SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

1679111247

Comments

  • edited February 2020 Posts: 3,327
    jobo wrote: »
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    In SPECTRE they should of never re-introduced Blofeld. They should of left it as a shadowy organization with no head honcho. That would have fit the modern times of today's espionage world.
    It's hard to tell if Bond and Blofeld remember each other from their childhood. How long were they foster brothers? Why didn't Bond say hey Oberhauser, brother why are you running this secret organization to sabotage me? Still bitter your dad preferred me over you? It is just a lot of unanswered questions that became a jumbled mess.
    They extended this continuity back to Casino Royale with I was the author and evil doer all along, James your foster brother. It put a big hamper in the Craig timeline. SPECTRE has definitely ruined the arch connecting the films. It also ruined Silva's vendetta against M when you find out he was a SPECTRE agent.

    Just to clarify, Blofeld never states that he created Spectre to target Bond.

    Blofeld says "a nice pattern developed, you interfered with my world so I destroyed yours" Bond was just an outside nuisance, not even on Blofeld's radar until the events of Casino Royale.

    Sorry, just had to put that out there, people always seem to imply that Blofeld created Spectre just to get revenge for stealing his fathers affection, which is incorrect. I will also point out that Blofeld never tries to kill Bond alongside his father... just saying.

    I also think it says a lot about his character (killing his father), always needing to be number one, he refuses to play second fiddle to anyone. Sounds like Blofeld to me.

    Exactly! I see so many people interpret it in such a way that his grudge with Bond is Blofeld's only motivation for becoming a criminal in the first place. I find that quite baffling. Was that ever hinted at? Not at all, I'd say. I think it should be quite obvious that Blofeld is simply an evil, power hungry person who just happens to also have a personal vendetta against Bond. Those are not necesarrily linked and Bond does obviously not make up all of Blofeld's evil intentions.

    They turned Bond into a soap opera again, a badly written TV drama with this garbage (following on from soap drama TWINE). Bond can't simply be fighting an evil villain anymore. It has to be personal..... 8-|

    Fleming will be turning in his grave.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Octopussy wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I agree with that @jobo, but I still feel those emotional struggles have been portrayed better and with more subtlety in OHMSS, LTK, CR and QOS than in the Mendes films. I'm aware this comes down to personal taste and what one finds important when watching a 007 adventure. I just feel the aforementioned films were more in line of what makes Bond films appealing to me personally, while also exploring Bond's character.

    I have to agree with you, although I'd argue QOS is guilty of starting the exact thing that we've been debated these last few pages. Things like putting the GB sequence at the end of the film was Forster's way of indicating to the audience that Bond had come full circle and found solace in Vesper's demise. It's more warranted here given it's a follow up of the events of CR (although I see QOS as a bit of a missed opportunity) it's there nonetheless. In SF and SP it's amplified further.
    TripAces wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    I don't feel that symbolism or existentialism should be in a Bond film. The films widely regarded as the classics being Dr. No through to On Her Majesty's Secret Service and more recently Casino Royale are all Fleming narratives told well. They explore the character without implying any deeper meaning. I feel like Skyfall would've been a superior film without all the underlying messages regarding Bond's history, personally. I don't feel like it added anything to the film, besides an attempt to be complex. I agree that keeping certain elements of Bond's character out of reach or a mystery are preferable and make him a more alluring character, IMO.

    I couldn't disagree with you more.

    In an era of high octane, formulaic action franchises (Fast/Furious, Bourne, MI), with little to no character development, the opportunity is there to move Bond in another direction. And I don't think the films are going too far into Bond's past. SP skirted things a bit. But SF did not. What Marvel and Star Wars have always had going for them are the characters, their stories. There wasn't a dry eye in the house at the end of Avengers: Infinity War, because fans have invested in those characters. There is something to be said for that.

    Now, in no way am I suggesting that Bond's back story should become central to the films. I don't think anyone wants a Bond continuously brooding over his past. But EON made a smart, strategic move to bring Jungian psychology into SF, which is definitely in line with Fleming (see my earlier post).

    I agree with you that Bond requires character development and I'm all for that. You only need to take a look at my top 10 favourite Bond films (OHMSS, TB, DN, FRWL, GF, CR, TLD, LTK, FYEO & GE) that I'm an advocate for the development of James Bond as a character. However, as many have alluded to I much prefer the subtle approach in which the these films go about it, they don't consistently hint to the audience that he's traumatised or has unresolved physiological issues. The narrative of these films (there are exceptions) are what carried the arch of the character. I think Casino Royale is a perfect example of a modern Fleming adaptation to the silver screen and it allows Craig's portrayal of Bond to develop with the events of the story.
    jobo wrote: »
    Real character strength is not saving the world because you are an indestructable hero and it's easy. Real strength is confronting your inner fears. Bond having a childhood trauma to confront does not make him weaker. It makes him a stronger character who demonstrates real courage.

    I'm all for the human Bond, and I hate the comedy Moore or Brozza interpretation. Bond has fears in the books, he regrets killing. He is even a romantic.

    All that I am 100% for. But nowhere, NOWHERE does Fleming ever hint at having to confront a childhood trauma or Mommy issues.

    +1

    This statement is more than a little disingenuous.

    It's Fleming who created Bond's back story as an orphan who lost his parents in a skiing accident in his childhood.

    If losing your parents as a child isn't a trauma I don't know what is.

    I think the idea to explore this territory in SF was legitimate (if risky).
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 1,081
    Getafix wrote: »
    This statement is more than a little disingenuous.

    It's Fleming who created Bond's back story as an orphan who lost his parents in a skiing accident in his childhood.

    If losing your parents as a child isn't a trauma I don't know what is.


    I think the idea to explore this territory in SF was legitimate (if risky).

    Where am I stating otherwise? I'm merely saying that it was unnecessary and poorly executed, IMO.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,185
    Getafix wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I agree with that @jobo, but I still feel those emotional struggles have been portrayed better and with more subtlety in OHMSS, LTK, CR and QOS than in the Mendes films. I'm aware this comes down to personal taste and what one finds important when watching a 007 adventure. I just feel the aforementioned films were more in line of what makes Bond films appealing to me personally, while also exploring Bond's character.

    I have to agree with you, although I'd argue QOS is guilty of starting the exact thing that we've been debated these last few pages. Things like putting the GB sequence at the end of the film was Forster's way of indicating to the audience that Bond had come full circle and found solace in Vesper's demise. It's more warranted here given it's a follow up of the events of CR (although I see QOS as a bit of a missed opportunity) it's there nonetheless. In SF and SP it's amplified further.
    TripAces wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    I don't feel that symbolism or existentialism should be in a Bond film. The films widely regarded as the classics being Dr. No through to On Her Majesty's Secret Service and more recently Casino Royale are all Fleming narratives told well. They explore the character without implying any deeper meaning. I feel like Skyfall would've been a superior film without all the underlying messages regarding Bond's history, personally. I don't feel like it added anything to the film, besides an attempt to be complex. I agree that keeping certain elements of Bond's character out of reach or a mystery are preferable and make him a more alluring character, IMO.

    I couldn't disagree with you more.

    In an era of high octane, formulaic action franchises (Fast/Furious, Bourne, MI), with little to no character development, the opportunity is there to move Bond in another direction. And I don't think the films are going too far into Bond's past. SP skirted things a bit. But SF did not. What Marvel and Star Wars have always had going for them are the characters, their stories. There wasn't a dry eye in the house at the end of Avengers: Infinity War, because fans have invested in those characters. There is something to be said for that.

    Now, in no way am I suggesting that Bond's back story should become central to the films. I don't think anyone wants a Bond continuously brooding over his past. But EON made a smart, strategic move to bring Jungian psychology into SF, which is definitely in line with Fleming (see my earlier post).

    I agree with you that Bond requires character development and I'm all for that. You only need to take a look at my top 10 favourite Bond films (OHMSS, TB, DN, FRWL, GF, CR, TLD, LTK, FYEO & GE) that I'm an advocate for the development of James Bond as a character. However, as many have alluded to I much prefer the subtle approach in which the these films go about it, they don't consistently hint to the audience that he's traumatised or has unresolved physiological issues. The narrative of these films (there are exceptions) are what carried the arch of the character. I think Casino Royale is a perfect example of a modern Fleming adaptation to the silver screen and it allows Craig's portrayal of Bond to develop with the events of the story.
    jobo wrote: »
    Real character strength is not saving the world because you are an indestructable hero and it's easy. Real strength is confronting your inner fears. Bond having a childhood trauma to confront does not make him weaker. It makes him a stronger character who demonstrates real courage.

