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
I'm generally not a fan of "child in jeopardy" storylines--I think it's a cheap way to drum up sentiment--but I wonder, had NTTD had Bond die to save his daughter directly, if it might have had more impact in the cinema.
Yes, I understand nanobots and lineage and all of that, but CR had Vesper die in front of Bond. SF had M die in front of Bond. OHMSS had Tracy die next to Bond.
If Bond was slated to die, then maybe Madeleine and Mathilde should have been in the room with him.
I more or less agree (although I’d argue even the idea of Bond returning/the ‘with pleasure’ line is dampened a bit by M surviving. There’s something quite poignant about Bond being the main one from the old guard to have ‘made it’ to that new era of MI6, as well as the call back to the bulldog. Ultimately it all just feels more emotionally right/compelling with M’s dying rather than retiring, and I think that’s the most important thing with storytelling).
I think it’s a film which came at exactly the right time. I don’t think the Craig era would have benefitted from an extra two Bond movies in a CR/QOS vein. Anyway, Bond’s basically just in his 40s in this one - older, especially in his profession, but not old as such. I think there’s a feeling of there being a gap between his first two and this one (and of course this was the case in practice with the four year gap). I think it all works. Again, I think this is the sort of stuff fans tend to overthink about and dissect a bit more readily.
The third act isn’t about Bond getting over his childhood trauma, and the idea of Bond ‘saving’ his parents by saving Kincade - a man who looks like he’s more than capable of looking after himself and is even up for a shootout - and M (worth noting Bond’s main objective is actually getting rid of Silva - M’s a lame duck by this point and Bond is actually taking a massive risk by knowingly using her as bait) feels a bit too academic for me to really get a sense of all that when watching the film. Bond obviously would prefer to keep his past behind him as the word association scene shows (in that sense it’s childhood trauma for sure, but one he’s left in the past). Overall though it’s not what the story’s about, nor is it one of the personal obstacles Bond faces in the story. That’s more him getting over his injuries, dealing with the new guard at MI6/proving himself again, his frustrations with M, and of course deciding to return after MI6 is blown up. None of that stems from his childhood trauma flaring up at the beginning of the film. Using Skyfall as the location of the final showdown just kinda looks and feels right with the film’s ideas of old vs new - bringing us to this decrepit building from the past that Bond left behind decades ago - and of course getting his aim back by using his Dad’s old rifle is a nice moment. You could argue it’s not wholly necessary including references to Bond’s past (it actually adds little in practice, and again doesn’t directly tie into what Bond’s going through) but it gets the story to a secluded location for the finale in a convincing way that’s foreshadowed, and is interesting from a story/emotional perspective. I don’t think M dying clashes with any ideas, and it just makes for a more powerful third act.
Not a good comparison.
Mangione murdered a corporate horror-boss, not a decorated government official (alongside innocent bobbies). Think more of Lee Rigby's murder.
Silva being a former agent himself would discredit his Mangione chops, too.
Nope, you are bang on.
Skyfall's vaunted ending is yet more reward for its character's blatant incompetence.
Sure, Bond should have been fired after that. This just proves that MI6 are all incompetent.
If this were real life, sure, Bond would be fired, but more likely for going rogue and taking a very dire situation into his own hands. But this is a Bond film, and Bond would have been fired numerous other times for doing similar (including in LTK, TLD, DAD, CR, QOS etc). Ultimately he gets rid of Silva and handled the situation when no one else could. So he proves himself.
I don’t think that’s what the film is trying to say… if anything it makes clear Bond is not expendable. And like I said Silva’s a maniac who could easily bring down MI6 as well as kill M based on what he’s done prior.
Like I said, I think a lot of people here really overthink this movie. Fair enough if not everyone likes the idea of any version of M dying in a Bond film, but I’m not seeing any reason it’s ’thematically’ inconsistent (at any rate we’re talking about a Bond film at the end of the day, not a Tolstoy novel). I don’t see any reason why it’s not emotionally impactful beyond opinion…
The movie tells us that Silva could indeed destroy MI6, but it shows us that he'd most likely badly bungle it, whilst monologuing.
You're under-thinking it, boss. Head turned by Deakin's cinematography and Daniel's chiselled pout.
Chiselled pout 😂 wild. You should be a film critic. I actually love your descriptions. So flamboyant (in a nice way, haha).
Not sure I remember Silva ever implying that, and we see what he can do (blowing up MI6, hacking them, compromising them etc). So it’s not a case that he’d bungle taking down MI6 - he does it to a large extent!
I guess it’s just a case of agreeing to disagree. I’d also say if you’re not drawing off of your emotional response to the movie to understand it, it becomes a sort of weird intellectual exercise trying to pick it apart if we don’t like it for certain story decisions or don’t fully understand why some of us didn’t enjoy it/get the same engagement from it. It’s as if some of us are trying BS an English essay for a book they half read or are misremembering, but feel passionately about bringing down. Just my two pence though :)
It's Craig's eyes, man, he's too much.
Most distinctive eyes out of all the Bonds, haha.
I 100% agree with this and is something I've always said since SF's release.
The whole point of the Craig era was to reboot the character. Skyfall was supposed to be the film in which it all came together, and we could crack on with a well-rounded Bond.
Craig's era suffers from its continuity. CR's woeful third act segues into the horrors of QOS. Skyfall insists we perk the series up with batshit craziness, substituting any of that depth nonsense with more and more and more. Next, with too many superfluous characters and subsequent baggage ,the following brace are bloated what-could-have-beens.
I like Craig. I genuinely think he did the best job as Bond. I defended him from the www.notbond.com cretins, and would cheerily watch any of his work again.
But, for me, not one of his Bond films belong in the top tier.
So yeah I’m not exactly in that camp that lumps CR/QOS together as some short lived era. CR was a great film whereas QOS was a mess trying to mimic the Bourne films rather than just be a standalone Bond adventure.
What's on the screen, despite its problems, is really not good. The real-world plot doesn't sing, and it's probably why the producers reckoned to dumb it all down with skyfall. Sort of a reverse MR/FYEO scenario. It worked.
QOS has some saving graces. Fields is an excellent addition. The opera fight is quality and, controversial opinion, the film has (Madrano aside) good villains. Greene is better than Silva insofar he could plausibly exist. Almaric plays his poor hand well. Menacing wee shit.
However, the plot, music, direction, chase sequences and possibly the blandest Bond girl in history conspire to ensure its notoriety is justified.
Yeh, riiiiiight!! 🤪
I think @007HallY did a pretty good job of addressing these issues.
1. I'm not sure Bond failed any of his missions, any more than previous Bonds. His mission in Turkey was cut short; his mission in locating Patrice and retrieving the stolen hard drive changed as soon as Silva escaped; and perhaps a third mission succeeded: he caught Silva using M as bait.
2. You'd need to go back to my previous posts about Silva. He isn't incompetent; he has a fatal flaw, something all traditional villains have. In this case, it's an obsessive need to A) Publicly humiliate M (which he did); and B) Kill her while looking her in the eye, making it personal, no matter where. The latter is the fascinating part of this because Silva doesn't like making anything personal. He hates the "running around" and just wants to point-and-click. But in this case, understandably, he wants to kill her at close range. And it's that need that causes him to fail. As for having an arsenal behind him: no. Another great aspect of the character is his ability to just use algorithms and AI to do his work for him. When the officer uniform was handed to him, was that planned and delivered by his arsenal? No. It was likely a hired hand who was contacted when the time came and then knew where to be and when and then had a bunch of euros deposited in his account.
3. The plot is brilliant, a slow burn, with far greater intrigue then we'd seen in most of the recent Bond films at that point. Much of this is because Silva is a brilliantly-devised villain. Once we establish that he can do just about anything, anywhere with a computer (which is true), then the plot holes stop being holes. I'm not sure what the issue is with the komodo dragons, and the shower scene made sense, given that what Bond wanted to offer her was security--this is what the embrace from behind was important. (It was the lack of proper response to Severine's death that was the lowlight.)
His mission was cut short because he, and his team, failed at it. M is later killed playing Home Alone with Bond.
Unless his missions were to get his boss killed and not retrieve the stolen McGuffin (it's an absolutely terrible McGuffin, also) he succeeds.
He doesn't succeed at humiliating her and he could easily have killed her previously, as easily as 007 crept into her empty home. Looked her in the eye for hours if he so liked. Wore her clothes. His internet prowess could discredit more than publicly murdering her.
The whole shebang about murdering her at some tribunal having 'humiliated' her is, well, full of holes.
Having first revealed she's been used for sex since she was a child, Bond offers her 'security' by shagging her, then lets her be massacred in a set-up.
Top work, 007.
Christ.
Referring to Camille, not Kurylenko.
I like all Bond movies bar DAF, TMWTGG and DAD.
I'd watch and discuss to the death all the rest.
I’d say Bond failed at his first mission but due to M/Moneypenny shooting him (he’s James Bond so it’s reasonable to assume he would have defeated/gotten the list from Patrice even with his injuries had this not happened… in fact this is where a lot of the drama of the film stems from).
Yes, the mission essentially changes later. I actually think story wise the list in SF is interesting. It’s a McGuffin that becomes a Chekov’s Gun of sorts.
I prefer to see more as Straw Dogs than Home Alone. And as I said, M’s a lame duck at this point and Bond’s priority is to kill Silva and make sure hesitant further take down MI6. M’s death has an inevitability in that fatalistic way (she’s been fired! Nothing will change that. And she knows she’s messed up and indirectly caused deaths).