Commander
Posted 28 March 2013 - 09:57 PM
'Reality' in Bonds is a dangerous business and must be handled with caution...
That's very true. But, since EON seems hell-bent on making these films more realistic and worthy of the accolades that the Academy heaps down on the more serious fare out there, then I'd at least like to seem them really try to push things a bit and do that kind of filmmaking correctly than try to straddle the fence between where they want to go (serious, more artistic fare) and where they have been.
Commander
Posted 29 March 2013 - 10:28 AM
Silva doesn't harm innocent civilians, only civil servants and those caught up his web (i.e. Severine). His decision not to kill Kincade is a good example. He has his own moral code, and a repeat of 7/7 would have breached that.
Commander
Posted 29 March 2013 - 04:58 PM
Silva doesn't harm innocent civilians, only civil servants and those caught up his web (i.e. Severine). His decision not to kill Kincade is a good example. He has his own moral code, and a repeat of 7/7 would have breached that.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 29 March 2013 - 08:54 PM
'Reality' in Bonds is a dangerous business and must be handled with caution...
That's very true. But, since EON seems hell-bent on making these films more realistic and worthy of the accolades that the Academy heaps down on the more serious fare out there, then I'd at least like to seem them really try to push things a bit and do that kind of filmmaking correctly than try to straddle the fence between where they want to go (serious, more artistic fare) and where they have been.
Yeah, I mean if they were really delivering a TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY Bond ... not just saying it was but really delivering the goods ... that'd get me back on board.
On the issue of people aboard the train, I agree it would have involved civilians and that would have fallen outside the scope of how even Silva operated ... but on a technical level, there would have been no need (or likelihood) for doing it CG. These are the same physical effects folks as are used in the Nolan pics, you'd have had articulated practical dummies inside, not somebody spending a mint trying to make digital dummies fly while trying to ground them in the shot and inside the vehicle. Look at the great dummies in the second INDY movie, that fall off the bridge and are waving arms all the way down ... they don't all have to look like OHMSS dummies. I think the sequence was unnecessary and a waste of resources anyway, but adding articulated bods wouldn't have driven it into the realm of digital.
Commander
Posted 30 March 2013 - 02:52 AM
I loved the first 2/3 of the movie but the movie goes from perfect to dragging for me once the Aston turns into the Skyfall lodge driveway.
Having said that, it's a movie about Bond and M, so while these scenes are deliberate, I felt that after being such a good espionage thriller up to that point, it's a shame we ended on a cliche-ridden Bond protects two old people scenario, no matter how well shot it was.
Still, can't complain - the first two thirds were fantastic as was the final scene.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hello my lovely gang and gangesses.
Sorry I've been away for so long. What with married life AND still working seven nights a week. Tis like a working married life without the pleasure, or just the pleasure of working whilst being married.
As I haven't had the time to catch up with you chaps, I have no idea on anything Skyfall. Have to say I loved this little baby. Ticked the right boxes for me, and it's the first time my wife has stayed awake through a Bond. Okay. It's a little skakey in places (an electric underground train still powered after derailment), and (Bond takes M to the worst possible place to protect her) , but who gives a crap. It IS a Bond film after all.
Loved the score, thought the whole package was well thought out.
Will go deeper when I can spend more time here. (oh dread the thought
)
Ciao for now,
Ian
Great to see you Bondian!
-
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:44 AM
brings back lots of memoriesHello my lovely gang and gangesses.
Sorry I've been away for so long. What with married life AND still working seven nights a week. Tis like a working married life without the pleasure, or just the pleasure of working whilst being married.
As I haven't had the time to catch up with you chaps, I have no idea on anything Skyfall. Have to say I loved this little baby. Ticked the right boxes for me, and it's the first time my wife has stayed awake through a Bond. Okay. It's a little skakey in places (an electric underground train still powered after derailment), and (Bond takes M to the worst possible place to protect her) , but who gives a crap. It IS a Bond film after all.
Loved the score, thought the whole package was well thought out.
Will go deeper when I can spend more time here. (oh dread the thought
Ciao for now,
Ian
Commander
Posted 30 March 2013 - 09:18 AM
a cliche-ridden Bond protects two old people scenario
How is that a cliche?
Commander
Posted 30 March 2013 - 09:56 AM
a cliche-ridden Bond protects two old people scenario
How is that a cliche?
Good question. A cliche is a trite or over-used expression or idea. Some might say "Bond, James Bond" or "Vodka Martini, shaken, not stirred" fall into that definition, although we Bond fans would miss them terribly. But 007 protecting two people who should be drawing their pensions rather than shooting at villains? That's a first in my book!
Commander
Posted 30 March 2013 - 03:13 PM
Silva doesn't harm innocent civilians, only civil servants and those caught up his web (i.e. Severine). His decision not to kill Kincade is a good example. He has his own moral code, and a repeat of 7/7 would have breached that.
Yes, pretty much what I think about the character, too. SKYFALL is about the triangle M - Silva - Bond, with all three being members of SIS, with all three living and acting in the shadows, on behalf of 'us'. That is not questioned as such - the hearing itself is not about disbanding SIS or its means - nor is it truly the focus of affairs. I see it more as a rare point of intersection where we (we being the public) are allowed to witness the spectacle, or rather drama between these characters. In a Shakespearian sense the hearing is meant as a Globe Theatre. A MicroGlobe theatre perhaps...
The hearing itself brings up another issue regarding Silva's supposed code. If the hearing is a means for the "public" to see the interaction between M, Bond, and Silva, wouldn't Silva be putting quite a few innocents (i.e. the spectators at the hearing) by choosing that as the place to try to attack M? Silva also potentially violates the supposed code when he sends the train off the tracks, as there are in fact at least two people on the train (the driver that we see bracing himself for impact in the front and his counterpart at the other end of the train).
Commander
Posted 30 March 2013 - 03:40 PM
Silva doesn't harm innocent civilians, only civil servants and those caught up his web (i.e. Severine). His decision not to kill Kincade is a good example. He has his own moral code, and a repeat of 7/7 would have breached that.
Yes, pretty much what I think about the character, too. SKYFALL is about the triangle M - Silva - Bond, with all three being members of SIS, with all three living and acting in the shadows, on behalf of 'us'. That is not questioned as such - the hearing itself is not about disbanding SIS or its means - nor is it truly the focus of affairs. I see it more as a rare point of intersection where we (we being the public) are allowed to witness the spectacle, or rather drama between these characters. In a Shakespearian sense the hearing is meant as a Globe Theatre. A MicroGlobe theatre perhaps...
The hearing itself brings up another issue regarding Silva's supposed code. If the hearing is a means for the "public" to see the interaction between M, Bond, and Silva, wouldn't Silva be putting quite a few innocents (i.e. the spectators at the hearing) by choosing that as the place to try to attack M? Silva also potentially violates the supposed code when he sends the train off the tracks, as there are in fact at least two people on the train (the driver that we see bracing himself for impact in the front and his counterpart at the other end of the train).
I suppose it's what's called 'collateral damage' in the news nowadays. Tough, but in the end the fates of individuals.
Silva's aim is M - and therefore in extension SIS (think of those undercover agents and of those coffins so artfully draped with the Union Flag) and Police forces in diminishing degrees of importance. All members of the 'apparat' that he might hold responsible for his own misfortune. But he knows the person responsible, has been close and important to her. Until other needs called and priorities had to be re-evaluated.
One could of course think of a story that put the betrayed Silva up against the entire people - Great Britain, the Britons and that famous British stiff upper lip and supposed arrogance. But would that then not result in a far more pedestrian plot? In something we've seen twelve times last week alone on the telly - albeit with the US or the West as a whole standing in for Britain? To me that smaller scale - relatively spoken - is what constitutes SKYFALL's particular charm. This time it's personal - and ugly - and the result to me is much more intriguing and thrilling than the usual action fare.
Commander
Posted 30 March 2013 - 03:43 PM
Silva doesn't harm innocent civilians, only civil servants and those caught up his web (i.e. Severine). His decision not to kill Kincade is a good example. He has his own moral code, and a repeat of 7/7 would have breached that.
Yes, pretty much what I think about the character, too. SKYFALL is about the triangle M - Silva - Bond, with all three being members of SIS, with all three living and acting in the shadows, on behalf of 'us'. That is not questioned as such - the hearing itself is not about disbanding SIS or its means - nor is it truly the focus of affairs. I see it more as a rare point of intersection where we (we being the public) are allowed to witness the spectacle, or rather drama between these characters. In a Shakespearian sense the hearing is meant as a Globe Theatre. A MicroGlobe theatre perhaps...
The hearing itself brings up another issue regarding Silva's supposed code. If the hearing is a means for the "public" to see the interaction between M, Bond, and Silva, wouldn't Silva be putting quite a few innocents (i.e. the spectators at the hearing) by choosing that as the place to try to attack M? Silva also potentially violates the supposed code when he sends the train off the tracks, as there are in fact at least two people on the train (the driver that we see bracing himself for impact in the front and his counterpart at the other end of the train).
I suppose it's what's called 'collateral damage' in the news nowadays. Tough, but in the end the fates of individuals.
Silva's aim is M - and therefore in extension SIS (think of those undercover agents and of those coffins so artfully draped with the Union Flag) and Police forces in diminishing degrees of importance. All members of the 'apparat' that he might hold responsible for his own misfortune. But he knows the person responsible, has been close and important to her. Until other needs called and priorities had to be re-evaluated.
That's all true. I'm not really arguing against the tribunal scene anyway (although it would have been nice for them to have shown something of substance being said by either the minister or M herself), but more arguing that the supposed "code" that has been ascribed to Silva in this thread is at best flimsy and, more likely, something that's not really meant to be read into the character.
Commander
Posted 30 March 2013 - 04:36 PM
That's all true. I'm not really arguing against the tribunal scene anyway (although it would have been nice for them to have shown something of substance being said by either the minister or M herself), but more arguing that the supposed "code" that has been ascribed to Silva in this thread is at best flimsy and, more likely, something that's not really meant to be read into the character.
Hmm..., not sure about the code.
Well, on the face of it Silva is the villain of SKYFALL, he has to behave in villainous ways. And probably 80 per cent of the audience will clearly identify Silva as a vile and murderous terrorist. So far nothing new, all typical action thriller lore.
One layer deeper Silva is a - former - colleague, perhaps even a former version of Bond (who's to say the 90s 00-section didn't employ a binary division? the real-life counterparts of 20xx+ sure as hell do.). It's said he was working beyond his assignment and briefing in order to half-heartedly justify M's handling of his case. Fine, the bloody foreigner - strange accent for a SIS agent - had it coming. Only, Bond is regularly acting beyond his assignment and briefing. Lucky he didn't end up in Chinese custody. What distinguishes Bond (good) from Silva (bad)? Less than we'd like to acknowledge perhaps.
And yet another level deeper we learn that the - unpopular among many fans - mother figure M deliberately, intentionally uses her mother status with her agents, and consequently recruits the best of them amongst orphans. As she did with Bond. As she no doubt did with Silva. Who, it has to be said, is not able to harm his 'mommy' himself until the very end, despite various occasions. And this in light of the fact he was willing to die for her and was aware - she confirmed it herself - that she was the one who sold him to the Chinese service.
By this reading we must reconsider the role of the villain in this Bond film. Because it means M didn't just trade in a blunt object - or in Silva's case perhaps a highly honed specialist tool - but a surrogate 'son'. Or at any rate somebody who considered her in a very real sense as a mother of sorts. Which puts the entire affair on a most unexpected level for a 'mere' Bond film.
But this reading - always assumed it's legit in the sense of being intended by writers and director - is indeed only possible if we get the chance to review the character of Silva and his actions inside the plot of SKYFALL. Had Silva been depicted as the utter monster we are by now used to in entertainment terrorist country we wouldn't give the guy one second thought. Many people don't as is. So in a way I suppose there were limits to the horrific and dangerous potential of Silva. There had to be a 'code of conduct' for this villain; perhaps not meant as a definite set of rules, but surely as a means of focus for his actions.
Commander
Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:09 PM
I was reading some members comments in another thread and this really stuck in my head; The first 2/3s of the film is a great spy film but then it falls kind of flat in the end, I was sick of the M and Bond's relationship but it is easier to sit though knowing its the last time I suppose. Eve's character I really want to like but I just can't, I find their banter is weak and their back story seems forced like the whole shaving scene was shoe horned in so they could use that lame line at the end about having a few more close shaves. One of my favorite scenes doesn't even make any sense really; when Bond jumps after the elevator in Shanghai and then opens it from the outside. Are we suppose to believe that anyone can just open elevator doors on the highest floors at anytime by simply pulling on them? Doesn't make sense but I love that shoot looking down the building. Every time I watch SF I wonder if it should have just ended on the scene of Bond and M in the chapel, the whole ending scenes are just a tease and although it's nice to have closer and know who is the new M and what happens to Eve, it seems like something that could have waited for Bond 24 and left us debating till the next film.
Commander
Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:37 PM
. Every time I watch SF I wonder if it should have just ended on the scene of Bond and M in the chapel, the whole ending scenes are just a tease and although it's nice to have closer and know who is the new M and what happens to Eve, it seems like something that could have waited for Bond 24 and left us debating till the next film.
That would have been a much stronger ending for the film.
Lt. Commander
Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:53 PM
The chapel scenes are reminiscent of how OHMSS ends, with a woman important to Bond dying in his arms. So I prefer the denouement that Skyfall adds after as it ends on a positive note.
Lt. Commander
Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:16 AM
I'm probably different than most - I like it when the loose ends are tied up...even if it causes a movie to drag a bit. I completely agree, ending SF at the chapel scene would have been more appealing cinematically, but, for some reason, I always enjoy tying up loose ends in movies. Why? Because I always have these nagging questions that bug me when they aren't answered. I'd rather have a less dramatic ending and have my questions answered. I liked the ending of Return of the King, for example, which never seemed to end, because all the "loose ends" were tied up - but I think it made for a worse ending - but I liked it. Strange, I know. I can't explain it.
. Every time I watch SF I wonder if it should have just ended on the scene of Bond and M in the chapel, the whole ending scenes are just a tease and although it's nice to have closer and know who is the new M and what happens to Eve, it seems like something that could have waited for Bond 24 and left us debating till the next film.
That would have been a much stronger ending for the film.
Commander
Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:15 AM
The chapel scenes are reminiscent of how OHMSS ends, with a woman important to Bond dying in his arms. So I prefer the denouement that Skyfall adds after as it ends on a positive note.
I think the producers have been wary of ending "on a downer" ever since OHMSS. Skyfall is the second Craig film to finish on a positive note in spite of a tragic final act - remember how, in CR, Vesper commits suicide, and Bond's futile attempts to resusitate her? Nevertheless we leave the cinema feeling more upbeat, and intrigued, as Bond wounds and confronts Mr White.
Plus, Skyfall had two final loose ends to tie up. Q has returned - but where's Moneypenny? And if he's not playing the villain, what other character might an actor of the stature of Ralph Fiennes play? On reflection, given the way the roles of Eve and Mallory were written, we should have seen both of these coming a mile off, imho.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:33 PM
The last scene of the film was a small relief to me. Very happy to see the old office back and Fiennes as M, but puzzled that no-one noticed that Bond failed his assignment.
By the way, it could have been a great start for the next one : Bond disgraced, trying to redeem himself
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:52 PM
The last scene of the film was a small relief to me. Very happy to see the old office back and Fiennes as M, but puzzled that no-one noticed that Bond failed his assignment.
By the way, it could have been a great start for the next one : Bond disgraced, trying to redeem himself
That's not a bad idea, a bit like the Dr. No novel.
Commander
Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:34 PM
But what actually was Bond's assignment? To recover the missing data and bring in the person(s) responsible for the publication. At least according to the last briefing he got. His actions after Silva's escape were entirely instantaneous reactions to the situation as it presented itself to him. Technically Bond did not fail his mission, even if M's death must be considered a grave loss. Preventing more damage to SIS personnel and installations as well as to London and the public in general must be considered the most important aim. Which he achieved.
Commander
Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:50 PM
The last scene of the film was a small relief to me. Very happy to see the old office back and Fiennes as M, but puzzled that no-one noticed that Bond failed his assignment.
As already stated, no one noticed that he didn't fail his assignment because he didn't fail his assignment. He was assigned to find whoever had stolen the list, which he did with the termination of Patrice and the apprehension of Silva. He was also tasked with recovering the information, which almost assuredly recovered from Silva's island by those who had come as backup for Bond aboard the three helicopters.
By the way, it could have been a great start for the next one : Bond disgraced, trying to redeem himself
At this point in the Bond franchise, this is about the last thing that the series needs. Every film since Licence to Kill all the way back in 1989 has featured some kind of "this time, it's personal" element. Bond 24 needs to be completely void of such things, and having to have Bond prove himself yet again the next time around would just give the writers a slightly different spin to the same basic plot of trust issues between Bond and M that has plagued the series recently.
Commander
Posted 01 April 2013 - 07:57 PM
The last scene of the film was a small relief to me. Very happy to see the old office back and Fiennes as M, but puzzled that no-one noticed that Bond failed his assignment.
