The Trouble City Forums
SKYFALL Post-Release - Printable Version

+- The Trouble City Forums (http://citizens.trouble.city)
+-- Forum: Specific Cinema (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Films in Release or On Video (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=78)
+--- Thread: SKYFALL Post-Release (/showthread.php?tid=145354)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35


- sebastian ob - 11-10-2012

Bond himself is treated as collateral damage in the beginning of the movie. Callousness towards human life is a theme of the movie. It's about how "all that matters is the mission" destroys everyone involved.




- laurenortega - 11-10-2012

Yeah but...how do you tie lasers into that?!

Did you even think about this?!!




- Nooj - 11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

The movies for a while have been really having a tricky time being able to balance the fact that Bond kills a whole lot of people and is supposed to be a generally ruthless sonofabitch. While also trying to keep him from coming across as an utter sociopath. It oftentimes can make things feel weird even in the best films of the series.

It's especially weird when Bond has a fit about M letting Ronson die at the beginning and about "Take the bloody shot!"  You'd think such things would make Bond (and the movie itself) care more about the lives lost in their profession.

It's particularly weird since this movie actively asks us to consider this stuff.  But I guess it's really in a more self-absorbed way.  We don't care about Chinese people and Bond Girls!  Just our own stiff upper lips!




- laurenortega - 11-10-2012

Well ultimately I can get behind Sebastian to a degree about the callousness being hard-wired into the storyline. I'd have probably made a bigger deal about Severine's death, but I'm biased.




- sebastian ob - 11-10-2012

The killing of the first Bond girl is a misogynist trope and there's no getting around that. But in this film, I don't know what role Severine would have played if Bond had saved her, and him stopping to mourn her would have run counter to the film's themes. I think the trope could be put out to pasture, but in the context of SKYFALL it makes sense.




- laurenortega - 11-10-2012

I can also agree with that.




- sebastian ob - 11-10-2012

The killing of Fields in QUANTUM is infinitely worse because her death really serves no story purpose and is just a dumb callback to GOLDFINGER. SKYFALL really makes me think less of QUANTUM with every passing moment.




- slim - 11-10-2012

The great thing about Craig's Bond run-- even QOS-- is that it's introduced the idea of individual, human cost (be it Ronson or a Bond Girl) to what was essentially a fantasy series. I, for one, totally dig that, and wish they'd do more.

Now that they've (finally!) set all the pieces in place for a classic Bond picture, I'd like to see where they take that formula now, with all the weaknesses and doubts that are implicit in Craig's portrayal. The possibilities strike me as very Fleming-esque.




- laurenortega - 11-10-2012

Quote:
The killing of Fields in QUANTUM is infinitely worse because her death really serves no story purpose and is just a dumb callback to GOLDFINGER.

Seriously.




- Nooj - 11-10-2012

Nothing in Quantum serves a story purpose.




- slim - 11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Oh yeah... that WAS pretty sweet.  Thanks for reminding me of that.

Bond sending Greene out into the desert with a quart of motor oil is, for my money-- next to shooting Dent in DR. NO-- Bond's best kill in the entire franchise. Shame it came at the end of such a turd of a movie.




- tcd - 11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

The film's plot is the film's plot. Your problems are with the plot then not the action.

Still, if that's your opinion I guess we disagree completely. I'd rather a film follow its story and rules even if they're bad than insert "cool" action that breaks with them.

No, my problem is with the action and the plot. More to the point, the lack of the former and the inanity of the latter.

And for all intents and purposes, the rules of logic in Bond's world are the same as the rules of logic in ours. In both worlds, Silva's plan was logic-defyingly stupid. And the action scenes that arose from that logic-defying stupidity were completely superfluous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim View Post

No. I'm not saying the stakes involved in SKYFALL are inconsequential, or ought to be. They have consequence-- certainly for M, since she ends up dead.

That conflict, that drama is there. Your gauge seems to be whether there's a clock ticking down to  total world destruction, or some such.

My gauge is based on what the movie tells me is important. It could be Bond trying to save the world, or it could be Bond trying to finish a crossword puzzle. As long as the movie stays consistent in communicating the importance of whatever it is I'm supposed to care about, it works.

Skyfall spent the last third of its running time telling me just how desperately important it was that M not be killed. Then M was killed. And it ended up being no big deal. That would be the equivalent of Bond failing to disarm the nuclear device at the end of Goldfinger, Fort Knox and America's gold supply being utterly destroyed, and Bond looking somber for about 45 seconds followed by him returning to M's office for business as usual as if nothing happened.

Quote:
The fact that the world goes on, despite her death and despite Bond's failure-- and that the Secret Service still needs men like him-- does not negate the events that have come before, at all. That's practically the fucking thesis of the whole picture.

If M's death and Bond's failure were inherent in the movie's thesis, then it shouldn't have worked so damn hard to make the audience root for those things to not happen. Terms of Endearment dealt with themes of loss and acceptance, but it didn't end with Shirley MacLaine in a frantic race against time to find a cure for Debra Winger, only to fail in the eleventh hour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post

The action is great. Good mix of Bond spectacle (the villain THROWS A SUBWAY TRAIN AT BOND) and action you're not used to from a Bond movie. And I count three action setpieces. The opening, the race to save M (tense subway sequence to foot chase to shoot-out), and the final battle.

I think it's a bit of stretch to call two men riding a crowded subway train, followed by them briskly walking through the station, an "action set piece". What's in store for Bond 24? 007 quickly getting dressed in hurry to get out the door, followed by a nail-biting taxi ride? I'm not sure if the technology exists to bring such an amazing spectacle to life.




- slim - 11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post

Skyfall spent the last third of its running time telling me just how desperately important it was that M not be killed. Then M was killed. And it ended up being no big deal.

It was, I suspect, quite a big deal for M. And for Bond, who cared for her... And, as I was going on about above, that the human cost in the course of pursuing something greater is pretty much the theme of SKYFALL, and Craig's run overall. This latest didn't have a standard Bond movie "happy ending"-- we want him to succeed, but he doesn't. He's lost the battle, but the war goes on. I personally found that to be one of the best aspects about the movie.




- laurenortega - 11-10-2012

You prefer Die Another Day.

Which is cool! Apples and oranges and everything! You like it's consistent plot and big set-pieces and don't find yourself taken out of the movie like Skyfall.

Everything you say is possibly wrong and suspect of course! But it's cool.




- MrSaxon - 11-10-2012

You'd totally hate Titanic, TCD. it spends the first half of the movie setting up this romance between the two leads, right, and then there's fight for both of them to survive only they fail and one of them dies!




- tcd - 11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim View Post

It was, I suspect, quite a big deal for M. And for Bond, who cared for her...

Well, that's the problem. You shouldn't have to "suspect". The movie should have clearly communicated it. Simply relying on the audience's innate belief that death is tragic - especially in a world of James Bond where life is cheap - is lazy. This movie depicted Bond dealing with the death of a colleague and a woman he just slept with both fairly callously. It can't then expect me to make a leap and assume he's been devastated by M's death.

Quote:
And, as I was going on about above, that the human cost in the course of pursuing something greater is pretty much the theme of SKYFALL, and Craig's run overall. This latest didn't have a standard Bond movie "happy ending"-- we want him to succeed, but he doesn't. He's lost the battle, but the war goes on. I personally found that to be one of the best aspects about the movie.

The movie didn't have to have a happy ending, it just needed to be consistent. Casino Royale didn't have a happy ending, but they made it work. You saw the effect Vesper's death had on Bond, and how it changed him. As much as people want to bag on Quantum of Solace, seeing Bond come full circle on that was pretty fucking powerful. By comparison, M's death felt cheap and pointless.




- gabe t - 11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim View Post

Bond sending Greene out into the desert with a quart of motor oil is, for my money-- next to shooting Dent in DR. NO-- Bond's best kill in the entire franchise. Shame it came at the end of such a turd of a movie.

It's certainly up there.

So weird when people want to toss sand on Quantum of Solace when it's really just a not-bad mid-tier Bond made by a hack director.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim View Post 

It was, I suspect, quite a big deal for M. And for Bond, who cared for her... And, as I was going on about above, that the human cost in the course of pursuing something greater is pretty much the theme of SKYFALL, and Craig's run overall. This latest didn't have a standard Bond movie "happy ending"-- we want him to succeed, but he doesn't. He's lost the battle, but the war goes on. I personally found that to be one of the best aspects about the movie.

I do think there could have been more... I don't know, pathos to this resolution. Bond fails, Silva wins, and the head of MI6* dies. But the ending FEELS like, okay, that's out of the way, now onto business! Get that markswoman in the secretary's seat, get Ralph Fiennes in charge, new tomorrow! I think you can strike a balance between Bond turning towards tomorrow more resolute, and the agony of losing M, and I think the movie's handling of this could have been a little stronger.

*This is officially her role, right? Too much cloak and dagger for me to keep track.




- stelios - 11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post

My gauge is based on what the movie tells me is important. It could be Bond trying to save the world, or it could be Bond trying to finish a crossword puzzle. As long as the movie stays consistent in communicating the importance of whatever it is I'm supposed to care about, it works. 

Skyfall spent the last third of its running time telling me just how desperately important it was that M not be killed. Then M was killed. And it ended up being no big deal. That would be the equivalent of Bond failing to disarm the nuclear device at the end of Goldfinger, Fort Knox and America's gold supply being utterly destroyed, and Bond looking somber for about 45 seconds followed by him returning to M's office for business as usual as if nothing happened.

If M's death and Bond's failure were inherent in the movie's thesis, then it shouldn't have worked so damn hard to make the audience root for those things to not happen. Terms of Endearment dealt with themes of loss and acceptance, but it didn't end with Shirley MacLaine in a frantic race against time to find a cure for Debra Winger, only to fail in the eleventh hour.

In terms of deaths, M's was treated with the same importance as Vesper's and Tracy's. Should they have done another half a movie like QoS to show that Bond gave a shit?

And your final paragraph makes a negative amount of sense.




- slim - 11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post

Well, that's the problem. You shouldn't have to "suspect". The movie should have clearly communicated it.

The movie didn't have to have a happy ending, it just needed to be consistent. Casino Royale didn't have a happy ending, but they made it work. You saw the effect Vesper's death had on Bond, and how it changed him. As much as people want to bag on Quantum of Solace, seeing Bond come full circle on that was pretty fucking powerful. By comparison, M's death felt cheap and pointless.

"Suspect" was a turn of phrase on my part. I thought the movie made fairly plain Bond's feelings about M's death. If you thought they handled similar material better in CASINO ROYALE, I won't quibble-- it's the better movie. But M's death certainly didn't seem cheap or pointless to me.

ETA: Gabe does make a good point above. SKYFALL was pretty determined to set the table for future installments-- e.g. moving Dench out and Fiennes in. If the strain shows for some folks, I can respect that.




- gabe t - 11-10-2012

Terms of Endearment really should have been a race against time thingie, though, shouldn't it?




- tcd - 11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

You prefer Die Another Day.

Which is cool! Apples and oranges and everything! You like it's consistent plot and big set-pieces and don't find yourself taken out of the movie like Skyfall.

I don't recall saying any of that. I disliked both Die Another Day and Skyfall, but for different reasons.

Quote:
Everything you say is possibly wrong and suspect of course! But it's cool

Then again, everything I say is possibly right and not at all suspect. Which is also cool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

You'd totally hate Titanic, TCD. it spends the first half of the movie setting up this romance between the two leads, right, and then there's fight for both of them to survive only they fail and one of them dies!

You might have a point if the last third of Titanic was DiCaprio and Winslet running around saying "We must prevent this boat from sinking at all costs!" only to have the boat sink and everyone just kind of shrug their shoulders and move on.

The tragic ending of Titanic was inherent in the story. The movie set up the audience for it from the outset. We didn't know exactly what was going to happened in the end, but we knew it wasn't going to be upbeat.




- laurenortega - 11-10-2012

Quote:
I don't recall saying any of that. I disliked both Die Another Day and Skyfall, but for different reasons.

Forgive me it's just that this quote:

Quote:

At least Die Another Day had some fun spectacle and a villain with a comprehensible plan.

Sounds like. "Yeah the movie's shit! But it still beats Skyfall!"

Which is silly.

Quote:
Then again, everything I say is possibly right and not at all suspect. Which is also cool.

No I think everything you say is kinda suspect.

Like you literally sound like the major beef with the movie is "M dies but like the entire set-up of the movie was to stop her death and they failed and I don't like that."

Which again sounds suspect.




- sebastian ob - 11-10-2012

If you think the movie is about Bond having to save M, you've missed the point of the movie. Bond having to save M is the engine that drives the plot. The movie is about what price must these people pay for the life they have chosen. What is the cost of "getting the job done"?




- dr harford - 11-10-2012

A[quote name="S.D. Bob Plissken" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/300#post_3420114"]
There is a Bond film that The Dark Knight Rises shares a TON of similarities with, but it isn't Skyfall.  It is Brosnan's The World Is Not Enough.


I wouldn't put any stock in those rumors.  While the producers muse on the idea of a Black Bond someday (Colin Salmon was mentioned in the late 90s), they will never do it.  Wrong or not, it just won't happen.  If Elba has met with the producers, it is far likelier that they are interested in him being the big baddie (or another main role) for Bond 24, which they started scripting back in June and will shoot in the latter half of next year.


Funnily enough, Dench's Craig-era M is the only one that we DON'T have a real name for.

Bernard Lee's M is Sir Miles Messervy, a name which exists not only in the original novels, but it uttered in at least one of the Moore films.  Robert Brown's Admiral Hargreaves was his replacement, promoted once Messervy retired (aka Lee passed away).  Dench's M from the Brosnan-era is Barbara Mawdsley, a name given in the books at the time and novelizations.  While never uttered on film, it's still pretty much accepted canon.

We were never give her Craig-era character's name, but either her first or last name also coincidentally begins with an "M"....judging from Bond's comments in Casino Royale.  If you recall, Bond almost says her name outloud, but she threatens to have him killed if he finishes the sentence.  Perhaps Emma is her real first name after all?

