Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Peter T Chattaway

Skyfall

349 posts in this topic

Rumored title is Red Sky at Night. If this holds up, may I be the first to offer the producers a suggestion? Please forego hiring some current artist to create a new song for this series, and just have The Fixx rerecord their song - just have 'em drop the "i-e-s" and add a "y". Or, change your title to match their song. The lyrics already read like a possible Bond entry...

Red skies at night, red skies at night

Wo oh, wo oh oh oh oh oh oh oh

Red skies at night, red skies at night

Wo oh, wo oh oh oh oh oh oh oh

Should have taken warning

It's just, people mourning, running, hiding, lost

You can't find, find a place to go

So it's red skies at night, red skies at night

Wo oh, wo oh oh oh oh

Should have taken warning

It's just, people mourning, running, hiding, lost

You can't find, find a place to go

So it's red skies at night, red skies at night

Wo oh, wo oh oh oh oh oh oh oh

Red skies at night, red skies at night

Wo oh, wo oh oh

Someone's taking over

And it looks like they're aiming right at you

Someone says, "We'll be dead by morning"

Someone cries, leaving

Red eyes at night, red eyes at night

Oh, wo oh oh oh oh oh oh oh

Red skies at night, red skies at night, red skies at night (4x)

Red {echo}

Skies {echo}

At {echo}

Night

Red skies at night, red skies at night

Wo oh, wo oh oh oh oh oh oh oh

Red skies at night, red skies at night

Wo oh, wo oh oh oh oh oh

Just add silhouettes of naked women, Bond flashing his Walther PPK, and stir.

Edited by Baal_T'shuvah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This "rumor" originated on a small-time message board somewhere, and then, through the oddity of internet media, became a more respectable story. There's probably nothing to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This "rumor" originated on a small-time message board somewhere, and then, through the oddity of internet media, became a more respectable story. There's probably nothing to it.

Can't see it. Granted, they're doing things much differently than they have in the past, but it still doesn't sound like something that would get the EON stamp of approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah. The title was supposed to be "Red Sky at Night" but through a mix-up with the iPhone auto-correct it's now Dead Sky at Night, and there's talk of trying to get the words "Gold" and "Forever" in there. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, link to my three-year-old blog post on the previous film's title -- which includes a list of the Ian Fleming titles that have NOT been used yet:

  • Risico -- plot elements have already been incorporated into the film version of For Your Eyes Only
  • The Property of a Lady -- plot elements and titular phrase have already been incorporated into the film version of Octopussy
  • The Hildebrand Rarity -- plot elements have already been incorporated into the film Licence to Kill
  • 007 in New York -- sounds too much like a song by Sting, if you ask me

So far, only 5 of the 22 existing James Bond films have NOT been named after one of Ian Fleming's books or short stories ... however, of those titles, 2 were phrases that had already appeared in the James Bond books/films (Licence to Kill, The World Is Not Enough) and 1 was the name of the Caribbean vacation home where Fleming wrote the books (GoldenEye).

The 2 titles that had nothing particularly to do with Fleming or his writings were Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day -- so if the filmmakers go with a non-Fleming title for this film, you can probably expect it to include the word "die" as well as a reference to some future point in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • The Hildebrand Rarity -- plot elements have already been incorporated into the film Licence to Kill
  • 007 in New York -- sounds too much like a song by Sting, if you ask me

If 007 in New York sounds too much like a song by Sting, The Hildebrand Rarity sounds too much like a Mad Libs-style Ludlum novel.

TV Tropes: Mad Lib Thriller Title

Random thriller title generator using the Ludlum formula

Edited by SDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 2 titles that had nothing particularly to do with Fleming or his writings were Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day -- so if the filmmakers go with a non-Fleming title for this film, you can probably expect it to include the word "die" as well as a reference to some future point in time.

At least one of those was a mistake. Well, both of them might have been a mistake, come to think of it, but yeah; whether it was initially a mistake or not, they do like death and time over there.

I would love to see Property of a Lady as the title, myself, for all that it's was used in Octopussy. It's not like anyone remembers the plot of that one anyway.

