Skyfall Questions (Spoilers)

Gerard

Indeed, but the most famous use of it in the movies was Thunderball (and there were people who didn't believe it was real at the time, if TVTropes is to be believed).

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

boldfinger wrote:

Bond films were always inpsired by successful trends and always will be. That´s by no means a bad thing. But SF was precariously close to changing Bond´s inner core from at peace with himself to emotionally unstable, and such a thing wants to be thought through thorrowly before let loose.

Where did it cut it close for you? I never felt that at all. In fact, this film is probably the proudest I have been of Bond in the entire series.

boldfinger

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

boldfinger wrote:

Bond films were always inpsired by successful trends and always will be. That´s by no means a bad thing. But SF was precariously close to changing Bond´s inner core from at peace with himself to emotionally unstable, and such a thing wants to be thought through thorrowly before let loose.

Where did it cut it close for you? I never felt that at all. In fact, this film is probably the proudest I have been of Bond in the entire series.

It cut it close for me by showing murkiness inside Bond´s emotional basis. And murkiness that went far beyond that one caused by Vesper, which was very temporary anyhow in comparison.
Bond´s motivation for serving Queen and country shouldn´t have to do anything with traumatic experiences in his past. His motivation should be simple idealism. He shouldn´t counteract against subconscious impulses, but act towards clear goals. Because the first case would make him an emotional handicapped man trying to compensate by acting heroicly (acting as if in control), whereas the latter motivation would make him a badass (being in control), which I find way cooler, simply put ;-).
Now, since Bond in the end is still keen on working for MI6, perhaps his motivation hasn´t got so much to do with his childhood, but at least throughout the film, that posible connection is quite openly hinted at. Surely not enough to hate the film, in fact I like it a lot, but nonetheless provoking this kind of criticism.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

boldfinger wrote:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

boldfinger wrote:

Bond films were always inpsired by successful trends and always will be. That´s by no means a bad thing. But SF was precariously close to changing Bond´s inner core from at peace with himself to emotionally unstable, and such a thing wants to be thought through thorrowly before let loose.

Where did it cut it close for you? I never felt that at all. In fact, this film is probably the proudest I have been of Bond in the entire series.

It cut it close for me by showing murkiness inside Bond´s emotional basis. And murkiness that went far beyond that one caused by Vesper, which was very temporary anyhow in comparison.
Bond´s motivation for serving Queen and country shouldn´t have to do anything with traumatic experiences in his past. His motivation should be simple idealism. He shouldn´t counteract against subconscious impulses, but act towards clear goals. Because the first case would make him an emotional handicapped man trying to compensate by acting heroicly (acting as if in control), whereas the latter motivation would make him a badass (being in control), which I find way cooler, simply put ;-).
Now, since Bond in the end is still keen on working for MI6, perhaps his motivation hasn´t got so much to do with his childhood, but at least throughout the film, that posible connection is quite openly hinted at. Surely not enough to hate the film, in fact I like it a lot, but nonetheless provoking this kind of criticism.

I don't get what you are trying to convey, especially in regards to what you are referring to by the "murkiness inside Bond's emotional basis". I see no moment in the film where Bond alludes to taking the job because of the events in his childhood. I see Bond as a man who was forced to grow up early after the death of his parents, and as such he was used to surviving on his own and learned to steel himself with a heavy guard, but I don't think he is driven by that past to serve. Now, the fact that he is orphaned did play a part in his selection as an agent, because as M states, "they make the best agents," but I don't think that is what is driving Bond. I wouldn't say that it is his traumatic past (whatever you mean by that), but his willingness to do what is necessary and the sense of trust he has in his superior boss and the loyalty he has always had for his country of service that keeps him going and instills in him the willingness to risk all for Queen and country. While his orphanage was part of why he found himself working for MI6, I don't think that is the reason he becomes an agent or why he decided to join up with the service.

RC7

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

boldfinger wrote:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

boldfinger wrote:

Bond films were always inpsired by successful trends and always will be. That´s by no means a bad thing. But SF was precariously close to changing Bond´s inner core from at peace with himself to emotionally unstable, and such a thing wants to be thought through thorrowly before let loose.

Where did it cut it close for you? I never felt that at all. In fact, this film is probably the proudest I have been of Bond in the entire series.

It cut it close for me by showing murkiness inside Bond´s emotional basis. And murkiness that went far beyond that one caused by Vesper, which was very temporary anyhow in comparison.
Bond´s motivation for serving Queen and country shouldn´t have to do anything with traumatic experiences in his past. His motivation should be simple idealism. He shouldn´t counteract against subconscious impulses, but act towards clear goals. Because the first case would make him an emotional handicapped man trying to compensate by acting heroicly (acting as if in control), whereas the latter motivation would make him a badass (being in control), which I find way cooler, simply put ;-).
Now, since Bond in the end is still keen on working for MI6, perhaps his motivation hasn´t got so much to do with his childhood, but at least throughout the film, that posible connection is quite openly hinted at. Surely not enough to hate the film, in fact I like it a lot, but nonetheless provoking this kind of criticism.

I don't get what you are trying to convey, especially in regards to what you are referring to by the "murkiness inside Bond's emotional basis". I see no moment in the film where Bond alludes to taking the job because of the events in his childhood. I see Bond as a man who was forced to grow up early after the death of his parents, and as such he was used to surviving on his own and learned to steel himself with a heavy guard, but I don't think he is driven by that past to serve. Now, the fact that he is orphaned did play a part in his selection as an agent, because as M states, "they make the best agents," but I don't think that is what is driving Bond. I wouldn't say that it is his traumatic past (whatever you mean by that), but his willingness to do what is necessary and the sense of trust he has in his superior boss and the loyalty he has always had for his country of service that keeps him going and instills in him the willingness to risk all for Queen and country. While his orphanage was part of why he found himself working for MI6, I don't think that is the reason he becomes an agent or why he decided to join up with the service.

I agree. There is nothing in SF that suggests Bond's profession is a result of his childhood. Obviously our childhoods all dictate, to some extent, who we grow up to be. Bond being orphaned is certainly not his sole motivation. In the film he simply confronts the past as a means to neutralise the threat. Not just for personal reasons, but for the greater good of his country.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

RC7 wrote:

I agree. There is nothing in SF that suggests Bond's profession is a result of his childhood. Obviously our childhoods all dictate, to some extent, who we grow up to be. Bond being orphaned is certainly not his sole motivation. In the film he simply confronts the past as a means to neutralise the threat. Not just for personal reasons, but for the greater good of his country.

Excellently put, @RC7.

boldfinger

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

I see Bond as a man who was forced to grow up early after the death of his parents, and as such he was used to surviving on his own and learned to steel himself with a heavy guard, but I don't think he is driven by that past to serve.

But what you describe here is something novel to the series. It was never described like that, neither in the films nor in the novels.
Why should he be forced to grow up early after the death of his parents? Why should´t Bond have had other loving relatives or trustworthy people who cared for him while he grew up?
It doesn´t seem logical or clever for the secret service to recruit people who learned to steel themselves with a heavy guard, because that means they are very vulnerable underneath.

Suivez_ce_parachute

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

In fact, this film is probably the proudest I have been of Bond in the entire series.

Have you tried to look at a movie like The Spy Who Came in from the Cold ? You may be a fan of serious spy dramas far more than a Bond fan ! (cf your dismay of all the Moore ones, the fact you think other "fans" are silly to find Skyfall not Bondian enough, your interest for psychological analysis, etc).

CrabKey

Probably been addressed elsewhere, but after watching Skyfall yet again, I am still not clear where Bond was hit when he is shot from the roof of the train.

MrBond

CrabKey wrote:

Probably been addressed elsewhere, but after watching Skyfall yet again, I am still not clear where Bond was hit when he is shot from the roof of the train.

In his right shoulder.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

In fact, this film is probably the proudest I have been of Bond in the entire series.

Have you tried to look at a movie like The Spy Who Came in from the Cold ? You may be a fan of serious spy dramas far more than a Bond fan ! (cf your dismay of all the Moore ones, the fact you think other "fans" are silly to find Skyfall not Bondian enough, your interest for psychological analysis, etc).

I read The Spy Who Came in from the Cold a few years back, but have yet to see the film (though I do want to). While I liked it fine enough, that is a bit too grounded for me. I like a mix of Le Carré's style and writers like Vince Flynn, Robert Ludlum and of course, Fleming who balanced realism and fantasy well.

And I think Bond films CAN and ARE at times "serious spy dramas". My top 10 or 15 are all serious Bond films with serious spy content in them, like CR, FRWL, QoS, TB, the Dalton films and so on.

Also, if you read my recent interview session with @Benny you will see just how much more respect I have for all the Bond actors and their interpretations-especially Roger-as I have matured as a fan:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/6689/bennys-behind-the-avatar-interview-with-0bradym0bondfanatic7/p3

Plus, I don't find people "silly" for not agreeing about Skyfall, I just enjoy challenging people to debates on the film and others in the franchise so much so that I can probably come off as too strong at such moments. At the end of the day I like and appreciate all that I smack heads with in debates, as that is what makes Bond discussions fun.

You are right though that I am interested in some areas of psychology because I have long been fascinated by the human brain and why people do what they do, including not only real people but also fictional characters. :)

boldfinger

MrBond wrote:

CrabKey wrote:

Probably been addressed elsewhere, but after watching Skyfall yet again, I am still not clear where Bond was hit when he is shot from the roof of the train.

In his right shoulder.

No, that´s where shrapnel from Patrice´s shots hit him, which he later operates out with his flick knife. I find it hard to imagine that he was shot twice in the same place.

MrBond

boldfinger wrote:

MrBond wrote:

CrabKey wrote:

Probably been addressed elsewhere, but after watching Skyfall yet again, I am still not clear where Bond was hit when he is shot from the roof of the train.

In his right shoulder.

No, that´s where shrapnel from Patrice´s shots hit him, which he later operates out with his flick knife. I find it hard to imagine that he was shot twice in the same place.

Well then, it has to be his left Shoulder then.

boldfinger

When he meets Eve again he puts his hand somewhere around his right upper belly when he says she only hit some of the less vital organs, as if that´s about the area she hit him.
On the other hand, the fact that the shoulder wound is shown several times explicitly, as well as Silva saying, "Look what she´s done to you" when he sees the scar, would imply that it was indeed there Eve´s shot hit him.

Suivez_ce_parachute

MrBond wrote:

Well then, it has to be his left Shoulder then.

Well, Bond has to remove himself the shrapnel and clean it in running water with his bare hands, even though he has just passed hours of intensive medical exams from MI6 who is in desperate needs of information about the identity of the shooter, so this is another place where you should not try to think too much about it ! It would have happened in DAF, everybody would say how silly it is :)

boldfinger

Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:

MrBond wrote:

Well then, it has to be his left Shoulder then.

Well, Bond has to remove himself the shrapnel and clean it in running water with his bare hands, even though he has just passed hours of intensive medical exams from MI6 who is in desperate needs of information about the identity of the shooter, so this is another place where you should not try to think too much about it ! It would have happened in DAF, everybody would say how silly it is :)

Well, it is a bit confusing that he´s hit twice, yet only one wound is shown, but that one extensively: inside the train, when Bond inspects his shoulder, later on in MI6 quarters, when Bond removes the shrapnel, which are clearly from Patrice´s bullet and not from Eve´s, then Bond´s shoulder gets weak when he hangs onto the elevator, and finally when Silva opens Bond´s shirt. No other physical wound is shown. I don´t get it.

Suivez_ce_parachute

boldfinger wrote:

Well, it is a bit confusing that he´s hit twice, yet only one wound is shown, but that one extensively. No other physical wound is shown. I don´t get it.

Also, Daniel Kleinman uses only one hole in his imagery. Hey, let's call it just another plothole :)

SirHenryLeeChaChing

@Boldfinger- I just watched it again the other night with my son to refresh the memory, and I clearly saw two round bullet scars on his upper right chest.

zebrafish

2 bullet holes, once and for all:

<img src="http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/skyfall2-1500.jpg">;

(taken from movie critic Aaron Peck's site)

Gerard

You're right, Suivez... The MI medics didn't do their job properly. Bond should at least have gotten a X-Ray, if not a IRM or a scanner, all of which would have detected the shrapnel. File that under "Parts of Bond Movies that make no sense".

SirHenryLeeChaChing

This movie would have ran longer than 2:23 if they filled in every little detail :-?

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

This movie would have ran longer than 2:23 if they filled in every little detail :-?

Much like TDKR, I think the film should have been much longer. I would have sat through it with supreme enjoyment. :)

boldfinger

zebrafish wrote:

2 bullet holes, once and for all:

<img src="http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/skyfall2-1500.jpg">;

(taken from movie critic Aaron Peck's site)

I´ll settle for that, even though one could argue that Bond was hit by shrapnel from one of Patrice´s bullets, which would easily explain several entry wounds on his right shoulder. But as I said, I won´t argue <):) .

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

boldfinger wrote:

zebrafish wrote:

2 bullet holes, once and for all:

<img src="http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/skyfall2-1500.jpg">;

(taken from movie critic Aaron Peck's site)

I´ll settle for that, even though one could argue that Bond was hit by shrapnel from one of Patrice´s bullets, which would easily explain several entry wounds on his right shoulder. But as I said, I won´t argue <):) .

Bullet shrapnel wouldn't cause another huge wound near Bond's shoulder. Don't over-think it.

Pierce2Daniel

When Tanner tells M that Silva has escaped during the inquiry she says: "Like hell am I going to show him my back."

what does that even mean??

WillyGalore

Pierce2Daniel wrote:

When Tanner tells M that Silva has escaped during the inquiry she says: "Like hell am I going to show him my back."

what does that even mean??

It means she won't act the coward and run away.