I think that any film can be picked apart. What Skyfall should be remembered for is bringing excitement back to the series after a 4 year layoff! Also it's pretty hard to believe, as a 38 year old life long Bond fan, no matter who your favorite OO7 is that anyone could say Skyfall is the worst Bond!
No it's not the worst Bond... After all, there is still QOS.
It's hilarious that there is such a big issue on plot holes and suspension of belief dealing with Skyfall... how about all the other Bond films?!?!? Going into space in Moonraker... A huge tanker that swallows subs in TSWLM... A villains secret base is a hollowed out volcano in YOLT... do I need to go on? Skyfall isn't perfect, but it's pretty entertaining. It's also JUST A MOVIE!!!
But weren't we told to expect a more realistic Bond? A more believable Bond? All I saw was a petulant, pissed off Bond who got his boss killed, couldn't shoot straight, looked like Gollum on a bender, and practically got a medal doing it.
And any movie that has gotten as much hype as SF is going to be hyper-analysed. So, SF Defenders, riddle me this? If this is a true reboot, what was the tricked out DB5 doing there? Is this the DB5 he won in Casino Royale? If so, why did he choose 50 year old gadgets for it to be tricked out with? Or did he have two? Where did it come from? I'll tell you. They felt they HAD to thow it in somewhere.
If this is reboot, they should quit referencing past movies and get on with it. Like the Star Trek reboot, wipe the slate clean. They don't need an excuse, like did Star Trek with the alternate timeline. Just say "Hey, we're starting over. You're going to see some cool new stuff soon" Like has been done with Amazing Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk series. Stop telling us how much better Bond will be by reminding everyone of the past. It's as if they have to try to legitimize this new direction, but all it is doing is causing confusion.
You are probably all aware of where I stand on Craig. But it has been the last two movies that has created that opinion. I kinda liked CR, and had high hopes after CR. Craig was surprisingly convincing for me in CR, although I still don't see where he's a great actor. But I was looking forward to being proven wrong about all that I had said about the Blond Bond. But, since then, this reboot is without a rudder, and has, IMO, been ill executed. My excitement over seeing Bond's backstory told has been dashed on the rocks of indecision. You cannot plot a straight course by looking behind.
I weep for the invisible car, the sub swallowing tanker(the innuendo there is still one of the best of the series), and the hollow volcano.
But then, that's me, and my opinions on Craig are just that, My Opinions. For me, I was so disgusted by the end of this movie I nearly walked out. I kept telling myself, "It has to get better, it just has to. Please get better!" But, as was just posted, it is bringing new fans and that is a good thing. I will promise you all this, though. I will not post about Skyfall, QOS, or Craig until I've watched all three of his again. I can't seem to do so without going off on a rant.
If this were a true reboot, they would quit referencing past movies and get on with it. Like the Star Trek reboot, wipe the slate clean. They don't need an excuse, like did Star Trek with the alternate timeline. Just say "Hey, we're starting over. You're going to see some cool new stuff soon" Stop telling us how much better Bond will be by reminding everyone of the past. It's as if they have to try to legitimize this new direction, but all it is doing is causing confusion. Not to mention pissing me off.
I'm not sure whether Skyfall is meant to be part of the re-boot or not. It's a hard one to decide on. I think though, that it's not. The way I see it now, and I'm not too sure about everyone else, is that Casino Royale and QoS were a re-telling of how Bond came to be a 00 so as to fit modern times and Craig is still portraying the same Bond as Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan portrayed, he was just telling an EARLIER story in a more MODERN way. Anyone with me? -{
Now, as for Skyfall, to me it's the next mission after Die Another Day.
However, if this is truly meant to be a re-boot, then I probably have to agree with what you're saying. If the re-boot had been executed perfectly then we would know for sure what the deal is now we're out of the CR and QoS story. The way Skyfall is a completely stand alone Bond film makes me think that it's not a reboot. Obviously there has been a change in the feel of the Bond films and what sort storylines to expect and the level of gadgetry to expect, but I really think of Craig as the same Bond as everyone else. Certain phrases and the tone of M's obituary for Bond in Skyfall suggest a long-serving agent who has proven himself on many more occasions than just the CR and QoS missions.
