I don't think Skyfall is overrated at all. Was it flawless? No, not at all! But what movie is? I liked that we finally have SOME back story for Bond. It changes him from continuing to be a one dimensional character like he has been in the rest of the movies.
Someone mentioned Star Wars as overrated. While I respect your opinion, I greatly disagree and cannot wait for the new movies to come out. Fall 2015 is gonna be pretty good for me movie wise. Bond in November and Star Wars Episode VII in December.
My opinion for most overrated and I know people will disagree with me and that is fine, but the Harry Potter series, both books and movies alike. I like magic and wizards and such, but these just didn't do anything for me.
I was around 10 when the first Star Wars came out, and we all lined up around the block to see it over and over. Twenty years later, a friend from grad school begged me to go see it again when it was re-released. "It's part of our childhood!" he insisted. So, I went to see it, and when we came out of the theater, he was acting like kids did the first time around, pretending the movie was still going on and zapping imaginary stormtroppers with an imaginary gun. When he asked me why I was so unmoved, I told him I didn't remember being so simplistic. I thought there was more to the story, or least more of a plot. it was just a B movie with a big budget.
BTW In a recent Simpsons episode about video piracy called "Steal This Episode", Carl and Lenny take the piss out of the latest Bond film. They like the new James Bond reboot because Bond is ugly now, he doesn’t use gadgets, he can’t shoot well, and he doesn’t do James Bond-type things. http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/steal-this-episode-106693 Good onya Simpsons for telling it how it is.
Of course, Lenny and Carl are also idiots.
I wouldn't call Craig an ugly man by any stretch, but his nose is what seems to give his face less refinement. But, then, he's playing a Bond not afraid to get beaten silly to get the job done, so perhaps this is to his advantage. I do think, however, they should have darkened his features -- at least to brown hair and eyebrows. In Casino Royale, in particular, he looks best when the light makes his blond hair seem darker. When he's in bright light, he washes out, and it looks like he doesn't have any eyebrows. By Skyfall, with most of his hair clipped and with so many bright light scenes, he doesn't just fade out but also looks much older.
But with the features darkened, he very much has a classic Bond look:
Regardless of one's personal views of how good looking, or otherwise, Craig might be, I do feel that there is a large group of Bond fans who support Craig because they are more more comfortable with his "ordinariness" compared with his predecessors, and support his Bond from that kick off point. They then contrive a view of Fleming's Bond to fit accordingly.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
Regardless of one's personal views of how good looking, or otherwise, Craig might be, I do feel that there is a large group of Bond fans who support Craig because they are more more comfortable with his "ordinariness" compared with his predecessors.....
Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others,
even to the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter,
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals,
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life,
keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy
Forgot to add " Wear Sunscreen ". )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,816MI6 Agent
Nice choice of poetry Pussy! Some solid advixe in it too. (Are you feeling alright?)
I have to agree with M as well. Mr Craig is extrodinary as Bond. He has a brought a broken psyche and reintroduced a brute physicality to the role that has been lacking since Sir Sean. That is not to disregard the other actors, far from it. All of them are great in the role (except Peter Sellers) but Craigs character has killed with his bare hands. He has been indecisive and made the wrong choices. He has been seen as flawed and vengeful. (Could do with a bit less of the latter in my book.) Mr Brosnan was given a half hearted chance to do the darker character stuff in DAD, but it was not written in properly, robbing him of the chance to pull it through his whole performance throughout the film.
Craig is playing a more rounded character and that is not an ordinary thing, its an interesting thing, giving ys more of who this character is.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
BTW In a recent Simpsons episode about video piracy called "Steal This Episode", Carl and Lenny take the piss out of the latest Bond film. They like the new James Bond reboot because Bond is ugly now, he doesn’t use gadgets, he can’t shoot well, and he doesn’t do James Bond-type things. http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/steal-this-episode-106693 Good onya Simpsons for telling it how it is.
Of course, Lenny and Carl are also idiots.
I wouldn't call Craig an ugly man by any stretch, but his nose is what seems to give his face less refinement. But, then, he's playing a Bond not afraid to get beaten silly to get the job done, so perhaps this is to his advantage. I do think, however, they should have darkened his features -- at least to brown hair and eyebrows. In Casino Royale, in particular, he looks best when the light makes his blond hair seem darker. When he's in bright light, he washes out, and it looks like he doesn't have any eyebrows. By Skyfall, with most of his hair clipped and with so many bright light scenes, he doesn't just fade out but also looks much older.
But with the features darkened, he very much has a classic Bond look:
Regardless of one's personal views of how good looking, or otherwise, Craig might be, I do feel that there is a large group of Bond fans who support Craig because they are more more comfortable with his "ordinariness" compared with his predecessors, and support his Bond from that kick off point. They then contrive a view of Fleming's Bond to fit accordingly.
I'd put it differently -- it's less that Craig is ordinary and more that he is relatable to more men.
Connery had the same quality. Even though he was tall (ridiculously so for a "secret agent" who is supposed to blend in), buff, and handsome, he seemed like a guy who got out of bed, got dressed, and went about his business like the rest of us. He had a sense of humor and confidence men admire because it comes from inside, and even a guy who doesn't look like Connery knows that where being a man comes from. It's just that he had some advantages, but you like him anyway because you could have a beer with him. He could still feel pain and be put his place and so forth, and Connery always played him that way, even when he got bored with the role because they kept trying to make him less human.
Fast forward to Pierce Brosnan. He doesn't seem like that guy at at all. He seems like someone who has a hair stylist and diets. He watches the E Network. He shops. His confidence comes from outside because he knows he looks like a male model cliche. Brosnan can be charming, but can you imagine him getting away with that if he didn't look like a mannequin? That's not necessarily something other men admire. If you have a beer with him -- or more likely a light beer -- it's because he tells funny jokes. Men can be amused by him, though, which is one reason why I still believe they should have let Brosnan play the part building upon his natural, Moore-lilke lightness and humor.
Craig fits more neatly into the Connery camp. That he doesn't look like Brosnan is his greatest strength. He can't rely on conventionality. He's got his balls and and his brains, and not only do they get him through, they give him an edge. You just know that he would kick the crap out of Brosnan in a fight despite being smaller -- and, again, that's something men admire. Craig is a handsome man, but in a more traditionally masculine way. Like I said, his nose and his washed out coloring are his only real problems, and both are probably accentuated by the camera and lighting. (You'll notice how different he can look in the same film, which is mostly the result of the lensing being used in a particular scene.) You could definitely have a beer with Craig, though his problem is that he might seem too brooding, which is why I keep hoping they let him relax and have more fun in the next Bond film.
Skyfall is certainly overrated - after all it was declared to be the biggest selling British movie ever. But is it the best British movie ever? Certainly not. It is not even the best Bond movie, it's just that it happened to be an anniversary one. There are heaps of overrated movies, but it’s not the movie’s fault that it is overrated, and being overrated does not make it bad. There is no objective measure of “overratedness” – so declaring SF (or any other movie) as overrated is one thing, but proving that “ever” bit is quite another.
I wouldn't call Craig an ugly man by any stretch, but his nose is what seems to give his face less refinement. But, then, he's playing a Bond not afraid to get beaten silly to get the job done, so perhaps this is to his advantage. I do think, however, they should have darkened his features -- at least to brown hair and eyebrows. In Casino Royale, in particular, he looks best when the light makes his blond hair seem darker. When he's in bright light, he washes out, and it looks like he doesn't have any eyebrows. By Skyfall, with most of his hair clipped and with so many bright light scenes, he doesn't just fade out but also looks much older.
But with the features darkened, he very much has a classic Bond look:
Yes they are idiots which is why they like the latest james Bond film for those reasons. It's called irony.
And yet if they are ironic characters, what they are saying is not to be taken literally, either.
Irony usually means that the opposite is true/meant of what is being said - e.g. Lenny and Carls's stupidly liking Bond because he doesn't use gadgets etc shows that only people who are like Lenny and Carl (e.g. stupid) like the new Bond - it's a satirical observation about the fact that Bond is no longer Bond. Im not calling anyone stupid BTW but the Simpsons is, as it has always done. e.g. Homer's appalling parenting is aimed at all the bad fathers out there. Satire is a form of comedy which tells us how not to act - e.g. don't be like Carl and Lenny.
Yes they are idiots which is why they like the latest james Bond film for those reasons. It's called irony.
And yet if they are ironic characters, what they are saying is not to be taken literally, either.
Irony usually means that the opposite is true/meant of what is being said - e.g. Lenny and Carls's stupidly liking Bond because he doesn't use gadgets etc shows that only people who are like Lenny and Carl (e.g. stupid) like the new Bond - it's a satirical observation about the fact that Bond is no longer Bond. Im not calling anyone stupid BTW but the Simpsons is, as it has always done. e.g. Homer's appalling parenting is aimed at all the bad fathers out there. Satire is a form of comedy which tells us how not to act - e.g. don't be like Carl and Lenny.
