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
Any one for a game of footy?
http://philosophy.baddalailama.com/2012/11/skyfall.html
http://www.comingsoon.net/index.php
Which was what? How did a list of NATO undercover agents end up in the laptop hard drive of a MI6 agent in Istanbul? I don't recall the movie ever explaining this. Perhaps I missed it.
I think, the problem, if we wanna call it that is, that some here IMO treat this film like an academic thesis. They go into it, taking a film, that's meant to be entertainment very serious and search for explanations, where none are really necessary. It doesn't NEED to explain every bit. Blockbuster films like this never do and they all have their plotholes. So, I believe, that starting to pick it apart is, what bothers people. They seem to forget, that this is supposed to be leisure fun, not your working place. And its the nature of the negative, that it rarely raises fun and pleasure and is hence less popular, never mind how much of a right a poster has to state his negative opinion. Many have enough negative experiences in their daily life and this makes them go after those, who confront them with it here, too.
Its not about right and wrong, its about dynamics and this is how it works usually. So - as much as everyody has the right to voice an opinion, you should not be too puzzled, that you have to deal with "Don't try to spoil my fun".
So - not saying, don't critisize, but saying don't complain.
This sounds like an argument to criticize those who didn't like the film. If people - like me - didn't like "SKYFALL", then they didn't like it. Why is it so important that everyone likes this movie?
There are people on both sides who are being just as bad as eachother. Some people are going out of their way to make peope dislike it but equally some people have been attacking every bit of SF criticism.
I say it's time for a bit more love round here.
I'm off to watch a vintage Roger movie to restore my faith in humanity!
True. The movie doesn't explain that.
However, do we need to know everything? It's simply something they needed to kick off the film.
By comparison,
* how did Doctor No get Dent to work for him? They don't explain that.
* how did SPECTRE get Klebb to defect? They don't explain that.
* how did Bond learn about the South-American drug lab? They don't explain that.
* how did the Spectre agent kill two of Bond's colleagues? They don't explain that.
* how did Spectre manage to build a volcano base without anyone figuring it out? They don't explain that.
* how did the beach thugs find Bond / Tracy? They don't explain that.
* how did Bond find his first lead towards Blofeld? They don't explain that.
* how can someone simply walk into a UN building and kill someone? They don't explain that.
* how did Scaramanga manage to build a dummy Bond so perfectly? They don't explain that.
* what the hell is Bond doing in the snow cabin? They don't explain that.
* how did the Moonraker pilots manage to hide in the shuttle? They don't explain that.
* how did Blofeld survive DAF to get back at Bond after a decade? They don't explain that.
* why did Bond have to destroy the military base in South-America? They don't explain that.
* how did the Russians find 002? They don't explain that.
* how did the Russian thug get into Gibraltar? They don't explain that.
* how did Lupe run away from Sanchez? They don't explain that.
* how did 006 get into the research facility? They don't explain that.
* how did Bond get near the terrorist market? They don't explain that.
* what's a Swiss banker doing in Spain? They don't explain that.
* how did Bond figure out about Vanderbierk? They don't explain that.
* which secrets has Dryden sold? They don't explain that.
* how did Mr. Whyte's thugs get chasing after Bond? They don't explain that.
* and indeed, how did the list get in Turkey? They don't explain that.
Most films introduce things which they don't explain. You simply can't backtrack every . single . step that lead to the opening of the film.
Wanted to say that plot holes and unexplained behaviour is par for the course with a lot of action movies. Sometimes we find it annoying and at other times we don't. I noticed in one of your old posts Darth you said you found the characters behaviour in QoS so inexplicable it impacted your enjoyment of the movie.
I felt the same way about SF.
I will agree though that this depends on where one draws the line. Too much for me in QoS, fairly acceptable in SF.
Dressed To Kill just started a thread for disappointed Skyfall viewers. I'm sure he could use some company over there.
No such luck. It'll get closed down. We all have learn to get along on here I'm afraid.
Long story but that's the way it is.
I particularly agree with the bolded text. It was just the right amount I felt. As you said, "nicely restrained", both in Bond's history and depth of character.
For me, the more fun you're having, the less needs explaining, but SF isn't that much of a fun film so I demand more logic, for it to be more grounded, esp with a grounded hero like Craig's interpretation.
I don't mind about the McGuffin thing in itself, but much of SF is just off the scale in terms of lapses of logic. It's not enough to say, oh, look at other Bonds! They're a different genre mostly, esp the more fantastic ones.
You nailed it.
Personally I don't find Skyfall to be much worse logically than any other Bond film so it isn't a factor for me. I just find it shocking that in a franchise where From Russia With Love and Casin Royale are part of the same series as Die Another Day and Moonraker, people get so heated about other's preferences of Bond films. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's opinions but there IS something wrong with imposing yours on others and having the attitude that "Because I don't like this, nobody else should either."
Ha! That made my day!
I've always wondered what a film would be like if it was cut brutally short by a simplistic change in a scene, such as this. Or, what if she hadn't shot at all, and Bond did succeed in taking down Patrice? He did, post gunshot injury, in Shanghai without a problem, it seemed.
Oh, absolutely, haha. He wouldn't have halted any part of his plan, whether he retrieved the list from Patrice or not.
I said that in another thread. It'd be cool to see
the music picks up into an actiony tune as Bond and a henchmen start attacking each other, then suddenly Bond just kicks the guy back and shoots him before they really start fighting and the music dies back down.
I think it'd fit with Bond's humor well without a one liner or anything like that.
It would most certainly add a twist to the action, that's for sure.
Oh I wasn't upset. Sorry if I came across as so. Great minds think alike!
Indeed!
All this talk about the film has me itching to see it for a third time. I'll be busy throughout this week, sadly, so I don't know if I'll get the chance until Thanksgiving Break. I hope every scene truly sticks with me so I can write a proper play-by-play (and positive) review of the movie; somewhat in the vein of what @DRESSED_TO_KILL did, only I won't be so bitter about it.
His response was, "I didn't like the bad guy's hair." @-)
Turned out he did really enjoy the movie, but I thought it was funny that was the first thing he brought up.
Well, what are you gonna do about it. Please write a longer review if you can! ;)