[Potential Spoilers] Official SKYFALL Photo Thread (Part I)

Vesper wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Yes, it's MI6, but there's some good stuff here:

http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/gallery/skyfall_london_jan2012d.php3?s=bond23&id=03058

He's starting to look a bit like Lois Maxwell in A View To A Kill. :suspect:

With shoulder pads?

And beefy wrestler arms?

http://screenmusings.org/AViewToAKill/pages/AVtaK_099.htm

*Craig crashes through a drywall*
Q: "He must use a lot of vitamins!"

What does the picture say?

That this film is supposed to be deep and stuff?

Or that this man is a preened, waxed, vain, sculpted gay nu-man with his arsecrack ready, waiting for his lover to join him in the pool?

And whatever the picture is supposed to say, just remember who wrote the script, remember that Dench plays a big part in it and that the first official photo speaks volumes about what the utterly deluded producer wishes these films were.

Case closed. Optimists for this must have binlids over their eyes. From the awful title down, this film has arsefuck written all over it in even bigger letters than that photo.

Completely agree Lazenby. No matter how optimistic I try to get, I keep reminding myself who's producing this.

Lazenby. wrote:

What does the picture say?

That this film is supposed to be deep and stuff?

Or that this man is a preened, waxed, vain, sculpted gay nu-man with his arsecrack ready, waiting for his lover to join him in the pool?

Think of it in terms of cinematography. The scene is lit from the pool, with most of the surrounds in shadow.

Lazenby. wrote:

And whatever the picture is supposed to say, just remember who wrote the script, remember that Dench plays a big part in it and that the first official photo speaks volumes about what the utterly deluded producer wishes these films were.

There is evidence to suggest that this is not an official photo at all, but a leak. Empire took the photo down within hours of posting it, and have made no comment or repost-since. Why would they do that?

I think you're automatically jumping to conclusions that this film will be bad. I'm willing to bet that if SKYFALL had been made at the height of Bernard Lee's tenure, you would have no problems with a plot revolving around his past actions. What of your dislike of Judi Dench as M proves to be a plot point? Ever since Craig's Bond was promoted to Double-Oh status, he's proven to be something of a liability: he shot up an embassy, was caught on camera executing a person of interest, lost $115 million from the poker tournament, failed to deliver Le Chiffre to the Americans, was implicated in the death of a Special Branch agent, ignored an order to return home, was implicated in the death of Rene Mathis, ignored another order to stand down, and probably half a dozen other violations that I've forgotten. Meanwhile, he has been the subject of no disciplinary action, and M ignored a direct order from the Prime Minister to reign Bond in (even if he had his reasons, he never provided proof of Greene's wrongdoing). What if SKYFALL directly addresses this, with someone like Albert Finney or Ralph Fiennes called in to do a review of MI6 because of M's failings as director? What if the film acknowledges your complaints about M and actually uses them as a reason to write her out of the films? Would you be complaining so much then?

Secondly, Purvis and Wade haven't alwys produced the best scripts, but they have been subject to constant rewrites. Case in point, TWINE. Two separate sets of dialogue were cut from early drafts. One was written by Purvis and Wade, the other by Bruce Feirstein. One of these was M telling Bond during his debriefing that "Despite what you might believe, Double-Oh Seven, the world is not full of hollowed-out volcanoes filled with big-breasted women" (it can be seen on the DVD extras), while the other was an exchange between Bond and Elektra during the torture chair sequence and was "What did my father tell you?" / "That daddy's little girl was insane". Would you care to take a guess as to who wrote each line? Feristein wrote the one about volcanoes and women's breasts (it was actually a hold-over from TOMORROW NEVER DIES), while the exchange about daddy's little girl was writte by Purvis and Wade. As has been well-documented, TWINE was constantly re-written (and even you have to admit that using a nuclear weapon to stage a meltdown in Istanbul and gain control of the West's oil supply is ingenious). I suspect DIE ANOTHER DAY was, too, because there's a few scenes that are unusually intelligent. CASINO ROYALE is probably the most-representative of their work, even if everyone credits "all the good bits" to Paul Haggis.

SKYFALL was written based on an idea conveiced by Peter Morgan. Morgan wrote the initial treatments with Purvis and Wade before leaving the project. Purvis and Wade began the scripts before John Logan was called in, and he worked with them on rewrites. So while this might sound like too many cooks spoiling the broth, the difference between SKYFALL and QUANTUM OF SOLACE is that SKYFALL has continuity between the stages of the script. The idea for QOS was dreamt up by Michael G. Wilson. Purvis and Wade wrote the story. Haggis wrote the script. Zetumer did the re-writes. At no stage was anyone involved in more than one part of the screenwriting process.

Lazenby. wrote:

Optimists for this must have binlids over their eyes.

And you don't? Observe:

Lazenby. wrote:

From the awful title down, this film has arsefuck written all over it in even bigger letters than that photo.

We've known the title for a while now. It was announced in November; the picture surfaced in January. You opinion on the title is one that you have obviously held for some time, and it's sp strongly worded that I believe you judged the picture before it had even been released. So I think it's hypocritical of you to accuse the optimists of having blinders on when you yourself have clearly been doing the same thing.

And pardon me if I am optimistic about it. I'd rather look forward to the film and be disappointed by it than to be full of dire predictions and get the I-told-you-so moment when proven right.

Sorry to link to MI6, but why is Bond wearing his little brother's suit? I know the hipsters like suit jackets that end at the waist and skinny ties but Bond looks his best when he's in his era's conservative business attire. Craig on the other hand will come to look like a 50 year old Roger Moore trying to rock bell-bottom pants.

I gotta say I don't see anything particularly "hipster" about his suit. That said, I'm American, so whatever you're getting at may be lost on me.

A good suit is like a good lawyer: it covers your arse.

Some hipsters like to wear overly short, tight jackets as well as skinny ties. This appears to be the yoof-oriented look they're going for, despite Craig approaching his mid forties.

That's Tom Ford for ya. The suits were too tight in QOS too.

Remember when Tom Ford thought he could direct a movie?

It's not a "hipster" suit. It's just finely fit.

I like 'em that way. If you have a nice physique, why not wear a suit that accentuates it? It's not like it's egregiously small.

Different strokes etc.

IMO it makes him look like a try-hard youngster. Suits don't have to be boxy, but they should man you up.

Brosnan's Brioni suits looked better I reckon:



It's not boxy and yet doesn't look like a skin-tight sweater, nor does the fabric run out prematurely.

Quote :

If you have a nice physique, why not wear a suit that accentuates it?

Connery didn't.

I'm really not understanding the complaint of the suit Craig is wearing in those pics. :|

CJB wrote:

Sorry to link to MI6, but why is Bond wearing his little brother's suit?

Hm, looks like he broke into M's flat again and stole one of her outfits.


My concern is Bond's hair-do. Makes him look like a New York State Trooper.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Remember when Tom Ford thought he could direct a movie?

Yeah, I remember falling asleep.

Pretty cinematography though.

The slim suits are supposed to be going out of style this year for something a bit looser (not 80s loose) and double breasted jackets I thought.

Don't mind the haircut in principle, I get something similar. But I also don't have a receding hairline.

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

If you have a nice physique, why not wear a suit that accentuates it?

Connery didn't.

Different eras, different styles.

Indeed. When was the last time Bond wore a fedora, let alone actually hold one?

Jack Wade wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

If you have a nice physique, why not wear a suit that accentuates it?

Connery didn't.

Different eras, different styles.

Connery's style is timeless (I'm talking about the suits alone here, not accessories such as trilby hats), and the looser cut doesn't date much either, compared to say the high collars and wide lapels of the 70s.

Sharky wrote:

Connery's style is timeless

Indeed. Sartorial precepts like covering your rump with fabric will outlast the passing trend of grown men wearing boys' suits.

Lazenby. wrote:

What does the picture say?

From the awful title down, this film has arsefuck written all over it in even bigger letters than that photo.

I found the excitemant about this movie based upon this picture a bit to homo-erotic too, but you put it really out there. :affraid:

Mmmm. I really enjoy the reposting of this image.

Thanks, boys

saint mark wrote:

I found the excitemant about this movie based upon this picture a bit to homo-erotic too, but you put it really out there. :affraid:

Interesting that you should find it homoerotic when nobody else has said that ...

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

saint mark wrote:

I found the excitemant about this movie based upon this picture a bit to homo-erotic too, but you put it really out there. :affraid:

Interesting that you should find it homoerotic when nobody else has said that ...

Somebody has to be the first. :*p*:

I'm afraid I have to agree. Like the infamous trunks shot in Casino Royale, this shot looks more befitting of a women's magazine than being representative of Bond. The visible 'arsecrack' lets us know in no uncertain terms that the franchise is in female hands and that Dan is perfectly happy to be their obedient bitch. I won't write the film off based on this of course, but I now fully understand many of the comments made by some fans after the 'Bond in a dress' ad last year in that Bond seems to be getting rather transparently steered into some areas which seem way too far from the masculinity we used to expect.