The return of Mendes would unfortunately mean more digital cinematography from Deakins (35mm or 65mm are the only true cinematic formats) and another Thomas Newman score.
The return of Mendes would unfortunately mean more digital cinematography from Deakins (35mm or 65mm are the only true cinematic formats) and another Thomas Newman score.
Both of which were excellent, highly praised, and won/were nominated for major awards. I know, I know--critical responses and awards make no difference. . . 8-)
Speaking as a photographer, I've been shooting with
digital fot years now and feel in many ways the quality
is even better than film.
I too thought Skyfall looked great.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I'm not too keen on the thought of another Thomas Newman score - his score for Skyfall just int in the same league as David Arnold, particularly his score for QoS.
I'm not too keen on the thought of another Thomas Newman score - his score for Skyfall just int in the same league as David Arnold, particularly his score for QoS.
me neither, I thought it as dull as ditch water, which is a surprise as I am generally well disposed towards his work.Maybe he will do better next time.
The return of Mendes would unfortunately mean more digital cinematography from Deakins (35mm or 65mm are the only true cinematic formats) and another Thomas Newman score.
"Skyfall" looked great in both 4K Digital Projection and Digital IMAX IMO. Another Thomas Newman score I could take or leave.
I wouldn't mind him coming back if he delivered something like Skyfall again, though I agree it's also nice to see other directors' takes on the Bond film.
Made of sterner stuff.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,817MI6 Agent
I am not bothered about Sam Mendes either way, he did a good job on Skyfall, and he knows the key actors and what they can do.
My primary concern is Logan as the writer. I suspect the plot holes in Skyfall were his work. - Star Trek Nemesis which he also wrote was God awful, on every level.
I also much prefer Mr Arnold's cues which are far more inventive and original to Bond and the story of the film. His soundtracks to TWINE and CR-06 are tow of my favorites. Plus he did Stargate! (The original film, not the series)
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
I Really liked the digital cinematography on Skyfall. As for Mr. Newman's score. It just reminded me of the score from Goldeneye. And I think there's a general consensus on that one.
My primary concern is Logan as the writer. I suspect the plot holes in Skyfall were his work. - Star Trek Nemesis which he also wrote was God awful, on every level.
Good Gawd almighty. . .even the most cynical Hollywood producer has a motto: "You're only as good as your last picture." Nemesis was ELEVEN YEARS AGO and Logan has done a lot since. He's also done the scripts for many critically-acclaimed films (Gladiator, The Aviator) and has won awards for his plays. Nevermind that Skyfall's "plot holes" are neither greater nor lesser than those of any other Bond film; and that ALL films are a matter of collaboration. . .very often the screenwriter delivers what the producer or director WANTS, and changes are often made on the set that alter what the writer wrote.
But, of course, critical opinions and awards mean nothing; all that must be regarded is the individual Bond fan's interpretation of what Bond must be.
Vox clamantis in deserto
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
There actually weren't that many plot holes in Skyfall. Most of those listed were by people who didn't understand the film or missed lines or plot points earlier on. More highly regarded Bond films have larger plot holes. They are ignored as Connery's films are forgiven such things.
"Skyfall" looked great in both 4K Digital Projection and Digital IMAX IMO. Another Thomas Newman score I could take or leave.
It would've looked even better if shot on 35mm. There are a number of shots in the film that highlight the problems with digital, and they really cheapen the look of the movie.
There actually weren't that many plot holes in Skyfall. Most of those listed were by people who didn't understand the film or missed lines or plot points earlier on. More highly regarded Bond films have larger plot holes. They are ignored as Connery's films are forgiven such things.
I have faith in Mendes, his style works perfectly with Craig's Bond and the two are just a great pair. Craig is my favorite Bond and I think these two films would be great to round out Craig's career as Bond. Afterwards, I'd like to see a new "style" of Bond just like every change that's occurred to date. No matter what change is made I'm sure it will be made with derision from fans
"Skyfall" looked great in both 4K Digital Projection and Digital IMAX IMO. Another Thomas Newman score I could take or leave.
It would've looked even better if shot on 35mm. There are a number of shots in the film that highlight the problems with digital, and they really cheapen the look of the movie.
That's your opinion. IMO the film looked great. I understand some of the issues between 35mm and digital. I don't doubt that 35mm is still the best film medium....but one could also debate the merits of shooting CR and QOS in Super 35 instead of anamorphic, and on and on. I was fortunate to see the film each time in cinemas that had excellent sound and projection along with the sometimes reviled "Digital" IMAX. I will say that films I have seen that were shot digitally and transferred to 35mm film have not yielded the best results. I'm sure a big part of the problem is the generally poor state of traditional 35mm film projection at many cinemas but I'm guessing the digital to 35mm may not yield the best results either.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,817MI6 Agent
My primary concern is Logan as the writer. I suspect the plot holes in Skyfall were his work. - Star Trek Nemesis which he also wrote was God awful, on every level.
Good Gawd almighty. . .even the most cynical Hollywood producer has a motto: "You're only as good as your last picture." Nemesis was ELEVEN YEARS AGO and Logan has done a lot since. He's also done the scripts for many critically-acclaimed films (Gladiator, The Aviator) and has won awards for his plays. Nevermind that Skyfall's "plot holes" are neither greater nor lesser than those of any other Bond film; and that ALL films are a matter of collaboration. . .very often the screenwriter delivers what the producer or director WANTS, and changes are often made on the set that alter what the writer wrote.
But, of course, critical opinions and awards mean nothing; all that must be regarded is the individual Bond fan's interpretation of what Bond must be.
I my defense I didn't know he had written Gladiator, so I concede your point there. Personally, I found The Aviator long winded, in spite of good performances by the actors! I completely agree with you about critical acclaim though.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
SKYFALL was impressive, and I never thought I'd be impressed again after the last two. Or three. Mendes and Logan make a good team. They certainly made the best of the anti-Bond films.
I'd like to see them do a pro-Bond film now. Change their attitude, respect the character and the source and have at it.
Yes that would be nice.
But I'm afraid it would also be impossible so long as that millstone hangs around their neck.
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
If Mendes does come back (which is looking pretty likely.) I just don't want Thomas Newman to score it. I was listening to the Skyfall soundtrack yesterday and I couldn't help but turn it off. It sounded like the score from Goldeneye! Too electronic and not enough brass!
SKYFALL was impressive, and I never thought I'd be impressed again after the last two. Or three. Mendes and Logan make a good team. They certainly made the best of the anti-Bond films.
I'd like to see them do a pro-Bond film now. Change their attitude, respect the character and the source and have at it.
Yes that would be nice.
But I'm afraid it would also be impossible so long as that millstone hangs around their neck.
When you say respect the source, are you referring to the older films (and if so, which? Connery, Moore, etc?) or are you talking about the novels? IMO, the cinematic Bond has always been different than the literary Bond but also reflective in many ways. IMO as fans, we tend to pick and choose what we prefer about each. Some would argue that Craig's portrayal is truer to Fleming's Bond but updated to fit into the modern era. In some ways, it could be said that the cinematic Bond has always been the "anti-Bond" (something I personally don't completely agree with) especially some of the Moore films.
The books and films were not exactly the same but they were close enough for government work, as the saying goes. One thing the films kept common with the novels is that the character of James Bond was always intelligent, adept at his expertize, morally centered, and a winner. He had all the social graces without making a point of it, a sense of humor about himself, and was attractive to women who ran in the fast lane, too. He was business-like about killing but still had an empathy for others (Kerim in FRWL, Paula in TB etc). That much was the same. There is NO contradiction between James Bond in the novels and the originating films even though the emphasis is a little different.
Then Barbara Broccoli took over and cast Daniel Craig. In CASINO ROYALE, the character of James Bond is methodically reversed. He is turned into the opposite. He is inverted. He is stripped of his social graces, his upbringing, his sex appeal, his military service, and his commendable record in public service. His adeptness is replaced by brutality, his empathy by indifference. He is lectured at and excoriated by both M and Vesper for doing stupid things -- invading an Embassy, going after one bombmaker instead of the larger plan, blowing his own cover, not knowing what clothes to wear, bragging about his prowess at cards and then losing, misjudging Vesper not once but twice, whining about his loss, and so on. The plot points are mostly the same, but the underlying subtext is queered, perverted, undermined. This character does not come out of the novel. In QUANTUM OF SOLACE James Bond is damaged goods, an instrument of death symbolized by the blood stain on his white shirt. In SKYFALL he is incompetent and a loser. Instead of knowing what to do, he has to be told to "go after him." He can't win the fight on top of the train. His gun is useless, so he throws it away. He turns the crane's cab into incoming gunfire, knowing he will get shot. He fails to recover the computer disc containing a list of agents. Instead of getting on with his duty, he hides out on a beach half way 'round the world feeling sorry himself. Then he turns up in M's apartment, unshaven, smelling bad and needing a shower. M's put-downs are now very personal. Just because James Bond reports for duty doesn't mean he can do his duty. In fact, he fails at everything. Instead of removing the bullet fragments from his shoulder before the tests, Bond removes them after the tests, when he has failed them. He watches the preparations for an assassination making no effort to prevent it. He lets Patrice slip through his fingers and fall to his death, failing to get the information. He is beaten up by a Chinese henchmen, who takes away his gun, then loses his gun to the Komodo dragon. He delays going into action until after Severine is murdered, when all he can say is "What a waste of good Scotch" before easily defeating their captors. In taking M to his ancestral homeland, he maneuvers her into a position where the villain can overcome them and kill her. And in fact M must face her murderer alone while Bond is under the lake losing another fight. Even Daniel Kleinman's wonderful opening titles takes us into Bond's shoulder wound and past a hall of mirrors in which Bond shoots at his own reflection -- which is a pale shadow -- showing us the black abyss of his soul, full of decay, blood, graves and death. James Bond is deconstructed out of existence in SKYFALL. His past prowess is indeed past, symbolized by shooting the Aston-Martin into bits. There is nothing left of James Bond but the name. Toward that end Craig's performance is thoroughly committed and deeply felt -- morose, apologetic, pouting -- and utterly wrong-headed.
The deconstruction of James Bond is consistent from one Craig film to the next. Each film takes the deconstruction one step further. In each film, Craig's James Bond is shown behaving and doing the opposite of what the character would do in the novels or the originating films. Each film shows him doing an ugly, deceitful act. In CASINO ROYALE he breaks into M's computer and patches it into his own. In QUANTUM OF SOLACE he throws the body of Mathis into a dumpster; an argument could be made that he uses Mathis for a shield against bullets. In SKYFALL he makes a callous joke when Severine is murdered -- not quite the same thing as the quip when villains died in earlier films because Severine was not the villain and had looked to Bond for protection. In earlier Bond films, the villain was responsible for killing the sacrificial lamb: the radio operator in DR. NO, the Masterson sisters in GF, Paula in TB, Andrea in TMWTGG, etc. Today, the villains are contrived to be weaklings whose evil must be explained to be understood, and Bond is blamed for the innocent woman's death -- Solange in CASINO ROYALE, Fields in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, Severine and M in SKYFALL. The difference between SKYFALL and the other two films is that SKYFALL cuts out the lectures and excoriations. The film is more powerful emotionally because it shows what happens without flogging the point home in dialogue afterwards.
I agree that the franchise needed to be updated for current times, but turning James Bond into a poor man's Dirty Harry, Paul Kersey, and John McClane was not the right approach. This is the wrong reboot. This is the wrong approach. The ending of SKYFALL suggests they are done with it, but I don't think so.
In a pro-Bond film, James Bond will be cheerful instead of depressed, adept instead of inept. He will be amused by criminals instead of intimidated by them. His arguments will be with the people he meets out in the field, not at the office. His aim will be true, he will think before he acts, he will win his fights and his card games, he will romance the beautiful women who want to be romanced, and he will outsmart the villains. He will be challenged and overcome setbacks along the way, but he will do the right thing and win in the end. That's who James Bond is, somebody to root for, and that's what a James Bond film needs to be again.
