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 own all the original Fleming 50's editions, and the 60's Pan editions, own plenty of merchandise and attended Cubby's memorial in Leicester Square
.[/quote]
I say:
Obviously you are a Fan,albeit not a very qualified one. But keep on trying,at least it keeps you off the streets.
I know quite a few people who feel this way, so I sympathise with @Getafix. A lot of my very good friends are astonished that SF has been elevated to the level it has, these are friends who work in the industry, so I give their opinions some credence. One of them worked on the film.
It's a really strange phenomenon, some people believe it's a masterpeice, yet others are flabbergasted that no one realises it's quite average. Only time will tell which it is, I guess. In fact, one friend suggested EON had done a Blofeld in OHMSS and brainwashed the public. Either way, lets keep this civil.
Again, sales, BO etc, doesn't really matter. We've talked about this before. The Avengers and Transformers are simultaneously big at the BO and on DVD/BR. Just because something sells, doesn't mean it's good, and if 5 million people watch something, does it mean they all like it? I'm not suggesting everyone hated SF before your snap at me, far from it, but try and argue the case in the context of cinema rather than commercial success. If anything I think it weakens your argument.
I really like Skyfall but I would NOT call it a masterpiece and I think that people who do are deluding themselves a little. There ARE times in the film when we are maybe expected to believe a little too much (the more I think about it the more I wonder whether watching Bond downing a few pills AFTER he's been shot with a high powered rifle and survived the subsequent fall is that convincing. I like those scenes on their own but in the context of what we just saw a few minutes earlier I'm not sure it entirely works. We saw him in a worse state after the stairway fight in CR and the aftermath of the ball-bashing incident when he is in HOSPITAL).
This is where the flaws in the story are apparent. However I think there are many scenes in the film that almost rival classic Bond (between M and Bond in the underground Mi6, first scene between M and Malorie, Bond's character de-constructing of Servine, Bond following Patrice in Shanghai, Bond talking to M as they overlook the Scottish moores, M's Tennyson speech, Silva's introduction and the "target practice" on Servine. These are all little gems for me and help brush over the cracks in the story.
The film has more "playfulness" than QoS too which I really liked (the word association game for instance is genuinely funny as are Craig's comments about the bulldog and the first meeting with Bond and Q).
Interested to hear you know someone who worked on the film @RC. What did he actually say of the final product?
Also a few of my friends feel the same (i.e. that its average).
Add to that the final moments of an otherwise great PTS which feel silly and dated in 2013 (Connery pulled off the "make that..." line better in FRWL too) Not to mention the poor Bond/Moneypenny scenes.
Thats why I prefer the PTS for CR overall. Its tough, hard-hitting and the touch of Bondian humour is just right without feeling silly.
What do you mean "AFTER"? Was he supposed be taking painkillers beforehand? Surely it makes more sense to take them afterwards? Also, that was 3 months later, so comparing it to his state immediately after that CR fight seems a bit strange. Did we really need to see him in hospital in SF, too? Or otherwise getting medical help? I don't see how it's a flaw that the film is merely showing he has scars and is still in pain 3 months after being injured.
I'm probably just looking into it a bit too much in fairness but there is still the question of "how did Bond survive that fall?" For someone who managed to live through that he seemed in remarkably good health. They could have maybe had a line like "you're lucky to be alive, a fall like that should have killed you" or something - but then again I can forgive it.
It's not supposed to be entirely realistic, you know. :P I'm sure the chances of surviving that fall would be small, but at least he ended up in water, not on concrete. The fall doesn't bother me. If it bothers you, I guess I can't help.
That line would have been a bit silly, actually, and would have seemed repetitive considering the comment about him being lucky not getting a direct shot from Patrice's gun.
More importantly, what happened with Bond's gloves in Shanghai? =)) Sometimes, I just kill myself.
It doesn't bother me much to be honest but it is a bit OTT (even for a Bond movie). Didn't Max Zorin fall about the same distance in AVTAK? :p
I only bring it up because my mum was watching it yesterday and her response was "How did he survive that fall?" They didn't explain it"
I suppose they didn't. That made me think a bit. Then again Bond did survive falling in QoS when he should have been badly injured?
I don't see as dictatorial, really not, because what is he saying or you? BO and being a hit doesn't count? How realistic is that and how is that an argument? It isn't one as far as I am concerned. You have the right to dislike the film, nobody takes that away from you guys and there is no need to defend that right. I just don't see your argument(see above) as being one in the first place. Just like you cannot see the validity of what i say. Nothing we can do about that. No side will change their mind.
I didn't put any argument forward. I suggested it was fine for @Getafix to not like SF and all the stats in the world won't change his mind. A point of view might open his eyes, but saying everyone likes it is quite frankly useless. Your POV is dictatorial at times. The 'Everyone likes it, so you are wrong' mentality. Anyway, back on topic before this drags ooooooonnnnnn.
Avatar is a good example. Technically brillaint yet somewhat shallow. However millions have seen it.
Yes, we have been there before - many times...
BTW Bain - I thought Avatar was a GREAT film. So shoot me...and what makes a film a good film in your view? Comparing Transformers and Lincoln hardly works here. I have so often tried to explain my point in saying, that if a film succeeds in grabbing the audiences with what he is, he succeeded. Transformers doesn't want to be a deep thoughtful film like Lincoln - does that make the film a bad one already? Obviously people liked what was set on screen and they took it for what it wanted to be - popcorn entertainment. many films, who want to be the same - fail. So yes, I say, for what it wants to be, its a good film. And saying Avatar is shallow - I thought it has a beautiful and very true spiritual message for example. It was far from shallow - in MYmind and that of many others.
I don't see whats so special about the CR PTS. The b/w aspect comes off as gimmicky, not to mention that god awful excuse for a 'gun barrel'. By comparison TLD as a thrilling PTS, a hefty dose of tension, capped of a bit of charm at the end.
I agree completely. What is a bit different is that what has been pulling the numbers up for SF is great word of mouth, from both critics and audiences.
The problem here and what has been derailing this thread is that some (very few) people who hated SF seem to view people who loved it as dumb. That creates a toxic environment which is making a lot of people leave this thread for good.
The TLD PTS is quite possibly the best IMO. I watched it again the other day, back to back with SF and it's hard to think of a better one in the series. It has a bit of everything.
I like the PTS for TLD very much, I just prefer the Royale one. It packs more of a punch...and I thought the gunbarrel was inspired, far better than the one that followed.
...and Dalton doesn't sell the charm for me at the end. As I said Connery did a similar line better in FRWL.
As for SF I think that has a great PTS
Is there ever anything else then word of mouth that makes or breaks a movie? I have seen prods promote the hell out of a film and yet it flopped...
sorry, but if a film - lets stick with transformers, that people view as inferior - succeeds, its nothing but word of mouth.
..and yes, totally agree on the rest of your statement.
In fairness though, a charm machine wasn't what Dalton was aiming for. It was reigned in for his Bond, but what slivers of charm there are, Dalton handles it perfectly fine. This might be just be me, but i'd rather a Bond with a restrained charm than one whom doesn't turn it of, and quickly becomes grating.
What I mean about word of mouth is not promotion but the opinion of friends, peers, whatever you want to call it. That can, in the long term, make of break the result of a film. That is, for example, why some highly promoted "blockbusters" peak in the first days or weeks and then fall flat, because word starts spreading that it's not that good. More important than the BO numbers is their evolution with time, a film with a bad word of mouth will fall after the novelty effect has passed, while those with good word of mouth will keep a steady influx of viewers long after the release or will start slowly and then catch up.
But that scene was meant to be charming. I felt Dalton looked a little uncomfortable there (I preferred his "whoever she was I must have scared The Living Daylights" line).
However I do feel that with Craig/SF the humour is funnier for one thing.
I find the Craig humour to be as funny as a funeral, which is not funny at all. And at times it feels sickeningly eager to me you laugh. I can pick out what's supposed to be funny, I just don't find it funny.
I found it funny :(
"The whole office goes up in smoke and that bloody thing survives"
That's a humorous line
The humour comes not only from Craig but from Dench, Wishaw and Feinnes too.
But this is EXACTLY what I was trying to say. Sorry, if I made myelf misunderstood.
As much as I love TLD (top 3) and find its PTS great it is no match for the CR PTS. That was out of this world in its simplicity and effectiveness. Those few minutes managed to say more about Bond than most of the previous films taken together. The PTS of SF was also great and can rank amongst the very best of the series but the CR one is simply unmatchable for me.
I have met loads of people who have been to see Skyfall, and loved it, and who had little or any time for Bond before seeing Skyfall.
This is a point that does not appear to have been addressed here before. How can this be happening? Put it another way if loads of people now love Bond, after seeing Skyfall, it means that Bond must have changed in their eyes. I find this trend to be disturbing.
It reminds me of the Church of England who tend to try and cater for everyone only to piss off the old faithful.
Secondly, Eon were very clever in how they marketed Skyfall. They had the premiere in London and the general release in the UK was several weeks in advance of other markets (notably the US). God only knows how they wined and dined the elite reviewers who gave the initial great reviews and people tend to get their opinions, to some extent, from the rottenttomatoes of the world before the see a film. People do not like to go against trends.
Thirdly, the linear plot of the film is crap. It makes no sense.
Fourthly, I am really saddened at the dumbing down and brutalisation of Bond. Examples:
Casino Royle, Bond does not know how to dress himself (blacktie) or order cocktails.
Ountum of Solace, Bond dumps Mathis into bin.
Skyfall, Q "What do you see"
Bond "a Boat".
Current Bond would not make a great dinner party guest.