Blueman, you sly dog ... were did you get the transcript? It does indeed sound like he was talking out of his hat, and seemed to acknowledge he was. It certainly didn't seem like some major, calculated change in tone was in the works. Anyway, if they can come up with more "Stephanie Broadchest," "Do I look like I care?" and "That last hand nearly killed me," lines, I'm all in for Bond 22. Just so long as they have a full complement of icy "Yes -- Considerably" and "I won't really be in trouble until I start weeping blood"-type lines as well. And of course, the classic "Now everyone is going to know you died scratching my *****."
Got it from another forum, this is one hot topic apparently.
Sure is. It just doesn't really make sense given the popular and critical success of the film
We all know Bond 22 will feature a scene where Daniel Craig snowboards on a cello with the music set to "California Girls" and the scene ends with Craig going off a cliff, revealing a parachute that has his mugshot on it )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't think it is a joke. I was just amazed at how much Andrei Lugovoi actually looks like Craig.
(BTW, I hope you're not repeating some of the things that Clarky said. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Not a joke, but LOL funny ?:) My confusion persists...
It's no wonder, really, that there are such different tastes, re: Bond humour---indeed, wildly different tastes, re: anything Bond.
As long as one enjoys it, I suppose
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Not a joke, but LOL funny ?:) My confusion persists...
It's no wonder, really, that there are such different tastes, re: Bond humour---indeed, wildly different tastes, re: anything Bond.
As long as one enjoys it, I suppose
I was stunned. I don't find it particularly funny, however I opened the link expecting something ridiculous and instead I got that.
Seriously, I wouldn't take my reaction to it as a representation of my sense of humour. Although I love many different types of humour, my favourite type of humour is verbal. Among the Bond films, I love the lines/puns the best. I probably like the Moore/Brosnan lines/puns (such as the 'Christmas' line) more than most other members of this site, however I also love the Connery lines/puns. So, this may terrify you, but I suspect that your Bondian sense of humour is not all that different to mine. (Assuming that you love Connery of course. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Seriously, I wouldn't take my reaction to it as a representation of my sense of humour. Although I love many different types of humour, my favourite type of humour is verbal. Among the Bond films, I love the lines/puns the best. I probably like the Moore/Brosnan lines/puns (such as the 'Christmas' line) more than most other members of this site, however I also love the Connery lines/puns. So, this may terrify you, but I suspect that your Bondian sense of humour is not all that different to mine. (Assuming that you love Connery of course. )
{[]I doubt many people would argue about Connery Love, Dan, especially with regard to the humor. The humor in those films, especially the first four, is the gold standard of the series as far as I'm concerned. The quips were dry, understated and -- to my large, Craiglike-yet-American ears, anyway -- very "British," which made them perfect for the character. They wouldn't have been out of place if they'd been spoken by Noel Coward -- who of course was a friend of Fleming's. I wouldn't mind seeing a little more of that. Just so long as the film isn't played for laughs and the humor doesn't wink at the audience.
Wow but this little aside is getting some weird legs, it's on Rotten Tomatoes, various Bond forums, and is engendering all sorts of debate. The threads on the other forums are like a spotlight on the seemingly still current fanbase division, the MI6 one especially. Remember when any anti-Brosnan sentiment was beat down without mercy by some fans? How the worm has turned, there seem to be Pro-Craig fans just as hot. It's like living in bizarro world (I'm sure for some Brosnan Bond fans as well). Guess it goes with the fanboy territory. Just weirdness.
SB_DiamondNorth Miami Beach, FLPosts: 126MI6 Agent
I personally think that DC is just screwing with everyone and trying to give all the haters another reason to hate him with false info (like he did with the Bond sans tux comment for CR) just so they'll go see the film to see if it's true or not. Then surprise surprise he was pulling your leg all along AND got you to see the movie! Hate on haters, he'll just keep pushing your buttons.
For the moment, I'll continue to keep this one in the "Bond doesn't wear a tux in Casino Royale!", "Craig lost his front two teeth!" and "Craig can't drive a stick!" file
This is the correct and mature way to view this thread and all others like it. But not to respond, is impossible - I guess in spite of trying to be "laisse faire" about the direction the next Bond film takes, I really do care - ALOT!
Nobody knows anything, goes the chestnut about the film industry. After the success of Casino Royale last year, however, the cliche looked to be due a small qualifier - nobody knows anything except for how to save James Bond. Because in the wake of Daniel Craig's debut in the role, the trick seemed obvious. No jokes. That simple. Reviving the franchise came as easily as removing its once-trademark one-liners, Craig's mirthless scowl an emblematic presence in a film full of chilly brutality but with little in the way of double entendres. The result was lauded by critics, loved by audiences. The producers were geniuses.
But actually, it turns out nobody does know anything after all. For with the 22nd Bond about to go into production, Craig has disclosed that a shift in tone is in the offing. "The producers have told me that they want more gags," the actor is reported to have said. "The next one's going to be a lot funnier [with] Octopussy and Pussy Galore-style gags."
Now, when Bond 22 becomes an even bigger deal than its predecessor I'll clearly look a chump, but until then I feel confident in seeing this as an epic display of wrong-headedness. Prior to the adrenaline shot that was Casino Royale, what had long since doomed Bond to a state of comfortable irrelevance was its reluctance to disown its past - the collective memory of a thousand TV screenings after stupefying Christmas dinners, Roger Moore in a safari suit telling a starlet in a bikini something big had just come up before dispatching a villain with a gun disguised as a wristwatch. More than the theme tunes, more even than the cold war trappings, it was the creaking gags that sank Bond as a cinematic force - and their absence that rescued him.
But not only is returning Bond to the spiritual kinship of Austin Powers the only problem here. It's also that, as with any trade, certain professionals are cut out for certain tasks - and while Craig is an actor of many gifts, a delicate touch with salty comedy doesn't appear to be one of them. In fact, it seems almost cruel to expect him to prove otherwise - reminiscent of the infamous press launch for his casting, where at the producers' behest he tore under Tower Bridge on a speedboat looking as if he was about to throw up over one of the attendant Royal Marines.
And oddly, what it also brings to mind is Life on Mars; not just the free-floating nostalgia that underpinned the show's appeal throughout, but specifically the hugely depressing finale in which John Simm's DI Sam Tyler took one look at 2007 and decided a living death in the early 70s was a better bet. Because that's what the men and women behind Bond seem to have chosen for him as well - and to them I can only say that the past is the past and best left where it is, and that the jokes about pulling out of missions prematurely belong to Roger Moore.
More than the theme tunes, more even than the cold war trappings, it was the creaking gags that sank Bond as a cinematic force - and their absence that rescued him.
But not only is returning Bond to the spiritual kinship of Austin Powers the only problem here.
Why is that when Craig brings up the word 'funny,' people immediately think of Austin Powers? It's not as if the only jokes of the previous Bond films were Austin-Powers type jokes. 8-) As for 'the creaking gags that sank Bond as a cinematic force,' well I can see that this writer and I have different views on Bond.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
More than the theme tunes, more even than the cold war trappings, it was the creaking gags that sank Bond as a cinematic force - and their absence that rescued him.
But not only is returning Bond to the spiritual kinship of Austin Powers the only problem here.
Why is that when Craig brings up the word 'funny,' people immediately think of Austin Powers? It's not as if the only jokes of the previous Bond films were Austin-Powers type jokes. 8-) As for 'the creaking gags that sank Bond as a cinematic force,' well I can see that this writer and I have different views on Bond.
