Skyfall

[gasteropod]

It was certainly better than Quantum of Solace

I presume it doesn't have the God-awful editing of that film?

[Yi-Long]

It was certainly better than Quantum of Solace

I presume it doesn't have the God-awful editing of that film?

If it had, you would have seen me bitch and moan about it by now endlessly

Luckily, the action is filmed decently. Certainly not outstanding, but that has more to do with the fact there just aren't many memorable action-scenes, apart from maybe the beginning of the movie in Turkey. You can always see what's going on.

[grim_tales]

You didnt like the Shanghai fight scene? I thought that was brilliant.

[Yi-Long]

You didnt like the Shanghai fight scene? I thought that was brilliant.

In the tower!? Yeah, it was good. Long take, very clearly filmed from the side so you could see what was going on. However, it was also a bit short ofcourse. I felt they never really took good advantage of the different settings they used. Yeah it's 'Shanghai', but you hardly see anything from the city, the locals, whatever. Same goes for Macau. Same goes for the last location in the movie which I won't spoil.

In the Old Bond movies, James would visit places, interact with local people, either friendly or enemies, etc. This movie kinda lacked all that.

It also didn't help that I was never really surprised at anything that happened.

[HungFist]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I agree with Yi, it's a common problem these days that they stuck films full of locations and action scenarios without fully (usually hardly at all) utilizing the possibilities. I miss the days when Bond went to Japan and actually had to live with the Japanese and marry a Japanese woman. No, it wasn't a deep cultural analysis, but at least the characteristics of the location were somehow written into the screenplay and it gave the film a sort of identity. You'd remember it was the "Japan Bond". How many people can remember where Quantum of Solace took place? Or the last few Bourne films? I can't.

Though Bond series has rarely been a prime example of this. Rather, a lot of the time the series has been a prototype for ultra-packed action films. But the old films did at least handle it better than movies (in general, not just Bond) these days.

[Markgway]

Actually the hand-to-hand combat in SKYFALL was below par and less impressive than the fights in previous Bond movies.

[gasteropod]

How many people can remember where Quantum of Solace took place?

All I can remember of QoS is the editing, I literally can't remember a fucking thing from that piece of shit

[Yi-Long]

Actually the hand-to-hand combat in SKYFALL was below par and less impressive than the fights in previous Bond movies.

You could see what was going on, which automatically places it above the action-scenes of Quantum.

Maybe the choreography and performances in those action-scenes in QoS were outstanding, but we'll never know, cause we couldn't watch it. Why even bother doing action-scenes when they're going to fuck it up completely in the post-editing anyway!?

How many people can remember where Quantum of Solace took place?

All I can remember of QoS is the editing, I literally can't remember a fucking thing from that piece of shit

I remember some really small blurps from that movie, so I know there was a scene in a harbour, there was a scene somewhere in the middle-east or whatever where he saw that black CIA agent again, and ofcourse the ending in the complex in the desert.

However, as far as action-scenes go, I just remember it all being complete SHITE.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: That movie never should have been released in that state. Surely someone at the studio must have watched it before release and that person should have said: WTF is this!? Take it back to the editing-room!

If there was no guy like that at the studio, I'd like to offer myself up for that job. Cause there should have been.

[Markgway]

Sorry, but this intense fight is better than any of the ones in Skyfall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvYB5Z7PWTk

[grim_tales]

Intense, simple, brutal - but too much quick cutting for me.
It is a good scene though

[Markgway]

I'm not a huge fan of the rapid edit style, but it works in QOS, the most underrated of 007 movies.

[grim_tales]

I didnt think QoS was THAT bad, it was good, just felt disappointing after the standard set by CR but will watch again sometime.

[HungFist]

The Finnish rating was just announced: 16 for violence.

Apparently it was re-rated and downgraded to 12 a few weeks after the opening day.

1 x "fucked" - the latter was a blink (your ears) and you'll miss it

Indeed. When did it even come? Completely missed it.

Actually the hand-to-hand combat in SKYFALL was below par and less impressive than the fights in previous Bond movies.

