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
But first I'll start by saying that SF is a difficult one to make changes to without completely revising everything that some fans hold dear about the movie. However, one thing that never sat well with me was after the PTS when Bond uses his presumed death to retire and sit-it-out on a tropical beach playing silly buggers with a scorpion in a mindless drinking game. It gives the impression that Craig's Bond is a quitter and doesn't have the right stuff to be in this elite Double-O unit. Even if we take into consideration the 4-year gap between him earning his OO stripes, it's still an incredibly short time to suddenly grow disillusioned with his job. After all, Roger Moore also faced a similar hiatus between his 2 previous back-to-back Bond movies, but we didn't see a jaded 007 return in TSWLM ready to throw in the towel at the first given opportunity. For me, it just felt like a storyline that they should've held-over for when Craig decided to call it quits at the end his tenure, therefore it would've been art imitating life. At the very least, Skyfall should be the movie coming out next February.
Thing was, I had high hopes for Craig in SF... until I watched it. There's still small elements that I can still enjoy about SF, but mostly I find it a turgid affair and overdramatized to the point that I'm rolling my eyes, or nodding off in sheer boredom. It just takes itself far too seriously to be any real fun. It wants to be Nolan's Dark Knight so badly it practically steals the very same framework, but ends up coming across as too earnest and ersatz. Yeah, great cinematography, but I don't go to see a movie to see just great camera work, and neither does anyone else. Otherwise Days of Heaven (1978) would've been a box office hit, and the pseuds would be citing Néstor Almendros as a genius. Thing is, the pseuds are all frauds and have most likely never even heard of Néstor Almendros until I mentioned him.
So what would I change? Well, everything beyond the PTS and Adele's title song. Yeah, I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion amongst its legion of fans, but this movie really does earn my disdain. To me, this is the antithesis of DAD; they both belong together as a double bill on how not to make a Bond movie.
•The action during the PTS is well shot but lacks the tension of the previous two films. Fix that.
•Craig needs a better haircut. Maybe the one from SP.
•Get rid of the Batman music during the elevator scene.
•Lose the "VW Beatles", "sadistic game", and "circle of life" lines.
•Keep the scene of Severine at the airport, the alternate shot of Patrice falling, Bond saying "trust me" during the car chase, and the shot of Bond firing hella fast during the court shootout.
•Don't have Bond cry.
Severine's entrance in the movie is strong, so I agree with Mendes cutting the earlier airport scene. I wish that he had been this judicious with SP. SF breathes in all the right ways after the over-edited QoS. SP breathes too much (the Spectre scene goes on...forever, as does Bond gazing lovingly at the ring in the PTS).
To fix many of the other problems, imagine the following sequence: CR, QoS, alternate-universe Bond 24, SP, SF.
SF would then effectively set up Moneypenny and Q for Bond #7.
SF should have been Bond 25. It would play well as Craig's last film.
That scene has always bothered me too. Especially considering that Kincaide knows that land so well. He should be able to tell where the damn pond is lol
1. The opening shot is done so that it makes the gunbarrel redundant. A mistake.
2. The PTS is good but not as exciting as it should be. And did Patrice wait outside the safehouse to give Bond and MP a chance to catch up? The first of the many inconsistencies in the film.
3. Hate that Q was resurrected. Thought the makers had moved on from all that. It's regressive. He wasn't missed in CR or QoS so why bring him back?
4. Craig's hair is cut way too short.
5. From when Silva is captured the film really does dip in quality, with too many convenient plot developments that are just there to further the plot no matter how ridiculous they are. Why is Silva put in that ridiculous glass cell in the middle of a cavernous room? MI6 obviously have plenty of room and feel their 'special prisoner' deserves a 'Hannibal Lecter' prison all to himself. It might look nice on film but it's impractical and stupid.
And getting stupid we have Q decide to plug Silva's laptop into the MI6 mainframe. Yet again having a seemingly intelligent character do something moronic to further the plot.
As this sequence progresses we are supposed to swallow that this perfectly timed complicated escape was all pre-planned and that Silva got captured on purpose!!!! (Dark Knight, anyone?) Even managing to apparently plant an explosive in the exact spot where a train is passing at the exact moment Bond is standing underneath. Now that is some foresight!!! And instead of chinwagging why doesn't Bond shoot him on the ladder?
6. The film picks up after these events although the shoot out in the court could have been edited better.
7. The DB5 appearance is nothing but a crowd pleasing stunt. Although it is a cool moment and seeing Bond drive through New Cross Road in south London near where i grew up was delightful, so i'd keep it.
8. I like the Scotland scenes even if the reason to go there is ridiculous. Why not put M in a secret location and wait until Silva is apprehended? Obviously they had to have a reason to get Bond to Skyfall, its just not a very good one.
9. Not sure about the ending. Did we really need ANOTHER reboot? Which is what this essentally is.
That's about it i think. And while SF is great entertainment i wished the makers had continued in the style of CR and QoS, instead of regressing to an old formula.
Thanks.
Patrice should have been well away by the time MP showed up. Yet again it's a moment that makes no sense but because that's what the scriptwriter wants to happen we're just expected to not notice it.
And what were the agents doing there with an extremely important list on a hard drive in the middle of Istanbul in the first place??!!!!
2- Reduce the amount of time in Scotland
3- As much as I like the score, would prefer David Arnold to have had continued as composer.
That's it really. I love Skyfall.
2.Gunbarrel at the start.
3.David Arnold composing.
4.Change the far fetched bridge fall in the PTS
That's not illogic, actually that's one of the things I like the most about QoS. Bond is not a crying kid, he doesn't care about wasting time just to defend his own name. He cares about completing his mission.
Agreed.
That's two of us, actually. They're much better than SPECTRE's uninspiring closed captions. I wish all Craig movies had the location cards like QoS did.
Agreed about these. Also David Arnold composing as suggested above (although I enjoy Newman's score).
It would give no time for development on either character, because we would only see Eve play an important role at the beginning and maybe in London. I'm guessing her role in Macau would be cut seeing as if she's not MP, she wouldn't be working for Mallory.
Then, having a whole new Moneypenny, is just tricky because the introduction just wouldn't work. A whole new actress turning up out of nowhere telling Bond she's Moneypenny. I don't think so.
Eve being Moneypenny was the perfect way to have development for a Bond girl in the modern-era of Bond. It just adds so many more layers than if MP was just the "office-skirt" which she has been portrayed as in the past.
I agree that if my suggestion were to be acted upon, some small modifications would be required along the way, and especially in Macau. Having said that, maybe not, because Bond could just sleep with Eve (since she's not MP) after the shave. She could still be working for Mallory - just not his EA. It could have been the start of an 'extended universe' female agent role which they seem to be considering now.
Regarding a whole new actress turning up saying she's MP - she doesn't need to even introduce herself explicitly or be developed. That could be left for the next film. She just needs to flirt with him a little, or even not. There are so many ways it could be handled.
Again, if the story as written is your thing, then this won't work obviously. I think she's the weakest link in the new gang, and that's why I suggested this.
Having MP as a failed field agent is just a bad idea IMHO. Imagine the reaction if it had appeared within the forum as a sugestion or within fan fiction? It also undermines MP's proper role, implying that, "you are not up to scratch, stay in the office and do a bit of typing", it's rather patronising.
Plus the "we've never been introduced" does not work for me.
Imagine if they had gone down the seperate character route, how many people would have watched the PTS and said "that would have been better if it was MP who, later decides it's not for her and returns to the office". Noboby would be suggesting that, it's just weird.
Flirting with a new, young double O agent in Macau would have been fun ("we covered this in training" ) and also it would have been better for her to have more action in the fight scene.
+1
I see where you're coming from, but then there wouldn't have been much point and might as well have waited for the next one if they'd introduced her in that way. I appreciate what Sam Mendes and the writers were doing. They wanted to build a character, not just someone who was in the office for James to flirt with.
They did exactly the same with M, Mallory (the new M) and Q. Even Tanner to a certain extent. Mallory's relationship at the start wasn't what it becomes and the character develops. It's clear they wanted these characters to be more than tropes. Moneypenny being a failed agent benefited the story. The old and the new. It didn't need a separate Moneypenny because she was right there in Naomie Harris' performance.
The only thing I will say is that I think they made a mistake in Spectre. I understand they want to get their money's worth with the actors they have, but they don't have to branch them out into the action scenes and third-acts. If you give these actors good enough material in short scenes at MI6, they will deliver. For Bond 25, I mainly want to see Bond's mission with little bits of the MI6 crew that still serves the story but doesn't take up too much time.
What's the point of Eve being reduced to office-work, if she's basically just gonna be an agent every film? She might as well have been re-hired.
Make Craig's hair longer
In the enquiry scene, make M unaware Silva is coming for her, instead of telling her and making the scene less tense
I can't think of nothing else, in my eyes the film is near faultless. Also Daniel Craig is Bond in this, fantastic performance by him
Re MP, the office flirting scene over the years has become one of the key troupes and I'm sure punters still want this. Lois Maxwell became much loved over the years and provided some wonderful Bond memories even without her character being developed. It's when they go beyond the troupe (virtual reality snog? or failed field agent?), they it fails IMHO.
So SF lacked this and its a shame IMHO
PS also, part of the fun re the troupe is the "look, don't touch", office culture, stiff uper lip theme. The love/desire/friendship is almost unspoken between them and joked about . Plus, MP seems trapped in her World of admin and yearns to be sept off of her feet by Bond. Once you go out of the office, the rules change and the theme of the Bond/MP relationship is lost. I dont want to see MP giving Bond a wet shave.
That blurry opening shot is an extremely poor excuse to omit the gunbarrel. Did Eon not learn from QoS's mistake? This was that one chance for Eon to see the error of their ways and not open a Bond film gunbarrel-less like NSNA.
Ugh. Words fail me.
Okay, moving on..................there is something unintentionally funny about Bond's little interaction with Ronson. As he's standing in the doorway and they're looking at each other I half expect them to each give a thumbs up signal to one another before Bond exits.
If Craig's haircut was intended to make him look older, that was completely unnecessary. The four year gap did the job just fine. The small suits evoke Pee-Wee Herman, not Bond.
My friends and I were sitting behind film critic Michael Medved at a screening of SF
I remember us being quite vocal about what we liked and didn't.
I actually quite liked SF when it was released and had a blast the 5 or so times I saw i in the cinema.
The title is catchy and memorable, and we hadn't had a one word title in quite some time. However, isn't Skyfall the name of one of the Transformers?
They might as well have called it CASTLE GRAYSKULL
if Purvis and Wade were so inspired by '80's kids's cartoons for their title.
I think Severine's death was a bit too fast, as I missed it the first time. Again, some of the character names are lacking for me. Silva makes me think of the actor Henry Silva. Also his having an alternate name just feeds fuel to the code-name theory, which I don't encourage. Seems to me, more and more casual movie goers and Bond fans embrace the theory as canon in the Craig era than in any other.
Today, the concept of M's death seems like a gimmicky idea a director might pitch to the producers in a job interview. Honestly, and I hate to say it but I was getting weary of Judi Dench's motherly M. I preferred her M in the Brosnan films. So I was okay with the change. That said, the introduction of Moneypenny and Q also seems a bit gimmicky in this day of constant re-boots. I prefer Lois Maxwell's personal background story of Moneypenny and Bond to this.
The film ends with an awful looking gunbarrel as did QoS. The blood plops down like a fiber induced dump rather than oozing slowly as it's supposed to. The Bond theme is crummy here as well. Ugh.
I actually liked the gunbarrel design on the film's poster artwork. Couldn't Daniel Kleinnman have come up with something like that?
For this to work there has to be chemistry and the writing has to be top notch, which it was during Maxwell's run. Even the aging bit they pulled in OP works to a degree, even though it hurt a bit to see the passage of time.
-I'm fine with Bond getting shot in the pretitle to set the story in motion, but figure a better way to get him off the grid than having him plunge hundreds of feet into the water below with no effects. It's like he fell backwards into a pool. The character has survived in many outrageous ways that would've killed mortal men over the years, but this could be the worst, but it's Skyfall, so it's okay with a lot of people.
-Why even include another agent on the side of Mi6, much less Moneypenny?
-Couldn't they find a better McGuffin than what is the one in the first MI movie of a list of agents in the open needing to be recovered?
-It needs a better score.
-The Shanghai casino scene should be more exciting. The komodo dragon was silly and the fistfight was unexciting.
-I know the set-up is to get Silva captured, but the whole radio thing is so unimaginative and couldn't there be a more exotic device and something not so obvious?
-Make the underground train crash more inspired and not just a matter of timing that makes it so unacceptable to believe. As seen, it's like something out of a Final Destination movie.
I've tried to give the score a chance numerous times, but Newman just plays a 50th anniversary Bond film like any other Hollywood product: IE bland and just there.
I can understand that.
Modern films can't have that luxury as much since we have access to home video, streaming, etc. and can notice more about the visual part, screenplay and other areas. You're always going to have plotholes and problems as long as there are films, but SF just seems to be a case where they it doesn't apply as much.
@Benjamin_Weekly69 What you mean bond turning bisexual?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/skyfall-bisexual-james-bond-gay_n_2082845.html
Well that got people talking @Birdleson not worth addressing and willful really? just because I don't agree with it being in there doesn't mean its willful or not worth addressing maybe not to you.
@Birdleson @Walecs look I can have an opinion too not that i don't agree with your analysis still a bit of a close call I didn't care for it because it was too confusing for a mainstream audience like probably most audiences would be thinking it was kind of gay but like your analysis puts it it wasn't and unless you did some sort of analysis an instant reaction would say otherwise and that's why it wasn't needed it didn't do anything to move the plot along it was just an extra way proving a point of Bond not being unsettled at anything which they could have did in another way that was less confusing to a main audience nonetheless it was pointless script writing in my opinion totally unnecessary