Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Casino Royale

Author
Message
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 11:17
Link
Just saw the new Bond movie tonight. It was pretty good, great movie to restart the series. Daniel Craig made a good Bond I think.
Movie started off with a good chase scene. I don't wanna give away any details yet before anyone else has had a chance to see it. But for anyone who's unsure whether to go watch it or not, it's worth it.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 11:29
Link
I've not seen it, but I've heard it does away with the light-hearted nature to some extent, and bond isn't quite as smooth. They kinda tone that down in favour of more violence and a more realistic gritty approach. Would you say that's accurate? I think it's time to update and renew the bond formula, so it'd work for me if that was the case.


Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 11:58
Link
I think it's a bit too gritty now. Bond was always about elaborate hollowed out volcano's, henchmen, evil masterminds, plots to take over the world... Really we'll see Bond change too much too quickly at this rate.

Frankly, if you want a different sort of Bond, watch a different movie - Bond should be a womanising smug git with a cool car and a ton of gadgets. What next, Guy Ritchie directing?, Hybrid cars?, Online gambling with Bond in his pants instead of in a casino?... This was the first Bond book apparantly, so Bond evolved into Mr.Smug womaniser, so where is the character going now?, looks like they'll be ignoring the books, they'll have to because Casino Royale is kinda unique, it's not like Bond got any more modern after it.

I think Bond is still reeling from the competition it had towards the end of Brosnan's stint, XXX, The Transporter, MI3 etc etc - All it needed was some fresh tottie and a new car, and they've went all Vin Diesel on us .

''Stick that in your text and scroll it!.''
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 12:14
Link
I see your point Vanster, but we are talking about an old old old formula. I dont know how many bond movies there are off the cuff, but there are loads, and there comes a time when you really need to change it up.

It depends how much you still like bond. I grew up on the old bond movies as most of us did and they were awesome. Now the old ones, for me at least, are rubbish. Not worthy of sitting throught he whole thing. The Brosnan ones are decent, but they're just another dose of mindless entertainment with unbelievable characters and no real sense of tension. I wouldnt describe them as spy thrillers anymore. There is little trill. It's mainly just spy adventure.

If the new formula can bring the thrill back into it, I'm all up for it. Normally I'd say don't rock the boat, but Bond is so old now and so tried and tested, that I think any change is worth a try, and I'm always for the more gritty approach.


Back to top
Profile PM
Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 13:58
Link
I really want to go and see this film. It does looks like its more like Bond from the original book, and lets face it, he was actually a bit nasty in that.
The character got a bit slimey in movies up until now. Waaaay too swarve and cocky so I welcome the change. I just hope they don't have anything as rediculous as an invisible car or a huge laser which destroys buildings but can't melt ice. What was that all about?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Peter H
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 14:02
Link
everybody knows what real world casino they used for casino royale right?



"One man, one lawnmower, plenty of angry groundhogs."
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Cash Curtis II
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Apr 2005
Location: Corpus Christi Texas
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 14:06
Link
I didn't really care for Brosnan as Bond. He was smooth, sure. But when he got into a fight I'd want to kick his ass myself. He's simply not convincing as an action star, to me anyway. He seems like more of a dramatic love story kind of guy. Nice suit, smooth style, no muscles.


Come see the WIP!
Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 14:19
Link
My fave Bond was Roger Moore, probably because of the time I grew up, but I really liked Jaws, what an awesome bad guy, and he even turned out good in the end - perfect. It's all very memorable for me, the new movies are just instantly forgetable trash in comparison to every Bond film made before the 90's.

I think the last Bond movie I looked forward to was View to a Kill, the commercial aspect in Brosnans Bond really annoyed me and put me off watching them, even though he was infinately better than that no-mark Timothy Dalton.

Damn I feel old.

Give us back the Bond who has gadgets that you can't go and buy from Curry's, the whole point was that he had stuff that you could never have. You'd never have his women, his gadgets, or his car - these days all we need is a few grand for a deposit on ANY of them . Maybe they think that making Bond more tangible will attract new viewers - no, there's better action movie stars out there, and better plot's too - get back in your niche this instant Bond!.

