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

Have we become so jaded?


198 replies to this topic

#121 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 27 June 2010 - 08:43 AM

QUANTUM OF SOLACE primarily features characters who wander around doing nothing, burdened down by backstory conveyed through dialogue. "So the Haitians elected a priest, who raised the minimum wage to one dollar, blah blah blah...." "Do you know General Ernesto Montez? Well, way back in 1971, yadayadayada...." "But the land was sold to the logging company after Greene Planet acquired it, dronedrone...."

What, you want a flashback?


No, I want visual storytelling, not an illustrated radio play.

A certain amount of exposition through dialogue is unavoidable, but there is far too much of it in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

This is particularly true with regard to Quantum. We need to see and feel the threat, not just be told about it through dialogue. The film merely tells us how dangerous this organisation is, which is boring. We get plenty of on-the-nose lines like M's "How come we've never even heard of this organisation that has people everywhere - even in the same room as us?", but the viewer has no emotional sense of Quantum as a force to be reckoned with.

Compare and contrast all these reams of clunky dialogue with the simple but iconic image of SPECTRE's electric chair in THUNDERBALL. That one brief moment communicated far more about an evil organisation, and did so far more visually, emotionally and effectively than all the balls-aching dialogue in QUANTUM OF SOLACE.



There was, of course, the scene in CR (based on the one from the book) when Le Chiffre is executed by Mr White. Missing from QoS was a similar scene. We are told by M that Dominic Greene died in the desert, not from dehydration but through two bullets in the back of his skull. Pity we didn't get to see that scene, don't you think? It would have re-inforced the claim that "we have people everywhere".

Also, I've seen that video on You Tube linking up the end of the QoS game with the deleted scene involving Mr White and Guy Haines. There's a bit where Mr White, sitting down (he'd have a hard time standing up!)says to, presumably, Haines "It's not your fault, but they know who you are now", and then produces a gun and fires it. The inference there being that not only would Quantum punish people who had failed, but eliminate even the higher level types who had been compromised. (At least I'm assuming, from the very brief snippet I saw, that that is what was happening - anyone out there who can correct me if I'm wrong, please do.)

A pity, perhaps, that this alternate ending wasn't included in the final cut?

#122 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 11:51 AM

No one's retracting anything here. And if you seriously think Loomis's post up above if "inflammatory", I'd recommend you see a doctor.

*sigh* Everyone's like this, these days... B)

It makes me sad that there are so few QOS fans; where the hell'd they all go after November '08? :tdown:


Just to let you know, I was a certified fan back in '08, believe it or not. Loomis wasn't, I think, but I know many other now QoS-haters liked it a year and a half ago.


I have to admit that I did initially like QUANTUM OF SOLACE. What can I say? It was the new Bond film and I was younger then. :tdown: I put up a gushing rave review here on CBn that I'm now extremely embarrassed by.

Like yourself, The Shark, I found that QUANTUM OF SOLACE fell apart on subsequent viewings. As you say: "Now, the more viewings I watch, the more I despise it."

#123 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 12:12 PM

I have to say, while I find the editing to be irritating and jarring, that's the least of the films problems.


Indeed. I get the feeling that many pro-QUANTUM Bond fans assume that us Haters™ are just hung up on the editing and cannot see beyond the "fast cutting". In other words, that we'd be as happy as clams if only we'd been presented with our precious action scenes in a more conventional form. Well, if only that were true and the film were otherwise perfect. As you point out, it has larger flaws.

It also seems that the pro-QUANTUM mob's biggest (and only?) complaint is that the film is too short. "If only they'd spun it out to 130 minutes", "You can't have a Bond film under two hours", etc. For me, though, it's already too long, given the thinness of the story and a creative team that apparently prefers to tell rather than show.

Had it been trimmed by some fifteen minutes into a lean ninety-minute film, I think I'd find it a much punchier and more interesting experience.

#124 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 12:30 PM

I grow weary of citing QUANTUM OF SOLACE's too-numerous-to-count problems, but it's true it really cut short my enthusiasm for the Craig era, and the direction of the EON franchise.

I do think the franchise now has to return to something lighter. I don't think it will ever forgo the chest-beating significance that has plagued the series since GOLDENEYE. It's a shame, because Fleming's novels were essentially particularly elegant beach reads; even when dealing with their "heaviest" character arcs, there's not the slightest hint of self-importance.

#125 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:03 PM

Jeepers, just reading over this page, how did I click into this thread?? Wrong Bond neighborhood for me, lol.

#126 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 28 June 2010 - 07:02 PM

Jeepers, just reading over this page, how did I click into this thread?? Wrong Bond neighborhood for me, lol.


Why comment if you've nothing to contribute to the discussion?

#127 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 07:21 PM

Jeepers, just reading over this page, how did I click into this thread?? Wrong Bond neighborhood for me, lol.

Where was the "LOL" moment for you?

#128 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 28 June 2010 - 10:40 PM

Jeepers, just reading over this page, how did I click into this thread?? Wrong Bond neighborhood for me, lol.


Why comment if you've nothing to contribute to the discussion?



You said exactly what I was thinking B)

#129 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 01:55 AM

This thread appears to have gone off-topic. The question was, are we ready for another light-hearted romp where Bond actually enjoys himself again (an element that has been missing since TLD). Part of the problem with QoS was the same as the major flaw in LTK: if Bond isn't enjoying what he's doing, how is the audience supposed to enjoy watching him?

Of course, "light hearted" means in the vein of TSWLM or OP, NOT Moonraker. To paraphrase Lewis Black: "Another Moonraker? One of us is NUTS, and I'm pretty sure it isn't me!"

Or, Gene Wilder:

"Another Moonraker? Are you CRAZY?!"

Edited by AMC Hornet, 29 June 2010 - 01:56 AM.


#130 bondrules

bondrules

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2190 posts
  • Location:America

Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:09 AM

This thread appears to have gone off-topic. The question was, are we ready for another light-hearted romp where Bond actually enjoys himself again (an element that has been missing since TLD). Part of the problem with QoS was the same as the major flaw in LTK: if Bond isn't enjoying what he's doing, how is the audience supposed to enjoy watching him?

Of course, "light hearted" means in the vein of TSWLM or OP, NOT Moonraker. To paraphrase Lewis Black: "Another Moonraker? One of us is NUTS, and I'm pretty sure it isn't me!"

Or, Gene Wilder:

"Another Moonraker? Are you CRAZY?!"



That's a good point. Although I don't remember Bond in CR having much fun either, and that didn't bring that movie down.

Take Nolan´s Batman. Where is the fun on that character? Yet both of those movies are pretty good.

Forster just didn't deliver the goods.

Connery played daring and you could also see he was having fun. Can Craig do the same? Sure. Will the producers ever go back to the FRWL, TB, GF formula? I doubt it.

#131 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:25 AM

Of course, "light hearted" means in the vein of TSWLM or OP, NOT Moonraker.


I'd rather have a harder edged GOLDFINGER or THUNDERBALL definition of Bondian fun. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is horribly overacted.

#132 bondrules

bondrules

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2190 posts
  • Location:America

Posted 29 June 2010 - 03:40 AM

To me fun Bond is just the way Connery played the part in FRWL, GF, and TB. Tough, daring, chauvinistic/sexist, suave, dry. You emulate (in your own way) what Sir Sean did, and you hit the nail on the head. Fun Bond.

Moonraker territory is ridiculous Bond. I don't know why some ppl think of that film when the word fun is invoked.

#133 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:14 AM

MOONRAKER is the best Bond film starring Roger Moore. Period. (My dogmatic stance is in jest, but I do think MOONRAKER is a delightful farce.)

What I'd suggest Bond needs to return to is the breezy feel of the early Connery flicks and the Fleming novels, though I'm not sure EON really has it in them to strike the proper tone for a breezy film in the vein of DR. NO (or for an all-out farce like MOONRAKER, for that matter).

#134 bondrules

bondrules

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2190 posts
  • Location:America

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:35 AM

MOONRAKER is the best Bond film starring Roger Moore. Period. (My dogmatic stance is in jest, but I do think MOONRAKER is a delightful farce.)

What I'd suggest Bond needs to return to is the breezy feel of the early Connery flicks and the Fleming novels, though I'm not sure EON really has it in them to strike the proper tone for a breezy film in the vein of DR. NO (or for an all-out farce like MOONRAKER, for that matter).



I dunno about MR Harms. For me it's pretty unwatchable (then again, who am I to judge, flawed plenty as it may be, I like Octopussy. I dunno why I do, maybe it's seeing Rog in that monkey costume. You gotta admit it's priceless). But on your second point I agree 100%. EON needs to back to Fleming and early Connery. That's where the fun is. And yes, I don't see that happening again.

#135 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 29 June 2010 - 05:25 AM

Of course, "light hearted" means in the vein of TSWLM or OP, NOT Moonraker. To paraphrase Lewis Black: "Another Moonraker? One of us is NUTS, and I'm pretty sure it isn't me!"


When I created this thread the type of Bond films I was thinking of were the likes of AVTAK and Moonraker. So yeah, I would love to see another one of those types of films. While DAD came close, it still tried to play it seriously as well, which is why (while fondly remembered by many) is not as popular as some of Rog's more sillier entries.

#136 bondrules

bondrules

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2190 posts
  • Location:America

Posted 29 June 2010 - 05:47 AM

Of course, "light hearted" means in the vein of TSWLM or OP, NOT Moonraker. To paraphrase Lewis Black: "Another Moonraker? One of us is NUTS, and I'm pretty sure it isn't me!"


When I created this thread the type of Bond films I was thinking of were the likes of AVTAK and Moonraker. So yeah, I would love to see another one of those types of films. While DAD came close, it still tried to play it seriously as well, which is why (while fondly remembered by many) is not as popular as some of Rog's more sillier entries.



Another Moonraker would decisively bury the franchise once and for all. It would bomb miserably. Sorry.

#137 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 29 June 2010 - 06:15 AM

MOONRAKER was the end point of a much longer evolution, dating back to YOLT and OHMSS. Things gradually progressed in that direction. If the tone of future entries is intended somewhat lighter, then this new/old direction would have to be introduced over a longer period. Right after QOS a MOONRAKER or DAD would be simply too much of a contrast. What could reasonably be expected would be a TMWTGG-like effort.

#138 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 29 June 2010 - 06:23 AM

Of course, "light hearted" means in the vein of TSWLM or OP, NOT Moonraker. To paraphrase Lewis Black: "Another Moonraker? One of us is NUTS, and I'm pretty sure it isn't me!"


When I created this thread the type of Bond films I was thinking of were the likes of AVTAK and Moonraker. So yeah, I would love to see another one of those types of films. While DAD came close, it still tried to play it seriously as well, which is why (while fondly remembered by many) is not as popular as some of Rog's more sillier entries.



Another Moonraker would decisively bury the franchise once and for all. It would bomb miserably. Sorry.


I agree, it wouldn't work, certainly not with this actor as Bond. I do think, though, having listened to Lewis Gilbert on "Desert Island Discs", that TSWLM and MR reflected that particular director's approach to bringing out Roger Moore's humourous side. A future "epic" wouldn't necessarily end up as a future Moonraker.

That said, I don't think the series needs an epic at the moment. A 21st century GF/TB or OHMSS would be quite acceptable.

#139 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 06:31 AM

I love how EON has re-booted Bond.

Yet, I believe that CR and QOS simply had to be rather solemn in tone due to the Bond-Vesper relationship. That arc has ended. Now it´s possible to go for a more impersonal, Bond-on-a-mission-plot.

I hope that QUANTUM reappears in BOND 23. This re-booted SPECTRE offers lots of possibilities to introduce a lighter, yes, fantastical approach. The capers of early Bond films can and should be part of the plot again. I don´t think we need to get the megalomaniacs and henchman-caricatures back. But a THUNDERBALL-like blackmail plot would work wonderfully.

It´s probably a sign of the times that we all crave for something light-hearted. Yet, it still is weird to me how fast that mood has changed. Only a few years ago, most here would never have wanted a lighter, more fun-filled film back.

#140 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 29 June 2010 - 07:19 AM

Of course, "light hearted" means in the vein of TSWLM or OP, NOT Moonraker. To paraphrase Lewis Black: "Another Moonraker? One of us is NUTS, and I'm pretty sure it isn't me!"


When I created this thread the type of Bond films I was thinking of were the likes of AVTAK and Moonraker. So yeah, I would love to see another one of those types of films. While DAD came close, it still tried to play it seriously as well, which is why (while fondly remembered by many) is not as popular as some of Rog's more sillier entries.



Another Moonraker would decisively bury the franchise once and for all. It would bomb miserably. Sorry.



While I don't necessarily believe the series needs another "Moonraker" right this instance. The notion that it would bury the franchise is rather ludicrous. Die Another Day certainly didn't bury the franchise, and that film is (at times) much sillier than anything in Moonraker.

I think you're letting your personal bias over "those types" of Bond films enter into the discussion here. I actually think a big epic "fun for the whole family" type Bond film would be well received across the board.

#141 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 07:58 AM

Jeepers, just reading over this page, how did I click into this thread?? Wrong Bond neighborhood for me, lol.

Where was the "LOL" moment for you?

Oh, just too many. The first three and a half Bond films were acceptable, dumbed-down versions of what Fleming wrote IMO. By the time a gaggle of frogmen went splat into the Caribbean, we'd solidly entered new and OTT territory with Bond, and only hedgingly since have EON looked backward for anything more than the plot equivalent of a clothes-hanger (OHMSS and the casting of Dalton excepted). Until Craig and the reboot. Fans lamenting the lack of "Bond" in their Bond - what Harmsway refers to in Fleming's novels as their breezy quality, which makes no effing sense to me - strikes me as something from bizarro world. Fleming wrote thrillers, they ripped you up and spat you out the other side, much like what he did to Bond in novel after novel after novel. Find me one self-parodying moment in anything Fleming wrote, one wink or nudge or even a joke... the man had a tremendous sense of cruel irony, but no funnybone whatsoever. EON slapped all that on and Connery sold it and and now some fans champion TSWLM as the best Bond film ever made. And really there's no harm in that, I get that EON's Bond is the one fans want. And we may get more of that vein in future Bond films, sure. Sells tickets, fans love it. Whatever.

Craig was good in CR, better in QOS. As for channeling Bond, CR did a great job of hitting both Bonds pretty well, EON's and Fleming's; QOS went damn near completely to Fleming's. IMHO, that's why many fans have an issue with it, it's not the Bond (ie EON's Bond) they want, but rather a Bond as close as we're ever likely to get to what Fleming wrote in his dark, gritty, hard-edged, non-breezy novels. Can too much Bond be a bad thing? I guess so.

That's my contribution, carry on with your bad selves. B)

#142 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 29 June 2010 - 08:16 AM

I love how EON has re-booted Bond.

Yet, I believe that CR and QOS simply had to be rather solemn in tone due to the Bond-Vesper relationship. That arc has ended. Now it´s possible to go for a more impersonal, Bond-on-a-mission-plot.

I hope that QUANTUM reappears in BOND 23. This re-booted SPECTRE offers lots of possibilities to introduce a lighter, yes, fantastical approach. The capers of early Bond films can and should be part of the plot again. I don´t think we need to get the megalomaniacs and henchman-caricatures back. But a THUNDERBALL-like blackmail plot would work wonderfully.


Same here.

Yet I would differ on the villain side: I would like to see the return of a larger than life megalomaniac seconded by a dreadfull henchman. This is one of the things that make Bond Bond.
A "lighter" Bond film could work even better with this kind of villain. If you have an average baddie, you wouldn't capture the off-limit essence of the "fun for all family lighter Bond" you're trying to get.
I'm not talking MR here, I'm more or less talking TSWLM: megalomaniac villain, world destruction plot, typical henchman, world touring Bond, gorgeous girls, special cars, etc. I trust this is the way we should be heading if we decide to have a lighter Bond.

Although I do love what's been done in the 2 last films, it's probably time to get past the "who am I?" drama and to embark on a "Bond that we all know" film.
It wouldn't be incompatible with the present direction; it would simply be a mission Bond has to get done, now that we're all told (CR & QoS) that, yes, Bond is Bond on Her Majesty's Service. We might need a TB equivalent before a TSWLM equivalent, as a transition period, but it is nevertheless pretty easy to envisage.
And I actually think Craig could do wonders in that kind of stuff. I loved Layer Cake, where you can get a good glimpse of this potential.

