![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
earlgreytea68My love for Bond movies is, like Sherlock Holmes, rooted deep in my past. I grew up on Bond movies (and the novels, I have read all the Fleming novels, although not for years now). They formed my adolescence. And I've had a love / hate relationship with Daniel Craig's Bond. I really didn't care for Quantum of Solace, which felt too much like a generic action film to me and not enough like a Bond movie. But I adored Casino Royale to a ridiculous degree. In fact, it was my favorite Bond movie...
...Until I went to a matinee showing of Skyfall today.
I was going to try to go to the midnight show but I would have had to go by myself and I was concerned about my safety getting myself home all alone in the wee hours of the morning. So I ended up leaving work early to catch a matinee at the fancy theater. It was packed, a sold-out show, with a nice blend of people, all ages, all genders, and they were into it. The appearance of the Aston Martin got an actual round of applause. I was worried about going to a matinee, because I like to watch James Bond movies surrounded by people and I thought it would be empty, so I was relieved it was full, AND I got to have a glass of champagne while I watched. Bond would have approved.
And the movie is SO BRILLIANT OMG. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but I don't think it was that, and it was SO GOOD. I'm almost scared of how good this movie is, because HOW WILL THEY EVER TOP IT? But that's what I thought about CR, too, and I thought this managed, amazingly, to be even better than CR.
A Twitter friend has been positing that CR, QoS, and Skyfall are supposed to be taken as a trilogy, and she's so right about that. It was amazing to watch the old, weary Bond we got in Skyfall and remember where Craig had started, back in CR, so young and fresh and new. How did we get from there to here? It made me want to watch QoS again, because I felt like I missed something. But, anyway, I *loved* that got from there to here. What I loved so passionately about Casino Royale was that they managed to make it feel, somehow, like the prequel to every other Bond movie. Not that I think you can really plot out a timeline of Bond movies, nor do I think you should even try. But, anyway, I still think that last scene of CR is my favorite last scene of any Bond movie ever: James Bond, dressed in an impeccable suit and holding a gun, and he says, for the first time in the whole movie, "Bond. James Bond," and then the James Bond theme kicks in, also for the first time in the whole movie, and I felt like, "Oh! We ended where we'd been!" I thought it was a BRILLIANT move, and a BRILLIANT movie, and I could write you a whole thesis on CR as a Bond film, I really could.
BUT then came Skyfall, and wait a second, wait a second, wait a second, NOW we're ending where we'd been! I didn't even realize we hadn't completed the journey yet! But we hadn't! We still had to get to our Bond, and he's there in Skyfall, far more recognizable than the Bond in CR necessarily was. For instance, although he doesn't order it that way on-screen that we see, the bartender shakes Bond's martini in Skyfall. In CR, Bond says to the bartender who asks, "Shaken, not stirred?" "Do I look like I care?" LOVE that bit. And I was thinking, initially, as I was watching Skyfall, that this was a movie about an old Bond, a tired Bond, a Bond who had seen and done too much, but somehow they flipped that to, "Well, no, Bond has always been a little old and tired, it was just lurking underneath all that bonhomie. Your Bond has always been this damaged, he's always had this in his past, it was there all along." I really don't know how they pulled that off, but they did it so beautifully.
Because Bond is tricky. You have to keep Bond moving forward while at the same time not alienating the Bonds that came before. Mostly because you run the risk of losing his Bond-ness if you alienate what came before. A Bond movie should have a specific feel to it. It doesn't have to be the same as Goldfinger, but it should exist on the same spectrum. Like, if you found the right lens to look through, they'd be identical on some level. And the CR-Skyfall trilogy appears to be doing a very specific character development arc and yet never losing sight of the fact that you can't develop Bond too much or you'd lose him. You can't know *too* much about Bond. You can never save Bond, not entirely, not from himself, or the series would end. And Skyfall walks that tightrope well, giving him just enough redemption.
