James Bond In Skyfall - - - - - Part 14

[Ajendo]

Sean didnt do the gun barrel scene in Dr No, that was a stuntman. His first gun barrel was the second one. Moore had two, one standing and one kneeling.

No. Connery started his gun barrels from Thunderball. From Dr.No to Goldfinger, it was the stunt man, Bob Simmons.

 

[ChickenScratch]

No. Connery started his gun barrels from Thunderball. From Dr.No to Goldfinger, it was the stunt man, Bob Simmons.

So your agreeing with me that it wasnt him in Dr No. I was mistaken on which movie he actually started doing it on. But hey, close enough for a person who sees the movies as accessory to the boooks.

 

[spidey-dude]

would you guys like another adaptation of a Flemming book? (Casino Royale levels of faithfulness to the source material) or continue with original stories?

 

[CConn]

Skyfall's third act is stunning. I can't fathom why a contingent of Bond fans (not here) think it spits on the face of the character.

Because without any warning or proper transition, the tone, look, feel, and characterization of Bond (both the man and the movie) dramatically changes from Craig's interpretation of the character to Connery's - two versions that are pretty drastically different.

Agree or disagree all you want, but it really shouldn't be that hard to comprehend.

 

[redhawk23]

One scene in an office does not the entire third act make.

CConn who exactly spit in your cheerios?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Because the tone, look, feel, and characterization of Bond dramatically changes from Craig's interpretation of the character to Connery's - two versions that are pretty drastically different.

How does it in any way look or feel to Connery's? I have a hard time remembering when Connery's Bond had one moment of self reflection or contemplation on this level. When was Connery's Bond hanging out at his childhood home waiting for a war?

And how is Craig playing a "different" Bond? He is still part killing machine, part cheeky *******, part emotionally scarred man.

 

[redhawk23]

I think CConn was just put off by ending the film in a recreation of the original M's office.

 

[CConn]

I think CConn was just put off by ending the film in a recreation of the original M's office.

And I'm pretty sure you just irrationally feel slighted that a movie you enjoy is being criticized.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And I'm pretty sure you just irrationally feel slighted that a movie you enjoy is being criticized.

It would be nice if your criticism made sense.

 

[CConn]

How does it in any way look or feel to Connery's? I have a hard time remembering when Connery's Bond had one moment of self reflection or contemplation on this level. When was Connery's Bond hanging out at his childhood home waiting for a war?

Because that house, the origin, that backstory, and family was perfectly fitting to Connery's Bond.

Did we ever see Connery do exactly what Craig did? No, because the people who wrote Skyfall aren't idiots; they're not going to just copy the ending to another Bond movie in. They wrote something original, they wrote something very good, but that third act is tailor made for Connery's Bond.

Moreover (not that I expect people to really understand this bit, as art direction is rarely focused on or talked about), but even the art design and direction changed dramatically in that final act. In fact, I'd contend the color palettes, set designs, and lighting were much more akin to Connery's movies (hell, just look at the new cover to Goldfinger, it looks just like that final act's scenery) than it does the first two thirds of Skyfall.

And how is Craig playing a "different" Bond? He is still part killing machine, part cheeky *******, part emotionally scarred man.

You are right, I did misspeak there. Craig didn't change his performance to Connery's, they just copy and pasted his Bond into a very Connery-themed Bond world.

 

[CConn]

It would be nice if your criticism made sense.

Comprehension is a two way street.

 

[redhawk23]

And I'm pretty sure you just irrationally feel slighted that a movie you enjoy is being criticized.

No you're just being rather hostile towards people who disagree with you. Its a pattern with pretty much anyone you engage with in this thread.

Nowhere did I say that your dislike of the office and its possible implications were invalid, I was just clarifying to Darth Skywalker what I thought you were referring to. Chillax man.

 

[regwec]

Ccon, I don't know whether your angry tone is intentional, but I don't think it has really been provoked.

 

[redhawk23]

CCon while you can argue that the ending of Skyfall works for Connery, why exactly does it not work for Craig's Bond?

They've established from CR on that Craig's Bond grew up as an orphan. This film delved into that aspect of Bond's childhood and how it led to his career quite nicely I think. MI6 and M specifically fulfill a parental role in Bond's life. How does any of this class with Bond's character or the tone of Craig's films?

Playing up such a relationship hardly seems like it would have been possible in earlier eras, much less fitting into the tone and the world of Connery's Bond.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Because that house, the origin, that backstory, and family was perfectly fitting to Connery's Bond.

First, Bond is Scottish and his family is canon. So yeah, it fits all Bonds.

The house in no way invokes anything we have seen in Bond. Nothing. There has never been an house of usher in Bond.

The backstory and family fit Craig's Bond to a tee. Go back and watch Casino Royale. Watch the scene on the train specifically.

Craig's Bond has always been the maladjusted orphan. No Bond before him even touched on it, let alone to the degree they have with Craig's Bond. Craig's Bond bleeds it. There is a part of him that can clearly mingle with the upper class. He was clearly "raised right", but he always has that sometimes angry, sometimes cheeky, and sometimes rueful smirk.

