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
Oh and you'd have to include the moment where Jaws takes off his costume in the alleyway at the Rio carnaval.
Hey presto, different MR.
I think it is, yes.
The discussion remains centred around the trailer and the tone it sets.
Please stop trying to constantly close down discussions by other people.
Er, because that's not what any one is saying?
I entirely welcome the change in direction since DC took over. I like the look of CR and QoS. I thought QoS was BETTER than CR, but like DC and BB I think they didn't capture the humour of Bond and the SF trailer suggests that might still be the case. That is what I and others are saying about the DC era. He himself seems to agree.
Well it really comes down to your definition of 'the humour of Bond'.
Fleming didn't use humour in his books.
In the 60s films the humour was all about occassional one liners, or the black humour which came from the inventive ways they killed off the various bad guys.
In the 70s there were more visual gags, awful puns or double entendres. This carried on to the end of Moore's tenure with the Abbott & Costelow tribute on top of the fire engine in AVTAK.
Dalton's films went back to occassional one liners ( as badly delivered as Connery's were good), and Brosnan maintained that trend but some visual gags returned although less blatant than the Moore era.
Soo, we have seen two dozen examples of one liners nicely delivered by Craig, and we have seen visual gags as well (eg the car alarms being set off in CR). But if non of that is 'the humour of Bond', then what is?
If you don't know after watching 22 Bond films, then I probably can't help you.
Try asking Daniel Craig (from Univex via Total Film):
"We couldn't shut up,” Craig recalled. “It was a chance for us to re-read Ian Fleming, and we started emailing each other, 'What about this and what about this?', and that's how it snowballed."
Though the duo weren’t giving away any plot points during their chat at the Ciragan Palace on the banks of the Bosphorus, they insisted that after the dourness of Quantum Of Solace, Skyfall would put a spring back in Bond’s step.
007 will have a ‘rich’ romantic life and will be bringing the funny back. “He’s as funny as hell in this movie,” Craig assured.
“You have to have a script that has the bones of comedy,” Craig tells us. “Comedy in Bond films, for me, comes out of the situations people get into. They're exciting, and hopefully heart-stopping, and the comedy comes out of one-liners and things. When Sam [Mendes] came in, it was key for all of us that there's a lightness of touch in the writing that's not been as evident in the past two.”
Producer Barbara Broccoli agrees. “It's got those situations where you think, 'You could only see this in a Bond movie,'” she adds. “That's where the wit comes into it.”
Producer Barbara Broccoli agrees. “It's got those situations where you think, 'You could only see this in a Bond movie,'” she adds. “That's where the wit comes into it.”
Clearly Craig ramming the car into the fence in CR was meant to be dead serious according to him :p
No one is saying that there was NO humour in CR and QoS, it's just that they were all too brief flashes. I have zero doubt that DC will chew up some good opportunities for humour if he is given them. It seems that DC also feels his first two outings were quite dour and would be happy to see a lighter tone (where appropriate). Once again, for the sake of the contrarians, that doesn't mean you have to have winking pigeons or giant lasers - it means genuine, cleverly scripted and well delivered humour, wit and a lightness of touch. Most of all, for me, I want to see Bond actually enjoying himself. This doesn't actually require "jokes" in inverted commas, but a general tone and feel that some of us (perhaps only me) recognise as one of the things that actually defines the screen Bond and distinguishes him from Bourne et al.
That's because the Brosnan era were box-ticking, cliche vehicles. They were films that forced the familiarity of older Bond films down the throats of the audience. It was business as usual with little effort to make the films better than what they were. GE is the only Bond film from that era that's worth a damn IMO.
You wouldn't get Bourne crashing a car into a fence to get back at the driver who was rude to him. Neither would you get Bourne wining and dining on a train or in a hotel right after a high stakes card game. Those things are VERY Bond-esque.
A quite nice interview with Campbell:
I love his voice too :D
Well bless you @Getafix, and thanks for the lesson. I've been watching Bond since the early 70s so I've had quite a schooling in the subject.
I think my point was that 'the humour of Bond' is quite a wide ranging subect, and although I understand DC and BBs points about the films Bond humour does encompass double taking pigeons as well as throw away lines.
Craig saying 'the comedy comes out of one liners and things' but I find that sort of vague.
I understand and appreciate the history of humour in Bond, but we tend to come back to the same thing. Crummy and bad one liners that sound great if well delivered, but when badly delivered reminds one of the office clown who makes bad jokes but thinks they are funny (Step forward Pierce).
A more light hearted, easy on the eye film like TLD was exciting but the jokes were bad and the delivery was bad and the humour fell flat because of it. CR had less humour but what there was was funnier than TLD because Craig simply delivered the lines better.
If there is humour in SF and I'm sure there will be it won't be seen in a 2 minute trailer, because you can't put that sort of thing accross under those conditions. For all we know in the film when Bond walks up to the one way glass he probably crosses his eyes and sticks his tongue out.
That IS very interesting. In a way, there are many similitudes between TLD/LTK and CR/QOS, even the south american angle on the second one and the more european tone in the first. I guess SF will be like having the third Dalton film afterall ;)
About Fleming not using humour in his novels, cmon, even some titles are humouristic. And the macabre and dark humour is very british in many many ways.
About the SF trailer: what I still find interesting about Craig´s performance is that, through little mannerisms, you can sense what he´s trying to convey. Brosnan would exagerate it by making his choke-fart- squint eyed - deniro face (hey, I love the guy alright?). Moore could do everything with the eyebrow (which, let´s face it, was the better actor - his eyebrow, I mean). Dalton would be theatrical about it (love Dalton as well). Connery would have the coolest of grinns on his face. And Lanzenby would charge for the extra "acting". Thing is, Craig is different, which, NOW, is very cool.
Aww. Poor Pierce but that did make me laugh :)) :))
;)
Due to the screen grab. yes. If not for that I think many, including me, would have missed him.
Yes, well sorry for the patronising tone, but I was getting a little p****** with the general inability to concede a valid point - i.e. that in the view of many the DC era has lacked a little lightness of touch. A point which, as far as I can see, has also been made by by Craig himself. As for the definition of what Bondian humour is, yes I agree it encompasses a range of things, but there wasn't a lot of it in either CR or QoS. I, like many, would like to see a tad more of not just jokes, but of Bond enjoying himself. Any way, I think we basically agree.
I don't see much humour in the CR PTS (I like the film, but for the record I think TLD is better).
Anyway, I've been trying not to go into this one with high expectations after I was let down by QOS, but damn this looks awesome.
Yes, I think we do. ;-)
I have always enjoyed the light hearted moments in Bond. I have a sneaky feeling Sf will deliver.
Its Dench and Finney, Creasy. Or this is what people say regarding to Finney.