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

1272830323343

Comments

  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    Posts: 2,005
    Being new to the films, I still feel I can risk saying that Skyfall is today what Goldfinger was in the 60s.
  • Posts: 4,602
    I find it interesting that those who don't like SF don't have the humility to admit that, even though they dont like it, it does have many strengths. They attribute the Olympics etc to it's success. On that basis, AVTAK would have broken box office records, if only it had been released at that time. It seems a little churlish not to give the movie any credit in itself for doing so well
  • Posts: 19,339
    Being new to the films, I still feel I can risk saying that Skyfall is today what Goldfinger was in the 60s.

    Well said !!
    patb wrote: »
    I find it interesting that those who don't like SF don't have the humility to admit that, even though they dont like it, it does have many strengths. They attribute the Olympics etc to it's success. On that basis, AVTAK would have broken box office records, if only it had been released at that time. It seems a little churlish not to give the movie any credit in itself for doing so well

    Well said as well !!
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    bondjames wrote: »
    It was the most successful film there for a very short while. SW-TFA took it out a few months later.

    A few years later surely?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    It was the most successful film there for a very short while. SW-TFA took it out a few months later.

    A few years later surely?
    No, I believe that opened the same year a few months later. 2015.

    EDIT: Of course. Confusing SP with SF. Good catch.
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    Posts: 2,005
    @bondjames
    I think second most successful ever is good enough.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Being new to the films, I still feel I can risk saying that Skyfall is today what Goldfinger was in the 60s.
    Not even close. When Goldfinger opened it was in a landscape that was void of any other high-octane espionage thrillers, certainly compared to the avalanche that followed in Goldfinger's wake. Goldfinger kicked-off the spy craze and was a cultural phenomenon on par with the rise of The Beatles and TV's Batman. There's no denying that SF was a huge money-maker, but that can also be attributed to the cost of a cinema ticket nowadays, not so much actual bums on seats. Also, Goldfinger ran in the theatres for months afterwards, whereas SF had a limited run by comparison. Again with Goldfinger, the theatres had to remain open 24-hours to accommodate its eager audience; SF the showings remained the same. Goldfinger made huge global stars out of its cast and title song performer, whereas Adele was an already well-established artist along with the majority of SF's cast. At the Goldfinger premiere 5,000 fans fought the police outside the Odeon Theatre. In the near riots, the massive glass door of the theatre was shattered and police reinforcements had to be sent for. The Goldfinger premiers were akin to mini riots wherever they took place. The Goldfinger premiere in Paris had been so huge that a female fan climbed into the car Connery was driving and almost caused a fatal crash. Subsequently, Connery would shy away from attending any future Bond premiers afterwards. One could say that the SF premiers were muted affairs in comparison to Goldfinger's near-riots. That's not taking away the success of SF, but any comparisons are about as accurate as comparing the popularity of One Direction with The Beatles.
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    edited January 2018 Posts: 2,005
    @bondsum

    I see. I was just assuming. Don't even know who One Direction is...
    So has there been any film at all that had another similar impact as Goldfinger. I read somewhere on this forum, that GoldenEye influenced pop culture or something like that.
    TSWLM maybe?
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited January 2018 Posts: 2,721
    I think those four are the ones - GF, TSWLM, GE and SF have hit the public consciousness.

    @bondsum has accurately summated why GF stands head and shoulders above other bond films in terms of cultural impact.

    GE because of the video game, the title song, Brosnan being an established figure for Americans in particular, the idea of new bond for a new era and Tina turner song got significant AirPlay.

    TSWLM - title song, jaws, lotus and ski jump. It was touted as 'Bond and Beyond' and 007 hadn't really gone 'big' since YOLT a decade earlier.

    SF definitely had the song and the famous olympics scene with the queen. It also had a striking villain, an Oscar winning director and the 50 years angle. But all of them cemented their stars - interestingly three of them were the third film of the actor's era.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Ha ha. Brilliant response about One Direction. I trust you know who The Beatles are?

    Yes, I would say the closest comparison would be TSWLM's popularity from memory. But LALD was also a huge deal before it, especially as it had the Paul McCartney and Wings title song that elevated its popularity with audiences.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    bondsum wrote: »
    I trust you know who The Beatles are?

    If you don't - then put on a pair of earmuffs and have a listen.

  • Posts: 3,333
    So has there been any film at all that had another similar impact as Goldfinger.
    You mean outside of Bond? I would have to say with the exception of Tim Burton's Batman and George Lucas's 1977 Star Wars and Spielberg's Jaws, nothing has come close to the impact of Goldfinger.
    I think those four are the ones - GF, TSWLM, GE and SF have hit the public consciousness.

    @bondsum has accurately summated why GF stands head and shoulders above other bond films in terms of cultural impact.

    GE because of the video game, the title song, Brosnan being an established figure for Americans in particular, the idea of new bond for a new era and Tina turner song got significant AirPlay.
    Cheers @Major_Boothroyd. I'm sure I've emitted many more examples of Goldfinger's impact. I think the slew of merchandise could also be added, but in fairness Batman, The Munsters, and various Westerns could also claim that mantle, too.

