Have to say, the train scene, while exciting, really needed its original vision of being shot in India.
It got nixed by the bureacracy out there, and because it showed India in a bad light, presumably with slumdog-style shots of folk hanging off the side of trains and on the roof.
But that would have made the fight, because instead of Bond and Patrice left to themselves, they have to dodge other folk too, it would be visually more exciting and the location would be more sumptuous too.
Anyone got a shot of where they originally wanted to film?
The whole mystery of Bond getting shot and surviving works better in an India setting too, the whole reincarnation theme. And it would have mirrored Bond walking along the subway train in London, dodging the natives, more obvious and appealing. That said, maybe the 'subtext' would have been Bond being rude to the Indian natives and polite to Londoners, to make a point about British imperialism, wouldn't bet against it.
Sam Mendes said "The film starts with Bond walking down a corridor towards camera, stopping and lifting a gun. And of course the gunbarrel is him walking, stopping and lifting a gun. When I put the two together, it looked ridiculous"
I haven't seen it myself (not sure if anyone's put it together on Youtube) but the explanation makes sense on paper.
I don't agree it would look ridiculous. What it would've looked like would be the gunbarrel fading into a dark corridor with a figure cautiously walking down it. We don't actually see that it's Bond and we don't see him lifting the gun until about 10 seconds into the film.
Well, I can't argue with that DEFIANT 74205. And you're in good company because Mendes must have thought it would look fine too as he had planned it and shot it that way - he only decided it didn't work when he actually saw it edited together. He's a director with a keen understanding of the visual rhythm of film and his justification does make sense on paper. But I haven't seen it so I can't truly judge. I'm sure some creative soul will edit the two together at some point and post it on Youtube and I'll be able to see it for myself.
To be honest, I'm one of those (seemingly rare) Bond fans who doesn't really care whether it's at the beginning or at the end. I think it works just as well both ways.
Needs to be at the strat like ALL the other pre-Craig films... Mendes could have reworked the beginning of the film (like Bond working his way INTO the building from the roof or something) rather than have him walking down a corridor...
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,483MI6 Agent
But he didn't, so it doesn't matter now. Maybe it'll be back at the beginning next time.
Needs to be at the strat like ALL the other pre-Craig films... Mendes could have reworked the beginning of the film (like Bond working his way INTO the building from the roof or something) rather than have him walking down a corridor...
Sorry, but no. The content of the film itself is what's important. It's crazy to ask an Oscar-winning director to alter the opening shot of the film just so a tiny minority of hardcore fans won't throw their toys out of the pram.
Needs to be at the strat like ALL the other pre-Craig films... Mendes could have reworked the beginning of the film (like Bond working his way INTO the building from the roof or something) rather than have him walking down a corridor...
Sorry, but no. The content of the film itself is what's important. It's crazy to ask an Oscar-winning director to alter the opening shot of the film just so a tiny minority of hardcore fans won't throw their toys out of the pram.
Being an Oscar-winning director should not put Mendes at a higher level of privilege than any other Bond director. Ultimately, as any hired talent of EON's, it was not his decision to make, but the producers.
"...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.....
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,483MI6 Agent
The end to Bond films have always been dodgy after the final scene. They usually fade to credits and some unrelated weird music. Having the gunbarrel at the end in the last two stopped that anti climax. To end on a bang with the gunbarrel is perfect before going into the music and credits. It's a fullstop. Job done. I don't care where it is as long as it's there. But the gunbarrel is a statement, and is a strange piece to have at the start of a film. It has worked very well at the end and makes far more sense dramatically.
I haven't been on here since watching Skyfall at the cinema. At the time, after watching it, I was buzzing. However after watching it on DVD, I can't help feeling it was a good film, but not 'Casino Royale' great. For me, Silva's character starts off great when we first meet him on the island, but he gradually goes downhill by the lodge fight at the end. Bardem's portrayal is just too effeminate for me to believe he was a top spy. I believe that Mads Mikkelson's Le Chiffre is the best villain in the modern era, closely followed by Mr White. Skyfall made massive amends for the mess that was QoS, but for me, it isn't in top five for me:
1) Casino Royale
2) The Spy Who Loved Me
3) Live and Let Die
4)For Your Eyes Only
5) From Russia With Love
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,651MI6 Agent
Ultimately, as any hired talent of EON's, it was not his decision to make, but the producers.
Well, sure. They did. The clearly decided to back Mendes.
