It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Those are good points.
It just seems to me that on a $200m or so project, the oversight committee for the script (whether it be Mendes, Babs, Pascal, Craig or whoever) should have more time to properly consider all logical inconsistencies and address them before going into production, to avoid this kind of problem. Perhaps they just need to start the script writing process and deliver the first draft much earlier, in order to start the critiquing and refining process sooner.
It just comes across a little sloppy given the cost of the production, but maybe they all realize to a degree that plot is secondary to all the other factors that cause moviegoers to like a movie. It is an 'art' form as well as a 'logical' story.
Yes, QoS will
Nice to read some common sense honest criticism of Skyfall for once instead of the usual unthinking nonsense. I suspect what you've written here will come to be seen as the standard view on SF - good in parts but let down by some lousy plotting.
Another weird thing occurred to me: why does Silva want to be captured in the first place? He doesn't need to get captured for any part of his plan to come through. He's proven he's more than capable of hacking MI6 from China. Because he wants to look M in the face and talk to her? As the scene in parliament shows he could just kidnap her (unless he's foiled by Bond). I guess we could just say "he wanted to humiliate M/MI6 further by escaping" but that feels like a weak rationalization to me.
Most of these holes could have been plugged by having Silva's men break him out (with a possible traitor in MI6 aiding him).
"and the truth is that what I see frightens me. I'm frightened because our enemies are no longer known to us. They do not exist on a map.They are not nations. They are individuals. Look around you. Who do you fear? Do you see a face, a uniform, a flag? No, our World is not more transparent now. It's more opaque. It's in the shadows. That's where we must do battle. So before you declare us irrelevant, ask yourselves: How safe do you feel ?"
I am not for one minute claiming that the writers were trying to predict events like in Paris. But, to me, its obviously a reference to enemies that that are not nation states etc etc and, if that's what they were implying when they wrote this section, they have proved to be 100% correct and it gives SF a new element to consider.
As I said, I may be barking mad and I am giving far too much credit to the writers.
What do you think?
It's not that big a deal though to those who can't get enough of geopolitics, because that's been the point of view since September 11 and since Al Qaeda became a focal point of counter terrorism activities. In fact, the US military has been fighting tooth and nail attempts by the Obama administration to scale them down at the expense of the CIA and counterterrorism investment.
However, it is a relevant statement by M.
Same is true in the UK. The British military were sh*t scared after the end of the cold war that would be cut to nothing (as is now happening), so when 9/11 came along they happily jumped on the bandwagon of the over-militarised response, telling the British government they could do things that they were in fact not equipped to deliver. As a consequence Britains's (and I'm talking specifically about the UK) military contribution to Iraq and Afghanistan, was pretty much a total disaster. I mean that in the sense that we didn't have enough men, with enough of the right equipment, with a good enough understanding of what they were trying to do. Not a criticism of the men and women on the ground, who risked their lives and made huge sacrifices, but just a statement of fact. Blair heard what he wanted to hear from the top brass and agreed to overcommitting British forces in theatres of conflict with which they couldn't cope (Basra) or where their presence was totally inappropriate. In Helmand the locals thought we were back for revenge after they last whooped us in the 19th century - they weren't fighting us because of jihad or whatever - they just hate the Brits and wanted us out of their country. The presence of British soldiers in Helmand was like cat nip for the locals -they love killing Brits on their soil, it's a way of life and has been for centuries.
Mendes certainly tried to redefine what a Bond movie is. Whether he was successful or not is open to debate IMO. I don't personally look to Bond for deep psychoanalytical insight or profoundly meaningful symbolism and metaphor - that kind of thing is done much better, elsewhere. I look to Bond for a concentrated, generally uplifting, hit of endorphin-releasing pure entertainment. Those 'thin and childish' early Bond movies do exacty that IMO - not something that should be underrated or undervalued.
I'm all up for having my cake and eating it. I guess I just didn't like the cake I was served with SF. But yes, the 'intelligent' popcorn movie that works on multiple levels is a great development of the last couple of decades and I'm all for it.
For me I can see what Mendes was trying to do with SF and applaud his intent, but I just think the execution was really clunky. When you compare the quality of some of the TV shows around, that really do provide the multi-layered entertainment, I think SF falls well short. The presence of a certain Purvis and Wade on the writing team remains an on-going concern of mine.
There's a lot of fast-selling cake on the shelves, but that doesn't mean it's any good.
Pretty much agree with this. While symbolism and metaphor has it's place, I'm not sure it's necessarily number one priority in a Bond film. Especially when other more critical areas are left unaddressed as a result. As for the dialogue, I like a bit of hyperbolic nonsense as much as the next man, but it's hardly anything more than that. Real people don't talk in metaphors.
Yes exactly. I think there's an element of the emperor's new clothes with Mendes and SF. Yes, he's layered the movie with symbolism and metaphor. However, this does not in and of itself make it a good film. I accept that plenty of people think it works on multiple levels, but my view is that Mendes has really used all these art-house movie tricks to cover up what is a pretty poorly conceived story with some generally fairly average dialogue.
Well, pretty much every Bond movie has made a profit, as far as I'm aware. Prior to SF, TB was the highest grossing, and I'm not that fond of TB either.
My point is that just because a Bond movie, or any movie, makes stacks of cash is not necessarily a sign that it's a good movie. You only need to look at the Transformers movies for evidence. Equally, I recognise that the fact it did well is not insignificant, and shows that a lot of people found it very entertaining.
I think this is where people trot out the 'Transformers' argument, which is a little trite as SF aims so much higher than this, but there is still a lack of substance in the Box Office argument. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a lot of my friends and industry colleagues' have retrospectively downgraded it. That being said, no one can deny it was hugely successful, but I'm not sure that success is down to the template being dramatically (in both senses) upgraded. I think it caught the Zeitgeist, like Tamagotchi and Furbies.
Woops - caught red handed doing a 'Transformer' on SF.
Interesting that a lot of people you know have downgraded SF though. That's exactly what I predicted would happen.
It's interesting, I'm not saying it to simply bolster the argument either. I'm sure others have got friends who love it more etc. I was having a drink with a Director mate of mine the other night and SP discussion naturally gravitated back to SF. He's convinced the hype machine had informed his initial opinion as when he watched it over Christmas he was struck by how illogical he found a lot of it.
But I really do think it's a shame that it doesnt have a stronger, better worked out story.
I also personally find some of Mendes's directing a bit bland. For me the film (and Craig's performance actually) lacks some of the edginess and danger of CR and QoS. The film has a slightly complacent, bloated feel to it that I can't quite put my finger on. I think it's the wink-wink refs to the DB5, but actually perhaps also the weight of Mendes's metaphors and not very meaningful symbolism. It's like the film labours under this pretentious seriousness that doesn't actually correlate with or strengthen the underlying story, which is itself all over the place.
I have to say though that now more and more people are admitting that it's actually not the best Bond film ever, and I've got over my initial dislike, I can see it has some merits. It's definitely a whole lot better than the Brosnan films, even though it reminds me of them in many ways.
http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/99725/Former-Bond-Timothy-Dalton-Skyfall-Deserves-An-Oscar.
He openly said back in early January, before the Oscar nominations, that it's about time "Bond" gets worthy Oscar recognition.
Come up with some proof please :-). I have been analyzing a lot of "Most Anticipated 2015 Movie" articles during the holiday season (Look at this link, this topic: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/7447/spectre-can-it-do-1-2-billion-dollars-worldwide-and-will-2015-be-biggest-movie-year-ever/p12 ).
What I found stunning were most of the time remarks from movie reviewers that went a bit like that: "I'm not a huge Bond fan, but as a movie fan "Skyfall" was really good".
A very good example of such a remark: "I don’t consider myself a James Bond fan. I haven’t seen a lot of the films in the franchise, so I just go into each one expecting to be entertained. However, Skyfall was one of my favorite films of 2012 and I’m excited to the follow-up has in store, especially since it is bringing up the cast and creative team behind Skyfall"
I honestly think, still think, that those "more people admitting that it's actually not the best Bond film" are mainly to be found on the Bond forums. Outside our "Bond cocoon" I truly believe "Skyfall" attracted a substantial amount of new fans, that could not even be attracted with "Casino Royale". I'm not saying that "Casino Royale" is not good. Hell, I loved it. It's one of the best films.
Not entirely. As "Skyfall" re-ignated me as a fan (I was already a Bond fan), it most likely had a similar impact on others. Not a Bond-fan before, but "Skyfall" at least "ignited" something that QOS and CR were not able to do.
I mean......just look at the financial figures.
But one thing I have kept a close eye on is the IMDB reviews. Currently there are 1426. That's a lot of people expressing their views.
I would say that the first six months the view towards SF was generally very, very positive. It started out with 8.4. Now it's 7,8 but that doesn't really tell us much.
But to my surprise - there are now more reviews of those 1426 - that lean towards "hated it" than "loved it". 599 lean towards "loved it" and to my amazement a total of 777 reviews now lean towards "hated it."
So yes... I would say that we with this "proof" (which isn't totally solid I'll admit, even though it does support Getafix's conclusion) have us a case of 'emperor's new clothes.'
That has nothing to do with the movie, but simply with what psychologists call the 'recency effect' where more recent movies and albums etc. are ranked higher in surveys because they are more clear due to being newer. With repeated viewings and the benefit of time and perspective, a more accurate interpretation occurs.
That's not to say that SF is a bad movie. Not one bit. Just that its rank will inevitably fall as it is inflated at present.
There is also the comparison effect. In comparison to QoS, which was not for everyone, SF seemed like a return to Bond of old. Therefore it has a more favourable ranking with casual fans. The same thing happened with GE which followed LTK.
I agree with comments that popularity has nothing to do with rank. MR was popular and is blasted today (although I love it). Same with DAD (made more money than any of Brozzer's other Bonds).
@Getafix, I agree with you that there was something a little bland about SF. I found this to be Craig's weakest performance (although he was still very good in it) and I found the action scenes quite lacking compared to what we got in CR & QoS which was brutal & visceral. I personally prefer the stripped down brutal Craig of CR/QoS, but I don't think Mendes is that kind of guy, so we are likely to see more pared down violence in SP as well.