QOS is sounding worse by the day. Greene's lair is an "eco-hotel", he's trying to take control of South Americas water supply?? What is this, the Discovery Chanel?
"The villain has taken over this place. Greene is pretending to be 'green,' but he's obviously not," says producer Michael G. Wilson.
What????
Add in the fighting female character, dogfighting planes, skydiving and this is sounding more and more like DAD and MR all the time.
What happened to the grounded reality and grittiness of CR?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
We're doomed...DOOMED, I say! )
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
You said it, Loeff. What the hell are the producers thinking of, making a James Bond film with action, car chases, airplane fights, beautiful women, exotic locations, and a villain who has a public front to disguise a sinister interior? Damn it, where are the song and dance numbers?!? Why'd Cubby have to go and die, leaving the franchise in the hands of these fools who have absolutely no idea what appeals to Bond fans?
Vox clamantis in deserto
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
:007)
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
Come on, you have to admit that what we know of QOS sounds a lot closer to the Brosnan movies than CR. It sounds like a return to the "superhero" Bond who can outfly MIG pilots, drive russian tanks by himself, freefall into falling planes and windsurf on tidal waves. And excuse me if I'm not exactly thrilled by the eco-terrorism plot to control water.
No one wants this mvoie to be great more than me. CR brought back the Bond I really like after DAD nearly killed it for me. I'm just concerned that after one great movie, the producers are returning to what they have given us in the recent past and straying far from Ian Flemmings vision.
Come on, you have to admit that what we know of QOS sounds a lot closer to the Brosnan movies than CR. It sounds like a return to the "superhero" Bond who can outfly MIG pilots, drive russian tanks by himself, freefall into falling planes and windsurf on tidal waves.
All that stuff about the desert mirroring his psyche and him not having a romantic relationship with the main girl sounds pretty far off Brosnan to me.
Come on, you have to admit that what we know of QOS sounds a lot closer to the Brosnan movies than CR. It sounds like a return to the "superhero" Bond who can outfly MIG pilots, drive russian tanks by himself, freefall into falling planes and windsurf on tidal waves. And excuse me if I'm not exactly thrilled by the eco-terrorism plot to control water.
No one wants this mvoie to be great more than me. CR brought back the Bond I really like after DAD nearly killed it for me. I'm just concerned that after one great movie, the producers are returning to what they have given us in the recent past and straying far from Ian Flemmings vision.
Frankly, I think you're overly concerned. One of the most telling aspects of the runup to CR was the sheer volume of negative predictions---Craig would fail, the reboot would fail, the movie would fail, Bond was over, etc.,et al.
I'm of a mind to let them release the film, and view it myself, before I render a verdict
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'm just concerned that after one great movie, the producers are returning to what they have given us in the recent past and straying far from Ian Flemmings vision.
Those who cannot correctly spell the name of The Creator cannot lecture us on his vision! :v
With all due respect to you and to the Expectant One (whose nickname I'm ready to change to Uof2LittleFaith), it's just too early to be fretting about the film. When it comes right down to it, we know comparatively little about the movie. Let's take the "eco-hotel." Such things are real, and the place being used for the hotel's exterior is also real--and pretty utilitarian looking: it isn't a fanciful Ken Adamesque super-headquarters. Why, then, would anyone assume it's another Atlantis or Blofeld's volcano? Why wouldn't we say it's on the level of Goldfinger's stud farm, Largo's Palmyra, or even Blofeld's Swiss allergy clinic? Maybe it is, like any real operation run by real criminals, a place that makes legitimate money and serves as an occasional meeting place for criminal minds?
Now let's look at Expectant's fear of the car chase and ycpchief's fear of the airplane dogfight. Because there will be a car chase it does not mean we're back to the days of J. W. Pepper. Car chases can be tense, exciting, and brilliant. Although I think they're wrong, people like to point to the Bourne movies as the "serious" alternatives to the Bond films--and every one of them has some sort of car chase. No one accuses Bourne of being formulaic or cartoonish. As for the dogfight, we haven't really had one in a Bond film short of the silly Little Nellie fight in YOLT, but who's to say it won't be tense and thrilling? If the dogfight has a logical place in the story and if it's clear that Bond really is in danger, then this could be a welcome sequence in the film and in the Bond series itself.
