The Blood stain is also on Bond's shirt whilst fighting on top
of the train before going into the tunnel.
On the trailer when it says two survivors, it cuts to a prison
cell type set with M standing by a Prisioner, Is this Silva
or someone else MI6 have ?
Also I keep missing a Line from Finnes when he says to Bond
about staying Dead, It sounds to me something like
"There's no shame in saying you've lost a stone "
Is he getting a dig in about an Old injury from Casino Royale
we've never been told about. :v
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I was actually surprised how different the two versions of the trailer are. For anyone who hasn't, I would recommend watching them both.
Anyway, after Silva says "two survivors" he then says "this is what she made us". So it does appear that Silva has some connection to M and maybe even Mi6.
Also at the very end, there is a shot of what appears to be Silva (in a police uniform) pointing a gun and having a clear shot at M. Most likely something will get in the way and stop it, or it could be that M actually dies. If that were the case, then the London Bond/Silva chase sequence would most likely have to be near the end, which I don't think it is, but it could be.
The Blood stain is also on Bond's shirt whilst fighting on top
of the train before going into the tunnel.
On the trailer when it says two survivors, it cuts to a prison
cell type set with M standing by a Prisioner, Is this Silva
or someone else MI6 have ?
Also I keep missing a Line from Finnes when he says to Bond
about staying Dead, It sounds to me something like
"There's no shame in saying you've lost a stone "
Is he getting a dig in about an Old injury from Casino Royale
we've never been told about. :v
I think he says "there no shame in saying you lost a step", Referring to the fact that Bond has lost some of his ability (as it then shows his aim is off in the next shot).
Trailer looks good; cannot wait for the movie. Noticed two things;
1. When Bond is in the car gripping his new PPK, the car is a Mercedes S-Class; possibly a S500. Far cry from an Aston Martin DBS, Virage or the new Vanquish.
2. Then scene when we see Q facing a bank of computer screens, I noticed on his desk a coffee mug with the scrabble letter "Q" and its scrabble value.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I'm just about as excited as I could be. But I must say...it's still that moment, when Bond adjusts his cuff, that has me riveted.
Ladies and gents, I think we're in for something special :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,707MI6 Agent
Also at the very end, there is a shot of what appears to be Silva (in a police uniform) pointing a gun and having a clear shot at M. Most likely something will get in the way and stop it, or it could be that M actually dies. If that were the case, then the London Bond/Silva chase sequence would most likely have to be near the end, which I don't think it is, but it could be.
It could also be edited that way to increase hype. People could be saying "Oh my god....M might get shot by the bad guy." This could be two different shots from different parts in the movie. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Also at the very end, there is a shot of what appears to be Silva (in a police uniform) pointing a gun and having a clear shot at M. Most likely something will get in the way and stop it, or it could be that M actually dies. If that were the case, then the London Bond/Silva chase sequence would most likely have to be near the end, which I don't think it is, but it could be.
It could also be edited that way to increase hype. People could be saying "Oh my god....M might get shot by the bad guy." This could be two different shots from different parts in the movie. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
True, and it probably is the case. I only brought it up though because based on the background, it appears that they are in the same room in both shots.
Already mentiond before, but shoule we start a thread to discuss the similarities between TMWTG novel and SKYFALL.
Even the tall villain in white linen reminds me of Scaramanga. Blonde mop instead of red, but I feel this could be awesome if they are borrowing from bits of novels not already used.
The Blood stain is also on Bond's shirt whilst fighting on top
of the train before going into the tunnel.
On the trailer when it says two survivors, it cuts to a prison
cell type set with M standing by a Prisioner, Is this Silva
or someone else MI6 have ?
Also I keep missing a Line from Finnes when he says to Bond
about staying Dead, It sounds to me something like
"There's no shame in saying you've lost a stone "
Is he getting a dig in about an Old injury from Casino Royale
we've never been told about. :v
I think he says "there no shame in saying you lost a step", Referring to the fact that Bond has lost some of his ability (as it then shows his aim is off in the next shot).
I'm with TP, sounds like Messery - sorry, Mallory - says "you've lost a stone".
Wonder if this is a sophisticated dig at the fact that the slimmed down Craig of SKYFALL is not the 'roided meathead of CR?
Or maybe it's a 50th Anniversay in-joke about DC being the smallest of the Bonds.... )
I think the trailer looks fantastic. We also get some answers and new questions. I suppose the shot where Bond gets shot off the train and into the water leads into the title sequence. We also learns why Bond has a beard in some scenes. Why is the room where Bond and Silva meet full of circuit boards, is it just a new way of shooting a computer? I am relived after seeing the new scenes with Q. After seeing the last trailer I feared the new Q might turn out to be just a computer nerd, but the new gun is just the type of gadget I hoped Q would work with. The scene where 007 jumps into the very open train carriage is about as bondian as it gets :007)
The Blood stain is also on Bond's shirt whilst fighting on top
of the train before going into the tunnel.
On the trailer when it says two survivors, it cuts to a prison
cell type set with M standing by a Prisioner, Is this Silva
or someone else MI6 have ?
Also I keep missing a Line from Finnes when he says to Bond
about staying Dead, It sounds to me something like
"There's no shame in saying you've lost a stone "
Is he getting a dig in about an Old injury from Casino Royale
we've never been told about. :v
I think he says "there no shame in saying you lost a step", Referring to the fact that Bond has lost some of his ability (as it then shows his aim is off in the next shot).
I'm with TP, sounds like Messery - sorry, Mallory - says "you've lost a stone".
Wonder if this is a sophisticated dig at the fact that the slimmed down Craig of SKYFALL is not the 'roided meathead of CR?
Or maybe it's a 50th Anniversay in-joke about DC being the smallest of the Bonds.... )
I may be getting on a bit and the hearing is not what it was but I am with WordsAndDreams. I thought it was "stone" to begin with but now I am sure it is "step". The explanation for "step" is also more plausible.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Just noticed something in the trailer. When Bond tears the train car apart with the bulldozer and jumps in and adjusts his cuffs, you can see a bloodstain on his upper right side chest.
These two images were posted by our good friend Marketto007 on another forum. The first is from the International Trailer, the second from the US Domestic Trailer. Spot the difference.
Already mentiond before, but shoule we start a thread to discuss the similarities between TMWTG novel and SKYFALL.
Even the tall villain in white linen reminds me of Scaramanga. Blonde mop instead of red, but I feel this could be awesome if they are borrowing from bits of novels not already used.
Thoughts anyone?
I have to agree Strangeways, SKYFALL does seem to have a few similarities with both of Fleming's novels, YOLT and TMWTGG. It's interesting to see the possible links;
- Bond is shattered man and has gone to pieces as an agent and M sends him out on a near-impossible mission with a 'Castle of Death', ala YOLT.
- Bond is a disgraced agent and is sent by M on a mission that will most likely lead to his death, as 007 might be the next target Service agent on the hit-man Scaramanga's list, ala TMWTGG.
True, and it probably is the case. I only brought it up though because based on the background, it appears that they are in the same room in both shots.
Ah, but Bond is also in that room in a different section of the trailer, walking boldly in and firing the PPK twice to his right hand side (in the teaser trailer it coincides with the banging-music beat).
Besides, that's when Silva is dressed as a police officer and, and this is just an educated guess, Bond takes M on the run up to Glencoe from London, which I would imagine is toward the climax of the film.
james362001Lancaster, California USAPosts: 338MI6 Agent
That is the one scene I hate he most. Daniel Craig landing on his feet and adjusting his cuffs. It looks so stupid. I don't think even Roger Moore would do such a thing. Roger might fix his tie. If you're fighting, how can the cuffs stay on anyway.
I do like Daniel Craig falling from the Turkish train bridge.
I really like the outlandish bleached blond hair on Bardem. We need an over the top, creepy looking, scary, intimidating, psychotic madman, type villain that the audience believes can really do some damage.
Fleming nearly always gave his villains some physical oddity, so I don't have a problem
with Bardems Blonde hair, and I glad they are bringing back some of the little Bond
touches as in fixing his cufflinks. I even Like the New Q what little I've seen they've
kept some of the banter betwen them.
All In all, Even though I've not been the biggest fan of the reboot or indeed Craig. I'm
looking forward to Skyfall, as ( to me at least ) they've fixed some of the problems I've
been bitching about ( glad they listened ) )
Even the sets look cool, I wasn't sure what to think when the first clapperboard shots
were released, but from the trailer they look good.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
james362001Lancaster, California USAPosts: 338MI6 Agent
Some other things I don't like about SKYFALL already is Javier Bardem wearing a blond wig as "Raoul Silva". I would have preferred Javier with his thick, dark hair looking sexy and suave, but yet evil. I think they are trying to imitate the character of "Zorin" from A View To A Kill (1985).
The villain, Silva sitting in a see-through cell? Is this idea from Hannibal Lecter, "Silence of the Lambs"?
Please don't let a James Bond movie look like an NBC Saturday Night Live sketch.
