Is SKYFALL the best Bond film ever? *POTENTIAL SPOILERS*

12357

Comments

  • I would like to make clear though, that some are hailing the film as flawless, which I disagree with. It's fantastic, but it has its blemishes. I'll save most of my thoughts for my full review when I get a chance to go see the film again (I find writing a review after one viewing isn't a great idea). I don't have many issues with the film, but there were a few things that irked me. The first thing that immediately struck me as off putting was the fact that we learn that Severine was involved in the sex trade and she appears to be traumatized and deeply affected it, and two scenes later Bond just kind of creeps up and walks into the shower with her. Something about the way that was handled just didn't sit well with me. Another gripe I had was Naomi's awkwardness. When I heard the, "V.W. Beetles... I think" I couldn't help but cringe.
  • bondsum wrote:
    Just to add my thoughts on whether it's the best Bond film ever, I'd say "no" it's not up there with OHMSS, FRWL or GF... I just don't see those classics ever being bettered. Skyfall is a great movie with some very Bondian moments, much like DAF had, though one could argue whether the whole was equal to the sum of its parts in both of these cases. There's a lot to enjoy in SF but to elevate this above the true greats is probably taking things a tad too far and smacks of the latest toy must be better than the old one just because it's new. Enjoy SF, enjoy Craig in the role of Bond and be grateful that he has banished the awful taste that Brosnan left behind, but let's keep our feet on the ground, folks.

    HEAR HEAR
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,220
    Really this whole argument is essentially impossible to "win." There's no way of defining what the best Bond movie is. I mean, somewhere out there there's somebody who thinks Moonraker is the best Bond movie, and who are we to say it isn't? Especially in a franchise that has gone for 50 years and has dabbled in all different kinds of plots, actors, tones, etc. there is just too much ground to cover and it's really impossible to satisfy everybody and form a consensus "Best Bond film". Take Goldfinger for instance. Is it a great film? By all means. Would I consider it the best? No. While it set the standard for the Bond formula, I thought some of the performances were a little lacking, the pacing was poor, and a large portion of the film is incredibly dull and tends to serve as a "nap time" for me. Now I'm aware many will disagree with me and that's totally fine. Personally I find Skyfall to be a better film than Goldfinger. I completely understand what that film means to the franchise and it's importance in creating the classic Bond formula, but I think Skyfall does it better. Just like if later on another film does it better than Skyfall, I'll give it credit for doing so without discounting anything from Skyfall. I think alot of people are afraid to voice criticism that may be unpopular with the majority of fans at the risk of being labeled a bad fan, but in a series of films 50 years in the running that encompasses so many different flavors it's alright to veer off the beaten path, and you shouldn't be reprimanded or ridiculed for doing so.
  • Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote:
    it's gone straight into my bottom rankers. need time to consider but might even put it below the brozza era. very very disappointed.
    No accounting for taste. I suggest you stick on DAD again....it may make you feel a bit better.

    ;)
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    It's not about afraid to voice criticism. It's how you say it.

  • JamesCraig wrote:
    It's not about afraid to voice criticism. It's how you say it.
    I agree to an extent but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. What do you feel would be the "wrong" way of voicing criticism?
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Saying things that don't add up, like SF's plot is nonsense. If you like the Moore era the best, it just doesn't make sense.

    Attacking DC because his looks are not troo to Bond.

    And so on.
  • JamesCraig wrote:
    Saying things that don't add up, like SF's plot is nonsense. If you like the Moore era the best, it just doesn't make sense.

    Attacking DC because his looks are not troo to Bond.

    And so on.
    That true. It seems that often when people propose weak arguments like that one, there's probably some sort of nostalgic or sentimental value involved that causes them to hold one film over the other.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    it's gone straight into my bottom rankers. need time to consider but might even put it below the brozza era. very very disappointed.
    No accounting for taste. I suggest you stick on DAD again....it may make you feel a bit better.

    ;)

    Sadly, you might be right. Although I suspect SF will become just another recent Bond that I won't bother rewatching.

    It has actually given me a greater appreciation for CR, which is far superior.

    In time all the hype will settle down and there'll be a more considered view. May be my view of it will go up, but I'm sure that many of those who are hailing it as a masterpiece right now will give it a more balanced assessment in a year or two.

    If I'm being fair, it's not bad in the way that the Brosnan films were, it's just a really bitter disappointment as I'd expected so much more.
  • Really this whole argument is essentially impossible to "win." There's no way of defining what the best Bond movie is. I mean, somewhere out there there's somebody who thinks Moonraker is the best Bond movie, and who are we to say it isn't? Especially in a franchise that has gone for 50 years and has dabbled in all different kinds of plots, actors, tones, etc. there is just too much ground to cover and it's really impossible to satisfy everybody and form a consensus "Best Bond film". Take Goldfinger for instance. Is it a great film? By all means. Would I consider it the best? No. While it set the standard for the Bond formula, I thought some of the performances were a little lacking, the pacing was poor, and a large portion of the film is incredibly dull and tends to serve as a "nap time" for me. Now I'm aware many will disagree with me and that's totally fine. Personally I find Skyfall to be a better film than Goldfinger. I completely understand what that film means to the franchise and it's importance in creating the classic Bond formula, but I think Skyfall does it better. Just like if later on another film does it better than Skyfall, I'll give it credit for doing so without discounting anything from Skyfall. I think alot of people are afraid to voice criticism that may be unpopular with the majority of fans at the risk of being labeled a bad fan, but in a series of films 50 years in the running that encompasses so many different flavors it's alright to veer off the beaten path, and you shouldn't be reprimanded or ridiculed for doing so.

    How true. i'm off to see SF again just to see if i like it better 2nd time,or not.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    For those still not satisfied and yet again disappointed at the 'overly serious tone' I don't exactly understand what will make you happy. The film tried to put back some more levity and - judging from the reaction of the screeing I was in - it worked. I found myself smiling/chuckling at some of the comments too.

    I suggest the likes of @Getafix stick with their old favourites and don't bother watching any future installments.

    True we don't learn a lot about Bond's psyche but when have we ever? In the books all we know is that Bond is a reflective loner whos parents died in a 'climbing accident'

    The film went into different territory that had never been done in the films before - and unlike Brosnan's era followed through.

    Yes the CG was obvious in places but I wouldn't call the action scenes "boring" at all. At least they were coherently editied unlike the last installment and at least the plot had a bit more meat/excitement to it.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    For those still not satisfied and yet again disappointed at the 'overly serious tone' I don't exactly understand what will make you happy. The film tried to put back some more levity and - judging from the reaction of the screeing I was in - it worked. I found myself smiling/chuckling at some of the comments too.

    I suggest the likes of @Getafix stick with their old favourites and don't bother watching any future installments.

    True we don't learn a lot about Bond's psyche but when have we ever? In the books all we know is that Bond is a reflective loner whos

    At least the film went into different territory that had never been done in the films before.

    What exactly is this new territory? I don't have an issue with the seriousness as long as the plot makes sense. And I don't actually care too much about plot either as long as the film carries you along (as, IMO QoS did) but this didn't do that for me. It invites you to take it seriously, but take almost any scene and analyse it and it makes no sense at all.

    MI6 has put all NATO's agents on a laptop harddrive? Okay, then MI6 are utterly incompetent.

    M orders Bond shot (thereby guaranteeting she won't get back the disk). Okay, she's incompetent and STILL doesn't trust Bond.

    Bond falls 300m, falls to the bottom of a river unconscious and survives. Okay, I'll just accept that bit as total nonsense.

    Mallory tells M she's sacked because she's utterly cr*p at her job (makes sense) and then she just says 'no I'm staying' and continues to make a monumental mess. Okay, MI6 and M are utterly incompetent.

    Bond tracks down an assassin and makes his way to Macau where a woman who is so scared of Silva she leads Bond straight to him and her death...
  • Posts: 11,189
    Err Bond's childhood home. Never seen that in the films before. The fact that M fires a gun and err...dies.
  • Posts: 229
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    For those still not satisfied and yet again disappointed at the 'overly serious tone' I don't exactly understand what will make you happy. The film tried to put back some more levity and - judging from the reaction of the screeing I was in - it worked. I found myself smiling/chuckling at some of the comments too.

    I suggest the likes of @Getafix stick with their old favourites and don't bother watching any future installments.

    True we don't learn a lot about Bond's psyche but when have we ever? In the books all we know is that Bond is a reflective loner whos

    At least the film went into different territory that had never been done in the films before.

    What exactly is this new territory?
    If you ask the question that means you haven't seen the movie.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Err Bond's childhood home. Never seen that in the films before. The fact that M fires a gun and err...dies.

    Yes, but my point is to what purpose? It promises much but delivers little.

    The whole thrust of OHMSS is Bond falling in love. The climactic scene sees Bond's world destroyed by his nemesis. In the meantime we get an excellent action adventure (and some wonderful music that helps tell the love story). The ending is totally shocking and transforms our perception of Bond and (until DAF came along), Bond's outlook on the world.

    What happens in SF? Bond stupidly decides to take on the villain in a remote location with no weapons and no back up that happens to be his childhood home (so what - what actual significance does this have to the story whatsoever? - think about it). M dies (hoorah). The end. I'm sorry, but if you buy this film as some kind of innovative spin on Bond I think you've been conned. The basic premise has potential but the film then goes on to tell us ABSOLUTELY nothing about Bond that we did not know already. And it spends an awful long time, ponderously and pretentiously telling us that absolute nothing. I'm afraid this has confirmed all my worst fears about Mendes as director - that he'd try and inject hidden depths to a series that is not frankly about hidden depths - and that the result would be an incoherent jarring mess.

    Not only this, but M is portrayed as a) utterly ruthless (fair enough, I suppose), but also b) untrustworthy, c) arrogant and d) utterly incompetent. When a Bond movie involves Bond being shot in the first 15 minutes at the orders of M, then I don't like M very much. Why is she (again) not trusting Bond to complete his mission? What does Bond owe her after she has serially back-stabbed him. If you include DAD, then it is clear that this woman really, really, has it in for her 'favourite' agent. Calling the 'shot' doesn't even make sense. Her top agent is engaging the target and she orders a rookie field agent to take a pot shot on the off chance that she'll hit her target. The odds on Bond coming out on top were clearly better than the odds on Moneypenny hitting her target. It just doesn't make ANY sense, and it makes M's trust in Bond a tedious central part of the plot again.

    On top of that, we realise the main villain is motivated exactly by M's ruthless lack of loyalty to her agents. Silva was one of her best and she sold him down the river. Not only that, but when he shows up she shows not the slightest remorse or guilt. Silva is clearly mad but his hatred it entirely justified and I for one was with him all the way. I'm sorry, but the villain of the film is bl**dy Judy Dench. I was rooting for Silva throughout and wondering why on earth Bond was bothering to protect the stupid old mare.

  • Posts: 11,189
    The whole thrust of OHMSS is Bond falling in love.

    If you want to pick the narrative of that film apart too you could say he sleeps with several women in the process of the film - kind of undermimes the idea of him falling in love don't you think?
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    The whole thrust of OHMSS is Bond falling in love.

    If you want to pick the narrative of that film apart too you could say he sleeps with several women in the process of the film - kind of undermimes the idea of him falling in love don't you think?

    Not in the Sixties and definitely not if you're Bond.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    The whole thrust of OHMSS is Bond falling in love.

    If you want to pick the narrative of that film apart too you could say he sleeps with several women in the process of the film - kind of undermimes the idea of him falling in love don't you think?

    Not in the Sixties and definitely not if you're Bond.

    In the CR book Bond sleeps with one woman throughout the whole story (Vesper).
  • Posts: 278
    Getafix wrote:
    MI6 has put all NATO's agents on a laptop harddrive? Okay, then MI6 are utterly incompetent.

    M orders Bond shot (thereby guaranteeting she won't get back the disk). Okay, she's incompetent and STILL doesn't trust Bond.

    Bond falls 300m, falls to the bottom of a river unconscious and survives. Okay, I'll just accept that bit as total nonsense.

    Mallory tells M she's sacked because she's utterly cr*p at her job (makes sense) and then she just says 'no I'm staying' and continues to make a monumental mess. Okay, MI6 and M are utterly incompetent.

    Bond tracks down an assassin and makes his way to Macau where a woman who is so scared of Silva she leads Bond straight to him and her death...

    MI6 has put all NATO's agents on a laptop harddrive? Okay, then MI6 are utterly incompetent.
    Yes agreed, but who is to say that the details were copied by a 3rd party to a laptop harddrive from different places
    M orders Bond shot (thereby guaranteeting she won't get back the disk). Okay, she's incompetent and STILL doesn't trust Bond.
    M doesnt order Bond shot, she orders Eve to take the shot at Patrice knowing that Bond could get hit in the process, which he is. The fact Eve is suspended from field work because of it means they werent happy she shot Bond
    Bond falls 300m, falls to the bottom of a river unconscious and survives. Okay, I'll just accept that bit as total nonsense.
    Agreed :)

    Mallory tells M she's sacked because she's utterly cr*p at her job (makes sense) and then she just says 'no I'm staying' and continues to make a monumental mess. Okay, MI6 and M are utterly incompetent.
    Mallory tells M that she is being put on 2 months notice of voluntary retirement not being sacked (she still had the 2 months), she just says that she wont leave things in a worse position than when she found them and the fact that she and Bond turn Mallory from a complete unbeliever in the 00 section into its new head at the end of the film, means that she did actually achieve what she wanted, at great loss too.
    Bond tracks down an assassin and makes his way to Macau where a woman who is so scared of Silva she leads Bond straight to him and her death...
    Its a little far fetched I know, but she only leads Bond to Silva when he says that he can kill him and dont forget that Bond still had to get past 4 bad guys in the Casino to make the boat trip so it wasn't plain sailing. Also, dont forget that ultimately Silva ALWAYS wanted to get captured and taken back to London so he could get to M, so who's to say that what happened wasn't a part of the greater plan.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    dchantry wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    MI6 has put all NATO's agents on a laptop harddrive? Okay, then MI6 are utterly incompetent.

    M orders Bond shot (thereby guaranteeting she won't get back the disk). Okay, she's incompetent and STILL doesn't trust Bond.

    Bond falls 300m, falls to the bottom of a river unconscious and survives. Okay, I'll just accept that bit as total nonsense.

    Mallory tells M she's sacked because she's utterly cr*p at her job (makes sense) and then she just says 'no I'm staying' and continues to make a monumental mess. Okay, MI6 and M are utterly incompetent.

    Bond tracks down an assassin and makes his way to Macau where a woman who is so scared of Silva she leads Bond straight to him and her death...

    MI6 has put all NATO's agents on a laptop harddrive? Okay, then MI6 are utterly incompetent.
    Yes agreed, but who is to say that the details were copied by a 3rd party to a laptop harddrive from different places

    Doesn't someone in MI6 refer to this as a file that Britain's allies don't know exists?

    M orders Bond shot (thereby guaranteeting she won't get back the disk). Okay, she's incompetent and STILL doesn't trust Bond.
    M doesnt order Bond shot, she orders Eve to take the shot at Patrice knowing that Bond could get hit in the process, which he is. The fact Eve is suspended from field work because of it means they werent happy she shot Bond

    You got the gist - M orders a shot that is highly likely to kill her top agent and thereby GUARANTEE she doens't get the disk back.

    Bond falls 300m, falls to the bottom of a river unconscious and survives. Okay, I'll just accept that bit as total nonsense.
    Agreed :)

    The slightest explanation of what happened would have been nice. And I'm sorry, but secret agent recouperating on the beach in Thailand/Goa/South America or wherever it is just reminds me of Bourne... again.

    Mallory tells M she's sacked because she's utterly cr*p at her job (makes sense) and then she just says 'no I'm staying' and continues to make a monumental mess. Okay, MI6 and M are utterly incompetent.
    Mallory tells M that she is being put on 2 months notice of voluntary retirement not being sacked (she still had the 2 months), she just says that she wont leave things in a worse position than when she found them and the fact that she and Bond turn Mallory from a complete unbeliever in the 00 section into its new head at the end of the film, means that she did actually achieve what she wanted, at great loss too.

    I didn't catch that. I thought she just flatly refuses to leave.

    Bond tracks down an assassin and makes his way to Macau where a woman who is so scared of Silva she leads Bond straight to him and her death...
    Its a little far fetched I know, but she only leads Bond to Silva when he says that he can kill him and dont forget that Bond still had to get past 4 bad guys in the Casino to make the boat trip so it wasn't plain sailing. Also, dont forget that ultimately Silva ALWAYS wanted to get captured and taken back to London so he could get to M, so who's to say that what happened wasn't a part of the greater plan.

    I could go on (and on) but I think I've made my point(s).

    A film that is crying out to be taken seriously and yet has this utterly contrived and nonsensical plot is putting itself up there to be shot down.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't expect perfect plotting in Bond, but this story is riddled with more holes than Bond's DB5 by the end of film. I couldn't ignore them, because the film is supposedly story and character driven... and yet neither story nor the characters stand up to scrutiny.
  • Posts: 229
    Getafix wrote:

    What happens in SF? Bond stupidly decides to take on the villain in a remote location with no weapons and no back up that happens to be his childhood home (so what - what actual significance does this have to the story whatsoever? - think about it). M dies (hoorah). The end. I'm sorry, but if you buy this film as some kind of innovative spin on Bond I think you've been conned. The basic premise has potential but the film then goes on to tell us ABSOLUTELY nothing about Bond that we did not know already. And it spends an awful long time, ponderously and pretentiously telling us that absolute nothing. I'm afraid this has confirmed all my worst fears about Mendes as director - that he'd try and inject hidden depths to a series that is not frankly about hidden depths - and that the result would be an incoherent jarring mess.

    Once again you are speaking as a Bond fan who knows everything about the character because you read the books, and the movies and the documentaries....But for general audience and new audience of younger generations it's some new aspects to the character. All they (probably) know is Bond surfing in Iceland.
    My point is, as Bond fans we must not be selfish, we must think of others because without their interest in Bond, Skyfall is probably not making $287 million in 10 days.
  • Posts: 11,425
    maxcraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:

    What happens in SF? Bond stupidly decides to take on the villain in a remote location with no weapons and no back up that happens to be his childhood home (so what - what actual significance does this have to the story whatsoever? - think about it). M dies (hoorah). The end. I'm sorry, but if you buy this film as some kind of innovative spin on Bond I think you've been conned. The basic premise has potential but the film then goes on to tell us ABSOLUTELY nothing about Bond that we did not know already. And it spends an awful long time, ponderously and pretentiously telling us that absolute nothing. I'm afraid this has confirmed all my worst fears about Mendes as director - that he'd try and inject hidden depths to a series that is not frankly about hidden depths - and that the result would be an incoherent jarring mess.

    Once again you are speaking as a Bond fan who knows everything about the character because you read the books, and the movies and the documentaries....But for general audience and new audience of younger generations it's some new aspects to the character. All they (probably) know is Bond surfing in Iceland.
    My point is, as Bond fans we must not be selfish, we must think of others because without their interest in Bond, Skyfall is probably not making $287 million in 10 days.

    But CR told us that Bond is an orphan. That was (I think) the first cinematic reference to this. SF could have taken it a bit further, but it doesn't. That's what I didn't like. I'm more than ready for some more character-driven stories. But this just didn't deliver.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    maxcraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:

    What happens in SF? Bond stupidly decides to take on the villain in a remote location with no weapons and no back up that happens to be his childhood home (so what - what actual significance does this have to the story whatsoever? - think about it). M dies (hoorah). The end. I'm sorry, but if you buy this film as some kind of innovative spin on Bond I think you've been conned. The basic premise has potential but the film then goes on to tell us ABSOLUTELY nothing about Bond that we did not know already. And it spends an awful long time, ponderously and pretentiously telling us that absolute nothing. I'm afraid this has confirmed all my worst fears about Mendes as director - that he'd try and inject hidden depths to a series that is not frankly about hidden depths - and that the result would be an incoherent jarring mess.

    Once again you are speaking as a Bond fan who knows everything about the character because you read the books, and the movies and the documentaries....But for general audience and new audience of younger generations it's some new aspects to the character. All they (probably) know is Bond surfing in Iceland.
    My point is, as Bond fans we must not be selfish, we must think of others because without their interest in Bond, Skyfall is probably not making $287 million in 10 days.

    He hasn't. That's the thing. He hasn't even touched the books (and the first cinematic reference to Bond being an orphan was in GE).

    How doesn't it take things further? We see his home, an elderly man who looked after him as a child and the graves of his parents (their names have never been mentioned in a Bond film before).

    I'm starting to think Getafix wants Bond to go into great detail about how tough his childhood was growing up without ma and pa.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    maxcraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:

    What happens in SF? Bond stupidly decides to take on the villain in a remote location with no weapons and no back up that happens to be his childhood home (so what - what actual significance does this have to the story whatsoever? - think about it). M dies (hoorah). The end. I'm sorry, but if you buy this film as some kind of innovative spin on Bond I think you've been conned. The basic premise has potential but the film then goes on to tell us ABSOLUTELY nothing about Bond that we did not know already. And it spends an awful long time, ponderously and pretentiously telling us that absolute nothing. I'm afraid this has confirmed all my worst fears about Mendes as director - that he'd try and inject hidden depths to a series that is not frankly about hidden depths - and that the result would be an incoherent jarring mess.

    Once again you are speaking as a Bond fan who knows everything about the character because you read the books, and the movies and the documentaries....But for general audience and new audience of younger generations it's some new aspects to the character. All they (probably) know is Bond surfing in Iceland.
    My point is, as Bond fans we must not be selfish, we must think of others because without their interest in Bond, Skyfall is probably not making $287 million in 10 days.

    He hasn't. That's the thing. He hasn't even touched the books (and the first cinematic reference to Bond being an orphan was in GE).

    And...? Would reading the books have given me a greater appreciation of the incoherent plot of SF?
  • Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    maxcraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:

    What happens in SF? Bond stupidly decides to take on the villain in a remote location with no weapons and no back up that happens to be his childhood home (so what - what actual significance does this have to the story whatsoever? - think about it). M dies (hoorah). The end. I'm sorry, but if you buy this film as some kind of innovative spin on Bond I think you've been conned. The basic premise has potential but the film then goes on to tell us ABSOLUTELY nothing about Bond that we did not know already. And it spends an awful long time, ponderously and pretentiously telling us that absolute nothing. I'm afraid this has confirmed all my worst fears about Mendes as director - that he'd try and inject hidden depths to a series that is not frankly about hidden depths - and that the result would be an incoherent jarring mess.

    Once again you are speaking as a Bond fan who knows everything about the character because you read the books, and the movies and the documentaries....But for general audience and new audience of younger generations it's some new aspects to the character. All they (probably) know is Bond surfing in Iceland.
    My point is, as Bond fans we must not be selfish, we must think of others because without their interest in Bond, Skyfall is probably not making $287 million in 10 days.

    He hasn't. That's the thing. He hasn't even touched the books (and the first cinematic reference to Bond being an orphan was in GE).

    And...? Would reading the books have given me a greater appreciation of the incoherent plot of SF?

    It would give you more of a basis to be on here.
  • Posts: 229
    Getafix wrote:

    But CR told us that Bond is an orphan. That was (I think) the first cinematic reference to this. SF could have taken it a bit further, but it doesn't. That's what I didn't like. I'm more than ready for some more character-driven stories. But this just didn't deliver.
    They can't deliver everything in one film, they must save some infos for the future films.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    How far can you go?

    Show a scene from his youth with his parents? Then, there would've been complaints that it was not needed, too melodramatic, and etc.

    Sorry Getafix, I can't take you seriously.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    maxcraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:

    What happens in SF? Bond stupidly decides to take on the villain in a remote location with no weapons and no back up that happens to be his childhood home (so what - what actual significance does this have to the story whatsoever? - think about it). M dies (hoorah). The end. I'm sorry, but if you buy this film as some kind of innovative spin on Bond I think you've been conned. The basic premise has potential but the film then goes on to tell us ABSOLUTELY nothing about Bond that we did not know already. And it spends an awful long time, ponderously and pretentiously telling us that absolute nothing. I'm afraid this has confirmed all my worst fears about Mendes as director - that he'd try and inject hidden depths to a series that is not frankly about hidden depths - and that the result would be an incoherent jarring mess.

    Once again you are speaking as a Bond fan who knows everything about the character because you read the books, and the movies and the documentaries....But for general audience and new audience of younger generations it's some new aspects to the character. All they (probably) know is Bond surfing in Iceland.
    My point is, as Bond fans we must not be selfish, we must think of others because without their interest in Bond, Skyfall is probably not making $287 million in 10 days.

    He hasn't. That's the thing. He hasn't even touched the books (and the first cinematic reference to Bond being an orphan was in GE).

    And...? Would reading the books have given me a greater appreciation of the incoherent plot of SF?

    It would give you more of a basis to be on here.

    So you've created a new rule that you have to have read the books to post on here? You haven't got a response to a single point I've made, so you retreat behind Fleming.

    Tell me, what in Fleming tells you that this is a classic Bond movie? Seeing that he wasn't a big fan of the almost univerally recognised classic films made during his lifetime any way, I'd be delighted to hear your answer.
  • Posts: 11,425
    JamesCraig wrote:
    How far can you go?

    Show a scene from his youth with his parents? Then, there would've been complaints that it was not needed, too melodramatic, and etc.

    Sorry Getafix, I can't take you seriously.

    Frankly, I don't think they need to go down this route at all. But if you are going to go to Bond's childhood home and show his parents' grave and repeatedly go on about some unresolved childhood trauma you might actually want to resolve that in some way, or use it in the plot.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    It is resolved.
Sign In or Register to comment.