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

Perilagu Khan wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Looks like another bright and cheery Bond film.

Tell me about it, Tuxinator. Aside from the politicization, QOS' chief problem was an absence of wit and humor. I'm hoping both are rectified in SF, but I'm getting a crashingly serious vibe about SF so far.

Before CR the cry was for Bond to be more serious. I never wanted a serious Bond, I wanted a hard-edged Bond. Hopefully SKYFALL will simply be hard-edged, and not overly serious. The pictures worry me a little, but it's only the first set and from one sequence in the film.

Yes. There's no reason a film cannot be hard-edged and still humorous. LTK and OHMSS both pulled this off.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Yes. There's no reason a film cannot be hard-edged and still humorous. LTK and OHMSS both pulled this off.

Kinda.

FWIW, I find CASINO ROYALE a fairly humorous film.

Yeah, I have no problem with the level of humor in CR. I think they got it about right there. QOS is the one with which I have an issue.

Harmsway wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Yes. There's no reason a film cannot be hard-edged and still humorous. LTK and OHMSS both pulled this off.

Kinda.

And, FWIW, I find CASINO ROYALE a fairly humorous film.

I thought the humor was a flight of stairs up from where it had been. Until the litte fingers.

Harmsway wrote:

FWIW, I find CASINO ROYALE a fairly humorous film.

So do I, but for mostly for unintentional stuff. I burst out into a fit of laughter with the saccharine shower sucking sequence.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Yes. There's no reason a film cannot be hard-edged and still humorous. LTK and OHMSS both pulled this off.

DAF, TMWTGG and TB as well.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Just out of curisoity, where is this talk of a secret bunker coming from?

One of the Twitter pics before the press conference mentioned an "underground MI6 bunker set" at Pinewood.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Before CR the cry was for Bond to be more serious. I never wanted a serious Bond, I wanted a hard-edged Bond. Hopefully SKYFALL will simply be hard-edged, and not overly serious.

Agreed on that count. You can make Bond a lethal son of a bitch, as he should be, but there need not be D&M, soap operatic drama accompanying the character's ruthlessness. He may be a "thug in a dinner jacket" but he has nevertheless, traditionally, lived in a world of hedonism, zany characters, outlandish schemes and faced it all with a holster full of wit. Take that away from a James Bond movie and you're left with dreary pretension.

Sharky wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Just out of curisoity, where is this talk of a secret bunker coming from?

One of the Twitter pics before the press conference mentioned an "underground MI6 bunker set" at Pinewood.

No reed is too slender to grasp with both hands and weave a castle out of.

PS--"Holster Full of Wit"...I believe that was going to be one of the Leone/Eastwood westerns, but it got axed at the last moment.

CJB wrote:

He may be a "thug in a dinner jacket" but he has nevertheless, traditionally, lived in a world of hedonism, zany characters, outlandish schemes and faced it all with a holster full of wit.

I've always interpreted this as being Bond's way of escaping the reality that he is a killer. And I think that, with QUANTUM OF SOLACE, he is at the point where he is ready to do that; he understands that he needs some kind of release.

Doesn't look like he's getting much release so far, stuck with a big f*ck-off bandage round his head, four days of stubble looking like a scruffbag and having to share what looks like equal screentime with a 100-year old woman who is outdoors (f*ck, I just had a "Just get me out there" flashback moment...) and seemingly in the thick of the action and, as reported, the plot. Where Bond goes, she's never far away. This is getting beyond a joke. Who's the star of these films again? I just saw a trailer for GoldenEye Reloaded on TV. Guess who f*cking narrated it. Enough already. This just feels like more lazy-assed "shock tactic" M sh*t to try and cover up the lack of a great thriller plot as usual. This time it's personal, yeah right. It's been "personal" ever since Cubby left, it's worn thin to the point of boredom. Wonder who the traitor is in this one? I'm fast approaching not caring.

Great work with the photos though, LS.

For the last time, there's no fucking bandage!

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I've always interpreted this as being Bond's way of escaping the reality that he is a killer. And I think that, with QUANTUM OF SOLACE, he is at the point where he is ready to do that; he understands that he needs some kind of release.

Indeed, the hedonistic activities are a coping method. Bond knows he could have an assasin's bullet lodged in his temple by dawn every time he goes to bed. The high living is integral part of the character and I'd like to see a bit more of it in the next film. Fleming often slowed down a story so Bond (and the reader) could stop and smell the roses. It's harder to do that in what's meant to be an action film, but a couple of minutes without an explosion won't kill anyone (...literally).

When it comes to realism in Bond, I figure he inhabits our world, only a more glamourous, bizarre, and thrilling version.

CJB wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Before CR the cry was for Bond to be more serious. I never wanted a serious Bond, I wanted a hard-edged Bond. Hopefully SKYFALL will simply be hard-edged, and not overly serious.

Agreed on that count. You can make Bond a lethal son of a bitch, as he should be, but there need not be D&M, soap operatic drama accompanying the character's ruthlessness. He may be a "thug in a dinner jacket" but he has nevertheless, traditionally, lived in a world of hedonism, zany characters, outlandish schemes and faced it all with a holster full of wit. Take that away from a James Bond movie and you're left with dreary pretension.

