Please bring back the 'husband and wife' from the tube in Bond 24!

4EverBonded

Yes, it is in its way important enough. I was glad to have appropriate humor return in Skyfall; not over the top or too cheesy. That one line was rather a nod to Moore's Bond and it was nicely done. A little of that goes a long way in a Bond film.

Gustav_Graves

4EverBonded wrote:

Yes, it is in its way important enough. I was glad to have appropriate humor return in Skyfall; not over the top or too cheesy. That one line was rather a nod to Moore's Bond and it was nicely done. A little of that goes a long way in a Bond film.

For me it doesn't matter if it's a nod or not. It needs to work. It needs to tickle the audience. That's what it did in 'Skyfall'.

You know, one can criticise 'nods', but mostly if they don't work. In 'Die Another Day' several nods felt out of place and forced upon us. In 'Skyfall' they seemed way more natural. The couple in the tube station? A good example of being a nod that actually works.

But that's my opinion ;-).

TheWizardOfIce

Gustav_Graves wrote:

Again, please see this couple as a cameo like the one Victor Tourjanski had as 'the man with the bottle of wine' in three of Moore's Bond films:



I just don't see the 'damage' in bringing back the 'couple from the Tube'. It's like bringing back other cameo's, like actor Tom So (Fukutu in 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall') or Lenny Rabin ('Goldfinger', 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', 'The Spy Who Loved Me', 'For Your Eyes Only' & 'Octopussy'....making him appear in Bond movies with 3 different Bond actors):




Also, do not forget that the producers/directors usually add these cameo's for their own fun ánd for the fun of fans. Producers/directors in a way are as nerdy as we Bond fans are. They also add some continuity in the Bond films. And a cameo from the 'husband and wife from the tube' in Bond 24 has no negative impact at all on the entire movie. On the contrary.....they make the public laugh.

There's a big difference between bringing back a jobbing actor in a small role like Lenny Rabin or Shane Rimmer than what you're advocating.

Tourjansky is the only example in Bond history of what you are suggesting (JW doesn't count as he is a proper character) and that was at the decadent height of the 70s. Are you really suggesting the Craig era goes back to those days?

Where is this madness going to end? Off the top of my head heres a list of some other classic comic characters Gustav might like to see back:

The Bernard Bresslaw 'I got a brudder' undertaker from DAF.
The 'oooh a surprise' hotel guy and the Phuyuck waiter from TMWTGG.
The camp hotel guy from MR.
The bed of nails fakir and sausage guzzling German sterotype couple from OP.
The 'ma caaar' taxi driver french stereotype and the fisherman who ends up in the empty lake from AVTAK.

Can anyone think of any more? I think the general rule should be they should ideally be a member of the public, should have no more than 20 secs screen time and do not necessarily have to have a line.

I'm sure this is what EON had in mind when they decided to do a gritty reboot.

RC7

Gustav_Graves wrote:

RC7 wrote:

Let's be honest, the delivery of the line 'He's keen to get home' is about as wooden as Scandinavian housing. It's not helped by the fact Craig follows it up with a perfectly executed one-liner. Don't get me wrong, I smiled the first time I saw it, but perhaps that was due to the fact the crowd at the premiere lapped it up. In reality it's pretty naff, leave it to Craig to add some humour, he's actually pretty good at it. This is from an avid Moore fan.

I disagree. The fact that the audience was laughing says enough. It's perhaps not your style to do this, or the way a Bond fan would approach humour. But non-fans actually liked it. I also was surprised to hear the audience laughing about this line.....and especially about the look of the metro machinist (Reminds me of the drunk man in Venice who sees a coffin in the canal, 'Moonraker'). But the audience loved it.

I think that's important no?

I couldn't care less about the general audience. I work in the industry and the worst thing you can possibly do is pander to them. At the end of the day, no matter how stupid they are, they'll understand when they're being patronised.

Also, for someone who insists SF is a hardcore espionage film, I'm surprised you'd want anything remotely close to this in Bond 24.

BAIN123

Audiences may laugh at something but that doesn't necessarily mean they want to see it lots of times. I agree with @RC7.