Indeed you do, and with many many other people as well. Because to answer your first question, like it or not, whether entirely deserved or not, the Bond series over the years, by virtue of its more-is-more ethos and slavish devotion to formula, has become identified in the general public's mind with creaky puns and silly one-liners. More comedy than drama. Basically the same film, over and over and over again. And once the public starts seeing you that way, it's hard to change their minds. CR managed and the reason for its success was the more serious tone. All you have to do is read the professional reviews. Many people were absolutely turned off by what you found to be charming about the series and lost interest in it (I believe CR would have done even better had fewer people assumed it was "just the usual James Bond movie." A lot of people don't read reviews or pay attention to movie talk). That doesn't mean Bond didn't still have his fans, but hey, so does Adam Sandler. 'Nuff said.
This discussion prompted me to take another look at CR'06 with regard to the humour.
CR'06 is not without humor, it has several very amusing sequences (gags?) but they are I believe more sophisticated than previous films. In them Bond doesn't offer a "witty" observation, but merely reacts with a look or a smile. The Ocean Club parking lot "gag" is the best example.
The "Broadchest" line, beautifully played - was Bond sucessfully cracking Vesper's air of authority. Most of the "funny" lines in CR'06 are pretty much left to Mathis, with broader humour to Mr. Mendel.
I appreciate the more reserved style. I shudder with horror at the thought of more "Christmas comes once a year" cracks accompanied by telescopic views of two bodies glowing red! That is cheap teenage humor. That kind of "gag" would seem very out of place in a follow-up to a film in which Bond is out to revenge the death of his first real love.
I have read how many fans wish GL had done one more Bond followed up OHMSS with a more serious DAF, and what a disappointing follow-up film DAF was in that context.
I would be real disappointed to see DC in Bond 22 facing off with "Fat B*st*rd" and cuddling up to "Lovey Cravsit". We had 7 Roger Moore's and 4 of Roger Moore Lite (PB). It's time to let the films swing towards the more subtle "Flemingsque"
style.
The Humor in Bond started with Young and Connery improvising and snowballed into stupid lines designed to make 12 year old schoolboys snicker. The same can be said of the mandatory "Big Red Explosions" and car chases. If CR'06 has any fault it's in the long airport chase - a LTK redux that we could have been spared.
Who knows what DC meant re: "gags", until we get another interview in which this subject is further clarified ...its pins and needles time.
Indeed you do, and with many many other people as well. Because to answer your first question, like it or not, whether entirely deserved or not, the Bond series over the years, by virtue of its more-is-more ethos and slavish devotion to formula, has become identified in the general public's mind with creaky puns and silly one-liners.
More comedy than drama. Basically the same film, over and over and over again.
Well, I've already addressed this many times, including on page two of this thread. I will simply say that IMO Bond has never been more comedy than drama and that although there has been humour which was cringe-worthy, it has been a minority IMO. Additionally, alot of the critics of Bondian humour only seem to focus on one aspect, when arguably there has been a whole variety of humour. As for the formula, I think it's important as it is one of the things which separates Bond from other series. It's not a be-all and end-all for me; (it's more like a map for the filmamkers who can then *live and die on their own merit) but it is important to me.
And once the public starts seeing you that way, it's hard to change their minds. CR managed and the reason for its success was the more serious tone. All you have to do is read the professional reviews. Many people were absolutely turned off by what you found to be charming about the series and lost interest in it (I believe CR would have done even better had fewer people assumed it was "just the usual James Bond movie." A lot of people don't read reviews or pay attention to movie talk). .
I have no doubt that this perception of the previous Bond films, rightly or wrongly, is a reason for CR's massive success. However let's not get ahead of ourselves here; DAD did afterall make close to $400, 000, 000 worldwide.
That doesn't mean Bond didn't still have his fans, but hey, so does Adam Sandler. 'Nuff said.
That's not a very accurate comparison. Sandler, love him or hate him, is best at being Adam Sandler. However, nobody can tell me, that the X number of Bond films between X and X are exactly the same. You may not love some of the humour, but there has been more than one kind of humour in the Bond film.
*The last true Bond masterpiece IMO was TSWLM, while DAD is third-last on my list.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Indeed you do, and with many many other people as well. Because to answer your first question, like it or not, whether entirely deserved or not, the Bond series over the years, by virtue of its more-is-more ethos and slavish devotion to formula, has become identified in the general public's mind with creaky puns and silly one-liners.
More comedy than drama. Basically the same film, over and over and over again.
Well, I've already addressed this many times, including on page two of this thread. I will simply say that IMO Bond has never been more comedy than drama and that although there has been humour which was cringe-worthy, it has been a minority IMO. Additionally, alot of the critics of Bondian humour only seem to focus on one aspect, when arguably there has been a whole variety of humour. As for the formula, I think it's important as it is one of the things which separates Bond from other series. It's not a be-all and end-all for me; (it's more like a map for the filmamkers who can then *live and die on their own merit) but it is important to me.
And once the public starts seeing you that way, it's hard to change their minds. CR managed and the reason for its success was the more serious tone. All you have to do is read the professional reviews. Many people were absolutely turned off by what you found to be charming about the series and lost interest in it (I believe CR would have done even better had fewer people assumed it was "just the usual James Bond movie." A lot of people don't read reviews or pay attention to movie talk). .
I have no doubt that this perception of the previous Bond films, rightly or wrongly, is a reason for CR's massive success. However let's not get ahead of ourselves here; DAD did afterall make close to $400, 000, 000 worldwide.
That doesn't mean Bond didn't still have his fans, but hey, so does Adam Sandler. 'Nuff said.
That's not a very accurate comparison. Sandler, love him or hate him, is best at being Adam Sandler. However, nobody can tell me, that the X number of Bond films between X and X are exactly the same. You may not love some of the humour, but there has been more than one kind of humour in the Bond film.
*The last true Bond masterpiece IMO was TSWLM, while DAD is third-last on my list.
Dan -- read the post. I'm not arguing the quality of the films with you. I've done that many times. My point, which you don't address, is this: has the public's affection for Bond films -- and by that I mean the general public, not the fan boys who see each film 6 times -- diminished from it's heyday in the 60s-early '70s? I think it has, demonstrably, for the reason expressed in the Guardian's column and a great many other writings. It is, after all, a 40-something year-old series.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited July 2007
It's my belief, continuing in HH's line of thought, that Craig's first Bond film successfully created a new audience for Bond, whilst undeniably (IMRO) rekindling the interest of older fans who'd grown weary of the Kabuki-like ritualization of the Precious Classic FormulaTM.
Certainly (given their chosen path), they've also alienated a segment of this august and tenured audience...but I, for one, hope they don't revert to the old template too soon.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Dan -- read the post. I'm not arguing the quality of the films with you. I've done that many times. My point, which you don't address, is this: has the public's affection for Bond films -- and by that I mean the general public, not the fan boys who see each film 6 times -- diminished from it's heyday in the 60s-early '70s? I think it has, demonstrably, for the reason expressed in the Guardian's column and a great many other writings. It is, after all, a 40-something year-old series.
Sorry, I misunderstood your post. (I get a little defensive whenever I perceive that Bond is being attacked. ) Yes, the general public's affection for Bond has diminished without a shadow of a doubt. Bondmania was at its peak in the 60's, and although it has been successful since, it has never quite captured the success. It's also true that CR has been awesomely successful, and much more successful that Eon could have hope for. However, is it all due to the change in tone? It is certainly a reason, however I think that to entirely credit the tone as the reason is a mistake. Afterall, wouldn't the main reason be that many people consider it to be a great film?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
It's also true that CR has been awesomely successful, and much more successful that Eon could have hope for. However, is it all due to the change in tone? It is certainly a reason, however I think that to entirely credit the tone as the reason is a mistake. Afterall, wouldn't the main reason be that many people consider it to be a great film?
There may indeed be other factors involved in CR's success: simple curiosity in the new Bond, a lack of strong holiday season film for grownups, for example. But I do think the most striking feature about the film, and what really got people interested and talking, was, as the Guardian's columnist noted, the tone (and here we are at AJB still talking about it).
I believe there is a vast, untapped audience of people didn't put CR on their must-see list because of the Bond films' reputation as being dated and silly (in their view) and who didn't necessarily hear or especially believe the "buzz" that folks like us, who follow movies, are interested in. This is where I think the DVD rentals and sales could make a huge difference in the reception of Bond 22. Hopefully, those people will see there is a "new" Bond out there that is worth going to the theater for. Which is why I hope EON doesn't blow it and go back to the "old" Bond.
Ahem! I would also suggest that the reason many associate Bond with corny old rubbish is simple, at least for UK viewers: it's the Roger Moore films that have been shown time and again on TV, cos they're classics, whereas the Dalton and Brosnan flicks aren't seen that way and dont' get the same viewing time on Bank Holidays and Xmas.
So people most associate Bond with the Connery and Moore flicks, with the increasing Austin Powers type tone.
Ahem! I would also suggest that the reason many associate Bond with corny old rubbish is simple, at least for UK viewers: it's the Roger Moore films that have been shown time and again on TV, cos they're classics, whereas the Dalton and Brosnan flicks aren't seen that way and dont' get the same viewing time on Bank Holidays and Xmas.
So people most associate Bond with the Connery and Moore flicks, with the increasing Austin Powers type tone.
I think that's absolutely true. The reputation for outrageousness bordering on silliness -- deserved or not -- may have started with Goldfinger (a film I adore, but one that did launch the series on its relentless march toward pigeon doubletakes, bass fiddle snowboarding and invisible cars), but it reached its peak, or low if you want to look at it that way, in the Moore era. The series certainly lost me over the years, to the point where I never considered Austin Powers to be much of a stretch.
However, is it all due to the change in tone? It is certainly a reason, however I think that to entirely credit the tone as the reason is a mistake. Afterall, <b>wouldn't the main reason be that many people consider it to be a great film?</b>
What!?! Being a great film is not a means to an end! I said I wasn't going to comment on this any more, but holy crap. That statement right there, is so perfectly illustrative of every thing I have said in previous posts. In this case it has NOTHING to do with your opinion of the the jokes or movies. It has everything to do with your lack of comprehension. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but you keep arguing a point that you clearly don't understand.
I don't mean to make this personal, but you feel so compelled to ignore what is being said by several other member and just out and out repeat yourself trying to qualify it by saying it your opinion. You are not grasping the concept of what is being said to you, Stephanie Broadchest joke be damned.
Comments
We all know Bond 22 will feature a scene where Daniel Craig snowboards on a cello with the music set to "California Girls" and the scene ends with Craig going off a cliff, revealing a parachute that has his mugshot on it
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&gbv=2&q=Andrei+Lugovoi+&btnG=Search+Images
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I guess it's my turn to not 'get the joke.'
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
(BTW, I hope you're not repeating some of the things that Clarky said.
Not a joke, but LOL funny ?:) My confusion persists...
It's no wonder, really, that there are such different tastes, re: Bond humour---indeed, wildly different tastes, re: anything Bond.
As long as one enjoys it, I suppose
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Seriously, I wouldn't take my reaction to it as a representation of my sense of humour. Although I love many different types of humour, my favourite type of humour is verbal. Among the Bond films, I love the lines/puns the best. I probably like the Moore/Brosnan lines/puns (such as the 'Christmas' line) more than most other members of this site, however I also love the Connery lines/puns. So, this may terrify you, but I suspect that your Bondian sense of humour is not all that different to mine.
{[]I doubt many people would argue about Connery Love, Dan, especially with regard to the humor. The humor in those films, especially the first four, is the gold standard of the series as far as I'm concerned. The quips were dry, understated and -- to my large, Craiglike-yet-American ears, anyway -- very "British," which made them perfect for the character. They wouldn't have been out of place if they'd been spoken by Noel Coward -- who of course was a friend of Fleming's. I wouldn't mind seeing a little more of that. Just so long as the film isn't played for laughs and the humor doesn't wink at the audience.
