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

13468917

Comments

  • Posts: 11,119
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    This recent talk of Dench makes me so glad she is now gone from the franchise. Ever since she became a 'mother' in TWINE rather than the head of MI6 I've wanted to see the back of her from the franchise.

    If I could summarize the one part of SF that I had trouble with, it would be excessive air-time for Dench.

    I know I will enjoy SP more just for this reason, irrespective of how good or bad a film it is.

    Cannot agree more. After TWINE I grew increasingly tired of Dench. I remember my heart sinking when they announced the plot synopsis for SF.

    And then there were those interviews with Dench talking about how she gets out from behind her desk more in SF. I barely remember seeing her at her bl**dy desk during her entire tenure.

    She is a very good actress but I did not like the way her character grew during the Brosnan and Craig eras. Thank god we have Fiennes now, and M is back in his old office (that's one thing I really thank Mendes for - I hated all the hi tech MI6 sets). I hope they don't overuse Fiennes just because if who he is. I Just want one or two , tightly
    written scenes with M per film. Short, sweet, impactful and memorable. Less can be more when you have such great acting talent.

    Count me in here.

    Don't get me wrong, I think she's a marvellous actress. And she will be greatly missed. Audiences loved her.

    But she administered one major big flaw to MI6: Destruction. During her reign as "M" MI6 got insanely battered and bruised, it got compromised several times. In TWINE and SF. Both times terrorist attacks were executed. Many people died because of her, like SHE OPENLY ADMITS. "M" should have stepped down. In a normal democracy, government officials, and that's what "M" is, she is in astrument of the PM, step DOWN! Period. Like "M"s successor Mallory said.

    Then there's the whole bloody finance thing. Travel costs must have risen through the ceiling during her reign as "M". And don't get me wrong, but it's taxpayer's money if you decide to become a rogue head of MI6, by travelling to....ehm.....Bolivia, Russia (QOS), Bahama's (CR), North-Korea (DAD) and Turkey (TWINE, she basically staged her own kidnapping!).

    Pure from a narrative perspective, from a plain, solid realistic view.......I am glad Judi Dench' "M"s gone. Welcome the bickering from the new "M", Ralph Fiennes, in a more simple, cheaper, Bernard Lee-esque office. It was about time!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,964
    Getafix wrote: »
    @patb, I don't take it personally - I rarely do. I just find it annoying when a certain motivation is projected onto a specific view. Like when someone says if you don't like Brosnan or Skyfall you're just saying it to be cool, when actually I'm actually just saying it because I don't like Brosnan as Bond and I don't think that much of Skyfall.

    I've had Skyfall defenders tell me I must be a Brosnan fan if I don't like Skyfall. That was amusing, especially when directed at me! Funny how people project their own assumptions onto others. One of the things I really disliked about SF was that in some ways the tone reminded me of the Brosnan era - a sort of lazy nostalgia. It just seemed such a backwards step after the promise of the first two Craig movies.

    That's what annoys me, 'the promise of the first two movies'. As far as I am concerned a film has to offer a lot more than a promise of future goods. It's like lifting the expectation off one film and piling it onto the next. EON did this twice in a row.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I don't think I've ever seen Gustav give such a criticism of the Craig era.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Sark wrote: »
    I don't think I've ever seen Gustav give such a criticism of the Craig era.

    Hehehehe, MIND YOU, I have always been very very critical about Judi Dench and her portrayal as "M" ;-).

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,368
    So if you hate QoS, you just hate it and that's fine, but if you're not as big of a fan of SF as some are, then your thoughts and opinions are unfounded and you're wrong? Well that logic sure makes no sense...
  • Posts: 4,619
    Just like any art form, cinema is subjective.... but not 100% so. "North by Northwest" is objectively miles above "Plan 9 from Outer Space", and Skyfall is the same way objectively better than the vast majority of Bond films.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    To be honest, saying this as someone who is sat on the fence when it comes to Skyfall, comments like that are what I think irritates the Skyfall detractors.
  • Posts: 4,619
    To be honest, saying this as someone who is sat on the fence when it comes to Skyfall, comments like that are what I think irritates the Skyfall detractors.
    Skyfall does have its flaws, it's not even the best movie of 2012, but comparing it to movies like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, LTK ,TND, TWINE and DAD is exactly like comparing a three Michelin starred restaurant to a run-down fast food establishment. Some may say that the fast food establishment is the better one, but they are clearly in the wrong. What they should say is this: "yes, i do realise that the three Michelin starred restaurant is superior in just about every respect, but I still prefer to eat in this McDonald's".
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    edited July 2015 Posts: 5,080
    To be honest, saying this as someone who is sat on the fence when it comes to Skyfall, comments like that are what I think irritates the Skyfall detractors.
    Skyfall does have its flaws, it's not even the best movie of 2012, but comparing it to movies like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, LTK ,TND, TWINE and DAD is exactly like comparing a three Michelin starred restaurant to a run-down fast food establishment. Some may say that the fast food establishment is the better one, but they are clearly in the wrong. What they should say is this: "yes, i do realise that the three Michelin starred restaurant is superior in just about every respect, but I still prefer to eat in this McDonald's".

    It's this notion of putting Skyfall on a pedestal (rather pompous, if I may say so) and claiming it to be the best thing since sliced bread that annoys a lot of fans. For the record, I think Skyfall is a pretty light affair that is OTT, especially considering the tone that was setup with Casino Royale and what I thought would carry on through the Craig era. Therefore, Skyfall is pretty jarring in that respect. Curiously, even if you take the films you stated out of the equation, that still does not leave you with a majority. And with LALD and LTK, I think you're pushing it.

    I do agree with some here that they tried to "cover up" Skyfall's shortcomings, that have now been well documented, with "thematic layers".

    It's a film that tried to appeal the masses, and the critics, and they bought it. But this does not reserve the right for Skyfall to be held in a regard that it is the absolutely best thing to come from the Bond franchise, even objectively speaking, because I feel that it somewhat disregards the rest of its 50 year long history. A lot of the Bond films do the OTT aspect much better.

    It's Craig's Thunderball, not Goldfinger in my opinion.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Getafix wrote: »
    Like when someone says if you don't like Brosnan or Skyfall you're just saying it to be cool, when actually I'm actually just saying it because I don't like Brosnan as Bond and I don't think that much of Skyfall.
    You've made excellent cases for why you feel this way. I fully understand the former, and I fully understand & agree with the latter.
    ;)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,964
    To be honest, saying this as someone who is sat on the fence when it comes to Skyfall, comments like that are what I think irritates the Skyfall detractors.
    Skyfall does have its flaws, it's not even the best movie of 2012, but comparing it to movies like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, LTK ,TND, TWINE and DAD is exactly like comparing a three Michelin starred restaurant to a run-down fast food establishment. Some may say that the fast food establishment is the better one, but they are clearly in the wrong. What they should say is this: "yes, i do realise that the three Michelin starred restaurant is superior in just about every respect, but I still prefer to eat in this McDonald's".

    100 percent agree with this.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    To be honest, saying this as someone who is sat on the fence when it comes to Skyfall, comments like that are what I think irritates the Skyfall detractors.
    Skyfall does have its flaws, it's not even the best movie of 2012, but comparing it to movies like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, LTK ,TND, TWINE and DAD is exactly like comparing a three Michelin starred restaurant to a run-down fast food establishment. Some may say that the fast food establishment is the better one, but they are clearly in the wrong. What they should say is this: "yes, i do realise that the three Michelin starred restaurant is superior in just about every respect, but I still prefer to eat in this McDonald's".

    Not really a solid analogy is it? Michelin Star restaurants and fast food joints compete for different demographics, so the idea of superiority is moot. If I want a greasy kebab the Michelin star restaurant will not suffice, but I wouldn't expect it to.

    But if you're keen on running with it I'd describe SF as a restaurant that is desperate for a Michelin star, but in it's struggle to impress fails to keep things simple; forgetting to let the ingredients speak for themselves. Primarily style over substance, a few dishes from 'back in the day', (I'm thinking DB5 a l'orange) and a select few genuinely tasty Hors d'oeuvre.
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    To be honest, saying this as someone who is sat on the fence when it comes to Skyfall, comments like that are what I think irritates the Skyfall detractors.
    Skyfall does have its flaws, it's not even the best movie of 2012, but comparing it to movies like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, LTK ,TND, TWINE and DAD is exactly like comparing a three Michelin starred restaurant to a run-down fast food establishment. Some may say that the fast food establishment is the better one, but they are clearly in the wrong. What they should say is this: "yes, i do realise that the three Michelin starred restaurant is superior in just about every respect, but I still prefer to eat in this McDonald's".

    Not really a solid analogy is it? Michelin Star restaurants and fast food joints compete for different demographics, so the idea of superiority is moot. If I want a greasy kebab the Michelin star restaurant will not suffice, but I wouldn't expect it to.

    But if you're keen on running with it I'd describe SF as a restaurant that is desperate for a Michelin star, but in it's struggle to impress fails to keep things simple; forgetting to let the ingredients speak for themselves. Primarily style over substance, a few dishes from 'back in the day', (I'm thinking DB5 a l'orange) and a select few genuinely tasty Hors d'oeuvre.

    And those other Bond films, like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, LTK ,TND, TWINE and DAD? Could you give a poetically sound description of those too ;-)? Love to read your comment.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    To be honest, saying this as someone who is sat on the fence when it comes to Skyfall, comments like that are what I think irritates the Skyfall detractors.
    Skyfall does have its flaws, it's not even the best movie of 2012, but comparing it to movies like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, LTK ,TND, TWINE and DAD is exactly like comparing a three Michelin starred restaurant to a run-down fast food establishment. Some may say that the fast food establishment is the better one, but they are clearly in the wrong. What they should say is this: "yes, i do realise that the three Michelin starred restaurant is superior in just about every respect, but I still prefer to eat in this McDonald's".

    Not really a solid analogy is it? Michelin Star restaurants and fast food joints compete for different demographics, so the idea of superiority is moot. If I want a greasy kebab the Michelin star restaurant will not suffice, but I wouldn't expect it to.

    But if you're keen on running with it I'd describe SF as a restaurant that is desperate for a Michelin star, but in it's struggle to impress fails to keep things simple; forgetting to let the ingredients speak for themselves. Primarily style over substance, a few dishes from 'back in the day', (I'm thinking DB5 a l'orange) and a select few genuinely tasty Hors d'oeuvre.

    And those other Bond films, like DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, LTK ,TND, TWINE and DAD? Could you give a poetically sound description of those too ;-)? Love to read your comment.

    I'll get back to you when I've written up my 'Michelin Bond' reviews.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,548
    SF did not have an incoherent plot--at leastt not so much so that it should be an issue. It was quite simple, actually. What threw some viewers was the Silva plan...and that has been debated ad nauseum. But it needs to be emphasized that the extent to which Silva "planned" things is open to interpretation. That said, it is highly unlikely that Silva had every little aspect of his plot against M planned out to a T. He didn't have to.

    SF is the most deeply thematic of the Bonds. It may have been laid on a little thick, but it is the one Bond film in which the subtext was the important part. The plot was secondary, and there is a long history of literature and film in which themes take precedent over plots.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,368
    There's a difference between taking a backseat on the plot and having a plot totally riddled with plot holes, ensuring it takes me right out of the experience. You can push other aspects to the forefront - past the plot - without doing that, which SF did not achieve.
  • Posts: 4,619
    @Creasy47 Care to name a few of those plot holes?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,964
    You could say the same thing about the joker's plan in TDK. How does a crazy clown plot out this elaborate plan and have it work without a hitch? It's called suspension of disbelief. Chances are most of you never even noticed these 'plot holes' in the cinema anyway, it's only after several viewings that these things become apparent.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Getafix wrote: »
    @patb,
    I've had Skyfall defenders tell me I must be a Brosnan fan if I don't like Skyfall.

    Now imagine how you get treated by some Skyfall defenders if you are Brosnan fan!
    I am fan of the Brosnan era, I had to endure a lot of bashing when criticising Skyfall (not on this site).
    I am so glad that on this site people are obviously able to have real discussion. It's very nice to be here.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,368
    The fact that the PTS train keeps on moving after a bulldozer rips the roof off of a carriage and has numerous other carriages detached (and cargo thrown off), Bond's ridiculous survival from the fall during the PTS, Patrice using overly expensive depleted uranium shells that can be easily traced back to him (not so smart for such a talented assassin).

    Then, there's the fact that Silva somehow knew they would 'war foot it' and go underground for the new MI6 - and with that, his entire overly implausible and ridiculous, straight from 'The Dark Knight' capture and escape plan. Might not be a plot hole, but Bond's attempt to save M during the finale is a joke: they won't bring anyone else to assist because M doesn't want anyone else dying for her, but he won't take any gadgets or guns or firearms or anything to prepare. Instead, he takes her to his childhood home, riding on the remote possibility that the gun room still exists. They don't want to call in a drone or air support or even some carefully hidden snipers who could be entirely out of harm's way? Just seems totally contrived, just to set up that Home Alone-esque finale.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    Getafix wrote: »
    @patb, I don't take it personally - I rarely do. I just find it annoying when a certain motivation is projected onto a specific view. Like when someone says if you don't like Brosnan or Skyfall you're just saying it to be cool, when actually I'm actually just saying it because I don't like Brosnan as Bond and I don't think that much of Skyfall.

    I've had Skyfall defenders tell me I must be a Brosnan fan if I don't like Skyfall. That was amusing, especially when directed at me! Funny how people project their own assumptions onto others. One of the things I really disliked about SF was that in some ways the tone reminded me of the Brosnan era - a sort of lazy nostalgia. It just seemed such a backwards step after the promise of the first two Craig movies.

    I can beat that. I have been told that I can't be a Bond fan, just because I don't like the Craig era, on any level. Which I thought was funny, actually, considering the backlash that Craig's casting was met with (which I wasn't part of), yet I get that kind of reaction.

    And Skyfall being likened to a 3 star Michelin restaurant... no. It's more like a McDonalds without the big 'M' outside, and it doesn't sell any burgers, yet it keeps telling me it's a McDonalds.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,368
    @MajorDSmythe, the fact that anyone feels they have an "earned" right to deem who is or isn't a fan of Bond (or anything for that matter) is absolutely laughable to me.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    patb wrote: »
    Mainstream success often brings with it forensic scrutiny by the fandom that other movies don't get. I have seen many criticisms of Skyfall that, although perhaps justified, could also be aimed at many others in the series.
    PS the anti Dench feeling is a smaller example. She is widely regarded as a "national treasure" by jo public and that affection added to the drama of the final scene but that seems to be reversed within the fandom?

    You may have a point there, interesting analysis.

    As for Dench I can tell you how I feel about it (if I am representative to speak for many is another question...lol )
    I liked Dench immediately in Goldeneye and have been a fan of her M and her as an actress ever since. "National Treasure"? For me, yes, that could be said.
    I absolutely am aghast that the producers and/or writer's wanted to kill her off. And if they had to do it she should have had a meaningful death, possibly "saving the world" or something like that, or save Q or Moneypenny.
    But what did we get: M acted throughout Skyfall like an imbecile and practically invited Silva to get her. THIS I will never forgive, and I consider myself a very tolerant person.
    Other than that I have very few quarrels with the Bond franchise, nothing on that level anyway.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 4,619
    I would never claim that people who dislike Skyfall aren't Bond fans. What I would claim and do claim is that people who don't think that Skyfall is superior to the vast majority of Bond films don't know that much about cinema outside of the little bubble of the Bond franchise.

    @Creasy47 You may not like those plot development you mentioned, but those aren't plot holes.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,119
    TripAces wrote: »
    SF is the most deeply thematic of the Bonds. It may have been laid on a little thick, but it is the one Bond film in which the subtext was the important part. The plot was secondary, and there is a long history of literature and film in which themes take precedent over plots.

    Absolutely agree. "Skyfall" is also a very good document about current-day espionage in our geopolitical environment. The Julian Assange-esque villain Silva and the way he 'plays' with top secret espionage information is entirely believable. And even more scary if you use examples like last year's SonyLeaks.....or cyber warfare on the whole. The theme is centered on "M"s speech as well. Just analize it and be stunned how.....how unique lines like these in the Bond franchise:
    "M": "Today I've repeatedly heard how irrelevant my department has become. "Why do we need agents, the Double-0 section? Isn't it all antiquated?" Well, I suppose I see a different world than you do, and the truth is that what I see frightens me. I'm frightened because our enemies are no longer known to us. They do not exist on a map. They're not nations, they're individuals. And look around you. Who do you fear? Can you see a face, a uniform, a flag? No! Our world is not more transparent now, it's more opaque! It's in the shadows.
    That's where we must do battle. So before you declare us irrelevant, ask yourselves, how safe do you feel? Just one more thing to say, my late husband was a great lover of poetry, and... I suppose some of it sunk in, despite my best intentions. And here today, I remember this, I believe, from Tennyson: "We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, AND NOT TO YIELD.
    "

    Now, earlier in my post I have been very critical of the realism surrounding Judi Dench's character. And that criticism still stands. But the above lines uttered by Judi Dench are art. And they perfectly explain why now in "SPECTRE" we will see the return of such an a-political crime syndicate. An invention made by Ian Fleming, that still works in today's geopolitical environment.

    All of the above is what makes "Skyfall" set apart from all other Bond films, "OHMSS" and "Casino Royale" included. Thematically it's the richest Bond film to date. I'm bloody damn certain: Ian Fleming must have felt so proud of this particular Bond entry. And we still have to see if "SPECTRE" can match that.

    Espionage, thus Bond films, have never been so relevant as during this Craig era.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    What I would claim and do claim is that people who don't think that Skyfall is superior to the vast majority of Bond films don't know that much about cinema outside of the little bubble of the Bond franchise.

    Now what do you call a vast majority?? out of 23 movies or 24 if NSNA counts?

    I don't see how Skyfall can be placed higher than No 9 in any list?
    Where do you put it and more importantly, which Connery movies are not better than Skyfall? (except DAF of course)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,368
    @PanchitoPistoles, some of those are absolutely plot holes, and if you still disagree, then chalk it up to lazy screenwriting or whatever you want to call it. Either way, there's no excuse for it and it took me right out of things, as it did for others.

    I didn't like the film. Others did. We can argue our sides of it until the end of time but nothing will change.
  • Posts: 4,619
    What I would claim and do claim is that people who don't think that Skyfall is superior to the vast majority of Bond films don't know that much about cinema outside of the little bubble of the Bond franchise.

    Now what do you call a vast majority?? out of 23 movies or 24 if NSNA counts?

    I don't see how Skyfall can be placed higher than No 9 in any list?
    Where do you put it and more importantly, which Connery movies are not better than Skyfall? (except DAF of course)
    Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "vast". By "vast majority" I meant about 15 of the 23 official Bond films.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I can live with that :)
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,043
    I place it at no. 2 and OHMSS is no. 1 so I can place it where I damn well please.

    I've been a Bond fan since 1977 and I prefer CR & SF over all the Connery's now tell me I can't place it that high.
Sign In or Register to comment.