What's new

Blu-ray Review Skyfall Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Richard--W said:
I agree, wholeheartedly. He's an anti-hero now, like Dirty Harry and Paul Kersey only worse because the scenarios contrive to make him responsible for the deaths or women and the loss of his own moral compass. Bond's behavior has gotten ugly in the last three films. SKYFALL makes a point of showing us that Bond fails to protect anybody and screws up everything he tries to do. The newer, younger audience does not make these distinctions and is not the least perturbed by Bond throwing the body of a fellow agent in the dumpster or joking about a woman who has been murdered. They really have taken the James Bond out of 007, haven't they.
I can certainly see your point. The Bond of the novels suffered a lot. For example, in the movie version of From Russia with Love, he escapes getting hit with the poison shoe tip, but in the novel, he DOES get hit, and winds up being hospitalized for a long time because of it. However, despite being battered and bruised in the novels, he always succeeds. In Skyfall, he ultimately fails. Is a character who fails really James Bond, or some other character with some of Bond's characteristics? I think I prefer Connery's 60s Bond. By the time You Only Live Twice was made, the movies had gotten a bit silly, but the character hadn't been changed too much. Now he has.
 

larryKR

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
147
I think the theme in Skyfall is about the resurrection of James Bond. Daniel Craig's Bond has indeed been sour with failed missions, self doubt, and losing loved ones. He has gone through hell in his last three films, but Skyfall ends with a refreshed Bond ready to start anew.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
larryKR said:
I think the theme in Skyfall is about the resurrection of James Bond. Daniel Craig's Bond has indeed been sour with failed missions, self doubt, and losing loved ones. He has gone through hell in his last three films, but Skyfall ends with a refreshed Bond ready to start anew.
That would seem to imply that the next film will show a "new" Bond who's really the "old" Bond--confident and successful. Somehow, I doubt that's what the filmmakers will go for.
 

Nelson Au

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
19,040
I left Skyfall with the same thought, the character is supposed to be finally fully realized at the end. He lets go of everything, the car, his home and M. He starts fresh and new. But yes, is that going to be the Bond we love and know? Or some new character? I agree, I doubt Wilson and Barbara are going to let the series go back to the Bond of the 60's. In looking at the Skyfall blu ray, I saw one of the extras where Wilson says just what I thought they were after, the character lets go of the past so he can start a new. But the new sure looks like the old with the new M in the office that looks a lot like Bernard Lee's. Regarding the blu ray extras, for some reason, I was under the impression that there would have been included a segment about what they did to create a replica Aston Martin that they destroyed in the film. I was curious about how they did that. I guess it's not a part of the extras.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,328
Originally Posted by RobertR
That would seem to imply that the next film will show a "new" Bond who's really the "old" Bond--confident and successful. Somehow, I doubt that's what the filmmakers will go for.
I dunno. They seem to have set up the series as a prequel trilogy of sorts, as "Skyfall" essentially brings us to the Bond of "Dr. No" - maybe still a little before that, but all the components are in place. I suspect the Craig Bond will always be darker than earlier ones - sign of the times and all that - but I think they'll more actively embrace the suave, confident Bond that we used to know...
 

MattAlbie60

I Work for Mr. E. H. Harriman of the Union Pacific
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
561
Location
Baltimore, Maryland
Real Name
Stephen Lilley
RobertR said:
That would seem to imply that the next film will show a "new" Bond who's really the "old" Bond--confident and successful. Somehow, I doubt that's what the filmmakers will go for.
With the ending of SKYFALL, I don't see how you can take it as anything other than "He's THAT James Bond again, starting now." I find it really confusing that the people who are so opposed to Craig's portrayal of Bond as "not the Bond we know and love" fail to realize that that was kind of the point. James Bond had an honest to goodness character arc. He's finally three dimensional again (some would argue for the first time). Craig's Bond can presumably BECOME the Old Bond, now having actually earned it. Why does James Bond have to be purely pop fun escapism? Can't he also be, you know, interesting?
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
MattAlbie60 said:
With the ending of SKYFALL, I don't see how you can take it as anything other than "He's THAT James Bond again, starting now."
I saw nothing at the end of Skyfall that compels the filmmakers to portray a suave, confident, successful Bond. All we really have is a new M and the introduction of the Moneypenny character. How does "suave, confident, successful" emerge from failure?
I find it really confusing that the people who are so opposed to Craig's portrayal of Bond as "not the Bond we know and love" fail to realize that that was kind of the point. James Bond had an honest to goodness character arc. He's finally three dimensional again (some would argue for the first time). Craig's Bond can presumably BECOME the Old Bond, now having actually earned it.
That confuses me. You sound as if you don't like the Old Bond because he wasn't "three dimensional", but now you anticipate him becoming that Old character you didn't like?
 

