Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Did Craig dislike QoS?


127 replies to this topic

#121 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 27 January 2010 - 04:32 PM

I don't recall FRWL being fun and light-hearted.


Really?

The score is, there's a general light mood (contrasting with the impending doom of Grant) and Connery's even smiling in action sequences.

Ditto with Shark and Safari. It's absolutely light-hearted, nearly to a fault IMHO. Way moreso than Craig's outings. It's why I personally rank CR #1 above FRWL. Quite a bit more tongue-in-cheek than the novel.


I'd say to it's benefit to be honest.

The one aspect where the films improved upon the novels is in the humour department.

Sure, sure. Horses for courses and all that. The train confrontation was an improvement as well, for sure. I do love FRWL, don't get me wrong. Watching it these days, though, just reminds me of how much more original NORTH BY NORTHWEST was. The action scenes after Grant's death were fine (though the boat chase is a bit "meh"), but they seemed to be all on top of each other. Again, nearly to a fault.

I suppose I like my humor a little more dry in general, with notable exceptions.


Drier than FRWL?

I prefer my humour to be something like TB's - "I know a lot about women", "Not from where I'm standing", Bond only handing Fiona her shoes, "Could it be the front doorbell?"

That sort of thing.

The "humour" in QOS seems to be both poorly written, and poorly delivered.

Oh, I love that TB exchange, too. My POV is more about FRWL being held up as the untouchable masterpiece it only sorta kind of is. It's not 100% note perfect to me. Love it, could go on all day about its merits, but there are just some moments that fall flat. Just like any other Bond, really. After a particular recent viewing of CR, I found it shocking just how light-hearted FRWL was by contrast. Found it a little disappointing. Again, just me. B)


I know, I say the same things with CR.

While it's still a very good Bond film it has its flaws:

Weak script, lack of chemistry between Bond and Vesper along with contrived romance, terrible Brosnan-era throwback score, average title song, dull masturbatory action sequences designed to keep teenage viewers awake (minus parkour sequence, which is actually pretty good), weak finale (sinking house), more psychobabble (can I trust you) BS from M, ineffective villain etc...

FRWL while not perfect, seems far closer to the world of Fleming, than CR.

#122 dodge

dodge

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5068 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 January 2010 - 05:06 PM

I don't recall FRWL being fun and light-hearted.


Really?

The score is, there's a general light mood (contrasting with the impending doom of Grant) and Connery's even smiling in action sequences.

Ditto with Shark and Safari. It's absolutely light-hearted, nearly to a fault IMHO. Way moreso than Craig's outings. It's why I personally rank CR #1 above FRWL. Quite a bit more tongue-in-cheek than the novel.


I'd say to it's benefit to be honest.

The one aspect where the films improved upon the novels is in the humour department.

Sure, sure. Horses for courses and all that. The train confrontation was an improvement as well, for sure. I do love FRWL, don't get me wrong. Watching it these days, though, just reminds me of how much more original NORTH BY NORTHWEST was. The action scenes after Grant's death were fine (though the boat chase is a bit "meh"), but they seemed to be all on top of each other. Again, nearly to a fault.

I suppose I like my humor a little more dry in general, with notable exceptions.


Drier than FRWL?

I prefer my humour to be something like TB's - "I know a lot about women", "Not from where I'm standing", Bond only handing Fiona her shoes, "Could it be the front doorbell?"

That sort of thing.

The "humour" in QOS seems to be both poorly written, and poorly delivered.

Oh, I love that TB exchange, too. My POV is more about FRWL being held up as the untouchable masterpiece it only sorta kind of is. It's not 100% note perfect to me. Love it, could go on all day about its merits, but there are just some moments that fall flat. Just like any other Bond, really. After a particular recent viewing of CR, I found it shocking just how light-hearted FRWL was by contrast. Found it a little disappointing. Again, just me. :tdown:

I certainly wouldn't call QOS' humor flawless by any stretch of the imagination. My biggest laugh from Bond came at the "Time to get out" line. Very Connery IMO. Also, and I know you disagree, Elvis is hysterical. THE antithesis of the Bondian henchman, emasculated right down to the pants being blown off him in death. He has his following here, and Judo, dino and I will defend him to the death. B)


Add me again to the list of dissenters. If comedy was the intention, then Forster bungled badly. This is possible, I admit, since Forster bungled most everything else. But I don't see how we can hand out awards for bungled good intentions, where we need instructions on when and where to larf.

#123 Emma

Emma

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 636 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 08 February 2010 - 04:40 PM

I did read an interview where Craig says that he thought that QoS was as good a film as Casino Royale. But I forget the source.

#124 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 08 February 2010 - 04:50 PM

Concerning Elvis, I do think that his character could have been fleshed out a bit more. Yet, I do believe that a "henchman" that considers himself to be more capable than he actually is a refreshing take on that particular character. The fact that Elvis really is surprised when Greene just uses him as cannonfodder in the end wonderfully adds to that impression.

Is Elvis a great "henchman" in the tradition of previous Bond villains? No. But IMO he wasn´t meant to be. It was an experiment that worked for me pretty well.

#125 Lachesis

Lachesis

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 394 posts
  • Location:U.K.

Posted 08 February 2010 - 05:34 PM

I always considered the use of Humour in the early Bond's be a dark edge to his personality and to reflect that Bond really enjoyed his work. Certainly he has no remorse as he despatches the bad guys and by Goldfinger there is an almost child like glee on his face (and on cinemagoers at the time) when he's using all the gadgets on his Aston to kill and maim. By the time we get to TB the humour is more lurid, callous and overtly sadistic than ever, at this stage it as important for its comedic input as it is to illustrate the casual nature of death in his life. I thought Daniel Craig really re-captured that delivery in CR.

I've not heard any comment re his liking or disliking QoS in particular, though I believe CR gave him more emotional scope in the performance and thats often the meat that serious actor's crave (not often tapped in a Bond Film)... If there were such a comment it is likely more about what he was given to do than a comment relfecting his view of the final product I would suspect.

#126 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 08 February 2010 - 06:02 PM

I always considered the use of Humour in the early Bond's be a dark edge to his personality and to reflect that Bond really enjoyed his work. Certainly he has no remorse as he despatches the bad guys and by Goldfinger there is an almost child like glee on his face (and on cinemagoers at the time) when he's using all the gadgets on his Aston to kill and maim. By the time we get to TB the humour is more lurid, callous and overtly sadistic than ever, at this stage it as important for its comedic input as it is to illustrate the casual nature of death in his life. I thought Daniel Craig really re-captured that delivery in CR.

I've not heard any comment re his liking or disliking QoS in particular, though I believe CR gave him more emotional scope in the performance and thats often the meat that serious actor's crave (not often tapped in a Bond Film)... If there were such a comment it is likely more about what he was given to do than a comment relfecting his view of the final product I would suspect.


Excellent post!

#127 Single-O-Seven

Single-O-Seven

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1323 posts
  • Location:Toronto, ON, Canada

Posted 08 February 2010 - 08:12 PM

I always considered the use of Humour in the early Bond's be a dark edge to his personality and to reflect that Bond really enjoyed his work. Certainly he has no remorse as he despatches the bad guys and by Goldfinger there is an almost child like glee on his face (and on cinemagoers at the time) when he's using all the gadgets on his Aston to kill and maim. By the time we get to TB the humour is more lurid, callous and overtly sadistic than ever, at this stage it as important for its comedic input as it is to illustrate the casual nature of death in his life. I thought Daniel Craig really re-captured that delivery in CR.

I've not heard any comment re his liking or disliking QoS in particular, though I believe CR gave him more emotional scope in the performance and thats often the meat that serious actor's crave (not often tapped in a Bond Film)... If there were such a comment it is likely more about what he was given to do than a comment relfecting his view of the final product I would suspect.


Excellent post!



Indeed it was. Welcome aboard!

#128 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 10 February 2010 - 12:01 AM

I don't recall any specific comments Craig made about liking or disliking "Quantum of Solace," but I do seem to recall him saying that he really enjoyed working with Forster and would be happy to see him back on any future Bond film that he worked on.