Seriously, why bother joining a serious debate if you can't give proper responses. Skyfall was far from my favourite film, but all the plot holes people pick on can be answered quite easily if you watch the film and use common sense to fill in the blanks. There are bigger and more glaring plot holes in almost every other Bond films that have been made. Compared to them, Skyfall is as tight as a camels arse in a sandstorm.
It seems modern audiences can't cope or keep up unless the plot, the villains motives, and the deeper context are explained in the script or by subtitles during a film. I hate dumbed down films, but it seems I'm in the minority. Maybe Bond films should have the Star Wars scroll at the beginning where the film details are set up in black and white rather than having to think about it too much.
First off, M should not get sentimental about the mission. If Bond had to die for that, the shot needs to be taken. She can be upset after.
Secondly, I'd imagine since Moneypenny made it pretty unclear when she would really fire, Bond couldn't just lay down for 20 seconds with Patrice attacking him.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
Seriously, why bother joining a serious debate if you can't give proper responses. Skyfall was far from my favourite film, but all the plot holes people pick on can be answered quite easily if you watch the film and use common sense to fill in the blanks. There are bigger and more glaring plot holes in almost every other Bond films that have been made. Compared to them, Skyfall is as tight as a camels arse in a sandstorm.
It seems modern audiences can't cope or keep up unless the plot, the villains motives, and the deeper context are explained in the script or by subtitles during a film. I hate dumbed down films, but it seems I'm in the minority. Maybe Bond films should have the Star Wars scroll at the beginning where the film details are set up in black and white rather than having to think about it too much.
I'm with you 100%....I hate it when films have to spell every last detail out because its the only way modern audiences can follow them X-(
M is Bonds commanding officer, and has no problem "Sending him to his death"
she said as much in Goldeneye. One dead agent to save many. Tough call but
that's why M gets the big bucks.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Seriously, why bother joining a serious debate if you can't give proper responses.
Forgive me, can you link me to the 'proper response' guide so I shan't eff up in future? )
TLD is my favourite Bond. It features a dead-serious 007 in a world of deadly and sometimes borderline ridiculous circumstances. Trying to make Bond into a real-world agent in real-world situations is bound to draw both kudos and guffaws from all directions. Bond IS NOT Bourne, or Smiley, or Ryan, nor should he be. If he is being refitted in that mould though, serious criticisms concerning the writing are due since seriously GOOD writing has never been why some of us have been Bond fans for all these years. The style, the adventure, the gadgets & girls, the tweaks to the formula, the dialogue... THAT'S what we signed up for. Force this psuedo 'realistic' take on us, and some of us will just naturally take shots at an easy target. Get friggin' John le Carré to write a Bond script if you want folks like me to shut up about the wacky juxtaposition of 'realistic' & 'unrealistic', okay???
Or better yet, give us the fantastic excess within control demonstrated in numerous entries from the 20th Century Bond movies.
That's my rant, and I'm stickin' to it.
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).
Really not that difficult to understand if you ask me. Thanks for explaining it so succinctly.
Seriously, why bother joining a serious debate if you can't give proper responses.
Forgive me, can you link me to the 'proper response' guide so I shan't eff up in future? )
TLD is my favourite Bond. It features a dead-serious 007 in a world of deadly and sometimes borderline ridiculous circumstances. Trying to make Bond into a real-world agent in real-world situations is bound to draw both kudos and guffaws from all directions. Bond IS NOT Bourne, or Smiley, or Ryan, nor should he be. If he is being refitted in that mould though, serious criticisms concerning the writing are due since seriously GOOD writing has never been why some of us have been Bond fans for all these years. The style, the adventure, the gadgets & girls, the tweaks to the formula, the dialogue... THAT'S what we signed up for. Force this psuedo 'realistic' take on us, and some of us will just naturally take shots at an easy target. Get friggin' John le Carré to write a Bond script if you want folks like me to shut up about the wacky juxtaposition of 'realistic' & 'unrealistic', okay???
Or better yet, give us the fantastic excess within control demonstrated in numerous entries from the 20th Century Bond movies.
That's my rant, and I'm stickin' to it.
Hear, hear. I like a little bit of realism, but as with most entertainment, I don't want the gritty realism of ral life overriding all. And really, I have bourne and other movies to delve into that. Bond always was a different beast and I felt Skyfall tried too much to change Bond into something else.
Top Ten Bond - 10:Goldfinger 9:Thunderball 8:The Spy who Loved Me 7:For Your Eyes Only 6: Casino Royale 5:The Man with the Golden Gun 4:Quantum of Solace 3:Licence to Kill 2:Goldeneye 1:The Living Daylights
Hear, hear. I like a little bit of realism, but as with most entertainment, I don't want the gritty realism of ral life overriding all. And really, I have bourne and other movies to delve into that. Bond always was a different beast and I felt Skyfall tried too much to change Bond into something else.
The film opens with a car / motorbike chase, followed by a fistfight on a moving train where the hero is shot twice and plunges to his apparent death; he survives and returns to save his country after the headquarters of the British secret service have been attacked by a vengeful genius, travels to Shanghai, where he kills an international assassin, and then onto Macau where he receives €4million, seduces a beautiful femme fatale and then watches as one of her nefarious bodyguards is eaten by a komodo dragon; he travels to the villainous genius's island lair, kills his three bodyguards and captures him. Back in London, the deformed villain escapes from his high-security prison in the heart of MI6, derails a tube train and has a gunfight with the head of MI6, future head of MI6 and a beautiful secretary before being thwarted by our hero, who escapes to a gothic mansion in the Highlands; the villain follows our hero, who uses clever booby traps and his weaponsied sports car to defeat the villain, whose helicopter crashes into the building and destroys it. Our hero plunges into an icy lake and kills the villain with a knife in the back.
I don't really think the phrase "gritty realism of real life" is particularly apt when discussing Skyfall.
Hear, hear. I like a little bit of realism, but as with most entertainment, I don't want the gritty realism of ral life overriding all. And really, I have bourne and other movies to delve into that. Bond always was a different beast and I felt Skyfall tried too much to change Bond into something else.
The film opens with a car / motorbike chase, followed by a fistfight on a moving train where the hero is shot twice and plunges to his apparent death; he survives and returns to save his country after the headquarters of the British secret service have been attacked by a vengeful genius, travels to Shanghai, where he kills an international assassin, and then onto Macau where he receives €4million, seduces a beautiful femme fatale and then watches as one of her nefarious bodyguards is eaten by a komodo dragon; he travels to the villainous genius's island lair, kills his three bodyguards and captures him. Back in London, the deformed villain escapes from his high-security prison in the heart of MI6, derails a tube train and has a gunfight with the head of MI6, future head of MI6 and a beautiful secretary before being thwarted by our hero, who escapes to a gothic mansion in the Highlands; the villain follows our hero, who uses clever booby traps and his weaponsied sports car to defeat the villain, whose helicopter crashes into the building and destroys it. Our hero plunges into an icy lake and kills the villain with a knife in the back.
I don't really think the phrase "gritty realism of real life" is particularly apt when discussing Skyfall.
And yet that is exactly what EON would have you believe this is. A more realistic Bond. And since they've made that claim then plot holes are more irritating. When Bond movies were more of an adventure fantasy, plot holes were more excusable. We went in knowing it wasn't real, and gleefully suspended reality because it was a Bond Movie. Now that a claim of realism exists, we're asked not to suspend reality, believe that this could happen, and now the flaws are more egregious.
This portion of the film is the least offensive part of SF, however. It's all the other massive plot holes which make SF the second worst Bond movie ever.
ASP 9000 is right, tho. M had to order that shot, and that theme is carried thru the movie. It's those types of decisions which Silva uses to convince himself justify his actions.
And yet that is exactly what EON would have you believe this is. A more realistic Bond. And since they've made that claim then plot holes are more irritating.
And yet that is exactly what EON would have you believe this is. A more realistic Bond. And since they've made that claim then plot holes are more irritating.
Where did they make that claim?
Claim schmaim; the tone of Craig's movies is the most serious since FRWL, BUT FRWL had no glaring plot holes or silly narrative devices.
I'll say it again, EON, bubala, lighten the tone or tighten the stories! )
And yet that is exactly what EON would have you believe this is. A more realistic Bond. And since they've made that claim then plot holes are more irritating.
Where did they make that claim?
Here, since you didn't read the interview I posted earlier: Barbara Broccoli "Because it felt like the right thing to do. It felt that post-9/11 that we’d gotten too fantastical with Die Another Day and we needed to go back to a more internal kind of Fleming, more realistic story. So from a business point of view, I think we felt it was the right thing, no question. "
Since when does "more realistic" mean everything that occurs has to be airtight and not open to having a few holes poked into it? I personally don't believe the order to shoot scene was that farfetched, and others have posted what I consider to be reasonable explanations as to why the scene makes sense. But even if it doesn't, it's a movie, people!!!! It's entertainment! Whatever happened to suspension of disbelief? Every Bond movie, and I mean every one of them, has plot holes, inconsistencies and moments that stretch logic. But somehow Skyfall is the worst offender in the 50 year history of Bond films?!!! (Or maybe the history of all filmdom!) The reasoning that the "plot holes" in Skyfall are absolutely unforgivable because the Craig films purport to be "more realistic" just doesn't wash. At least not to me. ?:)
{And the first person who suggests I'm losing it now because it's that time of the month, I'm taking the bloody shot!!! ) )
I think some sweet milky tea, is needed. )
I stopped looking for plot holes a long time ago, every
film has them. Sometimes we fans Pull a film totally
apart, constantly looking over the Bones and raking
over the ashes.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Since when does "more realistic" mean everything that occurs has to be airtight and not open to having a few holes poked into it? I personally don't believe the order to shoot scene was that farfetched, and others have posted what I consider to be reasonable explanations as to why the scene makes sense. But even if it doesn't, it's a movie, people!!!! It's entertainment! Whatever happened to suspension of disbelief? Every Bond movie, and I mean every one of them, has plot holes, inconsistencies and moments that stretch logic. But somehow Skyfall is the worst offender in the 50 year history of Bond films?!!! (Or maybe the history of all filmdom!) The reasoning that the "plot holes" in Skyfall are absolutely unforgivable because the Craig films purport to be "more realistic" just doesn't wash. At least not to me. ?:)
{And the first person who suggests I'm losing it now because it's that time of the month, I'm taking the bloody shot!!! ) )
The more hype, the greater the analysis. SF is touted in many circles as the greatest ever. Others don't agree. These others will point to plot holes as evidence of the films lack. There is a thread about this in the Skyfall page. The more everyone raves, the more people will look for holes, find them, and be irritated.
I can forgive small holes, I can suspend reality, (after all, I love sci-fi). But the holes in Sky fall are exacerbated by the hype and the claim of reality.
Since when does "more realistic" mean everything that occurs has to be airtight and not open to having a few holes poked into it? I personally don't believe the order to shoot scene was that farfetched, and others have posted what I consider to be reasonable explanations as to why the scene makes sense. But even if it doesn't, it's a movie, people!!!! It's entertainment! Whatever happened to suspension of disbelief? Every Bond movie, and I mean every one of them, has plot holes, inconsistencies and moments that stretch logic. But somehow Skyfall is the worst offender in the 50 year history of Bond films?!!! (Or maybe the history of all filmdom!) The reasoning that the "plot holes" in Skyfall are absolutely unforgivable because the Craig films purport to be "more realistic" just doesn't wash. At least not to me. ?:)
{And the first person who suggests I'm losing it now because it's that time of the month, I'm taking the bloody shot!!! ) )
The more hype, the greater the analysis. SF is touted in many circles as the greatest ever. Others don't agree. These others will point to plot holes as evidence of the films lack. There is a thread about this in the Skyfall page. The more everyone raves, the more people will look for holes, find them, and be irritated.
I can forgive small holes, I can suspend reality, (after all, I love sci-fi). But the holes in Sky fall are exacerbated by the hype and the claim of reality.
In my case (and probably most others) it comes down to this. The more you are engaged with the story, and/or the more you like the particular actor portraying 007, then the more forgiving you will be of any plot holes. In the case of Skyfall, I wasn't sufficiently engaged with the story to forgive the plot holes.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Absolutely Correct Moore Than. -{
I hated QOS and wouldn't cut it any slack. I'd pick on the
Least little thing just to score a point against it. It's all
part of the human condition. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Yeah, that's true. And I have to say that the whole 'agent has a disc with names on and is trying to escape' really is not the most arresting plot device, so you sink back in your seat and think, okay, what's wrong with this picture? It's not sweeping me along, like when a date isn't charming you and you start to notice their physical flaws.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
Since when does "more realistic" mean everything that occurs has to be airtight and not open to having a few holes poked into it? I personally don't believe the order to shoot scene was that farfetched, and others have posted what I consider to be reasonable explanations as to why the scene makes sense. But even if it doesn't, it's a movie, people!!!! It's entertainment! Whatever happened to suspension of disbelief? Every Bond movie, and I mean every one of them, has plot holes, inconsistencies and moments that stretch logic. But somehow Skyfall is the worst offender in the 50 year history of Bond films?!!! (Or maybe the history of all filmdom!) The reasoning that the "plot holes" in Skyfall are absolutely unforgivable because the Craig films purport to be "more realistic" just doesn't wash. At least not to me. ?:)
{And the first person who suggests I'm losing it now because it's that time of the month, I'm taking the bloody shot!!! ) )
The more hype, the greater the analysis. SF is touted in many circles as the greatest ever. Others don't agree. These others will point to plot holes as evidence of the films lack. There is a thread about this in the Skyfall page. The more everyone raves, the more people will look for holes, find them, and be irritated.
I can forgive small holes, I can suspend reality, (after all, I love sci-fi). But the holes in Sky fall are exacerbated by the hype and the claim of reality.
In my case (and probably most others) it comes down to this. The more you are engaged with the story, and/or the more you like the particular actor portraying 007, then the more forgiving you will be of any plot holes. In the case of Skyfall, I wasn't sufficiently engaged with the story to forgive the plot holes.
I think it more of a combination of the last two points. If on first couple of viewings you Just Don't Get The Hype, trying to watch closer as a way to figure out what everyone else sees tends to magnify the faults you found in the first place.
Comments
And then John Logan cleaned and tightened it up.
Seriously, why bother joining a serious debate if you can't give proper responses. Skyfall was far from my favourite film, but all the plot holes people pick on can be answered quite easily if you watch the film and use common sense to fill in the blanks. There are bigger and more glaring plot holes in almost every other Bond films that have been made. Compared to them, Skyfall is as tight as a camels arse in a sandstorm.
It seems modern audiences can't cope or keep up unless the plot, the villains motives, and the deeper context are explained in the script or by subtitles during a film. I hate dumbed down films, but it seems I'm in the minority. Maybe Bond films should have the Star Wars scroll at the beginning where the film details are set up in black and white rather than having to think about it too much.
Secondly, I'd imagine since Moneypenny made it pretty unclear when she would really fire, Bond couldn't just lay down for 20 seconds with Patrice attacking him.
I'm with you 100%....I hate it when films have to spell every last detail out because its the only way modern audiences can follow them X-(
she said as much in Goldeneye. One dead agent to save many. Tough call but
that's why M gets the big bucks.
TLD is my favourite Bond. It features a dead-serious 007 in a world of deadly and sometimes borderline ridiculous circumstances. Trying to make Bond into a real-world agent in real-world situations is bound to draw both kudos and guffaws from all directions. Bond IS NOT Bourne, or Smiley, or Ryan, nor should he be. If he is being refitted in that mould though, serious criticisms concerning the writing are due since seriously GOOD writing has never been why some of us have been Bond fans for all these years. The style, the adventure, the gadgets & girls, the tweaks to the formula, the dialogue... THAT'S what we signed up for. Force this psuedo 'realistic' take on us, and some of us will just naturally take shots at an easy target. Get friggin' John le Carré to write a Bond script if you want folks like me to shut up about the wacky juxtaposition of 'realistic' & 'unrealistic', okay???
Or better yet, give us the fantastic excess within control demonstrated in numerous entries from the 20th Century Bond movies.
That's my rant, and I'm stickin' to it.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Hear, hear. I like a little bit of realism, but as with most entertainment, I don't want the gritty realism of ral life overriding all. And really, I have bourne and other movies to delve into that. Bond always was a different beast and I felt Skyfall tried too much to change Bond into something else.
The film opens with a car / motorbike chase, followed by a fistfight on a moving train where the hero is shot twice and plunges to his apparent death; he survives and returns to save his country after the headquarters of the British secret service have been attacked by a vengeful genius, travels to Shanghai, where he kills an international assassin, and then onto Macau where he receives €4million, seduces a beautiful femme fatale and then watches as one of her nefarious bodyguards is eaten by a komodo dragon; he travels to the villainous genius's island lair, kills his three bodyguards and captures him. Back in London, the deformed villain escapes from his high-security prison in the heart of MI6, derails a tube train and has a gunfight with the head of MI6, future head of MI6 and a beautiful secretary before being thwarted by our hero, who escapes to a gothic mansion in the Highlands; the villain follows our hero, who uses clever booby traps and his weaponsied sports car to defeat the villain, whose helicopter crashes into the building and destroys it. Our hero plunges into an icy lake and kills the villain with a knife in the back.
I don't really think the phrase "gritty realism of real life" is particularly apt when discussing Skyfall.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Why the heck are M and Tanner trying to run a mission from London?
And yet that is exactly what EON would have you believe this is. A more realistic Bond. And since they've made that claim then plot holes are more irritating. When Bond movies were more of an adventure fantasy, plot holes were more excusable. We went in knowing it wasn't real, and gleefully suspended reality because it was a Bond Movie. Now that a claim of realism exists, we're asked not to suspend reality, believe that this could happen, and now the flaws are more egregious.
This portion of the film is the least offensive part of SF, however. It's all the other massive plot holes which make SF the second worst Bond movie ever.
ASP 9000 is right, tho. M had to order that shot, and that theme is carried thru the movie. It's those types of decisions which Silva uses to convince himself justify his actions.
Erm, why?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Where did they make that claim?
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
I'll say it again, EON, bubala, lighten the tone or tighten the stories!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Better to risk Bond than risk the leak.
Here, since you didn't read the interview I posted earlier: Barbara Broccoli "Because it felt like the right thing to do. It felt that post-9/11 that we’d gotten too fantastical with Die Another Day and we needed to go back to a more internal kind of Fleming, more realistic story. So from a business point of view, I think we felt it was the right thing, no question. "
Here's the link: http://movies.about.com/od/skyfall/a/Barbara-Broccoli-Michael-Wilson-Interview.htm
There are other instances, too, but this should suffice.
{And the first person who suggests I'm losing it now because it's that time of the month, I'm taking the bloody shot!!!
I stopped looking for plot holes a long time ago, every
film has them. Sometimes we fans Pull a film totally
apart, constantly looking over the Bones and raking
over the ashes.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
The more hype, the greater the analysis. SF is touted in many circles as the greatest ever. Others don't agree. These others will point to plot holes as evidence of the films lack. There is a thread about this in the Skyfall page. The more everyone raves, the more people will look for holes, find them, and be irritated.
I can forgive small holes, I can suspend reality, (after all, I love sci-fi). But the holes in Sky fall are exacerbated by the hype and the claim of reality.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
In my case (and probably most others) it comes down to this. The more you are engaged with the story, and/or the more you like the particular actor portraying 007, then the more forgiving you will be of any plot holes. In the case of Skyfall, I wasn't sufficiently engaged with the story to forgive the plot holes.
I hated QOS and wouldn't cut it any slack. I'd pick on the
Least little thing just to score a point against it. It's all
part of the human condition.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Wow...another sensible post...is there going to be an outbreak of sanity on AJB ?
That doesn't happen too often. :007)
As for sanity at AJB, Not on my watch !
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
(get it?)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I think it more of a combination of the last two points. If on first couple of viewings you Just Don't Get The Hype, trying to watch closer as a way to figure out what everyone else sees tends to magnify the faults you found in the first place.