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
What was the reason for the word game scene when the man ask bond skyfall and bond says done.I know bonds family owned the estate skyfall but what was the point of the word game when he says done.what does done mean.
The test was just about testing Bond's psychology. They wanted to examine how he reacted to certain key words, and for him 'Skyfall' was a direct connection to his past, and he says "done" because he doesn't want to talk about it.
I have to watch it again, but I got the impression it was a fake GPS track, it can be seen in the map when Mallory finds out.
This gets back to a back-and-forth that I had with a member here around the time of SF's release. After trading several posts we came to the respectful conclusion that SF was not the "style" of film that he liked while it was one that I did like. At first he thought it was a badly-made film but then he conceded that it was just more subtle than he liked.
For example, it really bothered him that they didn't show Bond getting out of the water before he went to Skyfall's chapel. To me, it was fine that they showed him illuminate and find the hole in the ice with the flare. But for this other person, it wasn't enough - without a shot of Bond actually crawling out of the hole, he said "But *how* did Bond get out of the water?".
To me, the "breadcrumbs" scene is similar - we know that Q is leaving clues for Silva to find because he says that's what he's doing. How would it make it any better for him to say what they are? We could bog down the film with long explanations of everything but sometimes it doesn't add anything. I mean, it's not like we cut straight from Bond driving M away from the inquiry to Silva attacking SF...
When TND was released, GPS was still not available for the general public, hence the "lengthy" explanations of what it is in the movie. And yet in my opinion, they managed to do it in a rather not boring way.
On the paper, a communication satellite posing as a military one to distort the GPS without being noticed sounds as "bogus" as Silva's premonitory hacking skills, but on screen it feels ok and even quite "clever" IMO in TND, while the "guess the password" in SF looks a bit weird.
It's textbook object permanence: just because we can't see it, it doesn't mean it still isn't existing and moving.
Bond's entrance into the Shanghai skyscraper mirrors his entrance into the Turkish room at the beginning of the movie, right down to his walk, the dead body and the score. Both times on his way to a confrontation with Patrice.
Damn, it really is a movie with multiple layers.
LOL, watch the SF bashers complain that this is further proof how bad the film was - "Look, they're so unoriginal that they didn't just copy other Bond films, they copied a scene from the same film! It's so insulting!!!"
I noticed that on my third viewing and thought it was brilliant. Great stuff
And yes @thelordflasheart, unfortunately some people can't let people enjoy anything. Oh well
Well, I'm not part of the "SF is brilliant" category, and yet I noticed such things, but this actually distracted me as I found all this a bit too self conscious, and well, not so subtle.
To your remark, one can add that there is though a strong difference between both scenes : the first scene is the "close shaved / ear-piece - I obey to MI6" Bond, though the other one is the "not shaved / no ear-piece - I'm on my own" Bond. In the first scene, the ear-piece is very easy to see on the screen, it's so blatant IMO that it means they want us to understand all this.
Then, once he's shaven, the ear-piece is back again instantly (but this time you don't see it on screen for credibility reason - everyone in the casino would see the earpiece from the PTS... -, but you keep on hearing lots of Eve/Bond dialog so we're sure not to miss it). But only for a few moments, as he drops it in Eve's glass for no real reason. It doesn't prevent her from saving Bond at the last moment a few minutes after though, it's for me one of the cases when symbolism (of the ear-piece) is handled before the coherency of the story (Eve remains as efficient as if they had kept on being aware of each other's whereabouts with the earpieces).
Then in the end, we have strong emphasis in the dialog they should not rely on any piece of electronics in order to fight Silva. Even if that means that a Q gadgets-laden DB5 has then specifically no such tracking device, which is quite paradoxal from a "coherency" point of view (even the GF DB5 had a "GPS" !), but from the symbolic point of view , it means "let's handle this as in a Fleming book : no earpieces, no phone cells, just good old rifles and knifes" !
A "brilliant nonsense" scene for me is for instance when Bond learns the lair of the villain from the mouth of a parrot in FYEO. If it had been in a Hitchcock movie it would have been a cult scene I'm pretty sure.
Okay. And what movies aren't? It's kind of a staple of film-making.
I'm not bilingual in English, so I'm not sure, but in case you read "movie grammar" when I write "symbolism", I really don't mean, I mean the first sense of "symbolism" in French at least (example : wearing an ear-piece vs not wearing one to emphasize - a bit too much to my own taste - obeying vs deciding on his own).
SF is not heavy on movie grammar, either IMO. We've got only one point of view, no flashback, etc...
Why would they surmise that Bond isn't dead, irrelevant of their distance to SF? They set up the breadcrumbs so Silva could trace them to the location; he knows they're both alive. I'm sure the main reason - aside from being able to transport them a lot faster - that Silva went with the chopper is so he and his men can block the exits on the ground and let the chopper rip through the lodge with devastating power. Whether Bond revealed himself or not, he was probably going to do that, anyway.
I do agree, though, that Bond should have waited a while to get a better shot. If the rifles are scattered throughout and you know you don't have the time to get a new gun, why fire from such a distance?
There are a few anomalies like this that make Bond seem rather incompetent.
I surmise that in an earlier draft it was probably just a singular attack, split in two when Mendes decided to go all GF with the DB5.
How does that make Bond "seem" incompetent?
I'm referring to him giving away his position immediately. Very stealthy!
Firing off out of a window. As was debated above, Silva doesn't know for sure if Bond is alive or dead. Either way, just seems a bit trigger happy on Bond's part.
But Bond knew Silva was in the chopper (because he was blaring the music and making an entrance) so he took the opportunity to try and shoot it out of the air. That doesn't seem incompetent to me, and I likely would have done the same.
To which you could argue incompetence on the part of a hot-shot marksman, as evidenced by his shooting session with Kincade. Anyway, let's not clog this thread up anymore. I have stated there are a few instances of his incompetence before, only to be met by the SF Stasi attempting to show me the error of my ways. It's just the way I see it, I don't need anymore lectures on my opinion.