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


- mr. stockslivevan - 11-14-2012

AThe whole neon/glass room felt like something out of a Hitchcock film. SKYFALL really feels old school in that regard, more thriller than action which is what Bond should be. A Bond film targeted for adults instead of teens, and look how that's paying off.


- carnotaur3 - 11-14-2012

I was definitely getting Rear Window vibes during that scene.

When that credits sequence popped up in the film I knew I was in for a great movie. It just fucking clicked! I was smiling so wide in the theater.




- mr. stockslivevan - 11-14-2012

A
Quote:[VIDEO]http://vimeo.com/53442121[/VIDEO]


I hope EON learns after CR and SF to never replace Daniel Kleinman, no matter what director insists on bringing his own crew. Kleinman has done such an excellent job with SF. I think he went a bit too absurd with TND, TWINE and DAD mostly because the women did those silly moves he had them perform, I forget what that style was called but it was tacky. Still, I admired how he would incorporate visual elements as motifs of the films' theme and plot. It's very relieving to have Kleinman back, especially after MK12's title sequence for QOS being a whole lot of nothing.


- pbar - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post


I thought it was very clever how the reflections were used to generate tension. Usually people are hiding in shadow. The whole film is constructed of action beats we may have seen before in other places, but presented in ways that make them seem fresh and vital.


Arguably my favorite scene in the film. No dialoge at all during the Shanghai sequence, and the cinematography is just gorgeous. Deakins really was having a ball.




- smugbug - 11-15-2012

Definitely one of the best looking Bond films ever.  Deakins is a God of a Cinematographer.  Pure and simple.   Loved this movie and definitely seeing it again.

Bardem is such a powerhouse.  I noticed how he stayed in character as he's chucking grenades into the house.  He did this little twist with his wrist.  So subtle - so brilliant. And his death scene - awesome.  He was just soooo annoyed and pissed.  Also noticed how Ralph Fiennes is starting to resemble Peter Cushing; especially in profile. And Ben Whishaw as Q?  Brilliant.  So many brilliant moments.

This movie is a fucking joy to watch.




- MrSaxon - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

I am fine now with the gun barrel at the end. I think it needs to be at the end from this point forward. They had a chance to move it to the beginning with Skyfall and chose not to. Bond is no longer "beginning", he's begun, and the gun barrel is where it is. Let's hope it is there to stay.

I feel like Artax drowning in the swamp of sadness reading this. Out of everyone on these boards, I figured you and Mr. Stockslivevan would be with me on fighting for it to return to the beginning (as you both seem to be the biggest Bond fans), Doc. Don't let me down!




- s.d. bob plissken - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

I'd love for M to threaten to assign a different 00 to the next mission. It's a feature of the books, and a key part of Bond's character. The second he slips or starts to slow down, he knows his replacement is waiting in the wings.

Ah yes, the still unseen 008 (William Timothy)!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

I feel like Artax drowning in the swamp of sadness reading this. Out of everyone on these boards, I figured you and Mr. Stockslivevan would be with me on fighting for it to return to the beginning (as you both seem to be the biggest Bond fans), Doc. Don't let me down!

I would prefer it return to the beginning as well.




- jhp1608 - 11-15-2012

A[quote name="Mr. Stockslivevan" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/750#post_3423481"]
I hope EON learns after CR and SF to never replace Daniel Kleinman, no matter what director insists on bringing his own crew. Kleinman has done such an excellent job with SF. I think he went a bit too absurd with TND, TWINE and DAD mostly because the women did those silly moves he had them perform, I forget what that style was called but it was tacky. Still, I admired how he would incorporate visual elements as motifs of the films' theme and plot. It's very relieving to have Kleinman back, especially after MK12's title sequence for QOS being a whole lot of nothing.[/quote]

Just noticed that after Bond goes down the plug hole and the bleeding targets appear there's a naked drowned woman who looks an awful lot like Vesper. Nice touch.


- MrSaxon - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post

Ah yes, the still unseen 008 (William Timothy)!

I would prefer it return to the beginning as well.

Oops. I missed out the guy who has been diligently writing up Bond articles for the main site in my list of big Bond fans. Apologies Bob!




- s.d. bob plissken - 11-15-2012

None necessary, good sir.




- parker - 11-15-2012

So, I'm a bit amazed that I loved this so much. A James Bond movie, one of my favorites of the years? Directed by Sam Mendes??? Whaaaaaaaaaat?

At times, I worried Skyfall was trying to do too much at once; a simultaneous regression and progression, a 50th anniversary homage tour and a defense of the franchise, of its very existence as a movie (put into a-touch-too literal context during M's inquisition sequence, but how fun was it waiting for Bardem to show up behind her, ready to blow her away?). 

The most amazing thing about Skyfall is how it manages to do all of this in a wonderful self-aware style without climbing up its own ass or ribbing you too hard in the elbows. I love how weak Bond is in this and I was 100% more invested in the character at the very suggestion that he wasn't up for handling all the action. I've heard a few people complain about the old, grizzled Bond sits in direct contrast with the fresh, new Bond we were being set up for in Craig's last two outings. To that I say, who cares? It's very much besides the point. The old, outdated Bond speaks more to the series, and to England, and to the type of work Bond is doing than anything else. But having him weakened makes him so much more human, which allows you to invest in him so much more. He's still an unstoppable super-spy (dropping through a frozen lake in the middle of a Scotland night and not even a touch of the shakes, eh Bond?) but at least when he's struggling to hang on to a Shanghai elevator for a thousand floors, it allows for a touch more suspense. I loved how silent that sequence was in general. And I loved how it was shot.

And that's the other thing. This movie is gorgeous. The Scotland stuff is especially beautiful, particularly when Skyfall is set ablaze against the sky in the background. 

I just loved how the movie pulls Bond (and the franchise) apart piece by piece only to reestablish itself in the end, firmly. The most satisfying, comforting feeling imaginable from a Bond movie, which is strange, because although I like the series, I"m not a fanatic like some of you guys. But it is comforting to know that JAMES BOND WILL RETURN (love that we got that right away after the gun barrel finale).




- MrSaxon - 11-15-2012

Glad you enjoyed it, man!

Despite all of the great things in this movie, the scene I think about most is Bond running through the traffic whilst M reads Tennyson's Ulysses. It worked much better than any loud, exciting rock music could have done. Then again, I'm an English Lit grad...




- sebastian ob - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

Despite all of the great things in this movie, the scene I think about most is Bond running through the traffic whilst M reads Tennyson's Ulysses. It worked much better than any loud, exciting rock music could have done. Then again, I'm an English Lit grad...

Eh, I could have done without that bit. It felt too cribbed from Chris Nolan. I liked SKYFALL best when it deviated from the Nolan playbook Mendes was clearly referencing.




- MrSaxon - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

Eh, I could have done without that bit. It felt too cribbed from Chris Nolan. I liked SKYFALL best when it deviated from the Nolan playbook Mendes was clearly referencing.

Pah. I sentence you to six years of T.S Elliot, sir!




- sebastian ob - 11-15-2012

I meant more the editing style in which it was delivered. Elliot is a fine writer. Didn't he write one of the expanded universe STAR WARS novels?




- MrSaxon - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

I meant more the editing style in which it was delivered. Elliot is a fine writer. Didn't he write one of the expanded universe STAR WARS novels?

You're absolutely right. He co-wrote the awesome STAR WARS novel "Ghosts Of The Wasteland" with some dude called Charles Dickens, I think.




- schwartz - 11-15-2012

Probably my favorite Bond (low bar, as I'm with Lauren in finding most of the series dumb as toast).  Just fucking gorgeous throughout, and great stuff from Craig, Bardem and Dench.  I was a tiny bit put off by how the movie was simultaneously an "old Bond gets his groove back" picture and a "Bond Begins" story.  Silva just shooting his way into the hearing did feel a little pedestrian, and the references and elbow-nudging were not to my taste (could've done without the DB5 entirely, much less the completely misplaced ejector seat call out), but it would have been worth it for the Hong Kong sequence alone.  It didn't leave me hungry for more, though, as having enjoyed the Craig films more for how they eschewed the formula, the promise of returning to it was less than tantalizing.




- MrSaxon - 11-15-2012

It's interesting how many people still see this movie as part of the Bond Begins storyline featured in Craig's previous two entries. If anything, I'd say Skyfall was more MI6 Begins, as Craig's Bond is quite clearly fully formed at the beginning of the movie. I think Mr S put it right earlier in the thread where he declared it a Bond Getting His Groove Back movie.




- sebastian ob - 11-15-2012

I think too much is being made about this being another "Bond Begins". CASINO ROYALE was "Bond Begins", this is just putting a few of the old familiar elements in place because, why not? I don't think having a Moneypenny in the new Bondverse means "now he's Bond!" or that suddenly we're going to have invisible cars and space lasers. I feel like they're putting things back in with the intent of having an organic use for them, rather than just for the sake of formula.




- carnotaur3 - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

Elliot is a fine writer. Didn't he write one of the expanded universe STAR WARS novels?

Only the best ones.




