Hmmm, you make some very persuasive arguments Commander! Certainly that is the most sense I have seen anybody make of Silva's "plan". I still don't quite understand why it was necessary for him to get captured, couldn't he have just hopped on a plane to London and walked straight into the courtroom? And how did he know M would be at that courtroom on that day, and that Q would hook up the laptop at exactly the right point? It also annoys me that it was for some reason necessary to hook Silva's computer into the mainframe at all! But at least that explains what happened to the mysterious hard drive!
It seems like Bond, Q, Mallory and Tanner all ought to have been fired at the end, given that M was killed... but I suppose that would have made the next film a bit tricky )
I agree that you want Bond to look like he's been through a fight when he has, but he does need to look suave before he gets into scuffles! Craig had one of my favourite dinner suits of the series (and I'm rather fussy about dinner suits!) but it really only made him look like a bouncer, not a high class casino guest.
JediM
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
Hmmm, you make some very persuasive arguments Commander! Certainly that is the most sense I have seen anybody make of Silva's "plan". I still don't quite understand why it was necessary for him to get captured, couldn't he have just hopped on a plane to London and walked straight into the courtroom? And how did he know M would be at that courtroom on that day, and that Q would hook up the laptop at exactly the right point? It also annoys me that it was for some reason necessary to hook Silva's computer into the mainframe at all! But at least that explains what happened to the mysterious hard drive!
It seems like Bond, Q, Mallory and Tanner all ought to have been fired at the end, given that M was killed... but I suppose that would have made the next film a bit tricky )
I agree that you want Bond to look like he's been through a fight when he has, but he does need to look suave before he gets into scuffles! Craig had one of my favourite dinner suits of the series (and I'm rather fussy about dinner suits!) but it really only made him look like a bouncer, not a high class casino guest.
JediM
The jacket was far too tight. That's why he looked like a bouncer. He looked fine in a tux in Casino Royale.
As to your other "points" I think they've already been beaten to death on this forum.
I tend to prefer slimmer fitting suits (jackets and trousers), it's probably a modern trend which will go away in a few years or something, but I feel that what made him look like a bouncer was not his suit, but his face, hair and gait. He just looked more thuggish than classy to me.
I expect it has all been done before, there's only so much you can say about one movie and as an infrequent visitor I find it very difficult to keep up with the sheer volume of posts on this website!
JediM
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
I tend to prefer slimmer fitting suits (jackets and trousers), it's probably a modern trend which will go away in a few years or something, but I feel that what made him look like a bouncer was not his suit, but his face, hair and gait. He just looked more thuggish than classy to me.
I expect it has all been done before, there's only so much you can say about one movie and as an infrequent visitor I find it very difficult to keep up with the sheer volume of posts on this website!
JediM
The current fashion looks okay if you're built like Sammy Davis, Jr., Fred Astaire, or the young Frank Sinatra (that is if you're very skinny). Craig's too muscular.
The current fashion of short tight jackets with short sleeves and short flat-fronted pants with a low rise doesn't work for about 90% of the male population.
Hmmm, you make some very persuasive arguments Commander! Certainly that is the most sense I have seen anybody make of Silva's "plan". I still don't quite understand why it was necessary for him to get captured, couldn't he have just hopped on a plane to London and walked straight into the courtroom? And how did he know M would be at that courtroom on that day, and that Q would hook up the laptop at exactly the right point? It also annoys me that it was for some reason necessary to hook Silva's computer into the mainframe at all! But at least that explains what happened to the mysterious hard drive!
It seems like Bond, Q, Mallory and Tanner all ought to have been fired at the end, given that M was killed... but I suppose that would have made the next film a bit tricky )
I agree that you want Bond to look like he's been through a fight when he has, but he does need to look suave before he gets into scuffles! Craig had one of my favourite dinner suits of the series (and I'm rather fussy about dinner suits!) but it really only made him look like a bouncer, not a high class casino guest.
JediM
Silva wanted to kill M face to face eventually. We don't know where or when this was supposed to happen because showing any expository scenes of him telling his goons what he planned to do would have been boring and lengthened a film that already had a long running time. Since he was hacked into MI6 (and who knows what other British Security systems) he knew what M's schedule was in advance (which is why he blew up her office at the moment she was at a distance but in view of it..he was in her laptop in her car and knew exactly where she was). His whole plan was to torment her until she was totally stressed out - her role as the head of MI6 would be trashed and she would be forced to retire as a failure. Then he would walk in and kill her. He knew she would send a 00 after him, but with his fingers in the system and his smug ego and overconfidence in his abilities he didn't see Bond - who he knew failed his tests - being a real threat. I believe being captured was one of many backup plans he developed in case his original (trashing M's career/forcing retirement) did not follow through.
How did he know M was going to be in that courtroom? He was in the MI6 mainframe and her laptop - he knew her schedule. His original plan did not entail being captured and held in MI6 HQ when she was to be at the hearing - it just turned out that way. However, he had a backup plan with the hard drive he bugged for his escape no matter what happened (though I'm sure he could have had the security system shut down without it since he was already in the mainframe).
The backup plan he contrived involving his goons getting his disguise to him in the subway was only set up to support his escape from MI6 and the local security forces. It's the same reason he had the abandoned tube train booby trapped - it was supposed to be just a diversion to aid in his escape - it was just fate that it ended up that Bond caught up with him near the area of the tube train. Having those disguises and the police unit allowed him and his men to go anywhere without suspicion. He may have just planned on escaping London so he could continue to carry out his original plan, but since he probably learned before his capture that M was going to be at that hearing that day, he realized it would be a good opportunity to just walk right in a kill her in front of the public to show how vulnerable (and defenseless) British security was. I don't think he never really cared whether he was captured or killed as long as he settle his vendetta with M.
I can't really say hooking his hard drive into the mainframe was nothing more than a convenient plot device. Granted, using a mainframe with it's computing power and info may be more efficient than using a stand alone computer and perhaps they thought they had sufficient safeguards against viruses - but again, that's just making excuses for the writers using their artistic license.
I'm sure Tanner, Mallory, Q. and Bond were all reprimanded (and the whole event was probably still being investigated at the end of the film), but would probably be determined that since M had approved of the plan herself and she had already embarrassed the government and now had sacrificed her life in order fix everything, and that by doing what they did certainly saved more civilians from being harmed, the government would realize the best course would be to keep such faithful servants at their posts.
As far as the other members disappointment with the Ford tailored suits, I am in agreement they were a bit too constricting. I realize they were just showing off Ford's tailoring and Craig's physique, but my problem is that Bond is not about fashion. He should have the best tailoring, but he should be able to move fast and comfortably in his clothing, and to me it just looked like those suits would have handicapped his movements.
Sorry about the lengthy explanations, but from experience I know that many who watch films they are really engaged in and enjoy but have reservations and even dislikes about what they perceive as plot holes and inconsistencies sometimes don't always take into account there can be ideas that might shrink or explain the plot holes that were left out of the final script in order to keep the running time down or not interrupt the pacing, etc. and that no matter what, films like these will never end up being perfect. I guess that's why I don't notice the holes until after the film - and even then I don't really focus on them too much because, well..it's just a movie.
I tend to prefer slimmer fitting suits (jackets and trousers), it's probably a modern trend which will go away in a few years or something, but I feel that what made him look like a bouncer was not his suit, but his face, hair and gait. He just looked more thuggish than classy to me.
I expect it has all been done before, there's only so much you can say about one movie and as an infrequent visitor I find it very difficult to keep up with the sheer volume of posts on this website!
JediM
The current fashion looks okay if you're built like Sammy Davis, Jr., Fred Astaire, or the young Frank Sinatra (that is if you're very skinny). Craig's too muscular.
The current fashion of short tight jackets with short sleeves and short flat-fronted pants with a low rise doesn't work for about 90% of the male population.
In retrospect, Skyfall is an ok Bond film. I was extremely pleased when I first watched it, mainly because it wasn't a repeat of QoS. There are things that could have been better - for instance, the Thomas Newman incidental music just didn't sound 'Bond' enough for me; Bardem started off well, but his death was weak - I agree with another poster that Mikkelsen has been the best villain in the Craig era so far. I also feel that the Scottish climax should have been in the middle and the shoot out in London would have been a better ending. Now that Mendes has agreed to direct the next film, maybe he can start to integrate the elements that make Bond 'Bond' more.
It's another very fine Bond film but it has the weakest plot of the Craig era so far - as soon as you start thinking about the plot it unravels quite badly.
I still haven't quite put my finger on why Skyfall doesnt quite 'do it' for me....as there are some GREAT scenes and the story is a solid one, from the great set up of M being a heartless B**** (Bonds words, not mine ) to getting him back on track and ultimately back to the more traditional feel (the end scene in M's office).
I think what bothers me most is the naivety of luring Silva to Scotland with just 2 people to keep M safe (and to be fair, I don't think Bond was counting on Kincade being there to help.) I mean everyone knew where they were going, including Tanner and Mallory...and they also knew just what Silva was capable of, so why no back up? It's that bit that loses all credibility for me....and before anyone says well M had to die...yes I agree, but it was the circumstances in which she did that really irks me...... (although the scene itself was fantastic....)
It's a shame 'caus everything leading up to that bit, and everything after is solid. And to some extent, seeing the home where Bond grew up was also insightful, but to me it was almost like "well we have to have a big ugly explosion somewhere"...and that was the only place it could happen.
It's almost like the superfluous flock of birds in a seaside painting, yes the seaside has seagulls, but we don't always need them included to prove we're at the seaside. The beach and water is enough for us to get the location!
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,485MI6 Agent
The reason there wasn't any more contact or back up was because the only two people Bond trusted was Tanner and Q. Anybody else included in the loop would have been a possible security breach.
For 50 years Bond has been blowing up the villains HQ's. It's a nice touch that it was Bond's that got it in Skyfall. Both his work HQ and his childhood home. It's a much deeper film than at first you think and it has layers that are deep and well thought out. I find it somewhat strange that throughout Bond's 50 year history that the finales have always been contrived and built for cinematic showdown well away from real world realism. Yet Skyfall takes it down to basics, and people are up in arms that it is unrealistic. Compared to 95% of the previous films, it is a most grounded and solid finale.
I think ASP9mm hit the nail on the head. With Goldeneye they blew up the Villains "almost" secret volcano base. With Tomorrow Never Dies they blew up the Stealth Boat. The World is Not Enough saw a submarine implode (kind of blew up!) then with Die Another Die the villain lost his transport plane by being struck by his own weapon's firepower (if you were still awake?). With Casino Royale they got it spot on right from the black & white pre-titles sequence through to job done the b**ch is dead....brilliant!....and then came Quantum of Solace...oh dear...Craig's input to the movie was first class but...oh dear... and may as well blow up the villains volcano, I mean secret desert base and see if the paying public noticed it was only 102 minutes of their life they'd never get back?
Skyfall came back with a whopping 137 minutes & could easily have been longer but like 2006's Casino Royale had me glued to the edge of my seat until the auditorium lights came up. -{
The reason there wasn't any more contact or back up was because the only two people Bond trusted was Tanner and Q. Anybody else included in the loop would have been a possible security breach.
For 50 years Bond has been blowing up the villains HQ's. It's a nice touch that it was Bond's that got it in Skyfall. Both his work HQ and his childhood home. It's a much deeper film than at first you think and it has layers that are deep and well thought out. I find it somewhat strange that throughout Bond's 50 year history that the finales have always been contrived and built for cinematic showdown well away from real world realism. Yet Skyfall takes it down to basics, and people are up in arms that it is unrealistic. Compared to 95% of the previous films, it is a most grounded and solid finale.
Hey, I agree that the last few Bond films are more realistic... and I love the depth.... trust me, I see the layers, much to some bashing on here )
However, it's just the circumstances of how Bond was left to defend M, even though they were all agreed to use her as bait, with not so much of a plan to help... surely they knew she was going to be killed... I mean look at Sylva's arsenal.... he was going to take her out (along with Bond)... and not even Bond could over power him, even if he was on his own turf...
THAT part of the plot logic baffles me....
(but hey, QoS leaves lots of people baffled, whereas it makes total sense to me... so I guess it's my turn now! ) )
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,485MI6 Agent
edited August 2013
At the end of the day, it's a Bond film. It's far removed from the realities we get with Tinker Tailor and Le Carre, therefore we have to suspend our disbelief to a certain extent. But it is odd that Skyfall has a very simplistic plot and motif and yet people who rank it as unrealistic and pick on points like Bond falling a long way into a river as unrealistic and daft, seem to forget the previous 22 films and what they contain. Hell, even the books had giant squid and private funded rockets being made in the South East of England. But the films, now where do I start. Even the early films closest to Flemings books have scenes and moments far more unbelievable than those most picked on in Skyfall
At least you see the depth that Skyfall has. It has far more than most Bond films gone before 2006. It's not dumbed down, but put across to an adult audience. It stuns me that people miss major plot points and don't get the simplistic things. The amount of times I see people asking why they forgot about the hard drive is amazing. Did people fail to notice that Silva's whole computer room and personal laptop were captured? No wait, his whole ISLAND complex!!!!!! It seems so, as I see this post over and over again. It seems that audiences for Bond films have become lazy and can't think for themselves. They need to have the dumb sidekick Bond-girl create a narrative that sums up the plot points so far and what needs to be done so they can defeat the villain (hitting an all time high level with TWINE). This dumbing down is not there in Skyfall and those people that rely on that narrative are lost and confused as they aren't used to thinking while watching. They want a comic book that explains it all to them as imagination and using your intelligence has been lost on many levels when viewing films in this day and age.
.................................
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,580Chief of Staff
It seems that audiences for Bond films have become lazy and can't think for themselves. They need to have the dumb sidekick Bond-girl create a narrative that sums up the plot points so far and what needs to be done so they can defeat the villain (hitting an all time high level with TWINE). This dumbing down is not there in Skyfall and those people that rely on that narrative are lost and confused as they aren't used to thinking while watching. They want a comic book that explains it all to them as imagination and using your intelligence has been lost on many levels when viewing films in this day and age.
Amen to that, brother !
It annoys the f*!# out of me that some people cannot think for themselves anymore and have to have EVERYTHING spoon fed to them...or they complain that the film is too complex X-(
At least you see the depth that Skyfall has. It has far more than most Bond films gone before 2006. It's not dumbed down, but put across to an adult audience.
And to a certain extent, that is exactly my point! I love the last 3 Bond films, and I see many of the subtleties you're referring too.... just take a look on both the CR and QoS forums to see.... I guess it's more that it's BECAUSE this film is so much more in reality, that this part of the film let's it down for me.... compared to the last 2.... it's this scenario that just doesn't sit right.... that's all... but like you so rightly say...
At the end of the day, it's a Bond film. It's far removed from the realities we get with Tinker Tailor and Le Carre, therefore we have to suspend our disbelief to a certain extent.
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
The reason there wasn't any more contact or back up was because the only two people Bond trusted was Tanner and Q. Anybody else included in the loop would have been a possible security breach.
For 50 years Bond has been blowing up the villains HQ's. It's a nice touch that it was Bond's that got it in Skyfall. Both his work HQ and his childhood home. It's a much deeper film than at first you think and it has layers that are deep and well thought out. I find it somewhat strange that throughout Bond's 50 year history that the finales have always been contrived and built for cinematic showdown well away from real world realism. Yet Skyfall takes it down to basics, and people are up in arms that it is unrealistic. Compared to 95% of the previous films, it is a most grounded and solid finale.
Hey, I agree that the last few Bond films are more realistic... and I love the depth.... trust me, I see the layers, much to some bashing on here )
However, it's just the circumstances of how Bond was left to defend M, even though they were all agreed to use her as bait, with not so much of a plan to help... surely they knew she was going to be killed... I mean look at Sylva's arsenal.... he was going to take her out (along with Bond)... and not even Bond could over power him, even if he was on his own turf...
THAT part of the plot logic baffles me....
(but hey, QoS leaves lots of people baffled, whereas it makes total sense to me... so I guess it's my turn now! ) )
What made the third act real for me was the fact there wasn't really any time to come up with a great plan. Q, Tanner and Mallory left it up to Bond to defend M because if they had tried to get any help from the government they would have been prevented from going with Bond's plan and instead an army of security forces would have been ordered after him and M, grabbed them and brought them back to London...right where Silva could do more collateral damage to innocents using his hacking and disguising, etc.. Bond didn't know if he could protect her totally from another attack - he just figured he had a better chance in the open where he could at least even the odds by being on his own turf to set traps, use the Aston's weapons and negate any of Silva's hacking sabotage. He may have also believed Silva had only himself an a few goons left and so had much better odds in a fight. He probably never imagined (nor would have anyone else) that he would have had an enormous helicopter gunship at his disposal.
What made the third act real for me was the fact there wasn't really any time to come up with a great plan. Q, Tanner and Mallory left it up to Bond to defend M because if they had tried to get any help from the government they would have been prevented from going with Bond's plan and instead an army of security forces would have been ordered after him and M, grabbed them and brought them back to London...right where Silva could do more collateral damage to innocents using his hacking and disguising, etc.. Bond didn't know if he could protect her totally from another attack - he just figured he had a better chance in the open where he could at least even the odds by being on his own turf to set traps, use the Aston's weapons and negate any of Silva's hacking sabotage. He may have also believed Silva had only himself an a few goons left and so had much better odds in a fight. He probably never imagined (nor would have anyone else) that he would have had an enormous helicopter gunship at his disposal.
Fair enough....and that explanation does answer some of my niggles, although I'm still not convinced that they dismissed Silva's capabilities of providing some serious fire power....but somehow we had to have the final showdown of him and M, so I guess that was the best scenario.
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
i believe that the last act of the movie had only two (maybe three) objectives.
1- channel (in a very ambient way) Connery's Bond with the help of the Aston Martin and the Scottish hills
2- do away with M
(and possibly)
3-showcase Bond as a total badass, capable of handling Silva's arsenal all on his own ( a more 'realistic' approach to the blowing up the volcano act).
Disagree! I think, and this is what I hate, that it was Logan's subtext. Namely, that Bond has anti-authority tendencies as picked up on by Silva in his report, that by returning home and addressing his past, and having M as a substitute Mum die allowing him to grieve, Bond could move on - hence his warm deference to the new M at the end. This fulfills the main requirement of modern scriptwriters - that the lead character must have changed by the final scene.
As a subtext, it's clever. As a narrative, it stinks.
Disagree! I think, and this is what I hate, that it was Logan's subtext. Namely, that Bond has anti-authority tendencies as picked up on by Silva in his report, that by returning home and addressing his past, and having M as a substitute Mum die allowing him to grieve, Bond could move on - hence his warm deference to the new M at the end. This fulfills the main requirement of modern scriptwriters - that the lead character must have changed by the final scene.
As a subtext, it's clever. As a narrative, it stinks.
Do you know what Nap... that for me is spot on!!!
I get it now.... just a shame the narrative was as it was. However... I feel as though I've been given the 'Cliff notes' For Bond! B-)
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
Disagree! I think, and this is what I hate, that it was Logan's subtext. Namely, that Bond has anti-authority tendencies as picked up on by Silva in his report, that by returning home and addressing his past, and having M as a substitute Mum die allowing him to grieve, Bond could move on - hence his warm deference to the new M at the end. This fulfills the main requirement of modern scriptwriters - that the lead character must have changed by the final scene.
As a subtext, it's clever. As a narrative, it stinks.
I think Bond (in the novels and films) has an obvious history of a bit of anti-authority tendency, from his being kicked out of Eton for his womanizing to pursuing his missions in whatever way he sees fit - even when it's not according to M's orders. It's how Fleming and EON wanted the character to appear to be (as was stated LTK) a "loose cannon".
As far as M being a substitute mother..well, it was obvious in the novels that M was Bond's pseudo substitute father (and authors having made reference to Fleming having similar feelings towards his Navy Intel boss Admiral Godfrey when he was his assistant in the war). So having Craig regard a female M as a stern, pseudo mother figure never bothered me - it was just a flip of the same coin.
I can understand the psychological implications the writers may have been using by having Bond return to his home where he suffered the childhood trauma that killed off his boyhood innocence, leaving him to be blasted into adulthood by the death of his parents. I don't personally believe that they killed off M so Craig could finally "grieve". I thought he went through his grieving when he shut himself up in the priests hole for two days after his parents deaths. I believe they killed off M so that the third act of Craigs reboot could be finalized - cleaning off the remains of the old series and Bond's past (the old Aston, Bond's home, Dench - who had been part of Brosnan's films, etc.).
As far all this leaving him with a warm deference for the new M...didn't the character always have that for M (be it in the novels - or Lee or Dench)?
As far as doing all that to fulfill having the character changed by the third act....I didn't know this was modern. I thought that's how most narrative fiction was done, be it ancient Greek plays to television to film. I thought that's how many of the ancient hero myths were written, like Odysseus.
Sorry you feel that makes the Skyfall narrative "stink". Personally, I would have preferred Dench survive (so at least it would have showed Bond succeeding in his mission) and just show Bond visit her in hospital and have her retire to let Mallory take over. I guess they went with this more severe ending to reinforce how dangerous Bond's lifestyle is and why he's a perpetual loner - anyone he gets close to that get drawn in (or are already in) his line of work can get killed off.
Well fair enough, but it was never a thing with the Bond movies really. As Moore commented, the problem with Bond is that he's always the same at the end of the movie as he is at the beginning. But that was what made him Bond; he is unchanged but his circumstances are unchained. It's an iconic thing, pitching a top fella against different odds.
And just as well, in a way, as if Bond changed every time he's in a film he would grow to be unrecognisable (though as different actors have played him this sort of happens anyway).
Usually movies in which a lead character changes are one-offs. The coming-of-age tale being the prime example. It's quite hard imo for these superhero films to get going after you've seen the emergence of the superhero, the implication is the story is over. Superman: The Movie is it for me, the others just don't quite work, and no one wanted a sequel to American Graffiti or Dirty Dancing or Grease, either.
The M dying this was a big deal, any survival would be seen as a copout and less of a box office draw. For me it stinks though, simply to have Bond take M to his old home without even having visited in years, with no back-up, but others have said this or disagreed with it.
Likewise I think Silva is meant to represent the way the colonies regard the Empire, the UK in particular, in his sense of betrayal. It's the UK's chickens coming home to roost.
And the chase on the train tops in the pts is meant to mirror that along the Tube train in London, but it doesn't quite work cos in the original scene, set in India, I believe it would have been more exciting as the two assailants would have been fighting among (stereotyped) natives clinging to the tops of the trains, so I understand, making it less of an Octopussy rerun.
Yeah, even having it set in India would have been different, having it in Turkey somehow makes it a bit too close to TWINE, which the film resembles anyway at times (M is called to account for her past misdeeds, shadowy sinister male villain we hear about, bombing of MI6 building and so on).
Also, the 'resurrection' of Bond, while still rubbish, would be more plausible with a mystical edge if the scene were set in India.
And if it had of been India it would of tied in nicely with "Silva represents the way the colonies regard the Empire,
the UK in particular, in his sense of betrayal. It's the UK's chickens coming home to roost."
It Would of been a really Great idea.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
It seems like Bond, Q, Mallory and Tanner all ought to have been fired at the end, given that M was killed... but I suppose that would have made the next film a bit tricky
I agree that you want Bond to look like he's been through a fight when he has, but he does need to look suave before he gets into scuffles! Craig had one of my favourite dinner suits of the series (and I'm rather fussy about dinner suits!) but it really only made him look like a bouncer, not a high class casino guest.
JediM
The jacket was far too tight. That's why he looked like a bouncer. He looked fine in a tux in Casino Royale.
As to your other "points" I think they've already been beaten to death on this forum.
I expect it has all been done before, there's only so much you can say about one movie and as an infrequent visitor I find it very difficult to keep up with the sheer volume of posts on this website!
JediM
The current fashion looks okay if you're built like Sammy Davis, Jr., Fred Astaire, or the young Frank Sinatra (that is if you're very skinny). Craig's too muscular.
The current fashion of short tight jackets with short sleeves and short flat-fronted pants with a low rise doesn't work for about 90% of the male population.
Silva wanted to kill M face to face eventually. We don't know where or when this was supposed to happen because showing any expository scenes of him telling his goons what he planned to do would have been boring and lengthened a film that already had a long running time. Since he was hacked into MI6 (and who knows what other British Security systems) he knew what M's schedule was in advance (which is why he blew up her office at the moment she was at a distance but in view of it..he was in her laptop in her car and knew exactly where she was). His whole plan was to torment her until she was totally stressed out - her role as the head of MI6 would be trashed and she would be forced to retire as a failure. Then he would walk in and kill her. He knew she would send a 00 after him, but with his fingers in the system and his smug ego and overconfidence in his abilities he didn't see Bond - who he knew failed his tests - being a real threat. I believe being captured was one of many backup plans he developed in case his original (trashing M's career/forcing retirement) did not follow through.
How did he know M was going to be in that courtroom? He was in the MI6 mainframe and her laptop - he knew her schedule. His original plan did not entail being captured and held in MI6 HQ when she was to be at the hearing - it just turned out that way. However, he had a backup plan with the hard drive he bugged for his escape no matter what happened (though I'm sure he could have had the security system shut down without it since he was already in the mainframe).
The backup plan he contrived involving his goons getting his disguise to him in the subway was only set up to support his escape from MI6 and the local security forces. It's the same reason he had the abandoned tube train booby trapped - it was supposed to be just a diversion to aid in his escape - it was just fate that it ended up that Bond caught up with him near the area of the tube train. Having those disguises and the police unit allowed him and his men to go anywhere without suspicion. He may have just planned on escaping London so he could continue to carry out his original plan, but since he probably learned before his capture that M was going to be at that hearing that day, he realized it would be a good opportunity to just walk right in a kill her in front of the public to show how vulnerable (and defenseless) British security was. I don't think he never really cared whether he was captured or killed as long as he settle his vendetta with M.
I can't really say hooking his hard drive into the mainframe was nothing more than a convenient plot device. Granted, using a mainframe with it's computing power and info may be more efficient than using a stand alone computer and perhaps they thought they had sufficient safeguards against viruses - but again, that's just making excuses for the writers using their artistic license.
I'm sure Tanner, Mallory, Q. and Bond were all reprimanded (and the whole event was probably still being investigated at the end of the film), but would probably be determined that since M had approved of the plan herself and she had already embarrassed the government and now had sacrificed her life in order fix everything, and that by doing what they did certainly saved more civilians from being harmed, the government would realize the best course would be to keep such faithful servants at their posts.
As far as the other members disappointment with the Ford tailored suits, I am in agreement they were a bit too constricting. I realize they were just showing off Ford's tailoring and Craig's physique, but my problem is that Bond is not about fashion. He should have the best tailoring, but he should be able to move fast and comfortably in his clothing, and to me it just looked like those suits would have handicapped his movements.
Sorry about the lengthy explanations, but from experience I know that many who watch films they are really engaged in and enjoy but have reservations and even dislikes about what they perceive as plot holes and inconsistencies sometimes don't always take into account there can be ideas that might shrink or explain the plot holes that were left out of the final script in order to keep the running time down or not interrupt the pacing, etc. and that no matter what, films like these will never end up being perfect. I guess that's why I don't notice the holes until after the film - and even then I don't really focus on them too much because, well..it's just a movie.
It's a great Bond film, alright, but the music (title song aside) is IMHO one of it's weaker points.
a few listens, but I like it.
Id say for about the 99% of the population!
I think what bothers me most is the naivety of luring Silva to Scotland with just 2 people to keep M safe (and to be fair, I don't think Bond was counting on Kincade being there to help.) I mean everyone knew where they were going, including Tanner and Mallory...and they also knew just what Silva was capable of, so why no back up? It's that bit that loses all credibility for me....and before anyone says well M had to die...yes I agree, but it was the circumstances in which she did that really irks me...... (although the scene itself was fantastic....)
It's a shame 'caus everything leading up to that bit, and everything after is solid. And to some extent, seeing the home where Bond grew up was also insightful, but to me it was almost like "well we have to have a big ugly explosion somewhere"...and that was the only place it could happen.
It's almost like the superfluous flock of birds in a seaside painting, yes the seaside has seagulls, but we don't always need them included to prove we're at the seaside. The beach and water is enough for us to get the location!
For 50 years Bond has been blowing up the villains HQ's. It's a nice touch that it was Bond's that got it in Skyfall. Both his work HQ and his childhood home. It's a much deeper film than at first you think and it has layers that are deep and well thought out. I find it somewhat strange that throughout Bond's 50 year history that the finales have always been contrived and built for cinematic showdown well away from real world realism. Yet Skyfall takes it down to basics, and people are up in arms that it is unrealistic. Compared to 95% of the previous films, it is a most grounded and solid finale.
Skyfall came back with a whopping 137 minutes & could easily have been longer but like 2006's Casino Royale had me glued to the edge of my seat until the auditorium lights came up. -{
Hey, I agree that the last few Bond films are more realistic... and I love the depth.... trust me, I see the layers, much to some bashing on here
However, it's just the circumstances of how Bond was left to defend M, even though they were all agreed to use her as bait, with not so much of a plan to help... surely they knew she was going to be killed... I mean look at Sylva's arsenal.... he was going to take her out (along with Bond)... and not even Bond could over power him, even if he was on his own turf...
THAT part of the plot logic baffles me....
(but hey, QoS leaves lots of people baffled, whereas it makes total sense to me... so I guess it's my turn now!
At least you see the depth that Skyfall has. It has far more than most Bond films gone before 2006. It's not dumbed down, but put across to an adult audience. It stuns me that people miss major plot points and don't get the simplistic things. The amount of times I see people asking why they forgot about the hard drive is amazing. Did people fail to notice that Silva's whole computer room and personal laptop were captured? No wait, his whole ISLAND complex!!!!!! It seems so, as I see this post over and over again. It seems that audiences for Bond films have become lazy and can't think for themselves. They need to have the dumb sidekick Bond-girl create a narrative that sums up the plot points so far and what needs to be done so they can defeat the villain (hitting an all time high level with TWINE). This dumbing down is not there in Skyfall and those people that rely on that narrative are lost and confused as they aren't used to thinking while watching. They want a comic book that explains it all to them as imagination and using your intelligence has been lost on many levels when viewing films in this day and age.
Amen to that, brother !
It annoys the f*!# out of me that some people cannot think for themselves anymore and have to have EVERYTHING spoon fed to them...or they complain that the film is too complex X-(
And to a certain extent, that is exactly my point! I love the last 3 Bond films, and I see many of the subtleties you're referring too.... just take a look on both the CR and QoS forums to see.... I guess it's more that it's BECAUSE this film is so much more in reality, that this part of the film let's it down for me.... compared to the last 2.... it's this scenario that just doesn't sit right.... that's all... but like you so rightly say...
