is lying back
&gt;&gt; in bed while she fawns over him, clearly a mise-en-scene designed to
&gt;&gt; mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX. It's only at the end of the
&gt;&gt; scene that she leans over and answers the call.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt; 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.”

Report this message

#33: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 21:16:05 by Vince

Paul Clarke wrote:

&gt;
&gt;
&gt; VINCE wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, &quot;Huh?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Why?&quot;. You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
&gt;&gt;&gt; the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
&gt;&gt;&gt; mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
&gt;&gt;&gt; a back to the beginning for Bond.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
&gt;&gt;&gt; production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
&gt;&gt;&gt; until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
&gt;&gt; publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that
&gt;&gt; the opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would think
&gt;&gt; the guy was XXX.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If memory
&gt; serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares &quot;Agent XXX,
&gt; respond please&quot; (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he is lying back in
&gt; bed while she fawns over him, clearly a mise-en-scene designed to
&gt; mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX. It's only at the end of the scene
&gt; that she leans over and answers the call.
&gt;
&gt;


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


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#34: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 21:22:36 by Vince

Paul Clarke wrote:

&gt;
&gt;
&gt; VINCE wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; VINCE wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; --- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, &quot;Huh?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Why?&quot;. You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; a back to the beginning for Bond.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; the opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; think the guy was XXX.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If
&gt;&gt;&gt; memory serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares
&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;Agent XXX, respond please&quot; (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he
&gt;&gt;&gt; is lying back in bed while she fawns over him, clearly a
&gt;&gt;&gt; mise-en-scene designed to mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX. It's
&gt;&gt;&gt; only at the end of the scene that she leans over and answers the call.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; NAAAA!
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Anyone with a more recent viewing of TSWLM under their belt have a, uh,
&gt; more reasoned response?
&gt;
&gt;

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


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#35: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 21:26:18 by Mac

Paul Clarke wrote:

&gt;&gt;&gt; I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If
&gt;&gt;&gt; memory serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares
&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;Agent XXX, respond please&quot; (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he
&gt;&gt;&gt; is lying back in bed while she fawns over him, clearly a
&gt;&gt;&gt; mise-en-scene designed to mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX.
&gt;&gt;&gt; It's only at the end of the scene that she leans over and answers
&gt;&gt;&gt; the call.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; NAAAA!
&gt;
&gt; Anyone with a more recent viewing of TSWLM under their belt have a,
&gt; 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

Report this message

#36: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 21:27:19 by harry

&quot;WQ&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:wq&#64;email.com" target="_blank">wq&#64;email.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:1153169872.963913.35480&#64;35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1153169872.963913.35480&#64;35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...</a>
&gt;
&lt;snip&gt;

&gt;
&gt; --- Yes, it's been discussed to death here from about last Septmeber to
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#37: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 21:35:15 by WQ

Harry wrote:
&gt; &quot;WQ&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:wq&#64;email.com" target="_blank">wq&#64;email.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:1153169872.963913.35480&#64;35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1153169872.963913.35480&#64;35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...</a>
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &lt;snip&gt;
&gt;
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; --- Yes, it's been discussed to death here from about last Septmeber to
&gt; &gt; a few months ago. Nobody can still figure it out.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; :) I'd have thought the makers would have explained it, to generate interest
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#38: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 21:36:46 by WQ

Mac wrote:
&gt; Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; memory serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;Agent XXX, respond please&quot; (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; is lying back in bed while she fawns over him, clearly a
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; mise-en-scene designed to mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; It's only at the end of the scene that she leans over and answers
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; the call.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; NAAAA!
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Anyone with a more recent viewing of TSWLM under their belt have a,
&gt; &gt; uh, more reasoned response?
&gt;
&gt; I agree with you. It's patently obvious it was scripted and directed as
&gt; such. That the later publicity damaged the gag (in the same way the
&gt; GOLDENEYE reviews revealed the villain) is neither here nor there.


---- Mac, you check your email?

&gt; --
&gt; --Mac

Report this message

#39: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 21:38:47 by harry

&quot;<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a>&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard1&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard1&#64;ntlworld.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:1153177264.126304.37200&#64;i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1153177264.126304.37200&#64;i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...</a>
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt;
&gt; Harry: it's Fleming's first novel updated to the present day, and yes,
&gt; it's an origin story in the vein of 'Batman Begins', 'Superman' ('78),
&gt; and even 'Batman' ('89). Judi Dench is M in a different timeline as
&gt; Bernard Lee was M for three entirely different Bonds. (If you start
&gt; looking to Bond films trying to establish genuine continuity, it simply
&gt; 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

Report this message

#40: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 21:58:57 by Rhino

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:22:36 -0400, VINCE &lt;<a href="mailto:Holvbphoto&#64;optonline.net" target="_blank">Holvbphoto&#64;optonline.net</a>&gt;
wrote:


&gt;I don't see the point in such a setup seeing as most viewers knew
&gt;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.

Report this message

#41: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 22:03:22 by Vince

Rhino wrote:

&gt; On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:22:36 -0400, VINCE &lt;<a href="mailto:Holvbphoto&#64;optonline.net" target="_blank">Holvbphoto&#64;optonline.net</a>&gt;
&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;I don't see the point in such a setup seeing as most viewers knew
&gt;&gt;Barbara was XXX going in.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; You might as well question why they pretended to kill Bond at the
&gt; beginning of YOLT or why he's missing in action at the end of TLD.
&gt; They're simply plot devices. Not everyone would have known *exactly*
&gt; what was going to happen.


I didn't say everbody I said most.
I never got the impression Bond was missing in action at the end of TLD.

--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#42: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 22:11:09 by Mac

WQ wrote:

&gt; ---- Mac, you check your email?

Nothing yet.
--
--Mac

Report this message

#43: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 22:29:31 by WQ

Mac wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; ---- Mac, you check your email?
&gt;
&gt; Nothing yet.

--- Odd, I replied to your email through the reply button, you
should've gotten it. I mentioned I could split the file but wanted to
know if you had a program to merge it. I'm using MaxSplitter. But
then, it might go easier and quicker if you just opened up a Hotmail
account, it allows 10 MB, good for future large download/upload use,
too.

&gt; --
&gt; --Mac

Report this message

#44: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 22:35:18 by Mac

WQ wrote:
&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; ---- Mac, you check your email?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Nothing yet.
&gt;
&gt; --- Odd, I replied to your email through the reply button, you
&gt; should've gotten it. I mentioned I could split the file but wanted to
&gt; know if you had a program to merge it. I'm using MaxSplitter. But
&gt; then, it might go easier and quicker if you just opened up a Hotmail
&gt; account, it allows 10 MB, good for future large download/upload use,
&gt; too.

I replied to that! Sent you an email. I've just sent another. Let
me know if you get it.
--
--Mac

Report this message

#45: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 22:43:09 by WQ

Mac wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt; Mac wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; ---- Mac, you check your email?
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; Nothing yet.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; --- Odd, I replied to your email through the reply button, you
&gt; &gt; should've gotten it. I mentioned I could split the file but wanted to
&gt; &gt; know if you had a program to merge it. I'm using MaxSplitter. But
&gt; &gt; then, it might go easier and quicker if you just opened up a Hotmail
&gt; &gt; account, it allows 10 MB, good for future large download/upload use,
&gt; &gt; too.
&gt;
&gt; I replied to that! Sent you an email. I've just sent another. Let
&gt; me know if you get it.

--- Ok, I just got your last two at the same time now. Just sent you
another one, it should have a link to sendmefiles.com. Download the
zip which'll have the script and my review in it. Let me know if you
got it.

&gt; --
&gt; --Mac

Report this message

#46: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 23:00:36 by Mike Feeney

Mac wrote:
&gt;
&gt; Aside from the fact that the past four decades had little chronology,
&gt; and zero consistency, you're right. This is an alternate universe, this
&gt; is a James Bond joining MI6 in the year 2006 and is headed by
&gt; Barbara Mawdsley. This is a James Bond about to suffer his first
&gt; defeat at the hands of the enemy, the loss of his first love.
&gt;
&gt; What's wrong with that?


To answer your question, let's take a hypothetical analogy as an
example: suppose you are a big fan of 'Fawlty Towers'. A brand new
episode -- first one in 20 years (or whatever) -- airs tonight. You're
really excited, because Basil Fawlty is one of your all-time favorite
fictional characters. You can't wait to see him bungle his way
through another hysterically absurd situation. He is a unique
character among all of television and you've grown really fond of him.

The new episode airs, and... it's all about Basil at age 22 when his
grandfather dies. It's a dark and sad story, dealing with Basil's
emotional struggle to accept the passing of his grandfather. Gritty
and realistic, portraying the character as a real human being with
real-world problems and difficulties.

The episode ends, and you think to yourself: &quot;That wasn't 'Fawlty
Towers'. That episode did not deliver what I expected/wanted it to.
They shouldn't have even called it 'Fawlty Towers'. They took a
fictional character I immensely enjoyed and by attempting to update him
they completely ruined what was so great about him in the first place.&quot;

Does that answer your question?

Mike
&quot;If you talk to the Germans, Major, don't mention the war. I let it
slip once but I don't think they noticed.&quot;

Report this message

#47: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 23:21:19 by Tom Zielinski

&quot;VINCE&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:Holvbphoto&#64;optonline.net" target="_blank">Holvbphoto&#64;optonline.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:Nr9vg.353$<a href="mailto:MU1.53&#64;fe11.lga..." target="_blank">MU1.53&#64;fe11.lga...</a>
&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;--- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
&gt;&gt;&gt;surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
&gt;&gt;&gt;who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
&gt;&gt;&gt;being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
&gt;&gt;&gt;a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, &quot;Huh?
&gt;&gt;&gt;Why?&quot;. You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
&gt;&gt;&gt;publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
&gt;&gt; the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
&gt;&gt; mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
&gt;&gt; a back to the beginning for Bond.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
&gt;&gt; production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
&gt;&gt; until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
&gt;
&gt; That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
&gt; publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that the
&gt; opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would think the guy
&gt; was XXX.


I have no memory of Bach being publicized as XXX. That said, you are
certainly correct in your analysis of that scene.




Tom Zielinski
&quot;That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman.&quot;
&quot;Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?&quot;
&quot;No, but I know Michael Billington was considered for the role several
times...&quot;

Report this message

#48: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 23:45:43 by Tom Zielinski

VINCE:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; the opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would think
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; the guy was XXX.


Paul Clarke:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I would argue that that's *exactly* how the scene is set up. If memory
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; serves, the camera lingers on the guy as the radio blares &quot;Agent XXX,
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; respond please&quot; (or whatever the dialogue is). Plus, he is lying back
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; in bed while she fawns over him, clearly a mise-en-scene designed to
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; mislead you into thinking *he* is XXX. It's only at the end of the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; scene that she leans over and answers the call.


