Home › Bond Movies › Skyfall
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Talk here about SF taking from other franchises - if you think it does... (SPOILERS)
^ 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
Though Skyfall is receiving praise, a Bond film can only truly be assessed with the passage of time. I loved TWINE in the cinema but over the years it diminished in my estimation. At the time, I thought it was close to the best Bond ever especially the Pre-title sequence.
And what perturbs me about Skyfall is the Aston Martin DB5'S history being re-written. It should have been left alone as that car's history is from Goldfinger and does not fit in modern Bond. Homage can be done differently without changing the facts.
As for Nolan and his Batman. I prefer the balance of Tim Burton's version. There is a trend these days to take famous characters and make them too literal as in true to life which contradicts the fantasy elements. The classic Bonds had a surrealness to them and that is why the fantasy elements worked better.
Even Dalton's brilliant Bond films whilst updating the character still kept the movies connection to the past better. I can watch Diamonds Are Forever and then put on Licence To Kill and see a thread of commonality even though the stories are radically different.
The Craig era is a stand alone entry and though excellent in there own right, are nothing like the films of the past. The comparisson is pointless and that is my opinion though I am not implying that others should share the same thoughts. Otherwise what was the point of the Craig reboot? You cannot have it both ways is all I am saying.
I'm already sick of the TDK/TDKR comparisons.
I can understand why you dislike the comparissons. But then Sam Mendes by saying those Batman films were an influence helped fuel that fire. Equally, though Craig is a fine Bond in his own right, some see the Dalton influence because of the kinship with Fleming's Bond. Me personally, I see Dalton and Craig share similarities but are different too!
Moaning is one thing, but constructive criticism is another. Bond has a diverse history and it is understandable that some fans will have preferences. Me personally, I prefer the charm of the older series though appreciate the realism of the modern Bond and why it had to adapt to modern audiences.
As an example of classic Bond and to make an analogy, those who grew up with and love The Beatles are going to always look back on that era most fondly.
And playing devil's advocate, why would a franchise like Bond which has 50 years of material need to be influenced by a non-related franchise like the Batman films? The Bourne influence which cannot be denied in QOS makes more sense being in the spy genre, but Bourne was created as a purposeful franchise to compete with Bond.
I think the Daniel Craig Bond films really kicked off an entire new era of Bond films, set in its own timeline/timeframe.
--> I seriously think we finished the 'First Era', which ran from 1962 till 2002. Those are the Bond films that have more or less a formularic approach. From gunbarrel to Q, from Moneypenny to some cheesiness, from a rather solid MI6 to very predictable villain plots. Perhaps the first three, four Bond films, DN, FRWL, GF and TB were really groundbreaking and set some important blockbuster standards.
--> The 'Second Renaissance Era' just kicked off with 'Casino Royale' in 2006. It's like our own 'Dr. No'. The start of James Bond really and even more so how he got his 00-classification and how he got his Aston Martin DB5. This film sadly wasn't done in 1962, due to legal issues. So Cubby and Harry had to kick of straight away with a novel of which the events where set after 'Casino Royale'. What follows is a revenge movie, called 'Quantum Of Solace'. And now we have a look at Bond's childhood. Something that Fleming already did in 'You Only Live Twice' and that we now get to see in 'Skyfall'. I think Bond 24 and Bond 25 will be a little 'plain solid work' in which MI6 has become stable again and in which QUANTUM really becomes our current day SPECTRE. And maybe a revived Blofeld? Or another more 'straightforward' mission for Bond.
Hiring Bradley was a mistake, for the comparison alone lol, but QOS gets way too much flak.
Bond influenced Bourne much more than the other way around, btw.
I agree with you here, but you would be amazed with a dumbed down public how they think Bond copied Bourne. No question, but I prefer Bond to Bourne. But some think the chicken came before the egg.
Bond is the reason action movies stepped up their game. Bond is the pioneer and the rest are the followers using a different disguise.
And thank you for saying "the chicken came before the egg", acoppola. I've only seen one Bournemovie and that's more than enough.
Ludlum was so original that he even gave the character the same initials...
Much appreciated @JamesCraig On the whole this forum has the most reasonable people I have encountered. Yeah, Jason Bourne is no coincidence. He is the jeans and t-shirt Bond clone with a personality of a wet blanket.
When Bond first came out it was not what audiences expected or were use to. Bond was shocking and the leader of the pack. And Bond's golden age will always be with the Connery era. That is not saying the other eras are less valid, but Connery was ahead of his time as well as those involved with bringing Bond from the book to the screen.
The problem with modern audiences is they are too spoilt for choice and sadly Hollywood needs to appeal to the lowest denominator these days as in the 18-24 year old audience.
Look @Germanlady I appreciate the homages too but do not like the reinvention of Sean's classic 1964 Aston Martin as it's history is too entrenched as to how Bond got it from Q. Using the car is one thing to pay homage, but completely changing the story how Bond acquired it is hard for me to take.
To me when they do that, they may as well give the new Bond, Connery's old suits to wear. And it leaves me in no doubt that by doing it in that way they are inadvertently acknowledging that Connery will always be the best screen Bond. He is a shadow that will never be eliminated and all the actors have been good in their own way.
I strongly believe, that every long lasting franchise has to shake things up to remain interesting. We cannot change that and apparantly this film maged it quite well - the new and the old.
That's not really true. People keep comparing the two franchises when they have nothng whatsoever to do with each other.
Bond is an intelligence officer who goes on missions for his government.
Bourne is an ex-intelligence officer who is running away because the government agency he used to work for is gunning for him.
Why do people insist that Bond influenced Bourne or vice versa when their franchises are totally different. Bourne is anti-establishment. Bond is not.
Absolutely. The franchise thrives on change even if some hate it at the time. Sometimes it can take years before a change is accepted.
But to a Bond fan who loves Goldfinger, I get put off. And the Bond producers depend on the older fan base. Just like some did not appreciate when they changed Pierce's image to Daniel's for the Goldeneye Reloaded video game. Goldeneye is Pierce's legacy and it is unfair to give that to Daniel.
By the same token I would not like to see the 1966 Batmobile in The Dark Knight.
The success of Bond films had an influence in green lighting the Bourne films. And the Bourne director felt that Bond was stagnating and wanted to take on the franchise head on. But Bond is the master of the spy genre and yes though Bourne is the opposite of Bond in the anti-establishment attitude, his job is similar.
On a surface level they are not similar but when I watched Bourne, I could see how influential Bond's legacy was in the action sequences. Bond did the outstanding action first.
I don't know about you, but the XXX franchise was piss poor Bond for the brain dead. I am ashamed I payed to see that rubbish and noticed how they even had a scene where a Bond like agent gets killed as if to subliminally signal that Bond's days were numbered. Vin Diesel is sadly seen as cool these days by the youth market. And 50 years ago it was Sean Connery. Sad but true.
M's Bulldog is taken from the film.
M's meeting with Bond in her home is not unlike Smiley's encounter with Tarr.
Also, there is a scene where Tarr is spying on the building across the street, where he can see the events taking place in a few rooms, but not influence them, much as Bond does in Shanghai.
There are other similarities and nods to other films as well, I think . I really noticed the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, where Bond misses the target when standing still but hits it when he walks towards it. "Can I move? I'm better when I move."
Bourne doesn't have the personality of a wet blanket. He doesn't have a personality, which is the whole POINT of the character. He has no identity, and true to the logic of the story doesn't have time to waste on personality. He cannot have a personality. He doesn't have a self- just a highly capable skill set and mystery to solve. He's supposed to be a cipher, a blank canvass. This actually makes him more intriguing. It takes a risk to have the main character such a void. The problem with Bronsnan Bond was that he seemed bored all the time, especially when saying his cheesy one liners, and trust me, I was bored with him. Bourne was innovation. He literally overtook Bond and gave him the middle finger on the way. If it wasn't for CR and if Brosnan did a 5th movie, Bond would be truly dead. CR clearly took some action cues from Bourne, Q0S ripped it off without shame.....but thank god it did because it kept the audiences interested and now we have SF....which has it's own identity and is, despite being a little strange, is still wholly, uniquely Bond and nothing else. So really, Bond has alot to be thankful for, even though Bourne wouldn't exist without Bond! But the comparison is futile. They both deserve their own place in the cinema....though if you look, Bond is still standing, while Bourne is six feet under.
I agree that QOS was a Bourne film almost. I also agree that Bourne kicked Bond's ass after DAD. Had the Bourne films not existed, Brosnan would have continued as Bond.No studio would risk changing a popular actor in a part unless they knew the tables were turning against them.
Why I respect the classic Bond series is because it is unquestionably original and there was nothing like it for years.
And I do admit though I appreciate Daniel Craig's work, I do think his re-boot Bond owes a debt of gratitude to Bourne. It is impossible to ignore for me and a few others I know!
Does anyone think MGM would have wanted to cast Daniel in 1999? I think the answer is obvious. Pierce was their man and at that time he had no competition.
It has nothing to do with talent of an actor as in how good, but if it is a money spinner for the long run. Sad but true. How many brilliant actors fail to get a break whilst mediocre can make it huge.