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
Nuances obviously don't mean nothing to you.
So be it. One doesn't cash a billion in with only catering to those,who appreciate intelligent,witty storyline and fitting dialogs (opposed to pretentious ones).
What are you talking about? Was Connery acting like a teary-eyed schoolgirl when he called Felix on finding Jill Masterson dead on his bed? Hardly. But he wasn't throwing Brosnan-era quips around either.
As Matt Helm points out, it's about nuances in the writing and performance.
Watch and learn:
same old, same old ...
I appreciate a great script and story, wonderful dialog, sparkling chemistry, subtle yet powerful acting, wry humor, action, adventure, a main protagonist struggling and overcoming defeat, personal issues including despair, and near impossible challenges - in other words, James Bond. And I found all of that, in spades, in Skyfall, Casino Royale, and From Russia With Love, to name just a few top Bond films.
He used a double negative when he didn't mean to, I think, @Samuel001, thereby negating his own point.
About Connery: Connery was cold and brutal at times, showing slight emotion at some deaths, and sometimes volatile. I enjoy Connery's Bond; it had more range than perhaps seems at first viewing.
"Nuances obviously don't mean nothing to you."
Bet you graduated top bumpkin in your class.
Well, apparently the "nuance" of Craig's voice inflection and facial expression escaped you as he uttered the now infamous throw-away line. I mean really. What did you expect him to do as he was surrounded by Silva and his goons--whip out his Bluetooth or Blackberry or whatever the hell, ring up M, tears in his voice, report Severine's demise, and declare that he just couldn't continue?
Yeah, but what's all of that compared with one insufficiently lachrymose death scene?
8-|
I rather think he cannot help himself, for the most part, and I shall try to keep that in mind for his future posts.
Indeed. My priorities must be skewed, eh?
That's very understanding of you. You're quite kind. Me, I think he's just an idiot.
You might not know about how to apply logic,but at least some grammar. Very well,keep trying!
In SF this poor lass gets shot and all we get is a poor one-liner because the job comes first.
I am not quite sure if I like Craigs version of 007, as the so-called better actor he gets poor script choices offered. It feels like that after the line "the bitch is dead" the scriptwriter seem to seek such moments in the next movies and while with CR it was Fleming perfect brought it annoys in the moments I mentioned before. It seems more like a recurring very off-moment in the last two movies. And they do spoil some of the fun in the recent 007 movies.
For me the problem was that while CR was mostly good his next two movies have not come close in quality when we are talking scriptwise, and QoB has an actual excuse.
That's not how I feel, but to each his own. I think all the scripts for the Craig era handled different facets of Bond as a man and agent, which I think they succeeded in doing. I wasn't referring to you in my above comment regardless.
Great post @Perilagu_Khan.
We all read films differently, and get differing viewpoints on certain scenes. Severine is going to die, there's nothing anyone can do to stop that. Unless, Bond has back up that can give him the help he needs. When Silva takes Bond outside and we see Severine tied up, and Silva's game is revealed, we know the likely outcome.
Bond is vastly outnumbered, and Silva knows this. He knows no matter what, that he will get a reaction from Bond. Bond cannot react emotionally when she is killed, because it gives him the chance to gain the advantage over Silva and his henchmen.
His job is the mission, not always the people who get caught in the crossfire.
You can't always save everyone, even though we think we should. To be Bond, you have to be able to sacrifice from time to time. Goes with the job as a spy.
Exactly. It's a very simple point, that some of those on here seem incapable of engaging with - the line does not work in the context of the scene.
I have never said Bond needs to get 'emotional', start crying, or throw the towel in. What I (and a lot of others, including some of the film reviews) have said, is that the scene hits a wrong note. 'Waste of a good scotch' sounds like a line that Purvis and Wade picked out of their 'classic Bond quips' file - you can imagine them having had it lying around since the Brosnan era.
I agree that the intention is probably to suggest a cold of ice exterior, but frankly, it makes him look like an idiot.
I'm not going to lie @chrisisall, I actually quite like that line you suggest and think it might have worked better. I could imagine Fleming's Bond saying something like that under the circumstances.
Although I think the IDEA in the film was that the quip was meant to be a distraction allowing the thugs to briefly drop their guard (Mendes says it in the Blu Ray audio commentary).
I can believe that this was what Mendes was intending. The fact no one on here has given this interpretation indicates how successful he was in conveying this meaning though. I.e. - if what you're saying is true, the line definitely doesn't work.
Nothing you say here actually contradicts anything I've said. The point is whether this line works, purely in terms of script, context etc.
I don't have an issue with Severine dying and, believe it or not, I'm not actually advocating Bond bursting into tears.
However, is his response appropriate in the context?
I don't see the film's plot and script as something that follows an inevitable route predetermined by fate/destiny. It's not based on a Fleming novel, so there are no givens. Actually, the plot is something scraped from the bottom of the Purvis and Wade barrel (re-hashed TWINE, with a dollop of GE, anyone?). It has some successful and some much less successful embelishments by Logan. Scriptwriters and others have to make decisions, judgements etc. about what works and what doesn't. My argument is that this line sits badly in an otherwise decent scene.
To PK things are easy. Those that like subtle nuances are weeping lefties,those that insist on a minimum of logic and coherence have no idea of what a Bond movie consist of. He reminds me of those guys like Dick Cheney,who still insist the Iraq invasion was a smart move,which made the world saver and the US stronger. Reality is such an easy thing to bent, isn't it? Of course one does need the right mindset for it, which has a lot to do with ignorance and a certain lack of intellectual capacities (but hey,at least he seems happy with it)!
And btw, Bond falls in love in just about every novel ( he does with Solitaire, Gala Brand,even gets engaged with Tiffany and frankly admits it to Kerim,when he is making fun of him,because he is such a soft western fellow).
You really should read the novels. They will suit you,simple use of language and plots and a hero ,which doesn't make YOU feel like a fool (rarely enough in this intellectual restricted life yours I guess),because he isn't very smart himself.
To you things are easy. If you can't find proper arguments you just start insulting people on their intelligence, pretending to be better. Anyone who's been around here for some time (and oddly enough, I think you're one of them) ought to know PK has an extended knowledge of the novels.
Very much so Rossy,in fact he is the first one i think of when questions about the novels spring up.
Ha!
"If all that was left of you was your little finger and your smile, you'd still be more of a man than any man I've ever met." --sob, sob, slobber, slobber--
"That's because you know what I can do with my little finger." --Ho! Thigh-slap!--
"I've got not armor left. You've stripped it from me." --enter the entire London Philharmonic string section--
"If you don't get out of this profession, you'll have no soul left. I'm getting out while I've still got a soul. And you can have whatever's left of me. Whatever, I've got left, you can have." --the strings from the Vienna Philharmonic join in--
For the umpteenth time, Bond does "blink twice" in Severine's death scene. The one-liner is OBVIOUSLY uttered with shock and chagrin. It's nothing like Brosnan's "the things I do for frequent flier mileage" line in GE. In the novels, Bond does feel very deeply--although the extent to which he actually falls in love is highly debatable--but his coldness consists of his ability to look tragedy squarely in the face, swallow his emotions without histrionics, and then forge ahead in the inimitable British spirit of stoicism, alas, killed off decades ago by Matt_Helm's fembot generation.