This film is honestly a masterpiece and I don't know why people think it's overrated. Same with Skyfall. That film is a masterpiece as well and so many consider it to be overrated. I just don't understand.
Anyways this film is just great & I can't wait for No Time to Die.
Casino Royale is a top-tier Bond for me, although I do prefer From Russia with Love. I think this film is the best of the Daniel Craig era, although Skyfall is great (so great that people have started backlash-ragging on it) and I actually enjoyed Spectre. Hated Quantum, though; perhaps that's partially because of the big shoes it had to fill?
I am looking forward to No Time to Die, but with a bit of trepidation.
Yeah Casino Royale and Skyfall are my two favorite Bonds ever. From Russia with Love is up there as well. That's a top 5 Bond film for me. I also enjoyed Spectre quite a bit too although I can see why people hate it and I didn't like Quantum either.
No Time to Die I'm very excited about. It's my most anticipated film of the year. I understand some of the concerns people may have with it, but I think it's in good hands with Cary Fukanaga directing, Linus Sandgren shooting it, Hans Zimmer's score, the trailers look fantastic, and I can definitely see EON's commitment to making this film the best it can be.
I'm a little worried about No Time to Die winding up being an agenda film or trying to "retire" Bond and make somebody else 007 at the end of the film. I'm a bit worried about that, but not super worried.
shareYeah I could see where your coming from but I honestly highly doubt that it'll end with him retiring again because it really wouldn't make much sense if he actually did retire again since Spectre already ended like that. I actually think that they may kill him off in this one to give him an emotional send off with proper closure.
I have a wild theory that either they kill him off at the end or he might become the new M with Mallory retiring. I know that might sound a little bizarre but it was kind of hinted at the end of Skyfall towards the end after Judi Dench's M's funeral where Moneypenny gives Bond her bulldog saying it may be a way of M telling him to take a desk job someday. I don't think they would move on and make more films with Bond as M in the future. I think this film will completely conclude his tenure & completely reboot the franchisem. But I'm honestly more lenient that he's going to die.
And see, even killing him off is dumb. There is no proper closure with Bond. He keeps going. He's an elemental force.
If they retire him "permanently", kill him, transfer the title of 007, change his job to M, it's kind of fundamentally wrong to the Bond world.
I definitely agree that there is no proper closure when it comes to Bond. I just think that it is very likely that they may kill him off since they took a much more different and serious approach with Craig's incarnation with the character as well as shying away from the typical Bond tropes. For example, like when they killed off M in Skyfall. That's a huge risk and something that the franchise has never done. It's also safe to say that M is probably the most predominant character in the entire Bond franchise right behind Bond himself. So that it is quite a huge risk. Killing off M in Skyfall could've honestly have a major negative impact on the quality of the film but thankfully it is handled very well. That's why I wouldn't be too surprised if they took the risk by killing off Bond himself. Killing off Bond could go in a terrible direction, but if handled well and executed properly in No Time to Die, it could definitely serve as very satisfying and emotional ending to Craig's tenure.
shareI enjoyed M's send-off in Skyfall, but M isn't Bond. That's fine and will work, especially since M is "the boss". I'm not sure, for instance, I'd like them killing off Moneypenny since she's an individual and cannot be replaced as such. Q...I'm not sure about.
Killing him off would be short-term thinking. It might - very possibly might - have a decent impact, assuming No Time to Die is a home-run for the rest of the movie. Long-term what's going on? Are you done making Bond movies at that point, because that seems to me like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. What else should EON do? Perhaps a reboot of Call Me Bwana?
I do love it when a series will take a risk and, say, kill off Spock, or allow a major player to turn evil or something like that. But the difference between Bond and Star Trek is that the story is the character. Bond is it. He's the only element that ties everything together, and everyone else, every other storyline is take-it-as-it-comes. James Bond Will Return in...anything. But it must be James Bond and he must be returning.
Yeah I see where you're coming from. Even though this is Craig's final film and that they decide to still move on with the franchise even after killing his Bond off, it would feel a little odd despite the franchise being completely rebooted with a new actor because like you said, he's the character that ties in everything together no matter if there are multiple actors portraying the character. I get that. It would also feel a little odd if they indeed do kill him off towards the end of No Time to Die and it states "James Bond Will Return" at the end of the credits. I understand why it wouldn't make sense but I personally wouldn't mind too much if that was the case because I don't necessarily care for the idea of Bond himself being so essential to the franchise that they would never kill him off and that he will always return no matter what. I understand thats a very integral element in the franchise and for the Bond character himself but me personally, I would mind if they went in a different direction like this.
shareYes, exactly. Even with the Craig reboot, because Bond is anachronistically decades-old, I could still go, "Well, it's the same guy, isn't it?" and think, "Okay, he starts in Casino Royale and (ugh) Quantum, then gets years of experience and fights Dr. No..." even though that makes no chronological sense, but I can kind of fit it all in and it works for the same reason Bond's gadgets work or his ability to run through firefights unscathed works: none of it is realistic, but it's in-universe OK.
Killing him and then rebooting it would be strange.
The only way that could work is if they then revealed that it was a hoax and he's now declared dead, but really still 007 and is now in Thailand or Morocco or somewhere fighting the next scourge.
Well, again, I think it's short-term thinking. It would be shocking and surprising, and those can be fun. But I think it would be "take me out of the movie" shocking, not the good kind. But if they want to take a risk, more power to them, but then what?
I am curious, if the James Bond franchise isn't dependent on Bond, what is it dependent on? If they killed him off and continued on with other 00 agents, would you still be watching? I don't think I would, but if you would, I do want to understand what you think is essential to the Bond series.
Boy, that was a ramble when I could have easily just said, "What makes a Bond movie a Bond movie?" huh?
Yeah. I just like to think of the whole Craig Bond universe as its own thing and not harken back to the films prior to Casino Royale. But I do dig the idea that the whole purpose of Casino Royale is to show us how Bond essentially became you know "James Bond" although the chronological stuff wouldn't make sense leading to Dr. No like you said. But I totally understand your logic in all this.
As for killing him off and rebooting with a new actor, it would be strange but like I said, I wouldn't mind it too much as long as the next film is a complete reboot and doesn't follow up with any threads from the previous films but I can definitely understand the reasoning why fans wouldn't want him to be killed off despite the next film having a new actor that will also reboot the franchise. I'm also totally against the idea of a new agent taking the 007 mantle and it will not be Bond himself. That will definitely destroy the franchise.
You are also completely right about the future of the franchise being dependent on Bond. Yes, it absolutely has to. The franchise will die if they bring on another character to helm the 007 mantle and I will definitely lose interest. Many people fear that will be the case for Lashana Lynch's character in the future in regards to giving her her own spin-off film. I'm sure that wont happen and I for sure don't want that to happen at all. I also think people are overreacting on her taking the 007 mantle in the beginning of No Time to Die because they are assuming that she will be integral to the future of the franchise. I just personally think she is going to be in this one film and that her taking the 007 mantle at the start of this film is just a story element. I doubt it'll set up any future installments with her.
Since they did reboot it, it makes sense to view Craig's era as independent. For me, though, I tend to think of it as "one man" because the continuity doesn't make sense, but his character remains unchanged. Take his age: he's thirtysomething-fortysomething in Connery's era, same throughout Moore (even older), then thirtysomething in Dalton's era, thirtysomething in Brosnan's...yeah, this is not a normal timeline. But Bond remains the same. Oh, there are variations, but it's nuance. The quips; the suits; the hedonism; the devil-may-care attitude; the English Schoolboy sense of fun, danger, loyalty, patriotism, and immaturity; and so forth; these are all markers of the character and they never change, nor does the name, so for me he is the man and there are no reboots because it's rebooted with every adventure, in some senses, since he doesn't carry over a lot of baggage from film-to-film with the exception of Sylvia Trench getting two dates (imagine that), Blofeld/Spectre, Tracy's death, and Moneypenny.
But there's a genuinely sweet romance that develops in From Russia with Love. Where is Tatiana in Goldfinger? Doesn't matter. Rebooted. Each film is *almost* a soft reboot. It's the endearing charm of the series to me.
Yeah, they could do as you suggest and it would probably smooth out, but it would feel like taking a gimme. Imagine a storyteller starting a tale and halfway through he starts getting booed because he killed a character off and he goes, "Oh, you know what? Never mind. Uh, he didn't die. Really... uh, let me go back... He's back alive. So, let's keep going." You might get back into the tale, but it'd take awhile and you'd really think less of the tale-teller.
I can't think of anybody who would bother watching a James Bond movie without James Bond. Then again, Gotham ran for five seasons, so what do I know?
I'm not afraid of Lynch's character taking over the mantel, but I'd dislike that, and wouldn't watch any Lashana Lynch, 007, movies.
If the movie starts with her as 007 and is kind of about Bond needing to re-enter the service and reclaim his 007 codename, I'm in. But it's got to end with M going, "Welcome back, 007," and Craig going, "Thank you sir," or something like that.
I completely see your reasoning to all of this. Yes, I too also consider Bond himself from Dr. No to the Brosnan films to be the same character despite the numerous different portrayals of the character throughout that time span. The romance in From Russia with Love is also a great reasoning to depict each film as a soft reboot. Same scenario in Goldeneye in which that film ended happily with Bond and Natalia romantically involved together but she is completely absent in Tomorrow Never Dies. So yeah, looking at each film as a soft reboot to one another makes complete sense and I definitely think that's the intention the producers were going for. Just me personally, I like to look at the Craig films as it's own separate thing due to the heavy continuity aspect as well as having Casino Royale serve as a complete reboot of the franchise.
Again with the whole killing off Bond scenario in No Time to Die. Yes you make a pretty good point about killing off a certain character but then eventually in the next installment of that series that particular character is back and alive due to excessive backlash for a decision like that. So yeah, it may not make that sense for some people who see it that way even the next installment is a complete reboot. I get it, Bond by many is seen as just the same guy despite the many actors that portrayed him. That's what the James Bond franchise is intended to be seen as. I'm just ok with him being killed of in No Time to Die because I tend to look at Craig's tenure as its own separate franchise. Many people may look at it differently than I do in regards to the Craig films and that's completely fine. It is all subjective.
I'm also very sure that No Time to Die will start out with Lashana's character Nomi helming the 007 mantle but once Bond returns back to Mi6 presumably in the second act, I believe M will grant him with that mantle back and he will remain as 007 throughout the rest of the film and Nomi will be nothing but just an act of assistance to Bond.That's it.
It does seem to be that the producers are treating Craig's series as more of an actual episodic story than a bunch of one-offs, so that makes sense taking it as a total reboot and a stand-alone. For me it just doesn't make a difference, and that's because it's always been so anachronistic. You take Bond, you drop him into a new era, rev up the old villains (Blofeld) but it's still the "same". "Same, yet different," that's always the way, so a reboot isn't really a reboot. It's sorta like Jerry Cornelius (who, ironically, does die a lot...)
I just think killing him in an official movie and then just running the tape again would feel weird.
If it is as you say, Lashana Lynch starts out as 007 and then Bond is back in the title by the end of the movie, that's fine, I'm fine with that.
Yeah I definitely think the main intention was to make the Craig films stand on its own and having nothing to do with the previous films as well as post Craig Bond films. It still makes sense though why fans would still consider Craig's Bond to you know, be considered as the same Bond pre Casino Royale. I completely get that since it was very much like that from Connery to Brosnan. Therefore, I can see why killing off Craigs Bond may face some backlash.
As for the Lynch scenario, I definitely think that she won't consume the mantel throughout the entire runtime and Bond will regain the 007 name somewhat in the middle of the film throughout the end.
They might hand it back mid-film or they might give it back at the end. Or they'll kill him. There's a slim chance they'll want her to keep it and try to make it more the "007" series than the "James Bond" series and allow her character to move forward. Personally, unless her character is amazing in the film, I think that would be a mistake. Who knows, though? She might be an amazing character worthy of a spinoff. But if they killed off Bond or passed off the 007 mantel to her, I think I'd avoid the film on the principle of the thing; just send a message to the studio that I have no time for ersatz Bond.
I think it's being done as a publicity stunt, honestly, so they can print up "Female 007!" headlines (which they have done) and goad people into talking about the film and I kinda resent that, too. Or it's a virtue signal. Or who knows?
At this point, such a big deal has been made of Lynch's character, the only thing that would really surprise me at this point would be if they killed her off in the pre-title sequence. Which, frankly, if they did that, I'd take my cap off for the hype psyche.
I completely understand. However I only think the involvement of Lynch's character is just a story element. I highly doubt there will be future installments involving her character as well as this film trying to set up future installments. I think as the film progresses throughout its runtime, the less relevant her character will be in the film. She'll probably be quite relevant in the first act which will introduce us to her as the current 007 throughout Bonds retirement but once Bond goes back to Mi6 and possibly reclaims that title again in the middle of the film, Lynch will be nothing but an act of assistance to Bond on the field.
You're probably right. I think it's a slim chance that they'll do anything other than that.
That said, the marketing and promotion for the movie has definitely told a different narrative. A big deal was made of the re-writes done by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, for instance. There was a tonne of publicity around Lynch being the first black, woman 007.
The trailer has some stuff where Lynch is set up as showing up Bond. I'd highlight the line, "Stay in your lane," which is oft-used these days in a social justice context. I'm not sure how the scene plays out in the film, but in the trailer, there is no cheeky comeback line from Bond. Nomi mocks Bond and tells him to mind his own business and that's it.
Now, none of that means the movie will end in a stupid manner or that it won't be great. In fact, the aggregate of the trailer makes it look really good (I particularly love the minigun headlights at the end), and I am looking forward to seeing the movie. But there is that little voice in my head...
I think it's that a lot of conversations I've recently had, seen, or read, at least regarding the Bond franchise, tilt towards the idea of a female Bond or a black Bond or something like that. Bond is such an iconic character, I think for some people (very few, mind) he's a bit of a White Whale. I do worry that pressure from those quarters might shift something even as seemingly invincible as the Bond franchise.
Some aspects in the marketing does make it seem like the whole female empowerment will be a significant aspect in this film, especially from the "stay in your lane" line like you said. That definitely might be a controversial scenario if Nomi is the type of character who will mock Bond like that. However, I do expect it to be like that a little bit in the beginning of the film just to give her character a little more charisma since she is a new and much younger 00 agent. Also Bond has that witty arrogant and sassy like attitude anyways so probably that trait of his might provoke Nomi to say something like that to him in the film. Kinda similar to how he was like with Vesper in Casino Royale when he was like "you sign that. You represent the treasury" and Vesper just made him take another elevator by himself. So I could understand why Nomi would say something like that. However if she continues to act like that throughout the remainder of the film and making Bond look like a fool, it will very much take me out of the film. I don't think it will be the case because judging by the trailers, it looks like Bond will be the main highlight again instead of Nomi because he actually looks like he will take the lead in many of the other sequences in the film. Such as the shot in the second trailer where the two of them are heading into Safins bunker and Bond is in the lead with Nomi right behind him and following him. Like that tells me that Bond acts like the big leader throughout the rest of the film instead of Nomi.
Definitely the whole PWB inclusion may have something to do with that and I understand the big publicity about the first black female 00 agent. That being said, all of that could be executed terribly but if handled well and not overdone, it could come off very well and neccessary.
Therefore with all this female empowerment and Nomi being the new 007 in the beginning of the film I doubt will change the franchise as well as the character of James Bond.
Yeah, I think they'll do the Skyfall/ Never Say Never Again thing of "old Bond rusty at the outset, the bomb by the end". I agree.
Bond might provoke people to say stuff like that to him, but her aggression with the kneecaps has a more toe-to-toe vibe - a bit of a different tone than the repartee between Bond and Vesper.
The key bit, though, is whether or not she makes Bond look like a fool, as you say. If Nomi shows Bond up at first and even after he's back in business continues to par or one-up him with everything from fighting to one-liners and quick wit, then I would say they've failed in the attempt to make a Bond picture.
I do think they'll go the path you suggest: Bond rusty at first and king of the hill by the end. That's a satisfying plot arc. He gets the last word. That's the nature of it.
There is a time and place to question the nature of the hero and the stereotypes existing, but it won't work in Bond.
The funniest thing to me about Waller-Bridge's involvement is the headlines vs. her comments. Headlines crow over the female inclusivity meaning better on-screen women in the 00-universe, but from what I've read, she's basically said that she doesn't want to re-invent the wheel, just wants to do a good job, and she's also said that it was more of a dialogue polish anyway - she didn't re-write the storyline or characters.
I think it's great that the spin is one direction and PWB is like, "Mmm... not really, though."
For the record, I like her inclusion. She's a sharp writer.
Exactly. Thats how I think it's going to play out. Bond will be a bit rusty in the beginning but not to the point where he just looks weak, and then as the film progresses, he'll be strong and back to his normal self as well as taking the spotlight from Nomi. Nomi will still probably be badass but she wont be a significant highlight as she was in the beginning. It'll focus more on Bond and making him look more awesome.
Yeah I understand how the line from Nomi is more of a toe-to-toe vibe like you said. I still expect that from her in the film, but only in the beginning because like I said, its only to give her character a little more charisma. If this aspect gets too carried away throughout the remainder of the film then yes, that will be a major issue. But I don't think it'll go that route. I feel like this whole feminism aspect that PWB supposedly propelled in the script is honestly more first act stuff, even with the inclusion of Ana de Armas in the Cuba sequence. Second and third act I doubt will include anymore of those themes.
I also agree that PWB's involvement was completely exaggerated in the headlines in regards to changing up characters as well as incorporating a huge feminism aspect in most of the film. Like you said, she's being included for script polishes such as character development and yes, to bring a little feminism into this film but not too much of it. I guarantee.
I think a lot of it is hype, smoke, and mirrors, yeah; they want the progressive headlines (or the "journalists" want the clickbait).
Feminism in Bond is fine, depending on what is meant by that. I'd argue, for instance, that Judi Dench brought a tonne of feminism into the series.
Overall, I'm looking forward to No Time to Die.
Absolutely. Most of these people who just try to make it into a controversy is for nothing but publicity for the most part. I agree.
I don't mind feminism at all in Bond as long as it is not too carried away and done right. The Judi Dench example you brought up is perfect in this scenario. Judi Dench as M is one of the best casting choices EON has made when casted for Goldeneye and everyone loves her as M. So they could possibly handle this Lashana Lynch situation very well.
Yeah I'm glad we are on the same page. My anticipation for No Time to Die is extremely high with a bit of skepticism in regards to stuff we have discussed but overall I am very confident this film will live up and have very high hopes.
Dench was so obviously terrific in the role that she was the only thing they kept from Die Another Day to Casino Royale.
shareAbsolutely. Back in 2005, I would never expect EON to announce they would bring back anything related to that film aside from her. Such a great casting choice and proof that "feminism" isn't particularly a bad thing all the time and that others support a move like that.
shareI completely agree with what you said, except for Skyfall.. I hated it. But Casino Royale is phenomenal.
shareReally? What didn't you like about it? Skyfall is my second favorite Bond film. And yes, Casino Royale is a masterpiece.
shareIts a fun movie but first you have to ignore the absurd plot by Silva
shareI thought his plot was handled quite well. His motivation was to get revenge towards M which I think worked out very good. He bombed Mi6 and released significant intel on the other agents which eventually got them killed by his men just so he could provide terror towards her as well as actually trying to confront her himself by actually killing her. Thats a great evil scheme for a villain who's priority is to get vengeance.
shareSkyfall has far too many plot conveniences for Silvas plan to work. This is basically what Silva was counting on for his revenge plan.
He needed Bond to find and kill that guy in the elevator and take his gambling chip from his pocket. He then needed Bond to go to that casino and somehow survive that altercation where he almost got killed. Silva then needed him to sneak on that boat to be taken to his island. Keep in mind, Silva also needed that woman to tell Bond everything so he would know to get on the boat. So Silvas plan so far would get Bond to his island, where he wanted to get captured. He somehow knew Bond would have that device on him to signal the helicopters to arrest him.
So Silva gets captured, which is what he wanted. He knew he would be going to that underground bunker that MI6 would be operating from and also knew he would be held in that capsule and somehow knew that MI6 would unknowingly open up the underground doors after looking into his computer, where he would be set free. However there was 1 guard watching him and we dont see how he managed to kill him. But what if MI6 had several guards watching him? So Silva escapes and has everything timed perfectly where he meets his men and he is able to change into a policemans uniform. Silva needs Bond to follow him and just as Bond is about to shoot him, Silva detonates a bomb and the subway nearly kills Bond. Thats some timing. So Silva gets out to the streets and also somehow knows that M will be at a hearing. How could Silva know so far ahead of time that a hearing would be scheduled? Do you get the gist? The movie was fun but Silvas plan had way too many plot conveniences. Too many things had to happen for his plan to succeed and he guessed way ahead of time on every one of them
Yes I actually do agree with you on that one and that was one of the few flaws I had with the film. There was way too many plot convenience. I think once he entered the casino in Macau and conveniently meeting with Severine on the same night he went to the casino was definitely very coincidental and convenient for Silva. However I feel like many of those scenarios can be overlooked because the rest of the film was actually handled very well and was very well made. Yes, his whole scheme was conveniently planned but at least his motivation was clear and provided a good reasoning on why he did what he did. And I also think there are many other great films that have similar scenarios where the villains overall scheme ends up being way too convenient.
shareIt’s also possible Silva had multiple backup plans in case things didn’t go the way we saw it
shareYeah that's definitely a possibility.
This film ripped off much of The Dark Knight if you never saw that
shareThe film very much took inspiration from The Dark Knight but I wouldn't say it ripped it off. There are many set pieces and visual elements that are very reminiscent of The Dark Knight but that doesn't mean it ripped off much of the film. Skyfall had a completely different story than that film. Really the only similarities it had with that film was like I said the set pieces, visual elements, and the structure is a little similar. As far as the story and the script, this film is pretty different.
shareWell besides both villains wanted to get captured and Silva acts very much like the Joker are obvious. The more subtle clues are both are orphaned. Both characters seek sanctuary in an underground bunker. There are more too if I really thought about it
shareSilva's motivation was completely different than the Jokers. The Joker was about anarchy and manipulating people into becoming a darker person of themselves by causing chaos and killing loved ones. Silva just wanted revenge and did everything he did just to get to M. In regards to the planned capturing scenario in both films, yes I will say that is the most similar aspect to The Dark Knight. But both wanted to get captured for different reasons.
shareAnd the dark Knight I guess ripped off Thunderball with the whole skyhook thing, not to mention Rosa Klebb and the Joker both have knives that pop out of their boots
shareIn that way yeah kind of sort of. The Dark Knight was a very popular movie back in and still is
shareThats ridiculous. This film is a work of fiction. Nothing was ever suggested script wise that Silva had any backup plans
shareI never said he did, I said it was possible and a careful planner like Silva it is within his character. The only way you can move this conversation forward is to prove he didn’t have any backup plans, ball is in your court.
shareYes he had to have backup plans because it wouldn't make sense if he only stuck that one plan due to the specific characters involved in his scheme. Like I said, even without Bond he could've still get himself captured at Mi6. Bond didn't need Severine to tell him about the island. His current plan was to have Bond interrogate Patrice but Bond accidentally killed him unfortunately however it was fortunate enough for him to meet Severine to give him the intel.
shareExactly and considering what a careful planner Silva is I am not buying that what happened is all that he planned out. If he had been put in another detention facility I’m betting he had a plan of getting out of there
shareDefinitely. Like the guy is a cyber terrorist, he can gather sufficient Intel just like that and plan out all these hacks as soon as he can. That's what also makes him compelling villian. He definitely had to have alternatives as his process went along overtime.
shareThese convenient scenarios can be overlooked as long as many aspects of the film are handled very well. Sure, Silva needed Bond to go to his island for Bond and Mi6 to capture him but it didn't even need to be Bond himself because Silvas motivation really didn't really have much to do with Bond. It was mainly about M and she could've literally sent any one of her agents to go after Silva. The reason Bond was relevant was because he came into conflict with Patrice in the beginning, therefore it was convenient for M to send Bond out to track Silva especially with Patrice still being alive at the time and due to the fact that he still had the hard drive containing the lists of all the other agents. As for Silva, he knew regardless that he will eventually get captured by Mi6. Any agent could've captured him. Im also sure Silva's plan wasn't even to have Severine give Bond or any agents the intel on the Island. He probably knew that the plan was to track to down Patrice and to not have him killed which of course Bond failed to do. If Patrice would've been still alive, Bond would've interrogated him by making him give all the information he needs to know about Silva as well about Severine, which is what Silva himself had planned all along. It obviously turned out to be different for Silva when Patrice died but Silva could've just sent another assassin to give intel to Bond but that of course wasn't necessary because he meet Severine.
As for Mi6 actually capturing him, Silva most likely new about the little device developed by Q because he mentioned to Bond that he is aware of the technology developed by Q branch. Remember, the guy is a hacker and has gathered many intel of Mi6. And when he escaped from the prision cell, he had to have had a few of his men around Mi6 HQ at the time. Just like the men who gave him the conductor outfit at the tube station.
As Q said, he planned this for years.
Millsey, I agree. Skyfall was great until Silva showed up.
What I loved about both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace was it was realistic in how the villains obtained their power.
We knew how LeChiffre obtained his power.
In QoS we were introduced to Quantum that actually gained power realistically and that film showed them doing just that.
Then comes Skyfall and Silva. A man who escaped a Chinese prison and was able to create this entire network of baddies without EVER being noticed by anyone??
At least with Quantum they had people in positions to help cover up stuff but Silva was on his own (until Spectre retconned that is the dumbest way ever)
Well the reason why no one noticed the network of the many assassins he formed was because these guys are basically so-called ghosts with no names or alias as explained in the film by Tanner.
shareHi! The main villain was just too weird and creepy, in a strange and bad way. There were too many homages to previous Bond films that felt out of place, such as.. Bond stepping on the komodo dragon instead of the alligators from, Live and let die, amongst other cheesy moments that didn’t fit in with Daniel Craig’s Bond. Casino Royale is one of the best films ever made, Bond or not.. embarrassed to say how many times I have watched it, lol.. if there are typos, I apologise.. it’s wine night 😂
shareSilva is one of the best Bond villains. I don't think he's weird at all. He does have a little bit of a creepy personality but isn't that what a villain is supposed to be like. Other than that he's menacing, intimidating, and has clear motivations.
The only homages this film really had was like you said the Komodo Dragon as being reminiscent to the alegators in Live and Let Die, but that wasn't even that cheesy compared to Live and Let Die. Bond stepping on the Komodo Dragon was just a small few second scenario. It wasnt a whole sequence like Live and Let Die. As for other homages, the only other one I really see is when they featured the DB5 as a homage to the previous films. There might be a few small homages here and there but they aren't really that predominant and are just seen as small visual elements. That's it. Anyways of course they would be feel obligated to include some throwbacks since Skyfall is 50th anniversary Bond film.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I love your response even though I don’t agree. Javier is a good actor, but he is just too weird with M... his relationship with him was just too weird as F... I understand I’m in the minority, but I just didn’t like it. Thank you for the response and though, I loved reading your views.
shareThat's cool. I respect your opinion. But I honestly can't understand why he would be perceived as weird as well as his relationship with M. I don't really see anything weird about it. He just wanted revenge because of what she did to him in the past in regards to his espionage schemes that Mi6 never would approve on. I just don't really see how he is weird. He's intimidating, menacing, and had a strong motivation to get to her.
shareI agree, it's one of the best.
share Casino Royale is my favourite Bond film, and one of my favourite films period.
I've never played poker in my life. Don't understand the game at all and yet the poker scenes don't even bore me.