- schwartz - 11-15-2012

It's both Bond Begins and Gets His Groove Back.  It's weird that Bond is essentially facing retirement while MI6 is in these nascent stages, and both end the movie looking forward...to the status quo from 40 years ago?  It's to Mendes and co.'s credit the extent to which this actually works, but it's a strange beast in that it feels in many ways like a thoroughly modern prequel to a series of movies set in the 60s.

Putting Moneypenney back in isn't the half of it.  There's also establishing a new Q, a new M, the classic-style headquarters and really tonally off winking stuff with the Aston Martin (compared to the nicely oblique "shaken, not stirred" moment).




- sebastian ob - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Putting Moneypenney back in isn't the half of it.  There's also establishing a new Q, a new M, the classic-style headquarters and really tonally off winking stuff with the Aston Martin (compared to the nicely oblique "shaken, not stirred" moment).

I'll be really surprised if we see the classic style HQ or the Aston Martin (it did get destroyed, after all) in the next film. I think those were tips of the hat for the sake of Bond's 50th, nothing more.




- Nooj - 11-15-2012

All of Craig's movies seem to change the general decor of MI6 (though I don't think we see it in Casino Royale).  In Quantum, the place looked like an Apple Store or something.




- mr. stockslivevan - 11-15-2012

AAs I said, the Bond Begins thing doesn't apply because Bond throughout this film is already a professional veteran 00 agent. He has grown up a lot since the last adventure we saw him in, no longer being overly impulsive, arrogant and making dumb mistakes. If this were a continuation of Bond Begins he would have smashed his way through the glass doors after Patrice half cocked. Craig finally plays a fully formed 007 here. As others said, it's just all the other elements finally being introduced, transitioning from the Vauxhall Cross era to the familiar Regents Park setting.


- schwartz - 11-15-2012

Right, so much of it is about settling back into the familiar.  I'm not talking about Bond's character, but the overall feel of the film.

Whether it's for the 50th or whatever, there's something off about a movie that is so much about looking backward (both through emphasis on Bond's increasing decrepitude and the toll of his/M's actions over time, and broad winks to the series' history) that it feels weird to end on the note of "that's everything in place!  Next Mission!"




- agracru - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Right, so much of it is about settling back into the familiar.  I'm not talking about Bond's character, but the overall feel of the film.

Whether it's for the 50th or whatever, there's something off about a movie that is so much about looking backward (both through emphasis on Bond's increasing decrepitude and the toll of his/M's actions over time, and broad winks to the series' history) that it feels weird to end on the note of "that's everything in place!  Next Mission!"

Fair point, but at the same time I think the movie ends in a way that honors that entire "looking backwards" approach. When the film ends, it has actually traveled backwards and left us in a familiar place with Bond, one where it can comfortably stop gazing at Bond's inner workings as a character and as a man and get us back to the delights of the older Bond films. For me, the acknowledgment of the 50th anniversary coupled with the "James Bond will return" quote suggests that we're now going to get back to the womanizing, exploding pen-wielding Bond, which I'm totally happy with (even though I liked seeing the Craig deconstruction of the character).




- mr. stockslivevan - 11-15-2012

AProbably, on a more modern note. But it would be fun to see a Craig film more jovial and for once not play with the "this time it's personal, again" mantra that has been done three straight films in a row (five if you count Brosnan's latter two entries). There's nothing wrong with returning to the formula if you have the right filmmakers behind it. Hopefully, EON doesn't cock that up.


- Nooj - 11-15-2012

I can't see Craig as jovial... particularly as he's getting older.  I think the films can strike a balance with jovial while holding onto Craig's sensibility.  Have the wry/sly stuff pop up here and there, but not take over the performance.




- mr. stockslivevan - 11-15-2012

A[quote name="mcnooj82" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/750#post_3423772"]I can't see Craig as jovial... particularly as he's getting older.  I think the films can strike a balance with jovial while holding onto Craig's sensibility.  Have the wry/sly stuff pop up here and there, but not take over the performance.
[/quote]

Wasn't talking about Craig, I mean a more jovial film. A lighthearted entry for Craig. He can still play Bond fairly the same as he did in SF, without the drunk/disillusioned/pill popping parts.


- schwartz - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post

Fair point, but at the same time I think the movie ends in a way that honors that entire "looking backwards" approach. When the film ends, it has actually traveled backwards and left us in a familiar place with Bond, one where it can comfortably stop gazing at Bond's inner workings as a character and as a man and get us back to the delights of the older Bond films. For me, the acknowledgment of the 50th anniversary coupled with the "James Bond will return" quote suggests that we're now going to get back to the womanizing, exploding pen-wielding Bond, which I'm totally happy with (even though I liked seeing the Craig deconstruction of the character).

And again, it seems strange to go back to that version of Bond, when Skyfall puts so much emphasis on Bond as over-the-hill.  It feels like a regression.

I don't want to seem like I'm harping on this, because my point is that the movie actually navigates this weird territory fairly deftly.  And my view is also colored by having no real affection for the classic formula.




- stelios - 11-15-2012

Casino Royale was New Bond Begins. I would call this Old Bond Begins. They got the Bourne out of their system and they're after something of their own.




- dr harford - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

I feel like Artax drowning in the swamp of sadness reading this. Out of everyone on these boards, I figured you and Mr. Stockslivevan would be with me on fighting for it to return to the beginning (as you both seem to be the biggest Bond fans), Doc. Don't let me down!

I thought a lot about this late last night after reading your post. Here is what I decided:

After the "book end" Gun Barrels in Casino Royale and Quantum, there existed a window to move the gun barrel back up front for the film Mendes and Craig called a "Bond movie with a capital B". They chose not to. For better or worse, the convention is now that the films will end with the gun barrel rather than begin with it. While I might have a fondness for the old style approach, I think now it's too late to change. If you have the gun barrel up front for Bond 24, it's only going to seem disharmonious in the context of Craig's other films. Why one way on one film, and a different way on the next? It draws attention to itself and only makes it seem as if the producers decided putting it at the end was a "wrong" approach and now are taking measures to correct that. If that happens, every time we watch Quantum or Skyfall, we'll think that the gun barrel at the end is a mistake, a flaw in the film. Better to just accept that we have a new convention for the time being. When Craig leaves, moving the gun barrel up front could be a good way to signal that change and differentiate the next actor's tenure. For now though, I think we need to stick with the status quo... which isn't all bad.

What are the advantages? It's a damn punchy way to end a Bond movie, and it's proven to be versatile in application thus far. Whether or not it follows a somber shot of a necklace in the snow, or a rousing line delivery ("With pleasure, M. With pleasure"), it's a great way to give a jolt of energy to the end of a Bond movie, and send audiences out on a high note, a way to remind people that James Bond Will Return.

Now keep in mind I think Mendes was spot on in his praise for the gun barrel being used at the top of the film. He says the moment the gun barrel happens after the studio logos is "like christmas" because in that moment, "anything is possible". This sums up my own feelings on the gun barrel perfectly. Whatever happens next, you know James Bond will be there, and that's exciting.

However the lack of gun barrel up top has opened interesting possibilities that never before existed at the start of a Bond movie.

The gun barrel, when it fades out to the circle wipe, seems to always go to a static or panning establishing shot of a location. The few times this has not been the case (TWINE, when the wipe revealed Bond crossing the street), people have actively complained.

Without the need to make a graceful transition / wipe from the white circle, you open up the possibilities for opening the film. Quantum has an elegant helicopter shot zooming across a lake, and Skyfall has a cool hallway shot of Bond slowly walking into focus. Neither of these openers would have been possible without the elimination of the gun barrel up front. Instead the reveal of Bond (whether with elemental glimpses of his car, or Craig's flinty eyes in Quantum, or Bond materializing before our eyes in Skyfall) now has taken on increased significance without our first image of Bond in the movie being him walking in a tux against a white background.

So I think while we loose a cool tradition, we gain storytelling possibilities (cold opens, Miami Vice theatrical cut style are now an option when they never would have been before). So all in all I think the Craig gun barrel status quo is fine for now.




- dr harford - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

All of Craig's movies seem to change the general decor of MI6 (though I don't think we see it in Casino Royale).  In Quantum, the place looked like an Apple Store or something.

The touch screen table / scanner was one of the coolest parts of Quantum though. That is what I want to see as far as Bond gadgets in the 21st century. Tech we know exists, just maybe five more years down the line from what's available at the consumer level. That table was boss.




- MrSaxon - 11-15-2012

I tried to think of a good counter-argument to what you've written, Doc, but have to admit that your points are well thought out, and that your reasoning for those points is quite sound. I do very much want the gun barrel sequence to return to the beginning, but perhaps it would be best if that waited until the next actor stepped up to play Bond. Unless someone else can counter your points with an equally capable argument, I (unexpectedly) find myself agreeing with you.




- dr harford - 11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

I tried to think of a good counter-argument to what you've written, Doc, but have to admit that your points are well thought out, and that your reasoning for those points is quite sound. I do very much want the gun barrel sequence to return to the beginning, but perhaps it would be best if that waited until the next actor stepped up to play Bond. Unless someone else can counter your points with an equally capable argument, I (unexpectedly) find myself agreeing with you.

I'm honored to hear you think I made a good case for my position. If Michael Fassbender's first Bond film* had the gun barrel back up front, I'd be just as happy as you would be.

*he's my choice for who should follow in Craig's footsteps.