Author Topic: Solo, you going to any late night stores at midnight to pick up CASINO ROYALE? (Read 15192 times)

Vizzys · « **Reply #180 on:** March 20, 2007, 02:18:23 PM »

im pretty sure the guy he shot with the machine gun fired on them as he was dying

brawndolicious · « **Reply #181 on:** March 20, 2007, 02:20:01 PM »

I still don't get why the fuck you would make a rickety warehouse building float.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #182 on:** March 20, 2007, 06:05:33 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 20, 2007, 02:20:01 PM

I still don't get why the fuck you would make a rickety warehouse building float.

I don't know, you better take that up with the architects of Rome.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #183 on:** March 20, 2007, 06:10:01 PM »

I thought they were in venice?

Yeti · « **Reply #184 on:** March 21, 2007, 12:12:25 AM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 20, 2007, 02:20:01 PM

I still don't get why the fuck you would make a rickety warehouse building float.

You're just being silly now.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #185 on:** March 21, 2007, 01:19:05 AM »

It was a serious movie up til then and then a fucking building is sinking.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #186 on:** March 21, 2007, 06:48:32 AM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 21, 2007, 01:19:05 AM

It was a serious movie up til then and then a fucking building is sinking.

Let's just look at this now shall we?

Old building
Guns a-firin'
On water with bad supports
on fucking water
WAATER

What the shit is there to be confused about?

G The Resurrected · « **Reply #187 on:** March 21, 2007, 07:26:18 AM »

Obvliously nintenho just doesnt understand the building sinking. They removed the support pylons from the bed so they can replace the timbers with composite ones that dont fall apart. The house is temporarly supported by the air bladders. Then after the pylons are put back and the house is rested and connected to them. They then redo the home and it looks fantastic and new. The whole city has to replace thousands upon thousands of the pylons. Costing millions upon millions of dollars. Its crazy, but that house was not really sunk. Its all CGI and a huge set that moves on actuaters and has a tank for water.

I thought that scene was handled very well.

littlemathletics · « **Reply #188 on:** March 21, 2007, 07:43:29 AM »

I really thought the pacing went to shit after the car chase. Other than that, it was great.

Ichirou · « **Reply #189 on:** March 21, 2007, 08:14:49 PM »

Quote from: G on March 21, 2007, 07:26:18 AM

Obvliously nintenho just doesnt understand the building sinking. They removed the support pylons from the bed so they can replace the timbers with composite ones that dont fall apart. The house is temporarly supported by the air bladders. Then after the pylons are put back and the house is rested and connected to them. They then redo the home and it looks fantastic and new. The whole city has to replace thousands upon thousands of the pylons. Costing millions upon millions of dollars. Its crazy, but that house was not really sunk. Its all CGI and a huge set that moves on actuaters and has a tank for water.

I thought that scene was handled very well.

Someone needed to write this post. Thank you! Let's hope am nintenho understands.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #190 on:** March 21, 2007, 08:28:49 PM »

Okay, but how does a building sinking fit in with the movie? It's supposed to be serious. Not random.

Ichirou · « **Reply #191 on:** March 21, 2007, 08:55:13 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 21, 2007, 08:28:49 PM

Okay, but how does a building sinking fit in with the movie? It's supposed to be serious. Not random.

...it's an action movie. The building sinking is not random. The scene takes place in a building that's in the process of being rebuilt. In Venice. City of water.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #192 on:** March 21, 2007, 09:02:22 PM »

Oh, action movies have homoerotic zoolander stares now.

Want to see it again?

THIS IS SO AWESOME.

FEEL YOUR TESTOSTERONE PUMP.

IT'S LIKE FUCK.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

and well mother of fuck, not all of venice is water. Sure as fuck no MOTHERFUCKING WAREHOUSES.

[close]

Ichirou · « **Reply #193 on:** March 21, 2007, 09:24:02 PM »

I'm pretty sure all of Venice is built on water, dude. That includes homes, warehouses, etc.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #194 on:** March 21, 2007, 09:24:09 PM »

You're probably the most ignorant fucking person I've met in regards to CR.

"WHY ARE PLANES SPLODING?"
"Well, actually, the plane doesn't explode, Bond stops the g-"
"THEN WHAT POINT IS THERE? LET ME TRASH MORE BY POSTING A PICTURE OF A SCEEN WHERE BOND LOOKS SILLY 50 TIMES."

brawndolicious · « **Reply #195 on:** March 21, 2007, 10:50:42 PM »

You realize venice is a metropolis with only the historical buildings and restaraunts on water?

And pretty much any building is built a couple dozen feet away from edge of the street because the waves do a lot of damage over the centuries (that's the only part of venice I know of being rebuilt).

Yeti · « **Reply #196 on:** March 21, 2007, 11:34:56 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 21, 2007, 10:50:42 PM

You realize venice is a metropolis with only the historical buildings and restaraunts on water?

And pretty much any building is built a couple dozen feet away from edge of the street because the waves do a lot of damage over the centuries (that's the only part of venice I know of being rebuilt).

Because all the tourists would want to go visit those buildings that are NOT built on the water. Which is what Bond and Vesper are.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #197 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:02:48 AM »

The warehouse isn't on the water?

Yeti · « **Reply #198 on:** March 22, 2007, 02:52:10 AM »

What warehouse are you talking about? It was an abandoned building scheduled for renovation, which coincidentally would make a good place for villains to have a secret meeting, hence the reason they were there.

Solo · « **Reply #199 on:** March 22, 2007, 06:36:58 AM »

Nintendo, are you actually this distinguished mentally-challenged or just joking around?

littlemathletics · « **Reply #200 on:** March 22, 2007, 06:50:21 AM »

It's like he's a joke character for 75% of the time, but then sometimes he'll pull out an intelligent and productive comment.

Sadly, this is not one of those times.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #201 on:** March 22, 2007, 10:17:53 AM »

I said it didn't really feel like a bond movie or feel like a serious movie and you all said "No no I want to suck zoolander cock", to which I replied "why?".

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #202 on:** March 22, 2007, 03:51:48 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 22, 2007, 10:17:53 AM

I said it didn't really feel like a bond movie or feel like a serious movie and you all said "No no I want to suck zoolander cock", to which I replied "why?".

You don't even make SENSE anymore.

Cheebs · « **Reply #203 on:** March 22, 2007, 03:58:22 PM »

what does zoolander have to do with anything? Is he trying to say that Craig acted like a pretty boy and did that model face for the camera? Isn't Daniel Craig the OPPOSITE of that?

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #204 on:** March 22, 2007, 04:37:20 PM »

Quote from: Cheebs on March 22, 2007, 03:58:22 PM

what does zoolander have to do with anything? Is he trying to say that Craig acted like a pretty boy and did that model face for the camera? Isn't Daniel Craig the OPPOSITE of that?

Bu-bu-but WHY WAS A BUILDING ASSPLODIN

Catz · « **Reply #205 on:** March 22, 2007, 04:47:33 PM »

It wasn't a warehouse. It was a an abandoned house going through renovation in Venice. That's why there were industrial sized air-filled supports underneath to help keep it afloat. The building wasn't key to the plot, the location was just there to intestify the action.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #206 on:** March 22, 2007, 05:32:08 PM »

I don't see why you can't take a little criticism of the movie. Daniel Craig, Bond, anything is the opposite of zoolander so you have that look and you'll automatically annoy me and pretty much anbody else. The house was annoying to me because they could at least try something more interesting then a big abandoned building to blow up.

Cheebs · « **Reply #207 on:** March 22, 2007, 05:33:01 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 22, 2007, 05:32:08 PM

Daniel Craig, Bond, anything is the opposite of zoolander so you have that look and you'll automatically annoy me and pretty much anbody else.

I didn't understand a word of that sentence.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #208 on:** March 22, 2007, 05:33:17 PM »

It didn't even blow up. I don't think you watched the movie.

Cheebs · « **Reply #209 on:** March 22, 2007, 05:44:00 PM »

if it blew up they'd all be dead!

brawndolicious · « **Reply #210 on:** March 22, 2007, 05:50:39 PM »

Nothing about the movie was good. I highly doubt anybody here has watched it the whole way through in one sitting. How the fuck can you praise the movie?

Cheebs · « **Reply #211 on:** March 22, 2007, 05:55:02 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 22, 2007, 05:50:39 PM

I highly doubt anybody here has watched it the whole way through in one sitting.

Except all those people who saw it in theaters. That made it you know, the biggest Bond film at the box office of all time and was one of the top 5 highest grossing movies of year.

Or did all of them walk out the movie? The movie was a GIGANTIC success at the box office, extremely high reviewed(the highest reviewed mainstream movie of the year, period) and beloved by the public.

You can't see why it met all of these?

Bloodwake · « **Reply #212 on:** March 22, 2007, 05:57:10 PM »

I've sat through it several times.

It kicks ass.

You are wrong.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #213 on:** March 22, 2007, 06:05:40 PM »

Okay, and why is it good?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #214 on:** March 22, 2007, 06:06:48 PM »

You are all being trolled by the world's most incoherent poster.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #215 on:** March 22, 2007, 06:18:09 PM »

Actually when you go through my posts it's funny.

I never even gave a shit about the series.

I just don't get why there's fans of it (it's fucking Bond) and I at least expected half the thread to be criticism of it (I didn't read it because I knew I didn't share Willco's or Solo's opinion) so I threw out a funny picture. It's just a dumb summer movie to me.

Cheebs · « **Reply #216 on:** March 22, 2007, 06:27:24 PM »

Plus why would half the press be criticism? ALMOST NO ONE DISLIKED THE MOVIE. It had some of the best reviews of all movies this year.

How is Bond any different than other franchises with fans be it Star Wars or whatever? Why can't it have fans? (other than the fact its more of a "sexy" franchise in its perception)

brawndolicious · « **Reply #217 on:** March 22, 2007, 06:29:55 PM »

Star Wars is pretty crappy actually. Bond movies are repetitive and about the explosions, that's pretty obvious.

And I expected people in this thread to dislike this in comparison to other Bond movies.

Cheebs · « **Reply #218 on:** March 22, 2007, 06:34:09 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 22, 2007, 06:29:55 PM

And I expected people in this thread to dislike this in comparison to other Bond movies.

Based on what? Cookie cutter explosion filled Bond movies are rarely as well liked as the darker, serious stuff.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #219 on:** March 22, 2007, 06:35:30 PM »

Yeah but this one didn't have impressive story or action so I can't see why anybody would like it unless you have a hard-on for Bond in general.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #220 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:11:06 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 22, 2007, 06:35:30 PM

Yeah but this one didn't have impressive story or action so I can't see why anybody would like it unless you have a hard-on for Bond in general.

Do you even know what the true basis of Bond is about? Read fucking Casion Royale. Bond was NEVER supposed to be the Roger Moore-like type in the books, nor was he even portrayed that way in the first few Bond flicks. Connery in Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and partialy Goldfinger was always smooth and cool, but hardly EVER lame and cheesy–he was a badass. Those first few films are the CLOSEST to coming near the book's quality in the whole effing series, because Bond in the novels was a hardass as well. He was calm yet sort of an asshole, not some pansy ass clown like in the 70s Bond flicks. He has a very basic view on life (until

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Vesper's death

[close]

) and a pretty primitive nature wrapped up in an English gentlemen front.

That's why the Casino Royale movie is one of the best in the series. It's the closest we've gotten to Bond's original character with an actual believable story. None of that THERES A LASER ON THE MOOM BRB GONNA GO POOP ON IT crap.

And how can you say there was no impressive action in the film? The chase sequence with the black dude was one of the best effing actions sequences EVER.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #221 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:19:55 PM »

What's so impressive about a spy who takes himself seriously?

Cheebs · « **Reply #222 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:26:13 PM »

Because he is a FUCKING HITMAN FOR THE GOVERMENT, that is basically all he is at the time of CR. It's apparent you want the Batman & Robin of the James Bond franchise, not the Batman Begins. The public, the critics, and the fans all disagree yet you continue this odd odd argument.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #223 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:29:32 PM »

Batman is an orphan who dresses up in a costume and beats the shit out of random people, this is bond:

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Oh if you're that gay just go to the last page.