To conclude, let me offer the reasons I am NOT scared by Quantum of Solace:
1. There is no "stunt" casting. As in CR, the producers and director didn't go for big names just because people will come and see them. They chose a reliable character actor for the villain and two women who seem to be on the way up. This indicates to me that they picked the best performers for the roles, and they are confident people will respond to the characters more than to the names of the actors.
2. Marc Forster. This is a respected, accomplished director who was hired because he could bring a unique vision to the film. (He has even said in interviews he was surprised to be given a free hand.) The producers could have gotten any action hack to handle the movie, but they went with someone who has talent.
3. Paul Haggis. Granted, he's only one of apparently four screenwriters, but it looks like the bulk of the script is his doing. He can tell a good story and he has a lot of respect for Ian Fleming. I think the story is in good hands.
4. Daniel Craig. He won me over in CR, and he has said in interviews that he feels obligated to deliver a good film in QoS, and that he's happy with what he's seen of the movie so far.
5. Have you seen the footage? From what I've seen, the movie looks great. As in CR, we have interesting and exotic locations that hearken back to the lush films of the 1960s. There are also photos circulating of Craig cut up and covered with bruises, and reports of Dominic Greene being involved in an ax fight. This is shaping up to be a bruiser of a movie--not a film where Bond just breezes through the action.
6. EON has earned my trust. I freely admit that I was a CR and Craig doubter, and I was proved wrong. I don't feel that I have any right to demand of Wilson and Broccoli, "What have you done for me lately?" After CR, I feel that I owe them a measure of respect and that I should give them the benefit of the doubt. If QoS is indeed a stinking pile of crap--and who knows? it may be--then I will heap opprobium on them with gleeful abandon. Until then, I prefer to wait and hope.
Well said, Hardy. A lot of people were predicting disaster with CR, but most of us felt that came out all right. More than all right, in fact.
Again -- we know too little about this film to make assumptions about how it will be handled. Now I have no doubt there will be some great action set pieces that will be something less than scrupulously realistic -- it is a Bond movie, after all, not an Ingmar Bergman film -- but I think the producers, Craig and Foster have all said they are committed to adding large measures of character and drama to the proceedings as they did in CR, which is all I ask for. I'll take them at their word until the finished product demonstrates otherwise.
We need a trailer. We're like heroin addicts without our fix. The recent flurry of Bond-related stories and interviews just whets the appetite for some real footage. Surely they have enough in the can to deliver something.
Now I have no doubt there will be some great action set pieces that will be something less than scrupulously realistic -- it is a Bond movie, after all, not an Ingmar Bergman film --
This kind of annoys me. Why do people take Bergman as the epitome of hyper-realism? Maybe it's just me, but I haven't engaged in too many chess games with Death. :v )
"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
Now I have no doubt there will be some great action set pieces that will be something less than scrupulously realistic -- it is a Bond movie, after all, not an Ingmar Bergman film --
This kind of annoys me. Why do people take Bergman as the epitome of hyper-realism? Maybe it's just me, but I haven't engaged in too many chess games with Death. :v )
He is certainly a tad less literal than you are, Dan
I used Bergman as shorthand for a certain kind of serious-with-a-capital-"S" filmmaking that Bond most certainly is not and I hope never will be. And I mean no disrespect to Bergman, who I admire very much. But different films require different approaches. I want the Bond filmmakers to be creative and approach their material seriously, rather than present it with a wink as some sort of nonsense they're committing to film, a lark, to amuse the audience for a couple hours. I want the "possible, but highly unlikely" vision of Ian Fleming, not the almost clinically real approach of John LeCarre.
Maybe Craig said it best in an Associated Press interview today:
"We're not making a kitchen sink drama here. We are making a Bond movie."
Now I have no doubt there will be some great action set pieces that will be something less than scrupulously realistic -- it is a Bond movie, after all, not an Ingmar Bergman film --
This kind of annoys me. Why do people take Bergman as the epitome of hyper-realism? Maybe it's just me, but I haven't engaged in too many chess games with Death. :v )
He is certainly a tad less literal than you are, Dan
I used Bergman as shorthand for a certain kind of serious-with-a-capital-"S" filmmaking that Bond most certainly is not and I hope never will be.
I know, I just couldn't resist taking the opportunity to make a brilliant joke. (I know, I know, I shouldn't quit my dayjob. )
In terms of seriousness, I don't think we ever need to worry about Bond becoming Le Carre. There have, depending on one's point of view, been several serious Bond films (I would argue TLD, LTK and CR), but I can't imagine the Bond producers turning QOS into The Spy Who Came In From the Cold part 2.
