What if Skyfall is Crap?

tiffanywint wrote:

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

Lazenby. is predicting SKYFALL will fall apart because it does not star his namesake. He's probably done this for every film since 1969.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

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.

How can a Twilight movie earn more than a Bond one? Those people don't understand anything about cinema, even the worst Bond movie (DAD, QOS or whatever) is way better than Twilight.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

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.

Will Kristen Stewart's fat, ugly, homely fans hold it against her that she broke the fourth wall and "cheated" on Rob? That's going to make for one very awkward red-carpet appearance.

I don't really give a rat's ass about their "relationship", but even I was amazed at how quickly and thoroughly she admitted to cheating on Rob with a married man (director of Snow White and The Huntsman). I wonder if there was studio pressure on her to hurry up and admit the relationship in an effort to get all the bad publicity out of the way before the last film premieres in November. Honestly, now that Stewart's legions of fans know that Rob can't satisfy Kristen, will they look at the film differently and decide not to go see it because the failed relationship has taken away some of the fantasy of believing these two were in love both on and off the screeN

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Will Kristen Stewart's fat, ugly, homely fans hold it against her that she broke the fourth wall and "cheated" on Rob? That's going to make for one very awkward red-carpet appearance.

I don't really give a rat's ass about their "relationship", but even I was amazed at how quickly and thoroughly she admitted to cheating on Rob with a married man (director of Snow White and The Huntsman). I wonder if there was studio pressure on her to hurry up and admit the relationship in an effort to get all the bad publicity out of the way before the last film premieres in November. Honestly, now that Stewart's legions of fans know that Rob can't satisfy Kristen, will they look at the film differently and decide not to go see it because the failed relationship has taken away some of the fantasy of believing these two were in love both on and off the screeN

I tend to think the relationship between Stewart and Pattison was invented or at least greatly exaggerated to fool the Tweenie fans, more marketing ploy than genuine lurve...but I am cynical like that.

As to Twilight's release.....I think one film can support another, going to the cinema and having a choice of what to watch, or going and having a great time encourages to patronise another etc. Twlight may steal top spot but the overall BO of Skyfall will probably be boosted as a result.

What if Skyfall is crap? Then some of us will bitch and moan about it with its 'fans' telling everyone what a decent Bond should be till Bond 24 is made.....although we'll probably do that even if its great

lachesis wrote:

I tend to think the relationship between Stewart and Pattison was invented or at least greatly exaggerated to fool the Tweenie fans, more marketing ploy than genuine lurve...but I am cynical like that.

I thought the relationship was invented for the fans as well. I was under the impression she was lesbian, or at least bisexual, and was simply going through with this relationship for the sake of the film series, but its hard to fathom why in 2012 movie studios would continue to match and pair stars up together to either promote a movie or to deflect questions about an actor's sexuality. Movie audiences today are too well-informed. We know. We suspect. This isn't the era of Rock Hudson and Doris Day.

On the other hand, real or not, the breakup could do incalculable damage to the last film because the two stars are not only not together anymore, but one cheated on the other. It doesn't do much for Pattinson's status as a "leading man" to have her cheating on him with a 41 year old married father of two(?) children. The quickness with which this story was confirmed was shocking. Usually all involve try to deny it at first.

Walecs wrote:

Still... is my point correct? Is [GoldenEye] a sort of continuity with Licence to Kill?

Given that the backstory events at Archangel take place nine years before the rest of 1995's GE - meaning they happened in 1986 (one year before TLD) - I'd say yes, GE is a continuation of LTK's timeline.

The first thing I thought when Pierce went all grim after Trevelyan's 'death' was "so that's why Bond was so dour through the late 80s." Then, when he laughed with pleasure while racing Xenia, I thought "Bond seems to have cheered up some since torching Sanchez." Must have been the relief of getting his job back.

GE would have been Dalton's 3rd entry, but if it had been written and filmed for him as it was for Pierce, I think Tim would have been noticably older-looking throughout, whereas it was easier to accept that PierceBond hadn't aged over nine years (after all, we hadn't seen him as Bond before this point).

I see Tim and Pierce as the same Bond, and despite the line in LTK about his being married once a long time ago, I don't see Tim/Pierce as the same Bond who fought Blofeld or went into space. That 007 retired in 1985, to be replace with another agent whose formative experiences left him bitter and cynical.

That's my take anyway. TLD was constructed so that you can view it as either as a reboot if you want to, or as a continuation if you don't. I wish CR had been the same - it would make it easier to reconcile Judi Dench's M going from an analyst with no respect for long-time espionage veterans to a Whitehall mandarin who misses the cold war.

Just saw the new official trailer. I think I speak for almost everyone when I say:

There is NO WAY Skyfall can be crap!

Discussion closed.

Plus: A PPK with an optical palm reader - the signature gun is 'back'!

AMC Hornet wrote:

Walecs wrote:

Still... is my point correct? Is [GoldenEye] a sort of continuity with Licence to Kill?

Given that the backstory events at Archangel take place nine years before the rest of 1995's GE - meaning they happened in 1986 (one year before TLD) - I'd say yes, GE is a continuation of LTK's timeline.

