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

1293032343543

Comments

  • Posts: 11,189
    I think in SF it kind of worked. I liked the throwback to M writing the obituary for Bond (which of course he did in YOLT) but it might have been best if they had stopped it at that film. They pushed it too far with the Blofeld nonsense.
  • edited January 2018 Posts: 12,837
    To be honest it's never worked for me. I really enjoyed SF and SP but that was in spite of that stuff, not because of it at all. I thought the finale in SF was great, but Kincade talking about how Bond came out of the tunnels as a man and M saying orphans made the best recruits, that all felt a bit contrived imo, it's as if they were making out that being 007 was his destiny or something and it all felt a bit too Batman for me. And the best thing I can say about the Blofeld stuff in SP is that it didn't really make a difference since Bond himself doesn't seem to care. The idea itself is undefendable, just a piss poor concept from the start.
  • Posts: 4,603
    It's very interesting to carry out such an indepth forensic analysis of any Bond movie. How many would come up to scratch and how many would show gaping holes in logic and plot?

    But, of course, these movies are not examined like this within the mainstream. Punters turn up, pay their money, buy their popcorn and get onto the dramatic rollercaster. IMHO, success rests no how high are the highs, how low are the lows and how much the audience is emotionally invested in the experience. They know instantly when the lights go up if they enjoyed it or not.

    I agree with so many of the comments re the faults of SF. It's impossible not to agree with most of them. But, as an art form, there has to be more. In contrast, it would be possible to create a perfectly formed plot with zero holes and 100% logic. But it could still be a dreadful movie. I love SF despite all of the obvious faults.

    It is still, IMHO, spiritually a Bond movie. Is Bond a professional killer (for good)? Is there a mad villain? Is M the boss?, does Q supply gadgets? does Bond bonk a girl or two? Does the villain die a death at the hands of Bond? Is there a big, violent climax? Has it got a PTS? Is there a gutsy, big theme tune? Is the Bond theme played? Is it patriotic ?, does Bond flirt with MP?

    SF clearly gives mainstream punters, as a trend, what they want even if it does upset some of us fans. Surely, we should all agree with that. And, as such, it does get much more attention than other movies. When will be the next time that a Bond movie does such a good job in this area? Future directors would dream of making a future Bond that combined such critical success with box office BIG success. SF should never be taken for granted.

  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    I think both movies have elements that I can enjoy, but as an overall package there's something missing from each of them. I guess I honestly don't like all the delving into Bond's past and his character being in constant turmoil. This is where I happen to share Haphazard's view that after Skyfall it should've been a straight forward mission and the personal stuff put aside.

    People think it will make Bond more interesting by us finding out more about his past. The thing is I don't think Bond was ever meant to be that interesting. He was a fairly bland slightly enigmatic character. I agree that this backstory stuff is feeling more contrived with each film and you can sense that things are being made up as they go along.

    I'd forgotten about that clip of Mendes saying at the SF press conference that Skyfall "was its own story" rather than a continuation of Quantum. That's a big mark against SP in itself.

    Well said. It was a mistake going down that route in SF (which I think is a mess anyway) and SP only compounded the problem.
  • Posts: 1,162
    TripAces wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    @SaintMark SF was balistic at the box office and joe public are not pretencious. Why did they like it so much?

    Perhaps the Olympic bit with Craig and the Queen was just fantastic and the best ad they could ever make.
    The measure of box-office never woed me, I saw Blade Runner in its original release and it was not as loved as it is today. The reverse is also true if certain movie were released today they would bomb incredible at the box office..

    For me the popularity of a movie can be flash fire and is not determined by quality. CR is the far better made 007 movie and deserved a far better BO IMHO. The general audience is fickle mistress that makes little sense. Did not Mamma Mia outperform CR at the British BO?- If only Craig had sung the title song I would say. ;)

    A couple of years ago, we covered this. Somewhere, there are numbers that show that SF played HUGE with the 40+ film crowd. Older audiences went to this film en masse. And it makes sense, because Bond was being portrayed as too old, a dinosaur, a relic. This theme really hit home for those of us who are older.

    On a separate note, based on other posts by @SaintMark ...

    SF's brilliance can be pinpointed to three lines, all on the island:

    Severine: "It's amazing the panic you can cause with a single computer."
    Silva: "All the physical stuff. So dull, so dull. Chasing spies. So old fashioned. Your knees must be killing you.
    Silva: "Just point and click."

    Those three lines are the key to the film and the key to Silva, whose massive flaw is that while wanting to embarrass MI6 on his terms (pointing and clicking), he insists on defeating/killing M on hers (in the field, with all that dull physical stuff). And the latter is what sets him up for failure.

    Some say that Silva ended up winning. But he didn't. While M died, she did NOT die in the way that Silva wanted. He wanted the personal satisfaction of it; he needed to be close to her physically. This is where the deeper psychology comes in and how "mother" takes on a whole different dynamic.

    I could go on and on. SF is the only Bond film that allows such deeper readings.

    Nice to know that we covered this years ago with a group of people who think Craig is god and the Craig movies are great. There are people that think differently I still have no clue what made SF so successful but it is just not a very good constructed movie when it comes to a realistic 007. Being a dinosaur has never really been that great a card since we heard it already in GE when M accused 007 of that particular sentiment. Must explain the succes then of GE and Brosnan and how that sounded to the +40 crowd at that time.

    While SF is beautifully filmed, as was Moonraker, the movie made no sense at all and was very poorly scripted as an action movie or even a thriller. James Bond never was anything else even in Flemings hands. It was an attempt to show the character of a deeper James Bond and he was essentially what he always was drink, women and shoot some bad guys Oh and in the proces get his boss killed. Had he stayed in the bar she would have been killed too. So what was really gained but a false sense of patriotism and getting a shedload of people killed.

    For me and many people I know that like to re watch this series ever so often it seems that we generally tend to watch the older 007 movies because they are better done by a team that seems to love the series and the character. With Craig and Mendes I feel that they want to do something to show how much he suffers under his job and then come up with story hooks that do the character favors. He loses a friend and treats him like garbage, kills his boss and finds out that the architect of all his pain is his foster brother Blofeld. Bond fans who like this should stop complaining about the Mark hamill role and TLJ. ;)
    For me the franchise is losing steam ever since CR which is easily Craigs high moment in the franchise. I do hope we get a fifth outing that is essentially 007 doing his job without any navel-gazing in a decent actioner and without his archenemy Blofeld, who makes very little sense sand TB, OHMSS & YOLT which are in essence the Blofeld trilogy.
    SF is a nice movie to look at but has so little content that makes sense at all, too many pretentious stuff with the poem and really stupid stuff like Silva being clairvoyent, flying war choppers through a very densely controlled piece of airspace and the Apocalypse now moment with M in essence being lead to her dead by an agent who did not qualify and oh what a surprise he effing failed. And then he gets reinstated for a failure. It does perhaps explain the governmental mess there is in the UK, in that case the movie was really a moment of the future.

    This movie frustrates because of the really poor performance we get from Mendes not in one but in two movies. People complain about Brosnan but the Craig era has a lot of bad stuff too.

    perhaps Barbara and Michael should pass on the reigns as they seem to have done poorly ever since they lost the big Broccoli himself. They have done both actors under their reign no real favors. I do hope the fifth Craig is a half decent movie because he does deserve it.

    Well, first off, my preface about "a copule of years ago" was aimed at my recollection of box office numbers and not some sort of criticism of any stale conversation. Quite the opposite.

    But to your points about SF. If you go back to the key lines from the film, they explain away some of the complaints you have, including the choppers and the clairvoyance. With a "point and click," it's more than possible that Silva can make himself disappear, even to military radar. Read this for an example:

    https://www.wired.com/2007/10/how-israel-spoo/

    Again, Severine and Silva have already established that he can do just about anything with a "single computer." And this even includes making people afraid. That leads us to the clairvoyance, which likely doesn't exist. Silva couldn't tell the future; he could only make you Q and MI6 (and even audience members) think he could. That's just another example of the script's brilliance.

    --Did Silva know MI6 would head underground? Lilely.
    --Did Silva plan to get apprehended? Not until he knew Bond was on the Chimera.
    --Did Silva plan weeks in advance to hack into the MI6 network and free himself? Probably not.
    --Did Silva know for sure that Bond would follow him through the underground to that exact location where he set the charge? Probably not. (He likely had his henchmen set up boobytraps like that all over the place.) And like the explosion at MI6, he wasn't interested in causing death by explosion. He wanted the hand-to-hand kill. Instead, he was more interested in showing Bond how "clever" he was...remember his message to Q: "Not such a clever boy." Silva is obsessed with showing everyone how smart/brilliant he is, even in instances when it doesn't serve his best interests.

    More importantly, because fans love and appreciate SF doesn't mean they don't love and appreciate other Bond films from other eras. I love CR, along with GF, TB, FRWL, OHMSS, and so on. Heck, my guilty pleasures are DAF and LTK. I love em all. And that's the beauty of this franchise. It offers so many different tastes and moods. For instance, if it's 3 am and I can't sleep, I'd throw on YOLT.

    No matter how much time you spent to think it through ( or to fool yourself )or to what length you go to explain whatever away, there is absolutely nothing that can redeem Skyfall on the logical front. At the end it remains a mess whose storyline would insults a 12 year old, let alone an adult.

    We'll agree to disagree. Against all other Bond plotlines, SF comes out at or near the top in terms of plausibility.

    You see, that's what I wrote the 'or to fool yourself' part for.
  • Posts: 11,189
    SF at least had something of a basis in Fleming. M writing Bond's obituary, the reference to Andrew and Monique Bond, his Scottish heritage. Ok Kincade was made up, but that I can handle.
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    Posts: 2,005
    I'm sorry but one of the things that absolutely struck me as horrible is the score in SF.
    Especially in the pts it becomes evident.
    It also is way too loud in many places throughout the film. Same for SP.

    With another score SF could well be higher in my Top 10. David Arnold is a second John Barry.

    There are scenes where Newman works, not saying it's all bad. But that's just not good enough for Bond if you ask me.

    There's also nothing memorable or Bond-like in Newman's sound. Could well be the score to any other action film.

    I have to watch SP a second time, but isn't the score in it absolutely the same as in SF?
  • Posts: 7,653
    It is like reading a book that does not grip you at all I rather spend my time reading a book I enjoy. The same applies to movies I have seen most 007 movies quite a lot from VHS, DVD & BLu ray, but the last three 007 outings left me cold. So why would I bother with them. There are better movies to watch.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited January 2018 Posts: 7,020
    There's also nothing memorable or Bond-like in Newman's sound. Could well be the score to any other action film.
    This is its greatest shortcoming in my opinion. It doesn't have to be traditionally Bond-like in its sound, but it has to sound memorable and distinctive. Newman's music sounds run-of-the-mill much of the time.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited January 2018 Posts: 4,583
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There's also nothing memorable or Bond-like in Newman's sound. Could well be the score to any other action film.
    This is its greatest shortcoming in my opinion. It doesn't have to be traditionally Bond-like in its sound, but it has to sound memorable and distinctive. Newman's music sounds run-of-the-mill much of the time.

    Which is why his ost for SF earned him a Grammy Award and an Oscar nom?
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    Posts: 2,005
    TripAces wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There's also nothing memorable or Bond-like in Newman's sound. Could well be the score to any other action film.
    This is its greatest shortcoming in my opinion. It doesn't have to be traditionally Bond-like in its sound, but it has to sound memorable and distinctive. Newman's music sounds run-of-the-mill much of the time.

    Which is why his ost for SF earned him a Grammy Award and an Oscar nom?

    Awards are not a guarantee for quality. As proven countless times.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Watching it again recently I had to admit it's slipped down a few notches, it did sit at 3 but I think I must confess some of it's issues I've probably let off lightly in the past.

    I did genuinely think until recently I preferred it to FRWL previous no. 4 and SWLM previous no. 5 but SF has moved down to five while the others go up a place.

    While I have issues with it, yes the plot hole of Silva supposedly having planned everything years before highlighted by Wishaw's Q's dialogue. I do like him in SF but this moment irks me and as much as I despise SP he all around comes across better, one of the only plus points of that travesty.

    Also I do love the end of the film in Scotland and the whole Apocalypse now tribute that some seem to hate but the origins of Bond skims too close to Batman and you can see the writers were trying to replicate that vibe with Bond. That being said I don't think the deep water comment defuses the scene that follows and Dan & Judi knock it out the park.

    In hindsight I would have preferred it not, digging into Bond's and M's past I liked but they dug a little too far, P&W & Logan with Mendes being a little under the spell of Nolan's Bat trilogy and the whole Batman back story.

    That being said I love the PTS, not my favourite of the era that is still CR but definitely 2nd best and one of the best of the series for me. The opening titles while not scaling the heights of CR and the Adele song not on a par with Cornell's & Arnold's YKMN are great. That being said I think Adele's song lives within the confines of the titles and is great but stripped of this the song is a bit of dirge and unlike the classics it now seems to get held with due to it being her and the worldwide smash it doesn't really survive on it's own the way everything up to AVTAK ( with exceptions) does.

    I like the story for the most part, I've mentioned my issues above and I think the performances are great, yes Harris does sound awkward at times and Wishaw gets those awkward lines at the Silva breakout segment but the flim really belongs to 3 actors.

    Bardem now I prefer Mads subtler take on a villain but Bardem is the best throwback villain in years and he's clearly having a ball with the role, is intro will go down in history as one of the most memorable and acclaimed. Also the way he winds down at the moment he catches Bond on the frozen lake and mentions that he must be exhausted with all the running about. You can see he's had enough and maybe Bond getting him out of the way of technology and stripped back to the bare bones he realises he's lost and he won't succeed as he wanted.

    Bond getting him there shows that Silva is out of practice working in the field, going back to the scene with him criticising and ridiculing Bond for being old school when they are first introduced.

    Judi Dench is superb, I've liked her more in this era ( I know many haven't) and yes having her pedigree has made the writers take the character far more and put much more meat on those bones than some would like but it's a great swansong but it was time for her to go.

    Though last but not least and for me the standout and so it should be Dan himself. No it's not the intense performance of the previous 2 films but he still continues to dig into the psychology of the character and I love how he's pretty much washed up when we meet him after the titles but undergoes a transformation when that beard comes off as he is literally reborn as he glides to that Macau casino dinner suit and all.

    Thought it's success has led it to be the most dissected and talked about film of the series, as I said before it's reception had led those that have a problem to treat it in a way that wouldn't see any other entry subjected to, if you don't like it you'll see all the bad there is and for some there is plenty to stick your fork in

    Though those of us who do like it might not be willing to see it so critically, I think I've done my most honest assessment here and I admit it's far from perfect but even OHMSS my favourite is not free of it's faults.

    Mendes has his faults here, no gunbarrel, the issues I've mentioned above but he's served beautifully by Roger Deakins who makes the film at times look like a work of art, the Shanghi/Macua sequences and also the big climax for me at least look extraordinary.

    Newman is never going to be my favourite composer, he has his moments but I definitely preferred what Arnold had done with DC's first 2 films QOS in particular.

    That being said both director and composer are at least making an effort, for me both are barely bothering in SPECTRE, Mendes issues are well known but Thomas Newman's copy and paste SF effort for his attempt to score SP rank as one of the very worst scores of the series.

    Skyfall is indeed flawed but for me is still top 5 of the series.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    TripAces wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There's also nothing memorable or Bond-like in Newman's sound. Could well be the score to any other action film.
    This is its greatest shortcoming in my opinion. It doesn't have to be traditionally Bond-like in its sound, but it has to sound memorable and distinctive. Newman's music sounds run-of-the-mill much of the time.

    Which is why his ost for SF earned him a Grammy Award and an Oscar nom?

    Well, those who voted for him disagreed with me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2018 Posts: 23,883
    The score is one of the highlights of SF for me. Fresh, just as every one off composer's scores have sounded fresh to me over the years. I agree that Newman's sound is a bit less bombastic than what we're accustomed to for Bond, but I think the score fits the film very well, just as Serra's score fit GE.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited January 2018 Posts: 4,583
    TripAces wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    There's also nothing memorable or Bond-like in Newman's sound. Could well be the score to any other action film.
    This is its greatest shortcoming in my opinion. It doesn't have to be traditionally Bond-like in its sound, but it has to sound memorable and distinctive. Newman's music sounds run-of-the-mill much of the time.

    Which is why his ost for SF earned him a Grammy Award and an Oscar nom?

    Awards are not a guarantee for quality. As proven countless times.

    They're a pretty good measuring stick for some sort of quality. Yes. That, and the number of a-list directors and productions that have hired him as composer. Taste is like anything else: one person's nutrition is another's junk food -- and vice versa. But there's enough evidence that Newman is much more than a "run-of-the-mill" composer.
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Newman is never going to be my favourite composer, he has his moments but I definitely preferred what Arnold had done with DC's first 2 films QOS in particular.

    That being said both director and composer are at least making an effort, for me both are barely bothering in SPECTRE, Mendes issues are well known but Thomas Newman's copy and paste SF effort for his attempt to score SP rank as one of the very worst scores of the series.

    Newman has no say in what music Mendes uses or doesn't use. The use of SF music in SP was 100% his call and Newman (likely) had nothing to do with it. Even so, Newman had over 60 minutes of material for the soundtack release: that's nothing to sniff at.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Well his Bond scores were pretty run of the mill. He's done better work outside of Bond but failed to deliver a good Bond score.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    Murdock wrote: »
    Well his Bond scores were pretty run of the mill. He's done better work outside of Bond but failed to deliver a good Bond score.

    I disagree, but fair enough. This criticism makes more sense.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    For what it's worth, I was just talking about Newman's Bond scores.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    I think Skyfall is the only Bond film that has a theme? The whole "old ways are the best" idea, which I think is the best part about the film. They pushed the boat out a little, and that felt fresh. However I have trouble understanding why the plot needed to involve M so much, and Bond's past was explored to the extent that it was. I like the idea of a Bond coming back from a major set back, people have lost faith in him, the world has moved on slightly, and he has to prove he can still keep up so to speak. And the fact that the 50th anniversary was coming up made the message all the more apt. But I don't like how they borrowed heavily from CR and other films like LALD. Ultimately it's a film spoiled by people overthinking it, and adding too much that wasn't needed.
  • Posts: 1,916
    I felt a lot of that was also explored in GE and DAD with Bond being updated after the 6-year gap and being made useful again after his capture in Korea and the world moving on.

    M was also a catalyst in TWINE's plot as well and there seemed to be several parts of that thrown in SF.
  • Posts: 7,653
    For me the Skyfall theme is 007 does not matter as he did nothing to stop his boss from being killed.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    He killed Silva, though.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    SaintMark wrote: »
    For me the Skyfall theme is 007 does not matter as he did nothing to stop his boss from being killed.
    That really isn't how the story was presented.
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 684
    @Mendes4Lyfe I'd argue that QOS also has a theme, potentially more basic ("the villains and the heroes get all mixed up"), but which still runs through the blood of the film.

    Those two aside yes I wouldn't say any of the others have been concerned with the idea of theme.

    The "old ways are the best" in SF that you mentioned is certainly the more 'complex' (relatively speaking) of the two. It's presented in such a way, I think, that really leaves open to interpretation whether or not the old ways are best—i.e. I think you can see a lot of the film as a critique of how old ways have failed.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited February 2018 Posts: 7,020
    The theme of Skyfall is perhaps that "some of the old ways are the best, but others aren't." It's an exploration of that.

    Edit: To elaborate a bit-- Field agents are still needed; technology can't do the job all by itself. Technology is useful (DB5, radio, breadcrumbs for Silva), but also a threat (MI6 bombing; modern cars with trackers in them).
  • Posts: 19,339
    These reasons are why I will always see SF as a good 'stand-alone' film,and not one related to SPECTRE.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I'm just reading up about SF and I didn't know a few things until now (although im sure all you lot do).

    1.It had the original working title of Nothing Lasts Forever.
    2.The metro crash was going to be Barcelona not London.
    3.Mallory was going to be named Mallender.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Didn t know any of that.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I'm just reading up about SF and I didn't know a few things until now (although im sure all you lot do).

    1.It had the original working title of Nothing Lasts Forever.
    2.The metro crash was going to be Barcelona not London.
    3.Mallory was going to be named Mallender.

    I knew of 1 and 3, can't say I had heard of the second before. I wonder why the change from Barcelona to London; does that mean the train crash might've been a separate action sequence then, unrelated to M's hearing?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I like that title. I didn't mind SF either but Nothing Lasts Forever sounds ominous. Perhaps they should use it in the future.
Sign In or Register to comment.