SKYFALL teaser trailer discussion

I don't see much Bourne in that trailer, apart from the interrogation bit, I suppose, and even then, that's a pretty loose connection.

CJB wrote:

How about Brown Control?

Brown Controool to Maaaaayjer Tom...you've really made the graaaade.

CJB wrote:

trevanian wrote:

CJB wrote:

I skimmed very quickly through the forum. Fuck me dead, what a hive of plonkers.

I'm not Craig-Bond's biggest fan, but I see some vicious, personal attacks against the man there. I doubt any of them are Fleming purists, they're prissy little nancy boys who are still upset Pierce Brosnan lost the role.

Did you post these same words on AICN yesterday, and if so, shouldn't you know better?

Nope... don't even know what AICN is.

Aint It Cool News ... I just went back and don't see the post I referenced, but two days back it had "fleming purists" and "nancy boys" and a reference to Brosnan, so I thought there was a connection. My apologies.

Something in the air...

trevanian wrote:

CJB wrote:

trevanian wrote:

CJB wrote:

I skimmed very quickly through the forum. Fuck me dead, what a hive of plonkers.

I'm not Craig-Bond's biggest fan, but I see some vicious, personal attacks against the man there. I doubt any of them are Fleming purists, they're prissy little nancy boys who are still upset Pierce Brosnan lost the role.

Did you post these same words on AICN yesterday, and if so, shouldn't you know better?

Nope... don't even know what AICN is.

Aint It Cool News ... I just went back and don't see the post I referenced, but two days back it had "fleming purists" and "nancy boys" and a reference to Brosnan, so I thought there was a connection. My apologies.

No worries. A like minded chap, I s'pose.

The Skyfall teaser trailer was not very encouraging. Daniel Craig looks awful and it seemed like a trailer for a generic action/thriller movie rather than a James Bond movie being released in the 50th Anniversary of the series.

The Craig fans do not do themselves any favours on the AICN talkbacks suggesting anyone who dislikes Craig's Bond that they should read the Fleming novels as "Craig is Fleming's Bond"; I bet they have never read the books themselves. :D I've read the Fleming novels and agree with Edward Fox who said: "Daniel Craig is the complete opposite of what Ian Fleming intended..and I knew Ian Fleming.".

Welcome back Dom, hope you stick around. :)

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

(there's a fellow on Bond and Beyond who makes me laugh. He hates Craig, and yet says he'll watch Spyfail "at least 5 times" in the theater. :x . The fool doesn't seem to realize that he's helping to subsidize the very product he claims to hate.)

Poor tiff.

Yep that's me. Tough crap. I do think DC is an abomination as Bond. The teaser poster is so bland its not worth commenting on. Well actually Craig does look like old man with gun, walking thru sewer. The teaser trailer doesn't effect me in any meaningful way. I don't like or hate it. It's just the sort of highly dramatized teaser I would expect for this upcoming action spy-drama featuring a Bond-like character. I'm not fooled by talk of a lighter more relaxed Bond. I'll believe it, if I ever see it. But I'm not going to be a martyr for the cause. If I want to pay, I'll pay. As a Bond buff, there are only so many opportunties, in fact very few, to see Bond, or even faux-Bond on big screen.

I saw GF on big screen digital 4d or whatever they call it, this week. Basically the blu-ray on big screen. Man was it good. Nothing compares. It's too bad SF won't take it's cue from films like GF, which shamelessly trumpet the Bond theme music, Bond attitude, Bond girls. SF seems to be heading down the dreary QoS path. We shall see. I must say the poster and teaser have completely torpedoed my interest in the new film. My interest has practically dropped off a cliff. I was for a while genuinely curious, at least with anticipation, even a little excited, but now that the tone and vibe of the finished product seems to be taking shape, my interest has flatlined. I don't think there is any hope for Craig-Bond. It's a whole different animal - a whole different Bond world. It's a phase though I believe. Once Craig has moved on, Eon will probably hire a more suitable actor and trumpet a triumphant return to the glorious Connery/Moore Bond era.

I'll pay once for sure for SF, but if it turns out to be QoS Part 2, maybe for subsequent viewings, I'll just buy a ticket for the latest Lindsay Lohan film, or something equally as worthy, and then duck into the SF theatre . There is something to be said for not encouraging this nu-Bond drek with multiple ticket purchases.

Cpt Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:

The Craig fans do not do themselves any favours on the AICN talkbacks suggesting anyone who dislikes Craig's Bond that they should read the Fleming novels as "Craig is Fleming's Bond"; I bet they have never read the books themselves. :D I've read the Fleming novels and agree with Edward Fox who said: "Daniel Craig is the complete opposite of what Ian Fleming intended..and I knew Ian Fleming.".

The anti-Craigers do not do themselves any favours either by spewing the same broken-record, anti-Craig vitriol since 2005, forever tossing handfuls of mud hoping some would stick. It's rather obtuse, if not downright ignorant, to say the Craig fans haven't read the novels.

I wasn't aware that Edward Fox was some authority on the matter. If he's so concerned about being so *faithful* to Fleming, why was his M such a retarded buffoon in NSNA? One of the most embarassing '007' movies of all time. Perhaps he envisioned Bond as someone who surfs on CGI waves without getting his hair wet. And by the way, Fleming himself didn't fancy Connery at first sight....

Cpt Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:

The Skyfall teaser trailer was not very encouraging. Daniel Craig looks awful and it seemed like a trailer for a generic action/thriller movie rather than a James Bond movie being released in the 50th Anniversary of the series.."

The teaser IMO was adequate in that it previews a potentially decent action spy-drama, but it reinforces I think that SF will be a continuation of the nu-Bond pastiche. It seems that we will be waiting a while, for a return to the exciting Bonds of old (pre-Craig). The lack of any use of the Bond theme music is very telling. Nu Bond it seems will continue to be intensely character-driven drama pieces, with requisite action and token nods to Bond-girl quotas, but not like we've been used to. I will likely enjoy SF as a reasonably well-crafted Bond curiosity film, while I wait patiently for a return to the grand un-selfconscious adventures of yore ( pre-Craig)

Cpt Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:

The Craig fans do not do themselves any favours on the AICN talkbacks suggesting anyone who dislikes Craig's Bond that they should read the Fleming novels as "Craig is Fleming's Bond"; I bet they have never read the books themselves. :D I've read the Fleming novels and agree with Edward Fox who said: "Daniel Craig is the complete opposite of what Ian Fleming intended..and I knew Ian Fleming.".

Craig is so not Fleming's Bond. Fox knows of what he speaks. None of the screen Bonds are quite the Fleming Bond. That's the whole point. Connery, Young, Cubby, Saltz etc created the hugely successful Bond screen-persona, which blossomed with the Bondmania insanity of GF and TB. That ideally is the screen-Bond template, that all future iterations of the screen character should be drawing reference from. Craig-Bond IMO is an unwelcome departure, which has veered too far from the source. This development though, I fear has much to do with Craig the actor wanting to re-invent the character somewhat and do something different, something even better, something even more impactful than what Connery did (blasphemous and impossible btw) but such is the nature of the "serious" actor. Maybe best next time, to hire someone younger, who is content to do both justice and homage to the established screen character, but inevitably with their own little twist, emphasis though on "little" twist.

tiffanywint wrote:

The lack of any use of the Bond theme music is very telling.

Were you watching the same trailer as everyone else? Listen very carefully after the word SKYFALL appears around 1:05.

Sounds like a Bond theme to me in a teaser sort of way...

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

The lack of any use of the Bond theme music is very telling.

Were you watching the same trailer as everyone else? Listen very carefully after the word SKYFALL appears around 1:05.

Sounds like a Bond theme to me in a teaser sort of way...

I'll take your word for it, but I could barely hear it. Maybe we will get it full blast in the film, but maybe not.

Yep, Bond theme in D minor. The same key as in the first half of the QOS teaser and the entirety of the theatrical one. Surely this is a bad omen.

"D minor: Melancholy womanliness, the spleen and humors brood."

From Christian Schubart's Ideen zu einer Aesthetik der Tonkunst (1806) translated by Rita Steblin.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Cpt Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:

The Craig fans do not do themselves any favours on the AICN talkbacks suggesting anyone who dislikes Craig's Bond that they should read the Fleming novels as "Craig is Fleming's Bond"; I bet they have never read the books themselves. :D I've read the Fleming novels and agree with Edward Fox who said: "Daniel Craig is the complete opposite of what Ian Fleming intended..and I knew Ian Fleming.".

The anti-Craigers do not do themselves any favours either by spewing the same broken-record, anti-Craig vitriol since 2005, forever tossing handfuls of mud hoping some would stick. It's rather obtuse, if not downright ignorant, to say the Craig fans haven't read the novels.

I wasn't aware that Edward Fox was some authority on the matter. If he's so concerned about being so *faithful* to Fleming, why was his M such a retarded buffoon in NSNA? One of the most embarassing '007' movies of all time.

Perhaps because he was not playing that M, but rather his successor, which is stated very specifically up front in the film.

NSNA has plenty wrong with it, especially Connery consciously playing light with a film that looks & camps like the Adam West BATMAN with a runaway budget, but scrambling to knock Fox in that role -- when anybody who has read GOLDFINGER could rationalize away his character as being Fleming's SIS paymaster (was his name Troop or Troup?) promoted to M's slot if they were desperate to make it seem Fleming-like in some distant fashion.

I certainly don't understand Craig's appeal as Bond in the slightest, to a purist (if that is what you'd call a Fleming reader) or anyone else, because he seems WAY afield of how Bond could be presented (and that is still leaving a pretty wide area, since I don't have that problem with Connery or Dalton or even Brosnan as long as I'm watching TAILOR OF PANAMA ... and as long as he doesn't open his mouth or swing a roundhouse punch like a girl, I can give Lazenby a pass as well.)

Largo's Shark wrote:

Melancholy womanliness, the spleen and humors brood.

That will make a good signature on a porn board I visit. :cheers:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Some t*** over at DCINB bitching about us.

Quote :

I love the orgasmic reaction this sh---y teaser is getting on the other Bond forums. Commander Bond and MI6 I expect, but even the Bond and Beyond people have gone through several pairs of pants wetting themselves with excitement.

I think this is key to how Babs and company have been able to foist Craig on us for three movies now. Some people are so needy for new James Bond stuff that EON could put a monkey in a suit onscreen, add the 007 gun logo, and these fanboys and fangirls would wet themselves with excitement.

Still, I really don't care what the fanboys think. Sorry to say this, but I hate most of my fellow Bond fans at the moment (no one on this board, obviously). They claim to know and love the classic Bond movies and to read Fleming, and yet they fall for this crap EON is feeding us. They clearly sold their brains to those people who steal people's kidneys . . .

What matters is how the average Joe or Jane views this trailer. Will those people who sometimes go to Bond films go to this one? Because they're where the huge grosses come from. The fanboys will go no matter what (there's a fellow on Bond and Beyond who makes me laugh. He hates Craig, and yet says he'll watch Spyfail "at least 5 times" in the theater :x . The fool doesn't seem to realize that he's helping to subsidize the very product he claims to hate). But if the average person watches this teaser and has the same reaction we do, then EON is in trouble. Big trouble.

[url=http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62366#p62366

[/quote]http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62366#p62366[/quote][/quote[/url]]

What's interesting about this little rant (aside from the fact that the writer doesn't get that's its possible to bemoan Craig as Bond, but still not have to write off the entire film) is that Bond-and- Beyond-Forum has fast developed a rep as a critical thinker's forum, where diversity of Bond opinion is encouraged, to the benefit of all, as opposed to being a fanboy site. BAB also seems to have earned a standing as one of the big 3 Bond sites.

Kudos to M and the membership for building the site up.

I doubt we'll ever be as big as MI6 and CB.n, afterall we don't have a main site like they do. Still for an independent forum I'm pretty proud of what we managed to accomplish within a year. With SF gaining more media that invites more discussion and more fans in.

tiffanywint wrote:

Bond-and- Beyond-Forum has fast developed a rep as a critical thinker's forum, where diversity of Bond opinion is encouraged, to the benefit of all, as opposed to being a fanboy site.

Indeed. Our one-child policy has been a stunning success.

trevanian wrote:

I certainly don't understand Craig's appeal as Bond in the slightest, to a purist (if that is what you'd call a Fleming reader) or anyone else, because he seems WAY afield of how Bond could be presented (and that is still leaving a pretty wide area, since I don't have that problem with Connery or Dalton or even Brosnan as long as I'm watching TAILOR OF PANAMA ... and as long as he doesn't open his mouth or swing a roundhouse punch like a girl, I can give Lazenby a pass as well.)

Physically Craig is probably the least like Fleming's Bond, as he certainly did not have blonde hair in the books. Probably Dalton is the closest match physically.

Hair colour aside, Craig is not conventionally handsome either. However, I think his eyes are the closest match to Fleming's Bond. They look like eyes that could kill. And physically he looks like someone you wouldn't want to mess with, which I think is an essence of the character that not many other actors have posessed, with the exception of Connery, and arguably Lazenby.

When Bond gets kicked half to death by football boots in DAF, has his balls whacked in CR, tries to commit suicide on Goldfinger's sawmill table, it is only Craig I can vision in these dark, extreme violent scenes.

So I think Craig posesses a dark essence of the character that until now has never really been focused on. Connery provided swagger, Lazenby provided the human touch, Moore provided the upper-class Eton English gentleman appearance and Dalton provided the realistic, gritty side to Bond, but Craig has developed this and taken it one step further. The bleakest, most horrific, sadistic elements of the Fleming novels were never really exposed (with the exception of LTK) until Craig came along.

So Craig does bring something of Fleming's Bond to screen, only a very different, unique side, a quality that has not really been focused on until now.

[quote="jet set willyWhen Bond gets kicked half to death by football boots in DAF, has his balls whacked in CR, tries to commit suicide on Goldfinger's sawmill table, it is only Craig I can vision in these dark, extreme violent scenes.
[/quote]

I think such elements are more dependent on the tone of the material surrounding them but imo Connery and certainly Dalton could pull off these scenes given the right context. Of the one example we have witnessed I felt the Royale torture sequence lacked any and all the tension and visceral flavour given by the novel. Indeed I have to question whether such moments are really suited to the big screen, at least while it wallows in the confines of a generic action movie. As an alternate medium movies have demonstrably different benefits and restrictions to literary works, the need is to deliver the story in a manner best suited to the medium on which it is unfolding and the scale of physical action needs to have some consistency to build toward moments of real threat, rather than treat every scene as an adrenalin fuelled charge headlong over a cliff.

For Skyfall I am much more interested in how Craig delilvers a fully rounded Bond, how he delivers the natural moments than those rarer extremes.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I doubt we'll ever be as big as MI6 and CB.n, afterall we don't have a main site like they do. Still for an independent forum I'm pretty proud of what we managed to accomplish within a year. With SF gaining more media that invites more discussion and more fans in.

Quality over quantity, my dear fellow. That's been our motto every step of the way.

:)

CJB wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Bond-and- Beyond-Forum has fast developed a rep as a critical thinker's forum, where diversity of Bond opinion is encouraged, to the benefit of all, as opposed to being a fanboy site.

Indeed. Our one-child policy has been a stunning success.

jet set willy wrote:

trevanian wrote:

I certainly don't understand Craig's appeal as Bond in the slightest, to a purist (if that is what you'd call a Fleming reader) or anyone else, because he seems WAY afield of how Bond could be presented (and that is still leaving a pretty wide area, since I don't have that problem with Connery or Dalton or even Brosnan as long as I'm watching TAILOR OF PANAMA ... and as long as he doesn't open his mouth or swing a roundhouse punch like a girl, I can give Lazenby a pass as well.)

Physically Craig is probably the least like Fleming's Bond, as he certainly did not have blonde hair in the books. Probably Dalton is the closest match physically.

Hair colour aside, Craig is not conventionally handsome either. However, I think his eyes are the closest match to Fleming's Bond. They look like eyes that could kill. And physically he looks like someone you wouldn't want to mess with, which I think is an essence of the character that not many other actors have posessed, with the exception of Connery, and arguably Lazenby.

When Bond gets kicked half to death by football boots in DAF, has his balls whacked in CR, tries to commit suicide on Goldfinger's sawmill table, it is only Craig I can vision in these dark, extreme violent scenes.

So I think Craig posesses a dark essence of the character that until now has never really been focused on. Connery provided swagger, Lazenby provided the human touch, Moore provided the upper-class Eton English gentleman appearance and Dalton provided the realistic, gritty side to Bond, but Craig has developed this and taken it one step further. The bleakest, most horrific, sadistic elements of the Fleming novels were never really exposed (with the exception of LTK) until Craig came along.

So Craig does bring something of Fleming's Bond to screen, only a very different, unique side, a quality that has not really been focused on until now.

I basically agree with this. If we put aside DC's off-screen cross-dressing shenanigans (hard though that may be), and don't focus over much on his physical appearance, DC gives a fairly Flemingian take on Bond. Essentially, Fleming's Bond was a cool, aloof tough guy who concealed a churning cauldron of emotion just beneath the surface. He was also a bit of a tasteful Sadist. I think Craig brings out much of this essence.

My version of the Skyfall teaser trailer