James Bond 23 - 'Skyfall'

1383941434448

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,895
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    Yes, I think the franchise needs saving. I've read and heard a lot of confusion over how Skyfall was so well received by the critics. The rave reviews is why I chose to see it. Relying on box office numbers is merely painting over the cracks in my opinion. Y'know, if box office info was the benchmark for great films, then films like The Shawshank Redemption must be really shit and, contrary to what the critics think, Adam Sandler is the funniest man alive!

    92% on Rotten Tomatoes. The biggest british film of all time. The audiences love it. A celebration of the entire franchise at the biggest film award ceremony in the world. Why does it need saving? If anything after Solace it's been saved.
  • grimtales1grimtales1 Posts: 46,685
    Forum Member
    Agreed :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    92% on Rotten Tomatoes. The biggest british film of all time. The audiences love it. A celebration of the entire franchise at the biggest film award ceremony in the world. Why does it need saving? If anything after Solace it's been saved.

    Meh, time will tell. I know I'm not alone in thinking this.

    I think QoS made Skyfall appear better than it really is.
  • D.PageD.Page Posts: 1,562
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    grimtales1 wrote: »
    Were you looking at an American copy, or does the UK version have that as well? :confused:


    Bought it on Amazon UK - this is the item:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B006X040NY/ref=s9_pop_gw_g74_ir03?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0WMTZTJ78Z15TPBX7YJQ&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=358550147&pf_rd_i=468294

    If you look closely at Photo 2, it says Region 2 NTSC on the rear of the sleeve. If it had said Region 1, I would have thought it was simply a US import, but it states Region 2 NTSC :eek:

    I will be returning it.
  • grimtales1grimtales1 Posts: 46,685
    Forum Member
    And conversely, I think Casino Royale made QoS appear worse than it is - it wasnt that bad IMO, I enjoyed that exciting film (though the editing was annoying), its just CR set the bar so high for me. :)
  • grimtales1grimtales1 Posts: 46,685
    Forum Member
    D.Page wrote: »

    You're right... it says Region 2 NTSC on the back. Japan for example is R2 NTSC, but the UK is PAL, that's weird... :confused:
  • D.PageD.Page Posts: 1,562
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    grimtales1 wrote: »
    You're right... it says Region 2 NTSC on the back. Japan for example is R2 NTSC, but the UK is PAL, that's weird... :confused:

    It's not only weird, it's simply not on. Why should the UK consumer have to have a compromised DVD picture because they didn't think to include the DVD in PAL format, for an edition of the film which has been distributed in the UK?

    There is a copyright warning just before the film starts, on the DVD, and it looks as if it's been designed to be shown to US audiences: FBI warnings, fines in dollars etc. I don't know if this is to be expected with DVDs for the UK market?

    The DVD-only edition is, unsurprisingly, available in PAL format!
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    Y'know, if box office info was the benchmark for great films, then..
    They're not a benchmark for great films, but they are proof for how sucessful and popular something is.

    Bond has always been mainstream fare, where proving itself successful and popular with cinemagoers is largely the point.
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    Relying on box office numbers is merely painting over the cracks in my opinion.
    Which are what, exactly?
  • -GONZO--GONZO- Posts: 9,624
    Forum Member
    D.Page wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why the 'Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy' edition of Skyfall contains the DVD copy of the film in NTSC ? :confused:

    I watched the DVD copy last night and had to put up with very noticeable motion judder during fast action scenes and panning shots. Why did they not include a PAL DVD copy?


    The only possible reason I can think of is that these days pretty much all TVs purchased within the last x amount of years accept an NTSC signal.
    I can't say I've noticed any judder on my TV, but then when I play a region 1 DVD it outputs @24Hz.
  • D.PageD.Page Posts: 1,562
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    -GONZO- wrote: »
    The only possible reason I can think of is that these days pretty much all TVs purchased within the last x amount of years accept an NTSC signal.
    I can't say I've noticed any judder on my TV, but then when I play a region 1 DVD it outputs @24Hz.

    I've just ordered the DVD-only edition on Amazon. It says it is in PAL format, so I can watch without motion judder :)

    As I said, this 'Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy' edition I am currently in possession of, will be returned to Amazon for a refund.

    I don't know, but I presume they are just trying to reduce their costs by pressing as few different versions of the film as possible: The NTSC DVD, enclosed with my 'Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy' edition also contains the 'Digital Copy' data. The DVD-only PAL edition of Skyfall contains the film plus the special features (as it's a single disc edition), but my 'Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy' edition has the special features on the Blu-ray. This means that in order to include a DVD of the film in PAL format with the 'Digital Copy' data on the same disc and without the special features on this disc as these are on the Blu-ray, they would have to have yet another version of disc produced for a UK-distributed 'Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy' edition. But surely that's not too much to ask, is it?

    I very much hope they are not going to start a trend with this practice. I will certainly be looking very closely, in future, at any 'Blu-ray + DVD' editions of films distributed by Sony or MGM, to see if the enclosed DVD is in NTSC.
  • -GONZO--GONZO- Posts: 9,624
    Forum Member
    D.Page wrote: »
    I've just ordered the DVD-only edition on Amazon. It says it is in PAL format, so I can watch without motion judder :)

    As I said, this 'Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy' edition I am currently in possession of, will be returned to Amazon for a refund.
    Maybe I'm missing something here, but why the fuss over the DVD copy anyway when the Blu Ray is vastly superior? :confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They're not a benchmark for great films, but they are proof for how sucessful and popular something is.

    Bond has always been mainstream fare, where proving itself successful and popular with cinemagoers is largely the point.

    Which are what, exactly?

    By that rationale, Shawshank Redemption was unsuccessful and unpopular, which of course we know isn't true. If numbers are important, surely it's the number of DVD/Blu ray sales which truly reflects on a films success?

    The cracks are;

    - ever flimsy plots
    I mean, Casino Royale was centred around a Poker game. QoS was fundamentally about oil and Skyfall was about an ex-agent with a grudge against M. Bring back world domination, double-entendres, sexism and gadgets, y'know, the things which made Bond successful in the first place.

    - Lack of new source material
    With a need to start creating new stories, why can't they pull together a Bond worthy story arc/script? I thought the plot for Skyfall was fairly flimsy to say the least.

    - A constant need to be seen as being 'reinvented'
    Casino Royale was seen as "reinventing the franchise". Now Skyfall is being lauded for the same reason. Why the need to constantly compete with the likes of Bourne? Leave the Bourne-type films to do their own thing and allow Bond to stick to what it's good at - world domination, double-entendres, sexism and gadgets.

    The fun elements of the past have been replaced with an attempt to bring Bond into the 21st century.
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    By that rationale, Shawshank Redemption was unsuccessful and unpopular, which of course we know isn't true. If numbers are important, surely it's the number of DVD/Blu ray sales which truly reflects on a films success?
    I didn't say box-office was the only way to measure a film's impact. We all know TSR's reputation grew over time, and was more an exception than a rule.

    Oh, and Quantum was a huge seller on DVD. Generally, if a film has been a success at the cinema, its DVD sales will be pretty good too. It ain't rocket science.
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    The cracks are;
    So, in short, Bond isn't how you think it should be?

    Tough titty, frankly.
  • -GONZO--GONZO- Posts: 9,624
    Forum Member
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    Bring back world domination, double-entendres, sexism and gadgets, y'know, the things which made Bond successful in the first place.
    That formula didn't fare so well for Die Another Day did it.
    I for one am glad they didn't follow suit and went back to basics as I was getting bored.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So, in short, Bond isn't how you think it should be?

    Tough titty, frankly.

    Well yes. I think it's trying too hard to evolve when it doesn't really have to.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    -GONZO- wrote: »
    That formula didn't fare so well for Die Another Day did it.
    I for one am glad they didn't follow suit and went back to basics as I was getting bored.

    Well, at the time, Die Another Day was the highest grossing Bond film of all time so as some on here would summise, like Skyfall, surely that makes it a successful film, no?

    Besides, DaD is one film out of how many that didn't quite get it right?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    D.Page wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why the 'Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy' edition of Skyfall contains the DVD copy of the film in NTSC ? :confused:

    I watched the DVD copy last night and had to put up with very noticeable motion judder during fast action scenes and panning shots. Why did they not include a PAL DVD copy?

