How about the critics, whose overwhelmingly positive reviews resulted in the film getting a 92% rating on RottenTomatoes? What about the nominations and wins at the Oscars, the BAFTAs, and a few other venues? What about the film now being the #1 rental in the U.S.?
Again, almost half my country voted for Romney, they voted for Bush & Reagan, the film critics fall along the same lines (percentage-wise) of fractured critical thought, so mass appeal is in no way a sway to me of the actual value of a motion picture's content. Student film garbage is and can be fun, but not classic. Skyfall is junkfood. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
And I like junkfood, BTW....
Your country? My country too. And your taste is clearly not my taste. . .but you're welcome to it. Why not let Skyfall fans be welcome to their taste? Why insist that history will show your judgment correct?
Why not let Skyfall fans be welcome to their taste?
I'll totally be happy to see folks enjoy what they enjoy, but when I'm enjoying popcorn, I'm not fooling myself that it's a nutritious meal filled with vitamins & protein. ) :v
How about the critics, whose overwhelmingly positive reviews resulted in the film getting a 92% rating on RottenTomatoes? What about the nominations and wins at the Oscars, the BAFTAs, and a few other venues? What about the film now being the #1 rental in the U.S.?
Again, almost half my country voted for Romney, they voted for Bush & Reagan, the film critics fall along the same lines (percentage-wise) of fractured critical thought, so mass appeal is in no way a sway to me of the actual value of a motion picture's content. Student film garbage is and can be fun, but not classic. Skyfall is junkfood. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
And I like junkfood, BTW....
Just because YOU aren't over keen on Skyfall doesn't make it a bad film....or the vast majority wrong....this isn't 'The Emperors New Clothes' here....sorry to be bearer of bad news for you
You don't like it....fine....people just seem to want to nit-pick nowadays and not enjoy and go along with things anymore....just enjoy what we have now, we could always end up with another DAD
Was passing a showcase branch of Bang & Olufsen in St Paul's, London, where they had Skyfall on the Blu Ray with the sound down, it was the scene at Bond's home Skyfall.
When the camera pans in meaningfully on the trunk, did anyone else think it would turn out to be Bond's teenage porn stash?
We could have had the remaining 20 mins with Craig reliving his teenage fantasies, cracking one off to Penthouse, the film ending with M entering his room and going 'Double O-Seven!' Thus, Bond's past bad experience when his Mum entered room and found him knocking one out could have been expunged.
But such a scenario would have had some advantage over what actually did pan out. For Skyfall is surely one of the most retarded films ever.
So the trunk opens, and hey, it's some dynamite! Handy. I mean, no idea why they'd need dynamite out there, maybe to strap to the Highland goats and say 'giddy up!' saves them having to kill them carve them up for dinner. I have some old 007 Magazines in my trunk back home, not sure about dynamite. Will have a gander.
But even then, it's like it's a big useful find for Bond! Er, except, didn't Bond stop off at Q branch en route? WITH SILVA MONITORING EVERYTHING THAT WAS HAPPENING AT MI-6, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A BLEEDING STUPID THING TO DO. MAYBE HE'S MONITORING THE VIDEO FEED AND WOULD SEE BOND WITH A BARRETT .50 CALIBER TUCKED UNDER HIS ARM AND A BAG FULL OF HAND GRENADES. Couldn't he have nabbed some useful explosives, or a decent gun even, while there? BOND EXPECTED TO FIND HIS FATHER'S EXTENSIVE GUN COLLECTION. INSTEAD THERE WAS ONLY ONE GUN, OF WHICH HE MADE GOOD USE. It's like the starving man in the wilderness alighting on some berries and fennel and fashioning a kind of soup - having stopped off at Cafe Rouge a few hours earlier, only to take advantage of its free wi-fi. 8-)
Next up, we have the most gormless, shiftless henchmen ever making their entrance, straight through the main gate! WHAT SHOULD THEY HAVE DONE? CLIMB OVER THE WALL, SO THEY WOULD'VE BEEN EASIER TARGETS? They look like local Scouts on bob-a-job week. DO THE LOCAL SCOUTS WHERE YOU LIVE CARRY FULLY AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS? IF SO, I NEED TO STAY AWAY. Maybe they are. "Hey, look at that old house! The old lady there's bound to give us a tenner!" "Don't be daft, Ginger! Have you seen the number of windows we'd have to clean!" "Yeah, but maybe it's empty. We can break in, turn the place over..."
Or maybe they're part of David Cameron's work placement scheme for shiftless benefits claimants. "Okay, yah, now we have a job for you as a henchman, it involves a bit of travel I'm afraid, but it should be a very short job. In fact, you probably won't need benefits at all once it's done, so that's good news...."
Next scene: spaced out across the valley, like scarecrow, the henchmen slowly approaching. RIGHT! THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN ALL BUNCHED UP, INSTEAD OF SPREAD OUT. Put me in mind of General Haig's ingenious plan to attach the Bosh: advance very slowly into the enemy's line of fire... Or a scene from the first Sharpe novel, where some pompous fool commands Sharpe and his men to stand across the skyline, individually waiting to be mown down by bullets. Sharpe is compelled to disobey the order, and is praised by the very top brass. BOND PICKED A VERY DEFENSIBLE STRUCTURE THAT OFFERED NO COVER. THAT'S WHY HE PICKED IT.
But no, off these henchmen go, nothing to stop Bond and just one other good shot taking out half of them in 5 seconds, assuming Bond had taken a half decent gun of course. WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED, THAT WASN'T SILVA'S MAIN PLAN.
And Bond appears in his Aston! Ta da! But of course, really, anyone would stop to peek at a lovely old car like that RIGHT! GUY IS SHOOTING AT YOU, SO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS STOP AND EXAMINE THE COOL OLD SPORTS CAR. and then where would he be? BECAUSE THEY HAD A GOOD REASON TO SUSPECT IT WAS ARMED WITH MACHINE GUNS, RIGHT? And of course, at this point, all the henchmen are conveniently clustered around the door GOING THROUGH A DOOR IS HOW YOU ENTER A BUILDING. DID YOU EXPECT THEM TO TELEPORT (ON SECOND THOUGHTS MAYBE YOU DID)? in the line of the car's machine guns. And even then, Bond is exposed, someone only has to lob a grenade at the vehicle and he's done for. But it's okay, he's taught an old woman how to lob a petrol bomb. M ALWAYS STRUCK ME AS A TOUGH OLD BIRD. SHE WAS PROBABLY LOBBING PETROL BOMBS BEFORE YOU WERE BORN.
Even now, I remember thinking, right this is so obvious, it's not Silva's main plan. While they advance and get taken out, he's probably in the house already or something. You know, like the whole thing is a ruse in which he's prepared to sacrifice some sheep.
IT WASN'T HIS MAIN PLAN. THE HELICOPTER THINGY WITH THE GATLING GUN WAS HIS MAIN PLAN. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT PART OF THE MOVIE? HE SACRIFICED A FEW HENCHMAN TO SEE WHAT KIND OF FIRE POWER BOND HAD.
I suspect that the current iteration of Bond may be a little too mentally challenging for you. Better to stick with Moonraker (the movie) which appeals to the eight-year-old in all of us.
Well at least MR's silliness is intentional. SF's isn't - it's just plain dumb.
Don't accept your so-called arguments - but it's like arguing with a cult member.
I mean, he did stop off at MI6 didn't he? Or am I misremembering, only seen it once. Maybe he called Q up to arrange the plan to lead a false trail. You seem to be implying anyway that if Silva knows Bond has firepower, and what kind of fire power he had, then that negates it. Erm, not really, it still means Bond is armed better than an old shotgun.
There could be any way better to approach SF than how they did. And yes, smart henchman would give the car a once over, or at least one of them would. And Bond in the car, a naked target, just hopes they'll all be in one place when he opens off the machines... with none of them to one side able to run up to the car, oh it's too stupid for words actually.
Was passing a showcase branch of Bang & Olufsen in St Paul's, London, where they had Skyfall on the Blu Ray with the sound down, it was the scene at Bond's home Skyfall.
When the camera pans in meaningfully on the trunk, did anyone else think it would turn out to be Bond's teenage porn stash?
We could have had the remaining 20 mins with Craig reliving his teenage fantasies, cracking one off to Penthouse, the film ending with M entering his room and going 'Double O-Seven!' Thus, Bond's past bad experience when his Mum entered room and found him knocking one out could have been expunged.
But such a scenario would have had some advantage over what actually did pan out. For Skyfall is surely one of the most retarded films ever.
So the trunk opens, and hey, it's some dynamite! Handy. I mean, no idea why they'd need dynamite out there, maybe to strap to the Highland goats and say 'giddy up!' saves them having to kill them carve them up for dinner. I have some old 007 Magazines in my trunk back home, not sure about dynamite. Will have a gander.
But even then, it's like it's a big useful find for Bond! Er, except, didn't Bond stop off at Q branch en route? WITH SILVA MONITORING EVERYTHING THAT WAS HAPPENING AT MI-6, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A BLEEDING STUPID THING TO DO. MAYBE HE'S MONITORING THE VIDEO FEED AND WOULD SEE BOND WITH A BARRETT .50 CALIBER TUCKED UNDER HIS ARM AND A BAG FULL OF HAND GRENADES. Couldn't he have nabbed some useful explosives, or a decent gun even, while there? BOND EXPECTED TO FIND HIS FATHER'S EXTENSIVE GUN COLLECTION. INSTEAD THERE WAS ONLY ONE GUN, OF WHICH HE MADE GOOD USE. It's like the starving man in the wilderness alighting on some berries and fennel and fashioning a kind of soup - having stopped off at Cafe Rouge a few hours earlier, only to take advantage of its free wi-fi. 8-)
Next up, we have the most gormless, shiftless henchmen ever making their entrance, straight through the main gate! WHAT SHOULD THEY HAVE DONE? CLIMB OVER THE WALL, SO THEY WOULD'VE BEEN EASIER TARGETS? They look like local Scouts on bob-a-job week. DO THE LOCAL SCOUTS WHERE YOU LIVE CARRY FULLY AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS? IF SO, I NEED TO STAY AWAY. Maybe they are. "Hey, look at that old house! The old lady there's bound to give us a tenner!" "Don't be daft, Ginger! Have you seen the number of windows we'd have to clean!" "Yeah, but maybe it's empty. We can break in, turn the place over..."
Or maybe they're part of David Cameron's work placement scheme for shiftless benefits claimants. "Okay, yah, now we have a job for you as a henchman, it involves a bit of travel I'm afraid, but it should be a very short job. In fact, you probably won't need benefits at all once it's done, so that's good news...."
