CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Goldeneye is Better than Casino Royale.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Goldeneye is Better than Casino Royale. - Page 3

post #101 of 128
8/6/08 at 8:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
The point I was making is that it wouldn't have mattered at that point if Bond had blown his wad all over the table. The bad guy still would've looked down at his cards and had to call anyway. The pot odds you mentioned pretty much require you to call any bet when your hand is that strong. From a strategic standpoint, folding winning hands is much worse than calling with losing ones. And since that particular hand is going to win 10,000 times for every time it loses, there's really nothing to think about.

It's not that Bond played badly, it's that he did the only reasonable thing, and so did his opponent. They just constructed a hand so unlikely that both players actions were determined for them. Bond knows he can't lose; Bad Guy knows that he can only lose to a hand that Bond is 99.9995% likely not to have, so all strategy goes out the window. If the idea is to impress me with the hero's skills, this does not do it.
You just don't think it served the plot/characterization well. Fair enough. It's just not a dramatic misrepresentation of a poker tournament, which is a complaint I've often heard.
Reply
post #102 of 128
8/6/08 at 8:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
I'm not defining it as a plot point, as a mechanism to show Bond's skill, or anything else (although, it does take some skill to know what marginal hands should be played in an attempt to surprise other players). I'm only defending it against those who would say hands like that "don't happen", or that it's "ridiculous." Sit at any poker tournament at any table for 10+ hours and you'll see one or two hands like that.
As the person who brought it up, I'll reiterate that my point was that dramatic convention demands that the hero defeat the villain on some degree of merit, and not lucky seating.

I've played thousands of tournaments*, and while I'll quibble with the 10 hour figure (it would not be at all unusual to go years without seeing a 3-way hand like the one in CR), I agree it's plausible. But my analness re: poker makes it dramatically unsatisfying.

* a lot of them were done simultaneously online

Edit: never mind, I guess.
Reply
post #103 of 128
8/6/08 at 8:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
As the person who brought it up, I'll reiterate that my point was that dramatic convention demands that the hero defeat the villain on some degree of merit, and not lucky seating.

I've played thousands of tournaments*, and while I'll quibble with the 10 hour figure (it would not be at all unusual to go years without seeing a 3-way hand like the one in CR), I agree it's plausible. But my analness re: poker makes it dramatically unsatisfying.

* a lot of them were done simultaneously online

Edit: never mind, I guess.
What, exactly that hand? Or one just as unlikely? I would typically see one or two four of a kind or straight flush bad beats in every tournament.

Someone much better at poker than I told me that hold 'em was about "using skill to keep from losing too much until you get lucky." I pretty much agree. Of course, I never was very good.
Reply
post #104 of 128
8/6/08 at 8:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
Sit at any poker tournament at any table for 10+ hours and you'll see one or two hands like that.
Fair enough, and, yes, I've seen a lot of crazy stuff at the table, too.

But just for the sake of argument, and if I remember correctly, aren't there FOUR monster hands in CASINO'S final pot? Don't the reveals go something like flush, full house, four of a kind, straight flush, with the hands increasing in rank in the exact order the players are sitting, so the reveals can be as ridiculously dramatic as possible? I play a lot of poker, and that, my friend, is something I have never seen.
Reply
post #105 of 128
8/6/08 at 9:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zak chase View Post
Fair enough, and, yes, I've seen a lot of crazy stuff at the table, too.

But just for the sake of argument, and if I remember correctly, aren't there FOUR monster hands in CASINO'S final pot? Don't the reveals go something like flush, full house, four of a kind, straight flush, with the hands increasing in rank in the exact order the players are sitting, so the reveals can be as ridiculously dramatic as possible? I play a lot of poker, and that, my friend, is something I have never seen.
I don't remember four monster hands. I remember a straight, a flush, bad guy's hand, and Bonds's straight flush. The first two are inconsequential.

I've seen, on multiple occasions, two or three people with full houses lose to four of a kind (obviously, there was a set on the board), and I've seen the bottom end of a straight flush lose to the top end twice (one of which involved a royal flush). I've also seen four of a kind lose to a straight flush at least once.

The order of the hands in CR was made as dramatic as possible for cinematic effect, but it makes sense that the guy who called THREE PEOPLE WHO WENT ALL-IN!!! (and therefore turned over his hand last) must have had a monster hand. In fact, bleeding eye should have known that was coming immediately. I did.
Reply
post #106 of 128
8/6/08 at 9:25pm
For those uninterested in poker minutiae, skip ahead...

It's not terribly uncommon to see 4 of a kind or a straight flush (although once every 10 hours is not that far off in my experience). It is incredibly rare to see them both in the same hand.

For example, since May I've played at least 75 hours of live hold em in card rooms that had bad beat jackpots that paid out 20-150K to tables where either aces full of kings or aces full of tens got beat*. I never saw it happen. It's not unusual for card rooms that have these requirements to go weeks at a time with 2-10 tables running 24 hours a day without hitting one.

On the flip side, it's not a bad beat every time a full house loses. In some cases, a full house is actually a rather weak hand.

*with the caveat that both players used both of their hole cards to make their hand, which everyone in CR did.
Reply
post #107 of 128
8/6/08 at 9:53pm
The Baccarat game in the Peter Seller's version of Casino Royale goes pretty much the same way. There're some intimidations that Seller's Bond used some strategy to win, but it seemed like plain dumb luck to me.
Reply
post #108 of 128
8/6/08 at 9:55pm
Hmm, a law student who plays a lot of poker? Been watching Rounders a lot, Schwartz?
Reply
post #109 of 128
8/6/08 at 10:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
I don't remember four monster hands. I remember a straight, a flush, bad guy's hand, and Bonds's straight flush.
That might be correct, which would be a little less ludicrous. Although if all four are using both hole cards ... those are still some astronomical odds. (I feel the need to rewatch this scene now, which is the first time that's ever happened.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
In fact, bleeding eye should have known that was coming immediately.
I'm going to stop nitpicking this with you because you made me laugh by calling the dude "bleeding eye." Although that's another reason I hate the poker in ROYALE -- it utilizes the tired all-too-obvious poker tell as a plot device. (Which the villain later himself uses to fake out our boy James. Ooooooh.)
Reply
post #110 of 128
8/6/08 at 11:04pm
Fleming's Bond would be dead 100 times over if not for ridiculous luck. James Fucking Bond should have better luck than you or me.
Reply
post #111 of 128
8/6/08 at 11:59pm
also after this bitching credit to GoldenEye for keeping Baccarat, the rich mans way of quickly losing money to odd's.
Reply
post #112 of 128
8/7/08 at 3:48am
Improvements that could have been made for GE:

-Getting rid of Brosnan's 80s mop head

-Scratch the last one, get rid of Brosnan altogether and bring back Dalton.

-Dialogue is fine at points, but then there's moments like "BOYZ WIT TOYZ" that has to go.

-Needed John Barry composing.

-Needed better miniature model sets.

-Needed more Gottfried John.


Improvements for CR:

-Better pacing.

-Keep the original ending from the book, no stupid shoot out.

-Keep barcarrat, fuck pandering to ESPN viewers.
Reply
post #113 of 128
8/7/08 at 12:59pm
While I like both films a lot, the one thing I think Goldeneye has over CR is better editing. It seems to flow much better than CR. For some reason CR seems to drag in parts and is very uneven in tone. But I still love the hell out of it because I'm a sucker for a bad ass James Bond rather than the MacGyver-style Bond.
Reply
post #114 of 128
8/8/08 at 2:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luscious Python View Post
Improvements that could have been made for GE:

-Getting rid of Brosnan's 80s mop head

-Scratch the last one, get rid of Brosnan altogether and bring back Dalton.

-Dialogue is fine at points, but then there's moments like "BOYZ WIT TOYZ" that has to go.

-Needed John Barry composing.

-Needed better miniature model sets.

-Needed more Gottfried John.

You forgot: get rid of Robbie Coltraine, Minnie Driver, Alan Cumming, Joe Don, and forget about Brosnan and Dalton and bring back Roger.


This should all be in the main Bond thread.
Reply
post #115 of 128
8/8/08 at 2:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Hmm, a law student who plays a lot of poker? Been watching Rounders a lot, Schwartz?
Is it an awesome movie, though, innit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Fleming's Bond would be dead 100 times over if not for ridiculous luck. James Fucking Bond should have better luck than you or me.
Sure. I just prefer it when he does accomplishes something difficult rather than gets dumbly lucky.
Reply
post #116 of 128
8/8/08 at 2:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
Sure. I just prefer it when he does accomplishes something difficult rather than gets dumbly lucky.

That notwithstanding, I think CR demonstrates that movie viewers have a greater need for verisimilitude. Much of the stuff which was seen in previous Bond films doesn't cut it anymore. Bond was in rougher shape after 5 minutes with La Chiffre than he was after a months in a North Korean POW camp, for crying out loud.
Reply
post #117 of 128
8/8/08 at 2:47am
Right. Lost in my nitpicking was that I think it's overall a good movie. And I went into it with no love for Bond whatsoever.
Reply
post #118 of 128
8/8/08 at 4:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C View Post
forget about Brosnan and Dalton and bring back Roger.
Moore sucked ass. *dodges Pauly Mac's attack*
Reply
post #119 of 128
8/8/08 at 1:38pm
I'll be Paul's deputy in this never-ending malicious attack on the best Bond actor...Roger Moore.
Reply
post #120 of 128
8/8/08 at 2:26pm
Now I don't remember the flow of that final hand, but wasn't Bond in last position? So he called like 2 or 3 all ins with 5-2 suited. I guess you could say that he's a great player cause he can stand great pressure from his opponents and not be bullied around. Or that he's not so great cause he calls with shit hands.
Reply
post #121 of 128
8/8/08 at 6:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator GAC View Post
Now I don't remember the flow of that final hand, but wasn't Bond in last position? So he called like 2 or 3 all ins with 5-2 suited. I guess you could say that he's a great player cause he can stand great pressure from his opponents and not be bullied around. Or that he's not so great cause he calls with shit hands.
He hit the straight flush off the flop.
Reply
post #122 of 128
8/8/08 at 7:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator GAC View Post
Now I don't remember the flow of that final hand, but wasn't Bond in last position? So he called like 2 or 3 all ins with 5-2 suited. I guess you could say that he's a great player cause he can stand great pressure from his opponents and not be bullied around. Or that he's not so great cause he calls with shit hands.
Calling with shit hands is not always a bad thing (the worst thing to be in poker is predictable). But he called all the major bets after making a hand that was literally unbeatable. Nothing especially brilliant about that play.
Reply
post #123 of 128
8/9/08 at 9:27pm
I agree with that. I was trying to remember what happened pre-flop. Like you said, it was all over already by the flop so who did the raising and calling before that? Pretty sure they didn't just check all around so Bond must've stayed in play with his hand despite the heat. I really should check out that scene again.
Reply
post #124 of 128
8/9/08 at 11:22pm
[QUOTE=duke fleed;2314588]I think Goldeneye is the worst of the Brosnan Bond films. I will definitely take Tomorrow Never Dies, with the Rupert Murdock stlyed villain trying to start WW III, and Bond having to stop him. Also the opening in the weapons depot is a great beginning to a Bond film. Michelle Yeoh is also one of the best Bond Girls ever, \QUOTE


This is one reason I like TND so much(I like Goldeneye too). Yeoh's character was interesting because her character could hold her own every step of the way with Bond. CR continued this with Vesper, but she wasn't nearly as interesting as Yeoh.

I thought Brosnan was a great Bond saddled with increasingly bad scripts. Interestingly, Brosnan took different parts of his Bond character and made far more interesting movies like The Thomas Crown Affair, The Tailor of Panama, The Matador, and even After the Sunset.
Reply
post #125 of 128
8/10/08 at 1:05am
Goldfinger is better than both of them.

So there.
Reply
post #126 of 128
8/10/08 at 1:59am
Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, A View To A Kill (yeah, it's silly... but it's got The Walken!), The Living Daylights, GoldenEye, Casino Royale.

My lucky seven. Love 'em all.
Reply
post #127 of 128
9/8/08 at 9:55pm
Casino Royale's my preferred film between that and Goldeneye.
Reply
post #128 of 128
10/24/08 at 9:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron Hughes View Post
I thought Brosnan was a great Bond saddled with increasingly bad scripts. Interestingly, Brosnan took different parts of his Bond character and made far more interesting movies like The Thomas Crown Affair, The Tailor of Panama, The Matador, and even After the Sunset.
I agree 100%, especially about "The Tailor of Panama".
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Goldeneye is Better than Casino Royale.