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
If not first in name calling, then certainly tops for insulting, vulgar, and being unnecessarily provocative at times, along with exceedingly negative, Mr. Helm.
Aside from that, I think writing in a second language is difficult so I do appreciate your efforts to write in English, Matt_Helm.
GetaFix, the mods and I believe the far majority of us, really do not mind totally dissenting opinion if it is kept civil.
It's probably this kind of over bubbling fantasy that leads you to think that Craigs behavior is aching to Connerys take on Bond. But just as with this fantasy of yours you won't find any proof of me calling someone names (let alone being vulgar) anywhere.
P.S.: what you (and others here) call exceedingly negative, I (and others elsewhere ) call stringent and logical analyzing.
Film is an art. The more you analyse, the less joy you'll find at the heart.
I don't know... the more I analyse Blade Runner, the better I like it. Just sayin.
If only all films were as masterful as Bladerunner.
*Runs away*
You can enjoy it aesthetically, surely?
It looks absolutely gorgeous (as all of Scott's films do), particularly that opening shot. But that's where my enjoyment of it ends.
Don't feel bad. I watched 2001 A Space Odyssey last night and I didn't get it. :O
The original Solaris and Tarkovsky's other sci-fi epic, Stalker, are far superior.
Stalker is one of my top ten movies.
I think Kubrick was brilliant and can appreciate 2001 as a visual feast, but it's so tedious. Who actually cares?
Prefer Kubrick's other work, although not all of it.
You got me there, those are examples of bloody awefull scripting and the writers of those clunkers do deserve a kick in the nutsack.
"Waste of good scotch" : let's analyze that for days !
"An exploding pen" : nah, this is just a quip, you're reading too much in it, there's nothing to discuss !
Isn't hypocrisy fun ? :)
Fact 1: In Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, Daniel's Bond is "new".
Fact 2: In Skyfall, Daniel's Bond is "old".
Assumption 1: Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace *take place* before Dr. No through Die Another Day, and Skyfall *takes place* after Brosnan's swansong.
Assumption 2: Assumption 1 is based off of the idea that all 23 films include the same, one man.
Assumption 3: The same 'one man' in Assumption 2 exists in his own universe that maintains the construct of aging without the construct of dates. The story of Dr. No isn't set in 1962 and the story of Skyfall isn't set in 2012. They are free-floating stores in a linear progression with no strict timecode or dates.
Assumption 4: Based on Assumption 3, all 23 films take place over a period of approximately 10 of our-universe's years.
Example A4: Bond is ~30 in Dr. No and ~40 in Skyfall.
Now, based on the previously outlined Facts and Assumptions:
1. Skyfall Bond has gone through a minimum of 23 (some films & pts' including side missions/assignments) stories of confirmed missions/assignments, and we can assume dozens more off screen.
2. In all of his years of service, all of his world-saving, all of his globe-trotting, all of his training, all the past decade+ of his life he has given more than his due in work for MI6. After all of this, his boss puts him literally in the cross-hairs and lets a rookie take a one-in-a-million shot without knowing the situation or the odds instead of letting him do his job with a near 100% success rate. She leaves him for dead, and ultimately the mission is failed.
3. Bad luck for Bond, he isn't dead, and now has to live with the guilt of knowing he was part of the failure that puts hundreds of allied agents at risk, and the anger of not being able to control the situation. This changes him.
4. He slips into a depressed state, and alters his mind to think in a new, efficiently cynical state of mind. He uses crude and crass humor to drop the emotional weight of a situation and convince himself he is indifferent in the face of stress and tragedy.
5. He adapts this new attitude in his return to field duty as a weapon of distraction and a harness to keep himself focused, and uses the line "Waste of good scotch."
But I agree about the hypocrisy of over analyzing the 'Scotch' line as I just have, and brushing off the 'exploding pen' line. I had this thought and shared it, but it doesn't necessarily reflect my personal opinions. I prefer not to think too long on piecing together the life of cinematic Bond, and instead prefer to just enjoy each story as a separate adventure in a vacuum of time with my favorite, one, James Bond.
Well said Sir and well thought out as well.
Good logic and a very sensible post,cant fault it.
=D>
np. Well Bond has been known to walk into a trap on numerous times, or walk straight towards the 'villain' just to let him show himself as the villain. FRWL is based on that principle, the English will bite just because it's so obvious a trap. It's in their 'sportsmanship' mentality. In the films he does so as well, walking into Drax's office and Strombergs as well. Him beeing unarmed wasn't her choice obviously.
No, but you commented on her being just as scared as usual towards Silva. I would expect her to be more nervous after talking to Bond, as only the talking-to had been a risk. He does something similar when talking to Dr. No. And anyway, Bond wouldn't give up even if he had lost a step somewhere, as he does frequently in the books as well. All I meant to say was that, just like the scotch line, his reposte was part of the wordgame, the not-letting-be-leaned-on. Insulting is about the same. Anyway, enough of that matter, no point in crying over spilled milk.
I always get a kick out of watching SF. I think I rewatch it the most out of the Craig films, though I still consider CR to be the best of the Craig films. It is a fun romp and I have to agree with @barry007, the film is full of plot holes but I still find it an entertaining and two hours that are not wasted.
Now when I think out it the only thing that bugs me is how stupid Silva's plan is from time to time...
I think it might be that you just don't want to see the plot holes, because there are plenty of them. ;)
I watched it at the weekend for the first time in a while. It's a shame really as it really could have been a top film, Dalton is brilliant but the desire to put the usual cliches into a plot that really doesn't need it pretty much scuppers it at times.
Everything is fine up until that bar fight (cheesy U.S 80's action guff). Though really the one thing that really does it for LTK is the inclusion of Q.
People can go on for infinity about Desmond's charm and that it was nice to see him but seriously it makes no sense and really ruins the gritty feel of the story. I cringed so much when he opened that suitcase, those gadgets are so lame. Alarm clock but that Polaroid camera that is a laser, really!!
That movie camera gun is ridiculous as well, I would have much preferred Bond being able to be resourceful and have obtained the tools he needed himself instead of this ridiculously cheesy moment that was lifted straight of a Moore film. Q's Broom handle radio?
So many people go on about the Aston in SF and it's unnecessary, well LTK's no better, also Lupe's ridiculous I'm so in love with James routine almost made me want to throw up.
I'll take SF over that, at least it's tone for the most part is even, the plot holes are there but it's executed so much better and Mendes is a much better director than John Glen, also SF doesn't have some of the worst incidental music in Bond history in it, some of that 80's cheese in LTK is utter rubbish.
Don't get me wrong it's still better than a good percentage of the series but it could have been so much better with a bit more even tone and less trying to please the audience with moments which were clearly not warranted.
I don't need my Bond films to be 100% realistic, because I watch them to escape, but I think Craig's films are much more realistic than past Bond adventures, and I want to feel that on screen. Plot holes take away from that.
Why didn't you post this in the "Last Bond movie you watched" thread, as this is just a review of Licence to Kill in a Skyfall thread.