I know that traditionally there's little continuity between the Bond films anyway but to go from two films that had clear continuity to something completely different doesn't work with the supposed 'realistic' characterisation.
What bothered me the most was 1) that they moved from the "rookie spy on his first mission" theme to Bond being supposedly too old for the job within the course of less than two movies and 2) that the story of CR and QOS remains unfinished as long as Quantum/Spectre and Mr White are around. But I think the latter will be finally "corrected" in SPECTRE so I can overlook the former as well
Was there a particular reason why they weren't in the first two?
I think they just really wanted to keep the gadgets to a minimum so a Q scene would've been pointless. The relationship to Moneypenny (if we're thinking reboot so Bond's on his first missions) might have credibly be established only later. But perhaps they were just looking for the perfect actors to re-cast them or something...
"I'm afraid I'm a complicated woman. "
"- That is something to be afraid of."
What bothered me the most was 1) that they moved from the "rookie spy on his first mission" theme to Bond being supposedly too old for the job within the course of less than two movies and 2) that the story of CR and QOS remains unfinished as long as Quantum/Spectre and Mr White are around. But I think the latter will be finally "corrected" in SPECTRE so I can overlook the former as well
This, 100%! If it had been a really long gap and a completely new actor, Skyfall might make a bit more sense, but it had only been four years after QoS and all of a sudden Bond was over-the-hill and M was being put out to pasture! Skyfall presupposes that everybody thought that the Bond series had had its day and you couldn't do a classic Bond film any more and so there's this whole sour note up until the Tube sequence.
Having rewatched it, I haven't changed my opinion of the film as a whole; I find it too calculated and dislike the premise of Bond being past it. Sure, Daniel Craig looks noticeably older but why draw attention to it?
Three years on from my initial viewing though, there are some pros. It doesn't drag and isn't dull; if the film is taken less seriously, Silva works as an old-style Bond villain and Javier Bardem puts in a good performance. Severine is great but I found Bond's seduction a bit too rapey and he doesn't really have good sexual chemistry with either Bond girl (more heat was generated off his interrogation scene with Silva ) ). Albert Finney's character is fun but bizarre and I did guiltily laugh when Bond said "I thought you were dead" to him, seeing as we haven't seen Finney on screen for ages. The Oedipal complexes are fine if not taken seriously (although it's not clear in some parts how much we are meant to take seriously); they don't show anything about Bond's character (I feel that they could have added more mystery around the parents' death to link into Spectre or make there seem to be more of a point than him being an orphan and missing his parents) but I suppose it's something new.
Although Q is a bit annoying, it's fixable. Ralph Fiennes is very funny as M; some of the looks he does are great and show that whilst Craig delivers the deadpan humour well, he's not really suited to light comedy, so I think it's right to keep Bond's humour as deadpan. I was pleased that M's character evolved beyond being a stuffy bureaucrat.
To be honest the most annoying thing about the film was the critics and audience treating it as if it was a profound piece of art and as if it was the film that suddenly made us understand Bond as a person because now he was 'human'.
Theres a feel of momentum to Skyfall. It starts with Silva breaking into the underground and continues on to M's death. So, yes, I do feel it is a classic - though a very minor one..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Theres a feel of momentum to Skyfall. It starts with Silva breaking into the underground and continues on to M's death. So, yes, I do feel it is a classic - though a very minor one..
It does have pace in its favour; it doesn't feel like it drags. It just has an odd tone to it; some parts I find quite reminiscent of Sherlock (Silva's gameplaying and his childlike behaviour), probably not helped by much of it being set in London (although it was a wise commercial move).
[, probably not helped by much of it being set in London (although it was a wise commercial move).
I think that is one of the highlights. We see the world with Macau and Shanghai then get down to business with London. The chase on the underground, the tearing down Whitehall, M's speach in front of the committee, the Aton Martin reveal....all following on from each other..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
[, probably not helped by much of it being set in London (although it was a wise commercial move).
I think that is one of the highlights. We see the world with Macau and Shanghai then get down to business with London. The chase on the underground, the tearing down Whitehall, M's speach in front of the committee, the Aton Martin reveal....all following on from each other..
I'm not really a fan of it being set in London so much, even though I love London. It works as a 50th anniversary kind of thing, in that after 50 years Bond is spending some time near home, but I'm used to Bond going to exotic places. You see that we see the world with Macau and Shanghai, but do we really see Macau and Shanghai? I don't feel the atmosphere of Asia at all like I do in YOLT, TMWTGG or TND. I really love the deserted Island (even though it's all fake), but the rest of Asia really feels like a studio the whole time. The only exotic place you really see in Skyfall is Istanbul, though the opening could have taken place in any city and still been exactly the same. FRWL showed how to really make the most of Istanbul. The locations in Skyfall are one of the films weakest points, at least in comparison to most other Bond films.
, probably not helped by much of it being set in London (although it was a wise commercial move).
I think that is one of the highlights. We see the world with Macau and Shanghai then get down to business with London. The chase on the underground, the tearing down Whitehall, M's speach in front of the committee, the Aton Martin reveal....all following on from each other..
I'm not really a fan of it being set in London so much, even though I love London. It works as a 50th anniversary kind of thing, in that after 50 years Bond is spending some time near home, but I'm used to Bond going to exotic places. You see that we see the world with Macau and Shanghai, but do we really see Macau and Shanghai? I don't feel the atmosphere of Asia at all like I do in YOLT, TMWTGG or TND. I really love the deserted Island (even though it's all fake), but the rest of Asia really feels like a studio the whole time. The only exotic place you really see in Skyfall is Istanbul, though the opening could have taken place in any city and still been exactly the same. FRWL showed how to really make the most of Istanbul. The locations in Skyfall are one of the films weakest points, at least in comparison to most other Bond films.
Have you been to Shanghai? I have..
One of the things which stands out is the projections on the skyscrapers. They appear hundreds of foot high. They are particular from Shanghai and the one projected on to the screen in skyfall were exceptional. The melting jellyfish projected onto the rear wall where Bond has that fight with that guy is extraordinary.
And as far TND?
They didn't get permission to film in Vietnam so had to film in Thailand. TND is the only film where Thailand looks bland...
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I think that is one of the highlights. We see the world with Macau and Shanghai then get down to business with London. The chase on the underground, the tearing down Whitehall, M's speach in front of the committee, the Aton Martin reveal....all following on from each other..
I'm not really a fan of it being set in London so much, even though I love London. It works as a 50th anniversary kind of thing, in that after 50 years Bond is spending some time near home, but I'm used to Bond going to exotic places. You see that we see the world with Macau and Shanghai, but do we really see Macau and Shanghai? I don't feel the atmosphere of Asia at all like I do in YOLT, TMWTGG or TND. I really love the deserted Island (even though it's all fake), but the rest of Asia really feels like a studio the whole time. The only exotic place you really see in Skyfall is Istanbul, though the opening could have taken place in any city and still been exactly the same. FRWL showed how to really make the most of Istanbul. The locations in Skyfall are one of the films weakest points, at least in comparison to most other Bond films.
Have you been to Shanghai? I have..
One of the things which stands out is the projections on the skyscrapers. They appear hundreds of foot high. They are particular from Shanghai and the one projected on to the screen in skyfall were exceptional. The melting jellyfish projected onto the rear wall where Bond has that fight with that guy is extraordinary.
I did not get the impact from the film that you got when you visited. That's my problem with the Shanghai location. I shouldn't need to visit the location to appreciate it on screen. The projections were cool, but from the film they didn't look like as grand as what you describe is in Shanghai because they weren't real. Nothing other than the aerial establishing shot was actually filmed in Shanghai. Daniel Craig never went to Asia for Skyfall. I didn't know the Asian scenes were filmed in England when I first saw the film, but I knew that I wasn't impressed with the locations. The production made England look fantastic, and the set designs were beautiful, but it wasn't actually Shanghai or Macau and the film didn't make me feel like I was in Shanghai or Macau. It was thoroughly believable, but it didn't have impact and didn't feel special. Bond films are known for shooting many things on location, but Skyfall's smaller budget meant that it was only possible to go abroad to Turkey.
Personally, one of the items that made the film stand out for me was the fact so much of it was set in the London. The series has had a run of 23 films showing Bond trotting off all around the world - and yes, that was one of the appealing points of the novels. For those who prefer the the old EON blueprint only showing Bond as a global hopping playboy/spy I suppose devoting so much of this film where he lives and works is a big let down.
It would have been difficult to change the location of the plot from London to any place else as this was written in as a central background "character". One of the main points of the story dealt with Bond himself and his relation to his job and M and why he does it - as well as the fact Silva was not only attacking M but MI6 and the government as well.
Showing this much of London helped support and emphasize in a big way the patriotism of the film as well as portraying Bond's home. Though it did not show his flat (thank heavens we'll see his new one in SPECTRE), it showed enough of the symbols of the capital to make it feel for me that this is where Bond's heart is at and another reason he felt the need to return to defend it.
People who think showing this much of London made it feel like less of a Bond film may be consoled by the fact they will probably not repeat this in future films to this extent. However, I am glad they did it for this film (and being it was the 50th anniversary was a great touch).
People who think showing this much of London made it feel like less of a Bond film may be consoled by the fact they will probably not repeat this in future films to this extent. However, I am glad they did it for this film (and being it was the 50th anniversary was a great touch).
And of course the London 2012 Olympics had just finished so it was a savvy move to set it in London, even though London is the default location for British TV!
I doubt they would use London again; it looked quite drab as a location, although perhaps it was more interesting for international audiences.
People who think showing this much of London made it feel like less of a Bond film may be consoled by the fact they will probably not repeat this in future films to this extent. However, I am glad they did it for this film (and being it was the 50th anniversary was a great touch).
And of course the London 2012 Olympics had just finished so it was a savvy move to set it in London, even though London is the default location for British TV!
I doubt they would use London again; it looked quite drab as a location, although perhaps it was more interesting for international audiences.
And when you consider that London doubled for Shanghai, that's even more in London.
London is supposed to be used for a large portion of Spectre, though not as much as in Skyfall
Up until Craig, the Bond films had a formula. The joy of each new film was watching the formula being applied to different plots, villains and themes. With Craig, the formula has been seriously tampered with. If Eon want to come up with a new concept of what a spy is, they should start a new franchise rather than mutating Bond until he is longer recognisable. The formula was working - why reinvent the wheel. I mean for Gods sake - a Bond film without gadgets? Leave the formula alone and just come up with some great new grandiose plots and villains. They don't have to be as over the top as Gustav Graves, Drax, Stromberg or Zorin but give us villains who are really entertaining with bat sh*t crazy plans to take over the world. That's the formula. It works. It generates great popcorn flicks. Leave it alone.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
I want something more than a 'popcorn flick' now. So do most audiences. By DAD, Bond had become stale and cinema audiences were getting better spy genre films. Bond was in danger of standing still. Craig's films have reinvigorated the series and brushed away the cobwebs. It was needed.
.................................
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,769Chief of Staff
I want something more than a 'popcorn flick' now. So do most audiences. By DAD, Bond had become stale and cinema audiences were getting better spy genre films. Bond was in danger of standing still. Craig's films have reinvigorated the series and brushed away the cobwebs. It was needed.
All true...I don't mind 'popcorn films', just not Bond ones -{
Up until Craig, the Bond films had a formula. The joy of each new film was watching the formula being applied to different plots, villains and themes. With Craig, the formula has been seriously tampered with. If Eon want to come up with a new concept of what a spy is, they should start a new franchise rather than mutating Bond until he is longer recognisable. The formula was working - why reinvent the wheel. I mean for Gods sake - a Bond film without gadgets? Leave the formula alone and just come up with some great new grandiose plots and villains. They don't have to be as over the top as Gustav Graves, Drax, Stromberg or Zorin but give us villains who are really entertaining with bat sh*t crazy plans to take over the world. That's the formula. It works. It generates great popcorn flicks. Leave it alone.
Sorry but I want something more then a 'popcorn flick'? And the Brosnans sent themselves up to high they became a parody...
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
the Brosnans sent themselves up to high they became a parody...
I don't recall Brosnan's Bond ever beating up goons in a Hockey rink & SCORING POINTS! )
But Moore played the scene so seriously and made it work. Brosnan couldn't make an invisible car work, or his bad scripts. Daniel Craig couldn't fix Skyfall's many faults, including making his childhood suits look good.
For me, Skyfall is a technically proficient visual feast whose storyline falls flat around nearly every turn. It's a gorgeous movie but I ruffle at all the plot holes. Casino Royale on the other hand is about as close to a perfect Bond movie as I believe I'll ever see. -{ -{
Comments
What bothered me the most was 1) that they moved from the "rookie spy on his first mission" theme to Bond being supposedly too old for the job within the course of less than two movies and 2) that the story of CR and QOS remains unfinished as long as Quantum/Spectre and Mr White are around. But I think the latter will be finally "corrected" in SPECTRE so I can overlook the former as well
I think they just really wanted to keep the gadgets to a minimum so a Q scene would've been pointless. The relationship to Moneypenny (if we're thinking reboot so Bond's on his first missions) might have credibly be established only later. But perhaps they were just looking for the perfect actors to re-cast them or something...
"- That is something to be afraid of."
This, 100%! If it had been a really long gap and a completely new actor, Skyfall might make a bit more sense, but it had only been four years after QoS and all of a sudden Bond was over-the-hill and M was being put out to pasture! Skyfall presupposes that everybody thought that the Bond series had had its day and you couldn't do a classic Bond film any more and so there's this whole sour note up until the Tube sequence.
Having rewatched it, I haven't changed my opinion of the film as a whole; I find it too calculated and dislike the premise of Bond being past it. Sure, Daniel Craig looks noticeably older but why draw attention to it?
Three years on from my initial viewing though, there are some pros. It doesn't drag and isn't dull; if the film is taken less seriously, Silva works as an old-style Bond villain and Javier Bardem puts in a good performance. Severine is great but I found Bond's seduction a bit too rapey and he doesn't really have good sexual chemistry with either Bond girl (more heat was generated off his interrogation scene with Silva
Although Q is a bit annoying, it's fixable. Ralph Fiennes is very funny as M; some of the looks he does are great and show that whilst Craig delivers the deadpan humour well, he's not really suited to light comedy, so I think it's right to keep Bond's humour as deadpan. I was pleased that M's character evolved beyond being a stuffy bureaucrat.
To be honest the most annoying thing about the film was the critics and audience treating it as if it was a profound piece of art and as if it was the film that suddenly made us understand Bond as a person because now he was 'human'.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
If Spectre lives up to expectations, I think that's mainly how Skyfall will be thought of; as a transition/set-up film.
It does have pace in its favour; it doesn't feel like it drags. It just has an odd tone to it; some parts I find quite reminiscent of Sherlock (Silva's gameplaying and his childlike behaviour), probably not helped by much of it being set in London (although it was a wise commercial move).
"- That is something to be afraid of."
I think that is one of the highlights. We see the world with Macau and Shanghai then get down to business with London. The chase on the underground, the tearing down Whitehall, M's speach in front of the committee, the Aton Martin reveal....all following on from each other..
I'm not really a fan of it being set in London so much, even though I love London. It works as a 50th anniversary kind of thing, in that after 50 years Bond is spending some time near home, but I'm used to Bond going to exotic places. You see that we see the world with Macau and Shanghai, but do we really see Macau and Shanghai? I don't feel the atmosphere of Asia at all like I do in YOLT, TMWTGG or TND. I really love the deserted Island (even though it's all fake), but the rest of Asia really feels like a studio the whole time. The only exotic place you really see in Skyfall is Istanbul, though the opening could have taken place in any city and still been exactly the same. FRWL showed how to really make the most of Istanbul. The locations in Skyfall are one of the films weakest points, at least in comparison to most other Bond films.
Have you been to Shanghai? I have..
One of the things which stands out is the projections on the skyscrapers. They appear hundreds of foot high. They are particular from Shanghai and the one projected on to the screen in skyfall were exceptional. The melting jellyfish projected onto the rear wall where Bond has that fight with that guy is extraordinary.
And as far TND?
They didn't get permission to film in Vietnam so had to film in Thailand. TND is the only film where Thailand looks bland...
I did not get the impact from the film that you got when you visited. That's my problem with the Shanghai location. I shouldn't need to visit the location to appreciate it on screen. The projections were cool, but from the film they didn't look like as grand as what you describe is in Shanghai because they weren't real. Nothing other than the aerial establishing shot was actually filmed in Shanghai. Daniel Craig never went to Asia for Skyfall. I didn't know the Asian scenes were filmed in England when I first saw the film, but I knew that I wasn't impressed with the locations. The production made England look fantastic, and the set designs were beautiful, but it wasn't actually Shanghai or Macau and the film didn't make me feel like I was in Shanghai or Macau. It was thoroughly believable, but it didn't have impact and didn't feel special. Bond films are known for shooting many things on location, but Skyfall's smaller budget meant that it was only possible to go abroad to Turkey.
It would have been difficult to change the location of the plot from London to any place else as this was written in as a central background "character". One of the main points of the story dealt with Bond himself and his relation to his job and M and why he does it - as well as the fact Silva was not only attacking M but MI6 and the government as well.
Showing this much of London helped support and emphasize in a big way the patriotism of the film as well as portraying Bond's home. Though it did not show his flat (thank heavens we'll see his new one in SPECTRE), it showed enough of the symbols of the capital to make it feel for me that this is where Bond's heart is at and another reason he felt the need to return to defend it.
People who think showing this much of London made it feel like less of a Bond film may be consoled by the fact they will probably not repeat this in future films to this extent. However, I am glad they did it for this film (and being it was the 50th anniversary was a great touch).
And of course the London 2012 Olympics had just finished so it was a savvy move to set it in London, even though London is the default location for British TV!
I doubt they would use London again; it looked quite drab as a location, although perhaps it was more interesting for international audiences.
And when you consider that London doubled for Shanghai, that's even more in London.
All true...I don't mind 'popcorn films', just not Bond ones -{
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You know you love AWTD
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Sorry but I want something more then a 'popcorn flick'? And the Brosnans sent themselves up to high they became a parody...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
No he chased a man around in a car which turned Invisible....
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
No it was dopey comedy.The whoie of DAD was dopey comedy.
Even MR turns its nose up at DAD..
But Moore played the scene so seriously and made it work. Brosnan couldn't make an invisible car work, or his bad scripts. Daniel Craig couldn't fix Skyfall's many faults, including making his childhood suits look good.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS