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
And when asking questions, you're going to get a variety of answers. And when you get answers that aren't to your liking it's a bit unfair to attack those that provide those answers. Did you not read my post where I said: "Now, if you are just curious about the secondary characters and you want to posit story lines around those characters for your own amusment, then more power to you my friend. I have absolutely no problem with that."
No one's acting like they got their ponytails pulled. I'm just answering your question by saying there is no answer to your question - and that fact that there is no answer is ok, even preferable, in terms of story telling.
Perhaps there was a bit of a back story connection between the dealer and M in some version of the script. Perhaps those scenes were even filmed. But then the decision was made (by the director or editor) to cut those scenes because they were unnessesary and it detracted from the main story. And they would've been correct in doing so.
Keep in mind that we could ask a million irrelevant questions about any one of the thousands of people we see on the screen in Skyfall (including my fruit cart example above). But that gets us nowhere. Isn't it best to confine our inquires to the actual script and goings-on as seen on the screen?
Also, as for you comment that Silva "doesn't need to raise money this way", again, there is no evidence that that is true. There's also no evidence that he had that man killed to raise money. Taking this further, killing M doesn't get Silva any money either, but that doesn't mean he doesn't try to do that.
But ist is a Plot hole, and not a small One i might add. One of many many many in the Movie. You See the Point is not that Patrice kills someone. The Point is that Silva Wants the Guy dead. Otherwise the Chip wouldn't lead Bond in the Casino,to Severigne and finally to Silva. Have you ever thought about that Bond actually has no Way of knowing if the People that have hired Patrice have really anything to do with the Case at all. When he sails away with Severigne he also could have come to an Island Full with Chinese Tong Bosses who would have him skinned and his Balls fried for Breakfest! What i find annoying here is the tendency of some who dont care about storylines and some Minimum of inherent Logic to ridicule those who dare to be dissatisfied.
Again, that isn't confirmed, just us piecing things together for fun to get our own answers. Perhaps after it's released on home video and we get a closer look at it, we can most certainly confirm the man in Shanghai is the man in the picture, but in terms of him being the man in China who worked with M in doing a deal, that's just us creating our own resolution to this minute detail.
1) Bond's bullet fragments - obtained from the guy they know stole the hard drive - are traced to a hired gun named Patrice.
Bond's mission then, is to find Patrice and find out who hired him to steal the hard drive and thus, hopefully, find the hard drive. The mission is not to find out who the art dealer is. The mission is not even to find out who hired Patrice to kill the art dealer. Bond's mission is solely to find out who went about having the hard drive stolen.
2) Intelligence uncovers the tip that Patrice will be in Hong Kong soon. Bond is sent there to get Patrice and find out who hired him to steal the hard drive.
3) Bond finds Patrice, attempts to capture him, but fails. He does, however, find a lead in the form of the casino chip, and follows that lead in the hopes of finding the guy who stole the hard drive.
Note that NONE of this has to do with the freakin' art dealer (if he even was a dealer). Patrice's only value to Bond is solely to lead Bond to the hard drive.
Let me put it another way. If Bond found Patrice washing his car, attempted to capture him but instead ended up killing him, the story remains the same (Led Zepplin reference unintended).
The art dealer is completely and totally irrelevant to the main plot (which is why any extra scene regarding him got cut). Therefore, he can't be a "plot hole".
You can't be a plot hole if you've got nothing to do with the plot.
Yep. Sorry for the confusion. Edited my post to be more clear.
It's fine, no worries.
In fairness you put it quite eloquently there and I am won over by your logic.
I do think its still a tad clumsy though as we don't really have any idea of the relationship between Patrice and Severine and what exactly they are up to. Not strictly necessary to the main plot perhaps but it would be nice not to have spend hours inventing tons of backstory ourselves to explain what they are doing and just how Silvas convulted plans hang together.
The deal with the executed man isn't a plot hole. What it is is an unexplained part of the film. Or, some may choose to call it a "dangling thread" - I would not because there's nothing unresolved.
It's not really explained in the movie, why go back?
Also do we feel like M's death was earned in the film?
Why Bond takes M to Skyfall:
1.) There was supposed to be a decent arsenal there (but it was sold)
2.) It takes Silva out of his own environment, ergo there was no technology there that he could use or hack to his advantage.
3.) The area is desolate, meaning nobody else would have to die or become injured because of Silva and his hunt for M.
4.) The area is flat, so if Silva tried any attack Bond, Kincade and M would know when he was coming and from where.
Those are just a few reasons.
Also, Bond had been thinking of Skyfall earlier...first when the psychologist mentioned it in the word association interview, then when Silva informed him that he hadn't been cleared for duty partially because of "unresolved issues from childhood". So when he cast his mind about thinking for an isolated place to take M and confront Silva...
It's possible that it was just never finished. The tunnel is incredibly old, but it looks like a very random hole in the middle of the field surrounding Skyfall. Plus, the room that Kincade exits in the chapel looks like it could have more than fulfilled housing the exit to the tunnel.
They just needed a reason for Bond to chase after them. If he took the tunnel and beat Silva to M and Kincade, then the ending would have been much different and M's life wouldn't have hung in the balance like it had.
How did Silva manage to escape from the Chinese prison after biting on the cyanide capsule? I really can't see how this would of been possible with the horrific injuries he sustained. Are we to assume that the Chinese simply let him go or did they fail to check his pulse first before burying him alive and somehow he managed to dig himself out of a grave? Was this ever addressed in the movie?
I saw SF for the second time on Saturday and a few things were more clear to me. They don't explain the tunnel ending but I have a theory. It kind of slopes up to a hole in the ground with no "exit" or door built so I assume that the rest of the tunnel collapsed due to it being so old (someone here said that it looked like there had once been a building where it ended but I don't see that at all, again it should have had some kind of exit if that was the case).
I posted in the SF review thread about the bit with the flashlight a couple of days ago. Kincaid takes it and turns it on when they enter the priesthole. Then, when you see them on the moor at first he doesn't appear to have it turned on (this could be because of framing, I saw the non-Imax version this time). When the gas cylinders explode, bringing down the helicopter there's a huge explosion that completely destroys Skyfall. M and Kincaid watch this with shock on their faces, then they turn to make their way to the chapel. Their manner suggests that they're thinking "Okay, it's over now". That was the first time (on the moor) that I noticed that Kincaid had the flashlight on.
Of course, there's also the practical reason that the ground was very uneven and he thought that everyone else was pre-occupied...I'll be looking to see if he indeed doesn't use the flashlight until Skyfall blows up on the DVD.
Deakins shot it in the 2:40:1 Aspect Ratio, which is a form of widescreen (I suppose)
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/11/08/behind-the-lies-of-the-skyfall-see-it-in-imax-advertising-campaign/
I don't know. If Fox use the IMAX version for the DVD and Blu Ray release then no. If they us the standard 35mm print version then yes.
It was probably a deleted scene, and I'm guessing it was his trip to Shanghai.
Well Q gives him a passport in the gallery but even having seen it twice on IMAX I dont recall it saying John Bryce.
Interesting article as regards seeing the film as the filmmakers intended. It would be nice if the Bluray has the option to switch bewteen ratios but I would be surprised. It will most likely be just 2:40:1.
Trusting IMDB is the equivalent of trusting Wikipedia.
Both have some trustworthy information, though neither is 100% believable.
Anyone remember if the helicopters made much noise when arriving just before being shown? I felt like it was too much like GE, imo, where for sake of movie aesthetic the sound was drowned out until after the choppers were all the way up in the air.