[SPOILERS] Skyfall: Post-Viewing Discussion

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I'd love to know how Silva got out of the glass cage...

When Silva's people hacked MI6, they fried the electronics and/or pneumatics of the doors in the building. This included the door to the glass cage presumably.

But what wasn't this all pre-programmed? ie that once Q started playing with Silva's computer he activated the commands that opened all the doors, as Silva knew he would. Just like Silva had presumably pre-planted the bomb that went off in the subway tunnel. He presumably planted the detonator device to be conveniently recovered by him and used to set off the bomb. This far I can follow, but how did he know a train would be coming? I'll attempt an answer. He knew the train schedules and managed to time his arrival at the detonation point with the train schedule.

I think the reason that M runs off with Bond to Skyfall Lodge, is because as Bond suggests they need to get ahead of Silva. Being the genius that he his, Silva has pre-determined their every move, like a chess master. Bond figures they have to get off his board, which is basically Mi6 facilities run by computers, so off they go to the rustic simplicity of Skyfall Lodge, where they might have a home-filed advantage, however conveniently ignoring that they might be outnumbered about 30-1 with Silva having the option of attacking with serious firepower, which he did.

Why Bond didn't call in re-inforcements is a mystery. I know we all love SF and its so very unfashionable to find any fault with such a "masterpiece" of cinematic achievment, but so much of it is so very contrived. I don't mind this in a conventional Bond movie where we are brazenly asked to suspend disbelief, but SF takes itself so damn seriously, that virtually every scene drips with import and thematic gravitas. It demands that it be taken seriously. As I've said before, I know SF is a very clever film, because it keeps telling me that it is.

tiffanywint wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I'd love to know how Silva got out of the glass cage...

When Silva's people hacked MI6, they fried the electronics and/or pneumatics of the doors in the building. This included the door to the glass cage presumably.

But what wasn't this all pre-programmed? ie that once Q started playing with Silva's computer he activated the commands that opened all the doors, as Silva knew he would. Just like Silva had presumably pre-planted the bomb that went off in the subway tunnel. He presumably planted the detonator device to be conveniently recovered by him and used to set off the bomb. This far I can follow, but how did he know a train would be coming? I'll attempt an answer. He knew the train schedules and managed to time his arrival at the detonation point with the train schedule.

All plausible. Other than who we've seen (the goons dressed as police), Silva probably had a whole broader logistical team preparing for several potential turns of events.

One more question about the train that crashed. How come there were no passengers on it? It had a driver.

tiffanywint wrote:

One more question about the train that crashed. How come there were no passengers on it? It had a driver.

Not in Service as the LED display shows.



A packed train would have been too close to the nerve after the 2005 London bombings.

Ahhh! Thanks. I thought that might be the case. I wasn't quite sure though if the film had actually told us, but it seems it did.

tiffanywint wrote:

But what wasn't this all pre-programmed? ie that once Q started playing with Silva's computer he activated the commands that opened all the doors, as Silva knew he would. Just like Silva had presumably pre-planted the bomb that went off in the subway tunnel. He presumably planted the detonator device to be conveniently recovered by him and used to set off the bomb. This far I can follow, but how did he know a train would be coming? I'll attempt an answer. He knew the train schedules and managed to time his arrival at the detonation point with the train schedule.

The purpose of the bomb and the train derailemtn is not to kill Bond. The purpose of the bomb and the train derailment is to tie up the emergency responses of London, making it easier for Silva to access the public inquiry. The standard response to a train derailment in the Underground - or any other disaster, accident or terrorist attack like this - would be to strip all the available police, fire and ambulance officers available and redeploy them to the scene of the disaster/accident/attack.

No part of Silva's escape plan involved Bond trailing him; in fact, he was probably banking on everyone in MI6 being sealed inside MI6. But once he realised that Bond was following him, Silva decided to use what he had to kill Bond. That's why he leaves the door ajar after he slides down the escalators. And when Bond turns on the lights in the half-excavated tunnel, it's probably no accident that he does so just in time to see Silva's shadow fleeing. If he really wanted to evade Bond, he would have closed the doors behind him properly, or not bothered waiting for Bond in the half-excavated tunnel.

As for the precise timing of the train accident, that's easy. Trains cannot stop on a dime. The take about a kilometre to stop when they are travelling at about 60km/h. Trains in the Underground are no doubt travelling slower, but even if the driver saw the gaping opening in the tracks, he would not be able to pull the train up in time. Silva could have blown the roof open an hour before the next train arrived, and there would be nothing to stop that train crashing (unless someone wised up to it). As for how he can tim the blast to co-incide with Bond's presence in the tunnel underneath, I'm guessing it's supposed to be a line that is frequently used, so there was a pretty good chance that a train would come by momentarily. Which would create further chaos for the emergency services, thereby working in Silva's favour.

Thanks Shadow. That makes perfect sense then, that Silva was simply executing his diversion plan and Bond happened to follow along. That does explain that the timing really had nothing to do with Bond, rather that it was just about blowing the hole so that the next train would fall through and create a big emergency diversion.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Fae wrote:

Hehehe ... any excuse, eh? ;)

Basically yes.

tiffanywint wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I'd love to know how Silva got out of the glass cage...

When Silva's people hacked MI6, they fried the electronics and/or pneumatics of the doors in the building. This included the door to the glass cage presumably.

But what wasn't this all pre-programmed? ie that once Q started playing with Silva's computer he activated the commands that opened all the doors, as Silva knew he would. Just like Silva had presumably pre-planted the bomb that went off in the subway tunnel. He presumably planted the detonator device to be conveniently recovered by him and used to set off the bomb. This far I can follow, but how did he know a train would be coming? I'll attempt an answer. He knew the train schedules and managed to time his arrival at the detonation point with the train schedule.

I think the reason that M runs off with Bond to Skyfall Lodge, is because as Bond suggests they need to get ahead of Silva. Being the genius that he his, Silva has pre-determined their every move, like a chess master. Bond figures they have to get off his board, which is basically Mi6 facilities run by computers, so off they go to the rustic simplicity of Skyfall Lodge, where they might have a home-filed advantage, however conveniently ignoring that they might be outnumbered about 30-1 with Silva having the option of attacking with serious firepower, which he did.

Why Bond didn't call in re-inforcements is a mystery. I know we all love SF and its so very unfashionable to find any fault with such a "masterpiece" of cinematic achievment, but so much of it is so very contrived. I don't mind this in a conventional Bond movie where we are brazenly asked to suspend disbelief, but SF takes itself so damn seriously, that virtually every scene drips with import and thematic gravitas. It demands that it be taken seriously. As I've said before, I know SF is a very clever film, because it keeps telling me that it is.

Remember, tiffy, Q left the "trail of breadcrumbs" for Silva to follow. No mastery of chess needed.

And if Bond had gone to Skyfall with the heavy battalions, Silva would have "smelled a rat" and never showed up.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Loomis wrote:

By "iconic visuals" I don't mean nice shots but images that will be remembered by general audiences (and not just devoted Bond fans) for many years to come. I don't think there's anything in SKYFALL that qualifies on that score.

It's been out for less than a month. We'll have to wait and see.

I think your list of "iconic visuals" is bang-on, Sharky. The wideframe shots of a burning Skyfall also qualify.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Forenglandjames wrote:

I have a plot point question. Bond was asked 'skyfall' and he answered 'done'

What was that about.

He meant the evaluation was 'done.'

Ah ha. I had the same question. I think "done" probably comes over different to a Yank than a Limey.

Python wrote:

Yeah I noticed hesitation on Silva's part and there was a lot of emphasis on that. Notice how he shoots a bunch of guards without batting an eye too, so there's definitely something going on there.

Agreed.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

She makes is pretty clear that Silva was a danger to the Service. He was ignoring his orders, penetrating further and further into the Chinese networks until the Chinese started to pay attention. They started coming after him, and with the transfer of sovreignty of Hong Kong coming up, M decided to trade Silva for those agents to protect the Service and make sure the transfer went smoothly. Silva had stopped being her best agent and started becoming a liability.

for me your justification doesn't wash, even the secret service has to follow some sort of code of behaviour, otherwise recruitment would become an issue
you could call him in, you could have him killed if he didn't respond to instructions, or you could cut him loose and deny his connection to you
but you could never trade one of your own field agents to the opposition
(and worse try and justify it by saying you got a good deal and made a "profit")
you'll have to show me a real life example before I'll believe the British Secret Service would do that

Seve wrote:

then she says take the shot, another betrayal and another low percentage poor decision in any case

