OT: James Bond Skyfall Trailer Edit: & Top 5 Bond movies list

Submitted by M-Wolverine on May 22nd, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I almost wanted to make it Bond vs. Michigan vs. Bama, because I hate to break the streak of M/Ala posts (how wild is it that these two schools are so linked right now?), but it's been a slow.....month? (We need a Hello post, stat). And most of the big summer movies have their trailers come out in the fall, during football season. So no Avengers, Dark Knight, etc. hype/discussion. So, OT, but it's that time of year.  Unless we can get another recruit. (Which is still all so ridiculously early for next FEBRUARY). Enjoy; just the teaser-

 

Comments

dothepose

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^

I watched the trailer at work with no sound yesterday and was intrigued alone on that. Hopefully it's better than Quantum of Solace which I was disapointed in.  Having Javier Bardem as a villain seems like the perfect choice as well. Looking forward to November again with a Michigan victory over OSU and the release of this movie.

M-Wolverine

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:49 AM ^

Wasn't sure about the reboot or this blonde bloke, but it was as close to Fleming-like as you could get and still make it a spectacle.  Plus it had the big three things of the book: the card game (though they modernized that too), the torture, and the final line (of the book). So I was excited for QoS....and it felt wanting.  I blame the director. Don't think he understood Bond, and don't like that he tried to make it very Bourne shakey-cam. It was  a let down after the previous one.  So here's to hoping they get back to what made the previous one so great.

Though this doesn't clear up exactly what Ralph Fiennes is up to in the movie....hmmmm...

the fume

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^

There was something about the underlying pain of Bond leftover from Quantum that I sensed the entire movie and I really connected with the character. The hot desolate landscape at the end helped pull that feeling through. His interactions with the two hot women protagonists also gave me the sense that instead of just using them like he did at the beginning of Casino Royale, he was now completely closed-off after Vespa and this showed with a bit angst against the woman.

 

I really like torn/flawed characters and I think that this movie, while maybe not great for plot and action sequences, really solidified what was begun in Casino Royale as far as taking Bond away from the annoyingly smarmy character it had become in the previous movie series. And better yet we got to see it.

M-Wolverine

May 22nd, 2012 at 2:45 PM ^

It was the trappings around it that didn't seem to always click. I will say, it's one that to me was better on second viewing. Plus I think the filming isn't as bad on the small screen than the big.

And...it's Vesper.  Not that it's a big mistake...just because I get the image that Bond is pissed off because they took away his Astin Martin and gave him a scooter.

Seth

May 22nd, 2012 at 1:11 PM ^

I liked Casino up until the card game. I liked the mystery of Baccarat as the game of choice, whereas Texas Hold 'em, which wasn't even played well in the movie, couldn't capture the sense that only the greatest players in the world could be at that table. Anyone at my Thursday night game could have played at that table, and it made it all the more ridiculous that America (which is THE poker nation) couldn't produce a better player. Part of Fleming's whole schtick is to show British things as triumphant over America, and I don't think they should change that because it's part of the heart of what Bond is: British hands-on, gloves- (and other articles of clothing-) off spying when the CIA is all about big expenditure and watching satellites. HOWEVA the choice to make it Texas Hold 'Em ruins that effect because that's our game, man!

Once it becomes a poker movie, the subplot isn't as interesting as, say, Rounders or Lock, Stock, or Maverick.

That's my complaint about it.

Erik_in_Dayton

May 22nd, 2012 at 1:18 PM ^

I'm inclined to forgive that because the movie was made for an international audience (although they all are now, but anyway...) and because even many Americans don't understand poker very well.  That's why, I think, you have Mathis sort of narrate the game to Vesper.  She's the audience stand-in...I'm not a big poker player, either, so that may make it particularly easy for me to forgive.   

saveferris

May 22nd, 2012 at 2:25 PM ^

I think the Hold 'Em poker plot point was a complete concession to an American audience that was on the tail end of the internet poker craze, televised celebrity poker tournaments, and the World Series of Poker.  I think they made the showdown with Le Chiffre a Hold 'Em Poker tournament because more Americans would relate to it.  The fact that they spend nauseating amounts of time explaining the game to the audience just makes the whole plot line that much more frustrating.  That and then the villain, who is supposed to be a poker genius, loses to Bond on a hand that had so many win possibilities was pretty unrealistic.  An experienced poker player would never push all his chips in on a hand like that when every other player is pushing his chips in, it's ludicrous.

I'm with Seth in that it would've been better to just have made the touranment something more glamorous but less familiar like baccarat.  It would'nt have detracted from the story at all and been much more Bond-esque.  The poker thing just made it feel like Guys Night in my basement.

M-Wolverine

May 22nd, 2012 at 2:07 PM ^

It goes with Bond trying to represent the times, and usually being a step behind what's hip. Plus there's so few things that are "exotic" anymore in the age of internet and "cheap" air travel, it's hard to show places in the world that give that feel. Baccarat, the game does. But explaining how it's like Blackjack, but not like Blackjack is probably tougher than Hold 'Em.

And technically, there was an American at the table...Felix. But it wasn't a world tournament, it was an invitation only, super high stakes game.  It didn't have to be the best poker players...just the richest and most connected. Could there have been another American there? Sure (and maybe there was). 

bacon1431

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:34 AM ^

I still love Bond movies. The Daniel Craig ones have been very well done IMO. Alot more serious than some of the past ones. Maybe it's just because I'm only 23, but the Roger Moore ones always seemed hilariously goofy. Still watch and love them, but it didn't seem like the director and staff cared much about plot or acting. Just wanted to put something entertaining on screen. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were good movies anyway you cut it IMO but still had alot of the things that make us love Bond. Really excited about this and am eagerly anticipating the next trailer to learn more about the movie.

M-Wolverine

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:42 AM ^

As the counterculture stuff took over, goverment hit men weren't really a popular motif, so they had to make him more super/movie hero-y. And they were then competing with Star Wars...  If you watch the Bond films over the years, they're very much each and of their time. Which means some, particularly those, age badly.  Still good fun films, but more babe, gadgets, and stunts than plot or character.

Hardware Sushi

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:04 PM ^

Thanks for that explanation.

I agree with bacon, the Moore movies were weird and un-Bondlike to me. At least that makes a lot of sense.

I also agree with you on Quantum of Solace being a little disappointing; you may be right about having the wrong director. I still enjoy the Daniel Craig versions because of their lack of gadgets. Gadgets are fun, but I like the increased focus on Bond being a good detective and general badass more than being able to shoot a grappling hook from his watch while driving his BMW from the backseat with a cell phone that doesn't exist.

M-Wolverine

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^

But there was a lot of worry about Superman coming out in the same era, that "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" was ideals that would seem like a BAD thing to audiences. But they found out that stuff never goes out of style with the majority.

Edit to your edit: I liked the gadgets when they were real spy gear, or just cutting edge enough to work, but not be common. When they got to invisible cars, it got to be too much. But really, half the fun was Q, and now he's gone. :-(

But the remote controlled car wasn't that far off...

 

There was another article on one that worked too, but I can't find it...

Seth

May 22nd, 2012 at 1:30 PM ^

I think I read once that they re-wrote the whole thing after Star Wars came out to take advantage of the new space craze (throwing out the book Moonraker almost entirely in order to create a flimsy excuse to get into space and shoot lasers). It would explain why that one feels stocky (ie they use lots of stock characters and motifs) and rushed.

bacon1431

May 22nd, 2012 at 2:24 PM ^

Hahaha. Moonraker was my favorite when I was a kid. Mostly because of Jaws. Still one of my favorite Bond characters. But I'm also a huge Star Wars geek so that could have been why I liked it. Watching it now though, it's just so over-the-top and ridiculous.

