Skyfall Questions (Spoilers)

1141517192026

Comments

  • Posts: 5,990
    And directed by Roland Emmerich, who will put his trademarks all over it (like a dog surviving the movie, for example. Yes, I've seen 2012 yesterday, and couldn't help but think of how similar it was to Independance Day).
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    And written by M. Night Shyamalan, so you know the plot twist will be obvious and stupid, and exactly 10 minutes from the end.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    And written by M. Night Shyamalan, so you know the plot twist will be obvious and stupid, and exactly 10 minutes from the end.

    And the only way Bond can kill the villain is by pouring water on them!
  • Posts: 266
    Going back to the art collector in Shanghai who Patrice shoots, this might annoy people even more but i dont think it is a random hit by Silva i think he had something to do with M in her Hong Kong days (Not saying he was an agent or anything but just had a connection) and thats why he wanted him dead. In the very next scene you see M on her lap top when you see her discover Silva has released the first 5 agents names and you clearly see a picture of M and i believe the same man from Shanghai. The guy who plays the Art collector is Dave Wong and i am sure that is the guy in the photo with M. Like i said it could annoy people even more because if he did have some connection with M than some people might want to know what.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Sharky wrote:
    Going back to the art collector in Shanghai who Patrice shoots, this might annoy people even more but i dont think it is a random hit by Silva i think he had something to do with M in her Hong Kong days (Not saying he was an agent or anything but just had a connection) and thats why he wanted him dead. In the very next scene you see M on her lap top when you see her discover Silva has released the first 5 agents names and you clearly see a picture of M and i believe the same man from Shanghai. The guy who plays the Art collector is Dave Wong and i am sure that is the guy in the photo with M. Like i said it could annoy people even more because if he did have some connection with M than some people might want to know what.
    Yeah, some have had that theory. So maybe it was Silva saying "I am from your past, you can't escape it or me (her sins), and here is an old friend I will have killed to show you I mean business".
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    I noticed that the picture she is looking at is the same one that Silva used for her laughing face when he first hacks Tanner's computer in the car. I figured she either recognized what picture her face was from, or heard of the assassination in Shanghai, looked up that picture, and put two and two together. It's plausible.
  • Posts: 266
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 and @Creasy47 I believe he is something to do with the past which is why Silva had him killed, i agree with what you both have said.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Hmmm... Maybe it was the man M met with to swap Silva for the six agents the Chinese had. Silva was bringing her past back again, showing her that if he killed the man that helped him become traded over, he could get at M too.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    I read a few weeks ago that Severine and the men she was with would acquire counterfeit paintings, have people show up to buy them, and then kill them and take their money. I'm not sure who said it, but I'm guessing they just made up the theory.

    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, I think that might be it. Plus, the photo seems like something taken without her acknowledgement. Possibly when the trade off happened?
  • Posts: 266
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I read a few weeks ago that Severine and the men she was with would acquire counterfeit paintings, have people show up to buy them, and then kill them and take their money. I'm not sure who said it, but I'm guessing they just made up the theory.

    @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.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    @Sharky, it's pretty fun diving into theories and trying to come up with answers to the slight questions we have. I don't know why others are taking us so seriously.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Sharky, it's pretty fun diving into theories and trying to come up with answers to the slight questions we have. I don't know why others are taking us so seriously.

    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.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Sharky, it's pretty fun diving into theories and trying to come up with answers to the slight questions we have. I don't know why others are taking us so seriously.

    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.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Sharky, it's pretty fun diving into theories and trying to come up with answers to the slight questions we have. I don't know why others are taking us so seriously.

    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.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Sharky, it's pretty fun diving into theories and trying to come up with answers to the slight questions we have. I don't know why others are taking us so seriously.

    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?
  • Posts: 3,333
    RC7 wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Sharky, it's pretty fun diving into theories and trying to come up with answers to the slight questions we have. I don't know why others are taking us so seriously.
    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.
    It was reported that Sam Mendes served as a pre-production consultant in the extra months it took to get the project greenlit. Those extra months gave Mendes and co. more time to write and plan Skyfall according to early reports. It's clear from the early stages when Mendes signed on that he had a huge hand in the development of the script and bounced ideas off Logan who he brought in to complete the final drafts. Though Mendes might not have a screenplay credit he certainly was involved in the construction of the story.

    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.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 266
    dave%20wong.jpg

    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.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Sharky wrote:
    <img> http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/simon.winkler/dragonpm/dave%20wong.jpg&amp;imgrefurl=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/simon.winkler/dragonpm/maleactors.html&amp;h=600&amp;w=472&amp;sz=60&amp;tbnid=NowPAlbVvcDTmM:&amp;tbnh=93&amp;tbnw=73&amp;prev=/search?q=dave+wong+actor&tbm=isch&tbo=u&amp;zoom=1&amp;q=dave+wong+actor&amp;usg=__4jC4_SfjnG-63dPc90W7AudA7-E=&amp;docid=lUoYEnjbo_1XfM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=c-jSUPalN-mQ0AXeloDoBA&amp;ved=0CFkQ9QEwCA&amp;dur=1061

    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.
    The man on that foto looks similar to the face I remember from the laptop foto. But I don´t recall seeing the art collector´s face at all. However both scenes contained enough self-explanatory elements for me not to wonder.

  • Posts: 266
    @boldfinger In the scene where he is killed by Patrice i think you only see a side profile of him so you cant see his face clearly.

    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
  • We know Silva is a freelance spy so I'd imagine that someone simply wanted the man dead so hired Silva to conduct the assassination. Maybe the guy was an art collector so they tricked him to come to the office at that moment as they knew Patrice could line up a shot in the office directly opposite it.

    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.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    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.

  • RC7 wrote:
    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.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    RC7 wrote:
    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.

    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.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Quarrel wrote:

    The real question for those who want to pick everything apart (which, by the way, is not me - I loved Skyfall), if Silva can do all this stuff remotely like blow up MI-6, escape from the incredible cage they had him in, etc. - all just to get to M, then why didn't he just hack the security system at MI-6 and walk in the front door? :-)

    I have an answer to that, and I am not the nit-picking type ;)

    I think Silva wanted to personally humiliate M first, by destroying her reputation and then killing her as an act of closure. Think back to all the way in the PTS, when Patrice stole the hard drive. Assuming that Silva had a plan in place in hacking the entire Mi-6 and drive M out anyway, I think Silva brought Patrice's information, used it to start a worldwide attack on the Mi-6 and begin his vengeance. He then blows up the building, have the committee throw M out of office after more agents being killed and then finally shoot her. Bond only got in the way, and remember, if he hadn't interfered at all, his plan would've went smoothly without a hitch.

    Remember, at the end Silva wanted both of them killed peacefully, almost as if an eye-for-an-eye type scenario. Silva simply barging in the front door and shooting her would be less fulfilling than taking the extra step in bringing her down, much like the same way she did to him a few years back when he was an agent.

    Pretty much this. Even in the beginning, Bond simply breaks in to M's flat - no security - and waits for her to arrive home. Silva could have done this, killed M, and his plan would be complete. He wanted to humiliate her first.

    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.
  • As for the art dealer that Patrice kills, I don't understand the need to know who that guy was. Partrice is a professional killer. In fact, the implication is he's one of the world's elite hitmen. So it's no small wonder that Bond finds him in the process of killing someone.

    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.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Grinderman wrote:
    As for the art dealer that Patrice kills, I don't understand the need to know who that guy was. Partrice is a professional killer. In fact, the implication is he's one of the world's elite hitmen. So it's no small wonder that Bond finds him in the process of killing someone.

    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.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Grinderman wrote:
    As for the art dealer that Patrice kills, I don't understand the need to know who that guy was. Partrice is a professional killer. In fact, the implication is he's one of the world's elite hitmen. So it's no small wonder that Bond finds him in the process of killing someone.

    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.

    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.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited December 2012 Posts: 28,694
    Grinderman wrote:
    As for the art dealer that Patrice kills, I don't understand the need to know who that guy was. Partrice is a professional killer. In fact, the implication is he's one of the world's elite hitmen. So it's no small wonder that Bond finds him in the process of killing someone.

    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.

    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.
    ^This.
    =D>
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Sharky wrote:
    dave%20wong.jpg

    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.

    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.
  • Grinderman wrote:
    As for the art dealer that Patrice kills, I don't understand the need to know who that guy was. Partrice is a professional killer. In fact, the implication is he's one of the world's elite hitmen. So it's no small wonder that Bond finds him in the process of killing someone.

    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.

    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.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.