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
Good point. I think you're right - it's the same as GE in that as they come into shot they suddenly make an audible noise.
I can understand that maybe the choppers had to be CGI as Silvas island was 99% CGI or studio so there was no location to film on but who designed them a 10 year old?
Why on earth would they have the Union Jack painted on the side rather than the RAF roundel? Poor filmmaking when you are supposedly making a realustic film and a (not necessarily incorrect) assumption that the audience are total retards so you have to spoon feed them the fact that the helicopters are British.
When all said a pretty naff moment (the cheesy use of the Bond theme kicking in doesn't help) and probably the worst use of CGI since the parasurfing (actually no - that would be the QOS freefall scene).
Not sure why he took M though. Could've just dropped her off and hidden her somewhere then gone on alone. Silva turns up at Skyfall, Bond and Kincade kill him while M isn't in danger. Problem solved.
Say Bond leaves her alone in a hotel. One assassin of Silva arrives, and bada bing, she's killed when Bond is at Skyfall.
I strongly believe that Bond wanted to personally garantee her safety. Moreover, M didn't seemed to be the type of person that just hides and waits.
I think so, too.
And yes, she wasn't... which eventually got her killed, I guess. Staying hidden at Skyfall might have been wiser, especially as she, by her own admission, "never was a good shot".
She was also proud and stubborn as hell - to the point of stupidity, which didn't help. When Bond asked her "You hurt?" she should have said yes - even a quick bandaging might have helped her survival by stopping the bleeding.
I missed this one but this is well thought out and shows Wiz is both intelligent and on top of his game. As are others and Grinderman provided excellent insights as well regarding the art dealer scenario. Critical views like this I can appreciate, as the film does indeed have it's faults and I would not disagree with someone who feels it is not the best Bond film we've ever had.
SF does suggest that you go along with what's on screen and accept that Silva planned every tiny little detail and contingency even if at times it becomes farfetched. This is why Severine's death and his motivations for it are one of the issues I have with the film and comes to immediate mind- on one hand Silva plans for being caught and anticipates the exact scenario we get, yet when she brings Bond to him he kills her for doing exactly what he wanted. The question begs, why kill her? Granted I am pissed about this because I wanted to see her with Bond and not as a sacrificial lamb, maybe that's why it bothers me. I wish this had been explained.
Point #2 is even more spot on and something he may not have thought about. Just one possible monkey wrench. What if he doesn't care about making her a martyr or anything that happens to him or anyone else after the fact? Maybe his idea of humiliation is to watch her see MI6 get bombed. And maybe his idea of discredit is showing her incompetence in handling MI6 affairs, he's the poster boy for it, and that's she is the cause of him doing what he is doing, and seemingly powerless to stop him. He just wants her dead and for everyone to know he did it and why, that is his only motivation and goal and that much is clear.
How would they have found her though? There are quite a few hotels on the way from London to Scotland, and as far as we know Silva was just following the trail Q left. Bond didn't even have to take her to Scottland, she could've been in a different country to the battle.
I agree with you on your second point, but Bond could have talked her into staying or could've just kicked her out of the car somewhere. If she was really being stubborn why not take a little detour then eject her in the middle of nowhere? Although really it's Ms own fault that she died, not Bonds, I still think taking her to Skyfall was a fairly stupid move.
But Silva doesn't kill Severine for bringing Bond to him. Silva had just finished telling Bond this:
"It tells a story, doesn't it? They left the island so quickly, they couldn't decide what to take, what to leave, what was important. I think this everyday reminds me to focus on the essentials. There's nothing...nothing superfluous in my life. When a thing is redundant, it is...eliminated."
Severine has by that point become useless to Silva, so he eliminates her.
(He will be leaving the island, and he's focusing on M.)
Your second paragraph above has great points, thank you.
You are welcome Tuulia, and thanks as well for bringing that point of Silva's speech up. After only two views in the theater I certainly can't remember everything said, and will be listening for that Tuesday evening while enjoying my 3rd view at home on DVD without distractions :)
http://www.empireonline.com/features/purvis-and-wade-on-skyfall
According to Wade, Silva doesn’t have it all Planned out :
"Silva is aware of what happens on the boat, because he knows what’s going on, but I wouldn’t say it was his intention all along for Bond to kill Ola Rapace. That would be too elaborate. At one point there was more to (Silva's knowledge of Bonds actions in Shanghai), more logic to it, but it got erased in the post-production which is right, I think. How much planning has Silva done for the London Underground sequence? Well, quite a bit. It’s one of those things where you’re sort of making it up as you go along, and then you have to start going back into it to make it make sense. I don’t think you should analyse the plots too… I mean, there’s better things to do.”
Ah, the P&W podcast. A few of us referenced this a while back, but it was glossed over. I think it probably goes to show that the issues some of us have, are there, but P&W expected us to roll with it. I actually don't begrudge them this sentiment, as that's been the way of the Bond world primarily. It was the simple fact that it was hailed as a stunning, fantastic, majestic script, before we'd even seen a frame of the movie. This whetted our appetites, and expectation levels rose. For the first time I could remember, it wasn't the action, location, villain, music that was the key talking point prior to release, it was the script. Yes there is some great dialogue, and yes there is some brilliant character work, but some of the mechanics, the bare bones logic, doesn't stack up, and I don't think it's wrong to have expected that to be better, given the pre-release hype.
Good posts again @theWizardOfIce
Quite. Just dump her at Linton Travel Tavern (equidistant from London and Norwich) and as long as she doesnt try to access Bangkok Chick Boys how will Silva ever know?
He can have all the hacking skills in the world but they are useless if shes in Norfolk where people still think a mobile is cutting edge technology.
Straight from the horses mouth. Yeah no need to craft a coherent plot is there - us mugs will just buy that Silva has it all planned. If thats not a statement that means they should never be allowed near Bond again I dont know what is.
Like RC7 says above we were sold SF on the basis that the script was knockout and yet you have this pair coming out with stuff like that?
Just throwing this out there and fully expect to be torn limb from limb by the 'SF is the greatest film ever made and there is no room for dissent' brigade but how well would SFs script stand up with Brosnan instead of Craig, Tamahori instead of Mendes and a less talented actor than Bardem?
Could it be that SFs core script is not much better than any other Bond film but that it is just such a well polished product in all other aspects we are being hoodwinked into thinking its Citizen Kane?
Citizen Kane has one of the biggest plot holes in cinema history, because Kane dies alone and nobody could listen the "Rosebud" word, so the whole movie plot has no sense. I think the most of the movies, even the great ones like CK, Dark Kinight, Casino Royale, Star Wars, Inception, Toy Story, Matrix or Looper have some kind of plot holes, incoherences or unknowns and they are part of their interest for movie fans.
I don't know much about real estate in England but I immagine that it could be cheaper to own a big house in Scotland than a flat in downtown London.
Haha, when I first read @echo's post I thought he meant something like:
"Did owning Skyfall on DVD/Blu-ray feel too refined compared to the franchise's other films." =))
Upon reading the post again, I now see what was originally being said.
Well, if that isn't reason enough to retire for the night, I don't know what is...
Night, folks. I-)
I also thought the same thing at first, but my day is just starting :)
Answering to the question, I don't think it is too upper class at least from my opinion and personal experience. The house is in ruins, it's in the middle of nowhere, hardly aristocratic. Even I will inherit a country estate one day (I pray I still have to wait a long time [-O< ) with an odd name, and I'm middle class.
A little, yes. In theory, the current incarnation would lead us to believe his parents died sometime in the 1970's. Owning an isolated estate such as this, would cost a pretty penny, even in the 70's, and would almost certainly elevate your status. Although to be honest, class is a tricky subject in itself. We could also assume his father was perhaps very wealthy, but of a middle/working class background. A boy-done-good type scenario.
Another point to consider, is that it may not even be his specific childhood home, perhaps a family estate, to which they retreated in summer, or during the holidays. Although I'm inclined to think this isn't the case. Mostly based on Fleming literature and the fact most kids love holidays, whereas Bond claims he 'always hated' the place.
Either way, this doesn't jar with me as much as the bizarre reasoning for retreating there. A battered old mansion, in the middle of nowhere, no natural defence, low lying accessible terrain, you don't even need a Land Rover a DB5 will do. A full 360 panorama for any approaching aircraft (why didn't Silva just fire a rocket from his chopper?).
All this makes me wonder what exactly was sold off from the armoury? Bond can handle, at most, two weapons at any one time. How much better did he expect to do? I hardly imagine his parents stocking up on cemtex, rocket launchers, assault rifles etc.
I assumed it was a family estate, since Bond and his parents were living in the continent. That would explain the state it was in. I would imagine his father had a very good collection of guns, considering he was (correct me if I'm wrong) a representative of Vickers. Silva wouldn't jsut shoot a rocker, he wanted to be with M when she died! I agree with you on some other things like that it was a very good place to defend, however I like the end result so I'm not complaining about that.
Yeah, I understand this. The problem is, he turned up firing off at the house from the chopper, and then proceeded to toss grenades at random, into the lodge. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it would be reasonable to assume that this is rather reckless behaviour in the supposed circumstances?
It escapes me where, but I definitely read/heard one or two tidbits from P+W re the ending. I got the impression that the original ending was a much more low key affair. It makes me wonder whether the team (B+M, Mendes, studio etc) lost their nerve and abandoned it, in favour of a more 'explosive' ending.
I'd love to know if this is the case. The idea of Bond and Silva stalking each other through the Lodge and across the moors would have been pretty awesome. Don't get me wrong, minus the DB5 moment, the ending does 'explosive' brilliantly. But as I've stated above it feels like they maybe missed a trick.
When Bond is in training and has terrible pain from the shrapnel, he stands in front of a mirror and DIGS into his flesh to dig the pieces out by himself. I guess they did that to make Bond look like a tough guy-- but upon watching it a second time on Bluray, I can't for the life of me figure out why he does that!
I mean, he's in the MI6 headquarters- would it have been out of the question to just have someone check him out? Come to think of it, wouldn't they have done that anyway, since he had just come back after being presumed dead from a GUNSHOT WOUND?
Didn't ruin the movie by any means (Skyfall is in my top 5) but that part does leave me scratching my head.... :ohwell
I think he didn't want the medical department to find out he still had it, since he had just been cleared to duty. At least that's what I think. We used to have a thread about that sort of crazy things, I have to search it.
EDIT: Found it. What a crazy bunch of people, me included.
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/4483/are-you-the-do-it-yourself-like-bond-would-type-when-it-comes-to-personal-injury/p1
Seeing as Bond went to Eton the family certainly aren't short of a few bob. The house wasn't that big although seemed to have a fair bit of land - I would say it was worth between 3 and 5 million which in real estate terms is hardly that expensive, especially if it had been passed down through the years.
I agree with RC7 in wondering just what Andrew Bond had in his armoury that could have been much better than what they ended up with. Especially seeing as the bloke died 30 odd years ago.
I'm also perplexed as to why you would name your family home something as doom laden and evoking of disaster as 'Skyfall'. Hardly conducive to a warm family environment to bring up a little lad.
My mate said this to me the other day, and proceeded to recite Alan Partridge's potential house names...
James Bond in 'Ye House'
James Bond in 'Excalibur Cottage'
James Bond in 'The Cinammons'
You get the picture.
It may seem odd, but my family's estate name, Pedrão, means something like a big rock which serves as tombstone or column with registration or with real weapons :-B Suddenly Skyfall doesn't sound so bad, right?
By the grace of someone else's money, according to Vesper.
Vesper was making a guess...
But she was right. He didn't deny it. She guessed the orphan part too. I always assumed that she read Bond like a book in that scene and she was accurate
I might be wrong, but I think it was his aunt who paid for Eton. Again, I might be wrong, but then either his aunt had enough money or his parents left enough money for him to go to a fancy school. After he left Eton he would go to Fettes, where his father had also been a pupil, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't come cheap either. I re-read OHMSS a short while ago and he does say at a point that he didn't inherit money and that was never a problem. From this I think it's obvious that, although they were probably not millionaires they weren't exactly poor, otherwise he and his father before him would have attended state schools instead.
I remember reading somewhere that his father enrolled him for Eton at birth so that shows Andrew Bond had a fair wad.
However I cant recall if this is from Fleming or John Pearsons Authorised Biography which I suppose you could argue is non canon (although I personally like to class it as canon as it fills in a lot of the gaps admirably - despite the stupidity of pretending he was actually real and conspired with Fleming on the books and the last chapter about Irma Bunt being a bit dubious).
James Bond in 'Our House'
I actually watched the deleted scenes the other day and he lists about 10 more options for chez Partridge although I cant remember any of them.