Honestly, I'm not going to debate this anymore. It's pure semantics. The problem with the English language is that there are so many vague words that can be interpreted in numerous contexts. Like classic. To some, it means innovation. To some it means quality. To some it means acclaim.
Too bad we didn't speak German because in that language there's literally a word for everything haha.
I think the word you are looking for is innovative. Classic is not a vague word. Perhaps you don't think The Spy Who Loved Me deserves to be one of the most classic Bond films because it's not innovative, but in the eyes of most Bond fans, serious and casual, it has earned classic status. That's not something you or I have any power to change.
For the purpose of this thread, we're not asking here if Skyfall could be a classic because it is innovative, we're asking if it has endurance. We don't know if Skyfall will earn classic status.
Honestly, I'm not going to debate this anymore. It's pure semantics. The problem with the English language is that there are so many vague words that can be interpreted in numerous contexts. Like classic. To some, it means innovation. To some it means quality. To some it means acclaim.
Too bad we didn't speak German because in that language there's literally a word for everything haha.
I think the word you are looking for is innovative. Classic is not a vague word. Perhaps you don't think The Spy Who Loved Me deserves to be one of the most classic Bond films because it's not innovative, but in the eyes of most Bond fans, serious and casual, it has earned classic status. That's not something you or I have any power to change.
For the purpose of this thread, we're not asking here if Skyfall could be a classic because it is innovative, we're asking if it has endurance. We don't know if Skyfall will earn classic status.
{[] 1+
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
A classic film in my definition - whether a Bond or not - is one that I not only have seen numerous times and look forward to seeing it but one that has very quotable dialogue and striking, memorable scenes. If it meets that criteria than I will actually own a copy so I can watch it anytime I'm in the mood.
There are many films and novels that are considered classics that I don't have in my collection because I can't connect to them. For example, I love Citizen Kane and own it and have seen it numerous times, but not Gone With The Wind. I love the Maltese Falcon and To Have and Have Not, but not The Big Sleep, because I don't think it's as good as the other two. I have a copy of all the Harrison Ford Raiders series except Temple of Doom.
I own Skyfall. I've seen it numerous times and can quote it. I enjoy the cinematography and the scenes in London and how the film is much about Bond himself as it is about M and Silva. To that definition, yes it's a classic to me. So is GF, OHMSS, FRWL, CR, TB and some others. Yes, they all have their share of not-so-classic moments be it in the plot or dialogue, but the best ones wisk me along for a fun ride and have qualities that endure over time.
Whilst Skyfall isn't a flawless film and there are imperfections in the plot line, it is, from a film making point of view, the best in the series. Now it's not my number 1 Bond film, there are at least 4 or 5 others that I would put in front of it for various reasons, however it is probably the best film out of the 23. It contains the best cinematography, the best direction, the best acting, and probably the most superior editing of the Bond series to this point, and even though there are flaws in the story, it contains the most depth and a large amount of subtext which is simply not present in almost all of the previous Bond films. So for these reasons, coupled with its huge success and its status as thus far being one of the most well known films of the century, I would say that it most definitely is a classic of the series. Can't wait for Spectre! It's even more exciting because of Skyfall's success, but also because there is still room for Mendes and Co. to improve upon some of the elements that Skyfall was lacking. Mendes will be better now because he's already been there and done that. I think this could be another classic!
I don't think Skyfall will get classic status; it capitalised on the fiftieth anniversary of the franchise and the patriotic feelings of the Olympics. Once more films are made, it will be superceded by those as it will then only ever be looking at a portion of the films rather than the whole thing.
Personally I think it's a poor film; the cinematography distracts rather than enhances and the attempts to psychoanalyse Bond are a tiresome attempt to make him sympathetic. It's not subtle enough for subtext.
I would say that a classic Bond is one that scores highly on all the elements that make a Bond film. Villain, girls and stunts need to be memorable; the story needs to be solid and not convoluted; and it needs to epitomise the Bond actor's tenure, capitalising on whichever elements are their strengths.
Maybe I should clarify; the subtext is there but done in a heavyhanded way (unlikely the interesting subtexts discussed in the thread you posted). I can see that the worry over Bond's health and whether he is up to the job parallels whether the series still has relevance but it's clunky and doesn't work with the formula. Whilst Bond may suffer, there's never doubt that he's incompetent whereas in Skyfall he could be planning his retirement.
Skyfall is clearly a well made action movie, it's ridiculous to say otherwise. It might not be your favorite Bond for whatever reason, but to say that it's bad is pretty dumb in my opinion.
The film had a back to basics approach and is quintessential Bond in every way, which makes sense because it was the 50th anniversary of Bond in film. It was a celebration of Bond, and whether you are a die hard fan, or just a casual viewer who wants to see a fun action movie, it delivers. Craig was great as always, and the movie featured a strong character arc for Bond, which is actually a rare find in the series. Having Bond "retire" and then come back, and seeing him question if he still has a place in our modern world, fit with the whole 50th anniversary aspect of the movie. Bond's arc in the film sort of mirrored his place in pop culture, and seeing the ultimate rejuvenation of Bond (both the character himself, and the franchise) at the end of the movie was extremely satisfying.
Javier Bardem's performance was fantastic as well, and he made for one of the most memorable Bond villain's in the history of the franchise. Skyfall also featured Judi Dench's best performance as M, and was a fitting send off for her. The relationship between Bond and M had never been explored as much as it was in Skyfall, and the final scene where M dies brought an emotional weight to the movie that other Bond films haven't really had.
At the end of the day Skyfall is the ultimate modern Bond film, it had nods to the past, but in a lot of ways it was more sophisticated that the other entries in the series. It had stylish action and a story that was about more than just a wacky scheme cooked up by a villain. It was about Bond as a character, and it was a great movie. The James Bond franchise is a classic franchise, and Skyfall is one of, if not the, best entry so far so I think it can definitely be called a classic film.
Skyfall is clearly a well made action movie, it's ridiculous to say otherwise. It might not be your favorite Bond for whatever reason, but to say that it's bad is pretty dumb in my opinion.
One mans favourite film is another mans worst!! Would be dumb to think otherwise
Skyfall also featured Judi Dench's best performance as M, and was a fitting send off for her. The relationship between Bond and M had never been explored as much as it was in Skyfall, and the final scene where M dies brought an emotional weight to the movie that other Bond films haven't really had.
Agree to an extent but thought OHMSS ending topped it in that dept
At the end of the day Skyfall is the ultimate modern Bond film, it had nods to the past, but in a lot of ways it was more sophisticated that the other entries in the series. It had stylish action and a story that was about more than just a wacky scheme cooked up by a villain. It was about Bond as a character, and it was a great movie. The James Bond franchise is a classic franchise, and Skyfall is one of, if not the, best entry so far so I think it can definitely be called a classic film.
I guess we will see in 20 years , I personally think it will falter in the rankings over time
Yeah I agree with some others that amongst the die hard fans, Skyfall's popularity will diminish and arguably already has. I think Casino Royale will be considered more of a classic when we look back in 20 years. In saying that I still think Syfall will be highly regarded.
"Mango, banana and tangerine. Sugar and ackee and cocoa bean!"
Maybe I should clarify; the subtext is there but done in a heavyhanded way (unlikely the interesting subtexts discussed in the thread you posted). I can see that the worry over Bond's health and whether he is up to the job parallels whether the series still has relevance but it's clunky and doesn't work with the formula. Whilst Bond may suffer, there's never doubt that he's incompetent whereas in Skyfall he could be planning his retirement.
Skyfall is clearly a well made action movie, it's ridiculous to say otherwise. It might not be your favorite Bond for whatever reason, but to say that it's bad is pretty dumb in my opinion.
Is it a well-made film? The action is bogged down by Bond's navel-gazing and the cod-psychology. Bond works much better when he's an enigmatic character not reduced to some Oedipal complex.
Skyfall is clearly a well made action movie, it's ridiculous to say otherwise. It might not be your favorite Bond for whatever reason, but to say that it's bad is pretty dumb in my opinion.
Is it a well-made film?
Sam Mendes is an excellent director. Theres Road to Perdition and American Beauty standing out.
Bond works much better when he's an enigmatic character not reduced to some Oedipal complex.
We've had that. That led to DAD. The more we know about the character the more you can relate to the character. The days of Moore and Brosnan are over..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
We've had that. That led to DAD. The more we know about the character the more you can relate to the character. The days of Moore and Brosnan are over..
Sorry, that's too short-sighted.
There are more factors and elements, which make a good or bad Bond movie.
Look at Casino Royale! It gets you right from the first minute and while the story makes Bond a bit more "understandable" it's pretty irrelevant for the quality of the movie.
Same could be said for all Connery Bonds. We have no idea where he's coming from and simply noone cares as the movies are awesome!
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sam Mendes is an excellent director. Theres Road to Perdition and American Beauty standing out.
I agree but that's got nothing to do with whether this film is well-made. I think the problem lies more in the writing than the directing. The film tries to pay homage to old Bond whilst asserting itself as new Bond.
Which goes back to Fleming. The Bond of the books. We finally understand the character now. The character seems better.
I don't know whether Bond's background is entirely taken from the novels as I haven't read them but film Bond is a different entity. You can show as much backstory as you like but it doesn't necessarily make a character more rounded. If anything, it removes the ambiguity and makes the character simplistic. It's like saying that if Iago's villainy in Othello had been explicitly explained as him fancying Othello. The reason why Iago is such a good character is that we have many ideas for why he is so villainous but he seems to defy all of them. I have no problem with them wanting to show Bond as more human but it works better as hints or by showing how he is affected by things that happen to him on screen. In Licence to Kill, we know that Bond's desire for revenge is because his friend has been mutilated and probably the death of his own wife has a big part in that as well. However we don't need Bond to ramble on about his dead wife; Leiter reminds us of it and those who've watched OHMSS (is it TSWLM where he goes to her grave?) can appreciate the extra nuance whereas for others, the mutilation of Felix is enough.
We've had that. That led to DAD. The more we know about the character the more you can relate to the character. The days of Moore and Brosnan are over..
Is Bond particularly enigmatic in DAD? Bond could sit down and tell us his life story from cradle to grave but that doesn't necessarily make him a more interesting character. Enough has happened on screen for us to see why Bond might be messed up. Perhaps some viewers really wanted to know about Bond's childhood but I don't think that this was a particular issue throughout the films. Perhaps people might want him to have more dimensions but that's a different thing-and I think there have been Bond films that have shown us this without going into depth about Bond's background.
Look at Casino Royale! It gets you right from the first minute and while the story makes Bond a bit more "understandable" it's pretty irrelevant for the quality of the movie.
This. Bond is affected by what happens to him in the film; we see that these events are making him what he is. We see him as more vulnerable and human but that doesn't get in the way of the action. Bond films are genre films- I guess they're action films although some of them are more like thrillers. They can be excellently made but they are not high art. There is a middle-ground between trash and high art.
Comments
I think the word you are looking for is innovative. Classic is not a vague word. Perhaps you don't think The Spy Who Loved Me deserves to be one of the most classic Bond films because it's not innovative, but in the eyes of most Bond fans, serious and casual, it has earned classic status. That's not something you or I have any power to change.
For the purpose of this thread, we're not asking here if Skyfall could be a classic because it is innovative, we're asking if it has endurance. We don't know if Skyfall will earn classic status.
{[] 1+
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
If SPECTRE turns out to be the most innovative Bond film ever (just saying if), would you immediately call it a classic?
If it's impactful and influences other movies to do things they never died before.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
I'm already calling SPECTRE a classic.
I like to get a jump on the crowd.
There are many films and novels that are considered classics that I don't have in my collection because I can't connect to them. For example, I love Citizen Kane and own it and have seen it numerous times, but not Gone With The Wind. I love the Maltese Falcon and To Have and Have Not, but not The Big Sleep, because I don't think it's as good as the other two. I have a copy of all the Harrison Ford Raiders series except Temple of Doom.
I own Skyfall. I've seen it numerous times and can quote it. I enjoy the cinematography and the scenes in London and how the film is much about Bond himself as it is about M and Silva. To that definition, yes it's a classic to me. So is GF, OHMSS, FRWL, CR, TB and some others. Yes, they all have their share of not-so-classic moments be it in the plot or dialogue, but the best ones wisk me along for a fun ride and have qualities that endure over time.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Classic.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Personally I think it's a poor film; the cinematography distracts rather than enhances and the attempts to psychoanalyse Bond are a tiresome attempt to make him sympathetic. It's not subtle enough for subtext.
I would say that a classic Bond is one that scores highly on all the elements that make a Bond film. Villain, girls and stunts need to be memorable; the story needs to be solid and not convoluted; and it needs to epitomise the Bond actor's tenure, capitalising on whichever elements are their strengths.
Room for debate there: http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/44307/subtext-and-themes/
Maybe I should clarify; the subtext is there but done in a heavyhanded way (unlikely the interesting subtexts discussed in the thread you posted). I can see that the worry over Bond's health and whether he is up to the job parallels whether the series still has relevance but it's clunky and doesn't work with the formula. Whilst Bond may suffer, there's never doubt that he's incompetent whereas in Skyfall he could be planning his retirement.
The film had a back to basics approach and is quintessential Bond in every way, which makes sense because it was the 50th anniversary of Bond in film. It was a celebration of Bond, and whether you are a die hard fan, or just a casual viewer who wants to see a fun action movie, it delivers. Craig was great as always, and the movie featured a strong character arc for Bond, which is actually a rare find in the series. Having Bond "retire" and then come back, and seeing him question if he still has a place in our modern world, fit with the whole 50th anniversary aspect of the movie. Bond's arc in the film sort of mirrored his place in pop culture, and seeing the ultimate rejuvenation of Bond (both the character himself, and the franchise) at the end of the movie was extremely satisfying.
Javier Bardem's performance was fantastic as well, and he made for one of the most memorable Bond villain's in the history of the franchise. Skyfall also featured Judi Dench's best performance as M, and was a fitting send off for her. The relationship between Bond and M had never been explored as much as it was in Skyfall, and the final scene where M dies brought an emotional weight to the movie that other Bond films haven't really had.
At the end of the day Skyfall is the ultimate modern Bond film, it had nods to the past, but in a lot of ways it was more sophisticated that the other entries in the series. It had stylish action and a story that was about more than just a wacky scheme cooked up by a villain. It was about Bond as a character, and it was a great movie. The James Bond franchise is a classic franchise, and Skyfall is one of, if not the, best entry so far so I think it can definitely be called a classic film.
One mans favourite film is another mans worst!! Would be dumb to think otherwise
I thought his performance was excellent but I don't think he will be as memorable as Goldfinger, Blofeld (Telly), Scaramanga, Dr No etc
Agree to an extent but thought OHMSS ending topped it in that dept
I guess we will see in 20 years
Glad you like the subtext thread, and thanks for posting there. In an overlap with that thread, I did intend to post on SF's subtext/themes but found this instead:
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_14363333401338&key=9efb86c82dce6a5e902c30d4d34c368d&libId=ibubrwss01000y3d000DA5ndmiij6&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ajb007.co.uk%2Ftopic%2F44307%2Fsubtext-and-themes%2Fpage%2F3%2F&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalfilm.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F03%2F10%2Fdeeper-look-at-skyfall%2F&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ajb007.co.uk%2Fpost%2F751933%2F&title=Subtext%20and%20themes%20(Page%203)%20-%20General%20James%20Bond%20Chat%20-%20Absolutely%20James%20Bond&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalfilm.wordpress.com%2F2013%20%E2%80%A6%20t-skyfall%2F
and decided not to re-invent the wheel. I certainly don't agree with everything that's said there, and would have made more of the "mother with two sons" aspect than the author chose to, but IMHO the main point not covered by that article was Bond's finally dealing with his orphanhood (M becoming his surrogate parent for many years prevents him from that) and coming to maturity.
Is it a well-made film? The action is bogged down by Bond's navel-gazing and the cod-psychology. Bond works much better when he's an enigmatic character not reduced to some Oedipal complex.
Sam Mendes is an excellent director. Theres Road to Perdition and American Beauty standing out.
Which goes back to Fleming. The Bond of the books. We finally understand the character now. The character seems better.
We've had that. That led to DAD. The more we know about the character the more you can relate to the character. The days of Moore and Brosnan are over..
Sorry, that's too short-sighted.
There are more factors and elements, which make a good or bad Bond movie.
Look at Casino Royale! It gets you right from the first minute and while the story makes Bond a bit more "understandable" it's pretty irrelevant for the quality of the movie.
Same could be said for all Connery Bonds. We have no idea where he's coming from and simply noone cares as the movies are awesome!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I agree but that's got nothing to do with whether this film is well-made. I think the problem lies more in the writing than the directing. The film tries to pay homage to old Bond whilst asserting itself as new Bond.
I don't know whether Bond's background is entirely taken from the novels as I haven't read them but film Bond is a different entity. You can show as much backstory as you like but it doesn't necessarily make a character more rounded. If anything, it removes the ambiguity and makes the character simplistic. It's like saying that if Iago's villainy in Othello had been explicitly explained as him fancying Othello. The reason why Iago is such a good character is that we have many ideas for why he is so villainous but he seems to defy all of them. I have no problem with them wanting to show Bond as more human but it works better as hints or by showing how he is affected by things that happen to him on screen. In Licence to Kill, we know that Bond's desire for revenge is because his friend has been mutilated and probably the death of his own wife has a big part in that as well. However we don't need Bond to ramble on about his dead wife; Leiter reminds us of it and those who've watched OHMSS (is it TSWLM where he goes to her grave?) can appreciate the extra nuance whereas for others, the mutilation of Felix is enough.
Is Bond particularly enigmatic in DAD? Bond could sit down and tell us his life story from cradle to grave but that doesn't necessarily make him a more interesting character. Enough has happened on screen for us to see why Bond might be messed up. Perhaps some viewers really wanted to know about Bond's childhood but I don't think that this was a particular issue throughout the films. Perhaps people might want him to have more dimensions but that's a different thing-and I think there have been Bond films that have shown us this without going into depth about Bond's background.
This. Bond is affected by what happens to him in the film; we see that these events are making him what he is. We see him as more vulnerable and human but that doesn't get in the way of the action. Bond films are genre films- I guess they're action films although some of them are more like thrillers. They can be excellently made but they are not high art. There is a middle-ground between trash and high art.
Might I suggest you do. Could be a whole new experience for you..
How comes there are those who pertain what is best for Bond when they haven't read the novels.. 8-)
Its where it all stems from...