SKYFALL. -HOW DO YOU SEE IT NOW?

124»

Comments

  • edited April 2018 Posts: 17,755
    Same can be said of people standing with their phones (taking pictures) at live events, like sports matches and concerts, etc. Why stand in a crowd taking pictures or recording poor quality videos of an event when you can see it right there in front of you? Shouldn't be too difficult to let that smartphone stay in the pocket for and hour or two.
  • Posts: 17,755
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Same can be said of people standing with their phones (taking pictures) at live events, like sports matches and concerts, etc. Why stand in a crowd taking pictures or recording poor quality videos of an event when you can see it right there in front of you? Shouldn't be too difficult to let that smartphone stay in the pocket for and hour or two.

    It's the worst. Art Museums too. I'm always telling people to look at the art with their own eyes or get the Hell out of my way.

    As you should do. Can forgive a quick photo if it's not in the way for others, but those who do take photos usually don't care that they're in the way or affecting the experience of other people. So fixated on getting that perfect Instagram shot or Snap.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    The funny thing about those photos is that most of those people won't even go back to look at those photos ever again. I'd much rather take a mental picture in person and cherish the memory forever than ruin it all by snapping endless photos I won't pay any mind to later on.
  • Posts: 17,755
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The funny thing about those photos is that most of those people won't even go back to look at those photos ever again. I'd much rather take a mental picture in person and cherish the memory forever than ruin it all by snapping endless photos I won't pay any mind to later on.

    This is very true. Went to an art gallery in Berlin some years ago (can't remember which, unfortunately). Took some photos as this was quite early in the day, and the gallery was far from crowded. Have looked through those photos probably only once since then - and they're all on an external hard drive, now.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,028
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    The funny thing about those photos is that most of those people won't even go back to look at those photos ever again. I'd much rather take a mental picture in person and cherish the memory forever than ruin it all by snapping endless photos I won't pay any mind to later on.

    I can see your point to the extent that pictures at a museum are concerned. I would normally not take photographs of them either, since they are mostly square objects hanging on a wall that you ultimately copy as if you were feeding them into a Xerox machine.

    However, under other circumstances I find that taking photographs enhances my memory of things I see to a considerable extent, since I try to decide on the best angle, focal length, possibly lighting, distance and what have you regarding picture details, meaning I get a much closer connection and involvement with those objects than if I just looked at them and went on.

    Just saying.
  • Posts: 1,917
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    MENDES: "Okay, Daniel, because we don't trust the audience to understand that Bond will grieve after a series of stupid decisions that got his boss killed, and because our writers are incapable of creating a scene that conveys his sense of loss while also advancing the story, we're going to film you standing here and staring off into the distance. If nothing else, it will look great on a magazine cover. Now look straight ahead and squint."

    CRAIG: "Let's get this over with. I've been up here all day, and I need to take a piss."

    I smell something, @Escalus5 ...

    92% Fresh Score
    $1.1B at the BO.


    Oh. It's the sweet smell of success. ;)

    If we could leave the general masses to decide what was “art” we would consider Dr. Dre above Beethoven

    I wouldn’t consider the film critics the masses. SF satisfied everyone, except those who walked into the theater already wanting to despise it. “A fault finder will find fault in paradise.” - Thoreau

    Or those of us that simply didn't like it. That was the most excited I have ever been for a Bond film. Walked in expecting another incredible outing and was seriously disappointed in the end result. I wanted to love it so much that I saw it five times in theaters in a week or two period, but it wasn't for me.

    That was the same for me! Went into my first viewing really stoked that I as going to see a great classic Bond movie! When end credits rolled I was very glum(as were the audience who were with me... very subdued leaving!)
    I thought "No I must be missing something'
    Saw it 3 more times I believe in cinema.. it didn't get any better.
    My feeling now is that I admire it and I really want to like it but it will never be an instant choice for me when I want my Bond fix.
    Still love Craig as Bond and happy he is doing Bond 25 but I don't want a repeat of SF in any way. But I have a feeling we will with Boyle at the helm.

    +1. Very similar to my thoughts. I also left thinking something was missing and can't figure why so many non-fans/critics find it classic and satisfying whereas CR fit that so much better.

    And say what you want about Bonds not being action movies, there isn't anything in this film that stands out in that department, much like its predecessor it resembles in many ways - TWINE.

    I don't even bother watching all of SF on Blu these days, just certain sequences such as Silva's entrance and speech.

    That's my favourite part too! And when Bond turns the tables on his captors after Severines death, it was the only time I got excited, apart from the pts. Other than that I just find it dull. And No, it was nothing to do with patriotism, that never bothers me, I like Bonds Britishness. It's just nowhere near the masterpiece it's made out to be!
    Oh, and maybe I should put this in the controversial section but I don't get the love for Roger Deakin either. There are sections that are impressive in SF, but mostly I find his work ordinary (particularly interior parts!)

    The best Bond films are generally not full of action. They're full of intrigue. I would argue that DN, FRWL, GF, and TB contain little action until the very end. And the action sequences that do exist are usually brief. I liken the pace and tone of SF to that of TB. Neither film is heavy on action, meaning neither is reliant on it, either.

    If there are any flaws in CR, it's in the laborious, drawn-out action sequences in the first half: construction site-embassy, Miami airport. The better parts of that film take place during poker, where the tension is psychological. SF tapped more into the psychological and other than the PTS and end at Skyfall, let the action take a back seat. After QoS, it was a breath of fresh air.

    It's not the lack of action that I have a problem with! LTK is one of my favourite Bonds and it has only 3 major action set pieces incl pts. But it's storyline is gripping following Bonds dogged determination to destroy Sanchez organisation.I don't feel SF grips enough and it doesn't have any major set pieces to fall back on!
    I agree on CR. Love the quieter scenes, with Vesper, the poker scenes etc.
    And some of my favourite sections in QOS are not the action but the dramatic moments , Whites interrogation , Bonds scenes with Mathis and with Camille finale with Yusef!
    SF just doesn't give me any real sections like that that l look forward to when watching it!

    Again I'm in agreement with Mathis1. However, in CR's defense I like the action scenes are all upfront and then it gets onto other things in the middle section, breaking the cycle that so many previous films set. That was fresh.

    Sorry, but Bond is an action franchise. Tom Mankiewicz called the series the Rolls Royce of action films. I do want something to grab me like the Parkour chase, hand-to-hand with Slate or the helicopter fight in SP to look forward to seeing again. Having the other things, then that just adds to the experience.

    Except for maybe the Shanghai skyscraper fight with Patrice, SF has nothing in that realm I can look back on and say, yeah, well done in that realm. So we're left with M drama and all that. I've already seen that in a better film called The Dark Knight and a worse one called TWINE. At least it's nice to look at.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2018 Posts: 23,883
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Escalus5 wrote: »
    MENDES: "Okay, Daniel, because we don't trust the audience to understand that Bond will grieve after a series of stupid decisions that got his boss killed, and because our writers are incapable of creating a scene that conveys his sense of loss while also advancing the story, we're going to film you standing here and staring off into the distance. If nothing else, it will look great on a magazine cover. Now look straight ahead and squint."

    CRAIG: "Let's get this over with. I've been up here all day, and I need to take a piss."

    I smell something, @Escalus5 ...

    92% Fresh Score
    $1.1B at the BO.


    Oh. It's the sweet smell of success. ;)

    If we could leave the general masses to decide what was “art” we would consider Dr. Dre above Beethoven

    I wouldn’t consider the film critics the masses. SF satisfied everyone, except those who walked into the theater already wanting to despise it. “A fault finder will find fault in paradise.” - Thoreau

    Or those of us that simply didn't like it. That was the most excited I have ever been for a Bond film. Walked in expecting another incredible outing and was seriously disappointed in the end result. I wanted to love it so much that I saw it five times in theaters in a week or two period, but it wasn't for me.

    That was the same for me! Went into my first viewing really stoked that I as going to see a great classic Bond movie! When end credits rolled I was very glum(as were the audience who were with me... very subdued leaving!)
    I thought "No I must be missing something'
    Saw it 3 more times I believe in cinema.. it didn't get any better.
    My feeling now is that I admire it and I really want to like it but it will never be an instant choice for me when I want my Bond fix.
    Still love Craig as Bond and happy he is doing Bond 25 but I don't want a repeat of SF in any way. But I have a feeling we will with Boyle at the helm.

    +1. Very similar to my thoughts. I also left thinking something was missing and can't figure why so many non-fans/critics find it classic and satisfying whereas CR fit that so much better.

    And say what you want about Bonds not being action movies, there isn't anything in this film that stands out in that department, much like its predecessor it resembles in many ways - TWINE.

    I don't even bother watching all of SF on Blu these days, just certain sequences such as Silva's entrance and speech.

    That's my favourite part too! And when Bond turns the tables on his captors after Severines death, it was the only time I got excited, apart from the pts. Other than that I just find it dull. And No, it was nothing to do with patriotism, that never bothers me, I like Bonds Britishness. It's just nowhere near the masterpiece it's made out to be!
    Oh, and maybe I should put this in the controversial section but I don't get the love for Roger Deakin either. There are sections that are impressive in SF, but mostly I find his work ordinary (particularly interior parts!)

    The best Bond films are generally not full of action. They're full of intrigue. I would argue that DN, FRWL, GF, and TB contain little action until the very end. And the action sequences that do exist are usually brief. I liken the pace and tone of SF to that of TB. Neither film is heavy on action, meaning neither is reliant on it, either.

    If there are any flaws in CR, it's in the laborious, drawn-out action sequences in the first half: construction site-embassy, Miami airport. The better parts of that film take place during poker, where the tension is psychological. SF tapped more into the psychological and other than the PTS and end at Skyfall, let the action take a back seat. After QoS, it was a breath of fresh air.

    It's not the lack of action that I have a problem with! LTK is one of my favourite Bonds and it has only 3 major action set pieces incl pts. But it's storyline is gripping following Bonds dogged determination to destroy Sanchez organisation.I don't feel SF grips enough and it doesn't have any major set pieces to fall back on!
    I agree on CR. Love the quieter scenes, with Vesper, the poker scenes etc.
    And some of my favourite sections in QOS are not the action but the dramatic moments , Whites interrogation , Bonds scenes with Mathis and with Camille finale with Yusef!
    SF just doesn't give me any real sections like that that l look forward to when watching it!

    Again I'm in agreement with Mathis1. However, in CR's defense I like the action scenes are all upfront and then it gets onto other things in the middle section, breaking the cycle that so many previous films set. That was fresh.

    Sorry, but Bond is an action franchise. Tom Mankiewicz called the series the Rolls Royce of action films. I do want something to grab me like the Parkour chase, hand-to-hand with Slate or the helicopter fight in SP to look forward to seeing again. Having the other things, then that just adds to the experience.

    Except for maybe the Shanghai skyscraper fight with Patrice, SF has nothing in that realm I can look back on and say, yeah, well done in that realm. So we're left with M drama and all that. I've already seen that in a better film called The Dark Knight and a worse one called TWINE. At least it's nice to look at.
    I get your point about action but don't agree with the SP helicopter fight being among the best. That was one big CGI s#!^fest as far as I am concerned, redeemed only by the tracking shot which preceded it and Newman's rendition of the Bond theme.

    In terms of SF, I've always felt that the tense Istanbul multi-vehicle pursuit in the PTS is the 2nd best action sequence in the Craig era, bettered only by the CR parkour. I think the finale is nicely done as well, although it's more suspenseful (Bond and M initially being hunted before he turns the tables on them by blowing up the ranch) rather than action packed.
  • Posts: 1,917
    Ironically, the first time I saw SF in the cinema I had a case with teenagers and cell phones. My wife and I normally get to the auditorium early and sit in the back row near the aisle so we don't have people up and down and in the way.

    The hall was filling up and things looked fine as far as no potential distractions when a group of about 8 teens, either middle school or high school underclassmen, comes in and take up a bunch of seats on the side. Then the fun starts.

    They're all on their phones texting each other and walking back and forth. By the time one starts to giggle and run down to the row another was sitting I'd had enough and told her I wasn't going to have it and it actually worked, but it was enough to take me out of the film. I'm pretty sure one of their parents just dropped them all off to get them out of the house. Why go to a movie if you just want to socialize with your friends? Go to the mall.

    We're lucky to get a Bond film once every 3 now 4 years. It's a big deal and I want to take in the experience.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @BT3366 I sympathize. It's unforgivable when that happens with a film that one has waited some time for. I've had my share of incidents over the past few years. Quite disrespectful and rather disgraceful.
  • Posts: 17,755
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Ironically, the first time I saw SF in the cinema I had a case with teenagers and cell phones. My wife and I normally get to the auditorium early and sit in the back row near the aisle so we don't have people up and down and in the way.

    The hall was filling up and things looked fine as far as no potential distractions when a group of about 8 teens, either middle school or high school underclassmen, comes in and take up a bunch of seats on the side. Then the fun starts.

    They're all on their phones texting each other and walking back and forth. By the time one starts to giggle and run down to the row another was sitting I'd had enough and told her I wasn't going to have it and it actually worked, but it was enough to take me out of the film. I'm pretty sure one of their parents just dropped them all off to get them out of the house. Why go to a movie if you just want to socialize with your friends? Go to the mall.

    We're lucky to get a Bond film once every 3 now 4 years. It's a big deal and I want to take in the experience.

    These are the situations I hope to avoid every time at the cinema, yet they're more common than not. Had a similar experience to the one you described with SF, too, only not to that extent. There were some people who just couldn't shut up, and always seemed to take up conversations at key moments in the film. Actually thinking of waiting to watch B25 until it's available on DVD/Blu-ray…
  • Posts: 1,469
    It remains one of my top 10 favorite Bond films, possibly as high as #4 or 5. Last watched it maybe two months ago. Thinking about it now, though Craig/Bond's presence is large, it doesn't quite seem to rise about the story, the plot, as Bond does for me in other films, including CR. It's not like he's a Super Spy but rather a government agent doing a job, if you get the distinction, and because of that I find it has a slightly conservative feel. Maybe that was because of the direction, or the story--maybe M was too much the focus, as I think some here have said. I think Bond needs to stay the center of the narrative (not M for instance) and given more freedom to play things his way, though there'll always be that tug-of-war with higher-ups. Still, given the story, I like what Craig did, and the film is memorable for me.
  • Posts: 12,466


    This brings back great memories now. Especially 1:05-1:18.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Easily the most impactful and impressive trailer they have done since the initial teaser for GE imho.

    Pffeifer Broz surpassed themselves with the music.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Easily the most impactful and impressive trailer they have done since the initial teaser for GE imho.

    I'd go with this one.

    This wasn't too bad either, although Harris disappointed me as usual (both her delivery and her lines). The thumping music and digital vibrancy of Deakins cinematography in that SF trailer just blew me away the first time I saw it though. The film delivered what the trailer promised too, at least for me.
  • Posts: 12,466
    I like that one too. Seeing White again was pure awesomeness. He carries SP a lot XD
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I like that one too. Seeing White again was pure awesomeness. He carries SP a lot XD

    I liked his delivery of the "Kite" line better in that original cut than what they went with in the film. I also preferred the "overdue holiday" line as Bond says it in the later trailers, as opposed to the film.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    TripAces wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I like that one too. Seeing White again was pure awesomeness. He carries SP a lot XD

    I liked his delivery of the "Kite" line better in that original cut than what they went with in the film. I also preferred the "overdue holiday" line as Bond says it in the later trailers, as opposed to the film.

    I almost managed to resist watching SP trailers. Next time I will avoid everything except cast news so I can go in with no expectations
  • Posts: 7,417
    w2bond wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I like that one too. Seeing White again was pure awesomeness. He carries SP a lot XD

    I liked his delivery of the "Kite" line better in that original cut than what they went with in the film. I also preferred the "overdue holiday" line as Bond says it in the later trailers, as opposed to the film.

    I almost managed to resist watching SP trailers. Next time I will avoid everything except cast news so I can go in with no expectations

    I would find that impossible to do!
    I remember seeing the CR trailers and watching them over and over. It didn't deplete one bit my enjoyment of the first screening I Had! Am hoping Bond 25 follows suit!
Sign In or Register to comment.