By the way, it could have been a great start for the next one : Bond disgraced, trying to redeem himself
That's the thing about this Bond - none of the assignments Craig has undertaken have turned out as straight successes. In CR, he loses the money, loses the girl, fails to get Le Chiffre in the hands of MI6 or the CIA alive - all he does manage is to track down Mr White. In QoS - well, I think that's the nearest to "mission accomplished" - Greene's resources stitch up is destroyed, Quantum is blown, largely, but Mr White and the "number one" figure behind Quantum (if they aren't one and the same) are still at large. And Skyfall - Bond fails to recover the computer disk drive, MI6 is attacked, agents are exposed online. Even one key mission aim - get Silva and his computer - turns out to be an elaborate trap set by the villain. True, Bond gets Silva in the end, but only by using M as bait, and at great cost.
Not exactly the "Bond kills the villain, saves the world, gets the girl" of old, but eminently watchable nevertheless!
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 01 April 2013 - 08:34 PM
Extremely interesting approach, Mr Haines !
Lt. Commander
Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:38 AM
He does, however, get bartenders in all three movies to mix his "perfect" martini. So mission accomplished! 
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 02 April 2013 - 04:00 AM
At this point, I'm really hoping the next film has no plot connection with SF. Craig is a great Bond. I just want to kick back and watch him do his thing. No more sequels or Bond having to justify his place as a double 0. No more revenge or dark personal journey's. There hasn't really been a to form Bond film since TND. Though to be fair DAD hardly felt like a dark personal story but that's not a good example of what I want for the next Bond film. CR had a great element of fun and enjoyment yet still was hard edge. Follow that model a little more. Bring Felix back, maybe develop that friendship further I've always enjoyed that element from the books. have some humorous banter, a good scene with M, Q, and Moneypenny. I want to see Daniel Craig be Bond in a movie that doesn't feel the need to up the personal ante. SF left everything in place to run into an epic Bond series, hence I think their moving in the direction I want. I just hope they stop trying to reinvent the wheel. They have their wheel in place now and it rolls well.
Lieutenant
Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:24 AM
On reflection, given the way the roles of Eve and Mallory were written, we should have seen both of these coming a mile off, imho.
Hehe, some of us did 
CR had a great element of fun and enjoyment yet still was hard edge. Follow that model a little more. Bring Felix back, maybe develop that friendship further I've always enjoyed that element from the books. have some humorous banter, a good scene with M, Q, and Moneypenny. I want to see Daniel Craig be Bond in a movie that doesn't feel the need to up the personal ante. SF left everything in place to run into an epic Bond series, hence I think their moving in the direction I want. I just hope they stop trying to reinvent the wheel. They have their wheel in place now and it rolls well.
Completely agree! It's been said so many times for so long by so many people, but there's seems to be a definite consensus on these boards that people want more CR style films. And like you say, SF's put the films in a very strong position to just get on with it now - enough of Bond proving himself, please.
Edited by RMc, 02 April 2013 - 09:25 AM.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:46 AM
As a matter of fact, he is more proving to others (M) than to himself which is not the Bond as I see it. But it is quite true, Craigs needs his Goldfinger.
Commander
Posted 02 April 2013 - 03:40 PM
Personally I don't want a regression to CASINO ROYALE quality.
Commander
Posted 02 April 2013 - 04:28 PM
The last scene of the film was a small relief to me. Very happy to see the old office back and Fiennes as M, but puzzled that no-one noticed that Bond failed his assignment.
As already stated, no one noticed that he didn't fail his assignment because he didn't fail his assignment. He was assigned to find whoever had stolen the list, which he did with the termination of Patrice and the apprehension of Silva. He was also tasked with recovering the information, which almost assuredly recovered from Silva's island by those who had come as backup for Bond aboard the three helicopters.
>By the way, it could have been a great start for the next one : Bond disgraced, trying to redeem himself
At this point in the Bond franchise, this is about the last thing that the series needs. Every film since Licence to Kill all the way back in 1989 has featured some kind of "this time, it's personal" element. Bond 24 needs to be completely void of such things, and having to have Bond prove himself yet again the next time around would just give the writers a slightly different spin to the same basic plot of trust issues between Bond and M that has plagued the series recently.
Well said and agreed.
Commander
Posted 02 April 2013 - 05:05 PM
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.