Skyfall - Grading & Discussion

[sojourner]

Sean Bean?

[Professor Zoom]

sojourner wrote:

---

Sean Bean?

I was thinking the same thing. While watching the movie... Sigh. It's been weeks and I'm STILL disappointed.

[Kai "the spy"]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

I was thinking the same thing. While watching the movie... Sigh. It's been weeks and I'm STILL disappointed.

Tell me about it. Thing is, the more I think about it, the more I dislike it.

[FPAlpha]

Just saw and damn.. pretty close to the brilliance that was Casino Royale (might change my mind a bit after the movie has settled and i have seen it a few more times once it's out on BD).

I just love the Craig Bonds.. even Quantum. They present us with a Bond who can be hurt, who has flaws, has issues, not overstocked on silly gadgets.. just a hardcore badass who'll do everything for King and Country.

Prior to seeing the movie friends and me talked about how the Bond styles changed over time and we came to the (maybe obvious) conclusion that Bond more or less are what the audience want.. a sort of mirror of current preferences of the audience.

The Bourne movies were huge hits and before Craig came along many claimed that this is what a modern Bond movie should be like stylistically and i'm glad the producers took some cues and changed the style of the new Bonds. They have even admitted that the Brosnan Bonds were too much fantasy and wanted to change that.

Some things that stood out in Skyfall:

- Javier Bardem as Silva.. damn, that was one psycho. He was funny and scary at the same time. A friend and me agreed almost instantly that he had many Heath Ledger-Joker like qualities and that made him absolutely brilliant. Loved how absolutely adverse he was to fighting, running around and getting all banged up.. it was just awesome that he put down all the Craig/Bond physicality and was just annoyed at it

- the return ot the traditional but updated characters.. Moneypenny is quite cool and she'll definitely not be the pretty secretary because we know she can kick ass if need be.. Q was hilarious and i nearly doubled over in laughter whe he made the snide remark that they don't produce exploding pens anymore
The new M remains to be seen what he brings to the table.. he's handy in a fight being an ex SAS man and is willing to break the rules if the results are worth it. Dench played an awesome M (even in the Brosnan years but during tehe Craig Bonds she really was even more awesome).

- special mention to the original Aston Martin DB5.. my heart sunk in pain and sadness when it got blown up (it at least got to annoy M for a bit and take out some bad guys)

Overall one of the best Bonds i saw.. loved how they showed that Bond can be hurt, that age really takes its toll in such a high action environment and that he can fail. It made for a much more interesting movie than a Bond who walks effortlessly to gunfire and takes the enemy out one by one.

I'm definitely looking forward to the next 2 Craig Bonds and hope they don't fall back into old habits and start kitting him out with ridiculous stuff from Q now that they've reintroduced him.

[Trekker4747]

FPAlpha wrote:

---

The new M remains to be seen what he brings to the table.. he's handy in a fight being an ex SAS man and is willing to break the rules if the results are worth it.

Which is odd considering what happened here: Bond's plan did NOT work! Sure they killed and stopped Silva from his evil plans or whatever he had planed to do next. (I think the NOC List thread was taken care of and no longer an issue.) But Silva still succeeded in his end goal: To kill M!

If Bond had NOT kidnapped M, sure, Silva may never have been captured which would have lead to M's disgrace in leaving MI6, but she'd be alive. In the end, kidnapping M helped Silva to get his goal: to kill her.

So Bond failed in this task of protecting M. But won in stopping Silva. Sort of a push, but it's an odd "win" for sure.

[The Wormhole]

T'Baio wrote:

---

When arguing whether a film is sexist, i.e. a product of cultural patriarchy, I don't think one can argue like this, as in within the context of the plot and character machinations as portrayed in the film. You have to argue outside of that, and whether the film needed to be written like that in the first place.

Just for argument's sake...of course a sexist, chauvinist, patriarchal writer is going to write Moneypenny as a woman who likes clerical duties. You even provide an example...of course Bond always does what he wants, avoiding desk duty, and being a man of action, while the woman decides she likes clerical duties. Writing the character wanting it doesn't mean the film isn't sexist, it just means the writer is trying not to write it that way.

I really don't believe the Moneypenny situation is an inherently sexist one, I believe they're just trying to set up a classic Bond trope for future films. But in the discussion on whether it is sexist or not, I think one has to argue in the context of the creation of the film, not what takes place fictionally within it.

I suppose one can make that argument, but my point was basically a repeat of a comment I made earlier in the thread. There's nothing sexist about a woman preferring to do a desk job over field work. Insisting that women have to do action stuff when their preferances are other places is equally as offensive as blatant sexism.

Agent Richard07 wrote:

---

I don't think they took a woman of action and turned her into a secretary because of any deep-seated sexism. I think they were trying to take a classic character who was a secretary and give her a more interesting background.

Indeed, that was my impression as well.

[ROBE]

So we have a woman who prefers to be a secretary, get over it!
Makes a change from turning every female lead into Xena, like Snow White and Alice in Wonderland (in recent movies).

PS Wonder Woman and Catwoman are two of my favourite characters, however I don't see why every female character has to be GI Jane.

[ROBE]

Feminists wiil always complain about something.

[Ian Keldon]

T'Baio wrote:

---

When arguing whether a film is sexist, i.e. a product of cultural patriarchy, I don't think one can argue like this, as in within the context of the plot and character machinations as portrayed in the film. You have to argue outside of that, and whether the film needed to be written like that in the first place.

Just for argument's sake...of course a sexist, chauvinist, patriarchal writer is going to write Moneypenny as a woman who likes clerical duties. You even provide an example...of course Bond always does what he wants, avoiding desk duty, and being a man of action, while the woman decides she likes clerical duties. Writing the character wanting it doesn't mean the film isn't sexist, it just means the writer is trying not to write it that way.

I really don't believe the Moneypenny situation is an inherently sexist one, I believe they're just trying to set up a classic Bond trope for future films. But in the discussion on whether it is sexist or not, I think one has to argue in the context of the creation of the film, not what takes place fictionally within it.

IOW: ignore the "received text" of the actual film and dream up whatever you want to graft onto it in the name of "deconstruction" or some other trendy post-modern type of analysis...

[Starkers]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Which is odd considering what happened here: Bond's plan did NOT work! Sure they killed and stopped Silva from his evil plans or whatever he had planed to do next. (I think the NOC List thread was taken care of and no longer an issue.) But Silva still succeeded in his end goal: To kill M!

If Bond had NOT kidnapped M, sure, Silva may never have been captured which would have lead to M's disgrace in leaving MI6, but she'd be alive. In the end, kidnapping M helped Silva to get his goal: to kill her.

So Bond failed in this task of protecting M. But won in stopping Silva. Sort of a push, but it's an odd "win" for sure.

As I said upthred, it wasn't abou protectng M, it was aout protecting everyone else.Number of innocent civilians killed by Slva after Bond kidnaps M? Zero.

[Lonemagpie]

Starkers wrote:

---

As I said upthred, it wasn't abou protectng M, it was aout protecting everyone else.Number of innocent civilians killed by Slva after Bond kidnaps M? Zero.

Though that would also have been the result if they'd stashed M elsewhere and left the "trail of breadcrumbs" to Skyfall where Bond was waiting.

However, I thought there was a definite subtext - and referenced in dialogue - that M goes with him because it's one last field mission with a chance of killing the guy who'd just fucked up her career, and a chance of getting killed- which would be preferable to her than the enforced retirement she faced otherwise. She went willingly, with her eyes open - she was taking the Long Walk, as it were.

[BillJ]

Agent Richard07 wrote:

---

I don't think they took a woman of action and turned her into a secretary because of any deep-seated sexism. I think they were trying to take a classic character who was a secretary and give her a more interesting background.

That just makes too much sense and has no place in this discussion.

[T'Baio]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

IOW: ignore the "received text" of the actual film and dream up whatever you want to graft onto it in the name of "deconstruction" or some other trendy post-modern type of analysis...

IOW: only the way you see it matters.

[FPAlpha]

Lonemagpie wrote:

---

Though that would also have been the result if they'd stashed M elsewhere and left the "trail of breadcrumbs" to Skyfall where Bond was waiting.

However, I thought there was a definite subtext - and referenced in dialogue - that M goes with him because it's one last field mission with a chance of killing the guy who'd just fucked up her career, and a chance of getting killed- which would be preferable to her than the enforced retirement she faced otherwise. She went willingly, with her eyes open - she was taking the Long Walk, as it were.

Pretty much it.. M wanted to go out with guns blazing (even though she's a bad shooter ) and prevent civilian casualties. Her man is dead (must've happened sometime in between the movies because i do recall a man in her house in Casino Royale when Bond calls her private number) and she's not the type to sit home alone and watch daytime soaps.

Her death scene was pretty sad.. even more so when Bond has to fight back the tears and prevent himself from collapsing.

I liked the contrast between him and Silva too when it comes to M. She would have "sold" out both of them if she didn't have a choice or the stakes were too high like they were in Skyfall when Bond fought that guy to retrieve the list. Bond understood that and he understood the rules of the game.. he knew that there would come a time maybe when someone would give the order to abandon him for the sake of country and the mission.. Silva couldn't stomach that and took it personal.

[stj]

Lonemagpie wrote:

---

Though that would also have been the result if they'd stashed M elsewhere and left the "trail of breadcrumbs" to Skyfall where Bond was waiting.

However, I thought there was a definite subtext - and referenced in dialogue - that M goes with him because it's one last field mission with a chance of killing the guy who'd just fucked up her career, and a chance of getting killed- which would be preferable to her than the enforced retirement she faced otherwise. She went willingly, with her eyes open - she was taking the Long Walk, as it were.

The sound was terrible but since they wanted mushmouth to follow them, what was the point of the scene with Shaggy (aka Sissy?) They didn't even get enough time to get supplies, so I presume the scheme failed? I also presumed that the MI# computers controlled everything in England, Scotland, Ireland and all points on the surface of the planet contiguous with them. Overnight mailing a rush order to a gun dealer in Virginia was obviously out of the question, right? Was the fortuitous help of a homicidal Happy Serf "gamekeeper" part of the plan?

And least important, what kind of game is there to keep in that godforsaken moonscape?