Worst plot in the entire franchise?

1234579

Comments

  • edited May 2018 Posts: 12,837
    00Agent wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I can’t remember Blofeld’s plot in SP.

    I don’t want to say it but GE’s plot is quite weak in terms of how it’s written.

    Trevelyan’s scheme is only mentioned in one line.

    Because there was none. Everything was shrouded in mystery. I have a feeling they wanted to keep the details for a sequel (and they still might, who knows)

    As for Goldeneye, sure, the scheme might have been mentioned in one line only, but that was enough really. They even bothered to explain not just what Trevelyan was after (money, and revenge on England) but also which consequences his attack would have on GB and the rest of the world (England back in the stoneage, global financial meltdown).

    If they had bothered to do that in SP, the movie would have had a lot more tension and focus. Instead we are left to wonder the whole movie what Blofeld and Bonds beef is about.

    They didn't flesh out the consequences but the plot itself is pretty good I think. Just overshadowed by the foster brother stuff. Blofeld's been organising terrorist attacks to scare the governments into agreeing to Nine Eyes, which will give Spectre access to all their surveillance pretty much making them unstoppable.

    I think to make it better, they should have actually shown some of the attacks. And have Bond stop the first one at the last minute in a really tense scene instead of just blowing up an empty building.

    Blofeld should have made the consequences clearer too, he could have had a nice little evil monologue about what they can accomplish with that power.

    And the last thing is it should have been harder to stop. I actually like the stuff in the ruined MI6 building but I'm not so keen on Spectre's big evil scheme being stopped by Q typing away at his laptop for a couple of minutes.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    GBF wrote: »
    Well I guess you can debate about any Bond plot. I also think that CR has one of the better plots but I just can't get behind M's idea of letting Bond play Texas Hold'em against Le Chiffre. Why? Just kill that man. Bond has a license to kill, so what?

    On the other hand, I would not be too harsh on the Gilbert films. These plots do not intend to be realistic. So one should be more forgiving. The same applies to the more iconic schemes like the one in GF. It is not very realistic but at least anyone remembers what GF was aiming for. In some other films it is extremely difficult to find out even as a Bond film what the villain actually wants to achieve.

    It's explained by M that they want him alive in exchange for the information he knows about who he finances. If she just sends Bond to kill him then you have a cold trail. At that point they have no idea about Mr. White

    Okay, so arrest him....
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,587
    GBF wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    Well I guess you can debate about any Bond plot. I also think that CR has one of the better plots but I just can't get behind M's idea of letting Bond play Texas Hold'em against Le Chiffre. Why? Just kill that man. Bond has a license to kill, so what?

    On the other hand, I would not be too harsh on the Gilbert films. These plots do not intend to be realistic. So one should be more forgiving. The same applies to the more iconic schemes like the one in GF. It is not very realistic but at least anyone remembers what GF was aiming for. In some other films it is extremely difficult to find out even as a Bond film what the villain actually wants to achieve.

    It's explained by M that they want him alive in exchange for the information he knows about who he finances. If she just sends Bond to kill him then you have a cold trail. At that point they have no idea about Mr. White

    Okay, so arrest him....

    That'd be a short movie
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    GBF wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    Well I guess you can debate about any Bond plot. I also think that CR has one of the better plots but I just can't get behind M's idea of letting Bond play Texas Hold'em against Le Chiffre. Why? Just kill that man. Bond has a license to kill, so what?

    On the other hand, I would not be too harsh on the Gilbert films. These plots do not intend to be realistic. So one should be more forgiving. The same applies to the more iconic schemes like the one in GF. It is not very realistic but at least anyone remembers what GF was aiming for. In some other films it is extremely difficult to find out even as a Bond film what the villain actually wants to achieve.

    It's explained by M that they want him alive in exchange for the information he knows about who he finances. If she just sends Bond to kill him then you have a cold trail. At that point they have no idea about Mr. White

    Okay, so arrest him....
    That'd be a short movie
    This was already demonstrated before.

  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited May 2018 Posts: 5,185
    00Agent wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I can’t remember Blofeld’s plot in SP.

