Skyfall Questions (Spoilers)

1151618202126

Comments

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 3,333
    Last time I checked, @Grinderman, the topic of the thread was Skyfall Questions. That means some of us have questions that we'd like answered by those that have seen it multiple times and feel they understand the story. I see nothing wrong in asking what was the motive behind killing the Chinese man when Silva doesn't need to raise money this way, especially when he boasts of destabilizing multinationals by manipulating stocks along with rigging an election in Uganda to the highest bidder all at the click of a mouse from his island hideaway. So who was he and why was there a picture of a Chinese man standing alongside M on her laptop just before Silva hijacked it and showed her the posting of the NATO agents' names on Youtube? It's obvious there's a connection and reason why he was killed... and yet it's left unanswered. I think it's a perfectly valid question and I see no need for you to act like someone has just pulled your pigtails. We're all fans here.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 165
    bondsum wrote:
    Last time I checked, @Grinderman, the topic of the thread was Skyfall Questions. That means some of us have questions that we'd like answered by those that have seen it multiple times and feel they understand the story. I see nothing wrong in asking what was the motive behind killing the Chinese man when Silva doesn't need to raise money this way, especially when he boasts of destabilizing multinationals by manipulating stocks along with rigging an election in Uganda to the highest bidder all at the click of a mouse from his island hideaway. So who was he and why was there a picture of a Chinese man standing alongside M on her laptop just before Silva hijacked it and showed her the posting of the NATO agents' names on Youtube? It's obvious there's a connection and reason why he was killed... and yet it's left unanswered. I think it's a perfectly valid question and I see no need for you to act like someone has just pulled your pigtails. We're all fans here.

    And when asking questions, you're going to get a variety of answers. And when you get answers that aren't to your liking it's a bit unfair to attack those that provide those answers. Did you not read my post where I said: "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."

    No one's acting like they got their ponytails pulled. I'm just answering your question by saying there is no answer to your question - and that fact that there is no answer is ok, even preferable, in terms of story telling.

    Perhaps there was a bit of a back story connection between the dealer and M in some version of the script. Perhaps those scenes were even filmed. But then the decision was made (by the director or editor) to cut those scenes because they were unnessesary and it detracted from the main story. And they would've been correct in doing so.

    Keep in mind that we could ask a million irrelevant questions about any one of the thousands of people we see on the screen in Skyfall (including my fruit cart example above). But that gets us nowhere. Isn't it best to confine our inquires to the actual script and goings-on as seen on the screen?

    Also, as for you comment that Silva "doesn't need to raise money this way", again, there is no evidence that that is true. There's also no evidence that he had that man killed to raise money. Taking this further, killing M doesn't get Silva any money either, but that doesn't mean he doesn't try to do that.
  • Grinderman wrote:
    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.

    But ist is a Plot hole, and not a small One i might add. One of many many many in the Movie. You See the Point is not that Patrice kills someone. The Point is that Silva Wants the Guy dead. Otherwise the Chip wouldn't lead Bond in the Casino,to Severigne and finally to Silva. Have you ever thought about that Bond actually has no Way of knowing if the People that have hired Patrice have really anything to do with the Case at all. When he sails away with Severigne he also could have come to an Island Full with Chinese Tong Bosses who would have him skinned and his Balls fried for Breakfest! What i find annoying here is the tendency of some who dont care about storylines and some Minimum of inherent Logic to ridicule those who dare to be dissatisfied.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited December 2012 Posts: 40,976
    But Silva couldn't just "know" that Bond would find the chip and arrive in Macau to Severine and eventually Silva. Bond isn't perfect; he may have just scanned the briefcase and totally missed the chip, as it was pretty hidden. Didn't most people agree that the man in the picture with M was indeed the man in Shanghai, and Silva is doing it to get to M? Possibly the man in China who oversaw the trade for Silva and the six men?

    Again, that isn't confirmed, just us piecing things together for fun to get our own answers. Perhaps after it's released on home video and we get a closer look at it, we can most certainly confirm the man in Shanghai is the man in the picture, but in terms of him being the man in China who worked with M in doing a deal, that's just us creating our own resolution to this minute detail.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 165
    @Matt_Helm Sorry, and no offense intended, but you simply could not be farther off the point. Let's count it back.

    1) Bond's bullet fragments - obtained from the guy they know stole the hard drive - are traced to a hired gun named Patrice.

    Bond's mission then, is to find Patrice and find out who hired him to steal the hard drive and thus, hopefully, find the hard drive. The mission is not to find out who the art dealer is. The mission is not even to find out who hired Patrice to kill the art dealer. Bond's mission is solely to find out who went about having the hard drive stolen.

    2) Intelligence uncovers the tip that Patrice will be in Hong Kong soon. Bond is sent there to get Patrice and find out who hired him to steal the hard drive.

    3) Bond finds Patrice, attempts to capture him, but fails. He does, however, find a lead in the form of the casino chip, and follows that lead in the hopes of finding the guy who stole the hard drive.

    Note that NONE of this has to do with the freakin' art dealer (if he even was a dealer). Patrice's only value to Bond is solely to lead Bond to the hard drive.

    Let me put it another way. If Bond found Patrice washing his car, attempted to capture him but instead ended up killing him, the story remains the same (Led Zepplin reference unintended).

    The art dealer is completely and totally irrelevant to the main plot (which is why any extra scene regarding him got cut). Therefore, he can't be a "plot hole".

    You can't be a plot hole if you've got nothing to do with the plot.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @Grinderman, I'm under the impression you aren't replying to me, yes? I didn't bring up a plot hole.
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    @Grinderman, I'm under the impression you aren't replying to me, yes? I didn't bring up a plot hole.

    Yep. Sorry for the confusion. Edited my post to be more clear.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Grinderman wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Grinderman, I'm under the impression you aren't replying to me, yes? I didn't bring up a plot hole.

    Yep. Sorry for the confusion. Edited my post to be more clear.

    It's fine, no worries.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Grinderman wrote:
    @Matt_Helm Sorry, and no offense intended, but you simply could not be farther off the point. Let's count it back.

    1) Bond's bullet fragments - obtained from the guy they know stole the hard drive - are traced to a hired gun named Patrice.

    Bond's mission then, is to find Patrice and find out who hired him to steal the hard drive and thus, hopefully, find the hard drive. The mission is not to find out who the art dealer is. The mission is not even to find out who hired Patrice to kill the art dealer. Bond's mission is solely to find out who went about having the hard drive stolen.

    2) Intelligence uncovers the tip that Patrice will be in Hong Kong soon. Bond is sent there to get Patrice and find out who hired him to steal the hard drive.

    3) Bond finds Patrice, attempts to capture him, but fails. He does, however, find a lead in the form of the casino chip, and follows that lead in the hopes of finding the guy who stole the hard drive.

    Note that NONE of this has to do with the freakin' art dealer (if he even was a dealer). Patrice's only value to Bond is solely to lead Bond to the hard drive.

    Let me put it another way. If Bond found Patrice washing his car, attempted to capture him but instead ended up killing him, the story remains the same (Led Zepplin reference unintended).

    The art dealer is completely and totally irrelevant to the main plot (which is why any extra scene regarding him got cut). Therefore, he can't be a "plot hole".

    You can't be a plot hole if you've got nothing to do with the plot.

    In fairness you put it quite eloquently there and I am won over by your logic.

    I do think its still a tad clumsy though as we don't really have any idea of the relationship between Patrice and Severine and what exactly they are up to. Not strictly necessary to the main plot perhaps but it would be nice not to have spend hours inventing tons of backstory ourselves to explain what they are doing and just how Silvas convulted plans hang together.
  • @Grinderman, you explained that very well. To me a plot hole is an issue with the plot that means that it shouldn't have moved forward, or if something that shouldn't be able to happen then happens and there's no explanation for how i.e. if Bond threw away his empty gun on the train and then when he's on the train roof suddenly he has his gun again and it's loaded.

    The deal with the executed man isn't a plot hole. What it is is an unexplained part of the film. Or, some may choose to call it a "dangling thread" - I would not because there's nothing unresolved.
  • Posts: 3,333
    You put your points across very eloquently, @Grinderman, and I doff my cap to you.
  • We know Bond takes M back to Skyfall to pull Silva off his turf so him and M can get the better of him for once, but why does he go back to Skyfall?
    It's not really explained in the movie, why go back?

    Also do we feel like M's death was earned in the film?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    We know Bond takes M back to Skyfall to pull Silva off his turf so him and M can get the better of him for once, but why does he go back to Skyfall?
    It's not really explained in the movie, why go back?

    Also do we feel like M's death was earned in the film?

    Why Bond takes M to Skyfall:

    1.) There was supposed to be a decent arsenal there (but it was sold)
    2.) It takes Silva out of his own environment, ergo there was no technology there that he could use or hack to his advantage.
    3.) The area is desolate, meaning nobody else would have to die or become injured because of Silva and his hunt for M.
    4.) The area is flat, so if Silva tried any attack Bond, Kincade and M would know when he was coming and from where.

    Those are just a few reasons.
  • We know Bond takes M back to Skyfall to pull Silva off his turf so him and M can get the better of him for once, but why does he go back to Skyfall?
    It's not really explained in the movie, why go back?

    Also do we feel like M's death was earned in the film?

    Why Bond takes M to Skyfall:

    1.) There was supposed to be a decent arsenal there (but it was sold)
    2.) It takes Silva out of his own environment, ergo there was no technology there that he could use or hack to his advantage.
    3.) The area is desolate, meaning nobody else would have to die or become injured because of Silva and his hunt for M.
    4.) The area is flat, so if Silva tried any attack Bond, Kincade and M would know when he was coming and from where.

    Those are just a few reasons.

    Also, Bond had been thinking of Skyfall earlier...first when the psychologist mentioned it in the word association interview, then when Silva informed him that he hadn't been cleared for duty partially because of "unresolved issues from childhood". So when he cast his mind about thinking for an isolated place to take M and confront Silva...

  • Couldn't quite understand how the emergency tunnel at Skyfall suddenly came to an end out in the middle of the moors and Dench and Kincaide had to scurry across the open land to reach the sanctuary of the chapel. And having flashlights clearly evident to Bardem and his men that was soon picked up on. Either part of it was removed or demolished, or it was never there to begin with, and it only led out to desolate ground ? I couldn't see it mentioned in any previous responses that's all
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Couldn't quite understand how the emergency tunnel at Skyfall suddenly came to an end out in the middle of the moors and Dench and Kincaide had to scurry across the open land to reach the sanctuary of the chapel. And having flashlights clearly evident to Bardem and his men that was soon picked up on. Either part of it was removed or demolished, or it was never there to begin with, and it only led out to desolate ground ? I couldn't see it mentioned in any previous responses that's all

    It's possible that it was just never finished. The tunnel is incredibly old, but it looks like a very random hole in the middle of the field surrounding Skyfall. Plus, the room that Kincade exits in the chapel looks like it could have more than fulfilled housing the exit to the tunnel.

    They just needed a reason for Bond to chase after them. If he took the tunnel and beat Silva to M and Kincade, then the ending would have been much different and M's life wouldn't have hung in the balance like it had.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Okay, I have another question for those that have seen it multiple times...

    How did Silva manage to escape from the Chinese prison after biting on the cyanide capsule? I really can't see how this would of been possible with the horrific injuries he sustained. Are we to assume that the Chinese simply let him go or did they fail to check his pulse first before burying him alive and somehow he managed to dig himself out of a grave? Was this ever addressed in the movie?
  • Couldn't quite understand how the emergency tunnel at Skyfall suddenly came to an end out in the middle of the moors and Dench and Kincaide had to scurry across the open land to reach the sanctuary of the chapel. And having flashlights clearly evident to Bardem and his men that was soon picked up on. Either part of it was removed or demolished, or it was never there to begin with, and it only led out to desolate ground ? I couldn't see it mentioned in any previous responses that's all

    I saw SF for the second time on Saturday and a few things were more clear to me. They don't explain the tunnel ending but I have a theory. It kind of slopes up to a hole in the ground with no "exit" or door built so I assume that the rest of the tunnel collapsed due to it being so old (someone here said that it looked like there had once been a building where it ended but I don't see that at all, again it should have had some kind of exit if that was the case).

