OT: New James Bond Skyfall Full Trailer

Submitted by M-Wolverine on July 31st, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Now with 100% more Q!


I'm excited.



August 1st, 2012 at 9:51 AM ^

FYEO was probably #2 in my book.  It was more low-key, it wasn't about end of the world or anything, just a dang little computer terminal.  The Greek hottie was probably the best Bond Girl of them all, except for maybe...

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.  That was the most epic, with the big fight between the submarine crews at the end, the gorgeous Russian chick with a vendetta, the underwater lair, etc.

Close third was Moonraker, because the space battles and Jaws and all that.


August 1st, 2012 at 11:21 AM ^

Ummm, yeah, russian chick underwater just HAPPENS to be given a weird outfit by the underwater guy just in time to get soaked.

But it is good to see that Christopher Walken's hair from FYEO (underrated Bond Villian IMO) made it into the new film on Bardem.


July 31st, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^

Great trailer. The theory of the third movie looks like it could be in full effect.  Connery, Moore, and Brosnan are widely considered to have done their best Bond movie in Goldfinger, Spy Who Loved Me, and World Is Not Enough, respectively.

You could argue that there were better starring each man, but those were three of the best.   Spy especially put Moore on solid footing after a shakier first couple movies.

Skyfall has an elite director in the industry for one of the first times in the history of the series too. Should be fun.


July 31st, 2012 at 6:48 PM ^

I liked Brosnan overall and thought each of his first 3 movies were very good. The last one fell apart when they sent him to Iceland, but in all 4 he played the part very well.   

Goldeneye played it right down the middle as far as story. Very good movie but horrible track music. I mean as bad as it gets.


July 31st, 2012 at 7:00 PM ^

I thought he was still maybe a little too much Remington Steele in Goldeneye, where his coldness in killing Elektra was spot on Bond in TWINE. Now as a movie, I don't know. Sean Bean rules. But then I like Tomorrow Never Dies best of the Brosnan ones, so I'm not in the norm. (The last one was an abortion).


July 31st, 2012 at 7:52 PM ^

Agree with that and have always considered Goldeneye a favorite.  Excellent cast, well written and acted, and Tina Turner's awesome theme.  Epic opening sequence.  For some reason, and I do think it is mostly the writing, by Brosnan's last Bond they had gone way off the rails.

I read an interview with one of the producers who admitted the Bourne movies were what forced them to recognize how nutty the Bonds series had become, hence the return to a more gritty, realistic tone with Craig.

Many hardcore fans of the books consider Timothy Dalton closest to Ian Fleming's literary Bond.


July 31st, 2012 at 7:33 PM ^

Believe it or not, I liked The Man With The Golden Gun better. 

As far as Roger Moore, I did not care for Live And Let Die, and Octopussy and For Your Eyes Only were also mediocre, as far as Bond films go. By the time A View To A Kill came around, Moore was well past his prime. 


August 1st, 2012 at 9:54 AM ^

Man With The Golden Gun was remarkable to me, because the VILLIAN was a BETTER CHARACTER than Bond.  Moore was unforvigiving, full of himself, a total jerk.  Scaramonga was a lot better and more fun to watch in that movie.  I mean, if you never saw any other Bond film, you'd find no reason to root for Bond in that movie -- the moviemakers just assumed you'd like him.  Sort of like Batman v. Joker in Dark Knight -- the Joker character was way, way, way better to watch than Batman, who had zero personality.


August 1st, 2012 at 11:12 AM ^

But yeah, they had an interesting take on Bond in the early Moore films.  I mean, Bond is kind of a jerk.


...because I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War, who's boyish charms, though wasted on me, obviously appealed to the young lady I sent out to evaluate you.

But as it states...a charming one.  Early Moore was more swarmy than charming, but maybe because he hadn't fallen into his comfort zone of being himself with the character (cold hearted Bond he wasn't...though he had some good turns in For Your Eyes Only). 

The scripts didn't help him either, though. I mean, in Live and Let Die he takes a girl's virginity by faking cards...even for Bond that's kinda low....


July 31st, 2012 at 8:38 PM ^

But his movies were not. And they definitely did not have the staying power of other Bond films. The cheesy 80s vibe did not sit well.

To a certain extent, most Bond films have had to "adjust" based on movies that they compete with. In the 80s Moore had cheesy music etc. that reminds me of Shaft! and that type of film. Connery had no competition, his films feel pretty original. Brosnans were all about technology, like the late 90s were. 

Just look at this new "gritty" reboot. And look at the Batman trilogy and Bourne trilogy, those are the other main action films of the time. and Bond has followed suit.

That said, Quantum of Solace wasn't great. The writers strike really hurt the film, apparently Craig wrote some scenes, and he hated them. I'm very excited for the reintroduction of Q, I just hope the new character retains some of the wit that the older one had. I actually thought Cleese did a great job in relief, and wouldn't have minded if he stayed on. I don't know if he would have done the transition to "gritty" as well as Judy Densch did, but I think he could have. 

tl;dr - I'm excited for this movie. And the Aston. 


July 31st, 2012 at 9:33 PM ^

Good insights. I think they went a good way with Q. You're never going to be as good as Desmond, so no reason to go that way again. They tried following up the original M with another old guy, but it wasn't anything special. When they tried to go a different direction ith the current M it picked up some new flavor. This kid will never be the old Q; but I'm ok with that. (Plus back in the 60's who were scientists? Old guys. Nowadays some kid would think to put a laser in a cell phone or something.)


August 1st, 2012 at 11:19 AM ^

Bond is at least partially about gadgets/awesome tech. It doesn't have to go as far as his invisible car fighting a villian with also a tricked out car... but at the start of Quantum when he was getting chased I was thinking "His Aston can't at least have JACKS!?!?!" I mean, a little tech isn't a bad thing. He's a super spy, they have cool stuff.

I hope there is at least SOME tech moving forward besides a gun that will only shoot for him. Hell, I'd even take an ejector seat, and I'm not joking.


July 31st, 2012 at 9:42 PM ^

Roger fit the times. He liked the cash but he could act too. He'll always hold the record for most movies because as good as Craig is, I feel he'll bow out before he gets to 7.

I liked Quantum a lot. As a pure action movie it stands out. Olga Kurylenko is sizzling so that didn't hurt.

Brosnan to me will always be an important Bond because he resurrected the franchise just by his presence. No one wanted the part in the mid-90s and he brought back elements of Connery and Moore rolled into one. He had tremendous style and was tougher than people figured he would be.

He was the guy everyone wanted to succeed Moore and then it didn't happen. Then Dalton was inserted and he was good but didn't connect with the audience.

Brosnan basically got everyone thinking he was the guy from this:



Wallaby Court

July 31st, 2012 at 9:59 PM ^

I completely disagree as to the quality of Quantum as an action movie. It was a terrible action movie. The fight scenes are visually incomprehensible and almost nauseating to watch. I hate everything about the quick-cut, shaky-cam approach they took in that movie. While it can be useful in very limited situations to convey a sense of visceral action and tension, taking to the extreme of Quantum is inexcusable. Frankly, I think quick-cut, shaky-cam needs to take a five to ten year break. It is so pervasive (see The Hunger Games) that it has lost any impact. Movies like Saving Private Ryan and The Bourne Identity succeeded with QCSC because it was so novel and unexpected. It needs to disappear if it is to retain any impact.


July 31st, 2012 at 7:04 PM ^

It looks pretty good. Is this a movie where you need to see the previous ones to understand what's going on? I've never been intrigued by these movies until just recently.