Where does Bond go after Craig?

1669670671672673675»

Comments

  • 007HallY wrote: »
    You can say the same about literally any film or peice of media. "I think the invisible car in die another day might have gone a bit far. " "oh, you just didn't enjoy it!"

    I mean, yeah, correct I guess. :-??

    It's more like if you'd made that criticism but previously praised the more fantastical sci-fi elements in Bond (stuff like lasers/going into space as per MR or the elaborate plastic surgery/voice modulation in DAF).

    This was you RE Charlie Higson:
    007HallY wrote: »
    he simply didn't enjoy the film (which is fair enough) and is making up excuses for it, or he genuinely doesn't understand James Bond.

    You could just as easily say that the criticism of Elvis being a non-character is just people "making up excuses" for why they don't QoS because they "just didn't enjoy it". Or you could say criticism of John Cleese as Q is people "making up excuses" for why they don't like DAD because they "just didn't enjoy it". Ultimately everyone's feelings about what media they enjoy is informed by their subjective experience. No one judges things based on a purely objective set of criteria, not even film critics do that. Take a film like Killers of the Flower Moon for example, a lot of people really enjoyed that film, and a lot of people disliked it or thought it was overlong. How do we know which are legitimate and which are "just making excuses"? I dunno, it just feels weird to start investigating the way someone feels as if their bona fides are worth any less than your own.

    I have to say there's definitely been a strange phenomenem in the Bond fandom I've witnessed throughout the years. With just about every Moore fan I've come across, while they may bask in the glory of Roger in his pomp, they will freely admit that he did get a bit too old, and some of his kissing scenes were a bit cringey, and the stunt doubles were blatantly obvious etc. Connery fans will take pride in their man as the original, the height of masculinity in the 60's when Bond fever was at its heightest pitch, and at the same time acknowledge that he clearly was checked out from YOLT onwards and let himself go towards the end. Brosnan fans, while quick to point out how their man reinvigorated Bond for a new, post-soviet world with a smoothness that had audiences purring around the globe, will also concede that some of his one liners got overly Corny, that his films went a bit OTT, and his acting didn't always help matters. The problem is when it comes to Craig fans, as hard as I try, the best I can seem to get them to acknowledge that, despite the fact that he was clearly very successful during his tenure, it wasn't all smooth sailing and a few clangers were dropped along the way is "well, its a choice. You might not like it but that's because you probably have different tastes and the film doesn't speak to you personally." This just feels very peculiar to me because I can completely understand enjoying a film as a guilty pleasure, or genuinely believing that a film is an overlooked gem that doesn't have the reputation it truly deserves, but to my mind you still have to at least acknowledge that it has the reputation it has for a reason, and not put it down to just "personal tastes". Its still incumbent on you to recognise the criticism and engage with it fairly, and simply brushing it off as "personal taste" or the film not speaking to you is weirdly dimissive, if not a little bit unhinged. All film is subjective, but at the same time theres a reason consensus exists on a certain film, and it usually has some basis in some underlying property of the film itself, and not merely personal taste. Again, there are exceptions, just because there are consensus on something doesn't necessarily mean its right, and films reputations certainly shift overtime (look at OHMSS), but it still doesn't change the fact that generally speaking consensus exists for a reason. The consensus is that Bond and Blofeld being brothers was a stupid idea, something that belongs in a spoof like Austin powers and not Bond, that Madeline Swan is far and away the least interesting Bond girl that Bond has had a somewhat serious relationship with on screen, that Blofeld and Safin were underutilized and both the actors weren't allowed to reach their potential in the roles. I'd also say that broadly speaking the reputation of both films is that they mostly forgettable, not the worst bond films but a far cry from the heights of Skyfall and Casino Royale. These aren't my opinions (I'm much harsher), they are what is generally believed about the films, and don't get me wrong, theres nothing wrong with holding dissenting opinions, I have plenty of them when it comes to bond, but at the very least cam we try to be self-aware about it. Most fans of Diamonds are Forever are able to acknowledge the film has plenty of flaws, but they find something to appreciate in all the quirky, gaudiness, and that's perfectly valid and fine. But I've never seen a DAF fan who unironically believes the film is objectively an 8 or 9 out of 10 bond film, and that people who point out faults or just "finding excuses" because they don't appreciate the choices made, and I would probably laugh at them if that were the case. No one says that critics of the tsunami surfing sequence in DAD are just "finding excuses" because the film doesn't personally speak to them. We acknowledge, even those of us who personally "vibe" with these films, that thats not whats happening. The filmmakers just made a bad error in judgement. They dropped a clanger, just like a footballer might hoof the ball over an open goal - that's it. Connery had them, Moore had them, Brosnan had them, but again, with Craig there seems this weird need to intellectualise a mistake rather than just acknowledge that, yeah, some things didn't really work here, but hey, I still find a lot to enjoy in it. Instead, it's "oh, it's a choice, if you didn't like it, maybe the film just isn't for you", and the problem with this is it seems to suggest that theres no other way the film could have played out or any decisions that could have been avoided without compromising some sense of artistic integrity, that any criticism towards the films are either "just an excuse" because the viewer doesn't happen to like it, and therefore nothing but personal preference, or that it simply went over their heads and they didn't understand it, both of which rule out the possibility of a fault existing in the film to begin with.

