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

#1 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

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

Posted 20 December 2011 - 11:29 PM

Very very promising news!


Skyfall producer Michael G Wilson has been talking to Peoplemagazine about the upcoming Bond adventure, and has compared it to one of the classics of the series in terms of mood and “magic”.

“The director Sam Mendes and Daniel [Craig] are taking it back to a '60s feel - more Sean Connery,” says Wilson. “I think that’s what the fans wanted.”

“There's a magical Goldfinger feel surrounding it all,” he continues. “It's all very exciting. I can't wait for people to see the movie because I think we're making a very special Bond.
Wilson added that he hoped to organise an event featuring all six Bond actors - Connery, Craig,
George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan - to mark Skyfall's release and the franchise's 50th anniversary next year.

"We'd really like to get all six together," he said. "We're trying to find a way for fans to celebrate with us ­because they've been the reason the Bond films have been the success they have."

Skyfall is due to hit cinemas on October 26, 2012.




Sounds absoloutely amazing!

Edited by Mharkin, 20 December 2011 - 11:40 PM.


#2 TCK

TCK

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 341 posts
  • Location:France

Posted 20 December 2011 - 11:49 PM

A 60's feel doesn't mean anything. Daniel Craig loves Dr No and From Russia with love, okay ! There will be the Aston Martin DB5, okay ! And then ? A 60's feel for a 2011 film is absolutle senseless.

#3 Pussfeller

Pussfeller

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4089 posts
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:19 AM

This sounds like empty hype. I wouldn't read anything into it, for well or ill. It would please me to no end if they made a taut, thrilling adventure in the FRWL-GE-TB spirit. But we haven't yet seen any evidence that they're doing that, except for the return of Q. Most of what we've seen points to the opposite. The foregrounding of Judi Dench, and the plot points we've seen so far, all suggest a gritty psychodrama in line with CR and QOS, only with even more haunting secrets from the murky past. This is the polar opposite of the extroverted, ahistorical spirit of the Connery films. Nobody spent Goldfinger wondering what M did during the War.

#4 MattofSteel

MattofSteel

    Commander

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

Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:57 AM

It *does* sound like empty hype. On the other hand, it sounds like exactly, perfectly, tonally what I want to hear. They're either making a terrific film, or they've mastered pre-Bond-23 PR. Or both. Hopefully both.

#5 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

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

Posted 21 December 2011 - 01:49 AM

I'm not getting too excited about this. It's kind of a vague statement, and it doesn't really state how the film will have a "magical 60s feel" to it.

#6 Leon

Leon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1574 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 21 December 2011 - 01:57 AM

Wow, what's with all the instant negativity? I haven't heard this before for any of the previous films except a little for QoS, where they mentioned some classic set design and new suits. This seems like the obvious next step, to really capture the feel and elegance of the original Connery films.

I don't think he means they are making the film look like a period Bond (they aren't), but that elements of style will be honed. If Mendes delivers some of this through the direction/camerawork that would be nothing but a good thing, as many films today could really benefit from some more traditional/more naturalistic/longer shots, dialogue scene styles and less IN-YOUR-FACE flashy cameraplay and handheld BS. We'll see but it's better than them saying, "oh this one will have even more explosions, gadgets and action than before" or something, which they have regularly done in the past.

I am very glad to hear this myself. Obviously it remains to be seen how well they do it, that is a given for any news that comes out before we see anything of the film itself, but it's a good thing to hear from Wilson, and some of the small glimpses we've seen of on-set pics back it up. This is one sharp suit, even with the classic, plain, thin dark blue tie of the sort that not only Connery would wear but also the original Bond in Fleming's books. Daniel Craig has the potential to bring a great deal of humanity to the character ontop of this sort of thing also, which, in terms of potential, show great promise for what would be an amazing Bond film.

