Rate Skyfall (out of ten)

Seve wrote:

I have a theory!
Maybe the reason M agrees to go with Bond to Scotland is out of guilt and remorse about her previous amoral "crimes"?

I like the way your theory assumes that your radical interpretation of the need for the film-makes to show morality in the way they handle the content is automatically true and disregards every objection and argumet against it.

Bond's first priority was to save M. There should have been other ways of tracing Silva, M should have been hidden somewhere in retirement.
They might as well have staged an ambush for Silva with M as bait. They could have hidden the soldiers somewhere to await Silva and his goons. And if Silva would have suspected this to be a trap and stayed away - so what? Of course he then would have gone on to commit terrorist attacks, just in order to get hold of M - his only aim in life! Why not simply forgive her and get a life? - then they might as well have tried to trace him like any other big-time terrorist.
But if they wanted to make sure to capture him - to prevent any possible terrorist attack by the wizard - why then out of all places lure him to an old long abandoned house in Scotland - why did Bond think he had a bigger chance of running Silva down in his childhood house?
I mean, he was relying on the arsenal of rifles to still be there - but why? When the house had been run-down and desolate for years, why rely on an arsenal of old rifles to still be there? They might as well have been sold or stolen or simply so long unused that they could be irreversibly malfunctioning (what weaponry did Bond expect Silva to take along with him? More likely more modern stuff than daddy's old rods, one might assume).
And why would Bond think he could overcome Silva and his goons - with how many did Bond anticipate Silva to arrive? - alone with a couple of rifles (he only has two arms)?
And why would M suddenly develop scruples when she had made it more than clear in GOLDENEYE, DIE ANOTHER DAY, and SKYFALL, that she did not have any qualms sending her agents to death if she saw fit? It would have been very easy to avoid the death of civilians in an ambush scenario (that is self-evident and does not need any further explanation), and why suddenly have scruples to involve trained agents or soldiers in defending her?
At the Parliamentary inquiry M once again shows no real sign of remorse about her decisions (that's at least how I remember it, to me she seemed to come off as the winner) - so again, why the sudden change which presumably leads to her cosenting to put her life at the mercy of Bond's abilities to fight and eventually overcome Silva all on his own? In a desolate lodge?
And coming back to Silva's arsenal - I still don't get how he could have been able to acquire a huge military helicopter, an arsenal of potentially dangerous, ultramodern weapons, when everyone knew how dangerous the guy is, being a terrorist who has managed to exert a serious and heavy attack on the MI6 building and to get into that Parliamentary inquiry room and cause a lethal shootout (another highly unlikely achievement)?
Could they not have upped Bond's chances of saving M and capture Silva if Mallory or whoever had initiated a restraint on weapons along the lines of "Please don't sell any big military helicopters and other weaponry to nationally known terrorists, at the very least not to that one blond, supposedly gay, deformed guy who recently has managed to infiltrate the MI6 building and cause a big explosion and damages therein?"
But it's not as if the plot logic was the only thing that bothered me about SKYFALL. I've already stated some of my complaints, but connected with the scenes discussed in my post here - I can't see anyone in real life using a poem as an argument in favour of one's case, whatever it may be. The content is much too general in its message and is not really helpful; I mean, the poem itself is fine, and its message of maintaining old virtues, and never to yield etc., is admirable, but I'd rather have them show Bond having/living these virtues, or have them featured in a normal, well-written dialogue, as opposed to having that forced-feeling sequence that is too strongly modelled on similar moments in THE DARK KNIGHT; the poem itself isn't pretentious, but that scene feels a bit too forced for my liking. I also don't like the over-the-top shootout at the lodge, the vast explosions, and dumb lines like Silva's "Are you getting warm already?" (OWTTE) - typical juvenile Purvis & Wade comic book nonsense. And how often have they had a villain or another person say that the espionage game was old-fashioned?
I already fear further viewings, because I'm already sensing that a lot of things won't sit well with me. I don't hope it will be like that, but the more I think and read about the film, or watch those short clips on Youtube, the more I think it stinks.

Manhunter wrote:

Bond's first priority was to save M.

No it wasn't. She agreed to sacrifice herself as bait, out of guilt. Bond's first priority was to kill Silva.

Quote :

Could they not have upped Bond's chances of saving M and capture Silva if Mallory or whoever had initiated a restraint on weapons along the lines of "Please don't sell any big military helicopters and other weaponry to nationally known terrorists, at the very least not to that one blond, supposedly gay, deformed guy who recently has managed to infiltrate the MI6 building and cause a big explosion and damages therein?"

It's likely Silva's mercenaries had acquired the Merlin before.

Manhunter wrote:

They might as well have staged an ambush for Silva with M as bait. They could have hidden the soldiers somewhere to await Silva and his goons.

As has been said a few times, M insisted to Bond that no one other than the two of them be involved in the fight with Silva.

Manhunter wrote:

And why would M suddenly develop scruples when she had made it more than clear in GOLDENEYE, DIE ANOTHER DAY, and SKYFALL, that she did not have any qualms sending her agents to death if she saw fit?

GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY take place in a different continuity, with a different M. They're irrelevant here. And in SKYFALL, she clearly has a change of heart once her actions start to catch up with her.

Manhunter wrote:

At the Parliamentary inquiry M once again shows no real sign of remorse about her decisions (that's at least how I remember it, to me she seemed to come off as the winner) - so again, why the sudden change which presumably leads to her cosenting to put her life at the mercy of Bond's abilities to fight and eventually overcome Silva all on his own?

The game changes at that point. M gives her speech thinking Silva's been captured, thinking that they can put Silva aside. But Silva breaks in and everything goes to hell once again. It's at that point that M becomes more resigned and defeatist.

Manhunter wrote:

I've already stated some of my complaints, but connected with the scenes discussed in my post here - I can't see anyone in real life using a poem as an argument in favour of one's case, whatever it may be.

It's a dramatic gesture, not an argument. The hearing was a bit of political theater, and M indulged in some theater of her own.

Harmsway wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

I've already stated some of my complaints, but connected with the scenes discussed in my post here - I can't see anyone in real life using a poem as an argument in favour of one's case, whatever it may be.

It's a dramatic gesture, not an argument. The hearing was a bit of political theater, and M indulged in some theater of her own.

Yeah, there's a lot of literal-mindedness in Manhunter's complaints.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

Bond's first priority was to save M.

No it wasn't. She agreed to sacrifice herself as bait, out of guilt. Bond's first priority was to kill Silva.

She agreed to act as bait, certainly not to sacrifice herself. Of course he had to protect her.
And concerning Bond's chances to kill Silva I've made it clear that the Skyfall lodge scenario was exactly the one with the lowest prospect of being successful.

Harmsway wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

They might as well have staged an ambush for Silva with M as bait. They could have hidden the soldiers somewhere to await Silva and his goons.

As has been said a few times, M insisted to Bond that no one other than the two of them be involved in the fight with Silva.

Which is exactly why their chances of succeeding at capturing/killing Silva were suddenly very low. (Bond alone, old rifles etc. etc.)
It's stupid of them not to involve trained army/SAS professionals who are trained at and willing to put their lives at stake. Simply to raise the possibility to finally kill Silva should have made them risk those professionals' lives, and it would have raised chances incredibly.

Harmsway wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

At the Parliamentary inquiry M once again shows no real sign of remorse about her decisions (that's at least how I remember it, to me she seemed to come off as the winner) - so again, why the sudden change which presumably leads to her cosenting to put her life at the mercy of Bond's abilities to fight and eventually overcome Silva all on his own?

The game changes at that point. M gives her speech thinking Silva's been captured, thinking that they can put Silva aside. But Silva breaks in and everything goes to hell once again. It's at that point that M becomes more resigned and defeatist.

It is easy to see why that shootout would make M finally realize that her betrayal of Silva was misguided, perhaps a moral mistake even, but it would have been more convincing if she had understood that her actions of the past were wrong in their own right; the way it is, it seems only Silva's abilities to commit terrorist attacks and to put life in danger and murder people makes her change her mind (and it's the closest her own life ever was in danger, so that may be important, even if she does not admit to it).
Even if a change of mind caused by this event (there were no signs beforehand, still quite all of a sudden) is understandable, I'd rather be concerned of MI6's failure to keep a single man prisoner, and to prevent him from attacking a Parliamentary inquiry - in addition to the fault of having that "hard-drive" stolen. All of this is hardly her own mistake - after all, how could she have known that Silva would turn into a superman wizard during/after his capture in the past?
And by realizing how dangerous and skilled Silva is, the first priority was to stop and at best to kill him, which leads us back to the ludicrous decision to give her consent to the with-Bond-alone-at-Skyfall scenario.

Quote :

Even if a change of mind caused by this event (there were no signs beforehand, still quite all of a sudden)

There are plenty of subtle signs of guilt throughout the film, but one of the most telling is M staring out of the window at the end of the PTS. She knows this is the end.

I'm not sure this is true. She seems to fear that Bond could be horribly wounded or dead. I don't see any guilt in that, that decision was perfectly in line with her hard edge in the job, she just fears for Bond.
If she had felt a considerable amount of guilt before the shootout at the Parliamentary inquiry, she would have behaved differently, for example consented to being retired in honour.

Manhunter wrote:

I'm not sure this is true. She seems to fear that Bond could be horribly wounded or dead. I don't see any guilt in that, that decision was perfectly in line with her hard edge in the job, she just fears for Bond.

Well, it's partly guilt for what she's just done to her best agent, but it's also losing the NOC list. She fucked up bad.

Manhunter wrote:

If she had felt a considerable amount of guilt before the shootout at the Parliamentary inquiry, she would have behaved differently, for example consented to being retired in honour.

She's stubborn, and doesn't want to go out quietly in retirement in 2 months time. Not even GCMG with full honours is enough. In her own words, "to hell with dignity! I'll leave when the job's done."

To cut to the chase, she's conflicted.

It's at least honourable of her to not be cowardly and leave the job for someone else to do.
(Not sure she's conflicted, she seems rather determined and resolute).
But her decision to take on Silva alone with Bond seems to me to be more fatal than all of her others, even if Bond manages to kill Silva - only just. There was only a minimal chance of being successful that way in the most important objective of stopping Silva, but I've addressed that enough already.
(Even if she wasn't clear-headed enough to make a reasonable decision, Bond should have been...)

Largo's Shark wrote:

I think you're hit the nail on the head. Isn't there a line that corroborates with that?

"Too many people are dying because of me."

Also, the husband we saw in the background in Quantum of Solace has died some time between then and now. She says her late husband quoted Tennyson. She's also staring retirement in the face, almost forced retirement. She going to be feeling her own mortality, probably more determined to go out with a bang than with a whimper.

I'd go so far as to say she's raging against the dying of the light ;)

As a long-time fan of the series (going on 30 years strong in 2013), I give the movie a 7 or 8. If TWINE had not existed, this movie might get a 10 from me. Or, if I were only a casual fan of the series, and had really just come on board with Daniel Craig, it might have gotten a 10.

The problem for me with the film is that I *HAVE* seen this before with TWINE, almost exactly plot-beat-for-plot beat. Otherwise I might have been excited to see M in a greatly expanded role beyond the normally "expanded" screen time she's been steadily getting since, well, TWINE.

SF and TWINE both prominently feature M in the main plot, and Bond is essentially a supporting player in both. In both films revenge against M for failing to rescue the villain while being held captive is the driving agenda. In both films Bond has to recuperate from an injury sustained in the pre-titles sequences, and in both instances he is given a clean bill of health even though he is not ready to go back into the field by MI6 standards. Both films were set in Istanbul. Both films were set in Scotland. In both films MI6 was attacked by explosion.

I understand the pedigree of the writers and directors involved, but that must have been one very uncomfortable production meeting when Babs and Michael finally got a look at the script and found so much of it resembling TWINE. And it's not like TWINE was a movie from the 60's or 70's. It just came out 13 years ago. I wonder who made the hard sell to EON that this could be pulled off, because even by EON standards (where the "formula" is something to be expected, admired, and even praised) this is a bit of a gamble to so quickly remake something that you just put out only one decade ago. And make no mistake, this *IS* a remake of TWINE. So, for all the haters of AVTAK who consider it a blatant rip-off of GF, what do you have to say about SF remaking TWINE?

Fortunately for all involved, they manage to pull the film off. If you don't dig too far beneath the surface, and try to accept that Daniel Craig's Bond exists in his own timeline, then SF is a great film.

SF is not a remake of TWINE. That is hyperbole.

Renard and Elektra are entirely different figures from Silva. Indeed, they're co-villains instead of a single villain.

Renard and Elektra intend to nuke the Bosphorous in order to further Elektra's oil ambitions. Silva is a cyber-terrorist who wants to destroy MI6 and murder M. He's not in it for money or power.

TWINE's PTS features a boat chase on the Thames; SF's goes by motorcycle and train in Istanbul.

TWINE's Bond girl is a ditzy American nuclear physicist; SF's is a smoky Eurasian sex slave.

TWINE's climax occurs aboard a submarine in the Bosphorous; SF's on an ancient Scotish manse.

There are similarities, of course, and you've astutely pointed them out. But the differences are multitudinous and stark. Not once while watching SF did I feel like I was viewing a re-hash of TWINE. The films are dramatically different.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

As a long-time fan of the series (going on 30 years strong in 2013), I give the movie a 7 or 8. If TWINE had not existed, this movie might get a 10 from me. Or, if I were only a casual fan of the series, and had really just come on board with Daniel Craig, it might have gotten a 10.

The problem for me with the film is that I *HAVE* seen this before with TWINE, almost exactly plot-beat-for-plot beat. Otherwise I might have been excited to see M in a greatly expanded role beyond the normally "expanded" screen time she's been steadily getting since, well, TWINE.

I have that feeling a bit with the drama. She and P&W for example give so much for her M that her death disapointed in Skyfall. Also i already have peace with Dench's M destanation. Since i saw on some pictures Dench looking a bit il and skinny. Of course i already know she going to leave Bond movies soon, 2 times in QOS there give a preview she go.

With my fanart i let the chacter die in Bond 25 by killing her self in front of Bond and old friend from both.

To be honest, I did feel a TWINE/GE moodiness in SF when I was watching it...

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Seve wrote:

I have a theory!
Maybe the reason M agrees to go with Bond to Scotland is out of guilt and remorse about her previous amoral "crimes"?

I like the way your theory assumes that your radical interpretation of the need for the film-makes to show morality in the way they handle the content is automatically true and disregards every objection and argumet against it.

My lpreference for a hero to have a moral compass is neither true nor false
It's merely my opinon, which I am arguing in favour of in these discussions
Just as you argue in favour of your point of view
This forum is entirely subjective, not absolute

And there's nothing "radical" about it, on the contrary I think most people would say it was "reactionary"
Given that moral bankruptsy is more prevalent in these "Tarantino times" than in the days of John Ford

It's the same reason I love "Shane" and despise "Pale Rider"

Nothing says morality like shooting an unarmed man in cold blood.

Python wrote:

Nothing says morality like shooting an unarmed man in cold blood.

It all depends on whether he deserves it (in the viewers personal opinion)

Morallity is in the eye of the beholder?
:cyclops:

Seve wrote:

It's the same reason I love "Shane" and despise "Pale Rider"

Speaking of deserving it. You don't want to mess with the pale rider. :shock:

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.:affraid:

tiffanywint wrote:

Seve wrote:

It's the same reason I love "Shane" and despise "Pale Rider"

Speaking of deserving it. You don't want to mess with the pale rider. :shock:

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.:affraid:

Well, if you want to discuss what's wrong with "Fail Rider" vis-a -is Shane, we can do that over in the Western thread some time

Me, I prefer Clint as Jose Wales, rather than as a "pale" shadow of Alan Ladd

Perilagu Khan wrote:

SF is not a remake of TWINE. That is hyperbole.

No, it is not hyperbole. Your response that my comment is hyperbole is in itself hyperbole.

Quote :

Renard and Elektra are entirely different figures from Silva. Indeed, they're co-villains instead of a single villain.

Of course they are different from Silva, but the motivations are exactly the same. Elektra tries to kill M because she feels like she wasn't given the help or attention she deserved by M when she was kidnapped. Silva tries to kill M because he feels like he wasn't given the help or attention he deserved when he was held captive by the Chinese (or handed over to the Chinese; not quite sure how that timeline was supposed to work, but whatever).

Quote :

Renard and Elektra intend to nuke the Bosphorous in order to further Elektra's oil ambitions. Silva is a cyber-terrorist who wants to destroy MI6 and murder M. He's not in it for money or power.

Agreed, but it would have been nice if the story had put a little more skin in the game instead of simply making the main plot about revenge. Once Silva killed M, what was he going to do next? Not attack London? The threat level should have been greater than simply trying to take out M, but that's neither here nor there.

Quote :

TWINE's PTS features a boat chase on the Thames; SF's goes by motorcycle and train in Istanbul.

I never compared them exactly, other than to say both PTS feature Bond being injured, and those injuries not only having to be cleared by MI6 before allowing him back to duty, but the injuries themselves play into the plot later on.

Quote :

TWINE's Bond girl is a ditzy American nuclear physicist; SF's is a smoky Eurasian sex slave.

Now that's a stretch. TWINE's leading lady wasn't ditzy, no matter how poorly played she was by Richards. It's also a stretch to even assert that SF has a leading lady or a proper BOND GIRL, as Eve is only a supporting Bond Girl and Severin is the sacrificial lamb with about 15 minutes of screen time.

Quote :

There are similarities, of course, and you've astutely pointed them out. But the differences are multitudinous and stark. Not once while watching SF did I feel like I was viewing a re-hash of TWINE. The films are dramatically different.

I never felt I was watching TWINE either, but I also think its fair to say that it's kind of hard to forget TWINE when so many of the most obvious plot points from it are shoved in the face of the viewer.

Regardless, Gravy, SF is not a remake of TWINE. And that is the gist of the picnic.

One difference I can say is that unlike TWINE, SF actually had balls. TWINE feels like a movie that wants to be SF but can't because it's far too concerned of ticking boxes and delivering dull generic action by Vic Armstrong. To make matters worse, TWINE is utterly incompetent.

I think the comparison with TWINE, as defined, is interesting and has some validity, both are certainly the most thematically ambitious Bond films for their respective actors, IMO SF comes closer to hitting it's mark than TWINE, but neither is entirely successful from that perspective

Seve wrote:

Well, if you want to discuss what's wrong with "Fail Rider" vis-a -is Shane, we can do that over in the Western thread some time

Me, I prefer Clint as Jose Wales, rather than as a "pale" shadow of Alan Ladd

Clint is awesome in every western he made. There is nothing to discuss, but Pale Rider and High Plains Drifter are my two favourites. He is pure wrath in both. :affraid: