"First, the writing on James Bond films has never been of the calibre of Carre' novels in terms of espionage; that's never been their strength. And after the Sixties, Bond movies were not the leader in amazing action."
Sorry if I made my comments misunderstood. I didn't mean that the Bond series was better nor the leader of any or all the other action/spy films. I only meant they were unique in the art and history of cinema and it's due to the character of Bond and his unique life - the cocktail of the exotic locales, beautiful women, cutting edge tech, etc. The current and future films will never attain the degree of the early "classics" unfortunately, its true. I put that down mainly due to the fact that they no longer have Fleming's stories (thats a BIG problem) - and let's face it, Flemings POV and writing is difficult to emulate. No one is saying he was Hemingway, but he was unique. Also it is because, as you said Barry is gone and as I have said many times, he left a big hole that I don't think anyone will ever fill. His music that scored Fleming's vision made for classic cinema. Now we are left with writers trying to emulate that and composers trying to craft the music as well as Barry did (most of the time - even he would get stale sometimes, but it was still Bond music). That is why the reboot (and even before in some instances) and all future films will pale compared to the originals. Also, finding exotic unique locales is no longer easy. With the cruise line industry and affordable jet travel, people see Bond in a new place and say "been there, done that". No argument about Craig's appearance not being Fleming's vision and yes, it does make his character less distinctive in that respect (though with due respect to the Connery adorers, Connery was to me as close to Cary Grant - which Fleming considered an ideal casting choice - as Craig is. I know, I know, he considered his friend David Niven as well, but keep in mind it's because he WAS an actor and friend he
personally knew which was a plus, not necessarily because he was the ideal choice). It may be true what you say how the reboot and some of the others will not be regarded as highly as the originals in the future, but how I and my friends judge the Bond series and other films we consider "classic" are whether we will actually buy them and how many times we watch them and quote them. There are actually some Bond films I won't buy and really never watch. To me, they remove Fleming's creation from the story as much as many believe Craig does and the sillier they are, the worse the sin for me. I have a copy of CR and SKYFALL and FRWL and GF, etc. I do not a copy of QOS, MR, TSWLM, TMWTGG or TND, etc. I have a copy of Raiders of the Lost Ark and the last two Indy's - I do not have a copy of the Temple of Doom. I have the entire Grenada television productions of Sherlock Holmes - I do not have any of the other Sherlocks - even the Rathbones. I have some of the original films with Harryhausens effects - Jason & The Argonauts, Mysterious Island, etc. - I do not have any of the latest sword and sandal epics with digital effects. I'll watch The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca and Chinatown hundreds of times, but I will not own or watch the hundreds of other films that tried to emulate them. I enjoy watching the Bourne films when they're on TV, but I don't own copies and I couldn't quote any of them. I loved Batman with Adam West when I was a child - now I can't watch it - but I own the first Keaton and all the Bale versions and can watch them over and over. So, will Craig's films or some of the really weaker entries stand out a century from now? I would not attempt to give an absolute answer to that and no one can. For me and many I know, the proof is - as I said, which ones will I own and watch over and over because I enjoy them so damn much.
Thank you for providing the most cogent, well-thought out response yet to those nagging "timeline" and "reboot" questions. I often have some of the same impressions in mind as I read the comments of others who seem to be so puzzled and/or annoyed about how Craig's Bond films fit into the series, but I could never articulate those thoughts as well as you have. Despite the various complaints about the drastic change in Bond's looks, or the lack of humor and fantasy elements, I haven't had any problem identifying the character we see in CR, QOS and SF as our "James Bond", the cinematic superspy whose adventures we have come to enjoy over these past 50 years. Sure, Daniel Craig's take on Bond is different, but for the most part all of the actors have had a somewhat different spin on the character. Roger Moore's Bond is not Connery's Bond, and Brosnan plays 007 differently from Dalton in many ways, but to me they are all Bond. There are certain elements of the "classic" Bond's that I will probably always miss - Barry's music, Maxwell and Llewellyn as Moneypenny and Q, and SPECTRE, for example, but I realize that none of those things are coming back (although I suppose they could bring back SPECTRE, but I doubt they will). So I have turned the page and I'm all in on the new Bond and the new direction. It's still "The Adventures of 007" to me. Not Jason Bourne, not Ethan Hunt, not any other pretender. Just "Bond, James Bond." -{
"The big problem for me is that Bond was never meant to be either Jason Bourne or Derek Flint. My bond is fantastic, not gritty or dopey."
I'll try an offer a few answers to some of the problems members are having with the "timeline" and Craig's characterization.
First, as I stated in my previous comments, there can be no timeline. They were in the novels because they were written in a particular order year after year. The film series is just a totally different animal. Yes, it uses Fleming's character and the beginning of the series used his stories, but they shot them out of sequence and kept changing actors and writers and directors. If we wanted a real timeline with a genuine character arc the way Bond goes through in the novels, they would have to have been produced for television as a public tv series or a network series with one hour episodes with cliffhangers to carry the audience through to the next part of the story the following week. This way there would have been one actor and one director (though not always, as often series go through several directors normally) which would have maintained the continuity of Bond and the timeline of the novels.
Second, I understand the notion of Bond maintaining certain character traits no matter what film he is in or what actor is portraying him. The producers and writers have tried to do this in certain ways. All the actors using the "shaken, not stirred" line. They all gamble in casinos and wear tuxedos. They all used dark humorous lines "I think he got the point"...etc. They all had respect and loyalty to M and flirted with Moneypenny. They all got geared up by Q. Some of the actors played it straight but used the dark humor when called for. Moore played it straight sometimes but more often tried to keep the character more light and "above it all" no matter what was going on. The plots were always based in some reality and often had some fantasy element thrown in. Some had very little (FRWL, CR,) others so much it threw reality (and Fleming's character) out the window (YOLT, DAF, L&LD,MR, TSWLM). Some audiences prefer the former and others the latter.
Third and lastly, the reboot with Craig is an ambitious juggling act that is not going to satisfy everyone, but as far as the current producers are concerned, it is working fine as they just made the most profitable film.
There are some who will never like this reboot. They believe the writers and Craig should have kept in some of the traits from the older films - the almost winking at the audience at times, more lighter moments and puns, more fantasy and fantastic villains and or plots, etc., and much less of the gritty reality and Bond being, well, less affected by his missions and really, not even show his personal side. I understand this, but the problem is that as much as there are many who prefer this, it's not the reality now. Yes, they and Bond have become more realistic - some would say too real, and it doing so have removed the thing that set Bond apart from the average action films. However, I feel lucky in that I am not one of those. All of the past Craig films (except QOS, which I place at the bottom because of poor direction and writing) are still JB films to me and are still many notches above most action films because of the character and his background and his history. I particularly enjoyed CR because they showed Bond as a real person finally and not just a superhero in a tux who never gets hurt. I enjoyed SF because they showed him not only being more real but finally revealed some of his background. This trend may end with Craig, but I personally look forward to seeing more of this. I hope we'll get to see him playing golf again, perhaps with Tanner (as long as it's part of a plot of course) - if only for a few minutes. Would love to see him at his flat or with M at Blades. I will look forward to the next new Q gadget. Now that they have a new crew at HQ and Craig is in full character, perhaps they will go a bit lighter in the writing and have a villain like Goldfinger with some amazing
plot. Anyway, no matter what, Bond is still Bond to me. They may show him fight like Bourne instead of throwing punches like they did in the westerns and he may not look like a fashion model but he is still is the only action hero that lives a high lifestyle and is a British agent and has a license to kill. It's just a shame there's little of Fleming's actual writing they can use from now on.
[ I didn't mean that the Bond series was better nor the leader of any or all the other action/spy films. I only meant they were unique in the art and history of cinema and it's due to the character of Bond and his unique life - the cocktail of the exotic locales, beautiful women, cutting edge tech, etc. The current and future films will never attain the degree of the early "classics" unfortunately, its true.
The Bond series is unique and for the entire Sixties WAS the leader in action/spy films. But there was a recipe for it. Too many cooks tinkered with it too much over the years, and I'm not referring merely to story elements.
Truthfully, if I'm in an unforgiving mood, I'll tell you that there are only a few really good Bond movies (DN, FRWL, much of TB, TLD, LTK & maybe some of GE). In good moods, I can find a good time in any Bond film that does not contain the line "Here's to us." )
I enjoy Craig's movies the way I enjoy Moore's movies, that is to say, not MY version of Bond, but a rousing good time anyway.
IMHO. Sean Connery, George Lazenby and Roger Moore were the first
set of Bonds. Then we had a small reboot and got the second set
Tinothy Dalton & Pierce Brosnan. Same character but Not the same
Bond of GF,YOLT etc ( But same history, Dead wife etc )
Then With Daniel Craig we get a Full reboot. Same Character but
none of the backstory. Hence IMO. Craig's Bond has never been married etc.
So they can do anything with the character for future movies.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
IMHO. Sean Connery, George Lazenby and Roger Moore were the first
set of Bonds. Then we had a small reboot and got the second set
Tinothy Dalton & Pierce Brosnan. Same character but Not the same
Bond of GF,YOLT etc ( But same history, Dead wife etc )
Then With Daniel Craig we get a Full reboot. Same Character but
none of the backstory. Hence IMO. Craig's Bond has never been married etc.
So they can do anything with the character for future movies.
Yes, I concur. Early Connery, Dalton & early Brosnan are still my favourites though.
After Craig I'd love to see period movies made. Like Indy was. Bond fighting future cyber-terrorists & Moonbase cyborgs does not particularly appeal to me.
[ I didn't mean that the Bond series was better nor the leader of any or all the other action/spy films. I only meant they were unique in the art and history of cinema and it's due to the character of Bond and his unique life - the cocktail of the exotic locales, beautiful women, cutting edge tech, etc. The current and future films will never attain the degree of the early "classics" unfortunately, its true.
The Bond series is unique and for the entire Sixties WAS the leader in action/spy films. But there was a recipe for it. Too many cooks tinkered with it too much over the years, and I'm not referring merely to story elements.
Truthfully, if I'm in an unforgiving mood, I'll tell you that there are only a few really good Bond movies (DN, FRWL, much of TB, TLD, LTK & maybe some of GE). In good moods, I can find a good time in any Bond film that does not contain the line "Here's to us." )
I enjoy Craig's movies the way I enjoy Moore's movies, that is to say, not MY version of Bond, but a rousing good time anyway.
Yes, they remind me of the Batman films. The Keaton film was a nice balance of the absurd and the comedic (as in the TV series) - the second not quite as good because of one villain too many - then the others just good worse for the same reasons the Bonds got polluted by rehashing the same weak plot lines and verging on the cartoonish. As you said, too many cooks - though all have some enjoyable moments. It forced them to reboot the whole thing for similar reasons. What Nolen did with them made me optimistic about the future of such films by respecting the original art and using good actors and good writing. The one series character they seem to be having the most trouble with now is Superman. Will be interesting to see how the next film pans out.
That's why I laugh when people say that Skyfall is like the Dark Knight trilogy and use it as a criticism. The two sets of films are always going to have some comparisons: A male character whose an orphan and owns fast cars and dates glamorous women and uses gadgets when fighting. That could be said for either Bond or Wayne.
Also, I think Skyfall would've still had the same plot if Dark Knight Rises didn't come out. It was designed to show the longevity of Bond and how he's still needed, the balance between his past and future was for the 50th anniversary, not because it worked well (ish) in Batman!
"You are about to wake when you dream that you are dreaming"
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Hmmm, these comparisions with Batman continue to intrigue me...
Again I was listening to a JB audiobook, particularly FYEO. Whether or not the rebooted Bond persona borrows from Bruce Wayne particularly with SF, there is that ongoing angst and deep-seated anger going on and many fans of this continue to say, "yes, Fleming would be proud." Yet, in FYEO there's a lot of benign introspection that Bond does and it's actually quite funny how much indifference and ambivalence he has towards things, considering he's a person with so much "angst" as these fans of both the books and the rebooted film series like to think. X-(
In the story of FYEO during a 10-hour trek through the woods, Bond's mind wanders in different directions with odd, unrelated minutiae, which is really not the thought patterns of a brooding, troubled orphan kicking against the goads (believe me, I'm related to quite a few of these types, "giving self a face-palm"). More interesting is when M lectures Bond about the pain of command and indecision after one has been "softened by life," causing Bond to reflect how he had not really suffered from loss (this was before Tracy, but after Vesper, hmmm... ), illness or said pressures of life, family issues, etc., and therefore he couldn't relate with M. It's observations like these that help me recalibrate my understanding of the character and makes me re-evaluate the screen interpretations in that even with one of my favorite Bonds, TD, who I think has done the closest approximation to the character, might have actually overdone the brooding angst.
Then of course there's the character's arrogance in the written word, which DC has successfully emulated on the screen, making the dearly departed spirits of Ian, Anne and Caspar Fleming smile... )
"...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.....
Was passing a showcase branch of Bang & Olufsen in St Paul's, London, where they had Skyfall on the Blu Ray with the sound down, it was the scene at Bond's home Skyfall.
When the camera pans in meaningfully on the trunk, did anyone else think it would turn out to be Bond's teenage porn stash?
We could have had the remaining 20 mins with Craig reliving his teenage fantasies, cracking one off to Penthouse, the film ending with M entering his room and going 'Double O-Seven!' Thus, Bond's past bad experience when his Mum entered room and found him knocking one out could have been expunged.
But such a scenario would have had some advantage over what actually did pan out. For Skyfall is surely one of the most retarded films ever.
So the trunk opens, and hey, it's some dynamite! Handy. I mean, no idea why they'd need dynamite out there, maybe to strap to the Highland goats and say 'giddy up!' saves them having to kill them carve them up for dinner. I have some old 007 Magazines in my trunk back home, not sure about dynamite. Will have a gander.
But even then, it's like it's a big useful find for Bond! Er, except, didn't Bond stop off at Q branch en route? Couldn't he have nabbed some useful explosives, or a decent gun even, while there? It's like the starving man in the wilderness alighting on some berries and fennel and fashioning a kind of soup - having stopped off at Cafe Rouge a few hours earlier, only to take advantage of its free wi-fi. 8-)
Next up, we have the most gormless, shiftless henchmen ever making their entrance, straight through the main gate! They look like local Scouts on bob-a-job week. Maybe they are. "Hey, look at that old house! The old lady there's bound to give us a tenner!" "Don't be daft, Ginger! Have you seen the number of windows we'd have to clean!" "Yeah, but maybe it's empty. We can break in, turn the place over..."
Or maybe they're part of David Cameron's work placement scheme for shiftless benefits claimants. "Okay, yah, now we have a job for you as a henchman, it involves a bit of travel I'm afraid, but it should be a very short job. In fact, you probably won't need benefits at all once it's done, so that's good news...."
Next scene: spaced out across the valley, like scarecrow, the henchmen slowly approaching. Put me in mind of General Haig's ingenious plan to attach the Bosh: advance very slowly into the enemy's line of fire... Or a scene from the first Sharpe novel, where some pompous fool commands Sharpe and his men to stand across the skyline, individually waiting to be mown down by bullets. Sharpe is compelled to disobey the order, and is praised by the very top brass.
But no, off these henchmen go, nothing to stop Bond and just one other good shot taking out half of them in 5 seconds, assuming Bond had taken a half decent gun of course.
And Bond appears in his Aston! Ta da! But of course, really, anyone would stop to peek at a lovely old car like that, and then where would he be? And of course, at this point, all the henchmen are conveniently clustered around the door in the line of the car's machine guns. And even then, Bond is exposed, someone only has to lob a grenade at the vehicle and he's done for. But it's okay, he's taught an old woman how to lob a petrol bomb.
Even now, I remember thinking, right this is so obvious, it's not Silva's main plan. While they advance and get taken out, he's probably in the house already or something. You know, like the whole thing is a ruse in which he's prepared to sacrifice some sheep.
When the camera pans in meaningfully on the trunk, did anyone else think it would turn out to be Bond's teenage porn stash?
We could have had the remaining 20 mins with Craig reliving his teenage fantasies, cracking one off to Penthouse, the film ending with M entering his room and going 'Double O-Seven!' Thus, Bond's past bad experience when his Mum entered room and found him knocking one out could have been expunged.
) ) )
Now, they only eat rat.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,844MI6 Agent
Utter tripe. 8-)
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Was passing a showcase branch of Bang & Olufsen in St Paul's, London, where they had Skyfall on the Blu Ray with the sound down, it was the scene at Bond's home Skyfall.
When the camera pans in meaningfully on the trunk, did anyone else think it would turn out to be Bond's teenage porn stash?
We could have had the remaining 20 mins with Craig reliving his teenage fantasies, cracking one off to Penthouse, the film ending with M entering his room and going 'Double O-Seven!' Thus, Bond's past bad experience when his Mum entered room and found him knocking one out could have been expunged.
But such a scenario would have had some advantage over what actually did pan out. For Skyfall is surely one of the most retarded films ever.
So the trunk opens, and hey, it's some dynamite! Handy. I mean, no idea why they'd need dynamite out there, maybe to strap to the Highland goats and say 'giddy up!' saves them having to kill them carve them up for dinner. I have some old 007 Magazines in my trunk back home, not sure about dynamite. Will have a gander.
But even then, it's like it's a big useful find for Bond! Er, except, didn't Bond stop off at Q branch en route? Couldn't he have nabbed some useful explosives, or a decent gun even, while there? It's like the starving man in the wilderness alighting on some berries and fennel and fashioning a kind of soup - having stopped off at Cafe Rouge a few hours earlier, only to take advantage of its free wi-fi. 8-)
Next up, we have the most gormless, shiftless henchmen ever making their entrance, straight through the main gate! They look like local Scouts on bob-a-job week. Maybe they are. "Hey, look at that old house! The old lady there's bound to give us a tenner!" "Don't be daft, Ginger! Have you seen the number of windows we'd have to clean!" "Yeah, but maybe it's empty. We can break in, turn the place over..."
Or maybe they're part of David Cameron's work placement scheme for shiftless benefits claimants. "Okay, yah, now we have a job for you as a henchman, it involves a bit of travel I'm afraid, but it should be a very short job. In fact, you probably won't need benefits at all once it's done, so that's good news...."
Next scene: spaced out across the valley, like scarecrow, the henchmen slowly approaching. Put me in mind of General Haig's ingenious plan to attach the Bosh: advance very slowly into the enemy's line of fire... Or a scene from the first Sharpe novel, where some pompous fool commands Sharpe and his men to stand across the skyline, individually waiting to be mown down by bullets. Sharpe is compelled to disobey the order, and is praised by the very top brass.
But no, off these henchmen go, nothing to stop Bond and just one other good shot taking out half of them in 5 seconds, assuming Bond had taken a half decent gun of course.
And Bond appears in his Aston! Ta da! But of course, really, anyone would stop to peek at a lovely old car like that, and then where would he be? And of course, at this point, all the henchmen are conveniently clustered around the door in the line of the car's machine guns. And even then, Bond is exposed, someone only has to lob a grenade at the vehicle and he's done for. But it's okay, he's taught an old woman how to lob a petrol bomb.
Even now, I remember thinking, right this is so obvious, it's not Silva's main plan. While they advance and get taken out, he's probably in the house already or something. You know, like the whole thing is a ruse in which he's prepared to sacrifice some sheep.
Nap, thanks for giving me a good chuckle today {[]
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
All very well my shadowy friend - do you still want that Kingsley Amis interview, the mag is in my bag - but which part of it is tripe? It's all true, after all (save my imaginative speculation regarding the Craig Bond's onanistic tendencies), armed henchmen should not casually stroll up to a house all on view, ready to be picked off one by one... Not exactly guerilla warfare is it?
Was passing a showcase branch of Bang & Olufsen in St Paul's, London, where they had Skyfall on the Blu Ray with the sound down, it was the scene at Bond's home Skyfall.
When the camera pans in meaningfully on the trunk, did anyone else think it would turn out to be Bond's teenage porn stash?
We could have had the remaining 20 mins with Craig reliving his teenage fantasies, cracking one off to Penthouse, the film ending with M entering his room and going 'Double O-Seven!' Thus, Bond's past bad experience when his Mum entered room and found him knocking one out could have been expunged.
But such a scenario would have had some advantage over what actually did pan out. For Skyfall is surely one of the most retarded films ever.
So the trunk opens, and hey, it's some dynamite! Handy. I mean, no idea why they'd need dynamite out there, maybe to strap to the Highland goats and say 'giddy up!' saves them having to kill them carve them up for dinner. I have some old 007 Magazines in my trunk back home, not sure about dynamite. Will have a gander.
But even then, it's like it's a big useful find for Bond! Er, except, didn't Bond stop off at Q branch en route? Couldn't he have nabbed some useful explosives, or a decent gun even, while there? It's like the starving man in the wilderness alighting on some berries and fennel and fashioning a kind of soup - having stopped off at Cafe Rouge a few hours earlier, only to take advantage of its free wi-fi.
Next up, we have the most gormless, shiftless henchmen ever making their entrance, straight through the main gate! They look like local Scouts on bob-a-job week. Maybe they are. "Hey, look at that old house! The old lady there's bound to give us a tenner!" "Don't be daft, Ginger! Have you seen the number of windows we'd have to clean!" "Yeah, but maybe it's empty. We can break in, turn the place over..."
Or maybe they're part of David Cameron's work placement scheme for shiftless benefits claimants. "Okay, yah, now we have a job for you as a henchman, it involves a bit of travel I'm afraid, but it should be a very short job. In fact, you probably won't need benefits at all once it's done, so that's good news...."
Next scene: spaced out across the valley, like scarecrow, the henchmen slowly approaching. Put me in mind of General Haig's ingenious plan to attach the Bosh: advance very slowly into the enemy's line of fire... Or a scene from the first Sharpe novel, where some pompous fool commands Sharpe and his men to stand across the skyline, individually waiting to be mown down by bullets. Sharpe is compelled to disobey the order, and is praised by the very top brass.
But no, off these henchmen go, nothing to stop Bond and just one other good shot taking out half of them in 5 seconds, assuming Bond had taken a half decent gun of course.
And Bond appears in his Aston! Ta da! But of course, really, anyone would stop to peek at a lovely old car like that, and then where would he be? And of course, at this point, all the henchmen are conveniently clustered around the door in the line of the car's machine guns. And even then, Bond is exposed, someone only has to lob a grenade at the vehicle and he's done for. But it's okay, he's taught an old woman how to lob a petrol bomb.
Even now, I remember thinking, right this is so obvious, it's not Silva's main plan. While they advance and get taken out, he's probably in the house already or something. You know, like the whole thing is a ruse in which he's prepared to sacrifice some sheep.
-{ ) ) ) Very Funny and some good Points.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,844MI6 Agent
All very well my shadowy friend - do you still want that Kingsley Amis interview, the mag is in my bag - but which part of it is tripe? It's all true, after all (save my imaginative speculation regarding the Craig Bond's onanistic tendencies), armed henchmen should not casually stroll up to a house all on view, ready to be picked off one by one... Not exactly guerilla warfare is it?
Yes, I still would like the Amis interview.
No criticism of you intended. I was referring to the quote from your excerpt on the porn stash, not your whole post, which I haven't read. I thought it was a little crude and over-the-top, that's all. Let me be quite unequivocal about this, no criticism of you was intended.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Was passing a showcase branch of Bang & Olufsen in St Paul's, London, where they had Skyfall on the Blu Ray with the sound down, it was the scene at Bond's home Skyfall.
When the camera pans in meaningfully on the trunk, did anyone else think it would turn out to be Bond's teenage porn stash?
We could have had the remaining 20 mins with Craig reliving his teenage fantasies, cracking one off to Penthouse, the film ending with M entering his room and going 'Double O-Seven!' Thus, Bond's past bad experience when his Mum entered room and found him knocking one out could have been expunged.
But such a scenario would have had some advantage over what actually did pan out. For Skyfall is surely one of the most retarded films ever.
So the trunk opens, and hey, it's some dynamite! Handy. I mean, no idea why they'd need dynamite out there, maybe to strap to the Highland goats and say 'giddy up!' saves them having to kill them carve them up for dinner. I have some old 007 Magazines in my trunk back home, not sure about dynamite. Will have a gander.
But even then, it's like it's a big useful find for Bond! Er, except, didn't Bond stop off at Q branch en route? Couldn't he have nabbed some useful explosives, or a decent gun even, while there? It's like the starving man in the wilderness alighting on some berries and fennel and fashioning a kind of soup - having stopped off at Cafe Rouge a few hours earlier, only to take advantage of its free wi-fi. 8-)
Next up, we have the most gormless, shiftless henchmen ever making their entrance, straight through the main gate! They look like local Scouts on bob-a-job week. Maybe they are. "Hey, look at that old house! The old lady there's bound to give us a tenner!" "Don't be daft, Ginger! Have you seen the number of windows we'd have to clean!" "Yeah, but maybe it's empty. We can break in, turn the place over..."
Or maybe they're part of David Cameron's work placement scheme for shiftless benefits claimants. "Okay, yah, now we have a job for you as a henchman, it involves a bit of travel I'm afraid, but it should be a very short job. In fact, you probably won't need benefits at all once it's done, so that's good news...."
Next scene: spaced out across the valley, like scarecrow, the henchmen slowly approaching. Put me in mind of General Haig's ingenious plan to attach the Bosh: advance very slowly into the enemy's line of fire... Or a scene from the first Sharpe novel, where some pompous fool commands Sharpe and his men to stand across the skyline, individually waiting to be mown down by bullets. Sharpe is compelled to disobey the order, and is praised by the very top brass.
But no, off these henchmen go, nothing to stop Bond and just one other good shot taking out half of them in 5 seconds, assuming Bond had taken a half decent gun of course.
And Bond appears in his Aston! Ta da! But of course, really, anyone would stop to peek at a lovely old car like that, and then where would he be? And of course, at this point, all the henchmen are conveniently clustered around the door in the line of the car's machine guns. And even then, Bond is exposed, someone only has to lob a grenade at the vehicle and he's done for. But it's okay, he's taught an old woman how to lob a petrol bomb.
Even now, I remember thinking, right this is so obvious, it's not Silva's main plan. While they advance and get taken out, he's probably in the house already or something. You know, like the whole thing is a ruse in which he's prepared to sacrifice some sheep.
1. The dynamite was only a few sticks that had been left over from when it was once used in a quarry on the property (which the gamekeeper actually informs Bond about).
2. Given the open nature of the estate, there was no way for anyone to approach it without being seen. Given that and the idea that Silva and his henchman believed Bond was by himself with only M and only armed with his pistol, they didn't have a lot of fear of being attacked and if they were fired on by Bond with only his Walter, they beleived they would immediately overwhelm him with the amount of firepower they were bringing. Of course, in reality, such a mounted offense would have been done by having them spread out as they entered the property and circle the building, but...well, it's a Bond movie, isn't it? You
couldn't do that and then be able to have them grouped so Bond could get them
from the car.
3. The henchman, overconfident or not, approached the house ready to fire on
anything that might appear. None of them would have casually walked to the
Aston to admire it if they though someone could take a crack at them at any second from a window in the house, anymore than they would believe Bond
would be stupid enough to ambush them from the car where he would have
been a sitting duck - keep in mind they would not be aware of the car's lethal
capabilities (remember they've never seen Goldfinger). As far as they were
concerned they were approaching a rundown manor with an Aston parked outside and Bond with his little Walther guarding an old defenseless lady in the building.
Probably another reason they weren't packing grenades, etc.
4. Bond was trying to get M to Skyfall as fast as he could - there wasn't time to
staop at Q Branch because not only was HQ probably out of the way and in the wrong direction, he would have been stopped by MI6 security. Remember, he
was going rogue with his plan - it was not sanctioned.
Was passing a showcase branch of Bang & Olufsen in St Paul's, London, where they had Skyfall on the Blu Ray with the sound down, it was the scene at Bond's home Skyfall.
When the camera pans in meaningfully on the trunk, did anyone else think it would turn out to be Bond's teenage porn stash?
We could have had the remaining 20 mins with Craig reliving his teenage fantasies, cracking one off to Penthouse, the film ending with M entering his room and going 'Double O-Seven!' Thus, Bond's past bad experience when his Mum entered room and found him knocking one out could have been expunged.
But such a scenario would have had some advantage over what actually did pan out. For Skyfall is surely one of the most retarded films ever.
So the trunk opens, and hey, it's some dynamite! Handy. I mean, no idea why they'd need dynamite out there, maybe to strap to the Highland goats and say 'giddy up!' saves them having to kill them carve them up for dinner. I have some old 007 Magazines in my trunk back home, not sure about dynamite. Will have a gander.
But even then, it's like it's a big useful find for Bond! Er, except, didn't Bond stop off at Q branch en route? WITH SILVA MONITORING EVERYTHING THAT WAS HAPPENING AT MI-6, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A BLEEDING STUPID THING TO DO. MAYBE HE'S MONITORING THE VIDEO FEED AND WOULD SEE BOND WITH A BARRETT .50 CALIBER TUCKED UNDER HIS ARM AND A BAG FULL OF HAND GRENADES. Couldn't he have nabbed some useful explosives, or a decent gun even, while there? BOND EXPECTED TO FIND HIS FATHER'S EXTENSIVE GUN COLLECTION. INSTEAD THERE WAS ONLY ONE GUN, OF WHICH HE MADE GOOD USE. It's like the starving man in the wilderness alighting on some berries and fennel and fashioning a kind of soup - having stopped off at Cafe Rouge a few hours earlier, only to take advantage of its free wi-fi. 8-)
Next up, we have the most gormless, shiftless henchmen ever making their entrance, straight through the main gate! WHAT SHOULD THEY HAVE DONE? CLIMB OVER THE WALL, SO THEY WOULD'VE BEEN EASIER TARGETS? They look like local Scouts on bob-a-job week. DO THE LOCAL SCOUTS WHERE YOU LIVE CARRY FULLY AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS? IF SO, I NEED TO STAY AWAY. Maybe they are. "Hey, look at that old house! The old lady there's bound to give us a tenner!" "Don't be daft, Ginger! Have you seen the number of windows we'd have to clean!" "Yeah, but maybe it's empty. We can break in, turn the place over..."
Or maybe they're part of David Cameron's work placement scheme for shiftless benefits claimants. "Okay, yah, now we have a job for you as a henchman, it involves a bit of travel I'm afraid, but it should be a very short job. In fact, you probably won't need benefits at all once it's done, so that's good news...."
Next scene: spaced out across the valley, like scarecrow, the henchmen slowly approaching. RIGHT! THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN ALL BUNCHED UP, INSTEAD OF SPREAD OUT. Put me in mind of General Haig's ingenious plan to attach the Bosh: advance very slowly into the enemy's line of fire... Or a scene from the first Sharpe novel, where some pompous fool commands Sharpe and his men to stand across the skyline, individually waiting to be mown down by bullets. Sharpe is compelled to disobey the order, and is praised by the very top brass. BOND PICKED A VERY DEFENSIBLE STRUCTURE THAT OFFERED NO COVER. THAT'S WHY HE PICKED IT.
But no, off these henchmen go, nothing to stop Bond and just one other good shot taking out half of them in 5 seconds, assuming Bond had taken a half decent gun of course. WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED, THAT WASN'T SILVA'S MAIN PLAN.
And Bond appears in his Aston! Ta da! But of course, really, anyone would stop to peek at a lovely old car like that RIGHT! GUY IS SHOOTING AT YOU, SO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS STOP AND EXAMINE THE COOL OLD SPORTS CAR. and then where would he be? BECAUSE THEY HAD A GOOD REASON TO SUSPECT IT WAS ARMED WITH MACHINE GUNS, RIGHT? And of course, at this point, all the henchmen are conveniently clustered around the door GOING THROUGH A DOOR IS HOW YOU ENTER A BUILDING. DID YOU EXPECT THEM TO TELEPORT (ON SECOND THOUGHTS MAYBE YOU DID)? in the line of the car's machine guns. And even then, Bond is exposed, someone only has to lob a grenade at the vehicle and he's done for. But it's okay, he's taught an old woman how to lob a petrol bomb. M ALWAYS STRUCK ME AS A TOUGH OLD BIRD. SHE WAS PROBABLY LOBBING PETROL BOMBS BEFORE YOU WERE BORN.
Even now, I remember thinking, right this is so obvious, it's not Silva's main plan. While they advance and get taken out, he's probably in the house already or something. You know, like the whole thing is a ruse in which he's prepared to sacrifice some sheep.
IT WASN'T HIS MAIN PLAN. THE HELICOPTER THINGY WITH THE GATLING GUN WAS HIS MAIN PLAN. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT PART OF THE MOVIE? HE SACRIFICED A FEW HENCHMAN TO SEE WHAT KIND OF FIRE POWER BOND HAD.
I suspect that the current iteration of Bond may be a little too mentally challenging for you. Better to stick with Moonraker (the movie) which appeals to the eight-year-old in all of us.
01. PUT THE GUNBARREL IN THE BEGINNING - FOR HEAVENS SAKE!
02. Worst Q ever! Good actor, but not for that particular role...
03. The ladies make no sense at all - They don't really contribute to the story in any way...
04. Thomas Newman (Normally I am a big admirerer) probably managed to put together the most non-melodic score for any Bond film in 50 years... I can't hum the action theme nor any other theme from the movie. I remember some okay tracks such as "The Komodo Dragon" and "Grand Bazaar" but that's sort of it. And then the theme song which was quite okay.
05. Why the Aston Martin at the end? Leave the DB5 in the fifties. The old movies didn't pay tribute to each other the way the new movies do - STOP! )
06. The entire third act is somewhat lame and dragging. Why would Bond take M to a "Safe house" which is no wat near safe? Why not have some backup or some weapons...? It's sort of stupid...
07. The whole thing about th villain getting caught as part of a plan before escaping and wanting to destroy everything - doesn't that remind you of The Dark Knight...? Or is it just me?
No I like the serious Bond. The key is simple: Make independant plots, cut away the cheasiness, stay true to Ian Fleming and stop paying a lot of tributes to items that were cool in the sixties. Craig is probably never gonna do a movie which'll be half as iconic as "Goldfinger", but he can do a lot of other things... And he is good at it.
The key is simple: Make independant plots, cut away the cheasiness, stay true to Ian Fleming and stop paying a lot of tributes to items that were cool in the sixties. Craig is probably never gonna do a movie which'll be half as iconic as "Goldfinger"
I mostly agree here, however I liked QOS a great deal. It's severely under-rated IMO.
Seriously now, Skyfall was the Craig version of OHMSS without the Fleming story to back it up. At least OHMSS had a proper STORY and didn't rely on nonsense in the narrative to push the plot along (I mean in terms of emotional impact, not actual plot).
Skyfall will be amongst the likes of AVTAK & TWINE in future assessments, which is to say, good, but far from iconic or classic Bonds. Please Bond fans, get over it. The next one might be great, but SF certainly isn't all that, no matter what the box office seems to indicate.
Skyfall will be amongst the likes of AVTAK & TWINE in future assessments, which is to say, good, but far from iconic or classic Bonds. Please Bond fans, get over it. The next one might be great, but SF certainly isn't all that, no matter what the box office seems to indicate.
How about the critics, whose overwhelmingly positive reviews resulted in the film getting a 92% rating on RottenTomatoes? What about the nominations and wins at the Oscars, the BAFTAs, and a few other venues? What about the film now being the #1 rental in the U.S.? It must be so hard to be the only right person, and the one with the ability to see the future so clearly. . .
(Oh, AVTAK is routinely considered one of the worst of the films, while TWINE doesn't seem to register one way or the other.)
Comments
Sorry if I made my comments misunderstood. I didn't mean that the Bond series was better nor the leader of any or all the other action/spy films. I only meant they were unique in the art and history of cinema and it's due to the character of Bond and his unique life - the cocktail of the exotic locales, beautiful women, cutting edge tech, etc. The current and future films will never attain the degree of the early "classics" unfortunately, its true. I put that down mainly due to the fact that they no longer have Fleming's stories (thats a BIG problem) - and let's face it, Flemings POV and writing is difficult to emulate. No one is saying he was Hemingway, but he was unique. Also it is because, as you said Barry is gone and as I have said many times, he left a big hole that I don't think anyone will ever fill. His music that scored Fleming's vision made for classic cinema. Now we are left with writers trying to emulate that and composers trying to craft the music as well as Barry did (most of the time - even he would get stale sometimes, but it was still Bond music). That is why the reboot (and even before in some instances) and all future films will pale compared to the originals. Also, finding exotic unique locales is no longer easy. With the cruise line industry and affordable jet travel, people see Bond in a new place and say "been there, done that". No argument about Craig's appearance not being Fleming's vision and yes, it does make his character less distinctive in that respect (though with due respect to the Connery adorers, Connery was to me as close to Cary Grant - which Fleming considered an ideal casting choice - as Craig is. I know, I know, he considered his friend David Niven as well, but keep in mind it's because he WAS an actor and friend he
personally knew which was a plus, not necessarily because he was the ideal choice). It may be true what you say how the reboot and some of the others will not be regarded as highly as the originals in the future, but how I and my friends judge the Bond series and other films we consider "classic" are whether we will actually buy them and how many times we watch them and quote them. There are actually some Bond films I won't buy and really never watch. To me, they remove Fleming's creation from the story as much as many believe Craig does and the sillier they are, the worse the sin for me. I have a copy of CR and SKYFALL and FRWL and GF, etc. I do not a copy of QOS, MR, TSWLM, TMWTGG or TND, etc. I have a copy of Raiders of the Lost Ark and the last two Indy's - I do not have a copy of the Temple of Doom. I have the entire Grenada television productions of Sherlock Holmes - I do not have any of the other Sherlocks - even the Rathbones. I have some of the original films with Harryhausens effects - Jason & The Argonauts, Mysterious Island, etc. - I do not have any of the latest sword and sandal epics with digital effects. I'll watch The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca and Chinatown hundreds of times, but I will not own or watch the hundreds of other films that tried to emulate them. I enjoy watching the Bourne films when they're on TV, but I don't own copies and I couldn't quote any of them. I loved Batman with Adam West when I was a child - now I can't watch it - but I own the first Keaton and all the Bale versions and can watch them over and over. So, will Craig's films or some of the really weaker entries stand out a century from now? I would not attempt to give an absolute answer to that and no one can. For me and many I know, the proof is - as I said, which ones will I own and watch over and over because I enjoy them so damn much.
Nice to know others feel the same!
Truthfully, if I'm in an unforgiving mood, I'll tell you that there are only a few really good Bond movies (DN, FRWL, much of TB, TLD, LTK & maybe some of GE). In good moods, I can find a good time in any Bond film that does not contain the line "Here's to us."
I enjoy Craig's movies the way I enjoy Moore's movies, that is to say, not MY version of Bond, but a rousing good time anyway.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
set of Bonds. Then we had a small reboot and got the second set
Tinothy Dalton & Pierce Brosnan. Same character but Not the same
Bond of GF,YOLT etc ( But same history, Dead wife etc )
Then With Daniel Craig we get a Full reboot. Same Character but
none of the backstory. Hence IMO. Craig's Bond has never been married etc.
So they can do anything with the character for future movies.
After Craig I'd love to see period movies made. Like Indy was. Bond fighting future cyber-terrorists & Moonbase cyborgs does not particularly appeal to me.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yes, they remind me of the Batman films. The Keaton film was a nice balance of the absurd and the comedic (as in the TV series) - the second not quite as good because of one villain too many - then the others just good worse for the same reasons the Bonds got polluted by rehashing the same weak plot lines and verging on the cartoonish. As you said, too many cooks - though all have some enjoyable moments. It forced them to reboot the whole thing for similar reasons. What Nolen did with them made me optimistic about the future of such films by respecting the original art and using good actors and good writing. The one series character they seem to be having the most trouble with now is Superman. Will be interesting to see how the next film pans out.
Also, I think Skyfall would've still had the same plot if Dark Knight Rises didn't come out. It was designed to show the longevity of Bond and how he's still needed, the balance between his past and future was for the 50th anniversary, not because it worked well (ish) in Batman!
Again I was listening to a JB audiobook, particularly FYEO. Whether or not the rebooted Bond persona borrows from Bruce Wayne particularly with SF, there is that ongoing angst and deep-seated anger going on and many fans of this continue to say, "yes, Fleming would be proud." Yet, in FYEO there's a lot of benign introspection that Bond does and it's actually quite funny how much indifference and ambivalence he has towards things, considering he's a person with so much "angst" as these fans of both the books and the rebooted film series like to think. X-(
In the story of FYEO during a 10-hour trek through the woods, Bond's mind wanders in different directions with odd, unrelated minutiae, which is really not the thought patterns of a brooding, troubled orphan kicking against the goads (believe me, I'm related to quite a few of these types, "giving self a face-palm"). More interesting is when M lectures Bond about the pain of command and indecision after one has been "softened by life," causing Bond to reflect how he had not really suffered from loss (this was before Tracy, but after Vesper, hmmm... ), illness or said pressures of life, family issues, etc., and therefore he couldn't relate with M. It's observations like these that help me recalibrate my understanding of the character and makes me re-evaluate the screen interpretations in that even with one of my favorite Bonds, TD, who I think has done the closest approximation to the character, might have actually overdone the brooding angst.
Then of course there's the character's arrogance in the written word, which DC has successfully emulated on the screen, making the dearly departed spirits of Ian, Anne and Caspar Fleming smile...
When the camera pans in meaningfully on the trunk, did anyone else think it would turn out to be Bond's teenage porn stash?
We could have had the remaining 20 mins with Craig reliving his teenage fantasies, cracking one off to Penthouse, the film ending with M entering his room and going 'Double O-Seven!' Thus, Bond's past bad experience when his Mum entered room and found him knocking one out could have been expunged.
But such a scenario would have had some advantage over what actually did pan out. For Skyfall is surely one of the most retarded films ever.
So the trunk opens, and hey, it's some dynamite! Handy. I mean, no idea why they'd need dynamite out there, maybe to strap to the Highland goats and say 'giddy up!' saves them having to kill them carve them up for dinner. I have some old 007 Magazines in my trunk back home, not sure about dynamite. Will have a gander.
