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
At least in our generation (I believe we are about the same age @thelivingroyale) we had proper vampires, mean, sexy and blood thirsty, not some glittery, depressed, romantic bunch.
Yes, exactly.
Yes, I think that's kinda obvious.
[/quote]
Not for all.
Call me a deaf ignoramous who cant tell Beethoven from Bieber but seriously can anyone discern any particular difference in the sound in GF compared to the other Sean Bonds of the 60s? All done by the same bloke but one wins an Oscar the rest don't even get nominated. And does having Oscar winning sound come into your thoughts when ranking GF?
No disrespect to Norman Wanstall but, unless you or someone you know are actualy up for the award, Best Picture, Director and the acting awards are all that matter. The rest is just chutney.
I don't see what the controversy is in saying that - its just a fact.
But the thing is that there is no category more important than the other.
Sorry but I think I agree with @TheWizardOfIce and @Germanlady.
I'm not bitching because I am happy with the 5 nominations we got but I think that Best Picture (and actor) is more important than the technical categories (which I don't care that much about when I'm watching the Baftas or Oscars to be honest).
There's a reason Best Picture is the big award saved until the end of the show and there's a reason that the media are always buzzing about the acting and film awards instead of the technical categories.
Yeah, they would, because the media and most people don't understand how hard it is to edit a film, add effects, or compose a score! The deadlines are down to the wire and the stress is at times greater than a director's or actor's. They have only post production to do all of their jobs, which can be less than half a year, and they are still expected to create movie magic. Just because editors and composers don't have some of the star power as stars and directors means nothing. They all deserve their time in the spotlight for the work they do, because without them we have no film.
That's definitely how the Academy thinks it, unfortunately.
Best response I've read.
I am glad to see SF nominated for a Bond record amount of Oscars, but temper that with the realization that I've stated before, this is still a very political event no matter how positive this news is and how big the movie has become. There should have been even more. Javier Bardem and Judi Dench should absolutely have been nominated for supporting Oscars, some of these noms are a joke in comparison to their fantastic performances. Many great Bond villains over the years have been snubbed, that's a fact. You don't do Bond films and expect Oscars, it's been that way for 50 years.
The Newman family are Academy darlings and have been for decades going back to Hollywood's golden era. John Barry won Oscars and got lots of Oscar nominations but his Bond work was ignored and some of those scores were as good as his Oscar winners. That tells you something right there. Will SF finally earn Newman the big one in his 11th try? We'll see, but I'll still say that SF is not the best Bond soundtrack ever even if a winner, two of Arnold's were better, CR short of the action scenes, and Martin's as well. If Arnold had composed this they'd have ignored it, but because it's a Newman they are singing a different tune.
Why does the SF theme get a nomination? Again, Adele is hot property like Newman. Like Newman, a win doesn't mean the award was necessarily deserved or make it the ultimate Bond song for doing so.
I don't know much about the 2 sound awards but still glad to see the work was recognized. The one award SF should absolutely and unquestionably win is for Deakins' cinematography, right from the first blogs you could see how completely awesome it was. I hope SF wins all 5 regardless, but for Deakins this should be a no brainer.
How is that coping out? Bond is representing in the category for his country! I think that's awesome.
By labelling it best British film? It was a global success around the world! It should have atleast got a nomination in the best movie category imho.
It was produced by Americans. Lots of the cast, the director, and lots of the crew might be British, but it's a big budget Hollywood blockbuster made with American money.
This category is shouldn't be for films like SF. It should be for small but brilliant British films made by talented people without millions of dollars to spend, it should be for films like In Bruges or more recently, Submarine.
They shot themselves into the food with that. They got bad press for it and rightly so. And then they got the nerve and critisized Oscar decisions concerning SF. What were they taking? Best british Film is nothing but a booby prize - in this case - and honestly, SF is too good for that. If you cannot bring yourself to give it the top prize, then stay away from it but don't disgrace yourself in this way.
..and yes, Brady, I know, we all know nothing.
No, just you. :P
I hate when I shoot myself in the "food". :))
I can
I think you all see it way too negatively....if you ask me. I am a fan, shall always be a fan of 007. I bought Taschen's 'The James Bond Archives' (I can really advice it to you, 600 pages of in-depth written behind-the-scenes stories). The entire book itself is something unique in cinema history. Actually, the book is what is James Bond 007: A franchise so utterly rich of stories from cast- and crewmembers who worked on all 25 Bond films (The unofficial 'Casino Royale' and 'Never Say Never Again' included).
If for once you could SEE how delighted the producers ánd the actual actors were with Wanstall's Oscar and Stears's Oscar, then why not considering this tiny little statue as a confirmation of Bond's success? Is that so hard? Same thing for the work Meddings' did on 'Moonraker'. The fact that 'Cubby' got teary eyes from just one Oscar nomination is proof enough how it works.
Besides these behind-the-scenes facts you also tend to forget that millions......no, billions of Earthlings went to see 'Goldfinger' and 'Thunderball' back in the sixties. The audience adored these movies.
And not only those instant classics, but also the latest one: 'Skyfall'. I shall sum up a few facts why I think negativity should NOT be slipping too much in all these arguments we are reading:
A) 'Skyfall' got Oscar, Golden Globe, Producers Guild Award, Actors Guild Award and BAFTA recognition: I saw it coming for already quite some months, but that doesn't matter. It got Oscar recognition. FIVE bloody nominations whereas ALL previous Bond films in history did not manage to do that. These FIVE recognitions in my opinion are directly ánd indirectly meant for everyone involed in the production of 'Skyfall'.
B) More than the previous Bond films with Brosnan and Craig, 'Skyfall' was adored by the cinema audience: 'Skyfall' is a ONE BILLION Dollar Bond. People loved it. And to achieve so many ticket sales, means that 'Skyfall' also initiated repeat viewings. I have seen it now a bloody 8 or 9 times, and I'm still not tired of it. This must say you something about all aspects of this particular Bond film being right.
C) 'Skyfall' is serious stuff for movielovers who want to dig deep in the contents of the story: Please read my previous topic about the theme of the movie: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/4593/skyfall-has-a-political-theme.-please-let-us-discuss-this-underappreciated-part-of-cinema.#Item_25. In my opinion 'Skyfall' is not just another James Bond film. For me it's also a fantastic movie, apart from being a franchise film. And it stands there on top with movies like 'The Dark Knight'. Heck, I saw 'Zero Dark Thirty' tonight, and concerning today's political environment, I was still thinking of 'Skyfall'.
D) 'Skyfall is still pure, utterly fun entertainment for all: While I might sound very 'intellectual' when I talk about theme and plot, the ordinary audience simply....see it as a fantastic Bond film. Ask the audience, and they will say 'Skyfall' is by far the funniest of Craig's Bond films. We got a Caterpillar crane crusghing VW Beetle's, we got 'Q' making fun of Bond and the other way around, we got a psychotic villain that must have been homosexual...or bisexual (hence the homo-erotic scenes), a few 'close shaves' with Moneypenny, An Aston Martin with gadgets and we finally got a scaled-down MI6 again with an 'M' that's reminiscent of Bernard Lee. How typical Bond that is no?
E) We got Adele: Damn, what a good song she sang for 'Skyfall'. Even more so, it was a huge hit across the globe and it equalled the success of Duran Duran's 'A View To A Kill'. Together with some of the best main title sequences (Why not introduce an Oscar for that) since...since....yeah, since when actually?
F) The movie had a perfect running time of 143 min's: There were times Bond fans were complaining about the fact that the films were too short. It should have gotten more 'breathing space' to let the characters develop.
G) 'Skyfall' is the perfect round-up of a trilogy about the introduction of agent 007 of Her Majesty's Secret Service: Do not forget this. When producers 'Cubby' and Harry wanted to bring Bond alive on the cinema screen, they had to improvise and use the simpliest novels of the bunch. Hence the memorable, but still a tiny bit rushed introduction of James Bond 007. With the new timeline, introduced in 'Casino Royale' we got that straight.
To summarize it all, I think 'Skyfall' does not deserve such negative talks when it comes to the awards. If you keep a realistic eye on the franchise....and especially on how 'Skyfall' was produced, you more or less could have predicted all this.
From the moment the press conference announced Javier Bardem as leading villain and Sam Mendes as 'captain', I was certain: Finally we are there with other action thrillers like 'The Bourne Series' and especially 'The Dark Knight'. I always said we now get a few technical Oscar nominations........and that later, in the near ánd far future, this will be seen as proof that 'Skyfall' was and is a true masterpiece. And that it will become as classic as 'From Russia With Love' and 'Goldfinger'.
Masterpieces like 'Skyfall' get exactly the recognition they deserve. And 'The Best Picture' Oscar? Please reserve that Oscar for movies that are equally as good as 'Skyfall', but who can not get the support of the public that Bond always gets 'for free'. That's why I also have the uttermost respect for the Academy Awards. Small budget films like 'Slumdog Millionaire' got helped by the Oscar wins. Bond does not need that. So please see the Oscar Awards in perspective.
NO! Damn... Just no.
Anyway... In general love your positive attitude, Gustav (even when I don't fully agree), and I agree Skyfall is a masterpiece. :)
Skyfall will join a long list of film in history snub from Best picture
We could all watch the Seahawks - Falcons game at 1pm before the Globes... :-/
For the Seahawks to win, of course.
Ugh, No. I'd rather see the Falcons win, but it wouldn't matter. My team's out already.
Just curious, why the Falcons?