"Did i overcomplicate the plot ?" - Skyfall Appreciation & Discussion

1101113151643

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I respect it, obviously, but I don't throw a fit and accompanying tantrum when it's excluded from that very specific point in the film, especially if we're getting an opening like SF's.

    And even when people got the gun barrel back to normal in SP, the mewling continued. It disturbs me how fans can never be satisfied with anything these days.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I mean, I really don't see anything outstanding or unique about the SF opening that warrants the omission of the gunbarrel: Bond turns a corner and walks down a hallway. Pretty tame, if you ask me. As for SP, I'm happy to see the gunbarrel right at the start, but I do go back and forth on the text that follows; not a big fan of it, but if I have to take that in order to have a GB open the film, then so be it.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2016 Posts: 15,718
    In the first ever film, the gunbarrel and the Title sequence we're linked together, so if the GB is not important and can be placed at the end, then I'm sure there is no objection in having the title sequence at the end as well. Since the GB opening is 'passé', and apparently having the Bond theme full blast is 'passé' as well, then surely we can get rid of those PTS sequence and get straight to the action. If after 20 films they can change the GB, altering the title sequence after 24 films is no problem.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I mean, I really don't see anything outstanding or unique about the SF opening that warrants the omission of the gunbarrel: Bond turns a corner and walks down a hallway. Pretty tame, if you ask me. As for SP, I'm happy to see the gunbarrel right at the start, but I do go back and forth on the text that follows; not a big fan of it, but if I have to take that in order to have a GB open the film, then so be it.

    Agree. Binder and Hunt didn't spend their time contributing to the DNA of Bond for people to just skip it. I don't understand the argument from @patb, which I've heard a lot. No, it may not make the film, but it doesn't break it, so stop fucking about and open the film in typical bombastic fashion. It's the same as removing the SW crawl. It's beautiful. Leave it alone.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    The DB5 is Bond's 'choice of car' after appearing in 4 films from 1962 to 2002, so why isn't the gunbarrel Bond's 'choice of opening' after being at the same place for 20 films in the same time frame?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The DB5 is Bond's 'choice of car' after appearing in 4 films from 1962 to 2002, so why isn't the gunbarrel Bond's 'choice of opening' after being at the same place for 20 films in the same time frame?

    The DB5 can do one as far as I'm concerned. The gun barrel is far more iconic.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2016 Posts: 15,718
    @RC7 I wasn't suggesting that the DB5 should appear every time, if ever. Just wondering why something that is only in 4 films is more important that something that happened in 20 films.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I mean, I really don't see anything outstanding or unique about the SF opening that warrants the omission of the gunbarrel: Bond turns a corner and walks down a hallway. Pretty tame, if you ask me.
    Exactly. Couldn't agree with you more. Also, I've always felt that if they're going to omit the GB from the beginning, then just do away with it altogether. I hate it being tacked on at the end just because they feel obligated to put it somewhere.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    pachazo wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I mean, I really don't see anything outstanding or unique about the SF opening that warrants the omission of the gunbarrel: Bond turns a corner and walks down a hallway. Pretty tame, if you ask me.
    Exactly. Couldn't agree with you more. Also, I've always felt that if they're going to omit the GB from the beginning, then just do away with it altogether. I hate it being tacked on at the end just because they feel obligated to put it somewhere.

    Agreed; if you don't care enough to open up the film with it, then there's no point in placing it before the end credits.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited October 2016 Posts: 732
    The way they handled the GB in CR was fine by me - made some sense in the context. From there on it should always and forever be at the beginning. Somebody compared it to the SW crawl and I can nothing more than totally agree: The GB is a trademark, it sets a mood.

    There may be explainations for the head and whatsoever - having the GB at the beginninh just "feels" right and it just belongs there. For me it would also work without doubt in SF without any change to the opening shot.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm all for the GB but I didn't miss it in either CR, QoS or SF. The way all of those films opened was absolutely brilliant in my view. Love it.
  • Posts: 7,436
    Well CR didn't need it, as it had that really clever set up to the opening titles. QOS, well it didn't suffer too much from not having it, as it had that wonderful travelling shot, interspersed with shots of the cars! SF suffers the most, as I agree that Mendes should of changed his intro shot of Bond, that music cue is really annoying! Neither film though, should of had the gunbarrel at the end. Rather pointless imho!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    For Bond 25 they should just have the film's theme song start playing during the end credits, no gunbarrel either at the start or end, and no Title Sequence as well.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Shardlake wrote: »
    The PTS in SF knocks SP into a cocked hat, no need for dodgy overblown CGI apart from that ill advised Grand Bazaar bike chase bit.

    SF though opens brilliantly, ok not having the GB is not ideal and Mendes excuse is wearing a little thin but that opening PTS will be one of the iconic moments. I've given Sam plenty flak for SP but his Russian doll approach with the PTS is a stroke of genius and I find the PTS utterly thrilling.

