It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
OHMSS, without question.
Same with me. But I do agree that the novel also is very good. Many of Fleming's other novels really needed a slight "cinematic finish". For instance, and that I agree with, using a laser instead of a circle saw in GF (allthough it was later used in a nice re-invented way in OP), or using a big rope instead of a carpet-beater in CR.
But have a look at this :-P. It has the carpet-beater :
:))
I'd say the Skyfall argument gained ground considering there's a third party article on the topic of it's ridiculous plot, released a solid 2+ years after the film came out. Read the comments, the people just tear the film apart.
"Plot-wise, Skyfall was a discordant mess, and the glaring stylistic attempts to mash together elements of Bond's much earlier films was jarring."
Yes, it is somewhat distracting that Bond saves the day by essentially raping Pussy Galore on to the good side... For all the talk about how the film plot is an improvement to Feming's original story, I must say that element was handled much better in the novel. Seems like a cheap last minute trick to make the plot work for a "perfect film" with a "perfect plot" don't you think? Yet, it is far from the only issue I have with the film.
The biggest issue I have with many reviewers is that they create the illusion that a true Bond movie has to be silly, and that the preceeding films "didn't work" or are not even "proper Bond Movies". That makes me kind of angry...
This to me seems to be the reality with regards to SF. I find exactly the same thing. And it's not just a recent phenomenon. People were saying exactly the same thing to me in 2012 - some people (admitedly the majority) said they really enjoyed it (although I don't remember anyone saying it was the 'best Bond ever') but many others really didn't.
It was also noticeable that a lot of people were going to see a Bond movie at the cinema for the first time in years because it was directed by Mendes (making it 'respectable') and also because of the reviews. But not everyone was taken in by the hype, even at the time. There were a lot of people who were totally underwhelmed.
For me personally CR is clearly a superior film and it seems implausible that in 30 years time SF will be ranked higher than CR.
I am looking forward to SP. I'm avoiding any details about the film as much as possible, so I can approach it with out too many preconceptions. My own view is that while Mendes will not be 'rebooting' again, as he almost did with SF, I do think he'll want to make a quite different film to SF. He's not the kind of director who just wants to remake his last film. I think even SF fans will welcome this.
@bondjames, totally agree with you. I don't see how SF is so influential (although only time will tell). CR set the benchmark and the direction of the Craig era, and CR was itself a response to Bourne (I know there are people on here who'll claim that's not true until they're blue in the face, but it's a fact). And QoS was even more of a straight out Bourne homage. And SF is clearly deeply influenced by Batman. I don't have an issue with that. As others have said, EON have been reflecting changes in the surrounding movie landscape for years. Undoubtedly, SF created a lot more positive media attention than Bond has had for years, and although I don't think the film really warranted it, I of course realise that it's good for the series.
I don't think Bond raped her but yes, that was his seduction of Pussy Galore that allowed him to save the day. Although he did try other methods before. And I three with you about the rest. I have less problems with tjene movie than what it brought to the franchise and the way mainstream people often disregard the first two.
I might have exaggerated a littlebit, but I do think there would be some investigation into that if it happened today. The argument "she agreed/wanted it in the end" doesn't really work in todays justice system.
Both SF and DAD wanted to be a big escapist birthday bash, but SF was more convincing, more consistent, more original and more entertaining.
Somehow everything has been said by other posters so I'll just say this:
Skyfall will go down the same road as Thunderball. Back then Thunderball was what Skyfall was in 2012. Same level of success, huge impact on fans.
Today Thunderball is regarded by many as being hard to sit through, even boring, much too lengthy underwater scenes etc.
Most people (I think) would rate Thunderball after Dr. No, FRWL, GF and even YOLT.
In 15 years Skyfall will be regarded as the "dull" Craig Bond movie. QOS as the "bad" one.
Casino Royale as the "great" one. How Spectre and Bond 25 will go down in history we can discuss by 2019...lol
I'd also argue that...excluding Diamonds...the only Connery film I find hard to sit through is You Only Live Twice, but that's me.
