007: Skyfall

The 23rd James Bond film has been titled.

The movie will be released Fall 2012.

Hopefully there will be no shaky-cam and/or 1/2 second cuts.

edited 10th Nov '11 3:18:38 AM by erforce

hopefully it goes back to being Bond not another 0815-Action Flick with Bond in Name only. But thats probably only after Craig.

edited 10th Nov '11 5:27:03 AM by 3of4

Hope it's good; I'm a huge fan of Craig as Bond, and of the recent films' deconstruction of Bond tropes. The plot sounds promising; there's been a lot of emphasis placed on the relationship between M and Bond in both of Craig's movies, and it's been well-done, adding some depth to both characters.

0815... are you German?

So you want another Die Another Day?

I love every Bond film, since they're all great in different ways. Except Never Say Never Again. Fuck you, Mclory, good thing your idea for a second Thunder Ball remake never happened.

QOS was, despite my seeing it three times in the cinema and dozens on DVD since, one of the poorer efforts, which was a shame because it had a lot of potential. If done right, this could be the best yet. I said that about QOS though and it was worse than Casino Royale.

I liked the shaky cam. :/

I didn't like the shaky cam, but I did like the deconstruction of the 'Bond girl' idea (I'm female and don't like us being used as objects to show off male power, so sue me), and the fact that it took place in Bolivia and involved the CIA being involved in a coup plan (fun current events reference, since not only did they do it plenty of times during the Cold War, they're accused of trying it in Venezuela, and since the US was/is clearly no fans of the current left-wing Bolivian government). Main flaw was using oil (which we all know Bolivia hasn't got) as the presumed reason for Greene's and the CIA's interest, rather than natural gas, which Bolivia has plenty of. (Or, if you wanted to get more obscure, lithium, which is apparently the resource of the future and another thing Bolivia's rich in.)

Other big problem was having a Russian instead of a Latina play a Latin American character.

edited 10th Nov '11 10:42:51 AM by WarriorEowyn

I want a James Bond movie. Not a "Bourne-wannabe who calls himself James Bond" movie. Call me when Craig has been replaced.

@Buscemi...no, but why go from one extreme to the other ;p

Edit: What said.

edited 10th Nov '11 12:32:51 PM by 3of4

I like Daniel Craig. Alot.

Especially his performance in Quantum.

edited 10th Nov '11 1:36:20 PM by cutewithoutthe

People seem to hate on Craig for the same reason they hated on Dalton - he's actually Bond as he should be, but that isn't what people actually like. The Dalton films had much bigger issues in terms of the script (particularly the otherwise superb Living Daylights) than the actor playing Bond, who did a fantastic job.

What's should? You mean like the books?

If so I'd argue A) The books aren't so great, the early films made Bond what it is and B) While the recent films might be closer to the books in some ways Craig's portrayal of Bond isn't the closest or second closest to the book character.

Dalton's was the closest, okay maybe Connery was second but Craig was definitely third. I don't think we need more Roger Moore camp in the Bond films anyway, gritty and serious are where it's at and Craig brings that to the character.

I'm not arguing for Moore. I'm just saying that Connery was the perfect Bond. And that's what most people want.

As for the potrayal of the character, I actualy think Brosnon is second closest to book Bond. Not that I'm saying he was much good, just that the character's personality was reasonably close. Obviously everything else about the films of his era were probably the furthest away from the novels.

By the by I really like Craig's Bond, I think Quantum was really underrated and am excited for the new film. I just think Connery was a better Bond and that his films, not the books, are what all Bond films should aspire to.

I freely concede that Ian Fleming's intentions for the character are different than the guy we ended up with in the films.

That doesn't mean that the audience didn't create a more-or-less unified vision of James Bond in the first twenty movies. And Daniel Craig does not fit that vision.

The problem is that, while classics, nothing of that sort could be made again. Any remake of them would fail immediately because the world has moved on and those sort of plots don't work anymore, at least not when done the way they were. For the new films to emulate their style too closely would be just as big of a mistake, and I think the same applies to Connery's portrayal of Bond. Brosnan was a little too clean cut as Bond for my liking. Don't get me wrong, I liked him a lot, I just see the character as a bit grittier than he was, which was something Connery did better than him. Dalton is still far closer than either to the book's portrayal (perhaps excessively so; his attitude in Licence To Kill ("If M fires me I'll thank him for it" etc) is something the written Bond would say but the film one would not).

Whoa, whoa, whoa, who are you to say what fits into someone's expectations? You don't get to speak for me; a willing part of the audience.

The classic Ian Fleming Bond would be a combination of the personality of Pierce Brosnan with the skills of Daniel Craig and the charm of Sean Connery.

I think the reason Quantum Of Solace got such a mixed reaction is because Casino Royale was clearly meant to be an origin story to show Bond starting off as a 00 agent and some hard lessons he learns to become a more seasoned professional. His relationship with M was her trying to refine him into being the "half-monk, half-hitman" operative. Solace largely ignored continuing that development to instead focus on the remorseless badass trying to get revenge.

Quantum of Solace was the better movie and the better film. Mysterious organization, evil plan, point woman, vehicular chase scene, red herring. The flaw pacing but I didn't mind watching it twice to catch everything. Casino Royal was a disgrace, a movie for people who like watching other people play cards. Cards games are even less interesting when you don't have a reason to care about anyone involved but then again, I'm arguing with the Yugioh generation aren't I? Bond needed an origin story like Green Lantern or Superman needed one, we get it, get on with the cool cars, elaborate power plays and exploding lairs!

As long as it is another movie not like Casino Royal Mr. Craig can stay awhile...but really if they wanted to change Bond up a little what would be wrong with a younger man...especially since Royal was supposed to be an origin of sorts. A big, twenty four, Intercontinental Champion Randy Orton type with a Scottish Accent would be nice. Or maybe Bond with a beard? Blond Bond was such a standout!

Honestly, while Casino Royale was a good movie (QOS was just mediocre), it wasn't a good Bond movie. While I applaud and support the desire to avoid descending back into the camp shittiness of Die Another Day and the other Bond movies of its ilk, the fact is that Craig's Bond is just Jason Bourne in a tux minus the amnesia and plus government funding. I like Craig as an actor, don't get me wrong, but while he has the danger he just doesn't have the suave, the charm or the wit. When I go to watch a Bond film, I expect something big and spectacular, not drab and generic; and as good a film as Royale was, you could replace Bond with any generic action hero of today and not notice the difference. I feel that the filmmakers need to find a middle ground between the more grounded/serious tone of the latest movies and the bigness of the earlier ones (for lack of a better term). Bring back the world conquering/destroying devices and cool villains with gimmicks/minions, but don't take it to the excesses of the Moore and latter Brosnan years. It's almost like action movies these days are afraid to have fun, I swear :T

Has everyone forgotten what Jason Bourne actually is like? The several hours of reading and watching "What?! I kill people?! How horrible!" And "Oh! Assasination ruins my soul!".

Craig!Bond pissed all over that notion in his Cold Open ("yes, considerably") so what else is it that brings these charges? Is it being somewhat gruff and Combat Pragmatist with the fighting? Because I've got a Glaswegian Milkman killing a man with an electric fan to show you. Is it the cold demeanor and sharp cool comebacks rather than the dashing off of lazy puns? Hey, the '60's called, they want In Like Flint back.

There's also the fact that Bourne is a Boring Invincible Hero who never gets a scratch in his fights, whereas Bond - Craig as much or more so than most of his precedecessors) - certainly has to work for his victories. He wins, but it takes a lot out of him. The Craig films delve into the psychology of the character, and I love that stuff. It sounds like Skyfall will continue that.

^^

Not to mention that it has Bond fighting terrorism by playing poker in a luxurious casino! You don't get more Bond than that.