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

1323335373843

Comments

  • Posts: 3,333
    Walecs wrote: »
    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."
    Ah, you're referring to a speech that Raoul Silva makes to Bond when tied up, I think? It's nothing that M or Mallory state that endorses their own belief in the existence of a British Empire, am I right? They're just the ramblings of a mad man... or a very poor script writer at the very least.
  • Posts: 3,333
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    @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"
    I remember it now that you mention it @BAIN123. I thought it was the best line in the entire movie. I even gave a little chuckle when I first heard that, I must admit. Not sure I'd classify it as addressing the Hong Kong handover though. Certainly not like the original TND's draft scripts started off as until they decided it was too political and might offend Chinese audiences.
  • edited July 2018 Posts: 19,339
    The only way they were going to get Dench's M to leave her position was in a wooden box,she would never retire unless forced out.

    That's the view I thought about her character when I watched SF last weekend.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    I agree with this @barryt007 ... she's the British Bulldog, like Churchill before her: a leader who makes mistakes, but is unapologetic and pushes forward to the rightful conclusion.
  • Posts: 19,339
    peter wrote: »
    I agree with this @barryt007 ... she's the British Bulldog, like Churchill before her: a leader who makes mistakes, but is unapologetic and pushes forward to the rightful conclusion.

    Exactly...they need to do similar now with Mallory,and not waste the talents of an actor like Ralph Fiennes,even just a mission briefing in his office.

    Bernard Lee was only in the films briefly,at the beginning,a great treat if we got to see him in the middle,and sometimes at the end,the same needs to be with Fiennes M,no more than that.

    SF is the biggest moment for any M ,and they need to go back now to how it was.

    Bernard Lee is 99% of people's favourite M.....less is Moore,er more.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    barryt007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I agree with this @barryt007 ... she's the British Bulldog, like Churchill before her: a leader who makes mistakes, but is unapologetic and pushes forward to the rightful conclusion.

    Exactly...they need to do similar now with Mallory,and not waste the talents of an actor like Ralph Fiennes,even just a mission briefing in his office.

    Bernard Lee was only in the films briefly,at the beginning,a great treat if we got to see him in the middle,and sometimes at the end,the same needs to be with Fiennes M,no more than that.

    SF is the biggest moment for any M ,and they need to go back now to how it was.

    Bernard Lee is 99% of people's favourite M.....less is Moore,er more.

    Good conclusion, my friend!
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Watching it again recently I had to admit it's slipped down a few notches, it did sit at 3 but I think I must confess some of it's issues I've probably let off lightly in the past.

    I did genuinely think until recently I preferred it to FRWL previous no. 4 and SWLM previous no. 5 but SF has moved down to five while the others go up a place.

    While I have issues with it, yes the plot hole of Silva supposedly having planned everything years before highlighted by Wishaw's Q's dialogue. I do like him in SF but this moment irks me and as much as I dispise SP he all around comes across better, one of the only plus points of that travesty.

    Also I do love the end of the film in Scotland and the whole Apocalypse now tribute that some seem to hate but the origins of Bond skims too close to Batman and you can see the writers were trying to replicate that vibe with Bond.

    In hindsight I would have preferred it not, digging into Bond's and M's past I liked but they dug a little too far, P&W & Logan with Mendes being a little under the spell of Nolan's Bat trilogy and the whole Batman back story.
    peter wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I agree with this @barryt007 ... she's the British Bulldog, like Churchill before her: a leader who makes mistakes, but is unapologetic and pushes forward to the rightful conclusion.

    Exactly...they need to do similar now with Mallory,and not waste the talents of an actor like Ralph Fiennes,even just a mission briefing in his office.

    Bernard Lee was only in the films briefly,at the beginning,a great treat if we got to see him in the middle,and sometimes at the end,the same needs to be with Fiennes M,no more than that.

    SF is the biggest moment for any M ,and they need to go back now to how it was.

    Bernard Lee is 99% of people's favourite M.....less is Moore,er more.

    Good conclusion, my friend!

    Ditto.
  • pking_3pking_3 Punting under the Bridge of Sighs
    Posts: 33
    Skyfall might not be about quite what you think it is about.

    Sure, its about her (M). And James, and Silva. As they spell out, as blatantly as they could get away with.

    But it's really about the Bond movie franchise.

    Apologies if this is well-covered elsewhere, as I suspect. I haven't seen as much; if so please tell me where. If not, please continue.

    SF is, above all things, a meta-story about the relevance of our fave pop culture intellectual property, Bond. Bond, the franchise, not exactly Bond, the character (though he is the lynchpin).

    It essentially covers a middle-aging Barb's fears and struggles regarding viability, survival, relevance.

    How does Bond /Bond fail? When his "handler" (M representing the relevant Broccoli/Wilson) loses faith and breaks with expectation and "bets wrong" (as someone earlier in this thread said) by not betting on Bond. So let's take a shot (of romantic tragedy, of lower-budget martial arts slapstick, of sci-fi, of self-parody, of Bourne's shakiness) and knock Bond off the train, to his apparent demise. Oof. That didn't quite work out (perhaps financially, perhaps critically).

    How does Bond recover? When Bond returns to "the old ways." Tradition. Even if explicating tradition via unusual backstory is, by definition, not the old way but a disturbing/challenging new way...it still is the reclamation and penance path needed.

    Bond (via Bond) might wallow too much, and certainly frustrates his handlers upon return, and might not always shoot straight. But...as Tennyson explicitly tells us, "That which we are, we are." Bond's not very comfortable now, is it? But whether we are going to complain the whole way is left unanswered. Will we?

    Well, sometimes the old ways are the best. And radios from, apparently, the sixties, beat computers from the 2000s. Bond's resilience is what matters, his reliance on foundational material. Bond perseveres because he has a DB5 not any other car, and because he was forged (by Andrew and Monique and Fleming and tragedy) into someone that weathers, perseveres, and overcomes, even in the form of Pyrrhic victory. Bond is the last rat standing because he can rely on from whence he came, not a Batman-begins-style manor which deserves conflagration, but instead a hardwood-paneled office with a stuffed door, which deserves enshrinement.

    So we burn one, and return to the other at last. Just as the producers do, whenever they are in trouble. Whenever they are out of ideas. Whenever they need to exceed expectations to qualify for the next funding round.

    As does Bond, come any trend or era or generation or style or challenger. That's why folks love this nonstandard Bond story; its thematically about the crucialness of our shared, "standard" Bond elements, to our entertainment lives.

    Skyfall answers whether there is any, any of the old Bond left.
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 11,425
    Love it. Just wish the film itself wasn’t such a creaking, plodding mess.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    @pking_3 , it has been mentioned before, but not so eloquently.
  • Posts: 4,617
    The cleverness of SF and what makes it unique within the series IMHO is that fact that (as proven by this thread) it can be taken it at so many levels. We know from box office that casual fans embraced it for what it was and my kids love it as a good action thriller with a dry sense of humour.

    But here we are, years later, still discussing, interpreting and debating what is "under the skin" when you dig a little deeper. Surely, this has to be a complement? How many other Bond movies have this depth? Still top three for me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2018 Posts: 23,883
    pking_3 wrote: »
    Skyfall might not be about quite what you think it is about.

    Sure, its about her (M). And James, and Silva. As they spell out, as blatantly as they could get away with.

    But it's really about the Bond movie franchise.

    Apologies if this is well-covered elsewhere, as I suspect. I haven't seen as much; if so please tell me where. If not, please continue.

    SF is, above all things, a meta-story about the relevance of our fave pop culture intellectual property, Bond. Bond, the franchise, not exactly Bond, the character (though he is the lynchpin).

    It essentially covers a middle-aging Barb's fears and struggles regarding viability, survival, relevance.

    How does Bond /Bond fail? When his "handler" (M representing the relevant Broccoli/Wilson) loses faith and breaks with expectation and "bets wrong" (as someone earlier in this thread said) by not betting on Bond. So let's take a shot (of romantic tragedy, of lower-budget martial arts slapstick, of sci-fi, of self-parody, of Bourne's shakiness) and knock Bond off the train, to his apparent demise. Oof. That didn't quite work out (perhaps financially, perhaps critically).

    How does Bond recover? When Bond returns to "the old ways." Tradition. Even if explicating tradition via unusual backstory is, by definition, not the old way but a disturbing/challenging new way...it still is the reclamation and penance path needed.

    Bond (via Bond) might wallow too much, and certainly frustrates his handlers upon return, and might not always shoot straight. But...as Tennyson explicitly tells us, "That which we are, we are." Bond's not very comfortable now, is it? But whether we are going to complain the whole way is left unanswered. Will we?

    Well, sometimes the old ways are the best. And radios from, apparently, the sixties, beat computers from the 2000s. Bond's resilience is what matters, his reliance on foundational material. Bond perseveres because he has a DB5 not any other car, and because he was forged (by Andrew and Monique and Fleming and tragedy) into someone that weathers, perseveres, and overcomes, even in the form of Pyrrhic victory. Bond is the last rat standing because he can rely on from whence he came, not a Batman-begins-style manor which deserves conflagration, but instead a hardwood-paneled office with a stuffed door, which deserves enshrinement.

    So we burn one, and return to the other at last. Just as the producers do, whenever they are in trouble. Whenever they are out of ideas. Whenever they need to exceed expectations to qualify for the next funding round.

    As does Bond, come any trend or era or generation or style or challenger. That's why folks love this nonstandard Bond story; its thematically about the crucialness of our shared, "standard" Bond elements, to our entertainment lives.

    Skyfall answers whether there is any, any of the old Bond left.
    Nice observations.

    About the link between Broccoli as a stand-in for M vis-a-vis Craig as a stand in for Bond, it's even there in the dialogue.

    "Hire me or fire me. It's entirely up to you" - he was retained
    "You're sentimental about him" - so it seems
    "The old ways are best" - after 12+ years, apparently
    "You don't need to be an operative to see the obvious. It's a young man's game. " - 50+ seems to be ok these days
    "Are you ready to go back to work? With pleasure" - let's bloody well hope so
    "There's no shame in saying you've lost a step. The only shame would be not admitting it until it's too late." - let's give him his 'high' and hope he's not delusional
  • Posts: 12,523
    Love to see some SF love and dissecting. For many reasons it is one of my favorites in the series.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Getafix wrote: »
    Love it. Just wish the film itself wasn’t such a creaking, plodding mess.


    Oh @Getafix ever guaranteed to comment on this film, you can't stop yourself, it's quite tragic really.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Love it. Just wish the film itself wasn’t such a creaking, plodding mess.


    Oh @Getafix ever guaranteed to comment on this film, you can't stop yourself, it's quite tragic really.

    He has a point while the movie really hasn't except EON big dreams of Oscar. ;)
  • edited August 2018 Posts: 11,425
    #MostOverratedBondMovieEver

    What I find odd is that pretty much all the faults people find in SP and there already in SF, yet one is coruscated and the other lauded as a masterpiece.
  • Posts: 19,339
    SP is an arrogant,presumptuous film that rode on the success of SF,right down to the same score.

    It was terrible writing,lazy score,and an arrogant performance from 'superman Bond' Craig.

    SF was none of those things.
    It's a great standalone (to me) film and a welcome addition to the series.

    SP is not.
  • Posts: 11,425
    SF and SP are like peas in a pod as far as I'm concerned. Don't understand why people think they're so different
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 19,339
    For me its because one,SF,is original and a breath of fresh air,and the other one is just cashing in on it lazily.

    I get it that most cinemagoers probably like it and have forgotten all about it by now,but for a Bond fan its quite insulting to be so presumptuous that we wouldn't notice quite how lazy the whole thing is.

    Also Craig's performance is excellent in SF,and phoned-in,unlikeable and arrogant in SP,different to the character of his Bond in all the other films.

    But that's my opinion only of course.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    SF and SP are like peas in a pod as far as I'm concerned. Don't understand why people think they're so different
    To me at least, SF is a film full of passion and charisma. Apart from the fantastic visuals, I find all the performances and a lot of the dialogue quite compelling. Additionally, what little action there is in the film is very well done (imho). In particular, I love the PTS, which I find very tense, and the Home Alone/MacGuyver/A-Team/Straw Dogs finale. Most notably, the Bond girl (and I choose to believe that was Marlohe and not Dench) was quite a stunner who gave a great performance in her short time on screen, and the villain was one of the best of the past 30 years. I could have done without the waterworks at the end, but the rest of the film made up for it. I love Newman's score for this film too.

    None of these elements were in SP for me. Even the score seemed played out.

    So perhaps I was just dazzled by all the gloss in the prior film, but it continues to impress me on each viewing even today. It's actually my most enjoyable and re-viewable Craig film, untainted for me by the silly retro connections. The much more highly rated CR hits higher peaks (particularly in the casino sequences), but doesn't do it for me after Le Chiffre's death. I still like it though, but it has been declining in my rankings of late.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 11,425
    If feel that from an objective standpoint the SF PTS is just not very good. It has a mindless, relentless wham bam action approach that I find really offputting and very unBondian. For related reasons I’ve always disliked the GE PTS as well. Both sequences are just major fails. The implausibility of their final moments is just too much for me to take. They sort of attempt to reference or outdo TSWLM PTS but by doing so (using bad FX) only highlight their inferiority to real high quality stunt work.

    I recognise that directors are not necessarily the best judges of these things but in his comments on SP Mendes speaks about how the PTS was the one bit of SF he was really not happy with and how he really wanted to do something a lot better for SP - regardless of what anyone thinks of the overall merits of the two films, I think it’s hard to argue the SP PTS isn’t superior in pretty much every conceivable way. A proper bit of well put together filmmaking as opposed to the generic plodding action tedium that we might get from any other franchise.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    I recognise that directors are not necessarily the best judges of these things but in his comments on SP Mendes speaks about how the PTS was the one bit of SF he was really not happy with and how he really wanted to do something a lot better for SP - regardless of what anyone thinks of the overall merits of the two films, I think it’s hard to argue the SP PTS isn’t superior in pretty much every conceivable way.
    Honestly, I think it's weaker in every way. The only things it has going for it (imho) is a gunbarrel, the tracking shot and Sigman.

    The action isn't a patch on the SF PTS, which moves seamlessly from car to bike to train, with several participants involved either directly or by remote. I find it incredibly tense, and it's capped by a surprising moment which segues nicely into Adele's moody song.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    @bondjames, the tracking shot was one of the things I was most excited for, just to realize it's not even a proper one shot, stitching together something as bland as Bond walking to his hotel room and across a rooftop.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I've always loved the long shots of Bond just doing something mundane in a feline way. Harks back to the Connery era.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    @Creasy47, yes I read about the fact that it was more than one take cut to look like one. I still like the way in which it was done though, but honestly can't understand why the SP PTS is so highly regarded. I really find it quite dull apart from the coolness of the initial crowd scene.

    The worst part for me is the ending. It finishes with a cool Bond moment in the copter and segues into that pathetic depressing song, which doesn't reflect what we just saw before onscreen. Completely tone deaf film making imho.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I recognise that directors are not necessarily the best judges of these things but in his comments on SP Mendes speaks about how the PTS was the one bit of SF he was really not happy with and how he really wanted to do something a lot better for SP - regardless of what anyone thinks of the overall merits of the two films, I think it’s hard to argue the SP PTS isn’t superior in pretty much every conceivable way.
    Honestly, I think it's weaker in every way. The only things it has going for it (imho) is a gunbarrel, the tracking shot and Sigman.

    The action isn't a patch on the SF PTS, which moves seamlessly from car to bike to train, with several participants involved either directly or by remote. I find it incredibly tense, and it's capped by a surprising moment which segues nicely into Adele's moody song.

    Agreed.
    The SP PTS bores me as soon as Bond lands on the old sofa ,I have never found the rest of the PTS interesting or helicopter fight interesting at all.

    I like about 2/3 of the SF PTS ,much more thrilling and urgent,as they try to get the disc back etc.
  • Posts: 11,425

    jumping from car to bike to train is not really the essence of Bond action to me. that's cartoon OTT action. the SF PTS sequence leaves me bored and annoyed by the end.

    I'm swimming against the tide but I actually quite like Smiths song
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Getafix wrote: »
    #MostOverratedBondMovieEver

    What I find odd is that pretty much all the faults people find in SP and there already in SF, yet one is coruscated and the other lauded as a masterpiece.

    Not really?

    My main problems with SPECTRE are (and many users seem to agree with me):

    - Bond quitting the service for a woman he doesn't love
    - Poor retconning
    - Overuse of the scooby gang; a whole B-plot is devoted to them and they're heavily featured in the third act
    - 1/3 of the score is simply copy pasted from the previous entry
    - The main villain being closely linked to Bond's childhood
    - Bond being a Terminator mere moments after he's been tortured

    None of these things were in Skyfall last time I checked.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Getafix wrote: »
    jumping from car to bike to train is not really the essence of Bond action to me. that's cartoon OTT action. the SF PTS sequence leaves me bored and annoyed by the end.

    I'm swimming against the tide but I actually quite like Smiths song

    Regardless of how I feel about SF as a whole, watching Bond fall into the train and adjust his cuffs afterwards never fails to make me smile. Great little moment.

    I didn't mind Smith's song at all when I first heard it in the movie opening night, but the more I've heard it since, the worse it's gotten.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 11,425
    yikes, the cuff popping screams Brosnan. in fact I'd put the SF action in the Brosnan folder.

    Mendes can't really do action.
Sign In or Register to comment.