271 replies to this topic

[BoogieBond]

LOL about the Emo/Emu/Craig cannot fly comparison.

Craig can act suave and will in Bond 23, don't worry about it. He has already shown it in some of the Solange/Vesper scenes in CR.
I think the series will also make steps for Bond to move forward/be more polished secret agent. However, I am sure they are going to seek more complexity with the James Bond character than they have had before(up to CR). CR did that brilliantly, and I hope B23 will at least go some of that route. The stories may not be as simplistic as Good Guy vs Bad Guy and there will be shades of grey in there. Bond may be more vulnerable at times, which makes him more interesting. I hope the action scenes are great and the locations are suitably glamourous as are the Bond girls, and Bond's Cars/Equipment, add the Gunbarrel and the James Bond theme and this should be enough of a fix to realise you are in Bond's world and not Bourne's

Edited by BoogieBond, 09 May 2011 - 06:17 PM.

[The Shark]

The Craig Bond films shouldn't have any more humour than in CR.

What is this, the anti-fun brigade? Levity ain't a vice.

The stories may not be as simplistic as Good Guy vs Bad Guy and there will be shades of grey in there. Bond may be more vulnerable at times, which makes him more interesting etc...

Still the same old shibboleths.

[jamie00007]

In regards to QoS (which I love btw), I can understand people who want to accuse Craig's Bond of being humourless, a killing machine. not fun etc. In that particular movie, which was fairly downbeat as far as Bond films go (I still think there was plenty of fun throughout though), but I never understood and I still dont how people can say it about Casino Royale, either the film or Bond in it. Sometimes I feel like I saw a different movie than everyone else. Bond throughout the film was having fun, making dry jokes and generally had a cocky, devil-may-care attitude through the whole film. No different than any other Bond film. He was even making jokes while being tortures and being poisoned. One of the reasons I love the film so much is that it captures the right mix of fun and seriousness that the best early films did. Yet the anti-Craig mob wants to perpetuate this idea of a dour "emo" Bond If anything Brosnan in TWINE was far more "emo" than Craig in either film. Aside from the Vesper death scene Im struggling to think of a single scene in CR where Bond was particularly serious.

Edited by jamie00007, 10 May 2011 - 07:58 AM.

[00 Brosnan]

The Daniel Craig era, the inspiration for the reboot, and QoS in particular have Jason Bourne written all over them. I don't know how it could be anymore obvious. I'm not saying there aren't differences between the Bourne series and the Craig era b/c there definitely are, but the inspiration is obvious.

I have very much enjoyed Craig's two films though. I would like to see a little more humor and a few more traditional Bond elements (Q Branch, Moneypenny, Bond theme), but I love the modern and edgy direction of his era.

[jaguar007]

In regards to QoS (which I love btw), I can understand people who want to accuse Craig's Bond of being humourless, a killing machine. not fun etc. In that particular movie, which was fairly downbeat as far as Bond films go (I still think there was plenty of fun throughout though), but I never understood and I still dont how people can say it about Casino Royale, either the film or Bond in it. Sometimes I feel like I saw a different movie than everyone else. Bond throughout the film was having fun, making dry jokes and generally had a cocky, devil-may-care attitude through the whole film. No different than any other Bond film. He was even making jokes while being tortures and being poisoned. One of the reasons I love the film so much is that it captures the right mix of fun and seriousness that the best early films did. Yet the anti-Craig mob wants to perpetuate this idea of a dour "emo" Bond If anything Brosnan in TWINE was far more "emo" than Craig in either film. Aside from the Vesper death scene Im struggling to think of a single scene in CR where Bond was particularly serious.

Well said. Particularly the Bahamas scenes in CR, we see Bond like we have not seen him since the Connery days.

The Daniel Craig era, the inspiration for the reboot, and QoS in particular have Jason Bourne written all over them. I don't know how it could be anymore obvious.

I do see quite a bit of the Bourne editing in QoS, but I don't see it for CR, they have more differences than they have similarities. We have seen Bond go to a more serious and gritty film after an over the top film before without being influenced by Bourne.

[TCK]

Annoying ? Of course no ! Rather exciting, with the wait of Bond23 and "what the will do now ?" !

