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
Look, ultimately I agree - this is an absurd discussion, as are many on here.
But to explain it away as making sense because 'It's a Bond Movie' is hardly the strongest argument.
You can rationalise his survival however you want, but the fact is the film gives no explanation, and for many people that was a moment where you're taken out of the movie. I don't want to be questioning the director's thought processes, WHILE I'm actually sat in the cinema. And all I can say is that I noticed it when I saw the film in the cinema and so have many others - even people who loved the film. I don't really understand what more evidence is required to make my point, or what the argument is really about.
Some much needed sanity.
Like most arguments, it's about preference. I personally like exposition. I feel it's lazy of a film-maker to just cut corners 'cause they feel we'll 'get' it. When exposition is lacking, it breaks off our journey with the character and necessarily becomes a kind of documentary about the character.
It's not film makers cutting corners, it's film makers understanding that their audience are relatively intelligent and can join the dots without someone holding their hand. It's also about context. Mendes didn't have to worry about people 'getting it', it's a James Bond movie. They aren't going to kill the titular character. 'We' the audience know that, but 'M' and MI6 don't. We see their reaction, that's the important thing. There's no point prolonging a scene just to show us the viewer how Bond survives, we know he's going to survive and as I've said above, the manner of his survival has no bearing on the narrative of the film. If he'd fallen into a Vipers nest, or a nudest camp, or a Taliban stronghold - and we only found this out later in the movie, maybe I'd have a problem. As it is, we find him shagging in a beach hut. One assumes she fished him out of the river. It doesn't need to be shown.
The bigger question in that film to me was how a now bankrupt Bruce Wayne, stranded in some desert nation on the other side of the world, managed to get back to Gotham (even though the film made a point of showing that it was isolated and nobody could get in or out) in time to stop the bomb going off, even taking the time once he arrived there to spray paint his logo onto the bridge.
When it comes to Bond escaping the loch or surviving the fall in SF, we can fill in the gaps for ourselves. I find it hard to come up with an explanation for how Batman managed to get back to Gotham though. But then I also find it hard to think of a reason why Bane wouldn't just detonate the bomb in the first place, or at least when he found out Batman was back (it's not like Batman was stealthy about returning either, he spray painted a massive flaming version of his logo onto the bridge).
I thought The Dark Knight Rises was one of those films that was brilliant when you first saw it but once you rewatch it and you actually start to think about things it falls apart a bit. Great film, poor story.
Exactly.
Kind of like seeing Oddjob walking towards Bond, cutting to other action, then returning to see Oddjob face down on the floor. Sure, we could figure that Bond had killed him somehow. On a lesser level, why bother showing Bond using the gold bars to break free? We could have assumed he'd freed himself in some clever way or other.
So, for people that don't mind this, how many times can you skip showing something before you don't even have a movie at all?
No I think you're missing the point. There is no 'action' to be missed in SF. Your analogy is the equivalent of the film cutting as Bond falls. Only to cut back to him lazing on a beach. As it is, that 'action' is resolved. We see him hit the water. The reaching hand, that acts as a transition to titles, suggesting he is plucked from the river.
Our definitions of 'action' differ, clearly. Okay, I agree to disagree. :)>-
What's your definition of an 'action'? Odd job being electrocuted is an 'action' in the script. Bond hitting the water is an 'action' in the script.
I think it is one of those moments when symbolism took over realism. Bond is in the chapel because he needs to be there for the climax, and the climax has to be in the chapel. He falls in the water to represent his full rebirth, etc. I didn't mind that he did not suffer from hypothermia: some people do and the symptoms may take longer to show up anyway. But it is a bit far fetched and time is tweaked a bit.
Walking from the kitchen to the living room is an action.
Did someone say something about a broken record earlier?
Exactly. So, I walk into the kitchen and I switch on the oven. Cut to my girlfriend, stuck in traffic. Cut to my living room - where I sit down to eat the meal I've just cooked, alone.
Do you need to see me cook the food? Or carry it through?
I don't need to answer the question because it's already been answered by Sandy.
Just to say that reading over the last 2 pages, it seems some people just prefer a different kind of storytelling. I happen to agree with what @RC7 has written, as well as what @Sandy succinctly said. Most things keep happening in spite of Bond (protagonist in this story), that is what keeps the excitement building and the story moving along (as with all great stories, the protagonist keeps overcoming obstacles). The audience does not need to see every little action where Bond gets from A to B or out of a more minor situation. Good film storytelling is also about knowing when to cut, what not to show, how to move the story forward. I think Mendes did an excellent job with Skyfall. Others want a different style of filmmaking and more exposition of the story; well, that is their prerogative. We will just disagree.
But don't start calling people "illogical" (Getafix) because that goes down a path we don't need on any thread. Not necessary. We just see things differently and enjoy or dislike different things in a film. (I like Hitchcock as a director, but maybe you don't; I don't care for many aspects of Guy Ritchie's films, maybe you love his editing and story exposition. Etc. )
AND: @Murdock, I love your new avatar!
Exactly. Thank you.
For the record, I'll admit, I dragged this on rather deliberately. I thought it was worth a couple of posters realising that hearing the same thing over and over again can get quite tedious.
Well, I hope you learnt your lesson.
Cut to girlfriend stuck in traffic.
Cut to bathroom where you're cleaning blood off your thumb and little finger.
Cut to girlfriend stuck in traffic.
Cut to you, floating in space...
The first one's a given. The second one's a "huh?" The third one's a "WTF??????"
It's all about degrees & frequency. Make the viewer go "huh?" too often or "WTF????" once or twice, and the movie's flow is destroyed.
I actually find SF to move along very well, extremely well paced and edited, very well done.
;)
I'm strictly talking about the intro, and you can toss in @Getafix's ice dilemma if you wish. Both perfectly plausible scenarios that need no further explanation. As @Sandy said, some people don't need to be guided through a movie by the hand. Others want it all explained to them. There's no denying SF has its 'wtf' moments, I'll be the first to slam Silva's inane plan. But as for the intro, there's nothing missing. You simply have to engage the mind for a split second.
Ditto. Despite some glaring flights of fancy with the mechanics of it, the actual story at the heart of it keeps on rolling right until the very end.
I can think about the plot and story afterwards more in depth, but during the film nothing was ruined for me.
I want some news soon. My heart cracked when Deakins said he was not returning ...