NFG

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:37 AM ^

Saw this yesterday, and I am very excited for the movie. I do appreciate the Bond movies with Daniel Craig, because they make him more human to emotional and physical exposure and weaknesses while conducting clandestine operations. Thus, making the spy movies more realistic than just having a Bond character kill with ease and not have any forms of PTSD or physical trauma.

M-Wolverine

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:00 PM ^

His character is listed as Gareth Mallory, some form of government agent. Who may be more, because, well, it's Ralph Fiennes. There was some early rumor mongering that he might be Blofeld...but I think those rumors come up every new Bond film, and the trailer with him with M watching Bond would make you think no.  It just made some sense this time because they never really tied up who was the real power behind Quantum. Though this isn't supposed to be part of a trilogy. So it's still a bit of a mystery.

dothepose

May 22nd, 2012 at 11:08 AM ^

Let's start listing our top 5 favorite bond movies, I am not gonna start another thread for this , but figure it would be fun.

1) Goldfinger

2) Goldeneye

3) Dr. NO

4) Casino Royale

5) Thunderball

LSAClassOf2000

May 22nd, 2012 at 11:28 AM ^

In order, I would think:

1) Goldfinger

2) Thunderball

3) Casino Royale

4) Goldeneye

5) You Only Live Twice

If I may, for contrast, I would also like to submit my "worst five":

5) "Diamonds Are Forever"

4) "Man With The Golden Gun"

3) "A View To A Kill"

2) "Moonraker"

1) "Octopussy"

 

LSAClassOf2000

May 22nd, 2012 at 2:47 PM ^

I came out of a meeting thinking about the list, and you're right - "Die Another Day" is right up there. As I recall, even Roger Moore hated this one (citing the "invisible cars" and overall "dodgy CGI", in his words), and that's saying a lot when it comes to Bond portrayals. Any Bond film that relies so much on special effects that it makes James Bond almost a tertiary character in what was really a plot-starved movie really should be at or near the bottom of the list.

M-Wolverine

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:19 PM ^

1) Goldfinger (everything a Bond film should be)

2) From Russia with Love (best Bond book)

3) Casino Royale (said above what I like)

4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service (if Connery had done one more film, rather than leaving and coming back for maybe worst Diamonds are Forever, this would be the top one. Lazenby isn't even horrible...but seeing Connery act the hell out of it would have been gold).

5) The Living Daylights (the last time Bond got serious again. Only thing really hurting it is a lack of grand villians)

Honorable Mentions- Dr. No, which sets the standard, but has a few parts that just aren't grand. A 30 second fistfight to dump Dr. No in the drink. (In the book, he kills him by dropping tons of birdshit on him. No lie. And there's a giant squid).  And Tomorrow Never Dies. I like it more than most, but it has all the parts, and Michelle Yeoh was bad-ass. Best Moore one was probably The Spy Who Loved Me.

M-Wolverine

May 22nd, 2012 at 2:15 PM ^

One of the coolest theme songs, maybe the movie closest to the book, the only on-screen Blofeld that wasn't laughable (and as much as Telly overacts everything he does, when you compare him to the midget in YOLT, and whatever the hell was going on in DAF), as said below, one of the coolest Bond Girls in Diana Riggs, and one of the best stories to go with her. Lazenby  isn't bad. He's just not as polished as Connery ever was. If he wasn't stupid off the set he'd have gotten to do more movies. Had very little to do with his performance.  It's just that last scene would have been gut-wrenching to see super tough/cool Connery do it.

But it's not just the actor...it's plot/script. Diamonds are Forever should have been more like the follow up book, You Only Live Twice, and had the opening sequence be the style of the whole movie. He's bad ass and "kills" Blofeld in the first five minutes (or is that kills "Blofeld"?), in what should be a revenge flick...and then it turns in some of the stuff better suited for Moore than Connery. (Not that he's not to blame...it was obviously a "biggest paycheck for an actor ever" job, and he couldn't bother to get in shape or get a good toupee). And we end up with not a lot of carryover anger, and a nebulous end to the whole Spectre deal that they kinda wrap up in another opening years later.  All very disappointing.

joeyb

May 22nd, 2012 at 11:11 AM ^

Daniel Craig has to be a close second in the race for my favorite Bond. I don't think that anyone is going to top Sean Connery, because, to me, he is James Bond. I also have to say that Pierce Brosnan was my least favorite Bond. He just seemed to focus too much on the ladies' man aspect of Bond and not enough on the bad ass aspect of Bond.

Noahdb

May 22nd, 2012 at 11:17 AM ^

I was hoping they'd go back to the canon for the third film. Goldfinger was the second book after Casino Royale, wasn't it? 

And yes, Bond isn't really a spy. He's covert ops. Spies are generally turncoats like Kim Philby.

French West Indian

May 22nd, 2012 at 11:23 AM ^

...but after Quantum of Solace, I'm keeping my expectations in check.

Still, Casino Royale was exceptional.  That chase scene early in the movie when Bond ran down the parkour bomb maker has to be one of the best action sequences ever.  The lightness of the parkour contrasted with the raw bruteness of a determined Bond.  No fancy machines just plain old running with a life & death fierceness of pace.  And that moment atop the construction crane when the villain pulls a gun to shoot Bond but it jams, so he throws it, but Bonds catches it and then whips it back at him...damn.

It was also fun seeing Bond in the early stages.  When he could still make some mistakes and before all of the clichés had taken hold (shabby wardrobe & disregard for the shaken vs. stirred martini, etc).  Unfortunately, it is a bit difficult to keep up that vibe as he evolves into the Bond that we all already know.

WindyCityBlue

May 22nd, 2012 at 11:58 AM ^

I know this is unpopular, but Daniel Craig is not a good James Bond.  He doesn't have the classy good looks of RM nor the panache of SC.  He has turned James Bond into a Jason Bourne (which is more like the books, I know).  Have you heard him say, "Bond, James Bond"?  Its horrible!  No wonder the writers only let him say it a couple times.

Neg away...  

Erik_in_Dayton

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:02 PM ^

Daniel Craig is my favorite James Bond.  I'm not a particular fan of the entire franchise, but I thought Casino Royale was really good.  The movie (and Craig) at least hinted at the downside of being the man that Bond is, something that I think all of the previous movies (that I saw) lacked. 

WindyCityBlue

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:21 PM ^

....that earlier Bonds made the way of an agent very whimsical and capricious.  But they did show James getting married (Tracy Bond) in Her Majesty.  She was subsequently killed after the ceremony.  They hint to her existence in several follow-up installments including For Your Eyes Only where you see RM putting flowers on her grave in the beginning sequence.   

I'm actually a big overall James Bond fan.  I know the movies quite well and will no doubt see Skyfall on the first weekend.  Daniel Craig just doesn't do it for me.

M-Wolverine

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:28 PM ^

He's been an excellent proto-Bond.  I was really worried when he was cast, because Bond should be someone every guy wants to be, and every woman wants to be with.  And frankly, though he's got a great weight trainer, I don't think he's that good looking a guy. But as a "blunt instrument" who's still being honed to a fine blade, he pulled it off very well. Now that he seems to have had some closure with the last film, it's time to see if he can have some of the coolness too. No one will ever be Connery again.  Only he could pull off the guy who takes in all the finer things in life because beyond enjoying life because every moment could be his last, he also is trying to show everyone that the orphan boy deserves to be among the English elite; all while underneath there's basically a killing animal.  Connery is who I want to be when I grow up. But it doesn't mean that there can't be a facsimile.  So far they've had a hard time with either the guy being too light and fluffy, or too grim.  This will be Craig's chance to not stray too far either way.

DenverBuckeye

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:40 PM ^

I can see both points of view on this. If you love the books then Craig is the closest. But he definitely is a departure from the earlier Bonds that people loved. Personally, I was just happy the got away from Brosnan.