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
I can't even think of a suitable response..
Yes, that's the scene I was talking about. I can't comprehend how someone could so blindly see Bond as bisexual. If you use your head that is screwed onto your neck you can appreciate the fun one up-manship between Bond and Silva, and understand that it meant nothing else.
Mendes and co. took a risk, daring to put such mature content into the film that unworthy prepubescent minds simply aren't readily able to comprehend and regard it with their putrid noggins as some sexual connotation.
Gee...
It's just, if I heard someone say that IRL, I'd think they were referring to something real. I know the context is different, but it still had that same implication for me!
I mean, nothing WRONG with it (if he was), it's just out of character and feels kind of... like a cheap attempt to get attention and support. Like much of Skyfall feels to me!
In many ways, Skyfall is a film for those ready to deal with hard subject matter, and it requires maturity, off limits for kiddies.
I guess everyone reacts to different things differently and looks for different things in a film :)
Why is his answer out of character, may I ask? How would you prefer he would have answered (I suggest you watch Calvin's SF review, you can find it here). In addition, it's not Bond's first time tied to a chair being "sexually tortured" so he was in fact being honest :-w
Actually we haven't seen the DB5 in every film since GE.
After 1995 it was in TND, CR and (now) SF.
I'm a little iffy about gimicks but when that scene in SF came on I almost wet myself when I first saw it. Loved it! ;)
Its THE Bond moment. Just beautiful and even funny. A scene like this can exist just for the sake of being there.
There is so much talk about being a Bond fan. I can't see, how you can watch this and NOT smile and I am not even a die hard Bond fan, as we know. When the music kicks in... just a wonderful scene.
Correct!
If we're going to dissect every single sentence ever spoken by Bond and read thick layers of subtext in it, wow, we can collectively turn in over 2000 term papers. Silva was slightly thrown off guard - no more, no less. There's nothing beyond this one particular sentence that even hints at something remotely homoerotic. Not even in some of the more dramatic moments later in the movie does the point come back. One line, then nothing. Yet some here spend page after page trying to spot subversive content, only to then get all angry over it! I don't read gay Bond into it and so neither do I need to lose sleep over it. If Bond ever French kisses another man or performs sexual deeds with another man, then we can talk. But this, this one line uttered in a moment of suppressed despair, isn't by far good enough to make me even blink an eye.
Grow up, people. ;-)
^THIS.
I think that comments like this are what have made SF so divisive on this board. Someone recently claimed that there are people here who are so slavishly devoted to SF that they think it's the "greatest film ever made" and that any questions about it are tantamount to treason. But I think that a more realistic reading is that there are (a small number of) posters here who go looking for things to criticise and - more importantly - after that criticism has been answered and explained dozens of times over and over for the last three months and over several threads they STILL repeat the same things over and over again. To me there are three possible explanations:
1) They rarely visit here and have missed all the posts explaining the film (i.e. someone recently complained - AGAIN! - that Bond went to SF without loads of weapons, although it's clearly explained he was expecting the Gun Room to be filled with weaponry there).
2) They spent a large part of the film surfing the internet on their phone, texting, talking to friends, or leaving the theatre to go to the washroom several times
3) They're looking for things to criticise, either because of issues with the film/actors/producers/style or issues of their own (unresolved issues with sexuality or with women).
Something I learned a long time ago is that there are certain people who will always tell you that the sky is green, and no matter how much you "prove" to them that it's blue they'll refuse to agree. Explain it once and move on. If they make you frustrated or angry just letting them wallow in their ignorance for everyone to see is punishment enough.
I think there are people who do this, however, I think it's very presumptuous to assume that every issue anyone has with the film is answerable, definitively. The problem from my point of view is that people who are just looking for flaws, make it difficult for the rest of us, who have genuine criticisms.
Again that talk of `out of character'. I don't really think you are in a position to talk of knowing Bond's character in-depth yet, do you?
Besides, surely being witty, clever, intelligent, cool and bad-ass is very much IN character for Bond? ;)
lol!! Agreed :)
I mean... when I rewatched the first half a few nights ago (still waiting for my sis to be free and I'll re-watch the second again), I didn't HATE it... I just find it a bit of a downer compared to CR and QoS, and not particularly intelligent either. Not awful, just don't find that it compares greatly to the other DC Bonds.
The second half is where it really slipped for me though, so I'm very curious to see it again!
And I know I haven't seen many of the films, etc. I guess I am viewing this primarily compared to all of the 90s and 00s Bond films, and fragments I'm aware of before then such as Goldfinger. Not perfect I know but surely 20 years worth of awareness of the series gives me some grounds to comment!
If someone loved TSWLM in 77 and it was the first Bond they saw, would they not be allowed to love it until they'd seen all the others first?
As for Silva and the gay scene, it's ambivalent and not too bad. Bur for me it's just too convenient. Bond makes his crack (!) and Silva is all perturbed: "Ooo Mister Bond!" and backs away. This after speding all that time coming on to him, he turns shrinking violet! No reason why Silva wouldn't follow up Bond's comment about his first time with, "Well, it's time for seconds wouldn't you say?" and snog him full on the lips.
Yeah I adored GE, CR and QoS and was indifferent to TND and DAD... SF is the first Bond I've ever considerably disliked.
You were indifferent to DAD and you considerably disliked SF, yet you continue talking about how Bond should "feel" and what is "in character"... not going to comment any more.
And as for Bond thinking the gun room would still be operating... why? It seems he hasn't been back for decades! Kircade greets him like a long lost friend, not someone he saw a few months back. Or did he also think Bond had died?
Bond couldn't phone ahead to check or anything, could he. It's like the scene from Steptoe and Son where poor Harold returns from the loony bin and finds his old man has rented out his room in his absence.
And why would a stockade of old arms from the, what, 1970s or previous, used for culling deer, be any match for the kind of sophisticated modern weaponry Silva would no doubt be bringing to the table, chopper or not?
I'd hardly call Silva's moves on Bond sexual torture...semantics aside, I do find that scene with Silva rather odd. It comes out of nowhere; it's quite random. What does it do for the plot? If serves no purpose, and Silva's sexuality is never referenced again. I guess I just don't understand why that was even in the script, other than to have an eye-raising, or 'controversial' moment.
Sounds like Mr Faulks saw the same film that I did and it wasn't very good.
He said there was "bad acting". From who?
Having said all this I do agree the scene sort of comes from nowhere and like a lot of the rest of the film it just feels quite dislocated from what comes before and after. The reason is that P+W's plot is pretty poor and has all their trademark weaknesses. Logan manages to give individual scenes some class but overall the film does not hold together.
So, how is DAD supreme to Skyfall for you, because Bond in DAD is almost as un-Bond as you can get outside of some Moore films, to the point where Bond can't even remember the difference in weight between a loaded and unloaded gun.