The folks who like it and those who don't.

Largo's Shark wrote:

FG Wells wrote:

It strikes me as idiotic that Bond would bait M to Skyfall without any backup.

Bond knows that Silva would smell a trap if Bond had the cavalry round the nearest hill.

FG Wells wrote:

IHe also doesn't take the high road, but instead walks right out onto ice.

a) I'm not sure if a road went from the lodge to the chapel.

b) Bond was racing against time to save M. Cutting across the frozen loch was the quickest route.

FG Wells wrote:

IAlso, M and Kinkade use a flashlight (!) to get to the church, not a very covert escape.

In pitch back, what alternative do they have?

They could have stayed in the dark. They had followed the secret tunnel from the house to the chapel, and then they do not put out the torch to prevent the incredibly dangerous Silva to detect them readily? Kinkade was a huntsman, he must know how far and clearly this kind of light can be seen at night. They were trying to protect M, not to sacrifice her (why use the booby traps and the secret escape route if that wasn't the intention?). Kinkade seems to be as much of a moron as Bond and M.
There must have been ways of keeping a cavalry small and hidden from Silva. I've said before that Bond was very stupid to rely on an "arsenal" to be in his family's house that he hadn't visited for many years.
It's also a moot point by M to keep other people out, even special forces who are well trained and willing to risk their lives in their jobs. To fight against a dangerous terrorist alone (an old granny certanly isn't a fighter) with daddy's old rifles is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of.
And where Silva got the huge military helicopter is another mystery. Even if he had bought it before his becoming the most wanted terrorist in England (and maybe the world), what about air control? Isn't there any in England or Scotland? They wrote it that way just to portray Silva as seemingly unbeatable, to make it incredibly hard for Bond to overcome his enemy, but it's a ridiculously unbelievable scenario.
I haven't even mentioned the silly, unfitting, supposedly humorous remarks and touches in the Scotland part, the DB 5 BS, Bond's remark about never having liked the house anyway (stupid and utterly unfitting considering the circumstances he was in), the idiotic BOOM BOOM BOOM! over the loudspeakers on Silva's arrival (turning him even more into a comic book character), and his idiotic behaviour when he finally has the chance to kill M - no real person would act like that, it's a farce on comic book level, not a believable drama. The fan boy excuses I've read so far are pathetic as usual.
They've made the opposite of a credible, emotionally engaging and convincing thriller drama. It is true of the whole film, every scene and aspect, not only of the ending.

Manhunter wrote:

They could have stayed in the dark. They had followed the secret tunnel from the house to the chapel, and then they do not put out the torch to prevent the incredibly dangerous Silva to detect them readily?

M was wounded. Even if Kincade didn't know they were mortal wounds, he would wanted to get her to the shelter of the chapel (away from the wind and helicopter searchlight), with heat generated by the candlelights. In order to get from the exit of the tunnel to the chapel, he would have to navigate across the moors. For this he'd need a torch.

Manhunter wrote:

There must have been ways of keeping a cavalry small and hidden from Silva.

What, stuffing them in the boot of the DB5? There weren't any alternatives. Silva would have ratted out any backup, either in his helicopter or through his ground squad.

Manhunter wrote:

To fight against a dangerous terrorist alone (an old granny certanly isn't a fighter) with daddy's old rifles is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of.

Not when you throw glass bombs, sticks of dynamite, a stolen assault right, sawn-off shotguns, machine guns hidden behind the DB5's indicators lights, two gas canisters, and a Fairbairn–Sykes fighting knife - into the equation. Bond managed to inventively wide-out almost a small army, just by himself and two OAPs.

Manhunter wrote:

And where Silva got the huge military helicopter is another mystery. Even if he had bought it before his becoming the most wanted terrorist in England (and maybe the world), what about air control? Isn't there any in England or Scotland?

Quote :

Gareth Mallory: What are you doing?
Q: We're just...monitoring.
Gareth Mallory: Creating a false tracking signal for Silva to follow.
Tanner: Well, sir, um...
Q: Well, no...
Gareth Mallory: Excellent thinking, get him isolated. Send him on the A9, it's a direct route, you can monitor his progress more accurately and confirm it with the traffic cameras.

Silva and his mercenaries would have picked up the Merlin in the Scottish highlands. It's implied that Q Branch alerted air traffic control to monitor him, but not interfere.

Manhunter wrote:

I haven't even mentioned the silly, unfitting, supposedly humorous remarks and touches in the Scotland part, the DB 5 BS, Bond's remark about never having liked the house anyway (stupid and utterly unfitting considering the circumstances he was in), the idiotic BOOM BOOM BOOM! over the loudspeakers on Silva's arrival (turning him even more into a comic book character), and his idiotic behaviour when he finally has the chance to kill M - no real person would act like that..

Sorry that you can't appreciate the benign bizarre of the APOCALYPSE NOW reference, or the warm-hearted, very English humour that Albert Finney delivers. Humour is a very cultural thing.

As for Silva's reaction when confronting M, it is entirely believable for a man who's fantasised for years about this moment, but can't carry it out. It's a very human and selfish behaviour, seen in criminals throughout the world. Self-destruction at its worst.

Manhunter wrote:

The fan boy excuses I've read so far are pathetic as usual.

What's pathetic is your humourless denouncing of everyone who disagrees with you as "fan boys." It was just as tedious back in 2008 as it is now.

Show a little fingerspitzengefuhl for once, and maybe some Dermut too.

Largo's Shark wrote:

M was wounded. Even if Kincade didn't know they were mortal wounds, he would wanted to get her to the shelter of the chapel (away from the wind and helicopter searchlight), with heat generated by the candlelights. In order to get from the exit of the tunnel to the chapel, he would have to navigate across the moors. For this he'd need a torch.

The chapel wasn't too far away. The house was aflame and shone light far into the moors.
All of what you said doesn't change the fact that saving M was first priority, thats why they used the tunnel in the first place, and the only way of making it hard for Silva to find them was to keep the bloody torch unlit. There was enough light to find the chapel. And even in the dark it would have been better to go without light, because it was too easy for Silva to spot them. They might as well have screamed: "Silva, we are heeeeeere!"

Largo's Shark wrote:

What, stuffing them in the boot of the DB5? There weren't any alternatives. Silva would have ratted out any backup, either in his helicopter or through his ground squad.

As I've said before, they should have never chosen the Skyfall lodge scenario in the first place, because it is the most useless of all thinkable scenarios , because of all the reason mentioned many times before. In a different scenario, the squad would not have had to be hidden the the DB 5, obviously.
There is no reason to believe that Silva's goons could have easily wiped out any backup.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Not when you throw glass bombs, sticks of dynamite, a stolen assault right, sawn-off shotguns, machine guns hidden behind the DB5's indicators lights, two gas canisters, and a Fairbairn–Sykes fighting knife - into the equation. Bond managed to inventively wide-out almost a small army, just by himself and two OAPs.

Those improvised weapons hadn't been part of Bond's plans (apart from the DB 5 maybe). Bond was stupidly relying on an arsenal of weapons to be in a house (that he had never liked at all) that he had not visited and checked for many years. They had the possibility of using a trained squad against an enemy presented as kind of an unbeatable and unspeakably dangerous wizard (which is an unspeakably incredible comic book character for a supposedly "deep" and "intelligent" drama).

Largo's Shark wrote:

Sorry that you can't appreciate the benign bizarre of the APOCALYPSE NOW reference, or the warm-hearted, very English humour that Albert Finney delivers. Humour is a very cultural thing.

I knew it was a bad reference to APOCALYPSE NOW. It makes Silva even more of a silly comic book character. It's the kind of mass cinema "humour" that appeals to kids and superficial people.
I didn't even mention Kincade's quips, but I have to admit that his remarks are examples of a kind of humour that is highly unoriginal, because it has been used to death in entertainment cinema, and only belongs there, not in a real life situation (at least some of it). It ticks boxes and isn't better than the humour in CR or QOS (or the Brosnan era).

