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
(talking of the video game)
For me everything is perfectly clear in the film, so there's no need to compensate for anything
Agreed. He's shot, falls from a height into water and survives. We catch up with him three months later. I don't really feel there's any need for further explanation.
I think it's clear, too, and simple as well: he gets shot, falls into water, gets helped out of the water, spends 3 months recovering. We don't get to see that last part, but we hardly need to; it wouldn't have been exciting to watch, nor was it essential for the story. When we see him again after the recuperation period he's still in some considerable pain and is still bearing both the physical and the psychological scars - those are important in the story and are made obvious.
Amazing how this 007 seems to lifted over any sort of critism, Mendes did deliver a pisspoor job with this movie. Now having seen it again it feels more than overrated.
He did such a poor job it ended as one of the alltime highest grossing films in history, making more then a billion dollars. Admittadly, the dollar isn't what it used to be, but still. It isn't the Rupiah either. In fact in my home town it was sold out for the first three weeks. But obviously all those people just went to a badly made, shabby movie.
It's the latest film, it's a good one and it's been very successful. Give it time and it'll become more criticised. Personally I liked it but I can find plenty of flaws with it.
Maybe when Bond 24 comes out that'll be immune to criticism (although personally I can see that getting a negative reaction from fans who will treat it like the worst film ever if it's not as good).
That means nothing. Avatar is the highest grossing film ever but I think despite looking pretty that was pretty crap, especially compared to Aliens and the first two Terminators.
With CR there did same, but atleast there is delete scene. There remove that delete scene i think because there whant stick a litle bit longer with let us believe Mathis is the trater and save some time. Both Skyfall and CR are have a long screentime. But i must admit, how much i doubt Casino Royale it do more with his time.
Do not play the money card, that would put it on par with the Transformer movies and or the Pirates of the Caribean movies.
I still think that SF was a hype as well due to the brilliant marketing of 007 at the Olympics. There has rarely been such a brilliant piece of advertisement.......
Mendes made some grave errors one of them was not reflecting on 007's absence for some months and how they did not know where one of their best agents was or has been. A mortally wounded agent seems to be able to stay of the radar from law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies. Which in these days is beyond mission impossible makes the lack of explanation sheer laziness or no clue how to come with an idea. Which was shown as well in other aspects of the movie as well.
This so called realistic version does add up quite a few improbabilities.
Thesis 212: Disagree.
In that case you should allow other people saying that Mendes opening is spectacular and then turns into total bollocks imho. While previous Bonds dabble in some improbablities this one takes the cake and nowhere we get an explanation at all.
See, Tuulia, even native English speakers can have doubts about a sentence when it is worded a certain way ...
To clarify for me: the opening before the titles gave enough info (hand helping him out), enough said, no further explanation needed. It is a Bond film and doesn't need further explanation.
Of course I allow you to have your opinions, I didn't say I didn't. I just don't see how not seeing a problem where you'd see one means the film is above criticism - no work of art is, and Skyfall is criticized a lot, as well. I have no problem with people disliking what I like, or liking what I dislike.
I happen to completely disagree with you, I got all the explanation I needed. If you needed further explanation, I'm fine with that. Anyway, when @identigraph said no further explanation was needed (not a view denying in any way your right to criticize the movie) your comment on that was that it's "amazing how this 007 seems to lifted over any sort of criticism" - in other words people should just agree with you?
I decided the thesis was not clearly worded, and so I can't say "agree" or "disagree". :P But I agree with how you see that bit in the movie, and if that's what the thesis was stating, then yes, I'd have to say I agree with the thesis. :)
:))
That is one of the blindest statements I have ever read in my life! You have seen the Moore films, right? Because I get the feeling you haven't if you think like this. =))
But I don't really need an explanation of how he survives. The same applies with YOLT. He's shot, we can see him bleeding, the police declares him death and then he applies he's favorite hobby.
Therefore I disagree since I don't need any compensation.
In YOLT he did not get killed, they made it look like he was killed in order to get him undercover which is something totally different from 007 getting shot twice, falling of a bridge and having him surfacing without little damage, no explanation at all and then walking into the house of the head of the MI6 a few days after an attempt at her life. There are no guards at all and she does not even seem to be curious what her lost 00 has been up to or where he has been. It makes the book TMWTGG look bloody genius with it version of Bond missing in action.
It makes me wonder why Mendes did not chose to borrow that, he did the opposite made a weaker storyline as Fleming came up with. The how 007 fell and how he rose up from the ashes is done sloppy and poor storywise. The movie feels more like some nice actionpieces and a poem of Tennyson and some symbolism should make up for a poor story. ANd While Fleming might not be a literary greatness all of his stories are better thought out and have a better storyline.
Bond falling severely wounded and ignoring that all together showed immediately how poor the movie was going to be. And Roger Moores 007 might have been more out there but his movies where much more coherent as this last attempt.
It seems to me that EON is still not sure how to compete with the 3 Bourne movies that were tightly written and tightly filmed. Even MI4 GP had a more coherent storyline and growthcurve for its leading character.
For me it is frustrating how good an actor they have with DC and how poor they serve him with his movies. Having seen SF twice on dvd I can only add that the movie goes of the rails after 007 takes a dive and how a director as good as Mendes mucks it up, he must have thought if I ignore it the fans will make the lack in logic up for them,selves no harm done. :-S
SF is a better movie than QoB, not that difficult, but it has too many flaws for me to really enjoy it. As a James Bond fan I feel shortchanged...........again.
A guy who kidnapped children in a kindergarten in Switserland got three buollits in his head and he survived. A Dutch pilot in WWII got out of his plane and chuted to safety whilst riddled with 17 bullitholes in his body. People survive the oddest things. Parachutists whose chute failed (not opening at all) walked, well, were carried away with only broken bones. In that light Bond's survival isn't strange.
You mention Bourne yourself. Isn't he an agent MIA presumed dead, only found when he's travelling about? I take it a professional agent knows how to stay under the radar. The days of DAF are gone ;-) ('Is that who he is?')
<font color=blue size=7><b>Fiennes' M should be played entirely different from both Lee's and Brown's M.</b></font>
Well, that ought to be natural, as even Brown and Lee had little in common. TBH Brown was never really M for me. Lee is the M we know from the books, Fiennes'will be completely different I think. More like Fox's M ;-)
(so YES)
Bourne 's story of recovery was explained in the book and the movie, the CIA still wanted him death because they did not trust him.
Bond pops just back on the radar, no explanation whatsoever........ MI6 does trust him why??? EVen in TMWTGG M does not trust her most trusted agent even if he did suspect the trauma inflicted on 007. SF was not interested in a bit of reality or even using something from TMWTGG which would have been well chosen.
THESIS 213
Fiennes' M should be played entirely different from both Lee's and Brown's M.
I will look forward to his interpretation, at this point I can only guess. I will see it when the next 007 movie comes along.
Yes, but Eon should make some people crazy and let him say:
Malory: If we going to this together Bond, you should learn to trust me.
Bond's comment: Done.
With this caveat: Lee and Brown (Messervy and Hargreaves, as I like to think of them) give very distinct interpretations.
I would like to see Mallory's M more in the role of Messervy's M. He trusts Bond but makes no truck about the fact that he is his superior and expects orders to be followed. He trusts Bond's judgement but doesn't mind turning a blind eye to Bond's independent judgements against political will (going after Drax against the Minister's wishes in MR, tacitly approving the Skyfall Lodge gambit.)
Would love to see Mallory and Bond enjoying an "interesting experience" together in Tokyo!
And, more seriously, would really enjoy M getting Bond involved in a personal matter like the Havelocks' murder in FYEO (short story) or the Blades sequence in MR (novel)
Disagree. He shouldn't be entirely different. He still has to be M, of course, and it would hard to be M without some of both interpretations, especially Bernard Lee's.