Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

CBN members' spoiler Review thread.


350 replies to this topic

#91 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:24 PM

It's interesting that even the most negative reviews for SF rarely dispute its merits as a film. It's not criticized for any lack of entertainment value or production quality, but merely for falling outside the viewer's own personal conception of what constitutes a normative, orthodox Bond experience. (Which is a fantasy in itself, since every Bond film has been different, and even the "classic" films deliver wildly different experiences.)

That perfectly fits my view, indeed. Though the film itself is splendid, I admit I was very disturbed by this new Bond experience that didn't qualify for my own personal conception of Bond.
I know I have to watch it again, now that I know what to expect. I may come to accept what they delivered and enjoy it much more. But, for now, I don't think a Bond movie should go that deep inside Bond's mind or Bond's past (nor M's, for that matter).

#92 LordAsriel

LordAsriel

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 76 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:45 PM

Skyfall is the worst Bond film ever with maybe the exeption of DAF ; the storyline is really thin and has already been explored in GE and TWINE. First, the movie begins with no gunbarrel at the beginning, it is placed at the end after Moneypenny and M’olds office being seen. So we are supposed to believe that the Bond we all knew and love if finally back. But if it worked in CR, it doesn’t work here as Craig looks really old especially with his grey beard. Apperance of the DB5 just add to the confusion as is the case of the Q’s line about the exploding pen. Had they put the gunbarrel at the beginning, it would have been a bit less confusing.
The pre-credit sequence is terrible. Does Bond really need M to tell him what to do in the field. Do you imagine Bernard Lee speaking in Connery’s ears in the middle of action? And this line “Take the bloody shot”, what a stupid one. M see’s nothing of the action, has Eve telling she doesn’t have clean shot. How stupid is she to order that shot?
After that we see Bond reappearing like if nothing happened. His only injury is the one made by Patrice. How can he survive such a fall? Maybe Zorin is still alive then? Besides Bond being shot dead brings nothing useful to the rest of the story.
The main plot is driven by Silva seeking revenge against M whch he holds responsible for betraying him. It’s really a weak plot IMO an when M is auditionned during a public enquiry she tries to convince us that MI6 is still relevant in our world but if all that MI6 has to fight is an old member seeking revenge then the best move would be to close MI6. The scenarists don’t bother to explain us how Silva can hack the Mi6 computers system without inner complicities. We are invited to believe he is a genius, that’s all. With Bond surviving the fall from the bridge, it’s two big suspensions of disbelief and at least one too much for the same movie.
One of the good surprises of Skyfall is Berenice Marlohe and her character Severine but she really has too litle screentime. On the contrary, I found Naomie Harris not very good. Ralph Fiennes will make a good M though.
Thomas Newmann’s score is the most forgettable of the franchise. At least Eric Serra or even Michel Legrand had some originality to be remembered.
Of course Sam Mendes knows how to direct and Roger Daekin’s cinematography is impressive but that doesn”t save the movie from it’s failures.
Daniel Craig’s Bond here lacks of consistency. He’s sometimes more human than Laznby, some times more superman than Brosnan. Connery’s Bond didn’t remain the same through his legacy but each film had it’s own consistency which is not the case of Skyfall.
The good thing with Skyfall is that it makes me appreciate QOS more than I did, but CR remains by far the best Bond of Daniel Craig.
I know that my favorite Bond movie LTK is considered the worst by some fans so I wouldn’t be surprise if Skyfall is called the best by others. But I think that if LTK rather grew up positively with time passing, Skyfalls appreciation on the contrary will go down in the future.

#93 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:47 PM

Actually, the more I think of it (I've seen it yesterday and haven't stopped thinking about it since), the more I guess this did to me what OHMSS must have done to the viewers back then: a very odd Bond experience, light-years away from what they knew or expected, yet in the end a true masterpiece.

So this will probably grow to become a masterpiece, and I will probably be happy to have been shaken up on what my Bond conception was.

#94 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 30 October 2012 - 05:14 PM

Apperance of the DB5 just add to the confusion as is the case of the Q’s line about the exploding pen. Had they put the gunbarrel at the beginning, it would have been a bit less confusing.

I don't understand. Why?

#95 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

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

Posted 30 October 2012 - 05:16 PM

I respect your opinion. But please, let me point out where I think you have misunderstood the film:

the storyline is really thin and has already been explored in GE and TWINE.


How can a storyline be thin which deals with
1. Bond and Mi6 being viewed as obsolete by the Government,
2. Bond confronting an enemy which has been betrayed by his superiors (or at least felt as if that were the case)
3. Bond fighting for himself, his beliefs, his superiors and against terrorism
4. Bond coming to terms with his past and adapting to an ever-changing future

The similarities, of course, are there:
1. In GE Bond´s enemy is another agent that has turned to the dark side. But this theme is not followed with that kind of psychological depth that SKYFALL offers and certainly does not lay bare why Mi6 is still relevant and needed.
2. In TWINE Bond gets hurt, too, but does not question his part of being Mi6 at all, it´s used to have him vulnerable for the advances of Elektra King. SKYFALL goes much deeper and is concerned with Bond´s existence.


First, the movie begins with no gunbarrel at the beginning, it is placed at the end after Moneypenny and M’olds office being seen. So we are supposed to believe that the Bond we all knew and love if finally back. But if it worked in CR, it doesn’t work here as Craig looks really old especially with his grey beard. Apperance of the DB5 just add to the confusion as is the case of the Q’s line about the exploding pen. Had they put the gunbarrel at the beginning, it would have been a bit less confusing.


The gun barrel is not placed at the end because now the Bond we all knew and love is back. It is there to enhance the power of the ending which is a new beginning not only for Bond but for the world he´s in now. Also, the gun barrel finds a visual equivalent in the very first scene, playing with a variation of it, signified by the score.

And Craig looks older because he is older. His Bond has moved on and years have passed. The DB 5 should not be confusing, it is just his car. It only will confuse you if you think that the Bond film series has a continuing and chronological timeline (which it never had). And Q´s line about he exploding pen is only a sly play with our memories of GE but should mostly be considered as an example for the modern warfare his section is conducting.

Does Bond really need M to tell him what to do in the field. Do you imagine Bernard Lee speaking in Connery’s ears in the middle of action? And this line “Take the bloody shot”, what a stupid one. M see’s nothing of the action, has Eve telling she doesn’t have clean shot. How stupid is she to order that shot?


Yes, Bond is in contact with his superior and has to comply. He doesn´t really follow every instruction and makes up his own mind. But still, this is not the rogue Bond of QOS. He has moved on and is proud to work for M.

M´s line is not stupid at all. She needs the hard drive or at least Patrice dead. So if Eve tells her that she might hit Bond M has to neglect that. She is angry and desperate but shows steely resolve in giving that order.

After that we see Bond reappearing like if nothing happened. His only injury is the one made by Patrice. How can he survive such a fall? Maybe Zorin is still alive then? Besides Bond being shot dead brings nothing useful to the rest of the story.


Well, it´s not as if nothing happened at all. We see Bond trinking, having rough sex, being bitter and angry with M. He survived the fall, well, okay, he was lucky. Eve´s bullet was obviously "only breaking a few rips", as he says. The important thing is: Bond being shot is the key for the story. He experiences death and rebirth, hence his wonderful line about his hobby. Just as Mi6 experiences death and rebirth in SKYFALL. Bond falling from the bridge, being hurt by his own, is a powerful visual metaphor.

The main plot is driven by Silva seeking revenge against M whch he holds responsible for betraying him. It’s really a weak plot IMO an when M is auditionned during a public enquiry she tries to convince us that MI6 is still relevant in our world but if all that MI6 has to fight is an old member seeking revenge then the best move would be to close MI6.


Did you forget that Silva is not just seeking revenge against M but reveals embedded agents to the public? This is a devestating strike against the British government´s war against terrorism. A weak plot? Not in the slightest.

The scenarists don’t bother to explain us how Silva can hack the Mi6 computers system without inner complicities. We are invited to believe he is a genius, that’s all.


Well, we´re invited to believe Bond is a tough and resilient spy, too. And how exactly do you want to explain that someone has become a computer genius? You wanted to see him in school? On a weekend seminar? Did you want to see how Goldfinger became a financial wiz? How Stromberg fabricated his underwater lair? How LeChiffre practiced his poker playing abilities?

One of the good surprises of Skyfall is Berenice Marlohe and her character Severine but she really has too litle screentime.


While I also think Marlohe is terrific, her sudden death comes as a surprise and is therefore much more poignant and shocking. After her death the story moves to a different place. Keeping her along would not have worked at all.

Thomas Newmann’s score is the most forgettable of the franchise. At least Eric Serra or even Michel Legrand had some originality to be remembered.


There´s lots of orginality in Newman´s score. I point at tracks like "Shanghai Drive" or "Jellyfish", just two examples. Also his use of the Bond theme is not only interesting but so varied in his approach that this alone deserves recognition.

Daniel Craig’s Bond here lacks of consistency. He’s sometimes more human than Laznby, some times more superman than Brosnan.


Examples, please. I think his portrayal of Bond in SKYFALL is totally consistent. And more Superman than Brosnan? In which scene?

But I think that if LTK rather grew up positively with time passing, Skyfalls appreciation on the contrary will go down in the future.


Why? Again, please give an example.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 31 October 2012 - 06:05 AM.


#96 Scrambled Eggs

Scrambled Eggs

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPip
  • 784 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 05:26 PM


First paragraph is selective maybe? Even in the novels, Bond was provided with current technology. I think there is actually a Fleming quote about this - Bond always being contemporary. I'll fish it out. Theres certainly no point where, despite the Bentley, you feel that Bond is revelling in being an anachronism, which is what you get in the last third of Skyfall.



I'd say Bond represents the old way- keeping the status quo. And he does it in a pretty old fashioned way- killing. He revels in classical pleasures from old booze and classic food. MovieBond doesn't even like the Beatles. He fights against villains trying to impose a new way; often they represent modernist thinking and even live in modernist homes in the films.
Fleming thought this way himself: hence Goldfinger being named after the modernist architect he intensely disliked.

Bond might get a new gadget occasionally, but he's resistant to change (doesn't even like giving up his gun or his old car)- I don't think he's exactly an early adopter. The villains he fights against are exactly that.


Well, obviously Connery Bond doesn't like the Beatles because he's more of a Yardbirds man... ;)

Seriously though, I think one distinction between Fleming Bond and Fleming himself is that Fleming tried to keep his creation current - which is why he changed Bond's car and gun in the first place. In terms of food and drink, Bond was open to new types of both. I think Fleming was quite open about Bond's taste in food being more adventurous than his own (I might be half remembering quotes here).

You're not wrong about the modernist villains but I dont think its as simple as elegant past versus vulgar future. Would you say that Bond was regarded as old fashioned when these books were first published? Theres nothing that traditional about a guy who canes it on champagne and benzedrine at the casino.

All of which is pretty off topic now though....

And I do like Skyfall!

#97 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 30 October 2012 - 05:39 PM

You're not wrong about the modernist villains but I dont think its as simple as elegant past versus vulgar future. Would you say that Bond was regarded as old fashioned when these books were first published? Theres nothing that traditional about a guy who canes it on champagne and benzedrine at the casino.


Isn't there? Why? Drugs, booze and gambling are as old as the species, pretty much.
You're right- it's not clear cut and I don't think Fleming intended some sort of old vs. new battle to be represented; but Bond works for the establishment and I don't think he's ever really stood for all that's new and modern. The final house scene seems very much right for him, I'd say.

#98 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 30 October 2012 - 05:47 PM

You're not wrong about the modernist villains but I dont think its as simple as elegant past versus vulgar future. Would you say that Bond was regarded as old fashioned when these books were first published? Theres nothing that traditional about a guy who canes it on champagne and benzedrine at the casino.


Isn't there? Why? Drugs, booze and gambling are as old as the species, pretty much.


Exactly. Sherlock Holmes already got their first, as far as British literary heroes go.

#99 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 06:37 PM


You're not wrong about the modernist villains but I dont think its as simple as elegant past versus vulgar future. Would you say that Bond was regarded as old fashioned when these books were first published? Theres nothing that traditional about a guy who canes it on champagne and benzedrine at the casino.


Isn't there? Why? Drugs, booze and gambling are as old as the species, pretty much.


Exactly. Sherlock Holmes already got their first, as far as British literary heroes go.


Thing is, Bond is both, the old-fashioned romantic and idolised classic hero, invincible and in shining armour (or at least a polished Bentley) AND the down-to-earth creature of today, living morally and emotionally in an ambiguous state of mind, not overly religious and wary of fanaticism, crusaders and higher callings from both political extremes. He's modern in his lifestyle, views and his promiscuity, yet also classic in his dragon-slayer attitude and not at all surprised that he should encounter so many evil, larger-than-life versions of modern human dragons. Any real life character would boggle at the implications of the sheer existence of such super-villains. Bond doesn't bat an eyelid. He's intrigued and entertained by their schemes - sometimes he even admires the ingenuity of his adversaries - but he never questions the likelihood of their world, is entirely at home battling them. After which he returns to everyday life, in a world seemingly the very same as ours, only a tad more glamorous, dangerous and gratifying than we are used to.

#100 TheManwiththeWaltherPPK

TheManwiththeWaltherPPK

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 147 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 06:49 PM



First paragraph is selective maybe? Even in the novels, Bond was provided with current technology. I think there is actually a Fleming quote about this - Bond always being contemporary. I'll fish it out. Theres certainly no point where, despite the Bentley, you feel that Bond is revelling in being an anachronism, which is what you get in the last third of Skyfall.



I'd say Bond represents the old way- keeping the status quo. And he does it in a pretty old fashioned way- killing. He revels in classical pleasures from old booze and classic food. MovieBond doesn't even like the Beatles. He fights against villains trying to impose a new way; often they represent modernist thinking and even live in modernist homes in the films.
Fleming thought this way himself: hence Goldfinger being named after the modernist architect he intensely disliked.

Bond might get a new gadget occasionally, but he's resistant to change (doesn't even like giving up his gun or his old car)- I don't think he's exactly an early adopter. The villains he fights against are exactly that.


Well, obviously Connery Bond doesn't like the Beatles because he's more of a Yardbirds man... ;)

Seriously though, I think one distinction between Fleming Bond and Fleming himself is that Fleming tried to keep his creation current - which is why he changed Bond's car and gun in the first place. In terms of food and drink, Bond was open to new types of both. I think Fleming was quite open about Bond's taste in food being more adventurous than his own (I might be half remembering quotes here).

You're not wrong about the modernist villains but I dont think its as simple as elegant past versus vulgar future. Would you say that Bond was regarded as old fashioned when these books were first published? Theres nothing that traditional about a guy who canes it on champagne and benzedrine at the casino.

All of which is pretty off topic now though....

And I do like Skyfall!


While some of Bond's tastes were forward looking (his sexual morals, taste in food and drink), the very concept of the character was backward looking. Bond. Despite being a creation of the post-War era and a Britain that had lost his empire and position as a true world power, Bond was a British hero gallivanting around the world as a sort of global policeman, doing things that the American CIA could not. Bond was meant to re-capture the spirit of British exceptionalism from when Britain ruled the world.

#101 Scrambled Eggs

Scrambled Eggs

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPip
  • 784 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:27 PM

You're not wrong about the modernist villains but I dont think its as simple as elegant past versus vulgar future. Would you say that Bond was regarded as old fashioned when these books were first published? Theres nothing that traditional about a guy who canes it on champagne and benzedrine at the casino.


Isn't there? Why? Drugs, booze and gambling are as old as the species, pretty much.
You're right- it's not clear cut and I don't think Fleming intended some sort of old vs. new battle to be represented; but Bond works for the establishment and I don't think he's ever really stood for all that's new and modern. The final house scene seems very much right for him, I'd say.


But the labels change. Favourite tipple of the Luftwaffe, Benzedrine is very much a drug of that particular era. Yeah, Bond is an establishment figure, but always comfortable in the contemporary world - or he wouldnt be able to impose those values on it.

I'm glad this has stimulated a few responses but sorry that its derailed the thread a bit. Maybe I'll start a thread in the appropriate subforum when the dust has settled and everyone's seen the film.

Just seen Skyfall for the third time in five days - its not as if I'm calling the film a failure because of the odd slightly anal quibble.

#102 LordAsriel

LordAsriel

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 76 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:06 AM

M´s line is not stupid at all. She needs the hard drive or at least Patrice dead. So if Eve tells her that she might hit Bond M has to neglect that. She is angry and desperate but shows steely resolve in giving that order.


It seems too big a risk to take because if Bond is shot, the list is lost for sure. M should have been more confident in Bond ability to stop Patrice.

Did you forget that Silva is not just seeking revenge against M but reveals embedded agents to the public? This is a devestating strike against the British government´s war against terrorism. A weak plot? Not in the slightest.


The plot is thin because the loss of the embedded agents list is not really treated in the film. If Silva’s anger was toward the MI6 in general and not toward M in particular this would have been more interesting but the third act would have been completely different.

Well, it´s not as if nothing happened at all. We see Bond trinking, having rough sex, being bitter and angry with M. He survived the fall, well, okay, he was lucky. Eve´s bullet was obviously "only breaking a few rips", as he says. The important thing is: Bond being shot is the key for the story. He experiences death and rebirth, hence his wonderful line about his hobby. Just as Mi6 experiences death and rebirth in SKYFALL. Bond falling from the bridge, being hurt by his own, is a powerful visual metaphor.


How is that key to the story, just a good line on his hobby that’s all we have. Well we have also Bond failing the tests. But that doesn’t makes sense because if a devestating strike against the British government´s war against terrorism is at stake why does M send an agent who failed his ability test to pursue the only lead they have? I mean in the book TMWTGG Bond is diminished but he’s send on a mission that doesn’t seem that vital to MI6. I don’t mind the idea of Bond’s ability being questionned but in Skyfall this is done in a non consistent way.

Well, we´re invited to believe Bond is a tough and resilient spy, too. And how exactly do you want to explain that someone has become a computer genius? You wanted to see him in school? On a weekend seminar? Did you want to see how Goldfinger became a financial wiz? How Stromberg fabricated his underwater lair? How LeChiffre practiced his poker playing abilities?


No I wanted some spying story elements with double agents inside Mi6 helping Silva for example. Here Silva’s escaping is way too easy.

Examples, please. I think his portrayal of Bond in SKYFALL is totally consistent. And more Superman than Brosnan? In which scene?


In the pretitle with Bond surviving the fall, it’s even more supermanesque than Brosnan catching the plane in GE.


But I think that if LTK rather grew up positively with time passing, Skyfalls appreciation on the contrary will go down in the future.


Why? Again, please give an example.


I think when the hype surrounding it’s release will have faded, people will see more of the movie inconsistencies.

#103 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:08 AM

I think when the hype surrounding it’s release will have faded, people will see more of the movie inconsistencies.

No doubt, but it would still be good to hear some of your specific thoughts and examples.

#104 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:03 PM


I think when the hype surrounding it’s release will have faded, people will see more of the movie inconsistencies.

No doubt, but it would still be good to hear some of your specific thoughts and examples.


I think a massive inconsistency would be that there is no purpose at all in Silva getting himself captured. The only possible reason would seem to be that he wants to talk to M, but judging by the ending that seems to be something he'd be willing to do when he's got her cornered anyway.

#105 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:47 PM

I think when the hype surrounding it’s release will have faded, people will see more of the movie inconsistencies.

No doubt, but it would still be good to hear some of your specific thoughts and examples.

I think a massive inconsistency would be that there is no purpose at all in Silva getting himself captured. The only possible reason would seem to be that he wants to talk to M, but judging by the ending that seems to be something he'd be willing to do when he's got her cornered anyway.

Don't forget that by being captured, he had MI6 try to bypass his computer's safety, thereby making it possible for him to hack into MI6's system. That in itself is a legitimate reason for wanting to be captured.

#106 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:17 PM

I think when the hype surrounding it’s release will have faded, people will see more of the movie inconsistencies.

No doubt, but it would still be good to hear some of your specific thoughts and examples.

I think a massive inconsistency would be that there is no purpose at all in Silva getting himself captured. The only possible reason would seem to be that he wants to talk to M, but judging by the ending that seems to be something he'd be willing to do when he's got her cornered anyway.

Don't forget that by being captured, he had MI6 try to bypass his computer's safety, thereby making it possible for him to hack into MI6's system. That in itself is a legitimate reason for wanting to be captured.


But the only reason he did that was to open all the doors so he could escape. So basically it's like going into a locked room so you can get the key- pointless.

#107 JCRendle

JCRendle

    Commander

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:25 PM

He also wants to show that MI6 are fallible. He knows that M will be appearing before the committee. He'll be pretty sure that M will announce to them that he has been captured. If he escapes after this then M will be humiliated - part of his plan.

#108 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 31 October 2012 - 01:29 PM

He also wants to show that MI6 are fallible. He knows that M will be appearing before the committee. He'll be pretty sure that M will announce to them that he has been captured. If he escapes after this then M will be humiliated - part of his plan.


His plan is just to shoot her in the face there at the enquiry. Doesn't seem a terribly sophisticated humiliation plan.

I'm not sure how he could have timed it so M would be at an enquiry at the time: his plan for getting captured hinges on Bond happening to pull a bit of bullet out of his shoulder. The sequence of events after that are so impossible to predict that he couldn't have known if he'd get captured that month or the next.

#109 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:01 PM

I do like the idea that Silva wants to show M how powerless she is. Even if she thinks she has captured him, he easily breaks out AND wants to kill her in the moment in which she has to persuade superiors that she still matters.


M´s line is not stupid at all. She needs the hard drive or at least Patrice dead. So if Eve tells her that she might hit Bond M has to neglect that. She is angry and desperate but shows steely resolve in giving that order.


It seems too big a risk to take because if Bond is shot, the list is lost for sure. M should have been more confident in Bond ability to stop Patrice.

Did you forget that Silva is not just seeking revenge against M but reveals embedded agents to the public? This is a devestating strike against the British government´s war against terrorism. A weak plot? Not in the slightest.


The plot is thin because the loss of the embedded agents list is not really treated in the film. If Silva’s anger was toward the MI6 in general and not toward M in particular this would have been more interesting but the third act would have been completely different.

Well, it´s not as if nothing happened at all. We see Bond trinking, having rough sex, being bitter and angry with M. He survived the fall, well, okay, he was lucky. Eve´s bullet was obviously "only breaking a few rips", as he says. The important thing is: Bond being shot is the key for the story. He experiences death and rebirth, hence his wonderful line about his hobby. Just as Mi6 experiences death and rebirth in SKYFALL. Bond falling from the bridge, being hurt by his own, is a powerful visual metaphor.


