Casino Royale: Cut for 12A

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:40

How can he agree WHEN HE HAST SEEN THE FILM! OR DVD!

He sees what he is told, not what he wants.

as I said

I watch what I want to watch, unlike you who watches what your told to by the media and people on forums.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:49

Er, now he has gone to see the film he says he agrees with the other person's opinion of the film. The problem is

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:51

Like I care anymore.

I watch what I want to watch, unlike you who watches what your told to by the media and people on forums.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:54

Why are you repeating your post? The whole point of reading reviews/opinions as Brad said is to find if the film appeals to you, whether its any good, and do you want to see it?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:57

Make your own mind up, not by seeing something got "Bad Marks and comments" and then saying off it must be crap then

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 19 Nov 2006, 17:14

I went to see The Da Vinci Code, despite bad reviews and made my own mind up thanks

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Nov 2006, 17:27

Yup good for you, you used your own mind

unlike so many others who just read the Shit about it and stayed away. Many loved the film. I didnt, but thats not the point.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 19 Nov 2006, 17:43

Thought the book was better though

Sorry Brad for going OT

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 19 Nov 2006, 17:58

I liked The Da Vinci Code!

And rather than the Dr. Who analogy, I'd go for Batman Begins, personally

but yeah I got what you were saying.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 19 Nov 2006, 18:02

Thought Da Vinci was OK but not great.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Nov 2006, 21:06

grim_tales wrote:I agree with you though Brad, I saw the Casino Royale trailer before I saw the Departed, it didnt spoil anything for me TBH. Brad's review just makes me want to see it and I'm looking forward to it

I'm glad it was useful. In Romero's eyes you're a drone too of the media and other people's opinion. I hope you can live with yourself like I can

grim_tales wrote:Does it make me a sheep who can't think for himself Romero?

According to Romero definitely and I quote:

"I watch what I want to watch, unlike you who watches what your told to watch by the media and people on forums. You just said it again above."

From that DVD Times link.

romerojpg wrote:but do get sick of your rants on many forums when you aint even seen films (or the dvd, when talking about quality of dvds). Many people comment on your comments like that.

If you think I talk rubbish don't read my comments. As I said I think your views on many things from your fanboy obsession to American Television shows to world politics are out of this world. If I was "that" fed up with them I wouldn't read them.

You and Shingster are a like it seems, you both think your opinion is the only one that matters. You don't like what I say? The answer is simple don't read it.

If you think I'm going to stop giving my opinion on the Film or DVD quality (which for the record a good portion of DVD members are so anal about) you're sadly mistaken.

For the record many get fed up with your twaddle but that doesn't mean you're going to stop now does it.

I watch what I want to watch, unlike you who watches what your told to by the media and people on forums.

You're right I'm a drone of the government's media

grim_tales wrote:I went to see The Da Vinci Code, despite bad reviews and made my own mind up thanks

And I will be doing the same. I just didn't want do in the cinema.

grim_tales wrote:Sorry Brad for going OT

"You've" not.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Nov 2006, 21:06

romerojpg wrote:You keep ruining films for yourself

Thank you for assuming what after nearly 28 years of life I still haven't figured out for myself. Thank you Mr. Romero for making it all clear to me.

I never knew you knew me better than I do but thank you you've filled a massive void in my life

romerojpg wrote:but do get sick of your rants on many forums when you aint even seen films (or the dvd, when talking about quality of dvds). Many people comment on your comments like that.

I've seen Casino Royale so your point doesn't even make any sense. I'd have thought that was obvious by my comments and even if I hadn't you'd think reading my or anyones else comments was compulsory.

romerojpg wrote:I watch what I want to watch, unlike you who watches what your told to by the media and people on forums.

Why are you repeating the same sentence over and over again? I've now read it FOUR times.

I presume you'd have preferred I'd lied and said Casino Royale was shit "just" so I differ from the public opinion?

As well as the already stated (very minor) faults with Casino Royale I added two others which no one else has but I guess those are the media feeding them to me in my morning Weetabix?

I'm well aware you have a serious problem/chip on your shoulder with film critics and the general populations opinion, and if said public thinks something is good/bad you have to say otherwise.

Thankfully we're not all equipped with such a deficiency.

All I've done is state "my" opinion on the film, if you don't believe that's my opinion and I'm somehow being fed lies by the media that's real your problem not mine.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 20 Nov 2006, 01:57

As soon as my cold clears game on for Casino Royale.

One thing bothers me though: How can Judi Dench be "M" if this is set before Dr. No? Er, what happened to Bernard Lee and Geoffrey Brown? In Goldeneye Pierce acknowledges Judi as a successor. Thus he was 007 before she was "M" Yet as I understand it in Casino she promotes him?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 20 Nov 2006, 09:28

I don't think it is set before Dr. No Mark, I think its an update/reimagining and it is set now.. But yeah, that sort of does muck up the timeline.
But bringing back Bernard Lee and Robert Brown would be tricky since they're both no longer with us

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 20 Nov 2006, 09:37

THe timeline is non existant & always has been. There are only very minor bits of continuity throughout the whole series. We should just stop picking at the slight "niggles".

Yes, Judi Dench is back as M, simply because the casting directors couldn't imagine anyone else in the part. Yes, that does mess with the timeline events slightly, but you've got to treat each film as a separate entity.

Could Bond really have gone into space in 1979? Where do all these supervillains get their money from to build hollowed out volcanoes? Why does Bond get to bed so many women? I could go on and on with a list as long as a giant python about inconsistensies & plot holes in ALL of the Bond films.

Each film is a bit of escapism, some a bit better than others. The thing that makes Casino Royale so good is that it is smart escapism. It is more or less reality-based, which is why I like it...

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 20 Nov 2006, 13:22

I don't think it would have hurt to show a bit of common sense and cast someone new as "M". Say what you want about timelines but this is a blatant buggering of a continuity re-established a recently as Goldeneye. Plenty of good British character actors out there. Judi Dench is fine... but hardly irreplaceable.

brooce-leroy · Post by **brooce-leroy** » 20 Nov 2006, 14:39

Casino Royale (2006) the movie is NOT set before Dr. No. It is set in the modern day (2006 even, probably). I don't have a problem with this at all TBH. As others have mentioned, there was never a strict sense of continuity anyway. We could argue how come Bond gets older, younger again, older, younger again. Yes, I know you're gonna say the missions could be in different periods of his life. But it still messes with continuity/timeline each time a different actor plays the part. I also don't mind the slightest about Dench returning as M. Yes, it is taking liberties but I can't think of any other actor who would be better than her (especially in the scenes between her and Bond).

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 20 Nov 2006, 15:32

gasteropod wrote:I liked The Da Vinci Code!

You also like Mudvayne.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 20 Nov 2006, 15:51

Eh? I guess I still like their L.D. 50 album, but I only really listened to them about 5 or 6 years ago. Perhaps you should peruse the list of bands I CURRENTLY listen to on my MySpace - www.myspace.com/gasteropod

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 20 Nov 2006, 15:59

The Mars Volta, jesus christ. Frances the Mute was akin to torture. Stoner garbage.

Naturally Coheed and Cambria goes hand and hand with The Mars Volta.

The Smiths... BWHAHAHAHA Morrissey. As cool as Johnny Marr might be he's outweighed by Morrissey's supreme gayness.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 20 Nov 2006, 16:33

brooce-leroy wrote:Casino Royale (2006) the movie is NOT set before Dr. No. It is set in the modern day (2006 even, probably).

I know different actors have played Bond at varying ages but there's a difference surely between bending continuity and breaking it outright? This movie shows Bond becoming a 007 agent - therefore it's a prequel to the previous 20 outings. Yet they've re-cast Dench as "M" when she herself was first promoted at a time when Bond was already a veteran operative (in Goldeneye). So even if you forget about chronology (1962-2006) they've made a continuity gaff regarding a major character introduced in the last decade. The makers could easily have gotten round this by casting someone else as "M" (ie. the person who was theoretically in the position before Bernard Lee). I don't have a problem with Judi Dench - and I hardly expect it spoils the movie - but she's not that spectaular they couldn't have cast someone else - especially since Bond himself has changed face.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 20 Nov 2006, 17:26

Markgway wrote:I don't have a problem with Judi Dench - and I hardly expect it spoils the movie - but she's not that spectaular they couldn't have cast someone else - especially since Bond himself has changed face.

Wait until you see their scenes together. She is integral to the way they work so well. Once you've seen the film, you'll forget these little niggles, and you'll hopefully appreciate Casino Royale for what it is - not just a great Bond film, but a great (and very importantly; intelligent) action film.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 20 Nov 2006, 18:44

Mark: IM and Bruce are right she's integral and they couldn't have picked a better person for the job.

Markgway wrote:I don't think it would have hurt to show a bit of common sense and cast someone new as "M".

TBH Mark I thought exactly the same until I saw Casino Royale.

IronMonkey wrote:Could Bond really have gone into space in 1979? Where do all these supervillains get their money from to build hollowed out volcanoes? Why does Bond get to bed so many women? I could go on and on with a list as long as a giant python about inconsistensies & plot holes in ALL of the Bond films.

p.s - BTW what was the last Flemming novel? Where should it end?

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 20 Nov 2006, 19:16

According to Commander Bond, the last two books were Octopussy & The Living Daylights.

I'm positive The Living Daylights was a short story & not a full-fledged book, and I'm pretty sure the same can be said of Octopussy too.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 20 Nov 2006, 19:42

Bradavon in a quotetastic lengthy waste of time again, quote too much and noone cares at all.

but will say your havent got a clue about what I watch, you love to say the same Wrong things over and over again, I watch TV shows from loads of countries all over the world and buy them on dvd too, so at least get your comments a little right.

and you HAD NOT seen Bond when asking questions on forums and reading reviews etc..