So I Watched Skyfall [Spoilers!]

[Weimann]

I'm no Bond fan. That isn't saying I've something against the character, I've just not watched a lot of the movies; only one, to be precise. I don't remember which one, but it had some media mogul as the chief villain and there was a submarine thing at the end. This movie was... not that.

It starts off fast-paced and doesn't ever really slow down. The dramaturgy is good, there's no time wasted on stuff that the audience will figure out, or at least form an opinion on, themselves. I like that. The lack of fully spelled out explanations adds greatly to the "spy feel". Visually, the movie was gorgeous, from the intro with the awesome song by Adele to the great use of warm, yellow lights throughout. A pleasure to watch.

Bond was the one who did all the fancy stuff, but to me the most interesting character was M. She was the anchor point in the movie, and her actor did a great job portraying her. The difficulty of her position was made obvious, and the villain's portrayal was in turn helped by the fact that he was, from one point of view, justified.

The theme of aging, becoming obsolete and replaced that went through the movie worked on several levels. The type of espionage bond represents has certainly become dated. I've heard some people criticising Craig for playing Bond too un-Bond-y, and that they felt like they could just go watch a Jason Bourne (funny about those initials there, amirite :smallamused:) film instead I can kind of see that. On the other hand, the option is to pretend that times haven't changed, that we are still in a cold war world where the Internet doesn't exist. To me, the clash between the series history and the fact of the modern world was a bit part of what made the movie enjoyable. If they can continue to play that theme in coming moves, show off the struggle between the need for Bond's competence and qualities and the way they become more and more challenged, I'd maybe even watch next one.

On the note of history, I understand that this movie marked the 50-year celebration of the Bond movie franchise, and I guess that's why the call-backs like the car and the whole scene at the end were there (I've not seen the movies they came from, but even I have heard about Moneypenny). It was well handled.

I've no big complaints, as such. The only thing I did think was a pity was that in the end, when M had the gun against her head, she didn't pull the trigger. In sacrificing herself, she would have (pardon the pun) stuck to her guns and made the logical choice for herself, like she had already done for Bond and Silva.

I'm actually kind of tempted to watch a few of the earlier ones. Have the very first ones aged well at all?

[Wardog]

I'm actually kind of tempted to watch a few of the earlier ones. Have the very first ones aged well at all?

Some more than others.

Most of the Connery ones are good. You Only Live Twice is rather cheesy thought, although important because without it Austin Powers (and more specifically Dr Evil) couldn't exist. From Russia With Love, on the other hand, is much more like a classic spy movie than a Bond film.

The Roger Moore films, on the other hand, are so excruciatingly cheesy I can barely watch them any more (although I still like Octopussy).

George Lazenby (On Her Majesty's Secret Service) is a mixed bag - a lot of people hate him/it, but I think its better than it's rep, and certainly better than the worst of the Moore films.

Timothy Dalton - more serious than most of the other films, and not as popular, but personally I like them, and think he's one of the better Bonds.

Pierce Brosnan (the other film you saw was one of his: Tomorrow Never Dies). Generally good, but IMO has a tendancy to rely too much on flashy and OTTgadgets. (Worst case: the invisible and nigh-indestructable cars in Die Another Day).

Daniel Craig: grittier and much less gadgety that traditional Bond. IMO Casino Royale and Fkyfall are good, Quantum of Solace is pretty meh.

[Killer Angel]

The Roger Moore films, on the other hand, are so excruciatingly cheesy I can barely watch them any more (although I still like Octopussy).

Imo, A view to a kill is enjoyable. Plus, Christopher Walken and Grace Jones.

[TheSummoner]

A View To Kill is worth watching purely for Christopher Walken. Ignore the fact that James Bond is even there and that at this point his actor is older than the female lead's mother and just enjoy Walken doing his thing.

If you're willing to watch one just for the actor playing the villain, maybe try The Man with the Golden Gun. Christopher Lee. Can't comment on how good it is as I've never watched more than a few minutes of it, but it's one I want to watch because what part of Christopher freaking Lee didn't you hear? (Funfact: Christopher Lee is step-cousin to Ian Flemming, who wrote the James Bond novels and he would've gladly played Dr. No in the very first Bond film had the producers not already chosen Joseph Wiseman for the role.)

Goldfinger is one of the more iconic ones, so definitely make sure you wach that one. I'd also reccomend Goldeneye and Casino Royale.

[Yora]

I think I've seen almost all of them two or three times and even though that was quite some time back, I remember The Man with the Golde Gun quite positively.
And yes, A View to a Kill is also great because of the cast. :smallbiggrin:
I also like Casino Royale quite much and the one time I've seen Quantum of Solace I also enjoyed it quite a lot. Those are the two most recent before Skyfall.

Goldfinger is probably the classic Bond movie, but I don't remember liking it terribly much.

[Killer Angel]

Casino Royale and Fkyfall are good,



I'd also reccomend Goldeneye and Casino Royale.



I also like Casino Royale quite much

Well, you' won't find many people that don't like Casino Royale. :smallbiggrin:

Avilan is one of 'em, mainly because
Bond movies are supposed to be James Bond movies, not movies about an efficient deadly British Secret Service man. That means weird gadgets, extremely sexy women with weird names, and well... more of both.
Basically, to me, the idea to go in a "more serious" direction removed the only reason to watch them instead of things like the Bourne franchise.

