So I Watched Skyfall [Spoilers!]

[Ramza00]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ThirdEmperor

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Ninjadeadbeard

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]

Originally Posted by Cikomyr

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]

Originally Posted by Ninjadeadbeard

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Lord Tyger]

Originally Posted by Karoht

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]

Originally Posted by Ninjadeadbeard

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]

Originally Posted by Dienekes

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]

Originally Posted by BRC

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

That's what they want you to believe ;)

[Opperhapsen]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Joran

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]

Originally Posted by Cikomyr

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.