SKYFALL's final scene?

I rarely ever link to Cb.n, but what the hell.

Shrublands has a (highly plausible) theory on what the final scene of the film will be, judging from set drawings behind Dennis Gassner on his video blog.

Spoiler:

http://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/61714-does-it-end-where-it-all-began

Given Mendes' comments about SKYFALL in a way taking place before DR. NO that sounds plausible. Would make a more fitting ending to a 50th anniversary film than Moneypenny fingerbanging in Q's lab.

That sounds wonderful if it is true, much better than the nu-MI6 that we had in QOS which looked like 'Minority Report'. Still, I would like it for a Bond film to end with Bond 'getting the girl' as he did in all of the pre-CR Bond films (with the obvious exception of OHMSS).

It sounds absolutely tacky to me.

EON made a big deal out of establishing the Age of Craig as taking place in a completely separate timeline. Why undo all of that for the sake of the 50th Anniversary? We all know what happened the last time EON got hung up on celebrating an anniversary with a film ...

I do not see how Bond in an 'old-style' M's office is neccaserily contradicting continuity or a homage to DN, I myself and many other Bond fans have been calling for the return of it for years.

Which is precisely why it shouldn't be done. When did fanservice ever make something better?

The old leather upholstered door at 56 seconds in?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Which is precisely why it shouldn't be done. When did fanservice ever make something better?

I still do not see how having M's office in the style of the older pre-1990s Bond films could make SF worse in any way at all, if anything it can only make it better. The general public are hardly likely to notice it at all, and even if they did, I do not see how it would affect their overall enjoyment of the film. So what if it is what the fans want, sometimes, even if just very occasionaly, the fans may be right. I am just glad that the fans are being thought about because without us buying so much into the Bond franchise, you can bet that it wouldn't be nearly as strong as it currently is.

Even though a loop to Doctor No would be very cool, especially indicating the film ends where Dr. No starts, wouldn't be weird?
1. M is Judi Dench, then is Bernard Lee, then Judi Dench again?
2. Casino Royale and sequels take place in 2000s, how can the timeline continue during the classic movies, from 60s to 90s, during cold war and such?

James Bond wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Which is precisely why it shouldn't be done. When did fanservice ever make something better?

I still do not see how having M's office in the style of the older pre-1990s Bond films could make SF worse in any way at all, if anything it can only make it better. The general public are hardly likely to notice it at all, and even if they did, I do not see how it would affect their overall enjoyment of the film. So what if it is what the fans want, sometimes, even if just very occasionaly, the fans may be right. I am just glad that the fans are being thought about because without us buying so much into the Bond franchise, you can bet that it wouldn't be nearly as strong as it currently is.

Yes, a return to the old office look would be quite nice. The franchise has experimented with different looks since GE, and none of them have stuck. Last we saw of the traditional office was AVTAK, with Rog, M, Geoff Keen as Minister of D, and Q with his remote-controlled 4 wheeled robot-toy. It's not the worst thing to bring it back, especially considering nothing else has caught-on, and also as part of a potential transition from SF to the re-introduction of both MP and a new M (possibly --even likely--Fiennes as Mallory) It would be a nice touch and a nod to the series history,not to mention it's also just a great idea. The old office and padded, red door was a timeless classic. It might also help to deflect some of the nu-Bond whining (guilty).;)

Walecs wrote:

Even though a loop to Doctor No would be very cool, especially indicating the film ends where Dr. No starts, wouldn't be weird?
1. M is Judi Dench, then is Bernard Lee, then Judi Dench again?
2. Casino Royale and sequels take place in 2000s, how can the timeline continue during the classic movies, from 60s to 90s, during cold war and such?

But CR was a complete re-boot. There really is no conflict with the past. Rather the re-boot has the latitude to re-visit familiar elements, but its still a brand new time-line. The re-boot also does allow that some of the classic films could re-done. I'm not sure that's a good idea, but its possible. Re-introducing Blofeld and Spectre, if they chose to go that route, I don't think would be that tough. There really was no definitive Blofeld film. There is much wiggle room there. However attempting to re-do classics such as FRWL, DN, GF or even OHMSS, might invite unwanted comparisons with the original masterpieces.

Walecs wrote:

Even though a loop to Doctor No would be very cool, especially indicating the film ends where Dr. No starts, wouldn't be weird?
1. M is Judi Dench, then is Bernard Lee, then Judi Dench again?
2. Casino Royale and sequels take place in 2000s, how can the timeline continue during the classic movies, from 60s to 90s, during cold war and such?

Well of course they're not actually being literal about it. Point is that while CR and QOS took place during the beginning of his 007 career, SF takes place right around the point where Connery's Bond was in DN having already been through his share of adventures for a good decade.

Hang on - we've had the ultimate Bond self-reverential since Craig began - Sean Connery's James Bond's silver-birch Aston Martin DB5 - and some are whinging a padded leather door and an old style M's office would be too much...????!!!!

:roll:

No, just Prisoner Monkeys.

I'm not complaining about the idea of a set similar to the old M's office. I'm complaining about the idea of having SKYFALL end where DR NO begins.

tiffanywint wrote:

Walecs wrote:

Even though a loop to Doctor No would be very cool, especially indicating the film ends where Dr. No starts, wouldn't be weird?
1. M is Judi Dench, then is Bernard Lee, then Judi Dench again?
2. Casino Royale and sequels take place in 2000s, how can the timeline continue during the classic movies, from 60s to 90s, during cold war and such?

But CR was a complete re-boot. There really is no conflict with the past. Rather the re-boot has the latitude to re-visit familiar elements, but its still a brand new time-line. The re-boot also does allow that some of the classic films could re-done. I'm not sure that's a good idea, but its possible. Re-introducing Blofeld and Spectre, if they chose to go that route, I don't think would be that tough. There really was no definitive Blofeld film. There is much wiggle room there. However attempting to re-do classics such as FRWL, DN, GF or even OHMSS, might invite unwanted comparisons with the original masterpieces.

Yeah, I know it's a reboot, and I hate when people say (not in this forum) that Casino Royale is a prequel. However from what I read I understood that their idea is to link the timeline with the classic series.

About redoing the old books into movies, I thought it too several times. They should remake all the old Bond movies, but in Ian Fleming's order (Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, Diamonds are Forever) and be similar to the novel as much as possible.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I'm not complaining about the idea of a set similar to the old M's office. I'm complaining about the idea of having SKYFALL end where DR NO begins.

You're taking Shrublands's thread title literally. He doesn't mean that Craig Bond will head to Crab Key on one of his next assignments in some crazy loop, but Bond will be in the same office he was in the classic Bonds.

Walecs wrote:

Yeah, I know it's a reboot, and I hate when people say (not in this forum) that Casino Royale is a prequel. However from what I read I understood that their idea is to link the timeline with the classic series.

I understand what you meant now. Interesting. This does suggest that Bond and Crab Key is coming up, if that's what you mean by the classic series.

This idea does have some merit, in that otherwise it is rather odd to have a Bond series where the hero has no connection with the likes of No, GF and Blofeld. Then it truly does become nu-Bond.

However if CR, QoS and SF are ultimately one extended origins set-up to relaunch and re-boot Bond for a re-do of the classics, then I must day, that idea is rather intriguing. Also the classics wouldn't have to be re-done in the same order as the first time around. And sure, following the Fleming order would be real neat.

Looks like its Bond vs Mr. Big coming up next, with no Kananga alter ego this time.

You all saw what Mendes said in the new Skyfall video blog, right?

“There’s something about the last part of the movie, which is deliberately, very consciously, could have taken place in 1962.”

The video blog is about the return of the DB5.

tiffanywint wrote:

Walecs wrote:

Yeah, I know it's a reboot, and I hate when people say (not in this forum) that Casino Royale is a prequel. However from what I read I understood that their idea is to link the timeline with the classic series.

I understand what you meant now. Interesting. This does suggest that Bond and Crab Key is coming up, if that's what you mean by the classic series.

This idea does have some merit, in that otherwise it is rather odd to have a Bond series where the hero has no connection with the likes of No, GF and Blofeld. Then it truly does become nu-Bond.

However if CR, QoS and SF are ultimately one extended origins set-up to relaunch and re-boot Bond for a re-do of the classics, then I must day, that idea is rather intriguing. Also the classics wouldn't have to be re-done in the same order as the first time around. And sure, following the Fleming order would be real neat.

