362 replies to this topic

[Jim]

Poll added

[Simon]

And a very restrained poll at that.

 

Absolutely no flourishes involving bodily functions and wayward thoughts...

[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.

 

 

 

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.

I did say, "some", not  "all" critics of SF were just taking the opportunity to be contrary. It may just be a few.  As I said, I've been "guilty" of it myself. As a rule, I don't "go along" just because everyone else does, and some valid criticisms of SF have been made here and elsewhere. It isn't a perfect Bond movie. I've yet to see one. But it has been a critical success and a crowd pleaser - "turkeys" tend to be in the oven at Christmas, not still showing in the cinema.

[Hansen]

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.   

You do not expect things you care to be better ? I am pretty sure you do.

Forums are made to express point of views. Sometimes those are taken into account by production campanies and it has been for a long time (remember Jaws coming back in Mooraker, remember FYEO...)

Success of the serie is a balance. When you think it goes too far one way, stand and say it. Sometimes you are not alone, sometimes you are heard.

If you can't do that, here... Well...

 

Don't live in hope, my darling.

What's the point in living if you don't live in hope, my darling

[Jim]

Forums are made to express point of views. Sometimes those are taken into account by production campanies and it has been for a long time (remember Jaws coming back in Mooraker, remember FYEO...)

 

Neither being the most ringing endorsement of the system.

 

They're better off ignoring us completely if this is how it works.

 

What's the point in living if you don't live in hope, my darling

 

One learns to manage one's expectations before they're managed for one; that way one can never be disappointed and still pretend that one is in control.

And a very restrained poll at that.

 

Absolutely no flourishes involving bodily functions and wayward thoughts...

 

True: inspiration appropriate to the thread, however.

[JimmyBond]

I think there is a very real danger of coming off as elitist and claiming your opinion is right over everyone else's. Whether you are pro Skyfall of do it on purpose, we've all been there. I do my best to stay open to other peoples opinoins, and for the most part I can look at Skyfall and see where those who didn't like it are coming from. For me the film manages to rise up above it's flaws (and yes, it has them) and be a very entertaining Bond film.

 

That said, I'm not going to be expecting another Skyfall for the next outing, I think every Bond film should be unique to a degree, and that's probably the rationale for hiring a new director each outing.

[plankattack]

I've tried to stay out of this, as ultimately it's all a matter of personal opinion and taste.

 

I myself like alot, two of the franchise's lesser loved (at least around here), QoS and TWINE; they're both films that have taken a real blitzing both here and out in the greater unwashed of the general public and yet I love 'em. So obviously, what do I know?

 

I like SF alot, but I'm not blind to its holes. That being said I take issue with criticisms such as "it's not as popular as fans here think", and that old nugget "it's not a James Bond film"

 

When a film does over a billion worldwide, what can't be disputed is that it's popular in the massive market that isn't "us fans."

 

As to the "it's not a James Bond film", that is of course a matter of opinion. So I would ask, what is a James Bond film? Because I doubt that other than the adaptations of the first four, plus OHMSS, you're never going to get a consistent answer that satisfies everyone. I personally don't think invisible cars and "that should keep you in curry for a few weeks" are my kind of Bond films, but I don't dispute that are rightfully part of this franchise, even when 007 is telling a tiger to "Sit"

 

IMHO, I suspect that the bleating about SF not being a Bond-film (even if you think it's crap, I'm not sure you can say it's not a Bond-film) is just DanielCraigIsNotBond warmed over, and to be honest with you, I thought we'd left all that behind us.

 

For those of you who feel this isn't a Bond film, then explain why. And I'm sorry, saying he doesn't behave this way or that, even when he's done so in the books, just doesn't fly. I'm film Bond-fan before I read the books, but I never ever forget that that's where it all began and that's been the basis for over 50 years. And James Bond has been moody, depressed, bored with his job, thought about quitting etc And he did have a backstory, from his parents to being kicked out of Eton.

 

Again, I'm more than happy to read about SF's faults (slack plotting, self-reverential as opposed to self-reliant), but the "it's not Bond" stuff is complete cobblers.

 

Now, can someone help me load my soapbox back into my car.    

