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

191012141517

Comments

  • Posts: 4,325
    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.

    Skyfall is more Bondian than most of the PB entries.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    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.

    Skyfall is more Bondian than most of the PB entries.

    Certainly more British, and far more proud of it. ;)
  • I would add that there's such universal admiration for SF, there's always going to be small pockets of dissenters, mostly those who champion their Bond. Nothing wrong with that, just that most of the world see it differently.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I would add that there's such universal admiration for SF, there's always going to be small pockets of dissenters, mostly those who champion their Bond. Nothing wrong with that, just that most of the world see it differently.

    SF is a strange one for me. I've not come across the 'universal love' you cite. In fact, whenever I meet people and they find out I'm a huge Bond fan their first question is always, 'What do you think of SF?' Brcause their assumption is that I will automatically see it as sacrosanct, which I don't, and there's a palpable release of tension - which results in comments ranging from, 'I thought it was ok', to 'I thought it was utter shit'. Don't get me wrong, I've met people who love it also, but I could count on one hand the number of people who think CR is OK (note: I've never come across anyone who thought it was bad, never mind shit). I've met a lot of people who don't rate SF. It's very divisive, unlike CR which I genuinely believe has a universal appeal.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RC7 wrote: »
    I would add that there's such universal admiration for SF, there's always going to be small pockets of dissenters, mostly those who champion their Bond. Nothing wrong with that, just that most of the world see it differently.

    . Don't get me wrong, I've met people who love it also, but I could count on one hand the number of people who think CR is OK (note: I've never come across anyone who thought it was bad, never mind shit).

    There s a moderator here on this diabolical site who begs to differ.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 2,015
    I don't know if SF is pretentious, but it has fans who seems consider those who prefer other Bond movies are simple-minded people who "need" the formula. I've never come across a fan of, say, TSWLM, trying to explain that having TSWLM in the bottom 10 of one's ranking means that one is an idiot.

    As for the universal love, well I really think CR is still the masterpiece that no one expected in the last 25 years. I don't hear CR associated with "overrated". I do for SF...
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    I would add that there's such universal admiration for SF, there's always going to be small pockets of dissenters, mostly those who champion their Bond. Nothing wrong with that, just that most of the world see it differently.

    . Don't get me wrong, I've met people who love it also, but I could count on one hand the number of people who think CR is OK (note: I've never come across anyone who thought it was bad, never mind shit).

    There s a moderator here on this diabolical site who begs to differ.

    I was going to mention the Major, but I couldn't remember if he'd acknowledged it as a decent film, just not a Bond film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I would add that there's such universal admiration for SF, there's always going to be small pockets of dissenters, mostly those who champion their Bond. Nothing wrong with that, just that most of the world see it differently.

    . Don't get me wrong, I've met people who love it also, but I could count on one hand the number of people who think CR is OK (note: I've never come across anyone who thought it was bad, never mind shit).

    There s a moderator here on this diabolical site who begs to differ.

    I was going to mention the Major, but I couldn't remember if he'd acknowledged it as a decent film, just not a Bond film.

    Smythe doesn t even recognize the OP reference, he is lost to the dark side of Bond fandom. At least he is a Dalton fan, gotta love him for that.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited February 2016 Posts: 13,978
    Skyfall? While I will say that SF is best film of the Craig era (CR, QOS & SF), for a Bond film, it's too up it's own arse. Simply put. The shots of Bond sprinting through the streets of Lahndan, inter cut with shots of M reading the Tennyson poem feel out of place (I mean no slight against the poem itself, just it's presence in the film). If I want this much drama, I will go and watch a drama.

    @Thunderfinger, i'll offer a man hug.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Skyfall? While I will say that SF is best film of the Craig era (CR, QOS & SF), for a Bond film, it's too up it's own arse. Simply put. The shots of Bond sprinting through the streets of Lahndan, inter cut with shots of M reading the Tennyson poem feel out of place (I mean no slight against the poem itself, just it's presence in the film). If I want this much drama, I will go and watch a drama.

    @Thunderfinger, i'll offer a man hug.

    @MajorDSmythe, and yet, parts of the Dalton films, which you love, are full of just as much drama as the Craig era, if not more. How much darker does it get than Bond stumbling across his friend's mangled body and his brutally murdered and raped wife the day after their marital bliss was rung in? It's the darkest and most dramatic Bond has ever been!
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    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.

    Examples, please. You said "most" Bond films, so I guess you have at least 13 bigger plot holes in mind.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Skyfall? While I will say that SF is best film of the Craig era (CR, QOS & SF), for a Bond film, it's too up it's own arse. Simply put. The shots of Bond sprinting through the streets of Lahndan, inter cut with shots of M reading the Tennyson poem feel out of place (I mean no slight against the poem itself, just it's presence in the film). If I want this much drama, I will go and watch a drama.

    @Thunderfinger, i'll offer a man hug.

    @MajorDSmythe, and yet, parts of the Dalton films, which you love, are full of just as much drama as the Craig era, if not more. How much darker does it get than Bond stumbling across his friend's mangled body and his brutally murdered and raped wife the day after their marital bliss was rung in? It's the darkest and most dramatic Bond has ever been!

