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
Uh.. right.. beacuse this year's 50th Blu Ray is $355, so it makes sense that they would add a new release in the 51st year, and drop the price 70%.
Yes we have establish that ages ago thanks.
A special edition 50th Blu Ray version. Uh right.........
YES ;-). What I have been saying for quite a while now. I wanted it for YEARS that James Bond was competing with the big spy/action/hero boys again. It not just only happened. Bond is the biggest action franchise again. It has now the rare opportunity to set complete new standards that other franchises, like the upcoming Die Hard and Jack Ryan movie will, will find hard to break.
I saw it already coming when Babs and Michael managed to hire Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins, Javier Bardem and Ralph Fiennes. Getting such a wealth of Oscar potential on board did ring a bell in my head. From that moment onwards I thought....'Skyfall' will be a 'Thunderball-esque' Bond film money-wise and will go compete with the latest two Batman flicks from Christopher Nolan quality-wise.
Summarizing all the factors:
--> Biggest Oscar-heavy starcast ever in Bond history.
--> Biggest Oscar-heavy production crew in Bond history.
--> Memorable Bond villain (Javier Bardem).
--> 50 year Bond jubilee.
--> Olympics opening ceremony.
--> Adele's hit impact with her song 'Skyfall'.
--> 5th of October global 'Bond Day'.
--> Possibility of several Oscar nominations.
Kind of logical that this is the best 'free promotion' on top of the usual Bond marketing campaign you can have. And it is therefore logical that 'Skyfall' is doing so extremely well at the worldwide box office.
*PS: I type this while listening to Adele's 'Skyfall'*
I think I disagree. 'Skyfall' set new standards. I think there is nothing wrong if 'Skyfall' gets noticed by the Academy. On the contrary, it's only a big plus if James Bond can thrill both the cinema audience ánd the academy audience. There's nothing wrong with it.
I always said it: I want Bond to be great movies. It's foremost about the entertainment it can give us. But Bond is more now as well. I want Bond to be the biggest franchise in its own espionage/action genre again. That is starting to become the case now.
I agree with @St_George anything to the contrary is a mixture of wishful thinking and egotism. Bond is Bond. I don't need it to prove anything.
Thomas Newman also scored big with the best-performing Bond soundtrack since 1985.
It was a good year for James Bond. I hope the next film is even better.
If you say that, you don't really mind what kind of Bond film premieres into cinema: A CGI-laden 'Die Another Day' or the intelligent 'Skyfall'.
No, I disagree with you. Bond needed this forceful quality upgrade. 'The Dark Knight' and 'Jason Bourne' were already eating from 'James Bond', ;eaving the cheesiness and traditional campness for Bond to use ('Die Another Day').
Absolutely and why not? There WILL be awards. Definitely Bafta nods (CR had 9) and others. Oscars in more important categories - ??
Is Skyfall your favorite bond film Germanlady?
Of the others, I prefer the Moore ones.
Talk about dichotomy! Who would think that someone who likes the rough and tumble Craig era also enjoys the super camp, super wrong Moore era? Or is it just because you like Dan so much? ;)
But none of them left the same impact with me as DC. So - what's a girl to do? :x
No he's saying he doesn't give one about it winning awards, something I agree with. It's made lots of money and it's a good film, I don't need it to win any Oscars to prove it.
How much?!?! There's one born every minute.
I've got some magic beans that grow into a magic beanstalk with untold riches at the top if you climb it. Yours for only $49.99.
Well I think there's quite a few categories where it just simply isn't deserving of a nod in my opinion, and that is good reason for it not to get one. I think it deserves one for Cinematography, Sound Design/Mixing, Best Picture (there just weren't many movies that were better), and maybe Best Supporting Actor/Actress but I'm struggling with that one.
And I say it's nothing more than an extra PLUS. I mean come on.....Bond doesn't need Oscars, off course. But it is also not a problem if it wins Oscars no? Oscars NEVER hurted movies like 'The Dark Knight' and 'The Bourne Ultimatum'. And frankly? After all the hard work Babs and Michael did, I think they, indirectly, deserve an Oscar again after 47 years (!).
By the way, I am talking about Oscars in technical categories now, which is for a franchise film like James Bond more realistic. I'd say four Oscar nominations, two wins:
--> Best Visual Effects: Already on the shortlist of 10. Will eventually not win.
--> Best Cinematography: I think this is a sure bet for a win for Roger Deakins.
--> Best Original Music Score: I think Thomas Newman will be nominated, but no win.
--> Best Original Song: Paul Epworth and Adele could very well win this one.
If you look up the list of likely Oscar Best Film nods, you will find more then just a few, that have a lower critical rating then SF - so what does this mean? Does it mean, they are more deserving films for whatever reason? I just can't see it. What's the difference now between ond and Batman, Bond and other "adventure or thriller" films? I feel, people are so used to see Bond films as not deserving enough, that they can't turn their heads around, that time has changed - well maybe.
Technical aspects - possibly, but as a whole it's not a film that falls into the category of 'Oscar' worthy, simple as that. We can all go on as long as we want about it but the bottom line is, it's entertainment. So Mendes has done a character piece, it's the first time they've pushed this with Bond and it all feels new and shiny but funnily enough there are hundreds of films that do that and better. SF is big brash entertainment. There is no difference between Batman and Bond, Batman shouldn't be getting nods either.
They could both have a shout at technical aspects but for acting, screenwriting and best picture, neither of them do anything new I'm afraid, however well some people think they do it. LOTR was the last blockbuster to win best picture because it was astoundingly well executed and to keep so many story strands in play and make them entertaining was deemed impossible. It broke the mould as much in story telling as it did visually. Neither Bond nor Batman do this.
Oh and @Gustav_Graves you may struggle to understand this under the weight of your own intellect but the line - If you say that, you don't really mind what kind of Bond film premieres into cinema: A CGI-laden 'Die Another Day' or the intelligent 'Skyfall'. - makes you sound like a deluded 15 year old who's the first one in the class to discover French New Wave.
Oh and @RC7 - congrats to another piece of foul language. Deluded eh?
Well one could argue SF 'wants to be deep'. Anyhow continue to use critics as your crutch at your peril. I'm not sure the word 'deluded' consitutes foul language, but it is an accurate description of Gustav and others insistence that if you dare to question SF you're essentially a CGI loving idiot. I'd expect better arguments in a creche.
Its different with a film like Lincoln or others, who will not make hundreds of millions, because they are not made for the mass market to start with. They might be counted a success if they make 100 mill - which counts for as much as 1 bill from a blockbuster movie.
Its two different horses here and both have done well, if they appeal to the market they go for and deserve to be treated equally IMO.
Very true RC7.
SF may well get nominations (and a few wins) in technical categories such as cinematography and production design but when it comes to things like acting and screenplay it's very unlikely.
I dont see it as contentious to state that SF is not high art and will not win best picture or best actor. It would have been a shock had TDK won any of these (would Heath Ledger really have won if he had been alive? Debatable) and it will be a shock if SF.
Just because it gets rave reviews for what it is doesn't mean it's in the same league as Schindlers or There Will Be Blood when it comes to awards.
Apart from technical categories I expect BAFTA nominations for Craig, Bardem, Dench and Mendes (with Bardem and Dench possibly winning) and possible Oscar nominations for Bardem and Dench with an outside chance of a win depending on the field. To be fair it's not impossible for this type of film to pick an acting win - Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive anyone? Mind you that was a travesty; how Samuel L didn't win that is beyond me. However given Bardem winning so recently for a similar villainous turn I would say they are very unlikely to reward him again.
Films like this just don't pick up the big awards very often and although for a Bond film the three main performances are fantastic acting wise I don't think Craig, Bardem and Dench ever really needed to get out of 3rd gear.