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
This has nothing to do with personal attacks. Still some here have a wrong idea of what a plot hole is and use this wrong idea to argue against ( or denigrate ) other people's opinion.
You won't find a case of me attacking someone first. Take BondJames for instance. He and I are as far apart in our judgment about Skyfall and TWINE as is possible, but still we have never had an angry or insulting argument with each other. Simply because we stay reasonable and polite when exchanging our arguments. For some people that's not enough. They insist that they have to be right at any case and that those that don't share their opinions aren't simply clever and sophisticated enough to understand whatever. It's those people that I address and again I don't feel it's too much to ask from someone to check up what a plot hole actually is instead of just chiding the Bond movies of yore.
Bottom line, OHMSS was a smash-hit and was a success with the all-important audience, despite some unkind words from the critics. Of course, it didn't quite do the same numbers as TB, but then again very few Bond movies got anywhere near the success of TB afterwards. In any case, it's TMWTGG that's the Bond movie that is most remembered as the one that performed badly, not OHMSS.
PS. I've just read that back to myself, and I don't mean to come across as obnoxious in my tone. I'm just sharing an opinion with you, @SirHilaryBray.
As for Mendes. The thing I dislike most about his storytelling approach is the way he hates showing his villains without Bond present. Thus we don't see a boardroom full of Spectre members without Bond gatecrashing the proceeds. It worked much better in TB, as did the respective introductions of Red Grant, Rosa Klebb, Blofeld and Kronsteen in FRWL. The same applies to SF whereby Silva was first introduced with Bond strapped to a chair. This tactic can sometimes create intrigue, occasionally suspense, but personally I think the cons outweigh the pros. For me, villains seen only through Bond’s eyes are unavoidably undernourished and need a more polished introduction. That's why Mendes' movies are not top-drawer Bond films in my eyes. They're just way too pedestrian to be considered worthy of putting them alongside the greats.
The end of the failure myth: sunlight. Meaning cable, video, DVD, and other media. Folks actually saw the film.
A failure myth in a much more minor way was applied to QOS. Now years later I hear a lot of positive comments about it.
SPECTRE. Likewise, a small scale failure myth exists that likely won't stand the test of time.
Speaking of opinions, here's mine: I don't agree with these comments that they are potentially stuck with Craig due to box office. If that were the case, then they should pay Mendes whatever it takes and bring him back for one more, because it is actually his two films which have delivered the oversize box office returns. If that were the case, then they shouldn't be considering Villeneuve for director. If one goes back and checks forums in early 2004 the same arguments were being made for why Brosnan should return for B21. In fact, Brosnan made those same arguments himself while negotiating in the press for his return (i.e. that his films were generating big box office). They fell on deaf years. Why? Well because Babs and Co. realized it was time for a shift. The current path had run its course. Moreover, they were spending too much money on the films to generate the returns. Some of the fanbase (certainly myself) feel that we are long overdue for such a change now (for similar reasons), and I can see that even some die hard Craigites recognize that the current path has run out of steam, even though they still passionately advocate for their man's return. Bottom line is it's been 11 long years, and will be 13 by time B25 is released. That is an eternity not only in Bond actor tenure terms but also in cultural terms. Particularly these days where the pace of change is extremely rapid. Moreover, as others have noted, SP was a decent closure to the connected Craig narrative, especially if Blofeld is not returning.
So why didn't they make the change, despite (credible) rumours that they seriously considered a shift? As I've noted previously, I believe it's because of business considerations, but not necessarily box office. They (meaning MGM/EON) are in a transition period. They can't really make a change until they sort out the corporate structure. Once that's done, we will see the shifts that some of us (most notably myself) have been clamouring for. I still hold out some hope that it could still happen with B25, but I realize that's perhaps unrealistic.
PS: I just heard on a business channel that the US Govt is throwing up roadblocks re: the AT&T/Time Warner merger. I also read that Apple was interested in Time Warner at one point. The reason: 'Content'. This industry is changing rapidly and they may still make a play for Warner.
Regarding OHMSS: It certainly didn't make the same kind of money globally or in the US that YOLT or DAF did. YOLT failed to live up to TB's success, and OHMSS continued a sharp box office decline. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken, the budget on OHMSS was quite high relative to its return, and that could be what Wilson was commenting on. Whatever we may think of them, Hamilton's DAF (and later LALD) are the films which re-energized Bond box office.
As for those DVD extras features weren't they shot in the 90s when OHMSS was still popularly regarded as a 'failure'? As I recall it was only circa 1994 with the 25th anniversary and the peerless box set featuring the film uncut for the first time, packaged with the OHMSS special edition of 007 magazine, that the film started to be reevaluated even within the fandom so it's hardly surprising to hear MGW echoing the general perception that it was rubbish and GF is the best.
Were MGW to record those commentaries today he'd be a lot kinder as even amongst casual film fans it's trendy to say OHMSS is a classic now. It's only the masses who still subscribe to the 'OHMSS was a flop' doctrine these days.
And a bloody good thing to. God preserve us from the anodyne blandness that pervades society these days.
Congratulations! 60 comments later you are still the only one who came anywhere close to naming a plot hole in SF. Still, your "answer" is so vague that it's not really an answer. What's a plot hole about Silva and his plan?
Any damage to its reputation was caused by TV and the media (natch) as time progressed.
Looking forward to your thoughts.
The least you could do is to resonate with your point of view, at least make excuses than coming up with a "vague answer" as you put it.
Ridiculous contrivance, coincidence and requiring the audience suspend preposterous amounts of disbelief are not plot holes per se so congratulations you win the internet.
But that doesn't mean it's not extremely poor writing.
After Gareth Mallory finds out that both Q and Tanner were in on it with Bond taking M with him alone and creating false tracker history for Silva to "follow", he says others better not find out, otherwise they'll be "buggered" (in his own words).
M dying at some estrange lodge in the middle of nowhere in Scotland, kidnapped by somebody with no authority or escorting her to a safe house by reporting to official channels, how on earth would they fabricate a story as such and not put Bond on trial for being an accessory to M's murder (even though he wasn't, his actions led up to it)? You'd think he'd be arrested by the government and given hell by the prime minister and his underlings. But, everything was fine at the end of the film like nothing happened. Whereas in QoS, just because some low level Special Branch nobody was killed, Bond received the blame and his name was blacklisted. Go figure.
Maybe the death of some undercover agent who nobody cares about is more treasonous to be responsible for than the death of a leading key figure within the British government, someone like the head of the foreign intelligence agency, for example.
If that element alone isn't classed as a plot hole, then we've got nothing to discuss.
There is a difference between being obnoxious and not being politically correct
Bond was hunted down for days after the death of that one Special Branch agent "guarding" Haines (or whatever he was doing there). Yet for kidnapping M (whether you like it or not, that's how it officially is going to be seen) and losing her in the field, he's gotten a free pass. How's that happening, pray tell? M isn't just some other non-official covert operative you could use as an expandable figure. I'm surprised her death hasn't sparked an official investigation by the Whitehall. Where's the public inquiry? It was, by MI5's leads alone, going to trace the whole thing to Bond's unofficial actions. And unauthorized actions like that, particularly kidnapping M (yes, she agreed. But, only a few people know it, and it's their word against the whole government's), would lead to possibly a death sentence (or if lucky, sentenced to life at the Wandsworth prison, all of them who were accessory to it). But, everything was ignored, and winning a battle but losing a war, Bond was standing as some sort of a glorious figure, free to go wherever he pleased.
Some plot. Hole(s) in one.
Well I'm old school in that I regard GE as utter sh*t, so people saying SF is a classic is a step up I suppose.
That's not a plot hole that's just utter gormlessness from Q.
Tell that to the bullet holes into the court room. ;)
The answer is very simple: it was not officially seen as Bond kidnapping M. In the epilogue we see that Bond avoided punishment, which means he was able to explain the events somehow, and prove that he did not kidnap M. How did he do all this? It simply doesn't matter.
Of course it has sparked an investigation. Again, it was not shown because putting a 5 minute scene at the end of the movie showing Bond getting exonerated would have been very amateurish filmmaking.
[Probably never correct as heard by the receiver.]
Which discussion was this again?
Okay let me think from my memory of everything I find problem with in the plot of skyfall
- Silva hacks a gas explosion at mi6, sad!
- James Bond doesn’t ever bother taking the bullet shrapnel out and then months later it is still in his body and then he removes it
-then it is revealed that only three people in the world use that bullet. Because professional assasins want to be easily traceable? I mean really....
- this is just a personal thing of mine but Q is shit and gives bond shitty gadgets and then says they don’t go in for exploding pens WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF Q BRANCH.
-bond allows Patrice to Kill the art collector
-bond assumes the same person who payed him for this job would have payed him for the Turkish job
-Q plugs Silva’s computer into the mi6 hq
-Silva had planned this like ten years out but what if they had put a real lock on his prison instead of an electric one, his whole plan would break apart
-Silva is able to know how to escape from mi6 under ground but also knew bond would chase him but also knew that they would end up at a specific location where he has already placed a bomb and that a train wtih no passengers would hit bond and that bond wouldn’t shoot him even though he obviously could while he’s going up a ladder
-what if there wasn’t a train going over at that exact moment
-and then he just shoots up the court house, why did he have to pretend to go to jail to do that, he could have just done it anyway
-bond doesn’t want to be tracked so he gets in a Db5 AND THEN ASKS Q TO LAY A BREAD CRUMB TRAIL TO SCOTLAND FOR SILVA TO TRACK THEM
-why would bond take m to skyfall instead of leaving her in a Scottish village and then camping out at skyfall by himself and killing Silva, why would he put m in danger for no reason
- you have the entire government on your side why would you run to skyfall where there are no guns
- Albert finny has been game keeper on skyfall for all these years????? Where does he get food. Why would he be there. Bond is presumed dead. Why would he still be there.
- Silva wants to kill m so, he Hires a guy to steal a list of agents, but doesn’t want the assassin to be good enough not to be tracked down and killed. So he wants the guy to shoot bond but bond won’t die and will keep the bullet in him and that bond will get that analyzed months later and that the assasin is stupid enough to use a bullet that no one else does and then that bond will come to his island. Silva wants bond to fight Sévérines bodyguards but that they won’t kill him and that he will survive and come with Sévérine to the island and that bond will have a tracking device and capture Silva and that they will jail him in an electric jail in a facility that he probably shouldn’t know exists considering the only started using it because he blew up reguler mi6. Then part of his plan hinges on Q being such a fu***ng idiot that he plugs the computer into mi6, that bond will crack the stupid code that bond will trace him down the underground stuff. He has to organize his henchman to give him a police uniform as soon as he escapes, no later, I mean how would they even know. Then he knows that James Bond will chase after him but not catch him but not lose him either and that also M is at a court room meeting which he couldn’t have known would happen on that very day and that he can just drive there and shoot everyone.
That is horrible and takes me out of any enjoyment in this film.
Why can’t we go back to the amazing plots of CR and QOS, I don’t understand.
But it's great you like QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Hope you like the next one.
Quantum is truly underrated. One of the best Bond films as far as I'm concerned. Sure, foot chase in Vienna kinda sucks, as does the boat chase, but everything else (the car chase, airplane scenes, finale action scenes were great) about this movie is so good. A future Bond classic.
Most importantly, QoS HAD SOUL. Whenever I think of Skyfall, I can't help but feel a little cold about it. But QoS seems to feel more nostalgic and emotional. Craig at his peak. Arnold at his peak. Cinematography at it's peak. Proper fit suits, to top it off.
I agree the plot is dire but the traceable bullet thing is a direct lift from TMWTGG isn't it?
SF is basically a mash up of TMWTGG and TWINE, neither of which were stellar entries to start with.