Yeah, Bond music by numbers. Does seem to be the way it has to be now. Adele's for Skyfall was exactly the same and didn't she win an Oscar for it or something?
"Dull" is subjective, I thought it was very good, what really made it for me was Eva Green's Vesper Lynd, one of the few characters in the series I felt emotionally invested in. Of course it was no Moonraker, but few things are.Casino Royale was as dull as all hell. I can’t remember a single thing about it, which is a very bad sign — I can at least remember some kind of parkour scene in the execrable Quantum of Solace. If people are calling this the “best Bond since Casino Royale”, I can’t decide whether that is damning with faint praise or a straight-up warning.
What was its actual story? I can’t remember it at all. I also have no memory of any of its characters. Skyfall was much better albeit still rather dull.I thought it was very good, what really made it for me was Eva Green's Vesper Lynd. Of course it was no Moonraker, but few things are.
You actually want me to recount the story for you ? Sorry, I'm at work and I don't have that much time, there always is Wikipedia.What was its actual story? I can’t remember it at all. I also have no memory of any of its characters. Skyfall was much better albeit still rather dull.
Of the Craig ones I thought only Quantum of Solace was shite, my least favourite Bond film ever. Skyfall was good, Spectre was not as bad as it's made out to be.Of all the Craig ones Skyfall was the best for me. But Spectre and Casino Royale were also excellent. Quantum of Solace was even by their own admission below par, but that was owing to a rushed script because of the Union strike.
I’ve got tickets to No Time To Die tomorrow and glad the hear the reviews are all positive.
And bond got his bollocks stuck in a chairCasino Royale was the parkour one. And then a plane didn't get blown up, and then they played poker, and I quite liked that bit, and then they blew up a Venetian palace which was very silly.
The whole film sticks fairly close to the novel, it was the first Bond movie in decades to actually be an adaptation of one of the novels.Casino Royale has craig killing a man in a toilet by drowning him in the sink, that and him out of Hannibal.
Oh yeah the cock and ball torture scene, thats in the book too.
See, Reno ? That’s how it’s done.Casino Royale was the parkour one. And then a plane didn't get blown up, and then they played poker, and I quite liked that bit, and then they blew up a Venetian palace which was very silly.
And thatCasino Royale has craig killing a man in the toilets by drowning him in a sink, that and him out of Hannibal as his chief foe.
Oh yeah the cock and ball torture scene, thats in the book too.
I bet it’s about as much plot as the scriptwriters thought throughThat's not a plot !
The gambling scenes make for far better film than they do writing, just a very dull activity to describe in detail like fleming does.The whole film sticks fairly close to the novel, it was the first Bond movie in decades to actually be an adaptation of one of the novels.
The older I get, the more I appreciate lingering descriptions of food. At this point, I’m happy for my novels to be about 70% food-based.I seem to remember that the book dwells a lot on what Bond eats in the hotel, and the quality of his car. It's about 40% lifestyle porn for men.
Not the scriptwriters, Ian Fleming, it’s based on a novel, the first of the Bond novels.I bet it’s about as much plot as the scriptwriters thought through
I don't think Fleming wrote a parkour scene. Or one where Bond locates a bomber by triangulating his mobile phone location.Not the scriptwriters, Ian Fleming, it’s based on a novel, the first of the Bond novels.
Those are action scenes, the “plot“ which kabbes denies to exist, comes from the novel. While the film updates and adds to the book, overall it’s quite faithful to the novel.I don't think Fleming wrote a parkour scene. Or one where Bond locates a bomber by triangulating his mobile phone location.
You are referring to the things from the book-plot. Even if a film tries to be faithful to a book, it can’t possibly get into 2 hours everything from the book, so the scriptwriters have to decide which elements they are including and what they are missing out. And that’s before the time they also lose by putting in extra things.Those are action scenes, the “plot“ which kabbes denies to exist, comes from the novel. While the film updates and adds to the book, overall it’s quite faithful to the novel.
Thanks for explaining scriptwriting to me, I never would have guessed !You are referring to the things from the book-plot. Even if a film tries to be faithful to a book, it can’t possibly get into 2 hours everything from the book, so the scriptwriters have to decide which elements they are including and what they are missing out. And that’s before the time they also lose by putting in extra things.