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
I didn't say that. The GF DB5, for me, taints the overall tone of the film. I didn't say undone, there are some awesome moments in SF, but what I have a problem with is certain creative decisions that were comparably less well measured than in CR. I'd have binned the DB5 off from the get go if it were up to me, but given that it does exist in both these films its executed much more comfortably and originally in CR. It's a slight bit of class and nowhere near as ham-fisted. I shuddered when I saw it in the trailer, yet again, but I give them Kudos for the whole Demtrious angle. That said, it's appearance is not something synonymous with that film. SF on the other hand used this car front and centre it's very much a key ingredient in the film and the fact they shunned any level of continuity just so Mendes could pretend he was nine again doesn't really wash with me.
The way I viewed (and still view) CR is that it was a perfectly balanced departure from what we'd been given for the bulk of the previous forty-four years. It was opening a door to a new, exciting chapter of the cinematic Bond. A lot of the icons had been washed away, while a select few remained, and had CR been a success (which turned out to be the case) I envisaged even more of those icons being either replaced or kept at bay, while they forged on with a new angle and a new take. While they have dipped their toes in the water, I just can't help but feel there's a combination of unwanted melodrama and a sense that we're lurching back towards establishing the iconography of old and I think SP will do similar things, particularly with SPECTRE returning.
I get why this gives everyone a warm, fuzzy feeling of nostalgia, I get excited for these things too, but I do wonder what could have been if they'd really gone out on a limb. If there was ever a time to do it, it was with DC, because we may not have an actor of this calibre for a long while.
This is a delicate discussion because people will jump down my neck with 'Mendes is king' yada yada, and I'm not denying his skill. I love parts of SF, this is just a wider viewpoint on the trajectory as a whole that we're witnessing in this era.
=D> Bravo, sir! Precisely what I have been trying to say. Mendes does so much with one film and remarkably doesn't fall at any hurdle (although he snags a few).
You make fair points. If the appearance of the DB5 was a thorn in your side, then it likely puts a damper on the film. That can happen. And I think you make a good case why (for you) it was an issue. For me, and others, it wasn't an issue--it was a nice nod to the past (in the franchise's 50th anniversary). But it's all subjective.
The Beach Boys "California Girls" PTS is one of those "thorny" instances for me. I like AVTAK otherwise, but that song in that PTS just ruins the overall impact of the film for me, and so I rank it mid-pack. Same with the Tarzan call in OP.
Let's just take the Ursula Andress homage as an example. What, in your mind, is the difference between this and LALD SF reference? Because to me they are both reference's to previous film and made for the same reason. 'Warm, fuzzy nostalgia' as you put it. You're right, I don't like relying on nostalgia either, but you have to be consistent. either they are BOTH fine, or they BOTH aren't.
I think both of you have brought this up before and I concur (to a point - I don't think anyone should have to, or should really aspire to including homages, birthday or not). I've applauded Mendes before for really trying to put as much as he could into one movie. I don't think he can be particularly criticised for that. I guess for me, on a truly subjective level, it's a bit like someone preparing me a five course meal with very complex dishes that combine many flavours. An interesting experience, with some moments of brilliance and some moments of madness. Where CR is a three course meal, with less ingredients, but all cooked to near perfection. Again, I'm sure for some people it's the other way around.
Wow, so not being able to realize Skyfall is a masterpiece is a "problem" really ? :)
I'm sorry, but what you describe as "double standard" is the basis of what art or entertainment is all about. If you can put your finger exactly where the difference is between what works and what does not work, then it means you've invented a formula that no one else understands. Yes, two actors can deliver the exact same line in the exact same scene, and one will make it work, and not the other. That's unfair, but that's the beauty of it.
Art or entertainement is not rocket science, you never really know why the rocket explodes or flies fine. Marketing is closer to something scientific (if you spend X% more dollars on TV ads, you'll have Y% more people aware, and Z% more people in the theater etc etc). That's why it's almost depressing to see so many people relying on Box-Office to "prove" the artistic merits of a movie, while it is more correlated to the marketing strategy, budget and efficiency. You make your opinion about the movie once you've seen it, not once you've bought your ticket before viewing it.
I think you can make a case that Skyfall isn't the best Bond film ever or as good as it was hyped up to be upon release, but I don't see how you could call it a bad film. It's too multidimensional.
I never called it a bad film, but it's not a masterpiece. In particular, with SF I see a director hammering "old ways are the best" on and on and on... I got it, thanks.
More generally, for me it's part of the Bond fog since TLD/LTK, with CR as the only lighthouse :)
doesn't really make sense.
Ok, If a bond film isn't written by Richard Maibaum and isn't based on Fleming material you don't like it.
Thank you!!!!!!
This explains the steering column dilemma.
It's just a big fat lazy continuity error.
Aston Martin is right. The two cars can't be the same in real life, but movies make mistakes, so thus in movie make-believe land, where Judy Dench's M also has her handbag disappear into thin air, during her meeting with Mallory, the two cars can be the same car, despite the bogus left-right steering column option.
Q Branch, digging out old blueprints and kitting out the car for Bond is easily explained.
I can sleep easy again.
As for continued appearances of the car, just file under crowd pleaser.
I think it's now a staple of the Craig era.
Personally, I'm disaffected
It's clearly now a running gag, which we shan't be asked to take seriously.
And yet the movie is still a poor mans version of one of the Bourne series with its stunt coordinator and editor at the wheel. Poor mans as some of the action-scenes were poorly executed and way too much CGI, in that aspect they could learn a trick or two of the first three Bourne movies. I found little solace in EONs' rendering a Bourne like movie, a quantum more of their quality might make up for a visual exciting movie. ;)
And calling somebody juvenile does not make you a grown up boy.
If I read his statements well enough he states that he finds that the script-writing has become less since that time, and considering how many people vilified P&W over the years on these forums I would say that there is a general consensus on that opinion.
And yes while SF had its moments it is a very poorly written script overall.
Could you elaborate on the poorly written nature of the script please? I am interested to know in what you think it is poorly written.
I didn't call you juvenile, I called your childish title juvenile. And being twenty-one, I am for all intents and purposes a "grown up boy." Regardless, I'm not going to lose sleep over people that haven't uncovered the depth and greatness I and so many others find in QoS. It faced great production challenges yet came out as better than a hefty majority of the other films that had twice it's resources, and it's provided me many great hours of introspection on both the character of Bond and myself; for that I am very much grateful. I'm sorry that some people have missed out on that enlightening experience.
Nope, it turns out it's the other way, if I look at those I like, I find that they share this common point : if the story was not by Fleming, it was by Maibaum. And CR wasn't written by Maibaum.
Funny how most SF fans here want to depict other people as simplistic people (who, I guess, simply didn't get all the complexity of SF's genius ;) ).
Yeah that's what us Skyfall think, that you sit at home watching Brosnan in adult bibs, I see no evidence that their are two factions Skyfall lover V Skyfall haters. You can't summarise all fans of Skyfall as the same. Thats like saying all Austrian people are evil because Hitler was.
That's not to say it's perfect mind you....not by a long shot. The film does have script holes. Either they will be plugged by SP (which appears to refer to past films from the trailer) or we will continue to be left to our imagination to ponder Silva's foresight & clairvoyance.
Regarding the DB5, as I said earlier, I don't give it much thought. We've had to make up a reason for why it keeps appearing since GE. If we're really going to blame someone, it should be Martin Campbell, because he reinserted it (with 'Q' lab style custom wine cooler no less!) in that film. It had not been on screen since TB up to that point. Then he went out of his way to introduce it again in the rebooted CR (totally unnecessary in my opinion since it had already been perfectly introduced memorably in GF) to once again get a rise out of us. So much as I like the two Bond movies he's directed, if we're assigning blame for the recent unwelcome (at least among some on this board including myself I might add - although I don't get so worked up about it) reappearances, it should be both Campbell & Mendes, but Campbell started it. As long as people keep clapping and cheering when it shows up, I'm afraid this won't be the last we see of it.
Could'nt have put that better myself.
Perhaps I (and others) were not clear about the specific reasons for the objection to the DB5 in SF – I do not have a problem with the fact that a DB5, or any other MODEL of Aston Martin appears in any Bond film. Storywise, for all we know, it could simply be that Bond likes it so much that he privately coughed up enough £££ for a pristine 2nd hand DB5. This would work fine for GE, TND and CR (where he won it).
The problem I have with SF is that it broke the barrier of suspension of disbelief by having the DB5 with the GOLDFINGER gadgets. That is the crux of the argument.
It is this particular form of tasteless fanboy inclusion that I find insults my intelligence as a viewer.
Which is part of the problem :>
Certainly, and it's the reason I have a far harder time enjoying cinema now compared to my youth - but I still want a minimum of suspension of disbelief. 'Heightened reality' as they say in film speak.
Taking too many liberties with the 'established reality' (ie. the parameters of reality that have set up the rules within the fantasy realm of a particular film) will pull any viewer with a smidgeon of judgement right out of the moment.
And I was dragged, kicking and screaming, right out of SF the moment those blasted machine guns extended...