007: What would you have done differently?

15455575960

Comments

  • Posts: 3,901
    Humour and our perception of it varies hugely from one person to another. One persons favourite stand up may do nothing for another person.
    So it's not really surprising that the humour in Skyfall does divide fans. It is dark, sardonic and sarcastic. Given Bond's frame of mind thoughout most of the film, they really had no other options.
    IMHO, it works very well and I think some of the lines compliment Craig's acting style (he's not RM, clearly).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    octofinger wrote: »
    Well, a tough one, but here were go:

    -The plot really didn't bother me much at the time, but it rightly takes some stick for being rather convoluted (in the "villain who wants to be caught" sense) and resting on a whole lot of luck, coincidence, or things beyond the characters' control.

    -In retrospect, what was silva's plan? Embarrass M and then kill her? Then why go through all the other steps?

    -There are some other moments that are needed to drive the plot but are frustrating as character choices: is Q really stupid enough to plug Silva's laptop into the MI6 network? Is Bond really stupid enough to retreat to the Skyfall manor with a single handgun and one spare magazine? Is M really stupid enough to escape from the manor across the moors using a big flashlight? Etc etc. - none of these moments is fatal, but it does make it harder to feel sympathy for the characters when bad things come of their stupid choices.

    -Something is off with the lighting and/or makeup as Bond arrives on the boat to the Macau casino. He looks clownish. Fix please.

    -A few of the line deliveries are a little awkward (". . .It's called 'radio.'" "Severine." "Old dog." etc.) One more take on those, please.

    -I'm torn in terms of the general 'weight' of the film. It's great, but it's not easy going. Is there any way you could trim run time or add some levity without sacrificing what makes the film great? I don't know. . .

    And as always, some things I wouldn't change:
    -great title track
    -stunning visuals
    -some great 'fan service' moments, like the Aston reveal, the porcelain bulldog, and the rooftop closing scene. It's just enough 'applause moments' without going too far.
    -mostly solid cast
    -the closing scenes might literally be the best in a Bond movie.
    All good points. RE: villain who wants to get caught, it's very obviously TDK,
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    Enough with the "bisexual Bond" BS. Silva wanted to discomfort Bond and he clearly didn't let Silva have an advantage on him. Hence the "what makes you think it's my first time" line. Silva was making Bond uncomfortable so he could play his mind games with Bond ("What's the regulation to cover this?") and Bond never lets his enemies see him bleeding. Plus, it was a nice nod to Casino Royale.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/skyfall-bisexual-james-bond-gay_n_2082845.html
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Does that even need explaining? We've all seen the film. Any ignorance of what was actually happening is willful and not really worth addressing.

    Well that got people talking @Birdleson not worth addressing and willful really? just because I don't agree with it being in there doesn't mean its willful or not worth addressing maybe not to you.

    @Birdleson @Walecs look I can have an opinion too not that i don't agree with your analysis still a bit of a close call I didn't care for it because it was too confusing for a mainstream audience like probably most audiences would be thinking it was kind of gay but like your analysis puts it it wasn't and unless you did some sort of analysis an instant reaction would say otherwise and that's why it wasn't needed it didn't do anything to move the plot along it was just an extra way proving a point of Bond not being unsettled at anything which they could have did in another way that was less confusing to a main audience nonetheless it was pointless script writing in my opinion totally unnecessary
    SF, as a 50th anniversary film, is full of homages and references to past films. I remember some suggesting it could be a callback to CR (and I felt the same way at the time), but it could also be a callback to FRWL (Klebb/Tanya).
    BT3366 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Right, that's what I thought about the transmitter. But the whole thing was for Silva to get caught anyway, so who knows, but it just adds to the puzzle of things that don't add up and why I think this film is so overrated.
    Good point about the objective being for him to be caught. There are a few logic holes, but it's so nicely put together aesthetically that I always forget that. I don't tend to analyze SF for some reason. Like something beautiful I'm just caught up in the response to it, which dulls my critical antennae.
    No question it's a beautiful film and well directed most of the way, but because SF was such a critical and financial success it seems many don't analyze it and use the kudos it earned for not -- not saying you, bondjames. The modern Bond films have to work harder to not have those moments as the older films could get away with that and it can be counted as part of their charms in some ways.

    Modern films can't have that luxury as much since we have access to home video, streaming, etc. and can notice more about the visual part, screenplay and other areas. You're always going to have plotholes and problems as long as there are films, but SF just seems to be a case where they it doesn't apply as much.
    I get your point about newer films having to work a bit harder, as we all get a chance to see them far more often and generally analyze them more frequently due to all the technological innovations.

    Frankly I'm surprised there aren't more 'fixing' comments for SF, since I know a lot of members take issue with the plot and conveniences.
    patb wrote: »
    Humour and our perception of it varies hugely from one person to another. One persons favourite stand up may do nothing for another person.
    So it's not really surprising that the humour in Skyfall does divide fans. It is dark, sardonic and sarcastic. Given Bond's frame of mind thoughout most of the film, they really had no other options.
    IMHO, it works very well and I think some of the lines compliment Craig's acting style (he's not RM, clearly).
    Not just Bond though - that sarcasm pervades the entire cast. I personally like it, but can appreciate why it's not everyone's cup of tea.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited January 2019 Posts: 2,937
    One thing I'd also change is replacing the DB5 with the Aston Martin we've seen in Casino Royale.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger On Her Secret Majesty s Service
    Posts: 35,503
    Just drop Tanner, and the film is fine.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    edited January 2019 Posts: 28,307
    Walecs wrote: »
    One thing I'd also change is replacing the DB5 with the Aston Martin we've seen in Casino Royale.

    Then they may as well use it at as well. The were going for that gasp of recognition, and they got it.

    I'm absolutely pleased with it. I don't care about continuity in my Bond films.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 2,942
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I would argue, but then again I did have one non-Bond fan friend comment to me at the time that Bond was gay upon seeing SF. But, I must also consider that he was likely trying to goad me (we don’t speak now due to politics).

    @Birdleson that sounds quite sad
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 28,307
    No, for the best.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Merry Craigmas
    edited January 2019 Posts: 3,589
    bondjames wrote: »
    @mattjoes, it's fascinating to read your thoughts, particularly because they are so different from mine. I think the humour works fine, but then again I'm referring to the sarcastic tone which permeates the film and shows itself through quite a few characters (not just Bond). There's a certain playful cynicism in the exchanges which works for me, perhaps because it mirrors my own humour. It's not offensive or sardonic to my eyes and ears. I can appreciate, if that doesn't resonate, how the film can appear overall dark and a bit serious in tone. I personally don't like any of the off the cuff remarks though (like Circle of Life or the Open the Door line either), because I agree with you that Craig doesn't sell that as well as some of the other Bond actors.

    Tonally, I think the film overall works for Craig's Bond, and that's why it's easily my favourite entry of his.
    I see, @bondjames. It all boils down to how much the humor and tone engages us (more on Skyfall's suitability to Craig below).

    patb wrote: »
    Humour and our perception of it varies hugely from one person to another. One persons favourite stand up may do nothing for another person.
    So it's not really surprising that the humour in Skyfall does divide fans. It is dark, sardonic and sarcastic. Given Bond's frame of mind thoughout most of the film, they really had no other options.
    IMHO, it works very well and I think some of the lines compliment Craig's acting style (he's not RM, clearly).
    I was thinking about the bolded part of your post, and my first impression was to agree that they had to go the way they did given the story and Bond's questioning of himself and his relationship with M. But now I'm thinking an adjustment could've been made for the character of Bond that would've allowed the film to have a more pronounced sense of humor without betraying the essence of the drama. I've always thought in Skyfall Bond has a bit of a thousand-yard stare thing going on. He's doing the job but he appears introspective throughout. His mind is in another place-- he's questioning things. That works alright, but they could've expressed the conflict within Bond in another way: instead of having him turn inwards, they could've had him act out, like Connery in the DAF PTS, Dalton in LTK and... Craig in QoS. In those films Bond is more cruel and angry than usual. (Edit -- forgot the main part of my argument!) And I think that, crucially, that lends itself better to creating the type of humor I've referred to than an introspective feel. Likewise, in Skyfall, Bond's frustration with the turn of events at the beginning of the film could've manifested itself in a more intense, foul-tempered and less patient Bond. Mind you, after Quantum of Solace this would've been more of the same, but the fact both stories are "personal" is what is really to blame for that. And that type of characterization could've created a pleasing contrast at the end, with M's death triggering a catharsis in Bond that could've caused him to go from angry and intense to quiet and introspective. In the film they did make, Bond is generally at the same level of intensity throughout, including the ending, so what I suggset might've provided a more impactful ending.

    Of course all of the above stems from my lack of appreciation for Skyfall's tone and humor. If you enjoy them --and a considerable number of people do--, more power to you.

    Following the same logic, I was also thinking something which at first sounds ridiculous, but then not so much (@bondjames): Maybe Skyfall was too serious a film for Craig. I think Craig can be very charming in his own sardonic style (he was especially in Casino Royale and Spectre), but someone with the lighter touch of Roger Moore, even if not given many lighthearted scenes, might've easily transformed the gloomy tone of the film into something less dramatic, just on account of his presence and his history in the role, and without necessarily undermining the drama. As long as that actor had the right dramatic chops, it could've worked without any radical changes to the story.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 2,937
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    One thing I'd also change is replacing the DB5 with the Aston Martin we've seen in Casino Royale.

    Then they may as well use it at as well. The were going for that gasp of recognition, and they got it.

    I'm absolutely please with it. I don't care about continuity in my Bond films.

    I never once spoke about continuity. It's just that it seemed like unnecessary fanwankery to me.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 28,307
    It was that, no question . I just assumed you went for the CR Aston because that’s the usual complaint around here; the GF DB5 is out of Craig’s continuity.
  • Posts: 3,901
    The reference to the ejection seat took me out of the movie on the first viewing and I wince on every re-watch. It's just not required and not appropriate
    A covered Lotus Esprit (very distinct profile) next to the Aston in the garage would have been fun.
  • Posts: 19,339
    To me,Bonds introverted anger etc is to do with the emphasis on the 'old dog new tricks' philosophy of the film.
    He is a more experienced agent and can control and use his anger in other,more useful ways,hence the sarcastic,sardonic quips throughout.

    It works for me.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,649
    barryt007 wrote: »
    To me,Bonds introverted anger etc is to do with the emphasis on the 'old dog new tricks' philosophy of the film.
    He is a more experienced agent and can control and use his anger in other,more useful ways,hence the sarcastic,sardonic quips throughout.

    It works for me.

    Yes - I agree. I think his concern for Ronson, and disappointment at Patrice falling to his death before he got a chance to garner information from him is in direct contrast to his indifference to the people he kills in CR and QOS especially.

    I think Bond has moved on as a character in SF and SP (which is why it's so frustrating that the script of SP is so determined to pull him into some personal trauma all over again when he doesn't seem interested in it...whoops...this is the SF thread isn't it! Sorry.)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Humour and our perception of it varies hugely from one person to another. One persons favourite stand up may do nothing for another person.
    So it's not really surprising that the humour in Skyfall does divide fans. It is dark, sardonic and sarcastic. Given Bond's frame of mind thoughout most of the film, they really had no other options.
    IMHO, it works very well and I think some of the lines compliment Craig's acting style (he's not RM, clearly).
    I was thinking about the bolded part of your post, and my first impression was to agree that they had to go the way they did given the story and Bond's questioning of himself and his relationship with M. But now I'm thinking an adjustment could've been made for the character of Bond that would've allowed the film to have a more pronounced sense of humor without betraying the essence of the drama. I've always thought in Skyfall Bond has a bit of a thousand-yard stare thing going on. He's doing the job but he appears introspective throughout. His mind is in another place-- he's questioning things. That works alright, but they could've expressed the conflict within Bond in another way: instead of having him turn inwards, they could've had him act out, like Connery in the DAF PTS, Dalton in LTK and... Craig in QoS. In those films Bond is more cruel and angry than usual. (Edit -- forgot the main part of my argument!) And I think that, crucially, that lends itself better to creating the type of humor I've referred to than an introspective feel. Likewise, in Skyfall, Bond's frustration with the turn of events at the beginning of the film could've manifested itself in a more intense, foul-tempered and less patient Bond. Mind you, after Quantum of Solace this would've been more of the same, but the fact both stories are "personal" is what is really to blame for that. And that type of characterization could've created a pleasing contrast at the end, with M's death triggering a catharsis in Bond that could've caused him to go from angry and intense to quiet and introspective. In the film they did make, Bond is generally at the same level of intensity throughout, including the ending, so what I suggset might've provided a more impactful ending.

    Of course all of the above stems from my lack of appreciation for Skyfall's tone and humor. If you enjoy them --and a considerable number of people do--, more power to you.

    Following the same logic, I was also thinking something which at first sounds ridiculous, but then not so much (@bondjames): Maybe Skyfall was too serious a film for Craig. I think Craig can be very charming in his own sardonic style (he was especially in Casino Royale and Spectre), but someone with the lighter touch of Roger Moore, even if not given many lighthearted scenes, might've easily transformed the gloomy tone of the film into something less dramatic, just on account of his presence and his history in the role, and without necessarily undermining the drama. As long as that actor had the right dramatic chops, it could've worked without any radical changes to the story.
    @mattjoes. The extroverted acting out approach which you propose, as opposed to the introspective one that we got, would perhaps result in a fundamentally different film tonally (and I realize that's perhaps what you're advocating for). I am trying to visualize such a style in SF as I type this, and somehow can't. I certainly agree with you that there is a 'thousand yard stare' element to the characterization. Somewhat ironically, that reminds me of Bourne (I realize that it is QoS which is more often compared with that series) and also Wayne/Bat. I think it works, because the introspection contrasts nicely with 'brother' Silva's extroverted and expressive nature. Bond is more contemplative, while Silva is 'acting out' his frustrations. Bond is more stoic. He does reveal that 'acting out' side you want on occasion, most notably at M's flat, but it's all too brief.

    RE: SF being a bit too serious for Craig: I can see where you're coming from here too. I don't mind it because I find the other characters around him (most notably Silva, as mentioned before - but also MP, Q, Kincaide etc.) quite humorous and an interesting counterbalance. Still, there's no denying that it's a 'moody film'. SF is Bond by way of 'Bat' imho. Nolan's influence is clear to me, and I believe Mendes wanted to make a film which captured the feel and tone of TDK. It seemed to work for many people, but it's not something I'd want to see repeated for B25.
  • Posts: 7,406
    There is so much I would do with each film can I do a brief description of each one or did I miss out sorry I just noticed this cool thread
  • NicNacNicNac Moderator
    Posts: 7,006
    Risico007 wrote: »
    There is so much I would do with each film can I do a brief description of each one or did I miss out sorry I just noticed this cool thread

    Go for it.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 591
    Risico007 wrote: »
    There is so much I would do with each film can I do a brief description of each one or did I miss out sorry I just noticed this cool thread

    Yeah! Once the discussion for SKYFALL is over, this discussion will become a more broad discussion, so people can talk about whatever films they like.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 2,937
    Risico007 wrote: »
    There is so much I would do with each film can I do a brief description of each one or did I miss out sorry I just noticed this cool thread

    Yeah! Once the discussion for SKYFALL is over, this discussion will become a more broad discussion, so people can talk about whatever films they like.

    Agreed
  • 3 MORE DAYS TO DISCUSS WITH US WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY IN SKYFALL.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 2,942
    3 MORE DAYS TO DISCUSS WITH US WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY IN SKYFALL.

    @MadeleineSwann what about Spectre?
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 3,261
    Skyfall:

    Filming on film (less cold cinematography)
    Doing more with the card
    No CNN
    No metro scene
    No Purple Road
    No Batman music with elivator scene
    Include delete scene with severine on rolling stairs.
    Include training in the park delete scene (Taiser trailer)
    Include chinees sea comment (as seen in final tv spot)
    Macau Casino outside
    Astin Martin DB5 ride with M is to long
    Eve is Moneypenny introducing removed.
    More Adele Skyfall in score and mabey alternate version for the end credits.

    The movie need faster pacing and missing second or more Bondgirls.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    edited January 2019 Posts: 28,307
    M_Balje wrote: »
    No CNN

    I agree with this 100%! I greatly dislike this habit of using actual broadcasters in fictional film and television. Rather than achieve the (I assume) intended result of greater verisimilitude, it does quite the opposite; it pulls me completely out of the picture. I can't help thinking, "That idiot agreed to do this?" It is so absurd and such an obvious stunt, the ploy stumbles under it's own intentions.

    Then I start getting pissed off that we already live in a time when many, if not most, don't trust the media, when we really need to count on their professionalism, and here they are acknowledging every bad connotation that they are nothing more than hucksters and publicity seekers. Fiction/Reality, why does it matter? It makes me sick.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited January 2019 Posts: 2,649
    It's even more egregious in Mission Impossible: Fallout
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 28,307
    It's ubiquitous these days.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 591
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    3 MORE DAYS TO DISCUSS WITH US WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY IN SKYFALL.

    @MadeleineSwann what about Spectre?

    There is already a discussion page for SPECTRE. If anyone else wants to discuss what they would have done differently in Spectre, go to this page: https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/13737/spectre-what-would-you-have-done-differently/p1
  • mattjoesmattjoes Merry Craigmas
    Posts: 3,589
    bondjames wrote: »
    I certainly agree with you that there is a 'thousand yard stare' element to the characterization. Somewhat ironically, that reminds me of Bourne (I realize that it is QoS which is more often compared with that series) and also Wayne/Bat. I think it works, because the introspection contrasts nicely with 'brother' Silva's extroverted and expressive nature. Bond is more contemplative, while Silva is 'acting out' his frustrations.
    True, it does work well in that sense. First encounter with the villain, Silva is dressed in white and is highly expressive, theatrical in his gestures, as well as seemingly in an upbeat mood. Bond is dressed in black (well, midnight blue) and is quiet, reserved and as said earlier, introspective.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 6,010
    S k y F a l l .
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya “We are thrilled to delay B25”
    Posts: 2,539
    Skyfall could have been the best bond film ever. For me the real fumble is the second act. Where I think the first and third are quite good, the goofiness of the plotting in the third act has me rolling my eyes everytime. There’s a good film somewhere in there. Perhaps with a polished final draft by Paul haggis or some sort of person, Skyfall could have been, perfect
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger On Her Secret Majesty s Service
    Posts: 35,503
    Birdleson wrote: »
    M_Balje wrote: »
    No CNN

    I agree with this 100%! I greatly dislike this habit of using actual broadcasters in fictional film and television. Rather than achieve the (I assume) intended result of greater verisimilitude, it does quite the opposite; it pulls me completely out of the picture. I can't help thinking, "That idiot agreed to do this?" It is so absurd and such an obvious stunt, the ploy stumbles under it's own intentions.

    Then I start getting pissed off that we already live in a time when many, if not most, don't trust the media, when we really need to count on their professionalism, and here they are acknowledging every bad connotation that they are nothing more than hucksters and publicity seekers. Fiction/Reality, why does it matter? It makes me sick.

    Maybe they are cheaper than actual actors? And they already know how to read from a script.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 7,406
    Ok while this is early I will try and get through all the films (or split this up)

    Dr.no

    1. I feel strangway’s murder would work well as a PTS
    2. The bond theme should of been the only music during the title sequence
    3. Desmond Llewelyn should of been in the film

    From Russia with Love
    1. Kronsteen was criminally underused
    2. The hand wave at the end was annoying

    Goldfinger
    1. Loose the shot of Goldfinger sleeping while oddjob drives
    2. Oddly enough the fan made n64 game solves a glaring issue Having Bond talk to the CIA with Pussy then volunteering to go back into custody so Goldfinger doesn’t suspect a thing solves most of my issues with Bond doing nothing in the second half

    I am sure I will come up with more
    Also why are we not doing Casino Royale 1954
Sign In or Register to comment.