I appreciate the elucidation of the CR and QoS plots. Obviously I was being snarky there, cutting them down to one blurb apiece, but I'd argue that your more detailed synopses still don't alter my larger point: the stakes in these films are small. Having said that, however, my favorite Bond remains FRWL, in which Bond's mission is simply to retrieve a decoder machine, so it's not like a Bond plot MUST involve global peril.
Also, I wasn't suggesting that Craig is uniformly incompetent throughout his tenure; it's only in SF that he bungles it.
Bond follows M´s order to end the conflict with Silva with no more other agents having to die, and despite Silva having much more man- and gunpower, Bond again succeeds at killing all of the henchmen AND Silva before Silva can kill M. M, however, dies due to a shotgun wound that was inflicted on her during the battle because she missed while shooting at one of Silva´s henchmen - who in turn hits her.
Again, your synopses is spot-on and again, it doesn't change my point: Bond blows it. No, Sylva doesn't kill M personally, but yes, she's killed, and yes, that's Bond's fault, at least in my book. While there was no way for him to anticipate the exact circumstances of her demise, I'd argue it's pretty much a given that when you drag an old lady into a firefight, she's going to get killed. Bond's "plan," such as it is, amounts to this: "Here's a pistol, ma'am. If anyone gets into this room, shoot them with it. I'll be in another part of the house. 'Bye." M is a bureaucrat, not an agent; expecting her to hold her own in a firefight with trained assassins is tantamount to pushing her in front of a bus.
As for your problems concerning the logic of SKYFALL - if you care to elaborate on that, I´ll love to rebuke...
I'll stick to the three big ones, since remembering the others would necessitate a re-watch (which I don't have time for).
First up, as "the villain's architect" mentions above (great handle, BTW, tva!) there is simply no way Silva could have anticipated the myriad of events and time factors necessary to carry out his "capture me so I can attack M at the hearings" plan. I know this is all done to impress us with how ingenious he is and how he's been playing Batman and Gordon...I mean Bond and M...for fools, but it's ridiculous. Why not just put on the police uniform and waltz in, skipping all the other nonsense? Is it that hard to sneak into London?
Second, Bond's "plan," as noted above, is insanely stupid. Is it a good idea to get M "off the grid" to avoid a killer who's really good at using technology to find people? Of course. Is it a good idea to take the battle somewhere remote to avoid collateral damage and casualties? Naturally. Is it a masterstroke to make those two locations THE SAME PLACE? Absolutely not. Even Maxwell Smart couldn't come up with a plan that dumb. Bond goes out of his way to take M to an isolated spot where no help is possible, a spot no one -- probably not even MI-6 -- knows about. Okay. But then he has Q deliberately leave "breadcrumbs" for Silva -- placing Skyfall ON the grid -- and thus makes sure danger will come to him. Why not take M to Skyfall -- off the grid -- and leave her there while luring Silva somewhere else for the showdown? Or put M somewhere else and have the fight at Skyfall? Anyway, using Skyfall for both is just stupid, and the one surprise is that even in a movie, the logical outcome actually occurs; M is killed. (Also, nice move picking Skyfall before making sure there's actually any guns on the premises).
Third, I have a problem with the "welcome back, 007, let's get to work" ending. It almost feels like Bond's being rewarded for his performance. The last thing Mallory said was, "Don't cock it up" and what did he do? He cocked it up. But no hard feelings. This rings false for me.
Consider: MI-6 in general and M in particular are threatened by what turns out to be a former agent gone rogue. That is the enemy du jour; everyone is alert to this crisis: Agent Gone Bad. At the same time, another agent suddenly shows up after being out of contact for months, his whereabouts and activities during that period unknown since he refused to report in. At the time of his disappearance, he had just been shot, very nearly fatally, based on an order from M. While he was gone, M saw to it that his flat and possessions were sold off. So he has every reason to be very unhappy with the old lady. Jump forward a few days and this agent kidnaps M and removes her to an unknown location, where contact with headquarters is impossible. The next time you see this agent, M is dead.
Now, I ask you; if that agent's name was anything other than "James Bond," wouldn't you say it's reasonable to suspect this agent, like the other one, has gone rogue? Where was he in those missing months? How pissed was he at M, where did he take her and how was she killed? All we have is his word that things happened as they did. Why does none of this occur to anyone? Obviously they'd be wrong if they think Bond had gone bad, but wouldn't it show due diligence to at least investigate?
Other than the plot, though, I enjoy the film. :-)