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
The books and films were not exactly the same but they were close enough for government work, as the saying goes. One thing the films kept common with the novels is that the character of James Bond was always intelligent, adept at his expertize, morally centered, and a winner. He had all the social graces without making a point of it, a sense of humor about himself, and was attractive to women who ran in the fast lane, too. He was business-like about killing but still had an empathy for others (Kerim in FRWL, Paula in TB etc). That much was the same. There is NO contradiction between James Bond in the novels and the originating films even though the emphasis is a little different.
Then Barbara Broccoli took over and cast Daniel Craig. In CASINO ROYALE, the character of James Bond is methodically reversed. He is turned into the opposite. He is inverted. He is stripped of his social graces, his upbringing, his sex appeal, his military service, and his commendable record in public service. His adeptness is replaced by brutality, his empathy by indifference. He is lectured at and excoriated by both M and Vesper for doing stupid things -- invading an Embassy, going after one bombmaker instead of the larger plan, blowing his own cover, not knowing what clothes to wear, bragging about his prowess at cards and then losing, misjudging Vesper not once but twice, whining about his loss, and so on. The plot points are mostly the same, but the underlying subtext is queered, perverted, undermined. This character does not come out of the novel. In QUANTUM OF SOLACE James Bond is damaged goods, an instrument of death symbolized by the blood stain on his white shirt. In SKYFALL he is incompetent and a loser. Instead of knowing what to do, he has to be told to "go after him." He can't win the fight on top of the train. His gun is useless, so he throws it away. He turns the crane's cab into incoming gunfire, knowing he will get shot. He fails to recover the computer disc containing a list of agents. Instead of getting on with his duty, he hides out on a beach half way 'round the world feeling sorry himself. Then he turns up in M's apartment, unshaven, smelling bad and needing a shower. M's put-downs are now very personal. Just because James Bond reports for duty doesn't mean he can do his duty. In fact, he fails at everything. Instead of removing the bullet fragments from his shoulder before the tests, Bond removes them after the tests, when he has failed them. He watches the preparations for an assassination making no effort to prevent it. He lets Patrice slip through his fingers and fall to his death, failing to get the information. He is beaten up by a Chinese henchmen, who takes away his gun, then loses his gun to the Komodo dragon. He delays going into action until after Severine is murdered, when all he can say is "What a waste of good Scotch" before easily defeating their captors. In taking M to his ancestral homeland, he maneuvers her into a position where the villain can overcome them and kill her. And in fact M must face her murderer alone while Bond is under the lake losing another fight. Even Daniel Kleinman's wonderful opening titles takes us into Bond's shoulder wound and past a hall of mirrors in which Bond shoots at his own reflection -- which is a pale shadow -- showing us the black abyss of his soul, full of decay, blood, graves and death. James Bond is deconstructed out of existence in SKYFALL. His past prowess is indeed past, symbolized by shooting the Aston-Martin into bits. There is nothing left of James Bond but the name. Toward that end Craig's performance is thoroughly committed and deeply felt -- morose, apologetic, pouting -- and utterly wrong-headed.
The deconstruction of James Bond is consistent from one Craig film to the next. Each film takes the deconstruction one step further. In each film, Craig's James Bond is shown behaving and doing the opposite of what the character would do in the novels or the originating films. Each film shows him doing an ugly, deceitful act. In CASINO ROYALE he breaks into M's computer and patches it into his own. In QUANTUM OF SOLACE he throws the body of Mathis into a dumpster; an argument could be made that he uses Mathis for a shield against bullets. In SKYFALL he makes a callous joke when Severine is murdered -- not quite the same thing as the quip when villains died in earlier films because Severine was not the villain and had looked to Bond for protection. In earlier Bond films, the villain was responsible for killing the sacrificial lamb: the radio operator in DR. NO, the Masterson sisters in GF, Paula in TB, Andrea in TMWTGG, etc. Today, the villains are contrived to be weaklings whose evil must be explained to be understood, and Bond is blamed for the innocent woman's death -- Solange in CASINO ROYALE, Fields in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, Severine and M in SKYFALL. The difference between SKYFALL and the other two films is that SKYFALL cuts out the lectures and excoriations. The film is more powerful emotionally because it shows what happens without flogging the point home in dialogue afterwards.
I agree that the franchise needed to be updated for current times, but turning James Bond into a poor man's Dirty Harry, Paul Kersey, and John McClane was not the right approach. This is the wrong reboot. This is the wrong approach. The ending of SKYFALL suggests they are done with it, but I don't think so.
In a pro-Bond film, James Bond will be cheerful instead of depressed, adept instead of inept. He will be amused by criminals instead of intimidated by them. His arguments will be with the people he meets out in the field, not at the office. His aim will be true, he will think before he acts, he will win his fights and his card games, he will romance the beautiful women who want to be romanced, and he will outsmart the villains. He will be challenged and overcome setbacks along the way, but he will do the right thing and win in the end. That's who James Bond is, somebody to root for, and that's what a James Bond film needs to be again.
A lovely post to read....but its all smoke, mirrors and mis-direction....I'm now convinced you are only here to cause argument as you can't possibly hold the views you write about....NOBODY is THAT stupid -{
The only big difference with Richard--W that I have is were he sees the series degrading, I see
it getting better . With Skyfall I felt a return to the older sence of fun. So I'm really Happy about it.
IMHO many of the faults in Craig's first couple of films have been fixed, and to me at least Bond
is still a cool, suave, sophisticated, modern Hero.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
The only big difference with Richard--W that I have is were he sees the series degrading, I see
it getting better . With Skyfall I felt a return to the older sence of fun. So I'm really Happy about it.
IMHO many of the faults in Craig's first couple of films have been fixed, and to me at least Bond
is still a cool, suave, sophisticated, modern Hero.
It's now about evolution after the revolution... -{
I actually agree on most of the points. In CR he was James before Bond and through Vesper he became Bond. QoS I thought was very Bond-esq and I have no complaints about character in that. you can see that he is hurt when he finds Fields drowned and so he doubles back and risks capture so that M won't think poorly of her, or poorly of him for not thinking of her. Skyafll, though, was the conclusion of the trilogy. Judi Dench is M in some ways Bond lost his mother and is now truly an orphan he has lost everything to tie him down to his CR, QoS, SF, life. Now we should be getting more straight up bond without they psychoanalyzing.
The books and films were not exactly the same but they were close enough for government work, as the saying goes. One thing the films kept common with the novels is that the character of James Bond was always intelligent, adept at his expertize, morally centered, and a winner. He had all the social graces without making a point of it, a sense of humor about himself, and was attractive to women who ran in the fast lane, too. He was business-like about killing but still had an empathy for others (Kerim in FRWL, Paula in TB etc). That much was the same. There is NO contradiction between James Bond in the novels and the originating films even though the emphasis is a little different.
Then Barbara Broccoli took over and cast Daniel Craig. In CASINO ROYALE, the character of James Bond is methodically reversed. He is turned into the opposite. He is inverted. He is stripped of his social graces, his upbringing, his sex appeal, his military service, and his commendable record in public service. His adeptness is replaced by brutality, his empathy by indifference. He is lectured at and excoriated by both M and Vesper for doing stupid things -- invading an Embassy, going after one bombmaker instead of the larger plan, blowing his own cover, not knowing what clothes to wear, bragging about his prowess at cards and then losing, misjudging Vesper not once but twice, whining about his loss, and so on. The plot points are mostly the same, but the underlying subtext is queered, perverted, undermined. This character does not come out of the novel. In QUANTUM OF SOLACE James Bond is damaged goods, an instrument of death symbolized by the blood stain on his white shirt. In SKYFALL he is incompetent and a loser. Instead of knowing what to do, he has to be told to "go after him." He can't win the fight on top of the train. His gun is useless, so he throws it away. He turns the crane's cab into incoming gunfire, knowing he will get shot. He fails to recover the computer disc containing a list of agents. Instead of getting on with his duty, he hides out on a beach half way 'round the world feeling sorry himself. Then he turns up in M's apartment, unshaven, smelling bad and needing a shower. M's put-downs are now very personal. Just because James Bond reports for duty doesn't mean he can do his duty. In fact, he fails at everything. Instead of removing the bullet fragments from his shoulder before the tests, Bond removes them after the tests, when he has failed them. He watches the preparations for an assassination making no effort to prevent it. He lets Patrice slip through his fingers and fall to his death, failing to get the information. He is beaten up by a Chinese henchmen, who takes away his gun, then loses his gun to the Komodo dragon. He delays going into action until after Severine is murdered, when all he can say is "What a waste of good Scotch" before easily defeating their captors. In taking M to his ancestral homeland, he maneuvers her into a position where the villain can overcome them and kill her. And in fact M must face her murderer alone while Bond is under the lake losing another fight. Even Daniel Kleinman's wonderful opening titles takes us into Bond's shoulder wound and past a hall of mirrors in which Bond shoots at his own reflection -- which is a pale shadow -- showing us the black abyss of his soul, full of decay, blood, graves and death. James Bond is deconstructed out of existence in SKYFALL. His past prowess is indeed past, symbolized by shooting the Aston-Martin into bits. There is nothing left of James Bond but the name. Toward that end Craig's performance is thoroughly committed and deeply felt -- morose, apologetic, pouting -- and utterly wrong-headed.
