SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1545557596099

Comments

  • RC7 wrote:
    I'd have liked more exposition, I think it needed it. The calm before the storm was not long enough for me.
    One thing I really enjoy about Craig's take on Bond is that he's not a big talker. I find it both in keeping with the character Fleming created and an attitude I wish was more prevalent among people.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote:
    These are just a few if you actually take the time to think about the film instead of making a whine about it all.

    No need to get snappy. I think we're having quite an interesting discussion here.
    I thought it was great. Bond's parents, his childhood home (their graves and Andrew's gun), and Kincade's story about Bond's reaction to their deaths were heartbreaking and connected me more to Bond. And Kincade is the gamekeeper with a long history with Bond. What else do you need to know, mate? Bond's past was told in such a way that we didn't know too much and there is still a lot of mystery, but we also don't have too little to go on.

    I just thought it was all rather shoe-horned in and I don't need facts or visual nods. The graves and gun are what I mean when I say 'superfluous'. They should be the least you'd expect. I'd have liked more exposition, I think it needed it. The calm before the storm was not long enough for me.

    I am not snappy. I am surprised that people can't look at the film and see those 5 things I listed that completely outline why it was necessary for Bond to go to Skyfall. As said before, if the complaining stopped and the thinking started, we may indeed go somewhere. And in regards to the so called "superfluous" quality of the nods to Bond's past, there would be people whining day and night on this forum if they revealed too much about Bond and little was kept a mystery. I like this method, where EON reveal little by little, and hopefully over time we get more pieces to put together. But I don't want it all at once. That's like paying for a puzzle that comes largely finished with only a few pieces to place. You know too much and getting the other pieces in place is no fun and ruins the whole intended exercise. I would rather have too little told about Bond than too much. Less in often more, and when it comes to Bond's past, this is true as well.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    One, you get to see the starkness of Scotland and the land where Bond "grew up", so one could get a sense of how such a climate might have helped develop his character; two, as you note, it flips the whole traditional ending of a Bond film on it's ear, with the antagonist invading Bond's lair instead of him invading theirs; three, I think the addition of this gives the audience some wonderful conflicted moments from Craig's Bond, where he's torn between some of the good memories he holds of the place, many of the bad one's and his own sense of self loathing at the weakness (he sees) in taking that trip down memory lane.

    That last bit is VERY much in keeping with Fleming's Bond.

    I think what you note here is (aside from flipping the dynamic of the ending) is what they should have acheived but didn't. I don't get any sense of Bond's inner turmoil whatsoever, it's masked by the ridiculousness of including the gadget laden DB5 and moments such as the throw away line 'I never liked this place anyway'. What you describe would have been great if it had been executed but IMO it didn't live up to your description.
  • Posts: 11,189
    RC7 wrote:
    I'd have liked more exposition, I think it needed it. The calm before the storm was not long enough for me.
    One thing I really enjoy about Craig's take on Bond is that he's not a big talker.  I find it both in keeping with the character Fleming created and an attitude I wish was more prevalent among people. 
    I agree. I'm actually listening to an audiobook of FRWL at the moment. It's also interesting how casual Bond could be at times. Saying relitively little. In his scenes with M for instance he would just sit back and listen - occasionally asking the odd question.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 803
    Getafix wrote:
    BTW, thanks for a very good discussion you guys. Very interesting.

    It's great to have a good debate without any one saying you can't think this or that. Very refreshing. I feel like I've exorcised a few SF demons that have been bothering me here.

    I actually really wish I saw the the same qualities in SF that some of you guys see. The way you describe the film makes it sound fantastic.
    I appreciate the discussion as well. Always like a civil conversation, and I see no reason to paint anyone who didn't see things as I did as being "wrong".

    I think my love of Fleming's books did have a lot to do with my enjoyment of Skyfall, and I can't recommend them enough.

  • Posts: 11,425
    lahaine wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    BTW, thanks for a very good discussion you guys. Very interesting.

    It's great to have a good debate without any one saying you can't think this or that. Very refreshing. I feel like I've excorcised a few SF demons that have been bothering me here.

    I actually really wish I saw the the same qualities in SF that some of you guys see. The way you describe the film makes it sound fantastic.

    Reading your comments i think you're one of those Bond fans that went in hating it before you saw it. You want old style Bond and if it doesn't give it to you its a disappointment. Your own opinion but Skyfall is a classic and its sad you can't see it.

    I went in unimpressed by the trailers and what I'd heard of the story. But I'd also been disappointed by the CR and QoS trailers and enjoyed the films. I think I always go into a Bond film wanting to enjoy it. And you're right, there are certain assumptions that I have about the characters that I find hard to fundamentally change. Having said that, my feeling about SF is more that it's just not a very good film - particularly from a plot and screenplay perspective. I'm not a huge fan of CR but I can at least recognise that it's a decent film. It doesn't do everything that I expect a Bond film to do but I understand the reasons why and respect the film for what it is. I am disappointed by SF because I don't feel that it delivers on its potential or what it promises.

    And I think it's always wise to wait a while before hailing anything as a classic.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    If the complaining stopped and the thinking started, we may indeed go somewhere.

    I take offence to this comment. We were actually having a civil conversation.
  • RC7 wrote:
    I think what you note here is (aside from flipping the dynamic of the ending) is what they should have acheived but didn't. I don't get any sense of Bond's inner turmoil whatsoever, it's masked by the ridiculousness of including the gadget laden DB5 and moments such as the throw away line 'I never liked this place anyway'. What you describe would have been great if it had been executed but IMO it didn't live up to your description.
    It's a shame you didn't get that out of the end of the movie.

  • BAIN123 wrote:
    I agree. I'm actually listening to an audiobook of FRWL at the moment. It's also interesting how casual Bond could be at times. Saying relitively little. In his scenes with M for instance he would just sit back and listen - occasionally asking the odd question.

    Yes, Fleming's Bond was pretty quiet and reserved.

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 803
    Getafix wrote:
    I went in unimpressed by the trailers and what I'd heard of the story. But I'd also been disappointed by the CR and QoS trailers and enjoyed the films. I think I always go into a Bond film wanting to enjoy it. And you're right, there are certain assumptions that I have about the characters that I find hard to fundamentally change. Having said that, my feeling about SF is more that it's just not a very good film - particularly from a plot and screenplay perspective. I'm not a huge fan of CR but I can at least recognise that it's a decent film. It doesn't do everything that I expect a Bond film to do but I understand the reasons why and respect the film for what it is. I am disappointed by SF because I don't feel that it delivers on its potential or what it promises.

    And I think it's always wise to wait a while before hailing anything as a classic.
    I think it might be more accurate to say Skyfall didn't deliver on your expectations rather than its potential. Clearly, for some people, it lived up to its potential. Personally, the movie exceeded my expectations (and I went in with some pretty high expectations).

    Maybe that's just semantics, though.

  • RC7 wrote:
    If the complaining stopped and the thinking started, we may indeed go somewhere.

    I take offence to this comment. We were actually having a civil conversation.
    Agreed. I don't think those sorts of comments really add anything useful to the conversation.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote:
    If the complaining stopped and the thinking started, we may indeed go somewhere.

    I take offence to this comment. We were actually having a civil conversation.

    Depends on your definition of "civil". Regardless, I will be the bigger man and apologize. I have been riled up for a bit now (nothing anyone here has done, just personal issues), so I am sorry for bursting out like that.
  • Depends on your definition of "civil". Regardless, I will be the bigger man and apologize. I have been riled up for a bit now (nothing anyone here has done, just personal issues), so I am sorry for bursting out like that.
    That was me yesterday.

    :\">
  • Posts: 11,425
    Depends on your definition of "civil". Regardless, I will be the bigger man and apologize. I have been riled up for a bit now (nothing anyone here has done, just personal issues), so I am sorry for bursting out like that.
    That was me yesterday.

    :\">

    Ho ho, I thought I detected a change in tone!

    Welcome back the real Jim Thompson
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    Depends on your definition of "civil". Regardless, I will be the bigger man and apologize. I have been riled up for a bit now (nothing anyone here has done, just personal issues), so I am sorry for bursting out like that.
    That was me yesterday.

    :\">

    Ho ho, I thought I detected a change in tone!

    Welcome back the real Jim Thompson

    I sense an inside joke, but I will laugh along anyway. :))
  • Getafix wrote:
    Ho ho, I thought I detected a change in tone!

    Welcome back the real Jim Thompson
    It's amazing what happens when one gets over himself. ;)

  • I sense an inside joke, but I will laugh along anyway. :))
    None I'm aware of; I was just in a bad mood yesterday, and I let it get in my way.

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    bondsum wrote:
    The funny thing is when I watch Shaw in Jaws, etc, I don't think of him as Red Grant - unlike Judi Dench who always tends to remind me of her Laura Dalton with that mischievous twinkle in her eye.

    Same here. He looks and sounds like a completely different person, whereas Dench usually looks and sounds like...Judi Dench.

    Similarly when I watch PB in a film now I usually think of him as Bond.

    Suprisingly I don't think many actors/actresses can really seperate themselves from their own persona/image when acting. Shaw could do this. The only other modern actor I can think of that does this is Gary Oldman.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I sense an inside joke, but I will laugh along anyway. :))
    None I'm aware of; I was just in a bad mood yesterday, and I let it get in my way.

    It happens to the best of us, and nobody is perfect. Perfection is overrated anyway. B-)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote:
    I'd have liked more exposition, I think it needed it. The calm before the storm was not long enough for me.
    One thing I really enjoy about Craig's take on Bond is that he's not a big talker. I find it both in keeping with the character Fleming created and an attitude I wish was more prevalent among people.

    Fleming Bond was not a big talker, a lot of what is on the page is internal dialogue or third-person perspective and Craig is very good at brooding I'll give him that. I could very much imagine him in the opening of the OHMSS novel watching Tracy from afar.

    With Craig, I actually enjoy his dialogue scenes when he gets to play them out. I thought the scene with Severine was electric. I'm intrigued to see where they can go with him and as much as the Fleming Bond is definitive it would be nice to see where they can push him without necessarily adhering to the constraints of the literary incarnation.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 803
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Suprisingly I don't think many actors/actresses can really seperate themselves from their own persona/image when acting. Shaw could do this. The only other modern actor I can think of that does this is Gary Oldman.
    Oldman's a good one. Craig is another, for me. He's a really versatile actor. So is Bardem.

  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    bondsum wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    The funny thing is when I watch Shaw in Jaws, etc, I don't think of him as Red Grant - unlike Judi Dench who always tends to remind me of her Laura Dalton with that mischievous twinkle in her eye.

    Same here. He looks and sounds like a completely different person, whereas Dench usually looks and sounds like...Judi Dench.

    Suprisingly I don't think many actors/actresses can really seperate themselves from their own persona/image when acting. Shaw could do this. The only other modern actor I can think of that does this is Gary Oldman.

    Shaw definitely sounds different in Jaws. He has the oddest accent accent ever!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I will be the bigger man and apologize. I have been riled up for a bit now (nothing anyone here has done, just personal issues), so I am sorry for bursting out like that.

    No need to apologise. I've been riled myself recently and done the same.

  • RC7 wrote:
    Fleming Bond was not a big talker, a lot of what is on the page is internal dialogue or third-person perspective and Craig is very good at brooding I'll give him that. I could very much imagine him in the opening of the OHMSS novel watching Tracy from afar.

    With Craig, I actually enjoy his dialogue scenes when he gets to play them out. I thought the scene with Severine was electric. I'm intrigued to see where they can go with him and as much as the Fleming Bond is definitive it would be nice to see where they can push him without necessarily adhering to the constraints of the literary incarnation.
    Boy, that'd be a great scene! I can completely see Craig in that moment!

    And I agree; remaining true to the essence of the character Fleming created while adapting him for a big screen presentation can present actors, writers, and directors with a mighty fine line to walk. Right now, I personally think they've really hit a good balance, but tastes vary.

  • It happens to the best of us, and nobody is perfect. Perfection is overrated anyway. B-)
    Yesterday I was very much in a "I'll bet you make it 20 miles before you consider drinking that," sort of mood. :\">
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    It happens to the best of us, and nobody is perfect. Perfection is overrated anyway. B-)
    Yesterday I was very much in a "I'll bet you make it 20 miles before you consider drinking that," sort of mood. :\">

    And thankfully, now we're in an "I never left" mood. :D
  • It happens to the best of us, and nobody is perfect. Perfection is overrated anyway. B-)
    Yesterday I was very much in a "I'll bet you make it 20 miles before you consider drinking that," sort of mood. :\">

    And thankfully, now we're in an "I never left" mood. :D

    :D For me, more like "007 reporting for duty."

  • Posts: 3,327
    RC7 wrote:
    Fleming Bond was not a big talker, a lot of what is on the page is internal dialogue or third-person perspective and Craig is very good at brooding I'll give him that. I could very much imagine him in the opening of the OHMSS novel watching Tracy from afar.

    With Craig, I actually enjoy his dialogue scenes when he gets to play them out. I thought the scene with Severine was electric. I'm intrigued to see where they can go with him and as much as the Fleming Bond is definitive it would be nice to see where they can push him without necessarily adhering to the constraints of the literary incarnation.
    Boy, that'd be a great scene! I can completely see Craig in that moment!

    And I agree; remaining true to the essence of the character Fleming created while adapting him for a big screen presentation can present actors, writers, and directors with a mighty fine line to walk. Right now, I personally think they've really hit a good balance, but tastes vary.

    Agreed. There are so many unused Fleming scenes I can see Craig playing well. A brainwashed Bond collapsing in front of M after trying to shoot him, getting kicked and booted `Brooklyn Stomp' style by Widd & Kint, entering Blofeld's garden of death, having a gunfight at a motel while protecting Viv Michel, a shootout on Scaramanga's train, escaping the train from the Las Vegas western saloon, watching a bush from a French roadside suddenly open up while villains climb out.

    So much potential. Logan, I hope you are taking notes......
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    RC7 wrote:
    Fleming Bond was not a big talker, a lot of what is on the page is internal dialogue or third-person perspective and Craig is very good at brooding I'll give him that. I could very much imagine him in the opening of the OHMSS novel watching Tracy from afar.

    With Craig, I actually enjoy his dialogue scenes when he gets to play them out. I thought the scene with Severine was electric. I'm intrigued to see where they can go with him and as much as the Fleming Bond is definitive it would be nice to see where they can push him without necessarily adhering to the constraints of the literary incarnation.
    Boy, that'd be a great scene! I can completely see Craig in that moment!

    And I agree; remaining true to the essence of the character Fleming created while adapting him for a big screen presentation can present actors, writers, and directors with a mighty fine line to walk. Right now, I personally think they've really hit a good balance, but tastes vary.

    Agreed. There are so many unused Fleming scenes I can see Craig playing well. A brainwashed Bond collapsing in front of M after trying to shoot him, getting kicked and booted `Brooklyn Stomp' style by Widd & Kint, entering Blofeld's garden of death, having a gunfight at a motel while protecting Viv Michel, a shootout on Scaramanga's train, escaping the train from the Las Vegas western saloon, watching a bush from a French roadside suddenly open up while villains climb out.

    So much potential. Logan, I hope you are taking notes......

    I'm sure he is.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I think where the biggest problem lies with Skyfall and some being disappointed in the expectation when it was announced by Mendes that this would a much deeper Bond more rooted in reality.

    It was a bit of a silly thing to say because lets face it Bond is ludicrous nonsense it has always been and always should be, it's just Skyfall was touted as art house Bond or that was what some people were expecting I think.

    It's got as many plot holes as most entries and yes if you analyse it with a magnifying glass things are going to stand out, personally I needed no more background about Patrice and why he was in Shanghai that some craved, Bond films are full of moments like this it's a given.

    Suggesting it's Oscar worthy is also ludicrous as the Academy wouldn't award such a film in my or any ones lifetime, maybe a technical nod but a major award not a chance and I'd never say it's Oscar calibre, it's a damn fine entertaining entry in a 50 year history of James Bond and for me it was great Birthday present to celebrate this event and it was also the most thoroughly enjoyable blockbuster of the year for me but it was no masterpiece, no Bond film is or ever likely to be. Though the comment by cast members and crew might have led some to think they were getting Chinatown.

    I personally found the script to be of high calibre for the series and the best since OHMSS, I certainly didn't spot any of the clunkers that appeared in CR and I'd watch it over a large percentage of the other entries. Like all Bond films it has it's flaws and those how did we get to that and that doesn't make sense moments but I've seen 3 times now and all 3 times I loved it. I just don't expect Roibert Towne or David Mamet when I'm watching a Bond film although Mendes comments might have made some think they were getting that but Skyfall resides at my no. 2 spot after OHMSS so sue me I liked the film allot and I've been a fan since 1977.

    Yes YOLT does have some great elements, the sets, the score, the cinematography but if you have an actor who can't be arsed with the role then it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned. Even DAF has the Barry score but after that I'm hard pressed to see what it so great about a film with an almost unrecognisable Connery in the role compared to his heyday. Yet if those elements are what you need to convince you it is Bond your watching then maybe the Craig era will infuriate you .

    I feel some of these early entries get some fans blood pumping because they see the classic elements and at times some people will just forgive any film as long as Sean Connery is Bond in them despite him not really play anything but Sean Connery.

    I think it comes down to what you expected, I thought the nods to the past worked fine as long as you don't start trying to confuse time lines, I'm still wondering why people think all of a sudden this now aligned with the previous 20 films and not the last 2, which to me it clearly is related to it's just time has passed on since Bond said "I never left"

    As for Bond playing the indestructible lady killer in this day and age you can mourn that versions passing and hanker for it's return but that version was one dimensional with hardly any flesh on it and became a device to take that films from A to B I believe Mendes said to Mark Kermode "Bond became the glue in the films" You can't make a modern day film with kind of character the audience will not buy it, yes you can watch that earlier entries with that type of Bond and reminisce but it wouldn't work now and the audience would just not buy Bond like that. There's a reason the series has survived, it's moved on and adapted for the times and if it means being influenced by other franchises like Nolan's Bat films then so be it.

    It doesn't really matter what we say we all have our opinions on what is our ideal Bond and some of us want something that has already been and others want progression or a little of both. Box Office doesn't equate to quality and it's a silly argument to use to say a films is better but Skyfall has struck a chord I just think the next step of the series is going to be one of the most intriguing of the series to date. How Logan approaches Bond 24 with the introduction of certain familiar elements, will they deliver a more traditional entry or will Bond continue to strike on it's own, this is going to be the entry that gauges where we go from here.
Sign In or Register to comment.