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

She does rationalise it, and it's hard to disagree with her logic: namely, that they could not afford to risk letting the list get away. In retrospect, it was a bad decision, but the film looks at how decisions are made based on what is known at the time, and the way there is no provision for second-guessing.
M's ability to run the Service and whether or not she is making the best decisions is a recurring theme in the film.

again the rationalisation doesn't hold, if the shot was the only option on the table you might take the shot, but a Bond in the hand…
your best agent, James Bond, was also in play, and a much better percentage bet than the shot was
after all he's the man she would later reinstate even though he failed his tests and then risk leaving all MI6 resources behind to go and hide out in the Scottish wilderness with
(and that didn't work out either, in this film she never seems to make "the best decisions"…)

Seve wrote:

why would Bond or Silva have any respect or affection for her at all?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Bond is Bond. he answers to whoever runs the Service.
As for Silva, it is implied that M was distant from him (and by virtue of that, her other agents, since he was her best) and that he craves her approval, which would explain why he was ignoring his orders.

don't be silly, soldiers and secret agents have faith in in their country and what is stands for, faith in the system, faith in their organisation and their boss to back them up
in Bond's case that faith is shaken by "take the shot", and I'm amazed he forgave her,
and Silva was treated far worse
"he craves her approval, which would explain why he was ignoring his orders." Que?

Seve wrote:

she follows that up by pressing a button which publishes the names of 5 over her agents on line (M = "sorry guys I just couldn't resist")
click here to collect your prize yeah right... (M - "but, I thought it might be the latest iphone or xbox game")
no, in fact, we aren’t clicking anything that the villain invites us to click

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

She has no idea what is waiting for her on the other side of that link. No doubt she thought that there might be some kind of clue to what was going on. And there was obviously no other way to get rid of the animation on the screen. In fact, M may not have had any control over the link - she was invited to click on it, but if she did not, then the virus probably would have led to the video anyway. Silva wouldn't have let his entire plan hinge on whether or not M followed a hyperlink.

"She has no idea what is waiting for her on the other side of that link" - exactly my point
"No doubt she thought that there might be some kind of clue to what was going on." from the villain? to help her work out whats going on?
No doubt she's a dumb arse who shouldn't be running MI6 then

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Furthermore, following the link takes her to a YouTube video. Clicking the link did not upload the video, it just showed the video to her. At that point, the agents' identities had already been uploaded.

your sure about that, or does that interpretation just suit your point of view?
in any case she wasn't to know that, so she's still a simpleton who has no place running MI6

Seve wrote:

and then she agrees to run off to the back of beyond with a single agent for support, in order to have it out with the villain and his numerous henchment
very bright

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

By that point, she already knew she had lost control of MI6 (or that if she hadn't, she would lose it soon). She agreed to follow Bond because Bond was the only one willing to lead her. She couldn't command a single resource otherwise.

and she could command anything from a rundown deserted house in deepest, darkest Scotland?
in other words she was in a state of shock, devoid of ideas and no longer able to lead
MI6 headed by someone who falls apart when the heat goes on is not a very inspiring image…

like I say, this sort of nonsense is far more easy to accept and forgive in a lighter more fantastical Bond, rather than in one which takes itself as seriously as the Craig Bond series does

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Forenglandjames wrote:

I have a plot point question. Bond was asked 'skyfall' and he answered 'done'

What was that about.

He meant the evaluation was 'done.'

Ah ha. I had the same question. I think "done" probably comes over different to a Yank than a Limey.

"Done" as in "I don't want to talk about Skyfall", which is a mystery to the audience at he time, but we later learn it is the name of his ancestral home, which holds tragic memories for him, a sore spot that he didn't wish to discuss with a stranger, thus precipitating a sudden termination of the interview

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

If the target of the assassination was indeed someone involved in Silva's capture in the 1990s,

I really like this idea

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Remember, tiffy, Q left the "trail of breadcrumbs" for Silva to follow. No mastery of chess needed.

And if Bond had gone to Skyfall with the heavy battalions, Silva would have "smelled a rat" and never showed up.

You might be right that Silva's "people" had hacked into the Mi6 system while Silva was in custody. That is a simpler explanation than Silva relying on Mi6 to attempt to access his computer and trip the traps that he had set, although it does appear that might be what happened, as the doors in the floor open coincident with Q's messing around with Silva's computer. It is quite plausible, given Silva's genius, that he had indeed rigged his computer so that Q would trip the needed commands.

