RE: Skyfall

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: Skyfall

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Skyfall

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 7:21:05 PM

Private Hudson

Posts: 1720
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

I think the Craig Bond era has run out of steam. Anyone notice this...?

Casino Royale - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Skyfall - Bond breaks into M's flat, she is shocked.

Same scene repeated. Repetition of the loose cannon Bond.

Probably the most desperate criticism I've heard so far, and considering that includes Private Hudson and Cool Breeze posting about Bond that's saying something.

I suppose you've conveniently forgotten how two of your precious Roger Moore films had the EXACT same chase scene (with the riverboats)? So there you go. So desperate and ran out of steam. And in his first two films as well.

Thanks! I wouldn't call my criticism desperate. Indeed I did say I enjoyed it, but it wasn't a 5 star movie and, for me, it wasn't really much of a Bond film. I have said it before and will again, I tried to give Daniel Craig the benefit of the doubt, but he just isn't Bond. He can't handle the humour and certainly isn't suave or debonair. He looks and acts like a labourer.

Oh so if you have two car chases and two boat chases then they are identical? More Moore bashing. It is all cyclical anyway. In a few years time someone else will be Bond and Craig will be like Brosnan (who was once feted as the best Bond since Connery).

If you want the Bond of the books, go read the books. The cinematic Bond is far more appealing and interesting. As I have said before, if they go back to the 007 of the books, I believe the franchise will go belly up. The cinematic Bond is laced with more humour, wit and charm.

I actually thought when I watched the scene in Skyfall M was going to reference Bond breaking into her flat in Casino Royale, but she didn't. I thought that was the whole point i.e. in CR she threatened him, but in SF she was pleased to see him.

Anyway, anyone know what happened to the hard drive with all the names of the undercover agents?

_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to matty_b)

Post #: 241

RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 7:25:52 PM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18881
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

I actually thought when I watched the scene in Skyfall M was going to reference Bond breaking into her flat in Casino Royale, but she didn't. I thought that was the whole point i.e. in CR she threatened him, but in SF she was pleased to see him.

I know this is pointless...but, that is exactly the point. Did you really need the film to flash up with big neon signs saying "REMEMBER THIS BIT IN CASINO ROYALE??" - the point is that their relationship has changed.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to Private Hudson)

Post #: 242

RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 9:57:25 PM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

Anyway, anyone know what happened to the hard drive with all the names of the undercover agents?

It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men in a train. One man says "What's that package up there in the baggage rack?", and the other answers, "Oh, that's a McGuffin". The first one asks "What's a McGuffin?" "Well", the other man says, "It's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands". The first man says, "But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands", and the other one answers, "Well, then that's no McGuffin!" So you see, a McGuffin is nothing at all.

(in reply to Private Hudson)

Post #: 243

RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 10:05:02 PM

manwihtheplan

Posts: 100
Joined: 11/9/2012

The opening shot of Skyfool - Bond, out of focus, walking into the shaft of light - doesn't compare to the iconic regular gun barrel opening of previous non-Craig James Bond films. The people making this film must be so deluded to think their opening was better than the Maurice Binder version. They can't even get the basics right!

< Message edited by manwihtheplan -- 4/11/2012 10:06:45 PM >

(in reply to adambatman82)

Post #: 244

RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 10:12:55 PM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18881
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

The opening shot of Skyfool - Bond, out of focus, walking into the shaft of light - doesn't compare to the iconic regular gun barrel opening of previous non-Craig James Bond films. The people making this film must be so deluded to think their opening was better than the Maurice Binder version. They can't even get the basics right!

Please stop it. Please stop. Stop, please.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 245

RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 10:19:56 PM

MonsterCat

Posts: 6208
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire

I tell you, if Eon just rested on their laurels, carried on with the same shit and didn't bother changing a fucking thing, you'd still see fanboys wailing and gnashing their teeth on message boards. Can't win either way.

