Breaking Bond: Why Skyfall is the Worst Bond Movie Ever

[Daveman]

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.

Just thought I'd pick this one out of the many points you are completely wrong about.

First of all, SPECTRE stands for SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. SPECTRE are the baddies for a large portion of the Bond films. Revenge is IN THEIR FUCKING NAME.

Secondly, some examples of Bond films where money isn't the main goal of the villain.

GoldenEye (though money is involved it's mainly about revenge against the British by stealing all their cash)
Die Another Day (wants a fuck off super weapon)
From Russia With Love (some money involved though mostly about revenge against bond)
The Man With The Golden Gun (wants to beat bond for fun)
The Spy Who Loved Me (wants to blow up the world, restart civilisation)
Moonraker (wants to blow up the world, restart civilisation)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (wants amnesty, not money)

As for in Skyfall, it's already established that he's fashioned himself as a massive head of an organisation for hire so he's clearly wealthy enough to pursue his revenge fantasy.

Somebody else can tag in and get the rest of the arguments, it's just this one was too stupid for me to let go.

Try watching some Bond films as well, you might like them, though probably not if you disliked Skyfall.

 

[Olas]

Snip-a-dee-doo dah, snip-a-dee-day

Well I wasn't too interested in what looked like a pretty average bond film. But after reading your review I'm pretty stoked. This movie sounds awesome.

 

[Gitty101]

First off, paragraphs are important. First time in a very long while I've ever seen an actual wall of text.

Secondly, it's not the worst Bond movie, that title still belongs to 'Moonraker'. 'Skyfall' may not be the best, but it's up there and certainly better than you're giving it credit for.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Someone needs to point out that you're wrong. The henchman shot Bond in the shoulder while Bond was trying to operate the crane thing, and that is where he pulls the uranium rounds from. Moneypenny shot him in the lower gut. No plot holes, just your poor memory. I agree using rare ammo is pretty dumb for an assassin, though.

Watch the scene where he jumps into the train from the front end loader. He has clearly been hit in the middle/lower right torso. Pay attention to detail. The bullet he pulls out is in the upper left torso (well the wound actually switches sides because they flipped the film. Um off-topic question... why do they flip the film? People usually catch it when they do that and it seems to serve no purpose).

Another interesting thing to note, since you want to obsess with the first couple minutes in an attempt to distract people from the huge fail in the second and third act, why didn't MI6 do forensics on the bullets before? When the bad guy first opens fire in the crowded street, he had a big double drum magazine for his pistol and emptied it. I'm sure MI6 could have found a couple dozen bullets to run forensics on. Someone killed one of their agents AND got away with a MacGuffin list of agents and they aren't even curious as to catching the guy anymore?

Seriously the major flaws in the movie were what made me hate it. If you want me to pick apart all the little fails as well, I can do that, but i'd rather not.

 

[Nimzabaat]

First off, paragraphs are important. First time in a very long while I've ever seen an actual wall of text.

Secondly, it's not the worst Bond movie, that title still belongs to 'Moonraker'. 'Skyfall' may not be the best, but it's up there and certainly better than you're giving it credit for.

Yeah I will agree that Moonraker out-stupids Skyfall by quite a bit. And to be honest, Skyfall did have some good parts to it. The opening scene was really good, I do like Daniel Craig as Bond. It's just that they played up the "old man in a young mans game" bit so much, and then he couldn't even prove them wrong. As a Bond fan that was a bit much for me.

 

[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.

Just thought I'd pick this one out of the many points you are completely wrong about.

First of all, SPECTRE stands for SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. SPECTRE are the baddies for a large portion of the Bond films. Revenge is IN THEIR FUCKING NAME.

Secondly, some examples of Bond films where money isn't the main goal of the villain.

GoldenEye (though money is involved it's mainly about revenge against the British by stealing all their cash)
Die Another Day (wants a fuck off super weapon)
From Russia With Love (some money involved though mostly about revenge against bond)
The Man With The Golden Gun (wants to beat bond for fun)
The Spy Who Loved Me (wants to blow up the world, restart civilisation)
Moonraker (wants to blow up the world, restart civilisation)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (wants amnesty, not money)

As for in Skyfall, it's already established that he's fashioned himself as a massive head of an organisation for hire so he's clearly wealthy enough to pursue his revenge fantasy.

Somebody else can tag in and get the rest of the arguments, it's just this one was too stupid for me to let go.

Try watching some Bond films as well, you might like them, though probably not if you disliked Skyfall.

That was a nice try. SPECTRE does have revenge in the name. SPECTRE is also for hire, that's the point. They'll enact any revenge you're willing to pay for. Hmm pay... money even?
Super Weapon = power = money, way too easy
The Man with the Golden Gun hired to kill Bond? Hired for... money??? He may like the challenge but he still cashes the cheque.
Restart civilization (twice in there) well that's not exactly money as such. It is still a plan that people can get behind. (Ah that scene in Moonraker where Jaws is floating off into space...)

You see, revenge is a very personal thing and it's hard to motivate other people to take an interest in it. Sure in the case of SPECTRE, they'll do whatever revenge you want for a price, but it's just a job to them. A job where they get paid. Silva's plan is to make M suffer and die and then die himself (or together), it's hard for a henchman to get behind that.

This is kind of fun. It's like the LCD is building me a pedestal so I can look down on them. Thanks LCD!

 

[Gitty101]

First off, paragraphs are important. First time in a very long while I've ever seen an actual wall of text.

Secondly, it's not the worst Bond movie, that title still belongs to 'Moonraker'. 'Skyfall' may not be the best, but it's up there and certainly better than you're giving it credit for.

Yeah I will agree that Moonraker out-stupids Skyfall by quite a bit. And to be honest, Skyfall did have some good parts to it. The opening scene was really good, I do like Daniel Craig as Bond. It's just that they played up the "old man in a young mans game" bit so much, and then he couldn't even prove them wrong. As a Bond fan that was a bit much for me.

It's a shame you feel that way, not liking a central theme to a movie pretty much damns it from the off. To be honest, after the introduction of the main villain, I forgot he was an 'old dog' since he was just kicking so much ass, but everyone's entitled to an opinion.

Plus, compared to 'Quantum of Solace', I'd say it's a return to form at least, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Nimzabaat]

First off, paragraphs are important. First time in a very long while I've ever seen an actual wall of text.

Secondly, it's not the worst Bond movie, that title still belongs to 'Moonraker'. 'Skyfall' may not be the best, but it's up there and certainly better than you're giving it credit for.

Yeah I will agree that Moonraker out-stupids Skyfall by quite a bit. And to be honest, Skyfall did have some good parts to it. The opening scene was really good, I do like Daniel Craig as Bond. It's just that they played up the "old man in a young mans game" bit so much, and then he couldn't even prove them wrong. As a Bond fan that was a bit much for me.

It's a shame you feel that way, not liking a central theme to a movie pretty much damns it from the off. To be honest, after the introduction of the main villain, I forgot he was an 'old dog' since he was just kicking so much ass, but everyone's entitled to an opinion.

Plus, compared to 'Quantum of Solace', I'd say it's a return to form at least, wouldn't you agree?

I would say that Casino Royale is the best of the new Bond movies (even though the Parkour in District B13 was much more fun). It wasn't just that the central theme that was off, revenge is a perfectly good motivator in a non-spy based action movie. The thing about people like Bond and M is that they are professionals. A real spy can be your best friend for five years and shoot you in the face when they get a text message. They don't get attached to people because they wouldn't be in that line of work if they did. Even so, the sentiment, the bad judgement calls, all would have been forgivable if Bond had won. Bonds "i'm not a has-been" routine would have made him endearing if it had been true. That was my problem with the message. The message was that the old ways still work and in the movie, they didn't. I'm also not sure why we get two "Bond learning to be Bond" movies and then it goes immediately to has-been Bond. Shouldn't we get a couple "this is why he's a legend" movies in between?

 

[FaceFaceFace]

snip

I didn't say anything about the rest of the movie because I didn't want to. I suppose I should have been more clear. "Someone needs to point out that you're wrong" referred solely to your argument that they got Bond's wounds wrong. I still contend you are mistaken. You don't have to watch any scene but the one in which you can clearly see him get shot in the shoulder. I guess your idea that he was shot lower could be because the blood stain covered a lower part of his shirt as well?

As for the removal scene, the reversal might be explained by the fact that Bond was looking in a mirror at the time. That's kind of how mirrors work.

You can pick apart the minor flaws or not, I honestly don't care about your opinion on the movie. I just had to pick apart one minor flaw in your own argument =P

 

[Nimzabaat]

snip

I didn't say anything about the rest of the movie because I didn't want to. I suppose I should have been more clear. "Someone needs to point out that you're wrong" referred solely to your argument that they got Bond's wounds wrong. I still contend you are mistaken. You don't have to watch any scene but the one in which you can clearly see him get shot in the shoulder. I guess your idea that he was shot lower could be because the blood stain covered a lower part of his shirt as well?

As for the removal scene, the reversal might be explained by the fact that Bond was looking in a mirror at the time. That's kind of how mirrors work.

You can pick apart the minor flaws or not, I honestly don't care about your opinion on the movie. I just had to pick apart one minor flaw in your own argument =P

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!)

 

[FaceFaceFace]

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!)

This is certainly the silliest debate I've ever been involved in. Now admittedly I'm just working off of memory here, but presumably so are you unless you're using a bootlegged copy of the film for reference.

From my memory: Bond got shot by Patrice in the right shoulder. He got shot by Moneypenny down in the gut (though on which side, I don't remember). The shot of bond removing the bullet was filmed from his perspective facing a mirror, thus appearing to be mirrored, cause it was. Regardless, Moneypenny's bullet was nowhere near the top of his torso either way.

Obviously I can't prove this, but nothing you've said has given me any doubt about my memory of how things went. I will however point out that it would be ridiculously unlikely for such an avoidable continuity mistake to be made during such an expensive production.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

After reading the OP I have to ask.

Which popcorn should I eat as people dissect this very poor point?

I have 2 kinds here, White Cheddar Chipotle and Fudge Drizzled Caramel.


OP:That was the most paper thin synopsis of a movie I've read in a long, long time. You probably watch the movie again without going into with a "hate filter". Seriously. I'm not going to even bother telling you why you're points are horrible as that has already been done well enough by multiple people on the thread.

 

[Tsaba]

let me disagree with you on one point because I don't feel like dissecting your whole five paragraph essay.

Spoiler

Isn't it implied several times including specified on at least one occasion that Silva is a part of "The Shadows..." Why does the movie have to spell out everything, shouldn't we be smart enough to use our imaginations to figure out that maybe Silva was smart enough to just lie/cheat/kill/buy to get what he wanted in the end?

While it may not be the best bond flick, it's by far not the worst.

 

[launchpadmcqwak]

Its fun just sitting here watching this guys post get DESTROYED.

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

Train fights, a big ballad set to a spectacularly animated title sequence, scorpions, chase sequences, terrifying (and surprisingly sympathetic) villain, a Roger Moore style fight in a pit of Kimono Dragons, Bond-style quips ("Just changing carriage"), classic car, a cold yet sexy Bond, gorgeous locales, exciting fights, a sexy femme fatale, classic Bond cues, classic Bond characters resurrected, ultimate swag and the GUN BARREL SEQUENCE!

Come on! This was a brilliant Bond film! If there was any section that didn't feel very Bond-like, it was the final act. It felt more like a Western than a spy/espionage thriller. That being said, it was still explosive and spectacular to watch.

The first half of the film, especially the China sequence, was pure Bond, and pure cinema for that matter. I loved this movie.

 

[Haefulz]

I've seen a lot of people get this fact mixed up.

All actors cast as James Bond (up to and including Brosnan) are playing the same character. James Bond isn't a codename; from Dr. No to Die Another Day, James Bond is the same person. Pierce Brosnan's bond has all the memories of Sean Connery's, Roger Moore's, etc.

**BUT** Starting with Casino Royale, Daniel Craig's Bond films are a reboot and the beginning of a new James Bond story (or universe, if that makes it easier to understand), where the only carryover actor/actress is Judi Dench as M. Technically a different M than the one she played in the Brosnan films, but for all intents and purposes her mannerisms stayed the same. Daniel Craig's Bond is not the same character or even in the same world as all the other actors' Bond. A lot of people viewed the new Daniel Craig movies as a sort of origin story, but this isn't the case.

 

[Palmerama]

I thought Skyfall was very good! The continuing theme of Bond against a digital age & ehether he fits in it works very well!

What constantly grated at me throughout the whole film is that it's in the same vain as On Her Majesty's Secret Service, with a wink to the camera. The film runs a constant parallel! On the one hand the film is STILL setting Daniel Craig's Bond up (as we get re-intoduced to Q and Moneypenny), and on the other it seems to be continuing from Die Another Day!

Let me explain. This film is yet again setting Craig up as Bond, as in Casino Royale & Quantum of Solace he's becoming the Bond we all know & love, and in Skyfall he has to go back to becoming that Bond! At the moment you could place Casino Royale & QOS before Dr.No & Skyfall after Die Another Day! Don't forget in Brosnan's last film Bond got tortured for months in Korea or wherever he was (I havent seen it for years), so that would take a toll on him so its natural that after all he's been through he isn't as sprightly as he used to be.
Also Bond still has the DB5 from Goldfinger, which appeared (though be it a bit worse for wear) again in Thunderball, then again in Tomorrow Never Dies (it was supposed to be in The World is Not Enough but the scene was scrapped). So it fits that it follows from Die Another Day, as he still has the DB5! But it contradicts the reboot that the previous two films did.

On the other hand we still have to set up Craig's Bond with all the usual suspects, M, Q, and Moneypenny. In the other Bond films (apart from Die Another Day) Q was played by Desmond Llewelynn (R.I.P) and from Connery to Moore Moneypenny was Lois Maxwell (R.I.P), for Dalton it was Caroline Bliss, and Brosnan had Samantha Bond. M was played by the brilliant Bernard Lee from Dr.No up until Moonraker, when he died in 1981 the role was played by Robert Brown until Judi Dench took over for Brosnan's tenure. With a new Q & Moneypenny now introduced in Skyfall, a new M was needed aswell so they kill her off and we now have Ralph Fiennes in the role. The faith that M has in Bond in Skyfall is the same faith she shows in Tomorrow Never Dies & The World is Not Enough, they explore the relationship more as it has more gravitas when you put Skyfall after Die another Day! After all they've been through no wonder he'd be upset and practically devestated as the last time Bond cried over a women in his life was his wife!

When you think of it like that it works (once its not confusing anymore). The next Bond film will be a 'proper' Bond film in everything as now all the foundations have been laid. What they also need to do is bring back the gadgets! Another Bond staple! I was furious when Q said "what were you expecting? An exploding pen?" (referrencing Goldeneye). Yes I was! Its Bond for god's sake! Those gadgets are always cinematic marvels and help Bond get out of seemingly impossible situations! Before he had the watches. Now with phones think oth epossibilites! Brosnan's Bond started it. They could go so much further!

Gonna stop now! Rambled a bit! Good film, and the cinematography & score were just amazing!

 

[Daveman]

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.

Just thought I'd pick this one out of the many points you are completely wrong about.

First of all, SPECTRE stands for SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. SPECTRE are the baddies for a large portion of the Bond films. Revenge is IN THEIR FUCKING NAME.

Secondly, some examples of Bond films where money isn't the main goal of the villain.

GoldenEye (though money is involved it's mainly about revenge against the British by stealing all their cash)
Die Another Day (wants a fuck off super weapon)
From Russia With Love (some money involved though mostly about revenge against bond)
The Man With The Golden Gun (wants to beat bond for fun)
The Spy Who Loved Me (wants to blow up the world, restart civilisation)
Moonraker (wants to blow up the world, restart civilisation)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (wants amnesty, not money)

As for in Skyfall, it's already established that he's fashioned himself as a massive head of an organisation for hire so he's clearly wealthy enough to pursue his revenge fantasy.

Somebody else can tag in and get the rest of the arguments, it's just this one was too stupid for me to let go.

Try watching some Bond films as well, you might like them, though probably not if you disliked Skyfall.

That was a nice try. SPECTRE does have revenge in the name. SPECTRE is also for hire, that's the point. They'll enact any revenge you're willing to pay for. Hmm pay... money even?
Super Weapon = power = money, way too easy
The Man with the Golden Gun hired to kill Bond? Hired for... money??? He may like the challenge but he still cashes the cheque.
Restart civilization (twice in there) well that's not exactly money as such. It is still a plan that people can get behind. (Ah that scene in Moonraker where Jaws is floating off into space...)

You see, revenge is a very personal thing and it's hard to motivate other people to take an interest in it. Sure in the case of SPECTRE, they'll do whatever revenge you want for a price, but it's just a job to them. A job where they get paid. Silva's plan is to make M suffer and die and then die himself (or together), it's hard for a henchman to get behind that.

This is kind of fun. It's like the LCD is building me a pedestal so I can look down on them. Thanks LCD!

Scaramanga WASN'T hired to kill bond, that was the twist, the golden bullet was sent to them by somebody else. Bond was then sent to kill Scaramanga. Super weapon was to destroy the minefield between north and south korea to allow an invasion, it had fuck all to do with money. In fact the bad guy established himself as a massive trader of diamonds, only to then glue them all to a satellite to make his massive laser.

In From Russia With Love SPECTRE is trying to get revenge on Bond after he killed their operative Dr No. They weren't for hire in that case, that was their personal revenge.

As for the henchmen, HE IS ALREADY RICH. He can still pay them. What is so hard to comprehend about that?