    You're absolutely right. However, there is a big difference between licence To Kill (many others will agree with em, but for different reasons). Licence To Kill is what it is, an attempt to keep up with Bond's US hero counterparts that were flooding the market in the 1980's. It doesn't come off as ashamed to be Bond, it's just trying to keep up with the competition.
    Skyfall on the other hand, comes off as being a Bond film is embarassing, it has to be something better.
    At the end of the day, maybe I will never be happy with a Craig film. While I might set out to watch a Craig Bond, because I don't buy into him in the role, my mind wanders and I look at thing to pick at. If on the off chane that EON made a Bond film, with Craig, that opened with the full gun barrel (no half cuts, no early fade away), toned down the drama to make a spy thriller, and put the Bond theme in the film (the full theme, not just a few bars here and there), I would happily put my money where my mouth is, and like Craig's first 3 Bonds, give it a chance. But as one disgruntled fan, who am I to make demands.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Skyfall? While I will say that SF is best film of the Craig era (CR, QOS & SF), for a Bond film, it's too up it's own arse. Simply put. The shots of Bond sprinting through the streets of Lahndan, inter cut with shots of M reading the Tennyson poem feel out of place (I mean no slight against the poem itself, just it's presence in the film). If I want this much drama, I will go and watch a drama.

    @Thunderfinger, i'll offer a man hug.

    @MajorDSmythe, and yet, parts of the Dalton films, which you love, are full of just as much drama as the Craig era, if not more. How much darker does it get than Bond stumbling across his friend's mangled body and his brutally murdered and raped wife the day after their marital bliss was rung in? It's the darkest and most dramatic Bond has ever been!

    You're absolutely right. However, there is a big difference between licence To Kill (many others will agree with em, but for different reasons). Licence To Kill is what it is, an attempt to keep up with Bond's US hero counterparts that were flooding the market in the 1980's. It doesn't come off as ashamed to be Bond, it's just trying to keep up with the competition.
    Skyfall on the other hand, comes off as being a Bond film is embarassing, it has to be something better.
    At the end of the day, maybe I will never be happy with a Craig film. While I might set out to watch a Craig Bond, because I don't buy into him in the role, my mind wanders and I look at thing to pick at. If on the off chane that EON made a Bond film, with Craig, that opened with the full gun barrel (no half cuts, no early fade away), toned down the drama to make a spy thriller, and put the Bond theme in the film (the full theme, not just a few bars here and there), I would happily put my money where my mouth is, and like Craig's first 3 Bonds, give it a chance. But as one disgruntled fan, who am I to make demands.

    Have you not seen SP yet?

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Not yet, no.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    It doesn't come off as ashamed to be Bond, it's just trying to keep up with the competition.
    Skyfall on the other hand, comes off as being a Bond film is embarassing, it has to be something better.
    At the end of the day, maybe I will never be happy with a Craig film. While I might set out to watch a Craig Bond, because I don't buy into him in the role, my mind wanders and I look at thing to pick at. If on the off chane that EON made a Bond film, with Craig, that opened with the full gun barrel (no half cuts, no early fade away), toned down the drama to make a spy thriller, and put the Bond theme in the film (the full theme, not just a few bars here and there), I would happily put my money where my mouth is, and like Craig's first 3 Bonds, give it a chance. But as one disgruntled fan, who am I to make demands.

    Seems to sum up my thoughts about the Craig era, except for CR.
  • Posts: 15,111
    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'.
    .

    ...Or you don't need to explain this at all: Silva did not bribe Metropolitan policemen but got his own men to wear the uniforms of the police and use their equipment. Which is easier to do and not even a stretch.
  • GettlerGettler USA
    Posts: 326
    This complaining of how Silva managed to do anything is level with Jokers plans and his bombs in The Dark Knight. It's all offscreen for a reason and gives him more grandeur. He's supposed to appear omnipotent with regards to technology, but in the end is defeated easily and ironically.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Skyfall has phenomenal cinematography.

    That's it.
  • w2bond wrote: »
    It doesn't come off as ashamed to be Bond, it's just trying to keep up with the competition.
    Skyfall on the other hand, comes off as being a Bond film is embarassing, it has to be something better.
    At the end of the day, maybe I will never be happy with a Craig film. While I might set out to watch a Craig Bond, because I don't buy into him in the role, my mind wanders and I look at thing to pick at. If on the off chane that EON made a Bond film, with Craig, that opened with the full gun barrel (no half cuts, no early fade away), toned down the drama to make a spy thriller, and put the Bond theme in the film (the full theme, not just a few bars here and there), I would happily put my money where my mouth is, and like Craig's first 3 Bonds, give it a chance. But as one disgruntled fan, who am I to make demands.

    Seems to sum up my thoughts about the Craig era, except for CR.

    I rank the Craig era as second best, behind the Connery era. Dan's a good, tough Bond.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Skyfall has phenomenal cinematography.

    That's it.

    Best in the entire series.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Skyfall has phenomenal cinematography.

    That's it.

    Best in the entire series.

    Of course, and even outside the series. I'm still mad as hell Deakins didn't get the Oscar!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited March 2016 Posts: 28,694
    Skyfall has phenomenal cinematography.

    That's it.

    Best in the entire series.

    Of course, and even outside the series. I'm still mad as hell Deakins didn't get the Oscar!

    And to a CGI fest of a film at that! Of course, some of the most talented people in the film industry rarely get any awards, so Deakins is in great company.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited March 2016 Posts: 4,583
    Sark wrote: »
    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.

    Examples, please. You said "most" Bond films, so I guess you have at least 13 bigger plot holes in mind.

    Most Bond films deal with secret evil organizations, the composition of which is next to impossible. Right? Mind you, this isn't a complaint; merely an observation. The entire series is based on preposterous ideas and plots. But who cares? It's Bond.

    This why criticisms of SF's perceived plot holes are nonsensical.

    Regardless, while Silva does have henchmen, it is a small group...much easier to believe.



  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    TripAces wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    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.

    Examples, please. You said "most" Bond films, so I guess you have at least 13 bigger plot holes in mind.

    Most Bond films deal with secret evil organizations, the composition of which is next to impossible. Right? Mind you, this isn't a complaint; merely an observation. The entire series is based on preposterous ideas and plots. But who cares? It's Bond.

    This why criticisms of SF's perceived plot holes are nonsensical.

    Regardless, while Silva does have henchmen, it is a small group...much easier to believe.



    There is one big and important difference.

    Skyfall takes itself seriously all the way, which is untypical for a Bond movie. If you do that you just can't have that kind of plot holes, they become apparent and distracting.
    In MR, GE or SP nobody would complain about plot holes, because those movies like practically all Bond movies besides Skyfall are fun to watch all the way.
  • Silva is twice the villain that this new Blofeld was.
  • Posts: 4,613
    TripAces wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    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.

    Examples, please. You said "most" Bond films, so I guess you have at least 13 bigger plot holes in mind.

    Most Bond films deal with secret evil organizations, the composition of which is next to impossible. Right? Mind you, this isn't a complaint; merely an observation. The entire series is based on preposterous ideas and plots. But who cares? It's Bond.

    This why criticisms of SF's perceived plot holes are nonsensical.

    Regardless, while Silva does have henchmen, it is a small group...much easier to believe.



    There is one big and important difference.

    Skyfall takes itself seriously all the way, which is untypical for a Bond movie. If you do that you just can't have that kind of plot holes, they become apparent and distracting.
    In MR, GE or SP nobody would complain about plot holes, because those movies like practically all Bond movies besides Skyfall are fun to watch all the way.

    Very good point, Skyfall wants to be taken seriously and, on that basis, perhaps it is fair that the bar is raised in terms of how the plot works.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Silva is twice the villain that this new Blofeld was.


    Big time SPECTRE totally wasted Waltz, he lacked any sense of menace and seemed to be phoning his performance in. It felt like a neutered Hans Landa. I think the idea of Christoph playing a Bond villain got us all wet but the reality was just very underwhelming.

    Bardem in contrast was larger than life and truly memorable, nothing in SPECTRE gets near his introduction and his taunting of Bond on in that sequence. The meteor sequence followed by the author of your pain nonsense is just completely flat in comparrison like Craig going full on Bond.

    Yeah lighten up a bit but they just pushed it too far and his trademark take on the role took back seat at times to some rather poorly delivered one liners, the one in the torture chair about time flying was particualrly atrocious. and while he was good I preferred him in his the previous 3 films even QOS.

    I think Dan is great at the dead pan humour but trying to do the Moore type oneliners, leave that to Pierce, I didn't actually like them when he did them but at least it was more fitting with his take on Bond.

    Also I love Hoyt's work on Thomas Alfredon's Let The Right One In and Tinker Tailor but his efforts on SP were just underwhelming, after the PTS I just wasn't that impressed.

    Deakins work on SF was phenomenal, SPECTRE is just so flat and completely lacks any thrill or danger, SF in comparrison delivers in spades.

    Yes it does have plot holes and while I'm no real fan of Newman's score to SF it's better than the copy and paste version in SP.

    The Bond fan community has turned on SF quite visciously at time but it always delivered to me whereas it's follow up promised so much then spectacualry dropped the ball, I can't say I've been so disappointed with a film in a long time.


  • Instead of walking around saying, "Cuckoo!" Silva woulda just put a bomb in Bond's flat and called its day.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Biofeld's introduction in Spectre in Rome in the big meeting room, is one of the great moments in the franchise's history.
    The direction, cinematography and editing and dialogue and acting is top notch and it couldn't be any better.
    To even compare the Austin Powers like OTT overacting Bardem's Silva introduction to it is irrational.

    Mommy - was - very bad. A true "high point" in the franchise, and people complain about Jinx's dialogue. Not even starting about the "rat" talk...or the totally disastrous glass prison scene with Silva and M with ridiculous CGI in Silva's face.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    The entire spectre meeting sequence is mesmerising. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.