I'm not sure what the script is trying to tells us. Q though does say "we've been hacked" and his first reaction is to unplug Silva's computer, suggesting that programming in Silva's computer is causing the problem. Also the notion that Silva's "people" might hack doesn't quite fly. It does seem that he does all the hacking himself. We're not aware of any other hackers with his team, other than maybe hardware types who help him construct servers and stuff.

re the trail of breadcumbs, Silva's ability to follow doesn't really reflect on chess mastery skills. The chess skills refer more to his ability to plan and anticipate Mi6's every move. The breadcrumbs were left in such a way that only someone with Silva's computer skills could follow the trail, but disguised in such a way that Silva hopefully wouldn't seen the crumbs as a purposeful trap, but rather that he would atribute his ability to follow to his own brilliance and thus not smell a trap.

And yes bringing in heavy battalions would have scared off Silva. The whole ploy hinged on tricking Silva into thinking they had simply taken refuge and weren't lying in wait.

However the whole ploy is somewhat of a stretch. Bond freely admits he knows that Silva is coming, yet he's prepared to fight whatever arsenal Silva brings, with just himself and his tricked out Aston. He didn't know Kincaide would be there, and even then Kincaide only brings ancient weapons and couple of dogs plus his old self.

OK, I can kind of buy it, but its a big gamble. It was a very reckless move. You'd think there would be some attempt to have better defences, considering what Silva might conceivably bring with him.

Yes we've seen Bond overcome the odds before but usually he is put into these situations and overcomes as opposed to being the designer of them. In the books, Bond is a meticulous planner whenever he plots to put one of his own schemes into play.

I find much of this film very contrived. That's not usually a problem with a Bond film, but this one takes itself so damn seriously, that it demands such scrutiny and to be held to a higher standard of plausibility.

Re the Seve/Prisoner Monkey discussion.

Yes mommy was bad. She did indeed screw over Silva. Her actions were reprehensible for the reasons Seve outlines. Yes Silva clearly was a problem. What he eventually became suggests that M had the right instincts but selling him out to the Chinese, unless he was a demonstrated traitor. That's not an option for this character. A character which for the space of 22 films, never mind the books, has been a stalwart mentor to Bond.

Yes Mommy was very bad, which is another problem I have with this very contrived story. Suddenly we learn that M is a reckless crazed Intelligence Director reminiscent of the U.S. spymasters that the Bourne movies, and the previous Bond film for that matter, conditioned us to loathe. But wait, hold on, M really isn't all that bad. She comes around, right about the time Bond reappears with his bottle of whiskey in her apartment. She's still talking a lot of nonsense but she's at least now willing to fight the good fight. The producers had clearly taken their reality-check pill at this point ie you can only screw so much with this iconic character of more than 50 years.


The story line of GF is more narratively sound that this SF mess, but the big difference is that GF doesn't pretend to be a serious movie, yet still it manages to make more sense.:scratch:

I do agree with Shadow though, that it's not implausible that both Bond and Silva would stay loyal to M. That's just their sense of duty kicking in. They respect the office and will cut it as much slack as reasonably possible. Although as we saw, both did rebel. Silva in a huge way, while Bond and his bottle went on retreat for 3 months.

Bond was able to forgive, and even Silva ultimately couldn't bring himself to kill M, based on ties to his past loyalties. At the end he wanted them both punished as they both had been very bad.

Not a coincidence that the final reckoning takes place in a chapel either, consistent with religious themes and imagery that lightly sprinkle the narrative, and a development that Silva quickly attaches significance to. And this is where the film does work quite well IMO and what does make it interesting. It is well constructed thematically in both the main narrative and with its deployment of subtext.

Seve wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Forenglandjames wrote:

I have a plot point question. Bond was asked 'skyfall' and he answered 'done'

What was that about.

He meant the evaluation was 'done.'

Ah ha. I had the same question. I think "done" probably comes over different to a Yank than a Limey.

"Done" as in "I don't want to talk about Skyfall", which is a mystery to the audience at he time, but we later learn it is the name of his ancestral home, which holds tragic memories for him, a sore spot that he didn't wish to discuss with a stranger, thus precipitating a sudden termination of the interview

But "done," at least in America, also means "agreed." When Bond said "done," I initially thought he agreed to do some as yet unspoken thing. On the whole, it was a bit murky.

tiffanywint wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Remember, tiffy, Q left the "trail of breadcrumbs" for Silva to follow. No mastery of chess needed.

And if Bond had gone to Skyfall with the heavy battalions, Silva would have "smelled a rat" and never showed up.

You might be right that Silva's "people" had hacked into the Mi6 system while Silva was in custody. That is a simpler explanation than Silva relying on Mi6 to attempt to access his computer and trip the traps that he had set, although it does appear that might be what happened, as the doors in the floor open coincident with Q's messing around with Silva's computer. It is quite plausible, given Silva's genius, that he had indeed rigged his computer so that Q would trip the needed commands.

I'm not sure what the script is trying to tells us. Q though does say "we've been hacked" and his first reaction is to unplug Silva's computer, suggesting that programming in Silva's computer is causing the problem. Also the notion that Silva's "people" might hack doesn't quite fly. It does seem that he does all the hacking himself. We're not aware of any other hackers with his team, other than maybe hardware types who help him construct servers and stuff.

re the trail of breadcumbs, Silva's ability to follow doesn't really reflect on chess mastery skills. The chess skills refer more to his ability to plan and anticipate Mi6's every move. The breadcrumbs were left in such a way that only someone with Silva's computer skills could follow the trail, but disguised in such a way that Silva hopefully wouldn't seen the crumbs as a purposeful trap, but rather that he would atribute his ability to follow to his own brilliance and thus not smell a trap.

And yes bringing in heavy battalions would have scared off Silva. The whole ploy hinged on tricking Silva into thinking they had simply taken refuge and weren't lying in wait.

However the whole ploy is somewhat of a stretch. Bond freely admits he knows that Silva is coming, yet he's prepared to fight whatever arsenal Silva brings, with just himself and his tricked out Aston. He didn't know Kincaide would be there, and even then Kincaide only brings ancient weapons and couple of dogs plus his old self.

OK, I can kind of buy it, but its a big gamble. It was a very reckless move. You'd think there would be some attempt to have better defences, considering what Silva might conceivably bring with him.

Yes we've seen Bond overcome the odds before but usually he is put into these situations and overcomes as opposed to being the designer of them. In the books, Bond is a meticulous planner whenever he plots to put one of his own schemes into play.

I find much of this film very contrived. That's not usually a problem with a Bond film, but this one takes itself so damn seriously, that it demands such scrutiny and to be held to a higher standard of plausibility.

I agree that Q hacking Silva's mainframe, rather than action by Silva's goons, is what triggered the doors to open.

But regarding the alleged recklessness of Bond's behavior in going to Skyfall, recall that Bond expected an arsenal to be there. Kincade said that the arsenal had been purchased by a collector from "Idaho, or some such place." (Doubtless the only time Idaho will ever be mentioned in a Bond film.) I have no problem whatsoever with this portion of the film. And it's certainly no more contrived than the vast majority of Bond flicks.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

But regarding the alleged recklessness of Bond's behavior in going to Skyfall, recall that Bond expected an arsenal to be there. Kincade said that the arsenal had been purchased by a collector from "Idaho, or some such place." (Doubtless the only time Idaho will ever be mentioned in a Bond film.) I have no problem whatsoever with this portion of the film. And it's certainly no more contrived than the vast majority of Bond flicks.

Yes I am not quibbling too much with this scenario. It did appear to Bond that they had to get out in front of Silva. They had to stop playing into his hands, so heading out to SF certaintly did shake things up. Bond of course is also very confident in his abilities and as it turns out he was right as usual.

All's well that ends well, other than M took a bullet but that was a calculated risk I guess.

Yes, one of those odd endings where technically the villain won but we are all the better for it given that nowwe have Fiennes as M.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Seve wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Forenglandjames wrote:

I have a plot point question. Bond was asked 'skyfall' and he answered 'done'

What was that about.

He meant the evaluation was 'done.'

Ah ha. I had the same question. I think "done" probably comes over different to a Yank than a Limey.

"Done" as in "I don't want to talk about Skyfall", which is a mystery to the audience at he time, but we later learn it is the name of his ancestral home, which holds tragic memories for him, a sore spot that he didn't wish to discuss with a stranger, thus precipitating a sudden termination of the interview

But "done," at least in America, also means "agreed." When Bond said "done," I initially thought he agreed to do some as yet unspoken thing. On the whole, it was a bit murky.

