It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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
Why does that bother you just out of interest? Genuinely interested. Is MR spoiled by being Star Wars at times for example? I'm sure there are many other films which are basically the same 'but different' - probably more than SF is to TDK. Personally I'd say SF is a very different film to TNK despite its overlaps.
And what little originality Spectre does have mostly serves to either contradict Skyfall or add nonsensical backstory? The whole “Bond and Blofeld were raised as pseudo-brothers” twist is laughably forced, draining Blofeld of his mystique while doing nothing to strengthen their rivalry. And for me, it completely undoes Skyfall's conclusion, by resetting Bond and Mallory's relationship to be one of malice, which unfortunately continues on in No Time To Die, and just overall goes backwards instead of forwards, which I thought was the intent of Skyfall's ending...
Whilst Skyfall took obvious inspiration from The Dark Knight, it made more sense and felt way more original to the franchise than Spectre, which just goes through the motions, which is ironic given that Skyfall was the celebration of the franchise for the 50th anniversary.
I probably was just personally a bit spoiled by this forum with Skyfall. I knew the entire movie from the clapperboard thread, I knew the house being built in Scotland from the photographer blog, I knew it all. And then it let me down when I went to see it. That was my breaking point with CraigBond. I disliked it so much I started my own novelization setting the major events of Skyfall that I liked back in the 1960s (sensitive list stolen, M dies). Never finished it. But I think one has original ideas or pulls from Fleming, or tries to, and the other pulls from an out-of-genre competitor that just released, and was releasing a still similar sequel with similar themes the same year as Skyfall. After waiting through bankruptcy, and enjoying QOS immensely, I did not like this new, unoriginal direction that was wearing a fancier suit, but with Batman in it. Skyfall is inherently soapy. You don't get that with every Bond movie.
Fair enough. My experience with SF is very different. Literally had no prior knowledge of it. Saw it 5 times in the cinema with different friends each time because everyone wanted to see it. Heard people clap during certain moments (never seen that happen in the cinema for a Bond film prior or since). It's the film that got me more into Bond, and I'd seen all the Bond films and even read Fleming up until that point.
Correct. The hard drive/list was the thing Silva dangled out there for MI6 to chase. As noted earlier, he likely didn't need to "steal" any hard drive. He could have hacked it...and probably already did. Instead, he hired Patrice and used him as a pawn, too. Now, what would have happened if Bond had recovered it and killed Patrice in Turkey? I'm sure Silva had an algorithm to tell tell him his next move.
The brilliance of SF is that Silva "made that a thing" even though it wasn't a thing. Remember what Severine said about him taking the island: it's amazing what you can make people do with just a single computer. His ability to manipulate people and situations is well-established. Silva used the list as a way to not just humiliate M but to play their "game" and still win (running around, chasing spies, etc.). Like all great Bond villains he was a psychopath...but also a genius.
I can't (and shouldn't be encouraged to) engage with anything after two beers, chief.
In all honesty, it makes a difference only when considering Skyfall's application to Best Bond Ever, in my opinion. If yours is different, that's one hundred percent.
Aye, he can essentially do magic whenever the plot needs a lift.
Capable of downloading the undownloadable and completely ubiquitous, yet utterly and completely incompetent when it matters most. After his compelling opening monologue, it all comes apart. A stark reminder that actions speak louder than words.
Reminds me a great deal of Gustav Graves. Another villain based on 'Bond's alter ego' who just wound up being a gurning talker.
Elliott Carver, maybe. The guy delivered some cracking speech but had nothing menacing about him.
I don't think I've ever expected realism from any Bond movie, rather coherence
Three reasons: reverse-engineering (Lektor's the best there is, so why not build our own version), past decoding (if past encoded intercepts were kept than the Lektor could deal with those), and future decoding (even if they do try something new you know how they think).
Whereas with the list of undercover NATO agents in terrorist organisations it's a bit hard to believe that they just have a section of payroll called "SECRET AGENTS WORKING WITH TERROR" or something like that (and aren't NOC agents off the books, anyway? with little and local control?). And then why else have all their names together on one file.
That's unless the list was made by nefarious others picking it up, at which point the hard drive is a silly way to get it about anyway.
Normally I'd agree with you. But Silva is indeed a genius in one respect and incompetent in another. And yet he insists on killing M in the form that he hates and is most incompetent. That's his fatal flaw. It's totally in-line with his character.
Like I said: the fact that Silva managed to get everyone off the island with a click; that he managed to blow up MI6 with a click; that he managed to know all of Bond's medical/personal history with a click allows us to go along with whatever Silva wants. I even buy into his ability to knock out radar systems (so the helicopter can fly undetected), his ability to have someone plant a bomb for him, and his ability to have clothes ready for him.
What's awesome about all of this is that even though he's a computer genius and all that, he's a complete and utter failure "in the field." Bardem plays it perfectly. The stupefied look on his face in the courtroom, where he freezes up and can't shoot is a great bit of characterization. It's no wonder he got captured and then failed at biting into the capsule! And yet Silva insists that he wants to kill M "in the field," because that's the only way to "make it personal." (This ideology was set up in the museum scene between Bond and Q.) It's all so beautifully ironic.
Yep, Silva's obsession with killing M on his own terms is what ultimately gets him killed. Could have just made sure she was in the MI6 building when he blew it up, but no, he had to do it by his own hand. Love that moment in the courtroom when he's pointing the gun at her, agreed. You can tell the guy's been waiting years for that moment, and all it takes is that extra two seconds for Mallory to push M aside.
Silva's a really interesting villain in that way. He's been driven mad by his obsession, and while we clearly see how dangerous he is there's something also oddly pathetic about the guy. He reminds me of Blofeld in Fleming's YOLT in that way.
Preach.
SF is more concerned with interpersonal conflicts than most other Bond films. Having the climax set in a remote location symbolically represents how the conflict between M and Silva has nothing to do with the rest of the world. Bond even sums it up: “Some men are coming to kill us, we’re gonna kill them first.” Nothing else is at stake. Indeed that’s how it works out, even though M ultimately died she got to live to see her affairs resolved with Bond’s help.
That's why it fails. In order to heighten the importance, it commands characters act either in a grossly incompetent fashion and, in M's case, completely out of character.
SF's saving graces are its looks, not its smarts.
Is there anything specifically they do that makes you think they act out of character? Because I think one of the great things about SF is well it seems to know Bond and M and just gets what they do right even if they make mistakes.
The movie is literally about characters making mistakes and owning up to them, even with their very lives. That’s not a bug, that’s a feature. But I can understand if you don’t personally like that focus, fair enough.
These aren't really 'mistakes''as such. M hasn't lost her car keys, Silva forgotten what hydrogen cyanide actually does. No, these are examples of the grossest incompetence.
M's gone from the serious Boss Boss we all know and lover her as to somebody taking batshit risks for zero discernable purpose.
Silva is sold as this master villain, a ubiquitous menace so powerful he can hack into MI6 and make it blow itself up. Yet, his supposed masterplan is so full of holes and dependent on a series of random events occurring in sequence.
It's incoherent.
What you call “incoherent”, I call “intuitive improvisation”. It’s the secret of genius.
What you call “incoherent”, I call “intuitive improvisation”. It’s the secret of genius.
[/quote]
Brilliant. I'm almost speechless with admiration.
What would you suggest?
I think the character's dumbing was amplified because of QOS' negativity. Too serious. Too convoluted. Too Bourne.
It's clear the production chimed in with the now awkward oven-ready 2012-era of Brittanic iconography; one of Olympic Games and royal occasion street parties. To alter this aesthetic would be to alter the feel of the entire movie; its teleology and purpose.
Skyfall's patriotism is of the pro-Union blend. Country: England. M's Bulldog. He can't wait to leave bloody Scotland (then musing independence). Mallory's chops vindicated suffering the anti-union IRA. The Union flag is an ever present symbol displaying glorious hope, only ever besmirched by 'Johnny Foreigner' Silva. Skyfall insists: Don't forget pathetic love of country.
You can't have brooding introverts pondering into their fourth gin about what side they're on, or who the real bad guys are. You need good ol' bloviating bluster.