Skyfall Questions (Spoilers)

1679111226

Comments

  • Posts: 5,745
    DRush76 wrote:
    Y'know, why do people keep asking the particular question of "where'd the hard drive go?" when this is a quite obvious answer.


    How did you come to the conclusion that the list of NATO agents originally came from Silva's island? Did the movie state this?

    No. But why is that so important? It's not. It's just a small element to drive the plot. If you were so focused on that, than you've failed to enjoy the rest of the film.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    DRush76 wrote:
    Y'know, why do people keep asking the particular question of "where'd the hard drive go?" when this is a quite obvious answer.


    How did you come to the conclusion that the list of NATO agents originally came from Silva's island? Did the movie state this?

    Because it was on Silvas island, the place where he operates from and make all his plans come to live. So it is pretty obvious that he had the drive on his island to publish it on YouTube.
  • DB5DB5
    Posts: 408
    pihcho wrote:
    Hi, I'm new to the community and James Bond in general, but love it all already. Here are a few questions...

    My understanding of the 007 Movie History is that: From Sean Connery (Dr. No) to Pierce Brosnan (Die Another Day) has been roughly in chrinological order, while Daniel Craig's Bond films are prequals (Casino Royale ~ Skyfall). Is this correct?

    Since Judi Dench is M in the Brosnan series and Craig series, does this create some sort of time warp, where she is M in the past (Craig) and future (Brosnan)?

    Therefore, the history of M would be Judi Dench (name?) -> Ralph Fiennes (Gareth Mallory) -> Bernard Lee (Miles Messervy) -> Robert Brown (Admiral Hargreaves - No M Sirname?) -> Judi Dench again?

    Thank you!!!
    007 fan Pihcho

    The three Craig films are not "prequels" to anything. "Casino Royale" was a reboot, similar to "Batman Begins." In a reboot, we are supposed to simply disregard the previous twenty fims, pretend that they don't exist. As for Judi Dench, she is an actress who in the four Brosnan films played a character named M, the head of the British Secret Service. In the three Craig films she plays a character named M, head of the British Secret Service. But the M she plays in the Brosnan films is a totally different character than the M she plays in the Craig films. With regard to the first twenty films even there is also a debate regarding chronological order and continuity. There are some who would argue that "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" takes place immediately after "Thunderball" followed by "Live and Let Die," and we should regard "You Only Live Twice" and "Diamonds are Forever" as a kind of alternate path to the series that ends after DAF. I'm inclined to accept this interpretation.


  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    DB5 wrote:
    There are some who would argue that "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" takes place immediately after "Thunderball" followed by "Live and Let Die," and we should regard "You Only Live Twice" and "Diamonds are Forever" as a kind of alternate path to the series that ends after DAF. I'm inclined to accept this interpretation.


    How long has this interpretation existed?
  • You're never going to get everyone agreeing on this point. Some see this era as a reboot, others like myself see CR/QOS as a flashback adventure and SF as a followup to where the Brosnan era left off. There's plenty of flaws in either theory. Just enjoy the films for what they are.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    There's plenty of flaws in either theory.

    I fail to see the flaws in the reboot theory.
  • I do. But that's been beaten to death already and there are threads for that where I've expressed my views. What we all agree on is that there are camps for both theories and I'd rather discuss SF and stay on topic.
  • Posts: 1,407
    It's different when the filmmakers themselves have said this has no connection to the previous films. Martin Campbell repeated that a lot while CR was in production
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 84
    DRush76 wrote:


    Could someone please explain how a MI6 field agent in Istanbul ended up with a list of undercover NATO agents on his computer hard drive. I mean . . . this is the plot arc that set the movie in motion. What was he doing with it and why did the script fail to explain this?


    As for "SKYFALL" . . . IMO, it is one of the worst Bond movies I have ever seen. I believe that both "CASINO ROYALE" and "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" are much better.

    Sorry mate, you sound like the kind of person that queries how the Death Star from Star Wars could be built in a matter of months, or how can it be that superman flies....

