SKYFALL: FANS' REACTIONS - GUARANTEED SPOILERS

1919294969799

Comments

  • Posts: 2,745
    hoppimike wrote:
    As for the DAD vs SF comparison... to me they are both films that are considerably flawed. DAD has a weak plot, weak visuals and so on, and SF to me feels unbalanced, basic, crude and sloppy.

    So, with that aside, it basically comes down to personal preference. I never found DAD offensively bad, I just found it a bit weak. I left the cinema merely feeling a bit disappointed, but only a bit. I expected another GoldenEye and what I got was like a rather watered down GoldenEye. No biggie.

    With SF, I found it so dramatically different to CR and QoS and to the Bond approach I enjoy that I dislike it far more. It's not just like a poor man's Casino Royale (as DAD kinda was to GE), but a completely different direction and I for one really disliked it.

    So, ultimately what places DAD beyond SF for me is merely personal (artistic) preference.

    I MUCH prefer the light, bright, fun style of the Brosnan Bonds to Skyfall WHEN DONE RIGHT. They were cool, stylish, fun and unafraid of getting stuck in to the world of Bond. Skyfall almost seems scared of its own tail.
    Ok, I understand your reasoning a bit more now. I don't agree with it, but I understand it nonetheless.

  • edited February 2013 Posts: 2,745
    Getafix wrote:
    Like I said before, I think part of the problem is that you don't want to take on board just how weak a movie some people think SF is.

    No, I can understand if fans don't like SF. It's not everyones cup of tea, particularly if you prefer the OTT escapist Bonds with plenty of humour and gadgets, or don't like Craig's Bond.

    What I get more baffled by is fans who love CR and QoS, but hate SF. This is where I am perplexed, as to me they all cut from the same cloth, with just a slight variation for each film.

    CR and SF both have their tone firmly in the world of Fleming. CR has a more violent edge, which is toned down in SF, but they are both down-to-earth, espionage style thrillers. SF replaces action set-pieces like Miami Airport and the Venice sinking building with more gripping, stripped back chase scenes such as the brilliant London Underground chase with Bond and Silva. I watched SF again the other night and forgot just how good that scene is.

    Seeing Craig in the middle of rush hour on the Tube, and a panicing Q surveying whether Silva is on the train or not was just superb, much better than Miami airport or Venice, and better than anything seen in QoS. I think SF has many brilliant highlights - seeing Bond lose his fitness being just one of them.

    QoS is the poorest of the 3 - bad editing, bad direction, weak script, yet still firmly in the Craig Bond world. The violence is now only superficial, with Craig looking bloody and battered, yet performing superhuman feats throughout, particularly the awful freefall scene.

    I can understand fans not liking QoS but prefering CR and SF instead, but loving CR and QoS, yet hating SF I find very baffling.
  • Getafix wrote:
    Ho ho ho. I've been wondering why the SF fan club insist on claiming you love DAD when you've repeatedly said you think it's mediocre. You have to get used to this kind of playground stuff round here - 'oh, you disagree with me, so you must like DAD', followed by a raspberry sound.



    Anyone with half a brain cell can see DAD is as about as far removed from heightened realism as it gets.

    ;)

    ANYONE with only a Fiber of a Brain cell would SURELY know,that when someone Talks about realism in DAD he means the First Hour (which has realism and Storyline in abundance,at least compared to ....you know what.
    Oh,sorry. I forgot,that i was Talking to Willy Guy. I meant Skyfall.
  • ]

    No, I can understand if fans don't like SF. It's not everyones cup of tea, particularly if you prefer the OTT escapist Bonds with plenty of humour and gadgets, or don't like Craig's Bond.




    I can understand fans not liking QoS but prefering CR and SF instead, but loving CR and QoS, yet hating SF I find very baffling.[/quote]

    A) ... Or insist on any Kind of Logic.



    B) Sure you do!
  • Posts: 2,745
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Ho ho ho. I've been wondering why the SF fan club insist on claiming you love DAD when you've repeatedly said you think it's mediocre. You have to get used to this kind of playground stuff round here - 'oh, you disagree with me, so you must like DAD', followed by a raspberry sound.



    Anyone with half a brain cell can see DAD is as about as far removed from heightened realism as it gets.

    ;)

    ANYONE with only a Fiber of a Brain cell would SURELY know,that when someone Talks about realism in DAD he means the First Hour (which has realism and Storyline in abundance,at least compared to ....you know what.
    Oh,sorry. I forgot,that i was Talking to Willy Guy. I meant Skyfall.

    The first hour in DAD is realistic is it? Which bit? Brozza faking his heartbeat in bed after months of torture, then springing to life to beat every guy in the room up? Was that the kind of realism you meant?

    Which brain cell of yours is this registering with, Mr. Helm. Cell No. 1 or Cell No. 2?
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 2,745
    Matt_Helm wrote:


    A) ... Or insist on any Kind of Logic.



    B) Sure you do!
    Your mother must be so proud. You can even type words now too on her shiny computer.

  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    Like I said before, I think part of the problem is that you don't want to take on board just how weak a movie some people think SF is.

    No, I can understand if fans don't like SF. It's not everyones cup of tea, particularly if you prefer the OTT escapist Bonds with plenty of humour and gadgets, or don't like Craig's Bond.

    What I get more baffled by is fans who love CR and QoS, but hate SF. This is where I am perplexed, as to me they all cut from the same cloth, with just a slight variation for each film.

    CR and SF both have their tone firmly in the world of Fleming. CR has a more violent edge, which is toned down in SF, but they are both down-to-earth, espionage style thrillers. SF replaces action set-pieces like Miami Airport and the Venice sinking building with more gripping, stripped back chase scenes such as the brilliant London Underground chase with Bond and Silva. I watched SF again the other night and forgot just how good that scene is.

    Seeing Craig in the middle of rush hour on the Tube, and a panicing Q surveying whether Silva is on the train or not was just superb, much better than Miami airport or Venice, and better than anything seen in QoS. I think SF has many brilliant highlights - seeing Bond lose his fitness being just one of them.

    QoS is the poorest of the 3 - bad editing, bad direction, weak script, yet still firmly in the Craig Bond world. The violence is now only superficial, with Craig looking bloody and battered, yet performing superhuman feats throughout, particularly the awful freefall scene.

    I can understand fans not liking QoS but prefering CR and SF instead, but loving CR and QoS, yet hating SF I find very baffling.

    I think you're missing my point - again.

    One of the problems I have with SF is precisely the way in which it's gone back towards the Brosnan era box-ticking approach with a crazy camp villain, OTT plot, the DB5. It's like you can see P+W bolting the kit of parts together. I don't actually mind a bit of OTT or camp, but for me SF doesn't do any of these things very well. Silva's entrance is decent but after that the character becomes boring and directionless (his plan and plotting is all over the place).

    A lot of people on here (even some who like it) have commented that SF feels like it's gone in a different direction to CR and QoS. CR and QoS felt like they were forging a new path - not constantly looking over their shoulders to Bonds past. I put CR and QoS mid table personally. I am not a huge fan of them, but I respect them and think they're both decent efforts. I just found SF a really retrograde step - badly written, directed and frankly boring. I actually found the 'character' stuff very weakly written and a massive disappointment. I just think all the stuff about a great script was BS - all we get is fragmented largely meaningless scenes that tell us nothing about Bond we didn't know already, but with a big spoonful of pretentiousness.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,245
    Getafix wrote:
    I put CR and QoS mid table personally. I am not a huge fan of them, but I respect them and think they're both decent efforts. I just found SF a really retrograde step - badly written
    I like Dan's movies about as much as I like Roger's, but obviously for very different reasons. But yeah, SF was nowhere near as good as the first two. However, I can see why a lot of people enjoy it the most. Many cite the death of Spock as the pinnacle of the Trek series, and here we have James Bond 23: The Wrath Of Silva.
  • Matt_Helm wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Ho ho ho. I've been wondering why the SF fan club insist on claiming you love DAD when you've repeatedly said you think it's mediocre. You have to get used to this kind of playground stuff round here - 'oh, you disagree with me, so you must like DAD', followed by a raspberry sound.



    Anyone with half a brain cell can see DAD is as about as far removed from heightened realism as it gets.

    ;)

    ANYONE with only a Fiber of a Brain cell would SURELY know,that when someone Talks about realism in DAD he means the First Hour (which has realism and Storyline in abundance,at least compared to ....you know what.
    Oh,sorry. I forgot,that i was Talking to Willy Guy. I meant Skyfall.

    The first hour in DAD is realistic is it? Which bit? Brozza faking his heartbeat in bed after months of torture, then springing to life to beat every guy in the room up? Was that the kind of realism you meant?

    Again and only because i know about your limitations: COMPARED TO SF!
  • I enjoy your posts Getafix.

    What I have noticed is that some see Bond as one continual genre, others evaluate each film according to their own logic. So, I like Moonraker because on its own terms, I think it works, hovercraft gondola and all. But. Put that scene at the end of FRWL and I concede it would be atrocious and I'd hate it totally. In fact, put most scenes from Moore films, and a few from Connery's, in FRWL and they would be out of place.

    However. I'm not sure that many scenes in SF would be out of place of their accord in any other Bond film, loosely speaking. It's just, in the film itself, it just doesn't quite work according to its own lights. And that's how I judge it.

    So it's okay for hopimike to say, well, I prefer DAD to SF, because as bad as DAD is, it is trying to be a different film anyway. SF is trying to be more serious, and on that basis, relatively speaking, there are a similar kind of implausbilities and Wade and Purvis have their fingerprints over both, even the 'wicked old M leaves her agents to die/lures someone as bait' routine. And a continual sense of looking back somehow, to other films in the franchise.

    Of course, other fans see it differently.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,425
    I enjoy your posts Getafix.

    What I have noticed is that some see Bond as one continual genre, others evaluate each film according to their own logic. So, I like Moonraker because on its own terms, I think it works, hovercraft gondola and all. But. Put that scene at the end of FRWL and I concede it would be atrocious and I'd hate it totally. In fact, put most scenes from Moore films, and a few from Connery's, in FRWL and they would be out of place.

    However. I'm not sure that many scenes in SF would be out of place of their accord in any other Bond film, loosely speaking. It's just, in the film itself, it just doesn't quite work according to its own lights. And that's how I judge it.

    So it's okay for hopimike to say, well, I prefer DAD to SF, because as bad as DAD is, it is trying to be a different film anyway. SF is trying to be more serious, and on that basis, relatively speaking, there are a similar kind of implausbilities and Wade and Purvis have their fingerprints over both, even the 'wicked old M leaves her agents to die/lures someone as bait' routine. And a continual sense of looking back somehow, to other films in the franchise.

    Of course, other fans see it differently.

    If you're saying what I think you're saying, then I think I agree with you.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,245
    even the 'wicked old M leaves her agents to die/lures someone as bait' routine.

    "I'll Get You my Pretty & Your Little Licence to Kill Too!" :))
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited February 2013 Posts: 11,098
    Matt_Helm wrote:

    ANYONE with only a Fiber of a Brain cell would SURELY know,that when someone Talks about realism in DAD he means the First Hour (which has realism and Storyline in abundance,at least compared to ....you know what

    Yes, like sending yourself into cardiac arrest and then coming to at will

    8-|

    tumblr_lm2wv1mFGr1qfc9t2.gif
  • doubleoego wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:

    ANYONE with only a Fiber of a Brain cell would SURELY know,that when someone Talks about realism in DAD he means the First Hour (which has realism and Storyline in abundance,at least compared to ....you know what

    Yes, like sending yourself into cardiac arrest and then coming to at will

    8-|

    tumblr_lm2wv1mFGr1qfc9t2.gif

    Again - i was comparing it to SF
  • Getafix wrote:
    I enjoy your posts Getafix.

    What I have noticed is that some see Bond as one continual genre, others evaluate each film according to their own logic. So, I like Moonraker because on its own terms, I think it works, hovercraft gondola and all. But. Put that scene at the end of FRWL and I concede it would be atrocious and I'd hate it totally. In fact, put most scenes from Moore films, and a few from Connery's, in FRWL and they would be out of place.

    However. I'm not sure that many scenes in SF would be out of place of their accord in any other Bond film, loosely speaking. It's just, in the film itself, it just doesn't quite work according to its own lights. And that's how I judge it.

    So it's okay for hopimike to say, well, I prefer DAD to SF, because as bad as DAD is, it is trying to be a different film anyway. SF is trying to be more serious, and on that basis, relatively speaking, there are a similar kind of implausbilities and Wade and Purvis have their fingerprints over both, even the 'wicked old M leaves her agents to die/lures someone as bait' routine. And a continual sense of looking back somehow, to other films in the franchise.

    Of course, other fans see it differently.

    If you're saying what I think you're saying, then I think I agree with you.

    I guess I'm saying that Bond films are largely post-modern and have been since Brozzer took over, even were a bit with Dalton. They cannot stick to their own thing, they have incorporate bits of tone from the past. And that jars for me, but other fans find it comforting.

    So much of SF could, concievably, fit in to past Bond films. But within one film, it's a big ask somehow.

    I don't mind so much when the film is more light-hearted perhaps, but it jars when the theme is serious, as with DAD, bits of QoS and SF. It's a distraction.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:

    ANYONE with only a Fiber of a Brain cell would SURELY know,that when someone Talks about realism in DAD he means the First Hour (which has realism and Storyline in abundance,at least compared to ....you know what

    Yes, like sending yourself into cardiac arrest and then coming to at will

    8-|

    tumblr_lm2wv1mFGr1qfc9t2.gif

    Again - i was comparing it to SF

    Why don't you explain why do you think the first hour DAD ( :-& ) is more realistic that SF?
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2013 Posts: 10,512
    Sandy wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:

    ANYONE with only a Fiber of a Brain cell would SURELY know,that when someone Talks about realism in DAD he means the First Hour (which has realism and Storyline in abundance,at least compared to ....you know what

    Yes, like sending yourself into cardiac arrest and then coming to at will

    8-|

    tumblr_lm2wv1mFGr1qfc9t2.gif

    Again - i was comparing it to SF

    Why don't you explain why do you think the first hour DAD ( :-& ) is more realistic that SF?

    You could argue that tracking down your key antagonist via the conflict diamonds he trades, is more plausible than tracking one down via some bullet shrapnel and a casino chip. I'm not arguing DAD is great by any means.

    It's evident that P+W's plotting is sketchy at best.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:

    ANYONE with only a Fiber of a Brain cell would SURELY know,that when someone Talks about realism in DAD he means the First Hour (which has realism and Storyline in abundance,at least compared to ....you know what

    Yes, like sending yourself into cardiac arrest and then coming to at will

    8-|

    tumblr_lm2wv1mFGr1qfc9t2.gif

    Again - i was comparing it to SF

    Why don't you explain why do you think the first hour DAD ( :-& ) is more realistic that SF?

    You could argue that tracking down your key antagonist via the conflict diamonds he trades, is more plausible than tracking one down via some bullet shrapnel and a casino chip. I'm not arguing DAD is great by any means.

    It's evident that P+W's plotting is sketchy at best.

    I'm SO glad they've gone. I bet Mendes told Babs she had to fire those idiots. He spent 4 years working on the plot and script with DC (neither of them are writers) and the end result is still very poor. I bet DC had been angling to get rid of them since the start. It's no coincidence that Haggis and Logan were brought in on his films to try and add some life to P+W's dodgy screenplays.
  • Posts: 2,745
    Getafix wrote:

    I'm SO glad they've gone. I bet Mendes told Babs she had to fire those idiots. He spent 4 years working on the plot and script with DC (neither of them are writers) and the end result is still very por. I bet DC had been angling to get rid of them since the start. It's no coincidence that Haggis and Logan were brought in on his films to try and add some life to P+W's dodgy screenplays.
    I read an interview with P&W recently, and it said the script was altered for SF to focus more on Bond as the central character, instead of being a bystander to the usual shenanigans that P&W wrote, and this was done on Mendes request. Sounds like that input from Mendes was vital, otherwise the script could have been a lot worse.

    However, P&W did also say the original script was based on Bond being brainwashed, from TMWTGG, and the title was Magic 44 (from YOLT), so maybe their ideas weren't all bad.

    Who knows? I'm guessing the Bond scripts are all done by committee these days, so everyone has an input, then the result is a miss-mash of lots of ideas thrown into the mix, so to blame P&W solely for the scripts they wrote may be inaccurate.

  • Posts: 11,175
    Getafix wrote:

    I'm SO glad they've gone. I bet Mendes told Babs she had to fire those idiots. He spent 4 years working on the plot and script with DC (neither of them are writers) and the end result is still very por. I bet DC had been angling to get rid of them since the start. It's no coincidence that Haggis and Logan were brought in on his films to try and add some life to P+W's dodgy screenplays.
    I read an interview with P&W recently, and it said the script was altered for SF to focus more on Bond as the central character, instead of being a bystander to the usual shenanigans that P&W wrote, and this was done on Mendes request. Sounds like that input from Mendes was vital, otherwise the script could have been a lot worse.

    However, P&W did also say the original script was based on Bond being brainwashed, from TMWTGG, and the title was Magic 44 (from YOLT), so maybe their ideas weren't all bad.

    Who knows? I'm guessing the Bond scripts are all done by committee these days, so everyone has an input, then the result is a miss-mash of lots of ideas thrown into the mix, so to blame P&W solely for the scripts they wrote may be inaccurate.

