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
Stop him from what though? Stop him from killing M. Silvas plan was to kill M. And M died. So in the end, even though Silva died, he won and Bond lost.
I don't care if Bond fails but I think he did.
What I don't really understand is how Bond gets to keep his job afterwards.
Perhaps I just hadn't given Mendes credit for the political symbolism of it all. I guess it's the most realistic aspect of the film in that it reflects how in modern Britain if you make a monumental balls up you get rewarded for it.
God I miss the Cold War!
What did Bond balls up?
It's Eve's fault Silva got the hard drive.
It's Q's fault Silva is able to escape MI6.
It's M's fault of making a bad call that caused Eve to shoot Bond, which causes Silva to get the hard drive, which put his whole plan in motion.
Bond came up with the best ideas, and really did all the work. He was the only one doing the tough work to recover the hard drive, and later to stop Silva. When M was directly put in danger, he was quick on his feet and got her as far away from danger as he could using roads.
Then, he knew Silva wouldn't stop attacking London and killing people he didn't need to kill until he had M, so he drew him away from everyone, and out of his comfort zone into Bond's territory.
Then, M's crap shooting causes her to get harmed by one of Silva's henchmen, and she doesn't die from it until about an hour later. Bond didn't fail, and Silva didn't get to kill M, so he didn't succeed.
Bond is the only one who managed to NOT muck things up. He is the only one I'd argue that should keep his job, should he actually manage to pass his tests this time.
I must have seen another movie. @-)
It is everybody's fault but 007?
He has become a politician?
Well, @Saint, what do you feel I got wrong? Specifically, please.
Don't even bother, friend. They'll never see what we are trying to convey. That's enough of this thread for me.
Bond is on the scene when the hard drive is stolen. Failure. Bond fails to retrieve the hard drive. Failure. Bond forgets to duck when he hears M order the shot. Very big failure. Bond mopes off to grow a beard and feel sorry for himself while the guy who got the hard drive blows up MI6 and releases all the agents names on the internet. Mega failure. Bond comes back kills Patrice without interogating him and then immediately walks into a trap and gets the most interesting character in the film killed minutes after she is introduced. Failure or just very odd screen writing. Bond brings evil but strangely symapthetic villain with laptop to heart of MI6 so he can realise his long plotted scheme.Failure. Silva escapes and Bond goes after him but only suceeds in getting a tube train fall on his head. Failure. Bond uses the old fire extinguisher trick to deter evil genius villain. Success! Bond takes M to defenceless old house with no weapons and no back up and gets M killed! Success again (IMO).
Or is it me who has failed all these years to appreciate the true genius of Purvis and Wade? Time to reassess their work perhaps since what Ialways thought was total garbage suddenly turns out to be cinematic gold. I guess they had to get it right eventually. Shame they're leaving really.
Come off it! Forster and Craig did a better job writing QoS during the writers strike.
So Patrice stole it in Istanbul because Eve left it there?- M's faith in a wounded Bond was large enough to order Eve to take a shot she said she did not have.
It's Q's fault Silva is able to escape MI6.
I thought that Silva was so clever that he had set the whole escape up including the derailing of an train in the underground. (here the script is somewhat muddled I believe).
It's M's fault of making a bad call that caused Eve to shoot Bond, which causes Silva to get the hard drive, which put his whole plan in motion.
Indeed it is M's fault that the harddrive was in Turkey to begin with, her job to make decisions. However 007 is the disposable tool, his job is to protect the fatherland and its important people. He kind of failed in that did he not.
0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said it do not bother as I and some are to dim to understand that SF is a brilliant movie and anybody who thinks different just does not get the brilliance of the script and movie.
I think that SF does have it moments but is nowhere as good as some people pretend it is, scriptwise the quality has not improved since the PB era. The execution has changed in a good sense, the movie looks absolutely beautifull and the music is better, the cast is awesome. ANd like any 007 movie it has some rather large plotholes, which I do not mind as I do not think that any 007 movie is great art (unless we are talking FRWL) but entertainment. For the next movie I would enjoy it if for once with DC it is not personal just a flipping job M sends him to do where he causes mayhem & destruction and ends up keep the British end up with a goodlooking Bondwoman (preferable French from origin)
I'll just say:
1. I don't claim it to be a perfect masterpiece. I understand it's faults but I find it far more entertaining than the QoS and more entertaining in certain aspects over Casino Royale.
2. We don't know why the hard drive was in Istanbul simply because we don't need to. All we need to know is that it's been stolen, and Bond and Eve need to retrieve it. It's vital to the plot in that it instigates the motion and helps begin the film. It's borderline lazy script writing, yes, but it didn't distract me.
3. It is Eve's fault because there's a good 5-10 seconds where her and Patrice just stare at each other before he goes into the tunnel. She could have easily, which her automatic assault rifle, layed down a few shots to try and stop him. Bond didn't fail on the train, he was interrupted.
4. The scene with Q is really just stupid. But still, he should have known not to plug a known hacker's computer directly into the MI6 interface because 'he invented it'. It was Silva's plan to break out, yes, but it relied on Q being daft, which he was.
