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 just notice the flaws here and sometimes it's hard to not notice them as opposed to other films in the series. For example, Drax having built a space station without being noticed is way outrageous, but MR was meant to be outrageous all around, I mean there is a Bondola.
YOLT is full of outrageous moments I could nitpick to death. I always enjoy TND as my favorite Brosnan film because it's meant to be a standard avert WWIII entry with emphasis on action with a thankful lack of "this time it's personal" that works for me on that level.
Getafix mentioned so much of what I think about GE and since this is a thread about it not making sense and having problems then why is it not appropriate? If it's just love and praise you want to show, maybe the GE appreciation thread is the best place for that.
Surf scene aside, I absolutely love all these.
Great film. Rightly held in high regard.
Agreed...do we really need to lower ourselves to playground squabbling ?
We never do. But some do it anyway.
Per the aim of the topic, while I do think GE is a great film, there are certain things about Alec's scheme that are a tad strange and have been pointed out here already. It's never been enough to take away from my enjoyment of the film, but it's not perfect by any means.
I just see it as a great Bond film.
They are not meant to be analysed,just enjoyed.
Nothing wrong with that! :)
But surely we all come on here to analyse the Bond films and novels. That's what makes us fans!
1) The soundtrack. I absolutely detest the Serra score, and think it is the worst in the franchise (yes, even worse then Newman).
2) I don't like the fact that too many scenes linger on away from Bond. The scene when Natalya is involved with the GE bunker bomb attack drags on for way too long. Its one of the faults I find with TB too, when the plane goes underwater with the bombs and drags the films pace down with such a lengthy scene away from Bond.
3) Brosnan looks great in the film (particularly the hair), but his performance is muddled and weak in parts (this issue I would find throughout his tenure). One minute he can play the tough guy fairly well, but then when he hams it up in pain with theatrical yells, or attempts at comical gestures, he starts to look weak as a character, and is not Bond anymore, but more Brozza.
4) I don't find Sean Bean particularly convincing as the main villain. He's not a patch on the likes of Robert Shaw, which is what I think EON were trying to go for with this part.
5) the tank scene is daft, OTT and dull.
6) there are no adapted Fleming scenes. Any of the Bond films that doesn't contain them loses a few points in my book.
Where the film does work is Campbell's direction, the new M (and the fact that she's kept to a minimum appearance - how it should be), the locations (Monaco in particular), and the fight at the end.
I notice that the original poster has been banned (as have a few of the naughty contributors to the thread) any chance an admin could change the title and move it onto a new Bond film so we could focus on a different 007 adventure and whether it 'makes sense'?
Cheers.
As for the topic at hand, as much as I love the film, it definitely doesn't make sense, both in terms of the PTS (did Alec and Ourumov have this planned beforehand or after? If so, was staging such a close execution really necessary? And why all the theatrics just to go silent for nine years until he opted to kick off his grand mission) and the objective itself, destroying England yet somehow finding a use for all of its currency that he plans to steal. One of those installments that plays out incredibly well but only if you sit back and try not to question it too much.
I'd also like to reiterate that I really love all these films so I'm not bashing any of them by analysing the internal logic. SF and SP have been recently criticised so I'm aware of their issues, but I'd never thought about how little Alec's plan makes sense in GE - still enjoy the hell out of that movie! My favourite Brosnan by a stretch too.
It's a fair point. People can always agree to disagree and it's easy to seem "nasty" or what have you when discussing why a given installment does or doesn't make sense, be it via plot or characterization or what have you, so that's always a great aside to make.
And sounds good, we'll now move the discussion to Does Spectre Make Any Sense?
Blofeld becomes the leader of Spectre. One of his top generals is Mr White, leader of Quantum. White bank rolls Le Chiffre who is thwarted by Bond. White is captured by Bond in Quantum of Solace and then escapes. This maybe the first time since his childhood that Blofeld is made aware of his foster brother - James Bond? He then bank rolls Silva (still something I dislike about the retrofitting of SP into SF) and keeps an eye on silva's chaos, until his destruction and then the distant bell rung by the incident in Mexico...
So does Blofeld not really care about Bond until SP and Sciarra's death? Is it when he bank rolls Silva? Does Silva pitch his plan to kill M to Blofeld? Blofeld must be aware of Bond by SF and his closeness with Dench's M.
One option is Blofeld doesn't care about Bond at all, is happy to let him exist and let the chips fall where they may until Bond pokes his head in at the Spectre meeting. Yet from that point on he seems to want to kill Bond (via Hinx) all the way until he meets him at the crater base. Seems odd, but also seems like Blofeld doesn't actually care about him that much until Bond involves himself in the events of SP?
Hopefully, but I doubt it.
It makes no sense within the films or as a decision by the scriptwriters.
SP is one big car crash with regards to making any sense.
Silva was chose by them. "All to the best bidder". SPECTRE needed to destabilize the MI6 in order to pave the way to the 9 Eyes Program and Blofeld hired Silva, an agent who seeked vengeance on M, giving him the resources to accomplish this plan while at the same time hurting Bond as a collateral damage, given his relationship with M. So Silva was a perfect match from both a business and "emotional" perspective.
I will never understand all this negativity towards a choice that basically made events of the past even more compelling. Never.
For me the choice of connecting past events ruined the previous films.
Especially given that the first two in this series were already connected completely and also involved a secret organization.
Tying in Skyfall is admittedly less cut and dry, and I can understand some not liking it. That said, Silva was up to some very Spectresque stuff.
I'm not seeing anything here yet about how Spectre's it doesn't make sense though...
When SF was written the makers didn't even have the rights to use SPECTRE so your explanation that 'Silva was chosen by them' is complete hearsay.
SP was linked to the other films simply because the makers wanted to tie all the events together, i assume to make the SPECTRE organisation look super powerful. Instead it just made the film even more nonsensical.
SP had some very poor decisions made on the film IMO.