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 read your post before you edited it. I assume you noticed the error you'd made. ;-)
Yes, I did. It is late here and I had too much wine. For some reason I thought if Lewis Gilbert.
I was gonna say, for goodness sake don't give Helm anymore ammunition! ;-)
Thank you. I find it strange people criticize characters for being what they were meant to be and not take the role of something else. Kronsteen is not meant to be a henchman who gets his hands dirty, Klebb is not meant to be a Bond girl, and so on.
For my parody of some people's misconceptions of what a great Bond movie should be, see my "review" of FRWL: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/1632/bash-your-favorite-bond-film-andor-defend-your-least-favorite/p2
Promise, I won't feed the troll.
I simply can't remember ever making this claim,probably because these movies haven't got anything to do with the novels.
Hence my question.
Arf, when you explain some character is hollow, some say it's called depth ! :)
I'm not complaning about his military skills at all. I'm just pointing out that within seconds, he goes from having nerves of steel (thinking he's good enough to help Bond kill some killers, and "Welcome to Scotland") to being unable to reload his gun because he fears for his life. Then later he gives away his position by using a flashlight in the night. Do you really claim his character is solid ?! For me he's the typical Hollywood incompetent sidekick who had his five seconds of glory. Then all Hollywood characters are solid if he is...
It's indeed a bit like showing May doing randomly a few seconds of hand to hand combat just for an epic "Welcome to London" moment, your example is very good, even though you created it as a strawman argument :)
Now, let's turn to Bond himself.
An interesting experiment is to mentally draw a curve of whether he's a wreck/spy not in good shape, or a very competent/back in action guy, in Skyfall. It's chaotic, and even the symbols do not work well.
For instance, after the title sequence, he's a wreck. Then he turns into a super competent spy, because he's able to enter M's flat just after a terrorist attack on her, it's almost pure magic. Then the exams conclude he's a wreck, he has to do some workout.
IMO, a story more interested in having some solid character development, would have for instance Bond caught by MI5 while trying to enter M's flat. But no, the living wreck instantly becomes super competent again for a moment when the plot needs it, because seeing Bond caught by MI5 would not have been Hollywood enough, I guess.
Once again, I'm not saying that SF is the only Bond movie to do that. I'm saying that I think that those who put SF far above other Bond movies are missing a lot. IMO, for this part when Bond is back in the spy world, SF is quite close to DAD's "back from torture" moment. And no one says DAD is full of scriptwriting genius, even though Purvis and Wade worked both on DAD and SF :)
Also, all the stuff about the symbol with the beard : well, is he really a wreck with it and is he back in shape when he's shaved ? (I'm talking about SF's beard, not DAD's beard :) ).
Well, with the beard, he enters Britain's most guarded flat and later kill supervillain Patrice. Once he's shaved, the next scene is a scene where he has to rely on gadgets and Moneypenny to save him from generic henchmen #2 and #3. Later he's shown unable to shoot a pistol without shaking, but a few seconds later he kills generic henchmen #4, #5, #6 and #7. He seems competent at random.
When it happens in GF, some say here it shows the movie is overrated, and yet with SF it's still pure genius ?
I could go on and on on this, SF is IMO actually full of blockbuster tropes as far as plot and character are concerned. For instance, a Mission:Impossible blockbuster trope is : even after showing some careful planning, always show the hero do some last second improvisation to make him look like a genius, even if it actually proves the careful planning was awful. Then we have Bond improvising in a few seconds the final explosion under the villain's bullets, even though he spent more than a day creating elaborate little traps everywhere...
So IMO, SF is far more the generic blockbuster than some think here (the music is an hint), and all the fuss about "unusual" airtight characters is wishful thinking IMHO. QOS' script was changed on the set every day (according to Amalric), SF's could have been shot the same way. It's just "scene" after "scene", I find the overall character arcs in this movie very weak. Once again, it happens in many Bond movies. But to claim SF is so much above the others is a bit weird, IMO.
And we have a bit the same team for Bond 24, and once again we learn that the original script has been forgotten, and the new script is not finished yet, while the casting and scout location have already begun... How can one possibly expect "airtight" logic when the script is not done first... ?
A lot to tackle here...
First off, if Bond was able to break into M's flat as a rookie he could definitely do it as a more seasoned spy. It's just a bloody flat, not Fort Knox for crying out loud; not hard.
As for whether Bond is a wreck or not, he's definitely facing a lot of obstacles in Skyfall, but I think his biggest challenge isn't the bullets that he is injured with, and more with his place in the world. I mean sure, Bond is surely pained by the bullets he takes that cause him to lay low and heal back up, but a bigger concern for him in the film is where he stands in his occupation. People like he and M have been deemed outdated and unreliable, causing Bond and those like him to question their place and value. And yet still Bond and M prove their dissenters wrong as they are still needed to protect their countrymen, as the inquiry scene shows. Though Bond is definitely challenged in the film his problems are more mental that physical. Scars will heal but it is Bond's very duty that is put to the test in this film, dealing primarily with whether MI6 and their human agents are useful anymore in our technologically modern world.
As for Bond relying on gadgets and MP to save him, my only response is "well yeah, duh." Bond was facing a humungous Chinese fighter, so obviously he was going to get a little roughed up, but he outsmarts the guy in the end. It was great to see Dan's Bond trick the baddie instead of beating him senseless as he usually would since the baddie was too big to take on with fisticuffs and therefore clever thinking was needed to defeat him; brains over brawn and all that. As for Moneypenny saving him, it was a great moment that showed Bond was human (gasp) and that his relationship with Eve had grown into one of trust and dependability. Bond is a great agent but he isn't Superman who can deflect bullets and stop time, so I don't know how else you expect him to get out of all these situations without help. The spy world is all about teamwork, and these films show this beautifully.
And as for your comment about Bond shaking when shooting a pistol at Silva's island, he isn't doing it because he's a wrecked agent, he's just nervous. First of all, the weapon he is using is extremely archaic and quite different from the guns Bond is used to shooting so he is very wary of firing it for fear of blowing Severine's head off. The apparent shaking of his hand is completely natural; he is using a gun he likely has no experience with, has Silva picking and teasing at him and a gun is placed directly near his head. Wouldn't you be nervous too? He obviously doesn't want to hit Severine and is trying his best to avoid harming her; I thought all this was plenty obvious. Anyway...
RE-Kincade. There is a difference between an inconsistent character and an old man thinking you can be of assistance in a siege while not knowing the enemy's force and probably overestimating your own strengths and nerves. So Kincade kills one badguy and he should be this elderly Scottish Rambo? Of course he gets nervous! And he makes mistakes, so what? M makes mistakes, so does Bond. And thus my May analogy (which obviously was an exaggeration) stands. You don't complain about characters not being what they are not to begin with. By the way, in TB Largo was shot by Domino, who was a complete amateur and not in any way a spy. Another inconsistent character, damsel in distress turned ninja?
Regarding Bond turning from wreck to his old self again, this is done gradually: a wreck straight after his fall and his months of drinking, then he manages to survive his fight with Patrice (but unable to capture him, Bond killing him is no sign of a full recovery, far from it), does better in Macau (but again he needs some assistance), does much better on the island after Silva took the pressure off him by killing Séverine (and yes, he shakes, given the situation and the fact that he has not completely recovered, that would be inconsistent if he was not shaking too), then he is almost completely recovered in London, to be his old self in Scotland. Far fetched? Maybe, but then you can complain about Fleming too, Bond recovered almost miraculously from too much drinking in YOLT and from months of imprisonment and brainwash in a Soviet cell in TMWTGG.
By the way, the most secured house in England is at 10 Downing Street, if by this you mean the house of a civilian (Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are even more secure). I am sure the home of C is thoroughly checked too, but this did not prevent the man from his pictures appearing on Facebok.
Now back on topic, shall we?
The beauty of Bond is that it can be interpreted in many ways. Just because what you post, you believe to correct in your posts, does not make it correct.
Your views and opinions are well known. As is your general attitude toward other members if they disagree with you. Learn when to give it a rest.
Ok, I'll focus on this point to make it shorter.
Right after a personal terrorist attack, it's supposed to be just a bloody flat ?
I have no problem with movies that need to suspend disbelief, but why some people here try so hard to prove it's airtight logic instead ? In the real world, M's flat would have been very well guarded right after a terrorist attack on her, to me, thinking otherwise is just wishful thinking to claim Skyfall is a masterpiece on every level !
I feel that many here are acting as psychanalysts who have a theory to prove first, and who twist the facts to what they need. And whose who dare to disagree are looked upon with contempt, they're not clever enough for psychoanalysis...
I don't "complain" Skyfall is full of movie logic, I just claim it's not full of "airtight" logic and character development like others seem to need badly to prove Skyfall is the best. I would complain of say, too much movie logic in a movie like The Spy Who Came In From The Cold if it had been handled this way, but not in any Bond movie, and in particular a Bond movie in which Bond turns into Jaws and survive a lethal fall to begin with ! :)
Sometimes I wonder if such an irrationnal defense of Skyfall is caused by the fact Mendes is back for Bond 24, and some need reasons to hope...
See.. an out of context remark that is not relevant is used as a proof ! In the "real world", right now yes it is probably. But if terrorists launch an attack on any public figure and miss their target, do you really think this public figure's flat would remain a "bloody flat" for the next few days ? It would remain a bloody flat only if one suspend disbelief and decide to create a plot in which the consequences of the terrorist assault are actually nil. Movie logic, then, not "airtight" logic.
Fans will be fans ;)
As for Bond 24, we know the script is not finished because Mendes didn't like the first one(s) (so much for the use of the "three years gap", the two-movie story arc created by Logan is forgotten...), and yet casting and scout locations have begun. IMO, the real thinking should be here "ok, so the script will once again be a typical blockbuster movie script that will have dozens of versions, expect lots of holes because they start working without a finished script again - for instance, once a character is cast as a minor role, you can't expand it, or the other way around, etc...". The wishful thinking is "Mendes is still working a lot on the script himself, which means it will be carefully crafted and airtight".
As for your presumptions about Bond 24 (and to get back on topic)... They are presumptions based on no evidence. Even if the script was having troubles and being rushed and messy, the same thing happen with early Bond movies, including DN. Troubled productions are no guarantee of failure, just like smooth ones are no guarantee of success. Until we learn more, these are mere speculations.
For me, @Suivez_ce_parachute is right when he says they've completely wasted their 3-year development time. The only thing we're sure of has been a 3-year hiatus which could have been shortened but for the desire of getting Mendes back.
Where does Mendes say that?
Firstly, Sony announced its plan to release Bond 24 in theaters by 2014 – before the Skyfall teaser had even premiered for the public. The latest Bond-centric reports indicated that date should be kept, as Skyfall co-writer John Logan had already been re-hired to work on the script. The screen treatment, first draft, was completed roughly around Christmas 2012 though nothing was ever officially confirmed.
Quite a few months passed (Feb 2013) before it was leaked that Mendes was reluctant to return for "Bond 24" due to the earlier plan by Sony, MGM & EON to have "Skyfall" scribe John Logan script the next two Bond films as a connected story that would be shot back-to-back. The dual-film plan was scrapped in favour of a stand-alone film, so the director was said to be reconsidering.
Mendes and Logan then began developing a story for the next film, and a source for the Daily Mail claimed Mendes was "75% of the way towards doing it." Right now he's waiting on a finished script before signing" came the report. Soon after, Mendes was announced as the director of Bond 24. This was in Feb 2013...
Now a year later (April 2014) - Mendes said in an interview with Empire: "It helped when Eon agreed to wait a little longer and not go immediately - not go with two movies and instead go with one, which I felt very strongly about." So far John Logan has refused to comment on the two-part story idea, so until sometime in the future, we'll have a long wait until we find out the true details of what went down here.
Then, only a few days ago it was reported that Mendes speaking at a BFI screening, said, “The next one – it’s being written... It’s ongoing. For me, so much of it is about script. It’s like the building of a boat – once the boat gets on the current, it’s gone. If there’s a hole in the boat, you’re f**ked. So you’ve got to make sure there’s no holes in the boat, and that’s what we’re doing now.” He then went on to say that after seeing Craig's performance in Betrayal (7 Jan 2014, maybe later?) he was inspired to go further with the character. “I went to see Daniel Craig in Betrayal and I was reminded what a fantastic actor he is outside of James Bond,” he explained. “It inspires you to think of other ways to use him and allow him to express that. Ralph Fiennes is another great example.”
So we know that the screenplay is still being written and that whatever was written last year and was agreed on with both Logan and Mendes is obviously being reworked again one year later. As for the 2-part story arc, that idea was shelved when the studio decided to lure Mendes back several months after Logan started work on his original treatment. It's impossible to shoehorn in 2 movies worth of material into 1 movie without tossing out various ideas and plot mechanisms to hold the 2 movies together, so therefore I'm under the impression Mendes has re-worked (tossed out Logan's earlier drafts) and started again....
... and of yesterday is still being written.
There is still six months until shooting begins and you're acting like it's panic stations because the script won't be ready on time.
But hey, what do I know? I'm clearly not a "seasoned fan"...
The term "revision" can imply a lot of things: editing, alteration, rewriting, revamping. It still means the script hasn't been nailed or finalized and EON are already at the early stages of production, which brings me to my original post when I agreed with @Suivez_ce_parachute and his observation that the 3 year hiatus was perhaps squandered and was only for the benefit of Mendes returning, and not the fans that have had to wait an extra year for Bond 24.
I don't think it's "panic stations" as I'm sure whatever Mendes' puts on film will have his admirers gushing over his great intellect and artistry that it probably doesn't matter whether it's fully completed or not. However, I'm still of the view that Logan's original 2-parter was jettisoned and a new story was developed to suit Mendes' one-picture-deal.
I don't think there are many films, if any at all, whereby the final script is signed, sealed and delivered a full half year before shooting commences.
Most scripts will go through at least a dozen, if not more, drafts before the final one is agreed upon. In fact, it's not unusual for there to be revisions to a script once filming gets under away.
I'll be more concerned, if like QOS, they complete filming with an unfinished script!
Having said that - I am not blaming Sam. IMO he was solid in his refusal, they just wouldn't let go, having stars in their eyes because of SF's success. There are others out there, who could do a good job, too.
But there is nothing wrong with what, for example, Willi said above, either.
Its like boarding a plane - you just HAVE to sit down, trust them and hope for the best.
M wasn't in any danger at all, so why guard her? Silva could have had a bomb planted by a car outside her house and killed her right there since at this point in the film M doesn't know who is behind the explosion at MI6 yet, beyond maybe a few suspicions. The point you are forgetting is that Silva doesn't want to kill her. He knew her schedule to and from MI6 backwards and forwards, so if he wanted to killer her he would have just waited until he knew she was inside the building. He didn't do that because he wanted her to watch the explosion to strike fear and shock in her, not kill her; it'd be too quick and not personal. This woman wronged him and he wants to really get back at her, so he is doing everything he can to cause her great amounts of stress and anxiety before killing her face to face, and not through some indirect explosion. And because of this, M's apartment doesn't need any men outside because Silva doesn't wish to kill her yet; what good would a few guys do against an engineered explosion or something anyway?
I completely agree with you. The comments about the early Bond movies being full of glaring plotholes is an insult to Maibaum, who was frankly a genius. The salvage job that Logan did on P+W's dodgy Skyfall script does not deserve comparison with Maibaum's cleverly and tightly plotted, witty and well crafted work on Bond up to LTK. The Bond films have suffered for a long time now from the lack of a scriptwriter of his skill. However, this is a thread about Bond 24, so I sympathise with those who want to focus on that.
I think we have to be realistic though about what to expect from Logan on Bond 24. Logan's strength is not originality. Many of his biggest successes (Last Samurai, Gladiator) are highly derivative stories. What he is good at is often meaty and enjoyable dialogue (something that Purvis and Wade were incapable of). This was evident in SF, where some key scenes (such as Silva's entrance speach) had some really sparkling lines. Gladiator is full of memorable, perhaps slightly cheesy, but enjoyable lines, brilliantly carried off by Russell Crowe.
So, what I'm hoping for are some really well written individual scenes. I do hope that the whole thing hangs together much better than SF, and I think the departure of P+W should hopefully make that easier.
I am not that interested in exploring Bond's inner psyche. I think the danger with doing that is that frankly there isn't very much there to explore and Bond when it boils down to it is not an inherently interesting individual. Fleming never envisaged him that way. It is about how he operates, the world he inhabits, the action he takes etc.
I very much disagree. I think it is very likely that the next film will continue to explore who Bond is both inside and out, so prepare to complain.
Sorry, but with all due respect, this is one of the silliest comments on here all day. The head of MI6 doesn't deserve beefed up security following a terrorist attack on her office...?
It was exactly this find of lack of attention to detail that let SF down.
But any way, that is the past, and we should be focusing on Bond 24, at least on this thread.
Exactly. All we know is that Sam Mendes disagreed with a 2 movies story. We don't know what he tossed away, what he kept, etc.
I think they will go down that route, but I also think it is full of dangers. Done well it could be okay, but I think Bond would need to become quite different to make it work. The danger is that you expose someone who is actually pretty empty and ugly as a person.
How so? Once again, M was in absolutely no danger, and as many have said, she wasn't the bloody Prime Minister or Queen. A lot of the higher-ups in her government found her unreliable and ineffective as well, and wanted her kicked to the curb.
Yeah and to be honest I would've preferred to have a film out this year without Mendes. If he's that bothered about having a rest then he could have just skipped a film and returned for Bond 25. I loved Skyfall but he's not worth waiting for imo, plenty of other great directors would have jumped at the chance to direct a Bond film and I need my regular Bond fix. I miss having a film every two years.
By the way, good to see you back @bondsum :) Hadn't heard from you for a while.
We do not know if her house was under surveillance or not, for one. That it was does not prevent Bond form breaking and entering unnoticed. And MI6 was attacked, not her personally (at the time we do not know who is behind the attack or what is his intentions). Beside, she may be the head of MI6, she is no PM, she is not the Queen either. She is even on the verge of retirement!