It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
1. In the Fleming books, while M respected and trusted Bond, the sense of him being a parental figure was strictly a one-way affair, with Bond looking at M as something of a father figure, not M looking at Bond as though he were some sort of surrogate son. M was always described very much as a former admiral of Her Majesty's Royal Navy; he took care of his men, but he drove them, and could be quite ruthless with them if the need arose. Dench's portrayal of M as being often cold, calculating, and distant is in perfect keeping with the M of the books, in that way.
2. Fleming never really got into what Bond would do if it came down to a choice between the accomplishment of the mission or the well-being of M. It's one of the strengths of the books over the movies, I think; the relationship was much more realistic in that sense. Kingsley Amis did get into that sort of decision with his follow-on book, Colonel Sun, where Bond refused to leave M behind even when ordered to do so if he was presented with the chance of escape. Pearson's book, James Bond: The Authorized Biography, is the only one I'm aware of where he talks at any great length about his mother and their relationship (and how he doted on her a bit). Bond's relationship's with women had far more to do with women like Vesper than they did with his mother.
I didn't care much for the Kinkade character. He seems to get over the fact Bond isn't dead pretty quickly, doesn't react when Bond mentions he's preparing to kill 'some men' but does use the line 'What is it you said you did again?' - a cheap gag that was already trumped by the 'jumped up little shit' line. I also cringe everytime he says the line 'I was ready before you were born,son!'
Anyway, I really liked his character in Skyfall. :)>-
Fair point. I can accept it as a one-way love affiar, I suppose. I just feel the M character has been all over the place during the course of Dench's tenure.
I didn't make a connection with anything Fleming but Charmain is as good as any. I think Finney is good, I think his role wasn't particularly well written and I always feel like it's a bad idea to introduce a new character 20 mins from the end of a film. If you're having to shoe-horn characters in this late on to accomodate and justify your ending then maybe you should re-think your structure. That said, as P+W have mentioned, this was never the original ending which makes it all the more obvious why the Kinkade character does not have the gravitas or connection with Bond that you would ideally want in the situation. You could theoretically remove Kinkade from the film and it wouldn't make any impact whatsoever.
Yep. He just feels thrown in stage left at the last minute, like some dodgy 19th century music hall act - 'go on you old b****** - give 'em a larf'.
May be this is what P+W regard as pushing the boundaries of modern film-making. Build up Severine and then just dump her minutes later. Need another character but don't have the time to work them nicely into the sotry - just chuck them in the mix any way and see what happens.
Classic film-making the P+W way.
But other than being a fine actor what purpose does his character actually serve? He explains a little about Bond's childhood to 'M' that Bond himself could have done and it would have had added significance. Other than this he explains the family arsenal has been sold which is self evident and he escorts 'M' to the chapel. Something 'M' could have done herself and which probably would have upped the ante and added a sense of jeopardy and tension. I just don't feel like his presence adds anything from the point of view of the narrative. Him being a splendid actor is not justification enough I don't think.
Precisely. What could have been an incredibly tense climax just feels so leaden. The way the final scenes are shot and edited just removes any tension at all. We watch Bond like a cornered ferret rushing around his burning pile without a clue what he's up to. Silva lobs in a few grenades, we get A LOT of explosions and then a confusing and limp chase across the moor. Kincade adds little or nothing.
I am assuming that he was thrown in to add symbolic weight to M's pressence - the mother and father figures in place of Bond's absent parents. But I don't see how this adds much to the story or is really addressed in any interesting way.
But they went to the effort of alluding to his 'unresolved childhood trauma', which rather than being resolved in a charactful way is resolved by him blowing up his childhood home. I think if anyone was going to open up it would be the DC Bond. He wouldn't have to get sentimental over it but I'd certainly have welcomed some decent exposition between Dench and Craig that ties up the evaluation scenes from MI6. It would have been a character facet we've never seen, 'pushing the character' as they are insisting they do.
I'd have found that sort of conversation between M and Bond very jarring and out of character. I also think it would have given more credence to the folks who saw the introduction of Bond's childhood into the movie as a weakening of the character. How Bond handled it seemed very much in keeping with Ian Fleming's character to me. The James Bond of Fleming's books would likely have been disgusted with himself for talking through his childhood with anyone, much less M.
I just think it ends up begging the question ' why go there' ? - both literally to Skyfall Lodge and metaphorically, to Bond's childhood trauma. The way it is dealt with just adds nothing. It brings the backstory centre stage only for the screenwriters to realise that they don't really know what function it's supposed to serve.
There is no practical reason to go to Skyfall. It offers poor defences and turns Bond and M into sitting ducks. And like you say, what we know of Bond suggests that he would go to any lengths to avoid confronting his childhood trauma, so the idea that he'd choose to bring M to this place doesn't make any sense either.
The problem is all in the writing and the detail. If Skyfall offered some unique defensive advantage, or if Bond had wanted to confront M about something she knew about his past, then the setting would have made at least a little bit of sense. I mean, the fact that these events are taking place in these emotionally significant surroundings doesn't seem to have any impact on Bond - he could be anywhere. All we get is a throwaway line about how he always hated the place any way.
Such a let down.
I completely agree about the Fleming Bond, however, this is the Daniel Craig Bond of 2012. Is it not possible to progress the character? In for a penny, in for a pound in my opinion. If you're going to reference his supposed childhood trauma and visit his ancestral home you might as well go the whole hog or not bother at all.
Very much agree with this sentiment. It fell between two stools effectively.
Exactly what I've been saying. This film doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a retro homage to Bonds past, or a daring exploration of new and uncharted territory? I know some will say it's both but from where I was sat it achieved neither objective.
Tell me another Bond film where we see Bond's childhood home, learn about his parents and get this much deeply intimate backstory on him?
I think you're probably right. Which begs the question, should they have bothered going 'there' in the first place? He could have taken 'M' to any bolt hole. There was nothing geographically interesting about Skyfall that Bond could use to his advantage, only exemplified by the fact 'M' died anyway.
You're probably right. But then what is the point of Skyfall lodge in this film? What actually is its significance from a narrative/character/emotional perspective? Because I don't see any.
I see POTENTIAL significance. Potential to be a whole lot more interesting and satisfying in the way the plot could be tied up at the end. But all we get is an action bonanza. It's trad Bond in some ways, with the novelty of the villain coming to blow up Bond's gaff for a change, but given the hype and the fact Mendes is directing I hoped for a whole lot more.
I think the point that's being made is that it wasn't intimate and didn't fully explore anything of Bond's past. It was all superfluous base level facts that don't really tell us anything new. So he's an orphan, we knew that. He lived in a house in Scotland, we knew that. Kinkade was a new addition but we don't learn anything of his relationship with Bond. They scratched the surface but not much else.
I don't think this film told us any more than we already knew from GE and CR.
Considering the film is called Skyfall, you'd have thought they would have come up with a good reason for Bond going back to his childhood home. I didn't get any .
It's like the whole pretext of the film and yet Purvis and Wade are simply not good enough to give this plot the heft that it deserves.
It's great to have a good debate without any one saying you can't think this or that. Very refreshing. I feel like I've excorcised a few SF demons that have been bothering me here.
I actually really wish I saw the the same qualities in SF that some of you guys see. The way you describe the film makes it sound fantastic.
That last bit is VERY much in keeping with Fleming's Bond.
Just my take on it though.
Did you all even see this film? Sometimes I doubt.
Skyfall was PERFECT to take on Silva and kill him.
1.) Skyfall is in a remote area where they could easily see when he was coming and avoid surprise attacks.
2.) While there, Bond, M and Kincade didn't have to worry about innocent bystanders being injured as they were in danger or while in London.
3.) Skyfall is completely Luddite, the ultimate enemy to Silva, the tech wizard. Without anything to hack and use to his advantage, he has to take them on face to face.
4.) Bond knew there would be an arsenal there to face Silva, and though much of it was sold, Bond still improvised and used his environment to his advantage with the help of Kincade and M.
5.) The priest hole offers a great escape if things got heavy.
These are just a few if you actually take the time to think about the film instead of making a whine about it all.
I thought it was great. Bond's parents, his childhood home (their graves and Andrew's gun), and Kincade's story about Bond's reaction to their deaths were heartbreaking and connected me more to Bond. And Kincade is the gamekeeper with a long history with Bond. What else do you need to know, mate? Bond's past was told in such a way that we didn't know too much and there is still a lot of mystery, but we also don't have too little to go on.
No need to get snappy. I think we're having quite an interesting discussion here.
I just thought it was all rather shoe-horned in and I don't need facts or visual nods. The graves and gun are what I mean when I say 'superfluous'. They should be the least you'd expect. I'd have liked more exposition, I think it needed it. The calm before the storm was not long enough for me.
Reading your comments i think you're one of those Bond fans that went in hating it before you saw it. You want old style Bond and if it doesn't give it to you its a disappointment. Your own opinion but Skyfall is a classic and its sad you can't see it.