This is my point as well.
He is right in my opinion. Skyfall was kind of "shit" compared to Quantum of Solace.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bond 24 Announcement: SPECTRE
- Thread starter Rich!
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No. CR was a boring Bond film. Reasonably good spy thriller, but boring Bond film. I'm not here for grounded action, I'm here for sharks, laser pens, Pussy Galore, male power fantasy, ridiculous villains, gimmicky henchvillains, hideouts in secret volcanoes, you name it. QoS was, amazingly, even more boring. Skyfall still featured Craig, who has been an absolute drag on the franchise, but at least Javier Bardem made for a stunning villain.
Quantum has its problems but its the most authentic and true to the character cinematic Bond ever. Skyfall is gorgeous but lifeless, clunky, dour, fanservicey and undoes most of the progressive groundwork laid in CR/QoS in favor on returning to formula.
I don't think they're going to make another Austin Powers movie.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Austin Powers doesn't take itself seriously enough, though. Kingsman was a good substitute, best Bond film in years.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
And this too.
CR, in my opinion, kept the essence of Bond without going overboard like the Pierce Brosnan films did. Skyfall threw that all away in favour of going back to Pierce Borsnan style Bonds, but it was even worse because the Brosnan Bonds didn't take themselves seriously, but Skyfall did.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
There was no fun in CR. It was a joyless film, no vivacity to it.
I mean, read the summarization of Thunderball's plot from wikipedia:
Amazing. Genius! Where has all this gone? Why is Bond now super serial and dark and broody, with grounded villains and whatnot? Who even asked for that?
I mean, read the summarization of Thunderball's plot from wikipedia:
Amazing. Genius! Where has all this gone? Why is Bond now super serial and dark and broody, with grounded villains and whatnot? Who even asked for that?
Hopefully License to Kill is one of them?
I think if Die Another Day wasn't so bizarre and terrible, we would not be seeing the kind of Bond movies that we are seeing now.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, I sadly have to agree with that. DAD killed the Bond franchise, CR was just chasing that Bourne trail.
Spider from Mars
tap that thorax
That's also the one where he rapes a woman in the sauna.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I didn't say it was perfect. There's probably a balance to be found between "Bond escaping from sharks" and "Bond raping women".
heh, definitely not, I thought that movie was so ridiculous. A really weird take on Lethal Weapon and 80s as fuck (and not necessarily in a great way). Living Daylights is where it's at.
I'd round out my top 5 with Goldeneye and Thunderball.
will you be seeing this film when it airs on netflix??
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I think Skyfall gets a bit too much hate. The issues with it aren't the fan-service or giving in to the more extravagant Bond tropes, it's that the villain and his plot make zero sense and that the scenes feel strung together.
You can have a car that fires missiles and still have a tight story.
For all that, Skyfall was entertaining, and better than every Brosnan Bond other than Goldeneye.
You can have a car that fires missiles and still have a tight story.
For all that, Skyfall was entertaining, and better than every Brosnan Bond other than Goldeneye.
Spider from Mars
tap that thorax
I would have a better time watching every Brosnan Bond sans Die Another Day than Skyfall. Skyfall is technically a better a better film than TWINE and TND but I enjoy them more. Perhaps it's because I was 6 when TND came out and I watched it a bunch on video.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I like License to Kill, but how many movies follow this plot?
Good guy gets pissed and requires revenge
Good guy poses as bad guy, gets recruited
Bad guy instantly likes good guy ("Hey, I like this guy's style!") particularly after Good Guy either does something brutal, or insults Henchmen #1.
Henchman #1 is a combination of suspicious and jealous, has eye on Good Guy.
Henchman #1 eventually finds conclusive proof that Good Guy is actually a Good Guy and an infiltrator
Good Guy kills Henchman #1, possibly covering up with some BS story that the Bad Guy may be suspicious about
Seriously, I think I've seen at least 5 80s movies with this plot and almost these exact same beats. LtK is a pretty good version of it, but it's not exactly Bond.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It absolutely does here. Shit is curious as hell.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
They're all in the same bucket for me, watchable mostly, but lacking. TWINE suffers especially from wasted potential, it could have been a great movie.
I understand just not loving the movie, but equating it to Die Another Day, or as an outright awful film, boggles my mind. It completely contradicts my own opinion of the film in the most extreme way possible. There is so much quality filmmaking on display in that movie that I just can't fathom it.
I don't get it. I haven't seen since it came out but I really liked the movie myself.
Quantum of Solace is shit and Casino Royale is and will probably always be the best Bond movie ever made.
Spider from Mars
tap that thorax
Quantum of Solace is the shit. Watching CR and QOS back to back is by far the best bond movie. It's essentially CR part 2.
Casino Royale did a remarkable job of repairing the trajectory of Bond into something resembling an actual movie with character and stakes, grounding it for modern sensibilities. Quantum of Solace went too far in that modern grounding direction and turned it into a rather poor imitation of Bourne. Skyfall is The Dark Knight to Casino Royale's Batman Begins, a Half Blood Prince like evolution for the series.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I can accept this narrative.
Fancy Clown
Member
Skyfall is a solid Bond flick. It's stylish, has a decent villain, a pretty good climax that sets it apart from other Bond films, some good action scenes, and continues the Craig Bond films of actually having some themes and character development.
It's not nearly as good as Casino Royale, and around the level of Quantum, maybe a bit better. People have to remember that like 70% or more Bond movies are not good movies (although I love them dearly). Quantum and Skyfall have more going for them than all of Moore and Brosnan's movies, except maybe Goldeneye and The Spy Who Loved Me.
Not sure I understand the batman comparisons. Skyfall has a joker-esque villain, but The Dark Knight was way more grounded than Batman Begins both visually and narratively, and Casino Royale is way more grounded than Skyfall.
It's not nearly as good as Casino Royale, and around the level of Quantum, maybe a bit better. People have to remember that like 70% or more Bond movies are not good movies (although I love them dearly). Quantum and Skyfall have more going for them than all of Moore and Brosnan's movies, except maybe Goldeneye and The Spy Who Loved Me.
Not sure I understand the batman comparisons. Skyfall has a joker-esque villain, but The Dark Knight was way more grounded than Batman Begins both visually and narratively, and Casino Royale is way more grounded than Skyfall.
obin_gam
Member
The Tacktleneck™
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I think more people hate that it represents a backslide to stuff that had gone too far, than the film itself. The re-introduction of certain elements, along with and ending that seems to promise more of the same (status quo Connery-era restored) is worrisome. But that's not the movie itself, that's what it means in the larger context.
The film has problems, but it also worries people that it's promising *more* problems.
I partly agree in the sense that Skyfall is shit but it is better than QoS. But it annoys me how Skyfall did so well as it is no better than your average action film.
Shit, I have License to Kill as my #1 movie so far. I just really enjoyed it for whatever reason. I might have another opinion when I watch it again.
It's not really a narrative comparison, it's a quality of filmmaking comparison. From technical to thematic elements, The Dark Knight is a jump over Batman Begins in every meaningful way to me, as Half Blood Prince is over previous Harry Potter films. Skyfall feels like a similar jump over Casino Royale.
Extra Sauce
Member
I disagree about the technical aspect. Craig's face being unconvincingly CG'd onto a body double is not something you saw in Casino Royale.
heh, if we're making Batman comparisons, Skyfall is more The Dark Knight Rises of the series: aging franchise hero, feeling the effects of his own physical limitations, has to get his mojo back to save [blank].
I think my biggest issue with Skyfall, which isn't even the movie's fault, is that it's a story about Bond being old and potentially outdated, coming right off a pair of movies that re-established Bond as a younger and updated character. Of course you can imagine a bunch of off-screen adventures in between QoS and Skyfall, but had MGM not been in such dire straits and given us a four-year gap between movies, we could have had another Bond in 2010ish to better bridge Bond's origin story in Casino/Quantum to his I'm-old story in Skyfall.
I get why Mendes and Logan went the route they did, celebrating the franchise's 50th anniversary. But I feel like Skyfall's themes would have hit with more weight if we got another movie just before it showing Bond begin to phase from his younger days into his older ones.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I agree with all of this. But do consider that Thunderball has Bond being "worn out/past his prime" as a subtheme as well, and it's the 4th movie.
You can focus on that one isolated instance if you want and ignore the rest of the film full of impeccable cinematography that was beautiful while showing restraint, clear geography of action sequences, setup and payoff and incredible passage of time during the last set piece, great soundtrack, title song/opening animation pairing, etc.
Again, it was not a narrative comparison.
That's why I liked it so much!
But I think the difference there for me is that in Dr. No to Thunderball, Bond was just Bond; he was in the middle of his career, or at least long enough into it that he wasn't being second-guessed as not ready for life in MI6 (I think? maybe that did come up and I'm just forgetting). His age was never a part of the narrative. Whereas Casino/Quantum Bond was deliberately written as a younger guy, fresh 00 agent, who is then suddenly aged into the Bond of Skyfall.
badcrumble
Member
So you want goofy Roger Moore shit, not adaptations of the Ian Fleming character. K.
Fancy Clown
Member
Aesthetically Skyfall is certainly the pinnacle of the Bond series thus far.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It'll never happen, but I'd love for the posters to go back to being painted representations of the film's content.
Mike Works
Member
You know who else thinks Quantum of Solace is an amazing Bond movie? That's right.
Elvis.
Elvis.
Extra Sauce
Member
It's the editing that takes it from bad to terrible. If there is a guinness world record for number of cuts in a film, I bet it belongs to QoS.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm sorry, what? Have you actually read, for example Dr. No? Where Bond has a fight with a giant squid, and then escapes from Dr. No's complex using the dragon-disguised swamp buggy? Casino Royale (the novel) is probably the most grounded of Fleming's Bond novels; it is also by far the most boring and there's a reason that the Bond film franchise was launched with the far superior Dr. No (they actually wanted to launch it with Thunderball, which features shark pits etc., but there were writing disputes). Most of the rest of the Fleming bond novels are as outrageous as the films - from the very second Fleming novel, Live and Let Die, we have people being fed to sharks, people smuggling gold dubloons, a villain called Mr. BIG, and an evil villain organization named SMERSH. Hell, let's quote the Times Literary Review opinion of Live and Let Die: ""Mr. Fleming works often on the edge of flippancy, rather in the spirit of a highbrow", right back from its 1954 release. Besides, even if it was the case that novel Bond has a serious tone, which I heavily, heavily dispute, that's certainly not the case of the films, which have never been afraid to deviate from the novels in the first place, and have maintained their own tone.
You remind me of those bizarre people who insist that ASM is better than SM2 because Peter Parker is truer to the comic book version. Nobody gives a shit about the comic book version because ASM was terrible and SM2 wasn't.
NealMcCauley
Member
Three Days of the Condor holds the record last I checked. The constant use of the score is another reason the action is so lackluster. It felt like the music was driving the action, not the other way around. In a way it made the bad editing even more noticeable.
Wind's Howling
Member
The era of Airplane, Monty Python and goofy Bond movies which is a mix of Austin Power's over the top insanity and Bond's love of gadgets, is luckily over.
There is no way in the world that a movie like Dr. No would hit with the general audience this day and age.
If you thought Casino Royale was a boring movie you must really dislike a lot of great movies. I am glad you are not in the directing seat of the Bond movies. What a travesty that would have been.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked