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

#151 QOS4EVER

QOS4EVER

    Sub-Lieutenant

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

Posted 09 March 2013 - 06:53 PM

Again, you are wrong. Skyfall is a spy/action film. The film PERFECTLY balances drama and action. It's not 50/40, 60/40, 90/10. It's 50/50 split even. It's one of the things many of my friends who have seen the film (who aren't quite the fan I am when it comes to Bond) loved, it wasn't trying to be a drama film or an action, just a great film period with both film elements perfectly well balanced. If you think Campbell delivered (which in a sense he did) with the sinking house finale compared to the 20-30 minute Skyfall lodge shootout that Mendes delivered, then you must have been watching the wrong film or something. The pre-title sequence was edge of your seat action and the longest of the Craig era, and certainly better than the Car chase in QOS. But all the drama and the action afterwards built up to the epic finale at Skyfall Lodge and it didn't disappoint.

I never said I didn't care about action, what I am saying is that the films are progressing and advancing and so are the plots. It's no longer needed to be hindered on the heavy action of the Brosnan Era films. Craig's films are smart, emotional, and intense. (you can apply this to the other era's too, of course ;) ) I liked the direction of Skyfall with the perfect equal balance of drama and action, something Casino Royale had, to an extent, but wasn't really executed to a "T", and something Quantum Of Solace certainly didn't have. I don't hate or despise Quantum Of Solace. I always say this: As an action film, it's good. As a Bond film, it's disappointing. That's my final opinion on it, compared to when the film first came out and I was majorly disappointed with the direction of the film and the way it was handled. The problem for me is the way he handled the action. The running time was too short (I know, the WGA strike), but Having no prior experience on action films, Forster approached them as an amateur and it explains the short and poor effort of those scenes.

 

That's my final opinion on the two, and certainly more than my two cents.

 

Its deffinately not 50 50 , unless your the type who counts Silva Caressing Bond and such as action . Its 75 25.
I know few friends who are not at all into Bond but liked the movie and my friends who are head over heals for Bond were not that enthusiastic. A lot of people have said the same. Now the reason why that is since ,I'll give you an example:

 I went for Jack Reacher a couple  of weeks back , that's not a movie I was particularly excited for . Just Casual , to spend some time with freinds. You see I liked it , I didn't find it extremely great neither did I find it bad thats because I never was anxiously anticipating it I found it good .but the fans of the original novel by Lee Child who were anxiously awaiting were not very happy with many thing even with Tom Cruise playing the protagonist. Same for Skyfall for non fans its a descent movie. But people like us who have an affinity to the character we know it in and out and we would expect more after waiting 4 years.

Forster and Campbell gave that edge of your seat kind of action which you can bearly see in movies these days. the PTS was long but it failed to excite misserably ,the fight choreography on the top of the train was just hopeless. Take it from me as you must have realised a huge action buff myself ;) !



I can't agree that "the voice of the critics overpowers that of the fans". Or the paying public, for that matter. If so "art house" or "kitchen sink" dramas would dominate the cinemas - we'd be flocking to see them just because the film critics think they are brilliant. What they approve of as opposed to what the public flocks to see coincides infrequently. Skyfall is a rare example of Bond as a critical and commercial success.

 

 

 

 


 

now who told you that only 1% of fans  didn't like Skyfall, because of what you see in CBN ?  If you go to the other popular Bond sites you would think that everyone is dying to have Christopher Nolan as the director but over here it is the opposite no one wants him, you have to realise that in different places opinion varies. Now as far as Skyfall is concerned go to places with a much much larger amount of traffic coming in like IMDB , Yahoo ,Metacritic and rottentomato forums and the other Bond sites you will see that Skyfall has a very very strong divided opinion and in the some of the sites I mentioned People disliked Skyfall more than the ones who liked it.  

 

 

I wouldn't like the idea of Bond movies being made "for Bond fans only".  Not because I'm bothered about the critics, but because most cinema goers aren't members of the Bond fan base. The days when Bond was the only action series in town have long gone. The public can go and see other films besides Bond.  A Bond film which goes through the motions and pushes all the buttons for the fan base would do well, but would it draw in the numbers that CR or SF did - or the much maligned QoS, for that matter?

 

The critics power is overstated. It's the cinema goers who turned all three Craig Bond films into commercial successes, and most of them aren't die hard Bond fans. 

 

Guy Haines,
I don't agree with you on that . I'll take something which is more personal to me a film I have been anticipating for some time 'Gangster Squad'. I feel in love with it after seeing the trailer which had a very slick sense of style and the whole vibe really attracted me . The movie boasts an all star cast which would have been enough to fill seats ,I remmember on the day of its released I just gave the twitosphere a check ,A lot of people wrote they were having second thoughts of seeing it Why?
Because New york Times or such didn't like it.
Guy Haines you and I may not like critics , But there's no denying the fact that they are eating into movie sales, its the people phycology that needs to change . They need to stop listening to these so called critics and judge for themselves and the more connected our world becomes the more we're gonna see this happen.
 