[jamie00007]

The Daniel Craig era, the inspiration for the reboot, and QoS in particular have Jason Bourne written all over them. I don't know how it could be anymore obvious. I'm not saying there aren't differences between the Bourne series and the Craig era b/c there definitely are, but the inspiration is obvious.

I dont agree. I see very little evidence that Casino Royale was influenced or inspired by Bourne any more than it was any other action movies from the era. Why would it? Die Another Day trounced the first Bourne movie at the box office. And I'd say that Batman Begins and having the rights to the Casino Royale novel were far bigger factors than Bourne in them rebooting, not to mention the fact that the timeline was just getting crazily out of hand. Was the next Bond still supposed to be a cold war agent? They stretched it with Brosnan but they couldnt do it again. And as Jaguar said, going from a over-the-top film to a grittier thriller is pretty much par for the course now. Bourne or no Bourne.

Quantum of Solace is a different kettle of fish, it was released after the Bourne sequels had turned Bourne from a low key thriller to a huge blockbuster franchise and QoS even had some of the same people behind the scenes. The Bourne influences are obvious in scenes like the car chase and the rooftop footchase. But they're still not remotely similar when it comes to character and story.

Casino Royale though, sorry I cant see it. I cant think of a single similarity between Casino Royale and the first Bourne movie aside from the realistic fight scenes.

Edited by jamie00007, 11 May 2011 - 07:18 AM.

[00 Brosnan]

The Daniel Craig era, the inspiration for the reboot, and QoS in particular have Jason Bourne written all over them. I don't know how it could be anymore obvious. I'm not saying there aren't differences between the Bourne series and the Craig era b/c there definitely are, but the inspiration is obvious.

I dont agree. I see very little evidence that Casino Royale was influenced or inspired by Bourne any more than it was any other action movies from the era. Why would it? Die Another Day trounced the first Bourne movie at the box office. And I'd say that Batman Begins and having the rights to the Casino Royale novel were far bigger factors than Bourne in them rebooting, not to mention the fact that the timeline was just getting crazily out of hand.

If it weren't for the reboot craze that hit Hollywood around 2004/2005 and proved successful EON/MGM never would have had the balls to reboot the franchise. Period. Without that proven success, none of these other factors matter.

Once they had the idea a reboot could work, the success of ultra-realistic, modern, gritty action films (like Bourne) and the newly acquired rights to CR were just more motivation to go in the reboot direction.

I never meant Bourne alone was the total inspiration, but it is/was certainly a factor.

Quantum of Solace is a different kettle of fish, it was released after the Bourne sequels had turned Bourne from a low key thriller to a huge blockbuster franchise and QoS even had some of the same people behind the scenes. The Bourne influences are obvious in scenes like the car chase and the rooftop footchase. But they're still not remotely similar when it comes to character and story.

The Bourne series was a blockbuster series after the release of the sequel in 2004. When I say Bourne partly inspired the Daniel Craig era (aside from the reboot aspect I already talked about) I'm talking about the style of the action/fight sequences and the super modern, realistic, and gritty nature of the films. I thought it was assumed story and character components would not be the same. James Bond and Jason Bourne's stories are very different.

[jamie00007]

I dont get how Bourne had anything to do with the reboot side of things. It wasnt a reboot or part of the "reboot craze" as you put it in any way. Sure, there was a TV mini-series back in the 70's based on Identity but the new film series was no more related to it than Dr No was to the 1954 Casino Royale TV show. The only reboot that had been released at the time of CR's release was Batman Begins. Which wasnt all that big a success, commercially.

Yes, cinema had trended towards grittier, more realistic stories in the 00's and Bond and Bourne were both part of that trend. but Bond has always followed cinema trends. But you're giving Bourne entirely too much credit if you think it started that trend or caused CR to be part of it. There was never any question in my mind, long before CR was announced, that Bond 21 would be a grittier, more down to earth film.

Edited by jamie00007, 11 May 2011 - 10:24 AM.

[00 Brosnan]

I dont get how Bourne had anything to do with the reboot side of things. It wasnt a reboot or part of the "reboot craze" as you put it in any way. Sure, there was a TV mini-series back in the 70's based on Identity but the new film series was no more related to it than Dr No was to the 1954 Casino Royale TV show. The only reboot that had been released at the time of CR's release was Batman Begins. Which wasnt all that big a success, commercially.

Yes, cinema had trended towards grittier, more realistic stories in the 00's and Bond and Bourne were both part of that trend. but Bond has always followed cinema trends. But you're giving Bourne entirely too much credit if you think it started that trend or caused CR to be part of it.

There was never any question in my mind, long before CR was announced, that Bond 21 would be a grittier, more down to earth film.

Of course Bond 21 was going to be a more down to earth film. That's how this series usually works. They make an outlandish more fantasy-type film and follow it up w/ a more down to earth film. But, never in the series has one film (CR) contrasted so much with it's previous film (DAD).

Here's a detailed analysis concerning Casino Royale and Bourne from thespyreport:

"I don’t think there’s much disagreement on one matter—when the producers at EON saw Matt Damon in Doug Lyman’s 2002 The Bourne Identity, they saw a new way to go for 007. Identity launched a new spy film franchise more influential and successful than even Tom Cruise and his over-heated Mission: Impossible “reboot” or the various attempts to bring Tom Clancey’s Jack Ryan to the silver screen. It showed that audiences do crave well-scripted, well-executed action-adventure and we like it best when there’s good character development in the midst of the explosive special-effects now mandatory in any potential blockbuster. (Ironically, Mission: Impossible 3 script writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman ended up penning the new Star Trek film.) Clearly, the Borne films set the stage for Casino Royale and clearly Casino Royale set the stage for the new Star Trek. In particular, it showed that die-hard fan bases are willing to accept not only new faces playing established roles but also “reboots” that set up what are essentially new alternative time-lines.

In the case of 007, of course, new faces are nothing new. But to bring Bond into the 21st century, old formulas and traditions had to be dumped. Q and Miss Moneypenny and the obligatory byplay between 007 and these long-cherished characters are gone. At least, for now. Gone is the former Admiral called M who had an ostensible connection with Bond’s World War II experiences and certainly saw his agent through the entire Cold War. The Judy Densh M first appeared as the successor to all that, disparaging the Brosnan Bond as a “Cold War” dinosaur. But she was “rebooted” for Casino Royale, being the established head of S.I.S. bringing in a young agent just earning his double-O spurs as if nothing that came before had ever happened. Source: Link

I agree and I'm not the only one. I just don't see how anyone can disagree with that analysis. There are a ton of articles just like this. Bourne clearly was a big inspiration for the reboot and the Craig era as a whole.

That doesn't mean the actual movies share similar stories or characters though. Bond and Bourne themselves are very different characters and both series certainly have unique elements to them.

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 11 May 2011 - 01:20 PM.

[Napoleon Solo]

I dont get how Bourne had anything to do with the reboot side of things. It wasnt a reboot or part of the "reboot craze" as you put it in any way. Sure, there was a TV mini-series back in the 70's based on Identity but the new film series was no more related to it than Dr No was to the 1954 Casino Royale TV show. The only reboot that had been released at the time of CR's release was Batman Begins. Which wasnt all that big a success, commercially.

Yes, cinema had trended towards grittier, more realistic stories in the 00's and Bond and Bourne were both part of that trend. but Bond has always followed cinema trends. But you're giving Bourne entirely too much credit if you think it started that trend or caused CR to be part of it.

There was never any question in my mind, long before CR was announced, that Bond 21 would be a grittier, more down to earth film.

Of course Bond 21 was going to be a more down to earth film. That's how this series usually works. They make an outlandish more fantasy-type film and follow it up w/ a more down to earth film. But, never in the series has one film (CR) contrasted so much with it's previous film (DAD).

Here's a detailed analysis concerning Casino Royale and Bourne from thespyreport:

"I don’t think there’s much disagreement on one matter—when the producers at EON saw Matt Damon in Doug Lyman’s 2002 The Bourne Identity, they saw a new way to go for 007. Identity launched a new spy film franchise more influential and successful than even Tom Cruise and his over-heated Mission: Impossible “reboot” or the various attempts to bring Tom Clancey’s Jack Ryan to the silver screen. It showed that audiences do crave well-scripted, well-executed action-adventure and we like it best when there’s good character development in the midst of the explosive special-effects now mandatory in any potential blockbuster. (Ironically, Mission: Impossible 3 script writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman ended up penning the new Star Trek film.) Clearly, the Borne films set the stage for Casino Royale and clearly Casino Royale set the stage for the new Star Trek. In particular, it showed that die-hard fan bases are willing to accept not only new faces playing established roles but also “reboots” that set up what are essentially new alternative time-lines.

In the case of 007, of course, new faces are nothing new. But to bring Bond into the 21st century, old formulas and traditions had to be dumped. Q and Miss Moneypenny and the obligatory byplay between 007 and these long-cherished characters are gone. At least, for now. Gone is the former Admiral called M who had an ostensible connection with Bond’s World War II experiences and certainly saw his agent through the entire Cold War. The Judy Densh M first appeared as the successor to all that, disparaging the Brosnan Bond as a “Cold War” dinosaur. But she was “rebooted” for Casino Royale, being the established head of S.I.S. bringing in a young agent just earning his double-O spurs as if nothing that came before had ever happened. Source: Link

I agree and I'm not the only one. I just don't see how anyone can disagree with that analysis. There are a ton of articles just like this. Bourne clearly was a big inspiration for the reboot and the Craig era as a whole.

That doesn't mean the actual movies share similar stories or characters though. Bond and Bourne themselves are very different characters and both series certainly have unique elements to them.

There were also articles written when Daniel Craig was cast, months before cameras began rolling on Casino Royale, that the franchise would be influenced to some degree by Bourne. Here's one from 2005:

http://www.nytimes.c...res/15bond.html

here's the specific refernce of the 2005 NYT article (it's a ways down):

//For both Ms. Broccoli and Sony, executives said, the model was Jason Bourne, the character Matt Damon successfully incarnated in two gritty spy movies for Universal Pictures, "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Supremacy."//

Related note: I re-watched Quantum of Solace the other day for the first time since I saw it in a theater. The heavy Bourne-style sequences took up less time than I remembered. But they were heavily concentrated at the start of the film. It comes in bursts after that, but "shaky cam" isn't nearly as dominant as it is, say, the first 20-30 minutes. First impressions can be powerful in how one recalls a film.

[jaguar007]

The Judy Densh M first appeared as the successor to all that,

clearly whoever wrote that article known much more about Bond than the rest of us

I suppose Bourne also get credit for the more realistic nature of FYEO and TLD, not to mention the gritty fight in FRWL.

[SecretAgentFan]

Let´s be honest.

BOURNE must have been a real shock for EON. Another spy thriller, applauded by the critics, showing action with a fresh approach.

Of course, they had to react to this. Of course, they reconsidered their style, and hiring the same stunt guy definitely shows that they wanted more "Bourne"-action in Bond.

So what? Did anybody complain that Blaxploitation films influenced LIVE AND LET DIE or asian kung fu-films left their mark on THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN?

Let´s not forget: Bond put the spy thriller on the map and was a huge influence on world cinema during the first four or five films. After that it was just impossible to repeat that kind of influence. Naturally, Bond had to react to other stuff as well.

IMO, Bourne added only a small portion of influence to the action scenes and the editing. Yet, in the grand picture, it will be as influential on Bond as blaxploitation or kung fu had been. Only there for one or two films. That´s it. Bond films, however, will go on and reinvent themselves, influence others, be influenced by others - but that´s fine with me and totally unavoidable.

[dinovelvet]

Let´s be honest.

BOURNE must have been a real shock for EON. Another spy thriller, applauded by the critics, showing action with a fresh approach.

Of course, they had to react to this. Of course, they reconsidered their style, and hiring the same stunt guy definitely shows that they wanted more "Bourne"-action in Bond.

So what? Did anybody complain that Blaxploitation films influenced LIVE AND LET DIE or asian kung fu-films left their mark on THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN?

Let´s not forget: Bond put the spy thriller on the map and was a huge influence on world cinema during the first four or five films. After that it was just impossible to repeat that kind of influence. Naturally, Bond had to react to other stuff as well.

IMO, Bourne added only a small portion of influence to the action scenes and the editing. Yet, in the grand picture, it will be as influential on Bond as blaxploitation or kung fu had been. Only there for one or two films. That´s it. Bond films, however, will go on and reinvent themselves, influence others, be influenced by others - but that´s fine with me and totally unavoidable.

