Is Skyfall losing its gloss and appeal ?

1404143454659

Comments

  • Posts: 11,119
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ok, cut out the name calling and end the bickering. We are watching this thread closely now.

    I don't like this topic anymore :-). It facilitates division...not a positive sense of unity.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 4,622
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ok, cut out the name calling and end the bickering. We are watching this thread closely now.

    I don't like this topic anymore :-). It facilitates division...not a positive sense of unity.
    Actually the many learned postings have enhanced my appreciation for the film.
    I do like the notion of the DB5 as invisible car so to speak. Not DAD invisible, but unable to track invisible. Dovetails nicely with the thematic stuff going on in the film too.
    That Mendes is a crafty sort.
    Maybe this film is as smart as it likes to think it is. hmmm :-B

  • edited April 2015 Posts: 1,068
    If SP is only a short while after SF (judging by the still smouldering mi6 ruins shown in the trailer with weeks rather than months suggested) I guess everyone would have a whip round to buy Bond a replacement of his beloved DB5 for a job well done saving M. Oh hang on a minute...

    Or maybe the extra cover on his insurance he wisely took out to cover helicopter gunship mortar and artillery fire means the swift replacement - after all, these Astons are two a penny and cheap as chips because in this alternate reality, folk aren't bidding silly money at auctions for 'the car as used by James Bond' as Bond doesn't exist!

    I guess we're going to need a shed load more artistic licence to make this one stick a bit better...

    This creates another interesting conundrum - what 50 years+ film series exists in the void of this alternate world where JB lives?

    :D
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ok, cut out the name calling and end the bickering. We are watching this thread closely now.

    I don't like this topic anymore :-). It facilitates division...not a positive sense of unity.

    If we were all on the same page, discussion would be completely pointless.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    RC7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ok, cut out the name calling and end the bickering. We are watching this thread closely now.

    I don't like this topic anymore :-). It facilitates division...not a positive sense of unity.

    If we were all on the same page, discussion would be completely pointless.

    Exactly.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited April 2015 Posts: 4,585
    timmer wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ok, cut out the name calling and end the bickering. We are watching this thread closely now.

    I don't like this topic anymore :-). It facilitates division...not a positive sense of unity.
    Actually the many learned postings have enhanced my appreciation for the film.
    I do like the notion of the DB5 as invisible car so to speak. Not DAD invisible, but unable to track invisible. Dovetails nicely with the thematic stuff going on in the film too.
    That Mendes is a crafty sort.
    Maybe this film is as smart as it likes to think it is. hmmm :-B

    It's an ironic use of the DB5, isn't it?



  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ok, cut out the name calling and end the bickering. We are watching this thread closely now.

    I don't like this topic anymore :-). It facilitates division...not a positive sense of unity.

    If we were all on the same page, discussion would be completely pointless.

    Completely agree.

    I'm not asking for everyone to be on the same page though. And you know it :-).
  • TripAces wrote: »
    It's an ironic use of the DB5, isn't it?

    I'll list two other cues that IMO show this is literally the DB5 from GF (with no room for a logical explanation then, it's the icon first).
    - The "Back in time" line.
    - The twang guitar of the Bond theme, and the percussion section under it. This IMO means "it's the 60's again".

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited April 2015 Posts: 16,351
    Or it could be what the viewer wants it to be.

    To me it's the one from CR. The used a bit of Arnold's (The Name's Bond, James Bond) Music as soon as it's shown. As for it having gadget's they could have been...

    1. Already there in CR. Alex Dimitrios had resources, He also has money to throw around. With him having access to explosives and being part of a huge criminal organization, he might have tricked out his DB5. It's not unlikely. They weren't shown in CR because it wasn't relevant to the story.

    2. Bond tricked it out some time after QOS. CR and QOS take place in 2006. Skyfall takes place in 2012. Between those six years we don't know what happened to Bond. He could have tricked it out for his own ends.

    3. Q Branch tricked it out for him after QOS. Ben Wishaw's Q introduces himself as Bond's "New Quartermaster." and that things like Explosive Pen's aren't the norm anymore. Perhaps Bond's old quartermaster tricked it out for him. I'm sure Judi's M got tired of Bond destroying multiple DBS's so she made him get his own personal car tricked out for the sake of taxpayers.

    As for the steering column, it's such a minor detail that it's not even important. It's so insignificant. It's like crying over Bond's suit from the End of CR is suddenly different in QOS. Things have to be taken into account, Production designers, costume designers, technical staff and such. Maybe they didn't have access to that DB5. It's what ever you the viewer makes of it. I think it's the DB5 from CR, Others think it's the one from Goldfinger despite Goldfinger not happening in the Reboot continuity. It's time to put this debate to rest. In the end. It's a car in a Bond movie. It's the "Bondmobile" It's going to be there. There's no point in crying about it.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited April 2015 Posts: 10,591
    Murdock wrote: »
    Or it could be what the viewer wants it to be.

    To me it's the one from CR. The used a bit of Arnold's (The Name's Bond, James Bond) Music as soon as it's shown. As for it having gadget's they could have been...

    1. Already there in CR. Alex Dimitrios had resources, He also has money to throw around. With him having access to explosives and being part of a huge criminal organization, he might have tricked out his DB5. It's not unlikely. They weren't shown in CR because it wasn't relevant to the story.

    2. Bond tricked it out some time after QOS. CR and QOS take place in 2006. Skyfall takes place in 2012. Between those six years we don't know what happened to Bond. He could have tricked it out for his own ends.

    3. Q Branch tricked it out for him after QOS. Ben Wishaw's Q introduces himself as Bond's "New Quartermaster." and that things like Explosive Pen's aren't the norm anymore. Perhaps Bond's old quartermaster tricked it out for him. I'm sure Judi's M got tired of Bond destroying multiple DBS's so she made him get his own personal car tricked out for the sake of taxpayers.

    As for the steering column, it's such a minor detail that it's not even important. It's so insignificant. It's like crying over Bond's suit from the End of CR is suddenly different in QOS. Things have to be taken into account, Production designers, costume designers, technical staff and such. Maybe they didn't have access to that DB5. It's what ever you the viewer makes of it. I think it's the DB5 from CR, Others think it's the one from Goldfinger despite Goldfinger not happening in the Reboot continuity. It's time to put this debate to rest. In the end. It's a car in a Bond movie. It's the "Bondmobile" It's going to be there. There's no point in crying about it.

    =D>
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    jake24 wrote: »
    It's a car in a Bond movie. It's the "Bondmobile"

    [/quote]

    :)) =))
  • Murdock wrote: »
    I think it's the DB5 from CR, Others think it's the one from Goldfinger despite Goldfinger not happening in the Reboot continuity. It's time to put this debate to rest. In the end. It's a car in a Bond movie. It's the "Bondmobile" It's going to be there. There's no point in crying about it.

    It's not really a matter of crying, it's just that you may have to consider there is no logical explanation to look for. When I say it's the car from GF, I don't mean it in a logical manner, I mean Mendes wanted to use the car from GF even if it's illogical. Indeed we're just shown an icon, a Bondmobile, except that they used the most famous Bondmobile to help make their point. Nostalgia as a safety net.

    And well, now, you know, the same team is doing SPECTRE... I predict quite some heat when it's out on some continuity topics :)


  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    And well, now, you know, the same team is doing SPECTRE... I predict quite some heat when it's out on some continuity topics :)
    Dude, relax. SP will be fun & better than SF. The Bondmobile will be in it and most will love it (I will). Not a safety net, a cool addition. If you demand logic... well, here:
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Never discuss politics, religion or the DB5.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited April 2015 Posts: 1,731
    And well, now, you know, the same team is doing SPECTRE... I predict quite some heat when it's out on some continuity topics :)

    Yes, i'm afraid so. Mendes has already made clear that he has no regard for subtlety or the accuracy of the Bond canon, so brace yourselves for plenty of silly 'faux-iconism' to please the masses of moviegoers who don't particularly care about the series but have just about heard of Jaws, Q and the Aston Martin...
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Never discuss politics, religion or the DB5.

    You may just be right there.

    Not asking people to agree on every point, just not to get too emotional about it all. ;-)
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    NicNac wrote: »
    Never discuss politics, religion or the DB5.

    You may just be right there.

    Not asking people to agree on every point, just not to get too emotional about it all. ;-)

    Fair enough, but I can see why so many are irked by SF's clumsy attempts to pander to the 007-impartial masses, and the DB5 is representative of that.
  • AceHole wrote: »
    Yes, i'm afraid so. Mendes has already made clear that he has no regard for subtlety or the accuracy of the Bond canon, so brace yourselves for plenty of silly 'faux-iconism' to please the masses of moviegoers who don't particularly care about the series but have just about heard of Jaws, Q and the Aston Martin...
    Well Mendes said he wouldn't do another Bond after SF, and then he does SP nevertheless. Hm, "Never Say Never Again" then ? No Bond theme, no gunbarrel... Oh, there's even Blofeld in this one ! And well, in NSNA they had the Bentley, not the DB5. Funny how the legal limitations forced them to use the litterary Bondmobile instead of the crowd-pleasing movie one :)
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I like the classic Bentley in NSNA....perfect for a semi-retired gent just as Bond was in this film.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Maybe. I'm not convinced it was deliberately so. Bond films have always been keen to keep the core values (of the franchise) in place. The AM is part of that. Was it there to satisfy the impartial masses? Would Mendes really think that?

    If he did, does it really matter?

    When I saw the film first time the audience broke in to spontaneous applause and cheering when the car appeared. The impartial masses probably saw SF once and moved on. But if they clapped and cheered at any point during SF there is a more than better chance that they will turn up for SP as well. They certainly won't waste any time analysing whether the car should have been there in the first place.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    NicNac wrote: »
    When I saw the film first time the audience broke in to spontaneous applause and cheering when the car appeared.

    I am not considered a violent man. But such people should be on the receiving end of a good whipping.

    :D
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    NicNac wrote: »
    If he did, does it really matter?

    For me it does, simply because it tells me something about his direction. The masses loved it, the same way the will when they see the Millenium Falcon come christmas. The difference being, despite it primarily being there for the whoops and cheers, there's clearly some narrative logic involved. My argument would be, 'Would the film suffer for not having it?'. If so, then perhaps they have to look at why the story and general production would not be satisfactory enough without having to resort to these safety nets of nostalgia. Some people don't care, I get that, but for me it's symptomatic of a certain creative malaise re. aspects of the films. I also still don't get why people ignore the fact the DB5 was not present for 30 years, but all of a sudden is a linchpin of the franchise. I actually think its recent overexposure has removed a lot of the class and mystique around it.
  • NicNac wrote: »
    When I saw the film first time the audience broke in to spontaneous applause and cheering when the car appeared. The impartial masses probably saw SF once and moved on. But if they clapped and cheered at any point during SF there is a more than better chance that they will turn up for SP as well.

    To put it in a provocative manner : Well, remove the Bond theme, remove the gunbarrel, remove the gadgets, remove the fun, etc.. and the crowd will finally cheer when they see they have at least some "Bond element" (as known by the large audience) in the movie they went to see ;) I think the "Moneypenny line" was also supposed to be an attempt at crowd pleasing to counterbalance the death of M !

    The most ironical element is that those of us who consider SF like a visit of the Bond museum rather than a new room in this museum, are sometimes called nostalgic. While the "Bond nostalgia movie" is clearly SF. Then the next one is titled about an organization last seen in the 60s too... Now, do you visit a museum twice ? Hm, we'll see.


  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    @Suivez_ce_parachute have you read the script?
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 2,015
    I have read the SP scripts and notes on the older Mendes/Logan ones but I haven't read the SF script. It would be very interesting to read what was in the script vs what they did (for instance, it seems there was a gunbarrel in SF's script, and that Purvis & Wade had not put any GF gadgets in the DB5).
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    RC7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    If he did, does it really matter?

    For me it does, simply because it tells me something about his direction. The masses loved it, the same way the will when they see the Millenium Falcon come christmas. The difference being, despite it primarily being there for the whoops and cheers, there's clearly some narrative logic involved. My argument would be, 'Would the film suffer for not having it?'. If so, then perhaps they have to look at why the story and general production would not be satisfactory enough without having to resort to these safety nets of nostalgia. Some people don't care, I get that, but for me it's symptomatic of a certain creative malaise re. aspects of the films. I also still don't get why people ignore the fact the DB5 was not present for 30 years, but all of a sudden is a linchpin of the franchise. I actually think its recent overexposure has removed a lot of the class and mystique around it.
    I don't think it's seen as the linchpin. And maybe the fact it hasn't been seen for 30 years is reason enough to cheer and whoop. Although AMs in general have been ever present.

    The first comment I heard when SF ended was from an esteemed colleague of mine on these forums, who was at the same showing. He didn't think SF truly felt like a Bond film. And I sort of agreed with him. It felt like it strayed from the usual formula and often we had to remind ourselves we were watching a Bond film.

    Yet am I getting the feeling that on this thread people are saying the opposite? That it was a real box ticker of a Bond film?
    AceHole wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    When I saw the film first time the audience broke in to spontaneous applause and cheering when the car appeared.

    I am not considered a violent man. But such people should be on the receiving end of a good whipping.

    :D

    That I would love to see. There was an awful lot of people there ;-)
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 2,015
    NicNac wrote: »
    Yet am I getting the feeling that on this thread people are saying the opposite? That it was a real box ticker of a Bond film?

    I think we're mostly saying that what people liked in SF was not exactly Mendes' take on it, but rather all the elements he used from the other movies. There's quite some crowd-pleasing stuff in this movie, with the most notable exception of the music (which may be enough, IMO, to prevent SF from being really considered as a top Bond movies in the future). To be provocative again, the photography in this movie really looks like something done to please the X-Box generation. At least from what we can see in SP, we're back to some cinema (I don't expect a full CG Bond in these kind of frames) : sometimes the old ways are the best ;)

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited April 2015 Posts: 4,585
    NicNac wrote: »
    Yet am I getting the feeling that on this thread people are saying the opposite? That it was a real box ticker of a Bond film?

    I think we're mostly saying that what people liked in SF was not exactly Mendes' take on it, but rather all the elements he used from the other movies. There's quite some crowd-pleasing stuff in this movie, with the most notable exception of the music (which may be enough, IMO, to prevent SF from being really considered as a top Bond movies in the future). To be provocative again, the photography in this movie really looks like something done to please the X-Box generation. At least from what we can see in SP, we're back to some cinema (I don't expect a full CG Bond in these kind of frames) : sometimes the old ways are the best ;)

    What elements were those? The komodo dragon walk and the DB5 are the only two nods I noticed. Maybe, to a lesser degree, the elevator ride is similar to Connery hanging from the top of the elevator shaft in DAF. Other than that, what was there? What did I miss?

    @NicNac: Yes, the criticisms seem to go both ways.

    I just watched SF again last night. It hasn't lost its place with me. I do now think that Kincade's two lines: "Sometimes the old ways are the best" and "I was ready before you were born, son" are clunkers, the latter especially so.

    The DB5 scene gave me a shiver when I first saw the film in the theater. I didn't applaud, but I felt like it. Here's why: I only gave the Brosnan films a cursory glance. I still don't watch them much, so I had no recollection of its use in GE at that moment in the theater. And I didn't equate the DB5 in SF with the one in QoS (that one was owned by a villain). In MY MIND the appearance here, with the theme suddenly pumping, was the first time I'd seen or remembered the DB5 framed like this, as Bond's necessary mode of transport, since GF. (You can't blame some of us for forgetting the Brosnan era.) It only had a small role in OHMSS. So, yes, in this specific instance, it was a GF reference and a good one, very timely.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    TripAces wrote: »
    In MY MIND the appearance here, with the theme suddenly pumping, was the first time I'd seen or remembered the DB5 framed like this, as Bond's necessary mode of transport, since GF. (You can't blame some of us for forgetting the Brosnan era.) It only had a small role in OHMSS. So, yes, in this specific instance, it was a GF reference and a good one, very timely.

    It isn't in OHMSS, but I guess as a viewer if you can't remember which films it's in, but rather have a vague recollection of its presence, then I suppose it would work as a 'moment' in SF.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 12,837
    Hm.. Bond in a cage fight ? :)

    Y'know that'd be a cool idea for an action sequence. Have Bond forced into an impromptu fight with a pro mma fighter and he has to fight dirty to win (ala TMWTGG in the karate school).

    Maybe he's at a UFC event (you could even get real fighters, getting Cain Velasquez for example, the heavyweight champ, to cameo and have a short fight scene with Bond would be great and it'd be good publicity) stealing something or confronting someone or something but gets caught and during his escape ends up being forced to climb up into the rafters. Something breaks, maybe he gets shot at, idk, but somehow he falls into the Octagon, disrupting a fight and pissing off the participants. Things kick off and there's a short but brutal fight scene where he manages to put up a good fight against both competitors but he sees security and henchmen heading through the crowd towards him so he quickly scales the cage and legs it.
Sign In or Register to comment.