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
So we don't get into a slanging match. Could you explain this in the context of your comment below?
Thing is, I get what you mean about scene vs. plot. I feel like that about a lot of the older films, there are gaping plot holes that I tend to ignore and enjoy specific scenes throughout a film. However with Skyfall and the Craig films I think we've come to expect a level of coherence, or an attempt at least on the part of the film makers to deliver a decent, interesting plot. It's not woeful but it could have been so much more interesting.
You say you hate poor scripts but dialogue and plot are not mutually exclusive. The dialogue should drive the plot, the characters and ultimately resolve the plot strands and character arcs that have been woven throughout. If there is a disconnect between these two elements it doesn't leave a satisfying whole. There can be, like you say moments that are stand out but when put side by side have no connection. I think my main gripe was that parts of Skyfall were brilliant but had they really nailed the plot it could have been elevated to another echelon entirely.
@Germanlady - I don't care if people are bored with me. I'd argue my comments at least merit some thought, unlike yourself. Oh look at this link, it's a picture of Dan, look at this video of Dan, look at this photograph of Dan. I'd love your thoughts on the script of Skyfall. As for Money, obviously this the main factor in not shooting on location, that goes without saying. It was even addressed at the time. My hope is that for Bond 24 they go back to location shooting, however good the doubling was in SF. Damn they can afford it now!
And tell me, how much information you brought to this board? My resumée goes far beyond pics of Dan, vids of Dan..plus WHEN I argue, I certainly bring facts, never mind, that some choose to ignore that out of convenience.
You must have read this somewhere else. I said I prefer talking about what could be done to make the next one even better. Who said anything about producers and influence? Oh that'll be you, hearing and seeing what you want to.
None of this really has anything to do with the plot, they are just cringeworthy moments that have been written for the film and turn it into nothing more than an Austin Powers farce, even if they are only small moments in a film. They remove you from the film immediately, with an inward groan.
The plots in all the Bond films don't have that much significance for me. I'm more interested in what Bond gets up to, how he gets out of a situation, etc. rather than analysing off-screen `what if' and `why did they do that' moments.
When I think back to GF I immediately think about the golf scene. When I think of OHMSS I think of Bond getting married, Lazenby dangling on a cable wire, or asking Tracey to marry him.
I never immediately think of the underlying plot, of Blofeld's plans to ruin the world, or Goldfinger's radiation plans for the gold in Fort Knox. This is always a backdrop of secondary importance to me, probably why I never realised the plot holes in SF when watching it.
Because you don't sit there in a cinema saying 'Ah, never mind about that CGI, they didn't have the money to do it, bless them'. I am an audience member, it's my right to ask why things are done like they are. I knew Silva's island was on the backlot so I was waiting to see how well they'd executed it. Most of it very well, some of it a tad Inception. Location shooting would have negated this. Will my fictional son in 20 years time watch Skyfall and say 'Dad, that's CGI, guess they had no money'? No, he'll say 'That's CGI, why didn't they film it for real?'.
I've brought a weight of knowledge to this board based on the fact, I like many others have 20+ years of hardcore knowledge of the books and films. I know you bring facts and trawl wiki etc. Some actual reasoned opinion would be good, rather than proving your points by saying 'Well the B.O. doesn't lie, so I must be right'.
Fair enough, I get where you're coming from. I guess I just treated SF differently than pre-2006 because of the sense of new direction. I definitely understand what you mean though.
I did - lots of times, obviously wasted on you.
Bye, good sir, our "watever that was" ends right here.
I did - lots of times, obviously wasted on you.
Bye, good sir, our "watever that was" ends right here.
[/quote]
See you for Bond 24.
Now I need a beer after all that. Are you getting them in..? :!!
I'm not anti-SF. Yes, I'm having a Jager bomb.
Definitely. It's no surprise that some of the most successful aspects of the newer films are those either based on or directly inspired by Fleming. I never considered myself a proper fan until I read the novels as a kid.
When I talk about the rust angle, it's in reference to Bond getting back his "mojo" and in my opinion it went on for too long. All the way up to the inquiry shootout. I can understand being out of shape but we're talking about months, not years. Once the bullet fragments were out, which was a sufficient explanation for why his aim was off and why some exercises were made more difficult, we get Bond shaking like an amateur aiming at the shot glass on Severine's head. This is what made SF at times seem more like an extension of CR/QOS minus QUANTUM and Vesper references. And maybe that's what they intended, but he sure didn't have these aim problems then, especially when you think about the crack shot he killed Mitchell with in QOS.
Back to locations. I don't have trouble with doubling and don't feel it detracts from authenticity. They got the Shanghai external shots including the driving scenes done right there. Why no building scene there, there may have been legit reasons and I don't know what there were. But since these scenes were filmed by night, I simply don't think we would have seen a noticeable difference. A better example of a legit complaint regarding not filming entirely on location would be the GE tank chase in St. Petersburg, which could have been done short of the actual destruction of buildings. There are lots of reasons some shoots don't take place in the location the movie announces, such as when Thailand doubled for Vietnam in TND due to governmental red tape. But it does seem that the new regime isn't quite as dedicated as Cubby was to spending time and money on actual location, and I have no idea why. Yet this wasn't a complaint regarding QOS, the complaint here was too many locations and some viewers here state they had trouble distinguishing between them, yet for every new location a title came on screen letting the viewer know where Bond was.
