SKYFALL, or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Fight Like a Rat in a Barrel

[Magus]

What the--did I just see a big blockbuster popcorn movie that still managed to deliver some of the most stylish cinematography I've seen in recent years? I DID! Did it also have a pretty great script? IT DID! Did Javier Bardem give one of the best performances since No Country For Old Men? HE DID! Did it renew my interest in the James Bond series after a lackluster outing in Quantum of Solace, while simultaneously paying homage to the old classics while breaking new ground? IT DID!

This movie is pretty great, everybody. I give it 6 Komodo dragons out of 7.

[stefan]

I keep wanting to contest the claim that Skyfall is the best Bond movieas of now, but I can't actually think of any particular one that was objectively better.

[Magus]

There are plenty that have more street cred. Goldfinger, Goldeneye, The Living Daylights, Live and Let Die (to name one from each of the other Bonds). But yeah I think we are safe in saying this is the best of the "new" ones, and certainly loads better than the three post-Goldeneye Brosnan ones.

I have read posts from a few people saying they liked Casino Royale better, but for a reason that is quite suspect: they don't like that this one has more cheesy moments and more gadgets/references to the old Bond films. They don't like that it moves away from the gritty realism of Casino Royale. The gritty realism of a movie whose plot revolves around Bond having to win a Texas Hold'em Poker tournament, I point out to these naysayers.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Does anybody outrun a space laser? If not it is objectively worse than Die Another Day.

[Geminex]

You really liked it? I just saw it a couple of days ago and I just found it terrible.

The cinematography was really sweet, mind you, and I like how it tied the Craig movies to the series proper by killing off Q and introducing Moneypenny.

But the villain just seemed ridiculously unbelievable, even for Bond standards. Mostly it was the "everything you do plays right into my hands!!!!" thing. Though the fact that they decided he could do anything with just the ~~~click of a mouse~~~ was kinda ridiculous as well. I mean if he can do anything with his computers why does he ever even need to leave his home I mean really.

And the thing about an unbelievable villain is that they stop being threatening, to me. And when the movie is based around a struggle with a primary antagonist, neutering that antagonist kind of messes it up.

I really liked some bits, like the sequence in China and Macau, as well as the finale (which I'm gonna call "James Bond Home Alone"). But the start was weird and the entire sequence in London was just jarring.

Though I also saw it in German, and movies dubbed into german are like 50% less good than the originals, so maybe that's the reason.

Edit:
Just an aside I normally really like Bond movies, but the villains, while hardly credible, at least have clearly defined abilities. A giant space laser isn't believable, but at least you know what it is! it is a laser and it is giant and in space. That sort of clear definition was lacking here.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

What isn't believable about a space laser?

[Geminex]

What isn't believable about a space laser?

Space is just a myth perpetuated by astronomists. The earth has a ceiling about 2 km about sea level and everything else is just special effects

Anyone who says differently if a servant of the astronomists

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Yeah but you could mount a laser on the ceiling.

[Geminex]

Yeah but you could mount a laser on the ceiling.

Yeah but then it's not a SPACE laser. That just a SKY laser
Geez get with the program smarty.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

The only good bond movies were the ones with Mike Myers.

[PyrosNine]

The only good bond movies were the ones with Mike Myers.

So the only good Bond movies were Flint movies?

[Bells]

This movie also has one of the best Trailers i've seen in the last few years it TOTALLY makes you interested in the movie without showing nothing of the really awesome parts.

Also... Aston Martin. Loved that.

The only bad thing i have to say about this movie is how they did the "He got better" thing about Bond loosing his edge. Early on he can't shoot for shit anymore... but by the end battle he is blasting shit with an old rifle just to show "Yep, totally raised my power level".

But really, if it wasn't done that way it would drag the pace out so it's Ok...

[Magus]

The movie should be called How Bond Got His Groove Back. For instance early on, he had trouble holding onto the elevator in Shanghai, he screws up quite a bit in London, and so forth. By the end he is a one-man army again.

[Lumenskir]

God I hope Deakins wins his first Oscar for this.

That Shanghai silhouette fight was just the greatest, most vulgar display of cinematography.

[Bells]

That and how the final battle goes into a huge pitch black meadow lighten up by the most flammable mansion ever. It's just gorgeous to look at.

[Betty Elms]

I didn't see Skyfall yet but i did try to fuck Ben Whishaw once and that is a tale which ended in embarrassment.

Movie looks pretty though, bein' shot by The Fuckin Deak and all that.

[Seil]

As someone who's started the most Bond threads (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=35129) on this forum, or as someone who owns the entire Bond collection (on original VHS, I might add (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=41629)) I feel qualified in shooting down Magus' opening statements like the shrapnel battered helicopters that they are.

And they are.

There were good performances across the board, Javier Bardem and Ralph Fiennes in particular. Rightfully so, as they're very accomplished actors in their own rights and deserve special introduction.

BUT! Here's the thing; was it a great Bond movie? No. Was it a good movie? Yes! Was it a great action flick? Most definately. You might think this an odd statement - are not Bond films just brainless popcorn action flicks? To George Lazenby perhaps!

While I can't really argue any particular point without spoilering anything, all i can say is this - even to a Craig Bond fan, even to someone who's enjoyed the more recent Bonds (Brosnan and such) this Bond movie falls short of the franchise. It even has a few terrible action sequences!

But if you want a brainless action movie, go for it! Oh, and remember that it's a prequel to Dr. No, Thunderball and the like.

[Bells]

As someone who's started the most Bond threads (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=35129) on this forum, or as someone who owns the entire Bond collection (on original VHS, I might add (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=41629)) I feel qualified in shooting down Magus' opening statements like the shrapnel battered helicopters that they are.

And they are.

There were good performances across the board, Javier Bardem and Ralph Fiennes in particular. Rightfully so, as they're very accomplished actors in their own rights and deserve special introduction.

BUT! Here's the thing; was it a great Bond movie? No. Was it a good movie? Yes! Was it a great action flick? Most definately. You might think this an odd statement - are not Bond films just brainless popcorn action flicks? To George Lazenby perhaps!

While I can't really argue any particular point without spoilering anything, all i can say is this - even to a Craig Bond fan, even to someone who's enjoyed the more recent Bonds (Brosnan and such) this Bond movie falls short of the franchise. It even has a few terrible action sequences!

But if you want a brainless action movie, go for it! Oh, and remember that it's a prequel to Dr. No, Thunderball and the like.

Terrible action sequences? You are referring to the Komodo Dragon scene right? Cause that`s the only one where i thought the build up didn`t match the payoff ...

As to comparing this movie to previous non-craig ones... it`s tricky. I don`t think Goldeneye or In your Majesty`s Secret Service would do very well nowadays, it`s a different audience and you can`t fill theaters worldwide with just old school bond fans anymore. This is a 50 year franchise afterall!

[Lumenskir]

I didn't see Skyfall yet but i did try to fuck Ben Whishaw once and that is a tale which ended in embarrassment.
http://snag.gy/LfY3F.jpg
As someone who's started the most Bond threads on this forum, or as someone who owns the entire Bond collection (on original VHS, I might add) I feel qualified
Congratulations, this is officially the saddest permutation of "I have relevant degrees" ever!!

[stefan]

was it a great Bond movie? No. Was it a good movie? Yes!

People really need to start getting shot for sentences like this.

[Magus]

There needs to be a movement to define "Bond movie" in its most simplest terms, "a movie featuring as its main character James Bond" to save Seil the embarrassment of his ridiculous arguments--arguments he hasn't even made yet! They have spoiler tags for a reason, Seil.

If you feel it's a good movie and it features James Bond it is a good James Bond movie. A + B = C and so forth.

I admit it is no Goldfinger or The Living Daylights, and is quite divorced from the tone of Moonraker or Live and Let Die or their ilk (although perhaps those are also not James Bond movies?) but it clearly possesses the main ingredients of a Bond film--James Bond, and more James Bond.

I think what you are really searching for is that you thought it was a bad movie so just say so! I will disagree of course but...

EDIT: Is this like when people say The Dark Knight is "not a Batman movie" despite it having Batman in it and also being a movie?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The term "batman movie" and "james bond movie" mean more than just having that character in him. You are being ridiculously reductionist. If I make a rom-com and James Bond makes a cameo in it is it a James Bond movie- by your arguments yes and that's stupid.
A franchise has certain tonal and genre consistencies and if your movie doesn't have those it is completely viable to disavow it as part of the wider franchise.

[Bells]

i THINK Seil saw it as a "Bourne Identity" movie with James Bond in it, and better. Which... it kinda is.

[Magus]

The term "batman movie" and "james bond movie" mean more than just having that character in him. You are being ridiculously reductionist. If I make a rom-com and James Bond makes a cameo in it is it a James Bond movie- by your arguments yes and that's stupid.
A franchise has certain tonal and genre consistencies and if your movie doesn't have those it is completely viable to disavow it as part of the wider franchise.

He didn't bother going into that, though. He just said it's a bad James Bond movie. The movies have had such massive shifts in tone and content that trying to say that one of them doesn't match up with "what James Bond should be like" is ridiculous. Give some examples, is my main problem with saying it's not a good James Bond movie.

There is nothing in this film that is any more "Bourne-like" than GoldenEye. And in a series that has both Thunderball and Moonraker I think we can basically leave complaints about the tone "not being like James Bond" at the door, especially when it was far more like a regular James Bond movie than Casino Royale (a movie which is not really realistic at all--it revolves around a poker game. It has a scene somewhere around the middle where an African guy attacks him with a machete in a hotel corridor. He hooks himself up to a cardiac-arrest machine and gives himself a jolt, etc. I'll admit it's the first one with a realistic torture scene...Pierce Brosnan getting electrocuted and drowned by the North Koreans in Die Another Day was rendered farcical by the Cher song overlaid on it) and had numerous references to the old ones in his gadgets and situations.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

My walk to the shops is more of a bond movie than casino royale.

[stefan]

My walk to the shops is more of a bond movie than casino royale.

To be fair, when most people walk to the shop it doesn't involve being accosted by a large man with suspect dental work and then being strapped to a laser table.

[Seil]

A Bond movie usually has a few characteristics that deviate from the standard action movie plot - most of which involve prominent actors and government authorities, crazy gadgets (the definition of the stereotype) and usually world-ending or taking-over-the-world villain plots. (A la Die Another Day, Diamonds Are Forever, Quantum Of Solace, to name a few).

Not to say that other action movies don't have Bond-movie elements, it's just that pretty much any action movie ever is about some jaded American badass trying to save his family.

Congratulations, this is officially the saddest permutation of "I have relevant degrees" ever!!

What, that I've been watching the movies for decades? That I'm involved enough to have a collection started since before I was a teenager? It proves that I'm a nerd, certainly, but no one on the forum can deny a "nerd" label of some sort.

While it is a good movie, it lacks certain elements that I haven't listed, admittedly, because I'm describing what the Bond franchise feels like to me. Though, even without the Bond label, it's just... over done. This may be bitterness talking over the loss of Judi Dench, but the whole thing was just handled really poorly. Yes, Javier Bardem was great in the movie, yes, he was a sympathetic villain. But many things I feel that they could have explored in his character, just.. weren't. He was just written off as crazy-with-parental-issues.

And having 'Skyfall' be the name of James Bond's childhood home was just dumb - even more so than the big "Home Alone" moment when they booby trap the house. Even more so that the helicopter crashing into it. Did it look cool? Yes. That doesn't stop it from being dumb, and adding to the "Home Alone" feel.

And Ben Wishaw was cool. However, he was what, twenty-five? While Daniel Craig looks (and acts, with his shoulder injury) about sixty-five. The Craig movies are prequels - Ralph Fiennes is Bernard Lee, Wishaw is an aged Llewellyn, and an aged Craig is a young Connery. It just doesn't look right chronologically. I get that it's not right chronologically anyway, but when you've got a twenty-five year old Q talking to a sixty year old Bond, it kind of disrupts the flow.

[Lumenskir]

What, that I've been watching the movies for decades? That I'm involved enough to have a collection started since before I was a teenager? It proves that I'm a nerd, certainly, but no one on the forum can deny a "nerd" label of some sort.
Without even going into the whole 'qualifications' thing, that's not what you said. You said that because you've started the most threads on a shitty nerd forum and own the movies on a shitty format, you are somehow qualified. The fact that you think the 'original' VHS's are radiating Bond-pontification legitimacy is what I found sad.
While it is a good movie, it lacks certain elements that I haven't listed, admittedly, because I'm describing what the Bond franchise feels like to me.
So basically you want this to thread to be a trip down No True Scotsman Lane, with all of us describing what does or doesn't make this a 'Bond movie' instead of actually talking about what we liked or didn't like about the movie itself?

[CABAL49]

So basically you want this to thread to be a trip down No True Scotsman Lane, with all of us describing what does or doesn't make this a 'Bond movie' instead of actually talking about what we liked or didn't like about the movie itself?

But now we know that Bond is a Scotsman, not just Sean Connery. But no, that's not what Seil was doing. He was going off the fact that he was an avid fan of the Bond series, and found things he thought didn't fit. He specifically said he thought it was a good movie.

What the fuck is this argument about I don't even. You are picking on Seil because he feels it is different from the Bond movies. Which is a fair statement. This was hardly a typical Bond movie. To me it seemed like they were trying to jump the shark.

[Lumenskir]

Just so I'm clear, I'm not trying to pick an argument with whether he is right in liking the movie or not, I'm just saying that the extent of any "What is a Bond movie?"-discussion is basically

Person 1: "I believe a Bond movie has elements A, B, and C."
Person 2: "I have differing beliefs."
Person 1: "Ok then!" "I hold fast to my previously expressed beliefs harder!!"

It's a conversational rocking horse, just back and forth with no progress.
even more so than the big "Home Alone" moment when they booby trap the house. Even more so that the helicopter crashing into it. Did it look cool? Yes. That doesn't stop it from being dumb, and adding to the "Home Alone" feel.
You know, Rio Bravo, Straw Dogs, and a number of other movies did the whole "Booby trap home from invaders" things before Home Alone (who's only major innovation was cranking down the lethality and cranking up the slapstick). Maybe if you compared that sequence to those movies you would like it better!?

[Seil]

You know, Rio Bravo, Straw Dogs, and a number of other movies did the whole "Booby trap home from invaders" things before Home Alone

I've never seen those movies. Home Alone is the first movie that I've seen in which improvised home defense pretty much was the plot. It was also a film with wacky hijinks. That's what I thought of the home defense scene.

It wasn't so much bad as it is literally one of the first time I've seen it outside of Home Alone.

Terrible action sequences? You are referring to the Komodo Dragon scene right? Cause that`s the only one where i thought the build up didn`t match the payoff ...

I actually thought this was pretty cool. (Take that as a statement on my taste however you please) There are stories of Komodo dragons attacking and killing people, and usually any animal will attack humans if hungry - or purposely starved. Bardem (can't remember his character name) shares man-eating animals with Emilio Largo from Thunderball with man eating sharks, or that cuban guy from License to Kill with... a man eating shark, or Tee Hee in Live and Let Die with man eating crocodiles.

Man eating animals are a big hit with evil masterminds.

[Bum Bill Bee]

Just saw it, and here's my two cents:

Him surviving a shot, long fall and a water fall seemed like a stretch as did the elevator scene, but he fight that was silhouettes against the flashing building lights was beautiful and awesome. I'm a big Adelle fan, she sang a great song for the film, and this had one of the best artsy intros ever. I loved the new young arrogant and sardonic Q, and the lady who turned out to be Moneypenny was cool too. We finally got ourselves a creepy badass villain this time around. Having an old car come back was pleasantly unexpected. My favorite part was all the crude-yet-effective boobytraps at the Skyfall manor they had set up.

My biggest problem was their trying to paint Bond as a "haggard old veteran" when this is only the third Craig film. Its especially irritating since the first one was entirely about his origin and n00b mistakes. Grr, the Batman films had the same junk going on as well, watch out guys, in the 3rd Spider-man they'll try to make Andrew Garfield into a jaded embittered 40-year old.

[Lumenskir]

I'm a big Adelle fan, she sang a great song for the film, and this had one of the best artsy intros ever.
I thought the song was actually pretty good (and I'm mostly agnostic on Adele!), and I'm mostly looking forward to the lamentation that'll occur when it isn't nominated for an Oscar for Original Song. (http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/will-the-use-of-the-original-bond-theme-on-skyfall-disqualify-adeles-original-song-contender) Mostly because I always find it hilarious that the Original Song category has rules seemingly designed to keep out as many original songs as possible.

[stefan]

Perhaps I'm just reading it way different than intended, but I interpreted it less as "Bond is an old man" and more like "Bond has spent several months with a pair of poorly-treated gunshot wounds while engaging in drunken debauchery somewhere sunny, and so has dulled his edge down significantly by the time he gets back to Britain."

[Magus]

To me Bond is about a certain style and flair and everything in this film was stylized from the train scene to the Shanghai scene to the Macau Casino scenes to the London chase and so forth. Like remember that moment in the train scene where the backhoe gives way and he falls down into the carriage and nonchalantly adjusts his cuffs? That speaks far more to me of a James Bond film than the intricacies of whatever plot they've come up with.

What I don't get Seil is you simultaneously say that you prefer the big world-conquering/destroying plot-type villains and then simultaneously say that we went somewhat into Bardem's back story but not far enough. Well we certainly went way farther than we ever did with Auric Goldfinger or Largo or whatever who were all just one-note two-dimensional villains.

I've also seen all the Bond films and began a film collection in my teens of Tarantino. Leone, Mann, Scott, etc. movies, lots of us are film nerds here. You don't have any greater qualifications, you just have your opinions, as I have mine. I can see where people don't like the tone/style of the new movies but saying it's somehow vastly different from ALL the other James Bond movies is wrong. It's different from most of the Roger Moore ones and some of the Connery ones. It's pretty damn similar to the Brosnan ones (except Die Another Day which seemed like a throwback to Moonraker-level of ridiculousness) and could also have easily starred Timothy Dalton.

Everybody wants to trace the tonal change to 2006 and Casino Royale. The tonal shift actually occurred in 1995. That big six year gap occurred because they were clearly trying to readapt the series to a new era of film after the Roger Moore years (the fact that they only had Timothy Dalton do two movies shows that they didn't like what they were doing with Living Daylights and License to Kill, despite they being more in common with Goldeneye than the Roger Moore films). I agree that Casino Royale perhaps was another tonal shift in that direction but it was much smaller than that which occurred in the first few Brosnan films AND Skyfall has brought it back some degrees from where Casino Royale was to be more similar to the older films. But all the Craig ones have maintained the stylization of all the others if you ask me.

EDIT: You have to pretty much ignore chronology issues in Bond movies--as much as these Criag ones are "prequels" they also exist in their own universe along with each of the other eras. I mean we have the Aston Martin from Goldfinger even though this Bond got it in Casino Royale. But it has the machine guns, ejector seat, etc. from Goldfinger. There are also errors in continuity between each of the other actors' movies--you have Brosnan saying, "I was married...once" which is a reference to On Her Majesty's Secret Service with Lazenby but clearly Brosnan is way younger than Connery was in his later movies. And there's no way this Q's age is ever going to match up with the age of the old Q and still have a Bond who is not wheel-chair bound.

I mean heck there are two versions of Thunderball both with Sean Connery in them made 20 years apart. Never Say Never Again was made by a different studio than Eon but since has been bought by MGM and is sold with all the other James Bond films as if it's in the same continuity. You pretty much have to ignore continuity with James Bond because the "it's a code name" doesn't work out since there's all these other references (including here in Skyfall) to it being the same guy in all the movies, which causes it's own problems...

[Bum Bill Bee]

Perhaps I'm just reading it way different than intended, but I interpreted it less as "Bond is an old man" and more like "Bond has spent several months with a pair of poorly-treated gunshot wounds while engaging in drunken debauchery somewhere sunny, and so has dulled his edge down significantly by the time he gets back to Britain."

Yeah, I guess there's that. But then there was Q's borderline contempt for bond as being outmoded, they were even in front of that one famous Turner painting. And at that one trial M was being called out as being unable to keep up with the times, with unreliable old school methods, which I felt was extended to Bond. But maybe I was misreading it?

[Magus]

I think that's part of a greater theme within this film itself about the old ways dying off in the face of modern sensibilities. It's not that Bond is old it's that his methods are supposedly old and Dench-M represents these methods as the current figurehead of MI6. But we're supposed to sympathize with Dench/Bond as still being necessary in the face of bureaucratic interference because of amoral people like Silva.

Obviously looked at objectively M is an insane old battle axe clinging to outmoded traditions, Bond is an alcoholic psychopath, and there should be plenty of oversight by the civilian governmental authorities over MI6's black ops, but within the film Dench and Bond are what we're supposed to sympathize with.

[Betty Elms]

A Bond movie usually has a few characteristics that deviate from the standard action movie plot - most of which involve prominent actors and government authorities, crazy gadgets (the definition of the stereotype) and usually world-ending or taking-over-the-world villain plots. (A la Die Another Day, Diamonds Are Forever, Quantum Of Solace, to name a few).
I feel like you're mixing up "a Bond movie" with "a Roger Moore Bond movie."

Neither Dr. No or From Russia With Love feature any real gadgetry. (Q appears in the latter, but the gadget is just a fancy briefcase. I'd put that about on par with a fancy gun.) The series sometimes does utilize exceptionally low stakes villain plots, notably From Russia With Love and Casino Royale. It's tonally Bond, something you can't say about the Dalton films or QoS. The addition of more involved yet still rudimentary characterization is a natural aspect of a healthily evolving franchise; and while the scope of the plot narrowed further than the norm to accommodate this, the narrative beats, structure, and spectacle were all retained. It's also important to note that basically the entire point of the movie is to set up a Bond that at once hews to traditions, whilst still functioning as modern filmmaking. The addition of Q and Moneypenny are the most obvious signs of this, along with the very obvious themes. It's the completion of the "origin story" idea behind the Craig films.

And Ben Wishaw was cool. However, he was what, twenty-five? While Daniel Craig looks (and acts, with his shoulder injury) about sixty-five. The Craig movies are prequels - Ralph Fiennes is Bernard Lee, Wishaw is an aged Llewellyn, and an aged Craig is a young Connery. It just doesn't look right chronologically. I get that it's not right chronologically anyway, but when you've got a twenty-five year old Q talking to a sixty year old Bond, it kind of disrupts the flow.
I think you're misunderstanding the admittedly fuzzy and semi-nonsensical nature of the Craig continuity. They aren't prequels, the next movie isn't going to start with the mysterious disappearance of all the world's computers and the rise of the Soviet Union. It's just a little exploration of the idea of setting up the Bond character and giving him something of an arc, and the whole reboot/prequel/whatever aspect is just an essentially meaningless justification for that.

Whishaw is 32, although his youthful looks and manner are a part of his really quite irresistible charm and I am sure any one of you would make awkward advances upon him and be gently rebuffed.

It even has a few terrible action sequences!
Now this is just indefensible. The weaker parts (dragon pit) would have been the highlight of just about any Moore film, the best parts (opening chase) are the best in the franchise. With the series's best cinematographer and best editor, you're at least gonna top Quantum of Solace.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's different from most of the Roger Moore ones


Ther bond films not with Roger Moore?

[Magus]

I admit an unhealthy love for Live and Let Die but yes indeed, there are others.

Jaws is one of the better henchmen, though. He even got multiple movies unlike Oddjob.

[Satan's Onion]

I believe all of you are overlooking one crucial and indisputable fact: that the only Bond film worth considering is 1967's Casino Royale. Since it features several James Bonds, a hilarious riot, and a bagpipe machine gun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEnoKqiGJFI), its superiority is absolute and objectively scientific.

[Bells]

So here is a true relevant question... the "Origins" trilogy is done, should craig keep going on as Bond?

From where the movies left off, that would be the point where it leaps back into the older movies... at least while trying to make any chronological sense of anything. And there is simply no chance they will remake any bond movies. At least not for a few more decades...

So, should Craig step aside and new bond movies come up with a new framing and new actor or where should they take this Bond next?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The superiority of the original Casino Royale has been proven in threads before SO. I don't think anybody disputes it. We are ignoring it because this thread is about the EON-productions and it would just degenerate this thread in discussing it.

And of the EON films, the Moore are the only ones worth watching (and maybe Die Another Day).

[Magus]

So here is a true relevant question... the "Origins" trilogy is done, should craig keep going on as Bond?

From where the movies left off, that would be the point where it leaps back into the older movies... at least while trying to make any chronological sense of anything. And there is simply no chance they will remake any bond movies. At least not for a few more decades...

So, should Craig step aside and new bond movies come up with a new framing and new actor or where should they take this Bond next?

Craig is doing two more, then his contract is up. The next two are going to be interrelated like Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, as well.

[RickZarber]

Wow, not getting to see it until just tonight, (due to the OCD desire to watch all 22 previous EON films on Blu-ray first; took me about a month,) I figured everything I would want to talk about would already be covered by the time I got here. But no! you guys got all bogged down with "what constitutes a Bond film", and I can just jump right in! Though, hey, glad I avoided this thread until now anyway, as there has been a distinct lack of spoiler tags in some posts...

Anyways, I'll get the largest of my (few) gripes out of the way first: there's no goddamn way Bond could have survived that fall in the pre-credits sequence. Usually these newer "realistic" movies give us at least a suggestion of an attempted explanation to make their ridiculous hijinks suspend our disbelief. But no. Crazy long fall; nice, loud, solid SMACK as he hit. Dude shoulda been a pancake. Come on, movie, I'm willing to meet you half way here! Water as magical shock absorber doesn't cut it.

That said, I really enjoyed the film!* Great song and superb opening credits sequence went a long way towards helping me immediately forget the above gripe. I did a little cheer when I saw Danny Kleinman back as the opening credits designer (he did GoldenEye through Casino Royale, and was sorely missed after the mediocrity that M12 served up for Quantum of Solace). I want to see it again, now that I understand all the iconography! I do wish they'd kept David Arnold (TND - QOS) for the score; Newman did a serviceable job, but it lacked the classic Barry feel that Arnold somehow manages to infuse into his still-modern sounding scores. Quoting the Bond theme every now and then is all well and good, but it needs a bit more for my taste. Don't have much more to add about Deakin's gorgeous cinematography; y'all have covered that fairly well. :D

I thought Javier Bardem was simply electrifying as Silva. God, that first scene with the rats monologue, where it's just one long take and he just languidly strolls closer and closer... I was getting chills. And the following bit with the... bad touch. Riveting, even though it played for laughs. Honestly, this guy felt to me almost like a book-Bond villain--much moreso than many of the modern baddies, or even some of the classic-era interpretations.

Perhaps the thing I liked best, though, was probably what Seil disliked. I liked the break in formula. When Silva was captured, I thought, Man, I have absolutely no idea where this is going to go from here! It was kind of exciting. Yes, the film takes a major deviation from there, but after sitting through all of the Bond films in such close succession, (and watching many of them with my roommate, who had only seen a small handful of them previously), all of the clichés started to stand out quite vividly, and the formulas started wearing a bit thin. New and unexpected was just what was needed.

I did give pause at the bits that seemed to ignore the reboot function of the previous Craig films, (DB5 being all Goldfinger, firm 4th wall poke at GoldenEye's exploding pen), but I'm used to just rolling with Bond continuity. Hell, Diamonds Are Forever ignores OHMSS, which is then directly referenced in For Your Eyes Only. So whatcha gonna do. Though, to address earlier comments, I do think this was supposed to be an older, more experienced Bond than CR/QOS. M has a direct line of, "You've been at this a long time now," or some-such. But that's fine, I was getting a little tired of "not-quite-the-Bond-you-know-but-he's-getting-there" anyway.

My only other real gripe is with the end of the film. Well, first, not really a gripe, but I really wanted Judi Dench's M to survive, because I wanted her to end up with Kincade! I thought that's where they were going with him for a bit; that Bond's two surrogate parental figures would end up together and get a happy retirement. But I can see why they ended it as they did. Much bigger emotional impact in any case. But the thing that rubbed me wrong was how forced the last scene felt. "Oh, Eve, you're actually Moneypenny, despite the fact that no one has even used the name Eve in the film up until this point, so that bit of misdirection was useless. But isn't it convenient that I'm asking your name now. Oh and hey, new M's office looks exactly like the 60s again! One can only assume we've moved back into the Universal Exports office back in Regent's Park! Yes, the old ways are the best, so, 50-year-old covers for everyone! Also, no more cell-phones, we wouldn't want to have to include their ubiquitous presence in the modern world in our plotlines, despite already having done so in the previous two movies."

But, again, small gripes, and I'm actually pumped to have Ralph Fiennes as M from now on. OH! And one thing that I've really liked about the Craig films: they've finally included Chief of Staff Bill Tanner as one of the main recurring characters! He's an important part the team for, like, the first time ever outside of the books, where he was specifically described as Bond's closest friend! (Tanner showed up previously in FYEO as a stick-up-his-ass bureaucrat totally divorced from his source--stepping in between Ms after Bernard Lee died and before Robert Brown took over--and then again in GoldenEye and TWINE, as proper book-Tanner, though the character never stuck, and he seemed to alternate his job with Colin Salmon's Charles Robinson character.) Now if they just bring back Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter in the next Bond film, and have him and Bond actually become friends, I'll be happy forever.

Oh god how did I spent three hours writing all this fuckin' hell it is bedtime beyond.


*Though perhaps I should note that I like, or can find things to like about, pretty much all of the Bond films. I quite liked QOS, for example, and only the terribly edited action sequences holds it back in my esteem. And Dalton's two Bond movies are two of my favorites, and that certainly seems to go against the common opinion. I prefer the more serious, simpler Bonds (FRWL, OHMSS, etc), but I still love, say, Moonraker for all its over-the-top shenanigans. Hell, there's only one Bond movie I actively dislike: Die Another Day. (I find it intolerably cringe-inducing and not-entertainingly stupid.) But even that has a cool sword fight that I enjoy, and the first 30 mins are actually fairly inoffensive (minus the Madonna song) before the film starts throwing DNA replacement and invisible cars at you and all of the dialogue goes so far up its own ass with its (totally unearned) smug sense of cleverness and BLEARGHHH.

[Magus]

You can count me as a fellow Dalton fan. The Living Daylights is one of my favorites.

Yeah, I loved how the iconography of the opening turns out to be important in the end. Sometimes you just figure they're throwing random cool-looking bullshit in there. In fact I think that's usually the case (and the naked ladies).

[BloodyMage]

I don't mean to revive a thread that has been untouched for almost two weeks but this is the relevant place to discuss this matter.

Am I the only one unaware that James Bond was his actual name? Seriously, I thought James Bond was a code name like 007 was his agent number at MI6. A friend assures me it was in the books but I've never read any of the actual books because by in large the movies are only loosely tied to them anyway. Yet, I honestly believed that James Bond was a code name passed from agent to agent which explained why he managed to work as a spy for over 50 years and changed faces numerous times (and hair colour). I know the series plays recklessly with continuity but this made sense and it turned out to be a lie.

[Bells]

since Skyfall can be seen as the end chapter of a "origins" trilogy, your theory could just be true as well, as long as you accept Daniel Craig as the first James Bond 007

[Magus]

That it is a code-name is a fan theory to explain why he is played by various actors and never ages, whereas within the films themselves it seems supported that it is the same character throughout, although the only hard evidence up until Skyfall would have been that Dalton refers to George Lazenby's marriage in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. With Skyfall kind of cementing it it would appear that it is the same James Bond throughout.

Of course, the new movies are something of a "reboot".

Despite having the car from Goldfinger.

Yeah.

EDIT: First thing that pops up in a Google search: (http://commanderbond.net/2349/the-codename-theory.html)

So, every Bond actor played a different character who was assuming the codename “James Bond”? This would mean that there have been five James Bonds: Connery/Bond, Lazenby/Bond, Moore/Bond, Dalton/Bond and Brosnan/Bond. With Connery/Bond being the first, right? A bit odd then that Connery/Bond is replaced by Lazenby/Bond only to later on return. Perhaps Lazenby/Bond got compassionate leave after his wife died (his wife died, remember that for later)?. But Lazenby recognises gadgets from Connery missions (recognises, he’s not just clearing out his predecessors desk, hey, what’s that there in the bottom draw? Oooh, very kinky), so that’s not going to quite work. Perhaps Connery and Lazenby were playing the same character, while Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were playing different ones. This would mean that there have been four James Bond – ConneryLazenby/Bond, Moore/Bond, Dalton/Bond and Brosnan/Bond.

But in The Spy Who Loved Me Sheikh Hosein remembers Moore/Bond from Cambridge, which would mean Moore/Bond was using the Bond Codename during his University years, before ConneryLazenby/Bond. Did Moore/Bond possibly have a brief stint using the Codename before passing it on to ConneryLazenby/Bond, only to get it back 11 years later? Not likely. Maybe Moore was playing the same character as Connery and Lazenby, while Dalton and Brosnan were playing different ones. This would mean that there have been three James Bond – ConneryLazenbyMoore/Bond, Dalton/Bond and Brosnan/Bond.

The Dalton Era is the one that’s the most damaging for supporters of The Codename Theory, primarily because Dalton/Bond resigns from the Secret Service in Licence to Kill. Why did he get to keep the codename? According to the theory, shouldn’t he have relinquished the codename and gone back to whatever his name was before he replaced ConneryLazenbyMoore/Bond as James Bond. We’ll ignore this fact and assume that MI6 are slow with paperwork (M’s still waiting on that mini refrigerator she ordered for the office last September), but he was lucky that they didn’t give the James Bond codename to someone else while he was off hunting down Sanchez. The other thing about Licence to Kill is that Felix Lieter acknowledges Dalton/Bond as the one who “was married, a long time ago”. Perhaps Dalton/Bond was also married, perhaps to a hairy-knuckled Scotswoman named Gladys. Or Perhaps Dalton was playing the same character as Connery, Lazenby and Moore, while Brosnan was playing a different one. This would mean that there has been two James Bonds – ConneryLazenbyMooreDalton/Bond and Brosnan/Bond.

As we move along to Brosnan, I think you can see where I’m heading. There’s no dead wife references to save me this time though, but there is something else; Doesn’t the pre-title scene of the first Brosnan/Bond film, GoldenEye take place nine years earlier? Before The Living Daylights? Before Brosnan/Bond took over the codename. Is Brosnan playing ConneryLazenbyMooreDalton/Bond for this one scene ? Does Brosnan join the ranks of Charles Grey and Joe Don Baker with the honour of playing two different characters in the Bond series ? Probably not, since later on Brosnan/Bond clearly remembers the events of the pre-title scene. It’s also unlikely that Trevelyn (shouldn’t that be a codename as well?) would want to take revenge on “some else who just happens to be assuming the code name once used by the person who betrayed me”. Unlikely but not impossible I suppose, but it definitely seems that Brosnan was playing the same character as Connery, Lazenby, Moore and Dalton. This would mean that there has been one James Bond – ConneryLazenbyMooreDaltonBrosnan/Bond, James Bond, the one and only. Nobody does it better.

[Lumenskir]

I wish that analysis had a face so I could give it a wedgie.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Wrong end of the body there, Lumens

[Locke cole]

Wrong... what?

You mean, all this time, I...?

[BloodyMage]

That it is a code-name is a fan theory to explain why he is played by various actors and never ages, whereas within the films themselves it seems supported that it is the same character throughout, although the only hard evidence up until Skyfall would have been that Dalton refers to George Lazenby's marriage in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. With Skyfall kind of cementing it it would appear that it is the same James Bond throughout.

EDIT: First thing that pops up in a Google search: (http://commanderbond.net/2349/the-codename-theory.html)

Amazingly, I never thought it through to that extent. It was just a theory in my mind to explain why James Bond, who is apparently the same person across 23 films, appears to age in reverse. Even if we start from Daniel Craig who is 44 (36 when he filmed Casino Royale), Sean Connery was only 32 when he started and 37 in You Only Live Twice. In the following film, where Lazenby takes over for one film, Lazenby is only 30. Connery comes back, aged 41, then Roger Moore takes over two years later but aged by three years at 44 ( although he looks younger.) He retires from James Bond at the age of 58, whist Timothy Dalton is, at least, 43. After 1989 there are no Bond films for six years but Pierce Brosnan is 42 when he plays Bond. He quits at age 51, at which point Daniel Craig takes over and its either a reboot or he deages by seven years.

The general age for Bonds seems to be mid thirties to late thirties and if it is one character he seems to have only aged by a decade, two maybe, in the space of fifty years. All the while technology has sped along regardless. I could possibly buy that he might be using facial reconstruction (he is a spy after all) but his accent goes from very heavily Scottish to Welsh, to English, to Welsh, to Irish (although it's not very heavy), to an Englishman playing a Scotsman. There's no consistency to the character to suggest it's the same person over and over.

I can't real refute most of what it says in that article though. It would just seem that maybe, if James Bond is a code name, then one doesn't necessarily need to die to inherit it. For instance, Connery's Bond could have retired, so Lazenby's Bond was promoted from within the agency (which might explain how he'd be familiar with equipment used by older Bonds). Lazenby decided he couldn't handle it and wanted a desk job and Connery's Bond reprised the role until a successor could be found.

The same could apply to Dalton/Brosnan Bonds in regards to the overlap. It has been shown that they need to pass an evaluation to continue working as spies. Perhaps Dalton failed his, Brosnan was brought up until Dalton was ready to take over again. Maybe Dalton was married before. Maybe he stole the Bond code name after he resigned rather than use his own name and MI6 didn't have time to send out the new Bond (perhaps Brosnan was still too green?). I'd particularly like it if Alec Trevelyn was a code name too actually since the reveal that he was connected to Russian families wasn't really shocking when, during the Cold War, he had a really European sounding name.

The thing is, I could come up with any number of theories because traditionally Bond films haven't shown much about Bond's history or character. He's generally the least developed character in the franchise. That is until Skyfall.

Also, atomic wedgies.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Counterpoint 1: This would have never have happened to the other guy.

Counterpoint 2: It's the plot of the best bond movie.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Counterpoint 1: This would have never have happened to the other guy.

Counterpoint 2: It's the plot of the best bond movie.

[Krylo]

I'm reminded of this. (http://www.cracked.com/video_18495_5-reasons-james-bond-might-be-worst-spy-ever.html)

[Kim]

James Bond is actually a time lord.