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
Yeah they felt too easy to me. Like when the music kicked in after they got in the DB5 and that joke about the ejector seat... I found it kinda cringe-worthy that's all.
But like, each to their own and maybe I'll think differently of it when I rewatch :)
I for one loved the ending of Skyfall because it meant Craig's rebooted 007 has come full circle and we may see a more familiar James Bond personality in Bond 24. Geez they brought back Male M,Q,Moneypenny and Gadgets and no is satisfied.
I find the DB5 to be timeless. I would rather drive it today than any car out there. It is eloquence without ostentatiousness.
That's because the film is not very good. DAD had Q, M, Moneypenny and gadgets galore and it utterly sucked. Throwing the ingredients in the bowl and hoping for the best is no guarantee of a decent Bond movie. CR largely lacks gadgets, has no Q or Moneypenny and is, IMO a far superior film.
Totally agree with RC7 and Samuel001. Let's stop the navel gazing. Heads up - eyes to the future.
I am just an old soul, I guess. Well, I know.
I think the point the other guys were making is that the best way to reference the past is to preserve the essence and not by constantly waving the DB5 around and shouting 'this is a refernece to those old Bond movies when they were actually genuinely fresh and exciting because they were so completely and utterly modern and confident of their place in the world'.
I think as Samuel001 said, the suffocating nostalgia of films like DAD and SF is really not healthy. And with the gaps between films growing it means we're due another anniversary yawn fest in two or three movies... Roll on Diamond jubillee!
If you know what I mean.
Oh, yes, I'm aware. I am like Yoda, at least 84% of the time. ;)
Well, he doesn't have it anymore.
Damn you, Silva. >:P
Not gonna lie i was kinda pissed that happend as well.
Not bad work.
Yes, funny to think back. And then everyone was certain that Harris was NOT going to be Moneypenny.
Yep! Having MI6 located where it should be with it's standard staff and looking the right way is enough. That should be timeless, as should Bond's character. This is all the noding to the past you'll ever need and we should get that now film-in, film-out.
Now let's see Bond work in the modern world and be truely contemporary in every way possible. That's how to do old and new at the same time. Skyfall was a very well done transition film, now let's get on with it.
Bardem, while an interesting adversary last year, was never going to win 'James Bond villain of the franchise', in that I just found him slightly above average, and despite whatever is said, didn't really do much despite some fun lines and moments such as the 'target practice' with Severine and chase on the London subway. It wasn't him, necessarily that killed M either. She recieved her wounds by being too close to the windows or in the way of enemy fire from outside. We never got to pinpoint who it was actually fired the fatal rounds that lead to her subsequent demise. But to suggest it was Silva himself - have to argue that
Dench was good enough for one more release I felt. Was a surprise when I first learned she was being killed off, and would of liked her back next time, instead of the Mallory character coming in, but I guess they just decided it was time to call it in, and she did have 17 good years to take away - as did Bernard Lee before her
Was it really necessary to kill her off ? Right or wrong, that's what they went with. May have not been to everyone's liking, but there's not much now to be done about it after the event
Well, they're usually different people though.
Personally I love the CR, QoS and GoldenEye style(s) but am fine with some cool gadgets.
We're all different :)
The DBS in the garage was the scene, where in all my 8 viewings the audience responded equally positive AND excited. It was seen as a great scene and was absolutely right to be in.
Re. China and streets. Haven't you guys followed the production? I thought, it was clear at some point, that even though they didn't admit it, it was also about saving some costs. Just some crew was there and none of the actors. So - it would be hard to do some good street scenes and whatont with them involved. Some head CGI from the PTS anybody? So moaing about this is - once again - just moaning to moan about something. No John Glen would have done a better job, because there was no job to be done in the first place.
Oh, I see. I do agree with @Getafix. We never really see Bond out and about, a little in Turkey, but it would be great to see him interact with the locations around him more, especially China.
Yes, but THIS is not, what I was referring to. He said, John Glen would have done a better job apart from moaning about it and I answered with the fact, that there was NO job to be done by anybody, because they didn't send over the actors to run around in the streets for costs saving issues.
I am sure, with the tons of money, they earned, we will see a lot more of that in the next one. But I can understand their hesitation to throw out the money, since MGM and Co were still on shaky grounds.
Having excessive locations doesn't guarantee a great Bond flick anyway. In QoS, there were the most locations ever crammed in to a Bond film, and look how well that was received by the critics and audience compared to SF.
So IMO its not about the amount of locations, but how well the ones used are brought on screen.
It's obvious QoS would get less notice. Compare Forster to Mendes, a Writers' Strike to the 50th anniversary of James Bond in cinema, a meaty film to a short film.
And it isn't the amount of locations, it's how you use them. Look at all the places CR takes us, yet each is unique and perfectly shown off without being ostentatious or greedy. It's all about presentation.
Also, the hectic editing had nothing to do with the writers strike. It was just a bad decision made, which ended in having an even shorter film then necessary. Had they shown all the locations AND the action properly, the would have ended with as MUCH better film - writers strike or not.