I am on the side of those who think Skyfall is in the upper tier of Bond films. Not the best ever, mind you, but certainly a step above many of the more tiresome, silly films that I feel plagued the series for a while. And while I understand there those who aren't particularly enamored of the way Mendes directed the film, it is very obvious to me that he brought some florishes and style that many of the other directors didn't. The "Home Alone" comparisons don't really bother me, but I personally think they're misplaced. I've heard many complain about Craig's Bond being a brutish, thuggish type who doesn't use his wits enough. In Skyfall I think we saw some examples of Bond doing just that, including the so-called "Home Alone" sequence. I guess some don't see it that way, and that's fine. But what really does bother me is when fans jump all over each for having differing opinions (other than in a lighthearted, tongue-in-cheek way, of course). I have seen posts by some who seem absolutely furious with those who think Skyfall is an amazing, top 5 Bond film, and other posts that suggest that you're an idiot if you can't appreciate the "gloriousness" of the film. Neither opinion is fair, if you ask me, but again that's just an opinion. I think it would be great if we could try to express ourselves more along the lines of "I liked movie X because...." or "I didn't think movie X was very good because....." But perhaps I'm being a bit naive because this is a fan site after all, and the fans here, including me, have very strong opinions about Bond. Still, I think a less confrontational tone might be better sometimes. :007)
Frankly, BL, this is the kind of wishy washy consensus thinking that got America - and dare I say the rest of the Western world - into its current mess. I take it you're a Democrat?
Going forward, confrontation and brinkmanship is the only way, I feel. Ambivalence has no place in our world, and must be flushed out forthwith.
Sorry, it really is a tiny minority. I'm a huge Bond fan who's seen every film and read every book countless times and I don't really care about it. Most of the 150million people who watched the film won't have even noticed.
So you constitute a majority?
I don't mean to come across the wrong way, but your mentioning Mendes being an oscar winning director, and yourself as a "huge Bond fan who's seen every film and read every book countless times" smacks of a "my opinion is more valid than yours" mentality. Most of us on this site has seen every film and read every book countless times, but that doesn't mean we all have to agree on this, nor does it mean that one of us is right and the other is wrong.
Frankly, we wouldn't be having this discussion if that 10 second sequence was placed where it belongs in the first place, where it has been for the first 20 Bond films. The fact that it hasn't been in its traditional place for three consecutive films is proving to be somewhat divisive among the Bond community.
I am on the side of those who think Skyfall is in the upper tier of Bond films. Not the best ever, mind you, but certainly a step above many of the more tiresome, silly films that I feel plagued the series for a while. And while I understand there those who aren't particularly enamored of the way Mendes directed the film, it is very obvious to me that he brought some florishes and style that many of the other directors didn't. The "Home Alone" comparisons don't really bother me, but I personally think they're misplaced. I've heard many complain about Craig's Bond being a brutish, thuggish type who doesn't use his wits enough. In Skyfall I think we saw some examples of Bond doing just that, including the so-called "Home Alone" sequence. I guess some don't see it that way, and that's fine. But what really does bother me is when fans jump all over each for having differing opinions (other than in a lighthearted, tongue-in-cheek way, of course). I have seen posts by some who seem absolutely furious with those who think Skyfall is an amazing, top 5 Bond film, and other posts that suggest that you're an idiot if you can't appreciate the "gloriousness" of the film. Neither opinion is fair, if you ask me, but again that's just an opinion. I think it would be great if we could try to express ourselves more along the lines of "I liked movie X because...." or "I didn't think movie X was very good because....." But perhaps I'm being a bit naive because this is a fan site after all, and the fans here, including me, have very strong opinions about Bond. Still, I think a less confrontational tone might be better sometimes. :007)
Frankly, BL, this is the kind of wishy washy consensus thinking that got America - and dare I say the rest of the Western world - into its current mess. I take it you're a Democrat?
Going forward, confrontation and brinkmanship is the only way, I feel. Ambivalence has no place in our world, and must be flushed out forthwith.
What ambivalence? I have strong feelings about many things, and I don't hesitate to express them. And I'm not suggesting that anyone hold back on taking a stand and sticking with it. My point is simply that on this forum where we are discussing a fictional character in books and movies, there's no need to be disrespectful about it. Frankly I don't understand the problem with that. I don't really want to get into a deep discussion about politics because those issues are much more important and that's where people begin to get really pissed off. I will say this, though - I am an unabashed, unashamed Liberal and I think there are a multitude of things that have led this country into the mess it has been in for the past several years. Those things have nothing to do with ambivalence or consensus thinking. If my political position changes your opinion of me and what I have to contribute to this forum then so be it. I would like to think that's not the case, though.
Sorry, it really is a tiny minority. I'm a huge Bond fan who's seen every film and read every book countless times and I don't really care about it. Most of the 150million people who watched the film won't have even noticed.
So you constitute a majority?
I don't mean to come across the wrong way, but your mentioning Mendes being an oscar winning director, and yourself as a "huge Bond fan who's seen every film and read every book countless times" smacks of a "my opinion is more valid than yours" mentality. Most of us on this site has seen every film and read every book countless times, but that doesn't mean we all have to agree on this, nor does it mean that one of us is right and the other is wrong.
No, not at all. Sorry if it came across that way. I'm not trying to say that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's - in fact, I don't really have a strong opinion on it either way.
My point was that even some very hardcore Bond fans - using myself as an example - don't care that the gunbarrel is placed at the end or the beginning. So a strong desire to see the gunbarrel return isn't even unanimous amongst fandom.
And hardcore Bond fans account for a really tiny minority of the audience. I'd guess that if you added up all of the members of AJB, MI6 Community, CommanderBond.net, DanielCraigisNotBond (if that's still around) and all of the subscribers to fanzines and all of the members of the Bond fan clubs around the world, they would probably amount to considerably less than 0.01% of the total audience for Skyfall.
Now, I don't think I saw the placement of the gunbarrel sequence mentioned in a single mainstream review of the film or, for that matter, mentioned in any general press. Not even mentioned, let alone criticised or attacked. (In contrast, the opening shot of the film - which Mendes considered unworkable with the gunbarrel - was mentioned and praised in a number of reviews and by members of the Academy)
Hence the fact that I consider those who are bothered by the placement of the gunbarrel to be a tiny minority of the audience.
Frankly, we wouldn't be having this discussion if that 10 second sequence was placed where it belongs in the first place, where it has been for the first 20 Bond films. The fact that it hasn't been in its traditional place for three consecutive films is proving to be somewhat divisive among the Bond community.
Well, we certainly wouldn't be.
I'm just trying to get you, davidelliott101 and the few others strongly criticising the decision to recognise that most of the film's audience don't really care (and certainly not nearly as passionately as you do). This might help you understand how and why the decision came to be made. I'm not sure if I'm having any success though.
What do you think, DEFIANT? Would you accept that most of the general audience (and at least some of the hardcore Bond fans such as myself) aren't really bothered where the gunbarrel sequence is placed?
I am on the side of those who think Skyfall is in the upper tier of Bond films. Not the best ever, mind you, but certainly a step above many of the more tiresome, silly films that I feel plagued the series for a while. And while I understand there those who aren't particularly enamored of the way Mendes directed the film, it is very obvious to me that he brought some florishes and style that many of the other directors didn't. The "Home Alone" comparisons don't really bother me, but I personally think they're misplaced. I've heard many complain about Craig's Bond being a brutish, thuggish type who doesn't use his wits enough. In Skyfall I think we saw some examples of Bond doing just that, including the so-called "Home Alone" sequence. I guess some don't see it that way, and that's fine. But what really does bother me is when fans jump all over each for having differing opinions (other than in a lighthearted, tongue-in-cheek way, of course). I have seen posts by some who seem absolutely furious with those who think Skyfall is an amazing, top 5 Bond film, and other posts that suggest that you're an idiot if you can't appreciate the "gloriousness" of the film. Neither opinion is fair, if you ask me, but again that's just an opinion. I think it would be great if we could try to express ourselves more along the lines of "I liked movie X because...." or "I didn't think movie X was very good because....." But perhaps I'm being a bit naive because this is a fan site after all, and the fans here, including me, have very strong opinions about Bond. Still, I think a less confrontational tone might be better sometimes. :007)
Frankly, BL, this is the kind of wishy washy consensus thinking that got America - and dare I say the rest of the Western world - into its current mess. I take it you're a Democrat?
Going forward, confrontation and brinkmanship is the only way, I feel. Ambivalence has no place in our world, and must be flushed out forthwith.
What ambivalence? I have strong feelings about many things, and I don't hesitate to express them. And I'm not suggesting that anyone hold back on taking a stand and sticking with it. My point is simply that on this forum where we are discussing a fictional character in books and movies, there's no need to be disrespectful about it. Frankly I don't understand the problem with that. I don't really want to get into a deep discussion about politics because those issues are much more important and that's where people begin to get really pissed off. I will say this, though - I am an unabashed, unashamed Liberal and I think there are a multitude of things that have led this country into the mess it has been in for the past several years. Those things have nothing to do with ambivalence or consensus thinking. If my political position changes your opinion of me and what I have to contribute to this forum then so be it. I would like to think that's not the case, though.
Frankly, BL, this is the kind of wishy washy consensus thinking that got America - and dare I say the rest of the Western world - into its current mess. I take it you're a Democrat?
Going forward, confrontation and brinkmanship is the only way, I feel. Ambivalence has no place in our world, and must be flushed out forthwith.
What ambivalence? I have strong feelings about many things, and I don't hesitate to express them. And I'm not suggesting that anyone hold back on taking a stand and sticking with it. My point is simply that on this forum where we are discussing a fictional character in books and movies, there's no need to be disrespectful about it. Frankly I don't understand the problem with that. I don't really want to get into a deep discussion about politics because those issues are much more important and that's where people begin to get really pissed off. I will say this, though - I am an unabashed, unashamed Liberal and I think there are a multitude of things that have led this country into the mess it has been in for the past several years. Those things have nothing to do with ambivalence or consensus thinking. If my political position changes your opinion of me and what I have to contribute to this forum then so be it. I would like to think that's not the case, though.
Now, back to discussing Bond.
Sigh... I was joking. Have another Monday coffee.
Sorry - I'm not as sharp as I used to be! (And at my age coffee won't help! ) )
Seriously, now that I read your comments again, it should have been obvious that you weren't serious - especailly since lack of consensus thinking is exactly the cause of a lot of problems in the U.S. (and the world) right now. Again, my apologies for perhaps taking myself a bit too seriously. I'll chill now. -{
lack of consensus thinking is exactly the cause of a lot of problems in the U.S. (and the world) right now.
I think the problems in the world right now are caused by tribes. My tribe vs. your tribe.
I'm a Liberal on many issues, and a Conservative on others. As Bruce Lee said, it's not the dogma of a style (read: political affiliation) that matters, it's what WORKS.
lack of consensus thinking is exactly the cause of a lot of problems in the U.S. (and the world) right now.
I think the problems in the world right now are caused by tribes. My tribe vs. your tribe.
I'm a Liberal on many issues, and a Conservative on others. As Bruce Lee said, it's not the dogma of a style (read: political affiliation) that matters, it's what WORKS.
lack of consensus thinking is exactly the cause of a lot of problems in the U.S. (and the world) right now.
I think the problems in the world right now are caused by tribes. My tribe vs. your tribe.
I'm a Liberal on many issues, and a Conservative on others. As Bruce Lee said, it's not the dogma of a style (read: political affiliation) that matters, it's what WORKS.
My tribe is no tribe.
I like that way of thinking!
I think the problem with the world in general is that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when my opinion does not agree with someone else's opinion, then I am wrong. I think folks in general take themselves too seriously. We all need to lighten up.
Well, sure. They did. The clearly decided to back Mendes.
Yes, it was their choice to do so, just as they could have gone any other way with or without Mendes' approval regardless of him being an Oscar winning director. In your post that I responded to, it seems to you that the fact of Mendes being an Oscar-winning director gives more weight to his status and credibility, which really doesn't.
Well, the fact that he's the director gives him status and credibility for a start. So, regardless of calibre, Eon should be listening to all of their directors and only stepping-in when really vital.
To answer your question, the fact that Mendes is the most prestigious and critically-respected director the series has had, and has won an Oscar amongst his many other awards, does, I think, give more weight to his status and credibility, yes.
You seem to be suggesting that Eon should have ignored his opinion and instructed him to edit the scene with a gun barrel at the beginning. Is that right? (And, if so, why?)
No, that's not what I"m suggesting; I wouldn't have given a rat's tail about the gunbarrel and wouldn't even miss it the way it's been going since Moore's 2nd version. What I'm stating is what I believe to be the exactly opposite stance to what you said, that Mendes' Oscar winning status all the more validates his decision about the gunbarrel. Were you in the room with Mendes and the producers when they decided on major and minor aspects of the shoot? You seem to be implying that the producers' faith in Mendes was so absolute that they might as well have reclused themselves from the production with a "surprise us" attitude, fully trusting that whatever they see on premier night would be a masterpiece. No, historically all of EON's directors have been hired guns to fulfill a specific purpose in turning out a pre-defined film and that will never change. They are running a business after all, one that is partnered with huge, profit-centric studios and distribution companies that have significant say in greenlighting budgets for production.
As for the gunbarrel, Mendes might have chosen to make it the way he did in SF, and obviously the producers liked it, but they could as well have easily shot it down had they decided to, regardless of how many Oscars Mendes had.
BTW, did SF get Oscar-nominated for Best Picture or Director? Going by your logic, it should have.
"...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.....
It's in the Top 3 for me. Right now I have it at 2 in front of FRWL but behind CR.
It's just so amazing for me and the ultimate culmination of 50 years of Bond. Adele's theme song, the new Moneypenny, New M, fantastic sendoff for Judi Dench, Silva, the amazing Shanghai combat scene, my goodness. :x
Comments
Frankly, BL, this is the kind of wishy washy consensus thinking that got America - and dare I say the rest of the Western world - into its current mess. I take it you're a Democrat?
Going forward, confrontation and brinkmanship is the only way, I feel. Ambivalence has no place in our world, and must be flushed out forthwith.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
So you constitute a majority?
I don't mean to come across the wrong way, but your mentioning Mendes being an oscar winning director, and yourself as a "huge Bond fan who's seen every film and read every book countless times" smacks of a "my opinion is more valid than yours" mentality. Most of us on this site has seen every film and read every book countless times, but that doesn't mean we all have to agree on this, nor does it mean that one of us is right and the other is wrong.
Frankly, we wouldn't be having this discussion if that 10 second sequence was placed where it belongs in the first place, where it has been for the first 20 Bond films. The fact that it hasn't been in its traditional place for three consecutive films is proving to be somewhat divisive among the Bond community.
Now, back to discussing Bond.
No, not at all. Sorry if it came across that way. I'm not trying to say that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's - in fact, I don't really have a strong opinion on it either way.
My point was that even some very hardcore Bond fans - using myself as an example - don't care that the gunbarrel is placed at the end or the beginning. So a strong desire to see the gunbarrel return isn't even unanimous amongst fandom.
And hardcore Bond fans account for a really tiny minority of the audience. I'd guess that if you added up all of the members of AJB, MI6 Community, CommanderBond.net, DanielCraigisNotBond (if that's still around) and all of the subscribers to fanzines and all of the members of the Bond fan clubs around the world, they would probably amount to considerably less than 0.01% of the total audience for Skyfall.
Now, I don't think I saw the placement of the gunbarrel sequence mentioned in a single mainstream review of the film or, for that matter, mentioned in any general press. Not even mentioned, let alone criticised or attacked. (In contrast, the opening shot of the film - which Mendes considered unworkable with the gunbarrel - was mentioned and praised in a number of reviews and by members of the Academy)
Hence the fact that I consider those who are bothered by the placement of the gunbarrel to be a tiny minority of the audience.
Well, we certainly wouldn't be.
I'm just trying to get you, davidelliott101 and the few others strongly criticising the decision to recognise that most of the film's audience don't really care (and certainly not nearly as passionately as you do). This might help you understand how and why the decision came to be made. I'm not sure if I'm having any success though.
What do you think, DEFIANT? Would you accept that most of the general audience (and at least some of the hardcore Bond fans such as myself) aren't really bothered where the gunbarrel sequence is placed?
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Sigh... I was joking. Have another Monday coffee.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sorry - I'm not as sharp as I used to be! (And at my age coffee won't help!
Seriously, now that I read your comments again, it should have been obvious that you weren't serious - especailly since lack of consensus thinking is exactly the cause of a lot of problems in the U.S. (and the world) right now. Again, my apologies for perhaps taking myself a bit too seriously. I'll chill now. -{
I'm a Liberal on many issues, and a Conservative on others. As Bruce Lee said, it's not the dogma of a style (read: political affiliation) that matters, it's what WORKS.
My tribe is no tribe.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I like that way of thinking!
I think the problem with the world in general is that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when my opinion does not agree with someone else's opinion, then I am wrong. I think folks in general take themselves too seriously. We all need to lighten up.
And yeah David, we all DO need to lighten up a bit.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
How the World works. ( Strong Language )
Team America: World Police Movie CLIP - D**ks, Pu**ies and A**holes
No, that's not what I"m suggesting; I wouldn't have given a rat's tail about the gunbarrel and wouldn't even miss it the way it's been going since Moore's 2nd version. What I'm stating is what I believe to be the exactly opposite stance to what you said, that Mendes' Oscar winning status all the more validates his decision about the gunbarrel. Were you in the room with Mendes and the producers when they decided on major and minor aspects of the shoot? You seem to be implying that the producers' faith in Mendes was so absolute that they might as well have reclused themselves from the production with a "surprise us" attitude, fully trusting that whatever they see on premier night would be a masterpiece. No, historically all of EON's directors have been hired guns to fulfill a specific purpose in turning out a pre-defined film and that will never change. They are running a business after all, one that is partnered with huge, profit-centric studios and distribution companies that have significant say in greenlighting budgets for production.
As for the gunbarrel, Mendes might have chosen to make it the way he did in SF, and obviously the producers liked it, but they could as well have easily shot it down had they decided to, regardless of how many Oscars Mendes had.
BTW, did SF get Oscar-nominated for Best Picture or Director? Going by your logic, it should have.
A fan edit would show a bustling aerial shot of the city, then cut to Ronson snuffing it.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It's just so amazing for me and the ultimate culmination of 50 years of Bond. Adele's theme song, the new Moneypenny, New M, fantastic sendoff for Judi Dench, Silva, the amazing Shanghai combat scene, my goodness. :x
Roger Moore 1927-2017