it was a film that was made under too much pressure to succeed
Again, I appreciate that you have a different perspective on SF, and the film didn't work for you. But judging from its critical and financial success, I don't understand your comment that I quoted above. True, it obviously didn't succeed with you, but generally speaking it was a success. Is it the best Bond film ever? Not in my opinion, but I enjoyed it quite a bit, as did many others. And that's not just because we were all somehow suckered in by the "flim flam", or because we weren't capable of recognizing certain nuances that you managed to discern. It's because taken as a whole, SF held together well enough and had enough entertaining qualities that many fans, such as myuself, found it to be a solid and enjoyable addition to the Bond film series. I hope the next film is as good or better.
MacDonald's is also popular and makes a lot of money. Do you think that means it's good?
it was a film that was made under too much pressure to succeed
Again, I appreciate that you have a different perspective on SF, and the film didn't work for you. But judging from its critical and financial success, I don't understand your comment that I quoted above. True, it obviously didn't succeed with you, but generally speaking it was a success. Is it the best Bond film ever? Not in my opinion, but I enjoyed it quite a bit, as did many others. And that's not just because we were all somehow suckered in by the "flim flam", or because we weren't capable of recognizing certain nuances that you managed to discern. It's because taken as a whole, SF held together well enough and had enough entertaining qualities that many fans, such as myuself, found it to be a solid and enjoyable addition to the Bond film series. I hope the next film is as good or better.
MacDonald's is also popular and makes a lot of money. Do you think that means it's good?
Look I'm sure we all get it - you truly didn't like it. Just because you're not a fan of SF, that doesn't mean that none of us fans should praise it or deem it a 'worthy' addition to the franchise?? Many, many people people view SF as being a screen success, not just a ££ or $$ success. Likewise there's been other Bond films that some love or others loathe. Nature of the beast & all that.
Besides ... You lost your cred with me after the Steven Seagal reference / comparison a few posts back )
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
it was a film that was made under too much pressure to succeed
Again, I appreciate that you have a different perspective on SF, and the film didn't work for you. But judging from its critical and financial success, I don't understand your comment that I quoted above. True, it obviously didn't succeed with you, but generally speaking it was a success. Is it the best Bond film ever? Not in my opinion, but I enjoyed it quite a bit, as did many others. And that's not just because we were all somehow suckered in by the "flim flam", or because we weren't capable of recognizing certain nuances that you managed to discern. It's because taken as a whole, SF held together well enough and had enough entertaining qualities that many fans, such as myuself, found it to be a solid and enjoyable addition to the Bond film series. I hope the next film is as good or better.
MacDonald's is also popular and makes a lot of money. Do you think that means it's good?
Millions of people obviously think that McDonalds is good - I'm not one of them though - it's SUBJECTIVE....I'm not sure why you can't understand this - are you being obtuse or just thick ?:) Or being argumentative for arguments sake ?
"The only theme I have found in SF are old age and retirement (or put another way, fitness to do the job and general competency). This is the opposite of initiation and it relates to Bond and to M. What bothers me about such themes is that they are not the kind of themes that his character should ever have to confront. Unless its a trend and the next film features the death of Bond. I also don't like the focus being on the hero's issues so much - it feels like the franchise is chewing its own foot off."
There is a theme of finding one's place in an increasingly technological world. There is also a theme of traps. Silva sets a trap for Bond who ends up capturing Silva which is part of Silva's trap. M is trapped by her past as is Silva as is Bond. In the end Bond sets a trap for Silva, but instead gets trapped himself.
I'm surprised that all of this went over your head.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
"The only theme I have found in SF are old age and retirement (or put another way, fitness to do the job and general competency). This is the opposite of initiation and it relates to Bond and to M. What bothers me about such themes is that they are not the kind of themes that his character should ever have to confront. Unless its a trend and the next film features the death of Bond. I also don't like the focus being on the hero's issues so much - it feels like the franchise is chewing its own foot off."
There is a theme of finding one's place in an increasingly technological world. There is also a theme of traps. Silva sets a trap for Bond who ends up capturing Silva which is part of Silva's trap. M is trapped by her past as is Silva as is Bond. In the end Bond sets a trap for Silva, but instead gets trapped himself.
I'm surprised that all of this went over your head.
So you missed the main theme then? It seems quite a few people actually did, which surprises me. It's about betrayal and trust and what M does and how far she goes to protect the UK's interests. Bond too. The fact that Silva and Bond were both on the end of M's harsh decision making is the reason for the film. She made Silva what he was and she made Bond too, except one ends up looking to kill her while the other is out to protect her, despite both thinking they've been utterly betrayed by her. It's about how all of their trust is misjudged or not and about how each character is inextricably linked by that trust and how they individually perceive it that decides what path they take. It was exceptionally well executed and seamless considering what a very difficult storyline it is to portray onscreen in just a couple of hours. Brilliant!
"The only theme I have found in SF are old age and retirement (or put another way, fitness to do the job and general competency). This is the opposite of initiation and it relates to Bond and to M. What bothers me about such themes is that they are not the kind of themes that his character should ever have to confront. Unless its a trend and the next film features the death of Bond. I also don't like the focus being on the hero's issues so much - it feels like the franchise is chewing its own foot off."
There is a theme of finding one's place in an increasingly technological world. There is also a theme of traps. Silva sets a trap for Bond who ends up capturing Silva which is part of Silva's trap. M is trapped by her past as is Silva as is Bond. In the end Bond sets a trap for Silva, but instead gets trapped himself.
I'm surprised that all of this went over your head.
So you missed the main theme then? It seems quite a few people actually did, which surprises me. It's about betrayal and trust and what M does and how far she goes to protect the UK's interests. Bond too. The fact that Silva and Bond were both on the end of M's harsh decision making is the reason for the film. She made Silva what he was and she made Bond too, except one ends up looking to kill her while the other is out to protect her, despite both thinking they've been utterly betrayed by her. It's about how all of their trust is misjudged or not and about how each character is inextricably linked by that trust and how they individually perceive it that decides what path they take. It was exceptionally well executed and seamless considering what a very difficult storyline it is to portray onscreen in just a couple of hours. Brilliant!
The theme of who do you trust and to whom do you owe your loyalty has been present in all of Craig's Bond films. It's actually a lot less important in Skyfall than in CR and QOS (although poorly developed in QOS).
But, hey, if it works for you, have at it.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
"The only theme I have found in SF are old age and retirement (or put another way, fitness to do the job and general competency). This is the opposite of initiation and it relates to Bond and to M. What bothers me about such themes is that they are not the kind of themes that his character should ever have to confront. Unless its a trend and the next film features the death of Bond. I also don't like the focus being on the hero's issues so much - it feels like the franchise is chewing its own foot off."
There is a theme of finding one's place in an increasingly technological world. There is also a theme of traps. Silva sets a trap for Bond who ends up capturing Silva which is part of Silva's trap. M is trapped by her past as is Silva as is Bond. In the end Bond sets a trap for Silva, but instead gets trapped himself.
I'm surprised that all of this went over your head.
So you missed the main theme then? It seems quite a few people actually did, which surprises me. It's about betrayal and trust and what M does and how far she goes to protect the UK's interests. Bond too. The fact that Silva and Bond were both on the end of M's harsh decision making is the reason for the film. She made Silva what he was and she made Bond too, except one ends up looking to kill her while the other is out to protect her, despite both thinking they've been utterly betrayed by her. It's about how all of their trust is misjudged or not and about how each character is inextricably linked by that trust and how they individually perceive it that decides what path they take. It was exceptionally well executed and seamless considering what a very difficult storyline it is to portray onscreen in just a couple of hours. Brilliant!
The theme of who do you trust and to whom do you owe your loyalty has been present in all of Craig's Bond films. It's actually a lot less important in Skyfall than in CR and QOS (although poorly developed in QOS).
But, hey, if it works for you, have at it.
You are kidding aren't you. Virtually every conversation in Skyfall is about trust and betrayal. It's all Silva talks about and it's M's final words.
it was a film that was made under too much pressure to succeed
Again, I appreciate that you have a different perspective on SF, and the film didn't work for you. But judging from its critical and financial success, I don't understand your comment that I quoted above. True, it obviously didn't succeed with you, but generally speaking it was a success. Is it the best Bond film ever? Not in my opinion, but I enjoyed it quite a bit, as did many others. And that's not just because we were all somehow suckered in by the "flim flam", or because we weren't capable of recognizing certain nuances that you managed to discern. It's because taken as a whole, SF held together well enough and had enough entertaining qualities that many fans, such as myuself, found it to be a solid and enjoyable addition to the Bond film series. I hope the next film is as good or better.
MacDonald's is also popular and makes a lot of money. Do you think that means it's good?
To add to this discussion, what irks me about so many Skyfall bashers is that they can't just say they don't like the film and then move on. They have to point to all sorts of "reasons" why it's an inherently, objectively bad film that really fails all Bond standards, and they smugly suggest that the legions of 007 fans and film critics who praise it are blinkered fools who'll one day regret that they like it. I don't particularly like TMWTGG or AVTAK, but I understand those movies have their fans and I say they're entitled to their tastes. Bashers, try focusing on what YOU don't like and what doesn't work for YOU--stop trying to argue that we're just blind to its faults or that you have some inner knowledge that tells you that in 20 years the film will be regarded as Bond's low point. . .
As others have said it all comes down to personal taste. It reminds me of
My mates telling me to avoid the local Korean restuarant as the food was crap.
But I tried the meat balls and they were the Dog's Boll*cks. )
Good or Bad, I can think of no better way of passing a couple of hours, Than watching
some Bond.
( If I can't get my hands on some Booze, hookers and hard drugs )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
It has spectacle and action, glamour and conflict. It has plot flaws alongside iconic moments. It has enough in the way of themes and subtext* to keep we fans arguing for years to come. It has roots in Fleming and looks both forward and backwards.
It was made by people who knew and cared, and still kept an eye on the box office.
It has assured that the series will continue.
*Themes/subtext: my tuppenceworth (or ten cents as the case may be). Loss and maturity- Kincade's reminiscence of young James' reaction on hearing of his parents' death "When he came out he wasn't a boy any more" is central to the film's theme. It's overt that M has replaced his mother, and he has to deal with her death in his childhood home (or close by, anyway) where he had to handle his true mother's death. The film's coda shows that he has coped and has matured.
I've also noticed a tenuous link with Craig's Bond films and the Novels.
(now bear with me, this is very tenuous.)
Casino Royale is pretty close to the Book, so that's fine.
In Flemings second LALD, Bond contemplates Killing Solitaire when he thinks
he can't make an escape. Like the ending in QOS.
With Fleming's third novel Moonraker we have a villain with a new face out for
revenge. In Skyfall we have a returning from the dead Hero ( Name on the memorial wall )
Out for revenge. So I wonder if Craig's fourth Bond film will have some elements of DAF ?
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
Good Lord! This discussion really has taken you round the bend, hasn't it?
We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many?
Well a couple of my favourite Bonds are OHMSS and LTK, both
considered "Failures" at the time. )
I'm a huge LTK fan myself and I love the soft focus cinematography in the opening scene of OHMSS - its so late 60s and always reminds me of Abbey Road and Let It Be.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
Ooo look, DAD was the highest grossing Bond film ever until QoS came long. But hang on, isn't it also considered one of the worst? Hmmm.
What's your point? Neither DAD nor QoS were considered "critical" successes, although they both have their fans. Skyfall, on the other hand, was both a box office smash and widely hailed by critics as a good film. Of course that doesn't mean that critics were unanimous in their praise of SF, nor does it mean the movie should be immune from criticism. But you seem to be implying that defenders of SF are judging the movie solely by the amount of money it made. That's incorrect. No one is trying to convince you that you are wrong for not liking SF - just as those of us who enjoyed it are not wrong for liking it. So are you done yet, or do we have more condenscension and sarcasm to look forward to?
We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many?
When it comes down to it, I'd rather be a Borg than a Dalek. The Borg at least seek out what's new and innovative and adapt to it; while Daleks encounter what's different, immediately brand it as inferior, then shriek at it and try to destroy it.
We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many?
When it comes down to it, I'd rather be a Borg than a Dalek. The Borg at least seek out what's new and innovative and adapt to it; while Daleks encounter what's different, immediately brand it as inferior, then shriek at it and try to destroy it.
As others have said it all comes down to personal taste. It reminds me of
My mates telling me to avoid the local Korean restuarant as the food was crap.
But I tried the meat balls and they were the Dog's Boll*cks. )
Good or Bad, I can think of no better way of passing a couple of hours, Than watching
some Bond.
( If I can't get my hands on some Booze, hookers and hard drugs )
that's because they WERE dog's boll*cks - dog is a korean delicacy.
Comments
MacDonald's is also popular and makes a lot of money. Do you think that means it's good?
Look I'm sure we all get it - you truly didn't like it. Just because you're not a fan of SF, that doesn't mean that none of us fans should praise it or deem it a 'worthy' addition to the franchise?? Many, many people people view SF as being a screen success, not just a ££ or $$ success. Likewise there's been other Bond films that some love or others loathe. Nature of the beast & all that.
Besides ... You lost your cred with me after the Steven Seagal reference / comparison a few posts back
Millions of people obviously think that McDonalds is good - I'm not one of them though - it's SUBJECTIVE....I'm not sure why you can't understand this - are you being obtuse or just thick ?:) Or being argumentative for arguments sake ?
There is a theme of finding one's place in an increasingly technological world. There is also a theme of traps. Silva sets a trap for Bond who ends up capturing Silva which is part of Silva's trap. M is trapped by her past as is Silva as is Bond. In the end Bond sets a trap for Silva, but instead gets trapped himself.
I'm surprised that all of this went over your head.
So you missed the main theme then? It seems quite a few people actually did, which surprises me. It's about betrayal and trust and what M does and how far she goes to protect the UK's interests. Bond too. The fact that Silva and Bond were both on the end of M's harsh decision making is the reason for the film. She made Silva what he was and she made Bond too, except one ends up looking to kill her while the other is out to protect her, despite both thinking they've been utterly betrayed by her. It's about how all of their trust is misjudged or not and about how each character is inextricably linked by that trust and how they individually perceive it that decides what path they take. It was exceptionally well executed and seamless considering what a very difficult storyline it is to portray onscreen in just a couple of hours. Brilliant!
The theme of who do you trust and to whom do you owe your loyalty has been present in all of Craig's Bond films. It's actually a lot less important in Skyfall than in CR and QOS (although poorly developed in QOS).
But, hey, if it works for you, have at it.
You are kidding aren't you. Virtually every conversation in Skyfall is about trust and betrayal. It's all Silva talks about and it's M's final words.
true Dat !
To add to this discussion, what irks me about so many Skyfall bashers is that they can't just say they don't like the film and then move on. They have to point to all sorts of "reasons" why it's an inherently, objectively bad film that really fails all Bond standards, and they smugly suggest that the legions of 007 fans and film critics who praise it are blinkered fools who'll one day regret that they like it. I don't particularly like TMWTGG or AVTAK, but I understand those movies have their fans and I say they're entitled to their tastes. Bashers, try focusing on what YOU don't like and what doesn't work for YOU--stop trying to argue that we're just blind to its faults or that you have some inner knowledge that tells you that in 20 years the film will be regarded as Bond's low point. . .
My mates telling me to avoid the local Korean restuarant as the food was crap.
But I tried the meat balls and they were the Dog's Boll*cks.
Good or Bad, I can think of no better way of passing a couple of hours, Than watching
some Bond.
( If I can't get my hands on some Booze, hookers and hard drugs )
It has spectacle and action, glamour and conflict. It has plot flaws alongside iconic moments. It has enough in the way of themes and subtext* to keep we fans arguing for years to come. It has roots in Fleming and looks both forward and backwards.
It was made by people who knew and cared, and still kept an eye on the box office.
It has assured that the series will continue.
*Themes/subtext: my tuppenceworth (or ten cents as the case may be). Loss and maturity- Kincade's reminiscence of young James' reaction on hearing of his parents' death "When he came out he wasn't a boy any more" is central to the film's theme. It's overt that M has replaced his mother, and he has to deal with her death in his childhood home (or close by, anyway) where he had to handle his true mother's death. The film's coda shows that he has coped and has matured.
(now bear with me, this is very tenuous.)
Casino Royale is pretty close to the Book, so that's fine.
In Flemings second LALD, Bond contemplates Killing Solitaire when he thinks
he can't make an escape. Like the ending in QOS.
With Fleming's third novel Moonraker we have a villain with a new face out for
revenge. In Skyfall we have a returning from the dead Hero ( Name on the memorial wall )
Out for revenge. So I wonder if Craig's fourth Bond film will have some elements of DAF ?
Good Lord! This discussion really has taken you round the bend, hasn't it?
The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many?
" To Slag Off Skyfall, Is not Logical Captain."
Ooo look, DAD was the highest grossing Bond film ever until QoS came long. But hang on, isn't it also considered one of the worst? Hmmm.
And am I going blind or did CR make less money! OMG! I guess I was wrong in thinking its a much better film than DAD.
considered "Failures" at the time.
I'm a huge LTK fan myself and I love the soft focus cinematography in the opening scene of OHMSS - its so late 60s and always reminds me of Abbey Road and Let It Be.
Sarcasm ! Fantastic - you've totally won me over with your brilliant insight 8-)
Reasons, dear boy, REASONS as to why you didn't like it....that's if you have any
What's your point? Neither DAD nor QoS were considered "critical" successes, although they both have their fans. Skyfall, on the other hand, was both a box office smash and widely hailed by critics as a good film. Of course that doesn't mean that critics were unanimous in their praise of SF, nor does it mean the movie should be immune from criticism. But you seem to be implying that defenders of SF are judging the movie solely by the amount of money it made. That's incorrect. No one is trying to convince you that you are wrong for not liking SF - just as those of us who enjoyed it are not wrong for liking it. So are you done yet, or do we have more condenscension and sarcasm to look forward to?
When it comes down to it, I'd rather be a Borg than a Dalek. The Borg at least seek out what's new and innovative and adapt to it; while Daleks encounter what's different, immediately brand it as inferior, then shriek at it and try to destroy it.
( I know they can levitate, Before any DR Who fans start complaining
Roger Moore 1927-2017
EXTERMINATE BAD FILMS! EXTERMINATE!
that's because they WERE dog's boll*cks - dog is a korean delicacy.