    You raise a good point about GE. Tina Turner's song was an international hit, the movie was a huge BO draw and the video game was also a cultural phenomenon, so it would be unfair not to include GE alongside TSWLM.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondsum wrote: »
    So has there been any film at all that had another similar impact as Goldfinger.
    You mean outside of Bond? I would have to say with the exception of Tim Burton's Batman and George Lucas's 1977 Star Wars and Spielberg's Jaws, nothing has come close to the impact of Goldfinger.

    Snow White and the Seven Dwarves ? Gone With the Wind?
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 3,333
    bondsum wrote: »
    So has there been any film at all that had another similar impact as Goldfinger.
    You mean outside of Bond? I would have to say with the exception of Tim Burton's Batman and George Lucas's 1977 Star Wars and Spielberg's Jaws, nothing has come close to the impact of Goldfinger.

    Snow White and the Seven Dwarves ? Gone With the Wind?
    Yes, those too. I believe Gone With The Wind is still the movie that eclipses all modern movies by the sheer number of bums on seats. But these movies are more to do with the Golden Age of Hollywood. By that I mean, I could include The Adventures of Robin Hood, Cecil B. DeMille's Cleopatra, Chaplin’s The Kid and D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation if I wanted to go far back enough.
  • Posts: 1,162
    SaintMark wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Some people see and get the deepr characterisations, themes and tone of SF (this goes beyond logic) and some don't. I can imagine that if you don't get them, them the other stuff could be annoying.

    SF is very different from any Bond movie. Some love it for that and some don't.

    The argument about some people seeing the "deeper themes" always struck me as quite pretentious and very amusing as the Fleming series is anything but an series of adventure novels.

    For me Mendes did film a beautiful movie but he did know diddly about creating a plot that makes some sense. The characterization of 007 and other character do feel a bit forced and did make no sense at all. But it is hard to admit that perhaps an actor does so well and seems to get such shite movies to work with. And while SF has some moments that are really decent the SP movie that followed was a sheer mockery of anything to do with a decent movie.
    If the next Craig installment is close to this one I would rather that they picked a new guy and enter a less pretentious era where we get workman directors instead of pretentious folks like Mendes or Nolan. We need a decent installment that combines fun, action with a decent plot, something the last two movies did not offer at all.

    For me the fact that James Bond decided to protect his boss and the service ends up getting her killed, he could just as well stayed in his beach bar and drunk himself into a stupor and she would have died at the hand of Silva s well, makes this movie poorly thought out.
    It felt like the director thought that the opening of the TMWTGG where Bond is returned from the dead and is aimed at his own boss was just not good enough, it would have been a Fleming opening at least and shows that Mendes and Craig just have no affection with Fleming whatsoever. They want to prove that they can do better and their effing trainwreck of a movie showed it. The Apocalypse Now moment in the movie was just a show how poor Mendes understood the characters and the movie that including the Aston Morgan DB in every movie for popular and easy scoring.

    SF & SP show how a popular character is taken into an alley and get the living daylights kicked out of him.

    Sounds like very true and reasonable words to me.
  • Posts: 1,162
    patb wrote: »
    @SaintMark SF was balistic at the box office and joe public are not pretencious. Why did they like it so much?

    As the eternal success of General Hospital proves it's all about the melodrama. After all, it's so much fun - black and white for everyone to see.
  • Posts: 19,339
    patb wrote: »
    @SaintMark SF was balistic at the box office and joe public are not pretencious. Why did they like it so much?

    As the eternal success of General Hospital proves it's all about the melodrama. After all, it's so much fun - black and white for everyone to see.

    And its a pure piece of Anglo heroism and patriotism .
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    barryt007 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    @SaintMark SF was balistic at the box office and joe public are not pretencious. Why did they like it so much?

    As the eternal success of General Hospital proves it's all about the melodrama. After all, it's so much fun - black and white for everyone to see.

    And its a pure piece of Anglo heroism and patriotism .

    That s what he said.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    What's one man's poison is another man's nectar.

    We can debate it all we like but you'll never convince us who love SF (I hate SP and find a completely different film despite the same director) that it's rubbish.

    I can't stand, TND - DAD but there are some here who love them and it is for them to appreciate.

    The problem is the DC era has been put on a pedestial that doesn't half wind up those that don't get it, plain and simple.

    The same thing with Nolan's Bat Trilogy, those that don't like them can't understand why they get the acclaim and the 2 Burton films get short thrift these days.

    To me it's night and day, Nolan's films are far superior but that is my opinion.

    I prefer SF to GF and I'm sure that will wind @noSolaceleft up a treat but his constant sniping of the DC era do similar with us DC fans.

    It's what makes this forum so interesting, we all love Bond but have wildly different opinions on this character and all that it is involved with it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    It is all good.
  • Posts: 1,886
    patb wrote: »
    I find it interesting that those who don't like SF don't have the humility to admit that, even though they dont like it, it does have many strengths. They attribute the Olympics etc to it's success. On that basis, AVTAK would have broken box office records, if only it had been released at that time. It seems a little churlish not to give the movie any credit in itself for doing so well

    I don't particularly like SF, but I recognize it's strengths and credit it as such. It's well directed, if not the best directed; one of the best photographed films of the series if not the best; the sequence with Patrice in the skyscraper is one of the most suspenseful scenes in the series; Silva is the strongest villain in years and I've watched his entrance and following sequence numerous times.

