› ›

Why criticism on "Skyfall" never truly gained ground (but flourishes in small fan circles)

1…111213141517»

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    patb wrote: »
    SP seeks to return to a more traditional formula and, as such, it is easier and fairer to compare it to other Bond classics. As such, it fails. But some I can see would rather watch a failed attempt to make a classic Bond rather than a bold and ambitious attempt to create something a little different.
    THIS right here is THE problem with opinions. Simplified into black & white, pass & fail, good & bad. SPECTRE did not 'fail' and Skyfall was not 'passed'. They were both attempts to tell a Bond tale in different ways. They were both equally successful at what they were trying to achieve. They both had severely questionable moments AND moments of wild Bondian excess.
    I simply LIKE one a lot more than the other.
    ;)
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,600
    Sorry, I do insert IMHO into all posts but its hard to put it at the end of every sentence, I agree, it is all opinion
  • TellyBlofeldTellyBlofeld
    Posts: 489
    TripAces wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    I too like SF more than SP, but Thankfully I don't hate it , as many here seem to.
    I'm at a point where I 'hate' no Bond movie. I just watch SPECTRE 20X as much as Skyfall is all.

    I prefer SF, too, but I watch SP a lot more right now: it's still got a novelty thing going for it.

    Yes, me too. Three's good stuff in SP. That meeting scene, very cool.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    patb wrote: »
    Sorry, I do insert IMHO into all posts but its hard to put it at the end of every sentence, I agree, it is all opinion
    No, no, I know it's all 'IYHO', I'm just saying that to say a SPECTRE is 'a failure' is too severe. Maybe Jaws 3-D was a failure, but no Bond movie ever has been.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    It seems that there are "either/or" arguments, here: you either like SF or SP. I am not sure why both can't be liked, admired, and loved. Ask car collectors which ones are their favorites: they'll have a tough time choosing. Variety is the spice of life.

    That said...

    I love SF. This doesn't mean I don't like and appreciate SP. They're different films and different experiences. This much I do know: I wish I had never read any leaks or looked at the shooting schedule (which I did back in January) or read anything about Oberhauser being Blofeld. I think EON was banking on the Blofeld "reveal" being HUGE. It would have been if the Koreans hadn't screwed everything up. How much would we view SP differently if none of us knew its secret? I think about this all the time.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I like them both.

    I much prefer and respect SF though. I think it's just a more integrated and effective standalone film.

    I find SP has much higher rewatch value though, at least at this point in time. In fact, I recently watched it twice in a week, something I've never done with a Bond film before. I like it, but I don't really respect it either. Like DAD, I enjoy it for what it is. If I had to analyze it, that's when I have problems with it, like DAD. However, as a bit of fun at the movies, it's not bad at all (apart from the London ending, which I have a tendency to just tune out each time).
  • GettlerGettler
    Posts: 315
    TripAces wrote: »

    I love SF. This doesn't mean I don't like and appreciate SP. They're different films and different experiences. This much I do know: I wish I had never read any leaks or looked at the shooting schedule (which I did back in January) or read anything about Oberhauser being Blofeld. I think EON was banking on the Blofeld "reveal" being HUGE. It would have been if the Koreans hadn't screwed everything up. How much would we view SP differently if none of us knew its secret? I think about this all the time.

    Well, if you're disciplined enough. I wish I was at the time. As for the reveal, when you call a Bond Film SPECTRE, add an octopus ring, and have a man in the shadows, I don't think it would have been that surprising, especially with Waltz, known for playing sinister roles. I mean, everyone kept bugging him about it, and he was probably asked by EON to deny all speculation despite its obviousness.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    TripAces wrote: »
    I think EON was banking on the Blofeld "reveal" being HUGE. It would have been if the Koreans hadn't screwed everything up.
    Their long awaited revenge for DAD no doubt.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Gettler wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »

    I love SF. This doesn't mean I don't like and appreciate SP. They're different films and different experiences. This much I do know: I wish I had never read any leaks or looked at the shooting schedule (which I did back in January) or read anything about Oberhauser being Blofeld. I think EON was banking on the Blofeld "reveal" being HUGE. It would have been if the Koreans hadn't screwed everything up. How much would we view SP differently if none of us knew its secret? I think about this all the time.

    Well, if you're disciplined enough. I wish I was at the time. As for the reveal, when you call a Bond Film SPECTRE, add an octopus ring, and have a man in the shadows, I don't think it would have been that surprising, especially with Waltz, known for playing sinister roles. I mean, everyone kept bugging him about it, and he was probably asked by EON to deny all speculation despite its obviousness.

    Very, very true.
Sign In or Register to comment.