SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

14546474850

Comments

  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited March 31 Posts: 2,416
    I think Mendes knew he was directing a Bond film. That's why he added those little extra things in the inquiry shootout. Bond kicking a gun for Moneypenny. Bond winking at Mallory before shooting the fire extinguishers. Bond walking confidently across the smoky room as he shoots. Left for a director like Fukunaga, Bond would have just entered the inquiry with a huge machine gun and shoot like any other action film, without adding those stylish things Mendes added.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    edited March 31 Posts: 80
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’ve never thought about the decoder machine ‘issue’ in FRWL (makes absolutely no difference to me incidentally having heard it - my favourite Bond film in fact).

    In FRWL, with the Lektor, it would be the apparatus itself rather than its current coding (which could be altered anytime anyway), same in FYEO's McGuffin ATAC.

    Having an enigma machine helped Turing figure codes and feed false info.

    Skyfall's McGuffin isn't a good analogy.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    edited March 31 Posts: 80
    Great line from end of GF:

    Playing his golden harp
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,627
    I think Mendes knew he was directing a Bond film. That's why he added those little extra things in the inquiry shootout. Bond kicking a gun for Moneypenny. Bond winking at Mallory before shooting the fire extinguishers. Bond walking confidently across the smoky room as he shoots. Left for a director like Fukunaga, Bond would have just entered the inquiry with a huge machine gun and shoot like any other action film, without adding those stylish things Mendes added.

    Yeah, well-put.
  • edited March 31 Posts: 4,948
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’ve never thought about the decoder machine ‘issue’ in FRWL (makes absolutely no difference to me incidentally having heard it - my favourite Bond film in fact).

    In FRWL, with the Lektor, it would be the apparatus itself rather than its current coding (which could be altered anytime anyway), same in FYEO's McGuffin ATAC.

    Having an enigma machine helped Turing figure codes and feed false info.

    Skyfall's McGuffin isn't a good analogy.

    I don’t know. It’s a pointless discussion when it comes to FRWL anyway, and I don’t care enough about coding machines in the Cold War to go through the finer details of the film or book to find any discrepancies or logical fallacies.

    I’m not sure what this has to do with SF’s list of agents in this instance…
    mtm wrote: »
    I think Mendes knew he was directing a Bond film. That's why he added those little extra things in the inquiry shootout. Bond kicking a gun for Moneypenny. Bond winking at Mallory before shooting the fire extinguishers. Bond walking confidently across the smoky room as he shoots. Left for a director like Fukunaga, Bond would have just entered the inquiry with a huge machine gun and shoot like any other action film, without adding those stylish things Mendes added.

    Yeah, well-put.

    The inquiry scene is surprisingly well constructed plot/story wise and has a lot of callbacks, parallels, and big character moments (I like that Mallory gets shot similar to how Bond does at the beginning of the film. It plays well into him seeing Bond shoot accurately for the first time and display his skills). And it’s quite cool with those wonderful Bondian moments/flair.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,627
    007HallY wrote: »
    I’ve never thought about the decoder machine ‘issue’ in FRWL (makes absolutely no difference to me incidentally having heard it - my favourite Bond film in fact).

    In FRWL, with the Lektor, it would be the apparatus itself rather than its current coding (which could be altered anytime anyway), same in FYEO's McGuffin ATAC.

    Having an enigma machine helped Turing figure codes and feed false info.

    Because they didn't know the allies had one: if they had they would have changed the system. It doesn't make sense in the films, but it's fine, we don't worry about it.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    edited March 31 Posts: 80
    mtm wrote: »
    .

    Because they didn't know the allies had one

    The point is the allies would be able to use Enigma
    messages between each other. The Nazis could change their code, the giant b-words, but not the Allies'.

    Same with the Lektor.

    Shall I go on about the mechanism...




  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 80
    I think Mendes knew he was directing a Bond film. That's why he added those little extra things in the inquiry shootout. Bond kicking a gun for Moneypenny. Bond winking at Mallory before shooting the fire extinguishers. Bond walking confidently across the smoky room as he shoots. Left for a director like Fukunaga, Bond would have just entered the inquiry with a huge machine gun and shoot like any other action film, without adding those stylish things Mendes added.

    The culmination of an hour's build-up is an easy win for the good guys, as they swag, wink and smile at each other. Smugly.

    It's a good point about Fukunaga. Even Bond would have been killed, the smug bastard.



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,627
    mtm wrote: »
    .

    Because they didn't know the allies had one

    The point is the allies would be able to use Enigma
    messages between each other. The Nazis could change their code, the giant b-words, but not the Allies'.

    Same with the Lektor.

    Shall I go about the mechanism...

    I can't parse this.
    Look, trying to prove it's perfectly water-tight is pointless: what we're saying is that all Bond films have these imperfections. Getting caught up on them is pointless.



