Worst plot in the entire franchise?

12345679»

Comments

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,789
    In Octopussy, OO7's hasty plan to hitch a ride with the friendly German couple to get to a phone or the Circus surely has to rate somewhere here.

    f6a66aa1eb21cfa86d5f0b4f1df5c31716b4f147.jpg

  • Posts: 1,394
  • Posts: 230
    Octopussy wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Bond running around like an idiot, screaming for maddy, conveniently finding her in a closet-- the damsel in distress, tied to the "railroad" as it were-- was just so bloody contrived... Idiotic. Lazy...

    Because Silva being able to predict someone would've been able to find the key to spread his malware right in time for him to be at M's testimony? "Years in the making" lol. This is lazy.

    Or Tanner who doesn't evacuate M because she had to finish his poem? This is idiotic.

    And there are more...

    Blofeld put Swann in the farthest place inside the MI6 building from the exit, aka, salvation. Simple.

    To be fair Silva never said he planned all that years ago. It was Q who assumed it while talking to bond during tunnel Scene. Silva simply planned to get out of the prison and kill M wherever she was at the moment. He improvised it.

    There’s no room for improvisation in his plan, as showed in the film, sorry sir. The metro bomb in the exact spot Bond catches him, allies who bring him a cop suite in order to enter the building where M is being interrogated because of his attack at MI6 etc etc...

    Knowing that Silva had SP resources behind his back at least makes his masterplan slightly more believable...

    Much as i enjoy and like SF, i do hate it when fans try and justify the ridiculous chain of events after Silva's incarceration. They're indefensible. They happen because that's what the scriptwriters need to happen, so logic and consistency are thrown out of the window. Presumably the writers think the audience won't notice or won't care.

    Agreed. I think Skyfallis grossly overrated for this reason. I don't think it has the worst plot of the franchise, but it's pretty weak. I don't like all the exposition either around Silva and M's connection either.

    Yes - the plot is silly. But it is fun and beautiful, which is why I watch Bond movies.
  • Posts: 618
    YOLT, followed by MR... because they are utterly absurd.
  • Posts: 1,917
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    YOLT, followed by MR... because they are utterly absurd.

    Since TWSLM is basically a remake of YOLT, shouldn't that be in the mix, or is space the common theme considered?
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,135
    Having just watched DAD, I think it is a worthy contender.
    Though it has become a film I can go along for the ride and ignore the silliness. Much like YOLT, TSWLM and MR.
  • Posts: 7,507
    To be frank, very few of the plots in the Bond films are particularly great. The few that are good really stand out. Deep down I think most people on here would agree. When it comes to potential candidates for "the worst plot" I think there are so many of them that the whole question becomes a bit pointless.
  • StarkStark France
    Posts: 177
    Pretty surprised to see that this film is almost hated here. Spectre has a beautiful visual identity, magnificent sets, memorable scenes, a true respect for the codes of the saga... yes the script sometimes lacks development, the action is a bit soft and everything is less brilliant than Skyfall but it's a solid Bond, at least in the top 15 of the saga. And NTTD can make it even better.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,789
    Agree, @Stark. Agree.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    Benny wrote: »
    Having just watched DAD, I think it is a worthy contender.
    Though it has become a film I can go along for the ride and ignore the silliness. Much like YOLT, TSWLM and MR.
    I just don't find it quite as fun of a ride as the other three. It's far more cringe inducing, that's for sure!
  • Posts: 1,680
    I’d say Octopussy. Because I bet without looking it up few could tell me what the villains scheme is exactly without being vague.

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,423
    If one sits long enough one could poke holes in most of the films. Just the villain not killing Bond when he has the chance alone is enough to render most plots pointless.

    TSWLM...why would Stromberg wait for Bond and Anya to get to shore? He has shown himself to be ruthless, now he wants to suddenly wait for them to get away.
    LALD...lets put Bond in a croc farm and then all leave so he gets a chance to escape from death.
    TMWTGG...Scaramenga could have blown up the plane. But that would have been "ridiculously easy". As if that would stop someone from killing.
    MR...Drax "see that some harm comes to him." Why not just kill Bond, why harm him.
    YOLT...Brandt has Bond tied up and gets the info she wanted, instead she decides to release him and fly with him and then plot a death that is easily escapable.
    GE...Alex puts the timers on the bombs for 3 minutes while Bond and Natalaya are in the train. Why not 30 seconds?

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited March 2020 Posts: 7,547
    thedove wrote: »
    If one sits long enough one could poke holes in most of the films. Just the villain not killing Bond when he has the chance alone is enough to render most plots pointless.

    TSWLM...why would Stromberg wait for Bond and Anya to get to shore? He has shown himself to be ruthless, now he wants to suddenly wait for them to get away.
    LALD...lets put Bond in a croc farm and then all leave so he gets a chance to escape from death.
    TMWTGG...Scaramenga could have blown up the plane. But that would have been "ridiculously easy". As if that would stop someone from killing.
    MR...Drax "see that some harm comes to him." Why not just kill Bond, why harm him.
    YOLT...Brandt has Bond tied up and gets the info she wanted, instead she decides to release him and fly with him and then plot a death that is easily escapable.
    GE...Alex puts the timers on the bombs for 3 minutes while Bond and Natalaya are in the train. Why not 30 seconds?

    Bond villains don't kill Bond when they get the chance because they're megalomaniacal. Their love of theatrics / poetics go hand in hand with them being big time supervillains. If Silva or Trevelyan did things like small time criminals / murderers did, they would be small time criminals / murderers.

    You can't have the grand schemes of these villains without their grand theatrics, IMO. They're arrogant, egotistical, proud of themselves and want to show off.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,587
    thedove wrote: »
    If one sits long enough one could poke holes in most of the films. Just the villain not killing Bond when he has the chance alone is enough to render most plots pointless.

    TSWLM...why would Stromberg wait for Bond and Anya to get to shore? He has shown himself to be ruthless, now he wants to suddenly wait for them to get away.
    LALD...lets put Bond in a croc farm and then all leave so he gets a chance to escape from death.
    TMWTGG...Scaramenga could have blown up the plane. But that would have been "ridiculously easy". As if that would stop someone from killing.
    MR...Drax "see that some harm comes to him." Why not just kill Bond, why harm him.
    YOLT...Brandt has Bond tied up and gets the info she wanted, instead she decides to release him and fly with him and then plot a death that is easily escapable.
    GE...Alex puts the timers on the bombs for 3 minutes while Bond and Natalaya are in the train. Why not 30 seconds?

    She wanted the diddily first.
  • Posts: 1,917
    thedove wrote: »
    If one sits long enough one could poke holes in most of the films. Just the villain not killing Bond when he has the chance alone is enough to render most plots pointless.

    TSWLM...why would Stromberg wait for Bond and Anya to get to shore? He has shown himself to be ruthless, now he wants to suddenly wait for them to get away.
    LALD...lets put Bond in a croc farm and then all leave so he gets a chance to escape from death.
    TMWTGG...Scaramenga could have blown up the plane. But that would have been "ridiculously easy". As if that would stop someone from killing.
    MR...Drax "see that some harm comes to him." Why not just kill Bond, why harm him.
    YOLT...Brandt has Bond tied up and gets the info she wanted, instead she decides to release him and fly with him and then plot a death that is easily escapable.
    GE...Alex puts the timers on the bombs for 3 minutes while Bond and Natalaya are in the train. Why not 30 seconds?
    Some of these I think can have an explanation, or at least my view of one.

    TSWLM: Stromberg probably wanted it to make it look like anyone could've killed Bond and Anya and not bring attention to his activities, like with the two scientists. Plus he didn't know for sure if they were the ones on the train until Jaws positively IDd them. And he didn't know the Lotus was rigged with gadgets to help them escape the attacks.
    LALD: No explanation here other than it's Batman '66 villain syndrome: leaving the heroes to die and not making sure.
    TMWTGG: Scaramanga's ego won't let him kill Bond that way. Plain and simple.
    MR: Drax probably just saw Bond as a pest and that scaring him would get him to leave following that. He likely didn't know he was a 00 and even said he was there to appreciate in person for the loss of the shuttle. Besides, Drax lets Bond confirm his suspicions by breaking into his safe and then tries to do him in when he knows for sure, failing for sure.
    YOLT: Yeah, another why not just shoot him moment. My question is how long did it take Aki to get back to Tiger, who could've sent in his people, unless somebody did and made the GF Leiter mistake of thinking Bond had it handled.
    GE: Maybe giving them time to get far enough away before the explosives go off?

  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    edited March 2020 Posts: 814
    Stark wrote: »
    Pretty surprised to see that this film is almost hated here. Spectre has a beautiful visual identity, magnificent sets, memorable scenes, a true respect for the codes of the saga... yes the script sometimes lacks development, the action is a bit soft and everything is less brilliant than Skyfall but it's a solid Bond, at least in the top 15 of the saga. And NTTD can make it even better.

    Spectre isn't almost hated here, it is hated. There was a discussion some time ago where it came to be an AVTAK appreciation thread almost. I had chimed in that if even AVTAK could be positively reappraised, than maybe someday SP might get the same, to which a few people replied, essentially, that would never happen. I've seen many members rank DAD over SP, which, okay, it's all opinion, but I would be saying to myself, really? Really? Cringeworthy dialogue, a lame villain and windsurfing on a CGI wave over SP? QOS once got an inordinate amount of hate but now it's seen by the majority of fans here as pretty damn good. I don't think we'll ever get there with SP. Oh well, whatever. I still enjoy the hell out of it whenever I watch it, even with it's issues.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited March 2020 Posts: 7,547
    @Thunderball very interesting perspective, as I feel I've seen a bit more love for Spectre around the boards of late. Take the Bond Film Ranking Competition thread, it seems more than a few are voting SP over TND. I think one day Spectre will have it's day in the sun.

    @Birdleson, as a great 'enjoyer' of Spectre, I 100% agree with you that boredom is probably the worst crime a Bond film can commit. For whatever reason, I am quite gripped by the events of Spectre (while having the same narrative issues that you, and most, have), right up until the "fourth act" in London, a problem that isn't exactly new to the Craig era (IMO).

    Personally I find parts of Casino Royale (the stuff after Bond's tortured, basically) and Skyfall (watching Bond work out and get ready to be a spy again, preparing the traps in Skyfall Manor) strike a bit of boredom in me TBH. IMO all these films have incredible elements throughout, and I still have a great love of them all.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,789
    Spectre isn't almost hated here, it is hated.
    Spectre is also well-liked. Generally well-received by most measures. That shouldn't go without mention.

  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    You are right.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Most of the plots are fairly pedestrian tbh. There are only a few that stand out as a little bit more interesting and I think most of them are the ones with a strong romantic element - FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, CR...?
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    thedove wrote: »
    If one sits long enough one could poke holes in most of the films. Just the villain not killing Bond when he has the chance alone is enough to render most plots pointless.

    TSWLM...why would Stromberg wait for Bond and Anya to get to shore? He has shown himself to be ruthless, now he wants to suddenly wait for them to get away.
    LALD...lets put Bond in a croc farm and then all leave so he gets a chance to escape from death.
    TMWTGG...Scaramenga could have blown up the plane. But that would have been "ridiculously easy". As if that would stop someone from killing.
    MR...Drax "see that some harm comes to him." Why not just kill Bond, why harm him.
    YOLT...Brandt has Bond tied up and gets the info she wanted, instead she decides to release him and fly with him and then plot a death that is easily escapable.
    GE...Alex puts the timers on the bombs for 3 minutes while Bond and Natalaya are in the train. Why not 30 seconds?

    Bond villains don't kill Bond when they get the chance because they're megalomaniacal. Their love of theatrics / poetics go hand in hand with them being big time supervillains. If Silva or Trevelyan did things like small time criminals / murderers did, they would be small time criminals / murderers.

    You can't have the grand schemes of these villains without their grand theatrics, IMO. They're arrogant, egotistical, proud of themselves and want to show off.

    +1 pretty much sums up my thoughts, well said.
  • Posts: 618
    BT3366 wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    YOLT, followed by MR... because they are utterly absurd.

    Since TSWLM is basically a remake of YOLT, shouldn't that be in the mix, or is space the common theme considered?
    TSWLM, at least, does not have this problem:
    ICBM-style rocket launches -- at night -- can be seen up to 100 miles away with the naked eye. (I actually got to see a night-time NASA lift-off, in Florida, as a child in the '60s.)

    So -- is everybody on Ama Island effing blind? What about ships at sea or passing aircraft?

    It's simply beyond stupid.
  • Posts: 1,917
    Is the plot really that important in a James Bond film? It helps, no doubt. I could only imagine hearing about GF in 1964 and a villain breaking into Fort Knox to set off a bomb being mind-blowing for the time. Or a terror group hijacking a plane with two atomic bombs to hold for ransom. But upon hearing about FYEO having Bond try to recover a machine sounded a lot like FRWL.

    But it's more the ride getting there, isn't it? You already know going in that Bond will do something to divert the world from being destroyed on the high end or prevent the worst, but how's he going to do it, how evil are the people perpetrating it and how much will the girl helping Bond, the gadgets, supporting characters, etc. going to contribute?
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes it's true. The plot is almost secondary often but that doesn't mean it's not important. I think Maibaum said he used to start with the villain's evil plan and work from there. I think the thing with plot is that you almost shouldn't notice it. The problems occur when the plot is weak or so poorly thought through that it distracts the audience.
  • Posts: 1,917
    Like, oh I don't know, SP?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Like, oh I don't know, SP?

    I don't think the plot was the main problem here. A secret organization causing terrorist attacks internationally in order to convince the world to join a surveillance program as a framework is fine; execution is where SP failed. Hamfisting Spectre/Blofeld into Craig's era the way they did was the problem, trying to retcon all of his films was the problem. Huge missed opportunity, as I've said. But Spectre's problem, I don't think, was the plot.
  • Posts: 1,917
    I just saw that as so tacked-on you knew it was secondary to the Bond-Blofeld dynamic, though and that's kind of where I was going with that. And we know how it turned out.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,547
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I just saw that as so tacked-on you knew it was secondary to the Bond-Blofeld dynamic, though and that's kind of where I was going with that. And we know how it turned out.

    Yeah I suppose you're right. That's what I was getting at with the "hamfisting Spectre/Blofeld" into this era comment. A bigger problem for some but I still enjoy watching the film.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited March 2020 Posts: 5,423
    I actually agree that the plot to a Bond movie is somewhat secondary to the action. That's why I think the whole "worst plot in the franchise" is redundant. And yet we have EON saying they want Bond grounded. When the hell has Bond been grounded? Bond should be about being entertaining. It should be a fun film to watch. Forgive but give me a 1960's or 70's adventure any day over the Craig era. I enjoy Craig's portrayal but to me his films are not as re-watchable like the earlier films. I guess I prefer outlandish plots and villains with some colour and panache. Not a villain that wants water or a villain who has money he's laundering for another organization, or even a step brother who Bond never references and doesn't know when he first saw him.

    Give me the villain who chews up the scenery and has a plan for world domination!
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think the best villains are a bit understated. Vain, egotistical. Think they're geniuses. Not scenery chewers
Sign In or Register to comment.