[MTS]

masan, on 04 November 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

But perhaps the thing to remember is that this IS James Bond. Ridiculous plot lines and holes you could drive a bus through are pretty standard in the Bond universe, or at least they were before he started having to compete with Jason Bourne and Ethan Hunt.

It's always puzzled me that people bring up this point, to me it just seems like an excuse for sloppy writing. Ridiculous plot lines I can understand, but you can't seriously be telling me plot holes are an important part of the Bond oeuvre that is worth preserving.

This post has been edited by MTS: 07 November 2012 - 11:05 AM

[Tapper]

MTS, on 07 November 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

masan, on 04 November 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

But perhaps the thing to remember is that this IS James Bond. Ridiculous plot lines and holes you could drive a bus through are pretty standard in the Bond universe, or at least they were before he started having to compete with Jason Bourne and Ethan Hunt.

It's always puzzled me that people bring up this point, to me it just seems like an excuse for sloppy writing. Ridiculous plot lines I can understand, but you can't seriously be telling me plot holes are an important part of the Bond oeuvre that is worth preserving.

The issue is, when is a plothole a plothole?

What I don't consider plotholes:

Spoiler

I didn't mind the uranium shell. It was a means of identifying Patrice and only 0.5% of the population will know that uranium bullets will kill you. The big fall from the train was stupid, but not much more stupid than fighting on the train/ driving a motor cycle over tiled roofs was. It is dumb but not a hole.

What i do consider plotholes:

Spoiler

In Shanghai, there was enough time to knock out Patrice while he was aiming the sniper rifle. A smack with the gun grip to the back of the head or on the temple and his lights would be out. Instead, we get the whole sequence there.

I do agree about the McGyver-esque issue. I mean, Tanner could easily have flown in enough ammunition, tripwires and grenades to give them a fighting chance if they didn't trust other MI6 agents. Q could have slowed down/delayed the info feed to give them more time. And why not hide M in the tunnel to begin with?

Game keeper was fucking lame, too.

All that being said, the first half of the movie was easily on par with Casino Royale, which I love to bits. Javier Bardem's first appearance and speech was exceptionally good acting (I disliked the whole chapel scene, though).

And I do think that SPECTRE might come into the picture now. They'll probably connect it to Mr. Green and Mr. White from Casino Royale/ Quantum of Solace - but the whole final scene breathed 'classic' and had for me a very The Avengers-y feel (The John Steed & Emma Peel Avengers (series), not the Spandex Avengers).

[QuickTidal]

MTS, on 07 November 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

masan, on 04 November 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

But perhaps the thing to remember is that this IS James Bond. Ridiculous plot lines and holes you could drive a bus through are pretty standard in the Bond universe, or at least they were before he started having to compete with Jason Bourne and Ethan Hunt.

It's always puzzled me that people bring up this point, to me it just seems like an excuse for sloppy writing. Ridiculous plot lines I can understand, but you can't seriously be telling me plot holes are an important part of the Bond oeuvre that is worth preserving.

It's a part of the history and mythos of the character and franchise.

You want realism and a script with no plot holes, you're looking in the wrong place with Bond.

It's been about "over the top" and "thrills" over realism and believability since DR. NO.

And the reason people bring it up is because some folk LIKE this type of fare.

You may not dig it, but some people obviously do.

[Illuyankas]

I enjoyed it, I assumed the whole isolation thing was because Silva had completely infiltrated their communications and would have known if it was a trap that was too much for his forces to handle leading him to retreat and start again which would have been unacceptable, I don't see how anyone could have disliked the jumped up little shit line, but WHERE THE HELL WAS THE RESULTS OF RONSON'S AUTOPSY CAUSE I'M PRETTY SURE THEY WOULD HAVE FOUND DEPLETED URANIUM FRAGMENTS IN HIM OR IN THE SURROUNDED ROOM SINCE PATRICE SHOT THE POOR BUGGER, WHAT KIND OF INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IS THIS

Also I'm a little unclear on how Silver overpowered the two armed guards outside his cell, too. Oh, and SPOILERS

[Macros]

I figured he was just a trained badass and knocked seven shades out them bond judo chop style.
if theyre lowly guards it stands to reason they are incompetent

[Illuyankas]

BRING BACK FELIX

[Pig Iron]

Bond drags M out into the middle of nowhere (nice scenery though) and as planned gets attacked by super villain and 30 heavily armed mercs with no backup or medical evac available and M dies. Bond: It was gamekeeper's fault, he just had to wave that bloody flashlight around, didnt he? Senile old fart. New M: Good job, now I get to be M.

[Illuyankas]

Tapper, on 07 November 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

but the whole final scene breathed 'classic' and had for me a very The Avengers-y feel (The John Steed & Emma Peel Avengers (series), not the Spandex Avengers).

Oh, I almost forgot, there might be a reason for that:

[Mrs Savagely Wishy Washy]

I really enjoyed the movie- probably one of the best Bonds ever. I thought it was a great homage to the old Bonds considering it's the 50th anniversary of the franchise, and in line with this Shanghai and the Middle East worked well as "exotic" places. I liked that it had a sort of a quintessential British feel about it, and of course with Daniel Craig, Judy Dench and Ralph Fiennes some fine British actors too. It's also the one of the few, if not the only Bond where a large part of the plot happens on British ground, if I remember correctly- I loved the whole tube action and seeing so much of London was awesome and the scenery up in Scotland was beautiful, not surprisingly. Bardem is an awesome, creepy villain, of course, being the outstanding actor that he is, and I liked Albert Finney- he's a legend.
It's a shame to see Judy Dench go, because I always thought she made a great M and there was this chemistry between her and Craig, but Fiennes is a decent replacement and the two of them go well too, I have to say.
Besides- Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever and I really really hope he is going to take up the tux one more time. He plays it so well- this cultivated yet raw/brute manliness that makes James Bond.

[QuickTidal]

Yeah, Apt is on crack, SKYFALL was excellent. One of the best bonds films ever. Easily! Loved every minute.

The classic Aston Martin was GORGEOUS!

[Abyss]

masan, on 04 November 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

Apt I can overlook (but not forgive !) your general insanity when it comes to all things cinema, as in this case I can see where you are coming from.

,....I mean have you seen Moonraker !...

Moonraker is brilliant. So is The Spy Who Loved Me and anyone who diagrees gets stabbed in the neck with that pen Bond used on the python.

Illuyankas, on 07 November 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

BRING BACK FELIX

With or without his legs?

[A Demon Llama!]

Definitely a good film, solid action and decent writing. The plot holes that it had were not too major. Keep in mind I don't care for Bond films and don't remember any of em. I like how it wasn't TOO over the top. My main issue was that I saw no skies falling, I expected at least a few. Some things that annoyed me was their super secret underground lair where they kept their super baddies was in a spot where an unsupervised child that got lost in the London Underground on his way to his grandparents (grandma's b-day) could randomly pop up. Also the bad guys suck ass at shooting... and not bad aim, just having a problem pulling the trigger and stand there looking at the protagonist. Guy must be damn good-looking if no one wants to shoot him. They just walk up close, probably for a hug, and get promptly beaten with random objects.

[Aptorian]

A Demon Llama!, on 11 November 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

decent writing. The plot holes that it had were not too major.

There's hardly an original idea in the entire film. The plot hoes are big enough to drive an Aston Martin through. It has a decently written script, the ideas behind it are just stupid.

[Macros]

You are just stupid!

[Aptorian]

Nuh uh! You are stupid! And ugly too!

[waylander001]

Saw the movie last night - thought it was excellent watch, but not on a par with Casino Royale. I Agree with some of the plot-line issues that Apt raises, but a lot of them can also be explained in hindsight - e.g. When Bond brings M into the Highlands it's not just to protect her, it's also to use her as bait so they can get at Silva where he cannot just dissapear when fully engaged - like he was able to do twice in London.

Overall - a great watch. But not the greatest Bond ever, no way.

[A Demon Llama!]

Not being original doesn't mean its bad. I really wasn't expecting anything new, as long as it had a decent story that made some sense and was fun to watch. Which it was. Don't think over analyzing an action film is necessary. Sure an action scene on a train is cheesy, buts its always fun!

[polishgenius]

A Demon Llama!, on 11 November 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Don't think over analyzing an action film is necessary.

No, but there is a difference between action films like The Raid or Crank, which don't attempt anything much else, and films like this, which do try a bit more with the story and characters. Which is laudable, but notable when it goes wrong.

I think that the flaws in Skyfall, which didn't really detract from my enjoyment even where I noticed them while watching, are nothing compared to the ones in TDKR though.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 11 November 2012 - 10:07 PM

[QuickTidal]

I think what I liked most about SKYFALL was the wonderfully script-included return to classic, Sean Connery-era Bond tropes, without going back to the stuff that no longer works about those films (the misogyny, the sometimes goofy villains, ect.).

It felt almost like an inexorable return that happens so gradually and gently that when the changeover happens you aren't upset, you're more excited to see where it goes from here.

Oh and

Spoiler

Even though I knew that the reason they held back her character name for the whole movie on purpose, I was pleased with the reveal of Naomie Harris as Moneypenny, as pleased as I was with Fiennes grooming and reveal as M.

[Aptorian]

QuickTidal, on 12 November 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

Oh and

Spoiler

Even though I knew that the reason they held back her character name for the whole movie on purpose, I was pleased with the reveal of Naomie Harris as Moneypenny, as pleased as I was with Fiennes grooming and reveal as M.

Spoiler

Agreed. The set-up for the introduction of Moneypenny and the new/old M was brilliant. All the films have been great about this. Like bond finally saying the iconic line "Bond, James Bond" at the end of Casino Royal.

What did bother me though was that I knew something was fishy when Ralph Fines showed up in what at first seemed like a relatively minor role as some government paper pusher. It's like when famous actors appear in an episode of CSI or Law and Order. You immediately know that they are either the next victim or the villain. So, when it became clear that Fines was not being used as some kind of master mind behind the crime, I immediately suspected that he was the next M. Didn't expect them to outright kill Judy Dentch though.