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
SF does have plot holes but nearly every Bond film has the difference it those films weren't held in the same reverence as the 50th anniversary entry but I unlike some think it is top tier Bond, I only watched it some weeks back and for me it just edges CR into the 3rd spot with it taking the 2nd for me. Yes the whole Silva had been planning this for ages is utter nonsense but Bond is utter nonsense and when it ceases to it won't be Bond anymore. Seriously would a secret agent be able to enter into a card game and take a chance on winning in order to stop financing terrorists? and this is one of the more grounded entries of the series.
As for the arguments of Bond not surviving that fall at the end of the PTS, seriously what film series do you think you are watching?
Skyfall is the Dark Knight of the Bond series those that loved it really loved it, those that didn't shout as loud as those who did will try and convince everyone it was the emperors new clothes, not since Dark Knight has a film had such an impact or reaction on it's fan base.
As for the new casting rumours and I guess that is all we can call them till EON confirm it. As to Lea Seydoux, fantastic spot on, the Craig era continues to entice some of the best actors of the series. Please let the Bautista rumour come true, seeing the Bautista Bomb pummel Craig is one sight to Iook forward to, although the fisticuffs have been impressive in this era, Craig's 007 has not had a real formidable opponent as yet and Davy boy certainly wouldn't be a walk in the park for DC.
@Shardlake? I pleasantly agree with you, almost 100% :-). I think you're spot-on when you are saying that perhaps the generic public and critical reviewers (the late Roger Ebert found it a magnificent film, and I respect the man) liked the film more than, us, Bond fans. And that kind of makes me think, that perhaps "Skyfall" is not just a worthy Bond film, but most importantly a damn good film regardless of the Bond tag. And you're especially true if you say that "Skyfall" is perhaps the film that had a huge impact on its fanbase (Perhaps a reason why it drew so many audiences to the cinema, simply to check out this Bond film, when in essence some of them aren't particularly fans?)
"Skyfall" has plot holes. True. But because of that "Skyfall" was also able to deliver a villain that we haven't seen since the 1960's. By letting certain questions (on how Silva ended up like that) unanswered, you basically create a stepping stone for bigger violence, terrorism and destruction.
I'm a fan of The Dark Knight-trilogy, and people in here know that I was praying for the Bond producers to get some inspiration from those movies, especially the villains. Because really, Bond used to excell with the archetypical villain. And then there was The Dark Knight-trilogy, almost "stealing" "our" outlandish villains and applying them with touches of realism, psychotism and grittiness! It made me love that trilogy in an ambiguous way, as I wanted Bond to have his "Joker". Then there was Silva, and he worked. I love the evil "Julian Assange" with all my heart ;-).
Have you read this topic by the way @Shardlake? http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/7577/skyfall-re-ignited-me-as-a-fan-what-about-you#latest
What will Bond 24 bring? Man, soon I will wet my pants. Wouldn't you say @RC7 :-P?
I really advice you to see "Guardians Of The Galaxy". Even if you're not a sci-fi-fan, the movie did wonders for a whole breed of new actors and crewmembers (especially the director). It's a magnificent fun ride and now a worthy competitor of the Star Wars- and Star Trek franchise.
By the way, I think Dave Bautista is a wunderful American actor. Warm voice (allthough he won't be warm in Bond 24!). Like Javier Bardem and his fanbase, I start now believing that this guy will draw in quite a lot of WWF-fans and WWE-nerds:
And here another video. By jolly, this man is huge:
I'm not really sure what this has to do with me.
Moderator: No need for that kind of talk on what we pride on being a family friendly forum.
@Gustav_Graves, you could try not getting so excited too. It's only a film.
I definitely will, I have all Marvel films on bluray, was working a lot so missed it at the cinema when realised. Really looking forward to the film, read James Gunn has made a very good film. Its a certain buy
;)
Tonia Sotiropoulou Photogallerie from 7 May 2012
http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/gallery/girls_tonia_sotiropoulou.php3
:)) well, compared to you, you would probably sit down, take a martini, and look at your beautiful Moonraker-poster above the fireplace ;-).
SF is only the benchmark in BO revenue and casting and that's it. Bond 24 in terms if overall quality and satisfying viewing needs to top CR and as optimistic as i am for Bond 24; Lord knows I'd be an even happier man if Campbell was returning to helm.
That's your opinion off course. I respect it. But, again, I completely disagree. You might check IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic a bit. Or google "The Dark Knight Skyfall". Or even the late Roger Ebert: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/skyfall-2012 .
In my honest opinion, I think both CR and SF are the best Bond films of the decade. They triumphantly go hand in hand as Bond's finest 5 hours since the early 1990's.
For me - the best onscreen villain I have seen in a while, was Philip Seymour Hoffman in MI:3. He would have made a great Bond villain.
SF'S popularity in every facet to do with its production as a complete film hasn't gone unrecognised and has benefited the series a lot in a very big way. However, I think SF is tge foundation of much better things to come at least that's my own expectation. I don't want to see the flaws of SF continued or propagated in subsequent Bond films just because if the success it gathered. I really think Mendes should look very closely at CR to really extract and convey a contemporary Bond atmosphere and build upon that.
That being said, I'm happy Mendes is aware of his short comings for SF, I'm happy he has no interest in trying to make a SF2 and so far I am very optimistic wuth the cast and crew he's assembling; particularly the hiring of Olivier Schneider to choreograph the hand to hand action as that was a major let down for me in SF. Anyway, exciting times ahead!
What you call Mendes' shortcomings, I really call his qualities. I champion Sam Mendes and urge him to continue on the road that was cemented with SF. It is interesting to see we disagree so much. Sam Mendes is a professional, and his decisions IMO are better than Marc Forster's decisions on QOS.
I too find CR to be superior to SF and I think Campbell understands the essence of Bond better than Mendes.
Having said that, Mendes did bring a lot of style to SF that helped it succeed (composer, cinematographer, villain etc.).
Skyfall was not as complete a Bond film as CR in my opinion. Campbell is the only guy I've seen since John Glen who knows how to make a real 'Bond' film as he's proven with both Goldeneye and Casino Royale - and he had to introduce a new Bond on both occassions, which is not easy to do. Imagine what he could achieve with an established Bond.
This of course has nothing to do with box office success which is impacted by other factors. Skyfall was beautifully shot, had excellent marketing and wasn't a half bad film by any means. It deserved its success, and Mendes should be congratulated for obviously bringing new fans into the Bond fold - but he has some work to do to build on that success as the bar has been set very high now.
And who up there said Glen knew how to make a real Bond film?? OMG he is an awful director that got worse with each film.
I know I know I said I was gonna be nice and I do respect opinion ...and yes I liked most of the Glen films despite poor direction...
I do agree with you that Craig's Bond needs to end the movie with a good shag and he also needs to definitely put a bullet through the head of the main villain with his PPK.
I'm a little tired of seeing Craig's Bond holding some woman and crying like a baby. With Vesper in CR it was understandable as he'd found true love, but with M it was cringe worthy.....I was feeling uncomfortable for him (both Bond and Craig) watching that shlop in the theatre. Unbecoming of Bond and only once done more shamefully - when Dalton was flailing about in License to Kill after he saw Felix's dismembered body. A superspy should not lose his composure unless it's related to a woman he's been intimate with. Brosnan did it best when he paid his respects to Paris in TND.
Sorry for that digression - back to your point - yes, kill the bad guy in an interesting way, and keep the British end up at the end.
Dear moderator,
only a film??? Are you kidding me? How can the moderator of a Bond forum write that Bond 24 is "only a film"? :bz
In the 80's I thought his directing was awful compared to what had come before, but given what we've had to endure in the 90's and more recently with QoS (editing wise), I think he deserves merit. The Living Daylights, Octopussy and License to Kill were very well paced, especially for that era.
I'll take his action scenes (the boat sequences in FYEO or LTK, the ski sequences in FYEO, or the aerial sequences in LTK precredits, Octopussy & LD finale) over the CGI bit in DaD, the aerial bit at the end of DaD, the helicopter vs. BMW part in TWINE, the ski chase in TWINE, or any incomprehensible action sequence in QoS.
It's all relative I guess. As I said, I did not think highly of him in the 80's and longed for the crew from the 60's and 70's. However, given some of what has come since......
Agreed. I think if people want to, they can and will use SF as a yardstick when judging what they want from B24. But we don't need to dig up entire arguments about the film itself. I think people need to understand that at times others will latch on to 'their', and I emphasise that, 'their' idea of SF's shortcomings in their discussion of B24. If people mildly, or vehemently disagree they can say so, but we don't need long discussions about why people are right or wrong about SF. Let's discuss the idea the specific post is raising.
Back on B24 - do we think there will be any fleeting glimpses of more, 'International' locations? It's shaping up to be a pretty European affair at the moment, with Casablanca being North Africa, but itself only 8 miles from Spain.
In all honest, I'm wondering why the USA hadn't got a proper role in a Bond film. The last time was in AVTAK, where San Fransisco played a huge role. And a small part of Miami Airport in CR. But in general I think that, so far, GF, DAF and AVTAK were the real "USA films", with smaller roles for the USA in CR, LALD and LTK.
One can do some wunderful things with the White House (we saw only a glimpse in GF). And I still think New York has been really underused in LALD.
Although I would assume the film will feature more perceived locations, with Morocco used as itself and possibly elsewhere. Potentially the same with Italy. SF obviously only shot with the main unit in Turkey, outside the UK, but the film featured London, Scotland, Istanbul, Turkey, Shanghai, Macau, Japan (albeit unspecified).
I've always thought it a shame that they've never used NYC properly.
Reported by Kleine Zeitung: http://www.kleinezeitung.at/nachrichten/kultur/3771840/james-bond-braucht-hilfe-osttirol.story
More information on this and the latest pictures from the Obertilliach set are here:
http://www.dolomitenstadt.at/2014/10/14/james-bond-sucht-mitstreiter-streng-geheim/
I think it's better to have only a few, well-used, locations than 10 that we can hardly appreciate.
Showing the USA in a Bond film could be a (great) challenge. I don't think it was done properly in past Bond films, which doesn't mean it wouldn't work! I would personally love to see some hidden gem, for such a vast country it's incredibly how easy it is for film makers to fall on clichés when filming in the USA. On a side note I would love to see Canada feature as well, beautiful country, beautiful cities!
Workers for sets or extras for action scenes perhaps? At least that's what I'm hoping.