70 replies to this topic

[saint mark]

Don't care about plotholes in skyfall because the brilliant movie makes up the flaws 

 

Sir, you should seek out a career as a comedian.

[SecretAgentFan]

Taking Silva out to the middle of nowhere might not have been a dumb move, but deciding to go it alone was dumb mistake. Bond and a 77-year old woman versus a former MI6/Double-oh operative and his henchmen. The fact that it ended with only one of them deceased is astounding.

And, yes, I know M gave him the order that it would be just the two of them. But, given her actions throughout the film, Bond should have ignored her orders and arranged for some kind of backup.

Exactly. And there is no reason why she would not have agreed to trapping Silva with an army of her own. It even reflects badly on the new M, Q and Tanner to let things develop doing nothing.

[tdalton]

Tanner and Q hadn't exactly proven themselves to be geniuses in the run up to Bond taking M to Scotland in the first place, so it's not like they made their otherwise stellar MI6 careers go off the rails by this one incident.  Q is just inept, and Tanner hasn't been all that much better in his two films. 

[AMC Hornet]

How many military bases do you pass near between London and Glencoe?

Just askin'.

[saint mark]

How many military bases do you pass near between London and Glencoe?

Just askin'.

 

Perhaps  the chopper does have stealth technology?

 

As we all know there is no possible way that the RAF would ever pick up on a completely armed chopper flying around.

Edited by saint mark, 09 July 2014 - 10:33 PM.

[AMC Hornet]

 

How many military bases do you pass near between London and Glencoe?

Just askin'.

 

Perhaps  the chopper does have stealth technology?

 

As we all know there is no possible way that the RAF would ever pick up on a completely armed chopper flying around.

 

My point was, couldn't Bond and M have ducked in and whistled up an Airborne Regiment or two along the way?

It's been a while since we've had an all-out pitched battle between two opposing forces.

But then, this time it wouldn't have been personal.

[007jamesbond]

I do not believe M nor Bond want more people to die.......I was thinking Q could design a toy drone that shoot missile and sent to Bond that is remote control to help take out the men......

[AMC Hornet]

I do not believe M nor Bond want more people to die.......I was thinking Q could design a toy drone that shoot missile and sent to Bond that is remote control to help take out the men......

"This time it's remote, automatic and totally impersonal."

[Guy Haines]

In reply to AMC Hornet's question about military bases, I've just consulted a web page listing them and counted over a hundred, although I daresay some listed are now closed due to defence cuts and so on. Nevertheless the opportunity to call in backup was there. A point was made above that the reason the scene at Skyfall was down to Bond, M and Kincade against Silva and his small army of mercenaries was because M didn't want to involve anyone else - "too many people have died because of me" - a line forgotten until quoted here recently.

 

That said, Tanner and Q must have known - and Mallory ought to have worked out - where Bond might have been headed in Scotland. ("Skyfall" was mentioned when M brought in the psychiatrist earlier.) They could perhaps have arranged for backup. We could, then have had a pitched battle. And it could still have included a "personal" showdown between M & Silva amid the mayhem in which Bond intervenes. However, it wouldn't have been so much that the "personal" element would have been lost as the opportunity to pay homage to "Straw Dogs", not to mention "Home Alone". (Then again, would it, if Bond and M aren't aware that backup is on its way?)

 

Either way, if we were looking at this in reality, is it credible that their colleagues would simply leave Bond and M to it? But remember, it's only a movie!

[tdalton]

In reply to AMC Hornet's question about military bases, I've just consulted a web page listing them and counted over a hundred, although I daresay some listed are now closed due to defence cuts and so on. Nevertheless the opportunity to call in backup was there. A point was made above that the reason the scene at Skyfall was down to Bond, M and Kincade against Silva and his small army of mercenaries was because M didn't want to involve anyone else - "too many people have died because of me" - a line forgotten until quoted here recently.

