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
Nothing to see here, move along. Move along.
I find a great deal to be analyzed in this film, as I have done in numerous threads and little essays on this forum, but I sincerely doubt Mendes and Logan took a break from discussing the symbolism of the bulldog statue, the Tennyson piece and paintings of damaged warships to debate about where a stupid pen quip would fit in. In the grand scheme of things inside that very thematic/symbolic film, the exploding pen line doesn't even make the list, and isn't symbolic of anything to my eyes. Again, you are looking way too much into this. It's just like the people who looked heavily into Bond's "first time" line with Silva, when all it happened to be was a game of one-upsmanship between the two men. I mean, what's next? Is someone going to argue that the color of Bond's ties reflect his emotions and worries present in each scene?
I don't think the film dismissed that gadget, though. Q said MI6 "don't really go in for that anymore", which comments more on how times have changed and technologies have advanced rather than outright claiming "that pen thing sucked, we trashed it for something better." It's common sense that upgrading/escalation is something that will often occur in the realm of the spy world when it comes to gadget technologies. I mean, you're hardly going to wage a war nowadays with bayonets and cannons when we've got the capabilities for long-range drone attacks and bomb drops from fighter planes, right?
I don't really see how the gun Bond is using is going back to basics, either. The PPK is a gun that Bond has been using for a large part of his cinematic life, and has used it heavily in the Craig era alone. If anything, the finger print technology in the gun connects it more to the newer technological age that we find ourselves in instead of the Cold War era of the yesteryear which would be classified by the spy world of today as "the old days."
1) The hype. It's new, it kicks in with a blast, it generates tremendous enthusiasm, it's called "the best Bond ever made".
2) The next morning, the hangover. Previous Bond films weren't necessarily of lesser quality. The flaws begin to show. The imperfections result in much less positive reactions. Popularity takes a dip.
3) The new Bond is now no longer new. It's part of the family now. Positives and negatives are compared against each other and the final conclusion is drawn. After the hangover, renewed appreciation blossoms. Maybe not the best Bond ever made but a good one nonetheless.
I think SF is currently in stage 2. Hype tends to produce overexposure. Adele could be heard everywhere, singing Skyfall. The DVD and BR is for sale everywhere. People may temporarily suffer from SF fatigue. But I doubt that's permanent. I think the film will always be a very popular Bond film.
Not to mention that we were caught up in the 50th anniversary celebrations of that year.
Time will tell if the recent installments will be as well remembered as the older ones.
Anybody who already knows this answer, please give me the numbers of a the winning lotteryticket I can use the money.
That is your taste, which I am fine with, each to his/her own. And I have a strong dislike for QoB.....
1. Casino Royale: Excellent 4 course meal with dessert.
2. Skyfall: Medium Well Steak.
3. QoS: A bag of cheese and sour cream potato chips.
Okay enough with the food references. I'm hungry. :))
What isn t ? :-\"
What ?! Do you think the dialog of a movie is here as a second thought, as something in the back seat of some images ? Who's over analyzing here ? You think there's a lot to analyze in the choices made in the images, but IMO on the contrary that's because there's room for over-analysis in the images.
You seem to think we can write an essay about the color of the clothes of Bond when he's on the roof, but that we should consider the exploding pen line as just a stupid quip that is meaningless.
But when words are spoken, when you cannot wonder about what's been "said" because actual words are used instead of imagery, when the evidence is here for all to hear, IMO on the contrary do not ignore it because it's too "trivial"... Far more work is spent on the words than you seem to think. They're weighted for months, they're edited and modified by writers and script editors. It's hard to write essays about this because every one could hear the words and it's so straightforwad. Then you can't go into some deep analysis of subtle subtexts, but in the case IMO being clever becomes dangerously close to being pompous.
Do you think they decided the day before to make a little joke about the pen really ?
boring as............ counting sheep.
1. QOS: Pizza & beer.
2. CR: Full course swordfish meal with all the trimmings.
3. SF: Popcorn (with REAL butter) & extra candy & soda.
You are misunderstanding me heavily. I am simply arguing that too much emphasis is sometimes spent on things, in this case a simple little wink to Bond's past. It's not Shakespeare; it's a pun about a pen. And as a writer, I do understand the importance of the written word and how bloody hard it is to not only produce a story with them but also the effort it takes to fit them right where they need to go into a piece of writing. I was just stating that sometimes we often look far too much into the simplest of things. It's all a part of human nature though: the quest to understand by searching, though sometimes a tad too fervently.
Get Joss Whedon to write a Bond movie if you want it to be like Shakespeare...
I can't tell if you're serious or not. Hopefully the latter...
To a degree.
Yes, LTK is a back-to-basics Bond film. The series clearly has cycles of fantastical and fundamental. This is well known. But while Bond films refer--even playfully, sometimes--to earlier Bond films, they do not criticize them. And that goes for FYEO's PTS as well, which takes a jab at McClory, not TB.
Hire this man as MI6's Critic Laureate, post haste!
I'll have mine medium rare, thank you very much, and bring me a nice bottle of zinfandel while you're about it.
What do I look like the Chef? :))
Not really an off topic derailment. I was using food as a metaphor to describe the Craig movies. =))
CR - A perfect rack of lamb, skewered, with the accompanying charred vegetables, all grilled to perfection over a creamy Italian risotto, and served with a great Italian Barolo wine
QOS - A messy, bit crudely chopped up BBQ port sandwich with fries, albeit quite delicious in its own messy way, from a drive thru (with sweet iced tea)
SF - A fine filet mignon, with perfect Bernaise sauce, along with a bottle of Taittinger; and for dessert, a traditional sticky toffee pudding
Cheers!
One sympathizes.