I'd say that one flew right over your head. But there's no shame in admitting it.
Stephanie! /slap
This is the correct and mature way to view this thread and all others like it. But not to respond, is impossible - I guess in spite of trying to be "laisse faire" about the direction the next Bond film takes, I really do care - ALOT!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/07/making_james_bond_funnier_is_a.html
Nobody knows anything, goes the chestnut about the film industry. After the success of Casino Royale last year, however, the cliche looked to be due a small qualifier - nobody knows anything except for how to save James Bond. Because in the wake of Daniel Craig's debut in the role, the trick seemed obvious. No jokes. That simple. Reviving the franchise came as easily as removing its once-trademark one-liners, Craig's mirthless scowl an emblematic presence in a film full of chilly brutality but with little in the way of double entendres. The result was lauded by critics, loved by audiences. The producers were geniuses.
But actually, it turns out nobody does know anything after all. For with the 22nd Bond about to go into production, Craig has disclosed that a shift in tone is in the offing. "The producers have told me that they want more gags," the actor is reported to have said. "The next one's going to be a lot funnier [with] Octopussy and Pussy Galore-style gags."
Now, when Bond 22 becomes an even bigger deal than its predecessor I'll clearly look a chump, but until then I feel confident in seeing this as an epic display of wrong-headedness. Prior to the adrenaline shot that was Casino Royale, what had long since doomed Bond to a state of comfortable irrelevance was its reluctance to disown its past - the collective memory of a thousand TV screenings after stupefying Christmas dinners, Roger Moore in a safari suit telling a starlet in a bikini something big had just come up before dispatching a villain with a gun disguised as a wristwatch. More than the theme tunes, more even than the cold war trappings, it was the creaking gags that sank Bond as a cinematic force - and their absence that rescued him.
But not only is returning Bond to the spiritual kinship of Austin Powers the only problem here. It's also that, as with any trade, certain professionals are cut out for certain tasks - and while Craig is an actor of many gifts, a delicate touch with salty comedy doesn't appear to be one of them. In fact, it seems almost cruel to expect him to prove otherwise - reminiscent of the infamous press launch for his casting, where at the producers' behest he tore under Tower Bridge on a speedboat looking as if he was about to throw up over one of the attendant Royal Marines.
And oddly, what it also brings to mind is Life on Mars; not just the free-floating nostalgia that underpinned the show's appeal throughout, but specifically the hugely depressing finale in which John Simm's DI Sam Tyler took one look at 2007 and decided a living death in the early 70s was a better bet. Because that's what the men and women behind Bond seem to have chosen for him as well - and to them I can only say that the past is the past and best left where it is, and that the jokes about pulling out of missions prematurely belong to Roger Moore.
Indeed you do, and with many many other people as well. Because to answer your first question, like it or not, whether entirely deserved or not, the Bond series over the years, by virtue of its more-is-more ethos and slavish devotion to formula, has become identified in the general public's mind with creaky puns and silly one-liners. More comedy than drama. Basically the same film, over and over and over again. And once the public starts seeing you that way, it's hard to change their minds. CR managed and the reason for its success was the more serious tone. All you have to do is read the professional reviews. Many people were absolutely turned off by what you found to be charming about the series and lost interest in it (I believe CR would have done even better had fewer people assumed it was "just the usual James Bond movie." A lot of people don't read reviews or pay attention to movie talk). That doesn't mean Bond didn't still have his fans, but hey, so does Adam Sandler. 'Nuff said.
CR'06 is not without humor, it has several very amusing sequences (gags?) but they are I believe more sophisticated than previous films. In them Bond doesn't offer a "witty" observation, but merely reacts with a look or a smile. The Ocean Club parking lot "gag" is the best example.
The "Broadchest" line, beautifully played - was Bond sucessfully cracking Vesper's air of authority. Most of the "funny" lines in CR'06 are pretty much left to Mathis, with broader humour to Mr. Mendel.
I appreciate the more reserved style. I shudder with horror at the thought of more "Christmas comes once a year" cracks accompanied by telescopic views of two bodies glowing red! That is cheap teenage humor. That kind of "gag" would seem very out of place in a follow-up to a film in which Bond is out to revenge the death of his first real love.
I have read how many fans wish GL had done one more Bond followed up OHMSS with a more serious DAF, and what a disappointing follow-up film DAF was in that context.
I would be real disappointed to see DC in Bond 22 facing off with "Fat B*st*rd" and cuddling up to "Lovey Cravsit". We had 7 Roger Moore's and 4 of Roger Moore Lite (PB). It's time to let the films swing towards the more subtle "Flemingsque"
style.
The Humor in Bond started with Young and Connery improvising and snowballed into stupid lines designed to make 12 year old schoolboys snicker. The same can be said of the mandatory "Big Red Explosions" and car chases. If CR'06 has any fault it's in the long airport chase - a LTK redux that we could have been spared.
Who knows what DC meant re: "gags", until we get another interview in which this subject is further clarified ...its pins and needles time.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I have no doubt that this perception of the previous Bond films, rightly or wrongly, is a reason for CR's massive success. However let's not get ahead of ourselves here; DAD did afterall make close to $400, 000, 000 worldwide.
That's not a very accurate comparison. Sandler, love him or hate him, is best at being Adam Sandler. However, nobody can tell me, that the X number of Bond films between X and X are exactly the same. You may not love some of the humour, but there has been more than one kind of humour in the Bond film.
*The last true Bond masterpiece IMO was TSWLM, while DAD is third-last on my list.
Dan -- read the post. I'm not arguing the quality of the films with you. I've done that many times. My point, which you don't address, is this: has the public's affection for Bond films -- and by that I mean the general public, not the fan boys who see each film 6 times -- diminished from it's heyday in the 60s-early '70s? I think it has, demonstrably, for the reason expressed in the Guardian's column and a great many other writings. It is, after all, a 40-something year-old series.
Certainly (given their chosen path), they've also alienated a segment of this august and tenured audience...but I, for one, hope they don't revert to the old template too soon.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
There may indeed be other factors involved in CR's success: simple curiosity in the new Bond, a lack of strong holiday season film for grownups, for example. But I do think the most striking feature about the film, and what really got people interested and talking, was, as the Guardian's columnist noted, the tone (and here we are at AJB still talking about it).
I believe there is a vast, untapped audience of people didn't put CR on their must-see list because of the Bond films' reputation as being dated and silly (in their view) and who didn't necessarily hear or especially believe the "buzz" that folks like us, who follow movies, are interested in. This is where I think the DVD rentals and sales could make a huge difference in the reception of Bond 22. Hopefully, those people will see there is a "new" Bond out there that is worth going to the theater for. Which is why I hope EON doesn't blow it and go back to the "old" Bond.
So people most associate Bond with the Connery and Moore flicks, with the increasing Austin Powers type tone.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I think that's absolutely true. The reputation for outrageousness bordering on silliness -- deserved or not -- may have started with Goldfinger (a film I adore, but one that did launch the series on its relentless march toward pigeon doubletakes, bass fiddle snowboarding and invisible cars), but it reached its peak, or low if you want to look at it that way, in the Moore era. The series certainly lost me over the years, to the point where I never considered Austin Powers to be much of a stretch.
What!?! Being a great film is not a means to an end! I said I wasn't going to comment on this any more, but holy crap. That statement right there, is so perfectly illustrative of every thing I have said in previous posts. In this case it has NOTHING to do with your opinion of the the jokes or movies. It has everything to do with your lack of comprehension. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but you keep arguing a point that you clearly don't understand.
I don't mean to make this personal, but you feel so compelled to ignore what is being said by several other member and just out and out repeat yourself trying to qualify it by saying it your opinion. You are not grasping the concept of what is being said to you, Stephanie Broadchest joke be damned.