    This is fiction, its fantasy, its not a docu-drama that has to be set in a factual reality. Have you heard the term "suspend belief"?

    Just enjoy it for what it is.....
  • Posts: 533


    You know what? Forget it. No one wants to admit that this movie started out with bad writing. Instead, I get comments that it doesn't matter how the list of NATO agents ended up in the hands of a MI6 agent. If it's not important to you, fine. But I can't accept this view. The bad handling of this plot point is one of many reasons I cannot like "SKYFALL". This is all I have to say.
  • Posts: 501
    I believe they recover the hard-drive in Silva's island. And then don't know what they do with it. I suppose that as it's recovered, no more names can be given out.
  • Posts: 338
    DB5 wrote:

    The three Craig films are not "prequels" to anything. "Casino Royale" was a reboot, similar to "Batman Begins." In a reboot, we are supposed to simply disregard the previous twenty fims, pretend that they don't exist. As for Judi Dench, she is an actress who in the four Brosnan films played a character named M, the head of the British Secret Service. In the three Craig films she plays a character named M, head of the British Secret Service. But the M she plays in the Brosnan films is a totally different character than the M she plays in the Craig films. With regard to the first twenty films even there is also a debate regarding chronological order and continuity. There are some who would argue that "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" takes place immediately after "Thunderball" followed by "Live and Let Die," and we should regard "You Only Live Twice" and "Diamonds are Forever" as a kind of alternate path to the series that ends after DAF. I'm inclined to accept this interpretation.


    Personally, I don't think that any of the films are meant to link, but are generally standalone stories, set in the present day.

    Of course, there are a few exceptions such as Sylvia in both DN and FRWL; the PTS of DAF; and, of course, QoS / CR. However, consistency is never an EON strength, and there is no point looking for logic where none exists
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    DRush76 wrote:

    You know what? Forget it. No one wants to admit that this movie started out with bad writing. Instead, I get comments that it doesn't matter how the list of NATO agents ended up in the hands of a MI6 agent. If it's not important to you, fine. But I can't accept this view. The bad handling of this plot point is one of many reasons I cannot like "SKYFALL". This is all I have to say.

    It could very well be because the United Kingdom is a part of NATO... has this crossed your mind?
  • okay, DRush76, you want your Bond films encased in reailty every step of the way?

    http://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio
  • Regarding the list of NATO agents, doesn't Mallory say a line about how this list, in the eyes of the UK's allies, never existed?

    So could it have been an 'unofficial' list that just MI6 had? Silva found out about it, paid Patrice to steal it from Agent Ronson in Istanbul, and so on?
  • 0iker0 wrote:
    I believe they recover the hard-drive in Silva's island. And then don't know what they do with it. I suppose that as it's recovered, no more names can be given out.

    Yes, the commandos no doubt got everything and Q got Silva's laptop. But what was particularly impressive is that Silva planned for this eventuality and still had the booby trap laid for Q to fall into. Now whether this makes Q look bad or makes Silva look like an utter genius to have bested him and thus build more menace is a matter of debate. But it certainly shouldn't be a reason not to like the film.
  • DB5DB5
    Posts: 408
    DB5 wrote:
    There are some who would argue that "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" takes place immediately after "Thunderball" followed by "Live and Let Die," and we should regard "You Only Live Twice" and "Diamonds are Forever" as a kind of alternate path to the series that ends after DAF. I'm inclined to accept this interpretation.


    How long has this interpretation existed?

    One of our fellow agents here at MI6 advanced this theory on another thread, sorry I don't remember who or where. It makes sense, since if Blofeld had first met Bond in YOLT, why wouldn't he have recognized him immediately when he was posing as Sir Hilary Bray in OHMSS? And if CR is a prequel to DN, then how can Bond meet Felix Leiter for the first time twice? As for the DB5 in "Skyfall," we are not meant to assume that the Daniel Craig Bond is the same James Bond who drove this car in "Goldfinger." It's just an Aston Martin that happens to have an ejector seat button in the gearshift and front wing machine guns!

