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
That's a very good idea. I have to imagine Wilson has been contributing (unofficially) to the recent scripts, however.
That's a great idea.
Exactly a sense of direction there seems to be no direction
Agreed
Great point. I didn't know that this was Cubby's approach but it really is so telling. The plots have generally been awful since Cubby's departure. I've been told on here so many times that plot is irrelevant and that themes and motifs are much more important.
I call BS. Without at least a half decent and vaguely coherent plot the films are destined to be underwhelming.
And for the record I think MGW contributed the villain's scheme for QoS. That film takes a lot of flack but in my opinion it's one of the better plotted original stories from the post-Cubby era.
According to Wikipedia: "Producer Michael G. Wilson developed the film's plot while the previous film in the series, Casino Royale, was being shot."
May be after QoS took such a slating he decided to step back?
I think it was, (check out the Mark Kermode review).
I don't know if I've got a short attention span, or if I'm a bit thick, but I sat through QOS completely bemused. When it got to Bond flipping that guy off the motorbike, I honestly hadn't a clue who was who, or what was going on. It's at that point I decided to just enjoy the stunts, (or the bits I could make out between the mili-second editing).
That scene isn't that complicated is it? Slate obviously was supposed to assassinate Camille, the guy on the bike is the backup guy to make sure he goes through with it. Bond with the briefcase he's taken at the hotel has taken on Slate's identity and takes the guy's bike to follow Camille. How is that hard to follow!?
Its not.
The bit I find hard to follow is why Bond launches a risky and unprovoked attack on Medrano's boat.
Bond hasnt heard the conversation between Greene, Medrano and Camille so how does he know she is being taken off to be dumped in the sea? It could be that shes actually working for Medrano not Greene so why not just nick a boat and follow them instead of launching a bizarre gung ho attack to do what exactly? Kidnap Camille?
I could be wrong but im sure she starts to struggle once Medrano's man has hold of her arm and Greene says to her 'be careful what you wish for".
And therein lines the problem. Action for the sake of it. It's around this point I always find myself thinking 'chill the f*** out'. It's hard to give a toss about anything that's going on.
I don't think the plots have been all bad, they've just become less prominent and the themes and character stuff have taken over. I think TWINE has a brilliant plot. CR is great too but then they did have Fleming to work with. And SP's plot (brother stuff aside) actually has a great, modern threat at its core imo, people just forget it because it took a backseat to the character stuff.
Having said that I don't think the plot itself always has to be the main attraction. It's all about the execution. LTK is my favourite Bond film and the plot there isn't original at all: bad guy murders friend, hero goes for brutal revenge. But it's executed brilliantly and watching Bond tear down Sanchez's world from within is really compelling.
Its minimal struggling. Shes hardly screaming the place down. And Bond is several hundred yards away.
Its poor tradecraft in my opinion in launching a risky attack with no real defined objective that delcares your hand to Greene and Medrano.
But as @RC7 states we have to another action scene just for the sake of it (despite this being the third big action sequence in the first half hour) it seems rather than anything approaching any sort plot advancement to fulfill Forster's inane speeding bullet ethos.
If you don't have a solid grasp on the story probably.
It's still not too complicated however. He knows that someone wants her to be killed and that she knows things he would like to know. Also, you can see from the behavior of Medranos men that there was trouble ahead for her. So if he had decided to free her, what was he supposed to do? Following them on the open sea where they would have gotten aware of him or just attack them surprise style right in the harbor, where he could use his smaller boat to advantage?
So to my mind this absolutely makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is that he abandons her at first chance and never chooses to question her.
I attribute it to the improvised character of the script.
Let me add, that I actually hate the way the boat fight is edited the most in the movie, since I'm still not really sure how he manages to get the other boat to flip over. And believe me it is not because of a lack of repeated and multiple watching.
I just don't care, which is the biggest problem and shouldn't be happening within the first half hour of a movie.
Yep. Hard to get invested in the story when it's undermined by another poorly edited chase scene every five minutes because it's so deep and profound the action represents all the elements. Who cares? I'll never understand the QoS love at all. My least favourite by a mile.
My explaination for it is that Bond was able to read body language and know she was in danger and/or had to act quickly, and realise she's an asset. So he decided to pursue her but it was Medrano who couldn't chill and sent his men after both of them. Bond was in shock after Camille tried to shoot him, not to mention his eardrums aren't in the best condition, so that's why he let her get away at first.
I honestly think the Jaws falling in love thing was infinitely worse than a slightly shoe-horned action scene, but members here sometimes give that a pass.
It was instinct.
Yup!
He also rightly suspected she could be against Greene and on his side. Proven correct on both counts.
With a secret organization, literally operating as a secret society, Bond's usefulness is to shake them up at very opportunity. That's why he announces himself at the opera, there's no luxury for waiting and following up over extended period. That's why he attacks Medrano's boat. He may not get another chance.
The boat? Throwing the anchor and line over the side apparently caught and stopped the propeller cold, creating an instant drag aft and downward that combined with the wind sheer topside to topple the craft end over end.
That's how I see it. I obviously like QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
What on earth are you on about? Even in Haiti are companies allowed to get away with selling outboard motors that if they suddenly lose power for whatever reason result in the boat flipping 20 feet in the air? Wind shear? Its a boat not a plane.
At 2.27 the nose gets dragged downwards off the back of Bond's boat before flipping so your explanation which (I think) is that the rear gets dragged down thus lifting the nose which already elevated by being on top of Bond's boat gets caught by the wind is therefore disproved. You know a scene needs some tidying up if the only way to explain it is to start coming up with your own laws of physics.
The only way I used to rationalise it is that he hooks the rope onto the boat and then lobs the anchor over the side which catches on something underwater thus flipping the boat. But going over it frame by frame I see that I was completely wrong. There is no anchor.
2.21 -Bond hooks a rope onto the other boat.
2.26 - The rope starts to be pulled from Bond's boat despite the villains boat still being in the same place? Why?
2.27 - The villains boat flips which I can only assume mean the other end of the rope is attached to something stationary but we are never shown this so Christ knows. Maybe it is wind shear?
At then end of the day you have to say its just a shockingly badly put together sequence when you cant even fathom what is happening when you go through it frame by frame. Has anyone seen a script? Does it explain in there what was supposed to be happening?
That reminds me, it took me about five viewings on DVD before I got the plot of OP, but I don´t recall any complaints about that one. Neither do I think it´s a problem. Neither do I think QoS has a complicated plot. The villain is a perfect continuation after CR. If the film after QoS would have picked up from there instead of completely ignoring everything about the film, we could have had a nice and smooth transition to grand schemes and huge villains.
No script, but at least here's a storyboard of the scene:
Any developments ?
I cant make anything out on that .