Bond 23 - "Skyfall" spoilers from post 595

krudler · 29-10-2012 6:53pm

Grimebox wrote: »

This film has gone in the opposite direction of "Bourne-lite" and is a return to the more fantastical Bond films

I think its at a crossroads now, does the series go back to exactly what Casino Royale tried to get away from? or keep it on the edge of realism and more grounded. If they go back to the old stuff it kinda defeats rebooting the series in a more serious tone, that'd be fine if it was a new Bond and new set of films but its odd to have a grounded reboot for Craig (well grounded for a Bond movie) then have it change back to Moore-esque sillyness before his turn with the character is up.

TheDoc · 29-10-2012 8:09pm

Skyfall was excellent. As a big Bond fan, was thoroughly impressed ans satisfied. I wouldn't go as far as saying it was the best Bond like some, but I also wouldn't pay a second to anyone who labelled it rubbish. Excellent Bond installment with a really clever subtle undertone throughout that was a big "**** you" to the cinema world.

Some of the nitpicking going on, on most forums I'm reading is relative to the great Dark Night Rises nit pick.

Some people cant leave it at " Excellent film".

Skyfall just brought Bond back to the forefront of cinema again, thank ****. The biggest compliment I can pay it, is that when I first got into Bond films I was about 12 and watched them religiously. This was the first of the modern era bonds that made me feel 12 again, that made me feel like I was watching James Bond, rushing in every Wednesday to flick on RTE 2

Great nods backward for the 50th anniversary, some great revelations about the character and overall just a bloody good Bond film.

MisterAnarchy · 29-10-2012 9:39pm

krudler wrote: »

I think its at a crossroads now, does the series go back to exactly what Casino Royale tried to get away from? or keep it on the edge of realism and more grounded.

Get away from 45 years of successful Bond films ?
If it aint broken dont fix it.

All that is needed is some better scripts and less of the over the top nonsense that occurred in the latter Brosnan films.
The formula is simple and it has worked for 50 years ,it doesn't need rebooting to be honest.

johnny_ultimate · 29-10-2012 10:19pm

Grimebox wrote: »

This film has gone in the opposite direction of "Bourne-lite" and is a return to the more fantastical Bond films

I should stress by fantastical I do mean the crazy ass 'invisible car being chased by space laser' sort of stuff. The series has always, let's face it, been a little silly, and I just didn't buy into the whole po-faced seriousness of the last two films (barring some cool setpieces like the heart attack bit in Casino Royale). In the best entries, they've gotten a good mix between the cheese and thrills. As I said, I've generally been left cold by the James Bond franchise on the whole, so if Skyfall is moderately enjoyable than it has probably surpassed my expectations. I do expect it to at least look great based on the Mendes direction and trailers I've seen, though.

krudler · 29-10-2012 10:30pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I should stress by fantastical I do mean the crazy ass 'invisible car being chased by space laser' sort of stuff. The series has always, let's face it, been a little silly, and I just didn't buy into the whole po-faced seriousness of the last two films (barring some cool setpieces like the heart attack bit in Casino Royale). In the best entries, they've gotten a good mix between the cheese and thrills. As I said, I've generally been left cold by the James Bond franchise on the whole, so if Skyfall is moderately enjoyable than it has probably surpassed my expectations. I do expect it to at least look great based on the Mendes direction and trailers I've seen, though.

That it does, this sequence:

Is probably the highlight visuals wise.

Teferi · 29-10-2012 10:52pm

In the fulness of time I believe this will be seen as the weakest of the Craig-era Bond, although definitely not the weakest Bond film.

It was an enjoyable, brainless return to a more classic type of Bond movie but I have preferred the more realistic tone that Craig has brought to the role in the previous films.

I think you can see the influence the studio had in this movie with the absolute boatload of nods to previous Bond films, obviously due to the 50th anniversary. To be honest, it became a bit tiresome and kept taking me out of the movie every time another nod was stuffed down our throats.

I didn't like the character of Q or the small storyline he got with Bond. The "I'm getting too old for this ****" of Craig and "cool nerd" tropes that were used in his storyline are incredibly overdone, there was no need for them.

I hope that this will be a stop gap in the Craig era. I would hope they pull it back to the more realistic style of Casino Royale. At the very least I hope we don't see a laser chasing Craig in future installments.

King Of Wishful Thinking · 29-10-2012 10:56pm

DM-ICE wrote: »

I really enjoyed this Bond movie.

It was a good mix of classic bond and modern movie making.

I didn't think so at all.

I mean, you can see that the film tips the hat at the old Bond more than others, but this isn't a parody movie, there should be no tipping of the hat here - it should be a Bond film in it's own right and it wasn't, at all really.

It was okay, don't me wrong, I enjoyed it and it was better that Quantum, but not by much.

I never seen so many holes in the plot of a Bond movie before actually, usually they are somewhat believable, even when being fantastic - shame, as I was looking forward to being immersed in a good Bond flick having heard so many positive whispers that that is what it would be.

Corholio · 29-10-2012 11:32pm

Enjoyed it, but defintiely not the best bond of all time, or even best Craig bond. It has some really good bits bit also some actual almost boring bits. The film is bookended by 2 not great opening and endings, the middle is pretty good stuff though. The opening sequence is one of the weakest openings of the recent Bonds, there's action but very by the numbers stuff. I was very disappointed by the ending, as soon as they go

to Bonds house, it just drags and kind of seems like Mendes wasn't sure how to end it

Another thing I took a little issue with was the really annoying dialogue. Lines like

"A VW beetle......I think"

weren't humorous or of any substance. There was a few pieces of dialogue like this that affected the film at times. I don't expect Bond films to have entirely clever dialogue but some of it was horrible.

Worth a watch though definitely.

Thwip! · 29-10-2012 11:36pm

I found the film good overall, nothing special

Felt like Nolan's Batman films mixed with Home Alone at times

Loved Q and the villain was great, love his and bonds first interaction

krudler · 29-10-2012 11:36pm

Teferi wrote: »

In the fulness of time I believe this will be seen as the weakest of the Craig-era Bond, although definitely not the weakest Bond film.

No way is this a weaker film than Quantum, at least this has a memorable villain and decent setpieces.

enda1 · 29-10-2012 11:45pm

Quite disappointing. Typical Daniel Craig, no charm and zero personality.
Plot was absolutely farcical, wholely unbelievable.
Stupid and moralising. I hate that with these new takes on classic franchises, the way the roughen the good guy and soften ye bad guy "blur the lines between good and evil". Piss off.

Only for watching it in IMAX, I would have been completely dejected. Such promise, such a shame.

Teferi · 30-10-2012 12:08am

krudler wrote: »

No way is this a weaker film than Quantum, at least this has a memorable villain and decent setpieces.

I liked Quantum.

I think it works better than Skyfall as it continues and wraps up threads from Casino Royale.

krudler · 30-10-2012 12:33am

enda1 wrote: »

Quite disappointing. Typical Daniel Craig, no charm and zero personality.
Plot was absolutely farcical, wholely unbelievable.
Stupid and moralising. I hate that with these new takes on classic franchises, the way the roughen the good guy and soften ye bad guy "blur the lines between good and evil". Piss off.

Only for watching it in IMAX, I would have been completely dejected. Such promise, such a shame.

Ah here, its a James Bond movie, the other 22 films arent exactly realistic either, if anything this has one of the more grounded plots unless I missed the hollowed out volcano scene.

Goldstein · 30-10-2012 1:33am

Jesus, very harsh responses here. I've definitely seen a different film judging from some of the comments here. Do people even remember how irredeemably abysmal QoS was as a film? Some of the worst editing / directing in recent memory.

Skyfall is the best looking Bond ever made by a country mile, Roger Deakins work was outstanding throughout and even stunning in places - the Macau casino / Shanghai skyscraper / yacht approaching deserted island, even the desaturated bleakness of rural Scotland. It bordered on visual porn at times.

It's too Bond / it's not enough Bond. Not loyal enough / too many nods. Too many gimmicks / too few gadgets. Mendes can't win with some of ye. The balance was as perfect as it could have been.

The people giving out about

Moneypenny being present sum it up - you don't even know who she is until the end on the film so what does it matter what her name is?

utyh2ikcq9z76b · 30-10-2012 1:38am

Thwip! wrote: »

Felt like Nolan's Batman films mixed with Home Alone at times

Thats exactly what I thought, with a little Macgyver as well

heebusjeebus · 30-10-2012 9:09am

I left the cinema thinking I'd just watched a Harry Potter film. Felt sad for Hogwarts at the end.

syklops · 30-10-2012 9:11am

krudler wrote: »

Can see the nitpicking start already on other forums, like
how Bond got back to the UK after his supposed death, ehh, cos he's ****ing James Bond, one of the worlds best secret agents can't get back into his home country without some big explanation behind it? pfff

I read quite a lot of action/thriller books. I particularly like Andy McNab because his character is ex SAS now doing deniable operations for MI6. Similar vein to Craigs bond, but without any of the gadgets, girls or cars. What his character does is have credit card names and bank accounts in various names spread across europe, each with a credit card and a few grand in the bank. Anytime he suddenly needs cash or a new passport he goes and gets one and its enough to get him to his destination.

In the movie

when he wins the cash in the casino. In real life he wouldnt hand it back. I suspect he would take it and divide it among a few different accounts. In short, like having the car in a lockup in London, he has resources out in the world we cannot see

. But he's James Bond works an answer too.

syklops · 30-10-2012 9:22am

enda1 wrote:

Plot was absolutely farcical, wholely unbelievable.

Would you mind explaining this a bit more? Which aspect of of the plot did you find unbelievable?

TheDoc · 30-10-2012 9:41am

syklops wrote: »

Would you mind explaining this a bit more? Which aspect of of the plot did you find unbelievable?

The mere fact people are having an issue with a James Bond plot being unbelievable is enough to prove how retarded general cinema goers are getting.

This whole fad of " serious cinema" is a cop out, and people need to get over it, expecting now the standard is some sort of dark serious tone created by Nolan, when in fact reflecting on the Batman installments, its not any more realistic, believable or dark, it was just made modern.

Probably the most annoying trend I'm seeing emerge here, the whole hearted mis-interpretation of this " Nolan serious" thing, and people questioning believability of plots......

Timothy Daltons bonds have more serious tone then any of the news ones, and they were SLATED for years after release as being one of the weakest when in more recent years, thanks for the Nolan fad, they are being looked back at as the more stronger ones in the series : /

johnROSS · 30-10-2012 9:41am

The whole fake teeth thing, is silver a thinly disguised version of this guy?

:pac:

TheDoc · 30-10-2012 9:46am

Thats one thing I was wondering the minute he popped his teeth out, was this Jaws?!?! Although the GF figures its probably just a 50th anniversary nod, but there was some pretty serious gasps and a few "no way!" in the cinema alright

Giruilla · 30-10-2012 10:15am

Another awful Bond movie.. ruined by the compeltely non-sensical plot and nuke the fridge moments from start to finish. Had some excellent scenes.. especially the scenes in Shanghai. Think they brought the product placement a little too far in this one.

For me Daniel Craig just doesn't make a great bond.. he's too bland and uncouth.

The whole second half of the film was a complete bore.

syklops · 30-10-2012 10:23am

TheDoc wrote: »

The mere fact people are having an issue with a James Bond plot being unbelievable is enough to prove how retarded general cinema goers are getting.

Which is why i wanted the clarification. Ex-company man goes mad and seeks revenge on the company. Not a new concept. As for a system wide hack attack, also not new. I'm really curious which part was unbelievable. Unbelievable in what context? For me Die another day was the worst for 'unbelievable for a James Bond movie', which is a context all of its own.

Grimebox · 30-10-2012 11:14am

TheDoc wrote: »

The mere fact people are having an issue with a James Bond plot being unbelievable is enough to prove how retarded general cinema goers are getting.

This whole fad of " serious cinema" is a cop out, and people need to get over it, expecting now the standard is some sort of dark serious tone created by Nolan, when in fact reflecting on the Batman installments, its not any more realistic, believable or dark, it was just made modern.

Probably the most annoying trend I'm seeing emerge here, the whole hearted mis-interpretation of this " Nolan serious" thing, and people questioning believability of plots......

Timothy Daltons bonds have more serious tone then any of the news ones, and they were SLATED for years after release as being one of the weakest when in more recent years, thanks for the Nolan fad, they are being looked back at as the more stronger ones in the series : /

Casino Royale set the bar for me. Absolutely nothing to do with Nolan. You're talking rubbish to be honest

syklops · 30-10-2012 11:22am

Giruilla wrote: »

For me Daniel Craig just doesn't make a great bond.. he's too bland and uncouth.

He's meant to be uncouth. The original character was very much so uncouth.

norrie rugger · 30-10-2012 11:55am

krudler wrote: »

I can't wait to watch this again, the visuals alone are worth seeing it fore, the silhoutte fight in Shanghai is beautiful, pity it wasn't a bit longer, the Shanghai officials should be grateful for this movie making the city look ****ing amazing.

To be honest, Shanghai by night is a glorious site. Especially if viewed from one of the feck high buildings. It smells like arse though

MisterAnarchy · 30-10-2012 12:33pm

syklops wrote: »

He's meant to be uncouth. The original character was very much so uncouth.

The original character was slightly uncouth but thats not the Bond most people connect with.
Its the Bond of the movies that people generally associate with ,very few people have actually read the books to be honest.
Even Dalton who based his Bond on that of the books, had to make allowances and his Bond was suave and charming while also being ruthless.

Craig ,while a good actor just isnt suitable to the role of Bond.
He looks constipated and angry all the time as if he has a poker up his backside.
He is trying too hard to be tough ,to be menacing and it doesnt work.

Alot of people were unhappy with the decision to “reboot” the series, ignoring the previous 20 Bond films and starting the series again from scratch. It seemed an unnecessary and cynical move, aimed at expanding the fanbase by disparaging the most successful film franchise of all time. Whilst few Bond fans would object to the series changing to reflect audience tastes, Casino Royale and its attendant publicity seemed to send out the message to long term Bond fans that the previous films were all rubbish and you were idiots for enjoying them.
Casino Royale set out to be a Bond film for people who don’t like Bond films.

Penn · 30-10-2012 12:43pm

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Casino Royale set out to be a Bond film for people who don’t like Bond films.

I disagree to be honest. I think the first 10 or so Bond films followed a formula which suited audiences at the time, but became such staple parts of the series that later films found them hard to shake off to the extent that they just became kinda ridiculous as time went on. Casino Royale took it back to its roots, wasn't afraid to cut free some of the more redundant (women with innuendo names, bad guy secret lair) and predictable aspects (3 gadgets which will definitely be required during the film) of the films, and updated it for a more realistic and modern story, while keeping true to most of the elements that made Bond great.

syklops · 30-10-2012 12:49pm

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The original character was slightly uncouth but thats not the Bond most people connect with.
Its the Bond of the movies that people generally associate with ,very few people have actually read the books to be honest.
Even Dalton who based his Bond on that of the books, had to make allowances and his Bond was suave and charming while also being ruthless.

Craig ,while a good actor just isnt suitable to the role of Bond.
He looks constipated and angry all the time as if he has a poker up his backside.
He is trying too hard to be tough ,to be menacing and it doesnt work.

I completely disagree. I think it works perfectly. As another poster said, Casino Royale set the bar with him kicking the sh1t out of some guy and then shooting the other guy mid sentence. It also got rid of some of the sillier aspects of the bond genre, like gadgets with very specific uses which get used. CR is not a kids movie which many of the recent ones had basically become.

FutureGuy · 30-10-2012 1:01pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Another awful Bond movie.. ruined by the compeltely non-sensical plot and nuke the fridge moments from start to finish. Had some excellent scenes.. especially the scenes in Shanghai. Think they brought the product placement a little too far in this one.

For me Daniel Craig just doesn't make a great bond.. he's too bland and uncouth.

The whole second half of the film was a complete bore.

Sometimes I think I watched a completely different movie over the weekend. Twice.

syklops · 30-10-2012 1:05pm

FutureGuy wrote: »

Sometimes I think I watched a completely different movie over the weekend. Twice.

Goes to show you cant please everyone. I dont understand the non-sensical plot argument. An argument could be made for the product placement(Since when did Bond drink beer or scotch?).

Maybe we should have everyone state before they comment whether they like Craig as bond. That seems to be where the last couple of criticisms have stemmed from.

RachWatch · 30-10-2012 1:10pm

Saw Skyfall last night. I thought it was a good movie, and a good Bond movie, but certainly not the 'greatest' Bond movie which has been touted so much in the press over the past few weeks...

Giruilla · 30-10-2012 1:43pm

Nuke the fridge moments that ruined the film for me:

-Bond falling neck/head first into water from a 50~100m bridge after being shot and surviving
-Javier Bardem's ENTIRE plan... nothing added up. NOTHING!
-The scene with the train falling in at bond after bond caught Javier Bardem half way up a ladder about to escape. Inexcusable.
-Javier Bardem throwing grenades willy nilly into the house, anyone of which could have killed M, and then warning everyone not to kill her!

krudler · 30-10-2012 2:02pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Nuke the fridge moments that ruined the film for me:
-Bond falling neck/head first into water from a 50~100m bridge after being shot and surviving
-Javier Bardem's ENTIRE plan... nothing added up. NOTHING!
-The scene with the train falling in at bond after bond caught Javier Bardem half way up a ladder about to escape. Inexcusable.
-Javier Bardem throwing grenades willy nilly into the house, anyone of which could have killed M, and then warning everyone not to kill her!

People have fallen from higher and survived in real life, its a movie.

Bardem just wants to kill M, and make Bond suffer. The train bit, ok it was just put in there as a cool moment and doesnt make sense. The grenades thing, Bardem wants to kill her himself, so tells his men not to, simples.

not one of those is a nuking the fridge moment, there's been far, FAR sillier and nonsensical stuff in other Bond movies, look at Brosnan's films they're chock full of nonsense.

krudler · 30-10-2012 2:04pm

FutureGuy wrote: »

Sometimes I think I watched a completely different movie over the weekend. Twice.

Agree, seriously WHAT do people want from this, its either too like the other Bonds or not enough like the other Bonds, even though its best of both worlds. its not flawless, far from it, there are some facepalm bad oneliners and the bit with

the cgi lizards was awful

but overall its a damn good movie.

norrie rugger · 30-10-2012 2:07pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Nuke the fridge moments that ruined the film for me:
-Javier Bardem throwing grenades willy nilly into the house, anyone of which could have killed M, and then warning everyone not to kill her!

Because she was his to kill. The grenades would have been him killing her. He was more using them to flush them out anyway, as they were fairly low yield grenades.

anyone think that M is not dead but is now off living in Venice, with the bearded gamekeeper, meeting up with Wayne and Kyle for afternoon tea?
especially with Mallory stating that not every agent gets to be "dead" and retire away, to Bond

Penn · 30-10-2012 2:11pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Nuke the fridge moments that ruined the film for me:
-Bond falling neck/head first into water from a 50~100m bridge after being shot and surviving
-Javier Bardem's ENTIRE plan... nothing added up. NOTHING!
-The scene with the train falling in at bond after bond caught Javier Bardem half way up a ladder about to escape. Inexcusable.
-Javier Bardem throwing grenades willy nilly into the house, anyone of which could have killed M, and then warning everyone not to kill her!

- Something like that happens in most Bond films. Hardly nuking the fridge
- His plan was revenge against M. He got it. He revealed locations of undercover agents causing them to be killed. M was in charge of that operation. He blew up M's office in MI6 causing the death of 6 people she probably worked quite closely with. M was close to losing her job, something which obviously mattered a lot to her. His whole plan was making M's life a misery before finally killing her.
- It was always his plan to blow up the underground and have the train crash because it provides chaos and directs police attention to the crash so he could kill M and escape due to the chaos and diversion of police forces.
- He was warning everyone not to kill her because he wanted to be the one who killed her, so his throwing grenades in is fine because he is still the one that kills her. Besides which, he knew Bond was there so he knew they weren't likely to just be sitting by the window. The grenades were probably more so to hunt them out of the building out of where they were hiding (not knowing M was in the tunnels underground)

syklops · 30-10-2012 2:12pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Nuke the fridge moments that ruined the film for me

-Bond falling neck/head first into water from a 50~100m bridge after being shot and surviving

Not sure what to say. Its not like it was concrete. People have survived worse.

-Javier Bardem's ENTIRE plan... nothing added up. NOTHING!

Whats not to add up? M sent him on a mission where he got captured and tortured. When at breaking point he tried to commit suicide and the Q-branch issued cyanide didnt work, instead injured or tortured him even more. Presumably he went a bit mad, and decided to wreak revenge on the person and by extension organisation who put him in that situation. A sentiment understood by bond upon his return having also been injured at the hands of M

-The scene with the train falling in at bond after bond caught Javier Bardem half way up a ladder about to escape. Inexcusable.

This has gotten a lot of criticism. I suppose it could be explained as Bardem blowing up the roof in the hope of killing bond. It being the tube, there are several layers of track everywhere and a train came through the roof. Bond survived.

Javier Bardem throwing grenades willy nilly into the house, anyone of which could have killed M, and then warning everyone not to kill her!

I read this to mean he wanted to kill her not one of his men, which is why he was the only one tossing the grenades.

I wonder how readable this will be.

FutureGuy · 30-10-2012 2:18pm

syklops wrote: »

Goes to show you cant please everyone. I dont understand the non-sensical plot argument. An argument could be made for the product placement(Since when did Bond drink beer or scotch?).

Maybe we should have everyone state before they comment whether they like Craig as bond. That seems to be where the last couple of criticisms have stemmed from.

I think they did a phenomenal job getting 30 million for the product placement for that beer. Basically Bond

was "dead", spending his time on a remote beach, living the life he never had as an agent. Sipping on a beer was perfect in that situation. He would have looked stupid drinking a Martini. But when Bond was back in business, tracking down Silva in Macau, he ordered a Martini. Perfect.

The only other person drinking

Heineken did it in a situation similar to what you see in various big companies. Working hard, late hours, get a beer etc.

Sony products have always been placed in the new Bond movies and Casino Royal was far worse in that respect.

If anyone wants to see product placement screwing over a film, sit down and watch I Love You, Man. Embarassing.

Finally,

regarding the explosion to derail a train in the tube, I can't understand the furore. He had a complete map of underground London, including the bunkers being used by MI6. He knew that their systems would fail at a precise time (as highlighted by the fact the guard asked him if he was going somewhere when he zipped up his overalls) thanks to his computer skills. He was clearly attempting to get police presence to that area so he could escape dressed as a police officer at the very same time, while also having a clean run at killing M. Having planted the bomb, he would have known the times at which the trains were passing that section.

syklops · 30-10-2012 2:24pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

Because she was his to kill. The grenades would have been him killing her. He was more using them to flush them out anyway, as they were fairly low yield grenades.

anyone think that M is not dead but is now off living in Venice, with the bearded gamekeeper, meeting up with Wayne and Kyle for afternoon tea?
especially with Mallory stating that not every agent gets to be "dead" and retire away, to Bond

I was actually expecting her to be in the office at the end, and that her position as M had become much more secret than before. I wouldn't rule that out either, if Craig reprises his role. I wondered if the blowing up of the MI6 building meant they could do some improvements in the south east wing...

Doctor DooM · 30-10-2012 2:25pm

I really liked the film, bit too much Batman influence as others have said

Parents died young, raised in an old estate by an old servant etc

but I have to say this much.

If a film writer doesn't know much about IT, and wants to show a character who's supposed to be the best person in security in the world getting worked around, ask a sodding IT person. Any IT person. This isn't the 90's and the film isn't Hackers. I actually groaned when Q just plugged the mega hacker bad guys computer into his network via ethernet.

Come on now guys, in the real world people know enough about this stuff now for that to be poor suspension of disbelief wise.

syklops · 30-10-2012 2:32pm

FutureGuy wrote: »

If anyone wants to see product placement screwing over a film, sit down and watch I Love You, Man. Embarassing.

