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
Some call his plan "pointless, dumb and completely unrealistic," but so are the plans of most bloody Bond villains if you see it that way. These men act in such a fashion for their egos as well as the illusion of superiority that fogs their minds. Bond villains are people who, instead of killing Bond and ensuring he never stops their plan from being enacted, makes dinner for him and shares with him the best wines and delicacies of their regions of operation. They're like a lot of common, archetypal movie villains in that way; they send people to kill Bond, but never stick around to see the job done and him out of their hair. Because of this, most of their planning is stupid and open to dismemberment upon analysis when they treat Bond more like a party guest than an enemy. I get the Cold War adage of spying being a "gentleman's game," but this takes it too far, and the issue extends beyond that period in history for the films. Still, people will nitpick about Skyfall more than others similar in approach regardless.
In addition, as much as Skyfall apparently ties into Spectre, could we please quit bringing up spoiler points from the latter, even if they're tagged? This is a place for Skyfall discussions only, and I for one don't want to see more spoilers about Spectre leaking in here again. I already know way more than I ever wanted to, and the worst part is that I never went looking for it.
The "double standard proof" once again. Well, we're discussing opinions on pieces of art, we're not discussing the Return On Investment of two stocks... so what's the point ?
The core of the problem is that SF can't get away with what many other Bond could get away with. Any defense of SF that starts with "Yes, it's dumb, but in the other Bond it was too..", is basically agreeing with those who criticize SF, but then adding that SF is just the best of this "dumb franchise". And you call yourselves "fans" ? :)
The first drafts of SP were saving SF from some plotholes (but Fleming was not respected much in the process). But now it's all forgotten (and some might say it even add more plotholes). SP will have probably an impact on SP how is judged I think, in terms of story. It will be harder and harder to discuss SF without writing about SP in the future.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5FWfg__wKSY
Not what I said at all. I said that if you find Silva's plan and courses of action to be dumb, then you must think little of the plots of other villains too, which I provided examples to above. I never shared my personal opinion about the issue. But as you've already said, Skyfall is for some unexplainable reason given a rougher go than other films of its kind (in its own franchise, for that matter), a consequence that still hasn't been accompanied with a sufficient enough excuse.
And please, spare us this "you call yourself fans" garbage. You're the second person recently who has tried to assert who is a fan, who isn't and why those individuals don't meet your esteemed standards, which is quite laughable to be sure. The smiley face emoticon only underscores how sunnily you take this rather tired crusade.
I agree he does it to my posts as well.
Even though we're all real fans :) luckily some members have a vast knowledge of
The films, or Books or Bond music etc. So they're a great asset for answering a difficult question. Just as a fan with less knowledge, has the ability to ask a question no one has thought of before ! :)) Each can give an opinion, and they can all be valid.
Real fans is a term used by people who fear the opinion of others.
It was from listening to others opinions on QOS ( which I hated) that I took
On board, others views and over time, I got to quite like it.
I think so long as it's done in a friendly way, an encouragement rather than
Trying to beat someone over the head with it, it's fine. ;)
Well, for all intents and purposes, it is a dumb franchise, just as Star Wars and Batman and Superman are dumb. And that's part of the appeal. It's FUN. This franchise adds no meaning to our lives--none whatsoever. But it does REFLECT our lives and appeals to our own (mostly male) hidden fantasies and desires, as wonderfully expressed here:
We're all missing out on ! :D
Hehe :D
When my wife catches me browsing (this forum, yet again) late in the evening she sometimes says "you're not on that bloody Bond forum again, are you?!" - I sometimes get out of jail by saying "no, no - just watching some porn, darling..." :))
Well, mine says "But hasn't everything that there is to be said about James Bond already been said..?"
Oh the poor dear #-o
When she finds out what you're actually doing, she'll probably say posting on a Bond forum is even stranger than watching porn on the internet :))
From my point of view I find it fruitless using the perceived misgivings of one picture to validate the shortcomings of another. Whether they're in the same genre, or even franchise, I think each picture has to be judged on its own merits. That being said, I'd maintain that most of the Bond pictures work within the confines, rules and logic of their own individual worlds. Some more so, some less so.
