It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
This ground gets covered a lot. So my two cents here have been covered before. Nevertheless...
1. SF's plot holes are not as big as people think they are. The perceived holes are the result of overreacting to Silva in exactly the way that MI6/Q does. In effect, it's brilliant. And all the clues one needs to decipher Silva are embedded in the film. (Note: pay close attention to the island and how/why people left, as well as the discussion between Q and Bond about pulling a trigger in one's pajamas.)
2. Regardless, SF's plot holes, real or not, are nowhere close to those we find throughout the rest of the series. Even CR has some serious flaws in logic: such as the necessity of Bond playing poker against LeChiffre. But, really, who cares? The fact that SF is somehow held to this new form of logic tends to suggest a confirmation bias. Some fans do not want to like the film and, therefore, look for reasons not to (not suggesting you are one of them, btw).
Indeed. You at least feel like they were trying to make a Bond film with Casino. They had no idea whether what they were doing would work, so they were forced to exercise caution and measure. The character drama is delicately handled (well, during the casino scenes anyway), and never overwhelms the plot of Casino. It was a genuine bold move for the franchise, and that is what distinguishes it from the sequels it spawned. There's nothing daring about QoS, despite how much it appears to be throwing out the rule book. Mendes, for better or worse, has added something definitive to the Bond tapestry, but it still feels like they are riffing on the ideas of Casino. I long for the day the Bond franchise no longer feels rooted in 2006.
If you think there is anything in SF that makes sense if you really think about it, you're simply kidding yourself. Especially from Shanghai on nothing makes sense. And, apart from maybe SP, there actually is no other movie in the franchise that only comes close to the number of logic gaps and plot holes, so this is not holding to a different standard. And even if you would care to do so you would have any right since, it is sold as a serious and adult movie.
Yes, this has been discussed in depth, and I'm not going to beat it to death here but the plot holes are exactly what many think they are, massive, and should have been addressed in the development of the script.
Which might suggest that those who didn't "get it" are neither serious nor adults. Just kidding. ;-)
I think the problem is in trying to make sense of a villain's actions in the same way one might try to make sense of a David Lynch film. The only thing that makes sense is that he doesn't make sense. You have to be OK with that. But at the same time, Silva makes perfect sense as a villain for our times. You have to accept that...
A) Silva's ability to "point and click" gives him a certain measure of control and a certain ability to make others paranoid. That's part of the game. Audiences found leaps of "logic" because they were applying logic in places where logic would not help. In today's age, our logic goes out the window, and fear and paranoia reign, when it comes to technology and invasion of privacy. Remember what Severine says, "What do you know about fear?" / "Not like this. Not like him."
B) Silva never needed the List. He already had the list or had the ability to get it. What he wanted was to humiliate M. Plain and simple. And so he used Patrice to steal something he didn't need. Why? Two reasons. 1. Because it put MI6 on Patrice's tail, forcing them to fight a ground war when the fight was really in a cyber arena; 2. because Patrice was an easy sacrificial lamb, already wanted, easy to find. "because every now and then a trigger has to be pulled!" Poor Patrice. He was like the coconuts for the rats. Patrice was needed on the ground because that is NOT where Silva excels ...
C) Silva hates the physical. Like Q, he is far more comfortable at a computer in his pajamas then running around with "knees getting tired." Fieldwork is NOT Silva's forte. It is Bond's. This is why he looks and acts out of place in London and at Skyfall. It's why he fails so miserably at the hearing. So what you have is a man so "wired in" that he can't do something so simple: like pulling a trigger. It's hard to know when if you're in your pajamas. Right? In other words, Silva could set up M amd MI6 perfectly. But executing the kill shot? He was a fool.
There are few plot holes or leaps of logic if you understand Silva, his motives, his abilities, and his flaws. And if you understand that technology allowed him to do almost anything...or make you think he could (and the latter is even worse).
There is something shallow about the Mendes approach.
They are sensory experiences that lose their lustre over time.
Where Mendes fails is in the small moments. Campbell, for instance, knew why Bond ravenously eating caviar on toast in CR was so important.
Mendes was too busy framing with his DP to worry about such details.
He directed it yes but it was no doubt written by P&W or Haggis, I'm not sure Campbell bought anything to the story like say Mendes is reported to have.
I know some directors get more hands on but Campbell always struck me as someone who shot the script he was provided with, Mendes gets too involved for my liking and as much as I like SF his meddling made SP the shit fest it was.
Yeah you're right Shard, could easily have been P&W, it's never easy to tell where that boundary lies.
On the face of it, Campbell is certainly a director who appears to respect and understand a writers attention to detail.
Conversely, Mendes tends to eschew the human detail of a scene in favor of spectacle. At least he did in SF and even more so in SP.
Directors should only change things if they have some talent in that area, SF strikes me of having some of Mendes finger prints on it but SP was where he seemed to have more control and just look at the results.
I know Nolan is a divisive choice and as much as I'm a fan I'm not chomping at the bit for it but he does have far more grounding in constructing a story than Mendes at least if he did write it or adapt someone else's work I'd feel more confident as opposed to Mendes who has no track record of ever writing anything himself.
He strikes me as someone who has ideas and unfortunately they get more than entertained they become a reality hence the abortion we got with SPECTRE.
No I really can't stand the last Bond film.
Rarely has a Bond film lavished so much on looking good whilst failing in almost every other department.
Let me join the the others who have singled out this post for praise.
Yes, as a fan, this is exactly the approach I would like to see Eon take - to again approach the films as a series, with firm release schedules, and a team dedicated to getting each new film out on time.
However, we are still in the Craig-era, so this approach will have to wait until Craig is done.
I think what has happened is that Babs has been committed to Craig for Bond 25, thus any serious planning had to be put on hold until Craig got over his post SP funk.
My sense is that Craig is ready to get back to work, on what will likely be his swansong.
Eon will take it's sweet time, making sure everything is to his liking, as that's the way the Craig-era rolls. Director, script, title-song etc.
Craig I think is somewhat frustrated by Bond.
He loves the character, yet he is so determined to do something different with each film, but creatively ends up with mixed results.
Different sorts like Haggis, Forster, Mendes and Logan have all been tasked with putting their own unique stamp on Bond.
Craig has been charged with breathing life into their vision.
It strikes as both physically and mentally exhausting.
I think what we are learning though, at least within the confines of the official film series, is that there is only so much "different" that one can do with Bond.
But with Bond 25, we are so deep into the Craig-era, that any radical change in tone would be jarring, at least one dictated to Craig.
I think Babs is willing to work with him, on his terms, on one final epic finish to his era, thus there is no real sense of urgency.
Craig needs to be fully invested in the merits of the project etc.
What makes most sense is to continue with the Spectre story, but how to do this involes some thought.
I think the intent all along has been to go the Garden of Death route, or at least incorporate that element, especially considering that Blofled was introduced in a film reminecent of OHMSS, thus allowing Spectre and it's follow-up to reference obliquely both Fleming books.
But once Bond 25 is done and Craig rides off - as a fan, I would really like to see a committed series approach as outlined by @GetCarter above.
In such a scenario, there is no waiting on the actor. He ideally locks in for say a three film schedule with option on a 4th, and away you go.
I think this approach, would be a big improvement over what we've got recently, this lurching from one film to the next, with gaps of varying degree, with yet another 4 year interval seemingly looming.
Maybe Babs might step aside a bit, and oversee a dedicated production team committed to keeping the series moving along on schedule.
She would always be the CEO, given her pedigree.
But for now Bond 25 is in development. It will crawl along at is own pace, and ultimately we will probably get a pretty good, even real good film, but then please enough.
Relaunch with a focused plan!
I am not sure how you come to this conclusion. If a scene or sequence requires action and "spectacle," then that is how the director will approach it...whether it be the construction chase scene in CR or the the motorcycle chase in SF. Likewise, if a scene requires tenderness and "human detail," as with the shower scene in CR and the "close shave" in SF, then the director will approach it that way. I felt SF had more "small moments" than CR did. Between the PTS and the final act at Skyfall, the film is pretty devoid of action and spectacle.
Agreed. Franchise fatigue is a lazy myth that hasn't been proven at all. What people won't tolerate are shit movies. Make entertaining and great films and people will not only see them but they'll come back for more.
This is precisely why these asinine fanboy Wars over which brand is better really doesn't help and doesn't matter in the end because if brand A's film resonates it helps brand B's and the genre as a whole. 2015 saw Kingsman, MI, MfU and SP and it was SP that ended up being the most disappointing and arguably the weakest movie of that lot. In the end the only fatigue being afforded are towards Hollywood's audacity to churn out crap and expect people to happily pay for such mess.
His body and mind are probably not up to making a physically and mentally demanding bond film. It's not his cup of tea anymore.
Do people expect him to make the next Bond movie when he's 51-52 years old.
He's no Tom Cruise who at 55 is a freak.........
Disagree. A director has plenty of scope to include or discard details as written in the shooting script. This may depend on logistics, on-set creative decisions, occasionally time pressures.
Most of all, directors who fancy themselves as auteurs will impose their own vision on the finished product. I still maintain that CR has more personality and humanity than SF, despite the emotional themes explored in the latter.
I agree 100%. For Craig, this is a non-issue for the foreseeable future.
Dear old Sir Rog managed it successfully for the majority of his Bond stint.
46 in Live And Let Die
47 in The Man With The Golden Gun
50 in The Spy Who Loved Me
52 in Moonraker
54 in For Your Eyes Only
56 in Octopussy
58 in A View To A Kill
Not saying Craig should continue as Bond till he's almost 60, but he still more than capable of playing the role. He looks after himself, and is in good shape.
I'd say he has (if he wanted to) two more Bond films in him. Time will tell I guess.
And we know how well Craig can do that.
Realy something to be proud on, NOT. Directed by Martin Campbell
QOS. Boat chase. And then we have the airplane scene and , whyle after more views and all those years i acepted it a bit more, whyle i stil dislike boat chase.
Also not great scene from QOS.
Skyfall. Metro scene.
Spectre. Tells the time..
This could either mean that the next Bond will be female or that Bond will have a female sidekick at least ass prominent as Jinx, or that this would be the perfect time to stand out of the crowd with an un-pc, slightly sexist Bond saving the world :-).
We just have to hope that making this The Rythmn Section will scratch Bab's itch for this garbage.
Alas we are overdue the 'Bond girl who's Bond's equal' cliche getting another airing so it wouldn't surprise me. If they go down the Garden of Death route I'm more than happy for Kissy to be portrayed as the strong woman Fleming wrote about with her heroic swim and plucking Bond from the water but if they turn her into a ninja or some other diversity wank I'll want to vomit.
The natural progression would be a female 00 agent working with Bond. That could work but Bond should always be the star of the films, not the supporting characters.