[tdalton]

As to the "it's not a James Bond film", that is of course a matter of opinion. So I would ask, what is a James Bond film? Because I doubt that other than the adaptations of the first four, plus OHMSS, you're never going to get a consistent answer that satisfies everyone. I personally don't think invisible cars and "that should keep you in curry for a few weeks" are my kind of Bond films, but I don't dispute that are rightfully part of this franchise, even when 007 is telling a tiger to "Sit"

 

Definitely agreed on your take on the whole issue of Skyfall being deemed by some as "not a Bond film".  It most certainly is a Bond film, just as some of the sillier Moore entries are Bond films, just as the superhero-esque, action-driven films of the Brosnan Era are Bond films, and so on.  Only speaking for myself, but for me, what makes a "Bond film" a "Bond film" is for the film to star a British intelligence operative named James Bond.  That alone qualifies it as a "Bond film", so Skyfall fits that bill.  That doesn't make it a particularly good entry in my eyes, but it's still a Bond film nonetheless.

[Hansen]

 

what makes a "Bond film" a "Bond film" is for the film to star a British intelligence operative named James Bond.

That makes 1967 Casino Royale as a Bond(s) film

The debate of "not a James Bond film" is pretty interesting and understandable. It somehows rewards the quality of the film (directing, acting, cinematography, music...) but shows disappointment ont the treatment of Bond. Personnaly, I would probably have more enjoyed it if it had not been a Bond (except for those damned plot holes)

[Major Tallon]

Yes indeed, the 1967 CR is a Bond film.  A bizarre Bond film, to be sure, but a Bond film nevertheless. 

[RMc2]

Dude, this is a near-perfect summation of the two sides of this thread: 'disappointment with Skyfall' and the strange debate over whether or not it's a Bond film.

 

Again, I'm more than happy to read about SF's faults (slack plotting, self-reverential as opposed to self-reliant), but the "it's not Bond" stuff is complete cobblers.

[MkB]

And a very restrained poll at that.

 

Absolutely no flourishes involving bodily functions and wayward thoughts...

 

True: inspiration appropriate to the thread, however.

 

Hey! What happened to Robert Mugabe? 

[Dustin]

 

And a very restrained poll at that.

 

Absolutely no flourishes involving bodily functions and wayward thoughts...

 

True: inspiration appropriate to the thread, however.

 

Hey! What happened to Robert Mugabe? 

 

 

The fate all upper-case Ms face with time...

[glidrose]

Special thanks to whoever let us see how we all voted. Seriously. I always like to see how the other tossers on this board voted. Wish the admins would do that with every poll. Cheers!

[Dustin]

I think the public poll option has become available only recently IIRC. Obviously it's not suitable for every kind of poll. For example I wouldn't want others to know I mostly voted for Mugabe...

[trevanian]

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?

Well, I do think his work on the 78 BODY SNATCHERS is phenomenal, it is a great blend of music and sound effects. 

[trevanian]

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.

I think you're confusing fan (or devotee) with sycophant.

 

It's like the idea of the auteur theory; if you like Chaplin, you have to like ALL Chaplin. Well, as William Goldman dismisses this notion, have a lot of fun watching his COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG, which is utter shite.  

 

I have no interest in seeing new TREK because with these folks doing it, it is an utter fail in terms of being TREK, and even goes out of its way to piss on what worked before.  That doesn't take away my appreciation of the good stuff that came before, so I remain a devotee of what I find to be GOOD Trek. 

 

I've been into TREK since I was 12, and into Bond since I was 4 (in a big way starting around 14), and I mean heavily into them. I've written articles on four of the TREK movies and the last two Bonds, and even pitched stories to TREK at Paramount back in 1990. It wouldn't be appropriate to dismiss my lack of interest in future Trek or Bond with the notion that I wasn't that into it to begin with; in fact, it shows that it means enough to me that when it is crap I shouldn't HAVE to watch it, or feel obliged to like it, because I can discern what works. 

[Guy Haines]

I've been a Bond fan for a long time too. More years than I should admit - let's just say that my first Bond film was OHMSS, in the local fleapit, when it first reached my town in 1970. So I think I'm also qualified to chip in and discern what I think "works".

 

The Connery films - all of the 1960s films, even the much maligned YOLT. CR1967 - to coin a phrase "you must be joking!". OHMSS - certainly, even if Lazenby had practically no acting background (By his own admission, according to the documentary "Everything Or Nothing".) The Moore films - mostly - I'd have enjoyed them more if they had dropped the daft visual gags. NSNA - no, it didn't work for me, relied too much on the comeback of Connery to hide the fact that, for legal reasons, it is a not particularly impressive revamp of TB, in my view.

 

The Dalton films - most certainly. Craig haters might not like it, but in my humble opinion TLD and LTK were in some ways decades ahead of their time. The Brosnan films - I enjoyed all four. To me Brosnan's Bond combined the virtues of Moore and Dalton with few of the vices.

 

And the Craig era - for me, it worked from the opening moments of CR 2006, and has kept on working splendidly ever since. Even with the "shaky-cam" approach used in parts of QoS. 

 

Notice I say "for me", because everything is subjective. It is not a case of a Bond film, or any film, being wrong simply because I say so.

[SecretAgentFan]

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.

I think you're confusing fan (or devotee) with sycophant.

 

It's like the idea of the auteur theory; if you like Chaplin, you have to like ALL Chaplin. Well, as William Goldman dismisses this notion, have a lot of fun watching his COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG, which is utter shite.  

 

I have no interest in seeing new TREK because with these folks doing it, it is an utter fail in terms of being TREK, and even goes out of its way to piss on what worked before.  That doesn't take away my appreciation of the good stuff that came before, so I remain a devotee of what I find to be GOOD Trek. 

 

I've been into TREK since I was 12, and into Bond since I was 4 (in a big way starting around 14), and I mean heavily into them. I've written articles on four of the TREK movies and the last two Bonds, and even pitched stories to TREK at Paramount back in 1990. It wouldn't be appropriate to dismiss my lack of interest in future Trek or Bond with the notion that I wasn't that into it to begin with; in fact, it shows that it means enough to me that when it is crap I shouldn't HAVE to watch it, or feel obliged to like it, because I can discern what works. 

 

Nobody is forced to watch anything. Except in "Clockwork Orange".

[Dustin]

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.

I think you're confusing fan (or devotee) with sycophant.

I don't think that's what was meant here. Evidently the fact some fans complain for years - or decades even - proves that they do care, although perhaps the constant ranting reverberates at times from the walls of a cul-de-sac.

Then there are those who are disappointed with a particular film, casting decision or direction and decide they no longer care and consequently spend their time with more worthwhile activities. Nothing wrong with that, a sensible decision methinks. Why waste your precious days on something you can't enjoy?

That said neither liking nor disliking SKYFALL can be regarded as the litmus test of Bond fandom. To the contrary, I've talked to various long standing fans who've given Eon regular thrashing over the years and who've been pleasantly surprised by SKYFALL, despite their own conviction that Eon supposedly signs their contracts with 'Satan'.

Then there are those who've been utterly disappointed, and that group, despite being smaller, is also surprisingly varied in their members and complex as far as the reasons of their critic go. Some hate the story, some the direction, some stumble about plot holes, some haven't gotten the necessary amount of 'Boom' to stimulate their minds into enough 'excitement'. And some dislike Adele and/or the score. And surprisingly in that group you find almost as many 'Eon is the great satan!'-followers as you find devotees of CR and QOS.

If anything the reaction to SKYFALL here at the fanbase proves how diverse - and diverging? - our demands and ideas of what a Bond film should be have become.

[Quatermass]

Disappointed? Only mildly. All Bond movies have plot holes-even the best. And we continue to forgive them for their sins and live in hope that the next one punches all our personal buttons. I tend to view SF as a stand alone-a fever dream celebration of 50 years worth of our collective love of the series distilled into one audience friendly movie. Hence it's popularity with people who would normally shy away from watching Bond movies-except to watch the umpteenth showing of 'Goldfinger' after the Queens Speech on Christmas Day. 

     Sam Mendes, as befits his theatrical grounding, decided to give us a Shakespearian view of Bond. Which is not a bad thing-The Bard's plays are frequently full of plot inconsistencies, barely believable coincidences, corny jokes and foppish villains...and they still seem to be quite popular. Add phoned-in second unit action sequences and you've got 'Skyfall'.

     My hope is that John Logan will just ignore most of what happened in this film and concentrate on finishing off Quantum. Nobody likes a trilogy with only two parts...

[Bondian]

Hello my lovely gang and gangesses.

 

Sorry I've been away for so long. What with married life AND still working seven nights a week. Tis like a working married life without the pleasure, or just the pleasure of working whilst being married.