What made the third act real for me was the fact there wasn't really any time to come up with a great plan. Q, Tanner and Mallory left it up to Bond to defend M because if they had tried to get any help from the government they would have been prevented from going with Bond's plan and instead an army of security forces would have been ordered after him and M, grabbed them and brought them back to London...right where Silva could do more collateral damage to innocents using his hacking and disguising, etc.. Bond didn't know if he could protect her totally from another attack - he just figured he had a better chance in the open where he could at least even the odds by being on his own turf to set traps, use the Aston's weapons and negate any of Silva's hacking sabotage. He may have also believed Silva had only himself an a few goons left and so had much better odds in a fight. He probably never imagined (nor would have anyone else) that he would have had an enormous helicopter gunship at his disposal.
Fair enough....and that explanation does answer some of my niggles, although I'm still not convinced that they dismissed Silva's capabilities of providing some serious fire power....but somehow we had to have the final showdown of him and M, so I guess that was the best scenario.
1- channel (in a very ambient way) Connery's Bond with the help of the Aston Martin and the Scottish hills
2- do away with M
(and possibly)
3-showcase Bond as a total badass, capable of handling Silva's arsenal all on his own ( a more 'realistic' approach to the blowing up the volcano act).
everything else was secondary.
As a subtext, it's clever. As a narrative, it stinks.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Do you know what Nap... that for me is spot on!!!
I get it now.... just a shame the narrative was as it was. However... I feel as though I've been given the 'Cliff notes' For Bond! B-)
I think Bond (in the novels and films) has an obvious history of a bit of anti-authority tendency, from his being kicked out of Eton for his womanizing to pursuing his missions in whatever way he sees fit - even when it's not according to M's orders. It's how Fleming and EON wanted the character to appear to be (as was stated LTK) a "loose cannon".
As far as M being a substitute mother..well, it was obvious in the novels that M was Bond's pseudo substitute father (and authors having made reference to Fleming having similar feelings towards his Navy Intel boss Admiral Godfrey when he was his assistant in the war). So having Craig regard a female M as a stern, pseudo mother figure never bothered me - it was just a flip of the same coin.
I can understand the psychological implications the writers may have been using by having Bond return to his home where he suffered the childhood trauma that killed off his boyhood innocence, leaving him to be blasted into adulthood by the death of his parents. I don't personally believe that they killed off M so Craig could finally "grieve". I thought he went through his grieving when he shut himself up in the priests hole for two days after his parents deaths. I believe they killed off M so that the third act of Craigs reboot could be finalized - cleaning off the remains of the old series and Bond's past (the old Aston, Bond's home, Dench - who had been part of Brosnan's films, etc.).
As far all this leaving him with a warm deference for the new M...didn't the character always have that for M (be it in the novels - or Lee or Dench)?
As far as doing all that to fulfill having the character changed by the third act....I didn't know this was modern. I thought that's how most narrative fiction was done, be it ancient Greek plays to television to film. I thought that's how many of the ancient hero myths were written, like Odysseus.
Sorry you feel that makes the Skyfall narrative "stink". Personally, I would have preferred Dench survive (so at least it would have showed Bond succeeding in his mission) and just show Bond visit her in hospital and have her retire to let Mallory take over. I guess they went with this more severe ending to reinforce how dangerous Bond's lifestyle is and why he's a perpetual loner - anyone he gets close to that get drawn in (or are already in) his line of work can get killed off.
And just as well, in a way, as if Bond changed every time he's in a film he would grow to be unrecognisable (though as different actors have played him this sort of happens anyway).
Usually movies in which a lead character changes are one-offs. The coming-of-age tale being the prime example. It's quite hard imo for these superhero films to get going after you've seen the emergence of the superhero, the implication is the story is over. Superman: The Movie is it for me, the others just don't quite work, and no one wanted a sequel to American Graffiti or Dirty Dancing or Grease, either.
The M dying this was a big deal, any survival would be seen as a copout and less of a box office draw. For me it stinks though, simply to have Bond take M to his old home without even having visited in years, with no back-up, but others have said this or disagreed with it.
Likewise I think Silva is meant to represent the way the colonies regard the Empire, the UK in particular, in his sense of betrayal. It's the UK's chickens coming home to roost.
And the chase on the train tops in the pts is meant to mirror that along the Tube train in London, but it doesn't quite work cos in the original scene, set in India, I believe it would have been more exciting as the two assailants would have been fighting among (stereotyped) natives clinging to the tops of the trains, so I understand, making it less of an Octopussy rerun.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Also, the 'resurrection' of Bond, while still rubbish, would be more plausible with a mystical edge if the scene were set in India.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
"Silva represents the way the colonies regard the Empire,
the UK in particular, in his sense of betrayal. It's the UK's chickens coming home to roost."
It Would of been a really Great idea.