Skyfall for Oscars?

[The Sweeney]

Now this would be insane. Bookies are now taking bets on it -

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2012/10/c ... wards.html

[FormerBondFan]

If that's the case even if it is in the technical category, you might as well have Marilyn Manson or any other weirdos as Bond.....once DC retires. BJ, are you with me on this?

[Blowfeld]

You can bet on anything. What are the odds Bj agrees with FBF?

[The Sweeney]

You can bet on anything. What are the odds Bj agrees with FBF?

Send in the wierdos and freaks, right FBF?

[carl stromberg]

3/1 are quite short odds to be nominated for Best Film.

From the article
With the barrage of positive reviews for Skyfall coming in, you have to ask yourself whether this is their time. Indeed, if it does manage to garner a nod in any of the acting, writing, directing - or the ‘untouchable’ Best Picture category - what a day that would be. For years, James Bond has been mocked. It has almost been considered a franchise that has no credibility. Everything from Roger Moore's old-man-flirting-with-a-teenager (For Your Eyes Only) through to George Lazenby's awful "This didn't happen to the other fella" (On Her Majesty's Secret Service) have all contributed to a lack of respect for the series. But Daniel Craig and the revamp in 2006 has changed that - Skyfall may secure 007 for the forseeable future and, in its 50th year, it would almost be poetic for this film, above all, to win Best Picture.

What a load of bulls**t.

[The Saint 007]

3/1 are quite short odds to be nominated for Best Film.

From the article
With the barrage of positive reviews for Skyfall coming in, you have to ask yourself whether this is their time. Indeed, if it does manage to garner a nod in any of the acting, writing, directing - or the ‘untouchable’ Best Picture category - what a day that would be. For years, James Bond has been mocked. It has almost been considered a franchise that has no credibility. Everything from Roger Moore's old-man-flirting-with-a-teenager (For Your Eyes Only) through to George Lazenby's awful "This didn't happen to the other fella" (On Her Majesty's Secret Service) have all contributed to a lack of respect for the series. But Daniel Craig and the revamp in 2006 has changed that - Skyfall may secure 007 for the forseeable future and, in its 50th year, it would almost be poetic for this film, above all, to win Best Picture.

What a load of bulls**t.

Give me a break. There's no statistical evidence that the series needed a reboot anyway. If the old formula was really THAT bad, then how come it lasted for 40 years? This new direction is destroying an iconic cinematic legacy, and mostly brining in young punks who didn't care for Bond before, while many of the older fans are giving up. I hardly see this as an improvement. All the lame reinventing has made the series a total joke, and the films try to take themselves so seriously, that they become funny for the wrong reasons. I can't watch Quantum Of Solace without laughing, because it's such a ridiculously stupid film that tries to be so serious and cool.

But what do I know? I'm just an uncultured classic Bond fan, who cannot see the artistic genius in the Craig Bond films. I'm a simple-minded fool that gets enjoyment and entertainment value from the old fun escapist Bond films. Yes, I, and others like me, are just mere peasants that Barbara and Michael no longer cares about or wants...... Well, that is until they're in some sort of financial crisis. That's about the only time we'll suddenly become worthy again.

[Kristatos]

3/1 are quite short odds to be nominated for Best Film.

Bookies rarely have any idea how to calculate odds for anything other than sporting events. Best Picture winners are usually released closer to Oscar time and blockbusters rarely win, those factors alone ought to lengthen the odds.

[FormerBondFan]

You can bet on anything. What are the odds Bj agrees with FBF?

Send in the wierdos and freaks, right FBF?

Like you said, Bond sells not the actor playing. Furthermore, Rog said once before that any idiot could play Bond.

[James]

All this nonsense makes you wonder if they'll start s***ing on the Craig era if he ever leaves as it seems to be a tradition to trash everything that came before.

[tehmanis]

Give me a break. There's no statistical evidence that the series needed a reboot anyway.

where do you get statistic from? when talking about film we can't get long time series of data to predict behavior or trend of the films. This crap talking about Bourne influence the current bond film are stupid.yeah really that stupid, because from beginning Cinematic Bond ALWAYS got influence by other movies around the time they produce it. and since when Bond create their own formula except for Gunbarel, Moneypenny, Q which are less important than Bond itself??? do you think Dr No did not influence by or take inspiration from other film? Dr No AND From Russia With Love are true example how Bond take same element from Alfred Hitchcock' North by Northwest. Moonraker made when Star Wars very popular, The Man with the Golden GUn were EON respons to Bruce Lee Movie. License to Kill are indeed got heavy influence from Miami Vice. I can imagine Miami VIce theme song when watching License to Kill.

