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
This "Bond films have always been riddled with potholes" battle cry gets repeated by Skyfall fans ad nauseam, but that doesn't make it any more true. Consider that the rightfully much chided DAD has only one real plothole and then start counting with Skyfall. I wonder how anyone who calls himself a Bond fan can defend a movie in which really nothing makes sense. To my mind if someone is a fan of something he wants it to improve and to be as good as possible. It's over a year since I made the challenge to show me just one thing in the whole movie that's logical explainable and still no one has raised to the task. That alone tells everything! About this fanboy thing - can it get any more fan boyish than with the DB5? I don't think so. And btw this billion revenue doesn't impress me a bit. So have Transformers and countless other bullshit, so this is absolutely no indicator of quality.
Stamper was a Grant clone on steroids, without the hunter's drive that made Grant so great. Even Necros was too close to Grant, although he was a commendable hemchman. I'd love to see a henchman who could crush Bond if he gets close enough, but not another Grant clone.
Yes and no. I agree it is challenging to find someone who looks menacing pitched against him. But his Bond seems in far more dangerous situation than Brosnan's.
Well, that's not exactly hard, is it?
She's a woman but what about Onnatop? Easily up there with the best of them imo.
The "Bond films have always been riddled with plotholes" battle cry is perfectly reasonable when you yourself later add "I wonder how anyone who calls himself a Bond fan can defend a movie in which really nothing makes sense"
Long term Bond fans simply go with the outrageous villains and ridiculous hole-filled plots surely? And for the record I'm a looooooooong term Bond fan, not a fan-boy. I like SF and I can see the plot holes certainly.
Is it ok to enjoy a Bond film without troubling oneself over it's deficiencies?
This tedious discussion has been going on faaaarrr too long. However, I think what @Matt_Helm is trying to say is that there is a distinction between very OTT, fantastical storylines and storylines that just don't make sense. I don't think there are many fans of the films who don't realise that a bit of outrageousness is par for the course with Bond. What (some) of us found to be a particular issue with SF was the large number of inconsistencies and glaring holes in the plot. I disagree with the implication that this is part of the territory with Bond. Historically, yes the plots have often been outrageous, but the stories and scripts have, within their fantastical terms, been internally coherent. I don't think SF is.
I think there's a bit of deliberate misunderstanding on both sides here, with those defending SF wilfully choosing to pretend that they don't understand the difference between an OTT/outragoues plot and one that lacks internal logic - let's be clear, outrageousness and plot holes are not the same thing. DAD is a godawful, utterly outrageous and OTT film, but it's absurd plot does maintain its own bizarre internal logic. You might sit there thinking 'this is utterly unbelievable', but this is because the outrageousness has gone too far, not because the plot itself is inconsistent. SF is a much better made film, but is, in my view (and I think, quite a few others) let down a lot by the fact that the plot often just collapses under the weight of its own inconsistencies. Plot holes are not unheard of in big action movies. I'm sure there are others in the Bond series - not just quite so many in one film. I've heard plenty of explanations for why they're supposedly not actually plot holes, but believe me, the internet is awash with lots of people saying pretty much the same thing as @Matt_Helm. He is not a lone voice on this issue. Not that internet chatter proves any one right - I'm just making the point that @Matt_Helm 's view of the film is shared by quite a lot of other people. So while the SF fans are free to admire the film as much as they like, the same respect should be shown to those who found it to be a below average plot.
I really wanted to like SF. I embrace outrageousness, when it's well done. I approve of much of the intent behind what Mendes was trying to do. I just don't think SF achieved its objectives and was really let down by the plot.
Any way, this is, I think we can all agree, a discussion that is well past its prime. It's really just about semantics and refusal to recognise the legitemacy of each others' positions.
Here, here.
So about those Tom Ford suits...
Agreed. Some like SF, some don't. No point in going on and on about it.
Back on track now, I've been eyeballing my blu-ray copy of 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' lately in hopes that Hoytema is named the DP for B24. I want to go back and rewatch it to pay attention to what we can expect in B24, if he is named the cinematographer.
A bit too much of a caricature for my taste. And the mano a mano combat of GE was between Bond and former colleague and 00 agent Trevelyan. Maybe the best of the Brosnan Bond climactic fights.
I don't think they really managed to top... Fiona Volpe. I would rather see Bond's physical match, a new Oddjob or a new Grant, without being the clone of either. Or a new Trevelyan, actually.
Yes - they'd have to have a skirmish early on, with the tension building towards a climactic fight at the end. You have to build up to the 'big fight' - I hate it when they just chuck in a henchman fight for the sake of it.
One of the reasons the Necros fight in TLD is so good at the end is that they've been building the guy up all the way through. It feels like it matters and Bond is given real motivation to take out this guy. The same with Grant, of course.
Anyway, wishful thinking sort of related: if this stuntman can act just enough, he might be the henchman we are looking for. He does not even have to talk. A silent assassin would be very threatening. As long as he walks the walk and does not merely look mean.
I don't know how he is a fighter, I am sure he is good, but looking from his picture he looks like a nice guy. Anybody has a picture of that stuntman?