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
True for me as well.
Truer words have never been spoken.
It really isn't possible to nitpick SP. The problems with that film are so numerous and far reaching that you'd really have to search extremely hard to find something to actually nitpick. Pretty much everything that has been leveled against SP to date has been valid criticism of what is just an awful film.
Sorry, I misunderstood your post, as there was a post between yours and the one you replied to. It happens.
It amuses me to see all the SF fans on here claiming that Mendes completely lost the plot on period of three years.
Not so sure I agree with what I've bolded. Skyfall is probably the most "logic-out-the-window" Bond film of all, yet it became massively popular upon release. Elsewhere in today's movie world, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises have soared to the top of IMDB's rankings because of their iconic characters and elements and in spite of their at times quite sizable lapses in logic. General audiences haven't become more discerning or more critical. They like what they like, internal story logic be damned.
Of course you have youtubers like HISHE that will gleefully point out even the most minute logic lapses in even the soundest of films; and then there are the hardcore fans and natural critics as you'll find within communities such as this one who genuinely do care whether or not everything makes sense in the end and feel compelled to weigh that against their personal overall enjoyment of the film. For the latter, however, I don't think that the vintage 60s necessarily get a free pass here. Many rightfully regard that decade as a high-water mark for the series—creatively, artistically, and as far as overall quality and entertainment value goes—but you will hear criticisms of those films even today. I weigh my enjoyment of the more iconic elements of Goldfinger against the issues I have with the film, and at the end of the day, a Top 10 Bond it is not (for me). Trying to imagine myself back in the era of vintage Bond, I can fully picture myself walking out of my first viewing of Diamonds Are Forever with the same shellshocked feeling as when I walked out of Die Another Day or Spectre, thinking, I guess parts of it were good...kinda...maybe. Do we greet films with different expectations based upon the era they came out of, the genre, the talent behind the film, the budget, the marketed tone of the movie? Of course we do. But we also know quality when we see quality, and we know what makes sense to us and what does not.
=)) :)) ~O)
I understand that having a critical discussion of various aspects of the films is interesting, and part of our criticism comes because we care about the character, the films and the franchise, but we do seem (both on this forum and in the general public) very quick to damn something that doesn't meet our precise expectations. Try to enjoy it for what it is and appreciate what you can or else what's the point? Bond is escapism for a reason, and rarely do we like or dislike something based on pure logic - it is the feeling that generally resonates with an audience rather than particular plot points. Anyone can be pedantic.
Anyway, I guess I'm just suggesting that maybe we as a community could be more vocal about the things we enjoy from Bond and try to focus less on the negatives. There are enough negatives elsewhere in the world at the moment.
I think we do comment positively where it's warranted and vice versa where necessary. It's all a matter of opinion though as we each experience Bond and other franchises quite personally.
I've got to get back to watching a Bond film soon. It's been a while. I'll try to be positive with my assessment. Unless it's TWINE.
Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.
Criticise if you feel so inclined, you have every right to, I just can't really see the benefit of negative comments that don't really lead anywhere. My least favourite Bond films are AVTAK and DAF, but I don't really see the need to highlight this on every thread because I understand that other people love these films, and that's absolutely fine.
I recently had a discussion with a new member who seems to think the CR action scenes are sub par. I have to admit he made some good points, and although I disagree, I have hardly heard anyone criticize that film in this respect, as it tends to be so highly regarded by most members. So it was a fun discussion and somewhat unexpected.
Regarding AVTAK & DAF, I'm sure if you started singing the praises of these films, or alternatively started bashing them, you'd quickly hear strongly worded competing views from other members. That's part of the fun of this place.
I do get your point on the SP thing - It's the film most in the spotlight. Par for the course for the latest film to be the one that gets the most love and hate.
@Some_Kind_Of_Hero, in arguing an opposing point, you will find me agreeing with you. I still don't think SF is the most illogical Bond film of all; I find that comment to be about as logical as you say that movie is in a series where villains have lairs in volcanoes and underwater, and where Bond survives contact with heavy radiation by taking a shower.
I take the vintage films to task to, even though they're my life blood, but I still think that to this day many people give the likes of GF and OHMSS a massive pass for things that no modern films get the same pass for. The iconic films that shaped Bond are put on a pedestal, when movies that have the same flaws are burned like Joan. Part of it is the time they were made, the expectations of audiences and the art form, sure, but the bias is certainly out there. I just think it's important to be mindful that old Bond films did some wacky stuff that makes today's plots look like an episode of Downtown Abbey in comparison. But of course that view of Bond's world, larger than life and big in scope and style was the hallmark of that vintage era, and for all the mistakes that were made in movies like YOLT and parts of DAF especially, we still had an artful team on hand and (usually) Sean on his game.
I just think it's important to judge the films more fairly, and less partially, regardless of preference, and I'm happy to see that you share a bit of that philosophy. But as you say, it all comes down to what we enjoy, and the levels of enjoyment we can get from a movie that allows us to accept and move on from the lapses.
Age doesn't concern me too much. Rog gave us some great movies in his later run as Bond. Dan could do two more if they got their act together
Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.
Also agreed. No place should be an echoo echooo echoooo echooooo echoooooo chamber.
This movie has really put me of any further outing for Craig. I prefer a new 007 who has NO creative input at all.
It was the worst action movie in quite a while and its content was laughable. The movie has done very little good for my trust in the running of this franchise.
SO in no way SP brought anything good to the franchise but the need of serious reboot.
I disagree.
I hope they returned your toys.
I think an important factor to consider is the overall tone of the film and what the film is trying to achieve. We don't hold YOLT to the same level of scrutiny as SF because one is so obviously set in a pulpy, comic book-style fantasy world whereas the other strives for a grittier, Dark Knight-esque level of realism. Nor should we, necessarily. The works of Ray Bradbury come to mind. Some of his stories are absolutely marvelous in their concepts, their philosophy, their capacity to transport you to another world and make you think about life, the universe, everything. But if you stop and think about the science behind it all or the feasibility of such things really happening, you'll find it makes no sense at all. The works of Ray Bradbury can't be appraised by the same criteria you'd use to appraise the works of Caron Sagan, William Gibson, H.G. Wells, Kurt Vonnegut. They have to be judged by their own merits and faults in light of what they're each trying to achieve. With the James Bond films, we try to compare and evaluate films with varying tones and varying degrees of reality, but we have to judge them by their own merits and what they're each trying to achieve. Of course when a film's tone varies between the serious and the comedic, between grounded and absurd, this can either be to the film's strength or to its detriment depending upon execution, and that too factors into overall enjoyment and quality.
I think an important factor to consider is the overall tone of the film and what the film is trying to achieve. We don't hold YOLT to the same level of scrutiny as SF because one is so obviously set in a pulpy, comic book-style fantasy world whereas the other strives for a grittier, Dark Knight-esque level of realism. Nor should we, necessarily. The works of Ray Bradbury come to mind. Some of his stories are absolutely marvelous in their concepts, their philosophy, their capacity to transport you to another world and make you think about life, the universe, everything. But if you stop and think about the science behind it all or the feasibility of such things really happening, you'll find it makes no sense at all. The works of Ray Bradbury can't be appraised by the same criteria you'd use to appraise the works of Carl Sagan, William Gibson, H.G. Wells, Kurt Vonnegut. They have to be judged by their own merits and faults in light of what they're each trying to achieve. With the James Bond films, we try to compare and evaluate films with varying tones and varying degrees of reality, but we have to judge them by their own merits and what they're each trying to achieve. Of course when a film's tone varies between the serious and the comedic, between grounded and absurd, this can either be to the film's strength or to its detriment depending upon execution, and that too factors into overall enjoyment and quality.
This according to a blog written not long ago in a lost source.