SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

1454647484951»

Comments

  • edited March 31 Posts: 2,468
    What I like about Skyfall was how the filmmakers hardened Judi Dench’s M. After her introduction in GE, I felt as if they may have softened her character up for the rest of Brosnan’s years and for Craig’s first two films where she became more of a “mother” type figure to Bond. At least in Skyfall they not only bring back that harder edge, but make her a bit more fallible and prone to mistakes and I liked that.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,774
    The difference between scrutinizing TWINE's plot and Skyfall's plot is one makes me think of original ideas being played with creatively and falling slightly short, where the other feels like I'm watching something vaguely familiar, oh yeah, The Dark Knight.
  • edited March 31 Posts: 4,942
    LucknFate wrote: »
    The difference between scrutinizing TWINE's plot and Skyfall's plot is one makes me think of original ideas being played with creatively and falling slightly short, where the other feels like I'm watching something vaguely familiar, oh yeah, The Dark Knight.

    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.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited March 31 Posts: 5,993
    LucknFate wrote: »
    The difference between scrutinizing TWINE's plot and Skyfall's plot is one makes me think of original ideas being played with creatively and falling slightly short, where the other feels like I'm watching something vaguely familiar, oh yeah, The Dark Knight.
    I have to disagree personally. I actually find Spectre to be more egregious in its lack of originality. Instead of pushing the franchise forward, it plays out like a dull remix of better Bond moments, just recontextualized into something far less compelling. The train fight? A weaker retread of From Russia With Love and The Spy Who Loved Me. The desert lair? A poor imitation of Dr. No and You Only Live Twice. Blofeld’s torture scene? Feels like a duller version of Casino Royale’s iconic sequence. It’s a film that seems more interested in recycling the past than doing anything meaningful with it.

    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.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited March 31 Posts: 1,774
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    The difference between scrutinizing TWINE's plot and Skyfall's plot is one makes me think of original ideas being played with creatively and falling slightly short, where the other feels like I'm watching something vaguely familiar, oh yeah, The Dark Knight.

    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.

    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.

  • I also find a lot of The Dark Knight in Skyfall but that doesn't really bother me these days. I suppose that's because my love and appreciation for The Dark Knight has unfortunately been waning in recent years while I appreciate Skyfall more and more with each viewing.
  • Posts: 4,942
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    The difference between scrutinizing TWINE's plot and Skyfall's plot is one makes me think of original ideas being played with creatively and falling slightly short, where the other feels like I'm watching something vaguely familiar, oh yeah, The Dark Knight.

    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.

    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.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited April 1 Posts: 4,642

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

    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.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 74
    007HallY wrote: »

    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?

    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.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    edited April 1 Posts: 74
    TripAces wrote: »
    The brilliance of SF is that Silva "made that a thing" even though it wasn't a thing.

    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.

  • edited April 1 Posts: 4,719
    To be fair to the movie and the profession of script writers, sometimes and often, you have to be flexible with reality in order to create drama and further the story. I'm amazed at how many fans pick through SF and look for reality. It's not there because it's fantasy. Obviously there are different levels of fantasy and, keeping that in mind, SF is one of the more realistic Bonds. We know via box office that most movie fans (thank goodness) are happy to pay their money and immerse themselves in the fantasy of SF: isn't that the magic of cinema?
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 74
    patb wrote: »
    I'm amazed at how many fans pick through SF and look for reality.

    I don't think I've ever expected realism from any Bond movie, rather coherence

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,562
    MR is one of the most coherent Bond films.
  • I do think from a "realism" standpoint something like the Lektor stands a bit stronger than the file of names in Skyfall. I mean ultimately, we as the audience, and even Bond (as someone not involved in the heart of MI6) should have a surface-level understanding of the importance.

    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.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited 12:07am Posts: 4,642
    TripAces wrote: »
    The brilliance of SF is that Silva "made that a thing" even though it wasn't a thing.

    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.

    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.

  • edited 12:29am Posts: 4,942
    TripAces wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    The brilliance of SF is that Silva "made that a thing" even though it wasn't a thing.

    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.

    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.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 74
    I do think from a "realism" standpoint something like the Lektor stands a bit stronger than the file of names in Skyfall. I mean ultimately, we as the audience, and even Bond (as someone not involved in the heart of MI6) should have a surface-level understanding of the importance.

    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.

    Preach.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,472
    Comparing the agent list to the Lektor is comparing apples and oranges. The Lektor is more important in regards to the plot of FRWL than the agent list is in SF. To focus and scrutinize the “realism” of the agent list is pretty much missing the point of the story SF is telling. The agent list is even rendered irrelevant midway through the film once Silva gets captured. Maybe in an older Bond film capturing Silva alive would have been the actual ending of the film, but in a movie like SF it’s only the second act.

    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.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 74

    SF is more concerned with interpersonal conflicts than most other Bond films.

    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.
  • edited 11:15am Posts: 4,942

    SF is more concerned with interpersonal conflicts than most other Bond films.

    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.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited 11:10am Posts: 8,472

    SF is more concerned with interpersonal conflicts than most other Bond films.

    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.

    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.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 74

    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. .

    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.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,472
    Kind of an exaggeration.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 74
    M and Silva pretty much exemplify it.

    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.




  • Posts: 4,942
    Well, can't please everyone I suppose...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,472
    M and Silva pretty much exemplify it.

    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.

    view+max+giggle.gif
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 74
    [/quote]

    What you call “incoherent”, I call “intuitive improvisation”. It’s the secret of genius.

    view+max+giggle.gif
    [/quote]

    Brilliant. I'm almost speechless with admiration.
  • Posts: 4,719
    I do agree with the comments re characters acting stupidly. The annoying thing is, it would not take much to tweek the script to deal with these issues but, at the same time, retain the feel and themes of the movie. It's a strange one.
  • Posts: 4,942
    patb wrote: »
    I do agree with the comments re characters acting stupidly. The annoying thing is, it would not take much to tweek the script to deal with these issues but, at the same time, retain the feel and themes of the movie. It's a strange one.

    What would you suggest?
Sign In or Register to comment.