| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Chris C 
"Four words, never backwards."
|
 Posted - 12/13/2006 : 19:06:26
|
OK, just a few comments.
Brutal is a very good word to describe the new Bond - I did think of it, then forgot it. 
Downtown: Vesper Cocktail recipe
MguyX: Yes, I thought Dalton was better than Brosnan, who was waaay too smooth for his own good.
The debate on M: In the books, M was male. He is a member of at least one Gentlemans Club (Blade's), where he is announced as Sir M---- M-----. He also has a history of serving in the Navy. There is no way, given the times in which he lived, that Fleming could have written M as a woman.
Downtown (again): I have vague memories of Bond doing some kind of Oriental Languages degree, from reading the books, but I need to do some research. |
 |
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 12/13/2006 : 21:39:58
|
| He said in the film YOLT that he has a degree in Oriental Languages (of course they're all practically the same so you just study them all together, right?). I don't know if he said that in the book, having never read any of them. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 12/14/2006 : 08:12:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
He said in the film YOLT that he has a degree in Oriental Languages (of course they're all practically the same so you just study them all together, right?). I don't know if he said that in the book, having never read any of them.
According to Wikipedia, it is in the books
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond_(character) |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 11:27:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
As for CR -- so HAVE you revised your opinion of Daniel -- who, by the way, is decidedly dark-haired as Perry in Infamous!!!
Well, yes and no. Despite his blonde hair, he really is a very good 00 agent. I think it could be the steely blue eyes (which I noticed they took full advantage of) which does make him more attractive than I remember him from other movies. So, yes, he is sexy, in a pale and rough sort of way. I'm afraid, however, that when he dons the tux it just didn't make him look suave - in fact, it didn't suit him (pun intended) at all. I found him far sexier when he was dirty, messy or even clean and casually dressed. However, I'm willing to let the "Bond is the world's epotime of suave" bit go, partially - for now - since we are talking about a 00 newbie. For me to totally accept him as "Bond", he'll have to grow into suave (or at least learn how to look as good in a tux as he does with or without other clothes).
As an actor, I also think that he lacks the ability to portray sexual chemistry with his Bond Girl, on-screen. This could be me and my own disappointment that Vesper was a bit too weak and wimpy (thankfully, they stopped short of putting an "Oh, James" into the script). You see, with Sean, Pierce and Roger (also a few times with Timothy, but never with George), when they kissed the girl, and sometimes, when they looked at the girl just before the kiss, I got a little flutter in my stomach. It is the romantic in me, I guess. But I'm afraid Daniel didn't give that to me even once throughout this whole film.
Still, with that last line of the film, I was hooked. I'm anxious to see how Craig does in the next movie. Anxious - hell, I can hardly wait!
(And if they cut the next film to a normal length, even better.)
|
|
|
|
Airbolt 
"teil mann, teil maschine"
|
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 01:09:57
|
I was impressed with the Direction the franchise is taking.
Starting with the Titles - Nice! I like the different direction they took in terms of slightly kitsch 60's animation . A lot more impressive than some of the later Girly pastiches .
I liked Daniel Craig - he is slightly ugly , capable of Savagery , a loose cannon , rough at the edges and has to be persuaded into a Tux! Not quite Connery but he was a different Generation.
What makes this Bond an improvement on Connery is that Connery wouldnt have comforted Vesper in the shower but said " Dint be Shilly "
I liked that Eva Green was allowed to have a character and not instantly swept off her feet by Bond. This makes his commitment all the more worthwhile and the denoument more touching.
Plus I noticed that Judi Dench brought more to the Game as she had a real actor to spar with. Generally Bond films rent kind to actors - look what happened whan Tim Dalton tried to up the thesp level. Craig brings the level of competence needed up to a new high standard.
I hope they keep their nerve and keep it real. Obviously the Villains are hardcore and I wait to see what the next film tells . Obviously its not SMERSH ( too cold War ) so it is intriguing to see if the producers use a current villain ( andthere are surely plenty of those! )
All in all a solid innings for Commander Bond who keeps the franchise heading in the right direction . If only he could stop pimping for Ford! |
|
|
|
Airbolt
"teil mann, teil maschine"
|
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 01:15:05
|
ps Are we going to see the return of the trademark " Brutal Quip" (tm) in the next film ie " He got the point " . Us Brutal Quip fans are out there wanting more! .
Arnie nearly satisfies with his " Schtick around" in Predator but we want the real thing - nothing excels like a BBQ ( Bond Brutal Quip ).
 |
|
|
|
Airbolt
"teil mann, teil maschine"
|
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 01:23:01
|
| pps if that isnt Gene Hackman sitting next to Mads Mikkelson in one of the poker games , I would like to nominate the actot for a Hackman lookalike contest |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 11:15:26
|
OK, I finally saw this, so have just read this entire thread. In a word or two... bloody good! One of my favourite Bonds for sure. 
One complaint though. The construction site chase scene was inconsistent with the rest of the movie. By this I mean that when someone jumps 10m they're gonna break their leg. Bond and the guy he was chasing were behaving more like comic-book superheroes, not humans, i.e., like X-men or Spiderman. And then for the rest of the movie Bond was totally human, i.e., bleeds, feels pain etc. It's the first time I can remember thinking in a Bond film that Bond had superpowers and was invincible, as was his quarry.
Apart from that, damned good, and a refreshing change of path for the franchise.  |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 11:56:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
OK, I finally saw this, so have just read this entire thread. In a word or two... bloody good! One of my favourite Bonds for sure.
One complaint though. The construction site chase scene was inconsistent with the rest of the movie. By this I mean that when someone jumps 10m they're gonna break their leg. Bond and the guy he was chasing were behaving more like comic-book superheroes, not humans, i.e., like X-men or Spiderman. And then for the rest of the movie Bond was totally human, i.e., bleeds, feels pain etc. It's the first time I can remember thinking in a Bond film that Bond had superpowers and was invincible, as was his quarry.
Apart from that, damned good, and a refreshing change of path for the franchise.
Well, I found it to be too long and all that lovey-dovey stuff with Vesper was far too OTT for my taste. She got too "oh, James" like for my taste. Thank goodness she wasn't made stupid throughout the film, but the lovesick bits turned me off to her in the end. My favourite Bond Girl is still Michelle Yeoh.
I have to agree with you on that particular chase - which was also too long. Seemed very fake and as if they put the whole thing in so they could put it directly into the video game version. Both Bond and the guy he was chasing seemed to stick to walls and things as if they were game characters with spiderman abilities.
I was also a bit troubled by the guy walking away with the silver metal briefcase that had previously been submerged - did you notice that he and the case were both bone dry? No way that was realistic with all that water flooding around and spurting everywhere.
Yes, there were a good deal of good things about this movie, and a few things that just didn't work all that well.
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 15:16:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
One complaint though. The construction site chase scene was inconsistent with the rest of the movie. By this I mean that when someone jumps 10m they're gonna break their leg.
Guess it depends on the landing surface and the landing technique. Certainly regarding technique, the guy being chased demonstrated Parkour skills, so it figures he'd know how to tuck and roll. As would Bond... presuming he passed parachute training. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 23:55:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Well, I found it to be too long and all that lovey-dovey stuff with Vesper was far too OTT for my taste. She got too "oh, James" like for my taste. Thank goodness she wasn't made stupid throughout the film, but the lovesick bits turned me off to her in the end.
Yep, that was my second peeve in the movie. I don't think it was Eva's fault at all, she was simply given a few crap lines to read. The "If the only thing left of you was your smile and your little finger, you'd still be more of a man than anyone I've ever met." line caused general sarcastic laughter. In fact it's the worst line I've seen in a movie for a long time, dunno how that got past the first draft.  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 00:08:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
One complaint though. The construction site chase scene was inconsistent with the rest of the movie. By this I mean that when someone jumps 10m they're gonna break their leg.
Guess it depends on the landing surface and the landing technique. Certainly regarding technique, the guy being chased demonstrated Parkour skills, so it figures he'd know how to tuck and roll. As would Bond... presuming he passed parachute training.
As CL said, it just 'felt' wrong, and more like a scene from a superhero movie, or perhaps the monkeys in Burton's Planet of the Apes. I.e, that they weren't humans, but had extra superhuman powers. They were getting into the realm of Sci-Fi.
I've done parachute training too, and know how hard you hit the ground with a tuck-and-roll from 2m let alone from the fantastic (fantastically implausible) distances they were travelling through the air horizontally, let alone vertically.
But, I still gave it 8/10. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 02:43:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
As CL said, it just 'felt' wrong, and more like a scene from a superhero movie, or perhaps the monkeys in Burton's Planet of the Apes. I.e, that they weren't humans, but had extra superhuman powers. They were getting into the realm of Sci-Fi.
Maybe I've seen too many free running films or extreme sports events but it looked within the realms of do-able to me (not that I'd do it myself). Call me a sucker, but I was certainly sat there wondering if the stunt had been done for real, especially with the way it was shot.
It's things like Jason Statham knocking the bomb off the bottom of his car by jumping (whilst barrel-rolling) his car beneath a junk yard hook that makes me want to throw popcorn at the screen 
quote:
I've done parachute training too, and know how hard you hit the ground with a tuck-and-roll from 2m let alone from the fantastic (fantastically implausible) distances they were travelling through the air horizontally, let alone vertically.
Horizontal helps- as does anything that allows you to convert the downward force more readily into horizontal. The worst scenario is just plummetting purely vertically. And still there's the landing surface to consider.