 

As I haven't had the time to catch up with you chaps, I have no idea on anything Skyfall. Have to say I loved this little baby. Ticked the right boxes for me, and it's the first time my wife has stayed awake through a Bond. Okay. It's a little skakey in places (an electric underground train still powered after derailment), and (Bond takes M to the worst possible place to protect her) , but who gives a crap. It IS a Bond film after all. 

 

Loved the score, thought the whole package was well thought out.

 

Will go deeper when I can spend more time here. (oh dread the thought  )

 

Ciao for now,

 

Ian

[Major Tallon]

Always good to hear from you, Bondian. 

So far as I know, you're the only person to twig to the glitch about the power still being on in the derailed Tube train.  There ought to be an award for that!

[Guy Haines]

Always good to hear from you, Bondian. 

So far as I know, you're the only person to twig to the glitch about the power still being on in the derailed Tube train.  There ought to be an award for that!

And the lack of passengers? One or two critics noticed that Silva just happened to derail a tube train with only the crew on board. I can't help wondering if that was because of entirely understandable sensitivity in view of the London Tube bombings of recent memory.

[Dustin]

Always good to hear from you, Bondian. 

So far as I know, you're the only person to twig to the glitch about the power still being on in the derailed Tube train.  There ought to be an award for that!

And the lack of passengers? One or two critics noticed that Silva just happened to derail a tube train with only the crew on board. I can't help wondering if that was because of entirely understandable sensitivity in view of the London Tube bombings of recent memory.

 

 

Not sure about that. The train was a life-size affair, shot at 007 stage. Having passengers on the train would simply have made the stunt enormously more dangerous, while adding little in terms of actual impact on the audience. The point of the stunt was to have a moment of amazement, not to add gore to the mix. Sensitivities about the tube bombings would have avoided the whole sequence I suppose.

[The Shark]

There was on the train clearly saying "NOT IN SERVICE."

[tdalton]

 

Always good to hear from you, Bondian. 

So far as I know, you're the only person to twig to the glitch about the power still being on in the derailed Tube train.  There ought to be an award for that!

And the lack of passengers? One or two critics noticed that Silva just happened to derail a tube train with only the crew on board. I can't help wondering if that was because of entirely understandable sensitivity in view of the London Tube bombings of recent memory.

 

 

Not sure about that. The train was a life-size affair, shot at 007 stage. Having passengers on the train would simply have made the stunt enormously more dangerous, while adding little in terms of actual impact on the audience. The point of the stunt was to have a moment of amazement, not to add gore to the mix. Sensitivities about the tube bombings would have avoided the whole sequence I suppose.

 

Before I weigh in on this particular issue with Skyfall, I'll just note that this wasn't a criticism that I had regarding the film.  I do think that there are probably a couple of ways that they could explain away the fact that nobody's on board the train (EDIT: and that was done so in the post above), so I didn't think that it was something that was egregious enough in the film that it warranted being picked apart like many of the other issues Skyfall has going against it.

 

With that said, I do suppose it could have been possible for them to have CGI'd some passengers onto the train.  While surely it would have hit a nerve with some (and rightfully so, no doubt), it would have done a great deal to raise the stakes of Silva's scheme for the city of London itself.  One of the areas I thought they fell short in with regards to the story in Skyfall is that, while M is being tried before the tribunal (and, just as an aside, what a joke that tribunal was), the stakes needed to be considerably higher for the city of London.  I get that it's a personal story revolving around M, but the stakes for London needed to be extremely high, to show that those who operate "in the shadows" are indeed necessary, as the film repeatedly tries to tell us that they are.

Edited by tdalton, 28 March 2013 - 09:03 PM.

[Dustin]

With that said, I do suppose it could have been possible for them to have CGI'd some passengers onto the train.  While surely it would have hit a nerve with some (and rightfully so, no doubt), it would have done a great deal to raise the stakes of Silva's scheme for the city of London itself.  One of the areas I thought they fell short in with regards to the story in Skyfall is that, while M is being tried before the tribunal (and, just as an aside, what a joke that tribunal was), the stakes needed to be considerably higher for the city of London.  I get that it's a personal story revolving around M, but the stakes for London needed to be extremely high, to show that those who operate "in the shadows" are indeed necessary, as the film repeatedly tries to tell us that they are.

 

Well, but there were numerous dead policemen and SIS-housekeeping guards already. Yes, having a few dead civilians on the streets in addition to those shot at the hearing - I'm pretty sure they were supposed to be at least halfway-innocent as plain-clothes politicians and Whitehall civil servants - would have upped the ante for London in general. But would it really have helped the story? I don't think so. Silva's already shown as ruthless enough; his aim is already defined as M. One might have thought up a scenario where Silva's killing off hostages to get the authorities to extradite M to him. But that one would have come too close to one of those real life school shootings we get served every few weeks, it would have been tricky not to lose the balance and drift from entertainment to docudrama. Above all the illusion must be kept up. 

[tdalton]

With that said, I do suppose it could have been possible for them to have CGI'd some passengers onto the train.  While surely it would have hit a nerve with some (and rightfully so, no doubt), it would have done a great deal to raise the stakes of Silva's scheme for the city of London itself.  One of the areas I thought they fell short in with regards to the story in Skyfall is that, while M is being tried before the tribunal (and, just as an aside, what a joke that tribunal was), the stakes needed to be considerably higher for the city of London.  I get that it's a personal story revolving around M, but the stakes for London needed to be extremely high, to show that those who operate "in the shadows" are indeed necessary, as the film repeatedly tries to tell us that they are.

 

Well, but there were numerous dead policemen and SIS-housekeeping guards already. Yes, having a few dead civilians on the streets in addition to those shot at the hearing - I'm pretty sure they were supposed to be at least halfway-innocent as plain-clothes politicians and Whitehall civil servants - would have upped the ante for London in general. But would it really have helped the story? I don't think so. Silva's already shown as ruthless enough; his aim is already defined as M. One might have thought up a scenario where Silva's killing off hostages to get the authorities to extradite M to him. But that one would have come too close to one of those real life school shootings we get served every few weeks, it would have been tricky not to lose the balance and drift from entertainment to docudrama. Above all the illusion must be kept up. 

 

I'm not saying that it would have been the ideal way to do go about doing it, but it would have been one way within the confines of what they'd already established in the script that wouldn't have taken much effort to go about doing.  I think that, for all the talking they do about how those in the shadows are accountable to those in the public arena, it would have made the story stronger by having something at stake for London.  It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that the average Londoner would think that all that happened on that particular day in the film was that an empty subway train fell through a weak spot in the tube and fell into the sewers.  Granted, those that want to dig a little further into that would be able to possibly pick part of that story apart, but if that's how the government chose to sell it to the public, then they would have bought it and moved on.  Since it was the public that hauled MI6 before a tribunal (or more specifically, the public in the form of their elected officials), it would make sense that they need see the value of MI6 in order for it to be redeemed, which the public clearly wouldn't see based on the events of Skyfall.  

 

I also don't think that it would be going too far in the realm of the uncomfortable for the screenwriters to include something like that.  In the old films, perhaps that would be the case, but since EON now wants to be taken seriously as filmmakers and they want to create Bond films that could clearly operate within the world in which we currently live, then they have to get their hands dirty at some point and do things that make the audience uncomfortable.  Otherwise, are they really doing anything that the previous 20 films didn't do?  That's not to say that everything that these films do should be doom and gloom, but sometimes it's necessary to push further than they have before and make the audience uncomfortable a bit.  That makes it all the more rewarding when things are put back in the proper place, or otherwise remedied, by the end of the film.

[Dustin]

 

I also don't think that it would be going too far in the realm of the uncomfortable for the screenwriters to include something like that.  In the old films, perhaps that would be the case, but since EON now wants to be taken seriously as filmmakers and they want to create Bond films that could clearly operate within the world in which we currently live, then they have to get their hands dirty at some point and do things that make the audience uncomfortable.  Otherwise, are they really doing anything that the previous 20 films didn't do?  That's not to say that everything that these films do should be doom and gloom, but sometimes it's necessary to push further than they have before and make the audience uncomfortable a bit.  That makes it all the more rewarding when things are put back in the proper place, or otherwise remedied, by the end of the film.

 

 

Well, good point there. But take a look at the mention of sex-slaves in connection to Sévérine, something previously unheard of - and downright unthinkable in the classic series I daresay. It earned SF a number of overblown and at times downright stupid accusations of Bond behaving inappropriate towards her when joining the woman in the shower, even by people who at least theoretically ought to command enough brains to recognise the sheer ludicrousness of such accusations. All for a single line of dialogue written to put flesh on an otherwise minor character bordering on being an extra. 'Reality' in Bonds is a dangerous business and must be handled with caution...