73 replies to this topic

[Pussfeller]

Also, when Bond says to M "Is there anything else you want to tell me?", I didn't really understand what he was on about then, either.

Right, I didn't get this one either.

Cutting room floor most likely.

I read it differently. Bond must know, or at least strongly suspect, that he failed his tests. So he must be puzzled when M says that he passed and that he's cleared to go back into the field. I don't believe that he truly thinks he passed his tests and is blindsided by Silva's telling him that he didn't. He saw with his own eyes that he couldn't shoot straight. So he knows that M fudged the results. When he asks her if she has something else to tell him, he's hinting to her know that he knows.

[Dustin]

When M and Kincade escape in Skyfall, why do they have a flashlight on? Surely M, the head of MI6, would realize that the flashlight would give away their position.

Agreed. So stupid a plot line ... it hurts to think about it.

In the same time frame, Bond purposely breaks through the ice to avoid getting shot by Silva. Silva just laughs and walks towards the chapel. Considering that Silva is a mastermind, did he really think Bond, a trained professional, would not survive that? Why would he not wait for him to resurface and shoot him before going to kill M, who is obviously sitting in the chapel waiting for Bond and is going nowhere?

That's not really a plot hole per se, but just the reality of this kind of series. Nobody just kills Bond or the series would be over. Best not to dwell on things too much or you'll find yourself realizing that if Bond can just waltz into M's apartment, so could mastermind Silva and he could have had his face-to-face revenge on the cheap. Thus the whole story (as presented) becomes beyond stupid.

That's missing the point. Silva could not kill M, not in the hearing, not in the chapel. That is the whole point of it, he's emotionally too involved to pull the trigger, M still is his mother-figure. I find nothing stupid about this turn, it's taken straight from TMWTGG where Bond too wasn't able to just pull his cyanide gun in mid-sentence. M has to provoke him until he finally acts, and then too slow to damage anything other than the glass-shield. Immediately afterwards he faints.

Adding a new plot hole. It's one thing for MI6 to get rid of Bond's apartment - it's quite another thing for anyone to purchase his Scottish assets (house and gun collection). For a case of death in absentia, British law requires seven years before an estate can be sold.

An organisation sending agents out there with a licence to kill all sorts of people - will they really have a problem with British law? For longer than four-and-a-half seconds?

[MkB]

Another plot hole that came up in the "Eve is a good fellow" thread:

Why does Bond go to the ground instead of just giving M a piece of his mind before resigning properly? 00s are certainly allowed to resign/retire if they want out, after all, there's no obvious reason for Bond to hide from his own side. That's why I refer to him as "sulking" when he enjoys death. That's also why I find Mallory's question ("Why not stay dead?") bizarre: why should an agent who has nothing against him prefer a lousy, fugitive life rather than regular resignation?

Actually, before seeing the film, I thought that Bond disappeared for a few months because he was seriously wounded and was recovering. It's only after seeing the film that I realized he was a perfect bastard who just liked to indulge in self-destructive behaviour (drugs and booze and lack of exercise are responsible for his sorry physical shape, after all, not the PTS "accident").

[Dustin]

Another plot hole that came up in the "Eve is a good fellow" thread:

Why does Bond go to the ground instead of just giving M a piece of his mind before resigning properly? 00s are certainly allowed to resign/retire if they want out, after all, there's no obvious reason for Bond to hide from his own side. That's why I refer to him as "sulking" when he enjoys death. That's also why I find Mallory's question ("Why not stay dead?") bizarre: why should an agent who has nothing against him prefer a lousy, fugitive life rather than regular resignation?

Actually, before seeing the film, I thought that Bond disappeared for a few months because he was seriously wounded and was recovering. It's only after seeing the film that I realized he was a perfect bastard who just liked to indulge in self-destructive behaviour (drugs and booze and lack of exercise are responsible for his sorry physical shape, after all, not the PTS "accident").