    It was a massive success, no question.

    But I have never embraced the film the way many have and will make no apologies for my overall feelings. Never having liked the Dench M much, it doesn't help that SF feels like an M film guest starring James Bond. I never missed Q or Moneypenny the previous two films and to bring both back contributed nothing, particularly in making MP a field agent. The music detracts rather than helps. The big reveal with the Aston Martin is vastly overrated as we've seen the car in how many previous films?

    Someone earlier referred to the less is more action. SF has no action scenes that really stand out for me. It's a lot like TWINE, my least favorite film to begin with, and follows it in this way. This is a James Bond film, give me something to want to revisit on that scale rather than dark and gloomy scenes that seem to dominate it. It will outrage many, but I get more satisfaction from the SP PTS than the whole of the action in SF.

    As far as what attracted people in droves, hard to say. I can give a couple examples of my first viewing that likely weren't due to critical reviews of enjoyment of Bond:

    I recall some teen girl who probably never had any clue about Bond kept singing the title song over and over. Not that that's a bad thing, but I doubt she went home and streamed other films. Then there was a group of about 8 teens who spent the entirety of the film on their phones. I had to speak to a couple of them who thought it was cute to change seats with their friends several times. I wouldn't say they were attracted to the film to see James Bond. I suspect a parent dropped the group off in a minivan to give them something to do. Most of the other times I have seen a Bond film the audience has been into the film and not distractive.

  • Posts: 11,189


    Just watched the last segment of Haphazard's analysis of Skyfall.

    Excellent stuff. I do think he maybe nitpicks things a tad too much though.

    Looking forward to his analysis of SP. He strongly hints he's not a big fan.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Ha ha @BAIN123. You accuse Haphazard of nitpicking when you do it continually yourself. I think your tongue might be firmly in your cheek when you made that comment, sir.

    I have to admit, I find Haphazard thoroughly entertaining and the majority of his observations mirror my own, so you'll get no complaints from me. For those of you that haven't watched any of Haphazard's previous videos, I suggest you catch up on them all. They're the best out of all the fan-analysis videos available on Youtube.
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    Posts: 2,005
    It is all good.

    I agree. Even Quantum of Good.
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    edited January 2018 Posts: 2,005
    I'm thinking now that Skyfall is simply not old enough to be either called a classic or claiming that it had such and such impact, cultural or otherwise.

    What's for certain is the financial success. But doesn't that apply to YOLT and DAF as well especially?

    I only saw this Queen and Bond clip the first time yesterday and it is awesome.
    Had I seen that in 2012 (and had been old enough) I would have gone and watched the film in the cinema.

    What is classic, what is iconic. Who am I to judge.
    What I can say is what I felt watching the films (in random order).

    Skyfall got off on the wrong foot, horrible pts, overloaded titles, song ok.
    But it got better and better, from Shanghai it gets very good and by the time Silva enters the screen (sans the bloody rat talk) great things happen. The Skyfall segment which is a big part of the film is the high point and brilliant.

    I said this before, what makes SF memorable and great is Judi Dench. Without her part the film would fall apart. But that's not a criticism, it's praise. The writers and EoN have realized what incredible potential there is in Dench, probably through QoS.

    Skyfall: The Dench Chronicles as I'm lovingly call the film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    You were not old enough to watch Bond five years ago?
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    Posts: 2,005
    I was only 16 in 2012 buddy, and in a community school anyway. No cinema, ever.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    I was only 16 in 2012 buddy, and in a community school anyway. No cinema, ever.

    I was only 15 in 2012. I think you, me, and @jamesbondkenya are the youngest members.
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 3,333
    I'm thinking now that Skyfall is simply not old enough to be either called a classic or claiming that it had such and such impact, cultural or otherwise.
    The difference is that a cultural effect is a far-reaching reaction that transcends its immediate box office appeal and influences everything around it. It's also felt instantly, not four years later. As much as Skyfall was a popular movie, it didn't have a far-reaching effect, certainly not a cultural one. I'm afraid Goldfinger has already been there and done it long before, hence why Skyfall existed in the first place. Also, the fact that Skyfall was clearly referencing Goldfinger with its tricked-out Aston Martin, you need look no further on which movie holds the true cultural iconic status.

    Put it this way, did Skyfall have an influence on fashion, music, other movies, cosmetics, kids cartoons, magazines, news, toys, etc? Were American TV networks cancelling their shows so that they could launch a new spy series similar to Skyfall? Were the French, Germans, Japanese and Italians going Bond crazy over Skyfall producing wonderful knock-off movies and merchandise to coincide with Skyfall fan frenzy? Did the most popular adult cartoon of today produce a feature-length movie based on Bond? Well, Goldfinger did all those things and more.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I was only 16 in 2012 buddy, and in a community school anyway. No cinema, ever.

    A muslim school or what?
Sign In or Register to comment.