Well fair enough, but it was never a thing with the Bond movies really. As Moore commented, the problem with Bond is that he's always the same at the end of the movie as he is at the beginning. But that was what made him Bond; he is unchanged but his circumstances are unchained. It's an iconic thing, pitching a top fella against different odds.
And just as well, in a way, as if Bond changed every time he's in a film he would grow to be unrecognisable (though as different actors have played him this sort of happens anyway).
Usually movies in which a lead character changes are one-offs. The coming-of-age tale being the prime example. It's quite hard imo for these superhero films to get going after you've seen the emergence of the superhero, the implication is the story is over. Superman: The Movie is it for me, the others just don't quite work, and no one wanted a sequel to American Graffiti or Dirty Dancing or Grease, either.
The M dying this was a big deal, any survival would be seen as a copout and less of a box office draw. For me it stinks though, simply to have Bond take M to his old home without even having visited in years, with no back-up, but others have said this or disagreed with it.
Likewise I think Silva is meant to represent the way the colonies regard the Empire, the UK in particular, in his sense of betrayal. It's the UK's chickens coming home to roost.
And the chase on the train tops in the pts is meant to mirror that along the Tube train in London, but it doesn't quite work cos in the original scene, set in India, I believe it would have been more exciting as the two assailants would have been fighting among (stereotyped) natives clinging to the tops of the trains, so I understand, making it less of an Octopussy rerun.
I see your point about an unchanging character vs. having one going through a trial by fire arc to come out evolved at the end works better in single films that have not sequals.
Moore was correct about Bond not changing in the pre-booted series. It's another reason why Connery, Lazenby and Moore only played him as the smug, gun toting playboy spy. The films were not meant to show him evolve as a real character though his career. They were just graphic novel spectacles to entertain the audience. It's why OHMSS stands out..
Lazenby actually gets to play Bond dealing with his life outside his career.
It's another reason audiences that had been used to the ends of the Connery films - showing him ending up in the arms of the heroine in the final frame was the way the producer's maintained the character's coolness and charm.
Now the reboot threw that whole scenario out and tried to bring back the actual character from the novels, who really did have a life outside his job and who really did feel pain and suffered trauma and used drugs (alcohol/tobacco) and sex and living well to combat the pts he got from his missions. It took them three films to shed the trappings of the EON series and show Bond evolve from a new 00 to a worn out spy to a new "resurrected" Bond.
With Craig doing at least two or three more, I've a feeling they are going to go back to the older formula by just showing him on missions with a lighter tone and less character and ending up with the heroine. I think they'll still put in moments that show how the mission effects his character, but I think it won't be done as often and will be in a more subtle way. Since Craig has done the arc and he's settled in we'll probably see something more along the lines of FRWL/DN/OHMSS. I don't foresee him doing anything on the spectacle level of TB/YOLT/TSWLM, however.
I agree more of the old formula seems to be coming back as the movies
continue. As NP pointed out we'll still have scripts in which Bond learns a
lesson or grows as a character.
I also think the days of the huge spectular Bond movie like YOLT / TSWLM
are over. They are now just too expensive to make.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I loved the shanghai scenes but my personnal favourite scene was when Berenice malohe was standing stock still staring right at James after the sniper was killed
Yes, in a way the 60s and 70s had mock-narcissisim, but it came close to the real thing too often enough. Sex was used as a joke, a punchline, a happy finale but now it seems a bit trite and free love isn't around so much, I mean it seemed a bit veiled back then but now it would seem a bit porny to see a man and woman get it on in the context of an action adventure, odd really.
But I also think it helped that - get this - for 60s Bond was a young guy, in his 30s or even 29 in Lazenby's case, so his onwards and upwards approach made sense. Bond just hasn't been that young ever since, even Craig was 38 or so in his debut, so it's been harder to convey that honest youthful lust without it looking a bit silly or lecherous.
Since Craig has done the arc and he's settled in we'll probably see something more along the lines of FRWL/DN/OHMSS. I don't foresee him doing anything on the spectacle level of TB/YOLT/TSWLM, however.
I dunno, there were probably almost as many extras used for Alec Trevelyan's Cuban satellite facility, Elliot Carver's stealth ship, and Colonel Moon's quasi-private military compound. The Daniel Craig era films, although comparatively grounded next to the movies directed by Lewis Gilbert, still features many dozens of extras walking around surprisingly massive and elaborate sets (the Skyfall estate battle alone featured two dozen guys fighting Bond around a large fake house that was built from the ground up by the production crew).
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
Since Craig has done the arc and he's settled in we'll probably see something more along the lines of FRWL/DN/OHMSS. I don't foresee him doing anything on the spectacle level of TB/YOLT/TSWLM, however.
I dunno, there were probably almost as many extras used for Alec Trevelyan's Cuban satellite facility, Elliot Carver's stealth ship, and Colonel Moon's quasi-private military compound. The Daniel Craig era films, although comparatively grounded next to the movies directed by Lewis Gilbert, still features many dozens of extras walking around surprisingly massive and elaborate sets (the Skyfall estate battle alone featured two dozen guys fighting Bond around a large fake house that was built from the ground up by the production crew).
True...and to me that was one of the ways they were keeping part of the old iconic formula in for nostagia sake, which means always having a large, explosive third act involving large sets and many extras. It still thrills audiences to see Bond take on a small army and defeat them, no matter what the plot is about.
However, I found it still scaled back quite a bit from the old days. In the first film, Connery was running through Crab Key amidst the chaos, but he only slugged his way through a few staff on his way in the climax. They threw in the boat chase in FRWL for spectacle, but even then there were only a small fleet of craft. It really grew in size with GF with the Ft. Knox attack, then kept getting larger with TB and finally YOLT. May of the other climaxes after that were more or less repeats of YOLT with Bond and or his allies fighting off large cadres of disposable goons.
In CR, Craig only combats a few men inside the sinking palazzo. The climax in QOS has him shooting his way through the complex, but he still only really encounters a small number of goons and ends up one on one with the villain. It didn't seem to me Skyfall went beyond that.
Will they do another future climax which would involve him outdoing a small army as they used to (with or without help) in the pre-booted era? Will have to wait and see.
I watched Gary Oldmans tinker tailor soldier spy last night and as spy thrillers goes that is up there
with the best ,yes sky fall is a great film , but I think it lacks certain qualities of good old fashioned
intelligence work ,something that TTSS has, oh how I miss those days of big wipe clean boards
with photos stuck on with blue tac and lots of felt tip arrows joining people up ,but that would be boring
in a Bond film after all
I enjoyed it more than Quantum of Solace but not as much as Casino Royale, at least on first viewing. It doesn't hold up as well for me on repeated viewings, however. It's a little closer in ways to a traditional Bond film, but it feels even more derivative of other films, like The Dark Knight and Straw Dogs, and I'm not sure the action sequences quite measure up even to those in Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace, for its dour tone and frenetic editing, seemed to be filmed better, and I'm a huge fan of Roger Deakins. Casino Royale still resonates more.
I enjoyed it more than Quantum of Solace but not as much as Casino Royale, at least on first viewing. It doesn't hold up as well for me on repeated viewings, however. It's a little closer in ways to a traditional Bond film, but it feels even more derivative of other films, like The Dark Knight and Straw Dogs, and I'm not sure the action sequences quite measure up even to those in Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace, for its dour tone and frenetic editing, seemed to be filmed better, and I'm a huge fan of Roger Deakins. Casino Royale still resonates more.
Casino Royale was better in my opinion too.
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
It's interesting to observe when this thread started, it was in the context of many negative pans on SF in several other, then-current threads and posts. In light of that, sorry, but the title of this thread "Despite it all, Skyfall is still a great movie," seems a trite consolatory for the more ardent SF fans because of the realization that some do not think that SF was perfect. Similarly, since the release of CR up to now, on this board and many other different interest boards I visit, I am surprised to see how many Craig/CR/QoS/SF fans are flabergasted with the realization that there are people who don't fully share their enthusiasm, as if these people are seriously sensory-impaired. Why is that?
I think in some cases it's a person's ego that dictates, "if I think it's cool, the rest of the world must also think it's cool, if box office is proof of that." A coworker of mine once wondered why others couldn't appreciate Titanic as much as he did, evidenced of course that it held the box office record at that time, but his qualm isn't as widespread as that of the avid Craig/CR/QoS/SF fans. Again, why is that? I've gotten used to responses like, "Craig is the best Bond ever, get over it... " to which all I can say is, "get a grip...Daniel "
"...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.....
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
In a part response to the above post...
I'm not bothered if others like/dislike DC and his three films (so far)...what I object to is people saying they hate it/them, but then can give no real reason for doing so other than insults...and the attitude that accompanies these posts is horrendous...some ONLY post to invoke inflammatory responses...and that's childish...their 'attitude' is its crap because I say it is - you are just too stupid to see that....and I object to that too...
Some even believe that AJB has an agenda that DC, et al. cannot be criticised....which is total rubbish...we (I'd) just prefer a reasonable debate about it, not the personal insults that some think are acceptable....
I'm not bothered if others like/dislike DC and his three films (so far)...what I object to is people saying they hate it/them, but then can give no real reason for doing so other than insults...and the attitude that accompanies these posts is horrendous...some ONLY post to invoke inflammatory responses...and that's childish...their 'attitude' is its crap because I say it is - you are just too stupid to see that....and I object to that too...
Some even believe that AJB has an agenda that DC, et al. cannot be criticised....which is total rubbish...we (I'd) just prefer a reasonable debate about it, not the personal insults that some think are acceptable....
Yesterday I got Leonard Maltin's 2014 movie guide, and of course I went right to his entry for Skyfall. Maltin is pretty hard on recent blockbusters and on post-1960s Bond films, with his average ranking being 2 1/2 stars. So I nearly had to pick up my jaw when I saw that Maltin awarded Skyfall his highest ranking: four stars. This is his ranking for cinematic classics, and he rarely gives this to contemporary films: Lincoln and Argo, for instance, were both awarded a somewhat cautious 3 1/2 stars. He praises the film for its reinvisioning of the Bond character and his universe, the performances, and for hitting all the right notes of action, suspense, and humor.
Well, I was ready to post this news to AJB, but then I thought, why bother? It's just going to be followed by the usual crap: "Skyfall--the most overrated film in Bond history," "Yet another sheep following the flock," "Someone else who sold his soul to Barbara Broccoli," etc., etc. The negativity really is discouraging and--as Sir Miles says--so often it's on the level of "It sucks because I say so" jacked up to extremes. Not to paint with too broad a brush, I think superado has always been a gentleman when expressing his disagreement, and he has offered reasons why the film isn't one of his favorites; but he's really a minority. I found myself wondering where all this anger, hatred, and vitriol toward the film comes from; and I've come up with two classes: Bond Defensives and Bond Fundamentalists. Let me explain them:
If you are a Bond Defensive, you are someone who honestly went into Skyfall hoping for the best, or with at least a neutral attitude. Maybe you're skeptical about Craig and the direction of the series starting with CR, but you're not someone who has been endlessly bashing Craig and you really want every Bond film to be good. Well, you watched the film, and. . .you didn't like it. Or you were disappointed or underwhelmed. At any rate, it wasn't the film you wanted or expected. Then you look at the reviews and you go through the Bond websites, and everyone--critics and fans alike--are saying it's not just a great Bond film, it's a great movie, period. "What the hell?" you think. "Did they see the same movie I did?" You see the praise continue--you see the box office burst at the seams--you even hear talk of serious awards and nominations, and not just in technical categories. You're starting to feel like that one person who hates chocolate. So you go see the film again, and, dammit, you STILL don't like it.
Well, what are you to do? You're on AJB every day and everyone is going on and on about how this mediocre movie is a masterpiece, and you start to feel defensive and angry. You try to argue against the movie, but your one comment gets ten comments telling you you're wrong. But you know you're not: you didn't like the film and that's that. But this is a lonely argument to make. You feel naked. What can you argue now but that a lot of movies made fortunes in their time and now they're forgotten? That the majority is not always right--in fact it's very often as wrong as you can get? That Skyfall's legion of admirers are just empty-minded fools who don't have the creativity or critical acumen to look at the film objectively and are just going along with the herd? So these are the points you begin to argue. Perhaps time will prove you right and, in another 20 years, SF will be "just another Bond film." But maybe one day you will watch it again and say (as I did a few years ago with Moonraker, a film I considered the series's worst), "You know, it's got its moments."
Now, the Bond Fundamentalist is a more hopeless case. If you are a Bond Fundamentalist, you believe you are in possession of the One True Interpretation of James Bond. Perhaps you find that interpretation in the works of Ian Fleming, or, more particularly in A work of Ian Fleming. You are like a preacher facing his flock: "Yea, verily, brothers and sisters, turn to the Third Book of Goldfinger, Chapter Third, Paragraph Twelve; there ye shall find the true and only nature of James Bond, as spelled out by the Divine Ian, all praise his name!" Or you find the True Bond to be in one particular actor, be it Connery or Moore or Brosnan or Dalton (but hardly ever Lazenby). Whichever, when you find that the new Bond film deviates from your One True Interpretation, you must unleash hellfire and damnation! You must condemn the Brazen Broccoli and the Usurper Craig! You must threaten their followers with all the anguish and pain of the flame that endures but never consumes! You hear their catcalls and their mocking, but you know that you--often you alone--know the truth, and that in the end there will be great weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth as you sit in blissful paradise with Ian Fleming and Sean Connery (assuming he wasn't too big of a heretic).
Easily the strangest of the fundamentalists is our friend Richard--W, who actually claims as his One True Interpretation the original screenplays of Richard Maibaum, which the rest of us have never seen and which doubtlessly will never be published. His Fundamentalism is an entirely original one, as the rest of us have no access to Richard's Truth. But at least we'll all be together as we burn up in the eternal pit.
So there you have it: my view on why Skyfall bashers are so angry and why they take this film so much to heart. So be compassionate, friends: when Bond 24 comes out you too may be Defensive, and you could be just one step away from becoming a Fundamentalist.
There's a third category of Bond "fan". That's the person who thinks many of the films are crap but likes them because (according to them) they are crap. "They're entertainment." "They're not to be taken seriously." "It's (fill in the blank) a good film as far as Bond films go." They don't like the Craig films because "They're too serious." "They're no fun." "Taking Bond seriously as a character is pretentious." It usually goes hand-in-hand with the criticism "It's not really a Bond film." Then they find some minor plot hole (real or imagined) in a movie like Skyfall and beat it to death, with the suggestion that no Bond film should ever be taken seriously because they're all just fantasy anyway and nothing is supposed to really make any sense in a real world way and this minor plot hole just goes to prove it.
Finally, the criticism that really drives me nuts is "It's a good film, but it's not a good Bond film." Presumably, there weren't enough gadgets or the Bond Girl's breasts weren't quite large enough or the singer of the theme song didn't sound quite enough like Shirley Bassey or some other failing that applies only to "Bond films."
) -{
Some great posts, and I find myself in agreement .
I used to be quite obnoxious in my attacks on QOS, untill
I calmed down a bit, even starting a thread to hopefully
point some other members to a better place. )
I thought Skyfall was great almost another reboot, Bond is cool
again, back on top. I can't wait to see what he does next. :007)
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Yesterday I got Leonard Maltin's 2014 movie guide, and of course I went right to his entry for Skyfall. Maltin is pretty hard on recent blockbusters and on post-1960s Bond films, with his average ranking being 2 1/2 stars. So I nearly had to pick up my jaw when I saw that Maltin awarded Skyfall his highest ranking: four stars. This is his ranking for cinematic classics, and he rarely gives this to contemporary films: Lincoln and Argo, for instance, were both awarded a somewhat cautious 3 1/2 stars. He praises the film for its reinvisioning of the Bond character and his universe, the performances, and for hitting all the right notes of action, suspense, and humor.
Well, I was ready to post this news to AJB, but then I thought, why bother? It's just going to be followed by the usual crap: "Skyfall--the most overrated film in Bond history," "Yet another sheep following the flock," "Someone else who sold his soul to Barbara Broccoli," etc., etc. The negativity really is discouraging and--as Sir Miles says--so often it's on the level of "It sucks because I say so" jacked up to extremes. Not to paint with too broad a brush, I think superado has always been a gentleman when expressing his disagreement, and he has offered reasons why the film isn't one of his favorites; but he's really a minority. I found myself wondering where all this anger, hatred, and vitriol toward the film comes from; and I've come up with two classes: Bond Defensives and Bond Fundamentalists. Let me explain them:
If you are a Bond Defensive, you are someone who honestly went into Skyfall hoping for the best, or with at least a neutral attitude. Maybe you're skeptical about Craig and the direction of the series starting with CR, but you're not someone who has been endlessly bashing Craig and you really want every Bond film to be good. Well, you watched the film, and. . .you didn't like it. Or you were disappointed or underwhelmed. At any rate, it wasn't the film you wanted or expected. Then you look at the reviews and you go through the Bond websites, and everyone--critics and fans alike--are saying it's not just a great Bond film, it's a great movie, period. "What the hell?" you think. "Did they see the same movie I did?" You see the praise continue--you see the box office burst at the seams--you even hear talk of serious awards and nominations, and not just in technical categories. You're starting to feel like that one person who hates chocolate. So you go see the film again, and, dammit, you STILL don't like it.
Well, what are you to do? You're on AJB every day and everyone is going on and on about how this mediocre movie is a masterpiece, and you start to feel defensive and angry. You try to argue against the movie, but your one comment gets ten comments telling you you're wrong. But you know you're not: you didn't like the film and that's that. But this is a lonely argument to make. You feel naked. What can you argue now but that a lot of movies made fortunes in their time and now they're forgotten? That the majority is not always right--in fact it's very often as wrong as you can get? That Skyfall's legion of admirers are just empty-minded fools who don't have the creativity or critical acumen to look at the film objectively and are just going along with the herd? So these are the points you begin to argue. Perhaps time will prove you right and, in another 20 years, SF will be "just another Bond film." But maybe one day you will watch it again and say (as I did a few years ago with Moonraker, a film I considered the series's worst), "You know, it's got its moments."
Now, the Bond Fundamentalist is a more hopeless case. If you are a Bond Fundamentalist, you believe you are in possession of the One True Interpretation of James Bond. Perhaps you find that interpretation in the works of Ian Fleming, or, more particularly in A work of Ian Fleming. You are like a preacher facing his flock: "Yea, verily, brothers and sisters, turn to the Third Book of Goldfinger, Chapter Third, Paragraph Twelve; there ye shall find the true and only nature of James Bond, as spelled out by the Divine Ian, all praise his name!" Or you find the True Bond to be in one particular actor, be it Connery or Moore or Brosnan or Dalton (but hardly ever Lazenby). Whichever, when you find that the new Bond film deviates from your One True Interpretation, you must unleash hellfire and damnation! You must condemn the Brazen Broccoli and the Usurper Craig! You must threaten their followers with all the anguish and pain of the flame that endures but never consumes! You hear their catcalls and their mocking, but you know that you--often you alone--know the truth, and that in the end there will be great weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth as you sit in blissful paradise with Ian Fleming and Sean Connery (assuming he wasn't too big of a heretic).
Easily the strangest of the fundamentalists is our friend Richard--W, who actually claims as his One True Interpretation the original screenplays of Richard Maibaum, which the rest of us have never seen and which doubtlessly will never be published. His Fundamentalism is an entirely original one, as the rest of us have no access to Richard's Truth. But at least we'll all be together as we burn up in the eternal pit.
So there you have it: my view on why Skyfall bashers are so angry and why they take this film so much to heart. So be compassionate, friends: when Bond 24 comes out you too may be Defensive, and you could be just one step away from becoming a Fundamentalist.
How about a Bond Actualist...they love the movies because they are Bond...but can see the positives AND the negatives. But overall, they will always be on the side of 'defending' it, if a non Bond fan disses it.
There are Bond movies I love, and Bond movies I dislike...and I only dislike it because I'm a fan, and in my opinion could have been better if 'this or that' were changed/removed/re-cast, BUT still will watch just because it's a Bond movie. They see the film's for what they are....warts and all...but are realists when it comes to obvious flaws.
A rather rare breed I feel.....
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
Bond grinned. He couldn't help it. M's occasional outbursts of rage were so splendid. (DN, Ch. 3)
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Leave a post and come back a few days later…
In reference to the posts since my last one on this thread, for the most part, that is what I’m talking about. Have a less than glowing opinion of SF/QoS/CR/Craig and you risk get picked apart, short of getting lobotomized. Are my reasoning abilities any less? Are my points and arguments only worth a good double flush and a lit match?
There's a third category of Bond "fan". That's the person who thinks many of the films are crap but likes them because (according to them) they are crap. "They're entertainment." "They're not to be taken seriously." "It's (fill in the blank) a good film as far as Bond films go." They don't like the Craig films because "They're too serious." "They're no fun." "Taking Bond seriously as a character is pretentious." It usually goes hand-in-hand with the criticism "It's not really a Bond film." Then they find some minor plot hole (real or imagined) in a movie like Skyfall and beat it to death, with the suggestion that no Bond film should ever be taken seriously because they're all just fantasy anyway and nothing is supposed to really make any sense in a real world way and this minor plot hole just goes to prove it.
Finally, the criticism that really drives me nuts is "It's a good film, but it's not a good Bond film." Presumably, there weren't enough gadgets or the Bond Girl's breasts weren't quite large enough or the singer of the theme song didn't sound quite enough like Shirley Bassey or some other failing that applies only to "Bond films."
When did it become a crime to think that SF is only a "good," but not great Bond film. My response is not mea culpa to belonging in this "third category of Bond fans," but I just wanted to give an example of how judgement is typically passed on people who give "less than glowing reviews of SF/QoS/CR/Craig," so please allow me my own bit of diagnosis and sweeping generalizations; with a serious lack of objectivity, the Craig devotee enters the discussion with the pre-loaded assumption that the non-Craig films are "crap" when compared of course with "the more serious" Craig films...am I wrong?
In defense of this "third category of Bond fans," sometimes, the prevailing opinion is so powerful that one would be considered out of touch or out of his/her mind if they don't reluctantly concede that the non-Craig films are "crap" in comparision with the "more serious" Craig films. Backed with the prevailing opinion, it can't get any easier to get clinks and high-fives all around to the shame of the dissenting opinion holder.
As far as the allegedly false AJB board agenda of staunchly promoting SF/QoS/CR/Craig sentiments, where then are the board leaders when dissenters are panned and ridiculed by the more troll-like SF/QoS/CR/Craig supporters like it were hunting season? Again, I will press it here, why does it bother the ardent fans that those who aren't as enthusiastic as them may actually exist?
"...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.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Yesterday I got Leonard Maltin's 2014 movie guide, and of course I went right to his entry for Skyfall. Maltin is pretty hard on recent blockbusters and on post-1960s Bond films, with his average ranking being 2 1/2 stars. So I nearly had to pick up my jaw when I saw that Maltin awarded Skyfall his highest ranking: four stars. This is his ranking for cinematic classics, and he rarely gives this to contemporary films: Lincoln and Argo, for instance, were both awarded a somewhat cautious 3 1/2 stars. He praises the film for its reinvisioning of the Bond character and his universe, the performances, and for hitting all the right notes of action, suspense, and humor.
Hmm, I guess the argument can go both ways, or even more than two ways. Lincoln and Argo won Oscars arguably for the more critical categories (Best Actor, Best Movie, vs. Best Music), but then again, one can argue the validity of the Academy vs. that of one Leonard Maltin. Who makes up the Academy? Are they more or less qualified than LM to critique SF? At a different level, how do people here feel about what is said about a Bond by a credentialed film critic whose interest in Bond may not likely be more than a reasonable, general appreciation and understanding of the Bond series (let alone the novels, and the whole of the Bond mythos)? I myself am a film enthusiast and will often turn to the experts to see what they have to say, particularly if a certain movie is a classic or of the arthouse variety. But with Bond films, quite frankly I give little stock in what the most reputable critics have to say and will defer to the collective expertise to the fans like the ones on this board.
"...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.....
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
As far as the allegedly false AJB board agenda of staunchly promoting SF/QoS/CR/Craig sentiments, where then are the board leaders when dissenters are panned and ridiculed by the more troll-like SF/QoS/CR/Craig supporters like it were hunting season? Again, I will press it here, why does it bother the ardent fans that those who aren't as enthusiastic as them may actually exist?
Nothing 'alleged' about it...it doesn't exist.
If you can give me some examples of these "panned and ridiculed" posts that the "dissenters" have had please...
As I've said...I don't care if you like the films or not...but IF people are going to criticise them then I expect more than just 'his hair colour', 'he looks like a potato', etc...
There's a third category of Bond "fan". That's the person who thinks many of the films are crap but likes them because (according to them) they are crap. "They're entertainment." "They're not to be taken seriously." "It's (fill in the blank) a good film as far as Bond films go." They don't like the Craig films because "They're too serious." "They're no fun." "Taking Bond seriously as a character is pretentious." It usually goes hand-in-hand with the criticism "It's not really a Bond film." Then they find some minor plot hole (real or imagined) in a movie like Skyfall and beat it to death, with the suggestion that no Bond film should ever be taken seriously because they're all just fantasy anyway and nothing is supposed to really make any sense in a real world way and this minor plot hole just goes to prove it.
Finally, the criticism that really drives me nuts is "It's a good film, but it's not a good Bond film." Presumably, there weren't enough gadgets or the Bond Girl's breasts weren't quite large enough or the singer of the theme song didn't sound quite enough like Shirley Bassey or some other failing that applies only to "Bond films."
As I've said...I don't care if you like the films or not...but IF people are going to criticise them then I expect more than just 'his hair colour', 'he looks like a potato', etc...
Spot on Sir Miles. You forgot to include the "his suit was too tight" & "there's no way that a Secret Service Agent would wear Tom Ford" brigade.
I also still can't get my head around the fact that there's plenty on the boards who have stated that they were actually going to walk out of the film when the gun barrel sequence wasn't placed at the start. I honestly can't get to grips with that.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
I also still can't get my head around the fact that there's plenty on the boards who have stated that they were actually going to walk out of the film when the gun barrel sequence wasn't placed at the start. I honestly can't get to grips with that.
Don't forgot those that said they wouldn't even see it for that very reason )
I also still can't get my head around the fact that there's plenty on the boards who have stated that they were actually going to walk out of the film when the gun barrel sequence wasn't placed at the start. I honestly can't get to grips with that.
Don't forgot those that said they wouldn't even see it for that very reason )
Good point {[]
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,754Chief of Staff
I also still can't get my head around the fact that there's plenty on the boards who have stated that they were actually going to walk out of the film when the gun barrel sequence wasn't placed at the start. I honestly can't get to grips with that.
Don't forgot those that said they wouldn't even see it for that very reason )
Which is so true !
Whether people like the films or not - it isn't going to spoil my fun and enjoyment of them...but I would pay more attention to a well reasoned post from someone that didn't rely on the points I mentioned before...
There was also a few pages about the 'Severene death scene', which seems to have caused controversy for some...I'm happy with the scene as it is....and I perfectly understand what the scene is about and how it was played...now some don't agree and see it a totally different way...which is fine...but just because I don't agree with their view, it doesn't make me wrong...neither does it make them wrong...its all about perspective and then being able to debate that...and sometimes its just better to move on )
Even though my evaluation of the films is based on how much they keep the spirit of Fleming and Bond in their narrative, it does not prevent me from enjoying the entries that deviate from it or lack it almost entirely. I may nitpick at EON for putting Bond in fashionable Italian suits or
for selling it's soul in the past for box office returns, but if they stopped making them, I'd feel like an old friend had died. We can debate the merits or weaknesses of the different aspects of the films, but we should never devalue the criticisms of others, unless they are devaluing others themselves or being just outright nasty or snobbish.I thoroughly enjoy all the posts and have learned many aspects of the books and films I either had forgotten or had been mistaken about. It's a very enjoyable educational as well as entertaining experience for me.
In reference to the posts since my last one on this thread, for the most part, that is what I’m talking about. Have a less than glowing opinion of SF/QoS/CR/Craig and you risk get picked apart, short of getting lobotomized. Are my reasoning abilities any less? Are my points and arguments only worth a good double flush and a lit match?
There's a third category of Bond "fan". That's the person who thinks many of the films are crap but likes them because (according to them) they are crap. "They're entertainment." "They're not to be taken seriously." "It's (fill in the blank) a good film as far as Bond films go." They don't like the Craig films because "They're too serious." "They're no fun." "Taking Bond seriously as a character is pretentious." It usually goes hand-in-hand with the criticism "It's not really a Bond film." Then they find some minor plot hole (real or imagined) in a movie like Skyfall and beat it to death, with the suggestion that no Bond film should ever be taken seriously because they're all just fantasy anyway and nothing is supposed to really make any sense in a real world way and this minor plot hole just goes to prove it.
Finally, the criticism that really drives me nuts is "It's a good film, but it's not a good Bond film." Presumably, there weren't enough gadgets or the Bond Girl's breasts weren't quite large enough or the singer of the theme song didn't sound quite enough like Shirley Bassey or some other failing that applies only to "Bond films."
When did it become a crime to think that SF is only a "good," but not great Bond film. My response is not mea culpa to belonging in this "third category of Bond fans," but I just wanted to give an example of how judgement is typically passed on people who give "less than glowing reviews of SF/QoS/CR/Craig," so please allow me my own bit of diagnosis and sweeping generalizations; with a serious lack of objectivity, the Craig devotee enters the discussion with the pre-loaded assumption that the non-Craig films are "crap" when compared of course with "the more serious" Craig films...am I wrong?
In defense of this "third category of Bond fans," sometimes, the prevailing opinion is so powerful that one would be considered out of touch or out of his/her mind if they don't reluctantly concede that the non-Craig films are "crap" in comparision with the "more serious" Craig films. Backed with the prevailing opinion, it can't get any easier to get clinks and high-fives all around to the shame of the dissenting opinion holder.
As far as the allegedly false AJB board agenda of staunchly promoting SF/QoS/CR/Craig sentiments, where then are the board leaders when dissenters are panned and ridiculed by the more troll-like SF/QoS/CR/Craig supporters like it were hunting season? Again, I will press it here, why does it bother the ardent fans that those who aren't as enthusiastic as them may actually exist?
In my opinion, DN, FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TLD, LTK, CR, and SF are all good to very good movies. Most of the Moore and Brosnan era are crap.
But that's not important. That's my opinion, although, I think, a well-informed one.
My point was that Bond films should be judged the same way other films are judged. The script, the acting, the direction, the cinematography, etc. Instead, many Bond "fans" take a condescending attitude toward the films and judge them on the criteria like those in my original post because, I suppose, they can't be judged the way real films are judged. Bond films are films and should be judged the same way all films are judged.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
Comments
I see your point about an unchanging character vs. having one going through a trial by fire arc to come out evolved at the end works better in single films that have not sequals.
Moore was correct about Bond not changing in the pre-booted series. It's another reason why Connery, Lazenby and Moore only played him as the smug, gun toting playboy spy. The films were not meant to show him evolve as a real character though his career. They were just graphic novel spectacles to entertain the audience. It's why OHMSS stands out..
Lazenby actually gets to play Bond dealing with his life outside his career.
It's another reason audiences that had been used to the ends of the Connery films - showing him ending up in the arms of the heroine in the final frame was the way the producer's maintained the character's coolness and charm.
Now the reboot threw that whole scenario out and tried to bring back the actual character from the novels, who really did have a life outside his job and who really did feel pain and suffered trauma and used drugs (alcohol/tobacco) and sex and living well to combat the pts he got from his missions. It took them three films to shed the trappings of the EON series and show Bond evolve from a new 00 to a worn out spy to a new "resurrected" Bond.
With Craig doing at least two or three more, I've a feeling they are going to go back to the older formula by just showing him on missions with a lighter tone and less character and ending up with the heroine. I think they'll still put in moments that show how the mission effects his character, but I think it won't be done as often and will be in a more subtle way. Since Craig has done the arc and he's settled in we'll probably see something more along the lines of FRWL/DN/OHMSS. I don't foresee him doing anything on the spectacle level of TB/YOLT/TSWLM, however.
continue. As NP pointed out we'll still have scripts in which Bond learns a
lesson or grows as a character.
I also think the days of the huge spectular Bond movie like YOLT / TSWLM
are over. They are now just too expensive to make.
But I also think it helped that - get this - for 60s Bond was a young guy, in his 30s or even 29 in Lazenby's case, so his onwards and upwards approach made sense. Bond just hasn't been that young ever since, even Craig was 38 or so in his debut, so it's been harder to convey that honest youthful lust without it looking a bit silly or lecherous.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I dunno, there were probably almost as many extras used for Alec Trevelyan's Cuban satellite facility, Elliot Carver's stealth ship, and Colonel Moon's quasi-private military compound. The Daniel Craig era films, although comparatively grounded next to the movies directed by Lewis Gilbert, still features many dozens of extras walking around surprisingly massive and elaborate sets (the Skyfall estate battle alone featured two dozen guys fighting Bond around a large fake house that was built from the ground up by the production crew).
True...and to me that was one of the ways they were keeping part of the old iconic formula in for nostagia sake, which means always having a large, explosive third act involving large sets and many extras. It still thrills audiences to see Bond take on a small army and defeat them, no matter what the plot is about.
However, I found it still scaled back quite a bit from the old days. In the first film, Connery was running through Crab Key amidst the chaos, but he only slugged his way through a few staff on his way in the climax. They threw in the boat chase in FRWL for spectacle, but even then there were only a small fleet of craft. It really grew in size with GF with the Ft. Knox attack, then kept getting larger with TB and finally YOLT. May of the other climaxes after that were more or less repeats of YOLT with Bond and or his allies fighting off large cadres of disposable goons.
In CR, Craig only combats a few men inside the sinking palazzo. The climax in QOS has him shooting his way through the complex, but he still only really encounters a small number of goons and ends up one on one with the villain. It didn't seem to me Skyfall went beyond that.
Will they do another future climax which would involve him outdoing a small army as they used to (with or without help) in the pre-booted era? Will have to wait and see.
with the best ,yes sky fall is a great film , but I think it lacks certain qualities of good old fashioned
intelligence work ,something that TTSS has, oh how I miss those days of big wipe clean boards
with photos stuck on with blue tac and lots of felt tip arrows joining people up ,but that would be boring
in a Bond film after all
Casino Royale was better in my opinion too.
I think in some cases it's a person's ego that dictates, "if I think it's cool, the rest of the world must also think it's cool, if box office is proof of that." A coworker of mine once wondered why others couldn't appreciate Titanic as much as he did, evidenced of course that it held the box office record at that time, but his qualm isn't as widespread as that of the avid Craig/CR/QoS/SF fans. Again, why is that? I've gotten used to responses like, "Craig is the best Bond ever, get over it... " to which all I can say is, "get a grip...Daniel
I'm not bothered if others like/dislike DC and his three films (so far)...what I object to is people saying they hate it/them, but then can give no real reason for doing so other than insults...and the attitude that accompanies these posts is horrendous...some ONLY post to invoke inflammatory responses...and that's childish...their 'attitude' is its crap because I say it is - you are just too stupid to see that....and I object to that too...
Some even believe that AJB has an agenda that DC, et al. cannot be criticised....which is total rubbish...we (I'd) just prefer a reasonable debate about it, not the personal insults that some think are acceptable....
Agree
Yesterday I got Leonard Maltin's 2014 movie guide, and of course I went right to his entry for Skyfall. Maltin is pretty hard on recent blockbusters and on post-1960s Bond films, with his average ranking being 2 1/2 stars. So I nearly had to pick up my jaw when I saw that Maltin awarded Skyfall his highest ranking: four stars. This is his ranking for cinematic classics, and he rarely gives this to contemporary films: Lincoln and Argo, for instance, were both awarded a somewhat cautious 3 1/2 stars. He praises the film for its reinvisioning of the Bond character and his universe, the performances, and for hitting all the right notes of action, suspense, and humor.
Well, I was ready to post this news to AJB, but then I thought, why bother? It's just going to be followed by the usual crap: "Skyfall--the most overrated film in Bond history," "Yet another sheep following the flock," "Someone else who sold his soul to Barbara Broccoli," etc., etc. The negativity really is discouraging and--as Sir Miles says--so often it's on the level of "It sucks because I say so" jacked up to extremes. Not to paint with too broad a brush, I think superado has always been a gentleman when expressing his disagreement, and he has offered reasons why the film isn't one of his favorites; but he's really a minority. I found myself wondering where all this anger, hatred, and vitriol toward the film comes from; and I've come up with two classes: Bond Defensives and Bond Fundamentalists. Let me explain them:
If you are a Bond Defensive, you are someone who honestly went into Skyfall hoping for the best, or with at least a neutral attitude. Maybe you're skeptical about Craig and the direction of the series starting with CR, but you're not someone who has been endlessly bashing Craig and you really want every Bond film to be good. Well, you watched the film, and. . .you didn't like it. Or you were disappointed or underwhelmed. At any rate, it wasn't the film you wanted or expected. Then you look at the reviews and you go through the Bond websites, and everyone--critics and fans alike--are saying it's not just a great Bond film, it's a great movie, period. "What the hell?" you think. "Did they see the same movie I did?" You see the praise continue--you see the box office burst at the seams--you even hear talk of serious awards and nominations, and not just in technical categories. You're starting to feel like that one person who hates chocolate. So you go see the film again, and, dammit, you STILL don't like it.
Well, what are you to do? You're on AJB every day and everyone is going on and on about how this mediocre movie is a masterpiece, and you start to feel defensive and angry. You try to argue against the movie, but your one comment gets ten comments telling you you're wrong. But you know you're not: you didn't like the film and that's that. But this is a lonely argument to make. You feel naked. What can you argue now but that a lot of movies made fortunes in their time and now they're forgotten? That the majority is not always right--in fact it's very often as wrong as you can get? That Skyfall's legion of admirers are just empty-minded fools who don't have the creativity or critical acumen to look at the film objectively and are just going along with the herd? So these are the points you begin to argue. Perhaps time will prove you right and, in another 20 years, SF will be "just another Bond film." But maybe one day you will watch it again and say (as I did a few years ago with Moonraker, a film I considered the series's worst), "You know, it's got its moments."
Now, the Bond Fundamentalist is a more hopeless case. If you are a Bond Fundamentalist, you believe you are in possession of the One True Interpretation of James Bond. Perhaps you find that interpretation in the works of Ian Fleming, or, more particularly in A work of Ian Fleming. You are like a preacher facing his flock: "Yea, verily, brothers and sisters, turn to the Third Book of Goldfinger, Chapter Third, Paragraph Twelve; there ye shall find the true and only nature of James Bond, as spelled out by the Divine Ian, all praise his name!" Or you find the True Bond to be in one particular actor, be it Connery or Moore or Brosnan or Dalton (but hardly ever Lazenby). Whichever, when you find that the new Bond film deviates from your One True Interpretation, you must unleash hellfire and damnation! You must condemn the Brazen Broccoli and the Usurper Craig! You must threaten their followers with all the anguish and pain of the flame that endures but never consumes! You hear their catcalls and their mocking, but you know that you--often you alone--know the truth, and that in the end there will be great weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth as you sit in blissful paradise with Ian Fleming and Sean Connery (assuming he wasn't too big of a heretic).
Easily the strangest of the fundamentalists is our friend Richard--W, who actually claims as his One True Interpretation the original screenplays of Richard Maibaum, which the rest of us have never seen and which doubtlessly will never be published. His Fundamentalism is an entirely original one, as the rest of us have no access to Richard's Truth. But at least we'll all be together as we burn up in the eternal pit.
So there you have it: my view on why Skyfall bashers are so angry and why they take this film so much to heart. So be compassionate, friends: when Bond 24 comes out you too may be Defensive, and you could be just one step away from becoming a Fundamentalist.
Finally, the criticism that really drives me nuts is "It's a good film, but it's not a good Bond film." Presumably, there weren't enough gadgets or the Bond Girl's breasts weren't quite large enough or the singer of the theme song didn't sound quite enough like Shirley Bassey or some other failing that applies only to "Bond films."
Some great posts, and I find myself in agreement .
I used to be quite obnoxious in my attacks on QOS, untill
I calmed down a bit, even starting a thread to hopefully
point some other members to a better place.
I thought Skyfall was great almost another reboot, Bond is cool
again, back on top. I can't wait to see what he does next. :007)
Brilliant! -{
There are Bond movies I love, and Bond movies I dislike...and I only dislike it because I'm a fan, and in my opinion could have been better if 'this or that' were changed/removed/re-cast, BUT still will watch just because it's a Bond movie. They see the film's for what they are....warts and all...but are realists when it comes to obvious flaws.
A rather rare breed I feel.....
Bond grinned. He couldn't help it. M's occasional outbursts of rage were so splendid. (DN, Ch. 3)
In reference to the posts since my last one on this thread, for the most part, that is what I’m talking about. Have a less than glowing opinion of SF/QoS/CR/Craig and you risk get picked apart, short of getting lobotomized. Are my reasoning abilities any less? Are my points and arguments only worth a good double flush and a lit match?
...and regarding the following:
When did it become a crime to think that SF is only a "good," but not great Bond film. My response is not mea culpa to belonging in this "third category of Bond fans," but I just wanted to give an example of how judgement is typically passed on people who give "less than glowing reviews of SF/QoS/CR/Craig," so please allow me my own bit of diagnosis and sweeping generalizations; with a serious lack of objectivity, the Craig devotee enters the discussion with the pre-loaded assumption that the non-Craig films are "crap" when compared of course with "the more serious" Craig films...am I wrong?
In defense of this "third category of Bond fans," sometimes, the prevailing opinion is so powerful that one would be considered out of touch or out of his/her mind if they don't reluctantly concede that the non-Craig films are "crap" in comparision with the "more serious" Craig films. Backed with the prevailing opinion, it can't get any easier to get clinks and high-fives all around to the shame of the dissenting opinion holder.
As far as the allegedly false AJB board agenda of staunchly promoting SF/QoS/CR/Craig sentiments, where then are the board leaders when dissenters are panned and ridiculed by the more troll-like SF/QoS/CR/Craig supporters like it were hunting season? Again, I will press it here, why does it bother the ardent fans that those who aren't as enthusiastic as them may actually exist?
Hmm, I guess the argument can go both ways, or even more than two ways. Lincoln and Argo won Oscars arguably for the more critical categories (Best Actor, Best Movie, vs. Best Music), but then again, one can argue the validity of the Academy vs. that of one Leonard Maltin. Who makes up the Academy? Are they more or less qualified than LM to critique SF? At a different level, how do people here feel about what is said about a Bond by a credentialed film critic whose interest in Bond may not likely be more than a reasonable, general appreciation and understanding of the Bond series (let alone the novels, and the whole of the Bond mythos)? I myself am a film enthusiast and will often turn to the experts to see what they have to say, particularly if a certain movie is a classic or of the arthouse variety. But with Bond films, quite frankly I give little stock in what the most reputable critics have to say and will defer to the collective expertise to the fans like the ones on this board.
Nothing 'alleged' about it...it doesn't exist.
If you can give me some examples of these "panned and ridiculed" posts that the "dissenters" have had please...
As I've said...I don't care if you like the films or not...but IF people are going to criticise them then I expect more than just 'his hair colour', 'he looks like a potato', etc...
I like your talking! -{
Spot on Sir Miles. You forgot to include the "his suit was too tight" & "there's no way that a Secret Service Agent would wear Tom Ford" brigade.
I also still can't get my head around the fact that there's plenty on the boards who have stated that they were actually going to walk out of the film when the gun barrel sequence wasn't placed at the start. I honestly can't get to grips with that.
Don't forgot those that said they wouldn't even see it for that very reason
Good point {[]
Which is so true !
Whether people like the films or not - it isn't going to spoil my fun and enjoyment of them...but I would pay more attention to a well reasoned post from someone that didn't rely on the points I mentioned before...
There was also a few pages about the 'Severene death scene', which seems to have caused controversy for some...I'm happy with the scene as it is....and I perfectly understand what the scene is about and how it was played...now some don't agree and see it a totally different way...which is fine...but just because I don't agree with their view, it doesn't make me wrong...neither does it make them wrong...its all about perspective and then being able to debate that...and sometimes its just better to move on
for selling it's soul in the past for box office returns, but if they stopped making them, I'd feel like an old friend had died. We can debate the merits or weaknesses of the different aspects of the films, but we should never devalue the criticisms of others, unless they are devaluing others themselves or being just outright nasty or snobbish.I thoroughly enjoy all the posts and have learned many aspects of the books and films I either had forgotten or had been mistaken about. It's a very enjoyable educational as well as entertaining experience for me.
In my opinion, DN, FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TLD, LTK, CR, and SF are all good to very good movies. Most of the Moore and Brosnan era are crap.
But that's not important. That's my opinion, although, I think, a well-informed one.
My point was that Bond films should be judged the same way other films are judged. The script, the acting, the direction, the cinematography, etc. Instead, many Bond "fans" take a condescending attitude toward the films and judge them on the criteria like those in my original post because, I suppose, they can't be judged the way real films are judged. Bond films are films and should be judged the same way all films are judged.
I agree, although you could have included TB in there.