"Did i overcomplicate the plot ?" - Skyfall Appreciation & Discussion

1192022242543

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    I remember people being outraged when LOTR The Two Towers was released in 2002. Even after Peter Jackson explained it was based on the second part of a novel released decades earlier, people still took it to be some kind of reference to 9/11.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I remember people being outraged when LOTR The Two Towers was released in 2002. Even after Peter Jackson explained it was based on the second part of a novel released decades earlier, people still took it to be some kind of reference to 9/11.

    People will say/do stupid stuff like that. Good example, @Mendes4Lyfe, didn't know about it (I'm not a LOTR guy, though).

    I remember when The Dark Knight Rises was coming out in mid-2012, right on the lead up to the election in America, fools like Rush Limbaugh were saying that Christopher Nolan created the villain Bane and put him in the film to slander Mitt Romney, who was a past affiliate of Bain Capital, to further the liberal agenda. It was lost on Rush that Bane/Bain were completely different spellings, that the character of Bane was nearly twenty years old at the time instead of being created for that film, and that Nolan didn't really give a piss about politics.

    Always sad to see evolution take so many steps back.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    Was just watching Skyfall and was struck by this image:

    https://s29.postimg.org/a2i6hir4n/vlcsnap-00090.png

    It's like a painting... Beautiful stuff. With that lighting, it almost looks like Bond and Severine are standing in front of back screen projection.
  • Posts: 11,425
    This is a decent scene in a film I don't much care for. I think the film actually peaks round about here actually. After that it's pretty much downhill all the way.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I agree with the image comments,not with the film comments.
  • Posts: 7,653
    SF is a movie in which the 007 part is totally redundant M gets targeted and dies and nothing what 007 does alters that fact. He could have stayed dead the outcome would be same.
    A badly scripted movie that looked beautiful but lacked anything interesting. A warning of what was too come in the next Mendes movie of the franchise. What a glorious waste of a promise made with CR with the actor Daniel Craig.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    SF is one of those films you can pause at any moment and be looking at a wonderful desktop background. The entire film is beautiful to look at.
  • Posts: 4,617
    SaintMark wrote: »
    SF is a movie in which the 007 part is totally redundant M gets targeted and dies and nothing what 007 does alters that fact. He could have stayed dead the outcome would be same.
    A badly scripted movie that looked beautiful but lacked anything interesting. A warning of what was too come in the next Mendes movie of the franchise. What a glorious waste of a promise made with CR with the actor Daniel Craig.

    That's some appreciation, there
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,811
    SKYFALL simply uses a larger version of the sacrificial lamb element of the established film formula.

    It's good the filmmakers stepped up to the plate, it served the film to show a higher than usual price paid (this time by folks at the home office) for stopping the bad guys. A controlled exit of Dench M from the franchise was a smart idea and they did it well.

    And there's no doubt to me that Bond is successful at film's end. No reservations.
  • Posts: 11,425
    SaintMark wrote: »
    SF is a movie in which the 007 part is totally redundant M gets targeted and dies and nothing what 007 does alters that fact. He could have stayed dead the outcome would be same.
    A badly scripted movie that looked beautiful but lacked anything interesting. A warning of what was too come in the next Mendes movie of the franchise. What a glorious waste of a promise made with CR with the actor Daniel Craig.

    I agree although I personally prefer SP.

    But taken together SF and SP definitley represent a squandering of the potential of the Craig era. I was saying that when SF came out.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    When talking about Skyfall I keep thinking about one totally different movie: To Catch A Thief. The reason is that my all-time-favourite movie is Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window" - a movie with substance, subtext, great direction and so on. It's a perfect movie about movies, IMHO. Right after this follows mentioned "To Catch A Thief" - a lightweight burglar romantic comedy in some ways but I still love it even without the substance of other Hitchock classics like "Vertigo" for example.

    Same here: Skyfall does not have the substance of "Casino Royale" - but it looks just awesome and (most important) it "feels" good. At least for me. I really don't mind any plotholes or such - I just like the acting, the images .. all of it (maybe I would have wished for a better soundtrack - with rare exceptions like "Shanghai Drive" it's just boring).

    Skyfall is highly rewatchable for me even it's not "Casino Royale" quality or does not have the energy level of "Quantum Of Solace".
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I wouldn't say SF doesn't have a lot of substance. Out of all the Bond films, it's one of the ones that has the most to say, where every scene is packed with some underlying subtext or imagery. CR is well compiled and structured, but the work with theme and motif isn't on SF's level, and that's why I think they make interesting movies to compare, in that they succeed highly in two different methods of filmmaking. Both are focused on being entertaining and engaging films, but SF has those extra little notes of flavor that are really big meat for guys like me who love to analyze films, their recurring images and all the messages inside.
  • RareJamesBondFanRareJamesBondFan Touch it. You can touch it if you want.
    Posts: 132
    SF has those extra little notes of flavor that are really big meat for guys like me who love to analyze films, their recurring images and all the messages inside.

    so say's the guy who had to have Olga Kurylenko's fear of fire in QOS explained to him

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @RareJamesBondFan, what the hell is your problem? I missed one detail in a film and that makes me an idiot or something?
  • RareJamesBondFanRareJamesBondFan Touch it. You can touch it if you want.
    Posts: 132
    youre not an idiot, that olga burning one is just super obvious.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    youre not an idiot, that olga burning one is just super obvious.

    To you, maybe. The story about her parents never registered with me, so I didn't readily connect the fear she had in the hotel to a past memory. I hadn't seen the film in quite a long time at that point as well, so my memory of it wasn't as up to shape as it could've been, and I still haven't revisited in a long while.

    We watch these films and see different things, or feel certain things about them more strongly. I could point out things in the films you've never thought of, and that's okay, because it's all down to personal perspective and what engages us. There's no reason to be a pissant about it to someone, however.
  • RareJamesBondFanRareJamesBondFan Touch it. You can touch it if you want.
    Posts: 132
    @double0brady0matic You probably couldnt point at things i don't think about cuz i don't think very much. pissant....that's a new one. Personally I prefer currants and croissants myself.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @RareJamesBondFan, I just found it strange how triggered you got by one comment to go on a mini rant at me that came from a very strange place. Like I said something to you in the past you didn't like and you were using any random moment in the future to get me back.

    Let's try to get this thread back on track, on to the topic it was meant for.
  • RareJamesBondFanRareJamesBondFan Touch it. You can touch it if you want.
    Posts: 132
    @RareJamsBondFan is #TRIGGERED

    do you like SkyFall @double0brady0matic?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @RareJamsBondFan is #TRIGGERED

    do you like SkyFall @double0brady0matic?

    Of course.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    While I dont rate skyfall highly, I do agree that the themes of old and new are done well and that's what holds the film together, not that poor excuse of a plot. And thats what's elevates it for me over Spectre
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 4,617
    I think one has to see the difference between plot and themes. The plot in SF is not the best but no worse than many other efforts. For me, what makes SF unique is that there are "grown up" adult themes that run through the movie and this promotes it to the level of more than an action film and more than many of others in the series. Its really ambitious and IMHO , it pulls it off.
    There are similar thrillers.
    For example, if you look at "The American", the plot is simple and paper thin. But the "character arc", the photography, the themes etc make it a cult classic.
    I could list some many respected classic movies that have a poor or very simple plot (including holes) but there is enough going on to make them better films and they rise above the plot.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I agree, @patb. I wouldn't call the SF plot poor, it's just very straightforward. It foregoes any major twists, secret traitors, big take over the world schemes and all the rest to tell a simple, personal story. There is a lot going on, however, and that's its strength. I watch films for the characters, and in that capacity SF deserves the praise.

    I'm also happy to hear there's another fan of The American out there. Super underrated and overlooked spy film, there.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    I read some of these comments and wonder whether Bond is the right series for you guys. When themes become more important than plot and lacklustre writing and abysmal action directing is papered over using lame character development and cod psychology it just doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned.

    Some may be satisfied by ropey TV drama tricksyness but when the films just stop being entertaining that's a bad sign IMO. Theme or no theme.

    If you want art house cinema there's way better movies out there. Bond should primarily be entertaining.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I had commented elsewhere a few days back that this new peel back continuity and theme based approach runs the risk of dating the series and perhaps reducing its long run viability. I stand by that assessment.

    It hasn't happened yet, but it could if they keep deviating from the mission centric formula. No actor and no one film should take precedence over the series. That's why it's survived so long in my view - because it adheres to a template. I'm not saying it should descend into predictable pastiche like it did in the 90's - just that it has to stay within certain boundaries, and Bond should remain an enigmatic character.

    I think the art house style will be gone once Craig hangs up the holster. The eras tend to follow the actor's style. They've had more leeway with him because he is the 'reboot Bond'.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote: »
    I read some of these comments and wonder whether Bond is the right series for you guys. When themes become more important than plot and lacklustre writing and abysmal action directing is papered over using lame character development and cod psychology it just doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned.

    Some may be satisfied by ropey TV drama tricksyness but when the films just stop being entertaining that's a bad sign IMO. Theme or no theme.

    If you want art house cinema there's way better movies out there. Bond should primarily be entertaining.

    I don't find any of the above elements weak, so the audience for these films fits my own preferences. I don't think Bond films having smart construction makes them something they shouldn't be, however. The 60s films were quite clever, deep and cunning in their use of motif and theme too, while also being popcorn flicks for those that only wanted them for that. It's only because of the artistry of those films that we have what we do now, after all. Most of those scripts played logic olympics with viewers, but their scope and cinematic nature really make up for it and created an escapist world where reality could be pushed out at times. If we rated the scripts for GF, TB, YOLT and OHMSS as we do SF, for example, they'd apparently all be shit. That just doesn't make sense to me.

    It's never a bad thing in my view for a Bond film to have things to say or to present interesting messages or ideas while telling its story through the characters. I would welcome it over a more dimensionless film that offers little beyond two hours of lost time, and when the characters are put in the forefront as they always should be, I can't complain.

    I don't watch these films for the schemes, I watch them for Bond, and when he's as compelling as Craig's is I'm a happy camper and more invested than I would be if I was watching a film that was great at everything but presenting an interesting Bond. Much in the same way I don't read the Sherlock Holmes books for the mysteries, the Bond films have far more to offer through character than anything else in my view.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Getafix wrote: »
    I read some of these comments and wonder whether Bond is the right series for you guys. When themes become more important than plot and lacklustre writing and abysmal action directing is papered over using lame character development and cod psychology it just doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned.

    Some may be satisfied by ropey TV drama tricksyness but when the films just stop being entertaining that's a bad sign IMO. Theme or no theme.

    If you want art house cinema there's way better movies out there. Bond should primarily be entertaining.

    I don't find any of the above elements weak, so the audience for these films fits my own preferences. I don't think Bond films having smart construction makes them something they shouldn't be, however. The 60s films were quite clever, deep and cunning in their use of motif and theme too, while also being popcorn flicks for those that only wanted them for that. It's only because of the artistry of those films that we have what we do now, after all. Most of those scripts played logic olympics with viewers, but their scope and cinematic nature really make up for it and created an escapist world where reality could be pushed out at times. If we rated the scripts for GF, TB, YOLT and OHMSS as we do SF, for example, they'd apparently all be shit. That just doesn't make sense to me.

    It's never a bad thing in my view for a Bond film to have things to say or to present interesting messages or ideas while telling its story through the characters. I would welcome it over a more dimensionless film that offers little beyond two hours of lost time, and when the characters are put in the forefront as they always should be, I can't complain.

    I don't watch these films for the schemes, I watch them for Bond, and when he's as compelling as Craig's is I'm a happy camper and more invested than I would be if I was watching a film that was great at everything but presenting an interesting Bond. Much in the same way I don't read the Sherlock Holmes books for the mysteries, the Bond films have far more to offer through character than anything else in my view.

    Well, just as @Getafix suggested maybe it's not the right franchise for you. Neither literary nor cinematic Bond were ever meant to be multi layered character drama much less melodrama.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote: »
    I read some of these comments and wonder whether Bond is the right series for you guys. When themes become more important than plot and lacklustre writing and abysmal action directing is papered over using lame character development and cod psychology it just doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned.

    Some may be satisfied by ropey TV drama tricksyness but when the films just stop being entertaining that's a bad sign IMO. Theme or no theme.

    If you want art house cinema there's way better movies out there. Bond should primarily be entertaining.

    I don't find any of the above elements weak, so the audience for these films fits my own preferences. I don't think Bond films having smart construction makes them something they shouldn't be, however. The 60s films were quite clever, deep and cunning in their use of motif and theme too, while also being popcorn flicks for those that only wanted them for that. It's only because of the artistry of those films that we have what we do now, after all. Most of those scripts played logic olympics with viewers, but their scope and cinematic nature really make up for it and created an escapist world where reality could be pushed out at times. If we rated the scripts for GF, TB, YOLT and OHMSS as we do SF, for example, they'd apparently all be shit. That just doesn't make sense to me.

    It's never a bad thing in my view for a Bond film to have things to say or to present interesting messages or ideas while telling its story through the characters. I would welcome it over a more dimensionless film that offers little beyond two hours of lost time, and when the characters are put in the forefront as they always should be, I can't complain.

    I don't watch these films for the schemes, I watch them for Bond, and when he's as compelling as Craig's is I'm a happy camper and more invested than I would be if I was watching a film that was great at everything but presenting an interesting Bond. Much in the same way I don't read the Sherlock Holmes books for the mysteries, the Bond films have far more to offer through character than anything else in my view.

    Well, just as @Getafix suggested maybe it's not the right franchise for you. Neither literary nor cinematic Bond were ever meant to be multi layered character drama much less melodrama.

    @noSolaceleft, what are you on about? Part of the reason why I enjoy the 60s films and the Craig era more than the rest is because they have the elements of the above that interest me. Fascinating and dimensional characters being developed through conflict, plots that mesh reality with high fantasy, and strong use of theme and motif where the camerawork and script meet to comment on each other. In short, smart films.

    I think in this way the Bond films do more and service more than many give them credit for. They're not pretensions or too below to be smart or cunningly assembled, and I think that in the original books and the early films there's a surprising amount of depth and art to them, from the stunts to the performances and the writing that gave those performances a source.

    If this series wasn't the right franchise for me, I wouldn't be here, now would I?
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 4,617
    "I read some of these comments and wonder whether Bond is the right series for you guys. When themes become more important than plot and lacklustre writing and abysmal action directing is papered over using lame character development and cod psychology it just doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned."

    The fact that SF did so well re box office and critical acclaim raises question re the above statement. So all the people who loved SF - is Bond the right series for them? There is no obligation to stick to a formula that "Bond purists" regard as somehow legitimate when a movie that performs so well by pushing the boundaries re character and depth does so well.

    Plus, character arc is something that is not exclusive to art house movies. Die Hard (the ultimate action movie) had character depth lacking in many of the Bond movies. You can have both and many successful action movies have proved this.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Getafix wrote: »
    I read some of these comments and wonder whether Bond is the right series for you guys. When themes become more important than plot and lacklustre writing and abysmal action directing is papered over using lame character development and cod psychology it just doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned.

    Some may be satisfied by ropey TV drama tricksyness but when the films just stop being entertaining that's a bad sign IMO. Theme or no theme.

    If you want art house cinema there's way better movies out there. Bond should primarily be entertaining.

    I don't find any of the above elements weak, so the audience for these films fits my own preferences. I don't think Bond films having smart construction makes them something they shouldn't be, however. The 60s films were quite clever, deep and cunning in their use of motif and theme too, while also being popcorn flicks for those that only wanted them for that. It's only because of the artistry of those films that we have what we do now, after all. Most of those scripts played logic olympics with viewers, but their scope and cinematic nature really make up for it and created an escapist world where reality could be pushed out at times. If we rated the scripts for GF, TB, YOLT and OHMSS as we do SF, for example, they'd apparently all be shit. That just doesn't make sense to me.

    It's never a bad thing in my view for a Bond film to have things to say or to present interesting messages or ideas while telling its story through the characters. I would welcome it over a more dimensionless film that offers little beyond two hours of lost time, and when the characters are put in the forefront as they always should be, I can't complain.

    I don't watch these films for the schemes, I watch them for Bond, and when he's as compelling as Craig's is I'm a happy camper and more invested than I would be if I was watching a film that was great at everything but presenting an interesting Bond. Much in the same way I don't read the Sherlock Holmes books for the mysteries, the Bond films have far more to offer through character than anything else in my view.

    Well, just as @Getafix suggested maybe it's not the right franchise for you. Neither literary nor cinematic Bond were ever meant to be multi layered character drama much less melodrama.

    @noSolaceleft, what are you on about? Part of the reason why I enjoy the 60s films and the Craig era more than the rest is because they have the elements of the above that interest me. Fascinating and dimensional characters being developed through conflict, plots that mesh reality with high fantasy, and strong use of theme and motif where the camerawork and script meet to comment on each other. In short, smart films.

    I think in this way the Bond films do more and service more than many give them credit for. They're not pretensions or too below to be smart or cunningly assembled, and I think that in the original books and the early films there's a surprising amount of depth and art to them, from the stunts to the performances and the writing that gave those performances a source.

    If this series wasn't the right franchise for me, I wouldn't be here, now would I?

    What am I on about? Well those 60's films you mention managed to tell tales of espionage and adventure, while looking colorful and exotic, while inserting plenty of witty and dark humored one liners and having a hero who was ruthless when he needed to, but was nevertheless a man of honor and his word. And most of al,l a man who had joie de vivre .
    SF manages - apart from looking quite beautiful - none of that. SP doesn't even manage to do that.
    You very often like to wax about this multi layered approach of the last two movies. I don't buy that at all! Mendes neither hasn't got the talent nor the ability for such sophisticated interweaving even if his life depended on it. No one, who needs to refer to such of plump and heavy-handed approach when bringing the "the old ways are better than the new ones" theme has. Hell, he doesn't even seem to be able to tell a halfway coherent story. This alone, among so many many other things proves to me that he's just all style - no substance.
    Regarding your last line - manny a wife has said the same line about her husband a million times to calm itself, only to find out she was wrong in the end.
Sign In or Register to comment.