Yes indeed - this is, and has been, the key to Bond's survival ever since 1971. The series has consistently kept an eye on what cinematic trends are in vogue, and has adapted itself to incorporate them to stay relevant. Starting with Diamonds are forever which took Bond into comedic territory as a reaction to all the spy spoofs/Flint/Helm style romps, then through LALD, TMWTGG, MR (Star Wars), OP (Indiana Jones), TLD (80s drugs thrillers), LTK (Miami Vice/generic 'rogue cop' stuff like Lethal Weapon/Die Hard etc), TND (Hong Kong cinema), DAD (Matrix style editing/xXx 'extreme' stunts). CR was no doubt similarly inspired by what Batman Begins did (personally I think there's a bit of '24' in there too), and QOS incorporated the sh gritty Bourne style.
If Bond had just continued to make Goldfinger/Thunderball style films, the series probably would have petered out in the 70s as people lost interest at seeing the same old thing over and over again. Adapt or Die. It's why we're looking at Bond 23 and not sitting here clutching an 8-film Bond DVD set and asking "Could a Bond movie be made today?"

[Guy Haines]

In regards to QoS (which I love btw), I can understand people who want to accuse Craig's Bond of being humourless, a killing machine. not fun etc. In that particular movie, which was fairly downbeat as far as Bond films go (I still think there was plenty of fun throughout though), but I never understood and I still dont how people can say it about Casino Royale, either the film or Bond in it. Sometimes I feel like I saw a different movie than everyone else. Bond throughout the film was having fun, making dry jokes and generally had a cocky, devil-may-care attitude through the whole film. No different than any other Bond film. He was even making jokes while being tortures and being poisoned. One of the reasons I love the film so much is that it captures the right mix of fun and seriousness that the best early films did. Yet the anti-Craig mob wants to perpetuate this idea of a dour "emo" Bond If anything Brosnan in TWINE was far more "emo" than Craig in either film. Aside from the Vesper death scene Im struggling to think of a single scene in CR where Bond was particularly serious.

Agreed. I liked CR because it evoked the classic era of the 1960s, whilst clearly grounded in the early 21st century. As for the lack of humour claim - the biggest laugh in my local multiplex came during the infamous torture scene, when Bond invited Le Chiffre to attend to that "little itch". And it wasn't contrived, arch humour of the kind we have seen in past Bond films, but came out of the situation - a desperate James Bond, in agony, nevertheless able to wind up an even more desperate Le Chiffre. I also agree that Craig's Bond displayed a cocky attitude throughout the first half of the film, not seen since the Connery era. QoS was a film reflecting Bond's attitude post the death of Vesper and the items left unresolved. Except for the final show down with Quantum - if it happens - I expect we will see, in 23, a Bond closer to the character in the first part of CR, but having learnt from experience.

[jaguar007]

Agreed. I liked CR because it evoked the classic era of the 1960s, whilst clearly grounded in the early 21st century. As for the lack of humour claim - the biggest laugh in my local multiplex came during the infamous torture scene, when Bond invited Le Chiffre to attend to that "little itch". And it wasn't contrived, arch humour of the kind we have seen in past Bond films, but came out of the situation - a desperate James Bond, in agony, nevertheless able to wind up an even more desperate Le Chiffre. I also agree that Craig's Bond displayed a cocky attitude throughout the first half of the film, not seen since the Connery era. QoS was a film reflecting Bond's attitude post the death of Vesper and the items left unresolved. Except for the final show down with Quantum - if it happens - I expect we will see, in 23, a Bond closer to the character in the first part of CR, but having learnt from experience.

Very much agreed. Craig did display much humor in CR, it was just more subtle than the groaners that plagued the later Connery, Moore and Brosnan films.

I agree with Dinovelvet that CR owes more to Batman Begins than to Bourne.

[Loomis]

Let´s be honest.

BOURNE must have been a real shock for EON. Another spy thriller, applauded by the critics, showing action with a fresh approach.

Of course, they had to react to this. Of course, they reconsidered their style, and hiring the same stunt guy definitely shows that they wanted more "Bourne"-action in Bond.

So what? Did anybody complain that Blaxploitation films influenced LIVE AND LET DIE or asian kung fu-films left their mark on THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN?

Let´s not forget: Bond put the spy thriller on the map and was a huge influence on world cinema during the first four or five films. After that it was just impossible to repeat that kind of influence. Naturally, Bond had to react to other stuff as well.