But even then, it's like it's a big useful find for Bond! Er, except, didn't Bond stop off at Q branch en route? Couldn't he have nabbed some useful explosives, or a decent gun even, while there? It's like the starving man in the wilderness alighting on some berries and fennel and fashioning a kind of soup - having stopped off at Cafe Rouge a few hours earlier, only to take advantage of its free wi-fi. 8-)
Next up, we have the most gormless, shiftless henchmen ever making their entrance, straight through the main gate! They look like local Scouts on bob-a-job week. Maybe they are. "Hey, look at that old house! The old lady there's bound to give us a tenner!" "Don't be daft, Ginger! Have you seen the number of windows we'd have to clean!" "Yeah, but maybe it's empty. We can break in, turn the place over..."
Or maybe they're part of David Cameron's work placement scheme for shiftless benefits claimants. "Okay, yah, now we have a job for you as a henchman, it involves a bit of travel I'm afraid, but it should be a very short job. In fact, you probably won't need benefits at all once it's done, so that's good news...."
Next scene: spaced out across the valley, like scarecrow, the henchmen slowly approaching. Put me in mind of General Haig's ingenious plan to attach the Bosh: advance very slowly into the enemy's line of fire... Or a scene from the first Sharpe novel, where some pompous fool commands Sharpe and his men to stand across the skyline, individually waiting to be mown down by bullets. Sharpe is compelled to disobey the order, and is praised by the very top brass.
But no, off these henchmen go, nothing to stop Bond and just one other good shot taking out half of them in 5 seconds, assuming Bond had taken a half decent gun of course.
And Bond appears in his Aston! Ta da! But of course, really, anyone would stop to peek at a lovely old car like that, and then where would he be? And of course, at this point, all the henchmen are conveniently clustered around the door in the line of the car's machine guns. And even then, Bond is exposed, someone only has to lob a grenade at the vehicle and he's done for. But it's okay, he's taught an old woman how to lob a petrol bomb.
Even now, I remember thinking, right this is so obvious, it's not Silva's main plan. While they advance and get taken out, he's probably in the house already or something. You know, like the whole thing is a ruse in which he's prepared to sacrifice some sheep.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Nap's nonsense of course. Skyfall is at Number 2 on my list.
Nap, thanks for giving me a good chuckle today {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
-{
Yes, I still would like the Amis interview.
No criticism of you intended. I was referring to the quote from your excerpt on the porn stash, not your whole post, which I haven't read. I thought it was a little crude and over-the-top, that's all. Let me be quite unequivocal about this, no criticism of you was intended.
"We're going to need a bit more sucking up... not the woman, me..."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
1. The dynamite was only a few sticks that had been left over from when it was once used in a quarry on the property (which the gamekeeper actually informs Bond about).
2. Given the open nature of the estate, there was no way for anyone to approach it without being seen. Given that and the idea that Silva and his henchman believed Bond was by himself with only M and only armed with his pistol, they didn't have a lot of fear of being attacked and if they were fired on by Bond with only his Walter, they beleived they would immediately overwhelm him with the amount of firepower they were bringing. Of course, in reality, such a mounted offense would have been done by having them spread out as they entered the property and circle the building, but...well, it's a Bond movie, isn't it? You
couldn't do that and then be able to have them grouped so Bond could get them
from the car.
3. The henchman, overconfident or not, approached the house ready to fire on
anything that might appear. None of them would have casually walked to the
Aston to admire it if they though someone could take a crack at them at any second from a window in the house, anymore than they would believe Bond
would be stupid enough to ambush them from the car where he would have
been a sitting duck - keep in mind they would not be aware of the car's lethal
capabilities (remember they've never seen Goldfinger). As far as they were
concerned they were approaching a rundown manor with an Aston parked outside and Bond with his little Walther guarding an old defenseless lady in the building.
Probably another reason they weren't packing grenades, etc.
4. Bond was trying to get M to Skyfall as fast as he could - there wasn't time to
staop at Q Branch because not only was HQ probably out of the way and in the wrong direction, he would have been stopped by MI6 security. Remember, he
was going rogue with his plan - it was not sanctioned.
IT WASN'T HIS MAIN PLAN. THE HELICOPTER THINGY WITH THE GATLING GUN WAS HIS MAIN PLAN. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT PART OF THE MOVIE? HE SACRIFICED A FEW HENCHMAN TO SEE WHAT KIND OF FIRE POWER BOND HAD.
I suspect that the current iteration of Bond may be a little too mentally challenging for you. Better to stick with Moonraker (the movie) which appeals to the eight-year-old in all of us.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
01. PUT THE GUNBARREL IN THE BEGINNING - FOR HEAVENS SAKE!
02. Worst Q ever! Good actor, but not for that particular role...
03. The ladies make no sense at all - They don't really contribute to the story in any way...
04. Thomas Newman (Normally I am a big admirerer) probably managed to put together the most non-melodic score for any Bond film in 50 years...
05. Why the Aston Martin at the end? Leave the DB5 in the fifties. The old movies didn't pay tribute to each other the way the new movies do - STOP!
06. The entire third act is somewhat lame and dragging. Why would Bond take M to a "Safe house" which is no wat near safe? Why not have some backup or some weapons...? It's sort of stupid...
07. The whole thing about th villain getting caught as part of a plan before escaping and wanting to destroy everything - doesn't that remind you of The Dark Knight...? Or is it just me?
No I like the serious Bond. The key is simple: Make independant plots, cut away the cheasiness, stay true to Ian Fleming and stop paying a lot of tributes to items that were cool in the sixties. Craig is probably never gonna do a movie which'll be half as iconic as "Goldfinger", but he can do a lot of other things...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Sixties. Fleming has Bond in a DB3 in the novel of GF.
Skyfall will be amongst the likes of AVTAK & TWINE in future assessments, which is to say, good, but far from iconic or classic Bonds. Please Bond fans, get over it. The next one might be great, but SF certainly isn't all that, no matter what the box office seems to indicate.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
How about the critics, whose overwhelmingly positive reviews resulted in the film getting a 92% rating on RottenTomatoes? What about the nominations and wins at the Oscars, the BAFTAs, and a few other venues? What about the film now being the #1 rental in the U.S.? It must be so hard to be the only right person, and the one with the ability to see the future so clearly. . .
(Oh, AVTAK is routinely considered one of the worst of the films, while TWINE doesn't seem to register one way or the other.)