Next scene: spaced out across the valley, like scarecrow, the henchmen slowly approaching. RIGHT! THEY SHOULD'VE BEEN ALL BUNCHED UP, INSTEAD OF SPREAD OUT. Put me in mind of General Haig's ingenious plan to attach the Bosh: advance very slowly into the enemy's line of fire... Or a scene from the first Sharpe novel, where some pompous fool commands Sharpe and his men to stand across the skyline, individually waiting to be mown down by bullets. Sharpe is compelled to disobey the order, and is praised by the very top brass. BOND PICKED A VERY DEFENSIBLE STRUCTURE THAT OFFERED NO COVER. THAT'S WHY HE PICKED IT.
But no, off these henchmen go, nothing to stop Bond and just one other good shot taking out half of them in 5 seconds, assuming Bond had taken a half decent gun of course. WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED, THAT WASN'T SILVA'S MAIN PLAN.
And Bond appears in his Aston! Ta da! But of course, really, anyone would stop to peek at a lovely old car like that RIGHT! GUY IS SHOOTING AT YOU, SO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS STOP AND EXAMINE THE COOL OLD SPORTS CAR. and then where would he be? BECAUSE THEY HAD A GOOD REASON TO SUSPECT IT WAS ARMED WITH MACHINE GUNS, RIGHT? And of course, at this point, all the henchmen are conveniently clustered around the door GOING THROUGH A DOOR IS HOW YOU ENTER A BUILDING. DID YOU EXPECT THEM TO TELEPORT (ON SECOND THOUGHTS MAYBE YOU DID)? in the line of the car's machine guns. And even then, Bond is exposed, someone only has to lob a grenade at the vehicle and he's done for. But it's okay, he's taught an old woman how to lob a petrol bomb. M ALWAYS STRUCK ME AS A TOUGH OLD BIRD. SHE WAS PROBABLY LOBBING PETROL BOMBS BEFORE YOU WERE BORN.
Even now, I remember thinking, right this is so obvious, it's not Silva's main plan. While they advance and get taken out, he's probably in the house already or something. You know, like the whole thing is a ruse in which he's prepared to sacrifice some sheep.
IT WASN'T HIS MAIN PLAN. THE HELICOPTER THINGY WITH THE GATLING GUN WAS HIS MAIN PLAN. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT PART OF THE MOVIE? HE SACRIFICED A FEW HENCHMAN TO SEE WHAT KIND OF FIRE POWER BOND HAD.
I suspect that the current iteration of Bond may be a little too mentally challenging for you. Better to stick with Moonraker (the movie) which appeals to the eight-year-old in all of us.
Well at least MR's silliness is intentional. SF's isn't - it's just plain dumb.
Don't accept your so-called arguments - but it's like arguing with a cult member.
I mean, he did stop off at MI6 didn't he? Or am I misremembering, only seen it once. Maybe he called Q up to arrange the plan to lead a false trail. You seem to be implying anyway that if Silva knows Bond has firepower, and what kind of fire power he had, then that negates it. Erm, not really, it still means Bond is armed better than an old shotgun. IT'S NOT A SHOTGUN, IT'S A BLEEDING RIFLE, AND A VERY POWERFUL ONE AT THAT.
There could be any way better to approach SF than how they did. And yes, smart henchman would give the car a once over, or at least one of them would. And Bond in the car, a naked target, just hopes they'll all be in one place when he opens off the machines... with none of them to one side able to run up to the car, oh it's too stupid for words actually. THE CAR IS BULLET PROOF. AND ARMED WITH MACHINE GUNS. THE HENCHMEN WOULD BE THE "NAKED" ONES. AND THERE'S STILL NO REASON FOR THEM TO LOOK INSIDE THE CAR.
You obviously didn't like the movie (judging by your previous posts, you didn't like it before it came out), which is fine, but you need to understand that you are in the tiny minority and trying to come up with phony arguments to support your opinion doesn't help matters.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,568Chief of Staff
Ah well, Gala Brand, if I'm in a minority, I must be wrong!
It really is quite astonishing to hear that kind of thing - even Hardyboy coming out with it. Jeez. Arguments are arguments, and they can't be gainsaid.
As I've said, it's like talking to some personality cult member.
Oh, he's armed with a powerful rifle! That's gonna make all the difference!
I'll let you know when I decide to come up with phony arguments. There's no need to at the moment. And I'm hardly alone in coming out with this stuff - the most popular review on the imdb is the one slamming this film for its utter stupidity.
Just because YOU aren't over keen on Skyfall doesn't make it a bad film....or the vast majority wrong....this isn't 'The Emperors New Clothes' here....sorry to be bearer of bad news for you
You don't like it....fine....people just seem to want to nit-pick nowadays and not enjoy and go along with things anymore....just enjoy what we have now, we could always end up with another DAD
What Sir Miles said.
As many of you know, I haven't been very active here lately. Long story short, after getting called a "Nazi" and getting other abuse for trying to do my moderator duties to get others to behave, I found myself completely burned out on this site and decided to take time off. I'm back in a limited capacity, but I still find things that make me question if it's worthwhile to be here. This thread is one of them.
I hate this discussion. Loathe it. It's not because I'm a fan of the film and I don't want to hear contrary opinions; it's because most of the contrary opinions are built on the most illogical of all forms of argumentation: BULLS**T.
This thread was started by a topic that purported to give "reasons"--sound, logical reasons--why Skyfall is actually one of the worst films in the series. What followed was not a serious discussion of the movie's flaws, but a series of gripes that began years ago (What is Dench doing in this timeline? I hate the reboot!) and a snarky recap of the film: "Oh really? We're supposed to believe that? It just so happens. . ." What a lame, bulls**ty mode of argumentation. You can do that to any film. For instance, E.T.: Oh, we're supposed to believe that the aliens just happened to land on Halloween, when the kids could disguise E.T. as a ghost so no one would know he's an alien? And the little girl has a room full of stuffed animals and E.T. can just hide among them and the mom won't know the difference?"
Come on. No film can stand up to strict, logical scrutiny. I recently bought the Criterion Collection DVD of The Spy Who Came In From the Cold, and I was surprised to hear Le Carre say that the story is entirely unrealistic. I thought this was supposed to be one of the most realistic spy stories caught on film; but the author himself says that it's more like a 19th century romance and that anyone in the secret service would know how unrealistic it is. Films and novels must create their own logic, and Skyfall does just that. Yes, Silva is supposed to be such a computer whiz that he can manipulate the plot as we see it; and he has such a dedicated network of followers that he can get them to break him out of prison and to create acts of sabotage. Could it happen in real life? Probably not. Can it happen in this film? Yes.
And the additional arguments. . ."The plot is full of holes". . ."it's obvious Severnine would die and clearly the editing shows that there's material left out". . .Oh, and "Skyfall fans are just a bunch of go-alongs who are trying to silence the real majority who understand what a bad film it is." And, of course, someone had to bring up the most tired canard of them all: that this is not Fleming's Bond or the Bond of the 1960s, but a new hybrid called "BourneBond!" Bulls**t on top of bulls**t multiplied by bulls**t.
If you don't like the movie, fine. Don't watch it again. Don't buy it. Don't rent it. But admit that you don't like it just because it's not to your taste, or you don't like Daniel Craig's take on Bond, or because you prefer the style of the films of the 1960s or '70s. For God's sake, drop this Simpsons' Comic-Book-Guy-like demeanor of intellectual superiority and the attempt to show that your dislike of the film is based in objective, unassailable logic and reason. All you do is continue to pile on the bulls**t.
As I used to say at the end of all my rants, thanks for reading.
Vox clamantis in deserto
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,568Chief of Staff
Wow, HB.....quality post -{
Absolutely spot on...discussion seems to have disappeared of late...and people have just lost the art of putting their IDEAS forward in favour of a diatribe...
Glad to have you back, Hardyboy! Your point about the absurdity of some of the posts in this thread is well-taken. I understand that not every Bond fan thought Skyfall was one of the better additions to the series, and I can see many of the plot holes that some are complaining about. But what I can't understand is why they come down so hard on Skyfall. As you have pointed out, there aren't many films, if any, that could stand up to the kind of scrutiny of every plot detail that Skyfall has been subjected to. That's especially true of Bond films. I could probably spend the rest of my years pointing out the illogic, absurdity and gaping plot holes in practically every Bond film, and I still wouldn't have covered them all. The bottom line for me is this - Skyfall certainly has its faults, but it is nowhere near being one of the worst Bond films.
Just because YOU aren't over keen on Skyfall doesn't make it a bad film....or the vast majority wrong....this isn't 'The Emperors New Clothes' here....sorry to be bearer of bad news for you
You don't like it....fine....people just seem to want to nit-pick nowadays and not enjoy and go along with things anymore....just enjoy what we have now, we could always end up with another DAD
What Sir Miles said.
As many of you know, I haven't been very active here lately. Long story short, after getting called a "Nazi" and getting other abuse for trying to do my moderator duties to get others to behave, I found myself completely burned out on this site and decided to take time off. I'm back in a limited capacity, but I still find things that make me question if it's worthwhile to be here. This thread is one of them.
I hate this discussion. Loathe it. It's not because I'm a fan of the film and I don't want to hear contrary opinions; it's because most of the contrary opinions are built on the most illogical of all forms of argumentation: BULLS**T.
This thread was started by a topic that purported to give "reasons"--sound, logical reasons--why Skyfall is actually one of the worst films in the series. What followed was not a serious discussion of the movie's flaws, but a series of gripes that began years ago (What is Dench doing in this timeline? I hate the reboot!) and a snarky recap of the film: "Oh really? We're supposed to believe that? It just so happens. . ." What a lame, bulls**ty mode of argumentation. You can do that to any film. For instance, E.T.: Oh, we're supposed to believe that the aliens just happened to land on Halloween, when the kids could disguise E.T. as a ghost so no one would know he's an alien? And the little girl has a room full of stuffed animals and E.T. can just hide among them and the mom won't know the difference?"
Come on. No film can stand up to strict, logical scrutiny. I recently bought the Criterion Collection DVD of The Spy Who Came In From the Cold, and I was surprised to hear Le Carre say that the story is entirely unrealistic. I thought this was supposed to be one of the most realistic spy stories caught on film; but the author himself says that it's more like a 19th century romance and that anyone in the secret service would know how unrealistic it is. Films and novels must create their own logic, and Skyfall does just that. Yes, Silva is supposed to be such a computer whiz that he can manipulate the plot as we see it; and he has such a dedicated network of followers that he can get them to break him out of prison and to create acts of sabotage. Could it happen in real life? Probably not. Can it happen in this film? Yes.
And the additional arguments. . ."The plot is full of holes". . ."it's obvious Severnine would die and clearly the editing shows that there's material left out". . .Oh, and "Skyfall fans are just a bunch of go-alongs who are trying to silence the real majority who understand what a bad film it is." And, of course, someone had to bring up the most tired canard of them all: that this is not Fleming's Bond or the Bond of the 1960s, but a new hybrid called "BourneBond!" Bulls**t on top of bulls**t multiplied by bulls**t.
If you don't like the movie, fine. Don't watch it again. Don't buy it. Don't rent it. But admit that you don't like it just because it's not to your taste, or you don't like Daniel Craig's take on Bond, or because you prefer the style of the films of the 1960s or '70s. For God's sake, drop this Simpsons' Comic-Book-Guy-like demeanor of intellectual superiority and the attempt to show that your dislike of the film is based in objective, unassailable logic and reason. All you do is continue to pile on the bulls**t.
As I used to say at the end of all my rants, thanks for reading.
Hmm, well, on that basis no one should slag off The Phantom Menace. I understand it's all a matter of taste.
Search me as to what kind of internal logic SF has. Can't find another film with a parallel.
If all Hardyboy can say is Bullsh*t to perfectly cogent arguments, fine. Bit alarming he's hired in some educational capacity, but there you go. There's plenty of folk saying the same on the imdb, and no it's not just trolling 'I hate Craig he looks funny' stuff either. It's basic, well reasoned argument. You had plenty of it against QoS when that came out (not wrongly either) but that was okay with some because they simply shared the opinion, so that makes it okay.
Hmm, well, on that basis no one should slag off The Phantom Menace. I understand it's all a matter of taste.
Search me as to what kind of internal logic SF has. Can't find another film with a parallel.
If all Hardyboy can say is Bullsh*t to perfectly cogent arguments, fine. Bit alarming he's hired in some educational capacity, but there you go. There's plenty of folk saying the same on the imdb, and no it's not just trolling 'I hate Craig he looks funny' stuff either. It's basic, well reasoned argument. You had plenty of it against QoS when that came out (not wrongly either) but that was okay with some because they simply shared the opinion, so that makes it okay.
Any chance you point me in the directon of these "cogent arguments" please ? I seem to have missed them....
As for QoS......I have yet to read one cogent argument against that either...but that's a whole other thread...
I've read the thread...its just all moaning and whinging....nothing remotely approaching a cogent argument...
Sir Miles, if I say "What's with that bad copy of a Yoda puppet in Phantom Menace? Did the budget run out before it got constructed?" isn't the point that that puppet looked ridiculous made without going into sombre, serious detail concerning specific facial feature fails & movement irregularities?
For a dead-serious movie, Skyfall had too many silly moments to detail in a short amount of time. But I won't bother; in my experience when discussing recent movies people are enthralled by the "ehh ehhhhhh!!!" factor is too big.
Glad to have you back, Hardyboy! Your point about the absurdity of some of the posts in this thread is well-taken. I understand that not every Bond fan thought Skyfall was one of the better additions to the series, and I can see many of the plot holes that some are complaining about. But what I can't understand is why they come down so hard on Skyfall. As you have pointed out, there aren't many films, if any, that could stand up to the kind of scrutiny of every plot detail that Skyfall has been subjected to. That's especially true of Bond films. I could probably spend the rest of my years pointing out the illogic, absurdity and gapping plot holes in parctically every Bond film, and I still wouldn't have covered them all. The bottom line for me is this - Skyfall certainly has its faults, but it is nowhere near to being one of the worst Bond films.
Having been on this board for awhile, it’s always interesting to see the feeding frenzy on dissenting opinions and the “pro” viewers come out baring their tiny sharp teeth, no matter which side I fall on.
I don’t necessarily share views, point-by-point with the SF/DC detractors like NP and others, but I do have views that are no less valid than anyone else’s. I demonstrated good faith to appreciate this movie through my effort and money by bringing my family, including my father and braving the crowds during the opening weekend and I also pre-ordered the Blu-ray. However, despite my wish to truly enjoy it; I concluded that there were just some things lacking and I was able to take inventory to identify what those were for me, which I posted a few months ago on one of the SF review threads.
Despite my qualms about DC and the reboot, I remember being excited and pleasantly surprised with CR, but still with reservations; I similarly remember sitting at the edge of my seat watching QoS and eagerly awaiting for its release on video and I even custom-made my own QoS Bond action figure! Then, there was SF…even if I were to suspend my point-by-point qualms, in the end, in my emotional spot, plain and simple I just felt underwhelmed after watching it. Then seeing the overwhelming enthusiasm for the film, I can’t help but think, “it isn’t all that!” I remember feeling more excited with AVTAK, starring a Bond actor at his most unsuitable point of his tenure (and for some, just plain unsuited for the role) and returning for repeat visits to the theater during its run and that speaks a lot. At home, I struggle trying to finish SF in one sitting.
Then, there’s the outcropping of diehard SF fans who aren’t content with being just that, but cannot gain mental ascent, or in the least content themselves with the fact that some, no matter how small the minority, do not share their enthusiasm that SF is one of the top 3, if not best Bond movie of all time. The fact that threads exists that are devoted to SF criticism, or threads that fairly touch on SF criticism as well as any other Bond film, seem nothing less than blasphemous for some die-hards, so much so that their promulgators must be shamed or outright silenced. Because of this, the earlier analogy about religious cults is spot-on.
Box office statistics, Academy Award noms and wins and the collective reviews of mainstream (non-Bond) critics are brought up with the objective of proving unequivocally that anyone who doesn’t agree must not be thinking straight.
Then of course all of this leads to the two fundamental issues underlying the recent 3 Bond outings; the reboot and DC as Bond, segueing into how even in the criteria of “Classic Bond,” SF makes an irrefutable slam-dunk, practically redefining and even replacing the top Bonds of old for the mantle of “the greatest.” The sub-arguments that feed from this particular vein is how DC is the most suave, the most gentlemanly (and not a thug), the most handsome (and not just interestingly good-looking), the most whatever-whatever, etc. Furthermore, it’s Bourne that ripped off Bond and the notion that the smallest inspiration could have possibly come from Bourne is tripe.
Then, of all anathema that really hits my sore-spot, is how SF and DC has finally fulfilled the vision of Ian Fleming, which I have contested whenever I came across it and for which I still haven’t seen a decent, well-argued response. Don’t even get me started on my specific qualms about this, though Fleming must be crying tears of joy in the grave, right?
I recognize that trolling comes from the full spectrum of members, though importantly not everyone devolves to that, but I noticed that even those whom I considered as level-headed would use the troll attacks favorable to them as touch points to further their own arguments. Is there a double standard here? Couldn’t we as responsible members police ourselves and voice corrections for even those in your perceived ranks?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I'm not quite sure why you directed your response to me since I don't believe I am one of those "diehard SF fans who aren’t content with being just that, but cannot gain mental ascent, or in the least content themselves with the fact that some, no matter how small the minority, do not share their enthusiasm that SF is one of the top 3, if not best Bond movie of all time", nor do I necessarily believe that "SF and DC has finally fulfilled the vision of Ian Fleming". As I have stated in other posts, I am a fan of Daniel Craig as Bond, although he is not my favorite, and I think Skyfall is a good Bond film, although, again not my favorite, In fact, it's not even my favorite Craig Bond film - Casino Royale is. My point is that I firmly disagree with the notion that Skyfall is among the worst of the Bond films. And while I admit that there are some obvious plot holes in Skyfall, that is in no way unique to this film, and yet I don't recall seeing this amount of handwringing about it in other Bond films. So to sum it up, count me among those who find Skyfall to be one of the more enjoyable, well-made Bond films. Nothing more, nothing less.
Glad to have you back, Hardyboy! Your point about the absurdity of some of the posts in this thread is well-taken. I understand that not every Bond fan thought Skyfall was one of the better additions to the series, and I can see many of the plot holes that some are complaining about. But what I can't understand is why they come down so hard on Skyfall. As you have pointed out, there aren't many films, if any, that could stand up to the kind of scrutiny of every plot detail that Skyfall has been subjected to. That's especially true of Bond films. I could probably spend the rest of my years pointing out the illogic, absurdity and gapping plot holes in parctically every Bond film, and I still wouldn't have covered them all. The bottom line for me is this - Skyfall certainly has its faults, but it is nowhere near to being one of the worst Bond films.
Having been on this board for awhile, it’s always interesting to see the feeding frenzy on dissenting opinions and the “pro” viewers come out baring their tiny sharp teeth, no matter which side I fall on.
I don’t necessarily share views, point-by-point with the SF/DC detractors like NP and others, but I do have views that are no less valid than anyone else’s. I demonstrated good faith to appreciate this movie through my effort and money by bringing my family, including my father and braving the crowds during the opening weekend and I also pre-ordered the Blu-ray. However, despite my wish to truly enjoy it; I concluded that there were just some things lacking and I was able to take inventory to identify what those were for me, which I posted a few months ago on one of the SF review threads.
Despite my qualms about DC and the reboot, I remember being excited and pleasantly surprised with CR, but still with reservations; I similarly remember sitting at the edge of my seat watching QoS and eagerly awaiting for its release on video and I even custom-made my own QoS Bond action figure! Then, there was SF…even if I were to suspend my point-by-point qualms, in the end, in my emotional spot, plain and simple I just felt underwhelmed after watching it. Then seeing the overwhelming enthusiasm for the film, I can’t help but think, “it isn’t all that!” I remember feeling more excited with AVTAK, starring a Bond actor at his most unsuitable point of his tenure (and for some, just plain unsuited for the role) and returning for repeat visits to the theater during its run and that speaks a lot. At home, I struggle trying to finish SF in one sitting.
Then, there’s the outcropping of diehard SF fans who aren’t content with being just that, but cannot gain mental ascent, or in the least content themselves with the fact that some, no matter how small the minority, do not share their enthusiasm that SF is one of the top 3, if not best Bond movie of all time. The fact that threads exists that are devoted to SF criticism, or threads that fairly touch on SF criticism as well as any other Bond film, seem nothing less than blasphemous for some die-hards, so much so that their promulgators must be shamed or outright silenced. Because of this, the earlier analogy about religious cults is spot-on.
Box office statistics, Academy Award noms and wins and the collective reviews of mainstream (non-Bond) critics are brought up with the objective of proving unequivocally that anyone who doesn’t agree must not be thinking straight.
Then of course all of this leads to the two fundamental issues underlying the recent 3 Bond outings; the reboot and DC as Bond, segueing into how even in the criteria of “Classic Bond,” SF makes an irrefutable slam-dunk, practically redefining and even replacing the top Bonds of old for the mantle of “the greatest.” The sub-arguments that feed from this particular vein is how DC is the most suave, the most gentlemanly (and not a thug), the most handsome (and not just interestingly good-looking), the most whatever-whatever, etc. Furthermore, it’s Bourne that ripped off Bond and the notion that the smallest inspiration could have possibly come from Bourne is tripe.
Then, of all anathema that really hits my sore-spot, is how SF and DC has finally fulfilled the vision of Ian Fleming, which I have contested whenever I came across it and for which I still haven’t seen a decent, well-argued response. Don’t even get me started on my specific qualms about this, though Fleming must be crying tears of joy in the grave, right?
I recognize that trolling comes from the full spectrum of members, though importantly not everyone devolves to that, but I noticed that even those whom I considered as level-headed would use the troll attacks favorable to them as touch points to further their own arguments. Is there a double standard here? Couldn’t we as responsible members police ourselves and voice corrections for even those in your perceived ranks?
I'm not quite sure why you directed your response to me since I don't believe I am one of those "diehard SF fans who aren’t content with being just that, but cannot gain mental ascent, or in the least content themselves with the fact that some, no matter how small the minority, do not share their enthusiasm that SF is one of the top 3, if not best Bond movie of all time", nor do I necessarily believe that "SF and DC has finally fulfilled the vision of Ian Fleming".
"You stay here Blackleiter, don't wanna see you inching out the door..."
I'm not quite sure why you directed your response to me since I don't believe I am one of those "diehard SF fans who aren’t content with being just that, but cannot gain mental ascent, or in the least content themselves with the fact that some, no matter how small the minority, do not share their enthusiasm that SF is one of the top 3, if not best Bond movie of all time", nor do I necessarily believe that "SF and DC has finally fulfilled the vision of Ian Fleming".
"You stay here Blackleiter, don't wanna see you inching out the door..."
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
To Blackleiter, your kudos for HB's reprimand was merely a convenient touch point for me being that post of yours is kind of the gist of mine based on my last paragraph. However, forgive me if from this point on I think of Jamie Foxx when I think of you, it's all NP's fault.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Comments
And I like junkfood, BTW....
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Just because YOU aren't over keen on Skyfall doesn't make it a bad film....or the vast majority wrong....this isn't 'The Emperors New Clothes' here....sorry to be bearer of bad news for you
You don't like it....fine....people just seem to want to nit-pick nowadays and not enjoy and go along with things anymore....just enjoy what we have now, we could always end up with another DAD
Well at least MR's silliness is intentional. SF's isn't - it's just plain dumb.
Don't accept your so-called arguments - but it's like arguing with a cult member.
I mean, he did stop off at MI6 didn't he? Or am I misremembering, only seen it once. Maybe he called Q up to arrange the plan to lead a false trail. You seem to be implying anyway that if Silva knows Bond has firepower, and what kind of fire power he had, then that negates it. Erm, not really, it still means Bond is armed better than an old shotgun.
There could be any way better to approach SF than how they did. And yes, smart henchman would give the car a once over, or at least one of them would. And Bond in the car, a naked target, just hopes they'll all be in one place when he opens off the machines... with none of them to one side able to run up to the car, oh it's too stupid for words actually.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
You obviously didn't like the movie (judging by your previous posts, you didn't like it before it came out), which is fine, but you need to understand that you are in the tiny minority and trying to come up with phony arguments to support your opinion doesn't help matters.
I can't see us getting another film as spectacular as QoS any time soon
It really is quite astonishing to hear that kind of thing - even Hardyboy coming out with it. Jeez. Arguments are arguments, and they can't be gainsaid.
As I've said, it's like talking to some personality cult member.
Oh, he's armed with a powerful rifle! That's gonna make all the difference!
I'll let you know when I decide to come up with phony arguments. There's no need to at the moment. And I'm hardly alone in coming out with this stuff - the most popular review on the imdb is the one slamming this film for its utter stupidity.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
What Sir Miles said.
As many of you know, I haven't been very active here lately. Long story short, after getting called a "Nazi" and getting other abuse for trying to do my moderator duties to get others to behave, I found myself completely burned out on this site and decided to take time off. I'm back in a limited capacity, but I still find things that make me question if it's worthwhile to be here. This thread is one of them.
I hate this discussion. Loathe it. It's not because I'm a fan of the film and I don't want to hear contrary opinions; it's because most of the contrary opinions are built on the most illogical of all forms of argumentation: BULLS**T.
This thread was started by a topic that purported to give "reasons"--sound, logical reasons--why Skyfall is actually one of the worst films in the series. What followed was not a serious discussion of the movie's flaws, but a series of gripes that began years ago (What is Dench doing in this timeline? I hate the reboot!) and a snarky recap of the film: "Oh really? We're supposed to believe that? It just so happens. . ." What a lame, bulls**ty mode of argumentation. You can do that to any film. For instance, E.T.: Oh, we're supposed to believe that the aliens just happened to land on Halloween, when the kids could disguise E.T. as a ghost so no one would know he's an alien? And the little girl has a room full of stuffed animals and E.T. can just hide among them and the mom won't know the difference?"
Come on. No film can stand up to strict, logical scrutiny. I recently bought the Criterion Collection DVD of The Spy Who Came In From the Cold, and I was surprised to hear Le Carre say that the story is entirely unrealistic. I thought this was supposed to be one of the most realistic spy stories caught on film; but the author himself says that it's more like a 19th century romance and that anyone in the secret service would know how unrealistic it is. Films and novels must create their own logic, and Skyfall does just that. Yes, Silva is supposed to be such a computer whiz that he can manipulate the plot as we see it; and he has such a dedicated network of followers that he can get them to break him out of prison and to create acts of sabotage. Could it happen in real life? Probably not. Can it happen in this film? Yes.
And the additional arguments. . ."The plot is full of holes". . ."it's obvious Severnine would die and clearly the editing shows that there's material left out". . .Oh, and "Skyfall fans are just a bunch of go-alongs who are trying to silence the real majority who understand what a bad film it is." And, of course, someone had to bring up the most tired canard of them all: that this is not Fleming's Bond or the Bond of the 1960s, but a new hybrid called "BourneBond!" Bulls**t on top of bulls**t multiplied by bulls**t.
If you don't like the movie, fine. Don't watch it again. Don't buy it. Don't rent it. But admit that you don't like it just because it's not to your taste, or you don't like Daniel Craig's take on Bond, or because you prefer the style of the films of the 1960s or '70s. For God's sake, drop this Simpsons' Comic-Book-Guy-like demeanor of intellectual superiority and the attempt to show that your dislike of the film is based in objective, unassailable logic and reason. All you do is continue to pile on the bulls**t.
As I used to say at the end of all my rants, thanks for reading.
Absolutely spot on...discussion seems to have disappeared of late...and people have just lost the art of putting their IDEAS forward in favour of a diatribe...
Search me as to what kind of internal logic SF has. Can't find another film with a parallel.
If all Hardyboy can say is Bullsh*t to perfectly cogent arguments, fine. Bit alarming he's hired in some educational capacity, but there you go. There's plenty of folk saying the same on the imdb, and no it's not just trolling 'I hate Craig he looks funny' stuff either. It's basic, well reasoned argument. You had plenty of it against QoS when that came out (not wrongly either) but that was okay with some because they simply shared the opinion, so that makes it okay.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Any chance you point me in the directon of these "cogent arguments" please ? I seem to have missed them....
As for QoS......I have yet to read one cogent argument against that either...but that's a whole other thread...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
You are right...it is silly of me for asking for cogent argument points
Roger Moore 1927-2017
2. And here's cogent for you, Sir Miles: :v
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I've read the thread...its just all moaning and whinging....nothing remotely approaching a cogent argument...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
For a dead-serious movie, Skyfall had too many silly moments to detail in a short amount of time. But I won't bother; in my experience when discussing recent movies people are enthralled by the "ehh ehhhhhh!!!" factor is too big.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Having been on this board for awhile, it’s always interesting to see the feeding frenzy on dissenting opinions and the “pro” viewers come out baring their tiny sharp teeth, no matter which side I fall on.
I don’t necessarily share views, point-by-point with the SF/DC detractors like NP and others, but I do have views that are no less valid than anyone else’s. I demonstrated good faith to appreciate this movie through my effort and money by bringing my family, including my father and braving the crowds during the opening weekend and I also pre-ordered the Blu-ray. However, despite my wish to truly enjoy it; I concluded that there were just some things lacking and I was able to take inventory to identify what those were for me, which I posted a few months ago on one of the SF review threads.
Despite my qualms about DC and the reboot, I remember being excited and pleasantly surprised with CR, but still with reservations; I similarly remember sitting at the edge of my seat watching QoS and eagerly awaiting for its release on video and I even custom-made my own QoS Bond action figure! Then, there was SF…even if I were to suspend my point-by-point qualms, in the end, in my emotional spot, plain and simple I just felt underwhelmed after watching it. Then seeing the overwhelming enthusiasm for the film, I can’t help but think, “it isn’t all that!” I remember feeling more excited with AVTAK, starring a Bond actor at his most unsuitable point of his tenure (and for some, just plain unsuited for the role) and returning for repeat visits to the theater during its run and that speaks a lot. At home, I struggle trying to finish SF in one sitting.
Then, there’s the outcropping of diehard SF fans who aren’t content with being just that, but cannot gain mental ascent, or in the least content themselves with the fact that some, no matter how small the minority, do not share their enthusiasm that SF is one of the top 3, if not best Bond movie of all time. The fact that threads exists that are devoted to SF criticism, or threads that fairly touch on SF criticism as well as any other Bond film, seem nothing less than blasphemous for some die-hards, so much so that their promulgators must be shamed or outright silenced. Because of this, the earlier analogy about religious cults is spot-on.
Box office statistics, Academy Award noms and wins and the collective reviews of mainstream (non-Bond) critics are brought up with the objective of proving unequivocally that anyone who doesn’t agree must not be thinking straight.
Then of course all of this leads to the two fundamental issues underlying the recent 3 Bond outings; the reboot and DC as Bond, segueing into how even in the criteria of “Classic Bond,” SF makes an irrefutable slam-dunk, practically redefining and even replacing the top Bonds of old for the mantle of “the greatest.” The sub-arguments that feed from this particular vein is how DC is the most suave, the most gentlemanly (and not a thug), the most handsome (and not just interestingly good-looking), the most whatever-whatever, etc. Furthermore, it’s Bourne that ripped off Bond and the notion that the smallest inspiration could have possibly come from Bourne is tripe.
Then, of all anathema that really hits my sore-spot, is how SF and DC has finally fulfilled the vision of Ian Fleming, which I have contested whenever I came across it and for which I still haven’t seen a decent, well-argued response. Don’t even get me started on my specific qualms about this, though Fleming must be crying tears of joy in the grave, right?
I recognize that trolling comes from the full spectrum of members, though importantly not everyone devolves to that, but I noticed that even those whom I considered as level-headed would use the troll attacks favorable to them as touch points to further their own arguments. Is there a double standard here? Couldn’t we as responsible members police ourselves and voice corrections for even those in your perceived ranks?
"You stay here Blackleiter, don't wanna see you inching out the door..."
Roger Moore 1927-2017