SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1727375777899

Comments

  • Of all the things to nitpick with DAD, Bond not telling whether a gun is loaded or not is hardly the foremost...

    It's not like he says he likes DAD. I seem to remember a lot of fans liked it at the time (I didn't, I loathed it).

    Actually I woudn't say there's much to choose between them in terms of how I felt about them, though nothing can touch the parasurfing of course.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    BAIN123 wrote:
    For anyone interested Calvin Dyson's Skyfall review is now up on youtube :D

    Yes, I uploaded the first two parts (it's a long one) to the youtube thread, here.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Is Dyson the annoying teenager who loves Brosnan?
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 3,327
    Matt_Helm wrote:


    It certainly is and if he had only shown one of these abilities i wouldn't be that annoyed by SF



    So Craig had no witty remarks in SF, showed no coolness whatsoever throughout, didn't have any intelligence whatsoever?

    How old are you?
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Getafix wrote:
    Shouldn't this forum be a little more welcoming? Or just a bit more chilled?

    I agree.

    The argument against him annoys me too. "you haven't seen enough Bond films to say what Bond feels like"

    This annoys me because I'm sure if he'd said "SF feels like pure Bond" then he'd have been welcomed with open arms.

    But just because he happens to not like Skyfall people have used the fact that he hasn't seen all the movies as ammunition against him.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited February 2013 Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    Is Dyson the annoying teenager who loves Brosnan?
    Are you the disrespectful prat that should treat great reviewers with respect?

    You want us to be kinder to @hoppimike yet I guess you are too above that requirement when it comes to Calvin, someone with more experience and a wider breadth of knowledge on Bond? Oh, do I love hypocrisy.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 3,327
    So what happens if hoppimike sees all the Bond films and still has the same opinion on SF - which I happen to agree with?

    If someone loved TSWLM in 77 and it was the first Bond they saw, would they not be allowed to love it until they'd seen all the others first?

    Its nothing to do with liking SF or not, its to do with stating what the true definitive Bond character is. As we are not talking about a triology here, but a film series spanning over 60 years, including the novels, with many changes to the character over that time, yet he hasn't seen 3 actors playing the role - with Roger Moore being the longest standing Bond, and he hasn't yet seen one of his movies, I don't really think he is in a position to tell people here what the true Bond character is.

    I am not even including the novels in this, BTW. Just the fact that he hasn't seen most of the movies.

    So its nothing to do with his opinion on SF, but rather his opinion on Bond the character.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote:
    Shouldn't this forum be a little more welcoming? Or just a bit more chilled?

    I agree.

    The argument against him annoys me too. "you haven't seen enough Bond films to say what Bond feels like"

    This annoys me because I'm sure if he'd said "SF feels like pure Bond" then he'd have been welcomed with open arms.

    But just because he happens to not like Skyfall people have used the fact that he hasn't seen all the movies as ammunition against him.
    Like I said, nothing to do with SF. I only took issue with him stating who the definitive Bond character is, and I told him he hasn't seen enough films yet to fully realise that.

  • Posts: 1,497
    Well then, why not encourage the poor fellow to see more of the films rather than badgering him? Seems like the more welcoming and friendly thing to do. If you don't find his opinion valid then ignore him, don't respond. Seems like a lot of wasted breath just to prove one's superiority in opinion.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 2,081
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    hoppimike wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    Can't believe people are thinking anything more into it then there is - very obviously. He is just throwing Silva off, that's all and it worked. No difference when he fought back with words in CR on the chair. "I have a little itching.."

    Gee...

    It's just, if I heard someone say that IRL, I'd think they were referring to something real. I know the context is different, but it still had that same implication for me!

    I mean, nothing WRONG with it (if he was), it's just out of character and feels kind of... like a cheap attempt to get attention and support. Like the rest of Skyfall lol

    Why is his answer out of character, may I ask? How would you prefer he would have answered (I suggest you watch Calvin's SF review, you can find it here). In addition, it's not Bond's first time tied to a chair being "sexually tortured" so he was in fact being honest :-w

    I'd hardly call Silva's moves on Bond sexual torture...semantics aside, I do find that scene with Silva rather odd. It comes out of nowhere; it's quite random. What does it do for the plot? If serves no purpose, and Silva's sexuality is never referenced again. I guess I just don't understand why that was even in the script, other than to have an eye-raising, or 'controversial' moment.

    Sandy used inverted commas for "sexually tortured" so I see no problem with that. She obviously didn't mean actual physical torture in this scene, seriously, how would most men feel in that situation - not able to move and sexually harassed, at the mercy of a man they know is a ruthless killer, quite mad and unpredictable, and who might do pretty much anything. There is a possibility of getting raped next (not that it would happen in a Bond movie, obviously, but if you imagine an actual situation like that...), so to use "sexual torture" - in inverted commas - is hardly an inappropriate expression to describe it. The "sexual torture" here is psychological, not physical like in CR.

    I don't find the scene odd at all. Yes, it comes out of nowhere in the sense that it's unexpected, but I think that's a good thing. It's not random, it does serve a purpose. They're playing a game in that scene as they do later, too. Bond wins that round and most of the others. The scene sets the tone for their sparring, is one example of Silva's tactics and unpredictability, and it says quite a bit about Bond, too. The scene is not about Silva's sexuality, so there is no reason to reference his sexuality later, either. To me it wasn't "eye-raising or "controversial"" but grin and giggle inducing and I've loved it on every viewing. (And I'm also not surprised to have learned that Sam, Daniel and Javier love it, and had a great, giggles filled day when they were shooting it.)

    Btw, it's interesting to me how many disapproving comments that scene has caused, especially considering that it's very brief and Silva barely touches Bond (very lightly, gently just by fingertips). They must have done it right. :P

    Getafix wrote:
    I have to say that I thought this all too brief scene was one of the most enjoyable moments in SF. Silva's entrance and speech were memorable and I enjoyed the innuendo and reference to CR. As an Old Etonian we can only assume that Bond has plenty of experience of this kind of thing any way. Whether Silva is gay, straight or bi is immaterial. Bond is confident in his sexuality and therefore not really bothered by Silva's little games.

    Having said all this I do agree the scene sort of comes from nowhere and like a lot of the rest of the film it just feels quite dislocated from what comes before and after. The reason is that P+W's plot is pretty poor and has all their trademark weaknesses. Logan manages to give individual scenes some class but overall the film does not hold together.

    Heyyyy, we agree on something - that first paragraph there. ;)

    Not the second paragraph, though, but one is something. :P

  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    Is Dyson the annoying teenager who loves Brosnan?

    Ok one, he's not a teenager and two...well I won't go there ;)
  • Posts: 3,327
    Sandy wrote:
    hoppimike wrote:
    So what happens if hoppimike sees all the Bond films and still has the same opinion on SF - which I happen to agree with?

    If someone loved TSWLM in 77 and it was the first Bond they saw, would they not be allowed to love it until they'd seen all the others first?

    As for Silva and the gay scene, it's ambivalent and not too bad. Bur for me it's just too convenient. Bond makes his crack (!) and Silva is all perturbed: "Ooo Mister Bond!" and backs away. This after speding all that time coming on to him, he turns shrinking violet! No reason why Silva wouldn't follow up Bond's comment about his first time with, "Well, it's time for seconds wouldn't you say?" and snog him full on the lips.

    Yeah I adored GE, CR and QoS and was indifferent to TND and DAD... SF is the first Bond I've ever considerably disliked.

    You were indifferent to DAD and you considerably disliked SF, yet you continue talking about how Bond should "feel" and what is "in character"... not going to comment any more.

    I have now reached that conclusion too. Comparing the worst film ever in the franchise with one of the best, has given us all a good indication on what his take on the Bond character should be.
  • Ah, that's different. Dyson seems a self confident fella and has put himself out there, he can take the heat.

    I think his reviews are great fun; he does remind me a bit of David Nimmo in Casino Royale.

    As for hoppi not having seen Roger Moore's films, he has a treat in store imo. But then, I dunno, a lot of fans can't stand Moore anyway, so I don't see how watching those would improve his opinion in any useful way.

    Oh come off it! A lot of fans on this site don't like GF at all, though imo it's 'one of the best'. If hoppi wants to dislike SF, it's allowed.
  • Posts: 3,327
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Well then, why not encourage the poor fellow to see more of the films rather than badgering him? Seems like the more welcoming and friendly thing to do. If you don't find his opinion valid then ignore him, don't respond. Seems like a lot of wasted breath just to prove one's superiority in opinion.
    I did encourage him, but his response was dismissive, that he doesn't have all the time in the world to watch all the films and read all the books.

    Fair enough, I respect that. But he shouldn't then be coming on here and telling everyone what he thinks is the definitive Bond character, as he is not in a position to judge.

  • Posts: 3,327

    As for hoppi not having seen Roger Moore's films, he has a treat in store imo. But then, I dunno, a lot of fans can't stand Moore anyway, so I don't see how watching those would improve his opinion in any useful way.

    Oh come off it! A lot of fans on this site don't like GF at all, though imo it's 'one of the best'. If hoppi wants to dislike SF, it's allowed.
    Not only hasn't he seen any of Moore's films, but he hasn't seen any of Dalton's, OHMSS, or FRWL, TB, YOLT or DAF.

    But yes, of course its allowed if he didn't like SF. I have no issues with that at all. But I do have issues when he starts commenting on Bond being `out of character'.



  • Posts: 1,497
    Tuulia wrote:
    I don't find the scene odd at all. Yes, it comes out of nowhere in the sense that it's unexpected, but I think that's a good thing. It's not random, it does serve a purpose. They're playing a game in that scene as they do later, too. Bond wins that round and most of the others. The scene sets the tone for their sparring, is one example of Silva's tactics and unpredictability, and it says quite a bit about Bond, too. The scene is not about Silva's sexuality, so there is no reason to reference his sexuality later, either. To me it wasn't "eye-raising or "controversial"" but grin and giggle inducing and I've loved it on every viewing. (And I'm also not surprised to have learned that Sam, Daniel and Javier love it, and had a great, giggles filled day when they were shooting it.)

    Fair point! :)>-
  • Posts: 2,081
    Thanks. :)

  • As for hoppi not having seen Roger Moore's films, he has a treat in store imo. But then, I dunno, a lot of fans can't stand Moore anyway, so I don't see how watching those would improve his opinion in any useful way.

    Oh come off it! A lot of fans on this site don't like GF at all, though imo it's 'one of the best'. If hoppi wants to dislike SF, it's allowed.
    Not only hasn't he seen any of Moore's films, but he hasn't seen any of Dalton's, OHMSS, or FRWL, TB, YOLT or DAF.

    But yes, of course its allowed if he didn't like SF. I have no issues with that at all. But I do have issues when he starts commenting on Bond being `out of character'.

    Hmm, okay see what you mean! Then again, maybe unlike all of us, he took the reboot seriously! Casino Royale is ground zero!

    It reminds me of what Keith Richards was saying about meeting a Stones fan in the late 1980s, who told him he'd been a fan since way back. Richards went, well, how far are we talking about, you're kind of young. And the fan replied, all the way back to Some Girls! And then Richards thought, well actually come to think of it, that is a heck of a long time, even if it isn't back to 1963!

    Same with hoppi, he's young but he's been following Bond since CR in, what, 2004? That's actually a heck of a long time!
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    Is Dyson the annoying teenager who loves Brosnan?
    Are you the disrespectful prat that should treat great reviewers with respect?

    You want us to be kinder to @hoppimike yet I guess you are too above that requirement when it comes to Calvin, someone with more experience and a wider breadth of knowledge on Bond? Oh, do I love hypocrisy.

    Chillax dear, it's only a Bond forum. Dyson as far as I'm aware is not currently posting on this forum but should he suddenly reveal himself rest assured I'd try and show him the same respect I try to show others...
  • Matt_Helm wrote:


    It certainly is and if he had only shown one of these abilities i wouldn't be that annoyed by SF



    So Craig had no witty remarks in SF, showed no coolness whatsoever throughout, didn't have any intelligence whatsoever?

    How old are you?


    He had. It was the "Or Not to pull.It's Hard to know which when in your Pyjamas." Apart from this he only was patronizing,wannabe ...You name it. Oh and before you ask , I've seen all the Movies and read each and everyone of Flemings Bond Books (not that it would be necessary to identify SF as an utter failure storywise).
  • Posts: 3,327
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:


    It certainly is and if he had only shown one of these abilities i wouldn't be that annoyed by SF



    So Craig had no witty remarks in SF, showed no coolness whatsoever throughout, didn't have any intelligence whatsoever?

    How old are you?


    He had. It was the "Or Not to pull.It's Hard to know which when in your Pyjamas." Apart from this he only was patronizing,wannabe ...You name it. Oh and before you ask , I've seen all the Movies and read each and everyone of Flemings Bond Books (not that it would be necessary to identify SF as an utter failure storywise).

    Out of interest, which is your favourite Fleming novel, and what is your favourite Bond film?
  • When it comes to the Books it is a tie between FRWL (for the underlying idea) and LALD for the livelyness of its descriptions and even though Bond acts the whole Book like a complete moron. Regarding the Films i am torn between FRWL and OHMSS and the former only wins because there is no skirt wearing Bond in it.
  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    Posts: 188
    Getafix wrote:
    I think people should lay off hoppimike. It comes across as bullying. He's seen a few films and feels he wants to make some comments. Shouldn't this forum be a little more welcoming? Or just a bit more chilled?

    I agree, no one should be ranting and raving about somebody's post on here anyway
  • hoppimikehoppimike Kent, UK
    edited February 2013 Posts: 290
    DAD was just a bit... hollow. It felt like a fairly plain, predictable, by-the-book action movie. I had no reason to hate it - it was just a bit bland (and cheesy) that's all.

    I left the cinema feeling a bit disappointed after the likes of GoldenEye but that was about all.

    Some bits were cool though :)

    It's a... 6 or 7/10 for me?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Getafix wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Is Dyson the annoying teenager who loves Brosnan?
    Are you the disrespectful prat that should treat great reviewers with respect?

    You want us to be kinder to @hoppimike yet I guess you are too above that requirement when it comes to Calvin, someone with more experience and a wider breadth of knowledge on Bond? Oh, do I love hypocrisy.

    Chillax dear, it's only a Bond forum. Dyson as far as I'm aware is not currently posting on this forum but should he suddenly reveal himself rest assured I'd try and show him the same respect I try to show others...

    He is a member of this forum you know.
  • hoppimikehoppimike Kent, UK
    Posts: 290
    Ultimately I think the variation of opinion is inevitable as we've said before, particularly on a series like Bond that has changed and evolved rather dramatically a fair number of times in its lifetime.

    I'm sure there are people who dislike DAD or QoS or whatever just as much as I dislike Skyfall :)
  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    Posts: 188
    Well at least its not as bad as the last Bond forum i went to, when i posted a reply simliar to this here was the response i got :

    "YOU STUPID ASSHOLE!! I HOPE YOU DIE YOU RETARDED MORON!!!"
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Haha! What the hell could you have possibly said to warrant such a venomous response?
  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    Posts: 188
    I cant even remember man it was a long time ago lol
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Is Dyson the annoying teenager who loves Brosnan?
    Are you the disrespectful prat that should treat great reviewers with respect?

    You want us to be kinder to @hoppimike yet I guess you are too above that requirement when it comes to Calvin, someone with more experience and a wider breadth of knowledge on Bond? Oh, do I love hypocrisy.

    Chillax dear, it's only a Bond forum. Dyson as far as I'm aware is not currently posting on this forum but should he suddenly reveal himself rest assured I'd try and show him the same respect I try to show others...
    This IS a Bond forum, yet you seem to have mistaken it for a preschool I am afraid.

    And, as it has been said: Calvin IS a member here.
Sign In or Register to comment.