|
|
Post by Bestie on Nov 11, 2012 20:19:09 GMT
That's a fair point Bestie, it is what Casino Royale should have been. Absolutely. They are quite different films, Casino Royale was meant to be '007 Begins', whereas this was set later when he's actually the experienced Bond. Casino Royale was still fantastic though it didn't need to be something else. If Skyfall ahd been the first Craig film it wouldn't have worked as well. Yeah, and seeing as there had been 20 films considered as canon prior to Casino Royale, doing a '007 Begins' was completely retarded. e. g. You can't have Bond 'starting out', but also have Dame Judi Dench as M, and include Goldeneye as part of the Bond continuity (the new Q references the exploding pen in Skyfall) because the new M being a woman was a big thing in the Bond universe. It isn't as if they did it like Nolan's Batman trilogy and had it as a stand-alone continuity. So in my view, Skyfall would have worked exactly as the next in the series. Probably would have given Craig more credibility with Bond fans too. 'Whole new MI6, whole new Bond' type deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Tatty on Nov 11, 2012 21:09:15 GMT
Saw this yesterday.
Borefest. Only good thing was Javier Bardem.
|
|
|
|
Post by fletchabey on Nov 11, 2012 21:26:56 GMT
They are quite different films, Casino Royale was meant to be '007 Begins', whereas this was set later when he's actually the experienced Bond. Casino Royale was still fantastic though it didn't need to be something else. If Skyfall ahd been the first Craig film it wouldn't have worked as well. Yeah, and seeing as there had been 20 films considered as canon prior to Casino Royale, doing a '007 Begins' was completely retarded. e. g. You can't have Bond 'starting out', but also have Dame Judi Dench as M, and include Goldeneye as part of the Bond continuity (the new Q references the exploding pen in Skyfall) because the new M being a woman was a big thing in the Bond universe. It isn't as if they did it like Nolan's Batman trilogy and had it as a stand-alone continuity. So in my view, Skyfall would have worked exactly as the next in the series. Probably would have given Craig more credibility with Bond fans too. 'Whole new MI6, whole new Bond' type deal. Maybe having Judi Dench provided some unnecessary continuity but I wonder if that was more due to contracts than what they maybe wanted to do. It had way more references than exploding pens as you know doubt noticed, but that wasn't to deal out any continuity, more knowing nods because of the 50th anniversary of Bond. All a bit tongue in cheek. Looking through the other films, the actor changes, the tone changes to the later Brosnan films, suspension of disbelief is necessary even before the Craig films  To me you just seem a bit nit-picky. Though each to their own, but I felt the reboot was necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Bestie on Nov 11, 2012 21:42:06 GMT
I am nit-picky, I'm a massive James Bond fanatic. I want the films to be consistently excellent, and I want them to make sense in the overall arc of the James Bond continuum. For example, since the Casino Royale 2006 was 'beginning' Bond, has Tracy never existed yet, or has she still already died? That's a very seminal thing for Bond too. Also, has Craig ever shown Bond to have a weakness in the left shoulder, which was damaged in The World Is Not Enough? Also, why in Skyfall, does the bullet wound to his right pectoral seem to represent where he was shot by M's order, when he was clearly shot there by the guy on top of the train?
I'm not saying a reboot wasn't necessary by the way, I'm just saying that Casino Royale (2006) was a terrible attempt at it. Skyfall did all the things Royale '06 should have. New Q, new Moneypenney (although I thought Harris and Craig had zero chemistry for that partnership unfortunately), for a new era of Bond.
|
|
|
|
Post by fletchabey on Nov 11, 2012 22:02:14 GMT
I see what you mean about not introducing Q and Moneypenny, but with such a significant change to the brand maybe they wanted to test the waters before nailing people down. From the way Skyfall went it looks likely that numerous character will be in the next 2. Pretty sure Craigs gone after that you will be happy to know |
|
|
|
Post by Bestie on Nov 11, 2012 22:22:37 GMT
Yeah, Craig is out of here in two films time! Hoping for a quick turnaround for films in the next few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by fletcherini on Nov 14, 2012 21:54:50 GMT
Yeah, Craig is out of here in two films time! Hoping for a quick turnaround for films in the next few years. Who do you think may take over from Daniel Craig? Any contenders out there? |
|
|
|
Post by redcase on Nov 14, 2012 21:57:40 GMT
Yeah, Craig is out of here in two films time! Hoping for a quick turnaround for films in the next few years. Who do you think may take over from Daniel Craig? Any contenders out there? Heyyyy I already asked that question in the earlier pages  |
|
|
|
Post by traffordbrown on Nov 14, 2012 22:18:52 GMT
I should really go and see this film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bestie on Nov 14, 2012 22:49:08 GMT
Yeah, Craig is out of here in two films time! Hoping for a quick turnaround for films in the next few years. Who do you think may take over from Daniel Craig? Any contenders out there? None that stand out for me currently. |
|
|
|
Post by redcase on Nov 14, 2012 22:54:02 GMT
Not even Le Fassbender bestie ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bestie on Nov 14, 2012 23:05:18 GMT
God no! He's German-Irish for one thing. Doesn't have the right look for another.
Actually, a decent pick could be Benedict Cumberbatch if he could but a bit of size on. Another guy who could do it if he spent some in the weight room is Jim McAvoy.
Clive Owen would have been a great shout to continue the gritty Bond, but he'll be in his 50's by the time it comes around.
Sam Worthington perhaps?
Henry Cavill was considered before Craig got it in Casino Royale, but apparently they thought Cavill was too young, so he could be in the running second time around.
Tom Hardy has ruled as Bane, and he definitely has the look.
|
|
|
|
Post by tommyred on Nov 14, 2012 23:30:42 GMT
Cumberbatch? Please go away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2012 4:16:22 GMT
Just watched Skyfall for the first time. I thought it was a good film, not the best but certainly better than a lot of them, Kept a lot of the bond-esque things and added a few modern aspects to it. A few things were predictable but thats what the bond films are about. Not meant to be totally serious. Was a particular bit at the end (for those who have seen it probably know what im on about) that made me go "oh my god fuck me". But overall a good bond film, plenty of action and cant wait to see the next one. think Craig has had a lot of bad press about being Bond, personally think hes done a brilliant job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bestie on Nov 15, 2012 11:30:03 GMT
Cumberbatch? Please go away. He has the gravitas, have you seen him in Sherlock and Tinker, Tailor? He just doesn't have the bulk, but he could put it on. |
|
