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
B-)
Back on topic- there are Bond movies that I'd make relatively small changes in, and there are ones that I'd like to see MAJOR changes in. QOS is an example of the former; SF is the latter.
I wonder if anyone recognises this or even lives nearby?
It also seems like since Dench has been running things, Bond has got it into his head that destroying his cars is a blast. Honestly, I think Bond ruined more cars (main cars atleast) from TND to SF than DN to GE.
Well, everyting does not need to be GF just because it's Bond...
A few weeks ago I swore in a post. I wasn't swearing at anyone or anything like that, I just said f**k. The post was then edited, with a bit in bold saying that I should follow the terms and conditions, and I got a message saying that the mods had been told to crack down on swearing and that I should stop because they didn't want to have to give my account a warning.
All of this is fair enough. I don't mind that, I can deal with not swearing. But I don't understand is why people can say more offensive stuff without swearing and get away with it.
The post above is an example. Shardlake tells everyone to stop wanking eachother off and get a life. Nobody edits his post and tells him read the terms and conditions. But I say the new Mad Max film looks f***ing amazing and I get told that I'll recieve a warning if I carry on.
I'm not having a go at you @Shardlake because I don't really think what you said was bad, I didn't take any offense. I say a lot worse on a daily basis. I'm not having a go at you, I'm having a go at the swearing rule because I don't understand why posting stuff like that is allowed but swearing isn't because I think that post is more likely to offend someone than me using the F word to describe something.
one thing you have to keep in mind when dealing with any fandom - especially Bond fans, is not everyone is going to agree on everything... and the minorities of a group (not race, but just percentage of people in general) will always be more vocal, and will always drum louder than the majority.... Personally, I love SF - i think it's a terrific Bond film.... but i understand not everyone is going to love it - and i understand it's not going to be at the very top of everyone's list of favorite Bond films.... thats just the way it is............. if it's one thing i know from shooting my own short films - you can't set off with the mindset of trying to please everyone - because if you try to do that, your film will be a steaming pile of crap....... film is art, and as a filmmaker you make the film that you (yourself) would like to see - and you hope that others will want to see it as well.. thats it... so approaching these things with that mindset of "not everyone is going to happy" makes for less stress..... After Connery - there were plenty of people who hated Roger Moore - but there were plenty that liked him as well, and plenty that liked him more than Connery - and so on down the line.... it's to be expected.
I think it really depends what kind of Bond fan you are really. As the Bond franchise is already 52 years old, and as with that many kind of fans appear, younger, older, more generic movie fans, Bond nerds, and fans of each individual Bond actor, that'll be a tough question to answer.
I think especially Bond fans have become way more critical about "Skyfall", whereas the generic movie reviewers from newspapers and movie websites really rate it as one of the best Bond films ever, together with FRWL, GF, OHMSS and CR. Also, I think "Skyfall" was especially good at drawing new audiences, cinema-visitors who usually didn't go to see a Bond film, now jumped on the "Bond-wagon".
I don't think the movie is overrated or underrated really. First impressions are always here to stay.
I really liked this essay about "Skyfall" from Rob Cotton a lot: http://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/skyfall-an-essay-and-memoir-by-rob-cotton/ . For me it basically sums up why it has been reviewed so wunderfully, and why others didn't particularly liked it. Especially this quote does it for me: "The writing was far above par this time and most of the film works on characterization rather than situation."
This is the key point in this film that kind of makes "Skyfall" a unique film in the franchise. I agree certain plot elements are dubious, the full explanations on how a character like Silva could create so much death and destruction isn't presented to us. We can merely guess, and not many "typical" Bond fans like that. It resulted in criticism about the story having too many plot holes.....having too many unexplained actions.
But with that kind of criticism we forget that "Skyfall" in other aspects of the screenplay. Epecially the element of characterization. While it seems rather dubious how Silva turns in one big terrorist hole that equals Gotham City, upon first viewing you do believe, truly believe his intentions. While not explained properly, Silva's intentions are not fake.
This basically goes for all the characters in "Skyfall". Bond, "M", Silva, Mallory and to a lesser extent Severine......they are all complex, and carry huge emotional luggage. Their motivations are not fully explained during the course of the film or during on-screen action sequences they are part of. No, but you can fully identify with them. And it takes damn good screenplay writing and acting skills to make that happen.
For me personally, I had such (ambiguous) feelings of empathy for Silva. The scenes were he takes out his mutilated metal jaw, the scenes were he tries to fuck up Bond's mind during that Game of Tell, the scene where he causes even more pain to "M"s wound........you have the feeling "By jolly, the person who did this to Silva also must be punished. "M" simply doesn't know anymore how to lead!", but during the film you also start thinking "And now you become a complete psychotic fuck. Man, you're your very own terrorist now, created terrorism to such an extent that London only saw in 2005!" That ambiguous feeling IMO can only be conveyed if actors now how to fully indulge in a character; a character that has been written with many complexities. Not always fully explained complexities, but still....they are there.
It's why I still love "Skyfall". But I also understand why certain people don't like these kind of complexities and drama. Sam Mendes originally is a drama director ("Revolutionary Road", "American Beauty"). Bond films usually don't have this elaborate drama. Many Bond fans want to experience that perfect mix of Bond elements, and if there is a focus on characterization, than not every Bond fan likes that.
I can only say that I loved "Skyfall". Perhaps the same Bond fans will start loving "Skyfall" more after 10, 15 or 20 years from now. Something similar happened with "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and now it's our favourite "Bond evergreen". Time will tell. At least "Skyfall" succeeded in something that many other Bond films could not create: A lot of fierce discussion and disagreements. I love that too.
The one character based criticism I would have is that they tried too hard to make this an ensemble piece immediately, all of which could have been saved by splicing just one character from proceedings. Moneypenny. Where Q provides a symbolic counterweight to the ageing 007, Moneypenny is dispensable in my eyes. Personally I'd have replaced her with another rookie field agent, probably male, and I would have had him take his own life in the aftermath of the event, unable to reconcile his grief at killing a fellow agent. This would have added to M's woes and would have delivered another level of emotional turmoil for Bond. Plus we'd have had a character with thematic and narrative impact. Instead we got one that spends most of the movie appearing just because they're 'Moneypenny'. I really didn't like her backstory and I think they'd have benefited from binning her off and having a bit of eye candy here and there. As others have said, M is the Bond girl.
Other than that I love all the character work, Bardem is as excellent as you'd imagine, Fiennes is shaping up to be a formidable M and Whishaw has the potential to be a great foil for Bond (I just hope they avoid as much techno-babble as they can.)
All in all my opinions of SF haven't really altered. I think it's quite a unique Bond movie, memorable, and deserves its place within the canon. I would still rank CR higher, primarily because I think it does character and plot better. SF falls down on the second part, only because the heart really takes over the head, but it does deliver in spades on the character side. That's no bad thing, though and it's good to have a bit of variation in the series. It's certainly got more heart and soul than QoS imo.
Really interesting read @RC7. I am curious though where the last three Craig-films rank on your -let's say- TOP 7 of Best Bond Films. Furthermore, we all have certain hopes for Bond 24. But do you realistically think Sam Mendes will do a major overhaul, in that Bond 24 becomes really different compared to SF? Or do you think that even Bond 24 will be still a Bond film with a huge "Sam Mendes Seal of Approval"? Just like the Bond films from Terence Young are typical "Terence Young-esque"?
I don't ever rank the films, if you ever visit the ranking threads on here I never frequent them. I don't really know why it is, perhaps if I'd come to the franchise older and a little more objective I'd view them differently. As it is I wouldn't know where to start. Depending on the day, time, my mood, any of them could theoretically be my favourite. I think I see them as a whole, a canon, which has different facets and each chapter delivers what I want to different degrees. I love them all and don't really understand people who actively hate certain entries. I'd quite happily sit and watch any right now. Anyhow...
The Craig films are of the highest quality. That's how I would view them. My only worry is this creeping sense that they're trying to crowbar in unnecessary elements. CR was an absolute breath of fresh air and nailed it. QoS went too far in distancing itself from the template, but was still admirable despite the melancholic tone. SF crept back towards elements of the old template, chucking Q, Moneypenny and the '64 DB5 in the mix, all within the one film. I'd have taken Q and left the other two elements out. It was overkill. I hope Mendes takes inspiration from the novels and not the films in all honesty. When the announcement went out for an 'Iconic henchman', I have to say I wasn't enthralled. As a fan that's not the kind of thing that excites me at this specific moment in time and especially with Craig as Bond.
No, I don't think Mendes will deliver a major overhaul, in what sense were you thinking there might be a major overhaul? I assume it will have a similar feel to SF in terms of the components, but will be different in tone. I really want them to deliver an intriguing plot, with some decent twists here and there. SF is reasonably linear and nothing is massively surprising. If they can nail this then I think we could be in for something special.
So you're basically reducing the Bond franchise to a pile of unoriginal formularic films with ditto references?
Actually Sam Mendes is exactly doing this!
Yes! He's also buying of Barbara Brocolli and Michael G. Wilson, so he can start, like Kevin McGlory, his own rival Bond franchise. Really, what unnuanced nonsense.
So he is not shoehorning in iconic gadgets (or references) from the so-called lesser camp bond movies (in case of the DB5 even against every logic) to get by far the most applause during this sophisticated mess called SF?
Well, I can come up with a lot of arguments now, so I can put your reaction into perspective. But I'm tired :-). And I'm also in the middle of watching NSNA.
;)