I'll forgive the comparison. ) Not so sure I can be so forgiving, though, if you are lumping me in with those you are chastising in the last paragraph of your post. Or perhaps I misunderstood. At any rate, my kudos to Hardyboy was not an indication that I agreed with everything he said. But I am certainly on board with the gist of his post, i.e. that the criticisms of Skyfall have gone overboard. Just an opinion like all the others.
To Blackleiter, your kudos for HB's reprimand was merely a convenient touch point for me being that post of yours is kind of the gist of mine based on my last paragraph. However, forgive me if from this point on I think of Jamie Foxx when I think of you, it's all NP's fault.
If all Hardyboy can say is Bullsh*t to perfectly cogent arguments, fine. Bit alarming he's hired in some educational capacity, but there you go. There's plenty of folk saying the same on the imdb, and no it's not just trolling 'I hate Craig he looks funny' stuff either. It's basic, well reasoned argument. You had plenty of it against QoS when that came out (not wrongly either) but that was okay with some because they simply shared the opinion, so that makes it okay.
Thank you for encapsulating my complaint, Nap. Yes, I find most of the points made in this thread to be bulls**t, and that's because I do not find the cogency that you do. As I also indicated, I'm less concerned about the arguments themselves than with the holier-than-thou attitude taken by the SF-bashers. To them, those who like the movie are just going with the crowd and are blind to what is clearly a bad movie; and to bolster their claims they distort what happens in the film (there's a difference between having one clean shot and only one bullet), point to "problems" that are outside the film (the tired "timeline" stuff), and make claims about having expertise that's beyond the rest of us (knowing about the editing of the film and claiming to know how the film will be regarded in the future--more on that below). If you don't like it, fine; but why do those who dislike the film have to "back up" their dislike of it by demeaning the fans and by giving themselves lofty qualifications?
And speaking of demeaning, you are "alarmed" that I am in an "educational capacity." I am a professor at a small American university. That's my capacity. I don't choose to give my name out here because I like to keep my "real" life separate from my online one; but many people here know me, are my Facebook friends, and can vouch for me. And they've probably seen enough of my encounters with students on FB to know they can't get away with pulling bulls**t on me. I call them on it, and I frequently use that term. When I have students write things like "in the Victorian era it was illegal to educate girls" and that "people could go to prison if they criticized the Queen," I will write on their papers, "B.S.--you didn't get this from me and you didn't read it in a source." I deal with the age range of 18 and up; they're adults. They know what they're getting.
While I think I had my say on this matter and I'll stand or fall by it, there are still a couple of other matters I'd like to tackle here. First off is the matter of box office and award nominations. True, those do not indicate the quality of the film; but they DO indicate that the film has attracted interest and an audience, and that in itself makes it interesting. I have never seen a Twilight movie and I really have no desire to see one; but I know they've made a boatload of cash and that a lot of people do like them. To my mind, this means that the movies can't be entirely dismissed: they're speaking in some ways to a culture or to a particular part of that culture. In ten years these films may all be forgotten or be regarded as classics. I don't know--but I do know they were/are valuable to some viewers in the 2000's.
And that brings me to the second point: I have no idea how Skyfall will be regarded in 10 or 20 years. It could be seen as "just another Bond movie" or as a key film in the series or even as a great action-adventure in its own right. I don't know. And despite what a certain user says, no one knows. I'm old enough to have seen a couple of movies turn out to be something more or less than they were originally thought to be. Right off the top of my head is the Al Pacino version of Scarface. It was a bomb when it was released; it got terrible reviews; and Pacino's performance was dismissed as hammy. I saw it when it came out and I thought it was boring and dreadful. But now it's a classic--"Say hello to my leetle frien'" is a catchphrase--Pacino's face is on posters, T-shirts, you name it--kids admire Tony Montana and want to be like him. Who would have thought this in the '80s? Not me. Not anyone.
And that's all I'll say. Hopefully that's all. Thanks again for reading.
Vox clamantis in deserto
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
...Right off the top of my head is the Al Pacino version of Scarface. It was a bomb when it was released; it got terrible reviews; and Pacino's performance was dismissed as hammy. I saw it when it came out and I thought it was boring and dreadful. But now it's a classic--"Say hello to my leetle frien'" is a catchphrase--Pacino's face is on posters, T-shirts, you name it--kids admire Tony Montana and want to be like him. Who would have thought this in the '80s? Not me. Not anyone.
I saw it at the theater then and thought it was the bomb, at a time when I for one thought Pacino's career was already in the toilet. I didn't realize it did poorly at the box office nor that it was panned by the critics. Where I might agree with you is how unfortunate it is that the movie is being embraced by today's youth for its gangster culture, one that I preferred to enjoy from afar. Oh, and the hammy acting, yes, seeing it again recently since the 80's, as a Hispanic character I wondered why Pacino couldn't put together whole sentences in Spanish when actors today can deliver seemingly flawless dialogue in Russian or Mandarin.
"...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.....
And that brings me to the second point: I have no idea how Skyfall will be regarded in 10 or 20 years. It could be seen as "just another Bond movie" or as a key film in the series or even as a great action-adventure in its own right. I don't know. And despite what a certain user says, no one knows.
You're right, no one knows, but I have a fairly good track record.
In 1979 I saw Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and even though critics & fans bashed it as a boring version of the series episode "The Changeling", I predicted it would garner support in the future as a solid movie entry.
In 1982 I saw Blade Runner, and even though it bombed, I said it was one of the best science fictions of all time.
In 1997 I saw Titanic, and I thought despite the amazingly impressive visuals, it was a simple soap opera. Best Picture, ha!
In 2002 I saw Die Another Day, and even though one of my best friends extolled the magnificence of the movie, I just found it to be an uneven copy of DAF without the clever dialogue.
So no, I can't tell the future, but I can extrapolate not too badly based upon past impressions. IMO, of course. )
I'll forgive the comparison. ) Not so sure I can be so forgiving, though, if you are lumping me in with those you are chastising in the last paragraph of your post. Or perhaps I misunderstood. At any rate, my kudos to Hardyboy was not an indication that I agreed with everything he said. But I am certainly on board with the gist of his post, i.e. that the criticisms of Skyfall have gone overboard. Just an opinion like all the others.
To Blackleiter, your kudos for HB's reprimand was merely a convenient touch point for me being that post of yours is kind of the gist of mine based on my last paragraph. However, forgive me if from this point on I think of Jamie Foxx when I think of you, it's all NP's fault.
I think I'm pretty much on the same page. Skyfall for me is a good but far from top 3 entry material. My issues are nothing to do with the myriad of inconsistencies and plot holes (all Bond films have those) it also has a lot to commend it, but it is not for me the standout of the series, or indeed the Craig era.
You're right, no one knows, but I have a fairly good track record.
In 1979 I saw Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and even though critics & fans bashed it as a boring version of the series episode "The Changeling", I predicted it would garner support in the future as a solid movie entry.
In 1982 I saw Blade Runner, and even though it bombed, I said it was one of the best science fictions of all time.
In 1997 I saw Titanic, and I thought despite the amazingly impressive visuals, it was a simple soap opera. Best Picture, ha!
In 2002 I saw Die Another Day, and even though one of my best friends extolled the magnificence of the movie, I just found it to be an uneven copy of DAF without the clever dialogue.
So no, I can't tell the future, but I can extrapolate not too badly based upon past impressions. IMO, of course. )
I too saw Star TRek The Motion Picture in the cinema and remember it was heralded as a a fantastic return of the Enterprise crew - I can't remember reading any wisdepread negative reviews, and it went on to spawn numerous sequels (and prequels )
Equally I recall that Blade Runner was a massive hit and cemented Ridley Sott's reputation post-Alien, so I'm not sure how you recall it as bombing.
But there again, I also saw DAD in the cinema and thought it was fantastic at the time, so what do I know? ;%
To them, those who like the movie are just going with the crowd and are blind to what is clearly a bad movie; and to bolster their claims they distort what happens in the film (there's a difference between having one clean shot and only one bullet), point to "problems" that are outside the film (the tired "timeline" stuff), and make claims about having expertise that's beyond the rest of us (knowing about the editing of the film and claiming to know how the film will be regarded in the future--more on that below)..
Hey Hardyboy,
like Superado said, there are some SF-lovers who brush the haters with the same arguments.
This was always like that (and often underlined with a ) and will be like that with every movie.
It seems to me, that your skin got pretty thin after the Nazi comparison - let me assure you, that I've been labelled like that at least twice here and my skin only got thicker
Anyway, great to see you back.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I too saw Star TRek The Motion Picture in the cinema and remember it was heralded as a a fantastic return of the Enterprise crew - I can't remember reading any wisdepread negative reviews, and it went on to spawn numerous sequels (and prequels )
Equally I recall that Blade Runner was a massive hit and cemented Ridley Sott's reputation post-Alien, so I'm not sure how you recall it as bombing.
Hey Charmed, are you sayin' you saw those movies back in '79 & '82? Was it in America? I was a teen & twentysomething for them, and I remember reviewers slamming them both, particularly Blade Runner, saying it was a muddy, slow film where the hero is constantly getting beat up.
"I have a few new points to add. Sorry, I cannot resist! I cannot resist!"
Another scene of SF was playing in the Bang & Olufsen shop yesterday. To digress, it really is an amazing telly - but that's like saying Ferrari is a great car. Don't think you or anyone can afford it, it's £10K or more. (Still, the shop is based in the City.) But the picture looked great,and you wouldn't call Deakins an unfair Oscar winner had he got it. Not sure it's quite right for Bond in my taste; the colour a bit too lush at times, a bit DAD. I prefer the cinmeatography life-enhanced but not too obtrusive. But it's impressive nonetheless, even better than in the cinema.
I saw Skyfall in Imax, which made the picture deeper. Here it is widescreen, what gives? Which is the true movie? I have an old Standard 4:3 telly at my parents' gaffe, would the Imax picture fit that better? I can't figure it.
The scene this time was the notorious 'Damned fine whisky' shot. Slamming this is like shooting fish in a barrel, or rats in a barrel, or poor Severeine chained to a barrel.
It's to do with taste this time. And I find it repugnant. The fact I find it repugnant makes it even more disturbing. After all, women die in other Bond films, by gold paint, bowler hat, gun in scarecrow. So why is it a problem this time round? And isn't the fact my skin crawls a tribute to the director, as before I'd maintained a rather glib attitude as we followed Bond on his adventures?
When Silva handles her face and hair, it reminds me of the notorious scene in Hostel 2 with some gal hanging on a meat hook being prepared for the kill. However! Whatever you say about that film it does what it says on the tin. As a supremely decadent nasty slice of sado erotic torture porn in the best tradition of the Marquis de Sade, it works. Not saying you should like it, better if you don't, but it succeeds in its unquestionably nasty, sadistic intent. Pity is not on the menu.
But we're surely not meant to exalt in any way at Severine's death? Here I only feel pity and heartbreak. But I don't want to feel that in a Bond film, it hasn't earned the right to do that. I expect it from a film like Sophie's Choice, Schindler's List or Atonement. And I don' t much like it when the only realistic, convincing scene in Skyfall is the nastiest. Great! Didn't convince me in the action scenes, or the drama, but here, suddenly I'm in the movie! Now you have my attention, thanks for that.
And that is what annoys a lot of the fans, I feel. It doesn't help that it's shot from the girl's pov, we see Bond from a distance standing legs wide apart, motionless, concerned but still every inch the assassin. Who knows, maybe it's a play on the gunbarrel, but what a contrast in emotions from seeing a distant figure about to shoot us, and as it's presented here.
Perhaps we shouldn't care about Severine, as she's a bad un. Well, maybe, but you could argue Bond aint much better, after all he watched her plan the assassination and did nothing, and you can say he hasn't been coerced into the sex trade. But then I thought, maybe a parallel is intended. Later we hear at the SF mansion how Bond was an orphan and coopted by M into the service, almost exploited you might say. So you can say, well, Silva gets to die and M gets to die too. It's quite clever, but I'm not so sure the director even realised that it was in the script if so.
To be fair, Bond can't really avoid playing the game, and it's easier to take out the henchmen wit his quip when the moment has passed; they are off guard. But also, as a viewer I feel, well, if Bond can survive shooting, falling and near drowning and so on, if I'm meant to believe that, why should I be made to believe this either? And even then, Bond shoots everyone except Silva at the end! I know, I know, it would be a short movie. But there has to be an obvious reason why he can't off him - like Silva obviously still has some info MI6 need, so Bond has to swallow his poison and hold off.
Django has popped up a lot on this thread, and there's a similar scene here. After some ill advised backchat and brinkmanship, Django has to watch as his negro slave brother is ripped apart by dogs. That disturbed me less. Why - am I racist? No, don't think so. It's a horrible scene. A lot of it happens off screen (though there's a nastier flashback later). We have no emotional investment in the victim. I'd like to say that we see remorse in Django's eyes as he watches it happen, but I can't say I do. Or that it's a Richard III/ Get Carter moment when we realise that the charismatic bad 'un is actually a sociopath who's now gone beyone the pale and forfeited any sympathy. But that aint right either, Django does heroics later.
No. It's because Tarantino's film had charmed me, so I gave it a bit of a free pass.
And here's the thing. Tarantino's films, for me, have that 'What if...?' quality that the Bond films used to have. You know, 'What if... a trio of black beggars turn out to be assassins who bump off a guy and escape in a hearse? What if the hero is sent to Jamaica and tangles with a bizarre and ominiscient figure? Or meets a hot babe emerging from the sea? What if, in the next film, he has to go out and meet a Russian who has the hots for him? Stalked by a guy with a piano wire in his watch?' It goes on from there, the what if? is the setting for a fairytale type yarn where anything can happen, but we sort of know it's not really true.
'What if Bond falls out of an aeroplane without a parachute? What if Bond is isolated in Serbian Russia and hunted down on skis by half the Red Army?'
Even Hostel 2 has that 'what if' premise, albeit very Grimm Fairy Tales indeed.
And so does Django - that's why I don't care if no one would have stared at Django on horseback because don't you know there were loads of black cowboys back then. To me, that's the kind of nitpicking SF fans hate. It's fiction, just don't flaunt it too much. That said, the last 20 mins of Django does go overboard for me, it's too silly and far fetched so my free pass doesn't go all the way.
Now, even AVTAK has that what if? thing going on. But when Dalton arrived, it changed. It became maybe a 'What if... we make a credible, more realistic Bond film?' Okay.... But in that film and the next, there isn't anything too wonderful and extraordinary to enthrall us. Brozzer pushed the boat out more, but the flirtation is gone. And with Craig... again, it sets out to be more gritty, realistic. Fine, but then what?
And that's why some fans like myself and Superado can't get on with it. We have to drop the 'What if?' flirty, tantalising fun vibe and go with a grim, downbeat movie where Bond has to walk away from a fellow operative in the very first scene, leaving him to his death. I can go with that... but then don't expect to throw in the same plotholes or implausibilities, and the same offbeat gruesome deaths that earned a free pass in those earlier Bond films, and expect me to be okay with it. The fairytale, don't worry it's not really true, flavour is over. To me, it now just seems in bad taste.
My take is that SF is a decent movie and it looks wonderful on blue-ray. It's got some great moments and some not so much (the subway train scene just about puts me to sleep, actually, it did by the third viewing).
I've seen it four times now including blue ray and it leaves me with the same feeling that TWINE does, a bit unfulfilled, like it was missing something. On the fourth time i viewed it i saw Goldeneye right afterwards and it entertained me considerably more. It's just one of those things...
I've seen it four times now including blue ray and it leaves me with the same feeling that TWINE does, a bit unfulfilled, like it was missing something.
Interesting. I like TWINE a lot, but the movie is so uneven that I can't start caring much about plot holes and such, but I see exactly what you mean.
I too saw Star TRek The Motion Picture in the cinema and remember it was heralded as a a fantastic return of the Enterprise crew - I can't remember reading any wisdepread negative reviews, and it went on to spawn numerous sequels (and prequels )
Equally I recall that Blade Runner was a massive hit and cemented Ridley Sott's reputation post-Alien, so I'm not sure how you recall it as bombing.
Hey Charmed, are you sayin' you saw those movies back in '79 & '82? Was it in America? I was a teen & twentysomething for them, and I remember reviewers slamming them both, particularly Blade Runner, saying it was a muddy, slow film where the hero is constantly getting beat up.
Yes, I saw them in the cinema in 79 & 82 ( I was 15 in 79). But I saw them in the UK. Both were massive and very well received, the movie magazine Starburst and most of the other sci-fi magazines and newspapers were salivating over them and especially Blade Runner was already pronounced a classic.
Yes, I saw them in the cinema in 79 & 82 ( I was 15 in 79). But I saw them in the UK.
Ahhh, THAT'S why. People in the UK respect quality- here in America we want to be shown 'comfort' movies. Blade Runner was too dark, & Star Trek TMP was too thoughtful. )
Yes, I saw them in the cinema in 79 & 82 ( I was 15 in 79). But I saw them in the UK.
Ahhh, THAT'S why. People in the UK respect quality- here in America we want to be shown 'comfort' movies. Blade Runner was too dark, & Star Trek TMP was too thoughtful. )
Agreed, here in America, you can liken the taste for movies with a splurge at the local McDonald's, which is why I give little regard for box office stats nowadays considering who buys movie tickets; I'd readily identify with the pre-hippie culture during the Bond series' earlier years than with the rabble today. Avatar? Pshaw!!!
As for BR, they got my movie money over and over and over again with a smile each time and since then considered it the best sci-fi movie ever! In the days before the Internet, I didn't realize how much it bombed at the box-office and with critics and it's interesting to read all of that in Paul Salmon's (?) book.
"...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.....
As for BR, they got my movie money over and over and over again with a smile each time and since then considered it the best sci-fi movie ever! In the days before the Internet, I didn't realize how much it bombed at the box-office and with critics and it's interesting to read all of that in Paul Salmon's (?) book.
I must have seen BR in the theatres over twenty times. I saw it at a screening months before it was released ('Cause, you know, Harrison FORD was in it), and the movie blew me away. I snuck a tape recorder into one showing & recorded the whole movie on audio. Bought the VHS when it came out, and another when I wore that one out. Then the DVD (sadly though, it was missing the deadpan narration I loved so much). And now I have all the versions on the Ultimate DVD set. It was my favourite movie of all time until Serenity (2005) came out, now they share the spot. B-)
As for BR, they got my movie money over and over and over again with a smile each time and since then considered it the best sci-fi movie ever! In the days before the Internet, I didn't realize how much it bombed at the box-office and with critics and it's interesting to read all of that in Paul Salmon's (?) book.
I must have seen BR in the theatres over twenty times. I saw it at a screening months before it was released ('Cause, you know, Harrison FORD was in it), and the movie blew me away. I snuck a tape recorder into one showing & recorded the whole movie on audio. Bought the VHS when it came out, and another when I wore that one out. Then the DVD (sadly though, it was missing the deadpan narration I loved so much). And now I have all the versions on the Ultimate DVD set. It was my favourite movie of all time until Serenity (2005) came out, now they share the spot. B-)
Loved BR, Loved ST:TMP, just plain love movies.
Back on topic, having watched DC's Bond Origin Trilogy again, (I promised I wouldn't comment on CR,QOS,or SF til I had. Like the Joker - "I'm a man of my word" B-) )I've finally figured out what bothered me so badly about Skyfall. Quantum of Solace.
QoS was so badly done, so poorly written, and put together with such choppy editing that it poisoned my opinion of SF. Skyfall's flaws were exacerbated in my mind because I was still reeling from QOS. Like a battered wife leery of being hurt again, I went into Skyfall as I never have approached a Bond movie before. Scared of what had been done. I don't know if my opinion of SF will ever recover fully because of QOS.
I gave DC a chance after they hired a blond Bond, tried to keep an open mind. I was intrigued after CR, and was excited by the where it might go from there. Then QOS happened, and in one movie, the one dimensional Bond, limp, forgettable villains and henchmen, and more than anything the lingering, pained "WHY?" that hovered over the whole film, shot an RPG into my bubble of hope. By itself, Skyfall has no more flaws than some other Bond movies, fewer than others. But my visceral pain over QOS made them stand out more, made them more irritating in the theater. I still don't like SF, The Home Alone ending and Bond's defeat by the villain sealed that. But, how's this, it's better than Moonraker.
Let me give this it's own line for those of you who have heard me rail on about DC and SF in other threads like Convince me of Craig: Daniel Craig is much better than I have given him credit for, Casino Royale will be moving up my list and Skyfall is not as bad as I have at times said.
I owe a sincere apology to the Craig Fans whose toes I've stepped on by my disparaging remarks about his looks and ability.
But QOS is, IMHO, not a good movie. I've given this movie 6 hours of my life in an effort to get along, to live and let live. But I'd rather Live and Let Die )
Beg your pardon, forgot to knock...
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
) Well stated, Rogue, and a very interesting take on what is the reboot. I for one decided waiting for the next Bond would be too long a stretch and decided to go for it. As with the Moore Bonds, for me to appreciate one DC film, I'd need to appreciate all and not thinking too highly of my standards, as I mentioned before it's like giving in to prison sex, and in it's own special way...I like Spike!
"...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.....
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
I don't understand why you have to appreciate them all to appreciate one. I think Connery's films after TB stink, but the ones before that are either good films or right up there at bloody epic. Judge them in their own right.
Oh come now, is GF REALLY that much more serious or better than YOLT???? )
But yes, I agree that each film can and should be accessed individually on its own merits or lack thereof.
Oh come now, is GF REALLY that much more serious or better than YOLT???? )
In my opinion GF is a much better film. YOLT was when it all started moving away from Flemings creation. yes, somehow OHMSS crept in there to redeem it all, but then DAF happened and the slippery slope began.
In my opinion GF is a much better film. YOLT was when it all started moving away from Flemings creation.
I respectfully disagree; GF was where it started going south, TB redeemed it, YOLT took a sharp turn to OTT, then OHMSS was back in GF territory- but I agree that DAF was the goofy that didn't end (until Dalton).
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
Hmmm, the seeds for decline were definitely sown in GF, but at that point, Flemings work was still the main focus of the screenplay. You could argue that the novels started to decline from that point too, abeit a couple of crackers like OHMSS turned up unexpectedly.
Hmmm, the seeds for decline were definitely sown in GF, but at that point, Flemings work was still the main focus of the screenplay. You could argue that the novels started to decline from that point too, abeit a couple of crackers like OHMSS turned up unexpectedly.
Heh, all I really know is that DN. FRWL, TB, TLD & LTK RULE.
All else is in degrees according to taste. :007)
Heh, all I really know is that DN. FRWL, TB, TLD & LTK RULE.
All else is in degrees according to taste. :007)
So why do you have TND & GE in your signature top five if DN. FRWL, TB, TLD & LTK are them?
Opinions shift, we all do it. I rated LTK as my top film at one point. It doesn't rank mid way now. I never thought Connery up to Thunderball could be topped, but Craig has done it twice. No doubt that will change too.
Comments
Christ ! More Bollox 8-)
Thank you for encapsulating my complaint, Nap. Yes, I find most of the points made in this thread to be bulls**t, and that's because I do not find the cogency that you do. As I also indicated, I'm less concerned about the arguments themselves than with the holier-than-thou attitude taken by the SF-bashers. To them, those who like the movie are just going with the crowd and are blind to what is clearly a bad movie; and to bolster their claims they distort what happens in the film (there's a difference between having one clean shot and only one bullet), point to "problems" that are outside the film (the tired "timeline" stuff), and make claims about having expertise that's beyond the rest of us (knowing about the editing of the film and claiming to know how the film will be regarded in the future--more on that below). If you don't like it, fine; but why do those who dislike the film have to "back up" their dislike of it by demeaning the fans and by giving themselves lofty qualifications?
And speaking of demeaning, you are "alarmed" that I am in an "educational capacity." I am a professor at a small American university. That's my capacity. I don't choose to give my name out here because I like to keep my "real" life separate from my online one; but many people here know me, are my Facebook friends, and can vouch for me. And they've probably seen enough of my encounters with students on FB to know they can't get away with pulling bulls**t on me. I call them on it, and I frequently use that term. When I have students write things like "in the Victorian era it was illegal to educate girls" and that "people could go to prison if they criticized the Queen," I will write on their papers, "B.S.--you didn't get this from me and you didn't read it in a source." I deal with the age range of 18 and up; they're adults. They know what they're getting.
While I think I had my say on this matter and I'll stand or fall by it, there are still a couple of other matters I'd like to tackle here. First off is the matter of box office and award nominations. True, those do not indicate the quality of the film; but they DO indicate that the film has attracted interest and an audience, and that in itself makes it interesting. I have never seen a Twilight movie and I really have no desire to see one; but I know they've made a boatload of cash and that a lot of people do like them. To my mind, this means that the movies can't be entirely dismissed: they're speaking in some ways to a culture or to a particular part of that culture. In ten years these films may all be forgotten or be regarded as classics. I don't know--but I do know they were/are valuable to some viewers in the 2000's.
And that brings me to the second point: I have no idea how Skyfall will be regarded in 10 or 20 years. It could be seen as "just another Bond movie" or as a key film in the series or even as a great action-adventure in its own right. I don't know. And despite what a certain user says, no one knows. I'm old enough to have seen a couple of movies turn out to be something more or less than they were originally thought to be. Right off the top of my head is the Al Pacino version of Scarface. It was a bomb when it was released; it got terrible reviews; and Pacino's performance was dismissed as hammy. I saw it when it came out and I thought it was boring and dreadful. But now it's a classic--"Say hello to my leetle frien'" is a catchphrase--Pacino's face is on posters, T-shirts, you name it--kids admire Tony Montana and want to be like him. Who would have thought this in the '80s? Not me. Not anyone.
And that's all I'll say. Hopefully that's all. Thanks again for reading.
HB, don't you think that has swung both ways?
I saw it at the theater then and thought it was the bomb, at a time when I for one thought Pacino's career was already in the toilet. I didn't realize it did poorly at the box office nor that it was panned by the critics. Where I might agree with you is how unfortunate it is that the movie is being embraced by today's youth for its gangster culture, one that I preferred to enjoy from afar. Oh, and the hammy acting, yes, seeing it again recently since the 80's, as a Hispanic character I wondered why Pacino couldn't put together whole sentences in Spanish when actors today can deliver seemingly flawless dialogue in Russian or Mandarin.
In 1979 I saw Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and even though critics & fans bashed it as a boring version of the series episode "The Changeling", I predicted it would garner support in the future as a solid movie entry.
In 1982 I saw Blade Runner, and even though it bombed, I said it was one of the best science fictions of all time.
In 1997 I saw Titanic, and I thought despite the amazingly impressive visuals, it was a simple soap opera. Best Picture, ha!
In 2002 I saw Die Another Day, and even though one of my best friends extolled the magnificence of the movie, I just found it to be an uneven copy of DAF without the clever dialogue.
So no, I can't tell the future, but I can extrapolate not too badly based upon past impressions. IMO, of course.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I think I'm pretty much on the same page. Skyfall for me is a good but far from top 3 entry material. My issues are nothing to do with the myriad of inconsistencies and plot holes (all Bond films have those) it also has a lot to commend it, but it is not for me the standout of the series, or indeed the Craig era.
I too saw Star TRek The Motion Picture in the cinema and remember it was heralded as a a fantastic return of the Enterprise crew - I can't remember reading any wisdepread negative reviews, and it went on to spawn numerous sequels (and prequels
Equally I recall that Blade Runner was a massive hit and cemented Ridley Sott's reputation post-Alien, so I'm not sure how you recall it as bombing.
But there again, I also saw DAD in the cinema and thought it was fantastic at the time, so what do I know? ;%
Hey Hardyboy,
like Superado said, there are some SF-lovers who brush the haters with the same arguments.
This was always like that (and often underlined with a
It seems to me, that your skin got pretty thin after the Nazi comparison - let me assure you, that I've been labelled like that at least twice here and my skin only got thicker
Anyway, great to see you back.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
say I was Bored watching it, The dropped all the fun from the TV series.
"Good cold morning to you gentlemen!
"I have a few new points to add. Sorry, I cannot resist! I cannot resist!"
Another scene of SF was playing in the Bang & Olufsen shop yesterday. To digress, it really is an amazing telly - but that's like saying Ferrari is a great car. Don't think you or anyone can afford it, it's £10K or more.
I saw Skyfall in Imax, which made the picture deeper. Here it is widescreen, what gives? Which is the true movie? I have an old Standard 4:3 telly at my parents' gaffe, would the Imax picture fit that better?
The scene this time was the notorious 'Damned fine whisky' shot. Slamming this is like shooting fish in a barrel, or rats in a barrel, or poor Severeine chained to a barrel.
It's to do with taste this time. And I find it repugnant. The fact I find it repugnant makes it even more disturbing. After all, women die in other Bond films, by gold paint, bowler hat, gun in scarecrow. So why is it a problem this time round? And isn't the fact my skin crawls a tribute to the director, as before I'd maintained a rather glib attitude as we followed Bond on his adventures?
When Silva handles her face and hair, it reminds me of the notorious scene in Hostel 2 with some gal hanging on a meat hook being prepared for the kill. However! Whatever you say about that film it does what it says on the tin. As a supremely decadent nasty slice of sado erotic torture porn in the best tradition of the Marquis de Sade, it works. Not saying you should like it, better if you don't, but it succeeds in its unquestionably nasty, sadistic intent. Pity is not on the menu.
But we're surely not meant to exalt in any way at Severine's death? Here I only feel pity and heartbreak. But I don't want to feel that in a Bond film, it hasn't earned the right to do that. I expect it from a film like Sophie's Choice, Schindler's List or Atonement. And I don' t much like it when the only realistic, convincing scene in Skyfall is the nastiest. Great! Didn't convince me in the action scenes, or the drama, but here, suddenly I'm in the movie! Now you have my attention, thanks for that.
And that is what annoys a lot of the fans, I feel. It doesn't help that it's shot from the girl's pov, we see Bond from a distance standing legs wide apart, motionless, concerned but still every inch the assassin. Who knows, maybe it's a play on the gunbarrel, but what a contrast in emotions from seeing a distant figure about to shoot us, and as it's presented here.
Perhaps we shouldn't care about Severine, as she's a bad un. Well, maybe, but you could argue Bond aint much better, after all he watched her plan the assassination and did nothing, and you can say he hasn't been coerced into the sex trade. But then I thought, maybe a parallel is intended. Later we hear at the SF mansion how Bond was an orphan and coopted by M into the service, almost exploited you might say. So you can say, well, Silva gets to die and M gets to die too. It's quite clever, but I'm not so sure the director even realised that it was in the script if so.
To be fair, Bond can't really avoid playing the game, and it's easier to take out the henchmen wit his quip when the moment has passed; they are off guard. But also, as a viewer I feel, well, if Bond can survive shooting, falling and near drowning and so on, if I'm meant to believe that, why should I be made to believe this either? And even then, Bond shoots everyone except Silva at the end! I know, I know, it would be a short movie. But there has to be an obvious reason why he can't off him - like Silva obviously still has some info MI6 need, so Bond has to swallow his poison and hold off.
Django has popped up a lot on this thread, and there's a similar scene here. After some ill advised backchat and brinkmanship, Django has to watch as his negro slave brother is ripped apart by dogs. That disturbed me less. Why - am I racist? No, don't think so. It's a horrible scene. A lot of it happens off screen (though there's a nastier flashback later). We have no emotional investment in the victim. I'd like to say that we see remorse in Django's eyes as he watches it happen, but I can't say I do. Or that it's a Richard III/ Get Carter moment when we realise that the charismatic bad 'un is actually a sociopath who's now gone beyone the pale and forfeited any sympathy. But that aint right either, Django does heroics later.
No. It's because Tarantino's film had charmed me, so I gave it a bit of a free pass.
And here's the thing. Tarantino's films, for me, have that 'What if...?' quality that the Bond films used to have. You know, 'What if... a trio of black beggars turn out to be assassins who bump off a guy and escape in a hearse? What if the hero is sent to Jamaica and tangles with a bizarre and ominiscient figure? Or meets a hot babe emerging from the sea? What if, in the next film, he has to go out and meet a Russian who has the hots for him? Stalked by a guy with a piano wire in his watch?' It goes on from there, the what if? is the setting for a fairytale type yarn where anything can happen, but we sort of know it's not really true.
'What if Bond falls out of an aeroplane without a parachute? What if Bond is isolated in Serbian Russia and hunted down on skis by half the Red Army?'
Even Hostel 2 has that 'what if' premise, albeit very Grimm Fairy Tales indeed.
And so does Django - that's why I don't care if no one would have stared at Django on horseback because don't you know there were loads of black cowboys back then. To me, that's the kind of nitpicking SF fans hate. It's fiction, just don't flaunt it too much. That said, the last 20 mins of Django does go overboard for me, it's too silly and far fetched so my free pass doesn't go all the way.
Now, even AVTAK has that what if? thing going on. But when Dalton arrived, it changed. It became maybe a 'What if... we make a credible, more realistic Bond film?' Okay.... But in that film and the next, there isn't anything too wonderful and extraordinary to enthrall us. Brozzer pushed the boat out more, but the flirtation is gone. And with Craig... again, it sets out to be more gritty, realistic. Fine, but then what?
And that's why some fans like myself and Superado can't get on with it. We have to drop the 'What if?' flirty, tantalising fun vibe and go with a grim, downbeat movie where Bond has to walk away from a fellow operative in the very first scene, leaving him to his death. I can go with that... but then don't expect to throw in the same plotholes or implausibilities, and the same offbeat gruesome deaths that earned a free pass in those earlier Bond films, and expect me to be okay with it. The fairytale, don't worry it's not really true, flavour is over. To me, it now just seems in bad taste.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I've seen it four times now including blue ray and it leaves me with the same feeling that TWINE does, a bit unfulfilled, like it was missing something. On the fourth time i viewed it i saw Goldeneye right afterwards and it entertained me considerably more. It's just one of those things...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yes, I saw them in the cinema in 79 & 82 ( I was 15 in 79). But I saw them in the UK. Both were massive and very well received, the movie magazine Starburst and most of the other sci-fi magazines and newspapers were salivating over them and especially Blade Runner was already pronounced a classic.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Agreed, here in America, you can liken the taste for movies with a splurge at the local McDonald's, which is why I give little regard for box office stats nowadays considering who buys movie tickets; I'd readily identify with the pre-hippie culture during the Bond series' earlier years than with the rabble today. Avatar? Pshaw!!!
As for BR, they got my movie money over and over and over again with a smile each time and since then considered it the best sci-fi movie ever! In the days before the Internet, I didn't realize how much it bombed at the box-office and with critics and it's interesting to read all of that in Paul Salmon's (?) book.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Loved BR, Loved ST:TMP, just plain love movies.
Back on topic, having watched DC's Bond Origin Trilogy again, (I promised I wouldn't comment on CR,QOS,or SF til I had. Like the Joker - "I'm a man of my word" B-) )I've finally figured out what bothered me so badly about Skyfall. Quantum of Solace.
QoS was so badly done, so poorly written, and put together with such choppy editing that it poisoned my opinion of SF. Skyfall's flaws were exacerbated in my mind because I was still reeling from QOS. Like a battered wife leery of being hurt again, I went into Skyfall as I never have approached a Bond movie before. Scared of what had been done. I don't know if my opinion of SF will ever recover fully because of QOS.
I gave DC a chance after they hired a blond Bond, tried to keep an open mind. I was intrigued after CR, and was excited by the where it might go from there. Then QOS happened, and in one movie, the one dimensional Bond, limp, forgettable villains and henchmen, and more than anything the lingering, pained "WHY?" that hovered over the whole film, shot an RPG into my bubble of hope. By itself, Skyfall has no more flaws than some other Bond movies, fewer than others. But my visceral pain over QOS made them stand out more, made them more irritating in the theater. I still don't like SF, The Home Alone ending and Bond's defeat by the villain sealed that. But, how's this, it's better than Moonraker.
Let me give this it's own line for those of you who have heard me rail on about DC and SF in other threads like Convince me of Craig: Daniel Craig is much better than I have given him credit for, Casino Royale will be moving up my list and Skyfall is not as bad as I have at times said.
I owe a sincere apology to the Craig Fans whose toes I've stepped on by my disparaging remarks about his looks and ability.
But QOS is, IMHO, not a good movie. I've given this movie 6 hours of my life in an effort to get along, to live and let live. But I'd rather Live and Let Die
But yes, I agree that each film can and should be accessed individually on its own merits or lack thereof.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
In my opinion GF is a much better film. YOLT was when it all started moving away from Flemings creation. yes, somehow OHMSS crept in there to redeem it all, but then DAF happened and the slippery slope began.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
All else is in degrees according to taste. :007)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
So why do you have TND & GE in your signature top five if DN. FRWL, TB, TLD & LTK are them?
Opinions shift, we all do it. I rated LTK as my top film at one point. It doesn't rank mid way now. I never thought Connery up to Thunderball could be topped, but Craig has done it twice. No doubt that will change too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS