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
With all that I didn't like about SF, this sums up what WAS great about it IMO.
That's what makes his death so grand: all of the irony in it. Right when I saw Kincade set the knife on the table, I knew that's how he would get it. That, or the fact that someone spoiled it for me. Either way, it was obvious to my friend, too, who was oblivious on what was going to happen in the film.
Another bit of irony I enjoy is Tanner describing the new digs, saying that they are still finding old tunnels, and something about "aside from the rats," which I suppose hints at Bond and Silva (the "rats") chasing one another in the tunnels later on in the film.
This is precisely why I didn't like it, actually that's not strictly true, it was more disappointment than dislike. As I've mentioned in another thread, I thought it was a bit film school 101. I thought it was too obvious and just a Mendes double bluff.
@Creasy - yes, the rats reference is neat.
@RC7, I can see why you could think that. It is a lot like in TDKR when
Yes, that's a good comparison.
I think so too. In fact had Bond thrown his knife out of nowhere so to speak, it would have looked a bit like a deus ex machina.
At the end of the day I think it was a better choice to mention it than leave it unaddressed as to where Bond got it.
Sold out because he broke MI6 rules and jeopardized the peaceful transfer of Hong Kong from British to Chinese rule. Silva overstepped his bounds and he paid the price. He was no victim, no matter how much he thought himself to be one.
Agreed completely. It's a fine line; how do you show that Bond has a knife without telegraphing Silva's death? I don't know if you can; I like how the edge was taken off by the inclusion of Kincaid's line. They did the thing they had to do (show the provenance of the knife) but also showed the *reason* for it - that it tied into the overall theme of the film. Great choice in the writing IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun
And I would add that M received six imprisoned British agents in return for giving up Silva. The filmmakers leave little doubt who was in the right and who was wrong here.
Hey, good to see you back! I was Everyman in the old forums.
Welcome back (can i say so?) @Perilagu! Long time no see.
Mmmmm. Perfect.
:-*
Sir Henry
As long as you don't say similar lines. Oh, maybe it is a sign that Blofeld will return in the series.
I suppose it's a bit like "Red" Grant, who's only ever referred to as "Donald Grant" onscreen.
It's strange that we refer to him as "Silva" at all. I think I'm right in thinking that his name is only mentioned twice in the whole film, once as "Mr Silva" and once as "Tiago Rodriguez". I wonder why we don't call him by his real name?
What is his name in the official roster of cast and characters? Is the character's name mentioned in the credits?
I don't think it's strange at all to refer to the character called Silva as Silva. ;) That is his new identity, the one we see in the movie. We don't actually see him as Tiago Rodriguez at all, even if that's his real name - that's his past, and Silva is who he is now. He has reconstructed himself - the looks, the name and all, and his personality has surely changed as well, so all in all he is a very different man as Silva than he was a long time ago when he was known by his real name. He isn't known as Tiago Rodriguez in Skyfall, so it would make no sense IMO to refer to him by that name when discussing the character in the movie.
The credits at the end of Skyfall have him as Silva, and the credits also mention "Silva's henchmen" etc. Also in the Bond On Set - Filming Skyfall book the character is called simply Silva. In the movie both Bond and M address the character as Mr. Silva when taking to him, and Bond, Q, Tanner and Mallory call him Silva when they talk about him, so why would we refer to him by his "real" (=previous) name? Also, the people who made the movie (director, actors etc.) all refer to the character as Silva.
The name "Silva" actually gets mentioned several times during Skyfall, the name "Tiago Rodriguez" only once. Still, that one time is, of course, important, especially considering what the name is (I mean the Tiago = James bit), and I think that just further underlines the fact that this is not really the same man anymore.
As for "Raoul"... somebody knows about that, surely? :)
Perfectly put. Tiago died in that prison in China and there Silva was born. Silva has reconstructed himself on the outside (his gaudy dress and flamboyant hair giving an impression of who he is), but in actual fact he's rotten inside and his appearance is a façade.
As for the Raoul question:
Go to 1.48
I still don't think Raoul is canon.