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
Vain dumbness is more like it and I really don't know,which of the both angers me more!
However I feel that SF wasn't the film for most of the die-hard Bond fans, despite DC stating that he wanted a Bond film with a capital B. Sorry if you feel offended if you consider yourself a die-hard Bond fan and you do like it. That wouldn't be my point.
Personally I just expected a better plot, mainly because of CR. The plot from QoS let me down because of the writers-strike, but the combination of Robert Wade, Neal Purvis and John Logan promised me a lot more. Also, like stated before by other members, the inconsistency of the characters and storyline bothered me.
Finally, I'm really looking forward to a plain Bond film that sends him away on a mission spying, seducing and shooting his way to the villain and catches him. And with plain I mean not again dozens of prominent MI6 figures in the field, just Bond on his own, and not again some kind of betrayal. That last theme has been going on for too long and is really getting old:
- Elektra in TWINE
- Miranda Frost in DAD
- Vesper in CR
- Gregg Beam, the CIA-guy in QoS
- Silva in SF
But I'm getting off topic. To answer the OP: due to heavy marketing and Bond's 50th anniversary, audiences around the globe went wild about SF. Adele and Roger Deakins did a great job in their respective fields, so it looked fantastic and theme song sounded good as well. But now that this storm of enthusiasm has calmed down, some die-hard Bond fans take over. Apparently they do not find it convincing enough do consider it to be as good as the buzz around the film led one believe it was when it came out.
Octopussy happened. After a little TLC from Magda, Q began to see the wisdom of Bond's methods...
Totally agree - and it was the dumb decision making by Bond, MP and the rest of MI6 that was one of the most annoying things about the film for me. I received a fairly royal slating on these pages for daring to criticise SF when it came out, but all the same failings still apply and only become more noticeable over time. Interesting to see the evolving attitudes to SF on here.
Having said that, I do not and never have believed it's the worst Bond film. May be the worst Craig Bond, but not the worst Bond by any means (any of the Brosnan films is worse). CR is an infinitely better film on almost every level. And I also personally much prefer QoS to SF.
It's a very silly film masquerading as a serious one. Lots of portentious moody cinematography and a bedragled looking Bond does not make it an art house materpiece if the underlying plot and much of the script would have been rejected by any half decent prime time US TV series.
Could and should have been a lot better. But it did at least try and do something different. Unforunately it just didn't do it very well.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's my opinion, and I stand for it. If you have problem with that, keep it to yourself. :)>-
Not according to you at least.
With respect wasnt that the approach of the novels quite a lot of the time? Have the most ridiculous scenarios but tell them in a straight faced way.
I think the attitude towards SF will depend a lot of what comes next (Bond 24 and after). We all judge by comparing to the other stuff, in the end...
I mean, FYEO is the "serious Roger" one. And yet, in it he's driving a 2CV doing stunts straight from a Louis de Funes movie (and in the French dubbing he's saying one the most risqué line :) ). But it's between MR and OP.
Good point. And on the whole I am not averse to a slightly OTT plot, if it's done well. As you say, this is a defining characteristic of some of the novels and one of the things that makes particularly the early films so great. I just think it wasn't done well in SF. The quality of the plot (which admitedly attempts to emulate some of the original Fleming campness) is just so flimsy that it collapses un
We get the picture you weren't a fan can you move on, whenever I come in this thread it's you going on about your opinion of SF like it's gospel. Not quite as bad as Matt Helm though his post to fromswedenislove calling him vain and dumb because he has SF as his no. 2 is plain rude.
SF is my no. 2 with OHMSS at no. 1 am I vain and dumb as well.
Some peoples opinions aren't stated as opinions but as fact and the rest of us are idiots for liking or even loving SF.
It seems though the more successful an entry is the more likely it will be the whipping boy for the fan base, seriously there is some real crap in the series and SF is far from that but because some here pretty much are utterly abhor it's success it's has slated as DAD these days.
Its the same old people debating over it giving each other hand shandies in how clever they can deconstruct the most recent entry down to the point that it might as well be worst film made in the last 5 years if you believe the out right arrogant opinionated outpourings of the Skyfall hate brigade and please don't say you don't hate it because some of you can't but stay out of this thread, it's like catnip to some of you.
I agree that it's tiring but to be fair he's been doing the same with the Brosnan films for even longer and I didn't see you complaining then.
@Shardlake, I'm a little surprised that you seem so taken aback at the views expressed here - the title of the thread should be a bit of a giveaway.
I don't expect people to agree with me. And I get a bit bored of all the constant 'IMO's people feel obliged to put in just to avoid offending members who find other's strongly held views a problem. Of course what I say is my opinion. Of course it's not 'gospel'. It's an online community with members posting whatever they happen to be thinking at that moment.
And yes, I did find SF really disappointing but I've never said it's the worst. What I found absurd was when it first came out and everyone was jumping on the marketing bandwagon and the nonsense about 'best Bond ever'. It's a mid ranking Bond movie with a lot of flaws. I don't mind if people like it, but the hyperbolic overreaction when it first came out was just crazy.
I agree.
My opinion of it hasn't changed much from my first viewing.
Seconded. I don't hate it, nor do I find it to be the worst Bond film (by far), but it's definitely mid-ranking for me (if I did a ranking), and it's most certainly my least favorite Craig film.
Also, as @Getafix has stated, the thread title is a dead giveaway at what to expect. Just because some of us don't hold SF up as being the greatest film of all time, we are denied an opinion on it?
It's now getting a bit extreme. If we continue to be at one another's throats, then all this will do is lead to name-calling and bashing of one another, which will inevitably result in having the thread closed. Let's keep a SF thread open where both parties are allowed to agree to disagree and hash out what we think of the film now that the 'new Bond' hype has died down, please.
I've said this before but I think SF is still excellent despite its flaws in the plot. Its well produced and, above all, WELL ACTED.
Reading, let alone comprehending doesn't seem to be one of your strong traits. My post clearly aimed at Fromswedenwithloves question if SF is silly. To assume I accused him of being dumb and vain is completely ridiculous.
This. :)
And also: Yes, a die hard long time Bond fan can dislike Skyfall. I respect that people have varying opinions of ANY film. And a die hard long time Bond fan can love Skyfall. Like me.
It is the attitude and consistent pushiness of opinion, let alone the sometimes name calling (what grade are you in?) and stating your view as fact that wears down some threads.
I think with SF, it's just utterly bemusing that so many media outlets, fans and critics were/are hailing it as the best Bond ever. Such a statement is a gargantuan one to make and there are umpteen reasons as to why such a statement may be net with aggressive opposition. For starters, SF isn't even Craig's best Bond movie.
I'm only speaking for myself here but I for one enjoyed SF and think it's a good movie but it's also a rather disappointing movie too. Most if the annoyance comes from the script. They had years to work on it and iron things out, which they claimed to have been doing during the whole MGM restructuring but the script just feels and comes off as half-arsed when you put the events if SF into perspective and context.
By comparison, with all the adversity QoS faced during it's entire production schedule, they seemed to have done a better job with their script than what was done with SF's.
Never before has Bond fandom been so divided. I dont remember it with Connery. With Lazenby? With Moore? With Dalton?
But it seems directed by Brosnan fans.
SF was epic. It picked up numerous awards, hit the million dollar mark, broke recordss around the world. Was called on release one of the best. The script is sharp. The acting exemplary. The direction out of this world.
But this isn't enough.Just as it wasn't with GF
It comes across as churlishness of the worst kind. Throwing your games in the air if your man isn't the centre of attention.
Ridiculous!
Don't look at me I really liked SF :p
Plus @Getafix is one of the biggest anti-Brosnan people on Mi6 yet is one of the most vocal critics of the film.
Yawn.
Its true though
It might be yawnable to you - but it still holds true
Getafix hates everything. He hates the Brosnan era. He hates the Craig era
He just doesn't like anything after LTK
It's not. It's bollocks.
Thanks for the covering fire @BAIN123. Indeed, not only was I one of the few who seemed to greet DC's casting with enthusiasm right from the start (definitely Bab's smartest move since taking on her father's mantle), but I am also one of the biggest defenders of QoS on here, so the accussation that I'm simply a hater seems a little wide of the mark. I think @actonsteve is from the Kincade school of marksmanship - he likes using a shotgun approach for maximum, indiscriminate damage on his perceived foes. The fact that I probably agree with him on most major issues apart from SF is no obstacle to him giving me a quick full frontal blast with the sawn off.
As I've stated countless times to those too hot under the colour to understand that there are gradations of appreciation between love and hate, I don't hate SF - it has good points - but for me personally it was a major disappointment, especially as I thought the momentum after QoS was generally in the right direction. If anything I see SF as a step back towards some of the slightly lazy and cliched plotting and direction of the Brosnan era. The use of the DB5 encapsulates the return of the sentimentalism and cliched backward-looking cruches that I thought had been kicked into touch with CR.
Still, I see SF as Mendes's personal 'nostalgia' movie and am hopeful that he'll be taking a more forward looking approach with B24.
All I know is, With respect, SF being hailed as best Bond ever seemed like a major knee-jerk reaction and imo for all the good things it does contain, it's the least thrilling overall of the Craig era. All the best action is in the damn PTS!