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
And at the same time any positive comments were attacked with the roundabout 'but why' line of discussion that doesn't lead anywhere. Seems a little hypocritical.
I say 'were attacked' because on the last page this thread seemed to return to normal, rational discussion amongst all. I stayed out of this thread for a long time because of the arguing. Please, @NapoleonPlural, don't start it up again when it had just finished.
On a different note, I found the use of Fleming's themes were a large part of what made SF a strong entry. I enjoyed watching it and thinking "That's Fleming, literary Bond would've done that, that's how I imagined literary Bond would've reacted to that" and things along those lines. In particular his introspection, his self doubt, his resentment (for want of a better word) towards his occupation. Not just in YOLT and TMWTGG; that goes all the way back to the first pages of GF.
There was no new review just now which is in danger of sabotaging this thread again....just your comments.
But using B.O. as some sort of "proof" about the quality of a movie? That's weak argumentation. Lots of box office-smashes are poor movies rated 6 or less on IMDB.
About me being in some sort of "anti-SF gang"? If that's how some feel about users who criticize SF, fine with me. Says more about them than me.
By the way... a couple of pages back someone asked what the next topic of discussion should be. I posted this: I guess no one felt the need to discuss one positive aspect I think most can agree with: the editing of SF. Not even the true believers.
If the arguments start up again the thread will be closed and the perpetrators will receive warnings. I'm fed up with the deliberate provocative nature of some of the comments and I don't give a stuff whether I get criticised or not.
And if I read comments from people that I have read a hundred times before that are designed to provoke disruption I will issue a warning for that as well.
If we keep it civil, then all is good.
I won't be around much this weekend but other mods will be and they will act as well.
I think this shows we have ran out of steam in this thread. Even the positive aspects no one can be bothered to discuss anymore. But anyway, continuing in the spirit Nic has suggested, I really liked the editing too. Baird did a great job, but what else would you expect from the man who gave us CR and Superman.
It was a far better job than the scissor-happy, cut-to-shreds, rapid fast-cut editing of QoS.
After how many more films? So many people seem all too happy to judge it now.
When the series ends, as surely it must one day.
Damn. We may all not be around then!
It's a shame because if it wasn't for that, I think Craig could've stood a good chance of being one of the few Bonds who hasn't done a bad film (the only Bonds that have imo are Dalton and Lazenby).
You must not have read my posts as I have been addressing the negative points. After reading their responses I think I have done well enough that Z, Getafix, RC7 have seen that many of their negative conceptions and impressions can be seen in a different light.
Personally, I reject the notion that SF was boring but that's personal taste and whether I agree or not, everyone is entitled to their feelings. I was not the least bit bored with SF compared to DAD, where I was fighting the urge through most of the film to either start screaming about the garbage I paid to see or walk out.
As far as the bullet, other than the fragments he pulled out, the more salient point is how does one explain he survived the actual fall when most people who fall from a bridge of this height would not? It does tend to force the viewer to suspend belief to a degree. But then there is often that element in Bond films, so if you can accept the likes of Jaws or people going over Niagara Falls in a barrel and surviving, then why can't Bond himself get very lucky from time to time? The rest is understandable, an actual hand is seen grabbing his before the title sequence actually starts with the imaged hand pulling him down into the depths. That much is very clear to me and should be to anyone closely studying the sequence. He was obviously given medical attention and nursed back to health.
I suppose it's possible, but money talks and there's no disputing that this franchise is robustly healthy after 50 years and still garnering new fans on a daily basis. It has already survived the improbable odds more than once. It's a tribute to the genius and contributions of Ian Fleming and the Broccoli family.
I think part of the frustration for some people, myself including, is that we have offered explanations for what people say are plot holes, yet even after that people STILL say "why has no one been able to explain XXXX".
Now to be fair, this is a very long thread and very active, so perhaps some members' explanations were lost in the deluge of posts. And of course, there were a couple of members who seemed to want to dislike the film and would ignore things that would hamper their critique of the plot.
For example, someone was complaining yet again about how Silva was able to find Bond and M at Skyfall. The film clearly addresses this as there's a scene dedicated to giving the explanation - Q explains that's he's crafting a trail of breadcumbs for Silva to follow, but he has to be careful to make sure that Silva doesn't realize it's a "trap" (hence no special forces team going to Skyfall with Bond and M, which was also further explained by M saying that she didn't want anyone else to die because of her). There's also nice mirroring in the script; she thought Ronson and Bond were expendable for the greater good, now she makes herself expendable for the greater good (drawing Silva out in the open but away from where he can harm anyone else).
I've not problem with SirHenryLee picking up on the comments and addressing them, that's rational way to go about things. If he can call us out on anything, fair play.
Some of you lot act like you're in some sort of a cult, very odd.
I agree with this completely. Some of the negative points such as with the breadcrumbs aren't negative points at all. I'd give drush the benefit of the doubt here that she may have forgotten how clearly explained this was in the movie, on the other hand though it makes me think about your points in paragraph 2 and that there are lots of people who form opinions on movies, religion, politics, etc and are unwilling to accept any opinion that differs from that view. Some people are just unreasonable like that and it is sad because there is no point in trying to debate with someone who feels their view is above that. So I try to set an example on how to have a healthy debate. I am pro-SF but that doesn't interfere with me acknowledging my issues with the film.
Agreed - some things are a matter of opinion and I have no problem with someone having one that is different than mine. For example, I loved how SF subverted many of the Bond film tropes - such as M being the "Bond girl", the villain coming to Bond's lair at the end instead of Bond going to his, etc. I was also shocked that Severine died when she did because of what a big deal they made of the actress and character prior to the film. But to me that's a good thing; how often do you watch something as formulaic as a Bond film and are actually surprised? That kept me much more involved than I normally would be in a Bond film because "anything could happen". However, I completely understand how some people would not like that or be disappointed with that.
Now, I do think that there are a couple of plot holes in the film but not as many as some people suggest. Some are clearly explained (the "breadcrumbs scene", M agreeing with Bond's plan and saying that she doesn't want to be responsible for anyone else's death) and others seem clear once you think about them (hiring Patrice for a sniper assassination to give Silva and Severine plausible deniability that they were involved with it). And of course (IMHO) the hard drive is just a McGuffin - no explanation is needed as to how Patrice found where it is or how MI6 found Patrice. In fact, I like how SF drops you right into the middle of the action - like the opening scene of Miami Vice (the theatrical cut) it builds intensity and interest right away, and talks "up" to the audience rather than down to them - such as not needing clumsy dialogue to say that MI6 recovered the drive and files after it raided Silva's island lair (seriously, does the audience really need it spelled out for them so obviously?).
Now, as I said there are some plot holes and I am looking forward to seeing SF a second time to see if I like it better or less.
It's funny, isn't it? Even a "plot hole" that is explained in a movie is still a matter of opinion - because it wasn't explained clearly enough for some people's tastes.
I remember seeing a film with a roommate many years ago and he hated it because one of the character's motivations made no sense to him. Then I explained that the very first scene explained it - not just through the character's job situation (laid off from her dream job under unfair circumstances), but future (was unable to get another job for several months, unlikely to ever work in that field again), the character's emotional state (her apartment's contents show how important that field of work was to her, it was the only thing in her life she cared about), and the character's relationship (she was off to an award ceremony celebrating her incredibly successful husband's career, which just rubbed salt in her wounds about her own). And after all of that being explained to him he said "Well, now that you explain it it all makes sense! But why couldn't they have had that in the movie!?"
So even though all that WAS in the movie, to him it wasn't because the character never said all those things in a blunt manner - even though it was all covered in dialogue, just indirectly. As I said, still a matter of opinion...
We aren't. Everything is quite calm and reasonable at the moment. We could talk about how you like DAD better than QOS if you like ;)
It's a tricky thing to do; on one hand you have people complaining about plot holes, and on the other hand, some people don't need to be force fed the plot. c'est la vie
So, Tanner then? ;-)
Well put my friend. I thought Kinnear, like the rest of the SF cast, was at his best and it was nice to see him have more than a bit part.
No one is arguing about plot holes right now. We are all in agreement at the moment....
That's just it. It's calm right now because you all agree. But if one of the people who thinks the film is littered with plot holes comes back then we might end up with the same argument again.
I think it's best we all just move on from the plot holes now. If nothing else it's getting boring.
That's for another thread but I think I have fair reasons for liking DAD (a bit, they're my bottom two) better.
Anyway @SirHenryLeeChaChing, what did you think of the score? I thought it was a bit of a let down because so many people were hyping up this incredible Oscar winning masterpiece. I think Arnold did better.
Anyway I know you're a big fan of the Bond scores so what did you think of this one?
With regards Arnold, I would much prefered him to have done the score for SF. If there was one weak link in the movie, the soundtrack was it. Other than the track when Bond is in Shanghai, the rest of it did very little for me. I also hated the OTT moments in the soundtrack - during the PTS when Bond lands on the train, when the helicopters come down to capture Silva after killing Severine.
I hope Arnold returns for the next one.
Exactly. But we did get man eating lizards this time to mix it up a bit.
DAD with pretensions is exactly how I'd put it. Beneath the gloss that Mendes has artfully applied is a clapped out old banger.