Nicely put CJB. You know, SF can't likely be worse than QoS, on several fronts. So for that reason alone, I'm finding myself, at the very least, looking forward to this new Bond-like adventure. It seems it won't be GF or TB, but by Babs/Craig-era standards it could be quite watchable and exciting. The drama-pretension and other more serious hallmarks of the CR-and-beyond "path" (as referenced by MGW) may continue for a while. I don't expect a lighter approach until we have a new actor.

CJB wrote:

Indeed, the hedonistic activities are a coping method. Bond knows he could have an assasin's bullet lodged in his temple by dawn every time he goes to bed.

This, I think, was one of the key problems with the Age of Brosnan - he was a playboy who occasionally had to kill someone, rather than a killer with a cause who needed a coping method (though not so much in GOLDENEYE). I also felt that way about George Lazenby, particularly in the way he paid Tracy's debt and when he seduced each of the Angels of Death (mission? What mission?).

I think the hedonism is the natural extension of the development in CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Bond now knows that he has to keep his emotions out of his work. He knows that he cannot have a lasting relationship with a woman because it will give his enemies a way to get to him. And he knows that, at the same time, he cannot keep everything bottled up inside. As new age-y as that last statement sounds, it rings true. Bond needs his coping mechanism. We saw the beginnings of it when he upgraded his accomodation in Bolivia for no other than "because I can", and I think we're seeing it in the locations in particular - Bond isn't trawling through Madagascar and Bolivia this time. He's going to Istanbul (which is about as exotic a city as there is in this world), to Shanghai (the most-developed city in China) and to Scotland (admittedly, not so glamourous in comparions, but it involves a castle!). Yes, there's also a grubby-looking public toilet, but I think this will be connected to the secret bunker in London and is deliberately made to look dank and dingy.

tiffanywint wrote:

You know, SF can't likely be worse than QoS

With M's personal sh*t as a major plot point and a big pile of Oscar luvvies just waiting to make this yet another failed attempt to integrate "emotional drama" into Bond at the hands of the two worst writers to ever set foot into the franchise, I'll wager that I'll ultimately take the probably less-pussified QOS anyday of the week over SF once the dust has settled and people have stopped creaming over a few photos, many of which merely confirm the fears of not only myself but many others here if recent opinions on current Bond are anything to go by. Don't let the excitement make you condone where all of this is heading. Politics, female equality, luvvies and award ceremony cred are Bond's ways now (though the dickheads still haven't twigged that all of that sh*t don't mix with CGI and parkour). Bond's more machine now than man. This deal is getting worse all the time. Babs is his master now. The name Fleming no longer has any meaning for him. He's no good to me dead. Okay, I'll stop. But the guy's just a f*cking tool being puppeteered by political pretensionists (and I don't give a sh*t if that ain't even a word).

You can either protest to have Dench, Pervert & Waste, Arnold, politics, Bourne and f*cking parkour removed from this franchise or you can happily trot along blindly liking each film on release but not giving a sh*t about it three months later. Cubby had good taste in composers and writers which stopped that from happening back in the day, but seriously look at the worth the last few films have brought to the franchise as a whole just by going for the quick fix.

I know which road I'm taking: The road where George Lazenby drives his Aston to the strains of actual decent music, lights up a smoke, clocks a hot woman without giving a shit whether she's his equal or not, heads down a sandy road without the camera stopping to focus on a dripping-out tap before wasting a gang of hoods in a manner unique to Bond. And M has the good f*cking sense to sit in his office while the sh*t goes down.

It never ceases to amaze me that, for all your criticism of the direction the franchise has taked since OHMSS, you still keep waitching the films. Isn't the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"?

I'm curious to know why you are so sure that M's "personal sh*t" is taking centre stage. Because based on the synopsis, I'd say it's much more likely that her professional sh*t is what is going to rear its ugly little head.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I'm curious to know why you are so sure that M's "personal sh*t" is taking centre stage. Because based on the synopsis, I'd say it's much more likely that her professional sh*t is what is going to rear its ugly little head.

What's the difference? Her professional life is her personal life, hell she can't even go home without finding Bond having conveniently somehow broken into what should be the most secure home in London just to give her yet another excuse to ramble on about trust in some stagily-written amateur psychobabble pile of bullsh*t. And even when she's asleep in bed, she's interrupted by her job, or when she's putting on her makeup in the bathroom. What next? Will we see her having sex with her husband but shouting Bond's name out by mistake? And she looks bloody ancient in those set photos. If it were any other actress, she'd have been canned three films ago. But Dench is a key part to Babs' misguided quest for "dramatic and emotional credibility" and BAFTA/Oscar pipe dreams, so now we get a film where (smart move, look how sh*te TWINE was) her affairs seem to play a key part in the plot and she's out of her office yet again (YAWN).

BTW Shadow, what the hell were you given three warnings at MI6 for? I know they're giving them out like candy, but you might have already beaten my record of being given a warning every time I post.

I've been warned twice basically for posting here and not there, so watch your back over there mate. They don't seem to like people having the freedom to choose.

Lazenby. wrote:

What's the difference? Her professional life is her personal life, hell she can't even go home without finding Bond having conveniently somehow broken into what should be the most secure home in London just to give her yet another excuse to ramble on about trust in some stagily-written amateur psychobabble pile of bullsh*t.

What's to say this can't be a plot point? Albert Finney is supposedly playing a career politician who serves as M's boss - what if her ineffective leadership has attracted the attention of the Prime Minister and she's being discreetly audited?

Lazenby. wrote:

And even when she's asleep in bed, she's interrupted by her job, or when she's putting on her makeup in the bathroom.

She was interrupted because she needs to be - both times were major developments in ongoing cases; Bond had a lead on the bomber in Madagascar, and identified a network of powerful people manipulating global events. What's she supposed so say? "Screw you, Villiers. Someone might have just set off a nuclear device in <enter location here>, but if I come in to the office, the roast will burn. Deal with it on your own time."? She's the head of an intelligence organisation - being on-call at ungodly hours is a part of her job.

CJB wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Before CR the cry was for Bond to be more serious. I never wanted a serious Bond, I wanted a hard-edged Bond. Hopefully SKYFALL will simply be hard-edged, and not overly serious.

Agreed on that count. You can make Bond a lethal son of a bitch, as he should be, but there need not be D&M, soap operatic drama accompanying the character's ruthlessness. He may be a "thug in a dinner jacket" but he has nevertheless, traditionally, lived in a world of hedonism, zany characters, outlandish schemes and faced it all with a holster full of wit. Take that away from a James Bond movie and you're left with dreary pretension.

And puts you squarely where every other action cypher sits, the unique genre that Bond was/is comes from much more than just the one central character its about the whole approach to the story & character. Bond isn't personally invested every time, more often than not he is that curiosity of being an 'antagonist hero' but it's the structure and presentation of people and events around him that really come together to make, what should be an anachronism, work.

Harmsway wrote:

FWIW, I find CASINO ROYALE a fairly humorous film.

Yeah, Dan running through walls and Eva's accent had me in stitches. Good job I was carrying a defib in the glovebox.

I'm liking the Breaking the Ice avatar Amblerus. Robert Hales is a talented SOB.

Lazenby. wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

You know, SF can't likely be worse than QoS

With M's personal sh*t as a major plot point and a big pile of Oscar luvvies just waiting to make this yet another failed attempt to integrate "emotional drama" into Bond at the hands of the two worst writers to ever set foot into the franchise, I'll wager that I'll ultimately take the probably less-pussified QOS anyday of the week over SF once the dust has settled and people have stopped creaming over a few photos, many of which merely confirm the fears of not only myself but many others here if recent opinions on current Bond are anything to go by. Don't let the excitement make you condone where all of this is heading. Politics, female equality, luvvies and award ceremony cred are Bond's ways now (though the dickheads still haven't twigged that all of that sh*t don't mix with CGI and parkour). Bond's more machine now than man. This deal is getting worse all the time. Babs is his master now. The name Fleming no longer has any meaning for him. He's no good to me dead. Okay, I'll stop. But the guy's just a f*cking tool being puppeteered by political pretensionists (and I don't give a sh*t if that ain't even a word).

You can either protest to have Dench, Pervert & Waste, Arnold, politics, Bourne and f*cking parkour removed from this franchise or you can happily trot along blindly liking each film on release but not giving a sh*t about it three months later. Cubby had good taste in composers and writers which stopped that from happening back in the day, but seriously look at the worth the last few films have brought to the franchise as a whole just by going for the quick fix.

I know which road I'm taking: The road where George Lazenby drives his Aston to the strains of actual decent music, lights up a smoke, clocks a hot woman without giving a shit whether she's his equal or not, heads down a sandy road without the camera stopping to focus on a dripping-out tap before wasting a gang of hoods in a manner unique to Bond. And M has the good f*cking sense to sit in his office while the sh*t goes down.

To be fair, Dench has said that the plot synopsis about "M's past coming back to haunt her" isn't accurate. I believe it was in one of the post-conference interviews Sharky posted. I wouldn't get too excited about a two-sentence synopsis that was probably written by some fresh-out-of-college marketing major who has no idea what the film's about.

Also, Mendes has said that Bond films are for the audience and not the Oscars, and he intends to keep it that way.

It's important to realize that Bond is a product of his time.The world has changed, and we don't live in that time anymore. That's just the way it is. And that's why it's unfortunate that the producers didn't come to realize this and reboot Bond back to the 50's/60's when they had the chance.

dr. strangelove wrote:

I wouldn't get too excited about a two-sentence synopsis that was probably written by some fresh-out-of-college marketing major who has no idea what the film's about.

More likely to be EON trying not to give anything away. We got a two sentence synopsis this time - but we got about four paragraphs for QUANTUM OF SOLACE.