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
It is not important at all, my gooooooodnes
Actually, thinking about it, he must surely be doing it to draw attention to himself. This is a fake assassination after all and therefore the 'evidence' needs to be as blatant as possible. He is leaving a trail of dead bodies leading to the crime scene just to underline that this is a hit job.
A professional hitman would want to keep the collateral damage to a minimum so would not pointlessly shoot the guards when this would risk blowing the assignment. He is therefore doing it deliberately to make it very clear what has happened.
I'm answering my own question but I can't see any other way of explaining it.
He definitely says NATO. I missed it the first time myself and double checked the next few times.
That just feels like sloppy screenwriting to me. The film was long enough where it should have been explained, not put in front of us with some confusion. I guess I am just used to liking films with tight scripts.
I guess the problem is, as a plot device it seems a little too linear (lazy). Get Bond into a situation where he confronts Patrice, spots the Bond girl but doesn't have to engage. Tracks her down via the casino chip. All very neat but a bit 'join-the-dots'.
I think there was a scene with Patrice and Severine that was cut which would have explained the painting job a bit more in depth.
I don't think CR is a prequel but the whole Bond series is on sort of a floating timeline (nobody ages), so I can see why some people do think it's a prequel.
While CR went on too long, I think SF could've used more running time. There were plenty of cut scenes that deserved to make it into the film.
- Exposition scenes that explained that Sévérine sets up targets interested in buying stolen paintings only for them to be assassinated and the money stolen.
It still seems rather odd. If the assassin is being paid EU4m then you would assume the painting would have to be worth at least EU10m. If that's the case it would be a pretty well guarded piece of art, stealing it would surely cost a hell of a lot too. Given that Silva can hack any individual or institution he likes it seems particularly frivolous. If this is indeed the case and he does it for fun surely it would be an amusing character trait to highlight.
I'm planning on getting a dog soon, so something to consider.
Ha ha, are we now buying Bond dogs as well as Bond phones and Bond glasses? Brilliant.
I actually didn't pay much attention but there are no such things as Black Golden Retrievers. The similar looking dogs are Black Labradors.
The dogs that stick out in my mind are Drax's Beaucerons. Beautiful dogs. I myself have a Jack Russell, who is awesome and watches a lot of Bond.
My parents have a BLACK Golden Doodle.
That's him, there.
What I mean by Black Golden Retriever is maybe a cross breed between a Black Lab and a Golden?
There are really only two items that I can see which would cause a bit of confusion for people. The first is the hard drive with the list of NATO agents.
To me it makes sense that MI6 would have such a list to prevent it from blowing the cover of allies' agents, or disrupting their ops. I could imagine each Station (Station T in SF) having such a list. Do we really need a line of dialogue that states "Ronson and his partner were on the trail of whoever stole the drive from our offices last Thursday night because of intelligence that they recieved from a CCTV camera that saw a man leave...". To me that's overkill, and another 10 minutes of expositionary scenes SHOWING the theft of the hard drive would be even worse. OHMSS doesn't give detail into how Blofeld acquired Piz Gloria (did he buy it? Build it? Is he renting it?) because ultimately it doesn't matter. The regression through previous chains of events could go on infinitely but at some point you just start with what was relevant. And the fact that the drive was recovered from Silva when they raided Silva's headquarters with all his equipment that he uses for cyber-terrorism to me is so obvious that it doesn't need a line of dialogue to state it. Seriously, could you imagine Q saying "Well, luckily, when we raided Silva's headquarters we recovered the hard drive."? To me that's talking down to the audience.
The other item that would cause confusion was the assassination of the man in Severine's apartment. I figured that it was done by Patrice sniping so that there was plausible deniability that Severine (and Silva) were behind it. Thinking about it afterwards, the stolen painting seemed obvious "bait" that was so tempting that a reclusive crime boss would take a risk (going out to view it) to get such a one-in-a-million item. However, as the painting is not known to the general public I think that this *is* a part of the film that could use some more exposition.
For a bond film it lacked energy, action most of all it was hardly a spy movie was it?
I find it hard to believe how a villain in a James Bond movie wins? I mean his aim I to kill M right? By the end of the movie she is dead? So bond lost?
They really need to sort somehow out, Casino Royale was good but since then it has only gotten worse, and frankly with Daniel Craig (who in my opinion the most emotionless, weakest bond of all) the franchise is getting weaker and weaker.
Who is Eve Moneypenny supposed to be? Jane's daughter? niece? Because the Moneypenny I adored was sassy a secretary, who probably loved Bond, but ultimately refused to join a long list of girls notched on his bedpost. Eve is not that character, and while all other changes were awesome (love new M and Q with a passion) I just cannot compute this new Moneypenny.
Plus, if she was an operative in the field surely she would have been a better shot than she was. Not counting the shooting Bond bit, which is a tough shot, she fires repeatedly at "baddies" in the lead up to that...don't think she actually hit anyone! Bond failed his test on return at, was it 40%? How the hell did she ever pass?!
Maybe I'm just bitter that Samantha had to retire. But seriously, this Moneypenny has no sass. Don't even get me started on her possible night with Bond.
.
The dogs are black Labradors, a favourite of gamekeepers as they are soft mouthed and short coated. They are actually called Labrador retrievers.
Well, if you look at the aim of the villain it was to kill M. Wether or not she chooses to fight is irrelevant, it simply made it easier for her to die. Bond went to skyfall to protect her, and she died under his protection? I am absolutely shocked by why they have done with 'Englands most deadliest weapon' they made bond lose in this film? Why? And sadly for the first time ever I am not looking forward to the next film.
And he walks away like a king?
What the hell is that even supposed to mean?