SKYFALL Trailers & TV Spots Thread

1235718

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,091
    Muddyw wrote:
    Anybody know whether M's appartment is the same in Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall? If no, why not make this every movie the same, for the sake of continuity?

    If you were head of MI6, would you want to live in the same home for several years? I wouldn't take that risk.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Just caught it.

    The Bonds live or die on the quality of their villains. Silva seems like a good'un. And I bet the fake death are part of the PTS and Bond falling through the waters segues into the titles.

    Where Bond meets Q is the National Gallery, I recognise the wallpaper.

    The Craig era continues to be strong in every department.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    I think I remember them saying something significant about Bond being in the Gallery when they released the photo of just him sitting there, so I surmise him meeting Q is exactly that.

    As for the PTS, I wonder if his body sinking in the water immediately begins the title song or not. I think it would be incredibly good placement, if so.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    The full trailer is awesome. I can only imagine we are in for a great film, I would surmise quite a long runtime too. There seems to be so much to cram into a 2 hour plus film. Roll on October 26th!
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 12,837
    @Creasy47 Was the spoiler big? If it was I feel bad for you because I know you've been avoiding spoilers.

    @VeryBond He could be, it's possible, but I don't think Silva is M's son. I think Silva was just taking the piss out of Bond because in the last 2 films M has been like his mum.
  • Posts: 612
    @Creasy47 Was the spoiler big? If it was I feel bad for you because I know you've been avoiding spoilers.
    @VeryBond He could be, it's possible, but I don't think Silva is M's son. I think Silva was just taking the piss out of Bond because in the last 2 films M has been like his mum.

    Might want to spoiler-tag that.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    @thelivingroyale, I don't know much from the film, but I can only surmise it's the biggest surprise/spoiler you could hear about for the film. But, @marketto007 seemed to clear it up a little bit and leave it ambiguous, and @VeryBond apologized, so it's not as bad now.
  • I think we may be reading waaay too far into the "Mommy was very bad." I believe he's referring to M as mommy just because she's the female authoratative figure at MI6.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 13,353
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @thelivingroyale, I don't know much from the film, but I can only surmise it's the biggest surprise/spoiler you could hear about for the film. But, @marketto007 seemed to clear it up a little bit and leave it ambiguous, and @VeryBond apologized, so it's not as bad now.

    @marketto007 is trying to ease the pain. Quite a shock hearing that news, I'm sure.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    @Samuel001, indeed. I don't want to sound like a crybaby about it, it just sucks having avoided so much for months, and then hearing so much in a matter of seconds. Even if what I read is somehow contested - like @marketto007 said - and it's false, I'll just live in my fantasy world where it's true until the film is out, just to feel better about it, :)
  • Posts: 5,745
    Let's adopt the concept of

    "If in doubt, spoiler tag."
  • marketto007marketto007 Brazil
    edited July 2012 Posts: 3,277
    You got the point Sammy @Samuel001. Even after reading all the leaked materials, I'm still not convinced of it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Let's adopt the concept of

    "If in doubt, spoiler tag."

    Sadly, there was a huge debate months ago on that, where people would act like children and add spoiler tags to things that obviously weren't spoilers.

    If it isn't blatantly obvious in the trailer or whatever, never, ever assume that someone else knows it. If you had to search or were in a different thread for what you know, don't bring it here. Telling me that Bond falls off the train into the water is obvious, not a spoiler. Telling me the ending is a spoiler; if I didn't see it in the trailer, then I may not know about it.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 13,353
    You got the point Sammy @Samuel001. Even after reading all the leaked materials, I'm still not convinced of it.

    I am. It's big but something that big wouldn't be in a script if it wasn't true. Even MI6 seem to have confirmed the news, by saying when the news was leaked, insiders had known for months it would happen.
  • Posts: 612
    I think we may be reading waaay too far into the "Mommy was very bad." I believe he's referring to M as mommy just because she's the female authoratative figure at MI6.

    I'm completely with you on that. She's in charge of the 00 agents, most of which are male. She's a woman. Therefore, stereotype Mum in charge.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 306
    Go on with that theory, Canada. I'm not out to ruin anyone's experience - but I stand by my reasoning and the various clues I pointed out (under spoiler tag) in another thread. Time will tell.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 12,837
    @Creasy47 Was the spoiler big? If it was I feel bad for you because I know you've been avoiding spoilers.

    @VeryBond He could be, it's possible, but I don't think Silva is M's son. I think Silva was just taking the piss out of Bond because in the last 2 films M has been like his mum.

    Might want to spoiler-tag that.

    Why, it doesn't contain any spoilers that I know of.
  • Posts: 4
    Is anyone afraid that they may have given too much away in the two trailers they have released?? An example is bond falling from the bridge.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    MrBeach wrote:
    Is anyone afraid that they may have given too much away in the two trailers they have released?? An example is bond falling from the bridge.

    I'm not. Some people have pointed out little things hidden throughout the trailer, which technically isn't a spoiler, since it's there, but I did have the ending spoiled for me today, so tread lightly.
  • Posts: 12,837
    MrBeach wrote:
    Is anyone afraid that they may have given too much away in the two trailers they have released?? An example is bond falling from the bridge.

    In a way I am, but then I'm sure there's plenty of stuff that we haven't seen.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 3,169
    The full trailer is awesome. I can only imagine we are in for a great film, I would surmise quite a long runtime too. There seems to be so much to cram into a 2 hour plus film. Roll on October 26th!
    Actually, around 120 minutes is what we can expect from the seven acts:
    1-12 min PCS, Istanbul
    17-40 MI6 attack, Bond getting back, Q section
    41-50: Shanghai
    50-64: Macao, casino and boat
    65-74: Silva's Island
    75-94: Back at MI6. Underground, footchase and Whitehall
    95-120: Scotland and epilogue in London
  • Posts: 6,682
    Zekidk wrote:
    The full trailer is awesome. I can only imagine we are in for a great film, I would surmise quite a long runtime too. There seems to be so much to cram into a 2 hour plus film. Roll on October 26th!
    Actually, around 120 minutes is what we can expect from the seven acts:
    1-12 min PCS, Istanbul
    17-40 MI6 attack, Bond getting back, Q section
    41-50: Shanghai
    50-64: Macao, casino and boat
    65-74: Silva's Island
    75-94: Back at MI6. Underground, footchase and Whitehall
    95-120: Scotland and epilogue in London

    Sure. Only someone close to the production said we could be looking at a 150m film. Rumour of course.
  • Posts: 14,910
    Just watched it. Oh this was good. Two things I don't like much though: the gun with fingerprints (I don't know why exactly, too high tech, I don't know), Bond jumping in the train when the wagon is broken up. He looks too invincible.

    Otherwise, I think Raul Silva seems a great villain, physically disgusting and threatening both physically and intellectually. We haven't seen this combination in a long while. And I am surprised: I enjoyed the little we saw of the new Q. He is not trying to be a Llewellyn clone, he is not dry or grumpy but there is a cynical edge to it which I liked a lot.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Ludovico wrote:
    Just watched it. Oh this was good. Two things I don't like much though: the gun with fingerprints (I don't know why exactly, too high tech, I don't know), Bond jumping in the train when the wagon is broken up.

    Rubbish. The signature gun is based on existing technology not to mention it was already introduced in the Bond series 23 years ago. As for Bond coming off as invincible during the cuff adjustment scene, that's a rather tame stunt compared to the superman stuff he's dine over the 50 years. It just looks super cool and Craig sells it convincingly.
  • doubleoego wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Just watched it. Oh this was good. Two things I don't like much though: the gun with fingerprints (I don't know why exactly, too high tech, I don't know), Bond jumping in the train when the wagon is broken up.

    Rubbish. The signature gun is based on existing technology not to mention it was already introduced in the Bond series 23 years ago. As for Bond coming off as invincible during the cuff adjustment scene, that's a rather tame stunt compared to the superman stuff he's dine over the 50 years. It just looks super cool and Craig sells it convincingly.

    That's why I hope there's other gadgets. With Q back, I was hoping to see fresh new gadgets, and since LTK did he signature gun already I hope it's not the only one. I know that this is a handgun but still, it's basically the same gadget.

    The cuff adjustment is really Bond-like, reminds me of Brosnan straightening his tie during the tank chase.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Univex wrote:
    Sure. Only someone close to the production said we could be looking at a 150m film. Rumour of course.

    Where did you get that information from? 150 minutes would be an amazing length for a Bond film!
  • Posts: 6,682
    Univex wrote:
    Sure. Only someone close to the production said we could be looking at a 150m film. Rumour of course.

    Where did you get that information from? 150 minutes would be an amazing length for a Bond film!

    Someone from a club close to someone from the production. Or so someone else told me. All I can say. See? A bit cryptic, even for me. Can´t really vouch for anyone I´m afraid. Sorry. I would take it with a pinch of salt.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 2,015
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Either this is a slip up, you're incredibly misinformed, or you've just spoiled a very large part of the film for me. Spoiler tags are there for a reason, why is that so hard for people to comprehend?
    Well like you I managed to stay away from "some spoilers" (ie : reading many things but the script thread). And given VeryBond's other "opinions" and habit of reading too much on many things, I initially took his big reveal as far from sure. But now just from the tone, even with spoiler, you made it clear it was a definite part of the story :( :)

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,682
    @Suivez_ce_parachute, if you go back to that conversation, @Samuel001 told me if it was true or not, followed up by commentary from @marketto007. I was slightly confused by the ordeal, so I've no idea what to expect from it now.
  • yes but the mere fact there's so much discussion means it's not just coming from VeryBond's creative mind, you see what I mean ? :)
Sign In or Register to comment.