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
Killed him with his own urine. So rude.
I just popped in the DVD to the final scene...You're right. I was thinking they were in the DB5 when Tracy was killed. See? I am not at all a car aficionado! I don't really pay that close attention.
Fair enough, but RC7's point still stands - the majority of cinema-goers who fawned over the use of the DB5 with ejector seat ’et al‘ in SF, and fell over themselves to laud it ‘the best Bond ever’ etc. are most likely under the pop-culture impression that the DB5 has been a staple of the series and is synonymous with 007, whereas the car actually only featured in 5 of the previous 22 official films (and only in two of those did it have any ‘gadgets’...).
It’s akin to a Michael Cain biopic summing up his career as synonymous with “blowing the bloody doors off”.
I think this guy summed it up nicely...
“You have to remember one thing about the will of the people: it wasn't that long ago that we were swept away by the Macarena.”
― Jon Stewart
Cinema (and music) is about engaging people, provoking them, stirring their emotions, making them laugh, making them cry, making them think, making them question, at its best it challenges people. Even mainstream. The idea of it being there to simply 'please' people is irrational and probably stems from this weird obsession (that a lot of people on here seem to consider as imortant) people have with marketing, demographics and all that bollocks.
Cinema at its purest and best is like all other art forms, it comes from somewhere statistics can't see. It's something intangible. If popping in the DB5 is someone's idea of 'skilful art' then I would say that's a sorry state of affairs. It's a crowd-pleasing moment first, and an allusion to the films thematics second, hence the illogical nature of it. And yes, with an Oscar winning director and the best actor we've seen play James Bond I do expect these films to be a cut above pure entertainment.
Did I say that? Your intention as a film maker is to elicit some kind of response from the audience, whether that's love or hate. As long as it's not boredom you've probably done a decent job. At least in someone's eyes.
I have. As weird as this sounds I was a competitive ballroom dancer in my teens, so I have a particular affinity for this film. It's a great piece of work. I actually think this works as an analogy, but inverse to how you view it. If we take Mendes as the artist, creating the work, the inclusion of the DB5 is part of the 'construct' of familiarity he should avoid. By including the GF DB5 in SF you're manufacturing a moment, rather than taking a chance on creating something new, or daring to take a chance on something that could be frowned upon. In other words displaying some level of artistic integrity. The risk of innovation is failure, but the upside is that you may create, in this case, an iconic moment of cinema. In the case of Strictly Ballroom he breaks the rules and throw the shapes no one would dare throw, the shapes that would have you disqualified, where Mendes is in essence trying to do the same in parts, but then covering his arse with some classic steps that he knows will go down well and score him the necessary points with the judges. Simply reworking iconography can never be as visceral for the viewer, it's just a pang of nostalgia.
Again, art is not always about pleasing the crowd. It's for so many things, we don't have space to list them. Re. SF I actually don't think it is primarily a crowd pleaser. What I find irritating is that it does try to and at times achieve doing something different. It's not run of the mill Bond, which is why I have such a problem with things such as the DB5. If you believe in what you're doing, why not run with it, without having to resort to these little instances of crowd-pleasing for the sake of it. Please the crowd with something they've never considered.
Or a far more reasonable explanation. The Goldfirnger mission took place between Casino Royale and Skyfall. Use your imagination and pretend Goldfinger was made in 2010 as a film instead if 1964. He brings over the car from the Bahamas, Q branch kit out for the Goldfinger mission, he stores it and it re-appears in Skyfall. Remember this Bond is on another timeline. You have to consider if all Flemings books were to be made now.
I just watched SF again last night. It hasn't lost its place with me. I do now think that Kincade's two lines: "Sometimes the old ways are the best" and "I was ready before you were born, son" are clunkers, the latter especially so.
Kincade makes up for anything he says previously with the line "Welcome to Scotland" after shooting one of Silva's men. Great moment from a legend of screen. I also love the nievity of the charchter to assume M is short for Emma and there is chemistry between them. Skyfall has so many layers, I love it. Time and time again I am never left dis-satisfied. It's pace is not as good as CR's but story/style and women its on par.
The reasonable explanation is that Mendes just wanted to include it. Simple as that. I and others may not like it, but that's pretty much a fact as it stands. The discussion is then, was it a good or bad idea? Some say good, some say bad. These long-winded notions about continuity are just pointless.
And Bingo was his name-O.
Well ofcourse he did, he said it himself in the production documentries when the film came out at the time, that he was satisfying his own child hood thrill of Bond by bringing in the DB5. So no points sorry guys. I was merely referring to where the Skyfall DB5 came from i.e was this the CR car modified or was it the Goldfinger model? are they two in the same. As others have pointed out Bond needed wheels without an onboard computer or tracker which Silva wouldnt be able to trace. Logically apart from Little Nellie the vehicle to pull out without both would be the DB5 like it or hate, it fitted with the story so BLAH! lol
The SF DB5 was written as the CR DB5, Purvis and Wade confirmed that. It makes sense. It works with respect to the story and also with regard to its set up in CR. Mendes just decided to make it the GF DB5. As we've said above, those are the facts.
I think that that was the screenwriter's decision. And that wouldn't have been made without EON's nod of approval. The choice of the Bond theme, upon the DB5's appearance, was likely Mendes's decision.
Earlier I wrote: "And I didn't equate the DB5 in SF with the one in QoS (that one was owned by a villain)." I, of course, meant CR, not QoS. I think most of you already recognized that as in error.
Yeah, I knew you meant CR.
Re. The decision making, P&W are on record (there's an audio clip somewhere) saying their script features the CR DB5, specifically stating it was the one they reimagined for that film, (which makes sense given it's job in SF) but Sam changed it to have the gadgets ala GF. The Bond theme would likely be a Mendes moment, but I haven't read the script for SF. For the record, although it might seem like I'm constantly deriding the DB5, I don't actually mind it's first appearance in the locker. Despite the fact I'd rather it was put to bed, at that point it ties neatly to CR and feeds the low tech theme they're pushing. Where I have a problem is from the 'ejector seat' line onwards. I just don't think it serves any purpose and for me is almost as bad as some of the reheated dross in DAD.
I was genuinely hoping
This!
Cinema and music 'needing to please the masses' is such a limited, capitalistic idea, and one that will destroy true expression. And all art along with it...
No gunbarrel, no Q lab, no Bond Theme until that DB5 reveal.. IMO, it wasn't really a skillful way to use nostalgia. It was rather nostalgia on full throttle as a safety net to make the third act look more Bondian.
Mendes would be a good director to do a remake of an old Bond movie IMO. Here with SF (and then after, SP), it looks like half-baked remakes. Neither innovative, nor respectful of the past, it looks like it doesn't know where to seat. And that's why I see it loosing more and more its appeal in the next years. I think CR will remain the Barbara Broccoli era's masterpiece for most.
Watch out, the authors of the Macarena never had a second hit. Contrary to many "elitist stuff" you keep on talking about to make others sound like snobs, while those who disagree with you love huge popular successes like GF, TSWLM, etc, etc.
I think you don't see all the letters in mARkeTing :)
:))
#-o
I'm sorry...but when, at any time, during this franchise, leading up to CR, was a Bond film ever a piece of art? Or an example of artistic expression? These were never films of artistic expression. They're entertainment. Nothing more. And if anyone were to judge them on that alone, they'd all be utter failures. To judge SF on artistic merit simply isn't fair. Mendes's primary job with a Bond film is to entertain. Anything after that is icing on the cake...and that icing is indeed there in SF.
If I want high art, I'll go watch a Lynch film. Or Cronenberg. Or Atom Egoyan. Or maybe Fincher.
No you've not read that. You've read that some people consider the DB5 to be symbolic of a creative malaise, where directors, writers, etc call on past icons as insurance. Nobody suggested Bond is 'high art', just that there is an artistic bent to all this. From Maurice Binder, to Ken Adam, to Terence Young, to John Barry, to Michael Reed... the list goes on and on. All these people are artists. Everybody wants the public to enjoy their work, but there's more to the film making process than merely pleasing an audience. At the end of the day, the director has to satisfy himself, as chasing the whims of an ever-changing audience is a mugs game.
They are more than entertainment, though. Hence we spend our days here discussing it. The 'X' Factor, or American Idol is 'entertainment', a product that can be lapped up by an audience and forgotten about once it's been consumed. People move on for the next bit of product. Think of the icons Bond has created, there's a visual grammar to the series that is indelible. The word 'Bondian' exists because it describes a certain aesthetic, one created by the many artists over the years and contributed to to this day. That's why regurgitating icons is frustrating for me. Create new ones to add to the gallery is more exciting, more interesting and will ultimately be more fulfilling years down the line.
SF is judged on many levels and asks to be.
We may not get an actor of Dan's calibre for some time and Mendes is clearly a talent, so in a way yes, I do take them more seriously. I expect something more than just being 'pleased', as others believe is the key to success. My favourite Bond and films are the Roger era, but it doesn't mean I want that repeated. I think the cast and crew are strong enough to go out on a limb and not fall back on iconography and tropes. They can forge a new, interesting path.
Yes, I agree. I also think the debate rumbles on because the same team are essentially back for SP and it will be interesting to see how each informs the other. I'll be interested to see if my misgivings about SF are nullified or built upon in SP.