There's all sorts of irony -- verbal irony, situatiol irony, dramatic irony, etc. The fact that they are idiots and being taken seriously could be the satire.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,816MI6 Agent
Forget me not laundry irony and golf irony! Goodlybyeload mine folly folly, oh indeedy yes!
Sorry, couldn't resist!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
Forget me not laundry irony and golf irony! Goodlybyeload mine folly folly, oh indeedy yes!
Sorry, couldn't resist!
Didn't think you old enough to remember Stanley Unwin, TB2!
Lol! I love the early Carry Ons, he was in Regardless, and two months ago I was finally able to watch The Secret Service on Youtube. Remarcabold, truely Remarcabold! Re enqireidy, 39 orbits completedy have I, to be certain.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
And yet if they are ironic characters, what they are saying is not to be taken literally, either.
Irony usually means that the opposite is true/meant of what is being said - e.g. Lenny and Carls's stupidly liking Bond because he doesn't use gadgets etc shows that only people who are like Lenny and Carl (e.g. stupid) like the new Bond - it's a satirical observation about the fact that Bond is no longer Bond. Im not calling anyone stupid BTW but the Simpsons is, as it has always done. e.g. Homer's appalling parenting is aimed at all the bad fathers out there. Satire is a form of comedy which tells us how not to act - e.g. don't be like Carl and Lenny.
There's all sorts of irony -- verbal irony, situatiol irony, dramatic irony, etc. The fact that they are idiots and being taken seriously could be the satire.
noun, plural i·ro·nies.
1) the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2) Literature:
a) a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b) (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
The essence of all irony is the notion of an actual meaning being opposite to a literal one. Carl and Lenny are classic satirical fools - they are constantly liking and supporting things that are foolish or stupid. They are almost Shakespearean and wonderful to watch. When a fool speaks an opinion in a satire the message to the audience is "don't agree with this". I for one never take Carl and Lenny seriously because their opinions are generally foolish. Other characters who take them seriously are fools too. Because satire has an ironic sub-text, the audience is constantly focused on the sub-text that is the opposite to the literal text. When Carl and Lenny say they like the new Bond the sub-text is "only a fool would like the new Bond". Of course we may or may not agree with the Simpsons satirical assessment of the new Bond and this is part of the divisive nature of satire - it makes fun of things that some people may like (and who are therefore offended) and others dislike (and who thus support the satire). We see this in political satire all the time. Finally, the sub-text is actually a single voice - the voice of the satire itself which speaks through multiple characters and situations.
BTW the early episode of the Simpsons which features Bond (Bond is called Mr Bont and the villain is Scorpio) is very affectionate toward the franchise and while it makes fun of Bont by having Homer tackle him so that he then gets killed (the ultimate irony for Bond who can never die), it is not satirising Bond as a character/franchise the way Carl and Lenny are doing so about Skyfall.
Yes they are idiots which is why they like the latest james Bond film for those reasons. It's called irony.
And yet if they are ironic characters, what they are saying is not to be taken literally, either.
Irony usually means that the opposite is true/meant of what is being said - e.g. Lenny and Carls's stupidly liking Bond because he doesn't use gadgets etc shows that only people who are like Lenny and Carl (e.g. stupid) like the new Bond - it's a satirical observation about the fact that Bond is no longer Bond. Im not calling anyone stupid BTW but the Simpsons is, as it has always done. e.g. Homer's appalling parenting is aimed at all the bad fathers out there. Satire is a form of comedy which tells us how not to act - e.g. don't be like Carl and Lenny.
No, the irony is that Lenny and Carl like Craig's Bond for the wrong reasons. Instead of appreciating the complex plot lines, witty dialogue, extraordinary acting, excellent cinematography and lighting and creative use of mise-en-scene, they like Craig's Bond films for stupid reasons. It's like Lenny saying, I like Jackson Pollack because I can paint just like him. The irony being that, of course, he can't.
The fact that you didn't pick up on this is . . . ironic.
If we're going to make Bond into a sad boring loser
You're making my point for me, my friend. Referring to Craig's Bond that way is certainly nothing more than an opinion, and one which I and many others disagree with. And sure, one can point to Q's blunder and other plot elements of Skyfall that seem stupid and not well-thought out, but that doesn't automatically translate into Skyfall being an overall bad movie. Another line from the criticism which you apparently agree with is this one "Daniel Craig seems hardened, waxy, and humourless, with no gift for floating a weak punchline, and the uninspired script (“Got into some deep water”, anyone?) gives him a morass of them". Now that is clearly nothing more than the opinion of the writer and, again, it is one that I don't agree with all. So what makes that opinion any more valid than anyone else's? My point is the notion that this critical view of Skyfall is finally a dose of "realistic" criticism seems to imply that contrary views are somehow unrealistic. I don't see either view as being more realistic than the other. They're just different opinions, that's all.
And yet if they are ironic characters, what they are saying is not to be taken literally, either.
Irony usually means that the opposite is true/meant of what is being said - e.g. Lenny and Carls's stupidly liking Bond because he doesn't use gadgets etc shows that only people who are like Lenny and Carl (e.g. stupid) like the new Bond - it's a satirical observation about the fact that Bond is no longer Bond. Im not calling anyone stupid BTW but the Simpsons is, as it has always done. e.g. Homer's appalling parenting is aimed at all the bad fathers out there. Satire is a form of comedy which tells us how not to act - e.g. don't be like Carl and Lenny.
No, the irony is that Lenny and Carl like Craig's Bond for the wrong reasons. Instead of appreciating the complex plot lines, witty dialogue, extraordinary acting, excellent cinematography and lighting and creative use of mise-en-scene, they like Craig's Bond films for stupid reasons. It's like Lenny saying, I like Jackson Pollack because I can paint just like him. The irony being that, of course, he can't.
The fact that you didn't pick up on this is . . . ironic.
I refer you to Occam's Razor in this instance but nice try.
If we're going to make Bond into a sad boring loser
You're making my point for me, my friend. Referring to Craig's Bond that way is certainly nothing more than an opinion, and one which I and many others disagree with. And sure, one can point to Q's blunder and other plot elements of Skyfall that seem stupid and not well-thought out, but that doesn't automatically translate into Skyfall being an overall bad movie. Another line from the criticism which you apparently agree with is this one "Daniel Craig seems hardened, waxy, and humourless, with no gift for floating a weak punchline, and the uninspired script (“Got into some deep water”, anyone?) gives him a morass of them". Now that is clearly nothing more than the opinion of the writer and, again, it is one that I don't agree with all. So what makes that opinion any more valid than anyone else's? My point is the notion that this critical view of Skyfall is finally a dose of "realistic" criticism seems to imply that contrary views are somehow unrealistic. I don't see either view as being more realistic than the other. They're just different opinions, that's all.
I'd have to check all the reviews of past Bond films by date to support what I'm about to say but the most objective criticism of films tends to come out after the dust has settled - the reviews that come out straight after release is either crowing with praise or utterly damning and we can never be sure how many of the positive critics are in the pay of the publicity machine which needs sales. Months and years later when money is not such an issue, more balanced views tend to come out and we can be more certain that they are not corrupt.
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
I rather like Craig's utterance of "Got into some deep water." as well as his "I never did like this place." before the big explosion. He's nonchalant which is very much a Connery trait.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,816MI6 Agent
edited May 2014
The deep wqter line bothered me only in the context that it underlined how unbelievable it was he had not died from exposure in the freezing water and cold. - I tripped and fell into Loch Faskally once during the early autumn. So Cold! Not to mention it and I, stank!
The "I always hated this place," on the other hand was quite fitting. Up to that point I was wondering if Bond felt any sorrow, any at all at the loss of his family home. Clearly not! The comment also echos back to the psychiatrists word association earlier in the film. Bonds loss of his Mum and Dad (and Aunt?) did have an impact on him, but he has not let it stop him from getting on with his life.
I find these two one liners highlight some of the strengths and flaws of the film. However as time passes and I see it more as part of the series, I am frowning on the flaws less, and enjoying it more. Essentially it is about the downfall of a key character, M-Manf and Dame Judi's skillful passing the batton to Ralph Finnes. In that context it is a Bond milestone.
It is a shame Mr Brosnan was not allowed to bring his sense of humour to 007. Equally though, Mr Craig plays michevious very well, we see it a couple if times in CR-06, and I suppose the pillow talk with Silva and the wink at Mallory before shooting the fire hydrants qualify too. I hope that trait is brought back more in the next one.
By the by, what the hell was Tanner doing when Mallory got shot? It is after this moment he pops up to pulls M behind the desk?
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
Once again I find myself in agreement, {[] )
One of us must be very clever !
I think Tanner was on t'in-ter-net, probably posting something
On AJB. )
I've grown to love the entire last act of SF, almost a stand alone mini movie.
