Skyfall: Billion Dollar Bond

1303133353682

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    edited December 2012 Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote:
    Well, where I live good reviews and great word of mouth count for something. You just dismiss it, because you cannot argue against it. because WHAT makes a film a success? Right, the amount of peopkle, who go see it. Obviously for you, all these people have no taste. But - be it Transporters or Avengers or Avatar or you name it. Films that managed to makes this much money have obviously succeesed in what they set out to do - entertain a mass audience.

    Well given that I saw it for the fifth time on Saturday with my future mother-in-law who wanted to see it because she heard it was good, well then I guess that counts as being dismissive of SF. What I don't do is use word of mouth and reviews to justify my opinion. I don't care what I can glean from critics or the B.O. I form my opinions based on my own experiences and I don't have to justify them to you of all people. The queen of spin.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    SF may well get nominations (and a few wins) in technical categories such as cinematography and production design but when it comes to things like acting and screenplay it's very unlikely.

    I dont see it as contentious to state that SF is not high art and will not win best picture or best actor. It would have been a shock had TDK won any of these (would Heath Ledger really have won if he had been alive? Debatable) and it will be a shock if SF.
    Just because it gets rave reviews for what it is doesn't mean it's in the same league as Schindlers or There Will Be Blood when it comes to awards.

    Apart from technical categories I expect BAFTA nominations for Craig, Bardem, Dench and Mendes (with Bardem and Dench possibly winning) and possible Oscar nominations for Bardem and Dench with an outside chance of a win depending on the field. To be fair it's not impossible for this type of film to pick an acting win - Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive anyone? Mind you that was a travesty; how Samuel L didn't win that is beyond me. However given Bardem winning so recently for a similar villainous turn I would say they are very unlikely to reward him again.

    Films like this just don't pick up the big awards very often and although for a Bond film the three main performances are fantastic acting wise I don't think Craig, Bardem and Dench ever really needed to get out of 3rd gear.

    Totally agree.
  • And the good news with regard to this film just keeps rolling in. Bardem might just get that best supporting actor nomination after all.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Germanlady wrote:

    Its two different horses here and both have done well, if they appeal to the market they go for and deserve to be treated equally IMO.

    Am I getting you right here Germanlady in that you are saying that if a film succeeds in its target market it is a worthy of awards as any other film?

    Because if you are down that route madness lies.
  • Am I getting you right here Germanlady in that you are saying that if a film succeeds in its target market it is a worthy of awards as any other film?

    Because if you are down that route madness lies.
    What's your criteria? It sounds as though something being popular is actually a criteria you're using to be dismissive of a piece of art's overall worth.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Am I getting you right here Germanlady in that you are saying that if a film succeeds in its target market it is a worthy of awards as any other film?

    Because if you are down that route madness lies.
    What's your criteria? It sounds as though something being popular is actually a criteria you're using to be dismissive of a piece of art's overall worth.

    I don't think it's any criteria at all to be judging something's artistic merit.

    The Fast And The Furious, Crank and Transformers are all pretty successful at appealing to their target audiences but anyone suggesting they might be Oscar worthy is a bona fide moron.

    Although you open up a whole can of worms as to how society judges a films artistic merit. Who's to say the opinion of the chav proles who lap up the latest Stath film is any less valid to anyone else's when evaluating artistic worth?
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 1,215
    Germanlady wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    But there is no reason for it to NOT get nods. Can only help the overall opinion of Bond as a serious contender for money and awards - which again will show in the talent involved. I don't see, why this should be "beneath" Bond. At the end of the day, its just aother franchise in the ever growing number of them and needs to do real well in the competition.

    Well I think there's quite a few categories where it just simply isn't deserving of a nod in my opinion, and that is good reason for it not to get one. I think it deserves one for Cinematography, Sound Design/Mixing, Best Picture (there just weren't many movies that were better), and maybe Best Supporting Actor/Actress but I'm struggling with that one.

    If you look up the list of likely Oscar Best Film nods, you will find more then just a few, that have a lower critical rating then SF - so what does this mean? Does it mean, they are more deserving films for whatever reason? I just can't see it. What's the difference now between ond and Batman, Bond and other "adventure or thriller" films? I feel, people are so used to see Bond films as not deserving enough, that they can't turn their heads around, that time has changed - well maybe.

    Dr. No and Finding Nemo currently hold a higher percentage on Rotten Tomatoes than The Dark Knight, The Godfather, Fight Club, Gone With the Wind, Inception, etc. Does that mean they're better movies? Critical ratings don't always directly translate, especially outside of the Best Picture category. I love Skyfall for what it is, and I think it deserves a nomination for Best Picture, but in the other categories individually I'm not really sure if it's deserving and that has NOTHING to do with it being a Bond movie. As huge of a Bond fan as I am, it's only fair to go in with an unbiased opinion and I honestly feel it's worthy of nomination for Cinematography, Sound Design/Mixing, Best Picture, because the quality of the film in those categories compared to it's competition holds up well. While Javier and Judi could get noms, they're performances are very good and not spectacular, and they could benifit from relatively weak competition, but I expect it may get tougher when Les Miserables and Django Unchained are released.
  • I don't think it's any criteria at all to be judging something's artistic merit.
    Isn't art by its very nature meant to be appreciated by others?

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 6,601
    Germanlady wrote:
    Its different with a film like Lincoln or others, who will not make hundreds of millions, because they are not made for the mass market to start with. They might be counted a success if they make 100 mill - which counts for as much as 1 bill from a blockbuster movie.

    Its two different horses here and both have done well, if they appeal to the market they go for and deserve to be treated equally IMO.

    @Jim, where do you read dismissive? I meant to say and think I have - that we have 2 different criteria and like I said, for a film like Lincoln 100 or 150 mill counts for as much as a billion for a blockbuster. They are both successful.

    But where does art begin?

    With so many blockbuster films failing, doesn't that show, that making this sort of film successful is as difficult as making a highly artsy and meaningful film. Is a film with depth really more worthy then a fine made blockbuster? Again - where does art starts for you?

    Of course, in most blockbuster, not all though, you won't find Oscar worthy acting, but other ingredients are there, that work. Its a difficult question, but I raise it nevertheless - whether or not you tear me apart or not ;) ..and I am not riding the SF train with this.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 803
    Germanlady wrote:
    @Jim, where do you read dismissive? I meant to say and think I have - that we have 2 different criteria and like I said, for a film like Lincoln 100 or 150 mill counts for as much as a billion for a blockbuster. They are both successful.

    But where does art begin?

    With so many blockbuster films failing, doesn't that show, that making this sort of film successful is as difficult as making a highly artsy and meaningful film. Is a film with depth really more worthy then a fine made blockbuster? Again - where does art starts for you?

    Of course, in most blockbuster, not all though, you won't find Oscar worthy acting, but other ingredients are there, that work. Its a difficult question, but I raise it nevertheless - whether or not you tear me apart or not ;) ..and I am not riding the SF train with this.
    I think I make the dismissive argument whenever I see people who start arguing that because a movie is popular (e.g. very successful) doesn't mean the performances were good or the work was good. Art is, primarily, meant to be experienced, considered, and, in many cases, enjoyed. Films like The Dark Knight, for example, might not be getting their full due, I think.

    In an attempt to be high minded, I think people often become far too restrictive. In some ways, it reminds me of a propaganda poster I saw, and that is coming back into vogue as an art design:

    "Obey. Never trust your own eyes. Believe what you are told."

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Germanlady wrote:
    @Jim, where do you read dismissive? I meant to say and think I have - that we have 2 different criteria and like I said, for a film like Lincoln 100 or 150 mill counts for as much as a billion for a blockbuster. They are both successful.

    But where does art begin?

    With so many blockbuster films failing, doesn't that show, that making this sort of film successful is as difficult as making a highly artsy and meaningful film. Is a film with depth really more worthy then a fine made blockbuster? Again - where does art starts for you?

    Of course, in most blockbuster, not all though, you won't find Oscar worthy acting, but other ingredients are there, that work. Its a difficult question, but I raise it nevertheless - whether or not you tear me apart or not ;) ..and I am not riding the SF train with this.
    I think I make the dismissive argument whenever I see people who start arguing that because a movie is popular (e.g. very successful) doesn't mean the performances were good or the work was good. Art is, primarily, meant to be experienced, considered, and, in many cases, enjoyed. Films like The Dark Knight, for example, might not be getting their full due, I think.

    In an attempt to be high minded, I think people often become far too restrictive. In some ways, it reminds me of a propaganda poster I saw, and that is coming back into vogue as an art design:

    "Obey. Never trust your own eyes. Believe what you are told."

    These are all valid points but I would remind you of the Wizards number 1 rule: the general public are retards. Therefore the more of them that like something the more likely it is to be lowest common denominator.

    And let us not forget the Oscars are actually voted for by industry peers - ie people who know what they are talking about when it comes to filmmaking so I would say that in general (obviously there have been some shocking travesties at the Oscars) the opinion of such people holds more validity than the population as a whole.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    These are all valid points but I would remind you of the Wizards number 1 rule: the general public are retards. Therefore the more of them that like something the more likely it is to be lowest common denominator.

    And let us not forget the Oscars are actually voted for by industry peers - ie people who know what they are talking about when it comes to filmmaking so I would say that in general (obviously there have been some shocking travesties at the Oscars) the opinion of such people holds more validity than the population as a whole.

    Couldn't agree more. It's pure happenstance if something of cultural or artistic value also becomes a commercial success.
    Germanlady wrote:
    Is a film with depth really more worthy then a fine made blockbuster? Again - where does art starts for you?

    Are you referring to the Academy still?

  • These are all valid points but I would remind you of the Wizards number 1 rule: the general public are retards. Therefore the more of them that like something the more likely it is to be lowest common denominator.

    And let us not forget the Oscars are actually voted for by industry peers - ie people who know what they are talking about when it comes to filmmaking so I would say that in general (obviously there have been some shocking travesties at the Oscars) the opinion of such people holds more validity than the population as a whole.
    I would say these points are more revealing about how you look at things than they are about something's relative artistic worth.

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 277
    Skyfall Will win one oscar for best original score it's looking like Lincoln and Life of pi will win most of the Oscars between them.
  • htall90 wrote:
    Skyfall Will win one oscar for best original score it's looking like Lincoln and Life of pi will win most of the Oscars between them.
    Probably a safe bet. This year, just getting nominations would be pretty impressive.

  • Posts: 277
    It would win more if Life of Pi was not seen as so amazing in so many categories that Skyfall could win like cinematography.
  • Skyfall was still the number two film in the US this past week, just behind the Twilight film. Breaking Dawn, Part Two, took in 17.4 million, with Skyfall taking in 17 million. I think that's pretty impressive!
  • htall90 wrote:
    OwenDavian wrote:
    What a financial failure...
    what?

    called sarcasm numnuts
    Hey, some said very seriously $700M would have been a huge letdown :)


  • edited December 2012 Posts: 2,015
    Tobester95 wrote:
    Skyfall is just under $10million away from The Dark Knight Rises foreign gross.
    It's weird how they use the term 'foreign' when Bond (besides release and funding by MGM and Sony) is a British film.

    Well, don't you make all your box office rankings here in US dollars ? :)

    If you did it in UK pounds for instance, you'd be quite surprised at some modifications. And btw, here we're talking about a franchise that makes most of his money outside the $ world !

    For instance, QOS did about 10/15% less than DAD in France in ticket sales. But when DAD was released, 1Euro = 0.9$. When QOS was released , 1 Euro = 1.4$. Foreign box office for France then gave 30M$ for QOS, 23M$ for DAD (unadjusted for inflation). So thanks to the exchange rate, and thanks to it only, QOS is perceived as far more successfull than DAD in $ in France, while the truth is the opposite if you consider ticket sales, and even Euro sales !

    The fact that DAD was released at recent all time high for the $, and QOS at an all time low, is a critical parameter if you want to compare them actually in my opinion... (and my real opinion is that you should not really bother to do such comparisons :) )

    The good news for all of you who want merely unadjusted $ comparison, is that the $ keeps on being less and less worthy in China currency . Between 2004 and 2012, the $ lose about 33% in China for instance, and it's a somehow constant trend over time. It means that as time went by, you needed less and less results in China to reach any given results in $...

    The bad news is that in five years time, all these unadjusted $ based list may have exploded and all the current hits may loose some rankings (or not, frankly don't listen to anyone who claim to know the future in these fields - or wonder why they are not billionnaire if they're so expert in market trend prediction !)

    Or, to conclude, given that it opens in China in quite some time still, it turns out the fiscall cliff debate currently in the US, and its consequences on the dollar value, may have a critical impact in Skyfall being a dollar billionnaire worldwide :)






  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I don't think it's any criteria at all to be judging something's artistic merit.
    Isn't art by its very nature meant to be appreciated by others?

    Indeed. The entire purpose of art is to share it. It thrives on reviews, no matter how negative to exist as a piece of "art".
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I don't think it's any criteria at all to be judging something's artistic merit.
    Isn't art by its very nature meant to be appreciated by others?

    Indeed. The entire purpose of art is to share it. It thrives on reviews, no matter how negative to exist as a piece of "art".

    Ha ha are we discussing Bond as art in a thread about Box Office stats? True Art concerns itself with philosophical and aesthetic values, not commercial ones.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote:
    I don't think it's any criteria at all to be judging something's artistic merit.
    Isn't art by its very nature meant to be appreciated by others?

    Indeed. The entire purpose of art is to share it. It thrives on reviews, no matter how negative to exist as a piece of "art".

    Ha ha are we discussing Bond as art in a thread about Box Office stats? True Art concerns itself with philosophical and aesthetic values, not commercial ones.
    Films are art no matter how much money they make. Just because something gets money doesn't make it unartistic or not classified as art. How do you explain auctions?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote:
    I don't think it's any criteria at all to be judging something's artistic merit.
    Isn't art by its very nature meant to be appreciated by others?

    Indeed. The entire purpose of art is to share it. It thrives on reviews, no matter how negative to exist as a piece of "art".

    Ha ha are we discussing Bond as art in a thread about Box Office stats? True Art concerns itself with philosophical and aesthetic values, not commercial ones.
    Films are art no matter how much money they make. Just because something gets money doesn't make it unartistic or not classified as art. How do you explain auctions?

    I'm talking about the creative process. That is where art happens. I would argue a lot of technical people on the film provide individual works of 'art' whether it be physical or visual. As a filmic whole though the 'art' is unfortunately perforated with shots of Omega watches and Heineken bottles so it loses the right to call itself art IMO.
  • RC7 wrote:
    True Art concerns itself with philosophical and aesthetic values, not commercial ones.
    All evidence to the contrary. Shakespeare was the Neil Simon of his day.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote:
    True Art concerns itself with philosophical and aesthetic values, not commercial ones.
    All evidence to the contrary. Shakespeare was the Neil Simon of his day.

    Who said Shakespeare was art?
  • RC7 wrote:
    Who said Shakespeare was art?
    LOL! Lot o' professors at liberal arts colleges and universities, for starters.

  • Posts: 6,601
    Without commercialising art, there would be none anymore. people make money out of art everywere in the world and sometimes art is used to nothing but make money. What gave you the idea, art is no whore? It is and always was.

    We never got down to excplain, what art really is. At what point can something be called art? When do we call a film artful?
  • Germanlady wrote:
    Without commercialising art, there would be none anymore. people make money out of art everywhere in the world and sometimes art is used to nothing but make money. What gave you the idea, art is no whore? It is and always was.
    Nah. DaVinci never got paid for his art.

    Oh...wait...

  • htall90 wrote:
    Skyfall Will win one oscar for best original score it's looking like Lincoln and Life of pi will win most of the Oscars between them.
    I read that The Miserables was already announced as the big winnerfor the Oscars ? Now I don't know if it can claim as winner for the best original score. Well, The Artist was nominated for Best Sound at the BAFTA, so maybe if there's a single original piece of music it can ?!

  • Posts: 1,452
    Germanlady wrote:
    Without commercialising art, there would be none anymore. people make money out of art everywhere in the world and sometimes art is used to nothing but make money. What gave you the idea, art is no whore? It is and always was.
    Nah. DaVinci never got paid for his art.

    Oh...wait...

    "Making money is art and good business is the best art" -- apologies if I may have slightly misquoted, but there you go.

Sign In or Register to comment.