IMO, Bourne added only a small portion of influence to the action scenes and the editing. Yet, in the grand picture, it will be as influential on Bond as blaxploitation or kung fu had been. Only there for one or two films. That´s it. Bond films, however, will go on and reinvent themselves, influence others, be influenced by others - but that´s fine with me and totally unavoidable.

Quoted for truth.

[Iroquois]

Damn, we need a new film.

I'm just gonna say that I thought Bond displayed a good amount of humour in QOS. His first few lines are quips: "It's time to get out", "don't bleed to death", "If they wanted his soul, they should have made a deal with a priest". There's a lot of humour in the Haiti scenes, not to mention all of the moments with Agent Fields. It's just that the humour, like all of the other Bond elements in this film, isn't being beaten around the audience's head as it would be in other films, and for good reason too imo.

The thing is that QOS was about introducing this character that was born in CR into the complex and rather corrupt world of espionage, and seeing why he's so relevant and important. The film is quite dark because that is the nature of the world that Bond operates in, yet he remains detached from it all. He is a sort of old fashioned hero who will stay true to himself and stop the villain in spite of all the complexity of his life. That's the concept behind fleming's Bond, and QOS takes a unique way in exploring this. I find it refreshing.

[iBond]

The more I see Craig as Bond, the more I miss the way Bond is intended.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Craig is the way Bond is intended.

[iBond]

Craig is the way Bond is intended.

Sadly, I don't agree.

[The Shark]

Damn, we need a new film.

I'm just gonna say that I thought Bond displayed a good amount of humour in QOS. His first few lines are quips: "It's time to get out", "don't bleed to death", "If they wanted his soul, they should have made a deal with a priest".

What's remotely funny about these lines? There's no double meaning or wit to them.

[jamie00007]

I agree and I'm not the only one. I just don't see how anyone can disagree with that analysis. There are a ton of articles just like this. Bourne clearly was a big inspiration for the reboot and the Craig era as a whole.

To consider something a "big inspiration" I have to see some similarities between the two. And Im sorry I dont, aside from a few vague ones of the type you could find for any Bond film and any other big films in its era. And two pages after I've asked, I've yet to see anyone list any examples or reasons that CR and The Bourne Identity are similar, aside from having a more gritty approach to the genre (but even then CR with its OTT action scenes and stunts, beautiful women, story revolving around a card game etc is way more into the realm of fantasy than Bourne. They arent even in the same ballpark). Sure, Bourne might have been a wake up call to Eon (I dont recall reading many reviews or much word of mouth about Bourne that didnt somehow include how much better it was than recent Bond films) and factored into their decision to retool, but thats about it. As others have said, I see more inspiration from Batman Begins in CR than Bourne.

The more I see Craig as Bond, the more I miss the way Bond is intended.

My thoughts exactly. When Brosnan was Bond, that is, and seeing a computer generated Bond surfing on tsunamis. Is that the Bond as intended that you're referring to?

Edited by jamie00007, 12 May 2011 - 05:57 AM.

[Gri007]

I know what you mean by the music in Bloodstone. I noticed that too. Even though Richard Jaques had done cracking a job on the score and came up with a good motif, its probably down to not havng the rights to use the Bond theme

[Iroquois]

Damn, we need a new film.

I'm just gonna say that I thought Bond displayed a good amount of humour in QOS. His first few lines are quips: "It's time to get out", "don't bleed to death", "If they wanted his soul, they should have made a deal with a priest".

What's remotely funny about these lines? There's no double meaning or wit to them.

Context.

1. Bond steps out of his half-wrecked Aston Martin after a brutal car chase to open the boot to a battered Mr White, a significant member of one of the world's most dangerous criminal organisations. He then smiles and says "It's time to get out." like a parent says to a child that has fallen asleep at the end of a long car journey.
2. The way Bond nonchalantly dumps the very injured Mr White while sarcastically saying this line, rounding it off by casually straightening his tie and cuff.
3. "I promised them Le Chiffre and they got Le Chiffre" "They got his BODY" "If they wanted his soul, they should have made a deal with a priest." That is certainly wit.

Whether or not you found them funny is down to personal taste. I know that myself and other members of the audience laughed aloud at these moments in the cinema, but regardless, these moments are meant to be humorous.

[The Shark]

Damn, we need a new film.

I'm just gonna say that I thought Bond displayed a good amount of humour in QOS. His first few lines are quips: "It's time to get out", "don't bleed to death", "If they wanted his soul, they should have made a deal with a priest".

