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
Does anyone want to see the scene/scenes where he is traveling? No. It's boring. Bond and Batman are not documentaries. They are works of fiction and the story's pace and drama are more important than measly details. Look, he's freaking Batman! The guy has gnarly skills, folks, he can get stuff done.
=P~
Do you go to a play and shout at the actors, "What are you all talking so loud in front of us and acting like you are on a battlefield when you are just on a stage? Why are you killing people with plastic swords?" Theatre and films not only require you to suspend your disbelief, but to also exercise your imagination.
Some people aren't going to accept that SF has any flaws while I'm not going to accept that Bond (and Batman) being fantasy is an excuse for what I think are plot holes and lazy writing.
We won't get anywhere and I've had this argument too many times before so I'm leaving this thread now.
Not got a problem with that. But then most of British acting aristocracy didnt come out and say MR had an amazingly well crafted script at the time as far as I recall.
In the SF build up youve got DC, Dench, Fiennes, Wishaw not to mention Bardem and Mendes all stating that SF's script was a work of genius. How can people who have been involved in multiple oscar winning films not know a shaky script when they see one?
Fine if you want to say 'its just a Bond film' then OK we can overlook the plot holes but if youre going to sell it as a great work of art then similarly expect the criticism to be more intensely focussed.
I can see your rationale, but I think the script is quite wonderful. The pieces that show how great it is are the dialogue and the various scenes that illuminate and connect all the themes in action across the film from beginning to end. It still has it's "only in a Bond film" moments, but things like the dialogue and thematic quality of the overall product more than speak for themselves in my eyes.
I never go into a Moore film thinking I am going to be challenged or that I will think of the film intellectually afterwards, and I guess that is part of why they aren't my essential Bond films at the end of the day. Regardless, that is no excuse to give them a pass when it comes to the scripting category. The early Connery films weren't pretending to be great products full of lush thematic content either, yet they are absolutely classic and do create a lot of depth for the character at such an early time. I think the Moore era often played it lazy, and for that the scripts suffered. They were more Bond spoofs of the deep character we saw in the Connery films and OHMSS than anything else, with Roger at the helm hamming it up to great company. And like you said, you go to the Moore films to be entertained and not for a deep Bondian tale, so I can't really disagree there. While I can fully enjoy the Moore films, the issues I have with how they handle Bond and parts of the scripts make me unable to include them among the best of the best.
If you want to argue that the plot inconsistencies somehow undermined the dramatic narrative (don't personally buy it, but I could see a legitimate case for it), that's totally fair and I'd actually love to hear it. But feigning that Judi Dench said "I LOVED Silva's plan - made perfect sense!" is a pretty daft and insincere angle.
Since it was released on BR it has grown on me :)
I still think CR is a far superior film. CR hit me between the eyes and really got me excited and engaged when watching it for the first time. I love the Venice sequence too ;)
It just feels like the words & spirit of Fleming is back on the screen.
The Westminster scene in SF was brilliant apart from Craig's style of running!!! It looks really weird and unnatural
I still feel that the killing off of Severine so early in the film was wrong.
Also Mallory announcing M's retirement plan right at the beginning of SF meant you knew she was going to die.
The final sequence at Skyfall kind of leaves me empty. The death scence between M & 007 was a masterpiece but all the action before it felt like a last minute afterthought.
Personally I would like to see Craig do a Moore "destroy" the world bond film for at less one of his films. He has the talent to do it both gritty and believable
Yes. I think we've reached that point now. Craig has earned his GF/TB - even TSWLM - moment and, as you say, I think they could pull it off in the current, more 'realistic' style.
What about the sleight of hand you are performing?
Heres just a couple of quotes a two minute google threw up and I've even gone to the trouble of higlighting the key passages. I'm sure there are plenty more (Fiennes at the premiere for one) but I shouldnt really access youtube at work even if I had the inclination.
http://uk.askmen.com/entertainment/news_3900/3931_daniel-craig-skyfall.html
'Craig says that the delays have been put to good use on Skyfall, solving some of the issues that led to his previous Bond movie being less well-received than his electric 007 debut in Casino Royale. "We haven't been resting on our laurels,” he insists. “We've been plotting what to do with Skyfall. The first one was a whir, the second one [Quantum of Solace] was the tricky second album, but this one we've really planned and got a great script.'
http://www.007.com/skyfall-announced-in-london/
We’ve a great script, an extraordinary cast and an incredibly talented creative team for this latest James Bond adventure,” said Wilson and Broccoli.
http://www.ifc.com/fix/2011/11/ralph-fiennes-on-bond-skyfall
'I can tell you that John Logan has written a fantastic screenplay'
'this is just a great piece of screenwriting'
No mention of the characters there. They all refer to the 'script' or 'screenplay' and an integral part of that is having a coherent story to hold everything together or all you have is a load of great characters with nothing to do.
By your logic that SFs script is great because of the characterisations I could knock off a script tomorrow featuring Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Othello, Macbeth and Richard III. The fact that my story would feature them all meeting up through time travel to perform in a one off play to save Shakespeares Globe which was under threat of closure to be replaced by a Mcdonalds really wouldnt matter because of the great characterisations (actually Richard Curtis if you're reading - I could have a draft of that ready by next week if you're interested? Hugh Grant as Hamlet, Bill Nighy as Caesar, Lenny Henry as Othello, Billy Connolly as Macbeth and Rowan Atkinson hamming it up as Richard III? Let me know).
A script is made up of both plot and characters and whilst SF triumphs in the latter it sorely lacks in the former and my point still stands that someone out of Craig, Fiennes, Dench, Bardem or Mendes should have at some point in the process said 'hang on isnt Silvas plan a load of bollocks?' rather than bigging up the 'great' script to the press at every opportunity?
I would very much like to see that ;-)
Well if you come can come up with the funding old chap I'd be happy to make your dream come true.
I reckon a budget of about 5m should be enough. 1m to the scriptwriter up front and then I couldnt care less what happens after that (although I'll retain the right to take 5% of profits just in case it turns out to be another Full Monty or Four Weddings).
I know you were joking, but I would seriously pay anything to see that film. [-O<
Nice line!
They signed onto Skyfall because they wanted to perform a dramatic narrative, not because they're itching to be pawns in a Tom Clancy yarn. Plot (small-p, friend) contrivances are immaterial to them (and most viewers) because technical details are not what the Bond stories fetishize. Nor rely on.
Are there any plans in a Bond film aren't?
But there's a small but significant difference between most Bond villain plans and Silva's. Most plans, despite being implausible because the technology doesn't exist or the group shouldn't be able to have the power to accomplish them, are internally consistent. For example, while SPECTRE shouldn't have the ability to steal satellites from outer space and build a volcano lair, their plan is straightforward and easily understood if you assume they have that ability.
Silva's, on the other hand, relies both on technology he shouldn't have, like the ability to hack into anything, and sudden gaps of logic, like the ability to kill multiple guards while apparently unarmed inside a glass case and time train locations by the second months in advance from a faraway location.
I hope that made sense.
I've never claimed anything except that which I observe the people involved saying. And from multiple academy award winning Dames down they all seem to say that 'its a great script'.
Now maybe the problem is you arent au fait with what a script constitutes or, more likely, it seems you just dont care but it is the words and actions of a set of characters who interact and therefore create a story.
Now the 'plot contrivances' as you label them may well be immaterial to you but in a 'great' script they are far from it.
If you can provide quotes backing up your theory that what they meant to say was 'its a script with great characterisation and drama but an overall suspect story but who cares about that? I certainly dont' then please enlighten me.
Your contention that the story of SF is that it is about attachment and loss (not sure I would entirely agree with that either) and how we arrive at the point where M dies in Bonds arms is entierly irrelevant and mere 'contrivances' or 'techinical details' I find rather risible to be honest.
I agree that the flaws in the plot and story are far from insurmountable and dont ruin the overall dramatic arc of the piece but to decry them as mere trifles is giving the shaky script way more leeway than I am willing to do.
Its just a pity that instead of everyone involved congratulating each other on how fantastic the script was, they didnt employ some critical faculties and iron out the preposterous leaps of faith, logic and pure coincidence that would make the whole thing cohesive and truly a great script.
SF is a very good entry in the series, probably a top 5 entry, but its not beyond criticism. No Bond film is.
Made sense to me Sir. If only the script did.
What makes you think that such a thing was suggested in the movie?
The scene where Bond chases Silva only to find that he's placed the explosives right on the wall to make a train come crashing through. I may be mistaken about how the movie explained, if anybody has a different explanation.
And I have yet to hear it explained how all the guards outside his cell died? Did he have a guard working for him or something?
But there was no need to "time train locations by the second months in advance from a faraway location" in order to have explosives put there earlier (not by him personally, but by one of his employees) and then to use them. There are trains every few minutes, and Silva was surely going to use the explosives anyway (Bond or no Bond - or anyone else - beneath) to attract and distract the authorities and emergency services and give him more time and space to escape and to then operate elsewhere.
Like others have said, which film in the series (barring maybe FRWL) has airtight plotting? The lapses in logic in SF blend perfectly I think with the serious character moments in the film. I personally like how coincidental the plot is; what would have happened if Bond had retrieved the harddrive at the start? What would have happened if Bond caught on to Silva earlier? How would things have played out if Bond did not decide to flee to Skyfall? You can either say that the inconsistencies bothered you or they didn't; if the latter, then GF, YOLT, MR, and DAD will always be in your bottom 5 (not the best examples but it serves my point).
Perhaps it has to do with me not being interested in wine, but I find that the only time I got a real impression from SF was the first time I saw it at the cinema. And that was because it was the first time a Bond film came across more as a thriller than as an action film.
Ever since I find my interest in the film waning. On consecutive viewings at the cinema I had mixed feelings, and at home I every now and then feel like watching it, but never finish all of it.
The whole part from after the PTS until Bond meets Silva somehow seems so slow and drawn out. I read somewhere of SF´s more mature pacing, but I can´t see anything like maturity in it. Maturity should draw the viewer into the scene, a feat not well accoplished here.
The seemingly realistic tone of the film doesn´t fit at all to such boring lines as M remarking, " how the hell did they get into the system", or the blatantly fake explosion on the MI6 building. Not to speak of Silva´s divining.
The music seems to drop any previous ideas immediately, so that even within one sequence I get the impression that I´m watching totally unrelated events. Paradoxically, I never got that feeling with Arnold´s music, even though he too definitely had a tendency to leave musical ideas unexplored.
While I find the idea of making a Bond film about the necessity of MI6 much better than the little side scenario of similar thematic content given in NSNA, I find SF on the whole a bit boring.
Bond blowing up his childhood memories instead of learning to live with them, while seemingly necessary for the story, does not really fit as solution to such a trauma.