› ›

Is Skyfall losing its gloss and appeal ?

1…3334363839…59

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    If we're stopping that low I'll retaliate.

    You like Britt Eckland. I find her offensive to women, Bond characters and low brow comedy in general.

    In that case, sorry. I will stop defending her.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    Shardlake wrote: »
    That was the 50's for gods sake, that line was offensive in the 80's then as it is now.

    To think it got by then, sorry if casual racism offends me, you'll excuse anything when it's Bond. I also find it offensive in Temple of Doom as well.

    Just because Fleming wrote something doesn't make it acceptable, is that your default excuse for everything offensive within the Bond cannon?

    So something is not offensive because it happened in the 1950's? When Fleming does it, it's excused?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Shardlake wrote: »
    you'll excuse anything when it's Bond.

    I find it amusing, given it's Roger. I don't see it as 'offensive', just a flippant remark. Although it is a well known fact that (Albert Moses) Sadruddin only ever ate curry and nothing else.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2015 Posts: 11,189
    M's "can't imagine why" line at the end of TLD was arguably more "offensive", but because Rog or whoever plays Bond doesn't say it it seems to be pushed aside.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    The more dodgy moments come even earlier in the film series IMO. 'Get my shoes' always stands out in Dr No. It's a sign of the times. By and large The movies has been more on the side of good than bad.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    M's "can't imagine why" line at the end of TLD was arguably more "offensive", but because Rog or whoever plays Bond doesn't say it it's seems to be pushed aside.

    I find it offensive that you find that offensive. And so it goes.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2015 Posts: 15,718
    I don't understand why we can't have a straight up Bond on a mission type outing anymore. DN, FRWL, TLD were basically that type of film, I don't see a lot of members complain about those films. If anything I often read in threads how many want to see more TLD and FRWL type films. Several of the 1962-2002 have plenty of emotional depth that people crave about, the only difference is they don't linger on Bond's childhood, but instead on more, IMO, interesting aspects of the 007 character.
  • jobojobo
    edited March 2015 Posts: 7,507
    I agree with a lot of what has been said here. A dangerous tendency with EON is to occationally go overboard in a certain direction, be it action, humor, outlandishness etc... It is especially a usual tendency if the previous film was very succesful. My only real fear for Spectre is that they will go overboard with heavy character exploration. It is essencial to know when is enough and when to change direction in advance, and not have your audience have to tell you in form of bad reception or box office every time...
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    M's "can't imagine why" line at the end of TLD was arguably more "offensive", but because Rog or whoever plays Bond doesn't say it it's seems to be pushed aside.

    I find it offensive that you find that offensive. And so it goes.

    Oh ho-ho-ho, it's funny because they look like terrorists :p
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Brosnan as Bond, now that is offensive. How come that gets tolerated?

    Trolling comments like that.How come that gets tolerated?

  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Brosnan as Bond, now that is offensive. How come that gets tolerated?

    Trolling comments like that.How come that gets tolerated?

    It's meant in jest, that's why.

    Whereas you pipe on about how you hate the Craig era in any thread you visit. There's a difference.

    Some great discussion in this thread recently. I basically agree with everything said about having too much "character exploration" can be unhealthy for the series.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Brosnan as Bond, now that is offensive. How come that gets tolerated?

    Trolling comments like that.How come that gets tolerated?

    I am so so sorry. Why didn t you say you found it offensive? I am ashamed of my opinions now. 8-}
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    I am ashamed of my opinions now. 8-}
    Oh there there, don't feel ashamed, I find that offensive.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    I am ashamed of my opinions now. 8-}
    Oh there there, don't feel ashamed, I find that offensive.

    In that case...In that case... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! Sorry for existing!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    In that case...In that case... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! Sorry for existing!
    That's what we get for having opinions. :))

    Seriously, I find having opinions condoning poverty, misery & indiscriminate killing in real life offensive. A dopey racist line in an old Moore film is just silly.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2015 Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    You like Britt Eckland. I find her offensive to women,....
    I liked Britt personally. Saw TMWTGG recently and she was a standout in the bikini.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    You like Britt Eckland. I find her offensive to women,....
    I liked Britt personally. Saw TMWTGG recently and she was a standout in the bikini.

    Offensive as it is, best ass in Bond history. And no, I did not forget that sumo wrestler in same motion picture.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2015 Posts: 15,718
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    You like Britt Eckland. I find her offensive to women,....
    I liked Britt personally. Saw TMWTGG recently and she was a standout in the bikini.

    Offensive as it is, best ass in Bond history. And no, I did not forget that sumo wrestler in same motion picture.

    Sir Rog seemed more attracted to the Sumo wrestler's ass than Goodnight's bottom. He grabbed it so hard his hands left red marks on his butt cheeks. :D

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Most knighted people are pervs.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Most knighted people are pervs.

    Is that so, Sir @Thunderfinger? ;)

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited March 2015 Posts: 45,489
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Most knighted people are pervs.

    Is that so, Sir @Thunderfinger? ;)

    Why do everybody call me Sir all of a sudden? Oh yeah, that must be the reason...
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited March 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I always think Xan Brooks review of Skyfall is worth referring to at moments like this.

    http://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/oct/13/skyfall-james-bond-first-look-review
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Getafix wrote: »
    I always think Xan Brooks review of Skyfall is worth referring to at moments like this.

    http://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/oct/13/skyfall-james-bond-first-look-review

    That's quite a negative review..
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    The reviewer starts off with some punchy, confident remarks, but then lets sentimentality cloud his judgement about half way through...
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Brosnan as Bond, now that is offensive. How come that gets tolerated?

    Trolling comments like that.How come that gets tolerated?

    It's meant in jest, that's why.

    Whereas you pipe on about how you hate the Craig era in any thread you visit. There's a difference.

    Some great discussion in this thread recently. I basically agree with everything said about having too much "character exploration" can be unhealthy for the series.

    Yeah thats usually whats said when a troll is called out on insulting comments.

    And i may not like the Craig era in general but thats my honest opinion, i got nothing against Craig personally nor do i resort to childish insulting comments.

    Actually SP is the first Craig era Bond im actually looking forward to because at least there is no more Judi Dench M and SPECTRE is back.Having watched the teaser though im disappointed AGAIN though that instead of setting Bond off an all new adventure, its ANOTHER personal story.Can we please just have a fun standalone Bond film?



  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    edited March 2015 Posts: 5,080
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Brosnan as Bond, now that is offensive. How come that gets tolerated?

    Trolling comments like that.How come that gets tolerated?

    It's meant in jest, that's why.

    Whereas you pipe on about how you hate the Craig era in any thread you visit. There's a difference.

    Some great discussion in this thread recently. I basically agree with everything said about having too much "character exploration" can be unhealthy for the series.

    Yeah thats usually whats said when a troll is called out on insulting comments.

    Erm, no.

    @Thunderfinger is a well-respected member on this forum, and it is well known that he likes to poke fun at the Brosnan era from time to time. So don't resort to the troll card, because he is far from it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    it is well known that he likes to poke fun at the Brosnan era from time to time.
    I like him anyway.
    :P
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited March 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I like the SP trailer. A lot actually. Nothing so far worries me too much. I realise they're doing more background but this angle seems genuinely interesting. One of my issues with SF was that it didn't really do much with the basic premise of going back to Bonds childhood home. It could have been anywhere really.

    I am glad Dench is gone as well. Was really sick of her by SF. The characterisation of her M was all Over the place. Trust issues galore then suddenly it turns out Bonds her favourite - again and again in every movie. So tedious.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2015 Posts: 11,189
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Brosnan as Bond, now that is offensive. How come that gets tolerated?

    Trolling comments like that.How come that gets tolerated?

    It's meant in jest, that's why.

    Whereas you pipe on about how you hate the Craig era in any thread you visit. There's a difference.

    Some great discussion in this thread recently. I basically agree with everything said about having too much "character exploration" can be unhealthy for the series.

    Yeah thats usually whats said when a troll is called out on insulting comments.

    Erm, no.

    @Thunderfinger is a well-respected member on this forum, and it is well known that he likes to poke fun at the Brosnan era from time to time. So don't resort to the troll card, because he is far from it.

    Indeed. I do like @Thunderfinger a lot, but he is prone to the cheap shot towards the Brosnan era (a pet hate of his).
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    Getafix wrote: »
    I like the SP trailer. A lot actually. Nothing so far worries me too much. I realise they're doing more background but this angle seems genuinely interesting. One of my issues with SF was that it didn't really do much with the basic premise of going back to Bonds childhood home. It could have been anywhere really.

    I am glad Dench is gone as well. Was really sick of her by SF. The characterisation of her M was all Over the place. Trust issues galore then suddenly it turns out Bonds her favourite - again and again in every movie. So tedious.

    Indeed.SP will be the first Bond film in over 25 YEARS that is completely Dench free.Long overdue.

Sign In or Register to comment.