Posted Image


I do genuinely believe they are really going for it this time. Everything I read, hear and see glimpses of for this film is not the usual old rhetoric I've come to recognise well in the run ups to many Bond films. Casino Royale was probably the closest in terms of unusual/interesting/different hype, and it paid off very well - but this time Daniel Craig is looking very settled, very well versed in Fleming's vision and with a great deal more influence it seems. Likewise, Sam Mendes is a very different director choice - a seriously strong talent with much more substance than Forster when it comes to story-telling over flashyness and leagues ahead of Martin Campbell in all fields. This will easily be the most "artistic" Bond film, but in terms of substance, character, story, humanity and nuanced style - not flashy, trying to look good and fundamentally lacking BS.

Every time I think about it also, it keeps surprising me, but MAN does this film have a serious cast. Another thing that's very special indeed for a Bond film. Ben Whishaw is amazing, one of the UKs absolute finest, down-to-earth, classically trained actors with an astonishingly heart-felt appreciation and dedication to the roles he plays. I'd never have expected them to hire him for any role in a million years. Javier Bardem! A powerhouse of gaze, presence and brilliance, often even in entire scenes where he says nothing - a man hand-picked for a starring role by the Cohen brothers.

I've had my pessimistic grumbles on a few occasions for whatever reasons, but this keeps sounding sweeter and sweeter quite frankly.

#7 univex

univex

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2310 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:38 AM

I endorse everything Leon just said and I have a good felling about this one.

#8 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:45 AM

Wilson added that he hoped to organise an event featuring all six Bond actors - Connery, Craig,George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan - to mark Skyfall's release and the franchise's 50th anniversary next year.

"We'd really like to get all six together," he said. "We're trying to find a way for fans to celebrate with us ­because they've been the reason the Bond films have been the success they have."

Oh, if this could happen! I would be thrilled, and I know I wouldn't be alone.

#9 univex

univex

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2310 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:49 AM


Wilson added that he hoped to organise an event featuring all six Bond actors - Connery, Craig,George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan - to mark Skyfall's release and the franchise's 50th anniversary next year.

"We'd really like to get all six together," he said. "We're trying to find a way for fans to celebrate with us ­because they've been the reason the Bond films have been the success they have."

Oh, if this could happen! I would be thrilled, and I know I wouldn't be alone.

Someone else said they would put a frame around that picture, and I guess that´s the best way to put it. All Bonds together in a massive interview/photo op would be awesome.

Edited by univex, 21 December 2011 - 02:49 AM.


#10 Pussfeller

Pussfeller

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4089 posts
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:54 AM

Wilson's remarks are so vague and impressionistic that he may as well be describing nothing more than his own groovy state of mind. Considering that every production for decades has billed itself as a return to classic Connery, grittylicious Fleming, or some combination of the two, why read these comments as anything more than the most recent observance of an ancient Bond publicity ritual? It's possible to be enthusiastic about the film and still recognize when the producer is feeding an angle to a clueless reporter. This is People magazine, after all. Their conception of Bond is hazy. They remember Connery, they know what Connery means, and they don't remember that his name and "style" have been invoked countless times before in the course of publicizing Bond films. I don't fault Wilson for saying stuff like this. It's part of the job. I just don't feel like the remarks are addressed to a hep crowd like ourselves.

#11 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

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

Posted 21 December 2011 - 03:20 AM

Wilson's remarks are so vague and impressionistic that he may as well be describing nothing more than his own groovy state of mind. Considering that every production for decades has billed itself as a return to classic Connery, grittylicious Fleming, or some combination of the two, why read these comments as anything more than the most recent observance of an ancient Bond publicity ritual?

My thoughts exactly. Hence the reason why I am not reading too much into the comments, and why I am not getting excited about them.

This is People magazine, after all. Their conception of Bond is hazy.

Less than a week before the SKYFALL press conference was held, they ran a story claiming that Megan Fox had been cast as the lead Bond Girl, based on her wide range of acting abilities and her "sexy, mysterious and glamourous qualities". Anyone who read knew it was complete BS. I can only assume that they did it because they knew The Daily Failwas on the money, and would get a huge boost in readership when their articles were proven to be true. So they made up a story and ran it as an "exclusive" that The Daily Fail did not have, in a bid to try and get a last-minute boost in readership.

#12 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

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

Posted 21 December 2011 - 10:53 AM

Wilson´s a pro. He tells us what we want to hear.

Doesn´t mean he won´t be right.

And the third time has been the charm for Connery, Moore AND, yes, Brosnan. A remark that will rob my credibility with lots of guys here, I know...

#13 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 21 December 2011 - 10:57 AM

I'm one of those nutcases who prefer the fourth films (TB-MR-DAD) of all those actors to their thirds.

#14 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 21 December 2011 - 11:45 AM

This all sounds great to me...but sadly I can't see how Skyfall will have the feel of Goldfinger from the synopsis and current images we've seen.

I mean, Goldfinger was almost a thrasing swinging 60s movie of glamour, fashion and quality gadgets and inimitable villains...so unless Skyfall can match this I think they're claiming a bit too much. Let's not forget, the shots of Craig with stubble looking a bit ropey can't match a suave Sean Connery from Goldfinger - let's hope the plot isn't too dark!

On the other hand...either way will suit me!

#15 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

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

Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:30 PM

Honestly, I think SKYFALL would be better off going for FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE with a dash of THUNDERBALL. Both were the definitive films of the Connery era. GOLDFINGER, on the other hand, was filled with incompetent characters (Bond is in prison for most of it; Goldfinger builds his cell directly beneath the room where he reveals his master plan) who only ever get anything done by sheer good fortune, and is padded out with pointless subplots (like Tilly) that come out of nowhere and end just as abruptly without being resolved. I think it's perhaps the most over-rated film in Bond canon.

#16 Napoleon Solo

Napoleon Solo

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1376 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:27 PM

Wilson´s a pro. He tells us what we want to hear.

Doesn´t mean he won´t be right.

And the third time has been the charm for Connery, Moore AND, yes, Brosnan. A remark that will rob my credibility with lots of guys here, I know...


As Blofeld once said, "All that you say could be true. What else?"

But do remember this: at the November news conference, Wilson said no change in the basic direction of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. Now he has cited a Goldfinger feel. On the surface, he seems to be contradicting his previous statement. Plus, let's face it, until there's a final product to view, it's all words. That's not being negative. Just realistic.

#17 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

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

Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:40 PM

I don´t think Wilson has contradicted anything. He only said that they would continue the style of CR and QOS, meaning a more grounded, character-oriented thriller than DAD, for example. Now, GF, IMO, is also that. Sure, it got the car. But mostly, GF is classic Bond, with a terrific adversary, a great caper plot and Bond investigating and outsmarting people. If Wilson had said that SKYFALL has that classic DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER or MOONRAKER vibe - that would have been contradicting himself.

Although I would be fine with a new DAF or MR as well.

#18 JohnnyWalker

JohnnyWalker

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 272 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:59 PM

I find this very intriguing.

http://thefilmstage....oldfinger-feel/#


Wilson went on to say that Craig was “a film maker’s dream” and that the filming of the new 007 film, Skyfall, has been going very well so far. Speaking in more detail about the film, the twenty-third in the franchise’s history, Wilson dropped some information that ought to ameliorate the concerns of those who questioned the wisdom in hiring director Sam Mendes, who is better known for his suburban melodramas like American Beauty or Revolutionary Road than action films. “The director Sam Mendes and Daniel [Craig] are taking it back to a 60s feel – more Sean [Connery]. I think that’s what the fans wanted. ” Even more exciting is the direct parallel he draws to another fan-favorite Bond film. “There’s a magical Goldfinger feel ­surrounding it all…I can’t wait for people to see the movie because I think we’re making a very special Bond.”

#19 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 21 December 2011 - 04:17 PM

Let's face it, Wilson and Broccoli tend to tell us what we want to hear. And the results aren't always anything close to that.

So far there are, however, good reasons to expect good things from [SF] - there's a lot of very 'heart on sleave' hype from people like Craig, Mendes, that writer dude who's name I always forget to remember, and some of the actors (not much from Bardem, 2xF or DD-M though).

#20 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

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

Posted 21 December 2011 - 04:26 PM

Also, the more they go on now about SKYFALL being classic Bond with capital B and having a better script than CR yadayadayada... they better deliver because they will have to answer for that when the film should not be that good.

#21 Napoleon Solo

Napoleon Solo

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1376 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 04:39 PM

I don´t think Wilson has contradicted anything. He only said that they would continue the style of CR and QOS, meaning a more grounded, character-oriented thriller than DAD, for example. Now, GF, IMO, is also that. Sure, it got the car. But mostly, GF is classic Bond, with a terrific adversary, a great caper plot and Bond investigating and outsmarting people. If Wilson had said that SKYFALL has that classic DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER or MOONRAKER vibe - that would have been contradicting himself.

Although I would be fine with a new DAF or MR as well.


Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are also associated with "dark and gritty," not just more character driven. Goldfinger is escapist. We'll have to agree to disagree but it takes a lot of stretching, IMO, to reconcile the two statements, made less than two months apart. Goldfinger involves invading Fort Knox to explode an atomic bomb and that is far more fanciful than Casino or Quantum aspired to be.

#22 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

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

Posted 21 December 2011 - 05:20 PM


I don´t think Wilson has contradicted anything. He only said that they would continue the style of CR and QOS, meaning a more grounded, character-oriented thriller than DAD, for example. Now, GF, IMO, is also that. Sure, it got the car. But mostly, GF is classic Bond, with a terrific adversary, a great caper plot and Bond investigating and outsmarting people. If Wilson had said that SKYFALL has that classic DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER or MOONRAKER vibe - that would have been contradicting himself.

Although I would be fine with a new DAF or MR as well.


Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are also associated with "dark and gritty," not just more character driven. Goldfinger is escapist. We'll have to agree to disagree but it takes a lot of stretching, IMO, to reconcile the two statements, made less than two months apart. Goldfinger involves invading Fort Knox to explode an atomic bomb and that is far more fanciful than Casino or Quantum aspired to be.


Hmm, is the Fort Knox plan so much more fanciful than cutting off a whole country from the water supply - or getting money for a terrorist organization by winning a high stakes poker game?

However one wants to look at it, I guess Wilson meant more the "Goldfinger"-feeling of getting a classic Bond-film again. Of course, I might be wrong.

#23 Napoleon Solo

Napoleon Solo

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1376 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 05:34 PM

Hmm, is the Fort Knox plan so much more fanciful than cutting off a whole country from the water supply - or getting money for a terrorist organization by winning a high stakes poker game?


What was I thinking? Anybody can get an atomic bomb at the corner drug store. And try to poison tens of thousands of troops with pilots led by a woman named Pussy Galore. Goldfinger and Quantum of Solace must have the same light, breezy tone.

#24 ggl

ggl

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Location:Spain

Posted 21 December 2011 - 06:23 PM

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.

#25 __7

__7

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 136 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 06:59 PM

Very cool if true.

#26 elizabeth

elizabeth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Location:SDSU - Go Aztecs!!!

Posted 21 December 2011 - 07:31 PM

I like that.

#27 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 21 December 2011 - 07:33 PM

"... taking it back to a 60s feel..."


I'm sure they said the same thing about QoS...

#28 JohnnyWalker

JohnnyWalker

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 272 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 07:35 PM

Well you you only have to find a quote Odd Jobbies.

#29 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:15 PM

Well you you only have to find a quote Odd Jobbies.


lol, fair enough ;)

#30 Aris007

Aris007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3037 posts
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:55 PM

That's a preety vague statement. It can be anything. From the unbeatable atmosphere to silly gadgets. It can be good or not. I want something more concrete than a sentence that has been repeated thousands of times every time there's a new movie.