THE BORE

General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Powerslave on March 30, 2008, 02:40:49 AM

Title: Casino Royale
Post by: Powerslave on March 30, 2008, 02:40:49 AM: :bow :bow2
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CurseoftheGods on March 30, 2008, 02:44:50 AM: :rock
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Howard Alan Treesong on March 30, 2008, 03:10:48 AM: :bow (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51B6AZBDKQL._SS500_.jpg) :bow2
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Powerslave on March 30, 2008, 03:22:14 AM: ^ ::) :P

I didn't understand a couple of things from this movie, but I'm pondering whether I should just read it up on the internet or wait and watch it a second time in a while to see if I'll understand it then.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Vizzys on March 30, 2008, 03:23:50 AM: ask your questions
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Powerslave on March 30, 2008, 03:33:34 AM: I don't think I can even formulate one question because it all ties to eachother and I forgot some keyparts already.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Solo on March 30, 2008, 12:36:22 PM: Quote from: Powerslave on March 30, 2008, 02:40:49 AM
:bow :bow2

Hells yes. What questions do you have?
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: TakingBackSunday on March 30, 2008, 06:59:03 PM: My third favorite Bond flick :bow :bow

And yes, ask the questions. I remember having a fuckawesome thread about it like a year ago.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Phoenix Dark on March 30, 2008, 07:04:19 PM: I have a question: why does every Bond movie essentially work the exact same way. Bond goes on a mission, meets a woman of questionable background, has sex with her, realizes she's working for the baddie, STILL tries to have sex with her, etc
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Howard Alan Treesong on March 30, 2008, 07:05:09 PM: answer: because Bond is trite and formulaic teenage male wish fulfillment pablum
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Phoenix Dark on March 30, 2008, 07:08:35 PM: You just saved me $10 later this year. Thanks!
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: max_cool on March 30, 2008, 08:21:17 PM: Quote from: Synthesizer Patel on March 30, 2008, 07:05:09 PM
answer: because Bond is trite and formulaic teenage male wish fulfillment pablum

But it's still fucking awesome!
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Solo on March 30, 2008, 08:31:36 PM: Bitter tears!
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Solo on March 30, 2008, 08:36:58 PM: I was just joking. What was said is true for a good 15 or so of the movies, but whatever, its a winning formula. What amuses me though is that its mostly Bourne fans (apparently I am an anomoly in that I have the capacity to enjoy both without needing to rag on the other) who chime in with such remarks, when its perfectly clear that the Bourne franchise itself had fallen into formula by its third picture.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Phoenix Dark on March 30, 2008, 08:41:20 PM: The only formula in Bourne is one strictly of "win."
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: AdmiralViscen on March 30, 2008, 08:46:58 PM: I like both too.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Howard Alan Treesong on March 30, 2008, 10:07:41 PM: Casino Royale : movies :: GoldenEye 007 : games
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CurseoftheGods on March 30, 2008, 10:55:39 PM: Quote from: Synthesizer Patel on March 30, 2008, 10:07:41 PM
Casino Royale : movies :: GoldenEye 007 : games

Explain please.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Solo on March 30, 2008, 11:27:00 PM: Quote from: Synthesizer Patel on March 30, 2008, 10:07:41 PM
Casino Royale : movies :: GoldenEye 007 : games

Im not sure what analogy you are trying to draw here. Are you trying to call them both overrated? Thats the only possible connection I see. Otherwise, Goldeneye is a movie that is overrated due both to the game's effect on people and the nostalgia it holds for a large percentage of people due to it being their first Bond movie. Casino Royale never had a game, so people's opinions of it arent based off that, and its less than 2 years old so there is no nostalgia/rose tinted glasses attached to it. Ive always felt Goldeneye was mediocre at best. CR is mediocre for a few scenes max, at the absolute worst. At its best, its the best effort in the series in 30 years.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CajoleJuice on March 30, 2008, 11:28:28 PM: Do they have the SAT in Canada?
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Solo on March 30, 2008, 11:30:14 PM: We dont write tests. We just drink and make maple syrup. Which we then proceed to drink.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CajoleJuice on March 30, 2008, 11:32:30 PM: Well, then it's understandable why you didn't get the analogy.

Actually, you should've just stopped after two sentences.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CurseoftheGods on March 30, 2008, 11:37:44 PM: Quote from: CajoleJuice on March 30, 2008, 11:28:28 PM
Do they have the SAT in Canada?

I wrote it when I applied to the University of Washington, but no Canadian university requires for the admission process.

That was a pretty sketchy analogy, though.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CajoleJuice on March 30, 2008, 11:38:52 PM: I thought it was pretty goddamn obvious. Solo pretty much had it, except he started talking about the film Goldeneye. Casino Royale is an overrated movie. Goldeneye 007 is an overrated game. Done.

On the other hand, I could guess what Patel's opinion of Goldeneye is, which might have helped me. Some people would take the analogy to think that both are AWESOME.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CurseoftheGods on March 30, 2008, 11:40:55 PM: Nah.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CajoleJuice on March 30, 2008, 11:41:47 PM: I loved Goldeneye 007 back in the day, I'm just stating what Patel meant.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CurseoftheGods on March 30, 2008, 11:44:31 PM: Do you have anymore pics with teh sexy beard? :-*
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CajoleJuice on March 30, 2008, 11:44:56 PM: Not really, but I could take some. :)
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CurseoftheGods on March 30, 2008, 11:45:57 PM: :hyper

:hump
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Solo on March 30, 2008, 11:48:08 PM: Yeah, I guess I over-complicated it Juice, lolz. Anyways, whatever. This is kind of dumb anyways, as we've argued this pointless shit several times now. Last time it ended with someone posting some lame article of why Bourne is the best trilogy EVAR and how many technical Oscars Ultimatum won to CR's 0. Id rather not chase our tails to that same spot again. Besides, it'll just happen again after Quantum of Solace is released. Some will claim it the best thing ever even if its a turd, some will call it a steaming pile even if it rocks, and others will offer their reviews despite never actually watching it. Basically, the usual internet reactions.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CajoleJuice on March 30, 2008, 11:53:52 PM: Pretty much, Solo. Even I'm bored of bashing Casino Royale. :P

Curse, have you posted pics?
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CurseoftheGods on March 30, 2008, 11:56:34 PM: (http://photos-e.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v65/113/99/854505067/n854505067_176332_8818.jpg)
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: TakingBackSunday on March 30, 2008, 11:57:51 PM: To hell with it, all you fuckers should watch From Russia With Love and come back afterwards. It's the best fucking one, showing what the entire series could've been if it didn't fall into the post Goldfinger phase. The only true two movies in the franchise that deviate from the Goldfinger formula are On Her Majresty's Secret Service and Casino Royale.

Seriously, watch From Russia with Love.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CajoleJuice on March 30, 2008, 11:59:54 PM: Quote from: CurseoftheGods on March 30, 2008, 11:56:34 PM
(http://photos-e.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v65/113/99/854505067/n854505067_176332_8818.jpg)

:-*
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Solo on March 31, 2008, 12:00:55 AM: Quote from: BrandNew on March 30, 2008, 11:57:51 PM

Seriously, watch From Russia with Love.

And Thunderball and The Living Daylights. Those 3 along with CR and OHMSS are the only 5 I hold in high regard, despite my status as somewhat of a Bond "fanboy". I guess Im the odd fanboy who fully admits that 75% of the thing he loves ranges from mediocre to absolutely god awful.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Powerslave on March 31, 2008, 01:28:38 AM: Wow look at my thread all big and stuff 8)

Like I said earlier, I think I'm gonna re-watch it again sometime later this week so if I still don't understand a couple of things then, I will ask it.

To get back to the movie.... I haven't seen many Bond films in my life. A couple of Roger Moore ones from when I was a kid, and then Goldeneye. Never really liked the franchise because everything is always so predictable. And Pierce Brosnan was a shitty 007. He looked too friendly and was just basic Hollywood fodder. Daniel Craig interested me from the first time I saw him. He looked like a crazy and dangerous man. And this movie definitely proved that. What I loved the most about it was the style of it. Ultra violent and no problem with 'shocking' the audience. Guys get killed in a gruesome way. I'm really liking this and I hope this becomes the new trend for Hollywood, after this movie and Rambo. I just hope the era of cheesy blockbusters has come to an end and the time of explicit gore and realistic settings stepped in.

