SKYFALL Plot Synopsis

dalton wrote:

And it's not even like we had any idea who these henchmen were and why they were needed to deal with a decidedly non-threatening Vesper.

Presumably because they didn't trust her and thought she might have gone over to the other side. Protection against a sting operation, perhaps.

Harmsway wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Purvis and Wade never actually wrote QOS. They did a script treatment, which is recounting all the major plot points. Paul Haggis wrote the script off that treatment.

Not quite accurate.

Haggis said, in interviews, that when he came on board, the film had a script that Forster disliked. So he tossed it out and started from scratch, initially with his Vesper-had-a-child idea, which was then tossed out, and then he had to scramble to get a story together with the version of QoS he turned in before the writer's strike.

I think folks underestimate the amount of input Zetumer and Forster had into the film. A lot of the general PC-ness was likely down to them, considering their previous films and what they've been associated with (I.e. Zetumer being hired for BOURNE 4).

Okay, so back on the subject of what "Skyfall" is in the context of the film, and I think I've come up with a few ideas as to what it may be.

- First of all, the name of an old operation that was covered up. We've been over that one plenty already.

- The most obvious connection is to the story of Chicken Little, but also to the saying "the sky is falling - go and tell the king". It suggests mass panic, maybe harnessing the power of paranoia. My first thought on this was that it would be some kind of false flag operation, an attack on London orchestrated by MI6 to free up their powers. But this, I think, is a horrible idea because it would make the heroes become villains. It's taking things too far. Perhaps MI6 and all of the British intelligence services get attacked to spread panic; the people who are supposed to protect the public from terrorism get attacked themselves.

- The other connection that I found is a legal phrase, fiat justita ruat caelum, which essentially means "justice must be done, even if it means the sky falls", which sounds remarkably like something the villain might say to justify his actions: even if people die, and even if the state of security is irreparably damaged, it is a necessary evil because justice will be served. I read somewhere that Javier Bardem has said his villain is really "misunderstood", so this mantra might tie in very well with that. We've never really had a villain who committed atrocities because he believed it was the right thing to do. If "Skyfall" is the name of an operation that went badly and left Bardem out in the cold, then it's especially useful (not because the operation was named "Skyfall"; rather, he would learn the name and fiat justita ruat caelum would be born out of it).

Maybe I should write up one of my infamous full treatments, save it, and see how it compares to the final film. I remember reasoning about 60% of QUANTUM OF SOLACE in advance (but this time, I'm not going to go in for spoilers).

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Maybe I should write up one of my infamous full treatments, save it, and see how it compares to the final film. I remember reasoning about 60% of QUANTUM OF SOLACE in advance (but this time, I'm not going to go in for spoilers).

They're only spoliers if you know them to be part of the script but I think you should be fleshing out a full novel it sounds a great read, even if I do find the tone a tad too introverted for Bond (but imo the films are very guilty of that atm anyways so not saing you're wrong about what they will do).

dalton wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Way too downbeat, I'm afraid.

Of course it's downbeat, she's dead. If the finale scene of OHMSS was re-written today, it would involve an OMG EPIC car chase between Bond/Tracey and Blofeld/Bunt, with tonnes of bullets, explosions, and loud music.

Exactly. Of course a faithful adaptation of the ending of Fleming's Casino Royale would be downbeat, given what transpires there. Even if we were to accept that there must be an action sequence in the third act to help propel Vesper towards her death, it could have been significantly more low-key than the sinking house. It could have been something that simply involved Bond and Gettler rather than dragging a team of henchmen into it as well, perhaps something along the lines of the stairwell fight earlier in the film.

Yes. As much as I really like Casino Royale, the finale was an overdone action scene too much and distracted from the impact of Vesper's death. It's the one main part of the film I'd change, I was happy with the rest. And wasn't the whole point of Bond's triumphant introduction at the end of the film the perfect way to offset what would have otherwise been a downbeat ending? In light of that, Vesper's death could have been as downbeat as necessary, so in my opinion there's little excuse for the slight botching of the action finale. Just laziness and lack of trust in their audience, simply assuming they wanted videogame action instead of a satisfying dramatic ending to the story. It's a shame, but Casino Royale is still right up there with the best Bond films regardless.

M wrote:

Yes. As much as I really like Casino Royale, the finale was an overdone action scene too much and distracted from the impact of Vesper's death. It's the one main part of the film I'd change, I was happy with the rest. And wasn't the whole point of Bond's triumphant introduction at the end of the film the perfect way to offset what would have otherwise been a downbeat ending? In light of that, Vesper's death could have been as downbeat as necessary, so in my opinion there's little excuse for the slight botching of the action finale. Just laziness and lack of trust in their audience, simply assuming they wanted videogame action instead of a satisfying dramatic ending to the story. It's a shame, but Casino Royale is still right up there with the best Bond films regardless.

I couldn't agree more.

You're right when you say that it comes down to a lack of trust in the audience. If EON had really set out to tell a gripping and compelling story with Casino Royale, the audience would have been willing to go wherever the story took them, rather than needing that action sequence to pad out the final third of the film. They had already gone quite a while with only the staircase fight filling the void between Miami and Venice, so what would a few more minutes hurt?

They had a very good opportunity presented to them to really take the series in a new direction by actually following the novel in terms of Vesper's arc, and that was something I think the audiences would have been willing to go along with them on considering that we've seen our action franchises almost uniformly in the last few years take on rather dark tones in terms of their storytelling. They could have gone with a much more downbeat ending to Casino Royale, and one that is much more in line with the novel, and then still pulled the audience back from that with the "Bond, James Bond" scene to cap things off. What I would have liked to have seen the ending of the film look like would have been for Vesper to be seen breaking down over the final third of the film as Gettler constantly shows up wherever she goes (where w. Bond would wonder what is going on with her, as she would hold it inside. They would have a final night together, with Bond thinking of it as the beginning of a long future together and Vesper knowing that it is actually their final moments together, with Bond discovering her body and note the next day after returning to the hotel from some kind of errand or tying up of a loose end regarding the mission (or something like that). This would have set Gettler up as Bond's target in the final moments of Quantum of Solace rather than Yusef.

A more downbeat ending wouldn't have magically made the film better, though. Even though it's overblown and Brosnan-like, in some ways it needed to be done continue to continue the tone set by the rest of the film. There's two massive action sets at the beginning, so not having a huge action scene at the end would have made the film top-heavy and inconsistent. The entire film should have been much more low-key, not just the ending.

dr. strangelove wrote:

The entire film should have been much more low-key, not just the ending.

Agreed. I like Casino Royale, but if they had focused on the mood and ambience of the film, rather than the set pieces, it would have been definitely better. Imagine realizing the "scent of sweat and smoke" which would have opened the film. The main action would have been the torture sequence and that car stunt, and the last act would have been Vesper's decline.

I've said that CR should have been a thriller instead of an action movie. Just as TLD still had touches of the Moore era, CR wasn't quite the overhaul from the Brosnan films that it should have been. Still a good Bond film I think.

CASINO ROYALE is everything the Brosnan films were trying to be. It's essentially the fulfillment of the new management's vision of a Bond film, picking pieces from the novel, but on the whole, doing its own thing. But I quite dig it, even the final section of the film (which is actually my favorite bit of the film by a long stretch).

dr. strangelove wrote:

A more downbeat ending wouldn't have magically made the film better, though. Even though it's overblown and Brosnan-like, in some ways it needed to be done continue to continue the tone set by the rest of the film. There's two massive action sets at the beginning, so not having a huge action scene at the end would have made the film top-heavy and inconsistent. The entire film should have been much more low-key, not just the ending.

I'm not suggesting that simply changing the final part of the film would have magicaly made the film significantly better. That was simply the item that was up for discussion with regards to the work of Purvis, Wade, and Haggis. If we were to open things up to the film as a whole, I woudl have gone significantly more low-key across the board, probably cutting quite a bit out of the first half of the film (and definitely removing quite a bit of the very overlong action sequences that make up that first half) in favor of expanding on the Bond/Vesper relationship later and also focusing on Vesper's worry over Gettler before heading into a finale much like has already been discussed.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

It was online. Months ago. Before you ask, I don't have a link. I know that won't do much to convince you, but I stand by it.

I ask because I've seen a draft of TWINE online before, and I don't remember it being very different. Or at the very least, it still had a lot of the same problems that appeared in the final screenplay. Several of which you likely wouldn't agree are problems anyway.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Why's this? I've always read that Tamahori had a lot of zany ideas for action and spectacle. But I've never heard anything about him actually rewriting any dialogue or doing any character work, both of which are terrible in DAD.

Who said he did the writing? If he wasn't happy with the script and felt it needed more dodgy dialogue, he could always ask Purvis and Wade to do it, or find someoen willing to do uncredited rewrites.

No one said Tamahori did any writing. Pretty certain he didn't. And even if he did ask for 'dodgy' dialogue (what kind of a request is that?), P&W are still the ones who actually wrote it. So if Tamahori tells them he wants the film to be more fun (or whatever), P&W write their idea of fun. Which is pretty terrible when compared to, say, Moonraker. The end result's still on them.

If you think there's some inconsistency in DAD's quality of writing and that this points to uncredited writers/contributors, that's fine. I find practically the whole thing garbage (its concepts, execution and script), and P&W undoubtedly wrote the bulk of it... They're the ones credited after all.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Guilty by association? I think it's fair enough to condemn the two writers common to the last four films if one doesn't care for the last four films (or elements common to the last four films).

Why do they deserve to be branded guilty for something that isn't necessarily theirs? That's the writer's burden - sometimes, the studio and/or has the script re-written, but the writer has to keep his name on it. How would you feel if you wrote a film, then had some studio executive come along, carve it up and reassemble it as they think it should be, and then keep your name on the front page when you want nothing to do with it?

Why do they deserve apologists? They've worked on four films in a row, all of which have featured flawed writing. Forgive me for pointing out the common factor there. As to your last question - nothing like that has ever happened to P&W, and they've never claimed their work was compromised.

They're not the devil or anything, but they've been given four films in a row. All with flaws difficult to not concede. And simply on the basis of their first two efforts, which I find to be the worst in a series of films which are about half crap anyway, I would label them the worst Bond writers we've seen. Okay, maybe I'll give you Roald Dahl. But still, how much exactly do you have to convince yourself that P&W's work has been altered beyond their control to justify supporting their continued presence in EON's payroll?

dr. strangelove wrote:

A more downbeat ending wouldn't have magically made the film better, though. Even though it's overblown and Brosnan-like, in some ways it needed to be done continue to continue the tone set by the rest of the film. There's two massive action sets at the beginning, so not having a huge action scene at the end would have made the film top-heavy and inconsistent. The entire film should have been much more low-key, not just the ending.

My biggest beef with the sinking house is how pointless it feels. The other set-pieces in the film are excessive, for sure. But they had drive & purpose, both in a physical and a narrative sense. The parkour developed Bond's character (or at least showcased it), and the Miami action set up the entire plot in Montenegro.

In contrast, the final set piece was basically Bond running around a giant rig shooting and fighting to no end. The piece was never storyboarded during production (source: Campbell/Wilson commentary) because they ran out of time. And that shows. It's reminiscent of the action in, say, TWINE, where all the gunfire could be assembled into any order and not impact the narrative - because there isn't one. It's all quite exciting, but meaningless and ultimately distracts us from Vesper's capture & suicide. That's the real issue, IMO.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

It was online. Months ago. Before you ask, I don't have a link. I know that won't do much to convince you, but I stand by it.

I ask because I've seen a draft of TWINE online before, and I don't remember it being very different. Or at the very least, it still had a lot of the same problems that appeared in the final screenplay. Several of which you likely wouldn't agree are problems anyway.

There is a first draft floating around, one with more substantial differences to the final film than the draft that is more commonly seen on the internet.

Harmsway wrote:

CASINO ROYALE is everything the Brosnan films were trying to be. It's essentially the fulfillment of the new management's vision of a Bond film, picking pieces from the novel, but on the whole, doing its own thing. But I quite dig it, even the final section of the film (which is actually my favorite bit of the film by a long stretch).

When you say the final section, do you mean the Venice scenes and thereafter?

My own fave section, I suppose, would be Bond meeting Vesper on the train (in spite of the awful plug for Omega and some dialogue that now seems cringeworthy) through to Le Chiffre being shot dead.

But I'm still very fond of the whole film, mind you. Don't get me started on the brilliance of the B&W PTS.

Regarding Casino Royale, I dug it in theaters and I still dig it now. That's in spite of it's plot structure, not because of it. While the core hour (Vesper intro to Le Chiffre death) is rock solid and the best hour of Bond since OHMSS, the set pieces that surround it are Brosnan era holdovers. They do nothing noteworthy, but pad the runtime out.

Action sequences are the one thing improved upon in Quantum. They arrive, raise your adrenaline, and leave before their welcome wears out. Quantum just has too many, smushes them too close together, and didn't have a structure to build around.

Don't forget Bruce Feirstein.

Haven't played that game since it first came out on rental. I see he has written most of the games since then.

Loomis wrote:

When you say the final section, do you mean the Venice scenes and thereafter?

Yep.

Tubes wrote:

Action sequences are the one thing improved upon in Quantum.

No way. At least the action sequences are comprehensible in CASINO ROYALE. In QUANTUM, they're all sloppy and dull. Nothing particularly great about them in conception or execution, and they all lack a strong sense of narrative.

The main problem with the action in QUANTUM OF SOLACE is that the story comes to a halt for the action to take place, and then only re-starts once the action sequence is over. CASINO ROYALE did it once or twice, but for the most part, the action was a consequence of the plot until that point, and had consequences for the plot afterwards. Take, for example, the stairwell fight scene: It comes about because Bond stopped the Miami bombing, the Africans wanted their money back from Le Chiffre, and because Bond was trying to spy on him. All three of those contributed to the scene playing out the way it did. And afterwards, Bond and Mathis used Steven Obanno's body to set up one of Le Chiffre's lackeys, whilst Le Chiffre believed Bond changing his bloody shirt meant that Bond was feeling the pressure in the poker game. Everything sort of blends together; the fight takes existing plot strands and offers new ones.

By comparsion, what did the footchase and gallery fight in QUANTUM OF SOLACE do? Sure, the gallery fight was perhaps the most unique sequence in a Bond film, but if Bond had simply let Craig Mitchell escape, nothing much would have changed. MI6 still would have searched Mitchell's apartment, and they still would have found the money linking him to Haiti. Mitchell probably would have warned Quantum if he had lived, but at the same time, Quantum was tipped off when Mitchell failed to report in. The only way the scene would have worked would be if Bond had taken Mitchell alive and MI6 were able to use him to spread false information.

Yeah, the action in QOS could have been from any film. I though CR has well-executed action sequences. I'm probably in the minority, but I thought the Miami sequence was great.

In fact, if we're picking favorite sections of CR, I prefer much of the first half (pre-Vesper) to much of what comes after.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'm probably in the minority, but I thought the Miami sequence was great.

No, I liked it, too. I think it went on for just long enough, and that it always felt like Bond was in some kind of danger, especially when he jumped off the tanker to avoid being squished (unlike, say, the car chase with Zao in DIE ANOTHER DAY, which would not have been out of place in a video game). And it's directed and shot very competently.

I think most of the complaints about the Miami scene in CASINO ROYALE have little to do with the action, and more to do with the way the scene is set entirely within Miami Airport, which hardly ranks up there with the standard of locations that we have seen in the past (ie SPECTRE Volcano, the Liparus tanker, Zorin's chateau and so on). If the scene had taken place somewhere more exotic than an airport, I think people who have warmed to it a lot more.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'm probably in the minority, but I thought the Miami sequence was great.

No, I liked it, too.

I actually enjoyed the Miami sequence but more in isolation than as an integral part of the plot, the other action sequences of CR were OTT and overlong (to the point of indifference on my part) and imo were largely disposable, I agree with those looking for CR as a more low key film with more subdued action and a greater focus on the characters - indeed action scaled back to the kind of level of the 60's films would probably have hit the perfect balance. While I understand the criticism of the coherence of the QOS action I am also of the opinion it improves on CR in that those bursts of adenalin stays short and remain at a scale that feels appropriate for what is a rather low key story. imo From GE onwards the requirements of the generic American action film have been assailing the individuality of the Bond franchise and in CR we find the most stark example as the film almost feels like two different films have collided.

Germanlady posted this at MI6 and CBn. Since she hasn't posted it here (is she a member of this forum?), I'll post it for her:

http://filmedge.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/dial-m-for-menace-early-speculation-on-the-meaning-and-action-of-skyfall/

It's very interesting. Maybe "Skyfall" is an internal MI6 code, a kind of warning that they have intelligence of an upcoming attack, but have reason to doubt that credibility and so hesitate in informing the public because they believe the panic will do more damage than the attack itself if it happens.