SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1424345474899

Comments

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    RC7 wrote:
    And still no actual response to @Zekidk.
    I don't know if I find it funny or sad.

    Sandy wrote that the plot should make sense.

    I pointed out various reasons and key plot events that I found didn't make sense.

    No one has has yet argued why these should make sense.
    Instead, we got responses like this:
    Germanlady wrote:
    he just needs someone patting his back, telling him he is right. he just is ever satisfied(...) He tries to FORCE everybody
    Lot of people don't like to think their worldview is not a universal truth. :)
    And then there's NicNac who at least tried, but then wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    Why do we beat ourselves up over such matters? SF works as a slice of entertainment for the vast majority of fans. It worked for the vast majority of critics
    Guess if a movie is successful at the box office and accepted as very good by the majority, criticizing it, and wanting to discuss it's flaws after being invited by a fellow user to do so, is a big no-no!
    EDIT:
    Germanlady wrote:
    you guys try to force everybody into your structure of how to perceive this film
    Wrong again. You really aren't a very good listener, are you?
    Where exactly do you see me "forcing" anyone? I asked some questions about the plot, why it should make sense, because someone else argued that it does. So please answer this instead of going on and on and on with your repetitive attacks on anyone who dares criticize SF.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 774
    Zekidk wrote:
    Guess if a movie is successful at the box office and accepted as very good by the majority, criticizing it, and wanting to discuss it's flaws after being invited by a fellow user to do so, is a big no-no!

    I think it's more that the critics have repeated the same points over and over, won't accept any other views, and people are bored of it.

    I mean no offence; as I've said to you before you're one of the few critics who is reasonable and thoughtful in their criticisms.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 6,601
    Zek, I went back till page 34 and find your posts critisizing the film and almost certain, it goes back way more then this. Don't you think 11 pages + is more then enough space?

    People are tired of it - there is nowhere to go anymore with this.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    Volante wrote:
    I think it's more that the critics have repeated the same points over and over, won't accept any other views, and people are bored of it.
    I honestly don't care. How difficult is it to skip my comments if you find me boring?
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wanted this discussion about the plot with me. I took the challenge and now there are some whining and complaining that I did.
    And honestly - if I don't "accept any other views" why on earth am I asking questions about others views? Questions that are still left unanswered.

    All I wanted was for someone to explain why the scenes I mentioned should make sense. Fine with me if some feel an urge to attack me for this instead. Says more about them, than me.
  • Posts: 774
    Zekidk wrote:
    Volante wrote:
    I think it's more that the critics have repeated the same points over and over, won't accept any other views, and people are bored of it.

    And honestly - if I don't "accept any other views" why on earth am I asking questions about others views? Questions that are still left unanswered.

    I'll quote myself here since you apparently didn't read the last part of what I said before.
    Volante wrote:
    I mean no offence; as I've said to you before you're one of the few critics who is reasonable and thoughtful in their criticisms.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    @Volante. I wasn't referring to you. I actually appreciate your comments. It's always good to find fellow users who can look at things objectively, unlike some others.

    Sandy wrote that "we know what is happening, why is happening."

    I'll guess I'll have to wait for his response, since the "why" is still left unanswered.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    The fact is, @Zekidk raises a few legitimate points and although I might not always agree with how he sometimes presents them but I do think it's unfair to be somewhat dismissive to the guy, especially if he's trying to make an effort to be reasonable. I'm not taking sides or anything but both camps offer a degrees of questions and answers that should make for a healthier discussion.
    That being said, @Zekidk, some of the points and questions you raise don't have good enough answers simply because the script and the movie itself are flawed. In some cases there is no answer but many people dont realise it ir simply dont care and are happy to enjoy the movie as a whole. There are indeed things that make very little sense if at all but that doesn't mean the film or the script is wholly terrible. Judging by your posts, I think the real issue you have isn't so much with the film or the script itself but with people's notions of regarding the script to be a source of superior story telling, married with the notion that these movies are being regarded as "serious-serious".

    I love SF, for me it's a top 5 Bond film but there are so many things I would change. That being said, with the Craig era taking a more serious approach to the Bond mythology I also still accept and anticipate moments of absurdity and things that make little to no sense, regardless of how many times the producers may try to convince us that so and so Bond film is going to have similar intelligence and meticulous scripting to that of Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy (hyperbole).
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    I have removed some comments, and would appreciate it if we kept the right side of the 'line' please when debating.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    @doubleoego
    Thank you for your response.
    Like I said elsewhere I am not trying to bash or criticize anyone who sees what I don't. I fully respect that so many people love it. But when someone says that we know why things are happening and how in SF, I have a genuine interest in knowing why the things that I didn't feel made sense do make sense to others. And these others don't include people like you who, like me, think that there are "things that make very little sense."

    The only difference between me and you is, that I am looking for an answer from those who do think the plot made sense. Maybe I just missed something?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    No you didn't. I think though that everyone is replying that if things in SF don't make sense it's because we are expected to suspend our disbelief as we have done with every other Bond film.

    If we were that desperate to pull a film apart because it didn't follow logic and reason, well, we wouldn't be Bond fans in the first place would we?

  • Zekidk wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Guess if a movie is successful at the box office and accepted as very good by the majority, criticizing it, and wanting to discuss what one perceives as its flaws after being invited by a fellow user to do so, is a big no-no!
    Fixed. ;)
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2012 Posts: 10,512
    NicNac wrote:
    No you didn't. I think though that everyone is replying that if things in SF don't make sense it's because we are expected to suspend our disbelief as we have done with every other Bond film.

    As Zekidk has stated already and I personally agree with - it seemed liked they were moving the goalposts with SF. In the past we've heard about what great set-pieces we were to expect, with this the line they were putting out was how incredible the script was. I mean hell they even had Adele explain that it was ultimately the script that convinced her to participate. When you plant these seeds you have to follow through. You can't say 'We've got this incredible script where we're really humanising Bond but please suspend your disbelief on occasion when we couldn't really be arsed to bring the internal logic up to the levels of the characterisation'.

    People say it doesn't matter, it's entertaining. Well yes, I'd agree, it is. But it does not deliver everything it promised.

    Aside from the 'human' story the mechanics of the plot are intermittently weak and at times very linear. I don't see how this is not a relevant talking point. The reason it's a point of discussion is because a few of us here believe that had they genuinely worked on this aspect of the script the film would be all the better for it. Given that the shootout at Skyfall came about very late in the development process I wonder how many building blocks had to be shifted to accommodate it? Removing scenes wholesale can have repercussions in places where they are not easy to amend. Perhaps this effected the structure but who knows?

    Anyhow It's not about trading in action or sacrificing character, it's about having a level of internal logic that makes you excited and surprises you when a situations occurs. There were enjoyable moments throughout the film but were there any surprising moments? I don't limit this to plot but character also. Did any of them do anything that made you say 'wow, I didn't see that coming?'.

    When 'Q' delivers the line 'he's hacked us' I just thought, 'Really? I'm enjoying this but honestly, not only is this about as surprising as Obama's re-election, it's clunky and as with other moments throughout the film you can see it coming a mile off. I just wish that these other elements had been stronger because while it was enjoyable it had the potential to have been a modern Bond masterpiece.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Many think it is a modern Bond masterpiece, but hey ho.

    Yes, I see your points @RC7, and appreciate them. But where you mention the 'wow' factor, well there will never be any of those ever again, because the internet is too powerful and rumours abound long before we see a movie like SF. Very few were surprised by M's death simply because we were all half expecting it.

    But, I do appreciate your thoughts and comments. I didn't take on board too much what Mendes and the Prods were promising, I simply hoped for a great Bond movie that entertained me. I felt I got that. I don't analyse the plot or the logic (maybe I should, but I don't). For me the 'wow' factor was the look of the film, and the performances. Those pleased me no end.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    NicNac wrote:
    I think though that everyone is replying that if things in SF don't make sense it's because we are expected to suspend our disbelief as we have done with every other Bond film.

    If we were that desperate to pull a film apart because it didn't follow logic and reason, well, we wouldn't be Bond fans in the first place would we?
    Like I said ealier, I have never been "desperate" to pull a Bond-film apart because of (missing) logic and reason, until Mendes and MGW gave me a reason to, when declaring that SF would have a more realistic, serious and down-to-earth script.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Zekidk wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    I think though that everyone is replying that if things in SF don't make sense it's because we are expected to suspend our disbelief as we have done with every other Bond film.

    If we were that desperate to pull a film apart because it didn't follow logic and reason, well, we wouldn't be Bond fans in the first place would we?
    Like I said ealier, I have never been "desperate" to pull a Bond-film apart because of (missing) logic and reason, until Mendes and MGW gave me a reason to, when declaring that SF would have a more realistic, serious and down-to-earth script.

    Oh come on, you know what directors and producers are like. They say one thing and do another. Best thing is don't take any notice. ;-)

    Crikey, if they had delivered what they said we could've ended up wallowing in the grim intensity and nastiness of another LTK. If that had happened I'd have slit my wrists. :-)
  • Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    No you didn't. I think though that everyone is replying that if things in SF don't make sense it's because we are expected to suspend our disbelief as we have done with every other Bond film.

    As Zekidk has stated already and I personally agree with - it seemed liked they were moving the goalposts with SF. In the past we've heard about what great set-pieces we were to expect, with this the line they were putting out was how incredible the script was. I mean hell they even had Adele explain that it was ultimately the script that convinced her to participate. When you plant these seeds you have to follow through. You can't say 'We've got this incredible script where we're really humanising Bond but please suspend your disbelief on occasion when we couldn't really be arsed to bring the internal logic up to the levels of the characterisation'.

    People say it doesn't matter, it's entertaining. Well yes, I'd agree, it is. But it does not deliver everything it promised.

    Aside from the 'human' story the mechanics of the plot are intermittently weak and at times very linear. I don't see how this is not a relevant talking point. The reason it's a point of discussion is because a few of us here believe that had they genuinely worked on this aspect of the script the film would be all the better for it. Given that the shootout at Skyfall came about very late in the development process I wonder how many building blocks had to be shifted to accommodate it? Removing scenes wholesale can have repercussions in places where they are not easy to amend. Perhaps this effected the structure but who knows?

    Anyhow It's not about trading in action or sacrificing character, it's about having a level of internal logic that makes you excited and surprises you when a situations occurs. There were enjoyable moments throughout the film but were there any surprising moments? I don't limit this to plot but character also. Did any of them do anything that made you say 'wow, I didn't see that coming?'.

    When 'Q' delivers the line 'he's hacked us' I just thought, 'Really? I'm enjoying this but honestly, not only is this about as surprising as Obama's re-election, it's clunky and as with other moments throughout the film you can see it coming a mile off. I just wish that these other elements had been stronger because while it was enjoyable it had the potential to have been a modern Bond masterpiece.

    Apart from your comment about it being entertaining, I agree 100%. Many of the ingredients were very promising but I see it as a huge missed opportunity let down by a ropey plot and script. I blame Purvis and Wade. However, as ever, I remain optimistic about the next one, especially as P+W have finally been kicked into touch.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    NicNac wrote:
    Oh come on, you know what directors and producers are like. They say one thing and do another.
    Have to agree with you. I was also kind of expecting more than one and a half action setpiece after Mendes declared that "every Bond movie should have three to four action set pieces." ;-)

    Hopefully I will join you others and not be so naive in Bond 24 preproduction as to trust anything coming from EON.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    NicNac wrote:
    Many think it is a modern Bond masterpiece, but hey ho.

    Yes, I see your points @RC7, and appreciate them. But where you mention the 'wow' factor, well there will never be any of those ever again, because the internet is too powerful and rumours abound long before we see a movie like SF. Very few were surprised by M's death simply because we were all half expecting it.

    I just think that to award the accolade Masterpiece to a film is to consider every aspect and process involved as being of the highest level possible. SF falls short in some but I can understand that some people feel otherwise. Maybe in a year when the hype has subsided or when Bond 24 hits that will be their new favourite.

    I totally get your point about the internet, I was actually going to mention it. I was thinking more along the lines of specific instances rather than big plot points such as M's death. As an example, something as simple as Bond accidently killing an unarmed civillian or hitting the greek girl in his deluded, alcoholic and run down state. Something driven by the character. One thing I really wanted to happen was 'M' to pull the trigger, now that would have been some ending. I think they should push the envelope while they can.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Zekidk wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    Oh come on, you know what directors and producers are like. They say one thing and do another.
    Have to agree with you. I was also kind of expecting more than one and a half action setpiece after Mendes declared that "every Bond movie should have three to four action set pieces.";-)

    Hopefully I will join you others and not be so naive in Bond 24 preproduction as to trust anything coming from EON.

    It depends what you mean by 'action'. I think SF had about as much action as a Bond movie requires, but just not of a very high quality. If you count the PTS, Shanghai fight, London chase and Skyfall lodge explosion-athon, then you've got 4 action set-pieces. Quantity however, does not always equal quality. The SF action is generic, barely moves the plot forward and could have come from any tired straight to DVD flick. Nothing to compare to the opening chase in CR or opera chase in QoS.
  • Posts: 6,601
    VERY obviously, the actors involved, like Bardem, Fiennes, Wishaw etc etc felt very pleased with what they had to work with, but, of course, those guys know nothing about a good script. Every single one of them is on record as saying, that the script lured them finally into doing it. So - obviously they saw, what has actually happened now - that they had a highly entertaining film on their hands, that not only will please the Bond fans (well many of them, as can be seen here in the polls) and also bring in new fans, which I often have read happened as well.

    IMO - mission accomplished, right? Could it have been better? Sure - every film can be in hintsight.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Getafix wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    Oh come on, you know what directors and producers are like. They say one thing and do another.
    Have to agree with you. I was also kind of expecting more than one and a half action setpiece after Mendes declared that "every Bond movie should have three to four action set pieces.";-)

    Hopefully I will join you others and not be so naive in Bond 24 preproduction as to trust anything coming from EON.

    It depends what you mean by 'action'. I think SF had about as much action as a Bond movie requires, but just not of a very high quality. If you count the PTS, Shanghai fight, London chase and Skyfall lodge explosion-athon, then you've got 4 action set-pieces. Quantity however, does not always equal quality. The SF action is generic, barely moves the plot forward and could have come from any tired straight to DVD flick. Nothing to compare to the opening chase in CR or opera chase in QoS.

    I thought the action was excellent. My wife called the film 'action packed' because the film was pacey so it seemed to her that there was more than there actually was. And I fully understood what she meant. But then she's a bit like me..not very bright. I love her though.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote:
    VERY obviously, the actors involved, like Bardem, Fiennes, Wishaw etc etc felt very pleased with what they had to work with, but, of course, those guys know nothing about a good script. Every single one of them is on record as saying, that the script lured them finally into doing it. So - obviously they saw, what has actually happened now - that they had a highly entertaining film on their hands, that not only will please the Bond fans (well many of them, as can be seen here in the polls) and also bring in new fans, which I often have read happened as well.

    IMO - mission accomplished, right? Could it have been better? Sure - every film can be in hintsight.

    You sure you don't work for EON's PR? ;)

    It's presumptuous to insinuate no one on here has an understanding of the process of scripting. That's all I'll say.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Au contraire, apparantly some here feel, they know more then the actors in this film, what works and what not. I dunno, but somehow the success and the good reviews from manxy top critics, who love to tear films apart, speak volumes, so I tend to think, they were right.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote:
    Au contraire, apparantly some here feel, they know more then the actors in this film, what works and what not. I dunno, but somehow the success and the good reviews from manxy top critics, who love to tear films apart, speak volumes, so I tend to think, they were right.

    Seriously you're arguments are what I'd expect of a 14 year old. I don't say this in jest, it's plainly obvious for all to see.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 6,601
    Then I am sure, you can exactly tell us, what part of above said is untrue.
    They all know nothing, except you and some others. Oh boy..seriously?
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    Getafix wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    Oh come on, you know what directors and producers are like. They say one thing and do another.
    Have to agree with you. I was also kind of expecting more than one and a half action setpiece after Mendes declared that "every Bond movie should have three to four action set pieces.";-)

    Hopefully I will join you others and not be so naive in Bond 24 preproduction as to trust anything coming from EON.

    It depends what you mean by 'action'. I think SF had about as much action as a Bond movie requires, but just not of a very high quality. If you count the PTS, Shanghai fight, London chase and Skyfall lodge explosion-athon, then you've got 4 action set-pieces. .
    We've already been through this, but there's a difference between an action set piece and an action scene. A motorcycle chase that ends with two men fighting on top of a moving train is an action set piece. Two men fighting in some room for 30 seconds isn't. The scale and length defines the difference, I would say. So yes, SF has two big action setpieces. Right at the beginning an at the end.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2012 Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote:
    Then I am sure, you can exactly tell us, what part of above said is untrue.
    They all know nothing, except you and some others. Oh boy..seriously?

    You know what I can't really be bothered to answer as you're incapable of understanding anything or seeing anything other than in black or white. Are you really saying that if an actor says they are working with a good script it is absolute Gospel truth? Everyone can have an opinion, minus yourself obviously.

    Stop using Box Office stats, or reviews as your safety net and tell us what you think. This thread is full of decent discussion then you pop up trying to disprove people with your B.O. stats and your reviews and god knows what from twitter. We're discussing, no one is wrong, no one is right. That's the beauty of it. Stop playing Big Brother.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    NicNac wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    Oh come on, you know what directors and producers are like. They say one thing and do another.
    Have to agree with you. I was also kind of expecting more than one and a half action setpiece after Mendes declared that "every Bond movie should have three to four action set pieces.";-)

    Hopefully I will join you others and not be so naive in Bond 24 preproduction as to trust anything coming from EON.

    It depends what you mean by 'action'. I think SF had about as much action as a Bond movie requires, but just not of a very high quality. If you count the PTS, Shanghai fight, London chase and Skyfall lodge explosion-athon, then you've got 4 action set-pieces. Quantity however, does not always equal quality. The SF action is generic, barely moves the plot forward and could have come from any tired straight to DVD flick. Nothing to compare to the opening chase in CR or opera chase in QoS.

    I thought the action was excellent. My wife called the film 'action packed' because the film was pacey so it seemed to her that there was more than there actually was. And I fully understood what she meant. But then she's a bit like me..not very bright. I love her though.

    Funny, my wife said it was the worst Bond film since the Brosnan era. And she's bloody clever.
    Zekidk wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    Oh come on, you know what directors and producers are like. They say one thing and do another.
    Have to agree with you. I was also kind of expecting more than one and a half action setpiece after Mendes declared that "every Bond movie should have three to four action set pieces.";-)

    Hopefully I will join you others and not be so naive in Bond 24 preproduction as to trust anything coming from EON.

    It depends what you mean by 'action'. I think SF had about as much action as a Bond movie requires, but just not of a very high quality. If you count the PTS, Shanghai fight, London chase and Skyfall lodge explosion-athon, then you've got 4 action set-pieces. .
    We've already been through this, but there's a difference between an action set piece and an action scene. A motorcycle chase that ends with two men fighting on top of a moving train is an action set piece. Two men fighting in some room for 30 seconds isn't. The scale and length defines the difference, I would say. So yes, SF has two big action setpieces. Right at the beginning an at the end.

    In that case I probably disagree with you. I don't want 4 massive action scenes - this just overwhelms the film. Two is definitely enough, with a few short sharp bursts of action/fisticuffs where the plot requires it. CR is an obvious case of one (or two) too many action scenes. For me that was the tedious airport sequence, but for others it was the Venice shoot out.

    But Bond action should also be a bit special - involve some previously unseen stunt or make us gasp at Bond's ingenuity/Chutzpah. Or just be really stylish. Nothing in SF delivered that IMO. It's almost like no one could be bothered to inject any fun or intelligence into those scenes. Bond chases man on foot, in car, on bike, on train... wow, never seen that before. And all shot with a plodding sense of inevitability. I know it's fashionable around here to slate Bourne and say what a mess QoS was, but seriously, in this day and age to produce 'action' set-pieces with this level of unoriginality and dullness takes real effort.

    I found the Skyfall shoot out equally dull. I'm amazed that Mendes didn't come up with anything in the whole film to distinguish the action sequences from a zillion other films we've seen before. I really thought he'd see it as himself having a point to prove, but for me he confirmed my doubts - that he was never really the right man for the job.
  • Posts: 3,274
    Getafix wrote:
    In that case I probably disagree with you. I don't want 4 massive action scenes - this just overwhelms the film. Two is definitely enough, with a few short sharp bursts of action/fisticuffs where the plot requires it.
    Each to their own. I don't mind if a Bond movies only have one or two major action set pieces, but then it has to have a story/plot that really draws me in. SF didn't.

    And I see your point. That one minute action scene in DAF where Bond is fighting Franks in the elevator is just way more "gasping" than the action set piece with the moon buggy, IMO.
  • Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    Then I am sure, you can exactly tell us, what part of above said is untrue.
    They all know nothing, except you and some others. Oh boy..seriously?

    You know what I can't really be bothered to answer as you're incapable of understanding anything or seeing anything other than in black or white. Are you really saying that if an actor says they are working with a good script it is absolute Gospel truth? Everyone can have an opinion, minus yourself obviously.

    Stop using Box Office stats, or reviews as your safety net and tell us what you think. This thread is full of decent discussion then you pop up trying to disprove people with your B.O. stats and your reviews and god knows what from twitter. We're discussing, no one is wrong, no one is right. That's the beauty of it. Stop playing Big Brother.

    @RC7, you're on a hiding to nothing, I'm afraid. I suggest you try memorising the phone book. You'll find it more enjoyable and considerably less time consuming than taking on the resident thought police.
Sign In or Register to comment.