    I must admit I like that idea too. Maybe they could use it as a story for a future Bond flick (although for now we should maybe move away from the "M's life in jeopardy" ange as we had a big dose of that in the last two Bond films).
  • hoppimikehoppimike Kent, UK
    Posts: 290
    I think they should just get stuck into some normal storylines again like CR, GE and QoS.

    I'm worried that with all of the new, young actors and smarmy acting it's going to turn into an episode of Doctor Who or something *cringes*
  • Thing is, imo the story makes more sense to have Bond as being brainwashed, as in TMWTGG. Of course, similarities with the GG film have been mentioned, along with a certain sympathy of Scaramanga's origins, as with Silva, both have been hard done by.

    To have the film start of with Bond trying to kill M, then trying to save her, sort of makes sense. Though ok, more sense to have M almost killing Bond, then him trying to save her, as was filmed. The symmetry doesn't really work though, better to have Bond realise we're all fallible in that he tries to do the right thing by M, but she dies, just as she screwed up in the pts.

    But to have him forget himself (be brainwashed), then return to his old home, possibly to trigger his memories of self ,imo sort of works better than what we got in the film, where his old home is just thrown in at the end. That's the thing, a lot of these films get rejigged so you have the sense that good scenes somehow belong in another movie. Like the shrink, for instance. Would make more sense in Magic 44 (though that title might get mixed up with that awful recent US comedy, Movie 24 or something!)
  • The Bond scripts have always had a lot of chefs stirring the pot.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,098
    Getafix wrote:

    I'm SO glad they've gone. I bet Mendes told Babs s
    he had to fire those idiots. He spent 4 years working on the plot and script with DC (neither of them are writers) and the end result is still very por. I bet DC had been angling to get rid of them since the start. It's no coincidence that Haggis and Logan were brought in on his films to try and add some life to P+W's dodgy screenplays.
    I read an interview with P&W recently, and it said the script was altered for SF to focus more on Bond as the central character, instead of being a bystander to the usual shenanigans that P&W wrote, and this was done on Mendes request. Sounds like that input from Mendes was vital, otherwise the script could have been a lot worse.

    However, P&W did also say the original script was based on Bond being brainwashed, from TMWTGG, and the title was Magic 44 (from YOLT), so maybe their ideas weren't all bad.

    Who knows? I'm guessing the Bond scripts are all done by committee these days, so everyone has an input, then the result is a miss-mash of lots of ideas thrown into the mix, so to blame P&W solely for the scripts they wrote may be inaccurate.

    Wtf? I always thought people were too hard on Purvis and Wade but for the SF script to be altered so that Bond can be focused on as the central character in his own movie makes me wonder wtf those 2 were thinking. As for Bond being brainwashed, really?? I know it happened in the novel but does cinematic Bond really need that especially at this time? Even now, SF is still being referred to as a Bourne wannabe (even though I don't see it).
    Well, I am so glad they're gone. Hopefully Logan can write a decent script/screenplay that dials down the absurdity.
  • Yes and no. I'm not sure it should be all about Bond. It should be all about the villain. Hence titles like Dr No, Goldfinger. The Man With the Golden Gun. Or about the villain's operation: Thunderball, Moonraker and so on.

    But I'm from that era. Ironically, it was NSNA that was the first to make it more about Bond than the villain. Now he's the guy, it's about his inner journey and so on. Actually OHMSS was Bondcentric too.

    I get it, but it seems contrived to me, and of course can be way too gradual. I mean, Bond can't keep changing during the course of a movie. Then again, Moore moaned that Bond is always the same at the end of the film as he is at the beginning, but it used to be about the circus that is around him, while he is consistent.
  • Posts: 2,745
    Yes and no. I'm not sure it should be all about Bond. It should be all about the villain. Hence titles like Dr No, Goldfinger. The Man With the Golden Gun. Or about the villain's operation: Thunderball, Moonraker and so on.

    Titles may focus on the villain, but the books were always, always about Bond himself, his thoughts, his feelings, getting inside his head. Fleming very rarely deviated away from this concept throughout all the books, other than OP and TSWLM.

    This is why LTK, OHMSS, CR and SF work so well for me, in that each of these films has Bond as the main focus.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I'm not sure it should be all about Bond. It should be all about the villain.

    This is a sentiment I've discussed many a time with friends. It's also something I tend to stick with when developing my own ideas/scripts. I always take the view that a films hero is only as good their villain. Without an interesting threat to the protagonist, the whole thing falls apart. It doesn't matter how well rounded your protagonist is, if the threat is diminished, there are no interesting dynamics to explore. Look at The Joker, still possibly the greatest fictional villain in history.