The deconstruction of James Bond is consistent from one Craig film to the next. Each film takes the deconstruction one step further. In each film, Craig's James Bond is shown behaving and doing the opposite of what the character would do in the novels or the originating films. Each film shows him doing an ugly, deceitful act. In CASINO ROYALE he breaks into M's computer and patches it into his own. In QUANTUM OF SOLACE he throws the body of Mathis into a dumpster; an argument could be made that he uses Mathis for a shield against bullets. In SKYFALL he makes a callous joke when Severine is murdered -- not quite the same thing as the quip when villains died in earlier films because Severine was not the villain and had looked to Bond for protection. In earlier Bond films, the villain was responsible for killing the sacrificial lamb: the radio operator in DR. NO, the Masterson sisters in GF, Paula in TB, Andrea in TMWTGG, etc. Today, the villains are contrived to be weaklings whose evil must be explained to be understood, and Bond is blamed for the innocent woman's death -- Solange in CASINO ROYALE, Fields in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, Severine and M in SKYFALL. The difference between SKYFALL and the other two films is that SKYFALL cuts out the lectures and excoriations. The film is more powerful emotionally because it shows what happens without flogging the point home in dialogue afterwards.
I agree that the franchise needed to be updated for current times, but turning James Bond into a poor man's Dirty Harry, Paul Kersey, and John McClane was not the right approach. This is the wrong reboot. This is the wrong approach. The ending of SKYFALL suggests they are done with it, but I don't think so.
In a pro-Bond film, James Bond will be cheerful instead of depressed, adept instead of inept. He will be amused by criminals instead of intimidated by them. His arguments will be with the people he meets out in the field, not at the office. His aim will be true, he will think before he acts, he will win his fights and his card games, he will romance the beautiful women who want to be romanced, and he will outsmart the villains. He will be challenged and overcome setbacks along the way, but he will do the right thing and win in the end. That's who James Bond is, somebody to root for, and that's what a James Bond film needs to be again.
The literary Bond was a "winner"? He was, in fact, friendless, an alcoholic, a nicotine addict, and remarkably unsuccessful with women. He was betrayed by Vesper Lynd and rejected by Gala Brand and Tiffany Case. Then the great love of his life is murdered. By the last couple of books, his world his falling apart. It would've been interesting to see where Fleming would've taken him.
Comments
Both of which were excellent, highly praised, and won/were nominated for major awards. I know, I know--critical responses and awards make no difference. . . 8-)
digital fot years now and feel in many ways the quality
is even better than film.
I too thought Skyfall looked great.
I do love the score to Skyfall as well. So I guess I'm just
lucky. :-)
me neither, I thought it as dull as ditch water, which is a surprise as I am generally well disposed towards his work.Maybe he will do better next time.
"Skyfall" looked great in both 4K Digital Projection and Digital IMAX IMO. Another Thomas Newman score I could take or leave.
My primary concern is Logan as the writer. I suspect the plot holes in Skyfall were his work. - Star Trek Nemesis which he also wrote was God awful, on every level.
