'Skyfall' Trailer 3

Lazenby. wrote:

Unfortunately, M (as she does), lost the drive containing the emo confrontation between Bond (stuck to a chair in some f*cking bland beige place, ring any bells?) and Silva. It goes like this:

Silva: Mommy was very bad [...] Bond pulls a gadget gun out of his arse and shoots himself free from the chair. Bond and Silva fight and fall into some crappy big water set, where they have a rubbish CGI-assisted final fight. Bond spots the Bond girl drowning as usual, saves her and kills Silva by pressing some stupid button or other. Bond shags M on a boat, credits roll.

The best post of the century.

I like all the hate. The point is, Laz, you had your shot as Bond. You blew it.

Plus your movie is great in the first half hour and the ending, but frankly, all this business at Piz Gloria just sucks.

No one in their right mind would cheat on a 29 year old Diana Rigg. Especially on dorky chicks like that.

Face it, you lost it chum. Easy Rider was just a fad. You don't see Easy Rider 23 coming up at the horizon, do you?

i actually don't mind parts of the trailer.....some of it is looking very much adapted from YOLT and TMWTGG novels (here's hoping), but with the quick, fast edits of action scenes, coupled with snippets of what appears to be high drama, there is a danger of this movie falling into TWINE/DAD territory.

The writers don't exactly fill me with much confidence either. The only thing I'm riding on right now is the main actor and director to ensure this film is any good.

Both Craig and Mendes made noises about wanting this film to be like the novels, discussing in depth the Fleming character. I'm hoping that is still the case once the film has been edited for release.

I can see why Laz is put off this film by the trailer. He's been bit too many times like I have by EON, and there are tell-tale signs evident in this trailer that Skyfall could be just as disastrous as anything seen in the Brozza era - OTT action scenes coupled with pretentious soap opera drama.

I seriously hope not, otherwise CR is looking more and more like a one-off decent movie in over 20 years of the franchise.

AMC Hornet wrote:

And to think, in different hands it could have had potential.

Fair enough, most of my opinions on Skyfall are pre-release assumptions based thoroughly on piles of evidence the film's main players have provided in prior films, coupled with the big red light of the film's plot synopsis. But my "wasted potential" comment I feel is already bang on the money. Just think how safely good this film could be assumed to be if the following small alterations had been made:

Writer: Robert Harris (The Ghost Writer, Enigma). Proper thriller writer. Knows the territory, isn't just some fanfiction amateur dickhead like P&W. Would write a proper engaging thriler story without leaning way too heavily on silly and tired fanbait sensational "personal" elements.

M: Restore this character's credibility and completely dump the lurid, stupid emo idea of the whole film being based around her stupidity, emotions and ineffectiveness by casting a new strong M. Without the awards bait of Dench, the writers could have then focused on Bond and his mission and write a good bloody thriller with no soapy "it's personal" crap for the umpteenth time. The character has become a joke now, and that's before we even look at just how ancient she is. It's completely unbelievable. This film desperately needed less of her histrionics and psycho-twaddle, not more.

The action: Bond is not the energiser bunny. Bond is not Bourne. Bond is not Rambo. Bond is not Transporter. God only knows what kind of freaky OTT Spiderman shit is going to happen in Skyfall's train sequence and other action scenes if the last two films (especially the last one) are anything to go by. If action can't be done without using CGI to remove harnesses, then it shouldn't be done at all because any audience with brains know what is physically credible and what isn't. Tone it down, make it believable. Give Bond his action identity back.

The director: No more drama directors. In what universe is a drama director the right fit for Bond? That said, with a better script, Mendes does bring major coups in us getting a new composer (another thing which desperately needed changing) and a good director of photography. Are those pluses enough reason to give Mendes a go if the script and production were in better hands? Possibly, but in an ideal world, I'd have Newman, Deakins and a thriller director. Bardem, Fiennes and Finney are f*cking huge coups as well, which again worries me of a huge waste of potential as all three are great actors we'd be otherwise really blessed to have, but are in the hands of writers who won't use them to maximum potential or (God forbid) embarrass them with bad dialogue. My point here is a massive one in that we've got great talent on board here, so why such unsuitable or amateur writers who know very little of the espionage world or thrillers?