Skyfall does so much of Bond right in this film, I just cannot get over it. First of all, the theme is used so much more, and to such fabulous effect. When Bond pulls his Aston Martin out and the theme plays over it: that was genius. There are crazy locations, the way you need there to be in a Bond film. Bond shags a bunch of women and drinks a lot. He doesn't smoke anymore, but we've added a whisper of substance abuse instead. (No one has ever said, to my knowledge, that Bond has quit smoking. He just never does it on-screen anymore.) The villain is INSANELY creepy and over-the-top in the tradition of all great Bond villains, and seems to have a limitless amount of money and blindly loyal henchmen to carry out his crazy plans, also in the tradition of all great Bond villains. The new Q is fabulously charming and I look forward to enjoying him for many years to come (it doesn't hurt that I've been a Ben Whishawe fan ever since I fell in love with Freddie in "The Hour").
And yet. And yet. It is so clearly a Bond movie, and yet a BETTER Bond movie than we've seen yet. It has all the hallmarks of a Bond movie, but the plot feels much smaller and more intimate than the usual Bond movie plot. It isn't the world at stake, it's just M. (Alright, there's other people at stake, but in the end it's M.) Who would have thought that the way to fix Bond, which had gotten out of control, wasn't to try to top the latest crazy take-over-the-world plot? It was to make M Bond's world and focus the plot on her. And it works so well, not least because you have Daniel Craig and Judi Dench pulling it together, so this is a Bond movie whose acting is well in hand. And the best part about this Bond movie is that it goes to a ton of exotic places and then it ends on a Scottish moor in the house where James Bond grew up. This is a movie that starts out a traditional Bond movie, veers sharply left, and rediscovers Bond in the process. There's something wildly ambitious and gutsy about this, and I can't get over how well it works. Q gives Bond just a gun and a radio, explaining that they no longer go in for exploding pens. Craig's Bond is dubious about this, expressing the audience's skepticism. "Don't you know you're in a Bond movie?" Craig seems to ask. "Where is my gadget?" And what this movie shows us about Bond is that you didn't really need all the trappings you thought you needed in a Bond movie: maybe you just always needed *Bond.* And maybe we'd forgotten all that, somewhere along the way. (Don't worry, there's still a catch to the gun, to make it just a *little* gadgety.)
I admit that I've tried to imagine making this kind of Bond movie with any of the other Bonds. And I love the other Bonds, I really do. I think they all bring something different to the role, and that's the magic of Bond, that you can have different spins on him but he stays, I don't know, Bondian through it all. But maybe somewhere in there we got so caught up in all the folderol that accompanies a Bond movie that we forgot who Bond was. "Dr. No" didn't have a splashy theme (although it did have the trademark stylistic opening), but by "Goldfinger" the theme showed up and the formula was entrenched and we somehow got stuck there. Lazenby's outing lost the opening theme and had Bond getting married and widowed and it was a failure and it was like the franchise got scared and went back to the formula, and by the end of Brosnan's reign they were churning them out without thinking. But the first line of Ian Fleming's novel Casino Royale (the first Bond novel, hence so fitting that it's the title of the movie they intended to serve as a prequel) is about how nauseating Bond's situation is. Yes, Bond's in the middle of the world's most glamorous casino but he's nauseated. Bond's glitziness was always meant to be gritty. Somehow, all of our adoration polished it too much, made it shiny, and we forgot that what we'd loved about it in the first place was the dirt in it. Thank God Skyfall found it for us again.
I'm not sure Daniel Craig is necessarily my favorite Bond. To be honest, I've always thought he didn't much look like my vision of Bond. (Frankly, Pierce Brosnan comes closest to me to how Fleming describes Bond in the novels. I used to be mesmerized by Fleming's turn of phrase in referring to Bond's "dark comma of hair over his forehead." Still love that. I've probably stolen it at some point.) But he is *such* a *good* *Bond.* So good. He's good at the bon mots (Bond has to have bon mots, it's required, the witty quip while he's killing people is his M.O., you can't get rid of *that*). He even gets to WINK in Skyfall. And the look on his face when the Aston Martin gets blown up is, like, a thing of beauty. In that moment, he is every other Bond who ever drove an Aston Martin. He's like, "DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH OF MY IDENTITY IS CAUGHT UP IN THAT CAR? YOU ARE GOING DOWN." He wears a suit well. He wears a tuxedo well. He wears nothing well. He's hot. Especially when shooting things. He's also human. You feel the effort it takes Bond to do things. His Bond is no superhero, he's just a person who's good at his job, and, like everyone good at a job, sometimes you have to clear everyone out of your office so you can collapse for a second. It is dangerous to say how good Craig is as Bond, because Bond is a role that should never belong to just one person (that was the danger of how severely the franchise faltered after Connery), but someday Craig's reign will be over and I will be so happy to have his Bond movies on my shelf. I will be so happy we got to have his Bond. I'm not sure he's my favorite yet, but that could be the adolescent in me, resisting replacing the hero of my childhood. Because he's a pretty damn fantastic Bond.
Oh, my goodness, what have I been rambling about for so long? I love James Bond and I loved this movie. Can you tell? I want to go see it again tomorrow and the day after that. When it ended, I was *literally* sitting in the theater with a huge ridiculous grin on my face. Because I can see the FUTURE. Somehow, they took me through a neat, beautiful trilogy arc and yet I don't feel like they told all the Bond stories there are to tell, I am waiting for the next one. As I was watching the movie, I was thinking, "You know what I miss about the Craig Bond movies? We don't have a Moneypenny." And then I was thinking, "Hey, I wonder if that chick is going to turn out to be Moneypenny." AND THEN SHE WAS AND I CALLED THAT. AND THEN THERE WAS THE GUN BARREL. AND THEN THERE WAS THE THEME. My major issue with the Craig movies have been that they don't start with the gun barrel opening, and I love the gun barrel opening, that's how you know that what you're about to watch is a JAMES BOND MOVIE, so you should show respect. But, do you see, Skyfall ended where we began, with a Moneypenny in M's office and a gun barrel opening and a theme that's still one of the best ever written. And they didn't even make us wait until the end of the credits the way they usually do. "James Bond Will Return," they assured us as soon as movie ended, and oh, my God, I seriously cannot wait.
...Until I went to a matinee showing of Skyfall today.
I was going to try to go to the midnight show but I would have had to go by myself and I was concerned about my safety getting myself home all alone in the wee hours of the morning. So I ended up leaving work early to catch a matinee at the fancy theater. It was packed, a sold-out show, with a nice blend of people, all ages, all genders, and they were into it. The appearance of the Aston Martin got an actual round of applause. I was worried about going to a matinee, because I like to watch James Bond movies surrounded by people and I thought it would be empty, so I was relieved it was full, AND I got to have a glass of champagne while I watched. Bond would have approved.
And the movie is SO BRILLIANT OMG. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but I don't think it was that, and it was SO GOOD. I'm almost scared of how good this movie is, because HOW WILL THEY EVER TOP IT? But that's what I thought about CR, too, and I thought this managed, amazingly, to be even better than CR.
A Twitter friend has been positing that CR, QoS, and Skyfall are supposed to be taken as a trilogy, and she's so right about that. It was amazing to watch the old, weary Bond we got in Skyfall and remember where Craig had started, back in CR, so young and fresh and new. How did we get from there to here? It made me want to watch QoS again, because I felt like I missed something. But, anyway, I *loved* that got from there to here. What I loved so passionately about Casino Royale was that they managed to make it feel, somehow, like the prequel to every other Bond movie. Not that I think you can really plot out a timeline of Bond movies, nor do I think you should even try. But, anyway, I still think that last scene of CR is my favorite last scene of any Bond movie ever: James Bond, dressed in an impeccable suit and holding a gun, and he says, for the first time in the whole movie, "Bond. James Bond," and then the James Bond theme kicks in, also for the first time in the whole movie, and I felt like, "Oh! We ended where we'd been!" I thought it was a BRILLIANT move, and a BRILLIANT movie, and I could write you a whole thesis on CR as a Bond film, I really could.
BUT then came Skyfall, and wait a second, wait a second, wait a second, NOW we're ending where we'd been! I didn't even realize we hadn't completed the journey yet! But we hadn't! We still had to get to our Bond, and he's there in Skyfall, far more recognizable than the Bond in CR necessarily was. For instance, although he doesn't order it that way on-screen that we see, the bartender shakes Bond's martini in Skyfall. In CR, Bond says to the bartender who asks, "Shaken, not stirred?" "Do I look like I care?" LOVE that bit. And I was thinking, initially, as I was watching Skyfall, that this was a movie about an old Bond, a tired Bond, a Bond who had seen and done too much, but somehow they flipped that to, "Well, no, Bond has always been a little old and tired, it was just lurking underneath all that bonhomie. Your Bond has always been this damaged, he's always had this in his past, it was there all along." I really don't know how they pulled that off, but they did it so beautifully.
Because Bond is tricky. You have to keep Bond moving forward while at the same time not alienating the Bonds that came before. Mostly because you run the risk of losing his Bond-ness if you alienate what came before. A Bond movie should have a specific feel to it. It doesn't have to be the same as Goldfinger, but it should exist on the same spectrum. Like, if you found the right lens to look through, they'd be identical on some level. And the CR-Skyfall trilogy appears to be doing a very specific character development arc and yet never losing sight of the fact that you can't develop Bond too much or you'd lose him. You can't know *too* much about Bond. You can never save Bond, not entirely, not from himself, or the series would end. And Skyfall walks that tightrope well, giving him just enough redemption.
Skyfall does so much of Bond right in this film, I just cannot get over it. First of all, the theme is used so much more, and to such fabulous effect. When Bond pulls his Aston Martin out and the theme plays over it: that was genius. There are crazy locations, the way you need there to be in a Bond film. Bond shags a bunch of women and drinks a lot. He doesn't smoke anymore, but we've added a whisper of substance abuse instead. (No one has ever said, to my knowledge, that Bond has quit smoking. He just never does it on-screen anymore.) The villain is INSANELY creepy and over-the-top in the tradition of all great Bond villains, and seems to have a limitless amount of money and blindly loyal henchmen to carry out his crazy plans, also in the tradition of all great Bond villains. The new Q is fabulously charming and I look forward to enjoying him for many years to come (it doesn't hurt that I've been a Ben Whishawe fan ever since I fell in love with Freddie in "The Hour").
And yet. And yet. It is so clearly a Bond movie, and yet a BETTER Bond movie than we've seen yet. It has all the hallmarks of a Bond movie, but the plot feels much smaller and more intimate than the usual Bond movie plot. It isn't the world at stake, it's just M. (Alright, there's other people at stake, but in the end it's M.) Who would have thought that the way to fix Bond, which had gotten out of control, wasn't to try to top the latest crazy take-over-the-world plot? It was to make M Bond's world and focus the plot on her. And it works so well, not least because you have Daniel Craig and Judi Dench pulling it together, so this is a Bond movie whose acting is well in hand. And the best part about this Bond movie is that it goes to a ton of exotic places and then it ends on a Scottish moor in the house where James Bond grew up. This is a movie that starts out a traditional Bond movie, veers sharply left, and rediscovers Bond in the process. There's something wildly ambitious and gutsy about this, and I can't get over how well it works. Q gives Bond just a gun and a radio, explaining that they no longer go in for exploding pens. Craig's Bond is dubious about this, expressing the audience's skepticism. "Don't you know you're in a Bond movie?" Craig seems to ask. "Where is my gadget?" And what this movie shows us about Bond is that you didn't really need all the trappings you thought you needed in a Bond movie: maybe you just always needed *Bond.* And maybe we'd forgotten all that, somewhere along the way. (Don't worry, there's still a catch to the gun, to make it just a *little* gadgety.)
I admit that I've tried to imagine making this kind of Bond movie with any of the other Bonds. And I love the other Bonds, I really do. I think they all bring something different to the role, and that's the magic of Bond, that you can have different spins on him but he stays, I don't know, Bondian through it all. But maybe somewhere in there we got so caught up in all the folderol that accompanies a Bond movie that we forgot who Bond was. "Dr. No" didn't have a splashy theme (although it did have the trademark stylistic opening), but by "Goldfinger" the theme showed up and the formula was entrenched and we somehow got stuck there. Lazenby's outing lost the opening theme and had Bond getting married and widowed and it was a failure and it was like the franchise got scared and went back to the formula, and by the end of Brosnan's reign they were churning them out without thinking. But the first line of Ian Fleming's novel Casino Royale (the first Bond novel, hence so fitting that it's the title of the movie they intended to serve as a prequel) is about how nauseating Bond's situation is. Yes, Bond's in the middle of the world's most glamorous casino but he's nauseated. Bond's glitziness was always meant to be gritty. Somehow, all of our adoration polished it too much, made it shiny, and we forgot that what we'd loved about it in the first place was the dirt in it. Thank God Skyfall found it for us again.
I'm not sure Daniel Craig is necessarily my favorite Bond. To be honest, I've always thought he didn't much look like my vision of Bond. (Frankly, Pierce Brosnan comes closest to me to how Fleming describes Bond in the novels. I used to be mesmerized by Fleming's turn of phrase in referring to Bond's "dark comma of hair over his forehead." Still love that. I've probably stolen it at some point.) But he is *such* a *good* *Bond.* So good. He's good at the bon mots (Bond has to have bon mots, it's required, the witty quip while he's killing people is his M.O., you can't get rid of *that*). He even gets to WINK in Skyfall. And the look on his face when the Aston Martin gets blown up is, like, a thing of beauty. In that moment, he is every other Bond who ever drove an Aston Martin. He's like, "DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH OF MY IDENTITY IS CAUGHT UP IN THAT CAR? YOU ARE GOING DOWN." He wears a suit well. He wears a tuxedo well. He wears nothing well. He's hot. Especially when shooting things. He's also human. You feel the effort it takes Bond to do things. His Bond is no superhero, he's just a person who's good at his job, and, like everyone good at a job, sometimes you have to clear everyone out of your office so you can collapse for a second. It is dangerous to say how good Craig is as Bond, because Bond is a role that should never belong to just one person (that was the danger of how severely the franchise faltered after Connery), but someday Craig's reign will be over and I will be so happy to have his Bond movies on my shelf. I will be so happy we got to have his Bond. I'm not sure he's my favorite yet, but that could be the adolescent in me, resisting replacing the hero of my childhood. Because he's a pretty damn fantastic Bond.
Oh, my goodness, what have I been rambling about for so long? I love James Bond and I loved this movie. Can you tell? I want to go see it again tomorrow and the day after that. When it ended, I was *literally* sitting in the theater with a huge ridiculous grin on my face. Because I can see the FUTURE. Somehow, they took me through a neat, beautiful trilogy arc and yet I don't feel like they told all the Bond stories there are to tell, I am waiting for the next one. As I was watching the movie, I was thinking, "You know what I miss about the Craig Bond movies? We don't have a Moneypenny." And then I was thinking, "Hey, I wonder if that chick is going to turn out to be Moneypenny." AND THEN SHE WAS AND I CALLED THAT. AND THEN THERE WAS THE GUN BARREL. AND THEN THERE WAS THE THEME. My major issue with the Craig movies have been that they don't start with the gun barrel opening, and I love the gun barrel opening, that's how you know that what you're about to watch is a JAMES BOND MOVIE, so you should show respect. But, do you see, Skyfall ended where we began, with a Moneypenny in M's office and a gun barrel opening and a theme that's still one of the best ever written. And they didn't even make us wait until the end of the credits the way they usually do. "James Bond Will Return," they assured us as soon as movie ended, and oh, my God, I seriously cannot wait.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 03:17 am (UTC)Quantum of Solace was just rubbish, plain and simple.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 11:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-15 04:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 08:44 am (UTC)His Bond has really grown on me but it took a while.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 11:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-15 04:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 02:59 am (UTC)I didn't walk out of the theater loving it, but the more I think about it, the more I want to see it again, which usually means I loved it. It was a really good movie, and moved at a perfect clip. It just hummed along and before I knew it it was over. Excellent pacing and some fabulous cinematography. Really well written and directed.
One question I had, and since you're the closest thing to a Bond scholar I know, I'll ask you: Are Bond's parents' names canon? Or was that something made up for this movie? Either way, how do you think Bond fanatics/traditionalists feel about the reveal of his parents' names?
How did you feel about Bond essentially failing? I feel like he just let M go at the end, and that felt a little hollow considering how hard he'd just fought for her. I dunno. That was the only part that didn't quite sit right with me. I should go write my own essay, I guess. Sorry for the lengthy comment.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 03:22 am (UTC)It was a really well-made movie, apart from my babbling about its symbolism in the Bond canon. A long movie, but you didn't feel the length at all, and really beautifully shot.
I *think* their names are canon. I'm pretty sure Andrew is, at least, and if we didn't know his mother's name, I think we did know that she was French (or not British, that she came from some French country). And we did know his parents died when he was little, I think while hiking in the Swiss Alps (so maybe she was Swiss?). I don't actually think we learned anything *new* about Bond, except maybe just how wealthy he was his whole life and the fact that the family had a Scottish estate called Skyfall. But most of the stuff about his background I think we already knew, it's just they seldom talk about it much.
I felt like he seemed to take his failure to save M better than I thought he would, I thought he'd beat himself up over it a little bit. That seemed odd to me, that he seemed so okay, not just with M's death but that it was because he'd failed to keep her safe. But I did think it seemed in-character that he didn't do, like, frantic CPR over her or anything. I don't know, Bond's always struck me as being a realist about death. Some people you can save and some people you can't, and he's always seemed good at knowing the difference, most of the time.
I didn't really get why she died. What, exactly, was her injury? It was that bad?
No worries, not a lengthy comment at all! Especially in comparison to my review!
no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 09:18 pm (UTC)The M thing seemed especially odd because the opening scene of the movie is him delaying chasing the bad guy because he's trying to save a life. And then, after they succeeded in the only reason they went to Scotland in the first place (to protect her) he was just okay with her dying. I mean, he lost his Aston for her. And his ancestral home. I just figured he'd be more upset. Still, I guess if that's my biggest gripe, it can't be that bad.
I think M was either shot or hit by shrapnel in her lower abdomen and just bled out. The fact that they ran across a field probably didn't help with the blood loss.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-11 11:16 pm (UTC)My first ship was Bond/Moneypenny, and not in a sappy "they're in love and only have each other" way, but in a "she's the only one who gets him and he is so cynical and needs someone to have Sunday brunch with" sort of way. I love Moneypenny and missed her in the last two....
And then that agent said she wasn't going back in to the field and my brain was like.... you know she's never said her name, wonder if she might be.... do I want to get my hopes up... and then I saw the coat rack and somehow, I, LIKE YOU, JUST KNEW AND THEN SHE WAS. My Moneypenny. My heart. My favorite "Bond girl." I wanted to punch the air in joy.
God I'm so freaking excited for the next one.
Though very very very disappointed that Judi Dench will not be in it.
I loved the Health and Safety quip. I like the new M, I like the new Q. I like that he only had a gun and a radio. ADORED the Aston Martin.
AND I, LIKE YOU, CAN'T WAIT FOR THE NEXT ROUND. BRING IT ON.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-15 04:36 am (UTC)I'm sad about losing Judi Dench, but I think Ralph Fiennes will be a good M. He was a good choice for a replacement, I think. You needed another big British actor to make that impact.
YAY JAMES BOND.
I really need to go see this movie again.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-15 04:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-20 01:17 am (UTC)She did have that bloody hand, but I thought that was literally it, a burned, damaged hand. She did need the gamekeeper's help to move, but that's not inconsistent with a failing heart. She's very pale, almost white, and the one person I know who actually was suffering from congestive heart failure at the time (he had a quadruple bypass just in time) was exactly that color.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 03:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-17 09:30 pm (UTC)As a fellow Bond geek I can confirm that both names are canon; they come up in M's obituary of Bond in You Only Live Twice. His mother was Swiss. I rather loved that the Skyfall writers used that. (I'd lay a bet that the Skyfall obit would have been pretty similar to the YOLT obit if we'd seen more of it too).
no subject
Date: 2012-11-19 04:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 08:48 am (UTC)Very much want Bond/Q now.
Also thinking about Sherlock and John watching that movie and Sherlock's snide comments and John's "shut up!" because I have a one track mind.
