It Seems There Are More QoS Appreciators Than Thought Before

1424345474863

Comments

  • Posts: 14,816
    Well, wa scar or a wound did not necessarily meant heroism in Fleming: Hugo Drax had a nasty scar, Gettler an eyepatch. Nowadays, yes it's cliché, but I think Mollaka's burnt mark is perfectly justifiable. Le Chiffre's bleeding eye, less so, but I'd apply the rule of cool here. Regarding true crime, I was not referring to legendary thugs, but more recent examples. I've read quite a lot of true crime books and something that often comes off the police officers investigating organised crime is how different the demeanor and stare of hardened mobsters look like. Not to mention their physique: some used to the fine life that money can buy and get fat, those who bulk up with a little help from steroids, etc. And they don't live in a fantasy settings, but grim reality.
  • Posts: 2,871
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Well, wa scar or a wound did not necessarily meant heroism in Fleming: Hugo Drax had a nasty scar, Gettler an eyepatch. Nowadays, yes it's cliché, but I think Mollaka's burnt mark is perfectly justifiable. Le Chiffre's bleeding eye, less so, but I'd apply the rule of cool here. Regarding true crime, I was not referring to legendary thugs, but more recent examples. I've read quite a lot of true crime books and something that often comes off the police officers investigating organised crime is how different the demeanor and stare of hardened mobsters look like. Not to mention their physique: some used to the fine life that money can buy and get fat, those who bulk up with a little help from steroids, etc. And they don't live in a fantasy settings, but grim reality.

    As I said, Hugo Drax was posing as a British industrialist who had served in the War. It's his ogre teeth and strangely boisterous mannerisms (as if he's doing an impression of an English aristocrat) which are more noteworthy to Bond. Even the guy following Vesper in CR isn't necessarily denoted as dodgy or evil from his eye patch. From Bond's point of view he's a pleasant and rather un-noteworthy looking man except for his eye patch. The mention of it makes him stand out, but Bond doesn't seem to find it unusual or ominous. Again, while heroism is arguable, it was more likely Fleming would have seen men coming home after the War with things like limps, scars, eyepatches etc. so didn't have this bizarre modern fascination with it somehow conveying evil that we do today. While you say it's a cliche it's actually still very much used in many films, and for the Bond movies has gotten more pronounced during the Craig era.

    True crime books/TV shows are often sensationalised and much information is given with hindsight, especially from those being interviewed. I love that sort of stuff by the way, but the fact is it's likely many people met these hardened criminals and had no idea how dangerous they were. That's what's most unsettling in a sense - that almost anyone under the right circumstances can become bad people.
  • Le Chiffre cries blood and has a scar....so how does that help with the quality of the movie?

    Silva's glass jaw was forced in there and the idea was made worse especially by the CGI effect.

    Of all the Blofeld rankings, which one comes out on top in most lists? It's Telly Savalas' and notice he doesn't have a scar but the acting and physicality are often noted as factors.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,988
    Well with Le Chiffre it shows up front he's flawed, not omnipotent. And events further stress him.

    Silva's removal of the jaw further confronts M with the effects of her decisions.

    As far as deformity, I'm thinking a physical condition or contributing events can draw the best or worst from a person. So I wouldn't include it out for future villains. Just as I'd expect no reservations for allies on that count.

    72d56848032afb92dee339d11aa0fdca--rosie-the-riveter.jpg
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 2,871
    Well with Le Chiffre it shows up front he's flawed, not omnipotent. And events further stress him.

    Silva's removal of the jaw further confronts M with the effects of her decisions.

    As far as deformity, I'm thinking a physical condition or contributing events can draw the best or worst from a person. So I wouldn't include it out for future villains. Just as I'd expect no reservations for allies on that count.

    72d56848032afb92dee339d11aa0fdca--rosie-the-riveter.jpg

    It's not that it's used badly for those particular characters (they're certainly better than Safin and Blofeld's scars) but that it's a trope broadly been done to death with villains. Furiosa from Mad Max is an interesting one in that sense.

    I mean, why not have something similar with a Bond girl? Incorporate some sort of outward injury into the narrative similar to Honey's broken nose in DN. Or indeed just have a Bond ally with an eye patch or a hook for a hand like in the novel. It'd be an interesting subversion within the context of the films. Heck, Bond's own injuries/scars are extensive but there within the novels too, especially in TB. They certainly give an insight into how dangerous his profession can be and the physical toll it can have.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2022 Posts: 3,389
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well with Le Chiffre it shows up front he's flawed, not omnipotent. And events further stress him.

