Jump to content


The forums are moving

Please head over to our new forums at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/ as these forums will soon be converted to a read only archive.



Photo

Some 'convenient coincidences' in Skyfall (Major spoilers ahead)


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 kronsteens shin

kronsteens shin

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 48 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:00 PM

Hi,
Let me start by saying that 'Skyfall' is the Bond film I have enjoyed most of any I have watched since 1977... It's up there in my top two or three - the top one on a good day. A brilliant film and just what we all needed. However... (deep breath!), there were some pieces that made sense in terms of driving the plot, but not in real life. For example:
  • Patrice goes to all the trouble of breaking into a neighbouring office block to eliminate a character who is surrounded by people totally unsurprised by the character's removal. Couldn't they just have let Patrice in to the room?
  • Silva relied upon Bond escaping and capturing him to bring him back to the UK so that he could carry out his revenge?
  • The explosive that derails the tube just by Bond. That's more than lucky...
  • The two gadgets Q gives Bond - a signature gun (welcome back to that!) and the transmitter, both prove crucial to the plot.
  • Although Q is about twelve, he really should have known computer rule#1 - if you don't trust the source of computer files, don't go opening them...
I'm guessing that there are a few more and please believe me, I'm not nitpicking, it was a really great film. But has anyone got anymore?

#2 Roebuck

Roebuck

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1870 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:37 PM

You’ve itemized most of what bugs me in Skyfall. There was a lot of lazy scripting for a film that scores so highly on most other levels. Even a casual search by Silva’s men would have found that GPS device, and there seemed to be enough equipment on the island to block any unauthorized transmissions. Surely the ease with which he was able to call up the cavalry should have got Bond’s spider sense buzzing?

The tube train derailment should have had more direct connection to Silva’s plan, and it annoyed me how every improbable thing Silva did (from blowing up the SIS Building to faking a chemical plant accident) was waved away by saying ‘He’s good with computers’.

#3 kronsteens shin

kronsteens shin

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 48 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:55 PM

Absolutely agree Roebuck - not deal breakers for me, by any means, they just got in the way. And Silva's hacking credentials (though never really explored) ran to a phenomenal piece of code that disabled MI6's temporary HQ at exactly the right time - unless Q's been working for Silva all along... Oh, and Bond takes M to Scotland to lead Silva there... with almost nothing to defend them against Silva's onslaught (okay, discounting Marty, the dismembered Aston Martin)...

#4 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 29 October 2012 - 12:07 AM

I think Bond assumed that he still had a gunroom at Skyfall. He expected everything to be there.

#5 MkB

MkB

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3864 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 12:11 AM

I think Bond assumed that he still had a gunroom at Skyfall. He expected everything to be there.


Yes! But wasn't that a bit strange? Apparently he left the place as it was many years ago and never came back. He could hardly expect to find full racks of perfectly oiled and functional guns (not to mention the rounds).

#6 FOX MULDER

FOX MULDER

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 178 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 01:15 AM

"Silva relied upon Bond escaping and capturing him to bring him back to the UK so that he could carry out his revenge?"

Yeah, what did he need to be captured for anyway? All he had to do was travel to the UK (I'm sure he could muster up a false passport?) and kill M at the public enquiry. In fact, being captured made everything far more difficult for himself.

I loved Bardem's performance, but I'm not sure about some of Silva's actions or motives. He wants to humiliate and destroy M? For what? Sure, she was responsible for his imprisonment but - surely - as a former fully-trained agent himself, he would have understood that M occasionally had to make decisions like that for the greater good. Agents understand the risks of what they do.

#7 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 29 October 2012 - 01:19 AM

Yeah, what did he need to be captured for anyway? All he had to do was travel to the UK (I'm sure he could muster up a false passport?) and kill M at the public enquiry. In fact, being captured made everything far more difficult for himself.


I think Silva wanted to be captured because he wanted to taunt her. He wanted to look into her eyes and make it look like she had the upper hand. If Silva truly wants to destroy her, along with her reputation, he needs to be captured. He escapes, makes M look like an idiot, and a laughing stock since he managed to get away right under her nose, then kill her.

I loved Bardem's performance, but I'm not sure about some of Silva's actions or motives. He wants to humiliate and destroy M? For what? Sure, she was responsible for his imprisonment but - surely - as a former fully-trained agent himself, he would have understood that M occasionally had to make decisions like that for the greater good. Agents understand the risks of what they do.


That's the thing though. That's what makes Silva so menacing. He doesn't see it that way. He's mad. Silva is essentially the other side of Bond. That's what the audience is supposed to get from it. As M herself puts it, Silva is "so blinded by inconsolable rage.". Bond would understand that, he wouldn't go and kill M because of it. Yes, he'd be deeply pissed off with her. Silva is pretty much the outcome of Bond becoming bad.

Edited by DamnCoffee, 29 October 2012 - 01:21 AM.


#8 FOX MULDER

FOX MULDER

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 178 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 01:40 AM

I think Silva wanted to be captured because he wanted to taunt her. He wanted to look into her eyes and make it look like she had the upper hand. If Silva truly wants to destroy her, along with her reputation, he needs to be captured. He escapes, makes M look like an idiot, and a laughing stock since he managed to get away right under her nose, then kill her.

Fair enough. But what if Silva's thugs had killed Bond in the casino? How does Silva get 'captured' then? As the original poster said, Silva is basically relying on Bond escaping from his henchmen.

#9 MkB

MkB

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3864 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 01:52 AM

As M herself puts it, Silva is "so blinded by inconsolable rage."


Does she use this phrase? It had slipped my mind, but it rings a bell, doesn't she use it about Bond in QoS? If so, one more for the "Bond film homages" thread.

#10 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 29 October 2012 - 01:58 AM


I think Silva wanted to be captured because he wanted to taunt her. He wanted to look into her eyes and make it look like she had the upper hand. If Silva truly wants to destroy her, along with her reputation, he needs to be captured. He escapes, makes M look like an idiot, and a laughing stock since he managed to get away right under her nose, then kill her.

Fair enough. But what if Silva's thugs had killed Bond in the casino? How does Silva get 'captured' then? As the original poster said, Silva is basically relying on Bond escaping from his henchmen.


Well, Silva was an MI6 agent. So maybe he knew how good Bond was? It does seem that his entire plan relies a lot on pure chance, I have to admit.


As M herself puts it, Silva is "so blinded by inconsolable rage."


Does she use this phrase? It had slipped my mind, but it rings a bell, doesn't she use it about Bond in QoS? If so, one more for the "Bond film homages" thread.


She said it in Quantum, yes. I was just using that quote as an example to show Silva's mindset.

#11 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:16 AM

I think that coindiences people may see in 'Skyfall' have littered the 22 previous films for Bond - it's part of the escapist charm and almost expected, without being totally silly. The coincidences are there, but they are brought up in a simple, effective way.

Plenty of gadgets and vehicles Bond uses in films always manage to save his neck specifically to that film, be it a submarine-car or a defibrulator at just the right time.

#12 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:41 AM

Also, life is full of strange coincidences... things you would never believe if they were part of a fictional narrative.

And Silva definitely is adapting his plan to hurt M while he goes along. Without Bond he still would have found a way. Capturing Bond and being captured by Bond is just one method to do this.

#13 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 29 October 2012 - 12:05 PM

Agree with all by Kronsteen, and with the reference to an empty house that could have still had a few guns in the rack, but certainly not that which could have put up a solid defence, lightbulbs and mirrors notwithstanding of course.

These were all the things that preyed on my mind a little after the first viewing. Second viewing yet to be undertaken.

#14 FOX MULDER

FOX MULDER

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 178 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 03:16 PM

One thing I missed on first viewing - how did Silva know Bond had taken M to Skyfall?

#15 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 29 October 2012 - 03:20 PM

Spoiler

Edited by DamnCoffee, 29 October 2012 - 03:24 PM.


#16 FOX MULDER

FOX MULDER

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 178 posts

Posted 29 October 2012 - 03:21 PM

Ah, yes, of course. Thanks.

#17 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 10 March 2015 - 07:04 AM

Agree with all by Kronsteen, and with the reference to an empty house that could have still had a few guns in the rack, but certainly not that which could have put up a solid defence, lightbulbs and mirrors notwithstanding of course.

These were all the things that preyed on my mind a little after the first viewing. Second viewing yet to be undertaken.

 

Bond and M would have been better off going to my parents house.



#18 JCRendle

JCRendle

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3639 posts
  • Location:Her Majesty's England

Posted 11 March 2015 - 01:08 AM

Agree with all by Kronsteen, and with the reference to an empty house that could have still had a few guns in the rack, but certainly not that which could have put up a solid defence, lightbulbs and mirrors notwithstanding of course.

These were all the things that preyed on my mind a little after the first viewing. Second viewing yet to be undertaken.

 

Bond and M would have been better off going to my parents house.

 

Or an MI6 (Bond universe) safe house that had enough equipment for any eventuality? 



#19 Double-Oh Agent

Double-Oh Agent

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4325 posts

Posted 29 March 2015 - 07:04 AM

Hi,
Let me start by saying that 'Skyfall' is the Bond film I have enjoyed most of any I have watched since 1977... It's up there in my top two or three - the top one on a good day. A brilliant film and just what we all needed. However... (deep breath!), there were some pieces that made sense in terms of driving the plot, but not in real life. For example:

  • Patrice goes to all the trouble of breaking into a neighbouring office block to eliminate a character who is surrounded by people totally unsurprised by the character's removal. Couldn't they just have let Patrice in to the room?
  • Silva relied upon Bond escaping and capturing him to bring him back to the UK so that he could carry out his revenge?
  • The explosive that derails the tube just by Bond. That's more than lucky...
  • The two gadgets Q gives Bond - a signature gun (welcome back to that!) and the transmitter, both prove crucial to the plot.
  • Although Q is about twelve, he really should have known computer rule#1 - if you don't trust the source of computer files, don't go opening them...
I'm guessing that there are a few more and please believe me, I'm not nitpicking, it was a really great film. But has anyone got anymore?

 

Not at all. Silva needed a distraction to lure all or most of the cops and security detail away from the nearby hearings so he could have a much easier time assassinating M, and the best way to do that was to rig a bomb for the tube train where officials would all converge in one place to rescue or tend to the injured and set up road blocks for traffic and crowd control. Bond being there in the underground with him was not part of his plan. However, Silva used it to his advantage to either kill Bond with the train, or at worst, distract and delay him while he got away and set about the assassination. Silva just said the falling train was meant for Bond because 007 happened to be there (and perhaps play mind games with him). If Bond had not been there, Silva would have just went about his business, climbed out of the underground, set off the explosion, driven to the hearings, and killed M. He wouldn't have given Bond a second thought. He didn't need him--or anyone--in the underground for that part of the plan. No contrived plotting (or convenient coincidence) involved--in this instance anyway.



#20 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 16 September 2015 - 07:23 AM

One of the funniest bits was that Kincade was at Skyfall. Was he living in a cupboard?

 

It was amusing how he just appeared. I don't know why he would have been there when he thought that Bond was dead. Also Bond tells him that "some men are coming to kill us but we're going to kill them first", and Kincade simply accepts this, but it's only later when Bond is having some shooting practice that Kincade asks what he does for a living!



#21 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 16 September 2015 - 03:40 PM

My two pennyworth, for what it's worth;

Damn Coffee is right about Silva - he is insane. He is a psychologically disturbed man, fixated about M, and it's more than just about wanting revenge. If this was in another type a film and taken a few steps further you would have warnings about "not suitable for children".

