SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

1568101145

Comments

  • Posts: 3,273
    jobo wrote: »
    Real character strength is not saving the world because you are an indestructable hero and it's easy. Real strength is confronting your inner fears. Bond having a childhood trauma to confront does not make him weaker. It makes him a stronger character who demonstrates real courage.

    I'm all for the human Bond, and I hate the comedy Moore or Brozza interpretation. Bond has fears in the books, he regrets killing. He is even a romantic.

    All that I am 100% for. But nowhere, NOWHERE does Fleming ever hint at having to confront a childhood trauma or Mommy issues.

  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,185
    TripAces wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    I don't feel that symbolism or existentialism should be in a Bond film. The films widely regarded as the classics being Dr. No through to On Her Majesty's Secret Service and more recently Casino Royale are all Fleming narratives told well. They explore the character without implying any deeper meaning. I feel like Skyfall would've been a superior film without all the underlying messages regarding Bond's history, personally. I don't feel like it added anything to the film, besides an attempt to be complex. I agree that keeping certain elements of Bond's character out of reach or a mystery are preferable and make him a more alluring character, IMO.

    I couldn't disagree with you more.

    In an era of high octane, formulaic action franchises (Fast/Furious, Bourne, MI), with little to no character development, the opportunity is there to move Bond in another direction. And I don't think the films are going too far into Bond's past. SP skirted things a bit. But SF did not. What Marvel and Star Wars have always had going for them are the characters, their stories. There wasn't a dry eye in the house at the end of Avengers: Infinity War, because fans have invested in those characters. There is something to be said for that.

    Now, in no way am I suggesting that Bond's back story should become central to the films. I don't think anyone wants a Bond continuously brooding over his past. But EON made a smart, strategic move to bring Jungian psychology into SF, which is definitely in line with Fleming (see my earlier post).

    Yes, they never overdid it. I was honestly a bit worried going into SF for the first time. I knew there would be some exploration, and every other movie was doing deep dives into backstories (Batman begins spending close to half an hour on Bruce's childhood etc.)

    But when i watched the film it was so clever... really, you get a glimpse of a tombstone, one line of 'orphans being the best recruits', and a couple lines of hiding in a tunnel... after that there is tons of other stuff for us to decipher OR NOT, depends on what you like. A lot of things are only hinted at. Nothing to get offended by.

    Also i remember talking to some guy one day, who got really upset about the tombstone in SF because "they destroyed the code name theory, that was stupid".
    That put a big smile on my face lol.
  • Posts: 3,273
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I agree with that @jobo, but I still feel those emotional struggles have been portrayed better and with more subtlety in OHMSS, LTK, CR and QOS than in the Mendes films. I'm aware this comes down to personal taste and what one finds important when watching a 007 adventure. I just feel the aforementioned films were more in line of what makes Bond films appealing to me personally, while also exploring Bond's character.

    Sometimes i feel a lot of people criticize SF or Mendes because of SP. If SP wouldn't have happened who knows how we would have reacted.

    I'm one of them, sadly.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,834
    Spectre had too many other issues for that to land just at Mendes' feet. Not only did it have to follow Skyfall, but you also had the script leaks, and from what was seen from those leaks makes it seem like no-one was happy with anything, which lead to a jumbled mess of ideas, and even ended with some really interesting things being dropped. (The African warlord, Charlotte King, the "CIA agent" who works for SPECTRE) Oooo could they be reusing this idea for No Time to Die. Looking at you Paloma or Ash :)

    Don't me wrong I don't have anything wrong with some of the "general ideas" Spectre introduces, (a pre-title sequence during Day of the Dead, a SPECTRE meeting in Rome, a Bond girl who questions his lifestyle while being the daughter of an assassin, a villain connected to Hannes Oberhauser, a third act finale set in the ready-to-be demolished MI6 building) I just have a serious problem with how they were executed.
  • Posts: 3,273
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Spectre had too many other issues for that to land just at Mendes' feet. Not only did it have to follow Skyfall, but you also had the script leaks, and from what was seen from those leaks makes it seem like no-one was happy with anything, which lead to a jumbled mess of ideas, and even ended with some really interesting things being dropped. (The African warlord, Charlotte King, the "CIA agent" who works for SPECTRE) Oooo could they be reusing this idea for No Time to Die. Looking at you Paloma or Ash :)

    Don't me wrong I don't have anything wrong with some of the "general ideas" Spectre introduces, (a pre-title sequence during Day of the Dead, a SPECTRE meeting in Rome, a Bond girl who questions his lifestyle while being the daughter of an assassin, a villain connected to Hannes Oberhauser, a third act finale set in the ready-to-be demolished MI6 building) I just have a serious problem with how they were executed.

