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
I love everything about SF, including the opening, but I guess thinking about it... what was it that put Bond there? With radio contact with M and Moneypenny in the car outside: had they had some sort of report that Ronson and his team were in danger? Had they had to retreat to a safe house and asked for backup or something? Why was Bond already local? The way they act about the laptop suggests that they knew Patrice would be after it- M should have told him to destroy it if they thought it was at risk, you'd think.
I love it, and it doesn't have to explain any of this stuff to be a brilliant sequence, but it's just fun to try and work out what the story before the film started was.
Yes, it's fantastic, one of the all-time best for my money. The way it builds and builds, and the music getting epic as the bikes ride across of the roofs of the Grand Bazaar... top Bond excitement. And it needs to be, as it's a very long time until another action sequence!
Compare it to QOS's opening chase, which has a sense of spontaneity to it, like the Aston getting its door ripped off, Bond having to swerve into a quarry to avoid the roadblock, or the cop car nearly hitting Bond after it was shot up by the Quantum agents.
And again, I don't think the opening moments of SF make any sense, given what's shown. There are parts of SF that I like, but the opening isn't one of them. I actually think the movie gets better as it goes, before fumbling again in the 3rd act.
I don't really understand this comment. There's literally several moments where various participants have to swerve to avoid something unexpected, which takes them on a different path, just as Bond has to swerve into the quarry.
I also don’t understand this, but slide gets full points for actually (seemingly) watching this film.
The PTS makes quite a bit of sense: we’re dropped into the middle of an assignment where Bond seems to arrive seconds too late, after Patrice has infiltrated the safe house.
Perhaps Patrice got in because the men were expecting Bond to come and pick up the computer. Their guard is down, Patrice enters…
So Bond arrives at the safe house;
Hears a noise.
Pulls out his gun. Senses heightened.
Moves further into the flat where he spots the first dead body lying in a pool of his blood.
Moving further in, he sees Ronson, and realizes the hard drive’s been stolen.
He wants to help the fallen agent, but is ordered to pursue Patrice where-
We get a car chase. Then-
A shoot out in an open market. Then-
A motorcycle chase that continues on rooftops, then-
Bond and his opponent smash into another marketplace.
Now they’ve got people to dodge…
Patrice pulls ahead of Bond, but Moneypenny is waiting, and almost guns Patrice down.
He narrowly escapes, jumping off a bridge onto a moving train.
Leading Bond to use the speed of his motorcycle, smashing into the bridge’s railing, to propel him onto that same moving train. However-
He almost falls off;
Climbs back onto the roof of it.
Has another shootout, but-
Runs out of ammo. Then-
He takes on Particle in a digger.
Gets shot.
Loses control of the digger.
Takes out a bunch of VWs, that in turn almost take out Moneypenny.
Patrice uncouples the car, separating Bond and himself, but-
Bond continues his pursuit by having the digger rip into the train’s roof, using the machine’s arm like a bridge into the rest of the train that he’s been separated with.
Jumps into the train.
He’s wounded, but-
Climbs back on the roof to continue his battle with his opponent, where he’s blown away, accidentally, by Moneypenny.
@slide_99 … that is not moving from Point A to Point B without anything unexpected happening, and then they’re on the train! It’s like you’ve gone out of your way to oversimplify this sequence.
In fact, there are more unseen obstacles happening in this PTS than there are in Quantum, which is essentially a standard car chase with shaky cam, a door gets ripped off, and there were a few near misses.
But when you break down the beats of SF’s PTS, it’s beautifully loaded, and you can actually see the action!
I just rewatched the Skyfall PTS, and its certainly put together well: on an analytical view its near perfect: the score builds the tension, we are immersed in the story quickly with little need for buildup, and chase changes dynamic every so often. (Mind you I do agree about the odd way Craig poses for entrance).
However, it doesn't jump out at me with anything jaw-dropping or extremely entertaining for me to chew on. I feel as if the PTS works as a short film and is quite good in that respect. But it doesn't work as an opening spectacle for me, if that makes sense. The straightforwardness of this plot makes this complaint make sense because the story doesn't have enough time to twist. (Neither does QoS, but that, with the crashing and editing is more of spectacle).
Yeah, true. I suppose it says a lot about how effective the PTS is that you don't really ask yourself those questions in the moment. You just go along with the idea that Bond is in the middle of this assignment.
And to be fair, it's probably for the best that the PTS takes the audience along like that. Sometimes Bond films can break down if you start to question stuff in the moment! (For me it's TB's PTS. Whenever I watch it I can't help but ask why Bouvar felt the need to attend his own fake funeral dressed as his own widow... even if you try and come up with something akin to what you were saying about SF's PTS backstory it just makes him look daft).
For the PTS I would have had Bond basically looking the same as he did in CR and QoS; more than anything this means the same hairstyle. Following his "death" we see Bond having shed the trappings of his life as a globe traveling spy ; this could have included a quick shot of him leaving a makeshift barber shop on the beach where he tosses down a few dollars, having received a quick clipper cut.
My point is that I would have preferred to have seen Bond as a man , and spy in his prime; age hasn't caught up with him as much as disillusionment. He feels that he, and other agents, has been abandoned and not allowed to finish the mission.
https://x.com/TheInSneider/status/1807925934256971863
https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2024/6/29/edward-berger-in-contention-to-direct-next-james-bond
I hope not.
There is a useful four letter word, and this article is full of it.
Perhaps on an informal basis he might speak highly of an actor they might be interested in (if him and BB do speak about this stuff even informally) and he along with the other Bonds will congratulate the new actor when picked. Apart from that I have a hard time believing he’d have a significant part in this especially considering he wouldn’t be working on Bond 26 in any official capacity.
I couldn’t even read the article. It’s such a stupid theory that, if something this stupid really happened, would make the new guy know that he’d never be the true lead actor— it’d always go back to the other guy, a popular Bond, who had a decision in his casting (and what else would he have decisions on: the way he approached the role? How he says, Bond, James Bond? What suits he should wear? How he represents the character off set?).
Stupid article based on nothing but to whip up online anger.
Does journalism actually exist anymore??
To your last question — this is why it is important to delineate between legitimate publications with editorial standards and SEO-bait rags.
Although I had to look up the meaning of SEO (I can research and type, and read and send emails, but that’s about the extent of my techie-intelligence, 😂), but I agree wholeheartedly.
That was all before I was ever conscious of what Bond was, so it’s kinda crazy to think there was a period where Bond films came out roughly two years apart for nearly 24 consecutive years from 65 to 89 with no significant breaks beyond two and a half years. For fans that aren’t discriminating about Bond films and take what they can get, that sounds great. But I can imagine audience burnout being a challenge for Eon, which is what seemed to have happened in the 80s with LTK hitting rock bottom. At a certain point Bond had become taken for granted. You could argue then it was no longer special because Cubby’s machine was always churning out a film like clockwork. This probably didn’t seem all that great especially for those who were not enamored with Moore and Dalton.
Which is partly why I think GE broke big in 95. Brosnan being a new Bond no doubt got hype building, but I don’t think it can be exaggerating to suggest just how audiences were hungry due to a drought in Bond films.
I wonder if that’s something Broccoli is considering during this post-NTTD period. That giving the films an actual break after Craig and before the new guy would hopefully build up some hunger among audiences. Personally I never expected Eon to just get to making Bond 26 immediately after NTTD and have a film out in 2023. I never entertained that thought, because at least in my lifetime there’s never been a point where we got one Bond actor coming in two years after the last actor’s film.
Between LTK and GE it was 6 years. Between DAD and CR it was 4 years. I said as far back as 2021 that at the earliest we might actually get a Bond 25 in 2025, because I was considering those long gaps with our most recent actors. I’ll be surprised if it stretches beyond 2027. The days of having different Bond actors within two years is something we’ll never see again, and I’m okay with that not only because that’s how I’ve been used to seeing it in my lifetime but because I do believe absence makes the heart grow fonder.
I do believe once we get Bond 26 we’ll see a more consistent run with two to three year gaps in between films with the new guy. That’s assuming Amazon doesn’t experience bankruptcy or COVID delaying.
The 80s were a time humming with Bond films every two years. New Bond novels every year, sometimes adding a film novelization.
Still we're well served with modern Bond. In addition to films and books there are the Dynamite comics, games, and other developments. Another fine era of Bond history.
Conditions didn't permit, but it shows the possibilities are there. And for all the first films of a new Bond actor, the longest wait for the next one was two years. Craig included.