Love Bond breaking the guy's neck on the run, the funny bits with Kincade,
And his last scene with M, ( bottom lip wobbling, time ) . I'm sure SF has its
Faults, I'm just not looking for them. {[]
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Have absolutely no problem with Craig and his delivery of the "funnies"; he isn't very good at them, no one has ever really written Bond wit well since Dick Maibaum, and it takes a Connery or Moore to drop them out properly anyway. The Bond of the books wasn't a comedian and neither was Tim Dalton, so Craig's okay with me in that dept.
But can someone explain "it's the circle of life" line to me? Is it a reference to the LION KING? ?:) )
Comments
Yes they are idiots which is why they like the latest james Bond film for those reasons. It's called irony.
Wish I was as 'ordinary' as DC....
Desiderata
'Max Ehrman' = Max Ehrmann
Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others,
even to the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter,
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals,
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life,
keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy
Forgot to add " Wear Sunscreen ".
I have to agree with M as well. Mr Craig is extrodinary as Bond. He has a brought a broken psyche and reintroduced a brute physicality to the role that has been lacking since Sir Sean. That is not to disregard the other actors, far from it. All of them are great in the role (except Peter Sellers) but Craigs character has killed with his bare hands. He has been indecisive and made the wrong choices. He has been seen as flawed and vengeful. (Could do with a bit less of the latter in my book.) Mr Brosnan was given a half hearted chance to do the darker character stuff in DAD, but it was not written in properly, robbing him of the chance to pull it through his whole performance throughout the film.
Craig is playing a more rounded character and that is not an ordinary thing, its an interesting thing, giving ys more of who this character is.
Connery had the same quality. Even though he was tall (ridiculously so for a "secret agent" who is supposed to blend in), buff, and handsome, he seemed like a guy who got out of bed, got dressed, and went about his business like the rest of us. He had a sense of humor and confidence men admire because it comes from inside, and even a guy who doesn't look like Connery knows that where being a man comes from. It's just that he had some advantages, but you like him anyway because you could have a beer with him. He could still feel pain and be put his place and so forth, and Connery always played him that way, even when he got bored with the role because they kept trying to make him less human.
Fast forward to Pierce Brosnan. He doesn't seem like that guy at at all. He seems like someone who has a hair stylist and diets. He watches the E Network. He shops. His confidence comes from outside because he knows he looks like a male model cliche. Brosnan can be charming, but can you imagine him getting away with that if he didn't look like a mannequin? That's not necessarily something other men admire. If you have a beer with him -- or more likely a light beer -- it's because he tells funny jokes. Men can be amused by him, though, which is one reason why I still believe they should have let Brosnan play the part building upon his natural, Moore-lilke lightness and humor.
Craig fits more neatly into the Connery camp. That he doesn't look like Brosnan is his greatest strength. He can't rely on conventionality. He's got his balls and and his brains, and not only do they get him through, they give him an edge. You just know that he would kick the crap out of Brosnan in a fight despite being smaller -- and, again, that's something men admire. Craig is a handsome man, but in a more traditionally masculine way. Like I said, his nose and his washed out coloring are his only real problems, and both are probably accentuated by the camera and lighting. (You'll notice how different he can look in the same film, which is mostly the result of the lensing being used in a particular scene.) You could definitely have a beer with Craig, though his problem is that he might seem too brooding, which is why I keep hoping they let him relax and have more fun in the next Bond film.
Irony usually means that the opposite is true/meant of what is being said - e.g. Lenny and Carls's stupidly liking Bond because he doesn't use gadgets etc shows that only people who are like Lenny and Carl (e.g. stupid) like the new Bond - it's a satirical observation about the fact that Bond is no longer Bond. Im not calling anyone stupid BTW but the Simpsons is, as it has always done. e.g. Homer's appalling parenting is aimed at all the bad fathers out there. Satire is a form of comedy which tells us how not to act - e.g. don't be like Carl and Lenny.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Yeah! It's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
Didn't think you old enough to remember Stanley Unwin, TB2!
Lol! I love the early Carry Ons, he was in Regardless, and two months ago I was finally able to watch The Secret Service on Youtube. Remarcabold, truely Remarcabold! Re enqireidy, 39 orbits completedy have I, to be certain.
From www.dictionary.com:
Irony
i·ro·ny
1 [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
noun, plural i·ro·nies.