[close]

Cheebs · « **Reply #224 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:33:39 PM »

It seems that if a movie is a blockbuster you want it to be more "exciting" and less serious.

Why can't a mainstream blockbuster be serious and dramatic?

brawndolicious · « **Reply #225 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:35:49 PM »

There's no problem with that, I don't get why people here think it's a great movie.

Cheebs · « **Reply #226 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:36:33 PM »

you have said no reasons why it is bad other than its serious and a building sinks though.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #227 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:38:03 PM »

That it tries to be serious and it ties together the ending of it's failed effort with a building sinking.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #228 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:47:46 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 22, 2007, 07:38:03 PM

That it tries to be serious and it ties together the ending of it's failed effort with a building sinking.

I'm seriously contemplating pooping in your mouth, but it would be a waste considering you're already full of shit.

Here's what happens dick:

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Vesper was a double-agent. She was being blackmailed to be such. She needed the money to pay off the secret organization so she could have her old love back. Bond and Vesper were in Venice while traveling. She goes to the bank to get more funds, only really she went to deposit all of the winnings out of the bank to give it to Black-Patch dude, who's rendevous point is at an abandoned building somewhere on the outskirts of the main area in the city. Bond realizes what the shit is up and follows. He makes himself seen to Black-Patch, and then they shoot at Bond. Bond follows them in the building, and shoots the supports that make the building go fuck-shit insane. Vesper is put into an elevator shaft that is locked. Bond kills the baddies and tries to save her, but the building is collapsing, thus taking Vesper down with it. Bond calls M, "The bitch is dead," end of fucking movie.

[close]

How....HOW can you be so fucking confused over this shit? The building collapsing was just PART of the damn sequence that MADE Vesper die. They filmmakers weren't just like "oh yeah Vesper's a double-agent and she'll be going to give the guys the money, SO LETS BLOW UP A FUCKING BUILDING." Besides, the building COLLAPSED, but "blown-up."

brawndolicious · « **Reply #229 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:56:55 PM »

That's not a good story.

Cheebs · « **Reply #230 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:09:53 PM »

then blame fucking ian fleming the creator of bond for doing it, the story was damn close to the novel.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #231 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:16:37 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 22, 2007, 07:56:55 PM

That's not a good story.

Okay, what's a good story for YOU, hm?

brawndolicious · « **Reply #232 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:35:05 PM »

Ronin was in the same genre and it was infinitely better.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #233 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:39:02 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 22, 2007, 08:35:05 PM

Ronin was in the same genre and it was infinitely better.

...They're both action movies. There's like 200 actions flicks a YEAR. You seriously fail, stop posting in this thread.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #234 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:40:46 PM »

Ronin had a more interesting story with better plot twists.

Casino Royale had one line:

"bitch is dead"

and you 'gasmed all over it.

Cheebs · « **Reply #235 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:43:39 PM »

vesper being a bad guy wasn't a twist?
le chiffre only being a lowly person, not the main bad guy isn't a twist?

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #236 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:54:57 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on March 22, 2007, 08:40:46 PM

Ronin had a more interesting story with better plot twists.

Casino Royale had one line:

"bitch is dead"

and you 'gasmed all over it.

We like the line because it's a line taken STRAIGHT out of the novel, which hardly EVER happens.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #237 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:57:33 PM »

I said it had worse plot twists. None of the story was ever interesting to me. Only interesting part was a one-liner at the end.

Solo · « **Reply #238 on:** March 23, 2007, 07:40:59 AM »

I hereby suggest we instate a minimum IQ requirement for browsing the internet.

Cheebs · « **Reply #239 on:** March 23, 2007, 08:12:40 AM »

I still don't get why he brought up Zoolander so many times.

News:

Author Topic: Solo, you going to any late night stores at midnight to pick up CASINO ROYALE? (Read 15192 times)