QOS4EVER: "Now as far as Skyfall is concerned go to places with a much much larger amount of traffic coming in like IMDB , Yahoo ,Metacritic and rottentomato forums and the other Bond sites you will see that Skyfall has a very very strong divided opinion and if the some of the sites I mentioned People disliked Skyfall more than the ones who liked it"

Imdb = 7.9/10 from 261,279 users, meta score 81/100
Yahoo movies = 4.5 do 5 stars from 1678 ratings
Metacritic = 81/100 critics, 7.4/10 users
Rotten Tomatoes = 92% fresh of 289 critics, 88% liked of 123,594 users

 

Go a little indepth instead of blindly taking no.s.
If you go to rotten tomatoes scroll bellow till you reach the discussion forum
Let me read out the topics for you and I Quote and these are the titles of every single topic

"WORST BOND EVERRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!"

 

"Skyfall the worst Bond film yet"

 

"Are the critics bribed?"

 

"Why do I hate Skyfall?"

 

"Skyfall Or Skyfail?"

 

 Check it for yourself if you don't believe me . Oh and if you click on discussion forums you'll see there are many many more, There was one topic who's title made me chuckle a little "Skyfall doesen't suck because sucking requires effort!"

And people who like this movie give it staright out a five star people who don't like this movie will give it less giving obviously a better chance. Let me complete now go to Imdb
Go under user reviews , let me attach a link

http://www.imdb.com/...ews?ref_=tt_urv

Here are all the users reviews, look at every single one of them the stark majority is NOT IN FAVOUR..In fact if you scroll bellow you will see everyone is NOT in favour


The first review itself "SO SO Bad, critics need replacing!" look at the no. of people that agree with this 1120 out of 1691 . Thats a enormous figure, do the maths yourself,
Thats 66.23% agree that its bad . we're not talking about small no.s that visit a james Bond dedicated site, we're talking of 1691 people.

 


I believe I have effictively proved how the movie has a devided opinion as far as how good the movie is and like earlier the majority is not in favour.

Hey If your still not satisfied I will gladly show you with more


Edited by QOS4EVER, 09 March 2013 - 07:01 PM.


#152 jrcjohnny99

jrcjohnny99

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 856 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 09 March 2013 - 06:54 PM

I think this is as good a place as any to gauge 'hard core' Bond fans opinions as opposed to 'casual' fans; I think the overwhelming response on this site to SkyFall has been positive, as opposed to QoS which was largely a sense of disappointment.



#153 QOS4EVER

QOS4EVER

    Sub-Lieutenant

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

Posted 09 March 2013 - 07:04 PM

I think this is as good a place as any to gauge 'hard core' Bond fans opinions as opposed to 'casual' fans; I think the overwhelming response on this site to SkyFall has been positive, as opposed to QoS which was largely a sense of disappointment.

That's for sure !

My point is just that people believe if one board says its good means everyone loves it . Which is definitely not the case. People look at Skyfall as the Godsend of Bond movies .If  you look a little deeper you will see that's by far not the case.


Edited by QOS4EVER, 09 March 2013 - 07:05 PM.


#154 jrcjohnny99

jrcjohnny99

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 856 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 09 March 2013 - 07:35 PM

I think this is as good a place as any to gauge 'hard core' Bond fans opinions as opposed to 'casual' fans; I think the overwhelming response on this site to SkyFall has been positive, as opposed to QoS which was largely a sense of disappointment.

That's for sure !

My point is just that people believe if one board says its good means everyone loves it . Which is definitely not the case. People look at Skyfall as the Godsend of Bond movies .If  you look a little deeper you will see that's by far not the case.

Well not everybody likes 'The Godfather' of course so there's no accounting for taste; but overall, Skyfall has had an overwhelmingly positive response, especially  from Bond fans. Do you really care what a 12 year old Transformers fan thinks? 



#155 Hockey Mask

Hockey Mask

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 March 2013 - 07:37 PM

QOS-All that proves is that the desenters are more proactive to go negative. I don't know why you are choosing to ignore the other relevant stats.

On another note...I too am a big fan of QOS and think it will get its due in time.
So we have common found somewhere.

Edited by 00Hockey Mask, 09 March 2013 - 07:39 PM.


#156 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 09 March 2013 - 09:48 PM

If a movie is that bad, it wouldn't last long or do as well at the box office. Not because of the critics but good old fashioned "word of mouth", which is still the best and cheapest form of advertising around. If SF was that much of a turkey it would still do "good box office" because of its status as a Bond film - people would go on the strength of previous Bond films, or out of curiosity. But it wouldn't have had the kind of run at the global box office it has had.