Of course, Gareth Mallory is our new "M".  That leaves Brown's Hargreaves as the only head of the organization to date that doesn't have the letter beginning his last name.
[/quote]

I definitely don't think Emma is her name. How would Kincaid know her name before they've even been introduced? He doesn't know what Bond does for a living, how would he know the real identity of M? It's meant to be cute, him thinking "M" = "Em", and she wasnt about to correct him and try to explain the whole spy business.

Also while I think Elba is too old, at this point, I do believe we will get a black Bond one day, and I'd be excited at the prospect. It would fit in well with the character I think.


- gabe t - 11-10-2012

I only just realized that I ignored Kincaid calling her Emma because I figured, this is Albert Finney. I don't think he bothers to remember lines anymore. And good for him.




- odo19 - 11-10-2012

lol, poor TCD. Taking tons of shit for making valid criticisms about a awful movie. This is almost an exact replay of Mcnooj in the TDKR thread. Or anyone who criticized the movie in the TDKR thread actually.

Get out while you can!




- dr harford - 11-10-2012

A[quote name="Zhukov" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/300#post_3420154"]Thought it was fantastic until they actually get to Skyfall. "Every NATO agent in the World is in danger, and its up to M, Mr Bond and an elderly groundskeeper to save the day with whacky hijinx!" Yeah, scope got zeroed in waaaay too much.


China looked amazing and unsettling futuristic, with the best action scene. JMW Turner, thats my dawg. Saw the film with a real live Englishman, he quite enjoyed everything set in the Tubes.



 
[/quote]

I guess I just have very different expectations from Bond. I loved the closing scope, and the intimate nature of the final battle. I'd not have traded it for some sort of crazy escapade for anything. Many of the books end the same way, with one on one stakes and a confined location in which things play out.

Plenty of the world's best action films have third acts like this film. I really don't understand why it would be a problem for Bond other than "people have gotten used to exploding venetian houses even in serious character pieces like Casino Royale".


- laurenortega - 11-10-2012

He's not really making valid criticisms though.

And I don't like The Dark Knight Rises either.




- slim - 11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

If you think the movie is about Bond having to save M, you've missed the point of the movie. Bond having to save M is the engine that drives the plot. The movie is about what price must these people pay for the life they have chosen. What is the cost of "getting the job done"?

Bingo. Saving M is the MacGuffin of SKYFALL-- which, I guess, makes the agent list a sort of sub-MacGuffin (and, again, I wish they'd done more with that story thread).

But Judas had it right several posts back: this is yet another Bond origin movie. It's all about getting him where he needs to be. It's a mite tedious at this point, since we're six years into Craig's run now-- but almost everything else in the movie is pretty much incidental.

I hasten to add that this does not diminish SKYFALL much in my eyes-- only that I'd have preferred something like it had been made instead of QUANTUM OF SOLACE.




- Rene (Mr.Eko) - 11-10-2012

During Brosnan's run I totally thought they were setting up Colin Salmon to take the reins of Bond. It seemed so logical and right.




- chrknudsen - 11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

I'm sure it was discussed. And I'm sure Connery said, "Go fuck yourshelve."

Worked gangbusters for Jackman's cameo in X-Men: First Class!




- dr harford - 11-10-2012

A[quote name="MrSaxon" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/300#post_3420180"]
I'm glad this didn't happen. I actually agree with what Sam Mendes said about considering Connery for that role.
[/quote]

I only wish he'd applied this same logic to the fourth wall breaking discussion of the ejector seat (M apparently knowing all about the button, ETC).

That moment ripped me out of the film. I hated it.


- dr harford - 11-10-2012

A[quote name="Slim" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/300#post_3420185"]
This here is my main problem with SKYFALL. Six years and three movies into Craig's run and we're still doing "Bond Begins". If something like SKYFALL had come on the heels of CASINO ROYALE, I'd be a lot happier with it-- instead I'm just more irritated by what a waste of goddamn time QUANTUM OF SOLACE is.
[/quote]

This isn't really Bond Begins so much as Bond reborn, which was a feature of You Only Live Twice and Man with the Golden Gun, some of the final Bond novels. Craig mentions those books as inspirations for how to approach the character in this movie.


- sebastian ob - 11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odo19 View Post

lol, poor TCD. Taking tons of shit for making valid criticisms about a awful movie. This is almost an exact replay of Mcnooj in the TDKR thread. Or anyone who criticized the movie in the TDKR thread actually.

Get out while you can!

I guess so if you call spectacularly missing the point of the film a valid criticism.

I'm also guessing you guys labeling the movie "awful" will get even more piled on in this thread because this movie is far better than THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and you are so erroneously wrong. Just a guess.




- dr harford - 11-10-2012

A[quote name="The Dark Shape" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/300#post_3420221"]And yet the character is written to be Connery at every turn. If you're not going to get Connery, change the character.[/quote]

Connery never occurred to me, and I was able to view the character on his own terms.