SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

13468945

Comments

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Octopussy wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I appreciate the Fleming purists out there, but honestly, the man has been dead for almost sixty years. I am aware there are still segments of unused Fleming material existing, and you could potentialy stitch them together somehow, but the bottom line is that for the series to survive you have to be inventive. And for an ongoing film series depicting the life of one solitary character, it is simply inevitable that some character exploration has to take place, at least from time to time. You can claim, perhaps justified (although that is a matter of opinion), that they have gone a little overboard with this during the Craig era. But the reality is that if Bond remains nothing but a stale and dated stamp icon with no more meat on the bone than what Fleming gave us 60 years ago, he would not survive for long in the modern era.

    Nostalgia alone is not enough to drive the series forward. Cinematic Bond has always been dependent on taking risks and evolve with the times. Cubby Broccoli would be the first to admit that.

    Whoa, hold your horses there for a second.
    This is a point that is very near and dear to my heart. I can see where you are coming from but don't lump all "Fleming purists" together.

    I consider myself a Fleming purist, and i can see that influence very much in SF, but it's more of a spiritual connection to Fleming than a literal one. And i believe if the franchise didn't had some connection, be it literal or spiritual, to Fleming, it would be dead in an instant (as it should be, see black/female/transgender Bond and whatever crap).

    EoN has always taken great liberties with Flemings writing starting from Dr. No, but they've learned their lesson somewhere down the line in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that you will satisfy everybody, every one has his own interpretation even when reading Fleming. And it will inevitably lead to endless debates in today's world.


    Don´t get me wrong, @00Agent. I fully concur that the spirit of Fleming is vital for the series and that the best films are the ones that stay close to it. In fact I consider myself somewhat of a Fleming purist myself. My comment was directly adressing those on the thread that were claiming further character exploration was somehow disrespectful to Fleming because they are not his ideas outright. They miss the point completely I think.

    Not at all. I just don't think having Bond suddenly becoming a traumatised character haunted by his childhood, or having Blofeld being his long lost brother is necessary. If you think it is, then sadly you are missing the point.

    I'm all for character exploration, as long as it stays close to the roots. Dalton's revenge in LTK explores the emotional side, yet stays true to Fleming, as does Bond in QoS. In SF and SP Mendes took it too far, and pushed the character into areas that Fleming never explored - and it didn't add anything great to either film.

    +1

    +2.

    I'm all for character exploration, as long as it stays close to the roots.

    Having Blofeld being Bond’s long lost step brother is a crime against Fleming and the series. So unnecessary and so infuriating.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,760
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I appreciate the Fleming purists out there, but honestly, the man has been dead for almost sixty years. I am aware there are still segments of unused Fleming material existing, and you could potentialy stitch them together somehow, but the bottom line is that for the series to survive you have to be inventive. And for an ongoing film series depicting the life of one solitary character, it is simply inevitable that some character exploration has to take place, at least from time to time. You can claim, perhaps justified (although that is a matter of opinion), that they have gone a little overboard with this during the Craig era. But the reality is that if Bond remains nothing but a stale and dated stamp icon with no more meat on the bone than what Fleming gave us 60 years ago, he would not survive for long in the modern era.

    Nostalgia alone is not enough to drive the series forward. Cinematic Bond has always been dependent on taking risks and evolve with the times. Cubby Broccoli would be the first to admit that.

    Whoa, hold your horses there for a second.
    This is a point that is very near and dear to my heart. I can see where you are coming from but don't lump all "Fleming purists" together.

    I consider myself a Fleming purist, and i can see that influence very much in SF, but it's more of a spiritual connection to Fleming than a literal one. And i believe if the franchise didn't had some connection, be it literal or spiritual, to Fleming, it would be dead in an instant (as it should be, see black/female/transgender Bond and whatever crap).

    EoN has always taken great liberties with Flemings writing starting from Dr. No, but they've learned their lesson somewhere down the line in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that you will satisfy everybody, every one has his own interpretation even when reading Fleming. And it will inevitably lead to endless debates in today's world.


    Don´t get me wrong, @00Agent. I fully concur that the spirit of Fleming is vital for the series and that the best films are the ones that stay close to it. In fact I consider myself somewhat of a Fleming purist myself. My comment was directly adressing those on the thread that were claiming further character exploration was somehow disrespectful to Fleming because they are not his ideas outright. They miss the point completely I think.

    Not at all. I just don't think having Bond suddenly becoming a traumatised character haunted by his childhood, or having Blofeld being his long lost brother is necessary. If you think it is, then sadly you are missing the point.

    I'm all for character exploration, as long as it stays close to the roots. Dalton's revenge in LTK explores the emotional side, yet stays true to Fleming, as does Bond in QoS. In SF and SP Mendes took it too far, and pushed the character into areas that Fleming never explored - and it didn't add anything great to either film.

    +1

    +2.

    I'm all for character exploration, as long as it stays close to the roots.

    Having Blofeld being Bond’s long lost step brother is a crime against Fleming and the series. So unnecessary and so infuriating.

    I agree. I love how Bond's character is more explored in OHMSS, LTK, CR and QOS, but in the case of SF and SP I feel that it is unnecessary, forced and it never really feels right.
  • Posts: 1,693
    In a word: NO.
  • Posts: 12,243
    With SF at least they don’t stray far from Fleming and they allow the exploration to have some time to marinate. With SP it’s non-Fleming and feels far more rushed and unnecessary IMO. You could take the exploration of Bond element out of SF and still have a movie, but for me it felt like part of the experience in a good way. If nothing else it felt way more like they tried when incorporating it, versus how rushed and off-putting the stuff in SP was.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 3,273
    FoxRox wrote: »
    With SF at least they don’t stray far from Fleming and they allow the exploration to have some time to marinate. With SP it’s non-Fleming and feels far more rushed and unnecessary IMO. You could take the exploration of Bond element out of SF and still have a movie, but for me it felt like part of the experience in a good way. If nothing else it felt way more like they tried when incorporating it, versus how rushed and off-putting the stuff in SP was.

    In SF it wasn't that noticeable until SP came along. Then SP's glaring faults somehow also seem to highlight everything that was wrong with SF too. It managed to bring it to the surface, which now I cannot help but notice when I watch SF again.

    Mendes dull direction, Newman's awful score, silly family angst backstories, trashing Fleming, the Scooby gang. It all went too far in SP, but it's all there in SF too, just laying beneath the surface. It just needed SP to bring it to the forefront.
  • Posts: 7,500
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I appreciate the Fleming purists out there, but honestly, the man has been dead for almost sixty years. I am aware there are still segments of unused Fleming material existing, and you could potentialy stitch them together somehow, but the bottom line is that for the series to survive you have to be inventive. And for an ongoing film series depicting the life of one solitary character, it is simply inevitable that some character exploration has to take place, at least from time to time. You can claim, perhaps justified (although that is a matter of opinion), that they have gone a little overboard with this during the Craig era. But the reality is that if Bond remains nothing but a stale and dated stamp icon with no more meat on the bone than what Fleming gave us 60 years ago, he would not survive for long in the modern era.

    Nostalgia alone is not enough to drive the series forward. Cinematic Bond has always been dependent on taking risks and evolve with the times. Cubby Broccoli would be the first to admit that.

    Whoa, hold your horses there for a second.
    This is a point that is very near and dear to my heart. I can see where you are coming from but don't lump all "Fleming purists" together.

    I consider myself a Fleming purist, and i can see that influence very much in SF, but it's more of a spiritual connection to Fleming than a literal one. And i believe if the franchise didn't had some connection, be it literal or spiritual, to Fleming, it would be dead in an instant (as it should be, see black/female/transgender Bond and whatever crap).

    EoN has always taken great liberties with Flemings writing starting from Dr. No, but they've learned their lesson somewhere down the line in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that you will satisfy everybody, every one has his own interpretation even when reading Fleming. And it will inevitably lead to endless debates in today's world.


    Don´t get me wrong, @00Agent. I fully concur that the spirit of Fleming is vital for the series and that the best films are the ones that stay close to it. In fact I consider myself somewhat of a Fleming purist myself. My comment was directly adressing those on the thread that were claiming further character exploration was somehow disrespectful to Fleming because they are not his ideas outright. They miss the point completely I think.

    Not at all. I just don't think having Bond suddenly becoming a traumatised character haunted by his childhood, or having Blofeld being his long lost brother is necessary. If you think it is, then sadly you are missing the point.

    I'm all for character exploration, as long as it stays close to the roots. Dalton's revenge in LTK explores the emotional side, yet stays true to Fleming, as does Bond in QoS. In SF and SP Mendes took it too far, and pushed the character into areas that Fleming never explored - and it didn't add anything great to either film.

    +1

    +2.

    I'm all for character exploration, as long as it stays close to the roots.

    Having Blofeld being Bond’s long lost step brother is a crime against Fleming and the series. So unnecessary and so infuriating.

    This is a thread about Skyfall, not about Spectre... yawn...

    I wonder how you can stay closer to the roots than following Felimg´s very own idea: That Bond was orphanaged in a tragic climbing accident.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 8,657
    It may not be for everyone, and I don't even know if I wrote it before on this thread or anywhere else on this board, but my opinion on SF is definitely very much shaped by my original experience in a movie theatre, much more so than with any other Bond film.

    In the case of SF, my wife and I decided we wanted to travel to London to see it a week before it was released in Germany (and there, not necessarily un-dubbed, for that matter), and so we went to see it on the first day of public (non-royal) release at the Odeon Leicester Square, which IIRC was also my 56th birthday.

    The experience was the best we ever had at a cinema. The crowd was well-behaved, I don't recall anyone staring at their smartphones (yes, I believe they existed even in 2012), no obnoxious popcorn smell etc. It was obvious that this was an audience that knew their Bond.

    Just to get to the point, the audience absolutely loved it. There were several cases of cheers and clapping, something I don't think I ever experienced at a movie theatre before, Bond or not. The best reaction in that regard was when the DB5 was revealed, it was close to a standing ovation. Everyone seemed to be elated. Most people seemed to stay for the closing credits, something I also never experienced before. It simply was a perfect evening which seemed to put a smile on the face of all those present. Notwithstanding any plot holes or other deficites that one might find through further scrutiny.

    With every watch from Blu-ray I sort of re-live that experience (I don't overdo it, but so far maybe three or four times). It still contributes to my conviction that SF is my favourite Bond cinema experience altogether, while still thinking that FRWL is a very slightly better movie. But to say the very least, SF is firmly anchored in my top four ever since then (the other in alphabetical order: CR, FRWL, GF), and probably at No. 2.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    mtm wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    SkyFall is too boring to be the best one. It is just like TWINE part deux with. It suffers from a lack of locales and the action fell flat. It didn't help that the villain was a Hannibal Lecktor clone.