Looks like its Bond vs Mr. Big coming up next, with no Kananga alter ego this time.

Dear God I hope not. I wouldn't mind them using a few of the currently un-used characters, locations, and plot elements from Ian Fleming's original novels in future films but I do not want to have any straight remakes because to me that just smacks of laziness.

Napoleon Solo wrote:

You all saw what Mendes said in the new Skyfall video blog, right?

“There’s something about the last part of the movie, which is deliberately, very consciously, could have taken place in 1962.”

The video blog is posted in the SF video blog thread for those that haven't seen it.

I find Mendes' comments to be rather cryptic. There are lot of things that could take place now that could also have taken place in 1962, so what makes something 1962 specific?

I don't know what he's getting at. Including the DB5 is a nice touch, but its a continution of the nod to GF, that we saw in CR, which is where nu-Bond acquired the car, in the card game with Demitrious.

I find it rather rich btw, Mendes prattling on about how he had the GF model-car as a kid, and how he played with the ejector seat,but lost the little man. Whatever, but Mendes wasn't even born when GF hit cinemas and that toy was being marketed. Mendes was born in 1965. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though. Maybe he got a hold of the toy around 1970 or so when he was a tot, even if the toy was no longer a big seller.

James Bond wrote:

I wouldn't mind them using a few of the currently un-used characters, locations, and plot elements from Ian Fleming's original novels in future films but I do not want to have any straight remakes because to me that just smacks of laziness.

It doesn't have to be lazy. It could be done very well. In fact I think it would be a more challenging task to re-do the classics, than to invent new stories and villains. That's rather easily done I think, but doing justice to the classics, all over again, I think that's a much taller order.

Pure speculation on my part. I have no idea what they are planning and I'm not sure I have a strong opinion, one way or the other, but I am intrigued by the idea of re-doing the classics, if Eon is indeed up to the task of doing it well.

For example a new LALD could draw heavily on Fleming's book, but within a modern context, similar to the way CR was done, but minus the whole other story stamped on to the front of it.

A new LALD could follow the broad outline of Fleming's book. I think its doable. Even the 60's producers, who were not far removed from the source material, took liberties with Fleming's stories but without straying too far from the general narrative and themes. Exception being YOLT. So re-working the broader storylines and characters of LALD, MR, DAF etc in the modern context, I think is at least an interesting concept, if its done well.

Where did this idea first come from anyway? Is there any actual spark of flame supporting this smoke? Or are we just floating ideas?

tiffanywint wrote:

I find it rather rich btw, Mendes prattling on about how he had the GF model-car as a kid, and how he played with the ejector seat,but lost the little man. Whatever, but Mendes wasn't even born when GF hit cinemas and that toy was being marketed. Mendes was born in 1965. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though. Maybe he got a hold of the toy around 1970 or so when he was a tot, even if the toy was no longer a big seller.

I got that toy (or another variation on it) and I was born in the 90s. Weak argument to say only those who were born before 64 or so could have gotten iy. These things are cross-generational, like the films themselves.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I got that toy (or another variation on it) and I was born in the 90s. Weak argument to say only those who were born before 64 or so could have gotten iy. These things are cross-generational, like the films themselves.

I was just throwing that out, trying to provoke such a response. Like I said, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Guess I've never been in the market for james bond toys. I can't remember anyone playing with that car growing up, or at any age afterwards. Sorry I thought kids in the 60's played with that toy and that was the end of it.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I rarely ever link to Cb.n, but what the hell.

Shrublands has a (highly plausible) theory on what the final scene of the film will be, judging from set drawings behind Dennis Gassner on his video blog.

Spoiler:

http://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/61714-does-it-end-where-it-all-began

Good guess, could be.



:)

xxx

Yes, I do believe that nu-Bond might very well end up in the traditional M office at film's end, with new M, Mallory, seated behind traditional M desk, and new Moneypenny, behind desk out front.

As Moneypenny is a person's name, not a title like M, I'm wondering how they transition Agent Eve to Miss Moneypenny? Is her name Eve Moneypenny per chance? :scratch: