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
SKYFALL - How does it get the balance right?
Skyfall has been called a classic Bond - yet it actually breaks a lot of new ground. Unveiling Bond's past/ M joining in the adventure / No actual romance with a Bond girl/ a different sort of Moneypenny etc.
Do you think that it gets away with these changes because it re visits and enhances so many classic 'Bondisms' -from great classic sounding track,classic title credits,Aston Martin?
I know there must be more changes and more holding on to classic Bond bits-and want to list them in my dissertation on Bond--Any ideas on how it gets the balance just rightThanks AG
Do you think that it gets away with these changes because it re visits and enhances so many classic 'Bondisms' -from great classic sounding track,classic title credits,Aston Martin?
I know there must be more changes and more holding on to classic Bond bits-and want to list them in my dissertation on Bond--Any ideas on how it gets the balance just rightThanks AG
^ 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 think it does get the balance just right.
Don't get me wrong I think its a great entry to the series (certainly top 10, possibly top 5) but for a 50th anniversary Bond film I expect at least one more big stunt/set piece featuring stuff we have never seen before. They use up all the stunt work in the PTS because it's expected for that to be big but after that there's just the odd fight/shootout and then an explosive, but ultimately fairly unoriginal finale.
The tube sequence especially (although being superb dramatically) really doesn't cut it for a Bond action sequence. Bond jumps on the back of a train for 3 seconds and slides down an escalator? It's not exactly the tank chase or cargo net fight is it?
It's only a minor gripe and I'm glad we've got a director who delivers such dramatic heft but why can't we have our cake and eat it next time and let the stunt team cut loose a bit more?
A criticism that I'd not really ever thought of before, Ice. Perhaps the stunt teams will be cut loose a bit more come Bond 24. I think because Skyfall's plot was so personal and character driven the action sequences took something of a back seat in the film, and following QoS (as much as I love it) that surely wasn't a bad thing, no?
Well I agree entirely that QOS was too far the other way and I much prefer SF's approach but I still consider CR the best of the Craig era striking the perfect balance of all elements.
My gripe with the action in SF is that the only big stunts were a) all in the PTS and b) you'd seen them to death in the trailer. The rest is just fights and shooting and I do think there is a tendency at the moment to think that it's better to have less large scale action so Daniel Craig can do 90% of it rather than days of Rog when they handed everything over to the stuntmen.
I feel there really should be at least two massive stunt sequences in a modern Bond film - the PTS and one other towards the end of the second act - bolstered by say 3 or 4 smaller scale scenes such as fights and shootouts.
The action in the 80's still feels unsurpassed for me. FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD and LTK are jam packed with stunning set pieces - at least three per film.
I don't want B24 to go down QOS's route with way too many action scenes (and apart from the rope fight) largely underwhelming ones at that. Just give us something spectacular that we haven't seen before and do it at least twice.
I like the quality of acting, cinematography and directing we have at present but lets not forget that Bond is never going to be brand leader in terms of being a serious drama to be ranked alongside the latest Daniel Day Lewis film but where it is (or at least has been in the past and should be aiming for) the best is delivering amazing stunts done for real - and plenty of them.
I don't mind Mendes spending a long time polishing the script but lets also use the three years to come up with some inspired set pieces to rival iconic Bond action scenes of yore.
Well I agree entirely that QOS was too far the other way and I much prefer SF's approach but I still consider CR the best of the Craig era striking the perfect balance of all elements.
My gripe with the action in SF is that the only big stunts were a) all in the PTS and b) you'd seen them to death in the trailer. The rest is just fights and shooting and I do think there is a tendency at the moment to think that it's better to have less large scale action so Daniel Craig can do 90% of it rather than days of Rog when they handed everything over to the stuntmen.
I feel there really should be at least two massive stunt sequences in a modern Bond film - the PTS and one other towards the end of the second act - bolstered by say 3 or 4 smaller scale scenes such as fights and shootouts.
The action in the 80's still feels unsurpassed for me. FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD and LTK are jam packed with stunning set pieces - at least three per film.
I don't want B24 to go down QOS's route with way too many action scenes (and apart from the rope fight) largely underwhelming ones at that. Just give us something spectacular that we haven't seen before and do it at least twice.
I like the quality of acting, cinematography and directing we have at present but lets not forget that Bond is never going to be brand leader in terms of being a serious drama to be ranked alongside the latest Daniel Day Lewis film but where it is (or at least has been in the past and should be aiming for) the best is delivering amazing stunts done for real - and plenty of them.
I don't mind Mendes spending a long time polishing the script but lets also use the three years to come up with some inspired set pieces to rival iconic Bond action scenes of yore.
[/quote]
But aren't we forgetting somethinf here, Ice. This is the era of "Drama-Bond" with more character-driven stories and at the very least more Flemingesque content throughout the film. And don't forget that, as Sam Mendes said in the Skyfall special on BBC 2, and as I said in my article linked below, Skyfall was a return to a back-to-basics FYEO type of Bond film - the return to the antiquated Skyfall Lodge being the context in which Bond, M and Kincade used their considerable resourcefulness skills against overwhelming odds and a very technical savvy and heavily armed opponent in Silva and his minions and their Vietnam War style assault on Bond's ancestral home. I think that this fact may have led to a less action set piece driven narrative to show off, Colonel Sun style, Bond's ingenuity and resourcefulness under pressure to match and then beat Silva and all his up-to-date whizz-bang weaponry and helicopters. I should have thought that this approach to things was much more Flemingesque and realistic than Bond and Zao's gadgetry filled cars battering the hell out of each other in the tiresome DAD.
http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/kingsley-amis-draxs-gambit-and-reform.html
Double? Try quintuple! I think a warning should be coming your way for artificially trying to boost your post count!
Anyway if Mendes wants to go down the purely Fleming route then why the motorbikes on rooftops and VWs (Beetles I think) tumbling across the screen?
I like that we have a more dramatic basis to the films now but unless we are going to go all the way and do faithful period adaptations of Fleming then I (and more importantly the ticket paying proles) expect more bang for my buck stunt wise than SF delivered.
And obviously I'm not advocating a return to ludicrous gadget car duels. The Dalton films were serious but still managed to pack in some spectacular stunt work - is that too much to ask these days amongst all the existential soul searching?
No it's not. They need to get back on track with the iconic stunt work in 24. It's part of what makes the cinematic Bond universe tick.
The real question, as I see it, is will Mendes and his successors be able to continue to respect the Classic Bond legacy without continuing to pile on more and more of these now-tiresome homages, and if so, how?
Explain and discuss. Is it the case that norms alone explain how a country is governed?
The role of a constitution is to enshrine a number of rules, principles and values within a state. All states possess a constituion which defines the limits of governnmental power and authoirty. As a reult of trying to fit this ideal many countries have ‘entrenched’ their constitutional values within written rules. However, the main issue behind such act comes to interpretation. Over time the orginal text could be called into question leading many to speculate whether the original intentions of the authors or whehter evloving values or principles should be accepted. As a result, many have questioned the validity of a 'written' constituion and have pointed to other important mechanisms or norms that have developed in such states that have heralded important constitutional changes.
However, the importance of an entrenched written constituion should not be understated. Not only does some kind entrenchment provide stabilty over a long period of time it is also arguably necessacy within a constituionally limited government.(4) If a government instituion had the potential to change the limits of its constituional limitations we would be entitled to question if such limitations even existed.(4)
The United States of America is a prime example of a country who have adopted a written constituion. While some scholoers have stated that constiutional principles cannot be properly protected unless enshrined it is not entirely true as United Kingdom has shown. In the UK there cannot be said to be a single consituion in the same regard as the USA, despite having a number of written documents formed over a significant period of time that make up its constituion. In the UK the accepted view is that an Act of Parliament should be treated as the highest form of law, these Acts can be repealed and amended by Parliament. The American constition in contrast can only be amended by the provisions laid out in Article V. There have only been few amndements to the Constituion since its inception with many speculating that orginal drafters felt that the text should stay permanemt and unchanged.(BOOK359) Possibly as a result of this the proces of making any formal ammendements tot he constituion is very difficult and hardly used. However, there has been consitional development within the country with a clear disaparity from the Government of
Skyfall is a good film - but is it a good Bond film? There's been too much a drastic change in the films of late - i guess we all know that one.
Gradual development of the series has worked well over 50yrs - keeps them fresh and contemporary, but we still know what we want and expect from a Bond film. May as well watch another action film otherwise. Too much of a departure from what used to be called 'the Bond formula' leaves the viewer wondering what they are watching.
It feels more like a Bond book than a film and a Gardner book at that.
But SF is so much better than QoS - thats a bit of a mess(with a few good bits).
I left the cinema seething after that one - that hadnt happened before and I saw DAF on release! - (do the math.)
So much for balance.