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

Eon understandably wouldn't be inclined to adapt any of the continuation novels that weren't big sellers, which might be all of them. The newer titles might be the exception, thanks to the massive marketing push both DMC and CB got.

The Fleming novels are the books that people wanted to see adapted.

tiffanywint wrote:

Eon understandably wouldn't be inclined to adapt any of the continuation novels that weren't big sellers, which might be all of them. The newer titles might be the exception, thanks to the massive marketing push both DMC and CB got.

The Fleming novels are the books that people wanted to see adapted.

Well, the first couple of Gardner novels sold very well at the time (I think they sold in the six figure range) and yet EON was not motivated to adapt them. And while it's true that the Fleming books were the ones people wanted to see adapted at the time, it was also because the books were hot at the time and the popularity of the books preceded the movies somewhat, then the movies got popular and drove sales of the books all over again until finally the popularity of the films overshadowed the books and Fleming died (Fleming died of a heart attack, not because the movies became more popular than the books, I should clarify).

However, EON *could* help themselves by helping the book series, but I suppose the book series needs the movie series more than the other way around. So while I don't like EON's decision to never adapt post-Fleming novels, I do understand the business decision behind it. Until the novels are once again a force to be reckoned with, there's less incentive for EON to get behind the book series.

The argument about quality has never been one that I've accepted from EON. MGW might as well have held up a neon sign that read: DON'T WANT TO SPEND EXTRA MONEY because it's always been about the money.

tiffanywint wrote:

Whoa! I got to wait two weeks after its out in England? Has this happened before?I'm a first day guy, have been since forever, or at the very least a first weekend viewer.I won't be able to sit still for two weeks, knowing the film exists in the world.That will mean for the first time in forever, there might be a two week period where I can't say I have watched every Bond film.Meanwhile some casual film going schlump in London will have a better knowledge of the Bond films, than I do, for two weeks anyway.If it really sucks, I want to be on it right away, cursing the day Mendes was conceived, Babs was born etc. Someone tell me this nightmare scenario is not true.

the question you have to ask yourself aka timmer, is do you care enough to fly across the ditch to see it earlier?

Mr. Brown wrote:

Jon Favreau: one of the worst directors working today.

ouch!
why so hard on Favreau?
personally I found the Iron Man are the superhero movies I've most enjoyed watching, alot of that is down to the script and Robert Downey Juniors performance, but the direction has not attracted my attention as being anything less than competent

and far better than Abrams

Seve wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

Jon Favreau: one of the worst directors working today.

ouch!
why so hard on Favreau?

The guy is boring as hell. Just another Hollywood point-and-shoot hack.

Sounds like John Glen.

John Glen was better. At least he had guys like Alan Hume and Alec Mills.

Sharky wrote:

John Glen was better. At least he had guys like Alan Hume and Alec Mills.

John Glen was better, but Hume and Mills are hardly DPs to write home about.

Not a fan of those too either. Didn't dig the soft lens look Hume brought (yeah, I know it was to hide Moore's age) and actors looked like they were cooking under Mills' unnecessary heavy light, which didn't compliment the beautiful sets Peter Lamont designed (especially the casino) making them look cheaper than they should have looked.

who is playing Q?

FourDot wrote:

Sharky wrote:

John Glen was better. At least he had guys like Alan Hume and Alec Mills.

John Glen was better, but Hume and Mills are hardly DPs to write home about.

Compared to Ted Moore they are.

Sharky wrote:

FourDot wrote:

Sharky wrote:

John Glen was better. At least he had guys like Alan Hume and Alec Mills.

John Glen was better, but Hume and Mills are hardly DPs to write home about.

Compared to Ted Moore they are.

WUT? :shock:

will Q be back and will there be an opening Gunbarrel sequence this time?

Wasn't mentioned at the press conference.

I can imagine there will be a standard gunbarrel sequence. Not sure about Q, though.

Sharky wrote:

FourDot wrote:

Sharky wrote:

John Glen was better. At least he had guys like Alan Hume and Alec Mills.

John Glen was better, but Hume and Mills are hardly DPs to write home about.

Compared to Ted Moore they are.

He's no superstar either, but he's probably on par when all's said and done.

Q/Major Boothroyd will probably be played by Ben Whishaw.

I thought Moore's work in DN/FRWL/GF were fantastic. He didn't translate well with Panavision though, I'll admit that.

j7wild wrote:

will Q be back and will there be an opening Gunbarrel sequence this time?

They don't have much of an excuse to leave out the gunbarrel this time. Hopefully they won't re-use the horrid one from the end of QOS. Decent pace and Brosnan era blood couldn't hurt.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Wasn't mentioned at the press conference.

I can imagine there will be a standard gunbarrel sequence. Not sure about Q, though.

Makes me wonder if they'll use the one Forster shot or come up with a new one where Bond doesn't look like he's rushing to the lavatory.

CJB wrote:

They don't have much of an excuse to leave out the gunbarrel this time.

They didn't have much of an excuse last time.

I just watched the news conference for the first time (work and family responsibilities and time zone difference):

at the end when Barbara says Yes, Definitely, to the question whether Craig will be doing Bond for a few more years....

I have to presume he will also do a Bond 24 and 25 at the minimum!!

I guess only time will tell and we are going to hold Barbara to it!!

Sorry if this has already been covered, but altfilmguide is saying that not only is Helen McCrory in it, but also that prince amongst men, James Remar as well.

http://www.altfg.com/blog/movie/new-james-bond-movie-skyfall-naomie-harris/

EDIT: Remar's name popped up on IMDb, so it'll be bullshit that they've run with. Apologies.

There's something about her I like.

Unlike Sophie and Olga, it actually looks like there's something interesting going on behind those eyes.

I think she's great. Let's hope Craig shows more interest in her than he did Olga.

....but less interest than he did in Vesper. "Emotional complexity". FFS, will they never learn? :evil: