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
Where did it cut it close for you? I never felt that at all. In fact, this film is probably the proudest I have been of Bond in the entire series.
Bond´s motivation for serving Queen and country shouldn´t have to do anything with traumatic experiences in his past. His motivation should be simple idealism. He shouldn´t counteract against subconscious impulses, but act towards clear goals. Because the first case would make him an emotional handicapped man trying to compensate by acting heroicly (acting as if in control), whereas the latter motivation would make him a badass (being in control), which I find way cooler, simply put ;-).
Now, since Bond in the end is still keen on working for MI6, perhaps his motivation hasn´t got so much to do with his childhood, but at least throughout the film, that posible connection is quite openly hinted at. Surely not enough to hate the film, in fact I like it a lot, but nonetheless provoking this kind of criticism.
I don't get what you are trying to convey, especially in regards to what you are referring to by the "murkiness inside Bond's emotional basis". I see no moment in the film where Bond alludes to taking the job because of the events in his childhood. I see Bond as a man who was forced to grow up early after the death of his parents, and as such he was used to surviving on his own and learned to steel himself with a heavy guard, but I don't think he is driven by that past to serve. Now, the fact that he is orphaned did play a part in his selection as an agent, because as M states, "they make the best agents," but I don't think that is what is driving Bond. I wouldn't say that it is his traumatic past (whatever you mean by that), but his willingness to do what is necessary and the sense of trust he has in his superior boss and the loyalty he has always had for his country of service that keeps him going and instills in him the willingness to risk all for Queen and country. While his orphanage was part of why he found himself working for MI6, I don't think that is the reason he becomes an agent or why he decided to join up with the service.
I agree. There is nothing in SF that suggests Bond's profession is a result of his childhood. Obviously our childhoods all dictate, to some extent, who we grow up to be. Bond being orphaned is certainly not his sole motivation. In the film he simply confronts the past as a means to neutralise the threat. Not just for personal reasons, but for the greater good of his country.
Excellently put, @RC7.
Why should he be forced to grow up early after the death of his parents? Why should´t Bond have had other loving relatives or trustworthy people who cared for him while he grew up?
It doesn´t seem logical or clever for the secret service to recruit people who learned to steel themselves with a heavy guard, because that means they are very vulnerable underneath.
In his right shoulder.
And I think Bond films CAN and ARE at times "serious spy dramas". My top 10 or 15 are all serious Bond films with serious spy content in them, like CR, FRWL, QoS, TB, the Dalton films and so on.
Also, if you read my recent interview session with @Benny you will see just how much more respect I have for all the Bond actors and their interpretations-especially Roger-as I have matured as a fan:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/6689/bennys-behind-the-avatar-interview-with-0bradym0bondfanatic7/p3
Plus, I don't find people "silly" for not agreeing about Skyfall, I just enjoy challenging people to debates on the film and others in the franchise so much so that I can probably come off as too strong at such moments. At the end of the day I like and appreciate all that I smack heads with in debates, as that is what makes Bond discussions fun.
You are right though that I am interested in some areas of psychology because I have long been fascinated by the human brain and why people do what they do, including not only real people but also fictional characters. :)
Well then, it has to be his left Shoulder then.
On the other hand, the fact that the shoulder wound is shown several times explicitly, as well as Silva saying, "Look what she´s done to you" when he sees the scar, would imply that it was indeed there Eve´s shot hit him.
Also, Daniel Kleinman uses only one hole in his imagery. Hey, let's call it just another plothole :)
<img src="http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/skyfall2-1500.jpg">
(taken from movie critic Aaron Peck's site)
Much like TDKR, I think the film should have been much longer. I would have sat through it with supreme enjoyment. :)
Bullet shrapnel wouldn't cause another huge wound near Bond's shoulder. Don't over-think it.
what does that even mean??
It means she won't act the coward and run away.