Skyfall was a critically acclaimed James Bond movie that revealed more of 007’s backstory than the franchise had ever touched on before - but risked ruining the series in the process. Ever since Ian Fleming’s iconic spy James Bond first arrived onscreen in 1962’s Dr. No, the character has always been an unassailably stoic hero whose murky origins gave him an air of mystique and danger. For decades, little was known for certain about the early years of Bond, thus allowing each new actor who took on the part to reinvent 007 and tailor the character to fit his screen persona.
Roger Moore’s campier Bond had little in common with Connery’s harder-edged charmer, while Pierce Brosnan’s smirking spy was nothing like Daniel Craig’s tough, Bourne-influenced post-9/11 Bond. However, the latter may have permanently derailed this franchise tradition for good, thanks to a twist included in one of his best movies in the role. After a blistering debut in 2006’s Casino Royale, which provided a devastating and surprisingly grounded backstory for the character's early career, Craig’s 007 had firmly re-established Bond’s reputation as one of cinema’s pre-eminent action heroes after the campy theatrics of 2002's Die Another Day.
However, 2008’s Quantum of Solace proved there was such a thing as a Bond movie that got too serious, and the interminably slow, convoluted outing earned the ire of critics who wanted something more fun and engaging. 2012’s Skyfall from helmer Sam Mendes brought Craig’s version back to his roots as the zany plan of Javier Bardem’s Skyfall villain Silva forced 007 to return to his ancestral home. In the process, Skyfall’s third act explained more of Bond’s backstory than almost any earlier franchise outing had managed, something many enjoyed at the time. So, why was this a bad thing for the franchise's long-term future?
Skyfall Revealed Bond’s Childhood Origins
Never before seen onscreen, Skyfall depicted Bond’s childhood home in the form of the titular estate. It is a grand country house where 007 is revealed to have grown up before he was orphaned and came under groundskeeper Kincade’s guardianship. Played by Albert Finney, the groundskeeper is an appropriately gruff and believable guardian for a young Bond, and the surprise of seeing the character’s childhood abode succeeds in humanizing the seemingly superhuman Bond in a way few viewers anticipated. Admittedly, the original plan to have Sean Connery cast as Kincade would have been an even more fitting way to return to 007’s roots, but as it was, Skyfall’s ending was a welcome surprise singled out by many audiences as the movie’s strongest scene.
Why Skyfall’s Twist Worked So Well
Since Casino Royale, Craig’s version of James Bond had been established as a harder-edged, more realistic 007 for the post-Bourne era. However, his first outing had already shown Bond at his most vulnerable by depicting his tragic origin - meaning the only way to make him even more human was by returning to his childhood. After all, it would be almost impossible for Mendes to top the sight of Le Chiffre being killed midway through torturing Bond in Casino Royale’s best moment. As such, the director needed to return to the past to give viewers an even more unguarded, vulnerable view of Bond than that emotionally (and literally) naked interrogation scene. Bringing the action of Skyfall to the eponymous setting made Bond's childhood real and tangible, which made it all the sadder when his mentor M (Judi Dench) was killed in a struggle with Silva soon after the pair arrived at the estate.
Why Skyfall's Biggest Twist Was Bad For The Bond Franchise
However, while the twist was a solid surprise within the action of Skyfall when taken in tandem with the Bond franchise more broadly, the movie's revelations are a logical disaster. Will this backstory be true for every subsequent James Bond, or does each version of the character have their own distinct childhood? Where is Skyfall’s revelation that Bond was born into riches going to fit in terms of the series' slippery canon? Will the next incarnation of Bond begin anew with a blank slate, or does each 007 have their own Kincade? If Bond was born in Skyfall, is this just true for Craig’s version, or is it true for Brosnan’s too, since he also worked under Judi Dench’s iteration of M? The scene poses far more questions than answers, and makes it clear there is a reason the franchise has never strayed into Bond’s backstory before - a franchise whose hero changes faces regularly can’t have one definitive backstory, no matter how moving it may be.
How Spectre Made Skyfall’s Twist Worse
While Skyfall left subsequent installments high and dry by tying Bond to a set backstory despite his changing face/persona, the next outing made this worse as Spectre's worst twist added an unlikely connection between Bond and his oldest foe Blofeld. The duo is now canonically stepbrothers, something that can’t ignore going forward. Instead, this revelation now means the origins of James Bond as depicted in Skyfall are even more set in stone, with the sequel ensuring that not only did he grow up in the estate, he also was eventually adopted and accidentally created his own enemy.
The twist was an absurd addition that earned ire from fans and mirth from critics, some of whom noted it seems to be lifted wholesale from the third Austin Powers movie Goldmember. While that may not be the case, the decision to double down on investigating Bond’s backstory does make it harder for new directors or actors to change the character without explaining the new 007’s connection to Craig’s James Bond, something that may force them to finally confirm the fan theory James Bond is a codename given to numerous different agents over the years. This twist could be a satisfying reveal that resets the James Bond franchise, but it will still be one that Skyfall forced into place by failing to consider the long-term implications of its bold twist.
