SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1121315171899

Comments

  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    Purvis & Wade won't write Bond 24, John Logan will be the screenwriter (maybe he gets some help from other authors). And the good things of CASINO ROYALE might be, that it actually was baded upon a Fleming novel. The other thing could have been Paul Haggis, bur as we don't know, what P&W contrbuted to it. Then n the other hand, Haggis received and still receive a lot of critic for QUANTUM OF SOLACE (the rest being the fault of Marc Forster)...
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Getafix wrote:
    craigrules wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Craigrules, you can stop trolling. It's not only annoying, but rumor has it you make a fool of yourself and boy you're bringing this forum down.

    Flag me and get me banned then.

    We can only hope. If it was a toss up between throwing u or GL into the shark tank though I'm not sure which one I'd push first. Either way you both have an impressive knack for saying very little of substance but with a disproporionate capacity to annoy/offend.

    Sorry for those who don't like ADELE btw... I-)
  • Desk wrote:
    Having given it more thought, I really think the next Bond film would benefit in a change of writers away from Purvis and Wade.

    You're in luck since they're not writing the next one <:-P
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Desk wrote:
    Having given it more thought, I really think the next Bond film would benefit in a change of writers away from Purvis and Wade.

    Too many of the same themes and storylines keep coming back around. A Bond with an injured shoulder compromising his performance is something we already saw in The World is Not Enough, which also offered us MI6 being blown up and M in peril as the target of the villains.

    And Bond returning after a period of absence from duty, angry, mentally anguished and distrusted by his superiors, was already done in Die Another Day.

    I strongly believe that Paul Haggis was responsible for so much of the success of Casino Royale, and I can only wish that EON would throw enough cash his way so as to ensure his return.

    Totally agree. Despite the input from Logan this still feels at heart like another duff P+W story. And a rehash of TWINE at that. Mendes has attempted to gloss over the appalling plotting and inept character 'development' but even a one time Oscar winner can't pollish a t*rd.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    craigrules wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Craigrules, you can stop trolling. It's not only annoying, but rumor has it you make a fool of yourself and boy you're bringing this forum down.

    Flag me and get me banned then.

    We can only hope. If it was a toss up between throwing u or GL into the shark tank though I'm not sure which one I'd push first. Either way you both have an impressive knack for saying very little of substance but with a disproporionate capacity to annoy/offend.

    Sorry for those who don't like ADELE btw... I-)

    And you're the one accusing others of trolling.

    You and old Rosa Klebb deserve each other.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Regan wrote:

    Pretty decent review. Good to see the Americans calling BS on this overhyped let down. Slightly less good to see the barrage of anti-Americanism it provoked from our resident skinhead.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Don't you think you are exaggerating @Getafix? Calling people names is a bit too much, get over the fact that not everyone agrees with you.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 23,579
    Getafix wrote:
    Regan wrote:

    Pretty decent review. Good to see the Americans calling BS on this overhyped let down. Slightly less good to see the barrage of anti-Americanism it provoked from our resident skinhead.

    Yes, a review by one guy... The Americans.

    /:)
  • Sandy wrote:
    Don't you think you are exaggerating @Getafix? Calling people names is a bit too much, get over the fact that not everyone agrees with you.

    He is being stupidly OTT about it but people haven't exactly been kind to him about his opinion either to be fair.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Sandy wrote:
    Don't you think you are exaggerating @Getafix? Calling people names is a bit too much, get over the fact that not everyone agrees with you.

    Don't bother, Sandy. He is off my radar... ;)
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Sandy wrote:
    Don't you think you are exaggerating @Getafix? Calling people names is a bit too much, get over the fact that not everyone agrees with you.


    This is me being restrained. I'm not calling anyone a troll obviously, but there a couple of people on here that I find seriously unpleasant. I appreciate this is tedious for everyone else but GL is like a Rottweiler when it comes to me. When she says I am off her radar what she means is that she is going to seek out every post I make and try and gouge my eyes out. She can give it out but she cannot take it. And she and her little henchman are bloody rude to boot.
  • Posts: 3,279
    Getafix wrote:

    Pretty decent review. Good to see one American calling BS on this overhyped let down. Slightly less good to see the barrage of anti-Americanism it provoked from our resident skinhead.
    I took the liberty of editing your post slightly, to make it sound more correct.
    Hope you don't mind......... ;)
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Getafix wrote:
    Regan wrote:

    Pretty decent review. Good to see the Americans calling BS on this overhyped let down. Slightly less good to see the barrage of anti-Americanism it provoked from our resident skinhead.

    You are entitled to your opinion but you see not many of see this appalling plotting and inept character development you so eloquently talk about, you are just as bad calling us all sheep for lapping it up. This is what your take and that is your prerogative, can't you just accept that we didn't see this instead of constantly calling us all morons for liking this film.

    Are you going to be pouncing on every negative review that appears in order to back up your take? Face it, it has had almost universal acclaim we can't all have been suckered in, it's insulting you'd think such a thing.
  • Posts: 3,279
    Shardlake wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Regan wrote:

    Pretty decent review. Good to see the Americans calling BS on this overhyped let down. Slightly less good to see the barrage of anti-Americanism it provoked from our resident skinhead.

    You are entitled to your opinion but you see not many of see this appalling plotting and inept character development you so eloquently talk about, you are just as bad calling us all sheep for lapping it up. This is what your take and that is your prerogative, can't you just accept that we didn't see this instead of constantly calling us all morons for liking this film.

    Are you going to be pouncing on every negative review that appears in order to back up your take? Face it, it has had almost universal acclaim we can't all have been suckered in, it's insulting you'd think such a thing.
    I said before he is clambering in desperation to try and find other people who agree with his negative, pessimistic outlook, and he is struggling. His only hope is to try and change everyones mind that we are all wrong about SF, and he is right.

    It really is desperate stuff.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,169
    Shardlake wrote:
    Face it, it has had almost universal acclaim we can't all have been suckered in.
    That's not a valid argument, IMO. Most people agree of course that SF is a very good movie because of the acting, cinematography etc. But Bond-fans are allowed to use a different scale ;-) Just because it has Oscar potential, it doesn't necessarily make it a great Bond-movie for a lot of Bond-fans.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 7,653
    The biggest spoiler would be: James Bond failed in his job.
  • Zekidk wrote:
    Shardlake wrote:
    Face it, it has had almost universal acclaim we can't all have been suckered in.
    That's not a valid argument, IMO. Most people agree of course that SF is a very good movie because of the acting, cinematography etc. But Bond-fans are allowed to use a different scale ;-) Just because it has Oscar potential, it doesn't necessarily make it a great Bond-movie for a lot of Bond-fans.

    It happens though, that this time around, Skyfall is both a film with Oscar potential and a film that is great as well.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 23,579
    Dear members and friends, very soon our American colleagues will drop by and start discussing SF. I'd say we offer them a stable thread to do so. While there can never be any objection to good debate, we must make sure that all the negative bickering doesn't get in he way of the real purpose of this review thread. Can we please count of your full cooperation to keep defending your points and countering those of others with respect and in a friendly manner? Things are getting a bit out of control and frankly I don't think there's ever going to be an end to it until certain lines get crossed and warnings or possibly even bans need to be issued. Seriously, we should be celebrating 50 years of Bond and the arrival of a new entry which seems to be very successful and can thus secure the future of Bond. We can soon move on to Bond 24 but meanwhile we contemplate SF because, hey, that's what we do here, right? :-) Now, let's just timidly forget the last couple of pages of venom and verbal fights, consider the validity of our arguments before pulling in the most nonsensical things out of nowhere, and for once stop taking all of this so bloody personal. Opinions aren't about right or wrong, lest we forget. Thank you for helping us to keep things clean and cosy. :)
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,215
    Germanlady wrote:
    .
    NOT AMERICAN. Sorry, but as a Canadian it's my rightful duty to point that out ;)
  • Getafix wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    craigrules wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Craigrules, you can stop trolling. It's not only annoying, but rumor has it you make a fool of yourself and boy you're bringing this forum down.

    Flag me and get me banned then.

    We can only hope. If it was a toss up between throwing u or GL into the shark tank though I'm not sure which one I'd push first. Either way you both have an impressive knack for saying very little of substance but with a disproporionate capacity to annoy/offend.

    Sorry for those who don't like ADELE btw... I-)

    And you're the one accusing others of trolling.

    You and old Rosa Klebb deserve each other.

    we all know who the real trolls are.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 267
    Just got back from the Imax showing. Loved it. Not on the scale of CR in my opinion, but one hell of a Bond. Really want to see this again. The small calls toward past films were awesome for me to see, and even the huge crowd pleasers like the DB5 and ejector seat were very well done and tied into the story. The way the old office, Mallory's M, Q, Moneypenny, etc. were all introduced was awesome. The banter between Bond and Moneypenny and between Bond and Q felt like anything lifted out of a Connery film - perfect. Also really enjoyed how the Bond theme was subtly left throughout. Felt weird in the fact that Bond was at home in England and essentially being chased as he tried to protect M. That was the only thing that felt a little off to me, it wasn't really a mission, but I need to see it at least once more to get a better feel of it all.

    Only real complaints is that I wish we'd seen more of Severine and more dialog between Bond and Silva - my favorite moments of the films are the banter between 007 and the villains and I really wish we'd had maybe one more decently long scene to that effect. Another thing is that I know Arnold has gotten some flack for his scores, but I personally really enjoyed both CR and QoS's scores. Newman's score wasn't something that really hurt or helped the movie, but I think back to CR and tracks like Aston Montenegro were tracks I could listen to on their own and enjoy. Can't think of any such track from SF.

    As much as I enjoyed it though, I'm actually really looking forward to Bond 24 where hopefully he goes into an office, gets his assignment and sets on his way without any personal baggage like all 3 of the Craig films have been accompanied by.
  • tqbtqb
    Posts: 1,022
    Just saw it as well...
    Not quite sure what to think yet. Definitely a good movie. But it felt really different.

    Everyone keeps saying there will be no more personal baggage in Craig's films... Yeah i don't think that's ever going to happen. The point of his tenure is to make Bond feel more human, so sorry fellas.

    I want to see it again
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,579
    craigrules wrote:
    we all know who the real trolls are.

    Seriously? Even after my post where I beg for a little peace and quiet you have to put down another useless post like this, hoping to stir up the wasp nest again?

  • DarthDimi wrote:
    craigrules wrote:
    we all know who the real trolls are.

    Seriously? Even after my post where I beg for a little peace and quiet you have to put down another useless post like this, hoping to stir up the wasp nest again?

    I have been using this forum for a year now if i am a fool and offend people it is up to people to provide all the evidence to the MODS and get me removed.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,579
    craigrules wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    craigrules wrote:
    we all know who the real trolls are.

    Seriously? Even after my post where I beg for a little peace and quiet you have to put down another useless post like this, hoping to stir up the wasp nest again?

    I have been using this forum for a year now if i am a fool and offend people it is up to people to provide all the evidence to the MODS and get me removed.

    You do realise I am a mod, don't you...

  • DarthDimi wrote:
    craigrules wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    craigrules wrote:
    we all know who the real trolls are.

    Seriously? Even after my post where I beg for a little peace and quiet you have to put down another useless post like this, hoping to stir up the wasp nest again?

    I have been using this forum for a year now if i am a fool and offend people it is up to people to provide all the evidence to the MODS and get me removed.

    You do realise I am a mod, don't you...

    yes i do
  • Things are going to flare up here, but I have sympathy for Getafix mainly because I share his view of the film. His antipathy comes from frustration; nobody other than Craigrules and myself seems to see his point, to the point of peversity. It can drive you mad.

    We have provided the plot holes, they are off the scale. Just one: Bond falls to his 'death' he looks dead in the water (why? Is he pretending to be dead to fool an imaginary audience), no mention to speak of regarding the 'fatal' shot, no reference to him being injured by it much save bruising in the ribs. Was Eve firing rock salt, is it a homage to AVTAK?

    No rush to get back to reassure the gal that he's not dead, it not such a big mistake. He behaves unprofessionally, to the point where I wondered if the whole thing wasn't deliberetly done as a YOLT (film) hoax.

    How did he survive the fall, let alone the shot?

    In fact, a better way this would make sense if it is to borrow from the YOLT book finale, where he falls and has short-term memory loss, (though that really would be like the first Bourne film unfortunately). That would explain why he is dossing about, in no hurry to return, then the explosion of the Mi6 building in the bar would jolt his memory and bring it back.

    It would work better so that when he hears M say 'Take the bloody shot!' over the headpiece, you see his eyes widen with astonishment and horror at the betrayal. To underline he is gonna be peeved with her.

    Until you address all this, poor Getafix is going to be even more frustrated, and I share it. It's a 'My Bond right or wrong' pov.
  • The mods have asked people involved to calm down and stop the venom so it shall be.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Thanks for putting it down clearly @NapoleonPlural, now I can see what you mean by plotholes and we can all try to have a reasonable conversation. I answered point by point.
    We have provided the plot holes, they are off the scale. Just one: Bond falls to his 'death' he looks dead in the water (why? Is he pretending to be dead to fool an imaginary audience), no mention to speak of regarding the 'fatal' shot, no reference to him being injured by it much save bruising in the ribs. Was Eve firing rock salt, is it a homage to AVTAK?

    He looks dead? He obviously isn't. You assume he is because he is not moving and his eyes are closed, that just means he looks unconscient, right? That would be result of the impact of the bullet and water. You can see the scar from the shot very well on his shoulder.
    No rush to get back to reassure the gal that he's not dead, it not such a big mistake. He behaves unprofessionally, to the point where I wondered if the whole thing wasn't deliberetly done as a YOLT (film) hoax.

    He's been shot by a fellow agent, he feels betrayed by his own people, do you really think his first thought would be "Let me get back fast because the poor girl must be feeling terrible , thinking she killed me!"
    How did he survive the fall, let alone the shot?

    The shot was to the shoulder, you can see it clearly when he is taken the remains of the other shoulder. He could survive the fall, many people have survived falls like this. The fact that he was probably already unconscient when he hit the water probably helped. Someone obviously helped him. We don't need to see that, it would drag the story.
    In fact, a better way this would make sense if it is to borrow from the YOLT book finale, where he falls and has short-term memory loss, (though that really would be like the first Bourne film unfortunately). That would explain why he is dossing about, in no hurry to return, then the explosion of the Mi6 building in the bar would jolt his memory and bring it back.

    He is in no hurry to return because he doesn't feel like it, he was shot by a fellow agent (by accident but nevertheless), a shot ordered by his boss. He's in no hurry to get back but then he sees what's happening and his loyalty comes to the surface again.
    It would work better so that when he hears M say 'Take the bloody shot!' over the headpiece, you see his eyes widen with astonishment and horror at the betrayal. To underline he is gonna be peeved with her.

    Hmm, with all due respect, this is not a soap opera.
Sign In or Register to comment.