    Are you sure that your TV wasn't to blame? It might have been set up to display DVD's at the PAL standard of 25fps while the DVD itself was trying to force the NTSC standard of 24fps. Just because the DVD is NTSC shouldn't cause motion judder on a modern PAL TV, infact if anything the NTSC version is displaying the film at the speed that it was filmed, so nothing like that should be present.

    Blu Ray outputs at 24fps natively and doesn't cause motion judder on PAL TV's. With modern HDTV's there aren't any compatibility issues between PAL and NTSC anymore (as far as i know anyway).
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    Well, at the time, Die Another Day was the highest grossing Bond film of all time so as some on here would summise, like Skyfall, surely that makes it a successful film, no?
    Objectively, yes.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Objectively, yes.

    Pah, that's studio speak......and since when did cinema-goers measure, or even care about the objective success of a film?
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    Pah, that's studio speak......and since when did cinema-goers measure, or even care about the objective success of a film?
    Eh? It's the cinema-goers who make a film a success in the objective sense.

    They went to see it in large numbers. It proved popular, made a lot of money etc.

    Objectively, that's a success.

    Dear Lord....:rolleyes:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Eh? It's the cinema-goers who make a film a success in the objective sense.

    They went to see it in large numbers. It proved popular, made a lot of money etc.

    Objectively, that's a success.

    Dear Lord....:rolleyes:

    Tough titty. Dear Lord. Roll-eyes....

    Can you be a bit more civil?

    Seeing a film is one thing, but seeing it and liking it is the real measure....which is a subject view by the cinema-goer and at the end of the day is all that really matters to them.

    Anyway, I wasn't fond of the film and think the franchise needs to go back to what it's good at. You are fond of it and like the direction its taken and that's fine. Not sure why you're so convinced you're right and I'm wrong because, as I've said, it's all about subjectivity.
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    I wasn't fond of the film and think the franchise needs to go back to what it's good at.

    Needs? After scoring a billion?

    The correct subjective version:
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    I wasn't fond of the film and want the franchise to go back to what I think it's good at.
    Civil enough?
  • D.PageD.Page Posts: 1,562
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    -GONZO- wrote: »
    Maybe I'm missing something here, but why the fuss over the DVD copy anyway when the Blu Ray is vastly superior? :confused:

    Because I don't yet have a Blu-ray player, but as I do intend to get one at some point, I thought it a good idea to pay slightly more for this edition, as it contains both Blu-ray and DVD copies of the film.

    But I make the point again, if you buy this edition, you have paid for three copies of the same film, and I think it is entirely reasonable to expect that all the copies have been transferred optimally for UK viewing, considering I bought an edition supposedly for UK distribution. Until I get a Blu-ray player, I can only watch the DVD or the Digital Copy. I don't think it's too much to ask that the DVD copy is in the optimum format for UK viewing, i.e. PAL.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,895
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    Anyway, I wasn't fond of the film and think the franchise needs to go back to what it's good at. You are fond of it and like the direction its taken and that's fine. Not sure why you're so convinced you're right and I'm wrong because, as I've said, it's all about subjectivity.

    But success isn't about subjectivity. It's fact. Skyfall was a success whether you think its amazing or complete crap. I think Casino Royale was better I don't even think it was THAT amazing but I wouldn't say it was not a success I would be wrong. Fact. Not opinion.

    You said you wanted the franchise to go back to what its good at. Wasn't this film a set up to that? The final five minutes pretty much set up a whole new world and was extremely reminiscent of previous Bond's as well.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Needs? After scoring a billion?

    The correct subjective version:

    Civil enough?

    Yes. Needs.

    We seem to be going around in circles now. How many of the other 'billion-scoring' films were a bit naff....I'm thinking Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest & On Strangers Tide. We could also include Transformers: Dark of the Moon in the naff category, too.

    Anyway, can we leave it there? You're happy with Bond the way it currently is. I'm not. You can watch further Bond and I won't. Job done.
Sign In or Register to comment.