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
Hahaha, good one.
You Can’t even imagine, how sorry I feel for you.
Out of the box or not, there is not a single thing in Skyfall that’s creative. That and the complete lack of logic are my problems with it.Just about every minute of it is (badly)stolen from other movies ( and called a hommage).
CR got rid of the gunbarrel opening the PTS, it had no dancing women in the Title Sequence, it had no Q, no Moneypenny, the Bond theme did not feature in its traditional form until the end credits, the main Bond girl dies in the end (which happened only once out of the previous 20 films). QOS continued in that direction, being the first film to not have any romance angle with the main Bond girl, it had no traditional mission briefing (only LTK had done so prior to this film), it did not feature the 'Bond, James Bond' line, Bond did not order a vodka martini at any point of the film, had the gunbarrel at the very end of the film, was the very first direct sequel in the franchise.
With SF, we get Moneypenny back, Q also returned, the traditional M office came back, it featured the first use of the Bond theme outside of the end credits since DAD. I do very much enjoy the Craig films, and SF did divert from the formula in several aspects, but it must be noted that SF is the first film in the Craig era to re-introduce some familiar elements from the 1962-2002 films, a direct contradiction/difference from what the franchise had been doing with CR/QOS.
I can only imagine that they decided to go back to the tropes because they'd heard that certain sections of the fanbase (or general public) wanted them back. After all, Craig has commented frequently how people come up to him and ask him 'why so serious?'.
I also assume that they decided to go back to it because that was always the intended evolution of the Craig Bond reboot character, namely starting as raw rookie without trimmings and ending fully formed.
More than anything, reading your post confirms to me that this era and arc is actually finished, despite their apparent desire to prolong it for one more film. Bond is fully formed now and has been since the end of SF.
The Cinematography is exceptional.
Please just stay away from this thread. You have absolutely nothing to contribute to it. The only thing you can spout is hatred for a film. Fine, so be it. But by now we ALL know where you stand and you're sounding like a broken record, you're clearly here to anger other members. Remember a few wees ago? At least @Germanlady, whom you had a fight with back then, has kept herself very far away from these heated debates. Why can't you? Because you're so full of negative feelings for this film, and because you can't give it a rest and must, in a compulsive manner, respond to posts which actually try to bring some content to this thread with empty statements, "you can't even imagine how sorry WE all feel for YOU". "There is not a single thing in your posts that's creative."
For the last time, you have made your point. This is a highly volatile thread, so there's no need to make it a millionth time. Either contribute something new, in a respectful tone, something that feeds an interesting debate we all care about; or don't contribute here at all. If all you can do is nag and moan, you'll understand we would appreciate it if you did it only once.
Meanwhile, I would like to thank @RC7, @Germanlady and several others who have respected our request to maintain a calm climate in this thread and who have, in fact, brought new and interesting elements to this discussion.
feel we may not know anything plot wise at this point. I was thinking it seems very unlikely that Boyle would be “heavy into casting for Bond 25” in April and May - as the Reddit poster claimed - if he was in pre-production on his musical - a pre-production that was supposedly made even tighter by having it’s shooting schedule moved forward to give him more time for Bond 25.
Also, I doubt Hodge is done with more than a first or second draft. This makes me wonder how anyone can cast for roles that can be changed dramatically later. If you read the Sony leaks Blofeld started out as a Central African-type General. Then, he was rumored to be female to which all involved said “No!”
Just saying many people seem worried by casting choices or plot lines that will introduce
a new female agent to take over series when maybe nothing beyond what we knew 2 months ago is true.
But the small interview with Boyle is good news in that no delay was mentioned and all seems set to go for December. He’s a talented enough filmmaker and fan of Bond I don’t feel Wilson, Brocolli or Craig would back his idea if it wasn’t unique or also too odd or radical. Doubt they’d let his idea for Bond steer the franchise in any new way with this being Craig’s last Bond.
So praising it is all right, but pointing out criticism one might have with the movie is hatred? Interesting. And contrary to all those that just expressing their gut feelings I am always able to prove my opinions with simple facts. You see, I am a movie lover, that’s why it’s quite hard for me to try to stand idly by when people praise movies that do nothing but exploit masterpieces of the past ( and quite mediocre to terrible to boot. )
As an aside, I find Skyfall‘s photography quite beautiful but not any better than the one of QoS, which strikes me every time with its vivid colors and beauty of the landscape.
RE: the QoS vs SF cinematography: Again, I can see where you're coming from. QoS has stunning and very natural looking landscapes and colour, perhaps because a lot of it was done for real. It certainly seems more 'real' to me than the digital camera work in SF, which also has a bit of overt filter use (although nowhere near as egregious or obvious as SP). There is also a bit more obvious 'enhanced' saturated nighttime lighting in SF.
Nevertheless, more people remember SF's cinematography positively in comparison to QoS (including myself) because the earlier film was ruined (imho) by the quick cutting, which prevented viewers (particularly older ones) from appreciating all the effort put into the locations.
Additionally, Deakins' shot compositions were just brilliant and his nighttime work at the Skyfall ranch is really good. Everything is very vivid on account of his choice to use digital cameras.
I prefer QOS :)
You’re not a cinematographer, old boy.
The first film to do that was Michael Mann's 2004 Collateral, for which Dion Beebe did the cinematogaphy. Upon a recent viewing, I realized how similar some of the scenes look on account of the type of cameras used. Both films have that distinctive and very luminous nighttime flair
https://kathryndowsonsfilmjourney.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/collateral/
Definitely...I cant even tell one end of a camera from the other ! ;)
Yeah, they’re incredible in low light. Allows you to pick up some brilliant natural detail without having to overlight a scene (or even light it at all).
totally up for thinking outside the box and agree that execution is a key to whether a seemingly whacky idea works. for me the ideas behind SF were all mainly pretty sound. it's just the writing and execution that I don't enjoy - with a tighter script and different director I believe it could have been a really good film.
OHMSS shows how successful a non formula Bond film can be. LTK less so.
there are so many ways they could play with our expectations without totally going crazy and trashing the character. there's lots of fun to be had with Bond. I personally prefer well intentioned failures (which is how I class SF) to the mind numbing imbecility and naffness of the Brosnan films. but it's frustrating for me that no writer or director has really got it completely right for so long.
if I'm honest TLD is the last Bond that I regard as really firing on all cylinders.
totally agree with you. and I've said this many times. CR and particularly QOS for me set things up really nicely. it felt like there was a completely clean slate and they could do almost anything. and then SF gave us this sluggish, nostalgic, mess of a film that sort of was just a rehash of past films and cliches and we were back in the mid 1970s but without the sense of fun or great action scenes.
This isn't a place for industry opinions, but fan ones.
Cheer up.
But, as we know close to nothing concrete about Bond 25, I remain excited in where this 5th Craig film will take us.
@noSolaceleft
There's that tone, you know it, you keep using it. Criticising something, fine. "You Can’t even imagine, how sorry I feel for you.", coming from you, is not criticising a film. It's arrogance.
For me, logically it's over. That's why nothing I'm reading about what they have planned to date makes sense, at least in the context of a character trajectory which has been mapped in one direction, even if sloppily and after the fact.
Any attempt at 'actor specific closure' (which some have, inexplicably to me, been calling for) runs the risk of locking the character into a further reboot inducing bind, which arguably is a problem that they don't have at present (the open ended SP 'ending' leaves many options going forward).
And do you really think it’s a coincidence that it’s one thing he (Mendes) didn’t do or interfere with heavily?
That’s a different discussion. I was responding to your claim that ‘nothing’ about the film was creative.
Not really. The imitations of the Bourne films in QoS lie nearly completely in the editing, not in the camerawork. QoS is a gorgeous looking film that unfortunately had the disadvantage of being cut to ribbons. Not Schaefer's fault in the slightest.
The thing most interesting to me is what MGW said of CR; something to the effect that he and Barbara felt like they couldn't go on creatively making the films as they were and needed to do something drastic to overcome the burnout. Yet that only lasted for two about two films. SF was surely a creative take on the series, but it could easily follow on from the first 20 (reintroduciton of MP aside -- I'm saying I could see it as Brosnan's last film, for instance). Whereas CR/QOS seem to have been just the thing Eon aimed at doing in order to rejuvenate the franchise long term, then abandoned.
Sorry, but if he really means all those superlatives for SF and predictions about the franchises future he gives regularly with an air of absolute certainty - spiced up with a little insult now and then - ,then I really mean it ( and also feels he must be able to take it ).After all, he is also on the record for stating that Skyfall is completely plot hole free. Need I say more?
Not its staunchest supporter would dare to say that.