It can mean that in English anywhere - the deal is completed, done

tiffanywint wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

But regarding the alleged recklessness of Bond's behavior in going to Skyfall, recall that Bond expected an arsenal to be there. Kincade said that the arsenal had been purchased by a collector from "Idaho, or some such place." (Doubtless the only time Idaho will ever be mentioned in a Bond film.) I have no problem whatsoever with this portion of the film. And it's certainly no more contrived than the vast majority of Bond flicks.

Yes I am not quibbling too much with this scenario. It did appear to Bond that they had to get out in front of Silva. They had to stop playing into his hands, so heading out to SF certaintly did shake things up. Bond of course is also very confident in his abilities and as it turns out he was right as usual.

All's well that ends well, other than M took a bullet but that was a calculated risk I guess.

she "took the shot" herself for a change


I'm just disappointed they decided to trim that scene due to time contraints, leaving out the part where Craig Bond carries her outside and tosses her into the Bond family's monogramed dumpster
:(

tiffanywint wrote:

Thanks Shadow. That makes perfect sense then, that Silva was simply executing his diversion plan and Bond happened to follow along. That does explain that the timing really had nothing to do with Bond, rather that it was just about blowing the hole so that the next train would fall through and create a big emergency diversion.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this is what makes Silva such a brilliant villain.

I've read plenty of books and seen plenty of films that suffer from what I like to call the James Patterson Effect, mostly because I've noticed that Patterson does it in almost everything he writes (not that I read much of his work, because he's rubbish). The James Patterson Effect happens when a hero and/or a villain improvise a scenario to trap the other that calls for a highly-specific, largely-unorthodox and very definately complex series of events to play out. But when the other arrives, they are not only able to anticipate precisely what will happen and when, but successfully evade capture and even turn the situation on the person who created it. This happens repeatedly throughout the story, with both sides giving and taking with equal ease. I suppose writers like Patterson use it to create tension, but it pushes the story into the realms of implausibility because characters are seemingly able to read each others' thoughts and adapt to them on the spot.

But Silva doesn't do that. His plan, while complex in its own way, doesn't rely on implausible events happening at precisely the right time. For instance, when Q accidentally lets him into the MI6 servers, Silva's computer displays the message "NOT SUCH A CLEVER BOY". This implies that Silva knows precisely who he is up against - and we already know he's been in the MI6 servers, so he would know Q has been employed/promoted - and tailored his computer security in such a way that Q can't see the forest for the trees. He creates a puzzle that he knows will suck Q in, and creates it in such a way that Q misses the code that allows Silva to unlock every door in the MI6 bunker.

We see this throughout the film - Silva knows that Bond is the agent M will send after him, and so is prepared for it. When he plays the shooting game with Bond and kills Severine, it has clearly been constructed to challenge Bond's most vulnerable points: his marksmanship, his psychological state, and his previous realtionships with women that have died because they crossed his path.

That's what makes Silva such a threatening villain. And it certainly helps that, unlike most cyberterrorists in film, there is a connection between him and the havoc he wreaks. He's not just someone completely removed from his plot the way Timothy Olyphant was in LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD.

Seve wrote:

like I say, this sort of nonsense is far more easy to accept and forgive in a lighter more fantastical Bond, rather than in one which takes itself as seriously as the Craig Bond series does

I was going to respond to each of your points individually, but then I realised that they're really all the same. Honestly, I think you're just looking to pick the film apart by concentrating on the tiniest details. SKYFALL has been hailed as a return to the 1960s style of Bond films, and I think the reason why is because it's escapist entertainment. It doesn't take itself too seriously. But you are, and so you're focussed on all of the tiny, relatively-insignificant things in the film that are really just the writers taking creative licence and holding them up as flaws that break the film.

Seve wrote:

like I say, this sort of nonsense is far more easy to accept and forgive in a lighter more fantastical Bond, rather than in one which takes itself as seriously as the Craig Bond series does

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

was going to respond to each of your points individually, but then I realised that they're really all the same. Honestly, I think you're just looking to pick the film apart by concentrating on the tiniest details. SKYFALL has been hailed as a return to the 1960s style of Bond films, and I think the reason why is because it's escapist entertainment. It doesn't take itself too seriously. But you are, and so you're focussed on all of the tiny, relatively-insignificant things in the film that are really just the writers taking creative licence and holding them up as flaws that break the film.

am I just looking to pick the film apart?

or rather, as you also say, have my comments have all been focused on only one aspect of the film, the way the character of M is developed...

is the character of M "insignificant" to the whole concept of this film, or is it, in fact, the central theme?

;)