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
Fair comment! I just find some points bear repeating, and repeating...
I thought I'd been rather good recently though at steering clear of SF. I just can't help it once in a while giving it a good kicking.
Any way, it wasn't me who bumped the thread. I just responded to what had been posted.
But it's not all. In the end the public decides. THEY are the ones who "decide" on the total package of a film; what their overall impression is they have on that film, what feelings it conveys, and if it can be seen as a masterpiece.
Taking that into account, the more technical criticizers are right about the plot/screenplay's of "Skyfall", and also about movies like "The Dark Knight". But a movie experience is even more so about feelings and emotions. So there must be quite a lot of elements that counterweighted the lack of plot. Acting, charisma of the actor, underlying central themes, drama, near spot-on characterization, good dialogues and conversations. Those elements must have had a very dominant effect on the total movie experience. And I believe that was the case with TDK and SF.
Despite all the technical criticism on plot (and plotholes), apparently people loved those two movies. What more proof do you need? You know the ratings (set in stone), you know the box office figures, you know polls in this forum. Just saying that SF is nothing more than "another good formularic Bond film" doesn't do the overall love for the film justice. Looking back, SF is only slightly worse than CR, but quality-wise they are very comparable.
So it puts black-and-white criticism on screenplays, luckily, into perspective. Because I think it's not that black-and-white and extensively technical. It's more "grey", it's about the total package. For me, and with me a lot of people, SF worked to such an extent that many generic movie fans can't make up their minds on which film, CR or SF, is better.
I know many more cold-hearted "technical" criticizers won't give "a rats ass" about movie ratings on IMDB, ROTTENTOMATOES, METACRITIC and CRITIC'S CHOICE. Ratings are not always proof, but they at least tell something. That for instance so far SF is the 2nd best rated Bond film (reviewers and movie fans alike) on IMDB. My point: It really is about the "global movie experiences" this film conveyed. And then the lack of a "spot-on screenplay/plot" doesn't translate in the case of SF in a bad or average movie experience that show disappointment and anger. Hell no, it worked on all other levels apparently. SF is not a masterpiece like CR, but I certainly think it's a near-masterpiece. The differences are small. "The writings are on the wall" (007 in "GoldenEye") :-).
People nitpick with SF because it has a sort of 'Aren't I clever?' aura about it. I find it entertaining, but it's no more interesting or clever than any other Bond picture. It's similar to a lot of its most ardent fans, like high school students who have recently discovered Godard and dismiss anything mainstream, 'You wouldn't understand', they say. I think it will be afforded a lot more slack if and when this aura diminishes and people take it for what it essentially is, decent pop-corn entertainment. If people continue to put it on a pedestal I think it will always invite flack, every action has an opposite an equal reaction.
You are 100% right about perceptions and how the overall production can trump a poor plot and screenplay for some people. I am completely in agreement on that.
Although I was trying to think of examples where this has happened for me and can't really think of any. I was thinking of 'trash' movies that I really love, and one of my favourites, 'King Pin' came to mind. On paper it should be one of the worst movies ever made, and yet I love it. But thinking about it a little more, I reckon the story is actually quite well constructed in King Pin.
No, I can't really think of any examples where I've enjoyed a movie when I thought it had a lousy plot or screenplay. I can think of lots of examples that have been successful though. Titanic would be an obvious example. I see it as similar to SF in some ways. Abysmal story and plotting, all liberally covered in slick production values and seemingly an unstoppable commercial success. But I still hated it when I saw it.
Any way, it is certainly about how people see the whole package. I think this is very true with Bond movies. Those who love them can see beyond the tarzan yells etc. and get the whole picture. For me with SF that didn't happen for whatever reason.
I don't know what to make of this. But if you see movies like this, then you are quite the cynical person. Well, perhaps this "aura" worked tremendously then. For me this has nothing to do with "aura's". It has to do with a movie that, theme-wise, IS clever.
What "aura's" do the other Bond films has then.....and if so, how can it be translated into its flop or success? Really.......:-)
It's a back-handed compliment to SF really. The film is a lot more complex and interesting to discuss than a lot of other Bond films. The disappointing thing for me was that I was just not very entertained by it. But I fully acknowledge that it's laden with potential for dissection and discussion. That's one thing I appreciate about it. In a sense, even though I don't particularly like the film, I have enjoyed discussing it - something that cannot be said of DAD, for instance.
But yes, there is also that element to SF, which is that it sets itself up as a deeper, 'more intelligent' and complex Bond movie, and therefore it's only right that we dissect it on a deeper and more complex level (if not more intelligent). ;)
Nitpicking is also all in the eyes of the perceiver. I come from a family where films get ripped to shreds - even the ones we like. So it's just natural to analyse the cr*p out of something like SF. Part of the fun.
Good luck the SF adorers don't have that tendency. Imagine that!
To you box office success really equals quality or even brilliance. Your life must be really easy to live.
Very true actually.
But none can be pulled apart easier,that's the point. I said repeatedly said after 2 1/2 minutes into the movie there is simply NOTHING that makes sense (and honestly to the best of my knowledge it is the only one I personally know in which This is the case ) This is the saddest possible truth regarding a movie or a book, and SF simply is as guilty as hell. Try for yourself and find anything that follows a logical path in the movie. You will be surprised!
As I said above, I'm pretty sure that logical criticism of this movie will not win many hearts. The sheer brilliance of its visual appeal will overcome logical arguments. In a way, that is its greatest achievement: the way it connects on an emotional level. I think that's why they wanted Mendes back so badly. We're likely to see more of the same in B24, but hopefully with more internal plot logic.
Too early.
I can only explain it as being like love, When you're in love you can't see any
Faults. Where as when you fall out of love, you can see nothing but faults.
Once again guys, I'm finding my feet, I like Skyfall but don't think it's one of the
Greats but after the mixed reception that QOS got. I think they did a great job in
Coming back with a huge world wide hit.
The film makers, the critics, the general press and the fans did their utmost to suggest this film was/is a 'cut-above', they were wrapped up in a perfect storm, in which the film undeniably captured the zeitgeist. That was the atmosphere that surrounded the film and which is perpetuated. That is the "aura" I speak of.
For me it seems that the recent 007 movies do not know what they want to be, and since CR have been more of a chore to watch. Influences of Nolan and The Bourne franchise have been named and that is fine but the most important thing is missing from the franchise and that is sheer fun. The recent movies seem to do away with that in favour of what..........having seen both last movies it cannot be realism. And the one bit of fun, the reveal of the Aston Martin somehow feels odd in the movie.
I really was prepared to enjoy Mendes work with 007 and he never delivered to the full extent, one can see the ideas but the movie never really gets there. The poem is nice and would be much better delivered were the movie a better scripted and more balanced version. Based upon previous work of Mendes I do not think it would be too much of a stretch when we talk expectation. Like Newman, Mendes did not bring his A game, and that annoys me to no end.
The mood and filming of Scotland was beautiful, but nowhere else in the movie did the setting get as much attention, Shanghai looked studio filmed, Istanbul did not deliver something special when compared with recent movies shot there or even FRWL. In that aspect the MI with Tom Cruise seems to play the Bond formula better with great stunts, beautiful used settings and decent enough stories to warrant everything.
For me EON has left Campbells approach behind in favour of artyfarty and some nice shots. For me CR delivered, QoB had great potential ruined by a strike, poor director and a cutting crazy editor.
So I really want to appreciate SF, but I end up liking parts and being flabbergasted by other choices made by an otherwise capable director and production team.
And what really annoys me is that Daniel Craig who in my humble opinion a good 007 does not get anything better than CR. My hopes are low for the next Bondmovie, can easily get more exited about the new marvel movies of the next MI movie. They seem to get the message that fun is alright and it does not have to be in the guise of Rogers antics. Because nobody will ever do it better than Sir Moore so I really do not want to see that stuff again. But a wee bit more fun and a decent and more logical script, no more psychological mumbo jumbo please.
I hope that Mendes takes the good things from SF and improves upon
And now further along the line when the mists have moved on I find that beauty is only skindeep and can never be the sole reason to admire SF, if that is so MR should be getting a heck more credit for its cinematography. ;)
I think EON knows this. Given Craig's comments about injecting more irony into Bond 24, I think he gets it too. I'm pretty sure B24 is going to be one for the ages. Call it a feeling. I have faith in this team to make a classic.
I hope that with you but do not share your optimism, considering the scriptwriters being employed.
;)
On that I'll agree with you. Purvis and Wade being called back scared the living daylights out of me.
Still, I do NOT want Bond 24 too become too formularic, too much "a good film by the numbers. I find that boring. It's one of the reasons I don't watch the Brosnan films a lot. Craig is Craig. Let's not turn the upcoming 24th Bond film into a formularic shell that fits every actor, especially Pierce Brosnan.
Nah, in all honesty? I want Bond 24 to be as "smart" as CR and SF. Perhaps with a bit more humour, but certainly not as "superficial" as Brosnan's films. CR was more the film that gave a multilayered approach to Bond...and how he started his tenure as 007. SF was more about closing the trilogy of Bond "growing" up and setting all elements in scope for a more "full-rounded plain solid 007-mission". Now I want Bond 24 to be such a "plain solid mission", but I also want that film to be the one that goes into the deep with a crime syndicate and how it gets founded "SPECTRE"?).
Yup. And now Buttermunch is putting a red line through any scenes where Bond (gasp) is seen talking to other men.
I agree with pretty much everything you say here. I actually quite enjoyed QoS, but agree that there is an element of intelligent fun missing from the Craig era. The jokes in SF were actually a step backwards IMO. The sort of humour that seems to suit Craig are the kind of subtle little digs that undermine the accepted cliches. I loved the line in CR when asked if he wanted his martini shaken or stirred. QoS had a couple of others. And Craig can raise a smile sometimes just by his quizzical or amused response to a situation. To be honest, I wonder if this isn't actually the limit of Craig's range when it comes to humour.
I suppose you can add in more by having the double taking commuters on the Tube in SF, but that just seemed a very bad homage to the Moore era to be honest.
I don't know how to put it really. I agree with you, but worry they won't do it well. And in that case I'd prefer if they stuck to the minimalist approach of CR and QoS.
Also, Craig has been saying in interviews ever since CR that he wants more humour...
Funnily enough I remember seeing an interview with Dalton after LTK where he said he wanted the next one to be more light hearted.
@Getaflix I read that bit after seeing your post. Quite troubling indeed. What is this guy talking about? Maybe they were worried about the slightly homoerotic Silva/Bond intro conversation in SF. I hope not, as that was the best bit of that film.
RE: your points about Craig & humour. I agree about some steps backward in SF. Craig was best in his banter with Moneypenny & with Q in the museum: "What do you see......a bloody big ship" "Not exactly Christmas". He works best with a certain ironic sarcasm which is better suited to his more realistic, world weary portrayal..
Put down much used in the early Connery films. Humour with
A cruel streak.
it's not P&W I'm nervous about.
Ah hah - this is where my real deep-seated disapproval of SF kicks in.
We've all grown up with a James Bond who is a ruthless, womanising killer, but also a man who appreciates the finer things in life. Food, wine, women again. Any way, there is a famous scene in Dr. No with the Portrait of the Duke of Wellington, by Goya, which at the time had been recently stolen (I think possibly from the National Gallery). Any way Bond double takes in recognition. It's a nice little in-joke.
And we all love those ridiculous scenes where Bond is one-upping someone over his knowledge of fine wine.
Any way, my point is that while not exactly perhaps a man of culture, he is not without some knowledge, wit or intelligence. So to have him respond to one of the most famous paintings in British art history with the lumpen 'joke' of saying it looks like a 'bloody big ship' is just not on for me. They needed something more nuanced. Of course, we can assume (as we're expected to assume so much in SF) that Bond knows exactly what it is, but it just comes across as a bit retarded IMO. Playing into the whole hardman terminator Bond that seems to have developed around Craig. Without the suggestion that Bond ever kicks back and appreciates the finer things (which I understand was a key aspect of Fleming's character), Bond is left looking like a violent, unintelligent thug.
Any way, probably nitpicking again.
I essentially agree with you though. And also with @DrGorner. If only people could write the kind of lines Connery got though - it seems a bit of a lost art.
I agree with both of you. I too, retrospectively, thought it was uncultured and unbecoming of Bond, but it was delivered so well to the arrogant spotty pipsqueek sitting next door that I just loved it - it was dismissive. I agree that we need nuance though and culture. Here's to hoping.