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
Nope, it was an excellent and gripping adventure movie, extremely stylishly made. It got brilliant reviews across the board and was the most popular Bond movie in decades. If they didn't understand how to make a Bond movie then the audience don't know what one is either: you must be the lone person in the world who does.
More than the quality of a film factors into ticket sales and critic scores, but you’d have to actually be considerate and measured to grasp that.
https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-films-box-office-bombs/
https://fandomwire.com/whos-laughing-now-14-famous-movies-critics-hated-but-still-ended-up-as-cult-classics/
I bet Skyfall was popular with people who will be dead in 10 years. It doesn’t come close to Casino Royale so ‘decades’ is a stretch considering Mendes also directed SP, and NTTD being heavily influenced by his films.
It also pleased and satisfied millions of people around the world who wanted to see a Bond movie, so the statement that the makers didn't know how to make one seems at odds with the general reaction of those who wanted one. Finding a list of good films (in whose opinion?) which didn't make money has nothing to do with a blockbuster which satisfied its audience.
My arguments seem to go over your head. It was a new interesting take on the character, and it was an expensive blockbuster. But it was very far from being a well written film or one that really captured the bondian feel to it.
Yes that's a lovely attempt at riling me by trying to insinuate that I'm thick, but without even a vague attempt to point out which 'argument' I'm missing, it's clear that it's an empty accusation made because you think it sounds good. We both know that neither of are missing anything the other is saying, we're simply disagreeing.
Bless you, but that's just your opinion, it's not a fact. Maybe I was wrong and my pointing that out did go over your head, I'm not sure. As I said, millions loved it, it was the biggest Bond hit in years and Bond films are mass market things; if it fulfilled the audience's expectation then it's rather them who get to decide what is and isn't a Bond film, and not one guy on a forum.
You're massively welcome to disagree with the consensus, that's everyone's right, and maybe it didn't hit the Bond buttons for you, but that doesn't make it a universal fact- you don't need to try and give your opinions more weight by claiming that they are universal truth, or to tell others that they're thick for not agreeing. Eon make these to satisfy their massive audience around the world, and this one did. It's just something you have to accept. Maybe your idea of a Bond film is different to what the majority of people expect and enjoy in a Bond film, and that's fine, we're all different.
I've said my piece now, you're welcome to repeat yourself on how it's not a Bond movie if you like but it won't make it true or apply to how others feel about it.
http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2019/10-great-movies-made-you-sympathize-with-the-bad-guy/
Plugging your fingers in your ears and yelling “I’m not listening” isn’t going to change the cold hard facts that SF is one of the highest regarded Bond films ever. It was in 2012 and it still is today going by the box office results of the 60th anniversary re-release.
It’s okay for you to admit you’re in a very minority opinion.
I would have made a better humanised, realistic, complex and dark Bond than Mendes. I bet you liked the last 4 seasons of GoT, the Star Wars sequels, the 4th Matrix film, the 3rd Godfather etc.
It’s easy to like something when you don’t appreciate what could have been. I am not going to blindly glorify Skyfall because of box office, in an inflationary and increasingly less competitive market, a film that relies on the success and familiarity of previous iterations, and received a huge push in marketing because of the London olympics.
Cinema is dying and streaming is seeing signs of struggle because of the industry’s inability to reinvent itself, keep up and contribute to popular culture. Kids are way more astute than you think and are spending their hours on social media accordingly.
Because it’s such a massively popular Bond film.
I was there too. Tough to compare then to now regarding the anticipation. Bond was completely new back then and Goldfinger was a phenomenon that changed the world. Now the Bond films are spectacular entertainment but don't have the same impact on the world's culture. The '60s were AMAZING times.
Worked for U.N.C.L.E.
Yeah, I'd probably agree with that.
A bigger betrayal to Bond than DAD? Shocking… positively shocking.
I kind of find it boring. But I’m under no illusion that’s not an incredibly well made film. To me it will always be the Mona Lisa of Bond films.
Okay, maybe I went too far.
CR was the bigger betrayal.
This is unfair, I'm sick and delusional with all the drugs.
You can't tell me what to enjoy and what not to enjoy.
If its P&W again.... well... I dont rate them. They may be ok for a script’s skeleton but not much else.
100%. The director is such an interesting position. Strictly, a director's job is to direct the actors, but more and more in modern times they're taking on more jobs, and it's made the director seem like this apotheosis of filmmaking, when in reality, it's just that they're doing the writing, and that actually is the most important job. Nolan is a good example of one of the biggest names in directing, who is very famous for a lot of things that are not directing.
It's obviously not quite the case with Bond where they do have independent writers and the directors are responsible for less of the writing, but all of the directors do still put their own artistic stamp on these films, which is good I suppose, and maybe the true purpose of the director. It just feels muddied these days.
How about back to basics, no not the stripped away version of Craig. Back to the days of Connery Bond. Or Moore Bond. An agent doing his job. Using his wits and in some cases gadgets to get out of tight corners. I want a great villain who has a clear plan to cause harm. I want some great locales (let's stay away from bloody Italy!). I want a Bond that is suave and sophisticated.
I don't want a personal angle to a mission. I don't want a backstory to make the villain (more relatable). I didn't need to know why Goldfinger was fixated on gold, or how Kanaga came to power in St. Monique. If EON had balls, or guts we'd have a Jeff Bezos type to look to grow even more powerful.
I want a henchman who imposes his physical will on Bond. I would mind a femme fatale with a modern take, not a kick ass one, but one that uses her feminine wiles on agent 007.
I would prefer we stop with the 3-5 year gaps between films. I want a director who wants to have a straightforward adventure. One that remembers these movies were meant to entertain and excite. Not be drawn out therapy sessions.
Is this all too much to ask?
I can certainly understand this sentiment, and I do think the next films will go in this direction, but they've already said in that Hollywood Reporter interview that there will be some global threat and something personal Bond will have to overcome.
I'm not 100% sure I subscribe to your line of thinking; it comes a little close to having and endless line of Doctors No, of Spies Who Loved Me. The things you've described are things we've had in many Bond films, and we'll always have those Bond films. I commend them for evolving things a little bit and changing up the formula; I think it has the potential to make more interesting stories. Have they swung the pendulum too far in the Craig era? Maybe. And like I said I think the pendulum will swing back the way you've described things, but I personally do hope they hold on to some of the things that evolved through the Craig era. Even if that just makes one of me.
Make that two of us. Make Bond a human spy. Also, give us villains who we love to hate, in a good way. Remember, movies are a group effort. Both sides, (EON and us), need to remember that. I think that for other writers, besides Purvis and Wade, EON should look at people who have written Bond before. Not just Anthony Horowitz and Kim Sherwood, but do what IFP did with Kingsley Amis and Raymond Benson. Just a suggestion that both sides to consider. Not just Oscar nominated people and whoever is hot at the moment.