"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
'Serious' is definitely in the eye of the beholder; I'd probably put OHMSS and CR ahead of the Daltons in this respect: the Aston Martin driving on the ice lake, still inside the shed, in LTK---and the wheelie-poppin' big rig in LTK---certainly diminish those films' 'seriousness,' IMO.
And it's worth noting that even the most 'Serious' Bond films have their moments of levity---"This never happened to the other fellow," Blofeld and Tracy reciting poetry to one another in OHMSS; 'Stephanie Broadchest' and and "To the right! To the right!" in CR :007)
I continue to have a very sanguine feeling about how the Craig Era will utilize the element of humour in its run...although, as Tee Hee and I discussed, I fully expect an Elvis joke in QoS
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 would ordinarily put OHMSS ahead of the Daltons, since OHMSS was certainly more tragic than the Daltons, however the reason I don't is that I have always considered Dalton to be the most serious of the Bonds (the only one whom IMO was completely and totally humourless). I think that Lazenby was terrible, but his dressing up as Sir Hillary was something I could never imagine Dalton doing.
In fact, apart from the beginning and the end, I don't consider OHMSS to be a particularly serious film. That's contrasted to the Daltons and CR (none of whom I found to be all that humerous), however as you said, seriousness is in the eye of the beholder.
"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
edited April 2008
Well, there's no question that Dalton was obviously ill-at-ease with the humour they attempted to shoe-horn into his films; more's the pity. It does affect his ranking among Bond actors in my eye.
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
'Serious' is definitely in the eye of the beholder; I'd probably put OHMSS and CR ahead of the Daltons in this respect: the Aston Martin driving on the ice lake, still inside the shed, in LTK---and the wheelie-poppin' big rig in LTK---certainly diminish those films' 'seriousness,' IMO.
I love OHMSS, although I don't think it could be classified as more serious than the Daltons, particularly Licence To Kill. Of course OHMSS is more serious than most Bond films, and even the serious ones have their lighter moments, however surely that 'You love chickens' bit detracts substantially from the serious tone of the picture. I like the scene, but it is far lighter in tone than the truck stunt in Licence To Kill (the winking fish and 'X-ray' photograph are the only really silly bits I can recall from that film).
As you correctly identify, Loeffs, even Casino Royale has its humour. And this is one of the key dividing lines between Craig's Bond and Damon's Bourne: the former is imbued with a sophisticated sense of humour. The one-liners in the script are very well written indeed, far better written than in any of the Brosnan films; far more knowing and intelligent. My hope is that they continue in this vein with Quantum of Solace. I may just be one of life's optimists, however on the basis of what I have seen and read thus far I do believe QoS will continue along the inspired path begun in Craig's debut. I, for one, am not scared.
Well, OHMSS is a serious film simply because Lazenby can't deliver a one-liner to save his life - or Tracy's. )
Craig is a bit better with the one-liners but not great imo. People laugh almost because they're relieved he can do it. I don't really think the audience engaged with Craig in the same way but it's not a 'star' performance in that sense, which is fair enough. You kind of watch from the outside.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
'Serious' is definitely in the eye of the beholder; I'd probably put OHMSS and CR ahead of the Daltons in this respect: the Aston Martin driving on the ice lake, still inside the shed, in LTK---and the wheelie-poppin' big rig in LTK---certainly diminish those films' 'seriousness,' IMO.
I love OHMSS, although I don't think it could be classified as more serious than the Daltons, particularly Licence To Kill. Of course OHMSS is more serious than most Bond films, and even the serious ones have their lighter moments, however surely that 'You love chickens' bit detracts substantially from the serious tone of the picture. I like the scene, but it is far lighter in tone than the truck stunt in Licence To Kill (the winking fish and 'X-ray' photograph are the only really silly bits I can recall from that film).
I'm also really bugged about Bond defending himself from the stuffed swordfish in the bar in LTK, the skydiving to the wedding, and the parachutes picked up like wedding trains as they head into the church... Of course, like the Beach Boys' music in AVTAK, I'm sure this all works for somebody...just not me.
