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
I can answer that myself - nothing will make you change your opinions...throwing logic at us, but not giving in to other peoples logic. Sad really...negativity must be your lifes energy...
If you could, you would happily make everybody, EVERYBODY, who dares to enjoy the film feel as miserable about it, as you are.
I am off your posts, as you might be happy to hear. Its just tiring and so senseless. Bye...
I still don't know how he could have survived both the hit and that fall off the bridge though.
Its Bond and as this, exactly what you will find in every of those 23 films - the impossible. Lets not forget in all the realism, its still the world of fantasy. I have often heard them saying in interviews, they can not go down this or that road, because its Bond...
Bond films never explained themselves through logic on every level. Bond is pure entertainment and as such (and remember all the other films like Batman etc) will go for excitement and jaw dropping action first. I think, the world around us is realistic enough.
Then don't stop liking it, just because someone tries to put it and everything else down and masks it as opinion.
You remind of those people who complained that Bond was no longer Bond in CR because he drove a Ford.
And if you call this film a new low in incoherency & inconsistency you clearly haven't seen all the other Bonds or too many other movies.
Not from where I am standing she doesn't.
Tb. How did the jet pack get there?
Jesus Christ, this is becoming hilarious.
You are giving explanations for how Bond escaped. The equivalent scenario in DAF would be Bond appearing back in Vegas with no explanation of how he got out of the coffin.
Obviously he put the jet pack there ready for his escape. Doesn't he have an accomplice in that scene waiting in the car?
Carry on, because it'll only get worse.
You made a point? I must have missed it.
Much of the plot of Skyfall is wholly irrational. It seems you guys don't like it in spite of that, but because of that. If this is part of a theme, I can confidently predict that Mitt Romney will be US President this time tomorrow. Start pointing out the plotholes and you're a real naysayer, put him in the stocks!
Bond is accidentally shot, he falls off a massive bridge, we see him dead in the water (who knows, a reference to how QoS left his movie status?) And all we get is some vague reference later to how the shot bruised his ribs or something.
But fair's fair. Like the Virgin Birth, if you can buy that, then you can buy the rest of it, no problem. If that's alright with you, then why the outcry over the Beach Boys in A View to A Kill? The Big Top at the end of the MR pts? Just deal with it.
I agree with Getafix, the Moore films set out their stall as a big silly romp, enlivened by some surprisingly serious moments. Craig's Bond sets out his stall as a serious, gritty film with a down-to-earth hero - but we're expect to cut it the same slack, if not more, in terms of credibility. The scene where he just ambles up to the villain's lair with a single gun, on the very boat owned by one of his sex slaves, to have a heart to heart! Yeah, good luck with that. It's straight out of The Man With The Golden Gun, but at least that was a deliberately hokey film.
I could go on, but I agreed with The Guardian review, so that makes me scum.
When he survives a fall to the river with a bullet in him , that is less plausable, but then we hear stories of people surviving falls from aeroplanes, so we can't dismiss it as impossible.
Alec surviving his fall from the satalite dish is far more proposterous.
Bond doesn't want to hurry back from his shooting, so leaves the gal to think she's offed a prime secret agent! And may be responsible in part for M's tarnished reputation.
Thing is, because Skyfall pitches itself as a gritty, real film I cannot let this stuff slide, whereas the lighter, fun movies I'm prepared to cut some slack. From the opening, where Bond leaves a fellow agent to die to obey his boss (he's a jobsworth then) it says, we're giving you a grim, serious Bond. Fine, so I'm going to be in a grim, serious mood. Which means I'm gonna call you out for any rubbish flung back at me.
But that's how it is. FYEO didn't work for me, because again, it pitches itself as a more serious film, but it doesn't hold up on those terms, so I'm more damning of it than I am of Moonraker. I am taking these films on their own terms.
'Probably?' Exactly. People have survived plunging over Niagra Falls. Not many, but some.
I understand the point made by @Getafix, that we don't see how Bond escapes from these life threatening situations, but in the context of a long film they lose a certain amount of significance.
Can't add to that.
You could have Jaws breaking his ripcord in the MR pts, and we wouldn't need to see him fall into the safety net, because - stupid! - you hear of people surviving a failed parachute jump occasionally, and that's obviously what happened there.
Don't bother with Bond's Union Jack parachute in the other pts as he skis off a cliff. He just shows up after the fall, what the hell. No explanation necessary.
But this is far from the only daft plot point in the film, it's just one of many, from beginning to end.
Well, if you can't take the villain in a Craig film seriously... as for the Aston Martin, well I agree, it's plain daft. But that is quite late in the film, I mean it may as well be The Cannonball Run, having that there.
The brief of Craig's Bond is that, imo, he's a more realistic portrayal than Brosnan and Moore. Am I wrong here? Did I not get the memo?
Truthfully, it's a long way from CR. But in fairness, Connery's YOLT was a long way from Dr No. Credibility in SF is sort of on a par with TWINE, or LALD, actually less so imo.
And the worst for Connery and Brosnan still had to come.
This is true, I think with SF they've tried to infer that it has more traditional elements not synonymous with the craig era - some people will think it works and others not. I myself raised the question of the DB5's validity. It's an ejoyable moment but totally out of step with what you would expect to see, so I can see both sides.