Lt. Commander
Posted 08 December 2012 - 06:35 PM
It also wasn't helped by the reliance on the gadget-laden Aston Martin either. That just added a dose of silliness to a sequence that wanted to be amongst the most serious in the entire franchise, and it simply didn't work.
Obviously it didn't work for you, but it did for me simply because it was both part of Bond's small but potent arsenal and a nod to the past. The scene also seemed to work for many in the audience, in the three times that I've seen it in the cinema.
Commander
Posted 08 December 2012 - 06:53 PM
It's the part when SKYFALL takes Bond into Western territory, perhaps this is what doesn't agree with all audiences. Tonally it's maybe the biggest shift - with the notable exception of OHMSS, if we want to let this count - inside a Bond film. I loved this, but I can see why it can irritate the viewer.
Edited by Dustin, 08 December 2012 - 06:54 PM.
Commander
Posted 08 December 2012 - 07:00 PM
It's the part when SKYFALL takes Bond into Western territory, perhaps this is what doesn't agree with all audiences. Tonally it's maybe the biggest shift - with the notable exception of OHMSS, if we want to let this count - inside a Bond film. I loved this, but I can see why it can irritate the viewer.
The tone of the Skyfall sequence doesn't bother me in the slightest. As far as I'm concerned, the bleaker the better. I just can't buy the ridiculous premise the entire finale is built upon as well as the unnecessary looking back to Bond's childhood.
Commander
Posted 08 December 2012 - 07:25 PM
Third screening yesterday. The theatre was full (got 3rd row, very close to the screen but it didn't hurt my eyes like QOS. I was next to two teen girls who seemed to be enjoying the movie as well.
LOTS of laughs: Eve breaking the car mirrors, "just changing carriages", Bond and M "reporting for duty" dialogue, Q scene, Bond in disguise at Shangai Airport, Komodo dragon fight one liners, Silva's queerish approach and puns, Q and Bond earphone puns - "Get on the train" and "pull your back into it", DB5 "hardly inconspicuous", Kincade's "Welcome to Scotland" and "Jumped up little S***", etc.
Some surprise shouts: Bond getting the bloody shot, Bond about to play the William Tell-esque game, Silva's real teeth, Silva approaching M with his gun in the chapel.
Commander
Posted 08 December 2012 - 07:53 PM
It's the part when SKYFALL takes Bond into Western territory, perhaps this is what doesn't agree with all audiences. Tonally it's maybe the biggest shift - with the notable exception of OHMSS, if we want to let this count - inside a Bond film. I loved this, but I can see why it can irritate the viewer.
The tone of the Skyfall sequence doesn't bother me in the slightest. As far as I'm concerned, the bleaker the better. I just can't buy the ridiculous premise the entire finale is built upon as well as the unnecessary looking back to Bond's childhood.
Well, you of course have other fish to fry with SKYFALL. What I find astonishing is, your points - and those of others - are for the most part quite relevant and valid - and some of them I've made myself concerning other films and books - but for some strange reason with SKYFALL nothing bothers me much. For me it's the one production in years - or decades even - where the magic works perfectly to make me ignore all faults and warts.
Commander
Posted 08 December 2012 - 08:39 PM
It's the part when SKYFALL takes Bond into Western territory, perhaps this is what doesn't agree with all audiences. Tonally it's maybe the biggest shift - with the notable exception of OHMSS, if we want to let this count - inside a Bond film. I loved this, but I can see why it can irritate the viewer.
The tone of the Skyfall sequence doesn't bother me in the slightest. As far as I'm concerned, the bleaker the better. I just can't buy the ridiculous premise the entire finale is built upon as well as the unnecessary looking back to Bond's childhood.
Well, you of course have other fish to fry with SKYFALL. What I find astonishing is, your points - and those of others - are for the most part quite relevant and valid - and some of them I've made myself concerning other films and books - but for some strange reason with SKYFALL nothing bothers me much. For me it's the one production in years - or decades even - where the magic works perfectly to make me ignore all faults and warts.
I completely agree with that. I think with Skyfall they've achieved something that maybe only 2 other films in the franchise have and that is to make something more than a straight action movie. It has a deeper meaning and one that can cement itself as landmark in film making.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:13 PM
yes, I loved it.
Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:11 AM
Third screening yesterday. The theatre was full (got 3rd row, very close to the screen but it didn't hurt my eyes like QOS. I was next to two teen girls who seemed to be enjoying the movie as well.
LOTS of laughs: Eve breaking the car mirrors, "just changing carriages", Bond and M "reporting for duty" dialogue, Q scene, Bond in disguise at Shangai Airport, Komodo dragon fight one liners, Silva's queerish approach and puns, Q and Bond earphone puns - "Get on the train" and "pull your back into it", DB5 "hardly inconspicuous", Kincade's "Welcome to Scotland" and "Jumped up little S***", etc.
Some surprise shouts: Bond getting the bloody shot, Bond about to play the William Tell-esque game, Silva's real teeth, Silva approaching M with his gun in the chapel.
All great moments you've listed. Silva's introduction is my favourite for a Bond 'villain'.
Indeed, the DB5 had an ejector seat. But the item we actually see used in the film are the machine guns. And I don’t call machine guns gadgets, or silly/fantastical. They’re concealed weapons. Bond used them and took out a few goons, but he still had to work for it. The goons who survived returned a healthy dose of fire and Bond had to shield himself and finally use the shotgun.
Edited by sharpshooter, 09 December 2012 - 02:12 AM.
Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:45 AM
Indeed, the DB5 had an ejector seat. But the item we actually see used in the film are the machine guns. And I don’t call machine guns gadgets, or silly/fantastical. They’re concealed weapons. Bond used them and took out a few goons, but he still had to work for it. The goons who survived returned a healthy dose of fire and Bond had to shield himself and finally use the shotgun.
Exactly, these kind of gadgets are great. Not sure why much fuzz about it in other threads, after all, there's no invisible car 
Lt. Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:02 AM
yes definately love it.........love that Bond use the environment and resources around him to get the job done during skyfall battle........that is why Bond should be not reliable on gadget that is not how it should be
Edited by 007jamesbond, 09 December 2012 - 04:02 AM.
Lieutenant
Posted 09 December 2012 - 06:08 AM
Edited by EyesOnly, 09 December 2012 - 06:14 AM.
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 09 December 2012 - 06:55 AM
Personally, I can't wait for the Blu Ray. I loved Skyfall.
Was it perfect? No, but it was far less flawed than many of the other Bond movies, and I've enjoyed all of them. There's a reason why it's a huge hit - it's a damned good movie.
Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:11 AM
There's a reason why it's a huge hit - it's a damned good movie.
The two don't necessarily correlate, though. Just because the general public gives it their thumbs up and makes a film a hit at the box office definitely does not speak to the quality of a film. In general, I'd say it says the opposite, really, given the types of films that we see become blockbusters, especially in the US.
With that said, SKYFALL is not a terrible film. It's certainly doesn't reach the lows that many of the other Bond films reach (i.e. DIE ANOTHER DAY, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, etc.), but at the same time, there are so many other Bond films that are just so much better than SKYFALL.
Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:23 AM
yes definately love it.........love that Bond use the environment and resources around him to get the job done during skyfall battle........that is why Bond should be not reliable on gadget that is not how it should be
Yeah. Just like how the DB5 was destroyed. It’s an iconic part of Bond, but what mattered most was the man himself was alive and well inside. At the end of the day it comes down to him. Vehicles and gadgets are an extension of Bond, but not everything.
Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:56 AM
It's certainly doesn't reach the lows that many of the other Bond films reach (i.e. DIE ANOTHER DAY, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, etc.), but at the same time, there are so many other Bond films that are just so much better than SKYFALL.
Eh, about four or five.
Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:35 PM
More like about ten or eleven.
Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:05 PM
More like about ten or eleven.
Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:10 PM
I'll be shocked if it's rated anywhere near as highly as it is now several years down the road. I'll be surprised if there isn't a dropoff, to some degree, of support for the film once it's released on Blu-ray and DVD in March. By that time, the media hype will have completely died down and the "new Bond film glow" has faded away, and the film will have to stand on its own merits
Lt. Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:12 PM
I'll be shocked if it's rated anywhere near as highly as it is now several years down the road. I'll be surprised if there isn't a dropoff, to some degree, of support for the film once it's released on Blu-ray and DVD in March. By that time, the media hype will have completely died down and the "new Bond film glow" has faded away, and the film will have to stand on its own merits
I think, the film has proved to have legs and THAT CERTAINLY is NOT down to media hype or anniversary ANYMORE. Its word of mouth and millions of people in the audience are hardly all brainwashed by media fanfare. Give them a bit more credit. And WHAT is quality for you? There are different genre and a film, that is successful proves, that he brought to the table, what the audiences wanted it to be. Task well done in my book - quality in what it wanted to be - whatever that is.
Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:28 PM
I'll be shocked if it's rated anywhere near as highly as it is now several years down the road. I'll be surprised if there isn't a dropoff, to some degree, of support for the film once it's released on Blu-ray and DVD in March. By that time, the media hype will have completely died down and the "new Bond film glow" has faded away, and the film will have to stand on its own merits
I think, the film has proved to have legs and THAT CERTAINLY is NOT down to media hype or anniversary ANYMORE. Its word of mouth and millions of people in the audience are hardly all brainwashed by media fanfare. Give them a bit more credit. And WHAT is quality for you? There are different genre and a film, that is successful proves, that he brought to the table, what the audiences wanted it to be. Task well done in my book - quality in what it wanted to be - whatever that is.
Just the fact the film has box office stamina doesn't reflect on its relative merits - as we've had opportunity to observe in other cases. We really ought to seperate the one from the other if we want to discuss such matters seriously. Fans having issues with one entry or other is hardly lèse majesté. It would be nice if we could talk about these issues without the use of caps-lock...
Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:32 PM
Just look at some of the crap that has had legs at the box office and made tons of money. If anything, box office totals should be one of the last things used to judge a film's merits. You can't have a serious discussion about a film's artistic merits by bringing box office totals into account. They mean nothing.
Lt. Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:34 PM
I don't see, how you separate that, if many people find many merits in something. What do you call relative merits anyway?
If success doesn'*t mean anything, then millions of people, who enjoy a film, know s***. Weird way to see it, but ok...
Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:38 PM
By the logic of using box office totals to judge a film's merits, garbage like the TRANSFORMERS series, the TWILIGHT series, MEET THE FOCKERS, the STAR WARS prequels, etc. would be considered high art. Plenty of people found merit in those films to make them amongst the all-time highest grossing films at the US Box Office, but that doesn't make them good films.
Commander RNVR
Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:41 PM
I'll be shocked if it's rated anywhere near as highly as it is now several years down the road. I'll be surprised if there isn't a dropoff, to some degree, of support for the film once it's released on Blu-ray and DVD in March. By that time, the media hype will have completely died down and the "new Bond film glow" has faded away, and the film will have to stand on its own merits
I think, the film has proved to have legs and THAT CERTAINLY is NOT down to media hype or anniversary ANYMORE. Its word of mouth and millions of people in the audience are hardly all brainwashed by media fanfare. Give them a bit more credit. And WHAT is quality for you? There are different genre and a film, that is successful proves, that he brought to the table, what the audiences wanted it to be. Task well done in my book - quality in what it wanted to be - whatever that is.
Do stop shouting.
Lt. Commander
Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:06 PM
Lt. Commander
Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:08 AM
It's the part when SKYFALL takes Bond into Western territory, perhaps this is what doesn't agree with all audiences. Tonally it's maybe the biggest shift - with the notable exception of OHMSS, if we want to let this count - inside a Bond film. I loved this, but I can see why it can irritate the viewer.
The tone of the Skyfall sequence doesn't bother me in the slightest. As far as I'm concerned, the bleaker the better. I just can't buy the ridiculous premise the entire finale is built upon as well as the unnecessary looking back to Bond's childhood.
Well, you of course have other fish to fry with SKYFALL. What I find astonishing is, your points - and those of others - are for the most part quite relevant and valid - and some of them I've made myself concerning other films and books - but for some strange reason with SKYFALL nothing bothers me much. For me it's the one production in years - or decades even - where the magic works perfectly to make me ignore all faults and warts.
I agree with this completely. I know that Bond films have hiccups and inconsistencies; that's a given with every single one of them. But some bother me way more than others, I think because those films don't coalesce for me into a believable story. Many of Moore's films, and a few of Connery's, hit me that way. Same with most of Brosnan's. Obviously this gets into personal taste, and of course that's different for us all. I think that highly subjective standard is why different people can have such radically different opinions about whether a film works ... or not.
Lieutenant
Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:26 AM
By that time, the media hype will have completely died down and the "new Bond film glow" has faded away, and the film will have to stand on its own merits
So why is Skyfall unique amongst Bond films that it gets such a boost from "new Bond film glow" and movies like Quantum of Solace didnt?
Commander
Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:36 AM
By that time, the media hype will have completely died down and the "new Bond film glow" has faded away, and the film will have to stand on its own merits
So why is Skyfall unique amongst Bond films that it gets such a boost from "new Bond film glow" and movies like Quantum of Solace didnt?
I never said that it was unique in that regard. All of the Bond films go through that process, although to varying degrees. QUANTUM was fairly well received when it initially was released, but once it was released on home video, the newness of it wore off and it began to get savaged by the fans. DIE ANOTHER DAY was well received back in 2002, now it's widely regarded as one of, if not the, worst films in the franchise. I'm not saying that SKYFALL is going to be ripped apart like that, but I do think that it's not going to be viewed as favorably down the road as it currently is.
Edited by tdalton, 10 December 2012 - 03:41 AM.
Commander
Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:44 AM
I could see a slight drop off eventually for Skyfall. It happened to Casino Royale. When CR first came out I thought it was the best. But the more I watch it, the more I find myself finding that it is fairly ordinary until it gets to Montenegro at which point it gets far better. I had some of the same thoughts with Skyfall. It seems to vastly improve once it returns to England. But I don't think SF's drop off will be that significant. Maybe if Bond 24 is that much better....
Lt. Commander
Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:53 AM
By that time, the media hype will have completely died down and the "new Bond film glow" has faded away, and the film will have to stand on its own merits
So why is Skyfall unique amongst Bond films that it gets such a boost from "new Bond film glow" and movies like Quantum of Solace didnt?
I never said that it was unique in that regard. All of the Bond films go through that process, although to varying degrees. QUANTUM was fairly well received when it initially was released, but once it was released on home video, the newness of it wore off and it began to get savaged by the fans. DIE ANOTHER DAY was well received back in 2002, now it's widely regarded as one of, if not the, worst films in the franchise. I'm not saying that SKYFALL is going to be ripped apart like that, but I do think that it's not going to be viewed as favorably down the road as it currently is.
QOS was a FAR cry away from the love SF is getting, when it was released, so this point isn't valid. Not valid either is the point, that BO success doesn't count as an indication, how good a film atually is. What makes a film good, I ask? AGAIN BTW! Take an artsy "quality" film, that underperforms (not meeting the expectations, this special film had) or a film, made for a mass audience, that performs beautifully. Both are directed towards a certain market - a different market, lets say. One succeeds, one doesn't. But isn't it so, that film - first and foremost - should grab the audience, its directed to? I think, it is and if one film fails to do that, something is missing and IMO, its hence not a good film, because it missed the mark. The other - be it Transformers or whatever - if it does succeed, it did what it was suposed to do and might be called a piece of art in its own way. It won't get any Awards, but you can't call it a piece of crap. Now SF is even in awards winning range. I predict most from the Baftas - CR got 9, so SF should get about the same.
A "good" film often WILL succeed. We have seen small films becoming a hit, when nobody knew about them. They came out of nowhere, because they did something right and grabed their adience and beyond. So - success IMO is THE indicator, because if peoiple like someting, they WILL go for it.
Dismissing that as a fact just shows, that you cannot argue against it and hence find the easiest way out.