Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel - Page 166

Alex · 10-15-2012, 03:19 PM

Yeah, so many people I respect loved the movie that I assume something was wrong with me. It just didn't click for me.

Almost kept me from seeing Brendan Gleeson in The Guard, which I very much did enjoy (and also almost nobody saw).

innerSpaceman · 10-15-2012, 03:23 PM

I enjoyed that one, too. That's a total of 17 people who saw The Guard.

innerSpaceman · 11-10-2012, 06:01 PM

I found Skyfall to be a far better than average Bond movie, but a so-so action movie - which makes it all the more coolsville that such a thing does not prevent it from being that far better than average Bond movie.

Perhaps that's all I should say about it until a few more people have seen it. I respect general spoiler rules during opening weekend. I was not bothered by the omniscience of the truly fun villain. It was stated as a given, and I don't need my Bond movies more serious than that. So I was perfectly pleased when it turned out to be a pretty darn seriously-themed and dramatically well acted film ... not really typical - and very welcome - in this 50-year-long series.

Of the Daniel Craig Bonds, It was not as knockout fun and gangbusters as Casino Royale, but so much better than Quantum of Solace. Bond fans are used to the films being literally hit and miss (not necessary alternating perfectly), so it was nice to have a genuine hit after such a lousy miss.

There are things in the movie leading me to feel this is the last time Daniel Craig will be appearing as James Bond. If so, it's a nice send-off. I liked it.

Alex · 11-10-2012, 06:28 PM

One of the movie related podcasts I listen to is a BBC radio show and they had Craig on a couple weeks ago. During that he was talking about ideas he has for Bond and hoping to get to collaborate on them, especially with Mendes if he returns.

I was fine with omniscient villain until:

Serious spoilers in here so don't read if you don't want to know.

Spoiler:

He apparently so perfectly planned his escape from MI6 that he had planted an explosive in the roof of an unused station, apparently knowing that Bond would catch up to him in that room and exactly where he would be when it happened and that a train would be coming along at the right time.

A moment of lightly showing the diabolical nature of the villain could have been had if they'd shown him waiting around in that abandoned station until warned that Bond was almost there and then he starts scurrying up the ladder.

Of course, all of that relied on knowing that Bond would shoot at him three times and each time hit a 2 inch wide strip of metal instead of the bad guy.

All the other omniscience didn't bother me*, but at that moment it went a step too far.

*And that is apparently considering that Bardem's diabolical plan was apparently this:

1. Steal hard drive but don't have your guy get away so clean that Bond isn't in pursuit.
2. Arrange that pursuit so perfectly that Bond will be shot by his own team and put out of commission. But first your guy will shoot him with a bullet that will leave shrapnel behind but not fatally or seriously impair him.
3. Wait until Bond has healed enough to implement the next part of the plan.
4. Assume that Bond will return to service after seeing the news.
5. Assume that after six months M will lie so that he can return to service.
6. Assume that Bond will finally have the shrapnel so that it can be used (making sure your bad guy used a type of bullet that apparently only three people in the world use) to track down your bad guy).
7. Arrange a job for your bad guy that hopefully MI6 will learn about from the Americans, who want your bad guy but apparently not enough to pursue him when they know where he is going to be.
8. Assume Bond will be sent to track him down.
9. Assume that once Bond catches up to him he will kill the bad guy rather than capturing him.
10. Assume that Bond will not wonder why a casino chip was actually given a special space in the glass cutter case and smell a trap.
11. Bond will go to that casino and survive an apparently very serious attempt on his life.
12. Bond will offer to kill you so that your sex slave will bring him to you. Bond will then do the extremely creepy thing of announcing his arrival to a woman he deduced has been a sex slave since 12 years old by joining her in the shower.
13. Bond will capture you (not kill you) once on your island. So that you can, from custody, engage in an escape even more improbable than the plan so far.

Alex · 11-11-2012, 01:51 AM

Oh, one other thing.

There is an island in the movie that I assumed was CGI. It wasn't. So I'm grateful to the movie for making me aware of its existence.

innerSpaceman · 11-11-2012, 11:39 AM

Heheh, I assumed many of the stunts in the digital age were CGI, but the Bond crew apparently prides itself on doing everything live. This is very impressive for some of the stuff - - but it's too bad most people will just think it's CGI. Double-edged sword that technology is.

Oh, and I didn't mind the product placement in Skyfall, supposedly setting a record number. A lot of ballyhoo has been made of it, and the modern Bond films, in particular, make a habit of it. But the Heinekin beer seemed totally natural, the Sony Vaio logo ditto (though obviously selected as the brand to model), and I never noticed that the motorcycles were Hondas, or any of the other 20 product placement deals that were so lucrative for the studio.

Alex, can you shed some further light on Craig's ideas for Bond, other than quitting?

Alex · 11-11-2012, 12:23 PM

[quote=innerSpaceman;366617]Heheh, I assumed many of the stunts in the digital age were CGI, but the Bond crew apparently prides itself on doing everything live. This is very impressive for some of the stuff - - but it's too bad most people will just think it's CGI. Double-edged sword that technology is.

Quote:

Alex, can you shed some further light on Craig's ideas for Bond, other than quitting?

No I can't, as I don't remember specifics other than that he was talking about future films and his involvement.

Quote:

Oh, and I didn't mind the product placement in Skyfall, supposedly setting a record number. A lot of ballyhoo has been made of it, and the modern Bond films, in particular, make a habit of it. But the Heinekin beer seemed totally natural, the Sony Vaio logo ditto (though obviously selected as the brand to model), and I never noticed that the motorcycles were Hondas, or any of the other 20 product placement deals that were so lucrative for the studio.

In that same interview he addressed this, saying essentially: "Look, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to open a movie globally and you aren't going to get anybody to take the risk if you don't pay for a lot of it up front and we try hard to fit it in naturally."

LSPoorEeyorick · 11-14-2012, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

...the Sony Vaio logo ditto (though obviously selected as the brand to model)... or any of the other 20 product placement deals that were so lucrative for the studio.

Sony Vaio isn't a sponsor, per se. The film is made by Sony. I know first-hand that any footage or marketing of a Sony film that includes any gadgets other than Sony (Vaio computer, Ericsson phone, etc) is not permitted. Like, "completely redo your CGI immediately" not-permitted.

Cadaverous Pallor · 11-14-2012, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

Sony Vaio isn't a sponsor, per se. The film is made by Sony. I know first-hand that any footage or marketing of a Sony film that includes any gadgets other than Sony (Vaio computer, Ericsson phone, etc) is not permitted. Like, "completely redo your CGI immediately" not-permitted.

That's pretty damn smart. Thought I did see a (very long and rather dumb) Sony VAIO commercial featuring Bond recently, so this one is technically a tie-in.

innerSpaceman · 11-11-2012, 11:51 AM

Spoilers wherein I discount Alex's problems with plot holes and raise the one that instead bothers me a lot:

Spoiler:

But neither detracted me from the enjoyment of this Bond movie, and rare is the one without absurd plot holes.

10-15-2012, 03:19 PM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yeah, so many people I respect loved the movie that I assume something was wrong with me. It just didn't click for me. Almost kept me from seeing Brendan Gleeson in The Guard, which I very much did enjoy (and also almost nobody saw).
	Submit to Quotes

10-15-2012, 03:23 PM	#2
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I enjoyed that one, too. That's a total of 17 people who saw The Guard.
	Submit to Quotes

11-10-2012, 06:01 PM	#3
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I found Skyfall to be a far better than average Bond movie, but a so-so action movie - which makes it all the more coolsville that such a thing does not prevent it from being that far better than average Bond movie. Perhaps that's all I should say about it until a few more people have seen it. I respect general spoiler rules during opening weekend. I was not bothered by the omniscience of the truly fun villain. It was stated as a given, and I don't need my Bond movies more serious than that. So I was perfectly pleased when it turned out to be a pretty darn seriously-themed and dramatically well acted film ... not really typical - and very welcome - in this 50-year-long series. Of the Daniel Craig Bonds, It was not as knockout fun and gangbusters as Casino Royale, but so much better than Quantum of Solace. Bond fans are used to the films being literally hit and miss (not necessary alternating perfectly), so it was nice to have a genuine hit after such a lousy miss. There are things in the movie leading me to feel this is the last time Daniel Craig will be appearing as James Bond. If so, it's a nice send-off. I liked it.
	Submit to Quotes

11-10-2012, 06:28 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	One of the movie related podcasts I listen to is a BBC radio show and they had Craig on a couple weeks ago. During that he was talking about ideas he has for Bond and hoping to get to collaborate on them, especially with Mendes if he returns. I was fine with omniscient villain until: Serious spoilers in here so don't read if you don't want to know. Spoiler: He apparently so perfectly planned his escape from MI6 that he had planted an explosive in the roof of an unused station, apparently knowing that Bond would catch up to him in that room and exactly where he would be when it happened and that a train would be coming along at the right time. A moment of lightly showing the diabolical nature of the villain could have been had if they'd shown him waiting around in that abandoned station until warned that Bond was almost there and then he starts scurrying up the ladder. Of course, all of that relied on knowing that Bond would shoot at him three times and each time hit a 2 inch wide strip of metal instead of the bad guy. All the other omniscience didn't bother me, but at that moment it went a step too far. And that is apparently considering that Bardem's diabolical plan was apparently this: 1. Steal hard drive but don't have your guy get away so clean that Bond isn't in pursuit. 2. Arrange that pursuit so perfectly that Bond will be shot by his own team and put out of commission. But first your guy will shoot him with a bullet that will leave shrapnel behind but not fatally or seriously impair him. 3. Wait until Bond has healed enough to implement the next part of the plan. 4. Assume that Bond will return to service after seeing the news. 5. Assume that after six months M will lie so that he can return to service. 6. Assume that Bond will finally have the shrapnel so that it can be used (making sure your bad guy used a type of bullet that apparently only three people in the world use) to track down your bad guy). 7. Arrange a job for your bad guy that hopefully MI6 will learn about from the Americans, who want your bad guy but apparently not enough to pursue him when they know where he is going to be. 8. Assume Bond will be sent to track him down. 9. Assume that once Bond catches up to him he will kill the bad guy rather than capturing him. 10. Assume that Bond will not wonder why a casino chip was actually given a special space in the glass cutter case and smell a trap. 11. Bond will go to that casino and survive an apparently very serious attempt on his life. 12. Bond will offer to kill you so that your sex slave will bring him to you. Bond will then do the extremely creepy thing of announcing his arrival to a woman he deduced has been a sex slave since 12 years old by joining her in the shower. 13. Bond will capture you (not kill you) once on your island. So that you can, from custody, engage in an escape even more improbable than the plan so far.
	Submit to Quotes

11-11-2012, 01:51 AM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Oh, one other thing. There is an island in the movie that I assumed was CGI. It wasn't. So I'm grateful to the movie for making me aware of its existence.
	Submit to Quotes

11-11-2012, 11:39 AM	#6
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Heheh, I assumed many of the stunts in the digital age were CGI, but the Bond crew apparently prides itself on doing everything live. This is very impressive for some of the stuff - - but it's too bad most people will just think it's CGI. Double-edged sword that technology is. Oh, and I didn't mind the product placement in Skyfall, supposedly setting a record number. A lot of ballyhoo has been made of it, and the modern Bond films, in particular, make a habit of it. But the Heinekin beer seemed totally natural, the Sony Vaio logo ditto (though obviously selected as the brand to model), and I never noticed that the motorcycles were Hondas, or any of the other 20 product placement deals that were so lucrative for the studio. Alex, can you shed some further light on Craig's ideas for Bond, other than quitting?
	Submit to Quotes

11-11-2012, 11:51 AM	#10
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Spoilers wherein I discount Alex's problems with plot holes and raise the one that instead bothers me a lot: Spoiler: For what it's worth (i.e., I don't think the absurdly perfect plot of Silva merits real dissection), I did not figure his plan relied on Bond specifically, but only that he would allow himself to be captured and taken to London. And I will allow for the tube station roof explosion to be the only part planned, perhaps to cover his tracks or perhaps to thwart any live pursuit, but that the train timing was coincidental in the context of the film ... and such "coincidences" in action films were hardly invented last week for Skyfall. Spoiler: No, the one that really bugged me was the elaborate assassination of the dude viewing the painting on the high floor of a skyscraper. Everyone in the room with the target was in on the plot, so why bother having the assassin in a tower across the street? Why not have him in the bedroom or the closet or under the sofa in that very room? Even if I go so far as to assume the room was secured and the personnel checked for weapons by the cautious target (when nothing in the film eluded to this), it's hard to believe the three of them could not simply kill the target with a bottle or by strangling or by really poor art depression. The complex assassination was just absurd ... and struck me way moreso than the main villain's super-elaborate London plot. But neither detracted me from the enjoyment of this Bond movie, and rare is the one without absurd plot holes.
	Submit to Quotes