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'd say tell Kinnear to emote some. Though I like to think M had him act that way. Maybe with Mallory, Tanner will gain some emotion and become more friendly with Bond as in the novels.
"20. Get on with it. Robert Frost said, “Tell everything a little faster.” He wasn’t wrong."
Apparently Mendes didn´t know of that yet when he made Skyfall.
And Bill Tanner has been far more present in the recent movies than in previous ones, so I'm all for using him more.
I think SF is quite pacey. I remember thinking the 'Bond dies', 'Bond returns' segment, rattled along pretty quickly on first viewing. The only indulgent bit is when he pursues Patrice. It certainly doesn't seem to drag in the way QoS does, which is ironically over 35 mins shorter. Perhaps that's because scenes, on the whole, happen for a reason rather than to facilitate action. Even Silva's incomprehensible escape from MI6 has enough light and shade to feel integral, rather than looking like an [insert action scene here] moment. I think if you look to a similar release of the year, TDKR, it's evident that SF is paced much better for a film that almost breaks the 150 minute barrier. That said, if one were to really dislike SF, applying enough objectivity to address this honestly could be a struggle.
Everything Tanner does can be done by Moneypenny and/or Q. Tanner is a completely unnecessary character.
Tanner adds balance.
First,actually for someone to claim that QoS drags doesn't show much objectivity either (just as defending SF doesn't show a feel for timing and storylines!). But isn't the main problem with Skyfall that Mr. Mendez isn't half as talented as he obviously thinks he is? Don't take my word for it. There is ample proof elsewhere. Just look at Road to Perdition. He managed to make one of the dullest gangster movies in the entire history of filmmaking and this with quite dramatic story to tell and a budget that probably dwarfs every other gangster movie made before (except of course once upon a Time in America). If Alfred Hitchcock was still alive he would use him privately as a running gag for how not to do things.
I happen to believe Road to Perdition is the greatest gangster movie of all time. Yes, I think it's better than The Godfather, The Godfather Part II and Goodfellas. The only gangster movie that comes close to Road to Perdition is Miller’s Crossing.
QoS is disjointed. The pace of the film lilts here and there, without facilitating the narrative well enough. The pace at which Bond ends up in Haiti is so fast it's easy to forget exactly how and why he is there. SF balances the flow of information much better and has a more balanced spread of peaks and troughs. QoS dives into action from nowhere, at times. If one hates SF then the pacing will naturally feel terrible, if you're forced to watch over two hours of something you find endlessly trite then there's no saving it. As for the two, side by side, it's my opinion that SF shows a better understanding of pace than QoS. This is nothing to do with length, but as I said above, controlling the flow of information and making sure you build to spikes in the narrative. As short movies go, DN and GF are much better paced than QoS. I don't know what this has to do with Road to Perdition.
Miller’s Crossing is great and it better had be, since it is based on the novel "red harvest "by the great Dashiell Hammett.
Concerning Godfather and such. To me those "La Familia" movies are merrily family dramas with some gunfire in it. If you really want to see a real gangster movie watch just about any of those James Cagney made, Point Blank starring Lee Marvin and of course Don Seagels Charley Varrick.
Just proof that Mendes isn't the most intense and talented of storytellers.
To all those that permanently complain that QoS is sooo confusing,you might be better served by other genres. After all these are meant to be spy stories!
The best gangster film of all time is Scarface.
They all are in my top gangster (and overall) favorite movies:
The Godfather
Goodfellas
Casino
Road to Perdition
Scarface
Layer Cake
but...
The Godfather Part II will be always my number #1.
For the record, I feel there are much more talented storytellers than Mendes out there. But in the pantheon of Bond directors I don't think you can begrudge the guy a shot.
As for QoS, I don't find it confusing in the slightest. Merely a missed opportunity and a slapdash attempt at a Bond film. I thought World War Z was more of the same from Forster.
Exactly. And Tanner's relationship with Bond is completely different than with Moneypenny or Q, especially in SF, where Bond is distrustful of them.
Indeed. I actually think that if the story necessitates it, Tanner can become the most interesting of the bunch.
Tanner may have had a strong relationship with Bond in the books, but there is absolutely no relationship between them in any of the movies. Tanner is simply a very bland character. Even if he was more interesting I would still eliminate him since we have already more than enough MI6 supporting characters with M, Q and Moneypenny.
Hell yes. Depeche Mode are one of the best bands of all time and Delta Machine was a pretty good album.
Anyway, all I want is a good Bond film, nothing very specific.
There is friendship between them in GE and SF. Not to mention Robinson who was basically Tanner with a different name. If he was not developed enough in the past, they have started, very slowly yes, but still. A minor character, certainly, but a story is also made of minor characters, and there is room for development. Was Q/Boothroyd such a memorable presence in DN and FRWL? In the end, all he does is give Bond his equipment. Tanner is actually a friend, which has been established in the novels and more modestly in the movies.
In SF they seem to be at least in good terms. And if they have not develop it enough, that is the beauty of an ongoing series, they can in subsequent movies.
As for SF being "quite pacey", any other Bond film felt a lot faster, even the old films, like DN, or OHMSS, appear to be sped-up in comparison with SF. All the scenes are quicker in a more lively sense, no matter if dialogue or action scenes.
Is English your first language? I don't understand the term 'going nowhere elegance', or how it equates to pretentiousness. I can only assume you just don't find a connection with the better facets of SF.
I cannot say wether I don´t find a connection with the better facets of SF, because I cannot find those better facets in the first place. Presumably in a similar manner as 80-90% of this community don´t seem to find or connect to the better facets of QOS ;-).
Sounds like who assumed B24 would be called Wave-Link.