"Did i overcomplicate the plot ?" - Skyfall Appreciation & Discussion

1232426282943

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    TripAces wrote: »
    "Like what? Taking the head of a major world-leading country's head of the foreign intelligence agency into a deathtrap with no backup or even proper weaponry? Yes, that explains a lot how masterfully it was thought of."

    @ClarkDevlin

    1. It was a deathtrap for Silva, because he is not an agent that works well in the field. He has distaste for it, said it himself. It shows during his bungled attempt to assassinate M during the hearing. Bond wanted the advantage. he had it.

    2. Remember, M went along with this plan to get Silva in territory he does not like. And the plan all but worked, except for a stray bullet.

    3. The use of "breadcrumbs" to lead Silva was all that could be communicated. Anything else had the potential of being intercepted. So, yes: no backup, no communications.

    4. Bond's mistake was in not realizing his arsenal at Skyfall had been auctioned off. No biggie. Some times the "old ways" are the best.

    Re your #4 @TripAces ,I thought that was a nice twist,for Bond to presume he had weapons to hand ,and then realising he had to rely on his wits to catch/kill Silva instead.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,423
    All of them are poorly thought of. The entirety of the whole film, in fact. Starting from the NOC list that happened to be stored in an ordinary laptop instead of being safely stashed away somewhere in a deep covert computer-crowded facility with maximum security, to that plan to have M as the scapegoat.

    A secret service would've allowed none of this, and an act as such would've painted Bond as an enemy of the state for kidnapping M and not even having to return her alive. Severine's death itself was pointless, with Bond just waiting for her to be killed, then suddenly he becomes a superman and eliminates everybody without breaking a sweat.

    I could go on, really. I'd be on continuous rant about the plot points of this film that were only here because the filmmakers (writers, producers, director, actors included) thought all of these were cool and very clever, especially when it was said to be inspired by The Dark Knight. The lodge itself was a piss-poor xerox of the Wayne Manor and how a young James locked himself in the tunnel three days and after that "came out as a man too old for his age". It wasn't even explained whatever happened there.

    Moneypenny getting sloppy every now and then, save for the bit on the bridge in the casino where she subdues an armed goon, and then... before all of this... Bond quitting the service out of rage and grudge just because M made a "judgment call" (why, really? So, we'd just see Bond dramatically take the bullet and fall to a presumable death so we'll have a stylish title sequence?) when the service precisely needed as many men as it could get, especially with the NOC list stolen that endangered the lives of many operatives planted in many criminal organizations...

    I doubt they even have given thought to any of this deeper. All of the analysis done by the audience to defend it I simply call fan-walking. Bond lost, the villain won, that's all there is.

    P.S. Really, now. Did he think he'd defend M alone? Armoury from the old times or not, did he think Silva would come alone? Well, unless Bond has god complex, which I'm not aware of, I don't think how anybody would've thought he'd stand a chance.
  • Posts: 19,339
    @ClarkDevlin where do you have SF on your list ? (and I'm not being sarcastic.just genuinely interested ).
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    24, @barryt007. ;)
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited October 2017 Posts: 2,722
    My initial point on the other thread was not that SF was watertight - far from it. But in fact I took issue with the claim that it was the only Bond film that falls apart when you pick at it - which I would say SP and DAD do - even my beloved FRWL has holes in it if you want to unravel it.

    Yet @noSolaceleft has curiously lumped me in with some mythical group of Skyfall lovers who somehow think it's flawless? I doubt they exist but if they do then they can defend SF in those terms. I merely defend it from rabid haters who think it's the only Bond film that falls apart when plot mechanics are analysed. There are multitude of examples of 007 adventures that do this.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 19,339
    24, @barryt007. ;)

    Aaah so its your version of my TLD ..got it haha ;)
  • Posts: 19,339
    My initial point on the other thread was not that SF was watertight - far from it. But in fact I took issue with the claim that it was the only Bond film that falls apart when you pick at it - which I would say SP and DAD do - even my beloved FRWL has holes in it if you want to unravel it.

    Yet @noSolaceleft has curiously lumped me in with some mythical group of Skyfall lovers who somehow think it's flawless? I doubt they exist but if they do then they can defend SF in those terms. I merely defend it from rabid haters who think it's the only Bond film that falls apart when plot mechanics are analysed. There are multitude of examples of 007 adventures that do this.

    TBH Major,they ALL do...Bond films aren't made to be intrinsic,perfect stories..they never have been.


  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Yes, @Major_Boothroyd. They all have their flaws. I'll pick one from DAD for example... Bond not sensing how much did his gun weigh after pulling it out from underneath his pillow, carrying it all the way through the whole greenhouse without even checking it, cocking it, see how many rounds he has in the magazine... That bothered me like hell. Things like these are just there for the sake of it, and I despise them. So yes, no Bond film is without one. SF's case is that it tries to be clever when clearly it isn't, and I'm not talking about the turnouts.
  • Posts: 1,162
    My initial point on the other thread was not that SF was watertight - far from it. But in fact I took issue with the claim that it was the only Bond film that falls apart when you pick at it - which I would say SP and DAD do - even my beloved FRWL has holes in it if you want to unravel it.

    Yet @noSolaceleft has curiously lumped me in with some mythical group of Skyfall lovers who somehow think it's flawless? I doubt they exist but if they do then they can defend SF in those terms. I merely defend it from rabid haters who think it's the only Bond film that falls apart when plot mechanics are analysed. There are multitude of examples of 007 adventures that do this.

    I have already told you what is the difference between Skyfall and the Bond movies of yore.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 1,162
    Yes, @Major_Boothroyd. They all have their flaws. I'll pick one from DAD for example... Bond not sensing how much did his gun weigh after pulling it out from underneath his pillow, carrying it all the way through the whole greenhouse without even checking it, cocking it, see how many rounds he has in the magazine... That bothered me like hell. Things like these are just there for the sake of it, and I despise them. So yes, no Bond film is without one. SF's case is that it tries to be clever when clearly it isn't, and I'm not talking about the turnouts.

    Very true and the bond movies are full of things like that. But the difference between this kind of faults and nearly anything in Skyfall is that the former could be easily solved by just one extra line, or simply a different line mentioning a different way of "deactivating" the gun ( like, in this case, loading it with blanks for instance).
    @ClarkDevlin I know I don't have to explain this to you, but some people have real difficulty to wrap their mind around that.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Yes, @Major_Boothroyd. They all have their flaws. I'll pick one from DAD for example... Bond not sensing how much did his gun weigh after pulling it out from underneath his pillow, carrying it all the way through the whole greenhouse without even checking it, cocking it, see how many rounds he has in the magazine... That bothered me like hell. Things like these are just there for the sake of it, and I despise them. So yes, no Bond film is without one. SF's case is that it tries to be clever when clearly it isn't, and I'm not talking about the turnouts.

    Very true and the bond movies are full of things like that. But the difference between this kind of faults and nearly anything in Skyfall is that the former could be easily solved by just one extra line, or simply a different line mentioning a different way of "deactivating" the gun ( like, in this case, loading it with blanks for instance).
    @ClarkDevlin I know I don't have to explain this to you, but some people have real difficulty to wrap their mind around that.
    Indeed. Well said.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    All of them are poorly thought of. The entirety of the whole film, in fact. Starting from the NOC list that happened to be stored in an ordinary laptop instead of being safely stashed away somewhere in a deep covert computer-crowded facility with maximum security, to that plan to have M as the scapegoat.

    A secret service would've allowed none of this, and an act as such would've painted Bond as an enemy of the state for kidnapping M and not even having to return her alive. Severine's death itself was pointless, with Bond just waiting for her to be killed, then suddenly he becomes a superman and eliminates everybody without breaking a sweat.

    I could go on, really. I'd be on continuous rant about the plot points of this film that were only here because the filmmakers (writers, producers, director, actors included) thought all of these were cool and very clever, especially when it was said to be inspired by The Dark Knight. The lodge itself was a piss-poor xerox of the Wayne Manor and how a young James locked himself in the tunnel three days and after that "came out as a man too old for his age". It wasn't even explained whatever happened there.

    Moneypenny getting sloppy every now and then, save for the bit on the bridge in the casino where she subdues an armed goon, and then... before all of this... Bond quitting the service out of rage and grudge just because M made a "judgment call" (why, really? So, we'd just see Bond dramatically take the bullet and fall to a presumable death so we'll have a stylish title sequence?) when the service precisely needed as many men as it could get, especially with the NOC list stolen that endangered the lives of many operatives planted in many criminal organizations...

    I doubt they even have given thought to any of this deeper. All of the analysis done by the audience to defend it I simply call fan-walking. Bond lost, the villain won, that's all there is.

    P.S. Really, now. Did he think he'd defend M alone? Armoury from the old times or not, did he think Silva would come alone? Well, unless Bond has god complex, which I'm not aware of, I don't think how anybody would've thought he'd stand a chance.


    1. It is curious as to why the agents were in Istanbul, with the laptop. But it was presumably in a secure location, because there were agents there. But again, this speaks to the film's brilliance: the conflict between what is done in the field and what is done via technology. We have no idea why the agents had the laptop, but it won't be the first time (gee, see Sec.Powell and Sec. Clinton) in which people with high level security clearance are careless when it comes to their computer use. So, no, this is NOT out of line at all.

    2. I don't understand the Severine complaint. Suddenly Bond acts like Superman and eliminates everyone? If you don't like that sort of thing, then why the heck are you a Bond fan??? LOL

    3. Was Bond a little too "hurt" over getting shot? Yes. I'll grant you that. But his injuries and recovery were never revealed (and for the better). Who nursed him back to health? What medications were being taken? Bond's behavior can easily be explained by his "pills" and his "drink." No major issue here.

    4. Bond may not have a "God complex" but he is stubborn, reckless, and arrogant as hell. It explains why in CR he'd go chasing Mollaka up a construction crane for no reason whatsoever and in SP start shooting at a caravan of cars to save a woman who was in one of those cars. Compared to those scenarios, taking M to Skyfall is one of his more sensible decisions.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    @TripAces, the issue I have with 2 -- again, this is only my opinion -- isn't the fact that he becomes Superman (as you said, Bond is always invincible, so what's not to love about that?), but the fact that in a split second, he goes from being incapable of hitting a shot glass, to being able to gun down several goons in a matter of seconds. Yes, people will say he was using an old weapon vs. a Glock, or that a tiny shot glass is much further away than much bigger goons standing feet away, but I don't buy it. It's an inconsistency they hope you won't notice because the film is attempting to be so in-depth and clever. Same ridiculousness with Bond undergoing torture that should render him a vegetable, and yet he's sniping goons with an assault rifle one minute later.

    At the end of the day, this is stuff that's more easily forgivable for me in older films that are a lot more OTT and fun. I have no issue with SF being so dark and serious, but that needs to translate in all areas; you can't inject implausible goofiness into it like that and expect it to not stand out.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    TripAces wrote: »
    All of them are poorly thought of. The entirety of the whole film, in fact. Starting from the NOC list that happened to be stored in an ordinary laptop instead of being safely stashed away somewhere in a deep covert computer-crowded facility with maximum security, to that plan to have M as the scapegoat.

    A secret service would've allowed none of this, and an act as such would've painted Bond as an enemy of the state for kidnapping M and not even having to return her alive. Severine's death itself was pointless, with Bond just waiting for her to be killed, then suddenly he becomes a superman and eliminates everybody without breaking a sweat.

    I could go on, really. I'd be on continuous rant about the plot points of this film that were only here because the filmmakers (writers, producers, director, actors included) thought all of these were cool and very clever, especially when it was said to be inspired by The Dark Knight. The lodge itself was a piss-poor xerox of the Wayne Manor and how a young James locked himself in the tunnel three days and after that "came out as a man too old for his age". It wasn't even explained whatever happened there.

    Moneypenny getting sloppy every now and then, save for the bit on the bridge in the casino where she subdues an armed goon, and then... before all of this... Bond quitting the service out of rage and grudge just because M made a "judgment call" (why, really? So, we'd just see Bond dramatically take the bullet and fall to a presumable death so we'll have a stylish title sequence?) when the service precisely needed as many men as it could get, especially with the NOC list stolen that endangered the lives of many operatives planted in many criminal organizations...

    I doubt they even have given thought to any of this deeper. All of the analysis done by the audience to defend it I simply call fan-walking. Bond lost, the villain won, that's all there is.

    P.S. Really, now. Did he think he'd defend M alone? Armoury from the old times or not, did he think Silva would come alone? Well, unless Bond has god complex, which I'm not aware of, I don't think how anybody would've thought he'd stand a chance.


    1. It is curious as to why the agents were in Istanbul, with the laptop. But it was presumably in a secure location, because there were agents there. But again, this speaks to the film's brilliance: the conflict between what is done in the field and what is done via technology. We have no idea why the agents had the laptop, but it won't be the first time (gee, see Sec.Powell and Sec. Clinton) in which people with high level security clearance are careless when it comes to their computer use. So, no, this is NOT out of line at all.

    2. I don't understand the Severine complaint. Suddenly Bond acts like Superman and eliminates everyone? If you don't like that sort of thing, then why the heck are you a Bond fan??? LOL

    3. Was Bond a little too "hurt" over getting shot? Yes. I'll grant you that. But his injuries and recovery were never revealed (and for the better). Who nursed him back to health? What medications were being taken? Bond's behavior can easily be explained by his "pills" and his "drink." No major issue here.

    4. Bond may not have a "God complex" but he is stubborn, reckless, and arrogant as hell. It explains why in CR he'd go chasing Mollaka up a construction crane for no reason whatsoever and in SP start shooting at a caravan of cars to save a woman who was in one of those cars. Compared to those scenarios, taking M to Skyfall is one of his more sensible decisions.
    1. Except this isn't some politically related server where what laws are applicant or which politician is meeting who or what kind of deal with whom is being sealed. We're talking about a NOC list here which I am sure nobody in the espionage business would be careless enough to let go of it. I'm not sure how would you define that as a brilliance unless there's something flying over my head. What were those agents doing in Istanbul, again? It wasn't even discussed. Fleming in his novels hardly missed the opportunity to explain those. What was their mission, again? You can't tell me they were here to transport that hard drive on foot. I am sure these things would've made it technologically through a wave of connections and deep cover secure lines cyber criminals wouldn't find. We're not talking about some mid-level security clearance here. We're talking about high-level priority valuables which would be a threat to national security. But, hey... the film completely forgets about the NOC list after we get to Silva.

    2. My complaint isn't because of why Bond decided to activate his inner superman, but when. He could've spared Severine's life, but no... he just watched her die without doing anything about it. He could've made the move before Silva could've shot her, he still had a gun to his head before and after. Why make the move, then? Answer: Because the writers wanted Severine to die and Bond to survive without keeping his promise knowing what kind of past has she been through. Her life had no value, anyway, right?

    3. His recovery process wasn't the problem. It's his carelessness to somehow report for duty in time is the problem. He heard MI-6 was attacked and that his home team had no clue for whatever happened when he didn't inform them even informally of what was at the stakes, he decided to return to the service with every capability restored all of a sudden.

    4. I'm afraid I don't see the coherence in comparison to pursuing Mollaka (a one man you knew he had no back-up), or shooting at the caravan of cars when they were no civilian ones but full of villains. Their SUVs and Rovers were bulletproof, that much he'd know. He just wanted to hit the tires by chance if my psychological presumption is right. That was the best he could've done. Taking M to the lodge alone was as sensible as simply handing over your gun to your assailant and let him execute you. That's as sensible as it is.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Sorry about that Felix, but you were just about to say 007....

    But yet Bond has now revealed he is 007 in front of Largo’s man...

    So... uhm... why did he punch Felix in the gut again???

    There is no film, in cinematic history, that doesn’t have mistakes (plural)... has anyone seen some of the shoddy editing in GOODFELLAS for example? And I love that film.

    Does anyone know why there are so many versions of BLADERUNNER? BEcause no one was satisfied with the script, outside of the idea of replicants...

    There is not one film that is without some noticeable flaws.

    But we love what we love and accept the art for what it is.

    Arguing the flaws of SF are redundant. There’s a faction that, as @Major_Boothroyd has already pointed out, seem to rabidly hate the film. And that’s fine. But trying to change an opinion of someone who likes the film, by having them write a list so you can show them how wrong they are, is an exercise in futility, and, quite frankly, asinine.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    peter wrote: »
    But trying to change an opinion of someone who likes the film, by having them write a list so you can show them how wrong they are, is an exercise in futility, and, quite frankly, asinine.
    And vice versa, @peter. One wrote the list, I simply responded.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 11,425
    The problem with SF is not the plot holes and ropey storytelling per se but the fact these off notes are so jarring and there are so many of them. Yes all thrillers and action movies require us to suspend our disbelief and ignore the little leaps of logic but SF does this so consistently and so glaringly that it ends up distracting from what otherwise would have been a decent film.

    All it required was a decent screenwriter and some commitment to telling a coherent, tightly plotted narrative and then everything else would have worked much better rather than feeling like style over substance.

    I don't like SF but it's full of great ideas. Just poorly executed IMO.

    For example I love the idea of denouement in the Scottish Highlands. But the way the action is conceived and the closing scenes unfold just doesn't work for me at all. I find the whole thing deadly dull. There's nothing clever about the story or how anyone acts. Mendes shows his tendency towards relying on big explosions to cover his lack skill at directing action.

    Someone wrote once that "action is character". That has almost always been true of Bond. Just not in SF.

    You can make almost the exact same criticisms of SP. They are definitely cut from the same cloth. I personally take SP over SF though. I prefer the good bits of SP to the good bits of SF.

    I am confident that if Villeneuve directs B25 we're going to get the best plotted and coherent film since CR.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @ClarkDevlin , but I don’t think you asked for the list, you were merely responding to it.

    Like I said, asking for a list so one can prove another wrong, in a craft and art that can’t be without flaws, and where so much is subjective, is utterly ridiculous.

    Debate, argue, but seriously, a list?? Any list about something so subjective can easily be debunked. It’s the height of laziness in a debate!
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    the issue I have with 2 -- again, this is only my opinion -- isn't the fact that he becomes Superman (as you said, Bond is always invincible, so what's not to love about that?), but the fact that in a split second, he goes from being incapable of hitting a shot glass, to being able to gun down several goons in a matter of seconds. Yes, people will say he was using an old weapon vs. a Glock, or that a tiny shot glass is much further away than much bigger goons standing feet away, but I don't buy it.

    Actually, Bond fails to shoot the glass on purpose, to allow Silva to win the game and shoot it instead of Sévérine. I believe Mendes says so in his audio commentary, and at any rate, my guess is that Bond's brief sideways glance right before firing is meant to convey his ambivalence at hitting the glass for fear of angrying Silva.

    As for the fact Bond kills everyone after Sévérine is dead, I think he does that because a) now that she's dead, he suspects it's now or never, and b) he has already fired his gun, so everybody's guard has gone down a bit.

    Skyfall's plot is a bit wobbly in places, but I think this particular scene ultimately makes sense.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,423
    peter wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin , but I don’t think you asked for the list, you were merely responding to it.

    Like I said, asking for a list so one can prove another wrong, in a craft and art that can’t be without flaws, and where so much is subjective, is utterly ridiculous.

    Debate, argue, but seriously, a list?? Any list about something so subjective can easily be debunked. It’s the height of laziness in a debate!

    Yes, I didn't ask for it, nor I visited this thread because I don't like this film at all. I was tagged into this thread and my opinion was challenged to be changed, so I merely replied. Otherwise, I wouldn't have responded. One likes what one likes and nobody's going to make the other change one's own opinion. I don't have an interest in this thread, anyway. Or discussing negativity or about a dislike that holds strong sides of radical fences. That's why I stay out of places I don't want to start any sort of trouble or dueling with anybody's ideology. But, when someone invites me into a debate, I'm not going to sugar-coat it. Besides... everybody here is loudly vocal about the hatred of the Brosnan films. It's a two-way street.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Personally I love the scene and thought that Bond and his flinch and sideways look was to further feed Silva’s ideas of him : that he was a shell of the man he once was.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Absolutely @ClarkDevlin , everyone should have the right to their opinion, and, quite frankly, I’ve always found you to be respectful in your disagreements.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Likewise, @peter. You always have my respect, sir. Especially for being very civil.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    @mattjoes, first I've ever heard that Bond does it on purpose. But why would he miss the shot to let Silva win? What's gained? I'm sure the last thought on Bond's mind was not angering him, as he was cracking sarcastic jokes with him moments before.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    peter wrote: »
    @ClarkDevlin , but I don’t think you asked for the list, you were merely responding to it.

    Like I said, asking for a list so one can prove another wrong, in a craft and art that can’t be without flaws, and where so much is subjective, is utterly ridiculous.

    Debate, argue, but seriously, a list?? Any list about something so subjective can easily be debunked. It’s the height of laziness in a debate!

    I am guilty of creating the "list" but not because anyone asked or because I wanted responses in lists. It just helps me keep my thoughts together and keep from rambling. My apologies if that bothers some.

    As for the Severine death scene...this was my sense of it: SF is one of the few Bond films where we see Bond as vulnerable. In this case, he has some self doubt entering his mind. I didn't find his ability to shoot up Silva's henchmen unbelievable because he was acting on instinct. During his tests and when he was aiming at Severine, he was thinking. Once someone is in his own head like that, it's when the anxiety takes hold. It made sense to me.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Severine s death scene is actually one of very few scenes I dislike in SF.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @TripAces , I just want to clarify: someone did ask for a list earlier today. It was asked in the B25 thread before moving over here.

    Once again, argue, debate, but the poster I’m thinking of likes to goad people into making lists so he can tell them how wrong they are— and when we discuss and debate something as subjective as a film, this poster’s goading another into list-making just shows how lazy a thinker he is; that, or he feeds off being a contrarian.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    As an add on @TripAces, and I maybe wrong here: I read the scene as a ruse. Bond was buying time, making Silva think he was the broken agent he had a file on.... instead, Bond’s brain was ticking, stuck in a hopeless situation.

    I agree with you; once Silva killed Sévérine, he made his move that was driven on instinct.
  • Posts: 1,162
    peter wrote: »
    @TripAces , I just want to clarify: someone did ask for a list earlier today. It was asked in the B25 thread before moving over here.

    Once again, argue, debate, but the poster I’m thinking of likes to goad people into making lists so he can tell them how wrong they are— and when we discuss and debate something as subjective as a film, this poster’s goading another into list-making just shows how lazy a thinker he is; that, or he feeds off being a contrarian.
    peter wrote: »
    @TripAces , I just want to clarify: someone did ask for a list earlier today. It was asked in the B25 thread before moving over here.

    Once again, argue, debate, but the poster I’m thinking of likes to goad people into making lists so he can tell them how wrong they are— and when we discuss and debate something as subjective as a film, this poster’s goading another into list-making just shows how lazy a thinker he is; that, or he feeds off being a contrarian.

    First of all, I didn't ask anyone for a list. Second of all, logic in itself is not subjective. Perceptions are.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    My apologies @noSolaceleft, I should have been more specific: you asked someone to write down everything they thought was logical in SF, and you promised to write back why that person was wrong...

    It still sticks: film’s subjective. @TripAces, or whomever, see things in SF that you don’t like. They’re not wrong. As your perceptions on the film aren’t wrong either.

    In art, people like what they like, warts and all, and, as I said, no film is flawless. Not one.

    But you insist that your opinion on a film, something that is SO subjective, that YOUR opinion is right and absolute. How utterly ridiculous!

    And if you’re correct about, say, a plot hole? Then what’s the endgame here? That because you KNOW that there is a plot hole, or a leap in logic, that now all should disregard the feelings they have for this film??

    Is it logical for Bond to slug Felix in the gut, tell him to be quiet, and then announce, in front of Largo’s man “sorry about that Felix but you were just about to say 007”... No, that’s not logical. But I still love TB.

    In the end, I love debate, arguing points, but when discussing film I’m well aware that my perception may not be seen by all, that my overall enjoyment of a film is subjective, like all art.

    The last thing I would ask anyone to do is write me why they think something works for them, just so I can tell them they’re wrong. Especially when discussing something that, like it , or not, is subjective.
Sign In or Register to comment.