 

Regarding the lack of "action", so called, which seems to be at the heart of complaints here, consider this - how much action is there in some of the classic Connery films, the ones many critics and fans, rightly or wrongly, tend to measure successor Bond films against? Goldfinger, for example? The only standout scenes are, I think:-

 

1. The PTC scene.

2. The car chase around Goldfinger's factory

3. The finale at Fort Knox

4. The fight aboard the hijacked jet at the end.

 

There's a lot of story inbetween though. And it did excellent box office in spite of the time wasted on, say, Bond and Goldfinger playing golf. Now when GF crops up in conversation, its rare for it to be called "the worst Bond film ever made". For many casual viewers of a certain age (i.e. around mine!) it's one of the few Bond films they can name.

 

As for the critics, I can't speak for everyone else here, but I know of no-one who went to see SF, or didn't, because of what a film reviewer wrote.



#157 jamie00007

jamie00007

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 555 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 09 March 2013 - 09:59 PM

That's for sure !

My point is just that people believe if one board says its good means everyone loves it . Which is definitely not the case. People look at Skyfall as the Godsend of Bond movies .If  you look a little deeper you will see that's by far not the case.

 

Skyfall didnt almost double the box office of other recent Bond films and have such long legs at the box office because of what critics said, it did so because of overwhelmingly good word of mouth. The mouthbreathers on boards like RT, generally 13 year olds who are on there to get into fanboy pissing contests over superhero movies, do not reflect the general audience. Not to mention that those people are far more likely to go onto boards for films they dont like to bash them than movies they do like to praise them.  You might have noticed that the user rating on RT is 4.2/5 as voted by 120,000 people. If you want to use RT to see what the average person thought, that is the only figure on that site that is relevant. 


Edited by jamie00007, 09 March 2013 - 10:00 PM.


#158 007jamesbond

007jamesbond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1371 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 09 March 2013 - 10:08 PM

If a movie is that bad, it wouldn't last long or do as well at the box office. Not because of the critics but good old fashioned "word of mouth", which is still the best and cheapest form of advertising around. If SF was that much of a turkey it would still do "good box office" because of its status as a Bond film - people would go on the strength of previous Bond films, or out of curiosity. But it wouldn't have had the kind of run at the global box office it has had.

 

Regarding the lack of "action", so called, which seems to be at the heart of complaints here, consider this - how much action is there in some of the classic Connery films, the ones many critics and fans, rightly or wrongly, tend to measure successor Bond films against? Goldfinger, for example? The only standout scenes are, I think:-

 

1. The PTC scene.

2. The car chase around Goldfinger's factory

3. The finale at Fort Knox

4. The fight aboard the hijacked jet at the end.

 

There's a lot of story inbetween though. And it did excellent box office in spite of the time wasted on, say, Bond and Goldfinger playing golf. Now when GF crops up in conversation, its rare for it to be called "the worst Bond film ever made". For many casual viewers of a certain age (i.e. around mine!) it's one of the few Bond films they can name.

 

As for the critics, I can't speak for everyone else here, but I know of no-one who went to see SF, or didn't, because of what a film reviewer wrote.

 

yep this argument is true............so called fan complain skyfall lack action but connery have little too..........there no difference! I guess haters don't appreciate Skyfall because it is unique and different 



#159 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

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

Posted 09 March 2013 - 10:50 PM

I think this is as good a place as any to gauge 'hard core' Bond fans opinions as opposed to 'casual' fans; I think the overwhelming response on this site to SkyFall has been positive, as opposed to QoS which was largely a sense of disappointment.

That's for sure !

My point is just that people believe if one board says its good means everyone loves it . Which is definitely not the case. People look at Skyfall as the Godsend of Bond movies .If  you look a little deeper you will see that's by far not the case.

 

No One has said it's "The Bond film to end all Bond Films" or that it's "The Bond film". There's not much else I can say to you, because you obviously do not care, no do you want to listen to take that into consideration. There was nothing 'edge of your seat' with QOS. Was I supposed to be on the edge of my seat with the piss poor, short-lived assault on the Per La De Las Dunas Eco Hotel? I certainly wasn't, and I certainly won't be. You need to understand that Bond films are no longer mindless action films from the Brosnan Era. If people wanted to see them, they can go see 'The Expendables' or a Jason Statham film. People see Bond films because their not just Action films. If you really want an action film and this so called edgy vibe brought back from the excuse that is QOS, Start an online petition to get Forster back, since you obviously love the Bourne style of film making he chose.

 

Oh and counting some troll's pathetic attempt to get a rise out of people on boards like IMDb, RT, etc, doesn't count as again, it's someone trolling and bad-mouthing a popular, great film, based on it's all around success at an attempt to get a rise out of the people who enjoyed it. This IS the case 90% of the time on those boards.



#160 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 09 March 2013 - 10:55 PM

 

I think this is as good a place as any to gauge 'hard core' Bond fans opinions as opposed to 'casual' fans; I think the overwhelming response on this site to SkyFall has been positive, as opposed to QoS which was largely a sense of disappointment.

That's for sure !

My point is just that people believe if one board says its good means everyone loves it . Which is definitely not the case. People look at Skyfall as the Godsend of Bond movies .If  you look a little deeper you will see that's by far not the case.

 

No One has said it's "The Bond film to end all Bond Films" or that it's "The Bond film". There's not much else I can say to you, because you obviously do not care, no do you want to listen to take that into consideration. There was nothing 'edge of your seat' with QOS. Was I supposed to be on the edge of my seat with the piss poor, short-lived assault on the Per La De Las Dunas Eco Hotel? I certainly wasn't, and I certainly won't be. You need to understand that Bond films are no longer mindless action films from the Brosnan Era. If people wanted to see them, they can go see 'The Expendables' or a Jason Statham film. People see Bond films because their not just Action films. If you really want an action film and this so called edgy vibe brought back from the excuse that is QOS, Start an online petition to get Forster back, since you obviously love the Bourne style of film making he chose.

 

Oh and counting some troll's pathetic attempt to get a rise out of people on boards like IMDb, RT, etc, doesn't count as again, it's someone trolling and bad-mouthing a popular, great film, based on it's all around success at an attempt to get a rise out of the people who enjoyed it. This IS the case 90% of the time on those boards.

 

While I'll agree with the overall sentiment, I'm not sure that I'd lump Quantum of Solace in with the likes of Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is not Enough, and Die Another Day.  While, yes, Quantum of Solace is heavier on the action than Casino Royale or Skyfall, I don't think it's quite the unintelligent mess that would cause it to be lumped in with the likes of The Expendables or the Brosnan Bond films.  It could have been a better film, that's true (then again, all of the Bond films could be better than they are), but a good deal of the plot elements, such as MI6 and the CIA thinking Bond has gone rogue when he hasn't, the water-stealing scheme, the political maneuverings, and so on are, IMO, more intelligent plotlines than what might be found in more traditional action fare.



#161 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

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

Posted 09 March 2013 - 11:22 PM

 

 

I think this is as good a place as any to gauge 'hard core' Bond fans opinions as opposed to 'casual' fans; I think the overwhelming response on this site to SkyFall has been positive, as opposed to QoS which was largely a sense of disappointment.

That's for sure !

My point is just that people believe if one board says its good means everyone loves it . Which is definitely not the case. People look at Skyfall as the Godsend of Bond movies .If  you look a little deeper you will see that's by far not the case.

 

No One has said it's "The Bond film to end all Bond Films" or that it's "The Bond film". There's not much else I can say to you, because you obviously do not care, no do you want to listen to take that into consideration. There was nothing 'edge of your seat' with QOS. Was I supposed to be on the edge of my seat with the piss poor, short-lived assault on the Per La De Las Dunas Eco Hotel? I certainly wasn't, and I certainly won't be. You need to understand that Bond films are no longer mindless action films from the Brosnan Era. If people wanted to see them, they can go see 'The Expendables' or a Jason Statham film. People see Bond films because their not just Action films. If you really want an action film and this so called edgy vibe brought back from the excuse that is QOS, Start an online petition to get Forster back, since you obviously love the Bourne style of film making he chose.

 

Oh and counting some troll's pathetic attempt to get a rise out of people on boards like IMDb, RT, etc, doesn't count as again, it's someone trolling and bad-mouthing a popular, great film, based on it's all around success at an attempt to get a rise out of the people who enjoyed it. This IS the case 90% of the time on those boards.

 

While I'll agree with the overall sentiment, I'm not sure that I'd lump Quantum of Solace in with the likes of Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is not Enough, and Die Another Day.  While, yes, Quantum of Solace is heavier on the action than Casino Royale or Skyfall, I don't think it's quite the unintelligent mess that would cause it to be lumped in with the likes of The Expendables or the Brosnan Bond films.  It could have been a better film, that's true (then again, all of the Bond films could be better than they are), but a good deal of the plot elements, such as MI6 and the CIA thinking Bond has gone rogue when he hasn't, the water-stealing scheme, the political maneuverings, and so on are, IMO, more intelligent plotlines than what might be found in more traditional action fare.

 

What I was trying to say was that in the late 90's early 00's it seemed to be the direction the Franchise was heading in until Casino Royale came out. I wouldn't say Quantum Of Solace is heavier on the action, but it seems that when it's starting to go, it abruptly stops with all it's fast-pace cuts and editing. I wouldn't compare the film to 'The Expendables', but was saying that if he and/or the audiences would want to an action heavy film, there's a film like that.



#162 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 10 March 2013 - 12:29 AM

 

 

I think this is as good a place as any to gauge 'hard core' Bond fans opinions as opposed to 'casual' fans; I think the overwhelming response on this site to SkyFall has been positive, as opposed to QoS which was largely a sense of disappointment.

That's for sure !

My point is just that people believe if one board says its good means everyone loves it . Which is definitely not the case. People look at Skyfall as the Godsend of Bond movies .If  you look a little deeper you will see that's by far not the case.

 

No One has said it's "The Bond film to end all Bond Films" or that it's "The Bond film". There's not much else I can say to you, because you obviously do not care, no do you want to listen to take that into consideration. There was nothing 'edge of your seat' with QOS. Was I supposed to be on the edge of my seat with the piss poor, short-lived assault on the Per La De Las Dunas Eco Hotel? I certainly wasn't, and I certainly won't be. You need to understand that Bond films are no longer mindless action films from the Brosnan Era. If people wanted to see them, they can go see 'The Expendables' or a Jason Statham film. People see Bond films because their not just Action films. If you really want an action film and this so called edgy vibe brought back from the excuse that is QOS, Start an online petition to get Forster back, since you obviously love the Bourne style of film making he chose.

 

Oh and counting some troll's pathetic attempt to get a rise out of people on boards like IMDb, RT, etc, doesn't count as again, it's someone trolling and bad-mouthing a popular, great film, based on it's all around success at an attempt to get a rise out of the people who enjoyed it. This IS the case 90% of the time on those boards.

 

While I'll agree with the overall sentiment, I'm not sure that I'd lump Quantum of Solace in with the likes of Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is not Enough, and Die Another Day.  While, yes, Quantum of Solace is heavier on the action than Casino Royale or Skyfall, I don't think it's quite the unintelligent mess that would cause it to be lumped in with the likes of The Expendables or the Brosnan Bond films.  It could have been a better film, that's true (then again, all of the Bond films could be better than they are), but a good deal of the plot elements, such as MI6 and the CIA thinking Bond has gone rogue when he hasn't, the water-stealing scheme, the political maneuverings, and so on are, IMO, more intelligent plotlines than what might be found in more traditional action fare.

I've posted many times before that I wasn't that keen on the "shaky-cam" approach in QoS. But it is in my top 10 Bond film list. The plot line is more relevant now than it seemed then -natural resources under threat from shadowy trans-national powers (If I'm wrong, ask anyone in the UK who feels ripped off at the rise in prices of food and energy.) Plus it was a good and decent attempt at a genuine sequel, as opposed to another Bond film following the previous one. In my opinion, Daniel Craig hasn't done a bad Bond film yet, and hopefully he won't.



#163 graric

graric

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 172 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 01:33 AM

Again, you are wrong. Skyfall is a spy/action film. The film PERFECTLY balances drama and action. It's not 50/40, 60/40, 90/10. It's 50/50 split even. It's one of the things many of my friends who have seen the film (who aren't quite the fan I am when it comes to Bond) loved, it wasn't trying to be a drama film or an action, just a great film period with both film elements perfectly well balanced. If you think Campbell delivered (which in a sense he did) with the sinking house finale compared to the 20-30 minute Skyfall lodge shootout that Mendes delivered, then you must have been watching the wrong film or something. The pre-title sequence was edge of your seat action and the longest of the Craig era, and certainly better than the Car chase in QOS. But all the drama and the action afterwards built up to the epic finale at Skyfall Lodge and it didn't disappoint.

I never said I didn't care about action, what I am saying is that the films are progressing and advancing and so are the plots. It's no longer needed to be hindered on the heavy action of the Brosnan Era films. Craig's films are smart, emotional, and intense. (you can apply this to the other era's too, of course ;) ) I liked the direction of Skyfall with the perfect equal balance of drama and action, something Casino Royale had, to an extent, but wasn't really executed to a "T", and something Quantum Of Solace certainly didn't have. I don't hate or despise Quantum Of Solace. I always say this: As an action film, it's good. As a Bond film, it's disappointing. That's my final opinion on it, compared to when the film first came out and I was majorly disappointed with the direction of the film and the way it was handled. The problem for me is the way he handled the action. The running time was too short (I know, the WGA strike), but Having no prior experience on action films, Forster approached them as an amateur and it explains the short and poor effort of those scenes.

 

That's my final opinion on the two, and certainly more than my two cents.

 

Its deffinately not 50 50 , unless your the type who counts Silva Caressing Bond and such as action . Its 75 25.
I know few friends who are not at all into Bond but liked the movie and my friends who are head over heals for Bond were not that enthusiastic. A lot of people have said the same. Now the reason why that is since ,I'll give you an example:

 I went for Jack Reacher a couple  of weeks back , that's not a movie I was particularly excited for . Just Casual , to spend some time with freinds. You see I liked it , I didn't find it extremely great neither did I find it bad thats because I never was anxiously anticipating it I found it good .but the fans of the original novel by Lee Child who were anxiously awaiting were not very happy with many thing even with Tom Cruise playing the protagonist. Same for Skyfall for non fans its a descent movie. But people like us who have an affinity to the character we know it in and out and we would expect more after waiting 4 years.

Forster and Campbell gave that edge of your seat kind of action which you can bearly see in movies these days. the PTS was long but it failed to excite misserably ,the fight choreography on the top of the train was just hopeless. Take it from me as you must have realised a huge action buff myself ;) !



>>I can't agree that "the voice of the critics overpowers that of the fans". Or the paying public, for that matter. If so "art house" or "kitchen sink" dramas would dominate the cinemas - we'd be flocking to see them just because the film critics think they are brilliant. What they approve of as opposed to what the public flocks to see coincides infrequently. Skyfall is a rare example of Bond as a critical and commercial success.

 

 

 

 


 

now who told you that only 1% of fans  didn't like Skyfall, because of what you see in CBN ?  If you go to the other popular Bond sites you would think that everyone is dying to have Christopher Nolan as the director but over here it is the opposite no one wants him, you have to realise that in different places opinion varies. Now as far as Skyfall is concerned go to places with a much much larger amount of traffic coming in like IMDB , Yahoo ,Metacritic and rottentomato forums and the other Bond sites you will see that Skyfall has a very very strong divided opinion and in the some of the sites I mentioned People disliked Skyfall more than the ones who liked it.  

 

 

I wouldn't like the idea of Bond movies being made "for Bond fans only".  Not because I'm bothered about the critics, but because most cinema goers aren't members of the Bond fan base. The days when Bond was the only action series in town have long gone. The public can go and see other films besides Bond.  A Bond film which goes through the motions and pushes all the buttons for the fan base would do well, but would it draw in the numbers that CR or SF did - or the much maligned QoS, for that matter?

 

The critics power is overstated. It's the cinema goers who turned all three Craig Bond films into commercial successes, and most of them aren't die hard Bond fans. 

 

Guy Haines,
I don't agree with you on that . I'll take something which is more personal to me a film I have been anticipating for some time 'Gangster Squad'. I feel in love with it after seeing the trailer which had a very slick sense of style and the whole vibe really attracted me . The movie boasts an all star cast which would have been enough to fill seats ,I remmember on the day of its released I just gave the twitosphere a check ,A lot of people wrote they were having second thoughts of seeing it Why?
Because New york Times or such didn't like it.
Guy Haines you and I may not like critics , But there's no denying the fact that they are eating into movie sales, its the people phycology that needs to change . They need to stop listening to these so called critics and judge for themselves and the more connected our world becomes the more we're gonna see this happen.
 



QOS4EVER: "Now as far as Skyfall is concerned go to places with a much much larger amount of traffic coming in like IMDB , Yahoo ,Metacritic and rottentomato forums and the other Bond sites you will see that Skyfall has a very very strong divided opinion and if the some of the sites I mentioned People disliked Skyfall more than the ones who liked it"

Imdb = 7.9/10 from 261,279 users, meta score 81/100
Yahoo movies = 4.5 do 5 stars from 1678 ratings
Metacritic = 81/100 critics, 7.4/10 users
Rotten Tomatoes = 92% fresh of 289 critics, 88% liked of 123,594 users

 

Go a little indepth instead of blindly taking no.s.
If you go to rotten tomatoes scroll bellow till you reach the discussion forum
Let me read out the topics for you and I Quote and these are the titles of every single topic

"WORST BOND EVERRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!"

 

"Skyfall the worst Bond film yet"

 

"Are the critics bribed?"

 

"Why do I hate Skyfall?"

 

"Skyfall Or Skyfail?"

 

 Check it for yourself if you don't believe me . Oh and if you click on discussion forums you'll see there are many many more, There was one topic who's title made me chuckle a little "Skyfall doesen't suck because sucking requires effort!"

And people who like this movie give it staright out a five star people who don't like this movie will give it less giving obviously a better chance. Let me complete now go to Imdb
Go under user reviews , let me attach a link

http://www.imdb.com/...ews?ref_=tt_urv

Here are all the users reviews, look at every single one of them the stark majority is NOT IN FAVOUR..In fact if you scroll bellow you will see everyone is NOT in favour


The first review itself "SO SO Bad, critics need replacing!" look at the no. of people that agree with this 1120 out of 1691 . Thats a enormous figure, do the maths yourself,
Thats 66.23% agree that its bad . we're not talking about small no.s that visit a james Bond dedicated site, we're talking of 1691 people.

 


I believe I have effictively proved how the movie has a devided opinion as far as how good the movie is and like earlier the majority is not in favour.

Hey If your still not satisfied I will gladly show you with more

 


The problem with quoting the forums on Imdb/ Rotten Tomatoes (and ignoring the audience reactions/ ratings) is that for pretty much every major Blockbuster movie these boards tend to be filled with people who like to insist that the film in question is a terrible piece of film-making. If you go across to the Dark Knight Rises board you will see most of the topics deal with variations of 'Christian Bale doesn't make a good Batman' asking which was worse Spider-Man 3 or Dark Knight Rises, calling the finale some of the worst film-making they've ever seen etc, while at the same time TDKR is ranked 45 in the Top 250! (A ranking that is based upon voting and reviews on Imdb.) You can see the same thing when looking at Inception, The Amazing Spider-Man, Avatar and other blockbusters that did well at the Box-Office and were well-received on release.

The forums only represent a small portion of those online communities, a portion that did not like the film for various reasons, however if you look at Imdb or Rotten Tomatoes as a whole, and not just for the forums, most people who use these websites seemed to think it was a good movie! As 00 Hockey Mask pointed out the Imdb score is 7.9/10 from 261,279 users (this takes into account all the blindly positive 10 stars and all the 1 star reviews so the average score indicates that most of these 200, 000 users thought it was an ejoyable film.)

This doesn't mean that Skyfall isn't over praised by some, it was a genuinely good film for the 50th that has reached a level of hype now that very few films can live up to, you are more than welcome to disagree with that view (and I'm sure there are many others that agree your view) but despite what you are trying to suggest all evidence indicates that an overall majority of people who saw the film really enjoyed it (and the opinion on the film isn't nearly as divided as you would like to believe.)


(And the idea that the film is too much of a drama and not enough action is entirely subjective, upon my first watching of the film I though there was too much action in it and it was only after seeing it a second time that I realized the action scenes did not overwhelm the film nearly as much as I had initially thought.)


Edited by graric, 10 March 2013 - 01:48 AM.


#164 RMc2

RMc2

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 607 posts

Posted 10 March 2013 - 07:59 PM

Why is that exciting potential?

 

Because it presents the chance for a fresh perspective and different style of Bond film - I strongly think the franchise thrives on variety, and having the same director twice in a row could make things feel a bit stale - especially if Mendes repeats his slow, meditative style which rendered SF (appropriately) dour in mood.

 

I also just enjoy the guessing game of who's going to direct the next one, and prefer to approach each film with a 'what will it be like?' feeling rather than really high expectations - which I did for both SF and Dark Knight Rises last year, and was disappointed with both until the third or fourth viewing.



#165 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 10 March 2013 - 10:54 PM

Why is that exciting potential?

 

Because it presents the chance for a fresh perspective and different style of Bond film - I strongly think the franchise thrives on variety, and having the same director twice in a row could make things feel a bit stale - especially if Mendes repeats his slow, meditative style which rendered SF (appropriately) dour in mood.

 

The thing is, is if he had chosen to direct B24 I doubt he would. As he's said, he he made SKYFALL to wake himself up. He's a kind of filmmaker who thrives on variety, so if he making a follow-up to SKYFALL, it would be something completely different in tone. Probably much lighter and pulpier. Maybe more like a Lewis Gilbert or Guy Hamilton Bond.

 

As I've said a million times on other Bond boards, I fear that a new director will try have his crack at SKYFALL 2.0, trying to cash in on its success. With Mendes, he's been there and done that.



#166 Grard Bond

Grard Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:07 AM

I must admit -now I have seen Skyfall twice at home (on blu ray and dvd)- I like it much, much better then in the Cinema.

I still believe the final in Schotland could have been much better, but overall it's a good movie.



#167 Mallory

Mallory

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 161 posts
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:56 AM

The pre-title sequence was long but the rest of the film flows and goes by quickly. Weird how the longer films like Casino Royale and OHMSS are the ones that hold the most of my attention. They have been holding back on the pre-titles. CR, Bond kills two guys, over in 3 minutes, QoS was just car chases and machine guns. The Brosnan films best moments were pre-titles, such as TWINE and DAD which were the high point of the films.

 

Skyfall is easily top three along with OHMSS and From Russia With Love.


Edited by Mallory, 11 March 2013 - 02:59 AM.


#168 Taro Todoroki

Taro Todoroki

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 277 posts
  • Location:Columbus, Ga USA

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:31 AM

  I think ones opinion and perception of Skyfall also has a lot to do with when you became a Bond fan. Myself, I came in at the end of Connery and the beginning of Moore. There was nothing like the anticipation of the gunbarrel to start the movie back in those days.

 

  There was also little advance info on the movie other than if you were lucky enough to see the trailer. I remember waiting for "A Bridge Too Far" to start and TSWLM trailer came on and blew me away. The only other info I had seen prior was a small black and white photo in the paper showing Moore celebrating his 49th birthday in Egypt.

 

   I came away from Skyfall with a feeling of disappointment. It seems things are changed now just for the sake of change and because the producers can do it. I guess filling Cubby's and Harry's shoes would be a challenge for anybody though. 



#169 MajorBoothroyd

MajorBoothroyd

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 230 posts
  • Location:Q Branch, where else?

Posted 11 March 2013 - 05:42 AM

Ah, Skyfall. A comeback for Bond or another disappointing "modern" film? 

 

It's kind of hard to say. It's actually not half bad on its own, and it does have a great callback to the Connery era, but still I was left a tad disappointed. Mind you, it's certainly not terrible - just disappointing. I feel that Silva lacked depth. Maybe I didn't go into the film enough, but oh well....

 

The final showdown felt a bit lacking too. Maybe it's because I'm used to big and lavish spectacles of final battles. This one? It's not terrible, but it maybe could've panned out better. Still dramatic, though. 