I wanted to come back to this. My take: originally the beginning saw Bond in doubt about his abilities and sulking about M's missing trust in him. But that part - which would have explained Bond's sub-par performance at the SIS-HQ - was, first, another trust/mistrust story, and, secondly, not necessary for the main part, the Silva/M-revenge. So it probably was just stripped to the bare essentials, Bond missing-presumed-dead, M and SIS under attack, Bond coming back save the day from last decade's version of M's model pupil.

[MkB]

You're probably right, Dustin, another victim of the cutting room...

But isn't it a problem with the original script if the only way to make the film fit into an already very long 143 minutes is to brutally cut bits and scenes that would make the plot more logical? It seems it happened a lot in SF. I'd rather have the screewriters come up with a story of reasonable length, rather than the director having to cut everywhere.

[Dustin]

Also, when Bond says to M "Is there anything else you want to tell me?", I didn't really understand what he was on about then, either.

Right, I didn't get this one either.

Cutting room floor most likely.

I read it differently. Bond must know, or at least strongly suspect, that he failed his tests. So he must be puzzled when M says that he passed and that he's cleared to go back into the field. I don't believe that he truly thinks he passed his tests and is blindsided by Silva's telling him that he didn't. He saw with his own eyes that he couldn't shoot straight. So he knows that M fudged the results. When he asks her if she has something else to tell him, he's hinting to her know that he knows.

Ah yes, perfect explanation.

You're probably right, Dustin, another victim of the cutting room...

But isn't it a problem with the original script if the only way to make the film fit into an already very long 143 minutes is to brutally cut bits and scenes that would make the plot more logical? It seems it happened a lot in SF. I'd rather have the screewriters come up with a story of reasonable length, rather than the director having to cut everywhere.

SKYFALL would probably have clocked in about 3.5 hours if all those concerns had been addressed. On the other hand, it still works as is, with a few inconsistencies we encounter with nearly every Bond film. We have become much more demanding over the years, always measured against the hollowed-volcano-scale.

[Pussfeller]

Speaking of cuts, I was a bit surprised that they cut out the "precise intelligence" line. Cutting it only saved a few seconds, and I'm sure it would have earned a laugh. I guess Mendes really liked that "shadows" line, and wanted to end the scene on it.

[MkB]

SKYFALL would probably have clocked in about 3.5 hours if all those concerns had been addressed.

Yes that's my point: Mendes made a (reasonably) good film with what was surely a bad script, if it took a 3.5 hours to tell the story. I'm not into film-making, but when I'm given, say, 2 hours to give a lecture, for instance, I don't write 200 pages of notes only to discard them frantically before a puzzled audience when I see that the time is running out. I am sure that a script meant to fit into a reasonable running time would help.
And yes indeed, our expectations for Bond films have got considerably higher

[Dustin]

Not a bad script per se, but a script that employed elements with a different focus. After then giving the story the necessary emphasis some things stick out. Not entirely enough to derail the story, but enough to leave question marks.

[MkB]

Fair enough!

[The Shark]

I wanted to come back to this. My take: originally the beginning saw Bond in doubt about his abilities and sulking about M's missing trust in him. But that part - which would have explained Bond's sub-par performance at the SIS-HQ - was, first, another trust/mistrust story, and, secondly, not necessary for the main part, the Silva/M-revenge. So it probably was just stripped to the bare essentials, Bond missing-presumed-dead, M and SIS under attack, Bond coming back save the day from last decade's version of M's model pupil.

Raoul Silva is Pierce Brosnan's Bond? Tortured by Far Eastern government but refused to talk, betrayed by MI6, quasi-gay, big hairdo, love for fine drink and fine tailoring etc. It makes perfect sense.

[Vauxhall]

Raoul Silva is Pierce Brosnan's Bond? Tortured by Far Eastern government but refused to talk, betrayed by MI6, quasi-gay, big hairdo, love for fine drink and fine tailoring etc. It makes perfect sense.

Brilliant!

[Dustin]

This is slowly turning into the Cloud Atlas: everything's connected with everything...

[SecretAgentFan]

The gun collection was sold by Kincaid. No plot hole at all.

[MkB]

The gun collection was sold by Kincaid. No plot hole at all.

No, it was not sold by Kincade - first of all because it was not his to sell. He clearly tells Bond that "THEY sold the lot to a collector".

[Pussfeller]

Not sold by Kincaid, surely. I get the impression that Skyfall Lodge and its contents fell into the hands of some wicked bank and were sold out from under Kincaid. I loved the detail about the collector being from Idaho, and can only assume that it was a Hemingway reference inserted by MGW.

[MkB]

Not a gaffe per se, just artistic licence, but I mentioned in another thread some days ago that the "GRANBOROUGH" code hidden in another code can't work, computer-wise:
http://debrief.comma...81-granborough/

[Vauxhall]

I loved the detail about the collector being from Idaho, and can only assume that it was a Hemingway reference inserted by MGW.

That's a nice idea. I hadn't thought of that.

[junkanoo]

When M and Kincade escape in Skyfall, why do they have a flashlight on? Surely M, the head of MI6, would realize that the flashlight would give away their position.

Agreed. So stupid a plot line ... it hurts to think about it.

In the same time frame, Bond purposely breaks through the ice to avoid getting shot by Silva. Silva just laughs and walks towards the chapel. Considering that Silva is a mastermind, did he really think Bond, a trained professional, would not survive that? Why would he not wait for him to resurface and shoot him before going to kill M, who is obviously sitting in the chapel waiting for Bond and is going nowhere?

That's not really a plot hole per se, but just the reality of this kind of series. Nobody just kills Bond or the series would be over. Best not to dwell on things too much or you'll find yourself realizing that if Bond can just waltz into M's apartment, so could mastermind Silva and he could have had his face-to-face revenge on the cheap. Thus the whole story (as presented) becomes beyond stupid.

That's missing the point. Silva could not kill M, not in the hearing, not in the chapel. That is the whole point of it, he's emotionally too involved to pull the trigger, M still is his mother-figure. I find nothing stupid about this turn, it's taken straight from TMWTGG where Bond too wasn't able to just pull his cyanide gun in mid-sentence. M has to provoke him until he finally acts, and then too slow to damage anything other than the glass-shield. Immediately afterwards he faints.

Adding a new plot hole. It's one thing for MI6 to get rid of Bond's apartment - it's quite another thing for anyone to purchase his Scottish assets (house and gun collection). For a case of death in absentia, British law requires seven years before an estate can be sold.

An organisation sending agents out there with a licence to kill all sorts of people - will they really have a problem with British law? For longer than four-and-a-half seconds?

There is NO indication that the sale of Bond's Scottish assets have anything to do with MI6. It has to do with someone being able to legally purchase those assets and that has nothing to do with MI6 because the asset sale has nothing to do with them. The sale of the property, for example, would never survive a title check.

[MkB]

There is NO indication that the sale of Bond's Scottish assets have anything to do with MI6. It has to do with someone being able to legally purchase those assets and that has nothing to do with MI6 because the asset sale has nothing to do with them. The sale of the property, for example, would never survive a title check.

Sorry, I don't get why MI6 would sell Bond's flat and take care of his property ("standard procedure at the death of an unmarried agent with no next of kin"), and not his other assets, including the Scottish manor? And Kincade mentions that "they" sold it when they thought he was dead, if memory serves.

[junkanoo]

There is NO indication that the sale of Bond's Scottish assets have anything to do with MI6. It has to do with someone being able to legally purchase those assets and that has nothing to do with MI6 because the asset sale has nothing to do with them. The sale of the property, for example, would never survive a title check.

Sorry, I don't get why MI6 would sell Bond's flat and take care of his property ("standard procedure at the death of an unmarried agent with no next of kin"), and not his other assets, including the Scottish manor? And Kincade mentions that "they" sold it when they thought he was dead, if memory serves.

I'm not positive but I don't remember M saying they sold Bond's flat - more like the got rid of it. For all we know, Bond simply had an apartment in London. However if you want to go down the path that MI6 is in the personal equity liquidation business and have some great knowledge of what their agents own ... I'll point you to a garage in London with a sweet silver car in it.

Edited by junkanoo, 16 November 2012 - 03:47 AM.

[MkB]

There is NO indication that the sale of Bond's Scottish assets have anything to do with MI6. It has to do with someone being able to legally purchase those assets and that has nothing to do with MI6 because the asset sale has nothing to do with them. The sale of the property, for example, would never survive a title check.

Sorry, I don't get why MI6 would sell Bond's flat and take care of his property ("standard procedure at the death of an unmarried agent with no next of kin"), and not his other assets, including the Scottish manor? And Kincade mentions that "they" sold it when they thought he was dead, if memory serves.

I'm not positive but I don't remember M saying they sold Bond's flat - more like the got rid of it. For all we know, Bond simply had an apartment in London. However if you want to go down the path that MI6 is in the personal equity liquidation business and have some great knowledge of what their agents own ... I'll point you to a garage in London with a sweet silver car in it.

I'm positive M says "Oh we've sold your flat, put your things into storage", so this implies that the SIS had an active role - although legally it probably does not make much sense, I'll grant you that! As for the silver car, since M said they've "put [Bond's] things into storage" the car might just be one of those "things", and Bond could have got back the keys to the storage place/garage after he came back.

But of course it is quite possible that the better legal explanation is: "it's a Bond film"!

[jamie00007]

Adding a new plot hole. It's one thing for MI6 to get rid of Bond's apartment - it's quite another thing for anyone to purchase his Scottish assets (house and gun collection). For a case of death in absentia, British law requires seven years before an estate can be sold.

But it wasnt death in absentia. Bond was confirmed dead. Obituary and all.

[MkB]

Adding a new plot hole. It's one thing for MI6 to get rid of Bond's apartment - it's quite another thing for anyone to purchase his Scottish assets (house and gun collection). For a case of death in absentia, British law requires seven years before an estate can be sold.

But it wasnt death in absentia. Bond was confirmed dead. Obituary and all.

It was, technically he was missing, presumed dead. Since there was (obviously) no remains found, it fits the definition of death in absentia.
But you know how things are: with the credit crunch and all that, MI6 was probably keen on banking in its "late" employee assets, so we can suppose the A branch (for Accountancy) pulled a few strings

[SecretAgentFan]

Who says that the flat belonged to Bond? Maybe it was the property of Mi6.

[Kieffer]

1) when silva managed to hack mi6s security system and open all the doors, how did silva escape even with 2 armed security guards in the room?
2) after bond and the other guy fell into the ice lake, he grabbed what looked like a flare off of him? What was that? and if it was a flare gun then how does that help him escape through the ice..?

[MkB]

2) after bond and the other guy fell into the ice lake, he grabbed what looked like a flare off of him? What was that? and if it was a flare gun then how does that help him escape through the ice..?

My understanding is that he grabbed a torch from the other guy, and used it not to escape through ice but to find the hole by which they had fallen into the loch.

[Gt Munn]

Why did Bond reveal himself on the boat while headed toward Hashima Island (Don't get me started on how this film completely disregarded the island's history. Bond has always respected its locations, and tied characters into actual history.)?

This single act is what ultimately led to Severine's death. This entire portion of the film doesn't make perfect sense. I assume Bond sneaked aboard (certainly they would not have just let him on). Why did he not remain hidden and sneak onto Hashima Island in an effort to try and overcome Silva?

[SecretAgentFan]

It would be pretty unbelievable that he could stay hidden on that boat. Also, he wanted to get it on with Severine. Let´s not forget: she is his ticket to the island - and he is not in love with her, she ´s just an asset. Severine´s fate was not sealed by Bond, she would never have lasted with Silva.

[Vauxhall]

Why did Bond reveal himself on the boat while headed toward Hashima Island (Don't get me started on how this film completely disregarded the island's history. Bond has always respected its locations, and tied characters into actual history.)?

Even though it's certainly based on Hashima, it's not clear that's the intended location in the movie. Indeed, Mendes and the script refer to Silva's island as "Dead City"; probably intentionally vague. Perhaps the Japanese didn't want the filmmakers to refer to it directly for some reason. I happen to agree it's a shame though.