80 replies to this topic

[seawolfnyy]

Honestly, if Skyfall isn't that great then so what? DAD sucked and I still could barely wait for Casino. I think SF will do fine, I think the extra time put in will do it good. Skyfall basicly is getting what QoS didn't: a polished script and a competent director (screw you Marc Forster). Although, unlike most I still like Quantum. Craig did well, Rory Kinnear was better than Tobias Menzies and Olga Kurylenko was great too. I think it was hurt by having an incomplete script and Forster's terrible directing (he cannot direct action movies to save his life). Also, I agree with most that Superman Returns sucked, but I actually don't hate Indy 4. The aliens were stupid and the nuke scene was ridiculous, but otherwise it wasn't bad.

[MattofSteel]

It's true. I was legitimately surprised by my appalling reaction to Indy 4's jungle chase. It is, without doubt, the worst major action set piece in the entire franchise. There's absolutely nothing creative or interesting about it. The first shot is the amazing 'jungle cutter' machine, and you're thinking to yourself, "In the old days, Indy would be running and jumping on it, fighting on it, creatively using its geography against Russians, have his head held down during a struggle to within 2 inches of the massive whirring blade...."

....and there's none of that. It explodes instantly, and the fight is some stupid, boring, straightline chase between two jeeps that ends up having - literally - one practical stunt in it. And then Shia and the monkeys. It's not even that it's bad Indy. It's just bad.

It's that kind of thing that made Indy 4 unforgivable to me. I can handle UFOs. I grew up an X-files fanatic, and actually think UFOs are no less ridiculous than the Ark of the Covenant, etc. I actually liked that sci-fi kinda angle. But it's the basics of "Indy moviemaking" that didn't work. It feels exactly like a group of people made Indy 30 years ago, went away, got rich and out of touch, and then tried to come back and duplicate the same excitement and feeling despite having no clue how to do so.

Despite the level of nitpicking we sometimes take it to, it's pictures like Indy 4 and Superman Returns that make you realize just how obscenely lucky we are with the Bond family still giving us quality films - even terrific films - 23 installments and 50 years in. Every time I hear someone start to criticize Michael and Barbara, and granted, there are valid criticisms, I can't help but think, "This could be so much worse."

Reading both of those is food for thought. I didn't suspect DAD would be as bad as it turned out until I actually saw it - the big let downs (invisible car, appalling CGI) weren't apparent in advance (other things, such as Madonna, were - but didn't leave one expecting something this bad).

Indy4 I sort of saw coming to some extent - that jungle chase was featured in the trailer and looked very fake, rumours of UFO angle etc. were all there (plus Lucas's track record with the Star Wars prequels).

DAD actually looked promising - especially the Bond as a prisoner angle. So perhaps a surprisingly rubbish Skyfall is possible.

[Skudor]

Nice to see some loverly QOS affection above. I'm actually quite saddened by the excessive hate it sometimes gets ;-)

Skyfall will be, at least, a perfectly decent Bond film - as someone mentioned above it had plenty of script time, Mendes was attached to it for quite some time and the cast is not to be sneered at.

One thing I'll be looking out for is whether they can deliver on the villain front - I don't really feel they have for quite some time (even Le Chiffre isn't that great in CR - and he's probably the highlight). I miss my Draxs, Strombergs and Zorins - not to mention Blofelds, Goldfingers, Dr Nos, and last but not least, Largos (see what I did there).

[DR76]

Indy4 I sort of saw coming to some extent - that jungle chase was featured in the trailer and looked very fake, rumours of UFO angle etc. were all there (plus Lucas's track record with the Star Wars prequels).

INDY 4 and the STAR WARS Prequel movies were all box office hits. And contrary to what many believe, these movies are very popular with a good number of people . . . including myself. To insinuate that these movies were bombs does not seem logical to me.

[Jim]

I'm not sure there was much insinuation going on.

[MattofSteel]

There's a difference between 'bomb' (commercial disaster) and 'terrible' (terrible), though. I was suggesting some of them were the latter. Obviously, we're talking about wildly commercially successful films here.

[thecasinoroyale]

I do admit, I'm a huge 'Star Wars' and 'Indiana Jones' fan and really enjoy the SW prequels (more-so Ep.III) and 'KOTCS' in someways just as much as the originials.

I know things are so different and there are faults...but the heart is there, and that's what I can see beating and I enjoy the actors, the music, the action, the story...simple pleasures in a very familiar and enjoyable world, which I feel James Bond is and does maintain better because they can re-fresh the actors, the locations etc and have a greater variety with things.

A few stinkers aside, we're never going to be dissapointed with 'Skyfall' and any other Bond film due in the future. Hell, I bet we can ALL find a soft-spot in the franchise for 'Die Another Day' if we try.

[MattofSteel]

Definitely. There are moments in those films I mentioned that I genuinely enjoy. I particularly love KOTCS' opening, and there's many parts of Superman Returns that are iconic and very special. The real 'tragedy' of these films, I guess, is not so much that they're a bad package on the whole - just that the bad elements are so bad that they overshadow the good stuff.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Not very many people like Quantum Of Solace, and it made money. there's Always going to be an audience for it no matter what. Everything else I was going to write, Vauxhall pretty much beat me to it haha.

I still don't get that. Like any other entry in the OO7 franchise, QOS not without it's faults; the biggest being the significant disappointment of Dominic Greene. Of the Bond villains, I'd rate him as nearly the worst of them (he'd probably have to have a throw-down with Kamal Kahn to decide the winner). Madrano, I think, was a more vile, dispicable adversary. Aside from that and given the fact that the film is a first ever "sequel" in the series, I felt it to be quite enjoyable. There was no surprise that nothing from the original short story, other than the title, was used in the script. Like AVTAK, it still made for great cinema.

I liked it, but I didn't like it. It was great to continue off from Casion Royale, but I blame poor direction from Marc Forster and the somewhat unfinished script due to the writer's strike. Forster turning it into an hour and half film was what killed it for me.

[Royal Dalton]

I doubt it'll be my cup of tea. But it'll make its money back. Which is all that really matters.

[AMC Hornet]

I'm not too worried about it and I doubt the producers are either. The film will make it's money. It's James Bond's screen return, not to mention this year being the 50th anniversary of the Bond films. Some will dislike it and be disappointed, some won't. The fact is inevitable; just like the series continuing even if the film is a total flop somehow.

IF Skyfall turns out to be less-than-stellar, they'll simply bounce back with something better next time around.

Thank you, Alec, for saving me some typing.

Someone won't like Skyfall, because it won't live up to his unrealistic expectations - that's inevitable.

I say, to hell with him.

[S K Y F A L L]

I just assume it will make 500 million at the box office if not more, if it is good or not. So long as SKYFALL makes 500 million, I think it will be a succuss at least in the pockets of the producers.

What would be a succuss for Skyfall in terms of box office, 750 million?

[Skudor]

There's a difference between 'bomb' (commercial disaster) and 'terrible' (terrible), though. I was suggesting some of them were the latter. Obviously, we're talking about wildly commercially successful films here.

Yep - even DAD made tons. I'm certainly not saying they flopped. I'm saying they were .

It sort of goes to my point that with these franchises it almost doesn't matter what the makers throw up and onto our screens - it will be lapped up. The Star Wars prequels were abysmal, but I believe they all smashed the B/O.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

If Skyfall is bad I will cry, since it would be a ten times more disappointing than DAD being bad. My faith is still unshaken, and whatever happens James Bond 007 will prevail.

[AMC Hornet]

If Skyfall is bad I will cry, since it would be a ten times more disappointing than DAD being bad. My faith is still unshaken, and whatever happens James Bond 007 will prevail.

"You have... a nasty habit...of surviving!"
"You know what they say about the fittest..."

[Guy Haines]

Nice to see some loverly QOS affection above. I'm actually quite saddened by the excessive hate it sometimes gets ;-)

Skyfall will be, at least, a perfectly decent Bond film - as someone mentioned above it had plenty of script time, Mendes was attached to it for quite some time and the cast is not to be sneered at.

One thing I'll be looking out for is whether they can deliver on the villain front - I don't really feel they have for quite some time (even Le Chiffre isn't that great in CR - and he's probably the highlight). I miss my Draxs, Strombergs and Zorins - not to mention Blofelds, Goldfingers, Dr Nos, and last but not least, Largos (see what I did there).

I agree about the villainy. It's been one weakness of the later movies, not so much the actors cast as the way the characters have been written. It's almost as if the producers/directors/screenwriters lacked confidence in the acting talents of the leading man and didn't want the bad guy to steal the show. Which with an actor like Daniel Craig as Bond is ludicrous - I doubt he'd be overshadowed by a well written, prominent villain, played by an acting equal.

Which brings us to Skyfall. One of the intriguing aspects of the run up publicity for the film is that Bond's new adversary hardly figures. There's been a still of him dressed as a policeman, and we have glimpsed him in the two trailers released thus far. We know he's called "Silva". And that's about it. Contrast with, say, the run up for "GoldenEye", when not even the trailer could disguise the fact that 007's adversary was the former 006 (The Daily Mail reported this months before the first trailer was even shown)

They are being very, very coy about Mr Silva. I wonder why?

[L4YRCAKE]

Nice to see some loverly QOS affection above. I'm actually quite saddened by the excessive hate it sometimes gets ;-)

Skyfall will be, at least, a perfectly decent Bond film - as someone mentioned above it had plenty of script time, Mendes was attached to it for quite some time and the cast is not to be sneered at.

One thing I'll be looking out for is whether they can deliver on the villain front - I don't really feel they have for quite some time (even Le Chiffre isn't that great in CR - and he's probably the highlight). I miss my Draxs, Strombergs and Zorins - not to mention Blofelds, Goldfingers, Dr Nos, and last but not least, Largos (see what I did there).

I agree about the villainy. It's been one weakness of the later movies, not so much the actors cast as the way the characters have been written. It's almost as if the producers/directors/screenwriters lacked confidence in the acting talents of the leading man and didn't want the bad guy to steal the show. Which with an actor like Daniel Craig as Bond is ludicrous - I doubt he'd be overshadowed by a well written, prominent villain, played by an acting equal.

Which brings us to Skyfall. One of the intriguing aspects of the run up publicity for the film is that Bond's new adversary hardly figures. There's been a still of him dressed as a policeman, and we have glimpsed him in the two trailers released thus far. We know he's called "Silva". And that's about it. Contrast with, say, the run up for "GoldenEye", when not even the trailer could disguise the fact that 007's adversary was the former 006 (The Daily Mail reported this months before the first trailer was even shown)

They are being very, very coy about Mr Silva. I wonder why?

I read a somewhat recent interview with Javier Bardem where they asked about his blonde hair and it almost seemed like he caught himself before saying something about its significance, in fact I want to say I got the impression it was supposed to be a wig...? Either way, I love how they're barely letting on anything about him, they must know they have a good secret or two up their sleeve!

[L4YRCAKE]

I really have to say how impressed I am at how visually intriguing the first two trailers are and yet how little we still really know about this movie.

[AMC Hornet]

I like it that way. Save the surprises.

[Miles Miservy]

Hmm...Well, what happened after YOLT, TMWTGG, MR, VTOAK ? After TLD and LTK ? After DAD ? They carried on. Sometimes the player changed, sometimes he did not, but when the player changed it was not because the most recent film was bad or good. The Craig films have been of much higher quality. If the player changes it will be, as we learned from another iconic series, business, not personal.

Diamonds are forever, Live and let die and The man with the golden gun almost killed Bond off. 3 years waiting.
Same thing for Die another day. 4 years waiting, and Pierce leaving.
If Skyfall is bad I bet you we'll never see Dan again.

Unfortunately, gone are the days of a OO7 adventure returning every 2 years. They take too long to make & cost too much money. I wish they'd bring back the end titled, "End of Yadda-Yadda but James Bond will return in Whatchi-mah Call It" but they no longer have a script in hand from movie to movie, now that they've all but mined everything Fleming ever wrote.

Edited by Miles Miservy, 30 July 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[L4YRCAKE]

Actually, isn't the plan moving forward to do a Bond movie every other year? I think the studio and the producers want to make up for the embarrassingly long gap between 22 and 23, and supposedly they've offered Mr. Craig a contract for five more movies after Skyfall.

And I couldn't disagree more about them having mined everything Fleming wrote, considering that they've made 23 movies over 50 years, the films have shockingly little in common with the novels, other than the titles which, yes, they have almost completely mined. Although Risico, The Hildebrant Rarity, and Property Of A Lady still have not been used.

[tdalton]

Actually, isn't the plan moving forward to do a Bond movie every other year? I think the studio and the producers want to make up for the embarrassingly long gap between 22 and 23, and supposedly they've offered Mr. Craig a contract for five more movies after Skyfall.

I think the studio is the only one that's said they want to go back to the every-other-year schedule. I don't recall EON saying anything about that. The studio can wish for that all they want, but it doesn't really matter if Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson don't want to make the films that quickly.

[L4YRCAKE]

Actually, isn't the plan moving forward to do a Bond movie every other year? I think the studio and the producers want to make up for the embarrassingly long gap between 22 and 23, and supposedly they've offered Mr. Craig a contract for five more movies after Skyfall.

I think the studio is the only one that's said they want to go back to the every-other-year schedule. I don't recall EON saying anything about that. The studio can wish for that all they want, but it doesn't really matter if Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson don't want to make the films that quickly.

Well, it'd be nice to see an every other year schedule for Bond, especially since they can make a Harry Potter movie annually, then again it's not worth another mediocre-when-it-should've-been-good-because-it-got-rushed Bond like Quantum Of Solace.

An announcement for the next movie at the end credits would be fun but also probably an indication that they're churning out product, so...

[tdalton]

An announcement for the next movie at the end credits would be fun but also probably an indication that they're churning out product, so...

It's not likely that we'll ever see them announce the next film at the end of the credits ever again, aside from a generic "James Bond Will Return". They were able to do that in the first couple of decades of the franchise because they had a series of books ready to adapt. With that no longer being the case, as well as the production schedules being longer than they were back then, there's little chance that they will be far enough along with the thought process on the next film in time to make that addition to the credits.

[L4YRCAKE]

Which ultimately is probably a good thing.

[AMC Hornet]

Besides, the publicity mill always starts rolling with speculation and rumours about what the next title will be.

Hopefully, by returning to creating their own titles as they have done with Skyfall, EON will put to bed any more anticipation that they will fall back on pants titles like Risico or 007 In New York.

The Property of a Lady, however, is another matter - I can see that one being saved for the next introduction after Craig retires (and fuelling pointless speculation that Bond will be played by a woman or a transgendered actor, etc).

[Binyamin]

With all due respect gentlemen, I believe Skyfall will be Bond's finest hour.

[Messervy]

Looking at the teasers released so far, it's highly unlikely that SF would turn out bad.
But anyway, 2012 is the end of the World so who cares in the end?

[seawolfnyy]

Looking at the teasers released so far, it's highly unlikely that SF would turn out bad.
But anyway, 2012 is the end of the World so who cares in the end?

are you about to inaugurate a little war?

[AMC Hornet]

How could anyone watch that new trailer and still worry that Skyfall will be 'bad'?

Bond is back big time, with a bleach-blonde villain and a signature gun.

Roll on November!