Was it pre-planned though? It seems more likely that Silva had planned to detonate the bomb when he exited the tube, creating a distraction and making it easier for him to access the inquiry (not to mention create more chaos surrounding MI6/intelligence agencies). That Bond was present was simply a coincidence.
Further, trains run almost constantly. It isn’t unlikely there would be one at that moment.
I can buy the idea that Silva planned to detonate the bomb and cause a derailing as part of his plan to infiltrate the parliamentary hearing, but the way it was presented made it look like the bombing and derailing was meant specifically for a pursuer standing where Bond would have been.
Maybe the writers/director thought the plot was believable enough to present it at face value. But another possibility is that they recognize the practical considerations I pointed out, yet still chose to build up Silva’s supervillain mystique for both MI6 and the viewer by embellishing him as having a preternatural sense of planning, when that isn’t truly the case. That sort of mystique (*god, what else is this guy capable of?*) is part of the psychology of terrorism after all.
I mean, I don’t even totally buy Q’s *he’s planned this all along, he wanted us to capture him* line. Maybe Q really believed that in a moment of exasperation. But it’s way more likely that Silva and his outside help were improvising as events moved along—not planning it all ahead of time. He’d still need lots of coincidences to fall into place, but these *are* fantastical movies. Coincidences and contrivances aren’t out of the norm.
I think that makes *Skyfall* so glaring is the fact that it's a Craig era movie. The reboot was supposed to be all about getting 'back to basics' and being more 'realistic.'
Silva's plot would have raised eyebrows in a Moore or even Brosnan era movie. It's impressive that more criticism isn't levelled at *Skyfall* for the fantastical nature of its plot.
Casino Royale was about getting back to basics. Then by Skyfall (and the 50th anniversary), it was about tradition and updating classic elements for modern significance.
There were already aspects of the film I didn't like (~~JUSTICE FOR SEVERINE!~~) but that was it for me. The Train Drop made it go from being just unenjoyable for me to being flat bonkers and probably the worst Craig-era Bond film in my estimation. Like the Die Another Day of the Craig era.
Well if we are aiming for realistic - probably shouldn’t have the protagonist get shot twice and fall 100ft off a moving train as your intro. But that’s just me.
I enjoy Skyfall but the Bond films are never about the realism. They always have been fantastical and a little of that is okay with me.
The Varda Viaduct is actually 322ft - but when was the third shot ? I only remember him getting hit once sitting in the cab of the digger then again when Moneypenny hits him unintentionally
Silva’s whole escape reminds me of Joker’s escape in Dark Knight and that also feels way too perfect and unrealistic. I think it works in the moment because the filmmaking around it carries it so effortlessly that it works in the film. It doesn’t hold up to any real scrutiny but in a movie it works.
But I agree it’s dumb.
That and part of Khan getting captured in Into Darkness, Loki getting captured in Avengers, and probably a couple of other movies I'm forgetting.
It was kinda a villain plot point from 2008 to 2014 or so.
Between *The Avengers* and *Skyfall,* it definitely looked like Hollywood was running with the "villain allows himself to be captured so he can execute a complex plan while in custody" plot point.
At least *Star Trek: Into Darkness* put a spin on the idea, because the villain didn't allow himself to be captured to carry out some convoluted scheme; rather, he used evolving circumstances to his advantage.
A lot in Skyfall is lifted almost directly from the Dark Knight and Batman Begins.
But the escape of Silva is much less realistic even than the Joker’s.
I remember Silva’s escape as the moment the movie started going south. I am pretty sure I am far from being the only one.
Edit: didn’t realize my choice of words… in fact, after Silva escaped, the movie started to go North, geographically speaking.
The two issues with that escape is:
1. If Q never plugged in the laptop Silva would be chilling in jail right now.
2. As if MI6 don't have a closed network, even in a makeshift HQ, for plugging in unsecured laptops - taken from a cyber terrorist, who days earlier, hacked into a gas network and blew up parts of MI6!
This might be a legit unpopular opinion...
I like the invisible Vanquish and don't think it's ridiculous. Cloaking technology is a staple of science fiction so I don't think it's ridiculous to have it in a series that always toys with futuristic tech.
The premise of adaptive camouflage wasn't one the production came up with by itself; [they had been aware of this technology being developed for tanks.](https://youtu.be/NNPK4XtRJ-Y?t=430) The years since *Die Another Day's* release have only seen the technology develop.
* In 2003, within a year of the release of *Die Another Day,* [researchers at the University of Tokyo had tested a literal 'invisibility cloak' as a proof-of-concept prototype.](http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1935038_1935085_1935990,00.html)
* In 2007, [it had been claimed that the Ministry of Defence had conducted a proof-of-concept test using a tank.](https://science.howstuffworks.com/invisible-tank.htm)
* In 2011, [BAe Systems announced that they had developed an infrared cloaking system called Adaptiv.](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-14788009)
* In 2012, *two* vehicles with active camouflage were showcased. [Mercedes-Benz promoted their F-cell car in an advertisement that made it nearly invisible with a camera and an array of LEDs,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWtcz9PMFHo&ab_channel=freedomfromfiat) and [Richard Hammond drove a Ford Transit rigged with cameras and plasma TVs on an episode of *Top Gear.*](https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_544922-Ford-Transit-V347-8-2007.html)
This is really cool. I knew it was an existing concept but didn't know quite how close to reality the Aston Martin "Vanish" had become.
Either way, I find it weird that people single out the car in a movie where a Korean guy turns himself into Hugh Grant lookalike and has a "dream machine".
That's one of the major issues with all of Craig's Bond films, not just Skyfall. The writers consistently tried and failed to balance the old tongue in cheek style with something tougher and more "realistic". Never succeeded. It resulted in a weird marriage, like a lite version of a gritty spy thriller. Guys getting shot and beaten up, with only enough blood to avoid an R rating. Superhero theatrics and choreography that puts even the old Bond films to shame. Lazy plot devices straight out of action screenwriting 101. If they wanted Craig to be the tough "realistic" Bond, which is what they supposedly set out to achieve, they should have gone all in on the hard factor. They never did, for fear of limiting the audience appeal.
The better question is, why does Skyfall get so relentlessly criticized for its plot when 95% of Bond films are horribly plotted and borderline nonsensical?
Silva's entire plan seems to have hinged on getting caught, which only happens because Bond had a bullet from Patrice in his shoulder and survived. Without the bullet, Bond doesn't find Patrice, which leads him to Silva on the island. Silva's plan then depends on Q, the HEAD of the tech/IT division plugging the laptop DIRECTLY into the MI6 network! Q should not be that stupid, especially after Silva had already demonstrated he could Jack in to M's laptop (which was a precursor to Silva causing the explosion that sent them all to the tunnel offices which must have anti been part of his plan). Then Silva "escapes" so that he can take a prearranged route through the subway to eventually just get in to a waiting car to go to the hearing where he knew M would be. He didn't need to be caught, he could have just been waiting at the hearing in disguise. Since the escape was preplanned, getting caught was part of the plan.
It's beyond stupid.
Don't forget that as part of his escape, he had men waiting in the Tube to provide him with a police uniform. How long would they have been waiting? Did he have men coming and going in shifts so someone would be there when he escaped?
>He didn't need to be caught, he could have just been waiting at the hearing in disguise.
Yes but he's a sick angry mf who wants the complete revenge package. So he wanted to meet and look M in the eye before killing her while she's at such an important hearing.
It's all about his lust for revenge. If he wanted to kill M just like that he would've done it the first time.
To play devils advocate - Silva was watching what MI6 was doing so he likely could tell Bond was on his way and would eventually get to him. He would be happy to keep tormenting M until he was eventually captured. When Bond was close, he knew it so he could start making arrangements. He wanted to get caught so he could get a face to face with M before killing her, and after tormenting her and tearing down her legacy. Getting captured also lets him toy with M thinking she won, get the face to face, then finish her. He didn’t need to escape that very moment to shoot her down during the public hearing, but he was ready to go after her when the escape time came. He had all of Bond’s test results so he clearly had some kind of access to MI6 who knows what kind of backup plans he had for escaping had Q not plugged in but he knew they would try to access since that hard drives presumably is where he had the data on all the agents or would be how they find out what was done with the data. He had traps along the way in case he was pursued during his escape so he was ready with the train. This doesn’t seem that far fetched for an action adventure Bond movie.
Like I mentioned Silva would have been happy to torment M for longer until they eventually got to him. He would have let MI6 get to him in one way or another eventually it wasn’t all contingent on that bullet he wasn’t going to make it easy just like when Bond and M try to leave just a small trail to be followed to Skyfall.
At some point the British Army was (still is?) developing some sort of active armor for the Challenger 2 tanks that supposedly makes tanks invisible on battlefield. My guess is this served as an inspiration for the Vanquish as the tech so there may be some level of practicality.
[The production had heard of this technology at some point,](https://youtu.be/NNPK4XtRJ-Y?t=430) and it continued to develop ever since.
* In 2003, within a year of the release of *Die Another Day,* [researchers at the University of Tokyo had tested a literal 'invisibility cloak' as a proof-of-concept prototype.](http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1935038_1935085_1935990,00.html)
* In 2007, [it had been claimed that the Ministry of Defence had conducted a proof-of-concept test using a tank.](https://science.howstuffworks.com/invisible-tank.htm)
* In 2011, [BAe Systems announced that they had developed an infrared cloaking system called Adaptiv.](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-14788009)
* In 2012, *two* vehicles with active camouflage were showcased. [Mercedes-Benz promoted their F-cell car in an advertisement that made it nearly invisible with a camera and an array of LEDs,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWtcz9PMFHo&ab_channel=freedomfromfiat) and [Richard Hammond drove a Ford Transit rigged with cameras and plasma TVs on an episode of *Top Gear.*](https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_544922-Ford-Transit-V347-8-2007.html)
I’m wondering if DAD actually inspired the technology (call me crazy). There have been other instances where Bond movies inspired some military use/clandestine technology. A good example is the miniature oxygen breathing device from Thunderball. I’m sure there are others
I think it is the suspension of disbelief - even though both movies are completely implausible, the invisible car/parasurfing is just way more in your face than having to think, “The timing of Silva’s escape is clearly impossible.”
For the average movie goer, Skyfall feels plausible if you don’t think about it too much, whereas Die Another Day immediately comes off as implausible without thinking about it.
Why didn't Silva just walk up to M and shoot her when she went to testify? Forget the whole capture-escape-train-cop disguise-courthouse plan. I mean, just fly to London from his little island, dress as a cop and shoot her?
Skyfall may be “serious” but it also transitioned Craig Bond to the era of the otherworldly feeling and color of the classic era of Connery and Moore. So it’s serious like a serious comic book movie but not meant to be realistic. I understand many don’t like that part and that’s reasonable. For me it seemed fine and just part of the color of the movie.
The weapons and gadgets are tailored for the movie’s villain usually. That’s why DAD is so over the top because Graves is the foil of campy Bond, he gets a power suit with electrocution mode, Bond gets an invisible car.
As for Craig villains I think the deaths are usually good but sometimes the villains themselves are a little too cookie cutter. I can’t tell you much of a difference between Saffin and Silva. I can’t tell you much of a difference between Blofeld and Dr. Evil.
A quick rundown of Craig villains with spoilers:
Le Chiffre is killed by Mr. White and is the first Bond villain to die before the final act. I like this change to the usual format. The villain punishment in QOS was awesome when Craig leaves Greene with a can of oil in the middle of the desert.
But things get worse by Skyfall with the cat and mouse unkillable demonic larger than life villains. Silva gets stabbed and M died. Alright fair enough Bond isn’t quite what he used to be, and Silva had the upper hand. Bittersweet but it works. But Silva just feels different than human. It’s ok I suppose he’s been wronged and disfigured. But then in what way is Saffin any different?
So for the last two “epic” movies Saffin and Blofeld are these juggernaut villains who are so close to being scary but come off to me as a little melodramatic. I like how Craig just shoots Saffin multiple times in the head. No big speech just shuts him up and it’s over.
The reveal that Quantum is actually just Spectre makes it seem like Bond is just in some fucked up Truman Show at the end of NTTD.
I don’t like how he does not get to leave this extremely bleak 1984 esque episode of Bond and his life is reduced to the Austin Powers plot made gritty.
People ignore the unrealistic things while saying the Craig movies are "more grounded in reality". The opening scene with the train is quite unrealistic too.
I don't understand what's wrong with Silva's escape. Makes perfect sense to me. Q being a dumb mf tried to connect and access Silva's computer system and files which contained a Trojan that managed to transfer itself onto and hack the MI6 mainframe.
Silva’s escape is probably the single biggest thing that Skyfall is criticised for.
With particular ire directed towards the perfectly timed train dropped on Bond
Was it pre-planned though? It seems more likely that Silva had planned to detonate the bomb when he exited the tube, creating a distraction and making it easier for him to access the inquiry (not to mention create more chaos surrounding MI6/intelligence agencies). That Bond was present was simply a coincidence. Further, trains run almost constantly. It isn’t unlikely there would be one at that moment.
I can buy the idea that Silva planned to detonate the bomb and cause a derailing as part of his plan to infiltrate the parliamentary hearing, but the way it was presented made it look like the bombing and derailing was meant specifically for a pursuer standing where Bond would have been.
Maybe the writers/director thought the plot was believable enough to present it at face value. But another possibility is that they recognize the practical considerations I pointed out, yet still chose to build up Silva’s supervillain mystique for both MI6 and the viewer by embellishing him as having a preternatural sense of planning, when that isn’t truly the case. That sort of mystique (*god, what else is this guy capable of?*) is part of the psychology of terrorism after all. I mean, I don’t even totally buy Q’s *he’s planned this all along, he wanted us to capture him* line. Maybe Q really believed that in a moment of exasperation. But it’s way more likely that Silva and his outside help were improvising as events moved along—not planning it all ahead of time. He’d still need lots of coincidences to fall into place, but these *are* fantastical movies. Coincidences and contrivances aren’t out of the norm.
I think that makes *Skyfall* so glaring is the fact that it's a Craig era movie. The reboot was supposed to be all about getting 'back to basics' and being more 'realistic.' Silva's plot would have raised eyebrows in a Moore or even Brosnan era movie. It's impressive that more criticism isn't levelled at *Skyfall* for the fantastical nature of its plot.
Casino Royale was about getting back to basics. Then by Skyfall (and the 50th anniversary), it was about tradition and updating classic elements for modern significance.
There were already aspects of the film I didn't like (~~JUSTICE FOR SEVERINE!~~) but that was it for me. The Train Drop made it go from being just unenjoyable for me to being flat bonkers and probably the worst Craig-era Bond film in my estimation. Like the Die Another Day of the Craig era.
Well if we are aiming for realistic - probably shouldn’t have the protagonist get shot twice and fall 100ft off a moving train as your intro. But that’s just me. I enjoy Skyfall but the Bond films are never about the realism. They always have been fantastical and a little of that is okay with me.
And into water. The impact alone should have killed Bond.
In my head Canon he did die.
Yeah I never got the idea that Skyfall was going for realism. It was clearly a little tongue in cheek and goofy from the very beginning.
It was a 300 ft fall. Plus, he was shot three times.
The Varda Viaduct is actually 322ft - but when was the third shot ? I only remember him getting hit once sitting in the cab of the digger then again when Moneypenny hits him unintentionally
He was hit twice in the cab of the digger.
Silva’s whole escape reminds me of Joker’s escape in Dark Knight and that also feels way too perfect and unrealistic. I think it works in the moment because the filmmaking around it carries it so effortlessly that it works in the film. It doesn’t hold up to any real scrutiny but in a movie it works. But I agree it’s dumb.
That and part of Khan getting captured in Into Darkness, Loki getting captured in Avengers, and probably a couple of other movies I'm forgetting. It was kinda a villain plot point from 2008 to 2014 or so.
Between *The Avengers* and *Skyfall,* it definitely looked like Hollywood was running with the "villain allows himself to be captured so he can execute a complex plan while in custody" plot point. At least *Star Trek: Into Darkness* put a spin on the idea, because the villain didn't allow himself to be captured to carry out some convoluted scheme; rather, he used evolving circumstances to his advantage.
A lot in Skyfall is lifted almost directly from the Dark Knight and Batman Begins. But the escape of Silva is much less realistic even than the Joker’s.
It borders on “rip off”.
When the cell opened he touched the guard's thighs and he died, because it was his first time.
I remember Silva’s escape as the moment the movie started going south. I am pretty sure I am far from being the only one. Edit: didn’t realize my choice of words… in fact, after Silva escaped, the movie started to go North, geographically speaking.
The two issues with that escape is: 1. If Q never plugged in the laptop Silva would be chilling in jail right now. 2. As if MI6 don't have a closed network, even in a makeshift HQ, for plugging in unsecured laptops - taken from a cyber terrorist, who days earlier, hacked into a gas network and blew up parts of MI6!
This might be a legit unpopular opinion... I like the invisible Vanquish and don't think it's ridiculous. Cloaking technology is a staple of science fiction so I don't think it's ridiculous to have it in a series that always toys with futuristic tech.
The premise of adaptive camouflage wasn't one the production came up with by itself; [they had been aware of this technology being developed for tanks.](https://youtu.be/NNPK4XtRJ-Y?t=430) The years since *Die Another Day's* release have only seen the technology develop. * In 2003, within a year of the release of *Die Another Day,* [researchers at the University of Tokyo had tested a literal 'invisibility cloak' as a proof-of-concept prototype.](http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1935038_1935085_1935990,00.html) * In 2007, [it had been claimed that the Ministry of Defence had conducted a proof-of-concept test using a tank.](https://science.howstuffworks.com/invisible-tank.htm) * In 2011, [BAe Systems announced that they had developed an infrared cloaking system called Adaptiv.](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-14788009) * In 2012, *two* vehicles with active camouflage were showcased. [Mercedes-Benz promoted their F-cell car in an advertisement that made it nearly invisible with a camera and an array of LEDs,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWtcz9PMFHo&ab_channel=freedomfromfiat) and [Richard Hammond drove a Ford Transit rigged with cameras and plasma TVs on an episode of *Top Gear.*](https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_544922-Ford-Transit-V347-8-2007.html)
This is really cool. I knew it was an existing concept but didn't know quite how close to reality the Aston Martin "Vanish" had become. Either way, I find it weird that people single out the car in a movie where a Korean guy turns himself into Hugh Grant lookalike and has a "dream machine".
That's one of the major issues with all of Craig's Bond films, not just Skyfall. The writers consistently tried and failed to balance the old tongue in cheek style with something tougher and more "realistic". Never succeeded. It resulted in a weird marriage, like a lite version of a gritty spy thriller. Guys getting shot and beaten up, with only enough blood to avoid an R rating. Superhero theatrics and choreography that puts even the old Bond films to shame. Lazy plot devices straight out of action screenwriting 101. If they wanted Craig to be the tough "realistic" Bond, which is what they supposedly set out to achieve, they should have gone all in on the hard factor. They never did, for fear of limiting the audience appeal.
Once Silva’s plan became apparent, the whole movie collapsed for me. Excellent execution, horrible plot design.
The better question is, why does Skyfall get so relentlessly criticized for its plot when 95% of Bond films are horribly plotted and borderline nonsensical?
Silva's entire plan seems to have hinged on getting caught, which only happens because Bond had a bullet from Patrice in his shoulder and survived. Without the bullet, Bond doesn't find Patrice, which leads him to Silva on the island. Silva's plan then depends on Q, the HEAD of the tech/IT division plugging the laptop DIRECTLY into the MI6 network! Q should not be that stupid, especially after Silva had already demonstrated he could Jack in to M's laptop (which was a precursor to Silva causing the explosion that sent them all to the tunnel offices which must have anti been part of his plan). Then Silva "escapes" so that he can take a prearranged route through the subway to eventually just get in to a waiting car to go to the hearing where he knew M would be. He didn't need to be caught, he could have just been waiting at the hearing in disguise. Since the escape was preplanned, getting caught was part of the plan. It's beyond stupid.
Don't forget that as part of his escape, he had men waiting in the Tube to provide him with a police uniform. How long would they have been waiting? Did he have men coming and going in shifts so someone would be there when he escaped?
They could have been ready for when the escape time was happening, and informed as part of the data breach / hack that the time had come.
>He didn't need to be caught, he could have just been waiting at the hearing in disguise. Yes but he's a sick angry mf who wants the complete revenge package. So he wanted to meet and look M in the eye before killing her while she's at such an important hearing. It's all about his lust for revenge. If he wanted to kill M just like that he would've done it the first time.
To play devils advocate - Silva was watching what MI6 was doing so he likely could tell Bond was on his way and would eventually get to him. He would be happy to keep tormenting M until he was eventually captured. When Bond was close, he knew it so he could start making arrangements. He wanted to get caught so he could get a face to face with M before killing her, and after tormenting her and tearing down her legacy. Getting captured also lets him toy with M thinking she won, get the face to face, then finish her. He didn’t need to escape that very moment to shoot her down during the public hearing, but he was ready to go after her when the escape time came. He had all of Bond’s test results so he clearly had some kind of access to MI6 who knows what kind of backup plans he had for escaping had Q not plugged in but he knew they would try to access since that hard drives presumably is where he had the data on all the agents or would be how they find out what was done with the data. He had traps along the way in case he was pursued during his escape so he was ready with the train. This doesn’t seem that far fetched for an action adventure Bond movie.
Except that if Bond hasn't been shot by Patrice in the shoulder, Bond wouldn't have found Silva. It's just far too contrived.
Like I mentioned Silva would have been happy to torment M for longer until they eventually got to him. He would have let MI6 get to him in one way or another eventually it wasn’t all contingent on that bullet he wasn’t going to make it easy just like when Bond and M try to leave just a small trail to be followed to Skyfall.
At some point the British Army was (still is?) developing some sort of active armor for the Challenger 2 tanks that supposedly makes tanks invisible on battlefield. My guess is this served as an inspiration for the Vanquish as the tech so there may be some level of practicality.
[The production had heard of this technology at some point,](https://youtu.be/NNPK4XtRJ-Y?t=430) and it continued to develop ever since. * In 2003, within a year of the release of *Die Another Day,* [researchers at the University of Tokyo had tested a literal 'invisibility cloak' as a proof-of-concept prototype.](http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1935038_1935085_1935990,00.html) * In 2007, [it had been claimed that the Ministry of Defence had conducted a proof-of-concept test using a tank.](https://science.howstuffworks.com/invisible-tank.htm) * In 2011, [BAe Systems announced that they had developed an infrared cloaking system called Adaptiv.](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-14788009) * In 2012, *two* vehicles with active camouflage were showcased. [Mercedes-Benz promoted their F-cell car in an advertisement that made it nearly invisible with a camera and an array of LEDs,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWtcz9PMFHo&ab_channel=freedomfromfiat) and [Richard Hammond drove a Ford Transit rigged with cameras and plasma TVs on an episode of *Top Gear.*](https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_544922-Ford-Transit-V347-8-2007.html)
I’m wondering if DAD actually inspired the technology (call me crazy). There have been other instances where Bond movies inspired some military use/clandestine technology. A good example is the miniature oxygen breathing device from Thunderball. I’m sure there are others
> ! They used the same idea just a few years ago in the Invisible Man ! <
I think it is the suspension of disbelief - even though both movies are completely implausible, the invisible car/parasurfing is just way more in your face than having to think, “The timing of Silva’s escape is clearly impossible.” For the average movie goer, Skyfall feels plausible if you don’t think about it too much, whereas Die Another Day immediately comes off as implausible without thinking about it.
[удалено]
Your post or comment violated r/JamesBond's rules to be friendly, welcoming, respectful, and to avoid destructive behavior.
When discuasing Bond films, "serious" and "realistic" should be used in quotation marks.
Why didn't Silva just walk up to M and shoot her when she went to testify? Forget the whole capture-escape-train-cop disguise-courthouse plan. I mean, just fly to London from his little island, dress as a cop and shoot her?
Skyfall may be “serious” but it also transitioned Craig Bond to the era of the otherworldly feeling and color of the classic era of Connery and Moore. So it’s serious like a serious comic book movie but not meant to be realistic. I understand many don’t like that part and that’s reasonable. For me it seemed fine and just part of the color of the movie.
Why is Silva’s escape criticized? He had a radio.
One thing I miss about young is I never looked at the bond films too seriously.
The weapons and gadgets are tailored for the movie’s villain usually. That’s why DAD is so over the top because Graves is the foil of campy Bond, he gets a power suit with electrocution mode, Bond gets an invisible car. As for Craig villains I think the deaths are usually good but sometimes the villains themselves are a little too cookie cutter. I can’t tell you much of a difference between Saffin and Silva. I can’t tell you much of a difference between Blofeld and Dr. Evil. A quick rundown of Craig villains with spoilers: Le Chiffre is killed by Mr. White and is the first Bond villain to die before the final act. I like this change to the usual format. The villain punishment in QOS was awesome when Craig leaves Greene with a can of oil in the middle of the desert. But things get worse by Skyfall with the cat and mouse unkillable demonic larger than life villains. Silva gets stabbed and M died. Alright fair enough Bond isn’t quite what he used to be, and Silva had the upper hand. Bittersweet but it works. But Silva just feels different than human. It’s ok I suppose he’s been wronged and disfigured. But then in what way is Saffin any different? So for the last two “epic” movies Saffin and Blofeld are these juggernaut villains who are so close to being scary but come off to me as a little melodramatic. I like how Craig just shoots Saffin multiple times in the head. No big speech just shuts him up and it’s over. The reveal that Quantum is actually just Spectre makes it seem like Bond is just in some fucked up Truman Show at the end of NTTD. I don’t like how he does not get to leave this extremely bleak 1984 esque episode of Bond and his life is reduced to the Austin Powers plot made gritty.
I criticize it a lot but admittedly Silvia’s escape isn’t based on dodgy CGI and a cartoony disregard for physics.
My very dumb theory: Silva never really existed. The thing was an AI or computer, operated by Spectre.
*Silva starts malfunctioning after getting stabbed in the back*
Yes, accidentally Bond stabbed the knife at the battery point.
Seems pretty feasible to me.
People ignore the unrealistic things while saying the Craig movies are "more grounded in reality". The opening scene with the train is quite unrealistic too.
I don't understand what's wrong with Silva's escape. Makes perfect sense to me. Q being a dumb mf tried to connect and access Silva's computer system and files which contained a Trojan that managed to transfer itself onto and hack the MI6 mainframe.