SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1555658606199

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think what the series needs to keep doing is, to create fun and exciting story lines that break up the stereotypes of the last 50 years and put a fresh spin on it. This way, the movies retain a fabric of familiarity while keeping things fresh, innovative and lacking cliche. I think SF paid homage to the series' own history in an admirable way but I think by now, 3 movies into the Craig era it should be clear that the series currently is a lot more decisive than it's ever been as to where it is heading and I hope to God that Logan, the producers and Craig can really utilise the series' history and the novels in a unique way that, no longer shackles them to the structures of old but can now, with Dench's departure and reintroducing Q and Moneypenny to use the structures of old as an extremely loose template, to build a new and more flexible structure for the series to keep moving forward.

    Bond has more than earned his right to make big money, play with the big blockbuster big boys and to demand higher expectations from audiences in general. Bond has always been an extraordinary character, which is one of the more critical unique things about him that makes him so special but to give him facets where you can either relate to him to a certain extent or at least have more of an interesting understanding of his character, while retaining the elements that make him so compelling and extraordinary is where a lot of Bond's survival, relevance and success will be found. Bond 24 alone has so much potential it's quite scary and exciting at the same time and I think the hype surrounding the film's release is going to reach levels we probably havn't seen since '64/'65.
    Bond films have always been more than just the release of another movie in the series, they've been more like a special event but if the forthcoming movies deliver on where I hope the series is going, the type of hype Nolan gets for his batman films or Jackson gets for his LOTR/Hobbit movies is what we could definitely be looking at.
  • I just have to say I totally agree with both of you. Nice to see some well thought out and well written opinions.

    Just one thing: where are all these "plot holes" everyone keeps talking about? I just didn't see any more holes than any other movie out there - Bond or non-Bond. I have to wonder if anyone who claims there were a lot of holes really paid attention to the movie and/or knows what a plot hole actually is.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Shardlake wrote:
    I think where the biggest problem lies with Skyfall and some being disappointed in the expectation when it was announced by Mendes that this would a much deeper Bond more rooted in reality.

    It was a bit of a silly thing to say because lets face it Bond is ludicrous nonsense it has always been and always should be, it's just Skyfall was touted as art house Bond or that was what some people were expecting I think.

    It's got as many plot holes as most entries and yes if you analyse it with a magnifying glass things are going to stand out, personally I needed no more background about Patrice and why he was in Shanghai that some craved, Bond films are full of moments like this it's a given.

    Suggesting it's Oscar worthy is also ludicrous as the Academy wouldn't award such a film in my or any ones lifetime, maybe a technical nod but a major award not a chance and I'd never say it's Oscar calibre, it's a damn fine entertaining entry in a 50 year history of James Bond and for me it was great Birthday present to celebrate this event and it was also the most thoroughly enjoyable blockbuster of the year for me but it was no masterpiece, no Bond film is or ever likely to be. Though the comment by cast members and crew might have led some to think they were getting Chinatown.

    I personally found the script to be of high calibre for the series and the best since OHMSS, I certainly didn't spot any of the clunkers that appeared in CR and I'd watch it over a large percentage of the other entries. Like all Bond films it has it's flaws and those how did we get to that and that doesn't make sense moments but I've seen 3 times now and all 3 times I loved it. I just don't expect Roibert Towne or David Mamet when I'm watching a Bond film although Mendes comments might have made some think they were getting that but Skyfall resides at my no. 2 spot after OHMSS so sue me I liked the film allot and I've been a fan since 1977.

    Yes YOLT does have some great elements, the sets, the score, the cinematography but if you have an actor who can't be arsed with the role then it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned. Even DAF has the Barry score but after that I'm hard pressed to see what it so great about a film with an almost unrecognisable Connery in the role compared to his heyday. Yet if those elements are what you need to convince you it is Bond your watching then maybe the Craig era will infuriate you .

    I feel some of these early entries get some fans blood pumping because they see the classic elements and at times some people will just forgive any film as long as Sean Connery is Bond in them despite him not really play anything but Sean Connery.

    I think it comes down to what you expected, I thought the nods to the past worked fine as long as you don't start trying to confuse time lines, I'm still wondering why people think all of a sudden this now aligned with the previous 20 films and not the last 2, which to me it clearly is related to it's just time has passed on since Bond said "I never left"

    As for Bond playing the indestructible lady killer in this day and age you can mourn that versions passing and hanker for it's return but that version was one dimensional with hardly any flesh on it and became a device to take that films from A to B I believe Mendes said to Mark Kermode "Bond became the glue in the films" You can't make a modern day film with kind of character the audience will not buy it, yes you can watch that earlier entries with that type of Bond and reminisce but it wouldn't work now and the audience would just not buy Bond like that. There's a reason the series has survived, it's moved on and adapted for the times and if it means being influenced by other franchises like Nolan's Bat films then so be it.

    It doesn't really matter what we say we all have our opinions on what is our ideal Bond and some of us want something that has already been and others want progression or a little of both. Box Office doesn't equate to quality and it's a silly argument to use to say a films is better but Skyfall has struck a chord I just think the next step of the series is going to be one of the most intriguing of the series to date. How Logan approaches Bond 24 with the introduction of certain familiar elements, will they deliver a more traditional entry or will Bond continue to strike on it's own, this is going to be the entry that gauges where we go from here.

    Good post. I definitely think some of the things Mendes said about the script added to my sense of disappointment on actually seeing it. I think I was actually expecting it to follow on in tone from the last two films and hadn't actually been prepared for how ludicrous the story is. I also thought that with the way Mendes hyped the script that it would be genuinely intelligent and interesting. It struck me as a rehash of a couple of recent weak plotlines (GE and TWINE) with some hacking elements used to paper over the cracks. QoS is Chinatown - quite literally in terms of plot - when compared to SF. I'm approaching it from the perspective of not having enjoyed it, but think you make some very good points about the series and how we see it. My feeling is that SF is a bit of a shock after CR and QoS and actually feels like a return to the OTT plots of the Brosnan era. I was bored and detached from the viewing experience in a way that I hadn't been since DAD.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 6,601
    deleted - wrong thread.
  • "No-one was cheering at the end of the sixth Star Wars film in the way audiences are cheering for Skyfall."

    That film must have done something right!

  • Posts: 6,601
    "No-one was cheering at the end of the sixth Star Wars film in the way audiences are cheering for Skyfall."

    That film must have done something right!

    Jim, its in the first reactions tread now. Yup, the film very much did a lot of things right.

    Reading the last two posts after being absent from this tread shows, same people posting the sale ole. ;)
  • Germanlady wrote:
    Reading the last two posts after being absent from this tread shows, same people posting the sale ole. ;)
    Some -- though we did manage to have a pretty good discussion about the film yesterday, I thought.

  • Posts: 6,601
    Germanlady wrote:
    Reading the last two posts after being absent from this tread shows, same people posting the sale ole. ;)
    Some -- though we did manage to have a pretty good discussion about the film yesterday, I thought.

    good :)
  • Germanlady wrote:
    good :)
    Indeed it was.

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 2,081
    Sandy wrote:
    praises the whole cast but especially Bardem who she says is one of the best villains ever and Craig, who impressed her immensely (she says he is so real she could see what he was thinking/feeling just by looking at his face/eyes) and either would be worth an Oscar for this.

    I agree with your mum. Both actors did an amazing job, and indeed Craig expresses everything on his face and the eyes are amazing. I don't dare be optimistic about the Oscars, but hopefully they both get a bunch of other awards for their work here, they certainly deserve the recognition.
    Sandy wrote:
    He approved Bond's clothes by the way (former tailor).

    That's a fab detail, thanks. :)
    Sandy wrote:
    I also forgot to say she thought Silva's entry scene was the best entry of any Bond villain, and that the film was completely different from any other Bond film but at the same time completely classic. She couldn't shut up about it

    Yes to both. I love that second point she made, very well expressed.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 2,081
    but Silva groping Bond made me cringe beyond belief. I wish they would have left that on the cutting room floor.

    AAAAAAAGHHH. :O

    WHAT? @-)

    Good gawd, this is now page 21 of this thread that I'm reading, and that was the most horrible thing I've read so far. CUTTING ROOM FLOOR? *gulp* I feel physically sick at the thought of that perfect scene being butchered like that. And that part of it... it... was... well bloody perfect that's what. Fab acting and dialogue. And it was beautiful, intense, and fun.

    cutting room floor? :((

    Oh hell, I need a drink or something quick...
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Tuulia wrote:
    but Silva groping Bond made me cringe beyond belief. I wish they would have left that on the cutting room floor.

    AAAAAAAGHHH. :O

    WHAT? @-)

    Good gawd, this is now page 21 of this thread that I'm reading, and that was the most horrible thing I've read so far. CUTTING ROOM FLOOR? *gulp* I feel physically sick at the thought of that perfect scene being butchered like that. And that part of it... it... was... well bloody perfect that's what. Fab acting and dialogue. And it was beautiful, intense, and fun.

    cutting room floor? :((

    Oh hell, I need a drink or something quick...

    Don't get all overworked, it's a simple spit take scene. It's not like it is the extremely moving Tennyson speech, something that actually has meaning in the film as a thematic whole.
  • Tuulia wrote:
    but Silva groping Bond made me cringe beyond belief. I wish they would have left that on the cutting room floor.

    AAAAAAAGHHH. :O

    WHAT? @-)

    Good gawd, this is now page 21 of this thread that I'm reading, and that was the most horrible thing I've read so far. CUTTING ROOM FLOOR? *gulp* I feel physically sick at the thought of that perfect scene being butchered like that. And that part of it... it... was... well bloody perfect that's what. Fab acting and dialogue. And it was beautiful, intense, and fun.

    cutting room floor? :((

    Oh hell, I need a drink or something quick...

  • Matt_Helm wrote:
    Tuulia wrote:
    but Silva groping Bond made me cringe beyond belief. I wish they would have left that on the cutting room floor.
    Sorry for the Double Quote.Still learning...
    But what I wanted to add was,that I very strongly agree with Tuulia. This was one of the very few delightful scenes in SF (and probably the only original one i might add) and the sole scene that made me grin heavily.
    AAAAAAAGHHH. :O

    WHAT? @-)

    Good gawd, this is now page 21 of this thread that I'm reading, and that was the most horrible thing I've read so far. CUTTING ROOM FLOOR? *gulp* I feel physically sick at the thought of that perfect scene being butchered like that. And that part of it... it... was... well bloody perfect that's what. Fab acting and dialogue. And it was beautiful, intense, and fun.

    cutting room floor? :((

    Oh hell, I need a drink or something quick...

  • Sorry for the Double Quote.Still learning...
    But what I wanted to add was,that I very strongly agree with Tuulia. This was one of the very few delightful scenes in SF (and probably the only original one i might add) and the sole scene that made me grin heavily.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Glad someone agrees. :) Though I thought there were lots of delightful scenes... but that one was the best.
    Don't get all overworked, it's a simple spit take scene. It's not like it is the extremely moving Tennyson speech, something that actually has meaning in the film as a thematic whole.

    I'm not getting overworked. I love it, so it matters to me. I would have gone to see the movie again even just for the whole Silva introduction scene.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,425
    That's one of the best scenes in the film and one of the few that I really enjoyed. I would have liked to see a lot more focus on the Bond-Silva conflict as the film progressed.
  • Posts: 2,081
    I'm new around here, and I have just finished reading this thread all the way through (during the last couple of days). My goodness you people argue at times. But there was also a lot of fantastic analysis and discussion, and I thank you for that. I stopped trying to comment, there was too much stuff, and I'm too late to the party.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Tuulia wrote:
    I'm new around here, and I have just finished reading this thread all the way through (during the last couple of days). My goodness you people argue at times. But there was also a lot of fantastic analysis and discussion, and I thank you for that. I stopped trying to comment, there was too much stuff, and I'm too late to the party.

    Considering how low this thread dug at times I'd say you are just in time.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Tuulia wrote:
    but Silva groping Bond made me cringe beyond belief. I wish they would have left that on the cutting room floor.

    AAAAAAAGHHH. :O

    WHAT? @-)

    Good gawd, this is now page 21 of this thread that I'm reading, and that was the most horrible thing I've read so far. CUTTING ROOM FLOOR? *gulp* I feel physically sick at the thought of that perfect scene being butchered like that. And that part of it... it... was... well bloody perfect that's what. Fab acting and dialogue. And it was beautiful, intense, and fun.

    cutting room floor? :((

    Oh hell, I need a drink or something quick...

    Don't get all overworked, it's a simple spit take scene. It's not like it is the extremely moving Tennyson speech, something that actually has meaning in the film as a thematic whole.

    I agree with Tuulia, it's a fantastic scene. Tennyson, while great, has the advantage of 'score' to underline the emotion in the scene. The Silva introduction has to rely purely on performance and for that reason I think it's much more intense.
  • Back to M, I think they played up Dench because of the preview feedback. With no exceptional villains or anything else during the Brozzer era (or decent villains in Craig's first two frankly), most folk are going to fall back on 'We love Dame Judi, she's great!' So producers say, right, we'll have more of her then... it feeds on itself.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Yea, that must be it.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    I finally got around to seeing Skyfall and I must say it was the worst of the Bond movies! JK :D I actually like it. While I don't agree that it's the best one in many years it was a great one for the 50th anniversary. I feel CR was better but SF is a close second!
    I think it's funny that Ralph Fiennes ends up being M at the end when most thought he was going to be a villian. Was surprised to see that Eve is actually Moneypenny and even more surprised that they actually killed off Dench's M! I am really happy we finally have Q back and that Bonds car was the old school Bond car!
  • Posts: 5,767
    I haven´t got the fortitude to read through all this thread, but can anyone explain why the film constantly hails the old ways and is itself the opposite?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2012 Posts: 24,183
    boldfinger wrote:
    I haven´t got the fortitude to read through all this thread

    You mean 58 pages is too much? X(

    ;-)
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 5,767
    Yes.
    But I kinda like the film ;-) .

    Especially Bond´s hairdo in the casino scene is up there with Connery´s flannell shorts from GF, the pink tie from DAF, Moore´s jacket from TMWTGG, and the safari suit! =))
  • boldfinger wrote:
    I haven´t got the fortitude to read through all this thread, but can anyone explain why the film constantly hails the old ways and is itself the opposite?

    I disagree with your assessment that it “hails the old ways”. It’s more of an exploration on how one engages a world that is changing more rapidly than we can sometimes wrap our heads around. This was the perfect post 9/11, post 7/7 Bond film in that it captures what I think a lot of people have been feeling since those tragic events, even if they aren’t quite aware of it. Our (meaning the “traditional” Western world) place in the world seems to be slipping. For the first time in our history, Americans think our best days are behind us and that we are now on the downward slope toward being a “former” superpower. This is something the UK has been dealing with for a while now (been long time since it could rightly be called the “British Empire”).

    M’s statement to the committee was correct when she said the world has changed so much we don’t know who are enemies are sometimes. Faced with the madness and illogic of terrorism and the fact that modern technology has given the terrorist weapons of heretofore unimaginably destructive power, our “old ways” of fighting the enemy seem laughably inadequate and antiquated at times. And then there’s China rising in the East, set to surpass the US as the largest economy in the world inside this decade. What will that mean? No one knows for sure, only that the world is changing in a way that makes the western world very nervous. There’s a pervasive feeling that the ground is giving way beneath us. We’ve started to lose faith in the customs and institution that made us great.

    So, the film asks, what do you do in a world that is changing like this? Abandon all the old ways, such as proposed by Mallory (at first), that committee member and Silva? Or are there some things, some traditions or institutions, worth hanging on to? Despite our age or falling standing in the world, we must continue to fight, to strive, to do whatever we can to prevail (the Tennyson poem was the obvious statement of Mendes’ thesis).

    The brilliant thing about the film is that it uses Bond himself as a symbol of what was old, in danger of fading away, but still fighting and worth preserving. So it doesn’t “hail” the old ways as much as it points to how we might hold on to those things worth holding on to, while at the same time adapting this ever-changing, ever-more-dangerous world.

    Perfect fodder for the 50th anniversary of a series born of the Cold War, I’d say.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 5,767
    As much as I like to agree with you, it´s obvious that the references are also very much made in connection with the series itself. And it´s hypocritical to talk instead of doing. Craig has proven two times before that he can single-handedly carry the films without much preservation. The film is very good, but the lack of confidence shown by such crude insertions as the exploding pen quip, or the DB5 underlined by an out-of-the-blue Bond theme is embarrassing. And the talking about old values comes down the same alley, given that the film is about the least traditional entry ever.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,812
    Grinderman wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    I haven´t got the fortitude to read through all this thread, but can anyone explain why the film constantly hails the old ways and is itself the opposite?

    I disagree with your assessment that it “hails the old ways”. It’s more of an exploration on how one engages a world that is changing more rapidly than we can sometimes wrap our heads around. This was the perfect post 9/11, post 7/7 Bond film in that it captures what I think a lot of people have been feeling since those tragic events, even if they aren’t quite aware of it. Our (meaning the “traditional” Western world) place in the world seems to be slipping. For the first time in our history, Americans think our best days are behind us and that we are now on the downward slope toward being a “former” superpower. This is something the UK has been dealing with for a while now (been long time since it could rightly be called the “British Empire”).

    M’s statement to the committee was correct when she said the world has changed so much we don’t know who are enemies are sometimes. Faced with the madness and illogic of terrorism and the fact that modern technology has given the terrorist weapons of heretofore unimaginably destructive power, our “old ways” of fighting the enemy seem laughably inadequate and antiquated at times. And then there’s China rising in the East, set to surpass the US as the largest economy in the world inside this decade. What will that mean? No one knows for sure, only that the world is changing in a way that makes the western world very nervous. There’s a pervasive feeling that the ground is giving way beneath us. We’ve started to lose faith in the customs and institution that made us great.

    So, the film asks, what do you do in a world that is changing like this? Abandon all the old ways, such as proposed by Mallory (at first), that committee member and Silva? Or are there some things, some traditions or institutions, worth hanging on to? Despite our age or falling standing in the world, we must continue to fight, to strive, to do whatever we can to prevail (the Tennyson poem was the obvious statement of Mendes’ thesis).

    The brilliant thing about the film is that it uses Bond himself as a symbol of what was old, in danger of fading away, but still fighting and worth preserving. So it doesn’t “hail” the old ways as much as it points to how we might hold on to those things worth holding on to, while at the same time adapting this ever-changing, ever-more-dangerous world.

    Perfect fodder for the 50th anniversary of a series born of the Cold War, I’d say.

    How right you are! That was the message I got from Skyfall and it's very true.

  • boldfinger wrote:
    As much as I like to agree with you, it´s obvious that the references are also very much made in connection with the series itself. And it´s hypocritical to talk instead of doing. Craig has proven two times before that he can single-handedly carry the films without much preservation. The film is very good, but the lack of confidence shown by such crude insertions as the exploding pen quip, or the DB5 underlined by an out-of-the-blue Bond theme is embarrassing. And the talking about old values comes down the same alley, given that the film is about the least traditional entry ever.

    The references are there to celebrate 50 years of the Bond series and have nothing to do with the main thesis of the film. I, for one, have no problem with a work of art working on two (or more) different levels. Just because a song has a beat that makes you want to dance doesn't mean it can't also have lyrics that make you think. I don't find that type of art "hypocritical" at all, in fact I find it most rewarding. Just because some of the previous Bond films were simplistic, doesn't mean we can't make a Bond film that engages our brain as well as our sense of nostalgia or enjoyment of a great action sequence.
Sign In or Register to comment.