''Stick that in your text and scroll it!.''
Back to top
Profile PM Email
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 14:21
Link
Quote: "I don't wanna give away any details yet "


You don't have to. I think it's fair to assume he'll chase baddies, get chased by baddies, drive around fast while chasing/being chased, shoot, get shot at, and win.



Back to top
Profile PM Email
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 14:37
Link
Anyone seen the original Casino Royale? That was a bizare take on the original book by Woody Allen.

I'm definately looking forward to seeing this new Bond soon.
I had my reservations about Daniel Craig, but seen quite a few of the 'making of..' things now and since changed my opinion on how well he can play the role.

Certainly seems like they have gone back to basics though. That's what have irritated me about the newer bond films; don't get me wrong I liked Brosnen as Bond, but it was getting far too "fantasy" about everything.

If this film has brought things back down to earth, with a more realistic situation (which it appears to have done) this will certainly make it a worth-while watch.
I mean think about it Bond can't have suddenly appeared out of the academy as some suave and sofisiticated gentlemen killer.. the idea of him being rough around the edges, being faliable and not always winning every single fight he gets in certainly gives it more appeal.

Think about it, how annoying was it when you watch bond walk out of a building having it explode after fighting his way out with perfect hair, clean clothes, etc. not even a scratch.
To me that was a little irritating.

Although the main plot-line seems kinda weak (having to win a poker tournement to prevent funding of terrorists), the film on the whole seems to actually look quite good. Certainly plan to see it as soon as i have free time.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 512MB DDR2 667MHz, ATi Radeon X1900 XT 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista Business / XP Professional SP2
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 16:00
Link
Quote: "Think about it, how annoying was it when you watch bond walk out of a building having it explode after fighting his way out with perfect hair, clean clothes, etc. not even a scratch.
To me that was a little irritating."


No that was just Bond. Anyone who can ride a bicycle off a cliff, catch up to a falling airplane then fly it away deserves perfect hair. The only thing that ever got me in any of the movies was the ejection seat in the helicopter (think it was goldeneye) it blew out straight up, what kind of moronic enginerring is that? "I'll eject to safety!" (PULL) choppa choppa choppa.

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
ESP
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2006
Location: London, England, U.K.
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 16:12
Link
Hi Hobgoblin Lord,

I thought the e-seat was used to dispose of nasty people. Putting them through a blender sounds cool

Robin
Back to top
Profile PM
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 16:51
Link
Quote: "The only thing that ever got me in any of the movies was the ejection seat in the helicopter (think it was goldeneye) it blew out straight up, what kind of moronic enginerring is that? "I'll eject to safety!" (PULL) choppa choppa choppa."


Yeah it was Goldeneye.. it's the only bond film i have on DVD (sitting above me atm) one of my favourites.

Ejector "Seats" in Helicopters, like the EF2K, Comanche or Apache basically eject the entire cockpit compartment; as this happens the blades are also 'ejected' to prevent them from slicing up the cockpit as it blasts upwards. Early versions of the Apache had a system that was timed to shoot it upward in-between the blades much like machine guns on older rotary planes. It only took a single fatality from this system for Boeing to redesign it.

The Comanche used to shoot the cockpit out to the side first, but again there was a number of fatalities with this causing a redesign to the current system.

It's only military attack helicopters that have this feature, as the majority of them are simply not designed in a way to provide it. You get shot up in a Blackhawk, your basically ****ed. ^_^

Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 512MB DDR2 667MHz, ATi Radeon X1900 XT 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista Business / XP Professional SP2
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 17:05 Edited at: 17th Nov 2006 17:09
Link
Quote: "Early versions of the Apache had a system that was timed to shoot it upward in-between the blades much like machine guns on older rotary planes. It only took a single fatality from this system for Boeing to redesign it."

