Skyfall Questions (Spoilers)

17810121326

Comments

  • marymoss wrote:
    DRush76 wrote:

    You know what? Forget it. No one wants to admit that this movie started out with bad writing. Instead, I get comments that it doesn't matter how the list of NATO agents ended up in the hands of a MI6 agent. If it's not important to you, fine. But I can't accept this view. The bad handling of this plot point is one of many reasons I cannot like "SKYFALL". This is all I have to say.

    Someone must have just broken into MI6 and stolen it. I find it much more plausible than say, how did Drax built a space station with no one knowing about it.

    It is not important at all, my gooooooodnes
  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    Getafix wrote:
    Apologies if this one has been dealt with already. But why does a professional assassin leave a trail of dead bodies on his way to making his kill? As Patrice works his way through the security staff in the Shanghai I couldn't help thinking, 'this guy is an idiot'. To top it all, and as several others have noted, why use an assassin in an adjacent building when Severine and the heavies in the hotel/apartment are clearly in on the plan? They don't even pretend to be surprised. They just drag away the body, so why didn't they kill him themselves... I doesn't make any sense.

    Maybe they hired Patrice so that Severine and her men are not directly linked to the murder. We don't know who the man was. Maybe he has a powerful organisation behind him? If there is an inquiry after his death and a bullet of Severine or her man is found in his head...I am pretty sure they would be in trouble.
    With someone unknown murdering him, nobody can accuse Severine. After all, we don't know how many enemies this guy had. They probably wouldn't be able to blame Severine easily.

    The trail of dead bodys however really is stupid I agree! I have only seen the movie once and thought he drags the body out of sight but if not it really is quite stupid.
    Only explanation, and probably not a satisfying one, is that Patrice is so cocky and self-aware that he thinks he can get away with it. It afterall sounds like an easy job doesn't it? Go up there, clean shot, leave.
    Stealing the hard drive from a bunch of agents surely sounds harder!
    He has to be upstairs and ready to shoot his victim as soon as he sits down. He doesn't have time to clean up. He just hides the bodies temporarily so he can kill the guy and clean up afterwards.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,425
    gt007 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Apologies if this one has been dealt with already. But why does a professional assassin leave a trail of dead bodies on his way to making his kill? As Patrice works his way through the security staff in the Shanghai I couldn't help thinking, 'this guy is an idiot'. To top it all, and as several others have noted, why use an assassin in an adjacent building when Severine and the heavies in the hotel/apartment are clearly in on the plan? They don't even pretend to be surprised. They just drag away the body, so why didn't they kill him themselves... I doesn't make any sense.

    Maybe they hired Patrice so that Severine and her men are not directly linked to the murder. We don't know who the man was. Maybe he has a powerful organisation behind him? If there is an inquiry after his death and a bullet of Severine or her man is found in his head...I am pretty sure they would be in trouble.
    With someone unknown murdering him, nobody can accuse Severine. After all, we don't know how many enemies this guy had. They probably wouldn't be able to blame Severine easily.

    The trail of dead bodys however really is stupid I agree! I have only seen the movie once and thought he drags the body out of sight but if not it really is quite stupid.
    Only explanation, and probably not a satisfying one, is that Patrice is so cocky and self-aware that he thinks he can get away with it. It afterall sounds like an easy job doesn't it? Go up there, clean shot, leave.
    Stealing the hard drive from a bunch of agents surely sounds harder!
    He has to be upstairs and ready to shoot his victim as soon as he sits down. He doesn't have time to clean up. He just hides the bodies temporarily so he can kill the guy and clean up afterwards.

    Actually, thinking about it, he must surely be doing it to draw attention to himself. This is a fake assassination after all and therefore the 'evidence' needs to be as blatant as possible. He is leaving a trail of dead bodies leading to the crime scene just to underline that this is a hit job.

    A professional hitman would want to keep the collateral damage to a minimum so would not pointlessly shoot the guards when this would risk blowing the assignment. He is therefore doing it deliberately to make it very clear what has happened.

    I'm answering my own question but I can't see any other way of explaining it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondsum wrote:
    The only reference I can see for NATO is on the Wikipedia page. I really need to see this again before I can say otherwise.

    He definitely says NATO. I missed it the first time myself and double checked the next few times.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    What the hell was the point of Patrice shooting the man looking at the painting anyway? Is it just the job that Bond is told he is in Shanghai for? If so, why is the man looking at the painting, and above all else WHO IS HE? I know that the payment for the job is in the briefcase and Bond takes it as an F U to Silva letting him know he killed his agent, but some of the stuff in this film is sloppily explained. How unfortunate.
  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    What the hell was the point of Patrice shooting the man looking at the painting anyway? Is it just the job that Bond is told he is in Shanghai for? If so, why is the man looking at the painting, and above all else WHO IS HE? I know that the payment for the job is in the briefcase and Bond takes it as an F U to Silva letting him know he killed his agent, but some of the stuff in this film is sloppily explained. How unfortunate.
    Who cares? Why should we know who that man is? He's someone Silva wants dead. Obviously Severine lured him into the trap by making him think he's buying the stolen painting. They made him sit down with his back facing the window so Patrice could shoot him. That's all we need to know.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    gt007 wrote:
    What the hell was the point of Patrice shooting the man looking at the painting anyway? Is it just the job that Bond is told he is in Shanghai for? If so, why is the man looking at the painting, and above all else WHO IS HE? I know that the payment for the job is in the briefcase and Bond takes it as an F U to Silva letting him know he killed his agent, but some of the stuff in this film is sloppily explained. How unfortunate.
    Who cares? Why should we know who that man is? He's someone Silva wants dead. Obviously Severine lured him into the trap by making him think he's buying the stolen painting. They made him sit down with his back facing the window so Patrice could shoot him. That's all we need to know.

    That just feels like sloppy screenwriting to me. The film was long enough where it should have been explained, not put in front of us with some confusion. I guess I am just used to liking films with tight scripts.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    gt007 wrote:
    What the hell was the point of Patrice shooting the man looking at the painting anyway? Is it just the job that Bond is told he is in Shanghai for? If so, why is the man looking at the painting, and above all else WHO IS HE? I know that the payment for the job is in the briefcase and Bond takes it as an F U to Silva letting him know he killed his agent, but some of the stuff in this film is sloppily explained. How unfortunate.
    Who cares? Why should we know who that man is? He's someone Silva wants dead. Obviously Severine lured him into the trap by making him think he's buying the stolen painting. They made him sit down with his back facing the window so Patrice could shoot him. That's all we need to know.

    I guess the problem is, as a plot device it seems a little too linear (lazy). Get Bond into a situation where he confronts Patrice, spots the Bond girl but doesn't have to engage. Tracks her down via the casino chip. All very neat but a bit 'join-the-dots'.
  • RC7 wrote:
    gt007 wrote:
    What the hell was the point of Patrice shooting the man looking at the painting anyway? Is it just the job that Bond is told he is in Shanghai for? If so, why is the man looking at the painting, and above all else WHO IS HE? I know that the payment for the job is in the briefcase and Bond takes it as an F U to Silva letting him know he killed his agent, but some of the stuff in this film is sloppily explained. How unfortunate.
    Who cares? Why should we know who that man is? He's someone Silva wants dead. Obviously Severine lured him into the trap by making him think he's buying the stolen painting. They made him sit down with his back facing the window so Patrice could shoot him. That's all we need to know.

    I guess the problem is, as a plot device it seems a little too linear (lazy). Get Bond into a situation where he confronts Patrice, spots the Bond girl but doesn't have to engage. Tracks her down via the casino chip. All very neat but a bit 'join-the-dots'.

    I think there was a scene with Patrice and Severine that was cut which would have explained the painting job a bit more in depth.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    and, honestly, a prequel taking place in 2006/2008 to a film taking place in 1965?

    I don't think CR is a prequel but the whole Bond series is on sort of a floating timeline (nobody ages), so I can see why some people do think it's a prequel.
    I think there was a scene with Patrice and Severine that was cut which would have explained the painting job a bit more in depth.

    While CR went on too long, I think SF could've used more running time. There were plenty of cut scenes that deserved to make it into the film.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Skyfall doesn't feel long at all (mark of a good film), so I say bring on more scenes. Scenes that explain the plot should be kept over more location shots. I know Turkey and Shanghai look great, but let me know why the hell things are happening in front of me!
  • Here we go, from this very website:

    - Exposition scenes that explained that Sévérine sets up targets interested in buying stolen paintings only for them to be assassinated and the money stolen.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Here we go, from this very website:

    - Exposition scenes that explained that Sévérine sets up targets interested in buying stolen paintings only for them to be assassinated and the money stolen.

    It still seems rather odd. If the assassin is being paid EU4m then you would assume the painting would have to be worth at least EU10m. If that's the case it would be a pretty well guarded piece of art, stealing it would surely cost a hell of a lot too. Given that Silva can hack any individual or institution he likes it seems particularly frivolous. If this is indeed the case and he does it for fun surely it would be an amusing character trait to highlight.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 612
    Does anyone know what types of dogs those were at Skyfall? I'm guessing black Golden Retrievers.

    I'm planning on getting a dog soon, so something to consider.

    tumblr_mdgqwk4Faf1qefw2co1_1280.jpg
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Does anyone know what types of dogs those were at Skyfall? I'm guessing black Golden Retrievers.

    I'm planning on getting a dog soon, so something to consider.

    Ha ha, are we now buying Bond dogs as well as Bond phones and Bond glasses? Brilliant.

    I actually didn't pay much attention but there are no such things as Black Golden Retrievers. The similar looking dogs are Black Labradors.

    The dogs that stick out in my mind are Drax's Beaucerons. Beautiful dogs. I myself have a Jack Russell, who is awesome and watches a lot of Bond.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited November 2012 Posts: 28,694
    It wouldn't make sense if a GOLDEN Retriever was black. 8-}
  • Posts: 612
    It wouldn't make sense if a GOLDEN Retriever was black. 8-}

    My parents have a BLACK Golden Doodle. harry_by_ckfraser-d4yil0x.jpg
    That's him, there.

    What I mean by Black Golden Retriever is maybe a cross breed between a Black Lab and a Golden?
  • Posts: 5,745
    A Black Golden Doodle is a Labradoodle, though, isn't it?
  • Had to. Sorry :D

    tumblr_lqm23bOLdq1qj73e2o1_500.gif
  • With regards to "plot-holes"...

    There are really only two items that I can see which would cause a bit of confusion for people. The first is the hard drive with the list of NATO agents.

    To me it makes sense that MI6 would have such a list to prevent it from blowing the cover of allies' agents, or disrupting their ops. I could imagine each Station (Station T in SF) having such a list. Do we really need a line of dialogue that states "Ronson and his partner were on the trail of whoever stole the drive from our offices last Thursday night because of intelligence that they recieved from a CCTV camera that saw a man leave...". To me that's overkill, and another 10 minutes of expositionary scenes SHOWING the theft of the hard drive would be even worse. OHMSS doesn't give detail into how Blofeld acquired Piz Gloria (did he buy it? Build it? Is he renting it?) because ultimately it doesn't matter. The regression through previous chains of events could go on infinitely but at some point you just start with what was relevant. And the fact that the drive was recovered from Silva when they raided Silva's headquarters with all his equipment that he uses for cyber-terrorism to me is so obvious that it doesn't need a line of dialogue to state it. Seriously, could you imagine Q saying "Well, luckily, when we raided Silva's headquarters we recovered the hard drive."? To me that's talking down to the audience.

    The other item that would cause confusion was the assassination of the man in Severine's apartment. I figured that it was done by Patrice sniping so that there was plausible deniability that Severine (and Silva) were behind it. Thinking about it afterwards, the stolen painting seemed obvious "bait" that was so tempting that a reclusive crime boss would take a risk (going out to view it) to get such a one-in-a-million item. However, as the painting is not known to the general public I think that this *is* a part of the film that could use some more exposition.
  • Posts: 151
    Re-watched skyfall today.. about the man who patrice shot i think he was connected to M somehow because in the next scene M is on her laptop when the ''think on your sins'' message appears.On the right there is a picture of M with a asian gentleman i take it that this was the same man..just a hunch though.
  • Am I the only one who thinks that this film was a HUGE let down?
    For a bond film it lacked energy, action most of all it was hardly a spy movie was it?
    I find it hard to believe how a villain in a James Bond movie wins? I mean his aim I to kill M right? By the end of the movie she is dead? So bond lost?
    They really need to sort somehow out, Casino Royale was good but since then it has only gotten worse, and frankly with Daniel Craig (who in my opinion the most emotionless, weakest bond of all) the franchise is getting weaker and weaker.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Malik1010 wrote:
    Am I the only one who thinks that this film was a HUGE let down?
    For a bond film it lacked energy, action most of all it was hardly a spy movie was it?
    I find it hard to believe how a villain in a James Bond movie wins? I mean his aim I to kill M right? By the end of the movie she is dead? So bond lost?
    They really need to sort somehow out, Casino Royale was good but since then it has only gotten worse, and frankly with Daniel Craig (who in my opinion the most emotionless, weakest bond of all) the franchise is getting weaker and weaker.
    M didn't die by Silva's hands, and she went out honorably. Bond won by stopping Silva, but lost M when she gave her hand to join the fight.
  • I was excited about a potential new Moneypenny, until I heard the line "declined active duty" from Eve...

    Who is Eve Moneypenny supposed to be? Jane's daughter? niece? Because the Moneypenny I adored was sassy a secretary, who probably loved Bond, but ultimately refused to join a long list of girls notched on his bedpost. Eve is not that character, and while all other changes were awesome (love new M and Q with a passion) I just cannot compute this new Moneypenny.

    Plus, if she was an operative in the field surely she would have been a better shot than she was. Not counting the shooting Bond bit, which is a tough shot, she fires repeatedly at "baddies" in the lead up to that...don't think she actually hit anyone! Bond failed his test on return at, was it 40%? How the hell did she ever pass?!

    Maybe I'm just bitter that Samantha had to retire. But seriously, this Moneypenny has no sass. Don't even get me started on her possible night with Bond.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3


    .
  • Does anyone know what types of dogs those were at Skyfall? I'm guessing black Golden Retrievers.

    I'm planning on getting a dog soon, so something to consider.

    tumblr_mdgqwk4Faf1qefw2co1_1280.jpg

    The dogs are black Labradors, a favourite of gamekeepers as they are soft mouthed and short coated. They are actually called Labrador retrievers.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 20
    .Bollocks. Double post. My apologies.
  • Malik1010 wrote:
    Am I the only one who thinks that this film was a HUGE let down?
    For a bond film it lacked energy, action most of all it was hardly a spy movie was it?
    I find it hard to believe how a villain in a James Bond movie wins? I mean his aim I to kill M right? By the end of the movie she is dead? So bond lost?
    They really need to sort somehow out, Casino Royale was good but since then it has only gotten worse, and frankly with Daniel Craig (who in my opinion the most emotionless, weakest bond of all) the franchise is getting weaker and weaker.
    M didn't die by Silva's hands, and she went out honorably. Bond won by stopping Silva, but lost M when she gave her hand to join the fight.

    Well, if you look at the aim of the villain it was to kill M. Wether or not she chooses to fight is irrelevant, it simply made it easier for her to die. Bond went to skyfall to protect her, and she died under his protection? I am absolutely shocked by why they have done with 'Englands most deadliest weapon' they made bond lose in this film? Why? And sadly for the first time ever I am not looking forward to the next film.
  • In the debriefing scene he is asked 'Skyfall' and he responds 'done'???
    And he walks away like a king?
    What the hell is that even supposed to mean?
  • Malik1010 wrote:
    In the debriefing scene he is asked 'Skyfall' and he responds 'done'???
    And he walks away like a king?
    What the hell is that even supposed to mean?
    Means he wasn't going to talk about that, hence why he failed that portion of the test for having "unresolved issues from childhood".

Sign In or Register to comment.