Where does Bond go after Craig?

1577578580582583688

Comments

  • Posts: 7,522
    CrabKey wrote: »
    While I like NTTD, I am not terribly enthusiastic about the film. I don't need to dwell on my perceived negatives. But, I do very much like Craig as Bond. No, I don't think he exhibits the qualities I found so engaging in Connery, but Craig is today's Bond, which I think puts a lot of pressure on the next actor. The next actor is going to be very much in that who comes after Connery role? How much do I think Craig owns the role? Last night I tried to watch Goldeneye. As much as I like Pierce Brosnan in other roles, I had to stop watching because, like RM, Brosnan never convinces me he is Bond. I see actor Brosnan playing a character named James Bond, but I never believe for a second he is James Bond. Along comes Craig who, like SC, owns the role. Bond 7 will have his work cut out for him.

    Glad to hear someone else shares my opinion of Brossa! I was never convinced he was right for the role, even when he was lined up for TLD! (And here in Ireland, they were delighted with his casting with this "Born to be Bond!" nonsense!)
    When I saw GE first time, I said, "Yep, I was dead right!" He just plays a part and was extremely stiff and wooden, plus there is that smugness he brought to it, which really grates! It didn't get any better in the next few films, I was elated to hear he wasn't returning, and Craig was a phenomenal Bond! Agree also, the next Bond is going to have to be something special to fill his shoes!
  • Posts: 2,278
    It’s funny I always thought Brosnan nailed down certain aspects of the cinematic Bond better than both Dalton and Craig did.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,337
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    Not enough is said about the QOS cinematography and camera positioning - I could probably write an essay on it if time wasn't like a bullet.

    One cinematography moment in QOS that always irks me in a weird way is when Green and his men enter the hotel for the meeting with the General. For some reason it was decided that one of these shots should focus on some bowling balls in the foreground with them walking in the background. For other reasons it was decided to leave this in the final edit...

    QOS actually has some good looking cinematography, but it's things like that and the cross cutting to the horse race/Tosca opera during which really give me first year Film School student vibes. Like it's consciously trying to be clever/well composed but it's ultimately meaningless.

    The tomato lady!

    @mtm
    I really don't like that moment. It seems intended for comedy? I mean, the woman is lamenting her broken jars, like in some old Laurel & Hardy flick. But that feels tonally awkward given the seriousness of Bond chasing Mitchell.

    I always thought they were maraschino cherries.
  • Posts: 7,522
    It’s funny I always thought Brosnan nailed down certain aspects of the cinematic Bond better than both Dalton and Craig did.

    Nope!
    echo wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    Not enough is said about the QOS cinematography and camera positioning - I could probably write an essay on it if time wasn't like a bullet.

    One cinematography moment in QOS that always irks me in a weird way is when Green and his men enter the hotel for the meeting with the General. For some reason it was decided that one of these shots should focus on some bowling balls in the foreground with them walking in the background. For other reasons it was decided to leave this in the final edit...

    QOS actually has some good looking cinematography, but it's things like that and the cross cutting to the horse race/Tosca opera during which really give me first year Film School student vibes. Like it's consciously trying to be clever/well composed but it's ultimately meaningless.

    The tomato lady!

    @mtm
    I really don't like that moment. It seems intended for comedy? I mean, the woman is lamenting her broken jars, like in some old Laurel & Hardy flick. But that feels tonally awkward given the seriousness of Bond chasing Mitchell.

    I always thought they were maraschino cherries.

    I believe you're right there!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,223
    It’s funny I always thought Brosnan nailed down certain aspects of the cinematic Bond better than both Dalton and Craig did.

    I think you're right, if only because both Craig and Dalton eras felt like they were making intentional strides away from that pre-conceived notion of what "cinematic Bond" is.
  • edited June 29 Posts: 1,396
    It’s funny I always thought Brosnan nailed down certain aspects of the cinematic Bond better than both Dalton and Craig did.

    I think you're right, if only because both Craig and Dalton eras felt like they were making intentional strides away from that pre-conceived notion of what "cinematic Bond" is.

    If cinematic Bond means someone with a tuxedo or a suit all the time, yes, Craig and Dalton tried to be different. We could argue that they were not very successful in breaking that image.

    Craig went full retro after QoS.
  • Posts: 4,236
    I think SF is a bit of a transition film for Craig’s Bond, but I’ve never understood why some say his take on the character was fundamentally different in that film (I’d say he’s still just as intense as he was in QOS, and just as humorous as he was in CR). What’s quite interesting is his Bond becomes much humorous and relaxed in SP after going through those events, which is actually something I find very believable.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 29 Posts: 3,154
    Dan Bradley on the approach he took on QOS: 'We shouldn’t try and make everything feel perfectly staged...I want to feel like we were lucky to catch a glimpse of some crazy piece of action. I don’t want it to feel like a movie, where everything is perfectly presented to the audience.'

    Have to say, I thought it was pretty evident that Craig was playing Bond differently in SF than he had in CR and QOS. He's far more terse and reined in, speaks in a bit of a guarded monotone that doesn't give much away, he's got a poker face going on a lot of the time and he carries himself differently - 'the walk' isn't there, for an obvious example. I can see the events of intervening years having led the Bond of QOS to become the Bond of SF, but not in just the intervening four years between the films, tbh. There's three films missing between QOS and SF, man. ;)
  • Posts: 2,278
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    It’s funny I always thought Brosnan nailed down certain aspects of the cinematic Bond better than both Dalton and Craig did.

    Nope!

    Yup! Can’t convince me otherwise.
    It’s funny I always thought Brosnan nailed down certain aspects of the cinematic Bond better than both Dalton and Craig did.

    I think you're right, if only because both Craig and Dalton eras felt like they were making intentional strides away from that pre-conceived notion of what "cinematic Bond" is.

    That’s a large part yes, but I feel as if Brosnan had a better concept on how to balance the serious/emotional aspects of the character with the flippant/humourous traits we’ve come to know and love; and he did this without sacrificing one for the other. That’s not an insult against Dalton and Craig (I’m sure to some they’re just as if not more engaging), but Brosnan’s Bond had this fantasy/wish fulfillment aspect to his character that Connery and Moore had; and that just makes him more fun for me to watch personally.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited June 29 Posts: 695
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think SF is a bit of a transition film for Craig’s Bond, but I’ve never understood why some say his take on the character was fundamentally different in that film (I’d say he’s still just as intense as he was in QOS, and just as humorous as he was in CR). What’s quite interesting is his Bond becomes much humorous and relaxed in SP after going through those events, which is actually something I find very believable.

    It isn't just Craig's acting that's different, it's the writing and overall presentation that are completely different from CR and QOS. The opening shot sums up everything I dislike about SF. Why is Bond entering frame and dramatically posing for no reason in an empty hallway? Why does he slowly and dramatically approach like he knows a camera is there, stopping in a bit of light where he knows his eyes will be highlighted? Presumably he's responding to Ronson being shot- he should be hustling and breaking down the door. Why the slow, dramatic, overly-theatrical approach?

    Obviously the answer is Mendes' theater background, but there's no in-movie explanation for this. To me it's fake and stagey and completely lacking the realism of CR and QOS. In those movies Bond feels like he's part of the real world whereas the rest of Craig's films come off as fantasies.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    It’s funny I always thought Brosnan nailed down certain aspects of the cinematic Bond better than both Dalton and Craig did.

    I think you're right, if only because both Craig and Dalton eras felt like they were making intentional strides away from that pre-conceived notion of what "cinematic Bond" is.

    If cinematic Bond means someone with a tuxedo or a suit all the time, yes, Craig and Dalton tried to be different. We could argue that they were not very successful in breaking that image.

    Craig went full retro after QoS.

    But Craig wore a tuxedo in both CR and QoS, before going “full retro”. I’m not understanding… you said “If cinematic Bond means someone with a tuxedo or a suit all the time, yes, Craig and Dalton tried to be different…”

    Yet Craig wore a lot of suits in both films?
    So did Dalton?

    Both wore tuxes as well?

    I’m missing something…
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited June 29 Posts: 8,223
    It’s funny I always thought Brosnan nailed down certain aspects of the cinematic Bond better than both Dalton and Craig did.

    I think you're right, if only because both Craig and Dalton eras felt like they were making intentional strides away from that pre-conceived notion of what "cinematic Bond" is.

    If cinematic Bond means someone with a tuxedo or a suit all the time, yes, Craig and Dalton tried to be different. We could argue that they were not very successful in breaking that image.

    Craig went full retro after QoS.

    No, that's not what it means necessarily. That's merely an element.

    But yes, the attempts had hits and misses. The misses were mainly narrative in the case of Craig's era, for me. However, you can't deny it was an era of trying new things and I do admire that. Some subjective missteps come with the territory, and the films ultimately were still hugely successful - so while you could make a case for it, you'd need a whopper closing statement to sell it to a jury.
  • edited June 29 Posts: 2,278
    In a case of never fully realizing what you have until it's gone, I do somewhat miss Craig in the role. For a vast majority of my lifetime, Craig has been James Bond; and while he never replaced Connery/Brosnan as being the prevailing image of the character in my mind, I've grown up alongside Craig's Bond, and in real time I watched the public reception change from the angry fanboys criticizing his casting to him becoming one of the most beloved actors in the role. He left a huge mark on me when I saw Casino Royale in the theaters (the first Bond film I watched in the cinema), and I oddly felt cold leaving the end of NTTD. Not by the fact that I watched him die right before my very own eyes; but by the fact that I had just witnessed what was essentially the end of an era for the series. Sort of like parting ways with an old friend.
  • Posts: 4,236
    slide_99 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think SF is a bit of a transition film for Craig’s Bond, but I’ve never understood why some say his take on the character was fundamentally different in that film (I’d say he’s still just as intense as he was in QOS, and just as humorous as he was in CR). What’s quite interesting is his Bond becomes much humorous and relaxed in SP after going through those events, which is actually something I find very believable.

    It isn't just Craig's acting that's different, it's the writing and overall presentation that are completely different from CR and QOS. The opening shot sums up everything I dislike about SF. Why is Bond entering frame and dramatically posing for no reason in an empty hallway? Why does he slowly and dramatically approach like he knows a camera is there, stopping in a bit of light where he knows his eyes will be highlighted? Presumably he's responding to Ronson being shot- he should be hustling and breaking down the door. Why the slow, dramatic, overly-theatrical approach?

    Obviously the answer is Mendes' theater background, but there's no in-movie explanation for this. To me it's fake and stagey and completely lacking the realism of CR and QOS. In those movies Bond feels like he's part of the real world whereas the rest of Craig's films come off as fantasies.

    To be honest I’ve always thought the opening of SF is actually really cinematic. One of the most cinematic shots of the series in fact. But to each their own.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,223
    In a case of never fully realizing what you have until it's gone, I do somewhat miss Craig in the role. For a vast majority of my lifetime, Craig has been James Bond; and while he never replaced Connery/Brosnan as being the prevailing image of the character in my mind, I've grown up alongside Craig's Bond, and in real time I watched the public reception change from the angry fanboys criticizing his casting to him becoming one of the most beloved actors in the role. He left a huge mark on me when I saw Casino Royale in the theaters (the first Bond film I watched in the cinema), and I oddly felt cold leaving the end of NTTD. Not by the fact that I watched him die right before my very own eyes; but by the fact that I had just witnessed what was essentially the end of an era for the series. Sort of like parting ways with an old friend.

    I certainly had the same feeling - the death on its own terms didn't really effect me all that much as I still couldn't buy into Bond and Swann's relationship. However there still was that lingering feeling afterwards of a parting of the ways, as you say. Just goes to show that the concept of Bond dying is powerful, regardless of the circumstances that bring us there.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited June 29 Posts: 9,509
    slide_99 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think SF is a bit of a transition film for Craig’s Bond, but I’ve never understood why some say his take on the character was fundamentally different in that film (I’d say he’s still just as intense as he was in QOS, and just as humorous as he was in CR). What’s quite interesting is his Bond becomes much humorous and relaxed in SP after going through those events, which is actually something I find very believable.

    It isn't just Craig's acting that's different, it's the writing and overall presentation that are completely different from CR and QOS. The opening shot sums up everything I dislike about SF. Why is Bond entering frame and dramatically posing for no reason in an empty hallway? Why does he slowly and dramatically approach like he knows a camera is there, stopping in a bit of light where he knows his eyes will be highlighted? Presumably he's responding to Ronson being shot- he should be hustling and breaking down the door. Why the slow, dramatic, overly-theatrical approach?

    Obviously the answer is Mendes' theater background, but there's no in-movie explanation for this. To me it's fake and stagey and completely lacking the realism of CR and QOS. In those movies Bond feels like he's part of the real world whereas the rest of Craig's films come off as fantasies.

    Think you missed the point of the PTS. It’s stylistic, certainly, not theatrical. And it’s obvious Bond hears a noise- pulls his gun out, sensing danger. He moves forward, sees one dead agent lying in a pool of his blood, no idea if the big bad is still there, until he finds Ronsan bleeding out.

    I don’t think he’s going to barge into a room without knowing if there’s an enemy still lurking (if he did, that would be the fantastical approach, 😂)….
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,857
    007HallY wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think SF is a bit of a transition film for Craig’s Bond, but I’ve never understood why some say his take on the character was fundamentally different in that film (I’d say he’s still just as intense as he was in QOS, and just as humorous as he was in CR). What’s quite interesting is his Bond becomes much humorous and relaxed in SP after going through those events, which is actually something I find very believable.

    It isn't just Craig's acting that's different, it's the writing and overall presentation that are completely different from CR and QOS. The opening shot sums up everything I dislike about SF. Why is Bond entering frame and dramatically posing for no reason in an empty hallway? Why does he slowly and dramatically approach like he knows a camera is there, stopping in a bit of light where he knows his eyes will be highlighted? Presumably he's responding to Ronson being shot- he should be hustling and breaking down the door. Why the slow, dramatic, overly-theatrical approach?

    Obviously the answer is Mendes' theater background, but there's no in-movie explanation for this. To me it's fake and stagey and completely lacking the realism of CR and QOS. In those movies Bond feels like he's part of the real world whereas the rest of Craig's films come off as fantasies.

    To be honest I’ve always thought the opening of SF is actually really cinematic. One of the most cinematic shots of the series in fact. But to each their own.

    I also took Bond's entrance in SF as trying not to get killed.

  • Posts: 2,010
    I like the random shots in QoS. Violence and chaos can break out anywhere and people react. I don't need to know what happened to the cherry/tomato lady after or the face in the crowd. It was enough to know to ordinary people caught up in events taking place around them. Nor does the crosscutting between the horse race and opera bother me. Sports and entertainment mirror the conflict and violence of real life. I do agree Bond seems different in the third film. The hair alone is quite a bit different.
  • Posts: 4,236
    peter wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think SF is a bit of a transition film for Craig’s Bond, but I’ve never understood why some say his take on the character was fundamentally different in that film (I’d say he’s still just as intense as he was in QOS, and just as humorous as he was in CR). What’s quite interesting is his Bond becomes much humorous and relaxed in SP after going through those events, which is actually something I find very believable.

    It isn't just Craig's acting that's different, it's the writing and overall presentation that are completely different from CR and QOS. The opening shot sums up everything I dislike about SF. Why is Bond entering frame and dramatically posing for no reason in an empty hallway? Why does he slowly and dramatically approach like he knows a camera is there, stopping in a bit of light where he knows his eyes will be highlighted? Presumably he's responding to Ronson being shot- he should be hustling and breaking down the door. Why the slow, dramatic, overly-theatrical approach?

    Obviously the answer is Mendes' theater background, but there's no in-movie explanation for this. To me it's fake and stagey and completely lacking the realism of CR and QOS. In those movies Bond feels like he's part of the real world whereas the rest of Craig's films come off as fantasies.

    Think you missed the point of the PTS. It’s stylistic, certainly, not theatrical. And it’s obvious Bond hears a noise- pulls his gun out, sensing danger. He moves forward, sees one dead agent lying in a pool of his blood, no idea if the big bad is still there, until he finds Ronsan bleeding out.

    I don’t think he’s going to barge into a room without knowing if there’s an enemy still lurking (if he did, that would be the fantastical approach, 😂)….

    For me it’s pure cinema. It’s a wonderfully composed shot akin to something like the final shots of The Searchers or The Third Man (which are also very stylistic in not dissimilar ways, and revolve heavily around the characters’ movements). Regardless of that though, I’ve never found anything theatrical or out of place about it. It’s just a great shot that accentuates a moment in the film. It’s certainly not theatrical.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 694
    peter wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think SF is a bit of a transition film for Craig’s Bond, but I’ve never understood why some say his take on the character was fundamentally different in that film (I’d say he’s still just as intense as he was in QOS, and just as humorous as he was in CR). What’s quite interesting is his Bond becomes much humorous and relaxed in SP after going through those events, which is actually something I find very believable.

    It isn't just Craig's acting that's different, it's the writing and overall presentation that are completely different from CR and QOS. The opening shot sums up everything I dislike about SF. Why is Bond entering frame and dramatically posing for no reason in an empty hallway? Why does he slowly and dramatically approach like he knows a camera is there, stopping in a bit of light where he knows his eyes will be highlighted? Presumably he's responding to Ronson being shot- he should be hustling and breaking down the door. Why the slow, dramatic, overly-theatrical approach?

    Obviously the answer is Mendes' theater background, but there's no in-movie explanation for this. To me it's fake and stagey and completely lacking the realism of CR and QOS. In those movies Bond feels like he's part of the real world whereas the rest of Craig's films come off as fantasies.

    Think you missed the point of the PTS. It’s stylistic, certainly, not theatrical. And it’s obvious Bond hears a noise- pulls his gun out, sensing danger. He moves forward, sees one dead agent lying in a pool of his blood, no idea if the big bad is still there, until he finds Ronsan bleeding out.

    I don’t think he’s going to barge into a room without knowing if there’s an enemy still lurking (if he did, that would be the fantastical approach, 😂)….

    Perhaps he hasn't seen Bond 23 either.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited June 30 Posts: 695
    peter wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think SF is a bit of a transition film for Craig’s Bond, but I’ve never understood why some say his take on the character was fundamentally different in that film (I’d say he’s still just as intense as he was in QOS, and just as humorous as he was in CR). What’s quite interesting is his Bond becomes much humorous and relaxed in SP after going through those events, which is actually something I find very believable.

    It isn't just Craig's acting that's different, it's the writing and overall presentation that are completely different from CR and QOS. The opening shot sums up everything I dislike about SF. Why is Bond entering frame and dramatically posing for no reason in an empty hallway? Why does he slowly and dramatically approach like he knows a camera is there, stopping in a bit of light where he knows his eyes will be highlighted? Presumably he's responding to Ronson being shot- he should be hustling and breaking down the door. Why the slow, dramatic, overly-theatrical approach?

    Obviously the answer is Mendes' theater background, but there's no in-movie explanation for this. To me it's fake and stagey and completely lacking the realism of CR and QOS. In those movies Bond feels like he's part of the real world whereas the rest of Craig's films come off as fantasies.

    Think you missed the point of the PTS. It’s stylistic, certainly, not theatrical. And it’s obvious Bond hears a noise- pulls his gun out, sensing danger. He moves forward, sees one dead agent lying in a pool of his blood, no idea if the big bad is still there, until he finds Ronsan bleeding out.

    I don’t think he’s going to barge into a room without knowing if there’s an enemy still lurking (if he did, that would be the fantastical approach, 😂)….

    When Bond enters the room, three people have been shot. The noise Bond heard before that was actually a door closing (Patrice leaving). There isn't much context here but it seems like Bond, Ronson, and two other agents were guarding the laptop and Patrice surprised them. It still doesn't explain Bond's overly-dramatic intro, sauntering down a corridor and mugging for the camera when three people have been shot, only drawing his pistol when he hears a door.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    slide_99 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think SF is a bit of a transition film for Craig’s Bond, but I’ve never understood why some say his take on the character was fundamentally different in that film (I’d say he’s still just as intense as he was in QOS, and just as humorous as he was in CR). What’s quite interesting is his Bond becomes much humorous and relaxed in SP after going through those events, which is actually something I find very believable.

    It isn't just Craig's acting that's different, it's the writing and overall presentation that are completely different from CR and QOS. The opening shot sums up everything I dislike about SF. Why is Bond entering frame and dramatically posing for no reason in an empty hallway? Why does he slowly and dramatically approach like he knows a camera is there, stopping in a bit of light where he knows his eyes will be highlighted? Presumably he's responding to Ronson being shot- he should be hustling and breaking down the door. Why the slow, dramatic, overly-theatrical approach?

    Obviously the answer is Mendes' theater background, but there's no in-movie explanation for this. To me it's fake and stagey and completely lacking the realism of CR and QOS. In those movies Bond feels like he's part of the real world whereas the rest of Craig's films come off as fantasies.

    Think you missed the point of the PTS. It’s stylistic, certainly, not theatrical. And it’s obvious Bond hears a noise- pulls his gun out, sensing danger. He moves forward, sees one dead agent lying in a pool of his blood, no idea if the big bad is still there, until he finds Ronsan bleeding out.

    I don’t think he’s going to barge into a room without knowing if there’s an enemy still lurking (if he did, that would be the fantastical approach, 😂)….

    When Bond enters the room, three people have been shot. The noise Bond heard before that was actually a door closing (Patrice leaving). There isn't much context here but it seems like Bond, Ronson, and two other agents were guarding the laptop and Patrice surprised them. It still doesn't explain Bond's overly-dramatic intro, sauntering down a corridor and mugging for the camera when three people have been shot, only drawing his pistol when he hears a door.

    Craig wasn't "mugging for the camera".

    That saying quite literally means striking a funny face to attract attention or when being photographed.

    Although you may not like the scene, you don't have to be hyperbolic about it, 😂 (theatrical, posing, mugging...)

    You quite simply didn't like it. Fair. And I don't think Bond was a part of the crew protecting the laptop.

    And Bond didn't know anyone had been shot until he went deeper into the flat...

  • edited June 30 Posts: 4,236
    Yeah, I always presumed it was Bond investigating/it wasn’t obvious Patrice had overtaken the two other agents until he got in the room. Gunshots wouldn’t necessarily mean much even if he had heard them, which we don’t actually know (the agents could possibly have killed Patrice if something had gone wrong for instance and have temporarily gone radio silent) and it’d be counterintuitive on Bond’s part to rush in/alert Patrice to his presence… and the shot wouldn’t look as cool with Bond running in (which yes, is a factor, even though it’s relatively logical). It’s very much a ‘begin as late as possible’ opening, which is actually good.

    Again though to each their own. I certainly complain about/don’t like certain things in Bond films others wouldn’t think about normally or outright don’t see, so I can relate 😂
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    007HallY wrote: »
    Yeah, I always presumed it was Bond investigating/it wasn’t obvious Patrice had overtaken the two other agents until he got in the room. Gunshots wouldn’t necessarily mean much even if he had heard them, which we don’t actually know (the agents could possibly have killed Patrice if something had gone wrong for instance and have temporarily gone radio silent) and it’d be counterintuitive on Bond’s part to rush in/alert Patrice to his presence… and the shot wouldn’t look as cool with Bond running in (which yes, is a factor, even though it’s relatively logical). It’s very much a ‘begin as late as possible’ opening, which is actually good.

    Again though to each their own. I certainly complain about/don’t like certain things in Bond films others wouldn’t think about normally or outright don’t see, so I can relate 😂

    Starting a scene as late as you can (and the second part of that is, to leave early, in most cases (wanting the audience to want more is a good thing)), is a great call and is a technique used in films, not theatre (circling back to the point that the PTS of SF is *very* cinematic, and not "theatrical" in the least).

    And we all have scenes we don't like, but most don't have to be hyperbolic. I just don't like anything to do with the TWINE PTS; I find it overlong, in somplaces the humor is juvenile, and although there's a lot going on, I find myself bored with it. Those are my opinions, and I don't need to jack my opinion up with any exaggerations or demean the PTS (as I know it does work for others), by adding things to it that just aren't there... It's just my opinion, and that's all. I don't need to convince myself , or others, that this is a universal truth. It's a sequence of scenes that I don't connect with, period.

    If slide_99 despises the PTS , that's all fair and good. He just doesn't need to jack-up his opinions by coloring the PTS with things that aren't there, or exaggerating what was there. I'm assuming he did the bare minimum, though, and actually watched this film, so at least a discussion can actually be had, 😂....
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I love that opening shot of Skyfall.

    I still remember going to see it opening night, the rumour was the gunbarrel was back at the start. I was disappointed initially then it started with that fantastic opening shot, all was forgiven. There was something cool, iconic and almost ominous about Bond walking towards camera
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    💯 @Jordo007 ... Incredibly cinematic imagery, hence why most love the PTS and the film.

    For most, it started on the right foot, and rolled from there.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,664
    peter wrote: »
    💯 @Jordo007 ... Incredibly cinematic imagery, hence why most love the PTS and the film.

    For most, it started on the right foot, and rolled from there.

    Next to GF, TMWTGG, MR, and GE for sure, one of my favorite pre-title sequences. I like Bond working with a partner. Also, having MI6 talking to him, reminds me of the video games, when they do the same thing.
  • Posts: 2,278
    Yeah Skyfall's PTS is just superb. I don't know how anybody could watch that entire sequence and not leave feeling amped for what is to come.
  • The Skyfall PTS is good I suppose, but doesn't leave me excited or thrilled. Similar to the PTS of The Living Daylights I suppose, or Spectre. None of those three, despite being cool and well-regarded, give the sort of thrill that kick-starts a Bond story. For all I dislike it, I'd say No Time To Die does is bit more for me than those other three
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    The Skyfall PTS is good I suppose, but doesn't leave me excited or thrilled. Similar to the PTS of The Living Daylights I suppose, or Spectre. None of those three, despite being cool and well-regarded, give the sort of thrill that kick-starts a Bond story. For all I dislike it, I'd say No Time To Die does is bit more for me than those other three

    Wow, TLD?!! I didn’t see that one coming, 😂!!

    It still remains my favourite. I just loved/love it. It really felt like we had a genuine changing of the guards… but I also think the NTTD was unique and original and brave in playing with different genres (horror, romance, character, action)…
Sign In or Register to comment.