It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
In retrospect, I believe they should have just moved on after CR and tried to tell standalone stories after that, allowing Craig to showcase elements of Bond's character through a solid script and with his subtle acting skills.
I hope that's what they do after they eventually close this chapter and iteration with the next man.
Oh, and I agree with Panchito that they should discard Blofeld as soon as possible. I think bringing him back was a huge mistake. He was a caricature in the films before, and now he's just become absurd.
I see your point, but it all (all of Bond's actions, and the film as a whole) seems pointless when M still is dead, even if the villain didn't get to enjoy it; the consequences of his scheme still came to fruition.
I know Mendes has been compared to Nolan quite often, but to pull another TDK-ism:
"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
Excellent post. CR would have been all the more special if it had been a one-off like OHMSS.
It's all very well yacking on endlessly about what you think they should have done, but the current trajectory has been a commercial and critical success the likes of which Bond hasn't seen for decades so it's probably fair to assume they'll bang out one more in a similar vein.
AKA, the reason I need to start drinking.
I get the fact it's not an absolute breeze, but that was the point and what I believe resonated with people. You often here platitudes in relation to this sort of cinema like, 'His toughest mission yet!' And it's always bollocks. With SF you could really argue the case. He's down and out, one step behind at all times. I find it appealing as a one off Bond.
In terms of box office, they've all been successful to varying degrees. In fact, Michael Wilson has only directly commented about two entries not being all that successful in his view: Namely, OHMSS and the Dalton run (I presume he was referring to LTK).
I could appreciate it that way as well, but a downbeat tone seems to permeate the entire Craig era. If the next era isn't just a continuation of this tone, as I fear it may be, then I'll have a much greater retrospective appreciation for all of Craig's films.
The climax takes place at Bond childhood home, yet he's one step behind? How is this Bond hardest mission ever again? He clicks the homer and the helicopters arrive almost immediately. How was he one step behind then? If anything this is one of Bond easier missions. The hardest part was probably the drive from London to Skyfall.
If you've seen the film you'll know that Bond suggests 'they get out in front', hence going to SF. That's where he attempts to turn the tables. It's a tough mission because he's spent most of the film off his game after drinking himself into a stupor in Turkey.
It doesn't really matter what either of us think @bondjames. You seem to take the view that EON make a conscious decision whether or not to make a classic this time round. The fact is of course they want to make a classic but it doesn't always turn out like that. But overall the Craig era has had more hits and misses and has done good box office so we can expect them to carry on in a similar vain regardless of whether we like it or not.
When EON start to feel the ground falling away underneath their feet they always are prepared to take risks in order to hold onto their position. That's why each new tenure starts on such a positive note. It's not just random.
The Moore era had plenty of changes in tone. The DC era has arguably
Been more consistent, largely because it's built around Craigs very character driven take on Bond.
^This.
When I first saw SF, I thought it was a cop-out to have M killed by random schrapnel. But on subsequent viewings, I realized that Silva never experienced completion of his goal.
Regardless, it's okay if Bond fails in 1 of 24 films!
Thank God for the Lumetri panel in Adobe Premiere ;-)
Let's see it!
Did Bond also fail in Casino Royale? SPECTRE/Quantum stole Bond's winnings. I don't recall any mention that Bond got it back. Lots of destruction in Venice but the electronic transfer of funds was completed.
And le cheffire died without giving up secrets
*High Five*
I've never gone crazy over seeing a Door as much as at the end of Skyfall. I was literllay jumping up and down in my seat...
CR endig was a much bigger downer to me, even if he caught White at the end. SF felt like a new beginning, all the elements were finally in place.