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
Bond has more than earned his right to make big money, play with the big blockbuster big boys and to demand higher expectations from audiences in general. Bond has always been an extraordinary character, which is one of the more critical unique things about him that makes him so special but to give him facets where you can either relate to him to a certain extent or at least have more of an interesting understanding of his character, while retaining the elements that make him so compelling and extraordinary is where a lot of Bond's survival, relevance and success will be found. Bond 24 alone has so much potential it's quite scary and exciting at the same time and I think the hype surrounding the film's release is going to reach levels we probably havn't seen since '64/'65.
Bond films have always been more than just the release of another movie in the series, they've been more like a special event but if the forthcoming movies deliver on where I hope the series is going, the type of hype Nolan gets for his batman films or Jackson gets for his LOTR/Hobbit movies is what we could definitely be looking at.
Just one thing: where are all these "plot holes" everyone keeps talking about? I just didn't see any more holes than any other movie out there - Bond or non-Bond. I have to wonder if anyone who claims there were a lot of holes really paid attention to the movie and/or knows what a plot hole actually is.
Good post. I definitely think some of the things Mendes said about the script added to my sense of disappointment on actually seeing it. I think I was actually expecting it to follow on in tone from the last two films and hadn't actually been prepared for how ludicrous the story is. I also thought that with the way Mendes hyped the script that it would be genuinely intelligent and interesting. It struck me as a rehash of a couple of recent weak plotlines (GE and TWINE) with some hacking elements used to paper over the cracks. QoS is Chinatown - quite literally in terms of plot - when compared to SF. I'm approaching it from the perspective of not having enjoyed it, but think you make some very good points about the series and how we see it. My feeling is that SF is a bit of a shock after CR and QoS and actually feels like a return to the OTT plots of the Brosnan era. I was bored and detached from the viewing experience in a way that I hadn't been since DAD.
That film must have done something right!
Jim, its in the first reactions tread now. Yup, the film very much did a lot of things right.
Reading the last two posts after being absent from this tread shows, same people posting the sale ole. ;)
good :)
I agree with your mum. Both actors did an amazing job, and indeed Craig expresses everything on his face and the eyes are amazing. I don't dare be optimistic about the Oscars, but hopefully they both get a bunch of other awards for their work here, they certainly deserve the recognition.
That's a fab detail, thanks. :)
Yes to both. I love that second point she made, very well expressed.
AAAAAAAGHHH. :O
WHAT? @-)
Good gawd, this is now page 21 of this thread that I'm reading, and that was the most horrible thing I've read so far. CUTTING ROOM FLOOR? *gulp* I feel physically sick at the thought of that perfect scene being butchered like that. And that part of it... it... was... well bloody perfect that's what. Fab acting and dialogue. And it was beautiful, intense, and fun.
cutting room floor? :((
Oh hell, I need a drink or something quick...
Don't get all overworked, it's a simple spit take scene. It's not like it is the extremely moving Tennyson speech, something that actually has meaning in the film as a thematic whole.
But what I wanted to add was,that I very strongly agree with Tuulia. This was one of the very few delightful scenes in SF (and probably the only original one i might add) and the sole scene that made me grin heavily.
I'm not getting overworked. I love it, so it matters to me. I would have gone to see the movie again even just for the whole Silva introduction scene.
Considering how low this thread dug at times I'd say you are just in time.
I agree with Tuulia, it's a fantastic scene. Tennyson, while great, has the advantage of 'score' to underline the emotion in the scene. The Silva introduction has to rely purely on performance and for that reason I think it's much more intense.
I think it's funny that Ralph Fiennes ends up being M at the end when most thought he was going to be a villian. Was surprised to see that Eve is actually Moneypenny and even more surprised that they actually killed off Dench's M! I am really happy we finally have Q back and that Bonds car was the old school Bond car!
You mean 58 pages is too much? X(
;-)
But I kinda like the film ;-) .
Especially Bond´s hairdo in the casino scene is up there with Connery´s flannell shorts from GF, the pink tie from DAF, Moore´s jacket from TMWTGG, and the safari suit! =))
I disagree with your assessment that it “hails the old ways”. It’s more of an exploration on how one engages a world that is changing more rapidly than we can sometimes wrap our heads around. This was the perfect post 9/11, post 7/7 Bond film in that it captures what I think a lot of people have been feeling since those tragic events, even if they aren’t quite aware of it. Our (meaning the “traditional” Western world) place in the world seems to be slipping. For the first time in our history, Americans think our best days are behind us and that we are now on the downward slope toward being a “former” superpower. This is something the UK has been dealing with for a while now (been long time since it could rightly be called the “British Empire”).
M’s statement to the committee was correct when she said the world has changed so much we don’t know who are enemies are sometimes. Faced with the madness and illogic of terrorism and the fact that modern technology has given the terrorist weapons of heretofore unimaginably destructive power, our “old ways” of fighting the enemy seem laughably inadequate and antiquated at times. And then there’s China rising in the East, set to surpass the US as the largest economy in the world inside this decade. What will that mean? No one knows for sure, only that the world is changing in a way that makes the western world very nervous. There’s a pervasive feeling that the ground is giving way beneath us. We’ve started to lose faith in the customs and institution that made us great.
So, the film asks, what do you do in a world that is changing like this? Abandon all the old ways, such as proposed by Mallory (at first), that committee member and Silva? Or are there some things, some traditions or institutions, worth hanging on to? Despite our age or falling standing in the world, we must continue to fight, to strive, to do whatever we can to prevail (the Tennyson poem was the obvious statement of Mendes’ thesis).
The brilliant thing about the film is that it uses Bond himself as a symbol of what was old, in danger of fading away, but still fighting and worth preserving. So it doesn’t “hail” the old ways as much as it points to how we might hold on to those things worth holding on to, while at the same time adapting this ever-changing, ever-more-dangerous world.
Perfect fodder for the 50th anniversary of a series born of the Cold War, I’d say.
How right you are! That was the message I got from Skyfall and it's very true.
The references are there to celebrate 50 years of the Bond series and have nothing to do with the main thesis of the film. I, for one, have no problem with a work of art working on two (or more) different levels. Just because a song has a beat that makes you want to dance doesn't mean it can't also have lyrics that make you think. I don't find that type of art "hypocritical" at all, in fact I find it most rewarding. Just because some of the previous Bond films were simplistic, doesn't mean we can't make a Bond film that engages our brain as well as our sense of nostalgia or enjoyment of a great action sequence.