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
That has nothing to do with the quality of the film and the director/actors/EON have no control in how the film is perceived.
No,but they have the control to deliver a story that got at least 5 cent worth of logic in it,something they managed - sometimes more,sometimes less- 23 times before. If you have a storyline that is more laughable than YOLT you simply have a problem ( at least with discriminating watchers).
-Silva allowing himself to be caught, escaping MI6, with the plan "years in the making"
-Silva having bombs set up in the tube, how? when?
-Why didn't Bond just drop M off at a safe-house and have MI6 waiting for Silva when he arrived at the Skyfall manor?
My response? I don't care. This is a James Bond movie and it's not based in reality and everything doesn't have to add up; it's a fantasy. As long as the plot is understandable, that's all that is required. Skyfall was a lot more coherent than say, the Star Wars prequels. Skyfall was a great story that was well acted with great locations and it was beautifully shot with lots of great action and dialog. Rather than nitpick as to why this or that doesn't make sense, I'd rather just go along and enjoy the ride.
I'm going to say that about 90% of this commentary is either unfounded or just plain ridiculous and objective.
Not for me.
When I watch YOLT, I don't think about how SPECTRE could have hollowed-out an inactive volcano and installed a secret lair there without the Japanese government knowing (they would need permits, equipment, etc.) or how could SPECTRE possess the technology to steal a spacecraft with a giant space-claw--I just enjoy the movie.
You do realize that's the most praised bond movies of them all (FRWL,OHMSS) are hailed because of their seriousness and convincing story line, do you? You can't have it both ways. Play it serious or make it pure entertainment. But even some most entertaining of them all (TSWLM) has a 100 times more waterproof storyline than SF. That's what's makes it such an annoyance (to me at least)!
Following your "This is a James Bond movie ...." and "As long as the plot is understandable..." logic "Finding Nemo" could serve as a template for Bond.
That's absolutely alright with. But then you're just a lover of entertainment and not of tales of espionage. Please don't take the "just" as denigrating. I really don't mean it this way! But to me Bond movies should be at least somehow serious.
To be fair we're really not expected to and YOLT wasn't marketed and promoted to be anything more much less in the same way SF was.
SF's script was not only emphatically hyped up but it's script was focused on a great deal more so than any other preceding Bond film. SF's a great movie overall but with the talent involved and the rampant emphasis on how great the script was, it just makes the whole crew look a bit like a laughing stock when they approve the movie with all it's glaring and noticeable plot holes and worse yet, they pertain to critical moments within the film. One expects better.
OHMSS was far less realistic than Skyfall. Blofeld hypnotizing beautiful women to release poison on the world? Yeah, okay. It was a great film, but pure fantasy.
The Bond films can have a more serious tone (the Craig-era, FYEO) or they can be totally absurd (Moonraker, DAD), but they will always be a fantasy, it's not wanting to "have it both ways." I totally disagree with TSWLM having a tighter plot than Slyfall, it was a good film, but absurd.
I don't know why you're bringing Finding Nemo into this. No, it could not be a template for a Bond film. I said that a Bond movie didn't need to have everything explained, it still needs to have other Bondian elements.
If you have a problem with fantastic, farfetched plots, you simply shouldn't be watching Bond.
Again, I don't see how Skyfall has more plot holes than any other Bond movie. As for the rest of your comments, I think that you are over-thinking things.
Exactly. Bond and anal retentiveness don't mix. I think people are selectively grasping at straws with which to whip SF, all in an effort to be contrarian.
I have said it a 1000 times before and I say it now. Just show me ONE part of SFs story that makes sense and I'll be quite forever! It is not something I could say about ANY other Bond Movie (or just about any other film at all that comes to mind,for that matter).
Silva is pissed at M because she sold him out.
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/3487/skyfall-fans-reactions-guaranteed-spoilers
Silva is pissed at M because she sold him out.
[/quote]
When I was posing this question the first time I specified,that people refrain from mentioning steering wheels on the right side of the cars, Silva is out for revenge,Big Ben located in London and such.
But anyhow,do you really feel the reason why she sold him out makes any sense? He was spying after the Chinese,which - after all - was his job. When Bond was shooting the embassy to pieces in CR she merely frowned a little. You see I don't want to start arguing with you,but if you take your time and think it through you will find that from minute 2:30 on (Bond leaving the hotel) really nothing can be logically explained in this movie. To me this is simply insulting.
SF has some depth to it, with it's broken Bond and it's own visual style. It has it's share of visual lushness, but overall seems more gray compared to the vivid colors seen in CR and QoS. The movie seems to loan material from TWINE and MI. Saying that, it's not the most original Bond movie. But it's good one none-the-less.
Still, for me it never was nor ever will be "The Best Bond Movie, evar!".
M says something like Silva "went outside" what was expected of him. That brief explanation was enough. We don't know the details (how long it went on for, if he was warned, etc.) and we don't need to know. For all we know if Bond had shot up three or four more embassies, she would have sold him out too.
When I was posing this question the first time I specified,that people refrain from mentioning steering wheels on the right side of the cars, Silva is out for revenge,Big Ben located in London and such.
But anyhow,do you really feel the reason why she sold him out makes any sense? He was spying after the Chinese,which - after all - was his job. When Bond was shooting the embassy to pieces in CR she merely frowned a little. You see I don't want to start arguing with you,but if you take your time and think it through you will find that from minute 2:30 on (Bond leaving the hotel) really nothing can be logically explained in this movie. To me this is simply insulting.[/quote]
What's insulting is your utter incoherence and neurotic zest to slate SF for picayune misdemeanors while ignoring the howlers that litter so many of the other films.
After viewing it in the theater it was pretty much an immediate 10/10. I recently watched it again (first time in about a year) and I didn't OH-MY-GOD-LOVE-IT like I thought I did. With that being said, I'd still give it an 8.5/10 and it happily rests in my top 6 or 7 Bond films.
I just don't like that Komodo Dragon scene very much. I do appreciate a little more of the sillier humor (mainly with Craig's facial expressions), but when you're gonna pay homage to a Bond scene (LALD's alligator run in this case), don't make it less effective and fake looking. The alligator hop in Live and Let Die is ridiculous, yes, but it's a neat little stunt given some major gravitas for it actually being performed. I'm sorry, but those dragons are a visual effects disaster and the scene is nearly a total loss as a result.
It also kind of bugs me that 'the list' is nearly 100% forgotten by the time Silva makes his way in the film. I'm aware that the focus of the plot shifted to Silva, but not to even make an attempt on wrapping up the list subplot seems very anticlimactic - especially seeing that the first hour is ALL ABOUT THE LIST.
But those are my only two moderate qualms with Skyfall. I do enjoy the film very much and continue to hold it in high regard. But, yes, a little bit of the sparkle was lost for me in recent months.
I'll also add that Casino Royals is still certainly the better film, and I think that Quantum of Solace was a multilevelled failure. Skyfall is my number 2 Craig film.
Anyway, best continue in the other thread.
What's insulting is your utter incoherence and neurotic zest to slate SF for picayune misdemeanors while ignoring the howlers that litter so many of the other films.
[/quote]
No, I don't. I know just about any weakness in about every storyline of the Bond films. Still SF is (and hopefully remains) the only one that is just one gaping plot and logic hole. If not just tell me the one thing that makes sense in it ( and no - it isn't Bond following Patrice to Shanghai,which would make sense,if the way they found about his identity hadn't been so completely laughable ).
The only Bond films that have perfectly satisfied me upon initial viewing are all of the Connery films plus OHMSS and Moore's first effort, which I though was exemplary.
I have had minor initial quibbles with everything since.
The Craig films are growing on me at least as a quite watchable body of work, most notably SF.
No, I don't. I know just about any weakness in about every storyline of the Bond films. Still SF is (and hopefully remains) the only one that is just one gaping plot and logic hole. If not just tell me the one thing that makes sense in it ( and no - it isn't Bond following Patrice to Shanghai,which would make sense,if the way they found about his identity hadn't been so completely laughable ).[/quote]
Virtually all of it makes sense, except according to your moronic standards. Outside of you and a few other cuckoo birds, nobody had major issues with SF's plot. The film has a 92% freshness rating from professional critics on Rottentomatoes, a rating it would come nowhere near enjoying if it was the logical mess you make it out to be. Face it--you are the one with problems of logic, not SF.