Saw Moneypenny coming from the moment they had that "field work isn't for everyone" conversation but honestly thought M's death might have been a fakeout until the thing with the dog.
So very, very glad the franchise survived MGM's bankruptcy.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-15 04:10 am (UTC)I was thinking how there's a sad fic in there somewhere about Sherlock going to see "Skyfall" by himself, because it makes him think of John.
I was really surprised by M's death, but, in retrospect, I felt like I should have seen it coming.
I AM VERY GLAD, TOO!
no subject
Date: 2012-11-16 08:15 am (UTC)I was thinking how there's a sad fic in there somewhere about Sherlock going to see "Skyfall" by himself, because it makes him think of John.
During their separation? I could see that. And how he doesn't expect it to hurt so much. Maybe wondering if John would be more attracted to Bond or Q. Were they together yet? Close friends? And maybe John doesn't go see it because it's not the same now without Sherlock's snide commentary.
Yeah, in retrospect there are some big red flags about M's life expectancy--but it's M. It's like Bond dying, it's not allowed.
Do you ever play video games? I just finished The Testament of Sherlock Holmes which is why I'm asking.
(http://www.amazon.com/The-Testament-Sherlock-Holmes-Playstation-3/dp/B0087Y3DSW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353053622&sr=8-1&keywords=the+testament+of+sherlock+holmes)
no subject
Date: 2012-11-19 04:24 am (UTC)I do play video games. How was that one?
no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 08:56 am (UTC)A part of me keeps thinking about trying to write it, maybe on from each side in the form of a 221B since "Bond" does sort of lend itself naturally. I was semi-prolific in my last fandom but it's been a few years since I wrote anything and I can't seem to get started. The other part of me just wants to read someone else's version of it. ;)
And if John and Sherlock were together before I just have this image of John seeing a preview and becoming sad because if Sherlock were there they would have argued about who was sexier, Q or Bond.
Anyway, Testament of Sherlock Holmes. Yes, I highly recommend it. It's much better than SH vs Jack the Ripper in terms of story and characterization. Without giving too much away it covers one of the same stories from S2 but does it so much better. (Disclosure: I wasn't happy about how one of the episodes was handled).
So the plot is good, the characterization is spot on, there are a few lines Holmes says that I can see our Sherlock saying.
The actual game play is so/so. Some of the puzzles are good and make sense (e.g. reconstruct the movements of person x and figure out where he was that he didn't need to be) but some of them seem to exist solely for the purpose of having more puzzles and don't have particularly good instructions. Nor do they make a ton of sense.
In one scene Holmes & Watson could just open about 25 unlocked desks but instead Holmes goes through this pointless exercise in figuring out the teacher's seating chart from notes likes "Becky is nearsighted and must be near the blackboard. Mark is distracted if Becky is in his eyesight. Lewis is a good influence on Mark and sits on his left."
The characters also seem to get stuck in doorways for some reason (it takes a second or two for the game to let you move around after a door is opened). I played it on the Xbox 360, I don't know if it's an issue on the computer or PS3.
And there's a major (and so far as I can tell completely random) canon break.
But really the story and characterization are good enough that I'd highly recommend it. If you can't rent it I'd wait for the price to come down just because there's not a lot of replayablity. I think it's around $40 on consoles, probably slightly less on a computer.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-20 01:25 am (UTC)I was wondering how Mycroft fit in all this, and thinking that he probably butted heads consistently with M. and approved Mallory getting the job. I was also thinking that Bond's reaction to Sherlock would be surprise and then amusement.
John's reaction to Bond would be a flash of sheer envy followed by a bit of ruefulness: Bond is the sort of man he fantasized being as an adolescent, but as an adult he knows that that isn't who he is: adrenaline junkie though he may be, he's not the hero of his own story in the way Bond and Sherlock and even Mycroft are. He's the stealth weapon, the one everybody underestimates.
I loved Q's voice. If I were his mother I'd be telling him to get a haircut: in his anorak he looks like a trainspotter.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 03:07 am (UTC)I'm kind of with you on Q's hair. I love crazy dramatic hair, but that was a bit over-the-top even for me.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 12:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-15 04:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-15 04:15 am (UTC)