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
Mendes is really not all that and neither are his two Bond films.
Hammering his tedious thematic twaddle down our throats with that jarring, absurd (in the context) Tennyson poem was the sign that he has all the directorial subtlety of blunderbuss.
Because plot has been a strength of the Bond films from the get-go? The entire series is based on ridiculous notions of an enormous secret society (somehow rich and powerful enough to build lairs inside volcanoes) that threatens the world.
Yeah, you're right. Let's go back to concentrating on PLOT in the Bond films.
So I hate to tell you, the entire series is about theme. If it weren't, we wouldn't be here. The discussions are far less about plot and far more about the thematic implications of masculine identity, feminism, global economies and politics, etc.
Skyfall worked so well because it brought some new themes into the fray. It was an "old man's" Bond.
I am sorry that it didn't work for you.
Yes it was. The first had one of a Chinese doctor on an island bringing down US space missiles therefore throwing back the United States in the space race. The second one was about stealing the Lector and embarrassing the British Secret Service big way and the third about someone planning to destroy the gold reserve of the United States. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.
None of these are complex or clever and they dont challenge the viewer. I think we know who the good and bad guys are. Its the execution, the vision, the themes etc that have made Bond what it is.
you're right by and large although I still hold that an underlying coherence to the plot is important and that SF's unnecessarily (lazily?) incoherent plotting lets it down.
I wonder to what extent the themes you mention were consciously expressed by the early series producers. No doubt to an extent 'masculine identity' was in their minds but as a driver for entire movies?
My issue with SF is that the 'thematic' stuff is heavy handed and in your face. Whereas all the stuff you mention was there in the early films, if you wanted to go all A-level film studies on it, but more subconsciously.
Any way as you say it boils down to SF not working for me. Ultimately, while I like a lot of the intent behind it, it just doesn't grab me as entertainment. Lousy writing, yawn inducing 'hacking' stuff and the worst score since GE.
A lack of entertainment is one of the primary offenders for me. There's a lot to love and appreciate on a technical level, but it's one of the only installments I'll scarcely rewatch, simply because it isn't entertaining or fun to me.
I still continue to be surprised by your advocacy for SP though, especially as a self confessed plot aficionado.
The score is a rehash (at least SF's was original), the characters are lame, the acting isn't up to the same level (not even close), the cinematography can't compare (shot framing is decent enough though) and the theme song is a disgrace (at least imho), no matter what the Academy did.
Not sure about this. Sure, the plots don't challenge the viewer, but some of the original Bond plots are very inventive and entertaining. Goldfinger's got a good twist, nuking Fort Knox instead of robbing it. Casino Royale is about a high stakes card game. TB's plot was very scary in the '60s (of course, now nukes are hijacked in every season of 24). Fleming's riff on Japan's "suicide forest" in YOLT. The man with a golden gun who kills for a million dollars a contract. Etc.
Maybe the basics of these plots - extortion, theft, hitmen, smuggling - aren't inventive, but Fleming often put a bizarre spin on things, some kind of clever, out-there hook you don't find in other spy fiction. For example, Blofeld's biological weapon is just a plot. But having it distributed by the "angels of death?" That's a Bond plot.
I would claim that way back in the 60s those were new and quite exciting plots. Actually you could say that Bond invented them for cinema. It's not their fault that they have been rehashed a zillion times since then.
And by the way I would argue that FRWL has a quite clever and complex plot.
I also happen to think that it shouldn't be necessary to denigrate the old movies just to defend the present ones.
in fact most movies have very straight forward plots or rehashes of previous plots. Nothing wrong in that.
But take movies like Inception, Momento, Body Heat, Tinker Taylor, Seven, Sixth Sense, The Usual Suspects, Moon, Jagged Edge etc etc. These are clever plots. In fact, too clever for Bond as Bond is not about great/clever plots IMHO
While I absolutely know what you mean and completely agree with you , way back when they started it was completely new. And when they were running out of the completely new stuff they invented stunts that had never been seen before. Nothing the last two movies have given us is only to the slightest degree new, original or something close to it. After all, melodrama was invented a few thousand years ago.
inventing new stunts is nothing to do with plots, the basic plot for Bond is still there and some stick to it more than others:
"Mad man's plan for global domination foiled by British secrent agent"
nothing wrong with this template. The next Bond movie can have this template and make top three IF the execution is good (character, dialogue, action, acting, music, photography etc) and it can be a stinker if all of these factors are poor. IMHO, the core backbone of the plot is perhaps one of the smallest ellements to a good Bond.
I think you hit it on the head.
We all love these films. The reason, imho, is more deeply pathos than it is logos, because the films are mostly 100% irrational. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. I want to be clear on that. But let's not pretend that it's realistic that a mad man can assemble thousands of men, pay them, somehow get them to go along with an evil plot that doesn't help them, and then try to wreck the world over it*. TB is one of my favorite films: but I know damn well that a whole "face reconstruction" for the sake of stealing missiles is far-fetched...and actually pretty stupid. Especially since all SPECTRE had to do was blackmail Derval: they already had his sister under wraps. But what the hell, right?
You can love a Bond plot, but most of the films are far from reality. A few were and have been more realistic. CR maybe had the strongest plot, from a realistic standpoint.
But back to SF. I bought this plot a lot more than many other Bond films. It's possible (maybe a little more than possible) that Silva can hack into anything. What's terrific about SF is that maybe he can't....and that's where the paranoia and fear sets in (as in Q suggesting Silva had it "all planned." I contend he didn't.) Note the line to Q from Silva's computer: "Not such a clever boy." The psychological warfare in SF is brilliant.
*SP tried to work off of this old model. It worked for some, not for others. I was bothered by all the people working at the headquarters in Morocco. What in the world were they doing there? What great computer programmer says, "I want to work for this guy" and then moves out to the middle of nowhere to hack into government systems? Yeah, that sounds a lot better than Silicon Valley. While this model was OK for the 60s and maybe 70s, it was downright out of place in SP.
No one, at least I didn't, claimed that those plots back then where realistic. "New and exciting" where the words I used and I stand by it. Just as I stand by my assessment that SF's and SP's plots were none of it.
Yes!!!
Sounds good to me, but they have to be careful, lest they descend quickly back into invisible car territory.
Please don't get me wrong! I am Mr. grit and realism ( meaning I really like it ) but I demand a somehow convincing story and the last two movies haven't been able to deliver it in the slightest.
Look at Dr. No ( apart from Fu Manchu residing on his exotic island) and FRWL . Clever and professional Bond living life in style and taking all the fun that is to be a had on his way full of mayhem and deception. And no stories that fall apart at the slightest touch ( note that I'm not saying that there are no plot holes in this movies ). And, and, and ....
I could go on quite some time. What I fault Mendes most for though ( apart from the terrible storytelling and raping of Flemings legacy ) is that there's just nothing original in these movies. Everything is a Hommage, nod or whatever to the old movies. I don't need these, especially when done so mediocre. I know the old ones quite well without Mr. Mendes remembering me about them.
Are we the same person? I'm beginning to ask myself this very question!
Making parts of it all emotional and arty farty,plus using the same score as SF,makes it a lazy production,and an arrogant one,as they presume the audience will feel the same way as with SF.
It didn't work.
They really need a professional management team working under the Broccoli family now. People with passion, drive and ideas for how to take the series forward.
I thought Babs had that but feel Mendes has brought the series back to where IT started. May be that was deliberate but it feels a waste
I have to agree with this,and its a little disconcerting I must say.
I like him actually,so camp.
And I love the moment he points the helicopter to shoot out Bond's beloved DB5,i was shocked when I first saw that,but you can tell by Silva's face he knew exactly what that car meant to Bond.
And then to see CraigBond pause and look up,and the brief anger and disbelief on his face is brilliant.
Finally,add the brilliant score,specially for that moment,and its a perfect Bondian scene to me.