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
We can have fun with it on here as far as these discussions go, but they have yet to keep me from enjoying these films over and over.
TB:
Bond figures Bouvoir faked his own death since the "widow" opened the car door by herself (I still love that, by the way);
Bond stays at Shrublands with Count Lippe who coincidentally is a major player in the ENTIRE plot of TB.
PLASTIC OPERATIONS instead of bribing the real guy??
The plane is a routine test flight with LIVE ATOMIC WEAPONS.
Bond knows Domino is in Nassau, how???
Bond, like Tommy Wiseau in THE ROOM, has an unlimited running time of recording tape in Paula's suite.
Where is Paula (she hasn't been captured yet-- she makes for a shitty agent)
Bond conveniently hides his PPK in Paula's suite?? WTF??? and;
With silencer??
He punches Felix in the gut, 'coz he was about to say "007" yet;
007 announces he's 007 in front of Largo's henchmen...
Hey @noSolaceleft , this list is made within the first hour of THUNDERBALL...
Mod warning: Please don't put the words BOND and WISEAU in same sentence. Thanks.
:P
You really don't get the difference, do you?
BTW- they know about Domino's whereabouts because they are the secret service! (edit: or so I thought until I learned from @TripAces that her whereabouts was written on her photo. I stand corrected.)
And they searched for her because it was on her brothers name the suite in Shrublands was booked.
Paula is waiting in Bonds suite as you can easily conclude from the conversation she and Volpe have when she is kidnapped. So I find it quite reasonable that he has got a gun at hand there, and,and,and ....
Actually, apart from the last two points (about which I already have told you how they - and many others illogicalities in Bond Movies are easily salvageable) the only point in TB which really is not explainable (and makes no sense at all) actually is how Bond managed to get the jetpack on the veranda.
But go on trying if it suits your fancy.
Indeed I find it quite telling that you go to such lengths to find faults in other Bond movies instead just mentioning anything in Skyfall that made sense.
You do realize that I am living in Germany, do you?
So how about you pull out one of your masterpieces and send it along to me anyways; a very good friend of mine is fluent in German. She is a professional story editor and writer. I'll have her read your great work, and she will give a concise rundown of your obvious genius.
And my points on TB are my points on any film: no film is flawess.
Please send me your literary works and I'll get cracking on them!
I think that is the point. ;-)
SF made more sense. But nothing will compete with the script for TB. Some of the best lines in the whole franchise are packed into that film.
Just for my curiosity, I never mentioned you're in the forum that I ride, did I?
However, I have indeed written a book (of course a spy thriller, no less) and - since I had to find out that no one gives a rats arse for a German written spy novel - as luck has it I'm just in the process of translating it (Actually I'm only about 50 pages away from finishing up my work).
So later when I get to my computer I will copy the first chapter ( about eight pages ) and send it to you. Bear in mind that I'm not a natural English speaker so if you find any grammar mistakes or lines that somehow feel off to you please don't hesitate to mention them to me.
Don't feel compelled to say anything nice about it if you don't feel it. I'm not only giving merciless criticisms, I am also able to take them. Actually I even believe in them.
Continuing the discussion on Skyfall's plot from the Bond 25 production thread, it seems to me a distinction must be made between a plot hole and a plot weakness. My take on this: Plot holes are plot elements that are flat out illogical; i.e. that go against the logic established in the film or against common sense (YMMV on what common sense is). Plot weaknesses are plot elements whose logic is potentially wobbly, but not flat out nonsensical. Of course both count when evaluating a plot, but since discussion on plots often seems to take a detour into whether the issues being debated qualify as plot holes or not, I though that was worth pointing out.
I think most of the plot elements mentioned as issues in the Bond 25 thread are convenient ways of moving the story in certain directions, but they either stay within the realm of possibility in terms of logic and/or the expected behavior of certain characters (for example: Patrice's ammunition, Bond allowing Patrice to kill the art collector, Silva's plan), or adhere to the film's internal logic (for example: Bond not being held accountable for M's death). They are not plot holes, though some of them could've been stronger, and I understand a more "artistic" film such as this demands a higher standard of plot. One element in particular (Bond waiting to remove the pieces of shrapnel) makes perfect sense to me, given he stopped caring much about himself while in Turkey, and only put himself together after returning to London.
For me, the weakest elements of the plot, mainly because of how big their impact is on the rest of the story, are:
- Q plugging Silva's computer into the MI6 network: The film establishes Q as geeky, but not clumsy or incompetent (he is the head of Q Branch after all), so that mistake comes out of nowhere and it's never acknowledged afterwards. It's been suggested this event is reflective of the film's theme of youth not necessarily being an improvement over experience, but as it is, without being referenced ever again, it comes across as a contrivance. (Just a single line by Q acknowledging his inexperience would've changed things.)
- Bond taking M to Scotland: Silva is meant to be this mastermind cyberterrorist, an almost omnipresent threat to MI6, who can cause a gas explosion and unlock prison cells through his technological wizardry, and who can only be beaten by escaping from the computer-riddled world into the wilderness ("back in time"). The thing is, Silva makes use of plenty of human resources in his plans, especially in the Tube escape, so he in fact fails to fully come across as this unbeatable cyberterrorist (emphasis on cyber). Therefore, Bond and M's retreat to Skyfall --all by themselves!-- seems like an overreaction. If they really wanted to sell Bond and M's reasons for going to Skyfall, they needed to provide further demonstrations of Silva's techno-threat to MI6 (and in fact, to London): doors closing, fires breaking out, lights going out, computers malfunctioning, etc., with no time left for Bond and M to do anything but get the hell out of there. For the most part we just get a gas explosion and a bunch of doors that open. Not enough. As it is, I fail to see why they need to make such an urgent escape, without at least taking a bunch of well-armed people with them and hiding them somewhere near Skyfall to avoid scaring Silva away. Okay, M says she doesn't want anyone else to die, and she feels guilty about the Silva situation, but that seems a bit contrived, which wouldn't matter if this was a small plot element, but we're talking about a big part of the plot here.
It would be interesting for fans to point to any Bond movie (or indeed any classic action movie) that had a 100% watertight plot. They are few and far between. Writing a decent Bond script as hard enough without insisting on pure reality.
Could I have been fooled similarly by SP ? Perhaps, if those aspects which impressed me in SF had been in the latter film. Sadly, I wasn't taken by the visuals (although there's really nothing objectively all that wrong there, apart from the filter), the performances (lifeless, like the film) and the mood (inconsistent, and a bit morose).
Deakins deserves a lot of the credit for SF, but so does Mendes for bringing all the elements together very neatly. It's greater than the sum of its parts.
Problem with handing the controls over to an auteur is the production line breaks down and you're hostage to one man's whims and schedule.
True, but still this vision has nothing ( or at least very little ) to do with James Bond.
Of course there are other things that feel out of place for a Bond film. For example: MP doing field work, HQ switch, the pale colour palette, and the adult themes. To complicate things, Severine dies in the middle of the film leading everyone to call M the true Bond girl. Personally I think it's stupid, but it just goes to show how different this movie is. Nobody before SF would've ever thought of calling M the Bond girl. But even with all these foreign traits I still love SF, because it seamlessly binds these things together to form one coherent movie.
The one that least feels like a James Bond film to me is QoS. All it has going for it is the Fleming spirit. Absolutely none of the cinematic Bond tropes (whether it's his famous lines, his gadgets, etc) whereas SF at least had some and alluded to others. QoS is what gives people the ability to accuse Craig's Bond of being a Bourne rip-off.
Lewis Gilbert more or less had the same vision three times and his products all turned out differently, though I still enjoy all of his works.