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
Yes,I would subscribe to this point of view as well.
I will not silently let rudeness pass by. Request denied.
Regarding @TheWizardOfIce , I do agree that we need to respect each other. And I do have respect for your favourite Bond films and so on. I don't agree with them. But perhaps it's better to agree on disagreeing with him then?
Anyway, have you seen my latests posts about the location shooting already :-D?
Fine with me as long as you don't expect me to take someone seriously for whom it is obviously too much of a bother to (even remotely) acquire a full picture of a situation before judging it.
+ Realized that Eve Moneypenny has far better one liners than James and she does deliver them better too. Somebody kick the scriptwriter. Especially with the line "you did not use it anyhow" which sounded a bit like a women unfriendly remark towards female driving (which is really below 007's standard imho) and she smashes the other mirror off too and says I was not using that one either..... She did trump Jimbo there.
+ The whole unknown period of what happened to 007 after his fall could have been solved with two small scenes which would not add more than 20 seconds to the movie. Firstly when Bond has seen MI6 explode on CNN, pick up the phone, dial a number and say: "Columbo we are even, but I need a favor as in travelling papers and a ticket to London. Duty calls." And when M asks where he was all that time he could add :"Enjoying the hospitality of an old Greek friend." Whereon M replies " So how is his smuggling business going?" thereby acknowledging that she now knows that Milos Columbo was the one who saved 007. It would have taken away any questions from the fans and acknowledge the 50 year history of the franchise at the same time.
+ the scene with Silva and Bond in the underground when Bond asks him after the explosion which misses him "was that meant for me?" Silva should have replied, "No James that was part of a distraction". Bond replies "now that did not work that well, did it now?" Silva could have replied: "You really believe that the distraction was meant for you James." And then the train comes in. Both 007 and the audience realise that the underground accident was aimed at pulling police away from Westminster and the hearing and thereby leaving M vulnerable. Another small scripting solution that would have made the train thing more logical.
+ They should have used Mallory's background as part of the SAS in having him bring in the SAS only perhaps to late in fighting a background fight with surviving fella's from Silva's troup. And have them silently appear when 007 crouches over his former boss. Thus showing that best laid plans can go wrong and they were simply too late to stop a madman.
I am so disappointed that such easy fixes could have made SF a flipping better and logical movie. ANd Mendes never noticed the huge plotholes, and the Columbo touch would have shown Mendes love and knowledge of the franchise.
Actually I don't see how this would fix any of the logic gaps in Skyfall. Sorry.
It would explain a downed 007 and how he ended up in Turkey rather recovered.
The train sequence while looking spectacular does not serve any purpose unless you would consider it as a part of a plan to distract police forces away from M's hearing, and at the same time create a chaos in which it was easier to operate and escape.
the SAS coming late would be easier to accept than a secret agent and his boss hiding in the middle of nowhere to lure a man with considerable resources to them. That way there was only one possible outcome: 007 and M dead. WHile setting a trap with trained people would more sense, and them coming too late would make it dramatic.
I think several of you would enjoy setting up a QOS vs. Skyfall thread - have we had that yet, in the film comparison threads? Then you could compare and tear things apart there to your hearts' content. That would be nice for you; would somebody please go set up that specific thread?
@chrisisall, I do expect that your first post after seeing Bond 24 mentions your take on any CGI in it. You are extremely aware of that aspect, and no I am not being sarcastic. I hope you post about that technical part of the film soon after you see it. I don't see it as critically as you do, but I appreciate reading your comments about CGI.
Pretty much agree with a lot of this.It would have made Bond and MI6 look like they were not COMPLETELY incompetent like they were in the film.
totally agree. i miss the days when MI6 was portrayed as this bastion of integrity and competence. i really hope that with the departure of Dench, M will return to being a more trusting and trustworthy character, and MI6 will stop being depicted as utterly incompetent.
same here. CR gave me hope. QoS raised my expectations. and SF dahsed them. I'm hoping the DC road show gets back on track with B24.
Really "dashed" them? Well....for me, CR was everything I hoped for, QOS was a bit of a disappointment (although IMO better than all of Brosnan's outings) and SF was again everything I hoped for. I'm a very happy Bond geek :-).
I think we fans got too spoiled.
QoS was something of a palate cleanser after the heavyness of CR. Crisp, light and refreshing. Again, not exactly vintage Bond IMO, but an entertaining enough and nippy little entry. Again DC was very good, and some scenes, such as the opera, just felt like they captured the essence of some of the old movies. I wish Forster had had more time to think this film through and to edit it, but considering the constraints I reckon it's pretty good. Probably my favourite of the Craig era.
Have to admit I was concerned when Mendes was given the gig. I liked some of his films but the only one I'd seen that seemed to offer a precedent for what he might do with Bond (Road to Perdition) had been a big lumbering failure IMO. SF follows in its footsteps In my view. Having said that, I truly appreciate what Mendes is trying to do with a lot of SF and see it as a film that fails partly because it aims so high and fails to hit its mark, as opposed to DAD, which aims so low and hits its target bang on.
I may be generalising but I sense Mendes is better focusing in on the small, personal and detailed stuff of human interaction. I felt he bungled the big themes he introduced in SF. It all feels a bit slap dash. And I'm afraid to say I really don't think he's great at action - as with so many contemporary directors, it just feels bolted on. I also thought there was so much potential in the return to Bond's childhood home, his inability to save M, the parallels with the loss of his own parents, his powerlessness to save them, and the climactic battle. But the film as made just left me bored and disatisfied. I felt like none of the potential was truly tapped and it just descends into incoherent action nonsense at the end. The return to SF doesn't seem to have an significance at all by the end - the showdown could have been anywhere.
Ironically, given that so many people slate QoS for its editing, I actually think the editing, in terms of the storytelling in SF is quite bad. I always get a sense when watching it that lots of important stuff has been left on the cutting room floor. I know this argument has been flogged to death, but there just seem to be so many points in the film that don't make any sense, and I do actually think that Mendes had a lot more footage than he could fit in, and so left lots of stuff out. I'll leave it to the experts whether that is good film making or not. I know different directors take different approaches. However, I don't think Hitchcock, to whom a lot of particularly the early films owe a huge debt, would have approved.
Javier Bardem was awful? :S Please elaborate...
I found him to be too dull. Plus we'd already seen the villain out to get revenge from M (Dame Judy) in TWINE. The villain can be evil just because they are, you don't need a convoluted back story.
Maybe. But if I compare Alec Trevelyan with Silva, then I find the latter more convincing. You say it really. It's not so much about the backstory. It's also about the actual actor, how he uses his lines, his motorical skills, the way he looks like )make-up, face, hair). Javier Bardem really convinced for me.
Bardem was definitely a little disappointing. Great build up and entrance on the island but for the rest of the film pretty forgettable. Totally agree - the villain's plot felt like a clunky reworking of the already clunky TWINE.
In terms if plot and script TWINE must be up there as one of the clunkiest in the whole series. It's a clunk-fest. If only they were still doing cash for clunkers - EON could have done a good deal on part exchange.
:)>-
Sorry to say so,but you don't know how wrong you are. Its story is still after 15 years on the height of time and there is nary a plot hole to be found. Traits I personally value a lot.
I just verified the definition of clunky: "badly or awkwardly made or done"
This could not be more descriptive of TWINE. I saw it yesterday and was very uncomfortable during most of the scenes. A totally missed opportunity after the excellent TND. This was when Brosnan started to write his obituary as Bond IMO. It just took 3 more long years before it was made certain.
SF is very well made, with superb acting and excellent characterizations, but has plot holes. There is a world of difference.
Now go and wash out your mouth with soap. Better do it twice! ;)