Not the whole of MI6, just M and the building. If M were killed she would simply be replaced with another M, as did eventually happen in SF; and the building would have been reconstructed and those few staff killed in the explosion replaced. Besides, MI6 will probably have a decentralised structure in case such an attack occurred. So the threat was not that great in comparison to the mass world genocide that was the threat in Moonraker.
No, in addition to the headquarters being blown up and the life of M being threatened, all of MI-6's undercover agents world wide had been compromised. They were either dead, captured or on the run. MI-6's computers and security systems had been fully penetrated and the government was prepared to shut down MI-6 entirely. I guess you missed those bits.
Also, Moonraker book or novel? In the novel it was one nuclear weapon aimed at London. In the movie "Moonraker" it was Dr. Noah, who turns out to be Sir James Bond's nephew Jimmy Bond planning to use biological warfare to make all women beautiful and kill all men over 4-foot-6-inches. Or maybe it was something else. All those James Bond spoofs run together.
London destroyed by a nuclear weapon or M killed—it doesn’t take a genius to see which is the bigger threat.
Spot on. This is exactly my problem with those sorts of Craig fans. It’s as if they have been brainwashed by the media which has elevated Craig to a saint-like status based probably on little more than relief that Brosnan is no longer playing the part.
This is the sort of comment which I find ridiculous, it does you NO credit 8-)
I think you'll find us Craig fans are generally kicking against the grain...most of you can't get past his looks - which makes you all VERY shallow people...and makes you 'blind' to his acting talents...and if you decide to check the 'media' out when Craig was introduced as Bond - you'll find the media being overly negative...something to which ALL you Craig-detractors have become 'brain-washed' to...
If you don't like DC - fine...I have no problem with that....but I do have a problem with the stupid comments that are trotted out...
I can certainly get passed Craig’s looks. Although I do think he’s miscast for the role, I rate him highly as an actor, which I have said many times in other threads. My reservations about his being cast for the part have little to do with the valid criticisms that many people in this thread have made regarding SF. What do you think of the film, by the way?
Not sure why not getting past Craig's looks should make one shallow exactly. But we are reading him different, for many Bond is the guy you aspire to be, so if you don't want to be like the leading actor, that could be a problem. It's different to other roles; I don't want to be Neeson's Schindler in that film, don't mind Craig in Layer Cake (though ironically he looks better in that than at any time as Bond) so if folk bitch about Brozzer being overweight at times, (almost obese in one non-Bond film) is that shallow too?
I do feel support for Craig is a bit like that for the London Olympics or the Royal Family. That said, when Henry Cavill did his turn last night, I did sort of think, well, he looks handsome alright but it's all a bit stiff and, after Craig, that won't be enough to bring to the table. He'll have to have an angle aside from benig good looking in a tux if he wants to be Bond (but maybe he doesn't any more, and it sort of hangs on Superman, which could nix it whether he's good or bad in the role).
Yes, I’ve also wondered why people who think Craig is miscast are called shallow. Would they be called shallow if they had misgivings about an extremely overweight actor being cast as Sherlock Holmes? An opinion about the physical unsuitability of an actor for a role based on a character whose physical appearance has been clearly described in a series of novels (as is the case with Bond) seems a perfectly reasonable opinion to me, and I fail to understand the hostility it arouses in some people.
Yes, I’ve also wondered why people who think Craig is miscast are called shallow. Would they be called shallow if they had misgivings about an extremely overweight actor being cast as Sherlock Holmes? An opinion about the physical unsuitability of an actor for a role based on a character whose physical appearance has been clearly described in a series of novels (as is the case with Bond) seems a perfectly reasonable opinion to me, and I fail to understand the hostility it arouses in some people.
I can't understand why people get so animated either tbh. All of the actors to date will have their fans & critics - that's life! I'd rather place greater emphasis upon how they act, undertake the stunts / action and carry the film off rather than focusing upon the other things as a primary means for criticism.
That being said & with apologies for being more than a tad naive, but other than the obvious trait of not having dark hair & with him being 5 foot 10 (ish), I'm interested to know how Craig is either miscast or physically unsuitable? I see both the bluntness and coldness in his portrayal, the blue-grey eyes, plenty of women consider him to be good lucking in a non-pretty boy kind of way (to me he looks fairly ruthless) and he's approximately the weight described in the novels.
It’s not his blondeness that makes it hard for me to accept him. Moore was hardly dark haired, especially after FYEO, and I had no problem with that. If another blond such as James Fox had played the role (were he young enough to; and in the seventies he would have been; and he looked liked Roger Moore then, too) I wouldn’t have minded that, either. So hair colour is not that big a deal for me.
But Craig just looks too much of a hard man, in the mould of, say, Charles Bronson. No doubt a real-life double 00 would need to be like that, but it is not the Bond I see when I read the books; that Bond is much more elegant, light-hearted and charming, albeit with moments of intensity and violence.
Craig needs to make his portrayal more rounded and balanced, which I’m sure he is capable of. That he hasn’t, might be because a decision has been made by the producers to make Bond a “hard case” in order to compete with the contemporary idea of an action hero as being rough round the edges.
I agree. Although I understand that for some it is a bit disconcerting that Craig's looks are noticeably different from the previous actors who portrayed Bond, I feel that sometimes too much emphasis is placed on his appearance. For me, the acting and believablilty of the actor is the primary issue, and in my opinion Craig more than adequately fills the bill. Admittedly it took some getting used to, but now I am fully sold on Craig as Bond and I look forward to his next outing.
Yes, I’ve also wondered why people who think Craig is miscast are called shallow. Would they be called shallow if they had misgivings about an extremely overweight actor being cast as Sherlock Holmes? An opinion about the physical unsuitability of an actor for a role based on a character whose physical appearance has been clearly described in a series of novels (as is the case with Bond) seems a perfectly reasonable opinion to me, and I fail to understand the hostility it arouses in some people.
I can't understand why people get so animated either tbh. All of the actors to date will have their fans & critics - that's life! I'd rather place greater emphasis upon how they act, undertake the stunts / action and carry the film off rather than focusing upon the other things as a primary means for criticism.
That being said & with apologies for being more than a tad naive, but other than the obvious trait of not having dark hair & with him being 5 foot 10 (ish), I'm interested to know how Craig is either miscast or physically unsuitable? I see both the bluntness and coldness in his portrayal, the blue-grey eyes, plenty of women consider him to be good lucking in a non-pretty boy kind of way (to me he looks fairly ruthless) and he's approximately the weight described in the novels.
I can see what you mean about getting used to Craig. It took me a little while to get used to Connery after only seeing the Moore films during most of the 1970s. The first Connery one I saw was Dr No, and his performance was so unlike Moore’s I was quite taken aback. So there is hope for Craig yet!
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
That being said & with apologies for being more than a tad naive, but other than the obvious trait of not having dark hair & with him being 5 foot 10 (ish), I'm interested to know how Craig is either miscast or physically unsuitable? I see both the bluntness and coldness in his portrayal, the blue-grey eyes, plenty of women consider him to be good lucking in a non-pretty boy kind of way (to me he looks fairly ruthless) and he's approximately the weight described in the novels.
Anway, yes, DC's blue-grey eyes are definitely the most close to the literary Bond's among the actors, but that's it...not that it's actually a deal breaker for the movie going audience at large. But to say that he's close to the weight described in the novels? Bond's physique in the book is closer to that of Brosnan, Lazenby and Dalton, though not as tall as them since he's supposed to be 6 feet even and all the other Bond actors except DC has exceeded that height. But as far as looks, has anyone seen Roger Moore in Sherlock Holmes in New York? That was difficult to accept!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
If there's one thing I've learned, through 50 years and six Bond actors, it's that each era has its champions and its slaggers. And the pendulum does swing to and fro, in terms of frivolity vs grittiness. I'm simply glad the old boy's still at it
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
As for my review, I've got it round here somewhere. I'll have to tweak it, as it was written essentially for non-Bond fans, and some of it would be quite rendundant here. But I'll put it up...and you'll likely not be surprised
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
That being said & with apologies for being more than a tad naive, but other than the obvious trait of not having dark hair & with him being 5 foot 10 (ish), I'm interested to know how Craig is either miscast or physically unsuitable? I see both the bluntness and coldness in his portrayal, the blue-grey eyes, plenty of women consider him to be good lucking in a non-pretty boy kind of way (to me he looks fairly ruthless) and he's approximately the weight described in the novels.
Anway, yes, DC's blue-grey eyes are definitely the most close to the literary Bond's among the actors, but that's it...not that it's actually a deal breaker for the movie going audience at large. But to say that he's close to the weight described in the novels? Bond's physique in the book is closer to that of Brosnan, Lazenby and Dalton, though not as tall as them since he's supposed to be 6 feet even and all the other Bond actors except DC has exceeded that height. But as far as looks, has anyone seen Roger Moore in Sherlock Holmes in New York? That was difficult to accept!
For me it's about gravitas. Bond is unlikely as an agent in as much as he tends to stand out in any crowd. Some of that is a function of his height, Fleming describes him as 'tall' in 1953 6 feet was considered tall. Nowadays it is not particularly so. I stand at 6'5 and notice that I am often no longer the tallest person in a room of young people. Bond cuts a swathe whereas DC tends to blend in. Also for me he tends to look more like the Doorman and lacks sophistication. Bond should be a mix of gentlemen and thug. That said, he is a fine actor, and his physicality is superb, and his commitment to the role is beyond question. He will never be 'my Bond', but he pulls it off despite these factors, and I am sure that if he chose he could exhibit more class and sophistication to balance his other fine qualities.
As for my review, I've got it round here somewhere. I'll have to tweak it, as it was written essentially for non-Bond fans, and some of it would be quite rendundant here. But I'll put it up...and you'll likely not be surprised
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, obviously we're not the number one site for you, I'm sure it's more important to post a James Bond review on some other website, it's not like we're expecting any special favours or nuthin'. X-(
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
You’ve hit the nail on the head—there’s absolutely nothing at stake in this film. In “Moonraker”, at least the survival of the world was.
The survival of MI-6 was at stake.
Abso-bloody-exactly!
**Spoiler**
Not really. The worst thing that could have happened to MI-6 (the embarrassing loss of the hard-disk, and the attack on HQ) happens early on in the movie. And there was no way you could put those cats back into the bag. If the point of Bond's mission had been to recover the disk and restore the reputation of the service, then we would have had a different film--a much more exciting one, in my opinion. But that part of the plot turns out to be unimportant. The danger posed to M's life, as the rest of the film proves, is just Silva's personal vendetta: a drama of three people sorting out some childhood traumas and Oedipal issues. My problem with the film is that the "it's not business, it's personal" tone of the second half, completely undermines the much stronger first half.
It's odd, because I kind of think it was written as a better film, almost. I mean, M is out of her depth, she is losing her touch and trying ingloriously to hang on, to clear up her own mess, a kind of whingey defence politicians come out with. Yet we don't really get that, it's more as if we are meant to side with her against cold fish Mallory. Indeed, her spouting poetry could be portrayed as wholly out of touch and a bit senile, and her chief of staff can't even tell her what is going on and he's sat right next to her! It's a Colonel Blimp moment - and yet this is what really annoys me - it's as if we're meant to applaud it!
M isn't the only one out of her depth. So is Bond. So are the writers of this movie.
This movie doesn't have a stronger first half. The issue regarding the laptop is prime example of how weak the entire film is.
Why was MI-6 the only agency concerned with a list of undercover NATO agents? Where was the CIA and Felix Leiter? Where in the hell was NATO? How did NATO lose the list in the first place? How did a MI-6 agent in Istanbul end up with a list of undercover NATO agents on his laptop drive? Why didn't NATO pull the agents right after the list was stolen? Since when was it the duty of MI-6 to pull NATO agents from their missions? And why didn't Bond seek help from MI-6 to help guard M at his Skyfall estate? Why solely rely on an aging gamekeeper? What was he thinking?
Who wrote this crap?
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
MI-6 lost the list. Not NATO. How did they acquire the list? They're an intelligence agency: obtaining information they shouldn't have is kind of their job description. And if they lose a list they weren't supposed to have in the first place, they're not likely to ask the CIA to help them recover it.
The other questions are fair.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
Why didn't Bond seek Mi6 help at Skyfall..?...because he didn't know whom he could trust and he wanted to get Silva away from London where he was killing people to get to M...Bond wanted to isolate Silva....and deal with him then...as the script tells us 8-)
Why didn't Bond seek Mi6 help at Skyfall..?...because he didn't know whom he could trust and he wanted to get Silva away from London where he was killing people to get to M...Bond wanted to isolate Silva....and deal with him then...as the script tells us 8-)
Yeah, but was it a good idea? It was pretty obvious, that Silva would not come after Bond alone but bring the entire cavallery.
Leaving London meant that his remaining allies where not be able to support him anymore, I would say, that that plan sucked big time
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
Why didn't Bond seek Mi6 help at Skyfall..?...because he didn't know whom he could trust and he wanted to get Silva away from London where he was killing people to get to M...Bond wanted to isolate Silva....and deal with him then...as the script tells us 8-)
Yeah, but was it a good idea? It was pretty obvious, that Silva would not come after Bond alone but bring the entire cavallery.
Leaving London meant that his remaining allies where not be able to support him anymore, I would say, that that plan sucked big time
Well Bond & Kincade killed them all...so that part went to plan
No point staying in London where Silva was obviously so strong...he has lots of his resources there...up in Scotland, he didn't....
I think To try scupper Silva's plan, Bond Went to Scotland
as this was something Silva couldn't of seen coming and probably
hadn't planned for.
( I'm not going to dwell on the plot holes, too much ) )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
No point staying in London where Silva was obviously so strong...he has lots of his resources there...up in Scotland, he didn't....
..and Bonds resources where what?
Kinkade, M and the DB5!
If one shot from the helicopter crew (and there where plenty) went lucky, that plan would have totally sucked.
And at the end, M got killed, wasn't that what Silva was initially after?
If you support this kind of crap plan - I hope that AJB has better plans for evil members
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
No point staying in London where Silva was obviously so strong...he has lots of his resources there...up in Scotland, he didn't....
..and Bonds resources where what?
Kinkade, M and the DB5!
If one shot from the helicopter crew (and there where plenty) went lucky, that plan would have totally sucked.
And at the end, M got killed, wasn't that what Silva was initially after?
If you support this kind of crap plan - I hope that AJB has better plans for evil members
Bonds resources were skill, ingenuity, surprise and knowledge of location...Silva had no idea of what was waiting for him...which is why he and his men all died.
You must stop being so introverted and look, like Bond at the bigger picture
You don't like the film, so you will find fault...that's your issue...not mine.
AJB has no need of a plan for 'evil members'...as there is none worse than I B-)
I'd like to like the movie but moving out of an anonymous capital London with million of places to hide to his childhood place with almost no cover was a daft plan.
And just for the record: Even SF does not rank with the best in my list, it's wrong to say that I did not like it.
I did not like QoS
As for the evilest member - who am I to object
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I have only one question: Where is Quantum? QoS built up this organization, and as a fan of the SPECTRE era, I looked forward to seeing Craig-Bond tangle with an unknown and unquantifiable terrorist organization that could be anywhere or anyone.
I have only one question: Where is Quantum? QoS built up this organization, and as a fan of the SPECTRE era, I looked forward to seeing Craig-Bond tangle with an unknown and unquantifiable terrorist organization that could be anywhere or anyone.
Skyfall = no Quantum = Lame
Of course MI6 only concentrate on one threat and ignore all the others 8-)
As I've said, it's all about subtext; Bond gets to finally mourn his parents' deaths, by bringing M as a mother substitute back to the family home, not that that was what he intended. Clever, but poor as a surface narrative. Would make more sense as a suicide mission, or if it had been made clearer that mi6 was infiltrated from all sides by that point so had nothing to lose.
I would argue that Skyfall is in it's own sub-division of Bond films just like Dr. No to DAD and CR to QoS. It's implied that it comes way after QoS and as people have already said, the story of Quantam is completely put on ice and instead the makers created a separate story to try and include the themes they wanted. The film is all about Bond and MI6 still having a place in society and that message is put across very successfully through all the devices used and it's done so whilst creating a film that has been recieved by the public like no other Bond film previously.
I suppose Silva could've been involved with Quantam but I think the story they used, though not the most full proof or realistic, fits well with what the makers tried to achieve and is a strong base for a good film.
"You are about to wake when you dream that you are dreaming"
Comments
London destroyed by a nuclear weapon or M killed—it doesn’t take a genius to see which is the bigger threat.
I can certainly get passed Craig’s looks. Although I do think he’s miscast for the role, I rate him highly as an actor, which I have said many times in other threads. My reservations about his being cast for the part have little to do with the valid criticisms that many people in this thread have made regarding SF. What do you think of the film, by the way?
I do feel support for Craig is a bit like that for the London Olympics or the Royal Family. That said, when Henry Cavill did his turn last night, I did sort of think, well, he looks handsome alright but it's all a bit stiff and, after Craig, that won't be enough to bring to the table. He'll have to have an angle aside from benig good looking in a tux if he wants to be Bond (but maybe he doesn't any more, and it sort of hangs on Superman, which could nix it whether he's good or bad in the role).
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I can't understand why people get so animated either tbh. All of the actors to date will have their fans & critics - that's life! I'd rather place greater emphasis upon how they act, undertake the stunts / action and carry the film off rather than focusing upon the other things as a primary means for criticism.
That being said & with apologies for being more than a tad naive, but other than the obvious trait of not having dark hair & with him being 5 foot 10 (ish), I'm interested to know how Craig is either miscast or physically unsuitable? I see both the bluntness and coldness in his portrayal, the blue-grey eyes, plenty of women consider him to be good lucking in a non-pretty boy kind of way (to me he looks fairly ruthless) and he's approximately the weight described in the novels.
But Craig just looks too much of a hard man, in the mould of, say, Charles Bronson. No doubt a real-life double 00 would need to be like that, but it is not the Bond I see when I read the books; that Bond is much more elegant, light-hearted and charming, albeit with moments of intensity and violence.
Craig needs to make his portrayal more rounded and balanced, which I’m sure he is capable of. That he hasn’t, might be because a decision has been made by the producers to make Bond a “hard case” in order to compete with the contemporary idea of an action hero as being rough round the edges.
I think that's what female fans fantasize about
Anway, yes, DC's blue-grey eyes are definitely the most close to the literary Bond's among the actors, but that's it...not that it's actually a deal breaker for the movie going audience at large. But to say that he's close to the weight described in the novels? Bond's physique in the book is closer to that of Brosnan, Lazenby and Dalton, though not as tall as them since he's supposed to be 6 feet even and all the other Bond actors except DC has exceeded that height. But as far as looks, has anyone seen Roger Moore in Sherlock Holmes in New York? That was difficult to accept!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Song for Loeffs
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Why Nap, my old friend. I'm touched ;%
As for my review, I've got it round here somewhere. I'll have to tweak it, as it was written essentially for non-Bond fans, and some of it would be quite rendundant here. But I'll put it up...and you'll likely not be surprised
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
For me it's about gravitas. Bond is unlikely as an agent in as much as he tends to stand out in any crowd. Some of that is a function of his height, Fleming describes him as 'tall' in 1953 6 feet was considered tall. Nowadays it is not particularly so. I stand at 6'5 and notice that I am often no longer the tallest person in a room of young people. Bond cuts a swathe whereas DC tends to blend in. Also for me he tends to look more like the Doorman and lacks sophistication. Bond should be a mix of gentlemen and thug. That said, he is a fine actor, and his physicality is superb, and his commitment to the role is beyond question. He will never be 'my Bond', but he pulls it off despite these factors, and I am sure that if he chose he could exhibit more class and sophistication to balance his other fine qualities.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, obviously we're not the number one site for you, I'm sure it's more important to post a James Bond review on some other website, it's not like we're expecting any special favours or nuthin'. X-(
Roger Moore 1927-2017
**Spoiler**
Not really. The worst thing that could have happened to MI-6 (the embarrassing loss of the hard-disk, and the attack on HQ) happens early on in the movie. And there was no way you could put those cats back into the bag. If the point of Bond's mission had been to recover the disk and restore the reputation of the service, then we would have had a different film--a much more exciting one, in my opinion. But that part of the plot turns out to be unimportant. The danger posed to M's life, as the rest of the film proves, is just Silva's personal vendetta: a drama of three people sorting out some childhood traumas and Oedipal issues. My problem with the film is that the "it's not business, it's personal" tone of the second half, completely undermines the much stronger first half.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=channel%3A511126d4-0-2eb4-8859-485b3939bd6b&feature=iv&src_vid=l2KSPiTOMR8&v=5FWfg__wKSY
This movie doesn't have a stronger first half. The issue regarding the laptop is prime example of how weak the entire film is.
Why was MI-6 the only agency concerned with a list of undercover NATO agents? Where was the CIA and Felix Leiter? Where in the hell was NATO? How did NATO lose the list in the first place? How did a MI-6 agent in Istanbul end up with a list of undercover NATO agents on his laptop drive? Why didn't NATO pull the agents right after the list was stolen? Since when was it the duty of MI-6 to pull NATO agents from their missions? And why didn't Bond seek help from MI-6 to help guard M at his Skyfall estate? Why solely rely on an aging gamekeeper? What was he thinking?
Who wrote this crap?
The other questions are fair.
Yeah, but was it a good idea? It was pretty obvious, that Silva would not come after Bond alone but bring the entire cavallery.
Leaving London meant that his remaining allies where not be able to support him anymore, I would say, that that plan sucked big time
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well Bond & Kincade killed them all...so that part went to plan
No point staying in London where Silva was obviously so strong...he has lots of his resources there...up in Scotland, he didn't....
as this was something Silva couldn't of seen coming and probably
hadn't planned for.
( I'm not going to dwell on the plot holes, too much )
..and Bonds resources where what?
Kinkade, M and the DB5!
If one shot from the helicopter crew (and there where plenty) went lucky, that plan would have totally sucked.
And at the end, M got killed, wasn't that what Silva was initially after?
If you support this kind of crap plan - I hope that AJB has better plans for evil members
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Bonds resources were skill, ingenuity, surprise and knowledge of location...Silva had no idea of what was waiting for him...which is why he and his men all died.
You must stop being so introverted and look, like Bond at the bigger picture
You don't like the film, so you will find fault...that's your issue...not mine.
AJB has no need of a plan for 'evil members'...as there is none worse than I B-)
And just for the record: Even SF does not rank with the best in my list, it's wrong to say that I did not like it.
I did not like QoS
As for the evilest member - who am I to object
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Skyfall = no Quantum = Lame
Of course MI6 only concentrate on one threat and ignore all the others 8-)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I suppose Silva could've been involved with Quantam but I think the story they used, though not the most full proof or realistic, fits well with what the makers tried to achieve and is a strong base for a good film.