    I don’t want to say it but GE’s plot is quite weak in terms of how it’s written.

    Trevelyan’s scheme is only mentioned in one line.

    Because there was none. Everything was shrouded in mystery. I have a feeling they wanted to keep the details for a sequel (and they still might, who knows)

    As for Goldeneye, sure, the scheme might have been mentioned in one line only, but that was enough really. They even bothered to explain not just what Trevelyan was after (money, and revenge on England) but also which consequences his attack would have on GB and the rest of the world (England back in the stoneage, global financial meltdown).

    If they had bothered to do that in SP, the movie would have had a lot more tension and focus. Instead we are left to wonder the whole movie what Blofeld and Bonds beef is about.

    Blofeld should have made the consequences clearer too, he could have had a nice little evil monologue about what they can accomplish with that power.

    Exactly, something like that. Show his motivation. It is not just about evil plans, of which there still were non, but it is also about the Motivation of the Villain just to show why this one particular person needs to be stopped/killed.
    As for Spectres "evil scheme", yes, they did commit terrorist attacks, but there is no clear idea of why they are doing what they are doing. Money? Power? Fame?
    Problem is, if they want to Rule the world or whatever, but you don't establish that they are evil and destructive, i might actually consider voting for them in the next election. I kinda liked the stuff that C was saying about democracy and all, and judging by how most of the Governments in europe and the US are doing at the moment, i would gladly give Spectre a chance if they can sort this mess out. They seemed rather motivated. Killing a couple people as collateral demage (only mentioned, not shown) does not make you instantly evil. Shady and moraly very questionable perhaps (kill a few to save many), but not a threat to world peace yet.
    And the last thing is it should have been harder to stop. I actually like the stuff in the ruined MI6 building but I'm not so keen on Spectre's big evil scheme being stopped by Q typing away at his laptop for a couple of minutes.

    Again, i agree. The stopping part was ridiculous. At the same time we don't even know if Spectre is stopped. Blofeld is in custody (could probably buy himself free if he wants) but can Spectre operate without him? Sure, why not. Should be enough people who can and want to be Nr. 1 (they were doing just fine before he entered the Meeting). And as you said, NineEyes was stopped with a laptop, why should they not be able to give it another go in a couple month/weeks?

    It was not even a terrorist attack that needed to be stopped by the end, but just the implementation of a software, thats how lame the endgame was :))
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    GBF wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    Well I guess you can debate about any Bond plot. I also think that CR has one of the better plots but I just can't get behind M's idea of letting Bond play Texas Hold'em against Le Chiffre. Why? Just kill that man. Bond has a license to kill, so what?

    On the other hand, I would not be too harsh on the Gilbert films. These plots do not intend to be realistic. So one should be more forgiving. The same applies to the more iconic schemes like the one in GF. It is not very realistic but at least anyone remembers what GF was aiming for. In some other films it is extremely difficult to find out even as a Bond film what the villain actually wants to achieve.

    It's explained by M that they want him alive in exchange for the information he knows about who he finances. If she just sends Bond to kill him then you have a cold trail. At that point they have no idea about Mr. White

    Okay, so arrest him....
    That'd be a short movie
    This was already demonstrated before.


    Oh yes how could I forget about that.... :-) Wish they made this for all the Bond films :-)
  • Posts: 15,116
    00Agent wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I can’t remember Blofeld’s plot in SP.

    I don’t want to say it but GE’s plot is quite weak in terms of how it’s written.

    Trevelyan’s scheme is only mentioned in one line.

    Because there was none. Everything was shrouded in mystery. I have a feeling they wanted to keep the details for a sequel (and they still might, who knows)

    As for Goldeneye, sure, the scheme might have been mentioned in one line only, but that was enough really. They even bothered to explain not just what Trevelyan was after (money, and revenge on England) but also which consequences his attack would have on GB and the rest of the world (England back in the stoneage, global financial meltdown).

    If they had bothered to do that in SP, the movie would have had a lot more tension and focus. Instead we are left to wonder the whole movie what Blofeld and Bonds beef is about.

