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
Thought I'd share it. I thought it was great but not everyone (Bond fans or not) did.
Wow! SF cheesy?? Stick on MR for her then...... :))
You don't like Skyfall. Others do. This argument could go on for another 100 pages and still no one would agree. Perhaps best to let this one go?
'lacked depth' made me laugh. Probably one of the deeper Bond films. Oh well, some people just don't get it.
Why do you think that I asked about the script? Why? And why do you think that I wrote "But I can try"? Why?
So I could criticize it? Or so that I can try to understand what other people find so great about it?
But my question was left unanswered by the same guy who's more passionate about criticizing other fans that don't share his view than answering questions about his take on the movie we are suppose to discuss.
He said it was just Bond at a big house and an excuse for a major action finale. My response was that they featured the names of Bond's parents - something never touched on in the films before.
Please, don't think that I'm trying to stifle your discussion or shut you down, I apologise if it came across that way. It's just that you don't like the script and I don't see your opinions on that changing any more than my opinions or jetsetwilly's would change, but I do see a big argument coming out of it ending in personal attacks (something I like to avoid and that has really annoyed me on these boards lately). Exactly how every other 'I don't like Skyfall' vs 'I do like Skyfall' discussion has ended.
And yes... arguments should be met with counterarguments, not with bashing your opponent and tell them to buzz off and "go watch DAD"
I don't know and don't really care why you asked it, all I saw was an argument which would inevitably denigrate into personal attacks and so I chose to politely not enter that argument. Which is unfortunately what has happened without me even answering your question.
I resent the implication that I would personally attack you or your tastes, that's something that annoys me on these boards and was something that I was trying to avoid here. If you re-read earlier posts I think you'll find that I was not the person telling you to "go watch DAD", nor would I.
Z, I'll be happy to debate SF with you. Without bashing or telling you to go watch DAD.
Liked your Dominic "I can try" Greene reference, that made me laugh.
@SirHenryLeeChaChing
Feel free to tell me why you think that the SF-script is great. I promise, I will not go into a debate, and just listen. Maybe just pose a couple of further questions.
Starting with locations, all they needed was the external shots of Shanghai to make it work and it was incredible. Craig being there would not have made it any more authentic. The Macao entrance was at night, again, it was an interior piece and who can tell it wasn't unless you are a native? Hashima Island was brilliantly recreated and London and Scotland (and Turkey) speak for themselves.
Lack of authenticity is CGI. Very little of that here.
MI3 had Hunt in Shanghai. So what did they do? Created a wonderful setpiece using the skyscrapers AND a carchase on the Shanghai streets. Everything on location. And Tom Cruise was in fact hanging from that tall building in Dubai in MI4. They could easily have chosen to film the whole thing in a studio set and used a CGI-background.
That's going the extra mile.
For SF we get some establising shots of Shanghai that took one day to shoot because "Bond has to travel to exotic locations" as Mendes put it, and then they shot the rest at Pinewood. But luckily on location in Turkey, where they spent three months shooting a 10 minute segment for the PCS. Several days inside the bazaar. I have been there. A wonderful place. It''s huge. Plenty of opportunites for an action movie. But what do they give us? Exactly five (!) seconds of Bond racing after Patrice. In comparison 1/4 of the entire movie, around 35 minutes in total, 2100 seconds, takes place at and around MI6. That's 420 times as much as the part that many were raving about in pre-production: the infamous chase inside the bazaar.
But that's what you get when hiring a dramadirector who wants to keep non-dialogue scenes at a minimum, I guess. CGI or doubling. Makes no difference to me, really. Both fake, although I probably prefer doubling.
But yes... "who can tell", right? So if they come up with really good CGI that looks 100% identical to the real place, they could just shoot the whole movie using a green screen, and save a lot of money, right? Because as long as no one can tell, right?
I look forward to reading your response... tomorrow!
On first viewing, I never noticed any plot holes at all, and never realised Craig was actually never on location. There again, I never realised Connery was never on location in GF either. Does this make me ignorant and stupid about movies? Fine, if that's what conclusion you want to draw from this.
With regards the script itself, it was the first Bond film I have seen in a long time which didn't contain any corny, cringey dialogue, and the characters themselves seemed believable human beings, with natural dialogue conversation rather than `I think I got the thrust of it' type exchanges.
Since watching the movie, certain plot holes have been brought to my attention after reading them here and other forums, but I have to say, I was too busy enjoying myself in the cinema way too much, taking pleasure in Craig's characterisation, the scenes, the tension, to actually question the background plot itself. I very rarely actually understood many of the old plots in Bond movies (TLD used to confuse the hell out of me, but I still loved the film).
What I found so refreshing about SF is that the plot was actually uncomplicated and straightforward, more focused on characters motives to drive the plot along, which is what I prefer.
My favourite moments were the quieter scenes - Bond staring at a painting in the gallery and his exchange with Q, drinking a beer on the beach, Bond and M quietly sharing a moment together in Scotland, looking down at Skyfall lodge, Bond suddenly looking round for help when a gun is stuck in his hand and told to shoot the glass off Severine's head, Bond's exchange with M in the old Aston Martin. These moments stick in my mind far more than questioning what Mallory and Q were doing while Bond was driving off to Scotland with M, or how Silva managed to fly a helicopter up to Skyfall lodge without getting arrested along the way.
I read many of the Fleming novels and if I thought long and hard about them, they contain many plot holes. Does it take any enjoyment away from reading them? Hell no! I'm too busy enjoying reading what Bond is about to eat in a restaurant, or what he is about to wear after his ice cold shower, or his fear of flying, than the background plot which moves the story along.
I enjoy the view along the journey, rather than the logistics of the journey itself if that makes any sense.
Hopefully you will accept this as a final answer and move on, because I am getting the impression you are starting to bore everyone on here now with your constant probing and questioning of anyone who likes SF. Just accept fans liked it, including the script with all its glaringly obvious plot holes to you, and move on.
Not too much product placement, humor, or theatrics, just Craig doing another fine performance and I say it was an overall success, fitting of the half century celebrations
You wanna talk plot holes, illogic and sloppy writing? Let's talk QOS, and let's talk on another thread.
Did we? I didn't. After 4 years and the talk from all quarters about this amazing script, I was expecting a little more if I'm honest. The human story between Bond, M, Silva is fine. 3 great actors, one great theatre director - that bit was never going to go wrong.
However, for something 4 years in the making the plot mechanics were wafer thin in my opinion. Everything was too convenient and linear, masked by computer jargon and cyber crime nonsense. The bit where Bond tells Q to 'stop' when he sees Granborough Rd is complete bollocks. As an audience member this kind of psuedo-hacker stuff is a mystifying and cack- handed way of driving a plot from A to B. I genuinely expected better. It could have been done with much more elegance.
I understand people will say 'oh that didn't bother me' because that's the way people seem to roll here. One rule for one film, one for another entirely. The other stock response is 'Bond never made sense' - Well a lot of talk is how this is head and shoulders above the rest so please don't use the old canon as a crutch in your arguments when it's convenient people.
As a final petty aside, I love the fact Goldfinger, a film very much disliked in this place is being used a reason to justify Skyfall's lack of location shooting. Any excuse eh?
Whenever I slate DAD the things I always hate about that movie is the fact Brozza stops his heart beating then beats up all the baddies, that there are silly flying lasers, the invisible car, the parasurfing, etc.
One of the reasons I didn't like QoS as much was because of the stupid freefall scene, and the action was badly edited and too rushed. The film didn't pause for quieter moments, and started to feel more like a Brozza film again with its unrealism. Bond suddenly became superhuman again. But again, this has nothing to do with the plot itself.
It's scenes rather than plot that are more important to me.
And for your info regarding GF, its one of my favourite Bond films, so no excuses from me on that score.
So you're basically judging a film on what it avoided putting in rather than what it did? All that stuff went out with CR which only leads me to deduce you agree that the plot was sub-par. Sorry after 4 years the plot should have been balls to wall awesome.
Thank you for spending time answering my question about the script. Your reply is read and understood. As I promised I won't go into a further debate about the script with you. Like you said: We've already been there.
But this is the second time in two days that you request for me to "move on." I take this as a compliment. But sorry mate, ain't gonna happen! Guess you just have to learn to accept my presence here. And yes... I accept that most fans like it, no matter what you say. I haven't criticized anyone who love it. Not once.
Personally, I accept and look at the older movies as set in a world somewhere between reality and fantasy. Like you pointed out, this movie tries to be very realistic (Mendes said he wanted to do a "serious" Bond movie), including the way it portrays Bond. So, unlike most of the earlier Bond movies which didn't promise a "great and serious script" my implausibility tolerance factor was reduced and as a result I found it fell short being truly realistic on multiple counts. So of course I'm disappointed.
SF has plenty of good things going for it.Great acting, the cinematography, intelligent cross-editing. But the script - the most important part of a "serious" movie - ain't it.
To be honest I didn't know. I haven't seen any comments from you about why the plot is good, just that it doesn't really matter to you.
IMO, it was very well done and nobody, wo hadn't followed the filming process would guess. So - that implies, the job is well done.
@Willy, you cannot put this discussion to rest, unless you stop replying. They will stamp their feet until the next film comes out... ;)
Go back to your Daniel Craig forum. No one is stamping their feet here at all. As I've had to keep reaffirming there are lots of things I really loved about Skyfall. I'd much rather talk about the things I didn't, discuss how they could be addressed next time and there you have it. Do you think when they develop Bond 24 more time will be spent on positives or negatives of Skyfall? You say well done guys we got that right, pat yourself on the back. Now, where can we improve? Cue interesting discussions. God I pity some of you, I really do, especially those like you @Germanlady. You offer nothing other than pro-Craig rhetoric. Boring.
..and did I get this right? You are actually saying, that us discussing, what might not be perfect, will influence the producers take on the next film? Oh please...talking about illusion.
Just one tiny note, that its not the case - everybody seemed to hate M being in the last two films so much. What did they do? They made her the main Bond girl LOL