 

So, to sum up: It's not a terrible movie, far from it, but I feel it lacks some things. 



#170 MajorBoothroyd

MajorBoothroyd

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 230 posts
  • Location:Q Branch, where else?

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:36 AM

I guess I should clarify my above post: the villain in SF just seemed different from what I was used to: a pompous and sometimes over-the-top villain with a good old World Domination Scheme. Then Silva pops up and his plan is All Too Modern. It's not a terrible idea, since we are after all living in the 21st century, but his character just seems a little out-of-place. And it's the first Bond villain (I think) that has gay undertones. Correct me if I'm wrong. 



#171 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

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

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:47 AM

I thought Silva could have been homosexual, but after a second viewing, I came to the conclusion that it was just a tactic to make Bond feel nervous and to throw him off guard.



#172 MajorBoothroyd

MajorBoothroyd

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 230 posts
  • Location:Q Branch, where else?

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:54 AM

I thought Silva could have been homosexual, but after a second viewing, I came to the conclusion that it was just a tactic to make Bond feel nervous and to throw him off guard.

 

Actually, this makes sense considering he was stroking Bond's leg at one point. 



#173 graric

graric

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 172 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:08 AM

I guess I should clarify my above post: the villain in SF just seemed different from what I was used to: a pompous and sometimes over-the-top villain with a good old World Domination Scheme. Then Silva pops up and his plan is All Too Modern. It's not a terrible idea, since we are after all living in the 21st century, but his character just seems a little out-of-place. And it's the first Bond villain (I think) that has gay undertones. Correct me if I'm wrong. 


Scaramanga, arguably has a certain undertone to his obsession with Bond. More obvious though are Klebb (the Bond/Silva scene could be seen as the modern equivalent of the Klebb/ Tania scene), Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd and Franz Sanchez (his interaction with Dario, and arguably to an extent Bond, certainly have some undertones to them.)

These few are just on the top of my head, I'm sure someone could think of a couple more (such as possibly Le Chiffre, with his 'wow, you've taken good care of your body' line.)



#174 MajorBoothroyd

MajorBoothroyd

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 230 posts
  • Location:Q Branch, where else?

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:14 AM

Ah yes, forgot about Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd - couldn't have been more subtle enough IMO.

 

Er, anyway, carry on gents.



#175 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 11 March 2013 - 08:26 AM

Aside from Silva's sexual proclivities, or not, has anyone noticed the resemblance to another past villain? And I don't mean Trevelyan, the double-O who turned on his adopted country.

 

I'm thinking of Renard. Consider - Both were terrorists with a death wish. Both caused an explosion at MI6 HQ. Both survived what should have been fatal (Renard, a bullet in the head, Silva - well, I've never heard of anyone taking a cyanide pill and pulling through!). And both had a fixation on a woman (Renard and Elektra - the terrorist besotted with a beautiful woman who treats him mean. Silva a sort of "mother" fixation with M, who definitely treated him mean.).



#176 jamie00007

jamie00007

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 555 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 11 March 2013 - 09:20 AM

These few are just on the top of my head, I'm sure someone could think of a couple more (such as possibly Le Chiffre, with his 'wow, you've taken good care of your body' line.)

I got some pretty strong vibes off of Charles Gray's Blofeld.



#177 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 14 March 2013 - 03:14 PM

Major issue with this film is the script.

The last hour is non-sense: willing to protect M by taking her to an old mansion so easy to attack and with no back-up is non-sense.

By doing that, Bond kills M and thus fail the mission (which makes Silva achieve his plan).

I will also add this stupidity of strangling a man UNDER WATER.

 

I have always been supportive of a more realistic approach of the Bond environment. But by doing so, your script must be perfect.

If you take this approach, audience will not accept what they can accept in lighter Bond.

 

I will also add that the spoiled-chid aspect of Bond in his relationship with M. It is so non-Bond. Does anyone can react likie that.

 

I was also disappointed by the "trauma". The event is part of Bond history but so far (in bokks included), he had overcome this tragedy. He makes him the equivalent of Batman or Harry Potter, which is exactly what I do not want from Bond and in my opinion why he lasts so long



#178 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

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

Posted 14 March 2013 - 03:18 PM

You can argue that Bond does indeed kill M, whilst indirectly, but he doesn't directly killer her. It is possible to strangle a man under water, especially when the adrenaline kicks in.



#179 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 14 March 2013 - 03:29 PM

You can argue that Bond does indeed kill M, whilst indirectly, but he doesn't directly killer her. It is possible to strangle a man under water, especially when the adrenaline kicks in.

And what happens ? He cannot breath ? Again ?



#180 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

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

Posted 14 March 2013 - 03:40 PM

I don't see as to what is so hard to believe that he did in fact strangle him under water. He strangle him, locked him with his leg cutting off circulation, blood flow and oxygen flow, add in the fact the henchman can't catch his breath under water and the possibility of drowning.

 

It is possible.