James Bond In Skyfall - - - Part 12

[DarthSkywalker]

Man after seeing Skyfall, it shows how inconsequential 'Quantum of Solace' was. Uou can easily skip QoS and skip to Skyfall.

You can say that about the vast majority of Bond films. Goldfinger is inconsequential. You can go from Dr. No and FRWL to Thunderball without missing a beat. All of Moore's and Dalton's films are inconsequential.

Though if Quantum comes up again, QoS won't be easily skipped. Personally happy it exist with all its faults. Still one of the better Bond films, with two of the finest Bond women, and another great performance from Craig.

 

[Octoberist]

You can say that about the vast majority of Bond films. Goldfinger is inconsequential. You can go from Dr. No and FRWL to Thunderball without missing a beat. All of Moore's and Dalton's films are inconsequential.

Though if Quantum comes up again, QoS won't be easily skipped. Personally happy it exist with all its faults. Still one of the better Bond films, with two of the finest Bond women, and another great performance from Craig.

But Goldfinger was a good movie. Also it added something to the mythos. The narrative formula to the Aston, from Oddjob to the "Expect me to talk" scene. And of course, ***** Galore.

Because QoS is the only direct sequel to another film and doesn't completely stand on it's own, it feels like a waste of a film. I cant think of a scene that's conpelling or stands out enough where i want to revisit it just for a certain scene.

Keep in mind, I don't hate it but its just there. And it sucks how we had to wait four years for another Bond. So I think QoS gets a bad rap due to circumstances beyond its control (writer's strike) but some of the problems I have with it is justified (editing, fight scenes).

 

[spider-neil]

You can say that about the vast majority of Bond films. Goldfinger is inconsequential. You can go from Dr. No and FRWL to Thunderball without missing a beat. All of Moore's and Dalton's films are inconsequential.

Though if Quantum comes up again, QoS won't be easily skipped. Personally happy it exist with all its faults. Still one of the better Bond films, with two of the finest Bond women, and another great performance from Craig.

QoS is in my bottom 3 Bond movies. I thought it was absolute rubbish and the only reason why I watched Skyfall was 1) a lot time had passed between QoS and SF to dull my memory of that movie and 2) the fantastic reviews SF has received. Thankfully Skyfall is as good as QoS was bad.

 

[Slushy]

I think Bond

Spoiler

killing Silva

was proof he gave a sh** about Severine. I like the fact he even cares about the throwaway girls as much as he and we like to pretend her doesn't. After all, he gave Greene a taste of his own medicine so to speak after what happened with Strawberry Fields!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But Goldfinger was a good movie. Also it added something to the mythos. The narrative formula to the Aston, from Oddjob to the "Expect me to talk" scene. And of course, ***** Galore.

Because QoS is the only direct sequel to another film and doesn't completely stand on it's own, it feels like a waste of a film. I cant think of a scene that's conpelling or stands out enough where i want to revisit it just for a certain scene.

Keep in mind, I don't hate it but its just there. And it sucks how we had to wait four years for another Bond. So I think QoS gets a bad rap due to circumstances beyond its control (writer's strike) but some of the problems I have with it is justified (editing, fight scenes).

Editing has its problems (the foot chase is horrible, as are most of the vehicle action scenes), though it also has a couple of the best fight scenes in the series (hotel fight and Bond's elevator smackdown).

The core story with Bond and M works really well and each of every scene they interact works really, really well. Camille is strong and easily better then the vast majority of Bond girls.

I also think you underrate plenty of scenes. The arrival scene with Fields, anything with Mathis, the opening car chase (some editing problems, but still very good imo), Bond and Camille's first meeting, Bond's talk with Camille before they storm the bunker, Bond and Felix's talk, Bond confronting Vesper's boyfriend, etc.

QoS is in my bottom 3 Bond movies. I thought it was absolute rubbish and the only reason why I watched Skyfall was 1) a lot time had passed between QoS and SF to dull my memory of that movie and 2) the fantastic reviews SF has received. Thankfully Skyfall is as good as QoS was bad.

This boggles my mind. Nearly every film between OHMSS and CR are easily worse. There isn't one film outside of GoldenEye that is even close to QoS. That is of course if you like your spy films to be spy films and not a bunch of clowning around. I have watched QoS and TSWLM back to back. TSWLM does not fare well. It is corny and devoid of any kind of sense.

It still boggles my mind how underrated the film is in comparison to the rest of this series. There are plenty of terrible films in this series. QoS is not one of them.

 

[Bruce Malone]

QoS is in my bottom 3 Bond movies. I thought it was absolute rubbish and the only reason why I watched Skyfall was 1) a lot time had passed between QoS and SF to dull my memory of that movie and 2) the fantastic reviews SF has received. Thankfully Skyfall is as good as QoS was bad.

QOS has actually improved in my books. The key is to watch it and CR as one complete story i.e. the origin of bond. They serve the broader point of getting us to the bond we know that we see in skyfall.

However yes as a stand alone it's not amazing and will probably be seen with some of the other lesser bond films which tried to emulate trends of the time; The bourne series for QOS.

I'd actually put the QOS pre-credit opening ahead of Skyfalls tbh though, it had great action.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

QOS has actually improved in my books. The key is to watch it and CR as one complete story i.e. the origin of bond. They serve the broader point of getting us to the bond we know that we see in skyfall.

However yes as a stand alone it's not amazing and will probably be seen with some of the other lesser bond films which tried to emulate trends of the time; The bourne series for QOS.

I'd actually put the QOS pre-credit opening ahead of Skyfalls tbh though, it had great action.

My problem with most complaints about QoS is that it is usually based around either things they ignore in the other films (complaints about the dialogue and weak script is ridiculous when they then go on to praise films like LTK or FYEO) or the film not having enough Bond cliches.

 

[Gianakin_]

My problem with most complaints about QoS is that it is usually based around either things they ignore in the other films (complaints about the dialogue and weak script is ridiculous when they then go on to praise films like LTK or FYEO) or the film not having enough Bond cliches.

I know, right? People are actually detracting points from SF because the gunbarrel is at the end.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I agree with you that the film is getting a worse rep than it deserves. In some of the reviews for skyfall critics are calling it out as one of the worst bond films which i don't believe at all.

It's actually a pretty good action film. Its just that theres nothing that memorable about it. I think it coming out right after the universally praised CR was tough. Hell if skyfall as it stands came out right after CR i don't think it would getting as mich praise as it is.

I sort of have a feeling whatever film follows skyfall may be in for a similar reception, especially if they are so intent to release it in 2 years.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I know, right? People are actually detracting points from SF because the gunbarrel is at the end.

I remember when first read that it was at the end. There was a thread at a certain Bond website that had people actually talking, seriously, about crying and how the movie was suddenly ruined.

What is worse is that it works perfectly where it is, as does the beginning of the film without it. Perhaps the complaints would make sense if everything didn't work perfectly in context, but it does.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I agree with you that the film is getting a worse rep than it deserves. In some of the reviews for skyfall critics are calling it out as one of the worst bond films which i don't believe at all.

It's actually a pretty good action film. Its just not that theres nothing that memorable about it. I think coming right after the universally praised CR was tough. Hell if skyfall as it stands came out right after CR i don't think it would getting as mich praise as it is.

I can understand this even if I don't agree. It just can't imagine people having recently sat through most of the Bond films thinking that. Just watched them all in the last two weeks.

I agree about it coming after CR and also about Skyfall getting a bit of a pass, though I like it a lot. If you start comparing it CR, you might start having troubles with that second act.

 

[Octoberist]

My problem with most complaints about QoS is that it is usually based around either things they ignore in the other films (complaints about the dialogue and weak script is ridiculous when they then go on to praise films like LTK or FYEO) or the film not having enough Bond cliches.

I'll say this: FYEO is incredibly boring and Moore's signs of aging doesn't help the film either. I respect what they were trying to do (undo the cheese favor from Moonraker) but it didn't hit the right marks.

I do think QoS has been tossed under the bus and many have projected their hate towards it to justify some of Skyfall's praise. I love Skyfall as well but I feel bad for QoS at times and I'm not even a big fan of that film.

 

[spider-neil]

I remember when first read that it was at the end. There was a thread at a certain Bond website that had people actually talking, seriously, about crying and how the movie was suddenly ruined.

What is worse is that it works perfectly where it is, as does the beginning of the film without it. Perhaps the complaints would make sense if everything didn't work perfectly in context, but it does.

For better or worse Bond comes with expectations and for some people if those expectations aren't met then they deduct points. SF wasn't harmed by placing the gunbarrel at the end but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it jarring that it wasn't there at the start.

 

[Octoberist]

But I don't think it's worth going out of the way to defend QoS either; it does t resonate with me at all. But I don't believe it's ok to kick the movie when it's already brusied and down. Sometimes the hate for QoS is too extreme at times.

 

[Octoberist]

For better or worse Bond comes with expectations and for some people if those expectations aren't met then they deduct points. SF wasn't harmed by placing the gunbarrel at the end but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it jarring that it wasn't there at the start.

I kinda wish it was at the beginning too. Though I have to admit it wasnt shot well. The pacing of Craig's walk looked awkward.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Which would you say has been thrown under the bus worst the last few years, QOS or any of the brosnan bond movies?

Even though i'm not a huge fan of brosnan i've noticed even in interviews for skyfall the interviewers taking subtle or not so subtle jabs at brosnan in front of craig.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'll say this: FYEO is incredibly boring and Moore's signs of aging doesn't help the film either. I respect what they were trying to do (undo the cheese favor from Moonraker) but it didn't hit the right marks.

I do think QoS has been tossed under the bus and many have projected their hate towards it to justify some of Skyfall's praise. I love Skyfall as well but I feel bad for QoS at times and I'm not even a big fan of that film.

