It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
And the only way Bond can kill the villain is by pouring water on them!
@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, I think that might be it. Plus, the photo seems like something taken without her acknowledgement. Possibly when the trade off happened?
I think it says about the buying stolen paintings thing on this site on the deleted scenes of Skyfall. That might be right but i think he has a connection with M, i like some of the theorys you guys are coming up with.
Because if he had anything at all to do with M it's hugely relevant and should have been flagged. The fact it wasn't suggests the theories are incorrect unless Mendes lost the plot.
Mendes didn't write the screenplay.
Yeah and what's written is completely set in stone. There is no way a director can amend situations and scenes, just like Bardem definitely didn't improvise in his opening monologue.
Sarcasm much?
I'd have thought someone of Mendes' experience would have flagged the Chinese man as a character that needed more solidifying and not just a bullet-to-the-head throwaway character. It seems an oversight in either the editing or script development.
I hope the link has worked ok as i'm not very good on computers, but the picture is Dave Wong who played the art collector, i was just wondering does anyone else think that he is the man in the picture with M when she is on her lap top? Because i think he is which leads me to think that he does have a connection with M and i think in the end to keep the pace of the film they edited out any exposition scenes explaining this and they just kept the pic to tell you there is a connectiom of some sort and thought that was all that was needed. I am not saying that this is fact it is just what i believed has happened but if anyone thinks that is not the same person please let me know. I am not trying to say i am right and you are wrong i am just trying to see what others think.
IMO i think it was the same character which was in the picture with M like i stated above. I posted the pic of Dave Wong who played the art collector and i tried to find the picture of M and him which she was looking at on her lap top but i couldn't find it anywhere so if anyone has it i would like to see it again to see if it is Dave Wong in the photo. Thanks
I don't think we should get too hung up on it, what makes the scene work is the pure glamour of it, I mean the idea of killing the art collector across the street is pure Bond. It's glamorous, exotic and highly audacious; pit this with the hall of mirrors and Bond stalking Patrice and it all contributes to one of the best scenes in the film.
Totally disagree. It's pure eye-candy and on that level it works. As a scene, Silva's introduction smashes it out of the park. There's no weight in this scene at all for me.
Really? The scene is pure espionage filled with glamour, everything that James Bond is. It's perfectly paranoid, 'who is Patrice trying to kill?', 'who's the girl? Is she the one he's working for? How does she fit into this?' It feels like a scene from FRWL. Furtermore its complemented by the set design and Deakin's amazing cinematography.
This and the enquiry scene are for me by far SF's best moments.
Silva's introduction smashes pretty much the entire first half of the movie out of the park, it's probably the best introduction a villain has had since Dr. No.
This is all well and good except for two points:
1. What if Q went on a long lunch and by the time he decides boot up Silvas laptop that triggers the escape Silva has been moved to Guantanamo or something? It seems to me his plan only works if he is incarcerated wthin the MI6 dungeons and Q boots up the laptop once he has been imprisoned. Conversely if Q gets straight on the laptop before Silva is in the cell the whole scheme is discovered and hes buggered.
2. If his whole strategy is as stated above to ruin her reputation and humiliate her by shooting her in the committee he has miscalculated. Ms speech about the shadows, 'how safe do you feel' and the Tennyson quote would be proven in no better way than Silva storming the building and shooting her at point blank range. His action would vinidcate her view that the world is a dangerous place and the double O section was needed and restore her reputation in the eyes of the politicians who would grant her successor a massive budget to expand the double O section. She would die a heroine and in that respect Silvas grand plan would have been a total failure.
The point was simply that Patrice was a hired gun. MI6 was on to his next assignment, which gave Bond a shot at getting to him and finding out who hired him to steal the hard drive.
Period.
If you're going to ask who the target was, then why not ask what happened to the poor chap who's fruit cart got overturned in PTS? Did he lose his business? Did he find another job? Was he compensated by MI-6 and is now living on some island off the coast of Italy? Answer: who the f*ck cares?
As a story teller, to get bogged down in insignificant side bits like that would be the very definition of "losing the plot". Plus, this is a simple spy thriller. You can't expect everthing to be some Tolkein-esque world where everyone and everything is given a throughout back story that covers centuries.
When the man who gets shot seems to have a connection to M and that connection is left unexplained, yes, I care. And spy thrillers are some of the most deep and explained genres in the world.
I think this is valid.
But I do care about Severine and Patrice and the reasons they are doing what they are doing so although I dont give a toss about the guy who gets shot, the sequence is poorly explained as we dont really know whats going on or why. The cut scene with Severine and Patrice presumably would have rectified this and for the sake of 2 mins I dont see why this scene which explained something was axed when we have fairly pointless scenes of Bond walking across a beach or doing a length of the swimming pool. I like these scenes in terms of layering the character and want to see them stay but not at the expense of story points being cut which end up leaving the viewer confused.
=D>
Here's the photos:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8077/8291079501_72411eda62_b.jpghttp://farm9.staticflickr.com/8073/8292147818_ecdcbf4410_m.jpg
You all be the judge.
Looks like it's him to me.
My point is that it doesn't further the story at all. It doesn't move things along and it actually detracts from what Bond is doing there (to capture Patrice). Anyone who's studied writing will tell you that that's the first stuff that gets cut. And there is nothing stated in the script that implies there is a connection between the art dealer and M.
Now, if you are just curious about the secondary characters and you want to posit story lines around those characters for your own amusment, then more power to you my friend. I have absolutely no problem with that. Just don't try to make the case - as some have done here - that it's some "plot hole" and Skyfall is a lesser movie because of it. It's not a plot hole. It's a side detail at best and it was cut at no loss to the story.