SkyFall - Retro James Bond
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 19:14
VIEWED: 8173
PAGE 3 of 3
My main beef is that Bond films have been so inconsequential in the scheme of real espionage. It's always been about the megalomaniac super genius bent on global domination, nothing about the real world of a spy. MI-6 is supposed to be one of the world's premiere intelligence units, but instead of a fictionalized account of intrigue in the Middle East, Russia, China or North Korea, the best they could come up with was a disgruntled ex-employee? Didn't they already do that with Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye?
The Bourne franchise has been much better, but that is still more about internal struggles within a domestic spy agency, very little about rooting out terrorists or preventing war. In fact, if we can judge British Intelligence, the CIA and FBI, etc. on the way they are portrayed in movies and TV, then we are truly in a heap of trouble.
Most anyone else will say that I am over-analyzing it, that Bond is really fantasy and you shouldn't worry about it not making sense. I just wish that when they spend all that money on great cinematography, expensive sets and intricate stunt sequences, that it make a bit of sense now and then.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
My main beef is that Bond films have been so inconsequential in the scheme of real espionage. It's always been about the megalomaniac super genius bent on global domination, nothing about the real world of a spy. MI-6 is supposed to be one of the world's premiere intelligence units, but instead of a fictionalized account of intrigue in the Middle East, Russia, China or North Korea, the best they could come up with was a disgruntled ex-employee? Didn't they already do that with Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye?
The Bourne franchise has been much better, but that is still more about internal struggles within a domestic spy agency, very little about rooting out terrorists or preventing war. In fact, if we can judge British Intelligence, the CIA and FBI, etc. on the way they are portrayed in movies and TV, then we are truly in a heap of trouble.
Most anyone else will say that I am over-analyzing it, that Bond is really fantasy and you shouldn't worry about it not making sense. I just wish that when they spend all that money on great cinematography, expensive sets and intricate stunt sequences, that it make a bit of sense now and then.
Have you read John Le Carre? Not being a spy, I can't say for sure, but his books feel quite "real" to me. Being a spy seems like it'd be more about reading people and manipulating them than having pretty guns and hot cars and sexpot women. Le Carre shows the real cost of this kind of manipulation.
The human side is part of what I liked about the Jason Bourne character, too, though the movies didn't do it justice. In the books Bourne is a chameleon. He reads people and situations and creates a character for himself that gets the job done. Damon would have been awesome at that, but that's not how the character was written in the movies. I actually the new Bourne movie did a better job showing this side of a spy, but it might just be my little crush on Jeremy Renner talking.
Yeah, Bond is completely not real. I don't think it really tries to be, no matter that it's gotten more gritty in the new movies. I actually enjoy that it fully throws itself into the fantasy. You're right, though, that such things have to be well done. Too many inconsistencies and the movie, no matter how pretty, is no longer fun.
SGG: looking forward to your report!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
EC, I agree with you 100%, spy movies should be a little more intelligent, hell all movies should have a lot of intelligence. But we are talking about Hollywood here, where, occasionally, a well-scripted movie will get made despite input from the suits. Take Kubrick for instance, he had complete artistic control of his movies.
But spy movies are a different animal, besides how much should a director have access to? You do get the occasional brilliant spy movie (I heard Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was excellent). And I remember Michael Caine in a brilliant spy movie called the Ipcress File (1965).
But Bond has always been about the huge set pieces, intricate chase scenes and beautiful girls, not to mention the resident bad guy. I remember Goldfinger being of particular interest to me, but they want it to appeal to the masses. Hence, the generic plot points.
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
My main beef is that Bond films have been so inconsequential in the scheme of real espionage. It's always been about the megalomaniac super genius bent on global domination, nothing about the real world of a spy. MI-6 is supposed to be one of the world's premiere intelligence units, but instead of a fictionalized account of intrigue in the Middle East, Russia, China or North Korea, the best they could come up with was a disgruntled ex-employee? Didn't they already do that with Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye?
The Bourne franchise has been much better, but that is still more about internal struggles within a domestic spy agency, very little about rooting out terrorists or preventing war. In fact, if we can judge British Intelligence, the CIA and FBI, etc. on the way they are portrayed in movies and TV, then we are truly in a heap of trouble.
Most anyone else will say that I am over-analyzing it, that Bond is really fantasy and you shouldn't worry about it not making sense. I just wish that when they spend all that money on great cinematography, expensive sets and intricate stunt sequences, that it make a bit of sense now and then.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey there, saw the film last night and found it a bit more exciting than the first time around. Sometimes it takes a second viewing to appreciate a film.
Re: The Bullet/train fight
I got the impression that he wasn't hit by Eve at all, but then I saw what seemed to be a second scar on his chest which indicates that he was hit by Eve's bullet, but it's not clear.
Re: The Sex Scene
When they were in the casino talking, there was fear and panic in her eyes, plus she said that the bodyguards would kill her if she went with 007. So yes, there was definitely fear involved in the relationship between her and Silva. But I didn't get that fear factor once Bond insisted that he would kill Silva. She felt somewhat relieved at Bond's promise. When he entered the shower it seemed that she was quite receptive to his advances.
Bond reassured her and perhaps some of that fear melted away. In the Bond world sometimes sex is used to relieve tension, in this case it was also sealing the deal/pact he made with the woman. In other words she was a willing participant. With the inclusion of this character, and her subsequent demise, used the moment Silva shot her as a type of "look what this madman will do", a kind of unpredictability. That scene, when Silva just shot her and said "I win", baffled me at first. But then I thought that the writers used a rather cheap technique to move along the plot.
As I watched the shower scene, I became convinced that 007 was being depicted as a kinder gentler secret agent.
I'm getting sleepy, so I'll end it here.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
My main beef is that Bond films have been so inconsequential in the scheme of real espionage. It's always been about the megalomaniac super genius bent on global domination, nothing about the real world of a spy. MI-6 is supposed to be one of the world's premiere intelligence units, but instead of a fictionalized account of intrigue in the Middle East, Russia, China or North Korea, the best they could come up with was a disgruntled ex-employee? Didn't they already do that with Sean Bean's character in Goldeneye?
The Bourne franchise has been much better, but that is still more about internal struggles within a domestic spy agency, very little about rooting out terrorists or preventing war. In fact, if we can judge British Intelligence, the CIA and FBI, etc. on the way they are portrayed in movies and TV, then we are truly in a heap of trouble.
Most anyone else will say that I am over-analyzing it, that Bond is really fantasy and you shouldn't worry about it not making sense. I just wish that when they spend all that money on great cinematography, expensive sets and intricate stunt sequences, that it make a bit of sense now and then.
Have you read John Le Carre? Not being a spy, I can't say for sure, but his books feel quite "real" to me. Being a spy seems like it'd be more about reading people and manipulating them than having pretty guns and hot cars and sexpot women. Le Carre shows the real cost of this kind of manipulation.
The human side is part of what I liked about the Jason Bourne character, too, though the movies didn't do it justice. In the books Bourne is a chameleon. He reads people and situations and creates a character for himself that gets the job done. Damon would have been awesome at that, but that's not how the character was written in the movies. I actually the new Bourne movie did a better job showing this side of a spy, but it might just be my little crush on Jeremy Renner talking.
Yeah, Bond is completely not real. I don't think it really tries to be, no matter that it's gotten more gritty in the new movies. I actually enjoy that it fully throws itself into the fantasy. You're right, though, that such things have to be well done. Too many inconsistencies and the movie, no matter how pretty, is no longer fun.
SGG: lookingNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME