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
I see where you're trying to go with this - but to me Bond surviving ridiculous injuries / circumstances has always been written into the DNA of 'cinematic 007 reality', and does not drag me out of the moment (see my above comment).
The same car, with identical gadgetry to the one used in a previous mission, picked up - en route from Whitehall to Scotland - from a storage place in the exact same factory block that was located in SWITZERLAND, no less (??!) during the aforementioned mission does kind of take me out of the moment. And I honestly cannot see how anyone could not be.
But I guess there must be some mental button that other can switch off when they are watching these films that I appear to lack…
I actually clapped and cheered myself in that moment, especially when the Bond theme played. And according to the tests my mother made me do, I'm not "special," "retarded" or lacking in any way intellectually, so I just can't explain that one.
If all people can bang on out about for criticism in Skyfall at the moment is that car, then by golly I'd call that a victory for the proponents. There's so much more interesting stuff going on in this movie, but no, that damn car is what sparks the biggest rants. Kind of hilarious really.
A lot of people who criticize that moment do so because they hate that Bond films are hanging on to nostalgic trinkets of the past, yet I'm sure that if Skyfall had come out two months after the big 50 and didn't have a single wink, people would then complain about it not knowing its roots and showing where it'd come from. You just can't win.
I can say quite categorically that I would love for them to tone down the winking, nodding, what have you, and would've had absolutely no problem whatsoever if they'd removed such instances from SF. I just really don't think they need to do it. It's like the moment in QoS with Fields covered in oil. Why copy something that was already done better? Beats me. There seems to be some weird acceptance among fans that the films must pay homage to the past, especially when it's an anniversary. Just because SF does it more tastefully than DAD, doesn't really mean that they should.
The films themselves will always contain those Bondian flourishes, whether it's the structure of the plot, the appearance of the villain, the stunt work, the music, Bond appearing in a dinner suit etc, etc. These broad brush strokes combine to deliver a Bondian aesthetic that is indelible. The specifics within those parameters can and should really be as inventive and original as possible. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's certainly worth risking a cock-up. Copying or alluding to very specific things from previous movies always falls flat for me.
I should qualify my statement – I was not implying that the clapping / thinking it was awesome etc. was a sign of mental retardation or being thick as a plank, I am merely of the opinion that it was not very a classy move & was in bad judgement, from a filmmaking standpoint, and thus those who applauded this move were less judgmental of what constitutes good cinema.
An arrogant mindset, granted, but I’ll happily be the fall guy & take it upon myself to educate the masses ;)
I think this is particularly true with Bond films.
As I have read through the comments posted these past couple of days, it occurs to me that we may be forgetting the actual question posed in the topic of this thread. "Is Skyfall losing its gloss and appeal?" It seems to me that this question (with the word "gloss" being of extreme importance) is one directed at the masses, not Bond fans. On IMDB, SF is still holding down a 7.8 overall rating. I wish I knew what that rating was back in December of 2012 or January of 2013. What's fascinating about this rating is that the film scores HIGHER among viewers under 18. But that's another matter. Point is, I don't think the film has lost appeal any more than other films might when audiences come to them after the hype.
As for the Bond fans in the audience, it seems to me that for those who didn't care for SF, the film never had any appeal to begin with. And for those who liked it, it's still there. Perhaps this thread can be retitled: The Skyfall Debate Thread.
Well you were the one talking about people having problems if they disagree with you...
Me I'm talking about those who post here to criticize those who think SF is just okayish, on this very thread, by explaining SF is too complex for them or similar stuff.
I've written numerous times that IMO now for the majority now Skyfall is certainly not the masterpiece that is above the other Bonds, and in particular I think the overwhelming consensus is that Casino Royale is above Skyfall as far as the recent Bonds are concerned.
There's nevertheless the fact that Skyfall did one billion, and it's regularly written here as if it was relevant. Hopefully the Fast and Furious 7 box office will make it harder and harder to use box office as "fact" movies are complex masterpieces :)
You have this paradox because you try to prove why you're factually right and others are wrong. While others we just experience that something didn't work. I feel that the DB5 in CR works and that the DB5 in SF doesn't work, that it looks like a safety net from Mendes, yes that's unfair, but that's how art works. Double standards everywhere, there is no logical explanation.
