James Bond In Skyfall - - - Part 12

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder what the workaround is for Ash Ketchup from Pokemon being ten years old for nearly two decades. Is there a factory of ten year old Ash Ketchup's replacing the old one as soon as he turns eleven?
 
If Sean would've featured in any way in SF, it should've been as Kincaid. That screamed "intended for Sean".

Then again, I think that if they were to include Sean, they should've fought to onclude the others as well. Wouldn't have been classy otherwise.


maybe so, but then it wouldn't be a cameo...
 
hmmmm... something just came to mind...

with M being called "mother" by Silva twice in the movie, wasn't the head of British Intelligence in the later years of the Avengers series as well as the Avengers remake movie called "Mother"?...

and strangely enough, it was Ralph Fiennes who was the new John Steed in that movie... and now he's the new M...

bizarre...
 
I'm a little disappointed that they flat out give Bond a history as that pisses on the chips of the suggestion that 'James Bond' is a code name rather than a person therefore ANYONE could be James Bond. That can't happen now.

Really interesting read;
http://commanderbond.net/2349/the-codename-theory.html

Good. I'm glad. The code name theory is the worst idea of all and I'm glad they've never gone with that and that it can't happen now. :up:

It doesn't make any sense. It's such a terrible idea. Besides, it doesn't match up over the course of the films.

They are in continuity, but as someone said, like comics, they just shifted time periods. The time period thing isn't supposed to be thought out. That's just real life that comes into play. It's the same man. I mean one would think that the only way for the code name thing to be disproved would be for all of the Bond films to take place in the 60's which is absolutely ridiculous.
 
To be honest does it matter if he says it or not? Its kinda like the "all be back" from terminator.
 
There's only really been one reboot in Bond history, and that's with Casino Royale when Daniel Craig came onboard. Apart from wanting to start again fresh, they also wanted to have CR as it was in the novel - set at the beginning of Bond's 00 career. So it makes sense for a reboot.

The others weren't really reboots but more like comics where there's a shifting timescale, and so for Bond, Tracy probably didn't die all that long ago back in the 60s. That is how they've always "worked around" Bond being present through all these decades, and that's probably the method they'll use again for however long they choose until they decide they might want to reboot again in say, 30 years time.

They may give the reason of "being like the novel" as the explanation for the reboot but it is completely false. In Casino Royale, the novel, Bond is not at the beginning of his career. He is the same jaded, experienced agent he always is. That is why he considers retiring with Vesper during the final chapters. He is tired of playing "cowboys and indians." The novel refers to him earning his double-0 number during the Second World War, meaning that depending on when his two assassinations occurred during the war, Bond had been a double-0 for roughly 5-10 years by the time that the events of Casino Royale take place in 1951.

However, you are right about the shifting timescale. The books were much the same way. Certain events of Bond's backstory changed in date to reflect that fact that Bond is always about 40 years old in a series of novels that span over a decade. The comic book comparison is the quite apt. People should just think of the different Bond actors as analogous to when different creative teams take over Batman or Superman in the comics and subtly or not-so-subtley re-interpret those characters and change how they are written/drawn.

I'm glad that the literary Bond's personal background has finally been shown on screen to some extent. The codename theory is pure idiocy and rubbish as demonstrated by the fact that the only person involved in the series who ever supported it was the director of the worst Bond film ever, someone who really did not get the character. Bond as a character is about his background. Bond is the suave, daring British spy we all know and love because of his background.

He was born to an old Scottish family of some note with all the expectations and ideas of honour and legacy that come with it, he went to fancy private schools, and served in the Royal Navy. Bond's impeccable tastes, education, bravery, confidence, ad snobbery can all be directly attributed to his past. You can't turn someone into Bond as we know him with some training and a codename. Bond is a fully-formed person and character.
 
Hadn't had a chance to review the film yet. Personally I thought it was excellent and a huge step up from QoS. This was more of the traditional Bond.

Personally I don't really care that they have to keep some sort of sacred continuity. I personally enjoyed how they went and ended up with Bond entering the traditional MI6 HQ office and Moneypenny's traditional secretary desk outside the door. I love the new Q, it was a great take on the character. Desmond Llewelyn will always be the perfect Q, and having John Cleese play him was a complete mistake. I thought Whishaw did a great job in the roll and added a new element to the film.

Judi Dench did a great performance as her final stint as M. I don't want to give anything away, but I applaud her for her years in the series and providing the transition to Danial Craig. I know Dench's failing health (she has macular degeneration) had alot to do with the decision and I wish her all the best in her retirement.

Sean Connery remains the best Bond, but I think Craig's Bond is the closest to the novels. Brosnan was good but other than Goldeneye he had the unfortunate mantle of being in some of the worst James Bond movies ever. He took Roger Moore on a run for his money in that catagory.

I prefer the more serious approach to Craig's films. I know some say that's not Bond, and I can understand that, but I don't think that what James Bond should be has to be set in stone. The films have to change, as times have changed and actors change. I think the heart of Bond is in these films and I think Craig has done a fantastic job. QoS was a letdown from Casino Royale, but I think that Skyfall will be one of the more memorable Bond's. I also like how they go into Bond's backstory, something that had been neglected in all the other Bond movies.

Also I love Adele's theme song. This will be one of the most memorable Bond themes, up there with Goldfinger and all of them.

All in all 8.5/10
 
I really enjoyed all the tongue-in-cheek nods to the older films and really bringing the series full circle in a way. The end of the film very much was one of my favorite scenes. And the anger on his face when the classic car get's blown up as fantastic.
 
The codename idea is stupid and I've never liked it.

His codename is 007. His real name has always been James Bond.

I just see it as each actor are just the James Bond character of their own personal Bond universe.
 
Walked away from this movie with an overall feeling of "meh."

For those who are extolling this entry as one the best...I can't help but scratch my head. Yes, the hype was great, but when it came to the actual movie...high expectations didn't do this movie any favors.

Javier Bardem, as we all know, can create a great villain. But the fact that Silva was so underused sort of detracts from any legacy that Bardem could have had within this franchise. The only scene I found myself really enjoying was his speech about the rats and him [BLACKOUT]shooting Severine[/BLACKOUT]. He was maniacal, yes, but it seemed uneven. His tics and mannerisms were too scattered for him to ever hold on to a a threatening presence. One scene I'd be generally intrigued and then we'd have moments were I find myself laughing him off.

Severine, as many have mentioned, was also severely underused, so I won't hammer away at that yet again. I'm still a little confused as to how exactly she fit in Silva's organization/plan/whatever. She was [BLACKOUT]in Shanghai where Patrice assassinated the person. But, why couldn't she have simply done it if she was right there with, supposedly, Silva's other men? And who was that that bit the bullet? [/BLACKOUT]When she continuously said she was inspired by Famke Janssen's Xena, I was expecting a bit more and, as many others were, left wanting much more.

Eve was bland. She wasn't a good driver, wasn't a good shooter, even M had to remind her to follow the train. I understand why the script portrayed her as a poor field agent to set up [BLACKOUT]Moneypenny[/BLACKOUT], but it seemed like a wasted character just to have that moment at the film's end. Call me a traditionalist, but I like my Bond Girls to have a little more clout in the movies and Severine and Eve didn't do that for me...

Film was beautiful, can't harp on that. Great shots of Istanbul, Shanghai, and Macao. I know people have been waiting for a more 'domestic' Bond adventure...I wasn't one of them. I think the film really fell flat when it transgressed into a "protect M" plot and Bond took her to [BLACKOUT]Skyfall Lodge...which seemed shoehorned in so Bond could come to terms with his past[/BLACKOUT]. Would have loved a more exotic locale for the finale. I don't know how that would have meshed with the film as it was written, but, then again, I wasn't happy where the script went.

I was hoping Silva had more of a master plot involving the leaking of the Mi6 operatives. It would have been more interesting seeing Bond have to deal with the protection of outed agents, perhaps having it somehow tie into the revenge/M/Silva ordeal.

Q was cool. Didn't mind him being younger. Gadgets could have been cooler. It would have made more sense in the story if Q offered Bond a slew of gadgets and Bond only took the gun and the radio (the old ways, and all that). Seemed odd for Q, the youthful innovator, to be lumped with teh dinosaurs at Mi6.

Things I didn't like, overall:

Older Bond (wasn't he a rookie 2 movies ago?)
No gun barrel opening (it's silly, yes, but it's a tradition. And it need not be omitted, I don't care what the first shot is)
Simple revenge plot...pretty straightforward, and tedious especially since [BLACKOUT]M dies anyway[/BLACKOUT]
And, going with that, I don't like Bond's readiness t[BLACKOUT]o accept Mallory as the new M a minute after he cried his eyes out for the old M[/BLACKOUT]...yes, Bond is cold. But wasn't that the point of all this? That it's personal and his walls are down.
Lack of good Bond Girl (M doesn't count)
Not of a fan of the credits sequence. Adele's song is flawless...haunting. But the visuals looked video game-ish and, dare I say, cheap.

Things I really liked:

Pre Title Sequence. Good, fun action. Bond in the field, always good.
Loooooovveeeddd the komodo dragon fight. Classic Bond stuff going on there (even if the lizards were pretty shoddy CGI)
Cinematography. Everything was pretty (except for the finale)


Idk, I'm not feeling Craig's Bond like everyone else is. These newer films are too barebones for me. I like my Bond a little over the top. I like a villain with a unique henchman or elaborate earth-shattering scheme. Bond can have a personal struggle, no problem, but this movie (just like QoS), felt like an in-betweener. More of a fan-fic that explored Bond's roots in a haphazard and simple way. Mendes kinda threw a bunch of things in there (Bond/M, Silva/M, Bond/childhood, Spies/Modern World, Bond/Silva duality, etc.); it was tough at times to figure out where the heck this ship was sailing to.

