How does an actor make an "invisible car work". By what? That's stupid. It does not matter who was playing Bond. And frankly I don't get the huge issue with it. Moore films were much more over the top and comedic then Brosnans. I feel like people just accept Moore's Tarzan yell, clown makeup, and many more absurd things just because it's him. God forbid Brosnan In an invisible car and it's the worst thing ever.
I want something more than a 'popcorn flick' now. So do most audiences. By DAD, Bond had become stale and cinema audiences were getting better spy genre films. Bond was in danger of standing still. Craig's films have reinvigorated the series and brushed away the cobwebs. It was needed.
Agreed. Popcorn films to me are movies that are fun to watch. But not much thinking is needed by the audience. Sometimes over the top.
Let's be honest Bourne became Bond in the early 2000's. He took the mantle. EON saw the success and put it into a Bond film (Craigs era). Personally I think it was the right choice. Look at the $ pouring in. Each bond era is defined differently. The 2000-2010's will be no different.
How does an actor make an "invisible car work". By what? That's stupid. It does not matter who was playing Bond. And frankly I don't get the huge issue with it. Moore films were much more over the top and comedic then Brosnans. I feel like people just accept Moore's Tarzan yell, clown makeup, and many more absurd things just because it's him. God forbid Brosnan In an invisible car and it's the worst thing ever.
An invisible car will always be absurd, but it's up to the actors to help us accept it.
I've never understood this complaint, but what is so absurd about the clown makeup?
I've never understood this complaint, but what is so absurd about the clown makeup?
Nothing at all; it helped to amp up the tension- the last OO in clown make up died. It worked well for me. -{
Not as well for me, sadly, although the drama in the moment was satisfactory. For me, it was more like a metaphor for Moore's nadir. I understand that OP has its supporters, and that's fine. But give me SF any day. A classic? Not sure. But I enjoyed every frame of it.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Up until Craig, the Bond films had a formula. The joy of each new film was watching the formula being applied to different plots, villains and themes. With Craig, the formula has been seriously tampered with. If Eon want to come up with a new concept of what a spy is, they should start a new franchise rather than mutating Bond until he is longer recognizable. The formula was working - why reinvent the wheel. I mean for Gods sake - a Bond film without gadgets? Leave the formula alone and just come up with some great new grandiose plots and villains. They don't have to be as over the top as Gustav Graves, Drax, Stromberg or Zorin but give us villains who are really entertaining with bat sh*t crazy plans to take over the world. That's the formula. It works. It generates great popcorn flicks. Leave it alone.
Well..it worked until DAD. The Bond films, like all films, have to keep up with the times if they are to stay relevant and continue to be profitable as well as maintain some artistic integrity. They are not like someone's favorite beverage or candy. These products maintain they're popularity precisely because they don't change from their inception. Remember the marketing fiasco of New Coke? Everyone screamed "leave my soda alone!" and they realized they screwed up.
The old EON formula (or what I call the EON Bond Commandments) for making the films worked for a very long time. There were hits and misses, but mostly they did well enough to keep the money flowing in. However, being the longest running film series in history and with the world changing so much politically and culturally, there comes a point when it was going to prove itself irrelevant and even archaic - and that was after 9/11. That event threw an historic monkey wrench into the global culture and it effected everything - including the arts. Though prior to that the Bond series was satisfying for most audiences because they just went to see one as an escapist adventure, it's roots in the novels revealed it's dark side after 9/11. Had they continued to make them as they were, the series would have become a parody unto itself (which it almost became in a few of it's entries) and though some may have still enjoyed them, they would have become the minority.
EON decided that after DAD and 9/11 and that adventure movies were taking on more realistic, darker shades (Batman, the Bourne films, etc), they realized they had the chance to return to the dark roots of the novels (and getting the right to do CR was a fateful nod to do it) and start the series over. As far as thinking they were reinventing the wheel. They weren't trying to. What they did was really dress up an old building. They didn't even have to tear it down - they just took down a few walls and redecorated so that a new generation of buyers would line up to see it. They did and they sold it for many times over it originally sold for.
Though I can appreciate your yearning for the old series and the nostalgia it offered, continuing to make the films this way and only changing actors would not have continued to be commercially or artistically successful. Fans who are of that mind can take solace in the fact that they have so many Bond films that were done in the original formula that they can enjoy watching forever. There are very few film series that can make that same boast.
Though I realize you disparage at the passing of the old series and have a distaste for the "New Coke", you are unfortunately in the minority and the mountain of box office profits and positive critical reviews of Craig's turn at the wheel (save for the slight foot slip of QOS) are practical proof of that.