Gustav_Graves

RC7 wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

RC7 wrote:

Let's be honest, the delivery of the line 'He's keen to get home' is about as wooden as Scandinavian housing. It's not helped by the fact Craig follows it up with a perfectly executed one-liner. Don't get me wrong, I smiled the first time I saw it, but perhaps that was due to the fact the crowd at the premiere lapped it up. In reality it's pretty naff, leave it to Craig to add some humour, he's actually pretty good at it. This is from an avid Moore fan.

I disagree. The fact that the audience was laughing says enough. It's perhaps not your style to do this, or the way a Bond fan would approach humour. But non-fans actually liked it. I also was surprised to hear the audience laughing about this line.....and especially about the look of the metro machinist (Reminds me of the drunk man in Venice who sees a coffin in the canal, 'Moonraker'). But the audience loved it.

I think that's important no?

I couldn't care less about the general audience. I work in the industry and the worst thing you can possibly do is pander to them. At the end of the day, no matter how stupid they are, they'll understand when they're being patronised.

Also, for someone who insists SF is a hardcore espionage film, I'm surprised you'd want anything remotely close to this in Bond 24.

For the very simple reason: Because a good Bond film is not necessarily a 100% perfect representation of today's political environment and real world of espionage. If I'm not mistaken, that wasn't Ian Fleming's purpose. Off course James Bond is not the perfect WikiLeaks-file, but its theme, its political theme, the importance of intelligence services, perfectly fits current-day political society. Albeit with a huge eyewink at times, an Ian Fleming-esque eyewink. I think Fleming himself would have loved the larger-than-life version of Julian Asange: Mr Silva :-).

Regarding the discussion about bringing back the 'couple from the tube station'. It's wunderful you work in the industry. But if you say that you don't care about the audience, then James Bond wouldn't exist at all. Ask Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli. And personally, I just loved this couple in the tube :-). Seeing them again in Bond 24 is by no means 'bringing them back lots of times'.

myworldisenough

I see there is only one way to settle this. We should put it to the vote. Do we A) want to see the return of the tube couple or B) see a return of the double-take pigeon from Moonraker? I'm going with the pigeon. ;)

RC7

Gustav_Graves wrote:

RC7 wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

RC7 wrote:

Let's be honest, the delivery of the line 'He's keen to get home' is about as wooden as Scandinavian housing. It's not helped by the fact Craig follows it up with a perfectly executed one-liner. Don't get me wrong, I smiled the first time I saw it, but perhaps that was due to the fact the crowd at the premiere lapped it up. In reality it's pretty naff, leave it to Craig to add some humour, he's actually pretty good at it. This is from an avid Moore fan.

I disagree. The fact that the audience was laughing says enough. It's perhaps not your style to do this, or the way a Bond fan would approach humour. But non-fans actually liked it. I also was surprised to hear the audience laughing about this line.....and especially about the look of the metro machinist (Reminds me of the drunk man in Venice who sees a coffin in the canal, 'Moonraker'). But the audience loved it.

I think that's important no?

I couldn't care less about the general audience. I work in the industry and the worst thing you can possibly do is pander to them. At the end of the day, no matter how stupid they are, they'll understand when they're being patronised.

Also, for someone who insists SF is a hardcore espionage film, I'm surprised you'd want anything remotely close to this in Bond 24.

For the very simple reason: Because a good Bond film is not necessarily a 100% perfect representation of today's political environment and real world of espionage. If I'm not mistaken, that wasn't Ian Fleming's purpose. Off course James Bond is not the perfect WikiLeaks-file, but its theme, its political theme, the importance of intelligence services, perfectly fits current-day political society. Albeit with a huge eyewink at times, an Ian Fleming-esque eyewink. I think Fleming himself would have loved the larger-than-life version of Julian Asange: Mr Silva :-).

Regarding the discussion about bringing back the 'couple from the tube station'. It's wunderful you work in the industry. But if you say that you don't care about the audience, then James Bond wouldn't exist at all. Ask Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli. And personally, I just loved this couple in the tube :-). Seeing them again in Bond 24 is by no means 'bringing them back lots of times'.

You'te definitely the most schizophrenic poster on here GG. I find it so difficult to converse with you as you don't seem to have a consistent POV. There are other posters I disagree with, but I can take their opinion more seriously as they maintain a level of consistency, rather than amending their views to suit the trajectory of the conversation.

TheWizardOfIce

RC7 wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

RC7 wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

RC7 wrote:

Let's be honest, the delivery of the line 'He's keen to get home' is about as wooden as Scandinavian housing. It's not helped by the fact Craig follows it up with a perfectly executed one-liner. Don't get me wrong, I smiled the first time I saw it, but perhaps that was due to the fact the crowd at the premiere lapped it up. In reality it's pretty naff, leave it to Craig to add some humour, he's actually pretty good at it. This is from an avid Moore fan.

I disagree. The fact that the audience was laughing says enough. It's perhaps not your style to do this, or the way a Bond fan would approach humour. But non-fans actually liked it. I also was surprised to hear the audience laughing about this line.....and especially about the look of the metro machinist (Reminds me of the drunk man in Venice who sees a coffin in the canal, 'Moonraker'). But the audience loved it.

I think that's important no?

I couldn't care less about the general audience. I work in the industry and the worst thing you can possibly do is pander to them. At the end of the day, no matter how stupid they are, they'll understand when they're being patronised.

Also, for someone who insists SF is a hardcore espionage film, I'm surprised you'd want anything remotely close to this in Bond 24.

For the very simple reason: Because a good Bond film is not necessarily a 100% perfect representation of today's political environment and real world of espionage. If I'm not mistaken, that wasn't Ian Fleming's purpose. Off course James Bond is not the perfect WikiLeaks-file, but its theme, its political theme, the importance of intelligence services, perfectly fits current-day political society. Albeit with a huge eyewink at times, an Ian Fleming-esque eyewink. I think Fleming himself would have loved the larger-than-life version of Julian Asange: Mr Silva :-).

Regarding the discussion about bringing back the 'couple from the tube station'. It's wunderful you work in the industry. But if you say that you don't care about the audience, then James Bond wouldn't exist at all. Ask Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli. And personally, I just loved this couple in the tube :-). Seeing them again in Bond 24 is by no means 'bringing them back lots of times'.

You'te definitely the most schizophrenic poster on here GG. I find it so difficult to converse with you as you don't seem to have a consistent POV. There are other posters I disagree with, but I can take their opinion more seriously as they maintain a level of consistency, rather than amending their views to suit the trajectory of the conversation.

Very well put RC7. I don't think he knows what he wants.

Gustav_Graves

RC7 wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

RC7 wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

RC7 wrote:

Let's be honest, the delivery of the line 'He's keen to get home' is about as wooden as Scandinavian housing. It's not helped by the fact Craig follows it up with a perfectly executed one-liner. Don't get me wrong, I smiled the first time I saw it, but perhaps that was due to the fact the crowd at the premiere lapped it up. In reality it's pretty naff, leave it to Craig to add some humour, he's actually pretty good at it. This is from an avid Moore fan.

I disagree. The fact that the audience was laughing says enough. It's perhaps not your style to do this, or the way a Bond fan would approach humour. But non-fans actually liked it. I also was surprised to hear the audience laughing about this line.....and especially about the look of the metro machinist (Reminds me of the drunk man in Venice who sees a coffin in the canal, 'Moonraker'). But the audience loved it.

I think that's important no?

I couldn't care less about the general audience. I work in the industry and the worst thing you can possibly do is pander to them. At the end of the day, no matter how stupid they are, they'll understand when they're being patronised.

Also, for someone who insists SF is a hardcore espionage film, I'm surprised you'd want anything remotely close to this in Bond 24.

For the very simple reason: Because a good Bond film is not necessarily a 100% perfect representation of today's political environment and real world of espionage. If I'm not mistaken, that wasn't Ian Fleming's purpose. Off course James Bond is not the perfect WikiLeaks-file, but its theme, its political theme, the importance of intelligence services, perfectly fits current-day political society. Albeit with a huge eyewink at times, an Ian Fleming-esque eyewink. I think Fleming himself would have loved the larger-than-life version of Julian Asange: Mr Silva :-).

Regarding the discussion about bringing back the 'couple from the tube station'. It's wunderful you work in the industry. But if you say that you don't care about the audience, then James Bond wouldn't exist at all. Ask Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli. And personally, I just loved this couple in the tube :-). Seeing them again in Bond 24 is by no means 'bringing them back lots of times'.

You'te definitely the most schizophrenic poster on here GG. I find it so difficult to converse with you as you don't seem to have a consistent POV. There are other posters I disagree with, but I can take their opinion more seriously as they maintain a level of consistency, rather than amending their views to suit the trajectory of the conversation.

I love discussing with you though @RC7. But once people start using certain 'rude' adjectives without giving any proper explanation why they use it, I think it's better to calm down myself first. My style of posting may be fast, too fast.....and may even sound/look like I want to 'win' a discussion. It's just not true. I just adhere/stick to my arguments. But calling me schizophrenic is just not the way @RC7.

doubleoego

Are we having a serious discussion about this nonsense?

TheWizardOfIce

doubleoego wrote:

Are we having a serious discussion about this nonsense?

I'm really not that sure. It could just be a colossal wind up by Gustav_Graves.

Dragonpol

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

doubleoego wrote:

Are we having a serious discussion about this nonsense?

I'm really not that sure. It could just be a colossal wind up by Gustav_Graves.

He wound you up. He wound you up like a kipper, geezer!

4EverBonded

I just find it amusing that I come back to this site after work, say 10 hours from when I last glanced at it and there are 20 new posts on this thread. I never would have thought it capable of spinning that much discussion.

Suivez_ce_parachute

Gustav_Graves wrote:

But calling me schizophrenic is just not the way @RC7.

You just said "give the people what they want", and you just said that the 80s was Bond's low decade (while it was the time when it crushed the worldwide box office every 2 years in 77,79,81,83 : top#4, top #1, top #2, top #2). And now you want that gag from this "low" period. It's really like keeping on saying the next director should be an award winning director, and then name Nolan who never had one. Etc.

Gustav_Graves

Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:

Gustav_Graves wrote:

But calling me schizophrenic is just not the way @RC7.

You just said "give the people what they want", and you just said that the 80s was Bond's low decade (while it was the time when it crushed the worldwide box office every 2 years in 77,79,81,83 : top#4, top #1, top #2, top #2). And now you want that gag from this "low" period. It's really like keeping on saying the next director should be an award winning director, and then name Nolan who never had one. Etc.

How can you compare one single cameo, which this topic is about, with what I've said about the Roger Moore films and other 80-ies Bond films on the whole :-)?

When it concerns such a nice cameo, which on the whole only takes a few seconds, I think there's nothing wrong to hear how the audiences were laughing out (loud) about this little cameo. And I don't think the audience didn't really see it as a nod....it was just sincere funny.

Discussing the quality of an entire movie is another thing. Also for that the adagium -'give the people what they want'- counts. But personally, I indeed prefer Sam Mendes multi-layered approach instead of Lee Tamahori's Matric-action approach :-).

Regarding the Bond films of the 80-ies. With 'low decade' I was referring to the fact that in the 80-ies single Bond films, with inflation correction over today's prices, weren't as succesful as today's blockbusters starring Craig. But....I had this discussion with you before hehe.

And..........high quality movies can still embrace large audiences. Hence the success of 'Skyfall'.

TheWizardOfIce

I think the point is I don't think I would have an issue if you had said can we have a similar moment to this - if done right I suppose its ok and it got a decent laugh out of the audience (although personally I felt Craig's 'health and safety' line was better and more than enough).

It's your inexplicable wish that it must be this couple in particular that returns which is bizarre.

I can understand why people (right or wrong) might want to see JW return as he is a character but this pair? They are just passersby. If you want such a gag what's wrong with getting some other extras to do it? Is this guy your dad or something and you are trying to drum up work for him?

Even Tourjansky had more screen presence with his cheeky glance at the bottle than this guy with his plank like delivery. It just defies all reason to bring him back. And as for his missus....

thelivingroyale

This has already seen more activity than the Alan Partridge thread and my TV thread 8-|

thedove

I don't see the harm in it. I can think of worse things to do...like bringing back a Sheriff from a southern parish for example. But really a couple who happens to be at the scene of another Bond moment? No harm in that! Besides they delivered the dialogue really well!

Suivez_ce_parachute

Gustav_Graves wrote:

Regarding the Bond films of the 80-ies. With 'low decade' I was referring to the fact that in the 80-ies single Bond films, with inflation correction over today's prices, weren't as succesful as today's blockbusters starring Craig. But....I had this discussion with you before hehe.

And yes and the reason why so many people don't like your tone is that you keep hammering "facts" while they're just twisted facts to match your opinions, and that you don't care when others try to explain something to you so you can look at the bigger picture. Whether it's with box office, academy awards, or movie scores, etc. You keep on posting huge posts with bold statements or 200 items lists...

The 80s Bond not as successful despite crushing the worldwide box office at rank #1 or #2 on repeated occasions ? Just because of that dollar worldwide adjusted list you keep on sticking to ? The fact that BoxOfficeMojo does not maintain such lists does not ring a bell about how meaningless it is ?

I'll do it again here :

Fact 1 :

Method "dollar" : Octopussy in the list was $190M worldwide in 1983, and become $430M after dollar adjustment. #20 of the list. Boo ! It's "obvious" it was not very successful, despite only being beaten by Star Wars that year...

Oh really ?

Fact 2 :

For every Bond movie, dollar is a currency that only account for a minority of the box office (and the trend is stronger and stronger, Skyfall earned more in Europe than in the US for instance). So let's stop using this dollar for worldwide adjustment. Dollar inflation adjustment is for US box office (note that BoxOfficeMojo proposes such lists), and for nothing else.

Example, let's use pound instead :

During Octopussy release, the dollar went as strong as being close to one pound. Let's use 0.8 'only'. Octopussy in 1983 was then 150M£. If you use pound inflation, today that means 430M£ after pound inflation correction. In dollar of today (so that I don't have to do the whole list to compare), as now the dollar is 0.66£, that means... 650M$.

After a change of currency of reference, Octopussy has its inflation corrected result with a 50% bonus. As other movies will have malus (I think Goldeneye, Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace for instance would have a malus as they were released in weak dollar periods), it may climb into the top 10 or even more. The fact it was second only to Star Wars would be less forgotten then :)

No I won't do all the movies (because "pound inflation" is as meaningless a "dollar inflation", the true computation should use inflations of all the currencies with the matching box office percentages)

When I tried to explain such things to make fun of those "Skyfall #1 of all time" statements, many here had problems because they really wanted to Skyfall to be #1.

Here I'm using the exact same thinking just to show that having box office 1983 worldwide #2 Octopussy so low in this meaningless "worldwide ajusted" list is only an artifact of the strength of $ over time ; somehow I think it will be less argued about :)

saunders

thedove wrote:

I don't see the harm in it. I can think of worse things to do...like bringing back a Sheriff from a southern parish for example. But really a couple who happens to be at the scene of another Bond moment? No harm in that! Besides they delivered the dialogue really well!

I totally agree with you, and to be fair if the same couple did appear in the next film it would probably only be the hard core fans like us who would even notice, and deep down don't we all really like these subtle in jokes, they make us feel rather superior!

Ludovico

I thought it was a funny line and a funny joke.

Gustav_Graves

I thought the same :-).

DoctorKaufmann

It was a nice random little joke, I liked it, but I don't see the point of bringing them back. As some said, the Moore era overstretched parody and comedy a bit, e.g. the booze guy in three consecutive Moore Bond movies.

Suivez_ce_parachute

Note that they joke about Bond running to catch the train. Even seen only once, it's already a running gag.

Quarrel

And while we're at it, bring back the hairpiece from DAF!!

DoctorKaufmann

And In Germany the guy said: "Apparently he got no ticket!" I liked "He looks keen to get home" better...

TheWizardOfIce

Ludovico wrote:

I thought it was a funny line and a funny joke.

The quality of the line is not the issue here. It is that this couple were so utterly hilarious they have to be brought back for B24.

I don't mind the odd one liner if they are funny but Gustav's delusion that somehow this guy's Chaplin-esque comic timing is what made the scene is utterly preposterous. You could literally get anyone to say that line and it would've got just the same response. The idea that this bloke is the Olivier of one liners is completely insane.

Soundofthesinners

Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:

Note that they joke about Bond running to catch the train. Even seen only once, it's already a running gag.

All right, everyone, thread's over.

Gustav_Graves

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

I thought it was a funny line and a funny joke.

The quality of the line is not the issue here. It is that this couple were so utterly hilarious they have to be brought back for B24.

I don't mind the odd one liner if they are funny but Gustav's delusion that somehow this guy's Chaplin-esque comic timing is what made the scene is utterly preposterous. You could literally get anyone to say that line and it would've got just the same response. The idea that this bloke is the Olivier of one liners is completely insane.

Yes, but the lines did add some fun to it. I think you are exaggerating my initial remarks. Because I do agree that the couple was hilarious hehe. Bring them back ;-).