9 replies to this topic

[RMc2]

An interesting theory from the Internet.

 

[agentbug]

The man has a point lol.

[Dustin]

Well...

[thecasinoroyale]

Makes sense to me and very good points covered.

Worst. Bond for MI6. Ever.

[Guy Haines]

It would certainly explain why he's been around for so long since encountering SPECTRE/Quantum/"the organisation" way back in CR 2006.

SPECTRE letting him live because he's been inadvertently doing their dirty work for them. The events in Skyfall - the destruction of headquarters, the leaking of NATO agents on line and Bond's unsuccessful attempt to keep the former M alive might have been the final straw leading to the absorbation of the service into this new Nine Eyes project - backed, of course by the very people Bond has spent nine years battling.

The trouble is, none of this is brought to a head in the final confrontation with Blofeld. Instead it's all made personal, by him. Blofeld could instead have not only made the point that he was indeed "the author" of all Bond's pain, but that Bond has been indirectly, inadvertently or accidentally doing his bidding by being at the heart of events which have led to Nine Eyes.

SPECTRE could have been more of a sequel to Skyfall if the script had emphasised that Silva's actions were designed not just to destabilise M, but also the whole of the service, making it ripe for the Nine Eyes takeover, and that Bond's impetuousness over the years had also helped. Instead, we are left with the impression that Bond's battle with the man he came across so many times but never saw was all about Bond interfering with SPECTRE's plans and Blofeld taking great personal delight in twisting the knife into Bond in return.

Then again - was Skyfall ever intended to have a sequel? I'm not convinced it was, but if the producers, director and screenwriters decided to make SPECTRE just that, they could have concentrated more on why the events from that film led into those in the follow up, rather than make the film another delving into Bond's past - and Blofeld's - whilst trying to make a "classic" Bond caper at the same time.

[Dustin]

Then again - was Skyfall ever intended to have a sequel?

No, I really don't think so. In several ways SKYFALL is meant to be an end to issues. The shaky M/Bond relationship, the trust issues, the abominable Lego building, the DB5, the phase of Bond constantly being on the verge of telling the Service to eff off - all that was meant to be a closed chapter with the end of SKYFALL. That the next film would practically start in the smouldering ruins of the very building we saw destroyed could hardly be expected.

It's also a bit questionable regarding chronology of events. Either the new SPECTRE-sponsored building grew like a mushroom overnight, or the old Vauxhall ruin was kept as a kind of national monument for the failures of SIS far longer than could be expected. Seeing both films back to back you immediately suppose the Mexico City affair was the assignment Fiennes-M gave Bond in SF's last scene - only we know this cannot be since it was given him by Dench's M from beyond the grave.

All in all SPECTRE would work better for me if the old HQ hadn't been used and if the push for a sequel hadn't been there.

[Guy Haines]

Then again - was Skyfall ever intended to have a sequel?

No, I really don't think so. In several ways SKYFALL is meant to be an end to issues. The shaky M/Bond relationship, the trust issues, the abominable Lego building, the DB5, the phase of Bond constantly being on the verge of telling the Service to eff off - all that was meant to be a closed chapter with the end of SKYFALL. That the next film would practically start in the smouldering ruins of the very building we saw destroyed could hardly be expected.
It's also a bit questionable regarding chronology of events. Either the new SPECTRE-sponsored building grew like a mushroom overnight, or the old Vauxhall ruin was kept as a kind of national monument for the failures of SIS far longer than could be expected. Seeing both films back to back you immediately suppose the Mexico City affair was the assignment Fiennes-M gave Bond in SF's last scene - only we know this cannot be since it was given him by Dench's M from beyond the grave.
All in all SPECTRE would work better for me if the old HQ hadn't been used and if the push for a sequel hadn't been there.

It could have worked better as a sequel, if the personal issues between Bond and Blofeld had been pushed to the back or eliminated altogether.

The final trailer shown in the US I think, has a tag line "Everything has led to this" - implying that the events of CR, QoS and SF culminate in SP. It could have worked better, imho, if we learn not only that SPECTRE had been behind everything from Bond's first Double O mission, but that the events of SF were designed to lead to the Nine Eyes project in SP. For example, what on Earth were the names of every NATO agent across the world doing on a laptop hard-drive in Turkey? Denbigh could have made that point, and said that drones and cyber-warfare could have dealt with Silva and saved M far more effectively than Bond gallavanting off to Skyfall, having brought Silva back from Asia (Whilst, of course, knowing full well that this was a necessary part of SPECTRE's plan to undermine MI6.)

And Blofeld - in typical give-the-plot-away-because-you-are-going-to-die-Mr-Bond style could have revealed that the whole purpose of Silva stealing the disk drive, exposing agents and targeting MI6 and M was to undermine the service and morale, allowing Denbigh's new CNS to take over, being covertly controlled by the very organisation it would supposedly be going after.

It could have been done, but we would have lost the "personal" edge, I suppose! ;-)

[S K Y F A L L]

I know it Denial Craig is Jar Jar Binks!

[Dustin]

Then again - was Skyfall ever intended to have a sequel?

No, I really don't think so. In several ways SKYFALL is meant to be an end to issues. The shaky M/Bond relationship, the trust issues, the abominable Lego building, the DB5, the phase of Bond constantly being on the verge of telling the Service to eff off - all that was meant to be a closed chapter with the end of SKYFALL. That the next film would practically start in the smouldering ruins of the very building we saw destroyed could hardly be expected.
It's also a bit questionable regarding chronology of events. Either the new SPECTRE-sponsored building grew like a mushroom overnight, or the old Vauxhall ruin was kept as a kind of national monument for the failures of SIS far longer than could be expected. Seeing both films back to back you immediately suppose the Mexico City affair was the assignment Fiennes-M gave Bond in SF's last scene - only we know this cannot be since it was given him by Dench's M from beyond the grave.
All in all SPECTRE would work better for me if the old HQ hadn't been used and if the push for a sequel hadn't been there.

It could have worked better as a sequel, if the personal issues between Bond and Blofeld had been pushed to the back or eliminated altogether.

The final trailer shown in the US I think, has a tag line "Everything has led to this" - implying that the events of CR, QoS and SF culminate in SP. It could have worked better, imho, if we learn not only that SPECTRE had been behind everything from Bond's first Double O mission, but that the events of SF were designed to lead to the Nine Eyes project in SP. For example, what on Earth were the names of every NATO agent across the world doing on a laptop hard-drive in Turkey? Denbigh could have made that point, and said that drones and cyber-warfare could have dealt with Silva and saved M far more effectively than Bond gallavanting off to Skyfall, having brought Silva back from Asia (Whilst, of course, knowing full well that this was a necessary part of SPECTRE's plan to undermine MI6.)

And Blofeld - in typical give-the-plot-away-because-you-are-going-to-die-Mr-Bond style could have revealed that the whole purpose of Silva stealing the disk drive, exposing agents and targeting MI6 and M was to undermine the service and morale, allowing Denbigh's new CNS to take over, being covertly controlled by the very organisation it would supposedly be going after.

It could have been done, but we would have lost the "personal" edge, I suppose! ;-)

Moreover there doesn't seem to be a need for Dench-M kicking off SPECTRE from the grave - other than giving Dench one more little cameo. The story would feel more balanced for me if the Mexico assignment had been given to Bond by Fiennes. Upon returning Bond would then find Denbigh in M's place and decide on the spot not to disclose the nature of his mission to him. Ideally you would have somebody else as Denbigh, not a face everybody in the film and the audience has already down pat as The Bad Guy ™. You would then have the option of keeping the audience guessing if Denbigh is the rotten apple - or perhaps Fiennes. Instead of having Bloferhauser just making ludicrous claims Bond's actions could be actually shown as working towards Spectre's interests. There'd even be the option of keeping it vague until the end who actually runs the Spectre show. Most of this potential remains untouched throughout the film.

[Hockey Mask]

I'm kind of over the badmouthing of Craig and SPECTRE. I don't think fans realize how good they have it.