On the other side of the coin, I hope this movie "kick's-ass". I really want this to be the best Bond film we haven't seen in a long time. Trust me 3 to 4 years is really too long to wait for a Bond film. We are all getting older.
I think Skyfall movie trailer #2 showed why too much. I don't want this movie to be too predictable.
I already see one "Q" gadget gun that was used by Timothy Dalton in Licence To Kill (1989).
If Judi Dench is given alot of action scenes, I will like it. If the stunts are breath-taking, I will like it. If some scenes are exotic, I will like it.
If they have any surprise cameo appearances, I will like it.
Whether the movie is good or bad, God-willing, I will see it on the first day, if it is not a work day or sleep day. (Sleep, what is that).
Who else plans on seeing SKYFALL on the first day or as soon as they possibly can in the movie theater?
I’m sorry, I just can’t share the premature enthusiasm for the film everyone is displaying here. I can imagine the same level of enthusiasm when you all saw the trailer for QoS. )
The trailer looks just like any other for any run-of-the-mill contemporary action thriller. And the synthesised music used in it is awful. I hope that’s not the actual soundtrack.
It looks like it could be the sort of film that only someone who hadn’t seen other Bond films would say was good.
You really are a little ray of light aren't you?! 8-) Whilst I fully respect your views (along with those of every other poster here), the more I read of your posts - I'm thinking your very negatively titled thread elsewhere in the forum in particular - make me suspect that you are definitely a WUM. By all means express your doubts and of course in life we are all different, but at least try to put some meat on the bone as to why this is merely a"run-of-the-mill" movie. How you can deduce this from a collection of the briefest snippets that form a trailer is beyond me. What is it you want to see in this trailer? What is so wrong in the trailers that have been released? Is Craig your problem? Are you wanting ridiculously cheesy lines and outrageous stunts to form the mainstay of the piece?
Would genuinely like to hear your reasons and thoughts please, so that I can get an understanding as to where you're really coming from.
True, and it probably is the case. I only brought it up though because based on the background, it appears that they are in the same room in both shots.
Ah, but Bond is also in that room in a different section of the trailer, walking boldly in and firing the PPK twice to his right hand side (in the teaser trailer it coincides with the banging-music beat).
Speculation on my part based on photo's and the trailers. Silva is in the room with at least one of his henchmen, also disguised as a police officer. Who is seen crouched down behind Silva as he points his gun at M. Bond and Mallory are also in the room with guns aimed at Silva. There is a stand off. This could be where Silva is captured because we know from the trailer that he is confined like Hannibal Lecter at one point.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
I’m sorry, I just can’t share the premature enthusiasm for the film everyone is displaying here. I can imagine the same level of enthusiasm when you all saw the trailer for QoS. )
The trailer looks just like any other for any run-of-the-mill contemporary action thriller. And the synthesised music used in it is awful. I hope that’s not the actual soundtrack.
It looks like it could be the sort of film that only someone who hadn’t seen other Bond films would say was good.
You really are a little ray of light aren't you?! 8-) Whilst I fully respect your views (along with those of every other poster here), the more I read of your posts - I'm thinking your very negatively titled thread elsewhere in the forum in particular - make me suspect that you are definitely a WUM. By all means express your doubts and of course in life we are all different, but at least try to put some meat on the bone as to why this is merely a"run-of-the-mill" movie. How you can deduce this from a collection of the briefest snippets that form a trailer is beyond me. What is it you want to see in this trailer? What is so wrong in the trailers that have been released? Is Craig your problem? Are you wanting ridiculously cheesy lines and outrageous stunts to form the mainstay of the piece?
Would genuinely like to hear your reasons and thoughts please, so that I can get an understanding as to where you're really coming from.
I just think it looks like a trailer for any other action film out these days.
When you say “How you can deduce this from a collection of the briefest snippets that form a trailer is beyond me.” I could ask the same to those who think the film is going to be great based on the same trailer.
I would like to see a trailer with more Bond elements like the trailers for the 1970s and 1980s Bond films.
I don’t know what the average age group is of the people here who like the reboot, but I’m guessing it is from around 20 to 30. If so, then they wouldn’t be able to relate to the same cinematic experiences that I had growing up with the Bond films in the 70s. Such films were an “event” shown in the summer, and everyone saw them, whether they were Bond fans or not.
I’ve nothing against Craig as Bond. My problem is with the way the films have rebooted Bond. I wouldn’t mind if the reboot was to make the films more faithful to the novels, but it seems to me that the reboot is mainly to attract Bourne fans.
I don’t know what the average age group is of the people here who like the reboot, but I’m guessing it is from around 20 to 30. If so, then they wouldn’t be able to relate to the same cinematic experiences that I had growing up with the Bond films in the 70s. Such films were an “event” shown in the summer, and everyone saw them, whether they were Bond fans or not.
I’ve nothing against Craig as Bond. My problem is with the way the films have rebooted Bond. I wouldn’t mind if the reboot was to make the films more faithful to the novels, but it seems to me that the reboot is mainly to attract Bourne fans.
47 here, mate.
Grew up with you - probably ahead of you? - in the 70s and the Roger Moore films were ****.
More power to Craig-Bond, I say (though TD still pisses 'im )
I don’t know what the average age group is of the people here who like the reboot, but I’m guessing it is from around 20 to 30. If so, then they wouldn’t be able to relate to the same cinematic experiences that I had growing up with the Bond films in the 70s. Such films were an “event” shown in the summer, and everyone saw them, whether they were Bond fans or not.
I’ve nothing against Craig as Bond. My problem is with the way the films have rebooted Bond. I wouldn’t mind if the reboot was to make the films more faithful to the novels, but it seems to me that the reboot is mainly to attract Bourne fans.
47 here, mate.
Grew up with you - probably ahead of you? - in the 70s and the Roger Moore films were ****.
More power to Craig-Bond, I say (though TD still pisses 'im )
I never said Moore’s films were good. I was talking about the way the trailers then were more effective in showcasing Bond films.
I’ve nothing against Craig as Bond. My problem is with the way the films have rebooted Bond. I wouldn’t mind if the reboot was to make the films more faithful to the novels, but it seems to me that the reboot is mainly to attract Bourne fans.
Osris
I 100% respect your opinion however what direction would you have taken the reboot in?? You have got to admit the Bronan era needed to be changed, it was stale and clearly running out of ideas (hence things like the invisible car creeping in) and with the Austin Powers thing in the late 90s the Bond franchise really needed a clear change of direction.
Anyhow - would seriously like to know what you would have done to change things?? I think 007 needed to be rawer and tougher to refresh things in this current era even if temporary just for DC's tenure
Although QoS is weak and flawed you can't fault Casino Royale and the critical acclaim for that film showed EON pulled off the right move in my opinion, that violent opening sequence was the first time I was excited as a fan for many a year. As a Bond fan who grew up watching Moore I actually fell out of love with Bond films for many years until I watched Casino Royale, I went to see all the films still however it became tedious watching Brosnan (a great Bond in my opinion who deserved a better script) playing out Bond in films that got more weaker in succession.
I’ve nothing against Craig as Bond. My problem is with the way the films have rebooted Bond. I wouldn’t mind if the reboot was to make the films more faithful to the novels, but it seems to me that the reboot is mainly to attract Bourne fans.
Osris
I 100% respect your opinion however what direction would you have taken the reboot in?? You have got to admit the Bronan era needed to be changed, it was stale and clearly running out of ideas (hence things like the invisible car creeping in) and with the Austin Powers thing in the late 90s the Bond franchise really needed a clear change of direction.
Anyhow - would seriously like to know what you would have done to change things?? I think 007 needed to be rawer and tougher to refresh things in this current era even if temporary just for DC's tenure
Although QoS is weak and flawed you can't fault Casino Royale and the critical acclaim for that film showed EON pulled off the right move in my opinion, as a Bond fan who grew up watching Moore I actually fell out of love with Bond films for many years until I watched Casino Royale, I went to see all the films still however it became tedious watching Brosnan (a great Bond in my opinion who deserved a better script) playing out Bond in films that got more weaker in succession.
I agree, the Brosnan era wasn’t too good. For me, this was because he seemed effete and more like a male hairstylist or male model than a secret agent.
A reboot of some sort was definitely needed, though. If I had had a hand in it, I would have gone back to the OHMSS era, and made all the subsequent films in that style and with that attitude, which for me had the right balance of humour, seriousness and escapism. Here are my suggestions:
1) I would keep M out of the major part of the storylines, unlike what has happened to M since GoldenEye. M is only meant to give Bond his assignments not help him with them.
2) I would keep Q as a humourless self-serious middle-aged geek.
3) I would reintroduce some of the playful “sexism” with Bond bedding more than one woman in each film.
4) I would choreograph the fight scenes so that they didn’t try to copy Bourne or the predominant fighting style in most action films these days, which is too stagy and not “messy” like they were in, for example, FRWL.
5) I would take a more leisurely approach with the camera shots, especially when introducing the glamorous locales, which in the current Bond films are barely noticed.
6) I would keep Arnold as composer, even though he isn’t as good as Barry.
7) I would have some gadgets, but only those that were logical for Bond to need on a particular assignment, such as was the case in FRWL
8) I would keep Craig, but tell him to be more suave, ditch his overly bouncer-like walk, and reduce his overly muscular physique to Connery levels. I’d also get him to vary his vocal expressions and delivery.
There are probably more things I can think of given time.
I saw the short scene where Bond "enjoys being dead" and I had to thoughts:
- No other Bond would have a scene like that.
- Bond should be shown seducing a woman while being "dead". She should not die, but she will never be seen again. Just Bond enjoying being a stiff :007)
I agree, the Brosnan era wasn’t too good. For me, this was because he seemed effete and more like a male hairstylist or male model than a secret agent.
A reboot of some sort was definitely needed, though. If I had had a hand in it, I would have gone back to the OHMSS era, and made all the subsequent films in that style and with that attitude, which for me had the right balance of humour, seriousness and escapism. Here are my suggestions:
1) I would keep M out of the major part of the storylines, unlike what has happened to M since GoldenEye. M is only meant to give Bond his assignments not help him with them.
2) I would keep Q as a humourless self-serious middle-aged geek.
3) I would reintroduce some of the playful “sexism” with Bond bedding more than one woman in each film.
4) I would choreograph the fight scenes so that they didn’t try to copy Bourne or the predominant fighting style in most action films these days, which is too stagy and not “messy” like they were in, for example, FRWL.
5) I would take a more leisurely approach with the camera shots, especially when introducing the glamorous locales, which in the current Bond films are barely noticed.
6) I would keep Arnold as composer, even though he isn’t as good as Barry.
7) I would have some gadgets, but only those that were logical for Bond to need on a particular assignment, such as was the case in FRWL
8) I would keep Craig, but tell him to be more suave, ditch his overly bouncer-like walk, and reduce his overly muscular physique to Connery levels. I’d also get him to vary his vocal expressions and delivery.
There are probably more things I can think of given time.
Hi, long-time lurker here, first post.
If I may, I just wanted to say that I think the word I would use to describe what may be missing in the reboot is: "gentleman". I am a huge Craig-Bond fan, and as much as I love CR and like QoS, I think SF appears so far as if it will once again miss slightly the "suave" aspect that Bond is synonymous with.
Stopping to adjust your cuffs in the midst of such violent commotion is cool, but not if your scowl makes you look more Transporter than Bond. When Brossa climbs in through the clinic window picking up a grape to sample en route, he doesn't look like he wants to beat everyone around to a bloody pulp (DAD's and Brossa's other demerits notwithstanding). Craig just hasn't lost the scowl he gained in QoS. The last scene in CR completely set up Craig to play the suave, refined, charming Bond we all want to be ourselves (admit it!), but it was almost entirely absent in the darker parts of QoS and I still don't see that in him from the trailers for SF. Isn't the entire point of Bond that he is a gentleman with a wry grin and twinkle in his eye even in the face of extreme danger, not just in the light-hearted moments? The last time I saw it was the CR torture scene.
Even when he says "Bond, James Bond" in the international trailer for SF, doesn't he look like he's, at worst, about to pummel her into obedience, or, at best, a bit offended by the conversation?
The SF references to Bonds Past are lovely and very welcome but in general this reboot seems to be consistently making this ONE mistake, much like the Brosnan series consistently steered the films towards discredit. Just my opinion, from a huge huge Craig-Bond fan.
I agree, the Brosnan era wasn’t too good. For me, this was because he seemed effete and more like a male hairstylist or male model than a secret agent.
A reboot of some sort was definitely needed, though. If I had had a hand in it, I would have gone back to the OHMSS era, and made all the subsequent films in that style and with that attitude, which for me had the right balance of humour, seriousness and escapism. Here are my suggestions:
1) I would keep M out of the major part of the storylines, unlike what has happened to M since GoldenEye. M is only meant to give Bond his assignments not help him with them.
2) I would keep Q as a humourless self-serious middle-aged geek.
3) I would reintroduce some of the playful “sexism” with Bond bedding more than one woman in each film.
4) I would choreograph the fight scenes so that they didn’t try to copy Bourne or the predominant fighting style in most action films these days, which is too stagy and not “messy” like they were in, for example, FRWL.
5) I would take a more leisurely approach with the camera shots, especially when introducing the glamorous locales, which in the current Bond films are barely noticed.
6) I would keep Arnold as composer, even though he isn’t as good as Barry.
7) I would have some gadgets, but only those that were logical for Bond to need on a particular assignment, such as was the case in FRWL
8) I would keep Craig, but tell him to be more suave, ditch his overly bouncer-like walk, and reduce his overly muscular physique to Connery levels. I’d also get him to vary his vocal expressions and delivery.
There are probably more things I can think of given time.
Hi, long-time lurker here, first post.
If I may, I just wanted to say that I think the word I would use to describe what may be missing in the reboot is: "gentleman". I am a huge Craig-Bond fan, and as much as I love CR and like QoS, I think SF appears so far as if it will once again miss slightly the "suave" aspect that Bond is synonymous with.
Stopping to adjust your cuffs in the midst of such violent commotion is cool, but not if your scowl makes you look more Transporter than Bond. When Brossa climbs in through the clinic window picking up a grape to sample en route, he doesn't look like he wants to beat everyone around to a bloody pulp (DAD's and Brossa's other demerits notwithstanding). Craig just hasn't lost the scowl he gained in QoS. The last scene in CR completely set up Craig to play the suave, refined, charming Bond we all want to be ourselves (admit it!), but it was almost entirely absent in the darker parts of QoS and I still don't see that in him from the trailers for SF. Isn't the entire point of Bond that he is a gentleman with a wry grin and twinkle in his eye even in the face of extreme danger, not just in the light-hearted moments? The last time I saw it was the CR torture scene.
Even when he says "Bond, James Bond" in the international trailer for SF, doesn't he look like he's, at worst, about to pummel her into obedience, or, at best, a bit offended by the conversation?
The SF references to Bonds Past are lovely and very welcome but in general this reboot seems to be consistently making this ONE mistake, much like the Brosnan series consistently steered the films towards discredit. Just my opinion, from a huge huge Craig-Bond fan.
Yes, Bond is first and foremost a gentleman. This is what distinguishes him from all other action heroes. To lose that is to lose what makes Bond unique. Craig did attempt something approaching suaveness in the train scene with Eva Green in CR, but it was short-lived.
Maybe the producers think that the young audience they are aiming the films at now will think being a gentleman is uncool. It wouldn’t surprise me. The films seem to be going towards a generic action film formula, rather than capitalising on Bond’s traditional unique selling points.
Comments
of the train before going into the tunnel.
On the trailer when it says two survivors, it cuts to a prison
cell type set with M standing by a Prisioner, Is this Silva
or someone else MI6 have ?
Also I keep missing a Line from Finnes when he says to Bond
about staying Dead, It sounds to me something like
"There's no shame in saying you've lost a stone "
Is he getting a dig in about an Old injury from Casino Royale
we've never been told about. :v
Anyway, after Silva says "two survivors" he then says "this is what she made us". So it does appear that Silva has some connection to M and maybe even Mi6.
Also at the very end, there is a shot of what appears to be Silva (in a police uniform) pointing a gun and having a clear shot at M. Most likely something will get in the way and stop it, or it could be that M actually dies. If that were the case, then the London Bond/Silva chase sequence would most likely have to be near the end, which I don't think it is, but it could be.
I think he says "there no shame in saying you lost a step", Referring to the fact that Bond has lost some of his ability (as it then shows his aim is off in the next shot).
1. When Bond is in the car gripping his new PPK, the car is a Mercedes S-Class; possibly a S500. Far cry from an Aston Martin DBS, Virage or the new Vanquish.
2. Then scene when we see Q facing a bank of computer screens, I noticed on his desk a coffee mug with the scrabble letter "Q" and its scrabble value.
Ladies and gents, I think we're in for something special :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It could also be edited that way to increase hype. People could be saying "Oh my god....M might get shot by the bad guy." This could be two different shots from different parts in the movie. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
True, and it probably is the case. I only brought it up though because based on the background, it appears that they are in the same room in both shots.
Even the tall villain in white linen reminds me of Scaramanga. Blonde mop instead of red, but I feel this could be awesome if they are borrowing from bits of novels not already used.
Thoughts anyone?
I'm with TP, sounds like Messery - sorry, Mallory
Wonder if this is a sophisticated dig at the fact that the slimmed down Craig of SKYFALL is not the 'roided meathead of CR?
Or maybe it's a 50th Anniversay in-joke about DC being the smallest of the Bonds....
I may be getting on a bit and the hearing is not what it was but I am with WordsAndDreams. I thought it was "stone" to begin with but now I am sure it is "step". The explanation for "step" is also more plausible.
These two images were posted by our good friend Marketto007 on another forum. The first is from the International Trailer, the second from the US Domestic Trailer. Spot the difference.
http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k542/jamesbondbrasil/cuf2_int.jpg
http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k542/jamesbondbrasil/cuf1_us.jpg
I have to agree Strangeways, SKYFALL does seem to have a few similarities with both of Fleming's novels, YOLT and TMWTGG. It's interesting to see the possible links;
- Bond is shattered man and has gone to pieces as an agent and M sends him out on a near-impossible mission with a 'Castle of Death', ala YOLT.
- Bond is a disgraced agent and is sent by M on a mission that will most likely lead to his death, as 007 might be the next target Service agent on the hit-man Scaramanga's list, ala TMWTGG.
Besides, that's when Silva is dressed as a police officer and, and this is just an educated guess, Bond takes M on the run up to Glencoe from London, which I would imagine is toward the climax of the film.
I do like Daniel Craig falling from the Turkish train bridge.
with Bardems Blonde hair, and I glad they are bringing back some of the little Bond
touches as in fixing his cufflinks. I even Like the New Q what little I've seen they've
kept some of the banter betwen them.
All In all, Even though I've not been the biggest fan of the reboot or indeed Craig. I'm
looking forward to Skyfall, as ( to me at least ) they've fixed some of the problems I've
been bitching about ( glad they listened )
Even the sets look cool, I wasn't sure what to think when the first clapperboard shots
were released, but from the trailer they look good.
The villain, Silva sitting in a see-through cell? Is this idea from Hannibal Lecter, "Silence of the Lambs"?
Please don't let a James Bond movie look like an NBC Saturday Night Live sketch.
On the other side of the coin, I hope this movie "kick's-ass". I really want this to be the best Bond film we haven't seen in a long time. Trust me 3 to 4 years is really too long to wait for a Bond film. We are all getting older.
I think Skyfall movie trailer #2 showed why too much. I don't want this movie to be too predictable.
I already see one "Q" gadget gun that was used by Timothy Dalton in Licence To Kill (1989).
If Judi Dench is given alot of action scenes, I will like it. If the stunts are breath-taking, I will like it. If some scenes are exotic, I will like it.
If they have any surprise cameo appearances, I will like it.
Whether the movie is good or bad, God-willing, I will see it on the first day, if it is not a work day or sleep day. (Sleep, what is that).
Who else plans on seeing SKYFALL on the first day or as soon as they possibly can in the movie theater?
You really are a little ray of light aren't you?! 8-) Whilst I fully respect your views (along with those of every other poster here), the more I read of your posts - I'm thinking your very negatively titled thread elsewhere in the forum in particular - make me suspect that you are definitely a WUM. By all means express your doubts and of course in life we are all different, but at least try to put some meat on the bone as to why this is merely a"run-of-the-mill" movie. How you can deduce this from a collection of the briefest snippets that form a trailer is beyond me. What is it you want to see in this trailer? What is so wrong in the trailers that have been released? Is Craig your problem? Are you wanting ridiculously cheesy lines and outrageous stunts to form the mainstay of the piece?
Would genuinely like to hear your reasons and thoughts please, so that I can get an understanding as to where you're really coming from.
Speculation on my part based on photo's and the trailers. Silva is in the room with at least one of his henchmen, also disguised as a police officer. Who is seen crouched down behind Silva as he points his gun at M. Bond and Mallory are also in the room with guns aimed at Silva. There is a stand off. This could be where Silva is captured because we know from the trailer that he is confined like Hannibal Lecter at one point.
I just think it looks like a trailer for any other action film out these days.
When you say “How you can deduce this from a collection of the briefest snippets that form a trailer is beyond me.” I could ask the same to those who think the film is going to be great based on the same trailer.
I would like to see a trailer with more Bond elements like the trailers for the 1970s and 1980s Bond films.
I don’t know what the average age group is of the people here who like the reboot, but I’m guessing it is from around 20 to 30. If so, then they wouldn’t be able to relate to the same cinematic experiences that I had growing up with the Bond films in the 70s. Such films were an “event” shown in the summer, and everyone saw them, whether they were Bond fans or not.
I’ve nothing against Craig as Bond. My problem is with the way the films have rebooted Bond. I wouldn’t mind if the reboot was to make the films more faithful to the novels, but it seems to me that the reboot is mainly to attract Bourne fans.
47 here, mate.
Grew up with you - probably ahead of you? - in the 70s and the Roger Moore films were ****.
More power to Craig-Bond, I say (though TD still pisses 'im
I never said Moore’s films were good. I was talking about the way the trailers then were more effective in showcasing Bond films.
Osris
I 100% respect your opinion however what direction would you have taken the reboot in?? You have got to admit the Bronan era needed to be changed, it was stale and clearly running out of ideas (hence things like the invisible car creeping in) and with the Austin Powers thing in the late 90s the Bond franchise really needed a clear change of direction.
Anyhow - would seriously like to know what you would have done to change things?? I think 007 needed to be rawer and tougher to refresh things in this current era even if temporary just for DC's tenure
Although QoS is weak and flawed you can't fault Casino Royale and the critical acclaim for that film showed EON pulled off the right move in my opinion, that violent opening sequence was the first time I was excited as a fan for many a year. As a Bond fan who grew up watching Moore I actually fell out of love with Bond films for many years until I watched Casino Royale, I went to see all the films still however it became tedious watching Brosnan (a great Bond in my opinion who deserved a better script) playing out Bond in films that got more weaker in succession.
But they were of their Time.
I agree, the Brosnan era wasn’t too good. For me, this was because he seemed effete and more like a male hairstylist or male model than a secret agent.
A reboot of some sort was definitely needed, though. If I had had a hand in it, I would have gone back to the OHMSS era, and made all the subsequent films in that style and with that attitude, which for me had the right balance of humour, seriousness and escapism. Here are my suggestions:
1) I would keep M out of the major part of the storylines, unlike what has happened to M since GoldenEye. M is only meant to give Bond his assignments not help him with them.
2) I would keep Q as a humourless self-serious middle-aged geek.
3) I would reintroduce some of the playful “sexism” with Bond bedding more than one woman in each film.
4) I would choreograph the fight scenes so that they didn’t try to copy Bourne or the predominant fighting style in most action films these days, which is too stagy and not “messy” like they were in, for example, FRWL.
5) I would take a more leisurely approach with the camera shots, especially when introducing the glamorous locales, which in the current Bond films are barely noticed.
6) I would keep Arnold as composer, even though he isn’t as good as Barry.
7) I would have some gadgets, but only those that were logical for Bond to need on a particular assignment, such as was the case in FRWL
8) I would keep Craig, but tell him to be more suave, ditch his overly bouncer-like walk, and reduce his overly muscular physique to Connery levels. I’d also get him to vary his vocal expressions and delivery.
There are probably more things I can think of given time.
- No other Bond would have a scene like that.
- Bond should be shown seducing a woman while being "dead". She should not die, but she will never be seen again. Just Bond enjoying being a stiff :007)
Hi, long-time lurker here, first post.
If I may, I just wanted to say that I think the word I would use to describe what may be missing in the reboot is: "gentleman". I am a huge Craig-Bond fan, and as much as I love CR and like QoS, I think SF appears so far as if it will once again miss slightly the "suave" aspect that Bond is synonymous with.
Stopping to adjust your cuffs in the midst of such violent commotion is cool, but not if your scowl makes you look more Transporter than Bond. When Brossa climbs in through the clinic window picking up a grape to sample en route, he doesn't look like he wants to beat everyone around to a bloody pulp (DAD's and Brossa's other demerits notwithstanding). Craig just hasn't lost the scowl he gained in QoS. The last scene in CR completely set up Craig to play the suave, refined, charming Bond we all want to be ourselves (admit it!), but it was almost entirely absent in the darker parts of QoS and I still don't see that in him from the trailers for SF. Isn't the entire point of Bond that he is a gentleman with a wry grin and twinkle in his eye even in the face of extreme danger, not just in the light-hearted moments? The last time I saw it was the CR torture scene.
Even when he says "Bond, James Bond" in the international trailer for SF, doesn't he look like he's, at worst, about to pummel her into obedience, or, at best, a bit offended by the conversation?
The SF references to Bonds Past are lovely and very welcome but in general this reboot seems to be consistently making this ONE mistake, much like the Brosnan series consistently steered the films towards discredit. Just my opinion, from a huge huge Craig-Bond fan.
Yes, Bond is first and foremost a gentleman. This is what distinguishes him from all other action heroes. To lose that is to lose what makes Bond unique. Craig did attempt something approaching suaveness in the train scene with Eva Green in CR, but it was short-lived.
Maybe the producers think that the young audience they are aiming the films at now will think being a gentleman is uncool. It wouldn’t surprise me. The films seem to be going towards a generic action film formula, rather than capitalising on Bond’s traditional unique selling points.