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

1235717

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't rank them. I love them all within reason.
    Curious then, have you read/enjoyed the novels?
    Even before I read the novels, Moonraker was killin' me.
    b-(

    I read the novels once a year in order. I love them, but consider them a wholly separate entity to the films.

    Which Bond film in your opinion is the best and most faithful adaptation of its novel counterpart then?

    OHMSS, without question.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I don't rank them. I love them all within reason.
    Curious then, have you read/enjoyed the novels?
    Even before I read the novels, Moonraker was killin' me.
    b-(

    I read the novels once a year in order. I love them, but consider them a wholly separate entity to the films.

    Which Bond film in your opinion is the best and most faithful adaptation of its novel counterpart then?

    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 :
    casinoroyale1967.jpg
    :))
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 5,745
    http://io9.com/the-5-best-and-5-worst-i-wanted-to-get-caught-villain-1683927339?utm_source=recirculation&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=thursdayPM#_ga=1.147867319.1669945293.1420387662

    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.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    It's not difficult. :))
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    This guy's comment from that link to best & worst 'I want to get caught villains' pretty much sums up SkyFall to a T :

    "Plot-wise, Skyfall was a discordant mess, and the glaring stylistic attempts to mash together elements of Bond's much earlier films was jarring."
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 7,507
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I have no problem with reviewers liking Goldfinger, I don't even mind them claiming it is the best Boond film ever. However, when they raddle on with that nonsense of how it is the perfect Bond film, how it is genre defining, got everything right and should be a template for all other Bond films... I frankly get slightly upset! Far stronger, more well rounded Bond films don't get half the recognition they deserve because they are forever doomed to be in Goldfinger's shadow.

    I often find that GF is praised, at least outside this community, for the wrong reasons. Let's not forget that for all its qualities, it has its main character not doing a whole lot in the last third of the movie.

    I don't see that as a flaw. In essence he does exactly what he needs to do. If it happened in a Craig film people would be lauding it a mould-breaking masterpiece.

    That is a bold statement as it has not really been done since and thus is a complete presumption. Sure, Bond does something, enough to say he saves the day, but I prefer when he is more proactive.

    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...
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    Sark wrote: »
    The reason that the general public doesn't criticize SF (allegedly) is that they're only seen it once. Or twice at the most.

    I can't speak for the general public explicitly, but in my social circles, family, friends, colleagues etc the Craig films stack up as - CR - A stone cold classic, QOS - lacklustre, with the odd person finding it underrated, SF - Split down the middle, some really like it, others think it's wildly overrated. My instinct says that SF will be well remembered by those who were around for it, but CR will cement itself as one of the very few genuine classics in the franchise.

    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.
  • Posts: 15,110
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I have no problem with reviewers liking Goldfinger, I don't even mind them claiming it is the best Boond film ever. However, when they raddle on with that nonsense of how it is the perfect Bond film, how it is genre defining, got everything right and should be a template for all other Bond films... I frankly get slightly upset! Far stronger, more well rounded Bond films don't get half the recognition they deserve because they are forever doomed to be in Goldfinger's shadow.

    I often find that GF is praised, at least outside this community, for the wrong reasons. Let's not forget that for all its qualities, it has its main character not doing a whole lot in the last third of the movie.

    I don't see that as a flaw. In essence he does exactly what he needs to do. If it happened in a Craig film people would be lauding it a mould-breaking masterpiece.

    That is a bold statement as it has not really been done since and thus is a complete presumption. Sure, Bond does something, enough to say he saves the day, but I prefer when he is more proactive.

    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...

    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.

  • Posts: 7,507
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    I have no problem with reviewers liking Goldfinger, I don't even mind them claiming it is the best Boond film ever. However, when they raddle on with that nonsense of how it is the perfect Bond film, how it is genre defining, got everything right and should be a template for all other Bond films... I frankly get slightly upset! Far stronger, more well rounded Bond films don't get half the recognition they deserve because they are forever doomed to be in Goldfinger's shadow.

    I often find that GF is praised, at least outside this community, for the wrong reasons. Let's not forget that for all its qualities, it has its main character not doing a whole lot in the last third of the movie.

    I don't see that as a flaw. In essence he does exactly what he needs to do. If it happened in a Craig film people would be lauding it a mould-breaking masterpiece.

    That is a bold statement as it has not really been done since and thus is a complete presumption. Sure, Bond does something, enough to say he saves the day, but I prefer when he is more proactive.

    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...

    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.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 541
    It avoids the rules and does what it wants. It wants to convey a message but skips around in a sort of respectably abstract manner. It's both stupid and brilliant.

    Both SF and DAD wanted to be a big escapist birthday bash, but SF was more convincing, more consistent, more original and more entertaining.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Wow, interesting to see that I am not the only one who has problems with Skyfall.
    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
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 1,310
    Wow, interesting to see that I am not the only one who has problems with Skyfall.
    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
    Hmmm...I'm not so sure I've been hearing the same things about Thunderball. Most Bond fans/film fans I've spoken to regarding the film have minimally decent feelings about it.

    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.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 541
    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.

    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.

  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 541
    jobo wrote: »
    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.

    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...
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,583
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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!
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    What an absurd thing to say. People don't like plots that are a complete mess. While many films have some plot issues, I'd say SF is certainly among the most holey plotwise. Other plots are absurd and OTT, but they at least make sense within the context of the film.

    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.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 541
    TripAces wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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!

    None of these things, except maybe #3 are an issue.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    SF was merely a P&W device to retire Dench. It served its purpose.
    Moving on now...
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Sark wrote: »
    What an absurd thing to say. People don't like plots that are a complete mess. While many films have some plot issues, I'd say SF is certainly among the most holey plotwise. Other plots are absurd and OTT, but they at least make sense within the context of the film.

    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 11,119
    It's interesting to read a few reviews of "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation" and how it's seriousness (especially 2nd half) gets a bit compared with Crain's Bond films and "Skyfall".
  • Posts: 11,425
    Not a big fan of Cruise or the MI films. Might watch it on the plane
  • Posts: 11,119
    Getafix wrote: »
    Not a big fan of Cruise or the MI films. Might watch it on the plane

    Well, if you're a Brosnan-fan, then this era of M:I-films are must-sees ;-).

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    This recent talk of Dench makes me so glad she is now gone from the franchise. Ever since she became a 'mother' in TWINE rather than the head of MI6 I've wanted to see the back of her from the franchise.

    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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    This recent talk of Dench makes me so glad she is now gone from the franchise. Ever since she became a 'mother' in TWINE rather than the head of MI6 I've wanted to see the back of her from the franchise.

    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.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 4,611
    Skyfall is one of THE most accessible Bond movies of the series. It attracted mainstream interest/support that few others did IMHO which lead to it being a big success financially. Mainstream success often brings with it forensic scrutiny by the fandom that other movies don't get. I have seen many criticisms of Skyfall that, although perhaps justified, could also be aimed at many others in the series. I think it also works in reverse as the public did not take to OHMSS in the same way but it's widely embraced by fandom (you can also see it happening with QoS "you have to be a real fan to appreciate it" etc - it's junk IMHO). Sometimes fans (perhaps subliminally) want to be seen as seperate to the mainstream. It is a form of elitism. In the long term, it goes away. I am convinced that Skyfall will be regarded as a classic in 20 years time by fans and jo public collectively
    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?
  • Posts: 11,425
    patb wrote: »
    Skyfall is one of THE most accessible Bond movies of the series. It attracted mainstream interest/support that few others did IMHO which lead to it being a big success financially. Mainstream success often brings with it forensic scrutiny by the fandom that other movies don't get. I have seen many criticisms of Skyfall that, although perhaps justified, could also be aimed at many others in the series. I think it also works in reverse as the public did not take to OHMSS in the same way but it's widely embraced by fandom (you can also see it happening with QoS "you have to be a real fan to appreciate it" etc - it's junk IMHO). Sometimes fans (perhaps subliminally) want to be seen as seperate to the mainstream. It is a form of elitism. In the long term, it goes away. I am convinced that Skyfall will be regarded as a classic in 20 years time by fans and jo public collectively
    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.
  • Posts: 4,611
    Sorry, please dont take my comments personally, they were not aimed at individuals. But when you see SF criticised for having an unrealistic plot, I just don't think it has been given a level playing field as a trend (not by individuals.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,425
    It's not criticised for having an unrealistic plot. It's criticised for having an incoherent plot That's full of holes.

    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.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Sorry, please dont take my comments personally, they were not aimed at individuals. But when you see SF criticised for having an unrealistic plot, I just don't think it has been given a level playing field as a trend (not by individuals.

    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.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,425
    @patb, I don't take it personally - I rarely do. I just find it annoying when a certain motivation is projected onto a specific view. Like when someone says if you don't like Brosnan or Skyfall you're just saying it to be cool, when actually I'm actually just saying it because I don't like Brosnan as Bond and I don't think that much of Skyfall.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.