The production: Push MGW forward for once. The moment Babs mentioned the word "emotional" with such relish at the press conference I knew straight away that this film would have major flaws. She's taking away too much of what made Bond so enjoyable and replacing it with badly-rendered emotional baggage and her constant attempts to keep Dench right on the heels of Bond for the duration. Bond production shouldn't be about personal agendas, no matter how big or small. Priority one should be to get a damn good thriller plot together. Having an actress with the rep of Dench has clouded the focus enough in these films to large and small degrees, but now we're having the full monty of M's repertoire unleashed on us big-time with Skyfall, with (idiotically) zero consideration for just how old the irritating old bat is, which makes her shenanigans all the more ludicrous. MGW needs to start wearing the pants again, or bring in someone else to help quell the wrath of Babs. Emotional drama is her priority, which makes things really awkward for a film series which otherwise relies so heavily on often silly OTT stunts and anthemic popular music soundtracks.

The tone: The tone has strayed too far into "serious" or Bourne territory, to the point where (as much as I love it) the Bond theme in full blaze would probably sound campily out of place in one of these films right now. As with the action, get Bond his identity back and move away from other franchises.

The look of Bond: I'm all for Daniel Craig as Bond, and have been from day one. He's a million times the actor Brosnan was on every level, and comes across as 100% more British too. The switch to a blonde Bond was a big one, but one which audiences (myself included) were willing to accept at the price of an otherwise strong James Bond. But his haircut and appearance in many of the trailer shots and photos leaked from Skyfall again show us a character ashamed of his own cinematic identity. Look at that "angry farmer" shot, look at the terrible GI Joe haircut, look at the again-constant use of bigger Terminator-esque guns. By and large, this hero could be anybody. This franchise needs to stop being ashamed of it's own trademarks and stop deluding itself that it contains valid award-worthy drama. Just give us Bond back. The film will then simply live or die on how interesting and exciting the mission is, just as it did with the last great Bond films of Cubby's era. Stop sidetracking us, it's not helping the series at all in any other way than the already-guaranteed big bucks the films automatically make.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Oh, look. Lazenby. goes quite for a few weeks, but is suddenly the most-active member of the forum, telling us all what a trainwreck the film will be.

You know what? I'm going to see SKYFALL. And even if it's another DAD, I'm going to enjoy it just to spite him.

:*h*:

I'm more worried about it being another TWINE. DAD, for all it's sh**e, at least had a borderline acceptable Brosnan performance and less terrible M and "emotional" stuff. And no f*cking bland beige colours everywhere.

But, Prisoner Monkeys, you're maybe more in agreement with me than you realise if your comments on the Skyfall trailer are anything to go by:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Bond and Dench's M have the wrong kind of relationship.

I did feel that it was a bit long, though.

wandered a little bit too much

the whole thing comes across as a little disjointed.

All of the above apply to TWINE. Skyfall is making all of the same mistakes, which will result in an inconsistent final product. They're mixing elements which past Bond fare has proved don't mix well together. Dench dominance, Dench out in the field, Dench personal revelations, emotional involvement, mad terrorist, attack on MI6, Bond having personal involvement, OTT stunts and explosions, same sh**e writers, deluded appointment of drama director and same drama-driven producer. The exact same formula of Brosnan's first three films is being blatantly followed here: Film 1: "fresh" reintroduction to Bond with a new actor, emphasis on patient pacing and less on Bond theme and wall-to-wall action. Film 2: Shitloads of action, half-finished script, basically an American action movie. Film 3: The drama and slower pace of the first film, but with the drama and emotion upped big-time, coupled with the big silly action of the second film, M gets personally involved in a big way and gets taunted by a terrorist from the past, in short an unfocused, "wants to be everything to everyone but ends up being nothing to no-one" bloody mess, full of poor attempts at emotion and drama which sit stupidly alongside the more outlandish elements of the series.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

there was a lot of emphasis on Bond's supposed death

And that idea is tired as f*ck as well, given that two of the 60's films opened with Bond being supposedly killed, not to mention that one of those films used the idea of Bond being "dead" to the villain for the entire film, as well as wasting the first ten minutes of the film pointlessly killing him and burying him, all for just one shitty punchline two hours later. It's old hat and just one more thing this film really doesn't need.

Lazenby. wrote:

And that idea is tired as f*ck as well, given that two of the 60's films opened with Bond being supposedly killed, not to mention that one of those films used the idea of Bond being "dead" to the villain for the entire film, as well as wasting the first ten minutes of the film pointlessly killing him and burying him, all for just one shitty punchline two hours later. It's old hat and just one more thing this film really doesn't need.

Well said Laz. Much of what you've written above echoes my fears too about Skyfall. As for Bond dying then popping back up, `resurrected', I could only accept this if it remotely followed the plot from Fleming's last 2 novels, or was at least inspired by them, but I'm seriously doubting it will.

The thing that really irks me with Bab's is her constant and blatant ignorance of trying to go back to any unused Fleming material. I didn't like the way her and Mickey boldly announced at the press conference that Skyfall would not follow any Fleming story, almost as though they were proud of the fact.

At least say the story is inspired by one or two of the novels. :x

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

You know, in retrospect, I shouldn't be surprised that people hate the trailer. Of course you were all going to hate it, since it's new.

Now now, PM. Many of us like/love the trailer and are eagerly anticipating SF.

jet set willy wrote:

I can see why Laz is put off this film by the trailer.

With all due respect to Laz, he was going to hate the trailer regardless, just like he will hate SF and all future Bond films regardless of whether they are marvelous or garbage. He has programmed himself to hate so-called "Nu-Bond" and hate it he will.

jet set willy wrote:

Lazenby. wrote:

And that idea is tired as f*ck as well, given that two of the 60's films opened with Bond being supposedly killed, not to mention that one of those films used the idea of Bond being "dead" to the villain for the entire film, as well as wasting the first ten minutes of the film pointlessly killing him and burying him, all for just one shitty punchline two hours later. It's old hat and just one more thing this film really doesn't need.

Well said Laz. Much of what you've written above echoes my fears too about Skyfall. As for Bond dying then popping back up, `resurrected', I could only accept this if it remotely followed the plot from Fleming's last 2 novels, or was at least inspired by them, but I'm seriously doubting it will.

Bond's death, or at least feared death, is part of the Bondian tradition going all the way back to Fleming. It is good, solid Bondian fare, and is damn good cover. And, of course, being dead doesn't mean one can't still be useful. The fact that there is a certain amount of repetition in the series is no reason to work one's self into a lather. After 23 films there are bound to be leitmotifs. Virtually impossible for there not to be.

I don't mind reusing the Bond being dead thing if it's done well.

Looks excellent....where's my fucking video capture gone? Ahhh.....going to nab it....

Bond 24 Trailer Review

by Lazenby

Well, they've done it again, folks.

Despite everyone (except yours truly) being brainwashed into believing that Skyfail was a not only a good movie but a good Bond movie, Mikey and Babs have once again messed with their own formula and come up with yet another turkey, as demonstrated by the trailer released yesterday.

The only potentially positive aspect of Skyfail was Sam Mendes, who did his best to bring life to P&W's turgid script. Too bad that Mikey, having taken the reins from his insanely feminist step-sister, has gone and thrown out the baby with the bathwater by replacing not only P&W but Mendes as well. He should have kidnapped the man and forced him to direct B24, if that's what it would have taken.

I had some hope when Robert Harris was announced as the writer, but I get no sense of any depth of character from the trailer. Everything look so superficial, glossed over by the over-use of the James Bond theme in an effort to convince us that this is a Bond film, and not just another Daniel Bourne outing. There's no story here, just some talk, sneaking around, fighting and chasing. Same old, same old.

And speaking of Bourne, the 'action' scenes we're treated to look so dull. Lazily filmed, no spectacle - clearly the stunt team were playing it safe and not taking any chances. All it takes is a little CGI to erase any visible harnesses and the stunt work could have been at least as good as what we saw in the trailer for Skyfail. Other posters claim that the stuntwork in SF was both spectacular and convincing, but knowing that greenscreen was employed was enough to convince me not to waste my money on seeing that pile of rubbish myself.

Having finally disposed of Judi Dench, EON seems to have gone to the opposite extreme and left M out of the picture entirely. Was that voice-over supposed to be M briefing 007? What rubbish. There's no point in casting an actor of that calibre and then not using him.

I could go on, but it's beneath my dignity to waste any more of my precious time on this misbegotten debacle. 30 secends of disjointed meandering is long enough to be able to tell that B24 will be at least as bad as Skyfail, despite the long list of talent that Mikey wasted his money on. Sure, B24 will make at least a billion dollars, as SF did, but that will just go to show how many f*cking stupid people there are in the world. Clearly I'm in the minority, but if this your idea of entertainment then you're welcome to it. I'm going back to work on my own screenplay, which Mikey and Babs had the nerve to send back unopened. If they're not interested in a sure winner that will satisfy everyone, then I'll just have to form my own production company and show them how a proper Bond film is supposed to be made.

Laz can diss the movie all he likes...but we all know he'll be there on opening night :cheers:

AMC Hornet wrote:

Bond 24 Trailer Review

by Lazenby

Well, they've done it again, folks.

Despite everyone (except yours truly) being brainwashed into believing that Skyfail was a not only a good movie but a good Bond movie, Mikey and Babs have once again messed with their own formula and come up with yet another turkey, as demonstrated by the trailer released yesterday.

The only potentially positive aspect of Skyfail was Sam Mendes, who did his best to bring life to P&W's turgid script. Too bad that Mikey, having taken the reins from his insanely feminist step-sister, has gone and thrown out the baby with the bathwater by replacing not only P&W but Mendes as well. He should have kidnapped the man and forced him to direct B24, if that's what it would have taken.

I had some hope when Robert Harris was announced as the writer, but I get no sense of any depth of character from the trailer. Everything look so superficial, glossed over by the over-use of the James Bond theme in an effort to convince us that this is a Bond film, and not just another Daniel Bourne outing. There's no story here, just some talk, sneaking around, fighting and chasing. Same old, same old.

And speaking of Bourne, the 'action' scenes we're treated to look so dull. Lazily filmed, no spectacle - clearly the stunt team were playing it safe and not taking any chances. All it takes is a little CGI to erase any visible harnesses and the stunt work could have been at least as good as what we saw in the trailer for Skyfail. Other posters claim that the stuntwork in SF was both spectacular and convincing, but knowing that greenscreen was employed was enough to convince me not to waste my money on seeing that pile of rubbish myself.

Having finally disposed of Judi Dench, EON seems to have gone to the opposite extreme and left M out of the picture entirely. Was that voice-over supposed to be M briefing 007? What rubbish. There's no point in casting an actor of that calibre and then not using him.

I could go on, but it's beneath my dignity to waste any more of my precious time on this misbegotten debacle. 30 secends of disjointed meandering is long enough to be able to tell that B24 will be at least as bad as Skyfail, despite the long list of talent that Mikey wasted his money on. Sure, B24 will make at least a billion dollars, as SF did, but that will just go to show how many f*cking stupid people there are in the world. Clearly I'm in the minority, but if this your idea of entertainment then you're welcome to it. I'm going back to work on my own screenplay, which Mikey and Babs had the nerve to send back unopened. If they're not interested in a sure winner that will satisfy everyone, then I'll just have to form my own production company and show them how a proper Bond film is supposed to be made.

Not bombastic or vicious enough enough to be Laz, Horny. Didn't fool me for a minute.

:)

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

You know, in retrospect, I shouldn't be surprised that people hate the trailer. Of course you were all going to hate it, since it's new.

Not all of us hate it.

I liked it. I just had a problem with a few elements of the trailer.

Aside from the Mi6 AGENTS YouTube video, I also didn't like the generic action trailer/"this is supposed to be serious"/"this is supposed to be epic" type of music they included. A normal version of the Bond theme would have been just fine.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

AMC Hornet wrote:

Bond 24 Trailer Review

by Lazenby

Well, they've done it again, folks.

Despite everyone (except yours truly) being brainwashed into believing that Skyfail was a not only a good movie but a good Bond movie, Mikey and Babs have once again messed with their own formula and come up with yet another turkey, as demonstrated by the trailer released yesterday.

The only potentially positive aspect of Skyfail was Sam Mendes, who did his best to bring life to P&W's turgid script. Too bad that Mikey, having taken the reins from his insanely feminist step-sister, has gone and thrown out the baby with the bathwater by replacing not only P&W but Mendes as well. He should have kidnapped the man and forced him to direct B24, if that's what it would have taken.

I had some hope when Robert Harris was announced as the writer, but I get no sense of any depth of character from the trailer. Everything look so superficial, glossed over by the over-use of the James Bond theme in an effort to convince us that this is a Bond film, and not just another Daniel Bourne outing. There's no story here, just some talk, sneaking around, fighting and chasing. Same old, same old.