I'll pass thanks. I'd rather watch skyfall again.

I also would agree with your comment in the MI6 'new' building re the beer.

Tanner has had a hard day, probably lost a few colleagues, M is in trouble but there is nothing he can do. Wild horses wouldnt get him away from the monitors but I think the man deserves a beer.

Question:

There was a bit when Q was talking to Bond over radio and Q said something like "There goes my career as a code breaker", and he is holding a mug with something on it, I think it was 2 columns of numbers or symbols. Does anyone know what that was? I figured it was an injoke but I couldnt identify it.

Penn · 30-10-2012 2:35pm

syklops wrote: »

Question:
There was a bit when Q was talking to Bond over radio and Q said something like "There goes my career as a code breaker", and he is holding a mug with something on it, I think it was 2 columns of numbers or symbols. Does anyone know what that was? I figured it was an injoke but I couldnt identify it.

When he took a drink, you could see the Scrabble logo on the bottom, so the numbers and letters on the mug were probably each letter and their Scrabble value. Just probably to show off his quirkiness or how he's good with code-breaking and so is good at Scrabble or something.

Corholio · 30-10-2012 2:37pm

My gripes with the film have nothing to do with non-sensical plot really. Just didn't think it was a really great Bond film. The film was beautifully shot definitely, but eye candy only goes so far especially when the dialogue isn't great and the set pieces aren't all that exciting, both of which I found watching this.

They gave Naomie Harris some really boring lines and her character has minimal impact on the film at all because of it. Was disappointed with the start and the end. But by no means a bad film, but not a great Bond film.

syklops · 30-10-2012 2:37pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I really liked the film, bit too much Batman influence as others have said
Parents died young, raised in an old estate by an old servant etc
but I have to say this much.
If a film writer doesn't know much about IT, and wants to show a character who's supposed to be the best person in security in the world getting worked around, ask a sodding IT person. Any IT person. This isn't the 90's and the film isn't Hackers. I actually groaned when Q just plugged the mega hacker bad guys computer into his network via ethernet.

Come on now guys, in the real world people know enough about this stuff now for that to be poor suspension of disbelief wise.

The parents dying young has been a part of Bond culture for decades. It's part of the back story and certainly wasn't influenced by Batman.

What exactly was your IT problem? Not sure I understand.

syklops · 30-10-2012 2:38pm

Penn wrote: »

When he took a drink, you could see the Scrabble logo on the bottom, so the numbers and letters on the mug were probably each letter and their Scrabble value. Just probably to show off his quirkiness or how he's good with code-breaking and so is good at Scrabble or something.

I knew it was something like that. Thanks for clearing it up!

syklops · 30-10-2012 2:41pm

Corholio wrote: »

My gripes with the film have nothing to do with non-sensical plot really. Just didn't think it was a really great Bond film. The film was beautifully shot definitely, but eye candy only goes so far especially when the dialogue isn't great and the set pieces aren't all that exciting, both of which I found watching this.

They gave Naomie Harris some really boring lines and her character has minimal impact on the film at all because of it. Was disappointed with the start and the end. But by no means a bad film, but not a great Bond film.

What would you consider a great Bond film to be?

krudler · 30-10-2012 2:51pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I really liked the film, bit too much Batman influence as others have said
Parents died young, raised in an old estate by an old servant etc
but I have to say this much.

Bond being an orphan was already established in Casino Royale though.

Corholio · 30-10-2012 2:58pm

syklops wrote: »

What would you consider a great Bond film to be?

From Russia With Love and I'd consider On Her Majesty's Secret Service great, despite the problem people have with Lazenby, it's still a really good film. Goldeneye is great as a Bond film, although I know why people don't like it as a standalone film.

norrie rugger · 30-10-2012 2:58pm

syklops wrote: »

What exactly was your IT problem? Not sure I understand.

Given that Silva was meant to be an IT evil genius, why did Q not have a non networked testing system to plug into and not the MI6 network?

Bond 23 - "Skyfall" *spoilers from post 595*

Comments

Bond 23 - "Skyfall" spoilers from post 595