Is Skyfall losing its gloss and appeal ?

1495052545559

Comments

  • edited May 2015 Posts: 7,507
    Another thing: If somebody does slip up and discuss matters or write things they shouldn't, for god's sake DO NOT quote it! It has happened before on other threads that spoiler info has been published, and then requoted by many members. That way the information lives on, even if the original messenger has the courtecy to go back and put it in spoiler tags!

    Come on guys, to show some common sense shouldn't be too difficult!
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,122
    I've removed several posts containing spoilers concerning Spectre.
    As with many members here I don't want too know everything about Spectre until I've seen it. Please have respect for other members and don't discuss outside the dedicated threads. And use spoilers when applicable. Just because you know it, doesn't mean everyone else wants to as well.
  • I still enjoy Skyfall. It's got a good re-watch ability. I don't place it in the top tier of my James Bond films. Maybe middle of the road.
    Certainly not a bad film. Slightly disjointed would be a very fair analogy I think.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    I still enjoy Skyfall. It's got a good re-watch ability. I don't place it in the top tier of my James Bond films. Maybe middle of the road.
    Certainly not a bad film. Slightly disjointed would be a very fair analogy I think.

    This pretty much sums up Skyfall for me, too. I'm always on the fence when it comes to these discussions.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited May 2015 Posts: 1,756
    timmer wrote: »
    I have elevated SF in my ranking to a solid 20 of 23. Up from 22. I have moved it past both CR --

    hSVp4Ua.gif

  • Posts: 7,653
    this one never fails to make me laugh



    they have more beauties
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    A mate of mine sent me this earlier (We'd been discussing SP and I mentioned how divisive I found SF to be in the fan community).

    http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/skyfall-rant/

    I agree/disagree with certain elements of his piece, but it's not really the content that caught my attention, it's the poll at the bottom. Of the 3440 votes counted, almost 60% are attributed to the 'It's very disappointing' category, while 14% suggest it's a great Bond movie. I thought it was interesting given that a lot of people presume it's only hardcore Bond fans that find the film (or parts of it) disappointing.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I have a few friends ( not Bond nerds, like us) who didn't think much of Skyfall.
    For me it was a sort of realignment in the right direction. Bringing back some old
    and loved characters etc. For me it's a solid in the middle Bond outing. :)
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,578
    SaintMark wrote: »
    this one never fails to make me laugh



    they have more beauties

    The first 22 Bond films were far more realistic and sensible. 8-|
  • Posts: 7,653
    TripAces wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    this one never fails to make me laugh



    they have more beauties

    The first 22 Bond films were far more realistic and sensible. 8-|

    You have got to develop a sense of humour about your favorite subject otherwise you change into a fanatic or extremist that cannot abide any criticism or witticism aimed at his favorite subject.
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 7,507
    TripAces wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    this one never fails to make me laugh



    they have more beauties

    The first 22 Bond films were far more realistic and sensible. 8-|


    You can make videos like that about every single film in the series, and not only Bonds, so they don't exactly hold much evaluation merit or purpose apart from being funny. No need to be offended! ;)

    This is not the best video of that particular genre I have seen though...
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Agreed, any film can be taken apart, even classics. ;)
  • edited May 2015 Posts: 2,015
    The problem with "if you don't like SF, then you must find all the other Bond ridiculous": since, obviously, if you find all the other Bond ridiculous, then you're not a Bond fan, then it means "if you don't like SF then you're not a Bond fan". Er.. no.
  • Posts: 4,622
    timmer wrote: »
    I have elevated SF in my ranking to a solid 20 of 23. Up from 22. I have moved it past both CR --

    hSVp4Ua.gif
    hmm. Next time I watch CR, I might be inclined to move it back ahead of SF.
    I find the two movies kind of interchangeable.
    Kind of like TSWLM and MR, although I like those two epic romps way more.


  • Posts: 7,507
    The problem with "if you don't like SF, then you must find all the other Bond ridiculous": since, obviously, if you find all the other Bond ridiculous, then you're not a Bond fan, then it means "if you don't like SF then you're not a Bond fan". Er.. no.


    Nobody has ever said anything like that, at least not on this thread!

    The point is that you can't claim Skyfall is unique because it has plotholes. That is a completely different thing. But please feel free to hate it as much as you want...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Those honest trailers are hilarious wether you love or hate the film they mock.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Agreed, they do sometimes point out things that I'd never even thought of but
    They've never changed my opinion on any film. The films I enjoy, I guess I'll
    always enjoy. ;)
  • Posts: 7,653
    Those honest trailers are hilarious wether you love or hate the film they mock.

    they do make me laugh and not let me enjoy my favorite movies any less. I find satire the best form of flattery, if nobody wants to make fun of your movie you are in trouble. (of course taking the mickey out of Schindlers list would be considered beyond bad taste)

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2015 Posts: 23,883
    SaintMark wrote: »
    this one never fails to make me laugh



    they have more beauties

    Hilarious! I almost doubled up.

    I realized when watching this that it's all true, but I also realized that I surely do love the way this film looks, even in this sarcastic dig. It's just such a pleasure to watch a Bond movie that looks this beautiful, plot warts and all. Suspend disbelief for 2+ hrs, put the rational/analytical side of your brain to rest, and have fun! It's the only way to enjoy this one.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,578
    The problem with "if you don't like SF, then you must find all the other Bond ridiculous": since, obviously, if you find all the other Bond ridiculous, then you're not a Bond fan, then it means "if you don't like SF then you're not a Bond fan". Er.. no.

    No, the implication is: criticisms of the plot in SF make no sense in a film series that is full of unbelievable plots. All things considered, SF is one of the most believable films in the entire series.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    TripAces wrote: »
    No, the implication is: criticisms of the plot in SF make no sense in a film series that is full of unbelievable plots.

    There is an illogical nature to the plotting of SF that can be jarring for some viewers. In a film like Moonraker where a man walks around with metal teeth and his boss owns the Eiffel tower, the audience is more forgiving if things don't necessarily stack up. SF is a film concerned with the relevance of our security services and an ageing protagonists place in the world. That to me suggests a very different tone. So while they're in the same series, they work within different parameters.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,712
    While SF is in my top 7, I'd say it's on the same level of believability as DAD.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,578
    While SF is in my top 7, I'd say it's on the same level of believability as DAD.

    I have to beg to differ. Genetic alteration? A solar-fueled laser beam used to cut up Korea? A plane that can disintegrate in mid air and keep flying?

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2015 Posts: 15,712
    TripAces wrote: »
    While SF is in my top 7, I'd say it's on the same level of believability as DAD.

    I have to beg to differ. Genetic alteration? A solar-fueled laser beam used to cut up Korea? A plane that can disintegrate in mid air and keep flying?


    A villain that can predict every single move by MI6, Bond, the british government... years in advance? Bond and Mallory single handidly killing the head of MI6 and not getting punished for it, they just pat themselves on the back for a mission well done?
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited May 2015 Posts: 4,578
    TripAces wrote: »
    While SF is in my top 7, I'd say it's on the same level of believability as DAD.

    I have to beg to differ. Genetic alteration? A solar-fueled laser beam used to cut up Korea? A plane that can disintegrate in mid air and keep flying?


    A villain that can predict every single move by MI6, Bond, the british government... years in advance? Bond and Mallory single handidly killing the head of MI6 and not getting punished for it, they just pat themselves on the back for a mission well done?

    That is actually never revealed in the film. Go back and listen carefully to what Q said. How much was planned out is open to interpretation. There's gray area there.

    And government operatives not being punished for people's deaths? Sounds realistic to me! :D
  • Posts: 7,507
    I think I have mentioned this before, but the "planned years in advance" line really annoys me! They could have so easily left it out, and solved many of the problems With the plot which are complained about today. Thanks almost singlehandidly to that line, we are expected to believe that Silva was caught on purpose and planned in advance to escape on that exact time, that he would know MI6 would relocate to that specific location after the terrorist attack, that Q would examine the computer in such a way, that... etc... etc...

    Was that line really so important that it was worth sacrifizing so much of the plot's credibility? ~X(

    I still love the film though :)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I just put it down to it simply being Q's opinion of the whole thing as opposed to it being fact. Sure, there's evidence that Silva had an intricate plan in place but THAT intricate? No. It doesn't even maje sense to be so within the parameters of the film's own rules.
  • Posts: 7,653
    TripAces wrote: »
    While SF is in my top 7, I'd say it's on the same level of believability as DAD.

    I have to beg to differ. Genetic alteration? A solar-fueled laser beam used to cut up Korea? A plane that can disintegrate in mid air and keep flying?

    Bond being shot twice, fell of a bridge from a lethal high into the river and months later he pops up as if nothing really had happened.

    He never gives any explanation for his miraculous recovery or who might be behind it and is allowed back into active service. Even MI6 or the CIA would no go for that.

    he can shoot a gun that reacts to his hand with gloves on.

    MI6 headquarters gets blown up through the power of a computer.

    Silva escapes through a plan set in motion years ahead.

    Silva unloads a train on 007 his head.

    Silva and his cronies do fly a military helicopter through one of the best guarded skies in Europe and does not get taken down.

    Home alone antics against a fully military grade armed enemy with two relatively untrained people and one trained agent. [where was any SAS assistance, which would make M's flight look logic].

    The whole plot by Silva was elaborate and nonsensical, he could easily with his computer have continued making M look stupid and discredit her before killing her and thus taking away all she worked for.

    So in hindsight DAD has the same flaws as this movie [and admitingly poor CGI for which the blame lies solely at EONs doorstep] as SF, and SF had some brilliant camerawork while DAD had the better music. So in comparison with DAD's movie story SF does not quite improve.
  • jobo wrote: »
    Nobody has ever said anything like that, at least not on this thread!

    The "double standard proof" has been used a lot ! "All other Bond have the same problem as SF; so if you don't like SF..."
    jobo wrote: »
    The point is that you can't claim Skyfall is unique because it has plotholes.
    That is a completely different thing. But please feel free to hate it as much as you want...

    Hm, why are Skyfall's plotholes discussed so much "everywhere" then ? (ie :IMO it's wrong to imagine it's limited to a few fans - or non-fans ? I don't know anymore what you think of people who have personal opinions :) )

    A plothole is a problem only when you notice it. And furthermore, the twist plot "Villain gets caught but, surprise, it's part of his plan" is quite rare in the Bond canon. Even in TLD, Bond smells a rat from the beginning. So, plotholes you notice + a twist plot = a quite unique cocktail in the Bond canon, on the contrary, IMO.


  • Posts: 12,837
    Planned in advance or not, Silva's plan is so stupid.

    He wants to ruin M's reputation, confront her, then kill her. Ok. The ruining her reputation part is stupid because it's just unnecessary risk but lets brush that off and say he had to do that because he really, really wanted to ruin her reputation. Alright. But then...

    Why get yourself captured (and, if you do want to get captured, why have goons try and kill the guy you need to capture you, especially when you know that guy is nowhere near 100%, Silva said himself "that you would likely die"... So why put so many obstacles in Bonds path? Just to make things more realistic so nobody would suspect him?), if your plan was just to storm into the courtroom and shoot her anyway? In fact basically martyring her in front of the press sort of undoes his work. He tried to ruin M's reputation and make her look incompetent but when people see a terrorist barge into a courtroom and shoot it up in an effort to kill the head of MI6, they're just gonna think "actually yeah, she had a point, we do still need spies to sort shit like this out". All he's doing is proving her point and undoing the work he did previously when he leaked the list (if she died in the courtroom, she'd be more likely to be remembered as a hero who was killed by a crazed terrorist because she refused to back down, rather than an incompetent old woman who got several agents killed, which is what Silva wanted).

    But anyway, like I said, why such a stupidly complex plan for what amounts to him shooting M? What's the point in the tube bomb? Did he have that set up just in case Bond followed him? Or was it to distract the emergency services like I've heard some say? But why did he want to distract the emergency services, it was pretty clear that it was a suicide mission anyway (he was happy to kill himself at the end, he's spent all this money just to kill M, he has nothing else to live for really) so I doubt he cared about getting away.

    He could have stolen the list to ruin her reputation, then gone to London himself, broken into her flat (Bond managed it easily and he was pissed at the time), confronted her there, then killed her and himself. Boom. Job done and no need for all that other useless bullshit. I mean it's still a dumb plan but you can justify it because he's a psychopath. But his plan as seen in the film is pointless, dumb and completely unrealistic.

    What's even more annoying is (SPECTRE spoilers follow so don't click the spoiler tag if you don't want to be spoilt)
    How they've retconned the entire Craig era and basically said "all these guys worked for SPECTRE". So what, Blofeld was happy to support Silva's retarded, stupid revenge plan was he? It's annoying, it's just another reason to make it more personal for Bond, since Blofeld is essentially behind Vesper and M's death.

    It doesn't fit in with the previous movies at all. Le Chiffre, White, Greene and Silva all working for the same organisation doesn't make any sense. Why does Le Chiffre need to borrow money from the Ugandan's for his attack? Could Blofeld, the man behind SPECTRE and Quantum, with a private army and a huge secret base, really not afford to sport him the cash for his investments before the terrorist attack? Silva is the worst problem though, since his plan wouldn't help anyone but himself. Silva working for SPECTRE makes no sense at all. He even says in Skyfall that he "makes his own missions". Maybe he was a SPECTRE agent gone rogue but they had Le Cheiffre killed for being untrustworthy and they had Mr White killed for turning on them. So why let Silva live if he was rogue? And I don't think the script ever implied that he split with SPECTRE before SF. So Silva, during the events of Skyfall, was working for SPECTRE, which makes zero sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.