I would like to see proof of this. I for one know that such speed needed to clear the space would most probably kill the person. Actually, some interesting history on ejector seats can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejector_seat#Ejection_seats_in_other_aircraft

Tempest - P2P UDP Multiplayer Plugin (DBP/DBCe)
Download the free version
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 18:20
Link
Quote: "Ejector "Seats" in Helicopters, like the EF2K, Comanche or Apache basically eject the entire cockpit compartment; as this happens the blades are also 'ejected' to prevent them from slicing up the cockpit as it blasts upwards. Early versions of the Apache had a system that was timed to shoot it upward in-between the blades much like machine guns on older rotary planes. It only took a single fatality from this system for Boeing to redesign it."


Sure ejecting the whole cockpit and the rotors makes sense, if i remember correctly in goldeneye a hatch opened above them and their seats were ejected

As for ejecting through the blades I agree its unlikely and the charge needed to propel someone at that speed would likely kill them before the speed did.

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Cash Curtis II
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Apr 2005
Location: Corpus Christi Texas
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 19:18
Link
Quote: "Early versions of the Apache had a system that was timed to shoot it upward in-between the blades much like machine guns on older rotary planes. It only took a single fatality from this system for Boeing to redesign it."

Raven, I can find no evidence of this. It would seem that the only thing the Apache ejects is spent cartridges. Can you support this, and your other claims?


Come see the WIP!
Back to top
Profile PM
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 19:38
Link
Wow, I'm about to agree with Raven On the History Channel, I saw a special where they talked about that system. I don't think it's on all Apache's though, only this one specific version that has this big orb-thing over the main rotor (I can't remember what they called the thing). I guess the orb-thing makes it slower and easier to hit or something, so it shoots the blades off from the chopper, then ejects the cockpit. The upcoming Commanche is also going to do this, according to that special on the history channel. I don't know if they did this on every model, or if it's just on this specific model, but it didn't hint towards every chopper being capable of it, just this one model of the Apache and the commanches do it too.

Anyway... I'm sort of angry about this movie, but a "I haven't seen it yet" angry. "Casino Royale" and "You Only Live Twice" were the best works by Ian Fleming, imo anyway, and I was always hoping they'd never make Casino Royale in fear they'd slaughter it. It would mess up the bond timeline, which has already happened anyway so I don't know why I care

Stupid trivia: Did you guys know that the screenplay for "You only live twice" was written by Roald Dahl, author of the children's stories "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "James and the Giant Peach?" Someday, one of you will be on a gameshow, that question will come up, and now you'll know


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 21:37
Link
Quote: " I guess the orb-thing makes it slower and easier to hit or something, so it shoots the blades off from the chopper, then ejects the cockpit. "


Actually matt we are talking about the ejecting someone through the spinning blades with insane timing claim.

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 23:22
Link
The original Casino Royale I believe wasn't really part of the series and done by a different production as more of a spoof about Bond. Unless I'm thinking about something else.

From what I understand, this wasn't intended as a remake but a fresh start.

Quote: "They kinda tone that down in favour of more violence and a more realistic gritty approach. Would you say that's accurate?"


Yea, I'd say so. This is suppose to be his first mission as 007, so his character doesn't act like he knows everything all the time and does lose the upper hand on occasion. I like the grittier Bond. Connery wasn't exactly the most suave gent either, though definately more womanizing. Btw, the new movie takes place in present time, not in the 60's.


Quote: " I dont know how many bond movies there are "

There's 21 if you count "Die Another Day". I have a box collection that includes the first 20 movies.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 17th Nov 2006 23:39 Edited at: 17th Nov 2006 23:41
Link
The original Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again were not released by united so are not part of their official series they both stemmed from rights that were sold by flemming to other people. Tecnically you could say that there are 2 more bond films just not under the united banner.

Of course you could add "Operation Kid Brother" with Neil Connery as James younger Brother

http://www.cafepress.com/blackarrowgames
Check out my great stuff here
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-17 21:59:42
Your offset time is: 2024-11-17 21:59:42