Originally Posted by stelios
In terms of deaths, M's was treated with the same importance as Vesper's and Tracy's. Should they have done another half a movie like QoS to show that Bond gave a shit?
I disagree. On Her Majesty's Secret Service ended with Bond a broken man, cradling his dead wife in his arms. Casino Royale ended with Bond hardened by Vesper's death and on the trail to avenge her. Skyfall ended with Bond basically saying "So that happened. What's next?".
And your final paragraph makes a negative amount of sense.
No, that's incorrect.
Originally Posted by Slim
"Suspect" was a turn of phrase on my part. I thought the movie made fairly plain Bond's feelings about M's death. If you thought they handled similar material better in CASINO ROYALE, I won't quibble-- it's the better movie. But M's death certainly didn't seem cheap or pointless to me.
ETA: Gabe does make a good point above. SKYFALL was pretty determined to set the table for future installments-- e.g. moving Dench out and Fiennes in. If the strain shows for some folks, I can respect that.
Fair enough on both points. No matter how you feel about it, Skyfall is not a perfect movie. For some of us, those imperfections were more profound than for others.
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega
Forgive me it's just that this quote:
Sounds like. "Yeah the movie's shit! But it still beats Skyfall!"
Which is silly.
I could just as easily say "At least Skyfall had some amazing cinematography and good acting" in the context of a discussion about Die Another Day. Neither is a statement of overall preference, but rather a comparison of certain aspects of each movie.
No I think everything you say is kinda suspect.
Like you literally sound like the major beef with the movie is "M dies but like the entire set-up of the movie was to stop her death and they failed and I don't like that."
Which again sounds suspect.
Had I actually phrased it like that, I would agree with you.
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB
If you think the movie is about Bond having to save M, you've missed the point of the movie. Bond having to save M is the engine that drives the plot. The movie is about what price must these people pay for the life they have chosen. What is the cost of "getting the job done"?
I don't think the movie was about Bond having to save M. I understand there were bigger themes at play. However, in terms of the stakes - the thing Bond was trying to achieve - the movie made that entirely about saving M's life. There was no other goal for Bond to fulfill. And it wasn't even so much that he failed at his one goal. It was how the movie handled that failure in that it wasn't really a failure. They just hit the reset button and moved on.
Bond didn't get the job done, so the cost of that is moot. The point was really more what is the cost of not getting the job done? And according to this movie, nothing. So then the question is, why should I care if the job gets done or not?
I don't have a problem with M dying in of itself. Only with the way this movie handled it. There were better ways to depict M's death and the impact of it. Casino Royale dealt with the same plot point in a much more artful and poignant manner.