If the old formula was really THAT bad, then how come it lasted for 40 years?

Again you make simple generalization, as if almost 40 years the franchise take same directions. Roger Moore Moonraker and Timothy Dalton License to Kill is completely different, and i dare to say they play different characters. and for your information GOldeneye made License to kill as if never existed before, sounds like rebooted right?

This new direction is destroying an iconic cinematic legacy,

how come Casino Royale destroying an iconic cinematic legacy? it got Craig nominated as best actor in Bafta award (although he didnt win it, he was the first being nominated for BAFTA award), the script also got nominated, it bring more new audiences and get a lot of praises from critic as well

and mostly brining in young punks who didn't care for Bond before, while many of the older fans are giving up.

you again being simple narrow minded when talking about people who like the new direction. Me (and many others i believe) also like previous Bond, but not all of them (Moore and Brosnan except for For Your Eyes ONly and Goldeneye). Liking new direction doesn't mean they don't care about previous Bond.

I hardly see this as an improvement.

that's your opinion, btw do you think Die another day is better than Casino Royale ?

All the lame reinventing has made the series a total joke, and the films try to take themselves so seriously, that they become funny for the wrong reasons.

I can say the same to The world is not enough which is a complete disaster. It got Bond for the FIRST TIME BEING NOMINATED AS WORST SCREEN COUPLE (and Brosnan got it when he play in Mamma Mia)

I can't watch Quantum Of Solace without laughing, because it's such a ridiculously stupid film that tries to be so serious and cool..

Die another day is a ridiculously stupid film, uhm i'm sorry except GOldeneye his movies were ridiculous

***Admin edited***

Well, that is until they're in some sort of financial crisis. That's about the only time we'll suddenly become worthy again.

James Bond worthy again since 2005 after dark ages from 1997 - 2002 era IMO

[The Saint 007]

First off, tehmanis, I understand that some of the Bond films had influence from other popular films at the time. However, it didn't take it to such an extreme that it didn't feel like a Bond film. Moonraker for example, had a bit of a Star Wars influence to it, but it didn't feel like you were watching a Star Wars film. Only the last portion of Moonraker takes place in space, and it's pretty standard sci-fi elements. There was no bizarre Star Wars type of creatures or light sabres and things like that. It was merely Bond's take on space. Now Quantum of Solace on the other hand, stepped way too far from traditional Bond to the point where many people said it didn't feel at all like a Bond film. It took the Bourne inspiration way too far.

When I say there's no statistical evidence that a reboot was needed, what I mean is that most people were upset with the overall quality of Die Another Day, not the classic Bond formula. The Brosnan films made a lot of money, but in the end people were complaining about the overall quality, which is the fault of the filmmakers not the classic formula. I'm sick of hearing some people say that the formula is no longer suitable, when it was really the filmmakers that messed up.

This new direction has brought in a new type of fan base, and there are many of them who don't care about the older Bond films. On the forums you see them saying how they don't like the fact the Q is returning in Skyfall, or that most of the traditional Bond elements should be abandoned. Now, I'm not saying all Craig fans are like this. There are open-minded Craig fans that can see the faults in some of the producers decisions, and don't wish to be rid of the various traditional Bond elements. And please don't refer to me as "narrow minded" because I'm far from that. I have friends who are Craig fans, and we get along just fine.

Bond hasn't been fun for me in a while. I have not enjoyed the last three films, and Skyfall will probably be no different. As time goes by, I'm getting more and more impatient. I've been a fan of the series for a long time, and I don't want to give up on it. However, if things continue on this way, then I just might give up like many people have already. I don't care how many awards Craig or the films get nominated for/win, I still don't find it enjoyable or entertaining at all. Over the years, I've spent a lot of money on James Bond, and it's frustrating that the producers no longer care about customers like me.

[tehmanis]

First off, tehmanis, I understand that some of the Bond films had influence from other popular films at the time. However, it didn't take it to such an extreme that it didn't feel like a Bond film. Moonraker for example, had a bit of a Star Wars influence to it, but it didn't feel like you were watching a Star Wars film. Only the last portion of Moonraker takes place in space, and it's pretty standard sci-fi elements. There was no bizarre Star Wars type of creatures or light sabres and things like that. It was merely Bond's take on space. Now Quantum of Solace on the other hand, stepped way too far from traditional Bond to the point where many people said it didn't feel at all like a Bond film. It took the Bourne inspiration way too far.

again how about From Russia WIth Love and License to Kill? From Russia with love is heavily influence by North by Northwest, License to Kill is very2 much look like Miami Vice. especially LTK didn't feel like Roger Moore film AT ALL. Many believe LTK didn't feel at all like a Bond film.

There was no bizzare star wars type of creatures in Moonraker? how about JAWS??????

Btw I don't care how much money DAD got, it suck as a film period. play by incompetent actor who overvalue his price when negotiating with the producers, with his limited acting abilities i think he should stop after filming Tomorrow never dies. I never see him as Bond.

[Omega]

This crap talking about Bourne influence the current bond film are stupid.

No it's not this was done on purpose been in the papers even.

Bond took from all kinds of movie but still managed to stay more Bond than not.

[bjmdds]

It's all irrelevant. Eon will keep DC forever. The rest is just conversation now.

[FormerBondFan]

It's all irrelevant. Eon will keep DC forever. The rest is just conversation now.

Then the Age of Freaks shall be a follow up.

[The Saint 007]

First off, tehmanis, I understand that some of the Bond films had influence from other popular films at the time. However, it didn't take it to such an extreme that it didn't feel like a Bond film. Moonraker for example, had a bit of a Star Wars influence to it, but it didn't feel like you were watching a Star Wars film. Only the last portion of Moonraker takes place in space, and it's pretty standard sci-fi elements. There was no bizarre Star Wars type of creatures or light sabres and things like that. It was merely Bond's take on space. Now Quantum of Solace on the other hand, stepped way too far from traditional Bond to the point where many people said it didn't feel at all like a Bond film. It took the Bourne inspiration way too far.

again how about From Russia WIth Love and License to Kill? From Russia with love is heavily influence by North by Northwest, License to Kill is very2 much look like Miami Vice. especially LTK didn't feel like Roger Moore film AT ALL. Many believe LTK didn't feel at all like a Bond film.

There was no bizzare star wars type of creatures in Moonraker? how about JAWS??????

Btw I don't care how much money DAD got, it suck as a film period. play by incompetent actor who overvalue his price when negotiating with the producers, with his limited acting abilities i think he should stop after filming Tomorrow never dies. I never see him as Bond.

As I said before, some of the Bond films had influences from other popular films at the time, but it wasn't taken to such an extreme that most people couldn't recognize it as a Bond film. At the time Licence To Kill came out, some people might have felt that it was different, or that it didn't have much of a Bond feeling or vibe to it. But looking back, I really don't think it was so bad. Licence To Kill still has way more of a Bond vibe than Quantum Of Solace in my opinion.

Jaws may be a bizarre henchman, but he's not a fuzzy little Star Wars space creature. I guess you would consider The Spy Who Loved Me to be sci-fi inspired since Jaws was in that too, right?

I agree, Die Another Day was not that good. But is that really Brosnan's fault, or is it the fault of the producers? I understand you don't care for Brosnan, but you seem to blame him for things that are beyond his control. As much as I dislike Craig, I don't blame him for things that the producers and filmmakers are really at fault for. I've always said that Brosnan could have had more potential as Bond if he was given better content to work with. I really enjoyed GoldenEye, and think it's Brosnan's best Bond film. But unfortunately after GoldenEye and Albert Broccoli's death, it seems that producers Barbara and Michael just couldn't get their act together, and really messed things up for Brosnan and the series. Brosnan has many fans and his films made a lot of money. In the end, however, I think people were getting upset about the overall quality of the films, not Brosnan or the classic Bond formula. But the producers/filmmakers are largely to blame for that. If Albert Broccoli was still around, perhaps things could have been better for Brosnan.

[Kristatos]

Getting this thread back on topic, take a look at the list of Best Picture winners for the last decade:
2011 - "The Artist"
2010 - "The King's Speech"
2009 - "The Hurt Locker"
2008 - "Slumdog Millionaire"
2007 - "No Country for Old Men"
2006 - "The Departed"
2005 - "Crash"
2004 - "Million Dollar Baby"
2003 - "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"
2002 - "Chicago"

The last two excepted, they're all smaller indie pictures. There's an inbuilt bias against certain types of movies, including blockbusters. It's not impossible that Skyfall will win Best Picture, but all this talk based on a dozen or so advance reviews is a bit premature. They said the same thing about Casino Royale, remember, and that wasn't even nominated in the technical categories.

[Napoleon Solo]

Getting this thread back on topic, take a look at the list of Best Picture winners for the last decade:
2011 - "The Artist"
2010 - "The King's Speech"
2009 - "The Hurt Locker"
2008 - "Slumdog Millionaire"
2007 - "No Country for Old Men"
2006 - "The Departed"
2005 - "Crash"
2004 - "Million Dollar Baby"
2003 - "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"
2002 - "Chicago"

The last two excepted, they're all smaller indie pictures. There's an inbuilt bias against certain types of movies, including blockbusters. It's not impossible that Skyfall will win Best Picture, but all this talk based on a dozen or so advance reviews is a bit premature. They said the same thing about Casino Royale, remember, and that wasn't even nominated in the technical categories.

A few years ago, the Academy expanded the Best Picture category so as many as 10 movies could be nominated for the award. I've read the move was made in part so there'd be at least some more popular movies in convention so they wouldn't all be indie movies. That's not to say Skyfall will or won't be nominated. But there has been a movement to open up the Best Picture category.

[tehmanis]

As I said before, some of the Bond films had influences from other popular films at the time, but it wasn't taken to such an extreme that most people couldn't recognize it as a Bond film.

Sorry, but if you think From Russia with Love is PURE creation ideas of cinematic Bond is really ridiculous, because it is indeed get influence from North by Northwest and since then become the platform for other future Bond film. so can you dare to say again the first bond movie is not get stealing idea from other movies????

At the time Licence To Kill came out, some people might have felt that it was different, or that it didn't have much of a Bond feeling or vibe to it. But looking back, I really don't think it was so bad.

I don't think it was so bad either (LTK one of my fav), but the statement that QOS were the only BOND got influenced from other as if previous Bond didn't are misplace IMO. Again Change LTK theme tune to Miami VIce one, it would be no different. I dare to say LTK are Miami Vice staring Timothy Dalton.

Licence To Kill still has way more of a Bond vibe than Quantum Of Solace in my opinion.

Quantum of Solace has way more of a Bond vibe than TND,TWINE, AND DAD in my opinion

Jaws may be a bizarre henchman, but he's not a fuzzy little Star Wars space creature. I guess you would consider The Spy Who Loved Me to be sci-fi inspired since Jaws was in that too, right?

yeah, i consider TSWLM as sci-fi Bond too, since it got bizzare unrealistic henchman, underwater car, and over the top villain's hideout

I agree, Die Another Day was not that good. But is that really Brosnan's fault, or is it the fault of the producers? I understand you don't care for Brosnan, but you seem to blame him for things that are beyond his control.

You can blame the producers for choosing incompetent directors (Tamahori), or for interrupting the production process, or for bring incompetent storyline, or Bring boring music director (david arnold). But can you blame the producer for Brosnan AWFULL ACTING ABILITIES? can you blame the producers for his unconvincing fighting skills?? can you blame the producers for his idiotic pain face? can you blame the producers for his razzies nomination??? do you think good script can improve Brosnan awful acting?

As much as I dislike Craig, I don't blame him for things that the producers and filmmakers are really at fault for. I've always said that Brosnan could have had more potential as Bond if he was given better content to work with. I really enjoyed GoldenEye, and think it's Brosnan's best Bond film.

Goldeneye has a good storyline, because the script were good (and made while Dalton still in the writter's mind). Goldeneye plot or story were good, but the lead actor fail to impress me as Bond. if Dalton playing it, it would be make sense.

But unfortunately after GoldenEye and Albert Broccoli's death, it seems that producers Barbara and Michael just couldn't get their act together, and really messed things up for Brosnan and the series. Brosnan has many fans and his films made a lot of money. In the end, however, I think people were getting upset about the overall quality of the films, not Brosnan or the classic Bond formula. But the producers/filmmakers are largely to blame for that. If Albert Broccoli was still around, perhaps things could have been better for Brosnan.

why i got the sense that everyone must make life easier for Brosnan? he never read the novel, he never help himself when he still in the role, but when he exit from the role he continuously whining about how the producers mistreated him.

[Dr. No]

"The King's Speech" was good in a Disney movie sort of way. Most of these winner are not ones we've watched. Nominated is one thing I do not think Bond will ever win for anything that matters because it has to be a action movie and the people voting tend to hate that sort of movie.

The Return of the King does it break my rule? was it acknowledgement for making a good trilogy and this being the last.