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
Most of the Die Hard films have less set pieces than Bond. Since it's normally Willis trapped in one place against tons of bad guys, the action scenes are more sectioned off fist fights and gunfights with a big finale at the end. Die Hard 3 wasn't set in one building but even that didn't have many set pieces, probably the least out of any Die Hard film. 4 is an exception but even that only has about 3 big set pieces.
Hmmm, true, but it was pretty much action from start to finish. I think the Die Hard films, like Bond, are more than that.
And your point was?
Do you want me to start over?
That is certainly an option, but your posts to date certainly don't give one the sense you enjoyed it.
I would say the best Bond since TLD...but neverthelesss, I find the OHMSS comparison interesting, because last 30 minutes or so of OHMSS, are almost allnon-stop action -- and it's all fantastic. I see where zekidk is coming from. SF, while solid, does leave a bit out, in terms of that edge of your seat action. The rope bridge scene mentioned could have been a nice touch.
And afterall, I just find it more constructive to discuss the flaws of SF objectively, than joining the majority who in unison are agreeing that SF is pretty much more or less flawless, which I respect unless they pull out the old "you dare to criticize Skyfall? Then you should go watch [insert a more or less cheasy action flick]"-routine against members who respectfully disagree.
And you went to go see a film you found disappointing five times? Why?
SF is a great film but it is lacking in one more big action sequence (or at least just beef the tube sequence up a bit).
Speaking as someone who would love to see adaptations of the books as written I'm not an action junkie when it comes to Bond but since probably TSWLM we expect big stunts in amongst the story.
FYEO, TLD, LTK and CR all managed a serious story with the requisite Bond action so why are people saying you have to sacrifice story and plot if you want more action? I want to have my cake and eat it and have both. CR got it right, QOS too much action, now SF has swung ever so slightly too far the other way.
At the end of the day I still love it so its a fairly minor gripe but just one more WOW sequence and I'd have been made up.
Longer: When I left the theatre in 2006 I was slightly disappointed with CR. But it kept growing on me the weeks following, like a lot of other Bond movies.
I was kind of hoping the same thing would happen here with SF. Unfortunately, it just gets worse and worse instead.
I will watch it on Blu-Ray though. But it will probably rest a long time on the shelf, next to TMWTGG, after that ;-)
You missed out DAD.
It's a weak argument. "You didn't like this thing I liked so you should just go and watch *insert film here*"
That seems about it. People can get away with typing "OMG IT WAS AWESOME BEST BOND EVER!!!" but if somebody typed "IT WAS CRAP WORST BOND FILM EVER!!!" you'd get people calling the person a troll.
There's such a thing as a middle ground you know. You seem to be setting yourself up as some sort of high brow Barry Norman suggesting that those of us who would have liked one more bombastic set piece are retards who should go and watch shite like Crank and Transformers and can't appreciate such high art as SF.
Why don't you go and watch some Ingmar Bergman or Lars Von Trier if its solely drama and acting you want to see. Why are you even at a popcorn film like SF in the first place with such eclectic tastes?
It is possible to do intelligent action packed thrillers packed with good acting, a dramatic story and thrilling action (Leon, Heat, TDK) and some people just feel whilst SF delivered in pretty much every department it was a bit light on action.
If that makes me an non believer in the gospel according to JimThompson45 then feel free to burn me at the stake.
To be honest the same could be said of FRWL. Two big action scenes at the end, a battle in the middle and a couple of very light footchases but it is mainly plot and dialogue and,oh, tension...
Point being?
FRWL was almost 50 years ago. Other Bond films have proven since we can have plot, dialouge, tension AND some big set pieces throughout the film.
From that I took the point that FRWL is pretty much universally accepted as the best Bond film (aware that this is a generalisation). If there are a lot of similarities between FRWL and SF in terms of 'level of action', and FRWL is seen as so brilliant, then the arguments against SF seem to be undermined.
Correct me if I misunderstood though.
You mean aside from the fact that FRWL has an infinitely better script and plot? If we're talking structure GF and DAF are similar.
No that would be OHMSS.
Which actually has some epic action. It is possible to combine both you see.
I agree that it's possible to combine both and never said that it wasn't.
Yeah sorry - that wasn't really directed at you.