    My slight problem with SF is that Silva's beef is purely with 'M', and indirectly with Bond. Bond is effectively collateral, so at no point does Silva ever come under genuine threat until the very final moment. I never get the sense that Silva ever feels under pressure, nothing Bond does ever forces him to reconsider the situation. Even reaching SF is like clockwork.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,175
    Yes and no. I'm not sure it should be all about Bond. It should be all about the villain. Hence titles like Dr No, Goldfinger. The Man With the Golden Gun. Or about the villain's operation: Thunderball, Moonraker and so on.

    Titles may focus on the villain, but the books were always, always about Bond himself, his thoughts, his feelings, getting inside his head. Fleming very rarely deviated away from this concept throughout all the books, other than OP and TSWLM.

    This is why LTK, OHMSS, CR and SF work so well for me, in that each of these films has Bond as the main focus.

    I would say this is true in most cases except (perhaps) FRWL. It seems that, while the book is about an assasination plot on Bond, most of the time is spent with the other characters (Grant, Klebb, Tanya etc) and when Bond IS in the picture he is usually with other people listening to them tell stories and explain stuff (Kerim, Grant).

    Although one exception for this is the shooting of Kerim's nemisis, which demonstrates how uncomfortable Bond is about killing in cold blood.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 3,494
    @ RC7- Despite having much respect for anyone who writes creatively, what you point out in the second paragraph I'd have to somewhat disagree with in part and think it can be seen in a different light, a common theme when discussing the pros and cons of the film.

    Silva is under direct threat from Bond long before arriving at Skyfall Lodge, as much as Bond is displeased with M he realizes that Silva has to be stopped, if for nothing else than his murdered colleagues, which we know going all the way back to the original era is something Bond takes very seriously. I do think that Silva was plenty unnerved when Bond survived in the tube and ruined his plan to kill M in public, and that was the instance where he felt pressure that carried on for the rest of the way. Now he's without a plan and has Bond hot on his tail, and is trying to figure out how to get to M next, this was a contingency he probably didn't consider thinking he had the perfect plan to begin with. Silva in his egocentric manner next doesn't seem to realize he's been set up, because again he feels the pressure to find M and finish her. The pressure relaxes because he thinks his skill alone is how he tracked down M, he's back on top. And while he thought he was a better agent than Bond, which he alludes to during their first meeting, I think he sees Bond in a different light when he reaches Scotland. When he realizes that he has the advantage in men and firepower, he wants Bond immediately taken out knowing he can't get to M with him still able to save her. So I feel there is a definite threat to the protagonists (both Bond and M) that is needed, as well as more of the classic case of the megalomaniac antagonist thinking he's got it all figured out.

  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2013 Posts: 10,512
    Silva is under direct threat from Bond long before arriving at Skyfall Lodge.

    Is he? Like you say, I think the only time Bond becomes a threat is when he 'changes the game'. If we go back to the notion that Silva's primary target is 'M', Bond does little to help until the final act. You'd have thought a man of Bond's intuition would have kept Silva and M at arms length for the most part. This is a problem for me throughout, the ineptitude of the key players. M, in letting her agents die, seemingly on a whim (a character trait straight out of left-field), a Bond who's lost it, and spends most of the film trying to find it again (interesting move, but done better in TMWTGG novel) and a villain who can somehow orchestrate the most audaciously convenient plan in Bond history, only to drop the ball at the last minute because someone shoots a fire extinguisher. Now I know, it's old vs. new symbolism, but I'd much rather have a solid plot than symbolism and semantics. All in all every character does the shittest job they possibly can.

    1. Bond loses the list and fails to save M. Seemingly his two key objectives, outside of stopping Silva.
    2. M leaves Ronson and Bond for dead, plus countless others whose identities are leaked.
    Then along with Bond they leave Silva in a giant glass cell with one useless cockney guard watching him. This is a bloke who is apparently one of the most dangerous men on the planet. So dangerous she'd risk her own agents to pursue him but can't spare the funds to have him watched 24/7.
    3. Silva goes to the trouble of orchestrating a plot over the course of many months, if not years, gets spooked by a fire extinguisher and then gets himself killed.

    All in all not a good day at the office for anyone really.

    Obviously this is all academic as amending my misgivings would require a wholesale restructure of the story, rather than some tweaks.
Sign In or Register to comment.