A place for disappointed skyfall viewers

11819202224

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @Murdock, it's the only viable solution. Oh well, nothing we can do, unfortunately. Good spot, though.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Murdock, it's the only viable solution. Oh well, nothing we can do, unfortunately. Good spot, though.

    Yeah, I'm done with him. I'll just continue to flag his offensive posts as I see them.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @Murdock, that's a good idea. Several other users, such as myself, have been doing the exact same thing.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    boy looks like I'm the talk of the town around here...You're actually investigating me and posting pictures of me lol? come on guys, is this you're biggest topic of the day ..


    now excuse me , I have a date.
    instead of talking about Bond tonight. I intend to act like Bond tonight ...goodnight all

    We're simply trying to burn your bridge since you crossed it and came into our town looking to stir things up. You broke the rules, you tend to be a repulsively intrusive personality, and frankly I am sick of it, as I know many others are. Your days are more numbered than ever. And you know that looking at yourself in the mirror for two hours isn't classified as a date, right?
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,817
    Is not that I give a great deal on your opinions @DRESSED_TO_KILL, but I'll like to hear how you answer my question in page 17 without repeating the same arguments all over again.

    By the way, well said @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    0013 wrote:
    Is not that I give a great deal on your opinions @DRESSED_TO_KILL, but I'll like to hear how you answer my question in page 17 without repeating the same arguments all over again.

    By the way, well said @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7!

    I too want to see how he manages to challenge my Le Chiffre argument as well as your questions. Bond using his dad's gun (with the AB initials of course) is a wonderfully beautiful thing. Another generation of Bond using the family gun and home for defense. And I enjoyed the helicopter music too. I find some hypocrisy in @DRESSED_TO_KILL's statement where he called it corny and childish, because he loves Apocalypse Now and probably loves the Wagner seen in that film. Just another instance where he is negative for negativities sake.
  • Posts: 3,278
    Silva got more backstory than Le Chiffre! All we had on Le Chiffre was a briefing from M, while we got loads more from the man himself and also M and more.
    Well, we got "loads" more scenes with Le Chiffre, than we did with Silva. Basically there were only two scenes in SF where Bardem was allowed to really shine: his introduction when coming out from the elevator and in the holding chamber. Silva was one of the best things about SF, IMO. Sadly he was first introduced 70 minutes into the movie.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @DRESSED_TO_KILL and his statements are the same ones you would hear from a child: they don't make sense. What is childish about a grown man using his late father's shotgun to defend his childhood home? I mean, what is childish about that? Pretty much everything in SF, to him, was either dumbed down, childish, corny, or stupid - with no proper argument to back up said claims.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 24,256
    DUMB DOWNED

    @DRESSED_TO_KILL You do realize this is such grammatical nonsense that calling the rest of the world dumb only helps in making a fool of yourself, don’t you?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2012 Posts: 16,359
    DarthDimi wrote:
    DUMB DOWNED

    @DRESSED_TO_KILL You do realize this is such grammatical nonsense that calling the rest of the world dumb only helps in making a fool of yourself, don’t you?

    I also think that @DRESSED_TO_TouchMy_KILLButtons doesn't realizes he uses the word "Thrash" instead "Trash." when describing how awful and kiddie and Politically correct Skyfall is. ;))
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    DUMB DOWNED

    @DRESSED_TO_KILL You do realize this is such grammatical nonsense that calling the rest of the world dumb only helps in making a fool of yourself, don’t you?

    I also think that @DRESSED_TO_TouchMy_KILLButtons doesn't realizes he uses the word "Thrash" instead "Trash." when describing how awful and kiddie and Politically correct Skyfall is. ;))
    And let's not get started on his complete lack of capitalization and grammatical sentence structure. We'd be here all night! :))
  • Murdock wrote:

    See mods, 2 accounts. So why not ban him, I thought it was the rules?
  • acoppola wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    You can say that you think LTK is the worst, but you have to back it up.

    Hrmff, says that guy who said that Skyfail is the best since the 1960s... How on earth should one "back up" personal preference? It is a matter of taste.

    No it is not just taste. Over the last few days I have gone into great detail why I think SF is a high echelon film. And if I criticise a Bond film, then I make sure I give good reasons from my point of view.

    Of course it is not a good film. You are just stating your opinion. Many other has stated convincingly why Skyfail is among the worst Bond movies. The plot is very weak and it has the worst Bond villain in history. Even I could play a better villain!
  • Posts: 17
    I am dissapointed too. Looking forward to the next.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @jasonbourne, and you turned right around and stated your own opinion. Don't be so overdramatic and hypocritical. A film is released, people have their opinion on it - like it, love it, etc. - and that's it. There is no fact to it, aside from how you felt about it. It is a fact that I enjoyed SF, and it is a fact that you did not.

    Don't bash someone for having an opinion when you give such broad, irrelevant arguments and try to twist them into facts. It's pathetic.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 17
    Creasy47 wrote:
    A film is released, people have their opinion on it - like it, love it, etc. - and that's it. There is no fact to it, aside from how you felt about it. It is a fact that I enjoyed SF, and it is a fact that you did not.

    Right! (And i dont like skyfall;))
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    See mods, 2 accounts. So why not ban him, I thought it was the rules?

    We allowed him to choose one of both accounts. He chose DTK. We closed the other one. See - we do feel compassion and we do offer more than one or two or even three chances. Anyone blowing things up after that, has clearly demonstrated demonic persistence I'd say. ;-)
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    @jasonbourne, and you turned right around and stated your own opinion. Don't be so overdramatic and hypocritical. A film is released, people have their opinion on it - like it, love it, etc. - and that's it. There is no fact to it, aside from how you felt about it. It is a fact that I enjoyed SF, and it is a fact that you did not.

    Don't bash someone for having an opinion when you give such broad, irrelevant arguments and try to twist them into facts. It's pathetic.

    Well, but unlike acoppola I admit that I am stating my opinion. So actually your criticism should go to acoppola, not to me.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    You said "the plot is very weak and it has the worst Bond villain in history."

    Neither of those statements are facts - they are opinions. But, the way you stated it, it's as if you're implying that it is fact, in the way that others have "proved why SF is the worst Bond movie." You can't prove an opinion, you just state it.

    "Hey, I'm going to prove why I hate bananas."

    No, you just hate bananas. You can't prove your distaste for something so trivial, as if you plan on stopping those that do enjoy it.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think we all have a tendency to put our points across as if they were fact.
  • Posts: 1,052
    All this talk about the Box office doesn't lie would point me in the direction of Transformers, Twilight and Avatar, all steaming piles of dung that made huge amounts of cash.
  • All this talk about the Box office doesn't lie would point me in the direction of Transformers, Twilight and Avatar, all steaming piles of dung that made huge amounts of cash.
    That is true!

    However I love Skyfall, I know many (also non-Bond fans) who like or love it.
    2 who did not like Craig at all as Bond even stated that it was much better and they finally accepted him as Bond! (No idea what was so wrong about CR but what ya wanna do ;-)

    The fantastic box-office result is just good news for the franchise in general and for the next movie!

    And I don't think we can compare Bond with Transformers. People know what to expect with transformers and want nothing more than a big, brainless, CGI action mess.
    I hated the first one and did not bother with the other ones but I think the people are looking for something different in Bond and it seems to me than many got what they wanted.

    Long story short, no box-office results do not equal quality. But the success can show that people like what they see and as long I like it too, that is great news ...at least for me.


  • edited November 2012 Posts: 82
    When someone is saying e.g. that this or that film is the best film ever, they are stating their opinion, they are not saying that it is a fact. It is different to say that "Film X is the best film in history" and "it is a FACT that film X is the best film in history". My comment falls within the first type of statement. It is a totally normal way to write a film critic. An example you can find in this critic of Skyfall: http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/14749/skyfall-easily-the-best-bond-film-ever-made/
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2012 Posts: 10,512
    All this talk about the Box office doesn't lie would point me in the direction of Transformers, Twilight and Avatar, all steaming piles of dung that made huge amounts of cash.

    Yeah, I like the film but I wouldn't justify anything based on B.O. I mean look at the state of the UK music industry, are the best acts the ones who make the most money? Far from it. Very weak argument.

    Oh and by the way, this thread has become very funny. I think it would be interesting if there was a MOD who wasn't too keen on Skyfall. As I've stated before, I really enjoyed it but had issues with various things. What I find amusing (I think it was something @Germanlady said in another thread) is the idea that people are scared they will begin to dislike it if they read negative comments. As if somehow by osmosis the critics of the film will brainwash the happy brigade Blofeld-style.

    What is more interesting is that, if you genuinely love it, you genuinely love it. If you're worried negative comments may influence your outlook then maybe you're convincing yourself of something you don't really believe. This is what pisses me off. A lot of people who have been overly negative read positive comments and attempt to counter (bar a few black sheep), whereas a portion of those who are positive want to completely ignore the critical response, almost as if they don't want to accept what in the back of their minds they feel is true.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    acoppola wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    You can say that you think LTK is the worst, but you have to back it up.

    Hrmff, says that guy who said that Skyfail is the best since the 1960s... How on earth should one "back up" personal preference? It is a matter of taste.

    No it is not just taste. Over the last few days I have gone into great detail why I think SF is a high echelon film. And if I criticise a Bond film, then I make sure I give good reasons from my point of view.

    Of course it is not a good film. You are just stating your opinion. Many other has stated convincingly why Skyfail is among the worst Bond movies. The plot is very weak and it has the worst Bond villain in history. Even I could play a better villain!

    No, my assessment of SF was based on what I saw and how the film was acted too. I was pleased that we got a deeper look at the Bond character and his world. Finally we see the glamour is just a veneer over the harsh reality of what being Bond is really like.

    What I like about SF is that it shows that Bond is a lot more than just a man who wears nice suits and goes to expensive restaurants. And in Fleming we clearly see a man who has psychological issues and who is not 24/7 at his best.

    Bond like Dalton said many years ago is a tarnished man and only the good guy by working for our western ideology. But he is no better than the men he kills who also think they are on the side of right from their respective ideologies.

    In fact SF raises the bar for Bond to such an extent that if they decide to water down the character, then the dark clouds of trouble for the franchise will reappear.

    You could play a better villain than Oscar winner Xavier Bardem? Lovely and you just told me everything I need to know.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @jasonbourne, and you turned right around and stated your own opinion. Don't be so overdramatic and hypocritical. A film is released, people have their opinion on it - like it, love it, etc. - and that's it. There is no fact to it, aside from how you felt about it. It is a fact that I enjoyed SF, and it is a fact that you did not.

    Don't bash someone for having an opinion when you give such broad, irrelevant arguments and try to twist them into facts. It's pathetic.

    Well, but unlike acoppola I admit that I am stating my opinion. So actually your criticism should go to acoppola, not to me.

    And I am not stating my opinion? Coming from Mr "JasonBourne LTK is the bottom of the barrel because I say so", is very rich indeed!

    I am more than aware that some Bond fans would probably prefer a Doctor Evil for a villain judging by the dismissal of Silva's portrayal not being evidently cartoony enough.

  • Posts: 158
    To be fair to Dressed to Kill - I don't think he is a troll. I do think he enjoys being controversial and getting the attention, but his pictures show he is a genuine Bond fan. If he was more careful with how he puts across his views so he isn't being offensive, I am sure he could make a good contribution to a discussion.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    acoppola wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @jasonbourne, and you turned right around and stated your own opinion. Don't be so overdramatic and hypocritical. A film is released, people have their opinion on it - like it, love it, etc. - and that's it. There is no fact to it, aside from how you felt about it. It is a fact that I enjoyed SF, and it is a fact that you did not.

    Don't bash someone for having an opinion when you give such broad, irrelevant arguments and try to twist them into facts. It's pathetic.

    Well, but unlike acoppola I admit that I am stating my opinion. So actually your criticism should go to acoppola, not to me.

    And I am not stating my opinion? Coming from Mr "JasonBourne LTK is the bottom of the barrel because I say so", is very rich indeed!

    I am more than aware that some Bond fans would probably prefer a Doctor Evil for a villain judging by the dismissal of Silva's portrayal not being evidently cartoony enough.

    I think you might be distorting what people are saying. Silva is the most cartoony villain since DAD. I think what at least some poeple are saying on here is that SF is actually too cartoony. Characters who fall through the sky and don't die; plots and evil plans that even Goldfinger and Drax would have had trouble dreaming up (let alone understanding); man-eating lizards; overtly gay and disfigured villain; the DB5 (again); tired chase sequences; M having trust issues with Bond; Q jokes; not especially funny one-liners...

    I think the problem that I (and a few others) have is that far from feeling like a new and exciting development in the DC-era reboot, SF feels like the biggest tick-box exercise since the Brosnan era.

    For me, the supposedly clever story about M was simply not well written or engaging enough to drag me out of my stupor as the film anti-climaxed in a hail of machine gun fire, explosions and plodding through waterlogged moorland. The film is bogged down in a generic Purvis and Wade plot and script from start to finish.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 391
    Anyone like me, think that M should have died in that court-room, and that 007 and Eve should have been the one retreating to Skyfall, with MI6 in total panic, to escape / confront Silva?

    Because to me, Eve being wounded in the last act, and going through the wringer, would have made more sense for her to retire, have enhanced the last act with a real Bond woman instead of Mommy. I think pass the courtroom, there's nothing more added to the character of M. And it would have made more sense for the vilain to suceed in killing her.

    I wonder if the first draft, or earlier draft, wasn't that way. This should have been Moneypenny origin, full stop.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Even Fleming's villains could be quite flamboyant and boarderline cartooney at times. Listening to the description of Drax in MR its fairly obvious he's the bad guy. He's hardly a true representation of a real person.

    Interestingly I was talking to a work colleague today who's seen SF.

    Here's what she said:

    "You wont like this, but I really wasn't a fan! I just thought it was really cheesy, even by James Bond standards!"

    Haha!
This discussion has been closed.