No Time To Die: Production Diary

1119711981200120212032507

Comments

  • TripAces wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Sf is a top tier bond film, the plotholes are overplayed by critics.

    I've come around greatly on appreciating and enjoying Skyfall, but the plotholes are in no way, shape or form overplayed, whatever exactly that means. I don't know how they could be. The plotholes are perhaps the singular most glaring problem with the film and far more in-your-face than just about any other Bond. Still, the film has phenomenal cinematography, a unique style and vibe, and standout scenes and sequences that all help to elevate it.
    Every time I ask people to mention those Skyfall plotholes, I get a list of things that are simply not explained / issues that are not addressed in the movie. I've yet to read a genuine Skyfall plothole. To prove my point, I googled "Skyfall plotholes" and found a list, I will address two "plotholes" from this list:

    1. " James Bond is a man that beats unbelievable odds. It is part of his character. However, he usually beats unbelievable odds that are thrown at him, not ones he creates himself. He can kill 20 guys in a hotel if he is forced too – but he would never be stupid enough to create this situation himself. Except he did it in this movie. He lured a super villain with quasi-unlimited resources to a gun fight against him and a geriatric lady in a shit-old chalet. Of course they end-up having a third ally: Kincade, the retarded old man who likes to wave around a flash light in complete darkness to make sure bad guys can find him. But the problem here is not that James Bond won the fight 3vs15 (even though it’s stupid), the problem is that James Bond planned this gun-gang-rape in advance and assumed he would come out victorious. Which is in itself so retarded that it is insulting to Kincade."

    EXPLANATION: First of all, it turns out it wasn't that retarded on Bond's part to assume he would come out victorious, since, you know, he did come out victorious. The main objective was not to save M (who was very close to retirement anyway, in other words: she was not an extremely valuable MI6 asset anymore), it was to defeat Silva. Second of all, the whole point of the Scotland scenes were that even though Bond + M + Kinkade were clearly outmanned and outganned, they had the home advantage. Bond's plan to go to Skyfall with M is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    2. "MI6 has weird weapons. They buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Otherwise Eve Moneypenny could have, you know, shot the bad guy endlessly after she first hit James Bond on top of that train. Instead she just kept eye contact with him and hoped to make him die of guilt."

    EXPLANATION: NO, MI6 does not buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Eve stopped shooting at the bad guy because she was in a state of shock after she shot Bond. This scene was clearly meant to show how unprofessional she was, and that she was not a good field agent. This is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    I could go on...

    A few weeks ago @ClarkDevlin and @JamesBondKenya each just randomly put together a list of plot holes but you failed to answer to that. Instead you choose to wait a few weeks, let some grass grow over it and then replay your "there are no plot holes in Skyfall" tape.
    Let me make you the same offer I made to some other defendants of Skyfall.
    Just tell me anything you think makes sense in Skyfalls story and I tell you why it doesn't. To the best of my knowledge this is the only movie where it's possible to do this. Although Spectre is not far behind.


    I hate to break it to you but there are things that make no sense in all 24 official films. As Bond fans, we don't seem to care much. Even CR has a massive plot hole: the fact that playing the poker game was 100% unnecessary. And how did MI6 not know the CIA would be there? Uh...

    What makes sense in SF, however? Almost all of it...because of 1. Silva's mental instability; and 2. Silva's ability to do just about anything via "point and click."

    Bond stayed away from MI6 after being shot. That makes sense. Correct?

    I really wonder why the supporters of Skyfall always feel the need to denigrate the other Bond films just to prove their case. Nobody ever said that Bond movies where in general completely plot hole free ( keep in mind though, that even an all out fantasy greatest hits bond like DAD only has two real plot holes, which is how he manages to slow down his heart rate when he escapes and how Gustav Graves managed to become accepted by British society and the royals, that he was even to be made a knight.)What I and some others claim is that Skyfall is one plot hole after another which makes it a screenplay disaster par excellence.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited November 2017 Posts: 1,756
    @dominicgreene Time to post that vomiting gif, mate. :))

    AIl67ub.gif
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited November 2017 Posts: 4,589
    TripAces wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Sf is a top tier bond film, the plotholes are overplayed by critics.

    I've come around greatly on appreciating and enjoying Skyfall, but the plotholes are in no way, shape or form overplayed, whatever exactly that means. I don't know how they could be. The plotholes are perhaps the singular most glaring problem with the film and far more in-your-face than just about any other Bond. Still, the film has phenomenal cinematography, a unique style and vibe, and standout scenes and sequences that all help to elevate it.
    Every time I ask people to mention those Skyfall plotholes, I get a list of things that are simply not explained / issues that are not addressed in the movie. I've yet to read a genuine Skyfall plothole. To prove my point, I googled "Skyfall plotholes" and found a list, I will address two "plotholes" from this list:

    1. " James Bond is a man that beats unbelievable odds. It is part of his character. However, he usually beats unbelievable odds that are thrown at him, not ones he creates himself. He can kill 20 guys in a hotel if he is forced too – but he would never be stupid enough to create this situation himself. Except he did it in this movie. He lured a super villain with quasi-unlimited resources to a gun fight against him and a geriatric lady in a shit-old chalet. Of course they end-up having a third ally: Kincade, the retarded old man who likes to wave around a flash light in complete darkness to make sure bad guys can find him. But the problem here is not that James Bond won the fight 3vs15 (even though it’s stupid), the problem is that James Bond planned this gun-gang-rape in advance and assumed he would come out victorious. Which is in itself so retarded that it is insulting to Kincade."

    EXPLANATION: First of all, it turns out it wasn't that retarded on Bond's part to assume he would come out victorious, since, you know, he did come out victorious. The main objective was not to save M (who was very close to retirement anyway, in other words: she was not an extremely valuable MI6 asset anymore), it was to defeat Silva. Second of all, the whole point of the Scotland scenes were that even though Bond + M + Kinkade were clearly outmanned and outganned, they had the home advantage. Bond's plan to go to Skyfall with M is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    2. "MI6 has weird weapons. They buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Otherwise Eve Moneypenny could have, you know, shot the bad guy endlessly after she first hit James Bond on top of that train. Instead she just kept eye contact with him and hoped to make him die of guilt."

    EXPLANATION: NO, MI6 does not buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Eve stopped shooting at the bad guy because she was in a state of shock after she shot Bond. This scene was clearly meant to show how unprofessional she was, and that she was not a good field agent. This is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    I could go on...

    A few weeks ago @ClarkDevlin and @JamesBondKenya each just randomly put together a list of plot holes but you failed to answer to that. Instead you choose to wait a few weeks, let some grass grow over it and then replay your "there are no plot holes in Skyfall" tape.
    Let me make you the same offer I made to some other defendants of Skyfall.
    Just tell me anything you think makes sense in Skyfalls story and I tell you why it doesn't. To the best of my knowledge this is the only movie where it's possible to do this. Although Spectre is not far behind.


    I hate to break it to you but there are things that make no sense in all 24 official films. As Bond fans, we don't seem to care much. Even CR has a massive plot hole: the fact that playing the poker game was 100% unnecessary. And how did MI6 not know the CIA would be there? Uh...

    What makes sense in SF, however? Almost all of it...because of 1. Silva's mental instability; and 2. Silva's ability to do just about anything via "point and click."

    Bond stayed away from MI6 after being shot. That makes sense. Correct?

    I really wonder why the supporters of Skyfall always feel the need to denigrate the other Bond films just to prove their case. Nobody ever said that Bond movies where in general completely plot hole free ( keep in mind though, that even an all out fantasy greatest hits bond like DAD only has two real plot holes, which is how he manages to slow down his heart rate when he escapes and how Gustav Graves managed to become accepted by British society and the royals, that he was even to be made a knight.)What I and some others claim is that Skyfall is one plot hole after another which makes it a screenplay disaster par excellence.

    I'll take what @Creasy47 has said about the film being made to win Oscars and apply it here: the criticism if SF has nothing to do with the film and everything to do with the biases of the audience member who into the film with a problem to begin with: whther it be Mendes at the helm, or an oscar winner as the villain, or the beloved David Arnold being replaced by the far more talented Thomas Newman.

    The "SF has plot holes" argument seems based on a need to degrade the film because it was created by people you already disliked. The film does NOT contain plot hole after plot hole; point is, even if it did, it would fit right in with the other Bond films. This entire series is mostly based on crap storylines. So why the over-the-top issues with SF?

    Again, @Creasy47 kind of let it slip out: the problem isn't with the film, it's with what appears to be the intent to make a Bond film more artsy. As if this is a bad thing?

    https://eyeonbond.com/2017/11/09/five-years-later-why-skyfall-might-be-the-best-bond-film/

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    TripAces wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Sf is a top tier bond film, the plotholes are overplayed by critics.

    I've come around greatly on appreciating and enjoying Skyfall, but the plotholes are in no way, shape or form overplayed, whatever exactly that means. I don't know how they could be. The plotholes are perhaps the singular most glaring problem with the film and far more in-your-face than just about any other Bond. Still, the film has phenomenal cinematography, a unique style and vibe, and standout scenes and sequences that all help to elevate it.
    Every time I ask people to mention those Skyfall plotholes, I get a list of things that are simply not explained / issues that are not addressed in the movie. I've yet to read a genuine Skyfall plothole. To prove my point, I googled "Skyfall plotholes" and found a list, I will address two "plotholes" from this list:

    1. " James Bond is a man that beats unbelievable odds. It is part of his character. However, he usually beats unbelievable odds that are thrown at him, not ones he creates himself. He can kill 20 guys in a hotel if he is forced too – but he would never be stupid enough to create this situation himself. Except he did it in this movie. He lured a super villain with quasi-unlimited resources to a gun fight against him and a geriatric lady in a shit-old chalet. Of course they end-up having a third ally: Kincade, the retarded old man who likes to wave around a flash light in complete darkness to make sure bad guys can find him. But the problem here is not that James Bond won the fight 3vs15 (even though it’s stupid), the problem is that James Bond planned this gun-gang-rape in advance and assumed he would come out victorious. Which is in itself so retarded that it is insulting to Kincade."

    EXPLANATION: First of all, it turns out it wasn't that retarded on Bond's part to assume he would come out victorious, since, you know, he did come out victorious. The main objective was not to save M (who was very close to retirement anyway, in other words: she was not an extremely valuable MI6 asset anymore), it was to defeat Silva. Second of all, the whole point of the Scotland scenes were that even though Bond + M + Kinkade were clearly outmanned and outganned, they had the home advantage. Bond's plan to go to Skyfall with M is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    2. "MI6 has weird weapons. They buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Otherwise Eve Moneypenny could have, you know, shot the bad guy endlessly after she first hit James Bond on top of that train. Instead she just kept eye contact with him and hoped to make him die of guilt."

    EXPLANATION: NO, MI6 does not buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Eve stopped shooting at the bad guy because she was in a state of shock after she shot Bond. This scene was clearly meant to show how unprofessional she was, and that she was not a good field agent. This is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    I could go on...

    A few weeks ago @ClarkDevlin and @JamesBondKenya each just randomly put together a list of plot holes but you failed to answer to that. Instead you choose to wait a few weeks, let some grass grow over it and then replay your "there are no plot holes in Skyfall" tape.
    Let me make you the same offer I made to some other defendants of Skyfall.
    Just tell me anything you think makes sense in Skyfalls story and I tell you why it doesn't. To the best of my knowledge this is the only movie where it's possible to do this. Although Spectre is not far behind.


    I hate to break it to you but there are things that make no sense in all 24 official films. As Bond fans, we don't seem to care much. Even CR has a massive plot hole: the fact that playing the poker game was 100% unnecessary. And how did MI6 not know the CIA would be there? Uh...

    What makes sense in SF, however? Almost all of it...because of 1. Silva's mental instability; and 2. Silva's ability to do just about anything via "point and click."

    Bond stayed away from MI6 after being shot. That makes sense. Correct?

    I really wonder why the supporters of Skyfall always feel the need to denigrate the other Bond films just to prove their case. Nobody ever said that Bond movies where in general completely plot hole free ( keep in mind though, that even an all out fantasy greatest hits bond like DAD only has two real plot holes, which is how he manages to slow down his heart rate when he escapes and how Gustav Graves managed to become accepted by British society and the royals, that he was even to be made a knight.)What I and some others claim is that Skyfall is one plot hole after another which makes it a screenplay disaster par excellence.

    I'll take what @Creasy47 has said about the film being made to win Oscars and apply it here: the criticism if SF has nothing to do with the film and everything to do with the biases of the audience member who into the film with a problem to begin with: whther it be Mendes at the helm, or an oscar winner as the villain, or the beloved David Arnold being replaced by the far more talented Thomas Newman.

    The "SF has plot holes" argument seems based on a need to degrade the film because it was created by people you already disliked. The film does NOT contain plot hole after plot hole; point is, even if it did, it would fit right in with the other Bond films. This entire series is mostly based on crap storylines. So why the over-the-top issues with SF?

    Again, @Creasy47 kind of let it slip out: the problem isn't with the film, it's with what appears to be the intent to make a Bond film more artsy. As if this is a bad thing?

    https://eyeonbond.com/2017/11/09/five-years-later-why-skyfall-might-be-the-best-bond-film/

    Have to agree with you here, even though I'm no fan of Mendes' pretensions and Silva's clairvoyance during his escape annoys me.

    FRWL is rightly regarded as one of the best if not the best yet contains the fundamental flaw that the moment the Lektor has been nicked the Russians would be forced to take all Lektor machines out of service. It would be a minor coup in the intelligence community because they would have to scrap the, to coin a phrase, Lektor Program but the British certainly wouldn't be able to decode their top secret messages because by the time Bond has carted it back through the Balkans for a week on the train any Soviet embassy or agent with a Lektor would've been instructed to scrap it as it was compromised.

    Does this stop FRWL from being a classic? Not in the slightest but there is a tendency, and I'm guilty of it myself, to hold the modern films to a razor sharp critical scalpel that the older films simply don't get dissected with.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 12,837
    there is a tendency, and I'm guilty of it myself, to hold the modern films to a razor sharp critical scalpel that the older films simply don't get dissected with.

    Definitely. Anything from 95 onwards is fair game but the films from Cubby's day get the rose tinted glasses treatment. I understand why, there is a certain magic about the old films thanks to the old crew (in front of and behind the camera), but a lot of the criticisms against the newer ones are unfair imo.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    edited November 2017 Posts: 4,423
    I blame CR, to an extent. That film was so good and so grounded (for a Bond film) that we maybe unfairly judge each of its successors by the same mantra.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,393
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Now that we're debating bad ideas, I think in Bond 25, Mrs. Bell should be revealed to have been behind the villains of all 24 previous Bond films.

    Yes, Angela Lansbury would be the perfect rebooted Mrs. Bell.
  • edited November 2017 Posts: 2,922
    All Bond films have to have plot holes--if they didn't, their plots, action, and incidents would be of the everyday variety. No one wants that from a Bond film--we want implausible (but not impossible) action and events and stories. Plot holes are something you really care about only if the film fails to emotionally involve you.
  • Posts: 4,619
    @noSolaceleft No, YOU tell me anything you think does not make sense in Skyfalls story and I will tell you why you are wrong.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Some cancer evoking comments on this page...

    AIl67ub.gif

    ...Think I'll have what he's having.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,393
    Revelator wrote: »
    All Bond films have to have plot holes--if they didn't, their plots, action, and incidents would be of the everyday variety. No one wants that from a Bond film--we want implausible (but not impossible) action and events and stories. Plot holes are something you really care about only if the film fails to emotionally involve you.

    The problem with SF is that the villain's plan is overly convoluted and makes no sense (relying as it does on capture, M having to testify in front of Parliament, etc.). Compare that to GF or even CR--the simpler plans work better than the convoluted ones of SF or TLD.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,941
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Someone is probably more likely to pick on a film for its plot holes when they don’t like the film, or at least feel it is overrated.
    That's the thing, isn't it.
    To me a Bond film is a Bond film--CASINO ROYALE, QUANTUM OF SOLACE, SKYFALL, SPECTRE included. They absorb the fantastic without skipping a beat.
  • I just don't get why Silva had to get himself captured if all he wanted to do was shoot up the court room.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,941
    Omnipotence. Puppetmastery. Ego.
    Showoff.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,593
    If everyone just spent all the time between now and November 2019 reading all the Bond novels you’d 1) realize how incredibly awesome literary Bond is if you haven’t already 2) be surprised how fast the time will have gone by and 3) have no time to participate in stupid arguments on the internet about nit picky details of Spectre and Skyfall. Just a suggestion :)
  • Posts: 2,922
    echo wrote: »
    The problem with SF is that the villain's plan is overly convoluted and makes no sense...Compare that to GF or even CR--the simpler plans work better than the convoluted ones of SF or TLD.

    Convolution isn't a bad thing if it provides enough twists and turns and surprises and upsets to keep the audience thrilled and excited--look at the Dark Knight, which set Skyfall's template, or the average plot of a Raymond Chandler novel.
    Having a simpler plot has its own risks, since the plot's inevitable implausibility has nothing to hide behind: Goldfinger's scheme depends on a host of implausibilities, and as someone else pointed out, the card game in CR has no logical claim to existence. None of this matters, because all of those films have the right amount of pacing, momentum, thrills, emotion, and suspense to sweep audiences past the inevitable implausibilities. Dream-logic and drama are always more powerful in a movie than pure logic. For many people, Spectre simply didn't work well enough--in its themes or characterization, direction, acting emotional attraction, or what-have-you--to spirit the audience past the sort of implausibilities they'd normally accept in a Bond film.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    Here is the November rundown:

    November 2017
    ->It is reported that Disney is in talks to buy out the entertainment division of 21st Century Fox, who handle Bond home media releases and are one of the five candidates interested in securing distribution rights. Some speculate on whether this will have any effect on the 007 franchise going forward
    ->Yann Demange's next project will be a revival of the UK drama series Top Boy in 2019, which may hamper his chances of directing B25 due to scheduling (though he will only executive-produce the show)
    ->Monica Bellucci tells reporters she "can't say anything" when asked about the rumours of Craig wanting her back for a second outing, leading many to believe that she has been asked to return as Lucia Sciarra
    ->Deadline confirms that MGM and Annapurna will partner to release the next Bond film domestically, and will officially announce it in the coming days. International distribution has yet to be finalized but may go to another studio
    ->Warner Bros pushes forward Wonder Woman 2 to November 1, which may rule them out from international distribution due to competing films. It may also prevent B25 from being shown in IMAX theatres as the former is likely to bring in higher box office numbers
    ->Sam Mendes drops out of a live-action Pinocchio remake; many presume this move is to allow time for B25
    ->Broccoli says she hopes to have hired a director by early 2018. "We've got our Daniel; we've got to find the director. We're working on the script and we'll see. Hopefully by the beginning of the year we'll have more news on all those fronts."
    ->Broccoli's next non-Bond film The Rhythm Section commences production in Ireland, which Broccoli shows interest in returning to on a future Bond film
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 12,525
    Hope for more big news next month and January. We are just starving here for concrete news.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,755
    Don’t think we’ll be getting anything until Spring or Summer even.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 2,115
    //Anything from 95 onwards is fair game but the films from Cubby's day get the rose tinted glasses treatment. //

    Not at the time. The Beverly Hillbillies made fun of Goldfinger. Jethro recites the plot to Jed Clampett. "Why didn't they just shoot him?" Jed asks. (In real life, Maibaum and Dehn sweated bullets trying to come up with a better reason than the one in the novel.)

    Anyway, that's the kind of stuff Mike Meyers did in Austin Powers. He was just following a trail others had blazed. ("Shoot him! Just shoot him!")


  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    Don’t think we’ll be getting anything until Spring or Summer even.
    I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't hear anything concrete until spring or summer, although I'm sure there'll be plenty of red herring rumours before then.
    Revelator wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    The problem with SF is that the villain's plan is overly convoluted and makes no sense...Compare that to GF or even CR--the simpler plans work better than the convoluted ones of SF or TLD.

    Convolution isn't a bad thing if it provides enough twists and turns and surprises and upsets to keep the audience thrilled and excited--look at the Dark Knight, which set Skyfall's template, or the average plot of a Raymond Chandler novel.
    Having a simpler plot has its own risks, since the plot's inevitable implausibility has nothing to hide behind: Goldfinger's scheme depends on a host of implausibilities, and as someone else pointed out, the card game in CR has no logical claim to existence. None of this matters, because all of those films have the right amount of pacing, momentum, thrills, emotion, and suspense to sweep audiences past the inevitable implausibilities. Dream-logic and drama are always more powerful in a movie than pure logic. For many people, Spectre simply didn't work well enough--in its themes or characterization, direction, acting emotional attraction, or what-have-you--to spirit the audience past the sort of implausibilities they'd normally accept in a Bond film.
    Good post. I agree.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited December 2017 Posts: 4,589
    I just don't get why Silva had to get himself captured if all he wanted to do was shoot up the court room.

    Good question @thelivingroyale

    There are several points here. If Silva simply wanted to kill M, he could have done so at many points. But Silva was more interested in humiliating her and MI6...to a fault. This is why he is such a great villain. He's brilliant but seriously flawed. His motives are forcing him to operate in a space he does not like to navigate: in the field.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    Given the task, with the same characters with the same motivations and a similar outcome, Christopher McQuarrie could have written a tighter script with spectacular action sequences that fit within a cohesive framework.