I'd have to disagree here. Although the film lacked memorable action scenes other than the opening, I was impressed by in how mature way the action was shot. No quick cuts, no shaky cam, no ridiculous James knows kung fu scenes... Casino Royale had a more interesting story, but Skyfall had much better action scenes. As a whole, Skyfall might be slightly better than the (over-rated) Casino Royale.

Loved the Aston Martin scene. Stallone should take lessons on how to make references without making the audience feel like a braindead pre-teenager.

[Markgway]

Indeed. When did it even come? Completely missed it.

When they're hiding out at Skyfall 'M' says to Bond "I fucked this up, didn't I?".
Totally gratuitous, but par for the course these days with 12A films.

[grim_tales]

Gratuitous? Come off it, I barely noticed it. Once it passed (admittedly it was a surprise hearing M say it - because its M - not because of the word) - I was like "meh".

[gasteropod]

Yeah, I only just noticed it because of the fuss Mark had made about it beforehand haha.

[Markgway]

As usual you guys miss the point, but I'm tired explaining it for you, so whatever.....................

[HungFist]

I can agree with Mark, why use a strong word when it's used in a way that half of the audience won't even notice it? It doesn't serve a purpose.

I do not necessarily agree with the use of that world being any worse than all the violence in the film, though, but that was already discussed before.

[Markgway]

I can agree with Mark, why use a strong word when it's used in a way that half of the audience won't even notice it? It doesn't serve a purpose.

Exactly. If Bond had grabbed Javier Bardem by the throat and spat "I'm going to fucking kill you!" it would at least have had dramatic impact and thus a purpose. Not saying I would approve of said choice, but it would serve a purpose nonetheless. M's throwaway 'fuck' - the first in a 50 year history - is so gratuitous as to be insulting to all the screenwriters who managed beforehand without it. Does it spoil the film? No, of course not - the film has its own issues, discussed elsewhere. But because this issue isn't "important" doesn't make me wrong. From Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves to X-Men: First Class, filmmakers cyncially stick in language that (should) prevent preteens from seeing the film, but not enough so as to actually damage box office concerns. Every so often the boundary is pushed... I'm waiting for the first f-word in a Disney film.

[Shingster]

A good "fuck" is a clear indicator of internal frustration, so I would hardly say that it was entirely gratuitous, but yes you've got Judi Dench on the end of that line of dialogue so you probably didn't absolutely need to express things in that way. Personally I thought it was fine though.

[grim_tales]

I agree with Shing but having read Mark's post I'm going to wait for Bond to say "I'm going to fucking kill you" now
I dont understand how a "fuck" can be throwaway (which it was) and gratuitous as well? I thought it was fine but would also have been fine with out it. But here we see a side of M we've never seen before, loyalties tested, beaten down, driven to the end of a rope sort of thing.

[Markgway]

A good "fuck" is a clear indicator of internal frustration, so I would hardly say that it was entirely gratuitous, but yes you've got Judi Dench on the end of that line of dialogue so you probably didn't absolutely need to express things in that way. Personally I thought it was fine though.

I don't believe this was an example of 'a good 'fuck''. It provided no impact or insight and added absolutely nothing to the character or plot. Of course we all swear (some of us too much) but there's a time and a place and Skyfall wasn't it. If they'd served half a dozen 'fucks' that would've made more sense to me.

I dont understand how a "fuck" can be throwaway (which it was) and gratuitous as well?

Do you know what gratuitous means?

[grim_tales]

Yes, you're saying it didnt add anything and wasnt really needed (I can understand), but sometimes I've heard that word (gratuitous) used to mean theres LOTS of something or its very OTT (eg "gratuitous violence"), but I do get your meaning.

[Markgway]

but sometimes I've heard that word (gratuitous) used to mean theres LOTS of something

That's inaccurate. The word has nothing to do with volume. One 'fuck' can be as gratuitous as one hundred. At least this mistake explains your confusion.

[grim_tales]

Fair enough, thanks for clearing it up