› ›

Skyfall - Aston DB5 all wrong in context of film

AgentprovoAgentprovo
edited November 2012 in Skyfall Posts: 86
I've seen the film, yes it's good but for me it was spoilt by the inclusion of the Aston with the Goldfinger specification, machine guns et all, it's just plain wrong in the movie's timeline, the extras on the car are from 1964, it just feels out of place.

I'd have accepted the car minus the gadgets as in Casino Royale.

What does the community think?
«1

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think you could have discussed this in another thread.
  • AgentprovoAgentprovo
    Posts: 86
    doubleoego, new to the site, But why another thread, is it not relevant to Skyfall?

    Have you seen the film?
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    This has already been discussed in other relevant threads. This will be closed by the Mods shortly.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Here:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/4315/sf-db5-spoilers
  • AgentprovoAgentprovo
    Posts: 86
    Thanks for the head up, point taken.

  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    edited November 2012 Posts: 5,745
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=x56O4G8VsiA
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    Pointless thread. The Aston looked gorgeous as ever in SF as was well utilised well IMO.
  • AgentprovoAgentprovo
    Posts: 86
    LeChiffre wrote:
    Pointless thread. The Aston looked gorgeous as ever in SF as was well utilised well IMO.

    Agreed DB5 looks the dogs dangly bits as always, and I could have lived with it, minus the gadgets, that's all.

  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    the DB5 was one of the best moments in the whole movie.

  • Mr_SterlingMr_Sterling
    Posts: 99
    i really dont know what you're complaining about.
  • Tobester95Tobester95
    Posts: 117
    Someone's always gotta have a problem with something...
  • AgentprovoAgentprovo
    Posts: 86

    OK, My point is this, the car is from a brilliant Bond movie, my favourite, with gadgets galore (No pun) but belongs in 1964, not in the same guise unaltered in a Bond movie of 2012, in the context of the rest of the film it just doesn't fit
  • bondfan007bondfan007
    Posts: 15
    In the context of the film, yes, the car is out of place. But bear in mind, SKYFALL is considered to be the fiftieth birthday present to the James Bond films. No, the DB5 outfitted with all the little gadgets does not quite follow what one would expect in the film's continuity. But it's a direct nod to Bond's pedigree, and not only does it offer a little lightheartedness in a suitably dark film, it also brought a grin to my face and a few cheers from the audience in the theater. And not merely that, the DB5 brought out one of the best and funniest lines in the film, when M makes her quip about not caring whether or not Bond ejects her. It's an element of the film embracing Bond's long history, and if this film is celebrated as the fiftieth birthday present, I, for one, would have been extremely disappointed had the car not featured at all in Skyfall. This is merely my opinion. I thought Skyfall was a tremendous film and Craig's finest hour as OO7. Happy fiftieth, Bond.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    With the fact that this a reboot of the series, the 1964 Aston is grossly out of place, It belongs in Goldfinger which to this day is still considered the best Bond film.

    Roger, Tim and George had their own cars. Pierce also had the same car but it worked better for the tone of his films but by no means ideal. New Bond, new car! And it seems to be a technique they use to imply we are getting classic Bond. But it just reminds me of Connery's shadow as that car is a symbol of his era.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    True a few bond films are linked to each other, though i think you just have to take each film as self contained though the producers and directors don't always make that easy to do.

    my gripe with the DB5 coming back is not to do with a proposed timeline, i just think it has come back too many times already. for me the DB5 belongs to a certain era of bond rather than belonging to bond.

    alternatively if it had been the DB5s first reappearance since TB, maybe it would have felt more nostalgic seeing it in SF.
  • FromCanadaWithLoveFromCanadaWithLove Canada
    Posts: 612
    fire_and_ice wrote:
    True a few bond films are linked to each other, though i think you just have to take each film as self contained though the producers and directors don't always make that easy to do.

    my gripe with the DB5 coming back is not to do with a proposed timeline, i just think it has come back too many times already. for me the DB5 belongs to a certain era of bond rather than belonging to bond.

    alternatively if it had been the DB5s first reappearance since TB, maybe it would have felt more nostalgic seeing it in SF.

    It's Bond's personal car, so I don't think it's a huge deal. Plus,
    did you see how ferocious he got when Silva destroyed it? I don't think he would have gotten that mad if it were the Esprit.

  • trevaniantrevanian
    Posts: 232
    If it's his personal car, where did he get it kitted out? (why would THIS Bond CHOOSE to have an ejector seat installed, doesn't he like dealing with opponents in a hands-on way, up close n personal? Better still, where could he possibly go to get it kitted out w/o his masters knowing and/or having to approve/pay for it?

    Too many questions raised, a great example of how credibility will get thrown out the window (or ejected through the roof) for the sake of a gag. Not that different from the dumb music cues from other films in the Moore pictures, except these cues are coming from a pre-reboot universe.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Agentprovo wrote:
    OK, My point is this, the car is from a brilliant Bond movie, my favourite, with gadgets galore (No pun) but belongs in 1964, not in the same guise unaltered in a Bond movie of 2012, in the context of the rest of the film it just doesn't fit

    There is more that does not fit in this movie but at least the car scene was a great one.

  • forgotmyusernameforgotmyusername
    Posts: 2,782
    I'm sure we will have it explained in the extras when DVD comes out. My take is that this the third film for the rebooted Bond. He won the car in CR and the car has been fitted out whilst in his ownership. We don't have to see it to understand this. The fact M knew about the red button on the gear stick sought of confirms this.

    The timeline is fine as this is DC's Aston from the reboot.

    If he had a delorean that would really mess with my mind.
  • craigrulescraigrules
    Posts: 284
    It has been done in other films too such as Return of the Man from Uncle
  • NapoleonPluralNapoleonPlural
    Posts: 512
    I think we seem to 'read' the film differently and it's a big surprise to me.

    There's nothing in the previous two Craig films to suggest that Q branch even exists. Okay, in this one it does presumably as we are introduced to the new Q.

    But this is just one of those things that some folk make allowances for and others don't. I find it jarring to say the least.
  • AgentprovoAgentprovo
    Posts: 86
    acoppola wrote:
    With the fact that this a reboot of the series, the 1964 Aston is grossly out of place, It belongs in Goldfinger which to this day is still considered the best Bond film.

    Roger, Tim and George had their own cars. Pierce also had the same car but it worked better for the tone of his films but by no means ideal. New Bond, new car! And it seems to be a technique they use to imply we are getting classic Bond. But it just reminds me of Connery's shadow as that car is a symbol of his era.

    This is at the heart of my point, the car depicted in Skyfall is Sean's, it is classic Bond, even though he criticised it saying that the pedals where too close together, more for a women, but it does belong in 1964.
    Daniel Craig is a good 007 for our time & he has a car, it's the DBS a brilliant modern car that fits, the only way the DB5 could have fitted was the unmodified version won in Casino Royale.
  • craigrulescraigrules
    Posts: 284
    It's almost a straight to camera joke
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    The heart of my point is that the gadgets itself are barely seen for more than 15 seconds or so and that there had to be some tributes to the past, it's the 50th anniversary.

    There is no official timeline.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2012 Posts: 10,512
    JamesCraig wrote:
    The heart of my point is that the gadgets itself are barely seen for more than 15 seconds or so and that there had to be some tributes to the past, it's the 50th anniversary.

    Definitely the worst excuse in the history of bad excuses. None of this makes sense at all.

    And Craig's is clearly a separate timeline. The rest is one muddle.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    How is this a bad excuse? It's just an opinion.

    Do you really need to attack everything I post about this car that you don't like?

    Grow up, I say. If the Lotus would've been included you would've jumped for joy like a Justin Bieber fan.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JamesCraig wrote:
    How is this a bad excuse? It's just an opinion.

    Do you really need to attack everything I post about this car that you don't like?

    Grow up, I say. If the Lotus would've been included you would've jumped for joy like a Justin Bieber fan.

    Your justification is that we barely see the gadgets and that we 'had' to have some references in there. Why did we? I would have been fine seeing the gadgets if there was some logic to it. It's not like it's a passive experience. The machine guns fire and you think WTF where did he get those?

    As for the Lotus, given that my ENTIRE argument is that the gadget laden DB5 is at odds with the logic of the Craig films do you really think I'd want to see a Lotus in it, or are you being petty and childish?
  • AgentprovoAgentprovo
    Posts: 86
    JamesCraig wrote:
    The heart of my point is that the gadgets itself are barely seen for more than 15 seconds or so and that there had to be some tributes to the past, it's the 50th anniversary.

    There is no official timeline.

    Why does there have to be tributes or references?

    This is my biggest grip with recent Bond films, at least this wasn't DAD, if I had one wish for Bond it's stop looking at it's past, move on as if really starting a fresh, don't keep referencing what's gone before, it's becoming like some bloody awful tribute act.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    So now they had to explain how the car got those gadgets?

    Omg.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Tobester95 wrote:
    Someone's always gotta have a problem with something...

    And attacking people who don't agree.
This discussion has been closed.