Is Skyfall losing its gloss and appeal ?

Mansfield

SaintMark wrote: »

I do like your take on the movie but it retcons too much for my taste.

If nothing is out of SIlvas reach Bonds search for him makes no sense at all, he could have walking into MI6 let himself caught and escape again, it shows essentially that Bond indeed is useless and obsolete. SO SIlva might think he can do anything but 007 stops him from killing M anyhow and he is not even in shape to do so, what does that say about the allmighty Silva. Which is respected by most aye-sayers because he is the first of the villains that can actually foresee the future and lays a lot of traps. Most of all the whole plan to discredit M is so OTT and suddenly halfway the movie the NOClist is being abandoned as with Silva being almighty they never will get their hands upon that list with somebody so computer saffy he can release all the names even being dead being the super computer villain he is. I accept the nonsense of the gas attack through cyber means om the MI6 because that kind of stuff actually belongs in 007 movies as does the Aston Martin even if the overkill of that car has not been that much since GF & TB, but they were better movies and clearly gives EON, Craig & Mendes a boner.
So factual the movie makes little sense, if 007 had survived Istanbul he would not have been in the field at all not even because of M, as the service would never have allowed an agent missing in action being severely wounded to return for whatever reason.
The whole setup for SF makes no sense factually, even the pulp writer Fleming in his last unfinished book did a better job with a missing 007 than Craig, Mendes & EON has shown so clearly to be capable off. While I applaud what they try to do with Craigs 007 I wish they could have a decent scriptwriter that would make a logical and good script in which Mendes & Craig get to show their skills.

For me the weakness of the last two 007 outings has been the pretentiousness of its directors that fail to deliver a coherent movie and Forster has the excuse of not shooting with a finished script but that one made more sense than the polished version of SF. For me the whole post CR Craig era will be remembered as the period they went all pretentious but should have hired a scriptwriter that could actually write the story that they wanted to tell and write a good script. SF has a grand idea and then it starts to skip around story wise and we end up with fragments of what looks great and would be brilliant if planted in a good story. It is all DAD-logic again and I know the kind of flack that movie got.

I am often surprised about the lack of anger by some fans on how brilliant the bloody movies can be if they actually really tried, after CR I sense a lackluster but expensive torrent that does not deliver very good Bondmovies. For the love of any deity I do not see where all of the massive budgets end up which was something I could before even with the Dalton movies that was the case. Even with the Marvel movies you can see where they spend the money on with the Craig movies after CR I wonder really were the money is at.

Skyfall is an original screenplay, not one of the adapted variety. Original screenplays are made specifically for the art of storytelling through movies. Movies are not purely story driven, or written, works of art; that artistry is shared with performing arts, visual effects, design, music, etc. Compare that to the work of an author such as Fleming, who's responsibility was to bring the character and stories alive in the imaginations of his readers. Source material that is worthy of its publication should be more provocative than an original movie screenplay. Other differences become apparent when you try to compare Skyfall to adapted works by Fleming and the EON Production team. For example, From Russia With Love stays mostly true to the source material written by Fleming, which is well established as being a quality piece of writing, and as such has many of its quality traits expressed in the film production. It is a lofty expectation to hold Skyfall to the same level of writing excellence of From Russia With Love because of the means by which the plot and the script were created. Not to suggest original screenplays can't stack up to adapted screenplays or their source material, but there needs to be an understanding that considerable more attention goes into the script in relationship to what will be shown in pictures (storyboards in preproduction), performing quality, cinematography, what have you.

That is just to establish that we are only discussing one aspect of art in Skyfall. Now since I am not credited with writing the screenplay, I'm not going to post here to defend the plot or the script. The objective of my posts in this thread have been solely intended for interpreting the product and giving my opinion on it. Indeed, there are well established plot holes in Skyfall, which by itself should not automatically make it the bearer of scrutiny. If you look at recent masterworks in the realm of films, as marked by their success from critics, at the box office, and award ceremonies, Titanic and The Lord of the Rings definitely stand out in all three categories. Both of those films have their fair share of plot holes, which is remarkable considering the latter is the adapted screenplay of arguably the greatest masterwork of the 20th century. Granted the screenplay introduced plot holes that the source material thoroughly explained.

What determines if a film should be criticized for shortcomings in its plot? It's a really good question worthy of discussion. Even Bond films with stronger screenplays have plot holes. For one possible answer, it can be when other artistic qualities of the film do not sufficiently cover up its deficiencies. In Skyfall's other artistic areas, it mostly excels. From reading the last few hundred posts in this thread, there has clearly been a debate about visual effects and music, but I certainly haven't seen much criticism in the performances. As for the plot specifically, I personally don't let it take away from the experience in the slightest. The biggest misstep the script takes is by pretending that Silva set all of this up himself, such as Q saying, "This was years in the planning." He obviously wasn't working by himself because he had Patrice steal the hard drive and bounds of henchmen in China and England. What if they didn't say that? It could be implied he had his people set up the bomb once they knew he was captured, much the same way he had his people deliver a police uniform with impeccable timing during his escape.

Even still, I don't think any of the Skyfall praisers have said it is the perfect representation of Bond. It's not our place to judge the Craig era before its concluded since there is an established continuity between films. In terms of wasting potential, no one outside of the higher up Bond brain trust knows who is making these decisions. Craig wanted Mendes at the helm for Bond (and now he's back for another), and this is the product they have given us. We can't say it was a waste when there is the possibility Craig wouldn't be Bond at all without a degree of decision making in creativity liberty. We could just have some bloke as Bond who is going through the motions of well-rounded plots. As much as that may appeal to some, I'll stay on the Craig train as long as there are still destinations to reach.

SirHilaryBray

SaintMark wrote: »

Mansfield wrote: »

SaintMark wrote: »

she could have taken a safe house and order 007 to kill Silva, 007 is a killer after all, it would have shown the necessity of old style over the clinical modern cyber agent. And Bond tracking down SIlva as a 00 and taking him out with Silva being able to kill M or not might have been more fun and more sense and it would have shown M as the powerful leader that does implement the best tool at her disposal to get rid of Silva instead of an old woman desperately making stupid choices. They took the strength out of the Dench M character she has shown in the previous movies. the kidnapped her character in that sense....

The whole movie implies nothing is out of Silva's reach. Prior to receiving any screen time, Bond asks Severine, "Does he always get what he wants?" To which she replies, "More than you know." Skyfall is that safe house, with the glaring difference being that the leave a trail of breadcrumbs for Silver to find her.

You are proposing that M assigning Bond the mission of killing Silva before he can get to her if I am understanding you correctly. There's a key part of the plot that you are overlooking with the guarded assassin approach. At that point in the film, Silva has only released the first 5 names of agents in terrorist organizations. It's implied more will be revealed every week that he is left unfulfilled. Finding Silva the first time took him on a cross-continetal journey. How many more deaths would M be accountable for should it take Bond any reasonable length of time to find and kill Silva again?

Not only that, but the initial cyberterrorist attack on MI6 headquarters was a gas leak explosion that killed 6 MI6 workers. What sinister plot could he inflict on other agencies in London? The movie tells us that having Silva track M down is the only effective means for controlling the threat. That is all pretty factual for this post. I don't really think I have infused my opinion into any preceding part of this post.

What is opinionated is what it does to Dench's M's character. And there is nothing wrong if you feel like this plot diminishes M's character. My take on it is that it shows greater resolve of her service to the country. She has always told Bond to remove his ego out of the equation. When it comes time for her to carry out her duty, she stared death in the face and accepted it in order to protect countless other individuals. That takes a selfless strength of character few possess, in my opinion of course.

I do like your take on the movie but it retcons too much for my taste.

If nothing is out of SIlvas reach Bonds search for him makes no sense at all, he could have walking into MI6 let himself caught and escape again, it shows essentially that Bond indeed is useless and obsolete. SO SIlva might think he can do anything but 007 stops him from killing M anyhow and he is not even in shape to do so, what does that say about the allmighty Silva. Which is respected by most aye-sayers because he is the first of the villains that can actually foresee the future and lays a lot of traps. Most of all the whole plan to discredit M is so OTT and suddenly halfway the movie the NOClist is being abandoned as with Silva being almighty they never will get their hands upon that list with somebody so computer saffy he can release all the names even being dead being the super computer villain he is. I accept the nonsense of the gas attack through cyber means om the MI6 because that kind of stuff actually belongs in 007 movies as does the Aston Martin even if the overkill of that car has not been that much since GF & TB, but they were better movies and clearly gives EON, Craig & Mendes a boner.
So factual the movie makes little sense, if 007 had survived Istanbul he would not have been in the field at all not even because of M, as the service would never have allowed an agent missing in action being severely wounded to return for whatever reason.
The whole setup for SF makes no sense factually, even the pulp writer Fleming in his last unfinished book did a better job with a missing 007 than Craig, Mendes & EON has shown so clearly to be capable off. While I applaud what they try to do with Craigs 007 I wish they could have a decent scriptwriter that would make a logical and good script in which Mendes & Craig get to show their skills.

For me the weakness of the last two 007 outings has been the pretentiousness of its directors that fail to deliver a coherent movie and Forster has the excuse of not shooting with a finished script but that one made more sense than the polished version of SF. For me the whole post CR Craig era will be remembered as the period they went all pretentious but should have hired a scriptwriter that could actually write the story that they wanted to tell and write a good script. SF has a grand idea and then it starts to skip around story wise and we end up with fragments of what looks great and would be brilliant if planted in a good story. It is all DAD-logic again and I know the kind of flack that movie got.

I am often surprised about the lack of anger by some fans on how brilliant the bloody movies can be if they actually really tried, after CR I sense a lackluster but expensive torrent that does not deliver very good Bondmovies. For the love of any deity I do not see where all of the massive budgets end up which was something I could before even with the Dalton movies that was the case. Even with the Marvel movies you can see where they spend the money on with the Craig movies after CR I wonder really were the money is at.

Mansfield, I have to counter your argument in a sense as I don't think its fair. Skyfall is Mendes first as director within it he brought in an new M, Q and a MP with back story while bringing in a memorable villain, killing Bond and bringing him back to life before killling off the old M and providing insight in to Bonds roots. Thats a hell of a lot for one film and for it to make sense. Lets be honest QOS was a production disaster, lets not go there. Skyfall can't be CR because Bond is not fit enough, M sends him out when he is not ready so there was'nt going to be the action fans wanted. But I said in prior posts the charachter building has been done on Skyfall I will judge Mendes on Spectre, as I believe it will be the Bond you want it to be, but you will have to accept Skyfall as its pre cursor and that Spectre will only be as good as it is because of the charachter building and back story in Skyfall. Kind of like The Wire you watch 3-4 episodes and say "eh?, why do people make such a fuss this is so great" but once they get beyond the charachter building, wham! it takes off and your hooked.

Suivez_ce_parachute

RC7 wrote: »

From my point of view I find it fruitless using the perceived misgivings of one picture to validate the shortcomings of another.

I think that the use of the "double standard proof" by many here instead of judging the art by itself is as alien to me as the obsession with rankings and box-office.

To put it on a provocative manner, I think quite a few here are not only Bond fans, but also Bond addicts :) Don't forget I was part of the team running the French Bond fan club about 25 years ago now, and I've seen weird psychological situations... And I was involved also in a weird situation between one the first notable Bond fan sites and the UK Bond fan club at that time. Now with forums, there's less personal interaction, and it's a good thing for that (more noise, but less heat), but on the other hand there's a crowd effect that's not always something to be proud of.

RC7

Mansfield wrote: »

In terms of wasting potential, no one outside of the higher up Bond brain trust knows who is making these decisions. Craig wanted Mendes at the helm for Bond (and now he's back for another), and this is the product they have given us. We can't say it was a waste when there is the possibility Craig wouldn't be Bond at all without a degree of decision making in creativity liberty. We could just have some bloke as Bond who is going through the motions of well-rounded plots. As much as that may appeal to some, I'll stay on the Craig train as long as there are still destinations to reach.

They're not mutually exclusive. It's possible to have a Craig film with a well-rounded, even intricate plot.

chrisisall

I'd say SF is about as well written & thought out as TMWTGG. Better directed though, of course.

TripAces

I think that some of the SF plot issues, most notably the didactic and unhelpful "explanation" by Q, is a response to what happened with QoS. I had to watch QoS about five times before really understanding the plot. I don't think I'm alone in that. It moved too fast for a plot as complex as that one, and Forster seemed to rely on the audience's intelligence to figure things out. Not a good strategy. The story in QoS was actually brilliant, just poorly executed.

So with SF, it seems, there was an attempt to dumb things down a bit and "over explain." Problem is, they explained things that didn't need explaining and didn't explain things that needed it.

For me, these weren't big deals, but I can sense a shift in how lines of dialogue were used to function like a Greek chorus.

Mansfield

RC7 wrote: »

They're not mutually exclusive. It's possible to have a Craig film with a well-rounded, even intricate plot.

Certainly, I am mostly suggesting that if creating a well-rounded plot was a priority for the production team and Craig, we would see their initiative in each film. They have placed a higher value on characterization so far, likely because it allows Craig to give Bond a dimension never before explored.

It's interesting that @chrisisall brings up TMWTGG. I had an idea that the plots might be the byproduct of having multiple writers involved in forming the script, each supplying their own ideas for what they think makes an outstanding Bond adventure. When put together, there are missing pieces to the puzzle. Similar to TMWTGG being the last film produced by Saltzman and Broccoli, where their concepts often clashed to the detriment of the picture. Granted, SP was supposed to be that film, but Logan's script needed to be rewritten to an unknown degree.

chrisisall

And hey, I really like TMWTGG, but like as with SF I have to disable my logic circuits to really enjoy it.

gklein

I'd always considered Skyfall the most over-rated Bond in the cannon -- and a huge personal disappointment. It has the fewest action set-pieces (only one, the opening) since Dr. No. This wouldn't be so bad if we had been given a good, modern story -- instead of a highly plot-fault ridden and boring story of revenge -- hearkening back yet again to the Hong Kong hand-off (alluded to many times in Bond films). AND, again, that "faked" Bond death, done so many, many times already in the series that it's well beyond the point of cliche.

gklein

Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, is highly underrated (given its very modern and realistic plot). I do concede though, that the action scenes are poorly edited. Still, I consider it the best of the Craig Bonds.

SirHilaryBray

"again, that "faked" Bond death, done so many, many times already in the series that it's well beyond the point of cliche"

Done once before but it was a planned faked death in YOLT don't understand your choice of words "done so many, many times already in the series"

Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, is highly underrated (given its very modern and realistic plot). I do concede though, that the action scenes are poorly edited. Still, I consider it the best of the Craig Bonds.

What better than Casino Royale? why? QOS makes no sense without CR. They could have cut QOS from the point Bond travel to Mathis villa to ask him for help and pasted it on to the end of CR and it would have made more sense than QOS does standing on its own.

TripAces
"I had to watch QoS about five times before really understanding the plot. I don't think I'm alone in that".
Greene is buying up pipeline and overthrowing gov. in South American countries to gain control of its water supplies to make loads of money for he and Qauntum. For all QOS's faults if anything the story it too simple.

gklein

From Russia with Love -- "Bond" is strangled in the beginning.
Thunderball - a slight pretending that "JB" on the coffin might be Bond.
You Only Live Twice -- the faked murder of Bond in the beginning.
Octopussy -- Bond allows others to believe he's been eaten by crocks and is dead.
The World is Not Enough -- Bond dies by stopping his own heart (flat-lining) and is brought back to life by a nurse.
Casino Royale -- Bond is murdered via poisoning and is brought back to life by Vesper.
Skyfall -- Bond is shot and presumed dead.
There are few lesser incidents in other Bond movies as well.

jake24

gklein wrote: »

From Russia with Love -- "Bond" is strangled in the beginning.
Thunderball - a slight pretending that "JB" on the coffin might be Bond.
You Only Live Twice -- the faked murder of Bond in the beginning.
Octopussy -- Bond allows others to believe he's been eaten by crocks and is dead.
The World is Not Enough -- Bond dies by stopping his own heart (flat-lining) and is brought back to life by a nurse.
Casino Royale -- Bond is murdered via poisoning and is brought back to life by Vesper.
Skyfall -- Bond is shot and presumed dead.
There are few lesser incidents in other Bond movies as well.

This happened in Die Another Day, however you do have a point.

DaltonCraig007

Bond does technicaly fake his death in TWINE, when only Charles Robinson knows he survived the pipeline bomb.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

DaltonCraig007 wrote: »

Bond does technicaly fake his death in TWINE, when only Charles Robinson knows he survived the pipeline bomb.

And just for a few seconds in the PTS of TND when he is believed to have died from the explosion emanating from the base. Brosnan's Bond liked the feigning death thing a bit too much, methinks. ;)

TripAces

SirHilaryBray wrote: »

"I had to watch QoS about five times before really understanding the plot. I don't think I'm alone in that".
Greene is buying up pipeline and overthrowing gov. in South American countries to gain control of its water supplies to make loads of money for he and Qauntum. For all QOS's faults if anything the story it too simple.

But the the connection between the water and the overthrow isn't too clear and takes mutliple viewings to understand. There are multiple parties involved, including the CIA. I think a lot of the issue is that there are plot threads that seem to go nowhere or come out of nowhere.

1. It took me repeated viewings to figure out how MI6 found Slate, who he was, and why he was there. The explanation is so quick and subverted by that huge touchscreen they use that is more a distraction than anything else.

2. Camille thinks Bond (posing as Slate) is a geologist. Ok, why? I didn't get that because...

3. Greene kills a geologist, too. Who the heck is that in the bay? It's never explained. It took me a few viewings to figure out it was unimportant.

4. Believe it or not, it took me at least three or four viewings to realize Bond and Mathis were on board a plane when Bond was drinking all those Vespers. The cut, from Gemma to the plane, is one of the oddest in Bond film lore. You're looking at her, and suddenly Bond and Mathis are on a plane...no transition. It wasn't a plot issue, per se, as much as a WTH issue. LOL

5. Beem is non-essential to the plot, and I was thinking he tipped off military as to Bond's whereabouts in the cantina. But this goes nowhere, too.

6. Whose planes are those going after Bond and Camille? I didn't get that either, thinking they were military. Or were they commissioned by Quantum? Ugh. I guess that didn't matter either.

There are some other things, too. What I have here is off the top of my head.

The plot just didn't seem finished, as though there were story elements that got left out, hence the film being only about 100 minutes long.

eddychaput

I haven't watched SF since buying it on blu-ray back in 2013 (which followed 3 or 4 trips to the cinema). I still hold it in high esteem. I'm doing a Bond marathon now, having just started with DN. Should be caught up in the next few months. Nothing is impossible, but I doubt my opinion of SF will change that much. I think it's pretty darn solid.

M16_Cart

Skyfall is still a good movie. It doesn't live up to the hype and gloss initially showered on it. It was never in my top 5 and it fell out of my top 10, but it's still top 15 in my eyes.

Getafix

The more I think about it the more I feel the thematic elements to Skyfall are actually just Mendes's attempt to paper over the crAcks in the plot. I'm sure he realised the story is all over the place, so he brings the thematic aspects to the fore to compensate.

BondJasonBond006

Skyfall is plagued with flaws. Sadly too many of them, so it isn't Top 10 material.
It's currently my No 13 which is not that bad out of 24 movies (NSNA included).

But the blame should not go solely to the writers. IMO Mendes was just the wrong choice as was Forster for QOS.
In fact the last time EON hired a great Bond director was Roger Spottiswoode for TND and of course Martin Campbell who did GE and CR.
Tamahori, Apted, Forster and Mendes were errors.

Sadly after the billion dollar happening, BB was too lazy and too uncritical to realise that Mendes is wrong for Bond.

Shardlake

He's only wrong for Bond because you say so.

I'll take Mendes over the mess that Spottiswoode presided over, Skyfall is infinitely better than that SWLM rip off.

Getafix

BondJasonBond006 wrote: »

Skyfall is plagued with flaws. Sadly too many of them, so it isn't Top 10 material.
It's currently my No 13 which is not that bad out of 24 movies (NSNA included).

But the blame should not go solely to the writers. IMO Mendes was just the wrong choice as was Forster for QOS.
In fact the last time EON hired a great Bond director was Roger Spottiswoode for TND and of course Martin Campbell who did GE and CR.
Tamahori, Apted, Forster and Mendes were errors.

Sadly after the billion dollar happening, BB was too lazy and too uncritical to realise that Mendes is wrong for Bond.

Even if you don't like SF I think you have to appreciate the commercial reasons for EON bringing back Mendes. It's a no brainier.

I don't like SF, but I still prefer the idea of Mendes directing to Spottiswoode (even though i thought TND was the best Brosnan). At least SF is a higher quality form of bad.

chrisisall

Shardlake wrote: »

I'll take Mendes over the mess that Spottiswoode presided over, Skyfall is infinitely better than that SWLM rip off.

We will agree to disagree there my fellow agent.

:))

BondJasonBond006

If you don't like my opinion and have no arguments than giving snarky remarks then I guess I hit a nerve.

Getafix wrote: »

BondJasonBond006 wrote: »

Skyfall is plagued with flaws. Sadly too many of them, so it isn't Top 10 material.
It's currently my No 13 which is not that bad out of 24 movies (NSNA included).

But the blame should not go solely to the writers. IMO Mendes was just the wrong choice as was Forster for QOS.
In fact the last time EON hired a great Bond director was Roger Spottiswoode for TND and of course Martin Campbell who did GE and CR.
Tamahori, Apted, Forster and Mendes were errors.

Sadly after the billion dollar happening, BB was too lazy and too uncritical to realise that Mendes is wrong for Bond.

Even if you don't like SF I think you have to appreciate the commercial reasons for EON bringing back Mendes. It's a no brainier.

I don't like SF, but I still prefer the idea of Mendes directing to Spottiswoode (even though i thought TND was the best Brosnan). At least SF is a higher quality form of bad.

But if Mendes was a no-brainer why didn't they bring back Martin Campbell for QOS.
I suspect BB (+MGW?) wanted the artsy directors to have that "seriousness" for the Craig-era. I mean why Marc Forster for Heaven's sake?

I don't appreciate the commercial reasons of EON, I accuse them of just being lazy and after the big money and therefore try to repeat Skyfall.

Getafix

Cambell turned down QoS I think.

I thought Forster was a decent choice. He's an Oscar winner (must count for something?) and The Kite Runner showed a lot of the qualities I'd like to see in a Bond movie. I think he's a stylish director but not in an overly pretentious way.

But then I actually quite like QoS as well. In fact I might go as far as saying it's my favourite Bond movie since Dalton.

Murdock

Skyfall is an okay Bond movie. I'm entertained by it. Sure it's full of convinces but that's part of the escapist nature. At least we don't have to put up with M's backseat spying anymore.

Mansfield

Wrong for Bond is completely subjective. My opinion is going to be favorable of Mendes because I hold Skyfall in high regard. I think he gets Bond because of the emphasis he places on characterization, splendor, and cinematic beauty. We could go into the creative decisions over another 54 pages of discussion as to whether or not they are desirable to the franchise. Everyone has different expectations and ideals for a Bond film.

Mendes was on the record saying Skyfall was the Bond film he wanted to make. All I can say to people who didn't approve of his work in Skyfall is to go into SPECTRE without any baggage or expectations. I'm confident that while Mendes does intend to continue the plan started in his first directorship, he is probably more willing to go outside of his comfort zone to up the ante for this installment. EON isn't foolish -- they know they are at a crossroads where the franchise can either explode or stagnate. I don't think they are willing to sail off into pop cultural obscurity again.

Getafix

One of the reasons I am hopeful I will like SP is that I am pretty sure Mendes didn't set out to make the same movie twice.

Also, SP doesn't have Dench in it - and that is a very big plus point IMO.

Creasy47

I think SF is a horrible 'escapist' film. It's depressing, brooding, and doesn't offer any sort of escapism or fun for me as a Bond fan. In fact, it's probably one of the main Bond movies that I would steer clear from wanting to be in.

Murdock

I wouldn't say it's that depressing or brooding. It's not as lifeless as a Chris Nolan film. It has its moments. Silva gives it some life. He's quirky enough and makes me chuckle. It does have it's flaws though.