[factotum]

There are, what, 25 films in the Bond series now? When you have that many, not all of them can possibly be great; however, even the lesser ones often have a few stand-out scenes that are worth watching (the car chase in "For Your Eyes Only" where Bond is in a bright yellow Citroen 2CV being a particular example). Definitely agree that Goldfinger is one of the classics, though.

[Yora]

Well, you' won't find many people that don't like Casino Royale. :smallbiggrin:
I have it on DVD only because I was going through my parents DVDs and my mom said if I like it, I should take it, as she's glad to be rid of it. :smallbiggrin:

[Dienekes]

A View To Kill is worth watching purely for Christopher Walken. Ignore the fact that James Bond is even there and that at this point his actor is older than the female lead's mother and just enjoy Walken doing his thing.

If you're willing to watch one just for the actor playing the villain, maybe try The Man with the Golden Gun. Christopher Lee. Can't comment on how good it is as I've never watched more than a few minutes of it, but it's one I want to watch because what part of Christopher freaking Lee didn't you hear? (Funfact: Christopher Lee is step-cousin to Ian Flemming, who wrote the James Bond novels and he would've gladly played Dr. No in the very first Bond film had the producers not already chosen Joseph Wiseman for the role.)

Goldfinger is one of the more iconic ones, so definitely make sure you wach that one. I'd also reccomend Goldeneye and Casino Royale.

Agreed on the Walken.

As to The Man with the Golden Gun, if any Bond movie gets remade I want it to be that one. There was a lot of potential and Moore and Lee really did a great job playing off each other. But between those two being awesome there was so much overly cheesy camp.

Now I enjoy camp. Hell, my favorite Bond is still Connery, and I love Goldfinger even when the villain tricks the entire army by wearing his clothes inside out and gets sucked out a plane window. But Golden Gun got to the point where it wasn't even trying (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh0VF6s-UYU). And yes the whistle was in the actual movie. So was the idiotic Texan who couldn't get a laugh if he was paying for them.

[Megaduck]

Just saw Skyfall.

Not really impressed. Actually found it a little dull.

The villain had one good introduction scene and then became generic. Too much magical hacking skills on display. After a while it stopped showing how smart the villain was and just started feeling like the script writers were helping him. (See Gambit Roulette (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GambitRoulette?from=Main.XanatosRoulette) if you have some time to kill)

I also never really felt surprised. When they list their weapons and lay them all out on the table you know they are all going to be used. When the simple hunting knife is laid down last you know it's going to be the last one used for something important. When the Camera makes a point of showing you the pit with Komono Dragons in it you know that someone is going in the pit. When you see the frozen lake you know that they are going in it. When bond flips on the rescue beacon you know for the rest of the scene that help is coming.

Using the Rescue Beacon as an example, I would have been much more impressed if Bond had used it for something other then well, a rescue beacon. Q gives it to him and says if you need help turn it on and help will come, so later he needs help and he turns it on so help comes.

There was no cleverness there, nothing that surprised me.

[Socratov]

Well, I enjoyed Skyfall quite a lot (as opposed to Quantum of Solace). the chases were good, very few gadgets, but finally used as they were intended. Loved the girl and the fact that bond (or MI6 in general) has to answer for their screwups. I especially liked the villain who was a proper and well made villain (I hated him with a passion you cannot fathom, especially for blowing up the DB5 :smallsigh:). I like the new Q. Properly adressed as a whippersnapper, properly answering those claims. it fit snugly. The desk ornament was a great joke (great reference to winston). The preparation of the manor was well done. I loved the DB5 being used again...

things I didn't like was: I expected a bit more gadgets then gun+radio. Just a bit more. the hacking was overdone. The helicopter shoudl have played the British national anthem or something wagnerian just for good measure. the knife could have been drawn out a little better. they shouldn't have blown up the DB5 just for teh evulz. that's just plain wrong.:smallmad:

And for gods sake! shooting at a DB5 is enough. Don't just blow a beautiful car up because you're an angry villain with mommyissues... :smallfurious:

[Socratov]

Well, I enjoyed Skyfall quite a lot (as opposed to Quantum of Solace). the chases were good, very few gadgets, but finally used as they were intended. Loved the girl and the fact that bond (or MI6 in general) has to answer for their screwups. I especially liked the villain who was a proper and well made villain (I hated him with a passion you cannot fathom, especially for blowing up the DB5 :smallsigh:). I like the new Q. Properly adressed as a whippersnapper, properly answering those claims. it fit snugly. The desk ornament was a great joke (great reference to winston). The preparation of the manor was well done. I loved the DB5 being used again...

things I didn't like was: I expected a bit more gadgets then gun+radio. Just a bit more. the hacking was overdone. The helicopter shoudl have played the British national anthem or something wagnerian just for good measure. the knife could have been drawn out a little better. they shouldn't have blown up the DB5 just for teh evulz. that's just plain wrong.:smallmad:

And for gods sake! shooting at a DB5 is enough. Don't just blow a beautiful car up because you're an angry villain with mommyissues... :smallfurious:

[Karoht]

Craig-Bond is a little less gadgety. I enjoy that for some reasons, but it does start to feel less Bond-like after a while.

If Skyfall managed to get the intrigue factor right, then I'm in.

[Kudaku]

I spent the majority of Skyfall struggling to feel sympathy for M when she repeatedly demonstrated utter and complete incompetence. If anything I feel that the hearing should have continued longer, and that she should have been fired - not given the opportunity to retire.

[HairyGuy4]

I'm no Bond fan. That isn't saying I've something against the character, I've just not watched a lot of the movies; only one, to be precise. I don't remember which one, but it had some media mogul as the chief villain and there was a submarine thing at the end. This movie was... not that.

It starts off fast-paced and doesn't ever really slow down. The dramaturgy is good, there's no time wasted on stuff that the audience will figure out, or at least form an opinion on, themselves. I like that. The lack of fully spelled out explanations adds greatly to the "spy feel". Visually, the movie was gorgeous, from the intro with the awesome song by Adele to the great use of warm, yellow lights throughout. A pleasure to watch.

Bond was the one who did all the fancy stuff, but to me the most interesting character was M. She was the anchor point in the movie, and her actor did a great job portraying her. The difficulty of her position was made obvious, and the villain's portrayal was in turn helped by the fact that he was, from one point of view, justified.

The theme of aging, becoming obsolete and replaced that went through the movie worked on several levels. The type of espionage bond represents has certainly become dated. I've heard some people criticising Craig for playing Bond too un-Bond-y, and that they felt like they could just go watch a Jason Bourne (funny about those initials there, amirite :smallamused:) film instead I can kind of see that. On the other hand, the option is to pretend that times haven't changed, that we are still in a cold war world where the Internet doesn't exist. To me, the clash between the series history and the fact of the modern world was a bit part of what made the movie enjoyable. If they can continue to play that theme in coming moves, show off the struggle between the need for Bond's competence and qualities and the way they become more and more challenged, I'd maybe even watch next one.

On the note of history, I understand that this movie marked the 50-year celebration of the Bond movie franchise, and I guess that's why the call-backs like the car and the whole scene at the end were there (I've not seen the movies they came from, but even I have heard about Moneypenny). It was well handled.

I've no big complaints, as such. The only thing I did think was a pity was that in the end, when M had the gun against her head, she didn't pull the trigger. In sacrificing herself, she would have (pardon the pun) stuck to her guns and made the logical choice for herself, like she had already done for Bond and Silva.

I'm actually kind of tempted to watch a few of the earlier ones. Have the very first ones aged well at all?

If you liked skyfall, go see casino royal. Same style bond movie. Avoid quantum of solace.

Other bonds depend on how you like older movies. The once with pierce brosnan aren't too old to be bad. Of course they're mediocre bond movies at best. Meanwhile my favorite bond will likely always be Roger Moore.

[Socratov]

If you liked skyfall, go see casino royal. Same style bond movie. Avoid quantum of solace.

Other bonds depend on how you like older movies. The once with pierce brosnan aren't too old to be bad. Of course they're mediocre bond movies at best. Meanwhile my favorite bond will likely always be Roger Moore.

agree with the judgement on Craig's films, disagree with best bonds. IMO Pierce has been the best bond. he what I'dlike to call the trinity of 007: charm, humor and the ability to (seemingly) carry out action scenes. Roger Moore was imo not much more then a giggolo who sometimes drove a car to pieces.

[Weimann]

I spent the majority of Skyfall struggling to feel sympathy for M when she repeatedly demonstrated utter and complete incompetence. If anything I feel that the hearing should have continued longer, and that she should have been fired - not given the opportunity to retire.What parts did you think made her look incompetent?

[LaughingLemur]

Did anyone else notice how they stole a page or two from the Batman/BruceWayne mythos towards the end? I could go on and on with the parallels.

Spoiler alert.

It turns out that James Bond, like Bruch Wayne, is a wealthy tragic orphan. We even get to see his parents tombstone (in an old fashion church graveyard like you might see in Batman). He has a large family manor that even has a bat cave. Alfred appears as an grizzled Scottish groundskeeper. The silver retro gun firing car makes an excellant batmobile.

Now who was his Robin? Moneypenny or Dame Judy Dench?

[Karoht]

I always suspected that Miss Moneypenny was the real M all along, while whoever was 'officially' in the M role was a decoy but with some duties like briefing Bond.

In the grander context of Bond films, I've always seen Q and Felix sharing the role of Alfred, and the Bond Girl sometimes gets the role of Robin, but not always. An actual Robin is somewhat difficult to lock down.

[Delusion]

Unlikely many here, I actually enjoyed Quantum of Solace a lot.

Skyfall on the other was a slight letdown. Still an entertaining movie, but the ridicolous gambit the villain pulled out and the general incompetence of M was annoying.

I liked how Bond actually had to deal with recovering from injures, seems to be rare in the movies.

[AdmiralCheez]

What really bugged me about the villain was that he had no reason to blame M for anything. If I interpreted it right (and please correct me if I'm wrong), then his whole thing was that he was an MI6 agent who was captured, M wrote him off as dead to save four other agents, and his cyanide tooth didn't kill him.
If he was actually as good an agent as they kept saying, he should have known that in espionage, if you get captured, the government doesn't acknowledge you ever existed, and will not come for you. M was just following protocol.

Additionally, I really didn't like the overuse of the "Is this all still relevant?" theme, and the constant nagging that everyone is getting old. Wasn't Bond supposed to be a young, just starting out agent in Casino Royale? Then two films later, he's suddenly too old? It just didn't fit together for me. I might be looking into it too much, but it almost felt like the filmmakers were trying to tell the audience that the old, classic Bond movie has no place in the 21st Century. At least, that's what I was picking up on when I left the theater. I could be entirely wrong.

