SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

14748495052

Comments

  • edited April 4 Posts: 4,724
    Q plugging in the seized laptop in to the main network was utter bonkers and shows Q as a child like figure who failed GCSE IT studies which he does not deserve and undermines the character, the script needed him to be stupid to start the escape scene, that led to the underground train explosion, which was also bonkers and makes no sense. Before escape , M tells Silva he will be transferred to Belmarsh (a predicatable move from Silva's perspective), we could have seen Silva's team hack into the security vehicles during the transfer and he escapes, (car hacking is something new to Bond and something that's clever but easy for the audience to take in/relate to) Bond tries to give chase (action scene adding car chase to SF) but his "company car" is also hacked with Silva able to manipulate the car at will and Silva loving the ability to have Bond "on a piece of string"- a metaphor for showing how easily Bond and MI6 are being manipulated and justification for Bond to escape to the analogue environment of Skyfall. This removes some stupid stuff, shows a new form of cleverness from Silva (car hacking), and a better explanation as to why, later, Bond collects the DB5 as it can't be hacked. It also calls to a wider theme of how Bond adapts in the digital age ("I'll hazard I can do more damage on my laptop sitting in my pajamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field." ) and further justifies/re-enforces the claim that, sometimes, the old ways are the best (the climax at Skyfall is 100% analogue) and "back in time" - a time where there was no digital tech for Silva to exploit his advantages
    PS I'm stretching things here but another issue is how easily Silva attacks M at the enquiry, she just sits there giving poetry whilst Tanner gets a warning for her to leave via his laptop and Bond runs to the enquiry rather than just phoning security to have the building locked down (again, they have to do this to create the iconic Tennyson scene. )So, my version...once Silva escapes, he asks his team in the fake police car "where is she", they tell him that she is giving evidence in a certain building, he orders for the building coms to be cut (explaining why Bond can't call them on their digital phone system and Tanner receives no warning) . Q informs Bond that the building has been isolated, adding more urgency to his sprinting and more evidence for him (and the audience) that they need to escape the digital environment (which Bond obviously does straight after the enquiry attack) in order to even up the game.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited April 16 Posts: 3,267
    Yep, some great stuff there, patb. I might have to headcanon as much of that into it as I can the next time I watch SF! Great account of Silva and his character/abilities/flaws by TripAces over the page, too.
  • Posts: 4,724
    @Venutius thanks for that, there are other issues to deal with. Pulling Silva into an analogue world makes sense BUT, it makes no sense for the MI6 team not to send any help. The team literally stand in front of monitors, planting breadcrumbs, knowing that Bond and M are on their own verses the might/cunning of Silva and his resources. This is bonkers. I was thinking, they could have left it a day or so to ensure Silva was "off the scent" (no breadcrumbs) and then sent a chopper from SAS or similar to rescue them. Silva tracks the path of the chopper (hacked into MOD radar/transponder) and sees the flight track heading to Scotland. The penny drops that Bond "has gone home", Silva's chopper shoots down the MOD chopper (more action and showing cold kills from Silva), tension upgraded as the audience are now ahead of Bond/M as they are expecting "the calvalry" but we know they are not coming. Bond realises it's not an MOD chopper as it comes over the horizon and we see the climax begin (but with none of the "Home Alone" tricks as they were not expecting Silva).
    PS to replace the "Home Alone" prep stuff, we could have seen more of Kincade as he was a great character. I would have loved to see the three of them play poker in the kitchen for buttons, (drinking Kincade's scotch) as a nod to CR and "the calm before the storm"
    PPS Kincade's dogs are killed by Silva's men, adding to the cruel image of Silva and creating empathy for Kincade's character.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 16 Posts: 17,816
    The bit that always gets me is that they know Silva has hacked MI6's systems etc. and Bond knows he wants to get to Scotland, so he tells Q to lay a trail of breadcrumbs which only Silva could follow. And he says this important bit of secret information... over the MI6 comms system. :D
  • edited April 16 Posts: 4,724
    Yes, the whole "breadcrumbs" thing is just lazy writing, a clumsy tool to explain how Silva finds his way to Scotland . It's Bond's idea so he takes the responsibility for the plan failing in terms of M's death. It also removes tension from the audience perspective as we know in advance that Silva is on his way.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,816
    Nah that's way too harsh, it works perfectly well in the moment, not lazy at all.
  • I actually liked how Q made that trail to intentionally lead Silva to Bond and M. It shows us Q actually being intellectual and knowledgeable as opposed to just outright telling us. Much as I love Desmond as Q, I don’t buy that he’s a genius in the way I buy Whishaw as a tech wizard.
  • Posts: 4,724
    The plan makes zero sense. Of all of the options available to Bond as he "kidnaps" M, the option he chooses (and confirmed by team) makes no sense. It's one thing to be forced into a situation by a set of circumstances, it's another thing for the hero to actually create and execute the plan that puts them into that situation. It's a good place to be "off grid" for a couple of days but to actually plan to confront and defeat Silva ? I just can't see it myself.
  • edited April 16 Posts: 5,054
    I think it works well with the tube chase and courtroom shooting (and let's be honest, some of us would just say it's a TDK rip off if Silva hacked a truck/a chase broke out while being transported to prison and Bond stepping in! Sounds like a cool idea for another film though).
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 141
    patb wrote: »
    The plan makes zero sense. Of all of the options available to Bond as he "kidnaps" M, the option he chooses (and confirmed by team) makes no sense. It's one thing to be forced into a situation by a set of circumstances, it's another thing for the hero to actually create and execute the plan that puts them into that situation. It's a good place to be "off grid" for a couple of days but to actually plan to confront and defeat Silva ? I just can't see it myself.

    Aye, it's a terrible scheme.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,608
    Not really. It's part of the James Bond fantasy. No one could make this work... except Bond. I quite like this move.
  • edited April 18 Posts: 6,834
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Not really. It's part of the James Bond fantasy. No one could make this work... except Bond. I quite like this move.

    Me too, my friend, me too. Exactly the way I see it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,560
    But what about the list?!?!?!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,608
    But what about the list?!?!?!

    In a Bond film, a defeated villain means all problems are over. 😊 Otherwise, there'd still be a diamond powered laser satellite floating around in space since the early '70s.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,816
    But what about the list?!?!?!

    The list issue is solved once Silva is captured. He wasn't that interested in it anyway, he was only doing it in order to get captured.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,560
    mtm wrote: »
    But what about the list?!?!?!

    The list issue is solved once Silva is captured. He wasn't that interested in it anyway, he was only doing it in order to get captured.

    I’m just poking fun at the fans that get way too fixated on that kind of stuff, and how they take things way too literally.

    Like the idea that Silva “planned” specifically for Bond to follow him down the tunnel and have a train ready to crash on top of him. I never read it like that. I figured Silva was always going to derail a train, whether Bond or anyone else was standing under it or not.
  • edited April 19 Posts: 5,054
    I do think Bond fans can be prone to getting a little too worked up trying to point out the 'holes' in SF's plot, or at least its illogicalities (if they even are). The contrivances really aren't as bad as other Bond films, and ultimately it can be a frustrating and somewhat pointless exercise trying to point all this stuff and relating it to the overall viewing experience.

    I dunno, I think if some people spent half as much time trying to work out why they don't like the film rather than trying to point out illogicalities, it'd probably be more worthwhile (and honestly, not liking a film is fair enough and can down to many things - maybe it's not what we as individual fans want from a Bond film, which is a whole other discussion. Maybe certain moments don't work for certain viewers etc.) It just seems like there's much more to talk about with this film's story - positive or negative - rather than why Q leaving digital 'breadcrumbs' or Silva setting up a trap for Bond is somehow stupid...
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited April 19 Posts: 1,833
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do think Bond fans can be prone to getting a little too worked up trying to point out the 'holes' in SF's plot, or at least its illogicalities (if they even are). The contrivances really aren't as bad as other Bond films, and ultimately it can be a frustrating and somewhat pointless exercise trying to point all this stuff and relating it to the overall viewing experience.

    I dunno, I think if some people spent half as much time trying to work out why they don't like the film rather than trying to point out illogicalities, it'd probably be more worthwhile (and honestly, not liking a film is fair enough and can down to many things - maybe it's not what we as individual fans want from a Bond film, which is a whole other discussion. Maybe certain moments don't work for certain viewers etc.) It just seems like there's much more to talk about with this film's story - positive or negative - rather than why Q leaving digital 'breadcrumbs' or Silva setting up a trap for Bond is somehow stupid...

    The concepts are fine, the execution is poor. The Silvas plans make sense motivationally, but not practically. It takes me out of the film when the Subway crashes through the wall and... nothing else happens, no one is shown being hurt, and Bond just moves on and we never go back to this massive terrorist incident. It's silly. The trap could have been better. Everything about Skyfall and Spectre had decent ideas poorly executed, minus the brothers angle, which is just pure stupid.

    Sam Mendes has a way of showing you events without immersing me in them. My fav part of Skyfall was actually directed by Chris Corbould.
  • edited April 19 Posts: 5,054
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do think Bond fans can be prone to getting a little too worked up trying to point out the 'holes' in SF's plot, or at least its illogicalities (if they even are). The contrivances really aren't as bad as other Bond films, and ultimately it can be a frustrating and somewhat pointless exercise trying to point all this stuff and relating it to the overall viewing experience.

    I dunno, I think if some people spent half as much time trying to work out why they don't like the film rather than trying to point out illogicalities, it'd probably be more worthwhile (and honestly, not liking a film is fair enough and can down to many things - maybe it's not what we as individual fans want from a Bond film, which is a whole other discussion. Maybe certain moments don't work for certain viewers etc.) It just seems like there's much more to talk about with this film's story - positive or negative - rather than why Q leaving digital 'breadcrumbs' or Silva setting up a trap for Bond is somehow stupid...

    The concepts are fine, the execution is poor. The Silvas plans make sense motivationally, but not practically. It takes me out of the film when the Subway crashes through the wall and... nothing else happens, no one is shown being hurt, and Bond just moves on and we never go back to this massive terrorist incident. It's silly. The trap could have been better. Everything about Skyfall and Spectre had decent ideas poorly executed, minus the brothers angle, which is just pure stupid.

    Sam Mendes has a way of showing you events without immersing me in them. My fav part of Skyfall was actually directed by Chris Corbould.

    To each their own, and if it takes you out of the film that's really all there is to it. I've never questioned the tube explosion (it's simply a distraction to slow Bond down, and for me that's why it works as a plot event/is compelling - we're invested in Bond stopping Silva and he loses him again because the villain gets the better of our hero).

    Bond films are often outlandish and even get to a point where stuff doesn't actually make sense, but personally I've always been in that headspace with SF anyway. To be honest, it actually isn't completely illogical either - it's an empty train in an abandoned part of the underground, so it's not quite the major casualty filled terrorist attack you're implying, at least in the context of the film. We also see firemen and police going into the underground when Bond runs up, traffic at a standstill etc. There's very much a sense that the explosion has happened and has made an impact, even if it's just a disruption without casualties.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 141
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do think Bond fans can be prone to getting a little too worked up trying to point out the 'holes' in SF's plot, or at least its illogicalities (if they even are). The contrivances really aren't as bad as other Bond films, and ultimately it can be a frustrating and somewhat pointless exercise trying to point all this stuff and relating it to the overall viewing experience.

    I dunno, I think if some people spent half as much time trying to work out why they don't like the film rather than trying to point out illogicalities, it'd probably be more worthwhile (and honestly, not liking a film is fair enough and can down to many things - maybe it's not what we as individual fans want from a Bond film, which is a whole other discussion. Maybe certain moments don't work for certain viewers etc.) It just seems like there's much more to talk about with this film's story - positive or negative - rather than why Q leaving digital 'breadcrumbs' or Silva setting up a trap for Bond is somehow stupid...

    The concepts are fine, the execution is poor. The Silvas plans make sense motivationally, but not practically. It takes me out of the film when the Subway crashes through the wall and... nothing else happens, no one is shown being hurt, and Bond just moves on and we never go back to this massive terrorist incident. It's silly. The trap could have been better. Everything about Skyfall and Spectre had decent ideas poorly executed, minus the brothers angle, which is just pure stupid.

    Sam Mendes has a way of showing you events without immersing me in them. My fav part of Skyfall was actually directed by Chris Corbould.

    That's about right.

    SF as a film is okay, it looks pretty and has some good, if unexceptional performances.

    It's whenever it gets rated as premier Bond, as it frequently does, which gets me.

    It's nowhere near.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,560
    I agree, it ain’t the best. FRWL is the best, and SF can only reach as high as second place.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,574
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do think Bond fans can be prone to getting a little too worked up trying to point out the 'holes' in SF's plot, or at least its illogicalities (if they even are). The contrivances really aren't as bad as other Bond films, and ultimately it can be a frustrating and somewhat pointless exercise trying to point all this stuff and relating it to the overall viewing experience.

    I dunno, I think if some people spent half as much time trying to work out why they don't like the film rather than trying to point out illogicalities, it'd probably be more worthwhile (and honestly, not liking a film is fair enough and can down to many things - maybe it's not what we as individual fans want from a Bond film, which is a whole other discussion. Maybe certain moments don't work for certain viewers etc.) It just seems like there's much more to talk about with this film's story - positive or negative - rather than why Q leaving digital 'breadcrumbs' or Silva setting up a trap for Bond is somehow stupid...

    The concepts are fine, the execution is poor. The Silvas plans make sense motivationally, but not practically. It takes me out of the film when the Subway crashes through the wall and... nothing else happens, no one is shown being hurt, and Bond just moves on and we never go back to this massive terrorist incident. It's silly. The trap could have been better. Everything about Skyfall and Spectre had decent ideas poorly executed, minus the brothers angle, which is just pure stupid.

    Sam Mendes has a way of showing you events without immersing me in them. My fav part of Skyfall was actually directed by Chris Corbould.

    That's about right.

    SF as a film is okay, it looks pretty and has some good, if unexceptional performances.

    It's whenever it gets rated as premier Bond, as it frequently does, which gets me.

    It's nowhere near.

    But to some it is the best— are you going to tell them they’re wrong?

    What if those same people who think Skyfall is number one, turned around and told you that your favourite Bond picture is nowhere close to being number one? Not even close. Bit disrespectful, no?

    Let people enjoy what they want to enjoy. Life is far more enjoyable that way.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 19 Posts: 17,816
    mtm wrote: »
    But what about the list?!?!?!

    The list issue is solved once Silva is captured. He wasn't that interested in it anyway, he was only doing it in order to get captured.

    I’m just poking fun at the fans that get way too fixated on that kind of stuff, and how they take things way too literally.

    Like the idea that Silva “planned” specifically for Bond to follow him down the tunnel and have a train ready to crash on top of him. I never read it like that. I figured Silva was always going to derail a train, whether Bond or anyone else was standing under it or not.

    Ah okay, apologies. Sarcasm is hard to pick up on in text form.
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do think Bond fans can be prone to getting a little too worked up trying to point out the 'holes' in SF's plot, or at least its illogicalities (if they even are). The contrivances really aren't as bad as other Bond films, and ultimately it can be a frustrating and somewhat pointless exercise trying to point all this stuff and relating it to the overall viewing experience.

    I dunno, I think if some people spent half as much time trying to work out why they don't like the film rather than trying to point out illogicalities, it'd probably be more worthwhile (and honestly, not liking a film is fair enough and can down to many things - maybe it's not what we as individual fans want from a Bond film, which is a whole other discussion. Maybe certain moments don't work for certain viewers etc.) It just seems like there's much more to talk about with this film's story - positive or negative - rather than why Q leaving digital 'breadcrumbs' or Silva setting up a trap for Bond is somehow stupid...

    The concepts are fine, the execution is poor. The Silvas plans make sense motivationally, but not practically. It takes me out of the film when the Subway crashes through the wall and... nothing else happens, no one is shown being hurt, and Bond just moves on and we never go back to this massive terrorist incident. It's silly. The trap could have been better. Everything about Skyfall and Spectre had decent ideas poorly executed, minus the brothers angle, which is just pure stupid.

    Sam Mendes has a way of showing you events without immersing me in them. My fav part of Skyfall was actually directed by Chris Corbould.

    To each their own, and if it takes you out of the film that's really all there is to it. I've never questioned the tube explosion (it's simply a distraction to slow Bond down, and for me that's why it works as a plot event/is compelling - we're invested in Bond stopping Silva and he loses him again because the villain gets the better of our hero).

    Bond films are often outlandish and even get to a point where stuff doesn't actually make sense, but personally I've always been in that headspace with SF anyway. To be honest, it actually isn't completely illogical either - it's an empty train in an abandoned part of the underground, so it's not quite the major casualty filled terrorist attack you're implying, at least in the context of the film. We also see firemen and police going into the underground when Bond runs up, traffic at a standstill etc. There's very much a sense that the explosion has happened and has made an impact, even if it's just a disruption without casualties.

    Yeah, there's no one on the train except the driver; innocent people don't get hurt in Bond films. They tried that in QoS with the lorry driver and lady at the Palio getting shot and it just felt too wrong.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 141
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    But what about the list?!?!?!

    The list issue is solved once Silva is captured. He wasn't that interested in it anyway, he was only doing it in order to get captured.

    I’m just poking fun at the fans that get way too fixated on that kind of stuff, and how they take things way too literally.

    Like the idea that Silva “planned” specifically for Bond to follow him down the tunnel and have a train ready to crash on top of him. I never read it like that. I figured Silva was always going to derail a train, whether Bond or anyone else was standing under it or not.

    Ah okay, apologies. Sarcasm is hard to pick up on in text form.
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do think Bond fans can be prone to getting a little too worked up trying to point out the 'holes' in SF's plot, or at least its illogicalities (if they even are). The contrivances really aren't as bad as other Bond films, and ultimately it can be a frustrating and somewhat pointless exercise trying to point all this stuff and relating it to the overall viewing experience.

    I dunno, I think if some people spent half as much time trying to work out why they don't like the film rather than trying to point out illogicalities, it'd probably be more worthwhile (and honestly, not liking a film is fair enough and can down to many things - maybe it's not what we as individual fans want from a Bond film, which is a whole other discussion. Maybe certain moments don't work for certain viewers etc.) It just seems like there's much more to talk about with this film's story - positive or negative - rather than why Q leaving digital 'breadcrumbs' or Silva setting up a trap for Bond is somehow stupid...

    The concepts are fine, the execution is poor. The Silvas plans make sense motivationally, but not practically. It takes me out of the film when the Subway crashes through the wall and... nothing else happens, no one is shown being hurt, and Bond just moves on and we never go back to this massive terrorist incident. It's silly. The trap could have been better. Everything about Skyfall and Spectre had decent ideas poorly executed, minus the brothers angle, which is just pure stupid.

    Sam Mendes has a way of showing you events without immersing me in them. My fav part of Skyfall was actually directed by Chris Corbould.

    To each their own, and if it takes you out of the film that's really all there is to it. I've never questioned the tube explosion (it's simply a distraction to slow Bond down, and for me that's why it works as a plot event/is compelling - we're invested in Bond stopping Silva and he loses him again because the villain gets the better of our hero).

    Bond films are often outlandish and even get to a point where stuff doesn't actually make sense, but personally I've always been in that headspace with SF anyway. To be honest, it actually isn't completely illogical either - it's an empty train in an abandoned part of the underground, so it's not quite the major casualty filled terrorist attack you're implying, at least in the context of the film. We also see firemen and police going into the underground when Bond runs up, traffic at a standstill etc. There's very much a sense that the explosion has happened and has made an impact, even if it's just a disruption without casualties.

    Yeah, there's no one on the train except the driver; innocent people don't get hurt in Bond films. They tried that in QoS with the lorry driver and lady at the Palio getting shot and it just felt too wrong.

    In skyfall, lots of innocent people die. Severine, the police at the tribunal, the victims at the mi6 base...Need to stop inventing excuses for plot incoherence.

    The train crash had no innocent victims because blanking victims would invoke awkward conversations about the London 2005 terror attacks.

    However, it's also how Silva had such lined up, as part of his ludicrous escape plan, which is the clinching point.

    Still entertaining, in a mindless sort of way.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 20 Posts: 17,816
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    But what about the list?!?!?!

    The list issue is solved once Silva is captured. He wasn't that interested in it anyway, he was only doing it in order to get captured.

    I’m just poking fun at the fans that get way too fixated on that kind of stuff, and how they take things way too literally.

    Like the idea that Silva “planned” specifically for Bond to follow him down the tunnel and have a train ready to crash on top of him. I never read it like that. I figured Silva was always going to derail a train, whether Bond or anyone else was standing under it or not.

    Ah okay, apologies. Sarcasm is hard to pick up on in text form.
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do think Bond fans can be prone to getting a little too worked up trying to point out the 'holes' in SF's plot, or at least its illogicalities (if they even are). The contrivances really aren't as bad as other Bond films, and ultimately it can be a frustrating and somewhat pointless exercise trying to point all this stuff and relating it to the overall viewing experience.

    I dunno, I think if some people spent half as much time trying to work out why they don't like the film rather than trying to point out illogicalities, it'd probably be more worthwhile (and honestly, not liking a film is fair enough and can down to many things - maybe it's not what we as individual fans want from a Bond film, which is a whole other discussion. Maybe certain moments don't work for certain viewers etc.) It just seems like there's much more to talk about with this film's story - positive or negative - rather than why Q leaving digital 'breadcrumbs' or Silva setting up a trap for Bond is somehow stupid...

    The concepts are fine, the execution is poor. The Silvas plans make sense motivationally, but not practically. It takes me out of the film when the Subway crashes through the wall and... nothing else happens, no one is shown being hurt, and Bond just moves on and we never go back to this massive terrorist incident. It's silly. The trap could have been better. Everything about Skyfall and Spectre had decent ideas poorly executed, minus the brothers angle, which is just pure stupid.

    Sam Mendes has a way of showing you events without immersing me in them. My fav part of Skyfall was actually directed by Chris Corbould.

    To each their own, and if it takes you out of the film that's really all there is to it. I've never questioned the tube explosion (it's simply a distraction to slow Bond down, and for me that's why it works as a plot event/is compelling - we're invested in Bond stopping Silva and he loses him again because the villain gets the better of our hero).

    Bond films are often outlandish and even get to a point where stuff doesn't actually make sense, but personally I've always been in that headspace with SF anyway. To be honest, it actually isn't completely illogical either - it's an empty train in an abandoned part of the underground, so it's not quite the major casualty filled terrorist attack you're implying, at least in the context of the film. We also see firemen and police going into the underground when Bond runs up, traffic at a standstill etc. There's very much a sense that the explosion has happened and has made an impact, even if it's just a disruption without casualties.

    Yeah, there's no one on the train except the driver; innocent people don't get hurt in Bond films. They tried that in QoS with the lorry driver and lady at the Palio getting shot and it just felt too wrong.

    In skyfall, lots of innocent people die. Severine, the police at the tribunal, the victims at the mi6 base...
    I’m talking about innocent bystanders, clearly. Members of the public, not the sacrificial lambs or cannon fodder soldiers etc. Those feature in all Bond films, but the public don’t.
    Need to stop inventing excuses for plot incoherence.

    Don’t talk to me like that please. Nothing here is incoherent. Any consistencies have the same ‘excuse’ they do in any Bond: it’s extremely entertaining.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,608
    Which is why I prefer SP to SF.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 141
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    But what about the list?!?!?!

    The list issue is solved once Silva is captured. He wasn't that interested in it anyway, he was only doing it in order to get captured.

    I’m just poking fun at the fans that get way too fixated on that kind of stuff, and how they take things way too literally.

    Like the idea that Silva “planned” specifically for Bond to follow him down the tunnel and have a train ready to crash on top of him. I never read it like that. I figured Silva was always going to derail a train, whether Bond or anyone else was standing under it or not.

    Ah okay, apologies. Sarcasm is hard to pick up on in text form.
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do think Bond fans can be prone to getting a little too worked up trying to point out the 'holes' in SF's plot, or at least its illogicalities (if they even are). The contrivances really aren't as bad as other Bond films, and ultimately it can be a frustrating and somewhat pointless exercise trying to point all this stuff and relating it to the overall viewing experience.

    I dunno, I think if some people spent half as much time trying to work out why they don't like the film rather than trying to point out illogicalities, it'd probably be more worthwhile (and honestly, not liking a film is fair enough and can down to many things - maybe it's not what we as individual fans want from a Bond film, which is a whole other discussion. Maybe certain moments don't work for certain viewers etc.) It just seems like there's much more to talk about with this film's story - positive or negative - rather than why Q leaving digital 'breadcrumbs' or Silva setting up a trap for Bond is somehow stupid...

    The concepts are fine, the execution is poor. The Silvas plans make sense motivationally, but not practically. It takes me out of the film when the Subway crashes through the wall and... nothing else happens, no one is shown being hurt, and Bond just moves on and we never go back to this massive terrorist incident. It's silly. The trap could have been better. Everything about Skyfall and Spectre had decent ideas poorly executed, minus the brothers angle, which is just pure stupid.

    Sam Mendes has a way of showing you events without immersing me in them. My fav part of Skyfall was actually directed by Chris Corbould.

    To each their own, and if it takes you out of the film that's really all there is to it. I've never questioned the tube explosion (it's simply a distraction to slow Bond down, and for me that's why it works as a plot event/is compelling - we're invested in Bond stopping Silva and he loses him again because the villain gets the better of our hero).

    Bond films are often outlandish and even get to a point where stuff doesn't actually make sense, but personally I've always been in that headspace with SF anyway. To be honest, it actually isn't completely illogical either - it's an empty train in an abandoned part of the underground, so it's not quite the major casualty filled terrorist attack you're implying, at least in the context of the film. We also see firemen and police going into the underground when Bond runs up, traffic at a standstill etc. There's very much a sense that the explosion has happened and has made an impact, even if it's just a disruption without casualties.

    Yeah, there's no one on the train except the driver; innocent people don't get hurt in Bond films. They tried that in QoS with the lorry driver and lady at the Palio getting shot and it just felt too wrong.

    In skyfall, lots of innocent people die. Severine, the police at the tribunal, the victims at the mi6 base...
    I’m talking about innocent bystanders, clearly. Members of the public, not the sacrificial lambs or cannon fodder soldiers etc. Those feature in all Bond films, but the public don’t.
    Need to stop inventing excuses for plot incoherence.

    Don’t talk to me like that please. Nothing here is incoherent. Any consistencies have the same ‘excuse’ they do in any Bond: it’s extremely entertaining.

    Aye, it's a bit of a wheeze, alright, but definitely not one of the best. In terms of 'comedy Bonds', it would finish well beneath Goldfinger and any Roger Moore bar TMWTGG.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,816
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    But what about the list?!?!?!

    The list issue is solved once Silva is captured. He wasn't that interested in it anyway, he was only doing it in order to get captured.

    I’m just poking fun at the fans that get way too fixated on that kind of stuff, and how they take things way too literally.

    Like the idea that Silva “planned” specifically for Bond to follow him down the tunnel and have a train ready to crash on top of him. I never read it like that. I figured Silva was always going to derail a train, whether Bond or anyone else was standing under it or not.

    Ah okay, apologies. Sarcasm is hard to pick up on in text form.
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do think Bond fans can be prone to getting a little too worked up trying to point out the 'holes' in SF's plot, or at least its illogicalities (if they even are). The contrivances really aren't as bad as other Bond films, and ultimately it can be a frustrating and somewhat pointless exercise trying to point all this stuff and relating it to the overall viewing experience.

    I dunno, I think if some people spent half as much time trying to work out why they don't like the film rather than trying to point out illogicalities, it'd probably be more worthwhile (and honestly, not liking a film is fair enough and can down to many things - maybe it's not what we as individual fans want from a Bond film, which is a whole other discussion. Maybe certain moments don't work for certain viewers etc.) It just seems like there's much more to talk about with this film's story - positive or negative - rather than why Q leaving digital 'breadcrumbs' or Silva setting up a trap for Bond is somehow stupid...

    The concepts are fine, the execution is poor. The Silvas plans make sense motivationally, but not practically. It takes me out of the film when the Subway crashes through the wall and... nothing else happens, no one is shown being hurt, and Bond just moves on and we never go back to this massive terrorist incident. It's silly. The trap could have been better. Everything about Skyfall and Spectre had decent ideas poorly executed, minus the brothers angle, which is just pure stupid.

    Sam Mendes has a way of showing you events without immersing me in them. My fav part of Skyfall was actually directed by Chris Corbould.

    To each their own, and if it takes you out of the film that's really all there is to it. I've never questioned the tube explosion (it's simply a distraction to slow Bond down, and for me that's why it works as a plot event/is compelling - we're invested in Bond stopping Silva and he loses him again because the villain gets the better of our hero).

    Bond films are often outlandish and even get to a point where stuff doesn't actually make sense, but personally I've always been in that headspace with SF anyway. To be honest, it actually isn't completely illogical either - it's an empty train in an abandoned part of the underground, so it's not quite the major casualty filled terrorist attack you're implying, at least in the context of the film. We also see firemen and police going into the underground when Bond runs up, traffic at a standstill etc. There's very much a sense that the explosion has happened and has made an impact, even if it's just a disruption without casualties.

    Yeah, there's no one on the train except the driver; innocent people don't get hurt in Bond films. They tried that in QoS with the lorry driver and lady at the Palio getting shot and it just felt too wrong.

    In skyfall, lots of innocent people die. Severine, the police at the tribunal, the victims at the mi6 base...
    I’m talking about innocent bystanders, clearly. Members of the public, not the sacrificial lambs or cannon fodder soldiers etc. Those feature in all Bond films, but the public don’t.
    Need to stop inventing excuses for plot incoherence.

    Don’t talk to me like that please. Nothing here is incoherent. Any consistencies have the same ‘excuse’ they do in any Bond: it’s extremely entertaining.

    Aye, it's a bit of a wheeze, alright, but definitely not one of the best. In terms of 'comedy Bonds', it would finish well beneath Goldfinger and any Roger Moore bar TMWTGG.

    Maybe not on your list but it is on mine. There’s no objective placement for it, the closest we have I guess is rotten tomatoes with its 92/86% rating, where it ranks above the majority.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,574
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    But what about the list?!?!?!

    The list issue is solved once Silva is captured. He wasn't that interested in it anyway, he was only doing it in order to get captured.

    I’m just poking fun at the fans that get way too fixated on that kind of stuff, and how they take things way too literally.

    Like the idea that Silva “planned” specifically for Bond to follow him down the tunnel and have a train ready to crash on top of him. I never read it like that. I figured Silva was always going to derail a train, whether Bond or anyone else was standing under it or not.

    Ah okay, apologies. Sarcasm is hard to pick up on in text form.
    007HallY wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do think Bond fans can be prone to getting a little too worked up trying to point out the 'holes' in SF's plot, or at least its illogicalities (if they even are). The contrivances really aren't as bad as other Bond films, and ultimately it can be a frustrating and somewhat pointless exercise trying to point all this stuff and relating it to the overall viewing experience.

    I dunno, I think if some people spent half as much time trying to work out why they don't like the film rather than trying to point out illogicalities, it'd probably be more worthwhile (and honestly, not liking a film is fair enough and can down to many things - maybe it's not what we as individual fans want from a Bond film, which is a whole other discussion. Maybe certain moments don't work for certain viewers etc.) It just seems like there's much more to talk about with this film's story - positive or negative - rather than why Q leaving digital 'breadcrumbs' or Silva setting up a trap for Bond is somehow stupid...

    The concepts are fine, the execution is poor. The Silvas plans make sense motivationally, but not practically. It takes me out of the film when the Subway crashes through the wall and... nothing else happens, no one is shown being hurt, and Bond just moves on and we never go back to this massive terrorist incident. It's silly. The trap could have been better. Everything about Skyfall and Spectre had decent ideas poorly executed, minus the brothers angle, which is just pure stupid.

    Sam Mendes has a way of showing you events without immersing me in them. My fav part of Skyfall was actually directed by Chris Corbould.

    To each their own, and if it takes you out of the film that's really all there is to it. I've never questioned the tube explosion (it's simply a distraction to slow Bond down, and for me that's why it works as a plot event/is compelling - we're invested in Bond stopping Silva and he loses him again because the villain gets the better of our hero).

    Bond films are often outlandish and even get to a point where stuff doesn't actually make sense, but personally I've always been in that headspace with SF anyway. To be honest, it actually isn't completely illogical either - it's an empty train in an abandoned part of the underground, so it's not quite the major casualty filled terrorist attack you're implying, at least in the context of the film. We also see firemen and police going into the underground when Bond runs up, traffic at a standstill etc. There's very much a sense that the explosion has happened and has made an impact, even if it's just a disruption without casualties.

    Yeah, there's no one on the train except the driver; innocent people don't get hurt in Bond films. They tried that in QoS with the lorry driver and lady at the Palio getting shot and it just felt too wrong.

    In skyfall, lots of innocent people die. Severine, the police at the tribunal, the victims at the mi6 base...
    I’m talking about innocent bystanders, clearly. Members of the public, not the sacrificial lambs or cannon fodder soldiers etc. Those feature in all Bond films, but the public don’t.
    Need to stop inventing excuses for plot incoherence.

    Don’t talk to me like that please. Nothing here is incoherent. Any consistencies have the same ‘excuse’ they do in any Bond: it’s extremely entertaining.

    Aye, it's a bit of a wheeze, alright, but definitely not one of the best. In terms of 'comedy Bonds', it would finish well beneath Goldfinger and any Roger Moore bar TMWTGG.

    Maybe not on your list but it is on mine. There’s no objective placement for it, the closest we have I guess is rotten tomatoes with its 92/86% rating, where it ranks above the majority.

    C'mon, @mtm, this person is telling you how you should feel about a film; why on earth you're not submitting to AnotherZorinStooge is beyond me! He obviously knows what's right for us. After all, we can enjoy Skyfall, just not if we think it's a top James Bond film.

    🙄...
  • Posts: 1,829
    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.

    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.


    Bardem being the bad guy is very Brexit-esque.
Sign In or Register to comment.