    I'm all for the human Bond, and I hate the comedy Moore or Brozza interpretation. Bond has fears in the books, he regrets killing. He is even a romantic.

    All that I am 100% for. But nowhere, NOWHERE does Fleming ever hint at having to confront a childhood trauma or Mommy issues.

    +1

    This statement is more than a little disingenuous.

    It's Fleming who created Bond's back story as an orphan who lost his parents in a skiing accident in his childhood.

    If losing your parents as a child isn't a trauma I don't know what is.

    I think the idea to explore this territory in SF was legitimate (if risky).

    0d4fca28-7e52-4aed-b7d9-df63d8d61402_text_hi.gif

    Fleming "never wrote about it", because he simply didn't know.

    Carl Jungs theories, really only gained traction in Mainstream psychology after the Bond books were written. 50's Society had almost no clue about these topics and how childhoods shape personality.

    Fleming also never wrote about cyber warfare, and mass surveillance, should we not use those topics? He also believed that smoking 60 cigarettes a Day was perfectly fine and healthy, and only found out at the end of his life, like everybody else around the early 60's, that it was not.

    To modernize Fleming you have to look at what is a current topic and then adapt a "what would Fleming do?" mindset.

    Fleming was deeply curious and loved reading up on any kind of subject, for his books as much as for himself. I think he would have dived deep into psychology.

    And as Getafix has said, it's "risky", as is introducing any kind of new Element to Bond, but with SF it was done in a very subtle and respectful way and paid off imho.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    It’s funny how Mendes, P&W, Barbara Broccoli get the most flak these days, but fans never criticize Michael G. Wilson, as if he has a get-out-of-jail card just for being a big part of the Cubby era. And yet he’s the one that came up with the idea of Blofeld being Bond’s foster brother.

    I think its because it appears as though Babs wears the pants in that relationship, so-to-speak. She is the one calling the shots, or so it appears. I get the impression Wilson is a back seat passenger now with decisions made (I could be wrong), adding very little input.

    He also gets a free pass from me for co-writing LTK, easily the best `original' script that isn't taken from a Fleming novel (even though it does loosely adapt TMWTGG, and nicks a couple of scenes from LALD).

    The LTK script is one perfect example of how to do what P&W have been trying to do for years, and falling short every time.

    My understanding of the dynamic between Mike and Babs is that during Brosnan era it was Mike who was creatively taking the lead while Babs supported and contributed, then with Craig’s tenure it was Babs who was given the creative lead while Mike would still support and contribute (CR being a reboot, QOS being a direct sequel, Blofeld being a foster brother of Bond, etc). It’s sort of similar to how Cubby and Harry switched creative roles for every other film only in this case between Mike and Babs each one took creative control of an actor’s tenure.

    Scuttlebutt is that when Craig’s tenure ends so will Wilson as a producing partner so he could finally retire. That leaves the spot open for his son Gregg to ascend, and supposedly he’ll be the one taking the creative lead for the next era of Bond with his aunt as his partner, being there for support and contributing much like how she and her brother supported each together.

    Again, just rumors, but it makes a lot of sense that the Brosnan era was mainly Mike’s show while Craig’s has been Babs’ show.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 3,327
    It’s funny how Mendes, P&W, Barbara Broccoli get the most flak these days, but fans never criticize Michael G. Wilson, as if he has a get-out-of-jail card just for being a big part of the Cubby era. And yet he’s the one that came up with the idea of Blofeld being Bond’s foster brother.

    I think its because it appears as though Babs wears the pants in that relationship, so-to-speak. She is the one calling the shots, or so it appears. I get the impression Wilson is a back seat passenger now with decisions made (I could be wrong), adding very little input.

    He also gets a free pass from me for co-writing LTK, easily the best `original' script that isn't taken from a Fleming novel (even though it does loosely adapt TMWTGG, and nicks a couple of scenes from LALD).

    The LTK script is one perfect example of how to do what P&W have been trying to do for years, and falling short every time.

    My understanding of the dynamic between Mike and Babs is that during Brosnan era it was Mike who was creatively taking the lead while Babs supported and contributed, then with Craig’s tenure it was Babs who was given the creative lead while Mike would still support and contribute (CR being a reboot, QOS being a direct sequel, Blofeld being a foster brother of Bond, etc). It’s sort of similar to how Cubby and Harry switched creative roles for every other film only in this case between Mike and Babs each one took creative control of an actor’s tenure.

    Scuttlebutt is that when Craig’s tenure ends so will Wilson as a producing partner so he could finally retire. That leaves the spot open for his son Gregg to ascend, and supposedly he’ll be the one taking the creative lead for the next era of Bond with his aunt as his partner, being there for support and contributing much like how she and her brother supported each together.

    Again, just rumors, but it makes a lot of sense that the Brosnan era was mainly Mike’s show while Craig’s has been Babs’ show.

    Craig definitely feels like Bab's show. If it is true that Wilson came up with the idea of Blofeld being Bond's brother, I'm a bit surprised. This is the man who has witnessed every actor portraying Bond, throughout all the changes with each actor, and probably knows the books better than anyone. How he thought this Brofeld was a good idea beats me. No one in their right mind thinks it is, even the Mendes fans, and the SP fans.

    Let's hope Gregg has more clue when he steps in.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I agree with that @jobo, but I still feel those emotional struggles have been portrayed better and with more subtlety in OHMSS, LTK, CR and QOS than in the Mendes films. I'm aware this comes down to personal taste and what one finds important when watching a 007 adventure. I just feel the aforementioned films were more in line of what makes Bond films appealing to me personally, while also exploring Bond's character.

    I have to agree with you, although I'd argue QOS is guilty of starting the exact thing that we've been debated these last few pages. Things like putting the GB sequence at the end of the film was Forster's way of indicating to the audience that Bond had come full circle and found solace in Vesper's demise. It's more warranted here given it's a follow up of the events of CR (although I see QOS as a bit of a missed opportunity) it's there nonetheless. In SF and SP it's amplified further.
    TripAces wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    I don't feel that symbolism or existentialism should be in a Bond film. The films widely regarded as the classics being Dr. No through to On Her Majesty's Secret Service and more recently Casino Royale are all Fleming narratives told well. They explore the character without implying any deeper meaning. I feel like Skyfall would've been a superior film without all the underlying messages regarding Bond's history, personally. I don't feel like it added anything to the film, besides an attempt to be complex. I agree that keeping certain elements of Bond's character out of reach or a mystery are preferable and make him a more alluring character, IMO.

    I couldn't disagree with you more.

    In an era of high octane, formulaic action franchises (Fast/Furious, Bourne, MI), with little to no character development, the opportunity is there to move Bond in another direction. And I don't think the films are going too far into Bond's past. SP skirted things a bit. But SF did not. What Marvel and Star Wars have always had going for them are the characters, their stories. There wasn't a dry eye in the house at the end of Avengers: Infinity War, because fans have invested in those characters. There is something to be said for that.

    Now, in no way am I suggesting that Bond's back story should become central to the films. I don't think anyone wants a Bond continuously brooding over his past. But EON made a smart, strategic move to bring Jungian psychology into SF, which is definitely in line with Fleming (see my earlier post).

    I agree with you that Bond requires character development and I'm all for that. You only need to take a look at my top 10 favourite Bond films (OHMSS, TB, DN, FRWL, GF, CR, TLD, LTK, FYEO & GE) that I'm an advocate for the development of James Bond as a character. However, as many have alluded to I much prefer the subtle approach in which the these films go about it, they don't consistently hint to the audience that he's traumatised or has unresolved physiological issues. The narrative of these films (there are exceptions) are what carried the arch of the character. I think Casino Royale is a perfect example of a modern Fleming adaptation to the silver screen and it allows Craig's portrayal of Bond to develop with the events of the story.
    jobo wrote: »
    Real character strength is not saving the world because you are an indestructable hero and it's easy. Real strength is confronting your inner fears. Bond having a childhood trauma to confront does not make him weaker. It makes him a stronger character who demonstrates real courage.

    I'm all for the human Bond, and I hate the comedy Moore or Brozza interpretation. Bond has fears in the books, he regrets killing. He is even a romantic.

    All that I am 100% for. But nowhere, NOWHERE does Fleming ever hint at having to confront a childhood trauma or Mommy issues.

    +1

    This statement is more than a little disingenuous.

    It's Fleming who created Bond's back story as an orphan who lost his parents in a skiing accident in his childhood.

    If losing your parents as a child isn't a trauma I don't know what is.

    I think the idea to explore this territory in SF was legitimate (if risky).

    I agree. It's legitimate, just poorly executed. The mother hen M figure doesn't help matters either, going places that again was never hinted at in the novels. The closest we can get to this hen-pecked idea is Fleming's own relationship with his dominant mother, where he apparently used to call her M.

    But this is taking massive liberties with the character, IMO. If all the Fleming novels were exhausted to death, then there is nowhere left to go but start inventing this crap, but while several novels, scenes and short stories still remain untapped, I don't see the point of inventing far inferior BS like this.
  • Posts: 1,917
    As it's been brought up in this thread that in some cases dislike or disappointment of SP influences SF criticisms in retrospect, I'd like to confirm that my own underwhelming feelings toward SF are the same as they were in 2012. I also admit on first viewing I had more enthusiasm for SP, before the enthusiasm eroded more and more with subsequent viewings, although I don't find it the travesty others seem to while finding SF vastly overrated.

    Many of my views and first impressions are unchanged:

    Dalton was an excellent Bond I championed since August 1986 and I was sad when he stepped down/was pushed out, continued to hold that view and never wavered in the years of Brosnan love, up till now in light of the people who have rediscovered and praised him in light of Craig's portrayal.

    Brosnan wasn't the ideal replacement although he was universally hailed by about everyone else and I was one of the seemingly lone voices who didn't share that. I was relieved when he didn't get the part in '86, paving the way for a Bond I found fascinating.

    Craig seemed like a bold and interesting choice in '05 when names like Clive Owen and Hugh Jackman were bandied about and the majority were sneering and starting websites against Craig before a frame of footage was shot. Bond can't be blond, too short, not classically handsome, etc. It all now seems strange.

    CR was an instant classic and QoS a worthy follow-up. SF seemed to have ingredients that should've made it the classic others claim but just doesn't click and feels overrated to me.

    The fun of being a fan is being able to discover new things that could enhance appreciation. I'd like nothing more than to review SF or one of the Brosnans and come away with a better feeling, but until that happens, I will continue to share views I currently hold.


  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,185
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The fun of being a fan is being able to discover new things that could enhance appreciation. I'd like nothing more than to review SF or one of the Brosnans and come away with a better feeling, but until that happens, I will continue to share views I currently hold.


    And there is nothing wrong with that. We all have different tastes and opinions about the films. And i'm sure we all had instances where a Bond film dramatically dropped or climbed in our estimation.

    I wish i could fully enjoy all the films, but it doesn't always work.
    At the end of the days it's all just personal opinions.
  • Posts: 3,327
    00Agent wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The fun of being a fan is being able to discover new things that could enhance appreciation. I'd like nothing more than to review SF or one of the Brosnans and come away with a better feeling, but until that happens, I will continue to share views I currently hold.


    And there is nothing wrong with that. We all have different tastes and opinions about the films. And i'm sure we all had instances where a Bond film dramatically dropped or climbed in our estimation.

    I wish i could fully enjoy all the films, but it doesn't always work.
    At the end of the days it's all just personal opinions.

    With the Brozza era I resigned myself to the fact that the bond films became a bit naff, and was never going to return to Fleming, but I find the Craig era far more disappointing because of the hope it gave me after CR.

    With that film I really felt we had turned a corner, that Babs realised we needed to go back to the books like her father before her, yet it sadly led me up a false garden path. QoS title had me rejoicing again, using another Fleming title, and there was still a fair few nods to Fleming in that film too, which gave me hope for the next one.

    But then Mendes came along and turned the whole thing on its head. We went back to square one again - TWINE soap opera crap, with the novels tossed aside, and brutal, bloody violent Bond gone. Instead we get family angst and `original' personal backstories.
  • Posts: 11,425
    00Agent wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The fun of being a fan is being able to discover new things that could enhance appreciation. I'd like nothing more than to review SF or one of the Brosnans and come away with a better feeling, but until that happens, I will continue to share views I currently hold.


    And there is nothing wrong with that. We all have different tastes and opinions about the films. And i'm sure we all had instances where a Bond film dramatically dropped or climbed in our estimation.

    I wish i could fully enjoy all the films, but it doesn't always work.
    At the end of the days it's all just personal opinions.

    With the Brozza era I resigned myself to the fact that the bond films became a bit naff, and was never going to return to Fleming, but I find the Craig era far more disappointing because of the hope it gave me after CR.

    With that film I really felt we had turned a corner, that Babs realised we needed to go back to the books like her father before her, yet it sadly led me up a false garden path. QoS title had me rejoicing again, using another Fleming title, and there was still a fair few nods to Fleming in that film too, which gave me hope for the next one.

    But then Mendes came along and turned the whole thing on its head. We went back to square one again - TWINE soap opera crap, with the novels tossed aside, and brutal, bloody violent Bond gone. Instead we get family angst and `original' personal backstories.

    My feelings exactly. CR and QOS very good. Then everything they'd done to set a fresh new direction just got chucked and we were back in Brosnan territory all over again. Oh well.

    A good Bond film is a rarity these days. Its 3:1 miss to hit ratio at best from my perspective at least.
  • Posts: 1,917
    Getafix wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The fun of being a fan is being able to discover new things that could enhance appreciation. I'd like nothing more than to review SF or one of the Brosnans and come away with a better feeling, but until that happens, I will continue to share views I currently hold.


    And there is nothing wrong with that. We all have different tastes and opinions about the films. And i'm sure we all had instances where a Bond film dramatically dropped or climbed in our estimation.

    I wish i could fully enjoy all the films, but it doesn't always work.
    At the end of the days it's all just personal opinions.

    With the Brozza era I resigned myself to the fact that the bond films became a bit naff, and was never going to return to Fleming, but I find the Craig era far more disappointing because of the hope it gave me after CR.

    With that film I really felt we had turned a corner, that Babs realised we needed to go back to the books like her father before her, yet it sadly led me up a false garden path. QoS title had me rejoicing again, using another Fleming title, and there was still a fair few nods to Fleming in that film too, which gave me hope for the next one.

    But then Mendes came along and turned the whole thing on its head. We went back to square one again - TWINE soap opera crap, with the novels tossed aside, and brutal, bloody violent Bond gone. Instead we get family angst and `original' personal backstories.

    My feelings exactly. CR and QOS very good. Then everything they'd done to set a fresh new direction just got chucked and we were back in Brosnan territory all over again. Oh well.

    A good Bond film is a rarity these days. Its 3:1 miss to hit ratio at best from my perspective at least.

    Same here. In the good ole days, it seemed like the pattern would be a good one every other film, but back then the films were coming out every other year. Now we have to wait an average of 4-5 years for a new one and it makes a disappointment that much worse. At least we have outlets like this we can vent, or more preferably, celebrate.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 6,709
    Getafix wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The fun of being a fan is being able to discover new things that could enhance appreciation. I'd like nothing more than to review SF or one of the Brosnans and come away with a better feeling, but until that happens, I will continue to share views I currently hold.


    And there is nothing wrong with that. We all have different tastes and opinions about the films. And i'm sure we all had instances where a Bond film dramatically dropped or climbed in our estimation.

    I wish i could fully enjoy all the films, but it doesn't always work.
    At the end of the days it's all just personal opinions.

    With the Brozza era I resigned myself to the fact that the bond films became a bit naff, and was never going to return to Fleming, but I find the Craig era far more disappointing because of the hope it gave me after CR.

    With that film I really felt we had turned a corner, that Babs realised we needed to go back to the books like her father before her, yet it sadly led me up a false garden path. QoS title had me rejoicing again, using another Fleming title, and there was still a fair few nods to Fleming in that film too, which gave me hope for the next one.

    But then Mendes came along and turned the whole thing on its head. We went back to square one again - TWINE soap opera crap, with the novels tossed aside, and brutal, bloody violent Bond gone. Instead we get family angst and `original' personal backstories.

    My feelings exactly. CR and QOS very good. Then everything they'd done to set a fresh new direction just got chucked and we were back in Brosnan territory all over again. Oh well.

    A good Bond film is a rarity these days. Its 3:1 miss to hit ratio at best from my perspective at least.

    Don't worry, they usually get it right with the first film for each new actor. So all we gotta do is wait a couple more years ;)

    Meanwhile, lets try to enjoy what we do have. And what we do have is not shabby at all. Not on DAD levels, anyway. Go watch DAD's trailer on youtube and you'll immediately appreciate SP more. And you'll get excited for NTTD. Then, we'll wait until 2025 and we'll have a Bond centric approach again.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Oh the Mendes films are on another level to the Brosnan era. Although I have a bit of a soft spot for TND.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    TND was actually my first Bond film. After the garage sequence I turned it off to watch something else. So yeah, I don’t exactly have a childhood fondness for it like my generation does.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Well, to nobody's surprise, this thread went toxic very quickly.

    Tonight's Oscars ceremony reminds us that Skyfall has the most Oscar nominations and Oscar wins of any Bond film. SF also ranks third, among all Bond films, in Box Office, adjusted for inflation. It has earned a 92% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

    These are facts the contrarians and Mendes haters don't like to address.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    TripAces wrote: »
    Well, to nobody's surprise, this thread went toxic very quickly.

    Tonight's Oscars ceremony reminds us that Skyfall has the most Oscar nominations and Oscar wins of any Bond film. SF also ranks third, among all Bond films, in Box Office, adjusted for inflation. It has earned a 92% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

    These are facts the contrarians and Mendes haters don't like to address.

    I really enjoy Skyfall, though lately I’ve found the end of it get a little on the boring side. Box office and Oscar’s are no guarantee of quality, but the RT score is pretty telling.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,790
    I thought at this point for box office Skyfall was #1, Thunderball #2.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    I thought at this point for box office Skyfall was #1, Thunderball #2.

    It's an interesting discussion with no real right answer.

    "While Skyfall‘s $1 billion worldwide box office take is impressive and the first ever Bond film to breach that barrier, it is a poor measure of success. When the figures are adjusted for inflation, Skyfall is in third place domestically, behind Thunderball and Goldfinger, although globally it is just ahead of Thunderball thanks to expanding markets such as China.

    In terms of audience size, Skyfall is well behind Thunderball and Goldfinger in the US, which is the only market we can measure the audience with any degree of accuracy.

    But in terms of Return On Investment there is one film that has never been beaten. Dr No launched the James Bond series with an incredible 5857% ROI. Compare that with Skyfall‘s 455% ROI, which looks like a failure in comparison."


    It just depends on how you look at it, I suppose.

    Link:

    https://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/james-bond-films/box-office-figures-for-the-james-bond-series.htm
  • Posts: 1,680
    NTTD is taking us back in CR/quantum territory. It won’t be another Spectre.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    NTTD is taking us back in CR/quantum territory. It won’t be another Spectre.

    Fingers crossed.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited February 2020 Posts: 8,183
    I thought at this point for box office Skyfall was #1, Thunderball #2.

    In the US domestic box office adjusted for inflation it's TB at #1, GF #2, and SF #3. However, for the worldwide box office, adjusted for inflation for 2019, it's listed as such:
    1. SKYFALL - $1.24b
    2. THUNDERBALL - $1.15b
    3. GOLDFINGER - $1.03b
    4. SPECTRE - $948m
    5. LIVE AND LET DIE - $931m
    6. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE - $854m
    7. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME - $782m
    8. CASINO ROYALE - $753m
    9. MOONRAKER - $740m
    10. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER - $732m
    11. QUANTUM OF SOLACE - $702m
    12. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE - $659m
    13. DIE ANOTHER DAY - $613m
    14. GOLDENEYE - $597m
    15. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE -$571m
    16. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH - $555m
    17. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY - $549m
    18. TOMORROW NEVER DIES - $540m
    19. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN - $506m
    20. DR. NO - $504m
    21. OCTOPUSSY - $481m
    22. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS - $430m
    23. A VIEW TO A KILL - $362m
    24. LICENCE TO KILL - $321m
  • Posts: 3,327
    TripAces wrote: »
    Well, to nobody's surprise, this thread went toxic very quickly.

    Tonight's Oscars ceremony reminds us that Skyfall has the most Oscar nominations and Oscar wins of any Bond film. SF also ranks third, among all Bond films, in Box Office, adjusted for inflation. It has earned a 92% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

    These are facts the contrarians and Mendes haters don't like to address.

    I have no issue addressing that at all. RT loved The Last Jedi and gave that a similar rating, which I think is a horrific film. The critics do sometimes get it wrong, as do the Oscars (frequently). I don't see the Oscars as a stamp of approval, neither RT either.

    Tellingly, SF scores higher than OHMSS on RT, and did better at the BO too, yet most Bond fans know which is the better film. Are you telling me we all need to like SF more now instead?

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Are you telling me we all need to like SF more now instead?

    I certainly rank SF higher. If OHMSS had an actual actor playing James Bond, I'd probably have it shot to #1. As it is, I have OHMSS ranked at #4, and SF ranked at #3.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Are you telling me we all need to like SF more now instead?

    I certainly rank SF higher. If OHMSS had an actual actor playing James Bond, I'd probably have it shot to #1. As it is, I have OHMSS ranked at #4, and SF ranked at #3.

    Good for you. Many fans would disagree that SF is better than OHMSS, but my point was more on RT being a sure stamp of approval, when you look at films like The Last Jedi.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Are you telling me we all need to like SF more now instead?

    I certainly rank SF higher. If OHMSS had an actual actor playing James Bond, I'd probably have it shot to #1. As it is, I have OHMSS ranked at #4, and SF ranked at #3.

    Good for you. Many fans would disagree that SF is better than OHMSS

    That's not surprising, as Bond fans are the only group that actually rates OHMSS highly. Once you step out of that group, there isn't really all that much fondness for it.
    but my point was more on RT being a sure stamp of approval, when you look at films like The Last Jedi.

    TLJ got good reviews from critics because they were judging it purely as a film, they were not judging it as Star Wars fans. On that criteria, it is a good film. They weren't judging it based on expectations concerning canon and perceptions of how their childhood characters would be written.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Are you telling me we all need to like SF more now instead?

    I certainly rank SF higher. If OHMSS had an actual actor playing James Bond, I'd probably have it shot to #1. As it is, I have OHMSS ranked at #4, and SF ranked at #3.

    Good for you. Many fans would disagree that SF is better than OHMSS

    That's not surprising, as Bond fans are the only group that actually rates OHMSS highly. Once you step out of that group, there isn't really all that much fondness for it.
    but my point was more on RT being a sure stamp of approval, when you look at films like The Last Jedi.

    TLJ got good reviews from critics because they were judging it purely as a film, they were not judging it as Star Wars fans. On that criteria, it is a good film. They weren't judging it based on expectations concerning canon and perceptions of how their childhood characters would be written.

    I don't think it is a good film purely on that basis either (casino scene, character Rose, etc.)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    The casino scene was overly frivolous, but it ultimately has such a short screen time that I was never personally bothered by it. And I especially never got the fuss over Rose by fans either.

    But this isn't the thread to discuss Star Wars, so we should probably cut it right here like a blowtorch through butter.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    @Resurrection wow thanks for the info, I didn't realise that was real. The shot were Bond first sees the train heading towards him looks suspicious. I don't know why I just thought that was out of place from the rest of the film
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,120
    Oscar nominations and box office results are not the kind of thing I consider to be indecative of a film's quality.

    Sometimes the Academy gets it right, sometimes they don't. Furthermore, this year being an exception to that, you don't even stand a chance when your film isn't in English or if you've made a horror film. So hardly anything to go by if you don't consider the whole spectrum of movie-making anyway.

    Box office I really don't care about. It only says what the majority of people like to watch. Most people like McDonalds' too you know. Considering Transformers and Fast and Furious and that sort of stuff are highly profitable, I can't say that it means anything, quality-wise.
Sign In or Register to comment.