    Silva's removal of the jaw further confronts M with the effects of her decisions.

    As far as deformity, I'm thinking a physical condition or contributing events can draw the best or worst from a person. So I wouldn't include it out for future villains. Just as I'd expect no reservations for allies on that count.

    72d56848032afb92dee339d11aa0fdca--rosie-the-riveter.jpg
    I mean, why not have something similar with a Bond girl? Incorporate some sort of outward injury into the narrative similar to Honey's broken nose in DN. Or indeed just have a Bond ally with an eye patch or a hook for a hand like in the novel. It'd be an interesting subversion within the context of the films. Heck, Bond's own injuries/scars are extensive but there within the novels too, especially in TB. They certainly give an insight into how dangerous his profession can be and the physical toll it can have.


    The closest we can get here was the scar at Lupe Lamora's back when Sanchez horsewhipped her at the beginning.
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 534
    I think we mentioned it before but Camille's scars in Quantum were if anything too subtle but I'm all for more diversity in Bond films and making it so that disabilities aren't seen as a 'villainous' trait would be welcome.
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 203
    Safins scars were from a fire when his family were killed no? Or did I just imagine that?
    The Gardner nivels had a Bond girl who had had a mastectomy, but any body-positivity in that (which would be truly great in a film) went out the window when she turned out to be… well, let’s just villainous and avoid big spoilers.

    Bond himself is scarred in the DC portrayal, it’s all under his shirt… which of course he removes at least once a film.
  • Posts: 2,871
    JustJames wrote: »
    Safins scars were from a fire when his family were killed no? Or did I just imagine that?
    The Gardner nivels had a Bond girl who had had a mastectomy, but any body-positivity in that (which would be truly great in a film) went out the window when she turned out to be… well, let’s just villainous and avoid big spoilers.

    Bond himself is scarred in the DC portrayal, it’s all under his shirt… which of course he removes at least once a film.

    It's from the poison that SPECTRE used to assassinate his family (he survives of course). Oh yes, Nena from For Special Services! That book is weird... as are all the Gardner Bond novels that I've read.

    Craig's Bond gets one or two superficial injuries (mainly the bullet wound from SF... I think he has some bruises in QOS too). Fleming's Bond had all kinds of scars and untreated ailments (I think in TB he's described as having 'many scars' and even a bit of damage to his spine from jumping out of a train which gives him headaches... the health spa thing is played for laughs a bit in the novel and Bond is relatively cavalier about his injuries, but it is rather interesting and shows the damage such a man with that lifestyle and job can do to himself).
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 203
    007HallY wrote: »
    JustJames wrote: »
    Safins scars were from a fire when his family were killed no? Or did I just imagine that?
    The Gardner nivels had a Bond girl who had had a mastectomy, but any body-positivity in that (which would be truly great in a film) went out the window when she turned out to be… well, let’s just villainous and avoid big spoilers.

    Bond himself is scarred in the DC portrayal, it’s all under his shirt… which of course he removes at least once a film.

    It's from the poison that SPECTRE used to assassinate his family (he survives of course). Oh yes, Nena from For Special Services! That book is weird... as are all the Gardner Bond novels that I've read.

    Craig's Bond gets one or two superficial injuries (mainly the bullet wound from SF... I think he has some bruises in QOS too). Fleming's Bond had all kinds of scars and untreated ailments (I think in TB he's described as having 'many scars' and even a bit of damage to his spine from jumping out of a train which gives him headaches... the health spa thing is played for laughs a bit in the novel and Bond is relatively cavalier about his injuries, but it is rather interesting and shows the damage such a man with that lifestyle and job can do to himself).

    Ah yes, I knew it was from Blofeld. Also of course it saves on de-aging effects and allows a link from the masked assailant in the teaser to his later arrival. (See… it does serve two narrative purposes…)
    Bond has a clear scar on his chest and collarbone area in NTTD likely from his moneypenny dive. There’s also the dodgy knee in-joke as well.
  • Posts: 2,871
    JustJames wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    JustJames wrote: »
    Safins scars were from a fire when his family were killed no? Or did I just imagine that?
    The Gardner nivels had a Bond girl who had had a mastectomy, but any body-positivity in that (which would be truly great in a film) went out the window when she turned out to be… well, let’s just villainous and avoid big spoilers.

