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
That is just to establish that we are only discussing one aspect of art in Skyfall. Now since I am not credited with writing the screenplay, I'm not going to post here to defend the plot or the script. The objective of my posts in this thread have been solely intended for interpreting the product and giving my opinion on it. Indeed, there are well established plot holes in Skyfall, which by itself should not automatically make it the bearer of scrutiny. If you look at recent masterworks in the realm of films, as marked by their success from critics, at the box office, and award ceremonies, Titanic and The Lord of the Rings definitely stand out in all three categories. Both of those films have their fair share of plot holes, which is remarkable considering the latter is the adapted screenplay of arguably the greatest masterwork of the 20th century. Granted the screenplay introduced plot holes that the source material thoroughly explained.
What determines if a film should be criticized for shortcomings in its plot? It's a really good question worthy of discussion. Even Bond films with stronger screenplays have plot holes. For one possible answer, it can be when other artistic qualities of the film do not sufficiently cover up its deficiencies. In Skyfall's other artistic areas, it mostly excels. From reading the last few hundred posts in this thread, there has clearly been a debate about visual effects and music, but I certainly haven't seen much criticism in the performances. As for the plot specifically, I personally don't let it take away from the experience in the slightest. The biggest misstep the script takes is by pretending that Silva set all of this up himself, such as Q saying, "This was years in the planning." He obviously wasn't working by himself because he had Patrice steal the hard drive and bounds of henchmen in China and England. What if they didn't say that? It could be implied he had his people set up the bomb once they knew he was captured, much the same way he had his people deliver a police uniform with impeccable timing during his escape.
Even still, I don't think any of the Skyfall praisers have said it is the perfect representation of Bond. It's not our place to judge the Craig era before its concluded since there is an established continuity between films. In terms of wasting potential, no one outside of the higher up Bond brain trust knows who is making these decisions. Craig wanted Mendes at the helm for Bond (and now he's back for another), and this is the product they have given us. We can't say it was a waste when there is the possibility Craig wouldn't be Bond at all without a degree of decision making in creativity liberty. We could just have some bloke as Bond who is going through the motions of well-rounded plots. As much as that may appeal to some, I'll stay on the Craig train as long as there are still destinations to reach.
Mansfield, I have to counter your argument in a sense as I don't think its fair. Skyfall is Mendes first as director within it he brought in an new M, Q and a MP with back story while bringing in a memorable villain, killing Bond and bringing him back to life before killling off the old M and providing insight in to Bonds roots. Thats a hell of a lot for one film and for it to make sense. Lets be honest QOS was a production disaster, lets not go there. Skyfall can't be CR because Bond is not fit enough, M sends him out when he is not ready so there was'nt going to be the action fans wanted. But I said in prior posts the charachter building has been done on Skyfall I will judge Mendes on Spectre, as I believe it will be the Bond you want it to be, but you will have to accept Skyfall as its pre cursor and that Spectre will only be as good as it is because of the charachter building and back story in Skyfall. Kind of like The Wire you watch 3-4 episodes and say "eh?, why do people make such a fuss this is so great" but once they get beyond the charachter building, wham! it takes off and your hooked.
I think that the use of the "double standard proof" by many here instead of judging the art by itself is as alien to me as the obsession with rankings and box-office.
To put it on a provocative manner, I think quite a few here are not only Bond fans, but also Bond addicts :) Don't forget I was part of the team running the French Bond fan club about 25 years ago now, and I've seen weird psychological situations... And I was involved also in a weird situation between one the first notable Bond fan sites and the UK Bond fan club at that time. Now with forums, there's less personal interaction, and it's a good thing for that (more noise, but less heat), but on the other hand there's a crowd effect that's not always something to be proud of.
They're not mutually exclusive. It's possible to have a Craig film with a well-rounded, even intricate plot.
So with SF, it seems, there was an attempt to dumb things down a bit and "over explain." Problem is, they explained things that didn't need explaining and didn't explain things that needed it.
For me, these weren't big deals, but I can sense a shift in how lines of dialogue were used to function like a Greek chorus.
It's interesting that @chrisisall brings up TMWTGG. I had an idea that the plots might be the byproduct of having multiple writers involved in forming the script, each supplying their own ideas for what they think makes an outstanding Bond adventure. When put together, there are missing pieces to the puzzle. Similar to TMWTGG being the last film produced by Saltzman and Broccoli, where their concepts often clashed to the detriment of the picture. Granted, SP was supposed to be that film, but Logan's script needed to be rewritten to an unknown degree.
Done once before but it was a planned faked death in YOLT don't understand your choice of words "done so many, many times already in the series"
Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, is highly underrated (given its very modern and realistic plot). I do concede though, that the action scenes are poorly edited. Still, I consider it the best of the Craig Bonds.
What better than Casino Royale? why? QOS makes no sense without CR. They could have cut QOS from the point Bond travel to Mathis villa to ask him for help and pasted it on to the end of CR and it would have made more sense than QOS does standing on its own.
TripAces
"I had to watch QoS about five times before really understanding the plot. I don't think I'm alone in that".
Greene is buying up pipeline and overthrowing gov. in South American countries to gain control of its water supplies to make loads of money for he and Qauntum. For all QOS's faults if anything the story it too simple.
Thunderball - a slight pretending that "JB" on the coffin might be Bond.
You Only Live Twice -- the faked murder of Bond in the beginning.
Octopussy -- Bond allows others to believe he's been eaten by crocks and is dead.
The World is Not Enough -- Bond dies by stopping his own heart (flat-lining) and is brought back to life by a nurse.
Casino Royale -- Bond is murdered via poisoning and is brought back to life by Vesper.
Skyfall -- Bond is shot and presumed dead.
There are few lesser incidents in other Bond movies as well.
And just for a few seconds in the PTS of TND when he is believed to have died from the explosion emanating from the base. Brosnan's Bond liked the feigning death thing a bit too much, methinks. ;)
But the the connection between the water and the overthrow isn't too clear and takes mutliple viewings to understand. There are multiple parties involved, including the CIA. I think a lot of the issue is that there are plot threads that seem to go nowhere or come out of nowhere.
1. It took me repeated viewings to figure out how MI6 found Slate, who he was, and why he was there. The explanation is so quick and subverted by that huge touchscreen they use that is more a distraction than anything else.
2. Camille thinks Bond (posing as Slate) is a geologist. Ok, why? I didn't get that because...
3. Greene kills a geologist, too. Who the heck is that in the bay? It's never explained. It took me a few viewings to figure out it was unimportant.
4. Believe it or not, it took me at least three or four viewings to realize Bond and Mathis were on board a plane when Bond was drinking all those Vespers. The cut, from Gemma to the plane, is one of the oddest in Bond film lore. You're looking at her, and suddenly Bond and Mathis are on a plane...no transition. It wasn't a plot issue, per se, as much as a WTH issue. LOL
5. Beem is non-essential to the plot, and I was thinking he tipped off military as to Bond's whereabouts in the cantina. But this goes nowhere, too.
6. Whose planes are those going after Bond and Camille? I didn't get that either, thinking they were military. Or were they commissioned by Quantum? Ugh. I guess that didn't matter either.
There are some other things, too. What I have here is off the top of my head.
The plot just didn't seem finished, as though there were story elements that got left out, hence the film being only about 100 minutes long.
It's currently my No 13 which is not that bad out of 24 movies (NSNA included).
But the blame should not go solely to the writers. IMO Mendes was just the wrong choice as was Forster for QOS.
In fact the last time EON hired a great Bond director was Roger Spottiswoode for TND and of course Martin Campbell who did GE and CR.
Tamahori, Apted, Forster and Mendes were errors.
Sadly after the billion dollar happening, BB was too lazy and too uncritical to realise that Mendes is wrong for Bond.
I'll take Mendes over the mess that Spottiswoode presided over, Skyfall is infinitely better than that SWLM rip off.
Even if you don't like SF I think you have to appreciate the commercial reasons for EON bringing back Mendes. It's a no brainier.
I don't like SF, but I still prefer the idea of Mendes directing to Spottiswoode (even though i thought TND was the best Brosnan). At least SF is a higher quality form of bad.
:))
But if Mendes was a no-brainer why didn't they bring back Martin Campbell for QOS.
I suspect BB (+MGW?) wanted the artsy directors to have that "seriousness" for the Craig-era. I mean why Marc Forster for Heaven's sake?
I don't appreciate the commercial reasons of EON, I accuse them of just being lazy and after the big money and therefore try to repeat Skyfall.
I thought Forster was a decent choice. He's an Oscar winner (must count for something?) and The Kite Runner showed a lot of the qualities I'd like to see in a Bond movie. I think he's a stylish director but not in an overly pretentious way.
But then I actually quite like QoS as well. In fact I might go as far as saying it's my favourite Bond movie since Dalton.
Mendes was on the record saying Skyfall was the Bond film he wanted to make. All I can say to people who didn't approve of his work in Skyfall is to go into SPECTRE without any baggage or expectations. I'm confident that while Mendes does intend to continue the plan started in his first directorship, he is probably more willing to go outside of his comfort zone to up the ante for this installment. EON isn't foolish -- they know they are at a crossroads where the franchise can either explode or stagnate. I don't think they are willing to sail off into pop cultural obscurity again.
Also, SP doesn't have Dench in it - and that is a very big plus point IMO.