5 Reasons Why I Can’t Wait For Skyfall, The New James Bond Movie
Late last year, Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, producers of the James Bond movies, announced the long-awaited 23rd film in the series: Skyfall, which is set for release November 9. Daniel Craig returns as the superspy, and Sam Mendes is directing. The first plot synopsis reads:
“Bond’s loyalty to M (Dame Judi Dench) is tested as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost.”
In conjunction with Skyfall’s production, the producers and studio have updated the official James Bond website and developed a presence for the franchise on Facebook and Twitter. It’s easier than ever for 007 fans to geek out. This year also marks the 50th anniversary of the film series, and Wilson has promised plenty of web tributes to mark the occasion.
As a longtime Bond fan, I’m excited to present five reasons why I can’t wait to see Skyfall. We’ll start with the most obvious reason.
5. It’s Been Four Years Since Quantum Of Solace.
It’s hard to believe that the last 007 movie came out during the Bush administration. For even a casual fan, a four-year wait is far too long for a James Bond fix. In the four years since Quantum Of Solace, MGM nearly completely went under, threatening the entire existence of the 007 franchise, until Sony bailed them out, rescuing James Bond from certain doom.
In the last half century, the only time we’ve gone longer without a Bond film was the six years between 1989’s License To Kill and 1995’s Goldeneye. I think the reason for that long wait was because the world needed to cleanse itself of the hideous Timothy Dalton movies.
The last four years have been a period of rumors, false starts, and anxious waiting for Bond geeks like me. The waiting is almost over, and November 9 can’t come soon enough.
Chris, I was at MGM when it nearly went paws up. James Bond was never in any danger of being doomed. Barbara Broccoli would have just found another distributor.
Sony was so excited when they got distribution of Bond but as one MGM exec I talked to said in relation to Broccoli, “They have no idea what they’re in for.”
That’s good to hear, Kevin. I’m glad Sony cares enough about the Bond franchise to keep it going.
We’re not only getting another Daniel Craig movie, which is a return to the Connery ethos with a modern edge; we’re not only getting Q (and maybe Moneypenny) back; there’s a rumor that the bad guy is Blofeld of SPECTRE, and (no rumor) Bond is carrying his Walther PPK again. That was worth a whole post on Weaponsman.com.
By the way, the character that gave him the PPK in Dr. No (book and movie) was one Major Boothroyd. A gun expert named Boothroyd gave Fleming advice, and Fleming used his name as a tip of the hat.
Here’s what I’d like to see: a retro Bond movie set in the ’60s. It’s art direction could go conspicuously retro like the Austin Powers films but tamped down to a decent level where it’s not too tongue-in-cheek. In fact, the deadly seriousness of the plot counter-poised to a colorful and saturated art direction with action taking place in bowling alleys, drive-in movies, crashing an apartment where people are watching Laugh-In with the kitty cat eyeball and tail wagging clocks (insert your own retro here) could be big fun.
Even better, a remake of “Our Man Flint” which out-retros the original. Whoever designed the first Austin Powers films should be hired.
To me, the last X-Men film, which took place in the ’60s, really fell down on the design, missing out on a wonderful opportunity to invoke mod and other fashions and designs of the period. For example, they chose to have the women wear ill-fitting lingerie that looked like ’80s Fredericks of Hollywood and screwed up worse on the casino scenes.
“I think the reason for that long wait was because the world needed to cleanse itself of the hideous Timothy Dalton movies.”
Funny. I remember when Bond fans were thankful for the Dalton movies, because they relieved us from the camp and bubblegum nonsense of Moore’s last two films. I’ll take them over Brosnan’s best any day.
This.
I particularly appreciated “License to Kill,” in that it was the first Bond movie in which all the cool spy technology was absolutely real and based on actual items obtainable in the real world at the time.
If you grew up reading Fleming’s books and watching Connery’s interpretation, it was all down hill from there. Never a more perfect pairing of character and actor IMO.
Ditto, big time!
I have to agree, Mike. Though Daniel Craig is a close second, there’s no one quite like Sean Connery.
Chris, certainly Daniel Craig was a great improvement over Roger Moore etc., but he played the role too darkly and came across as a tortured soul. 007 would never let life do that to him and his toughness had an underlying humor.
Sean Connery–at least in the first three Bonds–made a character that was relaxed; comfortable in his own skin. Craig’s is tight, as if about to explode. Connery showed the right combination of wittines, attractiveness, elegance, and cruelty. Craig has only the cruelty part right. While I see Connery’s character as a cool spy, I can only see Craig’s as a hired assasin thug. I still like Craig’s movies, though. I just cannot think of him as James Bond.
Connery did an interesting take on Bond: he is supremely confident and arrogant but also almost a sociopath and he does have a cruel streak towards a certain kind of woman. Elegant yes, and also more interested in how the world reacts to him than in how he will react to the world.
As for the new Bond films, they do some stuff better and right but have too many extended joy-ride type chase/stunts, a weakness for me in today’s Hollywood. The Connery films often had that weird, cutting edge almost science fictional element that impressed with sheer tech scale and surprise rather than clever ways to fight on a girder.
Personally, I could write off the entire ’80s output of Bond films.
Has it been that long. Good, perhaps all those involved in selecting and governing the story in Quantum of Solace have been fired and driven from the business. I can’t understand, they find a new Bond, introduce him in a great story then the next movie is a horrible propaganda piece. If they keep it up, I say, let the franchise die. Or they could just hire competent writers for the follow on films, stick with just plain old crime and develop good stories.
Quantum Solace was truly awful so another like that and 007 should die.
i’ve finally realized my attraction to bond movies was the john barry score set to the world wide panoramic shots– the rest was just gravy
A key element, that’s for sure. John Barry’s scores are simply transporting (as were those of the incomparable Maurice Jarre). You might enjoy a great John Barry CD set, “40 Years of Film Music.” It includes all the Bond music as of 2001.
I may be crazy, but my favorite Bond was Pierce Brosnan. I really liked the guy. He seemed to have it all, good looks, intensity when needed, and that Bond humor that surfaced even in the darkest of times. I will never know why they got rid of him when he could have done at least one or two more movies as Bond. To me, Daniel Craig is stiff and humorless. And I do miss the droll Bond humor that you don’t seem to see anymore. Hope that changes in the next movie.
I have an idea for another Bond movie. Who would I need to talk to about puting it together?
Why filmmakers think audience want to be serious watching cartoonish characters is beyond me!
Just finished watching a Youtube copy of the Dark Knight which has an 8.9 rating from IMDB. It was the most awful movie I’ve ever watched. It was tedious, preachy, worst of all, dark and no fun. If the audience want to contemplate the ills of the world, they’ll watch the 6 o’clock news.
Too bad you didn’t actually see Dark Knight watching a bootleg on Youtube. This joke commercial from David Lynch on why people haven’t really seen a movie when they watch it on their iPhones comes to mind: http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=15130
What drew me to this was the opportunity to play a new kind of Bond Girl…. Those Bond Girls in the sixties and seventies might have been good back then, but they wouldn’t be seen as very PC now.
Really? Because the allure of a Bond movie is…political correctness? It’s interesting that she apparently thinks it would have been socially unacceptable if a white actress had gotten the part?
Also, when she refers to Bond girls of the sixties and seventies not being considered “PC” nowadays, she apparently forgot about Zena Marshall, Martine Beswick, Aliza Gur, Mie Hama, Akiko Wakabayashi, Tsai Chin, Trina Parks, Gloria Hendry…
Outstanding! In her mind, she deserves the part because she is so talented. Funny the parallels to our president are amazing.
Sorry to go political but I couldn’t resist.
Pierce Brosnan.. tied for worst Bond (with Roger Moore). Brosnan plays the SAME character in all his roles albeit ‘The Matador’ – his best movie IMO and bet he was more than happy to nix the debonair Brit.
An invisible car, Teri Hatcher & Denise Richards (yikes!).. good riddance to Pierce.
I watched, like the 2 recent J B installments because they’re not campy, corny! The same reason for the successful Christian Bale-led Batman movies. If I want to watch such inane silliness I’d get the Moore/ Brosnan creatively void flicks.
elkh1, do you really want to being back the Clooney-like Batman crapola?
Moira, Blotto I couldn’t agree more with your posts.
Why the hell would ANYONE want to watch a Bond movie with a self anointed PC advocate? James Bond is ANYTHING but PC?
Naomie Harris’s comment (other than being a forgettable supporting character in, ’28 Days Later’ and a completely forgettable Madame Cleo-like bore in ‘Pirates of the Caribbean..’ what/where has her body of work really shone to warrant Bond Girl attention? Apparently she’s not aware AT ALL of the wide array of melanin in the Bond flicks.. though not enough DARK melanin in her PC-like prism) and the frightening likelihood of Judi Dench showing her sagging, wrinkled and freckled cleavage yet again – no thanks. Too much ‘PC’ for me..
Bringing back the late Mr. Llewelyn’s, ‘Q’ is a spit in his face. Use ‘R’ again or another character for such a dynamic.
Moneypenny.. who cares either way. The character is always a 1-2 minute side note.
I may free stream the movie while cooking or barbecuing.
“The last appearances of gadget expert Q and secretary Miss Moneypenny were in 2002′s Die Another Day. Both characters were conspicuously absent in the first two Daniel Craig films…”
I wouldn’t say that is true. In Casino Royale, when Eva Green’s character, Vesper Lynd, introduced herself she said, “I’m the money,” to which Bond replied, “worth every penny.” Money-penny.
I have to speak out. The Bond franchise has been mangled for decades by the producers who haven’t the faintest idea why people see those movies.
“Casino” was a sign they had grasped it. Then they slipped again with the snoze inducing “Quantum.”
“Quantum” and most of the Roger Moore movies were jokes because they departed from the tried and true features of ALL great Bond movies.
-A realistic evil villan (Goldfinger, Cat-holding No 1 and eye-patch wearing 2 in Thunderball-NOT the limp guys Roger Moore took on; no media moguls…no water thieves…no one trying to buy up all the shares in Whole Foods…not an iron toothed weirdo who is beneath Bond…you need someone the old M would recognize as a bad guy that had to go…
A villan up to no good in a way that makes sense (no more eco plots like “Quantum’s” water monoploy in a distant country–give us Thunderball type villans); what is it about this that the producers don’t get? Who would have watched the old TV show, Mission Impossible if the “evil” people were trying to corner the market in sprouts or hold make hostages of free range chickens?
A real Bond (Connery, and Craig are great-Dalton not bad—you’re way off in dissing Dalton, who was light years ahead of Moore and Pierce Bronson–Bronson looked like an older sister’s date; someone who couldn’t fight his way out of his own suit);
An armourer: Q made the movies believable, and gave an excuse to talk about the weapons: but the armourer has to look the part; the old Q did; a young Q won’t; everyone will knows “GQ” Q spends his time in an upscale bar, not a weapons testing range; NO CAMP with the weapons…we want to think its all real, OK?
The new M is fine: she loks crusty and formidable, so keep her that way; no crying, no breakdowns.
While I am at it: what on earth is with the Omega watch? Omega? Really?
And the gun he was carrying in Casino Royale was about as concealable as a brick: size matched with power is why he used a Walther PPK.
Oh one last thing…in Casino in the back of the car driving to the casino, you could see an earring hole in his ear: right…Bond wears an earring…get rid of it: Bond does not wear an earring.
Did I miss anything?
Are you kidding? I thought Pierce Brosnan was the worst Bond. Or at least he had the most awful scripts. My fav is Timothy Dalton.