Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Skyfall to have magical 60's feel / 50th Anniversary Plans

Very promising!

119 replies to this topic

#61 Leon

Leon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1574 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 26 December 2011 - 03:37 AM




In any event, a kind of GOLDFINGER would perfectly be in line with CR and QOS as a natural progression, wouldn´t it?

I suppose so, yes, but it is quite difficult to define GF. DN=detective story; FRWL=spy story; GF=...; TB=super spy story; YOLT= OTT escapism story.



GF = The Bond film


GF=Bond History


Goldfinger was the defining Bond film. I prefer Dr No and FRWL personally, but you can't deny that GF consolidated the entire, fully formed formula for the 007 picture. FRWL had most of it down by it's second outing for sure, but GF added all the finishing touches - the Aston Martin DB5 "with modifications", Q labs and the first delve into all the ever-lasting playful humour involved. Whether it's your particular cup of tea or not with Bond it absolutely defined 007 with scenes such as the opening solo commando mission, setting the explosives and removing the (rather un-waterproof-looking, admitedly) wetsuit to reveal pristene evening wear*. That whole extra dimension to the comic-book, casual awesomness that has clearly become a much-loved staple in the franchise ever since.

I appreciate that, and enjoy those aspects of some Bond films, but I certainly prefer the slightly more downplayed espionage thriller aspects of FRWL in particular. It's always possible to combine all of these different aspects/blend them well, it's just a difficult thing to do. If Skyfall has more of the brilliance of the second act of Casino Royale (an example of something clearly achievable for them) then it will be great, but I must say the director is leagues above Martin Campbell and the main cast is astoundingly good for any film, let alone a Bond film.

*I turned a brief blind eye there to the ridiculous stuffed pigeon he has on his head to conceal his breathing pipe. Really inconspicuous!.. It always reminds me of that episode of Black Adder (Goes Fourth) - Corporal Punishment:

Capt. Blackadder "And what if I arrive in a French peasant's village, dressed in a Robin Hood costume, and it *isn't* a fancy dress party?.."
Pvt. Baldrick "Well to be quite honest, sir, I never considered that eventuality. But if you did, you'd stick out like a..."
Capt. Blackadder "Like a man standing in a pond with a small painted wooden duck on his head?"

#62 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 05:19 AM

Goldfinger means:

- classic tone;
- iconic images;
- the begining of the cars;
- the begining of Q-Bond "friendship";
- the begining of the "three-Bond-girl formula";
- the first Shirley Bassey theme;
- apart from another lot of things that you can find here: http://debrief.comma...oldfinger-book/

So, please, respect the Myth.



What "Myth"?

For me, "GOLDFINGER" means an infantile Bond, a villain with more style than brains, attempted date rape in a barn and more holes in a plot than Swiss cheese.

Why on earth would Broccoli and Wilson want to recreate this crap?

#63 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 05:25 AM

This is a BIG MISTAKE. This is a mistake. Broccoli and Wilson call themselves trying to re-create the past. What they are really doing is regressing the franchise, all because some fans and critics could not deal with the gritty storyline of "QUANTUM OF SOLACE". This is such a big mistake that for the first time in my life, I'm NOT looking forward to a Bond movie starring Daniel Craig.

#64 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 26 December 2011 - 06:04 AM

I think you're over-reacting a little, DR76. Actually, I think you're over-reacting a lot. The producers always talk about how the upcoming film encapsulates the 1960s feel thatdefined the Bond films.

#65 JB007YH

JB007YH

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 343 posts
  • Location:Woodmere, New York

Posted 26 December 2011 - 06:45 AM

I am very happy the way the Bond films are returning to its roots. There are a couple things I would do differently but for the most part there is no better time to be a Bond fan. The early Bond films had a style and feel that made you know that you were watching a Bond film. The Brosnan films felt very formulaic(Goldeneye being the exception, great reintroduction Bond for the times). The Craig films are now starting to have their own feel and style redefining the Bond series which adds to its storied legacy. I am ecstatic to hear the strategy for the new film is to bring that 60's feel and mesh it with Craigs Bond. In my opinion, this will create a Bond experience like no other. This is the best way to honor the 50th anniversary.

#66 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 26 December 2011 - 07:48 AM

I am ecstatic to hear the strategy for the new film is to bring that 60's feel and mesh it with Craigs Bond. In my opinion, this will create a Bond experience like no other.

Didn't you read my last post? The producers always claim they are aiming for a "sixties feel". You can't read anything into Wilson's comments.

#67 JB007YH

JB007YH

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 343 posts
  • Location:Woodmere, New York

Posted 26 December 2011 - 08:04 AM

Really?

Because when you talk about GOLDFINGER, all I can think of is an incompetent Bond, and incompetent villain, subplots that start without reason and are cut off before they can go anywhere, characters who do nothing, and a running time that is both arduously and needlessly long (which is weird considering it is the shortest Bond film).


Quantum was the shortest in the Bond cannon. I feel like that film couldve used at least 15-20 min more to flesh out the plot and villain. I believe that having Mathieu Almaric as Greene was great casting but was a missed opportunity,

Not in response to Sir tightpants, but I am shocked by the hatred of the Goldfinger film on this thread. The film defined Bond and was the first film that executed the Bond Formula as we know it. Its predecessors had bits and pieces of the Bond formula but this had all the elements. I understand that people have different opinions but Im surprised by the views I am reading. It sounds like you guys are describing AVTAK, TWINE, or DAD.


I am ecstatic to hear the strategy for the new film is to bring that 60's feel and mesh it with Craigs Bond. In my opinion, this will create a Bond experience like no other.

Didn't you read my last post? The producers always claim they are aiming for a "sixties feel". You can't read anything into Wilson's comments.


Im sorry, I was just chiming in on the topic. Thats what I thought these forums were for.

#68 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 26 December 2011 - 08:13 AM

It seems strange to me that you would join a conversation without having followed it first ...

#69 JB007YH

JB007YH

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 343 posts
  • Location:Woodmere, New York

Posted 26 December 2011 - 08:30 AM

Youre a dick, this isnt the first time you came at me with these [censored] comments. This is an online community where members can post their views and have discussions. Not everybody sees every piece of news the same way. People have differing opinions. Granted the Wilson quote is vague and can be left up to interpretation. That is why you are right in voicing your opinion but Im not gonna take your interpretation as the words of G-d, and you should respect other members right to post their views.

#70 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 December 2011 - 08:38 AM

Children, it´s Christmas! Behave in the spirit, will ya?

#71 JB007YH

JB007YH

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 343 posts
  • Location:Woodmere, New York

Posted 26 December 2011 - 08:44 AM

SecretAgentFan, I agree with you. It just really gets under my skin when people believe that their opinion should be the only one. If CaptainTightpants had his way, every thread would be two posts long, the topic originators and his opinion("The Truth").
Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah to all. I'm following the latter

#72 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 26 December 2011 - 08:46 AM

Youre a dick, this isnt the first time you came at me with these [censored] comments.

I post information that may have led to you reconsidering your comments - information that, for all I knew, you did not have at the time - and this is the thanks I get?

#73 JB007YH

JB007YH

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 343 posts
  • Location:Woodmere, New York

Posted 26 December 2011 - 08:55 AM

Your comment right before my first post stated that already. It seems unnecessary to restate it. Did you honestly think I randomly post in topics? I was just adding my 2 cents. I recall getting into a disagreement on these forums with you once before so I took it as an attack. Last time I felt you were truly disrespectful, not being able to pick up on my sarcasm and insisting I use emoticons.

I'm down to bury the hatchet but this was the second time I felt that you attacked me.

#74 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 26 December 2011 - 09:08 AM

Last time I felt you were truly disrespectful, not being able to pick up on my sarcasm and insisting I use emoticons.

Do you know why I wasn't able to pick up on your sarcasm? It's because sarcasm is conveyed through tone. The more subtle the sarcasm is, the more it depends on tone to be understood. On an internet forum, where messages are typed, there is no provision for the use of tone. Therefore, the use of sarcasm is ineffectual, because there is nothing to indicate that you are being sarcastic. Allow me to demonstrate: you can read this very post two different ways, if you so choose. on the one hand, you can read it as someone helpfully pointing out why other forum members may not understand your use of sarcasm. On the other, you can read it as somebody lecturing you, like a parent would. How you choose to read it is entirely up to you. However, the use of emoticons can clear up your intended meaning, because they give the reader visual cues as to what you were thinking or feeling when you wrote the post in the first place. So forgive me if the nuances of social interaction are lost on me in a context that has less personal meaning than a regular conversation. It is hardly disrespectful of me to be unable to detect sarcasm in your posts, especially since, in an ironic twist, sarcasm itself is often used disrespectfully.

If you do want my respect, show me something I can get behind. Don't just assume that you'll get it because you post on the forums, especially when you're arrogant enough to assume everyone knows the intended meaning behind your posts when they clearly do not.

#75 JB007YH

JB007YH

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 343 posts
  • Location:Woodmere, New York

Posted 26 December 2011 - 09:14 AM

I feel as though we may have gotten off on the wrong foot and was saying "Id be down to bury the hatchet." I may have misunderstood your tone just as you may have misunderstood mine. We are both guilty. Therefore, lets hits the rewind button and say wats up. We clearly have enough in common to be great friends being a part of this online Bond community.

#76 ggl

ggl

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Location:Spain

Posted 26 December 2011 - 10:47 AM


Goldfinger means:

- classic tone;
- iconic images;
- the begining of the cars;
- the begining of Q-Bond "friendship";
- the begining of the "three-Bond-girl formula";
- the first Shirley Bassey theme;
- apart from another lot of things that you can find here: http://debrief.comma...oldfinger-book/

So, please, respect the Myth.



What "Myth"?

For me, "GOLDFINGER" means an infantile Bond, a villain with more style than brains, attempted date rape in a barn and more holes in a plot than Swiss cheese.

Why on earth would Broccoli and Wilson want to recreate this crap?


Yes, why on Earth??? Are they insane? just want to lose their money?? (I´m being ironic...)

Broccoli, Wilson, Connery (you remember him?), they all praise and respect Golfinger as one of the most important and iconic Bond films. At last, of course, is all a question of opinion: "infantile Bond" like laser guns in the space?; "villain with more style than brains" well, is there someone that can´t full that description?; "rape in a barn" Pussy and Ian Fleming would say something about that...; plot holes... in a Bond film? no, you´re joking...

By the way, as a Bond fan, I would never say a Bond film is a crap: they are "Masterpieces" or "not such good as"...

#77 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 08:14 PM



God, I hope you are right. Because the last thing I want to see is a Craig Bond movie trying to copy the style of a 60s movie like "GOLDFINGER".

#78 Vanish

Vanish

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 236 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:19 AM

Oh, and I also find Goldfinger a bit stale. I just don't find it terrible exciting. Iconic? Yes, but not exciting.


This, right here. I find Goldfinger to be a very stylish film, full of iconic moments and buoyed by Connery and a fantastic score. The problem for me is, it's just not a very exciting or interesting movie after the action shifts to America.

I think it deserves its classic status for the big moments, but at the end of the day Goldfinger is not one of my more frequently watched Bond movies. It's somewhere in the middle.

#79 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 27 December 2011 - 12:28 AM

With these new Mod tools, I can't figure out how to merge a topic. There's two topics going on about this at the same time.

#80 Leon

Leon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1574 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 27 December 2011 - 01:39 AM

It's pretty pointless trying to be all contrarian about Goldfinger's huge appeal - it was and still is undeniably huge across the world and remains generally THE iconic Bond film. That's not saying you have to like it, but opinions and facts are not the same thing, because different people prefer different things, if we didn't people and life would be unimaginably beige and backward.

#81 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 27 December 2011 - 02:14 AM

The problem for me is, it's just not a very exciting or interesting movie after the action shifts to America.

When Wilson said they were going for a 1960s feel and cited GOLDFINGER, perhaps he was talking more about GOLDFINGER's reputation moreso than duplicating its content. As has been said, GOLDFINGER is the film that brought Bond to the public consciousness, and both Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes have said that they want to make the best Bond film in the frnachise (and I get the distinct impression that Mendes will settle for nothing less), which definately tallies with Wilson's comments if you read them as meaning they want to bring Bond back to prominence. The series has been criticised for apeing Jason Bourne, and the reception to QUANTUM OF SOLACE was not nearly as good as that of CASINO ROYALE. It's a bit like Heath Ledger as the Joker - for years, everyone who played a villain was compared to Jack Nicholson. Then Ledger came along, and set a new standard. So I think EON want SKYFALL to be the new GOLDFINGER; every subsequent Bond film will be compared to it rather than to GOLDFINGER. But in order to pull that off, they're going to have to make THE DARK KNIGHT RISES look like BATMAN & ROBIN (and make PROMETHEUS look like ATTACK OF THE CLONES).

#82 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 27 December 2011 - 02:26 AM

it was and still is undeniably huge across the world and remains generally THE iconic Bond film.

Maybe that's what Wilson means - that EON want SKYFALL to be the film to overthrow GOLDFINGER as the iconic Bond film. If you ask anyone on the street to name a Bond film, particularly older people, chances are that they will name GOLDFINGER. Perhaps EON want to change that so that, forty years from now, people will name SKYFALL first.

#83 J B

J B

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 67 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 December 2011 - 03:47 AM

I'm wondering, is the "'60s feel" going to extend in the way some of the characters dress? By that, I don't mean the "groovy sixties," I mean the more conservative side of 1960s style (more Mad Men). For example, will Bond be wearing more narrow lapels and ties in Skyfall than in the last film? I hope not too narrow that the whole look is a crazy departure in style from the last film, maybe three inch lapels and tie widths is enough.

Edited by J B, 27 December 2011 - 03:47 AM.


#84 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 27 December 2011 - 03:50 AM

Well, the suit Craig has been wearing during shooting for the London scenes is just as you describe it. But I don't think we will see much more 1960s-inspired apparel. It would be a little strange to have everyone running around in period costume.

#85 ggl

ggl

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Location:Spain

Posted 11 January 2012 - 06:08 PM

Talking about Goldfinger, its myth and its undeniable iconic value, let´s everybody take a look to the 50th Anniversary poster...

Shocking, positively shocking...

#86 Ace Roberts

Ace Roberts

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 433 posts
  • Location:Ft. Worth, Texas US

Posted 11 January 2012 - 09:03 PM

it was and still is undeniably huge across the world and remains generally THE iconic Bond film.

Maybe that's what Wilson means - that EON want SKYFALL to be the film to overthrow GOLDFINGER as the iconic Bond film. If you ask anyone on the street to name a Bond film, particularly older people, chances are that they will name GOLDFINGER. Perhaps EON want to change that so that, forty years from now, people will name SKYFALL first.


Or perhaps more realistically the producers want this film to be considered Craig's Goldfinger - and vault his films up a notch as the 1964 entry did for Connery at the time.

#87 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 11 January 2012 - 09:22 PM

It's pretty pointless trying to be all contrarian about Goldfinger's huge appeal - it was and still is undeniably huge across the world and remains generally THE iconic Bond film. That's not saying you have to like it, but opinions and facts are not the same thing, because different people prefer different things, if we didn't people and life would be unimaginably beige and backward.

I sort of agree. Goldfinger wasn't Huge because it was a great film. I think it was because it was different and set new standards for its time.

New standards, by today's standards, probably will not come from Bond as there is too much heritage in the series. New standards are set by the Avatars of this world. Expecting another Goldfinger in all its glory is expecting too much and will not happen - and shouldn't happen without disrespect to its heritage.

#88 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 11 January 2012 - 09:50 PM

New standards are set by the Avatars of this world.


By that I hope mean standards lowered? I fail to see how AVATAR has really "changed the game."

#89 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 12 January 2012 - 02:34 PM

I am equally sure there were those in '64 that considered Bond had lowered the standards too - but in this it is a matter of opinion.

Let us say, it would be the Avatars that would gain the 'game changing' colum inches.

#90 MattofSteel

MattofSteel

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2482 posts
  • Location:Waterloo, ON

Posted 12 January 2012 - 03:47 PM

This whole idea fits with the way I've always considered Bond or film in general - one's "favourite" Bond film and what one considers the "best" Bond film can often be completely different entries.

I've no illusions about some of the deficiencies of story and character in Goldfinger - though I don't consider them as severely as most seem to. But on any given day, "FRWL" and "GF" equally share top billing on my list of "favourite" Bond films. No question, FRWL is - "technically" - better. But when it comes to Bond, what does that really mean?

The sheer experience of Goldfinger - the tone, the spirit, the way the Bond-elements all click in near-perfect presentation, the way it captures that "magical 60s feel" so to speak where every interior is gold-plated and even the most monotonous locations feel like vacation resorts - that's what sells Goldfinger so well.

Because it manages all of this with a totally straight face.

It's why Die Another Day failed. MGW said once, "We always set out trying to remake FRWL and end up making another Thunderball." I'm of the firm belief that with DAD, they were trying to make another GF - but they got carried away. The design, the execution, the humour - it simply tripped over the line of being a cartoon, and the verisimilitude (it's ability to suspend the audience's disbelief and accept what was happening as totally real) was lost. I remember a friend of mine breaking out howling with laughter when Graves turns around wearing his body armour - and much as I didn't want to, I joined him a few seconds later. What should have been "Goldfinger cool" was just "utterly ridiculous."

I anticipate Skyfall taking a similar route, without falling into the same traps.