    3161d55d-c86f-4629-9db3-8b7fdec4c9b3_text.gif
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,308
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s really not that deep mate. All I was saying was that I thought it was weird that Horrowitz (not Higson) said that Bond being ‘weak and not sure of himself’ is an issue. This is a writer who’s praised Fleming’s books (which as I said has Bond doubting himself throughout them. Again, even in his own Bond novels, WAMTK especially, I’d say his Bond doubted himself at times too and was put in situations where he was 'weak'). It's not that he can't have criticisms I personally disagree with, it's just that by his own standards I don't think they make much sense, and he doesn't say much else about these criticisms beyond that. By most accounts one would think Bond's struggles in SF would be something he'd appreciate, but it's something he's fundamentally pointed as being 'not Bond'. That's my problem with what he's saying and where I would critique... well, his critique.

    I did find it curious that he criticised the films for doing the same things to the character which he did, he even criticised them for killing him off, and then basically did the same thing. I do actually like his books and I think he's a very good writer, but I couldn't understand where he was coming from there.
  • edited November 4 Posts: 4,089
    007HallY wrote: »

    It’s really not that deep mate. All I was saying was that I thought it was weird that Horrowitz (not Higson) said that Bond being ‘weak and not sure of himself’. This is a writer who’s praised Fleming’s books (which as I said has Bind doubting himself throughout them. Again, even in his own Bond novels, WAMTK especially, I’d say his Bond doubted himself at times).

    Okay then, Horowitz. But I don't think him praising Fleming in the past has much to do with it because you've used similar arguments with me before:
    007HallY wrote: »
    So essentially you don't like the concepts of this film, and by extension the last few Craig Bond films? It's personal preference and even if it's thought out it's just not your thing even if it a Bond movie? Hence why you see it as artificial?

    Either that or you've not understood or seen the film.

    Seems like a pretty standard reply to criticism where these films are concerned.

    Perhaps it's best to read that in context to what we were talking about at the time :)

    Not much more I can say really. Horowitz can have his opinions, but I just don't understand what's fundamentally different about some of the struggles Bond goes through in Fleming's novels and in SF. I certainly don't see why 'it's not Bond'. As I said, even in his own novels Bond has doubts and is put in situations where he's arguably 'weak' (one such instance is a villain pontificating about throwing acid in his face while Bond is tied up. Bond is incredibly scared in the moment, and even though the 'acid' is only water meant to frighten him, he goes through some sort of anti-placebo effect where he's screaming and under the belief his eyes are being dissolved. It's actually an embarrassing moment for Bond in the context of the book. Whatever one thinks of the idea is Bond any more 'weak' in SF?)

    The reason why I'm saying I don't think he liked the film and is trying to rationalise it is also because of things like this:
    He added: "Secondly, the villain wins. The villain sets out to kill M. The film finishes with the villain killing M. So why have I watched it?

    Well, then why watch any film? Why watch a typical Bond film if you know he's always going to save the day, for example? The same reason we watch any fictional film - because we're invested in the story/drama and want to see everything unfold no matter what the ending. Fair enough if it's just not something he likes about the film (and that's not an unreasonable thing to think. He could have said 'for me, I think James Bond always saves the day and in this film the villain wins'. He could have said why he found it anti-climactic. That's fair enough. I personally would have reasons to disagree and why I think it's a great story decision, but I can understand the logic. He's not doing that though. He's framing this decision as a matter of objectively bad storytelling, which I can't see a fully objective reason to agree with).
    "And if you have to protect the head of MI6 from a madman, do you take her to a Scottish farmhouse with no weapons? And tell your bad guy where you are, so he will arrive with six people to kill her? … It's that sort of thing that made me angry."

    That's actually the only bit of what he said that I can understand with the way he's said it. I know people who would actually say this as well. Again, I have reasons why I think it's a great story decision and why I got a lot out of it dramatically, but if it makes him angry and it impacts his enjoyment of the film, then what can I say?
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s really not that deep mate. All I was saying was that I thought it was weird that Horrowitz (not Higson) said that Bond being ‘weak and not sure of himself’ is an issue. This is a writer who’s praised Fleming’s books (which as I said has Bond doubting himself throughout them. Again, even in his own Bond novels, WAMTK especially, I’d say his Bond doubted himself at times too and was put in situations where he was 'weak'). It's not that he can't have criticisms I personally disagree with, it's just that by his own standards I don't think they make much sense, and he doesn't say much else about these criticisms beyond that. By most accounts one would think Bond's struggles in SF would be something he'd appreciate, but it's something he's fundamentally pointed as being 'not Bond'. That's my problem with what he's saying and where I would critique... well, his critique.

    I did find it curious that he criticised the films for doing the same things to the character which he did, he even criticised them for killing him off, and then basically did the same thing. I do actually like his books and I think he's a very good writer, but I couldn't understand where he was coming from there.

    I suppose in WAMTK it's ambiguous. But yeah, he really doesn't seem to enjoy the later Craig films and I feel his reasoning is a bit odd at times...
  • edited November 4 Posts: 1,313
    "And if you have to protect the head of MI6 from a madman, do you take her to a Scottish farmhouse with no weapons? And tell your bad guy where you are, so he will arrive with six people to kill her? … It's that sort of thing that made me angry."

    This is "bad writing." Bond may have "crazy plans", but these plans must work.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 4 Posts: 16,308
    We're getting a bit spoilery for With A Mind To Kill here, so don't read on if you haven't read it.



    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s really not that deep mate. All I was saying was that I thought it was weird that Horrowitz (not Higson) said that Bond being ‘weak and not sure of himself’ is an issue. This is a writer who’s praised Fleming’s books (which as I said has Bond doubting himself throughout them. Again, even in his own Bond novels, WAMTK especially, I’d say his Bond doubted himself at times too and was put in situations where he was 'weak'). It's not that he can't have criticisms I personally disagree with, it's just that by his own standards I don't think they make much sense, and he doesn't say much else about these criticisms beyond that. By most accounts one would think Bond's struggles in SF would be something he'd appreciate, but it's something he's fundamentally pointed as being 'not Bond'. That's my problem with what he's saying and where I would critique... well, his critique.

    I did find it curious that he criticised the films for doing the same things to the character which he did, he even criticised them for killing him off, and then basically did the same thing. I do actually like his books and I think he's a very good writer, but I couldn't understand where he was coming from there.

    I suppose in WAMTK it's ambiguous. But yeah, he really doesn't seem to enjoy the later Craig films and I feel his reasoning is a bit odd at times...

    You're right it's ambiguous, but in a way I'm not sure that's a get out. You're introducing the idea that your hero is about to die in your reader's head -they didn't bring it up themselves(!)- and then deciding not to tell them if he's getting out of it or not, and you've even told them beforehand this is the last 007 you're going to write (not dissimilar from the publicity which told us NTTD was Craig's last film) - he might think making it ambiguous makes it different but I don't think it does really. It's effectively 'the final Bond book', set after the Flemings, and he's left in a no-win situation at the end where he's about to be killed. You're basically killing him off in all but name.
    Which I don't mind at all, but just don't complain if someone else does it! :)
  • edited November 4 Posts: 4,089
    "And if you have to protect the head of MI6 from a madman, do you take her to a Scottish farmhouse with no weapons? And tell your bad guy where you are, so he will arrive with six people to kill her? … It's that sort of thing that made me angry."

    This is "bad writing." Bond may have "crazy plans", but these plans must work.

    Not really. Bond makes decisions in both the books and the films which have consequences for him, and for all intents and purposes don't fully work out as planned. It's not any different in SF. I'd argue it's very good writing - we get the pay off for the mention of Skyfall in the word association scene, Bond takes charge of the situation fully by going off grid and manipulating things on his own terms, it brings to light that idea of 'the old ways are best' by Bond returning to his home, and Bond going there is even the catalyst for definitive character moments - Mallory going along with Bond's plan, Bond shooting on target again with his dad's rifle.
    mtm wrote: »
    We're getting a bit spoilery for With A Mind To Kill here, so don't read on if you haven't read it.



    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    It’s really not that deep mate. All I was saying was that I thought it was weird that Horrowitz (not Higson) said that Bond being ‘weak and not sure of himself’ is an issue. This is a writer who’s praised Fleming’s books (which as I said has Bond doubting himself throughout them. Again, even in his own Bond novels, WAMTK especially, I’d say his Bond doubted himself at times too and was put in situations where he was 'weak'). It's not that he can't have criticisms I personally disagree with, it's just that by his own standards I don't think they make much sense, and he doesn't say much else about these criticisms beyond that. By most accounts one would think Bond's struggles in SF would be something he'd appreciate, but it's something he's fundamentally pointed as being 'not Bond'. That's my problem with what he's saying and where I would critique... well, his critique.

    I did find it curious that he criticised the films for doing the same things to the character which he did, he even criticised them for killing him off, and then basically did the same thing. I do actually like his books and I think he's a very good writer, but I couldn't understand where he was coming from there.

    I suppose in WAMTK it's ambiguous. But yeah, he really doesn't seem to enjoy the later Craig films and I feel his reasoning is a bit odd at times...

    You're right it's ambiguous, but in a way I'm not sure that's a get out. You're introducing the idea that your hero is about to die in your reader's head -they didn't bring it up themselves(!)- and then deciding not to tell them if he's getting out of it or not, and you've even told them beforehand this is the last 007 you're going to write (not dissimilar from the publicity which told us NTTD was Craig's last film) - he might think making it ambiguous makes it different but I don't think it does really. It's effectively 'the final Bond book', set after the Flemings, and he's left in a no-win situation at the end where he's about to be killed. You're basically killing him off in all but name.
    Which I don't mind at all, but just don't complain if someone else does it! :)

    I can see your point. I suppose just trying to see it in Horroiwtz's mind it's less a definitive death than a metaphorical one in that way. Perhaps it's why he did it. He can 'kill off' his Bond/bookmark his era of books but he can't 'kill' the literary character definitively.

    But as I said I get what you're saying. I don't disagree either. For me WAMTK doesn't quite feel like a Bond novel in some strange way. In many ways I get more Le Carre off of it with the Soviet Union setting, the grey Cold War feel, and that ending.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    "And if you have to protect the head of MI6 from a madman, do you take her to a Scottish farmhouse with no weapons? And tell your bad guy where you are, so he will arrive with six people to kill her? … It's that sort of thing that made me angry."

    This is "bad writing." Bond may have "crazy plans", but these plans must work.

    Claiming this is bad writing is just willful ignorance on your part, I'm afraid.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,308
    007HallY wrote: »

    But as I said I get what you're saying. I don't disagree either. For me WAMTK doesn't quite feel like a Bond novel in some strange way. In many ways I get more Le Carre off of it with the Soviet Union setting, the grey Cold War feel, and that ending.

