Post-Press Conference Mood

Given what we know about SF following the gala presser, what is your attitude to the film? Are you excited, hopeful? Are you filled with dread and foreboding? Or are you ambivalent?

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Given what we know about SF following the gala presser, what is your attitude to the film? Are you excited, hopeful? Are you filled with dread and foreboding? Or are you ambivalent?

I was feeling indecisive about Mendes involvement, but now I'm not so sure.

I'm guardedly optimistic about SKYFALL. I have a feeling that Mendes will be the factor that makes or breaks it. I just hope he's on top form and that he's watched TWINE and understands why it doesn't work. Watching the press conference, I was pleasantly surprised that he knows who John Glen is. Mendes seems genuinely enthusiastic and a true Bond fan, and doesn't give the impression that he feels the whole thing is beneath him and he's only doing it for a bit of a lark (and the money). If only he can recapture his AMERICAN BEAUTY form as a director, then we're onto a winner. Otherwise, we're probably looking at the Sebastian Faulks of the Eon series.

SKYFALL looks set to be the daddy of all "personal" Bond films. All the angst-ridden stuff involving Bond and M has been done to death. However, I'm greatly looking forward to seeing the performances of Bardem, Fiennes and Finney, as well as Roger Deakins' cinematography. Craig is a superb 007, of course. Also looking forward to seeing how China is used as a location, and intrigued by SKYFALL's apparent status as the Bond film that's set more within the United Kingdom than any other.

Loomis wrote:

intrigued by SKYFALL's apparent status as the Bond film that's set more within the United Kingdom than any other.

Hmmm. Shades of Fleming's Moonraker, perhaps?

Seeing the conference, rather than reading the transcript, did encourage me that Mendes is enthused and is keen to do a great Bond without obvious pretention....which is the foundation for me. I am unhappy at yet another 'personalisation' and emo element to the plot but again thats mainly because such elements haven't been handled well in the past, rather than they can't be made to work. Too bad Purvis and Wade are still on the job, divorced from Fleming their plotting and dialogue is generally inept but hopefully Logan/Mendes and cast will compensate/keep them in check.

Bad Bond films are rare and there's too much talent to think this will be one of them.....one of the best is possible rather than probable but in real terns that has to be viewed positively. All in all cautiously optimistic.

I dig the cast. I dig Mendes' enthusiasm. Not sure what to think about the story yet, but I do hope they execute M's involvement better than they have the last couple films.

Loomis wrote:

I have a feeling that Mendes will be the factor that makes or breaks it.

Yep.

Loomis wrote:

Watching the press conference, I was pleasantly surprised that he knows who John Glen is.

What did he say about Glen? (I didn't watch the conference.)

He was asked by one of the journalists on how he'll handle the action elements and then he says something to Wilson about how Campbell and Glen handled them. Something like that. Here's the transcript.

Quote :

Sam, traditionally Bond directors haven’t handled the action sequences, will you be hands-on in that respect?

Mendes: “Have you told Martin Campbell and John Glen that? I think they have! Traditionally they’re very hands-on, working in tandem with a great second-unit director, and I’m very lucky I’ve got a fantastic second-unit director Alex Witt, alongside Chris Corbould, who is the king of special effects, and Steve Begg on visual effects and Gary Powell, stunt coordinator, these are the people who, for me, it’s been a new experience to work with and it’s one of the reasons it’s been so exhilarating so far. That’s the world that’s new to me and I’ve embraced it because I’ve found it very fascinating, and it’s exciting. Alex [second-unit] director, he does a lot of that, it’s entirely part of the main body of the movie. It’s not that dominant, the action needs to co-exist with the drama. That’s the balance we have to strike.”

I suppose that being attached to this project for two years even during the hiatus Mendes spent some of his time digging himself into the history of the film series, at least I hope that's the case. It would be assuring that a Bond director does that, it eliminates that accusation by fans that Mendes believes he's "above the Bond films" or something when he actually does his homework.

Seem to be wavering between faint optimism and definite pessimism. Optimism at a better film than QOS (curiously I did like the title but the film not so much), good actors and thereby maybe good characters. Pessimism it'll be the same that it's been for ages. Insignificant soundtrack, stupid title song, Hulk-Bond etc. Naturally I'll go see it, maybe the mood will change as the months progress.

What was the last Bond film you enjoyed, Hilly?

The cast works. I'm just worried about some of the crew.

I thought the actual conference was quite dry and boring, though. We really didn't get much information, other than the standard, "I've been shooting guns and training." from the new Bond girls.

The title sucks, too. Along with the plot synopsis.

When we get some more information and a trailer, then maybe I'll be more excited.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

What was the last Bond film you enjoyed, Hilly?

probably Casino Royale. I seemed to be quite enthused after seeing it. Though nowadays I'm fairly critical. If you mean in the cinema, a year or so after CR, OHMSS.

Crumbs, judging by the question I'm becoming quite the sourpuss. :oops:

The reason I asked, Hilly, was because you said something about fearing SF will be the same Bond "we've had for ages." If I were that morose about the series I think I would have already tuned it out.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

The reason I asked, Hilly, was because you said something about fearing SF will be the same Bond "we've had for ages." If I were that morose about the series I think I would have already tuned it out.

Maybe I will one of these days. Maybe SkyFall will be a change for the better.

Harmsway wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Watching the press conference, I was pleasantly surprised that he knows who John Glen is.

What did he say about Glen? (I didn't watch the conference.)

There's an embedded Youtube video on page 7 of the press conference thread.

I'm mostly happy with the casting, but the synopsis left a very bad taste in my mouth.

I'm good ... but then again, I liked CR and really liked QOS. So what do I know?

I feel less excited, less of a rush than after similar events for CR and QOS. This film has been in planning for a very long time, we've already heard about everything that was announced, so all of that was just a cozy confirmation. However, I feel very optimistic that many of the faults of the previous few films will be fixed - and this time without going overboard in other departments. (Well... the casting of so many well-known actors may seem overboard, but I believe there will be good reason for each actor cast.)

Well, let's be honest, not a lot happened at that press conference. We got a very brief glimpse of characters, a title confirmation and....well...yeah, that's about it.

I am a huge Craig fan; I loved CR and liked QOS. (Although the more I think about QOS, the more I seem to want to dislike it. I'll have to watch it again soon....) The confirmation of certain elements at the press conference satisfied me, but alas, I wanted more. I remember at the QOS press conference, a few photos were released of the characters (I suppose because QOS was already filming, they could do this). Anyway, I did want more.

And as far as the title is concerned, 'Skyfall' has grown on me. It's the winner when compared to Quantum of Solace at least! (QOS just sounds like word vomit.) And compared to some other titles (Octopussy, anyone?), Skyfall really isn't all that bad. Is it the BEST Bond title? No. But it is for sure not the worst.

The phenomenal cast excites me and scares me at the same time. We've seen giant 'talent' fail massively (Halle Berry) and get thrown into garbage films (Christopher Walken in A View to a Kill, Robert Carlyle in The World Is Not Enough), so I'll try and stay cautiously optimistic. But really now, Javier Bardem has the potential to be the best Bond baddie ever.

When I first read the plot synopsis, I immediately thought of TWINE. It is a scary thought for sure, but I think Mendes is wise enough to look at TWINE and disown it from a creative standpoint. I have a lot of faith in Mendes, and being an Oscar winning director, I think he'll clean up some a lot of the issues Purvis & Wade will no doubt try and screw up.

Quote :

And compared to some other titles (Octopussy, anyone?), Skyfall really isn't all that bad.

Disagree there. OCTOPUSSY's got flair, weirdness and Bondian raciness to it that SKYFALL completely lacks. Even QUANTUM OF SOLACE had more going for it.

In the words of Armond White:

Quote :

"Quantum of Solace is worthy of the best Bond movie labels (From Russia With Love, Dr. No, Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice, Octopussy) because it transfers the series’ familiar sexual innuendo into droll morality."

http://www.nypress.com/article-18908-rough-trade.html

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

And compared to some other titles (Octopussy, anyone?), Skyfall really isn't all that bad.

Disagree there. OCTOPUSSY's got flair, weirdness and Bondian raciness to it that SKYFALL completely lacks. Even QUANTUM OF SOLACE had more going for it.

In the words of Armond White:

Quote :

"Quantum of Solace is worthy of the best Bond movie labels (From Russia With Love, Dr. No, Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice, Octopussy) because it transfers the series’ familiar sexual innuendo into droll morality."

http://www.nypress.com/article-18908-rough-trade.html

Octopussy is just bizarre to me, Especially considering the film is about jewelry smuggling and atomic bombs blowing up US air force bases. I think Skyfall, like GoldenEye, will be relevant and acceptable once we find out what it does with the plot. Yes, it does kind of sound like Gardner, but it has grown on me.

There are better titles out there for sure, and Skyfall is probably on my bottom half of film titles, but I still don't mind it much!

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Given what we know about SF following the gala presser, what is your attitude to the film? Are you excited, hopeful? Are you filled with dread and foreboding? Or are you ambivalent?

Ambivalent. I watched the news conference and there were elements that were highly annoying. There was this high school/we're the cool kids mood from the cast and crew (Mendes in partcular). I'm also tiring of some of the talking points. "The money will up there on the screen." (an old Cubby quote that Barbara Broccoli trots out repeatedly; she said the same of Quantum of Solace, which doesn't look like a $230 million movie). "Bond with a capital B." What does that mean, anyway. What's an example of a bond movie with a small b?

I remind myself you can't judge a movie that's not been made yet. Maybe it'll work out. I even finally bought (for $7.50) a Quantum of Solace DVD. I figured if I was going to keep criticizing it, I needed another look and not rely on three-year-old memories. So I'm not going to tear into Skyfall at such an early stage.