5. Bond did all he could. Again, he was the only one aware enough at the inquiry shooting to get to M and get her away from trouble. He did his best to protect her, but ultimately she failed to save herself. Silva did not shoot her. Some henchmen did. And even then it was because she couldn't shoot worth a damn. Bond did his best. Tell me, what more could he have done.
6. This one's important. After CR, and QoS, how could not expect SF to be emotional like the other two. The producers made it very clear where they were going with Craig's Bond. I don't see why you let yourself get disappointing when you knew what was coming.
Your blaming the poor writing on Bond. Why? Bond is exactly what you say, just a disposable field agent. So how was he supposed to stop Silva from hacking everything? With his extensive knowledge of computers? He secluded M and gave her a gun. Was he supposed to sit in a corner with her and fight off a dozen men? Tell me what he could have done differently? I don't see where he made errors, and I asked you specifically. I didn't get a response explaining what Bond did wrong.
He didn't know Eve was going to shoot him off the train, he didn't know Q was going to be daft enough to let Silva get away, he couldn't have stopped any of the major failures in the film. He is not responsible for M's death, because everything that happened before the climax in Scotland could have been avoided. The instances:
1. The train fight. I'm sure Bond could have managed to fight off Patrice and get the hard drive before Eve took the poor shot.
2. Silva's capture. That should have really ended everything. If Q created the encryption Silva was using, shouldn't he know it could be used to hack MI6? That should have never happened.
3. M alone with the henchmen. There were too many men, so Bond and Kincade had to be elsewhere to fight them off. M was responsible for defending herself, and she couldn't so she got shot by Henchmen #15.
How are these Bond's failures?
Any way, obviously we're nit picking but its just such an attrocious story it invites you to tear it to shreds.
And as you amply demonstrate,even if Bond is not a failure he's totally impotent throughout the movie. And where's the fun in that? Infact that probably explains why he hasn't ended up with the chick for the last few outings. Bit of errectile disfunction.
=))
I liked the film but I think people who dislike it have made some good points about the plot.
And there I agree with you. The script causes Bond to look old and really rather stupid. It feels like they convinced themselves the only way they could do Bond is to play on how old he is, but in many respects it ends up coming back to haunt the writing.
But I still don't think it's a bad film, at least not compared to the last decade. But like someone up there said, the production has improved, not the writing.
I've just been simply arguing that Bond is not at fault for what some are saying, simply because he had know way to prevent or avoid it. Except for, I suppose, dropping M off at a hotel ;)
Well said, and I agree completely. One of the things that I liked in the script of SF was the mirroring of plot points and characters - to me I thought this was fairly well established in the film and I was surprised that some audience members didn't understand it.
M was desperate to retrieve the hard drive, so much so that she ordered Eve to take an unclean shot rather than risk the drive being lost. At that moment Bond was expendable if it meant that the greater objective was achieved (as was Ronson earlier). When M finds out that Bond is using her as bait to lure out Silva - and away from a public place where he could kill innocent people - she agrees to the plan. Part of it is that she understands the logic of it, part of it is that she doesn't want anyone else to die on her account (which she actually verbalizes!), and part of it is a way of evening the score, or making amends, for what she did to Bond and Ronson.
Now, back to the OP - I thought Eve showed tremendous competence in many parts of the film and her pausing once she realized that she shot Bond is a natural human reaction. Maybe she isn't amongst the absolute most elite agents but she's still plenty good. Imagine that you know the shot is unsafe, but then you are forced to take it against your better judgement. And you kill a colleague. I'm sure that many agents would have issues stemming from that, especially after having had three months stewing over having been forced to kill an innocent against your own good advice. So the idea isn't that she isn't cut out for field work because of incompetence, but because of the emotional turmoil that might occur again in the future - not because of her, but because of what she's ordered to do.
On a side note, at the time of the Iraq war I remember being incredibly grateful that I never joined the armed forces (many in my family have). As I said to a friend, I always thought that I'd join up to fight the modern-day equivalent of the Nazis. Imagine being forced to go to Iraq to make Halliburton richer instead!
I've been giving SF a hard time but mainly because all this 'best Bond ever' stuff was driving me up the wall. Like you say the writing just isn't that good and this has been a weakness that EON seem just unable or unwilling to address. I sincerely hope that Logan on his own does a better job but they really need some solid stories at the heart of it all.
I honestly thought Mendes would have demanded better and believed from all his comments that this was going to be a break through. There are some good scenes but overall I think it's weak.
Mendes wanted the age references to run throughout the film... or at least encouraged it.
Yea, I waited until mid November to see it, so I heard all the 'best ever' and great comments and really it left me feeling satisfied, but I was disappointed from what people were saying. I still like it though. Top 10, but I have a tendency to rank new things higher because they're new.
Exactly.
I told you, I wasn't defending the film.
Re Dalton - yes, I have rewatched LTK and he remains my least favourite Bond and I don't see the grandeur of either the film or him, that some here see. Sorry...and isn't it funny, that you guys here are fine with the constant bitching but are attacking ME for not enjoying those comments, because I have read them a million times already. Consider me :((
They can critisize the film, who cares? But is there never an end to it? The same ole going through all the threads? But yeah, I shut up. I said it before and didn't stay true to my word. I will now. Sticking to the BO tread, which hopefully will not be invased and be done.
On a better note - I wish everybody a Merry X-mas. Maybe see you next year, if there is something NEW to talk about.
Excellent points from both of you.
I thought Bond's family home was used as an old fashioned rat trap, and M was a willing bait, who ultimately was also expendable like the agents. The enemy got eliminated, regardless of the cost.
Bond made it pretty clear IMO that he didn't blame Eve for having been shot, and also thought she was competent ("over-competent to be delivering messages"), and trusted her (implied by offering the cut-razor). Bond asked her if she was sure she wanted to be a field agent not because he deemed her incompetent, but because he didn't see her as a cold killer.
If you remember from the film there was nothing else she could do. The road had ended. But honestly if I had just shot one of my own guys/friends in an attempt to save them I think I would've had a hard time reacting another way than she did.
But on a side note... She was very fine!
The best non-opinion based thread. Goooooooooooo numbers!
when it comes to incompetence Harris is way down the line far beyond M, Q and Bond (not
counting the Script Writers off course)! If i was going in harms way i'd rather have her at my side than all those other morons, which stumble their Way through the Movie, especially this fool who claimes he is 007 and who only reason d'etre seems to mess Things up!
I disagree that there's no explanation given for that. As was discussed in another thread, there were explanations, they perhaps were not as clear as some people would prefer them to be.
When Bond first reappears he's been drinking heavily, using a lot of painkillers (perhaps ones that are not...legal), feeling betrayed, and not training (with a methodical training program muscular strength takes a long time to go away even after you stop training, but endurance starts to suffer quite quickly). So part of him being in rough shape is physical, part is mental, part is emotional.
After he comes back he stops drinking as heavily, and stops taking the painkillers (which will take a while to clear his system - they're still showing up on his tests). He also has small bits of shrapnel still inside him. So the lack of training explains not passing the physical (note how he can exercise but it's difficult for him - despite the brave face he collapses after the pullups). The shrapnel in his shoulder makes it difficult to keep steady aim (in addition to other issues). He removes the bullet fragments which will help his performance.
So what does he do when he goes to Shanghai? We see him doing a grueling swimming workout - so he's continuing to build up his endurance. When he has his fight with Patrice, the immediate effect of being in a life threatening situation is that instinct kicks in. After this, Bond starts to feel like Bond again, which is why he shaves off his stubbly beard (the transformation from "rough Bond" to "smooth Bond" is complete, and we even see him as dapper as ever in a tux right after this).
The time that we see Bond hesitate is on Silva's island when he has to shoot at Severine. Unlike the life-and-death, instinctive fights with Patrice or with the minders at the casino, here is a situation where Bond has the time to *think* about what he's doing instead of acting immediately. So he overthinks what he doing, worried that he can't make the shot. But then when he has to fight Silva's men it's again a life-or-death situation where instinct kicks in. Once he captures Silva he's triumphant, and that erases the emotional doubts that he had about performance.
When we see Bond sprinting to the inquiry, and then his performance in the ensuing gunfight, we see that 007 has indeed come back and is reporting for duty.
Now, all of the things that I detailed above were in the film - the same one that we all saw. So really it comes down to a matter of personal preference as to how obvious one wants things to be in a film. My personal opinion is that if these things were explained by a character through dialogue it would appear not only clumsy but also to be "talking down" to the audience. I really love the fact that in the recent films I'm being "talked up" to. However, I can understand why someone prefers a different style of film. I'm sure that 10 years from now I'll not be as happy as with the type of they're making, much like I was during the Moore years. But that's the great thing about Bond; they keep tweaking the films so there's something for everyone at different times.
I am amazed how much people are able to read into a Purvis and Wade script. Fair enough that this is what you got from the film though. It is indeed very subtle blink and you'll miss it storytelling. I am tempted to delve back into the Purvis and Wade back catalogue to see what further riches can be mined from Twine and DAD. I am sensing there must have been a huge amount that I missed. BAIN and others keep telling me that the first half of DAD is overlooked classic Bond. May be they're onto something?
It's not just the script. The way that the script is interpreted by the actors and director (with guidance from the producers) certainly helps - so if someone is dismissive of P&W, or doesn't like them, remember that Logan helped along with everyone else on the production. However, I don't think that someone is "reading into" a script when they notice things that are actually there. As I said, I think that it's just the degree of either subtlety or obviousness that different people prefer. There's no right or wrong to an opinion; really its much like how I loved Connery when I was a kid and everyone else at my school loved Moore. Different styles of films and portrayal of Bond - one isn't right or wrong, it's just personal preference.
I will say this about scripts though - everything is in there for a reason. Sometimes it's in there for entertainment value, sometimes it's in there for character development.