SKYFALL will star Ralph Fiennes and Javier Bardem as villains, with Sam Mendes directing. They also released information about the premise:

.

Thoughts? Should be better than QoS, right? Does it have a shot at topping Casino Royale?

Casino Royale wasn't perfect, but it captured the cool feel of Ian Fleming's storytelling, and that's what made it fun.

Quantum of Solace was a bukkake of musclehead action movie diarrhea.

I believe the key to success for Skyfall will be to try to do the first thing instead of the second.

Pretty certain it will be better than QoS wouldn't take much. Marc Forster made such a bland movie, the action is so uninspired and poorly shot. The only positive I can give is casting Gemma Arterton, I can watch that woman in anything.

Will it top Casino Royale? I hope so, the two cast villains are certainly giving me hope that they are going to take a good crack at it.

Edit: I felt Casino Royale was excellent until the end of the card game. The movie really runs out of steam in the third act, the card game had more intensity than the action scenes.

Guess i'm the only one on here who actually liked QoS, i'll admit it wasn't up to par with Royale, but it was still enjoyable overall, anyway the premise sounds like it has alot of potential. The title dosen't really fit though, I mean seriously, Skyfall? that's the best they could come up with? That makes me think of films like Drop Zone and Terminal Velocity, not Bond.

Skyfall sounds like a video game to me for some reason.

Not that it's a bad thing. I just can't put my finger on it.

I've honestly never enjoyed or gotten anything out of Bond. The villains here intrigue me, as does Mendes. Cautiously hopeful for htis.

I was initially taken aback by the title.....the titles have been more complex, multi-word affairs of late...but then I gave it a second thought: if they could get away with Goldeneye, Goldfinger, Moonraker, etc., perhaps a return to form with a one word title is in order. But on third thought...Skyfall? Really? Sounds like a sequel to Skyline.

I agree, but it's potentially new and exciting for the series.



I agree here as well. Campbell and company captured the Fleming feel to perfection, even in the first 40 mins which had nothing to do with the book. The last third gets a bit tiresome. I'd be down this time for 2 great action scenes on the scale of the Miami airport, and a lot more fun. I do think they'll try to keep a dark tone, but Fiennes and Bardem will probably make it work.

I have faith in this. Good director. Good Bond. Good actors as villains. And I am convinced QoS was a glitch and that they have learned valuable lessons from it.

Rock on!

I'm not as sure about this, given that it's based on a novel that is supposed to be a literary reboot of the entire franchise (Carte Blanche, by Jeffery Deaver). The very idea of a reboot or remake implies a lack of originality, which is why many authors who attempt to write works based on such existing franchises tend to be hacks. I'll withhold judgment until I see the film, of course, but I've got a bad feeling about this.

One idea I was thinking of: given that Bond was written as an agent during the Cold War era, Hollywood should consider doing period piece films based on the original Fleming novels set in the 40's and 50's. The appeal of this to me is that with the period involved, there would be much more focus on the characters of Bond and those he meets/fights in the course of the novels and less focus on action scenes and gadgets. Of course, this would require very good actors and a top-notch director, but it could work well if done properly.

Personally I hope Bond stays in the present day, going back to the past just somehow wouldn't feel right.

Count me in with not being a big fan of the title, either. After the first two Bond 2.0 entries went back to using remaining unused Fleming titles, I thought/hoped they'd continue to follow suit until they were all gone. But, alas, no "The Property of a Lady," no "The Hildebrand Rarity," and no "Risico" (I'm not counting the all-too-pedestrian-sounding-for-a-Bond-movie title of "007 in New York" ).



But Marc Forster is a good director, too... and, like him, Mendes doesn't exactly scream 'action filmmaker,' either. "Quantum" was fine, albeit a fairly middle-of-the-road Bond movie.

I am one of those pumped for this. Any Bond film is always going to be a source of excitement and this is no different. James Bond is one of the few people who can threaten the popularity of the regional film stars where I live down in South India.

I am also one of the few people who genuinely enjoyed Quantum of Solace. Sure, in no way was it comparable to Casino Royale, but it was a competent action film in its own right. With the exception of the overlong, uninspiring climax, I felt that it maintained a certain amount of tension throughout the film. I might not watch it as many times as I've Casino Royale, but it certainly wasn't an outright disaster.

Anyways, Skyfall, no matter how much it screws up, will definitely be better than QOS. The major complaint everyone leveled against QOS was that it was like a Bourne, and not a Bond, film; which is completely true. If we see a return to the suave yet testosterone filled qualities that characterized the Casino Royale reboot, then this ought to be a top-notch film.

And, IMO, good directors are always going to be good no matter what genre they work in. Yes, they may prefer certain genres over others, but the quality of their filmmaking will shine through irrespective of the genre. At least, that is what I've always felt and certainly hope it will be the case with Mendes as well.

BTW, is it true that it is based on Carte Blanche? Most Bond fans on book forums I visit aren't exactly taking to Deaver's novel, so that is definitely one reason to be skeptical of the new film.

I misread the Wikipedia article I found on the film, as Eon has denied that it will be based on the Deaver novel. This is a good thing, given that Carte Blanche is a literary reboot of the Bond franchise.