"Did i overcomplicate the plot ?" - Skyfall Appreciation & Discussion

1313234363743

Comments

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The thing about SF is that Bond appearance did not alter the outcome, she would have been killed by Silva with him staying in his beach cabin somewhere away and she got killed when he showed his face. The end result is similar.

    Also SF pushed it a bit far by getting 007 shot and fall down a bridge that would kill anybody on impact and then he falls in a river and does not drown. He became a bit terminator lacking the lovely Austrian accent.

    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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    funny thing is that rather than making Bond 'different the way he's treated in SF makes him appear the same as all the other flawed anti hero types that litter movie history.

    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).
  • Posts: 4,603
    The fact that M was used as bait is proof that Silva's primary goal was killing M. As such, Bond failed in preventing Silva from achieving this goal. Silva died trying but, as we saw in the church, Silva was suicidal anyway.

    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
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited June 2018 Posts: 7,020
    @00Agent SF is my least favorite Bond film. I used to think it had to do mostly with the plot, but it's really more of a matter of pace and not connecting with the drama as much as I'd like. Having said that, there's plenty that's fascinating about it, and I'll keep in mind your perspective on the story of the film --and more especifically, Bond's story-- the next time I watch the movie. See if it helps it "click together" for me.
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The thing about SF is that Bond appearance did not alter the outcome, she would have been killed by Silva with him staying in his beach cabin somewhere away and she got killed when he showed his face. The end result is similar.
    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.
    TripAces wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The thing about SF is that Bond appearance did not alter the outcome, she would have been killed by Silva with him staying in his beach cabin somewhere away and she got killed when he showed his face. The end result is similar.

    Also SF pushed it a bit far by getting 007 shot and fall down a bridge that would kill anybody on impact and then he falls in a river and does not drown. He became a bit terminator lacking the lovely Austrian accent.

    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.
    Indeed. M wanted to stop Silva and avoid the death of more innocents. It wasn't about saving her, but about stopping him.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Besides the Terminator -esque survival skills of 007 the plotholes, the Hannibal moment, the clairvoyance and Bond getting his boss killed I find the movie has some redeeming qulaities, It looks well shot but that is about it. Most of the movie like its sequel is so lacklustre and just not good enough to be a decent 007 movie.
    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.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 11,425
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Besides the Terminator -esque survival skills of 007 the plotholes, the Hannibal moment, the clairvoyance and Bond getting his boss killed I find the movie has some redeeming qulaities, It looks well shot but that is about it. Most of the movie like its sequel is so lacklustre and just not good enough to be a decent 007 movie.
    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
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Getafix wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Besides the Terminator -esque survival skills of 007 the plotholes, the Hannibal moment, the clairvoyance and Bond getting his boss killed I find the movie has some redeeming qulaities, It looks well shot but that is about it. Most of the movie like its sequel is so lacklustre and just not good enough to be a decent 007 movie.
    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.

    Wouldn t that be GE?
  • Posts: 230
    Just like TSWLM Skyfall is a great movie to just turn your brain off and have a great time. I see and know it's flaws - but love it anyway.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited June 2018 Posts: 4,582
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Besides the Terminator -esque survival skills of 007 the plotholes, the Hannibal moment, the clairvoyance and Bond getting his boss killed I find the movie has some redeeming qulaities, It looks well shot but that is about it. Most of the movie like its sequel is so lacklustre and just not good enough to be a decent 007 movie.
    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.

    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. ;-)
  • Posts: 3,333
    I think the fundamental difference with comparing Silva to the Nazis featured in Raiders of the Lost Ark was that they had a plan and goal that went far beyond seizing the Ark of the Covenant. If they didn't capture it, it was no biggie. Also, because we know the Nazis were real, we're fully aware of all their other plans and atrocities throughout history. Alas, Silva doesn't have the benefit of natural history and hindsight on his side. We only have the story that is presented to us as evidence of his schemes. Put it another way, what was Silva's plan beyond killing M should he survive? Was there one? If so, we the audience weren't privy to it. Of course, we can create our own fan-fiction of "what-if scenarios" but then we'd be doing the job of the writers for them. The story of SF is presented merely as the many steps of Silva’s operation, each one perfectly anticipating and undermining his wannabe foilers’ reactions so he can first humiliate M and ultimately kill her and himself. This he succeeds at, no question, job done. Bond's countermeasures at the movie's climax only function as a delay tactic to the inevitable and give the movie its title. Of course, the obstinate M is the only reason that London is experiencing collateral damage within the context of the movie, so it makes sense that she vacate the city immediately.

    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.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Good summary, but Judi Dench s last Bond film was SP.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 3,333
    Cheers @Thunderfinger, but a 20 second video message in Spectre doesn't really count as she's technically already dead. Besides, I guess it was devised as more of a treat (read that as a gimmick) to all Dame Judi's loyal fans and the producers not being able to let the ghost of M rest in peace.

    Maybe we'll get another M video message from beyond the grave in B25 to continue this ill-advised tradition?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I understand that, it was a very minor role.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Besides the Terminator -esque survival skills of 007 the plotholes, the Hannibal moment, the clairvoyance and Bond getting his boss killed I find the movie has some redeeming qulaities, It looks well shot but that is about it. Most of the movie like its sequel is so lacklustre and just not good enough to be a decent 007 movie.
    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.

    Wouldn t that be GE?

    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
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Besides the Terminator -esque survival skills of 007 the plotholes, the Hannibal moment, the clairvoyance and Bond getting his boss killed I find the movie has some redeeming qulaities, It looks well shot but that is about it. Most of the movie like its sequel is so lacklustre and just not good enough to be a decent 007 movie.
    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.

    Wouldn t that be GE?

    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.
  • Posts: 7,653
    TripAces wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Besides the Terminator -esque survival skills of 007 the plotholes, the Hannibal moment, the clairvoyance and Bond getting his boss killed I find the movie has some redeeming qulaities, It looks well shot but that is about it. Most of the movie like its sequel is so lacklustre and just not good enough to be a decent 007 movie.
    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.

    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. ;-)

    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.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Besides the Terminator -esque survival skills of 007 the plotholes, the Hannibal moment, the clairvoyance and Bond getting his boss killed I find the movie has some redeeming qulaities, It looks well shot but that is about it. Most of the movie like its sequel is so lacklustre and just not good enough to be a decent 007 movie.
    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.

    Wouldn t that be GE?

    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

    GE is a classic. It’s just one of those things.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2018 Posts: 9,117
    TripAces wrote: »
    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.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    M would've died, but there's a chance Silva may have lived, though as @patb suggests, he was suicidal, after all.

    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?
  • Posts: 12,837
    That was the worst part of SP for me. Silva shouldn't have been a Spectre agent. I was fine with them retconning Quantum into it but he was so clearly out for himself. An unhinged unpredictable psychopath "making his own missions" who was ready to top himself once he'd ruined and killed one old woman. No part of that screams 'organised crime syndicate'. He definitely wasn't a proper member imo. Blofeld probably funded him to help push Nine Eyes through and get one over on Bond at the same time, but I can't imagine Silva sat at one of the meetings taking instructions. I'd imagine he sent White to sort it same as with Obanno/Le Chiffre in CR (Le Chiffre being a Spectre agent bugged me too because then why is White needed as the middle man?). Silva probably didn't even know Spectre existed. I don't think any of this crossed their minds at all making the film but that's the only way it really works imo.

    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.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    But why did M have to die?
    It was set up in the story. M will pay for the hard decisions she was forced to make in the past. And it's best that she's part of confronting and stopping Silva. Dying is part of her redemption, there's no going back to work at MI6 after all that. Premonition, it was recognized that her husband had passed.

    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.
    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?
    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.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    bondsum wrote: »
    I think the fundamental difference with comparing Silva to the Nazis featured in Raiders of the Lost Ark was that they had a plan and goal that went far beyond seizing the Ark of the Covenant. If they didn't capture it, it was no biggie. Also, because we know the Nazis were real, we're fully aware of all their other plans and atrocities throughout history. Alas, Silva doesn't have the benefit of natural history and hindsight on his side. We only have the story that is presented to us as evidence of his schemes. Put it another way, what was Silva's plan beyond killing M should he survive? Was there one? If so, we the audience weren't privy to it. Of course, we can create our own fan-fiction of "what-if scenarios" but then we'd be doing the job of the writers for them. The story of SF is presented merely as the many steps of Silva’s operation, each one perfectly anticipating and undermining his wannabe foilers’ reactions so he can first humiliate M and ultimately kill her and himself. This he succeeds at, no question, job done. Bond's countermeasures at the movie's climax only function as a delay tactic to the inevitable and give the movie its title. Of course, the obstinate M is the only reason that London is experiencing collateral damage within the context of the movie, so it makes sense that she vacate the city immediately.
    I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting Indy's lack of effect on the outcome of Raiders is not a narrative shortcoming, since the Nazi attempt to get the Ark was a minor affair for them, whereas Bond's lack of effect on the outcome of Sf is a narrative shortcoming, since Silva was basically all about getting revenge on M? If so, I don't agree. I think the degree to which the protagonist fails to have an effect on the outcome of the story is irrelevant, as long as he and the other characters involved in the story do change in some meaningful way by the end of it (obviously, most stories do have the protagonist change the outcome). I think that was the intention with Sf, and it was valid, regardless of whether one deems it successful or not. (Personally, seeing Bond crying feels forced to me, but I think the overall concept of revalidating Bond's place in the world is decently handled, at the very least.)

    TripAces wrote: »
    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.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    M would've died, but there's a chance Silva may have lived, though as @patb suggests, he was suicidal, after all.

    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?
    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.
  • Posts: 11,425
    TripAces wrote: »
    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.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    M would've died, but there's a chance Silva may have lived, though as @patb suggests, he was suicidal, after all.

    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?

    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.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 3,333
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting Indy's lack of effect on the outcome of Raiders is not a narrative shortcoming, since the Nazi attempt to get the Ark was a minor affair for them, whereas Bond's lack of effect on the outcome of Sf is a narrative shortcoming, since Silva was basically all about getting revenge on M? If so, I don't agree. I think the degree to which the protagonist fails to have an effect on the outcome of the story is irrelevant, as long as he and the other characters involved in the story do change in some meaningful way by the end of it (obviously, most stories do have the protagonist change the outcome). I think that was the intention with Sf, and it was valid, regardless of whether one deems it successful or not. (Personally, seeing Bond crying feels forced to me, but I think the overall concept of revalidating Bond's place in the world is decently handled, at the very least.)
    No, that wasn't my point at all @mattjoes. I was suggesting that the furthest thing from my mind whilst watching SF was comparing it Raiders for the reasons I gave above. The backdrop of Raiders was set against the reality of the rise of the Nazis and the looming threat of WW2 and wasn't meant to be taken too seriously. It was just a bit of cinematic fluff made to create a modern version of the film serials of the 1930s and 1940s. There was no pretentiousness about the movie or subtle subtexts within the story other than to present a solid, rip-roaring adventure. Put it another way, there was no need to decode or decrypt Raiders afterwards, unlike SF which seems to have spawned a multitude of theories and deep analysis.

    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.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited June 2018 Posts: 7,020
    I see, @bondsum. I agree with that. Raiders is basically about fun. I do think the film can be read in the way I described (and Indy's character does change, even if they forget about that by the time the next film comes out), but it's not intended to be an essential part of it under any circumstances. The same can't be said for Sf.

    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.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    I think the fundamental difference with comparing Silva to the Nazis featured in Raiders of the Lost Ark was that they had a plan and goal that went far beyond seizing the Ark of the Covenant. If they didn't capture it, it was no biggie. Also, because we know the Nazis were real, we're fully aware of all their other plans and atrocities throughout history. Alas, Silva doesn't have the benefit of natural history and hindsight on his side. We only have the story that is presented to us as evidence of his schemes. Put it another way, what was Silva's plan beyond killing M should he survive? Was there one? If so, we the audience weren't privy to it. Of course, we can create our own fan-fiction of "what-if scenarios" but then we'd be doing the job of the writers for them. The story of SF is presented merely as the many steps of Silva’s operation, each one perfectly anticipating and undermining his wannabe foilers’ reactions so he can first humiliate M and ultimately kill her and himself. This he succeeds at, no question, job done. Bond's countermeasures at the movie's climax only function as a delay tactic to the inevitable and give the movie its title. Of course, the obstinate M is the only reason that London is experiencing collateral damage within the context of the movie, so it makes sense that she vacate the city immediately.
    I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting Indy's lack of effect on the outcome of Raiders is not a narrative shortcoming, since the Nazi attempt to get the Ark was a minor affair for them, whereas Bond's lack of effect on the outcome of Sf is a narrative shortcoming, since Silva was basically all about getting revenge on M? If so, I don't agree. I think the degree to which the protagonist fails to have an effect on the outcome of the story is irrelevant, as long as he and the other characters involved in the story do change in some meaningful way by the end of it (obviously, most stories do have the protagonist change the outcome). I think that was the intention with Sf, and it was valid, regardless of whether one deems it successful or not. (Personally, seeing Bond crying feels forced to me, but I think the overall concept of revalidating Bond's place in the world is decently handled, at the very least.)

    TripAces wrote: »
    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.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    M would've died, but there's a chance Silva may have lived, though as @patb suggests, he was suicidal, after all.

    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?
    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, 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.

  • Posts: 3,333
    "Empire?" @TripAces. What Empire would that be? You can't die for something that no longer exists. Also, you can't call "some fans" out for mistaking Bond's role in the movie when it's apparent that other fans are applying their own narrative or subtext behind every single line spoken in the movie and putting their own spin on things. It would've made more sense (or been more appropriate) had TND tackled the end of the British Empire when it handed over Hong Kong to China in 1997 (seen by most as the very last vestiges of the British Empire), but the producers decided to dodge that subject entirely in favour of a fantastical plot about a megalomaniac newspaper baron wanting to start WW3 to create headlines instead. SF is really about MI6 that’s in danger when secrets from M’s super shadowy past come back to haunt her. There's some guff about "the old ways being the best" and various examples dotted throughout to remind us of this, in not too unsubtle ways, but other than that it's about the relevancy of the OO Section in modern society, even though the writers entirely ignore the real world threat of Islamic terrorism, which would negate the whole silly suggestion of disbanding the OO Section in the first place. If you want a deeper meaning, how about the producers were too scared to mention Islam by name and decided to hide behind: "I'm frightened because our enemies are no longer known to us. They do not exist on a map, they aren't nations. They are individuals. And look around you - who do you fear? Can you see a face, a uniform, a flag?" No, but I can see a huge elephant in the room that's not being discussed when addressing the parliamentary committee, M.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    bondsum wrote: »
    "Empire?" @TripAces. What Empire would that be? You can't die for something that no longer exists. Also, you can't call "some fans" out for mistaking Bond's role in the movie when it's apparent that other fans are applying their own narrative or subtext behind every single line spoken in the movie and putting their own spin on things. It would've made more sense (or been more appropriate) had TND tackled the end of the British Empire when it handed over Hong Kong to China in 1997 (seen by most as the very last vestiges of the British Empire), but the producers decided to dodge that subject entirely in favour of a fantastical plot about a megalomaniac newspaper baron wanting to start WW3 to create headlines instead. SF is really about MI6 that’s in danger when secrets from M’s super shadowy past come back to haunt her. There's some guff about "the old ways being the best" and various examples dotted throughout to remind us of this, in not too unsubtle ways, but other than that it's about the relevancy of the OO Section in modern society, even though the writers entirely ignore the real world threat of Islamic terrorism, which would negate the whole silly suggestion of disbanding the OO Section in the first place. If you want a deeper meaning, how about the producers were too scared to mention Islam by name and decided to hide behind: "I'm frightened because our enemies are no longer known to us. They do not exist on a map, they aren't nations. They are individuals. And look around you - who do you fear? Can you see a face, a uniform, a flag?" No, but I can see a huge elephant in the room that's not being discussed when addressing the parliamentary committee, M.

    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?
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 3,333
    Remind me, @TripAces. I haven't watched SF since it came out since it's not a favourite of mine.

    PS. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote in your last comment @mattjoes.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    bondsum wrote: »
    Remind me, @TripAces. I haven't watched SF since it came out since it's not a favourite of mine.

    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."
  • Posts: 11,189
    @bondsum. DAD actually addressed the Hong Kong handover - albeit 5 years after the event.

    "Hong Kong's our turf now Bond!"

    "Yeah well don't worry about it. I'm not here to take it back"
Sign In or Register to comment.