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
The quip doesn't come across as stoical - it comes across like someone letting off a loud fart at a graveside.
I also find the dialouge to be pretty poor especially the casino scene with Eve on a par with Jinx in DAD.
Are you mixing up SF and CR? Or do you mean Severine in the casino?
I don't think the casino scene in SF is all that bad. As I've said before, I find the thing about him mentioning her being a child prostitute and the subsequent 'seduction' all a bit weird. And as a longtime opponent of CGI in Bond movies I wasn't keen on the Kamono Dragons.
But otherwise, as with much else in the film, I thought the basic idea was fine. Just not as well executed as I'd have liked. And I felt Eve's presence was unnecessary. Bond is constantly being 'handled' by MI6 these days. Sick of it.
Btw, I thought you were a big fan of SF? Or have you changed your opinion since seeing it the first time?
I did mean in the scene with Severine when Bond is talking to Eve through the earpiece.
Some of the "banter with Vesper and Bond in Cr is equally cringeworthy.
I was disappointed with SF from day one and was one of the few to have similar opinion to yourself when you were getting flogged on here!
Funny that. That's my biggest quibble with some of it's detractors.
Parden? I have been called a bumpkin and an idiot on the very site of this threat and worse in others by PK. Strangely enough I never see him getting reprimanded for things like that. Might be he is pushing more popular ideas than I do,but representing the main stream has rarely in the history of men kin been a sign for being right though (apart from erect walking of course).
Apologies - it's me who is getting confused. I see what you mean. Yes, that walk through the casino with Eve is really a bit cringeworthy.
Re your original view on SF, I hadn't logged on for a while - must be thinking of someone else.
Ha, quite agreed! Good show, @RC7. Have a cookie.
You are right - we are all entitled to our 'opinions'. I may not convince someone who loves DAD that it's actually total rubbish, but the point of the site is surely to share and debate ideas.
I think it's telling that we've had several different fan explanations of what was intended with that one liner, and yet no one picked up on what Mendes says he was trying to convey. Which might go some way towards explaining why some of us think it's not very successful.
Let's agree to disagree on this one.
I've certainly heard it discussed on here that Bond's line was meant to make Silva's men let their guard down, so that interpretation was definitely shared by some. Either way, that neither strengthens nor weakens your argument.
I didn't think SF was too pretentious. A bit perhaps but not overly so. In terms of its filmaking I was listening to the audio commentary the other day and Mendes said he didn't like random cuts and jump cuts. The former has bothered me about QoS in the past. It just cuts to random things for no reason other to look clever. That, in my mind, is pretentious.
Bull's eye.
Bull's eye, bull's brain. Whatever ...
Your wit flows like molasses in Siberia.
Please let's give it a rest. @Matt_Helm will check out almost every thread dealing with SF and state his anti-SF arguments in the most provocative ways. It's his prerogative to go anti-SF if he likes. It also makes him very unsympathetic that he does it the way he does it, constantly and using expressions he knows will make your blood boil. That, however, is not forbidden either. But if you find that annoying, stop trying to argue with @Matt_Helm. Let him go through his usual routine and ignore him if you must.
If @Matt_Helm continues to repeat his SF bashing ad nauseam, he will be branded a spammer and receive a warning as such. But by endlessly responding to his conflict inducing posts, you actually stoop to his level of bickering and then if @Matt_Helm must get reprimanded, so must you.
We always enjoy a good debate but this ridiculous crusade of @Matt_Helm has been going on for long enough, in multiple threads no less. Regardless of whether one enjoys SF or not, one grows tired of reading the same bickering time and again. So please avoid any further irritations and simply ignore that which you disapprove of. @Matt_Helm has been asked to re-consider his tone and persistent SF bashing, but it's the only thing he does. He vegetates on the irritation of others.
However, @Matt_Helm hasn't violated any rule of this forum yet. He will do so when, in the absence of any responses from you, he keeps producing the very same arguments over and over again, simply spamming the forum. But trough your responses, his re-stating of his arguments are de facto legitimised. So asking now to have him banned, as numerous of you have already done, is at this moment out of the question.
This forum tolerates all opinions, pro and contra a universally loved film. It does not, however, accept obvious provocation. But it is left powerless so long as active debate, even if it is at times unpleasant for those involved, includes said provocation.
Please consider the above. Thank you.
This forum is about sharing and discussing our opinions about something we like: James Bond.
I do not mind healthy arguments, but by that I mean people giving their opinions, no matter how different from mine, as long as it is done civilly. Which for me, means not to denigrate into name calling, repeated negative bashing, or spitefulness. I know I can get snippy when irritated, too. And sarcasm does not usually translate so well in text.
I feel that a good point is simply for us to ignore comments that are highly inflammatory or continually provocative, from any poster (new or old). Every time we reply, it adds fuel to an unnecessary fire - a fire that is built on garbage. And it stinks up our threads and takes us further off course.
Having said all that, I do feel that when a discussion point is presented, let's discuss it, positives and negatives. Not everybody loves Brosnan as much as I do or finds Judi' M to be the greatest M ever ...
But there is a line that can be crossed when it comes to the point that the poster is merely restating the same thing again and again, most especially if it is negative and uses inflammatory language. And do flag if you feel someone is crossing a line. Let's the mods handle making the judgment calls, but do flag if you feel it is warranted.
I'll try to adhere to that more closely in the future.
It is - of course - so much easier to call me a spammer, than disarm any of the arguments offered by me on the last two pages regarding the Bond of the novels and Connerys take on it. If my opinions are simply spam they should be easy to trash just by citing lines of the books, or pointing out other takes of Sir Sean which would help my opponents arguments but ...
Also I would like to emphasize,that is always me,who gets offended first as a moron,lefty,idiot or whatever. You won't find one example of me throwing words like that. Just thought I mention it.
Moving forward, let's all try to keep it more civil, all of us, including you. Thank you.
I only have these. ;)
In this thread, that is ;)
Your points on Connery and his impersonation of the literary Bond are well noted but have little to do with Skyfall imo as it is Daniel Craig who plays in this film, not Conners. But you already knew that, didn't you?
anyway, I tried to reply to your posts and I think I fairly well succeeded in disarming your arguments, but you never react to them...
I just scrolled through my own posts and can positively say that on March 24 I answered your arguments (except the one, that she was hoping for Bond to kill her, which I don't find logical at all).
About me reasoning on Connerys take on Bond, this was simply an answer to 4everbondeds claim, that she could easily imagine him instead of Craig in the Severigne execution scene. Also, I dare to say that my arguments were quite compelling. Feel free to think otherwise,but I would like to get some scenes cited with Connery, which are proving this point.
About PK, isn't his standard reply to just about everything not to his liking,that one is part of the weeping leftist generation in general and a fool anyhow? If he can't stand the thrust of my replies,he might as well use a different approach of answering me!
Here again my post from March 24:
"Oh please! She was destined to sail back to the island anyhow, so there would not have been any special reason for her to fear Silva more than usual.
Concerning "Arsefall" (which would have been an appropriate title for that mess)- he was trembling like a leaf and -btw- had the shrapnel removed himself way back in London.
It is also worth noting that 20 seconds later he gives a young Bruce Willis in "Die Harder" having no problem at all to kill Sivas henchmen. "
Sometimes your responses seem quite rushed. I actually agree with a lot of your criticisms of SF, but sometimes it's hard to understand exactly what you're saying.
No, I'm not and admittedly I sometimes don't spend the necessary amount of time to really elaborate my answers ( which in some cases consist of some "rushed by anger" translations of my original thoughts in my own language, which is german.)I promise, that I will try harder in my future posts!
I thought so. Well, congratulions on your excellent English, in that case.
I for one don't take offence to your sometimes passionate posts.
I have learnt from past experience though that criticising SF makes some people very angry, so best to be careful what you say. Some of the mods also seem to take criticism of SF as tantamount to trolling, while any amount of abuse hurled from the other side is generally overlooked.
I didn't say she was hoping he would kill her, but he was hoping he would be able to kill Silva, of whom she had been very afraid for a very long time. That's why SHE trembles as a leaf and says 'not like this, not like him', when talking about fear. She was mortified by Silva and would hope on any chance to find someone who might kill him. She had seen Bond kill Patrice. It stands to reason she thought Bond would be able to stop Silva. Having Bond on board would most definitely make her more nervous for the coming rendezvous with Silva.
Yes, Bond was trembling, still wounded, worried he might hit Severine, perhaps slightly angered over her beeing tortured. Shooting someone, or in this case a glass of very good whisky off of someone's head, is something different then the (very) close combat which ensued after he distracted the guards. I don't believe the 'quip' was meant to be funny. It was part of the psychological wordgame he was playing with Silva. You don't really believe Bond had homo-erotic experiences before just because he says 'what makes you think this is my first time'?
Well PK seldomly reacts to me in such a manner, but if he does you can tell him it's not appropriate. It doesn't help to start name-calling yourself.
I didn't say she was hoping he would kill her, but he was hoping he would be able to kill Silva, of whom she had been very afraid for a very long time.
MH: Sorry for getting you wrong.
She had seen Bond kill Patrice. It stands to reason she thought Bond would be able to stop Silva.
MH: To me this is a case of "it does not follow". Just because he has thrown P out of the window she should conclude,that he will be able to win against Silva and his henchmen alone on the island? The point I was making was,that there is this woman explicitly telling him, that her boss is the meanest and vicious guy since Attila,but Bond is making no plans at all except hoping (that they won't find the radio).But as I already mentioned numerous times it just makes no sense to discuss the inherent logic of just about anything going on after Bond comes to Shanghai. Whatever might be going from there (in terms of plans and who is betraying whom)it just can't be explained reasonably.
Having Bond on board would most definitely make her more nervous for the coming rendezvous with Silva.
MH: I honestly can't remember to ever have commented on some nervousness of her on board of the ship.
It was part of the psychological wordgame he was playing with Silva.
MH: This guy has been thoroughly humiliated and ridiculed by Silva in front of everyone and now he thinks he can play mind games and might look better by faking complete indifference? Again a case of non sequitur and certainly not the way Flemings "modern take on the white knight" would act.
You don't really believe Bond had homo-erotic experiences before just because he says 'what makes you think this is my first time'?
MH: Of course I don't. James Bond simply has no homosexual tendencies. Period!
What I was saying is,that up to the "what makes you think this is my first time" line, the flirting scene is one of the very few original ones in Skyfall.
It doesn't help to start name-calling yourself.
MH: Absolutely,that's why I have never done so myself (at least in written form)! Wish I could say the same about PK.