401

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Peppermill wrote:
Blackleiter wrote:
delicious wrote:

As I said in my original review, SF was like a really intense sales pitch to try and convince us that Bond is good - I didnt fall for it but a lot of people obviously did.

Or perhaps those of us who felt SF was a very good Bond film didn't "fall for" anything, but instead we were able to discern qualities that you somehow failed to grasp? I understand that you didn't think much of Skyfall, but do you really have to be so condenscending towards the viewers that did? Sheesh! ajb007/confused

Comming from you that is kind of funny...

Huh??  ajb007/confused

402

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

delicious wrote:

There was a quality to SF which was contrived and trying too hard to manipulate the audience - for instance when M dies at the end we're supposed to feel sadness/pathos - I was unmoved but I knew the film makers expected me to be moved - that was their intention with that scene. That's manipulation. However if we turn to The Bourne Ultimatum where Bourne visits the daughter of the couple he murdered in the hotel room and explains that her mother didn't kill her father, Bourne killed both of them - that was truly sad and had real pathos because Bourne was thinking of the death of his own girlfriend at the start of the film. See the difference?

Ask yourself and be honest - did you feel sad at M's death because the scene was sad or because the film was telling you to feel sad the way canned laughter tells you something is funny in a lame American sitcom like Everybody Loves Raymond? Is your loyalty to Bond as a brand - wanting the films to be good - blinding you to the actual quality of the last 2 films.

I'm not a Moore fan, I think Dalton was the best Bond - an action man with manners and a sense of humour - and Brosnan wasn't too bad either for the most part.

Mathis's death in QoS was also contrived and didn't quite work, BUT the scene where Bond finds Vesper under the shower in CR and comforts her does have real pathos about it. There was nothing contrived about that situation - I didn't feel like I was being manipulated into feeling something that wasn't really there just because the circumstances demanded that I should. Vesper's fear after witnessing the violence of the fight in the stairwell was something that anyone could relate to. It touched a universal chord. M's death in SF did not.

The villain's escape from MI5 in SF and the trap involving diverting a train to crash on top of Bond was also incredibly contrived. And how did the villain escape from his prison and kill his guards - we don't know and we are never told how. That's a long way from the genius of films like Oceans 11 etc where every aspect of the film's infiltrations is either shown or explained later - pure entertainment. It made SF look lazy - were the writers having an RDO that day?

QoS did not have a plot/villain deserving of Bond - Bond should be stopping men who are trying to take over or destroy the whole world. The lame missing hard drive idea in SF was even weaker - who cares about a few agents who could have been told to leave their posts if they were in danger. Hardly edge of the seat stuff.

Any competent screenwriter will tell you that the villain and the challenge he presents drives the film and defines the hero. This has been sadly lacking in the all of the Craig films. If you don't believe me look it up in screenwriting 101 in any university curriculum.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I certainly can't quarrel with your feelings about SF. You felt manipulated and you thought there were too many contrived moments. Those are your feelings and you are obviously entitled to them. My problem with your previous post is that you seemed to suggest that those of us who don't feel the same way are somehow less discerning than you are or more easily manipulated. Speaking for myself, I didn't get that overall impression from the movie. Were there moments when the filmamkers were trying to get us to feel a certain way? Of course, as is true of every film. Some of those moments worked for me and some didn't, but I did not feel as I watched SF that they were always trying too hard to get a certain reaction from the audience, resulting in a movie that is less enjoyable or of lesser quality. Bottom line - some fans think SF is an excellent Bond film, some don't. I don't question the judgment of either group. (Although I do question the judgment of those those who think CR '67 is a good Bond film - there's no excuse for that!  ajb007/biggrin)

"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."

403

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Peppermill wrote:
Blackleiter wrote:
delicious wrote:

As I said in my original review, SF was like a really intense sales pitch to try and convince us that Bond is good - I didnt fall for it but a lot of people obviously did.

Or perhaps those of us who felt SF was a very good Bond film didn't "fall for" anything, but instead we were able to discern qualities that you somehow failed to grasp? I understand that you didn't think much of Skyfall, but do you really have to be so condenscending towards the viewers that did? Sheesh! ajb007/confused

Comming from you that is kind of funny...

What is that supposed to mean? Please enlighten me.

"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."

404

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

delicious wrote:
Sir Miles wrote:
delicious wrote:

Commercial success does not indicate quality. Casino Royale is the only good Daniel Craig Bond film to date. QoS and SF were both terrible. As I said in my original review, SF was like a really intense sales pitch to try and convince us that Bond is good - I didnt fall for it but a lot of people obviously did. It was like some one shouting to get their point across as though volume makes up for meaning.

According to you, that is. Your review is no indication of quality either - its subjective.


er....perhaps you can direct me to an "objective" review? ahem


Sure...read mine  ajb007/cool

But remember I wasn't the one spouting off in the first place.... ajb007/wink

YNWA 96

The Unbearables

405

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Blackleiter wrote:
Peppermill wrote:
Blackleiter wrote:

Or perhaps those of us who felt SF was a very good Bond film didn't "fall for" anything, but instead we were able to discern qualities that you somehow failed to grasp? I understand that you didn't think much of Skyfall, but do you really have to be so condenscending towards the viewers that did? Sheesh! ajb007/confused

Comming from you that is kind of funny...

What is that supposed to mean? Please enlighten me.

What I meant was that saying things like "but instead we were able to discern qualities that you somehow failed to grasp" makes you sound very condescending to me as well. I'm getting a bit tired of being called "dumb, uninformed, shallow e.d." because I'm not a big fan of the last 2 movies. I have tried to stay out of discussions like this because I do not want to start a fight with respected members like you.

1. Ohmss   2. Frwl   3. Op   4. Tswlm   5. Tld   6. Ge  7. Yolt 8. Lald   9. Cr   10. Ltk   11. Dn   12. Gf   13. Qos   14. Mr   15. Tmwtgg   16. Fyeo   17. Twine   18. Sf   19. Tb   20 Tnd   21. Spectre   22 Daf   23. Avtak   24. Dad

406

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Peppermill wrote:
Blackleiter wrote:
Peppermill wrote:

Comming from you that is kind of funny...

What is that supposed to mean? Please enlighten me.

What I meant was that saying things like "but instead we were able to discern qualities that you somehow failed to grasp" makes you sound very condescending to me as well. I'm getting a bit tired of being called "dumb, uninformed, shallow e.d." because I'm not a big fan of the last 2 movies. I have tried to stay out of discussions like this because I do not want to start a fight with respected members like you.

You missed the point of my comment. I was trying to set up an equivalent to the condescending tone of the original post by delicious to show how it could be taken as offensive. I don't believe for one second that those of us who enjoyed SF are any more or less perceptive or discerning than those that didn't like it. It's all a matter of personal opinion, and my point is that we shouldn't imply that those who don't share our particular opinions are "dumb, uninformed, shallow", etc. At least that's what I was trying to do, but I guess I botched it.

"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."

407

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

I might have misunderstood and in that case I'm sorry for my comment. Like I said, I try to keep out of this kind of discussions because this is the kind of reactions I try to avoid.

1. Ohmss   2. Frwl   3. Op   4. Tswlm   5. Tld   6. Ge  7. Yolt 8. Lald   9. Cr   10. Ltk   11. Dn   12. Gf   13. Qos   14. Mr   15. Tmwtgg   16. Fyeo   17. Twine   18. Sf   19. Tb   20 Tnd   21. Spectre   22 Daf   23. Avtak   24. Dad

408

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Blackleiter wrote:

You missed the point of my comment. I was trying to set up an equivalent to the condescending tone of the original post by delicious to show how it could be taken as offensive. I don't believe for one second that those of us who enjoyed SF are any more or less perceptive or discerning than those that didn't like it. It's all a matter of personal opinion, and my point is that we shouldn't imply that those who don't share our particular opinions are "dumb, uninformed, shallow", etc. At least that's what I was trying to do, but I guess I botched it.

No I don't think you did...I thought your comments were/are spot on...and sensible too...perhaps that's the problem  ajb007/lol

YNWA 96

The Unbearables

409

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Yes, Sir Miles, you are right, the problem is the people who think different.

1. Ohmss   2. Frwl   3. Op   4. Tswlm   5. Tld   6. Ge  7. Yolt 8. Lald   9. Cr   10. Ltk   11. Dn   12. Gf   13. Qos   14. Mr   15. Tmwtgg   16. Fyeo   17. Twine   18. Sf   19. Tb   20 Tnd   21. Spectre   22 Daf   23. Avtak   24. Dad

410

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Peppermill wrote:

Yes, Sir Miles, you are right, the problem is the people who think different.

It's just too easy to rubbish someone else's opinions because they don't match our own...we are all guilty of this to some degree...

YNWA 96

The Unbearables

411

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

But that is exactly what I am trying to say. I can understand why people love Skyfall. It is a fantastic Bond movie, a great movie in its own right, just not my cup of mud ajb007/biggrin

1. Ohmss   2. Frwl   3. Op   4. Tswlm   5. Tld   6. Ge  7. Yolt 8. Lald   9. Cr   10. Ltk   11. Dn   12. Gf   13. Qos   14. Mr   15. Tmwtgg   16. Fyeo   17. Twine   18. Sf   19. Tb   20 Tnd   21. Spectre   22 Daf   23. Avtak   24. Dad

412

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Peppermill wrote:

But that is exactly what I am trying to say. I can understand why people love Skyfall. It is a fantastic Bond movie, a great movie in its own right, just not my cup of mud ajb007/biggrin

I for one am glad you dont like skyfall,wouldnt it be boring
if we all agreed (wasnt sky fall great ,"yes it was" ,i liked it "me too ) 
lets all keep up the differences of opinion  ajb007/smile its what makes this web so good

By the way, did I tell you,  I was       "Mad"?

413

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

AAJB has many different opinions some wrong the others Mine.   ajb007/biggrin
There is no one  less perceptive or discerning than  Me.      Also
"dumb, uninformed, shallow",  are all words used to describe my posts,
But the thing  that really upsets me is to find out that Blackleiter has been
made a "Respected Member " and no one told me.
   Was there a Party with cake?,  I bet I missed out. I hate missing cake. Still
Congrats and all that  ajb007/martini . I can Only hope to Reach for the stars Myself.   ajb007/lol

414

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Thunderpussy wrote:

AAJB has many different opinions some wrong the others Mine.   ajb007/biggrin
There is no one  less perceptive or discerning than  Me.      Also
"dumb, uninformed, shallow",  are all words used to describe my posts,
But the thing  that really upsets me is to find out that Blackleiter has been
made a "Respected Member " and no one told me.
   Was there a Party with cake?,  I bet I missed out. I hate missing cake. Still
Congrats and all that  ajb007/martini . I can Only hope to Reach for the stars Myself.   ajb007/lol

Hell, I missed that event myself! Where's my trophy?

"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."

415

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Peppermill wrote:

I might have misunderstood and in that case I'm sorry for my comment. Like I said, I try to keep out of this kind of discussions because this is the kind of reactions I try to avoid.

No need to apologize. I just hope my point is clearer now.

"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."

416

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

SF is as good as QOS in a different way.

Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool. Craig is too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.QOS 4.DN 5.GF/GE 6.SP 7.FRWL 8.TB/TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT

417

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

It is, don't worry  ajb007/martini

1. Ohmss   2. Frwl   3. Op   4. Tswlm   5. Tld   6. Ge  7. Yolt 8. Lald   9. Cr   10. Ltk   11. Dn   12. Gf   13. Qos   14. Mr   15. Tmwtgg   16. Fyeo   17. Twine   18. Sf   19. Tb   20 Tnd   21. Spectre   22 Daf   23. Avtak   24. Dad

418

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Skyfall is Good, QOS is different.  ajb007/bond

419

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Thunderpussy wrote:

Skyfall is Good, QOS is different.  ajb007/bond

You need to check your predictive text, TP....'brilliant' comes out as 'differentajb007/biggrin

YNWA 96

The Unbearables

420

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Blackleiter wrote:
delicious wrote:

There was a quality to SF which was contrived and trying too hard to manipulate the audience - for instance when M dies at the end we're supposed to feel sadness/pathos - I was unmoved but I knew the film makers expected me to be moved - that was their intention with that scene. That's manipulation. However if we turn to The Bourne Ultimatum where Bourne visits the daughter of the couple he murdered in the hotel room and explains that her mother didn't kill her father, Bourne killed both of them - that was truly sad and had real pathos because Bourne was thinking of the death of his own girlfriend at the start of the film. See the difference?

Ask yourself and be honest - did you feel sad at M's death because the scene was sad or because the film was telling you to feel sad the way canned laughter tells you something is funny in a lame American sitcom like Everybody Loves Raymond? Is your loyalty to Bond as a brand - wanting the films to be good - blinding you to the actual quality of the last 2 films.

I'm not a Moore fan, I think Dalton was the best Bond - an action man with manners and a sense of humour - and Brosnan wasn't too bad either for the most part.

Mathis's death in QoS was also contrived and didn't quite work, BUT the scene where Bond finds Vesper under the shower in CR and comforts her does have real pathos about it. There was nothing contrived about that situation - I didn't feel like I was being manipulated into feeling something that wasn't really there just because the circumstances demanded that I should. Vesper's fear after witnessing the violence of the fight in the stairwell was something that anyone could relate to. It touched a universal chord. M's death in SF did not.

The villain's escape from MI5 in SF and the trap involving diverting a train to crash on top of Bond was also incredibly contrived. And how did the villain escape from his prison and kill his guards - we don't know and we are never told how. That's a long way from the genius of films like Oceans 11 etc where every aspect of the film's infiltrations is either shown or explained later - pure entertainment. It made SF look lazy - were the writers having an RDO that day?

QoS did not have a plot/villain deserving of Bond - Bond should be stopping men who are trying to take over or destroy the whole world. The lame missing hard drive idea in SF was even weaker - who cares about a few agents who could have been told to leave their posts if they were in danger. Hardly edge of the seat stuff.

Any competent screenwriter will tell you that the villain and the challenge he presents drives the film and defines the hero. This has been sadly lacking in the all of the Craig films. If you don't believe me look it up in screenwriting 101 in any university curriculum.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I certainly can't quarrel with your feelings about SF. You felt manipulated and you thought there were too many contrived moments. Those are your feelings and you are obviously entitled to them. My problem with your previous post is that you seemed to suggest that those of us who don't feel the same way are somehow less discerning than you are or more easily manipulated. Speaking for myself, I didn't get that overall impression from the movie. Were there moments when the filmamkers were trying to get us to feel a certain way? Of course, as is true of every film. Some of those moments worked for me and some didn't, but I did not feel as I watched SF that they were always trying too hard to get a certain reaction from the audience, resulting in a movie that is less enjoyable or of lesser quality. Bottom line - some fans think SF is an excellent Bond film, some don't. I don't question the judgment of either group. (Although I do question the judgment of those those who think CR '67 is a good Bond film - there's no excuse for that!  ajb007/biggrin)


Yes all fiction is contrived in the sense that it is made up and is trying to elicit an emotional response form the viewer/reader, but in the case of some films. like SF, the way the characters, plot, themes and dialog were put together don't harmonise and flow well enough to make the audience feel something - eg the illusion isn't well constructed enough in such cases. Often the best writing comes from real life stories because such narratives are based on real human experience and there's a greater chance that the story will draw us in emotionally. My feeling with SF was a bit like my feeling about DAD - it was a film that was made under too much pressure to succeed or the teamwork wasn't the best or something else was going on behind the scenes which has created a sense of tension that has nothing to do with the story. I was never able to engage with or get inside SF - I was just watching a series of well executed scenes but as the themes were wrong and the film lacked an emotional centre of gravity - something for me to care about like the fate of the world as in most Bond films - it was just action without meaning. I've watched Steven Seagal films with more drama and depth.

What was SF really about, bottom line? What are its themes. In QoS, the theme was in the title - Bond makes peace with Vesper who he suspected of betraying him in CR. He finds solace in bringing Greene and Quantum to justice. Camille has a parallel story line in her quest to avenge the death of her family by killing General Medrano. Even though the water supply issue was a weak plot threat in comparison to most Bond films, the theme worked and held the film together.

Casino Royale had a somewhat meatier threat - the $100M which Le Chiffre was trying to win in the poker game. The film was mainly Bond's readiness to be a 00 agent - not just in the scene in the PTS which tests his ability to take life but throughout the entire film and culminating in his having to deal with the loss of Vesper - he triumphs at the end when he tracks down Mr White and tells him his name. He has successfully mastered the role of 00 agent. He is strong enough to kill and strong enough to cope with the death of a loved one. He may be tormented and need alcohol to dull the pain but he can do the job.  So the theme was initiation.

The only theme I have found in SF are old age and retirement (or put another way, fitness to do the job and general competency). This is the opposite of initiation and it relates to Bond and to M. What bothers me about such themes is that they are not the kind of themes that his character should ever have to confront. Unless its a trend and the next film features the death of Bond. I also don't like the focus being on the hero's issues so much - it feels like the franchise is chewing its own foot off.

