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
Sandy wrote that the plot should make sense.
I pointed out various reasons and key plot events that I found didn't make sense.
No one has has yet argued why these should make sense.
Instead, we got responses like this:
And then there's NicNac who at least tried, but then wrote: Guess if a movie is successful at the box office and accepted as very good by the majority, criticizing it, and wanting to discuss it's flaws after being invited by a fellow user to do so, is a big no-no!
EDIT: Wrong again. You really aren't a very good listener, are you?
Where exactly do you see me "forcing" anyone? I asked some questions about the plot, why it should make sense, because someone else argued that it does. So please answer this instead of going on and on and on with your repetitive attacks on anyone who dares criticize SF.
I think it's more that the critics have repeated the same points over and over, won't accept any other views, and people are bored of it.
I mean no offence; as I've said to you before you're one of the few critics who is reasonable and thoughtful in their criticisms.
People are tired of it - there is nowhere to go anymore with this.
SirHenryLeeChaChing wanted this discussion about the plot with me. I took the challenge and now there are some whining and complaining that I did.
And honestly - if I don't "accept any other views" why on earth am I asking questions about others views? Questions that are still left unanswered.
All I wanted was for someone to explain why the scenes I mentioned should make sense. Fine with me if some feel an urge to attack me for this instead. Says more about them, than me.
I'll quote myself here since you apparently didn't read the last part of what I said before.
Sandy wrote that "we know what is happening, why is happening."
I'll guess I'll have to wait for his response, since the "why" is still left unanswered.
That being said, @Zekidk, some of the points and questions you raise don't have good enough answers simply because the script and the movie itself are flawed. In some cases there is no answer but many people dont realise it ir simply dont care and are happy to enjoy the movie as a whole. There are indeed things that make very little sense if at all but that doesn't mean the film or the script is wholly terrible. Judging by your posts, I think the real issue you have isn't so much with the film or the script itself but with people's notions of regarding the script to be a source of superior story telling, married with the notion that these movies are being regarded as "serious-serious".
I love SF, for me it's a top 5 Bond film but there are so many things I would change. That being said, with the Craig era taking a more serious approach to the Bond mythology I also still accept and anticipate moments of absurdity and things that make little to no sense, regardless of how many times the producers may try to convince us that so and so Bond film is going to have similar intelligence and meticulous scripting to that of Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy (hyperbole).
Thank you for your response.
Like I said elsewhere I am not trying to bash or criticize anyone who sees what I don't. I fully respect that so many people love it. But when someone says that we know why things are happening and how in SF, I have a genuine interest in knowing why the things that I didn't feel made sense do make sense to others. And these others don't include people like you who, like me, think that there are "things that make very little sense."
The only difference between me and you is, that I am looking for an answer from those who do think the plot made sense. Maybe I just missed something?
If we were that desperate to pull a film apart because it didn't follow logic and reason, well, we wouldn't be Bond fans in the first place would we?
As Zekidk has stated already and I personally agree with - it seemed liked they were moving the goalposts with SF. In the past we've heard about what great set-pieces we were to expect, with this the line they were putting out was how incredible the script was. I mean hell they even had Adele explain that it was ultimately the script that convinced her to participate. When you plant these seeds you have to follow through. You can't say 'We've got this incredible script where we're really humanising Bond but please suspend your disbelief on occasion when we couldn't really be arsed to bring the internal logic up to the levels of the characterisation'.
People say it doesn't matter, it's entertaining. Well yes, I'd agree, it is. But it does not deliver everything it promised.
Aside from the 'human' story the mechanics of the plot are intermittently weak and at times very linear. I don't see how this is not a relevant talking point. The reason it's a point of discussion is because a few of us here believe that had they genuinely worked on this aspect of the script the film would be all the better for it. Given that the shootout at Skyfall came about very late in the development process I wonder how many building blocks had to be shifted to accommodate it? Removing scenes wholesale can have repercussions in places where they are not easy to amend. Perhaps this effected the structure but who knows?
Anyhow It's not about trading in action or sacrificing character, it's about having a level of internal logic that makes you excited and surprises you when a situations occurs. There were enjoyable moments throughout the film but were there any surprising moments? I don't limit this to plot but character also. Did any of them do anything that made you say 'wow, I didn't see that coming?'.
When 'Q' delivers the line 'he's hacked us' I just thought, 'Really? I'm enjoying this but honestly, not only is this about as surprising as Obama's re-election, it's clunky and as with other moments throughout the film you can see it coming a mile off. I just wish that these other elements had been stronger because while it was enjoyable it had the potential to have been a modern Bond masterpiece.
Yes, I see your points @RC7, and appreciate them. But where you mention the 'wow' factor, well there will never be any of those ever again, because the internet is too powerful and rumours abound long before we see a movie like SF. Very few were surprised by M's death simply because we were all half expecting it.
But, I do appreciate your thoughts and comments. I didn't take on board too much what Mendes and the Prods were promising, I simply hoped for a great Bond movie that entertained me. I felt I got that. I don't analyse the plot or the logic (maybe I should, but I don't). For me the 'wow' factor was the look of the film, and the performances. Those pleased me no end.
Oh come on, you know what directors and producers are like. They say one thing and do another. Best thing is don't take any notice. ;-)
Crikey, if they had delivered what they said we could've ended up wallowing in the grim intensity and nastiness of another LTK. If that had happened I'd have slit my wrists. :-)
Apart from your comment about it being entertaining, I agree 100%. Many of the ingredients were very promising but I see it as a huge missed opportunity let down by a ropey plot and script. I blame Purvis and Wade. However, as ever, I remain optimistic about the next one, especially as P+W have finally been kicked into touch.
Hopefully I will join you others and not be so naive in Bond 24 preproduction as to trust anything coming from EON.
I just think that to award the accolade Masterpiece to a film is to consider every aspect and process involved as being of the highest level possible. SF falls short in some but I can understand that some people feel otherwise. Maybe in a year when the hype has subsided or when Bond 24 hits that will be their new favourite.
I totally get your point about the internet, I was actually going to mention it. I was thinking more along the lines of specific instances rather than big plot points such as M's death. As an example, something as simple as Bond accidently killing an unarmed civillian or hitting the greek girl in his deluded, alcoholic and run down state. Something driven by the character. One thing I really wanted to happen was 'M' to pull the trigger, now that would have been some ending. I think they should push the envelope while they can.
It depends what you mean by 'action'. I think SF had about as much action as a Bond movie requires, but just not of a very high quality. If you count the PTS, Shanghai fight, London chase and Skyfall lodge explosion-athon, then you've got 4 action set-pieces. Quantity however, does not always equal quality. The SF action is generic, barely moves the plot forward and could have come from any tired straight to DVD flick. Nothing to compare to the opening chase in CR or opera chase in QoS.
IMO - mission accomplished, right? Could it have been better? Sure - every film can be in hintsight.
I thought the action was excellent. My wife called the film 'action packed' because the film was pacey so it seemed to her that there was more than there actually was. And I fully understood what she meant. But then she's a bit like me..not very bright. I love her though.
You sure you don't work for EON's PR? ;)
It's presumptuous to insinuate no one on here has an understanding of the process of scripting. That's all I'll say.
Seriously you're arguments are what I'd expect of a 14 year old. I don't say this in jest, it's plainly obvious for all to see.
They all know nothing, except you and some others. Oh boy..seriously?
You know what I can't really be bothered to answer as you're incapable of understanding anything or seeing anything other than in black or white. Are you really saying that if an actor says they are working with a good script it is absolute Gospel truth? Everyone can have an opinion, minus yourself obviously.
Stop using Box Office stats, or reviews as your safety net and tell us what you think. This thread is full of decent discussion then you pop up trying to disprove people with your B.O. stats and your reviews and god knows what from twitter. We're discussing, no one is wrong, no one is right. That's the beauty of it. Stop playing Big Brother.
Funny, my wife said it was the worst Bond film since the Brosnan era. And she's bloody clever.
In that case I probably disagree with you. I don't want 4 massive action scenes - this just overwhelms the film. Two is definitely enough, with a few short sharp bursts of action/fisticuffs where the plot requires it. CR is an obvious case of one (or two) too many action scenes. For me that was the tedious airport sequence, but for others it was the Venice shoot out.
But Bond action should also be a bit special - involve some previously unseen stunt or make us gasp at Bond's ingenuity/Chutzpah. Or just be really stylish. Nothing in SF delivered that IMO. It's almost like no one could be bothered to inject any fun or intelligence into those scenes. Bond chases man on foot, in car, on bike, on train... wow, never seen that before. And all shot with a plodding sense of inevitability. I know it's fashionable around here to slate Bourne and say what a mess QoS was, but seriously, in this day and age to produce 'action' set-pieces with this level of unoriginality and dullness takes real effort.
I found the Skyfall shoot out equally dull. I'm amazed that Mendes didn't come up with anything in the whole film to distinguish the action sequences from a zillion other films we've seen before. I really thought he'd see it as himself having a point to prove, but for me he confirmed my doubts - that he was never really the right man for the job.
And I see your point. That one minute action scene in DAF where Bond is fighting Franks in the elevator is just way more "gasping" than the action set piece with the moon buggy, IMO.
@RC7, you're on a hiding to nothing, I'm afraid. I suggest you try memorising the phone book. You'll find it more enjoyable and considerably less time consuming than taking on the resident thought police.