What if Skyfall is Crap?

Now we all know that it is practically a given that SF will perform well at the box-office but I am talking from a critical point of view. For me personally, and I assume many others, SF is beginning to look like one of the best Bond films ever made and certainly the best in a long, long time. BUT... however... what if it just so happens that SF follows in the footsteps of QOS in that it turns out to be absolutley awful, then what do we all think would happen to the series? DAD did very well at the box office but that was not particularly well recieved either and so it caused, in part, for the series to be rebooted. Could this happen again, would they go back to being silly and OTT, would Craig be replaced as Bond, would the series go on hold... etc.

What do you think?

I can tell you what I don't think - I don't think there's any point discussing this until it actuall happens. And based on what we know to date, it's not going to be a problem.

For Lazenby. it already is crap, and we should be discussing whether or not Bond 24 will be crap too.

Why?

We already know that when asked "Will BOND 24 be crap?", Lazenby. will reply "Yes".

If SF is of QOS quality minus the unwonted politicization, I'll be fine.

If SF resembles DAD in any way, shape or form, my faith will be shaken severely.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's crap. Look what they've given us for the past 17 years.

I want it to be enjoyable, though.

Control wrote:

I want it to be enjoyable, though.

I think that's where the problem lies, in finding a balance between making it enjoyable yet also dramatically engaging. And this is where I kind of agree with Lazenby, in that the drama is usually the key area where the current regime flunk the Bond films by either executing that drama poorly, naively or insufficiently whilst also somehow having to straddle the "Bond as fun romp" elements at the same time. It usually ends up a real mixed bag as a result, which is why I kind of agree with Laz that Bond should be a thriller with the central plot as the engaging factor instead of just resorting to cheap and easy "It's personal" or "It involves M" plot hooks and then just chucking the usual "villain about to destroy or take over some supply or other" over the top of it and hoping it sticks.

With the amount of high-stakes drama Skyfall looks set to have, it's probably Eon's most difficult balancing job yet in making the drama hit home 100% whilst somehow simultaneously enabling the "fun romp" side of Bond to work alongside it. Modern Eon's track record isn't good with all of this "it's personal" stuff, and nor is their track record of making intense drama work alongside the campier fun elements of Bond, facts which would leave me completely unsurprised if Laz's theory was correct that Skyfall could ultimately just be a slightly better-acted ungainly mix of elements similar to The World Is Not Enough. Sadly enough, I actually think that Skyfall stands it's best chance of working if all of the "classic" Bond elements are NOT prominent, as the drama side of modern Bond is usually hampered enough by the writing, a hindrance multiplied if they take on a tonal juggling act on top of that.

I'm open to being impressed, but at the same time I'd be a fool not to have a fiver on Laz's "like it in October, don't like it much by March" instant grat theory.

And Control makes a very simple but telling point. How many Bond films from the last 17 years have really nailed it? There's straight-ahead formulaic Bond films from over thirty years ago which are still standing way above most of the recent Bond output, which just underlines how much more effort needs to be put in. Twisty thriller plots need to replace the now-tiresome "personal/psychological" formula they've got going. The Living Daylights and From Russia With Love are decent examples of where the films should be heading, films which engage completely through the plot without the need for cumbersome "emotional" baggage, films which allow Bond to just be Bond and get on with captivating us through a well-plotted mission. At the moment I don't think we'll ever have that approach back, which is a real shame and a true waste. Barbara Broccoli wants Bond to have critical credibility, but just doesn't have the people or the know-how to pull that off. Either that, or it's just a "square peg into a round hole" to even attempt such a coup in the first place. There's every possibility that Skyfall will be the latest victim of this mindset.

James Bond wrote:

For me personally, and I assume many others, SF is beginning to look like one of the best Bond films ever made and certainly the best in a long, long time.

Assuming you won't count 17 years/6 movies ago's Goldeneye, did you forget Casino Royale? Probably I'm influenced a lot by the fact that both the novel and the song are something very beautiful to me, but I think that the movie was fantastic. I hope I'm not talking too much on a personal opinion. If you dislike Casino Royale, I totally respect your opinion.

James Bond wrote:

BUT... however... what if it just so happens that SF follows in the footsteps of QOS in that it turns out to be absolutley awful, then what do we all think would happen to the series? DAD did very well at the box office but that was not particularly well recieved either and so it caused, in part, for the series to be rebooted. Could this happen again, would they go back to being silly and OTT, would Craig be replaced as Bond, would the series go on hold... etc.

What do you think?

Remember that there is a huge 4 years gap between QoS and Skyfall. The screenwriters have had all the time in the world to write a decent screenplay. We have a new staff (new director, new composer), which might help too. And this will be back to Bond roots, with Q, gadgets, Moneypenny. It's going to be a classic Bond film, after all. I'm quite positive about Skyfall. I really think it's going to be a very good story and I'm really looking forward to it. Also, what I've heard about the movies excited me (Q on field, M's past, setting the film at MI6, etc.).
Also, didn't they reboot Bond series because they wanted to show Bond at the beginning of its career, just like in CR novel? I thought this was the only reason (yes, I noticed your "in part"). If they rebooted Bond every time they made a bad Bond film, there would be so many timelines which would cause (as Emmet Brown would say) the destruction of the universe. Look at Licence to Kill. It was terrible at box office, but next movie was a direct sequel to it, even if it changed the actor (at the beginning after the song, during the car chase, Moneypenny says "Remember I'm here to valuate you.", a reference to LTK, in which Bond's licence was revoked. You might reply "but the movie was written for Timothy Dalton, that's the reason of the continuity with LTK". True, but still they didn't reboot the series, and they had (once again) all the time in the world to make adapt the screenplay to a reboot.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

If SF is of QOS quality minus the unwonted politicization, I'll be fine.

If SF resembles DAD in any way, shape or form, my faith will be shaken severely.

Not stirred.

M wrote:

Control wrote:

I want it to be enjoyable, though.

And Control makes a very simple but telling point. How many Bond films from the last 17 years have really nailed it?

GE and CR are both classics, IMO. That's one third of the Bond films made from 1995 on. Not bad at all.

QOS and TND are mid-pack Bond. TWINE is subpar. And DAD? Well, I don't even want to say.

All in all I'd have to say so-called "Nu-Bond" is chugging along nicely enough, if not quite dazzling the world as Bond did in the 60s.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

M wrote:

Control wrote:

I want it to be enjoyable, though.

And Control makes a very simple but telling point. How many Bond films from the last 17 years have really nailed it?

GE and CR are both classics, IMO. That's one third of the Bond films made from 1995 on. Not bad at all.

QOS and TND are mid-pack Bond. TWINE is subpar. And DAD? Well, I don't even want to say.

All in all I'd have to say so-called "Nu-Bond" is chugging along nicely enough, if not quite dazzling the world as Bond did in the 60s.

I agree with this. The last 17 years have been hit-or-miss but there have been a couple top-tier Bond films, IMO. So far, I think this one has a good chance of joining those.

At this point, however, my biggest concern with "Skyfall" is that it'll have an identity crisis. Looks like it will be balancing some kind of line between fun and gritty. Not quite sure how that will work out yet.

I'm wondering if SKYFALL will suffer from bad marketing.

They're already marketing it primarily as an action flick, whereas CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM were marketed more like action/dramas.

I actually believe that the Bond films over the past 17 years are just as good as the ones preceding them, the only difference is in the consistency of the films.

Back in the 'Good Old Days' the team at EON were like a family with the same cast and crew returning time and time again (Albert R "Cubby" Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Desmond Llewelyn, Bob Simmons, Richard Maibaum, Lois Maxwell, Bernard Lee, John Barry, Ken Adam, John Glen etc...) with the films being produced on a consistent two-year cycle (one-year in the very early days). Although the films have always all being of a varying quality, they tended to all be fairly good films with the rare exception.

Now if we look post-Cubby, the films now have much less of a consistency around them with a constantly changing cast and crew with the films and, since DAD, are being produced on a very loose cyle (although overall averaging about one every three years). Also, the films tend to be VERY hit-and-miss with the 'odd' films, IMO, always being substantially better than the 'even' films (so far anyway) with each film being more-or-less a knee-jerk reaction to the cons of the previous one.

Makes you think :scratch: (or me anyway )

Control wrote:

I'm wondering if SKYFALL will suffer from bad marketing.

They're already marketing it primarily as an action flick, whereas CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM were marketed more like action/dramas.

I cried at the end of Quantum of Solace, because it was so bad that I felt sad, so it might be a drama. During it, I simply slept.

Control wrote:

I'm wondering if SKYFALL will suffer from bad marketing.

They're already marketing it primarily as an action flick, whereas CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM were marketed more like action/dramas.

Well, they have been whipsawing their talking points. No change in direction one month, magical Goldfinger feel the next month. We'll see more about the marketing as it unfolds.

Meanwhile, I remember when people on entertainment shows -- with a completely straight face -- proclaimed that Licence to Kill was going to be "the best Bond in years." It wasn't. That doesn't mean that Skyfall won't be. Past events are not necessarily a predictor of the future. But I'm going to need to see the movie before I sign on to that idea.