421

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

delicious wrote:

it was a film that was made under too much pressure to succeed

Again, I appreciate that you have a different perspective on SF, and the film didn't work for you. But judging from its critical and financial success, I don't understand your comment that I quoted above. True, it obviously didn't succeed with you, but generally speaking it was a success. Is it the best Bond film ever? Not in my opinion, but I enjoyed it quite a bit, as did many others. And that's not just because we were all somehow suckered in by the "flim flam", or because we weren't capable of recognizing certain nuances that you managed to discern. It's because taken as a whole, SF held together well enough and had enough entertaining qualities that many fans, such as myuself, found it to be a solid and enjoyable addition to the Bond film series. I hope the next film is as good or better.

"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."

422

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

Blackleiter wrote:
delicious wrote:

it was a film that was made under too much pressure to succeed

Again, I appreciate that you have a different perspective on SF, and the film didn't work for you. But judging from its critical and financial success, I don't understand your comment that I quoted above. True, it obviously didn't succeed with you, but generally speaking it was a success. Is it the best Bond film ever? Not in my opinion, but I enjoyed it quite a bit, as did many others. And that's not just because we were all somehow suckered in by the "flim flam", or because we weren't capable of recognizing certain nuances that you managed to discern. It's because taken as a whole, SF held together well enough and had enough entertaining qualities that many fans, such as myuself, found it to be a solid and enjoyable addition to the Bond film series. I hope the next film is as good or better.

MacDonald's is also popular and makes a lot of money. Do you think that means it's good?

423

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

delicious wrote:
Blackleiter wrote:
delicious wrote:

it was a film that was made under too much pressure to succeed

Again, I appreciate that you have a different perspective on SF, and the film didn't work for you. But judging from its critical and financial success, I don't understand your comment that I quoted above. True, it obviously didn't succeed with you, but generally speaking it was a success. Is it the best Bond film ever? Not in my opinion, but I enjoyed it quite a bit, as did many others. And that's not just because we were all somehow suckered in by the "flim flam", or because we weren't capable of recognizing certain nuances that you managed to discern. It's because taken as a whole, SF held together well enough and had enough entertaining qualities that many fans, such as myuself, found it to be a solid and enjoyable addition to the Bond film series. I hope the next film is as good or better.

MacDonald's is also popular and makes a lot of money. Do you think that means it's good?

Look I'm sure we all get it - you truly didn't like it.  Just because you're not a fan of SF, that doesn't mean that none of us fans should praise it or deem it a 'worthy' addition to the franchise??  Many, many people people view SF as being a screen success, not just a ££ or $$ success.  Likewise there's been other Bond films that some love or others loathe.  Nature of the beast & all that.

Besides ... You lost your cred with me after the Steven Seagal reference / comparison a few posts back  ajb007/biggrin  ajb007/lol

424

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

delicious wrote:
Blackleiter wrote:
delicious wrote:

it was a film that was made under too much pressure to succeed

Again, I appreciate that you have a different perspective on SF, and the film didn't work for you. But judging from its critical and financial success, I don't understand your comment that I quoted above. True, it obviously didn't succeed with you, but generally speaking it was a success. Is it the best Bond film ever? Not in my opinion, but I enjoyed it quite a bit, as did many others. And that's not just because we were all somehow suckered in by the "flim flam", or because we weren't capable of recognizing certain nuances that you managed to discern. It's because taken as a whole, SF held together well enough and had enough entertaining qualities that many fans, such as myuself, found it to be a solid and enjoyable addition to the Bond film series. I hope the next film is as good or better.

MacDonald's is also popular and makes a lot of money. Do you think that means it's good?

Millions of people obviously think that McDonalds is good - I'm not one of them though - it's SUBJECTIVE....I'm not sure why you can't understand this - are you being obtuse or just thick  ajb007/confused Or being argumentative for arguments sake ?

YNWA 96

The Unbearables

425

Re: Skyfall AJB reviews - SPOILERS!

"The only theme I have found in SF are old age and retirement (or put another way, fitness to do the job and general competency). This is the opposite of initiation and it relates to Bond and to M. What bothers me about such themes is that they are not the kind of themes that his character should ever have to confront. Unless its a trend and the next film features the death of Bond. I also don't like the focus being on the hero's issues so much - it feels like the franchise is chewing its own foot off."

There is a theme of finding one's place in an increasingly technological world.  There is also a theme of traps.  Silva sets a trap for Bond who ends up capturing Silva which is part of Silva's trap.  M is trapped by her past as is Silva as is Bond.  In the end Bond sets a trap for Silva, but instead gets trapped himself.

I'm surprised that all of this went over your head.