246 replies to this topic

[Vauxhall]

Or maybe they pushed the Bond bit back a little in the show after they'd shot it. Or maybe it didn't actually matter.

I think it was perhaps initially intended to start the ceremony, but then it was realised that the Queen wouldn't be going for the whole thing. I agree it didn't particularly matter though.

[Odd Jobbies]

Craig's determination to make it less so made me proud, but this short film turned all of that round in a heart beat.

No it didn't because while you are picking away at the minutia of what was wrong and embarrassing, everyone else is thoroughly enjoying the fact that this fictional hero we all love has been endorsed as a bona fide British icon by no less than British Royalty...

Not everyone. Shortly after broadcast i got texts from 3 different friends who aren't Bond fans, though they enjoy the movies - one asking what was with the weird corgi shots, another saying that was the longest parachute jump ever, starting in daylight, ending at night. It's not minutiae, it's pretty simple, fundamental filmmaking.

[marktmurphy]

Wasn't there talk of it originally being scheduled to start at 20.12?

Craig's determination to make it less so made me proud, but this short film turned all of that round in a heart beat.

No it didn't because while you are picking away at the minutia of what was wrong and embarrassing, everyone else is thoroughly enjoying the fact that this fictional hero we all love has been endorsed as a bona fide British icon by no less than British Royalty...

Not everyone. Shortly after broadcast i got texts from 3 different friends who aren't Bond fans, though they enjoy the movies - one asking what was with the weird corgi shots, another saying that was the longest parachute jump ever, starting in daylight, ending at night. It's not minutiae, it's pretty simple, fundamental filmmaking.

Sounds like they might have been just having a laugh about it rather than griping endlessly and humourlessly.

[Odd Jobbies]

the abysmal continuity gaff left a bad taste.

Am I the only one who remembers hearing the announcers mention that it had onlystopped raining four minutes before the festivities started?

So the live sky was darker that the sky in the video segments - which were probably filmed at a time of day that would have corresponded to the anticipated lightness in the sky on game day. Perhaps Boyle should have spent more times and a few million more quid making several versions to account for all possible weather conditions, then scrambled to show the correct one at the appointed time.

Hell, anyone here on the forum would have had the foresight to do it that way, had they been invited to tackle the same project instead of this particular Academy Award-winning hack.

Nice try, but i'm afraid it was also announced that the ceremony didn't begin until 9pm because Danny Boyle wanted it to be dark at the start as he felt the stadium looked better at night. So, no, he knew exactly what time and what lighting the parachute jump would take place in.

Wasn't there talk of it originally being scheduled to start at 20.12?

Craig's determination to make it less so made me proud, but this short film turned all of that round in a heart beat.

No it didn't because while you are picking away at the minutia of what was wrong and embarrassing, everyone else is thoroughly enjoying the fact that this fictional hero we all love has been endorsed as a bona fide British icon by no less than British Royalty...

Not everyone. Shortly after broadcast i got texts from 3 different friends who aren't Bond fans, though they enjoy the movies - one asking what was with the weird corgi shots, another saying that was the longest parachute jump ever, starting in daylight, ending at night. It's not minutiae, it's pretty simple, fundamental filmmaking.

Sounds like they might have been just having a laugh about it rather than griping endlessly and humourlessly.

Yes, very funny. However they did indeed think it was pretty crap. Like me they found the Queen's participation and the parachute jump a hoot, but the corgi's etc. were daft. Or perhaps you know them better than me?

I'm sorry but i hadn't realised this was the Olympic Ceremony mutual appreciation thread, in which we must all agree to endorse it without reservation, or not post. Or is your snotty tone just suggesting that?

[AMC Hornet]

Did anybody really expect the video to be convincing, knowing that it was filmed weeks in advance?
It was all preamble to a live parachute jump, which was intended to be the punch-line to a pre-recorded joke.
One might as well complain that it wasn't night while Rowan Atkinson daydreamed of running on the beach - in shorts instead of his tuxedo. Such bad continuity! How unconvincing!
I'm going to go get drunk now...

[Odd Jobbies]

Surely they could've started in her car and put some obstacles in their way, have pursuers try to stop them, shifted modes of transport; have a Queen lookalike dodge onto a bus/the tube with Bond as they flee etc, ending in the helicopter. In short, give Bond something to do, a reason for being in the film.

That's all good and fine. Only I think depicting the Queen's route to the stadium as an obstacle race may not exactly be seen as a confidence-building measure. Might lead to all kinds of hysteric reactions with the foreigners, what with that famous expert on Olympic-league events publicly giving his in-depth analysis on the shortcomings of this event. Better play it safe and leave out the obstacle course. It's not as if it was entirely without entertainment value, even without any shooting taking place.

I guess my point was that it was pretty dull and Bond was redundant , just a product placement. I'm sure it could've been plenty better without the writers breaking a sweat. It stank of laziness and a director who'd been lumbered with the idea by the beeb and wasn't particularly interested in Bond.

Wattch it again with open eyes and you will find many moments, where Bond expresses amusement and emotion. Too many of you are used to overactiung instead of subtle acting...Too bad, if you miss it but then again, maybe you just wanna bash the whole thing. Dunno...

Thanks for the guidelines, but i've been working in independent film and primetime TV for over a decade and i'm aware of the difference between overacting and subtle acting. But it's not that simple, you see there's good subtle acting and bad, there's good overacting and bad. Overacting is about genre and it being in keeping with the whole.

This fun parody certainly had room for characterture, but the tripping corgis were horribly out of keeping with Craig's stick-up-the- performance. The strobing corgi's were a pretty damn awful stylistic choice made in the edit suite - they were bizarrely at odds with the rest of the sketch, like stylistically mixing your metaphors, and stuck out clearly to my non-bond-fan friends as a 'what the **** was about' moment.

Look, i seemed to have stirred up the wrath of the 'better not complain about it' bunch here, so i'll concede that if Danny Boyle was not involved and it'd been left to the regular Beeb hacks, then i'd have expected it to be this naff, but with the talented chap's name on it i hoped for something more than an ill planned comic relief sketch.

Did anybody really expect the video to be convicing, knowing that it was filmed weeks in advance?
It was all preamble to a live parachute jump, which was intended to be the punch-line to a pre-recorded joke.
One might as well complain that it wasn't night while Rowan Atkinson daydreamed of running on the beach - in shorts instead of his tuxedo. Such bad continuity! How unconvincing!
I'm going to go get drunk now...

No, why would you question continuity in a dream sequence - that's daft!

So you agree that the jump was indeed a continuity error? An error planned in advance? Good, well that's progress

Forgive me for debating the sketch's content, but i thought this was a forum for debate, rather than an endorsement campaign.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 29 July 2012 - 09:54 PM.

[Dustin]

So you're agree that the jump was indeed a continuity error - an error planned in advance?

Sure. It just doesn't bother me at all. Why should it?

[DamnCoffee]

Yes, the thing was full of continuity errors, but I cannot believe that people are actually reviewing it like a Bond film! It's a 6 minute short, intended as meaningless, british fun. I for one really enjoyed it. Yes, I found it hillariously cheesey, but it's not like it was a scene from Skyfall. I thought it was fun, nothing more, nothing less.

Edited by Mharkin, 29 July 2012 - 09:50 PM.

[marktmurphy]

I'm sorry but i hadn't realised this was the Olympic Ceremony mutual appreciation thread, in which we must all agree to endorse it without reservation, or not post. Or is your snotty tone just suggesting that?

I think the reason we're finding your sarkiness and general nastiness hard to fathom is that it was the tiniest bit of fluff ; a skit which existed purely for a bit of fun and did its job well, creating a stir across the world. To criticise continuity in it is pretty much the dictionary definition of 'churlish'; and your continuing behaviour here isn't convincing anyone to the contrary.

Any one got a gift horse they want Odd Jobbies to have a look at?

[AMC Hornet]

It could have been worse - it could have been Bond jumping in the dress.

[MarkA]

Too right the posts above I couldn't put it better myself. Odd Jobbies that is all it was a bit of fun in a much, much bigger show endorsing aspects of Britishness. A piece of fluff not the new Bond. You need to get a sense of perspective, and humour.

[Dustin]

Let's face it, the whole idea was a half-sentence in the original outline two years ago: Bond escorts Her Majesty to the stadium. Tentative enquiring with the palace lead to the surprising answer Her Majesty was generally willing to join the fun. On Wednesday, -th of May from 11.00 am to 1.30 pm. What were Boyle and his team supposed to do? Argue they needed her from 5.00 to 8.30 pm? That's stretching it a bit, isn't it?

I suppose they were fine with this, broad daylight added to the helicopter sequence and the few seconds on the premises of Buckingham Palace, which otherwise might have looked cheap and fake. The last thing you want this to look.

[elizabeth]

Odd Jobbies, did you have a happy childhood? You know what I mean - the kind with lots of FUN?

And you mentioned working in film and TV for a decade. I'm a film student with an emphasis in Critical Studies, and I'm not trying to break a harmless, fun joke into a million tiny pieces. It was 6 minutes out of a 5-hour show and I am certainly not going to have multiple seizures and be a jerk to everyone here because of it.

And for the record, Macca rocked.

[tdalton]

Well, I didn't particularly enjoy the Bond short either. I wasn't expecting it to be a short Bond film or in any way related to Skyfall, nor did I expect it to be anything particularly grand in scale or scope. With that said, I just didn't enjoy it, but then again I didn't enjoy more than a few fleeting moments of the entire opening ceremony, so perhaps I wasn't their target audience.

[JimmyBond]

It brought a smile to my face.

[Jim]

but i've been working in independent film and primetime TV for over a decade

Really? An anniversary that surely deserves cake. Cake is good. Let's have cake.

Yes, the thing was full of continuity errors

And as such a proper reflection of the Bond films, which are littered with them. I'm assuming it was an in-joke about the tattiness of some of the continuity that we have had to put up with over the years. If not so intended, a happy accident.

[thecasinoroyale]

I was only dissapointed in the fact I beleived tabloid trash in that James Bond would be opening the ceremony, so at 9pm I expected the segment to start leading to Bond coming into the stadium in a spectacular stunt and then Daniel Craig to be there to open the ceremony itself.

So in watching the Bond escort the Queen to the stadium, I was waiting for something but was crushed when it was obvious nothing manjor was going to happen.

But now I'm more dissapointed with myself for getting my hopes up so much and not seeing the segment for what it was - British fun, and the introduction for the Queen herself with the most famous British gentleman today! Couldn't have been a better match for someone who has devoted his life for Queen and Country.

Well done, well shot and great fun! (Pity no Aston Martin though...!)

[Odd Jobbies]

Let's face it, the whole idea was a half-sentence in the original outline two years ago: Bond escorts Her Majesty to the stadium. Tentative enquiring with the palace lead to the surprising answer Her Majesty was generally willing to join the fun. On Wednesday, -th of May from 11.00 am to 1.30 pm. What were Boyle and his team supposed to do? Argue they needed her from 5.00 to 8.30 pm? That's stretching it a bit, isn't it?

That's a good point. Personally, if i knew i had to shoot at the palace in daylight, yet the jump would be at night i'd resolve the continuity by having the helicopter fly into dusk and perform the bridge pass at sunset, giving the sense of transition.

Btw, thanks for discussing the options/issues with the sequence, Dustin. Of course it was a bit of fun, but in this thread that fact seems to preclude the option of discussing anything or even suggesting it may of had shortcomings because 'it was just fun' and because of that it cannot be debated!!!

I think with someone as talented as Boyle behind it, it's fair to have hoped for something more inspired and challenging, as his opening ceremony proved to be. Who'd have thought i could ruffle so many feathers by just debating the content rather than toeing the party line here. It seems that critiquing it in any way whatsoever will be met by condemnation and personal insults.

I think if one looks back on the last several pages it's clear that there's little patients here for an alternative opinion - i mean, really, does questioning the corgis and continuity warrent suggestions about my childhood by one member and told i'm "griping endlessly and humourlessly" by another?

Having fun with this and critiquing it are not mutually exclusive, but to read the reactions to my posts makes it appear they are. So, thanks Dustin for supplying the only insult free, rational conversation in this this thread.

but i've been working in independent film and primetime TV for over a decade

Really? An anniversary that surely deserves cake. Cake is good. Let's have cake.

Is that an invitation? Where and when

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 30 July 2012 - 10:27 AM.

