'Skyfall' re-ignited me as a fan. What about you?

13468913

Comments

  • chrisisall wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Then came QoS, which for all it's faults I enjoyed, not least for its pace. I appreciated the stripped back simple story and thought the film has some really genuinely Bondian moments, not least the Opera. I even liked Dominic Greene.
    More agreement!! Best Bond of this Century so far IMO.

    Yes,I would subscribe to this point of view as well.
  • Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    [It's certainly difficult to argue given you wrote the book on this.

    I see you still feel hurt.
    Good!

    It's not often one sees such blatant boorishness paraded about in public so proudly. I'd urge @Matt to "stay classy" ...but I'm afraid the subtlety might be lost on Herr Helm. Let's just remember that reasonable people can always disagree reasonably...and for unreasonable people, there's always the option of taking on the persona of a 3rd rate pretender when posting on a forum devoted to James Bond!

    May I recommend to you to get acquainted with The Wizzards and mine posting exchange in this thread "http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10170/bond-polls-2014-let-s-rate-the-bond-films-from-goldeneye-until-skyfall#latest"; before you start to judge my manners and behaviour. If this proves too much of a burden for you I would ask you just to stay on the sideline and keep quiet. Thank you.

    I will not silently let rudeness pass by. Request denied.
  • @Matt_Helm? Can you be a bit nicer? Just a small question....

    Regarding @TheWizardOfIce , I do agree that we need to respect each other. And I do have respect for your favourite Bond films and so on. I don't agree with them. But perhaps it's better to agree on disagreeing with him then?

    Anyway, have you seen my latests posts about the location shooting already :-D?
  • Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    [It's certainly difficult to argue given you wrote the book on this.

    I see you still feel hurt.
    Good!

    It's not often one sees such blatant boorishness paraded about in public so proudly. I'd urge @Matt to "stay classy" ...but I'm afraid the subtlety might be lost on Herr Helm. Let's just remember that reasonable people can always disagree reasonably...and for unreasonable people, there's always the option of taking on the persona of a 3rd rate pretender when posting on a forum devoted to James Bond!

    May I recommend to you to get acquainted with The Wizzards and mine posting exchange in this thread "http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10170/bond-polls-2014-let-s-rate-the-bond-films-from-goldeneye-until-skyfall#latest"; before you start to judge my manners and behaviour. If this proves too much of a burden for you I would ask you just to stay on the sideline and keep quiet. Thank you.

    I will not silently let rudeness pass by. Request denied.


    Fine with me as long as you don't expect me to take someone seriously for whom it is obviously too much of a bother to (even remotely) acquire a full picture of a situation before judging it.
  • Posts: 7,645
    + Having seen SF today I found I really enjoyed the music a lot more.

    + Realized that Eve Moneypenny has far better one liners than James and she does deliver them better too. Somebody kick the scriptwriter. Especially with the line "you did not use it anyhow" which sounded a bit like a women unfriendly remark towards female driving (which is really below 007's standard imho) and she smashes the other mirror off too and says I was not using that one either..... She did trump Jimbo there.

    + The whole unknown period of what happened to 007 after his fall could have been solved with two small scenes which would not add more than 20 seconds to the movie. Firstly when Bond has seen MI6 explode on CNN, pick up the phone, dial a number and say: "Columbo we are even, but I need a favor as in travelling papers and a ticket to London. Duty calls." And when M asks where he was all that time he could add :"Enjoying the hospitality of an old Greek friend." Whereon M replies " So how is his smuggling business going?" thereby acknowledging that she now knows that Milos Columbo was the one who saved 007. It would have taken away any questions from the fans and acknowledge the 50 year history of the franchise at the same time.

    + the scene with Silva and Bond in the underground when Bond asks him after the explosion which misses him "was that meant for me?" Silva should have replied, "No James that was part of a distraction". Bond replies "now that did not work that well, did it now?" Silva could have replied: "You really believe that the distraction was meant for you James." And then the train comes in. Both 007 and the audience realise that the underground accident was aimed at pulling police away from Westminster and the hearing and thereby leaving M vulnerable. Another small scripting solution that would have made the train thing more logical.

    + They should have used Mallory's background as part of the SAS in having him bring in the SAS only perhaps to late in fighting a background fight with surviving fella's from Silva's troup. And have them silently appear when 007 crouches over his former boss. Thus showing that best laid plans can go wrong and they were simply too late to stop a madman.

    I am so disappointed that such easy fixes could have made SF a flipping better and logical movie. ANd Mendes never noticed the huge plotholes, and the Columbo touch would have shown Mendes love and knowledge of the franchise.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    not really... i've been a loyal Bond fan since i started getting into the franchise after i saw Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies....... but honestly, what reinvigorated my attitude towards the films moving forward was CR... after DAD, I just thought "oh my god, is this the path Bond is going to continue to go down? What is next? Jetskiing across the surface of the sun??".. it was a pretty grey 4 years between DAD and CR - because with films like xXx out and such, i was getting the feeling like Bond was starting to become blasé with my generation.... but CR happened, and to me, it re-cemented my love for Bond films moving forward.
  • SaintMark wrote: »
    + Having seen SF today I found I really enjoyed the music a lot more.

    + Realized that Eve Moneypenny has far better one liners than James and she does deliver them better too. Somebody kick the scriptwriter. Especially with the line "you did not use it anyhow" which sounded a bit like a women unfriendly remark towards female driving (which is really below 007's standard imho) and she smashes the other mirror off too and says I was not using that one either..... She did trump Jimbo there.

    + The whole unknown period of what happened to 007 after his fall could have been solved with two small scenes which would not add more than 20 seconds to the movie. Firstly when Bond has seen MI6 explode on CNN, pick up the phone, dial a number and say: "Columbo we are even, but I need a favor as in travelling papers and a ticket to London. Duty calls." And when M asks where he was all that time he could add :"Enjoying the hospitality of an old Greek friend." Whereon M replies " So how is his smuggling business going?" thereby acknowledging that she now knows that Milos Columbo was the one who saved 007. It would have taken away any questions from the fans and acknowledge the 50 year history of the franchise at the same time.

    + the scene with Silva and Bond in the underground when Bond asks him after the explosion which misses him "was that meant for me?" Silva should have replied, "No James that was part of a distraction". Bond replies "now that did not work that well, did it now?" Silva could have replied: "You really believe that the distraction was meant for you James." And then the train comes in. Both 007 and the audience realise that the underground accident was aimed at pulling police away from Westminster and the hearing and thereby leaving M vulnerable. Another small scripting solution that would have made the train thing more logical.

    + They should have used Mallory's background as part of the SAS in having him bring in the SAS only perhaps to late in fighting a background fight with surviving fella's from Silva's troup. And have them silently appear when 007 crouches over his former boss. Thus showing that best laid plans can go wrong and they were simply too late to stop a madman.

    I am so disappointed that such easy fixes could have made SF a flipping better and logical movie. ANd Mendes never noticed the huge plotholes, and the Columbo touch would have shown Mendes love and knowledge of the franchise.

    Actually I don't see how this would fix any of the logic gaps in Skyfall. Sorry.
  • Posts: 7,645
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    + Having seen SF today I found I really enjoyed the music a lot more.

    + Realized that Eve Moneypenny has far better one liners than James and she does deliver them better too. Somebody kick the scriptwriter. Especially with the line "you did not use it anyhow" which sounded a bit like a women unfriendly remark towards female driving (which is really below 007's standard imho) and she smashes the other mirror off too and says I was not using that one either..... She did trump Jimbo there.

    + The whole unknown period of what happened to 007 after his fall could have been solved with two small scenes which would not add more than 20 seconds to the movie. Firstly when Bond has seen MI6 explode on CNN, pick up the phone, dial a number and say: "Columbo we are even, but I need a favor as in travelling papers and a ticket to London. Duty calls." And when M asks where he was all that time he could add :"Enjoying the hospitality of an old Greek friend." Whereon M replies " So how is his smuggling business going?" thereby acknowledging that she now knows that Milos Columbo was the one who saved 007. It would have taken away any questions from the fans and acknowledge the 50 year history of the franchise at the same time.

    + the scene with Silva and Bond in the underground when Bond asks him after the explosion which misses him "was that meant for me?" Silva should have replied, "No James that was part of a distraction". Bond replies "now that did not work that well, did it now?" Silva could have replied: "You really believe that the distraction was meant for you James." And then the train comes in. Both 007 and the audience realise that the underground accident was aimed at pulling police away from Westminster and the hearing and thereby leaving M vulnerable. Another small scripting solution that would have made the train thing more logical.

    + They should have used Mallory's background as part of the SAS in having him bring in the SAS only perhaps to late in fighting a background fight with surviving fella's from Silva's troup. And have them silently appear when 007 crouches over his former boss. Thus showing that best laid plans can go wrong and they were simply too late to stop a madman.

    I am so disappointed that such easy fixes could have made SF a flipping better and logical movie. ANd Mendes never noticed the huge plotholes, and the Columbo touch would have shown Mendes love and knowledge of the franchise.

    Actually I don't see how this would fix any of the logic gaps in Skyfall. Sorry.

    It would explain a downed 007 and how he ended up in Turkey rather recovered.

    The train sequence while looking spectacular does not serve any purpose unless you would consider it as a part of a plan to distract police forces away from M's hearing, and at the same time create a chaos in which it was easier to operate and escape.

    the SAS coming late would be easier to accept than a secret agent and his boss hiding in the middle of nowhere to lure a man with considerable resources to them. That way there was only one possible outcome: 007 and M dead. WHile setting a trap with trained people would more sense, and them coming too late would make it dramatic.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,230
    As to the question in the title of this thread: Yes, although I was still a strong Bond fan even after the disappointing QOS. I really love Skyfall - it is a great Bond film, and has not diminished over time for me. Far from being disappointed, it was invigorating, inspiring, and very entertaining. Any flaws are minor for the overall quality of the film (which is superb) and did not lower the enjoyment for me as a Bond fan.

    I think several of you would enjoy setting up a QOS vs. Skyfall thread - have we had that yet, in the film comparison threads? Then you could compare and tear things apart there to your hearts' content. That would be nice for you; would somebody please go set up that specific thread?

    @chrisisall, I do expect that your first post after seeing Bond 24 mentions your take on any CGI in it. You are extremely aware of that aspect, and no I am not being sarcastic. I hope you post about that technical part of the film soon after you see it. I don't see it as critically as you do, but I appreciate reading your comments about CGI.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,358
    @4EverBonded your wish is my command. :)
  • Forgive me if this has been mentioned before but amongst Skyfalls many problems is that
    SaintMark wrote: »
    + Having seen SF today I found I really enjoyed the music a lot more.

    + Realized that Eve Moneypenny has far better one liners than James and she does deliver them better too. Somebody kick the scriptwriter. Especially with the line "you did not use it anyhow" which sounded a bit like a women unfriendly remark towards female driving (which is really below 007's standard imho) and she smashes the other mirror off too and says I was not using that one either..... She did trump Jimbo there.

    + The whole unknown period of what happened to 007 after his fall could have been solved with two small scenes which would not add more than 20 seconds to the movie. Firstly when Bond has seen MI6 explode on CNN, pick up the phone, dial a number and say: "Columbo we are even, but I need a favor as in travelling papers and a ticket to London. Duty calls." And when M asks where he was all that time he could add :"Enjoying the hospitality of an old Greek friend." Whereon M replies " So how is his smuggling business going?" thereby acknowledging that she now knows that Milos Columbo was the one who saved 007. It would have taken away any questions from the fans and acknowledge the 50 year history of the franchise at the same time.

    + the scene with Silva and Bond in the underground when Bond asks him after the explosion which misses him "was that meant for me?" Silva should have replied, "No James that was part of a distraction". Bond replies "now that did not work that well, did it now?" Silva could have replied: "You really believe that the distraction was meant for you James." And then the train comes in. Both 007 and the audience realise that the underground accident was aimed at pulling police away from Westminster and the hearing and thereby leaving M vulnerable. Another small scripting solution that would have made the train thing more logical.

    + They should have used Mallory's background as part of the SAS in having him bring in the SAS only perhaps to late in fighting a background fight with surviving fella's from Silva's troup. And have them silently appear when 007 crouches over his former boss. Thus showing that best laid plans can go wrong and they were simply too late to stop a madman.

    I am so disappointed that such easy fixes could have made SF a flipping better and logical movie. ANd Mendes never noticed the huge plotholes, and the Columbo touch would have shown Mendes love and knowledge of the franchise.


    Pretty much agree with a lot of this.It would have made Bond and MI6 look like they were not COMPLETELY incompetent like they were in the film.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,230
    So your answer to the original poster is then: No, it didn't, not for me.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Mi6 have been portrayed as incompetent for almost 20 years now. With talk of Bond 24 showing an emphasis on Bond's investigative and detective skills and with a new M, I'm hoping mi6 as a whole can be portrayed in a more effective and competent light.
  • Posts: 11,425
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Mi6 have been portrayed as incompetent for almost 20 years now. With talk of Bond 24 showing an emphasis on Bond's investigative and detective skills and with a new M, I'm hoping mi6 as a whole can be portrayed in a more effective and competent light.

    totally agree. i miss the days when MI6 was portrayed as this bastion of integrity and competence. i really hope that with the departure of Dench, M will return to being a more trusting and trustworthy character, and MI6 will stop being depicted as utterly incompetent.
  • Posts: 11,425
    HASEROT wrote: »
    not really... i've been a loyal Bond fan since i started getting into the franchise after i saw Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies....... but honestly, what reinvigorated my attitude towards the films moving forward was CR... after DAD, I just thought "oh my god, is this the path Bond is going to continue to go down? What is next? Jetskiing across the surface of the sun??".. it was a pretty grey 4 years between DAD and CR - because with films like xXx out and such, i was getting the feeling like Bond was starting to become blasé with my generation.... but CR happened, and to me, it re-cemented my love for Bond films moving forward.

    same here. CR gave me hope. QoS raised my expectations. and SF dahsed them. I'm hoping the DC road show gets back on track with B24.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Getafix wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    not really... i've been a loyal Bond fan since i started getting into the franchise after i saw Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies....... but honestly, what reinvigorated my attitude towards the films moving forward was CR... after DAD, I just thought "oh my god, is this the path Bond is going to continue to go down? What is next? Jetskiing across the surface of the sun??".. it was a pretty grey 4 years between DAD and CR - because with films like xXx out and such, i was getting the feeling like Bond was starting to become blasé with my generation.... but CR happened, and to me, it re-cemented my love for Bond films moving forward.

    same here. CR gave me hope. QoS raised my expectations. and SF dahsed them. I'm hoping the DC road show gets back on track with B24.

    Really "dashed" them? Well....for me, CR was everything I hoped for, QOS was a bit of a disappointment (although IMO better than all of Brosnan's outings) and SF was again everything I hoped for. I'm a very happy Bond geek :-).

    I think we fans got too spoiled.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,425
    I'm not a great rewatcher, so my opinion is often very much related to my initial viewing. rewatching tends to subtly modify rather than radically change my opinion. So CR was a little disappointing first time I saw it. I really expected a lot from DC, and although I think it's a good film, it didn't quite grab me the way I'd been expecting. Some of the action scenes (Miami airport) really dragged for me and I thought it was overlong. In a different league from Cambell's first Bond film, but still IMO something slightly lacking. DC was very good though and thought Vesper was great. Cannot imagine another actress in the role. Also enjoyed Felkx and Mathis. Nice ensemble, classy cast, and just a general fealing of quality that hadn't been there for years. Nothing changed much for me on rewatching it. A solid entry but not one that I get quite as excited about as some others on here.

    QoS was something of a palate cleanser after the heavyness of CR. Crisp, light and refreshing. Again, not exactly vintage Bond IMO, but an entertaining enough and nippy little entry. Again DC was very good, and some scenes, such as the opera, just felt like they captured the essence of some of the old movies. I wish Forster had had more time to think this film through and to edit it, but considering the constraints I reckon it's pretty good. Probably my favourite of the Craig era.

    Have to admit I was concerned when Mendes was given the gig. I liked some of his films but the only one I'd seen that seemed to offer a precedent for what he might do with Bond (Road to Perdition) had been a big lumbering failure IMO. SF follows in its footsteps In my view. Having said that, I truly appreciate what Mendes is trying to do with a lot of SF and see it as a film that fails partly because it aims so high and fails to hit its mark, as opposed to DAD, which aims so low and hits its target bang on.

    I may be generalising but I sense Mendes is better focusing in on the small, personal and detailed stuff of human interaction. I felt he bungled the big themes he introduced in SF. It all feels a bit slap dash. And I'm afraid to say I really don't think he's great at action - as with so many contemporary directors, it just feels bolted on. I also thought there was so much potential in the return to Bond's childhood home, his inability to save M, the parallels with the loss of his own parents, his powerlessness to save them, and the climactic battle. But the film as made just left me bored and disatisfied. I felt like none of the potential was truly tapped and it just descends into incoherent action nonsense at the end. The return to SF doesn't seem to have an significance at all by the end - the showdown could have been anywhere.

    Ironically, given that so many people slate QoS for its editing, I actually think the editing, in terms of the storytelling in SF is quite bad. I always get a sense when watching it that lots of important stuff has been left on the cutting room floor. I know this argument has been flogged to death, but there just seem to be so many points in the film that don't make any sense, and I do actually think that Mendes had a lot more footage than he could fit in, and so left lots of stuff out. I'll leave it to the experts whether that is good film making or not. I know different directors take different approaches. However, I don't think Hitchcock, to whom a lot of particularly the early films owe a huge debt, would have approved.
  • GrizzlorGrizzlor NJ, USA
    Posts: 6
    Casino reignited me, from great trepidation to satisfaction. QoS was hugely disappointing, and although Skyfall was too long and droning, and Javier Bardem was awful, overall I was very happy with it. Kept my faith in Bond and in Daniel Craig.
  • Grizzlor wrote: »
    Casino reignited me, from great trepidation to satisfaction. QoS was hugely disappointing, and although Skyfall was too long and droning, and Javier Bardem was awful, overall I was very happy with it. Kept my faith in Bond and in Daniel Craig.

    Javier Bardem was awful? :S Please elaborate...
  • GrizzlorGrizzlor NJ, USA
    Posts: 6
    Javier Bardem was awful? :S Please elaborate...

    I found him to be too dull. Plus we'd already seen the villain out to get revenge from M (Dame Judy) in TWINE. The villain can be evil just because they are, you don't need a convoluted back story.
  • Grizzlor wrote: »
    Javier Bardem was awful? :S Please elaborate...

    I found him to be too dull. Plus we'd already seen the villain out to get revenge from M (Dame Judy) in TWINE. The villain can be evil just because they are, you don't need a convoluted back story.

    Maybe. But if I compare Alec Trevelyan with Silva, then I find the latter more convincing. You say it really. It's not so much about the backstory. It's also about the actual actor, how he uses his lines, his motorical skills, the way he looks like )make-up, face, hair). Javier Bardem really convinced for me.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Grizzlor wrote: »
    Javier Bardem was awful? :S Please elaborate...

    I found him to be too dull. Plus we'd already seen the villain out to get revenge from M (Dame Judy) in TWINE. The villain can be evil just because they are, you don't need a convoluted back story.

    Bardem was definitely a little disappointing. Great build up and entrance on the island but for the rest of the film pretty forgettable. Totally agree - the villain's plot felt like a clunky reworking of the already clunky TWINE.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2014 Posts: 16,358
    Getafix wrote: »
    Totally agree - the villain's plot felt like a clunky reworking of the already clunky TWINE.
    TWINE was very workable IMHO. Yes, too much Dench, and many needless quips, but it was hardly clunky... if you weren't a fellow Tim fan I'd clunk you in the noggin for that! B-)
  • Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Totally agree - the villain's plot felt like a clunky reworking of the already clunky TWINE.
    TWINE was very workable IMHO. Yes, too much Dench, and many needless quips, but it was hardly clunky... if you weren't a fellow Tim fan I'd clunk you in the noggin for that! B-)

    In terms if plot and script TWINE must be up there as one of the clunkiest in the whole series. It's a clunk-fest. If only they were still doing cash for clunkers - EON could have done a good deal on part exchange.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2014 Posts: 16,358
    Getafix wrote: »
    In terms if plot and script TWINE must be up there as one of the clunkiest in the whole series. It's a clunk-fest.
    I forgive this post of yours for you clearly have not seen CR('67), MR or AVTAK...
    Getafix wrote: »
    If only they were still doing cash for clunkers - EON could have done a good deal on part exchange.
    Silly silly British man. But that WAS funny.
    :)>-
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 1,778
    Not for me. I'm as big a Bond fan now as I was when I was 10 years old when my friend's dad took us to see my first Bond movie in the cinema. I was hooked pretty quickly.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Totally agree - the villain's plot felt like a clunky reworking of the already clunky TWINE.
    TWINE was very workable IMHO. Yes, too much Dench, and many needless quips, but it was hardly clunky... if you weren't a fellow Tim fan I'd clunk you in the noggin for that! B-)

    In terms if plot and script TWINE must be up there as one of the clunkiest in the whole series. It's a clunk-fest. If only they were still doing cash for clunkers - EON could have done a good deal on part exchange.

    Sorry to say so,but you don't know how wrong you are. Its story is still after 15 years on the height of time and there is nary a plot hole to be found. Traits I personally value a lot.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I didn't mention plot holes. I just think it's a clunker. Plot coherence is importance but is not in itself any assurance of quality. You need a coherent plot that is also gripping in some way. TWINE is one of the most convoluted and tedious in the series. It might make logical sense but it's a total snore fest. I'd actually rather watch SF.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    I didn't mention plot holes. I just think it's a clunker. Plot coherence is importance but is not in itself any assurance of quality. You need a coherent plot that is also gripping in some way. TWINE is one of the most convoluted and tedious in the series. It might make logical sense but it's a total snore fest. I'd actually rather watch SF.

    I just verified the definition of clunky: "badly or awkwardly made or done"

    This could not be more descriptive of TWINE. I saw it yesterday and was very uncomfortable during most of the scenes. A totally missed opportunity after the excellent TND. This was when Brosnan started to write his obituary as Bond IMO. It just took 3 more long years before it was made certain.

    SF is very well made, with superb acting and excellent characterizations, but has plot holes. There is a world of difference.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    I'd actually rather watch SF.

    Now go and wash out your mouth with soap. Better do it twice! ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.