Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Disappointment with Skyfall


362 replies to this topic

Poll: Now that the dust has settled....

This is a public poll. Other members will be able to see which options you chose

...what I thought on first seeing Skyfall

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

...what I now think

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Overall I'd say that my opinion of it...

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Considering its critical and commercial success

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 lechero

lechero

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 278 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:37 PM

Fair point, but I see it more as an acknowledgement of Bond's four year absence from screens, questioning whether he's still relative and all those things the film is concerned with. Apart from that, I think every Bond fan will find plenty of Classic Bondian elements in Skyfall to enjoy.



#62 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:44 PM

I'm finding a curious point of view from talking to friends and relatives who have seen SF - the most recent comments being made by some colleagues of mine who I spoke to last night.

 

They like the film, indeed some absolutely love it, they think it's great and fully deserving of the plaudits and the box office success - but, it's not their favourite Bond film. In fact for some it doesn't seem like a "Bond film" at all. One of those I spoke to yesterday described SF as a "great Sam Mendes movie", and he meant it in a complimentary sense. But I think what he also meant was that it wasn't a "Bond by numbers" Bond film - the elements one expected in it were either there but done differently (as in the Bond and Q introduction scene) or were turned upside down (as in the villlains attacking "Bond's HQ" rather than the other way around.).

 

It's as if audiences could separate what they were watching in SF from what they expected, and still liked it, but judged it as a film rather than as a "Bond film". Obviously enough people liked it enough that it went through the stratosphere in terms of box office - films that are really bad or plain mediocre tend not to have people still queueing up to view some two months on, as happened when I saw SF for the last time at the cinema, in January.

 

But it's an unusual view that some of those I know have expressed. It's not one I've heard about a Bond film before. And it's not a view I agree with. I think SF deserves its place as a great Bond film and a great film also.



#63 MarkA

MarkA

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Location:South East, England

Posted 02 March 2013 - 02:18 PM

I'm finding a curious point of view from talking to friends and relatives who have seen SF - the most recent comments being made by some colleagues of mine who I spoke to last night.
 
They like the film, indeed some absolutely love it, they think it's great and fully deserving of the plaudits and the box office success - but, it's not their favourite Bond film. In fact for some it doesn't seem like a "Bond film" at all. One of those I spoke to yesterday described SF as a "great Sam Mendes movie", and he meant it in a complimentary sense. But I think what he also meant was that it wasn't a "Bond by numbers" Bond film - the elements one expected in it were either there but done differently (as in the Bond and Q introduction scene) or were turned upside down (as in the villlains attacking "Bond's HQ" rather than the other way around.).
 
It's as if audiences could separate what they were watching in SF from what they expected, and still liked it, but judged it as a film rather than as a "Bond film". Obviously enough people liked it enough that it went through the stratosphere in terms of box office - films that are really bad or plain mediocre tend not to have people still queueing up to view some two months on, as happened when I saw SF for the last time at the cinema, in January.
 
But it's an unusual view that some of those I know have expressed. It's not one I've heard about a Bond film before. And it's not a view I agree with. I think SF deserves its place as a great Bond film and a great film also.

I agree with the above and I think that is why this film has had so much success. But also why it has amongst a small minority so much hatred. It has crossed over into the audience that normally would not see a Bond film. Even an art house audience as an article in Sight and Sound attested. I think this has really upset certain Bond fans that this film has tried to do something different a bit more considered. Most of the people I have found who have strong views against dare I say seem to be Bond fans. Those with a much wider taste in films and don't necessarily even like previous Bond's have really liked it. Now what you can take from that is open to debate. My own opinion is though not the best Bond ever made but a brave and different film that will not conform to the franchise straight jacket. Otherwise this series would have withered and died years ago. The dreary Die Hard films being the perfect example of a predictable route these films tend to go.

#64 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2107 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 02 March 2013 - 05:40 PM

I've previously registered my agreement with Guy Haines.  Mark A, I also agree with you. 

 

It's a Bond film when it shows us a Secret Service agent with a license to kill taking on an adventurous mission that, although not necessarily realistic, is plausible within the limits of its own universe.  Yes, there should be a certain sense of style, and even a sly humor, but "Skyfall" delivers on both counts.  What I don't want is a "stage Bond" (TMWTGG, chapter 2) that has to check a defined set of boxes, or worse a "joke shop spy" (as denounced by David Niven in the 1967 CR) that exists as little more than a comic book creation.  If those types of movies had come to define a "Bond film," I'm grateful that that day appears to have passed.



#65 Professor Pi

Professor Pi

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 06:07 PM

The "Bond past his prime" thing is meant more in reference to the franchise and the 50th anniversary, than to Craig's Bond.  As QoS takes place right after CR, one could argue there are six years between missions.

 

I find the third act of SF is an acquired taste.  I much prefer the third act of CR, but I also wished QoS had more to its ending.



#66 delfloria

delfloria

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 06:19 PM

I've previously registered my agreement with Guy Haines.  Mark A, I also agree with you. 

 

It's a Bond film when it shows us a Secret Service agent with a license to kill taking on an adventurous mission that, although not necessarily realistic, is plausible within the limits of its own universe.  Yes, there should be a certain sense of style, and even a sly humor, but "Skyfall" delivers on both counts.  What I don't want is a "stage Bond" (TMWTGG, chapter 2) that has to check a defined set of boxes, or worse a "joke shop spy" (as denounced by David Niven in the 1967 CR) that exists as little more than a comic book creation.  If those types of movies had come to define a "Bond film," I'm grateful that that day appears to have passed.

I agree also but at the same time SKYFALL did not give me the chills up the back of my neck as a Bond fan like GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, TND (pre-titles sequence) and others (Django did it as well) on first theatrical viewing. Though SKYFALL is a good film it never swept me away in to the Bond universe. (Except for Bond and his DB-5 and Mallory instated as M. (Yeah, I know, fond memories from past)



#67 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 08:17 PM

. I think this has really upset certain Bond fans that this film has tried to do something different a bit more considered. Most of the people I have found who have strong views against dare I say seem to be Bond fans.

 

While that may account for a small segment of those who didn't like Skyfall, I do think that it's possible that many people didn't go into Skyfall with an agenda to dislike the film, but they just simply didn't like the film.

 

The resounding argument that I've read so far on the Internet (not accusing you of this MarkA, by the way :) ) against those who don't like Skyfall has been some riff on the theme of "they didn't want to like it" or "they wanted to hate the film".  I know that I didn't spend upwards of $30 dollars to go to a movie to deliberately not like it.  I wanted to like Skyfall, but at the end of the day, that's just not what happened, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they did some different things with the film.  I actually welcome it when they do new things with the franchise, as it happens so rarely.  This time, just IMO, they tried something different, but it just didn't work.



#68 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:03 PM

I've previously registered my agreement with Guy Haines.  Mark A, I also agree with you. 

 

It's a Bond film when it shows us a Secret Service agent with a license to kill taking on an adventurous mission that, although not necessarily realistic, is plausible within the limits of its own universe.  Yes, there should be a certain sense of style, and even a sly humor, but "Skyfall" delivers on both counts.  What I don't want is a "stage Bond" (TMWTGG, chapter 2) that has to check a defined set of boxes, or worse a "joke shop spy" (as denounced by David Niven in the 1967 CR) that exists as little more than a comic book creation.  If those types of movies had come to define a "Bond film," I'm grateful that that day appears to have passed.

Glad we've been in agreement twice in one thread, Major, or to quote a certain CIA man, "much obliged!"



The "Bond past his prime" thing is meant more in reference to the franchise and the 50th anniversary, than to Craig's Bond.  As QoS takes place right after CR, one could argue there are six years between missions.

 

I find the third act of SF is an acquired taste.  I much prefer the third act of CR, but I also wished QoS had more to its ending.

Someone wrote about SF that it appeared as if Daniel Craig's Bond, in the four year gap between QoS and SF, had undertaken all over again all the missions of his predecessors, from DN to DAD, that's how "played out" he looked, at least until he was back to active duty again.



#69 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:11 PM

Found this:

 



#70 delfloria

delfloria

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 10:25 PM

Try this with YOLT and see what you get.



#71 MarkA

MarkA

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Location:South East, England

Posted 02 March 2013 - 10:27 PM

Try this with YOLT and see what you get.

Exactly. I think you can play this game with many films.

#72 007jamesbond

007jamesbond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1371 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 03 March 2013 - 12:15 AM

why is it hard to gasp that BOnd did mission between QOS and SF?????? it not that hard to understand and no there is Dr-DAD in those four years.........



#73 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 12:21 AM

Nobody has suggested that he didn't.



#74 QOS4EVER

QOS4EVER

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 368 posts
  • Location:Hotel in the middle of the Bolivian Desert

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:36 AM

Found this:

 

That's rubbish they don't genuinely mention the faults of the  movie, "Obvious Audi Placement" ? ,Yeah because that genuinely ruined the experience for everyone, what load of Crap.



#75 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:43 AM

I think it was meant at an attempt of humor.



#76 QOS4EVER

QOS4EVER

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 368 posts
  • Location:Hotel in the middle of the Bolivian Desert

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:54 AM

emphasis on 'attempt'



#77 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:05 AM

Implying it was actually meant to be taken seriously.



#78 Walecs

Walecs

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:42 AM

why is it hard to gasp that BOnd did mission between QOS and SF?????? it not that hard to understand and no there is Dr-DAD in those four years.........

 

Six years.



#79 QOS4EVER

QOS4EVER

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 368 posts
  • Location:Hotel in the middle of the Bolivian Desert

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:39 AM

why is it hard to gasp that BOnd did mission between QOS and SF?????? it not that hard to understand and no there is Dr-DAD in those four years.........

 

Six years.

How can you pin an exact number between QoS and SF, is it mentioned somewhere ?



#80 Baccarat

Baccarat

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 84 posts
  • Location:Nassau

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:42 PM

There seems to be an expectation in some quarters that there is/should be continuity from one film to the next. Best example is the notion that SF is adversley affected by the fact that Bond is a "rookie" in CR and QoS, but portrayed as "burned out" and towards the end of his service in SF. If true, so what? If 007 is back stronger and fitter in Bond 24 than he was in SF, again, so what? Notwithstanding common threads that run thorughout the series, I think the films have to be assessed on their own merits in a "non-linear" way, and not against what came before.


Edited by Baccarat, 03 March 2013 - 02:48 PM.


#81 RMc2

RMc2

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:34 PM

There seems to be an expectation in some quarters that there is/should be continuity from one film to the next. Best example is the notion that SF is adversley affected by the fact that Bond is a "rookie" in CR and QoS, but portrayed as "burned out" and towards the end of his service in SF. If true, so what? If 007 is back stronger and fitter in Bond 24 than he was in SF, again, so what? Notwithstanding common threads that run thorughout the series, I think the films have to be assessed on their own merits in a "non-linear" way, and not against what came before.

 

I'd agree with you wholeheartedly were it not for the sense of continuity in the Craig films that we haven't really seen since DN-FRWL. And with the introduction of Q and Moneypenny, and the passing from Dench M to Fiennes M (and the mention of her husband from CR and QoS), that continuity is definitely carrying over into Bond 24, and presumably Bond 25 if those films feature Quantum. So I also found it jarring to suddenly go from 'rookie 00' Bond to 'played out' Bond.

 

It's also just a bit annoying to see the franchise questioning its relevance AGAIN after having proved itself with both GoldenEye and Casino Royale. It was only 4 years, there was never any doubt in my mind that Bond wasn't fit for duty (as a franchise)!  I hope they play down Bond's age in the next films, because while I like them acknowledging the hero's humanity through aging and injury, he really isn't that old yet - and he's clearly physically fit. As long as they avoid the embarrassment of Moore in the '80s, I don't need them to dwell on his aging. 



#82 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:30 PM

There seems to be an expectation in some quarters that there is/should be continuity from one film to the next. Best example is the notion that SF is adversley affected by the fact that Bond is a "rookie" in CR and QoS, but portrayed as "burned out" and towards the end of his service in SF. If true, so what? If 007 is back stronger and fitter in Bond 24 than he was in SF, again, so what? Notwithstanding common threads that run thorughout the series, I think the films have to be assessed on their own merits in a "non-linear" way, and not against what came before.

 

I'd agree with you wholeheartedly were it not for the sense of continuity in the Craig films that we haven't really seen since DN-FRWL. And with the introduction of Q and Moneypenny, and the passing from Dench M to Fiennes M (and the mention of her husband from CR and QoS), that continuity is definitely carrying over into Bond 24, and presumably Bond 25 if those films feature Quantum. So I also found it jarring to suddenly go from 'rookie 00' Bond to 'played out' Bond.

 

It's also just a bit annoying to see the franchise questioning its relevance AGAIN after having proved itself with both GoldenEye and Casino Royale. It was only 4 years, there was never any doubt in my mind that Bond wasn't fit for duty (as a franchise)!  I hope they play down Bond's age in the next films, because while I like them acknowledging the hero's humanity through aging and injury, he really isn't that old yet - and he's clearly physically fit. As long as they avoid the embarrassment of Moore in the '80s, I don't need them to dwell on his aging. 

 

Well said.

 

I too would like for them to downplay Bond/Craig's age in the next entry.  I'm all for them exploring something like that in Craig's final Bond film, if they want to go through and truly adapt some of the elements of Fleming's You Only Live Twice, but, as you said, it just seems as though we get a lot of questioning about Bond's relevance and/or his trustworthiness in the post-Dalton films, and it would be nice not to have either of those two issues hanging over the franchise in the next installment. 

 

Hopefully Logan will bring something fresh to the franchise.  It seems as though all Purvis and Wade know how to build a story around in their non-Fleming Bond films is either Bond as someone whose trustworthiness is questionable and/or he is hindered by a serious injury.  We see the injury angle played out to the hilt in both The World Is Not Enough and Skyfall, and then the trust angle played out in Die Another Day, Quantum of Solace, and to a lesser extent in Casino Royale.  Hopefully Logan drops both of these plot points that have defined the P&W era and will deliver a fresh take on the character.



#83 Professor Pi

Professor Pi

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:56 PM

 

why is it hard to gasp that BOnd did mission between QOS and SF?????? it not that hard to understand and no there is Dr-DAD in those four years.........

 

Six years.

How can you pin an exact number between QoS and SF, is it mentioned somewhere ?

 

 

why is it hard to gasp that BOnd did mission between QOS and SF?????? it not that hard to understand and no there is Dr-DAD in those four years.........

 

Six years.

How can you pin an exact number between QoS and SF, is it mentioned somewhere ?

 

QoS starts within minutes of CR's ending.  So the 2008 movie chronicles events in 2006.  Hence, the six year number.



#84 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:46 PM

I recall hearing from some kind of official source (can't remember where though), that there is an 8 year gap between the events of QoS and Skyfall.



#85 QOS4EVER

QOS4EVER

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 368 posts
  • Location:Hotel in the middle of the Bolivian Desert

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:44 AM

Thanks , hadn't realised that.

 

 

I would put the gap around 20 years between Quantum and Skyfall since remember he's a rookie and went all the  way to burned out. It doesn't feel right that the events of Skyfall would take place just 6 years hence.



#86 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:13 PM

Thanks , hadn't realised that.

 

 

I would put the gap around 20 years between Quantum and Skyfall since remember he's a rookie and went all the  way to burned out. It doesn't feel right that the events of Skyfall would take place just 6 years hence.

 

The whole "rookie" angle was never believable to begin with. At least with SKYFALL they've finally written the part for Daniel Craig, and not some angsty, love-sick rebellious teenager.



#87 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:03 PM

Thanks , hadn't realised that.

 

 

I would put the gap around 20 years between Quantum and Skyfall since remember he's a rookie and went all the  way to burned out. It doesn't feel right that the events of Skyfall would take place just 6 years hence.

 

If that were the case Bond should be 60 now.



#88 JohnnyWalker

JohnnyWalker

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 272 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:37 PM

Thanks , hadn't realised that.

 

 

I would put the gap around 20 years between Quantum and Skyfall since remember he's a rookie and went all the  way to burned out. It doesn't feel right that the events of Skyfall would take place just 6 years hence.

 

If that were the case Bond should be 60 now.

That's impressive since he's been saving the world for 50 years.



#89 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:41 PM

You're never too young to start saving the world.



#90 QOS4EVER

QOS4EVER

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 368 posts
  • Location:Hotel in the middle of the Bolivian Desert

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:22 AM

Thanks , hadn't realised that.

 

 

I would put the gap around 20 years between Quantum and Skyfall since remember he's a rookie and went all the  way to burned out. It doesn't feel right that the events of Skyfall would take place just 6 years hence.

 

The whole "rookie" angle was never believable to begin with. At least with SKYFALL they've finally written the part for Daniel Craig, and not some angsty, love-sick rebellious teenager.

Though I agree with you that Daniel is more convincing as an older more experienced agent.

In my opinion that doesn't necessarily convert to what is more enjoyable watching on-screen . James Bond is an icon ,he is in some respects the epitome of what a  classy man should be with his suave and his sense of style . Something which was beautifully captured in 'Casino Royale'. They continued with that even with an angle on revenge in 'Quantum Of Solace'.

 

Its is not aesthetically pleasing to watch him old, out of shape, with an outdated outlook on fashion and not in touch with technology .  



Thanks , hadn't realised that.

 

 

I would put the gap around 20 years between Quantum and Skyfall since remember he's a rookie and went all the  way to burned out. It doesn't feel right that the events of Skyfall would take place just 6 years hence.

 

If that were the case Bond should be 60 now.

If this is how Arnold looked when he was 63

http://en.wikipedia....ggerJan2010.jpg

 

 

I have no problem believing he is 60

http://www.filmofili...-James-Bond.jpg