That's not what I took from GOLDENEYE. It seemed to me that the link to 1986 was a direct reference to Brosnan having been cast as Bond and then losing out on the role. I don't think it was meant to repudiate or suggest that Dalton's Bond movies never occurred, but one could be forgiven for thinking that was what EON was suggesting.

Nonetheless, this is how I"ve always viewed Bond:
Connery/Lazenby/Moore are the same Bond in one timeline (clearly married to Tracy and then losing her)
Dalton is Bond in his own timeline (clearly married, but never explicitly stated to whom; core fans allowed to infer that it was Tracy)
Brosnan is Bond in his own timeline (no suggestion at all that he has ever known Tracy or been married)
Craig is Bond in his own timeline

We've basically had 4 James Bonds, but played by 6 different actors.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Walecs wrote:

Still... is my point correct? Is [GoldenEye] a sort of continuity with Licence to Kill?

Given that the backstory events at Archangel take place nine years before the rest of 1995's GE - meaning they happened in 1986 (one year before TLD) - I'd say yes, GE is a continuation of LTK's timeline.

The first thing I thought when Pierce went all grim after Trevelyan's 'death' was "so that's why Bond was so dour through the late 80s." Then, when he laughed with pleasure while racing Xenia, I thought "Bond seems to have cheered up some since torching Sanchez." Must have been the relief of getting his job back.

GE would have been Dalton's 3rd entry, but if it had been written and filmed for him as it was for Pierce, I think Tim would have been noticably older-looking throughout, whereas it was easier to accept that PierceBond hadn't aged over nine years (after all, we hadn't seen him as Bond before this point).

I see Tim and Pierce as the same Bond, and despite the line in LTK about his being married once a long time ago, I don't see Tim/Pierce as the same Bond who fought Blofeld or went into space. That 007 retired in 1985, to be replace with another agent whose formative experiences left him bitter and cynical.

That's my take anyway. TLD was constructed so that you can view it as either as a reboot if you want to, or as a continuation if you don't. I wish CR had been the same - it would make it easier to reconcile Judi Dench's M going from an analyst with no respect for long-time espionage veterans to a Whitehall mandarin who misses the cold war.

I don't consider Brosnan's Bond the same as Connery/Lazenby/Moore's ones too, but I don't even see Dalton and Bond as the same Bond. But I like your theory very much, about Dalton's Bond being dure because of 006's death. Also, assuming Brosnan (and maybe Dalton) was the same as Moore, we should wonder why we have never heard about 006 before.
About the line of Bond being married in LTK, I heard it too several times in websites, but in the novel I still can't find it (I'm at the part in which Bond and Pam kiss each other - or even do something more - on the motorboat after escaping from the bar they met). I've also read some theories which could make sense, about Brosnan's Bond being married too (but I don't really see it): the first in Goldeneye, when Alec says "those you failed to protect" and in TWINE when Elektra says "Have you ever lost someone you loved?" and he avoids the question, though this might simply be a reference to his parents and not necessary to Tracy.
In Die Another Day novel (not in the movie), Bond reminds Tracy, but I don't know if this is movie canon, because in the same part he reminds the Casino Royale too, and in the movie it never happened before DAD.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

AMC Hornet wrote:

Walecs wrote:

Still... is my point correct? Is [GoldenEye] a sort of continuity with Licence to Kill?

Given that the backstory events at Archangel take place nine years before the rest of 1995's GE - meaning they happened in 1986 (one year before TLD) - I'd say yes, GE is a continuation of LTK's timeline.

That's not what I took from GOLDENEYE. It seemed to me that the link to 1986 was a direct reference to Brosnan having been cast as Bond and then losing out on the role. I don't think it was meant to repudiate or suggest that Dalton's Bond movies never occurred, but one could be forgiven for thinking that was what EON was suggesting.

Nonetheless, this is how I"ve always viewed Bond:
Connery/Lazenby/Moore are the same Bond in one timeline (clearly married to Tracy and then losing her)
Dalton is Bond in his own timeline (clearly married, but never explicitly stated to whom; core fans allowed to infer that it was Tracy)
Brosnan is Bond in his own timeline (no suggestion at all that he has ever known Tracy or been married)
Craig is Bond in his own timeline

We've basically had 4 James Bonds, but played by 6 different actors.

For me it's exactly the same, except I have one more Bond for Fleming novels (I'm sure it's the same for everyone on this site).

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

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

Lazenby. is predicting SKYFALL will fall apart because it does not star his namesake. He's probably done this for every film since 1969.

Well I won't disagree that every film but one since 1969, might have benefited from the presence of Sean's most worthy successor.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Nonetheless, this is how I"ve always viewed Bond:
Connery/Lazenby/Moore are the same Bond in one timeline (clearly married to Tracy and then losing her)
Dalton is Bond in his own timeline (clearly married, but never explicitly stated to whom; core fans allowed to infer that it was Tracy)
Brosnan is Bond in his own timeline (no suggestion at all that he has ever known Tracy or been married)
Craig is Bond in his own timeline

We've basically had 4 James Bonds, but played by 6 different actors.

No no no. Films 1-20 are all the same Bond. Bond just magically got younger with film #17. The magic of cinema. Don't forget Broz wistfully reminisced with Q, in the old relics room in DAD. The trick to gracefully not aging your lead over decades, is don't have them reference their adventures from way back, although Broz did do exactly that when he picked up the TB jetpack and the FRWL spike-shoe. But such is the magic of cinema. A concession can be made to the 40th anniversary angle. Although you could reference the old adventures, but just don't spell out in plain English how long ago it was that they took place.

tiffanywint wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Nonetheless, this is how I"ve always viewed Bond:
Connery/Lazenby/Moore are the same Bond in one timeline (clearly married to Tracy and then losing her)
Dalton is Bond in his own timeline (clearly married, but never explicitly stated to whom; core fans allowed to infer that it was Tracy)
Brosnan is Bond in his own timeline (no suggestion at all that he has ever known Tracy or been married)
Craig is Bond in his own timeline

We've basically had 4 James Bonds, but played by 6 different actors.

No no no. Films 1-20 are all the same Bond. Bond just magically got younger with film #17. The magic of cinema. Don't forget Broz wistfully reminisced with Q, in the old relics room in DAD. The trick to gracefully not aging your lead over decades, is don't have them reference their adventures from way back, although Broz did do exactly that when he picked up the TB jetpack and the FRWL spike-shoe. But such is the magic of cinema. A concession can be made to the 40th anniversary angle. Although you could reference the old adventures, but just don't spell out in plain English how long ago it was that they took place.

Or there's your way, which I don't necessarily disagree with. If you take out the element of time and technology, then there's nothing off the top of my head that I think contradicts the "all-are-one-Bond" theory, especially in light of DAD.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Or there's your way, which I don't necessarily disagree with. If you take out the element of time and technology, then there's nothing off the top of my head that I think contradicts the "all-are-one-Bond" theory, especially in light of DAD.

Your theory is interesting in that with Rog actually being three years older than Sean, there is age continuity with the character all the way from DN to AVTAK. The character does age naturally over this period, aside from the little OHMSS interval, although even there with Laz, Bond's age just briefly froze in time.

Dalts and Broz can be looked at as a pair of mini-reboots, but within the same continuity. Magic of cinema.

Which is what I would like to see with the new continuity. When Craig is finally done, re-boot with a much younger, classic Bond-look actor, but stick with the continuity.

tiffanywint wrote:

Which is what I would like to see with the new continuity. When Craig is finally done, re-boot with a much younger, classic Bond-look actor, but stick with the continuity.

I'd like to see the movies go back to the 50's so that a writer can put some real teeth into the character and get away with some political incorrectness.

tiffanywint wrote:

The character does age naturally over this period, aside from the little OHMSS interval, although even there with Laz, Bond's age just briefly froze in time.

I see the following timeline (in movies):
OHMSS, YOLT, DAF

This explains many things, such as how can Bond pretend with Blofeld if they have already met, why he doesn't revenge with Blofeld in DAF, the age matter you mentioned and DAF starts in Japan where YOLT ended.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Which is what I would like to see with the new continuity. When Craig is finally done, re-boot with a much younger, classic Bond-look actor, but stick with the continuity.

I'd like to see the movies go back to the 50's so that a writer can put some real teeth into the character and get away with some political incorrectness.

Unfortunately imo the modern tendency is often to rewrite history to facilitate or promote political correctness, I don't think we'd see much difference even in the context of a Period Bond but it might be nice to hope.

lachesis wrote:

Unfortunately imo the modern tendency is often to rewrite history to facilitate or promote political correctness, I don't think we'd see much difference even in the context of a Period Bond but it might be nice to hope.

It would require getting rid of Babs Broccoli and having new ownership (not likely to happen if SKYFALL is a monster hit, which I think it's going to be).

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

lachesis wrote:

Unfortunately imo the modern tendency is often to rewrite history to facilitate or promote political correctness, I don't think we'd see much difference even in the context of a Period Bond but it might be nice to hope.

It would require getting rid of Babs Broccoli and having new ownership (not likely to happen if SKYFALL is a monster hit, which I think it's going to be).

They are... other ways.

lachesis wrote:

Unfortunately imo the modern tendency is often to rewrite history to facilitate or promote political correctness, I don't think we'd see much difference even in the context of a Period Bond but it might be nice to hope.

This is most likely. You'd get the period look, but filmmakers like Babs, or most any filmmaker, wouldn't have the nerve to really tap into Fleming's '50s world view and attitudes.

I just want the Craig alt-Bond nightmare to be over someday and get back to old-Bond, ie anything resembling films 1-20, or hybrids thereof.

The closest we are going to get to Fleming and Bond period-pieces, we have already got, with films 1-4, much of 5 and OHMSS. Its been done. Bond slapped Dink's bum in GF and Tatiana's in FRWL. Not coincidentally both films were not only set, BUT MADE in the early '60's. Not going to happen in 2012, even with a faux-period piece. At least we have these classics to treasure in hi-def though.

3 films "and counting."