James Bond In Skyfall - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
First official set photo.

bondbathroom.jpg
:up:
 
I see them as two completely different timelines because they are so different and in a very different order, I can't find any middle ground. Blofeld escaped in the movie version of YOLT and the version killed in FYEO was not officially Blofeld.

Why I stick to the books and their timeline. Don't even get me started on FYEO.
 
Yeah, Lazenby walked away from the Bond franchise so nobody should feel sorry for him. And while I think OHMSS is a fine film, I don't think Lazenby was very memorable so I don't think he left a void when he departed the series.

Lazenby was an idiot for walking away. Even if the spy genre was going to die, he should've stuck with it because of the fact that OHMSS was his first main role.

I wish Connery did OHMSS.

Me too.

I'll one up you. I wish the villain in The Spy Who Loved Me was Blofeld as originally planned.

I see them as two completely different timelines because they are so different and in a very different order, I can't find any middle ground. Blofeld escaped in the movie version of YOLT and the version killed in FYEO was not officially Blofeld.

Me too. CS, I understand your concerns and frustration with the Bond movie, but you gotta admit that both the books and the movies are two different beasts that sometimes intersect with each other.
 
Oh, I don't really have concerns or frustrations man. The movies and books are different, but one is the source material and the other is based upon it. The movies are fun distraction, but as I said, it's like Superfriends to JLA, one is a fun little cartoon and the other is an epic story.

If the books and movie disagree I go with the book, but especially with this series.
 
Superfriends to JLA? Okay. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Personally, I find Justice League and Justice League Unlimited to the actual Justice League comics a more comparable option. One is more exposed and more popular, but the other is the original interpretations that can push the boundaries.
 
Last edited:
No, I like my version more. The movies are as silly as Superfriends as compared to the comic. Not that the books never got a bit fantastic at times, but you never got Bond in space. The authors managed to keep Bond on earth and somehow also managed to tell a linear story.
 
That set photo reminds me of the bathroom scene in the opening of CS.
 
That set photo reminds me of the bathroom scene in the opening of CS.

Aye, well spotted, I think there maybe a danger of Mendes following the formula of the last creatively successful Bond film, as well as his own greatest success filmwise, it would be interesting to see Bond being the one caught offguard in a state of mid-crap in the opening of the movie this time, so then the toilet roll he is holding goes flying out of the window during the frac-ass, it gets caught in the wind and unfurls into the words: 'Skyfall', then we cut back to Bond being seen throught the gun barrell, except this time when he realises he is being watched through the fourth wall, instead of pulling out his gun, we see him quickly pulling up his trousers.
 
Aye, well spotted, I think there maybe a danger of Mendes following the formula of the last creatively successful Bond film, as well as his own greatest success filmwise, it would be interesting to see Bond being the one caught offguard in a state of mid-crap in the opening of the movie this time, so then the toilet roll he is holding goes flying out of the window during the frac-ass, it gets caught in the wind and unfurls into the words: 'Skyfall', then we cut back to Bond being seen throught the gun barrell, except this time when he realises he is being watched through the fourth wall, instead of pulling out his gun, we see him quickly pulling up his trousers.

It might not be a gunbarrel. Someone might be watching him through their toilet roll by holding it up to their eye.
 
Aye, well spotted, I think there maybe a danger of Mendes following the formula of the last creatively successful Bond film, as well as his own greatest success filmwise


Someone mind bringing up screencaps? It's not the exact same bathroom is it?
 
Ola Rapace is quite the mediocre actor. But I'm sure he could pull off a great fighting scene and/or being a henchman.
 
Ola Rapace is quite the mediocre actor. But I'm sure he could pull off a great fighting scene and/or being a henchman.

I've feel like he got a role in the movie because of his connection to Noomi Rapace (who's the better of the two acting wise), I vaguely remembered him from that Danish cop tv show Anna Pihl. I don't think his role isn't going to be significant in any way so a henchman to Bardem's character is a good guess.
 
So a little detective work by the guys over at CBn (including myself, user name Omar B) spotted some suspicious passages in an upcoming book ... because we are always watching out for more awesome spy thrillers over there.

In any case, some dude wrote a book, ripping off huge swathes of Ian Fleming and John Gardner. Funny part is, the dude's name is Q.E. Markham. What's funny is that after Ian's death IFP established a ghostwriter named Robert Markham who's name would be on the upcoming Bond novels. Sadly, only Kingsley Amis' Colonel Sun was released under the Robert Markham name.

http://www.thebookbond.com/2011/11/spy-novel-pulled-for-plagiarizing.html
 
I see them as two completely different timelines because they are so different and in a very different order, I can't find any middle ground. Blofeld escaped in the movie version of YOLT and the version killed in FYEO was not officially Blofeld.

Agreed. The books and the movies are their own things. One is based on the other but adaptations take different routes all the time. Even the more direct ones.

As far as CR and QoS fitting into the history of the previous films, I see it as a rebooted continuity. But thats just my opinion.
 
Man I can't wait till we find out Fiennes' role in all of this.
 
Casino Royale rebooted the movies' continuity, simple as that, wether some people want to see it differently that's a different thing.
 
Agreed. The books and the movies are their own things. One is based on the other but adaptations take different routes all the time. Even the more direct ones.

As far as CR and QoS fitting into the history of the previous films, I see it as a rebooted continuity. But thats just my opinion.

Exactly, I approach the Bond movies as their own entities, like Batman movies etc....
 
Quick question, I remember seeing old Bond movies as a kid (I'm 25), but I started the franchise with Goldeneye (which just got progressively worse and worse as the Pierce Brosnan features went on and on). From the classic first Bond movies, which ones do you recommend to see first?
 
Start with the five Connery movies. They all follow a sort of nice chronology and have a big finish.
 
But you must watch Diamonds are Forever. You MUST! :cmad:
 
Haha ok thank you!
If I like them, I'll probably see all movies. I usually don't want to miss the classics. So I'm catching up!
 
Quick question, I remember seeing old Bond movies as a kid (I'm 25), but I started the franchise with Goldeneye (which just got progressively worse and worse as the Pierce Brosnan features went on and on). From the classic first Bond movies, which ones do you recommend to see first?

Pretty much what Vile said, the Connery era is just simply splendid.
 
I like the original Connery movies because they are all pretty faithful to the Fleming novels except they are out of order and certain things are changed. Plus they never got to adapt Casino Royale until decades later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"