What if "slapstick" films lost their humour?

Dirty Punker

Personally, it'd be a bridge too far as the humour and the wit of some films actually made them quite a bit more watchable and reminded us that it is a film that doesn't take itself (and shouldn't be taken) that seriously but what if it was cut from the movie.

Imagine Moonraker losing half its script.
Imagine "Diamonds are Forever" with Plenty plunging to her death.

How would you perceive the films, how do you think they would be accepted... etcetera, etcetera.
(I would imagine that this has already been discussed.)

Firemass

Dirty Punker wrote:

Imagine "Diamonds are Forever" with Plenty plunging to her death.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to see her splat on the parking lot. Humor and wit are a good thing. That scene was even re-used in one of the Wolverine movies. "I didn't know there was a pool down there."

That's not "slapstick" humor though...that term is being tossed around a lot lately and it's not even accurate.

Tiffany firing the machine gun and falling off the oil rig could probably be considered "slapstick"

Definition: comedy based on deliberately clumsy actions and humorously embarrassing events.

One of the few examples of "slapstick" humor in Moonraker would be like one of the gunmen falling out of the boat when it does an abrupt U-turn. Or maybe Jaws ripping off the steering wheel and going over the waterfall. His indestructibility is a fun running joke that carried over from TSWLM so it's to be expected.

Dirty Punker

Firemass wrote:

Dirty Punker wrote:

Imagine "Diamonds are Forever" with Plenty plunging to her death.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to see her splat on the parking lot. Humor and wit are a good thing. That scene was even re-used in one of the Wolverine movies. "I didn't know there was a pool down there."
That's not "slapstick" humor though. The term gets tossed around a lot lately and it's not even accurate.
Definition: Humorously embarrassing events.

???
Exceptionally fine shot. If you shoot to kill...don't miss.

Anywho, that's why I asked what would happen if they lost their humour or embarrassing turn of events.
I mean I love humour and wit as much as the next guy and it's a big part of the series but that is besides the point.
The point that I'm trying to make is how different would it be if there was none in it or to lighten up the mood of the film after a particularly unpleasant scene.

hehadlotsofguts

I liked the slapstick humour. It adds comic relief after a tense scene.

Timothy Dalton was a dark Bond, but even He had elements of slapstick in his films. Braun and Perez going off a cliff in a flaming jeep, in LTK is an example.

superado

Very interesting premise, DP. We know that the Bond producers first encountered the challenge of translating the Bond stories into film, in that literally many of the books’ strengths are lost in translation, but director Terence Young and script assistant Johanna Harwood came upon the solution of creating style, wit and charm for the Bond character to make him appealing to movie audiences. Much of those qualities were integral in the prose and narrative themselves and in the attitude that the world of Bond was projected from Ian Fleming’s own worldview. As for humor, the one example that comes to mind is in DAF when Bond is being given a lesson about diamonds and how impressed he was with the flawless brilliance of the samples being presented to him, which was abruptly revealed to be cubic zirconium. Another was in LALD when Bond and Solitaire frantically yanked open the door of the train compartment, which yawned sarcastically back at them.

Not accounting for the factors that kept the series afloat for 50+ years, I would welcome a taut retelling of the movies, esp. those based on the Fleming material, of course including the Fleming worldview mentioned, though they might come off like PBS did them (no offence to Downton Abbey viewers!) Degrees of how this might feel can be examined in film adaptations of John LeCarre novels, esp. the two versions of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, except those seemed to have had any humor sucked out of them. Another example are the Bourne movies that are virtually humorless apart from some deadpan deliveries by Damon, which were nonetheless given the Hollywood treatment that ensured their watchability, much more so than the serious LeCarre movies. A funny Damon line, “How could I forget about you? You're the only person I know.”

I think the biggest challenge is how to make Bond, his life setting and how he communicates his worldview attractive to viewers, bringing us back to the original EON hurdle, but making him less affable and IMO striking just the right balance of humor and everything else that would be pre-GF. A good litmus test, if it makes Q roll his eyes, it's too much (RM and PB immediately comes to mind!) ...a glare from Q, it's just right.

heartbroken_mr_drax

superado wrote:

I think the biggest challenge is how to make Bond, his life setting and how he communicates his worldview attractive to viewers, bringing us back to the original EON hurdle, but making him less affable and IMO striking just the right balance of humor and everything else that would be pre-GF.  A good litmus test, if it makes Q roll his eyes, it's too much (RM and PB immediately comes to mind!) ...a glare from Q, it's just right.

Bang on.

The slapstick in many of the Bond films work so well in the cinema environment - for fans, we can tire of the jokes because they don't play well over and over. I don't think the films should be without them and I understand why they're there.

Much prefer "Did I?" situational dark humour as opposed to the flapping of the wings or the Tarzan yell. However, I don't mind California Girls or the guys falling off the boat in MR...

BIG TAM

Difficult one, this.I was actually less keen on the slapstick element of MOONRAKER when I first saw it - aged 11, an age you're meant to appreciate that kind of thing. Now I'm older it seems more charming. Would MOONRAKER be a better film without the silly stuff? Probably. Take the hovercraft. The gadget is nonsense. The double-taking pigeons, etc is overkill. However imagine the sequence if the pigeons are dispensed with & the speedboat hitmen start shooting at Bond - panicked tourists diving for cover, running for their lives, Bond giving a worried look backwards. You still have the daft gadget, but the sense of danger dilutes its silliness to the point where you forget how stupid the hovercraft is. The early Bonds did this to better effect. By the '70s everyone seemed to be having so good a time nobody knew when to rein things in. But it is is what it is & these films are what they are. So yes, they'd be better without but they're no less enjoyable to watch with it all in.

Revolver66

BIG TAM wrote:

Difficult one, this.I was actually less keen on the slapstick element of MOONRAKER when I first saw it - aged 11, an age you're meant to appreciate that kind of thing. Now I'm older it seems more charming. Would MOONRAKER be a better film without the silly stuff? Probably. Take the hovercraft. The gadget is nonsense. The double-taking pigeons, etc is overkill. However imagine the sequence if the pigeons are dispensed with & the speedboat hitmen start shooting at Bond - panicked tourists diving for cover, running for their lives, Bond giving a worried look backwards. You still have the daft gadget, but the sense of danger dilutes its silliness to the point where you forget how stupid the hovercraft is. The early Bonds did this to better effect. By the '70s everyone seemed to be having so good a time nobody knew when to rein things in. But it is is what it is & these films are what they are. So yes, they'd be better without but they're no less enjoyable to watch with it all in.

A perfect summation! I concur -{