Skyfall (2012) - UK Oct 26th , US Nov 9th [SPOILERS]

Hey, don't jinx it. QOS capped it off nicely. I hope it remains that way.

Lazenby. wrote:

Chang wrote:

Who cares?
After such along absence the real test for James Bond is whether Dan Craig is still as popular as OO7. After the dismal QOS he may have scared too many people away. They'd better come up with something that has the appeal of CR without being a copy of that film. Otherwise we're going to have a flop and Bond could be off the market for a longtime.

I still think we're gonna get Craig's TWINE with Bond 23, on pretty much every level. It will dumbassedly try to balance silly OTT (not to mention CGI) action and gadgets with some kind of "big and emotional" soap opera storyline (probably revolving around M to some extent no doubt, this being Dench's show just as much as Bond's now, lest we forget), and EON are still employing the two worst writers you could possibly have on your books when it comes to marrying these elements together.

Just thought I'd post that opinion on this site for posterity, having already voiced my concerns about this a million times over at the now-destroyed MI6.

Lazenby, please go in with an open mind. I think Mendes is a pretty intelligent fellow - I don't think he'll screw up. But hey, if we do get another TWINE, well, what's the drama? (No pun intended?)

First promo pic released:




Not sure I like the direction this is going.

FieldsMan wrote:

Lazenby. wrote:

Chang wrote:

Who cares?
After such along absence the real test for James Bond is whether Dan Craig is still as popular as OO7. After the dismal QOS he may have scared too many people away. They'd better come up with something that has the appeal of CR without being a copy of that film. Otherwise we're going to have a flop and Bond could be off the market for a longtime.

I still think we're gonna get Craig's TWINE with Bond 23, on pretty much every level. It will dumbassedly try to balance silly OTT (not to mention CGI) action and gadgets with some kind of "big and emotional" soap opera storyline (probably revolving around M to some extent no doubt, this being Dench's show just as much as Bond's now, lest we forget), and EON are still employing the two worst writers you could possibly have on your books when it comes to marrying these elements together.

Just thought I'd post that opinion on this site for posterity, having already voiced my concerns about this a million times over at the now-destroyed MI6.

Lazenby, please go in with an open mind. I think Mendes is a pretty intelligent fellow - I don't think he'll screw up. But hey, if we do get another TWINE, well, what's the drama? (No pun intended?)

I'd be relieved if we could escape with another TWINE. I'll cut my losses there no problem, rather than risk what could be.
And I do hope Python is right. That Bond and M have settled their trust issues
Maybe now that nu-Bond, as a seasoned agent of 6 years by 2012, can turn the tables and spend two films haruanging M about whether he can trust her. The possibilties. Babs and Mendes must be giddy.
Meanwhile poor forgotten MGW is probably still slumming in that run down Haitan hotel lobby telling anyone that cares to listen about the good ole days of Bond, of Dink and Pussy and Plenty, and when it was the Bond girls that wore the tight blue swim suits.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

First promo pic released:



Not sure I like the direction this is going.

She looks just like the girl from the original three films while Craig looks like the ghost of Christmas past. :pale:

MGW is just as guilty as Babs, I notice fans tend to just let him off easily. For example Babs seems to be always credited for bringing in the female M but it was all Mike's idea. It's not like he is chained in some dungeon and Babs is calling all the shots.

But at least MGW admits that Die Another Day was a disaster.

Did he? I recall during interviews about CR him and Babs saying they felt DAD went too far like MR did 30 years ago, but I don't remember him calling it a "disaster".

I'm sure he said it in an interview somewhere to which the interviewer responded quickly that it surely wasn't a commercial disaster and Wilson of course agreed. Think it was on a programme promoting Casino Royale back in 2006 and they were discussing Craig's takeover from Brosnan as Bond. Could have imagined it though. :)

Quote :

In a recent video interview with IGN, Craig was quizzed about 007 returning to the roots and tradition of the film franchise - including the rumours of a Miss Moneypenny recasting The open ended question was not denied by James Bond actor Daniel Craig but some bloggers at Comic Book Movie are taking this as capitulation of the earlier rumour.

Yet, as reporters at Bond23.net point out, Daniel Craig is actually tight-lipped about the plotting, character and almost every other element of the Bond film he is commissioned to shoot in November 2011.

What Craig does reveal during the inevitable round of Bond 23 questioning, is that the "American Beauty" director and Bond 23 helmsman, Sam Mendes, is a 'huge' fan of the James Bond franchise:

"You'll just have to wait and see," Daniel Craig told reporters, "Sam is a huge Bond fan, he understands the history of it, he understands what Bond is about. The script is incredible, we're in good shape."

Quote :

Daniel Craig was interviewed this week by "Extra" on a ranch in Montana as part of the "Cowboys & Aliens" press junket. Inevitably, talk turned to 007 and the status of the 23rd James Bond film.

"We've got a script, it's fantastic and we start shooting October... November this year for a November release next year," Craig said. "I'm really gagging to go. I've had a break now, and things have come together with the timing of it."

"Although it seemed like it was never going to happen, it was always going to happen... People sorting out finances and things like that beyond my control. It's given me a chance to have a break and given me some incredible opportunities like make a cowboy movie and work with David Fincher. I'm very lucky."

Just thought I'd post some of these from mi6-hq.

The script is apparently "incredible" and "fantastic". And could Harris possibly be a Bond girl? Hopefully!

Quote :

"Sam is a huge Bond fan, he understands the history of it, he understands what Bond is about. The script is incredible, we're in good shape."

This is encouraging news. We might have something here. Mendes might be able to salvage the Babs/Craig era.
Surely Eon is not blind to the criticism surrounding QoS, even if it did make a ton of cash. There is hope - maybe for something great even.

Mind you, there is also potential for disaster if Babs is chasing Oscar and we get another sanctimonious message movie.

For me, if it's escapist Bond, reminiscent of the 60s or Fleming's Bond, I'll be happy. But if it's a straight out, intelligent thriller I'll be content. As long as Bond's character is still there, which includes drinking, sex, smoking (hopefully), cynicism, etc.

Then again just because Craig says that Mendes is a huge Bond fan, yadda yadda yadda. What's he supposed to say? Mendes is just catching up on Bond now?
Could be just a lot of making the appropriate noises.
"We are all huge Bond fans. We know the history." Of course you do. Blah blah blah!

Well, your optimism didn't last long.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Well, your optimism didn't last long.

There is no point in being optimistic after the last film.
We have no idea what Babs and Mendes plan on serving up. Could be great. Could be a disaster too.
Compare with say 1965 when you knew that Cubby, Saltz, and Young would come up with something brilliant, or even compare with the Rog era, when there was a consistency to what Eon would serve up.

Nowadays, hope and pray.

We do know though that Craig and others, will make the appropriate happy noises during the leadup.

tiffanywint wrote:

There is no point in being optimistic

Indeed - why bother? Let's just all pack up and go home.

QOS wasn't even that bad.

colly wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

There is no point in being optimistic

Indeed - why bother? Let's just all pack up and go home.

Yes but the response to not being optimistic isn't necessarily to be cynical either. So you don't need to pack your bags. Relax.

Makeshift Python wrote:

QOS wasn't even that bad.

Compared to DAD? No it wasn't. It wasn't particularly memorable either though.

It was mediocre, which was precisely what we didn't need after the goodwill the series had garnered from CR.
For all its flaws, CR did manage to hold some promise for the future. But that promise was immediately destroyed by following it up with a sub-par sequel.

QoS was roughly of the quality of TND, which is to say that it falls somewhere in the middle of the pack of Bond movies. I cannot be the only one who was hoping for something a little more memorable than that.

I want to see more of Rooney Mara's tits.

But I guess that isn't the film we're discussing here.

"Sam is a huge Bond fan, he understands the history of it, he understands what Bond is about."

This from the man who saw fit to portray Bond wearing a dress.

Salomé wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

QOS wasn't even that bad.

Compared to DAD? No it wasn't. It wasn't particularly memorable either though.

Never claimed it was, I'm just saying I thought it wasn't that bad. I consider it a middle of the road Bond.

tiffanywint wrote:

There is no point in being optimistic after the last film.
We have no idea what Babs and Mendes plan on serving up. Could be great. Could be a disaster too.
Compare with say 1965 when you knew that Cubby, Saltz, and Young would come up with something brilliant, or even compare with the Rog era, when there was a consistency to what Eon would serve up.

Did you deliberately choose 1965 as the cut-off point? Cause I'm fairly certain if I had lived through that time period, and seen YOLT hit theatres in 1967, I would have promptly lost all faith in EON. =P

Louis Armstrong wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

There is no point in being optimistic after the last film.
We have no idea what Babs and Mendes plan on serving up. Could be great. Could be a disaster too.
Compare with say 1965 when you knew that Cubby, Saltz, and Young would come up with something brilliant, or even compare with the Rog era, when there was a consistency to what Eon would serve up.

Did you deliberately choose 1965 as the cut-off point? Cause I'm fairly certain if I had lived through that time period, and seen YOLT hit theatres in 1967, I would have promptly lost all faith in EON. =P

Well besides the fact that YOLT is classic brilliant Bond, I do take your point.

If you can even say it might have been folly to be optimistic even in the 60's, then nowadays there is even less reason.:shock:

Ed Tom Kowalsky wrote:

"Sam is a huge Bond fan, he understands the history of it, he understands what Bond is about."

This from the man who saw fit to portray Bond wearing a dress.

I shudder to think what Mendes "understanding" might be, especially if Craig is down with it. :pale: