rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Can't wait to see this movie.
Does this pic remind anyone else of Blade Runner? Makes me think of Deckard pursuing Zhora.
James Bond: Skyfall
- Thread starter Monster Dave
- Start date
Can't wait to see this movie.
Does this pic remind anyone else of Blade Runner? Makes me think of Deckard pursuing Zhora.
Solo4114
Master Member
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.
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.
That's horrible.
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.
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.....
Master Dahark
Well-Known Member
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!
justinbauler
Well-Known Member
I cant get into craig being bond at all. the only 2 real bonds to me was connery and brosnan
Solo4114
Master Member
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.
I liked Daltons Bond. But the scripts.......blaaaach!
Connerys Bond was still just a government worker. They give him a silencer and a few things in a briefcase and send him on his way. He succeeds because he's good at the job.
Brosnan has a Cloaked Car!! It would be more valuable than any mission he was on. If it was captured they'd have to send all the 00s out to get it back.
As for the guns, you can get special bullets for any caliber. You never see them in movies though. Bonds got a laser grenade comb, but still uses standard bullets.
Connerys Bond was still just a government worker. They give him a silencer and a few things in a briefcase and send him on his way. He succeeds because he's good at the job.
Brosnan has a Cloaked Car!! It would be more valuable than any mission he was on. If it was captured they'd have to send all the 00s out to get it back.
As for the guns, you can get special bullets for any caliber. You never see them in movies though. Bonds got a laser grenade comb, but still uses standard bullets.
Noeland
Master Member
Yeah, well, look who they are marketing the PPS toward. Fans.
Walther PPS Promo - YouTube
I like the PPK too. I think there was talk that it was used in QOS because it was his backup to the P99, which he lost at the end of Casino Royale. I know. I know.
I don't mind him with a PPK. It's Bond.
When I posted that it doesn't even look like Bond to me, I meant his unshaven look, but even his haircut seems to be different. But Craig is a very different Bond in the films he's made. I like that.
Walther PPS Promo - YouTube
I like the PPK too. I think there was talk that it was used in QOS because it was his backup to the P99, which he lost at the end of Casino Royale. I know. I know.
I don't mind him with a PPK. It's Bond.
When I posted that it doesn't even look like Bond to me, I meant his unshaven look, but even his haircut seems to be different. But Craig is a very different Bond in the films he's made. I like that.
Wakeem
Sr Member
That was one of those stupid Abrams universe references. A big "look this is what the red ball does. Star Trek is part of the Alias universe now!" I hated it.
Anyway, this Bond picture reminds me of the part in Die Another Day when Brosnan's Bond enters the mirror area of that plastic surgery office. Craig used the PPK in Quantum of Solace too. I don't know why though because he had a P99 in Casino Royale. Craig himself said he wanted a big gun for the last scene in Casino. I wish we knew why Bond was using the PPK. Other than because he's Bond now.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
I love both the Craig Bond movies. I'm ready for another!
Noeland
Master Member
Dear God in heaven, you complain about Star Trek in other threads too???
That's why they call it science FICTION. It's all made up and fake.
Bond is a little different. Not so much space travel, aliens, and red matter. Well, a different kind of red matter.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
MasterDurangus
Well-Known Member
My personal opinion here:
Craig just doesn't cut it for me. The best Bond was always Sean Connery, I think Brosnan was second just because he had this great suave, keep-it-cool style but could also act the action scenes well. The gadgets aren't even relevant to the actor playing Bond because that's not important to the portrayal of the character.
Sean Connery is the one who did the "Bond, James Bond." He was smart, coy, suave, mysterious and effective. Dalton was my least favorite Bond before Craig.
Craig is too Jason-Bourney, and the whole thing with Vesper was so un-Bondlike it just didn't work. Bond was only married to one woman in Lazenby's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," and her death forever affected him, coming up multiple times in later movies. Craig meets one women then decides to resign and spend his life with her? In OHMSS, Bond didn't even consider that. They made Bond too emotional, and then the second movie was all a reaction to this emotion. Instead of having a real "save-the-world" kind of mission, he just wants to kill everyone who harmed his dead girlfriend.
Bond is rough in both movies, he's not sophisticated and considering he practically dies in Casino Royale from the poison before Vesper comes in and uses the AED, I'm surprised the made a sequel and are now working on the third.
Bond - dying.
Bond - resigning over a girl.
Bond - putting his personal feelings over his mission.
Bond - more hand-to-hand combat than any strategy
Bond - almost tortured to death (even in Die Another Day, Bond withstood years of torture and then went right back to his mission)
This just isn't Bond. True, from the books, none of the Bond's are perfect, but from the movies, there is a sense of continuity. And it's broken with Craig.
Craig just doesn't cut it for me. The best Bond was always Sean Connery, I think Brosnan was second just because he had this great suave, keep-it-cool style but could also act the action scenes well. The gadgets aren't even relevant to the actor playing Bond because that's not important to the portrayal of the character.
Sean Connery is the one who did the "Bond, James Bond." He was smart, coy, suave, mysterious and effective. Dalton was my least favorite Bond before Craig.
Craig is too Jason-Bourney, and the whole thing with Vesper was so un-Bondlike it just didn't work. Bond was only married to one woman in Lazenby's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," and her death forever affected him, coming up multiple times in later movies. Craig meets one women then decides to resign and spend his life with her? In OHMSS, Bond didn't even consider that. They made Bond too emotional, and then the second movie was all a reaction to this emotion. Instead of having a real "save-the-world" kind of mission, he just wants to kill everyone who harmed his dead girlfriend.
Bond is rough in both movies, he's not sophisticated and considering he practically dies in Casino Royale from the poison before Vesper comes in and uses the AED, I'm surprised the made a sequel and are now working on the third.
Bond - dying.
Bond - resigning over a girl.
Bond - putting his personal feelings over his mission.
Bond - more hand-to-hand combat than any strategy
Bond - almost tortured to death (even in Die Another Day, Bond withstood years of torture and then went right back to his mission)
This just isn't Bond. True, from the books, none of the Bond's are perfect, but from the movies, there is a sense of continuity. And it's broken with Craig.
MasterDurangus
Well-Known Member
Die Another Day was definitely a separation from the continuity of Bond, though not on the same level as Casino Royale / Quantum of Solace.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
I thought of Casino Royal as the origin of Bond.
To me it explains why Bond is so detached, because he once lost himself and became too attached to Vesper. He is so dedicated to his job, because he once lost focus. He learned from his mistakes and now is they guy we know in the later movies.
Bond has been saved by others plenty of times. He isn't Superman. He isn't invincible. To me it adds to the character that he is in real danger, and doesn't always achieve success based on his own skill alone. I can relate, because sometimes you just cant believe you actually made it through what you just went through!
Craig certainly does a lot more action that previous Bonds, but this is a welcome change to me. I loved the opening of Casino Royal. It was needed.
Skyfall looks much darker, and I love that.
To me it explains why Bond is so detached, because he once lost himself and became too attached to Vesper. He is so dedicated to his job, because he once lost focus. He learned from his mistakes and now is they guy we know in the later movies.
Bond has been saved by others plenty of times. He isn't Superman. He isn't invincible. To me it adds to the character that he is in real danger, and doesn't always achieve success based on his own skill alone. I can relate, because sometimes you just cant believe you actually made it through what you just went through!
Craig certainly does a lot more action that previous Bonds, but this is a welcome change to me. I loved the opening of Casino Royal. It was needed.
Skyfall looks much darker, and I love that.
Similar threads
