Skyfall - Teaser Trailer - Discussion Thread

1192022242537

Comments

  • Posts: 18
    Getafix – "insouciance": I like it :-)
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 6,709
    StJamesSt wrote:
    Getafix – "insouciance": I like it :-)
    Not worrying...right? ;)
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 3,494
    Getafix wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    StJamesSt wrote:
    As a 40-something guy I love the teaser. And I love Craig as Bond. But I have had one nagging doubt since CR.

    Where is that feelgood factor that I felt when I left the cinema with my Dad when I was in my teens after TSWLY or Moonraker? (whatever you think of the films now) When you wanted to do all the ridiculous action and your Dad wanted to flirt with the bus conductress on the way home.

    I hope they let Craig have a long drink by the pool moment so that there is something aspirational for us all rather than just "it's grim being a spy for perfidious Albion".

    They tried to do another MR in 2002 with DAD. If you want the series to return to that hen good for you.


    This is (with all respect) patronising twaddle. I think StJamesSt makes a completely valid point, which under different circumstances could have come from you. You seem a bit of a contrarian - arguing purely for the sake of it.

    The concern many raise about Craig is NOT that he has taken the movies in a 'different' direction (in the light of TLD and LTK, this is debatable any way) but that his depiction of Bond is so stripped of fun and enjoyment that the films actually become generic (if still entertaining) action thrillers - Bourne light, but not as good. If you think CR and QoS represent the pinacle of Bond, then fine, but if (as I believe you have stated before) you think the films have not hit their stride fully since LTK, then there is obviously something going wrong somewhere along the line. Hence the point by StJamesSt that you rubbish remains entirely relevant.

    I think this is a good take on what some don't care for about CR/QOS. But then again, MR and DAD have too much fun. Hopefully this one strikes the right balance in that respect.

    I think you and Acton Steve are willfully confusing 'fun' (which DAD definitely was not), with the lightness of tone and insouciance that we all know is one of the things that defines the screen Bond.

    I can't speak for Steve on this, but my statement isn't willfully trying to confuse anyone, let alone myself. I've been a fan way too long to be confused, before most of you were even born to be honest. Anyway, there was a definite lack of lightness of tone in the Dalton films as well that cannot be seriously disputed, but both are firmly in my top 5. And people still like them. I want to see Bond kicking serious arse, that is what a real life operative does, that is the way Fleming made him to be, and that is what I want to see. There are one liners the way Sir Sean and Sir Roger delivered them, and then there are cheesy bad one liners that plagued the Brosnan era. Robbie Coltrane as Zukovsky was twice as funny as Bond himself. Bond, Moneypenny, and Q should be delivering the humor. There is both lots of action and great fun in the Connery era, and then there is the foppery of the Moore era complete with sight and sound gags and other aberrations such as characters also doing humor that copy spy genre spoofs rather than set a trend. MR isn't fun, it's slapstick nonsense and about as un-Bondian as you can get. A return to the Moore and Brosnan eras is something I hope I never see again in my lifetime to be quite honest, although I still afford both a measure of respect as a true Bond fan because two of Brosnan's movies were rather good as were a good portion of Moore's. I compare everyone to Sir Sean, and Dalton did a great job (except for the one liners which was just not his forte at the time although he has gotten much better over the years) as Bond and so has Craig to this point considering he hasn't been truly afforded a chance to be the full Bond until this year. He has made me laugh many times with his one liners, he has a great comedic touch and I expect to laugh much more in the future.

    I also feel Craig and EON know that the movies need to be lighter in tone, and I am confident they can deliver. They gave Brosnan all the elements to be Bond, the full characterization, and the era failed. Rookie Bond Craig hasn't been given that chance, but when he has (a good portion of CR) he did better than all four Brosnan efforts and quite a few Moore films as well. No, I don't think I am confused at all. And to be honest, a lot of what Steve says, I agree with.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 18
    The psychoanalyst scene and the running in the London park makes me hope they make something of the "down time" between missions that features in the books and the impact of the boredom on Bond, i.e. drinking and smoking prodigious amounts to the point that the Medical Officers think he must be unfit for duty. A scene where Tanner goes to summon Bond from his club where he is drowning the ennui would be nice. Gives an interesting slant on Bond's personality that he literally lives for the missions.
  • Contrary to what many here believe, I have no problems with CR and QOS as films... imo they are very well made films, 2 of the best of the last decade..... but as 'Bond films', they are total failures. I don't find an ounce of Bondness in both films, apart from a character named James Bond who has nothing in common with the original character.

    DC, what exactly then IS your definition of Bondian based on the above statement? I find it difficult to believe that anyone cannot pick up Bondian moments in the Craig films, especially in CR.

  • Posts: 6,709
    Oh boy, this is going to derail again and crash into an underground tunnel...
  • Univex wrote:
    Oh boy, this is going to derail again and crash into an underground tunnel...

    That scene looks totally badass, doesn't it? I love it.
  • Posts: 6,709
    Univex wrote:
    Oh boy, this is going to derail again and crash into an underground tunnel...

    That scene looks totally badass, doesn't it? I love it.
    If there are people who will be getting out of that train (as some say), why does it say Not in Service?

  • Posts: 5,634
    I saw the clip and the train derailment thing and the first thing that came to mind was 'Die Hard with a Vengeance', I hope we don't get to see as of yet unseen bits of Craig running around in a filthy vest and calling up M on cell phones and complaining of having a headache etc, I'm surely it's merely a coincidence, but you know how Bond is with taking bits and chunks from previous theater releases, all probably innocent enough though.. Any talk of a finale on the Canadian border even ?
  • Posts: 5,745
    Why must the same users dive into the same arguments on every thread :|

    Opinion: I liked the trailer.
    Other Opinion: I didn't like the trailer.
    Question: Why?
    Response: Because its new and bold and conveys a very striking tone that I hope the movie embodies.
    Other Response: Because its too different, and I fear that the filmmakers are losing sight on the character the films, and not the books, have created.

    And Fin.

    Why must it get worse than that?
  • Posts: 130
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Why must the same users dive into the same arguments on every thread :|

    Opinion: I liked the trailer.
    Other Opinion: I didn't like the trailer.
    Question: Why?
    Response: Because its new and bold and conveys a very striking tone that I hope the movie embodies.
    Other Response: Because its too different, and I fear that the filmmakers are losing sight on the character the films, and not the books, have created.

    And Fin.

    Why must it get worse than that?
    Word.

    You can't really have a debate about very personal preferences and opinions of what constitutes Bond.
  • Posts: 18
    One of the most exciting moments of the teaser ... ? That look from Fiennes
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 5,745
    I personally think we're going to get two more trailers, not just one more, from the Bond crew..

    Why? Because for CR and QoS there were only two, but they gave much more of the plot away, and were a tad longer.

    I still think we'll get a second teaser-ish trailer revealing some of the plot, and then the full almost 3 minute trailer. So the 1st mid-May, the 2nd mid-July, and the 3rd mid-late-September.

    Or at least I hope :)

    Oh, and I saw the Bond trailer as a You-Tube advert. It didn't deserve the option to skip :)
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 9,848
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    I personally think we're going to get two more trailers, not just one more, from the Bond crew..

    Why? Because for CR and QoS there were only two, but they gave much more of the plot away, and were a tad longer.

    I still think we'll get a second teaser-ish trailer revealing some of the plot, and then the full almost 3 minute trailer. So the 1st mid-May, the 2nd mid-July, and the 3rd mid-late-September.

    Or at least I hope :)

    Oh, and I saw the Bond trailer as a You-Tube advert. It didn't deserve the option to skip :)

    same here I was like the first time I'm not gonna skip
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Risico007 wrote:
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    I personally think we're going to get two more trailers, not just one more, from the Bond crew..

    Why? Because for CR and QoS there were only two, but they gave much more of the plot away, and were a tad longer.

    I still think we'll get a second teaser-ish trailer revealing some of the plot, and then the full almost 3 minute trailer. So the 1st mid-May, the 2nd mid-July, and the 3rd mid-late-September.

    Or at least I hope :)

    Oh, and I saw the Bond trailer as a You-Tube advert. It didn't deserve the option to skip :)

    same here I was like the first time I'm not gonna skip


    Me three! :)
  • Posts: 6
    Bond with a crew cut?... What were they thinking? Makes Craig look old. Any humor in Skyfall? Hope so. Craig's Bond is no fun!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    douglas007 wrote:
    Bond with a crew cut?... What were they thinking? Makes Craig look old. Any humor in Skyfall? Hope so. Craig's Bond is no fun!

    Oh, how naive!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,981
    I was so happy to see it as an advertisement on Youtube.

    Went to watch a clip from Fast Five, and heard Leo roar, and knew it was from Skyfall.
  • Posts: 306
    The debate we have here, admittedly repetitive, is just a microcosm of the divide in general audiences. Go to AICN and you'll see non-Bond fans arguing the same question - and the critics are not a united front on the subject either. So far they have been pretty pro-Craig, but some still lament the "old" Bond, Roger Ebert for instance...and a few others showed some impatience with the morose tone of QOS. The third time is often when the new Bond knocks it out of the park (poor Tim), but it can also be when a trend/style can become tiresome.

    It's going be very interesting watching the reaction...

    I have no doubt it will be a box-office hit though, that's a sure thing.
  • Posts: 5,745
    VeryBond wrote:
    The debate we have here, admittedly repetitive, is just a microcosm of the divide in general audiences. Go to AICN and you'll see non-Bond fans arguing the same question - and the critics are not a united front on the subject either. So far they have been pretty pro-Craig, but some still lament the "old" Bond, Roger Ebert for instance...and a few others showed some impatience with the morose tone of QOS. The third time is often when the new Bond knocks it out of the park (poor Tim), but it can also be when a trend/style can become tiresome.

    It's going be very interesting watching the reaction...

    I have no doubt it will be a box-office hit though, that's a sure thing.

    Yes, definitely a money-maker. I think while Skyfall will definitely have that unercurrent of unhappiness, its shows Bond in a new light. It truly shows Fleming's Bond: tired of his job, of his life, and questioning himself. Sort of 'lazy' in his job and what he should be doing. I think anyone who has looked into the novels will respect that aspect of Skyfall.

    Also, the morose tone is more centered around M, and not Bond, this time. Bond now, instead of being in the middle of the depression, has to deal with its consequences. He has to save a friend in M (I'm presuming) who's going through a tragic event in life. One that is itself life-threatening.

    It won't be the same as QoS, but its still Craig's Bond, and definitely pulls more of Bond's original character from the novels. That's not something I'm afraid of, but some here are attached to the movie-Bond, and I can respect that. They just wont get a Craig film with the same 'pizzaz' of the past.


  • douglas007 wrote:
    Bond with a crew cut?... What were they thinking? Makes Craig look old. Any humor in Skyfall? Hope so. Craig's Bond is no fun!

    Oh, how naive!

    agree I sick of ppl saying craig is no fun........stop with the old formula that does not work
  • Well I'd say the trailer did its job... Got me excited about the movie and posting on these forums again :D

    Excited for the soundtrack too
  • Posts: 12,837
    douglas007 wrote:
    Bond with a crew cut?... What were they thinking? Makes Craig look old. Any humor in Skyfall? Hope so. Craig's Bond is no fun!

    Craig's going to have more fun in this one, he's already said. I think his new haircut does make him look older.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    StJamesSt wrote:
    As a 40-something guy I love the teaser. And I love Craig as Bond. But I have had one nagging doubt since CR.

    Where is that feelgood factor that I felt when I left the cinema with my Dad when I was in my teens after TSWLY or Moonraker? (whatever you think of the films now) When you wanted to do all the ridiculous action and your Dad wanted to flirt with the bus conductress on the way home.

    I hope they let Craig have a long drink by the pool moment so that there is something aspirational for us all rather than just "it's grim being a spy for perfidious Albion".

    They tried to do another MR in 2002 with DAD. If you want the series to return to that hen good for you.


    This is (with all respect) patronising twaddle. I think StJamesSt makes a completely valid point, which under different circumstances could have come from you. You seem a bit of a contrarian - arguing purely for the sake of it.

    The concern many raise about Craig is NOT that he has taken the movies in a 'different' direction (in the light of TLD and LTK, this is debatable any way) but that his depiction of Bond is so stripped of fun and enjoyment that the films actually become generic (if still entertaining) action thrillers - Bourne light, but not as good. If you think CR and QoS represent the pinacle of Bond, then fine, but if (as I believe you have stated before) you think the films have not hit their stride fully since LTK, then there is obviously something going wrong somewhere along the line. Hence the point by StJamesSt that you rubbish remains entirely relevant.

    I think this is a good take on what some don't care for about CR/QOS. But then again, MR and DAD have too much fun. Hopefully this one strikes the right balance in that respect.

    I think you and Acton Steve are willfully confusing 'fun' (which DAD definitely was not), with the lightness of tone and insouciance that we all know is one of the things that defines the screen Bond.

    I can't speak for Steve on this, but my statement isn't willfully trying to confuse anyone, let alone myself. I've been a fan way too long to be confused, before most of you were even born to be honest. Anyway, there was a definite lack of lightness of tone in the Dalton films as well that cannot be seriously disputed, but both are firmly in my top 5. And people still like them. I want to see Bond kicking serious arse, that is what a real life operative does, that is the way Fleming made him to be, and that is what I want to see. There are one liners the way Sir Sean and Sir Roger delivered them, and then there are cheesy bad one liners that plagued the Brosnan era. Robbie Coltrane as Zukovsky was twice as funny as Bond himself. Bond, Moneypenny, and Q should be delivering the humor. There is both lots of action and great fun in the Connery era, and then there is the foppery of the Moore era complete with sight and sound gags and other aberrations such as characters also doing humor that copy spy genre spoofs rather than set a trend. MR isn't fun, it's slapstick nonsense and about as un-Bondian as you can get. A return to the Moore and Brosnan eras is something I hope I never see again in my lifetime to be quite honest, although I still afford both a measure of respect as a true Bond fan because two of Brosnan's movies were rather good as were a good portion of Moore's. I compare everyone to Sir Sean, and Dalton did a great job (except for the one liners which was just not his forte at the time although he has gotten much better over the years) as Bond and so has Craig to this point considering he hasn't been truly afforded a chance to be the full Bond until this year. He has made me laugh many times with his one liners, he has a great comedic touch and I expect to laugh much more in the future.

    I also feel Craig and EON know that the movies need to be lighter in tone, and I am confident they can deliver. They gave Brosnan all the elements to be Bond, the full characterization, and the era failed. Rookie Bond Craig hasn't been given that chance, but when he has (a good portion of CR) he did better than all four Brosnan efforts and quite a few Moore films as well. No, I don't think I am confused at all. And to be honest, a lot of what Steve says, I agree with.

    Totally disagree with you about TLD, which is, IMO, a classic Bond movie, with all the essential ingredients, including humour and light, all present and correct. As I've said on countless occassions before, Dalton's performance in TLD is not defined by 'darkness' or a 'lack of lightness of tone', although he certainly plays it a lot more straight than Sir Rog generally did. The opening scene of TLD is a little Bond masterpiece of high tension and humour and sets up the tone of the film perfectly. LTK is a different matter and I think we could dispute all day whether 'people still like' that one (which is not to say that I don't appreciate it).

    Yes, I agree with most of what you and ActonSteve say as well. I just find it annoying when people disagree for the sake of it. I and a few others had noted that the teaser had a generally down-beat feel and therefore expressed the fear that SF might be a continuation of the rather humourless first two DC entries. This was apparently too much for ActonSteve to take. I am actually a big fan of DC and particularly enjoyed QoS but felt both films lacked some essential ingredients that define a good Bond movie - genuine Bondian wit and humour - ingredients that had also been missing from all the Brosnan films. My feeling, which I've already stated above, is not that DC cannot do humour, but that he (perhaps to a certain extent like Brosnan) has not been given scripts that actually allow him to fully develop this part of the character.

    And yes, you were wilfully confusing 'fun' (which is what you claim MR and DAD contain) and the lightness of tone and humour that every other Bond fan is able to recognise as an essential part of Bond. To labour the point (again), there is a huge difference in tone between MR and LTK, and it is somewhere in that middle ground that most of us would like to find Mr. Bond. But if you can't (or simply won't) recognise this, then fair enough, we can keep on shouting at each other and agree on nothing.

    Any way, in case you missed it, DC and BB happen to agree (quotes courtesy of Volex).

    “You have to have a script that has the bones of comedy,” Craig tells us. “Comedy in Bond films, for me, comes out of the situations people get into. They're exciting, and hopefully heart-stopping, and the comedy comes out of one-liners and things. When Sam [Mendes] came in, it was key for all of us that there's a lightness of touch in the writing that's not been as evident in the past two.”

    Producer Barbara Broccoli agrees. “It's got those situations where you think, 'You could only see this in a Bond movie,'” she adds. “That's where the wit comes into it.”

    So, to re-cap, what exactly are you and ActonSteve arguing about?
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,139
    Just had a look at the views for the Skyfall teaser trailer on YouTube.
    In roughly 48 hours it has four and a half million views.
    Is that high?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Contrary to what many here believe, I have no problems with CR and QOS as films... imo they are very well made films, 2 of the best of the last decade..... but as 'Bond films', they are total failures. I don't find an ounce of Bondness in both films, apart from a character named James Bond who has nothing in common with the original character.

    DC, what exactly then IS your definition of Bondian based on the above statement? I find it difficult to believe that anyone cannot pick up Bondian moments in the Craig films, especially in CR.

    Q, Moneypenny, gadgets, one-liners (atleast more memorable than those in CR), fun, glamour, escapism, larger-than-life adventure, epic scope, grand scale..... didn't find any of that in CR.

  • edited May 2012 Posts: 6,601
    Maybe this discussion should continue in the Bond thread or where ever. Its non topic by now...

    ..It would be great to not have EVERY thread became a homerun for 2 or 3 people discussing the same ole over and over again. Fact is - when you go through this thread, you can notice, that people TRY to get back on topic, discuss the trailer, but its being interrupted again and again by the same people repeating themselves.

  • Posts: 278
    Germanlady wrote:
    Maybe this discussion should continue in the Bond thread or where ever. Its non topic by now...

    ..It would be great to not have EVERY thread became a homerun for 2 or 3 people discussing the same ole over and over again. Fact is - when you go through this thread, you can notice, that people TRY to get back on topic, discuss the trailer, but its being interrupted again and again by the same people repeating themselves.

    Well said young Lady.....er.. "GermanLady".. sorry!! :-B
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189

    [/quote]

    Totally disagree with you about TLD CR, which is, IMO, a classic Bond movie, with all the essential ingredients, including humour and light, all present and correct. As I've said on countless occassions before, Dalton's Craigs performance in TLD CR is not defined by 'darkness' or a 'lack of lightness of tone', although he certainly plays it a lot more straight than Sir Rog generally did. The opening scene of TLD CR is a little Bond masterpiece of high tension and humour and sets up the tone of the film perfectly. LTK QoS is a different matter and I think we could dispute all day whether 'people still like' that one (which is not to say that I don't appreciate it).

    [/quote]

    Just some minor changes :p

    If the opening of CR doesn't set the tone for the film I don't know what does.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    I'm sure some enterprising member on here could put together a fan teaser trailer for Moonraker using the same techniques as the one adopted for SF, and in the 100 seconds or so available make MR look just as dark and tense as SF!

    I seriously bet they could
Sign In or Register to comment.