    VW product placement granted but Bond didn't all of a sudden start this with the Craig era they've been doing it for decades, it's not like the Craig era kicked all this off.

    CR overall is a better film and Craig has more to get his teeth into and to prove which is why from a dramatic and character point of view will most likely be his best work in the series, despite him not actually being Bond full on till the closing moment with that superb sign off but it has its issues.

    I can't see anything wrong with Molloka chase, that is the crowning achievement of the Craig era when it comes to action, no action sequence in Craig's time matches it from the moment he's spotted him and starts the pursuit to the point he shoots him and blows up the building as a diversion to get away.

    The gulf between this sequence and the generic 90's action guff we got with Pierce is vast but that Miami sequence is not good at all.

    It works as way to progress the plot but couldn't they have delivered something better than warmed over version of one of the most thrilling sequences committed to celluloid? I am of course referring to the Raiders truck chase.

    The dialogue while at times some of the best of the series is cringeworthy on occasion, Omega plugging and of course my little finger so no it's not perfect but as a whole it's an incredibly strong film and the Venice sequence that seems to be so devisive is still the best climax of the Craig era and I'd argue one of the best of the series.

    CR was the first time since OHMSS when we got an actual adaptation of a Fleming novel that bore a resemblance, rather than just taking the title then fashioning a story around like so many of the entries did with the exception of some of the earlier films notably OHMSS.

    I think that is why some judge it quite severely because we are messing with the holy grail for some of Fleming's writing. Anyone expecting a straight adaptation and ending the film with Vesper commiting suicide off camera was off their rocker.

    The venice sequence was something I'd never seen done before, it was like the parkour chase at the beginning something where it felt Bond was doing something unique and it's great the film is bookended like this.

    Yes some of the filling in between is questionable but the PTS is my favourite of the series full stop.

    Getting back to SF yes the it has holes but everything up to Silva being bought to London is going fine for me, Silva yes can't help but echo the Joker in his scheme and getaway and Mendes is clearly influenced by Nolan but for me it's not a problem.

    The dumb dialogue of Q claiming Silva had planned this does the film a disservice but when you compare to some the crimes in it's follow up to me it's mild at least this doesn't shat all over the series present and before it's just a chink in the plot in comparrison.

    Though Mendes, Craig, cast and crew carry it all off with such confidence, some hate the Tennison moment but it still puts hairs on the back of my neck. I really wish though Arnold had scored this, I think it might have been his finest moment coming off the back of his extremely promising QOS score.

    Also the Straw Dog/Home Alone climax in Scotland for me is thrilling and moving, no DC cracking that deep water joke should have been dropped but the way Silva is dispatched and the look on his face is entirely in keeping with his character. Logan comes in for plenty flak but the pay off Silva's rat speech in his iconic intro, I love it.

    It's contemporary but all so echoes back to the great memorable moments from the series, like a riff on Goldfinger's Lazer table and Connery hitting it out the park along with Frobe (despite being dubbed).

    The way we return to it and Craig's last words "last rat standing" just sums up their relationship perfectly.

    No a joke before Craig's and Dench's final moment was ill advised but both do such fine work here that it can almost be forgiven.

    CR is a Bond fans film but SF was a Bond film for everyone and this I think maybe the rub with some. Yes it was released on the 50th and we had the London Olympics with DC involved but if it had been SPECTRE I certainly don't think that film would have struck the cord that SF did.

    Adele's theme had its role to play, the global smash it was, although Newman's score has it's moments, something more celebratory would have made all the difference. So with some asides and an acknowledgement that it isn't perfect or a masterpeice by any stretch of the imagination, it did the anniversary proud.

    For me personally the SP PTS is infinitely better than the SF one.

    I have to say though that I'd like to see a PTS that didn't necessarily involve OTT action for a change.

    I agree the construction site chase in CR is incredibly well done, but it front loads the movie too much. None of the action after that lives up to it and I agree the Miami sequence can't hold a candle to the PTS.

    QoS is transparently relying on the action throughout to paper over the lack of a script, which Forster has openly acknowledged. Having said that, I've always Liked QOS and I love the PTS and think the car chase is one of the best in a Bond movie - may be any movie.

    Almost all of Mendes's action sequences are a disappointment on some level. The only real exception for me is the train fight in SP which i thought was brilliantly done.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    In the first ever film, the gunbarrel and the Title sequence we're linked together, so if the GB is not important and can be placed at the end, then I'm sure there is no objection in having the title sequence at the end as well. Since the GB opening is 'passé', and apparently having the Bond theme full blast is 'passé' as well, then surely we can get rid of those PTS sequence and get straight to the action. If after 20 films they can change the GB, altering the title sequence after 24 films is no problem.

    The title sequence names those involved in the film and sets the stage for it through visual motifs, so you can't put it at the end of the film. These sections also change every time for each film, while the gun barrel, outside of a few random design choices, doesn't. That argument just doesn't hold up, I'm afraid.

    The gun barrel is barely ten seconds and whether or not you put it at the beginning, middle or end, it doesn't matter or change anything.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2016 Posts: 15,718
    The title sequence is 2 minutes in a 2 hours film, just remove it all together, same as the gunbarrel, as it is not important. I'm sure you know that John Barry arranged the Bond theme specifically for each actor, so if that is not important, neither is the title sequence. And as you bring in numbers, why is the gunbarrel less important than the DB5, despite one being at the start for 20 films and the other only in 4 films (and hardly for 30 seconds in 2 of those).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    One can certainly put the title sequence at the end of a film. It's done in many movies. I wouldn't miss it if it wasn't at the start, but it's a bit of a tradition, like the GB. In some cases I would actually prefer if it wasn't present (one very recent example comes to mind).
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Title sequence at the end? Christ.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    RC7 wrote: »
    Title sequence at the end? Christ.
    Precisely.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2016 Posts: 15,718
    The title sequence does 'set the stage' for the film itself, but the gunbarrel also 'sets the stage' that it is a Bond film. So if the latter is not important and can be put at the end (Damn, I just watched 2+ hours of film with a lead character named James Bond, I really need the gunbarrel to tell me it was a Bond film), then the title sequence is irrelevant too and can be placed at the end. If you hold that argument on the gunbarrel, then hold it all the way for the Title sequence too.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The title sequence does 'set the stage' for the film itself, but the gunbarrel also 'sets the stage' that it is a Bond film. So if the latter is not important and can be put at the end (Damn, I just watched 2+ hours of film with a lead character named James Bond, I really need the gunbarrel to tell me it was a Bond film), then the title sequence is irrelevant too and can be placed at the end. If you hold that argument on the gunbarrel, then hold it all the way for the Title sequence too.

    Bottom line is, both are part of the grammar of Bond films. QoS and SF could easily have started with the GB, but ego got in the way.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    You can't just rate different parts of a film the same with milquetoast logic, as they have different functions. Some feel that the gun barrel gets them in the mood for a Bond film (though they should already be in that mindset already if they're in the theater), and that's fine, though on the whole, if it's missing not much function at all is lost.

    The opening titles (not the closing titles, by the way) are always different (unlike the minor changes that happen with a gun barrel), and the variety of design we've seen over the years make these sections of a film a viable part of the movies into the modern age. You see motifs of the film set up, hints at what is to come, and enjoy a new song that all come together to prepare the stage behind the curtain before a Bond film begins in earnest following the PTS, which the opening titles give breathing room and anticipation to.

    How a blink and you miss it piece (no matter how traditional it is) gets viewed as more viable than a sequence that is always creatively different in design, sound and atmosphere is beyond me.

    I just don't get the thinking behind any of this.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    It's not necessary for either the titles or the GB to be at the start of the film. However it's tradition and I have no problem with it either way.

    I'd only prefer if the film that they give us is top notch.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's not necessary for either the titles or the GB to be at the start of the film. However it's tradition and I have no problem with it either way.

    I'd only prefer if the film that they give us is top notch.

    What I'm arguing is that it's clear which item proves more sustainable and interesting over the course of 24 films.

    But I agree, the film itself is what matters, and some complaints distract from that.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's not necessary for either the titles or the GB to be at the start of the film. However it's tradition and I have no problem with it either way.

    I'd only prefer if the film that they give us is top notch.

    What I'm arguing is that it's clear which item proves more sustainable and interesting over the course of 24 films.

    But I agree, the film itself is what matters, and some complaints distract from that.
    I was commenting generally rather than in response to your specific post. I agree with you though that the titles have become an intrinsic and very unique artistic component of Bond films, and they do belong at the start as a result.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    You can't just rate different parts of a film the same with milquetoast logic, as they have different functions. Some feel that the gun barrel gets them in the mood for a Bond film (though they should already be in that mindset already if they're in the theater), and that's fine, though on the whole, if it's missing not much function at all is lost.

    The opening titles (not the closing titles, by the way) are always different (unlike the minor changes that happen with a gun barrel), and the variety of design we've seen over the years make these sections of a film a viable part of the movies into the modern age. You see motifs of the film set up, hints at what is to come, and enjoy a new song that all come together to prepare the stage behind the curtain before a Bond film begins in earnest following the PTS, which the opening titles give breathing room and anticipation to.

    How a blink and you miss it piece (no matter how traditional it is) gets viewed as more viable than a sequence that is always creatively different in design, sound and atmosphere is beyond me.

    I just don't get the thinking behind any of this.

    I don't think anyone was suggesting the GB is more viable than the titles. They are both equally important. Shifting the GB to the end is a piss take. The fact you refer to it as 'blink and you'll miss it', is disturbing. If graphic design were listed, it would be Grade 1. How any fan can so easily dismiss it is, to me, insane.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Shardlake wrote: »
    The PTS in SF knocks SP into a cocked hat, no need for dodgy overblown CGI apart from that ill advised Grand Bazaar bike chase bit.

    SF though opens brilliantly, ok not having the GB is not ideal and Mendes excuse is wearing a little thin but that opening PTS will be one of the iconic moments. I've given Sam plenty flak for SP but his Russian doll approach with the PTS is a stroke of genius and I find the PTS utterly thrilling.

    VW product placement granted but Bond didn't all of a sudden start this with the Craig era they've been doing it for decades, it's not like the Craig era kicked all this off.

    CR overall is a better film and Craig has more to get his teeth into and to prove which is why from a dramatic and character point of view will most likely be his best work in the series, despite him not actually being Bond full on till the closing moment with that superb sign off but it has its issues.

    I can't see anything wrong with Molloka chase, that is the crowning achievement of the Craig era when it comes to action, no action sequence in Craig's time matches it from the moment he's spotted him and starts the pursuit to the point he shoots him and blows up the building as a diversion to get away.

    The gulf between this sequence and the generic 90's action guff we got with Pierce is vast but that Miami sequence is not good at all.

    It works as way to progress the plot but couldn't they have delivered something better than warmed over version of one of the most thrilling sequences committed to celluloid? I am of course referring to the Raiders truck chase.

    The dialogue while at times some of the best of the series is cringeworthy on occasion, Omega plugging and of course my little finger so no it's not perfect but as a whole it's an incredibly strong film and the Venice sequence that seems to be so devisive is still the best climax of the Craig era and I'd argue one of the best of the series.

    CR was the first time since OHMSS when we got an actual adaptation of a Fleming novel that bore a resemblance, rather than just taking the title then fashioning a story around like so many of the entries did with the exception of some of the earlier films notably OHMSS.

    I think that is why some judge it quite severely because we are messing with the holy grail for some of Fleming's writing. Anyone expecting a straight adaptation and ending the film with Vesper commiting suicide off camera was off their rocker.

    The venice sequence was something I'd never seen done before, it was like the parkour chase at the beginning something where it felt Bond was doing something unique and it's great the film is bookended like this.

    Yes some of the filling in between is questionable but the PTS is my favourite of the series full stop.

    Getting back to SF yes the it has holes but everything up to Silva being bought to London is going fine for me, Silva yes can't help but echo the Joker in his scheme and getaway and Mendes is clearly influenced by Nolan but for me it's not a problem.

    The dumb dialogue of Q claiming Silva had planned this does the film a disservice but when you compare to some the crimes in it's follow up to me it's mild at least this doesn't shat all over the series present and before it's just a chink in the plot in comparrison.

    Though Mendes, Craig, cast and crew carry it all off with such confidence, some hate the Tennison moment but it still puts hairs on the back of my neck. I really wish though Arnold had scored this, I think it might have been his finest moment coming off the back of his extremely promising QOS score.

    Also the Straw Dog/Home Alone climax in Scotland for me is thrilling and moving, no DC cracking that deep water joke should have been dropped but the way Silva is dispatched and the look on his face is entirely in keeping with his character. Logan comes in for plenty flak but the pay off Silva's rat speech in his iconic intro, I love it.

    It's contemporary but all so echoes back to the great memorable moments from the series, like a riff on Goldfinger's Lazer table and Connery hitting it out the park along with Frobe (despite being dubbed).

    The way we return to it and Craig's last words "last rat standing" just sums up their relationship perfectly.

    No a joke before Craig's and Dench's final moment was ill advised but both do such fine work here that it can almost be forgiven.

    CR is a Bond fans film but SF was a Bond film for everyone and this I think maybe the rub with some. Yes it was released on the 50th and we had the London Olympics with DC involved but if it had been SPECTRE I certainly don't think that film would have struck the cord that SF did.

    Adele's theme had its role to play, the global smash it was, although Newman's score has it's moments, something more celebratory would have made all the difference. So with some asides and an acknowledgement that it isn't perfect or a masterpeice by any stretch of the imagination, it did the anniversary proud.

    Excellent post. Agree about the Miami sequence. I was expecting something epic but it pales in comparison to Raiders similar chase. I can't believe they shot the tanker punching through the fuselage of a plane but then cut it. You're trying to say Bond is back in a balls out action sequence at an airport so let's get some planes involved. One of the highlights is when the 747 jet blasts the police car down the runway so I'm mystified why they cut this moment which can't have been cheap to film. And as I recall it looked pretty good in the deleted scenes.
    Mendes' excuse may be understandable, but this was the 50th anniversary outing. It was already bad that they butched up the gunbarrel in DAD for the 40th with that stupid CGI bullet, so who on earth decided that for the next anniversary, the big 5-0 one, we still can't have a proper gunbarrel because it 'had to be' be at the end? I don't care even if the GB was at the end again in SP or in Bond 25 if Craig returns, but I find it insulting that for the main 5-0 event it wasn't at the right place.

    Absolutely. What are EON playing at here? Someone needs to say 'For the 50th the film starts with an unf**ked up GB sequence. After that you can do what you want.'

    But Mendes thinks Bond walking down a corridor out of focus until he comes into focus is such a moment of unparalleled genius that all the fans can piss off? Sorry mate but although you seem to think you are Hitchcock or Welles you really ain't so have a bit of respect for the series rather than forcing your own misguided whims on us. Perhaps if someone at EON had taken note of Sam's ego at this point we might have been spared the shitty Guiness explosion down the line.
    The gun barrel is barely ten seconds and whether or not you put it at the beginning, middle or end, it doesn't matter or change anything.

    Agree entirely mate. Because the opening 20 seconds of NSNA really blows you away doesn't it?

    Anyone seriously think McClory would have served up that inspid shite rather than use the GB if he could have?
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't think anyone was suggesting the GB is more viable than the titles. They are both equally important. Shifting the GB to the end is a piss take. The fact you refer to it as 'blink and you'll miss it', is disturbing. If graphic design were listed, it would be Grade 1. How any fan can so easily dismiss it is, to me, insane.

    Indeed. I find it disturbing that so many people on here are seemingly unable to follow Partridge's first law:

    CDwRToVWYAAGRb_.png

    STOP GETTING BOND WRONG!!!

    Its not rocket science folks.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote: »
    You can't just rate different parts of a film the same with milquetoast logic, as they have different functions. Some feel that the gun barrel gets them in the mood for a Bond film (though they should already be in that mindset already if they're in the theater), and that's fine, though on the whole, if it's missing not much function at all is lost.

    The opening titles (not the closing titles, by the way) are always different (unlike the minor changes that happen with a gun barrel), and the variety of design we've seen over the years make these sections of a film a viable part of the movies into the modern age. You see motifs of the film set up, hints at what is to come, and enjoy a new song that all come together to prepare the stage behind the curtain before a Bond film begins in earnest following the PTS, which the opening titles give breathing room and anticipation to.

    How a blink and you miss it piece (no matter how traditional it is) gets viewed as more viable than a sequence that is always creatively different in design, sound and atmosphere is beyond me.

    I just don't get the thinking behind any of this.

    I don't think anyone was suggesting the GB is more viable than the titles. They are both equally important. Shifting the GB to the end is a piss take. The fact you refer to it as 'blink and you'll miss it', is disturbing. If graphic design were listed, it would be Grade 1. How any fan can so easily dismiss it is, to me, insane.

    It is a blink and you miss it moment, though. I'm not being dismissive, that's just what it basically is. If a viewer is sitting in the movie theater, waiting for the picture to start, then decides to take a bit of popcorn and follow that up with a sip of their drink, they would miss most or all of the gun barrel. It just doesn't add as much to the film as many want to argue it does, that's all. These defenses are driven by tradition and nostalgia.

    The DB5 is worthy, as some were questioning it, because cars in films can become like characters themselves, and are centerpieces in great sequences of drama, action, thrills, etc, and can charactered the man or woman that drives the vehicle as well, as is the case with Bond. The DB5 has appeal because it is such a recognizable and iconic character in the movies. It doesn't just show up to say, "look at me!" It's a viable part of the action when introduced, and has a function beyond a quick visual to the films that adds layers and resonance to what is on the screen, the action it takes part in and who Bond is at its driver.

    I respect the tradition of the gun barrel and I get the love for it, I do, but if one thing from the Bond formula had to go, it would be it for me, because to me, it offers the least.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited October 2016 Posts: 10,591
    Shardlake wrote: »
    The PTS in SF knocks SP into a cocked hat, no need for dodgy overblown CGI apart from that ill advised Grand Bazaar bike chase bit.

    SF though opens brilliantly, ok not having the GB is not ideal and Mendes excuse is wearing a little thin but that opening PTS will be one of the iconic moments. I've given Sam plenty flak for SP but his Russian doll approach with the PTS is a stroke of genius and I find the PTS utterly thrilling.

    VW product placement granted but Bond didn't all of a sudden start this with the Craig era they've been doing it for decades, it's not like the Craig era kicked all this off.

    CR overall is a better film and Craig has more to get his teeth into and to prove which is why from a dramatic and character point of view will most likely be his best work in the series, despite him not actually being Bond full on till the closing moment with that superb sign off but it has its issues.

    I can't see anything wrong with Molloka chase, that is the crowning achievement of the Craig era when it comes to action, no action sequence in Craig's time matches it from the moment he's spotted him and starts the pursuit to the point he shoots him and blows up the building as a diversion to get away.

    The gulf between this sequence and the generic 90's action guff we got with Pierce is vast but that Miami sequence is not good at all.

    It works as way to progress the plot but couldn't they have delivered something better than warmed over version of one of the most thrilling sequences committed to celluloid? I am of course referring to the Raiders truck chase.

    The dialogue while at times some of the best of the series is cringeworthy on occasion, Omega plugging and of course my little finger so no it's not perfect but as a whole it's an incredibly strong film and the Venice sequence that seems to be so devisive is still the best climax of the Craig era and I'd argue one of the best of the series.

    CR was the first time since OHMSS when we got an actual adaptation of a Fleming novel that bore a resemblance, rather than just taking the title then fashioning a story around like so many of the entries did with the exception of some of the earlier films notably OHMSS.

    I think that is why some judge it quite severely because we are messing with the holy grail for some of Fleming's writing. Anyone expecting a straight adaptation and ending the film with Vesper commiting suicide off camera was off their rocker.

    The venice sequence was something I'd never seen done before, it was like the parkour chase at the beginning something where it felt Bond was doing something unique and it's great the film is bookended like this.

    Yes some of the filling in between is questionable but the PTS is my favourite of the series full stop.

    Getting back to SF yes the it has holes but everything up to Silva being bought to London is going fine for me, Silva yes can't help but echo the Joker in his scheme and getaway and Mendes is clearly influenced by Nolan but for me it's not a problem.

    The dumb dialogue of Q claiming Silva had planned this does the film a disservice but when you compare to some the crimes in it's follow up to me it's mild at least this doesn't shat all over the series present and before it's just a chink in the plot in comparrison.

    Though Mendes, Craig, cast and crew carry it all off with such confidence, some hate the Tennison moment but it still puts hairs on the back of my neck. I really wish though Arnold had scored this, I think it might have been his finest moment coming off the back of his extremely promising QOS score.

    Also the Straw Dog/Home Alone climax in Scotland for me is thrilling and moving, no DC cracking that deep water joke should have been dropped but the way Silva is dispatched and the look on his face is entirely in keeping with his character. Logan comes in for plenty flak but the pay off Silva's rat speech in his iconic intro, I love it.

    It's contemporary but all so echoes back to the great memorable moments from the series, like a riff on Goldfinger's Lazer table and Connery hitting it out the park along with Frobe (despite being dubbed).

    The way we return to it and Craig's last words "last rat standing" just sums up their relationship perfectly.

    No a joke before Craig's and Dench's final moment was ill advised but both do such fine work here that it can almost be forgiven.

    CR is a Bond fans film but SF was a Bond film for everyone and this I think maybe the rub with some. Yes it was released on the 50th and we had the London Olympics with DC involved but if it had been SPECTRE I certainly don't think that film would have struck the cord that SF did.

    Adele's theme had its role to play, the global smash it was, although Newman's score has it's moments, something more celebratory would have made all the difference. So with some asides and an acknowledgement that it isn't perfect or a masterpeice by any stretch of the imagination, it did the anniversary proud.

    Excellent post. Agree about the Miami sequence. I was expecting something epic but it pales in comparison to Raiders similar chase. I can't believe they shot the tanker punching through the fuselage of a plane but then cut it. You're trying to say Bond is back in a balls out action sequence at an airport so let's get some planes involved. One of the highlights is when the 747 jet blasts the police car down the runway so I'm mystified why they cut this moment which can't have been cheap to film. And as I recall it looked pretty good in the deleted scenes.
    Mendes' excuse may be understandable, but this was the 50th anniversary outing. It was already bad that they butched up the gunbarrel in DAD for the 40th with that stupid CGI bullet, so who on earth decided that for the next anniversary, the big 5-0 one, we still can't have a proper gunbarrel because it 'had to be' be at the end? I don't care even if the GB was at the end again in SP or in Bond 25 if Craig returns, but I find it insulting that for the main 5-0 event it wasn't at the right place.

    Absolutely. What are EON playing at here? Someone needs to say 'For the 50th the film starts with an unf**ked up GB sequence. After that you can do what you want.'

    But Mendes thinks Bond walking down a corridor out of focus until he comes into focus is such a moment of unparalleled genius that all the fans can piss off? Sorry mate but although you seem to think you are Hitchcock or Welles you really ain't so have a bit of respect for the series rather than forcing your own misguided whims on us. Perhaps if someone at EON had taken note of Sam's ego at this point we might have been spared the shitty Guiness explosion down the line.
    The gun barrel is barely ten seconds and whether or not you put it at the beginning, middle or end, it doesn't matter or change anything.

    Agree entirely mate. Because the opening 20 seconds of NSNA really blows you away doesn't it?

