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
Slight exaggeration - she first appeared as M twenty years ago - but it seemed a lot longer!
It's going to be more of the same with the character of Mallory, who will likely have a different relationship with Bond based on the backstory Skyfall provided. The reason why I prefer the omnipresent M, such as Dench's character, is that it brought out more of the characters of both Bond continuities she oversaw. I can't understand how this could be perceived as a negative to the story in any way. It does two things: (1) accentuate the known characteristics of Bond and (2) provide glimpses of addition sides of Bond that without other characters to develop, would go unseen. It's only a negative if the interest is in having a more one-dimensional Bond, which to me is less appealing.
If Bond says to an Italian, that will keep you in spaghetti and meatballs for a while, should he be offended?
Seems to me Bond is just playing with ethno-cultural culinary generalizations here. Harmless.
Good point.
@AstonLotus-is it because I am black?
Seconded. Harmless.
Parts of SF work really well, but parts of it a little too contrived, and with numerous plot holes that now seem to define SF more than anything else.
One of my biggest problems with the film is how Craig looks in the film. I said when the first photo's were released during filming that his hair was too short, and was proved right. The beard didn't do him any favours either. He looks haggard throughout most of the film, probably the worst an actor has looked in the part since Moore in AVTAK and Connery in DAF.
Craig looks 10 years younger in the photos and trailer of SP, which is good to see.
And a helicopter fight. :)
You are not British and probably aren't aware that Curry eaters was a derogatory term for Asians in the 70's and 80's. British TV used to be rife with casual racism, that scene that sets up that line is a stereo typical view of India and how many jokey references we can make of Asian culture, that I would expect from British comedy back then.
No referring to eating maple syrup and bacon is not the same thing at all but you don't come from my country so I can't expect you to understand but no it's not harmless and just because I'm a Bond fan and Fleming wrote worse does not make it acceptable.
Bond is no stranger to racism or stereotyping cultures, look at Dr No and to some degree LALD.
Quite ironic considering what Rog has been back in the headlines recently and his English English comment.
He is supposed to look old and tired...that was one of the key themes in the film. He is considered an old dog, an old ship ready to be sold for scrap.
I don't know where you draw the conclusion that fans are souring on the film. If anything, the older the younger Bond fans get, the more they will recognize and appreciate SF's themes.
Now we're on the same wave length!
Roger strikes me as a decent sort, so I can trust his judgement.
Same with Fleming.
Actual malicious intent to demean, is more likely to twig my radar. But to each his own.
If that line bothers you, fair enough.Peace.
Green Slime is free on you tube, still very colourful and still very green.
Food coloring budget must have been through the roof on that film.
(have to be a little on topic here :)) )
The alien planet landscapes remind somewhat of the Scottish moors settings in SF.Genius.
http://metro.co.uk/2012/11/07/skyfall-isnt-best-bond-ever-its-actually-quite-pants-heres-007-reasons-3816648/
Did you write that? LOL
No, but it could have been me! ;)
Being pretty to look at and having a plethora of unsubtle 007 'in-jokes' (here's looking at you Mendes with your silly DB5 ideas) is not sufficient to make a good Bondfilm.
Yes, SF did not excel with the action, but it did excel with memorable acting moments.
--> Silva's reveal in one shot, and the entire story about rats (reminded me of Dr. No's reveal "I'm an unloved child of a German missionary mother and a Chinese father").
--> Silva's psychotic William Tell game, which is actually quite unprecedented in the Bond franchise.
--> Silva's speech in front of "M" and the moment he shows his jaw prosthesis. I call it a perfect example of "stylish grose", in which you actually feel pity for the man.
It is of my opinion that a Bond film should be foremost about memorable scenes, not just memorable action. Yes, good action is required, as long as it has narrative strength. For good insane action you should watch "Furious 7". I find it funny though, how so many Bond fans are slamming both "Skyfall" and "Furious 7", but for entirely different reasons.
One other thing. Be daring and compare "Skyfall" with "From Russia With Love" and "Doctor No", especially action-wise. Then be honest to yourself and also find DN and FRWL boring for its absence of "memorable action sequences". But off course we don't do it. Because we Bond fans cherish the classics more than new movies.