Anyway, I'm just waffling now - no matter how much he's reinvented, Bond has always had the big stunts. I'd feel jipped if wow scenes like this weren't there and I'm just impressed they did it with such a pure stunt (i.e. no gadgets, cars, etc...)- just the sheer impressiveness of what the human body could potentially be pushed to do... in my opinion anyway |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 03:35:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Maybe I've seen too many free running films or extreme sports events but it looked within the realms of do-able to me (not that I'd do it myself). Call me a sucker, but I was certainly sat there wondering if the stunt had been done for real, especially with the way it was shot.
I sat there somewhat bored, (like in the dinosaur stampede scene in King Kong which also looked quite fake). It never occurred to me that there was even a remote possibility that it was real.quote:
...just the sheer impressiveness of what the human body could potentially be pushed to do... in my opinion anyway
I don't believe it was at all possible. OK, sure, a guy bailed out of a burning plane in WW2 from 18,000 feet with no parachute... and woke up 3 hours later and walked away. But I bet 99.999% of the time someone tries to copy this they'll die.
Anyway, I went hunting for stunt info and found this:-
And what about the free-running sequence that everyone seems to be talking about?
I have worked with free runners before, so my team went out to the Bahamas a month before we got there and blocked out a route where we could go. When we got there we zoned in on the big jumps, and that sort of thing has never been done before. Most of the time you'll see a single jump and then a cut, but we've done a 140 foot jump followed by a 120 foot and then a 100 foot, all in one shot.
Using wires I take it?
Yup, we use wires and a stunt double. It's a really dangerous stunt � because we were 140 feet up, and being next to the coast it was quite windy. So the cranes were moving the whole time. Even though we rehearsed it, it was constantly swaying so the distances were constantly changing. So if the stunt guy overshot it, he overshot it, but if he undershot, he could quite easily smash his face on the cable works. It was a very technical stunt, and there was lots of rigging and a helicopter shot, so everything had to be spot on. But yes, we did use wires, and CGI will be used to get rid of them, though it won't be taking over in this film. It's back to basics � stunt people doing real stunts.
(excerpt from here)
http://www.timeout.com/film/news/1529.html
Not surprised, as that's what it looked like to me. Shorter distances and steeper wires (or no wires) could have made it look real, and therefore better in my view. This is probably my favourite Bond flick, mostly as it did seem relatively plausible, with the exception of that scene. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 04:42:18
|
OK, I only saw this once, in the cinema, so can't say exactly why it didn't look real, other than I don't believe even a stuntman could or would jump that distance to a small roof, and even if he did, would do a serious injury.
But I think it was the trajectories. I'm just waffling here, but here goes:-
When someone (or something) jumps from one thing to another they will inevitably approximate a parabola. I.e., the horizontal component of their velocity will remain constant (ignoring wind resistance), and the vertical component will accelerate at 9.81m/s2. I think people would instinctively recognise a parabola even if they don't know the physics of it as this is "natural motion" and people see it all the time.
But, as soon as wire ropes are used in order to reduce the vertical component of the velocity (to avoid broken leg on impact) and to make sure he lands in the right place, it alters the parabola. I.e, it reduces the rate of vertical acceleration, and reduces the initial horizontal velocity needed. So, the stuntman falls at a steeper angle than reality suggests would be needed, and falls at a lower speed and rate of acceleration. Also, because it takes longer to fall (due to being slowed down by the wire), the stuntman has more time to move limbs etc than he would have if doing a free jump. So it doesn't look right.
I'm guessing it could be possible to make it look right, but would be pretty difficult. You'd need to have a wire strecthed out in a perfect parabola, which would need to be suspended from above by multiple attaching cables (probably at least 20) to hold it's parabolic form and avoid 'jerky' motion. But, you'd still have the issue of making a 4-second fall (on wires) look like it took 2 seconds. You could do this by speeding the film up later, but then any limb movement made by the stuntman would look wrong, not to mention the landing would inevitably look wrong as he actually landed a lot slower than he should have. I'm guessing the stunt coordinator would rip his hair out if he read this (after ripping mine out  ).
Or perhaps they could have some sort of cable setup that pulls him across and down attempting to emulate a parabola. (They might do it like this for all I know, but if they did they didn't nail it).
I'd say it's a damn-near impossible task to rig a stunt like a jump, slow it down, then speed it up and make it look real (not to mention expensive). Probably why these days they CGI them. And then have people whinging about how the stunts are CGI.... 
I guess I'm picky about stunts, as I don't find them entertaining at all, probably seen far too many and get bored easily. I mean how many "hero chasing bad guy" scenes have there been where he's jumping off things, being shot at, causing chaos through crowds, knocking things over and leaving stunned spectators? And, did anyone really expect Bond to fall off and die? Or not catch the bad guy? Etc. So when I watch one of these (even for the first time) all I'm interested in is finding aspects of it that they've screwed up.
BTW, people can fall a long way for a long time in extreme sports (ski jumps, mountain bike jumps etc) but the difference there is that they don't land on horizontal surfaces. If they did they'd be screwed. They land at acute angles to dramatically reduce the deceleration on landing. Bond's landings by comparison were on hard flat surfaces, hence the need for wires. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Casino Royale
