Skyfall Questions (Spoilers)

18911131426

Comments

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 110
    Malik1010 wrote:
    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.

    Bond took her to Skyfall to get one step ahead of Silva. M knew she was being used as bait, as evidenced by her dialogue with 007 in the Jaguar after he 'kidnapped' her. Protection of her was something that was important, yes, but the main goal was to get a step-up on Silva, since he had been one step ahead the rest of the way. And M knew the risks of what she was getting into.
  • WillardWhyteWillardWhyte Midnight Society #ProjectMoon
    Posts: 784
    gt007 wrote:
    What the hell was the point of Patrice shooting the man looking at the painting anyway? Is it just the job that Bond is told he is in Shanghai for? If so, why is the man looking at the painting, and above all else WHO IS HE? I know that the payment for the job is in the briefcase and Bond takes it as an F U to Silva letting him know he killed his agent, but some of the stuff in this film is sloppily explained. How unfortunate.
    Who cares? Why should we know who that man is? He's someone Silva wants dead. Obviously Severine lured him into the trap by making him think he's buying the stolen painting. They made him sit down with his back facing the window so Patrice could shoot him. That's all we need to know.

    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.



    How is that confusing? I picked up on it my first viewing as I expect many others did to.....It all follows the timeline of how we meet Silva.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,473
    I'll admit, I was very confused at first by the hit in Shanghai. Took me a second viewing to realize they (the men in the room, alongside Severine) set it up, even though the dialogue made that pretty apparent between Bond and Severine in Macau.
  • One thing I can't seem to get, we see Bond pull out the bullet fragments out of his chest in the bathroom that was from Patrice. But what about the bullet wound from Moneypenny? Are we supposed to just assume he had that fixed from someone who isn't a "professional" to stay off the grid? Not sure why it isn't mentioned at all.
  • Posts: 338
    Malik1010 wrote:
    Malik1010 wrote:
    Am I the only one who thinks that this film was a HUGE let down?
    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.
    M didn't die by Silva's hands, and she went out honorably. Bond won by stopping Silva, but lost M when she gave her hand to join the fight.

    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.

    Interesting, I had not noticed that he actually lost. However, I think that is a strength, if you know that he is not guaranteed to succeed, it makes it more thrilling. Back in the 70s, the Sweeney did a similar thing by sometimes letting the bad guys win
  • I may have missed something, but how did Silva know James was at Skyfall if Q was laying breadcrumbs well off the charts?

    Or was it Q was actually wanting Silva to go there?

    I must have missed a huge chunk!!
  • Davis3924 wrote:
    I may have missed something, but how did Silva know James was at Skyfall if Q was laying breadcrumbs well off the charts?

    Or was it Q was actually wanting Silva to go there?

    I must have missed a huge chunk!!

    They wanted Silva to go there. Bond thought that he could even the odds a bit by having a 'home field advantage' and a leg up on Silva. He also thought there was a fully stocked gun room that would have been of assistance...
  • Thanks for the clarification.... amazing film though! I just can't see how it will be the same without M?
  • Davis3924 wrote:
    Thanks for the clarification.... amazing film though! I just can't see how it will be the same without M?

    No problem...and I think the new M will do just fine! :-)
  • Troy wrote:
    Malik1010 wrote:
    Malik1010 wrote:
    Am I the only one who thinks that this film was a HUGE let down?
    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.
    M didn't die by Silva's hands, and she went out honorably. Bond won by stopping Silva, but lost M when she gave her hand to join the fight.

    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.

    Interesting, I had not noticed that he actually lost. However, I think that is a strength, if you know that he is not guaranteed to succeed, it makes it more thrilling. Back in the 70s, the Sweeney did a similar thing by sometimes letting the bad guys win

    With all due respect to Sweeney high was a great show. This is James Bond, they cannot afford to show him lose surely? He made it his responsibility to protect her and technically speaking she died under his protection. So really they damaged the James Bond character in my opinion at least.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Malik1010 wrote:
    Troy wrote:
    Malik1010 wrote:
    Malik1010 wrote:
    Am I the only one who thinks that this film was a HUGE let down?
    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.
    M didn't die by Silva's hands, and she went out honorably. Bond won by stopping Silva, but lost M when she gave her hand to join the fight.

    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.

    Interesting, I had not noticed that he actually lost. However, I think that is a strength, if you know that he is not guaranteed to succeed, it makes it more thrilling. Back in the 70s, the Sweeney did a similar thing by sometimes letting the bad guys win

    With all due respect to Sweeney high was a great show. This is James Bond, they cannot afford to show him lose surely? He made it his responsibility to protect her and technically speaking she died under his protection. So really they damaged the James Bond character in my opinion at least.

    How is that damaging the character? If anything it reflects reality where not everyone can make it out alive.
  • If James Bond never failed to protect anyone under his care, then the series would have ended in 1969.
  • Posts: 338
    Malik1010 wrote:
    Troy wrote:
    Malik1010 wrote:
    Malik1010 wrote:
    Am I the only one who thinks that this film was a HUGE let down?
    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.
    M didn't die by Silva's hands, and she went out honorably. Bond won by stopping Silva, but lost M when she gave her hand to join the fight.

    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.

    Interesting, I had not noticed that he actually lost. However, I think that is a strength, if you know that he is not guaranteed to succeed, it makes it more thrilling. Back in the 70s, the Sweeney did a similar thing by sometimes letting the bad guys win

    With all due respect to Sweeney high was a great show. This is James Bond, they cannot afford to show him lose surely? He made it his responsibility to protect her and technically speaking she died under his protection. So really they damaged the James Bond character in my opinion at least.

    Don't forget Bond is not infallible, and frequently screws up. Look at Goldfinger - seminal film, but Bond makes a complete hash of it all the way through.

  • Posts: 5,808
    One question here: Is it me, or did I at one point notice a trace of scottish accent in Q's speech ?
  • Gerard wrote:
    One question here: Is it me, or did I at one point notice a trace of scottish accent in Q's speech ?

    What from Bedfordshire?
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 51
    Here's a question going back way to the early days of production:

    Remember the first official picture of Skyfall?

    Notice that his gloves are on. Do you think that they had to refilm this scene to be consistent with the palm-reading Walther, or might this picture have been taken before filming? I don't remember Bond's beard being that thick in the film.

    Edit: Apologies - Just realized that this was touched upon in this thread.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 1
    Do you think that Bond was actually shot or was that he wanted to get away from it all? Just putting it out there
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,473
    Do you think that Bond was actually shot or was that he wanted to get away from it all? Just putting it out there

    Bond was most certainly shot by Eve. You can see the scar on his left shoulder when he is taking the pills and we see his reflection in the mirror.
  • Gerard wrote:
    One question here: Is it me, or did I at one point notice a trace of scottish accent in Q's speech ?

    Nope. Whishaw is actually from the same area as me, in the premiere programme it says he's from Hitchin, a town I live in. He trained as an actor in a threatre that I can actually see from my bedroom window which is kind of weird. I even met someone on Tuesday who went to same school as him in Clifton
  • Posts: 266
    karl007 wrote:
    Re-watched skyfall today.. about the man who patrice shot i think he was connected to M somehow because in the next scene M is on her laptop when the ''think on your sins'' message appears.On the right there is a picture of M with a asian gentleman i take it that this was the same man..just a hunch though.

    I Watched it again last night and i thought the exact same thing and that is why Silva wanted him dead. I am seeing it again tomorrow so i will look out for some of things people have mentioned in this thread.
  • In the end it said something to the effect of "in 50 years bond will return". What does that mean?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    38850027 wrote:
    In the end it said something to the effect of "in 50 years bond will return". What does that mean?
    It said 50 years of Bond in a gold gunbarrel. It's a hats off to the series.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    38850027 wrote:
    In the end it said something to the effect of "in 50 years bond will return". What does that mean?
    It said 50 years of Bond in a gold gunbarrel. It's a hats off to the series.

    You just replied to a troll spammer, mate ...
    ;)
  • I know awhile ago there were rumors that Silva was Portugeuse/from the Azores. Anybody know if that's confirmed?

    Also, does anyone know what is on Mallory's ring? An M, maybe?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    38850027 wrote:
    In the end it said something to the effect of "in 50 years bond will return". What does that mean?
    It said 50 years of Bond in a gold gunbarrel. It's a hats off to the series.

    You just replied to a troll spammer, mate ...
    ;)

    What? :-/ How do you know?
  • Did anyone spot Michael G. Wilson's cameo in SF yet? How many has he done total starting with which one?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    mrnate8 wrote:
    Did anyone spot Michael G. Wilson's cameo in SF yet? How many has he done total starting with which one?

    I think OP was his first, or around there? Anyone?
  • Posts: 5,808
    He was supposed to be a pall bearer at the funerals of the MI6 agents killed in the explosion, but the scene (and his and the Daimler Hearse appearances) was cut.
  • chamutakramchamutakram Dallas
    Posts: 40
    mrnate8 wrote:
    Did anyone spot Michael G. Wilson's cameo in SF yet? How many has he done total starting with which one?

    He can be seen when M is looking at the caskets. When Tanner opens the door, MGW can be seen behind him.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 162
    Before Silva escapes, at least 3 guards are seen watching over him, fully armed with machine guns. One of the guards asks Silva if he's planning to go anywhere and Silva sarcastically smirks (obviously a foreshadow to his escape). I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his door opens when he hacks the system and he is free to walk out of the cell. However, how in the world does he manage to take out the guards? Did I miss something? When Bond runs into the cell room, the guards (whom were armed and Silva wasn't) are seen lying on the ground likely dead. How did he manage to overpower them? Just a question out of interest, I don't have a massive problem with it or anything.
Sign In or Register to comment.