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

1356717

Comments

  • Posts: 1,394
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    If the tsunami para-surfing scene isn't the worst moment in Bond history, then I don't know what is. LOL

    I think M reciting a bloody poem when she should be ordering an evacuation of the building due to the imminent arrival of a crazy terrorist in Skyfall is by far the most ridiculous scene in Bond movie history.If M had survived the climax of the movie she should have been charged with criminal negligence.

    I think the intent was that she didn't want to show fear and cower away from Silva. She was prepared to take the risk and, if anything happened, face him head on (hence why she stares at him when he's pointing his gun at her).

    Except that the problem with that is that she was risking the lifes of EVERYONE ELSE IN THE BUILDING as well as her own.In fact several people were killed during Silvas attack and probably everybody would have been killed had Bond not turned up.M should have called a halt to the enquiry, and ordered a full security alert/lockdown.

    It was a major MAJOR screw up on her part and another reason that i was actually glad she died in the end.

  • Posts: 11,189
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    If the tsunami para-surfing scene isn't the worst moment in Bond history, then I don't know what is. LOL

    I think M reciting a bloody poem when she should be ordering an evacuation of the building due to the imminent arrival of a crazy terrorist in Skyfall is by far the most ridiculous scene in Bond movie history.If M had survived the climax of the movie she should have been charged with criminal negligence.

    I think the intent was that she didn't want to show fear and cower away from Silva. She was prepared to take the risk and, if anything happened, face him head on (hence why she stares at him when he's pointing his gun at her).

    Except that the problem with that is that she was risking the lifes of EVERYONE ELSE IN THE BUILDING as well as her own.In fact several people were killed during Silvas attack and probably everybody would have been killed had Bond not turned up.M should have called a halt to the enquiry, and ordered a full security alert/lockdown.

    It was a major MAJOR screw up on her part and another reason that i was actually glad she died in the end.

    I suppose she was prepared to take that risk, plus she didn't know Silva was as near as he was.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    I personally saw CR as much more of a game changer (and not just because it was a reboot - rather because it finally did away with the cliches and still retained its Bondian essence). To me it set the benchmark - something that SF built on.

    Fully agreed. I think some people are clouded by the notion of Box Office, Oscar winning directors/actors etc. CR was genuinely innovative and refreshed the franchise. SF tried to be innovative and then covered it's arse by including stuff like the GF DB5, rather than the cleverly reworked personal one introduced in CR.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Did M know that Silva had escaped? I thought she wasn't aware of that.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,686
    Given the amount of traitors MI6 had since 1995, Dench's M wasn't aware of much. :P
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I personally saw CR as much more of a game changer (and not just because it was a reboot - rather because it finally did away with the cliches and still retained its Bondian essence). To me it set the benchmark - something that SF built on.

    Fully agreed. I think some people are clouded by the notion of Box Office, Oscar winning directors/actors etc. CR was genuinely innovative and refreshed the franchise. SF tried to be innovative and then covered it's arse by including stuff like the GF DB5, rather than the cleverly reworked personal one introduced in CR.

    We're also talking about the general impact the movies had with the general movie audience, the people who one can call "the silent majority". Among those people I think there's enough proof to say that SF had a bigger impact than CR.

    And that has not much to do with how "game changing" CR was: it was a game changer. Creatively, cinematically, and it was especially a game changer among Bond fans. But among general movie audiences, among the "silent majority" SF resonated more I think.

    Now we generally talk very dismissive about the box office succes. But one can not deny that part of the success is linked to how much audiences liked the film. It's not just a marketing calculation. Personal taste is very subjective, but I think that's part of its (box office) succes.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I personally saw CR as much more of a game changer (and not just because it was a reboot - rather because it finally did away with the cliches and still retained its Bondian essence). To me it set the benchmark - something that SF built on.

    Fully agreed. I think some people are clouded by the notion of Box Office, Oscar winning directors/actors etc. CR was genuinely innovative and refreshed the franchise. SF tried to be innovative and then covered it's arse by including stuff like the GF DB5, rather than the cleverly reworked personal one introduced in CR.

    We're also talking about the general impact the movies had with the general movie audience, the people who one can call "the silent majority". Among those people I think there's enough proof to say that SF had a bigger impact than CR.

    And that has not much to do with how "game changing" CR was: it was a game changer. Creatively, cinematically, and it was especially a game changer among Bond fans. But among general movie audiences, among the "silent majority" SF resonated more I think.

    Now we generally talk very dismissive about the box office succes. But one can not deny that part of the success is linked to how much audiences liked the film. It's not just a marketing calculation. Personal taste is very subjective, but I think that's part of its (box office) succes.

    It resonated more because of the simple fact that QoS to all extents and purposes didn't. It was a zeitgeist movie. I don't think anyone would deny these things. CR was burdened with a Bond 'destined to fail', SF was afforded the appreciation Craig had already garnered. Mendes added the Oscar stardust. The Olympics provided the worldwide catalyst. Bardem added the heavyweight enigma. All the marketable elements were in place. SF did wonders and I hope they go ahead and take advantage of this with SP. But when it comes down to the movie, irrespective of external factors, CR has not been topped in this era, yet, and that will become more apparent as time goes by.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,686
    IMO CR is the better movie out of the 3 Craig films so far.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    @RC7, I think you nailed it. In future QOS & SF will be seen as a connective movies, necessary but a bit inferior to those surrounding it.
  • Posts: 11,119
    chrisisall wrote: »
    @RC7, I think you nailed it. In future QOS & SF will be seen as a connective movies, necessary but a bit inferior to those surrounding it.

    I dodn't think so. "SF" had some slight references to "QOS" and "CR". And especially the serious tone was present in SF as well. But on the whole SF felt way more "stand alone". Also story-wise it distanced itself more from its two predecessors. Similar to how GF distanced itself from its two predecessors DN and FRWL.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    SF's main purpose was to tell the tale of the end of Judy's M. Mission accomplished.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I personally saw CR as much more of a game changer (and not just because it was a reboot - rather because it finally did away with the cliches and still retained its Bondian essence). To me it set the benchmark - something that SF built on.

    Fully agreed. I think some people are clouded by the notion of Box Office, Oscar winning directors/actors etc. CR was genuinely innovative and refreshed the franchise. SF tried to be innovative and then covered it's arse by including stuff like the GF DB5, rather than the cleverly reworked personal one introduced in CR.

    We're also talking about the general impact the movies had with the general movie audience, the people who one can call "the silent majority". Among those people I think there's enough proof to say that SF had a bigger impact than CR.

    And that has not much to do with how "game changing" CR was: it was a game changer. Creatively, cinematically, and it was especially a game changer among Bond fans. But among general movie audiences, among the "silent majority" SF resonated more I think.

    Now we generally talk very dismissive about the box office succes. But one can not deny that part of the success is linked to how much audiences liked the film. It's not just a marketing calculation. Personal taste is very subjective, but I think that's part of its (box office) succes.

    It resonated more because of the simple fact that QoS to all extents and purposes didn't. It was a zeitgeist movie. I don't think anyone would deny these things. CR was burdened with a Bond 'destined to fail', SF was afforded the appreciation Craig had already garnered. Mendes added the Oscar stardust. The Olympics provided the worldwide catalyst. Bardem added the heavyweight enigma. All the marketable elements were in place. SF did wonders and I hope they go ahead and take advantage of this with SP. But when it comes down to the movie, irrespective of external factors, CR has not been topped in this era, yet, and that will become more apparent as time goes by.

    Again this is just your personal opinion and your wishful thinking because you have more time for CR but SF is what the silent majority will look to.

    The general public will likely waiting for more of SF, I doubt they'd remember the events of CR, SF has set out the stall for the series now, it's just your dislike that wants to deny this.

    I'm not even suggesting it's the best Bond film ever and I love it with no misgivings or not acknowledging it's flaws. I'm aware it's plot has some sizable holes but I thought the dialogue was the strongest of the Craig era and Bardem made the most memorable (not my favourite, that's still Mads) of the Craig era.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2015 Posts: 15,686
    I do think the shot of Craig coming out of the water in CR will be one of, if not *the* most iconic moment of his tenure. That was the moment his Bond was sold to tens of millions of women around the world.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    It resonated more because of the simple fact that QoS to all extents and purposes didn't. It was a zeitgeist movie. I don't think anyone would deny these things. CR was burdened with a Bond 'destined to fail', SF was afforded the appreciation Craig had already garnered. Mendes added the Oscar stardust. The Olympics provided the worldwide catalyst. Bardem added the heavyweight enigma. All the marketable elements were in place. SF did wonders and I hope they go ahead and take advantage of this with SP. But when it comes down to the movie, irrespective of external factors, CR has not been topped in this era, yet, and that will become more apparent as time goes by.

    I agree with this completely, and I am a big fan of SF. I just don't think it should be seen as a redefining film. Just a popular one that benefited from CR's redefinition of Bond. The fact that QoS was a bit of a disappointment to some of the general public after CR actually helped SF imo, as did all the buzz etc. for the Olympics.
    But on the whole SF felt way more "stand alone". Also story-wise it distanced itself more from its two predecessors. Similar to how GF distanced itself from its two predecessors DN and FRWL.

    Yes, that's true that SF feels a little more standalone now (although one has to see if SP ties anything in or not). It does have at present a similar feeling to GF in that it appears standalone of sorts, but I don't think it's a redefining piece (and keep in mind I like it very much as a movie. I've said before that it has great dialogue and characters etc. but I don't think it will be looked back on as being as impactful as GF was for instance......just contemporary and popular with the public without being overblown like DAD. I'll put it in the same league with GE, in terms of its resonance over time with the general public - if not in the same league in terms of box office).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Shardlake wrote: »

    We're also talking about the general impact the movies had with the general movie audience, the people who one can call "the silent majority". Among those people I think there's enough proof to say that SF had a bigger impact than CR.
    The silent majority is made up of people who don't want to or can't think too much. You have to look beyond what we as fans see in SF that made it so popular. The simple things did it.
    Outwitting computers. Who doesn't hate their computers at work constantly needing babysitting & telling us what to do...
    Re-affirming that people matter more than technology. See above.
    Killing a main character. There's a reason Star Trek II is remembered.
    These reasons gave it good word of mouth, as well as other points @RC7 made.
    Liking a Bond movie even though it's poorly structured or written is something we all do here & there. You like SF- I like TMWTGG.
    :))
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Shardlake wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I personally saw CR as much more of a game changer (and not just because it was a reboot - rather because it finally did away with the cliches and still retained its Bondian essence). To me it set the benchmark - something that SF built on.

    Fully agreed. I think some people are clouded by the notion of Box Office, Oscar winning directors/actors etc. CR was genuinely innovative and refreshed the franchise. SF tried to be innovative and then covered it's arse by including stuff like the GF DB5, rather than the cleverly reworked personal one introduced in CR.

    We're also talking about the general impact the movies had with the general movie audience, the people who one can call "the silent majority". Among those people I think there's enough proof to say that SF had a bigger impact than CR.

    And that has not much to do with how "game changing" CR was: it was a game changer. Creatively, cinematically, and it was especially a game changer among Bond fans. But among general movie audiences, among the "silent majority" SF resonated more I think.

    Now we generally talk very dismissive about the box office succes. But one can not deny that part of the success is linked to how much audiences liked the film. It's not just a marketing calculation. Personal taste is very subjective, but I think that's part of its (box office) succes.

    It resonated more because of the simple fact that QoS to all extents and purposes didn't. It was a zeitgeist movie. I don't think anyone would deny these things. CR was burdened with a Bond 'destined to fail', SF was afforded the appreciation Craig had already garnered. Mendes added the Oscar stardust. The Olympics provided the worldwide catalyst. Bardem added the heavyweight enigma. All the marketable elements were in place. SF did wonders and I hope they go ahead and take advantage of this with SP. But when it comes down to the movie, irrespective of external factors, CR has not been topped in this era, yet, and that will become more apparent as time goes by.

    Again this is just your personal opinion and your wishful thinking because you have more time for CR but SF is what the silent majority will look to.

    The general public will likely waiting for more of SF, I doubt they'd remember the events of CR, SF has set out the stall for the series now, it's just your dislike that wants to deny this.

    I'm not even suggesting it's the best Bond film ever and I love it with no misgivings or not acknowledging it's flaws. I'm aware it's plot has some sizable holes but I thought the dialogue was the strongest of the Craig era and Bardem made the most memorable (not my favourite, that's still Mads) of the Craig era.

    I don't even dislike SF. Similar to @bondjames I have actively commended it: you'll find many a thread where I've sung it's praises. I can see both sides of the coin. I've no agenda. I'm discussing negative elements,

    I note you also made a comment recently about those 'in the industry' and those who aren't. As if that qualified their opinion. For the record I'm in the industry and I've filmed at Pinewood numerous times, but I don't hold my opinion above those who aren't and in all honesty a lot of armchair fans have equally valid opinions and at times better instincts.


  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    I do think the shot of Craig coming out of the water in CR will be one of, if not *the* most iconic moment of his tenure. That was the moment his Bond was sold to tens of millions of women around the world.

    Ha ha...for a moment, I thought you were referring to him pulling Vesper out of the water in Venice. It took me a moment to realize you were talking about the bathing suit. BTW, he didn't "come out of the water" in that scene. He stood up in it. ;-)
  • I think that the criticism on CGI in SF is rather about how they started to use CG avatars and face replacements more and more. That, in order to defend SF's "CGI", one has to use what is mostly a model work is quite telling.

    And well, find me anyone here who prefer SF's Patrice fall to SF trailer's Patrice fall :)

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Sark wrote: »
    Did M know that Silva had escaped? I thought she wasn't aware of that.

    As far as I remember, Bond told Q to tell Tanner to tell M that Silva escaped ;) She was aware. Having said that I don't share the same criticism of the decisions made as AstonLotus.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Well yes, if M knew that Silva escaped she was pretty damn foolish to continue her session as if nothing was wrong.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    bondjames wrote: »
    I personally saw CR as much more of a game changer (and not just because it was a reboot - rather because it finally did away with the cliches and still retained its Bondian essence). To me it set the benchmark - something that SF built on.

    Whole heartedly agree.... CR really flipped the script (as they say) and not only changed the way Bond films were made, but also the way they were perceived by the audience - and they accomplished it within the first 3 minutes, immediately you knew what you were in for from now on, and it was something very different from recent years - and quite possibly something we haven't seen for 40 years..... SF built it's success off the ground work already laid down by CR..
    this current trend the general audience is craving for won't last forever, and once they start demanding a new style of blockbusters, everyone will have to adapt to it, and EON will have to make another SF-style film (I mean by the box office numbers it made) for the new trend so the franchise can be one of the top dogs of whatever the next trend will be. And so on and so on.

    Agreed with this as well... as times changes, so do people and their sensibilities... Craig and his Bond + Bond films are perfect for this time and place, just like how every Bond who came before him were perfect fits for their time... 10 - 15 - 20 years from now, moods and attitudes will probably change and people will probably want something a bit different.... but until then, they'll ride this wave (not a CGI one lol) as long as they draw, and as long as the films are still well received..
  • Here's a great article about the first three Bond films and how these should be prone to some criticism also ;-).

    https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/a-few-things-best-to-forget-about-the-first-3-007-films/
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    Sark wrote: »
    Well yes, if M knew that Silva escaped she was pretty damn foolish to continue her session as if nothing was wrong.

    Kinda like GW Bush continuing with reading My Pet Goat, while knowing the nation is "under attack?" ;)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Sark wrote: »
    Well yes, if M knew that Silva escaped she was pretty damn foolish to continue her session as if nothing was wrong.

    People in very high positions of power have very difficult decisions to make. This is why M has agents; she new it would be best that everyone keep calm and carry on, and let her capable agents pursue and contain the threat.
  • Posts: 14,800
    SF's success amongst the public, critics and the huge box office numbers mean the Bond franchise is now on the frontline of the current trend of spy/action/blockbuster films. SF is a gamechanger in that aspect for the franchise so from now on the latest outings will be made in the same vein as SF and probably SPECTRE too. The problem being, this current trend the general audience is craving for won't last forever, and once they start demanding a new style of blockbusters, everyone will have to adapt to it, and EON will have to make another SF-style film (I mean by the box office numbers it made) for the new trend so the franchise can be one of the top dogs of whatever the next trend will be. And so on and so on.
    Wasn't CR the game changer and SF merely confirmed it?
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    Interesting points, Graves.

    In any case, SF just doesn't quite work for me as a James Bond film, in fact I find it the most overrated Bond movie of them all. It's style & cinematography are amongst the very best (though not a patch on OHMSS or QoS) in the series - but for me, in terms of rating, it sits somewhere around 10th place...
  • AceHole wrote: »
    In any case, SF just doesn't quite work for me as a James Bond film, in fact I find it the most overrated Bond movie of them all. It's style & cinematography are amongst the very best (though not a patch on OHMSS or QoS) in the series - but for me, in terms of rating, it sits somewhere around 10th place...

    I think SF is the only Bond movie ever rated "the most overrated movie of all time" by a journalist in the mainstream media. And, well, currently, a majority of thousands of users of IMDB agree with a one-star rating for it. So I don't think it is a "small fan circles" only.

    I think SF's place in the Bond franchise will depend a lot of SPECTRE in the end. I think DAD is perceived to be a low-low also because CR was so good. And the other way around. People didn't expect CR.

  • Posts: 14,800
    I remember that article about SF being THE most overrated movie of all time. Ridiculous hyperbole. It's not even the.most overrated Bond movie, or Mendes movie.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I remember that article about SF being THE most overrated movie of all time. Ridiculous hyperbole. It's not even the.most overrated Bond movie, or Mendes movie.

    it should be the most overrated Bond, as for Mendes he is somewhat overrated for me as well. Just not a big fan of his work.

  • Posts: 1,394
    Sark wrote: »
    Well yes, if M knew that Silva escaped she was pretty damn foolish to continue her session as if nothing was wrong.

    People in very high positions of power have very difficult decisions to make. This is why M has agents; she new it would be best that everyone keep calm and carry on, and let her capable agents pursue and contain the threat.

    Ha! Ha! Ha! The same '' capable agents '' who shoot their own comrades and not the target then forget to actually shoot again therefore hitting the target, the same '' capable agents '' who allowed a hard drive with vitally important info to be stolen, the same '' capable agents '' who allowed an unarmed prisoner to overcome them while they themselves are heavily armed, the same '' capable agents '' who plug the computer of a dangerous computer hacker into their main network without checking if its safe to do so (etc).

Sign In or Register to comment.