It was the top rated Bond movie soon after it was out and for a few months, above 8. But as viewers don't change much their reviews, it will take time for the rating to continue to go down even if the viewers' opinion go down.
Box office fortune tellers "explained" that the TF franchise was an outlier, was so big, because of "immature Chinese", don't understimate their will to prove that box-office is a very relevant science :)
TripAces : here's a snapshot of Skyfall with an IMDB rating of 8.4 with 20.000+ users (before that it went even higher, with only a few thousands voter).
http://web.archive.org/web/20121030141500/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/
I don't know if you where on this forum when it was released, but it was incredible. I think that now what looks like the more astonishing, is that there were some people describing SF as having "a watertight plot". Now I think that the consensus is that, whatever you think of it as a whole, it's a bit the "plothole Bond" : so much emphasis on Silva's plan, it's the only Bond that tries such a twist in the villain's scheme, and it goes so weird. I don't think SF fans like it for its "Silva's get caught because he wanted to" surprise plot.
And well, if the now very obsolete SP first drafts had been used, SF's plot would have look even weirder, believe me. The current SP script has huge differences with the first ideas, so I can say that without spoiling anything. Mendes/Logan had a plan, but we'll probably never know if it started during SF or if they dared to think of it after...
It's a good thing you didn't attend the Royal Premiere then because the whole auditorium went into a frenzy. I would love to have seen Mendes' face at such a reaction. No wonder it's back.
Anyway, the inclusion of the db5 I feel isn't about insulting anyone's intelligence but it was thrown in simply because it could and Mendes wanted an awesome iconic car. There's no real, justifiable logic to the car being tricked out, although any number of scenarios could work but I think it's a, "what the hell why not?" component. It's really not meant to be so aggressively rationalized.
Bond theme = Bond too, and yet...
Let's hope he doesn't do the trick again of frustrating the audience so that any glimpse of nostalgia becomes a much-needed "Bond fix" with maximum effect :)
Those belong there as well.
EXACTLY
Anyone who thinks the DB5 is as integral as the theme and gunbarrel is talking total nonsense.
True. Those two staples are much more quintessential. If the DB5 does not show up again, no big deal. But if it does, it thrills me. Just my own fine opinion.
Agree on the theme, not on the gunbarrel. Don't care if it appears, and I certainly won't hold a fit if it isn't perfectly placed at the beginning of the movie. Somehow that devastates people, but I just don't see why. Again, just like the DB5 criticisms, there's so much else there to look at and analyze in Skyfall; those two things are basically nitpicks in comparison.
The gunbarrel is one of the great recurring icons of cinema and an incredible piece of graphic design. It worked fine in CR, but then it was lost to bullshit semantics in QoS and 'because Deakins had framed a nice shot' in SF. I love it when we see Bond films that play with our expectations, but narratively. Yeah it's a matter of seconds long, but it's an important component that says, '007 is back'. This will thrill me so much more than seeing an overcooked vehicle if it takes its rightful place at the start of SP.
How are we lucky? If he's got anything about him he'll restore it. After all what's 30 seconds just to piss off fans who, God forbid, consider certain things sacred. Not everything in life is up for grabs.
I just enjoy the hypocrisy of people thirsting for the gunbarrel sequence, an element that has been around since the franchise began, but if you so much as mention the DB5, they lose their minds. What's the difference between them? The gunbarrel is overused and only got played with freshly (as fresh as it could be) in the Craig era, while the DB5 is far more worthy of inclusion because it adds something to the story going on in each film it's in, and doesn't act as a so-quick-you-miss-it introduction like the gunbarrel.
I know which one I'd care to see more.
If it's so-quick-you-miss-it, what's the big deal including it? That way those who want it are happy and those who aren't fussed will have to contend with something so quick they may miss it.
Do I really have to explain why the gunbarrel and DB5 are different? You aren't stupid.
The Mendes gunbarrel thing was a joke, sorry for not including a winky emoticon. As for the DB5/gunbarrel statement, I just fail to see why the latter escapes the criticisms of the former.