'Skyfall' teaser poster unveiled

CJB wrote:

Jayzuz, you two are made for each other.

Who? Me and Prisoner?

I don't think so!

j7wild wrote:

Gravity's says it's real.

That's because Gravity is trolling. Which I'm now regretting as the course I didn't take, because your pants-wettingly alarmist response is utterly hilarious.

Jack Wade wrote:

j7wild wrote:

I hope that's fake.

Nope. It's a leaked version of the poster at Cannes.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

j7wild wrote:

Gravity's says it's real.

That's because Gravity is trolling. Which I'm now regretting as the course I didn't take, because your pants-wettingly alarmist response is utterly hilarious.

My response was only: "I hope it's a fake" and "Gravity says it's real"

That's very tame compared to M's response which you don't even utter a word about.

M wrote:

Fuck me, is that what the new Q guy looks like? Can't see the point, and certainly can't see Craig responding much to a young guy. IMHO, they might as well have just ignored the reboot angle the way they did with Dench turning up in Casino Royale and just bring John Cleese back. The Bond/Q relationship works best with Q being semi-authoritive but also semi-fatherly, an old-school man to counter all of the modern trimmings and PC-ness elsewhere. This Q will just be another faceless MI6 suit, just like whoever the hell is playing Tanner at the moment. We've enough nerdy nu-men, so why not just keep Q as a cantankerous old c***?

More evidence you let your personal feelings cause you to have a lack of judgement and to play favoritism in your criticism of people.

FIFTEEN HOURS AND C*NTING

Sweet. That means it'll be up available just in time before lunch.

M wrote:

IMHO, they might as well have just ignored the reboot angle the way they did with Dench turning up in Casino Royale and just bring John Cleese back. The Bond/Q relationship works best with Q being semi-authoritive but also semi-fatherly, an old-school man to counter all of the modern trimmings and PC-ness elsewhere. This Q will just be another faceless MI6 suit, just like whoever the hell is playing Tanner at the moment. We've enough nerdy nu-men, so why not just keep Q as a cantankerous old c***?

Agreed. We don't need another anonymous male MI6 lackey. I hope the new Q at least has some personality.
I also would have preferred they bring Cleese back in. To be honest, I would have kept him on over Dench. I understand that Dench is a great actor, and she is good in the films. But the fact that she's Judi Dench has made the writers lose sight of the M character and inflate her role to ridiculous amounts.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Whatever the teaser poster actually looks like, I'm sure it'll be either a lone picture of a gun, a silhouette of Bond, or a monochromatic picture of Craig playing poker, or a shadow of Craig. Basically, it'll be meant to convey the idea that Bond is too cool to even appear in the teaser poster. It'll be very minimalist.

Yep. The poster will probably condense Bond into a single image, something badass and instantly recognizable. For example, one of Daniel Craig's ears.



Okay, maybe not.

I think silhouettes are over-rated for posters. The CASINO ROYALE teaser stads out as one of the best posters in the franchise history (to my mind, at least), and Bond was clearly visible in it.

To be honest, I find all these shadowy half-lit images to be trying far too hard to be badass and moody.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The CASINO ROYALE teaser stads out as one of the best posters in the franchise history (to my mind, at least), and Bond was clearly visible in it.

Nah. It would've been a lot more memorable if they hadn't shrunk Bond's ears.



They shrunk his right ear, at least. Looks like they forgot to do them both.

I actually love that poster too, it looks really sharp on the 3-disc DVD cover.

I think that, whatever EON do, there's going to be a lot riing on the poster. And the trailer, but since the poster is being released first, it's really going to set the tone for things now that shooting is drawing closer to the end. When the CR teaser was released, a lot of people loved it. And rightly, so; it's a good poster. But when the QOS teaser poster was released, there was quite a bit of backlash against it. I get what they were trying to do, with the long shadow over the desolate desert, but it didn't work.

In the case of SF, I think the pressure has doubled. EON's policy of keeping things under wraps is commendable, and has so far been highly successful; after six months of shooting, we still only have the vaguest idea as to what the film is about. But because of the sheer lack of information, the poster has to be good because it's going to sway a lot of votes. There are some, like me, who will be happy with anything. And some, like GS, who we all know will automatically hate it. But I think a lot of people are in that middle ground, and the poster will set the mood for the rest of the film.

It's been a while since we've had a decent pair of norks on a Bond poster.

I doubt that will come until the theatrical poster.

Unless Severine is critical to the plot.

The recent run of teaser posters have been "elemental" - they feature Bond (or something directly related to him) and one other element that is recurring in the film. DAD's poster was a smoking gun in ice. CR's was Bond at a casino table. QOS's was Bond's shadow in the desert. So if Severine is a major element of SF's plot, I could see a poster featuring her in some way.

Kind of like this:



But I think most people would expect a teaser poster to feature Bond.

They need to go back to basics.

Still the Best Bond film movie posters ever!

teaser



one sheet

M wrote:

The Bond/Q relationship works best with Q being semi-authoritive but also semi-fatherly, an old-school man to counter all of the modern trimmings and PC-ness elsewhere.

Q has always been semi-authoritative and semi-fatherly. It's one of the reasons why Cleese as Q just didn't work - the script only really called for him to ape Desomnd Llewellyn.

And the only instance I can think of Q being un-PC was Algernon in NSNA.

M wrote:

This Q will just be another faceless MI6 suit, just like whoever the hell is playing Tanner at the moment.

Based on comments from Craig and Mendes, they spent a lot of time during MGM's bankruptcy thinking about what they wanted to do with the film. They seem to be genunely impressed with the script, so I hardly think they'd allow Q to be glossed over.

M wrote:

We've enough nerdy nu-men, so why not just keep Q as a cantankerous old c***?

Um, because Q was never "a cantankerous old c***". He was disapproving of Bond's ways, but also amused by them. I can't recall a single instance of him being genuinely bad-tempered, argumentative or uncooperative. Sure, he was always unimpressed when Bond brought something back in pieces, but given the nature of their relationship, you know that the first thing Q would think at the sight of a BMW cut in half lengthways was "How on earth did he manage this?"

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Agreed. We don't need another anonymous male MI6 lackey. I hope the new Q at least has some personality.

Going by some quotes from Mendes, I think Q will have some characterisation. Apparently they want to look at how Q feels about his inventions being used to kill people. Is he naive enough to believe that they are not being used to kill? Is he callous enough to ignore it? Or is he ideological enough to accept it? I doubt it's going to be some major quasi-philosophical story arc about the The Evil That Men Do, but I think Whishaw-Q will stand out as having a personality. At the very least, I'd say he will have something that can be built upon in future films. And while Llewelllyn-Q had something of a favoured-uncle relationship with Bond, I think Whishaw-Q will be more fraternal.

j7wild wrote:

More evidence you let your personal feelings cause you to have a lack of judgement and to play favoritism in your criticism of people.

That's not it at all.

When I read something that M posts, I find that his arguments often have some meat to them, and that I can refute his arguments.

After I read something that you post, I usually feel like I've been banging my head against the wall for an hour.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Going by some quotes from Mendes, I think Q will have some characterisation. Apparently they want to look at how Q feels about his inventions being used to kill people.

That sounds genuinely terrible.

Quote :

I can't recall a single instance of him being genuinely bad-tempered, argumentative or uncooperative.

The TB scene?
The OP scene?

CJB wrote:

That sounds genuinely terrible.

As with just about everything, it all comes down to the execution of the idea.

FieldsMan wrote:

The TB scene?
The OP scene?

That's two times, twenty years apart. I'd hardly call that a defining mark of the character.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

CJB wrote:

That sounds genuinely terrible.

As with just about everything, it all comes down to the execution of the idea.

No, a boyish Q having a heart-to-heart with Bond about how it pains him to know his gadgets kill people is bad in theory and inevitably would be bad in practice. Just like communism.

Yes, and if that was the execution of the idea, then I would agree with you.

But there are plenty of other ways to do it. Mendes never said there was going to be a scene where Q pours his heert out to Bond, only that he wanted to explore the idea.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

CJB wrote:

That sounds genuinely terrible.

As with just about everything, it all comes down to the execution of the idea.

FieldsMan wrote:

The TB scene?
The OP scene?

That's two times, twenty years apart. I'd hardly call that a defining mark of the character.

Why does an established character need to have a defining mark? Besides, you didn't ask about a defining mark. You stated you can't recall a "single moment" when Q was argumentative, uncooperative or bad tempered. I gave you two moments, and on plenty other occasions, he is at least one of them.

M wrote:

Fuck me, is that what the new Q guy looks like? Can't see the point, and certainly can't see Craig responding much to a young guy. IMHO, they might as well have just ignored the reboot angle the way they did with Dench turning up in Casino Royale and just bring John Cleese back. The Bond/Q relationship works best with Q being semi-authoritive but also semi-fatherly, an old-school man to counter all of the modern trimmings and PC-ness elsewhere. This Q will just be another faceless MI6 suit, just like whoever the hell is playing Tanner at the moment. We've enough nerdy nu-men, so why not just keep Q as a cantankerous old c***?

j7wild wrote:

More evidence you let your personal feelings cause you to have a lack of judgement and to play favoritism in your criticism of people.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

That's not it at all.

When I read something that M posts, I find that his arguments often have some meat to them, and that I can refute his arguments.

After I read something that you post, I usually feel like I've been banging my head against the wall for an hour.

I guess his arguments have more meat because he uses the F and C word.

Guess I will have to stoop down to using the F and C words so you can understand what I am saying.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Yes, and if that was the execution of the idea, then I would agree with you.

But there are plenty of other ways to do it. Mendes never said there was going to be a scene where Q pours his heert out to Bond, only that he wanted to explore the idea.

He should explore it in his own mind while taking a dump. As long as it's not put to film.

FieldsMan wrote:

Why does an established character need to have a defining mark? Besides, you didn't ask about a defining mark. You stated you can't recall a "single moment" when Q was argumentative, uncooperative or bad tempered. I gave you two moments, and on plenty other occasions, he is at least one of them.

M characterised the character as being "a cantankerous old c***", as if EON are threatening to undo a critical element of the character. But this isn't true at all. Q has been prickly on occasion, but in almost all of his appearances, he has had that favoured-nephew approach to Bond. It's a little difficult for EON to undo established characterisation when that characterisation isn't actually a part of that character.

CJB wrote:

He should explore it in his own mind while taking a dump. As long as it's not put to film.

How about you wait until you actually see it before you judge it?

j7wild wrote:

Guess I will have to stoop down to using the F and C words so you can understand what I am saying.

By now, this is pretty obvious: I don't like you. I never have, and I doubt I ever will. And I'm okay - I don't feel guilt or shame about not liking someone, particularly when I don't like what they post. And at the same time, I don't take it personally when someone doesn't like me. I might defend my position, and the discussion might get a little heated, but at the end of the day, you're not going to find me doing the forum equivalent of sitting in the corner with a bottle of Jack in one hand, a teddy bear in the other and bawling my eyes out because someone by a series of zeroes and ones on my computer screen doesn't like me. It's not healthy. And the sooner you accept that, the sooner you will be able to move on and join the conversation rather than dredging up discussions that everybody else stopped caring about two pages ago.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

the sooner you accept that, the sooner you will be able to move on and join the conversation rather than dredging up discussions that everybody else stopped caring about two pages ago.

Then why are you still answering my posts and keeping the discussion going?

:roll:

Ouch, those 'chute harness straps must've been crushing Mayday's balls pretty badly.