The order to shoot in Skyfall...

chrisisall

Am I alone in thinking that THIS was the most offensive part of the movie? While I absolutely HATED the killing of Severine, at LEAST it made SOME kind of lazy sense; M distrusting Bond to the point of risking his life after all they'd shared & been through was purely nonsense (forgive me for calling it like I see it).

Thoughts?
Golden bullets with my name on them?
)

ZorinIndustries

I thought that was pretty heartless of M, but I guess that's a difficulty of heading MI-6!

Firemass

chrisisall wrote:

Am I alone in thinking that THIS was the most offensive part of the movie? While I absolutely HATED the killing of Severine, at LEAST it made SOME kind of lazy sense; M distrusting Bond to the point of risking his life after all they'd shared & been through was purely nonsense (forgive me for calling it like I see it).

Thoughts?
Golden bullets with my name on them?
)

That was such a flawed scene it drove me nuts.

1. Bond had the advantage of listening to M's orders. Duck You Sucker!
2. MoneyPenny...if at first you don't succeed try try again!
3. Wait...and how did Bond survive this one? When Rog got stabbed in OP he luckily had some hard currency that saved his life.
4. The bullet wound that was bleeding during the title sequence was actually fired by Patrice, not Moneypenny. Confusing...I practically forgot about the 1st time Bond got shot during the action packed pre-title sequence.

but yeah getting back to your main point chrisisall, All they shared and been through? Do you just mean Casino Royale and QoS ? Or Dr. No to present day. The timeline still confuses me. I do think that M's fondness for Bond should have influenced her decision making towards NOT firing the shoot. And later in the film, clearing him for active duty when he failed his tests. Hmm was that a good decision?

Smiert-Spionam

Firemass wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Am I alone in thinking that THIS was the most offensive part of the movie? While I absolutely HATED the killing of Severine, at LEAST it made SOME kind of lazy sense; M distrusting Bond to the point of risking his life after all they'd shared & been through was purely nonsense (forgive me for calling it like I see it).

Thoughts?
Golden bullets with my name on them?
)

That was such a flawed scene it drove me nuts.

1. Bond had the advantage of listening to M's orders. Duck You Sucker!
2. MoneyPenny...if at first you don't succeed try try again!
3. Wait...and how did Bond survive this one? When Rog got stabbed in OP he luckily had some hard currency that saved his life.
4. The bullet wound that was bleeding during the title sequence was actually fired by Patrice, not Moneypenny. Confusing...I practically forgot about the 1st time Bond got shot during the action packed pre-title sequence.

but yeah getting back to your main point chrisisall, All they shared and been through? Do you just mean Casino Royale and QoS ? Or Dr. No to present day. The timeline still confuses me. I do think that M's fondness for Bond should have influenced her decision making towards NOT firing the shoot. And later in the film, clearing him for active duty when he failed his tests. Hmm was that a good decision?

I'll attempt to clear it up best I can:

1. Without seeing the scene again, was Patrice grabbing hold of Bond in someway that made it difficult to duck? Maybe ducking would have proved a disadvantage in a fist fight aboard a speeding train and he would have got knocked off anyway. Bond has no idea when Eve is going to take the shot.

2. I can only really put this down to the shock that she hit the wrong person. If you'd just killed your partner I doubt you'd keep firing until you hit the right person, Eve really isn't that cold or professional.

3. That's the bit that take the credibility away a little bit. It would be virtually impossible to survive a drop that big. However it is a Bond film so we must take these things with a pinch of salt.

4. It's one of those blink and you'd miss it moments. The PTS is so action packed that it's unclear if Patrice's bullets actually hit Bond. Also did they actually show the wound that Eve's shot made?

I think M was desperate, she knew what losing the hard drive would mean and, like she said before, she was willing to sacrifice Bond in exchange for all the other agents embedded in terrorist hotspots around the globe who's lives were in danger because of the hard drive being stolen. Having said that, she perhaps should have trusted Bond to finish off Patrice on top of the train. Hindsight is a wonderful thing ay? )

Napoleon Plural

Also, that M looks all sad like she's just killed James Bond! She hasn't known him too long, it's only his third mission if that. Of course, there's been a lot of water (and Bond) under the bridge it later turns out.

sniperUK

Third mission bollocks! The third one shown yes ,not his third one or had he been sitting on his arse for four years plus.

Silhouette Man

This seems to be something of a problem scene with very many people out there in world Bondom. I still can't understand how Bond survives the bullet wounds from two guns as well as falling deep into the sea below. It seems to have been filmed merely to provide the audience with a shocking moment a la the apparent assassination of Bond in the PTS of YOLT, but at least things were better explained in that film; in Skyfall they were not really and that's the problem that many fans have with this whole PTS in my view. Obviously the whole scene is at least based on the YOLT novel and the TMWTGG's rather strange (given what the literary Bond had been oput through in YOLT) return to an even keel for James Bond, although, as always, things were much better explained in the original novels than they typically are in their film counterparts and sadly the Skyfall PTS is no exception to this rule. It's indeed interesting to note the fact that vthe Skyfall PTS follows the flaws that existed in the period between YOLT and TMWTGG thematically with James Bond returning, albeit rather rustily to active service as if nothing had happened after the trauma he had been through both in the YOLT novel and the Skfall PTS. Just like the GoldenEye PTS before it, there are far too many loose ends that remain untied by the film's conclusion. This is of course not good filmmaking by anyone's standards.

Napoleon Plural

Pade and Wurvis had it as a TMWTGG type memory loss thing in the first draft, tying in with Bondgetting older and al that. Fits in with where they are after many years in the franchise, (on their way out) but not where Craig is after just two films.

It got altered with Logan aboad, so lost something in the mix one feels. I mean, if Craig Bond had come back to bump off M, he would have been out to redeem himself or something, all the psychiatary stuff would be more relevant.

Sir James Moloney

chrisisall wrote:

Am I alone in thinking that THIS was the most offensive part of the movie? While I absolutely HATED the killing of Severine, at LEAST it made SOME kind of lazy sense; M distrusting Bond to the point of risking his life after all they'd shared & been through was purely nonsense (forgive me for calling it like I see it).

Thoughts?
Golden bullets with my name on them?
)

I disagree completely, I'm afraid. It's a theme that goes to the very heart of the movie: M's job is incredibly tough and she's required to make awful, impossible decisions.

This is the similarity between Bond and Silva. M was forced to give Silva, one of her long-serving agents, up in 1997. Would she have enjoyed doing it? Of course not. But she got six agents back in return and the handover of Hong Kong proceeded peacefully.

Part of Bond's arc in the film is coming to terms with that. As he says at the end, "You did what you had to"

Sir James Moloney

Silhouette Man wrote:

Obviously the whole scene is at least based on the YOLT novel and the TMWTGG's rather strange (given what the literary Bond had been oput through in YOLT) return to an even keel for James Bond, although, as always, things were much better explained in the original novels than they typically are in their film counterparts and sadly the Skyfall PTS is no exception to this rule. It's indeed interesting to note the fact that vthe Skyfall PTS follows the flaws that existed in the period between YOLT and TMWTGG thematically with James Bond returning, albeit rather rustily to active service as if nothing had happened after the trauma he had been through both in the YOLT novel and the Skfall PTS.

Really? I think it's much better handled than in Fleming's TMWTGG. In the novel, we're expected to believe that Bond is presumed dead, suffers from amnesia, is brainwashed by the KGB, attempts to assassinate M and is then accepted back into the secret service (and, what's more, allowed back into the 00 Section after his 'promotion' in YOLT). It's really quite unbelievable.

Blackleiter

I agree with your take completely, and I have a little trouble understanding why others don't see that. M makes it very clear that she will do what she feels is necessary to serve the greater good, even if it means possibly sacrificing an agent she is personally fond of. Morever, it seems to me that MI6 agents, including Bond, would be made aware of this risk when they accept the position.

Sir James Moloney wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Am I alone in thinking that THIS was the most offensive part of the movie? While I absolutely HATED the killing of Severine, at LEAST it made SOME kind of lazy sense; M distrusting Bond to the point of risking his life after all they'd shared & been through was purely nonsense (forgive me for calling it like I see it).

Thoughts?
Golden bullets with my name on them?
)

I disagree completely, I'm afraid. It's a theme that goes to the very heart of the movie: M's job is incredibly tough and she's required to make awful, impossible decisions.

This is the similarity between Bond and Silva. M was forced to give Silva, one of her long-serving agents, up in 1997. Would she have enjoyed doing it? Of course not. But she got six agents back in return and the handover of Hong Kong proceeded peacefully.

Part of Bond's arc in the film is coming to terms with that. As he says at the end, "You did what you had to"

Sir James Moloney

Exactly. M is the ultimate utilitarian, always acting for the greater good even if the she has to commit small evils to do so. It's there from the very opening scene when M stops Bond from stabilising Ronson because "we don't have time" to the very end: M chooses to head out with Bond alone because "too many people are dying because of me." She could have comfortably retained her bodyguards and police escorts but made the decision to put herself at risk and spare the deaths of many others.

Blackleiter wrote:

I agree with your take completely, and I have a little trouble understanding why others don't see that. M makes it very clear that she will do what she feels is necessary to serve the greater good, even if it means possibly sacrificing an agent she is personally fond of. Morever, it seems to me that MI6 agents, including Bond, would be made aware of this risk when they accept the position.

Sir James Moloney wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Am I alone in thinking that THIS was the most offensive part of the movie? While I absolutely HATED the killing of Severine, at LEAST it made SOME kind of lazy sense; M distrusting Bond to the point of risking his life after all they'd shared & been through was purely nonsense (forgive me for calling it like I see it).

Thoughts?
Golden bullets with my name on them?
)

I disagree completely, I'm afraid. It's a theme that goes to the very heart of the movie: M's job is incredibly tough and she's required to make awful, impossible decisions.

This is the similarity between Bond and Silva. M was forced to give Silva, one of her long-serving agents, up in 1997. Would she have enjoyed doing it? Of course not. But she got six agents back in return and the handover of Hong Kong proceeded peacefully.

Part of Bond's arc in the film is coming to terms with that. As he says at the end, "You did what you had to"

7289

I think I understand all the plot dynamics, it just so happens they rub me the wrong way too.

M's presence in the Skyfall PTS is so anti-bond it makes me shudder. oo7 is supposed to be an independent agent surviving on his wits, not second-guessed and micro-managed by his bosses in London. While that idea might work for another fictional secret agent, it sucks when it's Bond.

IMO the single worst presence in the last three films is M, she is most tolerable in Casino Royale, but she should have been cut out of Quantum of Solace. It's a good thing they killed her off in this film - she outlived her usefulness as a charecter along time ago!

walther p99

7289 wrote:

I think I understand all the plot dynamics, it just so happens they rub me the wrong way too.

M's presence in the Skyfall PTS is so anti-bond it makes me shudder. oo7 is supposed to be an independent agent surviving on his wits, not second-guessed and micro-managed by his bosses in London. While that idea might work for another fictional secret agent, it sucks when it's Bond.

IMO the single worst presence in the last three films is M, she is most tolerable in Casino Royale, but she should have been cut out of Quantum of Solace. It's a good thing they killed her off in this film - she outlived her usefulness as a charecter along time ago!

though i love Dench's M, i absolutely agree with what you said. M was constantly showing up in the foreign locales to give Bond a slap on the wrist, it was getting a little tedious. Thankfully in SF that wasn't really the case until the end obviously but that had to happen.

chrisisall

7289 wrote:

M's presence in the Skyfall PTS is so anti-bond it makes me shudder. oo7 is supposed to be an independent agent surviving on his wits, not second-guessed and micro-managed by his bosses in London. While that idea might work for another fictional secret agent, it sucks when it's Bond.

Honestly, when M showed up in Key West in LTK I thought it was pretty peculiar, but I understand the film had SEVERE production limitations and that that might be the only way to work him in at all a bit more.... M's big part in TWINE was, I felt, part of the experiment of the film and while I wasn't too keen on it, I chilled, but after that M became more featured than Leiter ever was, and that I cannot abide.

PPK packer

M also showed up in Hong Kong in TMWTGG but I can't remember why.

The micro-managing via communications may just be a sign of the times. It's a communication and oversight ability which would have been pure science fiction in Flemming's lifetime.

That said, I agree with the others who enjoy a more independant Bond.

Firemass

Good point 7289 about the micro-managing. I believe we first saw this approach in Tomorrow Never Dies with Bond's activities being broadcast on the Mi6 monitors. And once again, Mi6 didn't do Bond any favors by prematurely launching that missile. But at least M stuck up for Bond with her curt reply, "His Job!"

Silhouette Man

Firemass wrote:

Good point 7289 about the micro-managing. I believe we first saw this approach in Tomorrow Never Dies with Bond's activities being broadcast on the Mi6 monitors. And once again, Mi6 didn't do Bond any favors by prematurely launching that missile. But at least M stuck up for Bond with her curt reply, "His Job!"

Very true. This scene has a clear precedent in the Brosnan era TND PTS, as you rightly point out Firemass. I think James Biond as both a litetrary and cinematic character always tends to work so much better ON HIS OWN. 8-)

Charmed & Dangerous

It always struck me as a little crazy that the British Government would risk losing the Head of MI6 by letting her loose 'in the field', as in TWINE.

Silhouette Man

Charmed & Dangerous wrote:

It always struck me as a little crazy that the British Government would risk losing the Head of MI6 by letting her loose 'in the field', as in TWINE.

Yes, read the opening chapter of Fleming's last Bond novel TMWTGG for confirmation of this fact!

Charmed & Dangerous

Yes I recall it - and it wouldn't happen in real life!

Silhouette Man

Charmed & Dangerous wrote:

Yes I recall it - and it wouldn't happen in real life!

Very true, though we tend to leave "real life" at the door when venturing into the complex world of James Bond 007.

Predator

Just to mention that M (or M's representative: Q or the Sec of Defence) was constantly showing up through all of the films to give 007 that slap on the wrist. It is part of the ongoing story arc, presenting Bond as a non-conformist anti-hero that we all want him to be.

Would we be quite so behind Bond if M hadn't have reprimanded him on the canals of Venice in MR, the bullion house of DAF, on the old Queen Mary in HK during TMWTGG, and in the guise of Q thanks to Bernard Lee's untimely passing in FYEO? The independence of Bond we crave was purely routed in Connery's portrayal during which M and he were on a more equal footing. Since Moore, M has been constantly the superior representing the ideologies of the establishment while Bond represents a more free spirit. That M should come into the field to do this heightened the effect of this reprimand.

Silhouette Man

Predator wrote:

Just to mention that M (or M's representative: Q or the Sec of Defence) was constantly showing up through all of the films to give 007 that slap on the wrist. It is part of the ongoing story arc, presenting Bond as a non-conformist anti-hero that we all want him to be.

Would we be quite so behind Bond if M hadn't have reprimanded him on the canals of Venice in MR, the bullion house of DAF, on the old Queen Mary in HK during TMWTGG, and in the guise of Q thanks to Bernard Lee's untimely passing in FYEO? The independence of Bond we crave was purely routed in Connery's portrayal during which M and he were on a more equal footing. Since Moore, M has been constantly the superior representing the ideologies of the establishment while Bond represents a more free spirit. That M should come into the field to do this heightened the effect of this reprimand.

A very erudite and interesting post there, Predator. Thank you for sharing it with us.

Asp9mm

As to everyone asking 'why Bond didn't just duck' when he knew he was being fired at. The answer is very simple. When you are exposed to known incoming friendly fire, you do exactly what you are doing and don't deviate. To do something odd like stooping suddenly actually increases the chances of being hit. You could be moving into the shooters safe spot they are aiming for so as to miss you. I can't believe people are picking holes in such a small and quite realistic scene that has to happen for the necessity of the story. Why doesn't Eve shoot again. She's a green field agent and inexperienced and she's just shot her colleague. She's a mess after doing that. Why does M tell her to do it? Because it sets her up as the person who has to do wrong to do right. That's the whole point of the story. Silva is M's victim as much as Bond is. It's an exploration of what is too far and what you have to do in that job to 'keep this country smelling ever so faintly of roses'.

(Quote _ Cowley).

Sir Miles

Asp9mm wrote:

As to everyone asking 'why Bond didn't just duck' when he knew he was being fired at. The answer is very simple. When you are exposed to known incoming friendly fire, you do exactly what you are doing and don't deviate. To do something odd like stooping suddenly actually increases the chances of being hit. You could be moving into the shooters safe spot they are aiming for so as to miss you. I can't believe people are picking holes in such a small and quite realistic scene that has to happen for the necessity of the story. Why doesn't Eve shoot again. She's a green field agent and inexperienced and she's just shot her colleague. She's a mess after doing that. Why does M tell her to do it? Because it sets her up as the person who has to do wrong to do right. That's the whole point of the story. Silva is M's victim as much as Bond is. It's an exploration of what is too far and what you have to do in that job to 'keep this country smelling ever so faintly of roses'.

(Quote _ Cowley).

Thanks Asp9mm.....its great to see someone post something sensible on this -{

chrisisall

Asp9mm wrote:

Why does M tell her to do it? Because it sets her up as the person who has to do wrong to do right. That's the whole point of the story.

Funny, on Star Trek when they wanted Kirk to do something effed-up they had the transporter split him into his higher & lower selves. With M they just 'set her up'. )

Silhouette Man

chrisisall wrote:

Asp9mm wrote:

Why does M tell her to do it? Because it sets her up as the person who has to do wrong to do right. That's the whole point of the story.

Funny, on Star Trek when they wanted Kirk to do something effed-up they had the transporter split him into his higher & lower selves. With M they just 'set her up'. )

One of the many reasons Star Trek just goes way over my head... ?:)

Asp9mm

chrisisall wrote:

Asp9mm wrote:

Why does M tell her to do it? Because it sets her up as the person who has to do wrong to do right. That's the whole point of the story.

Funny, on Star Trek when they wanted Kirk to do something effed-up they had the transporter split him into his higher & lower selves. With M they just 'set her up'. )

Well the simple facts are trusting Bond to get the disk back, or have a better chance by getting Eve to take the shot and increase the odds. Eve screwed up, not M. M's decision was cold, but correct. Eve should have told Bond to drop as she took the shot, but then did she have direct comms to Bond. It's never shown she has.

chrisisall

Asp9mm wrote:

Eve screwed up, not M.

No, Purvis & Wade screwed up. )

Silhouette Man

chrisisall wrote:

Asp9mm wrote:

Eve screwed up, not M.

No, Purvis & Wade screwed up. )

How very true of most of their involvement on the James Bond films.