    Bond himself is scarred in the DC portrayal, it’s all under his shirt… which of course he removes at least once a film.

    It's from the poison that SPECTRE used to assassinate his family (he survives of course). Oh yes, Nena from For Special Services! That book is weird... as are all the Gardner Bond novels that I've read.

    Craig's Bond gets one or two superficial injuries (mainly the bullet wound from SF... I think he has some bruises in QOS too). Fleming's Bond had all kinds of scars and untreated ailments (I think in TB he's described as having 'many scars' and even a bit of damage to his spine from jumping out of a train which gives him headaches... the health spa thing is played for laughs a bit in the novel and Bond is relatively cavalier about his injuries, but it is rather interesting and shows the damage such a man with that lifestyle and job can do to himself).

    Ah yes, I knew it was from Blofeld. Also of course it saves on de-aging effects and allows a link from the masked assailant in the teaser to his later arrival. (See… it does serve two narrative purposes…)
    Bond has a clear scar on his chest and collarbone area in NTTD likely from his moneypenny dive. There’s also the dodgy knee in-joke as well.

    Can't remember that in NTTD. If it's there it's a good little detail as it's presumably meant to be from SF. I always got the sense that was Nomi's little gibe and not based on any real injury... I'm glad we didn't get too many 'Bond is old' jokes in NTTD... y'know, Craig giving a little 'oooh, my back' moment during an action scene, haha.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,923
    Isn't Bond's scar in NTTD the bullet wound from when he was shot by Patrice in SF?
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 1,280
    Bond had physical battle scars in CR....in QoS, they were emotional. The execution of most, not all scars were done for showing off.

    Stronger villains like Mr.White...were just creepy and elusive.

  • Posts: 14,816
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Well, wa scar or a wound did not necessarily meant heroism in Fleming: Hugo Drax had a nasty scar, Gettler an eyepatch. Nowadays, yes it's cliché, but I think Mollaka's burnt mark is perfectly justifiable. Le Chiffre's bleeding eye, less so, but I'd apply the rule of cool here. Regarding true crime, I was not referring to legendary thugs, but more recent examples. I've read quite a lot of true crime books and something that often comes off the police officers investigating organised crime is how different the demeanor and stare of hardened mobsters look like. Not to mention their physique: some used to the fine life that money can buy and get fat, those who bulk up with a little help from steroids, etc. And they don't live in a fantasy settings, but grim reality.

    As I said, Hugo Drax was posing as a British industrialist who had served in the War. It's his ogre teeth and strangely boisterous mannerisms (as if he's doing an impression of an English aristocrat) which are more noteworthy to Bond. Even the guy following Vesper in CR isn't necessarily denoted as dodgy or evil from his eye patch. From Bond's point of view he's a pleasant and rather un-noteworthy looking man except for his eye patch. The mention of it makes him stand out, but Bond doesn't seem to find it unusual or ominous. Again, while heroism is arguable, it was more likely Fleming would have seen men coming home after the War with things like limps, scars, eyepatches etc. so didn't have this bizarre modern fascination with it somehow conveying evil that we do today. While you say it's a cliche it's actually still very much used in many films, and for the Bond movies has gotten more pronounced during the Craig era.

    True crime books/TV shows are often sensationalised and much information is given with hindsight, especially from those being interviewed. I love that sort of stuff by the way, but the fact is it's likely many people met these hardened criminals and had no idea how dangerous they were. That's what's most unsettling in a sense - that almost anyone under the right circumstances can become bad people.

    Well, when a police officer meets a well known member of the Montreal mob (for instance), they are very well aware of who they are, what they do and their stature. I guess there could be confirmation bias: they know they're facing criminals so they might think they look exactly like that.
  • Posts: 2,871
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Well, wa scar or a wound did not necessarily meant heroism in Fleming: Hugo Drax had a nasty scar, Gettler an eyepatch. Nowadays, yes it's cliché, but I think Mollaka's burnt mark is perfectly justifiable. Le Chiffre's bleeding eye, less so, but I'd apply the rule of cool here. Regarding true crime, I was not referring to legendary thugs, but more recent examples. I've read quite a lot of true crime books and something that often comes off the police officers investigating organised crime is how different the demeanor and stare of hardened mobsters look like. Not to mention their physique: some used to the fine life that money can buy and get fat, those who bulk up with a little help from steroids, etc. And they don't live in a fantasy settings, but grim reality.

    As I said, Hugo Drax was posing as a British industrialist who had served in the War. It's his ogre teeth and strangely boisterous mannerisms (as if he's doing an impression of an English aristocrat) which are more noteworthy to Bond. Even the guy following Vesper in CR isn't necessarily denoted as dodgy or evil from his eye patch. From Bond's point of view he's a pleasant and rather un-noteworthy looking man except for his eye patch. The mention of it makes him stand out, but Bond doesn't seem to find it unusual or ominous. Again, while heroism is arguable, it was more likely Fleming would have seen men coming home after the War with things like limps, scars, eyepatches etc. so didn't have this bizarre modern fascination with it somehow conveying evil that we do today. While you say it's a cliche it's actually still very much used in many films, and for the Bond movies has gotten more pronounced during the Craig era.

    True crime books/TV shows are often sensationalised and much information is given with hindsight, especially from those being interviewed. I love that sort of stuff by the way, but the fact is it's likely many people met these hardened criminals and had no idea how dangerous they were. That's what's most unsettling in a sense - that almost anyone under the right circumstances can become bad people.

    Well, when a police officer meets a well known member of the Montreal mob (for instance), they are very well aware of who they are, what they do and their stature. I guess there could be confirmation bias: they know they're facing criminals so they might think they look exactly like that.

    Yeah, it's difficult to say, and not being a police officer I wouldn't know.

    I suppose there's a similar thing with serial killers. Much of the time people recall them being rather charming, non-threatening people, but there those rare accounts where some get a sense straight away that something was wrong (ie. the famous 'Dating Game' tv show story where one of the contestants turned out to be a serial killer. The woman actually chose the guy to go on a date with but cancelled it when she got 'creepy' vibes off of him, which presumably saved her life).
  • David Arnold and Marc Forster were both in attendence at a dinner recently for BB and MGW's celebration. The producers explained they will reinvent Bond....hopefully with Arnold and Forster doing what they've done best for the series.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,454
    David Arnold and Marc Forster were both in attendence at a dinner recently for BB and MGW's celebration. The producers explained they will reinvent Bond....hopefully with Arnold and Forster doing what they've done best for the series.

    A man can dream.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 2022 Posts: 2,923
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,454
    From comments I've seen recently, it sounds like Forster wouldn't want to do a QoS 2.0 if he had returned, but I'd still love to see what else he could bring to the table.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,965
    007HallY wrote: »
    JustJames wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    JustJames wrote: »
    Safins scars were from a fire when his family were killed no? Or did I just imagine that?
    The Gardner nivels had a Bond girl who had had a mastectomy, but any body-positivity in that (which would be truly great in a film) went out the window when she turned out to be… well, let’s just villainous and avoid big spoilers.

    Bond himself is scarred in the DC portrayal, it’s all under his shirt… which of course he removes at least once a film.

    It's from the poison that SPECTRE used to assassinate his family (he survives of course). Oh yes, Nena from For Special Services! That book is weird... as are all the Gardner Bond novels that I've read.

    Craig's Bond gets one or two superficial injuries (mainly the bullet wound from SF... I think he has some bruises in QOS too). Fleming's Bond had all kinds of scars and untreated ailments (I think in TB he's described as having 'many scars' and even a bit of damage to his spine from jumping out of a train which gives him headaches... the health spa thing is played for laughs a bit in the novel and Bond is relatively cavalier about his injuries, but it is rather interesting and shows the damage such a man with that lifestyle and job can do to himself).

    Ah yes, I knew it was from Blofeld. Also of course it saves on de-aging effects and allows a link from the masked assailant in the teaser to his later arrival. (See… it does serve two narrative purposes…)
    Bond has a clear scar on his chest and collarbone area in NTTD likely from his moneypenny dive. There’s also the dodgy knee in-joke as well.

    Can't remember that in NTTD. If it's there it's a good little detail as it's presumably meant to be from SF. I always got the sense that was Nomi's little gibe and not based on any real injury... I'm glad we didn't get too many 'Bond is old' jokes in NTTD... y'know, Craig giving a little 'oooh, my back' moment during an action scene, haha.

    Naomi's jibe was an in-joke about the filming. Craig damaged his knee during filming and was out of the running for a couple of weeks.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 2022 Posts: 2,923
    Yes, back in 2008, Forster said he thought the film after QOS should be lighter and have more gags. Craig said some similar things during the promotional stint too. Shame - QOS was exactly what I wanted more of!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,454
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, back in 2008, Forster said he thought the film after QOS should be lighter and have more gags. Craig said some similar things during the promotional stint too. Shame - QOS was exactly what I wanted more of!

    You and I both. I would've had no problems having similar type films with the same crew for the rest of the era.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,923
    Absolutely.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,006
    Agree with you all - CR/QOS was the best iteration of Craig-Bond tonally.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,508
    Venutius wrote: »
    Yes, back in 2008, Forster said he thought the film after QOS should be lighter and have more gags. Craig said some similar things during the promotional stint too. Shame - QOS was exactly what I wanted more of!

    Yep 100% mate. Craig's portrayal in CR/QOS was nothing short of magnificent. The tone of those films was so fresh and endearing, that's exactly where I want Bond to be.

    I don't want Bond 26 to go lighter if anything I want them to commit to making it similar to CR/QOS throughout and not have an unbalanced uneven tone
  • The parallels of the Bond and Batman franchise go beyond sharing borrowed crew members. In fact, the ending of QoS between Bond and M is very similar to the ending of Batman Returns.....Both protagonists don't get the girl in the end and yet her spirit is present but her absence is heartbreakingly felt. All the while, each protagonist is talking to their respective mentors amidst the snowy environment surrounding them with well-done musical scores.

    That's actually a really good observation. I never made that connection before. Purely coincidental, of course, but it might go some way toward explaining why I like both endings so much.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Danny Boyle said that the character would be formed again via a mutation or Dr. Who-like approach to excuse the next actor as to why he would play JB after Craig.

    Boyle said Bond could come back through a mutation? Like his molecules floating in the Pacific come across some toxic waste and he turns into a gelatinous Bond-thing like Senator Kelly in X-Men? I could be down for that. But wouldn't the next Bond still be saddled with worrying he's going to pass the killer nanobots on to Madeleine and Mathilde? Maybe the next movie could start with an opening scroll that explains the mutation neutralized the nanobots. That way you bypass the whole issue and Bond Thing could live with Madeleine and Mathilde in Norway and commute to London by dissolving into the ocean and riding the currents.

    Or there's the "Code Name" theory I guess...but Bond Thing just sounds like an easier way of going about it. Boyle has my vote for B26.

    You're onto something here. But perhaps Bond Thing doesn't have to worry about killing his family anymore, because they already died, when a piano being lifted into an apartment fell on them. Then Bond Thing decides to investigate the shady piano moving organization that has been causing pianos to fall on key government officials all over the world. Later, he (it?) discovers their most nefarious plan yet: to drop a giant piano on the whole world, crushing everyone.

    "Choose your next witticism carefully, Bond Thing. In another moment, you will...B-flat." /:)

    "So that's why they're targeting key government officials."

    :D
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I honestly think Waltz is a one trick pony. A good one, yes. But to me he's always a variant of Hans Landa (a character he nailed 100%, absolutely). His Blofeld (don't get me started on the writing and the Cucoogate thing!) was total misfire.

    Waltz is very good in the hands of Tarantino. I've never seen him as good as he is in Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained.
    David Arnold and Marc Forster were both in attendence at a dinner recently for BB and MGW's celebration. The producers explained they will reinvent Bond....hopefully with Arnold and Forster doing what they've done best for the series.

    I noticed. They are two of the best things to have happened to Bond in a long time. I'd love to see a return of them both.
  • The parallels of the Bond and Batman franchise go beyond sharing borrowed crew members. In fact, the ending of QoS between Bond and M is very similar to the ending of Batman Returns.....Both protagonists don't get the girl in the end and yet her spirit is present but her absence is heartbreakingly felt. All the while, each protagonist is talking to their respective mentors amidst the snowy environment surrounding them with well-done musical scores.

    That's actually a really good observation. I never made that connection before. Purely coincidental, of course, but it might go some way toward explaining why I like both endings so much.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Danny Boyle said that the character would be formed again via a mutation or Dr. Who-like approach to excuse the next actor as to why he would play JB after Craig.

    Boyle said Bond could come back through a mutation? Like his molecules floating in the Pacific come across some toxic waste and he turns into a gelatinous Bond-thing like Senator Kelly in X-Men? I could be down for that. But wouldn't the next Bond still be saddled with worrying he's going to pass the killer nanobots on to Madeleine and Mathilde? Maybe the next movie could start with an opening scroll that explains the mutation neutralized the nanobots. That way you bypass the whole issue and Bond Thing could live with Madeleine and Mathilde in Norway and commute to London by dissolving into the ocean and riding the currents.

    Or there's the "Code Name" theory I guess...but Bond Thing just sounds like an easier way of going about it. Boyle has my vote for B26.

    You're onto something here. But perhaps Bond Thing doesn't have to worry about killing his family anymore, because they already died, when a piano being lifted into an apartment fell on them. Then Bond Thing decides to investigate the shady piano moving organization that has been causing pianos to fall on key government officials all over the world. Later, he (it?) discovers their most nefarious plan yet: to drop a giant piano on the whole world, crushing everyone.

    "Choose your next witticism carefully, Bond Thing. In another moment, you will...B-flat." /:)

    "So that's why they're targeting key government officials."

    :D
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I honestly think Waltz is a one trick pony. A good one, yes. But to me he's always a variant of Hans Landa (a character he nailed 100%, absolutely). His Blofeld (don't get me started on the writing and the Cucoogate thing!) was total misfire.

    Waltz is very good in the hands of Tarantino. I've never seen him as good as he is in Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained.
    David Arnold and Marc Forster were both in attendence at a dinner recently for BB and MGW's celebration. The producers explained they will reinvent Bond....hopefully with Arnold and Forster doing what they've done best for the series.

    I noticed. They are two of the best things to have happened to Bond in a long time. I'd love to see a return of them both.

    QoS ages well with time....any film that copies much of the whole Bond formula thing with forced gags and jokes doesn't age well.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited July 2022 Posts: 732
    Especially the humor aspect works best in CR/QoS with Craig's take of the role ... only in NTTD it came back to a good level. There was quite some great one-liners and jokes that Craig's Bond made which worked very, very well and MUCH better than (for example) the Roger-Moore-Type Gags in Spectre ... only Sir Roger could pull these off so wonderful because his whole persona and interpretation of the role allowed it.

    But to me it's not true that CR and QoS are so overly gritty in total - there's plenty of humor in them! Just think about the exchange of Mathis and his wife/girlfriend : "But it's cheap wine" and Craig's smile :-) Wonderful and funny. Plenty more examples you all know.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited July 2022 Posts: 2,923
    Yes, QOS absolutely nailed CraigBond's dark humour.
    'You shot him at pointblank range and threw him off a roof'
    'I did my best not to.'
    Just one of many great lines from QOS that were darkly humorous without being lame gags like 'I got in some deep water.' I'd guess that Haggis wrote the black humour in QOS and his departure is why they lost track of it until Phoebe WB added some good lines to NTTD. Shame - the dark humour in QOS was exactly right for Craig.
  • Posts: 526
    Agree with you all - CR/QOS was the best iteration of Craig-Bond tonally.
    Agree with you all - CR/QOS was the best iteration of Craig-Bond tonally.

    Agree 100%. It seemed like from Skyfall onward that we increasingly went back more to the forced gags and unnatural humor (bad one liners). Spectre was pretty rough for me. PTS was great, then....that stupid music played when the helicopter 🚁 went upside down. Instantly made me think of Roger Moore and the “double-taking pigeon.” Why on earth would they put that in there? Why the fixation to turn Craig into Roger Moore? CR/QOS are my two favorite movies ever. Oh yeah, what about when DC fell into the chair into Spectre? Eye roll city. I made sure and waited on the credits to see that it said James Bond Daniel Craig and not Roger Moore. I thought all the other Bond actors (good, bad or ugly) were consistent on tone, but not Craig’s-his was all over the place after the first two. And that’s a shame. With this “reinvention” coming up, it will probably be the end of Bond as we know it.
Sign In or Register to comment.