It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Food for thought. Below is a link to the October 2011 story when Skyfall's title surfaced via checking registered domain names. Possible that Bond 24's title could come out soon through similar means? We'll see.
http://fusible.com/2011/10/new-james-bond-film-to-be-titled-skyfall-domain-names-privately-registered/
I hope so. If it does happen, it shouldn't be that much longer to wait for a title.
--> Risico
--> The Hildebrand Rarity
--> 007 In New York, &
--> The Property Of A Lady
Just to rule those four titles out...:-P
To be honest, I don't see them going with Risico or PoaL, either.
I agree. It sounds more like a parody movie.
They'll never use it as a film title.
Or soft porn alpine movie "Octopussy"
Or Stephen Hawking's essay in "Quantum Of Solace".
Many of Fleming's titles were quite doubtful in nature or dubious. So perhaps for that reason "007 In New York" actually is the best :-).
I agree. It sounds more like a parody movie.
It's certainly the most 'to the point', shall we say. Unlike QoS, which always feels overtly pretentious, something Fleming never was.
I disagree. I think that QoS is a marvelous title and makes completely sense with the plot of the short story and the movie.
Agreed. If only they had the confidence to let the title stand alone on its own merits instead of clumsily naming the criminal organisation 'Quantum' so that the title made a semblance of sense to the moronic masses out there.
Yes, same with naming the Newspaper for Tomorrow in TND. There is something special about the Fleming titles and SF could fool anyone to think it's from him.
"I don’t think there’s time for humour in the ones that I’ve seen with Daniel Craig. He moves so fast and the action is so good, there’s been no time for jokes," he told Yahoo Movies.
"I’ve heard that they possibly are inserting a few throwaway lines into ‘Bond 24’ but I don’t think it matters because he’s just so damned good.""
Wow, someone who finally feels the same way about the humour as I do! :) They just shouldn't have throw away lines in the Craig films as Craig isn't particularly good at them coupled with the fact that they have no place in what will otherwise be a darker film. The two just don't mix. Casino Royale was a superior film to Skyfall, one reason being that the humour was in a more natural, realistic style which harmonised with Craig's acting style and the rest of the dark tone of the film. It's too bad that they don't have the balls to make a series of Bond films with Craig all in the same tone with the same style humour as Casino Royale. It's always just the same, lethargic formula.
When they replace Craig with someone who is good with the one liners like Moore and Connery and the films once again revolve around comedy like in the Moore era and the latter Connery films, then by all means, go back to the cheesiness. The Craig films have no place for cheese and this will certainly hinder my enjoyment of Bond 24 which is why I'm just not looking really looking that forward to it. They're starting to become too multifaceted again like in the Brosnan movies but thankfully to a lesser extent. Consistency is being thrown out the window and being replaced with a cocktail of tackiness.
Actually Craig can do really good one-liners. Him saying to Le Chifre, "Now we wouldn´t want that." after Le Chifre saying he´s confused about Bond´s name is on par with Connery´s best lines.
If Craig just kills someone then utters a one line clanker it will just seem out of place. He just doesn't seem like the sort of Bond who would do this based on what we learnt about him in CR and QOS. It'll mess things up I reckon, and the overall quality of the film will suffer. Unfortunately it sounds like they'll do just this. For me, the one liners sounded so out of place in SF based on the otherwise dark tone of the film and what we learnt about this Bond's darker personality in CR and QOS.
"We wouldn't want that" was one of the bad lines from CR. No Bond film is perfect. Atleast there was no one liner following the death of someone in these two films.
"She's sea sick" was a bad one from QOS.
I personally think, one of the biggest problems why the humor in the Craig films, and especially "Skyfall", doesn't work, has to do with the overall screenplay writing process.
Everytime I think the screenplays of the Craig films are perfect, but perhaps too perfect. If it is Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, John Logan or Robert Wade, it seems that on many occasions the screenplays lack -and here it comes-: spontaneity.
Many lines are so perfectly well-thought of. And I guess each of every screenplay writer is putting so much attention to detail for especially the more "poetic" lines in Craig's films. Remember the prickly conversation in "Casino Royale" between Bond and Vesper in the Orient Express TGV, when they first meet (typical Paul Haggis)? Truly wunderful. Or M's oration of Tennyson's poem in "Skyfall" (Logan's talent as playwright shows here wunderfully!)?
BUT, this almost "arty" attention to detail, its almost "playwright-esque" way of writing has got its side-effects on the spontaneity of lines (especially communication between characters in the films).
I see it for instance in simple scenes, like the first ever Moneypenny-scene for Craig as 007. So many more lines could have been uttered between Moneypenny and Bond, including some nice sexual inuendo ;-). But in the end the screenplay writers (and this goes for Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig too. Craig himself is a unofficial creative consultant as well, and still no Bond fan is mentioning that. Babs & Michael adore him) preferred to maintain a more "visual" image of the scene, in which Moneypenny is carefully, almost too carefully, introduced too us. The net result is a great visual style, but the scene also comes across as rather stiff & humorless.
Hence the overall lack of humor on the whole in the Craig films. Perhaps they have become a bit too Nolan-esque, too serious.
So I think humor can still be added, but it depends on the writing process how that will be executed. This is, IMO, a pure writing thing, and I therefore don't believe that "we should leave away all humor". Don't forget that this is most likely the reason that John Logan left as screenplay writer and that this time around Neal Purvis & Robert Wade are the ones to carefully polish the screenplay, so that it has more "spontaneity", more vivid lines, words and text, and therefore also more "humor".
Remember, the first two Connery Bond films were also very serious. They were also more cold-hearted in its core. Then "Goldfinger" came and things changed. Although Connery was a bit against turning Bond into comedy, his acting skills proved that he uttered all these one-liners, within the context of conversations, perfectly. And with it...."humor" got its true meaning in the Bond franchise.
Bond 24 most likely will make us laugh much more ;-).
PS: I still think that elderly couple in "Skyfall" in the metro tube were hilarious: "He's keen to get home :-O!"
I think what you're trying to say is, tailor the humour to Craig (as it is in CR and QoS). There are too many instances of Moore-Bond wit in SF and it takes you out of the movie.
It's not fair to call the one liners in SF "Moore-Bond wit". The worst of Moores one liners still beats the crap out of anything Craig (or just about everybody else) gets to say in SF.