He could have hired anyone to go to London and finish off M, having set up the damage himself online. But as Bond points out in the movie; "He always has to make an entrance." Or as Silva orders his goon squad; "Don't touch her, she's mine!" He doesn't just want M dead - he wants to be the executioner, as well as his own executioner. hence what Dr Evil might call the overly elaborate plot - a cat and mouse game.

Silva is relying on M sending someone, probably Bond, out to get him.Maybe he didn't expect M to send Bond to Turkey to stop Patrice stealing the disk drive, which is crucial to his plot - and what followed (And maybe Patrice got a right talking to when he reported in with the goods only to tell the boss that BTW, 007 is dead.)

There are plot holes though. I got the impression the assassination job Patrice did involving Severine was unconnected to Silva's main plot against M - funny, though, how she's there in the Macao casino to meet Bond. She appears to be controlled by a Tong syndicate, but but Silva also. Did Silva tell her to be there and make contact? Come to think of it, how would Silva be sure Bond would catch Patrice at the assassination site? I think he just assumed that one way or another 007 would sooner or later turn up to arrest him, as planned.

London - how did Silva know when the parliamentary enquiry would be and when M would appear, or had he, like Quantum "people everywhere?" - a good question if his plot is somehow linked to events in the film SPECTRE. Insider knowledge perhaps?

Finally the showdown at Skyfall Lodge. We know Bond set a trail of breadcrumbs - but why not send a signal to someone - Tanner, Eve, Q - to get Mallory to authorise a backup force to be on hand when, inevitably Silva and his goon squad appears (you could have them being late to the battle for dramatic purposes, but surely in real life the object would be to capture this dangerous man, not risk all on Bond senior still having a full set of guns and faithful retainer Kincaid being around - in fact it's clear Bond didn't expect him to be there.)

It's dramatically satisfying, I suppose, to have Bond, M and an unexpted ally fight off the baddie and his henchmen with little to hand, but putting the head of MI6 at risk that way is questionable, to say the least.

But - none of it spoilt my enjoyment of SF and I dare say in a couple of months' time a new thread will appear on the site analysing the plot holes in the new movie!

#22 DavidJones

DavidJones

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 347 posts

Posted 16 September 2015 - 10:33 PM

Skyfall is riddled with plot holes. It was really quite distracting and very obvious on even the first viewing. It's surprising considering how 'serious' and 'realistic' the Craig films are supposed to be. There are less coincidences in the Moore films, I would say, even though it's more forgivable in those as they take themselves less seriously.


Edited by DavidJones, 16 September 2015 - 10:33 PM.


#23 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 17 September 2015 - 05:47 AM

There are plot holes though. I got the impression the assassination job Patrice did involving Severine was unconnected to Silva's main plot against M - funny, though, how she's there in the Macao casino to meet Bond. She appears to be controlled by a Tong syndicate, but but Silva also. Did Silva tell her to be there and make contact? Come to think of it, how would Silva be sure Bond would catch Patrice at the assassination site? I think he just assumed that one way or another 007 would sooner or later turn up to arrest him, as planned.

London - how did Silva know when the parliamentary enquiry would be and when M would appear, or had he, like Quantum "people everywhere?" - a good question if his plot is somehow linked to events in the film SPECTRE. Insider knowledge perhaps?

Finally the showdown at Skyfall Lodge. We know Bond set a trail of breadcrumbs - but why not send a signal to someone - Tanner, Eve, Q - to get Mallory to authorise a backup force to be on hand when, inevitably Silva and his goon squad appears (you could have them being late to the battle for dramatic purposes, but surely in real life the object would be to capture this dangerous man, not risk all on Bond senior still having a full set of guns and faithful retainer Kincaid being around - in fact it's clear Bond didn't expect him to be there.)

It's dramatically satisfying, I suppose, to have Bond, M and an unexpted ally fight off the baddie and his henchmen with little to hand, but putting the head of MI6 at risk that way is questionable, to say the least.
 

Since explaining "SKYFALL" is my pet project...   :P

 

- Patrice´s assassination was part of Silva´s way to make money from illegal art deals, using Severine as bait/middleman.  Silva, of course, could not know that Bond would go after Patrice - but when Bond did, Silva again improvised and used the moment to his advantage.  Exactly as Bond always does it: make the most of difficult circumstances, turning them around.

 

- The date of the enquiry has been set for some time, and as someone who demonstrates how easily he can invade any network with his computer knowledge, he got that information with no sweat.

 

- Why didn´t Mallory and the crew send help to "Skyfall"?  Well, Dench-M explicitly says: she does not want any more lives harmed because of her, only Bond at her side.  She already feels responsible for the death of the other agents and the terror that Silva has brought on everyone since his capture.  She hopes that Bond will protect her and kill Silva - or, secretly, she is ready to pay the price for her mistakes.

 

Now, Mallory, Q, Tanner and Eve could have sent the troups anyway - but that would have triggered another enquiry with career-shattering consequences.  I get the feeling from Mallory that he has no love for Dench-M or Bond, he is too much invested in politics himself, manoeuvering his career under a strict code, telling Dench-M to step down and Bond to quit in the early scenes of the film.  So I do think he just does not want to involve himself or others in the messy outcome of the revenge-scenario Silva wants to live out.  I even believe that Mallory is ready to risk Dench-M and Bond dying by Silva´s hand.  He already is moving forward to replace Dench-M, and Bond is just another agent for him, tied to Dench-M.  If Dench-M and Bond had been killed by Silva, Mallory would have been in a politically sound situation to ask his superiors for permission to go after Silva, finally cleaning up his predecessor´s mess.  But as long as she is in charge, he will not interfere.  Everything he can do and wants to do is allow Q and Tanner to do as Dench-M wishes (the breadcrumbs) - and this, of course, he wants to remain a secret.

 

As for Q, Tanner and Eve - they have no authority to send reinforcements.



#24 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 17 September 2015 - 08:54 AM

My two pennyworth, for what it's worth;

Damn Coffee is right about Silva - he is insane. He is a psychologically disturbed man, fixated about M, and it's more than just about wanting revenge. If this was in another type a film and taken a few steps further you would have warnings about "not suitable for children".

He could have hired anyone to go to London and finish off M, having set up the damage himself online. But as Bond points out in the movie; "He always has to make an entrance." Or as Silva orders his goon squad; "Don't touch her, she's mine!" He doesn't just want M dead - he wants to be the executioner, as well as his own executioner. hence what Dr Evil might call the overly elaborate plot - a cat and mouse game.

What I also liked about all this was the fact Silva simply couldn't bring himself to kill M. He has two legitimate opportunities but doesn't take them. He can't take them. Thus his sick game continued on. He was like the Joker in that way - the death of his nemesis had to be absolutely perfect.



#25 mrmoon

mrmoon

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 17 September 2015 - 09:13 AM

 

There are plot holes though. I got the impression the assassination job Patrice did involving Severine was unconnected to Silva's main plot against M - funny, though, how she's there in the Macao casino to meet Bond. She appears to be controlled by a Tong syndicate, but but Silva also. Did Silva tell her to be there and make contact? Come to think of it, how would Silva be sure Bond would catch Patrice at the assassination site? I think he just assumed that one way or another 007 would sooner or later turn up to arrest him, as planned.

London - how did Silva know when the parliamentary enquiry would be and when M would appear, or had he, like Quantum "people everywhere?" - a good question if his plot is somehow linked to events in the film SPECTRE. Insider knowledge perhaps?

Finally the showdown at Skyfall Lodge. We know Bond set a trail of breadcrumbs - but why not send a signal to someone - Tanner, Eve, Q - to get Mallory to authorise a backup force to be on hand when, inevitably Silva and his goon squad appears (you could have them being late to the battle for dramatic purposes, but surely in real life the object would be to capture this dangerous man, not risk all on Bond senior still having a full set of guns and faithful retainer Kincaid being around - in fact it's clear Bond didn't expect him to be there.)

It's dramatically satisfying, I suppose, to have Bond, M and an unexpted ally fight off the baddie and his henchmen with little to hand, but putting the head of MI6 at risk that way is questionable, to say the least.
 

Since explaining "SKYFALL" is my pet project...   :P

 

- Patrice´s assassination was part of Silva´s way to make money from illegal art deals, using Severine as bait/middleman.  Silva, of course, could not know that Bond would go after Patrice - but when Bond did, Silva again improvised and used the moment to his advantage.  Exactly as Bond always does it: make the most of difficult circumstances, turning them around.

 

- The date of the enquiry has been set for some time, and as someone who demonstrates how easily he can invade any network with his computer knowledge, he got that information with no sweat.

 

- Why didn´t Mallory and the crew send help to "Skyfall"?  Well, Dench-M explicitly says: she does not want any more lives harmed because of her, only Bond at her side.  She already feels responsible for the death of the other agents and the terror that Silva has brought on everyone since his capture.  She hopes that Bond will protect her and kill Silva - or, secretly, she is ready to pay the price for her mistakes.

 

Now, Mallory, Q, Tanner and Eve could have sent the troups anyway - but that would have triggered another enquiry with career-shattering consequences.  I get the feeling from Mallory that he has no love for Dench-M or Bond, he is too much invested in politics himself, manoeuvering his career under a strict code, telling Dench-M to step down and Bond to quit in the early scenes of the film.  So I do think he just does not want to involve himself or others in the messy outcome of the revenge-scenario Silva wants to live out.  I even believe that Mallory is ready to risk Dench-M and Bond dying by Silva´s hand.  He already is moving forward to replace Dench-M, and Bond is just another agent for him, tied to Dench-M.  If Dench-M and Bond had been killed by Silva, Mallory would have been in a politically sound situation to ask his superiors for permission to go after Silva, finally cleaning up his predecessor´s mess.  But as long as she is in charge, he will not interfere.  Everything he can do and wants to do is allow Q and Tanner to do as Dench-M wishes (the breadcrumbs) - and this, of course, he wants to remain a secret.

 

As for Q, Tanner and Eve - they have no authority to send reinforcements.

 

 

All that you say makes sense, but it doesn't excuse the intangibility of certain parts of SF. The film, for me, is carried along by the emotional thrust, but pays little attention to logic or tangibility, particularly in the second half. One of they key problems is Silva's omnipotence. To me it makes his actions completely intangible and thus quite boring. Saying you can do literally anything with the click of a mouse, or flick of a switch isn't threatening because it's nonsense. This is why I think the Joker trumps Silva, despite them sharing some glaring similarities, because the actions of the Joker are rooted in a reality that is understandable.

 

Where Silva talks of 'manipulating stocks, rigging elections and interrupting spy satellite transmissions', that is very tangible, but the idea he can blow up MI6 with his laptop is ludicrous. Were this a Moore outing, or even a Brosnan, you'd just buy it, but this film positions itself as a thinking man's Bond with a very specific set of thematic layers. If you're going to encourage people to think about what they're watching you can't then ignore the plot logistics and specifics when they are so abstract. The train crash is equally mind boggling (not to mention lacking in any tension because the train is empty), as is Bond suddenly spotting, 'Granborough Rd' and then Q, 'Laying the breadcrumbs'. It's all, to quote Henry Gupta, 'technobabble'. it just leaves me cold. If it were background noise it would be acceptable, but these things are advancing the plot and for me need a bit more explanation other than, 'it's just done with computers, innit'. 



#26 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 17 September 2015 - 04:40 PM

Point taken about Q, Eve and Tanner not being able to authorise re-inforcements, although they could have made Mallory aware of what was going on - except of course that Bond didn't want Q to do so. Point taken also about M's wish not to have any more blood on her hands.

One point though - while Silva may have known the date of the enquiry how could he have known that Q would, on the very same day, access Silva's laptop which in turn accessed MI6's systems, allowing Silva to escape? Or was he just banking on Q's curiosity as a fellow techie getting the better of him?

#27 mrmoon

mrmoon

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 17 September 2015 - 04:48 PM

Point taken about Q, Eve and Tanner not being able to authorise re-inforcements, although they could have made Mallory aware of what was going on - except of course that Bond didn't want Q to do so. Point taken also about M's wish not to have any more blood on her hands.

One point though - while Silva may have known the date of the enquiry how could he have known that Q would, on the very same day, access Silva's laptop which in turn accessed MI6's systems, allowing Silva to escape? Or was he just banking on Q's curiosity as a fellow techie getting the better of him?

 

It's probably best you don't think about it. I've heard so many convoluted theories about how things occur in SF that I now have grey hairs. I've learnt to take the film with a pinch of salt when it comes to the tech nonsense. 



#28 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 17 September 2015 - 04:54 PM

Point taken about Q, Eve and Tanner not being able to authorise re-inforcements, although they could have made Mallory aware of what was going on - except of course that Bond didn't want Q to do so. Point taken also about M's wish not to have any more blood on her hands.
One point though - while Silva may have known the date of the enquiry how could he have known that Q would, on the very same day, access Silva's laptop which in turn accessed MI6's systems, allowing Silva to escape? Or was he just banking on Q's curiosity as a fellow techie getting the better of him?

 
It's probably best you don't think about it. I've heard so many convoluted theories about how things occur in SF that I now have grey hairs. I've learnt to take the film with a pinch of salt when it comes to the tech nonsense.

Don't get me wrong, SF is one of my favourite Bond films, certainly in my top five. But I'm not blind to the flaws in the plot.

#29 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 17 September 2015 - 05:03 PM

Point taken about Q, Eve and Tanner not being able to authorise re-inforcements, although they could have made Mallory aware of what was going on - except of course that Bond didn't want Q to do so. Point taken also about M's wish not to have any more blood on her hands.

One point though - while Silva may have known the date of the enquiry how could he have known that Q would, on the very same day, access Silva's laptop which in turn accessed MI6's systems, allowing Silva to escape? Or was he just banking on Q's curiosity as a fellow techie getting the better of him?

 

I do think he´s a gambler.  He really is the flipside of Bond - but equal as to "improvise with what you have and turn things to your advantage".


 

 

There are plot holes though. I got the impression the assassination job Patrice did involving Severine was unconnected to Silva's main plot against M - funny, though, how she's there in the Macao casino to meet Bond. She appears to be controlled by a Tong syndicate, but but Silva also. Did Silva tell her to be there and make contact? Come to think of it, how would Silva be sure Bond would catch Patrice at the assassination site? I think he just assumed that one way or another 007 would sooner or later turn up to arrest him, as planned.

London - how did Silva know when the parliamentary enquiry would be and when M would appear, or had he, like Quantum "people everywhere?" - a good question if his plot is somehow linked to events in the film SPECTRE. Insider knowledge perhaps?

Finally the showdown at Skyfall Lodge. We know Bond set a trail of breadcrumbs - but why not send a signal to someone - Tanner, Eve, Q - to get Mallory to authorise a backup force to be on hand when, inevitably Silva and his goon squad appears (you could have them being late to the battle for dramatic purposes, but surely in real life the object would be to capture this dangerous man, not risk all on Bond senior still having a full set of guns and faithful retainer Kincaid being around - in fact it's clear Bond didn't expect him to be there.)

It's dramatically satisfying, I suppose, to have Bond, M and an unexpted ally fight off the baddie and his henchmen with little to hand, but putting the head of MI6 at risk that way is questionable, to say the least.
 

Since explaining "SKYFALL" is my pet project...   :P

 

- Patrice´s assassination was part of Silva´s way to make money from illegal art deals, using Severine as bait/middleman.  Silva, of course, could not know that Bond would go after Patrice - but when Bond did, Silva again improvised and used the moment to his advantage.  Exactly as Bond always does it: make the most of difficult circumstances, turning them around.

 

- The date of the enquiry has been set for some time, and as someone who demonstrates how easily he can invade any network with his computer knowledge, he got that information with no sweat.

 

- Why didn´t Mallory and the crew send help to "Skyfall"?  Well, Dench-M explicitly says: she does not want any more lives harmed because of her, only Bond at her side.  She already feels responsible for the death of the other agents and the terror that Silva has brought on everyone since his capture.  She hopes that Bond will protect her and kill Silva - or, secretly, she is ready to pay the price for her mistakes.

 

Now, Mallory, Q, Tanner and Eve could have sent the troups anyway - but that would have triggered another enquiry with career-shattering consequences.  I get the feeling from Mallory that he has no love for Dench-M or Bond, he is too much invested in politics himself, manoeuvering his career under a strict code, telling Dench-M to step down and Bond to quit in the early scenes of the film.  So I do think he just does not want to involve himself or others in the messy outcome of the revenge-scenario Silva wants to live out.  I even believe that Mallory is ready to risk Dench-M and Bond dying by Silva´s hand.  He already is moving forward to replace Dench-M, and Bond is just another agent for him, tied to Dench-M.  If Dench-M and Bond had been killed by Silva, Mallory would have been in a politically sound situation to ask his superiors for permission to go after Silva, finally cleaning up his predecessor´s mess.  But as long as she is in charge, he will not interfere.  Everything he can do and wants to do is allow Q and Tanner to do as Dench-M wishes (the breadcrumbs) - and this, of course, he wants to remain a secret.

 

As for Q, Tanner and Eve - they have no authority to send reinforcements.

 

 

All that you say makes sense, but it doesn't excuse the intangibility of certain parts of SF. The film, for me, is carried along by the emotional thrust, but pays little attention to logic or tangibility, particularly in the second half. One of they key problems is Silva's omnipotence. To me it makes his actions completely intangible and thus quite boring. Saying you can do literally anything with the click of a mouse, or flick of a switch isn't threatening because it's nonsense. This is why I think the Joker trumps Silva, despite them sharing some glaring similarities, because the actions of the Joker are rooted in a reality that is understandable.

 

Where Silva talks of 'manipulating stocks, rigging elections and interrupting spy satellite transmissions', that is very tangible, but the idea he can blow up MI6 with his laptop is ludicrous. Were this a Moore outing, or even a Brosnan, you'd just buy it, but this film positions itself as a thinking man's Bond with a very specific set of thematic layers. If you're going to encourage people to think about what they're watching you can't then ignore the plot logistics and specifics when they are so abstract. The train crash is equally mind boggling (not to mention lacking in any tension because the train is empty), as is Bond suddenly spotting, 'Granborough Rd' and then Q, 'Laying the breadcrumbs'. It's all, to quote Henry Gupta, 'technobabble'. it just leaves me cold. If it were background noise it would be acceptable, but these things are advancing the plot and for me need a bit more explanation other than, 'it's just done with computers, innit'. 

 

 

Well, I do understand that the "technobabble" leaves you cold.  But that does not mean it´s impossible or illogical to cause havoc with a computer.  

 

While it might seem unrealistic, it actually is not.  Malevolent hackers can access other networks, cause defects in heating systems, blowing them up etc.  This year, hackers have attacked government networks around the world, and although a major catastrophe could be averted, the danger will always be there.

 

Personally, I also do not like "technobabble".  But SKYFALL actually simplifies the technique (some say to the point that it´s too simplistic).  For me, it suffices that Silva just says: with one click I can do this and that, easily. 



#30 mrmoon

mrmoon

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 17 September 2015 - 05:08 PM

Blowing up MI6 with a computer? If it were that easy would we not be in the s***, so to speak? And is it really possible for a man to be a ghost on that level. Absolutely no way anyone can track him to wherever he picks up his helicopter and no way they can take him down before reaching Scotland? I know Bond films are generally implausible, but for one that professes to have a brain it does stretch credibility at points.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users