I also much prefer Mr Arnold's cues which are far more inventive and original to Bond and the story of the film. His soundtracks to TWINE and CR-06 are tow of my favorites. Plus he did Stargate! (The original film, not the series)
Good Gawd almighty. . .even the most cynical Hollywood producer has a motto: "You're only as good as your last picture." Nemesis was ELEVEN YEARS AGO and Logan has done a lot since. He's also done the scripts for many critically-acclaimed films (Gladiator, The Aviator) and has won awards for his plays. Nevermind that Skyfall's "plot holes" are neither greater nor lesser than those of any other Bond film; and that ALL films are a matter of collaboration. . .very often the screenwriter delivers what the producer or director WANTS, and changes are often made on the set that alter what the writer wrote.
But, of course, critical opinions and awards mean nothing; all that must be regarded is the individual Bond fan's interpretation of what Bond must be.
Have to agree with you there.
That's your opinion. IMO the film looked great. I understand some of the issues between 35mm and digital. I don't doubt that 35mm is still the best film medium....but one could also debate the merits of shooting CR and QOS in Super 35 instead of anamorphic, and on and on. I was fortunate to see the film each time in cinemas that had excellent sound and projection along with the sometimes reviled "Digital" IMAX. I will say that films I have seen that were shot digitally and transferred to 35mm film have not yielded the best results. I'm sure a big part of the problem is the generally poor state of traditional 35mm film projection at many cinemas but I'm guessing the digital to 35mm may not yield the best results either.
I my defense I didn't know he had written Gladiator, so I concede your point there. Personally, I found The Aviator long winded, in spite of good performances by the actors!
I'd like to see them do a pro-Bond film now. Change their attitude, respect the character and the source and have at it.
Yes that would be nice.
But I'm afraid it would also be impossible so long as that millstone hangs around their neck.
When you say respect the source, are you referring to the older films (and if so, which? Connery, Moore, etc?) or are you talking about the novels? IMO, the cinematic Bond has always been different than the literary Bond but also reflective in many ways. IMO as fans, we tend to pick and choose what we prefer about each. Some would argue that Craig's portrayal is truer to Fleming's Bond but updated to fit into the modern era. In some ways, it could be said that the cinematic Bond has always been the "anti-Bond" (something I personally don't completely agree with) especially some of the Moore films.
The books and films were not exactly the same but they were close enough for government work, as the saying goes. One thing the films kept common with the novels is that the character of James Bond was always intelligent, adept at his expertize, morally centered, and a winner. He had all the social graces without making a point of it, a sense of humor about himself, and was attractive to women who ran in the fast lane, too. He was business-like about killing but still had an empathy for others (Kerim in FRWL, Paula in TB etc). That much was the same. There is NO contradiction between James Bond in the novels and the originating films even though the emphasis is a little different.
Then Barbara Broccoli took over and cast Daniel Craig. In CASINO ROYALE, the character of James Bond is methodically reversed. He is turned into the opposite. He is inverted. He is stripped of his social graces, his upbringing, his sex appeal, his military service, and his commendable record in public service. His adeptness is replaced by brutality, his empathy by indifference. He is lectured at and excoriated by both M and Vesper for doing stupid things -- invading an Embassy, going after one bombmaker instead of the larger plan, blowing his own cover, not knowing what clothes to wear, bragging about his prowess at cards and then losing, misjudging Vesper not once but twice, whining about his loss, and so on. The plot points are mostly the same, but the underlying subtext is queered, perverted, undermined. This character does not come out of the novel. In QUANTUM OF SOLACE James Bond is damaged goods, an instrument of death symbolized by the blood stain on his white shirt. In SKYFALL he is incompetent and a loser. Instead of knowing what to do, he has to be told to "go after him." He can't win the fight on top of the train. His gun is useless, so he throws it away. He turns the crane's cab into incoming gunfire, knowing he will get shot. He fails to recover the computer disc containing a list of agents. Instead of getting on with his duty, he hides out on a beach half way 'round the world feeling sorry himself. Then he turns up in M's apartment, unshaven, smelling bad and needing a shower. M's put-downs are now very personal. Just because James Bond reports for duty doesn't mean he can do his duty. In fact, he fails at everything. Instead of removing the bullet fragments from his shoulder before the tests, Bond removes them after the tests, when he has failed them. He watches the preparations for an assassination making no effort to prevent it. He lets Patrice slip through his fingers and fall to his death, failing to get the information. He is beaten up by a Chinese henchmen, who takes away his gun, then loses his gun to the Komodo dragon. He delays going into action until after Severine is murdered, when all he can say is "What a waste of good Scotch" before easily defeating their captors. In taking M to his ancestral homeland, he maneuvers her into a position where the villain can overcome them and kill her. And in fact M must face her murderer alone while Bond is under the lake losing another fight. Even Daniel Kleinman's wonderful opening titles takes us into Bond's shoulder wound and past a hall of mirrors in which Bond shoots at his own reflection -- which is a pale shadow -- showing us the black abyss of his soul, full of decay, blood, graves and death. James Bond is deconstructed out of existence in SKYFALL. His past prowess is indeed past, symbolized by shooting the Aston-Martin into bits. There is nothing left of James Bond but the name. Toward that end Craig's performance is thoroughly committed and deeply felt -- morose, apologetic, pouting -- and utterly wrong-headed.
