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
But yes, I saw the movie and I was really impressed
I was even hoping it would go on and on..
Quite a difference from the last release
The other criticism I keep reading is that Skyfall didn't feature enough large action set-pieces. Yet if you check the early Connery films (the first 3) and OHMSS, they didn't feature that many either. There are still probably more action sequences in Skyfall.
Either way, give me the thriller type, down-to-earth Bond film any day of the week. I'd much rather see Bond chasing Silva on a tube train than an ice palace car chase with invisible cars.
And OHMSS had plenty. Two skichases, a stockcar race and the final showdown at Piz Gloria. So did FRWL and GF. SF is Daniel Craig's TMWTGG.
I really believe that gklein nailed it here:
We probably see action differently then. For me I counted -
PTS
Fight scene in Shanghai
Fight scene in Macao
Gunfight in London with Silva
Tube chase
Shootout at Skyfall
I agree that SF could maybe have done with one more action set-piece, but give me the tube chase any day of the week, over a speedboat chase with Sherrif J.W., an ice-palace CGI fest, or an action tick box list which plagued the Moore and Brozza films.
Please list me the action set-pieces in FRWL and GF, and see how they compare with SF. If you are going to state the fight scene in the train with Grant is an action scene, then you also have to include the Shanghai fight scene in SF.
The speedboat chase at the end of FRWL is fairly naff, and again if you include that as a sequence, you should also include the gunfight in London with Silva.
Or Dr. No?
Or GF?
It really is fine with me if they want to keep the action at a minimum and make a more thriller-based entry. But then they have to come up with a better script and story than SF. Good acting isn't gonna cut it.
I find SF very original, and probably the strongest script since OHMSS (although LTK comes close).
Not much of the story, like Silva's motivation made any sense. But that's okay if they instead went for an escapist action adventure. They didn't.
I thought the script was awful for many reasons, fx:
I know that a lot of Bond movies have been inspired from other movies. But SF was just an all-out copy/paste assault, IMO there where loads of scenes that reminded me of, or was lifted from, another movie:
I saw Octopussy, Patriot Games, Die Hard 3 and 4, Home Alone, Silence of the Lambs, Nolan's Batman-movies, Goldeneye, TWINE, Moonraker and Mission Impossible in there. Too much for my taste.
IMO, they shouldn't have taken an action adventure film series that doesn't take it self too serious and try to make it into a pseudo-realistic, serious trying-to-get Oscars type movie, which is what they clearly wanted to do with Skyfall, since action was kept at a bare minimum (two action setpieces from the storyboard were scrapped.) It's just pretentious, dull and tedious, IMO.
Agreed. It's getting dull now hearing the anti-SF brigade state why the film didn't work, and why the pro-SF gang (including me) say it does work.
This is a discussion forum. And I don't find discussing SF "dull."
Well, its a bit shaky, if people do the wrong maths, for example, to make their points.
You say, there are 800 reviews on IMDB, of which 1/3 are negative. So - we have a 8,10 rating. With 266 negaive reviews, we would be at around 7.40.
=D> =D> =D>
Thanks GL. B-)
;)
Exactly, away from that.
Brady, I don't really appreciate it, if you always try to save the day in stepping on the feet of those, who are tired of the same ole. Its not that critisme isn't valid, but its about repeating the same ole points over and over and over. What to make of that? Like Willy said, its become more of a desperate effort to convince everybody, then making points out of which you can make a decent conversation.
I think, its all been said and that is the problem. Its getting tiresome for BOTH sides, I believe.
@jetsetwilly
Anyone who likes Skyfall are "dumb"? According to you, that's what those who criticize SF think of "anyone" who actually like it.
You really need to come up with some examples. Can you do that?
@Germanlady. I find it hilarious that you accuse those who don't agree with you of posting "the same ole points over and over" when you yourself just felt a need to repost jetsetwilly's earlier comment without even commenting on it.
I see that some really don't want to discuss SF's flaws. I can understand that. But since this is a discussion forum, telling - or advising - other members what they should or shouldn't focus on regarding the movie, either because these other members are very happy about it or frustrated, could backfire.
So...
Yes...either give me a large full-blown action adventure with plot holes and not much logic and reason, like most other Bond-movies or give me a more down-to-earth thriller that is intelligently scripted and largely makes sense, like the Bourne-movies.
Don't just give me a pseudo-thriller like SF, full of illogical "wtf?"-moments, plot holes and plot elements that don't make any sense.
@Brady - I believe, its in the human nature to argue, when discussing. Its pro and contra and going from there. Its illusion to believe - at this point, where EVERYTHING and beyond has been already said - a decent discussion can be hold. I doubt it. Its contra, like Zek stared it just AGAIN and someone will post a pro, etc etc etc.
Its at a dead point now. The film is almost 4 weeks in...
I thought you wanted to discuss the movie and not the maths about the IMDB ranking system? But fair enough, if you think that makes for a better discussion point than the movie itself: I was referring to the 800+ users who wrote reviews only. These are usually the passionate ones. I wasn't referring to the score of 8,1 given by 123.000 users at all. You are (it is possible to give a score without reviewing it, you know). And like I said: Of more than 800 user reviews, one third of them are negative. It actually surprises me since these obvisually don't represent the overall consencus.
And OHMMS is 43 years old and is still being discussed as of right now in another thread. I don't see your point.
Either way, you have stated loud and proud that you don't like SF, and you've outlined your reasons why. So there is nothing more to discuss now on that particular subject, unless you are finding it increasingly difficult to understand why fans do like the film, so you keep repeating yourself in the hope some may start to listen to you and change their mind perhaps....?
Not much at all has been said between all the arguing.
Not true, because this would bash all decent reviews on both sides. But however. Good luck.
Funny. First you accuse people who criticize SF for something that you cannot back up with any sorts of documentation.
For the record: Expressing criticism about SF isn't the same thing as expressing criticism about the fans who like SF.
Then you start guessing on my motives like when you earlier suggested that I "should go back to watching endless repeats of DAD"
Am I on repeat? Maybe. Maybe not. I can't see any double-postings by me. Maybe just variations of the same points.
I also see some questions posted by me, left unanswered. You want to silence me, try answering the following with valid argumentation that don't include the word "you":
There are tons of positive reviews on RT outlining why SF is a great Bond movie. If your argument is that these critics don't understand Bond, then try somewhere closer to home like Graham Rye, who is a huge Bond fan (obviously). His review pretty much says it all - http://www.007magazine.co.uk/bond23/skyfall_review.htm
But this all a moot point. Who cares what the reviews all say to try and counteract these arguments. It's all personal taste. Do you like the film? No. Do I like the film? Yes.
You give your reasons for not liking it. Great, well done. We got the point. Now move on to the next subject. Nothing more is to be made on that subject. You've aired your points, flogged it like a dead horse, and everyone on here now knows why you don't like Skyfall - not enough action, and lots of plot holes. Good for you.