[Messervy]

Did anybody really expect the video to be convicing,

No. But perhaps we expected it to be good.
Just saying...

[Skudor]

Shamelessly, beautifully, hilariously naff. All the more splendid for it.

You know, i really do want to agree - i enjoyed the rest of the show - and yes, i am taking it too seriously. But i'd be lying if i said i didn't feel embarressed for Craig and the character. Not because of the idea, which was good, or his use as a symbol of Britain, which i liked the notion of. But Craig's mincing, the acid-trip corgis and the abysmal continuity gaff left a bad taste. For a long time i was a little embarrassed to be a Bond fan, since they were so steeped in self parody. Craig's determination to make it less so made me proud, but this short film turned all of that round in a heart beat.

Sure, that's taking this wee bit of fun far too seriously, but if you're going to do something, then try and do it well. Because it's parody doesn't mean you can present it like a cheap tourist vid and still say it couldn't have been done better. This could've been heaps better. And after all, if i didn't take Bond seriously why would i waste my time on this site?

I would probably agree with you if they had used a Queen-alike. The fact that the real queen was involved takes the naffness into a whole new direction - it's sort of saying that Bond is real, or the Queen isn't - or rather that the Queen may be real, but to most people she's real in the way that proverbial tree in the forest may or may not be since we can't actually see it.

[Germanlady]

Odd Jobbies is just the usual party pooper, we find everywhere. Fortunately enough, this was so well received, that it doesn't matter - well, it wouldn't anyway.

BTW - I believe, they filmed it during bright, sunny daylight to show London at its best and not in almost darkness. Makes sense to me - because is continuity really important in this short film? It was about London, about what the Brits are proud of - their city, their Queen, their Bond, their british humour. All ix very well on display in those few minutes and people start questioning continuity errors? Oh please.....

[tdalton]

BTW - I believe, they filmed it during bright, sunny daylight to show London at its best and not in almost darkness. Makes sense to me - because is continuity really important in this short film? It was about London, about what the Brits are proud of - their city, their Queen, their Bond, their british humour. All ix very well on display in those few minutes and people start questioning continuity errors? Oh please.....

I think that's a fair point.

I would have to go back and watch it again to be completely sure of this, but if I recall correctly, it did look as though they tried to fix any perceived continuity problems with the daylight with some kind of digital grading of the shots of Bond and the Queen sitting in the helicopter while it was hovering over the stadium. It looked like it may have had a slight blue filter applied to it (kind of like what we see in films like PAYBACK) in order to make it match up a bit better with the nighttime than the rest of the sequence while the chopper is on its way to the stadium.

[Dustin]

I know it is a lot harder to get over certain things if one happens to be dealing with them on a professional basis day in, day out. That needn't be a fixation, it's just something one trips over repeatedly while the rest of the world frowns.

Edited by Dustin, 30 July 2012 - 04:33 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

Did anybody really expect the video to be convicing,

No. But perhaps we expected it to be good.
Just saying...

I'd be careful about critiquing the subject matter in any way in this thread, your liable to get torched for it by the 'right-on' mob

Odd Jobbies is just the usual party pooper, we find everywhere.

Well it's clear that some members here don't like to be disagreed with, or their opinions questioned, so i'll delight those thread-bullies and quit this one.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 30 July 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[elizabeth]

Well it's clear that some members here don't like to be disagreed with, or their opinions questioned, so i'll delight those thread-bullies and quit this one.

See? Told you there was a God. Never mess with the Catholic Church, people.

[Jim]

That doesn't even merit sarcasm.

[jorgem]

What if Timothy Dalton played the role as Bond for the Olympics opening ceremony?

Even he is old.

[Vauxhall]

That would have been very odd, even for Bond fans!

[sharpshooter]

All in all the opening Bond skit was inoffensive and got people talking about Bond again. No harm done. It could've been much cheesier. I'm glad they didn't have the 'Bond being knighted' sequence in there, as I think that would've been out of character.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

I couldn't care less of the Olympics (not a sports fan) but I think that bit was really cool. Sure it was cheesy, but don't you think that it was about time for the Queen to meet her most devout servant, 007?

Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 01 August 2012 - 06:21 AM.