Exactly. That's the best way to look at it. It's a big epic cinematic movie. But when the technology is no longer impressive, people judge it for what it is. Some people love Thunderball still and others have put it lower on their lists. Skyfall will probably be the same way.
Abraham Lincoln: I've officially declared slaves to be free...
Former Slave: Thank you for the freedom sir
Abraham Lincoln: Well, um, about that. I kind of have some crops in my garden that need tending, can you please get your gloves on and start picking some cotton...
I love both and have SF and TB in my top 5.
I can't quite grasp the backlash that SF has received, but I think it boils diwn to this:
1. Mendes was/is Established Hollywood award winner. That makes him pretentious.
2. Some still can't accept Craig as Bond.
3. The plot had holes and that is not allowed because, as we know, all other Bond films had perfectly believable plots.
4. Thomas Newman (an American GASP!) took over for Brit Arnold!
5. Worst of all, the film won multiple Oscars! Oh no!
The other reason that such plot holes are not as acceptable is that the Craig films are taking themselves much more seriously than the films that came before.
None of these things, except maybe #3 are an issue.
Moving on now...
Exactly. Well said. An OTT plot is not the same thing at all as an incoherent plot.
I think the TB comparison is not unreasonable. TB has never been one of my favourites. Like SF it hAs some great elements but overall it doesn't hang together for me. And it's ultimately a bit dull.
@chrisisall, good point. I think EON and Mendes got carried away with their shared affections for Dench and forgot they were making a Bond movie.
Well, if you're a Brosnan-fan, then this era of M:I-films are must-sees ;-).
If I could summarize the one part of SF that I had trouble with, it would be excessive air-time for Dench.
I know I will enjoy SP more just for this reason, irrespective of how good or bad a film it is.
Cannot agree more. After TWINE I grew increasingly tired of Dench. I remember my heart sinking when they announced the plot synopsis for SF.
And then there were those interviews with Dench talking about how she gets out from behind her desk more in SF. I barely remember seeing her at her bl**dy desk during her entire tenure.
She is a very good actress but I did not like the way her character grew during the Brosnan and Craig eras. Thank god we have Fiennes now, and M is back in his old office (that's one thing I really thank Mendes for - I hated all the hi tech MI6 sets). I hope they don't overuse Fiennes just because if who he is. I Just want one or two , tightly
written scenes with M per film. Short, sweet, impactful and memorable. Less can be more when you have such great acting talent.
PS the anti Dench feeling is a smaller example. She is widely regarded as a "national treasure" by jo public and that affection added to the drama of the final scene but that seems to be reversed within the fandom?
This is a silly and patronising argument. Most of us in here are just saying what we like and don't like, not engaging in some playground competition about who is coolest.
I've been a Dalton fan from the start, not because I thought that it was cool, but because I thought he was an excellent Bond. I never liked Brosnan because I just thought he was a poor Bond in some pretty weak movies. And I like Craig but am not a fan of SF because I don't think its a particularly good movie. Simple. No smoke and mirrors. Just my opinions based on what I see in the screen and what I like.
As I've said countless times before OTT or silly plots are very different from plots that don't make sense.
The SF defenders always refuse to recognise this key distinction.
Most (perhaps all) other Bond films make internal sense (even DAD). They may be absurd, overblown and utterly daft, but the plot and story makes sense within its own terms.
SF's plot and the characters behaviour are all over the place. Mendes tried to cover this up with a layer of thematic gloss. For some people it works and for some, like myself, themes are not an adequate substitute for a coherent plot.
Probably because a lot of its most ardent fans attempt to elevate it above most of, if not all of the canon. If people want to discuss the film on those terms they can, but they can't then fall back on the, 'well the other Bond movies did it'. It reeks of hypocrisy. That's the reason this film has become somewhat divisive, particularly in the fan community.
I've had Skyfall defenders tell me I must be a Brosnan fan if I don't like Skyfall. That was amusing, especially when directed at me! Funny how people project their own assumptions onto others. One of the things I really disliked about SF was that in some ways the tone reminded me of the Brosnan era - a sort of lazy nostalgia. It just seemed such a backwards step after the promise of the first two Craig movies.