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

1568101143

Comments

  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Love the "waste of good scotch" line.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,585
    I am going to bump this thread so that those who dislike SF can come back here to further the debate over its place in the Bond canon and comparisons to SP.

    The big debate is the plot of SF in comparison to SP. To me, there is no comparison. SF is the superior film in almost every respect, except for the PTS. In fact, the vanilla feel of the last act of SP has only solidified for me just how great a film SF is. There are layers to SF that don't exist in SP--and that is fine. But in a discussion of plot, SF goes deeper than any Bond film before. Those who have found the plot (and Silva's plan) too convenient or contrived are being just as manipulated as MI6. The film is pure metafiction.

    Let me explain.

    What did Severine warn Bond about Silva: "What do you know about fear?" And when Bond says, "All there is," she responds, "Not like this. Not like him." What fear are we talking about? Silva isn't physically imposing, like Hinx (talk about fear). No...instead, it's his ability to get people to freak out and act irrationally. This is why the abandoned island plays such an important role. Silva was able to get people so afraid that they left their belongings.


    Same with Silva's "plan." Critics of SF don't realize that they're being conned. Silva didn't have a damn thing "planned out" as Q so "expertly" concluded. No, what he did was make everyone think he did...in order to overreact. Which they did. And so did the audience. At one point, Bond says of Silva, "It's what he's planning next that has me worried." INDEED!!!! Notice the concern/fear isn't what Silva is actually doing; it's the perception of what he MIGHT be doing. That is how fear operates.

    It's bloody brilliant!

    The one convenience in SF is that once it's established that someone can do whatever he wants with a "point" and a "click," then anything becomes possible, including the placement of explosives in a subway and flying a military helicopter into the Scottish countryside. It also means that Silva never needs to make "long range plans." There is no need for the "long game" when technology makes the short game possible--and more devastating.
  • Posts: 158
    TripAces wrote: »
    I am going to bump this thread so that those who dislike SF can come back here to further the debate over its place in the Bond canon and comparisons to SP.

    The big debate is the plot of SF in comparison to SP. To me, there is no comparison. SF is the superior film in almost every respect, except for the PTS. In fact, the vanilla feel of the last act of SP has only solidified for me just how great a film SF is. There are layers to SF that don't exist in SP--and that is fine. But in a discussion of plot, SF goes deeper than any Bond film before. Those who have found the plot (and Silva's plan) too convenient or contrived are being just as manipulated as MI6. The film is pure metafiction.

    Let me explain.

    What did Severine warn Bond about Silva: "What do you know about fear?" And when Bond says, "All there is," she responds, "Not like this. Not like him." What fear are we talking about? Silva isn't physically imposing, like Hinx (talk about fear). No...instead, it's his ability to get people to freak out and act irrationally. This is why the abandoned island plays such an important role. Silva was able to get people so afraid that they left their belongings.


    Same with Silva's "plan." Critics of SF don't realize that they're being conned. Silva didn't have a damn thing "planned out" as Q so "expertly" concluded. No, what he did was make everyone think he did...in order to overreact. Which they did. And so did the audience. At one point, Bond says of Silva, "It's what he's planning next that has me worried." INDEED!!!! Notice the concern/fear isn't what Silva is actually doing; it's the perception of what he MIGHT be doing. That is how fear operates.

    It's bloody brilliant!

    The one convenience in SF is that once it's established that someone can do whatever he wants with a "point" and a "click," then anything becomes possible, including the placement of explosives in a subway and flying a military helicopter into the Scottish countryside. It also means that Silva never needs to make "long range plans." There is no need for the "long game" when technology makes the short game possible--and more devastating.

    Very good points. Another frequent complaint is that M died because of Bond's stupidity - taking an elderly woman, head of MI6, to a deserted house in the middle of nowhere, knowing Silva and his men would come after them armed to the teeth. But that is part of a repeated theme.

    At the beginning of the movie, M says "take the shot" - Bond's life is seen as expendable to M. It is more important than the mission. The stakes are higher than the life of an agent.

    When Bond meets Silva, Silva tells Bond that M had sent him (Bond) when he was not ready and had failed his tests, knowing he would likely die, indicating again that M saw Bond as expendable.

    When Silva is captured, he says that he did not talk when tortured, but complains that M had betrayed him - his life was expendable.

    As we later learn, M's own life is also seen as expendable if it means a chance to lure Silva and kill him.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Bond is always expendable. But there is a difference between M seeing him as ultimately expendable and being cavalier with the life of an agent. The two are not the same thing.

    What bothers me about the 'bloody shot' is that asking MP (a rooky field agent) to shoot is extremely high risk. Meanwhile, one of her top agents (Bond) is actually engaging the enemy and well placed to take out his target and retrieve the disk. So why does M even need to take the risk? Oh, because she doesn't trust Bond, again... After begging for him to come back at the end of QOS.

    Ditto, the life of an agent and the life of M are not of the same value to MI6. It's moronic that Bond is directly responsible for M's death and that he's then welcomed back a conquering hero at MI6.

    The defence of Silva's plan above as actually being a deliberate non-plan is typical of the weird mental hoops that SF defenders somehow find themselves having to jump through to explain how great the plot is. Don't bother - it doesn't convince any one.

    The best defence of SF is that you liked it, regardless of the plot incoherence and General stupidity of the story.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited December 2015 Posts: 1,984
    I don't think the plot has ever been more complicated than in Skyfall, except in The World Is Not Enough. Having such a deep and layered plot can be a good or bad thing, depending on who you ask, but I don't think Bond is meant to have these excessively complicated and in-depth plots myself.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 11,425
    I don't think the plot has ever been more complicated than in Skyfall, except in The World Is Not Enough. Having such a deep and layered plot can be a good or bad thing, depending on who you ask, but I don't think Bond is meant to have these excessively complicated and in-depth plots myself.

    I agree that there is no need or expectation for a highly convoluted plot. But my issue with SF is not the complexity of the plot. It's that the plot and story are a total mess. And that's after a four year gap between movies - not good enough.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    True, some of the plot holes in SF were more like potholes. I've never found it deserving of the top 5 status or whatever people hold it to be, but it's definitely one of the better films nonetheless. Cinematography, action, the theme song, etc. were all great. The references to previous Bond films were good, IMO - it wasn't overdone like in DAD or poorly done like in QoS/Spectre.
  • Posts: 158
    Getafix wrote: »
    Bond is always expendable. But there is a difference between M seeing him as ultimately expendable and being cavalier with the life of an agent. The two are not the same thing.

    What bothers me about the 'bloody shot' is that asking MP (a rooky field agent) to shoot is extremely high risk. Meanwhile, one of her top agents (Bond) is actually engaging the enemy and well placed to take out his target and retrieve the disk. So why does M even need to take the risk? Oh, because she doesn't trust Bond, again... After begging for him to come back at the end of QOS.

    Ditto, the life of an agent and the life of M are not of the same value to MI6. It's moronic that Bond is directly responsible for M's death and that he's then welcomed back a conquering hero at MI6.

    The defence of Silva's plan above as actually being a deliberate non-plan is typical of the weird mental hoops that SF defenders somehow find themselves having to jump through to explain how great the plot is. Don't bother - it doesn't convince any one.

    The best defence of SF is that you liked it, regardless of the plot incoherence and General stupidity of the story.

    I agree that I had to hop through a weird mental hoop to justify Bond deliberately putting M in danger. He could have easily dropped her off on a motel on the way to Skyfall.

    This is the 30 second scene they should have had. when picking up the Aston Martin, that would clear Bond of willfully and recklessly endangering M.

    Bond: You can stay here.

    M: In this garage?

    Bond: Until this is over. There's an apartment upstairs.

    M: No Bond, I am coming with you.

    Bond: I am sorry can't let you do that.

    M: We are all expendable, Bond. Silva wants me, not you. You do as I bloody well tell you.




  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2015 Posts: 7,553
    BondBug wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Bond is always expendable. But there is a difference between M seeing him as ultimately expendable and being cavalier with the life of an agent. The two are not the same thing.

    What bothers me about the 'bloody shot' is that asking MP (a rooky field agent) to shoot is extremely high risk. Meanwhile, one of her top agents (Bond) is actually engaging the enemy and well placed to take out his target and retrieve the disk. So why does M even need to take the risk? Oh, because she doesn't trust Bond, again... After begging for him to come back at the end of QOS.

    Ditto, the life of an agent and the life of M are not of the same value to MI6. It's moronic that Bond is directly responsible for M's death and that he's then welcomed back a conquering hero at MI6.

    The defence of Silva's plan above as actually being a deliberate non-plan is typical of the weird mental hoops that SF defenders somehow find themselves having to jump through to explain how great the plot is. Don't bother - it doesn't convince any one.

    The best defence of SF is that you liked it, regardless of the plot incoherence and General stupidity of the story.

    I agree that I had to hop through a weird mental hoop to justify Bond deliberately putting M in danger. He could have easily dropped her off on a motel on the way to Skyfall.

    This is the 30 second scene they should have had. when picking up the Aston Martin, that would clear Bond of willfully and recklessly endangering M.

    Bond: You can stay here.

    M: In this garage?

    Bond: Until this is over. There's an apartment upstairs.

    M: No Bond, I am coming with you.

    Bond: I am sorry can't let you do that.

    M: We are all expendable, Bond. Silva wants me, not you. You do as I bloody well tell you.




    Huh? Was it really that big of a mental hoop? Bond new Silva wanted M. Bond wanted to get Silva so he used M as the bait, which he told M he was doing. M agreed because she felt responsible for the deaths of many people at the hands of Silva; "Just us, nobody else, no one else dies because of me."

    Bond felt fine putting M in danger because it was for the sake of the mission, they're both people of integrity with military backgrounds of some form or another, he knew M would agree it's what they had to do to stop Silva.

    If he dropped her off at a hotel/the garage, why on earth would Silva have gone to Skyfall?

    That was the point of the breadcrumbs; hidden so they were invisible to everyone except Silva, who'd assume Bond was taking M away to hide in a cabin, when he was instead laying his rat trap with M as the cheese.

    Bond is not, in literally any way, directly responsible for M's death. Proximate Cause for M's death follows this order: Silva's Henchman, Silva, M, Bond.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think @BondBug was being sarcastic.

    It's still a moronic thing to do. And it's more moronic that Bond does get M killed and yet is hailed a hero for his efforts.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2015 Posts: 7,553
    I don't agree at all. I'd continue to provide arguments but I feel the ones I made satisfy my point.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I don't agree at all. I'd continue to provide arguments but I feel the ones I made satisfy my point.
    It's okay, I'm with you on all this.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 158
    BondBug wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Bond is always expendable. But there is a difference between M seeing him as ultimately expendable and being cavalier with the life of an agent. The two are not the same thing.

    What bothers me about the 'bloody shot' is that asking MP (a rooky field agent) to shoot is extremely high risk. Meanwhile, one of her top agents (Bond) is actually engaging the enemy and well placed to take out his target and retrieve the disk. So why does M even need to take the risk? Oh, because she doesn't trust Bond, again... After begging for him to come back at the end of QOS.

    Ditto, the life of an agent and the life of M are not of the same value to MI6. It's moronic that Bond is directly responsible for M's death and that he's then welcomed back a conquering hero at MI6.

    The defence of Silva's plan above as actually being a deliberate non-plan is typical of the weird mental hoops that SF defenders somehow find themselves having to jump through to explain how great the plot is. Don't bother - it doesn't convince any one.

    The best defence of SF is that you liked it, regardless of the plot incoherence and General stupidity of the story.

    I agree that I had to hop through a weird mental hoop to justify Bond deliberately putting M in danger. He could have easily dropped her off on a motel on the way to Skyfall.

    This is the 30 second scene they should have had. when picking up the Aston Martin, that would clear Bond of willfully and recklessly endangering M.

    Bond: You can stay here.

    M: In this garage?

    Bond: Until this is over. There's an apartment upstairs.

    M: No Bond, I am coming with you.

    Bond: I am sorry can't let you do that.

    M: We are all expendable, Bond. Silva wants me, not you. You do as I bloody well tell you.




    Huh? Was it really that big of a mental hoop? Bond new Silva wanted M. Bond wanted to get Silva so he used M as the bait, which he told M he was doing. M agreed because she felt responsible for the deaths of many people at the hands of Silva; "Just us, nobody else, no one else dies because of me."

    Bond felt fine putting M in danger because it was for the sake of the mission, they're both people of integrity with military backgrounds of some form or another, he knew M would agree it's what they had to do to stop Silva.

    If he dropped her off at a hotel/the garage, why on earth would Silva have gone to Skyfall?

    That was the point of the breadcrumbs; hidden so they were invisible to everyone except Silva, who'd assume Bond was taking M away to hide in a cabin, when he was instead laying his rat trap with M as the cheese.

    Bond is not, in literally any way, directly responsible for M's death. Proximate Cause for M's death follows this order: Silva's Henchman, Silva, M, Bond.


    What rat trap was in Bond's plan? Bond did not know when Silva would be coming. He didn't know if he would arrive before they made the home-made bombs. He didn't know he would just happen to have access to gas cylinders, ready to blow up when the helicopter was overhead or whether there was dynamite or glass or anything there. He didn't know if Silva would have ten men or a hundred, one helicopter or four. He knew nothing and took a geriatric woman with him. It was a terrible plan.

    It would have been better if Bond knew that Silva was able to track M by her phone. He goes to a gas station and puts the phone on a truck and swaps cars, leaving his own car keys in the Aston with the engine running and watching it get stolen, and telling M to leg it through some side streets to go to a safe place. This is just one alternative example of many of how Bond should have behaved.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Didn't know where to put this, so it's going here...

    Anyone else think Gaga's Grammy 'look' was disturbingly close to our very own Silva, sans the blonde locks?

    lady-gaga-performs-david-bowie-tribute-at-grammys-2016.jpg

    lady-gaga-performs-david-bowie-tribute-at-grammys-2016-21.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    They both have a look which suggests they 'play for both teams' as it were. That's what I see.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 2016 Posts: 8,401
    Its curious. Outside of fan forums, Skyfall has definitely overtaken Casino as Dan's finest entry. Beloved UK film reviewer Mark Kermode , for instance, prefers Skyfall. Generally I see YouTube reviewers like Calvin Dyson also prefer Skyfall. Hmm...
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    RC7 wrote: »
    Didn't know where to put this, so it's going here...

    Anyone else think Gaga's Grammy 'look' was disturbingly close to our very own Silva, sans the blonde locks?

    lady-gaga-performs-david-bowie-tribute-at-grammys-2016.jpg

    lady-gaga-performs-david-bowie-tribute-at-grammys-2016-21.jpg

    :))
  • Posts: 4,617
    Its not just outside fan forums, there are fans within the forum who think SF is DC's best. (with CR a close second)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Gaga s outfit and look was a tribute to Bowie, but Silva is maybe closer.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited February 2016 Posts: 4,043
    SPECTRE isn't fit to lick Skyfall's boots.

    I'm seriously thinking due to what was riding on SP and how spectacularly they dropped the ball this is one of the biggest disappointments of the series.

    Skyfall had something that is totally lacking in SPECTRE, it just feels devoid of tension and like it's going through the motions for the most of the time.

    The PTS is good but the SF one is better and that is the best it has to offer in action stakes, it's dialogue scenes aren't as good as SF's.

    Skyfall is just more compelling, if being by the numbers and throwing all the cliches at the screen and having 2 consecutively tension free climaxes is your idea of a return to form then you are welcome to it. I thought we left this garbage behind with the Brosnan era, while it's nowhere as awful as DAD it's definitely the equivalent of the Craig era.

    I do think the Honest Trailer is a tad more viscous than I would be but it's not far off the mark, I'm not sure I'd say Craig looks bored all through it but it is his worst performance of the series. Some of the lame one liners he delivers as if he couldn't give a sh*t, that "doesn't time fly" delivery has all the enthusiasm of a wet fish.

    I'm one of those that puts Skyfall at the top and CR closely following but I never dreamed that SPECTRE would be so lacklustre. Compare those lame endings to the Deakin's photographed explosive and thrilling Scottish climax, there is no comparison.




  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    @Shardlake

    I mostly agree. But I liked SP a lot, right up to the torture scene, and from there it falls apart.
  • Posts: 2,165
    Everytime I watch Skyfall I am amazed by something new in Roger Deakins' cinematography.

    No wonder he's considered one of the worlds best.

    Its simply stunning.
  • Posts: 1,469
    Its curious. Outside of fan forums, Skyfall has definitely overtaken Casino as Dan's finest entry. Beloved UK film reviewer Mark Kermode , for instance, prefers Skyfall. Generally I see YouTube reviewers like Calvin Dyson also prefer Skyfall. Hmm...
    Only today saw this post--very interesting. Had to check the Rotten Tomatoes website, which shows the consensus of movie reviewers gives Skyfall a 93% rating average, while the consensus of viewers on that site give it 86%. Compare that to CR--95% and 85% respectively.

    I think SF is a really good and really well-made Bond film; regarding the way it "comes off" or was put together, I personally see comparisons to Goldfinger--for me there's a quintessential Bond Movie quality to it regarding solidity and audience expectations. But I still like CR better! In my opinion, CR is the best Craig Bond film, a classic, with less of a veneer or formula than SF--that's the way it feels to me anyway--CR seems more random and certainly raw, which to me is part of its appeal. I think SF is somewhere in my top 10 of Bond films, below CR.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited July 2016 Posts: 28,694
    I'm one of SF's biggest proponents, but it is for sure overrated. A solid entry with elements of production that really work on a technical level with a great Bond at the heart, and my favorite scene in a Bond film is contained in it. I don't think it comes close to CR, however, just as most Bonds can't. It's just electric filmmaking, I don't know any other way to put it. Every part of it works on so many levels, it's about as perfect as a Bond film can be, in my eyes.

    SF dances with the Bond playbook and makes an impact. CR ripped apart that playbook and changed things forever, with an introduction of a Bond actor that had a rippling effect with no equal since Connery. It's no surprise it gets such consistent and passionate love, from fans both committed and casual.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Besides the obvious department in which Skyfall outdid every other Bond movie, its Cinematography I hardly can find anything worth appreciating.

    But in retrospect I'll be eternally grateful and appreciative for the casting of Ben Whishaw as Q. While he has only one good scene in SF, his introduction, he is priceless and perfect in every single scene in SP.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I love Ben in SP. Each time I watched it in the theater, every line of his hit with the audience and many laughs were had between us.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I'm another big fan of Ben as Q. There's plenty of milage in the character. even
    with another actor as 007. He has great timing for comedy and his scene in SP
    got a huge laugh.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    If Desmond were alive, I feel he'd give Ben the best of wishes. It's a lesser world without him in it, but Bond will make certain that he lives forever, as the best gadget man in all of fiction.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I think it's a really interesting dynamic having such a young Q. I hope
    Ben is happy to pop in every few years to do a few days or so of filming.
    rather than recast.
    I also think he's made his Q very human, I was genuinley worried for
    him , in the ski lift scene in SP.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Yes, Ben has added an endearing awkwardness and a tinge of innocence to the character to keep his spin on it his own. He's not a threat with his body, but his mind makes up for any lapses in that department. If Bond 25 features Craig and co. back, I really hope they play up his intellect in big ways, and maybe even have him forced to make gadgets out of scrap when they're in a tough spot.
Sign In or Register to comment.