  • Regarding the list of NATO agents, doesn't Mallory say a line about how this list, in the eyes of the UK's allies, never existed?

    So could it have been an 'unofficial' list that just MI6 had? Silva found out about it, paid Patrice to steal it from Agent Ronson in Istanbul, and so on?

    That's a very logical explanation for those who think they need one. But will it be good enough? Half of what are relatively minor quibbles have been made major ones they don't need to be. Many can be logically explained and didn't need to be spoonfed to most viewers, let alone supposedly hardcore fans. Still unbelievable for me, even as one who doesn't feel QOS was an awful film and will defend it's good points, to see someone prefer QOS which has so many more flaws that cannot be so easily explained.

  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    DB5 wrote:
    DB5 wrote:
    There are some who would argue that "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" takes place immediately after "Thunderball" followed by "Live and Let Die," and we should regard "You Only Live Twice" and "Diamonds are Forever" as a kind of alternate path to the series that ends after DAF. I'm inclined to accept this interpretation.


    How long has this interpretation existed?

    One of our fellow agents here at MI6 advanced this theory on another thread, sorry I don't remember who or where. It makes sense, since if Blofeld had first met Bond in YOLT, why wouldn't he have recognized him immediately when he was posing as Sir Hilary Bray in OHMSS?

    There was a cut line of dialogue or scene mentioning Bond getting plastic surgery.
    DB5 wrote:
    And if CR is a prequel to DN, then how can Bond meet Felix Leiter for the first time twice?

    That's a very clear difference, however, as CR was often called a reboot, not a prequel (and, honestly, a prequel taking place in 2006/2008 to a film taking place in 1965?).
    DB5 wrote:
    As for the DB5 in "Skyfall," we are not meant to assume that the Daniel Craig Bond is the same James Bond who drove this car in "Goldfinger." It's just an Aston Martin that happens to have an ejector seat button in the gearshift and front wing machine guns!

    I assume that's probably one that Bond bought and put gadgets into himself (much like the Silver Beast in the Gardner novels). Or, it could have been the one he won from Dimitrios in CR, given a switched driver's seat and had gadgets put in it by Q Branch (as M knows about the ejector's seat).
  • Posts: 533

    It could very well be because the United Kingdom is a part of NATO... has this crossed your mind?


    This is your answer?
  • Posts: 5,745
    DRush76 wrote:
    It could very well be because the United Kingdom is a part of NATO... has this crossed your mind?


    This is your answer?

    Why do you need an answer? ITS NOT INTEGRAL TO THE PLOT. The list is a small detail just to motivate the plot and lead Bond to Silva. It's not that important.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    DRush76 wrote:
    It could very well be because the United Kingdom is a part of NATO... has this crossed your mind?


    This is your answer?

    It's a truth that you either seem to be unaware of or ignorant of. The UK is a member nation of NATO, the list is of deep cover NATO agents, the list could very well have been given to MI6 so that they know which operations NATO agents are undergoing at the time, so that they don't risk exposing them. That hasn't crossed your mind?

    Or, you could listen to this very important piece of information:
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Why do you need an answer? ITS NOT INTEGRAL TO THE PLOT. The list is a small detail just to motivate the plot and lead Bond to Silva. It's not that important.

  • Posts: 3,333
    I've only seen the film once but I don't recall it ever being discussed that they were NATO agents. As far as I know NATO is more of an agreed response treaty through military action for member countries rather than a united intelligence gathering set-up. These things are kept separate. Why has NATO been brought into this debate?
  • Posts: 20
    bondsum wrote:
    I've only seen the film once but I don't recall it ever being discussed that they were NATO agents. As far as I know NATO is more of an agreed response treaty through military action for member countries rather than a united intelligence gathering set-up. These things are kept separate. Why has NATO been brought into this debate?

    Mallory mentions to M that the list contained the identities of NATO agents embedded in terrorist organisations. I took this to mean agents of NATO members' own intelligence agencies, rather than agents working directly for the Alliance. Mallory implies that the other NATO members are unaware that MI6 has got this list.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Apologies if this one has been dealt with already. But why does a professional assassin leave a trail of dead bodies on his way to making his kill? As Patrice works his way through the security staff in the Shanghai I couldn't help thinking, 'this guy is an idiot'. To top it all, and as several others have noted, why use an assassin in an adjacent building when Severine and the heavies in the hotel/apartment are clearly in on the plan? They don't even pretend to be surprised. They just drag away the body, so why didn't they kill him themselves... I doesn't make any sense.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Getafix wrote:
    Apologies if this one has been dealt with already. But why does a professional assassin leave a trail of dead bodies on his way to making his kill? As Patrice works his way through the security staff in the Shanghai I couldn't help thinking, 'this guy is an idiot'. To top it all, and as several others have noted, why use an assassin in an adjacent building when Severine and the heavies in the hotel/apartment are clearly in on the plan? They don't even pretend to be surprised. They just drag away the body, so why didn't they kill him themselves... I doesn't make any sense.

    He's just... just an idiot. For the love of God, the man picks the thickest piece of glass to cut open in order to shoot the guy inspecting the painting.
  • Posts: 3,333
    9eor9e wrote:
    Mallory mentions to M that the list contained the identities of NATO agents embedded in terrorist organisations. I took this to mean agents of NATO members' own intelligence agencies, rather than agents working directly for the Alliance. Mallory implies that the other NATO members are unaware that MI6 has got this list.
    From the trailer and from what I recall from the movie Mallory says: "Three months ago you lost the drive containing the identity of every agent embedded in terrorist organizations across the globe." I also note that most of the reviewers seem to think it's more along the lines of "the identity of every undercover operative within MI6" more than other countries. The only reference I can see for NATO is on the Wikipedia page. I really need to see this again before I can say otherwise.
    http://www.hark.com/clips/xcgbgnfhzd-three-months-ago-you-lost-the-drive-containing-the-identity-of-every-agent

  • Getafix wrote:
    Apologies if this one has been dealt with already. But why does a professional assassin leave a trail of dead bodies on his way to making his kill? As Patrice works his way through the security staff in the Shanghai I couldn't help thinking, 'this guy is an idiot'. To top it all, and as several others have noted, why use an assassin in an adjacent building when Severine and the heavies in the hotel/apartment are clearly in on the plan? They don't even pretend to be surprised. They just drag away the body, so why didn't they kill him themselves... I doesn't make any sense.

    Maybe they hired Patrice so that Severine and her men are not directly linked to the murder. We don't know who the man was. Maybe he has a powerful organisation behind him? If there is an inquiry after his death and a bullet of Severine or her man is found in his head...I am pretty sure they would be in trouble.
    With someone unknown murdering him, nobody can accuse Severine. After all, we don't know how many enemies this guy had. They probably wouldn't be able to blame Severine easily.

    The trail of dead bodys however really is stupid I agree! I have only seen the movie once and thought he drags the body out of sight but if not it really is quite stupid.
    Only explanation, and probably not a satisfying one, is that Patrice is so cocky and self-aware that he thinks he can get away with it. It afterall sounds like an easy job doesn't it? Go up there, clean shot, leave.
    Stealing the hard drive from a bunch of agents surely sounds harder!
  • The first thing that came to mind with the Komodo dragon scene was a flashback to Luke Skywalker versus the Rancor in ROTJ.
  • Posts: 176
    DRush76 wrote:

    You know what? Forget it. No one wants to admit that this movie started out with bad writing. Instead, I get comments that it doesn't matter how the list of NATO agents ended up in the hands of a MI6 agent. If it's not important to you, fine. But I can't accept this view. The bad handling of this plot point is one of many reasons I cannot like "SKYFALL". This is all I have to say.

    Someone must have just broken into MI6 and stolen it. I find it much more plausible than say, how did Drax built a space station with no one knowing about it.

Sign In or Register to comment.