Breaking Bond: Why Skyfall is the Worst Bond Movie Ever

[TheRussian]

You should watch Skyfall

I have.

You should watch Skyfall, but don't pay for it

I sure hope you are not PROMOTING PIRACY

Why is he getting another one like nothing happened?

Because he's James Bond.

Now I should probably stop responding to you, as you get kicks out of trolling on internet forums.

 

[Acton Hank]

Then basically the movie rips off Dark Knight Rises

For that matter Fliming for Skyfall started on the 7th of November 2011 and finished on the 25th of May 2012. Again you'll notice that these dates precede The Dark Knight Rises' release by sevral months.

So you're saying that Skyfall finished filming before filming actually started?

That makes perfect sense.

YOU SAW NOTHING! NOTHING! Edited, Not that 2011 was typoed to 2012 is terrible hard to infer.



Point remains, Skyfall finished filming well before rises was released. Unless you wish to make an unsuportable claim that MGM ordered a rewrite of the entire first act, then had it reshot?

Just pointing it out, if you're going to ignore all his points the least you could do is make sure you double check what you write, a mistake like that could make you look real silly.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

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.

snip

Honestly, I don't care whether you like it or not, you are free to like/dislike whatever you like/dislike. I just don't like people getting little bits wrong like that. If I got something wrong I would want somebody to correct me.

 

[rob_simple]

The only problem I now have with Skyfall is that it wasn't nearly as entertaining as watching your arguments get smashed out the fucking park, OP.

I have a question though: did you actually think that wall of word-vomit made sense, or did you come up with the clever play on Breaking Bad and work backwards from there?

 

[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.

snip

Honestly, I don't care whether you like it or not, you are free to like/dislike whatever you like/dislike. I just don't like people getting little bits wrong like that. If I got something wrong I would want somebody to correct me.

Actually I already admitted I was wrong about that little detail and apologized for it. If you would like an apology as well, then okay. I'm sorry, I misremembered that part of the movie.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Hi OP. I think skyfall was probably the worst movie I have seen in a decade but for other reasons. Here's a copy and paste of what i posted under the review in this site;

SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILLLLLLLERSSSSS! SPOILERS!

This is the worst Bond movie ever made. Forgot Bond movie....it's the worst action film I have seen.
What is wrong with everyone??!

Every single time the plot advances there are several new plot holes and contrivances.

How does Craig continue fighting with a bullet in him? I know his awesome hard but his not terminator. (This is a film all critics are saying is now up-to-date and realistic.)

Bond was being held up by the throat on the train in the specific angle? this was the most imaginative way they could use to 'kill off Bond' and make him all upset about being betrayed?
Not only is it overdone & lacks creativity but it's still full of plot holes.

Bond could hear the order- he could of just dropped to the floor

Why didn't Naomi keep shooting?

How did Bond survive 2 bullet wounds and that fall? Bourne or the punisher survive..because this is how their journey begins...it's what makes them special. You can't do something like that to an already special established character

So we are just going to explain everything by hacking magic? can we have hacking defined in this universe because it's a bit vague- like how, the context, the limitations...kind of like how die hard 4, goldeneye do it? for all i know silva could of programmed a satellite to fall on people.

Bond pulls a uranium tipped bullet shrapnel out of his chest? led poisoning? does this isotope of uranium cause cancer? Only 3 baddies in the world use this bullet?!! his a ghost! but here's his flight manifesto! This is how we are going to advance the plot??!?!

Bond can't shoot and has crap fitness? is it mental or physical? -i need to watch it again.
Half way through the film his suddenly 100% again with no explanation

Bond follows an assassin and allows him to kill people. But in casino royale and QoS he grew into a character that at first didn't care (half monk half hitman) but then became a good guy (fell in love, saved cammille- even though he didn't have to). As part of a trilogy this is inconsistent.

The bad guys escape- the joker's was creative; silva had a convenient trap door? are you kidding me?!! I know lets put the hacker in a cell that's connected and controlled by our computer network. Lets not connect Silva's laptop to an isolated computer..this is hollywood hacking 101 stuff since 1997. Then they didn't even show the escape- how did he cover all that space between him and a trained agent with a gun?

Silva hacks everything and has planned everything but his master plan is a firefight in a courtroom?! Why not just kidnap M with hacking. He spends several years being a ghost then at the end his impatient, stupid and reckless.

