The Stupidity of Skyfall

Red Panty Night

I think this deserves it's own thread. I find it incredible how many people think this was a brilliant film. It was logically retarded. Why did the main villain need to allow himself to be captured on purpose, what benefit was there, how did that make it easier for him to kill his target. How would he have known for a start what prison he would be taken to. Ridiculous movie.

helimachoptor

Come on man, you can type the title of your post and not expect to be slated.

Fix the spelling.

FourFourRED

If skyfall? Let's hope it doesn't!

Sad Professor

John Logan wrote it.

Silvia's escape, like a lot of things in the film, was inspired by the Joker's escape in The Dark Knight. Except unlike Nolan who over-writes his plots to the point of convolutedness, Logan just hand-waves everything. See Star Trek Nemesis for a lot of similarly inexplicable sh*t. Or Spectre, another mess of a script that was substantially re-written by others with little improvement.

Logan came to fame for his work on Gladiator. Why I have no idea since everyone involved in the film thought the script was crap and William Nicholson (who was credited with saving it) was brought into re-write it as they were shooting with help from the actors.

Technocentral

Its dog **** for the masses. Having said that it's 10 times better than "Spectre".

fruvai

Red Panty Night wrote: »

Why did the main villain need to allow himself to be captured on purpose, what benefit was there, how did that make it easier for him to kill his target.

Been a while since I've seen it but wasn't the reason he got caught so that he could get close enough to M so that he could kill her himself? Didn't he blame her for his disfigurement or something like that?

How would he have known for a start what prison he would be taken to. Ridiculous movie.

Wasn't he an ex-MI6 spy? Maybe he had a couple of contingency plans in place based on where they put him?

The target practice montage where Bond was pointing at the house with M looking out the window was a gem.

Ascendant

It wasn't ideal but a good wrap-up to Daniel Craig's take on the character.

Too bad they couldn't leave it alone and had to do another.

Icaras

I think it was more stupid bringing the head of MI6 to a isolated farm in Scotland with only a few shotguns and an old guy for protection.

I think looking for plot holes in a bond film is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, why dont the bad guys who catch him just shoot him?

Great cinematography though.

Ascendant

Icaras wrote: »

I think it was more stupid bringing the head of MI6 to a isolated farm in Scotland with only a few shotguns and an old guy for protection.

I think looking for plot holes in a bond film is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, why dont the bad guys who catch him just shoot him?

Great cinematography though.

My favourite bit of Bond movie stupidity has to be the Komodo dragons in the centre of that casino in Skyfall.

Nope, there's no way this could end badly...

JJayoo

Ascendant wrote: »

My favourite bit of Bond movie stupidity has to be the Komodo dragons in the centre of that casino in Skyfall.

Nope, there's no way this could end badly...

And the fact that they were about 3 times bigger than in real life.

It was terrible

Mickeroo

JJayoo wrote: »

And the fact that they were about 3 times bigger than in real life.

It was terrible

Just re-watched the scene on youtube there, look more or less the same size as real komodo dragons to me (which can grow to 3 metres in length). Didn't they even use the komoodos in london zoo as the base for the ones in the film?

There is some pretty stupid stuff in the filmthough but that is very much keeping with tradition in terms of bond fims, a franchise of big dumb crowd pleasers. Skyfall is the best bond film ever made by a pretty big distance imo.

razorblunt

I liked it, but I still groan at the "welcome to Scotland" line.
Local gamekeeper turns into an Arnie quick remark machine.

Mint Sauce

I thought Skyfall was one of the best Bonds made. My only problem was during one of the London Underground scenes and Wimbledon on the front of the train.

Wimbledon is on the District line, and at no point does the District Line service use deep underground tunnels, or does it use the smaller deep tube trains as portrayed in the film.

JJayoo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Just re-watched the scene on youtube there, look more or less the same size as real komodo dragons to me (which can grow to 3 metres in length). Didn't they even use the komoodos in london zoo as the base for the ones in the film?

.

Taken from the BBC news app

buried

The last two Bond films where the audience now has to empathise with Bonds childhood and his past just don't work. The character of James Bond is a womanising hired thug/assassin employed by a government security agency, this is a type of character film audiences can no way empathise with on a psychological level unless they themselves are womanising assassins also.

The only way the audience can empathise or get behind and cheer for this type of protagonist is when Bond is sent to stop/kill another villian character or organisation which is bent on threatening/destroying the fictionalised world onscreen that is recognisable to the film audience as their world too. Thats how the film audience can feel involved in the world of these movies

Both "Skyfall" and "Spectre" have removed this very important structure to how the Bond movies work so well. They have now replaced this structure to threats solely affecting Bond himself and surprise, surprise, the audience doesn't give a damn because they can't relate to a womanising assassin thug. They're obviously trying to do things differently and that's fair enough but the vast majority of movie audiences do not give a tuppeny f**k about James Bonds troubled childhood, or that his Daddy didn't love him etc. That reveal with Waltz's character in "Spectre" is just the most stupid plot move ever in the history of these films.

Its suprising because modern Bond films could be really cool and could tap into the current zeitgeist of the real world. I mean would you rather watch Bond be chased for 90 minutes by his twisted demented cousin because Bond got more presents as a kid at Christmas time, or would you rather watch 90 minutes of James Bond blowing up ISIS bad guys intent of destroying the world? I know which one I'd rather see

Wedwood

One silly thing was to title the movie Spectre and then have the villains true identity 'hidden'. It must have been one of the most underwhelming reveals in movie history.

OU812

I enjoyed both of them immensely, in fact I'd say Craig's turn as bond has provided some of the best movies of it's series.

They're only escapist movies lads, no need to take them for fine art.

buried

OU812 wrote: »

I enjoyed both of them immensely, in fact I'd say Craig's turn as bond has provided some of the best movies of it's series.

They're only escapist movies lads, no need to take them for fine art.

That's exactly my point, these films are supposed to be escapism action movies, not character driven drama's where literally nothing but the psychological makeup and past history of the main protagonist/villain is the sole narrative, plot, resolution and pay-off for the entire movie. It doesn't work for the audience in a 007 movie because it doesn't involve the audience.
Its actually the makers and producers of these new movies that now suddenly think these Bond movies are now "fine art", with this ultra stylish historical psychological battle nonsense between Bond and the villains - Waltz in Spectre "oooh James it was me....the author of all your pain" lol come on, nobody watching gives a damn about Bonds "pain" , just steal a nuke and give it to ISIS or blow up the internet or something for christsakes.

Classic Rock Man

The last part of Skyfall is just a little reversal on the usual Bond endings. Instead of Bond infiltrating the villains high tech lair full of henchmen its him defending a low-tech building full of homemade traps with only an old scottish man as backup lol.

Plus the ending shots establishes that the entire Craig trilogy was a Deconstruction that becomes a Reconstruction and we see this in Spectre where we're back to the old formulaic but still effective Connery-inspired movies.

Some people dont embrace the sudden shift in tone and dont get the subtext, so they judge bond for what they see: An action movie with a crap-ton of internal inconsistensies and plotholes.

colossus-x

The Pierce Brosnan era proved you can't replicate old classics. For the franchise to continue a less one dimensional bond character had to be created and I think the last two offerings succeeded very well in doing that without going over the top about it. There was still a baddie to catch , plenty of good action sequences and the Sam Mendez look and feel of the film was a resounding hit for my tastes. The cinematography, score, location settings were top notch and I'd go to the cinema to watch it for that reason alone regardless of any silliness in the plot which your bound to get anyway in a bond movie.

Dirty Dingus McGee

It's a James Bond film.

Anyone who seriously analyses a James Bond film and expects it to make sense is really a ridiculous pedant who would be better off never watching a James Bond Film (or any type of action film).

BuilderPlumber

I think Skyfall is one of the best films of recent years and one of the best Bond films of all time too. As regards things like the Silva guy deliberately letting himself be captured: well it has to be noted him and all other Bond villains are deranged individuals, intelligent yes but deranged and egotistical.

While Skyfall overall gets the positive reaction it deserves mostly (shared rightly with From Russia With Love. Goldfinger, Casino Royale and The Spy Who Loved Me), there is also a tendency to underrate other top Bond films like Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever, not to mention the entire Roger Moore era. Daniel Craig was a great Bond and hopefully will do more. However, Timothy Dalton was doing the same thing and was ahead of his time but should get the recognition he deserves too.

Often people look at Bond films and their villains and say things like 'why didn't he just shoot Bond?' at a given time. Sure, Dr No, Grant, Goldfinger, Blofeld, Khan, Zorin, Carver and many other villains had many straightforward chances to kill Bond but that would be too predictable for the film and also would contradict the egotistical/deranged/psychotic nature of these types. Bond plays along with the villains often knowing they are more interested in playing cat and mouse games than an immediate kill. Skyfall of course does include a lot of this but it is not the first Bond film to do so and not the first to do so successfully too I may add.

Sugarlumps

It's rubbish from start to finish, nothing in it is memorable.

BuilderPlumber

buried wrote: »

That's exactly my point, these films are supposed to be escapism action movies, not character driven drama's where literally nothing but the psychological makeup and past history of the main protagonist/villain is the sole narrative, plot, resolution and pay-off for the entire movie. It doesn't work for the audience in a 007 movie because it doesn't involve the audience.
Its actually the makers and producers of these new movies that now suddenly think these Bond movies are now "fine art", with this ultra stylish historical psychological battle nonsense between Bond and the villains - Waltz in Spectre "oooh James it was me....the author of all your pain" lol come on, nobody watching gives a damn about Bonds "pain" , just steal a nuke and give it to ISIS or blow up the internet or something for christsakes.

I can well understand why the Bond series will never bring up ISIS/al Qaeda. Look what happened to Salman Rushdie: Taliban and al Qaeda orchestrated riots all over Pakistan and then bankrupt from war Iran cynically took advantage of the whole thing to divert attention away from the poor state of its economy and fear of a second revolution. So, the series is right to steer clear of such issues.

The ONLY thing I am not happy with in recent Bonds is the backstory for Blofeld. All the backstory given about Bond is taken from Fleming's books. Even the Oberhauser character mentioned as Blofeld's father is Fleming's creation. But this thing about Blofeld being Bond's step brother or whatever you want to call it is not. The background Fleming gave for Blofeld should have been used and updated imo.

buried

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I can well understand why the Bond series will never bring up ISIS/al Qaeda. Look what happened to Salman Rushdie: Taliban and al Qaeda orchestrated riots all over Pakistan and then bankrupt from war Iran cynically took advantage of the whole thing to divert attention away from the poor state of its economy and fear of a second revolution. So, the series is right to steer clear of such issues.

The ONLY thing I am not happy with in recent Bonds is the backstory for Blofeld. All the backstory given about Bond is taken from Fleming's books. Even the Oberhauser character mentioned as Blofeld's father is Fleming's creation. But this thing about Blofeld being Bond's step brother or whatever you want to call it is not. The background Fleming gave for Blofeld should have been used and updated imo.

"True Lies" directed by James Cameron had Islamic terrorists as the main villains, no fatwa for James Cameron. You don't have to have ISIS or whatever named as the main villains but my main point still stands, the audience watching these new Bond vehicles do not feel involved in these new Bond films as there is no threat to the world that the audience can empathise with. Bond's personal world is a world the audience does not give a $hit about, quite frankly

I agree. Casino Royale was excellent and was the only good Craig bond movie and prompted claims that the successful updating of the bond franchise had been achieved.
Skyfall and Spetctre were poor. Quantum of Solace was a bag of Bolivian doo-doo. All three set the franchise back - to the point that it's approaching farce again.

BuilderPlumber

buried wrote: »

"True Lies" directed by James Cameron had Islamic terrorists as the main villains, no fatwa for James Cameron. You don't have to have ISIS or whatever named as the main villains but my main point still stands, the audience watching these new Bond vehicles do not feel involved in these new Bond films as there is no threat to the world that the audience can empathise with. Bond's personal world is a world the audience does not give a $hit about, quite frankly

I think the new Blofeld and SPECTRE are poorly thought out compared to the old Blofeld and SPECTRE that Fleming created. The old SPECTRE was like a secular version of ISIS and al Qaeda, a real world threat to both the West and Russia just like ISIS/al Qaeda are. But the new films seem to have reinvented that organisation as some sort of a 'counter-spying agency meets the freemasons'.

I don't know why exactly Salman Rushdie and 'The Satanic Verses' was singled out by Taliban/al Qaeda and then cynically used by a bankrupt, near revolution Iran when as you pointed out there were much more BLATANT references in books, films and TV series of the time. Is it just that Rushdie was from the Middle East and that this book got into the hands of these types who were totally unfamiliar with the others or was it something personal? I have heard Rushdie was friendly with Shah Pahlavi hence the Iranian move to capitalise on the hatred.

Now, if Bond was real, of course he would be currently fighting against ISIS/al Qaeda/Taliban and other such organisations. I agree that some films in the series have no convincing plot to get the audience involved. I have enjoyed all of Craig's films but can see that they have gone totally away from the world domination and that is their only weak spot imo. Even the worst of the Bond films, Die Another Day, had a convincing reason for Bond to be involved. Of course, the classics like Dr No, FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TSWLM, and Goldeneye as well as underrated films like Moonraker, Octopussy, AVTAK, TLD, LTK and TND all had a plot motivated by either extortion, world domination, trying to start a war, investigations of the death of an agent or pure revenge either by Bond or by SPECTRE for the death of a friend.

TMWTGG also suffered from the same lack of convincing plot even though Christopher Lee's Scaramanga was one of the best villains (even if he was not doing anything too wrong!) and it was an enjoyable film. But I guess that the series has to try and get away from remaking earlier plots. For example, AVTAK was very much inspired by Goldfinger, even to the point where Zorin has the meeting on the plane a kills the guy who wants out by dropping him off into the ocean. The plan to destroy Silicon valley is the Fort Know Goldfinger plot rejigged. You could also say that TSWLM and TMD is remaking the YOLT plot. And what was not taken from Fleming's short stories in FYEO was a homage to OHMSS.

But even Fleming himself revisited plots. Of course, Fleming first wrote Bond falling in love with and losing Vesper. He also would write OHMSS, which is almost identical to the film, where Bond falling in love with and loses Tracy. Only difference of course is Vesper betrayed Bond and Tracy was loyal.

BuilderPlumber

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's a James Bond film.

Anyone who seriously analyses a James Bond film and expects it to make sense is really a ridiculous pedant who would be better off never watching a James Bond Film (or any type of action film).

True: one has to imo enter the world of the film and go with it when watching any action film. When it comes down to it, Bond films are actually more realistic than many others. There are some places where Bond films cannot go that would be okay for other films to go: such as Indiana Jones where the forces of god come to life to destroy the Nazis in both the first and third ones for example. It works well in Indy films but there would be a public outcry if that was done in Bond!

Some Bond films are more realistic than others. FRWL, OHMSS, LALD, TLD, LTK and Casino Royale are examples. Others push the boundaries and usually emphasise unreleastic and spectacular stunts that audiences have come to expect. The pretitle sequence has also gained more prominence as one of the main action scenes in most of the films from TSWLM onwards. Usually, it ends with a stunt where Bond escapes and the bad guy is killed. It sets the scene then for the rest of the film.

When Bond gets away from the expected and tries to be realistic, box office sales fall. For example, the more realistic OHMSS did not do as well as the more elaborate YOLT. I think a template was set in the Goldfinger/Thunderball/YOLT trio of films that seemed to spell what made a successful Bond film. Everything from DAF, TSWLM, Moonraker, Octopussy, and AVTAK right up to Goldeneye and TND all took onboard that style of film.

conorhal

buried wrote: »

Both "Skyfall" and "Spectre" have removed this very important structure to how the Bond movies work so well. They have now replaced this structure to threats solely affecting Bond himself

I had a huge problem with is

Skyfall, wah-wah-wah, I've spent billions, and a lifetime plotting an improbable revenge plot against you mister Bond because mummy (M) loved you more!

and Spetctre wah-wah-wah, I've spent billions, and a lifetime plotting an improbable revenge plot against you mister Bond because Daddy loved you more!

Jesus, do supervillians even bother to try to take over the world any more?

If I want to watch a series about a super spy with parental issues I'll stick with the hilarious 'Archer'.

Wedwood

We seem to be at that stage again where the audience decides they've seen everything the current Bond actor can bring to the role.

It happened after A View to a Kill, Die Another Day and now Spectre.

If Craig's Bond was about how he became the 007 we all know, then he's now done that job and it's time for a new actor to take the character in a new direction and freshen things up.

It's hard to believe Craig has been Bond for 10 years now, that's probably long enough for any actor to play a role like this.

BuilderPlumber

Wedwood wrote: »

We seem to be at that stage again where the audience decides they've seen everything the current Bond actor can bring to the role.

It happened after A View to a Kill, Die Another Day and now Spectre.

If Craig's Bond was about how he became the 007 we all know, then he's now done that job and it's time for a new actor to take the character in a new direction and freshen things up.

It's hard to believe Craig has been Bond for 10 years now, that's probably long enough for any actor to play a role like this.

I guess Moore was Bond for too long and looked his age in his last film A View To a Kill. He was Bond for 12 years. He reigns as the longest serving Bond and did 7 films in a row. Connery also did 7 films but not in a row.

Brosnan arrived too late and should actually have been Bond after Moore and before Dalton. Die Another Day is usually considered the worst of the Bond movies and effectively ended Brosnan's stint.

With regard to Craig: I think he should do one more anyway. While some can criticise this Bond period as being too personal, it did something that was not done before. Craig needs to put this Blofeld storyline to bed and finish him and SPECTRE off.

Where can Bond go from here is the big question. With Blofeld around, remakes of You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever could be tempting. The day the series goes down that road though would not be good and it would be just remakes of the old films and probably not as good as them.

fryup

and it was very irresponsible of Bond to start a fight in a helicopter with a crowd of people underneath