Skyfall Discussion (spoilers allowed)

[The Sweeney]

I think you are supposed to be the revisionist Sweeney.

A revisionist who wants to revert back to the original novels - fair enough.

[The Saint 007]

That review just shows what I've been saying about the divided fan base issue. As soon as any of the classic Bond elements are brought back, the fans of the rebooted Bond films start crying and complaining. Then just go and watch something else, if you truly don't like all the things that made the Bond series popular. The classic Bond fans are constantly getting the short end of the stick, and I'm so d**n tired of it. We're loyal customers who have been supporting this series for years, to now suddenly be rejected for new fans that mostly consist of people who didn't care much for Bond before the reboot.

As soon as we're given anything that resembles the classic Bond films, even if they're butchered up by reinvention, the new audience will cry out their disapproval. And I have a feeling it will be the cries of these new fans that gets the most attention by the producers, because I don't think they care much about the older fans anymore.

[Kristatos]

I think you are supposed to be the revisionist Sweeney.

A revisionist who wants to revert back to the original novels - fair enough.

I must have missed the bits in the original novels where Moneypenny started life as a kick-ass field agent, or where Bond's mummy issues became the focus of the plot, or where Bond had an ancestral lodge in Scotland with a ghillie instead of being raised by his aunt in her pub in Kent after his parents' death. And you howled and screamed over the heart-stopping scene in DAD (ripped off from Flint) but seem fine with Bond being impervious to bullets in SF, crashing through walls in CR and ripping off door handles withhis bare hands in QOS. Because of course, those things are taken directly from Flemming.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

I think you are supposed to be the revisionist Sweeney.

A revisionist who wants to revert back to the original novels - fair enough.

Nooooooo! You said to Cpt. Arthurs that the Bond franchise was about to die during the Brosnan era and the series would have died if another Brosnan movie had been made and there had not been the Craig reboot. I don't think that would have happened and I with Cpt. Arthurs that Bond was still very popular and respected during Brosnan's era (therefore you are revising history by saying Bond was finished during Brosnan's era).

[John Drake]

Daniel Craig is Fleming's Bond. He's just like Sean Connery. Skyfall is one of the greatest films ever made. Daniel Craig has saved the series - forget that Bond does fine whoever is playing him and no one goes to see any of the other movies Craig makes. The only alternative to casting Daniel Craig was making Die Another Day 2 with Pierce Brosnan. Pierce Brosnan was a terrible Bond. Most of the old Bond movies are terrible and should never have been made. Daniel Craig with a blank expression on his face looking stoic is deep and great acting. James Bond was once described in the books as having a cruel mouth so discard the references to him being handsome with a comma of black hair and forever cast a Putin lookalike.

[James Suzuki]

Ouch!, Now there's no need to be mean.
"Putin look alike". ...now that's a good one!

[The Sweeney]

I think you are supposed to be the revisionist Sweeney.

A revisionist who wants to revert back to the original novels - fair enough.

I must have missed the bits in the original novels where Moneypenny started life as a kick-ass field agent, or where Bond's mummy issues became the focus of the plot, or where Bond had an ancestral lodge in Scotland with a ghillie instead of being raised by his aunt in her pub in Kent after his parents' death. And you howled and screamed over the heart-stopping scene in DAD (ripped off from Flint) but seem fine with Bond being impervious to bullets in SF, crashing through walls in CR and ripping off door handles withhis bare hands in QOS. Because of course, those things are taken directly from Flemming.

I'm giving up trying to explain why I like Craig's Bond films here (CR and SF). I know what I like and what I don't. I love the novels, I love the early 60's films, Moore's early 70's films, Dalton's films, and Craig's films. I hated Brozzas films, and the later Moore films.

If you all have issues with that then fine by me. I'm done trying to explain why I like what I like and hate what I hate.

[Kristatos]

I'm giving up trying to explain why I like Craig's Bond films here (CR and SF). I know what I like and what I don't. I love the novels, I love the early 60's films, Moore's early 70's films, Dalton's films, and Craig's films. I hated Brozzas films, and the later Moore films.

If you all have issues with that then fine by me. I'm done trying to explain why I like what I like and hate what I hate.

No-one's asking you to apologise for your tastes (though I wish some Craig fans--not you--would extend the same courtesy to those of us who actually like the first 20 films in the series, instead of coming across like Harry Enfield's Box Set Snobs). I am just pointing out that the Craig films are no closer to Fleming than any of the others. In fact someone the other day in an off-topic Bond thread in the Doctor Who forum Gallifrey Base made a quite convincing argument that TLD was the last Bond film to be true to Fleming's way of structuring stories, in that the mission, rather than the character of Bond, was the central focus of the plot. The shift to more character-driven stories may well be a reaction to changing audience tastes, but I fail to see how it's any different to, say, GF adding more gadgets to Bond's car. Both are deviations from the text designed to give the audience what they want. This bogus Fleming purism is nothing more than a marketing strategy, designed to appeal in an age in which fidelity to the source material is seen as the most important virtue in an adaptation, whereas few people in the 1960s gave a s**t about such things.

[The Saint 007]

Don't you like For Your Eyes Only, Sweeney? It is one of Moore's more serious and down-to-earth Bond outings, and some consider it to be one of his best Bonds.

I do recall you saying that Live And Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun are your favourite Moore Bond films, but what are your reasons for liking them more than the other Moore Bond films? Please don't misunderstand me, I do enjoy all of Moore's Bond films, but Live And Let Die, and especially The Man With The Golden Gun, often get criticized for being too comical, and not close to the books. So I just wanted to know why you prefer them over Moore's other Bond films?

[007]

Our friend at the Goldeneye site has posted his review.

http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/film_comme ... eview.html

[carl stromberg]

Our friend at the Goldeneye site has posted his review.

http://n007.thegoldeneye.com/film_comme ... eview.html

Great review as always! "It's like Frank Martin with a bit of Batman thrown in".

[The Saint 007]

A list of Skyfall's plot holes: http://www.movieplotholes.com/skyfall.html

[bjmdds]

They are correct. Also. what became of the NOC list Silva had? Who had it after his death? The acting was amateurish at best. M's death scene was commonplace. Dench does not deserve any awards for this role whatsoever but Broccoli will push for a mercy nomination given Dench's age. At the end it's as if Dench's role was forgotten. Nothing was shown of her funeral, the government's reaction, no remorse for a highly decorated official, just a bull dog gift to Bond standing on a roof. The new Moneypenny has no chemistry with Cr-egg either. Berenice's role was a disgrace as well. This film was pure junk. Let the world delude itself into lauding this Mendes trash. The above link is proof that Logan should be fired.

[stockslivevan]

I think it's clear BJ that you were never going to give SKYFALL a fair chance purely because of Craig being in it, and for you, to give any compliment to the film is like condoning Craig's run (however big or small) and that's something you won't allow yourself to do.

I mean, is there anything in it that you might say was actually good? Like Deakins' photography? I think TWINE is the worst Bond film ever but I'll give credit where credit is due, and in that case it was Peter Lamont's production design which was a breath of fresh air after the dull looking TND.

[The Sweeney]

Don't you like For Your Eyes Only, Sweeney? It is one of Moore's more serious and down-to-earth Bond outings, and some consider it to be one of his best Bonds.

I do recall you saying that Live And Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun are your favourite Moore Bond films, but what are your reasons for liking them more than the other Moore Bond films? Please don't misunderstand me, I do enjoy all of Moore's Bond films, but Live And Let Die, and especially The Man With The Golden Gun, often get criticized for being too comical, and not close to the books. So I just wanted to know why you prefer them over Moore's other Bond films?

On paper I should like FYEO - it is based on several Fleming short stories or scenes from novels, and is the most down-to-earth of the Moore films. But I feel Moore looks too old in this one, and I find the direction lack lustre in general. The film didn't do anything for me.

Whereas I love the early 70's feel to LALD and TMWTGG - I like the locations in both movies, decent villains, nice nods to Rolex watches, and I find Moore to be at his coolest in these movies. Take out the silly Sheriff J.W. scenes out of the equation and I would love them even more.

[The Saint 007]

Don't you like For Your Eyes Only, Sweeney? It is one of Moore's more serious and down-to-earth Bond outings, and some consider it to be one of his best Bonds.

I do recall you saying that Live And Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun are your favourite Moore Bond films, but what are your reasons for liking them more than the other Moore Bond films? Please don't misunderstand me, I do enjoy all of Moore's Bond films, but Live And Let Die, and especially The Man With The Golden Gun, often get criticized for being too comical, and not close to the books. So I just wanted to know why you prefer them over Moore's other Bond films?

On paper I should like FYEO - it is based on several Fleming short stories or scenes from novels, and is the most down-to-earth of the Moore films. But I feel Moore looks too old in this one, and I find the direction lack lustre in general. The film didn't do anything for me.

Whereas I love the early 70's feel to LALD and TMWTGG - I like the locations in both movies, decent villains, nice nods to Rolex watches, and I find Moore to be at his coolest in these movies. Take out the silly Sheriff J.W. scenes out of the equation and I would love them even more.

I do quite enjoy For Your Eyes Only, and it's my second favourite of Roger Moore's Bond films. I thought Moore gave a pretty good performance, and shows that he can play the part of Bond more seriously. I love the title song, and the car/ski chase scenes. I also think Melina Havelock is a cool Bond girl. Some may say the film seems a little TOO down-to-earth, and didn't bring really anything new to the table, and I guess they have a point. Perhaps they toned things down a little too much after Moonraker. But overall, I still think it's a fairly decent Bond film.

I also like the locations and villains/henchmen in Live And Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun. I like the title songs/soundtracks, the action scenes, one-liners, and yes, Moore is really cool in these as well. I will confess, however, that I'm one of those few people on earth that actually doesn't mind Sheriff J.W. Pepper.

[The Sweeney]

In fact someone the other day in an off-topic Bond thread in the Doctor Who forum Gallifrey Base made a quite convincing argument that TLD was the last Bond film to be true to Fleming's way of structuring stories, in that the mission, rather than the character of Bond, was the central focus of the plot. The shift to more character-driven stories may well be a reaction to changing audience tastes, but I fail to see how it's any different to, say, GF adding more gadgets to Bond's car. Both are deviations from the text designed to give the audience what they want. This bogus Fleming purism is nothing more than a marketing strategy, designed to appeal in an age in which fidelity to the source material is seen as the most important virtue in an adaptation, whereas few people in the 1960s gave a s**t about such things.

Interesting take on TLD - it was the last Bond to follow the traditional formula looking at it now. Although even Fleming would ocassionally deviate from this formula too - TSWLM is completely different, and in FRWL the first half of the novel is set in Russia. TMWTGG also has a brainwashed Bond trying to kill M in the opening part of the book, which again deviated away from the traditional formula.

[stockslivevan]

I'd argue that AVTAK was the last true traditional Bond movie that followed the formula by crossing every t and dotting every i. PTS, the title song, Bond flirting with Moneypenny, briefing with M discussing the villain of the film, then being sent off to confront said villain. All in that sequence.

TLD is really the first to start toying with the formula where you're never sure of who the real villain is until well into the middle of the film. Bond is briefed about his next mission: Assassinate Pushkin. But he goes out of his way trying to figure out Kara's role in the whole scheme before going after Pushkin. For me this film was always the real true beginning of Modern Bond. Where as Classic Bond (1962-1985) portrayed the character as generally an unflappable cool secret agent, Modern Bond is the beginning of the character being portrayed as more human and vulnerable which carried on with Brosnan and now does with Craig.

[The Sweeney]

I'd argue that AVTAK was the last true traditional Bond movie that followed the formula by crossing every t and dotting every i. PTS, the title song, Bond flirting with Moneypenny, briefing with M discussing the villain of the film, then being sent off to confront said villain. All in that sequence.

TLD is really the first to start toying with the formula where you're never sure of who the real villain is until well into the middle of the film. Bond is briefed about his next mission: Assassinate Pushkin. But he goes out of his way trying to figure out Kara's role in the whole scheme before going after Pushkin. For me this film was always the real true beginning of Modern Bond. Where as Classic Bond (1962-1985) portrayed the character as generally an unflappable cool secret agent, Modern Bond is the beginning of the character being portrayed as more human and vulnerable which carried on with Brosnan and now does with Craig.

Good point there Stocks, and I agree.

[The Saint 007]

I also think that A View To A Kill was the last old-school Bond film, before things started to change. I've always felt that Connery and Moore were actually much similar than most people think. Their Bond films pretty much shared the same formula, and had similar types villains/henchmen, secret lairs, gadgets, women who sometimes had some sort of naughty name, as well as lots of other little similarities. To me, the Connery and Moore eras had a very similar vibe that made them seem very much alike.