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
great scenes, and beautifully filmed.
Bottom of the list either.
Another great post from you, well put!
I am not sure waiting one year extra for Sam Mendes will shorten Craigs tenure as Bond though. That one year won't change things too much. He has at least one more film left in him, maybe two, regardless of that.
There is no denying that SF has been a massive hit. I think hopefully it will have brought back some old fans and created a lot of new ones. That is all extremely positive. I have been a big supporter of Craig ever since news he was being cast first came out. I liked his first two films a lot. It's no secret what my views are on SF. I always find it interesting when I read comments like the one highlighted above, as I find the committee room sequence one of the weakest in SF and a bit of an embarassment in how it's constructed and filmed - totally unconconvincing from both a narrative and dramatic perspective. This is the culmination of Silva's dastardly plan, and he's repelled by a couple of fire extinguishers? It's laughable how little thought went into writing this scene. Like a bad BBC Sunday-afternoon police drama.
Hmm, I would be interested to know some of your other complaints with SF since it's one of my favorites and I wish I could understand why is receives so much criticism.
I think most of the other members would say they'd rather not hear any more from me on SF. I've written probably way to much on what I think is wrong with it elsewhere. But to briefly summarise, I didn't rate it when I first saw it and it hasn't grown on me since. But I am a big DC fan and everything I hear so far makes me think SP could be the film that I've been waiting for. I think it's good news that for the first time since 1989 we're going to get a director doing two Bonds in a row. One of the biggest problems facing the series since LTK has been the lack of continuity in directors. I never liked GE, but I think when Campbell came back to do CR, he was able to massively improve on his first effort. I'm confident that Mendes will want to do something different from SF with SP, and refine the story-telling and just make SP a whole lot tighter and more entertaining - otherwise he wouldn't have agreed to take the job. If it's a success, I'll be hoping that he stays on and does another.
I should also say that although I don't personally like SF, I think it is an interesting failure. It's not like the whole series is going down a dead-end, as it was during the Brosnan era. I just think SF didn't succeed at what it was setting out to do. But I respect it for its ambition. In many ways (including the story), I see it as quite similar to TWINE - trying to take the films in a different, more character and thematically driven direction. While I think both films are failures, I'd much rather sit through a superior quality failure like SF than the awfulness of TWINE.
--> ACTING: Foremost this is IMO the biggest strength of "Skyfall". I think seeing Javier Bardem being consumed by the character Raoul Silva, makes you actually forget about plot holes. And I think this is part of the success of the film. "Skyfall" is not so much about memorable action sequences. But IT IS about memorable scenes in general. Examples: Silva's grand entrance (perhaps reminiscent of previous grand entrances of Bond villains from the 1960's), Silva's insane little William Tell game with Bond (Seeing Silva shooting down Severine is ONE of my personal highlights of the film), and Silva's conversation with "M" (until the gory moment when he puts out his prosthesis). Does it belong in a Bond film? I welcome change, and off course I think this approach can belong in a Bond-film.
--> CHARACTERS: As I said before, screenplay writing is IMO about three things: a) Plot/Story, b) Characters and c) Dialogue. B) and C) are IMO the highlight of the "Skyfall" screenplay. Yes, some people tend to disagree with that. But movies can not be groundbreaking if one can't twist and change the technical rules of screenplay writing. I heard people saying that the "rule should be that screenplay must have a good well-explained story/plot". What counts for me is the impact of the total package; the finished film, not just one aspect like plot. Obviously "Skyfall" worked in that sense. And even set a new standard. The screenplay of "Skyfall" also hold up because of ingenious dialogue. Not so much the humor-parts, but especially the tense dramatic parts of dialogue are well-crafted. Does this approach belong in a Bond-film? Why not!
--> DRAMA: Many "typical" Bond films found this aspect too forced, sometimes even irritating. I think this is because Bond films usually are not famed for having good drama, nor is the taste of typical Bond fans very supportive of emotional drama. And let's face it, Sam Mendes is a drama director. Still, good drama IMO is always derived from well-written characters and their backgrounds. The definition is: "It depends mostly on in-depth development of realistic characters dealing with emotional themes. It is the theme that puts the characters in conflict with themselves, others or society." Regardless of the plot, the actual motives of the characters, like those of Silva, 'M' and Bond, are entirely believable. It's not so much about "HOW" the events, leading to the motives of the characters, happened. But "Skyfall" is more about the "WHY", why the characters are acting in the film like they do. WHY is Silva so vengeful. WHY does Bond get a shut-down when his doctor refers to "Skyfall". WHY is 'M' such a mother figure to Bond.
And I think the above approach actually could explain the insane success of "Skyfall". At least partially. Its approach --focusing on characters, acting, dialogue and memorable drama scenes, instead of such a tight, well-explained screenplay with memorable action sequences-- set a rather unique new standard that basically resulted in this insane $1.1 Billion global box office result.
One can disagree on taste. And obviously a lot of Bond fans in here didn't like it. But I can only conclude that those people who paid some Dollars leading to that $1.1 Billion box office indirectly set a new and original standard. Apparently, they didn't miss the lack of a tight well-explained plot or memorable action sequences on first viewing. So "Skyfall" could indeed get an evergreen status in the near future. The insane amount of topics, in which "Skyfall" is discussed even more than many other Bond-films, could also be seen as another wonderful success. So please, Sam Mendes really deserves more credit for all this.
I'm afraid the guys who dislike it have brow beaten us to the point where we don't know what to think anymore, and as a result everyone is saying 'I still love it, despite plot holes..' etc just so they don't get into a fresh debate with the haters.
Anyway, I love it as well Thunderfinger.
And for the record I also love YOLT even though Blofeld cleared a volcano without any detection ( Q. where did the rubble go I wonder? A. I just don't care)
What do you think about my above post? I hope it isn't too much text hehe.
I do find it funny how some people will rip apart QoS for having a storyline that "doesn't make sense," then praise SF, totally overlooking all of the problems the story and details within contains. Though then again, QoS and SF are two completely different films to me.
Call me overhyped, call me a cynic (though you all know me and I've made my points numerous times over the years - I don't hate any Bond film. There's just some that I really don't care for, but will ALWAYS enjoy watching for what they're worth), but SF just didn't do it for me like I had hoped.
Okay, because you said it. I will definitely call you a cynic then ;-). I do hope you did read my above post though.
I agree, SF and QoS are two different films.
@ThighsofXenia, agreed on Deakins. The man's work never ceases to amaze me. It's why I'm itching to see 'Unbroken.' While plot holes may not be a valid complaint, I still have many others that are (to me, anyway), and in the end, a film is a film. I watch Bond for the escapism, not a goof-free Oscar winner, but at the same time, when a director goes for bigger action set pieces and more drama, then I don't want to see that same director giving us a plot that is riddled with things that really don't make sense.
Again, that's a fine line, because TONS of things in the Bond universe don't make sense. But I think there's a difference between a Lotus that swims underwater and a drama-driven film like SF that makes me scratch my head too many times to count.
The committee room sequence has a lot of content starting from the beginning where it shares screen time with Bond chasing Silva in the underground. The narrative is wholly contrived. That doesn't make it an embarrassment in the least. Every day government officials are forced to testify and listen to testimony from private entities that are artificial and excessive in both their inquiry and presentation. I get the impression that part of the scene doubles as a commentary on the gridlock of the political landscape, which the scripts have shown to do in recent films. This is partly confirmed in my eyes by the overt sarcasm of the committee leader in both dialogue and performance, with the quip about it being, "a job well done then," and her incessant lecture to an on screen audience that was starting to fall asleep.
The prattling on about MI6's insignificance is a plot device to introduce the viewers to an alternative perspective of Mallory, where he interrupts her to request hearing M give a response to defend her institution. Those early scenes act as a pressure valve to the increasing urgency of the chase sequence as it is revealed that M is the target. As Silva and Bond approach the committee room and M is reading from Tennyson, which she delivers to her usual high standard, it does not merely punch the audience in the face with the already obvious sentiment of the scene. It is between the lines of dialogue and performance that M passes the torch of MI6 to Mallory. Here is a guy who is essentially a military man turned bureaucrat who has his spirit ignited enough to literally take a bullet for her. The subsequent action sequence is unique for a Bond film because it's not the standard shootout. Bond is acting primarily to protect the people of the committee room, which displays to Mallory exactly why Bond came back. Recall that their last interaction was, "why not stay dead?" The scene is vitally important to the later death of M and Mallory's assuming the position. It would be a good bet to expect this relationship to play out in SPECTRE since Mendes said himself he was responsible for putting these characters into their roles and he didn't get to finish telling their stories.
That's the perspective I take out of the sequence, which is a whole lot more than being thematically shot in the chest.
3:-O
I too find the scene rather contrived, but I also congratulate Mendes for using it to provide artful insight into characters (Mallory, Bond, MP & M) and forge relationships/create trust within a tense setting (Bond's cheeky wink at Mallory - 'just trust me' - says it all, and I think after that we see that Mallory does indeed trust Bond - evidenced by his going along with the 'breadcrumbs' idea).
Mendes' experience at stage craft is clearly evident here (a loud/noisy scene is made almost intimate with a focus on characters and the action almost secondary). It's somewhat pretentious, but quite subtly effective nonetheless.
Really a brilliant post, has made me appreciate a scene that I already really liked a lot more. Hats off to @Mansfield! With only 9 months left in 2015, this'll be a hard post to top ;)