SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

craigrules

I often get when i tell new people i meet i'm a Bond fan oh they are all the same, you can't tell one film from another.

Zekidk

actonsteve wrote:

Desk wrote:

Skyfall was a reasonably entertaining movie, but I'm not sure it felt like a Bond film.

Desk

Its not 1983 anymore. People and films have moved on. Audiences want abit of character development nowadays. They want more then just explosians and chases. Except of course teenage boys who cant cope with emotion.

Yeah, all those people who express they have some sort of issues with SF, must be teenage boys "who can't cope with emotion." What a ridiculous argument!

For me, there are parts of it that I really like, and parts of it that I really didn't like. I understand however why some say it didn't "feel" like a Bond movie. Maybe because he didn't came out on top (he always wins, right?), maybe because of the melodrama-part, maybe because of Bond himself.

Maybe these two IMDB-users address the point:
"Gone is the suave, sophisticated, knowledgeable, utterly committed agent we are used to, now we have a stroppy, confused man moping about getting drunk instead of reporting for duty; who about a quarter way through the film remembers where he left his razor and even gets himself together enough to shave; who, after being felt-up by a homosexual villain, alludes to previous homosexual experiences he might have had; and who hatches a really stupid plan to use M as bait by taking her to a completely isolated manor house with hardly any firepower available, whilst inviting the baddies to come and get them, which they do with more men and more firepower than Bond thought to bring along; not surprisingly Bond's daft 'plan' to get the villain results in Bond getting his boss killed."

"Disastrously, the people in charge of this franchise have decided that bond must no longer be a spy, that old rules no longer apply and therefore, effectively, writers have carte blanche to write what they want. But in Hollywood good screenwriters are as rare as gold in a desert. Most can't think for themselves. Only what they adapt from books or short story's stands out in the crowd. Hence the reason why Casino Royal is as good as it is. It's a tale that oozes literary birth. It's not original writing, it already existed.
Skyfall is the horrible product of uninspired screenwriters. Screenwriters that, without a Fleming book as their guide, were devoid of inspiration and, worse, dedication to a legend. Clearly, they were lost in a mental desert. No ideas to be found there. Maybe this is why Bond was lost in the highlands without any decent idea how to save M. It simply reflects the writers' state of mind."

Sandy

I've been away for a day and this thread almost went out of control. I wonder if some people watched the same film I did and I'm sure most people who have an "informed" opinion never read a line in a Bond book. Still love the film, top 3, best film of the year. I just can't find the plot holes some people complain about. My complaints? Title sequence, CGI in PTS, scorpion, underused Severine. Oh, and I wished it was a bit longer so that we could see some scenes that never made it into the final cut. That was a bloody good Bond film and I'm counting the days until I watch it again (and again).

Getafix

DarthDimi wrote:

actonsteve wrote:

Desk wrote:

Skyfall was a reasonably entertaining movie, but I'm not sure it felt like a Bond film.

Desk

For Chrissakes for the last two films people have been bitching about "its not a Bond film". Theres no Q, Moneypenny, Ms office, Aston Martin, gadgets - all the things that according to them make a Bond film.

They are reintroduced and people are still whinging.

Its not 1983 anymore. People and films have moved on. Audiences want abit of character development nowadays. They want more then just explosians and chases. Except of course teenage boys who cant cope with emotion.

And one look around the Skyfall audience shows that it isnt just teenage boys who go see the film.

Agreed on all accounts!

People need to try and define 'Bond film' for a change, before simply stating it as a worn off argument against a newly released film. Some seem to subconsciously think that Austin Powers sets the standard for modern 'Bond films'. I bet in the mid 70s some folks felt that TSWLM wasn't a 'Bond film'. I bet the same happened in '87 and again in '95. Most notably it happened in '69 and look where we stand today in our views of those films...

No two Bond films are alike. By now it should have become something obvious, something we all understand. Perhaps TSWLM and MR form a curious exception to that 'rule'. The fact remains, though, that there's Hitchcock in FRWL, slapstick comedy in DAF, blaxploitation in LALD, Bruce Lee vibes in TMWTGG, Miami Vice in LTK, ... The mystical Bond formula has always been the sum total of repeated key elements (Q, MP, M, gadgets, ...) and common Bond tropes (girls, exotic locations, ...). The mix of those elements and tropes, however, has always resulted in different atmospheres and stories, even different characterizations of Bond himself. Yet somehow people seem to think there’s a very rigid Bond formula, carved in stone, cemented since ’62, which allows not a single left turn from it unless one no longer desires to make a solid ‘Bond film’. If that were so, 50 years of 007 in cinema would have made for half a century of boring filmmaking and film watching.


For the life of me I can't figure out what would make SF a film that doesn't feel like a Bond film since all is there. All of it! Plus, it drags us out of that pool of wanna-coulda-shouldas that QOS left behind.

You are both ignoring what people are actually saying and patronising the rest of us as supposed Xbox playing numpties who think GE is the best in Bond. You don't think people who apprecite FRWL, OHMSS, LTK and QoS are ready for a diffetent type of Bond film? ActonSteve it would be nice if you got off your high horse and actually engaged with the. The maasive breadth of criticism that is now emerging on here.

My view is that I want all the same stuff you are talking about but that SF just did not deliver. It is really not very good

NapoleonPlural

One snag with the Craig era is that he doesn't get much screentime with the villains. In part this is the new era - any semi-realistic villain will just shoot Bond at once given half the chance (that said, Silva doesn't, possibly to draw him into an elaborate plan to get to M, who knows). But it's also because, the old charming wining and dining getting to know you scene, Craig's Bond just doesn't do. With anyone. The poor anorak in the National Gallery, just wanting a chat....

Le Chiffre got a bit more screentime ditto the next one, cos we see them up to stuff going about their business without Bond, plotting. We get a more well rounded idea of them. We don't get that here so imo Silva is a bit one dimensional. No henchman either, is this a first in the Bond series?

battleshipgreygt

NapoleonPlural wrote:

One snag with the Craig era is that he doesn't get much screentime with the villains. In part this is the new era - any semi-realistic villain will just shoot Bond at once given half the chance (that said, Silva doesn't, possibly to draw him into an elaborate plan to get to M, who knows). But it's also because, the old charming wining and dining getting to know you scene, Craig's Bond just doesn't do. With anyone. The poor anorak in the National Gallery, just wanting a chat....

Le Chiffre got a bit more screentime ditto the next one, cos we see them up to stuff going about their business without Bond, plotting. We get a more well rounded idea of them. We don't get that here so imo Silva is a bit one dimensional. No henchman either, is this a first in the Bond series?

I wouldn't call Silva one dimentional. He's pretty complex but they don't really hit you over the head with it like many villains. He's more nuanced which is ironic considering his vivacity and flamboyance. Also, you could say Patrice was a henchman.

DarthDimi

Getafix wrote:

You are both ignoring what people are actually saying and patronising the rest of us as supposed Xbox playing numpties who think GE is the best in Bond. You don't think people who apprecite FRWL, OHMSS, LTK and QoS are ready for a diffetent type of Bond film? ActonSteve it would be nice if you got off your high horse and actually engaged with the. The maasive breadth of criticism that is now emerging on here.

My view is that I want all the same stuff you are talking about but that SF just did not deliver. It is really not very good

- GE is my favourite Bond film.
- IMO SF does deliver the goods. IYO it doesn't. I fail to see why we need to make such a fuss over it. I was only trying to stear things back on track.

NicNac

I think people miss the sophistication element from Craig's Bond. During the 60s and 70s Bond was a know-it-all who was as knowledgeable about butterflies and exotic fish as he was about fine wines and caviar.
It acutally became a little bit silly such was Bond's brilliance on just about any and every topic.

Craig's Bond is a snappy dresser and enjoys his creature comforts (eg he refuses Fields' choice of hotels), he is as adept on a motrocycle as he is piloting a plane (as all Bonds have proved) but so far hasn't shown himself to be a font of wisdom in all things. (witness Bond's showing off about sherry vintages in DAF). I'm sure that will come.

In SF Bond loses his mojo for sure, doing his own thing, ignoring orders, but I seem to recall he did something similar in LTK.

Bond in SF has been criticised for showing little emotion when Severine died. Well, back in FRWL when Kerim died he was barely able to offer any kind of sympathy to Kerim's son, instead demanding his help in escaping.
In YOLT he showed little concern when Aki died. And there are other examples.

So, yes I agree there are times when it feels like it isn't a traditional Bond film, but that is maybe because of one very good reason.

In the last act of the film there is no Bond girl. Well there is, and it is M. That is where tradition has been broken. A girl in peril is always around, but this time she is 72 years old. That is why the end of SF seemed a little out of step with tradition.

JamesCraig

How people dare to say that this is not a Bondfilm is beyond me, because we have:

- James Bond
- A crazy dude who wants to do something evul
- M (both female AND male!)
- Q
- Moneypenny
- Aston Martin
- Some gadgets
- Some big action scenes
- Some humor
- Exotic locations
- The gunbarrel (albeit at the end)
- a PTS
- a title sequence with a specially composed song
- Chicks
- The old office

I've seen a different film I guess.

Germanlady

Sandy wrote:

I've been away for a day and this thread almost went out of control. I wonder if some people watched the same film I did and I'm sure most people who have an "informed" opinion never read a line in a Bond book. Still love the film, top 3, best film of the year. I just can't find the plot holes some people complain about. My complaints? Title sequence, CGI in PTS, scorpion, underused Severine. Oh, and I wished it was a bit longer so that we could see some scenes that never made it into the final cut. That was a bloody good Bond film and I'm counting the days until I watch it again (and again).

Its really just very few people - thankfully - but it heats the discussion. ;)
I am relaxed about it now. There are always people, who complain - some, because they really feel that way and some to stir trouble and get attention. There is nothing new to it and I doubt, there is a film on this planet, who didn't have this fate.

NicNac

My intention wasn't to suggest it didn't seem like a Bond film, just that I could understand why some didnt think it was.

It's my favourite of Craig's three, that's for sure. Better paced then CR, meatier than QOS. For a long film SF keeps the momentum going admirably.

JamesCraig

NicNac wrote:

My intention wasn't to suggest it didn't seem like a Bond film, just that I could understand why some didnt think it was.

It's my favourite of Craig's three, that's for sure. Better paced then CR, meatier than QOS. For a long film SF keeps the momentum going admirably.

Not aiming at you, mate ;)

I'm pretty sure you understand what I'm saying. :)>-

Germanlady

NicNac wrote:

My intention wasn't to suggest it didn't seem like a Bond film, just that I could understand why some didnt think it was.

It's my favourite of Craig's three, that's for sure. Better paced then CR, meatier than QOS. For a long film SF keeps the momentum going admirably.

This is what I liked best about it. Even with a lot of dialogue, it never lets down.

NicNac

JamesCraig wrote:

NicNac wrote:

My intention wasn't to suggest it didn't seem like a Bond film, just that I could understand why some didnt think it was.

It's my favourite of Craig's three, that's for sure. Better paced then CR, meatier than QOS. For a long film SF keeps the momentum going admirably.

Not aiming at you, mate ;)

I'm pretty sure you understand what I'm saying. :)>-

Yes, I understood :D

JamesCraig

B-) word.

Germanlady

How about some nice numbers being thrown in to cool everybody off?

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/weekendwarriornews.php?id=96682
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3556&p=.htm

craigrules

Can you tell me tonight's winning lotto numbers.

Germanlady

craigrules wrote:

Can you tell me tonight's winning lotto numbers.

If I could, I would play them myself, but a win might mean a HUGE Bond meet up with the prods and crew. Some real nice charity donation and they all would HAVE to show up.

Probably additional bucks would be needed for bodyguards for Berenice. You guys would tear her apart. :))

JamesCraig

Craigrules, you can stop trolling. It's not only annoying, but rumor has it you make a fool of yourself and boy you're bringing this forum down.

craigrules

JamesCraig wrote:

Craigrules, you can stop trolling. It's not only annoying, but rumor has it you make a fool of yourself and boy you're bringing this forum down.

Edited by NicNac, for content

craigrules

JamesCraig wrote:

Craigrules, you can stop trolling. It's not only annoying, but rumor has it you make a fool of yourself and boy you're bringing this forum down.

Flag me and get me banned then.

9eor9e

Desk wrote:

I'm glad to finally see Bond's nagging 'mother' despatched, and welcome Ralph Fiennes as M, but why not call his character Miles Messervy?

I wondered about this as well, but calling him Miles Messervy would immediately have revealed the ending to fans who've read the books (even if the other characters only addressed him as Miles, which wouldn't really be appropriate given his rank).

JamesCraig

I can already see the tasteful discussions: "is this like the db5 again, Miles was in a different timeline"? "is there really a timeline"?...

[-(

Germanlady

Of course, there is no timeline. Never was.

bondsum

NicNac wrote:

During the 60s and 70s Bond was a know-it-all who was as knowledgeable about butterflies and exotic fish as he was about fine wines and caviar. It acutally became a little bit silly such was Bond's brilliance on just about any and every topic.

There was an element of this though in SF when Bond and Q were deciphering those hex codes. I was quite stunned when suddenly Bond deduces that those letters partially spelt "Granborough" and that it can only refer to Granborough Road railway station. That's quite a leap of logic to suddenly arrive at unless you're the fount of all knowledge or an expert in closed British railway stations. I know I've asked this on the Q&A thread but can anyone recall what the relevance of Granborough Road railway station was anyway?

identigraph

I had no problems with the tone of Skyfall, the bits of humor were welcome as were the sublte nods to the past and also DC was good, I never been a huge fan of his and I would say this was his best performance and I liked his third entry more than the first two.

All the talk of a great villan ultimatley came to nothing and the plot itself didn't really grab me, I didn't really get a great sense of excitment from the action scenes and found the finale a tad disappointing, enjoyed the introduction to new M etc though.

NapoleonPlural

Of course if Fiennes was Sir Miles you could just see how it would turn out by looking at the imdb cast list.

Of course there has been an implied timeline in the films. FRWL refers back to Dr No, and Bond ages chronologically throughout, with the films getting bigger as Bond becomes more experienced. Or I guess it's just implied for a lot of it. FYEO harks back to OHMSS and there are other minor references, admittedly blown apart by GE.

fire_and_ice

Germanlady wrote:

fire_and_ice wrote:

the more i think of skyfall the more i feel like i have been manipulated by the film. something is really bugging me about this film, not sure what it is yet.

fire_and_ice wrote:

the more i think of skyfall the more i feel like i have been manipulated by the film. something is really bugging me about this film, not sure what it is yet.

I think and strongly believe, that treating a film like this is to just enjoy the merits and not go into big time thinking about it. Its first and foremost a Bond film, more realistic in the approach, but still a Bond film, which has to tick boxes but also has to leave out some of these in order to remain true to its origins or as true as possible. Its DK territory, which had so many plotholes and so much stuff, that was impoosible. I think SF fared better in that, but still - why bother to treat films like this in the same approach you might do with a "serious" film, wo NEEDS to be grounded in realism?

Just enjoy them, be entertained...that's wat they wanna be - pure entertainmet, even if it means, they are unrealistic at parts. So what..they never meant NOT to be.

its because the film at times sets out to be taken seriously, though the tone is uneven admittedly at times. the way the film is viewed by its audience is often down to what the film maker asks of its audience. sam mendes is asking more questions than most bond films tend to do with deeper characterization, silva being the mirror image of bond. silva being estranged from his mother m, bond being loyal son of m who returns after sulking because his mum tried to kill him etc. there are some interesting themes in this movie.

when i watch a bond movie do i want to watch a deeper film or do i just want a good exciting action adventure... i am still undecided. skyfall to me could be one of the most significant films of the franchise either way.

bondsum

And let's not forget when Bond visits his office in OHMSS, @NapoleonPlural, where he pulls out a drawer finding objects from Dr. No, From Russia with Love and Thunderball, which can only mean that OHMSS is not just linked to the same timeline but follows those events.

Sandy

I think people lose precious time trying to find a time line. I view them as different stories, with some common characters, told at different time points.