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

1333436383943

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    Getafix wrote: »
    yikes, the cuff popping screams Brosnan. in fact I'd put the SF action in the Brosnan folder.

    Mendes can't really do action.

    That's probably why I love it, then. I take it Brosnan's tie straightening underwater in TWINE is pure cringe for you, ehh? You know I love it!

    Agreed, though, the way Mendes' action sequences come across, it all feels very scripted and overly tight. I've never been able to put my finger on it, but I don't care for it.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 4,603
    Re the PTS, it is perhaps over-long but I love how the stakes are high straight away with an agent bleeding to death and Bond's decision/orders to leave him (referenced nicely later in the dialogue) and then the lighting dramatically changing as he comes out into the market scene.

    So there is more than just action, there is drama and tension . (but MP tagging along providing commentary is also annoying)

    PS could have cut out the motorbike chase (inc CGI) and have Bond jump from the Land Rover onto the back of the train
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited September 2018 Posts: 4,582
    Shardlake wrote: »
    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.

    @Shardlake I think too many fans misinterpreted M's conclusions, here. Plus, it's important to remember who's doing the talking: an inexperienced agent who says he can do more in his pajamas than an agent in the field. He's not exactly a trustworthy source when it comes to espionage.

    That said, M's line was this: "Bond, 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 the emergency protocols, knowing we'd retreat down here."

    I never bought in to the idea that all of what occurred was planned years in advance. And I'm not sure Q meant it that way, either. That's because years prior, Silva had no idea if/when there would be an inquiry on M's mishandling of the list. He couldn't have. And he couldn't have known Bond would experience a "resurrection" and hunt him down. Nobody could know all of that.

    Instead, Q is getting at the general sense of the plan. Yes, to blow up HQ and drive MI6 underground, to plan an "escape" of some sort. The bigger question is WHY go through all of that elaborate, Tom Sawyer-like planning? If we took Q at his word, then Silva did all of that, in order to shoot M at an inquiry that he never knew would happen. That's nonsense.

    As I took it, Silva big plan, years in the making, was humiliation. That was always his goal. Killing M wouldn't be worth it if he couldn't humiliate her, MI6, and England in the process. Hence the stealing of the list-that was about humiliation, not because Silva needed or cared about it. In fact, he likely didn't even need Patrice to steal it; he could have retrieved it via a hack. But the particulars of the rest of the plan were not put into motion until the inquiry was scheduled. So, yes blowing up HQ was planned, and planned to get MI6 to retreat, but only as a means of humiliation and control. Yes, he wanted MI6 to hack his computer, but only as a means of humiliation ("Not such a clever boy"). Yes, he wanted to escape, but only as a means of humiliation.

    Then there's another fascinating part to this: the fact that I am (or any audience member is) left wondering what Silva knew or didn't know, planned or didn't plan, is precisely his aim. It's why SF and Silva are brilliant. Once you establish that Silva can do anything with a "point and a click," you get paranoid...as Q is upon the hack. His "he had it all planned speech" is also a moment of paranoid outburst. In this sense, Silva is all knowing, all mighty. Of course, we know he isn't, but the characters don't know that.

    I don't view SF as having a "plot hole." I view Silva's "plan" as being as the motor that drives the film's deeper themes.
  • Posts: 4,603
    Fair points but it would have been better if Silva's escape route was a little less planned. The big thing is the tube bomb. I can believe he escaped when the doors opened (who wouldn't) and one call to his team (who know/guessed he was in London?) would get some hand guns and some police uniforms plus dates/locations of hearings can be easily accessed by a man of his means.

    BUT the bomb on the underground (on that line) would have required planning and this tends to stick out (plus it adds nothing to the plot) so it should have been cut IMHO
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    patb wrote: »
    Fair points but it would have been better if Silva's escape route was a little less planned. The big thing is the tube bomb. I can believe he escaped when the doors opened (who wouldn't) and one call to his team (who know/guessed he was in London?) would get some hand guns and some police uniforms plus dates/locations of hearings can be easily accessed by a man of his means.

    BUT the bomb on the underground (on that line) would have required planning and this tends to stick out (plus it adds nothing to the plot) so it should have been cut IMHO

    That part, too, made sense: he didn't have that bomb there for Bond. He had it there as a diversion to get to the inquiry. And it was a rather simplistic explosive device. That Bond was there to see it was all the better, for Silva.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    Skyfall ...
    - had a great villain
    - awesome atmosphere
    - great visuals
    - did something new in the series
    - had an awesome title track
    - great titles
    - good action
    - good dialogue
    - a story to tell
    - great Bondgirl (Severine)
    - great new Q
    - good new Moneypenny

    Spectre
    - had a terrible villain
    - no chemistry between the leads
    - the worst title song
    - worst title sequence
    - boring action scenes
    - great pts
    - good Q scenes
    - great recurring character (Mr.White)
    - great visuals
    - abysmal third act

    That is why Skyfall was and is a great entry to the series (to me) and SP is not - the story was awful and the third act an insult. Many good things (visuals, actor‘s performances except Waltz, Q scenes, Mr. White, PTS) wasted on a movie that did not stand up to the resources it had.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 11,425
    patb wrote: »
    Re the PTS, it is perhaps over-long but I love how the stakes are high straight away with an agent bleeding to death and Bond's decision/orders to leave him (referenced nicely later in the dialogue) and then the lighting dramatically changing as he comes out into the market scene.

    So there is more than just action, there is drama and tension . (but MP tagging along providing commentary is also annoying)

    PS could have cut out the motorbike chase (inc CGI) and have Bond jump from the Land Rover onto the back of the train

    It realised recently that the free-running scene (which feels like a PTS) in CR, and the SF and SP PTSs all have Bond fiddling with an earpiece. It's so annoying. I think it's one of my major gripes with the Craig era. That sense that that he's always being guided/monitored by HQ.
    patb wrote: »
    Fair points but it would have been better if Silva's escape route was a little less planned. The big thing is the tube bomb. I can believe he escaped when the doors opened (who wouldn't) and one call to his team (who know/guessed he was in London?) would get some hand guns and some police uniforms plus dates/locations of hearings can be easily accessed by a man of his means.

    BUT the bomb on the underground (on that line) would have required planning and this tends to stick out (plus it adds nothing to the plot) so it should have been cut IMHO

    As with so many scenes in SF the tube bomb just leaves me non-plussed and asking asking 'what, why, how'? The film is way too long and padded out with unnecessary and tedious stuff that just weighs it down.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 4,603
    But how did he know that he would escape during the enquiry and when M was giving evidence? That time window would have been around half a day.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 11,425
    patb wrote: »
    But how did he know that he would escape during the enquiry?

    There's no point asking the question really. You either go with the flow or you don't I guess. For me the film just doesn't work on a narrative/plot level, which leaves me detached and uninterested. I appreciate it has some nice scenes, and I even like the themes it seeks to address but have always found the execution poor. The screenplay is creaky as hell.

    SF is where I start to lose interest in Craig's Bond as well. This incarnation doesn't appeal to me. SP is just an extension of the same as far as I'm concerned.

    Having said that, it's a better film than any of the Brosnan era entries, although I still rank it personally very low, as it simply doesn't entertain me.

    I just prefer SP (marginally) as the plot seems to be (slightly) more coherent, and taken scene by scene I much prefer what SP has to offer (including the visuals).

    Plus Dench's M was annoying the hell out of me well before SF, so a whole film centred on her wasn't what I was looking for.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    That whole bit in London is a bit hokey if I'm being honest. Great entertainment but it doesn't make too much sense. The film is fantastic up to and including Hashima Island and then again from the arrival at Skyfall Ranch onwards, but I agree that the tube scenario and escape doesn't work logically. I love the hearing shootout though.
  • Posts: 19,339
    patb wrote: »
    But how did he know that he would escape during the enquiry and when M was giving evidence? That time window would have been around half a day.

    I don't think he was bothered about escaping the enquiry,as at the end of the film,he just wanted to kill himself and M.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    That whole bit in London is a bit hokey if I'm being honest. Great entertainment but it doesn't make too much sense. The film is fantastic up to and including Hashima Island and then again from the arrival at Skyfall Ranch onwards, but I agree that the tube scenario and escape doesn't work logically. I love the hearing shootout though.

    Putting aside the PTS, I totally agree that the best part is up to where the helicopters arrive over the island. If it had maintained that standard all the way through it would have been a much better movie. It falls apart in London for me and becomes generic, meandering and uninteresting, with a BBC Sunday afternoon cop show vibe (I'd much rather watch Line of Duty though).

    The denouement at Skyfall leaves me cold for some reason. I don't know why, as I love the idea, but just cringe at the way its staged. Totally lacking in tension and drama for some reason. I didn't personally make the Home Alone connection but may be there's something in that. The whole third act feels like a foreshadowing of Mendes' explosion fetish, which was given free rein in SP. He needs to learn that big flashes on screen don't make for interesting action - at least not since about 1987.

    I remember hoping it would capture some of Hitchcock's 39 Steps suspense with the Highland setting but it falls well short.

    Really nice idea though.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 4,603
    I love the London scenes but , with a couple of edits, they could have made it clearer what was going on.

    As they left the prison cell scene, Tanner could have messed up "You're due at the enquiry in 30 mins" , Silva, turned away, pretends not to hear but we see a raised eyebow.
    The tube explosion is cut.

