The first third of Skyfall was amazing, the Shangai scene was the most exciting scene I have ever seen in a Bond film. I was sat in the cinema thinking "this is so exciting, where is it going to go?". But then it went downhill:
1) The biggest problem was the plot hole that Silva went to all that trouble to purposely get caught (not checking Bond for the homing beacon) so that he could escape and kill M, when all he had to do was turn up at the public hearing without getting caught.
2) After the above, the film then effectively ends with a Home Alone-esque conclusion, running around a gloomy, doomy Scottish estate. A shoot-em-up around an ugly, depressing, wet location is not a Bond film.
1. So would Silva getting himself caught in a public hearing made for a great cinematic experience vs. the Shanghai, boat and deserted island sequences leading to Silva's capture?
2. Would you have preferred Silva kidnap M (and not kill her which was his intention) and take her to some island? Then 007 goes to her rescue like in TMWTGG and finds M in a bikini as it can not conceal any weapons .... Would you have just have Silva kill M in the hearing (what would be the need to even have him self captured. And may be just end the movie in an hour - a documentary length)
1) I don't understand your question? Why would Silva get himself caught at the public hearing?
2) No, I would rather less of this personal/connected crap.
SPECTRE is simply all kinds of perfect. By its chosen overall tone, the few plot holes & narrative contrivances there are are completely forgivable because what works works SO well that only those peeps that demand brooding angst amidst ponderous faux-existential drama will dig for true meaning buried in the sheer fun. )
We had these discussions and still have - in short: In the 70s and 80s no-one gave a rats arse for realism and gritty tone - this all changed with First Blood and that was a direction Cubby did not want to go. The approach that Bond should be gritty and serious only is unrealistic - even today.
Its not the 70s/80s, its 2015. Besides Only Fools and Horses how many TV programmes from the 70s/80s are still popular? Not much, because TV programmes back then are simply inferior compared with what is offered today. It'd be like playing a game of Minesweeper after spending 5 hours playing Call of Duty (I'm not a massive gamer but hope the analogy is clear).
These are 1 billion $ blockbusters and are there to entertain various interests of audiences.
Spectre obviously didn't entertain as much as you think, considering it has an IMDB rating of 7.1 and will probably end-up on 6.9, whereas Casino Royale is still at 8.0.
But you have no right to look down on those who enjoy his movies for what they are - some of them are perhaps more seriously interested in Bond than you will ever be!
Where did I look down on classic James Bond fans? I simply said the formula is crap for today's cinema experience.
Intelligence techniques do change, I'm sure the lone agent has his place, but
as GalaBrand points out these days, it's more likely to be a drone, locking on
to a mobile phone signal, then Bang. One less scumbag !
As I mentioned in my previous post, go and watch Homeland S03E01, they managed to make a 40 minute episode based on assassination absolutely gripping.
I guess, I look at the films slightly differently to some, as I understand the script
has to hold together but as far As I'm concerned. It's simply a vehicle to string some
Car chases, fight sequences, stunts and a few jokes together for an entertaining fun
event.
I think this highlights the difference. I want a decent story. You want a script which enables car chases, fight-sequences, stunts and a few jokes. Don't get me wrong, I didn't mind the sarcastic humour in Spectre. That wasn't my quarrel with it. The problem I had with it was it just felt like a catch & mouse chase film, very linear/one-dimensional. Secondly, as mentioned, just turning up to the baddie's location, at the baddies invitation.
Even the best films have plot holes, sometimes they're almost unavoidable. As I love
and enjoy the Bonds, I either over look them, or don't investigate too much. it's like
Having a lovely puppy, who sometimes piddles on the carpet. Sure you're annoyed, but
It doesn't stop You loving him.
Oh come on, there are plot holes and there are PLOT HOLES. Allow me to elaborate on the silliness:
-MI6 don't hold prisoners at Vauxhall Cross
-If they did, the prison cell wouldn't have electronically-controlled gratings, leading to sewers
-The gratings wouldn't be connected to the entire MI6 computer network
-A real Q wouldn't just connect a confiscated machine to the backbone network.
-Dare I ask how the guard, holding a gun, 20 yards from Silva's cell, facing him, was knocked-out?
The entire thing was pure idiocy. And this is me ignoring exploding walls, causing tube trains to fall through etc.
Just my two cents but I don't think Bond is trying to be
realistic, only set in the real world.
Possibly, but my impression is, since CR they marketed the films as being more realistic. Isnt that the reason why the reboot was required, because the formula wasn't compatible with today's audiences?
Sadly oxf77, I think you have your mind made up.
Which of course is fine. You have major problems
with the films, which you can't over look.
I enjoyed it and look forward to Bond 25 -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
What's ironic is to hear someone criticize people wanting a 60s Bond when it's 2015 and pretty much everything from the mid to late 60s is in vogue again -- the hairstyles, the clothes, the mid-century modern furniture and architecture, and even the music stylings. It's all raiding the 60s. Tom Ford's suits are nothing but plagiarism of the fashion of the era. So are women wearing skirts and boots. Craig's Connery-esque qualities are one of the reasons he fits so well as Bond, and the entire animated sequence in Casino Royale -- one of the best in the series' history -- is nothing but a retro tribute to that era. What has changed is that so much now is thin on plot and writing, images look like they came out of videogames, absurd levels of action and story are somehow palatable, and a comic book mentality permeates just about everything. At least films of the 60s aimed a little higher.
and I'm fed up of members (registered for more than a month) who think films made in 2015 should resemble those from the 60s. Your point?
I'll reply to your remarks, but won't bother any further.
Nobody said that 60s films should be verbatim in 2015. but you should show a bit more respect to where the cinematic Bond comes from.
Its not the 70s/80s, its 2015. Besides Only Fools and Horses how many TV programmes from the 70s/80s are still popular? Not much, because TV programmes back then are simply inferior compared with what is offered today. It'd be like playing a game of Minesweeper after spending 5 hours playing Call of Duty (I'm not a massive gamer but hope the analogy is clear).
Bond is not a TV series and is still popular. And it is because it offers an entertainment experience on many levels and not because it follows just one tone
Spectre obviously didn't entertain as much as you think, considering it has an IMDB rating of 7.1 and will probably end-up on 6.9, whereas Casino Royale is still at 8.0.
I judge a movie with my own mind and taste and don't need to rely on internet rankings.
IMDB rankings are important for weak people!
And btw, I like CR better than Spectre
Where did I look down on classic James Bond fans? I simply said the formula is crap for today's cinema experience.
I did not even speak about you there, but as said above, great entertainment offers more than just one element. If they where mainly dedicated to suspense and realism, the franchise would be dead - for decades. Bond is much larger than this!
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I don't think there's anything wrong with calling for better scripts or pointing out the implausibilities -- some quite extreme -- of Skyfall. What audiences are decrying is, in some ways, amounts to wanting some meat with their potatoes. The scripts have been weaker than they should be, but I don't know that that's just a problem with the Bond films. What captures the audience's attention these days is often unimpressive to me, and some biographical trivia in the form of throwaway dialogue mixed with a lot of in-fighting among characters who should be working together is as tired a cliche as the so-called linear story-telling of the past.
They are, but even though I am a capitalist, but not a free-market one, I don't believe in the marketplace determining quality. If so, On Her Majesty's Secret Service would not be considered a classic these days by so many people. As the great Chris Rock once said to the members of the Motion Picture Academy, "Let's be honest. Only a few of you are actors. The rest are just popular." So, it takes a lot more than just ticket sales. Critics are a part of that, and so are academics and audiences, but what ultimately determines artistic success is an amalgam of forces that stand the test of time. That's why it often takes years to adequately decide.
Sadly oxf77, I think you have your mind made up.
Which of course is fine. You have major problems
with the films, which you can't over look.
I enjoyed it and look forward to Bond 25 -{
I am saying you cannot use formulas from the 60s and 70s and expect them to work on audiences 40 years later.
I like the Brosnan films except TND (not sure why I just cannot stand that film).
I love CR, QoS isn't bad, but Skyfall and SP are the biggest disappointments in cinematic history. Skyfall ruined by its second half and SP I can't quite put my finger on it. I think its the fact its just one-dimensional, I dislike the Bond girl and they need to give the "accept invitation to the baddie's lair" approach a knock on the head.
I want Q and Moneypenny , plus cars and certain gadgets, but these should compliment a decent script, not hold the script together.
They are, but even though I am a capitalist, but not a free-market one, I don't believe in the marketplace determining quality. If so, On Her Majesty's Secret Service would not be considered a classic these days by so many people. As the great Chris Rock once said to the members of the Motion Picture Academy, "Let's be honest. Only a few of you are actors. The rest are just popular." So, it takes a lot more than just ticket sales. Critics are a part of that, and so are academics and audiences, but what ultimately determines artistic success is an amalgam of forces that stand the test of time. That's why it often takes years to adequately decide.
Please, don't tempt me to post that gif once more... )
Answering my question would be more-appreciated, if you can answer it?
I shall try, sir!
No, CR was not realistic.
Back in the early Sixties, GN & FRWL must have seemed pretty out there. Now they are among the nearest to 'realism' Bond has ever gotten. While I appreciate the window dressing of so-called realism in genre films, I also want the fantastical, without the need for self-parody. CR registers closer to FRWL than MR certainly, it has its share of moments.
Bottom line, I don't WANT my Bonds to be 'realistic' otherwise I'd watch movies based on le Carre' novels.
As a sidebar, this current CGI-fueled/supported superhero mentality of what a non-Olympian athlete can do and not be killed or disabled is pretty tiresome. Let Spider-man or Captain America fall hundreds of feet & suffer no ill effects, fine, but Bond & Hunt are testing my patience here... )
Please, don't tempt me to post that gif once more... )
Answering my question would be more-appreciated, if you can answer it?
I shall try, sir!
No, CR was not realistic.
Back in the early Sixties, GN & FRWL must have seemed pretty out there. Now they are among the nearest to 'realism' Bond has ever gotten. While I appreciate the window dressing of so-called realism in genre films, I also want the fantastical, without the need for self-parody. CR registers closer to FRWL than MR certainly, it has its share of moments.
Bottom line, I don't WANT my Bonds to be 'realistic' otherwise I'd watch movies based on le Carre' novels.
As a sidebar, this current CGI-fueled/supported superhero mentality of what a non-Olympian athlete can do and not be killed or disabled is pretty tiresome. Let Spider-man or Captain America fall hundreds of feet & suffer no ill effects, fine, but Bond & Hunt are testing my patience here... )
By fantastical, are you referring to escapism? I love escapism, but I dislike silly storylines. All four of Craig's films have had escapism. However, my opinion is the storylines for SF and SP werent good enough.
Then again how realistic is any spy thriller, to be honest some of the
stuff Jason Bourne walks away from, is pretty unbelievable too.
So who knows, if any of us got to talk to a spy, perhaps Bond is very
realistic.
Next people will be telling me some people don't have super powers.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between 'realism' and 'tone.' CR isn't particularly realistic, but its tone is extremely cohesive, which helps disguise the outlandish parts and plot holes (which all Bond films possess, IMO).
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
SP I can't quite put my finger on it. I think its the fact its just one-dimensional, I dislike the Bond girl and they need to give the "accept invitation to the baddie's lair" approach a knock on the head.
The RR coming to pick up Bond was classy IMO .... It is hard to find such moments in a "regular" film. Glad that SP had that. It is moments such as these that make Bond films special -{
If you are trying to find a logical explanation to it, then the film clearly explained the Blofeld-Bond relationship
Comments
Be plenty of young and old geezers out there
1) I don't understand your question? Why would Silva get himself caught at the public hearing?
2) No, I would rather less of this personal/connected crap.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Its not the 70s/80s, its 2015. Besides Only Fools and Horses how many TV programmes from the 70s/80s are still popular? Not much, because TV programmes back then are simply inferior compared with what is offered today. It'd be like playing a game of Minesweeper after spending 5 hours playing Call of Duty (I'm not a massive gamer but hope the analogy is clear).
Spectre obviously didn't entertain as much as you think, considering it has an IMDB rating of 7.1 and will probably end-up on 6.9, whereas Casino Royale is still at 8.0.
I like Moore, I just don't want James Bond films with the silliness/carry-on feel.
Where did I look down on classic James Bond fans? I simply said the formula is crap for today's cinema experience.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
realistic, only set in the real world.
I think this highlights the difference. I want a decent story. You want a script which enables car chases, fight-sequences, stunts and a few jokes. Don't get me wrong, I didn't mind the sarcastic humour in Spectre. That wasn't my quarrel with it. The problem I had with it was it just felt like a catch & mouse chase film, very linear/one-dimensional. Secondly, as mentioned, just turning up to the baddie's location, at the baddies invitation.
Oh come on, there are plot holes and there are PLOT HOLES. Allow me to elaborate on the silliness:
-MI6 don't hold prisoners at Vauxhall Cross
-If they did, the prison cell wouldn't have electronically-controlled gratings, leading to sewers
-The gratings wouldn't be connected to the entire MI6 computer network
-A real Q wouldn't just connect a confiscated machine to the backbone network.
-Dare I ask how the guard, holding a gun, 20 yards from Silva's cell, facing him, was knocked-out?
The entire thing was pure idiocy. And this is me ignoring exploding walls, causing tube trains to fall through etc.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Which of course is fine. You have major problems
with the films, which you can't over look.
I enjoyed it and look forward to Bond 25 -{
I'll reply to your remarks, but won't bother any further.
Nobody said that 60s films should be verbatim in 2015. but you should show a bit more respect to where the cinematic Bond comes from.
Bond is not a TV series and is still popular. And it is because it offers an entertainment experience on many levels and not because it follows just one tone
I judge a movie with my own mind and taste and don't need to rely on internet rankings.
IMDB rankings are important for weak people!
And btw, I like CR better than Spectre
Moore Bonds offered so much more that these newbie stereotypes.
I did not even speak about you there, but as said above, great entertainment offers more than just one element. If they where mainly dedicated to suspense and realism, the franchise would be dead - for decades. Bond is much larger than this!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
CR tried to be realistic, but I found it to be one of the least believable Bond films in terms of character.
SF and SP, business is very,very good. So they
must be pleasing somebody.
I like the Brosnan films except TND (not sure why I just cannot stand that film).
I love CR, QoS isn't bad, but Skyfall and SP are the biggest disappointments in cinematic history. Skyfall ruined by its second half and SP I can't quite put my finger on it. I think its the fact its just one-dimensional, I dislike the Bond girl and they need to give the "accept invitation to the baddie's lair" approach a knock on the head.
I want Q and Moneypenny , plus cars and certain gadgets, but these should compliment a decent script, not hold the script together.
No, CR was not realistic.
Back in the early Sixties, GN & FRWL must have seemed pretty out there. Now they are among the nearest to 'realism' Bond has ever gotten. While I appreciate the window dressing of so-called realism in genre films, I also want the fantastical, without the need for self-parody. CR registers closer to FRWL than MR certainly, it has its share of
Bottom line, I don't WANT my Bonds to be 'realistic' otherwise I'd watch movies based on le Carre' novels.
As a sidebar, this current CGI-fueled/supported superhero mentality of what a non-Olympian athlete can do and not be killed or disabled is pretty tiresome. Let Spider-man or Captain America fall hundreds of feet & suffer no ill effects, fine, but Bond & Hunt are testing my patience here...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
stuff Jason Bourne walks away from, is pretty unbelievable too.
So who knows, if any of us got to talk to a spy, perhaps Bond is very
realistic.
Next people will be telling me some people don't have super powers.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
The RR coming to pick up Bond was classy IMO .... It is hard to find such moments in a "regular" film. Glad that SP had that. It is moments such as these that make Bond films special -{
If you are trying to find a logical explanation to it, then the film clearly explained the Blofeld-Bond relationship
In 2015 I saw SP in the theatre & had fun beyond reason.
Is a little fun too much to ask?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS