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
That's something I very much disagree with. I think that was Brosnan's Bond more than Craig's Bond. Brosnan's Bond mourned the death of Elektra (who had betrayed him), Miranda Frost (who had betrayed him and the agency), and Paris Carver.
Craig's Bond mourned Vesper, as per Fleming's novel. When Solange died, he didn't care. When Fields died, he didn't care. He protected and cared for Camille as he saw in her a kindred spirit whose loved ones had been stolen and desired revenge. When Severine died, he mourned the scotch.
That's spot on Volante. This writer is really reaching with this, I wonder if he or she has been paying attention. Brosnan has kissed two corpses to Craig's one. And Brosnan wouldn't have left MI6 for either. He didn't fuss over Frost though. Although he should have being stuck with Jinx ;)
Z, I'll ponder your request and where to start with it. I've only seen the film twice but I safely say I enjoyed it and will be in line the moment the DVD is released :)
Ah, of course, haven't watched DAD for some time, thought he had a moment with Frost's body. You reminded me that it was in fact Jinx who killed her.
Exactly, of the two women Craig Bond has mourned, one was the love of his life and the other was his long time boss. Hardly a vulnerable man controlled by women.
Good luck with this. I've not seen a single argument from anyone justifying why the plot is sound, plausible and logical. The default response is to argue the acting and dialogue is good and Bond films never make sense.
The other "bitch" - M - had him sent on a mission in SF, although she knew he had failed all his tests and wasn't ready.
Sure, but not to the extent the author of that article implies. "Craig's Bond is all vulnerability: seduced and controlled by women". Of the Bond girls who die in Craig's era, he mourns one - Vesper, who he loved and who betrayed him; who made him more of the cold hearted man with regards to women that we see in Skyfall. Of the others; Severine, Fields, Solange - he doesn't really care. M is a different matter.
If you or this author are looking for a vulnerable Bond who is seduced and controlled by women, stare directly at Brosnan.
M didn't want to send him after he was injured in TWINE, she forced him to go and see the doctor if he wanted to be cleared for field work again. But he shagged the doctor and she cleared him for duty.
What do you intend people to say other than what's been said before? It's easier to criticize, one can point mistakes. Pointing the good things would take several threads I'm afraid. So I'll keep it general. I think the plot is sound, it makes sense to me. The story is straight forward, we know what is happening, why is happening. The story follows a very strong central line, there are no major distractions from it, nothing matters outside of this core. The villain has an objective (though mad) which is something that drives him from beginning to end. The characters are compelling, even the smaller ones. And yes, the dialogues are intelligent and witty.
That's not what I'm getting at. My point was, Bond immediately allowed himself to become Elektra's bitch and that's putting it mildly. In the film's pursuit for depth they sacrificed Bond's intellectual, world-weary credibility and experience and made him look like a love-sick ameature. The moment Bond looked at the video screens of Elektra's kidnapping and started caressing the screen with his finger, unconvincingly trying to emote compassion and falling in love that was the moment I knew the movie had lost it's way. Unsurprisingly, the Bond/Elektra relationship gets worse, revealing just how carelessy stupid Bond was being over a piece of skirt. Honestly, Bond's portrayal in that movie was so bad abd mostly out if character, when you compare the character he is in TWINE to his actual rookie character in CR, Bond in CR comes off looking like more of a professional. Just compare the "reveal" scenes if the 2 movies alone. Brosnan finally confronts Elektra at gun point and hesitates, stalling, wasting time after everything she's done and him eventually killing her seemed more like a knee jerk reaction to me as Elektra shouted into the walkie talkie. Craig finds out that Vesper hasn't deposited the money abd he hints her down like a terminator, gets to the drop off point and has no problem with Vesper being killed. In fact the eye patch guy threatens to kill her, Bond doesn't care, so much so he'd rather be the one to be her executioner and in his attempt to shoot, the bad guys realise they immediately lose any leverage they could have had by using Vesper as a hostage against Bond which is why they all flee into the building.
Three henchmen have someone in a room they wanna kill. Do they simply kill him on the spot? No they don't. They fly in a hitman and pay him 4 million euro, so he can shoot this someone from the nextdoor skyscraper. Does this really make sense to you? You said that you know what is happening and why. So please explain this scene.
And we are led to believe that Silva is motivated by revenge? His plan - "years in the making" - consists of blowing the cover on his island lair, lose some of his men, lose the computer network he spent years building, Bond getting back to shape and catching up to him through Patrice and later Severine, blowing up MI6 and knowing they would move its headquarters underground, where they would built a cage where they would connect its doors to their network so that he could later escape with the assist by Q at the exact right time using the explosives he had planted at the exact same place and time that he knew Bond would later catch up to him...
All a part of his plan so he can what? Release a deadly virus holding the world for ransom? Cause international stock-market panic? No!
All so he can kill his metaphorical mother by walking in from the street guns blazing storming a congressional oversight hearing at which she is present. (!!!) It does not make any sense to me, so please explain this, too. To me all this only happened because Silva apparently realized he was in a James Bond movie and decided to carry out his master plan in the most ridiculous, contrived and unrealistic way possible.
And in one of the final scenes, after Silva has tried to kill M at the enquiry and then at Skyfall with two attack crews and an armed helicopter, we learn at the chapel that he suddenly has a death wish? I mean - wtf? - did Purvis write the first part of SF, Wade the second and Logan the third without them ever comparing notes?
Look. When it comes to Bond-movies, I don't mind plot holes. I don't mind a script that makes no sense. I don't mind absence of logic. Why? Because I never thought any of this to be very important when watching a Bond movie until I heard Mendes and MGW raving about how they were gonna make SF "serious", " more believable", "more realistic" and "down-to-earth" because "the days where Bond saved the world from a megalomaniac villain are over."
So my implausibility tolerance was drastically reduced when I first went to see SF. And because the plot was hyped that way, it should make sense to anyone, that the usual "but there are always plot holes in Bond movies"-argument that a lot of true believers use against those who criticize SF's plot, isn't valid here. They never argued that Moonraker or DAD had a plot that largely made sense. So one shouldn't criticize the plot of these two movies for not being realistic and make sense.
But SF should be. Well, I just did.
I believe there are some deleted scenes with regards to Patrice and Severine and their interactions. So maybe when you watch that it might make more sense to you, as it is explaining why Patrice is killing that man is a pretty minor part of the plot so I understand it being cut for time constraints.
True, but I would like to believe, that by NOW, all have acknowledged, that there is NO right or wrong, just different perceptions of a film.
Also - this is the final sentence from the article, I posted, which is WHY I posted it, but it sorta got ignored.
A decade after 9/11, Bond is slowly evolving again -- back into the man we recognize from his earliest adventures. The end of "Skyfall" can be seen as a sort of reconfirmation of the vitality of the oldest of Bond traditions. For all the new things he's brought to the man, Craig's Bond is still Bond. And the more he changes, the more he stays the same.
Because many have answered to him, he just is ever satisfied. he continues flogging a dead horse and will do so, till all are dead out of boredom.
Well clearly you do @Zekidk. I recall Eon saying similar things after Moonraker, and indeed FYEO was down to earth, more serious,lacking a villain who was going to blow up the world, but as usual there were a thousand moments that simply didn't allow for close sctrutiny.
I was of the opinion that SF was always going to be lighter than the previous two with more humour.
I can't explain why Patrice was used as a hit man (unless it made it more difficult for the people associated with the assassinated person to trace the deed back to Silva), but I also struggle to care!
Any more than I can explain where a bunch of ice hockey assassins come from in FYEO, and how they even knew Bond was going to be there, or why they anticipated they would fail anyway (because they left a clue to who murdered Ferrare for Bond to find). And that was a 2 minute segment.
Why do we beat ourselves up over such matters? SF works as a slice of entertainment for the vast majority of fans. It worked for the vast majority of critics, it worked for the vast majority of the cinema going public.
Great film.
OK - here we go: "You are right in all points"
Merry X-mas, Zek! I know, there won't be a btter gift for you then everybody and his dog applauding to your - well, what? Lets call it opinions. But like Nic said, most are just not that interested in putting the film, that works on the levels, its supposed to, under the microscope. There is absolutely NOTHING, we can do to help you out here, and continue to ask, won't change that. Just accept it already.
I think he wants someone who is completely opposed to his view to state why they think the plot is good, when he feels it is lazy and not as good as some would have you believe. I think it's a fair question to ask.
SirHenryLeeChaChing wanted to disuss the plot with me. I didn't invite him. He invited me. You have a problem with that? Fine with me. Your problem. Not mine.
Feel free to answer some of my questions, because I'm really getting bored with your infantile responses. Yes, correct. But FYEO, which does have plot holes, compensated by having lots of wonderful action set pieces, unlike SF which only compensated with good acting. So I didn't mind the plot holes. Just as I said. As gklein said in his review
I strongly believe, its more a question of - why should we all care, just because he does? He tries to FORCE everybody, who has the bad luck to read this thread into debate with him. Nic had it right, many just don`t think about it, they take the film for what it is - for them a great piece of entertainment and very obviously for the most of the rest of the world, as well.
'Many just don't think about it' - ahhh my favourite excuse for everything in life. I wouldn't expect you to care @Germanlady don't worry.
As @NicNac said above, I can't explain why Patrice was used as a hit man (unless it made it more difficult for the people associated with the assassinated person to trace the deed back to Silva), but I also struggle to care!"
At the end of the day, it's a Bond movie, not every single minor character is going to be given an elaborate backstory. If you look for holes, you'll find them, but they don't really matter with regards to the film and the plot as a whole.
And its not just me, wo feels like this - so don't make it too easy on yourself...you have no chance but to accept that there will be no happy end here for you, because you are heading into a direction, where only few want to follow.
I don't try to force anyone into thinking anything. I think you'll find you are the one who spends their time posting facts and figures in what could considered propaganda-esque style. I don't give a toss if everybody thinks it's the best film ever. I very much enjoyed it but I have issues I'd like to discuss. If you can't handle this because it doesn't fit in with your blinkered view then do one.
Thanks for that - I am glad, my posts are viewed as facts, I always try to underline, what i say. ;) Glad, you can see it that way, too.
For how many more sides do you want to discuss your issues? We are at the same point, we have been how many pages ago - so what's the point?