362 replies to this topic

[Hansen]

My feeling is that it is just awkward scriptwriting for a far-fetched one-line along with poor character development where a field agent turns into a PA

Why?  She's suspended from field duty and is assigned to assist Mallory in the transition.  While doing that job, she discovers that she enjoys working for him and that the job gives her the opportunity to find out more about the world-wide operations of the Secret Service than she had ever previously known.  No, it's not field work, but it's important and meaningful to her.  There's nothing awkward about that at all.

I like your analysis. Do you think that it could have been the other way around : a secretary becoming a field officer ?

Having an operative ending up with very administrative duty seems to me weird career management.

[Major Tallon]

I don't know why a secretary couldn't eventually be assigned to field work.  For M's secretary, that would be more problematic, as she would know so much about everything the Secret Service was doing that untold damage could result if she were taken prisoner and interrogated.

[Guy Haines]

I don't know why a secretary couldn't eventually be assigned to field work.  For M's secretary, that would be more problematic, as she would know so much about everything the Secret Service was doing that untold damage could result if she were taken prisoner and interrogated.

Indeed, and you may have just come up with a plot idea for a future Bond film (though not a future Bond book - weren't Moneypenny and Bond's Scottish treasure May kidnapped in one of John Gardner's novels? "Nobody Lives Forever" was the one, I think.)

 

Take it one stage further. Both Moneypenny and Q kidnapped. Bond racing against the clock to find them before they both crack under interrogation.

[Gt Munn]

 

If we're having a moan about 'Skyfall' (sorry EON!) then on this line, I just thought it odd Bond hadn't heard Eve's surname at all - either before, during or after the mission to Istanbul. I know they've never been "introduced" as he says, but she knows Bond's name, but I find it strange he doesn't know hers for a team that seems very close. I feel that's the most wooden bit, when he asks and she introduces herself. Too un-natural.

 

It seems a little TOO convenient to shoe-horn it in at the end, with the big reveals of it actually being Miss.Moneypenny, then the classic office, then the male M and then the Bond theme...sort of like cramming as much Bond iconography into the final 20 seconds as they can!

 

That's all.

I'm guessing that prior to the "formal" introduction Bond may have known her only by a cover name for that Turkish assignment (Remember, "Rene Mathis" wasn't that agent's real name, and "Raoul Silva" was also an alias), maybe her first name only, or as she was a field agent, a serial number. It did seem a bit odd, but it didn't spoil my viewing of the final scene - I'll always recall one out loud comment in the cinema as Eve revealed her surname - "Of course, that's who she is. It's Miss Moneypenny!"

 

The Mathis turning out to be a cover name was always one of the little details from QoS that bothered me...there was no purpose to the reveal in the scene itself, other than going against abit of Fleming where Mathis was almost certainly his real name, and it also has been used a couple of times as 'evidence' that Bond must also therefore be a cover name.
From the dialogue in Skyfall it seemed to me that Silva was a name Tiago Rodriquez  adapted when he began his career as for hire hacker, rather than a code-name assigned to him by Mi6 (if if was an Mi6 code-name, surely at some point they would have picked up rumours about one of their agents going rogue...rather than assuming he was dead and putting his name on the memorial wall. Kinda like Goldeneye where Janus was both the organization and the alias Trevelyan used after faking his death.)

I think from the end scene Bond knew her last name before asking her and it was just a way of starting their new working relationship on a formal note, like Zographos suggested.

Bond being a code-name completely disregards the fact that it is well known whom Bond's parents are. People that cling to the code-name idea are only desperately grasping for continuity when there is clearly not meant to be any.

 

Though I would have preferred Mathis remained the character's real name, the very nature of his role in MI6 seems to support the benefit of him maintaining a code-name.

[Dustin]

Though I would have preferred Mathis remained the character's real name, the very nature of his role in MI6 seems to support the benefit of him maintaining a code-name.

 

I'd have preferred if Mathis had remained a Frenchman, the way the character was originally conceived. There is a lack of foreign characters - other than the females - acting as Bond's alleys. And whenever one is needed lately it's usually a CIA guy, also a bit lacking in imagination. The days of Kerim Bey and Tiger Tanaka provided much more diversity in this regard.   

Edited by Dustin, 10 April 2013 - 07:43 PM.

[Zographos]

I think you've misunderstood the line.  Bond was wondering how they were ferreted out so quickly when he had been using his Sterling alias.  He asked Mathis if he had been using his real name for his cover, and Mathis says yes.  That doesn't mean Mathis wasn't his real name.

 

Bond could have used "James Bond" as his cover name, the cover still would have been "teachers on sabbatical" though.

[Tiin007]

I think you've misunderstood the line.  Bond was wondering how they were ferreted out so quickly when he had been using his Sterling alias.  He asked Mathis if he had been using his real name for his cover, and Mathis says yes.  That doesn't mean Mathis wasn't his real name.

 

Bond could have used "James Bond" as his cover name, the cover still would have been "teachers on sabbatical" though.

 

This ^^^ is how I understood the line as well. Would anyone else like to chime in on this piece of dialogue? (It confused the heck out of me the first few times I saw QOS until I finally arrived at Zographos' explanation.) Did I understand it correctly?

[Hansen]

Not sure. Mathis was betrayed by his long-time 'friend' from the local police (who was bribed by Greene)
He knew in what kind of business Mathis was working whether he was using his real name or not.

[SecretAgentFan]

Though I would have preferred Mathis remained the character's real name, the very nature of his role in MI6 seems to support the benefit of him maintaining a code-name.

 

I'd have preferred if Mathis had remained a Frenchman, the way the character was originally conceived. There is a lack of foreign characters - other than the females - acting as Bond's alleys. And whenever one is needed lately it's usually a CIA guy, also a bit lacking in imagination. The days of Kerim Bey and Tiger Tanaka provided much more diversity in this regard.   

 

Absolutely! I hope Bond will get an ally like that in the next films again. At least Felix Leiter should be brought back.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Though I would have preferred Mathis remained the character's real name, the very nature of his role in MI6 seems to support the benefit of him maintaining a code-name.

 

I'd have preferred if Mathis had remained a Frenchman, the way the character was originally conceived. There is a lack of foreign characters - other than the females - acting as Bond's alleys. And whenever one is needed lately it's usually a CIA guy, also a bit lacking in imagination. The days of Kerim Bey and Tiger Tanaka provided much more diversity in this regard.   

 

I absolutely agree!

[MkB]

I don't know why a secretary couldn't eventually be assigned to field work. 

 

Obviously I don't work for MI6, but in my own line of business a secretary would not be assigned to our equivalent of field work. Totally different set of skills, totally different types of people, totally different jobs. 

 

 

 

On a totally unrelated note... I've not been following the news lately, but I've heard that Mendes provided an extended and instructive commentary with the Skyfall DVD/BR. I would be interested to know whether Mendes explains why Bond did not die after being shot by Eve. Some of us had concluded that he had to have been wearing a bulletproof vest under his shirt. This was one of the loose ends in SF.

Any interesting intel from the director? 

[x007AceOfSpades]

Any interesting intel from the director? 

 

I don't have the film on Blu-Ray so I  couldn't tell you.

[Professor Pi]

On a totally unrelated note... I've not been following the news lately, but I've heard that Mendes provided an extended and instructive commentary with the Skyfall DVD/BR. I would be interested to know whether Mendes explains why Bond did not die after being shot by Eve. Some of us had concluded that he had to have been wearing a bulletproof vest under his shirt. This was one of the loose ends in SF.

Any interesting intel from the director? 

 

Mendes didn't elaborate on why Eve's shot didn't kill him.  In fact, he explains that the title sequence is what goes through Bond's mind as an after death experience.  Hence, Bond thinks of his childhood house, you see his eye peer out of the cracks from the priest hole where he hid upon learning of his parents' death, the camera constantly moves forward, and there's a motif of tunnels throughout, which Mendes says people with near death experiences often talk about. 

 

This isn't clear upon first viewing, but it's Patrice's shot that does more damage to Bond, and the one that's emphasized in the title sequence.  Bond tells Eve that her shot missed the vital organs and bruised a few ribs.  "Nothing major."  That bruising might suggest a bullet proof vest, but if that's the case, Patrice's depleted uranium shell must have gone right through it.

 

[thecasinoroyale]

Regarding that theory and Patrice's shot not doing much harm, I don't think Bond wore a bullet proof vest. He hasn't done in any other mission he's taken on, and I think if anything it'd impede his mobility so he wouldn't wear one, hence the blood coming through his shirt so much, I doubt it would if he had a vest on.

 

I think it just highlights Eve isn't totally cut out for field work as she's not the best shot, but it didn't do much damaage initially and the fall made it 100% times worse off that bridge...luckily into water!

[The Shark]

More importantly, how did Bond survive a 300 ft fall?

[Eric Stromberg]

I don't think he did survive the fall.  He's not quite "himself" from that point on.

[Hansen]

I don't think he did survive the fall.  He's not quite "himself" from that point on.

I LOVE THAT !

[S K Y F A L L]

How does Bond survive anything, I mean what about when he was parachuting in QOS and opened it at the last second. I thought you had to pull your shoot at a certain height.

[Eric Stromberg]

I really believe that Mendes and crew kill 007 in the PTS.  The beginning is more YOLT than YOLT is.  There's no way he could survive the fall from the bridge, and he definitely appears to be a corpse the way he travels down the falls in burial posture.  Then we're off into the titles which are not just something pretty for us to look at but Bond's spirit on its dark, twisted journey through the underworld.  When he re-enters the physical plane it's still him but a very different version of him.

 

Mendes is a very smart guy.  He's not going to make a 007 film that moves in straight lines.  I don't think the current creative team are being very literal-minded these days.  They don't really care if the tongues fit into the grooves from movie to movie and for me this gives each Craig movie an encapsulated quality, which I really like.  I don't see why some viewers get so wrapped around the axle about sequence and continuity.  I mean it's fun to discuss and all but I think it distracts from the more salient elements of what is turning out to be a golden age of 007 films.  I'm just enjoying the hell out of this current run and it's a blast to be sharing it with my fellow CBners!

[Guy Haines]

The item on the DVD regarding the title credits is interesting, because Daniel Kleinman talks about the title scenes as if they are Bond's final thoughts as he sinks towards death. Moreso than in the film "You Only Live Twice" - where Bond's "death" is a put up job - or "Die Another Day" where Bond is MIA rather than dead, it seems that 007 has had it, but somehow re-emerges as a temporarily changed person. Just as he did at the end of the novel YOLT, and even moreso in the book TMWTGG. All that's missing is the attempt on M's life - it's left to the film's villain to devote an entire movie to that.

[DominicGreene]

I initially loved Skyfall when I first saw it. However, after watching it several more times now, I am starting to dislike it.

 

The beginning starts off really well with Bond. We get a really nice glimpse of our current Bond. However, the chase scene that occurs afterwards... I don't know what it is about it, but it's just so... bland. The shots are too obvious. The crowd barely reacts at all.

 

The CGI is so god awful, that it was terribly obvious. It would have been much better if they went with a "less is more" approach.  The shots on the roof sucked as well. The movement seemed to be going way to slowly, in contrast to the fast pacing music. It's almost as if the music was too outgoing. It really turned me off. 

 

The cat and mouse on the train went on for too long. I felt bored half-way through it. They should have just chased on top of the train and skipped that whole part. 

 

I didn't mind Bond falling in the water and surviving. I suspended my belief there.

 

The titles were good up until we had Daniel Craig in this asylum looking place, which looked way too CGI like Die Another Day. Hell, Quantum of Solace did it better, as much as I love Daniel Kleinman. The song was good at least. 

 

Scene with M in the car with Tanner was okay, then when M got out of the car it went to S***. The acting here was awful. Judi doesn't look mad at all, yet she's mad enough to leave the car. Then, when she does, she puts her hands in her pocket like she just doesn't care anymore. Then, when Mi6 blows up, she has "Well, s#!t happens" look.

 

Every scene with Naomie Harris was annoying. In my opinion, she's not attractive enough to seduce the audience. I didn't have a sense of arousement during the Macau scene. In the end, I just wanted it to be done with. 

 

Really? The gunshot only traced to three people? Were the writers really that stuck?

 

Scene in Macau; the introduction scene was far too long. It was almost like it was trying too hard to be Bond-esque (“Here’s Bond rollin’ into Macau, baby! Come on, look at him! Here’s some sparkly fireworks! How about a nice dolly shot of it as well?”). The scene from Macau then on was fine. 

 

I didn’t mind Severine dying off too quickly. I was surprised however, when Bond said “That’s a waste of good scotch.” as if he didn’t know her at all. Yet, he had trouble shooting her.

 

There’s nothing else I really had a problem with throughout the movie. It wasn’t like that first viewing, however. 

Edited by DominicGreene, 17 July 2013 - 11:02 PM.

[thecasinoroyale]

Wow, fascinating and honest - a true Bond fan!

 

Thanks for sharing that Dominic, it's interesting to see your new views. I do agree on a couple but not others - but then that's what makes us great fans to debate around!

 

Your ob about M when MI6 blows up is bang on. She looks like she's just watching a news report about a missing cat or something. It's too casual for me, and I know she wasn't going to scream her head off but it's a very under-whelming reaction to something so major.

 

Almost like she knew this would happen....ooooh....... 

[Hansen]

Nothing about Bond's splendid idea of taking M in his old and unarmed mansion to protect her, after having left the necessary clues to Silva to get there with 40 men and a chopper ?

[trevanian]

Nothing about Bond's splendid idea of taking M in his old and unarmed mansion to protect her, after having left the necessary clues to Silva to get there with 40 men and a chopper ?

The idiot plot turn to end all idiot plot turns ... except I'm sure it hasn't.

 

They could have left bread crumbs for multiple destinations ... and had SAS waiting at all of them for Silva. The contrivance of having no choice but to go it alone is so far past absurd it isn't even silly. Risking other lives when those other lives being risked are professionals who do that as a matter of course ... that's not the same as putting innocents at risk. As Capt Kirk once said, Risk is our business.    

[Hockey Mask]

40 men and a chopper vs. James Bond. It was absurd! They should have brought 80 men and two choppers to make it a fair fight.

[tdalton]

 

I initially loved Skyfall when I first saw it. However, after watching it several more times now, I am starting to dislike it.

 

The beginning starts off really well with Bond. We get a really nice glimpse of our current Bond. However, the chase scene that occurs afterwards... I don't know what it is about it, but it's just so... bland. The shots are too obvious. The crowd barely reacts at all.

 

The CGI is so god awful, that it was terribly obvious. It would have been much better if they went with a "less is more" approach.  The shots on the roof sucked as well. The movement seemed to be going way to slowly, in contrast to the fast pacing music. It's almost as if the music was too outgoing. It really turned me off. 

 

The cat and mouse on the train went on for too long. I felt bored half-way through it. They should have just chased on top of the train and skipped that whole part. 

 

I didn't mind Bond falling in the water and surviving. I suspended my belief there.

 

The titles were good up until we had Daniel Craig in this asylum looking place, which looked way too CGI like Die Another Day. Hell, Quantum of Solace did it better, as much as I love Daniel Kleinman. The song was good at least. 

 

Scene with M in the car with Tanner was okay, then when M got out of the car it went to S***. The acting here was awful. Judi doesn't look mad at all, yet she's mad enough to leave the car. Then, when she does, she puts her hands in her pocket like she just doesn't care anymore. Then, when Mi6 blows up, she has "Well, s#!t happens" look.

 

Every scene with Naomie Harris was annoying. In my opinion, she's not attractive enough to seduce the audience. I didn't have a sense of arousement during the Macau scene. In the end, I just wanted it to be done with. 

 

Really? The gunshot only traced to three people? Were the writers really that stuck?

 

Scene in Macau; the introduction scene was far too long. It was almost like it was trying too hard to be Bond-esque (“Here’s Bond rollin’ into Macau, baby! Come on, look at him! Here’s some sparkly fireworks! How about a nice dolly shot of it as well?”). The scene from Macau then on was fine. 

 

I didn’t mind Severine dying off too quickly. I was surprised however, when Bond said “That’s a waste of good scotch.” as if he didn’t know her at all. Yet, he had trouble shooting her.

 

There’s nothing else I really had a problem with throughout the movie. It wasn’t like that first viewing, however. 

 

 

I agree with a lot of this, although I'd have to say that the pre-capture portion of the film is the part that I find to be the strongest.  After Silva's capture is where it all begins to fall apart for me, with the entire remainder of the plot from that point hinging on Q being an idiot and a plan by Silva that requires so much foresight and reliance on coincidence that I was half expecting Solitaire to show up and explain that she was the one that planned it all.

[archer1949]

I quite liked it. Not the BEST, and yes, I do think its rapturous reception is a bit overwrought, but still up somewhere in my top five.

 

I still think Sam Mendes still has much to learn about pacing an action movie. A lot of the tension drained away after the credit's sequence and didn't pick up again until Macau. I disliked the choreography of the Hong Kong fight, although the build up was effective. I LOVED the last third, once Bond got back to London and the Scottish finale. I never like it when Bond is cornered and then rescued by a whole army of allies. Solo Bond is always the best.

 

The  performances of the three leads (Craig. Dench and Bardem) show Mendes to be a skilled "actor's director". I just hope he can pick up on the action adn pace.

 

Deakins' photography was beautiful, as usual.

 

My biggest complaint is Newman's bland score. Bring back Arnold!

[Dustin]

...that I was half expecting Solitaire to show up and explain that she was the one that planned it all.

Now that's an idea, a former girlfriend of Bond returning and taking revenge for being dumped...

[tdalton]

 

...that I was half expecting Solitaire to show up and explain that she was the one that planned it all.

Now that's an idea, a former girlfriend of Bond returning and taking revenge for being dumped...

 

 

I think you might have uncovered the plot for BOND 24.  I can see the tagline for BOND 24 now:  "This time, it's personal.  No...really...we mean it this time." 

[Hansen]

 

...that I was half expecting Solitaire to show up and explain that she was the one that planned it all.

Honestly, this is the only way that could make sense