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
Re your #4 @TripAces ,I thought that was a nice twist,for Bond to presume he had weapons to hand ,and then realising he had to rely on his wits to catch/kill Silva instead.
A secret service would've allowed none of this, and an act as such would've painted Bond as an enemy of the state for kidnapping M and not even having to return her alive. Severine's death itself was pointless, with Bond just waiting for her to be killed, then suddenly he becomes a superman and eliminates everybody without breaking a sweat.
I could go on, really. I'd be on continuous rant about the plot points of this film that were only here because the filmmakers (writers, producers, director, actors included) thought all of these were cool and very clever, especially when it was said to be inspired by The Dark Knight. The lodge itself was a piss-poor xerox of the Wayne Manor and how a young James locked himself in the tunnel three days and after that "came out as a man too old for his age". It wasn't even explained whatever happened there.
Moneypenny getting sloppy every now and then, save for the bit on the bridge in the casino where she subdues an armed goon, and then... before all of this... Bond quitting the service out of rage and grudge just because M made a "judgment call" (why, really? So, we'd just see Bond dramatically take the bullet and fall to a presumable death so we'll have a stylish title sequence?) when the service precisely needed as many men as it could get, especially with the NOC list stolen that endangered the lives of many operatives planted in many criminal organizations...
I doubt they even have given thought to any of this deeper. All of the analysis done by the audience to defend it I simply call fan-walking. Bond lost, the villain won, that's all there is.
P.S. Really, now. Did he think he'd defend M alone? Armoury from the old times or not, did he think Silva would come alone? Well, unless Bond has god complex, which I'm not aware of, I don't think how anybody would've thought he'd stand a chance.
Yet @noSolaceleft has curiously lumped me in with some mythical group of Skyfall lovers who somehow think it's flawless? I doubt they exist but if they do then they can defend SF in those terms. I merely defend it from rabid haters who think it's the only Bond film that falls apart when plot mechanics are analysed. There are multitude of examples of 007 adventures that do this.
Aaah so its your version of my TLD ..got it haha ;)
TBH Major,they ALL do...Bond films aren't made to be intrinsic,perfect stories..they never have been.
I have already told you what is the difference between Skyfall and the Bond movies of yore.
Very true and the bond movies are full of things like that. But the difference between this kind of faults and nearly anything in Skyfall is that the former could be easily solved by just one extra line, or simply a different line mentioning a different way of "deactivating" the gun ( like, in this case, loading it with blanks for instance).
@ClarkDevlin I know I don't have to explain this to you, but some people have real difficulty to wrap their mind around that.
1. It is curious as to why the agents were in Istanbul, with the laptop. But it was presumably in a secure location, because there were agents there. But again, this speaks to the film's brilliance: the conflict between what is done in the field and what is done via technology. We have no idea why the agents had the laptop, but it won't be the first time (gee, see Sec.Powell and Sec. Clinton) in which people with high level security clearance are careless when it comes to their computer use. So, no, this is NOT out of line at all.
2. I don't understand the Severine complaint. Suddenly Bond acts like Superman and eliminates everyone? If you don't like that sort of thing, then why the heck are you a Bond fan??? LOL
3. Was Bond a little too "hurt" over getting shot? Yes. I'll grant you that. But his injuries and recovery were never revealed (and for the better). Who nursed him back to health? What medications were being taken? Bond's behavior can easily be explained by his "pills" and his "drink." No major issue here.
4. Bond may not have a "God complex" but he is stubborn, reckless, and arrogant as hell. It explains why in CR he'd go chasing Mollaka up a construction crane for no reason whatsoever and in SP start shooting at a caravan of cars to save a woman who was in one of those cars. Compared to those scenarios, taking M to Skyfall is one of his more sensible decisions.
At the end of the day, this is stuff that's more easily forgivable for me in older films that are a lot more OTT and fun. I have no issue with SF being so dark and serious, but that needs to translate in all areas; you can't inject implausible goofiness into it like that and expect it to not stand out.
2. My complaint isn't because of why Bond decided to activate his inner superman, but when. He could've spared Severine's life, but no... he just watched her die without doing anything about it. He could've made the move before Silva could've shot her, he still had a gun to his head before and after. Why make the move, then? Answer: Because the writers wanted Severine to die and Bond to survive without keeping his promise knowing what kind of past has she been through. Her life had no value, anyway, right?
3. His recovery process wasn't the problem. It's his carelessness to somehow report for duty in time is the problem. He heard MI-6 was attacked and that his home team had no clue for whatever happened when he didn't inform them even informally of what was at the stakes, he decided to return to the service with every capability restored all of a sudden.
4. I'm afraid I don't see the coherence in comparison to pursuing Mollaka (a one man you knew he had no back-up), or shooting at the caravan of cars when they were no civilian ones but full of villains. Their SUVs and Rovers were bulletproof, that much he'd know. He just wanted to hit the tires by chance if my psychological presumption is right. That was the best he could've done. Taking M to the lodge alone was as sensible as simply handing over your gun to your assailant and let him execute you. That's as sensible as it is.
But yet Bond has now revealed he is 007 in front of Largo’s man...
So... uhm... why did he punch Felix in the gut again???
There is no film, in cinematic history, that doesn’t have mistakes (plural)... has anyone seen some of the shoddy editing in GOODFELLAS for example? And I love that film.
Does anyone know why there are so many versions of BLADERUNNER? BEcause no one was satisfied with the script, outside of the idea of replicants...
There is not one film that is without some noticeable flaws.
But we love what we love and accept the art for what it is.
Arguing the flaws of SF are redundant. There’s a faction that, as @Major_Boothroyd has already pointed out, seem to rabidly hate the film. And that’s fine. But trying to change an opinion of someone who likes the film, by having them write a list so you can show them how wrong they are, is an exercise in futility, and, quite frankly, asinine.
All it required was a decent screenwriter and some commitment to telling a coherent, tightly plotted narrative and then everything else would have worked much better rather than feeling like style over substance.
I don't like SF but it's full of great ideas. Just poorly executed IMO.
For example I love the idea of denouement in the Scottish Highlands. But the way the action is conceived and the closing scenes unfold just doesn't work for me at all. I find the whole thing deadly dull. There's nothing clever about the story or how anyone acts. Mendes shows his tendency towards relying on big explosions to cover his lack skill at directing action.
Someone wrote once that "action is character". That has almost always been true of Bond. Just not in SF.
You can make almost the exact same criticisms of SP. They are definitely cut from the same cloth. I personally take SP over SF though. I prefer the good bits of SP to the good bits of SF.
I am confident that if Villeneuve directs B25 we're going to get the best plotted and coherent film since CR.
Like I said, asking for a list so one can prove another wrong, in a craft and art that can’t be without flaws, and where so much is subjective, is utterly ridiculous.
Debate, argue, but seriously, a list?? Any list about something so subjective can easily be debunked. It’s the height of laziness in a debate!
Actually, Bond fails to shoot the glass on purpose, to allow Silva to win the game and shoot it instead of Sévérine. I believe Mendes says so in his audio commentary, and at any rate, my guess is that Bond's brief sideways glance right before firing is meant to convey his ambivalence at hitting the glass for fear of angrying Silva.
As for the fact Bond kills everyone after Sévérine is dead, I think he does that because a) now that she's dead, he suspects it's now or never, and b) he has already fired his gun, so everybody's guard has gone down a bit.
Skyfall's plot is a bit wobbly in places, but I think this particular scene ultimately makes sense.
Yes, I didn't ask for it, nor I visited this thread because I don't like this film at all. I was tagged into this thread and my opinion was challenged to be changed, so I merely replied. Otherwise, I wouldn't have responded. One likes what one likes and nobody's going to make the other change one's own opinion. I don't have an interest in this thread, anyway. Or discussing negativity or about a dislike that holds strong sides of radical fences. That's why I stay out of places I don't want to start any sort of trouble or dueling with anybody's ideology. But, when someone invites me into a debate, I'm not going to sugar-coat it. Besides... everybody here is loudly vocal about the hatred of the Brosnan films. It's a two-way street.
I am guilty of creating the "list" but not because anyone asked or because I wanted responses in lists. It just helps me keep my thoughts together and keep from rambling. My apologies if that bothers some.
As for the Severine death scene...this was my sense of it: SF is one of the few Bond films where we see Bond as vulnerable. In this case, he has some self doubt entering his mind. I didn't find his ability to shoot up Silva's henchmen unbelievable because he was acting on instinct. During his tests and when he was aiming at Severine, he was thinking. Once someone is in his own head like that, it's when the anxiety takes hold. It made sense to me.
Once again, argue, debate, but the poster I’m thinking of likes to goad people into making lists so he can tell them how wrong they are— and when we discuss and debate something as subjective as a film, this poster’s goading another into list-making just shows how lazy a thinker he is; that, or he feeds off being a contrarian.
I agree with you; once Silva killed Sévérine, he made his move that was driven on instinct.
First of all, I didn't ask anyone for a list. Second of all, logic in itself is not subjective. Perceptions are.
It still sticks: film’s subjective. @TripAces, or whomever, see things in SF that you don’t like. They’re not wrong. As your perceptions on the film aren’t wrong either.
In art, people like what they like, warts and all, and, as I said, no film is flawless. Not one.
But you insist that your opinion on a film, something that is SO subjective, that YOUR opinion is right and absolute. How utterly ridiculous!
And if you’re correct about, say, a plot hole? Then what’s the endgame here? That because you KNOW that there is a plot hole, or a leap in logic, that now all should disregard the feelings they have for this film??
Is it logical for Bond to slug Felix in the gut, tell him to be quiet, and then announce, in front of Largo’s man “sorry about that Felix but you were just about to say 007”... No, that’s not logical. But I still love TB.
In the end, I love debate, arguing points, but when discussing film I’m well aware that my perception may not be seen by all, that my overall enjoyment of a film is subjective, like all art.
The last thing I would ask anyone to do is write me why they think something works for them, just so I can tell them they’re wrong. Especially when discussing something that, like it , or not, is subjective.