Now i think about it..what did silva achieve by being caught? He could of had a convo with M at any time because hacking can do everything now. The joker got that chinese accountant person...silva got a free flight to london!

knowing all this lets go back to the start;

Why are there only 2 agents (+ 1 dead) trying to get the macgiffin list?

How did the bad guys get it...what was it doing in turkey?

What happened to the list half way through?

I thought this was a good way to start it...but looking at the lack of imagination & creativity throughout the rest of the film it was clear they just couldn't think of a reason. Even charlies angels 2 thought up those '2 rings'.

I'm going to stop here...the plot holes and stupidities of every character involved continue and i probably missed a lot out.
The point is a film like dark knight will have far fewer plot holes and stupid moments and when they do occur at least Nolan isn't regurgitating easy plot devices and is being a bit more creative about it. You can do mind gymnastics to answer questions but after about 5 major ones narrative coherence goes into the toilet.

Why is Q, the quartermaster a master hacker? These are completely different skill sets.

The themes are lame; james Bond in a new world. we did this in goldeneye already. and the last 2 movies, financing terror/civil wars, natural resources....i don't think we need this theme...just a harvey dent conference moment for skyfall. But for Batman it was relevant-his a vigilante, the whole point of what he done was to inspire the citizens and officals and thus was a theme throughout all 3 movies- Bond is a SECRET agent- this theme here was forced and out of place and not even done well.

There is nothing 'deep' about going back to skyfall/parents house. I can make a dozen fanfictions about the main character going to his old house to get cheap applause.

QoS wasn't well made if people didn't get it but there was a coherent point, minimal plot holes and character development of the origins of Bond that made sense. Did this film just reboot the reboot of the origins of Bond, one film later?

I do agree with all your points, but I have come to expect inconsintencies and plot holes in movies. It's the meta that I hated. They said it right in the movie "old dog, new tricks". Except then they showed that Bond didn't have any new tricks. He even forgot that the whole point of having bait is so that you could spring, I dunno... a trap? They were in MI6's back yard and he couldn't get support? Someone actually threw me a bunch of ammunition for my argument about how Bond doesn't have it easy but always comes out on top. (I actually had to slap that person because they were being a fence-sitter and I hate those). This time Bond (with the help of Groundskeeper Willie) didn't come out on top and nobody cares. What's next for 007? Bond must protect the Queen with a home-made bow and arrow? He does it by staking her out in front of a building, accidently shoots her in the head with his last arrow and people applaud for how "deep" the ending is?

Oh and Silva's death is now the most unsatisfying end for a villain this year. It was Bane getting shot by Catwoman. But the "Jason Vorhees" knife to the back, followed by that hilarious Bollywood scream. That takes the award.

 

[Nimzabaat]

You should watch Skyfall

I have.

You should watch Skyfall, but don't pay for it

I sure hope you are not PROMOTING PIRACY

Why is he getting another one like nothing happened?

Because he's James Bond.

Now I should probably stop responding to you, as you get kicks out of trolling on internet forums.

I would never promote piracy. But I will promote going to see the movie. Staying up until Bond drives off with M. Demanding your money back. The movie was pretty okay up until that point and then it completely shits the bed.

 

[Laughing Man]

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".

You really did miss the point of the movie didn't you? Bonds job was not to protect M, the subtle undertone started when M allowed him to get shot, him then deciding not to go back to MI6 the whole thing pointed to Bond doing what he could but accepting that failure, against an enemy who proved to have the upper hand at every step, was going to be a possibility.

His job was not to protect M it was to take out Silva, if protecting M was the job then they would have just hauled up under guard and Silva would have stayed in hiding. M was the bait to draw Silva out and the location and set up was made to make it look like Bond had chosen the location because of it's isolation that offered an opportunity to someone who was out looking for personnel revenge. The movie made this pretty damn clear so how you managed to miss this during all this so called 'attention' you were paying is frankly quite stunning.

The ending and death of M was meant to have a subtle undertone it was something that ran through the movie. That Bond should hate M for what she did, they even used Silva as a mirror for Bond, an example of a previous star agent that was left for dead by M. The fact that Bond killed Silva before he went through with his plan, i.e the very personnel killing of M was meant to show that despite what Bond should have felt for M he managed to move on, that he was infact better than Silva but despite all this he still couldn't save her. He won (he got past becoming another Silva, he beat the bad guy, he denied Silva from finishing his plan of personally killing her, and he took apart Silva's operation) but at the same time he lost (M died).

Oh and Silva's death is now the most unsatisfying end for a villain this year. It was Bane getting shot by Catwoman. But the "Jason Vorhees" knife to the back, followed by that hilarious Bollywood scream. That takes the award.

Missed the point again didn't you? The bad guy spends most of the movie using high tech cyber terrorism, he shows he can manipulate anything he wants via the stroke of a keyboard but in the end gets killed by a knife in the back, how could you not see the undertones in that?

 

[Vivi22]

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".

You really did miss the point of the movie didn't you? Bonds job was not to protect M, the subtle undertone started when M allowed him to get shot, him then deciding not to go back to MI6 the whole thing pointed to Bond doing what he could but accepting that failure, against an enemy who proved to have the upper hand at every step, was going to be a possibility.

His job was not to protect M it was to take out Silva, if protecting M was the job then they would have just hauled up under guard and Silva would have stayed in hiding. M was the bait to draw Silva out and the location and set up was made to make it look like Bond had chosen the location because of it's isolation that offered an opportunity to someone who was out looking for personnel revenge. The movie made this pretty damn clear so how you managed to miss this during all this so called 'attention' you were paying is frankly quite stunning.

The ending and death of M was meant to have a subtle undertone it was something that ran through the movie. That Bond should hate M for what she did, they even used Silva as a mirror for Bond, an example of a previous star agent that was left for dead by M. The fact that Bond killed Silva before he went through with his plan, i.e the very personnel killing of M was meant to show that despite what Bond should have felt for M he managed to move on, that he was infact better than Silva but despite all this he still couldn't save her. He won (he got past becoming another Silva, he beat the bad guy, he denied Silva from finishing his plan of personally killing her, and he took apart Silva's operation) but at the same time he lost (M died).

Oh and Silva's death is now the most unsatisfying end for a villain this year. It was Bane getting shot by Catwoman. But the "Jason Vorhees" knife to the back, followed by that hilarious Bollywood scream. That takes the award.

Missed the point again didn't you? The bad guy spends most of the movie using high tech cyber terrorism, he shows he can manipulate anything he wants via the stroke of a keyboard but in the end gets killed by a knife in the back, how could you not see the undertones in that?

Well put good sir. Hopefully the OP actually reads it, though I doubt he'll admit to any of these being the running themes in the movie. Frankly, I'm not sure how someone could possibly miss it as most of it is laid out quite neatly in the movie, particularly how well Bond's fall and M sacrificing him for the mission mirror's Silva's.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

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.

snip

Honestly, I don't care whether you like it or not, you are free to like/dislike whatever you like/dislike. I just don't like people getting little bits wrong like that. If I got something wrong I would want somebody to correct me.

Actually I already admitted I was wrong about that little detail and apologized for it. If you would like an apology as well, then okay. I'm sorry, I misremembered that part of the movie.

I never said anything like that, I just said that I didn't like people getting things wrong. I don't want an apology. Don't be so defensive.

 

[DkLnBr]

How does Craig continue fighting with a bullet in him? I know his awesome hard but his not terminator.

He's a trained operative, and this isnt the first time he's been shot, so he's probably used to the pain. Plus you could possibly get away with saying he's had incentive training and the mental fortitude to deal with it) however yes we was doing quite well for having a handicapped arm and a large weak spot (seriously assassin dude, go for the shoulder!)

Bond could hear the order- he could of just dropped to the floor

How do you know he heard it? MI6 wouldnt just broadcast to every radio in range (classified mission data? everyone in a 2 mile radius knows it now) But even if he did hear, he was grappling with the assassin, not staring him down 10 feet away. He'd have to let go and drop to the ground, but the target is still holding on (so he'd either get held up, or pull the bad guy down with him, still not allowing a clear shot)

Why didn't Naomi keep shooting?

she just shot a friend, is it too much to think she'd be in shock? She only would have a few seconds to realize who got hit, get over it, aim and fire.

How did Bond survive 2 bullet wounds and that fall?

I have to agree with this one, a uranium bullet to the shoulder, sniper shot to the gut, and did a back-flop from 5 stories high. God damn, no wonder Bond never dies.

So we are just going to explain everything by hacking magic? can we have hacking defined in this universe because it's a bit vague- like how, the context, the limitations...kind of like how die hard 4, goldeneye do it? for all i know silva could of programmed a satellite to fall on people.

Well when everything is run by computers, then you could find a way to hack it. And its not like he hacked Mount St. Helens to erupt, just stole data and messed with their computers. I dont see whats really so far-fetched with that?

Bond pulls a uranium tipped bullet shrapnel out of his chest? led poisoning? does this isotope of uranium cause cancer? Only 3 baddies in the world use this bullet?!! his a ghost! but here's his flight manifesto! This is how we are going to advance the plot??!?!

light-emitting diode poisoning? or do you mean lead? Though I have to agree again... Stuck for a way to advance the plot? use the magic bullet to find him! What dumb ass assassin makes it so easy to link it back to him?

Bond can't shoot and has crap fitness? is it mental or physical?
Half way through the film his suddenly 100% again with no explanation

I think thats from him sleeping around and drinking on that beach for x amount of time. He's gotten soft and out of practice. But as for it coming back? I dont know, maybe espionage is like riding a bike? you never forget how

The bad guys escape- the joker's was creative; silva had a convenient trap door? are you kidding me?!! I know lets put the hacker in a cell that's connected and controlled by our computer network. Lets not connect Silva's laptop to an isolated computer..this is hollywood hacking 101 stuff since 1997. Then they didn't even show the escape- how did he cover all that space between him and a trained agent with a gun?

Another thing I agree with! a very dangerous enemy that is a master with technology? lets put him in our most high tech cell controlled by out central computer in the same room as a trap door leading into the metro tunnels, what could possibly go wrong?

Silva hacks everything and has planned everything but his master plan is a firefight in a courtroom?! Why not just kidnap M with hacking. He spends several years being a ghost then at the end his impatient, stupid and reckless.

How exactly? hack her heart to stop beating (maybe she has a pacemaker?) but he did get stupid, why kill her in a crowded room that has armed police? why not in her car or at home?

Now i think about it..what did silva achieve by being caught? He could of had a convo with M at any time because hacking can do everything now. The joker got that chinese accountant person...silva got a free flight to london!

Because if he wasnt caught then he wouldnt have been able to hack their mainframe! wait, that was just to open his cell... hmm.... i guess he wanted to make his enemy pay for his flight, how diabolical!

Why are there only 2 agents (+ 1 dead) trying to get the macgiffin list?

another thing we agree on! a list that could compromise the entire organization? just send 2 agents, no big deal.

TL;DR = I disagree for most, but agree for others

 

[IronMit]

I do agree with all your points, but I have come to expect inconsintencies and plot holes in movies. It's the meta that I hated. They said it right in the movie "old dog, new tricks". Except then they showed that Bond didn't have any new tricks. He even forgot that the whole point of having bait is so that you could spring, I dunno... a trap? They were in MI6's back yard and he couldn't get support? Someone actually threw me a bunch of ammunition for my argument about how Bond doesn't have it easy but always comes out on top. (I actually had to slap that person because they were being a fence-sitter and I hate those). This time Bond (with the help of Groundskeeper Willie) didn't come out on top and nobody cares. What's next for 007? Bond must protect the Queen with a home-made bow and arrow? He does it by staking her out in front of a building, accidently shoots her in the head with his last arrow and people applaud for how "deep" the ending is?

Oh and Silva's death is now the most unsatisfying end for a villain this year. It was Bane getting shot by Catwoman. But the "Jason Vorhees" knife to the back, followed by that hilarious Bollywood scream. That takes the award.

I also expect inconsistencies and maybe some convenient happenings or contrivances, hopefully not a plot hole. but this movie had dozens of everything. Even half baked broken out of place themes.

The movie really was hilarious in every single way possible. He failed his mission twice. The second time he pretty much kidnapped M and had her killed. Surely someone is going to think he was in on it. He has a 'motive' as well, if you can call it that.

Oh god that stupid knife scene. Minutes earlier 'willie' puts the knife on the table and says 'for when it's personal'. It has nothing to do with anything. what's personal? Bond hardly knows the guy..they met once. Then silva told a story of 2 rats and they both called M mum, which they call her anyway like the queen. So all of a sudden everything is personal.

People feel clever when they point these out and match them with what the unconvincing theme is supposed to be. It is just random scattered symbolism with zero substance

 

[Nimzabaat]

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".

You really did miss the point of the movie didn't you? Bonds job was not to protect M, the subtle undertone started when M allowed him to get shot, him then deciding not to go back to MI6 the whole thing pointed to Bond doing what he could but accepting that failure, against an enemy who proved to have the upper hand at every step, was going to be a possibility.

His job was not to protect M it was to take out Silva, if protecting M was the job then they would have just hauled up under guard and Silva would have stayed in hiding. M was the bait to draw Silva out and the location and set up was made to make it look like Bond had chosen the location because of it's isolation that offered an opportunity to someone who was out looking for personnel revenge. The movie made this pretty damn clear so how you managed to miss this during all this so called 'attention' you were paying is frankly quite stunning.

The ending and death of M was meant to have a subtle undertone it was something that ran through the movie. That Bond should hate M for what she did, they even used Silva as a mirror for Bond, an example of a previous star agent that was left for dead by M. The fact that Bond killed Silva before he went through with his plan, i.e the very personnel killing of M was meant to show that despite what Bond should have felt for M he managed to move on, that he was infact better than Silva but despite all this he still couldn't save her. He won (he got past becoming another Silva, he beat the bad guy, he denied Silva from finishing his plan of personally killing her, and he took apart Silva's operation) but at the same time he lost (M died).

Oh and Silva's death is now the most unsatisfying end for a villain this year. It was Bane getting shot by Catwoman. But the "Jason Vorhees" knife to the back, followed by that hilarious Bollywood scream. That takes the award.

Missed the point again didn't you? The bad guy spends most of the movie using high tech cyber terrorism, he shows he can manipulate anything he wants via the stroke of a keyboard but in the end gets killed by a knife in the back, how could you not see the undertones in that?

Bonds job was to get his superior killed and assist a suicide? That's an interesting way of looking at it. So M dying was just an added bonus?

Yes Bond did use M as bait, but bait for what? For him and groundskeeper Willie to go all old school? Lots of people use bait for a trap. Though Bond did get one up on Silva that a lot of people missed. Namely, when you're protecting a VIP, you don't put them out in harms way with a gun to draw attention to themselves. Even Silva was surprised that one of his goons actually tagged her. Out-of-the-box thinking there Bond!

There was an undertone to the knife in the back? That was complete and utter crap. It was the worst death for a villain this year and possibly even this decade. I face palmed so hard that I hit the guy in the seat behind me. The movie told us the theme "old dog, new tricks". Bond didn't have those new tricks and failed. What's worse is that he was even called on it. It should have ended with New M saying "you cocked it up Bond, enjoy your desk job". The end. Next movie, maybe Bond actually redeems himself and the franchise.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Hmmmmm....

While I feel Skyfall is certainly one of the weaker bonds (Excluding Lazenby & Brosnan & Dalton flicks on a whole (GoldenEye is good)) it's a good film.

The problem is it's just a good film; Its a borderline generic action film & lacks a significant portion of the charm from the Flemming based films.

While I understand the need to kill off M (Called it before I'd even seen it.) I think her death was somewhat valueless when viewed in the context of how it unfolded. She was dead the first time she got shot so any further tension was nullified given that the initial gunshot was clearly going to be fatal.

"Oh no Silva's pointing a gun at an already fatally wounded women. The TERROR!"

It would have had far more impact if Bond had arrived just in time to watch M get double tapped. That could have been an ongoing narrative of Bond's psyche for future films; not only driving him to fight harder but also as a personal conflict over the guilt of her death. They can still do this of course; but its impact would be even more diluted given that M's death was lacking impact in the first place.

Daniel Craig as Bond though is excellent. Third only to Sean Connery in 2nd & David Niven as the greatest James Bond ever.

You know the movie should have started with M getting killed and Bond hunting the killer down against the orders of New M. Except that's pretty much Quantum of Solace all over again. It would still have been a better movie if M was killed in the care of another agent. So they could play off the "you let us down agent Blergfillername" as opposed to Bond letting us down.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Okay all previous Bond villains have a scheme for MAKING MONEY. Can you understand the concept? People who have plans to MAKE MONEY attract like minded individuals. Maybe they are henchman types, maybe they are elite henchman types. The whole thing that motivates them is MAKING MONEY. There is NO MONEY in revenge. Period. None. Silva didn't want to extort money for revealing those agents, he didn't want to make money at all. So how could he attract like-minded people? The answer is he got the henchman rejects.

Methinks you missed Silva's intro scene. There, he established he has the means to have ALL of the money using the fancy power of hacking. Yes, revenge is his main goal, but he established that he does have a lucrative side job, otherwise how could he pay for his helicopters and his explosives and his army of henchmen?

Why do people like this movie?

Because it was BLOODY AWESOME that's why.

Frankly, your arguments do a halfway decent job of arguing that Skyfall is not a good movie, but do a horrible job of arguing that it's a bad Bond movie.

"But the plot holes! But the nonsensical epic fight scenes!" you say. "Have you SEEN a James Bond movie before?" I respond.

I have seen a Bond movie and it wasn't really the plot holes and goofs that burned me. It's that this movie made Bond out to be washed up. In Casino Royal and Quantum of Solace Bond is building up to being the Bond we know. In Skyfall, he's suddenly past his prime and screws up. That's why I don't like it. I did enjoy the first two acts, it's just the third act that turns into a western and turns Bond into a failure. Little crap aside, Bond should win the day.

 

[Nimzabaat]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Nice reply, I kind of missed it with all the poo flinging. I'm with you that the world is advancing and spies have to advance with them and that was pretty much the theme. The theme was also that Bond refused to advance and got M killed by simply not activating his radio, the phone in the car, or any other technological device more advanced than a bowie knife. Once again, the bad guy had time to call for backup, why didn't Bond? Honestly Bond was probably doing the self-denial thing and figuring he could handle it. I'm even okay with Bond being delusional. I'm not okay with there being no consequences to his failure and the movie ending on a "well you fucked this whole thing up, chin up and try again old boy".

 

[Nimzabaat]

It?s interesting what a little emotion can do. I posted this thread in anger (hence the lack of formatting) and it became a quasi-interesting social experiment. After reading some of the responses I realized that I had inadvertently created a trap for people to embarrass themselves with. There should be a word for such a person because trolling is something entirely different and douchebaggery is too general.

I did come to realize why Skyfall elicited such a strong reaction from me. In North America (this may be true in Europe as well, I?m not as well traveled as I would like to be) there has been a disturbing trend in people in general. It went from ?be perfect?, to ?well you?re not perfect but try to be?, and now it?s ?fuck it, you?ll never be perfect, just be crappy?. Now accepting yourself is important, but so is self-improvement. Nowadays kids in school can?t fail a test or subject or they?ll complain to their parents and get the teacher fired. It?s sending out the wrong message. It?s sending the message that we can stop trying to be better.

I am trying to be a better me. I am actually trying to be less of an asshole to random people on the internet. That?s not much in evidence here so... there?s a lot of work to do in that regard.

In Skyfall Bond fails his mission. He fails and nobody says anything about it to him because it?s okay to be a failure now. That is the wrong message. I don?t believe that we, as a species, have peaked already. I think we can still be better and there?s nothing wrong with having a hero fail as long as he is punished for it. As long as we get to see that he understands that he has failed and will try to be better.

Captcha: have an inkling (well it took a bit, but now I do)

 

[Bashfluff]

"As a stand-alone adventure, it doesn't continue the story arc of Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace."

So, there's that.

 

[Laughing Man]

Bonds job was to get his superior killed and assist a suicide? That's an interesting way of looking at it. So M dying was just an added bonus?

You're kidding right, okay slowly

BONDS JOB WAS TO STOP SILVA.

I already said that, so unless you're being dense on purpose I assume this is a subtle attempt at trolling.

Yes Bond did use M as bait, but bait for what?

Twice so far so we will try this one again

BOND WAS SETTING A TRAP FOR SILVA.

Did you actually watch the movie?

Bond clearly had the advantaged in the mano a mano stakes where as Silva had the advantage in the high tech cyber terror stakes. Bond set up a situation that meant Silva had to come out of his comfort zone if he wanted to go after M. This was all clearly shown in the movie.

There was an undertone to the knife in the back? That was complete and utter crap. It was the worst death for a villain this year and possibly even this decade. I face palmed so hard that I hit the guy in the seat behind me.

You know what given that people are having to explain stuff from the movie that was clear plain and not exactly clouded in sub context and dual meaning I am not really shocked that you missed the subtle nature of a high tech cyber criminal who throughout the movie made no small light of his cyber tech abilities being stabbed in the back by something as low tech as knife.

The movie told us the theme "old dog, new tricks". Bond didn't have those new tricks and failed.

Old dog = James Bond
New Tricks = The world the 'old dog' is having to adapt to

Can't put it any more simply than that.

In Skyfall Bond fails his mission. He fails and nobody says anything about it to him because it's okay to be a failure now. That is the wrong message.

LOL coming from someone who has FAILED to grasp what was actually happing in the movie and still FAILS to do so despite having been told what was going on by several people including myself, gotta say I am laughing at the irony here.