    Yeah I can see that, I quite enjoyed it for that. Bond books rarely feel like spy novels as they're mostly adventure stories about a guy battling giant squid and the like(!), so it's quite nice to have a more spy-flavoured one for a change, and the downbeat ending suits that.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    By what criteria do we establish that there is a legitimate issue with a film that goes beyond just peoples preferences? Lots of people take issue with many of the choices with DAD for instance, but by your rationale the film just isn't to their tastes, and it can't reasonably be said that the filmmakers took things too far or made many mistakes. These are just choices, and if a choice didn't work for you, then it's a personal preference thing, and shouldn't reflect poorly on Lee Tamahori, Babs, Micheal or anyone for that matter. And pointing out Madonna, the bad CGI, the bad acting, cheesy lines, the crazy Sci fi action scenes, etc. That's just you attempting to "make excuses" and "rationalize" why it didn't personally work for you.
  • Posts: 1,073
    Horrowitz didn't kill Bond off. Not in the book I read anyway. He left the ending on what we used to call 'a cliff-hanger'. You can't say "he was killed off in all but name". He's either killed off, or he's not. And he isn't.
    It's like the 'Fleming killed Bond in FRWL' argument I've seen on here. Or 'Bond was a dad in YOLT'. He wasn't.
    If the reader chooses to believe in their mind, that Bond was shot dead at the end of WAMTK, that's up to the reader. But to say Horrowitz killed him off is like saying any book or movie or TV show that ends with the hero in peril with no obvious way of escape is 'killing them off'.

  • edited November 4 Posts: 4,089
    By what criteria do we establish that there is a legitimate issue with a film that goes beyond just peoples preferences? Lots of people take issue with many of the choices with DAD for instance, but by your rationale the film just isn't to their tastes, and it can't reasonably be said that the filmmakers took things too far or made many mistakes. These are just choices, and if a choice didn't work for you, then it's a personal preference thing, and shouldn't reflect poorly on Lee Tamahori, Babs, Micheal or anyone for that matter. And pointing out Madonna, the bad CGI, the bad acting, cheesy lines, the crazy Sci fi action scenes, etc. That's just you attempting to "make excuses" and "rationalize" why it didn't personally work for you.

    It's more about how those criticisms are conveyed for me. We all have our subjective opinions about certain films, and to some extent there's always going to be an element where we as individual viewers find something enjoyable while others don't. Personally, I think there's lots about DAD which works, and lots that doesn't. I'm sure on the specifics of what I like/don't there are people here who would agree and many who don't. I can only convey to people why I got enjoyment out of some elements of the film and others less so, and why I think certain things work etc.

    In the case of Horowitz and SF he's said certain things 'are not Bond' and has implied that some of the story decisions in the film comes down to bad writing, which is a pretty big claim and drifts into the realm of trying to convey why his opinion is to some extent more objectively true. My issue is I believe he's contradicted himself based on his own work and what he's previously said.

    To some extent we all tend to try and rationalise our opinions as being objectively true and try to convince others of them. In the case of this forum some of us (and yes, I myself have and will likely continue to fall into this) rationalise why certain ideas we don't like 'are not Bond' or are in some way antithetical to the spirit of the character/franchise. Unfortunately I've found often there are counter arguments proposed by others which not only reveal where I've contradicted myself in terms of my arguments, but where I can't reasonably say something is always a case of bad writing, or 'not Bond' or whatever. In fact I'd say sometimes trying to cement these opinions through that guise of fact tends to become an exercise in mental gymnastics. It doesn't even make us fully understand why we don't like certain things in these films. That's why I said Horowitz seemed like he was trying to rationalise his dislike of SF. Bond is weak in the film and unsure of himself so it's not Bond. If he said that on these forums he'd have others posters saying 'what about x example in this where Bond is unsure of himself'.
    Horrowitz didn't kill Bond off. Not in the book I read anyway. He left the ending on what we used to call 'a cliff-hanger'. You can't say "he was killed off in all but name". He's either killed off, or he's not. And he isn't.
    It's like the 'Fleming killed Bond in FRWL' argument I've seen on here. Or 'Bond was a dad in YOLT'. He wasn't.
    If the reader chooses to believe in their mind, that Bond was shot dead at the end of WAMTK, that's up to the reader. But to say Horrowitz killed him off is like saying any book or movie or TV show that ends with the hero in peril with no obvious way of escape is 'killing them off'.