Walecs wrote:

Control wrote:

I'm wondering if SKYFALL will suffer from bad marketing.

They're already marketing it primarily as an action flick, whereas CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM were marketed more like action/dramas.

I cried at the end of Quantum of Solace, because it was so bad that I felt sad, so it might be a drama. During it, I simply slept.

I very much heed Laz's warnings. His predictions for SF I feel are very prescient.

From what I can glean, SF will be an interesting action-thriller spy drama, maybe with a dash of Le Carre, but will it impress as a Bond film? I don't think it will. Rather I think it will impress as an alternative-Bond take. But really the whole Craig effort is an alternative, origins, Bond-take anyway. It has no connection with what came before.

Craig it seems is insisting on character-driven action dramas. He's not about the traditional Sean, Laz, Rog or Dalts take of the well established agent 007, reporting for duty and executing a mission. Craig is re-inventing Bond, not only with a whole new alternative look, but with new-backstory origins and attitudes.

In SF we will see the fully matured Craig-Bond. The origins angst will be long past, but nu-Bond will face fresh emotional challenges, specifically as he relates to M. The Craig era seems to be about the evolution of a character. Craig will never just settle into being Bond. These character-driven dramas will continue throughout his tenure. It wouldn't be so bad if I could relate to what he is doing, but I don't, so all that can be done in the interim, is to sample the Craig wares for what they are.

We can always re-visit the classics in the meantime. Sean, Laz, Rog and Dalts did give us 16 solid and relatively similar Bond films.

The Broz films IMO operate in their own somewhat different Bond universe. The broadstrokes do bear more resemblance to what came before, than what has come since, but still with the Broz era, we got our first little lingered dabblings of drama Bond, although Broz-Bond largely rose above it.

I think SF will be the best and most watchable of the Craig films, but tonally I don't expect a big change. The danger, as others have pointed out, is nu-Bond attempting to force some obligatory lip-service to old-Bond and creating a tonal mess.

Bottom line is that we are living in the Craig-era and it is what it is. Someday it will be over and the series I predict will be radically re-adjusted. The next era of Bond I predict will likely see a return to a more conventional presentation of 007's adventures with both a more conventional look and approach to the iconic character. This approach will suddenly be again fashionable and fresh.

In the meantime we make the most of the current offerings. SF I think will at least be a very watchable action-spy-thiller featuring a heroic Bond-like character in the lead.

[quote="Walecs]Moneypenny says "Remember I'm here to valuate you..." [/quote]

So Moneypenny's first name is Caroline, and was played by two actors (Serena Gordon and Samantha Bond) in GoldenEye?

Why does M later refer to her as 'that poor girl' instead of 'that poor girl out there' during Bon'd briefing?And why does Moneypenny (I mean Caroline) wait until they're back at MI6 HQ to threaten him with a sexual harrassment suit?

And why does Moneypenny get so excited snogging with virtualBond in DAD if she already knows what it's like to kiss him?

Maybe I missed something...

AMC Hornet wrote:

Maybe I missed something...

No, I think good Walecs just got confused between the Caroline and new MP actress in GE.

Ya think?;)

tiffanywint wrote:

I very much heed Laz's warnings. His predictions for SF I feel are very prescient.

From what I can glean, SF will be an interesting action-thriller spy drama, maybe with a dash of Le Carre, but will it impress as a Bond film? I don't think it will. Rather I think it will impress as an alternative-Bond take. But really the whole Craig effort is an alternative, origins, Bond-take anyway. It has no connection with what came before.

Craig it seems is insisting on character-driven action dramas. He's not about the traditional Sean, Laz, Rog or Dalts take of the well established agent 007, reporting for duty and executing a mission. Craig is re-inventing Bond, not only with a whole new alternative look, but with new-backstory origins and attitudes.

In SF we will see the fully matured Craig-Bond. The origins angst will be long past, but nu-Bond will face fresh emotional challenges, specifically as he relates to M. The Craig era seems to be about the evolution of a character. Craig will never just settle into being Bond. These character-driven dramas will continue throughout his tenure. It wouldn't be so bad if I could relate to what he is doing, but I don't, so all that can be done in the interim, is to sample the Craig wares for what they are.

We can always re-visit the classics in the meantime. Sean, Laz, Rog and Dalts did give us 16 solid and relatively similar Bond films.

The Broz films IMO operate in their own somewhat different Bond universe. The broadstrokes do bear more resemblance to what came before, than what has come since, but still with the Broz era, we got our first little lingered dabblings of drama Bond, although Broz-Bond largely rose above it.

