SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

18911131446

Comments

  • Posts: 11,493
    CR and SF both are just as valid as standalones as they are within Craig’s series.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,510
    Birdleson wrote: »
    And they are the two generally agreed upon classics.

    I am hoping we have a third in two months.
  • Posts: 11,493
    It seems unlikely NTTD will have particularly high value as a standalone entry, but who knows - maybe the execution will work in such a way it won’t be overly dependent on the past films. Though QOS hearkens back to elements of CR, I find it a surprisingly effective standalone experience too. SP not so much since it constantly references past events with no subtlety or grace.
  • WhyBondWhyBond USA
    Posts: 52
    The Craig era has no standalone films. They are all interwoven to show how Craig's Bond is maturing. I consider it a tertalogy/quadrilogy soon to be a quintology/pentalogy. Hit or miss it's how the story has been written. It was a great fun romp. It will be interesting to see what they will do next.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited February 2020 Posts: 7,322
    WhyBond wrote: »
    The Craig era has no standalone films. They are all interwoven to show how Craig's Bond is maturing. I consider it a tertalogy/quadrilogy soon to be a quintology/pentalogy. Hit or miss it's how the story has been written. It was a great fun romp. It will be interesting to see what they will do next.

    You don't believe Skyfall to be a standalone Bond film?

    EDIT: Sorry, forgot which thread we were in. Craig's Bond films certainly have a story, but I don't think Skyfall is about Craig's Bond. This is his contribution to the saga as a whole, apart from his own self-contained story IMO.
  • Posts: 11,493
    Why can’t CR and SF be both?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited February 2020 Posts: 7,322
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Why can’t CR and SF be both?

    CR could as well, as it kicks off Craig's own story arc but also isn't beholden to anything that came before it. Very good point @FoxRox. These will certainly be Craig's two most meaningful contributions to the saga as a whole (we'll see what NTTD brings to the table).
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    I always felt Craig's second film could have gone more in the manner of the novels where LALD was mostly a standalone adventure but at the same time carrying over Bond being hungry for some payback for what happened to him in CR. Even Fleming M recognizes that Bond wants to settle a score and is willing to use that personal motivation of Bond's so long as he's loyal to his duty.

    So the Bond films having connections between films is not something I'm against. If QOS hadn't named the organization "Quantum" it would have at least felt more natural that Bond was working his way up to the head of it that is Blofeld. Eliminate the childhood stuff and emphasize that Blofeld was the man behind it all and that Bond has thwarted their efforts in the past and that's all the conflict you need between them.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited February 2020 Posts: 7,322
    I always felt Craig's second film could have gone more in the manner of the novels where LALD was mostly a standalone adventure but at the same time carrying over Bond being hungry for some payback for what happened to him in CR. Even Fleming M recognizes that Bond wants to settle a score and is willing to use that personal motivation of Bond's so long as he's loyal to his duty.

    So the Bond films having connections between films is not something I'm against. If QOS hadn't named the organization "Quantum" it would have at least felt more natural that Bond was working his way up to the head of it that is Blofeld. Eliminate the childhood stuff and emphasize that Blofeld was the man behind it all and that Bond has thwarted their efforts in the past and that's all the conflict you need between them.

    I suppose they were working under the possibility they weren't going to get the rights back to Spectre and Blofeld, and so they were setting up Quantum to be the modern day version of that, possibly with Mr. White, or someone else we never saw, to be the modern day Blofeld. When they got the rights back it was all shoehorned back in, and they fudged it.

    For me though, given the way things were when Quantum was being made, I liked that they were alluding to a new evil organization and a new big bad guy. The Craig era may have fared better had they never received the rights to Spectre and Blofeld.

    Basically: they were doing what you say they should have done, but with new IPs because they didn't have the rights to Spectre and Blofeld. Then they got them and everything blew up.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 11,493
    I always felt Craig's second film could have gone more in the manner of the novels where LALD was mostly a standalone adventure but at the same time carrying over Bond being hungry for some payback for what happened to him in CR. Even Fleming M recognizes that Bond wants to settle a score and is willing to use that personal motivation of Bond's so long as he's loyal to his duty.

    So the Bond films having connections between films is not something I'm against. If QOS hadn't named the organization "Quantum" it would have at least felt more natural that Bond was working his way up to the head of it that is Blofeld. Eliminate the childhood stuff and emphasize that Blofeld was the man behind it all and that Bond has thwarted their efforts in the past and that's all the conflict you need between them.

    I suppose they were working under the possibility they weren't going to get the rights back to Spectre and Blofeld, and so they were setting up Quantum to be the modern day version of that, possibly with Mr. White, or someone else we never saw, to be the modern day Blofeld. When they got the rights back it was all shoehorned back in, and they fudged it.

    For me though, given the way things were when Quantum was being made, I liked that they were alluding to a new evil organization and a new big bad guy. The Craig era may have fared better had they never received the rights to Spectre and Blofeld.

    Basically: they were doing what you say they should have done, but with new IPs because they didn't have the rights to Spectre and Blofeld. Then they got them and everything blew up.

    Given the less-than-stellar reaction to QOS, I think we probably would have gotten 1 or 2 more standalone-type films with Craig after SF instead of Quantum returning - if EON hadn’t acquired the rights to SPECTRE back. I’d rather the organization had waited to be used until after Craig, but even still with them in, they could have done a much better job than what they went with.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited February 2020 Posts: 7,322
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I always felt Craig's second film could have gone more in the manner of the novels where LALD was mostly a standalone adventure but at the same time carrying over Bond being hungry for some payback for what happened to him in CR. Even Fleming M recognizes that Bond wants to settle a score and is willing to use that personal motivation of Bond's so long as he's loyal to his duty.

    So the Bond films having connections between films is not something I'm against. If QOS hadn't named the organization "Quantum" it would have at least felt more natural that Bond was working his way up to the head of it that is Blofeld. Eliminate the childhood stuff and emphasize that Blofeld was the man behind it all and that Bond has thwarted their efforts in the past and that's all the conflict you need between them.

    I suppose they were working under the possibility they weren't going to get the rights back to Spectre and Blofeld, and so they were setting up Quantum to be the modern day version of that, possibly with Mr. White, or someone else we never saw, to be the modern day Blofeld. When they got the rights back it was all shoehorned back in, and they fudged it.

    For me though, given the way things were when Quantum was being made, I liked that they were alluding to a new evil organization and a new big bad guy. The Craig era may have fared better had they never received the rights to Spectre and Blofeld.

    Basically: they were doing what you say they should have done, but with new IPs because they didn't have the rights to Spectre and Blofeld. Then they got them and everything blew up.

    Given the less-than-stellar reaction to QOS, I think we probably would have gotten 1 or 2 more standalone-type films with Craig after SF instead of Quantum returning - if EON hadn’t acquired the rights to SPECTRE back. I’d rather the organization had waited to be used until after Craig, but even still with them in, they could have done a much better job than what they went with.

    I think they felt like they needed to use Spectre considering they just got the rights back, and the whole thing was rushed, so I agree 100%. They probably didn't want to be seen not using the rights they just fought for years to get back.

    I'm glad they used Spectre / Blofeld with Craig, but yes, it was such a missed opportunity and I would have liked to see them take more time with it.

    Spectre should have been a multi-parter (like the Blofeld Trilogy in the novels): the first film to wrap up the Quantum organization, and Bond finds out that Spectre is pulling the strings behind them, and the second part is Bond goes after Blofeld in an epic, international battle.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    And the thing is that Quantum is basically SPECTRE in everything but name. Evil apolitical organization looking to make a buck. So having Quantum turn out to be a branch of SPECTRE is fine by me because it's ultimately all the same thing. Had QOS left them unnamed like CR did it wouldn't seem as tacked on as far as naming conventions go.

    Besides, Quantum is stupid stupid name, especially in context with the title of the film. So what the hell does the title mean, TERRORIST ORGANIZATION OF COMFORT?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,322
    And the thing is that Quantum is basically SPECTRE in everything but name. Evil apolitical organization looking to make a buck. So having Quantum turn out to be a branch of SPECTRE is fine by me because it's ultimately all the same thing. Had QOS left them unnamed like CR did it wouldn't seem as tacked on as far as naming conventions go.

    Besides, Quantum is stupid stupid name, especially in context with the title of the film. So what the hell does the title mean, TERRORIST ORGANIZATION OF COMFORT?

    Haha fair point. I don't mind the name, and the title, tying in the organization, and the more general commentary on revenge that is Quantum of Solace.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    I'm fine with Bond wanting payback after CR and all. I dig the title of QOS being used, in context with Bond trying to resolve lingering emotions over what happened with Vesper, and finding that "solace" at the very end when he drops the necklace on the snow.

    I just think naming the organization Quantum was dumb. And the way it's done is rather odd. The only times that name was brought up was just twice in ADR (Bond overhearing the conversation at the opera, and Greene saying "I've told you everything about Quantum"). The film never really tried to emphasize the name, it just kinda gets said casually. There's no "this organization is named Quantum", like how SPECTRE was both in the original timeline and the new.
  • Posts: 1,680
    The ending of CR left us pretty much saying this story isn’t over yet.

    Then we got a not so stellar follow up

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,846
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    The ending of CR left us pretty much saying this story isn’t over yet.

    Then we got a not so stellar follow up

    I disagree. The ending I saw was that Bond found the guy who took the money and introduced himself with the phrase, having become the complete Bond the movie built up to from the start. That was an ending, not a cliffhanger to the next film.

    After that, they could have gone in any direction they like but they chose to do a literal follow up to the point it took place moments just after capturing White.
  • Posts: 2,898

    And the thing is that Quantum is basically SPECTRE in everything but name. Evil apolitical organization looking to make a buck. So having Quantum turn out to be a branch of SPECTRE is fine by me because it's ultimately all the same thing. Had QOS left them unnamed like CR did it wouldn't seem as tacked on as far as naming conventions go.

    Besides, Quantum is stupid stupid name, especially in context with the title of the film. So what the hell does the title mean, TERRORIST ORGANIZATION OF COMFORT?
    Yes I agree. Especially when the storyline of Bond grieving after Vesper ties in with the title too.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,322
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    The ending of CR left us pretty much saying this story isn’t over yet.

    Then we got a not so stellar follow up

    I disagree. The ending I saw was that Bond found the guy who took the money and introduced himself with the phrase, having become the complete Bond the movie built up to from the start. That was an ending, not a cliffhanger to the next film.

    After that, they could have gone in any direction they like but they chose to do a literal follow up to the point it took place moments just after capturing White.

    +1
  • Posts: 7,424
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    The ending of CR left us pretty much saying this story isn’t over yet.

    Then we got a not so stellar follow up

    I disagree. The ending I saw was that Bond found the guy who took the money and introduced himself with the phrase, having become the complete Bond the movie built up to from the start. That was an ending, not a cliffhanger to the next film.

    After that, they could have gone in any direction they like but they chose to do a literal follow up to the point it took place moments just after capturing White.

    +1

    +2
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    I'm fine with Bond wanting payback after CR and all. I dig the title of QOS being used, in context with Bond trying to resolve lingering emotions over what happened with Vesper, and finding that "solace" at the very end when he drops the necklace on the snow.

    I just think naming the organization Quantum was dumb. And the way it's done is rather odd. The only times that name was brought up was just twice in ADR (Bond overhearing the conversation at the opera, and Greene saying "I've told you everything about Quantum"). The film never really tried to emphasize the name, it just kinda gets said casually. There's no "this organization is named Quantum", like how SPECTRE was both in the original timeline and the new.

    Agree. I think having a follow-up to Casino Royale with Bond trying to avenge the death of Vesper was a good idea on paper, but poorly executed in practice. The idea of having an organisation called Quantum was a poor choice in hindsight, as they then got the rights to Blofeld and Spectre. I don't think they knew that the Craig era was going to be a continuous arch and therefore we got the result we did. If they did then you'd like keeping it a mystery would've been more alluring for the next film, potentially leading up to the big reveal/finale in the last instalment. I sometimes feel that the Craig era is split into two with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace being the first half and Skyfall and Spectre being the second. It will be interesting to see how NTTD wraps up the entire Craig era.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 979
    Absolutely not. It's a solid Bond film, upper middle pack. Nothing more.
    There are some unique and excellent elements, but the once the film hits London, it starts to drag, even more so in Scotland.

    There are several Bond films that are better, in my opinion.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    OHMSS, TB, DN, FRWL, GF, CR, TLD, LTK, FYEO and GE. I don't feel that outside of these films that the Bond franchise in general has produced a movie that has reached similar heights, IMO.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited February 2020 Posts: 2,541
    Octopussy wrote: »
    OHMSS, TB, DN, FRWL, GF, CR, TLD, LTK, FYEO and GE. I don't feel that outside of these films that the Bond franchise in general has produced a movie that has reached similar heights, IMO.

    If we are talking about reaching heights that can only happen once for every bond actor. I mean it's not a coincidence that 3 bond actors reached to their best at their 3rd film, Sean had GF/ Roger had TSWLM/ Daniel had SF. George and Timothy never got the chance and pierce was the only one who couldn't reach to that mark. Even Robert Davi defended Timothy by saying
    "he never got the 3rd attempt, if you think about that, it took 3 pictures for Sean Connery to reach to that mark".
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,158
    Octopussy wrote: »
    OHMSS, TB, DN, FRWL, GF, CR, TLD, LTK, FYEO and GE. I don't feel that outside of these films that the Bond franchise in general has produced a movie that has reached similar heights, IMO.

