Are the MoS bullies ever going to apologise?

[atp]

It has been 9 years already

Try to do it please

[dejan]

 A good apology is it's own reward:

[dejan]

@ ATP

 Those MoS bullies consider an apology to be............

[dejan]

An MoS bully trying to apologize:

[Metallo]

Feb 1, 2022 2:25:32 GMT -5 atp said:

It has been 9 years already

Try to do it please

Will they apologize? No. Liking the movies was fine but some people were so all in, drinking so much of the kool aid, that they’ll never admit that maybe other people had some valid criticisms. They wouldn’t allow any criticism of the film. If you did you “took all this too seriously.”

The Snyderverse turned into a massive disaster on every front that collapsed under its own problems. Snyder simply doubled down on those problems. I think we can all agree that now WB probably doesn’t think it was worth all the headaches. I certainly feel vindicated because here we are nine years later and they’re in major damage control mode.

[atp]

Feb 1, 2022 23:32:59 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Feb 1, 2022 2:25:32 GMT -5 atp said:

It has been 9 years already

Try to do it please

Will they apologize? No. Liking the movies was fine but some people were so all in, drinking so much of the kool aid, that they’ll never admit that maybe other people had some valid criticisms. They wouldn’t allow any criticism of the film. If you did you “took all this too seriously.”

The Snyderverse turned into a massive disaster on every front that collapsed under its own problems. Snyder simply doubled down on those problems. I think we can all agree that now WB probably doesn’t think it was worth all the headaches. I certainly feel vindicated because here we are nine years later and they’re in major damage control mode.

Yes, time has proven the Snyder version of Superman was a failure. WB have understood this after BvS and Justice League failed. There has not been MoS2 either.

[Metallo]

Feb 2, 2022 2:10:53 GMT -5 atp said:

Feb 1, 2022 23:32:59 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Will they apologize? No. Liking the movies was fine but some people were so all in, drinking so much of the kool aid, that they’ll never admit that maybe other people had some valid criticisms. They wouldn’t allow any criticism of the film. If you did you “took all this too seriously.”

The Snyderverse turned into a massive disaster on every front that collapsed under its own problems. Snyder simply doubled down on those problems. I think we can all agree that now WB probably doesn’t think it was worth all the headaches. I certainly feel vindicated because here we are nine years later and they’re in major damage control mode.

Yes, time has proven the Snyder version of Superman was a failure. WB have understood this after BvS and Justice League failed. There has not been MoS2 either.

Yeah. WB thinks most people don’t want MOS 2 because most people really don’t want it. Even SR didn’t leave as sour a taste in peoples mouths and divide them as much as Snyder. At worst it’s forgotten by most. MOS left such a bad taste in a lot peoples mouths it’d be like asking them to take another drink out of a carton of spoiled milk. They aren’t going to waste another 200 million dollars. If The Flash fails I expect the entire thing to get swept away after the wonder woman and Aquaman films finish up. Those films aren’t even that great but they made money because they aren’t dull dour angry messes like BvS. Even The Suicide Squad bombed. People saw how sh!t the first one was and didn’t even bother with the sequel that wasn’t sure it was a sequel.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 2, 2022 10:52:58 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Feb 2, 2022 2:10:53 GMT -5 atp said:

Yes, time has proven the Snyder version of Superman was a failure. WB have understood this after BvS and Justice League failed. There has not been MoS2 either.

Yeah. WB thinks most people don’t want MOS 2 because most people really don’t want it. Even SR didn’t leave as sour a taste in peoples mouths and divide them as much as Snyder. At worst it’s forgotten by most. MOS left such a bad taste in a lot peoples mouths it’d be like asking them to take another drink out of a carton of spoiled milk. They aren’t going to waste another 200 million dollars. If The Flash fails I expect the entire thing to get swept away after the wonder woman and Aquaman films finish up. Those films aren’t even that great but they made money because they aren’t dull dour angry messes like BvS. Even The Suicide Squad bombed. People saw how sh!t the first one was and didn’t even bother with the sequel that wasn’t sure it was a sequel.

One gets the feeling that WB/DC really had one chance to make a good first impression that they might have been able to be in the same ballpark as the MCU but blew it.

Still....
I'm feeling that the MCU is getting off to a bit of a rocky start with this new phase. I hope it pulls together strongly.

No Way Home I think is really sort of Endgame level great (except for the ending, I thought they should have let Peter ride off into the sunset with Ned and Zendaya as the one happy Spiderman), but the lead characters of a new Avengers right now don't feel nearly as strong as Iron Man, Cap, and Thor.

Eternals seemed a bit a misfire- or at the very least, the first big disappointment for Marvel. The tv shows are a bit hit/miss....

But- still definitely hoping that it can build up to be equal or better than what Endgame gave us.

[Metallo]

Feb 3, 2022 21:24:32 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Feb 2, 2022 10:52:58 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Yeah. WB thinks most people don’t want MOS 2 because most people really don’t want it. Even SR didn’t leave as sour a taste in peoples mouths and divide them as much as Snyder. At worst it’s forgotten by most. MOS left such a bad taste in a lot peoples mouths it’d be like asking them to take another drink out of a carton of spoiled milk. They aren’t going to waste another 200 million dollars. If The Flash fails I expect the entire thing to get swept away after the wonder woman and Aquaman films finish up. Those films aren’t even that great but they made money because they aren’t dull dour angry messes like BvS. Even The Suicide Squad bombed. People saw how sh!t the first one was and didn’t even bother with the sequel that wasn’t sure it was a sequel.

One gets the feeling that WB/DC really had one chance to make a good first impression that they might have been able to be in the same ballpark as the MCU but blew it.

Still....
I'm feeling that the MCU is getting off to a bit of a rocky start with this new phase. I hope it pulls together strongly.

No Way Home I think is really sort of Endgame level great (except for the ending, I thought they should have let Peter ride off into the sunset with Ned and Zendaya as the one happy Spiderman), but the lead characters of a new Avengers right now don't feel nearly as strong as Iron Man, Cap, and Thor.

Eternals seemed a bit a misfire- or at the very least, the first big disappointment for Marvel. The tv shows are a bit hit/miss....

But- still definitely hoping that it can build up to be equal or better than what Endgame gave us.

It’s not really any different from most of the other phases. Some things were huge hits and some things didn’t do as well. Phase 2
started with a lot of films that made money but the movies got pretty mixed receptions. I think one could argue phase 3 is the one phase that had the most consistent creative and commercial success. Enough of Marvel Studios shows and movies have done well enough that they’re sitting in a good position.

Eternals is an odd one because of the pandemic. If it had been released during a normal period of time I think it may have done better. It really needed the normal Marvel release formula.

As for DC I agree. They had one shot to make a good first impression and after they didn’t it couldn’t be salvaged. That’s why I think the Flash will be a Days of Future Past style soft reboot.

[atp]

You know WB screwed up when Brightburn feels more like Superman than MoS did

[Metallo]

Feb 5, 2022 4:27:52 GMT -5 atp said:

You know WB screwed up when Brightburn feels more like Superman than MoS did

That’s cause James Gunn is a better director than Snyder. Certainly a better writer. Brightburn is like an evil twist on MOS but it really is so much better. Brightburn had a concept and followed through on it and didn’t go in 50 different directions.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 4, 2022 11:27:42 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Feb 3, 2022 21:24:32 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

One gets the feeling that WB/DC really had one chance to make a good first impression that they might have been able to be in the same ballpark as the MCU but blew it.

Still....
I'm feeling that the MCU is getting off to a bit of a rocky start with this new phase. I hope it pulls together strongly.

No Way Home I think is really sort of Endgame level great (except for the ending, I thought they should have let Peter ride off into the sunset with Ned and Zendaya as the one happy Spiderman), but the lead characters of a new Avengers right now don't feel nearly as strong as Iron Man, Cap, and Thor.

Eternals seemed a bit a misfire- or at the very least, the first big disappointment for Marvel. The tv shows are a bit hit/miss....

But- still definitely hoping that it can build up to be equal or better than what Endgame gave us.

It’s not really any different from most of the other phases. Some things were huge hits and some things didn’t do as well. Phase 2
started with a lot of films that made money but the movies got pretty mixed receptions. I think one could argue phase 3 is the one phase that had the most consistent creative and commercial success. Enough of Marvel Studios shows and movies have done well enough that they’re sitting in a good position.

Eternals is an odd one because of the pandemic. If it had been released during a normal period of time I think it may have done better. It really needed the normal Marvel release formula.

As for DC I agree. They had one shot to make a good first impression and after they didn’t it couldn’t be salvaged. That’s why I think the Flash will be a Days of Future Past style soft reboot.

For me, the strength of the first 3 (?) phases is that I have a deep love for the lead characters that mostly were done extremely well- or well cast--- and there was a really solid triangle of sorts with those core characters (as in the comics).

With phase 4- Only Dr.Strange/Cumberbatch seems strong enough to be the center of the new Avengers. Bosewick's Black Panther would have been great- but, of course, sadly- with Bosewick's untimely death, that's not happening.

The rest seem like B-listers in the comics and I feel also for the Avengers.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm scratching my head as to who the new 'core' trio might be.

I guess it's not mandatory- but it was neat with Star Trek to have the core with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy-
Similarly with Star Wars the original- Luke, Leia, and Han....

So that's the difference, I feel. I am excited to see what comes up, but I think being disappointed in casting (Captain Marvel and Shang-Chi's casting for sure) of some of the solo movie players doesn't help.

But- I was wrong about a number of the MCU's choices (who knew the Guardians of the Galaxy could be such a great film? Or that comedy was the way to go with THor: Ragnarok?)... so, here's hoping...

[Metallo]

Feb 8, 2022 4:24:20 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Feb 4, 2022 11:27:42 GMT -5 Metallo said:

It’s not really any different from most of the other phases. Some things were huge hits and some things didn’t do as well. Phase 2
started with a lot of films that made money but the movies got pretty mixed receptions. I think one could argue phase 3 is the one phase that had the most consistent creative and commercial success. Enough of Marvel Studios shows and movies have done well enough that they’re sitting in a good position.

Eternals is an odd one because of the pandemic. If it had been released during a normal period of time I think it may have done better. It really needed the normal Marvel release formula.

As for DC I agree. They had one shot to make a good first impression and after they didn’t it couldn’t be salvaged. That’s why I think the Flash will be a Days of Future Past style soft reboot.

For me, the strength of the first 3 (?) phases is that I have a deep love for the lead characters that mostly were done extremely well- or well cast--- and there was a really solid triangle of sorts with those core characters (as in the comics).

With phase 4- Only Dr.Strange/Cumberbatch seems strong enough to be the center of the new Avengers. Bosewick's Black Panther would have been great- but, of course, sadly- with Bosewick's untimely death, that's not happening.

The rest seem like B-listers in the comics and I feel also for the Avengers.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm scratching my head as to who the new 'core' trio might be.

I guess it's not mandatory- but it was neat with Star Trek to have the core with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy-
Similarly with Star Wars the original- Luke, Leia, and Han....

So that's the difference, I feel. I am excited to see what comes up, but I think being disappointed in casting (Captain Marvel and Shang-Chi's casting for sure) of some of the solo movie players doesn't help.

But- I was wrong about a number of the MCU's choices (who knew the Guardians of the Galaxy could be such a great film? Or that comedy was the way to go with THor: Ragnarok?)... so, here's hoping...

You could say the same of most of the phase one characters though. To the non comic fans and even some comic fans Spidey and the X-men and maybe Hulk were the A listers. Iron Man was a b list character as far as popularity. He was interesting but most people didn’t care. Cap was always a tough sell. So was Thor. But somehow they pulled it off. Marvel achieved what they did with their second level heroes.

I think with Spider-man, Thor, Strange, Daredevil back in the game, Hulk, and the FF and X-men being prepped to return to the screen Marvels got more than enough top level characters to lead the way through the next couple of phases. Hemsworth doesn’t seem to be going anywhere just yet and you know Sony and Marvel will want to keep working together after the monster success of NWH. People are going to lose it if they get the FF right this time. I’d do a proper X-men film too. Even if there’s some apprehension after being burned by the Fox films Feige knows all he has to do is drop something like a Wolverine vs Hulk announcement and a teaser trailer to get people to lose their minds even more.

Feige’s got too many cards in his back pocket for me not to stay excited for what’s to come. Galactus? Secret Wars? Who knows what else. The best part is we know they won’t foul up their biggest stories the way DC and WB did.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 10, 2022 20:23:05 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Feb 8, 2022 4:24:20 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

For me, the strength of the first 3 (?) phases is that I have a deep love for the lead characters that mostly were done extremely well- or well cast--- and there was a really solid triangle of sorts with those core characters (as in the comics).

With phase 4- Only Dr.Strange/Cumberbatch seems strong enough to be the center of the new Avengers. Bosewick's Black Panther would have been great- but, of course, sadly- with Bosewick's untimely death, that's not happening.

The rest seem like B-listers in the comics and I feel also for the Avengers.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm scratching my head as to who the new 'core' trio might be.

I guess it's not mandatory- but it was neat with Star Trek to have the core with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy-
Similarly with Star Wars the original- Luke, Leia, and Han....

So that's the difference, I feel. I am excited to see what comes up, but I think being disappointed in casting (Captain Marvel and Shang-Chi's casting for sure) of some of the solo movie players doesn't help.

But- I was wrong about a number of the MCU's choices (who knew the Guardians of the Galaxy could be such a great film? Or that comedy was the way to go with THor: Ragnarok?)... so, here's hoping...

You could say the same of most of the phase one characters though. To the non comic fans and even some comic fans Spidey and the X-men and maybe Hulk were the A listers. Iron Man was a b list character as far as popularity. He was interesting but most people didn’t care. Cap was always a tough sell. So was Thor. But somehow they pulled it off. Marvel achieved what they did with their second level heroes.

I think with Spider-man, Thor, Strange, Daredevil back in the game, Hulk, and the FF and X-men being prepped to return to the screen Marvels got more than enough top level characters to lead the way through the next couple of phases. Hemsworth doesn’t seem to be going anywhere just yet and you know Sony and Marvel will want to keep working together after the monster success of NWH. People are going to lose it if they get the FF right this time. I’d do a proper X-men film too. Even if there’s some apprehension after being burned by the Fox films Feige knows all he has to do is drop something like a Wolverine vs Hulk announcement and a teaser trailer to get people to lose their minds even more.

Feige’s got too many cards in his back pocket for me not to stay excited for what’s to come. Galactus? Secret Wars? Who knows what else. The best part is we know they won’t foul up their biggest stories the way DC and WB did.

I agree that he's a TON of cards to play with the Marvel Universe- I should probably have phrased my post in that for me, the original team (thor/iron man/cap) got me the geek goosebumps, but even in the comics, when they changed up the main members, I didn't have nearly as much interest.

I think film-wise, (and this is just for my own geek goosebumps)- the movies will be fine, but I'm hoping that they get me as excited as I did with the original Avengers cast. So far, I've been underwhelmed with some of the lead choices and disappointed in last acts of most of the tv shows and the movies still (Black Widow and Shang-chi) so I'm still feeling that Feige isn't infallable scriptwise- and I wonder if it's a case of just keeping the train moving or imperfect judgement.

In any case WAYYYYYY better than the DCEU. (or anyone else in the superhero major franchises game)

[atp]

Is Cavill's tenure as Superman done now?

MoS was 9 years ago and hasn't had a real sequel.

Last time we saw him as Superman was in JL, and that was already 5 years ago. If he really was good, there would have been MOS2 by now.

Personally, I think this whole era of Superman will eventually be forgotten, and considered as a failed "Elseworld" version. I have the same opinion about Daniel Craig's Bond era. He wasn't bad as Bond, but outside of CR, he was let down by terrible writing, and depressing, soulless movies. In time, his era won't be considered canon, and will exist as some weird alternate universe.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jun 13, 2022 3:22:52 GMT -5 atp said:

Is Cavill's tenure as Superman done now?

MoS was 9 years ago and hasn't had a real sequel.

Last time we saw him as Superman was in JL, and that was already 5 years ago. If he really was good, there would have been MOS2 by now.

Personally, I think this whole era of Superman will eventually be forgotten, and considered as a failed "Elseworld" version. I have the same opinion about Daniel Craig's Bond era. He wasn't bad as Bond, but outside of CR, he was let down by terrible writing, and depressing, soulless movies. In time, his era won't be considered canon, and will exist as some weird alternate universe.

I never thought Cavill was bad as Supes, but (and it's a crazy superficial reason)- I always had an issue with his nose, of all things. (not kidding) But compared to the tv Supes- if it's not going to be Routh, Cavill had enough of the looks for Supes to me- but it's the writing that put it off on a wrong foundation that looks like it could never be fixed.

You make an interesting point on Craig's Bond. Connery had both the charm and the darkness. Brosnan was the best successor in my opinion, but I also liked Dalton as runner up.... then Moore. But Craig just seemed so humorless and dark that I like him as an actor- but his films had gone too far on the dark direction that while I really liked Skyfall and was ok with Casino Royal- while the last one was engaging, it really did not feel like a Bond film at all to me. It had pretty much the same plot as Superman Returns- but SR had humor and the bonus of returning the Donnerverse, whereas Craig's Bond was so depressing, it was almost adding depression on top of depression.

[atp]

Jun 13, 2022 4:21:15 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Jun 13, 2022 3:22:52 GMT -5 atp said:

Is Cavill's tenure as Superman done now?

MoS was 9 years ago and hasn't had a real sequel.

Last time we saw him as Superman was in JL, and that was already 5 years ago. If he really was good, there would have been MOS2 by now.

Personally, I think this whole era of Superman will eventually be forgotten, and considered as a failed "Elseworld" version. I have the same opinion about Daniel Craig's Bond era. He wasn't bad as Bond, but outside of CR, he was let down by terrible writing, and depressing, soulless movies. In time, his era won't be considered canon, and will exist as some weird alternate universe.

I never thought Cavill was bad as Supes, but (and it's a crazy superficial reason)- I always had an issue with his nose, of all things. (not kidding) But compared to the tv Supes- if it's not going to be Routh, Cavill had enough of the looks for Supes to me- but it's the writing that put it off on a wrong foundation that looks like it could never be fixed.

You make an interesting point on Craig's Bond. Connery had both the charm and the darkness. Brosnan was the best successor in my opinion, but I also liked Dalton as runner up.... then Moore. But Craig just seemed so humorless and dark that I like him as an actor- but his films had gone too far on the dark direction that while I really liked Skyfall and was ok with Casino Royal- while the last one was engaging, it really did not feel like a Bond film at all to me. It had pretty much the same plot as Superman Returns- but SR had humor and the bonus of returning the Donnerverse, whereas Craig's Bond was so depressing, it was almost adding depression on top of depression.

Wow, I never realised the similarity between the last Bond film and SR!!! But you're right, it is extremely similar.

[Metallo]

Jun 13, 2022 3:22:52 GMT -5 atp said:

Is Cavill's tenure as Superman done now?

MoS was 9 years ago and hasn't had a real sequel.

Last time we saw him as Superman was in JL, and that was already 5 years ago. If he really was good, there would have been MOS2 by now.

Personally, I think this whole era of Superman will eventually be forgotten, and considered as a failed "Elseworld" version. I have the same opinion about Daniel Craig's Bond era. He wasn't bad as Bond, but outside of CR, he was let down by terrible writing, and depressing, soulless movies. In time, his era won't be considered canon, and will exist as some weird alternate universe.

Craigs run as Bond was far more successful than Cavills Superman though. CR did everything right that MOS did wrong. Skyfall was a huge hit. Craig had a few duds but Cavill never had a true smash hit as Superman.

I think Cavill's future as Superman is in doubt. The last two times we saw Superman it wasn't even Cavill in the suit. I can't say for sure he's done but it doesn't look good. Seems like his only chance is he and The Rock sharing an agent and Rock pushing for him to be in Black Adam but if WB says no it won't change anything. It never helps when new management comes in and looks at the financials. Cavills films didn't do good enough business. I think he was done under the previous regime. Like you said it's been 9 years and Cavill is nearing 40. His Superman went from inexperienced rookie to veteran with no time in between. That's another similarity to Craig's Bond.

[atp]

I loved Casino Royale. It was a perfect reboot. If only MOS had been as good.

I don't like Skyfall,Spectre or NTTD. I group them all together as part of the grey, depressing, gloomy mess that Craig's era turned into. All three feel the same to me

Even Quantum of Solace was better,despite being far from perfect.

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace work well as a two-part story. The final three are crap.

[Metallo]

Jun 13, 2022 12:46:56 GMT -5 atp said:

I loved Casino Royale. It was a perfect reboot. If only MOS had been as good.

I don't like Skyfall,Spectre or NTTD. I group them all together as part of the grey, depressing, gloomy mess that Craig's era turned into. All three feel the same to me

Even Quantum of Solace was better,despite being far from perfect.

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace work well as a two-part story. The final three are crap.

I think QOS is not good. Especially as a direct follow up to CR. It’s bad enough Bond had to fall into the shaky cam/quick cut style of filmmaking but the writing is incredibly poor. It’s nonsensical and lacks what made CR so engaging. Not totally their fault because of the writers strike but it’s obvious.

Skyfall was a more fun throwback Bond adventure to me. The problem is it’s blatantly derivative of other films especially Nolan’s Batman films. Everything from the story to the bad guys to the events in the film. They didn’t even try to hide it. That and Bond going from rookie spy to broken down drug addicted old man in the span of two films. We never got to see Craig be Bond in his prime or at his peak. It’s a shame we didn’t get another film between QOS and Skyfall.

The wheels fell off Craig’s run with Spectre. Utterly disappointing considering what they teased. Worst of all it’s when they did the whole retroactive “it’s all connected” crap when it clearly wasn’t intended to be. Craigs films after QOS should have been stand alone.

[atp]

QOS was a real let down for sure.

Particularly since it followed on the heels of Casino Royale.

And yes, it had all that stupid shaky camera and Bourne-style editing crap.

But at least it wasn't as dreary and down and morbid as the others that followed.

It was such a stupid idea, having Bond be old and washed up in only the third movie. When you think back to the Connery movies, the third one -- Goldfinger -- was when he really hit his prime.

[Metallo]

Jun 13, 2022 16:36:10 GMT -5 atp said:

QOS was a real let down for sure.

Particularly since it followed on the heels of Casino Royale.

And yes, it had all that stupid shaky camera and Bourne-style editing crap.

But at least it wasn't as dreary and down and morbid as the others that followed.

It was such a stupid idea, having Bond be old and washed up in only the third movie. When you think back to the Connery movies, the third one -- Goldfinger -- was when he really hit his prime.

I didn’t think Skyfall was particularly dreary. Bond himself maybe but that’s an issue with Craig’s entire tenure. The other films being dreary that’s debatable. I found QOS to be far more lifeless in trying to live up to that gritty reboot phase of films coming out at the time.

I think their thinking at the time was because it had been such a long gap (four years in real time maybe six years in the movies timeline) Bond had a lot of wear on him and needed to be past his prime. That it would make for a more interesting challenge for him. The thing is it didn’t make sense because he wasn’t that old and the injuries were another issue entirely. That stuff can be mended and rehabbed. If they’d focused on that for one film maybe it would have made more sense but we never really got beyond that take on Bond after Skyfall. No Time To Die would have been the perfect film to focus on Bonds age and physical decline.

Craig had a long run but the huge gaps in time between most of his films means a lot of his era was wasted and it wasn’t even on good films for half of it.

[atp]

I thought Skyfall was dreary and depressing in part because so much of it was set in England and then Scotland. And it was too much about office politics and government enquiries and other depressing mundane crap that resembles the BBC news. Bond films are supposed to have an element of escapism. Skyfall was too much in the real world for my taste. And when you combine that backdrop with an ageing, miserable, alcoholic, pill-addicted Bond, it's just not enjoyable.

Even with all the violence and darkness of LTK, there was still an element of fun escapism.

[Metallo]

Jun 14, 2022 2:38:38 GMT -5 atp said:

I thought Skyfall was dreary and depressing in part because so much of it was set in England and then Scotland. And it was too much about office politics and government enquiries and other depressing mundane crap that resembles the BBC news. Bond films are supposed to have an element of escapism. Skyfall was too much in the real world for my taste. And when you combine that backdrop with an ageing, miserable, alcoholic, pill-addicted Bond, it's just not enjoyable.

Even with all the violence and darkness of LTK, there was still an element of fun escapism.

I think it worked for the particular story they were telling but I thought a lot more of the old style humor and style was added back into the series compared to QOS and even CR. I think the problem was that the entire Craig run was pretty bleak. At the same time I think it was a reaction and course correction to how silly and hollow the Brosnan films got. At times it was too much of an over correction but it needed to happen after DAD.

I didn’t care for another story where Bond was rogue or on the run yet again and Silva was somewhat derivative but I thought there were some spectacular action sequences. To me it felt more like a bond film than CR even though CR was the better film. Like a lot of modern franchises any good will generated by Skyfall was squandered with its follow ups.

[atp]

Jun 14, 2022 9:50:52 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Jun 14, 2022 2:38:38 GMT -5 atp said:

I thought Skyfall was dreary and depressing in part because so much of it was set in England and then Scotland. And it was too much about office politics and government enquiries and other depressing mundane crap that resembles the BBC news. Bond films are supposed to have an element of escapism. Skyfall was too much in the real world for my taste. And when you combine that backdrop with an ageing, miserable, alcoholic, pill-addicted Bond, it's just not enjoyable.

Even with all the violence and darkness of LTK, there was still an element of fun escapism.

I think it worked for the particular story they were telling but I thought a lot more of the old style humor and style was added back into the series compared to QOS and even CR. I think the problem was that the entire Craig run was pretty bleak. At the same time I think it was a reaction and course correction to how silly and hollow the Brosnan films got. At times it was too much of an over correction but it needed to happen after DAD.

I didn’t care for another story where Bond was rogue or on the run yet again and Silva was somewhat derivative but I thought there were some spectacular action sequences. To me it felt more like a bond film than CR even though CR was the better film. Like a lot of modern franchises any good will generated by Skyfall was squandered with its follow ups.

Has Daniel Craig's Bond ever NOT resigned or gone rogue in a movie?