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
Mendes isn't referring to plot, he's referring to story and character which SF was pretty airtight on. The truth is there is little logic to any Bond plot and SF towed the line in this regard. Bond films aren't supposed to be reality-based nor are they total fantasy films - they exist somewhere between the two. Mendes is at this stage just trying to make sure that the film is the story he wants to tell and once that is set the film can get moving.
I have the utmost faith in Mendes and I'm really encouraged by his comments about Craig. I hope they give him some meaty material in Bond 24, I feel that in SF Mendes got under the surface of Bond and really put the character on the couch in some scenes. I hope this momentum is maintained. I want to see the hard-drinking Fleming Bond from the latter novels!
I hope Logan and Mendes have reread Fleming and gives us a Casino Royale\Quantum of Solace esque bond film with a title like Risico
This argument is mentioned in a disturbing frequency. I really wonder how anyone can call himself a Bond fan and use it at the same time. This is clearly a case of "the other way around". Most Bonds have a completely plausible plot. If one is willing to buy the premise of someone thriving on eliminating the world population even TSWLM and MR do qualify.
This plausibility and "up to dateness" is what has kept the series relevant over the decades not some pretentious dealing with some perceived inner daemons. Daemons, I am sure Mr Fleming would be quite surprised to hear from, since Bonds melancholy in the later novels clearly stems from Flemings doctor telling him the unpleasant news,that his days were severely numbered, not from some traumatic events in Bonds childhood.
Also, when one mentions character development in SF - this would only apply if you are willing to see Bond becoming more and more of a sociopath and less and less of a hero. After all this is the only Bond film in which he twice watches completely bored someone getting killed ( and at least in one case he could easily do something against it, which btw would also resemble at least a tiny bit of the professionalism the complete secret service seems to lack in this film).
Do you expect anyone to take you seriously with arguments like that? :-j
I don't even expect people like you to even comprehend,what I'm talking about, since this clearly is beyond your intellectual horizon.
I find it reassuring, actually, not being a fan of YOLT.
Ok, maybe he analyzed that the first wave of Silva's henchmen were incredibly amateurish (like, well, not checking what is in the car they just walk nearby - this is Mendes' guerilla handbook for you : close yourself in a little space when you're attacked, we promise they won't check it). And later maybe he realized the real deal was this time more dangerous ? This would be a 70 year old man reasoning like a 14 yr old video game player changing his strategy when facing the final boss of the game level. Nice character indeed ! :)
See ...
Precisely. Those who slate SF's plot are living in an alternate universe where the other Bond films do not exist. In reality, Bond plots are merely architecture upon which to drape the beautiful, fascinating and unique Bond aesthetic. As long as the plot has a sinister, bizarre and larger-than-life villain whose scheme has significant geopolitical repercussions that elicit Bond's intervention in exotic locales, then all is well. Given all this, the criticism of SF's plot is little more than special pleading which thinly veils an arriere pensee.
No shit. Alec Trevelyan has a particularly nasty quote that good manners forbids me from directing toward this guy.
At least Kincaid is a character with a bit of backstory and depth. We can't say as much for the vast majority of secondary Bond characters. Again, special pleading.
No it isn't! You should consider, that, when you clinch to exact definition of plot-hole, even DAD has only one glaring plot hole. Now start counting with SF ...
Some call it special pleading, some appreciation of logic and craftsmanship. Everyone has to decide about his preferences for himself. Anyhow- count me in the logic group!
DAD is garbage it doesn't matter if it has less plot holes or not, some will actually accept rubbish as long as it's plastered with cliches and the Bond theme blaring every ten minutes over a fresh take that doesn't.
Bond is preposterous, always has been and always should be, plot holes are all part of the make up, as someone said blockbuster are riddled with them and its always the default way that detractors will pull to bits any recent reboot be it Batman or Bond.
You summarize it well. It seems that with every film that excells at the box office and/or is critically acclaimed (or in fact with any succesfull person, organisation, item etc. in general) there will be an inevitable counter reaction. Its one of life's certainties I guess, and its not necessarily unfair or unreasonable. However there is a huge difference between those critiques who manage to stick to valid points and decent arguments, and those who seem to throw out every hatefull statement they can think off disregarding any rational or fairness in the context of film making in general. There are valid reasons to dislike Skyfall, as there are with every film. Although one of my favorites in the series, its in no way perfect. But I find this endless whining about plot holes very mundane and tiring. And when these people start making ridicilous claims such as "Bond plots in general are (perfectly) plausible", or that "Craig in Skyfall portrays a sosiopath" and that stated film is the only film in the series where he seems underwhelmed by the concept of death... then it speaks more of desperation than anything.
If everyone would be content with these sloppy approaches regarding quality of storytelling we would still tell tales with the means and methods of the Laterna Magica.
Some of you here seem to feel, the apparent ability to shut their brains off makes them the better Bond fans. I would argue, that you only get top quality when you constantly demand and strive for the best while stubbornly defending even the worst possible logic holes won't get the Bond franchise nowhere (except out of business). It was the dissatisfaction with DAD (and the success of Bourne and 24) that made EON redirect the thrust of the series, not some " hey, Bond movies have always been far fetched and complete over the top" chorals.
Indeed. Kincade was not meant to be more than a gamekeeper and a friend of the Bond family. He might have had some army experience too, but he was not supposed to be a Scottish Rambo. Complaining about his military skills is like complaining that May the housekeeper could not do hand to hand combat.
Could you please point out when in the movies and/or novels Bond acts even remotely comparable to Bond behavior in SF? And please don't cite any moments, when he snuffed some henchmen with a funny one liner on his lips and/or drawing some gangster's moll in the line of fire. These events are simply not comparable, since they always were planning for his dead or responsible for the killings of others 007 was sympathizing with.
So true, Ludovico. And I love your example of May; hilarious.
:D
Jobo, I agree with you and Shardlake; spot on.
Matt_Helm, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. However, I believe many, most of us, darn near all of us are rather tired of your continued, one note spiel that you persist in, with full blinders and earmuffs on. I don't think you will find that many of us want to play your reindeer games anymore. Why should we point out anything? That has already been done so long ago and has always failed produce any genuine discussion or intelligent debate as relates to your participation here.
At least I am ALWAYS able to back up my reasoning with solid arguments unlike so many of you, who just scatter out their volatile claims. Remember your statement, that Craigs attitude in the Severigne execution scene resembled Connery? Did you still thought so,when I referred you to Connerys rage and shock in GF after the respective Masterson girls killing? I don't think so.
If more of you die hard Mendes defenders could act that fashion all those name calling wasn't necessary. But of course insulting is much more easier than thinking, so go ahead and please yourself.
This.
Admittedly this is a trap I fall way too easily into. I just can't stand still when someone is waxing on those alleged virtues of SF, especially when it goes hand in hand with this "there never was any logic in Bond movies" bashing. I see this (at the very least) as an serious insult to the great and late Richard Maibaum, who always went to great length to iron out some of Flemings largest logic gaps. I promise,that I try my best to restrain myself on this very topic,but please people,try the same when it comes to SFs virtues. Praise it for its own merits (ie cinematography and acting) and not by denigrating its predecessors or claiming some perceived Fleming spirit that it hasn't got!
I have not found any online. It will soon be June. We should get some news, of something in June, I think.