Yes, it was their choice to do so, just as they could have gone any other way with or without Mendes' approval regardless of him being an Oscar winning director. In your post that I responded to, it seems to you that the fact of Mendes being an Oscar-winning director gives more weight to his status and credibility, which really doesn't.
"...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.....
Ultimately, as any hired talent of EON's, it was not his decision to make, but the producers.
Well, sure. They did. The clearly decided to back Mendes.
Yes, it was their choice to do so, just as they could have gone any other way with or without Mendes' approval regardless of him being an Oscar winning director. In your post that I responded to, it seems to you that the fact of Mendes being an Oscar-winning director gives more weight to his status and credibility, which really doesn't.
Well, the fact that he's the director gives him status and credibility for a start. So, regardless of calibre, Eon should be listening to all of their directors and only stepping-in when really vital.
To answer your question, the fact that Mendes is the most prestigious and critically-respected director the series has had, and has won an Oscar amongst his many other awards, does, I think, give more weight to his status and credibility, yes.
You seem to be suggesting that Eon should have ignored his opinion and instructed him to edit the scene with a gun barrel at the beginning. Is that right? (And, if so, why?)
Needs to be at the strat like ALL the other pre-Craig films... Mendes could have reworked the beginning of the film (like Bond working his way INTO the building from the roof or something) rather than have him walking down a corridor...
Sorry, but no. The content of the film itself is what's important. It's crazy to ask an Oscar-winning director to alter the opening shot of the film just so a tiny minority of hardcore fans won't throw their toys out of the pram.
I don't care WHO the director is... there should be constants in a continuing film series (it IS a series, after all). From what I see, there isn't a "tiny minority" who has a problem with a 10 second tradition being placed in a non traditional spot in the film.
Don't even get me started as to how Skyfall became a "Home Alone" movie towards the end...
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,483MI6 Agent
It's hardly Home Alone is it. They make shotgun shell bombs and mines that kill and have an Aston firing twin Browning machine guns that kill too. Don't remember that in Home Alone. You might as well consider any film that has improvised defence in it as Home Alone- like.
Well, sure. They did. The clearly decided to back Mendes.
Yes, it was their choice to do so, just as they could have gone any other way with or without Mendes' approval regardless of him being an Oscar winning director. In your post that I responded to, it seems to you that the fact of Mendes being an Oscar-winning director gives more weight to his status and credibility, which really doesn't.
Well, the fact that he's the director gives him status and credibility for a start. So, regardless of calibre, Eon should be listening to all of their directors and only stepping-in when really vital.
To answer your question, the fact that Mendes is the most prestigious and critically-respected director the series has had, and has won an Oscar amongst his many other awards, does, I think, give more weight to his status and credibility, yes.
You seem to be suggesting that Eon should have ignored his opinion and instructed him to edit the scene with a gun barrel at the beginning. Is that right? (And, if so, why?)
Like I wrote earlier... why not chuck the "walking down the dimly lit hallway" to open the film and maybe have Bond pulling up in the car, screeching to a halt, entering the building from a rooftop or running up through a side door or something a little more explosive than just walking down a hallway.
I guess it's that I don't know who Sam Mendes is, what he directed, etc. To me, he is just a director. I figure it would have been like Guy Hamilton saying "You know, I directed a few Bond films, I want to change things up a bit. So lets put the opening credits at the end of the movie, or do a 30 minute pre-credits sequence or something like that"
It doesn't make much sense to me to break tradition. There are things I look forward to in a 007 film. Gunbarrel, action packed Pre-credits, artistic opening credits, vodka martini, beautiful girls and a little suspense and mystery AND a James Bond who is suave, sophisticated, is in command of his world. I'm not feeling any of that in the Daniel Craig Bond films. Not his fault. I'm hoping the next Bond film gets over this whole reboot thing and we get a REAL Bond film with all the traditional elements back in their rightful places.
It's hardly Home Alone is it. They make shotgun shell bombs and mines that kill and have an Aston firing twin Browning machine guns that kill too. Don't remember that in Home Alone. You might as well consider any film that has improvised defence in it as Home Alone- like.
You're kidding... right? When I watched Skyfall the first time and they were PREPPING the house, I was thinking Home Alone. Maybe they didn't have red hot doorknobs and irons onto people, but it was a very Home Alone sequence.
And if I ever DO see another film with "improvised defence (sp) in it" then I will fell that it too, is Home Alone-like!
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,483MI6 Agent
Each to their own. I have to admit, every time I see a film with an umbrella in it set in London, I think it's very Mary Poppins :v
I guess it's that I don't know who Sam Mendes is, what he directed, etc. To me, he is just a director.
Yes, for all that Mendes "brought", there is nothing about SKYFALL that screams it was directed by a more skillful filmaker than Young, Hamilton, Hunt, Gilbert (SPY), Glen (Dalton films) and Campbell.
And Mendes had a huge budget at his disposal, and his call of casting.
Needs to be at the strat like ALL the other pre-Craig films... Mendes could have reworked the beginning of the film (like Bond working his way INTO the building from the roof or something) rather than have him walking down a corridor...
Sorry, but no. The content of the film itself is what's important. It's crazy to ask an Oscar-winning director to alter the opening shot of the film just so a tiny minority of hardcore fans won't throw their toys out of the pram.
I don't care WHO the director is... there should be constants in a continuing film series (it IS a series, after all). From what I see, there isn't a "tiny minority" who has a problem with a 10 second tradition being placed in a non traditional spot in the film.
Sorry, it really is a tiny minority. I'm a huge Bond fan who's seen every film and read every book countless times and I don't really care about it. Most of the 150million people who watched the film won't have even noticed.
It's hardly Home Alone is it. They make shotgun shell bombs and mines that kill and have an Aston firing twin Browning machine guns that kill too. Don't remember that in Home Alone. You might as well consider any film that has improvised defence in it as Home Alone- like.
You're kidding... right? When I watched Skyfall the first time and they were PREPPING the house, I was thinking Home Alone. Maybe they didn't have red hot doorknobs and irons onto people, but it was a very Home Alone sequence.
And if I ever DO see another film with "improvised defence (sp) in it" then I will fell that it too, is Home Alone-like!
I never thought that at all...even now others have mentioned it I still don't think that..but if you can't get past it then I feel sorry for you as this affliction must ruin all movies for you...
It's hardly Home Alone is it. They make shotgun shell bombs and mines that kill and have an Aston firing twin Browning machine guns that kill too. Don't remember that in Home Alone. You might as well consider any film that has improvised defence in it as Home Alone- like.
You're kidding... right? When I watched Skyfall the first time and they were PREPPING the house, I was thinking Home Alone. Maybe they didn't have red hot doorknobs and irons onto people, but it was a very Home Alone sequence.
And if I ever DO see another film with "improvised defence (sp) in it" then I will fell that it too, is Home Alone-like!
I never thought that at all...even now others have mentioned it I still don't think that..but if you can't get past it then I feel sorry for you as this affliction must ruin all movies for you...
Just an objective observation, that's all. Just cause I don't get on the "this latest Bond film is the greatest of them all" bandwagon doesn't mean I'm not a fan. That sort of mentality irritates me. Same with other boards on other shows and films. Doctor Who in particular. Everyone seems to chastise you for not conforming to their opinion and makes it sound like you're being an idiot for not agreeing with them.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,500Chief of Staff
You're kidding... right? When I watched Skyfall the first time and they were PREPPING the house, I was thinking Home Alone. Maybe they didn't have red hot doorknobs and irons onto people, but it was a very Home Alone sequence.
And if I ever DO see another film with "improvised defence (sp) in it" then I will fell that it too, is Home Alone-like!
I never thought that at all...even now others have mentioned it I still don't think that..but if you can't get past it then I feel sorry for you as this affliction must ruin all movies for you...
Just an objective observation, that's all. Just cause I don't get on the "this latest Bond film is the greatest of them all" bandwagon doesn't mean I'm not a fan. That sort of mentality irritates me. Same with other boards on other shows and films. Doctor Who in particular. Everyone seems to chastise you for not conforming to their opinion and makes it sound like you're being an idiot for not agreeing with them.
Like I said...I feel sorry for you...and I don't recall ever saying this latest one is the best of all...that's just yourself trying to justify your standpoint...no idea if that's idiotic or not...
I never thought that at all...even now others have mentioned it I still don't think that..but if you can't get past it then I feel sorry for you as this affliction must ruin all movies for you...
Just an objective observation, that's all. Just cause I don't get on the "this latest Bond film is the greatest of them all" bandwagon doesn't mean I'm not a fan. That sort of mentality irritates me. Same with other boards on other shows and films. Doctor Who in particular. Everyone seems to chastise you for not conforming to their opinion and makes it sound like you're being an idiot for not agreeing with them.
Like I said...I feel sorry for you...and I don't recall ever saying this latest one is the best of all...that's just yourself trying to justify your standpoint...no idea if that's idiotic or not...
Oh boy... I'm not singling out one person... it seems to be the GENERAL mentality... sorry if you felt I was attacking you for some reason
I never thought that at all...even now others have mentioned it I still don't think that..but if you can't get past it then I feel sorry for you as this affliction must ruin all movies for you...
Skyfall is very much like Batman Forever in that it's an entertaining flick, but not much more.
My Dr. Nosuess review:
The depth of its depth is as deep as a puddle,
yet so many facets to consider & muddle.
Purvis & Wade have crafted a story
that even a rewrite could lend to no glory...
Bond with DT's? M as a fool?
Time to go back to the Fleming school.
Skyfall is good now, so don't get me wrong,
But considering it great must require a bong.
I am on the side of those who think Skyfall is in the upper tier of Bond films. Not the best ever, mind you, but certainly a step above many of the more tiresome, silly films that I feel plagued the series for a while. And while I understand there those who aren't particularly enamored of the way Mendes directed the film, it is very obvious to me that he brought some florishes and style that many of the other directors didn't. The "Home Alone" comparisons don't really bother me, but I personally think they're misplaced. I've heard many complain about Craig's Bond being a brutish, thuggish type who doesn't use his wits enough. In Skyfall I think we saw some examples of Bond doing just that, including the so-called "Home Alone" sequence. I guess some don't see it that way, and that's fine. But what really does bother me is when fans jump all over each for having differing opinions (other than in a lighthearted, tongue-in-cheek way, of course). I have seen posts by some who seem absolutely furious with those who think Skyfall is an amazing, top 5 Bond film, and other posts that suggest that you're an idiot if you can't appreciate the "gloriousness" of the film. Neither opinion is fair, if you ask me, but again that's just an opinion. I think it would be great if we could try to express ourselves more along the lines of "I liked movie X because...." or "I didn't think movie X was very good because....." But perhaps I'm being a bit naive because this is a fan site after all, and the fans here, including me, have very strong opinions about Bond. Still, I think a less confrontational tone might be better sometimes. :007)
The "Home Alone" section (along with Shanghai) is my fave part of the movie. Its the middle bit inbetween that I seem to lose interest (Just after Severines death)
Just an objective observation, that's all. Just cause I don't get on the "this latest Bond film is the greatest of them all" bandwagon doesn't mean I'm not a fan. That sort of mentality irritates me. Same with other boards on other shows and films. Doctor Who in particular. Everyone seems to chastise you for not conforming to their opinion and makes it sound like you're being an idiot for not agreeing with them.
Like I said...I feel sorry for you...and I don't recall ever saying this latest one is the best of all...that's just yourself trying to justify your standpoint...no idea if that's idiotic or not...
Oh boy... I'm not singling out one person... it seems to be the GENERAL mentality... sorry if you felt I was attacking you for some reason
Didn't think you were...but I fear you are wrong with the general mentality viewpoint...but I do find some viewpoints as to why people either don't like it or rank it low as bizarre...but then I have the same feeling when people give their reasons for not liking QoS....
Comments
It got nixed by the bureacracy out there, and because it showed India in a bad light, presumably with slumdog-style shots of folk hanging off the side of trains and on the roof.
But that would have made the fight, because instead of Bond and Patrice left to themselves, they have to dodge other folk too, it would be visually more exciting and the location would be more sumptuous too.
Anyone got a shot of where they originally wanted to film?
The whole mystery of Bond getting shot and surviving works better in an India setting too, the whole reincarnation theme. And it would have mirrored Bond walking along the subway train in London, dodging the natives, more obvious and appealing. That said, maybe the 'subtext' would have been Bond being rude to the Indian natives and polite to Londoners, to make a point about British imperialism, wouldn't bet against it.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Needs to be at the strat like ALL the other pre-Craig films... Mendes could have reworked the beginning of the film (like Bond working his way INTO the building from the roof or something) rather than have him walking down a corridor...
Sorry, but no. The content of the film itself is what's important. It's crazy to ask an Oscar-winning director to alter the opening shot of the film just so a tiny minority of hardcore fans won't throw their toys out of the pram.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Being an Oscar-winning director should not put Mendes at a higher level of privilege than any other Bond director. Ultimately, as any hired talent of EON's, it was not his decision to make, but the producers.
Having said that, enough is enough and it should be back at the start for Bond 24.
Well, sure. They did. The clearly decided to back Mendes.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
1) Casino Royale
2) The Spy Who Loved Me
3) Live and Let Die
4)For Your Eyes Only
5) From Russia With Love
Yes, it was their choice to do so, just as they could have gone any other way with or without Mendes' approval regardless of him being an Oscar winning director. In your post that I responded to, it seems to you that the fact of Mendes being an Oscar-winning director gives more weight to his status and credibility, which really doesn't.
Well, the fact that he's the director gives him status and credibility for a start. So, regardless of calibre, Eon should be listening to all of their directors and only stepping-in when really vital.
To answer your question, the fact that Mendes is the most prestigious and critically-respected director the series has had, and has won an Oscar amongst his many other awards, does, I think, give more weight to his status and credibility, yes.
You seem to be suggesting that Eon should have ignored his opinion and instructed him to edit the scene with a gun barrel at the beginning. Is that right? (And, if so, why?)
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
I don't care WHO the director is... there should be constants in a continuing film series (it IS a series, after all). From what I see, there isn't a "tiny minority" who has a problem with a 10 second tradition being placed in a non traditional spot in the film.
Don't even get me started as to how Skyfall became a "Home Alone" movie towards the end...
Like I wrote earlier... why not chuck the "walking down the dimly lit hallway" to open the film and maybe have Bond pulling up in the car, screeching to a halt, entering the building from a rooftop or running up through a side door or something a little more explosive than just walking down a hallway.
I guess it's that I don't know who Sam Mendes is, what he directed, etc. To me, he is just a director. I figure it would have been like Guy Hamilton saying "You know, I directed a few Bond films, I want to change things up a bit. So lets put the opening credits at the end of the movie, or do a 30 minute pre-credits sequence or something like that"
It doesn't make much sense to me to break tradition. There are things I look forward to in a 007 film. Gunbarrel, action packed Pre-credits, artistic opening credits, vodka martini, beautiful girls and a little suspense and mystery AND a James Bond who is suave, sophisticated, is in command of his world. I'm not feeling any of that in the Daniel Craig Bond films. Not his fault. I'm hoping the next Bond film gets over this whole reboot thing and we get a REAL Bond film with all the traditional elements back in their rightful places.
You're kidding... right? When I watched Skyfall the first time and they were PREPPING the house, I was thinking Home Alone. Maybe they didn't have red hot doorknobs and irons onto people, but it was a very Home Alone sequence.
And if I ever DO see another film with "improvised defence (sp) in it" then I will fell that it too, is Home Alone-like!
Only if the nanny holding the umbrella is flying
Yes, for all that Mendes "brought", there is nothing about SKYFALL that screams it was directed by a more skillful filmaker than Young, Hamilton, Hunt, Gilbert (SPY), Glen (Dalton films) and Campbell.
And Mendes had a huge budget at his disposal, and his call of casting.
But less is, often, more.
Sorry, it really is a tiny minority. I'm a huge Bond fan who's seen every film and read every book countless times and I don't really care about it. Most of the 150million people who watched the film won't have even noticed.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
I never thought that at all...even now others have mentioned it I still don't think that..but if you can't get past it then I feel sorry for you as this affliction must ruin all movies for you...
Just an objective observation, that's all. Just cause I don't get on the "this latest Bond film is the greatest of them all" bandwagon doesn't mean I'm not a fan. That sort of mentality irritates me. Same with other boards on other shows and films. Doctor Who in particular. Everyone seems to chastise you for not conforming to their opinion and makes it sound like you're being an idiot for not agreeing with them.
Like I said...I feel sorry for you...and I don't recall ever saying this latest one is the best of all...that's just yourself trying to justify your standpoint...no idea if that's idiotic or not...
Oh boy... I'm not singling out one person... it seems to be the GENERAL mentality... sorry if you felt I was attacking you for some reason
My Dr. Nosuess review:
The depth of its depth is as deep as a puddle,
yet so many facets to consider & muddle.
Purvis & Wade have crafted a story
that even a rewrite could lend to no glory...
Bond with DT's? M as a fool?
Time to go back to the Fleming school.
Skyfall is good now, so don't get me wrong,
But considering it great must require a bong.
:v
#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
Didn't think you were...but I fear you are wrong with the general mentality viewpoint...but I do find some viewpoints as to why people either don't like it or rank it low as bizarre...but then I have the same feeling when people give their reasons for not liking QoS....