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 am not sure how you see it that way.
Bond took M to lure Silva. M was perfectly OK with this plan because she was willing to sacrifice her life to save lives and MI6. So the outcome was indeed different: Silva ended up dead, and there were no civilian/innocent casualties.
Delving into the back story and psyche has stripped a lot of the mystique. he's just the same as everyone else now and I think it's also more evident that the character is actually quite boring (which Fleming himself of course intended).
Bond did not retreive the data with all of the agent's details either. Also, as a team, within the PTS, they let the disc go.
Still a massive SF fan but I enjoy it in "real time", afterwards, the concept does have weaknesses
M would've died, but there's a chance Silva may have lived, though as @patb suggests, he was suicidal, after all.
But your argument makes me think back to Raiders of the Lost Ark. The Nazis would've died anyway, but the point is Indiana Jones learnt to be humble, and more open to the mysteries of life, when choosing to keep his eyes closed in the climactic scene (that's the story the film presents us with, anyway). I think SF aims for something similar: the story --and the mission's-- essential purpose winds up being revalidating the relevance of Bond (and field operatives in general) to espionage in today's world, as opposed to a hands-off, technology-based approach to it. It's also about making Bond understand why M made the decisions she made regarding both him and Silva. Even if in the end, the mission is not a clear-cut victory for the heroes, it's a reaffirmation of their importance. It's an existential victory. One of the things that makes this film unique in the Bond series.
Indeed. M wanted to stop Silva and avoid the death of more innocents. It wasn't about saving her, but about stopping him.
Craig started of with such a promise and along came Forster and Mendes two of the worst things that could happen to the franchise, Babs going for style over content.
Glad to hear some honest commentary on SF. You sum it up perfectly. Not the worst but definitely the most over hyped and inexplicably popular film in the series.
I respect criticism of QOS but for me it's just more enjoyable
Wouldn t that be GE?
If you don't get "it," then you just don't get "it." And no amount of explaining the depth of the film will help, really. The great irony, of course, is how well Silva played the audience members as well as he did MI6. As Severine said, "It's amazing the panic you can cause with a single computer." Yes. Yes, indeed.
And I think you meant "Rambo-esque" survival skills. ;-)
Once you become aware that this is Judi Dench's last Bond movie, everything falls into place quite quickly and becomes just a formality leading to her eventual demise. I've always looked upon SF as the producers simply giving Dame Judi a more meaty, dramatic role as a big thank you and a nice sending off present. It's the actor's equivalent of the Retirement Clock Retirement Gift. Once the novelty has worn off, there's really not that much to be had here apart from some nice photography and a bit of running about. Granted, the PTS (gun barrel removal notwithstanding) and the first act throw up some interesting and exhilarating set-pieces, but once Silva's plan has been revealed, everything is pretty much telegraphed from here on out to its final conclusion despite some implausible plot devices along the way. Well, it was certainly telegraphed to me upon first viewing. The subtext and its themes I just found grating if I was to be honest. But that's me. You can enjoy it if you want.
Maybe we'll get another M video message from beyond the grave in B25 to continue this ill-advised tradition?
I don't think GE these days is held in such high regard. The generation for whom it was their first seem to like it but don't think it's held as in high regard as SF
Not to the general public, but on these boards.
There just is nothing to get, it is a sad movie that pretends to ve so much more and some people get that, doesn ot make a great movie just effing overrated.
The do not getting attitude is only offered as last line defense since it is placing you above those wh you think should follow you line of reasoning, defending a turd is also job.
SF & SP suffered a second rate script by a second rate director.
GE is a classic. It’s just one of those things.
But why did M have to die? Why not drop her off at Dundee Travelodge? Then when Silva turns up at the lodge she's not there. What is to be gained from taking her to Skyfall and leaving a trail for Silva to follow them? Why not let the trail lead to somewhere where she isn't and then take him down rather than put her in the middle of the crossfire?
Moving on a little, how do we feel about Silva's plan when viewed through the prism of SP?
Is he actually strictly working for SPECTRE? Or is he just a loose cannon that Blofeld is happy to throw into the mix to see what happens?
Or is his plan actually very structured and he was instructed to commit a terrorist attack on the tube and shoot up the public enquiry to soften up the British to accept Nine Eyes?
Are we to presume that during the events of SF Denbeigh is working behind the scenes pushing his agenda and after the Silva attacks he speaks to the home secretary and outlines the benefits of Nine Eyes and that he happens to know an organization that will even fund the CNS building?
Is Silva actually a hard working and loyal SPECTRE operative who is trying to assist the overall plan of implementing Nine Eyes and killing M is just a little bonus for him?
Or are we best not thinking so deeply about how SP cackhandedly tries to link itself to SF?
The thing that annoys me is, even if they didn't want SF to be a stand alone film, it'd made its mark on the continuity massively already. MI6 is blown up, M is killed, Mallory Q and Moneypenny are introduced. If they did want the Craig era to be this big connected saga then it's not like SF would be skippable anyway whether Silva was a Spectre agent or not, so that was a really pointless addition I think.
Beyond the story, it's also the filmmakers controlling Judi Dench's exit from the franchise. Different than her becoming ill or (heaven forbid) dying between films. Or just deciding on her own to finish and the producers not having a good pick to replace her.
In Skyfall he talked about doing business for the highest BEE-duh. That fits fine with Spectre, who would bankroll him especially where their interests align. Doesn't matter to me if he's strictly working for one organization or otherwise. I saw the bad stuff he did.
M didn't want to be dropped off at Dundee Travelodge because she didn't want to leave Silva's capture in the hands of others (yes, Bond excepted), because she felt guilty over those who'd already died and didn't want more casualties. In a way, her decision to face Silva didn't have to do with pragmatism, but with her guilt and her principles.
At least this is what the film tells us in regards to her motivations. One isn't obligated to like it or consider it logical.
As for Silva after Spectre, they likely didn't think it through. That said, given Silva's character, it makes more sense (and is more satisfying) to think of him as a bit of a loose cannon that Spectre exploited to create the need for Nine Eyes. He may have been (or retroactively turned into) a Spectre agent, but I prefer to think his campaign against M was for himself, not for Spectre. That way the character isn't undermined too much.
I agree delving into the plots to this extent is pointless. Frankly who cares. That's why the retcon was unneeded and pointless.
The SF plot as a basic idea is sound but the constant leaps of logic take me out of the film. Ultimately tho that's not the reason I don't like SF. I'm just bored by it. Overlong. Dodgy dialogue. Bad jokes. Slackly directed uninteresting "action". Too much M and the Scooby Gang. Rehashed TWINE. The films a mess, with the cracks papered over by some slick cinematography and weak thematic links.
Skyfall, on the other hand, was set against the backdrop of real home security issues and the rise of Islamic terrorism but ignored the reality surrounding it completely to present a terrorist danger whereby only Silva posed a security threat to the nation. Hence why there was no mention of 9/11 or the real London tube bombings in SF. Raiders didn't ignore the reality of the times it was set in, nor the rise or threat of Hitler in 1936. It embraced it within the story. It's because SF ignores the real world surrounding it, I felt the overall concept of revalidating Bond's place in the world didn't work in the movie.
Basically, I'm saying there is no tangible connection to Raiders and SF other than to say they both feature a hero who is trying to stop a threat. There the correlation ends.
At any rate, I mentioned Raiders as an example, not one with perfect correlation to Sf, I admit. But there are stories in which the main point isn't the success of the "mission," so to speak, but the changing mindset of the protagonist-- the journey, not the destination. So based on that precedent, having the main character have little effect on the tangible outcome is okay as an idea in general (though less satisfactory in the case of Sf --at least for some people-- if one thinks this is James Bond and not just any random character).
But I also understand your point that Sf ignores the real world, or only acknowledges it in limited ways. Some of the themes of the film seem to demand an approach more grounded in the sociopolitical context than the film can afford (I wonder how Sf will be looked at in 20 years?). It's a fine line between wanting to address certain themes in an accurate way and keep the fantasy, spectacle and entertainment value of Bond. Not a completely successful attempt, to say the least. But an interesting one, especially because it's so unusual.
Though I'll take a more traditional film anytime. And if it is about balancing Bondian spectacle with some degree of acknowledgement of the real world, I'll happily take QoS.
I agree, here. M didn't have to die but there was no way she would allow herself to not have a part in that final standoff. Her words to Mallory, early on, were foreboding: "I'll be damned if I'm going to leave the department in worse shape than I found it." And then says, "To hell with dignity. I'll leave when the job's done." I think some fans are mistaken in thinking that Bond's job was to protect M. Absolutely not. Both of them are/were tasked with protecting the "empire" and dying for it, if need be.
There's a reason I placed "Empire" in quotes, in the context of SF. C'mon, you know why. Do I need to pull up the scene for you?
PS. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote in your last comment @mattjoes.
"England, the Empire, MI6. You're living in a ruin as well; you just don't know it yet."
"Hong Kong's our turf now Bond!"
"Yeah well don't worry about it. I'm not here to take it back"