Skyfall Questions (Spoilers)

1161719212226

Comments

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

    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.

    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).
  • 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.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,817
    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 2,081
    0013 wrote:
    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.

  • edited February 2013 Posts: 3,494
    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 he's 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. M's 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 vindicate 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 Silva's grand plan would have been a total failure.

    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.

  • edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    0013 wrote:
    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.

    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.
  • Posts: 2,081

    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.

    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.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    As it has been said, what good does it make if Bond just leaves her? In hotels there are ways for Silva to use his tech skills just like he did at MI6 to blow things sky high or some of his men could just come to kill her. He doesn't care who has to die to kill her. Bond took her to Skyfall where there were no more innocents to die and he along with M and Kincade stood ready for a fight the best they could. In addition, there was no technology for Silva to use to his advantage, Bond thought he was heading to a big armory (but it was all sold), and the area was wide, where Silva could be spotted if he was making an assault and the priest hole was a great tactical aspect of the location if things got heated (wink, wink).
  • Tuulia wrote:

    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.

    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 :)



  • edited February 2013 Posts: 389
    I think this link can explain a lot of things about the movie plot:
    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.”
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2013 Posts: 10,512
    I think this link can explain a lot of things about the movie plot:
    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
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2013 Posts: 9,117
    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.

    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.
    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.”

    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?
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 389
    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.

    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.
    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.”

    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Did owning Skyfall seem a bit too upper-class for Bond to anyone else?
  • Posts: 1,817
    echo wrote:
    Did owning Skyfall seem a bit too upper-class for Bond to anyone else?

    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.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    0013 wrote:
    echo wrote:
    Did owning Skyfall seem a bit too upper-class for Bond to anyone else?

    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-)
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    0013 wrote:
    echo wrote:
    Did owning Skyfall seem a bit too upper-class for Bond to anyone else?

    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.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2013 Posts: 10,512
    echo wrote:
    Did owning Skyfall seem a bit too upper-class for Bond to anyone else?

    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.

  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    RC7 wrote:
    echo wrote:
    Did owning Skyfall seem a bit too upper-class for Bond to anyone else?

    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.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2013 Posts: 10,512
    Sandy wrote:
    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.

  • edited February 2013 Posts: 4,813
    I'm sorry if someone asked this already- I haven't checked this page since December :)

    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
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    edited February 2013 Posts: 4,012
    I'm sorry if someone asked this already- I haven't checked this page since December :)

    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
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote:
    echo wrote:
    Did owning Skyfall seem a bit too upper-class for Bond to anyone else?

    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.

    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.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    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.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    edited February 2013 Posts: 4,012
    RC7 wrote:
    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?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2013 Posts: 6,304
    RC7 wrote:
    echo wrote:
    Did owning Skyfall seem a bit too upper-class for Bond to anyone else?

    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.

    Seeing as Bond went to Eton the family certainly aren't short of a few bob.

    By the grace of someone else's money, according to Vesper.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    echo wrote:
    By the grace of someone else's money, according to Vesper.

    Vesper was making a guess...
  • Posts: 1,407
    Sandy wrote:
    echo wrote:
    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
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    bondbat007 wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    echo wrote:
    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.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2013 Posts: 9,117
    Sandy wrote:
    bondbat007 wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    echo wrote:
    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).
    RC7 wrote:
    James Bond in 'Ye House'
    James Bond in 'Excalibur Cottage'
    James Bond in 'The Cinammons'

    You get the picture.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.