    As much hate as TWINE gets at least it is not as dull as SkyFall with way better action" locales, and villains.

    SF is actually about something. Which you can't say about every Bond film.

    Plus, it as the most jaw-droppingly talented cast and crew - Sam Mendes, John Logan, Roger Deakins, Javier Bardem, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney (!), and makes proper use of DC and Judi Dench.

    Totally the gold standard of Bond movies. Plus, it introduced the world to Berenice Marlohe......

    plus, it's a film intelligent enough to explore how 'Bond became Bond' and the childhood trauma associated to the titular house. which was a stunning piece of production design.....

    This is what I hate about SF. I don't want to know how Bond became Bond. Fleming never wrote about it, never wrote about any childhood trauma. This has all been invented by P&W and has nothing to do with Fleming.

    I want Bond as the cardboard booby we read about, and watched up until 1989. No real backstory, just a blunt instrument on a new mission.

    The closest we ever got to knowing Bond's childhood was at the beginning of OHMSS, when Bond reflects on happy memories of Flake 99 ice creams and building sandcastles - not evil step brothers called Blofeld, or being some traumatised orphan that was desperate to become used and abused by the British government.

    This is all reinvented by Beavis and Butthead, and what I utterly despise during the Craig era.

    I love it.

    When Bond first hears the word ‘Skyfall’, it’s an attempt by the MI6 psychologist to test him. Bond refuses to answer the question which essentially provides the answer itself. There are clearly some unresolved issues from his childhood and a traumatic event that he needs to address. ‘Skyfall’ has specific traumatic resonance with Bond.

    When in mortal danger, Bond decides to take M back to Skyfall – the source of his original trauma. I imagine he took her to such a private and personal place because he trusts her. It’s the biggest insight into his personal life that he has offered anyone. Clearlyhe sees M as a friend and something of a surrogate mother.

    Later we learn that Bond learned of his parents’ death whilst at Skyfall and he spent his childhood there. Essentially, this was the place where he became Bond and shaped his life. Skyfall created him and led him to his inevitable path of becoming 007.

    In destroying the house, Bond is able to confront his past and destroy the painful memories associated with it. Later, in his family chapel, he holds the dying body of his surrogate mother – the woman who has shaped his adult life. Having put his past trauma behind him and now without his surrogate mother, Bond is left to confront a ‘brave new world’ alone.

    Reading this just reinforces what several other posts have said already. SF is the most pretentious and one of the dullest Bond films. Describing it as a TWINE remake is spot on.

    Because something has depth doesn't mean it's pretentious.
    True, though it also goes the other way around. Because something is pretentious it doesn't mean it has depth.

    Don't gey me wrong, I am very much into existential art films. SF though, in its desperate attempts to be exactly that, forgets to be a Bond film while it also fails as the former.

    Mendes might give its audience many hints that he is saying something important but exactly by doing that it comes off as pretentious and when you look at it up closely there isn't much beneath that surface.

    I'd watch Michelangelo Antonioni's trilogy L'avventura, La notte and L'eclisse any day over SF. I prefer these kinds of films when they don't spoon-feed its audience with things like obvious psychological word games or 'I always hated this place'. Please let me think for myself.

    A great Bond film for me is either an excellent atmospherical spy thriller like FRWL or TLD, or it, unpretentiously, makes 007 a bit more human like in OHMSS or CR.
    If I'm looking for more of a thinking man's film I will gladly sit down for some Antonioni or Ingmar Bergman.

    Spot on.
    SF is not great art house cinema and it's not great popcorn entertainment either. It's pretentious, shallow and for long stretches quite yawn inducing. Although SP might be duller still.

    Some people really enjoy it: it’s silly to talk in absolutes when you’re discussing something so subjective. You might find it dull but that doesn’t mean it is, objectively, pretentious.

    I wouldn't bother this guy can't let it go, be it threads praising or slagging it off, you can be guaranteed that @Getafix turn up to offer is opinion which practically everyone on here knows already.

    Yeah thanks for that you've just enlightened us to something new, when really it is the same old rhetoric, SF is rubbish and I'll repeat the same thing over and over for ad infinitum

    I can't stand SPECTRE but if I'm banging on about come the amount of time that has passed since SF came out, please put me out of my misery.

    This guy loves to slag off SF, he lives for it, I don't think he realises how much he goes on about it.

    @Getafix you and Skyfall should get a room.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    To me, another lasting image is this one. I know a lot of fans were turned off by scenes of a stoic Bond, sitting or standing and contemplating. But I liked it. To a degree, we had this in CR, as well: a Bond who thinks almost as much as he acts. It's grand. In the case of the image below, I was reminded of this quote from Julius Caesar: "(He) straddles the narrow world like a giant, and we petty men walk under his huge legs and look forward only to dying dishonorably." If there were ever an image of Bond, as Britain';s great iconic figure, this is it.

    skyfall-daniel-craig-james-bond-london.jpg
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    SkyFall is too boring to be the best one. It is just like TWINE part deux with. It suffers from a lack of locales and the action fell flat. It didn't help that the villain was a Hannibal Lecktor clone.

    As much hate as TWINE gets at least it is not as dull as SkyFall with way better action" locales, and villains.

    SF is actually about something. Which you can't say about every Bond film.

    Plus, it as the most jaw-droppingly talented cast and crew - Sam Mendes, John Logan, Roger Deakins, Javier Bardem, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney (!), and makes proper use of DC and Judi Dench.

    Totally the gold standard of Bond movies. Plus, it introduced the world to Berenice Marlohe......

    plus, it's a film intelligent enough to explore how 'Bond became Bond' and the childhood trauma associated to the titular house. which was a stunning piece of production design.....

    This is what I hate about SF. I don't want to know how Bond became Bond. Fleming never wrote about it, never wrote about any childhood trauma. This has all been invented by P&W and has nothing to do with Fleming.

    I want Bond as the cardboard booby we read about, and watched up until 1989. No real backstory, just a blunt instrument on a new mission.

    The closest we ever got to knowing Bond's childhood was at the beginning of OHMSS, when Bond reflects on happy memories of Flake 99 ice creams and building sandcastles - not evil step brothers called Blofeld, or being some traumatised orphan that was desperate to become used and abused by the British government.

    This is all reinvented by Beavis and Butthead, and what I utterly despise during the Craig era.

    I love it.

    When Bond first hears the word ‘Skyfall’, it’s an attempt by the MI6 psychologist to test him. Bond refuses to answer the question which essentially provides the answer itself. There are clearly some unresolved issues from his childhood and a traumatic event that he needs to address. ‘Skyfall’ has specific traumatic resonance with Bond.

    When in mortal danger, Bond decides to take M back to Skyfall – the source of his original trauma. I imagine he took her to such a private and personal place because he trusts her. It’s the biggest insight into his personal life that he has offered anyone. Clearlyhe sees M as a friend and something of a surrogate mother.

    Later we learn that Bond learned of his parents’ death whilst at Skyfall and he spent his childhood there. Essentially, this was the place where he became Bond and shaped his life. Skyfall created him and led him to his inevitable path of becoming 007.

    In destroying the house, Bond is able to confront his past and destroy the painful memories associated with it. Later, in his family chapel, he holds the dying body of his surrogate mother – the woman who has shaped his adult life. Having put his past trauma behind him and now without his surrogate mother, Bond is left to confront a ‘brave new world’ alone.

    And again, this is a new world invented by P&W, nothing remotely to do with Fleming. I take it you are not such a big fan of the novels then?

    That’s a bit silly. Are you not a fan of TSWLM because Fleming didn’t invent Stromberg and oil tankers swallowing submarines and spies skiing off cliffs with Union Jack parachutes on their back? Because you’re missing out on a really fun film.

    TSWLM is one of my least favourite Bond films, so probably not the best example to give me.

    I’m kind of surprised how few people on here seem to like the Bond movies! :)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    FoxRox wrote: »
    With SF at least they don’t stray far from Fleming and they allow the exploration to have some time to marinate. With SP it’s non-Fleming and feels far more rushed and unnecessary IMO. You could take the exploration of Bond element out of SF and still have a movie, but for me it felt like part of the experience in a good way. If nothing else it felt way more like they tried when incorporating it, versus how rushed and off-putting the stuff in SP was.

    I would say that the stuff in the crater felt incredibly like Fleming to me: proper Dr No but actually more Flemingish than the Dr No movie!

    Apologies for double post: my phone wouldn’t copy paste.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    I think what's special about Skyfall is its ode to Fleming and the series Broccoli and Saltzman created. I think the very idea of "breaking down James Bond" is a way for them to fully explore Fleming's character, and just adds another layer to a great globe trotting adventure in the vein of all the films that came before.

    Also, while it may not seem that way, the team who worked on Skyfall and Spectre brought a lot of deeply rooted Fleming material to a wider audience. Bond's parents, his childhood, Oberhauser.

    On a side note, I love to think about how Fleming's creations have become a part of entertainment culture. It's always nice to think about the scale of what that man started. He may have had some outdated views, but god he was a talent. Shame he never got to see where the series went...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I think what's special about Skyfall is its ode to Fleming and the series Broccoli and Saltzman created.

    Thats why I rather like the new film being named after one of Cubby’s movies rather than being a Fleming reference. Because Broccoli and Saltzman are now just as important in creating what the world knows as 007 as Fleming was.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,916
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I can't stand SPECTRE but if I'm banging on about come the amount of time that has passed since SF came out, please put me out of my misery.
    Well that's just being civil, isn't it, @Shardlake. Repeating the same heartfelt NEGATIVE comments ends up as boorish behavior. It will never be on the same level as folks expressing what they like.

    mtm wrote: »
    I’m kind of surprised how few people on here seem to like the Bond movies! :)
    Yes, @mtm. Ongoing campaigns against Craig Bond films, especially the previous one. Worst fears expressed toward the next one, lots of strictures and demands to be met.

    Anyway, yes.

    Denbigh wrote: »
    I think what's special about Skyfall is its ode to Fleming and the series Broccoli and Saltzman created. I think the very idea of "breaking down James Bond" is a way for them to fully explore Fleming's character, and just adds another layer to a great globe trotting adventure in the vein of all the films that came before.

    Also, while it may not seem that way, the team who worked on Skyfall and Spectre brought a lot of deeply rooted Fleming material to a wider audience. Bond's parents, his childhood, Oberhauser.

    On a side note, I love to think about how Fleming's creations have become a part of entertainment culture. It's always nice to think about the scale of what that man started. He may have had some outdated views, but god he was a talent. Shame he never got to see where the series went...
    Very well put, I can align with that, @Denbigh.

    Likewise the title nod to Broccoli, @mtm. These are things to relish. A great time to be a Bond fan.

  • Posts: 6,665
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I think what's special about Skyfall is its ode to Fleming and the series Broccoli and Saltzman created.

    Thats why I rather like the new film being named after one of Cubby’s movies rather than being a Fleming reference. Because Broccoli and Saltzman are now just as important in creating what the world knows as 007 as Fleming was.

    Yes, when I heard about it I immediately liked the title even more than I already did.

    All and all, Fleming and the Broccoli/Saltzman inheritance has been very much alive throughout the Craig era. And we are lucky fans. Like @RichardTheBruce said, it's a great time to be a Bond fan. And frankly, it always was, one way or another.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,916
    Univex wrote: »
    And frankly, it always was, one way or another.
    (Yup.)

  • Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Bond and M are both quite sulky and unnecessarily whiny in their current incarnations.

    Yes it's all got a bit joyless and Nolanish.
    Wish DC had tapped a bit more of his relaxed and positive side for his Bond.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    SkyFall is too boring to be the best one. It is just like TWINE part deux with. It suffers from a lack of locales and the action fell flat. It didn't help that the villain was a Hannibal Lecktor clone.

    As much hate as TWINE gets at least it is not as dull as SkyFall with way better action" locales, and villains.

    SF is actually about something. Which you can't say about every Bond film.

    Plus, it as the most jaw-droppingly talented cast and crew - Sam Mendes, John Logan, Roger Deakins, Javier Bardem, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney (!), and makes proper use of DC and Judi Dench.

    Totally the gold standard of Bond movies. Plus, it introduced the world to Berenice Marlohe......

    plus, it's a film intelligent enough to explore how 'Bond became Bond' and the childhood trauma associated to the titular house. which was a stunning piece of production design.....

    This is what I hate about SF. I don't want to know how Bond became Bond. Fleming never wrote about it, never wrote about any childhood trauma. This has all been invented by P&W and has nothing to do with Fleming.

    I want Bond as the cardboard booby we read about, and watched up until 1989. No real backstory, just a blunt instrument on a new mission.

    The closest we ever got to knowing Bond's childhood was at the beginning of OHMSS, when Bond reflects on happy memories of Flake 99 ice creams and building sandcastles - not evil step brothers called Blofeld, or being some traumatised orphan that was desperate to become used and abused by the British government.

    This is all reinvented by Beavis and Butthead, and what I utterly despise during the Craig era.

    I love it.

    When Bond first hears the word ‘Skyfall’, it’s an attempt by the MI6 psychologist to test him. Bond refuses to answer the question which essentially provides the answer itself. There are clearly some unresolved issues from his childhood and a traumatic event that he needs to address. ‘Skyfall’ has specific traumatic resonance with Bond.

    When in mortal danger, Bond decides to take M back to Skyfall – the source of his original trauma. I imagine he took her to such a private and personal place because he trusts her. It’s the biggest insight into his personal life that he has offered anyone. Clearlyhe sees M as a friend and something of a surrogate mother.

    Later we learn that Bond learned of his parents’ death whilst at Skyfall and he spent his childhood there. Essentially, this was the place where he became Bond and shaped his life. Skyfall created him and led him to his inevitable path of becoming 007.

    In destroying the house, Bond is able to confront his past and destroy the painful memories associated with it. Later, in his family chapel, he holds the dying body of his surrogate mother – the woman who has shaped his adult life. Having put his past trauma behind him and now without his surrogate mother, Bond is left to confront a ‘brave new world’ alone.

    Reading this just reinforces what several other posts have said already. SF is the most pretentious and one of the dullest Bond films. Describing it as a TWINE remake is spot on.

    Because something has depth doesn't mean it's pretentious.

    The idea that because Fleming didn't dive into Bond's past doesn't mean the films can't. The films have been sidestepping Fleming for decades. I am pretty sure Fleming didn't write about pigeons doing double takes and Bond yelling like Tarzan.

    When it comes to older fandoms like Bond, I’ve noticed there seems to be the sentiment with a subset of fans that anything Fleming never touched should be verboten. As if because Fleming never delved onto Bond’s childhood should mean no one should EVER touch that. It’s the kind of rigid mentality that allows no imagination. For as much as we all love the Fleming books, we should all acknowledge that EON has long left Fleming behind for quite awhile and only occasionally looks back as a reminder of where it came from. Whether it’s a jet pack, a submarine car, a resignation from the service to follow a vendetta, playing Texas Holdem, a lodge named Skyfall, etc, these films will always bring on their own iconography to Bond that doesn’t originate in the Fleming texts.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,916
    When it comes to older fandoms like Bond, I’ve noticed there seems to be the sentiment with a subset of fans that anything Fleming never touched should be verboten.
    I started reading the Fleming novels and watching the Bond films in the early 70s, @MakeshiftPython.

    So especially the way I learned to watch Bond films, I don't have that limitation.
    Whether it’s a jet pack, a submarine car, a resignation from the service to follow a vendetta, playing Texas Holdem, a lodge named Skyfall, etc, these films will always bring on their own iconography to Bond that doesn’t originate in the Fleming texts.
    Oh that's so very true.

  • Posts: 1,879
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Bond and M are both quite sulky and unnecessarily whiny in their current incarnations.

    Yes it's all got a bit joyless and Nolanish.
    Wish DC had tapped a bit more of his relaxed and positive side for his Bond.

    I blame part of my lack of enthusiasm for SF due to the expanded focus on M. The credits may as well have begun with Judi Dench is M in Skyfall, followed by Starring Daniel Craig as James Bond.

    Since she was introduced in GE, the character comes off as more of a ballbuster, always trying to prove herself and putting Bond down when some of the best previous incarnations showed a tough side while displaying a paternal side that worked nicely, especially with the Moore Bond.

    Besides that, the Dench M's decisions do more damage to Mi6 than Quantum and SPECTRE combined. I had reservations about Dench being brought back for CR, but the character as written here and in QoS came off fine. Then SF highlights these problems even more. This is no reflection on Dench, just the way the character is written. Not that the Fiennes version is much better. Can't anybody in power just appreciate Bond?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,916
    Doesn't every M give OO7 a hard time. Then they appreciate him. It's part of the film formula.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,916
    I definitely accept that some folks don't like what I like. The reverse is also true. That's not in question. It's very apparent.

    So I'll stop commenting here.

  • Posts: 1,879
    Doesn't every M give OO7 a hard time. Then they appreciate him. It's part of the film formula.
    Yes, but the genuine feeling of appreciation doesn't appear in Dench's version. There are flashes of it. I think of how crotchety Bernard Lee's M was in TMWTGG and OHMSS, but also the championing of him in the scene with Gogol in TSWLM and to Frederick Grey in MR among others.

    Maybe it's because Dench's is given a much larger role in some of these films than Lee or Robert Brown ever were. In most of those films they'd appear at the beginning or a brief scene or two later and that was it. Maybe it's also a tribute to Dench's acting. It's just harder to take for me, almost a byproduct of the world we live in that they had to portray the character this way.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    I definitely accept that some folks don't like what I like. The reverse is also true. That's not in question. It's very apparent.

    So I'll stop commenting here.

    I've enjoyed your posts in this thread for what it's worth, @RichardTheBruce.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Doesn't every M give OO7 a hard time. Then they appreciate him. It's part of the film formula.

    Yeah it’s the boss vs. maverick detective relationship from every cop movie ever. They always have a respect for each other in the end because both of them know the other Gets Things Done Dammit. :D
  • Posts: 3,273
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    SkyFall is too boring to be the best one. It is just like TWINE part deux with. It suffers from a lack of locales and the action fell flat. It didn't help that the villain was a Hannibal Lecktor clone.

    As much hate as TWINE gets at least it is not as dull as SkyFall with way better action" locales, and villains.

    SF is actually about something. Which you can't say about every Bond film.

    Plus, it as the most jaw-droppingly talented cast and crew - Sam Mendes, John Logan, Roger Deakins, Javier Bardem, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney (!), and makes proper use of DC and Judi Dench.

    Totally the gold standard of Bond movies. Plus, it introduced the world to Berenice Marlohe......

    plus, it's a film intelligent enough to explore how 'Bond became Bond' and the childhood trauma associated to the titular house. which was a stunning piece of production design.....

    This is what I hate about SF. I don't want to know how Bond became Bond. Fleming never wrote about it, never wrote about any childhood trauma. This has all been invented by P&W and has nothing to do with Fleming.

    I want Bond as the cardboard booby we read about, and watched up until 1989. No real backstory, just a blunt instrument on a new mission.

    The closest we ever got to knowing Bond's childhood was at the beginning of OHMSS, when Bond reflects on happy memories of Flake 99 ice creams and building sandcastles - not evil step brothers called Blofeld, or being some traumatised orphan that was desperate to become used and abused by the British government.

    This is all reinvented by Beavis and Butthead, and what I utterly despise during the Craig era.

    I love it.

    When Bond first hears the word ‘Skyfall’, it’s an attempt by the MI6 psychologist to test him. Bond refuses to answer the question which essentially provides the answer itself. There are clearly some unresolved issues from his childhood and a traumatic event that he needs to address. ‘Skyfall’ has specific traumatic resonance with Bond.

    When in mortal danger, Bond decides to take M back to Skyfall – the source of his original trauma. I imagine he took her to such a private and personal place because he trusts her. It’s the biggest insight into his personal life that he has offered anyone. Clearlyhe sees M as a friend and something of a surrogate mother.

    Later we learn that Bond learned of his parents’ death whilst at Skyfall and he spent his childhood there. Essentially, this was the place where he became Bond and shaped his life. Skyfall created him and led him to his inevitable path of becoming 007.

    In destroying the house, Bond is able to confront his past and destroy the painful memories associated with it. Later, in his family chapel, he holds the dying body of his surrogate mother – the woman who has shaped his adult life. Having put his past trauma behind him and now without his surrogate mother, Bond is left to confront a ‘brave new world’ alone.

    And again, this is a new world invented by P&W, nothing remotely to do with Fleming. I take it you are not such a big fan of the novels then?

    That’s a bit silly. Are you not a fan of TSWLM because Fleming didn’t invent Stromberg and oil tankers swallowing submarines and spies skiing off cliffs with Union Jack parachutes on their back? Because you’re missing out on a really fun film.

    TSWLM is one of my least favourite Bond films, so probably not the best example to give me.

    I’m kind of surprised how few people on here seem to like the Bond movies! :)

    I love Bond movies. Why, do you not like them?
  • Posts: 3,273
    Birdleson wrote: »
    And there is more conventional wisdom in adhering close to Fleming. As has been pointed out many times, the widely beloved entries, almost across the board, are the ones that remain closest to the source (admittedly, great liberties are still taken): DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, TLD and, to a lesser extent, CR.

    This is what I find surprising too. The universally recognised highlights of the entire franchise still are the films which are closest to the novels, yet for some reason people are starting to think that Fleming wasn't all that. P&W can do a better job reinventing Fleming, no need to go back to the novels.

    Truly bizarre.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    I think some Bond fans have issues with the idea that Skyfall is so well thought of outside of the Bond community.

    In some cases I get the feeling that Bond fans who don't rate SF almost need to prove to the greater public that they are wrong in actually liking the film.

    That staggers me. Any love for the Bond films beyond these four walls should be embraced and encouraged. I love the film. Always have and always will. I don't like LTK much but if that film was held in as much esteem I'd be delighted. It's only good for the series to have so much recognition in the wider community.

    When I saw 'From the director of Skyfall' for '1917' trailers I felt so damned smug. A Bond film being held up as an example of this man's work, in order to get people in to the cinema to see his new film? Terrific.

    Feel free not to like SF, but seeing people explaining its success away by talking about the Olympics and the Queen's Jubilee and therefore SF's success could only be explained away by the feeling of goodwill in 2012 actually bugs me.

    Maybe, just maybe, the public actually loved this Bond film, because it was a good film. And for a short while Bond was relevant again, and was on top of the world, leaving Bourne and the others in its wake.

    That's my theory anyway ;)
  • Posts: 3,273
    Birdleson wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    SkyFall is too boring to be the best one. It is just like TWINE part deux with. It suffers from a lack of locales and the action fell flat. It didn't help that the villain was a Hannibal Lecktor clone.

    As much hate as TWINE gets at least it is not as dull as SkyFall with way better action" locales, and villains.

    SF is actually about something. Which you can't say about every Bond film.

    Plus, it as the most jaw-droppingly talented cast and crew - Sam Mendes, John Logan, Roger Deakins, Javier Bardem, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney (!), and makes proper use of DC and Judi Dench.

    Totally the gold standard of Bond movies. Plus, it introduced the world to Berenice Marlohe......

    plus, it's a film intelligent enough to explore how 'Bond became Bond' and the childhood trauma associated to the titular house. which was a stunning piece of production design.....

    This is what I hate about SF. I don't want to know how Bond became Bond. Fleming never wrote about it, never wrote about any childhood trauma. This has all been invented by P&W and has nothing to do with Fleming.

    I want Bond as the cardboard booby we read about, and watched up until 1989. No real backstory, just a blunt instrument on a new mission.

    The closest we ever got to knowing Bond's childhood was at the beginning of OHMSS, when Bond reflects on happy memories of Flake 99 ice creams and building sandcastles - not evil step brothers called Blofeld, or being some traumatised orphan that was desperate to become used and abused by the British government.

    This is all reinvented by Beavis and Butthead, and what I utterly despise during the Craig era.

    I love it.

    When Bond first hears the word ‘Skyfall’, it’s an attempt by the MI6 psychologist to test him. Bond refuses to answer the question which essentially provides the answer itself. There are clearly some unresolved issues from his childhood and a traumatic event that he needs to address. ‘Skyfall’ has specific traumatic resonance with Bond.

    When in mortal danger, Bond decides to take M back to Skyfall – the source of his original trauma. I imagine he took her to such a private and personal place because he trusts her. It’s the biggest insight into his personal life that he has offered anyone. Clearlyhe sees M as a friend and something of a surrogate mother.

    Later we learn that Bond learned of his parents’ death whilst at Skyfall and he spent his childhood there. Essentially, this was the place where he became Bond and shaped his life. Skyfall created him and led him to his inevitable path of becoming 007.

    In destroying the house, Bond is able to confront his past and destroy the painful memories associated with it. Later, in his family chapel, he holds the dying body of his surrogate mother – the woman who has shaped his adult life. Having put his past trauma behind him and now without his surrogate mother, Bond is left to confront a ‘brave new world’ alone.

    Reading this just reinforces what several other posts have said already. SF is the most pretentious and one of the dullest Bond films. Describing it as a TWINE remake is spot on.

    Because something has depth doesn't mean it's pretentious.

    The idea that because Fleming didn't dive into Bond's past doesn't mean the films can't. The films have been sidestepping Fleming for decades. I am pretty sure Fleming didn't write about pigeons doing double takes and Bond yelling like Tarzan.

    When it comes to older fandoms like Bond, I’ve noticed there seems to be the sentiment with a subset of fans that anything Fleming never touched should be verboten. As if because Fleming never delved onto Bond’s childhood should mean no one should EVER touch that. It’s the kind of rigid mentality that allows no imagination. For as much as we all love the Fleming books, we should all acknowledge that EON has long left Fleming behind for quite awhile and only occasionally looks back as a reminder of where it came from. Whether it’s a jet pack, a submarine car, a resignation from the service to follow a vendetta, playing Texas Holdem, a lodge named Skyfall, etc, these films will always bring on their own iconography to Bond that doesn’t originate in the Fleming texts.

    I’m definitely in the Fleming camp (meaning that is the core Bond; my favorite Bond), but I’m not against expanding the conventions of what is “Bondian”, I even like Bond going into space. It’s the messing with his (pre-Service) history that doesn’t feel comfortable to me. Same with killing Bond. Sad as it is that Fleming didn’t live to fill both of those ends in himself, I prefer those aspects of the character’s life to now be forever out of reach. The alternative strikes me as too brazen and presumptuous. Of course that is a completely personal sentiment. There’s no reason for me to expect others’ tenders spots to align with mine.

    This is what I have issues with. For all the faults of the Moore and Brozza era, at least there was no attempt at reinventing the character, tampering with Bond's history, having Blofeld be his brother, etc.

    This is the biggest fault of the Craig era. The reboot worked find in CR, but then EON went too far.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    Birdleson wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    SkyFall is too boring to be the best one. It is just like TWINE part deux with. It suffers from a lack of locales and the action fell flat. It didn't help that the villain was a Hannibal Lecktor clone.

    As much hate as TWINE gets at least it is not as dull as SkyFall with way better action" locales, and villains.

    SF is actually about something. Which you can't say about every Bond film.

    Plus, it as the most jaw-droppingly talented cast and crew - Sam Mendes, John Logan, Roger Deakins, Javier Bardem, Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Albert Finney (!), and makes proper use of DC and Judi Dench.

    Totally the gold standard of Bond movies. Plus, it introduced the world to Berenice Marlohe......

    plus, it's a film intelligent enough to explore how 'Bond became Bond' and the childhood trauma associated to the titular house. which was a stunning piece of production design.....

    This is what I hate about SF. I don't want to know how Bond became Bond. Fleming never wrote about it, never wrote about any childhood trauma. This has all been invented by P&W and has nothing to do with Fleming.

    I want Bond as the cardboard booby we read about, and watched up until 1989. No real backstory, just a blunt instrument on a new mission.

    The closest we ever got to knowing Bond's childhood was at the beginning of OHMSS, when Bond reflects on happy memories of Flake 99 ice creams and building sandcastles - not evil step brothers called Blofeld, or being some traumatised orphan that was desperate to become used and abused by the British government.

    This is all reinvented by Beavis and Butthead, and what I utterly despise during the Craig era.

    I love it.

    When Bond first hears the word ‘Skyfall’, it’s an attempt by the MI6 psychologist to test him. Bond refuses to answer the question which essentially provides the answer itself. There are clearly some unresolved issues from his childhood and a traumatic event that he needs to address. ‘Skyfall’ has specific traumatic resonance with Bond.

    When in mortal danger, Bond decides to take M back to Skyfall – the source of his original trauma. I imagine he took her to such a private and personal place because he trusts her. It’s the biggest insight into his personal life that he has offered anyone. Clearlyhe sees M as a friend and something of a surrogate mother.

    Later we learn that Bond learned of his parents’ death whilst at Skyfall and he spent his childhood there. Essentially, this was the place where he became Bond and shaped his life. Skyfall created him and led him to his inevitable path of becoming 007.

    In destroying the house, Bond is able to confront his past and destroy the painful memories associated with it. Later, in his family chapel, he holds the dying body of his surrogate mother – the woman who has shaped his adult life. Having put his past trauma behind him and now without his surrogate mother, Bond is left to confront a ‘brave new world’ alone.

    Reading this just reinforces what several other posts have said already. SF is the most pretentious and one of the dullest Bond films. Describing it as a TWINE remake is spot on.

    Because something has depth doesn't mean it's pretentious.

    The idea that because Fleming didn't dive into Bond's past doesn't mean the films can't. The films have been sidestepping Fleming for decades. I am pretty sure Fleming didn't write about pigeons doing double takes and Bond yelling like Tarzan.

    When it comes to older fandoms like Bond, I’ve noticed there seems to be the sentiment with a subset of fans that anything Fleming never touched should be verboten. As if because Fleming never delved onto Bond’s childhood should mean no one should EVER touch that. It’s the kind of rigid mentality that allows no imagination. For as much as we all love the Fleming books, we should all acknowledge that EON has long left Fleming behind for quite awhile and only occasionally looks back as a reminder of where it came from. Whether it’s a jet pack, a submarine car, a resignation from the service to follow a vendetta, playing Texas Holdem, a lodge named Skyfall, etc, these films will always bring on their own iconography to Bond that doesn’t originate in the Fleming texts.

    I’m definitely in the Fleming camp (meaning that is the core Bond; my favorite Bond), but I’m not against expanding the conventions of what is “Bondian”, I even like Bond going into space. It’s the messing with his (pre-Service) history that doesn’t feel comfortable to me. Same with killing Bond. Sad as it is that Fleming didn’t live to fill both of those ends in himself, I prefer those aspects of the character’s life to now be forever out of reach. The alternative strikes me as too brazen and presumptuous. Of course that is a completely personal sentiment. There’s no reason for me to expect others’ tenders spots to align with mine.

    This is what I have issues with. For all the faults of the Moore and Brozza era, at least there was no attempt at reinventing the character, tampering with Bond's history, having Blofeld be his brother, etc.

    This is the biggest fault of the Craig era. The reboot worked find in CR, but then EON went too far.

    Didn't Fleming start out having Bond a bland assassin with no history? And he built on his background later, encouraged by the films?
    I'm no Fleming purist believe me. I was obsessed with Bond films from the age of 5 and didn't read Fleming until I was about 14. So, for me the films are everything.

    When you say 'attempt at reinventing the character, tampering with Bond's history, having Blofeld be his brother' do you basically mean the brother bit? Or is there more tampering you don't like?
Sign In or Register to comment.