I think SF will be the best and most watchable of the Craig films, but tonally I don't expect a big change. The danger, as others have pointed out, is nu-Bond attempting to force some obligatory lip-service to old-Bond and creating a tonal mess.

Bottom line is that we are living in the Craig-era and it is what it is. Someday it will be over and the series I predict will be radically re-adjusted. The next era of Bond I predict will likely see a return to a more conventional presentation of 007's adventures with both a more conventional look and approach to the iconic character. This approach will suddenly be again fashionable and fresh.

In the meantime we make the most of the current offerings. SF I think will at least be a very watchable action-spy-thiller featuring a heroic Bond-like character in the lead.

Ah, such resignation from the weltschmerz Tiffy.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Ya think?;)

I can see his confusion. Caroline wasn't your typical Bond conquest. Serena Gordon could have been cast as MP herself.



Predicting Box-office for SF: This is pure guess work, but I will toss this scenario out.

SF will be somewhat of a Skyfail at box-office. Sure lots of cinema fans will check it out. It may even top opening box-office weekend numbers, but I think some of the must-see Bond cinema-magic was dissipated with the dour offering that was QoS. Bond may no longer reap a stampede of I-gotta-see-the-new-Bond-movie fans. Bond just doesn't come across as quite as much fun anymore. There may now be a segment of film-goers that have crossed Bond off their must-see list.

What SF may also lack is the buzz that a new Rog or Broz, Bond-release came with -- that pure, must-see Bond-romp, fun factor, driven also by the charming, dashing and popular leads that were Rog and Broz.

Respectable ,but modest by Bond standards, box-office, may be what SF reaps.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Ah, such resignation from the weltschmerz Tiffy.

We endure. :|

tiffanywint wrote:

Predicting Box-office for SF: This is pure guess work, but I will toss this scenario out.

SF will be somewhat of a Skyfail at box-office. Sure lots of cinema fans will check it out. It may even top opening box-office weekend numbers, but I think some of the must-see Bond cinema-magic was dissipated with the dour offering that was QoS. Bond may no longer reap the stampede of I-gotta-see-the-new-Bond-movie fans. Bond just doesn't come across, as quite as much fun anymore. There may now be a segment of film-goers that have crossed Bond off their must-see list.

What SF may lack is the buzz that a new Rog or Broz, Bond-release came with -- that pure, must-see Bond-romp, fun factor and featuring the charming, dashing and popular leads that were Rog and Broz.

I am sorry to say that I wholeheartedly disagree with you there tiff. I reckon that the general public are itching for something 'Bondian' after being starved of it for a whole four (or even ten depending upon how you look at it) years, especially after the Olympics stunt in front of over a billion people (the most viewed Bond ever?). SF is certainly looking as if it is going to deliver the goods and I would be shocked if it did not at least beat CR's record.

Yup. If this is marketed correctly, then throw in the pomp of all the 50th anniversary jazz, they'll erase whatever doubts people had in their minds after QOS. Market it as "Bond with a capital B" and all that and Skyfall should do quite well.

Barring some kind of a disaster, I have a hard time seeing this doing substantially worse than CR and QOS.

James Bond wrote:

I am sorry to say that I wholeheartedly disagree with you there tiff. I reckon that the general public are itching for something 'Bondian' after being starved of it for a whole four (or even ten depending upon how you look at it) years, especially after the Olympics stunt in front of over a billion people (the most viewed Bond ever?). SF is certainly looking as if it is going to deliver the goods and I would be shocked if it did not at least beat CR's record.

Skyfall will only last one week at the top in the USA because there's a new Twilight movie the following week. In that respect, the logistics of releasing this film 2 weeks later than the UK is sheer madness. However, Bond has also done well being the #2 movie. Upwards of US$175m is not out of the question, but not a given either. I am hoping it does better than QoS of course.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Walecs wrote:

Moneypenny says "Remember I'm here to valuate you..."

So Moneypenny's first name is Caroline, and was played by two actors (Serena Gordon and Samantha Bond) in GoldenEye?

Why does M later refer to her as 'that poor girl' instead of 'that poor girl out there' during Bon'd briefing?And why does Moneypenny (I mean Caroline) wait until they're back at MI6 HQ to threaten him with a sexual harrassment suit?

And why does Moneypenny get so excited snogging with virtualBond in DAD if she already knows what it's like to kiss him?

Maybe I missed something...

Now I really feel embarassed and stupid because through all this time I was pretty sure Caroline and Moneypenny were the same person. Still... is my point correct? Is it a sort of continuity with Licence to Kill?