SKYFALL Plot Synopsis

lachesis wrote:

Yeah but sadly we still have Purvis and Wade on board with their one note emo-trust idea and 'almost but not quite' maxim of script delivery.

I think Purvis and Wade get a raw deal. I've seen the original script for TWINE, and it was very good. It really played up the mystery of who was ultimately responsible, Renard or Elektra. Bond did not actually work out that Elektra was guilty until M was abducted. However, the film was rewritten several times; I believe Michael Apted's wife did it. Apted appears to have felt that since Elektra was guilty, the relationship with Bond needed to be emphasised.

DAD has also got sticky fingerprints all over it, and I suspect they are Lee Tamahori's. There are a few scenes in the film that have some real quality to them - M and Bond in Hong Kong, Graves describing how he modelled himself on Bond, and so on. They really stand out in comparising to the banality of the rest of the script, so something evidently happened during production.

As for CR, this is probably best representative of their ability to write Bond. When the film first came out, I remember everyone talking about how Paul Haggis wrote "all the good bits" of the film, but that is not the case. Haggis was a script doctor, called in to tweak dialogue and maybe re-order scenes to make the pacing better. I believe Haggis is also the one who came up with the infamous sinking house sequence (though I never understood why this was received poorly) - and as QOS shows, he's not that talented.

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.

I think Purvis and Wade are competent screenwriters. They just get a bad reputation because they're forced to have their names on a film that isn't necessarily theirs.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

lachesis wrote:

Yeah but sadly we still have Purvis and Wade on board with their one note emo-trust idea and 'almost but not quite' maxim of script delivery.

I think Purvis and Wade get a raw deal. I've seen the original script for TWINE, and it was very good. It really played up the mystery of who was ultimately responsible, Renard or Elektra. Bond did not actually work out that Elektra was guilty until M was abducted. However, the film was rewritten several times; I believe Michael Apted's wife did it. Apted appears to have felt that since Elektra was guilty, the relationship with Bond needed to be emphasised.

DAD has also got sticky fingerprints all over it, and I suspect they are Lee Tamahori's. There are a few scenes in the film that have some real quality to them - M and Bond in Hong Kong, Graves describing how he modelled himself on Bond, and so on. They really stand out in comparising to the banality of the rest of the script, so something evidently happened during production.

As for CR, this is probably best representative of their ability to write Bond. When the film first came out, I remember everyone talking about how Paul Haggis wrote "all the good bits" of the film, but that is not the case. Haggis was a script doctor, called in to tweak dialogue and maybe re-order scenes to make the pacing better. I believe Haggis is also the one who came up with the infamous sinking house sequence (though I never understood why this was received poorly) - and as QOS shows, he's not that talented.

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.

I think Purvis and Wade are competent screenwriters. They just get a bad reputation because they're forced to have their names on a film that isn't necessarily theirs.

You easily can tell what scenes in CR were written by Haggis. He's even said that the Bond/Vesper scenes were his, and doesn't really seem to take credit for anything else. And why does everyone seem to think the sinking house was Haggis' idea? I don't know for sure, but that scene is right in P&W's wheelhouse. I'd be shocked if we found and that Haggis came up with that idea. Also, you need not look any further than the commentary on the CR special edition DVD to dig up some dirt on P&W. Campbell states quite clearly that the screenplay for CR (written by P&W before Haggis got to it) was severely lacking, and that it contained way too much goofy humor. I believe Campbell even went as far as to say that the original P&W script felt like something out of the Brosnan era and that the writers weren't really embracing the fact that the series was rebooted.

As far as QoS goes...Haggis' script wasn't anywhere close to being completed when he had to submit it early due to the writer's strike. Even Forster has admitted that they didn't really have a script in place when they started filming, and that they were writing it (with the help of Zetumer) as they went along (similar to what happened with TND). As far as P&W's involvement was concerned, they really had none. They wrote a script based on MGW's idea of a direct sequel to CR. Forster didn't like it, threw the entire thing out, and hired Haggis to write a new script. Forster has since confirmed this. P&W are only credited in the titles because they wrote the first script and I believe there was some kind of contractual agreement that they'd be credited no matter what material was used in the film.

Are P&W as bad as some people make them out to be? No, probably not. Do they have some good idea? Sure. But they're still a major, major problem with the franchise, and they're influence needs to be minimized or completely removed as soon as humanly possible (as does every other link to the Brosnan era).

dr. strangelove wrote:

And why does everyone seem to think the sinking house was Haggis' idea? I don't know for sure, but that scene is right in P&W's wheelhouse. I'd be shocked if we found and that Haggis came up with that idea.

I got that from the special edition commentary with Campbell and Wilson. Campbell needed an action sequence, and Haggis had recently watched a documentary on Venice, about how the houses need to be prevented falling into the lagoon one by one.

I just think it was a mistake to throw in a huge action sequence at the end. The film needed the quite intensity of the novel's ending, not TITANIC 2.0.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I believe Haggis is also the one who came up with the infamous sinking house sequence (though I never understood why this was received poorly)

because it was unconvincing CGI rubbish, and because Venitian buildings are not built on stilts over water, so the house could not sink into the water in the manner it did in the film

Venice is built on wooden piles driven into the mud of existing above water islands, any sinking is done very slowly over hundreds of years

Oceans Twelve operated under the same ridiculous misapprehension, except it applied it to Amsterdam

Seve wrote:

because it was unconvincing CGI rubbish

Haven't you seen the production featurette on the DVD? Chris Corbould (I think it was him) showed off the pneumatic rig that they used for the interiors, so in that respect it was done properly. Maybe the exteriors were CGI, but it was better than some I could care to name. And maybe it operated on flawed logic, but that's called poetic licence.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Seve wrote:

because it was unconvincing CGI rubbish

Haven't you seen the production featurette on the DVD? Chris Corbould (I think it was him) showed off the pneumatic rig that they used for the interiors, so in that respect it was done properly. Maybe the exteriors were CGI, but it was better than some I could care to name.

It's the combination of the exterior CG shots, and the excessive digital grading, which is a problem throughout the film.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

And maybe it operated on flawed logic, but that's called poetic licence.

License revoked.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

lachesis wrote:

Yeah but sadly we still have Purvis and Wade on board with their one note emo-trust idea and 'almost but not quite' maxim of script delivery.

I think Purvis and Wade get a raw deal. I've seen the original script for TWINE, and it was very good. It really played up the mystery of who was ultimately responsible, Renard or Elektra. Bond did not actually work out that Elektra was guilty until M was abducted. However, the film was rewritten several times; I believe Michael Apted's wife did it. Apted appears to have felt that since Elektra was guilty, the relationship with Bond needed to be emphasised.

DAD has also got sticky fingerprints all over it, and I suspect they are Lee Tamahori's. There are a few scenes in the film that have some real quality to them - M and Bond in Hong Kong, Graves describing how he modelled himself on Bond, and so on. They really stand out in comparising to the banality of the rest of the script, so something evidently happened during production.

As for CR, this is probably best representative of their ability to write Bond. When the film first came out, I remember everyone talking about how Paul Haggis wrote "all the good bits" of the film, but that is not the case. Haggis was a script doctor, called in to tweak dialogue and maybe re-order scenes to make the pacing better. I believe Haggis is also the one who came up with the infamous sinking house sequence (though I never understood why this was received poorly) - and as QOS shows, he's not that talented.

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.

I think Purvis and Wade are competent screenwriters. They just get a bad reputation because they're forced to have their names on a film that isn't necessarily theirs.

I actually enjoy TWINE as at that time it felt sort of fresh and an intriguing experiment, even DAD is to be applauded for some of its ideas (it begins very interestingly). CR has the foundation of Fleming behind it but it's the consistent problems that all these films have that, for me signal, the presence of P&W; a laboured and unearned emotive bias, arbitrary and overtly contrived action sequences. poorly developed plot threads and some of the worse dialogue of any mainstream films. To their credit I think they have the embryo of many good ideas, but they seemingly lack the skill or imagination to develop them, equally they too often fall back on a rather cheap, imo, mechanism to sell elementary events in place of delivering something genuinely creative -namely M's gushing expositions or exclamations of shock where she must have seen it all many a time over. Maybe some of this isn't to be laid at their doorstep but imo every post TWINE film suffers similar problems to one degree or another and given the rotation of directors and writers it seems their hands are always raised.

Sharky wrote:

License revoked.

Right, because every James Bond film is accurate and realistic - like Scaramanga's insistence that he knows very little about science, and yet is somehow able to single-handedly construct and operate a machine that weaponises solar power on a remote island archipelago. Or perhaps the way SPECTRE are able to hollow out a dormany volcano and turn it into a launch pad for a space rocket that can take off and land independently without any need for booster rockets and somehow steal space capsules out of mid-orbit without anybody noticing.

I'd say CR's sinking house really isn'y that bad by comparison.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I'd say CR's sinking house really isn'y that bad by comparison.

It's bad, because it trivialises Vesper's death into an overblown video game action setpiece, complete with nails into eyeballs, dingy lighting, and a James Cameron-style fx rig. It's all about context.

The sinking house crap would be fine for something like TOMORROW NEVER DIES, but CASINO ROYALE?

Sharky wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I'd say CR's sinking house really isn'y that bad by comparison.

It's bad, because it trivialises Vesper's death ...

With you there. I hate it mostly for that reason alone.

The demands of the story - particularly the organisation behind it all - demanded something more than Vesper simply overdosing on sleeping pills. Bond needed to see Vesper interacting with members of Quantum, and he also knew that he needed to bring her in for questioning.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The demands of the story - particularly the organisation behind it all - demanded something more than Vesper simply overdosing on sleeping pills. Bond needed to see Vesper interacting with members of Quantum, and he also knew that he needed to bring her in for questioning.

That could have all been done, while keeping the novel's ending. You'd have Bond following Vesper, maybe fighting some of the Quantum goons, then not being able to find her in Venice. He wanders through the city at night, and arrives back at the hotel by dawn. He finds Vesper's body lying in the shower, along with the letter and a video of her recording it on her mobile. He holds her small frame the same way he did early in the film, except this time it's too late.

Something like that.

Sharky wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I'd say CR's sinking house really isn'y that bad by comparison.

It's bad, because it trivialises Vesper's death into an overblown video game action setpiece, complete with nails into eyeballs, dingy lighting, and a James Cameron-style fx rig. It's all about context.

The sinking house crap would be fine for something like TOMORROW NEVER DIES, but CASINO ROYALE?

Agreed.

I actually think the scene, when viewed on its own, is pretty good, but it should not have been where Vesper met her end in the story. As you said, inserting that key moment into an action sequence, which feels rather out of place in the very low-key final frames of the film, really trivializes Vesper's death and takes away from the emotional impact that the ending of the novel has.

Way too downbeat, I'm afraid. You'd just lose the wider audience's attention. Each of the film's acts are framed around either one major action sequence, or two minor ones (the PTS has the parkour chase - even though it's not in the PTS; it's right at the start of the film - the first act has the airport sequence, the second act has the stariwell fight and car flip, and the final act has the sinking house). In this respect, this is one of the things CASINO ROYALE got right over QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It's the "Halo" theory; when Bungie made the Halo video games, they decided that the player should only ever experience thirty seconds' worth of action at any one time, followed by a winding-down period to allow them to get their bearings (compare that to Call of Duty, which is just a constant onslaught, and wearying). I know you won't like the video game analogy, but you can't deny that an action sequence should be bookended by a cooling-off period. The problem with films is that when it is structured along three acts, you need to include one centrepiece for each act, and in CASINO ROYALE, the third act begins with Bond's recovery. The film needed something that could entertain audiences and meet the demands of the story (Bond witnessing the hand-off with Gettler) at the same time. Vesper also had to die in such a way that would put Bond beyond Quantum's reach. So long as he held them responsibile, he was incorruptible. If Vesper simply overdosed on sleeping pills, Bond might construct that as her committing suicide out of guilt, and it would give Quantum a chance to get a hold of him.

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.

I doubt it, simply because it's the final scene. There might be a sequence preceding it, but the scene itself would not be an action set-piece.

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.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Sharky wrote:

License revoked.

Right, because every James Bond film is accurate and realistic - like Scaramanga's insistence that he knows very little about science, and yet is somehow able to single-handedly construct and operate a machine that weaponises solar power on a remote island archipelago. Or perhaps the way SPECTRE are able to hollow out a dormany volcano and turn it into a launch pad for a space rocket that can take off and land independently without any need for booster rockets and somehow steal space capsules out of mid-orbit without anybody noticing.

I'd say CR's sinking house really isn'y that bad by comparison.

it's like Hitler said, "If you're going to tell a lie, tell a big lie"

sinking houses are too mundane, when you lie about them you get caught out

a hollowed out volcano on the other hand... no one is going to bother second guessing you there, they just accept it
;)

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

If Vesper simply overdosed on sleeping pills, Bond might construct that as her committing suicide out of guilt, and it would give Quantum a chance to get a hold of him.

But that's the problem, EON's Vesper is too clear headed and calculating for a suicidal depressive. Not dependent enough. Having her crying in her pillow at night as Fleming did made more sense.

Even if she did overdose on pills, the letter of her revealing that she was a double agent would fill Bond with anger. Enough to make him equally incorruptible.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I doubt it, simply because it's the final scene. There might be a sequence preceding it, but the scene itself would not be an action set-piece.

the ending of CR isn't an action set piece anyway, it's Bond standing over Mr White, which is relatively down beat, not that I necessarily disagree with the main thrust of your argument

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Way too downbeat, I'm afraid. You'd just lose the wider audience's attention. Each of the film's acts are framed around either one major action sequence, or two minor ones (the PTS has the parkour chase - even though it's not in the PTS; it's right at the start of the film - the first act has the airport sequence, the second act has the stariwell fight and car flip, and the final act has the sinking house). In this respect, this is one of the things CASINO ROYALE got right over QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It's the "Halo" theory; when Bungie made the Halo video games, they decided that the player should only ever experience thirty seconds' worth of action at any one time, followed by a winding-down period to allow them to get their bearings (compare that to Call of Duty, which is just a constant onslaught, and wearying). I know you won't like the video game analogy, but you can't deny that an action sequence should be bookended by a cooling-off period. The problem with films is that when it is structured along three acts, you need to include one centrepiece for each act, and in CASINO ROYALE, the third act begins with Bond's recovery. The film needed something that could entertain audiences and meet the demands of the story (Bond witnessing the hand-off with Gettler) at the same time. Vesper also had to die in such a way that would put Bond beyond Quantum's reach. So long as he held them responsibile, he was incorruptible. If Vesper simply overdosed on sleeping pills, Bond might construct that as her committing suicide out of guilt, and it would give Quantum a chance to get a hold of him.

as it was set in Venice the required action sequence could have involved a speed boat chase of some sort, rather than the collapsing building?

The White Tuxedo wrote:

"With SKYFALL, we're going to continue to explore whether or not Bond and M can really trust each other."

Corrected.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I've seen the original script for TWINE, and it was very good.

a.) Where, and b.) I doubt it

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

DAD has also got sticky fingerprints all over it, and I suspect they are Lee Tamahori's.

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.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I think Purvis and Wade are competent screenwriters. They just get a bad reputation because they're forced to have their names on a film that isn't necessarily theirs.

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).

Sharky wrote:

dr. strangelove wrote:

And why does everyone seem to think the sinking house was Haggis' idea? I don't know for sure, but that scene is right in P&W's wheelhouse. I'd be shocked if we found and that Haggis came up with that idea.

I got that from the special edition commentary with Campbell and Wilson. Campbell needed an action sequence, and Haggis had recently watched a documentary on Venice, about how the houses need to be prevented falling into the lagoon one by one.

Haggis thought it would make for a more 'cinematic' ending. Also, based on the commentary, I know Haggis specifically wrote the first Bond/M scene and all the Bond/Vesper train & car dialogue. This was the 'character work' he was called in to do.

dalton wrote:

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.

Yeah, the team of henchmen was completely unnecessary. Just drew the action out longer and took the focus off what was important. I hope Craig doesn't have to do another Brosnanesque one-man-army set piece in Skyfall.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

dalton wrote:

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.

Yeah, the team of henchmen was completely unnecessary. Just drew the action out longer and took the focus off what was important. I hope Craig doesn't have to do another Brosnanesque one-man-army set piece in Skyfall.

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. They were simply there to pad the scene out into a longer action sequence, thus ruining what should have been a more low-key "action sequence' between Bond and Gettler.

I think that, had they done some editing to the two overly long action sequences at the beginning of the film (Madagascar and Miami) as well as in a couple of other places, they could have left some time at the end to show Gettler showing up in Venice to basically stalk Vesper and begin chipping away at her mental strength, which could have then led to an ending more in-line with the novel, rather than having to put Vesper's demise within an action sequence that is far too overblown.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

a.) Where, and b.) I doubt it

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.

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.

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?

Louis Armstrong wrote:

I hope Craig doesn't have to do another Brosnanesque one-man-army set piece in Skyfall.

Based on some of the comments from Patricia Malcolm - one of the owners of Duntrune Castle - the final sequence could involve Bond leading an attacking force against the castle.

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.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Sharky wrote:

dr. strangelove wrote:

And why does everyone seem to think the sinking house was Haggis' idea? I don't know for sure, but that scene is right in P&W's wheelhouse. I'd be shocked if we found and that Haggis came up with that idea.

I got that from the special edition commentary with Campbell and Wilson. Campbell needed an action sequence, and Haggis had recently watched a documentary on Venice, about how the houses need to be prevented falling into the lagoon one by one.

Haggis thought it would make for a more 'cinematic' ending. Also, based on the commentary, I know Haggis specifically wrote the first Bond/M scene and all the Bond/Vesper train & car dialogue. This was the 'character work' he was called in to do.

To be fair, Haggis' original take on the "sinking house" climax wasn't as grand as it ended up being. It was more focused on the pursuit through the streets, and more of a one-on-one brutal fight between Bond and Gettler.