Home › Bond Movies › Skyfall
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Unrealistic response from Bond to Severine's death
Yes, I know Craig's Bond is cool, realistic, and ever since Vesper died he's quite indifferent about girls being killed. But would a spy really react this way? In OHMS bond was heartbroken. Even in FYEO Bond showed at least his empathic, mourning side.
I think Bond could have been slightly more angry towards Silva about Severine's. Death. What's so unrealistic about a guy saying: "You sick psychopath!" and then Bond struggling to get loose when held by the henchmen.It could have added even more "human realism" if you ask me.
I think Bond could have been slightly more angry towards Silva about Severine's. Death. What's so unrealistic about a guy saying: "You sick psychopath!" and then Bond struggling to get loose when held by the henchmen.It could have added even more "human realism" if you ask me.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Is it really a weakness to hide hour emotions? Was James Bond really weak then when he wept over Track's death? I mean, a bit more anger is suited no?
Bond acted that way after Severine's death because he didn't want to show Silva that he got to him. From the very moment they met both men were sizing each other up, and Bond didn't want to give him the satisfaction of having rattled him.
As to your first question, a spy would act that way (uneffusive), or at least they should. Separating emotions from your mission helps you evade being shaken and broken by the inevitable pains of the job.
Exactly.
It also seemed to me that it was pretty evident that her death got to Bond by the way he delivers the "waste of good scotch" line. Seemed like he wavered a bit in the delivery of that line, if my memory of that scene is correct (it's been a while since I've seen Skyfall).
Yes, you could feel and see the rage in Bond's eyes and voice as he said the line.
Too many times to count, I assure you.
Still it's a disgusting scene and one that together with his emotionless watching of the killing of the guards and the art collector in Shanghai only serves to show Bond as a sociopath. Mr Fleming would have been disgusted by this portrayal of his white knight, which really had nothing to do with the Bond we came to love and admire in the past!
P.S: rage in bonds eyes? Dream on! Some people here like to wax about how subtle Craig is acting in this scene. Oh really? It might feel this way for some "fans" (probably those that also happen to think that Skyfall has a compelling story),but for 90% of the audience this (together with the tasteless Scotch remark) only serves to show him cold as a stone.
Crystal clear for me and tons of fans.
Don't you think your time would be better served...oh, I don't know, creating positive discourse around Bond films you actually like (if any of the other 22 films could hope to actually meet your esteemed qualifications for "logic" in the film's story by any close measure, that is)? I and scores of others get the point after hearing you rattle on for nearly two years now: you hate Skyfall and will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever like it. So please, end the beating of the dozens of already dead horses you've been whacking at for two years before you are taken to court for animal cruelty, and give it up already. Explore new horizons, talk about other Bond films, maybe even *gasp* your favorites of the lot. Hell, you can even go rant about another Bond film you hate, at least that's a hell of a lot more original than the very limited focus you have always had for just one film of the franchise ever since you first blessed us with your presence.
Sure, I am one of the very few staunch supporters and defenders of QoS and TWINE on this forum (even have written a lengthy essay about how 5 minutes and 3 lines more could make QoS almost perfect) and, and, and ....(you might scroll through my ramblings,if serving the Skyfall cult leaves you any time for that before making such generalizing statements)
All that because I only thrive on my hate for Skyfall. Yeah,sure! You guys make me yawn.
The main reason why I comment so often on Skyfall is because I am very much annoyed by the patronizing attitude so many of its defenders use against those,who dare to say that some things in this movie are not to their liking.
Nothing of value here. As Brady said, it's just a horse that's been beaten to death already.
I'm sure frequent members of this forum are sick and tired of the same old "the merits of Skyfall" threads appearing in mass every week or so.
Agreed ..fans of Fleming and ones whom understand and appreciate subtext get this. This is just a hate thread by questionable fans.
The meeting of Silva and the subsequent marksman are two of the best most effective scenes in the entire film.
THIS is exactly the patronising and condescending attitude I have been talking about.
Btw, fans of Fleming know that his creation was a sucker for any bird was a broken wing, As which Severigne qualifies in spades. Also he was quite disgusted by useless killing in cold blood and he sure as hell wouldn't have stood idly by while someone is executed with a rifle by a professional hitman, really taking his time doing so. Almost needless to say that it is also very stupid of Bond just to watch and not to interact, because he might have had a need for the art collector (just in case something stupid happened and Patrice would have become killed before he could tell Bond,what he wanted to know. But something that unprofessional certainly wouldn't happen to 007, would it? Oops ...)
See, this is why I can't back you up even though I agree with many of your points. It's like some kind jihad with you. Just don't watch the movie & see if the next one is as good as (or better than) QOS... life's too short for all the negativity IMO. :)>-
So I get ridiculed for almost 20 lines and am expected to just gladly suffer it? I'm afraid I'm not that permissively. Sorry.
?????
I've had my butt handed to me on more than one occasion, and there came a point when I realised it was better to just drop stuff than keep trying to hammer home my POV.
But then it all comes down to what you're here for, conversation or combat. ;)
Yes. Bond had gun to head... stalled by faking missing target ..trying to save both but pressumely know slim chance for her... Silva fires faster than probably Bond or audience expected ...Bond makes final quip to through Silva off and regain advantage.. that's the scene... nothing saying Bond doesn't care... really just the opposite. And @Matt_He km if your a QoS advocate so am i . Deserves for better credit that what it gets. But its not the greatest by any means.
Anyway that's how I interpret the scene.
I was writing about the Shanghai scene. My mentioning of the art collector could have been a hint.
About QoS. Sure it's not the greatest but it could have been one of them (as I once wrote: 3 Lines added, 3 changed and 2 minutes extra filmed would have been all,that was needed)
Agreed. ...well I didn't find Bond himself as written as satisfacting but I did enjoy Craig's performance with what he had... just seemed muted if that makes sense. btw I'm both a big DC and PB fan which also probably doesn't make sense either lol.
This question has been discussed to death. I do completely agree with you though. I found the scene quite off-putting when I first saw the film and nothing has changed.
IMO the question isn't whether the scene is plausible or not as of course it is.
The scene works. Humans are capable of all sorts of reactions under duress.
Agents can utilize any number of strategies under duress.
The question that is being raised though, is, is this how we want Bond portrayed? Is this how we want such scenes written. I am with @gustavgraves here. I don't like it.
If I'm producing this film, we do it differently.
It's really a filmmaking question. Is this what we want? Most are simply indifferent I think, or not effected in any strong way.
Some of us do like this darker stuff.
Others though aren't as down with the dark. Count me in that group. :)
the role of Severine was a sacrificial lamb, thats it... i know we all like to have our cake and eat it to - but the fact is, is that her only purpose in the story was to get Bond from Patrice to Silva, thats it... she becomes redundant after that.
but i guess certain people need their James Bond to cry and go EMO after every death in the films...... smh..
In film, the director is God, and God can make miraculous things happen.
Severine could have lived to die another day.
[-(
Bottom line: I have no problem with how the scene was shot, just how it was written.
I loved Severine's character and I was a bit saddened to see her go so fast and in the way she went, but I think the scenes were realistic as far as Bond's reaction goes.
Very well said @Ed83.
If anything was inappropriate about that scene, I think it was the music cue that immediately follows it and transitions into a portion of the Bond theme. It's a bit too triumphant for that particular moment, given what had just happened less than 10 seconds prior, but I don't think that there's anything wrong with the moment as it's written or performed by Craig.
Bond would need near-supernatural foresight to know what was coming next. Not only didn't he expect Silva's little shooting game, he also hadn't been prepared for the man's mercurial nature or how brutal he could be while in that mode of unpredictability. This scene was Bond's first taste of the man's savage nature, where he lead 007 along like they were only having a bit of sadistic fun trying to shoot the glass from Severine's head, then he turns on a dime, shoots Severine with no desire to continue said game, and demonstrates to Bond that he has all the power, especially over who lives and who dies.
Bond is one hell of an agent with a myriad of skills, but telling the future is not amongst them.
It's just that the 'sacrificial lamb' thing was hammered in here with Bond's inability to rise to the occasion, as opposed to in Goldfinger, where the problem was sheer logistics.
In SF he was potent enough to seduce Severine in a shower the previous night, but impotent enough to not save her the next day. That's how I define amateurish and manipulative film-making. A small tweak here or there and it all could have worked better, either way.
Of course, Mendes COULD have been deliberate in his attempt to portray Bond as a realistically compromised man in the middle of an alcohol-induced delirium tremor unable to perform adequately, but then why all the OTT stuff later? Is this hard-hitting realism or a story about a fictional secret agent? LTK had dark stuff that was mitigated by the idea that it was basically a fantastical take on reality fairly consistently. SF wanted it both ways, and I do not hold to that.
Just really awkward... :-??
And here I am, rehashing an old argument... I need to go to bed. :))