Is Skyfall losing its gloss and appeal ?

1252628303159

Comments

  • edited January 2015 Posts: 3,169
    TripAces wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    When I went to see Skyfall in theaters, it was loaded with all kinds of people. Early teens, young adults, middle aged people and even the elderly. Bond certainly covers all the bases.

    This is the point. The film's BO numbers weren't driven by the 18-24 demographic.
    Zekidk wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Facebook likes:

    Transformers 34.2 million
    James Bond: 3.8 million

    This gives further credence to the demographics of those film franchises.
    No it most certainly does not. In 2012 65% of Facebook users were 35 or older.
    http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/08/21/report-social-network-demographics-in-2012/
    Sorry... you are wrong again.

    Data on the age of Facebook users has always been highly debatable.
    But you are the one that brought it up! And now, when the factual numbers are not in your favour, they are "highly debatable"?
    That's called "backtracking"!
    TripAces wrote: »
    And more reliable data suggests Twitter users are younger.
    Twitter-users?
    That's called "moving the goal-post"
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,527
    TripAces wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    When I went to see Skyfall in theaters, it was loaded with all kinds of people. Early teens, young adults, middle aged people and even the elderly. Bond certainly covers all the bases.

    This is the point. The film's BO numbers weren't driven by the 18-24 demographic.
    Zekidk wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Facebook likes:

    Transformers 34.2 million
    James Bond: 3.8 million


    This gives further credence to the demographics of those film franchises.
    No it most certainly does not. In 2012 65% of Facebook users were 35 or older.
    http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/08/21/report-social-network-demographics-in-2012/
    Sorry... you are wrong again.

    Data on the age of Facebook users has always been highly debatable because it is unreliable. The actual point is not about age, it is about reaching movie audiences via social media, which I made above and then again with the Coke Zero campaign. Whereas Transformers has reached fans via social media, Skyfall didn't.

    In another example, Twitter followers:

    MI6 Confidential: 3800 (how many of us are on here?)
    Transformers: 316,000

    These numbers correlate with the Facebook numbers. And more reliable data suggests Twitter users are younger.

    Back to the point, we can't use Transformers BO numbers as some sort of barometer for Skyfall.

    Transformers is Transformers. MI6 Confidential is not James Bond.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited January 2015 Posts: 4,554
    Zekidk wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    When I went to see Skyfall in theaters, it was loaded with all kinds of people. Early teens, young adults, middle aged people and even the elderly. Bond certainly covers all the bases.

    This is the point. The film's BO numbers weren't driven by the 18-24 demographic.
    Zekidk wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Facebook likes:

    Transformers 34.2 million
    James Bond: 3.8 million

    This gives further credence to the demographics of those film franchises.
    No it most certainly does not. In 2012 65% of Facebook users were 35 or older.
    http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/08/21/report-social-network-demographics-in-2012/
    Sorry... you are wrong again.

    Data on the age of Facebook users has always been highly debatable.
    But you are the one that brought it up! And now, when the factual numbers are not in your favour, they are "highly debatable"?
    That's called "backtracking"!

    No, I am bringing up "social media" as a means of film advertising, and I will stand by my assertion that younger people are the ones using social media to subscribe to or "like" some aspect of pop culture. Data showing the "average" age of Fb users is what is unreliable. I will go with anecdotal evidence on this.

    But as Nick mentioned...Mi6 confidential as a fan Twitter account is not a good gauge. In fact, the James Bond (official) Twitter account has more followers than Transformers, which is of note.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Are we seriously debating this trivial stuff? Might as well bring up the old Thunderball vs. Skyfall BO debate again.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 3,169
    TripAces wrote: »
    The Twitter numbers suggest this and the age of Twitter users is reliably known to be younger.
    How many times can one be wrong in one thread? Twitter-stats, 2012:

    ignite-twitter-age.png

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited January 2015 Posts: 4,554
    TripAces wrote: »
    But the 16-21-year-old crowd is NOT EON's target audience. No way.

