A place for disappointed skyfall viewers

BondBug

Getafix wrote:

I think this is where my problem with it arises. Because it is a 'serious' film, my suspension of belief does not work in the usual way. The film invites you to actually think about it rather than simply sit back and consume, and that for me is when it falls apart. Because when you think about it, virtually nothing adds up.

I appreciate that Bond has reserves of skill and strength and determination, but in a narrative sense there is no transition between busted flush Bond at the start of the film and super-Bond at the end. There is no 'journey' that explains or explores his 'rebirth'. Or at least that was how I felt. As is customary with Purvis and Wade, character development is perfunctory and there are massive narrative non sequiturs (reminiscent of Bond's miraculous recovery from months of torture at the start of DAD).

A big difference between the absurd (but highly entertaining) waterski escape sequence in LTK and Bond's escape from the lake in SF is that LTK shows us how he escapes (however far fetched the explanation might be).

A frozen lake is a classic (cliched?) film scenario. The danger is not just the thin ice, but the risk of getting stuck under the ice and getting back out of the water without it cracking further. If a director is going to use these familiar scenarios then they have to appreciate that audiences will already be thinking ahead from the moment Bond goes under the water - how will he escape this one? But, as at the start of the film, there is no explanation. This is not something I can accept 'because it's a Bond film' and because Bond just always survives, no explanation needed (as some people have suggested) - it is just lazy film making.

No, it is not "lazy film making." The Bond makers had obviously made a decision not to show Bond climbing back onto the ice for artistic reasons, perhaps to maintain pace or perhaps it ended on the cutting room floor because it was deemed unnecessary.

Yes, they could have shown Bond's tremendous effort to get out of the ice and his shock from the freezing temperatures, but they made a decision not to. I don't think you can call these kinds of editorial decisions, whether made at the scripting level, or during filming or while editing "lazy."

Film making is a subjective process. Because you may not like their choices does not mean they are "lazy,"

Getafix

BondBug wrote:

Getafix wrote:

I think this is where my problem with it arises. Because it is a 'serious' film, my suspension of belief does not work in the usual way. The film invites you to actually think about it rather than simply sit back and consume, and that for me is when it falls apart. Because when you think about it, virtually nothing adds up.

I appreciate that Bond has reserves of skill and strength and determination, but in a narrative sense there is no transition between busted flush Bond at the start of the film and super-Bond at the end. There is no 'journey' that explains or explores his 'rebirth'. Or at least that was how I felt. As is customary with Purvis and Wade, character development is perfunctory and there are massive narrative non sequiturs (reminiscent of Bond's miraculous recovery from months of torture at the start of DAD).

A big difference between the absurd (but highly entertaining) waterski escape sequence in LTK and Bond's escape from the lake in SF is that LTK shows us how he escapes (however far fetched the explanation might be).

A frozen lake is a classic (cliched?) film scenario. The danger is not just the thin ice, but the risk of getting stuck under the ice and getting back out of the water without it cracking further. If a director is going to use these familiar scenarios then they have to appreciate that audiences will already be thinking ahead from the moment Bond goes under the water - how will he escape this one? But, as at the start of the film, there is no explanation. This is not something I can accept 'because it's a Bond film' and because Bond just always survives, no explanation needed (as some people have suggested) - it is just lazy film making.

No, it is not "lazy film making." The Bond makers had obviously made a decision not to show Bond climbing back onto the ice for artistic reasons, perhaps to maintain pace or perhaps it ended on the cutting room floor because it was deemed unnecessary.

Yes, they could have shown Bond's tremendous effort to get out of the ice and his shock from the freezing temperatures, but they made a decision not to. I don't think you can call these kinds of editorial decisions, whether made at the scripting level, or during filming or while editing "lazy."

Film making is a subjective process. Because you may not like their choices does not mean they are "lazy,"

How do you explain them then?

A shot of Bond struggling from the lake to reach M before Silva would have heightened the tension of the final scenes AND explained how he gets out of the water.

There are lots of short-hand ways to suggest things in a film that avoid long exposition but also help drive the narrative.

Another example here is the 'take the shot' sequence at the start. It is not very clear why M orders the shot. Bond is not 'losing'. Infact he's caught up with Patrice after tremendous effort. If they both hit the tunnel, then so be it, they both die and the harddrive can be retrieved from the bodies. However an easy short hand way of explaining her actions would have been to have Bond losing at this point - about to be knifed perhaps by Patrice. As it stands, it just seems like classic Purvis and Wade - unexplained and unexplored.

I think I'm making fairly objective comments on how the story is told and what I see as its flaws. However, I am even boring myself with this stuff now, so will try and lay off of it.

Creasy47

@acoppola, I'm sure you enjoyed that cigarette after the film ended, though.

BondBug

Getafix wrote:

BondBug wrote:

Getafix wrote:

I think this is where my problem with it arises. Because it is a 'serious' film, my suspension of belief does not work in the usual way. The film invites you to actually think about it rather than simply sit back and consume, and that for me is when it falls apart. Because when you think about it, virtually nothing adds up.

I appreciate that Bond has reserves of skill and strength and determination, but in a narrative sense there is no transition between busted flush Bond at the start of the film and super-Bond at the end. There is no 'journey' that explains or explores his 'rebirth'. Or at least that was how I felt. As is customary with Purvis and Wade, character development is perfunctory and there are massive narrative non sequiturs (reminiscent of Bond's miraculous recovery from months of torture at the start of DAD).

A big difference between the absurd (but highly entertaining) waterski escape sequence in LTK and Bond's escape from the lake in SF is that LTK shows us how he escapes (however far fetched the explanation might be).

A frozen lake is a classic (cliched?) film scenario. The danger is not just the thin ice, but the risk of getting stuck under the ice and getting back out of the water without it cracking further. If a director is going to use these familiar scenarios then they have to appreciate that audiences will already be thinking ahead from the moment Bond goes under the water - how will he escape this one? But, as at the start of the film, there is no explanation. This is not something I can accept 'because it's a Bond film' and because Bond just always survives, no explanation needed (as some people have suggested) - it is just lazy film making.

No, it is not "lazy film making." The Bond makers had obviously made a decision not to show Bond climbing back onto the ice for artistic reasons, perhaps to maintain pace or perhaps it ended on the cutting room floor because it was deemed unnecessary.

Yes, they could have shown Bond's tremendous effort to get out of the ice and his shock from the freezing temperatures, but they made a decision not to. I don't think you can call these kinds of editorial decisions, whether made at the scripting level, or during filming or while editing "lazy."

Film making is a subjective process. Because you may not like their choices does not mean they are "lazy,"

How do you explain them then?

A shot of Bond struggling from the lake to reach M before Silva would have heightened the tension of the final scenes AND explained how he gets out of the water.

There are lots of short-hand ways to suggest things in a film that avoid long exposition but also help drive the narrative.

Another example here is the 'take the shot' sequence at the start. It is not very clear why M orders the shot. Bond is not 'losing'. Infact he's caught up with Patrice after tremendous effort. If they both hit the tunnel, then so be it, they both die and the harddrive can be retrieved from the bodies. However an easy short hand way of explaining her actions would have been to have Bond losing at this point - about to be knifed perhaps by Patrice. As it stands, it just seems like classic Purvis and Wade - unexplained and unexplored.

I think I'm making fairly objective comments on how the story is told and what I see as its flaws. However, I am even boring myself with this stuff now, so will try and lay off of it.

You are confusing two things: your personal preference with criticism of the film makers "laziness."

Here are some possibly artistic or storytelling reasons why they didn't do the things you suggest.

THE "TAKE THE SHOT" SEQUENCE
Bond is an agent. He is expendable from MI6's perspective. Every day he is in the field his life is put on the line. Here we have a situation where Britain and its NATO allies' agents are going to be put at risk. Not only are the lives of agents put at risk, but all the work infiltrating terrorist organizations is going to be undone if identities are exposed. In short, global security is at risk and the results could be devastating - increased terrorism or even war.

M made the decision that risking Bond's life was not as important as what was perceived to be an increased chance to kill the man who had stolen the disc and therefore increased chance to recover the disc. The idea of the mission being more important than the life of one person was continued when Bond was prepared to risk M's life by using her as bait to catch Silva. Bond could have died in that shot as a consequence of M's decision. M could have died as a result of Bond's decision. This is what happens in the real world. Decisions can haunt a person - the very reason why M is now haunted by Silva - he didn't accept M's decision. Bond will be haunted forever by his decision that cost M her life. Bond and M knew the risks and accepted that tough decisions carried increased risk - look at how M continued to give evidence in the committee hearing, despite becoming aware that she was at risk. This idea is played with through the script and helps to develop some of the themes of the movie.

BOND STRUGGLING TO GET OUT OF THE LAKE
Your version - Silva finds M in the chapel - cut to Bond struggling out of the ice. Silva confronts M - cut to Bond recovering from the freezing temperature. Here we are giving Bond far more screen time than M and Silva. This wasn't about Bond at this point. It was really about M and Silva. That is where the focus was. You are right, it could have created more tension, but the film makers obviously decided not to go down this route for other reasons. That doesn't make them "lazy."

acoppola

Creasy47 wrote:

@acoppola, I'm sure you enjoyed that cigarette after the film ended, though.

I did and the drink too. Me not smoking is the highest praise because that was the first time in years I sat all the way through. And even Severine smoking did not get me off my seat.:)

acoppola

Getafix wrote:

BondBug wrote:

Getafix wrote:

I think this is where my problem with it arises. Because it is a 'serious' film, my suspension of belief does not work in the usual way. The film invites you to actually think about it rather than simply sit back and consume, and that for me is when it falls apart. Because when you think about it, virtually nothing adds up.

I appreciate that Bond has reserves of skill and strength and determination, but in a narrative sense there is no transition between busted flush Bond at the start of the film and super-Bond at the end. There is no 'journey' that explains or explores his 'rebirth'. Or at least that was how I felt. As is customary with Purvis and Wade, character development is perfunctory and there are massive narrative non sequiturs (reminiscent of Bond's miraculous recovery from months of torture at the start of DAD).

A big difference between the absurd (but highly entertaining) waterski escape sequence in LTK and Bond's escape from the lake in SF is that LTK shows us how he escapes (however far fetched the explanation might be).

A frozen lake is a classic (cliched?) film scenario. The danger is not just the thin ice, but the risk of getting stuck under the ice and getting back out of the water without it cracking further. If a director is going to use these familiar scenarios then they have to appreciate that audiences will already be thinking ahead from the moment Bond goes under the water - how will he escape this one? But, as at the start of the film, there is no explanation. This is not something I can accept 'because it's a Bond film' and because Bond just always survives, no explanation needed (as some people have suggested) - it is just lazy film making.

No, it is not "lazy film making." The Bond makers had obviously made a decision not to show Bond climbing back onto the ice for artistic reasons, perhaps to maintain pace or perhaps it ended on the cutting room floor because it was deemed unnecessary.

Yes, they could have shown Bond's tremendous effort to get out of the ice and his shock from the freezing temperatures, but they made a decision not to. I don't think you can call these kinds of editorial decisions, whether made at the scripting level, or during filming or while editing "lazy."

Film making is a subjective process. Because you may not like their choices does not mean they are "lazy,"

How do you explain them then?

A shot of Bond struggling from the lake to reach M before Silva would have heightened the tension of the final scenes AND explained how he gets out of the water.

There are lots of short-hand ways to suggest things in a film that avoid long exposition but also help drive the narrative.

Another example here is the 'take the shot' sequence at the start. It is not very clear why M orders the shot. Bond is not 'losing'. Infact he's caught up with Patrice after tremendous effort. If they both hit the tunnel, then so be it, they both die and the harddrive can be retrieved from the bodies. However an easy short hand way of explaining her actions would have been to have Bond losing at this point - about to be knifed perhaps by Patrice. As it stands, it just seems like classic Purvis and Wade - unexplained and unexplored.

I think I'm making fairly objective comments on how the story is told and what I see as its flaws. However, I am even boring myself with this stuff now, so will try and lay off of it.

Monsieur @Getafix Because the film had so many tense moments, I think the lake scene being drawn out would have added more oil to an already raging fire of suspense. Bond swimming from a lake is not the most exciting thing I could think of.

We see him fire the flare and for Bond swimming to safety did not seem to me like a huge challenge. This is a man who can fight on top of trains and get his privates severely beaten. Swimming is a piece of cake in contrast.

Also Bond's adrenaline must have been sky high and that would have given him the strength to get out of the lake. He had Kincade and M to worry about.

As for M ordering the shot. Like someone said earlier, she knew the political fall out would be far more severe than Bond getting hit. And Eve is relaying to M things she cannot see so it is split second.

And M does not order to shoot Bond but the other guy he is fighting. It is Eve who takes the shot and hits the wrong guy. The scene is there to set up the movie and things go wrong in real life in panic moments.

BondBug

acoppola wrote:

Getafix wrote:

BondBug wrote:

Getafix wrote:

I think this is where my problem with it arises. Because it is a 'serious' film, my suspension of belief does not work in the usual way. The film invites you to actually think about it rather than simply sit back and consume, and that for me is when it falls apart. Because when you think about it, virtually nothing adds up.

I appreciate that Bond has reserves of skill and strength and determination, but in a narrative sense there is no transition between busted flush Bond at the start of the film and super-Bond at the end. There is no 'journey' that explains or explores his 'rebirth'. Or at least that was how I felt. As is customary with Purvis and Wade, character development is perfunctory and there are massive narrative non sequiturs (reminiscent of Bond's miraculous recovery from months of torture at the start of DAD).

A big difference between the absurd (but highly entertaining) waterski escape sequence in LTK and Bond's escape from the lake in SF is that LTK shows us how he escapes (however far fetched the explanation might be).

A frozen lake is a classic (cliched?) film scenario. The danger is not just the thin ice, but the risk of getting stuck under the ice and getting back out of the water without it cracking further. If a director is going to use these familiar scenarios then they have to appreciate that audiences will already be thinking ahead from the moment Bond goes under the water - how will he escape this one? But, as at the start of the film, there is no explanation. This is not something I can accept 'because it's a Bond film' and because Bond just always survives, no explanation needed (as some people have suggested) - it is just lazy film making.

No, it is not "lazy film making." The Bond makers had obviously made a decision not to show Bond climbing back onto the ice for artistic reasons, perhaps to maintain pace or perhaps it ended on the cutting room floor because it was deemed unnecessary.

Yes, they could have shown Bond's tremendous effort to get out of the ice and his shock from the freezing temperatures, but they made a decision not to. I don't think you can call these kinds of editorial decisions, whether made at the scripting level, or during filming or while editing "lazy."

Film making is a subjective process. Because you may not like their choices does not mean they are "lazy,"

How do you explain them then?

A shot of Bond struggling from the lake to reach M before Silva would have heightened the tension of the final scenes AND explained how he gets out of the water.

There are lots of short-hand ways to suggest things in a film that avoid long exposition but also help drive the narrative.

Another example here is the 'take the shot' sequence at the start. It is not very clear why M orders the shot. Bond is not 'losing'. Infact he's caught up with Patrice after tremendous effort. If they both hit the tunnel, then so be it, they both die and the harddrive can be retrieved from the bodies. However an easy short hand way of explaining her actions would have been to have Bond losing at this point - about to be knifed perhaps by Patrice. As it stands, it just seems like classic Purvis and Wade - unexplained and unexplored.

I think I'm making fairly objective comments on how the story is told and what I see as its flaws. However, I am even boring myself with this stuff now, so will try and lay off of it.

Monsieur @Getafix Because the film had so many tense moments, I think the lake scene being drawn out would have added more oil to an already raging fire of suspense. Bond swimming from a lake is not the most exciting thing I could think of.

We see him fire the flare and for Bond swimming to safety did not seem to me like a huge challenge. This is a man who can fight on top of trains and get his privates severely beaten. Swimming is a piece of cake in contrast.

Also Bond's adrenaline must have been sky high and that would have given him the strength to get out of the lake. He had Kincade and M to worry about.

Exactly. The script has to explain why only Silva gets to the chapel and not any other henchmen and why Silva does not expect Bond to appear. This is all well executed with this scene. Bond is Bond, as you say and has the advantage over the other guy under water as it was his idea to use the gun to break the ice, so he would have taken a deep breath in advance. Bond's wits and brawn saved him. Bond is used to escaping from ice-cold water. He has done it before. Just no need to show it. The focus was all on M and Silva.

acoppola

BondBug wrote:

acoppola wrote:

Getafix wrote:

BondBug wrote:

Getafix wrote:

I think this is where my problem with it arises. Because it is a 'serious' film, my suspension of belief does not work in the usual way. The film invites you to actually think about it rather than simply sit back and consume, and that for me is when it falls apart. Because when you think about it, virtually nothing adds up.

I appreciate that Bond has reserves of skill and strength and determination, but in a narrative sense there is no transition between busted flush Bond at the start of the film and super-Bond at the end. There is no 'journey' that explains or explores his 'rebirth'. Or at least that was how I felt. As is customary with Purvis and Wade, character development is perfunctory and there are massive narrative non sequiturs (reminiscent of Bond's miraculous recovery from months of torture at the start of DAD).

A big difference between the absurd (but highly entertaining) waterski escape sequence in LTK and Bond's escape from the lake in SF is that LTK shows us how he escapes (however far fetched the explanation might be).

A frozen lake is a classic (cliched?) film scenario. The danger is not just the thin ice, but the risk of getting stuck under the ice and getting back out of the water without it cracking further. If a director is going to use these familiar scenarios then they have to appreciate that audiences will already be thinking ahead from the moment Bond goes under the water - how will he escape this one? But, as at the start of the film, there is no explanation. This is not something I can accept 'because it's a Bond film' and because Bond just always survives, no explanation needed (as some people have suggested) - it is just lazy film making.

No, it is not "lazy film making." The Bond makers had obviously made a decision not to show Bond climbing back onto the ice for artistic reasons, perhaps to maintain pace or perhaps it ended on the cutting room floor because it was deemed unnecessary.

Yes, they could have shown Bond's tremendous effort to get out of the ice and his shock from the freezing temperatures, but they made a decision not to. I don't think you can call these kinds of editorial decisions, whether made at the scripting level, or during filming or while editing "lazy."

Film making is a subjective process. Because you may not like their choices does not mean they are "lazy,"

How do you explain them then?

A shot of Bond struggling from the lake to reach M before Silva would have heightened the tension of the final scenes AND explained how he gets out of the water.

There are lots of short-hand ways to suggest things in a film that avoid long exposition but also help drive the narrative.

Another example here is the 'take the shot' sequence at the start. It is not very clear why M orders the shot. Bond is not 'losing'. Infact he's caught up with Patrice after tremendous effort. If they both hit the tunnel, then so be it, they both die and the harddrive can be retrieved from the bodies. However an easy short hand way of explaining her actions would have been to have Bond losing at this point - about to be knifed perhaps by Patrice. As it stands, it just seems like classic Purvis and Wade - unexplained and unexplored.

I think I'm making fairly objective comments on how the story is told and what I see as its flaws. However, I am even boring myself with this stuff now, so will try and lay off of it.

Monsieur @Getafix Because the film had so many tense moments, I think the lake scene being drawn out would have added more oil to an already raging fire of suspense. Bond swimming from a lake is not the most exciting thing I could think of.

We see him fire the flare and for Bond swimming to safety did not seem to me like a huge challenge. This is a man who can fight on top of trains and get his privates severely beaten. Swimming is a piece of cake in contrast.

Also Bond's adrenaline must have been sky high and that would have given him the strength to get out of the lake. He had Kincade and M to worry about.

Exactly. The script has to explain why only Silva gets to the chapel and not any other henchmen and why Silva does not expect Bond to appear. This is all well executed with this scene. Bond is Bond, as you say and has the advantage over the other guy under water as it was his idea to use the gun to break the ice, so he would have taken a deep breath in advance. Bond's wits and brawn saved him. Bond is used to escaping from ice-cold water. He has done it before. Just no need to show it. The focus was all on M and Silva.

Thanks @BondBug He wasn't in the middle of the ocean so it was very plausible. Had he not jumped in the lake Silva would have executed him so that he does not get in the way of his vendetta for M. Bond calculates instantaneously.

BAIN123

I've said before on here I think his escape from a buring coffin in DAF defies far more logic than the escape from the water in SF.

In DAF:

-How did Shady Tee know where Bond was?
-How did he manage to not burn his hands when he opened the lid?
-How did the flames go out so quickly?

At least in SF we can assume he...climbed out...of the frozen lake after firing the flare.

We may "see" how Bond escapes in some of the other films but it doesn't necessarily enhance the authenticity. I can "believe" and accept the escape from the water far more than some of the other escapes he has made.

Just in case you have forgotten may I remind you about the windsurfing stuff in DAD. That "shows us" how Bond escapes too. ;)

Creasy47

acoppola wrote:

Creasy47 wrote:

@acoppola, I'm sure you enjoyed that cigarette after the film ended, though.

I did and the drink too. Me not smoking is the highest praise because that was the first time in years I sat all the way through. And even Severine smoking did not get me off my seat.:)

I never leave a theater to smoke, but seeing Severine take so many drags off of hers made me want to leave and have a cigarette, if the film wasn't so enjoyable.

acoppola

Creasy47 wrote:

acoppola wrote:

Creasy47 wrote:

@acoppola, I'm sure you enjoyed that cigarette after the film ended, though.

I did and the drink too. Me not smoking is the highest praise because that was the first time in years I sat all the way through. And even Severine smoking did not get me off my seat.:)

I never leave a theater to smoke, but seeing Severine take so many drags off of hers made me want to leave and have a cigarette, if the film wasn't so enjoyable.

Hey I thought it was so cool seeing her smoke. It was very classic and film noir style.

I would like to see Bond smoke too. He kills so what harm is a cigarette in comparison to killing someone. He is alcoholic too and a drink is too wet without a cig.:)

That is my favourite casino scene since LTK. It was like the good old days. I love smoking in Bond films. Bond is not PC anyway.

thelivingroyale

acoppola wrote:

I would like to see Bond smoke too. He kills so what harm is a cigarette in comparison to killing someone.

Exactly. I've seen so many people on here say "he doesn't have to smoke, it's not cool anymore, it's a filthy habit" but they're fine with him going round shooting people.

acoppola

thelivingroyale wrote:

acoppola wrote:

I would like to see Bond smoke too. He kills so what harm is a cigarette in comparison to killing someone.

Exactly. I've seen so many people on here say "he doesn't have to smoke, it's not cool anymore, it's a filthy habit" but they're fine with him going round shooting people.

Or sleeping with women he just met and possibly catching herpes. Bond is a killer and smokes because he does not expect to live long. I loved Dalton smoking away and it added to the Fleming spirit.

I think Severine may be one of my favourite Bond girls. And like usual what I love does not last. Dalton anyone?:) She was in it not enough for me.

BAIN123

I've never been that bothered about Bond smoking (or not smoking) in the films but I did enjoy seeing Severine puffing away.

Zekidk

acoppola wrote:

The critics who hate SF are doing so because they have a preference for the superman Bond who just needs a change of clothes after a beating and shows no scarring from his experiences. Personally, they should watch Austin Powers instead. It ticks all those boxes perfectly.

Yeah, all those people who are expressing criticism about SF and Bond being weak and flawed, should just go watch Austin Powers!

Sorry, but I think that's a lame comment! You are disrespecting a lot of Bond fans here. Fans who actually like the original Bond as described by NicNac perfectly:

NicNac wrote:

But the reason everyone fell in love with the films in the first place was because Bond became this indestructible creature who could run, jump, shoot, ski, surf, drive, fly and parachute better than anyone else. He is a funny, charming womaniser who knows everything about sherry, caviar, exotic fish and butterflies.
There is nothing Bond can't pilot, sail or drive when need be and that's why we love him, because he is so ridiculously clever and adaptable.

I want my Bond to be that bit more amazing than any other man, it's why I watched them in the first place.

Creasy47

@acoppola, and if they wanted to go with the 'classic' feel of SF, I can't think of a single scene that would have been better to re-introduce Bond to smoking than when he was enjoying death and getting hammered during the day after the title sequence.

JimThompson45

@ Zekidk: That's seems like less an interest in James Bond and more an interest in Batman.

acoppola

BAIN123 wrote:

I've never been that bothered about Bond smoking (or not smoking) in the films but I did enjoy seeing Severine puffing away.

You perv!:))

Regan

acoppola wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

I've never been that bothered about Bond smoking (or not smoking) in the films but I did enjoy seeing Severine puffing away.

You perv!:))

:))

acoppola

Zekidk wrote:

acoppola wrote:

The critics who hate SF are doing so because they have a preference for the superman Bond who just needs a change of clothes after a beating and shows no scarring from his experiences. Personally, they should watch Austin Powers instead. It ticks all those boxes perfectly.

Yeah, all those people who are expressing criticism about SF and Bond being weak and flawed, should just go watch Austin Powers!

Sorry, but I think that's a lame comment! You are disrespecting a lot of Bond fans here. Fans who actually like the original Bond as described by NicNac perfectly:

NicNac wrote:

But the reason everyone fell in love with the films in the first place was because Bond became this indestructible creature who could run, jump, shoot, ski, surf, drive, fly and parachute better than anyone else. He is a funny, charming womaniser who knows everything about sherry, caviar, exotic fish and butterflies.
There is nothing Bond can't pilot, sail or drive when need be and that's why we love him, because he is so ridiculously clever and adaptable.

I want my Bond to be that bit more amazing than any other man, it's why I watched them in the first place.

But SF really shows a great side of Bond. One that was actually stimulating. You cannot have a Moore type Bond in an age when the Middle East is collapsing as well as all the other issues we face.

And it's true. Those critics who hate Skyfall want a Bond that is no longer as relevant.

Show where I disrespected fans? I was talking of the critics and as far as I know, the character of Bond should be different to Superman. In fact Superman became boring compared to Batman exactly because of his so called indestructability.

And those old films you refer to by being left in the era they were, gain more value. Because they are one offs perfectly suited to the time. If you keep repeating the same film and style over and over, then in the end the series will fizzle out.

DAD was the perfect example of where trying to make a film around formula leads to. DAD could not come close to the wit or humour of the golden age. DAD used blatantly obvious sexual references which missed the whole point of the subtlety of the old films.

bondsum

BAIN123 wrote:

How did Shady Tree know where Bond was?

Because Shady was the next person along in the "pipeline" after Plenty and Franks (Bond) had smuggled the body into America in what was thought to be Bond's corpse, and he was there at the cremation to retrieve the diamonds. He knew that Wint & Kidd had disposed of Franks (that is Bond) because they made sure the diamonds were passed on to him as instructed afterwards. He felt that Franks was trying to double-cross him because Wint & Kidd had found Franks (Bond) checking them in the Hall of Remembrance. Wint & Kidd were just there to make sure Shady got the diamonds and Franks was eliminated from the "pipeline". Fortunately Shady checked the diamonds, realized they were fakes and stopped Bond from being burnt alive.

BAIN123 wrote:

How did he manage to not burn his hands when he opened the lid?

Remember that the coffin wasn't actually alight but obviously very hot at this stage. Could be that Shady has a high threshold to pain or that he doesn't find the coffin lid particularly that hot?

BAIN123 wrote:

How did the flames go out so quickly?

Shady turned the flames off at the control centre along with the music. Though I agree that it happened somewhat abruptly it was mainly done for dramatic effect more than anything else. I suppose they could of had the coffin slide slowly out before he opened it, but then that would have spoiled the tension. Does that last bit sound familiar?

acoppola

Creasy47 wrote:

@acoppola, and if they wanted to go with the 'classic' feel of SF, I can't think of a single scene that would have been better to re-introduce Bond to smoking than when he was enjoying death and getting hammered during the day after the title sequence.

Indeed sir. I mean a cigarette is less deadly than a scorpion bite. And pills have side effects that accumulate in the body and can cause huge problems too.

Keith Richards is the best example that smoking does not kill. He is standing and puffing away whilst all the health freaks drinking their daily orange juice are dropping all around me.:)

That scene in Dr No with Connery lighting up at the table is as much a signature of classic Bond. It goes with the tuxedo as well as personality of ultra coolness.

I hope Barbara Broccoli is reading this and getting hypnotised by my writing! If we see it in the next film Barbara, that would be super!

Creasy47

@acoppola, it's why the iconic "Bond, James Bond." line will never be trumped. He lights it up, gives that look, utters the line, and it's golden.

BAIN123

bondsum wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

How did Shady Tree know where Bond was?

Because Shady was the next person along in the "pipeline" after Plenty and Franks (Bond) had smuggled the body into America in what was thought to be Bond's corpse, and he was there at the cremation to retrieve the diamonds. He knew that Wint & Kidd had disposed of Franks (that is Bond) because they were meant to pass on the diamonds to him as instructed afterwards. Fortunately he checked the diamonds, realized they were fakes and stopped Bond from being burnt alive.

BAIN123 wrote:

How did he manage to not burn his hands when he opened the lid?

Remember that the coffin wasn't actually alight but obviously very hot at this stage. Could be that Shady has a high threshold to pain or that he doesn't find the coffin lid particularly that hot?

BAIN123 wrote:

How did the flames go out so quickly?

Shady turned the flames off at the control centre along with the music. Though I agree that it happened somewhat abruptly it was mainly done for dramatic effect more than anything else. I suppose they could of had the coffin slowly slide out before he opened it, but then that would have spoiled the tension. Does that last bit sound familiar?

Ha. Thanks.

acoppola

Creasy47 wrote:

@acoppola, it's why the iconic "Bond, James Bond." line will never be trumped. He lights it up, gives that look, utters the line, and it's golden.

Absolutely @Creasy47 In fact I remember a Dalton interview back in 1989 where he said that the line from Dr No will never be equalled as it was so perfect. It was a great era for class and manners.

Creasy47

@acoppola, it most certainly was. In the EON documentary, Brosnan talked about the first time he said the line, and how he was trying to block out Sean's performance of it so he didn't try to copy it. Smart move.

Zekidk

acoppola wrote:

Zekidk wrote:

acoppola wrote:

The critics who hate SF are doing so because they have a preference for the superman Bond who just needs a change of clothes after a beating and shows no scarring from his experiences. Personally, they should watch Austin Powers instead. It ticks all those boxes perfectly.

Yeah, all those people who are expressing criticism about SF and Bond being weak and flawed, should just go watch Austin Powers!

Sorry, but I think that's a lame comment! You are disrespecting a lot of Bond fans here. Fans who actually like the original Bond as described by NicNac perfectly:

NicNac wrote:

But the reason everyone fell in love with the films in the first place was because Bond became this indestructible creature who could run, jump, shoot, ski, surf, drive, fly and parachute better than anyone else. He is a funny, charming womaniser who knows everything about sherry, caviar, exotic fish and butterflies.
There is nothing Bond can't pilot, sail or drive when need be and that's why we love him, because he is so ridiculously clever and adaptable.

I want my Bond to be that bit more amazing than any other man, it's why I watched them in the first place.

You cannot have a Moore type Bond in an age when the Middle East is collapsing as well as all the other issues we face.

And it's true. Those critics who hate Skyfall want a Bond that is no longer as relevant.

Show where I disrespected fans? I was talking of the critics and as far as I know, the character of Bond should be different to Superman.

1) IMO, you disrespect people criticizing SF, by telling them to go watch Austin Powers.
2) Did I ask for a Moore-type Bond?
3) Critics can't be fans?
4) You can in fact have a "relevant" James Bond, without turning him into most other flawed action heroes dealing with personal issues. And...
5) ...no one has argued that Bond should be a guy with special superpowers, like Superman.

What many are saying though, is that don't like the flawed and self-pitying Bond we saw in SF. They want the classic archetype alphamale always on top of his game back, and I have a strong feeling that they/we will get precisely that for Bond 24.

acoppola wrote:

And those old films you refer to by being left in the era they were, gain more value. Because they are one offs perfectly suited to the time.

Will suit me fine if SF also ends up as a "one off"

JimThompson45

Zekidk wrote:

What many are saying though, is that don't like the flawed and self-pitying Bond we saw in SF. They want the classic archetype alphamale always on top of his game back, and I have a strong feeling that they/we will get precisely that for Bond 24.

Why do you have that feeling? What has been done over the past three films has, in the main, been generally well received critically and has been very profitable. Why would they chose to deviate from an approach which seems to be working?

Zekidk

@JimThompson45
The very last scene of SF sets things up nicely for Bond 24. Do you really want yet another Bond movie with Bond largely incompetent having personal issues?

Creasy47

Doesn't this flawed Bond of Craig's that shows pain make it a large characteristic of his version of Bond? If not, and we had the actors playing the exact same type of Bond every single film, with every single change in actor, then people would complain that the films are too monotonous and easily identifiable. You need some pain and twists to spice it up, or else they'll go with this set formula that literally makes each and every film the same.

I know they have the formula now - iconic line, gunbarrel, the women, the villain, etc., but what we've had so far from Craig isn't terrible. I just don't see 'Bond 24' going any way but that masculine, invincible type of Bond that people love. I don't see where they'll add in more inner demons.