Vince:
&gt;&gt;&gt; NAAAA!


Paul Clarke:
&gt;&gt; Anyone with a more recent viewing of TSWLM under their belt have a, uh,
&gt;&gt; more reasoned response?


Errr....amazing?



Vince again:
&gt; I don't see the point in such a setup seeing as most viewers knew Barbara
&gt; was XXX going in.



I'd think most viewers did NOT know Bach was XXX going in - the largest
percentage had probably never even heard her name. TSWLM was Bach's first
major role in a major film. She had been in several Italian productions
prior to 1977, and had some small television shows. She wasn't even Mrs.
Starkey until the early 1980's.

Some viewers might have known Bach was in the film, but not her specific
role. Anya Amasova? Triple X? Naomi? Moneypenny?

Most movie-goers are not that discerning and are a bit more apathetic than
you apparently think.

Anyway, I thought the scene with Bach and Billington that set up the correct
identity of XXX was very well done. I don't even recall...do we even see
Bach's face until she actually answers the call? Further, I remember
talking to my bro Paul after the film almost three decades ago and both of
us thinking for a split-second that the guy in bed with Bach was Bond. One
doesn't see his face right off either.




Tom Zielinski
&quot;...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 she walked out of my dream, and into my arms, now she's my angel
divine...&quot;

Report this message

#49: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-18 23:48:45 by Tom Zielinski

&quot;BTS&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:scrivenerbt&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">scrivenerbt&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:1153248534.406434.90680&#64;75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1153248534.406434.90680&#64;75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...</a>

&gt; Joe Schmo here and I'm glad that Daniel Craig is Bond and that Judi
&gt; Dench is back as M and that Jeffrey Wright is Felix Leiter. All three
&gt; are really good actors. When CR comes out I'll shell out my $10 or
&gt; $11 and make my decision then if the movie is good or bad or somewhere
&gt; in between.


Attaboy Joe!






Tom Zielinski
&quot;...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 Joe Schmo's are severely under-appreciated...&quot;

Report this message

#50: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 00:00:41 by Tom Zielinski

&quot;Mike Feeney&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:stromberg77&#64;sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">stromberg77&#64;sbcglobal.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:1153256436.059754.141550&#64;75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1153256436.059754.141550&#64;75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...</a>
&gt;
&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Aside from the fact that the past four decades had little chronology,
&gt;&gt; and zero consistency, you're right. This is an alternate universe, this
&gt;&gt; is a James Bond joining MI6 in the year 2006 and is headed by
&gt;&gt; Barbara Mawdsley. This is a James Bond about to suffer his first
&gt;&gt; defeat at the hands of the enemy, the loss of his first love.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; What's wrong with that?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; To answer your question, let's take a hypothetical analogy as an
&gt; example: suppose you are a big fan of 'Fawlty Towers'. A brand new
&gt; episode -- first one in 20 years (or whatever) -- airs tonight. You're
&gt; really excited, because Basil Fawlty is one of your all-time favorite
&gt; fictional characters. You can't wait to see him bungle his way
&gt; through another hysterically absurd situation. He is a unique
&gt; character among all of television and you've grown really fond of him.
&gt;
&gt; The new episode airs, and... it's all about Basil at age 22 when his
&gt; grandfather dies. It's a dark and sad story, dealing with Basil's
&gt; emotional struggle to accept the passing of his grandfather. Gritty
&gt; and realistic, portraying the character as a real human being with
&gt; real-world problems and difficulties.
&gt;
&gt; The episode ends, and you think to yourself: &quot;That wasn't 'Fawlty
&gt; Towers'. That episode did not deliver what I expected/wanted it to.
&gt; They shouldn't have even called it 'Fawlty Towers'. They took a
&gt; fictional character I immensely enjoyed and by attempting to update him
&gt; they completely ruined what was so great about him in the first place.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Does that answer your question?


Not really. But it would kinda be like taking a serious character, James
Bond of (most) of the 1960's for example, and dropping him into absurdly
comedic situations ruining much of what made the character so great in the
first place.

Errr...wait a minute....

;)


&gt; Mike
&gt; &quot;If you talk to the Germans, Major, don't mention the war. I let it
&gt; slip once but I don't think they noticed.&quot;


As much as I love Cleese, I've never seen every episode of FT. To the
NetFlix queue, Basil!




Tom Zielinski
&quot;...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 you'll have to forgive him... he's from Barcelona. ...&quot;

Report this message

#51: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 01:18:50 by Mac

&gt;
&gt; Does that answer your question?
&gt;
&gt; Mike
&gt; &quot;If you talk to the Germans, Major, don't mention the war. I let it
&gt; slip once but I don't think they noticed.&quot;Mike Feeney wrote:

&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Aside from the fact that the past four decades had little chronology,
&gt;&gt; and zero consistency, you're right. This is an alternate universe,
&gt;&gt; this is a James Bond joining MI6 in the year 2006 and is headed by
&gt;&gt; Barbara Mawdsley. This is a James Bond about to suffer his first
&gt;&gt; defeat at the hands of the enemy, the loss of his first love.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; What's wrong with that?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; To answer your question, let's take a hypothetical analogy as an
&gt; example: suppose you are a big fan of 'Fawlty Towers'. A brand new
&gt; episode -- first one in 20 years (or whatever) -- airs tonight.
&gt; You're really excited, because Basil Fawlty is one of your all-time
&gt; favorite fictional characters. You can't wait to see him bungle his
&gt; way through another hysterically absurd situation. He is a unique
&gt; character among all of television and you've grown really fond of him.
&gt;
&gt; The new episode airs, and... it's all about Basil at age 22 when his
&gt; grandfather dies. It's a dark and sad story, dealing with Basil's
&gt; emotional struggle to accept the passing of his grandfather. Gritty
&gt; and realistic, portraying the character as a real human being with
&gt; real-world problems and difficulties.
&gt;
&gt; The episode ends, and you think to yourself: &quot;That wasn't 'Fawlty
&gt; Towers'. That episode did not deliver what I expected/wanted it to.
&gt; They shouldn't have even called it 'Fawlty Towers'. They took a
&gt; fictional character I immensely enjoyed and by attempting to update
&gt; him they completely ruined what was so great about him in the first
&gt; place.&quot;

That's not a satisfactory analogy because you're talking about taking
a comedy and making it into a drama. You're talking about altering the
principles the series is based on.

A more satisfactory analogy would be to have John Cleese write a
comedy about young Basil, and his newlywed Sybil, and their hilarious
misadventures as they fight to open a hotel/guesthouse whilst trying
to avoid killing each other and their clientele

Again, what's wrong with that?
--
--Mac

Report this message

#52: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 05:00:13 by Mike Feeney

Mac wrote:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Does that answer your question?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Mike
&gt; &gt; &quot;If you talk to the Germans, Major, don't mention the war. I let it
&gt; &gt; slip once but I don't think they noticed.&quot;Mike Feeney wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; Mac wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; Aside from the fact that the past four decades had little chronology,
&gt; &gt;&gt; and zero consistency, you're right. This is an alternate universe,
&gt; &gt;&gt; this is a James Bond joining MI6 in the year 2006 and is headed by
&gt; &gt;&gt; Barbara Mawdsley. This is a James Bond about to suffer his first
&gt; &gt;&gt; defeat at the hands of the enemy, the loss of his first love.
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; What's wrong with that?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; To answer your question, let's take a hypothetical analogy as an
&gt; &gt; example: suppose you are a big fan of 'Fawlty Towers'. A brand new
&gt; &gt; episode -- first one in 20 years (or whatever) -- airs tonight.
&gt; &gt; You're really excited, because Basil Fawlty is one of your all-time
&gt; &gt; favorite fictional characters. You can't wait to see him bungle his
&gt; &gt; way through another hysterically absurd situation. He is a unique
&gt; &gt; character among all of television and you've grown really fond of him.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; The new episode airs, and... it's all about Basil at age 22 when his
&gt; &gt; grandfather dies. It's a dark and sad story, dealing with Basil's
&gt; &gt; emotional struggle to accept the passing of his grandfather. Gritty
&gt; &gt; and realistic, portraying the character as a real human being with
&gt; &gt; real-world problems and difficulties.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; The episode ends, and you think to yourself: &quot;That wasn't 'Fawlty
&gt; &gt; Towers'. That episode did not deliver what I expected/wanted it to.
&gt; &gt; They shouldn't have even called it 'Fawlty Towers'. They took a
&gt; &gt; fictional character I immensely enjoyed and by attempting to update
&gt; &gt; him they completely ruined what was so great about him in the first
&gt; &gt; place.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; That's not a satisfactory analogy because you're talking about taking
&gt; a comedy and making it into a drama. You're talking about altering the
&gt; principles the series is based on.
&gt;
&gt; A more satisfactory analogy would be to have John Cleese write a
&gt; comedy about young Basil, and his newlywed Sybil, and their hilarious
&gt; misadventures as they fight to open a hotel/guesthouse whilst trying
&gt; to avoid killing each other and their clientele
&gt;
&gt; Again, what's wrong with that?
&gt; --
&gt; --Mac


Ahh... but I would suggest that your analogy is the one that doesn't
mirror the current situation with 007, Mac! The analogy you presented
-- i.e., &quot;Fawlty Towers the early years&quot; -- stays true to the Fawlty
Towers universe. It takes place *before* the regular Fawlty Towers
episodes and therefore it doesn't nullify them -- both series coexist
with one another. Like the new Doctor Who series. The new episodes
with the 9th and 10th Doctors take place (in the reference of the
Doctor's own time-line, of course) after the &quot;classic&quot; series. So the
new series does not nullify the classic series but rather they coexist.
And additionally -- much to my great happiness -- the new series has
kept the tone and style and charm of the original series. It *feels*
the same!

But like you stated previously, CR indisputably takes place in an
alternate universe from the previous 007 movies. James Bond is
joining MI6 in the year 2006 and the organization is headed by Barbara
Mawdsley. This nullifies the previous films -- plain and simple. If
they had wanted to do a new series -- &quot;James Bond The Early Years&quot; --
then it would have been preferable (in my opinion) to have the events
in the film take place in 1960 or 1961 -- i.e., before the film DR NO.
This would be analogous to your &quot;Fawlty Towers The Early Years&quot;.
This would have been the way to go.

But that's not what they did. They wiped the slate clean. So if you
think FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or GOLDFINGER or ON HER MAJESTYS SECRET
SERVICE are terrific entries in the 007 film canon -- too bad, because
they really didn't happen. Not anymore. Not going forward. They
couldn't have happened. Because James Bond's first mission is now
supposed to be CR in 2006.

Not only that, but to make matters worse the new Bond film universe
doesn't appear to be consistent with the old one. Like you said, Mac,
in the &quot;classic Bond series&quot; (tm), James Bond lives in a world where
super-villains inhabit undersea bases, hollowed-out volcanos, and
orbiting satellites. The super-villians like to employ henchpeople
with extraordinary abilities and unique methods of killing (i.e..,
crushing their vicitims to death using their thighs or biting their
necks with steel teeth). To stop them, James Bond will be required to
travel the globe and along the way he encounters beautiful women and
uses an array of high-tech gadgets to help him and enjoys making witty
quips whenever the opportunity arises. But as you stated, Mac, this
isn't the same world that CR's James Bond would appear to inhabit --
the fantastical elements are gone and he's pretty much in the real
world. So, unlike with Doctor Who, it doesn't *feel* the same even.
It's like a completely totally different movie series.

And a big part of what draws me to the Bond movies is the fact that I
know I will see stuff that no other movie is gonna show me. It's
precisely the hollowed-out volcanos and undersea bases and steel-armed
henchpeople that make the James Bond films unique and appealing to me.
If I want to see a dark, gritty, brutal, realistic secret agent film
then I'll watch a Jason Bourne film. Or probably dozens of other
movies. But there was only one place to go for really imaginative and
fantastic escapism in the genre -- and that was the James Bond films.
At least it used to be. I don't see much of anything in the CR teaser
trailer, for example, that I couldn't expect to see in a Jason Bourne
film. They're tossing out the stuff that distinguised the Bond movies
from all the others. It seems like they want to make a Jason Bourne
film now. I don't want to see a car chase in a Bond film that compares
to RONIN, for example. Instead, I want to see a completely different
and imaginative and extraordinary car chase -- like the ones 007 has
had in the past. Where cars turn into submarines. Or turn into
airplanes. Or have passenger ejector seats. Anything but a standard
car chase. Because I can see that in dozens, probably hundreds, of
other movies.

Mike

Report this message

#53: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 05:32:11 by Vince

Tom Zielinski wrote:
&gt; &quot;VINCE&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:Holvbphoto&#64;optonline.net" target="_blank">Holvbphoto&#64;optonline.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:Nr9vg.353$<a href="mailto:MU1.53&#64;fe11.lga..." target="_blank">MU1.53&#64;fe11.lga...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Mac wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;--- Publicity is only as good as its actual reach. I'm still
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;surprised, after all the publicity there's been for this film and
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;who's in it, how many people still don't know that a new Bond film is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;being made and that they've got a new guy in it, never mind that it's
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;a retooling of the series, to which the clued-out types say, &quot;Huh?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Why?&quot;. You're erroneously assuming that just because something is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;publicized, everyone is aware of it. Not so.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;I wasn't making an assumption. I was stating that a lot of
&gt;&gt;&gt;the publicity I've seen, in national tabloids and TV, frequently
&gt;&gt;&gt;mention CASINO ROYALE is the first Bond book and the story is
&gt;&gt;&gt;a back to the beginning for Bond.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;On the whole, the general public aren't overly concerned what's in
&gt;&gt;&gt;production, it's what showing at the multiplex this Friday night. Wait
&gt;&gt;&gt;until the publicity machine starts closer to release.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;That may be true, BUT there are some on this NG who think after all the
&gt;&gt;publicity that said Barbara Bock was XXX in TSWLM, still think that the
&gt;&gt;opening scene with her and her lover was set up so one would think the guy
&gt;&gt;was XXX.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I have no memory of Bach being publicized as XXX. That said, you are
&gt; certainly correct in your analysis of that scene.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;

Well I do and besides whould it had made any sense if Michael Billington
WAS XXX? Seeing as he was killed in the pre-title. Beside XXX was meant
to have a double meaning as &quot;XXX&quot; Was also a phony movie rating used for
hardcore porno films.



--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#54: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 05:41:49 by Vince

Mike Feeney wrote:

&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Does that answer your question?
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Mike
&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;If you talk to the Germans, Major, don't mention the war. I let it
&gt;&gt;&gt;slip once but I don't think they noticed.&quot;Mike Feeney wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Mac wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Aside from the fact that the past four decades had little chronology,
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and zero consistency, you're right. This is an alternate universe,
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;this is a James Bond joining MI6 in the year 2006 and is headed by
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Barbara Mawdsley. This is a James Bond about to suffer his first
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;defeat at the hands of the enemy, the loss of his first love.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;What's wrong with that?
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;To answer your question, let's take a hypothetical analogy as an
&gt;&gt;&gt;example: suppose you are a big fan of 'Fawlty Towers'. A brand new
&gt;&gt;&gt;episode -- first one in 20 years (or whatever) -- airs tonight.
&gt;&gt;&gt;You're really excited, because Basil Fawlty is one of your all-time
&gt;&gt;&gt;favorite fictional characters. You can't wait to see him bungle his
&gt;&gt;&gt;way through another hysterically absurd situation. He is a unique
&gt;&gt;&gt;character among all of television and you've grown really fond of him.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;The new episode airs, and... it's all about Basil at age 22 when his
&gt;&gt;&gt;grandfather dies. It's a dark and sad story, dealing with Basil's
&gt;&gt;&gt;emotional struggle to accept the passing of his grandfather. Gritty
&gt;&gt;&gt;and realistic, portraying the character as a real human being with
&gt;&gt;&gt;real-world problems and difficulties.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;The episode ends, and you think to yourself: &quot;That wasn't 'Fawlty
&gt;&gt;&gt;Towers'. That episode did not deliver what I expected/wanted it to.
&gt;&gt;&gt;They shouldn't have even called it 'Fawlty Towers'. They took a
&gt;&gt;&gt;fictional character I immensely enjoyed and by attempting to update
&gt;&gt;&gt;him they completely ruined what was so great about him in the first
&gt;&gt;&gt;place.&quot;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;That's not a satisfactory analogy because you're talking about taking
&gt;&gt;a comedy and making it into a drama. You're talking about altering the
&gt;&gt;principles the series is based on.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;A more satisfactory analogy would be to have John Cleese write a
&gt;&gt;comedy about young Basil, and his newlywed Sybil, and their hilarious
&gt;&gt;misadventures as they fight to open a hotel/guesthouse whilst trying
&gt;&gt;to avoid killing each other and their clientele
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Again, what's wrong with that?
&gt;&gt;--
&gt;&gt;--Mac
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Ahh... but I would suggest that your analogy is the one that doesn't
&gt; mirror the current situation with 007, Mac! The analogy you presented
&gt; -- i.e., &quot;Fawlty Towers the early years&quot; -- stays true to the Fawlty
&gt; Towers universe. It takes place *before* the regular Fawlty Towers
&gt; episodes and therefore it doesn't nullify them -- both series coexist
&gt; with one another. Like the new Doctor Who series. The new episodes
&gt; with the 9th and 10th Doctors take place (in the reference of the
&gt; Doctor's own time-line, of course) after the &quot;classic&quot; series. So the
&gt; new series does not nullify the classic series but rather they coexist.
&gt; And additionally -- much to my great happiness -- the new series has
&gt; kept the tone and style and charm of the original series. It *feels*
&gt; the same!
&gt;
&gt; But like you stated previously, CR indisputably takes place in an
&gt; alternate universe from the previous 007 movies. James Bond is
&gt; joining MI6 in the year 2006 and the organization is headed by Barbara
&gt; Mawdsley. This nullifies the previous films -- plain and simple. If
&gt; they had wanted to do a new series -- &quot;James Bond The Early Years&quot; --
&gt; then it would have been preferable (in my opinion) to have the events
&gt; in the film take place in 1960 or 1961 -- i.e., before the film DR NO.
&gt; This would be analogous to your &quot;Fawlty Towers The Early Years&quot;.
&gt; This would have been the way to go.
&gt;
&gt; But that's not what they did. They wiped the slate clean. So if you
&gt; think FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or GOLDFINGER or ON HER MAJESTYS SECRET
&gt; SERVICE are terrific entries in the 007 film canon -- too bad, because
&gt; they really didn't happen. Not anymore. Not going forward. They
&gt; couldn't have happened. Because James Bond's first mission is now
&gt; supposed to be CR in 2006.
&gt;
&gt; Not only that, but to make matters worse the new Bond film universe
&gt; doesn't appear to be consistent with the old one. Like you said, Mac,
&gt; in the &quot;classic Bond series&quot; (tm), James Bond lives in a world where
&gt; super-villains inhabit undersea bases, hollowed-out volcanos, and
&gt; orbiting satellites. The super-villians like to employ henchpeople
&gt; with extraordinary abilities and unique methods of killing (i.e..,
&gt; crushing their vicitims to death using their thighs or biting their
&gt; necks with steel teeth). To stop them, James Bond will be required to
&gt; travel the globe and along the way he encounters beautiful women and
&gt; uses an array of high-tech gadgets to help him and enjoys making witty
&gt; quips whenever the opportunity arises. But as you stated, Mac, this
&gt; isn't the same world that CR's James Bond would appear to inhabit --
&gt; the fantastical elements are gone and he's pretty much in the real
&gt; world. So, unlike with Doctor Who, it doesn't *feel* the same even.
&gt; It's like a completely totally different movie series.
&gt;
&gt; And a big part of what draws me to the Bond movies is the fact that I
&gt; know I will see stuff that no other movie is gonna show me. It's
&gt; precisely the hollowed-out volcanos and undersea bases and steel-armed
&gt; henchpeople that make the James Bond films unique and appealing to me.
&gt; If I want to see a dark, gritty, brutal, realistic secret agent film
&gt; then I'll watch a Jason Bourne film. Or probably dozens of other
&gt; movies. But there was only one place to go for really imaginative and
&gt; fantastic escapism in the genre -- and that was the James Bond films.
&gt; At least it used to be. I don't see much of anything in the CR teaser
&gt; trailer, for example, that I couldn't expect to see in a Jason Bourne
&gt; film. They're tossing out the stuff that distinguised the Bond movies
&gt; from all the others. It seems like they want to make a Jason Bourne
&gt; film now. I don't want to see a car chase in a Bond film that compares
&gt; to RONIN, for example. Instead, I want to see a completely different
&gt; and imaginative and extraordinary car chase -- like the ones 007 has
&gt; had in the past. Where cars turn into submarines. Or turn into
&gt; airplanes. Or have passenger ejector seats. Anything but a standard
&gt; car chase. Because I can see that in dozens, probably hundreds, of
&gt; other movies.
&gt;
&gt; Mike
&gt;


Well Mike don't you see they're going back to Fleming's 007 by
1. Having a NON handsome actor, but wait James Bond is a dark
character and yet DC is blond.
2. Hes just starting out in the 00 section he should be TOPS
28, but wait DC is near 40 and looks older.
3, We have &quot;M&quot; , but wait Judi is playing the part M is not Sir Miles

4, Felix is back GREAT, but wait when did he become a black man?
will he have a Texas accent?

--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#55: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 10:35:50 by GuyClapperton

WQ wrote:

&gt; --- Plastic surgery! All that can be explained by Bond's plastic
&gt; surgery.

So after the events of OHMSS he goes back to the doctor and says look,
I'd like the old face and walk back please, and if you could wallop the
Scots accent back for a while that would be good.&quot;

And then after the events of DAF he goes back: &quot;Hello, me again. You
know what I was saying about wanting this face after all...&quot;

Report this message

#56: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 11:19:09 by Mac

Mike Feeney wrote:

&gt; Not only that, but to make matters worse the new Bond film universe
&gt; doesn't appear to be consistent with the old one.

Oh, do come along! The series has NEVER been consistant.

&gt; witty quips whenever the opportunity arises. But as you stated, Mac,
&gt; this isn't the same world that CR's James Bond would appear to
&gt; inhabit -- the fantastical elements are gone and he's pretty much in
&gt; the real world. So, unlike with Doctor Who, it doesn't *feel* the
&gt; same even. It's like a completely totally different movie series.

What are you basing this on? Have you seen the next five or six James
Bond films already, including CASINO ROYALE? Have a TARDIS of your
own, Hmm? ;)

&gt; And a big part of what draws me to the Bond movies is the fact that I
&gt; know I will see stuff that no other movie is gonna show me. It's
&gt; precisely the hollowed-out volcanos and undersea bases and steel-armed
&gt; henchpeople that make the James Bond films unique and appealing to me.

That's three out of 20 films.

&gt; If I want to see a dark, gritty, brutal, realistic secret agent film
&gt; then I'll watch a Jason Bourne film. Or probably dozens of other
&gt; movies. But there was only one place to go for really imaginative
&gt; and fantastic escapism in the genre -- and that was the James Bond
&gt; films. At least it used to be. I don't see much of anything in the
&gt; CR teaser trailer, for example, that I couldn't expect to see in a
&gt; Jason Bourne film. They're tossing out the stuff that distinguised
&gt; the Bond movies from all the others. It seems like they want to make
&gt; a Jason Bourne film now. I don't want to see a car chase in a Bond
&gt; film that compares to RONIN, for example. Instead, I want to see a
&gt; completely different and imaginative and extraordinary car chase --
&gt; like the ones 007 has had in the past. Where cars turn into
&gt; submarines. Or turn into airplanes. Or have passenger ejector
&gt; seats. Anything but a standard car chase. Because I can see that
&gt; in dozens, probably hundreds, of other movies.

And who is to say you will not continue to see these elements? You
seem to be under the impression they've gone for good. You also
seem to think CASINO ROYALE is going to be all dark, all gritty, all
brutal. They're making a film not like the Bourne films, they making
a Bond film like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

What's wrong with that?
--
--Mac

Report this message

#57: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 11:31:40 by Mac

GuyClapperton wrote:

&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; --- Plastic surgery! All that can be explained by Bond's plastic
&gt;&gt; surgery.
&gt;
&gt; So after the events of OHMSS he goes back to the doctor and says look,
&gt; I'd like the old face and walk back please, and if you could wallop
&gt; the Scots accent back for a while that would be good.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; And then after the events of DAF he goes back: &quot;Hello, me again. You
&gt; know what I was saying about wanting this face after all...&quot;

LOL Not to forget Felix!

&quot;Doctor, I want to look like a tubby, middle-aged man. I would also
like lessons in how to look consistently exasperated and perpetually
flummoxed.&quot;
--
--Mac

Report this message

#58: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 11:45:56 by Mac

VINCE wrote:

&gt; Well Mike don't you see they're going back to Fleming's 007 by
&gt; 1. Having a NON handsome actor, but wait James Bond is a dark
&gt; character and yet DC is blond.

Like Roger Moore. Although he was orange in A VIEW TO A KILL.

&gt; 2. Hes just starting out in the 00 section he should be TOPS
&gt; 28, but wait DC is near 40 and looks older.

Why should he be tops 28? Connery looked older than 33 in
DR. NO. Moore looked older than the Eiffel Tower in A
VIEW TO A KILL.

&gt; 3, We have &quot;M&quot; , but wait Judi is playing the part M is not Sir Miles

Covered this.

&gt; 4, Felix is back GREAT, but wait when did he become a black man?
&gt; will he have a Texas accent?

When did Felix ever look, or sound the same?
--
--Mac

Report this message

#59: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 15:34:10 by WQ

Mac wrote:
&gt; GuyClapperton wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; --- Plastic surgery! All that can be explained by Bond's plastic
&gt; &gt;&gt; surgery.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; So after the events of OHMSS he goes back to the doctor and says look,
&gt; &gt; I'd like the old face and walk back please, and if you could wallop
&gt; &gt; the Scots accent back for a while that would be good.&quot;

--- I explain OHMSS as a dream sequence in the Connery series.

&gt; &gt; And then after the events of DAF he goes back: &quot;Hello, me again. You
&gt; &gt; know what I was saying about wanting this face after all...&quot;
&gt;
&gt; LOL Not to forget Felix!

--- What's so funny? Isn't everybody getting plastic surgery these
days? Why not movie spy guys too?

&gt;
&gt; &quot;Doctor, I want to look like a tubby, middle-aged man. I would also
&gt; like lessons in how to look consistently exasperated and perpetually
&gt; flummoxed.&quot;
&gt; --
&gt; --Mac

Report this message

#60: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 16:31:07 by Paul Clarke

Mac wrote:

&gt;&gt; If I want to see a dark, gritty, brutal, realistic secret agent film
&gt;&gt;then I'll watch a Jason Bourne film. Or probably dozens of other
&gt;&gt;movies. But there was only one place to go for really imaginative
&gt;&gt;and fantastic escapism in the genre -- and that was the James Bond
&gt;&gt;films. At least it used to be. I don't see much of anything in the
&gt;&gt;CR teaser trailer, for example, that I couldn't expect to see in a
&gt;&gt;Jason Bourne film. They're tossing out the stuff that distinguised
&gt;&gt;the Bond movies from all the others. It seems like they want to make
&gt;&gt;a Jason Bourne film now. I don't want to see a car chase in a Bond
&gt;&gt;film that compares to RONIN, for example. Instead, I want to see a
&gt;&gt;completely different and imaginative and extraordinary car chase --
&gt;&gt;like the ones 007 has had in the past. Where cars turn into
&gt;&gt;submarines. Or turn into airplanes. Or have passenger ejector
&gt;&gt;seats. Anything but a standard car chase. Because I can see that
&gt;&gt;in dozens, probably hundreds, of other movies.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; And who is to say you will not continue to see these elements? You
&gt; seem to be under the impression they've gone for good. You also
&gt; seem to think CASINO ROYALE is going to be all dark, all gritty, all
&gt; brutal. They're making a film not like the Bourne films, they making
&gt; a Bond film like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.
&gt;
&gt; What's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing. Bring it on!

--
==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.”

Report this message

#61: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 16:47:19 by WQ

Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; If I want to see a dark, gritty, brutal, realistic secret agent film
&gt; &gt;&gt;then I'll watch a Jason Bourne film. Or probably dozens of other
&gt; &gt;&gt;movies. But there was only one place to go for really imaginative
&gt; &gt;&gt;and fantastic escapism in the genre -- and that was the James Bond
&gt; &gt;&gt;films. At least it used to be. I don't see much of anything in the
&gt; &gt;&gt;CR teaser trailer, for example, that I couldn't expect to see in a
&gt; &gt;&gt;Jason Bourne film. They're tossing out the stuff that distinguised
&gt; &gt;&gt;the Bond movies from all the others. It seems like they want to make
&gt; &gt;&gt;a Jason Bourne film now. I don't want to see a car chase in a Bond
&gt; &gt;&gt;film that compares to RONIN, for example. Instead, I want to see a
&gt; &gt;&gt;completely different and imaginative and extraordinary car chase --
&gt; &gt;&gt;like the ones 007 has had in the past. Where cars turn into
&gt; &gt;&gt;submarines. Or turn into airplanes. Or have passenger ejector
&gt; &gt;&gt;seats. Anything but a standard car chase. Because I can see that
&gt; &gt;&gt;in dozens, probably hundreds, of other movies.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; And who is to say you will not continue to see these elements? You
&gt; &gt; seem to be under the impression they've gone for good. You also
&gt; &gt; seem to think CASINO ROYALE is going to be all dark, all gritty, all
&gt; &gt; brutal. They're making a film not like the Bourne films, they making
&gt; &gt; a Bond film like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; What's wrong with that?
&gt;
&gt; Absolutely nothing. Bring it on!

--- Only that the film won't be a FRWL. I've read the script.

&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; ==007===
&gt; &quot;My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
&gt; drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
&gt; That's as bad as putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.&quot;

Report this message

#62: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 17:01:31 by Paul Clarke

WQ wrote:
&gt; Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Mac wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;If I want to see a dark, gritty, brutal, realistic secret agent film
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;then I'll watch a Jason Bourne film. Or probably dozens of other
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;movies. But there was only one place to go for really imaginative
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and fantastic escapism in the genre -- and that was the James Bond
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;films. At least it used to be. I don't see much of anything in the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;CR teaser trailer, for example, that I couldn't expect to see in a
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Jason Bourne film. They're tossing out the stuff that distinguised
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;the Bond movies from all the others. It seems like they want to make
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;a Jason Bourne film now. I don't want to see a car chase in a Bond
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;film that compares to RONIN, for example. Instead, I want to see a
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;completely different and imaginative and extraordinary car chase --
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;like the ones 007 has had in the past. Where cars turn into
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;submarines. Or turn into airplanes. Or have passenger ejector
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;seats. Anything but a standard car chase. Because I can see that
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;in dozens, probably hundreds, of other movies.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;And who is to say you will not continue to see these elements? You
&gt;&gt;&gt;seem to be under the impression they've gone for good. You also
&gt;&gt;&gt;seem to think CASINO ROYALE is going to be all dark, all gritty, all
&gt;&gt;&gt;brutal. They're making a film not like the Bourne films, they making
&gt;&gt;&gt;a Bond film like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;What's wrong with that?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Absolutely nothing. Bring it on!
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --- Only that the film won't be a FRWL. I've read the script.

Nothing can replace FRWL. If it captures some of the same spirit, CR
will be very good indeed. And good for you, but I refuse to read the
script. Scripts change and what's on the page looks very different on
the screen, depending on how it's filmed and acted.

{Warning! Rant ahead!} I want to return to the good ol' days when all I
knew about a film going in was a basic plot summary and some stills. I'm
sick to death of being spoilered to death on movies. The experience of
seeing a film is almost ruined for me these days, as I know plot twists
and even lines of dialogue ahead of time. No more spoilers for me, man.
I just don't get people who want to read a script before a movie is even
released. To me, it totally ruins the experience. Death to spoilers!

--
==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.”

Report this message

#63: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 17:52:44 by WQ

Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt; Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;Mac wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;If I want to see a dark, gritty, brutal, realistic secret agent film
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;then I'll watch a Jason Bourne film. Or probably dozens of other
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;movies. But there was only one place to go for really imaginative
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and fantastic escapism in the genre -- and that was the James Bond
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;films. At least it used to be. I don't see much of anything in the
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;CR teaser trailer, for example, that I couldn't expect to see in a
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Jason Bourne film. They're tossing out the stuff that distinguised
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;the Bond movies from all the others. It seems like they want to make
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;a Jason Bourne film now. I don't want to see a car chase in a Bond
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;film that compares to RONIN, for example. Instead, I want to see a
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;completely different and imaginative and extraordinary car chase --
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;like the ones 007 has had in the past. Where cars turn into
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;submarines. Or turn into airplanes. Or have passenger ejector
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;seats. Anything but a standard car chase. Because I can see that
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;in dozens, probably hundreds, of other movies.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;And who is to say you will not continue to see these elements? You
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;seem to be under the impression they've gone for good. You also
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;seem to think CASINO ROYALE is going to be all dark, all gritty, all
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;brutal. They're making a film not like the Bourne films, they making
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;a Bond film like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;What's wrong with that?
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;Absolutely nothing. Bring it on!
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; --- Only that the film won't be a FRWL. I've read the script.
&gt;
&gt; Nothing can replace FRWL. If it captures some of the same spirit, CR
&gt; will be very good indeed. And good for you, but I refuse to read the
&gt; script. Scripts change and what's on the page looks very different on
&gt; the screen, depending on how it's filmed and acted.

--- The version I read was the supposed final draft dated Dec. 13,
2005, which was issued to production Dec. 20, at least so it's printed
on the script cover. Sure, changes are inevitable, but I think what
I've read, and by the clips I've seen to confirm what I've read,
they're pretty well sticking to most of what's written. It could use
some more punching up in places and could use with less nonsense and
certainly needs the torture scene to be completely redone, that's for
sure, because as it reads now it's half-baked and laughable. My guess
with the torture scene - and I desperately hope I'm right, otherwise
everyone's really in trouble here if I'm not - is that they still
couldn't get a handle on how to write it, so they just gave it a rush
job treatment just to let everybody know that's the scene that comes
next and they'd worry about how to get it written right once they had
it figured out. And with the clip of the Venice set being built, that
too confirms how the film will end before the epilogue sequence, which
by my reading is all wrong of how it should end, not to mention that
it's nowhere to be found in the book either.

&gt; {Warning! Rant ahead!} I want to return to the good ol' days when all I
&gt; knew about a film going in was a basic plot summary and some stills. I'm
&gt; sick to death of being spoilered to death on movies. The experience of
&gt; seeing a film is almost ruined for me these days, as I know plot twists
&gt; and even lines of dialogue ahead of time. No more spoilers for me, man.
&gt; I just don't get people who want to read a script before a movie is even
&gt; released. To me, it totally ruins the experience. Death to spoilers!

--- There I agree with you totally. Films were more fun to watch and
an experience in discovery back then when you knew practically nothing
about what you wanted to see. Ignorance truly was bliss. Now it's as
if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or sees
on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder why
anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I hardly
do. It almost becomes more like seeing the film only to fill in the
gaps of what info you haven't come across or parts you haven't seen
rather than allowing yourself to be transported into it on an
unpredictable journey.


&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; ==007===
&gt; &quot;My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
&gt; drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
&gt; That's as bad as putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.&quot;

Report this message

#64: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 17:53:00 by Vince

Mac wrote:

&gt; VINCE wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Well Mike don't you see they're going back to Fleming's 007 by
&gt;&gt;1. Having a NON handsome actor, but wait James Bond is a dark
&gt;&gt; character and yet DC is blond.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Like Roger Moore. Although he was orange in A VIEW TO A KILL.
&gt;
&gt;
Thats different they weren't going for Fleming's Bond


&gt;&gt;2. Hes just starting out in the 00 section he should be TOPS
&gt;&gt; 28, but wait DC is near 40 and looks older.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Why should he be tops 28? Connery looked older than 33 in
&gt; DR. NO. Moore looked older than the Eiffel Tower in A
&gt; VIEW TO A KILL.
No he didn't and as far as Roger goes you forget he was picking up
on Sean's 007




&gt;
&gt;&gt;3, We have &quot;M&quot; , but wait Judi is playing the part M is not Sir Miles
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Covered this.
&gt;
Not to my satisfaction

&gt;
&gt;&gt;4, Felix is back GREAT, but wait when did he become a black man?
&gt;&gt; will he have a Texas accent?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; When did Felix ever look, or sound the same?


--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#65: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 19:19:36 by Mac

VINCE wrote:

&gt; Mac wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; VINCE wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Well Mike don't you see they're going back to Fleming's 007 by
&gt;&gt;&gt; 1. Having a NON handsome actor, but wait James Bond is a dark
&gt;&gt;&gt; character and yet DC is blond.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Like Roger Moore. Although he was orange in A VIEW TO A KILL.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt; Thats different they weren't going for Fleming's Bond

Poor argument.


&gt;&gt;&gt; 2. Hes just starting out in the 00 section he should be TOPS
&gt;&gt;&gt; 28, but wait DC is near 40 and looks older.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Why should he be tops 28? Connery looked older than 33 in
&gt;&gt; DR. NO. Moore looked older than the Eiffel Tower in A
&gt;&gt; VIEW TO A KILL.

&gt; No he didn't and as far as Roger goes you forget he was picking up
&gt; on Sean's 007

Yes he did. And more was older when he took the role.


&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 3, We have &quot;M&quot; , but wait Judi is playing the part M is not Sir
&gt;&gt;&gt; Miles
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Covered this.
&gt;&gt;
&gt; Not to my satisfaction


Still better than what you've offered here. Or anywhere.

&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; 4, Felix is back GREAT, but wait when did he become a black man?
&gt;&gt;&gt; will he have a Texas accent?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; When did Felix ever look, or sound the same?

Didn't bother to respond to this one at all? Wonder why...?
--
--Mac

Report this message

#66: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 19:35:42 by Paul Clarke

WQ wrote:

&gt;&gt;{Warning! Rant ahead!} I want to return to the good ol' days when all I
&gt;&gt;knew about a film going in was a basic plot summary and some stills. I'm
&gt;&gt;sick to death of being spoilered to death on movies. The experience of
&gt;&gt;seeing a film is almost ruined for me these days, as I know plot twists
&gt;&gt;and even lines of dialogue ahead of time. No more spoilers for me, man.
&gt;&gt;I just don't get people who want to read a script before a movie is even
&gt;&gt;released. To me, it totally ruins the experience. Death to spoilers!
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --- There I agree with you totally. Films were more fun to watch and
&gt; an experience in discovery back then when you knew practically nothing
&gt; about what you wanted to see. Ignorance truly was bliss. Now it's as
&gt; if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or sees
&gt; on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder why
&gt; anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I hardly
&gt; do. It almost becomes more like seeing the film only to fill in the
&gt; gaps of what info you haven't come across or parts you haven't seen
&gt; rather than allowing yourself to be transported into it on an
&gt; unpredictable journey.
&gt;

So how do you square this with the fact that you've read the script?

--
==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.”

Report this message

#67: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 19:58:04 by Tom Zielinski

&quot;Mac&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:see.mac&#64;SPAMLESSvirgin.net" target="_blank">see.mac&#64;SPAMLESSvirgin.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4i77u2F2gshbU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4i77u2F2gshbU1&#64;individual.net...</a>

&gt;&gt;&gt; When did Felix ever look, or sound the same?
&gt;
&gt; Didn't bother to respond to this one at all? Wonder why...?


Bashful?



Tom

Report this message

#68: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 20:00:11 by WQ

Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;{Warning! Rant ahead!} I want to return to the good ol' days when all I
&gt; &gt;&gt;knew about a film going in was a basic plot summary and some stills. I'm
&gt; &gt;&gt;sick to death of being spoilered to death on movies. The experience of
&gt; &gt;&gt;seeing a film is almost ruined for me these days, as I know plot twists
&gt; &gt;&gt;and even lines of dialogue ahead of time. No more spoilers for me, man.
&gt; &gt;&gt;I just don't get people who want to read a script before a movie is even
&gt; &gt;&gt;released. To me, it totally ruins the experience. Death to spoilers!
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; --- There I agree with you totally. Films were more fun to watch and
&gt; &gt; an experience in discovery back then when you knew practically nothing
&gt; &gt; about what you wanted to see. Ignorance truly was bliss. Now it's as
&gt; &gt; if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or sees
&gt; &gt; on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder why
&gt; &gt; anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I hardly
&gt; &gt; do. It almost becomes more like seeing the film only to fill in the
&gt; &gt; gaps of what info you haven't come across or parts you haven't seen
&gt; &gt; rather than allowing yourself to be transported into it on an
&gt; &gt; unpredictable journey.
&gt; &gt;
&gt;
&gt; So how do you square this with the fact that you've read the script?

--- What's to square? I can look at things both ways, seperately and
independently of each other. I can recognize the script for what it is
and what it could be and might end being like on film just as I can
recognize what I used to derive from moviegoing and Bond films in
particular. There's no state of confusion for me: one is one and the
other is the other.


&gt; --
&gt; ==007===
&gt; &quot;My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
&gt; drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
&gt; That's as bad as putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.&quot;

Report this message

#69: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 21:02:23 by Vince

Tom Zielinski wrote:

&gt; &quot;Mac&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:see.mac&#64;SPAMLESSvirgin.net" target="_blank">see.mac&#64;SPAMLESSvirgin.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4i77u2F2gshbU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4i77u2F2gshbU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;When did Felix ever look, or sound the same?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Didn't bother to respond to this one at all? Wonder why...?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Bashful?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Tom
&gt;
&gt;

OK heres my answer on Felix if they going back to the source
Felix is a white guy from Texas.

--
Check out my new BLOG
Its a work in progress


<a href="http://computerpast.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://computerpast.blogspot.com/</a>


Also check out our sales page(s)

<a href="http://bondtime.tripod.com/" target="_blank">http://bondtime.tripod.com/</a>

Report this message

#70: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 21:19:32 by Rhino

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:58:04 -0500, &quot;Tom Zielinski&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:rtomz&#64;comcast.net" target="_blank">rtomz&#64;comcast.net</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;
&gt;&quot;Mac&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:see.mac&#64;SPAMLESSvirgin.net" target="_blank">see.mac&#64;SPAMLESSvirgin.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;news:<a href="mailto:4i77u2F2gshbU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4i77u2F2gshbU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; When did Felix ever look, or sound the same?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Didn't bother to respond to this one at all? Wonder why...?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;Bashful?
&gt;

I can think of another dwarf name which would be more apt!!

Report this message

#71: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 22:12:12 by Tom Zielinski

&quot;Rhino&quot; &lt;rh1n0@%blueyonder%.co.uk&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:8d1tb2hj5m0m8qhg699n2qnmoi56dh3bsk&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">8d1tb2hj5m0m8qhg699n2qnmoi56dh3bsk&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:58:04 -0500, &quot;Tom Zielinski&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:rtomz&#64;comcast.net" target="_blank">rtomz&#64;comcast.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&quot;Mac&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:see.mac&#64;SPAMLESSvirgin.net" target="_blank">see.mac&#64;SPAMLESSvirgin.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;news:<a href="mailto:4i77u2F2gshbU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4i77u2F2gshbU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; When did Felix ever look, or sound the same?
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Didn't bother to respond to this one at all? Wonder why...?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Bashful?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I can think of another dwarf name which would be more apt!!



Err....certainly not &quot;Happy.&quot; &quot;Doc&quot;?...doesn't seem to fit. &quot;Sneezy&quot;?
&quot;Sleepy&quot;? Maybe, but somehow I don't think so. &quot;Grumpy&quot;, yeah that MIGHT
work, but which is the one I'm forgetting? There is one more, right?
Hmmm...oh YEAH!

LMAO!

Amazing!

Anyway, I'm a secure heterosexual and I don't think Craig &quot;ugly.&quot; His looks
are perhaps a bit unconventional for playing Bond, but I think he looks
tough, ruthless AND handsome. Plus a man's self-confidence is apparent in
the way he carries himself and Mr. Craig does exceedingly well in that
regard. Finally he easily has the most chiseled body of any of the actors
in the role, which goes a long way with women I understand. The man is cut,
and the birds are gonna swoon.

Sinceriously.

As for being blonde, Moore was blonde and I don't remember at all any
distraught fans in 1973.





Tom Zielinski
&quot;...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 one can't miss him...it's like following a cue ball. ...&quot;




Tom Zielinski











Tom

Report this message

#72: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 22:24:36 by Paul Clarke

WQ wrote:
&gt; Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;{Warning! Rant ahead!} I want to return to the good ol' days when all I
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;knew about a film going in was a basic plot summary and some stills. I'm
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;sick to death of being spoilered to death on movies. The experience of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;seeing a film is almost ruined for me these days, as I know plot twists
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and even lines of dialogue ahead of time. No more spoilers for me, man.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I just don't get people who want to read a script before a movie is even
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;released. To me, it totally ruins the experience. Death to spoilers!
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;--- There I agree with you totally. Films were more fun to watch and
&gt;&gt;&gt;an experience in discovery back then when you knew practically nothing
&gt;&gt;&gt;about what you wanted to see. Ignorance truly was bliss. Now it's as
&gt;&gt;&gt;if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or sees
&gt;&gt;&gt;on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder why
&gt;&gt;&gt;anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I hardly
&gt;&gt;&gt;do. It almost becomes more like seeing the film only to fill in the
&gt;&gt;&gt;gaps of what info you haven't come across or parts you haven't seen
&gt;&gt;&gt;rather than allowing yourself to be transported into it on an
&gt;&gt;&gt;unpredictable journey.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;So how do you square this with the fact that you've read the script?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --- What's to square? I can look at things both ways, seperately and
&gt; independently of each other. I can recognize the script for what it is
&gt; and what it could be and might end being like on film just as I can
&gt; recognize what I used to derive from moviegoing and Bond films in
&gt; particular. There's no state of confusion for me: one is one and the
&gt; other is the other.

Say *what*? You said &quot;Films were more fun to watch and an experience in
discovery back then when you knew practically nothing about what you
wanted to see.&quot; *You've read the frigging script.* How much more could
you possibly know about CR going in without having seen the actual film
before? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

--
==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.”

Report this message

#73: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 22:42:29 by Tom Zielinski

&quot;Paul Clarke&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jim_caerleon&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">jim_caerleon&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:8ywvg.117486$<a href="mailto:I61.12124&#64;clgrps13..." target="_blank">I61.12124&#64;clgrps13...</a>

&gt; Say *what*? You said &quot;Films were more fun to watch and an experience in
&gt; discovery back then when you knew practically nothing about what you
&gt; wanted to see.&quot; *You've read the frigging script.* How much more could you
&gt; possibly know about CR going in without having seen the actual film
&gt; before? Are you being deliberately obtuse?


Probably not deliberately...

Report this message

#74: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 22:47:01 by WQ

Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt; Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;{Warning! Rant ahead!} I want to return to the good ol' days when all I
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;knew about a film going in was a basic plot summary and some stills. I'm
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;sick to death of being spoilered to death on movies. The experience of
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;seeing a film is almost ruined for me these days, as I know plot twists
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and even lines of dialogue ahead of time. No more spoilers for me, man.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I just don't get people who want to read a script before a movie is even
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;released. To me, it totally ruins the experience. Death to spoilers!
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;--- There I agree with you totally. Films were more fun to watch and
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;an experience in discovery back then when you knew practically nothing
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;about what you wanted to see. Ignorance truly was bliss. Now it's as
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or sees
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder why
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I hardly
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;do. It almost becomes more like seeing the film only to fill in the
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;gaps of what info you haven't come across or parts you haven't seen
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;rather than allowing yourself to be transported into it on an
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;unpredictable journey.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;So how do you square this with the fact that you've read the script?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; --- What's to square? I can look at things both ways, seperately and
&gt; &gt; independently of each other. I can recognize the script for what it is
&gt; &gt; and what it could be and might end being like on film just as I can
&gt; &gt; recognize what I used to derive from moviegoing and Bond films in
&gt; &gt; particular. There's no state of confusion for me: one is one and the
&gt; &gt; other is the other.
&gt;
&gt; Say *what*? You said &quot;Films were more fun to watch and an experience in
&gt; discovery back then when you knew practically nothing about what you
&gt; wanted to see.&quot; *You've read the frigging script.* How much more could
&gt; you possibly know about CR going in without having seen the actual film
&gt; before? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

--- I was concurring with what YOU said about watching films back then,
which is separate and independent of what I had to say about CR and
current films. The obtuseness, I'm afraid, is at your end.


&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; ==007===
&gt; &quot;My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
&gt; drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
&gt; That's as bad as putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.&quot;

Report this message

#75: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 23:05:22 by Paul Clarke

WQ wrote:
&gt; Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;{Warning! Rant ahead!} I want to return to the good ol' days when all I
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;knew about a film going in was a basic plot summary and some stills. I'm
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;sick to death of being spoilered to death on movies. The experience of
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;seeing a film is almost ruined for me these days, as I know plot twists
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and even lines of dialogue ahead of time. No more spoilers for me, man.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I just don't get people who want to read a script before a movie is even
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;released. To me, it totally ruins the experience. Death to spoilers!
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;--- There I agree with you totally. Films were more fun to watch and
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;an experience in discovery back then when you knew practically nothing
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;about what you wanted to see. Ignorance truly was bliss. Now it's as
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or sees
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder why
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I hardly
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;do. It almost becomes more like seeing the film only to fill in the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gaps of what info you haven't come across or parts you haven't seen
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;rather than allowing yourself to be transported into it on an
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;unpredictable journey.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;So how do you square this with the fact that you've read the script?
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;--- What's to square? I can look at things both ways, seperately and
&gt;&gt;&gt;independently of each other. I can recognize the script for what it is
&gt;&gt;&gt;and what it could be and might end being like on film just as I can
&gt;&gt;&gt;recognize what I used to derive from moviegoing and Bond films in
&gt;&gt;&gt;particular. There's no state of confusion for me: one is one and the
&gt;&gt;&gt;other is the other.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Say *what*? You said &quot;Films were more fun to watch and an experience in
&gt;&gt;discovery back then when you knew practically nothing about what you
&gt;&gt;wanted to see.&quot; *You've read the frigging script.* How much more could
&gt;&gt;you possibly know about CR going in without having seen the actual film
&gt;&gt;before? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --- I was concurring with what YOU said about watching films back then,
&gt; which is separate and independent of what I had to say about CR and
&gt; current films. The obtuseness, I'm afraid, is at your end.

Nope, I don't think so. You've got me totally confused. You said: &quot;Now
it's as if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or
sees on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder
why anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I
hardly do.&quot; Seems to me like you're saying that it's better to go to a
movie 'cold' and NOT knowing much about it. And in the same breath,
you're saying that you're fine with going into CR having read the entire
script. And now you're saying that there's no contradiction between
these two points.

Man, you should be a politician.

--
==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.”

Report this message

#76: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-19 23:17:48 by Mac

VINCE wrote:

&gt; OK heres my answer on Felix if they going back to the source
&gt; Felix is a white guy from Texas.

That's wasn't the question. The question was: when did Felix
ever look, or sound, the same? Even in the &quot;faithful&quot; films?
--
--Mac

Report this message

#77: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-20 00:08:08 by Rhino

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:12:12 -0500, &quot;Tom Zielinski&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:rtomz&#64;comcast.net" target="_blank">rtomz&#64;comcast.net</a>&gt; wrote:


&gt;Anyway, I'm a secure heterosexual and I don't think Craig &quot;ugly.&quot; His looks
&gt;are perhaps a bit unconventional for playing Bond, but I think he looks
&gt;tough, ruthless AND handsome. Plus a man's self-confidence is apparent in
&gt;the way he carries himself and Mr. Craig does exceedingly well in that
&gt;regard. Finally he easily has the most chiseled body of any of the actors
&gt;in the role, which goes a long way with women I understand. The man is cut,
&gt;and the birds are gonna swoon.

Unconventional - that's just the word for it. I'm with you mate. I
think I can appreciate whether a man is good looking or not. Craig's
no natural beauty but he's not been hit with the fugly stick either.

