Solid Action Film

Wow, am I really the first petson here to have seen this film? :king:

I'm on my mobile now so I might rewrite this better on my laptop later on.

So, Skyfall? Well it was the least Bond like Bond film I've ever seen for the second half and I can't decide if I really liked the talky exposition and back story or really disliked it. If it wasn't a Bond film I'd probably have thought it was excellent but at the moment it feels like a solid modern action film. I look forward to a repeat viewing on Sunday maybe my views will change.

Very nice forum, even nicer than those natty little ad cards of yours,very nice.

Hate to piss in your Corn Flakes Ian, but I just got back from from a 10:20AM viewing. 8)

Quote :

So, Skyfall? Well it was the least Bond like Bond film I've ever seen for the second half

I'm with that. I haven't really made my mind up about it yet, I'm still buzzing from seeing it.

One thing I've gotta let out though - I felt like yelling out 'HEIL' when I saw Craig in that driver get-up.

Hell yeah!!!

Less Bond-like than QOS?

I wouldn't go that far. The few Bond moments they throw in really feel like classic Bond moments, but for the most part it felt very different.

The strange thing is that the series seems so determined to go into a new direction in all three of Craig's films, yet at the end of all three of them, they feel the need to misleadingly gesture that "The Bond you know and love is now back", yet the moment the next film starts, the character is in some kind of roughed up or tormented state, making us wait two hours until he "becomes Bond" with all the "classic" paraphernalia. It's either just one big tired tease or they just don't know where to go with the whole thing, I'll be damned if I know. It's hard to tell whether Skyfall is the closure of all of this "rough Bond" stuff or just the beginning of them taking it even further.

Well somebody posted here that the vague idea is that Craig has gone through dozens of adventures since QoS, so we have basically skipped over the period of most of the previous films in terms of development (except maybe Dalton's disillusionment), so we've gone from the non-birth of Bond in CR's last bit to the maybe-birth of Bond in QoS finale ... and I guess with this, maybe they're thinking this is the REbirth of the character? Like skipping ahead a decade in Fleming's writing, I guess.

I've been thinking a lot about this as of late, and in their desire to innovate, it seems that they are going to a lot of trouble to not deliver a quintessential Bond film, but to genuflect in that direction, include moments like quotes to authenticate the thing in between a lot of whole-cloth reinvention (Bond family home, etc.)

He isn't reacting to things the same way, that is for sure. I mean, an unwanted sexual advance to Bond would probably be as disturbing to him (I'm thinking of his reaction to Colonel Sun when misinterpreting the latter's statements) as the laser between his legs in GF, and he WOULDN'T be joking much about it (note that Connery, in the laser scene, is probably about as worried as he ever got, except for the moments with Shaw on the train in FRWL.)

My wife is insistent that this is just good strategizing in terms of catching and holding the audience born in the last twenty or twenty-five years, but my thought is make up a new character if you want to go that route. WHY invoke Holmes or Bond or KIrk if you're only cashing in on a perceived value you're not actually delivering?
Well, the answer would be marketing; that's why studios don't throw 100 million at space pictures, because they don't have the established franchise to leverage off of. But I sure as hell don't think it is the right thing to do.

bondfan06 wrote:

Spoiler:

Shocking.

Not really.

Though I'm worried that they'll HAVE to expand her role now. How do you go from main Bond girl to just having a scene or two? Shall she become the new Dench? The person who should stay in London and is hanging around too damn much?

trevanian wrote:

Well somebody posted here that the vague idea is that Craig has gone through dozens of adventures since QoS, so we have basically skipped over the period of most of the previous films in terms of development (except maybe Dalton's disillusionment), so we've gone from the non-birth of Bond in CR's last bit to the maybe-birth of Bond in QoS finale ... and I guess with this, maybe they're thinking this is the REbirth of the character? Like skipping ahead a decade in Fleming's writing, I guess.

Yeah. This is somewhat implied by the fact that some time between QUANTUM and SKYFALL,

Spoiler:

trevanian wrote:

I've been thinking a lot about this as of late, and in their desire to innovate, it seems that they are going to a lot of trouble to not deliver a quintessential Bond film, but to genuflect in that direction, include moments like quotes to authenticate the thing in between a lot of whole-cloth reinvention (Bond family home, etc.)

It's EON's desire for Big Dramatic Stories.

Kinda like how Nolan's Batman universe didn't really give us any of the small-scale stories with Bond tracking down small-scale baddies (unless you count that BATMAN: GOTHAM KNIGHT, which is set in between BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT) and focused purely on the huge transitional moments in his narrative. Of course, Bond isn't Batman, but all franchises these days seem to be following in this mold, not just Bond.

I'm not using spoiler tags. I figure this whole section is fair game.

I don't have a problem with Harris as an actress for Moneypenny. I'm only concerned that the producers will feel compelled to give her more to do. Moneypenny has always been one of my least favorite elements of Bond. She's there for some light comedy and maybe some exposition. And I feel like this backstory is way too heavy for their decidedly light relationship.

From Bond 24: JACKHAMMER.

BOND: Moneypenny.

MONEYPENNY: James!

BOND: Darling Moneypenny, do you remember when you shot me and I fell off a bridge?

trevanian wrote:

I've been thinking a lot about this as of late, and in their desire to innovate, it seems that they are going to a lot of trouble to not deliver a quintessential Bond film, but to genuflect in that direction, include moments like quotes to authenticate the thing in between a lot of whole-cloth reinvention (Bond family home, etc.)

This is exactly what they are doing, "going to a lot of trouble to not deliver a quintessential Bond film". They "genuflect in that direction" to cover their bases.

IMO Craig is driving this bus, moreso than Babs. Babs accomodates him. She's down with the program too, but he is leading the way. Craig wants big character-driven dramas.

We won't be seeing a conventional Bond film from Craig anytime soon, if ever, even if the end of SF seems to have set the table for Bond being back. Each of the first two Craig films did that too, and neither delivered with the next picture.

And Craig-Bond is now a battle-hardened, 6 year double-0 veteran since we last saw him, so very conveniently he is ripe for a re-birth in SF.

It will be interesting to see how the next entry contrives further character drama.

I'd call it a Bond film, but a new Bond film. After all, if you keep making the same film over and over again, you end up a parody of yourself - and you get Die Another Day. No-one wants that. Hell, I didn't want it first time round.

If you consider Bond one of the first (if not 'the' first) action hero, then he's got a lot of competition lately. We've got Die Hards, Expendables, Bourne, Iron Man - all sorts of action films that give us beautiful people in beautiful locations wearing beautiful clothes - and blowing shit up a lot. So Bond has to be something different to remain - well - Bond. He has to be the same, but different. And bugger me sideways, but this is it. It's Bond, but different. And I loved it.