Largo's Shark wrote:

As for Silva's reaction when confronting M, it is entirely believable for a man who's fantasised for years about this moment, but can't carry it out. It's a very human and selfish behaviour, seen in criminals throughout the world. Self-destruction at its worst.

That's completely wrong, it's a hoary film villain cliché, in real life a criminal person of Silva's obsession (which is never made understandable or portrayed in a realistic manner) would not hesitate and start acting like the worst ham on earth.

Largo's Shark wrote:

What's pathetic is your humourless denouncing of everyone who disagrees with you as "fan boys." It was just as tedious back in 2008 as it is now.

Show a little fingerspitzengefuhl for once, and maybe some Dermut too.

I must have forgotten that you are the only one allowed to use that term, because that's what you did.
If I started writing down examples of your double standards (and that of others too who are better not mentioned), it would take me a long time.
"Mental illness" is a key word I'll give.
I'm one of the most humble persons I know, there is a big deal of arrogance and self-superiority in the world, and BaB is full of them.

Manhunter wrote:

there is a big deal of arrogance and self-superiority in the world, and BaB is full of them.

We aim to please :cheers:

Manhunter wrote:

The chapel wasn't too far away. The house was aflame and shone light far into the moors.
All of what you said doesn't change the fact that saving M was first priority, thats why they used the tunnel in the first place, and the only way of making it hard for Silva to find them was to keep the bloody torch unlit. There was enough light to find the chapel. And even in the dark it would have been better to go without light, because it was too easy for Silva to spot them. They might as well have screamed: "Silva, we are heeeeeere!"

Granted, but Kincade's actions can at least be explained by senility. Calling M "Emma" along with a number of other remarks suggests that he's not all there.

Manhunter wrote:

There is no reason to believe that Silva's goons could have easily wiped out any backup.

I never implied that. I was making the point that any backup would have resulted in Silva calling off the attack.

Manhunter wrote:

Those improvised weapons hadn't been part of Bond's plans (apart from the DB 5 maybe).

They would have been part of Bond's plan B. If the the weapons had been sold off (which was likely, he knew he could use the house (which he wouldn't mind trashing) as a death trap.

Manhunter wrote:

They had the possibility of using a trained squad against an enemy presented as kind of an unbeatable and unspeakably dangerous wizard

How, exactly? Parachutes? A truck? Another helicopter?

Any of those would have spooked Silva, and ruin the entire plan.

Manhunter wrote:

It's the kind of mass cinema "humour" that appeals to kids and superficial people.

God forbid a Bond film be popularist entertainment that appeals to all ages, and not just tailor-made for 20 something, hipster cinesnobs, and Michael Haneke.

Manhunter wrote:

I didn't even mention Kincade's quips, but I have to admit that his remarks are examples of a kind of humour that is highly unoriginal, because it has been used to death in entertainment cinema

But not by senile old age pensioners in the Scottish highlands. SKYFALL takes old movie tropes/clichés, places them in a new context, and subverts them. It's the kind of post-modern humour that GOLDENEYE excelled at, and something you clearly don't get.

Manhunter wrote:

That's completely wrong, it's a hoary film villain cliché, in real life a criminal person of Silva's obsession (which is never made understandable or portrayed in a realistic manner) would not hesitate and start acting like the worst ham on earth.

Quotes me examples.

Manhunter wrote:

"Mental illness" is a key word I'll give.

At least I'm humble and self-aware enough to admit that I'm an arrogant, mentally ill sod..

It takes one to know one.

Manhunter wrote:

I'm one of the most humble persons I know, there is a big deal of arrogance and self-superiority in the world, and BaB is full of them.

The old "it's every everyone else but me" act.

Also, check the grammar in your last clause. It should read "and BaB is full of it."

Largo's Shark wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

The chapel wasn't too far away. The house was aflame and shone light far into the moors.
All of what you said doesn't change the fact that saving M was first priority, thats why they used the tunnel in the first place, and the only way of making it hard for Silva to find them was to keep the bloody torch unlit. There was enough light to find the chapel. And even in the dark it would have been better to go without light, because it was too easy for Silva to spot them. They might as well have screamed: "Silva, we are heeeeeere!"

Granted, but Kincade's actions can at least be explained by senility. Calling M "Emma" along with a number of other remarks suggests that he's not all there.

Well, he probably isn't all there (the character seems to be written and performed as a somewhat dotty old hermit who for months may well not have spoken to another soul until the arrival of Bond and M), but then again, given that Bond introduces M to Kincade as "M", Kincade may have assumed that it was "Em", short for "Emma". After all, Kincade is in no position to know that "M" denotes the head of British intelligence.

Mind you, this begs the question of why Bond doesn't introduce M to Kincade with a cover name ("Kincade, this is Ruth") - or, given that all three of them may soon be dead, why he doesn't let him know her real name.

Of course, it may be that Emma is her real name.

Manhunter, while the film does have holes such as the whole planning of M's assassination depending on so many circumstances it doesn't really bring the house down for me because for the most part I find the film to be highly engaging enough to forgive the few flaws it has. That applies to my other top Bond films including Terence Young's, which you could probably dissect and claim "awful" in the same manner you are doing with Skyfall. But that doesn't matter because the best Bond films have a certain level of entertainment that supersedes the flaws and it's clear that most fans and audiences agree that Skyfall is one of those. Clearly it didn't click for you so all you see are the flaws and you make them more problematic than they are for most people. Fine, but don't denounce everyone who enjoys it as "fan boys", that's DCINB bullshit.

Manhunter wrote:

I've said before that Bond was very stupid to rely on an "arsenal" to be in his family's house that he hadn't visited for many years.

I don't know if it was mentioned, but it seemed that Bond had returned to the mansion quite often. Otherwise, why would he store his weapons and ammunition there? I also think Kincade seemed surprised to see Bond because when Mi6/the government cleared out Skyfall lodge and sold Bond's weapons, they probably told Kincade that Bond was dead.

I don't know. I really enjoy SKYFALL. It's got some wonky plot points, but it's a clever blockbuster with rich characters and gorgeous visuals. I'd also say this is Craig's most Bondian outing yet.

I was hoping Amazon would post it early. I was disappointed. Meanwhile, my best friend in Eire went to her local supermarket and bought it today. Life's a bitch and then she gets shot, I suppose.

I'm not getting the Skyfall hate at all. It's a bloody good film. Don't like it - go and see A Good Day To Die Hard. The car chase in that is worse than anything in Quantum of Solace. And plot holes you could drive a King Tiger through.

Ravenstone wrote:

I'm not getting the Skyfall hate at all. It's a bloody good film. Don't like it - go and see A Good Day To Die Hard. The car chase in that is worse than anything in Quantum of Solace. And plot holes you could drive a King Tiger through.

Agreed. Why analizing to death every single part of it? It's a movie, it was meant for entertainment! There are full of similar mistakes in the franchise and nobody gave a damn in 50 years! Why is 006 mad with revenge against the British when he shouldn't have been born by the time the British betrayed his parents? How can Jaws survive the Iguazú falls? How can a high class drug dealer like Sánchez not recognize Bond as a friend of Leiter's? Bond himself: do you think a British secret agent be known worldwide as "Mr Bond", check in the most luxurious hotels and spend HM's funds with no-one raising their eyebrows? When MI6 cancels his credit cards in QOS, how could he go from Austria to Italy? Has Mathis enough money to afford two high class tickets to Bolivia?

Honestly, I think there were a few plot holes in Skyfall, but I really enjoy the film, and never cared about those slip ups like Kincade turning up the torch, Bond going to Skyfall, etc.

'Imself and I are agreed that when we win our millions on the lottery and buy our dream mansion, we're going to call it Skyfall. I even want the silly concrete stags on the gate posts :D

Skyfall has thrilling action, terrific performances, genuinely funny humour, breathtaking cinematography and a smart, invigorating screenplay that manages to joyously pay tribute to Bond's 50th anniversary AND set up his screen future ... and be proudly British. It winningly re-introduces beloved series characters with a pleasing 21st-century 'polish', and has a villain who is both classically megalomaniacal (a whole island probably beats a hollowed-out volcano) and utterly contemporary (bisexual cyber-terrorist, doncha know).

Each to their own, and all that ... but if you don't like it, what the FUCK is wrong with you, you UTTER DICK?!?

No offence, lol.

I want your babies, BI :D

I've just sprayed my drink all over my keyboard., You owe me.

:*h*:

Thank you kindly, Rave :oops: .

Fanboys shmamboys. I'm about as far away from being a Cregg fanboy as you can get and even I can see that Skyfall is not only a masterful film in its own right, but it captures the spirit of Fleming better than any Bond film since The Living Daylights.

Ravenstone wrote:

'Imself and I are agreed that when we win our millions on the lottery and buy our dream mansion, we're going to call it Skyfall. I even want the silly concrete stags on the gate posts :D

Don't forget the Priest Holes....great place for sex when the parents and in-laws come visiting and you don't want them to hear :drunken:

Surely making them hear it is part of the fun? :D

Mind you, I can imagine the fun from groans and squeals coming from out the walls all over the house. Would that be audioyerism? LOL

Manhunter wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

FG Wells wrote:

It strikes me as idiotic that Bond would bait M to Skyfall without any backup.

Bond knows that Silva would smell a trap if Bond had the cavalry round the nearest hill.

FG Wells wrote:

IHe also doesn't take the high road, but instead walks right out onto ice.

a) I'm not sure if a road went from the lodge to the chapel.

b) Bond was racing against time to save M. Cutting across the frozen loch was the quickest route.

FG Wells wrote:

IAlso, M and Kinkade use a flashlight (!) to get to the church, not a very covert escape.

In pitch back, what alternative do they have?

They could have stayed in the dark. They had followed the secret tunnel from the house to the chapel, and then they do not put out the torch to prevent the incredibly dangerous Silva to detect them readily? Kinkade was a huntsman, he must know how far and clearly this kind of light can be seen at night. They were trying to protect M, not to sacrifice her (why use the booby traps and the secret escape route if that wasn't the intention?). Kinkade seems to be as much of a moron as Bond and M.
There must have been ways of keeping a cavalry small and hidden from Silva. I've said before that Bond was very stupid to rely on an "arsenal" to be in his family's house that he hadn't visited for many years.
It's also a moot point by M to keep other people out, even special forces who are well trained and willing to risk their lives in their jobs. To fight against a dangerous terrorist alone (an old granny certanly isn't a fighter) with daddy's old rifles is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of.
And where Silva got the huge military helicopter is another mystery. Even if he had bought it before his becoming the most wanted terrorist in England (and maybe the world), what about air control? Isn't there any in England or Scotland? They wrote it that way just to portray Silva as seemingly unbeatable, to make it incredibly hard for Bond to overcome his enemy, but it's a ridiculously unbelievable scenario.
I haven't even mentioned the silly, unfitting, supposedly humorous remarks and touches in the Scotland part, the DB 5 BS, Bond's remark about never having liked the house anyway (stupid and utterly unfitting considering the circumstances he was in), the idiotic BOOM BOOM BOOM! over the loudspeakers on Silva's arrival (turning him even more into a comic book character), and his idiotic behaviour when he finally has the chance to kill M - no real person would act like that, it's a farce on comic book level, not a believable drama. The fan boy excuses I've read so far are pathetic as usual.
They've made the opposite of a credible, emotionally engaging and convincing thriller drama. It is true of the whole film, every scene and aspect, not only of the ending.

Your so-called "criticisms" amount to little more than a concatenation of irritable gestures. What you've done is ferret out a few highly debatable niggles and uttered your highly subjective contempt for the film. This is not the behavior of a real critic. It is the act of a person who, for intensely personal reasons, is dead set on abominating Skyfall. In other words, you haven't laid a glove on the film.

