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
This is pretty much stating the case against SF, as I see it.
I see where you're coming from, but my views on the films are really not so calculated. I basically either like them or I don't. The critiques come later. So I just enjoyed QoS a lot more than SF.
I think what this thread represents is that sometimes the initial response to a film does not always reflect it's long-term reputation.
Look at OHMSS - treated as a weird one-off for years but now widely regarded as one of the best in the series. Look at DAD - a box office smash that millions of fans lapped up enthusiastically at the time, but now regarded as a bit of an embarassment. Dare I mention LTK as well? Still widely derided by casual fans, but now loved and admired by many hardcore Bond fans.
Remember Brosnan being hailed as the best since Connery? Don't hear much of that since Dan took over. Meanwhile, there's been a noticeable rehabilitation of Dalton's reputation, whose era now seems less strange as Craig has in many ways picked up the series where Dalton left off.
I think only time will tell what the long term final judgement is on SF, but I know where I stand. I've felt since I first saw it that it was inferior to Craig's first two outings and didn't deserve the hype. My view is that it's a mid-ranking Bond movie at best and that's been my view since the start. As someone said above, some nice cinematography and some heavy-handed 'thematic' stuff and lots of nostalgia doesn't make up for a poor story.
Nobody on these boards should be criticized for their likes/dislikes. It's all personal taste. We're all here because in some way, the franchise as a whole appeals to us. I appreciate the honesty @Getafix. I don't agree with the takes on some of the films, but that's the fun of it. Some of the films work for us better than others. SF worked for me big time, on so many levels. In fact, I cried the second time I saw it, when the DB5 was shot to hell. It had nothing to do with nostalgia and everything to do with me. I was almost 45 and was sensing that I, too, had been played out in my career and was feeling lost: the car wasn't just a car. It represented tradition, culture, values, youth, spirit. All that. The film "spoke" to me on a personal level that other Bond films hadn't. And it still does.
I watch SF at least once every couple of weeks, usually in the background while I'm working, and my oldest daughter sometimes comes in my office and asks why I watch it so much. "It tells my own story," I tell her.
Well there you have it. How a film resonates often trumps quality or mass appeal. I have a bit of that sort of thing with OHMSS (in how I finally got smitten enough to find one woman worth giving up previous freedoms - not, luckily, that the missus' got shot. Well not yet anyway ) :D
Totally fair enough and great to know it means so much to you personally. That's truly wonderful.
Despite not liking every single one of the films myself, I like the fact that there are fans out there for all the films. It adds to all our wider appreciation of the movies.
I particularly like it when people say they like AVTAK - a film in need of some love if there ever was one!
I think we can all agree with this.
I do understand these points, but there is a difference between the views of say critics, fans and movie goers in general.
OHMSS received mixed reviews and it's box office dipped from YOLT (which dipped from TB). But I think (I may be wrong) that only Butch Cassidy actually out performed it at the Box office.
The negativity of the film's initial impact has been heightened over the years to the point that people seem to think it was savaged by the critics and died a death at the B.O. Neither of which is true.
It's overall standing has increased amongst Bond fans though, I agree.
DAD was a huge success, but I believe proper Bond fans were gunning for it from the off.
LTK - you are right I think. It didn't sit well with the public but for some bizarre reason is loved by Bond fans now.
As for Brosnan, he was hailed as the best since Connery by the critics (no proper on-line social media in those days, so we never had a voice). Since Dan came in the whole world is allowed an opinion thanks to t'internet, and we get a better sense of people's thoughts and opinions. As such I would say.......the world is divided into two camps Brosnan and Craig. It's like Connery and Moore all over again.
Mr Dalton is loved by most Bond fans (it seems) but his standing amongst the public as a whole ('who's Timothy Dalton?') and movie critics ('we prefer watching paint dry') remains pretty well the same.
It has been scientifically proven that 98% of movie critics are full of <<bleep>>
DAD I believe was the first Bond film released when the MI6 website (first version) was created, and I remember that when on the old forums I surfed through the posts made at the time, nearly everyone wanted Brosnan back for a 5th film, regardless of what they thought of DAD.