    I think Mendes knew he was directing a Bond film. That's why he added those little extra things in the inquiry shootout. Bond kicking a gun for Moneypenny. Bond winking at Mallory before shooting the fire extinguishers. Bond walking confidently across the smoky room as he shoots. Left for a director like Fukunaga, Bond would have just entered the inquiry with a huge machine gun and shoot like any other action film, without adding those stylish things Mendes added.

    The culmination of an hour's build-up is an easy win for the good guys, as they swag, wink and smile at each other. Smugly.

    Just seems a really weird take to me. One of them's been shot in the shoulder, the others are scared but competent: Bond is a bit swaggery but again, if you're not keen on that then you're watching the wrong series of films.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 80
    mtm wrote: »

    I can't parse this.
    Look, trying to prove it's perfectly water-tight is pointless: what we're saying is that all Bond films have these imperfections. Getting caught up on them is pointless.

    Aye, nothing's perfect. No point trying to claim one McGuffin justifies another, not that anyone did.

    Always thought the inquiry room sequence lacked genuine menace and concern. Just came across as really smug. It robbed whatever tension was available.
  • edited March 31 Posts: 4,948
    The good thing about FRWL is that it goes into so little detail about the background stuff to decoding that it’s easy for viewers to go along with it. It’s a device that will benefit the British if they get it. Fine.

    The Lektor is a typical McGuffin in this sense. It doesn’t matter what the object is specifically. Change it from a decoding machine to a list of Soviet agents it changes nothing.

    The list in SF is a bit different. As I said it’s a mix between a McGuffin and Chekov’s Gun in a way and ties more directly into the stuff going on in terms of Silva and M as characters. Which is fine. Actually it’s more interesting in many ways.
    mtm wrote: »

    I can't parse this.
    Look, trying to prove it's perfectly water-tight is pointless: what we're saying is that all Bond films have these imperfections. Getting caught up on them is pointless.

    Aye, nothing's perfect. No point trying to claim one McGuffin justifies another, not that anyone did.

    Always thought the inquiry room sequence lacked genuine menace and concern. Just came across as really smug. It robbed whatever tension was available.

    Fair enough I suppose. If you didn’t feel it worked or was exciting on watching it there’s not much anyone can do. Not sure I completely understand or agree with your justification/logic, but then again I love the scene and do find it exciting so it is what it is I guess.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 80
    007HallY wrote: »
    The good thing about FRWL is that it goes into so little detail about the background stuff to decoding that it’s easy for viewers to go along with it. It’s a device that will benefit the British if they get it. Fine.

    The Lektor is a typical McGuffin in this sense. It doesn’t matter what the object is specifically. Change it from a decoding machine to a list of Soviet agents it changes nothing.

    Aye, that's true, they probably didn't specify because the audience could understand it, anyway.
    A list of agents just makes absolutely no sense.

    But your overall point is dead on.



  • edited March 31 Posts: 4,948
    007HallY wrote: »
    The good thing about FRWL is that it goes into so little detail about the background stuff to decoding that it’s easy for viewers to go along with it. It’s a device that will benefit the British if they get it. Fine.

    The Lektor is a typical McGuffin in this sense. It doesn’t matter what the object is specifically. Change it from a decoding machine to a list of Soviet agents it changes nothing.

    Aye, that's true, they probably didn't specify because the audience could understand it, anyway.
    A list of agents just makes absolutely no sense.

    But your overall point is dead on.



    Worth saying my point there was that the list of agents in SF is arguably more interesting in terms of its function in the story and how it’s used.

    They didn’t specify because it’s not good storytelling in this instance. The more you go into details of coding the more audiences will start asking themselves questions, even picking up plot holes rightly or wrongly. The nature of a classic McGuffin is it doesn’t matter what it is. It simply drives the characters. In fact many films purposely don’t reveal what theirs actually is - ie. Pulp Fiction, MI:3.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 31 Posts: 17,627
    I don't see how a list of agents doesn't make sense.
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The good thing about FRWL is that it goes into so little detail about the background stuff to decoding that it’s easy for viewers to go along with it. It’s a device that will benefit the British if they get it. Fine.

    The Lektor is a typical McGuffin in this sense. It doesn’t matter what the object is specifically. Change it from a decoding machine to a list of Soviet agents it changes nothing.

    Aye, that's true, they probably didn't specify because the audience could understand it, anyway.
    A list of agents just makes absolutely no sense.

    But your overall point is dead on.



    Worth saying my point there was that the list of agents in SF is arguably more interesting in terms of its function in the story and how it’s used.

    Yes it's true, because it tells us something about how far Silva has gone as a person who used to be one of those agents, plus how bad it is for M, the BBC news report etc. For a macguffin plot which ends halfway through, it's explored pretty well.
  • Posts: 4,948
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't see how a list of agents doesn't make sense.
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The good thing about FRWL is that it goes into so little detail about the background stuff to decoding that it’s easy for viewers to go along with it. It’s a device that will benefit the British if they get it. Fine.

    The Lektor is a typical McGuffin in this sense. It doesn’t matter what the object is specifically. Change it from a decoding machine to a list of Soviet agents it changes nothing.

    Aye, that's true, they probably didn't specify because the audience could understand it, anyway.
    A list of agents just makes absolutely no sense.

    But your overall point is dead on.



    Worth saying my point there was that the list of agents in SF is arguably more interesting in terms of its function in the story and how it’s used.

    Yes it's true, because it tells us something about how far Silva has gone as a person who used to be one of those agents, plus how bad it is for M, the BBC news report etc. For a macguffin plot which ends halfway through, it's explored pretty well.

    Yes, it’s trickier changing that list to a decoding machine and it having quite the same effect as a story device.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 31 Posts: 17,627
    Yes there's nothing personal about a decoding device, or at least as it is as it stands in those films. And I know folks will say they don't want anything personal in Bond films (even though he falls in love in every one), but I do: it makes it more exciting if everything in your story tells you more about the characters- it makes it more involving, and action scenes are more tense if you care about who's in them.

    Yes, there's stuff in the plot which doesn't entirely add up (the bit I always squint at, because it's hard to swallow while you're actually watching it, is when Bond figures out the Granborough Road code because he's looking at a readout from Q's screen- it's just a lot to accept, and it resolving into a map seems like nonsense, but it's visual I guess) but it feels like a coherent story while you're watching it and the stakes are conveyed extremely effectively.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 80
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't see how a list of agents doesn't make sense.

    It is a good McGuffin; it promotes concern, is urgent and commands recovery. It's just any serious intelligence agency wouldn't maintain such a list.

    I appreciate its quality as this will be because of narrative, and that's valid. It's an amuse bouche and not the main course.

    Just it's batshit crazy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,627
    Oh gosh, I can't care about that. They wouldn't pack Aston Martins with guns either; if it's not something I'm thinking about while I'm watching it I can't worry about it. We can construct all sorts of backstories which would make its existence more palatable, but the audience doesn't need them.
  • Posts: 4,948
    I don’t really care about that either, but have there not been real life stories - even recently- where lists of undercover agents were leaked?
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 80
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh gosh, I can't care about that. They wouldn't pack Aston Martins with guns either;

    Well, fair enough, you don't care about such. Each their own. But it still holds.

    The Aston Martin thing is plausible (though extremely unlikely), as is Oddjob's hat and such. Think of it in terms of the umbrella which killed Georgi Markov.

    Wonder if they'll get those poison-dart wrist-guns in the stores for Christmas...

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 31 Posts: 17,627
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh gosh, I can't care about that. They wouldn't pack Aston Martins with guns either;

    Well, fair enough, you don't care about such. Each their own. But it still holds.

    Well so does the issue with the Lector. You can try to write little bits of fanfic to explain how it might work, much as I can with the agent list (the idea that SIS have their agents on file is hardly outrageous); but ultimately both are the same in that any issues with them only become apparent when you sit down and think about every detail of the film- they're not important while you're watching it, and the explanations to make them work would just become clutter and lore that the audience don't require. It's a code-breaker- we need it; it's a list of agents- we need it. Easy to understand, straightforward macguffins.

    I mean, if we're at the point where you're saying that an Aston Martin with machine guns is more plausible than a spy agency having details of its own agents, I'm wondering if we're losing perspective a bit.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,476
    Is SKYFALL the best?

    For me it’s only second best behind FRWL. I personally find SF riveting. It’s one of those movies I could switch a channel on in the middle of its run and be hard pressed to look away. I remember intending to only watch the William Tell scene on TV but ended up finishing the whole thing. That movie just works.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,642
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SF's plot can be picked apart, scrutinized and then criticized. It's far from perfect. What I love about the film is its look, tone, acting, choice of locations, pacing, and more. I generally find the plot of a Bond film its weaker element. What made me a Bond fan is everything else, such as the music, action, exoticism and so on.

    Indeed, every one of the films can be picked apart and scrutinized plot-wise. I remember this coming up when Spectre was released. On his press tour Craig was asked how and why Bond is taking a tuxedo with him on the train. His answer said it all: "It's a Bond film. We're not really supposed to worry about such things."
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 80
    mtm wrote: »
    Well so does the issue with the Lector.

    There is no issue with the lucrative Lector. I think we agree in principle about the use of McGuffin, but maybe disagree on the realism, but that's fair enough.

    I just think the Lector is a serious prize whereas the agent list is highly improbable and provokes too many inconsistencies, most of which sift into the overall plot.
    mtm wrote: »
    I mean, if we're at the point where you're saying that an Aston Martin with machine guns is more plausible than a spy agency having details of its own agents, I'm wondering if we're losing perspective a bit.

    Disingenuous.

    A spy's vehicle, or personal effects, having concealed weapons is plausible (not to the extravagant degree of GF, as I have stated earlier). See the Markov example above.

    Also, it isn't simple details about agents, rather crucial information about agents embedded in terrorist cells. Like police officers undercover, such information will not be simply written, ready to be easily downloaded a la Skyfall.

    A senior intelligence officer like M would know this, and although SF acknowledges this with her sacking, it allows her insubordinate, Q, carte blanche to do similar.

    Inconsistent plotting.

    Should have been like a proper Bond movie and had him dress as a clown.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,476
    I just think the Lector is a serious prize whereas the agent list is highly improbable and provokes too many inconsistencies, most of which sift into the overall plot.

    It’s not really the focus of the film, so it doesn’t matter. The movie is more about the conflict between Bond/M vs Silva, not the list. It doesn’t hold the same importance to the story the way that other plot devices in Bond films do.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,416
    I just think the Lector is a serious prize whereas the agent list is highly improbable and provokes too many inconsistencies, most of which sift into the overall plot.

    It’s not really the focus of the film, so it doesn’t matter. The movie is more about the conflict between Bond/M vs Silva, not the list. It doesn’t hold the same importance to the story the way that other plot devices in Bond films do.

    Yeah. That's true.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 31 Posts: 17,627
    TripAces wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SF's plot can be picked apart, scrutinized and then criticized. It's far from perfect. What I love about the film is its look, tone, acting, choice of locations, pacing, and more. I generally find the plot of a Bond film its weaker element. What made me a Bond fan is everything else, such as the music, action, exoticism and so on.

    Indeed, every one of the films can be picked apart and scrutinized plot-wise. I remember this coming up when Spectre was released. On his press tour Craig was asked how and why Bond is taking a tuxedo with him on the train. His answer said it all: "It's a Bond film. We're not really supposed to worry about such things."

    Shame though, because in the earlier drafts of the Spectre script Madeline literally asks him why he's brought his tux along, and he just sort of stares at her as if she's asked why he's brought his toothbrush with him or something: he can't understand why anyone wouldn't! And I think that's a pretty fun gag!
    mtm wrote: »
    Well so does the issue with the Lector.

    There is no issue with the lucrative Lector. I think we agree in principle about the use of McGuffin, but maybe disagree on the realism, but that's fair enough.

    I just think the Lector is a serious prize whereas the agent list is highly improbable and provokes too many inconsistencies, most of which sift into the overall plot.

    There is absolutely an issue with the Lector: I've already explained it. But it's fine, it's not something we're supposed to think about.

    I don't know what you mean about inconsistencies which bleed into the plot?

    mtm wrote: »
    I mean, if we're at the point where you're saying that an Aston Martin with machine guns is more plausible than a spy agency having details of its own agents, I'm wondering if we're losing perspective a bit.

    Disingenuous.

    A spy's vehicle, or personal effects, having concealed weapons is plausible (not to the extravagant degree of GF, as I have stated earlier). See the Markov example above.

    Also, it isn't simple details about agents, rather crucial information about agents embedded in terrorist cells. Like police officers undercover, such information will not be simply written, ready to be easily downloaded a la Skyfall.

    A senior intelligence officer like M would know this, and although SF acknowledges this with her sacking, it allows her insubordinate, Q, carte blanche to do similar.

    Inconsistent plotting.

    Should have been like a proper Bond movie and had him dress as a clown.

    I think it's pretty disingenuous to say an Aston with machine guns is the equivalent of an umbrella hypodermic: it's an extrapolation and exaggeration of one into a work of entertainment. Much as having a list of agents can be extrapolated as a list of NATO agents undercover in terrorist cells: making it big for the sake of entertainment. It's kind of nitpicking.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 80

    It’s not really the focus of the film, so it doesn’t matter.

    I'd say it does matter, especially if it influences the remainder of the film's plot, which it does enormously.




  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,476
    But the film isn’t about the list is my point. It’s just something to kick off the PTS chase before it becomes about Bond looking for Silva and finding out there’s a personal vendetta he’s invested in.
  • Posts: 4,948

    It’s not really the focus of the film, so it doesn’t matter.

    I'd say it does matter, especially if it influences the remainder of the film's plot, which it does enormously.




    So, when you're just watching the film, perhaps having a beer or two, you think about the list of agents being utterly preposterous and can't possibly engage with the film?
Sign In or Register to comment.