 

That said, Tanner and Q must have known - and Mallory ought to have worked out - where Bond might have been headed in Scotland. ("Skyfall" was mentioned when M brought in the psychiatrist earlier.) They could perhaps have arranged for backup. We could, then have had a pitched battle. And it could still have included a "personal" showdown between M & Silva amid the mayhem in which Bond intervenes. However, it wouldn't have been so much that the "personal" element would have been lost as the opportunity to pay homage to "Straw Dogs", not to mention "Home Alone". (Then again, would it, if Bond and M aren't aware that backup is on its way?)

 

Either way, if we were looking at this in reality, is it credible that their colleagues would simply leave Bond and M to it? But remember, it's only a movie!

 

I think that Q and Tanner knew exactly where Bond was taking M.  He asks them to put out a digital trail for Silva to follow in order to find them, so it stands to reason that Q and Tanner knew that Skyfall was where Bond was heading.  

[Hansen]

Mendes : "make sure that the script has no holes"

 

http://www.mi6-hq.co...28&t=mi6&s=news

 

Learning from past mistakes ?

[Odd Jobbies]

I think that Q and Tanner knew exactly where Bond was taking M.  He asks them to put out a digital trail for Silva to follow in order to find them, so it stands to reason that Q and Tanner knew that Skyfall was where Bond was heading.  

 

Not necessarily. Couldn't they be simply tracking Bond/M - perhaps via the call, or following their route from the enquiry via CCTV/Satellite?

 

Bond was asking them to continue tracking them and to leave bread crumbs for Silva to follow - nothing too obvious so Silva would think he had the element of surprise.

 

But back to the point, it's possible that tracking was occurring - no need for Q or Tanner to somehow have already guessed the destination.

[tdalton]

 

I think that Q and Tanner knew exactly where Bond was taking M.  He asks them to put out a digital trail for Silva to follow in order to find them, so it stands to reason that Q and Tanner knew that Skyfall was where Bond was heading.  

 

Not necessarily. Couldn't they be simply tracking Bond/M - perhaps via the call, or following their route from the enquiry via CCTV/Satellite?

 

Bond was asking them to continue tracking them and to leave bread crumbs for Silva to follow - nothing too obvious so Silva would think he had the element of surprise.

 

But back to the point, it's possible that tracking was occurring - no need for Q or Tanner to somehow have already guessed the destination.

 

 

That's true.  I haven't seen Skyfall in a while so my recollection of that particular scene isn't 100%. 

 

I think the main point still remains, though, that Q and Tanner had the information they needed in order to send backup to assist Bond and M.  

[Zen Razor]

Most certainly, Most to every film has plot holes there is no shame in it and honestly a lot of this sounds more like nitpicks rather than huge errors they are just scene's not shown. Regardless Skyfall is an outstanding film.

[Hansen]

Most certainly, Most to every film has plot holes there is no shame in it and honestly a lot of this sounds more like nitpicks rather than huge errors they are just scene's not shown. Regardless Skyfall is an outstanding film.

I do not agree on that.

First, some films do not have plot holes because they are very will written and the production team does its job.

Second, my capacity in accepting plotholes is related to the promise made by the film.

In regards of Bond, in previous eras (Moore mostly but also Connery and Brosnan), there was this "tongue-in-cheek" aspect that makes you accept lots of things because it is part of the ride.

In regards of Craig era which has been sold as more serious / hard boiled (bla, bla...), some situations are less acceptable because the script does not meet the expectations the production team created

[SecretAgentFan]

Plot holes, my pet peeve.

 

People throw this term around whenever they do not understand something or do not believe a story point or fail to interpret hints within the narrative.

 

So, what is a plot hole?  Literally, a hole in the plot would not be so terrible - since every narrative uses ellipses to increase speed or to leave out scenes that would be boring information transfer.

 

A plot hole then would be: how does Bond go from the meeting with Q in London to China?  The packing, the driving, the checking in, the flying, etc. - we don´t have to see that, we can assume that he did not beam over there.