[theduck]

The impression I got from the movie was that M, noticing that he was being tracked, did sell him out to protect the other agents - that, and possibly the fact that she didn't even bother following up to see if he was dead could leave a bad taste in his mouth (regardless of whether my reading is right or not, he was tortured for quite a while, and the process seems to have cracked him a little).

As for the old thing, it did seem a bit of a switch from the earlier movies, but I imagine that 00's, with as much physical activity as we see them do, have relatively short shelf lives (anyway, even if he wasn't that old, Bond did have a fairly rough time of it in this movie)

[Delusion]

The impression I got from the movie was that M, noticing that he was being tracked, did sell him out to protect the other agents - that, and possibly the fact that she didn't even bother following up to see if he was dead could leave a bad taste in his mouth (regardless of whether my reading is right or not, he was tortured for quite a while, and the process seems to have cracked him a little).



Yup. M spells that out to bond after meeting the villain. Of course her reason was that he had started hacking chinese without permission, so its debatable how much of it was his own fault.

[BRC]

I saw it yesterday, loved it to pieces. I have two major complaints.


First, In Casino Royale, bond is "The New Kid". Now, less than a decade later, he's an awkward dinosaur with no place in the world. I understand that the REAL metaphor was about silly, old-style Bond movies vs "Bourne" style espionage thrillers, but they cast it as "Secret agents with Guns vs Hackers". If you didn't catch on to what was really being discussed, it would seem stupid. It would be one thing if they were chastising M for ignoring the digital aspect, except she just hired Superhacker Q, and apparently had Superhacker Silvio working for her in Hong Kong. Instead, they were yelling at her for having field agents at all, which came off as a little absurd. It's like they were trying to imply that Daniel Craig's bond engaged in Goldfinger-like adventures, only we know that he started work post 9-11 with Casino Royale.

Second, the Villain's plot. "I'll let them capture me so I can escape and do evil stuff" is a time honored villain tradition. Usually, the Villain lets himself be captured so he can escape and do something inside the good guy's high-security headquarters, a place he couldn't get into normally.

In this case, all it did was save him the price of a plane ticket to London.

Mind you, it could be explained that he was just going to fly to London to assasinate M during her hearing ANYWAY, which means that the whole "Escape from underground MI6, meet up with fake cops, break into hearing and shoot M" was a backup contingency he had in place. Which would be crazy.

On the other hand, this is the man who apparently had thirty mercenaries and an assault helicopter on standbye in case he needed to attack an old house in Scotland.



Casino Royale was saying "The old bond just got silly, this is the new bond, he's rough, tumble, and serious". Quantum of Solace realized "Huh, once you take away the camp and the charm, we've just got a generic action hero with a british accent". Skyfall looked around and said "Say...where did we put the jetpacks and shark pits?"

As for Silvio's storyline, as far as I can tell it went something like this

Silvio works for M back when the british control Hong Kong. He starts hacking the chinese without permission, and they catch on.

As the British are getting ready to hand Hong Kong back to China, M gives them Silvio in exchange for six british agents and a clean transfer.
Silvio get's tortured, tries to commit suicide, fails, get's tortured again, escapes, becomes a super hacker, gets a bunch of mercenaries, and concocts an elaborate, suicidal plan to get revenge on M.

Also, it kind of bugged me how he paid a man several million euros to break into a building and kill a target...who happened to be alone in a room with Silvio's right-hand hotchick and two sets of hired muscle. It seemed like everybody in the room, except the victim, knew what the plan was. They basically framed his cranium for the assassin. It just seems like a waste of money. They could have just had one of the thugs kill him, or, if they really needed to make it look like a sniper did it for some reason, they could probably have found a cheaper sniper considering the shot that was set up.

[ThirdEmperor]

A decade's a pretty long time for someone in Bond's profession. Considering that it was always made quite clear that Craig's Bond was highly unstable, I had no problem accepting that ten years of action, adventure and barely surviving both would be enough to push him towards collapse.

As for why Silva wanted in the MI6 base, I'm fairly sure it was to steal what files he hadn't already and commandeer their central computer. They didn't ever spell it out, but that was the impression I got.

The bit where M was getting yelled at for having field agents though, that's a little harder to justify and I can't help but agree with you a bit. I think the intention was that the people getting angry at M felt that, as an intelligence agency, MI6 should have gone entirely digital and restricted itself to solely intelligence-based activites, leaving the global galavanting and executions to other branches.

[BRC]

In the film's defense, it DID frame "Get rid of field agents' as an extreme opinion, even from the people who were attacking M. It seemed like they wanted general reform, with getting rid of field agents as something to at least be considered. Their perspective was probably said best by Q, when he talked about "Sometimes a trigger needs to be pulled".

The big question is, what does this mean for the next Bond films. A return to old-style shenanigans, obviously. This and Casino managed to pair Action and character drama very well, but now that Bond as a character is fairly fully explored, I don't really know if they'll be able to keep that equilibrium.

Moviebob, on the escapist, said it best. To paraphrase, Classic Bond isn't a character so much as a tour guide. He's there to take us on a tour of his exciting world. Craig's Bond is great, but I'm not sure he can pull that off.

[comicshorse]

The impression I got was he did it so he could have a last face-to-face conversation with M about his betrayal (?) before he killed her. He even says something about wanting to 'look her in the eye one more time'

[QUOTE] Silvio works for M back when the british control Hong Kong. He starts hacking the chinese without permission, and they catch on.

As the British are getting ready to hand Hong Kong back to China, M gives them Silvio in exchange for six british agents and a clean transfer.
Yeah thats what I thought to

[Da'Shain]

Did anyone else notice how they stole a page or two from the Batman/BruceWayne mythos towards the end? I could go on and on with the parallels. Yeah ... I'm wondering if that's a tried and true origin story with proud roots tracing back centuries, or if they stole Batman's backstory as shamelessly as it seemed they did. It probably wouldn't have bothered me as much as it did, except I couldn't stop seeing Javier Bordem as basically the Joker.

On the movie itself: I enjoyed it as a whole, I thought the action was very well done, and I was a fan of what they did with Bond as a character (except for the rich orphan stuff), but the third act felt too contrived, and it seemed like certain plot points were utterly dropped, like Bond having to recover his skills. They show the tests, they show him screwing up, they have Silva tell us he failed and they have him make mistakes while he's tracking the hitman in Hong Kong, but then he's suddenly immediately back to full speed, literally from one second to the next, when he captures Silva?

I also found myself disliking Bond's actions more and more, perhaps because as the movie went on I was drawing comparisons between him and Batman. Spoilers for some specific events:- He insinuates that his partner from the beginning, Eve, might not be cut out for being a field agent, for what was really no reason that I could see (she acquitted herself well, if not quite up to Bond himself's level, and didn't actually seem to lose much sleep over following her orders even if she personally didn't agree with them).
-He lets the man he's chasing murder someone, again for pretty much no explained reason, only afterwards intervening.
- He either intentionally misses the glass on Silva's girlfriend's head so that he can take Silva and his men by surprise, knowing they'll kill her, or he suddenly gains all of his competence back after Silva shoots her? That scene really did not make much sense.
- He stops to talk with Silva in the tunnels instead of just shooting him off the ladder, why? It also made very little sense that the climax of the movie happened as it did, considering that Silva had just assaulted the highest echelons of British government and yet is still able to operate with impunity throughout the country with no explanation.

Still, I can't deny I enjoyed myself, and only really started to lose suspension of disbelief towards the end. On the whole, I'd actually say I like Quantum of Solace better, though, as QoS had a clearly hurting Bond, an evil multinational secret society, a Bond girl who actually ISN'T just a love interest, and what I thought was an interesting twist on what the villain actually wanted. Still, the past three Bond movies are some of my favorite out of the entire collection, despite some problems.

I do have to say, though, that this movie's song is every bit as awesome as Casino Royale's, if for different reasons.

EDIT: Oh, and one thing that I hated, which I'll put in spoilers as it's pretty big:His name IS James Bond. His parents are the Bonds. James Bond is not a code name. It seems to be implied that some of the events of past movies happened to him specifically.

This basically Jossed what was a very good explanation for the continuity of the movies, namely that Bond was a codename and each new actor was a new agent. Hell, they even set that up, with Silva not being the bad guy's original name! But instead James Bond is the tragic rich orphan of the Bonds, with his faithful butler (groundskeeper) and all. Ugh. No. Just ... no.

[Hatu]

What parts did you think made her look incompetent?

I don't want to speak for Kudaku, but since I had the same feeling, here's my list. (Oh, massive spoilers, obviously!)



Before the movie opened, her department somehow managed to lose a list containing the names of every embedded agent they had. Why such a list would exist in the first place is unclear, but losing it should have ended someone's career then and there. We don't know the details, but she's the one ultimately in charge.

Once Bond's mission to recover the list failed, M took no actions to withdraw the potentially compromised agents. Even after it was confirmed that whoever had the list had the ability to decrypt it, she apparently did nothing until AFTER the first 5 names were released.

When she was informed that someone was hacking MI6's systems to get the decryption data, she refused to shut it down in favor of trying to track the signal. We don't know if they could have shut it down in time, but her course of action certainly didn't pan out well: they failed to track the signal, and hacker triggered an explosion that killed a number of MI6 staff, plus caused the sort of terrorist incident that would demand heads roll.

Once Bond captured Silva, an expert hacker who had already infiltrated MI6's systems, M placed him in a high-tech confinement cabinet with minimal guards. MI6 then allowed him to infect their new "secure" network by hooking Silva's laptop directly into it, with no apparent regards for the security risk. You can certainly argue that Q was the one being incompetent, but again, she's the one ultimately in charge of MI6 and its personnel decisions.

Once Silva escaped, M disregarded any suggestions that she should retreat or cut the hearing short, which gave Silva an opportunity to kill her and who knows how many high-ranking government officials. Her subordinates were also apparently unable (or too stupid to think of) warning the security staff in that building directly, which suggests poor inter-departmental protocols. (Admittedly, based on the fact Silva could just walk in fully armed, perhaps MI6 felt warning security was a waste of time...)

With London struck by two major terrorist acts in a single day, M agreed to up and disappear without any word to her superiors or subordinates in some hair-brained scheme to lure out Silva. While I think MI6 was probably better off without her "leadership," that's still a shockingly idiotic dereliction of duty.


There might be others we could argue over, but those are the ones that stood out.

Frankly, the entire movie was a giant idiot plot. Our heroes survive their bumbling incompetence only because the bad guy has a flair for the dramatic that would put Ming the Merciless to shame. I enjoyed Casino Royale and even QoS to a degree, so this movie came as a profound disappointment to me. It was horrible.

-H

[Mauve Shirt]

LOVED IT, though I'm kind of confused. Weren't they going to pick up where QoS left off? Even though QoS was kind of a PoS IMHO? :smalltongue:

[Ramza00]

Did anyone else notice how they stole a page or two from the Batman/BruceWayne mythos towards the end? I could go on and on with the parallels.
Ian Flemming after the movie Dr. No but while he was still alive and writing books wrote that James Bond was an orphan whose Scottish Father and Swiss Mother died in a mountain climbing accident.

[Socratov]

As for why Silva wanted in the MI6 base, I'm fairly sure it was to steal what files he hadn't already and commandeer their central computer. They didn't ever spell it out, but that was the impression I got.





Well, people are ripping on the villains methods. but they really are clear and well thought out. All Silvio wants is to shame M and MI6 with her. that's all he jsut wants. So how better then to first steal the identities (to show M is incompetent), then releasing those identities, continuing until M gives in (to show M doesn't care), and then to get captured by MI6 and successfully escape and kill M (to show MI6's incompetence and M in leading them). All he wants to do is shame M.

[Karoht]

@The 'feels like Batman' crowd
I hear you. I even feel your pain.
However, Ian Fleming wrote the character shortly after WWII. I don't know if Batman came first or not, but it hardly matters.
Most of the Bond films do their best to forget the novels that Ian Fleming wrote. Why? Because the Bond character in the novels is... well, sort of a jerk. Not even in the good way either. Also, Fleming's world of spies and supervillains was signifigantly more mundane, unlike the Film world of Bond.

As for them revealing that James Bond is actually his real name (it was spoiled earlier in the thread, the thread has a spoiler warning in the title), again, look to the books.
However, it does sadden me somewhat that Hollywood chose to not take some license on this one. First off, a spy acting under his real name all the time would, well, become a famous spy pretty quickly, which would get said spy famously dead. Second, the removal of the idea that the name James Bond is attatched to the role and that the role is transitional was rather interesting. The suggestion that we've had many James Bond's working in the Spy Game explained all the differences between the different Bonds, it was a fan favorite, even if those who read the novels knew it wasn't the truth. Like most things involving spies, it was a wonderful lie really.

However It does suggest that the character is really just the Agent 007, there is no other life, there are no masks, there is almost nothing which separates the person from the spy. But, that makes for a bit of a plot hole. If revealing the identity of James Bond is meaningless because that's actually who he is, then why would it matter if the rest of the field agents were revealed? Tinfoil hat time!

*dons the Tinfoil Hat*
James Bond is unique because he lives the spy life, because it is his only life. The rest of the spies working for MI6 and others go home to their real lives at the end of the day. James Bond doesn't. He is the spy, 24/7/365, it is who he grew up as, it's who he grew into, it's all he knows.
THIS is why the point about being a dinosaur is extra poignant.
In a world where Drone strikes and self driving tanks could turn around and make soldiers obsolete (notice I use the word 'could' don't fixate too hard on this) James Bond runs the risk of becoming obsolete due to technology and change as well. It's an idea they kind of explored in Tomorrow Never Dies but only as a minor subtext, it's been covered in games like Metal Gear.

This does also however, hint a bit more at the life and times of Bond. He is a career spy who does not have a secret identity. It is possible that the world in which he lives facilitated a need of such a person, possibly more than just one of such a person (the Double Oh program isn't well detailed in the films, we've had a pair of 006's and maybe a handful of others at best), due to the perceived threat/s to national and global security. It's possible that, the film world is not our world at all (jetpacks, space stations, lasers, the cars) in the film world, the Cold War never really ended (wall fell but tensions still palpable), and other historical events alluded to in the films only made the problem worse in ways the rest of the world barely understands.
In other words, the world Bond has lived in, the world that created him, has necessitated his existance thus far, because it really is in danger to that degree, where one nutty supervillain could very easily upset the balance and restart the Cold War, a major conflict, or all out Nuclear War.
***please note I am talking about a fictional world and NOT real world politics***

[Tiki Snakes]

Well, to be fair the theory that James Bond is a codename that the movie 007's have all used was never a deliberate concept, just a cool fan explanation.

Given that to accept it you have to handwave various things anyway, I don't think anything in this movie completely sinks the idea, especially as he was clearly using Sean Connery Bond's car.

Also, take the character traits of Book Bond; When not actively on a mission he quickly falls apart due to ennui and alcoholism. With that in mind, deliberately using his own name as well as taking every mission going all makes sense. He's doing everything he can to be on-mission or in danger 24/7 because everything else is flat and meaningless.

[Karoht]

Well, to be fair the theory that James Bond is a codename that the movie 007's have all used was never a deliberate concept, just a cool fan explanation.
Given that to accept it you have to handwave various things anyway, I don't think anything in this movie completely sinks the idea, especially as he was clearly using Sean Connery Bond's car.I'm well aware it was a fan explanation, but with no real evidence to disprove it. Now there is a smoking gun evidence to disprove it. It does make me somewhat sad. But only slightly.



Also, take the character traits of Book Bond; When not actively on a mission he quickly falls apart due to ennui and alcoholism. With that in mind, deliberately using his own name as well as taking every mission going all makes sense. He's doing everything he can to be on-mission or in danger 24/7 because everything else is flat and meaningless.
This. This exactly.
If you never live your normal life, what point is there in having a codename?
This is kind of why I liked the film License to Kill with Timothy Dalton. SPECTRE was defeated, he started to relax and have a normal life. Then BOOM.
It was Bond without gadgets, and Timothy Dalton played 'angry Bond' pretty darned closely to Book Bond IMO. Most audiences didn't enjoy Timothy Dalton as Bond in either of his two films, but I'm weird and I found him really enjoyable. Probably because I was a fan of the novels.

