Skyfall Teaser Trailer

[FormerBondFan]

A trailer should get your attention, get you interested not make you fall to sleep, I think at this rate instead of parents using books to get kids to sleep they just need to pop in a daniel craig film instead, his voice is so wooden and boring, where's the positive energy that's supposed to be projected, you're a secret agent, outside of people trying to kill you, you pretty much get to go anywhere, meet hot women, drive cars with incredible gadgets, drink martinis and look like a badass in a tuxedo, atleast enjoy it.

That's a thing about DC Bonds. They're the James Bond equivalent of a T-Virus. Designed to corrupt the general audience and the general public into liking as well as paying to see DC's Bond and the movies featuring him.

I just don't get it, the world is in a bad place as it is, grittiness is everywhere, should it be in some films ofc but hollywoods need to make everything so serious just makes a lot of it come across as humerous now, sorry for bringing up avengers again but films like that are definetly what we need more of, movies should be fun, entertaining esp bond films, bond was something you could watch if you wanted action, hot women, gadgets, over the top villains and it was a successful formula, why oh why eon kept thinking it was a good idea to throw away most of the winning ingredients that kept the franchise strong for 40 years and doing this is beyond Me, sure I like some grit in a bond film but not so much that he may as well be eating it and having his face rubbed in it.

Chris' Bat trilogy is dark, gritty, grounded, and realistic. Still they're filled with escapism. Chris makes them for entertainment, NOT to win awards nor get nominations. He doesn't care about that as much. EON, however, is a total opposite of that, especially when they bring in Sam Mendes or any other pawns who would help them win awards and/or get nominations.

Chris' Bat isn't the only one that uses some of the elements Bond used to have before DC came along. The Avengers and X-Men: First Class are some of the examples.

[Omega]

But if the average person watches this teaser and has the same reaction we do, then EON is in trouble. Big trouble.

"If."

It's little bit rich to presume that DCINB is a microcosm of the movie-going public.

QOS is the bigger problem.Does this distance itself from QOS or Bond more.Will QOS going to be forgiven when people see Craig looking just as miserable in the SF poster as the QOS poster and the trailer isn't very Bondian?

From what little we saw, Craig (especially with the final line) looks more at lease in the role, with a hint of smile. Apart from the down-and-out stuff at the beginning, I'm guessing we'll be seeing a Bond who enjoys his work. Although the music wasn't very "Bondian" I thought the look of the many of the sequences (i.e. the Shanghai skyscraper and Macau casino) gave off a sense of class and the benign bizarre. That touch of the surreal that's been missing in Bond for far too long.

Maybe. IMO it could of been Liam Neeson saying those words followed by "Give me back my daughter!"

Craig doesn't look like himself or looks older and haggard for much of it, I don't think it did a good job selling the movie.

Craig fans believe it was masterful or whatever and we see it as crap what do people who don't care think, I don't know I just don't think it grabbed attention the way it should. We'll hear more about as people get to see MIB 3 which could go either way.

[Mexican Staring Frog]

The trailer really gave me the impression what Mendes explained awhile back

"You always go back to the Fleming because the character Fleming created over a number of novels was incredibly complex," Mendes said Sunday at a news conference in Istanbul, where the crew of "Skyfall" has filmed.

"Some people sometimes forget in the cliche of Bond, which is the international playboy, and someone who's always untroubled, and almost never breaks a sweat, that actually what (Fleming) created was a very conflicted character," said Mendes, who was joined by cast members, including Bond actor Daniel Craig.

Fleming created a secret agent who was sometimes frustrated and ambivalent about his job. Many Bond movies sidestepped the inner demons, showcasing instead a debonair 007 whose exploits were enhanced with gaudy gadgets and special effects.

In Fleming's last novels, Mendes said, Bond suffered from a "combination of lassitude, boredom, depression, difficulty with what he's chosen to do for a living, which is to kill. That makes him a much more interesting character, and some of those things are explored in this movie, because Daniel as an actor is capable of exploring them."

After that and seeing the trailer, I'm really excited!

[oscartheman]

Bull unless someone is a total lackey.Craig could spend 2 hours on screen pinching a loaf on screen and it'd still be going back to Fleming

[Mexican Staring Frog]

With the stuff Mendes mentioned about the later novels, I think he's being quite honest.

[katied]

Mendes?Honest?That's a good one.

[Mexican Staring Frog]

Why do you doubt him?

[bjmdds]

The trailer really gave me the impression what Mendes explained awhile back

"You always go back to the Fleming because the character Fleming created over a number of novels was incredibly complex," Mendes said Sunday at a news conference in Istanbul, where the crew of "Skyfall" has filmed.

"Some people sometimes forget in the cliche of Bond, which is the international playboy, and someone who's always untroubled, and almost never breaks a sweat, that actually what (Fleming) created was a very conflicted character," said Mendes, who was joined by cast members, including Bond actor Daniel Craig.

Fleming created a secret agent who was sometimes frustrated and ambivalent about his job. Many Bond movies sidestepped the inner demons, showcasing instead a debonair 007 whose exploits were enhanced with gaudy gadgets and special effects.

In Fleming's last novels, Mendes said, Bond suffered from a "combination of lassitude, boredom, depression, difficulty with what he's chosen to do for a living, which is to kill. That makes him a much more interesting character, and some of those things are explored in this movie, because Daniel as an actor is capable of exploring them."

After that and seeing the trailer, I'm really excited!

So am I Boredom and depression are such uplifting things meant for a spy film to be enjoyed

[katied]

Mendes is a arty farty director. Arty farty and Bond do not go together.

[Mexican Staring Frog]

I don't understand. He's done plenty of good movies, I love ROAD TO PERDITION.

[A Crag-like face]

I don't understand. He's done plenty of good movies, I love ROAD TO PERDITION.

It's not a terrible movie, but that's largely because Tom Hanks and Paul Newman are able to make the horrible script they're given seem better than it has a right to be. Take this scene: [BBvideo 425,350][/BBvideo]

This scene manages to work in the context of the movie because we care about Hanks and Newman's characters, and to their former father/son type relationship that's soured. So the scene works much better than it has a right to.

Now examine the scene by itself. It's pretentious, like everyone Mendes has ever done. Who the hell does a major action scene with no sound and tinkling New Age piano music? Apparently Mendes and Newman do. Second, the scene makes no sense. Newman realizes the driver of his car is dead, so he and his guards stand around like dumbasses doing nothing (they hold their umbrellas even as they're being shot!!!!!!!!!) and not even bothering to find cover, until Hanks somehow kills them all from long distance with . . . A Thompson Seriously? Then somehow Newman is unscathed so that he can be killed off last.

Now let's move on to Spyfail, which has a mother/son relationship between Bond and M that no one gives a s**t about. It looks to be as poorly written as Road to Perdition, and probably much worse, if that "we're going to kill them first" line is anything to go off of. Then make the action scenes pretentious and with weird music, and we have an epic disaster on our hands.

The funny thing is, EON hired Mendes to get arthouse cred, but the critics have been on to Mendes for a while now. His movies regularly get loudy reviews for looking pretty (thank you Roger Deakins) but otherwise being totally vacuous. I don't think Mendes has gotten widely positive reviews since American Beauty, when he was a the pride and joy of the brainless artsy crowd who think that making fun of suburbia is somehow brave and groundbreaking.

[A Crag-like face]

But if the average person watches this teaser and has the same reaction we do, then EON is in trouble. Big trouble.

"If."

It's little bit rich to presume that DCINB is a microcosm of the movie-going public.

Not really. Audiences clearly don't like Craig in other movies he's in, why whould they respond to Skyfall, especially given that it's being marketed as a Daniel Craig movie much more than as a Bond film. Other than that little 007 reference at the end, there's little indication that this is even a Bond film being advertised. Now, if Craig were not a terribly popular actor at the moment, but his third Bond film were being marketed in a way that touches on the public's large groundswell of affection for Bond, then you'd be right, DCNIB wouldn't be a good marker of public opinion. But given that this teaser has almost nothing Bondian or "Flemingesque" about it (it looks like a Dark Knight ripoff to the same extent that Battleship looked like a Transformers ripoff) why should the average Joe or Jane care about it, given that they don't like Craig to begin with?

[katied]

^This. The box office records for Craig's non-Bond films don't lie.

[stockslivevan]

But if the average person watches this teaser and has the same reaction we do, then EON is in trouble. Big trouble.

"If."

It's little bit rich to presume that DCINB is a microcosm of the movie-going public.

Not really. Audiences clearly don't like Craig in other movies he's in, why whould they respond to Skyfall, especially given that it's being marketed as a Daniel Craig movie much more than as a Bond film. Other than that little 007 reference at the end, there's little indication that this is even a Bond film being advertised. Now, if Craig were not a terribly popular actor at the moment, but his third Bond film were being marketed in a way that touches on the public's large groundswell of affection for Bond, then you'd be right, DCNIB wouldn't be a good marker of public opinion. But given that this teaser has almost nothing Bondian or "Flemingesque" about it (it looks like a Dark Knight ripoff to the same extent that Battleship looked like a Transformers ripoff) why should the average Joe or Jane care about it, given that they don't like Craig to begin with?

In defense of the Shark. If people "clearly didn't like Craig" his Bond films would have performed poorly and reviews would have been extremely poor. But they didn't, and now he's onto his third film and there are a lot more people excited about it than not. Like him or not, there's a lot of people that like him in the role of Bond. Folks in this forum seem to have lost sight here, becoming too attached to their own blind negativity that they're drowning themselves in daily like your fellow BJ, you all seemed to have lost the capacity to look from someone else's point of view. No doubt the result of having little to no opposing opinion to keep you guys level headed on what's really going on. It's all black and white for you folks now. That's what I love about Bond and Beyond forum. Over there there is no pro or anti movement. Everyone has their own ideas of Bond. Plenty are not happy with what EON in the last two flicks, but you don't see them throw vile classless personal insults at Daniel Craig like most seem to around these parts (which is even more rich, considering how many of you accuse Craig of lacking class ). That's what turns a lot of people off from this forum and gives it a bad name.

But back to the point, a lot of people don't like Craig as Bond? Please.

[Blowfeld]

Howdy Stocks!

I do take some umbrage at your generalization, people here vile, I'll take you up you someday and show you some of the vile, putrid, stuff we had to deal with from the wholesome Craig fanboys blindly following the meme.

Craig actions speak for themselves often he is crass, crude and classless. More acceptable to today's desensitized journalist and cult of personality conscious public (who are captivated by the likes of the Hiltion's, Kardashians, Jersey Shore, etc ).

Craig's casting is controversial and always will be, if not because of him directly then because of the change in tone and direction Barbara took the series. Unfortunately for Craig he became the figurehead and some will always think of him as the bloke who ruined Bond, in one way all he did was take a job after Barbara decided to mimic the once mighty Bourne series, in another he is taking credit for hand crafting Skyfall while down playing his role in QoS, stuff like picking the name of the (QoS) and director.

People know Bond is lacking much from the old days, quintessentially the escapism and humour (you know fun), EON knows it and was talking about bringing it back since 2009. Monday we got a trailer which is unique if not a one off in the entire history of 007. Craig looked old and unkempt for bulk of it, ending in line John Wayne would be happy with. (Pilgrim.)

Poster and trailer taken together are confusing to people who were told Bond is as funny as hell and they are making a classic Bond. I think their (Eon) answer is to define "classic Bond" down, it not necessary to live up to the old standards when you can classify yourself as having made a (new) classic film.

[A Crag-like face]

But if the average person watches this teaser and has the same reaction we do, then EON is in trouble. Big trouble.

"If."

It's little bit rich to presume that DCINB is a microcosm of the movie-going public.

Not really. Audiences clearly don't like Craig in other movies he's in, why whould they respond to Skyfall, especially given that it's being marketed as a Daniel Craig movie much more than as a Bond film. Other than that little 007 reference at the end, there's little indication that this is even a Bond film being advertised. Now, if Craig were not a terribly popular actor at the moment, but his third Bond film were being marketed in a way that touches on the public's large groundswell of affection for Bond, then you'd be right, DCNIB wouldn't be a good marker of public opinion. But given that this teaser has almost nothing Bondian or "Flemingesque" about it (it looks like a Dark Knight ripoff to the same extent that Battleship looked like a Transformers ripoff) why should the average Joe or Jane care about it, given that they don't like Craig to begin with?

In defense of the Shark. If people "clearly didn't like Craig" his Bond films would have performed poorly and reviews would have been extremely poor. But they didn't, and now he's onto his third film and there are a lot more people excited about it than not. Like him or not, there's a lot of people that like him in the role of Bond. Folks in this forum seem to have lost sight here, becoming too attached to their own blind negativity that they're drowning themselves in daily like your fellow BJ, you all seemed to have lost the capacity to look from someone else's point of view. No doubt the result of having little to no opposing opinion to keep you guys level headed on what's really going on. It's all black and white for you folks now. That's what I love about Bond and Beyond forum. Over there there is no pro or anti movement. Everyone has their own ideas of Bond. Plenty are not happy with what EON in the last two flicks, but you don't see them throw vile classless personal insults at Daniel Craig like most seem to around these parts (which is even more rich, considering how many of you accuse Craig of lacking class ). That's what turns a lot of people off from this forum and gives it a bad name.

But back to the point, a lot of people don't like Craig as Bond? Please.

Kindly refrain from deliberately misqouting me. I never said that people don't like Craig as Bond. I said that they don't like Craig in the "other movies he's in". Think of The Invasion, Golden Compass, Dragon Tattoo, Cowboys and Aliens. All have significantly underperformed at the box office. Most if not all have probably been outright flops (though given how secretive studios are about their marketing budgets, it's hard to be sure). Sans Bond, Craig is clearly not popular with audiences.

Now, as I thought I made abundently clear earlier, even if Craig were very unpopular outside of Bond films, it wouldn't matter if Skyfall were marketed as a traditional Bond film. Harrison Ford hasn't had a hit in years outside of Indiana Jones, and yet Crystal Skull made tons of money in 2008. Even though people weren't big on Ford as a "movie star", they love his portrayal of Indy and were happy to shell out money to see him. The same could be true of Craig if SF were marketed in a way that is familiar to traditional audiences. But it's being marketed in a way that doesn't seem very Bond-like at all, and which deemphasizes traditional aspects of the series. It's by no means assured that people will show up in droves to SF. The wider public loved CR. QOS benefitted from that at first, but had a big audience drop-off from week to week. Clearly there was some bad word of mouth. Your argument would be like claiming in 1976 that TSWLM would have to be a hit just because LALD was. That wasn't at all assured after the lukewarm reception to TMWTGG. That's why Cubby deliberately emphasized the tried and true "Bond formula" in TSWLM. You could argue the whole film was a kind of "Bond's greatest hits". TSWLM embraced its heritage. SF seems to be running from it. IF SF is a hit, then you'll be right. Until then, you might as well argue that Dalton's third film would have been a big hit if only it'd been produced. It's possible, but highly speculative.

And at that, what is it with people who are Craigheads coming on to a site called "Daniel Craig is Not James Bond" and then complaining about all the negativity towards Craig? Where I come from, that sort of behavior is called trolling. Try to express an anti-Craig view on certain sites, and you'll liable to be banned. But apparently we have to put up with Craigheads lecturing here on not considering "alternate points of view". Well, if I wanted an alternate point of view, I'd seek it out, wouldn't I? If I come to DCNIB, it's because I hate Craig and would like to say as much to likeminded people. To be aghast at what people say around here about Craig is like going to a church and being offended at all the religious language being used!

And if Bond and Beyond is so wonderful, why don't you go over there and post? They are one of the better general Bond forums out there, and if I didn't think that Craig was destroying James Bond I'd probably be over there right now. But I feel the way I feel, and so I'm here. Why are you here?

[stockslivevan]

Fair enough about the trailer.

And at that, what is it with people who are Craigheads coming on to a site called "Daniel Craig is Not James Bond" and then complaining about all the negativity towards Craig?

I'm not a "Craighead", I'm a Bond fan. Besides, Craig fans were welcomed in this forum, unless things have changed.

[katied]

It's when people become agressive with their opinions as far as Craig goes that I have a problem with it. Not saying I haven't argued my side(I have) but there have been some *extremely* pro-Craig people on here.

[Thunderpussy]

strong opinions are like strong drugs, too many may Blow your Mind.
"Can't we all, just get along "
I for one Love stopping by here, to get back in touch with some reality Rather than the propaganda putout by some forums.

[bjmdds]

"becoming too attached to their own blind negativity that they're drowning themselves in daily like your fellow BJ"........well Stocks, back from the Bond And Beyond world for a while? Blind negativity? Open your eyes, take a real close look at the vulgar wretch Eon has propagated on the Bond world, and tell me HE is a good ambassador for the franchise. He is a low class individual, who is unable to carry on an interview without using the F--K and S--T expletives, and is extremely disgusting to look at both facially frontal and profiled. What is lacking in the rods and cones department of your retinas to allow you to see Danielle as a good looking, suave, well mannered, charismatic, tall, dark and handsome secret agent? There is no gray in this. Your background in film studies does not warrant such admiration for what Eon has done. It puzzles me and it always has. Tell me, IF Henry Cavill takes over, will he be a better Bond in the LOOKS department than DC is? DC has already gone BEYOND the realm of believability and hopefully this farce ends at Bond 23. How can you be upbeat and not negative looking at a poster of Ed Norton(The Honeymooners) in a tuxedo walking in a sewer system and calling this a Bond film? Bond And Beyond...up, up, and away.....praise be all forums and all the inhabitants thereof ....tell us Stocks, what is really going on in the outside world? We lead too sheltered a Bond life here in our own fortress of Bond solitude.....