Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

So-So-7 [The 'Quantum of Solace' thread - includes Spoilers]

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by opaloka View Post
    Maybe Bond should change his name to Jimmy and drive a pickup truck with a great big nuclear missile on the back.
    Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.

    ~Henry David Thoreau


    • #17
      Originally posted by David Mosley View Post
      I think the idea was THE was more 'cinematic' than Baccarat. Don't know if that's the case but it's the sort of change I would expect a film-maker to make when adapting a work from one medium (literature) to another (cinema), so I can live with that.

      It struck me at the time that there were also a lot of poker tournaments on TV that year, at least in the US, it was a pretty big trend, celebrity poker on mainstream networks, etc.

      Am I wrong to include the card game as part of the XYZ that makes James Bond the character he is? Maybe in conjunction with all the other changes it was just a little much.


      • #18
        Originally posted by opaloka View Post
        Am I wrong to include the card game as part of the XYZ that makes James Bond the character he is? Maybe in conjunction with all the other changes it was just a little much.
        I'm a bit of a purist Bond fan normally, but my view about Casino Royale was that they got so much else right, against the odds to some extent (new Bond, and a controversial one, initially, along with the daunting task of adapting the only remaining Fleming novel, and his 'origin' story to boot), the choice of card game really didn't seem that important. As long as it leads to some good tense scenes between Bond and the villain, in a plush casino, preferably in some slightly exotic European watering hole, then I'm happy.


        • #19
          I liked Casino Royale a little better than Quantum. When I watch those two, though, I just don't feel like they 'fit in' with the other movies. They stick out a little more than the Dalton films, I think.


          • #20
            The Craig Bonds are essentially a 're-boot' of the series, a starting afresh, so they do - and should - stand outside of the Connery-Lazenby-Moore-Dalton-Brosnan Bonds where you were very much encouraged to see them as a continuous narrative even if it was patently infeasible to have the same character exist from 1960s to 2000s. I'd have preferred them to ditch Judi Dench as 'M' for Craig's movies and start with a complete tabula rasa cast wise but I think there was a lot of sentiment to have someone who could straddle both series.
            _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
            _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
            _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
            _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."


            • #21
              I didn't much care for the ST 'reboot' either, but in that case I don't know what else they could have done but reboot it - I just think the end result was moderately lame. I can see the point from the view of the companies and producers, they get to reboot and make a lot more product without the 'baggage' of the past, but I'm not sure it was necessary for 007 to reboot because it's not like he's got some detailed history.

              At least in the case of Bond I think the movies make the character less distinctive (arguably in the case of ST as well). I feel like the producers might have felt the Bond character type, being very British, might not play well in Bush's America and blunted him down. To me it makes the experience more or less the same as other action films, and frankly IMO the Bourne movies were better movies.

              To be honest, I understand Bond is pretty much an anachronism and it's hard to update the character (a little like Superman). Both of them seem a little out of place for some reason in modern movies - even though they were outlandish and bizarre to begin with, they lend themselves to camp even more than ever. If I felt the stories and scripts were better I might not have reacted so badly to the character changes, but I was bored about 2/3rds of the way through in both Craig's movies.