Breaking Bond: Why Skyfall is the Worst Bond Movie Ever

[TheRussian]

-snip-

I think you need to acknowledge something. Moonraker came out in 1979. 1979. Nineteen seventy nine. At the time Moonraker was a good movie. Now it's laughable and campy. If Skyfall had come out in 1979 I would be a lot more forgiving. 1979.

Wrong. Audiences in 1979 were not stupid, and Moonraker was as bad then as it is now.
You can argue all you want, but the fact is, Skyfall is one of the best Bond movies, specifically because Bond is more human, more vulnerable.
The ending was fantastic because

Spoiler

our hero does not win, and his prior experiences changed him as a human being.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

wrooooooooooooooooong

Guys, they're either trolling really hard or they have really poor taste, either way not worth the time spent writing a full response.

 

[SilverUchiha]

First, never was really a Bond fan until I saw how Daniel Craig portrayed him, and then I was interested in the series, though never really to a "fan" level. Just want to point that out in case there is some stuff I mention that fans would know more than I or whatever.

Second, of what I've seen, this is a pretty solid Bond film. Pacing got a little slow just before the final battle, but aside from a brief moment here or there, it was mostly solid. Certainly liked it better than Dark Knight Rises (which you felt the need to compare with for some reason). Didn't hate DKR, but the idea of a hero failing or being beaten, only to rise and restart or change into something new feels better with Skyfall.

And I say that because DKR had a lot of issues that made the hero's failing... kind of stupid. For example, Bats just charging in on Bane instead of being smarter and more tactical about it is what got his back broken so easily. The fact that Lucius didn't flood the chamber when the terrorists were making him remove the bomb is another example of odd character decisions that don't quite work. But, not only that, the ending makes the "sacrifice" meaningless. If Batman had literally died, and not just looked like he died, I think the impact would have been harder.

At least Bond went the extra mile and killed off a central character. M may not the the most vital character in the world, but she was important in a lot of ways. Her death certainly resonated with me more than anything in DKR. And while I agree that maybe calling for backup in the end would have been wise, I think the reasoning as to why was to show that Bond could live up to the task expected of him. It was his way of proving himself, I guess. Not the best reason, sure, but his story ended with both sides losing something instead of him just breaking his back.

Overall, both DKR and Skyfall have similar themes going on (keyword, SIMILAR, not same) and I think Skyfall is a smidge stronger in presenting those themes than DKR. Best movie ever or of the year? No. Best Bond ever? Depends on your point of view and which Bonds you've seen. I certainly like it more than most, but I haven't seen all that many of them. But I do like the direction this one takes and I hope they build on it in future Bonds to create some spectacular stuff.

 

[Spartan448]

Personally, I say Quantum of Solace was the worst bond movie ever

 

[SweetLiquidSnake]

Bond is becoming the horrid "yearly iteration model" of movies, every 1-2 years another comes out full of not-that-hot bond girls, cut and paste car chases/action/explosions and douchy euro villians. Might as well just rewatch quantum, there's really no difference.

 

[xchurchx]

This argument didn't show why all those things make a bad movie. essentially the only thing that was going through my mind reading it was you going "NYEH NAHNAH NYEH NYEH!"

You didn't like the film, cool! THAT DON'T MAKE IT BAD! maybe the title of the thread should have been "Why I didn't like skyfall." the Current title makes it seem like you think the whole world is stupid for liking this film and that you're the only one clever enough to realise and not like it.

In summary:

 

[afroebob]

This is one of those times where I read something and say 'Fine, have your opinion. Just know that every opinion you have and will ever have will be instantly discredited by me'. I know you probably don't care, just wanted to let it be heard in case you or anyone else does.

 

[Daveman]

Can't believe I'm coming back to this thread of my own accord but I'm shocked people are amazed by the very rare bullet used by the assassin... The Man With The Golden Gun anyone?

Here's a few facts:

1. Gritty Realism is now the norm. Until the current reverses, we won't ever see more of the Ultracool Tuxedo-rockin' Walther PPK-totin' and lady-bangin' James Bond. Take Strawberry Fields in Quantum of Solace. Her name is a reference to the classic "Bond Girl" stereotype (and also an odd Beatles reference), but we only come to know her as Fields, with the focus being put on what she can do as an operative. She's not there to provide another pair of tits for a more lecherous Bond to fondle. That alone should clue you in as to what is the aim of the newer crop of Bond films.

Frankly every action film is gritty now and Bond films shouldn't be gritty in my opinion. This one is my favourite of the latest ones for by far being the least gritty. When I saw, at the start of Casino Royale, Bond running to chase down a guy and beating somebody up in a toilet I just thought "the fuck is this? Bond doesn't run. EVER. I think Brosnan ran about 10 metres in Tomorrow never dies, but that's it." To be honest the one thing I do approve of is the less sexist use of Bond girls lately although Craig is far to hench in my opinion and it's become a bit of a weird role reversal. I know Connery and the others were selected for their looks but at least they all didn't wax their chests (even though he doesn't even shave in Skyfall, he waxes?). Though that said, anyone else notice the girl Bond shags in Skyfall is a sex slave? He says so in the casino (noticing her tattoo) and then later goes ahead and screws her. That seemed a bit fucked up.

Deconstructing heroes or making them vulnerable is now commonplace, appreciated and accepted. We've moved past simply following the Rule of Cool for its own sake. I personally loathed the Brosnan Era because of how indulgent it was, and I'm a big fan of any Bond flick that actually has a head on its shoulders. Bonds that focus on the tropes of the series, like Octopussy, are just terribly boring to me.

I liked Brosnan as he just seemed very Bondesque, maybe that's just because it's who I grew up with though, I'll admit it's hard with the rose tint. I'll admit Die Another Day was a bit retarded though.

2. M dying more or less substantiates the fact that for some key members of MI6, their apparent identity is only a cover-up. I'm fairly sure James Bond *is* the man's name and that there's only been one instance of the man per universe (if we acknowledge the fact that every movie pre-Casino Royale is part of the same timeline, with CR acting as a neat break of previous continuity and as a reboot).

This means there's two distinct timelines, and two distinct James Bonds. The first one only had the distinction of being played by a wide variety of actors. The second one is still in his nascent phase, so we've only got Dan Craig for the time being. I fully expect M to make a return in the next movie, with a new face. Helen Mirren, maybe?

New M already gets set up at the end of Skyfall which you can see coming from a mile off. I take that to mean you haven't seen Skyfall. But yes, that appears to be the gist. Also noting that Craig Bond and The Others Bond have the same origin story with his parents dying, him living in Scotland and going to Eton.

3. Bond flicks have always been silly to a degree or another. The Craig Era is Bond at his most serious to date, but I'm not too surprised to find silly hazards like Komodo dragons or scorpions get thrown in the mix. It's a nice echo to the character's Pulp sensibilities and so long as it's used in moderation, I really don't mind.

This is where I guess I say the stupid stuff is what makes a Bond film a Bond film and not just any old action movie. When I saw the Komodo Dragons I immediately thought "YES. A preposterous pet that Bond will end up having to escape from and at least one person will be eaten by!" People who critique Skyfall say it's cliché and pandering to the past but what is Bond now if NOT cliché and pandering to when the UK was actually relevant?

As far as the theme not fitting the character, I have to disagree. We're in 2012. Stories of government-sanctioned cutpurses or throat-slitters are starting to feel like they belong in Regency Era court dramas or World War II epics. Governments have more or less embraced electronic warfare as the new means to snoop on would-be enemies, and spies are actually more sheltered than ever. Instead of hoping you'll be able to make the drop for your appointed courier; one quick email and you're done.

Considering this, exploring the relevancy of oldschool spies is more than appropriate. Cyberwarfare and virtual intrusions are eventually going to supercede any flesh-and-blood cloak-and-daggers material. For better or for worse, intelligence agencies have been adapting to this for the better part of the last fifteen years, give or take a few.

Being a Canuck, I can only base myself off of what I'm seeing in terms of how the RCMP is handling sensitive cases or online crimes. From what I can see, the new James Bond is a guy who's sitting at a computer and who gets paid to play the part of everything from a sixteen year-old girl to a would-be purchaser of illegal weapons or drugs.

Very true, in fact MI5 predominantly hire graduates that have done degrees in either languages or IT. I know as I've seen them at recruitment fairs here in the UK. Despite the fact that I basically decided to do Engineering in order to be Q, they just don't want to hire me...

 

[Naeras]

I really enjoyed the fact that Skyfall mixed parts of old-school James Bond with the new and more emotional direction from Casino Royale. Can't quite remember last time I enjoyed a Bond movie this much, in fact.

As for the plot holes:
1. Half of them are like the T-Rex eye scene in Jurassic Park in that most of the people pointing them out does so to sound clever more than anything else. Speaking of which...
2. Read this [http://badassdigest.com/2012/10/30/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs.-plot-holes-and-movie-logic/].
3. Skyfall is a damn Bond movie. Don't pretend that the others didn't have plot holes or logical gaps either.

 

[TheAsterite]

Well I think this movie makes no sense. I mean how did the new Q even get hired when he can't even follow the basic rules of computer forensics and security? Also, movies need to stop with the notion that a computer hacker can do absolutely everything. It was stupid in the 4th Die Hard movie, and it's stupid here.

I mean seriously, no-one in their right mind that knows anything about computers would decrypt any hdd/file, especially of someone that is known to be an expert hacker, on an open computer that is connected into their network. It's basic stuff here. Secondly, someone that knows anything about computers would use a virtual machine to get that stuff done in, so they don't infect the computer they're working on. That way, when they're done, they can just delete the virtual machine without having to re-image their machine.

I can't wait for the day movie/tv writers actually do some research about technology people use everyday, cause they're not fooling me.

 

[Biodeamon]

Who hired and shaved the No cat?
http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/grumpy-cat-22.jpg
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9600000/Quantum-of-Solace-james-bond-9614447-1280-960.jpg

this is all i could see throughout the entire movie.

 

[IronMit]

Well I think this movie makes no sense. I mean how did the new Q even get hired when he can't even follow the basic rules of computer forensics and security? Also, movies need to stop with the notion that a computer hacker can do absolutely everything. It was stupid in the 4th Die Hard movie, and it's stupid here.

I mean seriously, no-one in their right mind that knows anything about computers would decrypt any hdd/file, especially of someone that is known to be an expert hacker, on an open computer that is connected into their network. It's basic stuff here. Secondly, someone that knows anything about computers would use a virtual machine to get that stuff done in, so they don't infect the computer they're working on. That way, when they're done, they can just delete the virtual machine without having to re-image their machine.

I can't wait for the day movie/tv writers actually do some research about technology people use everyday, cause they're not fooling me.

In a fiction like skyfall and/or die hard 4 you need suspension of disbelief. Anything can happen you just need to explain it first. First we suspend our belief and then everything that follow has to be logical to the thing we have accepted.

For example there is no such thing as spiderman...but we accept it..but then everything that follows needs to make sense.
A society in the film Equilibrium can never actually function and no1 will sit around and listen to 'father' speak but once we accept the silly reason behind it we can then enjoy the rest of the movie as long as events proceeding make sense and are logical to the narrative.


So hacking, We need to know the rules and limitations of hacking in said film.
In die hard 4 it was explained why this guy had an advantage and his motivation was also based around his previous occupation. When he did something they showed us how he did it. He called in a gunship etc etc.

This leads me to skyfall...MI6 blow up..they give a crap one liner about what happened off screen....But it's a mystery..so it's ok. When it comes to the reveal there's a man with a computer that just says he can do everything. Why can he do this? Not explained. why is an ex double agent before Bond's time an awesome hacker? not explained? what are the limitations or extent of his power? not explained, just 4 random examples given. Can he drop sattelites on peoples heads...not explained. What are these 'breadcrumbs' that bond tells Q to place. Not explained.

Die hard 4 was nothing special....but at least it attempted to make sense. Skyfall was a clusterfk of randomness

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I know as I've seen them at recruitment fairs here in the UK. Despite the fact that I basically decided to do Engineering in order to be Q, they just don't want to hire me...

Work on your John Cleese impersonation, maybe? Or prototype a very cool if utterly useless gewgaw that comes in handy only in ridiculously specific situations?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Good lord man, formatting! People won't give you the time of day if you can't make your posts look like something other than a brick wall made of words.

 

[Jaeke]

Lol.

Wait...


Well basicly all that there is to be said to this post has been said so yeah...

I disagree.

 

[Laughing Man]

When Bond boards the train, he has a blood stain on his right side from nipple height to bottom of the rib cage. When Bond removes the bullet, it is in his left side just below the collar bone. It's that "paying attention" thing that I mentioned earlier.

You do know that you don't have to go to the cinema to check this, that just watching any one of the trailers on any one of the video hosting sites will show that you're wrong?

Here's a little pic

http://i878.photobucket.com/albums/ab347/laughingman09/really.jpg

Where he us actually shot is highlighted in red, where you claim he was shot is highlighted in pink, now where is the big ole blood stain, oh yeah inside the red circle.

If you missed this not really sure how anything else you said, you know as someone who apparently 'paid attention' can really be taken seriously?

 

[Nimzabaat]

It's not really relevant to the discussion anyways, but if people can't battle any other argument they try for the little ones I guess.

If you had bothered to make a reasonable argument for any of the others they may be worth debating, but all you've said has amounted to little more than "this and that are stupid because I say they are." At least your bullet argument is something which can be proven wrong since it is an objective matter easily refuted by simply paying attention to the movie. Something you didn't seem to do.

The point is that Bond is supposed to be good at this. He's supposed to be frikkin legendary for his skills. He's not supposed to get tagged at all because he's been in a lot of firefights and has some situational awareness going on.

This argument is blatantly ridiculous. No amount of situational awareness is going to keep someone from getting hurt eventually. We had two movies before this where Bond took greater risks with his own life and safety for the job than in probably any movie in the history of the character, and if you didn't notice, he gets the shit kicked out of him quite a bit in the other movies. He still comes out on top, but he's been absolutely brutalized before this.

If the best argument you have for this movie sucking is that a secret agent who frequently gets shot at finally got shot, and a man who was trained by the same people, knows how they think, and is almost as good as he is nearly outsmarted him, then you don't really have an argument. Sorry, but you completely missed the point of that movie because you were too busy fiddling with some stick up your ass about how Bond is apparently invincible and infallible. Two things which are categorically opposed to the depiction of this version of Bond from the very beginning. He's good, because he can get the shit beat out of him and still come out on top. He's good because he can have things go sideways on him but manage to keep pressing forward with a bit of thinking and some creativity. He's good because he will do what it takes to get the job done, no matter the cost to him.

If he were absolutely perfect and infallible as you think he should be, he wouldn't be a very good character. In fact, he'd be absolutely boring.

See you've almost got what i'm saying. I'll hold your hand for this part and walk you through it slowly so you can understand. BOND DOESN'T COME OUT ON TOP. You're saying he's good because he gets the job done, and in the past 23 (?) movies you've, scratch that, we've been right. This time he didn't get the job done. You're getting caught on the little things that lead up to the overall message. The overall message of this film is that Bond is done and needs a desk job. THAT is why I hate it. All of his mistakes would have been forgivable if he'd shown us that "old dog new tricks" actually WORKED. He failed to protect his "package". Period. The bad guy won all around. Bond should retire. All the mocking of Bond for no longer being up to snuff would have been fine if only he was. I know you know this because you just went on about him getting the shit kicked out of him and coming out on top. This time he didn't. Explain why I should like that? It's not depth. This isn't a high art movie. It's a Bond movie.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Well I think this movie makes no sense. I mean how did the new Q even get hired when he can't even follow the basic rules of computer forensics and security? Also, movies need to stop with the notion that a computer hacker can do absolutely everything. It was stupid in the 4th Die Hard movie, and it's stupid here.

I mean seriously, no-one in their right mind that knows anything about computers would decrypt any hdd/file, especially of someone that is known to be an expert hacker, on an open computer that is connected into their network. It's basic stuff here. Secondly, someone that knows anything about computers would use a virtual machine to get that stuff done in, so they don't infect the computer they're working on. That way, when they're done, they can just delete the virtual machine without having to re-image their machine.

I can't wait for the day movie/tv writers actually do some research about technology people use everyday, cause they're not fooling me.

Well put. I would also like to know how ones leaves a "subtle" virtual trail to an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere? Um they used the ATM at the top of the road? That was weak, but it wasn't the little things that bothered me. It was the Bond is washed up and can't succeed anymore that stung the most.

 

[Vivi22]

I'll hold your hand for this part and walk you through it slowly so you can understand.

Yep, and there we have it folks. The exact reason to never try and engage a blatant troll in a debate. Sorry, but if you feel the need to condescend and generally be a bit of a dick to make your point then you aren't worth the time or effort to speak with.

 

[Nimzabaat]

When Bond boards the train, he has a blood stain on his right side from nipple height to bottom of the rib cage. When Bond removes the bullet, it is in his left side just below the collar bone. It's that "paying attention" thing that I mentioned earlier. So basically he was removing Moneypenny's round, not Patrice's. Now, realistically, some military rounds are designed to tumble inside the body causing greater internal damage. If you prefer, maybe Patrice's bullet entered on the right side and tumbled through to the left side? Maybe Bond had a scar from a different wound that was conveniently close enough to where he felt the pain that he just decided to "go in from there"? If it makes you feel better we can go with that

Captcha: know your rights (damn straight!)

At 2:13 you can quite clearly see he was shot by patrice in his upper right torso. when he is removing it, it appears to be in his left side because he is doing it in a mirror.

You know, you are completely right about that. I'm not sure why but I remembered the scar showing up on his left side in that scene. My sincere apologies.

As a gift here's some other little points that don't really affect the main thrust of my complaint for you to have fun with;

Patrice fires of at least one double drum magazine of those depleted uranium rounds, why didn't MI6 collect one for study? Surely they were still after the MacGuffin list?

Why didn't the depleted uranium penetrate the cab of the front-end loader? (Okay this one is really easy. The DU rounds were in the double drum magazine and Patrice had switched magazines when he shot at Bond in the loader)

Why didn't Bond pay attention to his radio and realize that if there was nothing to his left, and a road to his right, Moneypenny would be shooting at him from that direction?

Why didn't Moneypenny keep shooting once she had her clean shot? Eyes on the prize Moneypenny.

Why did Bond know so much about Tanner, but didn't even know the name of his partner?

Why did Bond not suspect that four goons and a couple of laptops might just be a decoy base? I called it the second I saw it and i'm not a professional.

What happened to the MacGuffin list? Did Silva have a computer set to release five names a week and leave it running? Did MI6 put a stop to that? Did they just pull the remaining agents out?

How do you leave a subtle computer trail out to an abandoned building in the middle of nowhere?

Why did nobody care that Bond screwed up and got M killed? Moneypenny should have at least made a joke about it at the end "promise you'll never try to save my life Bond..."

That should satisfy your OCD for a bit Some of these points were brought up by other people so I can't take any credit for them. Still, little inconsistencies and plot holes are to be expected from any movie. It's the big one that got me. Bond gets knocked down but not out. He may get hurt, he may have to struggle, but he wins regardless. That's why he's a legend, that's why he's a hero, that's why I didn't like this movie. All the little crap aside, if he had overcome what people were saying about him and won, it would have been okay.

So I guess that's what happens when you skip out of your training montage.