    And that leaves us with Silva escaping the cell due to the virus and making the most of the moment re his new intel on the enquiry. They could also show Silva killing a policeman (adds to his cold blooded nature and how quick witted he was) to gain the uniform/gun/police car/access to further intel via police radio. There was an air of "Silence of the Lambs" about the prison scene and showing him being really clever/resourceful during the escape (as with Lector) could have made him more mennacing IMHO

    As it is, its really unclear as to how planned or unplanned his escape was and it doesn't help the film.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    patb wrote: »
    But how did he know that he would escape during the enquiry and when M was giving evidence? That time window would have been around half a day.

    Exactly.

    Had Q not looked at the computer until later that evening, Silva would have been SOL in killing M at the inquiry. That's the only bothersome part. But it's also worth noting that Silva already hacked into the system: he had all of Bond's fitness reports. So he didn't actually need the hookup to the laptop to escape. So it's likely that a remote hack was a plan B, but that's pure speculation on my part.
  • Posts: 4,603
    Re the hack, I think it's fair to assume that "lessons were learned" after the gas explosion so new measures were put in place (an air gap) but the laptop was connected internally rather than an external hack (plus the prison cell system was in the bunker rather than the HQ, so the protocols may have been different). But this does not explain the timing, as you correctly say.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 11,425
    any plot involving hacking leaves me bored. it's not 1995 anymore.

    It's usually just a device for covering up lame/lazy plotting. that's definitely the case in SF.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited September 2018 Posts: 40,959
    Getafix wrote: »
    any plot involving hacking leaves me bored. it's not 1995 anymore.

    It's usually just a device for covering up lame/lazy plotting. that's definitely the case in SF.

    Most of the plot utilizes generic hacking or empty McGuffins to move the story along. I don't care for it. I know one is meant to suspend disbelief with this series, but SF seems to take itself too seriously for me to do as such, so I'm always disappointed in sequences like Bond somehow surviving two gunshots and a fall, or Silva's entire escape.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 11,425
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    any plot involving hacking leaves me bored. it's not 1995 anymore.

    It's usually just a device for covering up lame/lazy plotting. that's definitely the case in SF.

    Most of the plot utilizes generic hacking or empty McGuffins to move the story along. I don't care for it. I know one is meant to suspend disbelief with this series, but SF seems to take itself too seriously for me to do as such, so I'm always disappointed in sequences like Bond somehow surviving two gunshots and a fall, or Silva's entire escape.

    +1

    It wants to have it's cake and eat it in that respect. I've said it before but a lot of the concept and ideas I like. But scene for scene I don't really enjoy much of the film at all.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Skyfall still remains one of my top favorite Bond films. I don't think that will ever change for me. I watched it in full 2 nights ago. What a gorgeous, inspiring, fun, thrilling, and genuinely fine Bond film this is.

    I didn't care about analyzing plot holes when it came out. I still don't. None of it bugs me enough to pick at it. It is a Bond film. 100% coherency, logic, and plausibility do not apply. I love Craig's Bond and his films have given us a grittier, different take on Bond - that was so necessary, so needed. Very right for its time.

    I wish Pierce had one more film before CR, though. I do. I also love Brosnan as Bond, with GE and TND two favorites. TWINE and DAD not so much. I am not schizophrenic ... I have no problem enjoying all the actors who have portrayed Bond (except Laz; never bought him as Bond for one moment, and that did ruin the otherwise fine film for me).

    So yes, I think Skyfall is a cut above average Bond film indeed. I want Deakins back (I doubt he would ever be interested, though). I'm very muc looking forward to Bond25.

    The naysayers about Skyfall have always surprised me with their vitriol. It was a global smash hit for several reasons and when it first came out plenty on here were very happy with this film. Opinions do change over time for some, but mine won't.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    Even past that, if I ignore any plot holes or issues or moments where it reeks of trying to win awards vs. trying to be entertaining, it's simply not a fun, escapist-type movie for me. I never fire it up grinning at what unfolds in its entirety, merely bored or exhausted by how dark and serious it seems to be.

    I accept that SF is considered a big deal and is typically regarded as one of the favorites by fans and general audiences alike, but it's not for me. Six years on, I don't ever see my opinion of it changing, either.

    Bring back Deakins though, I'm all for that - he makes any shot look like a painting.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I just never got that feeling from it, Creasy. Not at all.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I think Deakins would be welcomed by all fans. ;) That we can at least agree on probably.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    The denouement at Skyfall leaves me cold for some reason. I don't know why, as I love the idea, but just cringe at the way its staged. Totally lacking in tension and drama for some reason. I didn't personally make the Home Alone connection but may be there's something in that. The whole third act feels like a foreshadowing of Mendes' explosion fetish, which was given free rein in SP. He needs to learn that big flashes on screen don't make for interesting action - at least not since about 1987.

    I remember hoping it would capture some of Hitchcock's 39 Steps suspense with the Highland setting but it falls well short.
    I have personally always found it reasonably tense, but can understand where you're coming from. Perhaps it's the strength of the visuals and lighting (which are very impressive with Deakins' use of digital cameras accentuating the nightime outdoor scenery, interiors, explosions and fires), the score, and the conflict between M and Silva (with him ominously closing in on her) which keeps me interested. Not sure. In a nutshell, I buy the narrative at the end and think the whole film nicely builds to that point - so it resonates with me. The concept of being hunted and all that. I also like that it turns the setting around from the normal scenario, with the final battle being fought and won on Bond's home turf.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043

    .
    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

    Obviously not much of music fan hey?

    I don't fall over Adele's song but compared to that winey pastiche it's a masterpiece.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    I just never got that feeling from it, Creasy. Not at all.

    Nothing wrong with that, I know I'm in a tiny minority feeling that way. But yes, I'd be surprised to see anyone who didn't want Deakins to return, he elevates every image and moment.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    TripAces wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    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.

    @Shardlake I think too many fans misinterpreted M's conclusions, here. Plus, it's important to remember who's doing the talking: an inexperienced agent who says he can do more in his pajamas than an agent in the field. He's not exactly a trustworthy source when it comes to espionage.

    That said, M's line was this: "Bond, 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 the emergency protocols, knowing we'd retreat down here."

    I never bought in to the idea that all of what occurred was planned years in advance. And I'm not sure Q meant it that way, either. That's because years prior, Silva had no idea if/when there would be an inquiry on M's mishandling of the list. He couldn't have. And he couldn't have known Bond would experience a "resurrection" and hunt him down. Nobody could know all of that.

    Instead, Q is getting at the general sense of the plan. Yes, to blow up HQ and drive MI6 underground, to plan an "escape" of some sort. The bigger question is WHY go through all of that elaborate, Tom Sawyer-like planning? If we took Q at his word, then Silva did all of that, in order to shoot M at an inquiry that he never knew would happen. That's nonsense.

    As I took it, Silva big plan, years in the making, was humiliation. That was always his goal. Killing M wouldn't be worth it if he couldn't humiliate her, MI6, and England in the process. Hence the stealing of the list-that was about humiliation, not because Silva needed or cared about it. In fact, he likely didn't even need Patrice to steal it; he could have retrieved it via a hack. But the particulars of the rest of the plan were not put into motion until the inquiry was scheduled. So, yes blowing up HQ was planned, and planned to get MI6 to retreat, but only as a means of humiliation and control. Yes, he wanted MI6 to hack his computer, but only as a means of humiliation ("Not such a clever boy"). Yes, he wanted to escape, but only as a means of humiliation.

    Then there's another fascinating part to this: the fact that I am (or any audience member is) left wondering what Silva knew or didn't know, planned or didn't plan, is precisely his aim. It's why SF and Silva are brilliant. Once you establish that Silva can do anything with a "point and a click," you get paranoid...as Q is upon the hack. His "he had it all planned speech" is also a moment of paranoid outburst. In this sense, Silva is all knowing, all mighty. Of course, we know he isn't, but the characters don't know that.

    I don't view SF as having a "plot hole." I view Silva's "plan" as being as the motor that drives the film's deeper themes.

    I do still love it and maybe I've paid too much attention to those picking at it and that I noticed it more the last time.

    I'll see when I watch it again, it's in my top 5 and my 2nd favourite Craig, I always enjoy the heck out of it and it gets my blood pumping, the bad is very little and the good is loads for me.

    How anyone could say SPECTRE is better is beyond me, it might be the same director but when he started on SP he must of got out the wrong side of the bed because it's likely it was approached with a totally different mentality.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @Shardlake, he did say that he was all out of ideas after SF - letting him return was a bad move.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    Skyfall is a better constructed film, but Spectre is more up my alley. At any rate, while Spectre clearly is a retread to some extent, I don't feel its out of ideas. The script needed polish, though.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Shardlake, he did say that he was all out of ideas after SF - letting him return was a bad move.

    When he said that alarm bells should have rang, he'd already said he thought he only had one good Bond film in him and was reported to want to leave the project when RF nixed his and Logan's Mallory is a SPECTRE mole plot.

    Is it any wonder DC wasn't getting on with him on set, also DC was so enthusiastic for SF and was positively beaming when he did the publicity, look how he started the SP publicity trail with the infamous slash wrist quote.

    Wouldn't mind betting he was quite frustrated and probably knew at that point that this film wasn't going to be received like SF was.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    Getafix wrote: »
    any plot involving hacking leaves me bored. it's not 1995 anymore.

    It's usually just a device for covering up lame/lazy plotting. that's definitely the case in SF.

    In all fairness, I don’t think the DNC would view hacking as so 1995. ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.