And speaking of Bourne, the 'action' scenes we're treated to look so dull. Lazily filmed, no spectacle - clearly the stunt team were playing it safe and not taking any chances. All it takes is a little CGI to erase any visible harnesses and the stunt work could have been at least as good as what we saw in the trailer for Skyfail. Other posters claim that the stuntwork in SF was both spectacular and convincing, but knowing that greenscreen was employed was enough to convince me not to waste my money on seeing that pile of rubbish myself.

Having finally disposed of Judi Dench, EON seems to have gone to the opposite extreme and left M out of the picture entirely. Was that voice-over supposed to be M briefing 007? What rubbish. There's no point in casting an actor of that calibre and then not using him.

I could go on, but it's beneath my dignity to waste any more of my precious time on this misbegotten debacle. 30 secends of disjointed meandering is long enough to be able to tell that B24 will be at least as bad as Skyfail, despite the long list of talent that Mikey wasted his money on. Sure, B24 will make at least a billion dollars, as SF did, but that will just go to show how many f*cking stupid people there are in the world. Clearly I'm in the minority, but if this your idea of entertainment then you're welcome to it. I'm going back to work on my own screenplay, which Mikey and Babs had the nerve to send back unopened. If they're not interested in a sure winner that will satisfy everyone, then I'll just have to form my own production company and show them how a proper Bond film is supposed to be made.

Not bombastic or vicious enough enough to be Laz, Horny. Didn't fool me for a minute.

:)

Indeed. There's not enough personal insults against Babs there.

Not even enough rants about Dench's M being an old senile bat. Q being younger "to be down with the kidz". Bond's boss being female.

I suppose I gave myself away with the first sentence in the last paragraph.

And I so wanted to be respected and admired by everyone at this forum...

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Not bombastic or vicious enough enough to be Laz, Horny. Didn't fool me for a minute.

:)

Of course not. Genuine Lazenby is sheer scathing brilliance, which sends Craig and Babsy scrambling for Mommy M's skirts.

Lazenby wrote:

The moment Babs mentioned the word "emotional" with such relish at the press conference I knew straight away that this film would have major flaws. She's taking away too much of what made Bond so enjoyable and replacing it with badly-rendered emotional baggage and her constant attempts to keep Dench right on the heels of Bond for the duration.

Quoted for Truth!

tiffanywint wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Not bombastic or vicious enough enough to be Laz, Horny. Didn't fool me for a minute.

:)

Of course not. Genuine Lazenby is sheer scathing brilliance, which sends Craig and Babsy scrambling for Mommy M's skirts.

Keep fighting the good fight on Laz's behalf, tiffy. As much as I disagree with Laz's a priori--and entirely predictable--savaging of SF, I don't want him to scarper off for five months like he did not too long ago.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Keep fighting the good fight on Laz's behalf, tiffy.

The good fight, yes!

Lazenby. wrote:

But his haircut and appearance in many of the trailer shots and photos leaked from Skyfall again show us a character ashamed of his own cinematic identity. Look at that "angry farmer" shot, look at the terrible GI Joe haircut, look at the again-constant use of bigger Terminator-esque guns. By and large, this hero could be anybody. This franchise needs to stop being ashamed of it's own trademarks and stop deluding itself that it contains valid award-worthy drama. Just give us Bond back. The film will then simply live or die on how interesting and exciting the mission is, just as it did with the last great Bond films of Cubby's era

It looks brilliiant in the trailer, can't wait for this film now.

Ever since j7 was kicked to the curb, we've been desperately short of a forum troll. It appears that Lazenby. is over-compensating for the lack of such a troll.

Warning from Mod.

Prisoner Monkey, if you can't be somewhat civil, please don't post. A diversity of opinions is both encouraged and welcomed on the boards. Dismissing a veteran member in good standing as a "troll" is not constructive. M has already issued a warning that such unwarranted name-calling of other members is not to be tolerated. TW

I enjoyed the trailer for what it was. Great to see some much needed humour return.

Lazenby wrote:

] The moment Babs mentioned the word "emotional" with such relish at the press conference I knew straight away that this film would have major flaws. She's taking away too much of what made Bond so enjoyable and replacing it with badly-rendered emotional baggage and her constant attempts to keep Dench right on the heels of Bond for the duration.

We sure do need less emotion in Bond. The ending to OHMSS -- what was that shit? No more of that, please.

The difference is that was earned.