I wasn't the biggest fan of QoS when I first saw it. In fact I think I disliked it, but I watched it again and appreciated it a lot more. In many ways it is similar to how I felt about PoA (though I absolutely adore PoA now). Not to say it doesn't have problems, it does, but I am happy it exist. I do wonder how many that complain about it so heavily have watched it more then once.

I watched both CR and QoS back to back before seeing Skyfall today and I am more then satisfied with Craig's run so far.

 

[spider-neil]

My main problem with QoS is this; the bottom line is I wasn't in any way shape or form entertained by the movie.

Bad enough that the movie strays as far as you can possibly get away from the Bond formula established over 5 decades but to do that and be BORING AS HECK is unforgivable.

I'm a Bond fan that has Bond expectations but I will forgive those expectations if I am engaged, like the 3rd act of SF which is a radical departure from Bond but I was entertained the entire time so the end of Skyfall gets a pass from me.

So yes, I prefer the likes of LtK a HELL of a lot more than the PoS that is QoS because the movie commits the unpardonable sin of a Bond movie and that is it was as DULL AS DISH WATER.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

For better or worse Bond comes with expectations and for some people if those expectations aren't met then they deduct points. SF wasn't harmed by placing the gunbarrel at the end but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it jarring that it wasn't there at the start.

Why? It hasn't been there for the last three films. How is that jarring?

Which would you say has been thrown under the bus worst the last few years, QOS or any of the brosnan bond movies?

Even though i'm not a huge fan of brosnan i've noticed even in interviews for skyfall the interviewers taking subtle or not so subtle jabs at brosnan in front of craig.

QoS. Though I do find it odd that GE is rarely referenced.

 

[Octoberist]

Which would you say has been thrown under the bus worst the last few years, QOS or any of the brosnan bond movies?

Even though i'm not a huge fan of brosnan i've noticed even in interviews for skyfall the interviewers taking subtle or not so subtle jabs at brosnan in front craig.

I think QoS when it comes down to Skyfall. Its the most recent jabs I can think of from fans and even EON and Craig. Actually Sam Mendes was the one who came to QoS's aid, stating it get unfairly bashed.

It's one thing to make a jab at QoS or the later Brosnan moves, but it gets overboard if they do it repeatedly. It ruins the point.

 

[spider-neil]

I kinda wish it was at the beginning too. Though I have to admit it wasnt shot well. The pacing of Craig's walk looked awkward.

The gunbarrel sequence is like slipping into a warm bath after a long days work, 'ahh, that's better...' It serves to ease you in before the action starts, usually a pre credit action sequence. So if it isn't there you're like, 'what, where, how?' as if the warm bath was cold/hot and it takes you time to get used to the water.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

My main problem with QoS is this; the bottom line is I wasn't in any way shape or form entertained by the movie.

Bad enough that the movie strays as far as you can possibly get away from the Bond formula established over 5 decades but to do that and be BORING AS HECK is unforgivable.

I'm a Bond fan that has Bond expectations but I will forgive those expectations if I am engaged, like the 3rd act of SF which is a radical departure from Bond but I was entertained the entire time so the end of Skyfall gets a pass from me.

So yes, I prefer the likes of LtK a HELL of a lot more than the PoS that is QoS because the movie commits the unpardonable sin of a Bond movie and that is it was as DULL AS DISH WATER.

I don't understand how it is dull compared to that stuff. I laugh at stuff in LALD. It is kind of funny. That doesn't make it good in my book.

I'd rather watch Bond be "dull" kicking butt and having meaningful conversations then watch him walk through a circus. LTK and its bloody ninjas.

 

[Gianakin_]

The gunbarrel sequence is like slipping into a warm bath after a long days work, 'ahh, that's better...' It serves to ease you in before the action starts, usually a pre credit action sequence. So if it isn't there you're like, 'what, where, how?' as if the warm bath was cold/hot and it takes you time to get used to the water.

I think the "what, where, how" part is taken care of the moment you buy a ticket with "James Bond: [Subtitle]" printed on it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The gunbarrel sequence is like slipping into a warm bath after a long days work, 'ahh, that's better...' It serves to ease you in before the action starts, usually a pre credit action sequence. So if it isn't there you're like, 'what, where, how?' as if the warm bath was cold/hot and it takes you time to get used to the water.

So it is a comfort-level thing as oppose to an actual "make the best film possible" thing. Yeah, not really feeling that.

 

[Octoberist]

Why? It hasn't been there for the last three films. How is that jarring?


QoS. Though I do find it odd that GE is rarely referenced.

GoldenEye is well liked though I do think its being protected by the 'Rosey tinted glasses' brigade. It's a solid film and I like it, but I though Bond's lines were flat, the score was odd, and Tina Turner was not the right choice for the theme song. She doesn't represent the 90's.

It is the only good Brosnan film to boot while the others got worse and worse.