› ›

SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1…2425272930…99

Comments

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    craigrules wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I'm suprised how nasty things sometimes get around here.I didn't think SF was that bad at all. I... actually...liked it :(

    It's xmas day in the trenches now

    Any one for a game of footy?

  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Not from these fans here, but interesting read

    http://philosophy.baddalailama.com/2012/11/skyfall.html
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    This is fans, I assume

    http://www.comingsoon.net/index.php
  • DRush76DRush76
    edited November 2012 Posts: 533
    You asked that question a few posts ago. Several of us replied.

    Which was what? How did a list of NATO undercover agents end up in the laptop hard drive of a MI6 agent in Istanbul? I don't recall the movie ever explaining this. Perhaps I missed it.



    I think, the problem, if we wanna call it that is, that some here IMO treat this film like an academic thesis. They go into it, taking a film, that's meant to be entertainment very serious and search for explanations, where none are really necessary. It doesn't NEED to explain every bit. Blockbuster films like this never do and they all have their plotholes. So, I believe, that starting to pick it apart is, what bothers people. They seem to forget, that this is supposed to be leisure fun, not your working place. And its the nature of the negative, that it rarely raises fun and pleasure and is hence less popular, never mind how much of a right a poster has to state his negative opinion. Many have enough negative experiences in their daily life and this makes them go after those, who confront them with it here, too.
    Its not about right and wrong, its about dynamics and this is how it works usually. So - as much as everyody has the right to voice an opinion, you should not be too puzzled, that you have to deal with "Don't try to spoil my fun".

    So - not saying, don't critisize, but saying don't complain.


    This sounds like an argument to criticize those who didn't like the film. If people - like me - didn't like "SKYFALL", then they didn't like it. Why is it so important that everyone likes this movie?
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    To me, the negative posters sound more desperate to make verybody realise, how poor it is. So - Why is it so important that everyone hates this movie?
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Germanlady wrote:
    To me, the negative posters sound more desperate to make verybody realise, how poor it is. So - Why is it so important that everyone hates this movie?
    DRush76 wrote:
    This sounds like an argument to criticize those who didn't like the film. If people - like me - didn't like "SKYFALL", then they didn't like it. Why is it so important that everyone likes this movie?

    There are people on both sides who are being just as bad as eachother. Some people are going out of their way to make peope dislike it but equally some people have been attacking every bit of SF criticism.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    To me, the negative posters sound more desperate to make verybody realise, how poor it is. So - Why is it so important that everyone hates this movie?
    DRush76 wrote:
    This sounds like an argument to criticize those who didn't like the film. If people - like me - didn't like "SKYFALL", then they didn't like it. Why is it so important that everyone likes this movie?

    There are people on both sides who are being just as bad as eachother. Some people are going out of their way to make peope dislike it but equally some people have been attacking every bit of SF criticism.

    I say it's time for a bit more love round here.

    I'm off to watch a vintage Roger movie to restore my faith in humanity!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,157
    DRush76 wrote:
    You asked that question a few posts ago. Several of us replied.

    Which was what? How did a list of NATO undercover agents end up in the laptop hard drive of a MI6 agent in Istanbul? I don't recall the movie ever explaining this. Perhaps I missed it.

    True. The movie doesn't explain that.

    However, do we need to know everything? It's simply something they needed to kick off the film.

    By comparison,
    * how did Doctor No get Dent to work for him? They don't explain that.
    * how did SPECTRE get Klebb to defect? They don't explain that.
    * how did Bond learn about the South-American drug lab? They don't explain that.
    * how did the Spectre agent kill two of Bond's colleagues? They don't explain that.
    * how did Spectre manage to build a volcano base without anyone figuring it out? They don't explain that.
    * how did the beach thugs find Bond / Tracy? They don't explain that.
    * how did Bond find his first lead towards Blofeld? They don't explain that.
    * how can someone simply walk into a UN building and kill someone? They don't explain that.
    * how did Scaramanga manage to build a dummy Bond so perfectly? They don't explain that.
    * what the hell is Bond doing in the snow cabin? They don't explain that.
    * how did the Moonraker pilots manage to hide in the shuttle? They don't explain that.
    * how did Blofeld survive DAF to get back at Bond after a decade? They don't explain that.
    * why did Bond have to destroy the military base in South-America? They don't explain that.
    * how did the Russians find 002? They don't explain that.
    * how did the Russian thug get into Gibraltar? They don't explain that.
    * how did Lupe run away from Sanchez? They don't explain that.
    * how did 006 get into the research facility? They don't explain that.
    * how did Bond get near the terrorist market? They don't explain that.
    * what's a Swiss banker doing in Spain? They don't explain that.
    * how did Bond figure out about Vanderbierk? They don't explain that.
    * which secrets has Dryden sold? They don't explain that.
    * how did Mr. Whyte's thugs get chasing after Bond? They don't explain that.
    * and indeed, how did the list get in Turkey? They don't explain that.

    Most films introduce things which they don't explain. You simply can't backtrack every . single . step that lead to the opening of the film.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Sorry Darth - just edited this.

    Wanted to say that plot holes and unexplained behaviour is par for the course with a lot of action movies. Sometimes we find it annoying and at other times we don't. I noticed in one of your old posts Darth you said you found the characters behaviour in QoS so inexplicable it impacted your enjoyment of the movie.

    I felt the same way about SF.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 24,157
    There's a huge difference, @Getafix. I don't care where the film kicked off. I do, however, think that too much is told in the film, not shown. In SF, by comparison, I see all I need to see.

    I will agree though that this depends on where one draws the line. Too much for me in QoS, fairly acceptable in SF.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    The driver is just an excuse for what happens afterwards why are some people worrying so much about it? Great post @DarthDimi
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    DRush76 wrote:
    You asked that question a few posts ago. Several of us replied.

    Which was what? How did a list of NATO undercover agents end up in the laptop hard drive of a MI6 agent in Istanbul? I don't recall the movie ever explaining this. Perhaps I missed it.



    I think, the problem, if we wanna call it that is, that some here IMO treat this film like an academic thesis. They go into it, taking a film, that's meant to be entertainment very serious and search for explanations, where none are really necessary. It doesn't NEED to explain every bit. Blockbuster films like this never do and they all have their plotholes. So, I believe, that starting to pick it apart is, what bothers people. They seem to forget, that this is supposed to be leisure fun, not your working place. And its the nature of the negative, that it rarely raises fun and pleasure and is hence less popular, never mind how much of a right a poster has to state his negative opinion. Many have enough negative experiences in their daily life and this makes them go after those, who confront them with it here, too.
    Its not about right and wrong, its about dynamics and this is how it works usually. So - as much as everyody has the right to voice an opinion, you should not be too puzzled, that you have to deal with "Don't try to spoil my fun".

    So - not saying, don't criticize, but saying don't complain.


    This sounds like an argument to criticize those who didn't like the film. If people - like me - didn't like "SKYFALL", then they didn't like it. Why is it so important that everyone likes this movie?

    Dressed To Kill just started a thread for disappointed Skyfall viewers. I'm sure he could use some company over there.

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    DRush76 wrote:
    You asked that question a few posts ago. Several of us replied.

    Which was what? How did a list of NATO undercover agents end up in the laptop hard drive of a MI6 agent in Istanbul? I don't recall the movie ever explaining this. Perhaps I missed it.



    I think, the problem, if we wanna call it that is, that some here IMO treat this film like an academic thesis. They go into it, taking a film, that's meant to be entertainment very serious and search for explanations, where none are really necessary. It doesn't NEED to explain every bit. Blockbuster films like this never do and they all have their plotholes. So, I believe, that starting to pick it apart is, what bothers people. They seem to forget, that this is supposed to be leisure fun, not your working place. And its the nature of the negative, that it rarely raises fun and pleasure and is hence less popular, never mind how much of a right a poster has to state his negative opinion. Many have enough negative experiences in their daily life and this makes them go after those, who confront them with it here, too.
    Its not about right and wrong, its about dynamics and this is how it works usually. So - as much as everyody has the right to voice an opinion, you should not be too puzzled, that you have to deal with "Don't try to spoil my fun".

    So - not saying, don't criticize, but saying don't complain.


    This sounds like an argument to criticize those who didn't like the film. If people - like me - didn't like "SKYFALL", then they didn't like it. Why is it so important that everyone likes this movie?

    Dressed To Kill just started a thread for disappointed Skyfall viewers. I'm sure he could use some company over there.

    No such luck. It'll get closed down. We all have learn to get along on here I'm afraid.

    Long story but that's the way it is.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    @ Getafix- Dimi has allowed it to stay so I'm sure you'd be welcomed over there as well. And I won't hammer anyone who doesn't like the film. People have very diverse tastes. However I would suggest that panning a movie based on one viewing is a bit premature. Lots of people buried OHMSS and LTK and changed their minds later on.


  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    thelordflasheart wrote:
    Saw it in Imax on Friday, still digesting it... :-)

    Fiennes was fantastic, and I'm looking forward to the mutual respect between Mallory and Craig's Bond in future films that will, I hope, recall early Connery films (I never liked the more comic "exasperated M" of the later films). Dench was great, and the depth and fallibility of her M was a wonderful surprise, and it was nice to see how her relationship with Bond had matured. Kincaid was another great "ally", and I was pleased that the digging into Bond's backstory wasn't so huge to make him less of a huge hero figure - and the destruction of Skyfall, the DB5, and the death of Dench's M (giving him a chance to say goodbye to a parental figure in his home which he never got as a kid) was a great way of him being able to say goodbye to, and break from, his past and drop the baggage and become his own man.

    All around the performances were utterly fantastic and there was a wonderful depth of character and lots of nice psychological touches in the script. They could have gone overboard with it; I thought that it was nicely restrained.

    I particularly agree with the bolded text. It was just the right amount I felt. As you said, "nicely restrained", both in Bond's history and depth of character.



  • NapoleonPluralNapoleonPlural
    Posts: 512
    You see, I don't see that as reasonable. Most of those questions don't need explaining, but others do. I mean, obviously some of this stuff belongs in the more outlandish, fantastic fun Bond films where less explanation is required. For a more serious movie, note how you have less needed to explain. Dent? For greed, or fear he turned to No. Straightforward, he looks like a weasel. Klebb I admit, it does raise eyebrows she's turned I grant (no pun intended) you, but double agents were all the rage then. Other stuff is daft actually, testing Grant with one knuckle duster punch when if he does his job well, he shouldn't really need to employ physical force. But FRWL does have a slick, stylised vibe that makes it work, a bit like The Untouchables. SF doesn't.

    For me, the more fun you're having, the less needs explaining, but SF isn't that much of a fun film so I demand more logic, for it to be more grounded, esp with a grounded hero like Craig's interpretation.

    I don't mind about the McGuffin thing in itself, but much of SF is just off the scale in terms of lapses of logic. It's not enough to say, oh, look at other Bonds! They're a different genre mostly, esp the more fantastic ones.
    DarthDimi wrote:
    DRush76 wrote:
    You asked that question a few posts ago. Several of us replied.

    Which was what? How did a list of NATO undercover agents end up in the laptop hard drive of a MI6 agent in Istanbul? I don't recall the movie ever explaining this. Perhaps I missed it.

    True. The movie doesn't explain that.

    However, do we need to know everything? It's simply something they needed to kick off the film.

    By comparison,
    * how did Doctor No get Dent to work for him? They don't explain that.
    * how did SPECTRE get Klebb to defect? They don't explain that.
    * how did Bond learn about the South-American drug lab? They don't explain that.
    * how did the Spectre agent kill two of Bond's colleagues? They don't explain that.
    * how did Spectre manage to build a volcano base without anyone figuring it out? They don't explain that.
    * how did the beach thugs find Bond / Tracy? They don't explain that.
    * how did Bond find his first lead towards Blofeld? They don't explain that.
    * how can someone simply walk into a UN building and kill someone? They don't explain that.
    * how did Scaramanga manage to build a dummy Bond so perfectly? They don't explain that.
    * what the hell is Bond doing in the snow cabin? They don't explain that.
    * how did the Moonraker pilots manage to hide in the shuttle? They don't explain that.
    * how did Blofeld survive DAF to get back at Bond after a decade? They don't explain that.
    * why did Bond have to destroy the military base in South-America? They don't explain that.
    * how did the Russians find 002? They don't explain that.
    * how did the Russian thug get into Gibraltar? They don't explain that.
    * how did Lupe run away from Sanchez? They don't explain that.
    * how did 006 get into the research facility? They don't explain that.
    * how did Bond get near the terrorist market? They don't explain that.
    * what's a Swiss banker doing in Spain? They don't explain that.
    * how did Bond figure out about Vanderbierk? They don't explain that.
    * which secrets has Dryden sold? They don't explain that.
    * how did Mr. Whyte's thugs get chasing after Bond? They don't explain that.
    * and indeed, how did the list get in Turkey? They don't explain that.

    Most films introduce things which they don't explain. You simply can't backtrack every . single . step that lead to the opening of the film.

  • GetafixGetafix
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    NapoleonPlural wrote:
    You see, I don't see that as reasonable. Most of those questions don't need explaining, but others do. I mean, obviously some of this stuff belongs in the more outlandish, fantastic fun Bond films where less explanation is required. For a more serious movie, note how you have less needed to explain. Dent? For greed, or fear he turned to No. Straightforward, he looks like a weasel. Klebb I admit, it does raise eyebrows she's turned I grant (no pun intended) you, but double agents were all the rage then. Other stuff is daft actually, testing Grant with one knuckle duster punch when if he does his job well, he shouldn't really need to employ physical force. But FRWL does have a slick, stylised vibe that makes it work, a bit like The Untouchables. SF doesn't.

    For me, the more fun you're having, the less needs explaining, but SF isn't that much of a fun film so I demand more logic, for it to be more grounded, esp with a grounded hero like Craig's interpretation.

    I don't mind about the McGuffin thing in itself, but much of SF is just off the scale in terms of lapses of logic. It's not enough to say, oh, look at other Bonds! They're a different genre mostly, esp the more fantastic ones.
    DarthDimi wrote:
    DRush76 wrote:
    You asked that question a few posts ago. Several of us replied.

    Which was what? How did a list of NATO undercover agents end up in the laptop hard drive of a MI6 agent in Istanbul? I don't recall the movie ever explaining this. Perhaps I missed it.

    True. The movie doesn't explain that.

    However, do we need to know everything? It's simply something they needed to kick off the film.

    By comparison,
    * how did Doctor No get Dent to work for him? They don't explain that.
    * how did SPECTRE get Klebb to defect? They don't explain that.
    * how did Bond learn about the South-American drug lab? They don't explain that.
    * how did the Spectre agent kill two of Bond's colleagues? They don't explain that.
    * how did Spectre manage to build a volcano base without anyone figuring it out? They don't explain that.
    * how did the beach thugs find Bond / Tracy? They don't explain that.
    * how did Bond find his first lead towards Blofeld? They don't explain that.
    * how can someone simply walk into a UN building and kill someone? They don't explain that.
    * how did Scaramanga manage to build a dummy Bond so perfectly? They don't explain that.
    * what the hell is Bond doing in the snow cabin? They don't explain that.
    * how did the Moonraker pilots manage to hide in the shuttle? They don't explain that.
    * how did Blofeld survive DAF to get back at Bond after a decade? They don't explain that.
    * why did Bond have to destroy the military base in South-America? They don't explain that.
    * how did the Russians find 002? They don't explain that.
    * how did the Russian thug get into Gibraltar? They don't explain that.
    * how did Lupe run away from Sanchez? They don't explain that.
    * how did 006 get into the research facility? They don't explain that.
    * how did Bond get near the terrorist market? They don't explain that.
    * what's a Swiss banker doing in Spain? They don't explain that.
    * how did Bond figure out about Vanderbierk? They don't explain that.
    * which secrets has Dryden sold? They don't explain that.
    * how did Mr. Whyte's thugs get chasing after Bond? They don't explain that.
    * and indeed, how did the list get in Turkey? They don't explain that.

    Most films introduce things which they don't explain. You simply can't backtrack every . single . step that lead to the opening of the film.

    You nailed it.
  • battleshipgreygtbattleshipgreygt
    Posts: 1,220
    NapoleonPlural wrote:
    You see, I don't see that as reasonable. Most of those questions don't need explaining, but others do. I mean, obviously some of this stuff belongs in the more outlandish, fantastic fun Bond films where less explanation is required. For a more serious movie, note how you have less needed to explain. Dent? For greed, or fear he turned to No. Straightforward, he looks like a weasel. Klebb I admit, it does raise eyebrows she's turned I grant (no pun intended) you, but double agents were all the rage then. Other stuff is daft actually, testing Grant with one knuckle duster punch when if he does his job well, he shouldn't really need to employ physical force. But FRWL does have a slick, stylised vibe that makes it work, a bit like The Untouchables. SF doesn't.

    For me, the more fun you're having, the less needs explaining, but SF isn't that much of a fun film so I demand more logic, for it to be more grounded, esp with a grounded hero like Craig's interpretation.

    I don't mind about the McGuffin thing in itself, but much of SF is just off the scale in terms of lapses of logic. It's not enough to say, oh, look at other Bonds! They're a different genre mostly, esp the more fantastic ones
    I think this in itself proves many peoples points. I mean, I can honestly say two of the first words I'd use to describe Skyfall are "slick and stylized". So much of these assessments of films are based on ones personal preferences, opinions, and interpretations of the films.

    Personally I don't find Skyfall to be much worse logically than any other Bond film so it isn't a factor for me. I just find it shocking that in a franchise where From Russia With Love and Casin Royale are part of the same series as Die Another Day and Moonraker, people get so heated about other's preferences of Bond films. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's opinions but there IS something wrong with imposing yours on others and having the attitude that "Because I don't like this, nobody else should either."
  • craigrulescraigrules
    Posts: 284
    I blame the parents
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited November 2012 Posts: 28,694
    I was talking to a friend during class today (he is from the UK), and he said "the film would have been over if that b@#$% could snipe." :))
  • bondbat007bondbat007
    Posts: 1,407
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    I was talking to a friend during class today (he is from the UK), and he said "the film would have been over if that b@#$% could snipe." :))

    Ha! That made my day!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    I was talking to a friend during class today (he is from the UK), and he said "the film would have been over if that b@#$% could snipe." :))

    I've always wondered what a film would be like if it was cut brutally short by a simplistic change in a scene, such as this. Or, what if she hadn't shot at all, and Bond did succeed in taking down Patrice? He did, post gunshot injury, in Shanghai without a problem, it seemed.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Yeah, but I still think Silva would have found some other way to muff with M and MI6, the loon. :))
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Yeah, but I still think Silva would have found some other way to muff with M and MI6, the loon. :))

    Oh, absolutely, haha. He wouldn't have halted any part of his plan, whether he retrieved the list from Patrice or not.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    edited November 2012 Posts: 5,745
    Creasy47 wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    I was talking to a friend during class today (he is from the UK), and he said "the film would have been over if that b@#$% could snipe." :))

    I've always wondered what a film would be like if it was cut brutally short by a simplistic change in a scene, such as this. Or, what if she hadn't shot at all, and Bond did succeed in taking down Patrice? He did, post gunshot injury, in Shanghai without a problem, it seemed.

    I said that in another thread. It'd be cool to see

    the music picks up into an actiony tune as Bond and a henchmen start attacking each other, then suddenly Bond just kicks the guy back and shoots him before they really start fighting and the music dies back down.

    I think it'd fit with Bond's humor well without a one liner or anything like that.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @JWESTBROOK, my apologies, I was unaware!

    It would most certainly add a twist to the action, that's for sure.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @JWESTBROOK, my apologies, I was unaware!

    It would most certainly add a twist to the action, that's for sure.

    Oh I wasn't upset. Sorry if I came across as so. Great minds think alike!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @JWESTBROOK, my apologies, I was unaware!

    It would most certainly add a twist to the action, that's for sure.

    Oh I wasn't upset. Sorry if I came across as so. Great minds think alike!

    Indeed!

    All this talk about the film has me itching to see it for a third time. I'll be busy throughout this week, sadly, so I don't know if I'll get the chance until Thanksgiving Break. I hope every scene truly sticks with me so I can write a proper play-by-play (and positive) review of the movie; somewhat in the vein of what @DRESSED_TO_KILL did, only I won't be so bitter about it.
  • jackdaggerjackdagger
    Posts: 498
    So I found out that my dad saw Skyfall today. He's been a fan since the 60's and has seen every movie and read all the books. So I asked him, "What did you think about Skyfall??"
    His response was, "I didn't like the bad guy's hair." @-)

    Turned out he did really enjoy the movie, but I thought it was funny that was the first thing he brought up.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    jackdagger wrote:
    So I found out that my dad saw Skyfall today. He's been a fan since the 60's and has seen every movie and read all the books. So I asked him, "What did you think about Skyfall??"
    His response was, "I didn't like the bad guy's hair." @-)

    Turned out he did really enjoy the movie, but I thought it was funny that was the first thing he brought up.

    Well, what are you gonna do about it. Please write a longer review if you can! ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.