#143 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 29 June 2010 - 08:25 AM

Jeepers, just reading over this page, how did I click into this thread?? Wrong Bond neighborhood for me, lol.

Where was the "LOL" moment for you?

Fleming wrote thrillers, they ripped you up and spat you out the other side, much like what he did to Bond in novel after novel after novel. Find me one self-parodying moment in anything Fleming wrote, one wink or nudge or even a joke... the man had a tremendous sense of cruel irony, but no funnybone whatsoever.

IMHO, that's why many fans have an issue with it, it's not the Bond (ie EON's Bond) they want, but rather a Bond as close as we're ever likely to get to what Fleming wrote in his dark, gritty, hard-edged, non-breezy novels.


You do know, of course, that Fleming himself qualified his work as mere entertainment for grown-ups, and said it was to be taken as a light-hearted means for relaxation?...
As for jokes and/or funny sides, well, I suggest re-reading the novels.

#144 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2219 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 08:46 AM

Jeepers, just reading over this page, how did I click into this thread?? Wrong Bond neighborhood for me, lol.

Where was the "LOL" moment for you?

Fleming wrote thrillers, they ripped you up and spat you out the other side, much like what he did to Bond in novel after novel after novel. Find me one self-parodying moment in anything Fleming wrote, one wink or nudge or even a joke... the man had a tremendous sense of cruel irony, but no funnybone whatsoever.

IMHO, that's why many fans have an issue with it, it's not the Bond (ie EON's Bond) they want, but rather a Bond as close as we're ever likely to get to what Fleming wrote in his dark, gritty, hard-edged, non-breezy novels.


You do know, of course, that Fleming himself qualified his work as mere entertainment for grown-ups, and said it was to be taken as a light-hearted means for relaxation?...
As for jokes and/or funny sides, well, I suggest re-reading the novels.

Sure, but entertainments come in lots of packages. Some are funny, but some aren't and have nasty stuff in them like torture and people getting eaten by various critters and poisoned and blown to pieces and just plain shot a lot.

As for jokes, ???

But seriously, are you suggesting there's a kindred sense of humor in EON's version of Bond to what Fleming wrote? From "See that he doesn't get away" and "I think they were on their way to a funeral" to anything Fleming wrote lies quite a chasm IMO: EON wants to release the audience's tension as quickly as possible (good way to sell it IMO); Fleming wanted you to keep on feeling it and would sometimes use irony as a gruesome underscore ("He disagreed with something that ate him").

#145 BoogieBond

BoogieBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 834 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 09:21 AM

Jeepers, just reading over this page, how did I click into this thread?? Wrong Bond neighborhood for me, lol.

Where was the "LOL" moment for you?

Fleming wrote thrillers, they ripped you up and spat you out the other side, much like what he did to Bond in novel after novel after novel. Find me one self-parodying moment in anything Fleming wrote, one wink or nudge or even a joke... the man had a tremendous sense of cruel irony, but no funnybone whatsoever.

IMHO, that's why many fans have an issue with it, it's not the Bond (ie EON's Bond) they want, but rather a Bond as close as we're ever likely to get to what Fleming wrote in his dark, gritty, hard-edged, non-breezy novels.


You do know, of course, that Fleming himself qualified his work as mere entertainment for grown-ups, and said it was to be taken as a light-hearted means for relaxation?...
As for jokes and/or funny sides, well, I suggest re-reading the novels.

Sure, but entertainments come in lots of packages. Some are funny, but some aren't and have nasty stuff in them like torture and people getting eaten by various critters and poisoned and blown to pieces and just plain shot a lot.

As for jokes, ???

But seriously, are you suggesting there's a kindred sense of humor in EON's version of Bond to what Fleming wrote? From "See that he doesn't get away" and "I think they were on their way to a funeral" to anything Fleming wrote lies quite a chasm IMO: EON wants to release the audience's tension as quickly as possible (good way to sell it IMO); Fleming wanted you to keep on feeling it and would sometimes use irony as a gruesome underscore ("He disagreed with something that ate him").

Were there not "Lighter" moments in a number of Fleming books though, in an ironic, sardonic style. (Thunderball and YOLT I am thinking of) DAF had lighter moments and Wint and Kidd as slightly bizarre(but deadly) henchmen. Goldfinger too had an epic feel to it. I do think the early Connery films slightly improved on the books with adding more dry humour. And I am talking the humour of Dr No, From Russia with Love and Casino Royale films. Cinematically it added the element, which enhanced Bond on the big screen.

Edited by BoogieBond, 29 June 2010 - 11:02 AM.


#146 Lachesis

Lachesis

    Sub-Lieutenant

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 11:22 AM

Jeepers, just reading over this page, how did I click into this thread?? Wrong Bond neighborhood for me, lol.

Where was the "LOL" moment for you?

Fleming wrote thrillers, they ripped you up and spat you out the other side, much like what he did to Bond in novel after novel after novel. Find me one self-parodying moment in anything Fleming wrote, one wink or nudge or even a joke... the man had a tremendous sense of cruel irony, but no funnybone whatsoever.

IMHO, that's why many fans have an issue with it, it's not the Bond (ie EON's Bond) they want, but rather a Bond as close as we're ever likely to get to what Fleming wrote in his dark, gritty, hard-edged, non-breezy novels.


You do know, of course, that Fleming himself qualified his work as mere entertainment for grown-ups, and said it was to be taken as a light-hearted means for relaxation?...
As for jokes and/or funny sides, well, I suggest re-reading the novels.


Absolutely, there is an ironic parity in the criticism the pre Casino films are recieveing and the criticism Fleming faced when his novels were published. The early films in particular were clearly intended to be every bit as authentic to the novels as anything that came since, even with some input from Fleming himself but obviously the nature of cinema at that time influenced the delivery as it does today.... and thats the full extent of it. This conciet that miraculously we have arrived at Flemings Bond is soley down to fans cherry picking elements they consider 'right or important' and dismissing ones that dont suit...its a personal assessment not some objective auhtoritative edict from god, by all means have a preference but please lets not disolve into 'best evar' territory.

#147 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 12:16 PM

Fleming wrote thrillers, they ripped you up and spat you out the other side, much like what he did to Bond in novel after novel after novel.

My experience with the Fleming novels--even CASINO ROYALE--differs greatly from yours, then. I concede that they're more grounded than their cinematic counterparts, with a more violent streak (even though they're generally quite silly indeed), but I've never been "ripped up" by a Fleming novel. Fleming wrote fluff, and he knew it. Sure, it was fluff tinged with sadism, but the sadism, even at its most brutal, is kept from being too hard-hitting by the overall silly, quite pulpy air that fills the novels. I mean, how seriously can you take a book in which one of the characters is named Pussy Galore?

Find me one self-parodying moment in anything Fleming wrote, one wink or nudge or even a joke... the man had a tremendous sense of cruel irony, but no funnybone whatsoever.

That's a bit of a stretch. He's not often writing humorous dialogue, and he's not self-parodying his creation, but many of the absurd characters he presents in the book are meant with more than a little touch of humor.

QOS went damn near completely to Fleming's.

Only in some respects. For one thing, Fleming's Bond was never the action man QUANTUM OF SOLACE offers us. But my problem with QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn't really Bond himself, who I see as being, more or less, consistent with CASINO ROYALE, and is still played very finely by Craig himself.

#148 Binyamin

Binyamin

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1075 posts
  • Location:On Assignment in the Caribbean

Posted 29 June 2010 - 01:43 PM

If Casino Royale is Dr. No, and Quantum of Solace is From Russia With Love, could Craig's Goldfinger or Thunderball be next?

#149 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:44 PM

I certainly hope so. I´m in the mood for a big sprawling adventure-Bond, but spiced up by Craig´s down-to-earth-ness. (More "Teachers on a sabbatical"-type humor, please")

#150 bondrules

bondrules

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2190 posts
  • Location:America

Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:46 PM

If Casino Royale is Dr. No, and Quantum of Solace is From Russia With Love, could Craig's Goldfinger or Thunderball be next?



If QoS is Craig's FRWL, then we're in BIG trouble.