Home › Bond Movies › Skyfall
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Is the moaning really necessary?
What else is this What defines the screen Bond and where did it all go wrong? (just on eexample of many) then a continuation of what is discussed in other threads under a new title. Do we really need this? I think, those, who are already bitching about the new film just wear down those of us, who want to enjoy the ride and keep looking forward to the movie.
Sure - its a discussion thread with opinions to be expressed - sure enough and rightly so - but if those, who have to hammer down every bit about it, keep opening new threads for that same purpose or point it out in just about every other thread, it get tiring and doesn't help, neither the film nor the community. It seems to the members here the glas is already half empty instead of half full. Pity...
Sure - its a discussion thread with opinions to be expressed - sure enough and rightly so - but if those, who have to hammer down every bit about it, keep opening new threads for that same purpose or point it out in just about every other thread, it get tiring and doesn't help, neither the film nor the community. It seems to the members here the glas is already half empty instead of half full. Pity...
^ 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
This is simply ridiculous and a remark, that is closer to trolldome then reality - by far.
Okay, no the moaning is not necessary and everything is perfect. Everyone has been very happy with Brozza and QoS met with resoundingly positive reviews from everyone. The past 7 films have been a huge success.
My thread about where it all went wrong is actually intended as a serious discussion. You might not have noticed but a lot of posters on the site are more than a little disillusioned with the entire direction of Bond.
E.g. I stay away from anything about computer games.
You might know, how that is - its there and one participates. Its the whole mood here, that is created IMO but just a few, whose posts spread through the whole board. Its hard to get away from it and its not, that all that many agree...there are some facts like QOS was flawed etc etc, but some are taking all of this ( the new film and what we know about it) to a whole new level of negativity. This doesn't feel right.
As for negativity, we can never clear the forums of that as long as two people have a difference of opinion. Which is all the time!!
Then lets see - how many threads are here, where Brosnan is bashed? How many threads are there for the beard bashing? How many threads have been filled with the fear of a new film, that is too moody? I could go on. It seems, that some threads are only opened and hence feel very duplicate, to bring additional attention to a point, the poster wants to make.
Why else would someone start a thread? What was the purpose of this thread if not to draw attention to your point? Btw, I think your point is a fair one to make. Negativity and knocking Brozza does become extremely boring after a while. But I just can't resist!
I was complasining about opening threads, that point out something, that has been discussed over and over. We all know, how easy it is to paint something negative before it even has become clear, what exactly we are talking a bout (The new film) Its something, you cannot help, it does colour your own feelings, whether you want it or not. Its not about NOT expressing your thoughts, but its about to maybe think twice, before you start bashing something, we know nothing about (again - new film). AQnd again, its human nature, that few being negative make more waves, then many being positive. So - what can we do about that without having to lie about our feelings?
At least, those who have doubts, could try to not state their thoughts as facts but give it as BIG ? and not give in to EVERY urge to throw it down our throats.
As has been mentioned countless times elsewhere, we have been fed this idea that SF is gonna be about 'M's past coming back to haunt her' etc, which sounds a lot like TWINE and is therefore making quite a few people worried.
This, so maybe it would be a good idea to wait until there is a REAL reason to be concerned with being negative. It feels a bit like some people just love to dig deep into their concerns instead of seeing what good there might be and is.
What we DO have is:
- A 50th anniversary, that on top of everything else has upped the game for the prods.
- A great cast and director, that normally can only be gathered if the script is right.
- The saying goes, its gonna be lighter, which is what people want.
OK, all of this is ALSO just assumptions and no 100% proof, it will work out like that, but certainly it is MORE proof, then going by what little we got so far.
On this alone, folks should have some faith.
Sorry but thats just stupid. So people are not allowed to be worried about the film because of what they've heard about it???? EG- I don't like the sound of skyfalls plot, I like the cast and director, but the plot sounds like something I'll hate. It sounds like M is going to be overinvolved. Its not the law that everybody has to love everything announced. And me and others who are worried about the film want to enjoy it too, why would we want to hate it???
Let's all cheer up and talk about something nice for a change. Like Barbara Bach in a clingy evening gown, or the PTS of Goldfinger.
Of course not, but it feels like the concerns get a bit of overexposure and the good, that people also feel is there, gets killed by that.
This..
Connery had the benefit of starting from scratch and is a hybrid of the Fleming Bond so he is not the definitive Bond, he was also groomed into what at the time was considered THE Bond and some of us seem to think his is the one and only possible take of the character.
If we were to examine all the early Bond films by putting away our sixties mind set, picked them apart as much as we tend to do with the most recent films I’m sure they too would be found wanting as I personally find the seasoned Connery Bond the most inept, we get the obligatory sacrificial lamb crow barred in almost every film now.
The other thing I don’t understand is the praise harking back to when the films were cutting edge and ahead of their time and we are now treating the newer films with disdain for trying to incorporate these features because they are now being deemed too modern. Wasn’t the Bond of old not using a mobile, driving a kitted out car or used satnav, wasn’t the office decked out with typewriters and faxes THE new technology of the day.
Some of us are just fed up of the in-balance and continued negativity to everything that is not Connery, his first 3/4 films were great and last 2 mediocre at best and there have been 16 films since which contains more than a few gems.
The other actors have had the harder task of presenting Bond in a manner that would sustain the character and our interest for the past 50 years. So, instead of acting like prissy snobs, perhaps we could at least acknowledge that all renditions of Bond can be counted as legitimate takes and give credit also to their efforts instead of crapping on the films that came after the 60s.
Brosnan's films went downhill gradually after Goldeneye. He was good but the moment he surfed the iceberg then his days were numbered! Instead of "jumping the shark" or "nuking the fridge" we should refer to films that get ridulous as "surfing the iceberg" moments! Dan Craig IS Bond and he owns the part IMO!
I think, THIS is about WHAT you moan about and meant as a thread to decide, how people want to go on. Do they want to say "I want to like the new film" and at the same time knock down every little plant, before it can grow?..or do people want to act, as if they REALLY want to give the new film a chance until proven otherwise.
I feel, it has been forgotten, that you can be critical WITHOUT killing the topic for good.
True...
Brilliant! It was the iceberg that sank Brosnan's reputation!
Agreed. Its just critical discussion, working on the limited basis of the information we have at hand.
It doesn't make sense: we're not supposed to have any discussions which are negative, but we are allowed to discuss being negative about being negative?
There is always two sides to everything. I suppose not being one sided is the way to do it. Plus not invasion every other thread with the same arguments of negativity. Many points have been made, people have - by now - their opinion about them, which is their good right, but forcing the same arguments upon everybody else is not helpful for the atmosphere here, as it either ends in frustration or in fights - fights of words, as NN said.
This is NOT about being critical - this is about being OVERLY critical and about REPEATS.