› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…11961197119912011202…2507

Comments

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    QBranch wrote: »
    There's been plenty of discussion on this thread regarding Mendes and Campbell, but what if Forster was to come back? It might be interesting to see what kind of Bond film he'd make now, a decade or so later.

    I could think of worse directors for sure,i love QOS so I would be up for it.

  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    TripAces wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Tensions will soon be high at EON. It's legacy time and Craig's tenure could go either way.

    What he needs to do is recapture his CR virility, which Mendes choked out of him over two films.

    First by suddenly making him an old dog in SF.

    The less said about Craig's inert performance in SP the better.

    If you look at the four films in totality, you see a graduation from potent, romantic, brutal ass-kicker to placid ornament.

    That's what Mendes has done with Bond - have him stand stock still while the cinematographer snaps off gorgeous shot after gorgeous shot.

    Dunno about others, but for me the Bond that Craig started with, the one that kicked off favourable comparisons to Connery, has been destroyed by pretentious direction.

    SF may have several excellent attributes but there is no doubt in my mind that the rot started then.

    Bringing Mendes back would be a disaster.


    I credit Mendes and DC for making Bond human in SF. You say "old dog," I say relateable character. You say "placid ornament" I say there are three bad ass fight scenes in SF and a PTS in SP that suggests Bond is anything but an "ornament."

    For all its flaws, Spectre is still a better film than Brosnan's four, Dalton's two, and RM's last four.

    Obviously comedy is your business. Judging from that one you must be pretty successful at it.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    I love QoS, but that film is not exactly a public favorite. Eon won´t approach a director who´s Bond film didn´t find favor with big audiences.

    Anyhow, I never thought anyone at all connected to the film had at any time any thoughts about Forster doing more than one film.

    Which is a shame.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Calling it the "00 program" wasn't problematic at all for me. It was like "stirred not shaken" from yolt, it's funny.

    Neither one was meant to be funny and of course they aren't. Program is obviously plain catering to fans of the Bourne series, just like anything in Mendes' efforts is catering to fans of whatever. He calls it hommages,I call it total lack of creativity.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,585
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    It could be far worse than Blofeld being Bond's foster brother. It wasn't good but there are many ways to make it worse. For starters, making them biological brothers.

    How about Vesper is actually Irma Bunt and has been shagging Blofeld all along?

    The 'Vesper lives!' idea has legs I believe.

    I did wonder why, when Bond was pushing down on Vesper's seemingly lifeless body at the end of CR you could, if you listened very carefully, just hear a wheezy squeak coming from one of her orifices. Bond was too overcome with grief to hear the noise.

    What happened? Vesper simply pulled a Paul Daniels body swap trick at some point between appearing to die and Bond dragging her body to the surface. So Bond unwittingly was trying to revive a rubber body clone of Vesper, while she swam into the Grand Canal and climbed on a passing gondola to make good her escape.

    Once that plot idea gets past P&W we are away with the ultimate plot twist.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Birdleson wrote: »
    If "damn cool" means "would suck all to Hell" I agree with you.

    +1. Some people here should write scripts for horror movies. At least with me you excel. I'm still shivering.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Given the nonsense they've foisted on us lately I can live with Vesper back, but if that's the route they go down I demand a catfight with Madeleine over Bond.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    Given the nonsense they've foisted on us lately I can live with Vesper back, but if that's the route they go down I demand a catfight with Madeleine over Bond.
    If that’d be the case, I’d rather Madeleine turns out to be a villain and Vesper being Bond’s lobster. ;)
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=VyFpOp8Ft0Q
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Given the nonsense they've foisted on us lately I can live with Vesper back, but if that's the route they go down I demand a catfight with Madeleine over Bond.
    If that’d be the case, I’d rather Madeleine turns out to be a villain and Vesper being Bond’s lobster. ;)
    It's a question that I feel must be settled one way or the other prior to Craig signing off on his 'high'. Who is his real love? I'm afraid SP left more questions than it answered with its shoddy attempts at affection for Maddy.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    Now that we're debating bad ideas, I think in Bond 25, Mrs. Bell should be revealed to have been behind the villains of all 24 previous Bond films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Want a really bad idea? Smith returns to complete his exposition on Bond's feelings.

    *cue vomit gif*
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2017 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Given the nonsense they've foisted on us lately I can live with Vesper back, but if that's the route they go down I demand a catfight with Madeleine over Bond.
    If that’d be the case, I’d rather Madeleine turns out to be a villain and Vesper being Bond’s lobster. ;)
    It's a question that I feel must be settled one way or the other prior to Craig signing off on his 'high'. Who is his real love? I'm afraid SP left more questions than it answered with its shoddy attempts at affection for Maddy.

    What if Vesper and Maddy are just codenames for Tracy? How 'damn cool' would it be to have the codename theory finally vindicated?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Given the nonsense they've foisted on us lately I can live with Vesper back, but if that's the route they go down I demand a catfight with Madeleine over Bond.
    If that’d be the case, I’d rather Madeleine turns out to be a villain and Vesper being Bond’s lobster. ;)
    It's a question that I feel must be settled one way or the other prior to Craig signing off on his 'high'. Who is his real love? I'm afraid SP left more questions than it answered with its shoddy attempts at affection for Maddy.

    What if Vesper and Maddy are just codenames for Tracy? How 'damn cool' would it be to have the codename theory finally vindicated?
    I wouldn't put it past them. What about White? Surely a codename for Draco?

    Speaking of that infamous theory, I'll just leave this gem here:
    http://whatculture.com/film/why-bond-25-should-be-codename-007
  • NSGWNSGW London
    edited November 2017 Posts: 299
    What previous Bond film(s) do people think Bond 25 will most likely resemble?

    At this stage the two that come to mind for me are a mix of SF and FYEO in a slightly more scaled back adventure.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Sf is a top tier bond film, the plotholes are overplayed by critics.

    I've come around greatly on appreciating and enjoying Skyfall, but the plotholes are in no way, shape or form overplayed, whatever exactly that means. I don't know how they could be. The plotholes are perhaps the singular most glaring problem with the film and far more in-your-face than just about any other Bond. Still, the film has phenomenal cinematography, a unique style and vibe, and standout scenes and sequences that all help to elevate it.
    Every time I ask people to mention those Skyfall plotholes, I get a list of things that are simply not explained / issues that are not addressed in the movie. I've yet to read a genuine Skyfall plothole. To prove my point, I googled "Skyfall plotholes" and found a list, I will address two "plotholes" from this list:

    1. " James Bond is a man that beats unbelievable odds. It is part of his character. However, he usually beats unbelievable odds that are thrown at him, not ones he creates himself. He can kill 20 guys in a hotel if he is forced too – but he would never be stupid enough to create this situation himself. Except he did it in this movie. He lured a super villain with quasi-unlimited resources to a gun fight against him and a geriatric lady in a shit-old chalet. Of course they end-up having a third ally: Kincade, the retarded old man who likes to wave around a flash light in complete darkness to make sure bad guys can find him. But the problem here is not that James Bond won the fight 3vs15 (even though it’s stupid), the problem is that James Bond planned this gun-gang-rape in advance and assumed he would come out victorious. Which is in itself so retarded that it is insulting to Kincade."

    EXPLANATION: First of all, it turns out it wasn't that retarded on Bond's part to assume he would come out victorious, since, you know, he did come out victorious. The main objective was not to save M (who was very close to retirement anyway, in other words: she was not an extremely valuable MI6 asset anymore), it was to defeat Silva. Second of all, the whole point of the Scotland scenes were that even though Bond + M + Kinkade were clearly outmanned and outganned, they had the home advantage. Bond's plan to go to Skyfall with M is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    2. "MI6 has weird weapons. They buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Otherwise Eve Moneypenny could have, you know, shot the bad guy endlessly after she first hit James Bond on top of that train. Instead she just kept eye contact with him and hoped to make him die of guilt."

    EXPLANATION: NO, MI6 does not buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Eve stopped shooting at the bad guy because she was in a state of shock after she shot Bond. This scene was clearly meant to show how unprofessional she was, and that she was not a good field agent. This is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    I could go on...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    You picked two obvious nitpicks. Those aren't remotely plot holes, and anyone assuming so doesn't understand what a plot hole is.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    You picked two obvious nitpicks. Those aren't remotely plot holes, and anyone assuming so doesn't understand what a plot hole is.

    I simply randomly picked two of the "MAJOR plot holes" listed on that site I linked to.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,589
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Tensions will soon be high at EON. It's legacy time and Craig's tenure could go either way.

    What he needs to do is recapture his CR virility, which Mendes choked out of him over two films.

    First by suddenly making him an old dog in SF.

    The less said about Craig's inert performance in SP the better.

    If you look at the four films in totality, you see a graduation from potent, romantic, brutal ass-kicker to placid ornament.

    That's what Mendes has done with Bond - have him stand stock still while the cinematographer snaps off gorgeous shot after gorgeous shot.

    Dunno about others, but for me the Bond that Craig started with, the one that kicked off favourable comparisons to Connery, has been destroyed by pretentious direction.

    SF may have several excellent attributes but there is no doubt in my mind that the rot started then.

    Bringing Mendes back would be a disaster.


    I credit Mendes and DC for making Bond human in SF. You say "old dog," I say relateable character. You say "placid ornament" I say there are three bad ass fight scenes in SF and a PTS in SP that suggests Bond is anything but an "ornament."

    For all its flaws, Spectre is still a better film than Brosnan's four, Dalton's two, and RM's last four.

    Obviously comedy is your business. Judging from that one you must be pretty successful at it.

    One person's junk food is another's nutrition. Remember, Bond once said that The Beatles shouldn't be listened to without earmuffs. I won't hold it against him.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    TripAces wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    GetCarter wrote: »
    Tensions will soon be high at EON. It's legacy time and Craig's tenure could go either way.

    What he needs to do is recapture his CR virility, which Mendes choked out of him over two films.

    First by suddenly making him an old dog in SF.

    The less said about Craig's inert performance in SP the better.

    If you look at the four films in totality, you see a graduation from potent, romantic, brutal ass-kicker to placid ornament.

    That's what Mendes has done with Bond - have him stand stock still while the cinematographer snaps off gorgeous shot after gorgeous shot.

    Dunno about others, but for me the Bond that Craig started with, the one that kicked off favourable comparisons to Connery, has been destroyed by pretentious direction.

    SF may have several excellent attributes but there is no doubt in my mind that the rot started then.

    Bringing Mendes back would be a disaster.


    I credit Mendes and DC for making Bond human in SF. You say "old dog," I say relateable character. You say "placid ornament" I say there are three bad ass fight scenes in SF and a PTS in SP that suggests Bond is anything but an "ornament."

    For all its flaws, Spectre is still a better film than Brosnan's four, Dalton's two, and RM's last four.

    Obviously comedy is your business. Judging from that one you must be pretty successful at it.

    One person's junk food is another's nutrition. Remember, Bond once said that The Beatles shouldn't be listened to without earmuffs. I won't hold it against him.

    One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ;)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    You picked two obvious nitpicks. Those aren't remotely plot holes, and anyone assuming so doesn't understand what a plot hole is.

    I simply randomly picked two of the "MAJOR plot holes" listed on that site I linked to.

    I found the site you mentioned, and nearly everything there is just nitpicking - a lot of it is stuff that bothered me too, but plot holes, absolutely not. Reminds me of those clueless CinemaSins videos.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Sf is a top tier bond film, the plotholes are overplayed by critics.

    I've come around greatly on appreciating and enjoying Skyfall, but the plotholes are in no way, shape or form overplayed, whatever exactly that means. I don't know how they could be. The plotholes are perhaps the singular most glaring problem with the film and far more in-your-face than just about any other Bond. Still, the film has phenomenal cinematography, a unique style and vibe, and standout scenes and sequences that all help to elevate it.
    Every time I ask people to mention those Skyfall plotholes, I get a list of things that are simply not explained / issues that are not addressed in the movie. I've yet to read a genuine Skyfall plothole. To prove my point, I googled "Skyfall plotholes" and found a list, I will address two "plotholes" from this list:

    1. " James Bond is a man that beats unbelievable odds. It is part of his character. However, he usually beats unbelievable odds that are thrown at him, not ones he creates himself. He can kill 20 guys in a hotel if he is forced too – but he would never be stupid enough to create this situation himself. Except he did it in this movie. He lured a super villain with quasi-unlimited resources to a gun fight against him and a geriatric lady in a shit-old chalet. Of course they end-up having a third ally: Kincade, the retarded old man who likes to wave around a flash light in complete darkness to make sure bad guys can find him. But the problem here is not that James Bond won the fight 3vs15 (even though it’s stupid), the problem is that James Bond planned this gun-gang-rape in advance and assumed he would come out victorious. Which is in itself so retarded that it is insulting to Kincade."

    EXPLANATION: First of all, it turns out it wasn't that retarded on Bond's part to assume he would come out victorious, since, you know, he did come out victorious. The main objective was not to save M (who was very close to retirement anyway, in other words: she was not an extremely valuable MI6 asset anymore), it was to defeat Silva. Second of all, the whole point of the Scotland scenes were that even though Bond + M + Kinkade were clearly outmanned and outganned, they had the home advantage. Bond's plan to go to Skyfall with M is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    2. "MI6 has weird weapons. They buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Otherwise Eve Moneypenny could have, you know, shot the bad guy endlessly after she first hit James Bond on top of that train. Instead she just kept eye contact with him and hoped to make him die of guilt."

    EXPLANATION: NO, MI6 does not buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Eve stopped shooting at the bad guy because she was in a state of shock after she shot Bond. This scene was clearly meant to show how unprofessional she was, and that she was not a good field agent. This is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    I could go on...

    A few weeks ago @ClarkDevlin and @JamesBondKenya each just randomly put together a list of plot holes but you failed to answer to that. Instead you choose to wait a few weeks, let some grass grow over it and then replay your "there are no plot holes in Skyfall" tape.
    Let me make you the same offer I made to some other defendants of Skyfall.
    Just tell me anything you think makes sense in Skyfalls story and I tell you why it doesn't. To the best of my knowledge this is the only movie where it's possible to do this. Although Spectre is not far behind.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Calling it the "00 program" wasn't problematic at all for me. It was like "stirred not shaken" from yolt, it's funny.

    Neither one was meant to be funny and of course they aren't. Program is obviously plain catering to fans of the Bourne series, just like anything in Mendes' efforts is catering to fans of whatever. He calls it hommages,I call it total lack of creativity.
    I call it not lack of devotion and sincerity.

  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    The Beatles should be the villains in B25, revenge for Bond's offhand remark from Goldfinger. Then the established timeline becomes even more muddled.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited November 2017 Posts: 4,589
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Sf is a top tier bond film, the plotholes are overplayed by critics.

    I've come around greatly on appreciating and enjoying Skyfall, but the plotholes are in no way, shape or form overplayed, whatever exactly that means. I don't know how they could be. The plotholes are perhaps the singular most glaring problem with the film and far more in-your-face than just about any other Bond. Still, the film has phenomenal cinematography, a unique style and vibe, and standout scenes and sequences that all help to elevate it.
    Every time I ask people to mention those Skyfall plotholes, I get a list of things that are simply not explained / issues that are not addressed in the movie. I've yet to read a genuine Skyfall plothole. To prove my point, I googled "Skyfall plotholes" and found a list, I will address two "plotholes" from this list:

    1. " James Bond is a man that beats unbelievable odds. It is part of his character. However, he usually beats unbelievable odds that are thrown at him, not ones he creates himself. He can kill 20 guys in a hotel if he is forced too – but he would never be stupid enough to create this situation himself. Except he did it in this movie. He lured a super villain with quasi-unlimited resources to a gun fight against him and a geriatric lady in a shit-old chalet. Of course they end-up having a third ally: Kincade, the retarded old man who likes to wave around a flash light in complete darkness to make sure bad guys can find him. But the problem here is not that James Bond won the fight 3vs15 (even though it’s stupid), the problem is that James Bond planned this gun-gang-rape in advance and assumed he would come out victorious. Which is in itself so retarded that it is insulting to Kincade."

    EXPLANATION: First of all, it turns out it wasn't that retarded on Bond's part to assume he would come out victorious, since, you know, he did come out victorious. The main objective was not to save M (who was very close to retirement anyway, in other words: she was not an extremely valuable MI6 asset anymore), it was to defeat Silva. Second of all, the whole point of the Scotland scenes were that even though Bond + M + Kinkade were clearly outmanned and outganned, they had the home advantage. Bond's plan to go to Skyfall with M is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    2. "MI6 has weird weapons. They buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Otherwise Eve Moneypenny could have, you know, shot the bad guy endlessly after she first hit James Bond on top of that train. Instead she just kept eye contact with him and hoped to make him die of guilt."

    EXPLANATION: NO, MI6 does not buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Eve stopped shooting at the bad guy because she was in a state of shock after she shot Bond. This scene was clearly meant to show how unprofessional she was, and that she was not a good field agent. This is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    I could go on...

    A few weeks ago @ClarkDevlin and @JamesBondKenya each just randomly put together a list of plot holes but you failed to answer to that. Instead you choose to wait a few weeks, let some grass grow over it and then replay your "there are no plot holes in Skyfall" tape.
    Let me make you the same offer I made to some other defendants of Skyfall.
    Just tell me anything you think makes sense in Skyfalls story and I tell you why it doesn't. To the best of my knowledge this is the only movie where it's possible to do this. Although Spectre is not far behind.


    I hate to break it to you but there are things that make no sense in all 24 official films. As Bond fans, we don't seem to care much. Even CR has a massive plot hole: the fact that playing the poker game was 100% unnecessary. And how did MI6 not know the CIA would be there? Uh...

    What makes sense in SF, however? Almost all of it...because of 1. Silva's mental instability; and 2. Silva's ability to do just about anything via "point and click."

    Bond stayed away from MI6 after being shot. That makes sense. Correct?





  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    TripAces wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    PanchitoPistoles wrote: »
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    Sf is a top tier bond film, the plotholes are overplayed by critics.

    I've come around greatly on appreciating and enjoying Skyfall, but the plotholes are in no way, shape or form overplayed, whatever exactly that means. I don't know how they could be. The plotholes are perhaps the singular most glaring problem with the film and far more in-your-face than just about any other Bond. Still, the film has phenomenal cinematography, a unique style and vibe, and standout scenes and sequences that all help to elevate it.
    Every time I ask people to mention those Skyfall plotholes, I get a list of things that are simply not explained / issues that are not addressed in the movie. I've yet to read a genuine Skyfall plothole. To prove my point, I googled "Skyfall plotholes" and found a list, I will address two "plotholes" from this list:

    1. " James Bond is a man that beats unbelievable odds. It is part of his character. However, he usually beats unbelievable odds that are thrown at him, not ones he creates himself. He can kill 20 guys in a hotel if he is forced too – but he would never be stupid enough to create this situation himself. Except he did it in this movie. He lured a super villain with quasi-unlimited resources to a gun fight against him and a geriatric lady in a shit-old chalet. Of course they end-up having a third ally: Kincade, the retarded old man who likes to wave around a flash light in complete darkness to make sure bad guys can find him. But the problem here is not that James Bond won the fight 3vs15 (even though it’s stupid), the problem is that James Bond planned this gun-gang-rape in advance and assumed he would come out victorious. Which is in itself so retarded that it is insulting to Kincade."

    EXPLANATION: First of all, it turns out it wasn't that retarded on Bond's part to assume he would come out victorious, since, you know, he did come out victorious. The main objective was not to save M (who was very close to retirement anyway, in other words: she was not an extremely valuable MI6 asset anymore), it was to defeat Silva. Second of all, the whole point of the Scotland scenes were that even though Bond + M + Kinkade were clearly outmanned and outganned, they had the home advantage. Bond's plan to go to Skyfall with M is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    2. "MI6 has weird weapons. They buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Otherwise Eve Moneypenny could have, you know, shot the bad guy endlessly after she first hit James Bond on top of that train. Instead she just kept eye contact with him and hoped to make him die of guilt."

    EXPLANATION: NO, MI6 does not buy rifles that can only shoot once before reloading. Eve stopped shooting at the bad guy because she was in a state of shock after she shot Bond. This scene was clearly meant to show how unprofessional she was, and that she was not a good field agent. This is absolutely NOT a plot hole.

    I could go on...

    A few weeks ago @ClarkDevlin and @JamesBondKenya each just randomly put together a list of plot holes but you failed to answer to that. Instead you choose to wait a few weeks, let some grass grow over it and then replay your "there are no plot holes in Skyfall" tape.
    Let me make you the same offer I made to some other defendants of Skyfall.
    Just tell me anything you think makes sense in Skyfalls story and I tell you why it doesn't. To the best of my knowledge this is the only movie where it's possible to do this. Although Spectre is not far behind.


    I hate to break it to you but there are things that make no sense in all 24 official films. As Bond fans, we don't seem to care much. Even CR has a massive plot hole: the fact that playing the poker game was 100% unnecessary. And how did MI6 not know the CIA would be there? Uh...

    What makes sense in SF, however? Almost all of it...because of 1. Silva's mental instability; and 2. Silva's ability to do just about anything via "point and click."

    Bond stayed away from MI6 after being shot. That makes sense. Correct?





    This. You could find holes in any Bond film, and pretty much almost any fictional movie. I think it’s dumb SF in particular got hammered over plot holes when they’re in the whole series and like every other movie.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    The difference for me is just how serious SF seems to take itself. I can forgive the endless plot holes in DAD because it's not trying to win an Oscar or be something bigger than it isn't. Under Mendes' tutelage, the films have grown into something I wished they'd never have turned into.

    Even still, I have plenty more issues with SF, that the plot holes that do exist really mean nothing in the scheme of things. Like someone else said, at the end of the day, all Bond films (and all films in general) have them. SF's no real exception.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    Someone is probably more likely to pick on a film for its plot holes when they don’t like the film, or at least feel it is overrated. I just shrug off SF’s like any other Bond film; I’m there to have fun and enjoy the action.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Someone is probably more likely to pick on a film for its plot holes when they don’t like the film, or at least feel it is overrated. I just shrug off SF’s like any other Bond film; I’m there to have fun and enjoy the action.

    Definitely. It's why I can be so harsh about SP's plot issues, because I can't stand the movie, even though there's likely just as many inconsistencies or bits that make no sense in the other 23 installments I may more easily overlook (or rather, 22, sans SP).

    That shrugging off is possible for me in every film but the most recent two. I have a heart full of love for all the other installments.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    Fair enough. Bias is impossible to 100% conquer. I love SF personally.
Sign In or Register to comment.