SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

19395979899

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,245
    RC7 wrote:
    they leave Silva in a giant glass cell with one useless cockney guard watching him. This is a bloke who is apparently one of the most dangerous men on the planet. So dangerous she'd risk her own agents to pursue him but can't spare the funds to have him watched 24/7.
    Oh. Well. If you're going to bring LOGIC into this discussion....
    :))
  • RC7 wrote:
    Silva is under direct threat from Bond long before arriving at Skyfall Lodge.

    Is he? Like you say, I think the only time Bond becomes a threat is when he 'changes the game'. If we go back to the notion that Silva's primary target is 'M', Bond does little to help until the final act. You'd have thought a man of Bond's intuition would have kept Silva and M at arms length for the most part. This is a problem for me throughout, the ineptitude of the key players. M, in letting her agents die, seemingly on a whim (a character trait straight out of left-field), a Bond who's lost it, and spends most of the film trying to find it again (interesting move, but done better in TMWTGG novel) and a villain who can somehow orchestrate the most audaciously convenient plan in Bond history, only to drop the ball at the last minute because someone shoots a fire extinguisher. Now I know, it's old vs. new symbolism, but I'd much rather have a solid plot than symbolism and semantics. All in all every character does the shittest job they possibly can.

    1. Bond loses the list and fails to save M. Seemingly his two key objectives, outside of stopping Silva.
    2. M leaves Ronson and Bond for dead, plus countless others whose identities are leaked.
    Then along with Bond they leave Silva in a giant glass cell with one useless cockney guard watching him. This is a bloke who is apparently one of the most dangerous men on the planet. So dangerous she'd risk her own agents to pursue him but can't spare the funds to have him watched 24/7.
    3. Silva goes to the trouble of orchestrating a plot over the course of many months, if not years, gets spooked by a fire extinguisher and then gets himself killed.

    All in all not a good day at the office for anyone really.

    Obviously this is all academic as amending my misgivings would require a wholesale restructure of the story, rather than some tweaks.

    It is academic, and just a matter of opinion. Not that I also don't find a few things in SF such as one guard watching a very dangerous man a bit nonsensical and less than thought out, but I'd disagree with other things you mentioned.

    1. The list is a MacGuffin as has been pointed out. And obviously it takes only a little imagination to know that once Bond captured Silva, the threat to other undercover agents whose identities were not released was over. You know he didn't leave the island without it, including Silva's computer. Bond would have very likely gotten that list in the PTS if not for M allowing her distrust of Bond to get the better of her, but that's been this M's relationship with Bond going back to the Brosnan era. She makes mistakes and was lucky she wasn't killed in 1999. You would have never seen the other M's treat Bond in this manner. Yes he did fail to save M, but as always she didn't listen to him and got involved in the shooting rather than laying low as he suggested. So whose fault is that really? As I see it, it isn't Bond's and look at it this way- let's say you want to jump off a 3 story building. A guy who's with you, who's seen 100 people try it, knows that 92 of them broke a leg doing so. Now if this guy tells you that 92% of the time you're going to break your leg if you do it, and you do it anyway, is it his fault or yours? The theory of Bond failing goes right out the window, it's a very flimsy reason to diss the film and to me smacks of one trying to convince themselves of their own opinion. Will gladly debate this point anytime.

    2. Agreed with the Silva escape, but I revert to point #1 for the rest. M says she won't act on a whim in GE, but also states she has the balls to send a man to his death. What does Bond call her during the role play? A bitch. And she is and she makes poor decisions. Maybe we should be glad her M was killed off? Her bad decisions towards Bond, Silva, other situations and other agents caught up with her and cost her life.

    3. Like point #1, it does not hold water. When you look at the film, once the extinguisher goes off Silva cannot see M to shoot her. He doesn't plan for that, or for Mallory taking the hit for her, or for Bond to even be there. Being spooked is just the opposite of what the situation is. His men are dead, and you are all alone against an armed Bond, Eve, and Mallory. What does it get him to stay? Killed for sure if he does. He does the smart thing, he's outnumbered and wisely retreats to regroup.
  • Agreed. I mean, really all this film makes more sense if going with Wade and Purvis original story, (or Fleming's rather) about a brainwashed Bond trying to regain himself. I mean, come off it. Why should Bond suddenly deterioate after his fall from the train? He's the same guy, a bit pissed for sure, but wouldn't suddenly lose it like that imo, or even get really unfit. Like fitness matters anyway, I mean, it's not like their agents are doing a marathon every day or anything.

    Anyway, he didn't even stop Silva's shooting. That was rubbish; he arrived late if I recall, Silva screws up totally, could have been taken out by the police anyhow, somehow misses M at point blank range, Torres could have hit the target better.
  • chrisisall wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    they leave Silva in a giant glass cell with one useless cockney guard watching him. This is a bloke who is apparently one of the most dangerous men on the planet. So dangerous she'd risk her own agents to pursue him but can't spare the funds to have him watched 24/7.

    Oh. Well. If you're going to bring LOGIC into this discussion....
    :))

    Cameron's cutbacks.
  • "The theory of Bond failing goes right out the window, it's a very flimsy reason to diss the film and to me smacks of one trying to convince themselves of their own opinion. Will gladly debate this point anytime. "

    Could you or anybody else tell me at what Point in the Movie Bond actually succeeds? Honestly!
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited February 2013 Posts: 3,497
    NicNac wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    hoppimike wrote:
    hoppimike wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Adjusting the cuff links was like straightening the tie underwater in TWINE.
    If any want to hate on Brosnan, NOW you have to hate on Craig as well.
    But I like 'em both. :)>-
    I think its down to the subtle tone of the cuff adjusting compared to TWINE. The moment it happened I didn't cringe when Craig did it, in fact I thought it looked very cool, as it was a quick, momentary pause in the action.

    This moment could have been achieved too under Brosnan, but it just felt to me that the tie-straightening looked slightly silly and forced the way it was filmed, especially accompanied by Arnold's comedy cue theme.

    The tie-straightening moment could have worked, but unfortunately didn't for me.

    I agree that the tie straightening in TWINE looked a little silly! It was like it was trying to echo the tank variation in GE but took it a bit far. Not bad, just a bit cheesy.

    The cuff links part in SF... was really cool but I was still a bit perplexed at how he was coping so well with having just been shot! It seemed a bit too unrealistic and harder to enjoy after Bond had just taken a bullet! o.O
    You talk about unrealistic, yet you like DAD.

    Give me a break.....

    =))

    I don't particularly like DAD, I just prefer it to Skyfall :)

    Ho ho ho. I've been wondering why the SF fan club insist on claiming you love DAD when you've repeatedly said you think it's mediocre. You have to get used to this kind of playground stuff round here - 'oh, you disagree with me, so you must like DAD', followed by a raspberry sound.

    Some people don't seem to understand just how mediocre SF actually is.

    Well if you are going to criticise people for not wanting anyone to disagree with them, then you also have to realise people don't like to be patronised with sentances like that. Whether it's mediocre or not is merely opinion and you can't stand up and be quite so condescending just because fans actually like a film that you don't

    This kind of behaviour, with all due respect Nicnac, was rarely seen on the old site. I really like the way you mods still hold freedom of speech in a high esteem, but ever since SF (or the whole new contuinity) started, there has been a constant devaluation of the discussing level.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    1. The list is a MacGuffin as has been pointed out. And obviously it takes only a little imagination to know that once Bond captured Silva, the threat to other undercover agents whose identities were not released was over. You know he didn't leave the island without it, including Silva's computer. Bond would have very likely gotten that list in the PTS if not for M allowing her distrust of Bond to get the better of her

    I'm sorry but this isn't a counter-argument. Yes, the list is a McGuffin, that doesn't negate the fact Bong did not retrieve it. Mission failed in my book. Several agents die as a result.
    2. Agreed with the Silva escape, but I revert to point #1 for the rest. M says she won't act on a whim in GE, but also states she has the balls to send a man to his death. What does Bond call her during the role play? A bitch. And she is and she makes poor decisions. Maybe we should be glad her M was killed off? Her bad decisions towards Bond, Silva, other situations and other agents caught up with her and cost her life.

    Sorry but this a completely different M to the one in the Brosnan era. Hell, the GE 'M' was significantly different to the one from TND, TWINE and DAD but this is a different era. Can't let you get away with that one Sir Henry, poor argument. The 'M' of CR and QoS is not the M who's suddenly lost it in SF. They can't just throw in, as we've agreed, a McGuffin and then expect everyone to buy that it's so important she'd suddenly let agents die, that's never been her way.

    3. Like point #1, it does not hold water. When you look at the film, once the extinguisher goes off Silva cannot see M to shoot her. He doesn't plan for that, or for Mallory taking the hit for her, or for Bond to even be there. Being spooked is just the opposite of what the situation is. His men are dead, and you are all alone against an armed Bond, Eve, and Mallory. What does it get him to stay? Killed for sure if he does. He does the smart thing, he's outnumbered and wisely retreats to regroup.

    I'm not sure you understand my point. I'm not suggesting he stays, I'm suggesting that going from his hacking prowess (the new) to having your hi-tech plan thwarted by a fire extinguisher (the old) is just pure symbolism, and a leap of faith too far. It just shows up how utterly ridiculous and convenient his so called plan is.

    Again, some of this is opinion. What isn't is the fact that traces of typical P+W plotting are still clearly evident. This doesn't sit well when I'm being told left, right and centre that this film is Oscar worthy. It can have all the symbolism and character study in the world, but not nailing down your basics is unforgivable. It may not be a big deal to some people but Silva's escape from MI6, as just one example, is just laughable and why I cannot elevate it to the level others have.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,245
    RC7 wrote:
    this a completely different M to the one in the Brosnan era. Hell, the GE 'M' was significantly different to the one from TND, TWINE and DAD but this is a different era. Can't let you get away with that one Sir Henry, poor argument. The 'M' of CR and QoS is not the M who's suddenly lost it in SF. They can't just throw in, as we've agreed, a McGuffin and then expect everyone to buy that it's so important she'd suddenly let agents die, that's never been her way.
    When she ordered the shot to be taken, I was like "Ohhhh, so it's THAT is it?" They're doing away with character history. Another reboot of sorts.
  • Posts: 194
    chrisisall wrote:
    ordered the shot to be taken, I was like "Ohhhh, so it's THAT is it?" They're doing away with character history. Another reboot of sorts.

    I never saw it as another reboot. I took CR as the only reboot, so the M of the Brosnan era is a different character, with the same name, played by the same person.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,476
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    "The theory of Bond failing goes right out the window, it's a very flimsy reason to diss the film and to me smacks of one trying to convince themselves of their own opinion. Will gladly debate this point anytime. "

    Could you or anybody else tell me at what Point in the Movie Bond actually succeeds? Honestly!

    Oh, gee, I don't know. MAYBE WHEN HE KILLS SILVA?!

    I swear, some of you really should think once in a while. Our brains aren't here to collect dust. 8-|
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    "The theory of Bond failing goes right out the window, it's a very flimsy reason to diss the film and to me smacks of one trying to convince themselves of their own opinion. Will gladly debate this point anytime. "

    Could you or anybody else tell me at what Point in the Movie Bond actually succeeds? Honestly!

    Oh, gee, I don't know. MAYBE WHEN HE KILLS SILVA?!

    I swear, some of you really should think once in a while. Our brains aren't here to collect dust. 8-|

    But even that is ambiguous as it's at the expense of M. Don't get your knickers in a twist.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    edited February 2013 Posts: 28,476
    RC7 wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    "The theory of Bond failing goes right out the window, it's a very flimsy reason to diss the film and to me smacks of one trying to convince themselves of their own opinion. Will gladly debate this point anytime. "

    Could you or anybody else tell me at what Point in the Movie Bond actually succeeds? Honestly!

    Oh, gee, I don't know. MAYBE WHEN HE KILLS SILVA?!

    I swear, some of you really should think once in a while. Our brains aren't here to collect dust. 8-|

    But even that is ambiguous as it's at the expense of M. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

    Bond kills Silva, stopping untold amounts of death and destruction on a massive scale. That's a victory for Bond, though Pyrrhic.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 12,679
    Silva wasn't really a terrorist, he just wanted to kill M. Bond didn't stop death and destruction on a massive scale because that wasn't Silva's main goal. All the death and destruction was over, and he only caused that to get to M.

    Hell for all we know, M was going to kill her and Silva anyway, like he wanted her to. So following that line of thinking Bond killing him was absoloutley pointless.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,476
    Silva wasn't really a terrorist, he just wanted to kill M. Bond didn't stop death and destruction on a massive scale because that wasn't Silva's goal. All the death and destruction was over, and he only caused that to get to M.

    Hell for all we know, M was going to kill her and Silva anyway, like he wanted her to. So following that line of thinking Bond killing him was absoloutley pointless.

    But he would literally kill anyone and do anything to get at her, so Bond killing him stopped all that. Silva blew up MI6, which was massive destruction, not to get M, but to send a message, so he would in fact cause destruction just to get into her head, and no other reason. I don't see how Bond killing him is pointless considering that if Bond never existed and they kept globe hopping M around Silva would have created worldwide panic and destruction until he succeeded.
  • Matt_Helm wrote:
    "The theory of Bond failing goes right out the window, it's a very flimsy reason to diss the film and to me smacks of one trying to convince themselves of their own opinion. Will gladly debate this point anytime. "

    Could you or anybody else tell me at what Point in the Movie Bond actually succeeds? Honestly!

    Oh, gee, I don't know. MAYBE WHEN HE KILLS SILVA?!

    I swear, some of you really should think once in a while. Our brains aren't here to collect dust. 8-|

    Stabbing him in the back After he succeeded in just about everything he had desired is not my idea of Mission acomplished ( but obviously yours and probably George W Bushs). Well, we all have our Own ideas of success!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,476
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    "The theory of Bond failing goes right out the window, it's a very flimsy reason to diss the film and to me smacks of one trying to convince themselves of their own opinion. Will gladly debate this point anytime. "

    Could you or anybody else tell me at what Point in the Movie Bond actually succeeds? Honestly!

    Oh, gee, I don't know. MAYBE WHEN HE KILLS SILVA?!

    I swear, some of you really should think once in a while. Our brains aren't here to collect dust. 8-|

    Stabbing him in the back After he succeeded in just about everything he had desired is not my idea of Mission acomplished ( but obviously yours and probably George W Bushs). Well, we all have our Own ideas of success!

    Don't compare me to a buffoon, wise guy. Silva didn't accomplish all he wished, though you might want to think that. Bond saved M from death in the court room, got her out and away from London where untold amounts could have died, and made Silva face him on his own turf where his advantages were useless and it was a fairer fight. Silva lost all his men, all his tools and all his energy at the end of it, so no I don't think he is the face of Mr. Success, if you ask me. But debating this with you is going to end up just like preschool all over again if just two posts in you compare someone to a republican puppet.
  • Silva wasn't really a terrorist, he just wanted to kill M. Bond didn't stop death and destruction on a massive scale because that wasn't Silva's goal. All the death and destruction was over, and he only caused that to get to M.

    Hell for all we know, M was going to kill her and Silva anyway, like he wanted her to. So following that line of thinking Bond killing him was absoloutley pointless.

    But he would literally kill anyone and do anything to get at her, so Bond killing him stopped all that. Silva blew up MI6, which was massive destruction, not to get M, but to send a message, so he would in fact cause destruction just to get into her head, and no other reason. I don't see how Bond killing him is pointless considering that if Bond never existed and they kept globe hopping M around Silva would have created worldwide panic and destruction until he succeeded.

    Glad you took up the cause Brady. I've had more than my fill of SF haters patronizing me. Every time I present a coherent opposing POV, it either gets ignored or my points are purposely overlooked because it doesn't fit someone's view. SF is not the best Bond movie, top 10 I'd agree with but not top 5, but you seems you can't even argue that without the anti-SF police taking you to task. Several of them are real jackasses, and if age and wisdom has taught me anything, it's that it's sometimes better to ignore them and be glad that they ignore you when they do.

    SF deserved it's two Oscars, and Deakins deserved better than to lose to an overdose of CGI even if it was done as well as CGI can be.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,245
    Glad you took up the cause Brady. I've had more than my fill of SF haters patronizing me.

    And I've had more than my fill of hearing how Craig's movies are a Godsend.
    They are good. Like Brosnan's or Moore's or ANY of them. They have problems, like ANY of them.
    Skyfall is entertaining, but it's not any kind of 'pinnacle' of Bond. It hit at the right time & played well to the audience of the day, just like TB did.
  • Posts: 194
    Silva wasn't really a terrorist, he just wanted to kill M. Bond didn't stop death and destruction on a massive scale because that wasn't Silva's goal. All the death and destruction was over, and he only caused that to get to M.

    Hell for all we know, M was going to kill her and Silva anyway, like he wanted her to. So following that line of thinking Bond killing him was absoloutley pointless.

    But he would literally kill anyone and do anything to get at her, so Bond killing him stopped all that. Silva blew up MI6, which was massive destruction, not to get M, but to send a message, so he would in fact cause destruction just to get into her head, and no other reason. I don't see how Bond killing him is pointless considering that if Bond never existed and they kept globe hopping M around Silva would have created worldwide panic and destruction until he succeeded.

    Glad you took up the cause Brady. I've had more than my fill of SF haters patronizing me. Every time I present a coherent opposing POV, it either gets ignored or my points are purposely overlooked because it doesn't fit someone's view. SF is not the best Bond movie, top 10 I'd agree with but not top 5, but you seems you can't even argue that without the anti-SF police taking you to task. Several of them are real jackasses, and if age and wisdom has taught me anything, it's that it's sometimes better to ignore them and be glad that they ignore you when they do.

    SF deserved it's two Oscars, and Deakins deserved better than to lose to an overdose of CGI even if it was done as well as CGI can be.

    People just hate whatever is new, because it gives them new things to complain about. I really liked SF, but have yet to rank it. It's not the be-all-end-all with me, but I do think it was really good. Probably in my top 10.

    I also get the other POV, where people think DC gets too much credit. But bashing his installments the way the haters do is undermine your own objectivity. It's hard to take some on here serious because there hatred makes their stance so extreme.
  • just watched the Blu for the first time and the only new thing I notice after 3 views is how much I miss hearing the old James Bond themes during the action.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 12,679
    Silva wasn't really a terrorist, he just wanted to kill M. Bond didn't stop death and destruction on a massive scale because that wasn't Silva's goal. All the death and destruction was over, and he only caused that to get to M.

    Hell for all we know, M was going to kill her and Silva anyway, like he wanted her to. So following that line of thinking Bond killing him was absoloutley pointless.

    But he would literally kill anyone and do anything to get at her, so Bond killing him stopped all that. Silva blew up MI6, which was massive destruction, not to get M, but to send a message, so he would in fact cause destruction just to get into her head, and no other reason. I don't see how Bond killing him is pointless considering that if Bond never existed and they kept globe hopping M around Silva would have created worldwide panic and destruction until he succeeded.

    He didn't stop all that because it was over. Silva was going to make M shoot herself and him (and M was dying anyway).

    He caused death and destruction on the way but that was only to get to M, and since he had her there about to die, then it was over anyway. Bond didn't stop anything.

    He got retribution but Silva's plan was already over, so he didn't stop anything.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 2,745
    Silva wasn't really a terrorist, he just wanted to kill M. Bond didn't stop death and destruction on a massive scale because that wasn't Silva's goal. All the death and destruction was over, and he only caused that to get to M.

    Hell for all we know, M was going to kill her and Silva anyway, like he wanted her to. So following that line of thinking Bond killing him was absoloutley pointless.

    But he would literally kill anyone and do anything to get at her, so Bond killing him stopped all that. Silva blew up MI6, which was massive destruction, not to get M, but to send a message, so he would in fact cause destruction just to get into her head, and no other reason. I don't see how Bond killing him is pointless considering that if Bond never existed and they kept globe hopping M around Silva would have created worldwide panic and destruction until he succeeded.

    He didn't stop all that because it was over. Silva was going to make M shoot herself and him (and M was dying anyway).

    He caused death and destruction on the way but that was only to get to M, and since he had her there about to die, then it was over anyway. Bond didn't stop anything.

    He got retribution but Silva's plan was already over, so he didn't stop anything.
    I have no issues with any of that in SF. Bond often failed in his missions in the novels. Hell, in TB and OHMSS the villain escapes at the end of each novel, to the extent of mudering Bond's wife on the last page!

    In FRWL Fleming actually kills Bond off, murdered by the KGB.

    At the end of YOLT Bond loses his memory and sets sail to Russia.

    So all of this was kept firmly in line with Fleming in SF. I appreciate many here may not have read the novels, and expect Bond films to end with explosions all over the shop, the villain murdered spectacularly in a volcano lair, stroking a white cat, while men in colour co-ordinated boiler suits battle it out all guns blazing.

    Thankfully those days are over. Bring on more of what we had in SF. If it annoys the SF haters here, then that would be a sweet bonus, IMO.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,175
    But Blofeld wasn't murdered in the volcano lair. He escaped ;)
  • Posts: 2,745
    BAIN123 wrote:
    But Blofeld wasn't murdered in the volcano lair. He escaped ;)

    But I think you still get my point though Bain, right? ;)
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,175
    Yeah I get it :)

    Bond didn't always shag the girl and there weren't jokes about British ends or Christmas coming.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited February 2013 Posts: 3,497
    chrisisall wrote:
    Glad you took up the cause Brady. I've had more than my fill of SF haters patronizing me.

    And I've had more than my fill of hearing how Craig's movies are a Godsend.
    They are good. Like Brosnan's or Moore's or ANY of them. They have problems, like ANY of them.
    Skyfall is entertaining, but it's not any kind of 'pinnacle' of Bond. It hit at the right time & played well to the audience of the day, just like TB did.

    They are not a Godsend, to me Connery is still the number one Bond, followed by Craig & Dalton.

    For the record: I prefer TB over GF.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    just watched the Blu for the first time and the only new thing I notice after 3 views is how much I miss hearing the old James Bond themes during the action.

    The Bond theme during all of the action didn't even happen in the old series.
  • It's interesting, isn't it? People are missing things that weren't necessarily even there!

    When I was a kid I saw so many of the old Bond films so closely together that they all bled together to create the *idea* of a Bond film. But a lot of the things that I assumed were always in every Bond film weren't - it was just the impression left by the cumulative effect of all of the films. He didn't order a "shaken, not stirred" martini in every film, didn't go to a casino in every film, didn't introduce himself as "Bond, James Bond" in every film, didn't wear a tux in every film...etc etc.

    When these things are repeated too often they lose impact, and then the films are weakened trying to shoehorn them all in. One of the reasons that I think that the score of TND is one of the worst is because of the over-use of the Bond theme - it plays, what, 4 times in the first half hour? When I was 12 that's the way I would have scored a Bond film. But now I realize that it's not only creatively weak but it lessens the impact of the theme every time that you hear it.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,487
    JamesCraig wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    hoppimike wrote:
    hoppimike wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Adjusting the cuff links was like straightening the tie underwater in TWINE.
    If any want to hate on Brosnan, NOW you have to hate on Craig as well.
    But I like 'em both. :)>-
    I think its down to the subtle tone of the cuff adjusting compared to TWINE. The moment it happened I didn't cringe when Craig did it, in fact I thought it looked very cool, as it was a quick, momentary pause in the action.

    This moment could have been achieved too under Brosnan, but it just felt to me that the tie-straightening looked slightly silly and forced the way it was filmed, especially accompanied by Arnold's comedy cue theme.

    The tie-straightening moment could have worked, but unfortunately didn't for me.

    I agree that the tie straightening in TWINE looked a little silly! It was like it was trying to echo the tank variation in GE but took it a bit far. Not bad, just a bit cheesy.

    The cuff links part in SF... was really cool but I was still a bit perplexed at how he was coping so well with having just been shot! It seemed a bit too unrealistic and harder to enjoy after Bond had just taken a bullet! o.O
    You talk about unrealistic, yet you like DAD.

    Give me a break.....

    =))

    I don't particularly like DAD, I just prefer it to Skyfall :)

    Ho ho ho. I've been wondering why the SF fan club insist on claiming you love DAD when you've repeatedly said you think it's mediocre. You have to get used to this kind of playground stuff round here - 'oh, you disagree with me, so you must like DAD', followed by a raspberry sound.

    Some people don't seem to understand just how mediocre SF actually is.

    Well if you are going to criticise people for not wanting anyone to disagree with them, then you also have to realise people don't like to be patronised with sentances like that. Whether it's mediocre or not is merely opinion and you can't stand up and be quite so condescending just because fans actually like a film that you don't

    This kind of behaviour, with all due respect Nicnac, was rarely seen on the old site. I really like the way you mods still hold freedom of speech in a high esteem, but ever since SF (or the whole new contuinity) started, there has been a constant devaluation of the discussing level.

    I think when something happens to alter the balance of a series, as the apparant 're-boot' of Bond did, it is bound to upset traditionalists. The series has lasted a long time with only gradual changes, but CR and Craig was very different. The nay sayers in anything will always shout louder than the rest, but how do you control a runaway train? And how much do we want to? Freedom of speach is everything, and as long as it doesn't break too many of the rules and regs then we can only keep discussions on track.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    When these things are repeated too often they lose impact, and then the films are weakened trying to shoehorn them all in.

    Totally agree. It's the reason I really don't like Bond being self-referential or nodding to the past. It's accepted as the done thing, not only in Bond but in other franchises as well, see the return of Han Solo in SW. It reeks of complacency, let's cover our arses by doing what we did so successfully in the past. I wish more than anything they hadn't used the DB5 in SF, I hate the ease with which this kind of thing is lapped up. They should be breaking new ground, and as you say, if that means leaving the past behind or shedding some of the baggage so be it. There are certain things I'd like to see in a Bond film but as CR proved so adeptly, you don't always have to tick the boxes.
Sign In or Register to comment.