The deconstruction of James Bond is consistent from one Craig film to the next. Each film takes the deconstruction one step further. In each film, Craig's James Bond is shown behaving and doing the opposite of what the character would do in the novels or the originating films. Each film shows him doing an ugly, deceitful act. In CASINO ROYALE he breaks into M's computer and patches it into his own. In QUANTUM OF SOLACE he throws the body of Mathis into a dumpster; an argument could be made that he uses Mathis for a shield against bullets. In SKYFALL he makes a callous joke when Severine is murdered -- not quite the same thing as the quip when villains died in earlier films because Severine was not the villain and had looked to Bond for protection. In earlier Bond films, the villain was responsible for killing the sacrificial lamb: the radio operator in DR. NO, the Masterson sisters in GF, Paula in TB, Andrea in TMWTGG, etc. Today, the villains are contrived to be weaklings whose evil must be explained to be understood, and Bond is blamed for the innocent woman's death -- Solange in CASINO ROYALE, Fields in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, Severine and M in SKYFALL. The difference between SKYFALL and the other two films is that SKYFALL cuts out the lectures and excoriations. The film is more powerful emotionally because it shows what happens without flogging the point home in dialogue afterwards.
I agree that the franchise needed to be updated for current times, but turning James Bond into a poor man's Dirty Harry, Paul Kersey, and John McClane was not the right approach. This is the wrong reboot. This is the wrong approach. The ending of SKYFALL suggests they are done with it, but I don't think so.
In a pro-Bond film, James Bond will be cheerful instead of depressed, adept instead of inept. He will be amused by criminals instead of intimidated by them. His arguments will be with the people he meets out in the field, not at the office. His aim will be true, he will think before he acts, he will win his fights and his card games, he will romance the beautiful women who want to be romanced, and he will outsmart the villains. He will be challenged and overcome setbacks along the way, but he will do the right thing and win in the end. That's who James Bond is, somebody to root for, and that's what a James Bond film needs to be again.
A lovely post to read....but its all smoke, mirrors and mis-direction....I'm now convinced you are only here to cause argument as you can't possibly hold the views you write about....NOBODY is THAT stupid -{
That's a pretty rude response of yours.
I happen to agree with most of Richard W's post, so what gives? He gets no argument out of me.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
As said by Peppermill. a good, well though out post.
The general populus moderates me...if you have issues with me - tell me...
I don't think my response is rude at all....it was well thought out and HEAVILY edited....
I have had numerous complaints about this poster and many question his reasons for being here...
I look forward to a PM from you, NP -{
it getting better . With Skyfall I felt a return to the older sence of fun. So I'm really Happy about it.
IMHO many of the faults in Craig's first couple of films have been fixed, and to me at least Bond
is still a cool, suave, sophisticated, modern Hero.
It's now about evolution after the revolution... -{
The literary Bond was a "winner"? He was, in fact, friendless, an alcoholic, a nicotine addict, and remarkably unsuccessful with women. He was betrayed by Vesper Lynd and rejected by Gala Brand and Tiffany Case. Then the great love of his life is murdered. By the last couple of books, his world his falling apart. It would've been interesting to see where Fleming would've taken him.