5/10.
 
The others weren't really reboots but more like comics where there's a shifting timescale, and so for Bond, Tracy probably didn't die all that long ago back in the 60s. That is how they've always "worked around" Bond being present through all these decades, and that's probably the method they'll use again for however long they choose until they decide they might want to reboot again in say, 30 years time.


It would be funny to imagine Fassbender(example) with the background/previous adventures of Craigs bond

Different person but still inhabiting that tone of movies
 
I really enjoyed all the tongue-in-cheek nods to the older films and really bringing the series full circle in a way. The end of the film very much was one of my favorite scenes. And the anger on his face when the classic car get's blown up as fantastic.

My theater erupted in cheers when they revealed the DB5!
 
BobJM, two movies ago he was a rookie 00, but he'd been in MI6 for a while. But it was still 6 years ago. These movies take place in the present day. Casino Royale took place in 2006. And this movie took place in 2012.
 
My theater erupted in cheers when they revealed the DB5!

Same here! Despite the overall dark and depressing tone of the film, there were many crowd-pleasing moments (as well as a bunch of funny ones).

To me, this was a Bond film that had something for everyone. It appeals to the older, more seasoned fans of the past films in the series. It builds on and improves on what has been done with Craig's Bond, AND it adopted a Christopher Nolan-ish tone that is very "in" right now. Pretty much all Bond films are indicative of the time period in which they were produced (visually and tonally) and this one was no different.

9/10 for me. I loved it and Daniel Craig IS James Bond. I don't see how anyone could argue differently.

Side-note: I'm glad that M wasn't killed by Silva at that midpoint of the film when him and his men busted in on the hearing. As I was watching, I feared that the film was following the structure of The Dark Knight (with Rachel/M dying in the middle of the film to lead to a vengeful/angry Batman/Bond), which would have been boring and too familiar.

Having M die right after Bond had already killed Silva was SMART. That way, there was no one to seek out for revenge, and he was able to come to terms with M's death easier since they spoke as she died, rather than her getting blown to bits or something.
 
People also applauded when DB5, or gasp of its sheer beauty. It also creates the 'blurring' effect of ambiguity. Despite being a soft-reboot, there was obvious recognition from Daniel Craig's Bond and even M right down to the gadgets. I like that. Not everything has to be explained.

Also, someone mention on another board that Silva was a Brazilian National working for M16. I don't recall ever hearing that. Was that in the script?
 
Last edited:
The codename idea is stupid and I've never liked it.

His codename is 007. His real name has always been James Bond.

I just see it as each actor are just the James Bond character of their own personal Bond universe.

If Bond was a code name, then Felix Lieter should be a code name too since he was played by thousand different actors over the past 50 years.
 
For the next Bond movie, they should just go to the source of some of Nolan's inspirations for TDKR and take a page from Breakfast a Tiffany's (and maybe Hitchcock).
 
I'm a little disappointed that they flat out give Bond a history as that pisses on the chips of the suggestion that 'James Bond' is a code name rather than a person therefore ANYONE could be James Bond. That can't happen now.

Really interesting read;
http://commanderbond.net/2349/the-codename-theory.html

I'm happy that they ended this 'code name' nonsense which was prompted by Die Another Day's director Lee Tamahori, man who clearly did not understand Bond in the first place.
 
I'm happy that they ended this 'code name' nonsense which was prompted by Die Another Day's director Lee Tamahori, man who clearly did not understand Bond in the first place.

I thought it predated him, but he just was a strong advocate of it such that it has become closely associated with him. That idea was kind of kicking around since the original 60s Casino Royale movie where David Niven was the true Bond, and all the other Bonds were just codenames (as a dig at the official series). Peter Sellers played Evelyn Tremble who was codenamed James Bond in the movie (he was meant to be the latest bearer of the codename).
 
The car + the Bond theme = perfect
 
I thought it predated him, but he just was a strong advocate of it such that it has become closely associated with him. That idea was kind of kicking around since the original 60s Casino Royale movie where David Niven was the true Bond, and all the other Bonds were just codenames (as a dig at the official series). Peter Sellers played Evelyn Tremble who was codenamed James Bond in the movie (he was meant to be the latest bearer of the codename).

I think it's just a loose continuity like how most comic book characters don't age, while some do (Dick Drake) for plot points. Also, Felix Leither dampers the 'Bond is a code name' too since in theory 'Felix' should be an alias too since he was played by several different actors.
 
I know some people were confused about why they were playing an older bond at this time already? but i think it worked great with the more real vibe they were giving this series.

The saying is always "007's don't have long life expectancies" but then you see the actors playing bond for years and becoming older men without any ramifications of that aspect. In reality the strain of being a 007 agent would be immense, physical and emotional so even a few years on the job one would start to feel that strain.

It's like the TDK series somewhat where you put batman in a more real world he too would only a have a few real peak years before the strains catch-up. These guys aren't really superman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"