Up until Craig, the Bond films had a formula. The joy of each new film was watching the formula being applied to different plots, villains and themes. With Craig, the formula has been seriously tampered with. If Eon want to come up with a new concept of what a spy is, they should start a new franchise rather than mutating Bond until he is longer recognizable. The formula was working - why reinvent the wheel. I mean for Gods sake - a Bond film without gadgets? Leave the formula alone and just come up with some great new grandiose plots and villains. They don't have to be as over the top as Gustav Graves, Drax, Stromberg or Zorin but give us villains who are really entertaining with bat sh*t crazy plans to take over the world. That's the formula. It works. It generates great popcorn flicks. Leave it alone.
Well..it worked until DAD. The Bond films, like all films, have to keep up with the times if they are to stay relevant and continue to be profitable as well as maintain some artistic integrity. They are not like someone's favorite beverage or candy. These products maintain they're popularity precisely because they don't change from their inception. Remember the marketing fiasco of New Coke? Everyone screamed "leave my soda alone!" and they realized they screwed up.
The old EON formula (or what I call the EON Bond Commandments) for making the films worked for a very long time. There were hits and misses, but mostly they did well enough to keep the money flowing in. However, being the longest running film series in history and with the world changing so much politically and culturally, there comes a point when it was going to prove itself irrelevant and even archaic - and that was after 9/11. That event threw an historic monkey wrench into the global culture and it effected everything - including the arts. Though prior to that the Bond series was satisfying for most audiences because they just went to see one as an escapist adventure, it's roots in the novels revealed it's dark side after 9/11. Had they continued to make them as they were, the series would have become a parody unto itself (which it almost became in a few of it's entries) and though some may have still enjoyed them, they would have become the minority.
EON decided that after DAD and 9/11 and that adventure movies were taking on more realistic, darker shades (Batman, the Bourne films, etc), they realized they had the chance to return to the dark roots of the novels (and getting the right to do CR was a fateful nod to do it) and start the series over. As far as thinking they were reinventing the wheel. They weren't trying to. What they did was really dress up an old building. They didn't even have to tear it down - they just took down a few walls and redecorated so that a new generation of buyers would line up to see it. They did and they sold it for many times over it originally sold for.
Though I can appreciate your yearning for the old series and the nostalgia it offered, continuing to make the films this way and only changing actors would not have continued to be commercially or artistically successful. Fans who are of that mind can take solace in the fact that they have so many Bond films that were done in the original formula that they can enjoy watching forever. There are very few film series that can make that same boast.
Though I realize you disparage at the passing of the old series and have a distaste for the "New Coke", you are unfortunately in the minority and the mountain of box office profits and positive critical reviews of Craig's turn at the wheel (save for the slight foot slip of QOS) are practical proof of that.
We'll see how SPECTRE fares with me, but I don't expect it to top this one for me, as far as the Craig Era is concerned.
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
We'll see how SPECTRE fares with me, but I don't expect it to top this one for me, as far as the Craig Era is concerned.
I'm expecting Spectre to top Skyfall for me and turn out to be more of a classic than Skyfall. But so far, all three of Craig's Bond films have set very low expectations for me.
Yeah an underwater car is so much more plausible than an invisible car
But that was Roger, so it's okay.
And I don't get what's wrong with the clown outfit, except maybe the makeup is too perfect. It's a good cover to get into the circus
But that was Roger, so it's silly.
Exactly
I think the context of the film makes a difference too. DAD is a CGI mess so the invisible car adds to the criticisms. CGI in QOS and SF is completely out of place. And in TSWLM the car...Gilbert and Roger make it work and no-one complains
In SF Bond gets shot & falls 100 feet into a river & lives.
But it's okay because it's Dan.
In TND Bond shoots a machine gun a lot.
But that's not okay because it's Pierce.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
To find true peace and contentment, you must Learn to accept
All Bonds, in all their Forms. -{ only by following this path will
You find true understanding. ...... If not you end up going crazy with
Endless " Pros & Cons" lists. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
To find true peace and contentment, you must Learn to accept
All Bonds, in all their Forms. -{ only by following this path will
You find true understanding. ...... If not you end up going crazy with
Endless " Pros & Cons" lists. )
Skyfall is clearly a well made action movie, it's ridiculous to say otherwise. It might not be your favorite Bond for whatever reason, but to say that it's bad is pretty dumb in my opinion.
The film had a back to basics approach and is quintessential Bond in every way, which makes sense because it was the 50th anniversary of Bond in film. It was a celebration of Bond, and whether you are a die hard fan, or just a casual viewer who wants to see a fun action movie, it delivers. Craig was great as always, and the movie featured a strong character arc for Bond, which is actually a rare find in the series. Having Bond "retire" and then come back, and seeing him question if he still has a place in our modern world, fit with the whole 50th anniversary aspect of the movie. Bond's arc in the film sort of mirrored his place in pop culture, and seeing the ultimate rejuvenation of Bond (both the character himself, and the franchise) at the end of the movie was extremely satisfying.
Javier Bardem's performance was fantastic as well, and he made for one of the most memorable Bond villain's in the history of the franchise. Skyfall also featured Judi Dench's best performance as M, and was a fitting send off for her. The relationship between Bond and M had never been explored as much as it was in Skyfall, and the final scene where M dies brought an emotional weight to the movie that other Bond films haven't really had.
At the end of the day Skyfall is the ultimate modern Bond film, it had nods to the past, but in a lot of ways it was more sophisticated that the other entries in the series. It had stylish action and a story that was about more than just a wacky scheme cooked up by a villain. It was about Bond as a character, and it was a great movie. The James Bond franchise is a classic franchise, and Skyfall is one of, if not the, best entry so far so I think it can definitely be called a classic film.
This sums up what I feel the merits of the film are. It's a classic to me, on some days even my favorite, but it's all a matter of opinion.
I don't think it's a classic and would put it at number three in the Craig era. I watched it again last week and thought as I do each time I watch it that it's a pretty good film right up until Silva makes his entrance. The Silva character doesn't work for me.
There are some very good moments in the film but it's nowhere near a classic. Casino Royale is a classic in my opinion.
In SF Bond gets shot & falls 100 feet into a river & lives.
But it's okay because it's Dan.
In TND Bond shoots a machine gun a lot.
But that's not okay because it's Pierce.
Bond politics.... 8-)
Yes as long as the EON series makes the films as action/adventure vehicles, they will always have in them the certain elements of the laws of cartoon physics and exaggeration. Indiana Jones gets physically punished throughout his films and his clothes get torn and dirty and in the real world that's what happens if you were put in the same situations. However, in the real world you would not survive dropping off waterfalls hundreds of feet high while in a vehicle or life raft or inside a refrigerator blown miles away from a nuclear blast. Bond could fight off a couple of armed thugs or even a really BIG thug by using his wits, but he would not survive a gunshot wound and several hundred foot drop into river nor a fall into a frozen over pond and combat a thug while holding his breath and emerge without suffering acute hypothermia.
If the action movies didn't go to these extremes in some scenes just for the sole purpose of entertainment, I doubt if they would rake in the box office they do.
Gone With the Wind and The Godfather I & II may be widely regarded as classics, but that means little if people today aren't interested in watching them.
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
When others have fallen by the wayside I believe the storyline will hold up.
Storyline?!?! SF's plot twists are as absurdly stupid as the most absurd Moore era Bond films. Every time I watch SF, the movie gets worse in my eyes because once you get past the cinematography and Bardem's portrayal of Silva you start to realize that nothing in this movie makes any sense.
Does anybody here (besides chrisisall) think that Craig's performance on QoS was better than his performance on SF?
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,582Chief of Staff
In SF Bond gets shot & falls 100 feet into a river & lives.
But it's okay because it's Dan.
In TND Bond shoots a machine gun a lot.
But that's not okay because it's Pierce.
Bond politics.... 8-)
Bond getting shot and falling three hundred feet into a river and living is just Bond being Bond. If he got shot and fell ten feet and lived that would not be very interesting.
The important thing is that it's possible to get shot and live and it's possible to fall three hundred feet (or a lot more) and live unlike the Goldeneye PTS where Bond does the impossible and catchs up with a more aerodynamic airplane in mid-air. When that happens we're in the realm of the super-human and that's not James Bond.
Comments
Agreed. Popcorn films to me are movies that are fun to watch. But not much thinking is needed by the audience. Sometimes over the top.
Let's be honest Bourne became Bond in the early 2000's. He took the mantle. EON saw the success and put it into a Bond film (Craigs era). Personally I think it was the right choice. Look at the $ pouring in. Each bond era is defined differently. The 2000-2010's will be no different.
An invisible car will always be absurd, but it's up to the actors to help us accept it.
I've never understood this complaint, but what is so absurd about the clown makeup?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Not as well for me, sadly, although the drama in the moment was satisfactory. For me, it was more like a metaphor for Moore's nadir. I understand that OP has its supporters, and that's fine. But give me SF any day. A classic? Not sure. But I enjoyed every frame of it.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Well..it worked until DAD. The Bond films, like all films, have to keep up with the times if they are to stay relevant and continue to be profitable as well as maintain some artistic integrity. They are not like someone's favorite beverage or candy. These products maintain they're popularity precisely because they don't change from their inception. Remember the marketing fiasco of New Coke? Everyone screamed "leave my soda alone!" and they realized they screwed up.
The old EON formula (or what I call the EON Bond Commandments) for making the films worked for a very long time. There were hits and misses, but mostly they did well enough to keep the money flowing in. However, being the longest running film series in history and with the world changing so much politically and culturally, there comes a point when it was going to prove itself irrelevant and even archaic - and that was after 9/11. That event threw an historic monkey wrench into the global culture and it effected everything - including the arts. Though prior to that the Bond series was satisfying for most audiences because they just went to see one as an escapist adventure, it's roots in the novels revealed it's dark side after 9/11. Had they continued to make them as they were, the series would have become a parody unto itself (which it almost became in a few of it's entries) and though some may have still enjoyed them, they would have become the minority.
EON decided that after DAD and 9/11 and that adventure movies were taking on more realistic, darker shades (Batman, the Bourne films, etc), they realized they had the chance to return to the dark roots of the novels (and getting the right to do CR was a fateful nod to do it) and start the series over. As far as thinking they were reinventing the wheel. They weren't trying to. What they did was really dress up an old building. They didn't even have to tear it down - they just took down a few walls and redecorated so that a new generation of buyers would line up to see it. They did and they sold it for many times over it originally sold for.
Though I can appreciate your yearning for the old series and the nostalgia it offered, continuing to make the films this way and only changing actors would not have continued to be commercially or artistically successful. Fans who are of that mind can take solace in the fact that they have so many Bond films that were done in the original formula that they can enjoy watching forever. There are very few film series that can make that same boast.
Though I realize you disparage at the passing of the old series and have a distaste for the "New Coke", you are unfortunately in the minority and the mountain of box office profits and positive critical reviews of Craig's turn at the wheel (save for the slight foot slip of QOS) are practical proof of that.
Wonderfully put. Agree with that 100%
We'll see how SPECTRE fares with me, but I don't expect it to top this one for me, as far as the Craig Era is concerned.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
I'm expecting Spectre to top Skyfall for me and turn out to be more of a classic than Skyfall. But so far, all three of Craig's Bond films have set very low expectations for me.
*Yes I'm aware someone did such a thing, except they wore scuba diving gear in a convertible Lotus.
And I don't get what's wrong with the clown outfit, except maybe the makeup is too perfect. It's a good cover to get into the circus
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Exactly
I think the context of the film makes a difference too. DAD is a CGI mess so the invisible car adds to the criticisms. CGI in QOS and SF is completely out of place. And in TSWLM the car...Gilbert and Roger make it work and no-one complains
But it's okay because it's Dan.
In TND Bond shoots a machine gun a lot.
But that's not okay because it's Pierce.
Bond politics.... 8-)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Ah yes. BonditicsTM B-) They run deep and wide.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Cheers! -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
All Bonds, in all their Forms. -{ only by following this path will
You find true understanding.
Endless " Pros & Cons" lists.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
This sums up what I feel the merits of the film are. It's a classic to me, on some days even my favorite, but it's all a matter of opinion.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
There are some very good moments in the film but it's nowhere near a classic. Casino Royale is a classic in my opinion.
Yes as long as the EON series makes the films as action/adventure vehicles, they will always have in them the certain elements of the laws of cartoon physics and exaggeration. Indiana Jones gets physically punished throughout his films and his clothes get torn and dirty and in the real world that's what happens if you were put in the same situations. However, in the real world you would not survive dropping off waterfalls hundreds of feet high while in a vehicle or life raft or inside a refrigerator blown miles away from a nuclear blast. Bond could fight off a couple of armed thugs or even a really BIG thug by using his wits, but he would not survive a gunshot wound and several hundred foot drop into river nor a fall into a frozen over pond and combat a thug while holding his breath and emerge without suffering acute hypothermia.
If the action movies didn't go to these extremes in some scenes just for the sole purpose of entertainment, I doubt if they would rake in the box office they do.
Gone With the Wind and The Godfather I & II may be widely regarded as classics, but that means little if people today aren't interested in watching them.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Storyline?!?! SF's plot twists are as absurdly stupid as the most absurd Moore era Bond films. Every time I watch SF, the movie gets worse in my eyes because once you get past the cinematography and Bardem's portrayal of Silva you start to realize that nothing in this movie makes any sense.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
I'm not sure about 'better'...but I prefer QoS to Skyfall -{
Bond getting shot and falling three hundred feet into a river and living is just Bond being Bond. If he got shot and fell ten feet and lived that would not be very interesting.
The important thing is that it's possible to get shot and live and it's possible to fall three hundred feet (or a lot more) and live unlike the Goldeneye PTS where Bond does the impossible and catchs up with a more aerodynamic airplane in mid-air. When that happens we're in the realm of the super-human and that's not James Bond.
Bond exists in a world of unlikely but possible.
I think Bond in QoS is closer to my ideal Bond than Bond in SF, which feels like Bond is having an out-of-body experience or a bad dream at times.