I'm just hoping that in the next Bond film there is a mention of Tracy to clear everything up! Or even anything from a past mission. But I know how you feel, the uncertainty of the situation is pretty darn annoying!
Honestly cant see that happening and I think people are thinking too much about timelines etc
Neither can I i'm afraid And I do agree that there is too much concentration on the timelines, it just bugs me when people talk about it as a complete reboot and find flaws in Skyfall because it doesn't fit the reboot idea.
Honestly cant see that happening and I think people are thinking too much about timelines etc
Neither can I i'm afraid And I do agree that there is too much concentration on the timelines, it just bugs me when people talk about it as a complete reboot and find flaws in Skyfall because it doesn't fit the reboot idea.
I agree. There is plenty wrong with Skyfall which has nothing at all to do with rebooty-timeliney stuff
Honestly cant see that happening and I think people are thinking too much about timelines etc
Neither can I i'm afraid And I do agree that there is too much concentration on the timelines, it just bugs me when people talk about it as a complete reboot and find flaws in Skyfall because it doesn't fit the reboot idea.
I agree. There is plenty wrong with Skyfall which has nothing at all to do with rebooty-timeliney stuff
As far as the comments on how this Bond fits in some sort of timeline, I
don't think anyone should focus on this. CR was not just a reboot of
Bond's character - it was a reboot of the whole series - which means
none of the other stories or films exist in this new Bond universe. The
films that were from Fleming's stories were not even filmed in the sequence
they were written, so that time frame was thrown out the window in the very beginning. It's one of the reasons the whole "get Blofeld" plot got screwed up when they filmed YOLT before OHMSS.
After Fleming's stories were done and they started using bits and pieces
of scenes from his novels in original plots - it only made any kind of time frame in reference to Bond's universe even less logical - together with the fact that we kept getting new actors playing all the major characters. It's why it did not matter that Dench was in Brosnan's films and the reboots. It's also why we cannot make comparisons of Craig's films with the older entries. The producers decided they wanted to get back to the serious Bond from the novels, but had to update him for today. It's why we don't see Craig in suits in every scene he's in (though they did more of it in this film to give some nostalgia for the audience) - because the world has gone casual in a major way and the formality of yesteryear is gone. It's why we have a new team at MI6 HQs. Even Bond's flat was sold (so we will now never know what it might have looked like, and if we ever do see it, it will be a totally new one). His Aston was destroyed, though I'm sure we'll probably only see
him in the latest model in the future films. They even wiped out Bond's physical past by destroying his childhood home. Talk about getting the series going with a clean slate!
Will we ever seen the fantastic, bombastic sci-fi plots of the past, littered with the bad puns and outlandish gadgets? I don't thing so - at least not as long as Craig is in the saddle. The producers want to keep Bond in realistic plots for now because his character demands it and lets face it - after 911, the Western world experienced a sharp cultural transformation that made horror, shock, and violence even more palatable and even preferable, just as it did after WWII - it's why we ended up with film noir - and why we now have a darker Bond series.
Will there ever be lighter films? Who knows? For now, I'll just enjoy the
ride I'm on.
As far as the comments on how this Bond fits in some sort of timeline, I
don't think anyone should focus on this. CR was not just a reboot of
Bond's character - it was a reboot of the whole series - which means
none of the other stories or films exist in this new Bond universe.
As far as the comments on how this Bond fits in some sort of timeline, I
don't think anyone should focus on this. CR was not just a reboot of
Bond's character - it was a reboot of the whole series - which means
none of the other stories or films exist in this new Bond universe.
That and the point that Skyfall is certainly not his third mission.
I don't understand how people can just forget about the numerous plot holes in the older Bond films but expect the new ones to be down right perfect for some reason.
Its a James Bond movie. Your suppossed to just shut up and enjoy it.
1: Casino Royale 2: Goldeneye 3: Skyfall 4: Octopussy 5: Goldfinger 6: Tomorrow Never Dies 7: The World Is Not Enough 8: The Living Daylights 9: From Russia With Love 10: The Spy Who Loved Me
I don't understand how people can just forget about the numerous plot holes in the older Bond films but expect the new ones to be down right perfect for some reason.
Its a James Bond movie. Your suppossed to just shut up and enjoy it.