    Careful mentioning SP on here mate. You'll get hammered for it, as many of the SF fan brigade cannot see the obvious link between the 2 films. They think we SF/SP/Mendes/Newman bashers are imagining it all. ;)
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Spectre had too many other issues for that to land just at Mendes' feet. Not only did it have to follow Skyfall, but you also had the script leaks, and from what was seen from those leaks makes it seem like no-one was happy with anything, which lead to a jumbled mess of ideas, and even ended with some really interesting things being dropped. (The African warlord, Charlotte King, the "CIA agent" who works for SPECTRE) Oooo could they be reusing this idea for No Time to Die. Looking at you Paloma or Ash :)

    Don't me wrong I don't have anything wrong with some of the "general ideas" Spectre introduces, (a pre-title sequence during Day of the Dead, a SPECTRE meeting in Rome, a Bond girl who questions his lifestyle while being the daughter of an assassin, a villain connected to Hannes Oberhauser, a third act finale set in the ready-to-be demolished MI6 building) I just have a serious problem with how they were executed.

    Careful mentioning SP on here mate. You'll get hammered for it, as many of the SF fan brigade cannot see the obvious link between the 2 films. They think we SF/SP/Mendes/Newman bashers are imagining it all. ;)

    Lol should we trash GF now because DAF was such a weak film?
    Or trash TSWLM because MR sucked?

    I'm game if you are.
  • Posts: 3,273
    00Agent wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Spectre had too many other issues for that to land just at Mendes' feet. Not only did it have to follow Skyfall, but you also had the script leaks, and from what was seen from those leaks makes it seem like no-one was happy with anything, which lead to a jumbled mess of ideas, and even ended with some really interesting things being dropped. (The African warlord, Charlotte King, the "CIA agent" who works for SPECTRE) Oooo could they be reusing this idea for No Time to Die. Looking at you Paloma or Ash :)

    Don't me wrong I don't have anything wrong with some of the "general ideas" Spectre introduces, (a pre-title sequence during Day of the Dead, a SPECTRE meeting in Rome, a Bond girl who questions his lifestyle while being the daughter of an assassin, a villain connected to Hannes Oberhauser, a third act finale set in the ready-to-be demolished MI6 building) I just have a serious problem with how they were executed.

    Careful mentioning SP on here mate. You'll get hammered for it, as many of the SF fan brigade cannot see the obvious link between the 2 films. They think we SF/SP/Mendes/Newman bashers are imagining it all. ;)

    Lol should we trash GF now because DAF was such a weak film?
    Or trash TSWLM because MR sucked?

    I'm game if you are.

    You really think GF and DAF are as tightly linked as SF and SP are? Really?
    Or are you just pulling me leg.

    As for trashing TSWLM, I'm game if you are. I hate that film.... ;)
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,185
    No you are right, GF and DAF are not linked at all. It's just the same director coming back to finish what he started.

    Anyway, i like SP, i don't love it but i like many things about it. The heavy handed continuity from SF, especially with Silva, is not one of them. If Mendes hadn't returned, SF could have easily remained a stand alone film, only linked to future movies by M,Q and MP returning.

    But this is what we've got now.

    Also i firmly believe that the latest Bond film can only really be judged after it's successor comes out. Just to see what they kept and what they disgarded. I think NTTD will be very different from SP in asthetics, and narrative, even with all the links. I think a lot of people will change their opinions on SP drastically after NTTD comes out, for better or worse. See QoS.

    And TSWLM was a film i used to really hate, but it's just short of my top 5 now. ;)
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    Don't get me wrong Skyfall is not without faults. I can name three off the top of my head, Daniel's hair, the whole Silva planned escape and the rubbish CGI for the train nearly killing Bond.
    But I really enjoy the film on the whole and I think it's one of my favourite's in the series

    I think people would look at Skyfall differently, if it was either the last film in Daniel's run or if there had been a great film with more of a classic Bond feel in 2010, because admittedly Skyfall did feel like it robbed us of a classic film with Bond in his prime.
    Although that doesn't really bother me because I really loved the dive into Bond's past and Daniel was faultless in this film, it was great to see some of the unmined plot points of the YOLT novel on screen
  • Posts: 11,425
    Univex wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I'll always appreciate Mendes for Skyfall as for me it is a terrific film and top Bond entry to boot.

    Though like some have said SPECTRE did it no favours, the last bit of SF teases something we didn't get, Bond and M mutual respect and James ready to do his duty for his new Boss.
    Instead we got more personal nonsense and the worse plot idea of the series utilised, it doesn't do SF any favours but I try to consider it a separate entity and enjoy it that way.

    SPECTRE though my thoughts on that are well documented.

    Skyfall is bloody good Bond full stop.

    My feelings exactly. The promise with which SF ended was never fulfilled. Alas, these personal shenanigans seem to be very much present in NTTD. But as @Denbigh said in another thread, maybe the new driving plot, villain or mcmuffin will be strong enough to overtake the personal angle. At least Bond's personal angle. If the Bond g...Woman has a personal angle, well that's not a problem at all, not for me anyway. A solid narrative could very well go into new territory for Bond. But making it personal every single time is getting tiresome. And we've been bad mouthing the "this time its personal" tagline for ages to no effect.

    I still say that what we need are better writers.

    I feel the same way about QOS and SF. QOS set everything up really nicely and then SF just took all that potential and gave us what to me is a Brosnan type film.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,834
    I also have to mention that Séverine felt ripped from the pages of a Fleming novel :)
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 3,273
    00Agent wrote: »
    No you are right, GF and DAF are not linked at all. It's just the same director coming back to finish what he started.

    With 4 Bond films in-between, another actor came and went, a visibly different Connery in both appearance and performance, and a total change of direction from relying on a faithfully adapted Fleming novel, to a camp 70's romp that would set the standard for the Moore films that followed, and had very little to do with Fleming.

    Otherwise they are like 2 peas in a pod. It's hard to tell the difference where GF ends and DAF begins, they are so similar... ;)
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 3,273
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I also have to mention that Séverine felt ripped from the pages of a Fleming novel :)

    Great Bond Girl, Great character.

    There I agree. She felt like a Fleming character. The scene where Silva taunts Bond to shoot the glass off her head also feels very Fleming (it is actually loosely based on a scene from TMWTGG).
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited February 2020 Posts: 2,541
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I agree with that @jobo, but I still feel those emotional struggles have been portrayed better and with more subtlety in OHMSS, LTK, CR and QOS than in the Mendes films. I'm aware this comes down to personal taste and what one finds important when watching a 007 adventure. I just feel the aforementioned films were more in line of what makes Bond films appealing to me personally, while also exploring Bond's character.

    Sometimes i feel a lot of people criticize SF or Mendes because of SP. If SP wouldn't have happened who knows how we would have reacted.

    I'm one of them, sadly.

    nothing sad about it, we all have different opinions sometimes ;)
    SF had lots of great moments as well, you should also point out them to have fair criticism imo.
    I have read Fleming books only once so you know/remember about it more than me. What if Fleming would have gotten into childhood trauma in his books, would you be ok with it?
    The reason i am asking this because i am sure there have been a lot things in the books that people might not have liked not just in film's. Controversial opinion i know but are all his books perfect?

    @Jordo007 that train scene wasn't CGI. They actually shot it completely real.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    mtm wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    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?

    I was happy with Bond being rebooted to a modern spy in CR. No issues there at all.

    I wasn't particularly comfortable with the whole SF house thing, seeing his parents graves, Kincaid, etc. and Bond muttering to M about her `knowing the whole story', as though Bond is some kind of damaged orphan.

    None of this was ever even hinted at in the novels. We knew of Bond's parents names in a fleeting mention in YOLT, and Bond reminisces about fairly normal happy childhood seaside memories in OHMSS, but that's it. None of this broken, psychological damaged childhood, making him more like Bruce Wayne than Bond. This is the work of P&W, not Fleming, and were taking extreme liberties with what Fleming created.

    Then they went even further in SP.

    He's not exactly a normal guy in the books though: he's a killer! Plus there are lots of hints towards him suffering a lot from 'accidie', which would be seen as a mental health issue nowadays.

    And I don't have issues with Bond being a killer, being accidie, smoking, womanising, etc. This is the character of the books.

    But by the same token he also lives life to the full, enjoys good food, fine wine, restaurants, gambling, loves travelling, fast cars, etc.

    SF portrays Bond as a spoilt child in the beginning, then a broken man who isn't fit enough for normal duties, to a hen-pecked cuckold man with childhood issues, dominated by a surrogate mother hen M by the end of the film, haunted by a childhood and house that Fleming never even hinted at.

    If the complaint is just ‘this wasn’t in Fleming’ then I don’t think you’re going to like the other movies.
  • Posts: 3,273
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    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?

    I was happy with Bond being rebooted to a modern spy in CR. No issues there at all.

    I wasn't particularly comfortable with the whole SF house thing, seeing his parents graves, Kincaid, etc. and Bond muttering to M about her `knowing the whole story', as though Bond is some kind of damaged orphan.

    None of this was ever even hinted at in the novels. We knew of Bond's parents names in a fleeting mention in YOLT, and Bond reminisces about fairly normal happy childhood seaside memories in OHMSS, but that's it. None of this broken, psychological damaged childhood, making him more like Bruce Wayne than Bond. This is the work of P&W, not Fleming, and were taking extreme liberties with what Fleming created.

    Then they went even further in SP.

    He's not exactly a normal guy in the books though: he's a killer! Plus there are lots of hints towards him suffering a lot from 'accidie', which would be seen as a mental health issue nowadays.

    And I don't have issues with Bond being a killer, being accidie, smoking, womanising, etc. This is the character of the books.

    But by the same token he also lives life to the full, enjoys good food, fine wine, restaurants, gambling, loves travelling, fast cars, etc.

    SF portrays Bond as a spoilt child in the beginning, then a broken man who isn't fit enough for normal duties, to a hen-pecked cuckold man with childhood issues, dominated by a surrogate mother hen M by the end of the film, haunted by a childhood and house that Fleming never even hinted at.

    If the complaint is just ‘this wasn’t in Fleming’ then I don’t think you’re going to like the other movies.

    Well there is some truth in that. There are more than half of the films in the franchise that I'm not a huge fan of, because of this.

    The films I do like are rather telling - the early Connery films, OHMSS, the Dalton films, and CR.

    My guilty pleasure is the early 70's Bond films, including the first 2 Moore films too, mainly because of the era its set, and gives a nice glimpse into retro travelogues and 1970's hotels in Las Vegas, NY and Hong Kong.

    But the majority of the Moore films, and the entire Brozza era I could do without.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 3,273
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I agree with that @jobo, but I still feel those emotional struggles have been portrayed better and with more subtlety in OHMSS, LTK, CR and QOS than in the Mendes films. I'm aware this comes down to personal taste and what one finds important when watching a 007 adventure. I just feel the aforementioned films were more in line of what makes Bond films appealing to me personally, while also exploring Bond's character.

    Sometimes i feel a lot of people criticize SF or Mendes because of SP. If SP wouldn't have happened who knows how we would have reacted.

    I'm one of them, sadly.

    nothing sad about it, we all have different opinions sometimes ;)
    SF had lots of great moments as well, you should also point out them to have fair criticism imo.
    I have read Fleming books only once so you know/remember about it more than me. What if Fleming would have gotten into childhood trauma in his books, would you be ok with it?
    The reason i am asking this because i am sure there have been a lot things in the books that people might not have liked not just in film's. Controversial opinion i know but are all his books perfect?

    @Jordo007 that train scene wasn't CGI. They actually shot it completely real.

    I love everything Fleming wrote. I'm a massive fan. As far as I'm concerned, he never did anything bad. Even his last novel I'm a huge fan of (in fact its one of my favourites).

    What upsets me more is the fact there is decent material still untapped from the books, and is far superior to anything passed off as`original' written by P&W over the past 20 odd years, which is why I am reluctant to embrace anything `new' until everything from Fleming has been properly used.

    Cubby got this, understood this perfectly, after he went off the rails in the 70's by abandoning the books and just using them as a mild reference for locations and characters.

    By FYEO he knew if he was stuck, he'd go back to Fleming, which is a trend he started doing in the 80's. Adapting Fleming scenes or short stories into films.

    His daughter has been quoted saying the same thing, yet she is not taking her father's advice, instead giving us things that Fleming MAY have hinted at or suggested, or completely re-writing the books completely, as `Fleming re-imagined', in very crude retcon crap.

    Utterly disgraceful!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2020 Posts: 8,000
    It’s funny how Mendes, P&W, Barbara Broccoli get the most flak these days, but fans never criticize Michael G. Wilson, as if he has a get-out-of-jail card just for being a big part of the Cubby era. And yet he’s the one that came up with the idea of Blofeld being Bond’s foster brother.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 65
    In SPECTRE they should of never re-introduced Blofeld. They should of left it as a shadowy organization with no head honcho. That would have fit the modern times of today's espionage world.
    It's hard to tell if Bond and Blofeld remember each other from their childhood. How long were they foster brothers? Why didn't Bond say hey Oberhauser, brother why are you running this secret organization to sabotage me? Still bitter your dad preferred me over you? It is just a lot of unanswered questions that became a jumbled mess.
    They extended this continuity back to Casino Royale with I was the author and evil doer all along, James your foster brother. It put a big hamper in the Craig timeline. SPECTRE has definitely ruined the arch connecting the films. It also ruined Silva's vendetta against M when you find out he was a SPECTRE agent.
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    WhyBond wrote: »
    In SPECTRE they should of never re-introduced Blofeld. They should of left it as a shadowy organization with no head honcho. That would have fit the modern times of today's espionage world.
    It's hard to tell if Bond and Blofeld remember each other from their childhood. How long were they foster brothers? Why didn't Bond say hey Oberhauser, brother why are you running this secret organization to sabotage me? Still bitter your dad preferred me over you? It is just a lot of unanswered questions that became a jumbled mess.
    They extended this continuity back to Casino Royale with I was the author and evil doer all along, James your foster brother. It put a big hamper in the Craig timeline. SPECTRE has definitely ruined the arch connecting the films. It also ruined Silva's vendetta against M when you find out he was a SPECTRE agent.

    Just to clarify, Blofeld never states that he created Spectre to target Bond.

    Blofeld says "a nice pattern developed, you interfered with my world so I destroyed yours" Bond was just an outside nuisance, not even on Blofeld's radar until the events of Casino Royale.

    Sorry, just had to put that out there, people always seem to imply that Blofeld created Spectre just to get revenge for stealing his fathers affection, which is incorrect. I will also point out that Blofeld never tries to kill Bond alongside his father... just saying.

    I also think it says a lot about his character (killing his father), always needing to be number one, he refuses to play second fiddle to anyone. Sounds like Blofeld to me.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,834
    I don't want to take this too much off topic, but I think Oberhauser just needed his motive to be on a bigger scale and have it to be more apart of the emotional story you're trying to tell. While what Spectre did with him may have looked good on paper, at the end of the day, we learnt more about why he hates Bond than why he started the organisation? So when you make that the focus, all the organisation becomes at that point is a backdrop for the family drama rather than a driving force in the film that we should be worried about.

    I'm not saying that they couldn't have addressed the drama at all, but it should've been weaven more into the plot and the other characters. One of the reasons Silva worked so well is because he was the best villain for the story; integral to the plot, its theme and the emotional arc of the main characters. Was Blofeld the best villain for Spectre's story, was he integral to the theme and the emotional arc of the story? Nope, it just had this family drama next to a quite weak scheme regarding surveillance, then they just tried to play it off with an oddly placed thematic quote or whatever it was at the beginning, while altering a lot of what came before because for some reason they felt the need to complicate things with creating two sequels in one. A sequel for CR/QOS and also SF...

    ...this is why I say they should've started fresh like what the end of Skyfall hinted at.
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Close enough though, he does say that you could say Bond sent him on this trajectory. Basically the same thing. It's not always the specifics (as the semantics of what "brother" means), but the implications that are so tiresome and troublesome. The implications for both of those issues are pushed, whether it is specifically stated or not.

    I can agree, the problem still exists.

    I was just arguing that some of the criticism is a bit exaggerated and in some cases false.
  • Posts: 11,425
    The villains' motivations are rarely very interesting. Brofeld's are just particularly silly/unexciting. The tension usually comes from the writing, scenarios and performances. The SPECTRE meeting is fine but then the sequence at the volcano crater base just falls a bit flat. Nobody's heart seems to be in it.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 1,081
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I agree with that @jobo, but I still feel those emotional struggles have been portrayed better and with more subtlety in OHMSS, LTK, CR and QOS than in the Mendes films. I'm aware this comes down to personal taste and what one finds important when watching a 007 adventure. I just feel the aforementioned films were more in line of what makes Bond films appealing to me personally, while also exploring Bond's character.

    I have to agree with you, although I'd argue QOS is guilty of starting the exact thing that we've been debated these last few pages. Things like putting the GB sequence at the end of the film was Forster's way of indicating to the audience that Bond had come full circle and found solace in Vesper's demise. It's more warranted here given it's a follow up of the events of CR (although I see QOS as a bit of a missed opportunity) it's there nonetheless. In SF and SP it's amplified further.
    TripAces wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    I don't feel that symbolism or existentialism should be in a Bond film. The films widely regarded as the classics being Dr. No through to On Her Majesty's Secret Service and more recently Casino Royale are all Fleming narratives told well. They explore the character without implying any deeper meaning. I feel like Skyfall would've been a superior film without all the underlying messages regarding Bond's history, personally. I don't feel like it added anything to the film, besides an attempt to be complex. I agree that keeping certain elements of Bond's character out of reach or a mystery are preferable and make him a more alluring character, IMO.

    I couldn't disagree with you more.

    In an era of high octane, formulaic action franchises (Fast/Furious, Bourne, MI), with little to no character development, the opportunity is there to move Bond in another direction. And I don't think the films are going too far into Bond's past. SP skirted things a bit. But SF did not. What Marvel and Star Wars have always had going for them are the characters, their stories. There wasn't a dry eye in the house at the end of Avengers: Infinity War, because fans have invested in those characters. There is something to be said for that.

    Now, in no way am I suggesting that Bond's back story should become central to the films. I don't think anyone wants a Bond continuously brooding over his past. But EON made a smart, strategic move to bring Jungian psychology into SF, which is definitely in line with Fleming (see my earlier post).

    I agree with you that Bond requires character development and I'm all for that. You only need to take a look at my top 10 favourite Bond films (OHMSS, TB, DN, FRWL, GF, CR, TLD, LTK, FYEO & GE) that I'm an advocate for the development of James Bond as a character. However, as many have alluded to I much prefer the subtle approach in which the these films go about it, they don't consistently hint to the audience that he's traumatised or has unresolved physiological issues. The narrative of these films (there are exceptions) are what carried the arch of the character. I think Casino Royale is a perfect example of a modern Fleming adaptation to the silver screen and it allows Craig's portrayal of Bond to develop with the events of the story.
    jobo wrote: »
    Real character strength is not saving the world because you are an indestructable hero and it's easy. Real strength is confronting your inner fears. Bond having a childhood trauma to confront does not make him weaker. It makes him a stronger character who demonstrates real courage.

    I'm all for the human Bond, and I hate the comedy Moore or Brozza interpretation. Bond has fears in the books, he regrets killing. He is even a romantic.

    All that I am 100% for. But nowhere, NOWHERE does Fleming ever hint at having to confront a childhood trauma or Mommy issues.

    +1
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 3,273
    It’s funny how Mendes, P&W, Barbara Broccoli get the most flak these days, but fans never criticize Michael G. Wilson, as if he has a get-out-of-jail card just for being a big part of the Cubby era. And yet he’s the one that came up with the idea of Blofeld being Bond’s foster brother.

    I think its because it appears as though Babs wears the pants in that relationship, so-to-speak. She is the one calling the shots, or so it appears. I get the impression Wilson is a back seat passenger now with decisions made (I could be wrong), adding very little input.

    He also gets a free pass from me for co-writing LTK, easily the best `original' script that isn't taken from a Fleming novel (even though it does loosely adapt TMWTGG, and nicks a couple of scenes from LALD).

    The LTK script is one perfect example of how to do what P&W have been trying to do for years, and falling short every time.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    I've always found it funny how in Skyfall they make the shrapnel Bond took in pursuit of Patrice such a big deal, making it integral to the development of the story, but never focus on how he survived after being shot by Moneypenny. It's his Achilles heel throughout the entire film, but never make reference to it. I felt that the scene with the word association was odd too with Bond responding "done" to Skyfall and walking out. I remember watching the trailer thinking that it was a code for a previous mission or something of that ilk, but then seeing the movie and it referring to Bond's tough upbringing and that he can barely speak about it (again referenced by Bond's reaction when M makes the comment later in the film regarding orphans being the best recruits) I thought made Bond appear weak and sappy, IMO. I also never understood how in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace we see Bond bleed and genuinely get hurt, but when a train literally falls on him in Skyfall he escapes unscathed with not even a cut or bruise to be seen.
    The LTK script is one perfect example of how to do what P&W have been trying to do for years, and falling short every time.

    Agreed. I'm sure Dalton's influence is partially to credit to these Fleming elements being introduced into the script.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 3,273
    Octopussy wrote: »
    I've always found it funny how in Skyfall they make the shrapnel Bond took in pursuit of Patrice such a big deal, making it integral to the development of the story, but never focus on how he survived after being shot by Moneypenny. It's his Achilles heel throughout the entire film, but never make reference to it. I felt that the scene with the word association was odd too with Bond responding "done" to Skyfall and walking out. I remember watching the trailer thinking that it was a code for a previous mission or something of that ilk, but then seeing the movie and it referring to Bond's tough upbringing and that he can barely speak about it (again referenced by Bond's reaction when M makes the comment later in the film regarding orphans being the best recruits) I thought made Bond appear weak and sappy, IMO. I also never understood how in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace we see Bond bleed and genuinely get hurt, but when a train literally falls on him in Skyfall he escapes unscathed with not even a cut or bruise to be seen.

    I'm sure Dalton's influence is partially to credit to these Fleming elements being introduced into the script.

    Spot on, on all points. In CR and QoS we see Bond bleed and feel pain. All that hard work was undone by the time Mendes was finished with the franchise (none moreso than that ridiculous spectacle of Superman Bond shooting and fighting fit seconds after having a drill inserted into him in SP).

    You are right about Dalton influencing the LTK direction. What I'd give for the next actor to be like Dalton, and state loud and proud `I'm a huge Ian Fleming fan, and I want the next film to return to the spirit of the novels'.

    Then I would be on board 100% with everything EON did.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 1,081
    Octopussy wrote: »
    I've always found it funny how in Skyfall they make the shrapnel Bond took in pursuit of Patrice such a big deal, making it integral to the development of the story, but never focus on how he survived after being shot by Moneypenny. It's his Achilles heel throughout the entire film, but never make reference to it. I felt that the scene with the word association was odd too with Bond responding "done" to Skyfall and walking out. I remember watching the trailer thinking that it was a code for a previous mission or something of that ilk, but then seeing the movie and it referring to Bond's tough upbringing and that he can barely speak about it (again referenced by Bond's reaction when M makes the comment later in the film regarding orphans being the best recruits) I thought made Bond appear weak and sappy, IMO. I also never understood how in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace we see Bond bleed and genuinely get hurt, but when a train literally falls on him in Skyfall he escapes unscathed with not even a cut or bruise to be seen.

    I'm sure Dalton's influence is partially to credit to these Fleming elements being introduced into the script.

    Spot on, on all points. In CR and QoS we see Bond bleed and feel pain. All that hard work was undone by the time Mendes was finished with the franchise (none moreso than that ridiculous spectacle of Superman Bond shooting and fighting fit seconds after having a drill inserted into him in SP).

    You are right about Dalton influencing the LTK direction. What I'd give for the next actor to be like Dalton, and state loud and proud `I'm a huge Ian Fleming fan, and I want the next film to return to the spirit of the novels'.

    Then I would be on board 100% with everything EON did.

    Then there's my all time favourite - Bond doesn't shed a tear when Tracy dies (Peter Hunt telling Lazenby that Bond doesn't cry) but when M dies he starts crying? M is supposed to be Bond's boss, but making her representative of Bond's paternal figure in SF was a misguided decision and not one Fleming would've endorsed.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 7,500
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    In SPECTRE they should of never re-introduced Blofeld. They should of left it as a shadowy organization with no head honcho. That would have fit the modern times of today's espionage world.
    It's hard to tell if Bond and Blofeld remember each other from their childhood. How long were they foster brothers? Why didn't Bond say hey Oberhauser, brother why are you running this secret organization to sabotage me? Still bitter your dad preferred me over you? It is just a lot of unanswered questions that became a jumbled mess.
    They extended this continuity back to Casino Royale with I was the author and evil doer all along, James your foster brother. It put a big hamper in the Craig timeline. SPECTRE has definitely ruined the arch connecting the films. It also ruined Silva's vendetta against M when you find out he was a SPECTRE agent.

    Just to clarify, Blofeld never states that he created Spectre to target Bond.

    Blofeld says "a nice pattern developed, you interfered with my world so I destroyed yours" Bond was just an outside nuisance, not even on Blofeld's radar until the events of Casino Royale.

    Sorry, just had to put that out there, people always seem to imply that Blofeld created Spectre just to get revenge for stealing his fathers affection, which is incorrect. I will also point out that Blofeld never tries to kill Bond alongside his father... just saying.

    I also think it says a lot about his character (killing his father), always needing to be number one, he refuses to play second fiddle to anyone. Sounds like Blofeld to me.

    Exactly! I see so many people interpret it in such a way that his grudge with Bond is Blofeld's only motivation for becoming a criminal in the first place. I find that quite baffling. Was that ever hinted at? Not at all, I'd say. I think it should be quite obvious that Blofeld is simply an evil, power hungry person who just happens to also have a personal vendetta against Bond. Those are not necesarrily linked and Bond does obviously not make up all of Blofeld's evil intentions.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 3,273
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    I've always found it funny how in Skyfall they make the shrapnel Bond took in pursuit of Patrice such a big deal, making it integral to the development of the story, but never focus on how he survived after being shot by Moneypenny. It's his Achilles heel throughout the entire film, but never make reference to it. I felt that the scene with the word association was odd too with Bond responding "done" to Skyfall and walking out. I remember watching the trailer thinking that it was a code for a previous mission or something of that ilk, but then seeing the movie and it referring to Bond's tough upbringing and that he can barely speak about it (again referenced by Bond's reaction when M makes the comment later in the film regarding orphans being the best recruits) I thought made Bond appear weak and sappy, IMO. I also never understood how in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace we see Bond bleed and genuinely get hurt, but when a train literally falls on him in Skyfall he escapes unscathed with not even a cut or bruise to be seen.

    I'm sure Dalton's influence is partially to credit to these Fleming elements being introduced into the script.

    Spot on, on all points. In CR and QoS we see Bond bleed and feel pain. All that hard work was undone by the time Mendes was finished with the franchise (none moreso than that ridiculous spectacle of Superman Bond shooting and fighting fit seconds after having a drill inserted into him in SP).

    You are right about Dalton influencing the LTK direction. What I'd give for the next actor to be like Dalton, and state loud and proud `I'm a huge Ian Fleming fan, and I want the next film to return to the spirit of the novels'.

    Then I would be on board 100% with everything EON did.

    Then there's my all time favourite - Bond doesn't shed a tear when Tracy dies (Peter Hunt telling Lazenby that Bond doesn't cry) but when M dies he starts crying? M is supposed to be Bond's boss, but making her representative of Bond's paternal figure in SF was a misguided decision and not one Fleming would've endorsed.

    Of course Fleming wouldn't have been on board with this ridiculous notion. It all stems from Babs, and her agenda, her influence on making her statement on women being more powerful, more dominant. And it looks like we are in for more of the same in NTTD (SF part 3/SPECTRE part 2).

    There is a misconception here about Bond being human. I think we are all in agreement there. Yes, make Bond more human. Let's have him showing fear, feeling pain, watch him bleed, show emotion, anger, revenge, sadness. In other words, the Fleming Bond. In CR Craig got it spot on. Even in QoS he had his moments.

    But then EON/Mendes go and balls it all up in SF and SF Part II - personal angst, childhood trauma, weeping over a surrogate mother, etc. and yet in the same token, having a Bond who recovers miraculously after a fight, doesn't bleed, and is 100% miraculously recovered and fighting fit nano seconds after inducing a brain seizing drill torture by his long lost brother.

    And fans here claim this is making Bond more `human'. Give me a break. Even Moore showed more physical duress after an ordeal (MR centrifuge anyone?).

    In the words of Edmund Blackadder - Utter crap!
Sign In or Register to comment.