1) the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2) Literature:
a) a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b) (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
The essence of all irony is the notion of an actual meaning being opposite to a literal one. Carl and Lenny are classic satirical fools - they are constantly liking and supporting things that are foolish or stupid. They are almost Shakespearean and wonderful to watch. When a fool speaks an opinion in a satire the message to the audience is "don't agree with this". I for one never take Carl and Lenny seriously because their opinions are generally foolish. Other characters who take them seriously are fools too. Because satire has an ironic sub-text, the audience is constantly focused on the sub-text that is the opposite to the literal text. When Carl and Lenny say they like the new Bond the sub-text is "only a fool would like the new Bond". Of course we may or may not agree with the Simpsons satirical assessment of the new Bond and this is part of the divisive nature of satire - it makes fun of things that some people may like (and who are therefore offended) and others dislike (and who thus support the satire). We see this in political satire all the time. Finally, the sub-text is actually a single voice - the voice of the satire itself which speaks through multiple characters and situations.
BTW the early episode of the Simpsons which features Bond (Bond is called Mr Bont and the villain is Scorpio) is very affectionate toward the franchise and while it makes fun of Bont by having Homer tackle him so that he then gets killed (the ultimate irony for Bond who can never die), it is not satirising Bond as a character/franchise the way Carl and Lenny are doing so about Skyfall.
No, the irony is that Lenny and Carl like Craig's Bond for the wrong reasons. Instead of appreciating the complex plot lines, witty dialogue, extraordinary acting, excellent cinematography and lighting and creative use of mise-en-scene, they like Craig's Bond films for stupid reasons. It's like Lenny saying, I like Jackson Pollack because I can paint just like him. The irony being that, of course, he can't.
The fact that you didn't pick up on this is . . . ironic.
You're making my point for me, my friend. Referring to Craig's Bond that way is certainly nothing more than an opinion, and one which I and many others disagree with. And sure, one can point to Q's blunder and other plot elements of Skyfall that seem stupid and not well-thought out, but that doesn't automatically translate into Skyfall being an overall bad movie. Another line from the criticism which you apparently agree with is this one "Daniel Craig seems hardened, waxy, and humourless, with no gift for floating a weak punchline, and the uninspired script (“Got into some deep water”, anyone?) gives him a morass of them". Now that is clearly nothing more than the opinion of the writer and, again, it is one that I don't agree with all. So what makes that opinion any more valid than anyone else's? My point is the notion that this critical view of Skyfall is finally a dose of "realistic" criticism seems to imply that contrary views are somehow unrealistic. I don't see either view as being more realistic than the other. They're just different opinions, that's all.
I refer you to Occam's Razor in this instance but nice try.
I'd have to check all the reviews of past Bond films by date to support what I'm about to say but the most objective criticism of films tends to come out after the dust has settled - the reviews that come out straight after release is either crowing with praise or utterly damning and we can never be sure how many of the positive critics are in the pay of the publicity machine which needs sales. Months and years later when money is not such an issue, more balanced views tend to come out and we can be more certain that they are not corrupt.
The "I always hated this place," on the other hand was quite fitting. Up to that point I was wondering if Bond felt any sorrow, any at all at the loss of his family home. Clearly not! The comment also echos back to the psychiatrists word association earlier in the film. Bonds loss of his Mum and Dad (and Aunt?) did have an impact on him, but he has not let it stop him from getting on with his life.
I find these two one liners highlight some of the strengths and flaws of the film. However as time passes and I see it more as part of the series, I am frowning on the flaws less, and enjoying it more. Essentially it is about the downfall of a key character, M-Manf and Dame Judi's skillful passing the batton to Ralph Finnes. In that context it is a Bond milestone.
It is a shame Mr Brosnan was not allowed to bring his sense of humour to 007. Equally though, Mr Craig plays michevious very well, we see it a couple if times in CR-06, and I suppose the pillow talk with Silva and the wink at Mallory before shooting the fire hydrants qualify too. I hope that trait is brought back more in the next one.
By the by, what the hell was Tanner doing when Mallory got shot? It is after this moment he pops up to pulls M behind the desk?
One of us must be very clever !
I think Tanner was on t'in-ter-net, probably posting something
On AJB.
I've grown to love the entire last act of SF, almost a stand alone mini movie.
Love Bond breaking the guy's neck on the run, the funny bits with Kincade,
And his last scene with M, ( bottom lip wobbling, time ) . I'm sure SF has its
Faults, I'm just not looking for them. {[]
But can someone explain "it's the circle of life" line to me? Is it a reference to the LION KING? ?:)