I'm going to disagree here.
The point is that we are 'arguing' over James Bond. We are having a discussion because it's fun and because we can. If you think about it, trying to wrap your head around a 'continuity' appears to be a reasonable endeavor. We ARE talking about the same character after all, except the way the movies have played out there really is no way to find true continuity.
But attempting to establish one can in fact be loads of fun and is another great aspect to being a Bond fan.
Fun for some, perhaps, but it's futile. There's no way to logically reconcile the timeline. I'm not suggesting that folks "just shut up" and stop discussing it, but just don't expect anyone to come up with a definitive answer. Carry on!
Agreed, It all great Fun to read the posts about the timeline. -{
But to me The reboot is a new start, so can't be fitted in. So
as with "Back to the future" We're on a New Timeline. )
Well that's how I'm looking at it.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Agreed, It all great Fun to read the posts about the timeline. -{
But to me The reboot is a new start, so can't be fitted in. So
as with "Back to the future" We're on a New Timeline. )
Well that's how I'm looking at it.
god d@#! re-boot! it's what screwing this whole timeline up X-(
I agree. There is plenty wrong with Skyfall which has nothing at all to do with rebooty-timeliney stuff
Have people here seen Ben Affleck's Daredevil? Like SF, I wasn't particularly keen on it. Then at the behest of a friend I got the Director's Cut which actually made me a fan of the film. I think one of the main things wrong with Daredevil's theatrical cut is similar to SF- it was sabotaged by the apparent need to include a love making scene that had no real place in the movie. It was awkward, and skewed the actual relationship between Daredevil & Elektra for the sake of an obligatory boink. In SF, shagging Severine was not only off-putting to me for reasons of her past profession, it made Silva's killing of her SO telegraphed that I felt Bond was a dope (at best) for not seeing it coming more than I did.
I agree. There is plenty wrong with Skyfall which has nothing at all to do with rebooty-timeliney stuff
Have people here seen Ben Affleck's Daredevil? Like SF, I wasn't particularly keen on it. Then at the behest of a friend I got the Director's Cut which actually made me a fan of the film. I think one of the main things wrong with Daredevil's theatrical cut is similar to SF- it was sabotaged by the apparent need to include a love making scene that had no real place in the movie. It was awkward, and skewed the actual relationship between Daredevil & Elektra for the sake of an obligatory boink. In SF, shagging Severine was not only off-putting to me for reasons of her past profession, it made Silva's killing of her SO telegraphed that I felt Bond was a dope (at best) for not seeing it coming more than I did.
You saw that coming??? I was like "Okay finally here's the Bond girl that will help out James at the end of the film." and then BOOM!
She's dead in the very next scene.
1: Casino Royale 2: Goldeneye 3: Skyfall 4: Octopussy 5: Goldfinger 6: Tomorrow Never Dies 7: The World Is Not Enough 8: The Living Daylights 9: From Russia With Love 10: The Spy Who Loved Me
Agreed, It all great Fun to read the posts about the timeline. -{
But to me The reboot is a new start, so can't be fitted in. So
as with "Back to the future" We're on a New Timeline. )
Well that's how I'm looking at it.
god d@#! re-boot! it's what screwing this whole timeline up X-(
Agreed, It all great Fun to read the posts about the timeline. -{
But to me The reboot is a new start, so can't be fitted in. So
as with "Back to the future" We're on a New Timeline. )
Well that's how I'm looking at it.
Indeed it is, but I would like to know if the new timeline contains the same character ? It's not a question of has he married Tracy in this Bondiverse, as it seems clear to me that he has not. He could do if he meets her in this timeline of course, and if he is the same character in Dr No, or OHMSS for example you could argue that he would do (this may be a bad example as which of us wouldn't marry Tracy given the chance)
I know this has been touched upon before,but never really settled to my mind. Interested in your thoughts.
I would like to know if the new timeline contains the same character ? It's not a question of has he married Tracy in this Bondiverse, as it seems clear to me that he has not. He could do if he meets her in this timeline of course, and if he is the same character in Dr No, or OHMSS for example you could argue that he would do (this may be a bad example as which of us wouldn't marry Tracy given the chance)
I know this has been touched upon before,but never really settled to my mind. Interested in your thoughts.
It hasn't been settled because logically there is no way to settle it. Any attempt to reconcile the current Bond with past Bonds is an exercise in futility in my opinion, so I don't even try. However, I realize that a number fans enjoy exploring the possibilities and picking apart the possible scenarios, and I'm not trying to put a damper on your fun, so have at it.
Yes id go along with at least one of those DAF
just because it has MR WINT/KIDD the red Mustang
Willard Whyte you all,but getting back to the origanal question
i personaly love skyfall ,and that is my democratic opinion
but as agent black leiter quit correctly says people are trying to compare films from different ages
wich is like trying to compare a 2012 BMW M3 to a 1972 BMW 2002
both magnificent cars in their own time frame but as he says have fun with it
By the way, did I tell you, I was "Mad"?
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,848MI6 Agent
SF is clearly the better film, I just enjoy DAF more. )
DAF is silly, a little enjoyable. I have to file a review of it on the blog soon. It has very few redeeming qualitiews and I've got an axe to grind. :v
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Comments
No it's not the worst Bond... After all, there is still QOS.
But weren't we told to expect a more realistic Bond? A more believable Bond? All I saw was a petulant, pissed off Bond who got his boss killed, couldn't shoot straight, looked like Gollum on a bender, and practically got a medal doing it.
And any movie that has gotten as much hype as SF is going to be hyper-analysed. So, SF Defenders, riddle me this? If this is a true reboot, what was the tricked out DB5 doing there? Is this the DB5 he won in Casino Royale? If so, why did he choose 50 year old gadgets for it to be tricked out with? Or did he have two? Where did it come from? I'll tell you. They felt they HAD to thow it in somewhere.
If this is reboot, they should quit referencing past movies and get on with it. Like the Star Trek reboot, wipe the slate clean. They don't need an excuse, like did Star Trek with the alternate timeline. Just say "Hey, we're starting over. You're going to see some cool new stuff soon" Like has been done with Amazing Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk series. Stop telling us how much better Bond will be by reminding everyone of the past. It's as if they have to try to legitimize this new direction, but all it is doing is causing confusion.
You are probably all aware of where I stand on Craig. But it has been the last two movies that has created that opinion. I kinda liked CR, and had high hopes after CR. Craig was surprisingly convincing for me in CR, although I still don't see where he's a great actor. But I was looking forward to being proven wrong about all that I had said about the Blond Bond. But, since then, this reboot is without a rudder, and has, IMO, been ill executed. My excitement over seeing Bond's backstory told has been dashed on the rocks of indecision. You cannot plot a straight course by looking behind.
I weep for the invisible car, the sub swallowing tanker(the innuendo there is still one of the best of the series), and the hollow volcano.
But then, that's me, and my opinions on Craig are just that, My Opinions. For me, I was so disgusted by the end of this movie I nearly walked out. I kept telling myself, "It has to get better, it just has to. Please get better!" But, as was just posted, it is bringing new fans and that is a good thing. I will promise you all this, though. I will not post about Skyfall, QOS, or Craig until I've watched all three of his again. I can't seem to do so without going off on a rant.
I'm not sure whether Skyfall is meant to be part of the re-boot or not. It's a hard one to decide on. I think though, that it's not. The way I see it now, and I'm not too sure about everyone else, is that Casino Royale and QoS were a re-telling of how Bond came to be a 00 so as to fit modern times and Craig is still portraying the same Bond as Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan portrayed, he was just telling an EARLIER story in a more MODERN way. Anyone with me? -{
Now, as for Skyfall, to me it's the next mission after Die Another Day.
However, if this is truly meant to be a re-boot, then I probably have to agree with what you're saying. If the re-boot had been executed perfectly then we would know for sure what the deal is now we're out of the CR and QoS story. The way Skyfall is a completely stand alone Bond film makes me think that it's not a reboot. Obviously there has been a change in the feel of the Bond films and what sort storylines to expect and the level of gadgetry to expect, but I really think of Craig as the same Bond as everyone else. Certain phrases and the tone of M's obituary for Bond in Skyfall suggest a long-serving agent who has proven himself on many more occasions than just the CR and QoS missions.
I'm just hoping that in the next Bond film there is a mention of Tracy to clear everything up! Or even anything from a past mission. But I know how you feel, the uncertainty of the situation is pretty darn annoying!
Honestly cant see that happening and I think people are thinking too much about timelines etc
Neither can I i'm afraid
I agree. There is plenty wrong with Skyfall which has nothing at all to do with rebooty-timeliney stuff
don't think anyone should focus on this. CR was not just a reboot of
Bond's character - it was a reboot of the whole series - which means
none of the other stories or films exist in this new Bond universe. The
films that were from Fleming's stories were not even filmed in the sequence
they were written, so that time frame was thrown out the window in the very beginning. It's one of the reasons the whole "get Blofeld" plot got screwed up when they filmed YOLT before OHMSS.
After Fleming's stories were done and they started using bits and pieces
of scenes from his novels in original plots - it only made any kind of time frame in reference to Bond's universe even less logical - together with the fact that we kept getting new actors playing all the major characters. It's why it did not matter that Dench was in Brosnan's films and the reboots. It's also why we cannot make comparisons of Craig's films with the older entries. The producers decided they wanted to get back to the serious Bond from the novels, but had to update him for today. It's why we don't see Craig in suits in every scene he's in (though they did more of it in this film to give some nostalgia for the audience) - because the world has gone casual in a major way and the formality of yesteryear is gone. It's why we have a new team at MI6 HQs. Even Bond's flat was sold (so we will now never know what it might have looked like, and if we ever do see it, it will be a totally new one). His Aston was destroyed, though I'm sure we'll probably only see
him in the latest model in the future films. They even wiped out Bond's physical past by destroying his childhood home. Talk about getting the series going with a clean slate!
Will we ever seen the fantastic, bombastic sci-fi plots of the past, littered with the bad puns and outlandish gadgets? I don't thing so - at least not as long as Craig is in the saddle. The producers want to keep Bond in realistic plots for now because his character demands it and lets face it - after 911, the Western world experienced a sharp cultural transformation that made horror, shock, and violence even more palatable and even preferable, just as it did after WWII - it's why we ended up with film noir - and why we now have a darker Bond series.
Will there ever be lighter films? Who knows? For now, I'll just enjoy the
ride I'm on.
That and the point that Skyfall is certainly not his third mission.
Its a James Bond movie. Your suppossed to just shut up and enjoy it.
I'm going to disagree here.
The point is that we are 'arguing' over James Bond. We are having a discussion because it's fun and because we can. If you think about it, trying to wrap your head around a 'continuity' appears to be a reasonable endeavor. We ARE talking about the same character after all, except the way the movies have played out there really is no way to find true continuity.
But attempting to establish one can in fact be loads of fun and is another great aspect to being a Bond fan.
But to me The reboot is a new start, so can't be fitted in. So
as with "Back to the future" We're on a New Timeline.
Well that's how I'm looking at it.
James Bond Skyfall parody
god d@#! re-boot! it's what screwing this whole timeline up X-(
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
You saw that coming??? I was like "Okay finally here's the Bond girl that will help out James at the end of the film." and then BOOM!
She's dead in the very next scene.
Haha. Timeline. Very funny.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Indeed it is, but I would like to know if the new timeline contains the same character ? It's not a question of has he married Tracy in this Bondiverse, as it seems clear to me that he has not. He could do if he meets her in this timeline of course, and if he is the same character in Dr No, or OHMSS for example you could argue that he would do (this may be a bad example as which of us wouldn't marry Tracy given the chance)
I know this has been touched upon before,but never really settled to my mind. Interested in your thoughts.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Pray tell, which ones, quoth SILHOUETTE MAN...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
just because it has MR WINT/KIDD the red Mustang
Willard Whyte you all,but getting back to the origanal question
i personaly love skyfall ,and that is my democratic opinion
but as agent black leiter quit correctly says people are trying to compare films from different ages
wich is like trying to compare a 2012 BMW M3 to a 1972 BMW 2002
both magnificent cars in their own time frame but as he says have fun with it
DAF is better than Skyfall - joke, right?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
DAF is silly, a little enjoyable. I have to file a review of it on the blog soon. It has very few redeeming qualitiews and I've got an axe to grind. :v