362 replies to this topic

[Hansen]

I suppose for a time now the Service and its members - Bond, M, field personnel - ought to be 'safe' in the sense of that neither is the target of the others' mistrust. 

 

That would still not have to mean a return to cliché-ridden plots in the vein of 'Bond hunts Drax - Drax hunts Bond' of olden days. IMO the direction of the series in the future definitely veers away from simple strings of explosions and action pieces with a 'shaken, not stirred' somewhere in the middle.

I would say that those are merely half of the Bond films and includes great ones like Goldfinger or Thunderball

[Dustin]

I suppose for a time now the Service and its members - Bond, M, field personnel - ought to be 'safe' in the sense of that neither is the target of the others' mistrust.

That would still not have to mean a return to cliché-ridden plots in the vein of 'Bond hunts Drax - Drax hunts Bond' of olden days. IMO the direction of the series in the future definitely veers away from simple strings of explosions and action pieces with a 'shaken, not stirred' somewhere in the middle.

I would say that those are merely half of the Bond films and includes great ones like Goldfinger or Thunderball

Certainly. But that's the problem, it usually smacks of 'been there, done that' and not just yesterday but 40 years ago. The emphasis on the action element isn't enough to distinguish Bond from other mainstream productions. One of the most surprising developments of SKYFALL to me were the - relatively speaking - few action sequences which nonetheless still managed to make the film one of the most successful of 2012. To me a clear indication the audience doesn't need an awful lot of action to enjoy a Bond film. Provided other parameters are there to support suspense and excitement.

Edited by Dustin, 03 April 2013 - 12:07 PM.

[Hansen]

I definitely agree  even if imo, CR is a much better illustration of that

[Dustin]

I suspect CR could still have worked with at least one less action scene, perhaps even two. Cut out the Indiana-esque Miami part, tone down the Venice shoot-out and lose the sinking house element and it would work even better for me. 

[Hansen]

Could have but for me they have been integrated in the story in CR than in SF (this non-sense explosion triggered by Silva during the tunnel chase). Also they were truly breathtaking and tense (even the shout-out in Venice ending on Vesper's death). For that Martin Campbell was a better director than Mendes

[tdalton]

I suspect CR could still have worked with at least one less action scene, perhaps even two. Cut out the Indiana-esque Miami part, tone down the Venice shoot-out and lose the sinking house element and it would work even better for me. 

 

Casino Royale really could have lost all three of its major action set pieces and been just fine.  The parkour chase just feels like a slightly more refined holdover from the Brosnan Era, the Miami sequence just goes on far too long, and the sinking house stuff at the end of the film completely destroys the impact of Vesper's death.  IMO, the majority of what is wrong with Casino Royale stems from the action set pieces.  I think that, if we could go back and tweak CR, that overhauling the action sequences and going with action scenes that are more in the style of those found in Skyfall or Casino Royale's own stairwell fight, that the film would be drastically improved.

[plankattack]

Casino Royale really could have lost all three of its major action set pieces and been just fine.  The parkour chase just feels like a slightly more refined holdover from the Brosnan Era, the Miami sequence just goes on far too long, and the sinking house stuff at the end of the film completely destroys the impact of Vesper's death.  IMO, the majority of what is wrong with Casino Royale stems from the action set pieces.  I think that, if we could go back and tweak CR, that overhauling the action sequences and going with action scenes that are more in the style of those found in Skyfall or Casino Royale's own stairwell fight, that the film would be drastically improved.

I tend to agree, though I do feel that the parkour chase was part of an effective introduction for DC, though typing that, I have to immediately disagree with myself and say that the PTS is as good an introduction as SC's at the bacarat table in DN. The Miami sequence is too long - at the time I remember Campbell "reassuring" fans that the film would have a big explosion; not sure this fan feels the need for the big one in every Bond, but there you go. The sinking house is a bridge too far, so to speak, and like the airport chase feels obliged rather than inspired.

Would hate to lose the parkour chase though - IMHO it's up there with the best set-pieces in the franchise's history. What those are, well, let the debate begin....

[Major Tallon]

I wouldn't touch a frame of "Casino Royale."

[Turn]

Neither would I. I still find it a much more satisfying overall Bond film than Skyfall.

[Professor Pi]

Ever wonder if the "election in Uganda" Silva rigged was for the Steven Obanno character in Casino Royale?

[mrevans]

No, but I am now. 

[Guy Haines]

 

I suppose for a time now the Service and its members - Bond, M, field personnel - ought to be 'safe' in the sense of that neither is the target of the others' mistrust.

That would still not have to mean a return to cliché-ridden plots in the vein of 'Bond hunts Drax - Drax hunts Bond' of olden days. IMO the direction of the series in the future definitely veers away from simple strings of explosions and action pieces with a 'shaken, not stirred' somewhere in the middle.

I would say that those are merely half of the Bond films and includes great ones like Goldfinger or Thunderball

Certainly. But that's the problem, it usually smacks of 'been there, done that' and not just yesterday but 40 years ago. The emphasis on the action element isn't enough to distinguish Bond from other mainstream productions. One of the most surprising developments of SKYFALL to me were the - relatively speaking - few action sequences which nonetheless still managed to make the film one of the most successful of 2012. To me a clear indication the audience doesn't need an awful lot of action to enjoy a Bond film. Provided other parameters are there to support suspense and excitement.

Consider a 1960s Bond like "Goldfinger". There isn't as much action in it as you might imagine. The pre title scene, the car chase around the factory, the Fort Knox battle and the final confrontation between Bond and Goldfinger being the main action scenes. A whole section of the movie is taken up with a game of golf! It's hard to imagine that in some of the later Bond movies, and it just wouldn't happen in a typical Hollywood actioner these days. And the scene featuring that memorable line - "No Mr Bond, I expect you to die!" - has a passive Bond strapped to that table about to be deprived of his, er, "crown jewels"!

 

Yet "Goldfinger" is a classic Bond film and is routinely listed in books that have irritating titles like "50 Films To See Before You Die". Skyfall reminded me of a classic 1960s movie in the sense that although it has action, it isn't simply one action scene followed by another, with no "non action" periods to progress the story and allow the audience to "pause for breath".

[Guy Haines]

Ever wonder if the "election in Uganda" Silva rigged was for the Steven Obanno character in Casino Royale?

I think Steven Obanno was based on Joseph Kony, the leader of the "Lords Resistance Army". The LRA is an insurgent movement in Uganda. As far as I know, they don't participate in elections there, they are in an armed struggle against the Ugandan authorities. More likely Silva meant selling rigged election results to whichever legitimate politicians would buy.

[S K Y F A L L]

I was disappointed with Moneypennys first name, just doesn't fit with me... Eve Moneypenny does not really roll off the tongue as nice as I would like it to, oh well.

[JohnnyWalker]

I was disappointed with Moneypennys first name, just doesn't fit with me... Eve Moneypenny does not really roll off the tongue as nice as I would like it to, oh well.

How about Evelyn Moneypenny?

[mrevans]

I was disappointed with Moneypennys first name, just doesn't fit with me... Eve Moneypenny does not really roll off the tongue as nice as I would like it to, oh well.

How about Evelyn Moneypenny?

Totally agree.  As excited as I was to see Moneypenny back, I thought the name seemed unnatural.  Evelyn would have flowed better.

[S K Y F A L L]

 

I was disappointed with Moneypennys first name, just doesn't fit with me... Eve Moneypenny does not really roll off the tongue as nice as I would like it to, oh well.

How about Evelyn Moneypenny?

Totally agree.  As excited as I was to see Moneypenny back, I thought the name seemed unnatural.  Evelyn would have flowed better.

I'm not much of an expert on the literary Bond but I understand that The Moneypenny Diaries already gave her a first name 'Jane' which isn't much better. Surprised there wasn't any backlash towards Eve,  from fans of those novels. 

[Major Tallon]

Yes, it was Jane Moneypenny in the Westbrook/Weinberg novels (and they're terrific books), the only place prior to "Skyfall" where the character was given a first name.  Literary fans were aware that the film was different, but I at least accepted the change as just  another example of the film series charting a course different from any of the continuation media.  I think it likely that the filmmakers wanted to keep the revelation of the new Moneypenny a surprise, and introducing Naomie Harris as "Jane" early in the film would have been a giveaway.

[Dustin]

Along with countless Tarzan/Jane jokes no doubt...

[SecretAgentFan]

I wonder what this means for the timeline...

[glidrose]

I always thought her first name was Penny. That's what Connery Bond called her a couple of times. Penny (Penelope) Moneypenny... has a Fleming ring to it.

Edited by glidrose, 09 April 2013 - 05:13 PM.

[The Shark]

I just assumed that Penny was short for Moneypenny. Two less syllables.

[Dustin]

I just assumed that Penny was short for Moneypenny. Two less syllables.

 

Which it probably was meant to be.

[thecasinoroyale]

If we're having a moan about 'Skyfall' (sorry EON!) then on this line, I just thought it odd Bond hadn't heard Eve's surname at all - either before, during or after the mission to Istanbul. I know they've never been "introduced" as he says, but she knows Bond's name, but I find it strange he doesn't know hers for a team that seems very close. I feel that's the most wooden bit, when he asks and she introduces herself. Too un-natural.

 

It seems a little TOO convenient to shoe-horn it in at the end, with the big reveals of it actually being Miss.Moneypenny, then the classic office, then the male M and then the Bond theme...sort of like cramming as much Bond iconography into the final 20 seconds as they can!

 

That's all.

[glidrose]

It's possible to be underwhelmed by SKYFALL yet love Craig as Bond.

Personally, I consider Craig to be just about the best Bond ever (well, maybe after Connery). I think his filmography is something of a mixed bag, though.

To my mind, the Craig era has given us one superb and practically flawless film (CASINO ROYALE), one poor film (QUANTUM OF SOLACE) and one film that has some very fine moments but a number of major weaknesses (SKYFALL).

I hope that BOND 24 will bring some changes (chiefly a lot less of the laboured drama that the series has served up of late) but I'm certainly in no hurry to see a new actor as Bond. I hope that Craig will play 007 for at least a couple more films.

 

I agree with almost everything you say here. It's spooky how on the same page we are. The only quibble, I was actually disappointed with Craig's performance this time out.

[Zographos]

If we're having a moan about 'Skyfall' (sorry EON!) then on this line, I just thought it odd Bond hadn't heard Eve's surname at all - either before, during or after the mission to Istanbul. I know they've never been "introduced" as he says, but she knows Bond's name, but I find it strange he doesn't know hers for a team that seems very close. I feel that's the most wooden bit, when he asks and she introduces herself. Too un-natural.

 

It seems a little TOO convenient to shoe-horn it in at the end, with the big reveals of it actually being Miss.Moneypenny, then the classic office, then the male M and then the Bond theme...sort of like cramming as much Bond iconography into the final 20 seconds as they can!

 

That's all.

The line, I believe, is "I don't believe we've been formally introduced."  He certainly knows her name, but wanted to start off their working relationship with a bit of class.

[Guy Haines]

If we're having a moan about 'Skyfall' (sorry EON!) then on this line, I just thought it odd Bond hadn't heard Eve's surname at all - either before, during or after the mission to Istanbul. I know they've never been "introduced" as he says, but she knows Bond's name, but I find it strange he doesn't know hers for a team that seems very close. I feel that's the most wooden bit, when he asks and she introduces herself. Too un-natural.

 

It seems a little TOO convenient to shoe-horn it in at the end, with the big reveals of it actually being Miss.Moneypenny, then the classic office, then the male M and then the Bond theme...sort of like cramming as much Bond iconography into the final 20 seconds as they can!

 

That's all.

I'm guessing that prior to the "formal" introduction Bond may have known her only by a cover name for that Turkish assignment (Remember, "Rene Mathis" wasn't that agent's real name, and "Raoul Silva" was also an alias), maybe her first name only, or as she was a field agent, a serial number. It did seem a bit odd, but it didn't spoil my viewing of the final scene - I'll always recall one out loud comment in the cinema as Eve revealed her surname - "Of course, that's who she is. It's Miss Moneypenny!"

[graric]

If we're having a moan about 'Skyfall' (sorry EON!) then on this line, I just thought it odd Bond hadn't heard Eve's surname at all - either before, during or after the mission to Istanbul. I know they've never been "introduced" as he says, but she knows Bond's name, but I find it strange he doesn't know hers for a team that seems very close. I feel that's the most wooden bit, when he asks and she introduces herself. Too un-natural.

 

It seems a little TOO convenient to shoe-horn it in at the end, with the big reveals of it actually being Miss.Moneypenny, then the classic office, then the male M and then the Bond theme...sort of like cramming as much Bond iconography into the final 20 seconds as they can!

 

That's all.

I'm guessing that prior to the "formal" introduction Bond may have known her only by a cover name for that Turkish assignment (Remember, "Rene Mathis" wasn't that agent's real name, and "Raoul Silva" was also an alias), maybe her first name only, or as she was a field agent, a serial number. It did seem a bit odd, but it didn't spoil my viewing of the final scene - I'll always recall one out loud comment in the cinema as Eve revealed her surname - "Of course, that's who she is. It's Miss Moneypenny!"

 

The Mathis turning out to be a cover name was always one of the little details from QoS that bothered me...there was no purpose to the reveal in the scene itself, other than going against abit of Fleming where Mathis was almost certainly his real name, and it also has been used a couple of times as 'evidence' that Bond must also therefore be a cover name.
From the dialogue in Skyfall it seemed to me that Silva was a name Tiago Rodriquez  adapted when he began his career as for hire hacker, rather than a code-name assigned to him by Mi6 (if if was an Mi6 code-name, surely at some point they would have picked up rumours about one of their agents going rogue...rather than assuming he was dead and putting his name on the memorial wall. Kinda like Goldeneye where Janus was both the organization and the alias Trevelyan used after faking his death.)

I think from the end scene Bond knew her last name before asking her and it was just a way of starting their new working relationship on a formal note, like Zographos suggested.

[Hansen]

My feeling is that it is just awkward scriptwriting for a far-fetched one-line along with poor character development where a field agent turns into a PA

[Major Tallon]

My feeling is that it is just awkward scriptwriting for a far-fetched one-line along with poor character development where a field agent turns into a PA

Why?  She's suspended from field duty and is assigned to assist Mallory in the transition.  While doing that job, she discovers that she enjoys working for him and that the job gives her the opportunity to find out more about the world-wide operations of the Secret Service than she had ever previously known.  No, it's not field work, but it's important and meaningful to her.  There's nothing awkward about that at all.