    Anyone seriously think McClory would have served up that inspid shite rather than use the GB if he could have?
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't think anyone was suggesting the GB is more viable than the titles. They are both equally important. Shifting the GB to the end is a piss take. The fact you refer to it as 'blink and you'll miss it', is disturbing. If graphic design were listed, it would be Grade 1. How any fan can so easily dismiss it is, to me, insane.

    Indeed. I find it disturbing that so many people on here are seemingly unable to follow Partridge's first law:

    CDwRToVWYAAGRb_.png

    STOP GETTING BOND WRONG!!!

    Its not rocket science folks.
    Am I missing something? That entire sequence remained in the film.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited October 2016 Posts: 9,117

    It is a blink and you miss it moment, though. I'm not being dismissive, that's just what it basically is. If a viewer is sitting in the movie theater, waiting for the picture to start, then decides to take a bit of popcorn and follow that up with a sip of their drink, they would miss most or all of the gun barrel. It just doesn't add as much to the film as many want to argue it does, that's all. These defenses are driven by tradition and nostalgia.

    So let me get this right - your resting case on the attention span of some cheese nachos guzzling, 2 litre coke swilling, bucket of popcorn chomping imbecile that makes going to the cinema a misery these days? Yeah I wish EON would target the IQ under 100 audience more myself too.

    Well you might as well wave goodbye to the TMWTGG barrel roll, TSWLM ski jump and the GE bungee too then; because all those iconic moments only last as long as the GB so would also be missed by your hypothetical Mr Creosote in the audience.
    It doesn't just show up to say, "look at me!" It's a viable part of the action when introduced, and has a function beyond a quick visual to the films that adds layers and resonance to what is on the screen, the action it takes part in and who Bond is at its driver.

    Except ever since its post TB resurrection (which was indubitably based on nostalgia - something you're dead against but only when it applies to the GB apparently) thats precisely what it has done:

    GE: Crappy 'comedy' chase which has zero bearing on the plot.

    TND: A few shots along with the Bond theme to say, 'Look this a Bond film'.

    TWINE: An utterly pointless reference.

    CR: Painfully shoehorned in to scream at the audience, 'Yes. We know its a reboot but its still Bond. Here's the DB5 to reassure you see.'

    SF: 'Its the 50th so we simply have to have it so that people know its a Bond film. Particularly since clever bollocks behind the camera has seen fit to bin the GB to the end again. Shall we worry about it being right hand drive all of a sudden and having all the gadgets from GF which dont exist in this timeline? Nah CR was 6 years ago and these popcorn bingeing cretins are too thick to remember that far back.' At least, in fairness, it contributes to the action in SF.

    SP: To quote Reeves and Mortimer back when they were funny: 'You wouldnt let it lie'. Blown to buggery in SF but such is the indispensability of the DB5 we had to have it pieced back together again and forced down our throats like we were a Strasbourg goose.

    'Adds layers and resonance to what is on the screen'? The overuse of the DB5 since 95 has done nothing of the sort. It drips nostalgia and, more pertinently, creative desperation from every pore like a fat lass plodding up a broken escalator.
    jake24 wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    The PTS in SF knocks SP into a cocked hat, no need for dodgy overblown CGI apart from that ill advised Grand Bazaar bike chase bit.

    SF though opens brilliantly, ok not having the GB is not ideal and Mendes excuse is wearing a little thin but that opening PTS will be one of the iconic moments. I've given Sam plenty flak for SP but his Russian doll approach with the PTS is a stroke of genius and I find the PTS utterly thrilling.

    VW product placement granted but Bond didn't all of a sudden start this with the Craig era they've been doing it for decades, it's not like the Craig era kicked all this off.

    CR overall is a better film and Craig has more to get his teeth into and to prove which is why from a dramatic and character point of view will most likely be his best work in the series, despite him not actually being Bond full on till the closing moment with that superb sign off but it has its issues.

    I can't see anything wrong with Molloka chase, that is the crowning achievement of the Craig era when it comes to action, no action sequence in Craig's time matches it from the moment he's spotted him and starts the pursuit to the point he shoots him and blows up the building as a diversion to get away.

    The gulf between this sequence and the generic 90's action guff we got with Pierce is vast but that Miami sequence is not good at all.

    It works as way to progress the plot but couldn't they have delivered something better than warmed over version of one of the most thrilling sequences committed to celluloid? I am of course referring to the Raiders truck chase.

    The dialogue while at times some of the best of the series is cringeworthy on occasion, Omega plugging and of course my little finger so no it's not perfect but as a whole it's an incredibly strong film and the Venice sequence that seems to be so devisive is still the best climax of the Craig era and I'd argue one of the best of the series.

    CR was the first time since OHMSS when we got an actual adaptation of a Fleming novel that bore a resemblance, rather than just taking the title then fashioning a story around like so many of the entries did with the exception of some of the earlier films notably OHMSS.

