› ›

Is Skyfall losing its gloss and appeal ?

12357…59

Comments

  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    edited March 2014 Posts: 3,566
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    I tell you something. You should - for once in your life - try your sense of romanticism with woman (preferable of the non inflatable kind).You might be in for some surprise.

    I'll tell YOU something: you should for once in your life try to act like an adult.

    Moderators: enough? Please???
  • Matt_HelmMatt_Helm
    Posts: 908
    chrisisall wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    You should - for once in your life - try your sense of romanticism with woman
    Romanticism
    the reflection, in art, of a late 18th-century literary and philosophical movement in reaction against the intellectuality and rationality of Neo-Classicism. It produced no single artistic style or characteristic but strongly influenced the ideals of imagination, emotion, and the freedom of expression in other media.

    You don't expect me to consider just one of those words of this definition when it comes to Bond movies,do you? There might be an argument or two to be made for it,when it comes to Flemings Novels especially the "intellectuality/rationalism" aspect, but the films ...? Sorry! Ironically if there was one, that would qualify for such a discussion it would be QoS with its use of the editing to show how disturbed Bond feels in the aftermath of CR.
  • Matt_HelmMatt_Helm
    Posts: 908
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    yet still we get utterly ridiculous scenes, played for our Bond amusement, whereby the Aston Martin is suddenly tricked out again circa 1964. The film is very uneven in terms of its tone and mood.

    While I wouldn't say the tone and mood are consistently uneven, I too, was at odds with little touches such as the Aston. It seemed exceptionally lazy to me. I can enjoy the moment on its own, but contextually it's a really very odd moment.


    I'm also one of the band who are less than enamoured with the logistics of the plot, but I feel like its forgiveable if you focus on the human story at the heart of the film. As I've said in a previous thread, somewhere, its a work of romanticism rather than classicism and on that level it works. Personally I'd prefer there to be an internal logic, but I'd rather have what was delivered than a logistically watertight plot with no heart.

    That's an astute observation and well stated. To my mind, all Bond is romanticism, or, to put a finer point on it, aesthetic romanticism. This, not tidy, airtight plots, is what cinematic Bond is all about. If you're hankering after the latter instead of the former, I really have to question why you'd bother wasting your time with Bond films to begin with.

    So why you don't tell me about your favorite romantic moment in SF? Was it Bond drilling the girl against the wall of the beach hut or trying to grab at Eves tits when she was just about 2 minutes in his hotel room. Maybe when he was shagging the former child prostitute to which he promised he would protect her, just to complain about the waste of good scotch,when she got killed? I'm really curious which of them came closest to your standards of "aesthetic romanticism".

    What a silly little twit you are. And you've sexual hangups to boot. Perhaps you'd better find another shrink because the one the British tax payers are currently paying clearly isn't cutting the mustard.

    As for the aesthetic romanticism in SF, it's plain as eggs. It's frequently lauded as the most beautiful Bond film ever made, in large part because of Deakins' work, and I tend to agree with the assessment. But it's not just the gorgeous shots in the Floating Dragon, the mesmerizing fight in the Shanghai skyscraper, the devastatingly pulchritudinous Berenice Marlohe, Bond looking his toughest in the chauffeur rig, the panoramic shots of the Chimera sailing to Hashima, and the windswept beauty of wild Scotland. There is also Adele's powerful title track, Newman's "Shanghai Drive," and the superb deployment of Boum and Boom, Boom.

    You tend to miss such things when you've got your ugly snout buried in the loam, rooting about for spent shell casings.

    @beatleswithoutearmuffs:
    So I guess I am expected to stand idly by while he is practicing his unique blend of insulting and pseudo intellectual masturbating in my direction?
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    RC7 wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    You should - for once in your life - try your sense of romanticism with woman
    Romanticism
    the reflection, in art, of a late 18th-century literary and philosophical movement in reaction against the intellectuality and rationality of Neo-Classicism. It produced no single artistic style or characteristic but strongly influenced the ideals of imagination, emotion, and the freedom of expression in other media.

    Thank you, mate. It's like dealing with a pre-schooler.

    You do him far too much credit.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Play nice, boys.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Yes, Fleming says: Be good. No need to fight, you are both here for the same reason. You are not enemies.
  • forgotmyusernameforgotmyusername
    Posts: 2,782
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited March 2014 Posts: 17,803
    @forgotmyusername, that guy wasn't too funny, this dude is


    But he goes on and on
  • dramaticscenesofQOSdramaticscenesofQOS
    Posts: 1,282
    There's a lot of things I like in SF.

    Thankfully John Logan caught on to the need to express Bond's inner emotions. He even said Bond 24 will use more Fleming.
  • timmertimmer
    edited March 2014 Posts: 4,622
    RC7 wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    yet still we get utterly ridiculous scenes, played for our Bond amusement, whereby the Aston Martin is suddenly tricked out again circa 1964. The film is very uneven in terms of its tone and mood.

    While I wouldn't say the tone and mood are consistently uneven, I too, was at odds with little touches such as the Aston. It seemed exceptionally lazy to me. I can enjoy the moment on its own, but contextually it's a really very odd moment.

    I'm also one of the band who are less than enamoured with the logistics of the plot, but I feel like its forgiveable if you focus on the human story at the heart of the film. As I've said in a previous thread, somewhere, its a work of romanticism rather than classicism and on that level it works. Personally I'd prefer there to be an internal logic, but I'd rather have what was delivered than a logistically watertight plot with no heart.
    Sure the movie works reasonably well. Its a good solid piece of entertainment, but I think the film is better than than the sum of its parts.
    It's parts can be picked apart. I've got my quibbles. You've got yours. There is a lot to quibble with in this film IMO, but in a broader sense, the movie as a whole works.
    In fact some of it works very well, but I do find it a generally uneven presentation, even if it works on a broader scale, but it really honstly and truly is not what I want from a Bond film.
    I would prefer the filmmakers not be so self conscious.
    I like the video critique that @chrisisall posted. The guy rambles but he hits on a lot of the problems with the film, as well as some that IMO don't matter.
    @perilagukhan likes the sweeping romanticism elements. He's mentioned in other posts, also liking some of the thematic stuff that's happening. I can relate to these things too. These elements do work.
    I have made my piece with SF. Not really my cuppa Bond entertainment, but I'll digest it for what it is.
    In the meantime, all of the first 14 films continue to blow me away, even some of the lamer Rog entries.
    That's what I love most about Bond; the suave deadly double-0, unselfconsciously on mission, stoically navigating the escapist danger-filled fantasy world that he inhabits.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I love the Roger entries. They are my favourites. I grew up on them and there isn't a single one I think is less than brilliant. Reading between the lines I think we both enjoy the escapist nature of those entries. That said, I cannot fault the current trajectory. I have issues, they are plentiful, but I feel like we are being delivered some quality slices of film and I am keen to see what facets they explore in the future.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited March 2014 Posts: 4,619
    I think anyone who who knows anything about cinema can recognize that Skyfall is clearly one of the best Bond films ever made. It's ridiculous how much better it is than some of the older Bond films. Comparing SF to movies like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, TND, TWINE or DAD is like comparing Citizen Kane to Plan 9 from Outer Space. You can say that you liked some of those sillier Bond movies more but you can't say that they are better than SF.

    The level of acting, the cinematography and the directing is something we never really witnessed in a Bond film before - not even in the case of FRWL, GF and CR. The only thing that I think can be better next time is the script. I think the screenplay wasn't as good as the screenplay of CR for example.

    If you had the screenplay of CR adapted to the screen by the creative team of SF you would pretty much get the ultimate-perfect-dream Bond film.
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2014 Posts: 10,512
    PanchitoPistoles wrote:
    If you had the screenplay of CR adapted to the screen by the creative team of SF you would pretty much get the ultimate-perfect-dream Bond film.

    I would disagree. CR is a no-nonsense, balls to the wall, slam dunk. It benefits from the fact it was directed by a man who had no real interest in creating an auteur Bond film, rather a good Bond film, period.

  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Skyfall hasn't lost any of it's grandeur or appeal since it's release some sixteen months ago now. It's still the same extravanganza it was then. I think some people fail to recognize it in the same light because there's so much damn attention to the next release, that is so far away from even getting underway. I simply see it as it was at the time of release, one of the better Bond titles of recent years and they did a fine job for the half century celebrations. I think Fleming would of been proud with what they eventually put together
  • XXXXXX Banned
    Posts: 132
    Not in my opinion no, just as good as ever
  • dramaticscenesofQOSdramaticscenesofQOS
    Posts: 1,282
    RC7 wrote:
    PanchitoPistoles wrote:
    If you had the screenplay of CR adapted to the screen by the creative team of SF you would pretty much get the ultimate-perfect-dream Bond film.

    I would disagree. CR is a no-nonsense, balls to the wall, slam dunk. It benefits from the fact it was directed by a man who had no real interest in creating an auteur Bond film, rather a good Bond film, period.

    CR was original while true to most of an Ian Fleming derived source, the most done since OHMSS.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    dramaticscenesofQOS wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    PanchitoPistoles wrote:
    If you had the screenplay of CR adapted to the screen by the creative team of SF you would pretty much get the ultimate-perfect-dream Bond film.

    I would disagree. CR is a no-nonsense, balls to the wall, slam dunk. It benefits from the fact it was directed by a man who had no real interest in creating an auteur Bond film, rather a good Bond film, period.

    CR was original while true to most of an Ian Fleming derived source, the most done since OHMSS.

    Untrue since FYEO, imho when talking about Fleming sourced material.

  • dramaticscenesofQOSdramaticscenesofQOS
    Posts: 1,282
    I stand corrected.
    SaintMark wrote:
    dramaticscenesofQOS wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    PanchitoPistoles wrote:
    If you had the screenplay of CR adapted to the screen by the creative team of SF you would pretty much get the ultimate-perfect-dream Bond film.

    I would disagree. CR is a no-nonsense, balls to the wall, slam dunk. It benefits from the fact it was directed by a man who had no real interest in creating an auteur Bond film, rather a good Bond film, period.

    CR was original while true to most of an Ian Fleming derived source, the most done since OHMSS.

    Untrue since FYEO, imho when talking about Fleming sourced material.

  • XXXXXX Banned
    Posts: 132
    Casino royale is perfection you, are not a real fan otherwise.
  • Matt_HelmMatt_Helm
    Posts: 908
    dramaticscenesofQOS wrote:
    There's a lot of things I like in SF.

    Thankfully John Logan caught on to the need to express Bond's inner emotions. He even said Bond 24 will use more Fleming.

    More?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 2014 Posts: 18,281
    No, I don't think that Skyfall is losing its gloss and appeal, though I've not over-watched it for that very reasons.
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    PanchitoPistoles wrote:
    I think anyone who who knows anything about cinema can recognize that Skyfall is clearly one of the best Bond films ever made. It's ridiculous how much better it is than some of the older Bond films. Comparing SF to movies like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, TND, TWINE or DAD is like comparing Citizen Kane to Plan 9 from Outer Space. You can say that you liked some of those sillier Bond movies more but you can't say that they are better than SF.

    The level of acting, the cinematography and the directing is something we never really witnessed in a Bond film before - not even in the case of FRWL, GF and CR. The only thing that I think can be better next time is the script. I think the screenplay wasn't as good as the screenplay of CR for example.

    If you had the screenplay of CR adapted to the screen by the creative team of SF you would pretty much get the ultimate-perfect-dream Bond film.

    I can go along with much of this, but CR's contrived dialogue (Bond meets Vesper on the train), and godawfully treacly interchange (many of the scenes centered upon Bond's convalescence) render its screenplay inferior to SF's, in my opinion. I'd rather have a few shaky plot lines than dialogue which prompts the gag reflex.

  • NapoleonPluralNapoleonPlural
    Posts: 512
    It's polishing a turd though, imo, if you can't go along with the plot imo. Films like FRWL and GF didn't really need some sort of Hitchcock/Lean direction because they worked anyway. I find it a bit like OHMSS, with its visual splendour and exciting action - but for me it doesn't work for other reasons that just can't be got around: the lack of chemistry between the two stars, and Lazenby in particular.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    PanchitoPistoles wrote:
    I think anyone who who knows anything about cinema can recognize that Skyfall is clearly one of the best Bond films ever made. It's ridiculous how much better it is than some of the older Bond films. Comparing SF to movies like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, TND, TWINE or DAD is like comparing Citizen Kane to Plan 9 from Outer Space. You can say that you liked some of those sillier Bond movies more but you can't say that they are better than SF.

    So if somebody disagrees with you they know nothing about cinema, an argument that is similar to not being a Bondfan if not agreed with any opinion given.
    SF is an average 007 movie that looks nice but is not the better than a lot of older Bondmovies. MR is visualy brilliant and stands up as such easily to the likes of SF and easily has a better soundtrack and as for baddies they are both about as unrealistic as they get. Only Drax has coller lines. ;)
    And Citizen Kane is in my humble opinion overrated as a movie, but among the so-called elite it is a must.
    PanchitoPistoles wrote:
    The level of acting, the cinematography and the directing is something we never really witnessed in a Bond film before - not even in the case of FRWL, GF and CR. The only thing that I think can be better next time is the script. I think the screenplay wasn't as good as the screenplay of CR for example.

    Cinematography I would go for OHMSS or MR, directing I would pick Terrence Young, you know the man who came up with a concept unlike Mendes who tries to build on roads travelled before and does little original. With Forster & Mendes EON tries to travel new roads which is fine as long as they deliver a decent enough thriller. SF is too busy with navelstaring for my taste.
    PanchitoPistoles wrote:
    If you had the screenplay of CR adapted to the screen by the creative team of SF you would pretty much get the ultimate-perfect-dream Bond film.

    Only if they had dropped the sinking house malarky and dared to skip the actionscene at the end with Vesper dying after having betrayed 007, and Bond showing up at White's at the end.
    I do believe that there are great perfect Bondfilms in the franchise, even if none are without their faults. Every era has got his.
    Craig imho has not done better than CR so far, and like Brosnan he is waiting for the swansong. If his next is better thanb CR I would take a runner if I were DC.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited March 2014 Posts: 17,803
    PanchitoPistoles wrote:
    I think anyone who who knows anything about cinema can recognize that Skyfall is clearly one of the best Bond films ever made. It's ridiculous how much better it is than some of the older Bond films.
    Oboy. Okay, I've made movies, studied film in school, and even been the college newspaper's film critic, and this statement reeks of someone who's never written a complete script nor made a movie himself. Skyfall is a GOOD Bond movie that has the great fortune to be better photographed & edited than most, with lots of bits of excellent dialogue throughout a paper-thin plot.
    Put yer pistoles away, Panchito, this ain't the best. :))
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited March 2014 Posts: 17,803
    What is it with the double posts???
  • NapoleonPluralNapoleonPlural
    Posts: 512
    I sort of agree in some ways that the modern look, scope and cinematography of SF is way better than stuff like GF or TB or many really that look like they have been filmed on the Pinewood backlot a bit too much for modern eyes. But you could say the same about MR in relation to those early films, compare the pts of MR with a similar airplane scene in YOLT with Karin Dor, where the plane is plummetting over the Kent countryside even though it is meant to be Japan. MR is the classier looking movie and I happen to like it, but it doesn't therefore mean that it is better than the early Connery films.
  • dramaticscenesofQOSdramaticscenesofQOS
    Posts: 1,282
    NapoleonPlural wrote:
    It's polishing a turd though, imo, if you can't go along with the plot imo. Films like FRWL and GF didn't really need some sort of Hitchcock/Lean direction because they worked anyway. I find it a bit like OHMSS, with its visual splendour and exciting action - but for me it doesn't work for other reasons that just can't be got around: the lack of chemistry between the two stars, and Lazenby in particular.

    That would actually be quite interesting. Give the audience fear and suspense when watching a Bond film rather thab predictability or unnatural humor. Craig would certainly fill this role well given his drama background. It's suitable for a Bond actor reaching his 50's without the need for too much stunt work.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    Movies are often like love affairs; They begin with infatuation; it's a time of intoxicating excitement. As time passes a period of disillusion sets in; one sees the imperfections and shortcomings. Then, over time, if it really is a good film, a deeper appreciation sets in that accepts what's not perfect while focusing on the strengths.

    I went through this with Skyfall and it is in my top 10: but not my true love; that honor still goes to Casino Royale.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    NapoleonPlural wrote:
    I sort of agree in some ways that the modern look, scope and cinematography of SF is way better than stuff like GF or TB or many really that look like they have been filmed on the Pinewood backlot a bit too much for modern eyes. But you could say the same about MR in relation to those early films, compare the pts of MR with a similar airplane scene in YOLT with Karin Dor, where the plane is plummetting over the Kent countryside even though it is meant to be Japan. MR is the classier looking movie and I happen to like it, but it doesn't therefore mean that it is better than the early Connery films.
    Great point @NapoleonPlural. One must have the proper perspective when comparing the modern films to their predecessors. With that said, some of the shots from the 60's films still look amazing to this day.
Sign In or Register to comment.