    I posted in the SF review thread about the bit with the flashlight a couple of days ago. Kincaid takes it and turns it on when they enter the priesthole. Then, when you see them on the moor at first he doesn't appear to have it turned on (this could be because of framing, I saw the non-Imax version this time). When the gas cylinders explode, bringing down the helicopter there's a huge explosion that completely destroys Skyfall. M and Kincaid watch this with shock on their faces, then they turn to make their way to the chapel. Their manner suggests that they're thinking "Okay, it's over now". That was the first time (on the moor) that I noticed that Kincaid had the flashlight on.

    Of course, there's also the practical reason that the ground was very uneven and he thought that everyone else was pre-occupied...I'll be looking to see if he indeed doesn't use the flashlight until Skyfall blows up on the DVD.
  • Posts: 3,333
    This is a "questions" thread and not a review thread, @machboxpodcast. Posting the same Youtube review twice in the same day doesn't help answer any of our questions.
  • Something Im curious about, was SF shot in widescreen or fullscreen format. i'm not too clued up in aspect ratios, but take for instance QOS; I'd say that was widescreen while DN, FRWL, LALD and a more recent example being this summer's The Av
  • Posts: 2,165
    @Pierce2Daniel

    Deakins shot it in the 2:40:1 Aspect Ratio, which is a form of widescreen (I suppose)

    http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/11/08/behind-the-lies-of-the-skyfall-see-it-in-imax-advertising-campaign/

  • so if i were to watch it on my tv or laptop Id see SF with the black bars at the top and the bottom.
  • Posts: 2,165
    @Pierce2Daniel

    I don't know. If Fox use the IMAX version for the DVD and Blu Ray release then no. If they us the standard 35mm print version then yes.
  • Apparently Bond is issued a fake passport in Sf with the name of John Bryce. I can't for the live of me remember when this happened in the film. Can someone help?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Apparently Bond is issued a fake passport in Sf with the name of John Bryce. I can't for the live of me remember when this happened in the film. Can someone help?

    It was probably a deleted scene, and I'm guessing it was his trip to Shanghai.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Apparently Bond is issued a fake passport in Sf with the name of John Bryce. I can't for the live of me remember when this happened in the film. Can someone help?


    Well Q gives him a passport in the gallery but even having seen it twice on IMAX I dont recall it saying John Bryce.
    Mallory wrote:
    @Pierce2Daniel

    Deakins shot it in the 2:40:1 Aspect Ratio, which is a form of widescreen (I suppose)

    http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/11/08/behind-the-lies-of-the-skyfall-see-it-in-imax-advertising-campaign/

    Interesting article as regards seeing the film as the filmmakers intended. It would be nice if the Bluray has the option to switch bewteen ratios but I would be surprised. It will most likely be just 2:40:1.
  • It says so on imdb and on commanderbond
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    It says so on imdb and on commanderbond

    Trusting IMDB is the equivalent of trusting Wikipedia.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Creasy47 wrote:
    It says so on imdb and on commanderbond

    Trusting IMDB is the equivalent of trusting Wikipedia.

    Both have some trustworthy information, though neither is 100% believable.
  • DarthDimi wrote:
    I suppose, well put. The CGI moments are my only issue i think. I was told that theres a CGI daniel craig head on a stuny double. i need to watch it again to make my mind up about it .
    I do not necessarily object to CGI when it's put to good use. DAD is how it's not put to good use. In this film though, even upon two viewings, I can't quite pinpoint where it was used (unless I go by what I've been told) so it leaves me quite satisfied with the results. Again, if CGI becomes indistinguishable from the real footage, then it's been well used. But that, of course, is the primary condition. Once it becomes too visible, I find it inappropriate for a Bond film.

    The only time I rolled my eyes with regards to CGI was when the helicopters turned up at Silva's island. I don't really see the need to CGI helicopters.

    Anyone remember if the helicopters made much noise when arriving just before being shown? I felt like it was too much like GE, imo, where for sake of movie aesthetic the sound was drowned out until after the choppers were all the way up in the air.
Sign In or Register to comment.