    I think that is why some judge it quite severely because we are messing with the holy grail for some of Fleming's writing. Anyone expecting a straight adaptation and ending the film with Vesper commiting suicide off camera was off their rocker.

    The venice sequence was something I'd never seen done before, it was like the parkour chase at the beginning something where it felt Bond was doing something unique and it's great the film is bookended like this.

    Yes some of the filling in between is questionable but the PTS is my favourite of the series full stop.

    Getting back to SF yes the it has holes but everything up to Silva being bought to London is going fine for me, Silva yes can't help but echo the Joker in his scheme and getaway and Mendes is clearly influenced by Nolan but for me it's not a problem.

    The dumb dialogue of Q claiming Silva had planned this does the film a disservice but when you compare to some the crimes in it's follow up to me it's mild at least this doesn't shat all over the series present and before it's just a chink in the plot in comparrison.

    Though Mendes, Craig, cast and crew carry it all off with such confidence, some hate the Tennison moment but it still puts hairs on the back of my neck. I really wish though Arnold had scored this, I think it might have been his finest moment coming off the back of his extremely promising QOS score.

    Also the Straw Dog/Home Alone climax in Scotland for me is thrilling and moving, no DC cracking that deep water joke should have been dropped but the way Silva is dispatched and the look on his face is entirely in keeping with his character. Logan comes in for plenty flak but the pay off Silva's rat speech in his iconic intro, I love it.

    It's contemporary but all so echoes back to the great memorable moments from the series, like a riff on Goldfinger's Lazer table and Connery hitting it out the park along with Frobe (despite being dubbed).

    The way we return to it and Craig's last words "last rat standing" just sums up their relationship perfectly.

    No a joke before Craig's and Dench's final moment was ill advised but both do such fine work here that it can almost be forgiven.

    CR is a Bond fans film but SF was a Bond film for everyone and this I think maybe the rub with some. Yes it was released on the 50th and we had the London Olympics with DC involved but if it had been SPECTRE I certainly don't think that film would have struck the cord that SF did.

    Adele's theme had its role to play, the global smash it was, although Newman's score has it's moments, something more celebratory would have made all the difference. So with some asides and an acknowledgement that it isn't perfect or a masterpeice by any stretch of the imagination, it did the anniversary proud.

    Excellent post. Agree about the Miami sequence. I was expecting something epic but it pales in comparison to Raiders similar chase. I can't believe they shot the tanker punching through the fuselage of a plane but then cut it. You're trying to say Bond is back in a balls out action sequence at an airport so let's get some planes involved. One of the highlights is when the 747 jet blasts the police car down the runway so I'm mystified why they cut this moment which can't have been cheap to film. And as I recall it looked pretty good in the deleted scenes.
    Mendes' excuse may be understandable, but this was the 50th anniversary outing. It was already bad that they butched up the gunbarrel in DAD for the 40th with that stupid CGI bullet, so who on earth decided that for the next anniversary, the big 5-0 one, we still can't have a proper gunbarrel because it 'had to be' be at the end? I don't care even if the GB was at the end again in SP or in Bond 25 if Craig returns, but I find it insulting that for the main 5-0 event it wasn't at the right place.

    Absolutely. What are EON playing at here? Someone needs to say 'For the 50th the film starts with an unf**ked up GB sequence. After that you can do what you want.'

    But Mendes thinks Bond walking down a corridor out of focus until he comes into focus is such a moment of unparalleled genius that all the fans can piss off? Sorry mate but although you seem to think you are Hitchcock or Welles you really ain't so have a bit of respect for the series rather than forcing your own misguided whims on us. Perhaps if someone at EON had taken note of Sam's ego at this point we might have been spared the shitty Guiness explosion down the line.
    The gun barrel is barely ten seconds and whether or not you put it at the beginning, middle or end, it doesn't matter or change anything.

    Agree entirely mate. Because the opening 20 seconds of NSNA really blows you away doesn't it?

    Anyone seriously think McClory would have served up that inspid shite rather than use the GB if he could have?
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't think anyone was suggesting the GB is more viable than the titles. They are both equally important. Shifting the GB to the end is a piss take. The fact you refer to it as 'blink and you'll miss it', is disturbing. If graphic design were listed, it would be Grade 1. How any fan can so easily dismiss it is, to me, insane.

    Indeed. I find it disturbing that so many people on here are seemingly unable to follow Partridge's first law:

    CDwRToVWYAAGRb_.png

    STOP GETTING BOND WRONG!!!

    Its not rocket science folks.
    Am I missing something? That entire sequence remained in the film.

    Obviously I'm referring to the tanker smashing through the side of a plane I mentioned earlier, but I'll admit that sentence was poorly structured. Apologies.

    My meaning was the planes interacting with the chase worked well when the 747 wash hit the car for six so why didnt we have more of that? Especially since they filmed it.
Sign In or Register to comment.