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
That's not an opinion, that's an emotion.
Oh, and Bond going "We need him alive", then at the end, he shoots him anyway...
There's bad employees everywhere, including in MI6. Carter may not be bad at everything, but tailing someone is obviously not his forte. For all we know he may be a station agent spending more of his time doing office work.
I always thought that was quite clever. It establishes a character trait for Bond, and sets up one of the major themes of the film. Bond being a young ego, failing to see the big picture. Instead of admitting defeat he will rather kill a bombmaker they need for questioning... oh, and blow up an embacy as well! M reprimands him, and says he overlooked "the big picture". Later, in the dungane being tortured by Le Chiffre, Bond fails to see the big picture yet again, and it comes as a cold shower to him when Le Chiffre reminds him that he is in fact more valuable to MI6 at that point than Bond, because "they need what I know". Bond mumbles; "The big picture".
Its all part of the character development, Bond's learning curve. By the end of the film he has grown into a more experienced agent.
Agreed. And it shows that Bond is not infallible: he makes mistakes.
I'm not sure I agree with your last comment but the first two comments indeed have merit, notably in the context of so called serious films.
I'm a Craig fan, but your first two points are quite valid imo, especially in response to the original poster's claim of no silly bits in Craig films.
I think you're in the minority on SF, but to each their own. One person's junk food is another's nutrition. The "silliness" of Silva's escape is based on how we interpret his plan, which is never really quite revealed. Q says he'd been planning this for years, but how would he know? And to what extent did Silva have anything planned? My take: Silva wanted to take down M publicly--only that part was "planned" all along. But he started by humiliating her through the stolen hard drive and then follow what happened next. Turned out, when she was to appear before committee, that was when he made his move. Remember, he bragged about doing anything he wanted at a second's notice: push a button, done. Same thing here. Silva wasn't one to go making detailed, long-term plans. He didn't have to.
Indeed, the parachute scene in QoS is a bit much, reminds me of Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze (rip) in Point Break. But I always took as more of an editing issue: I didn't think of it too much as a chute opening too late, rather of the entire fall being edited for greater suspense.
Once a parachute deploys, it immediately slows your decent, so whether it opens
1,000 ft from the ground or 100 ft, it will still greatly slow your descent. With it
Being Bond, it was just done closer to the ground, than any normal man could. :))
I don't know how accurate this is but even if it is, just because something is accurate dosen't make it visually, or dramatically satisfying on film. This scene could have been edited in a way that was more dramatic and more visually plausible.
(I like SKYFALL, just highlighting that silliness is pretty subjective and these threads are rather silly). See what I did there, btw?
But that he had planned for years to be captured with perfect timing, escaping on that exact date, that exact time - I don't need to go through all the implausiblities do I? - is just silly, no doubt! I don't know why they opted for that solution. That line is quite disturbing actually... I would go as far as to say that the plot would have worked almost perfectly if it wasn't for that line. :-t
I blame Logan for it. He always gets the plot muddled up and contrived at some point. He is good, even sometimes great, writing dialogues and characters. But his plots are flawed.
So its perfectly ok to have a thread on this forum just to take cheap potshots at Pierce Brosnan but heaven forbid any of us think that Daniel Craig is not a good Bond?
Right.
No its the one where Bond is shot twice,falls off a train at great height and speed into a river,drowns, and is next seen shagging some bird on a beach mere minutes later into the film.
Learn to use the Edit function, and if you want to make a thread where you and like mindeds can slam Daniel Craig, go for it; I don't think this is it.
New people, sheesh ;) ;) ;)
Oh, by the way, there is a side calöled Craignotbond. I suppose, they still exist. Why not have him go there? That's the best therapie, I can think of.
Alex Winter. His only other significant role was one of the vampires in The Lost Boys, starring Kiefer Sutherland.
Thanks. Must say, I never heard of him. Ah well...