    To be honest I can definitely understand someone reading that and getting the sense that Bond is seconds from being shot and that's how his story in Fleming's world ends. There won't be a follow up so we likely won't see him return in Horrowitz's world. He doesn't kill him off strictly speaking, no, but he's really putting Bond's death in the reader's mind and it's a conscious way of ending this incarnation of Bond's story. It's very purposeful in that way, and I can see why him criticising NTTD would raise a few eyebrows just in the way he's done this (although as I said I think there are differences, albeit they're more grey than black and white here).

    Strictly speaking was Bond not (or at least going to be) a dad as well in YOLT? Again, that's more grey than black and white here in relation to NTTD, and even when the differences are acknowledged it can elicit different opinions on how true it is to Fleming spiritually. I agree about FRWL incidentally.
  • Posts: 1,313
    "And if you have to protect the head of MI6 from a madman, do you take her to a Scottish farmhouse with no weapons? And tell your bad guy where you are, so he will arrive with six people to kill her? … It's that sort of thing that made me angry."

    This is "bad writing." Bond may have "crazy plans", but these plans must work.

    Claiming this is bad writing is just willful ignorance on your part, I'm afraid.

    Oh, no, It's bad writing (IMO), a crazy plan that doesn't work is just a stupid plan. "Stupid people doing stupid things..."

    The plan has to work even if it does by luck.
  • edited November 4 Posts: 4,089
    Bond’s a character who makes risky decisions. And no, they don’t always fully go to plan even if he himself prevails. In LTK infiltrating Sanchez’s gang the way he does is incredibly risky, impulsive, and arguably even stupid, to the point where the most obvious problem with this plan is his downfall (namely that one of Sanchez’s many goons who have encountered Bond during the course of the film recognise him). Hell, his initial crazy plan to assassinate Sanchez fails.

    There are many other examples. Bond’s plans to get his message to Leiter in GF utterly failing in the film is one. Bond falls into it constantly in the novels too - he gets recognised as a result of going undercover as Scaramanga’s assistant in TMWTGG, his impulsive decision to snoop around GF’s house nearly leads to him being found out and his cover for this certainly makes the villain more suspicious of him etc.

    In SF him going off grid and using M to lure Silva is a gamble, but a calculated one. He himself defeats the villain. It’s very much in the precedent of Bond stories. Even if it were ‘stupid people doing stupid things’ that’s not synonymous with bad writing.
  • Posts: 1,313
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond’s a character who makes risky decisions. And no, they don’t always fully go to plan even if he himself prevails. In LTK infiltrating Sanchez’s gang the way he does is incredibly risky, impulsive, and arguably even stupid, to the point where the most obvious problem with this plan is his downfall (namely that one of Sanchez’s many goons who have encountered Bond during the course of the film recognise him). Hell, his initial crazy plan to assassinate Sanchez fails.

    There are many other examples. Bond’s plans to get his message to Leiter in GF utterly failing in the film is one. Bond falls into it constantly in the novels too - he gets recognised as a result of going undercover as Scaramanga’s assistant in TMWTGG, his impulsive decision to snoop around GF’s house nearly leads to him being found out and his cover for this certainly makes the villain more suspicious of him etc.

    In SF him going off grid and using M to lure Silva is a gamble, but a calculated one. He himself defeats the villain. It’s very much in the precedent of Bond stories. Even if it were ‘stupid people doing stupid things’ that’s not synonymous with bad writing.

    Unless the theme of the movie is that the British are stupid but they are still British, I think it is bad writing.

  • Posts: 4,089
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond’s a character who makes risky decisions. And no, they don’t always fully go to plan even if he himself prevails. In LTK infiltrating Sanchez’s gang the way he does is incredibly risky, impulsive, and arguably even stupid, to the point where the most obvious problem with this plan is his downfall (namely that one of Sanchez’s many goons who have encountered Bond during the course of the film recognise him). Hell, his initial crazy plan to assassinate Sanchez fails.

    There are many other examples. Bond’s plans to get his message to Leiter in GF utterly failing in the film is one. Bond falls into it constantly in the novels too - he gets recognised as a result of going undercover as Scaramanga’s assistant in TMWTGG, his impulsive decision to snoop around GF’s house nearly leads to him being found out and his cover for this certainly makes the villain more suspicious of him etc.

    In SF him going off grid and using M to lure Silva is a gamble, but a calculated one. He himself defeats the villain. It’s very much in the precedent of Bond stories. Even if it were ‘stupid people doing stupid things’ that’s not synonymous with bad writing.

    Unless the theme of the movie is that the British are stupid but they are still British, I think it is bad writing.

    That's fine, that's your opinion based on how you see the film. For the many reasons I just gave and I'm sure others will expand on I don't agree, can't see it myself, and would say it's good writing.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited November 4 Posts: 16,308
    Horrowitz didn't kill Bond off. Not in the book I read anyway. He left the ending on what we used to call 'a cliff-hanger'. You can't say "he was killed off in all but name". He's either killed off, or he's not. And he isn't.
    It's like the 'Fleming killed Bond in FRWL' argument I've seen on here. Or 'Bond was a dad in YOLT'. He wasn't.
    If the reader chooses to believe in their mind, that Bond was shot dead at the end of WAMTK, that's up to the reader. But to say Horrowitz killed him off is like saying any book or movie or TV show that ends with the hero in peril with no obvious way of escape is 'killing them off'.

    Have you seen Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? It ends on a similar cliffhanger, and when you do a cliffhanger which isn't intended to be resolved in that fashion... Yes, it is a certain choice where you're not showing them being killed, but the point of that to me is to kind of preserve them in a positive sense in the audience's minds: there's literally a freeze frame kind of doing that. You don't actually see them being killed and they're kind of going out in a blaze of glory, but ultimately you know they are.

    It's up to the reader to decide to some extent, but it was the writer who put him in the position where he's about to be killed and it was also his choice not to save him, and as HallY says, like Butch Cassidy, it is the end.
    Its possible he may even have not been allowed by IFP to kill him, and this might have been his solution. If you don't want him to die though, yes, you get the choice.

    I don't quite get your point about YOLT. He fathers a child.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Bond’s a character who makes risky decisions. And no, they don’t always fully go to plan even if he himself prevails. In LTK infiltrating Sanchez’s gang the way he does is incredibly risky, impulsive, and arguably even stupid, to the point where the most obvious problem with this plan is his downfall (namely that one of Sanchez’s many goons who have encountered Bond during the course of the film recognise him). Hell, his initial crazy plan to assassinate Sanchez fails.

    I guess in a way, the SF house thing is possibly one for the 'out of character for Bond' things, as it shows a level of forward planning which Bond rarely displays! Not great forward planning of course as we see he didn't bother to call ahead to see if there were any guns left, but even so: more than he usually does. Having a plan as much as a day ahead is unusual for him though.
    Even the Sanchez thing is less of a plan, more of a thought, as you say. The usual Bond thing where he chucks himself into a situation and has so much self-belief that he assumes he'll be able to come up with something and shoot his way out when he needs to.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    We'll be approaching the 1200 day mark by the end of the year, I wonder how much longer it is until we get something official? Another 300? If you thinking about it, whatever happens next year will mark the tipping point, where the grunt work is done with and we can start to expect more updates happening on a somewhat regular basis.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,571
    I'm still holding hope for a 2026 release. Figure an announcement at some point in mid 2025 and filming commences in late 2025-early 2026 for November 2026 release
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    I'm still holding hope for a 2026 release. Figure an announcement at some point in mid 2025 and filming commences in late 2025-early 2026 for November 2026 release

    I think that's a bit unrealistic, but then again 2026 is still 5 years since the last film was released. :!!
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    "And if you have to protect the head of MI6 from a madman, do you take her to a Scottish farmhouse with no weapons? And tell your bad guy where you are, so he will arrive with six people to kill her? … It's that sort of thing that made me angry."

    This is "bad writing." Bond may have "crazy plans", but these plans must work.

    Claiming this is bad writing is just willful ignorance on your part, I'm afraid.

