Skyfall Questions (Spoilers)

1181921232426

Comments

  • Not that any of this matters, but Bond wouldn't be much of a spy if it took him - with all of MI6's considerable resources behind him - over 2 years to track down one individual. Especially when he already has that person's phone number. In my job we regularly track down people with little more information to go on that that, and I don't even work for the second most powerful intelligence agency in the world.

    On the other hand, the only thing I see that would suggest that a fair amount of time passed between CR and QoS, is that Mathis was already set up and living comfortably in the villa that MI6 game him after mistakenly accusing him of being a double-agent. I would think it would take more than a week to: 1) prove Mathis is innocent and 2) find, prepare and move Mathis into a villa of that size.

    Some things just don't add up. It's a movie, after all. It's fiction. Not real life. Heck, even in real life things just don't add up. Nothing to do but go with it and enjoy. :-)
  • MrBond wrote:
    I am quite sure that from when Bond sat on the boat in Venice to when Bond shoots Mr. White it takes roughly a week.

    On what basis?

    It could be months, it could be years. In fact the only way to make sense of the continuity is to say that he doesnt track down Mr White till 08. Thats the only theory that is plausible because that is the only unaccounted for gap in the narrative.

    The only other possibilities are :

    Bond sits in Venice mourning Vesper on the yacht for 2 years and then has his conversation with M.

    After Bond kills Mitchell there is a gap of 2 years before he goes after Slate.

    Neither of these are very credible.


    The only logical explanations are theres a 2 year gap between the call with M and going after Mr White or QOS all takes place in late 06.

    QOS takes place in 2006, there's no 2 year gap.

    The time period between the boat scene and the moment Bond takes down Mr White is likely a matter of weeks if not days, not 2 years.

    Furtermore theres no way that Bond would be alone by himself for 2 years 'getting over Vesper' when M has yet to even tell him about Yusef or ask him when he last slept. Also why would Bond be talking about Le Chiffre if all that business was sorted 2 years ago?

    The 2008 ticket is clearly a mistake and it would likely be in our service to overlook it, the same way that this clearly isn't Daniel Craig: http://screenmusings.org/CasinoRoyale/pages/CR_0131.htm
    But you just go with it.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2013 Posts: 9,117
    MrBond wrote:
    MrBond wrote:
    I am quite sure that from when Bond sat on the boat in Venice to when Bond shoots Mr. White it takes roughly a week.

    On what basis?

    It could be months, it could be years. In fact the only way to make sense of the continuity is to say that he doesnt track down Mr White till 08. Thats the only theory that is plausible because that is the only unaccounted for gap in the narrative.

    The only other possibilities are :

    Bond sits in Venice mourning Vesper on the yacht for 2 years and then has his conversation with M.

    After Bond kills Mitchell there is a gap of 2 years before he goes after Slate.

    Neither of these are very credible.


    The only logical explanations are theres a 2 year gap between the call with M and going after Mr White or QOS all takes place in late 06.

    Why would it take 2 years to find Mr. White? And what was Bond supposed to do in these 2 years, float around and still got an employment? No, i think it wouldn't be very difficult to track Mr. Whites number that he got from Vesper and then pin-point his exact location. Remember that it is MI6 that we are talking about.

    I don't know the answer I'm just offering theories. Unlike you I am far too humble to boldly state 'I am quite sure' when I have a distinct gap in my knowledge.

    Not religious by any chance are you?

    Anyway since you are ruling out with your certainty there being a 2 year gap between Ms call and shooting White I assume you think that QOS therefore takes place in late 06?
  • why are people who talk about skyfall on these post
    retarded?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @Pierce2Daniel, what makes the ticket clearly a mistake? Why couldn't Bond have taken 'down time' of sorts doing smaller missions and spending time in the office? Why is what you say fact and everything to you is so clear? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think a majority of things become possible, and nothing here is 'fact.'
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    @Pierce2Daniel, what makes the ticket clearly a mistake? Why couldn't Bond have taken 'down time' of sorts doing smaller missions and spending time in the office? Why is what you say fact and everything to you is so clear? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think a majority of things become possible, and nothing here is 'fact.'

    Well I'm pretty certain I'm as close to certain as we're ever going to get.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Sandy wrote:
    Silva wouldn't jsut shoot a rocker, he wanted to be with M when she died!

    Then why did he, as mentioned, lob tons of grenades and blast the house with an attack chopper?

    I think that is a plot hole. The finale was extremely entertaining but doesn't make too much sense when you think about it.
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Stupid Gunbarrel?

    Yeah, makes me feel a bit sad that fans don't care about such an iconic part of the Bond movies. Maybe I'm stuck in the past but I've been a fan for 25 years and to me the gunbarrel is out of place if it's anywhere but the start.

    You wouldn't put no effort into the theme song/title sequence and stick that at the end would you? A well designed gunbarrel at the beginning should be a rule.

    Shame Forster and Mendes seem to think they're above it (I can forgive Campbell because he had it at the start of GE and at least some thought went into the placing in CR, it made sense there and it worked as a cool one off).

    I care about the gun barrel, just not about whether it goes before or after the film. Why does it really matter? That's why I find it all so 'stupid'.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Pierce2Daniel, what makes the ticket clearly a mistake? Why couldn't Bond have taken 'down time' of sorts doing smaller missions and spending time in the office? Why is what you say fact and everything to you is so clear? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think a majority of things become possible, and nothing here is 'fact.'

    Well I'm pretty certain I'm as close to certain as we're ever going to get.

    And again, what makes you so cocky and sure of yourself?
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Pierce2Daniel, what makes the ticket clearly a mistake? Why couldn't Bond have taken 'down time' of sorts doing smaller missions and spending time in the office? Why is what you say fact and everything to you is so clear? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think a majority of things become possible, and nothing here is 'fact.'

    Well I'm pretty certain I'm as close to certain as we're ever going to get.

    And again, what makes you so cocky and sure of yourself?

    It just makes sense in terms of the story being a direct follow-on, the fact that the films were made in different years by different directors is probably a bigger discrepancy than the fact the ticket mentions 2008. For all we know there may have been a problem at the printers and they accidently put 08 on the ticket instead of 06. Who cares?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @Pierce2Daniel, a few members and I were simply discussing the possibilities. It is, after all, a James Bond fan site. I don't see the problem in talking about the films.
  • Wasn't sure where to post this but since Silva's plan has been discussed on this thread a fair bit here you go.

    http://www.cracked.com/article_20298_6-huge-movie-plot-twists-that-caused-even-bigger-plot-holes.html
    I care about the gun barrel, just not about whether it goes before or after the film. Why does it really matter? That's why I find it all so 'stupid'.

    Again, by that logic, you may as well stick the theme song at the end. I think the gunbarrel works best as an opening sequence, I always loved it at the start and I see no reason to change it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    While I have much bigger concerns or wants for a Bond film, I really do miss the opening gunbarrel sequence.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Wasn't sure where to post this but since Silva's plan has been discussed on this thread a fair bit here you go.

    http://www.cracked.com/article_20298_6-huge-movie-plot-twists-that-caused-even-bigger-plot-holes.html
    I care about the gun barrel, just not about whether it goes before or after the film. Why does it really matter? That's why I find it all so 'stupid'.

    Again, by that logic, you may as well stick the theme song at the end. I think the gunbarrel works best as an opening sequence, I always loved it at the start and I see no reason to change it.

    You can't begin to compare a short gun barrel sequence to a 3 to 4 minute song that has ALWAYS been at the start. It makes sense to have it at the start because it truly can open the film by including references for the action ahead, but the gun barrel is just a gun barrel, and doesn't clue you in on what is coming for the film (except that it's Bond, which you would know anyway) and isn't consistently at the start of the films like the theme song always is.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 12,837
    I can compare them. The title sequence and the gunbarrel are opening sequences. Not all the title sequences give any clue to the action ahead. And most of the time it's just vague, like voodoo or oil being used. Overall I don't think this makes much of a difference.

    It isn't consistently at the start of the films because they moved it! It WAS always at the start until they moved it, which is what so many of us are angry about. So by your logic, the title sequence at the end would be fine because it would no longer always be at the start.

    You get the gunbarrel, the PTS, the title sequence. Not sure why Forster and Mendes didn't understand that (as I said, I can let Campbell off).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    You get the gunbarrel, the PTS, the title sequence. Not sure why Forster and Mendes didn't understand that (as I said, I can let Campbell off).
    Now that I've seen SF, I can say without a doubt that the gunbarrel would have fit perfectly in the beginning, with the circular expanding window opening on the out-of-focus image of Bond in the hallway. No reason at ALL I can see for pushing it to the end. QOS either.
    In SF when M commented on Bond ejecting her, that was awesome. Little things count for a lot. The gunbarrel is a little thing as well, why treat it like it's a second class element?
  • X3MSonicXX3MSonicX https://www.behance.net/gallery/86760163/Fa-Posteres-de-007-No-Time-To-Die
    Posts: 2,635
    The gunbarrel is classic on the beggining, but in Skyfall it fitted only in the Ending. When Bond said he'll return for the action, the music grew up and the gunbarrel started, and that is, he IS back.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    X3MSonicX wrote:
    The gunbarrel is classic on the beggining, but in Skyfall it fitted only in the Ending. When Bond said he'll return for the action, the music grew up and the gunbarrel started, and that is, he IS back.
    So... he was gone for three full movies---?
    :-?
  • Posts: 14
    X3MSonicX wrote:
    The gunbarrel is classic on the beggining, but in Skyfall it fitted only in the Ending. When Bond said he'll return for the action, the music grew up and the gunbarrel started, and that is, he IS back.

    If Bond really is back in #24 with the gunbarrel starting the film, I'll agree with you. But I thought at the end of Casino Royale, Bond was back and I think Martin Campbell would agree. But then with Quantum of Solace I was surprised to see he wasn't back and then at the end of Quantum I thought Bond was back. Then at the beginning of Skyfall Bond wasn't back. Bond can't be gone at the beginning of every movie and come back at the end. Craig has to do at least one film that has Bond there the whole time.

    Quantum and Skyfall needed the gunbarrel at the beginning. Bond had to earn the elements of a Bond movie throughout Casino Royale, which is why it was at the end of the PTS. I still think Bond should have just been back at the end of Royale.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    I think the beginning of SF worked just fine how it was, and in all honesty, I don't really care for the gunbarrel they went with. Bond cutting in to frame with the sharp score kicking in worked more than enough for me, and I don't think I've ever been that excited in the first second or two of a Bond movie.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I don't think I've ever been that excited in the first second or two of a Bond movie.
    Each to his (or her) own.
    I missed it terribly.
    In QOS, I rationalized it because the whole flick was simply a coda for CR.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 40,959
    His. Not sure how I haven't established my sex on this site in the past (nearly) two years.

    I do miss the gunbarrel sequence, but wasn't totally upset when it wasn't in SF. Perhaps next time.

    I know this is incredibly random, but I'm still really curious as to what word Eve whispers as she unloads her weapon at Patrice as he jumps off the bridge. I'm sure of the context, I would just enjoy knowing the word.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Creasy47 wrote:
    His. Not sure how I haven't established my sex on this site in the past (nearly) two years.
    Just covering bases for them females what might have a different take than myself. You are all guy, I know. 'Cept when you cried like a wuss at M's death. C'mon, fess up.
    Okay, I shed a tiny bit O' tear my own self... just don't tell anyone!
  • Creasy47 wrote:
    His. Not sure how I haven't established my sex on this site in the past (nearly) two years.

    Am I the only one that sometimes forgets that the profile pics here aren't of the person posting? They're so small that often I can't tell that they are of Brosnan or Connery, or whoever...It looks like some people have quite cool ones; it's too bad they aren't a little bigger or could at least be embiggened by clicking on them.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited February 2013 Posts: 40,959
    @chrisisall, of course I shed a few tears when it happened! But don't worry, our secrets will be safe with one another. It's not like it's public Internet knowledge, so they'll never know. ;)

    @thelordflasheart, I start placing profile pics with usernames, so in all honesty, if I was to see any of you in person one day, I would immediately expect to see Connery, Craig, Brosnan, etc. I would enjoy having the profile pictures a tad bigger.

    I have a question that I know has been asked and answered numerous times, and while I accepted an answer for a while, I don't quite believe it's true: where does Eve shoot Bond at? Someone said the shoulder: when he is taking the pills during his enjoyment of death, you see a scar on his shoulder, directly above where Patrice hits him. But, why does Bond rub his hand around his gut when he is telling Eve about the damage she did to him? Did she hit him closer to the abs?

    Also, how does Silva continuously fire the hybrid-type sniper rifle at Bond before and during the fight in the Shanghai skyscraper? It was a bolt-action rifle.
  • Posts: 1,817
    1. I know this is a new timeline, but why does M says that orphans make the best recruits? Doesn't she remember of Alec Trevelyan??

    2. After seeing at home, I put more attention to the gloves in Shanghai. Obviously is a big goof because sometimes he wears them and other time he doesn't. It really doesn't bother me. After all, Bond movies are full with goofs and they've become something as a tradition (as with the DVD restoration when the respected the visible crew in TMWTGG.)

    @Creasy47 Perhaps the damage in the ribs is due to the fall and not the bullet. By the way, when Tanner says he was lucky it wasn't a direct hit, does it means that he was hit by grapeshots or what?
  • X3MSonicXX3MSonicX https://www.behance.net/gallery/86760163/Fa-Posteres-de-007-No-Time-To-Die
    edited February 2013 Posts: 2,635
    Edit: Unknown reason o.o
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 2,081
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I have a question that I know has been asked and answered numerous times, and while I accepted an answer for a while, I don't quite believe it's true: where does Eve shoot Bond at? Someone said the shoulder: when he is taking the pills during his enjoyment of death, you see a scar on his shoulder, directly above where Patrice hits him. But, why does Bond rub his hand around his gut when he is telling Eve about the damage she did to him? Did she hit him closer to the abs?

    I always assumed Bond's first lines to Eve after his return are not to be taken literally as regards the physical damage - it's just so he gets to whine a bit about minor things like ribs and less vital organs, and then say "nothing major" by the end of it. Obviously he needs to refer to the gut area and the nearby area before that - anywhere near shoulder would be too far up. ;)
    0013 wrote:
    2. After seeing at home, I put more attention to the gloves in Shanghai. Obviously is a big goof because sometimes he wears them and other time he doesn't. It really doesn't bother me. After all, Bond movies are full with goofs and they've become something as a tradition (as with the DVD restoration when the respected the visible crew in TMWTGG.)

    Are you sure there's some big goof? He takes his gloves off in the car, we see that. We don't see him put them back on, that's all, but we don't need to, do we? He has them on by the time he's approaching Patrice. It's not like he has them on/off/on/off/on/off/on or something. Anyway, I don't have the film yet, so maybe I remember it wrong.

  • Why on earth was Bond dressed up as a valet?? I'm thinking maybe it was part of the extended scene that got cut (the same one with Patrice and Severine on the escalator)? There just doesn't seem to be a point to having Bond in disguise. Patrice had already seen his face, and he could've blended in just as much as a civilian (with sunglasses).
  • jackdagger wrote:
    Why on earth was Bond dressed up as a valet?? I'm thinking maybe it was part of the extended scene that got cut (the same one with Patrice and Severine on the escalator)? There just doesn't seem to be a point to having Bond in disguise. Patrice had already seen his face, and he could've blended in just as much as a civilian (with sunglasses).

    I think you've answered your own question there. Patrice had seen Bond already, so the sunglasses *and* cap disguised him much better than just being in civilian clothes with sunglasses on. Also, there were several chauffeurs there so blending in with them was a good way of being lost in the crowd. No one really notices chauffeurs unless you're looking for yours (and didn't Patrice take a taxi?).

  • Posts: 1,817
    Tuulia wrote:
    0013 wrote:
    2. After seeing at home, I put more attention to the gloves in Shanghai. Obviously is a big goof because sometimes he wears them and other time he doesn't. It really doesn't bother me. After all, Bond movies are full with goofs and they've become something as a tradition (as with the DVD restoration when the respected the visible crew in TMWTGG.)

    Are you sure there's some big goof? He takes his gloves off in the car, we see that. We don't see him put them back on, that's all, but we don't need to, do we? He has them on by the time he's approaching Patrice. It's not like he has them on/off/on/off/on/off/on or something. Anyway, I don't have the film yet, so maybe I remember it wrong.

    I just checked again. He's without gloves when he gets off the car, in the elevator and when he's getting closer to Patrice. Then, when he fight it's hard to tell but obviously he has them on he Patrice falls. Then they are gone when he checks the suitcase. My conjecture is that he puts his gloves on when he holst the gun approaching Patrice.

    Another question, why if the new digs are that well-guarded, M's flat is not?
Sign In or Register to comment.