A place for disappointed skyfall viewers

145791024

Comments

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    006jeremy wrote:
    @Getafix

    Thanks. Yeah I agree too that this is mostly an M movie. That isn't really a bad thing either. I appreciate trying to do something different. I want each Bond movie to have it's own unquie feel. There are times I think that it does to a degree, although most of the movie also feels cookie-cutter. I know Mendes wanted to honor the 50 years of Bond and that's fine, but instead of rehashing and redressing tired movie mechanics it would have been more appreciated (by me at least) to present Bond references in a more reimagined way. That is what I feel ultimately what CR did. I too was hoping Mendes would focus more on a character driven story. In a general (not sure if that's the right word) way he did, but not enough. Some of the other flaws I believe wouldn't be as much of an issue if he just worked more on character development. I wanted to feel why Bond is the way he is from this story, but that never really happened. This was supposed to be a more personal story than QoS was and not enough time went into to making it that way.

    And even though I can't articulate everything you addressed in the last part of your post as well as you, I certainly can say I do agree. I hate that this film tries to build tension from the utter failure of almost every character (except for the anatgonists). I can see that because fiction mirrors reality that this can work. Although, how it is done here does make MI6 feel incompetent. Not sure how this could have been done better though. Perhapse it was the ridiculousness of Silva that made thier failings stand out so much.

    Thanks for the response.

    I also welcome the fact that EON wants to try going in different directions. I considered the Brosnan tick-box era a disaster and was very happy with how things were going with CR and QoS. I just feel SF is a mess and a missed opportunity. Like you say, it promises so much and ultimately delivers so little. I felt the emotional journeys in CR and QoS were far more compelling and believable. I still don't fully understand what is supposed to have happened in SF - in terms of Bond's resolution of his past (what exactly is resolved ?) and his relationship with M (she totally fails to trust him and then completely trusts him again). I feel the film touches on so many areas and I was initially interested in where the characters were going to go, but in the end it seems we just get nothing. We are back where we were at the end of QoS.

    It's fine to go around in a circle, but the journey has to be interesting. Generic action, largely forgettable script, dire film score and incoherent plot. SF is a middle ranker, at best.
  • All fart and no poo, as someone put it on one forum.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I considered the Brosnan tick-box era a disaster and was very happy with how things were going with CR and QoS

    That's not what you've said before. You've described CR as "not a very entertaining film"

    Personally, having gladly seen SF three times now I can safely say its MILES ahead of its predecessor (perhaps even better than CR but not sure). The characters make more of an impact and the story is (to be frank) more intriguing.

    The narrative makes sense. M screwed up. She has to be held accountable for her actions - both by the authorities and by the enemy. That's the main thread of the film and the motivation for Silvia ("think on your sins"). In the process Bond's loyalty towards her is confirmed. The idea was that Bond and Silvia were both used by the same woman. Where Silvia went rogue and became twisted Bond stayed on the side of good - even when M had presumed he was dead.

    In terms of Bond's past there was nothing really to resolve. It was more a case of showing us some of Bond's background and having Bond go back to a place he thought he'd left behind. That hasn't been touched on in the films before and I for one thought it was done in a moving (and funny) way. The film examined the idea of Bond being an orphan more than it had done in GE (there it was a fleeting reference) as we saw the graves of his parents and found out a bit about the people who subsequently looked after him. Him being an orphan was a large reason why he ended up in the secret service and why he came into contact with M. Her line about "orphans making the best recruits" really hits home.
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    006jeremy wrote:
    The audience when I saw it laughed at pretty much everything that was supposed to get laughed at. I'm in America too. With that being said, they also laughed at Silva during serious moments like I mentioned in my long rant above. I think many of us feel that the movie didn't take itself that serious and that's what we mean by it was lighter. I think that is what we mean anyway.

    That's how I felt at times, mainly with the Macau casino fight scene. It just seemed like Craig was taking it as a joke, and I never felt that he was in any serious danger.

    Yeah completely agree. He is James Bond and Bond should have moments where he is a badass. Although, I'm not really into the ballerina style fighting when it comes to Bond movies. If I want that I will watch Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. In Bond, I want it to feel real. I also, would like to say that I don't want to see every encounter with enemies lead to a fight, let alone a shallow fight scene.

  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I considered the Brosnan tick-box era a disaster and was very happy with how things were going with CR and QoS

    That's not what you've said before. You've described CR as "not a very entertaining film"

    Personally, having gladly seen SF three times now I can safely say its MILES ahead of its predecessor. The characters make more of an impact.

    I'm not a huge CR fan, but I welcomed it as a major step forward after the Brosnan era. It has a lot of good scenes but for me it was overlong and had one too many pointless action sequences (namely the Miami airport chase). I've stated on here countless times that I actually like QoS. It's a simple, relatively no-nonsense Bond movie. It has flaws, such as dodgy editing, but overall I like it. SF is inferior to both
  • Getafix wrote:
    006jeremy wrote:
    @Getafix

    Thanks. Yeah I agree too that this is mostly an M movie. That isn't really a bad thing either. I appreciate trying to do something different. I want each Bond movie to have it's own unquie feel. There are times I think that it does to a degree, although most of the movie also feels cookie-cutter. I know Mendes wanted to honor the 50 years of Bond and that's fine, but instead of rehashing and redressing tired movie mechanics it would have been more appreciated (by me at least) to present Bond references in a more reimagined way. That is what I feel ultimately what CR did. I too was hoping Mendes would focus more on a character driven story. In a general (not sure if that's the right word) way he did, but not enough. Some of the other flaws I believe wouldn't be as much of an issue if he just worked more on character development. I wanted to feel why Bond is the way he is from this story, but that never really happened. This was supposed to be a more personal story than QoS was and not enough time went into to making it that way.

    And even though I can't articulate everything you addressed in the last part of your post as well as you, I certainly can say I do agree. I hate that this film tries to build tension from the utter failure of almost every character (except for the anatgonists). I can see that because fiction mirrors reality that this can work. Although, how it is done here does make MI6 feel incompetent. Not sure how this could have been done better though. Perhapse it was the ridiculousness of Silva that made thier failings stand out so much.

    Thanks for the response.

    I also welcome the fact that EON wants to try going in different directions. I considered the Brosnan tick-box era a disaster and was very happy with how things were going with CR and QoS. I just feel SF is a mess and a missed opportunity. Like you say, it promises so much and ultimately delivers so little. I felt the emotional journeys in CR and QoS were far more compelling and believable. I still don't fully understand what is supposed to have happened in SF - in terms of Bond's resolution of his past (what exactly is resolved ?) and his relationship with M (she totally fails to trust him and then completely trusts him again). I feel the film touches on so many areas and I was initially interested in where the characters were going to go, but in the end it seems we just get nothing. We are back where we were at the end of QoS.

    It's fine to go around in a circle, but the journey has to be interesting. Generic action, largely forgettable script, dire film score and incoherent plot. SF is a middle ranker, at best.

    I think that this screenplay was on the right track (not to sound contradictory). Skyfall as I think about it more and more does have its own feel within this rebooted Craig era. It was almost as if Mendes or whomever, wanted to bring some of the cheeky charm from past Bonds. I'm not really against that approach as Bond movies always had a little fun, but some really important building blocks that reinvented this new era were sacrificed or just ignored.

    I do disagree about the score though. Well I mean I like the Adele song. Also, the end of Skyfall (to me at least) felt different than QoS. Although, maybe that was just from Craig's acting or from the ending scenes themselves. I want to try to convey that better, but I have to go to work now. :)
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 533
    However, it rather confirms my theory that Bond does not actually need Oscar winning directors - the greatest films in the series are IMO those knocked out by the professional hack directors who were more grounded in the nuts and bolts of moviemaking.


    I heartily agree. Some of what I consider to be the best Bond movies were directed by those who rarely directed a movie outside of the franchise or who started out as film editors and directed only Bond films.


    And who wrote the screenplay for "SKYFALL"? I have not seen such sloppy writing since "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER". Mind you, I have seen some occasional sloppy writing in the Bond movies of the last 40 years, but the sloppiness of the plot for "SKYFALL" left me speechless.
  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    Posts: 260
    I have a request for all disappointed skyfall viewers as I am one of them. While using the words skyfall in a post, can you please rather use skyfail. Thank-you


    One other note-

    I find the bi-sexual undertones used in skyfall disgusting and a disgrace to Ian Fleming plus Bonds history. it was very politically correct and unnecessary to have Bond say, "What Makes You Think This is My First Time?" Some of you may say, "IT WAS A JOKE! ". But seriously what are we supposed to believe? This is just another attempt for the producers to appease another minority ( the gays and lesbians) . EON really sold out here and I'm disappointed with Daniel Craig . Now I am no racist nor do I hate gays, in fact I know many nice gay people, but it was completely unnecessary for EON to suggest at all Bond might have boinked a guy.Seriously come on.
    This is just one of many things wrong with the film.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2012 Posts: 16,330
    One other note-

    I find the bi-sexual undertones used in skyfall disgusting and a disgrace to Ian Fleming

    Ernst Stavro Blofeld in the Novels was Bi-Sexual I believe.
  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    edited November 2012 Posts: 260
    Yes I'm aware of that, and by all means thats fine. But my main point and problem is the fact the writers of skyfail included the distasteful and out of place line, " What makes you think this is my first time " To infer bond might be bi-sexual is absurd and just a complete slap in the face to Fleming's brute and manly womanising character .
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2012 Posts: 16,330
    Yes I'm aware of that, and by all means thats fine. But my main point and problem is the fact the writers of skyfail included the distasteful and out of place line, " What makes you think this is my first time " To infer bond might be bi-sexual is absurd and just a complete slap in the face to Fleming's brute and manly womanising character .

    Bond wasn't implying he was Bisexual, he was shooting back at Silva. They were playing mental chess. It was a funny quip. If Bond was implying he was bi I think he would have said so. "Oh Silva!" =))
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I never took Bond's line THAT way. I thought he was either giving back what he was receiving, and that touch he was referring be having before could be from an experience with a woman. People just naturally take the homosexual route with it, and then others try to imply that gay characters aren't as strong and true to for as heterosexual ones. But people love the spotlight, no matter how they get it.
  • Posts: 1,407
    That line always got a big laugh in the screenings I went to. Bond's sly smile was fantastic. It was almost showing what we were all thinking. Which was "what in the world is Silva doing???"
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Even the friend I was with in the latest screening (who loved Fleming) laughed at that line. It was just Bond giving an unexpected retort. It might not be THAT hard to imagine Flemings Bond saying it either if he wanted to mock a villain who was blatantly coming on to him.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 40,474
    That's the main reason that I feared the worst after seeing that scene in SF: I knew that people would twist that scene any way they could, and sure enough, I saw tons of threads on different sites crop up asking if Bond was a homosexual. Really? All of these films in the canon and you now question if he is homosexual, just because of one quip? Like @Murdock said, it was a game of mental chess.

    While we're on that, I thought of one little thing that irked me, probably because I watched the trailers and TV spots so much: was anyone else disappointed to see a reshoot scene of Silva's "She sent you after me..." bit? I was so accustomed to how it sounded in the trailers that it just sounded rushed and 'off' to me when I heard the new version of it in theaters.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Creasy47 wrote:
    That's the main reason that I feared the worst after seeing that scene in SF: I knew that people would twist that scene any way they could, and sure enough, I saw tons of threads on different sites crop up asking if Bond was a homosexual. Really? All of these films in the canon and you now question if he is homosexual, just because of one quip? Like @Murdock said, it was a game of mental chess.

    While we're on that, I thought of one little thing that irked me, probably because I watched the trailers and TV spots so much: was anyone else disappointed to see a reshoot scene of Silva's "She sent you after me..." bit? I was so accustomed to how it sounded in the trailers that it just sounded rushed and 'off' to me when I heard the new version of it in theaters.
    Not to mention that Dan's Bond is the biggest smart arse of the lot.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,474
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, absolutely. This scene was just another one of those that people didn't look into in the slightest, so they wrote it off as homosexual dialogue and heavy flirting and moved on. Quite pathetic, really.

    The funniest part about all of that, though, is that some people on this site, unfortunately, found any traces of bisexuality (or homosexuality, however they saw it) to be disgusting/messed up, what have you...and yet out of all of Bond's villains, Silva managed to kill M, though not by his own hand. Quite impressive for someone with a "disgusting" character trait, as so many others see him.
  • When I saw that scene I immediatly thought about Casino Royale (sorry it's my favorite) when he is strapped to the chair with Le Chiffre. When he says "What makes you think this is my first time?" I thought he meant being tied to a chair. That's how I interpreted it anyway.
  • @Getafix

    I take back what I said earlier about the ending of SF and contrasting it with QoS. They are actually very similar endings. I rather liked both of them too. I guess because I geeked out a little over the padded door and Ms. Moneypenny that that scene brought more of the future into prespective.

    You are very right though about how so many things were touched on and not followed through with.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,279
    DRush76 wrote:
    However, it rather confirms my theory that Bond does not actually need Oscar winning directors - the greatest films in the series are IMO those knocked out by the professional hack directors who were more grounded in the nuts and bolts of moviemaking.


    I heartily agree. Some of what I consider to be the best Bond movies were directed by those who rarely directed a movie outside of the franchise or who started out as film editors and directed only Bond films.


    And who wrote the screenplay for "SKYFALL"? I have not seen such sloppy writing since "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER". Mind you, I have some occasional sloppy writing in the Bond movies of the last 40 years, but the sloppiness of the plot for "SKYFALL" left me speechless.
    So there was no sloppy writing in any Bond film since 1971 until Skyfall came along???

    =))

    It's comments like these which do you no favours whatsoever, and why no one here can you take you even a little bit seriously.

    Meanwhile back on planet earth, Skyfall continues to rake in the big numbers at the BO, and is all set for a few Oscar nominations hopefully. I suggest you take a break from decent Bond movies and go back to watching this -

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1,492
    I . Now I am no racist nor do I hate gays, in fact I know many nice gay people, .

    The unending mantra of the homophobe.."some of my best friends are gay but..."

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,551
    Yes I'm aware of that, and by all means thats fine. But my main point and problem is the fact the writers of skyfail included the distasteful and out of place line, " What makes you think this is my first time " To infer bond might be bi-sexual is absurd and just a complete slap in the face to Fleming's brute and manly womanising character .

    I don't think they infer anything. Look, Bond's dealing with a guy who seems a little uneven and unstable and who seems to be taking an interest in him and his looks. Teasing him a bit might unbalance him even more, which gives Bond the advantage. Besides, they never even once return to this point. Clearly Bond had hoped it might work, do some good to imply something that might put Silve off his guard, but it didn't which is why he never brings it up again and, for that matter, neither does Silva. One might argue that LeChiffre's comment about Bond's naked body in CR plays out like a bisexual subtext as well. Then too, however, I feel it would be reading too much into it. We are extremely far away from a homosexual Bond, trust me.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Agreed. We can debate whether Flemings Bond would have said it until the cows come home - but it worked. The general audience liked it and they'd probably be the first to kick up a fuss if Bond turned homosexual.
  • Posts: 533
    So there was no sloppy writing in any Bond film since 1971 until Skyfall came along??


    I see that you had failed to read my entire post. I also stated that there was some sloppy writing in the movies between "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER" and "SKYFALL". But these two movies had excessively sloppy writing.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    DRush76 wrote:
    So there was no sloppy writing in any Bond film since 1971 until Skyfall came along??


    I see that you had failed to read my entire post. I also stated that there was some sloppy writing in the movies between "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER" and "SKYFALL". But these two movies had excessively sloppy writing.

    I'm no fan of DAF but, with all due respect, I think the "writing" of DAD is probably worse.

    DAF has names like Mr Wint and Mr Kid - vaguely imaginative. What does DAD have? Mr Kil #-o #-o #-o

    Implying that SF has worse writing than DAD is just insane.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    I actually really enjoyed the scene between Bond and Silva. There were of course homosexual undertones. Like someone said above, this scene is also a reference back to the torture scene in CR, which also has homoerotic undercurrents (overcurrents?). I think one review I read said that since Bond went to Eton it would be extremely surprising if there hadn't been some 'batting for the other side' at some point in his early life (note to EON - please don't take this as a cue for another back (side) story... ;).

    I actually thought this was one of the most successful scenes in the film and at that point I was still prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. I thought this was going to be the first bit of verbal sparring before some scene-chewing dialogue at the end of the movie where we'd get an epic confrontation between Bond and Silva. Sadly, we all know that that never happened. The scene is cut short, Bond is trotted outside looking ridiculous in aviators, fails to do anything apart from look drunk, allows the girl to die and then is saved by the Royal Marines. Cut to utterly forgettable dialogue and generic action scenes in London for an hour before a desultory ham-fisted 'climax' at Skyfall.

    I feel like I saw a different film from most people. How any one found the second half of the movie enjoyable or satisfying I do not know. It fizzles, spectacularly.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote:
    I actually really enjoyed the scene between Bond and Silva. There were of course homosexual undertones. Like someone said above, this scene is also a reference back to the torture scene in CR, which also has homoerotic undercurrents (overcurrents?). I actually thought this was one of the most successful scenes in the film. I thought this was going to be the first bit of verbal sparring before some scene-chewing dialogue at the end of the movie where we'd get an epic confrontation between Bond and Silva.

    Agree with these points. Probably my favourite scene in the film. I was genuinely gutted we didn't get anymore scenes of equivalent value concerning dialogue. It seemed like this scene was setting up a momentous clash but I guess the problem was always going to be, Silva's beef was primarily with 'M'. A real shame in a way because a film less dependent on M's demise and more concerned with the Silva vs. Bond dynamic could have thrown up some great moments.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,279
    DRush76 wrote:
    So there was no sloppy writing in any Bond film since 1971 until Skyfall came along??


    I see that you had failed to read my entire post. I also stated that there was some sloppy writing in the movies between "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER" and "SKYFALL". But these two movies had excessively sloppy writing.
    To say Brozza's films had superior writing to SF shows the kind of person you are. Let's leave it at that.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yep, I think the first half of the film does set up things moderately well, but it loses its way in the London scenes and the climax is just not very climactic. Badly written and directed IMO. There is no tension in the Skyfall scenes. It's odd, since there are so many films it could have referenced that did this much better. I would have loved it if they'd done it as a homage to Assualt on Precinct 13 - goons smashing through the windows and getting blown away. I had no sense of danger in that final half hour. And there is no satisfying dialogue to make up for the absence of tension. Just a bit lame IMO. It's a shame, because the basic idea is good. Some of the imagery is striking but the story just falls apart for me. Throughout the second half of the film I really stopped caring what happened.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I honestly saw a different film to Getafix (yet again!). I thought the final scenes on the Scottish Moor's were erry and effectively lit. Love the sinister yet fast paced score that goes over the top.

    Also I think my favourite scene in the film is the Tennyson speech and the cuts of Bond running to save her. Teriffic scene which sent shivers through me when I saw it.

    And yet Getafix likes QoS in which most of the action scenes don't really show Bond in that much danger (other than the end) either.
This discussion has been closed.