The leaps of logic in SF are more jarring for me because there are concerned with the 'how?', rather than the 'why?', in a world that bends towards reality. When people talk about 'allowing the audience to fill in the gaps', those gaps are usually connected to a 'why?', because if the characters are rounded enough, if the logic is consistent, we can join the dots. With SF it's more about the lack of rationale. There are quite a few 'hows' that are simply not addressed during the latter half of the picture and they start to stack up. I think it's basically because of a lack of cohesion between story and plot. On the one hand we have this human story, which to all extents works pretty well, and on the other the general plot, which involves this guy doing stuff, but we don't really know how. He's basically a magician. There's no genuine rationale behind the 'hows'. Surely the journey of Silva in this film should be to show a gradual degradation of his omnipotence. The plot basically trips itself up trying to facilitate this 'old vs. new' symbolism, which goes into overdrive in the third act. I actually think with a little subtlety and exposition they could've delivered a more effective finale. In conclusion I think the story of SF is there and I like it, but the plot doesn't service the story in the best way imo. It certainly doesn't elevate it.
I don't personally give SF a rougher time that the rest of the franchise, although others may, but I do hold it up against its predecessors, CR and QoS, which I think is fair game. I think it does some things better than QoS and others things worse, where I find CR outstrips them both in almost every area. The parameters by which I judge this era are different, my expectancy level is higher. It's a very similar film to TDKR in a sense that I get the heart of the picture, the actual story if you will, but there are a lot of plot elements that don't stack up along the way. Batman Begins does 'plot' much better than TDKR, despite the fact it's more fantastical in parts.
One thing to note regard Silva's plan, which appears to be a sticking point here, P+W when quizzed on it didn't really have an answer. They suggested 'It's best not to think too much about the logic of it', 'just go with it'. The plot had initially been more thorough, but most of it was lost because it was after all plot specifics and not story, so Sam binned it and I think P+W believed this was the way to go too. I'm not so sure, but I write this knowing that it's a ridiculously hard job, with so many cooks that it's a near impossibility.
As others have said, 'just going with it' is probably the way to attack this film. Trying to justify the logic of Silva's plot is pretty redundant, especially when the writers can't explain it. I'm happy to do that with this film, but it's simultaneously why I was disappointed, because if certain things had been addressed I think it'd be much better. As it is, it just doesn't do enough to be top tier and I think it could've been. I will go into SP with a slightly different head on, I feel.
I love the fact they are bringing a more three-dimensional approach to character, but I don't think they have to sacrifice the idea of characters operating within a structure that delivers a thrilling (to paraphrase Maibaum) 'caper'. If they can balance character and plot then I think we're on to a winner. It should be drama, not melodrama.
I'd show her my Bond collection. Sadly I'd forgotten the several "magazines"
Of naked ladies in there, ( they were part of the collection as they had Bond girls in them) but it was very embarrassing. :D
" I only have them for the Bond articles " :))
I can better this! my wife said no Bond on our wedding day. She thought I was turning up in a kilt!. Did I hell I turned up in a 3 piece reproduction Anthony Sinclair Grey Suit from Goldfinger which cost more than her wedding ring. She still married me! Thats love that is!
Was it @RC7 that said, Skyfall's problems lies in the fact, that either one has a fantastical, entertaining Bond film, like Moonraker, which revels in its daftness, or one has a serious entry, like the two previous films? The jarring between the two factions in Skyfall, is rather, well, jarring. I, personally, found it disconcerting to have a first half in the Craig style, and then the second like the Brosnan entries.
two different views that are both true, neither seems to have more gravitas over the other and can be defended as such. Two camps and some between makes this movie controversial in its content and script. All agree that the movie is visually breathtaking at times so the movie does have its consensus on some points including that Craig is a good 007.
What's the alternative plan, throw her under extreme security and watch as Silva has another resource at his disposal to render her safety useless? I believe the context the writers and the performances that are given only allow for us to question whether or not her death at the hands of Silva was inevitable.
You are proposing that M assigning Bond the mission of killing Silva before he can get to her if I am understanding you correctly. There's a key part of the plot that you are overlooking with the guarded assassin approach. At that point in the film, Silva has only released the first 5 names of agents in terrorist organizations. It's implied more will be revealed every week that he is left unfulfilled. Finding Silva the first time took him on a cross-continetal journey. How many more deaths would M be accountable for should it take Bond any reasonable length of time to find and kill Silva again?
Not only that, but the initial cyberterrorist attack on MI6 headquarters was a gas leak explosion that killed 6 MI6 workers. What sinister plot could he inflict on other agencies in London? The movie tells us that having Silva track M down is the only effective means for controlling the threat. That is all pretty factual for this post. I don't really think I have infused my opinion into any preceding part of this post.
What is opinionated is what it does to Dench's M's character. And there is nothing wrong if you feel like this plot diminishes M's character. My take on it is that it shows greater resolve of her service to the country. She has always told Bond to remove his ego out of the equation. When it comes time for her to carry out her duty, she stared death in the face and accepted it in order to protect countless other individuals. That takes a selfless strength of character few possess, in my opinion of course.
