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
I think it’s valid critique of EON, but it also depends on how the final product turns out. I mentioned FRWL earlier, but I also think that Octopussy manages to take some influence from Raiders of the Lost Ark, but that influence is pretty subtle and never sits in the back of my mind consistently for the entirety of that films runtime. NTTD had some great action sequences that reminded me a lot of the John Wick series and I enjoyed the influences there also.
I’d argue that some of those plot points are quite derivative of Bourne however. Those shadowy “New World Order” types of figures are also in the Bourne series; I think of Chris Cooper’s character, Brian Cox’s character, Albert Finney’s character, even Joan Allen’s character who we sympathize with a bit more. They aren’t portrayed as politicians mind you, but they are portrayed as those “shadowy figures” running things in the dark with complete control.
With the exception of Camille’s subplot and that final moment, which are some of the highlights of QOS for me personally, all of those other elements were also somewhat influenced Bourne. The subplot with M learning to trust Bond is similar to Joan Allen’s arc in both Supremacy and Ultimatum; where she learns that Bourne really isn’t as “unhinged” as her superiors suspected. Over the course of those two films we see her stance on Bourne change, even going so far as to trust him in Ultimatum so that they could meet up and he could hand over those classified documents to her. The moral ambiguity of the CIA is a constant theme through all the Bourne films.
The comparisons between Silva and Joker for me are less to do with character traits/qualities and more plot similarities/contrivances. One of my big issues with TDK is how contrived the movie can get at times, and a lot of that is down to Joker’s plan, and it’s the same issue I have with Skyfall. For me the biggest example is the scene down in the tunnel, where Silva somehow knew the exact position Bond would be standing and somehow knew where to plant the charges to destroy the ceiling over them, and distract him long enough for that Subway to come crashing right exactly into him. Those types of contrivances are what I’m getting at when I’m comparing both Silva/Joker.
It’s not that I don’t enjoy Skyfall, I think it’s a solid movie and I’m always entertained watching it. I’ll state that I wish that I could say for myself that Skyfall is amongst the best the series has to offer. But honestly I just think there are so many other Bond films that feel more authentic to the character, and the groundwork that’s been laid beforehand without having to riff on the works of other filmmakers. For me, I think that Skyfall gets an awful lot of credit for being “introspective” of the character/series, when it really isn’t in the slightest. That’s just my take though.
I wasn’t there either, but I can just personally tell the difference in the final product. It’s easy for me to notice when something looks like a cynical attempt to cash in on a trend, just as it’s easy for to recognize when elements from other films are actively improved upon by EON. Those are just my two cents on the matter though.
I'd say NTTD has a lot in common with something like Logan to the point where you can aim the same criticisms at it as with SF/TDK here. In fact I think they have a lot more directly in common from a plot perspective - both involve aging versions of their main characters who are recruited back specifically for a last adventure, both have longstanding allies who die within the story, both are revealed to have daughters, and both die at the end/'live on' through the stories told about them to said children. I don't think these similarities are to NTTD's detriment incidentally. Many of these ideas (right down to the daughter and the main character dying) were also done in films like Avengers: Endgame, and they certainly aren't new in the context of storytelling/cinema (even if modern films seem to be using these tropes more readily in relation to these well established characters). As I said, all these films stand out as individual works. Logan uses the idea of an old, dying Wolverine to explore the myths we make around heroes (specifically superheroes) and asks whether Logan can ever live up to this ideal himself, whereas NTTD is more about that old Fleming question of whether Bond, being in the game that he is, can ever settle down or be happy without being called back into the line of duty. There's certainly a number of differences in tone, story and general ideas/themes as well beyond these similarities.
It really depends on how you view the film as a whole, as you said. But honestly, we have whole genres film which essentially retell the same broad story with the same type of characters. It's just about what each one brings to the table as an individual film and what you as a viewer take away from that movie.
I'd say Bourne was more about 'the threat from within' - how even those who were once Bourne's allies can turn on him. It's about a man discovering and learning to get to grips with his past. QOS has some overlap with Bourne (both are very much 'post-9/11' films with a preoccupation about moral ambiguity and slight distrust of government authority), but I think the film deals a lot with how MI6 chooses to act in the modern world. As The Foreign Secretary says Britain is a country with less oil (and indeed less influence) than it did in the past, and 'right or wrong' doesn't come into who they deal with anymore, even if it means outright working with 'the villains'. There's much about M learning to deal with this and Bond having to navigate his mission within this context.
I don't think QOS would be the film it is without Bourne. But it still has one foot in the door with the concerns of Fleming's material (ie. Britain's changing status as an imperial power, the role of the villains, the 'old guard' in the form of M dealing with this modern world etc.) So I think for a Bond film it's quite unique and adds to what Bourne was doing. I don't find it particularly derivative. Honestly, the Bourne films and QOS simply feel very different as films to me -the characters come off as different, the tone is different for the most part etc.
I think plot similarities are pretty superficial to get hung up about really. So much is recycled when it comes to movies, particularly big franchise ones (off the top of my head the 'villain getting captured as part of their plan' thing was done after TDK with SF, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Avengers, but honestly to me the plot point bears similarities to similar scenes in Seven and Silence of the Lambs). It's more the bigger picture stuff that matters, in this case Silva's actual motives, how he interacts with Bond etc.
As for plot holes/contrivances, it really depends on whether they take you out of the movie or not when watching it. The truth is Bond films (and yes, Batman films) are full of contrivances, and often much of it won't make sense when you actually think about things (usually long after you've watched the film). Personally, I've never been taken out of SF during that subway moment, anymore than I think 'why has SPECTRE convinced a man to wear a Bond mask as part of this elaborate training exercise' after FRWL's opening, or the many number of things you get in Bond films. Same applies for Joker/Silva's plan.
I do, however, understand that some plot holes can take you out of the film instantly. TDK actually does this more than SF for me. The moment when Gordon is revealed to be alive never felt cathartic but always left me confused (why did he need to fake his death in the first place? Even if he had time to plan this out it didn't change anything and there was no reason for him to do this). But in my experience most viewers don't tend to question the plot of SF or TDK in the moment. Long after viewing the film or on their 10+ rewatch maybe, but generally people watch and enjoy them.
I mean, I think it does some interesting stuff with Bond's character, and I got a lot out of it just on a pure entertainment level. I know many who do. I just don't understand why it bothers you that Bond takes influence from other movies, or if a film has similar plot beats to another. All movies do this to some extent. Like I said, genre movies essentially retell the same stories in different ways. Maybe one of these particular movies isn't as well made, or indeed doesn't resonate with a certain portion of viewers.
I dunno, like I said I can personally understand being taken out of a movie or not being able to engage with it due to personal dislike (going back to TDK I find the editing/way the truck chase is shot to be badly done to the point where I get distracted watching it, and I find the ending/lead in to TDKR to be a bit counterintuitive to the story/what it's been trying to do throughout the film that I find it to be badly written). I just don't get plot similarities to other films being a reason for this dislike.
Well, going back to my NTTD example, we could easily say that Bond's death/the plot beats I mentioned have been done in other recent films (I mean, to be fair you didn't seem to notice them in NTTD just going from your previous reply, just the John Wick stuff. It could easily be interpreted as trend chasing). The producers and Craig claimed that these ideas were ingrained into the story well before the script had been written and felt this was the best way creatively to end Craig's run. Many viewers, people on these forums even, would agree that it was the most creatively satisfying end to Craig's era. Is this cynical trend chasing or simply good storytelling? Depends on who you ask I suppose. I just don't think any of us can say for sure as we don't live inside the producer's heads. We can only talk about what we got out of the film.
There's also the report that Craig had the death idea from the start, carried long term through his tenure.
Doesn't eliminate the concept of trendchasing, but I'll never see it as that in this case. To me it's surprisingly good storytelling.
That’s certainly true, but the big difference between the NTTD/Logan link and the SF/TDK link is that Cary Fukanaga wasn’t trying to copy the directorial style of James Magnold the way Mendes/EON were trying to keep up with Christopher Nolan in Skyfall. Therefore it’s much easier for me to forgive NTTD’s usage of those plot elements because the difference in tone/style is night and day between NTTD and Logan. Whereas with Skyfall, not only am I noticing similarities in plot to TDK, but the directorial style does nothing to set itself apart from Nolan imo. It almost feels like a carbon copy to me, and at that point, I’d rather just watch the real thing.
That “threat from within” concept is also littered throughout QOS though. Quantum’s reach into Governments is made quite clear, and we even see its direct influence over politicians. Like you said earlier, it’s a different way of working those elements of Bourne into Bond, and yeah it might work for some people, but for me personally I find all those details you mentioned too superficial to actually be engaging.
Why are we watching a Bond movie that goes off about how “it’s necessary to work with the villains”, if it doesn’t even bother to show an example of that. We’re told that “Britain isn’t taking right/wrong into account when working with villains” yet none of that is in the final film. We don’t even see how working with Quantum directly impacts the status of Britain, both inland and overseas. Which leads me to my next question; why even bother bringing all those elements up in the first place of the film doesn’t even bother to explore those ideas with more depth. It’s superficial to me, and comes across as another movie that places the “governmental organizations” as evil, and as a result feels derivative of Bourne.
That’s characters of Bond and Bourne are incredibly different yes. Bond is definitely more colorful than Bourne, and also more flexible with regards to what you can do with him as a character. But the tone? I don’t think there’s a huge leap in difference between both Supremacy/Ultimatum and QOS. Tonally they feel incredibly similar, the films are edited similarly, and the action scenes are staged in almost the exact way.
Plot similarities I can easily get over, but it becomes less forgiving for me when I see a directorial style being copied in addition to those plot similarities.
You’re not wrong that Bond films, and indeed Batman films, are riddled to the brim with contrivances, and usually I can look past those. But in the case of Skyfall/TDK, both of which are movies that have wonderful talent attached to them, both in front of and behind the camera, and both of which start off incredibly strong for me before the issues start to settle in, I expect a bit more consistency with regards to the script. Admittedly I think TDK is much more inconsistent than Skyfall is, because Skyfall has a wonderful first and second act that I don’t have much issues with.
Also, that example from FRWL is incredibly different than the “Subway” example. FRWL’s moment was just a throwaway scene not meant to have much impact on the plot. Whereas SF’s Subway moment directly implies that Silva knew the exact spot where Bond would be standing ahead of time to have charges planted on the subway track so that when the floor explodes, the Subway can come crashing down directly into Bond. There are plenty of contrivances in Bond, but none as egregious as that moment, and like I said, for the level of talent involved in SF, it’s a bit less forgiving for me personally.
That moment with Gordon has always been one of my big issues with TDK too. Completely unnecessary.
No argument from me there. Skyfall is riddled with great character moments, and I always walk away from the movie feeling entertained, so it isn’t a question on weather or not I find the movie enjoyable on a whole.
Well I mentioned why it bothers me earlier. I think that fundamentally speaking there is a huge difference between borrowing influences from other films, and directly copying the work of other films/directors, and EON has always towed that line in some cases, and that’s definitely something worth critiquing.
Plus like I said earlier, I feel as if there’s a double standard because if some people are alright with criticizing Live and Let Die for borrowing elements of Blaxsplotstion, TMWTGG for borrowing elements of the Martial Arts Genre, and Moonraker for directly taking influence from Star Wars (especially in that final scene where Bond has to shoot down that final capsule), then why shouldn’t we be able criticize both QOS and Skyfall for how derivative they are of both Bourne and TDK. Recency bias?
Oh I definitely noticed those plot points, trust me. I can go on a whole other tangent about that.
To some people on this forum it definitely comes across as cynical trend chasing, but I digress.
Absolutely, and what I got out of some of the films we’ve discussed in this conversation is that EON isn’t shy of borrowing influence, and sometimes copying others work. Simply put, I get much more enjoyment out of Bond films that don’t try and riff on the work of others. Casino Royale is a perfect example. It obviously borrows influence from both Bourne, and Batman Begins, but also manages to tell its own unique story. Whereas Skyfall not only borrows influence from TDK, but also copies several different plot points, and even has a similar directorial style.
I realize it's the nature of the beast that so much these days feels derivative. Not much feels terribly original. It seems the best that can be done is to put a new spin on the familiar.
