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
I like GF a lot, it was an immense blockbuster in it's time and to me, a pretty good story. Perfect? No, but pretty fun and an awesome villain and henchman.
God it's nice to hear someone else say this. I totally agree. I got shot down in flames for saying exactly this when SF came out but what you are saying is so true. I don't understand why nobody notices how totally incompetent the whole of MI6 are in this film.
All: defending things you like from criticism is not what this thread is for. Im happy to let all the barbs for Moore go unanswered, but if this becomes a debate thread it's dead.
You could say "a gun-barrel" ;)
Exactly what I said. M totally f**** up and then makes this big show at the committee hearing like she did nothing wrong. The committee is not questioning the need for spies - it's questioning the total bloody incompetence.
God that film drives me up the wall - totally and utterly incoherent nonsense.
It's not even that Bond f****. M has him shot before he can finish the job.
Are you asking for someone to debate you on Skyfall or not? I like the picture and am perfectly content to do so, unless you're only interested in stating your opinions but not debating them.
I think SF is an imperfect but very strong film overall, but to each his or her own.
I don't hate Roger Moore films, just think they're very poorly done and slowly sunk the franchise into self-parody, and that Roger Moore rolling around on top of a train roof like he did on OP and many other silly moments in his Bond films were sad examples of the depths to which the franchise plummeted during those years.
In my opinion.
I love it. A thread where mindless positivity is actually a negative.
If you listen to the commentary on OHMSS, that's exactly what Hunt had planned.
That's actually one of the themes in the film in a deliberate way, to further the idea that there needed to be a new M.
@Andmcit's point is that it's not just M who is incompetent - it's everyone in MI6!
I've heard people criticise Bond for being incompetent in GF so many times but apparently getting M killed counts as a triumph. In any remotely 'realistic' scenario Bond would be court martialled and probably imprisoned for what he does in the final act of SF. It's just such narrative garbage.
The issue I have is that even though everyone in MI6 totally f***** up from start to finish this is barely acknowledged. M is depicted as some wronged warrior, standing up for trad values and MI6, when actually she has totally screwed up. Bond fails/ is foiled from getting the disk back. Q is a liability, as is Moneypenny. Bond gets the head of MI6 killed, while Mallory is an accessory to her death. And yet at the end there isn't a massive debrief - it's all slaps on the back as if everything went to plan.
It's just a weird weird movie, and not in a good way. It's lazily plotted and is profoundly patronising toward the audience.
I agree SF has a whole heck of a lot of things go SIlva's way in the end of the second act, but thematically the idea that MI6 needs a change is a big part of the undercurrent of the picture.
I think it could/would have been more intersting if they'd addressed the issue of intelligence community incompetence more directly. In the wake of the Iraq mess this would have been relevant. But SF raises the issues but then just skates over them.
This is exactly how I felt on walking out of my first viewing - I felt cheated and genuinely surprised they'd let Bond screw up so much and have everyone complicit in the ineptitude with him - I wouldn't lend any one of them my car keys let alone walk my dogs. It is a very weird film which it seems you're not supposed to stop and think too much about but bask in the action and edginess of a slicker Bond presentation.
It seems @getafix and I must be in the minority of those that see SF this way? If Ironman had let a main character such as Pepper die at the end due to his inept decision making throughout it would surely fail the first screentest. They do these at EON still?
In TWINE the same thing happens, essentially, and no consequences result. M gets kidnapped, a nuclear warhead is on the loose, Bond has innappropriate contact with the person he's guarding, he's cleared for action even though he's clearly not healthy, and a sub sinks in the caspian sea with absolutely no consequences on screen.
Is this negative enough?
Mod Edit - Negative yes. But swearing has been removed.