The lifespan of a Double-0 is presumably less than 5 years. I’ve been teaching at this school for 3 and I’m already one of the most senior people they’ve got!
I felt like Skyfall suffered from an identity crisis. It was trying to be both a gritty movie like Casino Royale but also flashy and campy like the older Bond movies, especially with its occasional stupid punny quips. Also for some reason Craig’s ears were particularly distracting this time around. And the Bond girl was on screen for like two seconds.
At least Q was cute.
No, the Bond Girl in this movie was Judi Dench.
Okay so why hasn’t anyone commented on this?: I always assumed James Bond was a cover name. But at Skyfall we see 007’s parents graves with the surname “Bond”. Unless its a coincidence (but what movie screenwriter would include a confusing coincidence), this makes it seem like we’ve been watching the same character for 50 years. Yet in Casino Royale, Bond is told he’s barely ready to be a double 0. So what gives?
Genetically enhanced children all within the Bond Family, all named James.
Basically, *Doctor No *to *Die Another Day * were set in one reality. There is only one Bond, just played by different actors. All those films took place over a few years, maybe about 10. You are supposed to ignore the fact that Q aged more than that, or that Timothy Dalton doesn’t look much like Sean Connery . It’s called ‘suspension of disbelief.’
The Daniel Craig films reboot the series, and take place in a parallel universe.
In both realities, James Bond is his real name.
Ever been to Scotland in winter? 
Having said that, I didn’t get the impression it was very cold, apart from a bit of snow on the peaks, and then suddenly there’s a convenient pond frozen thick enough to walk across!
Other minor annoyances were the train ride going from the middle of Istanbul to wild mountains in the space of, seemingly, a few minutes (any Turks watching would find it even more jarring as the viaduct where Bond got shot is in southern Turkey, hundreds of miles from Istanbul). And how the hell could Bond ever have survived that fall?
Anyway, I loved it. I saw it this afternoon, on my first trip to the cinema in 18 months, ie since before my daughter was born. Javier Bardem is a superb villain, after a run of largely forgettable ones.
It’s sad to see M go - I have to say it was a bit sudden as she seemed perfectly fine when facing up to Silva at the end, then Bond delivers one poor quip and she keels over! I think her replacement will take time to warm to.
Edit: re the name, I always think of each Bond film existing in its self-contained universe, barring the Casino Royale-QoS continuity.
I am in Scotland and it is winter. 
Then sudden nightfall ought not to be too much of a surprise!
I missed exactly why Bond had to fight the bad guys without help. Q and co knew where he was going, so they could lay a ‘trail of breadcrumbs’ for Silva. Are there no agents stationed in Scotland? No police that could help? No way of getting a few guns to Bond?
Also, what breadcrumbs did Q leave, exactly? Was that specified?
I think Q was simulating the trace from a tracker in a “company” car, knowing that Silva had hacked their system and would be able to follow it.
Which completely defeats the point of using the DB5. Unless the idea was to fake an alternate route, so Bond and M weren’t ambushed on the way. It’s possible Silva found them by some other means entirely (like guessing Bond would go there from his records), but the trace did seem to be heading towards Scotland, when it could as easily have led Silva somewhere else entirely – somewhere stuffed with fully-armed SAS troopers, for instance.
I dunno… I’m not sure it made a lot of sense, thinking about it.
Oh, also:
Bill Tanner is M’s Chief of Staff (as he was in the books) – Albert Finney’s character was called Kincade.
The idea was that the breadcrumb trail was hidden from the people who would normally be able to track the company car (i.e. government wonks) but would be visible only to Silva, who was clever enough to track the top secret breadcrumb trail. That way, only Silva would know they were in Scotland (or actually a heathland in Surrey, where they built the Skyfall house for filming…)
Just saw it.
Wow. Even better than I’d hoped.
Who was that guy assassinated in Shanghai? The one in front of the painting?
Also, the bit with the flashlight at the end was a real groaner. The guy is the gameskeeper and can’t find his way to the chapel in the dark? And the head of MI6 doesn’t tell him to turn the flashlight off?
My opinion - it was a good film, but it didn’t really feel like a Bond film. Anyone agree/ disagree?
Nobody important.
Silva laid a complex trail for Bond to follow. The plan was for Bond to catch the assassin guy, and find the casino chip. The target was just a random person, the only point of the hit was to draw the assassin into the open.
We saw it yesterday and it exceeded our expectations!
I know what you are talking about, but I disagree.
The old Bond films were considered “action filled” in their day, and every Bond played the suave stud, fulfilling every sexual fantasy of women wanting the strong, sexy man - and men wanting to be that cool stud.
However, times have changed and this Bond film filled in all of the gaps that could have turned this franchise into a caricature of itself. If you kept that old formula as it was, you would have to hope for some nostalgia/high camp to keep it going.
Instead, the new Bond has some scars. He is grittier and stronger and faster. The action scenes and plot are up to snuff with other films in the genre. For a 20 year old who might never have seen a Bond film before, they will come away with the same gut reaction you probably had when you saw your first Bond film - and I can guarantee you they will not be all that impressed with the older Bond films.
The Broccoli family took a calculated risk when they fired Pierce Brosnan and hired Daniel Craig. Many thought they were losing the whole allure of the sexy, Sinatra-era James Bond. But they were very smart. They breathed new life into 007.
So yeah - less tuxedo and witty banter over shaken martinis, but far more secret agent and action. They have successfully turned James Bond into a superhero of sorts - albeit, one without superpowers other than a few techno toys. But make no mistake - Bond is every bit the superhero who can hold his own with anything Marvel could throw at him.
Otherwise, same formula:
- great opening scene.
- great opening song (thanks Adele!)
- great foreign settings and beautiful women.
- truly evil, worthy villain with sinister plan.
- action, sex and plot.
- satisfying ending.
Yep - all the elements are still there.
I don’t think they have to worry about losing money investing in the next film.
I thought it was great, but I was hoping for some sort of connection to Mr. White and Quantum.
It follows the pattern of the first three Connery movies. First two, Bond vs SPECTRE, a previously unknown organisation. Third movie, Bond vs Goldfinger, an independent villain with no connection to SPECTRE.
When I found out that the villain’s name was Silva I was expecting a connection with the White and Greene of the previous two movies.