    With that said, I love SF and find it incredibly re-watchable
  • Posts: 12,525
    SF is rightfully regarded as one of the best highlights of the Bond series in the modern era - and really ever. We would be lucky if Craig’s last is as good as CR or SF. I’d just be satisfied if it could top QoS and SP.
  • NSGWNSGW London
    Posts: 299
    FoxRox wrote: »
    SF is rightfully regarded as one of the best highlights of the Bond series in the modern era - and really ever. We would be lucky if Craig’s last is as good as CR or SF. I’d just be satisfied if it could top QoS and SP.

    Completely agree, I'd be happy if Bond 25 was as good as QoS, CR is an incredibly high bar that isn't realistically attainable every time. Although knowing its Craig's last adventure should give the writers plenty of ideas to work with to make a great send off.
  • TripAces wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Sf is a top tier bond film, the plotholes are overplayed by critics.

    I've come around greatly on appreciating and enjoying Skyfall, but the plotholes are in no way, shape or form overplayed, whatever exactly that means. I don't know how they could be. The plotholes are perhaps the singular most glaring problem with the film and far more in-your-face than just about any other Bond. Still, the film has phenomenal cinematography, a unique style and vibe, and standout scenes and sequences that all help to elevate it.
    Every time I ask people to mention those Skyfall plotholes, I get a list of things that are simply not explained / issues that are not addressed in the movie. I've yet to read a genuine Skyfall plothole. To prove my point, I googled "Skyfall plotholes" and found a list, I will address two "plotholes" from this list:

    1. " James Bond is a man that beats unbelievable odds. It is part of his character. However, he usually beats unbelievable odds that are thrown at him, not ones he creates himself. He can kill 20 guys in a hotel if he is forced too – but he would never be stupid enough to create this situation himself. Except he did it in this movie. He lured a super villain with quasi-unlimited resources to a gun fight against him and a geriatric lady in a shit-old chalet. Of course they end-up having a third ally: Kincade, the retarded old man who likes to wave around a flash light in complete darkness to make sure bad guys can find him. But the problem here is not that James Bond won the fight 3vs15 (even though it’s stupid), the problem is that James Bond planned this gun-gang-rape in advance and assumed he would come out victorious. Which is in itself so retarded that it is insulting to Kincade."

    EXPLANATION: First of all, it turns out it wasn't that retarded on Bond's part to assume he would come out victorious, since, you know, he did come out victorious. The main objective was not to save M (who was very close to retirement anyway, in other words: she was not an extremely valuable MI6 asset anymore), it was to defeat Silva. Second of all, the whole point of the Scotland scenes were that even though Bond + M + Kinkade were clearly outmanned and outganned, they had the home advantage. Bond's plan to go to Skyfall with M is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    2. "MI6 has weird weapons. They buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Otherwise Eve Moneypenny could have, you know, shot the bad guy endlessly after she first hit James Bond on top of that train. Instead she just kept eye contact with him and hoped to make him die of guilt."

    EXPLANATION: NO, MI6 does not buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Eve stopped shooting at the bad guy because she was in a state of shock after she shot Bond. This scene was clearly meant to show how unprofessional she was, and that she was not a good field agent. This is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    I could go on...

    A few weeks ago @ClarkDevlin and @JamesBondKenya each just randomly put together a list of plot holes but you failed to answer to that. Instead you choose to wait a few weeks, let some grass grow over it and then replay your "there are no plot holes in Skyfall" tape.
    Let me make you the same offer I made to some other defendants of Skyfall.
    Just tell me anything you think makes sense in Skyfalls story and I tell you why it doesn't. To the best of my knowledge this is the only movie where it's possible to do this. Although Spectre is not far behind.


    I hate to break it to you but there are things that make no sense in all 24 official films. As Bond fans, we don't seem to care much. Even CR has a massive plot hole: the fact that playing the poker game was 100% unnecessary. And how did MI6 not know the CIA would be there? Uh...

    What makes sense in SF, however? Almost all of it...because of 1. Silva's mental instability; and 2. Silva's ability to do just about anything via "point and click."

    Bond stayed away from MI6 after being shot. That makes sense. Correct?

    I really wonder why the supporters of Skyfall always feel the need to denigrate the other Bond films just to prove their case. Nobody ever said that Bond movies where in general completely plot hole free ( keep in mind though, that even an all out fantasy greatest hits bond like DAD only has two real plot holes, which is how he manages to slow down his heart rate when he escapes and how Gustav Graves managed to become accepted by British society and the royals, that he was even to be made a knight.)What I and some others claim is that Skyfall is one plot hole after another which makes it a screenplay disaster par excellence.

    I'll take what @Creasy47 has said about the film being made to win Oscars and apply it here: the criticism if SF has nothing to do with the film and everything to do with the biases of the audience member who into the film with a problem to begin with: whther it be Mendes at the helm, or an oscar winner as the villain, or the beloved David Arnold being replaced by the far more talented Thomas Newman.

    The "SF has plot holes" argument seems based on a need to degrade the film because it was created by people you already disliked. The film does NOT contain plot hole after plot hole; point is, even if it did, it would fit right in with the other Bond films. This entire series is mostly based on crap storylines. So why the over-the-top issues with SF?

    Again, @Creasy47 kind of let it slip out: the problem isn't with the film, it's with what appears to be the intent to make a Bond film more artsy. As if this is a bad thing?

    https://eyeonbond.com/2017/11/09/five-years-later-why-skyfall-might-be-the-best-bond-film/

    Have to agree with you here, even though I'm no fan of Mendes' pretensions and Silva's clairvoyance during his escape annoys me.

    FRWL is rightly regarded as one of the best if not the best yet contains the fundamental flaw that the moment the Lektor has been nicked the Russians would be forced to take all Lektor machines out of service. It would be a minor coup in the intelligence community because they would have to scrap the, to coin a phrase, Lektor Program but the British certainly wouldn't be able to decode their top secret messages because by the time Bond has carted it back through the Balkans for a week on the train any Soviet embassy or agent with a Lektor would've been instructed to scrap it as it was compromised.

    Does this stop FRWL from being a classic? Not in the slightest but there is a tendency, and I'm guilty of it myself, to hold the modern films to a razor sharp critical scalpel that the older films simply don't get dissected with.

    Did the Germans stop to use the enigma machine ( the real Lektor) when the Brits got hold on one model? No they didn't because the way it worked it was still considered unbeatable.
    What makes much less sense if that bond never gives the question pause for thought, who it is that is doing all the dirty work ( saving his life in the gypsy camp, killing the Bulgarian in the Hagia Sophia) for him?
  • @noSolaceleft No, YOU tell me anything you think does not make sense in Skyfalls story and I will tell you why you are wrong.

    Tell you what. Why don't you answer Clark Devlins and Jamesbondkenyas list first? After all they already did that work, so it would only be polite of you to answer them.
  • Omnipotence. Puppetmastery. Ego.
    Showoff.

    You are absolutely right. Mendes urgently needs some medical treatment.
  • Posts: 1,031
    TripAces wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Sf is a top tier bond film, the plotholes are overplayed by critics.

    I've come around greatly on appreciating and enjoying Skyfall, but the plotholes are in no way, shape or form overplayed, whatever exactly that means. I don't know how they could be. The plotholes are perhaps the singular most glaring problem with the film and far more in-your-face than just about any other Bond. Still, the film has phenomenal cinematography, a unique style and vibe, and standout scenes and sequences that all help to elevate it.
    Every time I ask people to mention those Skyfall plotholes, I get a list of things that are simply not explained / issues that are not addressed in the movie. I've yet to read a genuine Skyfall plothole. To prove my point, I googled "Skyfall plotholes" and found a list, I will address two "plotholes" from this list:

    1. " James Bond is a man that beats unbelievable odds. It is part of his character. However, he usually beats unbelievable odds that are thrown at him, not ones he creates himself. He can kill 20 guys in a hotel if he is forced too – but he would never be stupid enough to create this situation himself. Except he did it in this movie. He lured a super villain with quasi-unlimited resources to a gun fight against him and a geriatric lady in a shit-old chalet. Of course they end-up having a third ally: Kincade, the retarded old man who likes to wave around a flash light in complete darkness to make sure bad guys can find him. But the problem here is not that James Bond won the fight 3vs15 (even though it’s stupid), the problem is that James Bond planned this gun-gang-rape in advance and assumed he would come out victorious. Which is in itself so retarded that it is insulting to Kincade."

    EXPLANATION: First of all, it turns out it wasn't that retarded on Bond's part to assume he would come out victorious, since, you know, he did come out victorious. The main objective was not to save M (who was very close to retirement anyway, in other words: she was not an extremely valuable MI6 asset anymore), it was to defeat Silva. Second of all, the whole point of the Scotland scenes were that even though Bond + M + Kinkade were clearly outmanned and outganned, they had the home advantage. Bond's plan to go to Skyfall with M is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    2. "MI6 has weird weapons. They buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Otherwise Eve Moneypenny could have, you know, shot the bad guy endlessly after she first hit James Bond on top of that train. Instead she just kept eye contact with him and hoped to make him die of guilt."

    EXPLANATION: NO, MI6 does not buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Eve stopped shooting at the bad guy because she was in a state of shock after she shot Bond. This scene was clearly meant to show how unprofessional she was, and that she was not a good field agent. This is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    I could go on...

    A few weeks ago @ClarkDevlin and @JamesBondKenya each just randomly put together a list of plot holes but you failed to answer to that. Instead you choose to wait a few weeks, let some grass grow over it and then replay your "there are no plot holes in Skyfall" tape.
    Let me make you the same offer I made to some other defendants of Skyfall.
    Just tell me anything you think makes sense in Skyfalls story and I tell you why it doesn't. To the best of my knowledge this is the only movie where it's possible to do this. Although Spectre is not far behind.


    I hate to break it to you but there are things that make no sense in all 24 official films. As Bond fans, we don't seem to care much. Even CR has a massive plot hole: the fact that playing the poker game was 100% unnecessary. And how did MI6 not know the CIA would be there? Uh...

    What makes sense in SF, however? Almost all of it...because of 1. Silva's mental instability; and 2. Silva's ability to do just about anything via "point and click."

    Bond stayed away from MI6 after being shot. That makes sense. Correct?

    I really wonder why the supporters of Skyfall always feel the need to denigrate the other Bond films just to prove their case. Nobody ever said that Bond movies where in general completely plot hole free ( keep in mind though, that even an all out fantasy greatest hits bond like DAD only has two real plot holes, which is how he manages to slow down his heart rate when he escapes and how Gustav Graves managed to become accepted by British society and the royals, that he was even to be made a knight.)What I and some others claim is that Skyfall is one plot hole after another which makes it a screenplay disaster par excellence.

    I'll take what @Creasy47 has said about the film being made to win Oscars and apply it here: the criticism if SF has nothing to do with the film and everything to do with the biases of the audience member who into the film with a problem to begin with: whther it be Mendes at the helm, or an oscar winner as the villain, or the beloved David Arnold being replaced by the far more talented Thomas Newman.

    The "SF has plot holes" argument seems based on a need to degrade the film because it was created by people you already disliked. The film does NOT contain plot hole after plot hole; point is, even if it did, it would fit right in with the other Bond films. This entire series is mostly based on crap storylines. So why the over-the-top issues with SF?

    Again, @Creasy47 kind of let it slip out: the problem isn't with the film, it's with what appears to be the intent to make a Bond film more artsy. As if this is a bad thing?

    https://eyeonbond.com/2017/11/09/five-years-later-why-skyfall-might-be-the-best-bond-film/

    Have to agree with you here, even though I'm no fan of Mendes' pretensions and Silva's clairvoyance during his escape annoys me.

    FRWL is rightly regarded as one of the best if not the best yet contains the fundamental flaw that the moment the Lektor has been nicked the Russians would be forced to take all Lektor machines out of service. It would be a minor coup in the intelligence community because they would have to scrap the, to coin a phrase, Lektor Program but the British certainly wouldn't be able to decode their top secret messages because by the time Bond has carted it back through the Balkans for a week on the train any Soviet embassy or agent with a Lektor would've been instructed to scrap it as it was compromised.

    Does this stop FRWL from being a classic? Not in the slightest but there is a tendency, and I'm guilty of it myself, to hold the modern films to a razor sharp critical scalpel that the older films simply don't get dissected with.

    Did the Germans stop to use the enigma machine ( the real Lektor) when the Brits got hold on one model? No they didn't because the way it worked it was still considered unbeatable.
    What makes much less sense if that bond never gives the question pause for thought, who it is that is doing all the dirty work ( saving his life in the gypsy camp, killing the Bulgarian in the Hagia Sophia) for him?

    So ... Bond 25 is a remake of From Russia with Love? I've come on the Bond 25 thread and you're talking about FRWL, so it must be - fantastic news!
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    @noSolaceleft No, YOU tell me anything you think does not make sense in Skyfalls story and I will tell you why you are wrong.

    Tell you what. Why don't you answer Clark Devlins and Jamesbondkenyas list first? After all they already did that work, so it would only be polite of you to answer them.

    Yeah I can repost it if you guys need me to.
    There are plot holes in every bond film, my problem with skyfall is that it asks me to trust in this gritty and realistic look at bond, and then it doesn’t give me an espionage story but a series of contrivances written by a four year old who couldn’t be bothered to reread his work even once to see that it literally makes no sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.