007 in New York sounds like an entry in a horror-movie franchise. Next up: Freddy meets 007.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My money's on RISICO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My money's on RISICO.

Now that they've proven they're not afraid to chart obscure waters with words like "Quantum" and "Solace", I don't see why they wouldn't. It's not bad, really. Plus, Dan Craig is fully the face of Bond now and hardly needs a title to help sell tickets. It's sharp sounding, and it's got a little mystique. Is it a place? A person? Another organization? A codename for a scheme? An anagram for a device like the "A.T.A.C." of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY? Will Bond find out before it's too late? (Sorry. Got a little trailerish on y'all.)

I wish we had a different director. Love me some Craig though. cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as the villain ... Javier Bardem?

If so, he would apparently be only the second Oscar-winner to face off against Bond, the previous Oscar-winner-turned-Bond-villain being Christopher Walken in A View to a Kill (1985). (The current M, of course, is played by Judi Dench, who won an Oscar herself for Shakespeare in Love, 1998, between her second and third Bond films. The next Bond film will be her seventh.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bardem? Well, he's a good choice. Definitely has enough weight to go up against Craig. But Mathieu Amalric was a good choice, too, and QUANTUM OF SOLACE squandered his talents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d take Bardem! Heck yeah! I know the idea of resuscitating old iconic characters is looked down upon, and usually for good reasons, but I could totally see Bardem making good of an updated ‘Jaws’.

Mathieu Amalric was a good choice, too, and QUANTUM OF SOLACE squandered his talents.

‘Squandered’ is a bit excessive Harm… er…. Ryan. Amalric was underused/underappreciated, but his talents are still to be easily found on display in QOS. And if you weren’t so despondent with the film by then, you’d see that at the end he’s got one of the better fights with Bond in the whole series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amalric was underused/underappreciated, but his talents are still to be easily found on display in QOS.

Sure. He doesn't come off as bad in the film. But he should have been given so much more to do.

And if you weren’t so despondent with the film by then, you’d see that at the end he’s got one of the better fights with Bond in the whole series.

I don't know about that. It's one of the rougher fights with Bond in the series, and it's more convincing than most, but it has little to no dramatic impact. Big and noisy, but without much suspense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Ryan said. A good fight is a fight you care about. Unless you're like Jackie Chan or something, and even then we care mostly because we like Jackie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about that. It's one of the rougher fights with Bond in the series, and it's more convincing than most, but it has little to no dramatic impact. Big and noisy, but without much suspense.

I think I'm one of the four people who really liked QOS, but this is right on the money. Together with the utterly wasted stealing-the-water McGuffin (which I was reminded of when I recently watched Chinatown--now there's the right way to handle water-theft) it's one of my main problems with the most recent Bond offering.

Having Bardem potentially playing the Big Bad does make me wonder how closely they're tying 23 to the previous movie. QOS climaxed in Bolivia, after all. Bardem could conceivably be playing a character connected to Quantum's machinations in South America. (Then again, wasn't early word that this movie would not be continuing the Quantum plotline?)

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good fight is a fight you care about. Unless you're like Jackie Chan or something, and even then we care mostly because we like Jackie.

A fight that rewards incapacitation or otherwise damaging the other person so as to disrupt their consciousness or the integration of their mind and body, I submit is at least proximate to direct fifth commandment violation.

::biggrinjester::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you weren’t so despondent with the film by then, you’d see that at the end he’s got one of the better fights with Bond in the whole series.

I don't know about that. It's one of the rougher fights with Bond in the series, and it's more convincing than most, but it has little to no dramatic impact. Big and noisy, but without much suspense.

Well, its apparent lack of suspense has so much to do with the viewer attitudes towards the characters and the storyline, which rely on the rest of the movie to establish. So, yeah.... if you're feeling shortchanged with Greene's character, his scheme and particularly with Bond's character (and I blame no one for feeling this way on any of the 3 counts), then the thrill of the fight will suffer. All I was saying is that the fight itself, seen independently from the film, is... well, I don't know if 'groundbreaking' is the right word, but the maniacalness of his opponent is definintely something new for Bond. Has Bond ever fought anyone like Greene before? No. It's a bit of a flipperoo on the formula. All those years Bond's baddies kept getting bigger and stronger and more impervious to pain (while during one particular stretch w/Roger Moore, Bond got older and weaker), and yet here, it is Bond who is a physical specimen like we've never seen him before, a near Terminator in this film, and his final showdown is against a worm of a man who poses a challenge despite being way out of his league, physically.

Greene's rabid, feral animal approach to the Bond vs. Baddie fight is new and worthy of a salute. It is another moment where Amalric doesn't disappoint with the time he's given, though I agree it'd have been nice if we got more of Greene along the way, showing us some signs of the beast within, building some anticipation for the end.

Plus, ya gotta love the "brimstone" design of the desert hotel interior set. Something else that should not go unnoticed.

Edited by Judo Chop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has Bond ever fought anyone like Greene before? No. It's a bit of a flipperoo on the formula.

Sure. It's a good concept. But that doesn't mean it's well-executed. The fight--even just taken as a fight scene--isn't particularly well constructed. It's just messy and quick, like so many fight scenes today. But the best fight scenes are about rise and fall, about the creation of suspense, which is why Bond's fight with Odd Job in GODLFINGER is infinitely more fascinating and memorable. Like so many films today, QUANTUM OF SOLACE mistakes activity for excitement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bardem confirms that he's considering the role.

“I’m a huge fan of the James Bond saga,” Bardem says. “When I was little, I went watching Mr. Connery doing James Bond with my father. Who in the world would think I’d be in one of those movies?”

The deal breaker for him, if there is one, will be, as always, if the material doesn't hold up. But Bardem says he was intrigued by what Mendes told him at their meeting.

“They’re changing the whole thing, the whole dynamic,” Bardem says. “I’d be playing Bond’s nemesis, yes, but it’s not that obvious. Everything is more nuanced. It’s very intriguing.”

And the escapism of the Bond franchise would seem a solid fit for an actor newly determined to leave his work behind when he goes home at night.

“But who knows? Maybe I will go back home saying, ‘I have the world in my hands,’” Bardem laughs. “Evil can be very seductive.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what this means:

“They’re changing the whole thing, the whole dynamic,” Bardem says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that this time....

....it's personal!

:shock:

::bond::

EDIT: Seriously, though, that quote kind of makes me think that the producers are going to go even further in a Bourne direction than they already have. We know from QOS that the intelligence service is more compromised than we've seen yet; what if Bond spends this movie tracking down the Big Bad only to discover that the Big Bad is really the good guy, and the British Government is the real Big Bad? It's horribly trite, but this isn't exactly a franchise that shies away from triteness.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

I was a bit pleased when Craig said they were going to lighten up and relax with this one. But then Peter Morgan came out with his quote that the story would be shocking, Sam Mendes got involved, and I lost all faith in that possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We know from QOS that the intelligence service is more compromised than we've seen yet; what if Bond spends this movie tracking down the Big Bad only to discover that the Big Bad is really the good guy, and the British Government is the real Big Bad? It's horribly trite, but this isn't exactly a franchise that shies away from triteness.

The thought crossed my mind. It wouldn't have to be trite; during QUANTUM OF SOLACE's pre-production, Forster talked about being inspired by 70s thrillers like THE PARALLAX VIEW, and I daresay the notion of a "paranoid thriller" Bond film that features Bond caught up in a conspiracy of government manipulation appeals to me. Bond meets THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, if you will. But such a story would have to be handled with imagination to not seem derivative. I do fear that if they plan of having Bond go up against the Prime Minister or whatever, they'll turn in an uninspired, BOURNE-ish version of that concept.