In Macau, we have a similar situation. It's night. We have Bond in his hotel visited by Eve, then fireworks and Bond traveling over water to the floating casino. When they last filmed in Macao during TMWTGG, we got some night time street and people shots similar to what was done in Shanghai. But I doubt the scene inside Lazar's workshop was done there. There is simply no way to tell, and the end result of actual shooting there may have made no on screen difference in this situation. The komodo dragons were definitely CGI, and had to be. These creatures are not tameable besides being highly venomous, and no one in their right mind would use actual dragons. Yet some people complained about that just because it was CGI, never mind putting a stunt person in mortal danger, right? And Bond carrying around 4 million Euros in cash, like he was going to call ahead and say "I killed Patrice and unlike him I prefer a check". He took what Patrice asked for, obviously a "ghost" like him didn't like leaving a paper trail. And the metal briefcase did add to the narrative. Another one of DTK's stupid complaints right there, shot to smithereens.
I think your point here is better served in reference to Turkey. Here we have a daylight location and you are right that very little of the interior of the Grand Bazaar was seen. It must have been edited out by Mendes and I can tell you were disappointed by that. But the PTS worked really well for the length of it. I'm not trying to trivialize your point of view as it means something to you, but most people just want to be entertained and I thought the PTS was wildly that, and how much time inside the GB is trivial in context with the scene.
Can't wait to really tackle your plot complaints.
I loved the globetrotting in QoS, and as I said I don't mind some doubling as long as they don't go overboard and make most of the movie studiobased, like they did with SF. I love Bond outdoors, doing stuff. On location. I respect and understand that certain scenes have to be shot indoors at Pinewood, but this should always be the exception, not the rule. Let me reprase my earlier question: IF they could come up with CGI that looked 100% identical to the real place - that there would be "no way to tell" - and they chose to shoot almost every scene in front of a green screen because no one could tell unless they knew beforehand, would it matter to you?
That scene in SF with Bond on a bike in the PCS where he exits on top of the roof and you see the huge mosque - it wouldn't matter if it had been CGI'ed in, as long as it looked real and authentic and there was "simply no way to tell"? Should I consider that a request?
I hope so too. I loved Skyfall, but it was an anomaly of a Bond movie, but, and this seems like a contradiction in terms I know, it felt familiar. The "Bondian troupes" were just the right amount I felt; not to heavy handed, but still having the mystery of Bond. I want to see if Craig can do a "normal type" of Bond movie in B24. Something like Thunderball or The Living Daylights maybe.
Regarding locations, I knew it would be mainly on the backlot, but damned if I could see it. :-)
@BAIN123 nice points you made a couple of pages back.
Pathetic vilain pale copy of Simon Gruber and the Joker.
Pathetic opening sequence Roger Moore style.
Pathetic Aston Martin from Goldfinger appearing here instead of the real one he won two movies ago.
Pathetic vilain boasting he can do anything with a computer but don't kill M from there.
Pathetic subway chase where Bond doesn't even shoot the bumps that we know are there to stop people from gliding along the escalators (now, THAT would have been a nice Moore nod)
Pathetic way to kill the vilain.
Pathetic ending for M.
Pathetic "Bond is dead" plot over in 10 mn.
Pathetic ending sentence not anywhere near as good as the end of CR.
Do you want me to go on? I can spend the day, and each minute of the film, about how pathetic it is, a sad way to celebrate 50 years of Bond, all camouflaged with "arty, it's Mendes" gloss.
Obvious sarcasm, no need to be frustrated.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/if-daniel-craig-is-your-favorite-bond-are-you-really-a-bond-fan
Oh, really! So we have a great script writer amongst us :-w how exciting.
I'm sorry, but do you like Moore or hate him? Roger Moore's opening sequences are pathetic but Bond shooting bumps on an escalator really would've captured the spirit of his films?
Have you watched YOLT? When Bond dies, it isn't often for long. That's kind of the point, that he doesn't die.
Because when the Aston Martin appeared on screen, that was my biggest concern; which film the car came from. But I like that you think that CR had the 'real' Aston Martin, as opposed to the identical Aston Martin (save for gadgets) in Goldfinger, which was obviously a fake.
How so? Did you not find it poignant, sad even?
You know how he wanted to kill M in person, which is exactly why he didn't use a computer to kill her? You know how that was kind of the whole point to his plot? If you can find a way to kill someone in person with a computer without throwing it at them, let me know.
The reason I cited the inquiry was due to the later ladder scene in the abandoned tube. Thought he should have hit Silva there.
CGI can be useful as in the dragon situation, but it should never replace real stunt men doing real stunt work or real locations such as in DAD. I don't feel what they shot in alternate locations to fill out the Shanghai/Macao scenes was anything for me to quibble about, I don't have the same objections you do in this particular case.
Feel free to start your plot complaints at any time. Some I may agree with, some I may not if they are anything like DTK's.
Like Paulie Gatto, you won't be seeing him around here anymore ;)
Because most of the cited critics had CR as their favorite Bond-movie when asked a couple of years ago, you can't really draw the conclusion that Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever.
In 1996 many critics had Goldeneye as (one of) their favorite Bond-movies, too.
But I do agree with the following part, where the writer actually manages to sum up my frustration with how the character James Bond has evolved:
"With a few notable exceptions, no matter who played Bond, no matter which of his traits they emphasized, he was always one thing: untouchable, physically and emotionally. Craig's Bond is all vulnerability: seduced and controlled by women"
You wanted to discuss the plot with me. Here's your chance.