Steve Tannehill

R.I.P - 4.28.2015
Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Jul 6, 1997
Messages
5,547
Location
DFW
Real Name
Steve Tannehill
Ted Van Duyn said:
Doesn't Bond have a genuine Aston Martin in the Bahamas?
He won one in a card game in Casino Royale...but he could have had it shipped back to England so it was there for Skyfall.
 

Tommy R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
2,155
Real Name
Tommy
Here are ways Bond HAS NOT failed in the Craig films: 1. He successfully killed the two guys in the beginning of CR (in effect getting his OO status). 2. Bond killed the bomb-maker, in effect leading him to the bomb plot at Miami airport, which he then foiled. 3. He beat le Chiffre at cards (it's Vesper's fault that the money ended up going to the Quantum orginization anyways). 4. He foiled Dominic Greene's plot in QoS and leaned "everything" he knew about Quantum (we aren't told what MI6 does iwth this info, but I assume they've benifited from it). 5. He distracted Silva enough in SF, and ended up killing him, which probably saved the lives of the rest of the undercover agents from the stolen hard drive.
 

MattAlbie60

I Work for Mr. E. H. Harriman of the Union Pacific
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
561
Location
Baltimore, Maryland
Real Name
Stephen Lilley
RobertR said:
I saw nothing at the end of Skyfall that compels the filmmakers to portray a suave, confident, successful Bond. All we really have is a new M and the introduction of the Moneypenny character. How does "suave, confident, successful" emerge from failure?
Almost everything in the entire sequence. The production design of the office. The return of the traditional gun barrel. The fact that M is male again, and that Moneypenny exists at all. The closing lines of the movie are literally: M: "Are you ready to get back to work, 007?" Bond: "With pleasure, sir. With pleasure." "Classic Bond" elements that were previously excluded from the Craig films have intentionally come roaring back. It's everyone involved screaming "HE'S BACK!" as loud as they possibly can. There's absolutely no other way to take it. How does "suave, confident, successful" emerge from failure? Think about what he's learned from the failures that he's experienced across CASINO ROYALE, QUANTUM OF SOLACE and SKYFALL. Think about what losing Vesper and mother figure M would do to him. What did these women represent, and what is going to happen to him now that they're gone?
That confuses me. You sound as if you don't like the Old Bond because he wasn't "three dimensional", but now you anticipate him becoming that Old character you didn't like?
I like Old Bond just fine. My point is that now he can be Old Bond and yet have this road that he traveled to get there. The portrayal of the character isn't just a given. It was developed. It has a context. An explanation. Showing a kind of Proto-Bondian Bond has always been what these movies were about. It's no surprise that CASINO ROYALE has been referred to as "Bond Begins" for years. And I'll ask again: why does Bond have to be limited to pure escapism? Why isn't he allowed to arc? Why does he have to be perfect?
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
MattAlbie60 said:
Think about what losing Vesper and mother figure M would do to him. What did these women represent, and what is going to happen to him now that they're gone?
The filmmakers can choose to say "now that he no longer has mommy M, he'll be a mature, suave, successful agent with the 'right' attitude towards women". Or they can choose not to. Troubled antihero Bond seems to be someone they like to portray (and is making money for them).
And I'll ask again: why does Bond have to be limited to pure escapism? Why isn't he allowed to arc? Why does he have to be perfect?
I'll ask why does the choice have to be limited to the immature, failure-prone antihero Bond of the Craig films and the smirking Superman Bond? The Bond of the Fleming novels always succeeded (the early Connery films were the closest representation), but he was hardly "perfect". In Moonraker, he doesn't get the girl. In From Russia with Love, he's poisoned and spends months recuperating in agony. After the death of his wife in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, he descends into alcoholism before pulling out of it. After losing his memory in You Only Live Twice, he's brainwashed by the Russians in The Man with the Golden Gun and attempts to assassinate M. Through it all, however, he was very much a hero with zero "mommy" issues. Why these filmmakers chose to go the antihero route with M as his "mother", I'll never know.
 

MattAlbie60

I Work for Mr. E. H. Harriman of the Union Pacific
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
561
Location
Baltimore, Maryland
Real Name
Stephen Lilley
Because it's interesting and multi-dimensional? For the record, I'm talking about the effects of suffering two huge losses, not just that he's now unencumbered by "mommy M."
 

Richard--W

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
3,527
Real Name
Richard W
I'm sorry MattAlbie60 but I cannot take your interpretation seriously. The notion of giving James Bond a mother -- especially a shrieking hysteric like Judi Dench -- and an arc that follows a man in his forties as if he starts out as an adolescent is preposterous. If just one of those things is true, they are not really James Bond films. They're something else. Some kind of quack-pot hybrid. It is disingenuous to apply the name of an establish creative concept and proven franchise to a subversion and a DNA change. They're trying to make money off a creative concept that they are not delivering. The fact that the three films have been successful is disheartening. The producers should have had the integrity and the decency to change the names. CASINO ROYALE was a slovenly and neurotic mess, crippled by political correctness and gender deconstruction. Daniel Craig has been a ridiculous James Bond. His three films are about the humiliation of the character, nothing else. Who needs Bloefeld to try and kill James Bond when you've got Daniel Craig and the Broccoli kids. The action and style helps the medicine go down for the mass audience, who are not critical and who don't have the same investment in the franchise that some of us do.
de832a87_StopOrMyMomWillShoot.jpg
 

Sam Favate

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
12,948
Real Name
Sam Favate
Richard, please stop. We get that you're not satisfied with the direction the films have taken. But saying "[background=rgb(249, 249, 251); color: rgb(24, 24, 24); font-family: verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: normal;]The action and style helps the medicine go down for the mass audience, who are not critical and who don't have the same investment in the franchise that some of us do" is very insulting for those of us who have been fans of the series for decades, have owned the films on every form of home entertainment (several of which aren't even made anymore) and happen to appreciate the Craig films.[/font]
No one is telling you to like the films. Just let it go.
 

Todd J Moore

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
693
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Real Name
Todd Moore
If Bond "fails" in Casino Royale, put the blame on Fleming, as those are pretty much the events in the novel. In fact, the movie is surprisingly faithful to the novel. I would argue that this Bond fails no more than any other prior incarnation.The series has had a series of "victims"--aides to Bond who ended up killed--from Quarrel in Dr. No on. I look at Severine as just the latest one. True, they've all been women in Craig's films and that should be changed. But then again, from Goldfinger to Moonraker was mostly women also. Our man on the spot Henderson was one of the rare male victims in You Only Live Twice, which also killed off Aki.
 

Albert_M

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
532
I enjoyed the film, but at this point, reverting to the 60s formula would feel fresher than continuing to ape the Bourne and Nolan Batman films
Bond movies tend to have some reflection of their time, whether it be 60s cold war, the various and obvious genres that 70s Bond films went into.... 80s Miami Vice, 90s Micheal Bey cartoons and post 9/11 darker stuff. It will be interesting to see one though next that's not a set up or biography or involves an ex agent.
 

Todd J Moore

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
693
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Real Name
Todd Moore
I would like to see an old fashioned OO7 saves the world film for the next one. Ever since License to Kill, every entry in the series has been "personal" for Bond. Perhaps a return to Roger Moore would not be such a bad idea at that.
 

MattAlbie60

I Work for Mr. E. H. Harriman of the Union Pacific
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
561
Location
Baltimore, Maryland
Real Name
Stephen Lilley
Sam Favate said:
No one is telling you to like the films. Just let it go.
Seriously. James Bond isn't going anywhere. You don't like these movies? That's alright. Watch the ones you do like while you wait for the next guy to roll around. It's as easy as that. I've been doing it with SUPERMAN movies for decades now :)
 

Richard--W

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
3,527
Real Name
Richard W
Sam Favate, I'm just responding in the discussion. I don't ask that you agree.
Todd J Moore said:
If Bond "fails" in Casino Royale, put the blame on Fleming, as those are pretty much the events in the novel. In fact, the movie is surprisingly faithful to the novel. ...i.
That's not so. Analyze it. Break it down like a scriptwriter and director do. The external events are more or less the same, up to a point, but internally, the motivations and subtext are changed and given a different meaning, willfully subverted into the opposite of Fleming's intentions. It is not a faithful adaptation by any means. As for the advice of letting go of the franchise, I have done that, and said so in posts above.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,551
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top