In the Craig era three things stand out as my biggest gripes: Silva's face transition, Brofeld, and Bond dying.
Could SF have worked without it? Other than the one special effect, how was it relevant to any of the rest film?
Brofeld? Could both films have succeeded without that angle? Of course, because Blofeld has always worked without that relationship to Bond
Bond dying. Enough said. You either liked it or you didn't.
Majesty’s feels incredibly fresh too, especially after YOLT.
Maybe I just don't see it myself. Nolan's direction in TDK seems different to SF's for me personally.
TDK comes off more as a high concept crime thriller, especially in terms of pacing with plenty of steady action. SF is much more of a slow boil after the PTS. Gotham seems much more 'grounded' (ie. more like any other generic city/Chicago) in comparison to SF's varied and even at times otherworldly locations (even Scotland/the manor is depicted in a rather self consciously rather Gothic sort of way). As I hinted at before some of the editing/directing of things like the truck chase have strange spacial shifts from shot to shot and are weirdly edited in TDK (which I don't think is a problem with SF, which has rather clean editing/cinematography). I dunno, I'm really not seeing it.
You can certainly argue QOS isn't effective at dealing with these ideas. It's not a favourite Bond film of mine either and I think it could have used some work in these areas and others.
I don't really see how it conveys 'governmental organisations' as evil though. If anything it's showing the British Government as being reluctantly accepting of the idea that this is the way the modern world works. The CIA come off a bit worse button in a particularly Bourne-esque way. They're just opportunistic and cynical. It's Quantum - an independent villainous organisation - who are specifically the ones working in the shadows and 'evil' here. So yeah, not really sure I get where you're coming from here completely.,
Tonally I think QOS is much more varied, and feels more like... well, a Bond film.
I'd also say the editing in QOS is far worse than Bourne' for what it's worth, haha.
Yeah, like I said I'm not sure if I really see it myself. I'm sure there are directional similarities, but as a whole both films just feel very different to me.
It comes back to what I said before - plot contrivances don't matter when it comes to these films insofar as the film is able to engage viewers to the extent that they don't think about them on their first viewing. For you it might just be a similar case to the 'Gordon is alive' revelation in TDK. It's just something that takes you out of the film for whatever reason.
I mean, I suppose if you think about it it's a bit ridiculous (not inflating gondolas or invisible cars ridiculous, but in theory pretty silly I suppose). But in the context of the film it just seems like Silva set a trap in advance for anyone pursuing him through the abandoned tube station. Honestly, I've seen people get far more worked up about the FRWL PTS opening. I don't know why it's particularly egregious. But to each their own.
Yeah, a weird one. I think it was simply to inject some 'personal stakes' into the second act of the script. Confused the hell out of me first time I watched it.
I mean, I agree that it doesn't make sense criticising one and not criticising the other. Still don't think it matters too much with the likes of LALD and MR - they use elements of other films of the same era and reimagine certain ideas in the context of a Bond film. I'd argue the Blaxploitation and Sci Fi elements help give both those films their own identity.
Indeed. And to many others it was a great storytelling choice. Certainly comes across as if it was a story decision the producers cared about just taking them at their word (for whatever that's worth). I suppose if those choices worked for a portion of fans/viewers, does it matter if it was trend chasing or not?
I suppose I just don't see how SF is any less unique than CR for those same reasons you pointed out.
With QOS, the effect of govts working with Quantum was shown mainly through Bream and the CIA. South America was 'falling like dominoes' and Bream's sarcastic 'Yeah, you're right, we should only work with nice people' (a classic line) gave away that elements of the CIA (and, by extension, the US govt) weren't out to stop it, they were looking to tie themselves in with the winners. But without any explicit exposition, we also saw how Guy Haines' direct involvement in Quantum filtered through to other branches of govt and from there to the security services themselves. Elements high up in our own govt were acting against British interests to further those of Quantum. That's pretty damned insidious. In the middle of all this, Bond (ostensibly an Establishment, govt asset) was actually the force of resistance. Whether against supervillains or traitorous elites, that's what we want him to be, no? QOS showed that brilliantly, for me.
I don’t feel as if every Bond movie is completely perfect in my eyes, nor should every Bond film aim to be perfect in every sense. I’ve been very critical of the Bond series as a whole, particularly the decades following the 60’s, which are were many of my personal gripes with the series start to show, because I think it’s important to be critical of something you love in order to strengthen your love for it.
Like @CrabKey mentioned, there is a magic and something unique about those earlier Bond films, and Majesty’s in particular to me, that by the time the series enters the 70’s, it begins to show its struggles keeping up with contemporary entertainment of its day, and I don’t think 007 has really escaped that problem fully.
But as much as I wish Bond would become more of a trend setter than trend follower, I couldn’t give up any of the films we already have. Even QOS. I think what makes Bond special is that it’s a wonderful look into the evolution of Western Action films, and that’s why it’s lasted for so long. So despite my many gripes with a movie like Skyfall, I still find enjoyment in it, arguably more than I find in TDK. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have my issues with it.
Is it unfortunate? Possibly because I’ve grown to be more and more critical of Skyfall in the decade since its release, and I feel the problems with Skyfall go beyond what I’ve mentioned in our discussion. But I can also understand that to many people, Skyfall is their favorite Bond movie, or at least high up there. I’ll say that I wish I could bring myself to enjoy Skyfall, and by extension the rest of the Craig era (excluding CR) the way you and many other folks do, but something’s been missing for me in Craig’s era since CR.
But then again, my favorite Bond is Pierce Brosnan, and there is plenty to criticize about him and his era haha.
Agree. It shares top billing with CR as my favorites. I was thinking in terms of the first time the series felt a bit stale to me (YOLT).
Sure it could have been executed better in many respects, but a standard Bond adventure where he rides into the sunset with the girl in concept was a welcome change up.
To be fair I think when you’ve watched these films as many times as most of us have we can’t help but be critical about them, even the ones we love.
For what it’s worth I think regardless of the era any fan first watched these films, there’ll always be some sort of complaint about the series. Go back far enough I’m sure some fans of the novels were disappointed in Connery’s first films (broadly the same complaints could even apply - I’ve honestly always got the sense Connery played Bond in DN as more a modern anti-hero type than Fleming’s Bond, and I think this was a conscious choice that was ironed out/adapted in later instalments). Personally I think everyone has a certain era of Bond films they look back on as having that sense of ‘magic’ (a good chunk of its nostalgia too). For me it’s probably seeing SF in the cinema, but I also got it on my first FRWL viewing, and indeed those early Brosnan films.
Exactly. Like I said, being critical of these films in a way helps strengthen my love for the series. I wouldn’t be a fan of film in general if it wasn’t for the Bond films.
I remember reading somewhere that some fans of the literary character were a bit repulsed by the scene in Dr. No where Bond executes Dent. They argued that the literary Bond would never be that cold and vicious. Plus I’m sure there was also the controversy of casting Connery in the first place; judging by movies like Darby O’Gill, and Hell Drivers (one of my favorite early Connery films), I’d have a tough time picturing him as Bond going off those films.
I got that sense of ‘Magic’ after watching the early Brosnan films, and the early Connery films. Then by the time CR came out I had caught up with most of the series thanks to television, and was absolutely blown away; I’ll never forget seeing that film for the first time on the big screen.
I think the fact that Connery’s Bond is always one step ahead of everyone throughout DN is a bit of an issue (Fleming’s Bond was never an elaborate tactical agent and would often do things like walk into a situation knowing it was a trap, outright reveal himself in not so subtle ways to villains, and was prone to mistakes). And yeah, if Dent had been killed in the novel Bond would have at least been a bit torn up about having done it. I think it’s indicative of what they were going for with the cinematic Bond in that film, and if anything Connery’s Bond (and the cinematic Bond in general) becomes more Fleming esque as the series continues.
Completely agreed, and same here.
I would also say that the pacing is brutally slow for the most part of the film. Like in NTTD the film suffers from not having a clear and waterproof script. Instaead, the plot is slowlly meandering from one scene to the next. Characters appear and disappear again. Towards the end I was hoping for a great climax like in TSWLM or YOLT. What other reason do you have to build up an impressive villain lair? Bond's escape from the crater is, however, way to easy and the whole villain lair is actually wasted. After the return to London, the film feels very rushed. I mean how much time should have been passed between Bond's return to London that Blofeld was able to set up all the stupid installations in the old mi6 building? This whole final part in London is so extremely bad.
For me, SP did provide some of the more memorable Craig scenes of his run though. The entire day of the dead sequence in Mexico City really does draw me in like few others in the series. The deliberate nature of the scene does no favors to the films pacing later, but here it has an almost magnetic effect.
Bond and Qs entire sequence at the clinic and Bonds post funeral dispatch of two cold blooded killers and seduction of the widow is further excellent cinema in my view. And if you'll allow me, reasonable evidence for my view that Mendes is a more than capable director that editing ultimately failed in SP.
Undoubtedly. It's amazing how time helps a film. Maybe....just maybe....just MAYBE! NTTD would be revisited and liked when Bond 26 comes out.
I would agree when the third act of Spectre was more satisfying. YOLT is a rather slow film, too but it pays off in the end. I must, however, admit that I have come to like some of Sepctre's scenes like the PTS, the meeting with Mr. White or the scenes on the train.
Yeah. It's a laid back Bond film. Craig's Bond doing things somewhat calmly. It's also notable, that it's from SP, they started paying more attention to Craig's hair. Also apart from the repetition of tracks from SF, Newman's SP score is good. I loved what Zimmer did with NTTD, but another part of me would have liked to see what Newman would have done with NTTD....not necessarily the action music, but the atmospheric/romantic pieces.
I really thought he integrated many of these on an innovative and narratively dynamic level. It went beyond mere fan service for me for those reasons.
My feelings exactly. It has some cool iconography and Bondian flavour. The champagne in place of the Aston, the scene at Lucia’s villa, the clinic, the Rolls,… The thing I dislike, even more than the brofeld thing is the main Song and the mostly reashed soundtrack. And the yellowish filter. Those do bug me. But I enjoy the film for the most part, and I can’t say that about NTTD, as I only like the first quarter of the film.
Very much so. I remember watching and thinking that Bonds drunk in L'Americain is probably as Fleming-esque as the series will allow itself to be for the immediate future.
But there really was a lot of detail in SP that often goes unappreciated.
Yes I think SP has a number of great moments and scenes (maybe none of the action set pieces quite fly, but they're not bad) and the film ends up being less than the sum of its parts.
Yes, Mendes may have lost track of the plot of the film as they went along (I'm not sure any director could have made what sounded like a fairly hellish production process work!) but he certainly has a feel for what a Bond film is, and every moment of SP feels more like I'm watching a Bond film than NTTD does. SP isn't great, but I can put it on and just enjoy the atmosphere, which isn't something I get from NTTD. And I think Craig's Bond is fully formed in this one and finally comfortable in his own skin, and I really enjoy him in it.
I always say that the crater base stuff feels more like a Fleming novel than even any of the direct adaptations like Dr No manage when they get to the villain's lair. It just has that atmosphere of one of the books. I like that despite all of the niceties, you're never in doubt that Bond and Madeline are in really big danger here. The meteor bit has a slight flavour of a local quirky bit of interest which a villain might get obsessed about as you would find in a novel, but perhaps doesn't quite get there. It's still nice though, and I love Bond's loaded line about it stopping right there.
As I say, it's full of nice ideas, and I love to see a kind of final final draft of the script which the writers might make on their own time to amuse themselves with no interference from outside. I'd say it's obviously a film which is directed by someone who loves the Bond films and by writers who know their Fleming, and that's no bad thing.
It's mid tier for me - lots to love: Mexico City, Spectre meeting, Lucia's villa, L'American and the whole Morocco bit with the train sequence, and even the arrival to Blofeld lair are quite stellar. If there had been a big TSWLM shootout/escape there the film would've ended on a high note.
Agree that it's Craig's Thunderball: lots of beautiful Bondian moments, following the bread crumbs, looking cool along the way. A Bond hangout film - style over substance - ultimately let down by poor pacing/editing and underwhelming ending.
It could've been amazing.