Report this message

#78: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-20 00:24:13 by WQ

Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt; Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;{Warning! Rant ahead!} I want to return to the good ol' days when all I
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;knew about a film going in was a basic plot summary and some stills. I'm
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;sick to death of being spoilered to death on movies. The experience of
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;seeing a film is almost ruined for me these days, as I know plot twists
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and even lines of dialogue ahead of time. No more spoilers for me, man.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I just don't get people who want to read a script before a movie is even
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;released. To me, it totally ruins the experience. Death to spoilers!
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;--- There I agree with you totally. Films were more fun to watch and
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;an experience in discovery back then when you knew practically nothing
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;about what you wanted to see. Ignorance truly was bliss. Now it's as
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or sees
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder why
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I hardly
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;do. It almost becomes more like seeing the film only to fill in the
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gaps of what info you haven't come across or parts you haven't seen
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;rather than allowing yourself to be transported into it on an
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;unpredictable journey.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;So how do you square this with the fact that you've read the script?
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;--- What's to square? I can look at things both ways, seperately and
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;independently of each other. I can recognize the script for what it is
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;and what it could be and might end being like on film just as I can
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;recognize what I used to derive from moviegoing and Bond films in
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;particular. There's no state of confusion for me: one is one and the
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;other is the other.
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;Say *what*? You said &quot;Films were more fun to watch and an experience in
&gt; &gt;&gt;discovery back then when you knew practically nothing about what you
&gt; &gt;&gt;wanted to see.&quot; *You've read the frigging script.* How much more could
&gt; &gt;&gt;you possibly know about CR going in without having seen the actual film
&gt; &gt;&gt;before? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; --- I was concurring with what YOU said about watching films back then,
&gt; &gt; which is separate and independent of what I had to say about CR and
&gt; &gt; current films. The obtuseness, I'm afraid, is at your end.
&gt;
&gt; Nope, I don't think so. You've got me totally confused. You said: &quot;Now
&gt; it's as if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or
&gt; sees on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder
&gt; why anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I
&gt; hardly do.&quot; Seems to me like you're saying that it's better to go to a
&gt; movie 'cold' and NOT knowing much about it. And in the same breath,
&gt; you're saying that you're fine with going into CR having read the entire
&gt; script. And now you're saying that there's no contradiction between
&gt; these two points.
&gt;
&gt; Man, you should be a politician.

--- Ok, let me simplify this for you. Yes, it's better to see a movie
cold. Yes, I'm fine with seeing CR after reading the script. Where's
the contradiction? I'm agreeing to both because both are true,
separately and independently of each other. It's called being objective
enough to see things both ways. If there's any contradiction in that,
it's in the one you want to find where none exists for me.

&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; ==007===
&gt; &quot;My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
&gt; drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
&gt; That's as bad as putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.&quot;

Report this message

#79: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-20 02:27:46 by phil.gerrard1

Paul wrote:

&gt; {Warning! Rant ahead!} I want to return to the good ol' days when all I
&gt; knew about a film going in was a basic plot summary and some stills. I'm
&gt; sick to death of being spoilered to death on movies. The experience of
&gt; seeing a film is almost ruined for me these days, as I know plot twists
&gt; and even lines of dialogue ahead of time. No more spoilers for me, man.
&gt; I just don't get people who want to read a script before a movie is even
&gt; released. To me, it totally ruins the experience. Death to spoilers!

I know what you mean. However, for me the problem is that these days
that's so difficult. You spend time on a list like this, you read the
websites, you're fed snippets by the news media, you watch trailers
which frankly tell you more than many ever did in the past - and in the
case of CR, you see levels of prejudice which you never used to
encounter because the people who are anti- the film and its star are
feeding off greater numbers of stories and 'revelations', both true and
false, than were ever available before.

I'd like to be able to shield myself from all this and see the film
'cold', but at the same time it can be frustrating to see people
arguing the toss about elements of the film about which one is
ignorant. When people are attacking in advance a film about which I
feel positive on the basis of information I'm refusing to see, I find
it difficult merely to argue in response 'Well, I still think I'm going
to like it, despite the fact that I can't comment on anything you're
saying'. It might be far more satisfactory if I had the strength to
shut all this information out and merely enjoy the film in its own
right, I know.

The other point, however, is that I strongly feel, for example, that
the script is not the film, and that the only things one can judge from
a script, whether film, theatre, or TV, are story, overall tone,
quality of dialogue, and above all potential. 'The Maltese Falcon' was
filmed twice with very few changes between versions before the third
rendition nailed it absolutely and made the others redundant. (The
first one isn't bad, incidentally.) There are plenty of other
instances where films have been remade using almost exactly the same
source material and yet the results have varied wildly: 'LA Takedown'
and 'Heat'; the two versions of 'The Lady Vanishes'; and most
notoriously of all, the two 'Psycho's. I almost suspect that Van Sant
made the more recent 'Psycho' to prove that you could change almost
nothing about a great film's shooting script and still make a lousy
movie!

Best

Phil

Report this message

#80: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-20 02:35:09 by WQ

<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:
&gt; Paul wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; {Warning! Rant ahead!} I want to return to the good ol' days when all I
&gt; &gt; knew about a film going in was a basic plot summary and some stills. I'm
&gt; &gt; sick to death of being spoilered to death on movies. The experience of
&gt; &gt; seeing a film is almost ruined for me these days, as I know plot twists
&gt; &gt; and even lines of dialogue ahead of time. No more spoilers for me, man.
&gt; &gt; I just don't get people who want to read a script before a movie is even
&gt; &gt; released. To me, it totally ruins the experience. Death to spoilers!
&gt;
&gt; I know what you mean. However, for me the problem is that these days
&gt; that's so difficult. You spend time on a list like this, you read the
&gt; websites, you're fed snippets by the news media, you watch trailers
&gt; which frankly tell you more than many ever did in the past - and in the
&gt; case of CR, you see levels of prejudice which you never used to
&gt; encounter because the people who are anti- the film and its star are
&gt; feeding off greater numbers of stories and 'revelations', both true and
&gt; false, than were ever available before.
&gt;
&gt; I'd like to be able to shield myself from all this and see the film
&gt; 'cold', but at the same time it can be frustrating to see people
&gt; arguing the toss about elements of the film about which one is
&gt; ignorant. When people are attacking in advance a film about which I
&gt; feel positive on the basis of information I'm refusing to see, I find
&gt; it difficult merely to argue in response 'Well, I still think I'm going
&gt; to like it, despite the fact that I can't comment on anything you're
&gt; saying'. It might be far more satisfactory if I had the strength to
&gt; shut all this information out and merely enjoy the film in its own
&gt; right, I know.
&gt;
&gt; The other point, however, is that I strongly feel, for example, that
&gt; the script is not the film, and that the only things one can judge from
&gt; a script, whether film, theatre, or TV, are story, overall tone,
&gt; quality of dialogue, and above all potential. 'The Maltese Falcon' was
&gt; filmed twice with very few changes between versions before the third
&gt; rendition nailed it absolutely and made the others redundant. (The
&gt; first one isn't bad, incidentally.) There are plenty of other
&gt; instances where films have been remade using almost exactly the same
&gt; source material and yet the results have varied wildly: 'LA Takedown'
&gt; and 'Heat'; the two versions of 'The Lady Vanishes'; and most
&gt; notoriously of all, the two 'Psycho's. I almost suspect that Van Sant
&gt; made the more recent 'Psycho' to prove that you could change almost
&gt; nothing about a great film's shooting script and still make a lousy
&gt; movie!

--- As I remember it, the intent was not to remake but to duplicate the
original Psycho, but I never understood the point of that. That's like
cloning a human and forgetting to inject a soul, which that re-do
needed badly.

&gt;
&gt; Best
&gt;
&gt; Phil

Report this message

#81: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-20 02:45:31 by phil.gerrard1

Tom, then Rhino:

&gt; &gt;Anyway, I'm a secure heterosexual and I don't think Craig &quot;ugly.&quot; His looks
&gt; &gt;are perhaps a bit unconventional for playing Bond, but I think he looks
&gt; &gt;tough, ruthless AND handsome. Plus a man's self-confidence is apparent in
&gt; &gt;the way he carries himself and Mr. Craig does exceedingly well in that
&gt; &gt;regard. Finally he easily has the most chiseled body of any of the actors
&gt; &gt;in the role, which goes a long way with women I understand. The man is cut,
&gt; &gt;and the birds are gonna swoon.
&gt;
&gt; Unconventional - that's just the word for it. I'm with you mate. I
&gt; think I can appreciate whether a man is good looking or not. Craig's
&gt; no natural beauty but he's not been hit with the fugly stick either.

Exactly. He's not a male model type and that's seemingly shocked some
people, but he's no more 'ugly' in male terms than, say, Scarlett
Johannson or Billie Piper are in female terms, and nobody screamed blue
murder about their *looks* when they were suggested as Bond girls
because they were unconventionally good-looking.

To me, Craig is in fact a throwback to an older type of movie male
lead. Steve McQueen has been mentioned, but think back further and
there were stars like Robert Mitchum, Humphrey Bogart, Spencer Tracy,
James Cagney, Jean Gabin, etc. These guys weren't 'character actors',
they were the people you went to if you wanted to cast a tough,
masculine, sexy lead, and not one of them looked like a knitwear model
or a member of the Chippendales - and FWIW they were all still stars
at the time Fleming was writing. Heck, people these days even seem to
forget that David Niven, even in his younger days, was pretty craggy.

Best

Phil

Report this message

#82: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-20 02:54:35 by phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

&gt; --- As I remember it, the intent was not to remake but to duplicate the
&gt; original Psycho, but I never understood the point of that. That's like
&gt; cloning a human and forgetting to inject a soul, which that re-do
&gt; needed badly.

It was a film-school exercise*, really: the cinematic equivalent of
some types of conceptual art. Great as a touchstone for debate, but
not fun to watch.

Best

Phil

*Michael Mann once said that one good point of film school was that you
could spend a couple of years making really bad, pretentious films with
the security that nobody would ever see them, and hopefully by the time
you left you'd have gotten that out of your system. The film-school
projects which I've seen, or for which I've read scripts, testify at
least to the 'bad' and 'pretentious' parts of that argument...

Report this message

#83: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-20 17:26:27 by Paul Clarke

WQ wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;--- There I agree with you totally. Films were more fun to watch and
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;an experience in discovery back then when you knew practically nothing
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;about what you wanted to see. Ignorance truly was bliss. Now it's as
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or sees
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder why
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I hardly
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;do. It almost becomes more like seeing the film only to fill in the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gaps of what info you haven't come across or parts you haven't seen
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;rather than allowing yourself to be transported into it on an
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;unpredictable journey.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;So how do you square this with the fact that you've read the script?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;--- What's to square? I can look at things both ways, seperately and
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;independently of each other. I can recognize the script for what it is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and what it could be and might end being like on film just as I can
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;recognize what I used to derive from moviegoing and Bond films in
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;particular. There's no state of confusion for me: one is one and the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;other is the other.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Say *what*? You said &quot;Films were more fun to watch and an experience in
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;discovery back then when you knew practically nothing about what you
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;wanted to see.&quot; *You've read the frigging script.* How much more could
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;you possibly know about CR going in without having seen the actual film
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;before? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;--- I was concurring with what YOU said about watching films back then,
&gt;&gt;&gt;which is separate and independent of what I had to say about CR and
&gt;&gt;&gt;current films. The obtuseness, I'm afraid, is at your end.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Nope, I don't think so. You've got me totally confused. You said: &quot;Now
&gt;&gt;it's as if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or
&gt;&gt;sees on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder
&gt;&gt;why anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I
&gt;&gt;hardly do.&quot; Seems to me like you're saying that it's better to go to a
&gt;&gt;movie 'cold' and NOT knowing much about it. And in the same breath,
&gt;&gt;you're saying that you're fine with going into CR having read the entire
&gt;&gt;script. And now you're saying that there's no contradiction between
&gt;&gt;these two points.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Man, you should be a politician.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --- Ok, let me simplify this for you. Yes, it's better to see a movie
&gt; cold. Yes, I'm fine with seeing CR after reading the script. Where's
&gt; the contradiction? I'm agreeing to both because both are true,
&gt; separately and independently of each other. It's called being objective
&gt; enough to see things both ways. If there's any contradiction in that,
&gt; it's in the one you want to find where none exists for me.

Fine, you've just squared it, which is what I asked in the first place.

Basically, you'll be going into CR not under the best of conditions, the
better condition being going in cold. I hope it doesn't ruin the
experience; it's not something I would do. It can't help but colour your
viewing of the film.

Tip: your one paragraph response above is short and to the point and is
relatively understandable. Keep it up.

--
==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.”

Report this message

#84: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-20 17:38:50 by WQ

Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;--- There I agree with you totally. Films were more fun to watch and
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;an experience in discovery back then when you knew practically nothing
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;about what you wanted to see. Ignorance truly was bliss. Now it's as
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or sees
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder why
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I hardly
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;do. It almost becomes more like seeing the film only to fill in the
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gaps of what info you haven't come across or parts you haven't seen
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;rather than allowing yourself to be transported into it on an
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;unpredictable journey.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;So how do you square this with the fact that you've read the script?
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;--- What's to square? I can look at things both ways, seperately and
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;independently of each other. I can recognize the script for what it is
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and what it could be and might end being like on film just as I can
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;recognize what I used to derive from moviegoing and Bond films in
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;particular. There's no state of confusion for me: one is one and the
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;other is the other.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Say *what*? You said &quot;Films were more fun to watch and an experience in
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;discovery back then when you knew practically nothing about what you
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;wanted to see.&quot; *You've read the frigging script.* How much more could
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;you possibly know about CR going in without having seen the actual film
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;before? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;--- I was concurring with what YOU said about watching films back then,
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;which is separate and independent of what I had to say about CR and
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;current films. The obtuseness, I'm afraid, is at your end.
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;Nope, I don't think so. You've got me totally confused. You said: &quot;Now
&gt; &gt;&gt;it's as if you've seen the whole movie through all the info one reads or
&gt; &gt;&gt;sees on it as well as through the leaked clips and it makes me wonder
&gt; &gt;&gt;why anyone would even want to go see any movie at all these days. I
&gt; &gt;&gt;hardly do.&quot; Seems to me like you're saying that it's better to go to a
&gt; &gt;&gt;movie 'cold' and NOT knowing much about it. And in the same breath,
&gt; &gt;&gt;you're saying that you're fine with going into CR having read the entire
&gt; &gt;&gt;script. And now you're saying that there's no contradiction between
&gt; &gt;&gt;these two points.
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;Man, you should be a politician.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; --- Ok, let me simplify this for you. Yes, it's better to see a movie
&gt; &gt; cold. Yes, I'm fine with seeing CR after reading the script. Where's
&gt; &gt; the contradiction? I'm agreeing to both because both are true,
&gt; &gt; separately and independently of each other. It's called being objective
&gt; &gt; enough to see things both ways. If there's any contradiction in that,
&gt; &gt; it's in the one you want to find where none exists for me.
&gt;
&gt; Fine, you've just squared it, which is what I asked in the first place.
&gt;
&gt; Basically, you'll be going into CR not under the best of conditions, the
&gt; better condition being going in cold. I hope it doesn't ruin the
&gt; experience; it's not something I would do. It can't help but colour your
&gt; viewing of the film.
&gt;
&gt; Tip: your one paragraph response above is short and to the point and is
&gt; relatively understandable. Keep it up.

--- Well, when obtuseness fails, go for simplicity, right? The irony
is, between the last paragraph I wrote and the first &quot;dense&quot; one above
[What's to square?...], I essentially said the same thing in the same
number of lines in just about the same number of words.

&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; ==007===
&gt; &quot;My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
&gt; drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
&gt; That's as bad as putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.&quot;

Report this message

#85: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-20 21:24:35 by Paul Clarke

WQ wrote:
&gt; Paul Clarke wrote:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;--- What's to square? I can look at things both ways, seperately and
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;independently of each other. I can recognize the script for what it is
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and what it could be and might end being like on film just as I can
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;recognize what I used to derive from moviegoing and Bond films in
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;particular. There's no state of confusion for me: one is one and the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;other is the other.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;--- Ok, let me simplify this for you. Yes, it's better to see a movie
&gt;&gt;&gt;cold. Yes, I'm fine with seeing CR after reading the script. Where's
&gt;&gt;&gt;the contradiction? I'm agreeing to both because both are true,
&gt;&gt;&gt;separately and independently of each other. It's called being objective
&gt;&gt;&gt;enough to see things both ways. If there's any contradiction in that,
&gt;&gt;&gt;it's in the one you want to find where none exists for me.
&gt;&gt;
&gt; --- Well, when obtuseness fails, go for simplicity, right? The irony
&gt; is, between the last paragraph I wrote and the first &quot;dense&quot; one above
&gt; [What's to square?...], I essentially said the same thing in the same
&gt; number of lines in just about the same number of words.


Actually, no you didn't. Your second paragraph is better written. And a
writer should never go for obtuseness unless the goal is to deliberately
conceal or confuse. Simplicity, plain language is the way to go.

However, those two statements are *NOT* separate and independent. You
state that it's &quot;better to see a movie cold.&quot; CR is a movie, therefore
it's better to see CR cold. See how the two statements are related?

You may well be fine with seeing CR after having read the script, but at
least admit that your viewing of it will not be under ideal ('cold')
circumstances.

--
==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.”

Report this message

#86: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-20 22:11:07 by WQ

Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt; Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;--- What's to square? I can look at things both ways, seperately and
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;independently of each other. I can recognize the script for what it is
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and what it could be and might end being like on film just as I can
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;recognize what I used to derive from moviegoing and Bond films in
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;particular. There's no state of confusion for me: one is one and the
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;other is the other.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;--- Ok, let me simplify this for you. Yes, it's better to see a movie
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;cold. Yes, I'm fine with seeing CR after reading the script. Where's
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;the contradiction? I'm agreeing to both because both are true,
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;separately and independently of each other. It's called being objective
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;enough to see things both ways. If there's any contradiction in that,
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;it's in the one you want to find where none exists for me.
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt; --- Well, when obtuseness fails, go for simplicity, right? The irony
&gt; &gt; is, between the last paragraph I wrote and the first &quot;dense&quot; one above
&gt; &gt; [What's to square?...], I essentially said the same thing in the same
&gt; &gt; number of lines in just about the same number of words.
&gt;
&gt; Actually, no you didn't.

--- Ok, let's get picky now. I didn't what, say the same thing in the
same number of lines in just about the same number of words? I see 6
lines on my screen for each version, 70 words for the first, 71 for the
second. I also mention in each that I see it both ways, separately and
independently of each other, concerning watching movies cold and being
able to still watch CR uncold, so to speak. So all the basic elements
are there in each version. And so, yeah, I essentially said the same
thing in practically the same amount of lines and words..

&gt; Your second paragraph is better written. And a
&gt; writer should never go for obtuseness unless the goal is to deliberately
&gt; conceal or confuse. Simplicity, plain language is the way to go.

--- Well, yes, the second is better because it's more direct and blunt.
I think you should know by now that sometimes when one posts one might
get a little sloppy in one's grammatical structure, also often
resorting to a more freeform speech-like style of writing as opposed to
the Noble Prize for literature approach.

&gt; However, those two statements are *NOT* separate and independent. You
&gt; state that it's &quot;better to see a movie cold.&quot; CR is a movie, therefore
&gt; it's better to see CR cold. See how the two statements are related?

--- I'm saying it used to be better to see a movie cold, because it was
more possible to do so at that time. And yes, it'd still be better to
see it that way. But this being a different era, it's become harder to
see a movie cold. Nevertheless, knowing as much as I do about CR, it's
unlikely to stop me from still seeing it. I may not go through the
same journey of discovery process with the film as I would've cold,
because there will be very little of that for me now, but what
enjoyment or disappointment I'll ultimately derive from it will still
be there for me to look forward to - or not. That's how I view it
seperately and independently of each other - they're basically
individual different viewing experiences that work their effect on the
viewer in their own different ways, but ideally, I'd prefer the cold
approach.

&gt; You may well be fine with seeing CR after having read the script, but at
&gt; least admit that your viewing of it will not be under ideal ('cold')
&gt; circumstances.

--- Didn't I just say that? Or do I need to simplify again in the same
number of lines with the same number of words?

&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; ==007===
&gt; &quot;My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
&gt; drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
&gt; That's as bad as putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.&quot;

Report this message

#87: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-20 23:35:54 by Paul Clarke

WQ wrote:

&gt;&gt;You may well be fine with seeing CR after having read the script, but at
&gt;&gt;least admit that your viewing of it will not be under ideal ('cold')
&gt;&gt;circumstances.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; --- Didn't I just say that? Or do I need to simplify again in the same
&gt; number of lines with the same number of words?

Ah, now you're getting snarky my good fellow. Continue in the same vein
and I'll have a few choice simple words for you.

--
==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.”

Report this message

#88: Re: casino royale timeline

Posted on 2006-07-20 23:45:38 by WQ

Paul Clarke wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;You may well be fine with seeing CR after having read the script, but at
&gt; &gt;&gt;least admit that your viewing of it will not be under ideal ('cold')
&gt; &gt;&gt;circumstances.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; --- Didn't I just say that? Or do I need to simplify again in the same
&gt; &gt; number of lines with the same number of words?
&gt;
&gt; Ah, now you're getting snarky my good fellow. Continue in the same vein
&gt; and I'll have a few choice simple words for you.

--- Yeah, but I just might have to snap back and befuddle you with some
of my obtuse ones again. That'd be your fate worse than death itself.

&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; ==007===
&gt; &quot;My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
&gt; drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
&gt; That's as bad as putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.&quot;

Report this message