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
Flawed might be an euphemism concerning this guy. Does anyone wonder what plan he actually had when he entered the ship without even a gun? Actually when you think about it he couldn't have even known for sure that Severignes boss was who he was looking for,since Patrice was a freelancer. For all Bond knew this island guy might have turned out to be a sadistic chinese gangster boss, who would fry him in oil just for shagging Severigne.
Not even Flemings Bond (who wasn't the brightest of lights,so to speak) would have done so!
I've never claimed the film lacked redeaming features. I'd still rather watch DC in anything over a Bond movie with the Broz. I did actually feel SF deserved a rewatch, which is more than I felt for TWINE or DAD. It's just that the film is riddled with wrong notes and frankly inexplicable character motivations/actions, that for me at least, make it a much lesser film than some others have claimed.
I don't have such an issue with him making the link between Patrice and Silva, although the idea that this was all part of some plan that Silva had created to draw Bond in is utterly ridiculous.
But yes, I do have an issue with the way Bond just turns up on the boat, standing on the deck with apparently no plan or idea of what he's there to do. It feels like Mendes prioritised a nice shot of Bond and Severine on the deck over narrative.
As no one knows Bond is on board until he prances out onto the deck, why not stay hidden and sneak onto the island unseen? He can still get caught, but at least Bond doesn't look like a total amateur/idiot.
Indeed, some people seem to miss the fact that Bond's is violent world where tender emotions cannot always be shown in order to get on with the mission or job at hand. Look at CR novel and GF opening for Fleming authority for this stance in SF.
I agree. It's just that for me (and a few others) there are so many of these moments where you're left thinking 'hang on a second, what just happened there?' that it ends up spoiling the overall film. Bond's sudden reappearance after appearing to be dead, Silva's convoluted plan to confront M that just ends up being a shoot em up in a courtroom, and the nonsensical 'plan' to take M to somewhere she will almost certainly die, are just a few examples. It all just adds up to a botched plot and something that doesn't convince in its entirety.
Arguing over Severine's death is just a symptom of the wider issues with the film.
No one is denying this. What is unclear is what DC was trying to convey in that scene and whether it is very convincing. Bond has just slept with the woman and he now sees her shot in cold blood right in front of him. Is a lame quip a believable response? If we're supposed to take it at face value, then this Bond is a pretty repellant person - which leads onto a whole set of other issues, already widely discussed about how DC portrays Bond
He doesn't have to have deep emotions for her to be repelled by what he has just witnessed.
If he genuinely feels nothing, then isn't that kind of disgusting though?
That's a good point, @BAIN123.
I think it expresses a totally different emotional response to 'waste of a good scotch'.
I'm not claiming he should have been in tears and nor am I saying Bond is a 'nice' guy - just that the response in SF does not work on any level. Either as emotional response or 'amusing' riposte.
It sounds like something a fanboy would write as a response to Bond seeing someone killed. I just don't think Bond sees the death of a woman quite as this scene suggests.
I know continuity is not a strong point in the series, but is this really the same Bond we see protect Solange from the inferno , or shocked by the death of Fields in QoS? I think it is a fair comment, as we know DC approaches the part with seriousness (unlike Brosnan) and is attempting to build a rounded portrait of Bond. It just doesn't ring true.
As you say, in itself, not a major issue and certainly something I could have overlooked, if the rest of the film wasn't so hit and miss as well.
I totally agree. I loved Silva's entrance and really thought the film was about to step up a gear. But when I saw the film in the cinema, it was after the CGI helicopters appeared that I really felt the whole film took a real turn for the worse. Up until then I'd been willing myself to overlook the annoyingly clumsy plotting. From the moment they get back to London though, I really think the wheels start coming off and the whole thing just starts imploding under the weight of the poorly resolved plot and script.
There's little certainty in espionage. Severine's boss was the best lead; Bond took it. As for Bond not taking a gun, I imagine Bond WANTED to be taken to Silva not get killed in a shootout. If he'd had a gun, Silva's goons would have divested him of it, at the very least.
SO Bond's using the old 'get caught to infiltrate' ruse. Which Silva is actually playing on him at the same time.
They're so clever these script writers these days.
May be they should use the idea in other films. Oh, hang on a second, they have done, in practically every blockbuster over the past 3 years...
This is derivative at best, and utterly lazy and lacking in originality at worst.
Is Bond really so bereft of invention that the only plan he can come up with is to get caught, on purpose? Even Connery's allegedly inept Bond in GF was caught in the process of trying to infiltrate GF's factory/base.
Again, in an of itself, it's not a biggy, just part of a pattern of lazy plotting and script-writing.
Yes. Bond is ice cold. This is something Fleming established very early and that was reiterated in CR and QOS. A pity, I suppose, that he doesn't live up to the nancy-boy mentality of today's western "youth." But if f you want something out of character, watch Bond at his most sucrose in TWINE.
If repetition of plot devices gets your panties in a wad--and it obviously does--you should have abandoned Bond long, long ago.
Fine. He's disgusting. Go find another franchise to support. Maybe they'll do Bedknobs and Broomsticks Part II. Ought to be your speed.
So very true. You see in another Bond movie I wouldn't mind that point so much, but here combined with all the other stuff that happened up to that moment, invisibly but unarmed entering the ship, with no plan at all except screwing her in the shower and maybe "they won't search me, they won't find the radio. Of course these guys might be clever enough to break the firewall of MI6, but hey they are certainly not smart enough to asume that I might have a gun with me,let alone a radio. Wow, I'm so full of wit they should call me superspy!
When someone thinks it's a good idea to do a mash-up of GE and TWINE, that's when I start saying it's time for some new plot ideas.
At least it contains some original Fleming material.
You really should get yourself one of the novels and read it. Bond actually is so soft and easy falling in love in the books, that he would be an embarrassment to the British Secret Service.
From the first novel on he is struggling with his job description and moralizing about it. See in Bond whatever you like, but don't take Fleming and his work as a witness (in your case I should say hostage).
Oh,and if you would ever like to read about a genuine tough-minded hero just get any of the books Donald Hamilton from 1960 to1977. His Matt Helm is a real professional, who would eat the likes of Bond on toast (and forgot about it half an hour later).