I'll always maintain that OHMSS is more serious than the Daltons, on balance, primarily because of overall consistency of tone, and its relative adherence to its source material. The quiet desperation we see in Bond when he's trying to lose himself in the crowd, just before Tracy shows up is a fine example. In fact, the romance between Bond and Tracy really tips the balance toward 'serious' for me. When you think about it, there are only two films (out of 21) where Bond is one-half of an actual 'couple' (however briefly): OHMSS and CR.
Fair enough, though; as I said, this is very much an individual and subjective thing---like pretty much everything 007 :007)
As for Craig's humour delivery: I thought it was pitch-perfect in CR.
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 really think the audience engaged with Craig in the same way but it's not a 'star' performance in that sense, which is fair enough. You kind of watch from the outside.
Although this is based on entirely anecdotal evidence, and therefore perhaps not that much help, I could not disagree more. With one or two exceptions I have found that the vast majority of people really did engage with Daniel Craig in the role. As it is a rather character-driven movie it would have sort of fallen flat without such an engaging lead performance (of course I must take into accout that you, NP, probably *do* think that the film fell flat. Such is the variety of life!).
I'm also really bugged about Bond defending himself from the stuffed swordfish in the bar in LTK, the skydiving to the wedding, and the parachutes picked up like wedding trains as they head into the church... Of course, like the Beach Boys' music in AVTAK, I'm sure this all works for somebody...just not me.
I forgot about the swordfish, but it isn't *that* silly, surely? The fairly liberal use of graphic violence (for a Bond film) would tip it more into the 'serious' camp than some of OHMSS, although I take your point about the overall consistency of tone (I'm not sure I take your point about fidelity to the source material being a measure of seriousness; lots of Fleming is about as serious as Coco the Clown [see death by guano in Dr No and most of You Only Live Twice]).§
The quiet desperation we see in Bond when he's trying to lose himself in the crowd, just before Tracy shows up is a fine example.
Yes, this is definitely one of the standout scenes of OHMSS. For me this belies the notion that Lazenby couldn't act: there is a wonderful element of self-reflection and retrospection in the performance, of which this is a fine example. In a similar vein is the deleted scene in Licence To Kill where Bond is sitting alone in the hotel room with the news on the television. Why they cut that reflective scene I do not know; luckily they kept this element for Casino Royale (especially Bond surveying himeslf in the mirror).
As for Craig's humour delivery: I thought it was pitch-perfect in CR.
Agree entirely as far as that is concerned!
§ Just to be clear, I do love the element of the ridiculous in the books. You Only Live Twice is my favourite novel, a very bleak and depressing book but with plenty silly stuff about toad sweat and pretending to be Japanese. Capturing it on film is, however, not something I would appreciate.
I don't really think the audience engaged with Craig in the same way but it's not a 'star' performance in that sense, which is fair enough. You kind of watch from the outside.
Although this is based on entirely anecdotal evidence, and therefore perhaps not that much help, I could not disagree more. With one or two exceptions I have found that the vast majority of people really did engage with Daniel Craig in the role.
It's not based on anecdotal evidence... I offer no evidence of any kind. I don't mean audiences weren't interested by Craig, or impressed by him etc. They were, no question. But I don't think they warmed to him the way one might with Connery, Moore, Bruce in Die Hard. It's more like Christian Bale in Batman, you don't particularly want to be him, there's not that magic when suddenly you feel it's you up on the screen.
Comments
Why do I have the feeling it's going to be an interesting day on AJB?
To be fair, it was just about the best special effects I've ever seen!
/yawn
Bond has a history with dancing penguins.
Check out Fandango to see the news (and trailer) for the upcoming Titanic sequel.
It's better quality on iPlayer but I don't think you can watch outside of the UK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrxmpihCjqw
"The villain has taken over this place. Greene is pretending to be 'green,' but he's obviously not," says producer Michael G. Wilson.
What????
Add in the fighting female character, dogfighting planes, skydiving and this is sounding more and more like DAD and MR all the time.
What happened to the grounded reality and grittiness of CR?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You said it, Loeff. What the hell are the producers thinking of, making a James Bond film with action, car chases, airplane fights, beautiful women, exotic locations, and a villain who has a public front to disguise a sinister interior? Damn it, where are the song and dance numbers?!? Why'd Cubby have to go and die, leaving the franchise in the hands of these fools who have absolutely no idea what appeals to Bond fans?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
No one wants this mvoie to be great more than me. CR brought back the Bond I really like after DAD nearly killed it for me. I'm just concerned that after one great movie, the producers are returning to what they have given us in the recent past and straying far from Ian Flemmings vision.
All that stuff about the desert mirroring his psyche and him not having a romantic relationship with the main girl sounds pretty far off Brosnan to me.
Didn't like Chinatown?
Frankly, I think you're overly concerned. One of the most telling aspects of the runup to CR was the sheer volume of negative predictions---Craig would fail, the reboot would fail, the movie would fail, Bond was over, etc.,et al.
I'm of a mind to let them release the film, and view it myself, before I render a verdict
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Those who cannot correctly spell the name of The Creator cannot lecture us on his vision! :v
With all due respect to you and to the Expectant One (whose nickname I'm ready to change to Uof2LittleFaith), it's just too early to be fretting about the film. When it comes right down to it, we know comparatively little about the movie. Let's take the "eco-hotel." Such things are real, and the place being used for the hotel's exterior is also real--and pretty utilitarian looking: it isn't a fanciful Ken Adamesque super-headquarters. Why, then, would anyone assume it's another Atlantis or Blofeld's volcano? Why wouldn't we say it's on the level of Goldfinger's stud farm, Largo's Palmyra, or even Blofeld's Swiss allergy clinic? Maybe it is, like any real operation run by real criminals, a place that makes legitimate money and serves as an occasional meeting place for criminal minds?
Now let's look at Expectant's fear of the car chase and ycpchief's fear of the airplane dogfight. Because there will be a car chase it does not mean we're back to the days of J. W. Pepper. Car chases can be tense, exciting, and brilliant. Although I think they're wrong, people like to point to the Bourne movies as the "serious" alternatives to the Bond films--and every one of them has some sort of car chase. No one accuses Bourne of being formulaic or cartoonish. As for the dogfight, we haven't really had one in a Bond film short of the silly Little Nellie fight in YOLT, but who's to say it won't be tense and thrilling? If the dogfight has a logical place in the story and if it's clear that Bond really is in danger, then this could be a welcome sequence in the film and in the Bond series itself.
To conclude, let me offer the reasons I am NOT scared by Quantum of Solace:
1. There is no "stunt" casting. As in CR, the producers and director didn't go for big names just because people will come and see them. They chose a reliable character actor for the villain and two women who seem to be on the way up. This indicates to me that they picked the best performers for the roles, and they are confident people will respond to the characters more than to the names of the actors.
2. Marc Forster. This is a respected, accomplished director who was hired because he could bring a unique vision to the film. (He has even said in interviews he was surprised to be given a free hand.) The producers could have gotten any action hack to handle the movie, but they went with someone who has talent.
3. Paul Haggis. Granted, he's only one of apparently four screenwriters, but it looks like the bulk of the script is his doing. He can tell a good story and he has a lot of respect for Ian Fleming. I think the story is in good hands.
4. Daniel Craig. He won me over in CR, and he has said in interviews that he feels obligated to deliver a good film in QoS, and that he's happy with what he's seen of the movie so far.
5. Have you seen the footage? From what I've seen, the movie looks great. As in CR, we have interesting and exotic locations that hearken back to the lush films of the 1960s. There are also photos circulating of Craig cut up and covered with bruises, and reports of Dominic Greene being involved in an ax fight. This is shaping up to be a bruiser of a movie--not a film where Bond just breezes through the action.
6. EON has earned my trust. I freely admit that I was a CR and Craig doubter, and I was proved wrong. I don't feel that I have any right to demand of Wilson and Broccoli, "What have you done for me lately?" After CR, I feel that I owe them a measure of respect and that I should give them the benefit of the doubt. If QoS is indeed a stinking pile of crap--and who knows? it may be--then I will heap opprobium on them with gleeful abandon. Until then, I prefer to wait and hope.
Again -- we know too little about this film to make assumptions about how it will be handled. Now I have no doubt there will be some great action set pieces that will be something less than scrupulously realistic -- it is a Bond movie, after all, not an Ingmar Bergman film -- but I think the producers, Craig and Foster have all said they are committed to adding large measures of character and drama to the proceedings as they did in CR, which is all I ask for. I'll take them at their word until the finished product demonstrates otherwise.
We need a trailer. We're like heroin addicts without our fix. The recent flurry of Bond-related stories and interviews just whets the appetite for some real footage. Surely they have enough in the can to deliver something.
I can't believe I spelled Fleming wrong;%. Jeez.
