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 said it before though Gents we have have seen this Bond become a "00", Lose the love of his life. Die, and come back to life. We have had his back story to see. But believe all was required to get to the highest point of his tensure with Dan in Spectre. I think Specte will be a cinematic master piece and will be thrill after thrilll. But I don't think it would be without the frame work of the first 3 films.
Skyfall is flawed in places, most Bond films are. But it's as bondjames said "It is exciting popcorn entertainment" I said before I can understand why some don't appreciate it, its like Dark Kight. People went to see a Batman movie instead they got a crippled Bruce Wayne. I think you see 5 mins of Batman in the whole movie. The story of Skyfall restricts the big action some fans wanted/ the doom and gloom of London rather than exotic locations. But it was pivitol to story building.
I think Skyfall wont be truely appreciated until you sit and watch it back to back with Spectre.
I never appreciated QOS until I watched it back to back again with Casino. I treat it a two parter. Can't have one without the other.
I might be wrong, I can't speak for everybody, but I think this is far from the crux of the problem when it comes to people's misgivings about SF. As for SP being a masterpiece, I think we'd all like that to be the case, but to surmise it will be at this point is just conjecture. While elements of it appear great, I think there are far too many missing pieces to the puzzle and many hurdles it will have to to clear. Whether it does can be assessed when we finally see it.
Thank you TripAces. Let's see ... I'll list a few.
1) Bond loses his mojo after being shot and taking a fall that almost definitely should have killed him. Not sure why he lost his mojo from that. But even so, he returns to MI:6 and fails every test put in front of him but suddenly when he gets in the field, he's Bond again without any hesitation or misstep. He didn't earn his mojo yet for that to happen. He should have been the one to (accidentally) kill Severine because of a shaky aim. He should have been still unsure and shaky through most of the film and then have his family friend help him get back his confidence at Skyfall. That would have made more sense of being there.
2) Why go there at all -- it didn't make sense. He went to a place where he'd be defenseless. The early blogs said we'd learn more about Bond's past and his family. Nope. Uh-uh. Just that a lot of dust can gather over the years.
3) The whole premise (and I'm sorry, I don't see it as a twist ... just writing yourself out of a hole) is based on the idea that Bond will kill an assassin so he can find a casino chip (he could have left without discovering the chip) and then turning it in at the exact moment Severine is there, where he would beat up her bodyguards, get taken to the island and capture the bad guy. Now THAT'S planning! And this bad ex-MI:6 agent knew that if he could blow up a high-security government building, the MI:6 would relocate to an alternate area where he would be held. He knew enough about their technology to pre-program the security doors to let him lose at the exact moment so he could track down M at a hearing that he somehow knew years in advance would be taking place at that exact time, but not before blowing up a (strangely empty) subway train with charges that had been set up well before (because he knew Bond would be chasing him). That's just too much planning to be realistic. What is he? Professor X?
4) M continually clicks buttons on websites that are clearly terrorist programs, just because they ask her to.
5) Bond knew Ronson's name but somehow didn't know Moneypenny's, even though they had clearly been working in the field together and had some sort of relationship?
6) M and the family friend are sneaking away so the logical thing to do is light up a powerful flashlight so they can be seen for miles in every direction?
It's things like this that take away from the enjoyment of Skyfall. The performances make up for a lot and the pacing of the film is wonderful. I've heard people complaining about the ending sequence at Skyfall. That it isn't Bond. I disagree there. Yes, it's the Bond meets Straw Dogs ending but it works -- except for the silly use of the flashlight.
I may just be too hard on the film but if so, it's because (a) it tricked me into thinking it was brilliant before I saw it a second time and (b) I have high expectations for every Bond film. CR met those expectations.
All of that said, I harbor a certain degree of love for every Bond film merely because it is a Bond film. These movies are a treat for me.
@Nicnac this is a discussion site so stop lecturing people about opinions they have and when they disagree with each other. The fact that you agree does not make you something special, I prefer Brady in his remarks to yours. Not that I agree with them too often but I kinda understand his points.
So nicnac if you have nothing else to offer to the discussion then please do it somewhere else.
You make good points here.
The thorniest issues revolve around Silva’s “plan,” and this is where I can understand the problems with the plot. But our (the audience’s) knowledge of the plan comes solely from these lines from Q:
“This isn’t an escape. This was years in the planning. He wanted us to capture him; he wanted us to access his computer. It was all planned. Blowing up HQ…knowing we would recoup down here.”
First off all, how the heck would Q know this? He’s new to the game, believes he can get more work done in his pajamas than Bond can out in the field. Knowing/understanding the psyche of someone like Silva is not his area of expertise. So my initial problem here is with who provides this info, rather than the info itself. Q simply isn’t a reliable. But I will set that aside for a moment. Let me examine what Q said, and it makes more sense given the proper context and interpretation of "all planned."
Silva did indeed have a plan that was years in the making: Steal the hard drive; humiliate M; get caught, confront M, escape and humiliate her again; kill her. That was it. That was likely the plan. Nothing specific beyond that. How do we know? Silva’s ability to do what he wanted with the click of a button made such intricate, long-term plans unnecessary. He mostly deals with the here and now and can adapt quickly to any circumstances.
Indeed, the idea that Silva had everything perfectly planned to a T, as you and others understandably object to, is ridiculous. So there’s no way Silva had “everything” planned. It’s impossible. As I stated earlier, he didn’t see the opportunity to finish out the plan until he was aware that Bond survived the casino and was on his way to the island. Heck, he even made a pitch to Bond that they join forces!
In short, how we view the plot holes is dependent on how strict we are in interpreting Q’s assessment of what has just taken place.
Q’s statement is intentionally vague. It stops short of saying Silva had a manipulative hand in everything (as if Q knows what occurred in Macau or on the island) but does enough to make Bond believe he has to take M “back in time” where they would have the advantage. That’s it’s purpose. What Q meant by "all" was stated in the prior sentence: "He wanted us to capture him; he wanted us to access his computer." That's what Q means by "all."
Regardless, the train explosion is another plot hole that makes little sense. I have no good explanation for it. It’s possible that Silva planned to detonate that as a diversion and Bond just happened to be in the right place at the right time. It’s not the first time that has happened in a Bond film. Ultimately, I can accept it.
I am okay with the fall from the bridge (it’s Bond). I am okay with shaking off the rust when it mattered most (again, it’s Bond). I am okay with the helicopter arriving at Skyfall (I’m sure Silva had a way to jam radar). I am okay with Bond kidnapping M (Mallory was eventually okay with it). I am okay with Kincaid’s flashlight (he was naïve). And I’m okay with the Moneypenny revelation (quite possible he only knew her by agent #).
Why he's then shaky at Silva's island during the "shooting contest" is another thing entirely: He's going out of his way to miss, obviously not wanting to harm Severine in any way. He's shaky because of the nerves as well, with Silva constantly getting inside his head, reminding him of his past inadequacies. I don't think he ever suspects Silva to be so mad that he'd just shoot Severine and be done with the whole thing, and that for him comes as a shock. He hadn't seen the full madness of Silva at that point.
No problem, mate. I think the bullet had a special element in it too that I can't remember off the top of my head (it's how they narrowed the search down to Patrice), which would've made the wound even more of a bother for him.
Depleted Uranium, if I remember correctly.
Um, @Mark...I think NicNac is a moderator on this site. It's kind of his JOB to police this sort of thing.
@trip aces has grasped most of the explanations. We are not being asked to believe that Silva kicked his plan into action, until he knew that Bond was on his way to the island.
But when he saw that Bond was coming, he planned that he would be captured.
He could reasonably surmise that Bond had tipped the cavalry ahead of time.
And as Q surmised, Silva had laid the groundwork for such a moment well in advance.
When he was told that Bond was coming, he briefed his guys in London to be ready for his escape.
He had the subway bomb planted well in advance, in case he needed it to help with an escape.
Bond blundered along at the right time, or Silva led him there. Trains go by at regular intervals. Silva waited till he heard one coming.
I don't think Silva would care if the train was occupied or not. But so as not to gross out the audience, Eon went with an empty train, that was just being moved from point A to B.
Silva only went after M, because he knew where she was. He obviously didn't plan that well in advance.
I do think the film all hangs together well enough.
Problem though, is that we have to do so much of the filling in the blanks ourself.
Generally the Bond films have laid it out better for us, and fans don't spend gallons of ink, trying to suss it all out.
I do think the most convoluted plotting of the Craig era though is CR.
I did a full essay on this in the leaks thread. Basically, I don't care how hard you study this film, it is impossible to really guage the three-way relationship involving White, Le Chiffre and Vesper.
It does require a lot of educated guess work, but the film is so artfully done, we just kinda roll with it.
SF though, not so much, as the dodgy plotting was jumped on almost immediately by us multiple-repeat viewers.
I have elevated SF in my ranking to a solid 20 of 23. Up from 22. I have moved it past both CR and DAD.
As much as I can watch the Craig films and enjoy them, I still prefer what came before, however the last 3o minutes or so of DAD, does give me a headache, so I have moved CR and SF ahead of it.
When I first saw SF in theatre, I did not like it. Didn't feel right. Better than QoS, but still off.
I was one of the immediate critics, and we critics were very much in the minority.
There was much best Bond ever talk at the time.
My main beef was not the plotting, rather I thought Mendes and Craig were trying a little too hard to present their film, as maybe superior to the first go-round of films.
I am not sure I was right actually, but I did think that at the time. That feeling was there.
After first viewing in a packed theatre, I remember turning to the girl who was sitting on my left -complete stranger - and rather sagely declared that I didn't like the film - to provoke a reaction.
She looked at me like I was a philistine, and said she quite enjoyed it, so I shut up.
Who am I to tell her otherwise. ;)
Someone mentioned SF as a little pretentious maybe. I thought this too, that the film seemed a little too pleased with itself.
I didn't like the JB Theme being reduced to being compartmentalized with the nostalgia driven DB5 reveal, like that was a good place to dump it, as if it might contaminate the oh so superior thematic storytelling that surrounded it.
And there was the gun barrel, yet again at the end.
However, l have watched SF many times on the blu-ray...... and even in theatre, I probably gave it about 5 paid views.
I am a Bond fan. I am hooked. I like watching the movies.
I am well past my SF concerns. They mattered at the time, because that was where the franchise was at, then.
I think it's in a different place now though, with SP, which I think will be a much better film.
I could even see SP seriously competing with the post-Connery films, for sheer enjoyment and Bond thrills.
This would be a major breakthrough in my rankings, for the Craig-era films.
As for SF, it is what it is. I have accepted it into the canon.
In fact, all these films grow on me. After several viewing, I can't imagine them being any other way.
I start being drawn into them, and working with them. I can even do this with QoS, but it always still ends on a downer. That never changes for me.
And the relenless action assault of the transport plane finish to DAD, always leaves me feeling like it was too much.
But SF and CR at least end well. And SF, unlike almost all of the Rog films, except for LALD, doesn't have any cringe humour moments.
In fact, egregious moments such as the TMWTGG car-jump whistle and the AVTAK Beach Boys interruption, are things I would actually like to see edited out of the original prints, but that's it.
Otherwise these films, I think all age well.
Threads such as this one are cathartic.
I hear you. But I really don't want to cut from the films, but I would make exception for TMWTGG and AVTAK, because all you have to do is take out the offending audio.
But yes, the Tarzan yell could just be deleted too, and the scene would still work, showing Bond swinging from vine to vine.
:))
I'd be first in line. What a great little three pak.:D
:)>-
Ah, it's still the same wish to prove that those who don't get SF's genius are just simple minded fans who love easy stuff. And all this about a movie in which the "deep meaning" are actually spelled out every five minutes by some character at some point. "Old ways are the best" said.. twice !?
Wait for one year ! + Have you seen Adi Shankar's shot film "James Bond : In Service of Nothing" ? + The SF fans who criticize all the "silly exotic locations Bond movies" try to provoke others in order to try to find the proverbial silly Bond fan who wants nothing but Indiana Rambo Jones, but they fail to find him...
I like TSWLM for instance, you can tell me it's incredibly silly, I won't answer back to tell you how stupid you are you don't get all the genius in that movie, because I realize it's just an opinion. SF fans on the other hand, seem to think that they're just... right, and others are wrong. Blame the box office factor, I guess.
Or imagine "Skyfall / Spectre : The Bond music versions" :)
I'm not sure why you think this is an either/or. I, for one, love TSWLM.
Every Bond film (and era) has its own charm. They're like fine wines or beautiful women. They're all different and outstanding in their own way. There are only a small handful of Bond films that I really don't care for...but I'll still watch 'em.
Yeah AVTAK did'nt even take this much of a hammering. Sometime reallity is stretched to make good cinema, no bond film stands up to forenisc scrutiny. If it did it would lose what makes it great.
Certainly, I think it receives this scrutiny because of the overwhelming box office success.
I also think it's on account of if being the most recent film, and because we have had to wait for increasingly long periods between Bond movies recently which makes each one more important to us fans (there has only been 3 movies in the past 13 years!). The impact is far greater to each and every one of us, so they'd better live up to our individual (and high) expectations for pete's sake!
Finally, I think it's because of the almost religious-like zeal that some fans support the movie. I don't think AVTAK had such proponents, so in return it has fewer detractors.
At the end of the day, it comes down to two camps (or maybe three).
1. those (probably the more emotional among us) who love all the other aspects of the movie apart from the plot - and don't let the plot holes affect them all that much (maybe they don't even notice the plot holes). They are more deeply moved by characterizations etc. It hits them at the visceral/gut level, which is why they are so supportive of the film.
2. those (probably the more analytical among us) who notice the plot holes more readily and for whom these are bothersome (especially given the DC Bond movies' aspirations to something greater - they were expecting more).
3. those (like myself) who notice both but really don't care too much about it since the movie is very entertaining overall and a far step up from the 90's, for which we're extremely thankful.
I think the driving force of SF's scrutiny is that it was practically universally hailed as the Best Bond ever in a rather overwhelming way, which has people scratching their heads in bemusement or having the blood in their veins boiling and so ardent assessments, accompanied with a big, fat microscope is vehemently being used to show why such claims are utter nonsense. I think CR is infinitely superior to SF and it go nowhere near the praise or the financial returns SF got.
edit - Just read @bondjames' post and he's pretty much bang on.
Sorry @SaintMark, you possibly misunderstood me. When I asked you not to lecture people and belittle their opinions it wasn't negotiable and it wasn't part of the discussion. It was a moderator asking you, respectfully, not to lecture people and belittle their opinions. Hope you understand that.
I've got 2 films in that category - the last two.
btw, breaking news. I've moved CR back ahead of SF to 20th in my rankings.
SF back to #21.This may yet change again
Stay tuned.