When he is standing there looking out of the land in front of the Aston or through his window, that is Craig's Bond. His relationship with M as his surrogate mother, that is Craig's Bond. As he walks into that house and all the different emotions hit him, that is Craig's Bond.

Did we ever see Connery do exactly what Craig did? No, because the people who wrote Skyfall aren't idiots; they're not going to just copy the ending to another Bond movie in. They wrote something original, they wrote something very good, but that third act is tailor made for Connery's Bond.

In what way? When was Connery's Bond ever an action star in the way Craig's has been? When was Connery's Bond ever a tough, almost thug that could put on airs convincingly?

Moreover (not that I expect people to really understand this bit, as art direction is rarely focused on or talked about), but even the art design and direction changed dramatically in that final act. In fact, I'd contend the color palettes, set designs, and lighting were much more akin to Connery's movies (hell, just look at the new cover to Goldfinger, it looks just like that final act's scenery) than it does the first two thirds of Skyfall.

I am an art direction kind of guy, but there is nothing about the color palette or set design or lighting that invokes Connery's movies. Where are all these scenes that look similar? Connery's Bond was all exotic locals, clear skies and color.

Skyfall's finale is foreboding and intimidating, with a lack of color. The fog adds to is isolation. In invokes what Skyfall means to Bond.

 

[redhawk23]

First, Bond is Scottish and his family is canon. So yeah, it fits all Bonds.

The house in no way invokes anything we have seen in Bond. Nothing. There has never been an house of usher in Bond.

The backstory and family fit Craig's Bond to a tee. Go back and watch Casino Royale. Watch the scene on the train specifically.

Craig's Bond has always been the maladjusted orphan. No Bond before him even touched on it, let alone to the degree they have with Craig's Bond. Craig's Bond bleeds it. There is a part of him that can clearly mingle with the upper class. He was clearly "raised right", but he always has that angry smirk.

When he is standing there looking out of the land in front of the Aston or through his window, that is Craig's Bond. His relationship with M as his surrogate mother, that is Craig's Bond. As he walks into that house and all the different emotions hit him, that is Craig's Bond.



I am an art direction kind of guy, but there is nothing about the color palette or set design or lighting that invokes Connery's movies. Where are all these scenes that look similar? Connery's Bond was all exotic locals, clear skies and color.

Skyfall's finale is foreboding and intimidating, with a lack of color. The fog adds to is isolation. In invokes what Skyfall means to Bond.

While I disagree with CCon about the Color pallet or the lighting, which changes in several parts of the film anyways (Shanghai is very different from the floating Casino), the set at the very end of the film is pretty well explicitly designed to recreate the original M's office from Dr. No.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

While I disagree with CCon about the Color pallet or the lighting, which changes in several parts of the film anyways (Shanghai is very different from the floating Casino), the set at the very end of the film is pretty well explicitly designed to recreate the original M's office from Dr. No.

We aren't talking about the "epilogue". We are talking about Skyfall, the estate.

Of course M's office is a recreation or that look. You will also notice it doesn't match Skyfall in terms of color pallet and lighting.

 

[Ajendo]

M's office from Dr.No is noticeably different, although very similar to Mallory's BUT the intention was to recreate the classic, general look of the office pre Brosnan era.

 

[Ajendo]

We aren't talking about the "epilogue". We are talking about Skyfall, the estate.

Of course M's office is a recreation. You will also notice it doesn't match Skyfall in terms of color pallet and lighting. \

Mendes in one of the video blogs stated that the Scotland scenes were shot to look as though everything that happened there could have easily taken place in 1964.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Mendes in one of the video blogs stated that the Scotland scenes were shot to look as though everything that happened there could have easily taken place in 1964.

Taking place in 1964 does not mean it looks like it was shot in 1964. Watch a movie set in the 60s filmed in the 60s and watch a film set in the 60s filmed now. Stark difference.

The time travel argument is easy though, as it is Bond's childhood home that he all but abandoned. It is going to very much be "a moment in time". But it does not look like anything we have seen in Bond. It is old, it is broken down, it is begrudgingly regal and you can't quite get rid of it. Kind of like Bond in this film.

 

[Ajendo]

Taking place in 1964 does not mean it looks like it was shot in 1964. Watch a movie set in the 60s filmed in the 60s and watch a film set in the 60s filmed now. Stark difference.

That's not what I said nor was implying.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's not what I said nor was implying.

Then what are you saying?

I understand the idea that as Bond drives into his homeland it is almost like space and time is warped. As if it could take place "anytime". Hence the childhood home Bond hasn't seen in decades.

But the chopper and guns say otherwise. t:

 

[regwec]

To be fair, they had choppers in the 60s. Connery even offs a few in "You Only Live Twice".

 

[DarthSkywalker]

To be fair, they had choppers in the 60s. Connery even offs a few in "You Only Live Twice".

They had guns in the 60s as well. But they did not have HK416s.

 

[Roose Bolton]

would you guys like another adaptation of a Flemming book? (Casino Royale levels of faithfulness to the source material) or continue with original stories?

Well Skyfall is essentially the thematic adaption of The Man With The Golden Gun so if they continue to do it in that vein then I wouldn't mind.