James Bond: Skyfall

So a few first images from the filming of the next Bond flick have surfaced:

Bond looks a bit old and run down in these shots. I wonder what we'll be in store for this go-round.

 

Re: Skyfall

Interesting. I want to see a Bond movie where ALL the 00's get involved. IIRC, the most we've seen at any one time was three, when they infiltrated Gibraltar in "The Living Daylights." If MI6 itself is being attacked in this one, I may get my wish.

 

Re: Skyfall

That would be a good story line...but a bit too much like the next Mission Impossible.

 

Re: Skyfall

I just want Q. I wish they'd adapt the latest novel Carte Blanche, which I thought did a thousand times better than either Craig films at modernizing Bond

 

Re: Skyfall

Now are they actual JAMES BOND photos, or just Daniel Craig being Daniel Craig? If it's Bond, then his hair is the shortest yet! And do my eyes deceive me-- sort of gray?? Like the rugged look though

 

Re: Skyfall

Those are shots from filming in Trafalger Square - so yes they are the real deal.

I miss Brosnan as Bond. Craig is less suave and debonair than Brosnan but definitely more raw and hardcore which isn't a bad thing.

 

Re: Skyfall

In "From Russia with Love" I believe all the 00 agents are at a briefing. Nine chairs are shown and Bond arrives late, sitting in chair seven. The scene was shot mostly from behind the 00 chairs so you really couldn't see the agents.

 

Re: Skyfall

Exactly.

With M expressing "Now that we're all here."

 

Re: Skyfall

It was Thunderball (since nobody else was gonna say it :lol)

BTW there was a Bond marathon on today and I watched the last half hour of Casino Royale followed by all of QOS-- got me very pumped to learn more about SkyFall!

 

Re: Skyfall

He ran like a girl.

 

Re: Skyfall

There must be a few woman 00s by now.

I really liked the first Craig. The second started well but was a big mess.

Here's hoping.

 

Re: Skyfall

Only 'cause it was riding the coattails of Casino Royale.

 

Re: Skyfall

Looks like you're getting your wish. Not sure if its a good thing though...

Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

 

Re: Skyfall

Whats the story with this film anyone know yet?

 

Re: Skyfall

officially-released SPOILER

This was released a couple of weeks ago:


In SKYFALL, Bond’s loyalty to M is tested as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost.

 

I am really looking forward to this, that is why I changed the thread title so people know it´s about BOND, JAMES BOND!!!

I just hope it won´t be a cinematic version of 24.

Michael

 

Re: Skyfall

Ugh, uggggh, and UGH!!! That guy is WAY too young to play Q. More to the point, bringing back Q means bringing back more gadgets - which is a bad thing (this coming from someone who absolutely LOVES gadgets....). Although, one commenter on the Ain't it Cool site said Hugh Laurie would have made a great Q... and I think I have to agree on that one.


I REALLY hope they're doing something more cleaver than "Bond is a rogue agent" again. it's seriously played out. What would be neat is if Bond had to play the opposite side of the coin and hunt a rogue M. M goes under while Bond has to investigate/clear her name while hunting her down.

 

Re: Skyfall

Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOES! A young actor!

It's all about context, which we have none of. If this modern day bond needs ultra high tech gadgets with integrated software to back it up, I'd believe a young Q over an older Q who probably couldn't change the clock on his dusty VCR.


And to Man from Naboo, I also don't want it to be 24 but it's been a cinematic Jason Bourne twice now. At least 24 would have a change of pace.

 

Re: Skyfall

It's a well-held myth that only young people know anything about modern technology. I know TONS of people who are in their 50s and 60s that could run circles around Twitter-toating teens (well, maybe not literally, but technologically anyway).

Here's the point: No matter how brilliant a kid is with gadgets and software, they lack the experience and protocol needed for them to have any kind of rank in any kind of organization. You don't promote a college grad to CTO.

Besides which, it's not really a Quartermaster's job to build software and hardware solutions, it's their job to make sure bond is supplied with what the Agency has. A whole team in IT is doing the legwork of building solutions and integrating hardware. Q's job is to say "Okay Bond, you're going on this mission, so here's a phone, laptop, and poison gas cufflinks." That experience of handing out the right tools for the mission at hand doesn't come from a college course.

So, yes - Q should be someone older (not necessarily in their 60s, but at least 40s).

 

Bond is starting to look more...Bond-like:

 

Uh...no. I think you meant "once now"; and that was due to the ridiculous choice of using that awful shaky-cam quick-edits bullstein.

I know they filmed a great boat chase scene in Quantum of Solace, it would have been nice to have seen it.

 

But the editing would've made it impossible to tell they were boats. There would've been solid objects, water, and the sound of fists hitting flesh. That's what you would've gotten out of it.

And frankly, I'm not enthused about Q either. I liked the de-emphasis of gadgetry. I wouldn't mind there being a minor thing like "Your PDA is equipped with a scrambler and a set of algorithms that may help you pick the lock at the security tower. Beyond that, though, Bond, you're on your own." But not "Oh, and it has an ejection seat, laser cannons, and it can turn invisible."

 

But Q was a significant part of what made Bond exciting. Without the gadgets, he's just another Jack Bower wanna-be.

 

I am excited for this. Good director, great actors, and hopefully a fresh start from Quantum of Solace.

Brosnan has no nuance. He is just a typical hunk.

Q could be a problem because the character is too much of a deus ex machina. He is there to provide the thing that will obviously save everyone in the end. If the writers do it right, he'll be a small part.

 

:facepalm
Um, Bauer is the Bond wanna-be.

 

It's not just the gadgets, but it's also their interactions with each other. Bond loves to tease Q by fiddling with his gadgets, and Q loves to lecture Bond on how he should be properly handling his equipment. It's situations like this where they're supposed to be serious, but they both seem to take some joy in getting the upper hand on one another.

 

No, without gadgets, he's the James Bond that millions of readers first fell in love with. Without gadgets, he's a guy who wins because of his grit, determination, smarts, and toughness -- like he did in the novels which any Bond fan should really take time to read.

Bond in the novels is not this all-knowing, always-prepared-with-a-deus-ex-machina-toy guy. He's a tough, competent agent.

I think the best depictions of this are in Casino Royale, Dr. No, and From Russia with Love. I'd say that Casino Royale-level or From Russia With Love-level gadgetry is as much as I want to see. An attache case with some hidden tools? Fine. Acceptable as long as they aren't things like grappling hook watches and explosive toothpaste. The defibrillator in the car in Casino Royale was alright. It was gadgetry, yeah, but not TOTALLY over-the-top gadgetry.

Bond in Dr. No is a classic example of what I want to see. Watch how he sets up his hotel room. He does simple tradecraft of the spy by doing things like taking a hair from his head and sticking it to the doorframe. This lets him know his room's been tampered with when he returns and the hair is gone. He didn't need a special belt-mounted infrared night-vision video camera to play back a 3D hologram of his room being searched by enemy agents. The hair was gone. That was enough, and it was out of his own ingenuity (well, actually, probably training).

Likewise, I like that Bond knows stuff but isn't all knowing. Bond in the novels knows about the finer things in life because (A) he didn't grow up having them already, and (B) they are his refuge for the daily grind when he isn't in the field and how he forgets his field work (which simultaneously thrills and disgusts him).

Bond in the films, on the other hand, can pick out the vintage of brandy grapes even if the brandy itself doesn't list a vintage, or whatever.



So, like I said, some level of gadgetry, some level of sophistication. But keep it to a minimum. Don't get me wrong. I like much of the old school Bond. But I'm done with it. I have the older films and that's enough. And I don't trust them to make an effective gadget-laden film anymore. Not when their last outing with gadgetry produced AN INVISIBLE FREAKING CAR. Seriously. WTF?! It just gets stupid after a while.


Over-reliance on gadgetry or get-out-of-peril-free devices ruins heroes. The same thing applies to Batman and Superman. When Superman can just use some made-up-on-the-spot power to get out of trouble, it makes him LESS heroic, not more. And while we can accept a level of gadgetry from Batman, when he simply gets out of trouble because he has a Bat-Get-out-of-this-specific-bad-situation device on his belt, it makes him LESS heroic, not more.


When Spielberg said he wanted to do a James Bond film, Lucas convinced him to do Indiana Jones instead. Ironically, Indiana Jones in the films is a LOT closer to the literary version of Bond than the film version of Bond is, precisely because he wins by being smart and tough, not loaded with kewl toys.

 

Amen.

Double amen. I can put up with clever gadgets, (Connery's gyrocopter, Moore's wrist darts) but that, for all intents, was sci-fi.

 

Solo4114 has got it right. A story is more compelling with MORE challenges, not these quick fixes to get the story moving.

Good TDK example is: Plot point- 2 officers dead in an apartment. leads to, bullet in wall, leads to, I have all the technology in the world, leads to, I am in an empty apartment while joker shoots the mayor.

It is horrible writing because it all hinges on impossible tech that makes no sense. Stories cannot be told this way.

 

The helicopter with the 800 buzz saws on it. Like helicopters are stable enough platforms to use a buzz saw to cut a car in half. :behave

 

New shot:



It doesn't even look like Bond to me, so I'm interested to see why he looks so blown out and haggard.

 

He's waiting with his classic Walther PPK in his hand. If he doesn't look like Bond, he's doing a good job.

 

General gadgets are okay. But those hi tech hi dollar impossible plot escapes are stupid. How does Q know Bond will need a laser in his wristwatch or an exploding keyfob? He carries it that one time, and he needed it that one time.

Keep it within known physics as well. Where's the power source for a laser watch? How do you get an x-ray tube into a cell phone? They don't have that in Star Trek for petes sake.

 

Worse. Star Trek has technobabble science. Want to do time travel safely through a black hole, and destroy a planet the next? Split a huge ship in half? There's a floating piece of red lava lamp wax that can do all of those things.

 

I know I'm not the only one to state it but the Bond in the novels had VERY few gadgets. I often joke that the only three he carried were his wits, his fists, and his wristwatch (that he used at least once as a fistpack).
I would LOVE to see the Bond NOVELS made into films. I know they'd be politically incorrect and have to be "period pieces" but I'd love every second of it.

 

The mess of a boat chase scene that was on screen in QOS.

fixed it.

 

I think that promotional photo looks cool. Is it wrong for 007 to get a makeover in cinematography?

Looks darker and more mysterious.

 

Yeah I agree, the photo gives off a dark vibe. I loved his portrayal of Bond in Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale, so this should be awesome!

 

I am super excited for Ralph Fiennes and Javier Bardem.

 

Skyfall: The hunt for a new aids cocktail

will bond find the drugs to save himself before time runs out!?

 

Can't wait to see this movie.

Does this pic remind anyone else of Blade Runner? Makes me think of Deckard pursuing Zhora.

 

Bond need not always be all suave and tuxedoed either. Sometimes he can look haggard and beat up because....he's been beat up and on the run or whathaveyou.

Go watch Dr. No. Bond looks beat up just trying to escape from his cell. He also looks like a badass because he does it with wits, brawn, and determination. Not because he had a device that was introduced in some telegraphing scene at the start of the movie where Q said "Now look here, Bond. This device is a personal teleporter. Range, 3km. You simply press this button here, and you'll be teleported 3km in the direction of the nearest MI6 station house." Gee...I wonder where THAT will come in handy...

The keychain mentioned above was another good example. The one I'm remember from The Living Daylights (which is one of my favorite of the Bond films, but still has an overreliance on gadgetry) included a small explosive (which he uses to kill a badguy at the end), AND knock-out gas, either of which were triggered by him whistling either Rule Britannia, or a wolf-whistle.

Now, that film was still highly entertaining, but the gadgetry there is pure "get out of trouble free" plot-device material. By contrast, the attache case in From Russia with Love at least made sense to give to a field agent.


I'm not against ALL gadgetry, mind you. I just think that it needs to be kept to a minimum. Casino Royale did it the best, thus far. The Aston Martin with the defibrillator and remote patch-in to MI6 HQ was a bit far-fetched and "get out of trouble free", but the scene was handled well (because there was no guarantee he'd be able to pull it off), and it wasn't as if the car could also shoot lasers from the lugnuts on the wheels, levitate, and/or launch remotely guided missiles from the tailpipes.

That stuff's all cool and can be fun, but I'm just...done with it. I have 20-something bond films from the 1960s-1990s to watch if that's what I want. I'd rather see a resourceful, tough, intelligent Bond who thinks and fights his way out of trouble, rather than gadgets his way out. A little gadgetry is fine, but the gadgets too often become a crutch for storytelling.

 

Alright he's got a PP7 lol (GoldenEye)

 

That's horrible.

 

As a HUGE Fan of the Walther PPK (one of my favorite handgun designs, second only to the 1911...), I surprisingly think they made a mistake taking him BACK to the PPK. He has the P99 in Casino Royale, and suddenly and without explanation had the PPK in QoS.
This is a modern Bond so he needs a modern gun. I think the newer Walther PPS would be a better choice. Still small and compact, but chambered in 9mm or .40 cal. Much more potent round than the .32 or .380 of the PPK.....

 

I just googled that since I had never heard of it, and it kind of looks like a P99 that's the same size and length as a PPK. Sort of the best of both worlds if you will. I like it!

 

I cant get into craig being bond at all. the only 2 real bonds to me was connery and brosnan

 

Picture looks sweet. Gonna be a good year for movies.

 

Brosnan's Bond was too reliant on gadgets.

 

All the Bonds have, in one film or another, been too reliant on gadgets. The only exception to this was actually George Lazenby because his film was alost a perfect recreation of the book (to the point where neither he nor Blofeld recognize each other in spite of having tangled in the last film, due to publishing order). All of the rest had goofy or at least plot-device gadgets in at least one film.

Brosnan had some of the most egregiously stupid gadgets, though, culminating in the INVISIBLE FREAKIN' CAR.