How is that key to the story, just a good line on his hobby that’s all we have. Well we have also Bond failing the tests. But that doesn’t makes sense because if a devestating strike against the British government´s war against terrorism is at stake why does M send an agent who failed his ability test to pursue the only lead they have? I mean in the book TMWTGG Bond is diminished but he’s send on a mission that doesn’t seem that vital to MI6. I don’t mind the idea of Bond’s ability being questionned but in Skyfall this is done in a non consistent way.

Well, we´re invited to believe Bond is a tough and resilient spy, too. And how exactly do you want to explain that someone has become a computer genius? You wanted to see him in school? On a weekend seminar? Did you want to see how Goldfinger became a financial wiz? How Stromberg fabricated his underwater lair? How LeChiffre practiced his poker playing abilities?


No I wanted some spying story elements with double agents inside Mi6 helping Silva for example. Here Silva’s escaping is way too easy.

Examples, please. I think his portrayal of Bond in SKYFALL is totally consistent. And more Superman than Brosnan? In which scene?


In the pretitle with Bond surviving the fall, it’s even more supermanesque than Brosnan catching the plane in GE.


But I think that if LTK rather grew up positively with time passing, Skyfalls appreciation on the contrary will go down in the future.


Why? Again, please give an example.


I think when the hype surrounding it’s release will have faded, people will see more of the movie inconsistencies.


I love it how you answer in only one dismissive sentence.

#110 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:06 PM

I do like the idea that Silva wants to show M how powerless she is. Even if she thinks she has captured him, he easily breaks out AND wants to kill her in the moment in which she has to persuade superiors that she still matters.


It's a bit thin though, isn't it?

And how could he possibly have planned to get her during the enquiry? Look at the sequence of events that leads Bond to him.

#111 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:12 PM


I think when the hype surrounding it’s release will have faded, people will see more of the movie inconsistencies.

No doubt, but it would still be good to hear some of your specific thoughts and examples.

I think a massive inconsistency would be that there is no purpose at all in Silva getting himself captured. The only possible reason would seem to be that he wants to talk to M, but judging by the ending that seems to be something he'd be willing to do when he's got her cornered anyway.

Don't forget that by being captured, he had MI6 try to bypass his computer's safety, thereby making it possible for him to hack into MI6's system. That in itself is a legitimate reason for wanting to be captured.


But the only reason he did that was to open all the doors so he could escape. So basically it's like going into a locked room so you can get the key- pointless.

What makes you say he did only that? We don't see it of course, but I'd be surprised if he didn't have some worm installed also.

#112 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

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

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:18 PM


I do like the idea that Silva wants to show M how powerless she is. Even if she thinks she has captured him, he easily breaks out AND wants to kill her in the moment in which she has to persuade superiors that she still matters.


It's a bit thin though, isn't it?

And how could he possibly have planned to get her during the enquiry? Look at the sequence of events that leads Bond to him.


You are perfectly right - a lot of coincidences make this chain of events possible. But I guess someone as intelligent as Silva can react to all the changing factors in an instant. I don´t think he has planned to be captured by Bond until Bond became involved. When he did, Silva had a lot of fun using him. And if M had not been at the enquiry he would have gotten her someplace else.

Of course, all of this is speculation by this over-excited fanboy.

#113 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:22 PM


I do like the idea that Silva wants to show M how powerless she is. Even if she thinks she has captured him, he easily breaks out AND wants to kill her in the moment in which she has to persuade superiors that she still matters.


It's a bit thin though, isn't it?

And how could he possibly have planned to get her during the enquiry? Look at the sequence of events that leads Bond to him.

That's because "he has people everywhere"!... ;)

#114 Scrambled Eggs

Scrambled Eggs

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPip
  • 784 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 02:35 PM



I do like the idea that Silva wants to show M how powerless she is. Even if she thinks she has captured him, he easily breaks out AND wants to kill her in the moment in which she has to persuade superiors that she still matters.


It's a bit thin though, isn't it?

And how could he possibly have planned to get her during the enquiry? Look at the sequence of events that leads Bond to him.


You are perfectly right - a lot of coincidences make this chain of events possible. But I guess someone as intelligent as Silva can react to all the changing factors in an instant. I don´t think he has planned to be captured by Bond until Bond became involved. When he did, Silva had a lot of fun using him. And if M had not been at the enquiry he would have gotten her someplace else.

Of course, all of this is speculation by this over-excited fanboy.


I agree with over-excited fanboy.

And, for the general public outside of fanboys, things like inconsistencies and coincidences don't matter so much - its a Bond film, and you expect an element of that.

#115 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:28 PM

And, for the general public outside of fanboys, things like inconsistencies and coincidences don't matter so much - its a Bond film, and you expect an element of that.


Oh it doesn't matter; but someone asked for inconsistencies to be named above as if Skyfall didn't have any. His plan doesn't hold up to careful examination, but it's perfectly entertaining.

I like SAF's theory that he only comes up with the plan once he knows Bond is coming. Maybe after he hears of the casino incident?

#116 SkyfallCraig

SkyfallCraig

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 162 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:41 PM

It's one of the best movies I've ever seen. Not sure if it is my favourite Bond movie, tomorrow I'm going to see it another time.
There are a lot of Batman influence, the fact that most part of the film is in the darkness, the decadentism of the locations is probably a metaphor for the end of the "old" Bond, of the "old" MI6, that is going to crumble like the Skyfall lodge. And all the film is builded on this strong connection between the death of people and buildings and the death of the world and the institutions as we know them. It's a film that is strongly different from the Brosnan era ones. It forces the audience to think about where the world is going to. When M says "do you think to be safe?" (or something similar, I saw it in italian) to the Minister, she is also talking to us. The terrorism is a part of our world, none, from the 11/9, is sure to be safe, we know that the things that happen in the film could happen in the real world. Then Logan and Mendes use this people's fears to make a film full of suspance, that enter into the mind of the audience using their fear as a connection to Bond, and M. It's probably the best film of the year, and it deserves at least 4 or 5 oscars. But probably it won't get them.

#117 Tuxedo

Tuxedo

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 237 posts
  • Location:Europe

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:57 PM

My opinion: A good action movie. Great cast. Very well filmed with a great plot. Skyfall would have worked as well even without the Bond elements. And that is why I didn't like it as much as, say, FRWL, GF, TB or CR.

I'm looking forward to seeing some of the characters/actors in the next installments again (Eve is great). And please no more digging in Bond's past and how and why he became the way he is. We had all that with CR, QoS and Skyfass.

I'm not so happy with the score. To me it fits the action movie in Skyfall more than the Bond movie in Skyfall.

8 out of 10 I'd say as a Bond fan.

#118 Shrublands

Shrublands

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4012 posts
  • Location:Conveniently Near the NATO Base

Posted 31 October 2012 - 11:55 PM

But the only reason he did that was to open all the doors so he could escape. So basically it's like going into a locked room so you can get the key- pointless.



My reading was that Silva needed to get Q to attach his computer to the MI6 mainframe and attempt to crack the codes. The trap was that if Q did so, in the way that Silva anticipated, it would do more harm to the MI6 computer than simply opening all the doors. Though the precise nature of this cyber-damage is not gone into in the film.

I suppose the doors all flipping open was both a metaphor for what Silva had now achieved in regard to a computer reliant secret intelligent service and, plot wise, his way of escape. It’s a nifty way to put Q and 007’s halves of what espionage now is together - Silva's 2 pronged attack, with 2 complimentary results that are a physical and electronic breach.

#119 gkgyver

gkgyver

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1891 posts
  • Location:Bamberg, Bavaria

Posted 01 November 2012 - 03:58 AM

Actually, the more I think of it (I've seen it yesterday and haven't stopped thinking about it since), the more I guess this did to me what OHMSS must have done to the viewers back then: a very odd Bond experience, light-years away from what they knew or expected, yet in the end a true masterpiece.


OHMSS had some genuine Bond moments, and just because it had Bond showing some feelings doesn't make it a radically different experience. On the contrary, it is, to me at least, the perfect Bond movie (or one of the few).

On to my Skyfall review; or rather thoughts collected.

Just saw Skyfall. Ok, too lazy and tired (movie started at midnight) to write a full on review about it. Some thoughts though, that just came to me.

I'm not sure what this movie was about. I thought the plot for this film had more holes and was more unstable than a house of cards. First, we see Bond being shot twice, once hitting organs (as hinted at later), falling 500 meters to his demise, drowning on top of that. 10 minutes later, we see him banging a woman on some beach, conveniently focusing on the wound at his shoulder and forgetting the one that seems to have punctured his liver, and back in action. Gloss over much?

All of a sudden, the premise of Die Another Day, that Bond is captured because Colonel Moon's father can drive a cohort of trucks through a minefield even though it was established that this is only possible using hovercrafts, and Colonel Moon himself pulling himself out of a waterfall, walking back through the minefield, and collecting diamonds that were blown all over the place to pay for gene therapy that seems to make you a foot taller, suddenly sounds plausible.
Then the title sequence. IMO the worst of the Kleinmans. Looks so awfully much like CGI. I realise the previous ones had it too, but they still stayed with very basic shapes. But this one looks like from a Tim Burton animated film, complete with tombstones.
Then back to MI6.

First, we need to recover a list, then, we forget about that rather quickly, when we meet Silva after a scene of a Komodo dragon biting a fat Chinese guy in the leg and eating him - something that would have been one of the silliest Roger Moore moments. Silva, mostly unexplained, wants some mayhem with the list, but more importantly, wants M. He gets captured. Deliberately. Then he escapes, also planned (let's forget for a minute that his escape seems to rely on the assumption that MI6 would hire exactly the guy who invented Silva's choice software for encryption), and I ask myself why he wants to get captured in the first place; apparently, to see M. But since he seems to know out of nowhere where and when she will have a semi-public hearing (that coincidentally happens when he gets captured), why would he bother?

Then Bond grabs M, hops into the old Aston Martin that seems to be parked randomly in the city (is it Bond's? Is it an MI6 emergency car? M certainly doesn't seem to know about it). They drive all the way to Scotland (with all the strange things happening I gues we're lucky there isn't a scene of Bond and M stopping for coffee) and play some Bond Home Alone, with Albert Finney playing the role of old man Marley.
They fend off Danny DeVito, Bond blows up his home (something that could have improved Home Alone) and chases Silva, who for some unexplained reason not only wants to kill M, but also himself, and does not directly shoot Kincaid even though he killed an innocent girl for sports half an hour earlier.
Bond, after fighting a goon underwater and strangling this drowning man - no idea how you can strangle a man to death under water and why you would even try that - hits Silva with the dagger just as M is about to go to hell (I don't think anyone was surprised Bond would save in time) and not with a final payoff line - or a very lame one - and M is dying in his arms.
And he cries and kisses M on the forehead. Really.
No, really.

I mean, making Bond more emotional is one thing, turning him into a wimp another. This certainly isn't the man who threw Mathis' body into a garbage can. Which is amazing because it was just in the last movie.
At some point I was praying that Kincaid wouldn't lead M to Bond's room and show baby pictures or a photo of his parents dancing in falling leaves.

With the foot chase through the London Underground, Bond has finally turned into Bourne, only that Bourne did this stuff better.
It all goes very quickly at the end, and the movie not so much ends as it just stops. Awkward transition to the gunbarrel, also thanks to the music.

Ah, the music.
Simply put, I think this is the worst James Bond score of the past ... 25 years. Including License To Kill, which at least had some fun and cool action tracks.
The constant pounding of electronics and relentless chopping of strings goes way beyond the tolerance level. At some moments at the Skyfall lodge, I thought the music is bursting out into Zimmer's two note Batman theme any second.
There are some nice moments in the bike chase at the beginning, but from then on, it goes steadily downhill. And the spotting is all over the place, absolutely atrocious. When Bond goes out on deck to see Silva's island, and you hear Newman's blaring horns and the percussion ... I'm not exaggerating when I say that to me, this sounded embarassingly wrong in that scene.
Not to mention the omnipresent ethnic wailing, no matter if we are in Hong Kong, London or bloody Scotland.
I remember thinking during the pre-titles sequence "Good god, Newman, find a melody already!"

Funnily enough, in some moments, I thought of what Barry would have done for a certain scene, and played some Bond cues of his in my head.
For example the scene when Bond is following Patrice and sees him make the kill, I thought of how bad Newman's tension building is. I immediately thought about Gumbold's Safe Break and how something in the same vein would work perfectly with the scene. A score that sneaks into the film and doesn't annoy the hell out of you.
The following fist fight with the drums was like something straight out of The Matrix, only worse.

When people complain about David Arnold slipping into melodrama once in a while, I find Bond holding the dead M in his arms with something like "Mother" playing on top of it far worse. Would have been a good call not to use any music.

Ralph Fiennes as the new M is great, and Moneypenny being back as well. The new Q might work if he is given less screen time. I miss the days when Bond had a good pretitle sequence and then walked right into the office to learn his mission. Should be exactly that next time. That doesn't mean the movies can't be down to earth as they are now, and Bond sticking to Fleming's characterisation, but Bond being personally involved in everything is getting weary.

#120 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 01 November 2012 - 04:25 AM

I find Bond holding the dead M in his arms with something like "Mother" playing on top of it far worse. Would have been a good call not to use any music.


Then the scene would be lacking something, hence why it was spotted in the first place. I really don't see what's so melodramatic about that cue, no saccharine strings (ala Death of Vesper) - just very subtle synth chords, followed by the stately brass theme. Pretty understated if you ask me. Works very well in the chapel with the chorale-like sound.

That said, I disagree on virtually every point. I'm not going to argue about anything else there, since I know we have very different ideas about Bond films and their music.