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
Here you go *hands speargun over*, but I want it back before the 28th of this month.
With this in mind I'll just say DAD as a whole. With the invisible car and kite surfing scenes being the stand out villians of the piece.
Yes, thank you very much for that definition @suavejmf. Allow me to just clarify that this was what I meant by the word "contrived" when I started this thread. I was in fact rather surprised to see that it had never been discussed before. It's not meant to be a "bashing Bond" thread at all; just some healthy criticism of the action sequences in the Bond films. I do get the fact that they are "just films" in the end analysis but some of us fans like to look a little deeper at things when it comes to James Bond as both a literary and cinematic character. :)
Thankfully they redeemed themselves shortly thereafter in the same film with this work of art, which is up there with the best of them:
Thunderfinger, I barely even consider that an action scene. I don't know WHAT it is, but good it is not! Great film with so much action that it really didn't need that extra bit.
But yeah, a lot of the sequences are pretty contrived. The ski chase should have tipped off Bond that something was off because none of the parahawks go after Elektra, who's supposed to be the target, as far as MI6 is concerned. Heck, it would have been fine enough if later when Bond realized Elektra was behind it all, he'd bring up that piece of clue to M as to why Elektra may be behind it all.
That has to be James Bond's fridge moment.,
The best films are those that find Bond using his wits, not gadgets to get out of sticky situations. As for the contrived sequences, there are so many that it would take pages to note them all.
What interests me more is the planning and building of the villains' places and devices.
For example, where did Largo have those bomb carrying subs manufactured? How long did it take to draw the plans and build those?
Why did no one in Japan ever notice the volcano had been drained and replaced with scaffolding to build a sliding roof? How did all the raw materials get to the volcano without being noticed?
Where do you find a contractor to build a bridge that has a drop away section to deposit people into a piranha pool?
Did Scaramanga really need a flying car? Regardless of where he landed, where were
the wings stored?
Did anyone notice that crazy looking structure being build by Stromberg? And who retrofitted those tankers to swallow submarines?
Jumping way ahead to SF, how much planning, logistics, and manpower went into diverting that tube train?
Too many films to wrap my head around how all these things are accomplished on the sly and with such pinpoint timing.
If I have to choose one sequence that irritates me more than any other, it's the gondola sequence in MR. I imagine the following conversation as Q branch is busily planning for this completely silly gadget.
"What are you building now, Q?"
"A gondola."
"Why?"
"Bond is going to Venice. He may need it."
"Venice has untold numbers of gondolas."
"True, but none to drive on land."
"Why would he need that?"
"In case he's chasing bad guys."
"Couldn't he hire a cab, steal a car, or a motorcycle? After all, he is Bond. Wouldn't
such a device call attention to itself? This seems a bit over the top, and not a good use
of Her Majesty's treasury."
"Don't be ridiculous. Now, pay attention."
Office of Budget, sometime after this adventure has ended.
"We built what? Look at the cost of this thing. And where is it? Even if we find it, what do we do with it? Get Q on the line at once."
http://www.theweek.co.uk/middle-east/islamic-state/60078/what-is-it-like-to-live-under-islamic-state-rule
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/chinese-dog-eating-festival-backlash-yulin-animal-rights
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/19/africa/namibia-rhino-hunt/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534478/Graphic-images-Japans-whaling-released-campaigners-Sea-Shepherd.html
It is the moment Ferrara was murdered and found shortly thereafter by Bond. But I agree they attempt on Bonds life could have been handled with in a more poignant way and less hockeyesque.
One of the more disappointing scenarios conceived in a Bond movie imho.....almost only there to give us a diversion so that Ferrara could be killed off screen.
Having said that, this film had some of the better action sequences in Moore's run (including the wonderful ski stuff and the shark attack) so I forgive this sequence and the troubling 'Neptune' submarine attack.
it only looks contrived in GE because of the silly green screen they did with it... imagine if they attempted to film that stunt for real, how much more awesome it would be - and instead of going down as one Bond's more laughable moments, it would've been right up there as one of the greatest stunts caught on film, and been the capper to an excellent PTS that featured not only that, but (at the time) a world record bungee jump...... what could have been.
I think they should have just avoided that entire last bit altogether and found another way for Bond to get off the mountain.....firing a grappling hook at a waiting helicopter or just skydiving off or something. It would have been cleaner and perhaps could have been done cheaper for real without the need for green screen.
Slow motion, while Bond moved at normal spped ? Like in all those horror
Films where the girl Runs away from the local psycho killer, as he walks
very slowly after, but he always catches her ! :D
Yes, it does go just a tad over the top, not to mention the destruction (criminal damage?) inflicted on the Blades club.
I suppose that it's the nearest that we've got to the Bond-Blofeld sword fight to the death near the end of the YOLT novel though.
Yeah, why not Sniper him in the car park or from the stands? You could argue that the henchmen were just delaying him so Loque could kill Ferrara mind???
Yep. Sums up DAD though.
So picture the scene ... our highly trained super spy throws himself off the edge of a cliff, gambling that he will be able to catch up with a falling plane. All it takes is for the stick to be off-centre, for the throttle to be partly open or for the plane to generate some lift and he will miss it by the proverbial country mile.
The other stunts might have featured implausible Q props, but if James has been given them he might as well use them. Can there be another scene with the same level of implausibility as the GE plane jump? The chances of pulling it off are so slim that surely no-one with the teensiest bit of training would have attempted it.
Naff physics, naff green screen and naff believability. Sorry, but Indie is in the deep freeze with this one.
Not sure many people would pull this off and live to tell the tale.
Some can and did. Some survive terrible ordeals while others can die slipping in their bathroom.
Hence why I said, 'not many'. The bridge is about twice the height of certain bridges people regularly commit suicide from. Much like the GE stunt, it's been done, but most people would kill themselves doing it.