_____________________________

C*** and mocker of board members since March, 2011

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Rgirvan44)

Post #: 246

RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 10:28:40 PM

Deviation

Posts: 26905
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

The opening shot of Skyfool - Bond, out of focus, walking into the shaft of light - doesn't compare to the iconic regular gun barrel opening of previous non-Craig James Bond films. The people making this film must be so deluded to think their opening was better than the Maurice Binder version. They can't even get the basics right!

You're rubbish.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 247

RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 10:38:27 PM

Ref

Posts: 7198
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Leicester

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

The opening shot of Skyfool - Bond, out of focus, walking into the shaft of light - doesn't compare to the iconic regular gun barrel opening of previous non-Craig James Bond films. The people making this film must be so deluded to think their opening was better than the Maurice Binder version. They can't even get the basics right!

It. Does. Not. Make. Sense. To. Have. That. Scene. At. The. Beginning.

Pray tell, have you even seen the film? Because if you have, then you know that it would not make sense to have the it at the beginning of the movie.

_____________________________

Viewers of a nervous disposition may be interested to know that your television is off and I am speaking to you from inside your head...

Hugh Dennis, Mock the Week

Icon created by the talented Gimli the Dwarf

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 248

RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 11:33:12 PM

jobloffski

Posts: 1837
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

The opening shot of Skyfool - Bond, out of focus, walking into the shaft of light - doesn't compare to the iconic regular gun barrel opening of previous non-Craig James Bond films. The people making this film must be so deluded to think their opening was better than the Maurice Binder version. They can't even get the basics right!

FFS

He wasn't 'focused' at the start. By the end he was himself again, the iconic figure the gun barrel sequence represents. That's why it was done the way it was, it's not the fault of the filmmakers setting out to tell a particular story, making decisions to suit that story, which make total logical sense, if people don't understand very very very basic film making techniques.

Or, indeed, if someone, for their own amusement, does understand basic film language and is just trying to piss people off, for some personal reason that makes sense only to them. You're not Pierce Brosnan, still pissed off about being dumped are you?

_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 249

RE: Skyfall - 4/11/2012 11:39:11 PM

musht

Posts: 1130
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

If you want the Bond of the books, go read the books. The cinematic Bond is far more appealing and interesting. As I have said before, if they go back to the 007 of the books, I believe the franchise will go belly up. The cinematic Bond is laced with more humour, wit and charm.

Well they have gone back to the 007 of the books and they've earned $287million in ten days, and it hasn't even opened in US yet. Take into account the critical acclaim and we're looking at on of the most successful Bond films ever if not THE most successful. So much for your belly up theory.

If you want a "far more appealing and interesting" Bond maybe you should just watch the old Moore films.

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

(in reply to Private Hudson)

Post #: 250

RE: Skyfall - 5/11/2012 6:56:22 AM

pythonlove

Posts: 20
Joined: 14/9/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

If you want the Bond of the books, go read the books. The cinematic Bond is far more appealing and interesting. As I have said before, if they go back to the 007 of the books, I believe the franchise will go belly up. The cinematic Bond is laced with more humour, wit and charm.

Well they have gone back to the 007 of the books and they've earned $287million in ten days, and it hasn't even opened in US yet. Take into account the critical acclaim and we're looking at on of the most successful Bond films ever if not THE most successful. So much for your belly up theory.

If you want a "far more appealing and interesting" Bond maybe you should just watch the old Moore films.

You do realize people pay on the way IN to the theatre and not when they leave. And if monetary success is everything then DIE ANOTHER DAY was the best Bond film up until 2002.

People should be allowed to not like this film - or at least, be disappointed that it doesn't feel Bondian enough.

I thought the plot was thin and the action was fairly mundane. For starters...

Three entire films to get Bond back to being himself. Wow. Will we get a proper Bond mission next time? Will he be allowed to move forward and do his job, or will they find more personal problems to torment him?

(in reply to musht)

Post #: 251

RE: Skyfall - 5/11/2012 8:27:28 AM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18881
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: pythonlove

quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

If you want the Bond of the books, go read the books. The cinematic Bond is far more appealing and interesting. As I have said before, if they go back to the 007 of the books, I believe the franchise will go belly up. The cinematic Bond is laced with more humour, wit and charm.

Well they have gone back to the 007 of the books and they've earned $287million in ten days, and it hasn't even opened in US yet. Take into account the critical acclaim and we're looking at on of the most successful Bond films ever if not THE most successful. So much for your belly up theory.

If you want a "far more appealing and interesting" Bond maybe you should just watch the old Moore films.

You do realize people pay on the way IN to the theatre and not when they leave. And if monetary success is everything then DIE ANOTHER DAY was the best Bond film up until 2002.

People should be allowed to not like this film - or at least, be disappointed that it doesn't feel Bondian enough.

I thought the plot was thin and the action was fairly mundane. For starters...

Three entire films to get Bond back to being himself. Wow. Will we get a proper Bond mission next time? Will he be allowed to move forward and do his job, or will they find more personal problems to torment him?

The week on week drop offs have not been the standard pattern for blockbusters which suggests good word of mouth, but I am sure you are right and everyone came out hating it.

What does Bondian mean? Chessy slightly sexist jokes?

Can someone present to me a list or define what Bondian means. Or are we just talking about Roger Moore films, which is the subtext I always feel is in these discussions?

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to pythonlove)

Post #: 252

RE: Skyfall - 5/11/2012 10:16:33 AM

tayles

Posts: 3
Joined: 19/12/2005

I enjoyed Skyfall, but it�s still not a patch on Casino Royale. Bardem is a hoot and the photography is great, but the plot is only so-so (isn't the action scene at Skyfall a big budget rip-off of Bourne 1..?) and the action is shot, directed and edited badly.

Martin Campbell understands that you need to �feel� the action. His fights are crunching and his chases thrilling. Mendes doesn�t seem to have what it takes to create this energy. When Bond is almost hit by a Tube train, it should be fairly simple to present it as an leg-jerking near-miss, but Mendes bodges it. You should almost feel that train clipping Bond�s heels, but he seems to leap to safety in some comfort. Similarly, the bike chase at the start should put us in the action more. It should have us right behind Bond, ducking the obstacles with him, feeling the speed and the peril. Instead, it�s just a static, slightly lifeless episode. We can see it�s supposed to be exciting and dangerous, but we can�t feel it.

Don�t get me wrong, it looks beautiful. The silhouetted fist fight, the attacking party shot from above as they advance on Skyfall: these are images that stay with you. It�s just not exciting enough. And that�s something you should never be able to say about a Bond film.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)

Post #: 253

RE: Skyfall - 5/11/2012 12:08:46 PM

musht

Posts: 1130
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: pythonlove

quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

If you want the Bond of the books, go read the books. The cinematic Bond is far more appealing and interesting. As I have said before, if they go back to the 007 of the books, I believe the franchise will go belly up. The cinematic Bond is laced with more humour, wit and charm.

Well they have gone back to the 007 of the books and they've earned $287million in ten days, and it hasn't even opened in US yet. Take into account the critical acclaim and we're looking at on of the most successful Bond films ever if not THE most successful. So much for your belly up theory.

If you want a "far more appealing and interesting" Bond maybe you should just watch the old Moore films.

You do realize people pay on the way IN to the theatre and not when they leave. And if monetary success is everything then DIE ANOTHER DAY was the best Bond film up until 2002.

People should be allowed to not like this film - or at least, be disappointed that it doesn't feel Bondian enough.

I thought the plot was thin and the action was fairly mundane. For starters...

Three entire films to get Bond back to being himself. Wow. Will we get a proper Bond mission next time? Will he be allowed to move forward and do his job, or will they find more personal problems to torment him?

The week on week drop offs have not been the standard pattern for blockbusters which suggests good word of mouth, but I am sure you are right and everyone came out hating it.

What does Bondian mean? Chessy slightly sexist jokes?

Can someone present to me a list or define what Bondian means. Or are we just talking about Roger Moore films, which is the subtext I always feel is in these discussions?

Pretty sure number 1 on the list would be the gun barrel scene at the BEGINNING of the movie.

I have no problem with people not liking this movie, I do have a problem with people claiming that their image of proper Bond is the right one (particularly when it's fucking Roger Moore) and that any attempt by the studios to deviate from that is sacrilege. I have a problem with people saying "f you want the Bond of the books, go read the books", it's not an argument, it's petulant and immature (I'm aware that wasn't you pythonlove), as I can (and did

) rebuttal "If you want Bond of the Moore films, go watch the Moore films".

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

(in reply to Rgirvan44)

Post #: 254

RE: Poor show - 5/11/2012 2:15:59 PM

porntrooper

Posts: 2497
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

I'm really baffled by some of the criticism of Skyfall. For me, it really is one of the best Bond films ever made. It's managed to retain the more grounded real world feel of Craig's previous outings whilst reintroducing the more classic Bond elements in a way that feels realistic and modern, rather than the cheesy and formulaic way the Brosnan films started to go. My only real issue with the film was it's score, which never really felt like a bond film, never had that orchestral feel that helped keep the Bond feel in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. I don't hate Thomas Newman's score, it's really good, but it feels odd for a Bond film, in the same way Eric Serra's or Michael Kamen's scores felt at odds with their respective films. Having said that, when Newman does bring the more traditional Bond musical cues it really does work. I just wanted more original themes that felt orchestral. A very minor criticism. I thought all the principal players were solid, I thought the action was directed well, although it felt like it needed maybe one more action beat somewhere (perhaps after SIlva's escape and before Bond and M go to Skyfall?). I cant really find much to fault, it's great.

Some of the usual Bond fan complaints that are being wheeled out (gun barrel placement, Craig's appearence etc) are largely pointless, as they dont really offer any critique of the film, and the film is most certainly 'Bond'. Craig nails the smarm and charm in a number of scenes, he gets the quips, we get a disfigured maniac madman with an island hideout, the tricked out Aston, fights in dragon pits, Moneypenny and Q. It has every 'Bond' element, only it treats them with a level of realism and seriousness that was never really around in the Moore and Brosnan era's. It's all the better for it. And still people complain Craig acts and looks like 'a larbourer'...... I'm not even sure what that fucking means. Simple fact is this, I dont know any woman that wouldn't happily come home every night from work to a man looking like Danial Craig in his Bond shape. Seriously, he's as suave and handsome as any previous Bond ever. There are a few shots of him as Bond (particularly as he stands by the Aston prior to the arrival at Skyfall) where he looks ace. I would kill to look as cool as he does! Those suits... c'mon?! Seriously, women love Craig as Bond. A quick poll of women in my immediate vicinity right now confirms this... every single one confirmed they prefer Craig as Bond than any other, based purely on looks and appearance. I also dont get the complaints that Craig's Bond has been on too many personal outings. Are you fucking kidding? Casino Royale was clearly Bond on a standard Bond mission, stop Le Chiffre financing and banking terrorism. Quantum of Solace was again a pretty straightforward Bond mission to stop a Bond villain, stop Greene's plan to instigate a military dictatorship that gave Quantum power and control over the regions water supplies. There is a difference between the mission's being personal and giving Bond something personal to invest in within each mission. Skyfall is the first that essentially does away with the traditional Bond mission to replace it with the personal stakes. And lets face it, this is hardly something new for the franchise. These criticisms dont have any real weight in my opinion. DOnt like the film by all means, but at least dont like it with some genuine reason for criticism.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

Post #: 255

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:16:31 PM

manwihtheplan

Posts: 100
Joined: 11/9/2012

quote:

It. Does. Not. Make. Sense. To. Have. That. Scene. At. The. Beginning.

Pray tell, have you even seen the film? Because if you have, then you know that it would not make sense to have the it at the beginning of the movie

I guarantee everyone - EVERYONE - that the Skyfall gunbarrel can be put at the front of the film and it will look fine. Wait a few months and the Bluray/DVD will be out and people will edit the sequence onto the front of the film and people wil go "woah, it looks way cooler like that."

It's been done with Quantum of Solace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gayqFoKipVY

Works perfectly. That's far better than the original version.

With respect, it's narrow-mindedness to assume it can't work at the front of Skyfall. And anyway, the point of a gun barrel scene at the START of a James Bond film is to create a certain MOOD, to tell the audience: THIS IS THE START OF A NEW JAMES BOND ADVENTURE. Removing it totally kills that vibe. If people don't realize that then you're aren't much of a Bond fan.

< Message edited by manwihtheplan -- 5/11/2012 2:21:04 PM >

Post #: 256

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:18:52 PM

Happy Shrapnel

Posts: 17420
Joined: 19/1/2006
From: Wishing for the Clothes of Heaven

For Gods sake !
It doesn't matter where the soddin gun barrel is !!!

Gun barrel at the end = Freddie Got Fingered

Gun barrel at the start = Lawrence of Arabia

_____________________________

In John Le Mesurier's last words........

' Its All Been Rather Lovely '

Happy Trails

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 257

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:19:44 PM

matty_b

Posts: 12847
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.

quote:

Wait a few months and the Bluray/DVD will be out and people will edit the sequence onto the front of the film

And those types of people should be avoided, pointed at and laughed at until they find something else to occupy their time.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 258

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:24:42 PM

manwihtheplan

Posts: 100
Joined: 11/9/2012

You two know nothing about James Bond films. And it's the same with 90 percent or more of the people paying to see Skyfall and not caring about the gun barrel. If Bond 24 didn't have a gun barrel I doubt 90 percent of people would care. I accept this but it doesn't mean it's right. Eon can do what they like with their franchise, B Broccoli and MG Wilson inherited it from Albert Broccoli so they can do what they like but it doesn't mean some - even if it's a tiny minority of fans - have to like what they're doing with the franchise. I am not paying to see Skyfall at the cinema in protest at the removal of the gun barrel from the start of the films. Plus, I will not pay to see a Craig Bond film because I'm opposed to his casting!

< Message edited by manwihtheplan -- 5/11/2012 2:26:14 PM >

(in reply to matty_b)

Post #: 259

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:26:25 PM

matty_b

Posts: 12847
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.

quote:

You two know nothing about James Bond films

Brilliant. Close the thread, mods, it won't get any better than this.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 260

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:28:39 PM

jobloffski

Posts: 1837
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere

Nobody cares what you're saying. Please stop. I won;t have to read it anymore, because I've just remembered there's a 'block' button on this site, but whatever needs addressing in your life, address that and stop obsessing about this highly irrelevant bullshit.

_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 261

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:31:08 PM

porntrooper

Posts: 2497
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

quote:

It. Does. Not. Make. Sense. To. Have. That. Scene. At. The. Beginning.

Pray tell, have you even seen the film? Because if you have, then you know that it would not make sense to have the it at the beginning of the movie

I guarantee everyone - EVERYONE - that the Skyfall gunbarrel can be put at the front of the film and it will look fine. Wait a few months and the Bluray/DVD will be out and people will edit the sequence onto the front of the film and people wil go "woah, it looks way cooler like that."

It's been done with Quantum of Solace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gayqFoKipVY

Works perfectly. That's far better than the original version.

With respect, it's narrow-mindedness to assume it can't work at the front of Skyfall. And anyway, the point of a gun barrel scene at the START of a James Bond film is to create a certain MOOD, to tell the audience: THIS IS THE START OF A NEW JAMES BOND ADVENTURE. Removing it totally kills that vibe. If people don't realize that then you're aren't much of a Bond fan.

You're right, it CAN be put at the start of Skyfall. However, the makers of the film chose NOT to put it at the start. It is their choice, their film. I for one totally agree with them. It would not feel right at the start of the movie. The very first out of focus shot of Bond walking into frame with the sharp burst of a familiar Bond theme would not feel right after the brassy bold opening of the gun barrel sequence. The 'camera' would have to zoom into the film via the gun barrel (as in the edited youtube video you provided - which looks terrible by the way) and the first shot it zooms into is an out of focus corridor that then does a nod to the gun barrel with Bond stepping into frame. It would be awful. Just awful. Also, aside from the fact it would feel jarring visually and aurally, it works where it is at the end from a thematic level. I was less impressed with it this way in Skyfall than I was with having it at the end of QoS, but thematically having it at the end of Skyfall works perfectly well. But I think aethestically, it needs to be at the end for that opening shot to have any impact at all. The film makers knew that and they made the decision based on what was right for the film. The film is what matters, not the 30 second gun barrel sequence.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 262

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:31:59 PM

Harry Tuttle

Posts: 7496
Joined: 12/11/2005
From: Sometime in the future.

I hope they get rid of the gun barrel completely in the next film. It will have no effect whatsoever on the quality of the film and morons on the internet will lose their shit.

It'd be epic.

< Message edited by Harry Tuttle -- 5/11/2012 2:32:25 PM >

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

Blood Island. So called because it's the exact shape of some blood

(in reply to jobloffski)

Post #: 263

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:33:50 PM

Happy Shrapnel

Posts: 17420
Joined: 19/1/2006
From: Wishing for the Clothes of Heaven

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

quote:

You two know nothing about James Bond films

Brilliant. Close the thread, mods, it won't get any better than this.

Who's James Bond ?

_____________________________

In John Le Mesurier's last words........

' Its All Been Rather Lovely '

Happy Trails

(in reply to matty_b)

Post #: 264

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:35:23 PM

AxlReznor

Posts: 1095
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain

Wow... so many people saying that this film didn't feel like Bond to them. To me, it felt like a welcome return to the tone of the Sean Connery days. More down-to-earth, the banter between Bond and... a certain female character (no spoilers for me, this time), the gadgets being something that makes sense, and a good old-fashioned villain. The cinematography to me echoed those, as well... although far more gorgeous.
And to think that 23 movies in, Sam Mendes has managed to make a Bond movie that both harks back to the 1960's, and surprise you with some of the decisions, I think is pretty spectacular.

And by the way... the gun barrel sequence? Hasn't always been at the start of the movies. It was at the end in Dr. No, for instance. And seeing as how reminding people of the 60's was the clear intention with this movie, it's entirely justified to have it in the end in this one, too. Either way, it still baffles me why there are people who seem to be judging the entire movie on whether that few seconds was placed at the beginning or end.

_____________________________

"It's amazing how many supposed 'plot holes' turn out to now be plot holes if you'd just pay attention", Me

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 265

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:39:15 PM

porntrooper

Posts: 2497
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

You two know nothing about James Bond films. And it's the same with 90 percent or more of the people paying to see Skyfall and not caring about the gun barrel. If Bond 24 didn't have a gun barrel I doubt 90 percent of people would care. I accept this but it doesn't mean it's right. Eon can do what they like with their franchise, B Broccoli and MG Wilson inherited it from Albert Broccoli so they can do what they like but it doesn't mean some - even if it's a tiny minority of fans - have to like what they're doing with the franchise. I am not paying to see Skyfall at the cinema in protest at the removal of the gun barrel from the start of the films. Plus, I will not pay to see a Craig Bond film because I'm opposed to his casting!

So, you havent seen Skyfall, and therefore, Bond fan or not, you're in no position to comment on it's quality or otherwise.

I really hope fans of the franchise like yourself never, ever get their way. I hope you never get to see a Bond film the way you want to see them ever again, cos I am 99.99% sure that if the makers of these films pandered to fans such as yourself, we would end up with shit film, after shit film, after shit film. It would run the franchise into the ground faster than any progressive change up to the formula ever would. With Skyfall, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace the traditional Bond formula is intact, it has been brought up to date with quality film making (arguably, of course), with a level of seriousness and respect that the franchise has been crying out for. The Craig era has been able to deliver everything the franchise needs......action, humour, style, glamour and all the other traditional elements that have come before. I hope as a franchise it stays on this course for many, many years.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 266

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:49:28 PM

Happy Shrapnel

Posts: 17420
Joined: 19/1/2006
From: Wishing for the Clothes of Heaven

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

You two know nothing about James Bond films. And it's the same with 90 percent or more of the people paying to see Skyfall and not caring about the gun barrel. If Bond 24 didn't have a gun barrel I doubt 90 percent of people would care. I accept this but it doesn't mean it's right. Eon can do what they like with their franchise, B Broccoli and MG Wilson inherited it from Albert Broccoli so they can do what they like but it doesn't mean some - even if it's a tiny minority of fans - have to like what they're doing with the franchise. I am not paying to see Skyfall at the cinema in protest at the removal of the gun barrel from the start of the films. Plus, I will not pay to see a Craig Bond film because I'm opposed to his casting!

So let me get this straight, YOU as a TRUE Bond fan, will not go and see this film ? And ALL TRUE Bond fans shouldn't either ?
So ALL TRUE Bond fans would technicaly not help recoup the makers budget and so would kill the franchise stone dead because it didn't make any money........

Thats the smartest thing I have ever heard, genius.

< Message edited by Happy Shrapnel -- 5/11/2012 2:50:18 PM >

_____________________________

In John Le Mesurier's last words........

' Its All Been Rather Lovely '

Happy Trails

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 267

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 2:50:56 PM

AxlReznor

Posts: 1095
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain

In my experience, anyone who refers to themselves as a "true" fan of something tends to be anything but.

_____________________________

"It's amazing how many supposed 'plot holes' turn out to now be plot holes if you'd just pay attention", Me

(in reply to Happy Shrapnel)

Post #: 268

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 3:08:21 PM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18881
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

You two know nothing about James Bond films. And it's the same with 90 percent or more of the people paying to see Skyfall and not caring about the gun barrel. If Bond 24 didn't have a gun barrel I doubt 90 percent of people would care. I accept this but it doesn't mean it's right. Eon can do what they like with their franchise, B Broccoli and MG Wilson inherited it from Albert Broccoli so they can do what they like but it doesn't mean some - even if it's a tiny minority of fans - have to like what they're doing with the franchise. I am not paying to see Skyfall at the cinema in protest at the removal of the gun barrel from the start of the films. Plus, I will not pay to see a Craig Bond film because I'm opposed to his casting!

And yet here you are once again posting in a thread about a James Bond film starring Daniel Craig.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to manwihtheplan)

Post #: 269

RE: Bond back on top (no shagging pun intended) - 5/11/2012 3:11:26 PM

porntrooper

Posts: 2497
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwihtheplan

You two know nothing about James Bond films. And it's the same with 90 percent or more of the people paying to see Skyfall and not caring about the gun barrel. If Bond 24 didn't have a gun barrel I doubt 90 percent of people would care. I accept this but it doesn't mean it's right. Eon can do what they like with their franchise, B Broccoli and MG Wilson inherited it from Albert Broccoli so they can do what they like but it doesn't mean some - even if it's a tiny minority of fans - have to like what they're doing with the franchise. I am not paying to see Skyfall at the cinema in protest at the removal of the gun barrel from the start of the films. Plus, I will not pay to see a Craig Bond film because I'm opposed to his casting!

And yet here you are once again posting in a thread about a James Bond film starring Daniel Craig.

That he hasn't seen.....

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to Rgirvan44)

Post #: 270