Why criticism on "Skyfall" never truly gained ground (but flourishes in small fan circles)

18911131417

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I rather have remakes than bad original ones.

    Yeah, let's just make the same shit over and over. I'd rather have original TV that failed, if the creative intention to produce unique content is there. You have to take risks to find gems. Otherwise you're left with a tonne of safe, uninspired programming.
  • Posts: 15,123
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    We are in a golden age of television, but now we're getting countless shows based on old movies that absolutely nobody asked for. I'm fairly certain that more shows are canceled than those that are greenlit and run until a series finale.

    Same with Hollywood: a rare, original gem comes along, but most of the time, it's a rehash of some old property.

    Was it any better 20,30, 40 years ago? With Planet of the Apes TV series, Logan's Run TV series, and even many "original" TV series that were neither original nor good? We often remember the best of the past, not its worse.

    As for cinema, I know there will be more rubbish adaptations of Dracula. But there is more chances we adapt the novel right if there are adaptations than none at all.
  • Posts: 498
    Hannibal is canceled
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2015 Posts: 15,718
    @Creasy47 did you check out the ''Minority Report'' TV show? A friend told me the pilot episode had leaked online, so I carved in and downloaded it. All I can say is, this show will be canned within the first 3 episodes are aired properly. It shits and vomits all over the Tom Cruise film, they obviously aimed at the teen audience as the 2 new cops are 20-something years olds, yet there's no romance between them so they won't be interested, and the sci-fi aspect is retarded, so that won't attract the nerds either. If I may say only one thing thing; stay clear of this show.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Skyfail wrote: »
    Hannibal is canceled

    Shame, well better 3 seasons than just one.
  • Posts: 498
    Skyfail wrote: »
    Hannibal is canceled

    Shame, well better 3 seasons than just one.

    Yup , Hannibal is my favorite series
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Skyfail wrote: »
    Skyfail wrote: »
    Hannibal is canceled

    Shame, well better 3 seasons than just one.

    Yup , Hannibal is my favorite series

    Oh I hope they don't give us a freakin' cliffhanger but end it properly!
  • Posts: 498
    As far as I understand the producer is still trying get the show to continue through different means, but at this point I don't see that happening ,

    He did say that if the third season is the last , He is comfortable with the way it ends
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    trevanian wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    trevanian wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    The first review in that link says that Sf is somehow ripping off of batman by having a hearing about mi6. Seriously wtf, that is the dumbest thing I have ever read. These batman comparisons really piss me off, especially when they make absolutely no sense.

    They must have gotten their lines crossed. SKYFALL does the same DARK KNIGHT thing that AVENGERS and STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS did, having the villain let himself get captured deliberately so as to put his 'real' plan in motion. This has gotten to be such a big movie thing that it is practically to the last decade what 'former navy SEAL' was a quarter-century or more back. It lets the movie pretend to be smart, when it is just showing that the screenwriter is playing it safe by doing what Nolan already did well.

    There IS a way to revisit this in a fresh manner that re-spins it effectively, but since I've had that in a script of mine since the early 90s, I'm not gonna advertise it right now.

    That idea didn't start with Nolan. David Fincher's Seven used that device a good thirteen years prior.

    Se7en is my favorite movie of the 90s ... but that post is about the BATMAN/SKYFALL connection and the trend of aping that which was RECENTLY massively successful.

    Also, structurally the device work differently, as with Fincher we're talking act 3, so this is the culmination of what went before, whereas with all these others, this is an escalating thing driving act 2. That's an important aspect, the 2nd level of sell as matters escalate (If LTK didn't have this, when Bond realizes how his failed hit on Sanchez has possibly wrecked DEA and Hong Kong narcotics ops, it would be very much a lesser film), but it isn't the resolution of the thing, which is what makes Se7en so special, that they do this and make it work.

    Yes. I was merely pointing out that the plot device didn't sart with Nolan...likely didn't start in Seven, either. Seems there was a Hawaii Five-O episode in te 70s that used this sort of twist. But you're right: after TDK, there were three big-budget films that used this, and it was quickly cliche. However, all three were in production at roughly the same time...were the screenwriters even aware of the plot twists in the other two films? Probably not.
  • Posts: 533
    Skyfall is a dumb Bond movie that thinks its smart.


    Amen! I have never came across a Bond movie that went out of its way to be so pretentious and at the same time, filled with so many plot holes. I would complain about the inconsistent misogyny, but I've seen the same in "GOLDFINGER" and Moore's first two films.


    The only things about "DIE ANOTHER DAY" that I truly disliked were the bad dialogue, the surfing scene in the beginning and Iceland. But I would still rather watch it than "SKYFALL" or "GOLDFINGER".
  • Posts: 7,430
    Well much as I hate DAD, (and God I really hate it!) the opening surfing scene I actually thought was done quite well. The way each surfer was introduced, one, then two, then three, I thought was well shot. Its everything else that is crap in this film!
    Skyfall still baffles me with its positivity by most. Aside from Craig and Bardem, its a struggle to enjoy!
  • GettlerGettler USA
    Posts: 326
    Maybe others enjoy it because of suspension of disbelief? As one would do with most Bond films?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Skyfall was a bit pretentious yes, but Mendes & Craig learned from that & gave unto us the amazing SPECTRE. \m/
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Skyfall is full of charisma. From start to finish, everyone & everything just reeks of it. It has that unmeasurable quantity that makes a product an outsize hit. The overall product is greater than the sum of its parts, which can indeed be criticized individually. A Thriller as it were. Of course, not everyone is going to go for it, but enough people did, as with Thriller.

    Plus it just looks fantastic. I can still remember my disbelief in the theatre in 2012 that a James Bond film looked fresher, crisper and more dynamic than all the other films that came out that year (which included heavy hitters like Avengers & TDK). The score sounded fresh too because we had a new composer after many years.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Skyfall was a bit pretentious yes, but Mendes & Craig learned from that & gave unto us the amazing SPECTRE. \m/

    I prefer the term, enriching, but I digress. The commentary on duty, sacrifice, matriarchy, imperialism, old/new, technological/classical, age, time and endurance were right up my alley.

    I feel people use the word "pretentious" far too erroneously at times, by the way. It's okay if none of these themes did it for some of you, but they are highly visible in the film and open to analysis. SF uses allusions from literature, art and real world society to paint its vision, and for my money, never tries to be anything that it isn't. Each element, from the paintings in the art gallery to the statue on Silva's island recalling Percy Shelley's Ozymandias and crumbling empires like Britain are put to sterling use and reflect the ongoing themes of the movie in their symbolism. Mendes and co. knew what film they were making, and never once put anything onscreen just to impress the masses with how worldly they were. Every shot and object in the camera frame speaks to their vision in some way, shape or form. That's not pretentious, that's art. Some people act like SF was directed by David Lynch or something.

    This same effective use of allusion and thematic material is found in SP too, though it's less visible on the surface, which increases the fun of looking for connections as you dig into it. With the way it's been received in some circles, however, I fear people will continue to write it off and miss all the deep and enriching details in contains, as has happened with QoS. And that's a damn shame.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    I said, a 'bit'. ;)
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    I think what I appreciate most about Skyfall is the juxtaposition between classic and contemporary (especially in the context of Bond). There's also a brilliant cast there (probably the best in any Bond film), and the film is strangely spectacular in a visual sense - not like TSWLM or OHMSS, but still spectacular. There are plot holes, but the film is so dynamic and has so much character development that it's hard to focus on the plot holes.
  • Posts: 4,617
    In a culture that seems to be dumbing down more and more, it's easy to cast something aside as "pretentious" when actually it is thoughtful. Thoughtfulness is not something that is a regular attribute within the Bonds series and SF does standout in this area. Some may welcome that (as I do) and others may see it as "pretentious".
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I find it very unique. Every time I watch it I realize what a unique film it is in the canon. Like LTK, FRWL & perhaps TMWTGG. It's sort of quirky within the franchise. Unpredictable. That's one of its strengths. I really didn't catch all the hidden subtexts that auteur Mendes was going for (in either SF or SP) but on a purely surface level (call me shallow) I appreciate its uniqueness.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited February 2016 Posts: 4,585
    SF's plot holes are not nearly as large as those in most Bond films. In fact, I would argue that the film's perceived plot holes are intentional. Silva was a master at getting people to think what he wanted them to think. It succeeded with the people on the island; it succeeded with Q; and it succeeded with the audience.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited February 2016 Posts: 40,976
    @TripAces, or, there were plot holes that were the result of shoddy script work? We can't be at the point where we're actually defending poor scriptwriting and plot holes and attributing it to what "the villain wanted," are we?
  • Posts: 4,617
    SF is so different from other Bonds that, it is almost so un-Bond, it could almost, with some tweaking, standalone is a one off thriller. How many Bonds can you say that about? For some fans, thats just too much and I can see why they dont like it. But for me, that is a strength rather than a weakness. To have the confidence to do something different and take (or try to take) to audience with you in a different direction takes some guts. Imagine if the audience just hatted it and refused to "run with it" it had the potential to be a real stinker. But the audience in general loved it and it could be the "un-Bondian" element that assisted in bringing in extra bums on seats. There will always be some who dont like it and I can see why. If you like the traditional formula so much that anything outside of the formula is not acceptable, the SF will always be a dud.
  • patb wrote: »
    SF is so different from other Bonds that, it is almost so un-Bond, it could almost, with some tweaking, standalone is a one off thriller. How many Bonds can you say that about? For some fans, thats just too much and I can see why they dont like it. But for me, that is a strength rather than a weakness. To have the confidence to do something different and take (or try to take) to audience with you in a different direction takes some guts. Imagine if the audience just hatted it and refused to "run with it" it had the potential to be a real stinker. But the audience in general loved it and it could be the "un-Bondian" element that assisted in bringing in extra bums on seats. There will always be some who dont like it and I can see why. If you like the traditional formula so much that anything outside of the formula is not acceptable, the SF will always be a dud.

    I completely agree with you.

    You know, back in the 1960's people were not used to go dramatically off-course from the Bond formula. "OHMSS" is a given proof of that. Though as of today it has become some kind of cult-classic for that reason.

    When looking at the locations (snow), "OHMSS" is not so comparable with "SF". But both films are so 'un-Bond-ian' for the timeframe they were produced. They both have a high focus on characterization and drama.

    Funny thing is though, that the Craig-era has got two of such 'un-Bond-ian' films: "Skyfall" and "Casino Royale". They both are magnificent.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TripAces, or, there were plot holes that were the result of shoddy script work? We can't be at the point where we're actually defending poor scriptwriting and plot holes and attributing it to what "the villain wanted," are we?

    In this case, yes. It was self-reflective. Silva has MI6, Bond, Q (and everyone else) afraid of everything and anything because of ... mostly mere suggestion. You have to dive into the script (which is brilliant, not shoddy) and find the clues. They're all there. Silva doesn't control MI6 like puppets; they do it to themselves because of what they fear, not because of what is real. Silva is a master manipulator, and this manipulation is so successful that even we, the audience, are feeling its effects. It's a master stroke of screenwriting--in a post 9/11, post WikiLeaks world.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    TripAces wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TripAces, or, there were plot holes that were the result of shoddy script work? We can't be at the point where we're actually defending poor scriptwriting and plot holes and attributing it to what "the villain wanted," are we?

    In this case, yes. It was self-reflective. Silva has MI6, Bond, Q (and everyone else) afraid of everything and anything because of ... mostly mere suggestion. You have to dive into the script (which is brilliant, not shoddy) and find the clues. They're all there. Silva doesn't control MI6 like puppets; they do it to themselves because of what they fear, not because of what is real. Silva is a master manipulator, and this manipulation is so successful that even we, the audience, are feeling its effects. It's a master stroke of screenwriting--in a post 9/11, post WikiLeaks world.
    Yes, you're right here. I certainly felt this during my recent rewatch. In fact, the only one who keeps his cool during the whole thing is Bond. He is the one who sees what's happening and maintains his composure. Everyone else (except perhaps Mallory) is running around like chickens with their heads cut off. The courthouse scene captures it perfectly.
  • GettlerGettler USA
    Posts: 326
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TripAces, or, there were plot holes that were the result of shoddy script work? We can't be at the point where we're actually defending poor scriptwriting and plot holes and attributing it to what "the villain wanted," are we?
    Well, Silva made people believe there was a leak at a chemical plant on the island. That gives him some credit in that regard. More examples of this would have been nice, though.
  • Posts: 4,617
    patb wrote: »
    SF is so different from other Bonds that, it is almost so un-Bond, it could almost, with some tweaking, standalone is a one off thriller. How many Bonds can you say that about? For some fans, thats just too much and I can see why they dont like it. But for me, that is a strength rather than a weakness. To have the confidence to do something different and take (or try to take) to audience with you in a different direction takes some guts. Imagine if the audience just hatted it and refused to "run with it" it had the potential to be a real stinker. But the audience in general loved it and it could be the "un-Bondian" element that assisted in bringing in extra bums on seats. There will always be some who dont like it and I can see why. If you like the traditional formula so much that anything outside of the formula is not acceptable, the SF will always be a dud.

    I completely agree with you.

    You know, back in the 1960's people were not used to go dramatically off-course from the Bond formula. "OHMSS" is a given proof of that. Though as of today it has become some kind of cult-classic for that reason.

    When looking at the locations (snow), "OHMSS" is not so comparable with "SF". But both films are so 'un-Bond-ian' for the timeframe they were produced. They both have a high focus on characterization and drama.

    Funny thing is though, that the Craig-era has got two of such 'un-Bond-ian' films: "Skyfall" and "Casino Royale". They both are magnificent.

    So if OHMSS and SF are my 1 and 2 in the rankings, does that mean that I am not actually a Bond fan (if that makes sense?)
  • I think the plot holes in many ways strengthens the characters. They were carrying more emotional, narrative and historical luggage with them, which otherwise would be put on the screen instantly.

    Yes, you can describe the entire villain's plot, and explain how Silva bribed several Metropolitan policemen....and how he got those bombs to create terror in the London Underground. But the very absence of those explanations -which is the very same reason there are plot holes-, gave the character of Silva more gravita. There seemed to be way more at stake 'all of a sudden', which then works much better in the 'character department'.

    This is how Sam Mendes always worked by the way. And he has this kind of quality to focus on that. He wants to tell the story with characters....much more than previous Bond directors, who were telling the story a bit more with narration and plot. Many Bond fans therefore dislike Sam Mendes, because they can only see the plot holes (from "SF" and "SP"). But I think it completely worked. By doing so there's also an underlying message/theme in his films. His two Bond films included.

    It was great to have Sam Mendes as a Bond director.
  • Posts: 12,473
    I think what I appreciate most about Skyfall is the juxtaposition between classic and contemporary (especially in the context of Bond). There's also a brilliant cast there (probably the best in any Bond film), and the film is strangely spectacular in a visual sense - not like TSWLM or OHMSS, but still spectacular. There are plot holes, but the film is so dynamic and has so much character development that it's hard to focus on the plot holes.

    Very well said. The visuals, characters, and mixture of old/new Bond help make it one of my favorites. When I first saw it in the theaters it was as highly ranked as #2 in my list, and though it has dropped to 5, I still enjoy it almost as much today. Many are quick to call it overrated and not so great, but I do think in retrospect many will look upon it positively.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    SPECTRE certainly made SF more palatable for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.