    If we are talking about reaching heights that can only happen once for every bond actor. I mean it's not a coincidence that 3 bond actors reached to their best at their 3rd film, Sean had GF/ Roger had TSWLM/ Daniel had SF. George and Timothy never got the chance and pierce was the only one who couldn't reach to that mark. Even Robert Davi defended Timothy by saying
    "he never got the 3rd attempt, if you think about that, it took 3 pictures for Sean Connery to reach to that mark".

    What Timmy did in just two outings is impressive nevertheless.

    I’m not into the whole ‘3rd film idea’ anyway. Sean was it his best with Terence Young (his 1st, 2nd and 4th outings respectively), George was great in his only outing, Rog I prefer very much in his first two outings and in OP over TSWLM, Tim hit the notes perfectly in his double feature, Pierce was arguably at his best in either GE or DAD and I think Daniel’s performance in QOS outshines what followed.

    Now that I think of it, I don’t think any actor reached his peak at #3.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    OHMSS, TB, DN, FRWL, GF, CR, TLD, LTK, FYEO and GE. I don't feel that outside of these films that the Bond franchise in general has produced a movie that has reached similar heights, IMO.

    If we are talking about reaching heights that can only happen once for every bond actor. I mean it's not a coincidence that 3 bond actors reached to their best at their 3rd film, Sean had GF/ Roger had TSWLM/ Daniel had SF. George and Timothy never got the chance and pierce was the only one who couldn't reach to that mark. Even Robert Davi defended Timothy by saying
    "he never got the 3rd attempt, if you think about that, it took 3 pictures for Sean Connery to reach to that mark".

    What Timmy did in just two outings is impressive nevertheless.

    I’m not into the whole ‘3rd film idea’ anyway. Sean was it his best with Terence Young (his 1st, 2nd and 4th outings respectively), George was great in his only outing, Rog I prefer very much in his first two outings and in OP over TSWLM, Tim hit the notes perfectly in his double feature, Pierce was arguably at his best in either GE or DAD and I think Daniel’s performance in QOS outshines what followed.

    Now that I think of it, I don’t think any actor reached his peak at #3.

    We were talking about overall success of the film. I get what you are saying but there is no comparison in terms of performance with overall quality of the film. We as bond fans will always have our favorites but i was merely talking about general audience. A lot of my friends who aren't bond fans Still prefer SF over the first two of DC. My father who has watched every bond actor, he only remembers GF/TSWLM/SF of all. Why do you think that is?
    As I said it's not a coincidence that it took 3 film for 3 bond actors to be accepted as bond completely and this is coming from someone who is lifetime defender of Timothy's bond.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e il momento che verrà
    edited February 2020 Posts: 6,158
    Sorry mate, it seems I was a bit too fast with my response. Got carried away ;)
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Sorry mate, it seems I was a bit too fast with my response. Got carried away ;)

    That's all right no need to say sorry, we share the same passion ;) , even my favorites aren't GF/TSWLM/SF .

    These are my favorites for every bond actor: DR No/OHMSS/OP/TLD/GE/CR .
  • Posts: 7,424
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Sorry mate, it seems I was a bit too fast with my response. Got carried away ;)

    That's all right no need to say sorry, we share the same passion ;) , even my favorites aren't GF/TSWLM/SF .

    These are my favorites for every bond actor: DR No/OHMSS/OP/TLD/GE/CR .


    OHMSS is your favorite Lazenby film?? Ballsy move. You know we have a thread for controversial opinions?
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    jobo wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Sorry mate, it seems I was a bit too fast with my response. Got carried away ;)

    That's all right no need to say sorry, we share the same passion ;) , even my favorites aren't GF/TSWLM/SF .

    These are my favorites for every bond actor: DR No/OHMSS/OP/TLD/GE/CR .


    OHMSS is your favorite Lazenby film?? Ballsy move. You know we have a thread for controversial opinions?

    Are you here to nitpick my comment or every other word i wrote gone above your head. Try better next time. Ballsy move.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,322
    jobo wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Sorry mate, it seems I was a bit too fast with my response. Got carried away ;)

    That's all right no need to say sorry, we share the same passion ;) , even my favorites aren't GF/TSWLM/SF .

    These are my favorites for every bond actor: DR No/OHMSS/OP/TLD/GE/CR .


    OHMSS is your favorite Lazenby film?? Ballsy move. You know we have a thread for controversial opinions?

    Lol when compiling a list of favourite Bond films for each actor, there's no problem throwing OHMSS in there; it's great and deserves mention anywhere it can get it.
Sign In or Register to comment.