I do like your take on the movie but it retcons too much for my taste.
If nothing is out of SIlvas reach Bonds search for him makes no sense at all, he could have walking into MI6 let himself caught and escape again, it shows essentially that Bond indeed is useless and obsolete. SO SIlva might think he can do anything but 007 stops him from killing M anyhow and he is not even in shape to do so, what does that say about the allmighty Silva. Which is respected by most aye-sayers because he is the first of the villains that can actually foresee the future and lays a lot of traps. Most of all the whole plan to discredit M is so OTT and suddenly halfway the movie the NOClist is being abandoned as with Silva being almighty they never will get their hands upon that list with somebody so computer saffy he can release all the names even being dead being the super computer villain he is. I accept the nonsense of the gas attack through cyber means om the MI6 because that kind of stuff actually belongs in 007 movies as does the Aston Martin even if the overkill of that car has not been that much since GF & TB, but they were better movies and clearly gives EON, Craig & Mendes a boner.
So factual the movie makes little sense, if 007 had survived Istanbul he would not have been in the field at all not even because of M, as the service would never have allowed an agent missing in action being severely wounded to return for whatever reason.
The whole setup for SF makes no sense factually, even the pulp writer Fleming in his last unfinished book did a better job with a missing 007 than Craig, Mendes & EON has shown so clearly to be capable off. While I applaud what they try to do with Craigs 007 I wish they could have a decent scriptwriter that would make a logical and good script in which Mendes & Craig get to show their skills.
For me the weakness of the last two 007 outings has been the pretentiousness of its directors that fail to deliver a coherent movie and Forster has the excuse of not shooting with a finished script but that one made more sense than the polished version of SF. For me the whole post CR Craig era will be remembered as the period they went all pretentious but should have hired a scriptwriter that could actually write the story that they wanted to tell and write a good script. SF has a grand idea and then it starts to skip around story wise and we end up with fragments of what looks great and would be brilliant if planted in a good story. It is all DAD-logic again and I know the kind of flack that movie got.
I am often surprised about the lack of anger by some fans on how brilliant the bloody movies can be if they actually really tried, after CR I sense a lackluster but expensive torrent that does not deliver very good Bondmovies. For the love of any deity I do not see where all of the massive budgets end up which was something I could before even with the Dalton movies that was the case. Even with the Marvel movies you can see where they spend the money on with the Craig movies after CR I wonder really were the money is at.
Not to mention the fact that M knew she was going to die. All film she makes the point of leaving MI6 better than it was when Silva was wreaking havoc, and in that aim, she succeeds by keeping Bond in play. She could only have given Bond the bulldog in her will if she'd finalized it recently, because Bond seems to be largely unfamiliar with the statuette following the attack on MI6.
When Silva returned and started killing indiscriminately anyone that came in his way, M and Bond decided to go to a place without technology (which Silva could use to his advantage) and where no more people would have to die because of her. Everybody goes on and on about how stupid the plan to head to Skyfall is, and that M should've had SAS on hand, but do you really think the British government are going to approve a detail for a woman who has arguably disgraced them? As far as they are concerned, she's caused enough harm and shouldn't be allowed to continue. Not to mention how Silva could retaliate if M sought out help of her betters. All it would mean is more blood on her hands. Mallory makes it clear that M is basically in lame duck status as the MI6 head, on the way out the door with no foothold to reach for, so how much is she really able to do in this situation? She's sick of having people die trying to save her and bites a bullet, straight and true, going willingly to her death because she knows Silva will follow her to the vulnerable position she and Bond have set up, where he can finally get an edge and kill him. While she could've survived, death was definitely on her mind and we can see that she took the necessary steps to leave a legacy in the event of her death.
All this garbage about Bond and Mallory killing M is bogus, and those saying it know it. Attributing death like this to a single, tangible being is ludicrous, especially in a film like this that challenges common human conceptions of the world and the way it works.
I honestly don't know how much longer I'll stick in this thread, because now it just feels like dead horses are being beaten left and right, with the same arguments being played out ad nauseam. I love Skyfall, but I feel I've exhausted a discussion on it, far more than even my favorites of the franchise, like CR and FRWL. All I seem to ever talk about is this film, and I want to change that and expand my analysis to films beyond this one. I'll give Skyfall another watch soon (it's been a while), give my thoughts as they currently stand, share what opinions have remained, what has changed and then that'll be it for me.