IMO, I believe the level of violence in QOS will be on the same level as CR...brutal and jarring but not overly graphic or bloody.
That's what I'm hoping for too, HowardB. I think CR did push the PG-13 rating to its limit, but as long as Bond doesn't go into the "R" territory, the big bucks should keep rolling in. In fact, I think the producers have identified a fine line and are tip-toeing nicely along it: they know (or at least I hope they do) just how far to push their films to attract an audience that is accustomed to watching violent, big-budget action films of the last decade or so, yet not far enough to bring the wrath of the Ratings Board down on their heads.
BTW, I do appreciate the "deadpan spoofing" that went on in CR. I very much enjoyed the repartee between Bond and Vesper on the train and when they were getting dressed for the card game. I just wish there had been more of those moments to bring a bit more levity to the film.
Hopefully, now that Bond has become a full-fledged 00, he can "let his hair down" a bit more, have some fun with his job (as a suave British spy fornicating his way around the globe ), and not have to carry such a chip on his shoulders all the time. He might even, gasp, drop some one-liners every now and then (maybe after dispatching some henchmen, just to lessen the impact of the violence ?)
For me the issue of Violence has to be considered with consideration to how it is played. One of the best scenes in CR (& the entire series for that matter) was the torture scene. It was tough & as graphic as it could be within the contraints of the rating, but what really made it special was the way it was played, particularly by Daniel. When he says 'the big picture' it said so much about the characters, the stakes & the realities of geo politics in three words and one facial expression, it was quite simply stunning.
For my money if violence and realism can be married with superb writing and character defining portrayal it ceases to be a problem.
Hopefully, now that Bond has become a full-fledged 00, he can "let his hair down" a bit more, have some fun with his job (as a suave British spy fornicating his way around the globe ), and not have to carry such a chip on his shoulders all the time. He might even, gasp, drop some one-liners every now and then (maybe after dispatching some henchmen, just to lessen the impact of the violence ?)
Wouldn't say No to that. {[]
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,994Quartermasters
I think Bond will definitely return back to that point; inevitably the pendulum will begin to swing back...
Don't know if it will be in Craig's tenure or not...but I think he's more than capable of playing it that way. If he does, it will probably herald his swan song. Just my 'gut feeling.'
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
If he does, it will probably herald his swan song. Just my 'gut feeling.'
I'm not sure why you would think that. As you said, Craig is capable of delivering these zingers effectively. Also, I'm not advocating that the writers start throwing one of these into every other scene and turning Bond into a stand-up comic. Just a judicious sprinkling of these quips throughout the movie (at moments where the tension needs to be released, or when Bond is having some fun with his female friends - although a "cunning linguist" line might be considered going too far in this Bond era ) would actually be the way to go. Then Craig might not feel like the material is below what a "serious" actor should be asked to do, and he may be quite happy to stick around.
If he does, it will probably herald his swan song. Just my 'gut feeling.'
I'm not sure why you would think that. As you said, Craig is capable of delivering these zingers effectively. Also, I'm not advocating that the writers start throwing one of these into every other scene and turning Bond into a stand-up comic. Just a judicious sprinkling of these quips throughout the movie (at moments where the tension needs to be released, or when Bond is having some fun with his female friends - although a "cunning linguist" line might be considered going too far in this Bond era ) would actually be the way to go. Then Craig might not feel like the material is below what a "serious" actor should be asked to do, and he may be quite happy to stick around.
Like I said, it's just a feeling. I don't see Craigger having much patience if they start to veer too sharply in the direction of DAF and what followed. They can do a bit of it, sure...but IMO they already are: Stephanie Broadchest, Mendel not bringing chocolates, etc. Good, character based stuff---not the campy, near dinner theatre-calibre material to which the series has sometimes descended.
I think he'll bail before he lets his Bond get too far afield from where the character is going at the moment. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
That's what I'm hoping for too, HowardB. I think CR did push the PG-13 rating to its limit, but as long as Bond doesn't go into the "R" territory, the big bucks should keep rolling in. In fact, I think the producers have identified a fine line and are tip-toeing nicely along it: they know (or at least I hope they do) just how far to push their films to attract an audience that is accustomed to watching violent, big-budget action films of the last decade or so, yet not far enough to bring the wrath of the Ratings Board down on their heads.
BTW, I do appreciate the "deadpan spoofing" that went on in CR. I very much enjoyed the repartee between Bond and Vesper on the train and when they were getting dressed for the card game. I just wish there had been more of those moments to bring a bit more levity to the film.
Hopefully, now that Bond has become a full-fledged 00, he can "let his hair down" a bit more, have some fun with his job (as a suave British spy fornicating his way around the globe
For my money if violence and realism can be married with superb writing and character defining portrayal it ceases to be a problem.
Wouldn't say No to that. {[]
Don't know if it will be in Craig's tenure or not...but I think he's more than capable of playing it that way. If he does, it will probably herald his swan song. Just my 'gut feeling.'
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm not sure why you would think that. As you said, Craig is capable of delivering these zingers effectively. Also, I'm not advocating that the writers start throwing one of these into every other scene and turning Bond into a stand-up comic. Just a judicious sprinkling of these quips throughout the movie (at moments where the tension needs to be released, or when Bond is having some fun with his female friends - although a "cunning linguist" line might be considered going too far in this Bond era
Like I said, it's just a feeling. I don't see Craigger having much patience if they start to veer too sharply in the direction of DAF and what followed. They can do a bit of it, sure...but IMO they already are: Stephanie Broadchest, Mendel not bringing chocolates, etc. Good, character based stuff---not the campy, near dinner theatre-calibre material to which the series has sometimes descended.
I think he'll bail before he lets his Bond get too far afield from where the character is going at the moment. Perhaps I'm wrong.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM