SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1383941434499

Comments

  • Posts: 3,327
    RC7 wrote:
    Yes, a budget film would operate in this way. I always enjoyed that the Bond films were traditionally rather over indulgent. It makes business sense but in the Bondian world of high living it's nice to do things for real. Cubby's sensibility was to put the money up on screen, not scrimp. They were the days of old though.
    Money on screen doesn't always work though, does it. Cubby may have been extravagent in his air fares, but many of his films don't always fare that well. MR had some great locations, but many moments in that film are truly shocking.

    Likewise, QoS had more locations than any other Bond movie, yet that is becoming as popular as DAD is.

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I don't think this perfect Lady killer know it all Bond would work now, the thing I don't get is there is much more of those films in the series, why don't you watch them and stop harping on about how terrible you feel Skyfall is, I don't think it has a terrible script and JSW as much as I agree with you about SF TTSS the film is a completely different class and for me is the best ever Spy film I've ever seen.

    Bond is as far removed from that, all this talk of Bond being too serious, SF is utterly preposterous quite often and it's all the more entertaining for it, I'd never say that Bond 23 is was an art film it's a 007 film it's just positioned for the 21st Century, if you want these film to resemble museum time pieces I'm afraid you are out of luck, find another franchise to like, Bond is in rude health so I don't see a return to Cubby Bond until this type loses it's appeal and on the reception of Skyfall will be for a few more entries yet.

    These films aren't made for us they are made for a mass audiences and it appears those people have spoken, SF is a phenomenon and I would say that it has achieved that much box office with so much more distractions and competition that the relatively un-crowded marketplace that series king TB didn't, all this talk of adjusted and unadjusted, Skyfall has triumphed in times that TB would have definitely have had a hard time competing in.

    Some balked a while back and still are but the idea of billion dollar Bond doesn't seem so impossible even if it's not this time, the expectation and audience for Bond 24 will be significant.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    Yes, actually it does, IMO. And I certainly do not agree with your "drop in quality"-remark about especially MR.
    MR had much better sets, better action, .

    Sorry, you lost me after that......

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    -
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    Shardlake wrote:
    why don't you watch them and stop harping on about how terrible you feel Skyfall is
    This is a discussion forum and if you don't like that some fans criticize SF, you should just either stay away or skip those comments you don't like.

    @jetsetwilly.

    It's okay with me if you think that Gassner did a better job than Ken Adam in MR.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Shardlake wrote:
    I don't think this perfect Lady killer know it all Bond would work now, the thing I don't get is there is much more of those films in the series, why don't you watch them and stop harping on about how terrible you feel Skyfall is, I don't think it has a terrible script and JSW as much as I agree with you about SF TTSS the film is a completely different class and for me is the best ever Spy film I've ever seen.

    Bond is as far removed from that, all this talk of Bond being too serious, SF is utterly preposterous quite often and it's all the more entertaining for it, I'd never say that Bond 23 is was an art film it's a 007 film it's just positioned for the 21st Century, if you want these film to resemble museum time pieces I'm afraid you are out of luck, find another franchise to like, Bond is in rude health so I don't see a return to Cubby Bond until this type loses it's appeal and on the reception of Skyfall will be for a few more entries yet.

    These films aren't made for us they are made for a mass audiences and it appears those people have spoken, SF is a phenomenon and I would say that it has achieved that much box office with so much more distractions and competition that the relatively un-crowded marketplace that series king TB didn't, all this talk of adjusted and unadjusted, Skyfall has triumphed in times that TB would have definitely have had a hard time competing in.

    Some balked a while back and still are but the idea of billion dollar Bond doesn't seem so impossible even if it's not this time, the expectation and audience for Bond 24 will be significant.

    I'm loving the fact that Craig's Bond is bringing back the Flemingesque style. I really hated the Moore and Brozza years, and with SF proving immensley popular both critically and commercially, it looks like my kind of Bond will be around for a long while to come.

    Here's to Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's Bond, and let's hope for more of the same....... \:D/
  • Posts: 774
    Zekidk wrote:
    Volante wrote:
    EDIT: Moore films went on location a lot more but considering the drop in quality for films like MR, AVTAK and OP, is that really a good thing? Does a lavish overseas shoot really make the film better?
    Yes, actually it does, IMO. And I certainly do not agree with your "drop in quality"-remark about especially MR.
    MR had much better sets, better action, a better score and had stunning locations compared to SF. Like RC7 said: the money is up there on the screen.

    I know it's a hassle and expensive to fly the crew to far away exotic locations like in the good old days. And I know that they spent three months shooting a 10 minute segment for SF in Turkey, but really... When I heard Mendes on the first press conference say that "Bond will travel to China and Macao" I was kind of looking forward to actually seing him there.

    You've previously said that MR is one of your favourites while I have it as 22/23. So I don't think we'll ever agree on it, perhaps best to leave it alone.

    I personally don't mind if Bond is shot extensively on location if the quality of the film is as high as Skyfall is (I don't think we'll agree on that either). Might not have been entirely shot on location but the cinematography certainly didn't suffer as a result, on screen the film - particularly the Macau/Shanghai scenes - looked stunning which is why I don't think it matters that they weren't really there.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    @Zekidk

    I would agree that some ASPECTS of MR are great but, objectively or subjectively, I find it hard to accept it as a better film overall to SF. Its just too cartooney. The last time I saw it I literally cringed at the moment when Jaws meets Dolly.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote:
    Yes, a budget film would operate in this way. I always enjoyed that the Bond films were traditionally rather over indulgent. It makes business sense but in the Bondian world of high living it's nice to do things for real. Cubby's sensibility was to put the money up on screen, not scrimp. They were the days of old though.
    Money on screen doesn't always work though, does it. Cubby may have been extravagent in his air fares, but many of his films don't always fare that well. MR had some great locations, but many moments in that film are truly shocking.

    Likewise, QoS had more locations than any other Bond movie, yet that is becoming as popular as DAD is.

    Your argument doesn't stand up. You state SF is great. Are you implying that using the real locations would have made no difference? I think it could only have added to the spectacle. Unlike some people I didn't think the establishing shots of Shanghai were anything special, namely because Bond wasn't in them. He's behind the wheel of a car then parked outside a London Skyscraper that doubles for Shanghai. Imagine a rooftop/street chase with Patrice IN Shanghai.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    Shardlake wrote:
    why don't you watch them and stop harping on about how terrible you feel Skyfall is
    This is a discussion forum and if you don't like that some fans criticize SF, you should just either stay away or skip those comments you don't like.

    @jetsetwilly.

    It's okay with me if you think that Gassner did a better job than Ken Adam in MR.
    No, not at all. And Newman didn't do a better job than Barry either.

    But from these trimmings aside, SF is far, FAR superior in every other way.

  • Posts: 774
    RC7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Yes, a budget film would operate in this way. I always enjoyed that the Bond films were traditionally rather over indulgent. It makes business sense but in the Bondian world of high living it's nice to do things for real. Cubby's sensibility was to put the money up on screen, not scrimp. They were the days of old though.
    Money on screen doesn't always work though, does it. Cubby may have been extravagent in his air fares, but many of his films don't always fare that well. MR had some great locations, but many moments in that film are truly shocking.

    Likewise, QoS had more locations than any other Bond movie, yet that is becoming as popular as DAD is.

    Your argument doesn't stand up. You state SF is great. Are you implying that using the real locations would have made no difference? I think it could only have added to the spectacle. Unlike some people I didn't think the establishing shots of Shanghai were anything special, namely because Bond wasn't in them. He's behind the wheel of a car then parked outside a London Skyscraper that doubles for Shanghai. Imagine a rooftop/street chase with Patrice IN Shanghai.

    Considering that most rooftops in Shanghai are skyscrapers I'm not sure a rooftop chase would work out.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,327
    RC7 wrote:

    Your argument doesn't stand up. You state SF is great. Are you implying that using the real locations would have made no difference? .
    I didn't even know Craig wasn't in Shanghai or Macao until 5 minutes ago when I read it here....so what do you reckon?

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @Zekidk
    I would agree that some ASPECTS of MR are great but, objectively or subjectively, I find it hard to accept it as a better film overall to SF.
    I never said it is a better film. But five or ten years from now I will still be able to pop in MR once in a while, because it does something that SF doesn't: entertain me.
    Volante wrote:
    Considering that most rooftops in Shanghai are skyscrapers I'm not sure a rooftop chase would work out.
    MI3 showed how it could be done to perfection to take advantage of this specific locations!
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @Zekidk
    I would agree that some ASPECTS of MR are great but, objectively or subjectively, I find it hard to accept it as a better film overall to SF.
    I never said it is a better film. But five or ten years from now I will still be able to pop in MR once in a while, because it does something that SF doesn't: entertain me.
    I can hear that broken record starting up again........

    X_X
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    I can hear that broken record starting up again........
    And I can hear you wanting this to be about me again! Please... don't make this personal!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ok sorry guys, you got me. Shooting on location is so last decade, how stupid of me. Let's hope everything is studio based from now on. Sorry for critiquing Skyfall, funnily enough I enjoyed it but I'm not 13 so I can see and discuss drawbacks without being blinded by the hype.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Zekidk wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @Zekidk
    I would agree that some ASPECTS of MR are great but, objectively or subjectively, I find it hard to accept it as a better film overall to SF.
    I never said it is a better film. But five or ten years from now I will still be able to pop in MR once in a while, because it does something that SF doesn't: entertain me.
    I can hear that broken record starting up again........

    X_X

    I think SF is entertaining too - although perhaps it isn't as "re-watchable".

    I wasn't sure if it was you I made this point to but I had this discussion with someone else online a few weeks ago and he said the following:

    "Films like FRWL and OHMSS are more drama based and hence less rewatchable than films like TSWLM or MR...but that doesn't make them any less great". He has a point.

    For me personally SF easily has the edge over MR. It's just less campy and cartooney.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Zekidk wrote:
    I can hear that broken record starting up again........
    And I can hear you wanting this to be about me again! Please... don't make this personal!
    It's just that you've already stated your reasons for not liking SF, and everyone here knows what they are. I think its time for you to move on.

    I Know, because I spent years hating DAD and it gets you nowhere...... ;)
  • Posts: 3,327
    RC7 wrote:
    Ok sorry guys, you got me. Shooting on location is so last decade, how stupid of me. Let's hope everything is studio based from now on. Sorry for critiquing Skyfall, funnily enough I enjoyed it but I'm not 13 so I can see and discuss drawbacks without being blinded by the hype.
    The fact that Pinewood doubled for some locations wasn't any drawback for me. It may have been for you, but not me.

    Stick in a CGI parasurfing scene, and I would have had far more issues with that.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote:
    Ok sorry guys, you got me. Shooting on location is so last decade, how stupid of me. Let's hope everything is studio based from now on. Sorry for critiquing Skyfall, funnily enough I enjoyed it but I'm not 13 so I can see and discuss drawbacks without being blinded by the hype.
    The fact that Pinewood doubled for some locations wasn't any drawback for me. It may have been for you, but not me.

    Stick in a CGI parasurfing scene, and I would have had far more issues with that.

    Yeah you're right. It's certainly better than using real locations. Anything that means using CGI as a cheap alternative is good for me.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Zekidk wrote:
    Shardlake wrote:
    why don't you watch them and stop harping on about how terrible you feel Skyfall is
    This is a discussion forum and if you don't like that some fans criticize SF, you should just either stay away or skip those comments you don't like.

    @jetsetwilly.

    It's okay with me if you think that Gassner did a better job than Ken Adam in MR.

    Your entitled to it but you are beginning to sound like a broken record with your constant criticism of Skyfall.

    Gassner will never compete with Adam the man is a one off but that doesn't make these earlier entries some how better, MR also has an amazing Barry score but it's certainly not going to allow me to let MR off when it has so many other things wrong with it.

    The earlier films have some great craftsmanship involved, sets, cinematography and score but that doesn't make them all better than the later films just because of it, of course YOLT, DAF & MR have much better scores and set design than SF I wouldn't deny but it can't hide the fact that those films are far from perfect in many other areas.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,274
    Zekidk wrote:
    I can hear that broken record starting up again........
    And I can hear you wanting this to be about me again! Please... don't make this personal!
    It's just that you've already stated your reasons for not liking SF, and everyone here knows what they are. I think its time for you to move on.
    I see you desire to make this about me. But I have never discussed the location aspects of SF, and that is what we are discussing now, so this "please move on"-request really isn't gonna get you anywhere. Quite the opposite in fact!
    Shardlake wrote:
    The earlier films have some great craftsmanship involved, sets, cinematography and score but that doesn't make them all better than the later films just because of it.
    Again: I never said that! Schindler's List is also a better WWII-flick than Where Eagles Dare. But I'd take WED any day for repeat viewings.
  • Posts: 774
    RC7 wrote:
    Ok sorry guys, you got me. Shooting on location is so last decade, how stupid of me. Let's hope everything is studio based from now on. Sorry for critiquing Skyfall, funnily enough I enjoyed it but I'm not 13 so I can see and discuss drawbacks without being blinded by the hype.

    I'm not blinded by hype at all, I just don't think the lack of locations in Skyfall was really an issue because it wasn't a film that required extensive outdoor location shoots and the fact that it was mostly shot in the UK or on sets didn't ruin my experience, I didn't even think about it.
  • Posts: 3,327
    RC7 wrote:
    Yeah you're right. It's certainly better than using real locations. Anything that means using CGI as a cheap alternative is good for me.
    Really? Or are you being sarcastic?

  • Posts: 774
    RC7 wrote:
    Yeah you're right. It's certainly better than using real locations. Anything that means using CGI as a cheap alternative is good for me.
    Really? Or are you being sarcastic?

    I think that's definitely sarcasm.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Volante wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Yeah you're right. It's certainly better than using real locations. Anything that means using CGI as a cheap alternative is good for me.
    Really? Or are you being sarcastic?

    I think that's definitely sarcasm.
    I guess it must be. I'm also guessing RC7 is secretly a big DAD fan.....

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Volante wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Ok sorry guys, you got me. Shooting on location is so last decade, how stupid of me. Let's hope everything is studio based from now on. Sorry for critiquing Skyfall, funnily enough I enjoyed it but I'm not 13 so I can see and discuss drawbacks without being blinded by the hype.

    I'm not blinded by hype at all, I just don't think the lack of locations in Skyfall was really an issue because it wasn't a film that required extensive outdoor location shoots and the fact that it was mostly shot in the UK or on sets didn't ruin my experience, I didn't even think about it.

    Thing is, I've not suggested it would in any way ruin the experience. I'm implying that using real locations however frivolous is more often than not going to add a certain atmosphere and authenticity you just cannot get from doubling/studio. I think some people think I'm having a dig at SF. Too many people on the defensive and I don't know why. No one here made the bloody film so why so protective?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Volante wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Yeah you're right. It's certainly better than using real locations. Anything that means using CGI as a cheap alternative is good for me.
    Really? Or are you being sarcastic?

    I think that's definitely sarcasm.
    I guess it must be. I'm also guessing RC7 is secretly a big DAD fan.....

    I guess I can't be. I liked SF and as we all know you can't like both SF and DAD in this playground. You must stake your claim and fight your corner, right? How dare anyone think it is possible that there are shades of grey in this world.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 774
    RC7 wrote:
    Volante wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Ok sorry guys, you got me. Shooting on location is so last decade, how stupid of me. Let's hope everything is studio based from now on. Sorry for critiquing Skyfall, funnily enough I enjoyed it but I'm not 13 so I can see and discuss drawbacks without being blinded by the hype.

    I'm not blinded by hype at all, I just don't think the lack of locations in Skyfall was really an issue because it wasn't a film that required extensive outdoor location shoots and the fact that it was mostly shot in the UK or on sets didn't ruin my experience, I didn't even think about it.

    Thing is, I've not suggested it would in any way ruin the experience. I'm implying that using real locations however frivolous is more often than not going to add a certain atmosphere and authenticity you just cannot get from doubling/studio. I think some people think I'm having a dig at SF. Too many people on the defensive and I don't know why. No one here made the bloody film so why so protective?

    No, I don't think you're suggesting that it would ruin the experience. Just stating that mine wasn't in the way that others (not yourself) seem to have been pretty bothered by it. I completely agree with how atmosphere and authenticity can be added to a film by location shooting, personally I very much prefer location shooting (and stunts actually being performed in real life instead of CGI when possible) but in this case, with this specific film, I don't think the lack of location shooting was that big of a deal.

    There are things I can criticise about Skyfall too, I'm really not that protective of it.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,327
    RC7 wrote:
    Too many people on the defensive and I don't know why. No one here made the bloody film so why so protective?
    Not at all. It's just that I personally didn't have a problem with the locations in SF. I usually find far more annoying things in Bond films - OTT moments, silly gadgets, naff one-liners, poor scripts, bad CGI.

    Thankfully SF had none of this. Give me a lack of locations any day of the week over an ice palace packed full of flying lasers.

    And on top of that, I didn't even know Craig wasn't in Shanghai and Macao, so your argument falls spectacularly apart.
Sign In or Register to comment.