SKYFALL Post-Release - Page 14

If you're into silly Bond, who's starring in blacksploitation movies and going to the moon, then sure.  I won't begrudge you that.  I'm the crazy guy who's favorite Bond movies are Casino Royale, Skyfall and Goldeneye.  The cool thing about Bond is there's a lot of diversity for everyone. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke fleed 

 Bond with Daniel Craig is a...S.P.E.C.T.R.E of itself!  

Bond with Daniel Craig is a Quantum of Brilliance! It's a Windfall! 

Freeman, Not silly Bond...Over The Top Spectacle Bond! Leslie Neilsen's Spy Hard, and Don Adams...Smart return as Agent 86 in The Nude Bomb, are examples of Silly Bond Like Films!

SKYFALL Q&A- Questions Answered

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

SKYFALL Q&A- Questions Answered

I thought it was interesting to learn that they built the room to the measurements of Silva's speech. It makes sense, of course, in hindsight.

I'm unclear on something... If Silva's goal was to discredit M and then kill her, wouldn't shooting her out in the open in the courthouse like that ruin the first part of that plan? Wouldn't that make her a martyr and prove that she was actually right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrknudsen 

I'm unclear on something... If Silva's goal was to discredit M and then kill her, wouldn't shooting her out in the open in the courthouse like that ruin the first part of that plan? Wouldn't that make her a martyr and prove that she was actually right?

How? She's publicly disgraced. Then one of her own agents who once again escaped from her custody kills her along with several notable members of the government. I don't see how this would make her a martyr.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrknudsen 

I'm unclear on something... If Silva's goal was to discredit M and then kill her, wouldn't shooting her out in the open in the courthouse like that ruin the first part of that plan? Wouldn't that make her a martyr and prove that she was actually right?

No, because it would have proved that MI6 has no control over the situation they're called in for.

James Bond: rapist?

Interesting conversation re: implied consent, ethics of having sex with a sex slave, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

James Bond: rapist?

 

Interesting conversation re: implied consent, ethics of having sex with a sex slave, etc.

Haven't read it, but it comes down to context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 

Haven't read it, but it comes down to context.

Yeah, my feeling is it isn't rape, but people bring up interesting points in the comments. The original blog entry Metafilter points to is sort of dumb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAIRUS 

Come on! It was a beautiful Ashton Martin.

Correction: Craig drives an Aston.  Connery drove the Ashton.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

 I'm the crazy guy who's favorite Bond movies are Casino Royale, Skyfall and Goldeneye.  The cool thing about Bond is there's a lot of diversity for everyone. 

You're not crazy, those are my favorites as well. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

James Bond: rapist?

 

Interesting conversation re: implied consent, ethics of having sex with a sex slave, etc.

I wasn't particularly fond of the way the character was handled, but the arc of that piece seems to be that sex workers are constitutionally incapable of having adult, consensual relationships. She had set up the champagne glasses while waiting for him, its not a ridiculous leap to surmise what was going on there.

It was a kind of "You have to be James Bond in a James Bond movie to get away with it" scene but rape? Nah. Very much in poor taste but hardly a rape.

And rape a sex slave? The movie pretty much spells out that Severine used to be a sex slave, Silva got her out and now she was simply a metaphorical slave.

If I remember correctly, I came across a snippet of a review on Rotten Tomatoes which said there was a tremendous case of "been there, done that" with Skyfall.  I read that well in advance of seeing the film, and I thought, come on, that's just lazy critic writing.  However, I shockingly felt the same way yesterday afternoon after exiting the theatre. I had gone into Skyfall 95% unspoiled, and was excited about that.  In the past, sometimes a little spoiling in advance has helped me understand or value the movie differently, sometimes for the best.  And I've visited this message board many times to see if my lukewarm enthusiasm for something is just me being hard to please, if I missed something in the movie that would help me understand it differently, or if the movie really does have problems in the eyes of other moviegoers.  Well, I can see that there aren't many of us, but there is a vocal minority of us who have almost to a letter the exact same problems with Skyfall.  

However, my biggest problems stem from the "been there, done that" issue.  Granted, Bond films have borrowed from each other before, but I don't think I have ever seen so many different plot points lifted wholesale from recent Bond pictures and stacked on top of each other to make a new movie.  "Recent" being the key word there.  If we were going back to Sean Connery or Roger Moore movies and lifting elements wholesale, I'd be less surprised.  But in Skyfall, we're going back to the recent and widely-seen Brosnan films and taking elements out.  

• MI6 Agent turns rogue and creates mayhem?  Goldeneye.  
• MI6 Agent is abandoned and tortured for months on end, and this causes resentment towards the people who didn't rescue him?  Die Another Day.  
• MI6 Agent has to undergo tests and prove self to MI6 before they'll let him back on the job?  Die Another Day.  
• Baddie with personal vendetta against M attacks MI6 Headquarters, complete with part of the building blowing up?  The World Is Not Enough.  
• MI6 has to relocate to classical, low-tech setting since their main headquarters was attacked?  The World Is Not Enough.
• Baddie with personal vendetta against M sets up elaborate plot to humiliate her and then kill her?  The World Is Not Enough.
• A significant person Bond cares about dies, yet this causes Bond to dedicate himself even more to the job at hand?  Casino Royale.
• Okay, it's the end of the movie and all this crap went down and you lost your girlfriend and you don't follow orders yet you get the job done...Bond, are you sure you're ready to be part of the team?  Quantum of Solace.
• Resetting Bond to a more hardcore, gadget-less, classic formula?  Casino Royale.

Yet there Skyfall went...not even 20 years after the oldest film on that list, Goldeneye.  Yes, this is "reset/reboot Bond," but that's no excuse...not for all of those above plot elements to be present, and not for them to follow so soon after the film they were originally featured in.   

Skyfall is well made, beautifully shot, has a memorable villain and scenes/themes that stick with you.  But it cribs so much from recent adventures I found it distracting, and there are quite a few unexplained/nonsensical things over the course of the movie that left me scratching my head.

• Are they suggesting Bond got shot twice in the same spot?  Or was Bond wearing a vest which protected him from Moneypenny's shot, but not the other guy's shrapnel?  There was only one chest wound visible in shirtless shots, so this is a serious question and a potentially ridiculous film flub.
• During the beautiful neon-on-glass sequence, why does Bond seemingly let that guy assassinate the poor chap in the other building?  
• If the Aston Martin isn't a Q-Branch model, where did all its gadgets come from?  
• Bond ultimately failed to protect M, and Ralph Fiennes seems to suggest both M and Bond retire...yet at the end of the movie, Bond still has a job and he's working for the guy who thought he should retire.  I could accept that better if maybe there was a statement like, "You know Bond, we may not totally see eye-to-eye, but you're a clever bastard and you've sacrificed damn near everything for us.  I'd be a fool to let you go."

I'm going to see the movie again, and maybe there are things I've missed during the first viewing that will show up and help explain some of my problems with the second.  Also, I'll keep following this board, because I really like seeing everyone's opinions.  

Just wanted to add mine to the mix! 

Welcome to Thunderdome, littlenomad. 

littlenomad, you bring up good points about the recycled plot points from more recent, previous Bonds. But I think that it's less a case of lazy cribbing and more of a case of Mendes and Co. have a specific story they want to tell and they don't give a shit if they are plot points that have appeared in other Bonds. Your complaints are specific to being a Bond fan, which is fine, bit you're not viewing the movie as its own entity outside of the franchise baggage. 

TCD, you wandered into this thread basically proclaiming loudly that this movie is a turd so I don't feel bad that you got dogpiled on. Since then you've at least articulated your argument, but I still think you basically wanted a totally different movie than what is there and frankly I don't think the movie you wanted would have been better. 

From that Hitfix interview:

Oh, entertainment journalists!

This bothered me too. In fact, I think the whole end of that sequence is oddly staged. Not only does Bond allow Patrice to assassinate somebody, but the way it's edited indicates that Patrice realizes at some point that Bond is sneaking up behind him. He takes the kill shot and then quickly turns and lunges to get a jump on Bond. Which means Patrice was willing to bet that the Double-O agent coming up from behind wasn't going to make a move until after he pulled the trigger. That's a hell of a gamble!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

littlenomad, you bring up good points about the recycled plot points from more recent, previous Bonds. But I think that it's less a case of lazy cribbing and more of a case of Mendes and Co. have a specific story they want to tell and they don't give a shit if they are plot points that have appeared in other Bonds. Your complaints are specific to being a Bond fan, which is fine, bit you're not viewing the movie as its own entity outside of the franchise baggage. 

That's true, Sebastian.  Part of the reason I'm open to others' opinions about Skyfall is that I am a lifelong Bond fan, and as such I know I can't experience a new Bond movie in the same way a newcomer or casual fan would.  And it has occurred to me that the Skyfall team wanted to tell a specific story in the Bond Reboot continuity, recycling controversies be damned.  Still, the alleged cribbing is pretty jarring, and I think it's a fair criticism, because without hardcore fans this series would not have continued as long as it has.  Yesterday at the theatre, there were plenty of husband and wife couples, aged 40 and up.  Those people weren't viewing their first Bond film.  

I too am a lifelong (well, since I was 7 anyway) Bond fan and most of the plot points you mentioned didn't occur to me because I was so absorbed in the movie, coupled with the fact that Bond movies always have recycled qualities. I did recognize the Silva/006 similarity right away because GOLDENEYE remains one of my favorites. I see your point, I was just fortunate in that none of these things took me out of the movie. 

Also: what Dan said. If filmmakers want to take the good bits from TWINE and DIE ANOTHER DAY and make better Bond films with them, I'm all for it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

TCD, you wandered into this thread basically proclaiming loudly that this movie is a turd so I don't feel bad that you got dogpiled on. Since then you've at least articulated your argument, but I still think you basically wanted a totally different movie than what is there and frankly I don't think the movie you wanted would have been better. 

I don't feel bad about it either. I expressed a contrary opinion in a hostile environment. I knew what I was getting in to. 

And yeah, I did want a different movie than the one I saw. Thus my disappointment.

And for the record, the movies I want are always better. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by zak chase 

 

This bothered me too. In fact, I think the whole end of that sequence is oddly staged. Not only does Bond allow Patrice to assassinate somebody, but the way it's edited indicates that Patrice realizes at some point that Bond is sneaking up behind him. He takes the kill shot and then quickly turns and lunges to get a jump on Bond. Which means Patrice was willing to bet that the Double-O agent coming up from behind wasn't going to make a move until after he pulled the trigger. That's a hell of a gamble!

I wasn't nearly as troubled by the death of the assassination victim as I was by the security guard in the lobby. I assume the assassination target did something worthy of assassination, but what did that poor bastard security guard ever do to anyone?

But yeah, it was a cool sequence and beautifully shot, but kind of weirdly staged. 

Possibly Bond is waiting for he assassin not to have a cocked and loaded weapon ready?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Youngblood 

Possibly Bond is waiting for he assassin not to have a cocked and loaded weapon ready?

COWARD!

What happened to the Bond that would BUST THROUGH DRYWALL???

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCD 

Welcome to Thunderdome, littlenomad. 

Get off the cross please. There's a whole line of martyrs waiting for their turn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 


And it's not James Bond's job to stop assassins. He was there to find out who Patrice was working for. Bond was observing, not trying to save the day.
And I just got back from my second showing of Skyfall, and I have just one complaint: the shot from the teaser of Bond jogging through a park? No where to be found in this movie. I really wish that had been included, damn it. I wanted a little montage of Bond training himself back up to fighting shape.

You never know; due to the popularity of the movie, they might end up releasing an extended version with scenes like that included? I'd say there's a good chance, unless it was the final director's cut which is playing in theatres.

That bit would go against the point being the physical wreck being sent back out into the field.  He didn't have time to retrain himself.

If you want to see Craig Bond running, you still had that in the film.

I thought the art assassination was very clear, when the assassin looked over to the door he couldn't see Bond because of the way the light was reflecting off the door.  I find it hard to believe from that point on he's aware of somebody sneaking up on him to kill him. 

You know what Ijust realized? This thread is sorely lacking in running neck snap appreciation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WendellEverett 

I don't dare go into the "Best of bond Let's Get This Over With" thread because if I said the "Goldeneye" is horrible and "Tomorrow Never Dies" is fantastic on that thread, I could be banned from the entire site for life. Oh, wait, those same guys are reading this?  Oh Nooooooeeeeeesssssss.

On that thread I wrote that I still enjoy Die Another Day, and I'm still here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlenomad 

If I remember correctly, I came across a snippet of a review on Rotten Tomatoes which said there was a tremendous case of "been there, done that" with Skyfall.  I read that well in advance of seeing the film, and I thought, come on, that's just lazy critic writing.  However, I shockingly felt the same way yesterday afternoon after exiting the theatre. I had gone into Skyfall 95% unspoiled, and was excited about that.  In the past, sometimes a little spoiling in advance has helped me understand or value the movie differently, sometimes for the best.  And I've visited this message board many times to see if my lukewarm enthusiasm for something is just me being hard to please, if I missed something in the movie that would help me understand it differently, or if the movie really does have problems in the eyes of other moviegoers.  Well, I can see that there aren't many of us, but there is a vocal minority of us who have almost to a letter the exact same problems with Skyfall.  

 

However, my biggest problems stem from the "been there, done that" issue.  Granted, Bond films have borrowed from each other before, but I don't think I have ever seen so many different plot points lifted wholesale from recent Bond pictures and stacked on top of each other to make a new movie.  "Recent" being the key word there.  If we were going back to Sean Connery or Roger Moore movies and lifting elements wholesale, I'd be less surprised.  But in Skyfall, we're going back to the recent and widely-seen Brosnan films and taking elements out.  

 

• MI6 Agent turns rogue and creates mayhem?  Goldeneye.  
• MI6 Agent is abandoned and tortured for months on end, and this causes resentment towards the people who didn't rescue him?  Die Another Day.  
• MI6 Agent has to undergo tests and prove self to MI6 before they'll let him back on the job?  Die Another Day.  
• Baddie with personal vendetta against M attacks MI6 Headquarters, complete with part of the building blowing up?  The World Is Not Enough.  
• MI6 has to relocate to classical, low-tech setting since their main headquarters was attacked?  The World Is Not Enough.
• Baddie with personal vendetta against M sets up elaborate plot to humiliate her and then kill her?  The World Is Not Enough.
• A significant person Bond cares about dies, yet this causes Bond to dedicate himself even more to the job at hand?  Casino Royale.
• Okay, it's the end of the movie and all this crap went down and you lost your girlfriend and you don't follow orders yet you get the job done...Bond, are you sure you're ready to be part of the team?  Quantum of Solace.
• Resetting Bond to a more hardcore, gadget-less, classic formula?  Casino Royale.

 

Yet there Skyfall went...not even 20 years after the oldest film on that list, Goldeneye.  Yes, this is "reset/reboot Bond," but that's no excuse...not for all of those above plot elements to be present, and not for them to follow so soon after the film they were originally featured in.   

 

Skyfall is well made, beautifully shot, has a memorable villain and scenes/themes that stick with you.  But it cribs so much from recent adventures I found it distracting, and there are quite a few unexplained/nonsensical things over the course of the movie that left me scratching my head.

 

• Are they suggesting Bond got shot twice in the same spot?  Or was Bond wearing a vest which protected him from Moneypenny's shot, but not the other guy's shrapnel?  There was only one chest wound visible in shirtless shots, so this is a serious question and a potentially ridiculous film flub.
• During the beautiful neon-on-glass sequence, why does Bond seemingly let that guy assassinate the poor chap in the other building?  
• If the Aston Martin isn't a Q-Branch model, where did all its gadgets come from?  
• Bond ultimately failed to protect M, and Ralph Fiennes seems to suggest both M and Bond retire...yet at the end of the movie, Bond still has a job and he's working for the guy who thought he should retire.  I could accept that better if maybe there was a statement like, "You know Bond, we may not totally see eye-to-eye, but you're a clever bastard and you've sacrificed damn near everything for us.  I'd be a fool to let you go."

 

I'm going to see the movie again, and maybe there are things I've missed during the first viewing that will show up and help explain some of my problems with the second.  Also, I'll keep following this board, because I really like seeing everyone's opinions.  

 

Just wanted to add mine to the mix! 

What's interesting is that I noted most of those points while watching Skyfall, but it didn't bother me and in fact somehow still felt fresh. Also, most of the Brosnan films have left my memory with nary a trace.

Bond films started quoting from each other in the 70's. Moonraker is practically a remake of Spy Who Loved Me, with a better villain and plan, and sore lack of Caroline Munro. (And really, why couldn't her character have survived being penetrated by Bond's missile, and deciding to hook up with Team Drax?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

Bond films started quoting from each other in the 70's. Moonraker is practically a remake of Spy Who Loved Me, with a better villain and plan, and sore lack of Caroline Munro. (And really, why couldn't her character have survived being penetrated by Bond's missile, and deciding to hook up with Team Drax?).

Actually, the quoting goes as far back as 1967 with You Only Live Twice.  It takes the basic plot of Dr No and remakes it on a massive scale, copying elements like Fiona Volpe along the way.  And TSWLM is really just a remake of YOLT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

James Bond: rapist?

 

Interesting conversation re: implied consent, ethics of having sex with a sex slave, etc.

I'm usually the one beating the feminist drum when it comes to women on film, but I've learned to shrug off anything that happens in a Bond movie.  He fucks girls, they die, the end.  This has been happening for quite some time, so for this person to just now notice it and get upset is like whining about the wetness of the ocean after you dove in head-first.

Well there you go!

EDITED TO ADD: In response to Doc Phibes.

You know, in that article's defense, it would've been nice if Bond appeared at all perturbed by Severine's death. I know the "waste of good scotch" thing isn't just some careless quip, and that it's part of a psychological con game he's playing with Silva, but still -- because we get no other reaction than that from Bond, the viewer (and the writer of that article) is pretty much free to make either reading. Even the merciless Bond of Quantum wanted Fields to get mentioned for "true bravery" in M's "report," and obviously Vesper's death drives an entire movie's worth of revenge. There's no doubt Marlohe's death is treated pretty callously by the film, and personally I find it a little disappointing (especially since I thought she was pretty damn excellent in the role).

Frankly, I think Casino Royale is still the best dissection of the sexual politics of the Bond movies, even though I find Skyfall better overall. Just Vesper's introductory scene alone really puts Craig on his ass, sex-wise -- pun intended.