A place for disappointed skyfall viewers

1246724

Comments

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I meant that the whole film was not explained enough.

    Not interested anymore in Bonds 24 & 25. [-(
  • Posts: 3,274
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I have hopes that next time it'll happen along the line of:

    - Bond.
    - M.
    - Here's the mission. You will find so-and-so, do this-and-that and 007,
    - Sir
    - This is the big one!
    And no more M for the rest of the film, except, perhaps, in a funny coda.
    Amen!
  • Posts: 11,425
    I apologize for any offending comments from the Skyfall fan review thread, but I can no longer post in that thread due to flaming . I feel like we disappointed skyfall viewers need our own thread to discuss our negativity on the film . I may be in the minority here but I know there are others out there who feel the same way as I. Anyways here is my final say on skyfall. Thank you



    As I said in Friday’s review, I love both
    ‘Casino Royale‘ and ‘Quantum of Solace‘,
    and really wanted ‘Skyfall’ to follow
    through with the new rebooted series,
    which modernized and humanized James
    Bond, and did away with corny
    unrealistic fluff such as dumbass
    gadgets and riding down ski slopes on
    musical instruments. Unfortunately, I
    feel that ‘Skyfall’ takes Bond back into
    the nearly brainless mode that most of
    the previous 20 films functioned on.

    The first sign that something wasn’t
    right with ‘Skyfall’ happened during the
    overly-long introductory sequence. After
    finding a dead agent and his now hard
    drive-less laptop, Bond chases a random
    henchman for what feels like 20
    minutes. Cranes, trains and automobiles
    – this action sequence is cool, but way
    too long, and lacks continuity in every
    way possible. Bond gets shot twice, but
    we later only see him with one gunshot
    wound. He drives a dirt bike off a city
    bridge onto a train that is suddenly in
    the middle of wide open plains – no city
    in sight. Two minutes later, he’s in the
    mountains.

    Due to an on-the-spot call that M
    makes, Bond is shot and possibly left for
    dead, but we sure as shit know that isn’t
    the case. The dumb aspect of this scene
    is that M is willing to risk killing Bond in
    order to get the hard drive back, but had
    she not made the call, both Bond and
    Henchman #1 would have smashed into
    the train tunnel. While they both would
    have died, the hard drive would have
    been retrieved and I never would have
    been made to suffer through ‘Skyfall’.

    This is the first of many times where
    ‘Skyfall’ steals an element from another
    very popular movie. Guess what was on
    the hard drive that the henchman got
    away with? A list containing every MI6
    agent, his/her whereabouts,
    pseudonyms and infiltrated
    organizations. Wait, isn’t that the exact
    same plot from Brain De Palma’s
    ‘Mission: Impossible‘? You bet your ass it
    is, and the plot stealing doesn’t stop
    there. Ethan Hunt’s NOC list is only the
    beginning.

    After a few minutes of being led to
    believe that Bond is dead, we of course
    learn that he isn’t. Bond is content to
    stay off the radar in his tropical hiding
    place, tossing back shots of tequila with
    stupid scorpions on his hands and
    boning random local chicks (and possibly
    dudes too) – that is, until he sees
    something on the news that stirs him
    up. With the NOC list out there, agents
    are being killed and someone has
    infiltrated MI6 headquarters, blowing up
    M’s office in the process. Who did it? Of
    course, it’s Javier Bardem’s character,
    Silva. How did Silva do it? Who knows?
    Like many other major plot points in
    ‘Skyfall’, we’re never given an answer.
    Lazy little ‘Skyfall’ works in a brain-dead
    manner. Don’t ask the “how” questions
    because there aren’t any answers to be
    found.

    Shortly thereafter, Bond comes back
    from the dead and visits M. She takes
    him to the new MI6 headquarters, and
    the ‘Casino’ and ‘Quantum’ apologies
    begin rolling in. Taking us full circle with
    the original Bond flicks, we get all the
    goofy stuff that old fans want. The MI6
    HQ is now underground and resembles
    the hideout of old. We meet Q and some
    gadgets are teased. Jokes are made
    about not using them as much as MI6
    did in the past, but then we proceed to
    rely on them. Had it not been for the
    transmitter, Bond would have died on
    Silva’s island. Had it not been for the
    Aston Martin machine guns, many more
    henchmen would have entered Bond
    Manor during the climax. As much as I
    didn’t want ‘Skyfall’ to dig into this has-
    been, gadget-filled territory, I initially
    didn’t mind because it seemed to be a
    minimal joke, a throwback. Sadly, it’s
    really just one of the “apologies.”

    Through unmotivated and coincidental
    actions, at the one-hour mark Bond
    finally discovers the identity of the
    villain behind the attack on MI6. For the
    first time in the film, we meet Silva – a
    flamboyant former Double-0 agent with
    mommy issues and a desire to bring
    down MI6.Wait a second, isn’t this the
    exact same antagonist type as seen in
    ‘GoldenEye‘?! Ding-ding-ding! Instead of
    stealing a villain from ‘Mission:
    Impossible’, ‘Skyfall’ steals one from its
    own franchise. Bardem isn’t bad, but his
    collective 15 minutes of screen time
    don’t come close to portraying the
    fleshed-out three dimensional villain he
    could be. His flamboyance is just a
    notch down from Jim Carrey’s portrayal
    of the Riddler. That removing any
    potential he had of being a menace and
    kills the serious tone.

    Another pointless aspect of Silva comes
    across as an apology. I’m fine with
    minimal nods back to the original films
    (like the subterranean headquarters),
    which is why I didn’t mind Le Chiffre’s
    bleeding eye in ‘Casino Royale’ being a
    throwback to the randomly disfigured
    villains of old – but Silva’s ridiculous
    disfiguration is damned absurd. The
    reveal of Silva’s glass jaw caused me to
    groan out loud. Making matters worse is
    the fact that the filmmakers try to tie
    this disfiguration into a coherent part of
    the plot. You see, Silva is disfigured
    because of a job gone bad. Things went
    sour and M made a call that resulted in
    his deformity. Because of the opening
    sequence where Bond is shot and left
    for dead due to M’s decision, Silva
    explains that they have a lot in common.
    Mind you, Bond’s involvement in this
    whole ordeal stems from coincidences
    and random acts. Silva never planned to
    get Bond in this position. It was all
    chance, but that’s not what we’re led to
    believe. Bond randomly finds Silva and
    we’re supposed to think that Silva set it
    all up.

    Bond stumbles into Silva’s lame lair and
    gets caught, but it turns out that Bond
    wanted to get caught. Because of the
    gadgets that Bond now has, M and MI6
    are able to intervene, rescue Bond and
    capture Silva. It was a twist! (Please
    note my sarcasm.) But then Silva is
    taken back to the brand new secret
    underground HQ and it’s revealed that,
    like Loki in ‘The Avengers‘, Silva wanted
    to be caught and brought back to their
    new hideout all along. Double twist!
    What follows is a scene that I deem the
    most braindead of the whole movie.
    Bond chases Silva through subway
    tunnels, catches up to Old Glass Jaw in a
    large subterranean room and fires a few
    shots. Bond can shoot two rungs on the
    ladder Silva climbs, but not Silva
    himself. And just when he gets the bad
    guy in his sights, he freezes and doesn’t
    take the shot just so that Silva can drop
    an empty train on him. (P.S. I’ve been in
    London’s tubes during the day, and no
    train is ever empty.) Considering that
    Silva had no idea where the new MI6
    HQ was located, how lame is it he
    somehow knew the exact place that
    Bond was going to catch him, and would
    have a bomb rigged so that he could
    drop a train on Bond? Absolutely absurd.

    At this point in the film, halfway
    through, the plot is completely
    discarded. Do you remember that NOC
    list that Bond and MI6 have been
    tracking down? Well, the characters sure
    don’t. The story that we’ve been
    wrapped up in for over an hour is tossed
    aside. You might assume that the hard
    drive was retrieved when Silva was
    captured, but you’d think that this was a
    plot point worth resolving. After all, at
    least five agents had their identities
    revealed and were executed. This is a
    major part of story, something greater
    than leaving up to presumptions – but
    it’s not resolved. Ever. After Silva breaks
    into MI6, only to escape (without
    achieving a thing), the MI6 mission
    shifts from the unresolved NOC list to
    protecting M from Silva. Bond and M
    don’t look for the hard drive any longer.
    Eff every other agent in the field – Mum
    is in danger! All energy and efforts go
    towards keeping M safe. Bond and M
    run from Silva, becoming the prey and
    not the usual predators.

    The NOC list is ditched just so that the
    franchise can be given yet another new
    origin. We’re suddenly force fed a
    splinter of Bond’s back story. A plot
    point is revealed that other reviewers
    claim digs deep into Bond’s roots,
    origins and motivations. I disagree with
    those statements. ‘Casino Royale’
    created a three dimensional character.
    Through the death of Vesper in the
    climax, Bond was given a dark
    motivation that we could all connect
    with. In ‘Skyfall’, that motivation (what
    I’m calling “The Vesper Motivation”) is
    completely dismissed for a newer,
    shallower one – his parents died. Why is
    Bond the cruel, heartless and brutal
    beast that he is? It’s not because of
    Vesper. It’s because he’s an orphan.
    Once again, we’re supposed to make the
    connection that Bond is like Silva – he
    has parent issues too. Boo-hoo and
    bullshit. The final act character
    development is worthless, but not as
    worthless as the ripped-off anticlimax
    that follows.

    Do you know how every Bond movie has
    a wild adventurous finale? ‘Skyfall’
    doesn’t. The movie wraps up with Bond
    and M playing ‘Home Alone‘ against the
    strangest set of henchmen ever. They
    lock themselves in Bond Manor with
    Albert Finney (who pops up just for the
    film’s climax) and re-enact ‘Straw Dogs’.
    Bad guys climb inside the boarded up
    house, but fall for boobytrap after
    boobytrap, failing to ever take out either
    of the geriatric geezers shuffling around
    inside. When Bond, M and Finney
    complete the first wave, then enters
    Silva in a helicopter shooting sequence
    that would have been any other villains’
    first attack choice. This scene just keeps
    going on and on and on. They move the
    fight outdoors, and then they move back
    indoors, and so forth.

    The nearly two-and-a-half hour runtime
    of ‘Skyfall’ is unwarranted. Most scenes
    are too long, especially the “Peter and
    the Chicken” action sequences. It would
    all be over much earlier had Bond taken
    the shot one of the many times in the
    movie that the opportunity was readily
    in front of him, but he unexplainably and
    consciously decides not to. For example,
    why didn’t Bond just shoot Silva in the
    face during the scene where Silva tried
    to drop a train on him?

    My final gripe with flick is M’s fate. Did
    anyone not see M’s death coming from
    the moment we met Ralph Fiennes’
    character? If you didn’t catch it then,
    you must have caught it when her real
    name was revealed. The movie’s ending
    was spoiled two hours before we got to
    it.

    Btw, DTK, that's an impressive rundown. I don't agree with everything you've said there, but it certainly beats reading another 'best Bond ever' review.

    I think as some others have said, when it boils down to it my problem is that I found it a strangely unengaging story and generally not very enjoyable. When you're not really carried along by the movie, you inevitably start picking up on the plot flaws. If the film is engaging and takes you along on the ride you will forgive all manner of dodgy plot issues. That said, I do think SF is riddled with unexplained character motivations and an extremely ropey story, to such an extent that you just cannot ignore it. Add in what was for me was a dreary and forgettable score (does any one really think it was any good?) and it's sleep time.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    Many reviews don't talk of THE BEST EVER, including mine. By your logic, I could say that the negative reviews might say THE WORST EVER.
  • JamesCraig I can't figure out if you're for or against the movie, your posts seem a bit contradictory.
  • JamesCraig wrote:
    I meant that the whole film was not explained enough.

    Not interested anymore in Bonds 24 & 25. [-(

    I'm just the opposite; I can't wait to see what they have in store next!

  • Posts: 122
    I apologize for any offending comments from the Skyfall fan review thread, but I can no longer post in that thread due to flaming . I feel like we disappointed skyfall viewers need our own thread to discuss our negativity on the film . I may be in the minority here but I know there are others out there who feel the same way as I. Anyways here is my final say on skyfall. Thank you



    As I said in Friday’s review, I love both
    ‘Casino Royale‘ and ‘Quantum of Solace‘,
    and really wanted ‘Skyfall’ to follow
    through with the new rebooted series,
    which modernized and humanized James
    Bond, and did away with corny
    unrealistic fluff such as dumbass
    gadgets and riding down ski slopes on
    musical instruments. Unfortunately, I
    feel that ‘Skyfall’ takes Bond back into
    the nearly brainless mode that most of
    the previous 20 films functioned on.

    The first sign that something wasn’t
    right with ‘Skyfall’ happened during the
    overly-long introductory sequence. After
    finding a dead agent and his now hard
    drive-less laptop, Bond chases a random
    henchman for what feels like 20
    minutes. Cranes, trains and automobiles
    – this action sequence is cool, but way
    too long, and lacks continuity in every
    way possible. Bond gets shot twice, but
    we later only see him with one gunshot
    wound. He drives a dirt bike off a city
    bridge onto a train that is suddenly in
    the middle of wide open plains – no city
    in sight. Two minutes later, he’s in the
    mountains.

    Due to an on-the-spot call that M
    makes, Bond is shot and possibly left for
    dead, but we sure as shit know that isn’t
    the case. The dumb aspect of this scene
    is that M is willing to risk killing Bond in
    order to get the hard drive back, but had
    she not made the call, both Bond and
    Henchman #1 would have smashed into
    the train tunnel. While they both would
    have died, the hard drive would have
    been retrieved and I never would have
    been made to suffer through ‘Skyfall’.

    This is the first of many times where
    ‘Skyfall’ steals an element from another
    very popular movie. Guess what was on
    the hard drive that the henchman got
    away with? A list containing every MI6
    agent, his/her whereabouts,
    pseudonyms and infiltrated
    organizations. Wait, isn’t that the exact
    same plot from Brain De Palma’s
    ‘Mission: Impossible‘? You bet your ass it
    is, and the plot stealing doesn’t stop
    there. Ethan Hunt’s NOC list is only the
    beginning.

    After a few minutes of being led to
    believe that Bond is dead, we of course
    learn that he isn’t. Bond is content to
    stay off the radar in his tropical hiding
    place, tossing back shots of tequila with
    stupid scorpions on his hands and
    boning random local chicks (and possibly
    dudes too) – that is, until he sees
    something on the news that stirs him
    up. With the NOC list out there, agents
    are being killed and someone has
    infiltrated MI6 headquarters, blowing up
    M’s office in the process. Who did it? Of
    course, it’s Javier Bardem’s character,
    Silva. How did Silva do it? Who knows?
    Like many other major plot points in
    ‘Skyfall’, we’re never given an answer.
    Lazy little ‘Skyfall’ works in a brain-dead
    manner. Don’t ask the “how” questions
    because there aren’t any answers to be
    found.

    Shortly thereafter, Bond comes back
    from the dead and visits M. She takes
    him to the new MI6 headquarters, and
    the ‘Casino’ and ‘Quantum’ apologies
    begin rolling in. Taking us full circle with
    the original Bond flicks, we get all the
    goofy stuff that old fans want. The MI6
    HQ is now underground and resembles
    the hideout of old. We meet Q and some
    gadgets are teased. Jokes are made
    about not using them as much as MI6
    did in the past, but then we proceed to
    rely on them. Had it not been for the
    transmitter, Bond would have died on
    Silva’s island. Had it not been for the
    Aston Martin machine guns, many more
    henchmen would have entered Bond
    Manor during the climax. As much as I
    didn’t want ‘Skyfall’ to dig into this has-
    been, gadget-filled territory, I initially
    didn’t mind because it seemed to be a
    minimal joke, a throwback. Sadly, it’s
    really just one of the “apologies.”

    Through unmotivated and coincidental
    actions, at the one-hour mark Bond
    finally discovers the identity of the
    villain behind the attack on MI6. For the
    first time in the film, we meet Silva – a
    flamboyant former Double-0 agent with
    mommy issues and a desire to bring
    down MI6.Wait a second, isn’t this the
    exact same antagonist type as seen in
    ‘GoldenEye‘?! Ding-ding-ding! Instead of
    stealing a villain from ‘Mission:
    Impossible’, ‘Skyfall’ steals one from its
    own franchise. Bardem isn’t bad, but his
    collective 15 minutes of screen time
    don’t come close to portraying the
    fleshed-out three dimensional villain he
    could be. His flamboyance is just a
    notch down from Jim Carrey’s portrayal
    of the Riddler. That removing any
    potential he had of being a menace and
    kills the serious tone.

    Another pointless aspect of Silva comes
    across as an apology. I’m fine with
    minimal nods back to the original films
    (like the subterranean headquarters),
    which is why I didn’t mind Le Chiffre’s
    bleeding eye in ‘Casino Royale’ being a
    throwback to the randomly disfigured
    villains of old – but Silva’s ridiculous
    disfiguration is damned absurd. The
    reveal of Silva’s glass jaw caused me to
    groan out loud. Making matters worse is
    the fact that the filmmakers try to tie
    this disfiguration into a coherent part of
    the plot. You see, Silva is disfigured
    because of a job gone bad. Things went
    sour and M made a call that resulted in
    his deformity. Because of the opening
    sequence where Bond is shot and left
    for dead due to M’s decision, Silva
    explains that they have a lot in common.
    Mind you, Bond’s involvement in this
    whole ordeal stems from coincidences
    and random acts. Silva never planned to
    get Bond in this position. It was all
    chance, but that’s not what we’re led to
    believe. Bond randomly finds Silva and
    we’re supposed to think that Silva set it
    all up.

    Bond stumbles into Silva’s lame lair and
    gets caught, but it turns out that Bond
    wanted to get caught. Because of the
    gadgets that Bond now has, M and MI6
    are able to intervene, rescue Bond and
    capture Silva. It was a twist! (Please
    note my sarcasm.) But then Silva is
    taken back to the brand new secret
    underground HQ and it’s revealed that,
    like Loki in ‘The Avengers‘, Silva wanted
    to be caught and brought back to their
    new hideout all along. Double twist!
    What follows is a scene that I deem the
    most braindead of the whole movie.
    Bond chases Silva through subway
    tunnels, catches up to Old Glass Jaw in a
    large subterranean room and fires a few
    shots. Bond can shoot two rungs on the
    ladder Silva climbs, but not Silva
    himself. And just when he gets the bad
    guy in his sights, he freezes and doesn’t
    take the shot just so that Silva can drop
    an empty train on him. (P.S. I’ve been in
    London’s tubes during the day, and no
    train is ever empty.) Considering that
    Silva had no idea where the new MI6
    HQ was located, how lame is it he
    somehow knew the exact place that
    Bond was going to catch him, and would
    have a bomb rigged so that he could
    drop a train on Bond? Absolutely absurd.

    At this point in the film, halfway
    through, the plot is completely
    discarded. Do you remember that NOC
    list that Bond and MI6 have been
    tracking down? Well, the characters sure
    don’t. The story that we’ve been
    wrapped up in for over an hour is tossed
    aside. You might assume that the hard
    drive was retrieved when Silva was
    captured, but you’d think that this was a
    plot point worth resolving. After all, at
    least five agents had their identities
    revealed and were executed. This is a
    major part of story, something greater
    than leaving up to presumptions – but
    it’s not resolved. Ever. After Silva breaks
    into MI6, only to escape (without
    achieving a thing), the MI6 mission
    shifts from the unresolved NOC list to
    protecting M from Silva. Bond and M
    don’t look for the hard drive any longer.
    Eff every other agent in the field – Mum
    is in danger! All energy and efforts go
    towards keeping M safe. Bond and M
    run from Silva, becoming the prey and
    not the usual predators.

    The NOC list is ditched just so that the
    franchise can be given yet another new
    origin. We’re suddenly force fed a
    splinter of Bond’s back story. A plot
    point is revealed that other reviewers
    claim digs deep into Bond’s roots,
    origins and motivations. I disagree with
    those statements. ‘Casino Royale’
    created a three dimensional character.
    Through the death of Vesper in the
    climax, Bond was given a dark
    motivation that we could all connect
    with. In ‘Skyfall’, that motivation (what
    I’m calling “The Vesper Motivation”) is
    completely dismissed for a newer,
    shallower one – his parents died. Why is
    Bond the cruel, heartless and brutal
    beast that he is? It’s not because of
    Vesper. It’s because he’s an orphan.
    Once again, we’re supposed to make the
    connection that Bond is like Silva – he
    has parent issues too. Boo-hoo and
    bullshit. The final act character
    development is worthless, but not as
    worthless as the ripped-off anticlimax
    that follows.

    Do you know how every Bond movie has
    a wild adventurous finale? ‘Skyfall’
    doesn’t. The movie wraps up with Bond
    and M playing ‘Home Alone‘ against the
    strangest set of henchmen ever. They
    lock themselves in Bond Manor with
    Albert Finney (who pops up just for the
    film’s climax) and re-enact ‘Straw Dogs’.
    Bad guys climb inside the boarded up
    house, but fall for boobytrap after
    boobytrap, failing to ever take out either
    of the geriatric geezers shuffling around
    inside. When Bond, M and Finney
    complete the first wave, then enters
    Silva in a helicopter shooting sequence
    that would have been any other villains’
    first attack choice. This scene just keeps
    going on and on and on. They move the
    fight outdoors, and then they move back
    indoors, and so forth.

    The nearly two-and-a-half hour runtime
    of ‘Skyfall’ is unwarranted. Most scenes
    are too long, especially the “Peter and
    the Chicken” action sequences. It would
    all be over much earlier had Bond taken
    the shot one of the many times in the
    movie that the opportunity was readily
    in front of him, but he unexplainably and
    consciously decides not to. For example,
    why didn’t Bond just shoot Silva in the
    face during the scene where Silva tried
    to drop a train on him?

    My final gripe with flick is M’s fate. Did
    anyone not see M’s death coming from
    the moment we met Ralph Fiennes’
    character? If you didn’t catch it then,
    you must have caught it when her real
    name was revealed. The movie’s ending
    was spoiled two hours before we got to
    it.

    If you do not like bond movies do not go watch them simple as and all you did was re write the whole plot in a rant that makes no sense at all its just a rant and a load of bull.
    so you did not like skyfall who cares
  • Posts: 6,601
    JamesCraig I can't figure out if you're for or against the movie, your posts seem a bit contradictory.

    He is all for it and is playing you off.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    JamesCraig I can't figure out if you're for or against the movie, your posts seem a bit contradictory.

    That's exactly what I was thinking. I think there's some 'sarcasm' in there.

    Apparently this thread is too boring for the SF fans and yet they just don't seem to be able to avoid dropping by to dole out a bit of abuse.

    Apparently winding people up for a laugh is okay if your an SF fan. Next they'll be coming along and accusing us of being 'trolls' again.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JamesCraig I can't figure out if you're for or against the movie, your posts seem a bit contradictory.

    He doesn't like the fact you're knocking SF in any way. I think he's probably very young though, bless him.
  • So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.
  • Posts: 11,425
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Exactly. This was the least 'fun' I've had in the cinema since dragging myself to see DAD. It's bad for very different reasons, but had I actually enjoyed it on any level I wouldn't care about the ropey plot.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Getafix wrote:
    RogueAgent wrote:
    Why this was not in the original thread i do not know?

    Because a few members made it very clear we were not welcome. It's not easy to have a bit of light hearted banter when you've got people screaming 'troll' at you in every other post or going on about how you must be Moonraker fan if you don't like SF. Any way, it's fine like this I think. The other thread's practically dead now any way - just a few 'best Bond ever' reviews and that's it - just how they wanted it.

    Well the other thread lasted for 28 pages so if it's slowing up it isn't surprising.
    And @Getafix, remember we have allowed you your own thread to bash SF to your hearts content, so please stop the digs at people who actually like the film, yes?

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Someone talking some sense. Don't understand why people have so much trouble understanding this sentiment.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 803
    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.
    There's likely an argument to be made in support of this, though I thought Skyfall remained pretty consistent in terms of the story's internal logic and structure.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun. I do think it is equally expected of us to take it seriously in the same token, though.
  • Posts: 3,274
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun.
    Yeah, it was quite "funny and lightheated" for some I guess, that Bond hits rock bottom, and that the main Bond girl plus his boss dies.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Zekidk wrote:
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun.
    Yeah, it was quite "funny and lightheated" for some I guess, that Bond hits rock bottom, and that the main Bond girl plus his boss dies.

    My better half described the film as 'depressing'. And she's a DC fan.
  • Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun. I do think it is equally expected of us to take it seriously in the same token, though.
    "Lighthearted" being very loosely used here, perhaps. :)
  • @RC7 I think me and youre in the same boat. We liked the film but we're not against any criticism of it.
    So lighten up, gentlemen, after all it is only a movie meant to entertain people and give them 145 minutes of fun...

    I think the argument here is though, that since SF isn't really just fun and it wants to be taken seriously, it needs more logic and less plot holes.

    I liked the film myself but I think it's still a fair argument.

    Skyfall was the most lighthearted of all the Craig films yet, and obviously meant to be more fun. I do think it is equally expected of us to take it seriously in the same token, though.

    Yeah it did have fun moments and lines but it wasn't a Moore style romp or anything like that, the story was fairly serious and overall I think it wanted to be taken seriously.
  • Getafix wrote:
    My better half described the film as 'depressing'. And she's a DC fan.
    Really? While the movie certainly had it's share of somber moments, I actually found it to be pretty uplifting when all was said and done.

  • Posts: 122
    you lot are funny i do not get why everyone is moaning about plot holes etc or why you slate sf so much I liked it action packed what more do you want if you do not get the plot or want to fill in the gaps wait for the dvd to come out and watch the extras. otherwise go to the cinema watch a film and enjoy it if you more concerned about plot holes then don't bother just buy a book.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    oorogers wrote:
    you lot are funny i do not get why everyone is moaning about plot holes etc or why you slate sf so much I liked it action packed what more do you want if you do not get the plot or want to fill in the gaps wait for the dvd to come out and watch the extras. otherwise go to the cinema watch a film and enjoy it if you more concerned about plot holes then don't bother just buy a book.

    Again...I loved SF. But, if people despise those who come in to 'appreciation' threads and trash those who liked it, who are we to come in to the 'disappointed' threads and trash them? Seems incredibly hypocritical to me. Let them dish out their opinions, before we derail yet another thread.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 533
    And no more M for the rest of the film, except, perhaps, in a funny coda.


    That's a lovely dream, but M meeting Bond in different parts of the world has been a tradition with the franchise since 1967's "YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE".


    But, if people despise those who come in to 'appreciation' threads and trash those who liked it, who are we to come in to the 'disappointed' threads and trash them? Seems incredibly hypocritical to me. Let them dish out their opinions, before we derail yet another thread.

    Why are people complaining about those who trash the ones who liked the film, and ignore those who trash the ones who disliked the film? That seems to be a constant theme on this forum.


    you lot are funny i do not get why everyone is moaning about plot holes etc or why you slate sf so much I liked it action packed what more do you want if you do not get the plot or want to fill in the gaps wait for the dvd to come out and watch the extras. otherwise go to the cinema watch a film and enjoy it if you more concerned about plot holes then don't bother just buy a book.


    Why did you feel it was necessary to criticize those who disliked the film? Why can't you just accept the fact that some people did not like it and found something wrong with it?
  • JamesCraig I can't figure out if you're for or against the movie, your posts seem a bit contradictory.

    You can say that again
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    DRush76 wrote:
    And no more M for the rest of the film, except, perhaps, in a funny coda.


    That's a lovely dream, but M meeting Bond in different parts of the world has been a tradition with the franchise since 1967's "YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE".


    But, if people despise those who come in to 'appreciation' threads and trash those who liked it, who are we to come in to the 'disappointed' threads and trash them? Seems incredibly hypocritical to me. Let them dish out their opinions, before we derail yet another thread.

    Why are people complaining about those who trash the ones who liked the film, and ignore those who trash the ones who disliked the film? That seems to be a constant theme on this forum.

    I think the very fact that they've cast Fiennes as M means the character will continue to loom large in the DC era. However, I am looking forward with optimism towards a more 'equal' relationship between them and something a bit more professional and less laden with psychobabble and trust issues.

    Loved seeing the padded door back at the end of SF. Have been waiting that for about 20 years!
  • Germanlady wrote:
    JamesCraig I can't figure out if you're for or against the movie, your posts seem a bit contradictory.

    He is all for it and is playing you off.

    Troll you say?
  • Posts: 140
    Hello, just a couple of things.

    Firstly, I am surprised that people are surprised at how offensive and aggressive people can be on this site. I have always found this.

    Secondly, I made a pact, with myself, not to see Skyfall but my brother (who detests Non-Craig Bond with a passion) wants to see it again and agreed to pay for my ticket (I am easily bought).

    So I will have my review ready soon. By the way my brother loved Skyfall so that is not a good start.
  • Getafix wrote:
    I think the very fact that they've cast Fiennes as M means the character will continue to loom large in the DC era. However, I am looking forward with optimism towards a more 'equal' relationship between them and something a bit more professional and less laden with psychobabble and trust issues.

    Certainly seems like it'll be a more straight-forward relationship. Looking forward to seeing how it unfolds.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    RC7, you still haven't given up on following me around like I don't know what or who. You haven't even responded fo my full review of SF, which proves my theory that you like to provoke until I'm out of your way.

    And yes, I was joking in the above posts.
This discussion has been closed.