BONDage: a 007 Thread in Anticipation of SKYFALL

A distraction? See DIE HARD 3

Ok...so why get captured at all? Why not go to London and assassinate M? He clearly had no problem moving about the country once he escaped and was wanted.

Indeed. But then... why does every bad guy have a very intricate and complicated plan to kill 007, after talking him to death and telling the whole plan, giving him ample time to escape? One bullet in the head in 1967 and we'd all be praying to white Persian cats today.

It's a Bond thing

Although there's a little talk of Bond getting older, most of Bond's difficulties in this film come from him being away from the job (and, presumably, training) for several months. HE certainly doesn't feel himself too old and

Certainly, once Bond gets back in the field, his supposed shortcomings don't really come into play. Bond gets it done when he needs to.

Silva stated why he was captured: he wanted to see M one more time, so he could confront her with what she'd done to him.

Yes, it seems likely that if he JUST wanted her dead, he could have engineered that earlier. But he wanted some personal time with her before she died.

It's about to start, will report in later.

"Oh, ho ho! You sly dog! You got me monologuing! I can't believe it..."

Saw it tonight. Overall, it was an entertaining movie but it felt too personal. I didn't really understand the motivations of the bad guy. I understand he wanted revenge but then what?

Why did he have that base and all those hired guns? His entire plan was so convoluted considering his ultimate goal. Who was the guy killed in Shangai? What was the point of the girl?

I kind of miss the more epic scale of some of the previous movies. In previous movies, Bond was up against vast criminal organizations. This time it was just a crazy guy with a grudge.

The action scenes were great and the cinematography was beautiful but it lacked the epic feel of some other Bond movies and IMO was not as intriguing as Casino Royale.

alternately, one might interpret it as more of a "the world has passed us by and we're relics of a bygone day" meme too.

I really don't think so. There is enough potential for real life, physical secret service action. They just need to dare a little. Give us an Afghan warlord with aspirations to dominate the Islamic world for example. But I guess that would not be politically correct. Cyberwarriors with their legions of faceless, featureless hired goons just don't make great adversaries.

I loved it! Thought it was one of the best Bonds and would definitely see it a few more times. Things I really liked fell in to a few different categories: reminded me of classic Bond; reminded us that Craig makes a high grade action hero; the rats in a maze analogy. I'll take these in order.

Classic Bond

The opening chase in Istanbul felt very much like one of the Moore era chase scenes -- the disregard for the crowds, the junior agent providing backup and serving as the straight man, the location a place that's not exactly neutral, not exactly friendly, the somewhat ridiculous improvisation with the construction equipment. Then there was the casino scene. It was gratuitous, but screamed out "Bond, James Bond." I was a bit miffed that we didn't hear him say "shaken, not stirred," but at least we saw the shaker in action.

Daniel Craig

He brings a lot more physicality to the role, but he is far from one dimensional. He has a lot of great quips and facial expressions in this movie and pulls them off perfectly. I'd say Connery-like in fact, but updated for modern sensibilities. "What makes you think I haven't?" it was a perfect Bond moment, delivered the way Connery would have said it, and yet Connery never could have said it.

Rats in a Maze

The monologue that introduces the concept was well written and perfectly delivered, but what I like even more is how it shows up conceptually throughout. From the Istanbul marketplace, to the London Underground, to the secret passageway at Skyfall, we are reminded of a warren. And then of course, the entire story is one in which the main actors may be in control or may be just running the maze at the behest of the experimenter. But who's experiment is it? The bad guy? M? Or in the end, is it Bond himself?

My final thought is that the ending tied it in to the larger Bond continuity. We get Q, we get Moneypenny, we get the traditional M (loved Dench, but she represented a radical departure for the role). Craig walks through the leather padded doorway, and Moore or Connery could step out the other side. In this movie, he becomes a full fledged Bond in a way that Brosnan, Daltry, and Lazenby never could. Great, epic entry in the franchise.

Roger Daltry was Bond?

Disagree entirely.

Right. Overall very much enjoyed it, although Casino Royale still shades it.

Phil...

No no no. He won the car in Casino Royale. Unseen, Bond went on the Goldfinger mission prior to which the DB5 was upgraded in the new continuity. For some reason, he still possesses the car (see Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies).

Of course if you really want to hurt your head...why is the Casino Royale DB5 left hand drive and all other appearances in Bond films, right hand drive?

This is very comic bookish, but how would James Bond and Jason Bourne do against each other were they to face off? Do they even co-exist in the same universe or canonuity?

Another comic book thought straight out of DC's "Elseworlds" is what if James Bond's parents had no kids, then one day Kal-El (did I get/spell his name right?) falls out of the sky & is adopted & raised as James Bond by the Bonds. In this situation/universe this James Bond would grow up to be one TRULY unstoppable spy.

IIRC there was an "Elseworlds" issue or issues dealing with Kal-El having ended up with/as the Wayne's son (no Bruce/Bruce never born(?) ), becoming an invincible Batman later on. I never read it, only read about it.

I like D's explanation:

ALL of the canonical adventures happened to the James Bond, even though it is impossible given the historical context.

Bond is six, yet he is one. It is the Holy Hexality, the central mystery of Bondism.

And Q branch just moved the steering wheel. Is all.

All that would be SO much easier if the producers simply came out saying: 007 is James Bond. 004 is Jill Smith. 003 is Johnny Whatever. And so on. Whoever gets assigned 007 automatically gets the name with it. There, problem almost solved. And he wouldn't have a past which just suits me fine

I wouldn't spend too much time debating the canon. If you want to stick to canon then you'd have to say that the Brosnan bond from Die Another Day is the same Bond from OHMSS who had and ex-wfie and the same Bond from Dr.No, which would make Die Another Day Bond 72 years old. If that's the case he looked pretty good for it!

Well, let's see...

In Die Another Day, BrosnanBond sees Cleb's knife-shoe from From Russia with Love and the jetpack from Thunderball, so clearly BrosnanBond and ConneryBond are one.

In On Her Majesty's Secret Service, LazenbyBond has items from Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Thunderball in his desk, so LazenbyBond is one with ConneryBond and, by extension, BrosnanBond.

In For Your Eyes Only MooreBond visits the grave of his wife, so MooreBond is one with LazenbyBond (and ConneryBond and BrosnanBond).

And in License to Kill, Bond's wife is mentioned again, so DaltonBond is also one with LazenbyBond (and MooreBond and ConneryBond and BrosnanBond).

Finally, in Skyfall, CraigBond drives an Aston Martin DB5 with an ejector seat and machine guns, virtually identical to the one in Goldfinger. Therefore CraigBond is one with ConneryBond (and LazenbyBond and MooreBond and DaltonBond and BrosnanBond).

So, contradictions aside, there are undeniable connections that link all the Bonds together in a single continuity.

Meh, here's a good but of advice I learned recently while watching the blu ray box set, just say to yourself.....

"It's just fucking good entertainment, sit back and enjoy".

I don't expect inter-Bond consistency.
I do expect intra-Bond consistency. ilgrims:

Minor spoilage, but tagging them just to be safe:

Yeah, the gun thing bothered me too, but at the same time, isn't it fairly typical for the Q branch gimmick to be used just once and then discarded?

Depending on the review, it's either "Skyfall" or "Skyfail".

Yeah, basically. And then Q keeps giving Bond shit for not returning things in pristine condition (or not returning shit at all).

Saw it again tonight and loved it again. On first impression, I thought Casino Royale was better, but a second viewing of Skyfall is making me reconsider. There is just so much right about Skyfall that the things that are wrong with it don't seem to matter. And I savor almost every second Javier Bardem is on screen; his is such a wonderfully flamboyant performance!

One other thing that occurred to me tonight as I was watching:

I saw it on Saturday. Loved it, most entertaining Bond film in years, and maybe the best made Bond ever, in terms of cinematography, production design, casting and editing. It has the grit and realism that made CASINO ROYALE so refreshing, but also the wit, charm and touches of cheese that the Connery/Moore Bond films have at their best. Bond works best when it walks the line between drama and absurdity, and the worst Bond films have always veered one way or the other. SKYFALL stays right on that line, and it works from start to finish.

I had a few minor quibbles with the plot, but nothing that took away from my enjoyment of the film overall. And I'm not bothering with spoiler tags, since it's been out for two weeks:

I did think Silva was a strong villain, but I thought his "I was captured just so I could escape" plan was a little contrived, especially him having set a bomb at exactly the right place to go off at exactly the right time. And it was lazy for us not to see how he got out of his plexiglass prison. Also, I'm a little tired of the "villain with unlimited henchmen and resources" cliche, though it's not as if Silva is the first Bond bad guy to have a private army. Hell, Blofeld had one in each movie! Definitely didn't buy that Q would hook up Silva's computer to the MI6 mainframe. That was pretty lazy. And I realize the plot needed Bond to get to Shanghai, but they could have at least put a bit more effort into it than "we got a tip from the CIA..."

One question on something that I might have missed: how was the assassination in Shanghai connected to the overall plot? Obviously, it was something Silva was involved in, but was it mentioned who Patrice was actually shooting?