362 replies to this topic

[Hansen]

If you say so... Still, I could have accept that if there hadn't been all the rest. Pretty good film, very weak James Bond..

[Hansen]

You saw it in theaters. You have now seen it on dvd. Unless otherwise stated, you now all agree that this is the most overated Bond film of all time.

[Hockey Mask]

?

[x007AceOfSpades]

You saw it in theaters. You have now seen it on dvd. Unless otherwise stated, you now all agree that this is the most overated Bond film of all time.

 

 

No, not even.

[Guy Haines]

You saw it in theaters. You have now seen it on dvd. Unless otherwise stated, you now all agree that this is the most overated Bond film of all time.

Sorry, but I don't agree with you at all. Watched it again on DVD on Friday. Just gets better the more I view it. Bit of a sweeping statement that we now "all agree that this is the most overated Bond film of all time".

[The Shark]

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 ?

 

What Bond does is apply a rear-naked choke to the heavy, forcing enough pressure onto his throat, causing him to expel all air, filling his lungs with freezing loch water. 

 

Don't try this at home.

[x007AceOfSpades]

 

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 ?

 

What Bond does is apply a rear-naked choke to the heavy, forcing enough pressure onto his throat, causing him to expel all air, filling his lungs with freezing loch water. 

 

Don't try this at home.

 

It wasn't a rear naked choke...

[Hansen]

Seems I am still a little bit ahead of my time... 

[The Shark]

 

 

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 ?

 

What Bond does is apply a rear-naked choke to the heavy, forcing enough pressure onto his throat, causing him to expel all air, filling his lungs with freezing loch water. 

 

Don't try this at home.

 

It wasn't a rear naked choke...

 

Wasn't he choking him from behind with his arms?

[Dustin]

 

 

 

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 ?

 

What Bond does is apply a rear-naked choke to the heavy, forcing enough pressure onto his throat, causing him to expel all air, filling his lungs with freezing loch water. 

 

Don't try this at home.

 

It wasn't a rear naked choke...

 

Wasn't he choking him from behind with his arms?

 

 

 

No, it was a choke hold with the back of the knee. And actually you oughtn't try it away from home either...

[Dustin]

You saw it in theaters. You have now seen it on dvd. Unless otherwise stated, you now all agree that this is the most overated Bond film of all time.

 

Can't say that I do. I've seen it two times now - I don't watch films as often as I used to when I was younger - and it still holds itself solid; maybe not at the very top but definitely in the better half of the top ten. Overrated - I think it's not possible to tell as yet, it's much too soon to estimate the impact of the film on the series and its future. What we can see already - apart from the financial success, which shall not outshine all else considerations for such discussions - is the comeback in the Oscar league, something quite unthinkable a mere ten years ago.

 

I say let's wait out BOND 24 in a year or two and see what kind of lesson SKYFALL really taught.  

[Turn]

Does anybody else think maybe we, the fans, who were already mostly predisposed to taking a favorable approach to SF, were taken by surprise at the critical reception and box office reception? Then leading to awards nominations and even wins at the Oscars. We sometimes view the newest in the series more enthusiastically in the beginning. I think back to Zencat's thread about DAD, "Is this the best Bond movie ever?" which is now viewed by some with amusement and astonishment.

 

I hate to admit but after 2 viewings in the cinema I am stll not sure how I totally feel about SF's place in the series. And although I've had the Blu-ray for a month now I haven't watched it yet. Guess I'm just trying to gain more perspective.

[Dustin]

Does anybody else think maybe we, the fans, who were already mostly predisposed to taking a favorable approach to SF, were taken by surprise at the critical reception and box office reception? Then leading to awards nominations and even wins at the Oscars. We sometimes view the newest in the series more enthusiastically in the beginning. I think back to Zencat's thread about DAD, "Is this the best Bond movie ever?" which is now viewed by some with amusement and astonishment.

Definitely. As fans we come with a different mindset than the ordinary viewer to the theatre. We have our defined preferences and I suppose whether we regard an entry as good or bad, we do so with an added grain of enthusiasm, more pronounced. Seeing an entry with such a overwhelmingly favourable critical reception is quite a new experience for most of us; having the same film then regarded award-worthy to this extent was unheard of. It is a strange situation, so much so that we ask ourselves whether this critical attention - I was tempted to call it 'love' - is actually a good thing?

I hate to admit but after 2 viewings in the cinema I am stll not sure how I totally feel about SF's place in the series. And although I've had the Blu-ray for a month now I haven't watched it yet. Guess I'm just trying to gain more perspective.

I think it's perfectly normal to not feel an overwhelming urge to stuff SKYFALL - any film for that matter - down one's retina as often as possible. Films are made to be watched one, maybe two or perhaps three times within a short period. But no film was made to become the legal equivalent of cristal meth or cocaine.

[FlemingBond]

Not to me Turn.

DAD i saw the problems with immediately.

I saw Skyfall in the theater, and now twice in the past month on DVD, and i think it's really good. I certainly don't find it disappointing. Where it ranks, that will sink in over time.

[Hansen]

Not to me Turn.

DAD i saw the problems with immediately.

I saw Skyfall in the theater, and now twice in the past month on DVD, and i think it's really good. I certainly don't find it disappointing. Where it ranks, that will sink in over time.

Surprisingly, one of the unexpected good impactof SF is that I found myself enjoying 'low' Bonds such as DAD and QoS. I quite agree with the above. Time will tell and especially Bond 24.

But, there is a big difference on Skyfall. For previous Bond, you would judge based on a universe that hadn't that changed. SF redefined this universe which is good but in my opinion makes mistakes that truly betrys the work done during those past 50 years. First, making Bond acting as a spoiled child ('Mummy was very bad'is exactly what Bond thinks in SF and this would never occured in  Bond's mind : he knows what he is and the rule of his job). Second, he is now a 'hero with a trauma' like so many others. Bond has always been presented a mature, clear mind and definetly cool hero. Deaths of his parents -and wife - have always been part of the character (books and films) but he hes fully accepted them.

Last, the plotholes of the last hour are unforgiveable. I would have -maybe- accepted them in a Roger Moore Bond but never when you claim to be realistic. Fleming said something like : 'what I write maybe beyond probable, but never beyond impossible' and what Bond does when he drives M to Scotland is just impossible for any average intelligent spy.

[DavidJones]

Skyfall was so badly written that after being a Bond fan for so many years, I'm going to stop being one.

[Hockey Mask]

Skyfall was so badly written that after being a Bond fan for so many years, I'm going to stop being one.

Then why are you here?

Edited by 00Hockey Mask, 17 March 2013 - 10:50 PM.

[The Shark]

Skyfall was so badly written that after being a Bond fan for so many years, I'm going to stop being one.

Then why are you here?

 

To bitch about SKYFALL.

[Major Tallon]

Skyfall was so badly written that after being a Bond fan for so many years, I'm going to stop being one.

I don't understand this attitude.  There have been many fairly long stretches of Bond films that I wasn't exactly happy with, and, similarly, periods when I thought the newest continuation novels missed the boat.  You can imagine how I felt when, following the financial success of DAD, statements were floated that the next movie would continue in that vein. 

 

Still, I can't imagine not being a James Bond fan, even if they'd replaced Roger Moore with Clifton James.  The character, in his various incarnations, has given me far too much pleasure over too many years to walk away.  You're thinking of ending your fandom because you hated the last movie (or even the Craig era)?  It's your prerogative, of course, but as I say, I don't understand.

[Guy Haines]

Skyfall was so badly written that after being a Bond fan for so many years, I'm going to stop being one.

I don't understand this attitude.  There have been many fairly long stretches of Bond films that I wasn't exactly happy with, and, similarly, periods when I thought the newest continuation novels missed the boat.  You can imagine how I felt when, following the financial success of DAD, statements were floated that the next movie would continue in that vein. 

 

Still, I can't imagine not being a James Bond fan, even if they'd replaced Roger Moore with Clifton James.  The character, in his various incarnations, has given me far too much pleasure over too many years to walk away.  You're thinking of ending your fandom because you hated the last movie (or even the Craig era)?  It's your prerogative, of course, but as I say, I don't understand

 

> 

Skyfall was so badly written that after being a Bond fan for so many years, I'm going to stop being one.

I don't understand this attitude.  There have been many fairly long stretches of Bond films that I wasn't exactly happy with, and, similarly, periods when I thought the newest continuation novels missed the boat.  You can imagine how I felt when, following the financial success of DAD, statements were floated that the next movie would continue in that vein. 

 

Still, I can't imagine not being a James Bond fan, even if they'd replaced Roger Moore with Clifton James.  The character, in his various incarnations, has given me far too much pleasure over too many years to walk away.  You're thinking of ending your fandom because you hated the last movie (or even the Craig era)?  It's your prerogative, of course, but as I say, I don't understand.

 

I agree. I nearly walked away after Moonraker. A favourite Bond novel, which I had dearly wanted to see filmed more or less as Fleming had written, turned into a late 70s sci fi epic with extra added "Carry On" humour. But I didn't. I stayed around, enjoyed FYEO and the remaining Moore movies, the Dalton and Brosnan films and I am very happy with the Daniel Craig series. I'm at a loss about the dislike amongst some of Skyfall. It's as if some can't accept a Bond film which is acclaimed as a film in its own right as well as a "Bond film".

[trevanian]

I'm pretty sure I've already chimed in somewhere upthread, but I'll just mention once more that SKYFALL has pretty effectively ended my interest in future Bond films. I don't know if it is the most overrated or not (it would be neck and neck with CR for me, which for my money is damned near MOONRAKER with its plotting and characterization faults), but it falls so far afield from Fleming, Amis and Pearson (the only ones that matter in matters literary for me) AND from the range of cinematic Bond that it is almost easier for me to think of it as not a Bond film at all.

 

After one cinema viewing that veered from painful to boring over & over, I was pretty sure I wouldn't ever see it again. But my wife wanted to 'make sure' she absolutely hated it, so we rented it last week. While she was a lot more forgiving this time around, I can honestly say that my opinion of the film didn't change at all, except for noticing a few more things to bitch about.

 

I liked the way the physical effects guys rigged the machine gun hits inside the house, and the model helicopter crash. I particularly liked the visuals for the too-short Shanghai fight -- but the latter was ruined dramatically by including music when sound effects would have been far superior mood-wise (imagine the very low sounds of the other guy setting up, along with Bond's breathing ... by the time Patrice opens up the little hole in the window, the gust of air would be a damn Dolby rush ... most movies screw up on sound effects vs music, so I'm not picking on Bond here, but I also dislike the score a helluva lot, which is a surprise given how much I liked the scores to ROAD TO PERDITION and even REVOLUTIONARY ROAD. That's ALL I liked 

 

I hated damned near every moment of the rest of it. Considering how much I disliked the Moore era, it blows my mind that they could go so wrong in a different direction. But I'm pretty sure I'm running down in terms of energy to bitch about these things. I probably wrote 10,000 words taking CR to task on all its failings, but maybe convinced a half-dozen people to look at it with fresh eyes. I guess if you want to like these films, go right ahead.  There are a ton of people who like the new STAR TREK, which has nothing to do with STAR TREK except the names, and I'm convinced whatever mass hypnosis used on SKYFALL viewers was field-tested successfully on STAR TREK, because I can't figure out why people would be so uncritical of so many crashing waves of stupidity. But I guess I'm the near-lone nut. 

[The Shark]

I particularly liked the visuals for the too-short Shanghai fight -- but the latter was ruined dramatically by including music when sound effects would have been far superior mood-wise (imagine the very low sounds of the other guy setting up, along with Bond's breathing ... by the time Patrice opens up the little hole in the window, the gust of air would be a damn Dolby rush ...

 

Ben Burtt is that you?

[Hockey Mask]

I'm guessing for every fan that is bailing on the franchise because of Skyfall there are 50 new fans because of it.

If a "bad" Bond makes you run from the franchise you weren't much of a fan to begin with.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Skyfall was so badly written that after being a Bond fan for so many years, I'm going to stop being one.

Then why are you here?

 
To bitch about SKYFALL.

It pretty much seemed that way to me.

This just another hate topic for the film which consists of "Skyfall sucks because I'm right".

[Guy Haines]

One thing I've noticed about the negative reactions to SF - there doesn't seem to be a pattern to them. Connery fans may have disliked the lighter tone of the Moore era, Moore fans may have recoiled at the back to Fleming approach of Dalton and so on. But we have the puzzling scenario of Sir Roger Moore praising SF to the skies, when it is clearly very unlike his style of Bond, yet here on Cbn forums we have fans of Fleming's Bond as interpreted by, say, Connery or Dalton slamming SF, even though Craig is much closer to their favourite and Fleming's Bond than other portrayals.

 

Perhaps the only link is being contrary. The media, the critics, many fans and to judge by the box office numbers, the paying public liked it - and so for some, and I've been guilty of this myself, but not about Bond, it's all the more reason to hold out against.

[SecretAgentFan]

It´s perfectly okay for people to come here and criticize SKYFALL. Lots of people make good arguments for that.

 

I just wonder why some not just criticize it but actually pour all their hatred into their opinion. I certainly do not understand why SKYFALL can end a fan´s interest in future Bond films - since any future Bond film could be to this disappointed fan´s liking.

 

But I also never got the "George Lucas raped my childhood"-segment. Is this all just the new consumer attitude (gimme what I want and if not, you SUCK)?

[Hansen]

Perhaps the only link is being contrary. The media, the critics, many fans and to judge by the box office numbers, the paying public liked it - and so for some, and I've been guilty of this myself, but not about Bond, it's all the more reason to hold out against.

I will not let this pass. Choices made in SkyFall may have been crowd/critics pleasers but are imo huge mistakes in Bond History. As a fan, I expect those to be corrected in next opus that is why I am writing my views on this forum. Considering adverse critics on SF as just 'standing against the crowd' is unfair and not very respectful

[Dustin]

I suppose it's only natural that people tend to get emotional over their beloved heroes. I mean this is pretty much what CBn is about, a place to exchange one's feelings about the common interest.

 

That said I think those disappointed aren't entirely serious about giving up on Bond. Some fans are around now well over ten years; and probably longer, given that not everybody registers right after they got Internet and a flatrate. I've been a fan myself for over 30 years. Of course there are dry stretches with little hope for consolation. But that's only natural when we look at the various changes that series went through. When I was a boy and absolutely blown away by TSWLM I overheard two older guys on the tube about how they gave up on Bond after Moore got the role. 

 

Perhaps the only link is being contrary. The media, the critics, many fans and to judge by the box office numbers, the paying public liked it - and so for some, and I've been guilty of this myself, but not about Bond, it's all the more reason to hold out against.

I will not let this pass. Choices made in SkyFall may have been crowd/critics pleasers but are imo huge mistakes in Bond History. As a fan, I expect those to be corrected in next opus that is why I am writing my views on this forum. Considering adverse critics on SF as just 'standing against the crowd' is unfair and not very respectful

 

Please do calm down, I don't think there is any disrespect in that notion, quite the contrary really.

 

You expect? With what kind of authority, if I may be so bold as to ask? Hansen, you can expect pretty much whatever you like. But what gives you strange idea your wishes will be granted?

 

That series exists to be successful, successful with the masses, not with the die-hard buffs. Whatever issues we have, as long as they are not a problem for the majority of the audience they are not going to be addressed.   

Edited by Dustin, 18 March 2013 - 02:52 PM.

[Jim]

That series exists to be successful, successful with the masses, not with the die-hard buffs. Whatever issues we have, as long as they are not a problem for the majority of the audience they are not going to be addressed.   

 

The most realistic thing anyone's written on here, ever.

 

As a fan, I expect those to be corrected in next opus that is why I am writing my views on this forum

 

Don't live in hope, my darling.

[tdalton]

One thing I've noticed about the negative reactions to SF - there doesn't seem to be a pattern to them. Connery fans may have disliked the lighter tone of the Moore era, Moore fans may have recoiled at the back to Fleming approach of Dalton and so on. But we have the puzzling scenario of Sir Roger Moore praising SF to the skies, when it is clearly very unlike his style of Bond, yet here on Cbn forums we have fans of Fleming's Bond as interpreted by, say, Connery or Dalton slamming SF, even though Craig is much closer to their favourite and Fleming's Bond than other portrayals.

 

Perhaps the only link is being contrary. The media, the critics, many fans and to judge by the box office numbers, the paying public liked it - and so for some, and I've been guilty of this myself, but not about Bond, it's all the more reason to hold out against.

 

 

 

I don't agree with the idea that one should be expected to like Skyfall simply because it is in a similar style to other films in the series that one likes.  It simply doesn't follow that if one likes Dr. No, From Russia With Love, or The Living Daylights, that it means that one has to enjoy Skyfall.  It's also don't think that the people here who don't like it are simply doing so to be contrary, I think it's probably just as simple as they don't particularly care for the film.

Edited by tdalton, 18 March 2013 - 04:20 PM.