    They didn't flesh out the consequences but the plot itself is pretty good I think. Just overshadowed by the foster brother stuff. Blofeld's been organising terrorist attacks to scare the governments into agreeing to Nine Eyes, which will give Spectre access to all their surveillance pretty much making them unstoppable.

    I think to make it better, they should have actually shown some of the attacks. And have Bond stop the first one at the last minute in a really tense scene instead of just blowing up an empty building.

    Blofeld should have made the consequences clearer too, he could have had a nice little evil monologue about what they can accomplish with that power.

    And the last thing is it should have been harder to stop. I actually like the stuff in the ruined MI6 building but I'm not so keen on Spectre's big evil scheme being stopped by Q typing away at his laptop for a couple of minutes.

    You pretty much hit the nail with this post: the scheme in SP was fine but it was sidetracked.
  • Posts: 1,917
    Honestly, I think Eon got the rights back to Blofeld and Spectre and just said they'd throw anything out there and it would work as a plot. The worst thing was the retconning of making Silva, etc. part of Spectre.
  • Posts: 19,339
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Honestly, I think Eon got the rights back to Blofeld and Spectre and just said they'd throw anything out there and it would work as a plot. The worst thing was the retconning of making Silva, etc. part of Spectre.

    That's something I totally ignore.
    I consider Silva to be an independent villain,in a stand-alone mission/film.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 2018 Posts: 6,296
    00Agent wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I can’t remember Blofeld’s plot in SP.

    I don’t want to say it but GE’s plot is quite weak in terms of how it’s written.

    Trevelyan’s scheme is only mentioned in one line.

    Because there was none. Everything was shrouded in mystery. I have a feeling they wanted to keep the details for a sequel (and they still might, who knows)

    As for Goldeneye, sure, the scheme might have been mentioned in one line only, but that was enough really. They even bothered to explain not just what Trevelyan was after (money, and revenge on England) but also which consequences his attack would have on GB and the rest of the world (England back in the stoneage, global financial meltdown).

    If they had bothered to do that in SP, the movie would have had a lot more tension and focus. Instead we are left to wonder the whole movie what Blofeld and Bonds beef is about.

    I'm not a big GE fan, but Trevelyan's scheme is one of the better ones in the series (it's MR, really). The Cossack background and the betrayal--and hence the revenge--is rich in detail and thought-through. I would think that many viewers would say that this is the film's greatest strength.

    And of course it helps that Sean Bean delivers the lines.
  • edited May 2018 Posts: 11,189
    echo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I can’t remember Blofeld’s plot in SP.

    I don’t want to say it but GE’s plot is quite weak in terms of how it’s written.

    Trevelyan’s scheme is only mentioned in one line.

    Because there was none. Everything was shrouded in mystery. I have a feeling they wanted to keep the details for a sequel (and they still might, who knows)

    As for Goldeneye, sure, the scheme might have been mentioned in one line only, but that was enough really. They even bothered to explain not just what Trevelyan was after (money, and revenge on England) but also which consequences his attack would have on GB and the rest of the world (England back in the stoneage, global financial meltdown).

    If they had bothered to do that in SP, the movie would have had a lot more tension and focus. Instead we are left to wonder the whole movie what Blofeld and Bonds beef is about.

    I'm not a big GE fan, but Trevelyan's scheme is one of the better ones in the series (it's MR, really). The Cossack background and the betrayal--and hence the revenge--is rich in detail and thought-through. I would think that many viewers would say that this is the film's greatest strength.

    And of course it helps that Sean Bean delivers the lines.

    The way it’s written isn’t that consistant though. I agree it’s a great idea but it doesn’t really get a lot of space within the film beyond the statue park scene.

    We needed more scenes of Alec brooding by himself and contemplating his plans.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Honestly, I think Eon got the rights back to Blofeld and Spectre and just said they'd throw anything out there and it would work as a plot. The worst thing was the retconning of making Silva, etc. part of Spectre.

    That's something I totally ignore.
    I consider Silva to be an independent villain,in a stand-alone mission/film.

    You and me both.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I can’t remember Blofeld’s plot in SP.

    I don’t want to say it but GE’s plot is quite weak in terms of how it’s written.

    Trevelyan’s scheme is only mentioned in one line.

    Because there was none. Everything was shrouded in mystery. I have a feeling they wanted to keep the details for a sequel (and they still might, who knows)

    As for Goldeneye, sure, the scheme might have been mentioned in one line only, but that was enough really. They even bothered to explain not just what Trevelyan was after (money, and revenge on England) but also which consequences his attack would have on GB and the rest of the world (England back in the stoneage, global financial meltdown).

    If they had bothered to do that in SP, the movie would have had a lot more tension and focus. Instead we are left to wonder the whole movie what Blofeld and Bonds beef is about.

    I'm not a big GE fan, but Trevelyan's scheme is one of the better ones in the series (it's MR, really). The Cossack background and the betrayal--and hence the revenge--is rich in detail and thought-through. I would think that many viewers would say that this is the film's greatest strength.

    And of course it helps that Sean Bean delivers the lines.

    The way it’s written isn’t that consistant though. I agree it’s a great idea but it doesn’t really get a lot of space within the film beyond the statue park scene.

    We needed more scenes of Alec brooding by himself and contemplating his plans.
    I'm not sure I would have wanted to see any brooding though. I don't think it would have fit the tone of the film, which is just right as it is imho.
    Remington wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Honestly, I think Eon got the rights back to Blofeld and Spectre and just said they'd throw anything out there and it would work as a plot. The worst thing was the retconning of making Silva, etc. part of Spectre.

    That's something I totally ignore.
    I consider Silva to be an independent villain,in a stand-alone mission/film.

    You and me both.
    You can add me as well. Silva still works for me as a self motivated villain because he's mentioned in passing once in SP and his image flashes on Q's computer for just a moment. That's it. Plus Bardem sold his revenge angle so well that it's easy for me to ignore the retro SP rubbish.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Honestly, I think Eon got the rights back to Blofeld and Spectre and just said they'd throw anything out there and it would work as a plot. The worst thing was the retconning of making Silva, etc. part of Spectre.

    That's something I totally ignore.
    I consider Silva to be an independent villain,in a stand-alone mission/film.

    You and me both.
    bondjames wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I can’t remember Blofeld’s plot in SP.

    I don’t want to say it but GE’s plot is quite weak in terms of how it’s written.

    Trevelyan’s scheme is only mentioned in one line.

    Because there was none. Everything was shrouded in mystery. I have a feeling they wanted to keep the details for a sequel (and they still might, who knows)

    As for Goldeneye, sure, the scheme might have been mentioned in one line only, but that was enough really. They even bothered to explain not just what Trevelyan was after (money, and revenge on England) but also which consequences his attack would have on GB and the rest of the world (England back in the stoneage, global financial meltdown).

    If they had bothered to do that in SP, the movie would have had a lot more tension and focus. Instead we are left to wonder the whole movie what Blofeld and Bonds beef is about.

    I'm not a big GE fan, but Trevelyan's scheme is one of the better ones in the series (it's MR, really). The Cossack background and the betrayal--and hence the revenge--is rich in detail and thought-through. I would think that many viewers would say that this is the film's greatest strength.

    And of course it helps that Sean Bean delivers the lines.

    The way it’s written isn’t that consistant though. I agree it’s a great idea but it doesn’t really get a lot of space within the film beyond the statue park scene.

    We needed more scenes of Alec brooding by himself and contemplating his plans.
    I'm not sure I would have wanted to see any brooding though. I don't think it would have fit the tone of the film, which is just right as it is imho.
    Remington wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Honestly, I think Eon got the rights back to Blofeld and Spectre and just said they'd throw anything out there and it would work as a plot. The worst thing was the retconning of making Silva, etc. part of Spectre.

    That's something I totally ignore.
    I consider Silva to be an independent villain,in a stand-alone mission/film.

    You and me both.
    You can add me as well. Silva still works for me as a self motivated villain because he's mentioned in passing once in SP and his image flashes on Q's computer for just a moment. That's it. Plus Bardem sold his revenge angle so well that it's easy for me to ignore the retro SP rubbish.

    Precisely. I still view as SF as Craig's GF. Standalone.
  • edited May 2018 Posts: 11,189
    @bondjames.

    I just wonder whether Trevelyan/his plot was rather under-written. Apparently the script went through quite a lot of re-writes so elements may have been lost in that process.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @BAIN123, that's interesting. Do you know why there were so many re-writes? Was it on account of the switchover from Dalton to Brosnan?

    I don't think a little more exposition would have hurt, but still believe it was ok as it was. Everything hinges on that statue park scene, the backgrounder given by Zukovsky, and the slightly teasing personal dynamic established between him and Bond right from the PTS (and reinforced by the conversation with M). If any of those scenes fell flat it wouldn't have worked as well. After the statue park scene Trevalyn does become rather cartoonesque and cliched, but he is redeemed by the final fisticuffs and poetic death imho.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    bondjames wrote: »
    @BAIN123, that's interesting. Do you know why there were so many re-writes? Was it on account of the switchover from Dalton to Brosnan?

    I don't think a little more exposition would have hurt, but still believe it was ok as it was. Everything hinges on that statue park scene, the backgrounder given by Zukovsky, and the slightly teasing personal dynamic established between him and Bond right from the PTS (and reinforced by the conversation with M). If any of those scenes fell flat it wouldn't have worked as well. After the statue park scene Trevalyn does become rather cartoonesque and cliched, but he is redeemed by the final fisticuffs and poetic death imho.

    Once again, very well said.
  • Posts: 11,189
    bondjames wrote: »
    @BAIN123, that's interesting. Do you know why there were so many re-writes? Was it on account of the switchover from Dalton to Brosnan?

    I don't think a little more exposition would have hurt, but still believe it was ok as it was. Everything hinges on that statue park scene, the backgrounder given by Zukovsky, and the slightly teasing personal dynamic established between him and Bond right from the PTS (and reinforced by the conversation with M). If any of those scenes fell flat it wouldn't have worked as well. After the statue park scene Trevalyn does become rather cartoonesque and cliched, but he is redeemed by the final fisticuffs and poetic death imho.

    Good post. I don’t know why there were a lot of re-writes but I do remember it being mentioned in The Essenential Bond several years ago.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    GBF wrote: »
    Well I guess you can debate about any Bond plot. I also think that CR has one of the better plots but I just can't get behind M's idea of letting Bond play Texas Hold'em against Le Chiffre. Why? Just kill that man. Bond has a license to kill, so what?

    On the other hand, I would not be too harsh on the Gilbert films. These plots do not intend to be realistic. So one should be more forgiving. The same applies to the more iconic schemes like the one in GF. It is not very realistic but at least anyone remembers what GF was aiming for. In some other films it is extremely difficult to find out even as a Bond film what the villain actually wants to achieve.

    Indeed. I have said this, too. There was no reason to play poker; instead, enter the game, and at one of the breaks, you abduct LeChiffre. When he doesn't return to the table, he loses his money and is screwed.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    edited May 2018 Posts: 1,889
    Hmm, while it is true that if MI6 abducted him during the game they'd obviously have him, he wouldn't be nearly as talkative.

    I think Le Chiffre would hope that his own unit of men would come and liberate him before he gives into MI6. Mr. White just might let him live at that point since he didn't talk and thus renewed their mutual trust. Whereas once he's officially lost the poker game, and MI6 have him, he'll definitely need to talk or else he's dead.

    So essentially MI6's best option is to slowly let Le Chiffre become as desperate and isolated as possible before bringing him in... Hence the need to finish the poker game and give him nowhere else to run.
  • EiragornEiragorn Hessia
    Posts: 108
    With a recent rerun I came to appreciate some of the hidden symbolism that really make the plot stand out – if only they would have articulated this clearer. In fact I view the surveillance angle as the most interesting one – and it was apparently what attracted Waltz in the first place:

    Just like MI6 is taken over by a new organization bound on global surveillance, all of the villains he encountered are revealed to be part of one organization all along. This cleverly foreshadows that both is in effect one and the same ;) And to hammer this point home the big bad is Bond's long lost Big Brother ;)

    If only they followed through with this so that Hinx only tracked Bond via the 'Smart Blood' and Blofeld only ever posed as Bond's brother to get to him and terminate him via secret MI6 intel on Bond's past...
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Birdleson wrote: »
    SP

    +1

    An insultingly bad plot.

  • DrunkIrishPoetDrunkIrishPoet The Amber Coast
    edited January 2020 Posts: 156
    Best plot/scheme by a villain = Auric Goldfinger. "Rob Fort Knox!"
    Worst plot/story in a movie = GOLDFINGER. This film is nothing but a collection of plot holes held together sheerly by Sean Connery's powerful animal magnetism. Pussy Galore saves the day; all Bond does is mod edit some sense into her.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited January 2020 Posts: 3,996
    Best plot/scheme by a villain = Auric Goldfinger. "Rob Fort Knox!"
    Worst plot/story in a movie = GOLDFINGER. This film is nothing but a collection of plot holes held together sheerly by Sean Connery's powerful animal magnetism. Pussy Galore saves the day; all Bond does is mod edit some sense into her.

    Well it was Bond's final roll of the dice and thanks to his charms it paid off. There was nothing left for Bond to try.

    "Nothing but a collection of plot holes.." Nah.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    AVTAK has one of the worst plots. It's about chips in horses! No, it's about chips in Silicon Valley! No, it's a remake of Superman and GF!

    It's amazing the set pieces work as well as they do.
  • Posts: 7,653
    For me SF & SP have the worst plots and plotholes that you can park the rest of the 007 franchise in. Deakins and Mendes do paint a nice picture in their movies but really failed the franchise with the worst two 007 outings (And now they have released 1917 another beautiful shot movie which is in essence Saving private Ryan in WWI setting and is really a boys adventure making world war 1 looking way to glorious).
    SP & SF both look good that you really can miss the reality that their plots are woven together with nice pictures but not a real coherent story.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Eiragorn wrote: »
    If only they followed through with this so that Hinx only tracked Bond via the 'Smart Blood' and Blofeld only ever posed as Bond's brother to get to him and terminate him via secret MI6 intel on Bond's past...

    @Eiragorn You know, that is a brilliant idea! That way they can still have the brother angle and there is another practical use of the smart blood. I don't know how long you took to think of that but you should be on the writing committee of the next film.

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I agree, SP has a weaker plot, but, much as I love SF it’s basic plot is hardly much better.
    While Skyfalls plot is thin I do appreciate the thematic elements that are carefully woven into the character and action scenes, and it obviously resonated with the audience. I mean, who watches Bond films for the plot? (I/We do, but bond fans are different)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    SaintMark wrote: »
    For me SF & SP have the worst plots and plotholes that you can park the rest of the 007 franchise in. Deakins and Mendes do paint a nice picture in their movies but really failed the franchise with the worst two 007 outings (And now they have released 1917 another beautiful shot movie which is in essence Saving private Ryan in WWI setting and is really a boys adventure making world war 1 looking way to glorious).
    SP & SF both look good that you really can miss the reality that their plots are woven together with nice pictures but not a real coherent story.

    Plot vs worst films.... DAF's plot is worse than SP's plot, but DAF --as a film-- may be better than SP...

    SP's plot is pretty sound (just horribly executed); DAF may be the better film (subjectively)...
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited January 2020 Posts: 6,296
    There are many things wrong with DAF but the plot never bothered me...Wint and Kidd are closing down the pipeline (one of the better rationales for a Bond film changing locations) and gathering the diamonds for Blofeld's satellite. Meanwhile, Blofeld is hiding out as Willard Whyte, which at least tracks with the novel Blofeld's ever-changing identities.

    Now the plot kind of begs the question of why not just wait until all the diamonds get to Blofeld but then you'd have no suspense...
Sign In or Register to comment.