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 don't either, I think if the bottle was brown it'd be a non issue. No one brought up the Ducal Bond drank in QOS. Bond drinks beer on occasion, it's no big deal.
I did not take it as a problem with the beer, but a comment on how much productplacement there is these days and how the movie was already paid for at minute 22 before there was an audience involved. Which in itself is a truthfull obeservation, hence his later remark with Q about the brand of the computer.
This little movie does show that this last 007 had his share of improbabilities and does show that the movie fits easily within the 007 franchise.
Product placement has been far worse in the past. Remember Moonraker and tomorrow never dies
I agree but sometimes it can be quite ovious and one should be able to joke about it without getting fanboys all upset. :D
All films seem to have plot holes. From the "shot with a cam for 10,000 bucks to the mega million hits we see all the time NO BIG DEAL. The appeal of Bond films is that they keep the action scenes coming and one never has time to think about any of it before another sequence is on the screen.
The c*cksucker doing the video was talking too goddamned fast. Could hardly understand the Mother F@cker.
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_540_29-famous-movie-scenes-with-glaring-mistakes_p29/#26
What some people I think don't realise is that in a film not everything can be shown...otherwise the film would be 3 months long...
in the film - Bond and M leave the garage in a rush leaving the garage door open.
if the film lasted 3 months....Bond and M leave the garage in a rush leaving the garage door open.
M remarks that the DB5 isn't very comfortable and BOND jokingly goes to eject M through the roof.
They continue driving and stop at the nearest petrol station to use the toilet, fill up the DB5 for the long trip to scotland and buy some snacks.
At this moment Bond realises that he forgot to close the garage door and returns to shut it. Much to the annoyance of M.
Well, yeah, but then you just don't show it. You don't have to show Bond closing the garage door, true. But you don't have to show him leaving it open, either.
So... you never forgot to close the door? And what does it matter, he's taken the car out already. It's not like it's getting stolen now, is it ;-)
[img][/img]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2tE-BCwZtw
Product placement is only annoying if it takes you out of the movie or it is too glaringly obvious. Bad ones I remember are Hertz and Smirnoff (as if Bond would touch the stuff) in TND, the 'VW Beatle' line in SF and for some reason Bond's shades in SF as well - he seems to only wear them at really inappropriate moments. Generally speaking I don't mind too much. I found it amusing in CR when Vesper mentions Rolex AND Omega in the same sentence - someone got some free advertising with that one.
There's a lot of glaringly obvious product placement in TND. Funnily enough the Smirnoff doesn't bother me much. The one that DOES bother me is:
Bond: "This looks familiar" (holds up Rolex)
Wai Lin: We've made some improvements
Bond: Have you indeed! #-o
That was a prelude to the "Omega" line in CR.
Also have you noticed that when Bond parks his car in TND the car park only contains either BMW's or Merceides?
I'm suprised @Getafix didn't mention the H**n*ken in SF
Funnily enough that really didn't both me at all. I was too busy trying to work out how the hell Bond had survived that fall and turned up totally unexplained on some beach with a babe in tow. I really don't have an issue with Bond having a beer. In fact it's more annoying when the writer/director insists on him constantly knocking back vodka martinis etc - tedious cliche.
I watched one the other day for 'The Dark Knight Rises,' and saw one for 'Prometheus' a few months ago, and that was one of my favorite films of 2012 and my lesser favorite films of 2012, respectively, and I just wasn't impressed with either.
But this video doesn't capture the real mistakes its just made for the sake of it.
I would love to explain ,
Of course I doubt you will agree with me, but that's quite all right :)
I had written this on the Rate the directors page and let me attach it over here. Ofcourse that is not tailor made for this thread,but hope you get the idea.
Of course this is a matter of opinion and its naturally subjective.
Mendes in my opinion is the worst director the Bond franchise has ever seen , not because he's a bad 'director',But because he's a bad 'Bond director'.
Let me give you a hypothetical example over here,
Just imagine you,
You want to be employed as a surgeon . Imagine during highschool you fantasised of being one of the best surgeons in the best hospital in your country ,you are commited ,you are willing to do everything to achieve your dream .You're the kind of person who spends years and years trying to acquire a degree. You're also the kind of person who would stay late at night cramming notes to make sure you attain your goal. Finally when the moment has come and you are done with you're studies, you approach the hospital to get the job , you find out that someone who has little experience and not a qualification gets the job. Because he had connections with important people of the hospital .
Despite all your efforts , despite all your hard work, you loose to someone who has not put in the time and who is not as talented as you. The person who you loose to just smirks at you astounded by his dumb luck,
That ,that person to me is Sam Mendes. You see if you take Marc Forster for example, he has never made movies which were actioned packed, he was acclaimed for his work on Kite Runner. But when he got the call to direct Bond he openly said that he may not be able to do it,he himself felt that he didn't want to damage the series or turn it into a drama based movie. He took it ,He did his level best. Inspite saying he couldn't he bumped up the level of action and maintained the level of class, and what did he get ?
all the critics butchering him . Fans cursing him . I hold a lot of respect for Mr. Forster and I am prowd to say I don't follow the herd when it comes to this
Now Sam Mendes, He took Bond because his career was not exactly in the best of shape,He knows that emotional work generally resonates well with the critics. So he did what was easiest to him turning it into another drama movie. Instead of taking the time and understaing as to why the franchise has lasted 50 years and making a movie for the fans he made a movie for the critics, so he could be lauded.He did not adopt his style to tailor Bond and he has treated elements of Bond's past as checkboxes. Ultimately his planned worked Despitehis laziness and his inability to adapt to Bond, The critics praised him,the media hyped it.Ticketsales went skyrocketing.I am very particular about fight scenes and Forster and Campbell captured the best ,I can see right through Sam Mendes web of deceit,The fight scenes of Skyfall is an insult to the franchise's good name. Because he is absolutly incapable of it.
If you watch as much action movies as I you will understand why his fight scenes are not up to standards.
Gentleman ,I said that with all my heart and soul
You may not agree with me right now since the hype of Skyfall,
I just hope years from now when people lookback at Skyfall you they will get what I am talking about
:)>-
I just hope years from now when people lookback at Skyfall you they will get what I am talking about
So basically what you're saying is right? ;)
Can you at least use proper spacing/spelling when you write. Its quite distracting.
Also, Getafix at least points out instances in the film that don't work for him and has a constructive, well written arguement. Your statements don't go much beyond angry fan-boy ramblings.
I was actually joking - as most on here are aware, I'm not a big fan of SF. Although I actually agree with some of what you're saying, I disagree that Mendes was out to make a film just for the critics. I think he intended to make a movie for the 'fans' as well as the general movie going public. Many would say that's exactly what he did. I think it's difficult to argue with the box office and the general response of those on here, which is that it's the best Bond movie ever (or at least since CR ;) ). I personally think you're right though and that Mendes was an odd choice and the film, for me, is underdeveloped in terms of plot (a classic sign that Purvis and Wade were involved) and poorly executed. My view of SF is that there are some good individual scenes and that I appreciate and approve of some of the intentions behind the film, but that because the story is so weak the film overall does not convince. But we're in a tiny minority.