What's remotely funny about these lines? There's no double meaning or wit to them.

Context.

1. Bond steps out of his half-wrecked Aston Martin after a brutal car chase to open the boot to a battered Mr White, a significant member of one of the world's most dangerous criminal organisations. He then smiles and says "It's time to get out." like a parent says to a child that has fallen asleep at the end of a long car journey.
2. The way Bond nonchalantly dumps the very injured Mr White while sarcastically saying this line, rounding it off by casually straightening his tie and cuff.
3. "I promised them Le Chiffre and they got Le Chiffre" "They got his BODY" "If they wanted his soul, they should have made a deal with a priest." That is certainly wit.

I see what you mean.

They do sound better when expounded up above, but I think my main problem is Craig's delivery. It's too nonchalant for it's own good, and comes off as bored, as if the lines are a chore that have to be done.

Much of the so called 'Bondian tropes' in QOS feel as if they're done begrudgingly. i.e. the pitiful seduction of Fields. If you're not going to put any effort into these things, why bother?

[Capsule in Space]

Craig is the way Bond is intended.

Fleming intended to have someone with the grace and charm of Cary Grant or David Niven to play Bond. Not someone who mimics the same human growth hormone and hair gelling regiment as MTV's "The Situation"!

Edited by Capsule in Space, 12 May 2011 - 09:14 PM.

[Capsule in Space]

...but I think my main problem is Craig's delivery. It's too nonchalant for it's own good, and comes off as bored, as if the lines are a chore that have to be done.

His films come off as boring too, and they are a chore to watch! Come on people, Bond is supposed to be fun! Not moody and melancholy like the garbage that EON has been putting out!

[Miles Miservy]

I admit... when I first went to the theater to see Casino Royale, I was ready to rip it apart, thinking Daniel Craig could never live up to Pierce Brosnan's previous films ***DISCLAIMER*** (Although Die Another Day was clearly, the most disapointing film of the entire franchise. The reasons are too many to list here and the film was a blatant neon sign which told the world that Pierce Brosnan was done). That being said, once the title sequence, along w/Chris Cornell's theme song, grabbed you, it was obvious that Daniel Craig had stepped up and, indeed made the role his.

A lot of fans were highly critical about Quantum of Solace but feel it was an adequate 2nd act. I particularly apprecited the many instances where Bond's odds were against him. Examples of this can be found in nearly EVERY film but in this case, the 2 that come to mind are when he's rescuing Camille in that stolen boat that looks barely held together, and when he's overrun over the desert in that all but antique DC-3.

I think Daniel Craig's 3rd movie will be the one that defines him. Like Roger Moore in The Spy Who Loved Me or Sean Connery, before him in Goldfinger, It's the 3rd outing that captures the essence of what the actor is trying to bring to the character. I often wonder what Timothy Dalton's Bond would be like if he were allowed to have a 3rd installment. Would Goldeneye have been his? And if so, would he have done another six like the 2 before him?

Time will tell.

[dinovelvet]

Damn, we need a new film.

I'm just gonna say that I thought Bond displayed a good amount of humour in QOS. His first few lines are quips: "It's time to get out", "don't bleed to death", "If they wanted his soul, they should have made a deal with a priest".

What's remotely funny about these lines? There's no double meaning or wit to them.

Context.

1. Bond steps out of his half-wrecked Aston Martin after a brutal car chase to open the boot to a battered Mr White, a significant member of one of the world's most dangerous criminal organisations. He then smiles and says "It's time to get out." like a parent says to a child that has fallen asleep at the end of a long car journey.
2. The way Bond nonchalantly dumps the very injured Mr White while sarcastically saying this line, rounding it off by casually straightening his tie and cuff.
3. "I promised them Le Chiffre and they got Le Chiffre" "They got his BODY" "If they wanted his soul, they should have made a deal with a priest." That is certainly wit.

I see what you mean.

They do sound better when expounded up above, but I think my main problem is Craig's delivery. It's too nonchalant for it's own good, and comes off as bored, as if the lines are a chore that have to be done.

I get what you mean, but that kind of delivery in those beginning scenes works for me, given what Bond's frame of mind is at the time. It has to be cynical, dry, dark. I don't think doing the smarmy, one raised eyebrow quip delivery style of Moore/Broz would have been appropriate.