The Ian Fleming novels, which the Craig era purports to be a return towards, admittedly tended to be darker than the film franchise. But they also had a sense of the outlandish and grotesque, a tendency towards the bizarre, that kept their stories from descending into run-of-the-mill shenanigans. They had color. Take, for example, Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, where the villain has a "suicide garden" built of deadly plants where Japanese individuals come to commit suicide, or DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, where the villain has an old Western ghost town, named Spectreville, that functions as his private retreat. This kind of surreal, weird touches are Bond's lifeblood.

CASINO ROYALE had a bit of that; the story itself is founded on a kind of absurd idea, and you have things like Le Chiffre's malfunctioning tear duct. But QUANTUM OF SOLACE? QUANTUM OF SOLACE pretty much chucked that out the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Ian Fleming novels, which the Craig era purports to be a return towards, admittedly tended to be darker than the film franchise. But they also had a sense of the outlandish and grotesque, a tendency towards the bizarre, that kept their stories from descending into run-of-the-mill shenanigans. They had color. Take, for example, Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, where the villain has a "suicide garden" built of deadly plants where Japanese individuals come to commit suicide, or DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, where the villain has an old Western ghost town, named Spectreville, that functions as his private retreat. This kind of surreal, weird touches are Bond's lifeblood.

You Only Live Twice is one of the Bond novels I've read, and you've left out the best part: Blofeld stomping around the garden of death in a suit of armor. Or am I misremembering that? But yeah, totally with you on the surreal touches; honestly, the surrealism is what draws me to the movies. At one point, even the lamer movies had nice surreal touches: my favorite sequences in The Man with the Golden Gun involve the maze and the secret service offices on board a half-sunken barge. Plot? Characters? Who cares? The office is sideways! Same thing with the murders at the start of Live and Let Die, the knife-throwers chasing the clown in Octopussy, and the fly-fishing assassin in A View to a Kill. (Yeah, that's the Moore years, which partake more of the ridiculous end of the spectrum. My secret shame is that Roger Moore is my favorite Bond. Not the best. But my favorite.)

CASINO ROYALE had a bit of that; the story itself is founded on a kind of absurd idea, and you have things like Le Chiffre's malfunctioning tear duct. But QUANTUM OF SOLACE? QUANTUM OF SOLACE pretty much chucked that out the door.

Pretty much, although I've got to sing the praises of the opera scene. And Quantum's plot, which was ridiculous enough for Auric Goldfinger to have dreamed it up, but which unfortunately wound up being an afterthought as far as the movie was concerned.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You Only Live Twice is one of the Bond novels I've read, and you've left out the best part: Blofeld stomping around the garden of death in a suit of armor. Or am I misremembering that?

Nah, that's in there. Great stuff, too. I'd love to see that incorporated into BOND 23.

And, while we're on the subject, I'd like to say that YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is actually a pretty splendid yarn with quite a moving ending.

But yeah, totally with you on the surreal touches; honestly, the surrealism is what draws me to the movies. At one point, even the lamer movies had nice surreal touches: my favorite sequences in The Man with the Golden Gun involve the maze and the secret service offices on board a half-sunken barge. Plot? Characters? Who cares? The office is sideways! (Yeah, that's the Moore years, which partake more of the ridiculous end of the spectrum. My secret shame is that Roger Moore is my favorite Bond. Not the best. But my favorite.)

I adore the funhouse in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. Fleming never came up with the idea, but it's so Fleming it almost hurts. And, for what it's worth, I don't diss the Roger Moore years. Well, I do once John Glen starts directing, 'cause he's dull. But the Lewis Gilbert Moore outings are a riot. MOONRAKER has unfairly been saddled with a bad rap; it's a pretty enjoyable, spectacular farce.

Pretty much, although I've got to sing the praises of the opera scene.

It's interesting to see Bond get so arthouse, and I'll support anything that gives Puccini's gorgeous music from TOSCA some play. But, like pretty much everything in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, more could have been made of it.

And Quantum's plot, which was ridiculous enough for Auric Goldfinger to have dreamed it up, but which unfortunately wound up being an afterthought as far as the movie was concerned.

Like the story of CHINATOWN, the plot of QUANTUM OF SOLACE was inspired by real events.

Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0