"Did i overcomplicate the plot ?" - Skyfall Appreciation & Discussion

1151618202143

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    Fair play....if Silva had gone rogue from Spectre or Quantum on a revenge mission against M then i could get it but it was too planned ,too organised for me
  • Posts: 19,339
    Thats what i think..and being his 3rd film ,ala Connery,makes it a nice break.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Fair play....if Silva had gone rogue from Spectre or Quantum on a revenge mission against M then i could get it but it was too planned ,too organised for me

    That's why SP makes it better for me. He had the extra manpower and resources to help him escape MI6 with ease. If he truly was alone he wouldn't have been able to get away. He had henchmen sure but Bond blew them away on the Island then after he's imprisoned and escapes he has all these random new henchmen from out of Nowhere. They could have been ex- Spectre assassins wanting a bigger piece of the pie. Or the kind of people who did Spectre's terrorist attacks to try and get Nine Eyes into effect.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 19,339
    Murdock wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Fair play....if Silva had gone rogue from Spectre or Quantum on a revenge mission against M then i could get it but it was too planned ,too organised for me

    That's why SP makes it better for me. He had the extra manpower and resources to help him escape MI6 with ease. If he truly was alone he wouldn't have been able to get away. He had henchmen sure but Bond blew them away on the Island then after he's imprisoned and escapes he has all these random new henchmen from out of Nowhere. They could have been ex- Spectre assassins wanting a bigger piece of the pie. Or the kind of people who did Spectre's terrorist attacks to try and get Nine Eyes into effect.

    Fair play,cant argue with that..

    Although,im going to be a stubborn old (newly 47 year old ) sod and stick to the Connery 3rd stand alone film syndrome ;)....
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited January 2017 Posts: 16,351
    :D Happy Birthday my friend.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Thanks pal....i appreciate that !
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    You're welcome. :)
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 19,339
    The wounded Bond in this film,an INDEPENDANT film as i see it,not linked to SPECTRE/QUANTUM shows a Bond who is hurt,damaged,drunk,who ,in only one news broadcast suddenly rises from the ashes for England....it is the most patriotic and the one Bond film that shows what he will do for his country....as an Englishman,it proves Bond would be there .
  • Posts: 11,189
    I remember feeling the most excited I have ever been coming out of a Bond movie after my first viewing of SF. Loved it back in 2012.
  • Posts: 2,165
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Fair play....if Silva had gone rogue from Spectre or Quantum on a revenge mission against M then i could get it but it was too planned ,too organised for me

    That's why SP makes it better for me. He had the extra manpower and resources to help him escape MI6 with ease. If he truly was alone he wouldn't have been able to get away. He had henchmen sure but Bond blew them away on the Island then after he's imprisoned and escapes he has all these random new henchmen from out of Nowhere. They could have been ex- Spectre assassins wanting a bigger piece of the pie. Or the kind of people who did Spectre's terrorist attacks to try and get Nine Eyes into effect.

    Fair play,cant argue with that..

    Although,im going to be a stubborn old (newly 47 year old ) sod and stick to the Connery 3rd stand alone film syndrome ;)....

    I don't understand the complaint about all the help Silva receives.

    He is a former agent and is clearly aware of the secret service and terrorist cells. He works for hire (for the highest bidder) and clearly has plenty of money (I mean he does live on an island on his own and can afford to pay 4 million euros for a one hit assassination)... so the explanation he can just buy in help works.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 2,165
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I remember feeling the most excited I have ever been coming out of a Bond movie after my first viewing of SF. Loved it back in 2012.

    Same here. I booked a set of four seats for the 8pm IMAX screening at the local cinema for me and family members. Come 7.55pm when we arrived the entire screening was full except for those 4 seats, perfectly positioned in the middle of the screen about 3/4 the way up.

    As soon as the Bond theme blasted out and Bond appeared from the corner, I knew we were in for a great time.

    Still love Skyfall. Top 3.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    SF resonates even more, today, in the wake of the Trump's paranoia about terrorists who may not even exist.

    SF was spot on in its depiction of a villain who could instill fear and paranoia with mere suggestion. Remember how he "took" the island: by simply scaring people away.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Even to this day, nearly 5 years since its release, the lay person can still give me a rough idea of Skyfall's plot and description of scenes.

    I get a blank expression when I ask about Spectre.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SP is one of the all-time simplest stories there is in the franchise (that's not a bad thing). I can't fathom how it's possible people didn't "get it," unless they only watched it once and were asleep most of the time. Most of the film is made up of inter-relations between the characters, joined with Blofeld's surveillance plot through his joint operation with Denbigh. That's legitimately it.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Watching SF again tonight, still in my top 3 but not perfect. One of the legitimate objections was M's mistakes and I was wondering how it could have been improved.
    It struck me that, as the stolen drive was encrypted, a pass phrase was required to decrypt the data. Silva hacks into MI6 but finds that the whole network has been cleansed (on Ms orders, this makes her look better) but he still blows up the building like a petulant child. So Silva realises that the only location for the passphrase is in Ms head. Bond still traces Silva and Silva is taken to Mi6 as per the movie but Silva taunts M that he knows where the key is and he will have it. M realises that she is a liablity to whole country. The rest of the movie plays out but, in the final scene in the church, Silva tortures M (perhaps a broken finger?) but she will not give in. He holds the gun to her head "It's in there, I know, it's in there. You share it...or take it to your grave" He cocks the pistol and Bond steps in as per the original.
    This alternative removes the silly weaknesses of Silva decrypting the drive and the Youtube agent detail reveals. It also puts M into a better light by making better decisions early on and clearly willing to sacrifice herself rather than give up the passphrase.
    Thoughts?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Not for me. The drive is merely a Mcguffin. The real story is about the two offspring of the matriarchal M.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    I love your suggestion, @patb. Like yourself, I continue to struggle a bit with what feels like a few missing 'clues' in the plot. I'm not advocating for a complete redo of the film, but some additional lines here and there might work.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2017 Posts: 10,512
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I love your suggestion, @patb. Like yourself, I continue to struggle a bit with what feels like a few missing 'clues' in the plot. I'm not advocating for a complete redo of the film, but some additional lines here and there might work.

    The thing with SF is that it's not a plot driven film, which is a anomaly for a Bond. It's a story about 'M', which is why her 'mistakes' are vital. Bond's trajectory in the film is a mirror of Silva's.

    Silva isn't doing this to expose agents, he's doing it to 'destroy' M; conversely Bond's actions are to 'save' M. The denouement is subtle, but poetic.

    Making the drive and it's passcode a key plot point adds nothing, if anything it detracts.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    Not for me. The drive is merely a Mcguffin. The real story is about the two offspring of the matriarchal M.
    I agree.

    @patb, in a way I prefer it as it is, flaws and all. At the end of the day this is a film about flawed characters and motivations. That's the hook.

    They all have and do make mistakes, but M & Bond's loyalty to the cause and righteousness in the face of nearly insurmountable odds is unquestionable. So is their pride. It's a little reminiscent of the encounter between Bond and Alec in GE (MI6, Britain and Bond certainly screwed up and gave him a right to be royally ticked as well).

    Bond was wronged too. He didn't give into bitterness. Silva did.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Not for me. The drive is merely a Mcguffin. The real story is about the two offspring of the matriarchal M.
    I agree.

    @patb, in a way I prefer it as it is, flaws and all. At the end of the day this is a film about flawed characters and motivations. That's the hook.

    They all have and do make mistakes, but M & Bond's loyalty to the cause and righteousness in the face of nearly insurmountable odds is unquestionable. So is their pride. It's a little reminiscent of the encounter between Bond and Alec in GE (MI6, Britain and Bond certainly screwed up and gave him a right to be royally ticked as well).

    Bond was wronged too. He didn't give into bitterness. Silva did.

    Precisely.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 4,617
    Fully agree and not suggesting that the whole feel of the film should change , but Silva did want to expose the agents as a tool to destroy her. He obviously was willing to kill her anyway so it could link in. Silva's complex relationship could work well within a torture scene, he could even cry as he inflicts pain "The pain, I feel it, we feel it"

    I agree with the points on mistakes but, I would refine this re the mistakes are mistakes of judgement: Ms decision to turn Silva over, M's decision to "take the bloody shot" etc etc, and I think poor decisions and how we deal with them are a key within the narrative.
    Having said that, doing plain stupid stuff like leaving your password on the office computer or having your own laptop hacked are not issues of poor judgement, they are just incompentance and as I have watched SF over the years, M's basic incompetence is bugging me more and more so I was looking to change the plot slightly to deal with this and offer her a more heroic ending (the new M gets more hero time than Dench). Her role is very passive IMHO and not worthy of someone in her position (both as head of the organisation but also in the eyes of the audience)
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Look which train stopped in front of me this morning!

    10mq686.jpg
  • Posts: 4,044
    One of Q's new inventions?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    vzok wrote: »
    One of Q's new inventions?

    A train that travels vertically (!). What will they think of next?
  • Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I love your suggestion, @patb. Like yourself, I continue to struggle a bit with what feels like a few missing 'clues' in the plot. I'm not advocating for a complete redo of the film, but some additional lines here and there might work.

    The thing with SF is that it's not a plot driven film, which is a anomaly for a Bond. It's a story about 'M', which is why her 'mistakes' are vital. Bond's trajectory in the film is a mirror of Silva's.

    Silva isn't doing this to expose agents, he's doing it to 'destroy' M; conversely Bond's actions are to 'save' M. The denouement is subtle, but poetic.

    Making the drive and it's passcode a key plot point adds nothing, if anything it detracts.

    I've had people on here tell me that M doesn't make any mistakes and I'm just imagining it.

    Clearly all she does throughout the film is screw everything up, but what are we supposed to make of this?

    M in SF is a useless, geriatric has-been. Malory is right to want to get rid of her. So are the committee. She's clearly passed it.

    What I don't understand is why we should be rooting for her? She gets Bond shot at the start and then proceeds to make every wrong call.

    I for one was getting tired of Dench before SF and was frankly glad to see her die at the end of the film.



  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I was tired of her already in GE.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    I've had people on here tell me that M doesn't make any mistakes and I'm just imagining it.

    Clearly all she does throughout the film is screw everything up, but what are we supposed to make of this?

    M in SF is a useless, geriatric has-been. Malory is right to want to get rid of her. So are the committee. She's clearly passed it.

    What I don't understand is why we should be rooting for her? She gets Bond shot at the start and then proceeds to make every wrong call.
    Bond makes mistakes too. So does Kincaide with the torch. We're supposed to root for them because they are loyal. It's a patriotic film. They are well intentioned and strong of conviction. Doing the best they can despite their human flaws & advancing years. Surrounded by tech and young minds (like Q & Silva). It mirrors the Tennyson poem & perhaps the UK's current place in the world.

    "We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
    Getafix wrote: »
    I for one was getting tired of Dench before SF and was frankly glad to see her die at the end of the film.
    So was I, until I saw SP. The lack of chemistry between Fiennes and Craig is palpable. I hope it's due to rubbish writing only.
    I was tired of her already in GE.
    We got off on the wrong foot as well, due to the dressing down she gave Bond for his habits. Very 90's PC rubbish imho.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Dench's M was a bore. And really inconsistent as well. The characterisation was all over the place. Glad she's gone.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Dench was good in all of her films but admittedly wasn't always given the best material. She's commented herself about the tough time she had on some of the films (QoS and TND) and is depicted as a fool (in TWINE) and an old terrier (SF), but I've never had an issue with her actual performance. Quite the contrary.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    RC7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I love your suggestion, @patb. Like yourself, I continue to struggle a bit with what feels like a few missing 'clues' in the plot. I'm not advocating for a complete redo of the film, but some additional lines here and there might work.

    The thing with SF is that it's not a plot driven film, which is a anomaly for a Bond. It's a story about 'M', which is why her 'mistakes' are vital. Bond's trajectory in the film is a mirror of Silva's.

    Silva isn't doing this to expose agents, he's doing it to 'destroy' M; conversely Bond's actions are to 'save' M. The denouement is subtle, but poetic.

    Making the drive and it's passcode a key plot point adds nothing, if anything it detracts.

    Exactly.

    The stolen hard drive was meaningless, because Silva had the ability to gather that data/info WITHOUT having to steal a hard drive. So why did he do it? It's simple distraction. In my estimation, SF was perfect for this decade, an era in which technology (MISINFORMATION and now "fake news") have led us to looking at all the wrong things. Threats are not as bad as the perceived threat. Silva trafficked in that perceived threat.

    It's a bloody brilliant film that gets better every time I watch it.

Sign In or Register to comment.