    I suspect Bond in the US is quite different from Bond in the rest of the world. You know, a bit like football - or soccer as you call it there, because there you call football a game you play a lot with your hands :) Well, at least for football, I'm sure in the US it's very different !

    Indeed. I am discussing U.S. BO numbers, not worldwide numbers. I can't comment on Bond's international appeal and the marketing efforts.

    As for football: you might be surprised to know I need to head to bed soon so I can catch the Hull City / Newcastle match that comes on at 5:30 am here. :)

    Edit:

    This article puts the matter to bed once and for all:

    theweek.com/articles/470510/skyfalls-recordbreaking-success-by-numbers

    "75: Percentage of Skyfall's U.S. audience that was 25 years or older"

    Let's move on.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    My understanding is that SF brought back into the theatre a lot of the older crowd, including more baby boomers, who may have been catching Bond on DVD/Blu Ray over the past few films.

    I certainly saw a lot of older people in the theatre where I was (I saw the movie 3 times and it was the same each time) compared to the last two or Brosnan's Bonds.

    I think that had a lot to do with its success. Perhaps the Queen tie in really did raise awareness among older people (who watched the jubilee event worldwide) and who then came out to see the movie later. Speculation on my part, but it may explain the older skew, which may have contributed to the increased box office take.
  • As I've written numerous times before, never forget Adele when trying to "explain" SF's success. Adele's audience is also rather mature, isn't it ?

    Also, I found this very interesting infographic about the colors used in movies today. Really IMO it shows Bond has always been very sensitive to the zeitgeist (in the 60s it created it, and now it follows it, I'm afraid you can't be revolutionary twice).

    B8r8i5xCMAAbIkX.png

    Skyfall is the "blue-and-orange Bond" movie, but actually lots of movies are like that nowadays !
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    bondjames wrote: »
    My understanding is that SF brought back into the theatre a lot of the older crowd, including more baby boomers, who may have been catching Bond on DVD/Blu Ray over the past few films.

    I certainly saw a lot of older people in the theatre where I was (I saw the movie 3 times and it was the same each time) compared to the last two or Brosnan's Bonds.

    I think that had a lot to do with its success. Perhaps the Queen tie in really did raise awareness among older people (who watched the jubilee event worldwide) and who then came out to see the movie later. Speculation on my part, but it may explain the older skew, which may have contributed to the increased box office take.

    Yes. The bottom line is that Skyfall's BO success was something more than just kids going to the movies and paying to see whatever. Skyfall was successful because it was a really good movie, with plot elements and themes that strike at the heart of the boomers, as well as Gen X. "Old dog, new tricks"..."grand old war ship, heading for scrap"..."there are no more shadows" etc. I think it pains the anti-Skyfall folks to see the connection between BO success and quality.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    My understanding is that SF brought back into the theatre a lot of the older crowd, including more baby boomers, who may have been catching Bond on DVD/Blu Ray over the past few films.

    I certainly saw a lot of older people in the theatre where I was (I saw the movie 3 times and it was the same each time) compared to the last two or Brosnan's Bonds.

    I think that had a lot to do with its success. Perhaps the Queen tie in really did raise awareness among older people (who watched the jubilee event worldwide) and who then came out to see the movie later. Speculation on my part, but it may explain the older skew, which may have contributed to the increased box office take.

    Yes. The bottom line is that Skyfall's BO success was something more than just kids going to the movies and paying to see whatever. Skyfall was successful because it was a really good movie, with plot elements and themes that strike at the heart of the boomers, as well as Gen X. "Old dog, new tricks"..."grand old war ship, heading for scrap"..."there are no more shadows" etc. I think it pains the anti-Skyfall folks to see the connection between BO success and quality.

    Very true. There was an almost anti-technology, old school vibe that permeated the movie, and this surely resonated with older folks who may be worried about the impact and prevalence of technology in our lives.

    "Sometimes the old ways are best" as said by Eve when shaving Bond, along with all the other examples you cited. It was subtle, but it permeated.

    Finally, Bond took out the tech wiz Silva with an old fashioned knife to the back......not a Walther, not a machine gun.

    Capping it all off was the old school office and team.

    The older crowd had won the old fashioned way.
  • TripAces wrote: »
    I think it pains the anti-Skyfall folks to see the connection between BO success and quality.

    I think there's not many 'anti-Skyfall' folks here, what we see is mostly a reaction to the claimby some that Skyfall is the only Bond movie that is actually a good movie !

    As for BO and quality, well, I think that here the consensus is that Craig's best Bond is CR (the "figures aficionado" even have to admit CR has better "notes" than SF), and that Brosnan's best bond is GE (here the "notes" are even clearer). In both cases, the lowest BO of each actor...

  • edited January 2015 Posts: 4,619
    Skyfall is the "blue-and-orange Bond" movie, but actually lots of movies are like that nowadays !

    No, It's the "shot-by-Roger-Deakins-Bond-movie" and the only film in the James Bond franchise to win an American Society of Cinematographers Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography.

    So what if it's blue and orange? It's the best looking Bond film of all time.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    It's the best looking Bond film of all time.
    Oh it looks very nice no doubt, but most of YOLT looks better IMHO.
  • Posts: 4,602
    IMHO, its very hard to think of a Bond movie that comes near SF in terms of the cinematography, it just looks great and gives it a feeling of being up there with non Bond films as a great film in its own right
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think TSWLM looks just as good if not better.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Getafix wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    The digital age is so boring when it comes to espionage.
    Maybe not if the focus of the plot is to be critical of the digital age ;-)

    EON needs to show why drones and people sitting behind laptops in their pyjamas, aren't enough to keep a country safe.

    You're right. And I do actually think Bourne covered some of this quite nicely, while still very much keeping the focus on human ingenuity and action. But the way it's been handled in Bond movies has been pretty abysmal. I'm sure though with good writers and something to really hook you into the 'tech' side of the plot it can be done well though. But please don't just bolt it on or use it as a lazy way to cover up the cracks in the plot - that's just really annoying.

    24 covered this last year and wonderfully so. EON really need to pull their socks up.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    patb wrote: »
    IMHO, its very hard to think of a Bond movie that comes near SF in terms of the cinematography, it just looks great and gives it a feeling of being up there with non Bond films as a great film in its own right

    And the contrasts are remarkable.

    The Shanghai scenes (representing the new, modern, digital world) are stark contrasts to the grim, gritty, back to basics world of Bond's childhood home, shot in grays.

    It was just a beautiful film.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think TSWLM looks just as good if not better.

    As does MR and OHMSS and TB and DN etc, etc. People need to understand cinematography before making sweeping statements. SF's main problem is that people see the word Oscar and start creaming their pants. It's not indicative of quality. Peter Hunt is arguably the greatest Director to helm a Bond film. It doesn't matter that he did nothing else.

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think TSWLM looks just as good if not better.

    As does MR and OHMSS and TB and DN etc, etc. People need to understand cinematography before making sweeping statements. SF's main problem is that people see the word Oscar and start creaming their pants. It's not indicative of quality. Peter Hunt is arguably the greatest Director to helm a Bond film. It doesn't matter that he did nothing else.

    I'll give you OHMSS (which may serve as inspiration for SP). TB has its moments. Not sure about DN (I'd have to see it again). But I wouldn't put MR in the class of OHMSS, or SF.

    I think QoS is terrific-looking film, too. Unfortunately, because Forster didn't have the material to go with his vision, it came across as pretentious.
  • No, It's the "shot-by-Roger-Deakins-Bond-movie" and the only film in the James Bond franchise to win an American Society of Cinematographers Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography.
    So what if it's blue and orange? It's the best looking Bond film of all time.

    With what you wrote a few months ago and what you write now about John Logan, I thought you'd have stopped considering awards are relevant, but well, it doesn't seem so !

    And well, let's say Sony's Skyfall looks very nice on a Sony Blu-Ray full of contrasts, as if it was done with that in mind :)

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think TSWLM looks just as good if not better.

    As does MR and OHMSS and TB and DN etc, etc. People need to understand cinematography before making sweeping statements. SF's main problem is that people see the word Oscar and start creaming their pants. It's not indicative of quality. Peter Hunt is arguably the greatest Director to helm a Bond film. It doesn't matter that he did nothing else.

    I agree. Bonds were always known for their beautiful cinematography as far as I'm concerned. It was one of the differentiating attributes of the movies in the 60s and 70s. Almost David Lean'esque with beautiful colours and sweeping panoramas. I travelled vicariously through these movies as a kid. I see SF as a return to form in this respect after a long period in the wilderness. QoS & CR also, but to a lesser extent.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    RC7 wrote: »
    Peter Hunt is arguably the greatest Director to helm a Bond film. It doesn't matter that he did nothing else.
    Quality isn't judged by quality.
    ;)
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 3,169
    It's the best looking Bond film of all time.
    Deakins' cinematography is great but it doesn't come close to the Bond-movies directed by Lewis Gilbert, where almost every single frame is postcard gorgeous.

    MR is, IMO, the most visually striking of the entire series.

  • Posts: 1,394
    Look at the first page of IMDB reviews of Skyfall and some of you fans may be surprised.They are VERY harsh on the movie and call out what is so wrong with that film.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Look at the first page of IMDB reviews of Skyfall and some of you fans may be surprised.They are VERY harsh on the movie and call out what is so wrong with that film.

    I'll prefer these:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/criticreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt

  • TripAces wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Look at the first page of IMDB reviews of Skyfall and some of you fans may be surprised.They are VERY harsh on the movie and call out what is so wrong with that film.

    I'll prefer these:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/criticreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt

    It's wrong to like these reviews. Ask some people in here :-).
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 2015 Posts: 8,009
    5) Craig looked abysmal in this film. In fact, it is the worst he has looked in all his Bond films. The skinhead made him look ill (may have been intentional) but the grey beard he sports in the first part of the film made him look haggard too, particularly in the scene when he visits M in her apartment. Seeing him with slightly longer hair at the press conference for Spectre, and he looks 10 years younger than he did in SF. I want my Bond looking cool, not ill.....
    .

    I've always said that Skyfall was more about Bond's disillusionment than age. A way to convey this would to have been for him to look as he did in Casino and Quantum for the PTS. While "enjoying death" he tries to shed his past; that includes his vanity. He shaves only occasionally and get's quick buzz-cuts from a local. In short order he begins to look like a shell of his former self. This is also a metaphor for deeper issues. Then, when he finally returns to London and M, the difference in his appearance would have said a great deal about his state of mind. From this point he begins his resurrection.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    talos7 wrote: »
    I've always said that Skyfall was more about Bond's disillusionment than age. A way to convey this would to have been for him to look as he did in Casino and Quantum for the PTS.

    YES!!!!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,009
    Why, thank you :)
  • Posts: 4,602
    I have been reading a load of books over the last year or so on screenplays. Obviously they all have their own agendas and guides but one of the more consistent "rules" for scripts is that the main character has to develop and develop more than any other character. Now this is a challenge within a long franchise but IMHO , it was an ellement that was completely ignored in the early Bonds. Whether you say its age or dissillusion or Bonds relationship with M or Bond saying goodbye to his past etc etc, there is no doubt that, as a person, his character changed and developed. For those movie fans who enjoy character driven movies, this puts Skyfall above almost all Bonds straight away IMHO
Sign In or Register to comment.