 

But a hole in the plot meaning a missing link between two plot developments resulting in unbelievable actions - yes, that should be avoided.  

 

SKYFALL, despite the lengthy preparation time, despite an A-list director (who always guides the script and approves of the final version) and an A-list writer (who actually rewrote an existing script and should have closed any plot holes), has a few story points that just do not make sense.

 

That does not mean that the film fails.  But it detracts from its overall impact which could have been so great due to sequences that are really fantastic.

 

And I agree with you, Hansen: in previous Bond eras such holes in the narrative were shrugged off because nothing was taken so seriously in a Bond film.  But with the Craig era and the "new realism" with the A-list talent making sure that everything is "more interesting", I would have expected these guys to step up instead of proving that they, too, are mostly interested in moments.

[tdalton]

I would argue that yes, there is shame in plot holes, especially those similar to the ones found in Skyfall.  Yes, a lot of films have issues with their scripts, the Bond films being no different there, but that's not really an excuse for the issues that plague Skyfall's script.  A plot hole or two that occurs on the fringes, that's fine, especially when there's little to no impact on the main ideas being expressed by the filmmakers.

 

However, when the villain's main scheme is, in and of itself, a plot hole, that's unacceptable, especially when an Academy Award-winning director and an Academy Award-nominated writer are the ones crafting the story.  Silva's scheme involves so many moving parts, so much reliance on coincidence, so much MI6 incompetence, and so much foreknowledge that he could not possibly have had, that it's not only unlikely that he could have pulled it off, it's downright impossible.

 

Yes, when we've had plot holes in Bond films before, they've been somewhat easy to overlook because the films usually don't take themselves all that seriously.  That's not the case with Skyfall.  There's also the fact that Skyfall's story is so full of issues that they at times become a distraction. 

[007jamesbond]

every film has "plot hole" even the best one out there right now.....I guess the fans who dislike Skyfall see a lot of plot hole while those who love it ignore the plot hole completely and do not care 

[Iceskater101]

I definitely agree. If Skyfall would have taken the time to eliminate all the plot holes in the movie, I would probably be bored as that would take forever!

[Hansen]

A pretty exhaustive list (and some I did not realize)

http://movieplotholes.com/skyfall.html

[Iceskater101]

Some of those plot holes are really stupid like, in the beginning how the train would have stopped. It's like no S*** the train would have stopped... who cares? If Skyfall actually followed real life rules in filming their action sequences, it wouldn't be all that fun. Like cops swarming the train to tell Bond and Patrice to stop fighting.. c'mon.

 

I do however like the plot hole of the physics behind Bond's fall! That was kind of cool to read. That he shouldn't be falling where he was falling.

[Trevelyan 006]

Could an oil tanker actually do a wheelie through a fire-covered road section? 

That's movies, folks. I have no gripes. 

[Iceskater101]

Yeah I think some of those are a little too picky. We have to understand that yes this a movie so some action sequences will be a little inaccurate.

[JohnnyWalker]

Inaccuracies and plot holes aren't the same thing. The direction Bond falls is in no way a plot hole.

[glidrose]

I definitely agree. If Skyfall would have taken the time to eliminate all the plot holes in the movie, <snip>

 

Then there would have been no movie.

[Trevelyan 006]

I'm not too worried about either, to be completely honest. Both raise questions and criticisms about the film that are usually attached to finicky arguments...

 

Skyfall is a great film, plot holes, inaccuracies, bleach-blonde wigs, and all! 

[Iceskater101]

I definitely agree. I loved Skyfall and I think it definitely made me be proud that I am a Bond fan!

[Trevelyan 006]

I definitely agree. I loved Skyfall and I think it definitely made me be proud that I am a Bond fan!

 

Let's just say there is a reason it grossed so much money. The plot holes couldn't have been considered TOO overwhelming... We're all just spoiled.

[SecretAgentFan]

Or... we have been dumbed down by countless blockbusters so we don´t notice or take offense anymore.

[AMC Hornet]

'cept around here...