Daniel Craig is an awesome man and he's seriously intimidating. The poker scene where he looks his opponent in the eye for a while before he puts in all his money was so cool, the expression on his face was just badass.
Eva Green is hot, what a beautiful woman. I also liked the pun at a previous Bond movie when the bartender asked if he would like his Martini shaken or stirred, to which he replied to with "do I look like I give a damn?" :D

Daniel Craig for Bond forever.

Quote from: CurseoftheGods on March 30, 2008, 11:56:34 PM
(http://photos-e.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v65/113/99/854505067/n854505067_176332_8818.jpg)

is this really you?????
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Solo on March 31, 2008, 10:38:06 AM: Yeah mang, Craig is the best Bond since Connery, with Dalton a close third. Those 3 are leagues better than the other 3.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: AdmiralViscen on March 31, 2008, 10:40:50 AM: As a poker player I found the poker scenes pretty hard to sit through, especially on repeated viewings :-\

Hopefully the next Bond will be more rewatchable.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CajoleJuice on March 31, 2008, 05:03:19 PM: Quote from: AdmiralViscen on March 31, 2008, 10:40:50 AM
As a poker player I found the poker scenes pretty hard to sit through, especially on repeated viewings :-\

Yeah, they are truly awful.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Powerslave on March 31, 2008, 05:04:24 PM: Goddammit will I ever learn poker? :-\

It so intrigues me.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Tauntaun on March 31, 2008, 05:04:44 PM: Quote from: CurseoftheGods on March 30, 2008, 11:56:34 PM
(http://photos-e.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v65/113/99/854505067/n854505067_176332_8818.jpg)

You aren't one of those emo mexicans are you? :maf

spoiler (click to show/hide)
I'd lick your beard. :-*
[close]
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Mupepe on March 31, 2008, 05:10:27 PM: I only think that Bond should also be having sex with men. I mean, it's the 21st century and this supposedly immaculate and super macho man hasn't been with a man? Bullshit. It's obviously trite hetero propaganda
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Tauntaun on March 31, 2008, 05:16:00 PM: Quote from: Mupepe on March 31, 2008, 05:10:27 PM
I only think that Bond should also be having sex with men. I mean, it's the 21st century and this supposedly immaculate and super macho man hasn't been with a man? Bullshit. It's obviously trite hetero propaganda

Word, I mean the Greeks had young male sex dolls and THEY were manly men. They knew what women were good for, reproduction and cooking/cleaning. :punch
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Mupepe on March 31, 2008, 05:19:07 PM: Quote from: Tauntaun on March 31, 2008, 05:16:00 PM
Quote from: Mupepe on March 31, 2008, 05:10:27 PM
I only think that Bond should also be having sex with men. I mean, it's the 21st century and this supposedly immaculate and super macho man hasn't been with a man? Bullshit. It's obviously trite hetero propaganda

Word, I mean the Greeks had young male sex dolls and THEY were manly men. They knew what women were good for, reproduction and cooking/cleaning. :punch
(http://g.photos.cx/NAMBLA_concert-5a.gif)
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Tauntaun on March 31, 2008, 05:19:50 PM: :lol :wtf :lol
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Solo on March 31, 2008, 09:27:05 PM: Quote from: CajoleJuice on March 31, 2008, 05:03:19 PM
Quote from: AdmiralViscen on March 31, 2008, 10:40:50 AM
As a poker player I found the poker scenes pretty hard to sit through, especially on repeated viewings :-\

Yeah, they are truly awful.

I dont think the scenes themselves are bad - I actually think Campbell did a pretty good job of building suspense during them. What DID kill those scenes, however, was the distinguished mentally-challenged Texas Holdem For Dummies exposition that Mathis' character was saddled with. Do you really need to explain every little thing? Are viewers that dumb?
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CajoleJuice on March 31, 2008, 09:32:08 PM: Well, that's what I was thinking of when calling them awful. I also feel that last hand was just fucking preposterous. I don't remember it, but I just remember thinking "Wow, they really play up the 'You play your opponent' aspect of poker, but then he wins only because he has a disgustingly good hand while everyone else has strong hands too"
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Solo on March 31, 2008, 09:42:30 PM: Yeah, that was pretty farfetched too. What kept that stuff afloat for me were the scenes mixed in with the poker stuff - the staircase fight and the poisoning scene.

Will you be seeing QoS, Juice? I know you are only lukewarm on CR at best.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: CajoleJuice on March 31, 2008, 09:52:21 PM: I'm definitely seeing it. I liked to troll Casino Royale, but I did enjoy it quite a bit. No one can deny that Craig was awesome. I remember walking out fairly satisfied the first time, and it grew on me when I thought back to it. But my second viewing kinda spawned my trolling, as the dragging near the end got to me.

I'm assuming QoS won't get bogged down in a love story like CR, which means more room for awesomeness.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Solo on March 31, 2008, 10:38:42 PM: It should be awesome. All the elements are in place. Great casting, direct continuation of CR, same writers, solid director, etc. With that said, Bond as a franchise has this terrible trend of following up some of the best movies with some of the worst. So I am not allowing myself to get too pumped for it. A trailer will hopefully go a long way to easing my fears. Im sure principal photography has wrapped by this point, so Im shocked they havent even churned out a teaser yet.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: FancyFeast on March 31, 2008, 10:40:29 PM: Quote from: Mupepe on March 31, 2008, 05:19:07 PM
Quote from: Tauntaun on March 31, 2008, 05:16:00 PM
Quote from: Mupepe on March 31, 2008, 05:10:27 PM
I only think that Bond should also be having sex with men. I mean, it's the 21st century and this supposedly immaculate and super macho man hasn't been with a man? Bullshit. It's obviously trite hetero propaganda

Word, I mean the Greeks had young male sex dolls and THEY were manly men. They knew what women were good for, reproduction and cooking/cleaning. :punch
(http://g.photos.cx/NAMBLA_concert-5a.gif)

omg what the fuck was that?
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: Eric P on April 01, 2008, 12:20:23 AM: Quote from: Solo on March 31, 2008, 09:27:05 PM
Quote from: CajoleJuice on March 31, 2008, 05:03:19 PM
Quote from: AdmiralViscen on March 31, 2008, 10:40:50 AM
As a poker player I found the poker scenes pretty hard to sit through, especially on repeated viewings :-\

Yeah, they are truly awful.

I dont think the scenes themselves are bad - I actually think Campbell did a pretty good job of building suspense during them. What DID kill those scenes, however, was the distinguished mentally-challenged Texas Holdem For Dummies exposition that Mathis' character was saddled with. Do you really need to explain every little thing? Are viewers that dumb?

imagine if they'd stuck with the original game of baccarat. i gave up and skipped ahead in the book
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: AdmiralViscen on April 01, 2008, 01:37:28 AM: Quote from: Solo on March 31, 2008, 09:27:05 PM
Quote from: CajoleJuice on March 31, 2008, 05:03:19 PM
Quote from: AdmiralViscen on March 31, 2008, 10:40:50 AM
As a poker player I found the poker scenes pretty hard to sit through, especially on repeated viewings :-\

Yeah, they are truly awful.

I dont think the scenes themselves are bad - I actually think Campbell did a pretty good job of building suspense during them. What DID kill those scenes, however, was the distinguished mentally-challenged Texas Holdem For Dummies exposition that Mathis' character was saddled with. Do you really need to explain every little thing? Are viewers that dumb?

Mathis was dog shit especially, but so was the repeated attempt to build suspense by making everyone have a killer hand. Especially the big climax when like 4 people go all in, and one at at a time reveal increasingly awesome hands. ::)

Oh - and THE TELLLL was so fucking distinguished mentally-challenged. As if a good player would just buy that stupid shit hook line and sinker.

The whole premise was fucked without Mathis.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: TakingBackSunday on April 01, 2008, 08:57:59 AM: Well, the tell wasn't even a tell at all.
Title: Re: Casino Royale
Post by: AdmiralViscen on April 01, 2008, 11:39:40 AM: You mean in the context of the plot or in the mind of a person with intelligence? Because you're right in both ways, the latter of which annoyed me.