The most hypocritical aspect of this enduring negative comments about those allegedly "too close minded to appreciate the depth of SF", is that it comes from people who use very often the Box-Office Proof. Oh, come on, now *this* is close-mindedness, judging art first by the money. I think that on this forum as a whole, CR is much more appreciated than SF, and yet CR did not reach the Box Office #1 spot because of some dancing penguins !
Well, Bond fandom is not really something to be snob about no ? It's mainstream for ages. I don't know many Bond fans who claims "Barry Nelson nailed it and others just did mainstream brainless stuff for China"...
Such analysis are "fun" to discuss, but really they should be left to a T-Shirt like the image below, this is mostly a caricature of a teenager attitude at best, and even teenagers are not that one-dimensional.
PS : Very early, SF was described by some here as having a "watertight plot". Now I think it's quite agreed even by some SF fans that plot is not really the strength of the movie...
Me included. More for the fact I wanted a long standing star in the role to rival Connery and Moore. However, it worked out better with Craig.
My own opinion of DAD wasn't as negative in 2002 as it is now. But that change is down to the last interminable 40 minutes of the film. It makes my ears and eyes bleed.
I like AVTAK. It has its flaws, but there's some charm and daring in the film. I think it's one of the few Bond films that has a bit of Hitchcockian influence. And Walken is great.
+1
I don't understand my people think 3 films to introduce the Bond formula is rushing it. Instead of blaming SF, blame QoS instead. That's the film that stunted the progression, and the reason why so much was added in SF.
this idea that, because CR was a good film and didn't use the Bond formula, they made some silent oath to never look back is ludicrous and sniffs of the 'I reckon' mentality rather that being supported by evidence.
maybe having M in CR was too much of the writers winking at the audience, too much relying on nostalgia. Hell why even have James Bond in CR at all, It was a real missed opportunity to take the franchise in a new direction.
See how it sounds when you use the same logic and apply it to a different film in the cannon. All this speculating and guesswork, It's exhausting.
Just take it or leave it. We're all expressing opinions and don't have to agree.
I couldn't agree more, I actually find CR having more cringe worthy moments than SF and despite the fact it still remains no. 3 behind SF in my rankings
CR was rejuvenation of the series in the way that Nolan totally revitalised Batman but it's not free of flaws by a long shot but these are now forgotten about just as ammunition to attack SF.
Seriously the Miami sequence is just lazy and like a poor ROTLA xerox, why couldn't they have come with something more imaginative? People round on the sinking house sequence but it's much more imaginative and thrilling to me. The SF PTS is streets ahead in originality and thrill. Plus that one line of dialogue about product placement on the train leaves a sour taste despite it being such a great intro for Vesper, I'll never forgive whoever shoehorned that one in.
Also the little finger moment is cringe worthy, I don't hear anything in SF that embarrassing. Yes I admit the plot of SF is far from water tight but I stand by the dialogue, it's the best of the Craig era and possibly some the finest of the series.
QOS is definitely the black sheep of the bunch for me and find the increase in it's popularity very strange, especially when it was looked at by many as a disappointment. I wasn't one of those that disliked it, I just find it let me down and can only watch it thinking what might had been with a tighter rein on things and without the handicap of the writers strike. Nothing in SF is as lame as that boat chase or even worse the dog fight followed by probably the all time low of the Craig era, the sinkhole sequence. Also that chase through Sienna makes my head pound with the ridiculous editing.
SF is a far more satisfying experience than QOS and slightly more than CR for me. Craig gives his best Bond performance, no it's not as detailed or diverse as his CR one but seeing him at his most Bond this is the film, I think SP will see him even more so.
Exactly. There are tonnes of problems, big and small, with CR that no one even brings up. Once Bond wakes up from his injuries the film takes a major nose-dive and devolves into sappy love story with on plot to speak of. I hate how they changed Vesper's death from a long torture (in the book) to a spur of the moment decision that she immediately regrets. Plus the obligatory, OTT set piece that leads up to it. It should be about the emotions of the characters, not the jeopardy of a sinking house! The last thirty minutes feels like the film completely pulls it's punches. Instead of ending on a sombre note like OHMSS, or following the book, we end with 'Bond, James Bond', fist pumping to the bond theme. Like who cares Vesper just died.
I could bring up legitimate criticisms for CR for hours but I'm swimming against the tide that says CR is a modern classic and SF is a big letdown.
Every film in the franchise has appealing qualities in one form or another. It would not have survived this long if they didn't. Similarly, all of us have certain qualities in the films that we value more than others. Our interest in the films is not necessarily congruent with simple status markers like critical reviews or box office numbers.
One of the reasons why I joined this community is not only because those differences exist, but because in all my time lurking here, I've seen members in almost every thread give meaningful explanations about why they value each film differently. Reading all of the comments has not changed my own interests in the series, but it has expanded my appreciation for the films lower down in my rankings.
Skyfall is really polarizing because it was such a worldwide success for reasons that are entirely different to everyone who went to see it. While I fully respect everyone who does not like Skyfall, I think calling it a failure is too much. The only Bond film that will be a failure will be the last one unless someone decides a long time from now that the character is so irrelevant to the times and gives it an appropriate sendoff.
Every Bond film doesn't succeed at everything it aims to accomplish and Skyfall is no different. As far as my interests are concerned, Skyfall met and exceeded my expectations in the qualities I enjoy from the series. Conversely, for the next forum member, it's quite easy to have Skyfall not add up to the sum of its parts because the things that are wonderful about it are not their most valued qualities.
The only tangible importance critical review and box office numbers have is on the creative decisions by the production team and studio. This is why I predicted Skyfall will be reminiscent of Goldfinger for years to come. Something resonated deeply enough with audiences to generate that much interest in the film and those elements will be of interest to include in subsequent Bond films.
For everyone critical of Craig's Bond to date, ponder this: If history does repeat itself and elements of Skyfall are incorporated into the remaining Craig films much the way they were after Goldfinger, there will come a time when Craig's replacement will be named. If audiences don't immediately buy into that new character with formidable box office numbers, it will either turn into a short tenure for the replacement or result in the series becoming a self-parody again. If that happens, I think many of the criticisms within the community about Craig's era will diminish out of the gratitude of what he was able to do with the series.
I think you could bring up legitimate criticisms for CR for hours, and well most people would say it's a respectable opinion, and you've got the right to have it, we may disagree, and in the end for those who like CR it's hard to explain "logically" why CR is so good.
But then try to cricitize SF, and well, you'll hear "It made a billion, are you stupid ?" :)
I just think overall CR is still a much better film than SF, probably in large part to a decent story. I am allergic I'm afraid to anything that involves computer hacking - as mentioned in that Metro article, that concept has been absolutely flogged to death over recent decades, and SF doesn't even try to do anything new or interesting with it. Nil points for effort on that front.
@Getafix, if you could add something to the mix involving the handling of the hacking or idea of technology in Skyfall as a whole, what would that be? How would you've presented that in a fresh or interesting way? I'm interested in hearing where you wanted it to go with respect to the other themes of the film.
I can give a prime example before I joined this forum I use to skip past OHMSS when working my way through the box set. As all my life people told me Lazenby is terrible, the story is weak, nobody wanted an Aussie bond and its was a blip and a flop. But the more I read about what people loved about it, I read the book and then I gave it more of a shot. I no longer see it as a mistake in the franchise and regret how I let other peoples negative spin influence me. As its porbably in my top 5 now.
I am just glad we are over 50 years now and still going stronger than most franchises. heres to the next 50 and the highs and lows that will trigger fresh discussions.
It's a good line.....I like it and so does Vesper!
It's full of great performances, great dialogue, the cinematography is amazing, it's funny, it has one of the best villains of the series, it has an amazing Bond girl that might actually be my favorite of the series (Severine), and there are loads of great scenes and moments. I think it's a bit like The Dark Knight Rises in the sense that when you watch it again, it isn't as good, but despite the plot being dumb it's still a very good movie.
I think SPECTRE is going to be even better though. It takes what was great about SF and ditches what didn't work, and it also has everything I've wanted in a Bond movie for ages. I really think SPECTRE has a chance of taking the number 1 spot for me.