If you are a fan of "_________" you're clearly daft.

chrisisall

Tuulia wrote:

^^ The next sentence was much worse. ;)

Agreed.

josiah

chrisisall wrote:

Point out one of the many plot holes of Skyfall, and the heat seekers get launched. What? You can't like a movie AND acknowledge its flaws?

I would say that depends entirely on what the flaws are. Many fans I know would say that GF is "indisputably the BEST Bond movie EVER!" largely because it is the Bond film credited with establishing the Bond movie formula. GF more than any other Bond film tends to be the Bond film both casual & serious Bond fans point at and say "THAT is how you make a Bond film!" How well a Bond film does or does not match GF's strengths should then determine for such an individual whether or not a Bond movie is a "good" Bond film. So when the question is posed of "Can't you like a film and acknowledge its flaws?" I would say it depends on the flaws. I see iffy villain motivations and plot holes in GF so I get understandably annoyed when someone who ranks GF as their top Bond film wants to tear into SF for plot holes and villain motives that don't make sense to them. The reason it annoys me is that the film by which they judge a perfect Bond film is imperfect in the ways they expect SF to be perfect. They are looking at GF through rose-colored glasses. And I do not object to someone looking at a Bond film with full suspension of disbelief like they use on GF! What I find rude, unnecessary and hypocritical is tearing into films like SF when it very well may be someone's favorite and then expecting to get a pass on GF. I have never and will never watch a Bond film expecting a film devoid of any plot holes. When I notice the plot holes in a Bond film it's because the movie just didn't tick my boxes and didn't do it for me honestly. I simply wasn't entertained and since the film makers (in my eyes) failed to live up to their end of entertaining me, I no longer feel obligated to suspend disbelief. I rarely see someone watching a movie and picking out tons of plot holes in the film as it goes while legitimately enjoying theirself. Usually there's a moment where they got bored first and decided to punish the film for boring them by tearing into it. Full disclosure: GF is not one of my favorites. What I won't do is go into why because it easily makes a lot of peoples' top 10 and I don't enjoy having people tear into Bond films in my top 10 anymore than I think those who love GF would enjoy me doing the same.

chrisisall wrote:

Seriously, I can't point out a single plot hole in Bourne Identity through Bourne Supremacy. Why? Because I just don't care enough to give any of them a second look. We pick on stuff in movies WE WATCH & LIKE.

If by "we" you mean you do then I agree. I can't say I sit down nitpicking Bond films I legitimately find entertaining for plot holes because if I were aware of the plot holes they would cease to entertain me. I would MUCH rather be willfully ignorant about the plot holes in Bond films I enjoy and continue enjoying the ride than listen to someone tear the movie's credibility to shreds for me all because they so desperately want to appear superior or whatever. For me the Bond films make me feel like a kid again. Know how when you're a young kid you see a magician do a magic trick and you're filled with this sense of wonderment and you're blown away because you just can't fathom how he could do that? That's how I am with Bond. My enjoyment comes from getting blown away by the spectacle and how I percieve the story. Someone coming along and telling me plot holes is like if an older kid walked up out of the audience of the magician's show and in a nasally smart alecky know-it-all voice said "Lame! He has a fake thumb on. He hid the ribbon in his thumb". That kid ticks me off--he robbed me and all the other kids of that sense of awe I had and I find that I want to punch him in the twin's playpen for it.

chrisisall wrote:

Bottom line, before you whip out the put down list (your credibility is gone/how old are you/you're clearly daft/good taste isn't among your attributes), remember, somewhere in your closet lurks a movie that you like and many others do not, and that it doesn't mean you're an idiot for liking it, okay? I've heard reasoned arguments for liking Howard The Duck (not joking) that make sense.

Just a treat those how we wish to be treated thing. :)>-

I agree completely and you're absolutely right. I have a much reviled Bond film I absolutely love.

IGUANNA

josiah wrote: »

chrisisall wrote:

Point out one of the many plot holes of Skyfall, and the heat seekers get launched. What? You can't like a movie AND acknowledge its flaws?

I would say that depends entirely on what the flaws are. Many fans I know would say that GF is "indisputably the BEST Bond movie EVER!" largely because it is the Bond film credited with establishing the Bond movie formula. GF more than any other Bond film tends to be the Bond film both casual & serious Bond fans point at and say "THAT is how you make a Bond film!" How well a Bond film does or does not match GF's strengths should then determine for such an individual whether or not a Bond movie is a "good" Bond film. So when the question is posed of "Can't you like a film and acknowledge its flaws?" I would say it depends on the flaws. I see iffy villain motivations and plot holes in GF so I get understandably annoyed when someone who ranks GF as their top Bond film wants to tear into SF for plot holes and villain motives that don't make sense to them. The reason it annoys me is that the film by which they judge a perfect Bond film is imperfect in the ways they expect SF to be perfect. They are looking at GF through rose-colored glasses. And I do not object to someone looking at a Bond film with full suspension of disbelief like they use on GF! What I find rude, unnecessary and hypocritical is tearing into films like SF when it very well may be someone's favorite and then expecting to get a pass on GF. I have never and will never watch a Bond film expecting a film devoid of any plot holes. When I notice the plot holes in a Bond film it's because the movie just didn't tick my boxes and didn't do it for me honestly. I simply wasn't entertained and since the fillmakers (in my eyes) failed to live up to their end of entertaining me, I no longer feel obligated to suspend disbelief. I rarely see someone watching a movie and picking out tons of plot holes in the film as it goes while legitimately enjoying theirself. Usually there's a moment where they got bored first and decided to punish the film for boring them by tearing into it. Full disclosure: GF is not one of my favorites. What I won't do is go into why because it easily makes a lot of peoples' top 10 and I don't enjoy having people tear into Bond films in my top 10 anymore than I think those who love GF would enjoy me doing the same.

chrisisall wrote:

Seriously, I can't point out a single plot hole in Bourne Identity through Bourne Supremacy. Why? Because I just don't care enough to give any of them a second look. We pick on stuff in movies WE WATCH & LIKE.

If by "we" you mean you do then I agree. I can't say I sit down nitpicking Bond films I legitimately find entertaining for plot holes because if I were aware of the plot holes they would cease to entertain me. I would MUCH rather be willfully ignorant about the plot holes in Bond films I enjoy and continue enjoying the ride than listen to someone tear the movie's credibility to shreds for me all because they so desperately want to appear superior or whatever. For me the Bond films make me feel like a kid again. Know how when you're a young kid you see a magician do a magic trick and you're filled with this sense of wonderment and you're blown away because you just can't fathom how he could do that? That's how I am with Bond. My enjoyment comes from getting blown away by the spectacle and how I percieve the story. Someone coming along and telling me plot holes is like if an older kid walked up out of the audience of the magician's show and in a nasally smart alecky know-it-all voice said "Lame! He has a fake thumb on. He hid the ribbon in his thumb". That kid ticks me off--he robbed me and all the other kids of that sense of awe I had and I find that I want to punch him in the twin's playpen for it.

chrisisall wrote:

Bottom line, before you whip out the put down list (your credibility is gone/how old are you/you're clearly daft/good taste isn't among your attributes), remember, somewhere in your closet lurks a movie that you like and many others do not, and that it doesn't mean you're an idiot for liking it, okay? I've heard reasoned arguments for liking Howard The Duck (not joking) that make sense.

Just a treat those how we wish to be treated thing. :)>-

I agree completely and you're absolutely right. I have a much reviled Bond film I absolutely love.

Which Bond film is that? Don't worry I won't judge you. :)

josiah

Ha. Moonraker (dodges tomatoes)

IGUANNA

No tomatoes needed. I think we could go to space again and heres my idea, a villain obsessed with astronomy and stars and planets and alignment of the sun and moon and horoscopic tragedys of cosmic proportions, interterrestial planetary spacetime abandonment, Bond blasts off to be stranded Sandra Bullock style, what no gadgets from Q this time, no the whole space station was built by him. No smoking or drinking in space Bond.

Gettler

I think having Bond go into space is ludicrous. He's a secret agent., not an astronaut. However, if the villain was to capture Bond and a Bond Girl and launch them on a rocket into space as a death sentence, then it could work...possibly...

SaintMark

I do not mind being daft for liking material, I am always less enthralled with people that find certain movies, actors or whatever snubbed. Snubbed always refers to a personal taste that disagrees with a general consensus by a group of people that generally know more about the subject of movies.
I have seen quite a few Oscar movies that were bloody brilliant and quite a few I personally dislike but that is my thing.
I have become less of a fan of the Craig era with each movie and do hope Craig does not return for the next one. But that is my personal taste, I find his 007 bloody great, his movies after CR have not made me a big fan of this particular era. And I do not understand the great BO succes these last two movies had, SF can be explained even if the end result is somewhat baffling. This last year had quite few good spy movies and SP was trailing them IMHO.
That said I am a Bond-fan and will probably be seeing the next one in cinema, even if it is Craig again. But am currently looking way more forward to MI6 and the next Bourne movie than the state of EON's next movie is currently in.

Thunderfinger

IGUANNA wrote: »

No tomatoes needed. I think we could go to space again and heres my idea, a villain obsessed with astronomy and stars and planets and alignment of the sun and moon and horoscopic tragedys of cosmic proportions, interterrestial planetary spacetime abandonment, Bond blasts off to be stranded Sandra Bullock style, what no gadgets from Q this time, no the whole space station was built by him. No smoking or drinking in space Bond.

Bond vs the Annunaki.

josiah

IGUANNA wrote: »

No tomatoes needed. I think we could go to space again and heres my idea, a villain obsessed with astronomy and stars and planets and alignment of the sun and moon and horoscopic tragedys of cosmic proportions, interterrestial planetary spacetime abandonment, Bond blasts off to be stranded Sandra Bullock style, what no gadgets from Q this time, no the whole space station was built by him. No smoking or drinking in space Bond.

I wouldn't mind something revolved around microchips used for corporate sabotage (somewhat similar to unused portions of the Bond 17 script written for Dalton). At the time the whole thing might have been dismissed as science fiction but with the advance in technology that has happened this seems far less far fetched than it would have in the early 90s I think. I wouldn't mind a return of some "sci fi" elements. I don't really like the Nan robot idea though.