James Bond: Skyfall

[Lean'n'mean]

I have watched & will continue to watch the old Connery/Moore/Brosnan Bonds over & over again & enjoy them each time. The Craig bond movies on the other hand I can only watch once. I think the producers & director of the latest bonds have concentrated so much on 'realism' & over complicating the story lines that they have completely forgotten the magic ingredient, entertainment...............The latest Bond films are in danger of taking themselves too seriously too. a little tongue in cheek is needed I think.

 

[Flicka]

I can't even remember if I watched Quantum or not. I think I did, but I remember nothing about it. Casino was worth it for Mads Mikkelsen, but really, Craig is the one actor who actually pouts more than Keira Knightley. It annoys the living daylights (pun intended) out of me.

 

[Edward]

I'm not sure what it is about Quantum that didn't work...the plot with the whole buying up the world's water resources didn't strike me as quite sinister enough, I suppose, although the villain was sufficiently psychopathic.

I all honesty I watched it twice, on consecutive nights about six months ago and I could not have told you even that much about it now.

I don't know why everybody seems to put down George Lazenby. I think he was a lot better than Dalton or Brosnan, and even better than Moore.

A kick in the teeth would be better than Moore.

 

[MikeKardec]

My opinion only -- but Bond (at least so far ... this film almost didn't get made) is the most successful reboot ever. Working in the publishing business I've had to watch as the Sci Fi genre tanked and Westerns went down the drain. Both of those failures were from changing culture but also because audiences lead the genre off a cliff. There is still great literature being made in both categories but the genres themselves are vastly less productive than they were ... even in relationship to the decline of the book business.

Sci Fi gave up the stars for cyberpunk and the Western audience became so conservative that they didn't want anything even slightly new. The core probably would have been happy rereading the same old stuff with the names changed.

Bond was suffering from an escalation of stakes for a long time. 007 had to literally save the world in every film and in a more and more fantastic manner. It got very hard to care about the results and it was very hard to top the previous film without repetition. Think of how many used submarines and/or spacecraft and world ending devices. The reboot was needed desperately ... they couldn't really go up in the stakes sweepstakes unless you had a tuxedo clad Bond diving headlong into a SMERSH controlled black hole.

Clear, personal stakes are such a powerful tool for a writer trying to create a compelling story. They must be able to escalate within the context of a single story rather than trying to top a previous movie.

At the same time there had been so many comedy Bond knock offs that more tongue-in-cheekyness was pretty self defeating ... and the over-the-top aspects of the plots and stakes kept the tongue in cheek moments to relate to things we couldn't really connect with. Getting back to a more realistic character, a more vulnerable character, seems to have been a requirement writing wise. I might have chosen to have gone back to the 1950s, '60s in addition to the man who feels pain, can be overwhelmed by a situation and can be emotionally moved by a woman.

A certain amount of "unreality" was probably called for during the cold war. We were faced with a deadly existential crisis every day. A certain amount of silliness was comforting. It's interesting that as the US/Soviet arms race got more and more out of control, so did the Bond films. As the nuclear stakes became more and more unrealistic, so did the Bond films. Finally, the Berlin Wall came down and Bond began to flounder, the film's excessive heights seemed a bit pointless in a world where the stakes had diminished.

James Bond by way of Mad Men would probably work for all of us who appreciate history but many young people and worldwide populations who have left the cold war behind have completely forgotten the history. Turning James Bond into a history lesson would probably diminish the fun factor.

Logically, I don't think that James Bond had too many choices other than the ones the producers followed. What is absolutely amazing is that they pulled it off in such a classy way and got away with it. It seems rare to me that something like this actually works. Now it takes three to establish a pattern, so we'll see. I have high hopes and even though I liked some aspects of the older Bond movies (no problem I can just rewatch them) but I think it's amazing that this franchise is still going forward after so many years. Like them or not we are all seeing a phenomena as rare as diamonds.

 

[Edward]

Fair points re Bond.... curious, though - why/how do you distinguish cyberpunk from sci-fi? Isn't the former simply a subgenre of the latter, or is the point you're making that it is just so yet has dominated it?

 

[Benzadmiral]

I have never watched that Bond movie and I don't really know why...

Lazenby was more like Moore would become later, but nowhere near as over-the-top in the humor department. Just a little lighter than Connery. However, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is one of the best screen adaptations of any Fleming novel.

 

[AmateisGal]

MikeK, very well put. As a writer myself, I can definitely see how they chose to go this route, and how it was probably a very wise move. To be clear, I did like Quantum of Solace, but Casino Royale was much better. I am quite eager to see how Skyfall rates compared to the other two.

 

[Yeps]

A kick in the teeth would be better than Moore.

I was talking to someone yesterday who was arguing that Moore was good. I had to just stop before I hurt someone (or myself).

 

[Doctor Damage]

Let's not forget George Lazenby.

I have never watched that Bond movie and I don't really know why...

^ put it down to good luck.

I don't know why everybody seems to put down George Lazenby. I think he was a lot better than Dalton or Brosnan, and even better than Moore.

However, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is one of the best screen adaptations of any Fleming novel.

OHMSS is the best of the series, in my opinion. Lazenby was a bit uneven, but it was his first acting job and he has much of a young Connery's physical presence and roguish charm (ladies will see what I mean right away). Rigg was wonderfully plausible as the sort of woman who Bond might fall for: not as flashy as his usual sex toys but a real woman, and I think it makes perfect sense he would truly fall in love with only one woman in his life. The action is great and pre-dates the ridiculous action scenes of later years. The soundtrack is far and away the best of the series. Savalas dominates the screen as Blofeld and takes the role seriously, unlike other Blofelds. The pacing is wonderful, and even though the film is (I think) the longest in the series, it zooms along. And the ending actually brings a tear to my eyes, which NONE of the Bond films ever does. If you haven't seen this movie, see it soon... I think I'll have to pull out my well-worn VHS copy and watch it again!

 

[Worf]

I love Connery and I like Craig. Roger Moore??? Puh lease!! I give Lazenby a pass but the rest? PeeeeYOU! To me Moore was the absolute worst of the bunch. He was the living embodiment of all that was wrong with the 70's, all flash, no substance and no grit. The current Bond is the shiznit. He's the first once since Connery to make me BELIEVE he has a "license to kill" remember that's what separated Bond from all the other wannabe's

Worf

 

[AmateisGal]

I admit to crying in Casino Royale when *spoiler alert* Vesper drowned and he was trying to revive her. Craig played that scene very well.

 

[alsendk]

I have been reading all the written messages about the different agent 007 actors here, and I agree to Worf that Daniel Craig`s attitude means serious business...with a license to kill...and using it without having any problem doing so.
Still I think the violence, and the boom and flash and the noise,and the more and more complicated stories makes me enjoy more and more the old movies with Sean Connery.
There are lot of times to dwell at the scenery, the girls, the different Rolex watches he wears, actually I find them much more relaxing and joyful to watch....also after 20 years of watching.
Will the new generation of 007 movies ever stand up to this ?
I don`t know. I personally doubt it.

 

[Edward]

I have been reading all the written messages about the different agent 007 actors here, and I agree to Worf that Daniel Craig`s attitude means serious business...with a license to kill...and using it without having any problem doing so.
Still I think the violence, and the boom and flash and the noise,and the more and more complicated stories makes me enjoy more and more the old movies with Sean Connery.
There are lot of times to dwell at the scenery, the girls, the different Rolex watches he wears, actually I find them much more relaxing and joyful to watch....also after 20 years of watching.
Will the new generation of 007 movies ever stand up to this ?
I don`t know. I personally doubt it.

It will be interesting to see. They are in some senses very much of their time (following the pattern set by Bourne). They do put me in mind of the Nolan take on Batman - a radically different direction than we are used to, and one which works. WE'll see over tie how they are perceived. Looking back, Connery's Bond outings have a sort of timeless quality to me, but then I am young enough that they were always period pieces to me as such, whereas Dalton's Bond I saw in the cinema, remember it looking totally up to the minute, and looking back on it now see it as very badly dated. In some ways Moore's Bond has dated the worst in terms of his looks, chiefly because he seemed to be the one who adopted the mainstream fashions of his day the most. Connery's tailoring is pure Sixties, but he had a relatively conservative wardrobe, as compared to Moore's adoption of the Safari suit, for example.

 

[scottyrocks]

Connery's tailoring is pure Sixties, but he had a relatively conservative wardrobe, as compared to Moore's adoption of the Safari suit, for example.

I remember laughing at Moore in that silly thing (or rather, he made it look silly) when I saw him in it originally.

 

[Yeps]

I remember laughing at Moore in that silly thing (or rather, he made it look silly) when I saw him in it originally.

Is there any time you saw Moore and didn't laugh? Frankly, I am amazed the franchise survived him.

 

[1961MJS]

Is there any time you saw Moore and didn't laugh? Frankly, I am amazed the franchise survived him.

Hi

The books were action / adventure, but IN MY OPINION, the most of the movies have been comedies. Dr. No maybe not.

Later

 

[Edward]

Hi

The books were action / adventure, but IN MY OPINION, the most of the movies have been comedies. Dr. No maybe not.

Later

Looking back on the films, it does seem they adopted humour early on. Connery's Bond had a wonderfully dark sense of humour, though it was in Moore's era that the fanchise's attempts to one-up itself really led it down the path of self-parody. The books, what little I have read of them, seem wholly different - a much darker tone that none of the films have yet captured, with perhaps Craig's take as the closest.

 

[Flicka]

Is there any time you saw Moore and didn't laugh? Frankly, I am amazed the franchise survived him.

The biggest laugh I got from a Bond movie was when Bond calls the room service and orders black coffee and fresh figs for breakfast. I suppose even heroes get constipated... Anyway, it bugs me that I can't remember which one it is –– I think it starred Sean Connery ("black coffee and fresh figsch"). Ring any bells, anyone?

 

[1961MJS]

Looking back on the films, it does seem they adopted humour early on. Connery's Bond had a wonderfully dark sense of humour, though it was in Moore's era that the fanchise's attempts to one-up itself really led it down the path of self-parody. The books, what little I have read of them, seem wholly different - a much darker tone that none of the films have yet captured, with perhaps Craig's take as the closest.

Hi Edward

If you haven't done so, read "The Spy Who Loved Me" and then watch the movie. Without giving too much away, the whole book takes place in a Motor Hotel on the US / Canadian border. The rest of the movies take "poetic license", this one takes the name.

Later

 

[Edward]

Hi Edward

If you haven't done so, read "The Spy Who Loved Me" and then watch the movie. Without giving too much away, the whole book takes place in a Motor Hotel on the US / Canadian border. The rest of the movies take "poetic license", this one takes the name.

Later

Yes, I think a lot of them took liberties - wasn't Moonraker markedly different than the book? I'm sure I also recall that the gadgets were a film invention - though of course ot much of the market for the films, those were Bond.