"Did i overcomplicate the plot ?" - Skyfall Appreciation & Discussion

1235745

Comments

  • SaintMark wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Those nits are really being picked at ;)

    People nitpick with SF because it has a sort of 'Aren't I clever?' aura about it.

    I don't know what to make of this. But if you see movies like this, then you are quite the cynical person. Well, perhaps this "aura" worked tremendously then. For me this has nothing to do with "aura's". It has to do with a movie that, theme-wise, IS clever.

    What "aura's" do the other Bond films has then.....and if so, how can it be translated into its flop or success? Really.......:-)

    The film makers, the critics, the general press and the fans did their utmost to suggest this film was/is a 'cut-above', they were wrapped up in a perfect storm, in which the film undeniably captured the zeitgeist. That was the atmosphere that surrounded the film and which is perpetuated. That is the "aura" I speak of.

    And now further along the line when the mists have moved on I find that beauty is only skindeep and can never be the sole reason to admire SF, if that is so MR should be getting a heck more credit for its cinematography. ;)

    Really, IMO that doesn't do the film any justice. Yes, the visual beauty of SF is only skin deep (the visuals in SF's case IMO are not just skin deep...they really add gravita to story and characters). But for me, as I mentioned before, SF is way more than just a "visually nice movie". SF for me is much more. A total package that works wonderfully on all aspects, except the aspect of "plot":
    --> acting (stellar, gripping performances),
    --> stunning action that truly serves the story (let's not just put the Burj Khalifa in a film for the sake of showing off that Burj Khalifa)
    --> atmosphere and "feel" (more in line with the classic Connery films like FRWL)
    --> truly Fleming-esque (Bond's obituary and history of his parents, YOLT)
    --> charisma and seriousness of the actor (Dench, Craig, Bardem)
    --> literary approach to underlying central themes (why do we need spies? http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/9814/current-geopolitical-developments-create-even-better-source-plot-material-for-future-bond-films#latest),
    --> believable drama (Brosnan kissing Paris vs. Bond holding "M"....really),
    --> near spot-on characterization (so much layers, so much background history),
    --> a gripping villain's plot (believable or not, it worked on the level of "death and destruction"...in an uncomfortable, The Joker-esque way)
    --> wonderful dialogues and conversations (Tennyson's speech).
    --> and foremost a film that oozes "Bond" (as compared to QOS)

    Call SF a movie that "pretends to be smart". But for me it IS really a smart movie, with so much complexities and deeper layers. A movie with incredible re-watching value. And also a movie that we apparently in this forum full of Bond-aficionados can not find consensus about, but that outside this forum is unanimously a "near-masterpiece".
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    "BAIN123 wrote:
    I thought the "bloody big ship" line worked pretty well. As others on this forum have said Bond was simply being dismissive towards this little twit who had deliberately sat down next to him.

    I agree with both of you. I too, retrospectively, thought it was uncultured and unbecoming of Bond, but it was delivered so well to the arrogant spotty pipsqueek sitting next door that I just loved it - it was dismissive. I agree that we need nuance though and culture. Here's to hoping.

    May be I'm being overly harsh. I suppose it's reasonable to assume that Bond is just putting down nerdy Q. It would help though if we did see Bond enjoying some of the finer things in life sometimes - reminding us that he is the kind of guy who does of course know exactly what the painting represents.

    Anyway, back to bashing SF. Would James Bond really wash up in a Thai backpacker hangout while 'enjoying death'? He looks bloody miserable to me. And no wonder, as he seems to be stuck in a Bourne movie at that point.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    SF for me is much more. A total package that works wonderfully on all aspects, except the aspect of "plot"

    Name a genuinely revered film that is found wanting when it comes to plot.
    A movie with incredible re-watching value. And also a movie that we apparently in this forum full of Bond-aficionados can not find consensus about, but that outside this forum is unanimously a "near-masterpiece".

    And MI:GP with its higher Rotten Tomatoes rating is a "near-masterpiece" too, I assume?

    I admire your tenacity, I really do, but I can rarely take your arguments and analyses seriously, because every well observed, interesting and viable comment you make is lost under the weight of hyperbole and palpable desperation for others to agree.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,321
    Love Skyfall. The score is fantastic, IMO, even Shanghai Drive/Adrenaline is awesome :D
    To me, the scene on the dead island with Bond and Silva, dressed sharply and drinking expensive scotch in an otherwise harsh environment, with the henchmen behind putting pressure on Bond and Severine tied up to the fallen statue ahead... and then the vintage guns... to me it just drips of classic, iconic Bond.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Love Skyfall. The score is fantastic, IMO, even Shanghai Drive/Adrenaline is awesome :D
    To me, the scene on the dead island with Bond and Silva, dressed sharply and drinking expensive scotch in an otherwise harsh environment, with the henchmen behind putting pressure on Bond and Severine tied up to the fallen statue ahead... and then the vintage guns... to me it just drips of classic, iconic Bond.

    I'll agree. I wished Craig had ditched the shades (look ridiculous) but otherwise this is a decent scene. It's immediately after the island sequence that SF really takes a nosedive IMO.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    SF for me is much more. A total package that works wonderfully on all aspects, except the aspect of "plot"

    Name a genuinely revered film that is found wanting when it comes to plot.
    A movie with incredible re-watching value. And also a movie that we apparently in this forum full of Bond-aficionados can not find consensus about, but that outside this forum is unanimously a "near-masterpiece".

    And MI:GP with its higher Rotten Tomatoes rating is a "near-masterpiece" too, I assume?

    I admire your tenacity, I really do, but I can rarely take your arguments and analyses seriously, because every well observed, interesting and viable comment you make is lost under the weight of hyperbole and palpable desperation for others to agree.

    Why can't you just see my opinion as.....my opinion. Then discuss with me about it....and wholeheartedly disagree with it. Only than I can have some respect for your remarks.

    Because now you are again sidelining my arguments, and instead you prefer to act as a psychologist that really thinks I am desperate. I don't want people to agree with me. I want people to discuss, to interact, with passion, like I do. And hell, our mutual passion in this forum made me rethink of the technical plot of SF. Which, after thorough reassessment is indeed not good.

    But you choose not to mention that and instead you derail my comments by attacking (whatever it is, it feels attacking) me with things that are not true. If you "think" that I'm a contrived, self-centered, desperate, attention-seeking Bond-weirdo, then I have news for you. It is not true. I post because I love it, not because people approve of me. Moreover, you could have known this if you at least responded to my Private Message, so you can get to know me better. But alas, you don't want to do that. You don't give a rat's are of knowing me better.

    So with that fact in mind your reactions to my posts sound even more desperate than your accusation of me being desperate. They show off your truth, and nothing but your own truth. But they still lack any self-assessment. At least, when you are responding to me.

    Moreover, you also succeed in derailing happiness as well. I don't want to post this message, because I wanted to discuss the film. It is an appreciation topic no? With this remark, you really made me feel sad, lacklustre and dispassionate. So if that is your goal, congrats my friend.

    So again, respond to my arguments.....or ignore me. I think the latter is the best option.
  • SaintMark wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Those nits are really being picked at ;)

    People nitpick with SF because it has a sort of 'Aren't I clever?' aura about it.

    I don't know what to make of this. But if you see movies like this, then you are quite the cynical person. Well, perhaps this "aura" worked tremendously then. For me this has nothing to do with "aura's". It has to do with a movie that, theme-wise, IS clever.

    What "aura's" do the other Bond films has then.....and if so, how can it be translated into its flop or success? Really.......:-)

    The film makers, the critics, the general press and the fans did their utmost to suggest this film was/is a 'cut-above', they were wrapped up in a perfect storm, in which the film undeniably captured the zeitgeist. That was the atmosphere that surrounded the film and which is perpetuated. That is the "aura" I speak of.

    And now further along the line when the mists have moved on I find that beauty is only skindeep and can never be the sole reason to admire SF, if that is so MR should be getting a heck more credit for its cinematography. ;)



    And also a movie that we apparently in this forum full of Bond-aficionados can not find consensus about, but that outside this forum is unanimously a "near-masterpiece".

    Just for laughs I went to your much praised IMDB SF page fully expecting further proof that the general public is beyond salvage when it comes to taste and logic (since I thought your claims about the generally SF praise and worshiping were representing the reality of the cyber generation ) but to my utter surprise ...
    Here the titles of the first five threads (I am not making this up !)

    James Bond 007 - Skyfall (2012) : Why was a Super Secret, important list sitting in a hotel in Turkey?
    Please explain why this is the worst movie ever made
    Quantity doesn't equal quality! (Again,I'm not making this up,though I have to admit,that I'm still laughing hard, while typing )
    Skyfall starts as the best Bond movie; ends as the worst
    This movie is trash



    I refrain from further commenting but have to admit it takes some discipline.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 7,424
    RC7 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Those nits are really being picked at ;)

    People nitpick with SF because it has a sort of 'Aren't I clever?' aura about it. I find it entertaining, but it's no more interesting or clever than any other Bond picture. It's similar to a lot of its most ardent fans, like high school students who have recently discovered Godard and dismiss anything mainstream, 'You wouldn't understand', they say.

    Oh, please...! I am perfectly able to take all the criticism the film gets, but its claims like THIS that really offends me! What a ridicuously stupid, grumpy generalisation! Why is it so difficult accept that people like the film for what it is and that it happens to be popular with younger audiences? Why do you feel the need to insult the fans just because you yourself find it to be overrated? Young audiences and Bond fans in general don't look for something pretentious, they want to be entertained. With Skyfall they are, because they can connect with the story. If anyone's giving the impression of being pretentious here and a general 'mr Know It All, its you!


    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Sandy wrote: »
    How many times did I hear this before? We all know there are plotholes in SF. Guess what? There are plotholes in every film. Even life is full of plotholes!
    For me the biggest incoherence going on here is as to why is the SF appreciation thread being used for something that has nothing to do with appreciation... yet again! Oh, if only this ammount of energy were expended in more useful ways :-w

    Amen to that!

    @Getafix

    You are not by any chance related to the Havelocks' parrot are you? Because you do have a tendency to repeat yourself over and over again, you know… ;) I'm sure Maggie Thatcher is blushing somewhere...

    Good luck the SF adorers don't have that tendency. Imagine that!


    Yes, imagine that. A Skyfall 'appreciation thread' with 'appreciation' instead of bashing and moaning... How naive...
  • Posts: 11,425
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Those nits are really being picked at ;)

    People nitpick with SF because it has a sort of 'Aren't I clever?' aura about it.

    I don't know what to make of this. But if you see movies like this, then you are quite the cynical person. Well, perhaps this "aura" worked tremendously then. For me this has nothing to do with "aura's". It has to do with a movie that, theme-wise, IS clever.

    What "aura's" do the other Bond films has then.....and if so, how can it be translated into its flop or success? Really.......:-)

    The film makers, the critics, the general press and the fans did their utmost to suggest this film was/is a 'cut-above', they were wrapped up in a perfect storm, in which the film undeniably captured the zeitgeist. That was the atmosphere that surrounded the film and which is perpetuated. That is the "aura" I speak of.

    And now further along the line when the mists have moved on I find that beauty is only skindeep and can never be the sole reason to admire SF, if that is so MR should be getting a heck more credit for its cinematography. ;)



    And also a movie that we apparently in this forum full of Bond-aficionados can not find consensus about, but that outside this forum is unanimously a "near-masterpiece".

    Just for laughs I went to your much praised IMDB SF page fully expecting further proof that the general public is beyond salvage when it comes to taste and logic (since I thought your claims about the generally SF praise and worshiping were representing the reality of the cyber generation ) but to my utter surprise ...
    Here the titles of the first five threads (I am not making this up !)

    James Bond 007 - Skyfall (2012) : Why was a Super Secret, important list sitting in a hotel in Turkey?
    Please explain why this is the worst movie ever made
    Quantity doesn't equal quality! (Again,I'm not making this up,though I have to admit,that I'm still laughing hard, while typing )
    Skyfall starts as the best Bond movie; ends as the worst
    This movie is trash



    I refrain from further commenting but have to admit it takes some discipline.

    I've noticed a lot of similar threads to these when I have looked at those ranking sites before. It's odd, as there seem to be a A LOT of negative comments, even though the film is rated highly.

    Any way, very amusing.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2014 Posts: 10,512
    jobo wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Those nits are really being picked at ;)

    People nitpick with SF because it has a sort of 'Aren't I clever?' aura about it. I find it entertaining, but it's no more interesting or clever than any other Bond picture. It's similar to a lot of its most ardent fans, like high school students who have recently discovered Godard and dismiss anything mainstream, 'You wouldn't understand', they say.

    Oh, please...! I am perfectly able to take all the criticism the film gets, but its claims like THIS that really offends me! What a ridicuously stupid, grumpy generalisation! Why is it so difficult accept that people like the film for what it is and that it happens to be popular with younger audiences? Why do you feel the need to insult the fans just because you yourself find it to be overrated? Young audiences and Bond fans in general don't look for something pretentious, they want to be entertained. With Skyfall they are, because they can connect with the story. If anyone's giving the impression of being pretentious here and a general 'mr Know It All, its you!

    I actually like SF. In fact I'm sure you'll find many a thread where I've defended it against criticism. I was suggesting a reason for why people nitpick when it comes to the film, more so than other Bond pictures, and my conclusion was that a strata of fans have taken it upon themselves to put the film on an arguably undeserved pedestal. If you're going to tell people the film is masterpiece merely because it has 'Tennyson' in it they are going to react, because for every Tennyson there's a 'We've been hacked!'

    It was an observation. People love, like, loathe SF, I think its a decent and 'entertaining' Bond film, as I said above, but if people are going to pretend its anything higher than an enjoyable popcorn flick, other people are going to disagree.
  • Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Those nits are really being picked at ;)

    People nitpick with SF because it has a sort of 'Aren't I clever?' aura about it. I find it entertaining, but it's no more interesting or clever than any other Bond picture. It's similar to a lot of its most ardent fans, like high school students who have recently discovered Godard and dismiss anything mainstream, 'You wouldn't understand', they say.

    Oh, please...! I am perfectly able to take all the criticism the film gets, but its claims like THIS that really offends me! What a ridicuously stupid, grumpy generalisation! Why is it so difficult accept that people like the film for what it is and that it happens to be popular with younger audiences? Why do you feel the need to insult the fans just because you yourself find it to be overrated? Young audiences and Bond fans in general don't look for something pretentious, they want to be entertained. With Skyfall they are, because they can connect with the story. If anyone's giving the impression of being pretentious here and a general 'mr Know It All, its you!

    I actually like SF. In fact I'm sure you'll find many a thread where I've defended it against criticism. I was suggesting a reason for why people nitpick when it comes to the film, more so than other Bond pictures, and my conclusion was that a strata of fans have taken it upon themselves to put the film on an arguably undeserved pedestal. If you're going to tell people the film is masterpiece merely because it has 'Tennyson' in it they are going to react, because for every Tennyson there's a 'We've been hacked!'

    It was an observation. People love, like, loathe SF, I think its a decent and 'entertaining' Bond film, as I said above, but if people are going to pretend its anything higher than an enjoyable popcorn flick, other people are going to disagree.

    Well said @RC7. I have no problem with people liking SF. I just find it annoying when it's descibed as a masterpiece, and just ignoring all the obvious dodgy bits.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,135
    I thought this was an appreciation thread.
  • Matt_Helm wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Those nits are really being picked at ;)

    People nitpick with SF because it has a sort of 'Aren't I clever?' aura about it.

    I don't know what to make of this. But if you see movies like this, then you are quite the cynical person. Well, perhaps this "aura" worked tremendously then. For me this has nothing to do with "aura's". It has to do with a movie that, theme-wise, IS clever.

    What "aura's" do the other Bond films has then.....and if so, how can it be translated into its flop or success? Really.......:-)

    The film makers, the critics, the general press and the fans did their utmost to suggest this film was/is a 'cut-above', they were wrapped up in a perfect storm, in which the film undeniably captured the zeitgeist. That was the atmosphere that surrounded the film and which is perpetuated. That is the "aura" I speak of.

    And now further along the line when the mists have moved on I find that beauty is only skindeep and can never be the sole reason to admire SF, if that is so MR should be getting a heck more credit for its cinematography. ;)



    And also a movie that we apparently in this forum full of Bond-aficionados can not find consensus about, but that outside this forum is unanimously a "near-masterpiece".

    Just for laughs I went to your much praised IMDB SF page fully expecting further proof that the general public is beyond salvage when it comes to taste and logic (since I thought your claims about the generally SF praise and worshiping were representing the reality of the cyber generation ) but to my utter surprise ...
    Here the titles of the first five threads (I am not making this up !)

    James Bond 007 - Skyfall (2012) : Why was a Super Secret, important list sitting in a hotel in Turkey?
    Please explain why this is the worst movie ever made
    Quantity doesn't equal quality! (Again,I'm not making this up,though I have to admit,that I'm still laughing hard, while typing )
    Skyfall starts as the best Bond movie; ends as the worst
    This movie is trash



    I refrain from further commenting but have to admit it takes some discipline.

    Just for fun. Check all other reviews on IMDB from other Bond films. And then put things into perspective. Also, what is more important for you. One "rating click' on IMDB, the entire palette of fan reviews on IMDB, or critic's reviews on MC and RT. If you only pock one, than you're clearly bad at interpreting reviews. Compare it with QOS for fun sake.
  • Posts: 7,424
    RC7 wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Those nits are really being picked at ;)

    People nitpick with SF because it has a sort of 'Aren't I clever?' aura about it. I find it entertaining, but it's no more interesting or clever than any other Bond picture. It's similar to a lot of its most ardent fans, like high school students who have recently discovered Godard and dismiss anything mainstream, 'You wouldn't understand', they say.

    Oh, please...! I am perfectly able to take all the criticism the film gets, but its claims like THIS that really offends me! What a ridicuously stupid, grumpy generalisation! Why is it so difficult accept that people like the film for what it is and that it happens to be popular with younger audiences? Why do you feel the need to insult the fans just because you yourself find it to be overrated? Young audiences and Bond fans in general don't look for something pretentious, they want to be entertained. With Skyfall they are, because they can connect with the story. If anyone's giving the impression of being pretentious here and a general 'mr Know It All, its you!

    I actually like SF. In fact I'm sure you'll find many a thread where I've defended it against criticism. I was suggesting a reason for why people nitpick when it comes to the film, more so than other Bond pictures, and my conclusion was that a strata of fans have taken it upon themselves to put the film on an arguably undeserved pedestal. If you're going to tell people the film is masterpiece merely because it has 'Tennyson' in it they are going to react, because for every Tennyson there's a 'We've been hacked!'

    It was an observation. People love, like, loathe SF, I think its a decent and 'entertaining' Bond film, as I said above, but if people are going to pretend its anything higher than an enjoyable popcorn flick, other people are going to disagree.

    Okay, fair enough :)>- I thought you were talking about the fans in general...

    And I do agree that there are a few pretentious, 'hip' Skyfall fans out there. But I don't think there are that many of them. I think most people found the new 'poetic' angle interesting and refreshing, nothing more than that. With movie critics there's another story of course... But we have come far enough since Skyfall's release for that to be a concern for the Skyfall bashers here... I mean, seriously, get over it, move on!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    If you "think" that I'm a contrived, self-centered, desperate, attention-seeking Bond-weirdo, then I have news for you. It is not true.

    My comment said that you offer interesting, well observed and viable opinions - but they are sometimes lost under the weight of hyperbole and a desperation to justify SF's greatness. Hardly character assassination. In all honesty, I think you're being a bit of a drama queen.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2014 Posts: 23,883
    As I've said earlier, ultimately it's the visual beauty of this film & also the excellent characterisations (Mendes deserves credit here) that allows this film to overcome its obvious and glaring plot holes.

    It takes talent to create 3 dimensional characters in the space of 2 hours. I came out of the movie feeling like I knew Silva (and could understand his motivations and resentments), M (and her arrogance and flaws, but also her loyalty to queen and country), Bond (and his ego and weaknesses but also his unyielding faith in her Majesty's Secret Service despite numerous disappointments), Moneypenny (and her pride and female insecurities), Mallory (and his bravery, cautiousness & common sense), Q (and his ambitions & youthful overconfidence), Severine (and her fears and desire for a white knight).....even Kincaid (and his loyalty to the Bond family & fatherly approach).

    Mendes deserves full credit for picking excellent actors and fleshing their characters out credibly with very little screen time (how much screen time did Silva really have without action?......not much at all). It's almost like every actor's limited screen time was maximized to flesh out something important in their character. It is at this level that this movie is great. Its characterizations. Its particularly amazing for an action movie. Only perhaps TDK in the recent past did it so well, despite its many flaws as well.

    That and the cinematography made this movie, helped people connect with it emotionally, and results in its high ranking and opinion. All logical arguments about glaring internal plot inconsistencies, while completely valid, are failing to resonate & are being forgiven due to this emotional connection people have to it.

    I personally would like the characterizations along with the acting, cinematography and an internally credible plot next time.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    If you "think" that I'm a contrived, self-centered, desperate, attention-seeking Bond-weirdo, then I have news for you. It is not true.

    My comment said that you offer interesting, well observed and viable opinions - but they are sometimes lost under the weight of hyperbole and a desperation to justify SF's greatness. Hardly character assassination. In all honesty, I think you're being a bit of a drama queen.

    Thanks. But again you are throwing away the contents of my arguments so you can instead comment on something more superficial, something that is off-topic: the overall "look and feel" of my arguments. And you find them not to be taken serious....and desperate.

    Call it whatever you want. But I think it's only a more decadent way of showing disrespect. I again support you to comment on my previous bullet points. But it won't happen, because you think I then will "prove the greatness of SF". I can't bother anymore.

    Let's agree to disagree beforehand (something you also could have said)......and politely ignore each other.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Seriously it's a Bond film they are all utterly ridiculous even the most grounded ones.
    None of the scenarios played out in any entry would be taken seriously in the real world and that's the way it should be, I acknowledge SF is riddled with it but I personally can look over that when the acting, dialogue and sheer execution is as good as I see it.

    Yeah I appreciate SF, I personally don't go into the threads of entries I clearly don't like and slag it off but some of you it's like cat nip, Matt Helm I think we've heard enough about your dislike of Bond 23 to last us all a life time.

    I'd never call any Bond film a masterpiece, they are just too flawed be it plot or whatever and all this talk of the Maibum screenplays being so much better is ridiculous, no Bond screenplay is amazing, they all have cheesy lines and plot holes, fan boys don't half wax lyrical with some complete codswallop at times.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Seriously it's a Bond film they are all utterly ridiculous even the most grounded ones.
    None of the scenarios played out in any entry would be taken seriously in the real world and that's the way it should be, I acknowledge SF is riddled with it but I personally can look over that when the acting, dialogue and sheer execution is as good as I see it.

    Yeah I appreciate SF, I personally don't go into the threads of entries I clearly don't like and slag it off but some of you it's like cat nip, Matt Helm I think we've heard enough about your dislike of Bond 23 to last us all a life time.

    I'd never call any Bond film a masterpiece, they are just too flawed be it plot or whatever and all this talk of the Maibum screenplays being so much better is ridiculous, no Bond screenplay is amazing, they all have cheesy lines and plot holes, fan boys don't half wax lyrical with some complete codswallop at times.

    Shocked silence!
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2014 Posts: 10,512
    But it won't happen, because you think I then will "prove the greatness of SF".

    You're a buffoon and I accept your offer to agree to disagree.
  • Shardlake wrote: »
    Seriously it's a Bond film they are all utterly ridiculous even the most grounded ones.
    None of the scenarios played out in any entry would be taken seriously in the real world ...

    I'd never call any Bond film a masterpiece, they are just too flawed be it plot or whatever and all this talk of the Maibum screenplays being so much better is ridiculous, no Bond screenplay is amazing, they all have cheesy lines and plot holes, fan boys don't half wax lyrical with some complete codswallop at times.

    Your lack of appreciation of the finer points is truly remarkable. Mr Maibaum,along with Barry (and to a little lesser degree Young) can't be overestimated when it comes to the franchise. So much of the smooth vibe and the timeless dry and dark joking bedded in some of movie history's most memorable compositions is owed to them. Hundreds of wanna be competitors have tried to imitate that mix and failed to do so. Somehow I doubt that the reboot movies are that hard to copy ( mostly because they are copying so much them-self).
    Also, could you be so kind to point out the inherent absurdness in the basic story lines in FRWL,TB,OHMSS,LALD,TMWTGG ,FYEO,OP,AVTAK ,TLD,LTK,TWINE,CR and QoS ( quite a few,aren't they? ) Mind you, I don't consider SF basic premise ( an betrayed ex agent coming back for revenge) absurd. It's the intellect insulting way they go about it that angers me.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Seriously it's a Bond film they are all utterly ridiculous even the most grounded ones.
    None of the scenarios played out in any entry would be taken seriously in the real world and that's the way it should be, I acknowledge SF is riddled with it but I personally can look over that when the acting, dialogue and sheer execution is as good as I see it.

    Yeah I appreciate SF, I personally don't go into the threads of entries I clearly don't like and slag it off but some of you it's like cat nip, Matt Helm I think we've heard enough about your dislike of Bond 23 to last us all a life time.

    I'd never call any Bond film a masterpiece, they are just too flawed be it plot or whatever and all this talk of the Maibum screenplays being so much better is ridiculous, no Bond screenplay is amazing, they all have cheesy lines and plot holes, fan boys don't half wax lyrical with some complete codswallop at times.

    Shocked silence!

    Just...if I haven't mentioned it.....I do think "Casino Royale" is a masterpiece too. Solely as a Bond film it's already fantastic. But just as a general film.....it works even more.

    Too say that all 23 Bond incarnations (26 if you count the unofficial ones) are all utterly ridiculous is simply put a huge generalization. And not true. With so many movies you inevitably have different qualities from Bond film to Bond film. Some are more realistic (FRWL's Lektor was in reality based on the Enigma decoding machine from WW II and, also, the movie "Enigma"), others are more ridiculous. But you can't say all Bond films are ridiculous. That's too black-and-white. Luckily....there are so many quality nuances between each film.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't think FRWL was based on 'Enigma' ! ;)
  • Getafix wrote: »
    I don't think FRWL was based on 'Enigma' ! ;)

    Well, if you put it like that, I will say: "Goldfinger" is based on "Star Trek". Anyway, you know what I mean :-)

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Well Khan was in Octopussy. ;)
  • Posts: 1,146
    Other than a couple of bad matte paintings during the island sequence, I felt this was a fantastic picture. The jellyfish assassination scene is just awesome. Story is chock-full of impressive moments.

    Really enjoyed it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 2014 Posts: 17,284
    See? Another 'appreciation' thread turned into a bash-fest. Seriously, we *NEED* separate threads to let haters hate (yet express some acceptance) & lovers love (yet express some reservations) IMO.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2014 Posts: 23,883
    Seriously, we *NEED* separate threads to let haters hate (yet express some acceptance) & lovers love (yet express some reservations) IMO.

    But shouldn't lovers be able to properly defend their point of view, and haters likewise? Wouldn't we otherwise all naturally gravite to like minded forums or threads only with people who share our viewpoint, and consequently become more close minded? That would be boring, no.....Just saying....
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,284
    Look, I'm not a big fan of SF, but I wouldn't come on this thread to antagonize fans of it. It just seems so wrong to get into flame-wars. Separate threads pro & con seems like a peaceful solution to me. Otherwise endless personal attacks & emotional nonsense persists.
    Not all Bond fans can discuss their fandom without undue intensity IMO.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2014 Posts: 23,883
    I still think separate threads won't solve the problem though, as they will inevitably be infested by folks with different viewpoints and the same problem will persist.

    I agree there is no need for vitriol, and maybe there has been some unecessary excess emotion creeping in on this thread which could be dialed back......on an appreciation thread in particular perhaps one should at least attempt to explain any counter views clearly, or else run the risk of offending...

    Easier said than done of course.......Bond elicits such passions after 50 glorious years!
Sign In or Register to comment.