[Monolithic Fishmonger-X]

Does this movie break itself out of the timeline with the others completely by replacing dench or should?

[dreiser]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Though I will say Harris needs to eat something, she was disgustingly skinny. I can't look at her.

Hmm... didn't really notice this myself during the movie. Kurylenko in QOS looked emaciated compared to all the fashion images I'd seen of her up to that point.

[Feuer und Eis]

Originally Posted by Kage_no_Gundan

Right after that scene, I leaned over to my wife and whispered, "Oh now they went and pissed him off!"

The color of the flames giving light to Bond's face against the darkness pretty much sets the stage for what's to come. He was very pissed. Don't **** with the Aston Martin.

[arcadefire325]

Originally Posted by Feuer und Eis

The color of the flames giving light to Bond's face against the darkness pretty much sets the stage for what's to come. He was very pissed. Don't **** with the Aston Martin.

Yes. That is a bad idea.

[Chroma Noise]

He is used to it. Both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace features a destruction of his Aston Martin, though neither were the DB5 vintage.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Monolithic Fishmonger-X

Does this movie break itself out of the timeline with the others completely by replacing dench or should?

Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text

Dench's M dies and she is replaced with Fiennes. Q and Moneypenny have also assumed their roles. All the elements to a classic Bond film are all in place once again by the end of it, completing the Bond revisioning.

It really will be interesting to see what they do for Bond 24, whether it follow the more serialized format of the current Bond, or if they go back to single-film stories.

[Chroma Noise]

They already have. Skyfall shares no plot thread with Casino Royale and QoS. They might go back to the mysterious Quantum organization they so hyped up in Solace though and it could be Craig's version of SPECTRE.

[Steven D.]

Originally Posted by Harry Caul

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the poem part yet.

“We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield”

And Bond is running like TOM CRUISE

I thought that bit was very effective, even though I have no idea what Mr. Tennyson was actually talking about.

fixed yw

[Blondie OReilly]

Did anyone else see the meaning of "Skyfall" as an homage to Sean Connery, or was it just me seeing things that aren't there?

[See-Jay]

Originally Posted by Missing Reel

Here, read this slowly:


“We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield”


While listening to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZGrmh29ZHA, starting at about 1:25.

And just cry.

My heart was beating like crazy during this scene. I don't think any Bond movie put me on the edge of my seat like this one.

[Missing Reel]

Originally Posted by Splitter

It really will be interesting to see what they do for Bond 24, whether it follow the more serialized format of the current Bond, or if they go back to single-film stories.

They will finish Craig's Bond with another two-parter.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/next-...-writes,88014/


I think this is good, actually. I'm not that interested in random Bond missions. They're better when they feature more personal stakes for him, which is what I imagine a final two-parter will include.

[BadLieutenant]

Originally Posted by Blondie OReilly

Did anyone else see the meaning of "Skyfall" as an homage to Sean Connery, or was it just me seeing things that aren't there?

Fleming made Bond half-Scottish in the books after the movie version of Dr. No was released with Connery.

[Bane]

Bardem was the best thing about Skyfall. I was starting to get bored with it until he showed up and then it turned into a Dark Knight-esque adventure with Bardem eerily reminiscent of the Joker and Craig as Batman. Bardem's Silva was creepy as sh*t.

That said, I didn't love it as much as everybody else. I think I liked Casino Royale better. But it might just be that I find Daniel Craig too boring sometimes. Sure, Skyfall is sleek, well made, and overall a solid film, but it kinda makes me miss the old Bond. Less serious and more playful.

Also, the action scenes were lacking a little creatively. I think I have to consider myself more of a Mission: Impossible fan these days. Those movies have a much better sense of fun and cool gadgetry which almost makes them feel more like the old Bond movies.

[Crom]

Saw it yesterday, I did enjoy it but didn't think it lived up to what I had heard about it so far. It did remind me more of one of the older Bond films.

Favorite part of "Skyfall" is what happens with Judy Dench.

[andretti #1]

Originally Posted by Bane

Bardem was the best thing about Skyfall. I was starting to get bored with it until he showed up and then it turned into a Dark Knight-esque adventure with Bardem eerily reminiscent of the Joker and Craig as Batman. Bardem's Silva was creepy as sh*t.

That said, I didn't love it as much as everybody else. I think I liked Casino Royale better. But it might just be that I find Daniel Craig too boring sometimes. Sure, Skyfall is sleek, well made, and overall a solid film, but it kinda makes me miss the old Bond. Less serious and more playful.

Also, the action scenes were lacking a little creatively. I think I have to consider myself more of a Mission: Impossible fan these days. Those movies have a much better sense of fun and cool gadgetry which almost makes them feel more like the old Bond movies.

I find myself agreeing with this ... who WOULDN'T want an exploding pen?
It was worth the 5 bucks but I enjoy Casino Royale quite a bit more.

[Morris Schæffer]

Originally Posted by Neclord

Am I alone in thinking the opening shot, with Bond stepping into frame from far away, was supposed to evoke the gunbarrel openings? I mean, I wasn't thinking that initially, but now that I remember it, I am.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35699

[Morris Schæffer]

Originally Posted by Blondie OReilly

Did anyone else see the meaning of "Skyfall" as an homage to Sean Connery, or was it just me seeing things that aren't there?

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35699

[Morris Schæffer]

Originally Posted by Monolithic Fishmonger-X

Does this movie break itself out of the timeline with the others completely by replacing dench or should?

If you, or others, are not in the know, Judi Dench suffers from Macular Degeneration. Her eyesight is deteroriating and while filming, they had to read the script to her so she could memorize her lines. That probably explains why they did what they did.

[Bane]

Originally Posted by andretti #1

I find myself agreeing with this ... who WOULDN'T want an exploding pen?
It was worth the 5 bucks but I enjoy Casino Royale quite a bit more.

See, it cost me 29 bucks so I might be a little more judgmental, lol. I had to pay for my wife, too, and I saw it in IMAX.

Anyways, I so agree with you. I HATED the exploding pen line. I felt the same way about it. If you're going to go as far as referencing the old Bond movies, you better have something better to back it up. And an exploding pen is a heck of a lot cooler than a gun that only Bond can shoot and a radio... How original.

The line felt too smarmy for me. In fact, most of Q's lines did. I didn't find him funny at all.

[Space for Rent]

I can't believe people are getting bent out of shape about the pen joke, when the movie features a guest appearance by one of the most famous pieces of Bond gadgetry in the entire franchise.

[andretti #1]

Originally Posted by Phell

I can't believe people are getting bent out of shape about the pen joke, when the movie features a guest appearance by one of the most famous pieces of Bond gadgetry in the entire franchise.

Well, I'm not bent out of shape because you are right with the other nods to previous Bond movies ... but I still found that line sorta silly and the new gadgetry Q handed over sort of underwhelming. Not a bad movie at all but, hey, everybody has those nits about any movie no matter how perfect it is.

[Blondie OReilly]

Originally Posted by Bane

See, it cost me 29 bucks so I might be a little more judgmental, lol. I had to pay for my wife, too, and I saw it in IMAX.

Anyways, I so agree with you. I HATED the exploding pen line. I felt the same way about it. If you're going to go as far as referencing the old Bond movies, you better have something better to back it up. And an exploding pen is a heck of a lot cooler than a gun that only Bond can shoot and a radio... How original.

The line felt too smarmy for me. In fact, most of Q's lines did. I didn't find him funny at all.

You mean something like a classic Aston Martin with an ejection seat and machine guns?

[Bane]

Originally Posted by Blondie OReilly

You mean something like a classic Aston Martin with an ejection seat and machine guns?

While, yes, that is cool and old fashioned, still wasn't original.

[Space for Rent]

Originally Posted by Bane

While, yes, that is cool and old fashioned, still wasn't original.

Neither was an exploding pen. Been done.

They couldn't have picked anything cooler to reference the old Bond movies.

[andretti #1]

Originally Posted by Phell

Neither was an exploding pen. Been done.

They couldn't have picked anything cooler to reference the old Bond movies.

I think it is more the fact of what was said... when Q said that and then handed Bond what, when compared to past movies, was a rather mundane set of technologies. I mean c'mon ... if you don't do exploding pens then what other cool tech can you provide. If I was Bond I would be disappointed in going from exploding pens and a tricked out Aston Martin to a rather simple tracking device and a slightly modified hand gun.

Is it a big deal in the big picture... not really... but it is one of my nits of the movie.

[Space for Rent]

Originally Posted by andretti #1

I think it is more the fact of what was said...

Yeah, but we're addressing this point by Bane specifically:

Originally Posted by Bane

I felt the same way about it. If you're going to go as far as referencing the old Bond movies, you better have something better to back it up.

Because they did, clearly. If you want a return to the more gadgety, less realistic days of Bond camp, I don't agree with you, but I understand the point. Trying to paint Skyfall as "anti-gadget" is pretty dicey, though, considering well...you know. The pen gag is a set up for what comes later.

[Bane]

Originally Posted by Phell

Yeah, but we're addressing this point by Bane specifically:



Because they did, clearly. If you want a return to the more gadgety, less realistic days of Bond camp, I don't agree with you, but I understand the point. Trying to paint Skyfall as "anti-gadget" is pretty dicey, though, considering well...you know. The pen gag is a set up for what comes later.

I just wanted to see a cool, original gadget because the other Craig Bond movies didn't really have those. And I could've done without the smarmy reference. We already get that this movie is trying to do something different. I dunno, just didn't work for me.

[Space for Rent]

Casino Royale had a mobile hospital room, subcutaneous trackers, and briefcase scanner. All interesting cutting edge technology while remaining plausible and not going over the top.

Skyfall, by virtue of it being a 50th anniversary movie, gets a pass to be self-aware and self-referential. It also features the coolest Bond Gadgetry there is.


If you really want to see the return of underwater cars and laser guns, I understand that point, but we part company here. I don't consider stuff like that to accurately reflect the literary character, and I don't think it is good for the continued existence of the movie franchise in contemporary society.

[Bane]

Originally Posted by Phell

Casino Royale had a mobile hospital room, subcutaneous trackers, and briefcase scanner. All interesting cutting edge technology while remaining plausible and not going over the top.

Skyfall, by virtue of it being a 50th anniversary movie, gets a pass to be self-aware and self-referential. It also features the coolest Bond Gadgetry there is.


If you really want to see the return of underwater cars and laser guns, I understand that point, but we part company here. I don't consider stuff like that to accurately reflect the literary character, and I don't think it is good for the continued existence of the movie franchise in contemporary society.

Then again, it wasn't so much the gadget itself, but clever use of the gadget. I didn't want to see anything downright campy because that wouldn't fit the tone. Mission Impossible has a much better use of gadgetry, imo.

[NeilMcCauley]

I actually preferred the lack of fantastical gadgets. I think the filmmakers were trying to point out that while old Q's tech is awesome, they have no place in a world where the bad guy, possibly thousands of miles away, can blow up mi6 simply by hacking into gas line controls.