He is certainly a tad less literal than you are, Dan
I used Bergman as shorthand for a certain kind of serious-with-a-capital-"S" filmmaking that Bond most certainly is not and I hope never will be. And I mean no disrespect to Bergman, who I admire very much. But different films require different approaches. I want the Bond filmmakers to be creative and approach their material seriously, rather than present it with a wink as some sort of nonsense they're committing to film, a lark, to amuse the audience for a couple hours. I want the "possible, but highly unlikely" vision of Ian Fleming, not the almost clinically real approach of John LeCarre.
Maybe Craig said it best in an Associated Press interview today:
"We're not making a kitchen sink drama here. We are making a Bond movie."
I know, I just couldn't resist taking the opportunity to make a brilliant joke.
In terms of seriousness, I don't think we ever need to worry about Bond becoming Le Carre. There have, depending on one's point of view, been several serious Bond films (I would argue TLD, LTK and CR), but I can't imagine the Bond producers turning QOS into The Spy Who Came In From the Cold part 2.
And it's worth noting that even the most 'Serious' Bond films have their moments of levity---"This never happened to the other fellow," Blofeld and Tracy reciting poetry to one another in OHMSS; 'Stephanie Broadchest' and and "To the right! To the right!" in CR :007)
I continue to have a very sanguine feeling about how the Craig Era will utilize the element of humour in its run...although, as Tee Hee and I discussed, I fully expect an Elvis joke in QoS
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
In fact, apart from the beginning and the end, I don't consider OHMSS to be a particularly serious film. That's contrasted to the Daltons and CR (none of whom I found to be all that humerous), however as you said, seriousness is in the eye of the beholder.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As you correctly identify, Loeffs, even Casino Royale has its humour. And this is one of the key dividing lines between Craig's Bond and Damon's Bourne: the former is imbued with a sophisticated sense of humour. The one-liners in the script are very well written indeed, far better written than in any of the Brosnan films; far more knowing and intelligent. My hope is that they continue in this vein with Quantum of Solace. I may just be one of life's optimists, however on the basis of what I have seen and read thus far I do believe QoS will continue along the inspired path begun in Craig's debut. I, for one, am not scared.
Craig is a bit better with the one-liners but not great imo. People laugh almost because they're relieved he can do it. I don't really think the audience engaged with Craig in the same way but it's not a 'star' performance in that sense, which is fair enough. You kind of watch from the outside.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'm also really bugged about Bond defending himself from the stuffed swordfish in the bar in LTK, the skydiving to the wedding, and the parachutes picked up like wedding trains as they head into the church...
I'll always maintain that OHMSS is more serious than the Daltons, on balance, primarily because of overall consistency of tone, and its relative adherence to its source material. The quiet desperation we see in Bond when he's trying to lose himself in the crowd, just before Tracy shows up is a fine example. In fact, the romance between Bond and Tracy really tips the balance toward 'serious' for me. When you think about it, there are only two films (out of 21) where Bond is one-half of an actual 'couple' (however briefly): OHMSS and CR.
Fair enough, though; as I said, this is very much an individual and subjective thing---like pretty much everything 007 :007)
As for Craig's humour delivery: I thought it was pitch-perfect in CR.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I forgot about the swordfish, but it isn't *that* silly, surely? The fairly liberal use of graphic violence (for a Bond film) would tip it more into the 'serious' camp than some of OHMSS, although I take your point about the overall consistency of tone (I'm not sure I take your point about fidelity to the source material being a measure of seriousness; lots of Fleming is about as serious as Coco the Clown [see death by guano in Dr No and most of You Only Live Twice]).§
Yes, this is definitely one of the standout scenes of OHMSS. For me this belies the notion that Lazenby couldn't act: there is a wonderful element of self-reflection and retrospection in the performance, of which this is a fine example. In a similar vein is the deleted scene in Licence To Kill where Bond is sitting alone in the hotel room with the news on the television. Why they cut that reflective scene I do not know; luckily they kept this element for Casino Royale (especially Bond surveying himeslf in the mirror).
Agree entirely as far as that is concerned!
§ Just to be clear, I do love the element of the ridiculous in the books. You Only Live Twice is my favourite novel, a very bleak and depressing book but with plenty silly stuff about toad sweat and pretending to be Japanese. Capturing it on film is, however, not something I would appreciate.
It's not based on anecdotal evidence... I offer no evidence of any kind.
Roger Moore 1927-2017