    Oh, no, It's bad writing (IMO), a crazy plan that doesn't work is just a stupid plan. "Stupid people doing stupid things..."

    The plan has to work even if it does by luck.

    Not really a response that contradicts my view of willful ignorance. Actually enforces it, really.

    Tell me, what exactly was Bond's crazy plan in going to Scotland?
  • Posts: 1,313
    "And if you have to protect the head of MI6 from a madman, do you take her to a Scottish farmhouse with no weapons? And tell your bad guy where you are, so he will arrive with six people to kill her? … It's that sort of thing that made me angry."

    This is "bad writing." Bond may have "crazy plans", but these plans must work.

    Claiming this is bad writing is just willful ignorance on your part, I'm afraid.

    Oh, no, It's bad writing (IMO), a crazy plan that doesn't work is just a stupid plan. "Stupid people doing stupid things..."

    The plan has to work even if it does by luck.

    Not really a response that contradicts my view of willful ignorance. Actually enforces it, really.

    Tell me, what exactly was Bond's crazy plan in going to Scotland?

    Watch the movie.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    "And if you have to protect the head of MI6 from a madman, do you take her to a Scottish farmhouse with no weapons? And tell your bad guy where you are, so he will arrive with six people to kill her? … It's that sort of thing that made me angry."

    This is "bad writing." Bond may have "crazy plans", but these plans must work.

    Claiming this is bad writing is just willful ignorance on your part, I'm afraid.

    Oh, no, It's bad writing (IMO), a crazy plan that doesn't work is just a stupid plan. "Stupid people doing stupid things..."

    The plan has to work even if it does by luck.

    Not really a response that contradicts my view of willful ignorance. Actually enforces it, really.

    Tell me, what exactly was Bond's crazy plan in going to Scotland?

    Watch the movie.

    No, you tell me. I can't tell good writing from bad so I need you to explain.
  • Posts: 1,313
    "And if you have to protect the head of MI6 from a madman, do you take her to a Scottish farmhouse with no weapons? And tell your bad guy where you are, so he will arrive with six people to kill her? … It's that sort of thing that made me angry."

    This is "bad writing." Bond may have "crazy plans", but these plans must work.

    Claiming this is bad writing is just willful ignorance on your part, I'm afraid.

    Oh, no, It's bad writing (IMO), a crazy plan that doesn't work is just a stupid plan. "Stupid people doing stupid things..."

    The plan has to work even if it does by luck.

    Not really a response that contradicts my view of willful ignorance. Actually enforces it, really.

    Tell me, what exactly was Bond's crazy plan in going to Scotland?

    Watch the movie.

    No, you tell me. I can't tell good writing from bad so I need you to explain.

    I'm being polite, watch the movie.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited November 4 Posts: 8,205
    "And if you have to protect the head of MI6 from a madman, do you take her to a Scottish farmhouse with no weapons? And tell your bad guy where you are, so he will arrive with six people to kill her? … It's that sort of thing that made me angry."

    This is "bad writing." Bond may have "crazy plans", but these plans must work.

    Claiming this is bad writing is just willful ignorance on your part, I'm afraid.

    Oh, no, It's bad writing (IMO), a crazy plan that doesn't work is just a stupid plan. "Stupid people doing stupid things..."

    The plan has to work even if it does by luck.

    Not really a response that contradicts my view of willful ignorance. Actually enforces it, really.

    Tell me, what exactly was Bond's crazy plan in going to Scotland?

    Watch the movie.

    No, you tell me. I can't tell good writing from bad so I need you to explain.

    I'm being polite, watch the movie.

    Not really interested in your politeness, though it is always appreciated. More interested in you backing up the things you say about a movie that you evidently need to rewatch again.
  • EON- Everything or Nothing. B26 will only happen when they are 100% happy with the direction they want to go in. I don’t believe we are anywhere near that point yet.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    EON- Everything or Nothing. B26 will only happen when they are 100% happy with the direction they want to go in. I don’t believe we are anywhere near that point yet.

    I agree, I believe it is 2028, but it could be Summer/earlier in the year.
Sign In or Register to comment.