Must.. resist.. respect.. and understand..
I agree Solo. 110%. . . . But it wasn't Oddjob that Connery quipped about when he got electrocuted. It was the unnamed thug that tried to kill Connery in the teaser to Goldfinger. He even followed it up with "Positively Shocking" when he looked at the girl recovering on the floor. I'm so sorry. :facepalm
Crap. You're right. I totally forgot that. Good catch!
Still, my sense of those kinds of things have always been that they put the quips in there specifically to lighten things up because, otherwise, it's a pretty damn brutal killing.
You forgot one of my favorite "quip" in CR, Solo, it wasn't even verbal : the twisted smirk Bond has when the bomber finds out he's about to blow up, that was just perfect. No cheesy line, no joke, just fine acting. I really hope Skyfall will be as good as Casino Royal, QoS was a bit weak...
Good point on that one, too. And it gets at what I'm talking about. It's humor, but black humor. Not goofy humor. And it fits in the moment. Plus, the weight of the rest of the movie shows the toll that the lifestyle takes on Bond. It's not as if the whole thing is nothing but "Not a good way to get AHEAD in life. He'll never be the HEAD of a major corporation. So much for standing HEAD and shoulders above the rest..." I mean, one of the aspects of sheer brilliance of the original Austin Powers film was how spot on it was in its lampooning of the Bond series. All done with love, of course, but still, a spot on critique.
I think we're closer to agreeing than disagreeing. Like I said, I don't mind at all the film's aesthetics and action being update to fit today's standards, but like many, I didn't really see Casino Royale so much as a Bond movie as it was a Bourne movie. Just a little nod to 'classic' Bond is all I ask.
I think it needs to be a balance, yeah. I found QoS to be almost unrecognizable as a Bond film, personally. There needs to be SOMETHING to distinguish the films from other spy movies. But quips and gadgets are, to me, the weakest aspect of that. I expect SOME gadgetry. That makes sense to me. But sometimes it's just gadgets for the sake of having gadgets in the film, rather than things which make sense as kit for a field agent.
The From Russia With Love attache case makes perfect sense. Some of the other gadgets do, too. But soooooo many of them just seem over the top and silly (which fits with the rest of the films). I thought, for example, that the defibrillator in the car in CR made perfect sense. The car couldn't fly, turn into a submarine, and launch missiles from its exhaust pipes...but having a compact defibrillator made sense, kinda. Other concealed weaponry to be carried on Bond's person would make sense too, as would, say, a PDA that can do more than what your average smart phone can.
But that just sort of hits the point -- as technology has increased, the need to MAKE Bond gadgets stand out did, too, to the point where it got ridiculous. That's why I say there needs to be a balance. Bond having a phone that can do XYZ advanced function? Sure. Bond having a tuxedo akin to Spiderman's symbiote suit? No way.
I grew up watching Bond films with my dad, and it's one of my more cherished movie franchises. Craig is my 2nd favorite Bond, right behind Connery. I loved Casino Royale, I loved Quantum of Solace, and I can't wait for Skyfall.
I saw my first Bond movie at about age 8. It was Goldfinger, on VHS. The first Bond film I saw in a theater was Living Daylights that same year. I loved it. Still do. I love many of the classic Bond films, in spite of their occasional goofiness. But I'm also glad to see a change in direction for the franchise. I wasn't fond of QoS, but I'm hopeful for this next one.