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
I mean, the guy was dying of thallium poisoning... given the circumstances, I'm okay chalking that plot convenience up to Mr. White slipping up. Could they have been more clever about it? Sure, but its hardly the most egregious example of lazy writing in Bond's history. After all, Bond had the headstart he needed to get to Madeleine first. You want sloppy, look at Helga Brandt's attempt to kill Bond in YOLT. Now that is bad writing.
Hardly a 'minor nitpick' since Hinx would have no knowledge of Madeleine's whereabouts if not for the camera...
That's all well and good, but the title of this thread is 'Does SPECTRE make any sense?' so comparing it with another Bond film is redundant.
It's nice that members are trying to justify the bad writing in this film but most of it really is indefensible.
Well, it didn't appear in your long, silly list earlier! Previously you were baffled as to why James Bond's close friend Mr White would hold back inormation from him, thus forcing him to find his daughter White wanted Bond to protect! It was just so confusing!
But to be consistent, I won't object to you retconning your Spectre grievances. ;-)
Also, see Minion's very good comment above. +1!
:))
High five, Professor. :)
Well if my list is 'silly' that is of course your opinion. But you haven't actually addressed each item on it in any way shape or form.
And i certainly wasn't 'baffled' by Mr White's reluctance to spill the beans to Bond. I understand it's what the scriptwriters needed to occur. As i stated, the plot actually moves forward by characters not giving information.
I'd actually forgotten about the camera recording everything until i started commenting on this thread so forgive me for bringing it up late.
Although it does make the scene even more ridiculous since White is giving info to save his daughter and ends up giving SPECTRE her address...!
I addressed the bulk of the list soon after you posted it.
I won't explain it again, because it's been explained as simply as possible, but Mr Whites holding back of info isn't mere script contrivance, it's literally the course of action that makes sense for him.
Not to mention it's an example of whataboutism, a logical fallacy which forum users should stop reiterating.
And the camera? Any idea as to why an intelligent man like Mr White would give his daughters whereabouts while being recorded? I mean, it wasn't like it was a small camera...
I must admit i'm enjoying some of the the excuses being used for poor scripwriting.
I am so weak...
Do you still think it would have been an example of better screenwriting if White had explained to Bond exactly what L'Americain was, and how to get there?
You know, sometimes I'll watch a movie, and a camera movement or repeated piece of dialogue will spell out in painful, redundant simplicity what a character's already clear motivation is. And I used to wonder why screenwriters feel they have to be so remedial in their exposition.
I don't wonder so much any more.
+2 well done both of you
I should hasten to add: there are 23 other films in this series, and pretty much all of them offer up just appalling decision-making by multiple characters. You should avoid these films. And most of them aren't busy thinking about how to save their daughter before they kill themselves to escape the pain of being poisoned to death--they just make straight-up dumbass decisions sometimes. If you do watch them, you'll be stunned at how often Bond's opponents elect not to kill him when they have an easy opportunity. It's rather shocking.
Kidding aside, this isn't whataboutism either. Movies take liberties, and have vocabularies, and it's perfectly alright for dying characters not to think of something in a tense situation when the people watching the film don't think of it either, or not until four years later.
But we're not talking about other movies. The subject of this thread is SP. And in my assessment a lot of it makes no sense.
When the other Bond films come up I will comment accordingly.
The third act was a last minute rush job which is painfully obvious to see. The PTS and fight on the train were excellent.
Also, since you brought up Vader being Luke and Leia's father, I guess every retcon made in the history of movies should be given a pass because Star Wars did it?
As for your top point, I get you're using a hyperbole to make a point, but why shouldn't we? Unless the internal logic of the film is glaringly compromised, I don't think film in general deserves be nitpicked, otherwise we're approaching CinemaSins territory.
Whether the film 'deserves to be nitpicked' is irrelevent. I assume you have actually read the title of this thread?
You seem to be taking any criticism of the film personally, but remember, these discussions are all done from a fans point of view. I like SP but thats not going to stop me pointing out what i think doesn't make sense in the film. In that respect the makers of these films must do better. The fans paying to see them at least deserve that.
If and when CR comes up on here i personally won't have much to discuss regarding the script making sense because as it is i think it's a very good and logical one.
Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is a literary device in which established facts in a fictional work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity with the former.
It is by definition, it's not a matter of opinion. Like you said, it is a good example of retcon because it works in the context (while the one from Halloween doesn't), but it's stilla a retcon.
Personally I never had a problem with SPECTRE revealing that the organization was behind CR and QoS, both movies established that a bigger organization (Quantum) was indeed after those events, so it works in my opinion. I just didn't like Blofeld's bragging about it since he was not present in CR and QoS at all.
Personal attacks??? I've been perfectly polite in my posts and have enjoyed the discussions regarding SP and its faults. Not sure what i've said could be construed as a personal attack.
You did seem to be taking the criticism of SP personally but that's just how it's coming across to me.
Spot on, this actually bothered me as well, those dialogues were painful to hear.