New James Bond = Daniel Craig.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (625 of them)
"YooooOOOOOuuuu KNOW my NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME..."

Hm, I can hear that.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 23 November 2006 14:27 (nineteen years ago)

also of note: the rocky trailer got lots of roffles.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 23 November 2006 18:53 (nineteen years ago)

how could it not?

Marmot (marmotwolof), Thursday, 23 November 2006 19:03 (nineteen years ago)

good question. but i don't think that was what the filmmakers were hoping for.

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 23 November 2006 19:06 (nineteen years ago)

Oh god, I had successfully forgotten about that until now. Thanks!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 23 November 2006 20:44 (nineteen years ago)

Stallone looked like a pickled pig's foot.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Thursday, 23 November 2006 21:15 (nineteen years ago)

Chiwetel Ejiofor as Bond!

gear (gear), Thursday, 23 November 2006 22:54 (nineteen years ago)

Chiwetel Ejiofor as Bond!

gear (gear), Thursday, 23 November 2006 22:54 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I was gunna say, Colin Salmon is pretty much the first guy comes to mind as a black Bond...

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 23 November 2006 23:01 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I was gunna say, Colin Salmon is pretty much the first guy comes to mind as a black Bond...

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 23 November 2006 23:02 (nineteen years ago)

Chiwetel Ejiofor as Bond!

Duuuuuude.

Russian girl from The Good Thief as Bond Girl.
Directed by Doug Liman.

I'm there.

milo z (mlp), Friday, 24 November 2006 01:30 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...
Finally got round to seeingt this. thank you Orange 2 4 1.

Supoib. Absolutely nothing to complain about apart from the titles which I thought were a bit Catch Me if You Can silliness rather than Maurice Binder's dancing girl glamour. I assume they decided dancing girls to be too tacky for the new Bond. Fair enuff.

Some wonderful scenes and Vesper ispossibly the most beautiful Bond girl ever, as well as the most convincing relationship. is it the first time Bond has ever said "I love you"?

The action was wicked and did not miss the silly explosions at all. Long but not too long. I wanna see it again already.

uptoeleven (uptoeleven), Friday, 5 January 2007 20:16 (nineteen years ago)

I've seen it twice. Gonna read the book now, I've only read From Russia and Dr. No before.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Friday, 5 January 2007 20:56 (nineteen years ago)

Wow, ilx has actually been down since before I saw this. Anyway, it's terrific and I'm now entirely less certain that Bauer could take Bond.

chap (chap), Friday, 5 January 2007 21:59 (nineteen years ago)

Read the book over the weekend. Fun. Economical. Lots of recurring descriptive stuff, everything is "ironical", "incurious" or "distrait". Over the top misogyny, of course. I'll just quote this bit:

"And now he knew that she was profoundly, excitingly sensual, but that the conquest of her body, because of the central privacy in her, would each time have the sweet tang of rape."

lol Ian Fleming wtf

Marmot (marmotwolof), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 01:39 (nineteen years ago)

the sweet tang of rape

yes

‘•’u (gear), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 01:44 (nineteen years ago)

Yup, sounds like him.

Movie has now made around the same amount worldwide as Die Another Day, which was a huge hit = odds are very unlikely they'll ease back on the style and approach in this one for the next film. Good thing too.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 01:46 (nineteen years ago)

I was surprised to find out exactly how much stuff they added to the movie. They could have done a straight adaptation of the book in about 90 minutes. The book starts in Casino Royale, with a quick two chapter flashback of the mission breifing, and the post-torture recovery stuff goes down just with Vesper gobbling a bunch of pills because she was a double agent without getting into any big action sequence over it.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 01:59 (nineteen years ago)

Yup. It was actually a fairly good stitch-job, actually.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 02:00 (nineteen years ago)

actually it must have been or I wouldn't have actually seen it twice, actually

Marmot (marmotwolof), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 02:03 (nineteen years ago)

Hahahah, good catch.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 02:04 (nineteen years ago)

Nah, I agree. I'm trying to think of another book to movie adaption that added more than it took away and whether or not it worked.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 02:05 (nineteen years ago)

Blade Runner

Marmot (marmotwolof), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 02:11 (nineteen years ago)

well, that took a lot out. hmm...

Marmot (marmotwolof), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 02:12 (nineteen years ago)

It was so great when Bond went all hey kool aid through a wall

A B C (sparklecock), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 02:49 (nineteen years ago)

they could have cut all the mushy stuff.

the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 09:14 (nineteen years ago)

I'm on Joe Haldeman's(sci-fi author, most notably _Forever War_) listserv, and this was his take on movie vs book:
Finished _Casino Royale_ and found it was fascinating to compare the movie with the book; what they say about popular culture changing -- but more than that, instructive about the differences in storytelling in the two mediums. The torture scene in the movie is straight from the book (and could not have been filmed at the time), but many plot points were shifted or expressed metaphorically, and two important characters were profoundly changed, but not without regard to the integrity of the story.

A case in point is the basic plot turn, a casino card game. In the book it's baccarat, unfamiliar to most readers and thus explained fairly meticulously. Rather than slow down the movie, they used tournament-style Texas Hold-'em, and explained nothing.

The difference in believability is profound. A large amount of money has to be bet and lost, so in the poker game it's done with a combination of bluffing and absolutely unbelievable luck -- you'd have to play for years, a lifetime, for those hands to come up.

But the only way to win a huge pile in baccarat is to bet a huge pile and wait for the cards to fall. It changes the psychology in an important way, because nobody can bluff. I think the technical term is "balls to the wall."

Of course the role of coincidence is different in movies. Impossible poker hands in a book make me put the book away. But movies treat reality differently: that guy _does_ have a royal flush. I can see it.

I think the book's story is better. The characters have to be viewed with a bit of a filter, allowing for the half century that's passed. Women are primarily sexual commodities to Bond and the Soviets are out to conquer the world, preferably with evil tools. But after almost being tortured to death by a monster, Bond has an extended epiphany where he realizes that he is no less monstrous -- that his "license to kill" is permission to perform psychotic acts for God and Crown. The earlier Bond movies had a touch of that, and so does this latest, but the middle ones feature a denatured hero with a killing smirk...

I like the bit about the cards.

kingfish prætor (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 15 January 2007 21:10 (nineteen years ago)

I just saw this movie on Saturday. It was fucking out of control. I loved it. (The torture scene was a little YEOUCH though.)

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 15 January 2007 21:25 (nineteen years ago)

I want to see this again just for the opening chase.

Jordan (Jordan), Monday, 15 January 2007 21:31 (nineteen years ago)

they used tournament-style Texas Hold-'em, and explained nothing

Actually, one of the worse bits of the movie was that guy explaining all the hands to Vespa just to clue in the noobs in the audience.

God Bows to Meth (noodle vague), Monday, 15 January 2007 21:33 (nineteen years ago)

VESPER

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 15 January 2007 21:34 (nineteen years ago)

I know, Dan. It was a scooter joke.

God Bows to Meth (noodle vague), Monday, 15 January 2007 21:35 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.iweb.cz/~vecer/fotky/spac/vesdot2u.jpg

Jordan (Jordan), Monday, 15 January 2007 21:35 (nineteen years ago)

"Actually, one of the worse bits of the movie was that guy explaining all the hands to Vespa just to clue in the noobs in the audience."

As a n00b, I aappreciated that part, although in storytelling terms it was dead as a canned sardine.

Candy: tastes like chicken, if chicken was a candy. (Austin, Still), Monday, 15 January 2007 21:36 (nineteen years ago)

lolz

Daniel Craig was EASILY the menacing Bond on film to date.

The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 15 January 2007 21:37 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

Yeah, I just thought it could've been written better. It's a really good film, but the length of it made me a bit nitpicky at times.

Craig is undoubtedly best Bond evah. Fleming would've approved.

God Bows to Meth (noodle vague), Monday, 15 January 2007 21:38 (nineteen years ago)

(Except he'd have wanted him to be a bit more rapey or something.)

God Bows to Meth (noodle vague), Monday, 15 January 2007 21:39 (nineteen years ago)

sweet tang of rape

ewww

latebloomer aka freedom williams sr (latebloomer), Monday, 15 January 2007 22:00 (nineteen years ago)

rape of sweet tang

latebloomer aka freedom williams sr (latebloomer), Monday, 15 January 2007 22:01 (nineteen years ago)

sweet grape tang

latebloomer aka freedom williams sr (latebloomer), Monday, 15 January 2007 22:02 (nineteen years ago)

Daniel Craig was EASILY the menacing Bond on film to date.

I like how he seduced horse woman by just staring at her in an intense, neanderthal manner.

chap (chap), Monday, 15 January 2007 22:57 (nineteen years ago)

At least he ordered her some caviar before ditching her and leaving her to certain death. Now that's class.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 02:14 (nineteen years ago)

I have to tell this story here...

Right after they announced that Craig was to be the new Bond, I rented "Layer Cake" and watched it twice in a row, back to back. Loved it. I then went out and bought the first two books - Casino Royale and Live and Let Die. Upon finishing Casino Royale at the office on a SLOW day of work, I walked home, and found myself (as often happend around that time) in a bar where I knew the bartenders quite well. I propositioned them to make me the Vesper, which they did. And then followed it by three more. Add on top of that a rather enourmous dinner, and I was feeling absolutely no pain whatsoever. I walked home. After a botched attempt to speak to a lost Moroccan in French, I made my way up my street to my apartment and sit down on the couch to begin reading "Live and Let Die." I made it about two pages in, and pass out with the book in my lap. About an hour later, or so I'm told, my brother and his girlfriend-at-the-time come home (he was staying with me then). I carried on a lucid, but drunk conversation with them as the dropped off some stuff and got ready to go out. As they were leaving, I whispered to my brother "You hhhaaaaffff to khilll hhherrrr....Ssssheesh an enemy agshent..."

Translation: " You have to kill her. She's an enemy agent. "

I no longer drink martinis.

B.L.A.M. (Big Loud Mountain Ape), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 03:49 (nineteen years ago)

But do you look like Daniel Craig?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 03:50 (nineteen years ago)

hahahaha awesome. x-post

btw, I picked up a huge stack of Fleming at a used book shop for about $26 the other day, including a $6 hardcover with Live and Let Die, Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever.

The other paperbacks are: For Your Eyes Only, Thunderball, The Spy Who Loved Me, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Octopussy, another copy of Casino Royale for a friend who saw the movie with me but hasn't read it, and some weird 1965 Bond overview called 007 James Bond: A Report by O.F. Snelling.

Also scored a hardcover first edition of John Le Carre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy for $4.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 04:18 (nineteen years ago)

i did think this was one of the best bond films, but i'm torn as to whether it needed more plausibility or less.

the whole mission -- win money off terrorist banker -- doesn't make sense. why not just kill the banker and seize his assets?

which is fine only they try to give bond human emotions and stuff. i like that bond rescues le chiffre from the african guys.

the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 09:19 (nineteen years ago)

They don't kill the banker because they want him to narc on his customers.

31g (31g), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 09:23 (nineteen years ago)

oh yeah. still could they not just put him in a plane and get some friendly dictatorship to torture the info out of him a la the real world?

the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 09:26 (nineteen years ago)

Le Chiffre doesn't seem like the kind of guy who makes his assets very seizable.

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:47 (nineteen years ago)

yeah you're right, sending one of your guys to win it from him in a game of texas holdem was the only way.

the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:49 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.