|
Fangz posted:As I alluded to, I think the way to fix the ending of the game is to have it show subsequently that the dealer was a Quantum agent or in the pay of one all along, so that the entire game was a farce for which there was only going to be one outcome. Everyone on the table was too arrogant to realise they were being played. LeChiffre was dead from before he sat down at the table - his real job was to be bait for Bond, the CIA, and everyone else in the game. Actually, on second thought, keep the hand exactly how it is in the film, with the reveal that it was Bond who paid off the dealer: it keeps with the idea that Bond is getting a bit smarter, by refusing to leave the outcome to chance, but he's still got his hothead streak, he still needs to be a flashy bastard about it, so of course he's gotta win with the royal flush. Which he's punished for when Le Chiffre, math genius and poker expert, immediately twigs that the last hand is basically impossible, so he knows the dealer was in on it, and through [INSERT MORE SCRIPT HERE] uses this knowledge to set up his ambush for Bond.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
DStecks posted:The point is that Bond has to beat Le Chiffre by having the better hand, because that's the only way you can beat a person in Poker if they refuse to fold. So it has to be luck, in the end. If Bond knows he's got a great hand right from the start, that's acceptable because lucking into a great hand is half of Poker, if Bond gets the card he needs at the very last moment, that's dumb luck, and protagonists should never win by dumb luck. That's sloppy writing. In a cards sense, pushing all in, in position, can be a mathematically more sound move than calling someone else's all in. It's not really "dumb luck," it's aggressive play, and is kind of the only way you win long-form tournaments in the end - picking your chances to do soft bluffs (with outs) depending on position and relative blind/stack sizes. Character-wise, Bond should have been loose-aggressive and Le Chiffre would be loose-tight, matching both of their personalities as established early in the film. Bond going aggressive on the last hand and beating out Le Chiffre's conservative weakness and everything-goes-along-to-plan, and winning due to stupid Bond luck fits everything to a tee. The film doesn't just paint his recklessness as a character flaw, it paints that recklessness as an accepted character flaw that MI6 uses as a weapon, while cleaning up the messes in the background. Almost everything he does in the movie is him doing something wrong or illegal, but it getting results, and M (or others) letting him get away with it because it helps them a little further.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Rewatching from the beginning. Dr No. HONEY RIDER SIT ON MY FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Or even give a poo poo about the intricacies of the game and how accurate or not the portrayal of it in the film actually is? Like, I couldn't give any less of a gently caress about poker, and these discussions about how inaccurate/dumb/whatever are seriously the only thing more dull about Casino Royale than that loving poker scene. Bond and Le Chiffre have their confrontation at the poker game, Bond has a set-back but wins after getting an assist from Leiter. That's all I care about. I don't care about the tactics and strategies and blah blah blah about poker. Bond is better at movie poker, which is a game where you get a better hand if you're a better player.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Bond is better at movie poker, which is a game where you get a better hand if you're a better player. This is the answer that makes the most sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
We return to Maverick for why that explanation is bullshit. You can have good onscreen poker without ridiculous hands, and if a crazy hand does play, you make sure to mention it and how outlandish it is. "Magic!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
I prefer supernatural poker, where you bet your soul on the outcome. Like in Last Call or Jojo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:I prefer supernatural poker, where you bet your soul on the outcome. Like in Last Call or Jojo. Bond making LeChiffre have a heart attack via a ridiculous bluff would also be better than what we got. In fact, I'll just replace D'arby vs. Jotaro with every poker scene in the movie and make the whole movie better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Poker is not interesting. No film can make it interesting. I am glad Casino Royale did not even try to make it realistic. The people that were really into poker for a few years there have moved on to fantasy football. How is Bond's QB doing this season?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Poker is not interesting. No film can make it interesting. I am glad Casino Royale did not even try to make it realistic. Rounders is better than any Bond film
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
4 RING SHRIMP posted:Rounders is better than any Bond film At least 4 Bond films are better than Rounders: From Russia with Love, Casino Royale, Goldfinger, and Goldeneye.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Poker is not interesting. No film can make it interesting. I am glad Casino Royale did not even try to make it realistic. Anything can be made interesting by the right filmmaker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Judakel posted:At least 4 Bond films are better than Rounders: From Russia with Love, Casino Royale, Goldfinger, and Goldeneye. I agree with this list. And would add On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Otherwise, agreed 100%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Sorry, remind me but does Rounders have an exploding cake wedgie or a fight on a NASA moon landing sound stage??? I rest my case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Anything can be made interesting by the right filmmaker. What about homework/paperwork? Fight Club/Hot Fuzz
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Poker is not interesting. No film can make it interesting. I am glad Casino Royale did not even try to make it realistic. You can use poker to tell a larger story, just like you can an action sequence or anything else. The Goldfinger gin rummy (which is a less interesting game) sequence provides more character development than the entirety of the central poker sequence in Casino Royale. Also, the people that really played poker online a ton play live at real tables now or moved to other countries. Although I would love to see the central game of Casino Royale be about picking the wrong New England runningback or someone's quarterback getting hurt deciding the game. Darko fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Had a very Bond weekend  .First, I watched Die Another Day with some buddies over beers because it's been a while. You know what? It was great fun. There is no doubt in my mind that the movie is incredibly stupid (and there was generally not contest from my friends, too - that loving laser fight scene alone), but there's nothing like: Mook to Jinx: "Who sent you?" My buddy: "YOUR MOM HAHA" Jinx: "Your mom!" We lost our poo poo, god drat. There are even elements of something a little more...substantial in DAD at the start, as Bond has to question MI6's treatment of him and his own disposability, but that gets forgotten so quickly, it took them until Skyfall to pick up that rather obvious sub-theme. I guess they really didn't want to ask the "is Bond obsolete yet" question in 2002, but then why bring it up in the first place? What a weird loving movie. But they sword-fight like nobody's business! Did the totally not evil dude parachute to a random location to then drive off to his own knighting? Which he recieves after having officially existed for just about a year? For, uh, things? Who writes that nonsense? It's glorious. And without a trace of irony. We loved it. On a more somber note, I was then visiting my grandparents because my grandfather lately had a bout of bad luck with his health and I wanted to be there to lift his spirits. So I brought my Bond box set because we had often watched whatever Bond movie was on TV when I was still a child together. He wanted to see a newer Bond, so I chose Casino Royale. The DVD player was a piece of garbage so it was English only (we're German, if you remember), but he said it doesn't matter, he usually doesn't understand the plot anyway (half hearing, half not caring, I presume). So I explained the main points to him. After Bond healed his poisoning, we took a break, and the DVD player crapped out completely. He said it's fine, we could stop, he had been entertained enough, but I insisted we could watch the rest on my computer. I suspected he might want to go to bed regardless (it was getting late for how long he usually stays awake), but wouldn't you know it, he watched the entire movie with me! And he loved it. Casino Royale is just that good . What a great movie. I think I will buy him a Fury Road DVD (and hopefully the player works), because there is literally no plot to misunderstand if your hearing is bad!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Turns out Radiohead did record a theme song for Spectre. http://pitchfork.com/news/62666-rad...-theme-spectre/
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
Harry Palmer is a much better spy than James Bond and deserves a reboot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Harry Palmer is a much better spy than James Bond and deserves a reboot. The Ipcress File owns. Colonel Ross: Beef-A-Roni? Extraordinary. 
sean10mm fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Dec 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The Ipcress File owns.  But also Funeral in Berlin is my favorite spy movie ever because it's not relentlessly dumb (James Bond) or relentlessly bleak (John le Carré adaptations) and because it has sensible espionage plot, i.e., "Soviet guy wants to defect, go get him."
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Spectre felt really final, but last night it occurred to me that they could actually leverage that in the next one if they'd decide to actually make Many Bonds canon moving forward. Just say flat-out that CraigBond has retired, and LewisBond is some anonymous SAS guy who is now going to be known as "James Bond".
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:
Depending on your point of view the  ending of Ipcress can either be a pro or a con. It definitely reminds you that it was filmed in the 1960s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Spectre felt really final, but last night it occurred to me that they could actually leverage that in the next one if they'd decide to actually make Many Bonds canon moving forward. Just say flat-out that CraigBond has retired, and LewisBond is some anonymous SAS guy who is now going to be known as "James Bond". They've said a few times that they have no interest in doing the Many Bonds theory. James Bond is James Bond, one guy. Whether you want to invent your own head canon where this isn't the case is irrelevant. The filmmakers will not being doing it this way, barring some large shift in philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
I'd like them not to do it, since it's retarded on so many levels and retroactively makes the other movies feel stupider by a ridiculous factor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
iajanus posted:I'd like them not to do it, since it's retarded on so many levels and retroactively makes the other movies feel stupider by a ridiculous factor. Yeah the Many Bonds Theory never worked for me either because it just never really stood up, and once they made it clear the Daniel Craig Bond is named James Bond, then it would cast the other 5 Bonds in a very confusing light if they're all codenames, especially when this specific Bond we first see before he even gets his 00 Status. Personally I always thought that every James Bond exists in their own continuity, but inhabit a series of parallel timelines where there is always a James Bond, but the timeframe, appearance, personal demeanor (and so on) are different. So you wind up with things like the same Q across 5 James Bonds, the same M across multiple Bonds, etc., but the man and the timeframe and the conflicts are different (Cold War giving way to smaller, more asymmetrical conflicts, for example). It also explains the reuse of plot elements (space-based weaponry being a big one), or the re-use of gadgets (the Aston Martin from Goldfinger being in Skyfall, Q-Branch's basement full of gadgets from the other films, etc.). Granted if you try to spend too much time rectifying all the James Bond films existing together it's a futile effort, but taking each actor as their own separate (but similar) universe would at least explain some of the idiosyncrasies. EDIT: A good example of how this "works" is Tracy Bond. In OHMSS, she's married to George Lazenby Bond and killed by Telly Savalas Blofeld. In Diamonds are Forever, we open on Sean Connery Bond going after Charles Gray Blofeld (who is also ostensibly the Donald Pleasance Blofeld) in a very violent manner, and it's implied this is because of Tracy's murder but it's not specifically called out. In For Your Eyes Only, Roger Moore Bond leaves flowers at Tracy's grave and gets into a battle with "Blofeld" before the opening title sequence. In License to Kill it's hinted by Felix Lieter that the Timothy Dalton Bond was married at one point but something tragic happened, however no mention is made of the name of Bond's wife. As a result one could imply these four James Bonds were married. Two of them were definetely married to a woman named Tracy Bond, the other two might not have been. So, similar events, different times, different faces. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Or it doesn't matter and your there to see Bond murder dudes, and bang chicks while globe hopping in sick cars for 2 hours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
It's the same guy the whole way through other than Craig who's a reboot, except for Skyfall where he suddenly becomes the original Bond again. Simple.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Announcement came out today that Craig turned down a deal to do two more Bond movies, so sounds like we will have a new Bond actor coming up.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
The gig for Bond has to be frustrating for the lead actor for the simple fact that fans and press are always hypothetically re-casting the role while the present actor is in it, regardless of how successful the franchise is doing.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:
I really miss playing this game. It's like a proto Uncharted. Although I think it is one of the first if not only games that actually has enemies that stop shooting as long as you're engaged in melee with someone. Some of the levels were great with great setpieces while a lot of them were pretty lovely. The tank level was horribly boring but any of the missions with the motorcycle were amazing. The last level suffered from enemies spawning directly behind you to the point that you had to memorize enemy positions to do well. It also had coop which was pretty rare for the time. It also had quite a few stars if I remember correctly: Mya, Willem Dafoe, Shannon Elizabeth, Heidi Klum, which also kind of tells you how dated the game is now. I never did get to play the From Russia with Love game, but that really isn't a movie that I would imagine could be adapted into a video game very well. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 17:21 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I really miss playing this game. It's like a proto Uncharted. Although I think it is one of the first if not only games that actually has enemies that stop shooting as long as you're engaged in melee with someone. Some of the levels were great with great setpieces while a lot of them were pretty lovely. The tank level was horribly boring but any of the missions with the motorcycle were amazing. The last level suffered from enemies spawning directly behind you to the point that you had to memorize enemy positions to do well. It also had coop which was pretty rare for the time. It also had quite a few stars if I remember correctly: Mya, Willem Dafoe, Shannon Elizabeth, Heidi Klum, which also kind of tells you how dated the game is now. Everything or Nothing was sort of like the last Pierce Brosnan film, since it used every Bond actor for the appropriate film character and used motion captured celebrities instead of just having them voice acting.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Dead Snoopy posted:The gig for Bond has to be frustrating for the lead actor for the simple fact that fans and press are always hypothetically re-casting the role while the present actor is in it, regardless of how successful the franchise is doing. It also seems to be a major drag as an actor because you end up playing the same guy who barely changes and there's very little actual acting to be done. Craig has been given more opportunities to flesh out the character than most of the other Bonds, but not by much. Especially considering these are huge productions and they involve tons of travel and sitting on your rear end waiting for things to be ready to shoot, I imagine it gets old when you don't feel like you're actually doing any acting and there's not enough time off to get involved in other projects. I mean its far more money than Craig has ever made before or will again in his career, but he's worked on some very interesting films like Munich where he actually had to create a character. It makes sense that he'd want to get back to doing that at some point before his career is completely over.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It also seems to be a major drag as an actor because you end up playing the same guy who barely changes and there's very little actual acting to be done. Craig has been given more opportunities to flesh out the character than most of the other Bonds, but not by much. Especially considering these are huge productions and they involve tons of travel and sitting on your rear end waiting for things to be ready to shoot, I imagine it gets old when you don't feel like you're actually doing any acting and there's not enough time off to get involved in other projects. Play Bond for a few films and (unless you're living large) you'll have enough money to never have to worry about a paycheck ever again. Do it for the money and go back to whatever you want to do.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Play Bond for a few films and (unless you're living large) you'll have enough money to never have to worry about a paycheck ever again. Do it for the money and go back to whatever you want to do. Exactly, I can't think of what the motivation would be for Craig to sign on for two more movies considering he no longer needs the money. He can take whatever part he wants and probably get stuff greenlit based on his involvement alone.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Exactly, I can't think of what the motivation would be for Craig to sign on for two more movies considering he no longer needs the money. He can take whatever part he wants and probably get stuff greenlit based on his involvement alone. Yeah, the Bond films have made him one of the top British celebrities of the 21st century. The guy's got an incredible amount of clout and wealth, so at this point he can do every weird art project or period drama/romance he wants.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
It's pretty much what Daniel Radcliffe seems to be doing and he owns, so more power to actors jumping off before they get burnt out. At least if they're good enough with money to not actually need more later in life (see: Nicholas Cage).
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
They're getting a new bond I hope he does well
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
If we're getting a new Bond, I hope we get a new reboot as well, because I'm sick of the "Bond is a miserable burned-out gently caress who hates his job and his life/do we still need spies when we have computers?/MI6 has been destroyed" poo poo. Also, "Blofeld is Bond's foster brother" was loving idiotic, as was "Everything that happened in the previous three movies was according to my design! I personally jammed the lift door so Vesper would drown! I covered Fields in oil! I gave your old housekeeper a super-bright torch so Silva would see him and M from across the lake! Muahahahah!" Burn it all down (again).
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
Yeah, I enjoyed Spectre but for all that they bought a bit of joy and humour back to Bond they still didn't let Craig show a lick of emotion. And I'm not sure where the idea of Bond being a broken psychopath who can only kill even came from? Did they just see people joke about the old films' body counts and the fact all his girlfriends die, and decide to play that absolutely straight?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 21:33
|
|