Is Bond resigned to only be happy when he's saving the world? I think that is what gvies him just a subtle shade more depth. He's a walking talking fantasy right? Is he easier to project onto because he is only happy when living out the audience fantasy? Or maybe it makes him less relatable because to him, our fantasy is his 9-5, and it's the only life he knows?

[Gamerlord]

I watched it yesterday, thought it was pretty good. Did anyone else think for a few seconds that the groundskeeper was being played by Sean Connery?

[Cikomyr]

I certainly did. I have to guess they most likely wrote the part with him in mind, and begged on their knees to get the small part.

[Killer Angel]

On a related note, I would also say that the soundtrack (with reference to the main title track) is pretty good. I put it in the mid-high "James Bond's songs" ranking.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

LOVED IT, though I'm kind of confused. Weren't they going to pick up where QoS left off? Even though QoS was kind of a PoS IMHO? :smalltongue:

What's with all the hate for QoS? I honestly thought it was the best Bond film, period. It was nearly perfect, and after watching Skyfall I'm disappointed. It was a good movie, no doubt about it, but it lacked something. Something grand. James Bond isn't just a hyper-competent British spy, he's also should have an air of mystique about him.

And while I love Daniel Craig's Bond, Skyfall didn't really impress me...

I feel like popping Quantum or Solace back in now.

[Cikomyr]

What's with all the hate for QoS? I honestly thought it was the best Bond film, period. It was nearly perfect, and after watching Skyfall I'm disappointed. It was a good movie, no doubt about it, but it lacked something. Something grand. James Bond isn't just a hyper-competent British spy, he's also should have an air of mystique about him.

And while I love Daniel Craig's Bond, Skyfall didn't really impress me...

I feel like popping Quantum or Solace back in now.

While I enjoyed Quantum of Solace a lot, the overall plot was rather underwhelming. Who cares about water ownership of a third-world country, compared to the previous plots of cold-war scale apocalypse?

And the villain was.... a whimpy bureaucrat..

[Ninjadeadbeard]

While I enjoyed Quantum of Solace a lot, the overall plot was rather underwhelming. Who cares about water ownership of a third-world country, compared to the previous plots of cold-war scale apocalypse?

And the villain was.... a whimpy bureaucrat..

The villain was also believable. And fairly threatening considering how it seemed he'd infiltrated every agency on the planet.

And it wouldn't do to equate quality with plot scale. I mean, look what happened to Doctor Who.

[BRC]

QoS felt a little too "Bourne With British Accents" for me. James Bond is very powerful as a franchise, and QoS didn't really embrace that. The Jason Bourne movies are very good, don't get me wrong, but Bond is supposed to be Bond.

As for Tension=Scale of Threat, I think Skyfall proved perfectly why that isn't always true. The movie was at it's most tense when the only people in danger were Bond, M, and an old gamekeeper.

[Cikomyr]

The villain was also believable. And fairly threatening considering how it seemed he'd infiltrated every agency on the planet.

And it wouldn't do to equate quality with plot scale. I mean, look what happened to Doctor Who.

The villain was believable on the physical level. But he was nothing more than the agent of a seemingly powerful organization who hasn't been tackled with at the end of the story.

I just find the concept of these superpowerful conspiracy which is controlling every agency on the planet to be ridiculous at best. Their plan was to appoint a petty tyrant at the helm of a third-world country to extort money out of him with the most extremely blunt method ever. Not the sort of modus operandi I'd expect of Quantum.

You have no real feeling who the real villain was. The Bond Girl was gunning for the petty tyrant general? The Whimpy bureaucrat? The organization behind the bureaucrat? The first one seems to be nothing more than an afterthought, and the later is never faced down.

[comicshorse]

As I understood it the films were meant to be a trilogy. 'Casino Royale' introduced Mr White and the mysterious orginization he works for. 'Quantum of Solace' gave him some idea of their scope and the third would presumably have dealt with Bond combating them.

[Cikomyr]

As I understood it the films were meant to be a trilogy. 'Casino Royale' introduced Mr White and the mysterious orginization he works for. 'Quantum of Solace' gave him some idea of their scope and the third would presumably have dealt with Bond combating them.

It was my opinion as well. But Skyfall kinda pissed on the concept, which.. I'd say undermined QoS?

[Lord Tyger]

But, that makes for a bit of a plot hole. If revealing the identity of James Bond is meaningless because that's actually who he is, then why would it matter if the rest of the field agents were revealed?


Because the agents being revealed were those undercover in terrorist cells.

[Dienekes]

What's with all the hate for QoS? I honestly thought it was the best Bond film, period. It was nearly perfect, and after watching Skyfall I'm disappointed. It was a good movie, no doubt about it, but it lacked something. Something grand. James Bond isn't just a hyper-competent British spy, he's also should have an air of mystique about him.

And while I love Daniel Craig's Bond, Skyfall didn't really impress me...

I feel like popping Quantum or Solace back in now.

Exact opposite myself. I left QoS confused and more than a little bored. The plot was all over the place. The villain wasn't all that interesting or entertaining. Also in the opening scene he gives away quite possibly his mostly highly placed agent in the Mi6 because... I don't know to prove how evil he was? I literally groaned when that happened. I will say though, I enjoyed Mathis.

Skyfall? Great villain, a storyline I could follow. An almost loving allusion to the big gadgets and old style Bond cars. I actually cared about the characters, enough to forgive certain plot points here and there. Also, I don't think there was a single shaky cam.

[comicshorse]

Exact opposite myself. I left QoS confused and more than a little bored. The plot was all over the place. The villain wasn't all that interesting or entertaining. Also in the opening scene he gives away quite possibly his mostly highly placed agent in the Mi6 because... I don't know to prove how evil he was? I literally groaned when that happened.



I'm not sure what you mean here. If you're refering to Mr White then he gave away his agent because otherwise he was about to be interrogated by MI6 and probably spill everything and then be locked up for the rest of his life.


Also, I don't think there was a single shaky cam.
And thank god for that. I hated the shaky cam in QoS

[Muz]

The Bond films have, at best, a flexible continuity necessitated at this point by the medium and a 50-year fascination with the same (cool) character. Trying to find perfect continuity in them is like trying to figure out why Bart Simpson has been 10 years old for over 20 years.

[Joran]

Casino Royale was saying "The old bond just got silly, this is the new bond, he's rough, tumble, and serious". Quantum of Solace realized "Huh, once you take away the camp and the charm, we've just got a generic action hero with a british accent". Skyfall looked around and said "Say...where did we put the jetpacks and shark pits?"


Yeah, I described Skyfall as whatever the opposite of a reboot is. It's folding Daniel Craig's James Bond back into the fold of the other James Bonds. While Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace felt like different types of movies, Skyfall felt like a Bond movie, with all the usual set pieces, albeit a little bit grittier than most.

I felt like the movie was winking at me the entire time (especially with the ejector seat).

[Cikomyr]

The Bond films have, at best, a flexible continuity necessitated at this point by the medium and a 50-year fascination with the same (cool) character. Trying to find perfect continuity in them is like trying to figure out why Bart Simpson has been 10 years old for over 20 years.

Oh, they made an episode about that. Homer has been feeding his children anti-growth hormone to keep them young.

[The Succubus]

I really love the theme song to Skyfall. As someone pointed out to me recently, it's a call back to the Shirley Bassey songs.

The thing with Quantum of Solace is that it felt a little uneven. There were some really good Bond bits (the boat chase, the plane) and having suffered Roger Moore's bond for a long time, the cold and ruthless streak is an icy refreshing wind. It got a little too tied up in its storyline, kind of like an exposition overdose and the central bad guy was very uninspiring. His fate at the very end of the film deeply appealed to my twisted sense of justice.

[Cikomyr]

you know, there is one thing that keeps bugging me thinking about that movie..

When Q tells the MI6 technicians to "access CCTV"

I thought "CCTV" stood for "Closed Circuit Television". Meaning, there were NO outside access into their network. Isn't that the whole point?

[Joran]

you know, there is one thing that keeps bugging me thinking about that movie..

When Q tells the MI6 technicians to "access CCTV"

I thought "CCTV" stood for "Closed Circuit Television". Meaning, there were NO outside access into their network. Isn't that the whole point?

That's what they want you to believe ;)

[Opperhapsen]

you know, there is one thing that keeps bugging me thinking about that movie..

When Q tells the MI6 technicians to "access CCTV"

I thought "CCTV" stood for "Closed Circuit Television". Meaning, there were NO outside access into their network. Isn't that the whole point?

You know what's worse?
The singer, Adele, does something absolutely unforgivable and terrible.
Trying to make "Skyfall" rhyme with "Crumble" through not pronouncing the final syllable, (Skyfah and Crumboh respectively) and doesn't succeed. It ruins the entire song for me.

Really they should've made the dude who made the Casino Royale theme do this one too, that was the best Bond theme made in my life time.


I really love the theme song to Skyfall. As someone pointed out to me recently, it's a call back to the Shirley Bassey songs.

It is in no way.
Shirley Bassey made lounge songs, she focused on the "sexiness" of the danger and lifestyle of characters. Adele is screaming incomprehensibly about some romance in a different genre.

[Cikomyr]

That's what they want you to believe ;)

Mwehehe. But I mean, why call it "CCTV" when it's not actually closed-circuit? I don't have a problem MI6 accessing what we think is CCTV, but I doubt they'd call it "CCTV".

"Quick, get access to the inaccessible streams of information"

[Karoht]

Mwehehe. But I mean, why call it "CCTV" when it's not actually closed-circuit? I don't have a problem MI6 accessing what we think is CCTV, but I doubt they'd call it "CCTV".

"Quick, get access to the inaccessible streams of information"
I work in security.
"Closed Circuit" means it's coming from a collection of cameras on one circuit, typically plugged into one control box. Now, they aren't wired up like that anymore due to changes in technology, the fact that some cameras are wireless (and therefore accessible if you know what you are doing), as well as electrical and even fire codes.
Now the control box is typically hooked up to a computer. Computers have internet connections, and for troubleshooting purposes are typically accessable remotely by a sysop/tech support. MI6 wants to quickly hijack them and watch? Totally believable.

And yes, some companies are starting to use livestream tech and websites, because they like the idea that in the event of an issue, anyone with the login info can check the cameras from any place that has an internet connection. And most livestream sites will store it for free, wheras a unit to store 8 cameras worth of data with a 1 week backup is pretty expensive.