PS--On the one hand you claim it is "idiotic" (don't you know any other words?) for Bond and M to confront the great and mighty Silva with a small cache of antediluvian weapons, and on the other you mock the idea that Silva has the wherewithal to acquire a military helicopter. Either Silva is not the elemental force you claim or it was perfectly rational for M and Bond to confront him without the entire might of the UK behind them. But see what I mean? Your blind hatred and narrow-minded rejection of Skyfall propels you into closed alleys of illogic.

As much as I like a good debate, Manhunter has the right to think that SKYFALL is a bad movie, just as anyone in 2006 had the right to think that CASINO ROYALE was a piece of shit.

I'm interested to read his thoughts on the continuity in the film, in relation to the rest of Craig's Bond movies. Personally, I think there are very few things that mend these films together, continuity-wise, and those things sure the hell don't include characterization. As far as I'm concerned, SKYFALL is Craig's first Bond outing. I have no idea what those other films were a part of.

Control wrote:

As much as I like a good debate, Manhunter has the right to think that SKYFALL is a bad movie, just as anyone in 2006 had the right to think that CASINO ROYALE was a piece of shit.

Opinion is not the same as name calling, and a valid critique doesn't involve dismissing anyone who disagrees as 'pathetic'.

I don't expect anyone to like the same things as me, but I do expect my opinion to be respected. If not, then I fail to see why I should respect the opposing view.

That's all.

Control wrote:

Personally, I think there are very few things that mend these films together, continuity-wise, and those things sure the hell don't include characterization. As far as I'm concerned, SKYFALL is Craig's first Bond outing. I have no idea what those other films were a part of.

Well M does seem to know Craig's Bond well enough and long enough to write him a glowing orbituary :face:

It would seem that in SKYFALL, Craig's Bond already has some years in. Silva never refers to him as a rookie agent, instead he wonders aloud about the 'old 007' during the pistol joust which means 007 does have a reputation. Plus he knows where to find the ever faithful BMT 216A...

Ravenstone wrote:

Opinion is not the same as name calling, and a valid critique doesn't involve dismissing anyone who disagrees as 'pathetic'.

I don't expect anyone to like the same things as me, but I do expect my opinion to be respected. If not, then I fail to see why I should respect the opposing view.

That's all.

Understood.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Control wrote:

Personally, I think there are very few things that mend these films together, continuity-wise, and those things sure the hell don't include characterization. As far as I'm concerned, SKYFALL is Craig's first Bond outing. I have no idea what those other films were a part of.

Well M does seem to know Craig's Bond well enough and long enough to write him a glowing orbituary :face:

It would seem that in SKYFALL, Craig's Bond already has some years in. Silva never refers to him as a rookie agent, instead he wonders aloud about the 'old 007' during the pistol joust which means 007 does have a reputation. Plus he knows where to find the ever faithful BMT 216A...

I think SKYFALL has more connections with the older films than the Craig era films. If SKYFALL took place after CASINO ROYALE, I could be convinced that there was some type of continuity. QUANTUM really wrecks it, though. It taints the whole franchise.

It does feel more connected to the other films than CR/QOS but that's only because Craig's Bond in SF is established as a veteran agent who has grown a lot since the first two films. I'm fine with that, it was interesting to see Bond in an earlier part of his career where he was more rough and less professional, but I'm glad SF has moved on with that and played Bond a lot more like the vet he was in the first twenty films.

CJB wrote:

Fanboys shmamboys. I'm about as far away from being a Cregg fanboy as you can get and even I can see that Skyfall is not only a masterful film in its own right, but it captures the spirit of Fleming better than any Bond film since The Living Daylights.

as I feel.

(QFT if you will)

Manhunter wrote:

I'm one of the most humble persons I know, there is a big deal of arrogance and self-superiority in the world, and BaB is full of them.

Yeah right!! If you are one of the most humble persons you know, I'm guessing you don't know that many people.

Right now you are coming off as nothing short of arrogant and self important, attempting pathetically to scorn and mock anyone here who likes SF.