Stupid In A Bond movie?

1235»

Comments

  • Posts: 7,000
    Ah, its the old story, "Why doesn't the villain just shoot Bond in the head?"
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,989
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Ah, its the old story, "Why doesn't the villain just shoot Bond in the head?"

    I suppose that's a criticism that could be levelled at many Bond films, although some have more egregious examples than others. If they just took the simple option and shot Bond there would of course be no story so some plot contrivances are to be expected in these type of stories.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,820
    That's why Dr. Evil, when his son tells him to simply kill Austin Powers, answers: "No, Scott. I have an even better idea. I'm going to place him in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death."
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,989
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    That's why Dr. Evil, when his son tells him to simply kill Austin Powers, answers: "No, Scott. I have an even better idea. I'm going to place him in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death."

    Yes, it's a well observed piece of satire. It's one of the conventions of the thriller I suppose.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 2,111
    Bond going on a rampage and absolutely forgetting about Safin until it become plot relevant again is a pretty stupid move on his part.

    Right I have killed all the goons and opened the blast doors… la de dah time to leave this Island… wait what about Safin… ah nevermind I need to deliver this teddy instead

    I am being facetious but it is super dumb on Bond’s part.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,124
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Ah, its the old story, "Why doesn't the villain just shoot Bond in the head?"

    I suppose that's a criticism that could be levelled at many Bond films, although some have more egregious examples than others. If they just took the simple option and shot Bond there would of course be no story so some plot contrivances are to be expected in these type of stories.

    Worthy discussion point, which Bond movie has the most of these? My money is on MR because of all the times Drax catches Bond. But maybe I am forgetting some. For those that have trouble with GF at least the villain had a somewhat valid reason to keep Bond alive for the movie.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 3,344
    thedove wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Ah, its the old story, "Why doesn't the villain just shoot Bond in the head?"

    I suppose that's a criticism that could be levelled at many Bond films, although some have more egregious examples than others. If they just took the simple option and shot Bond there would of course be no story so some plot contrivances are to be expected in these type of stories.

    Worthy discussion point, which Bond movie has the most of these? My money is on MR because of all the times Drax catches Bond. But maybe I am forgetting some. For those that have trouble with GF at least the villain had a somewhat valid reason to keep Bond alive for the movie.

    To be entirely fair to MR, Drax does have that pretty funny line, "you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you" which I suppose kind of explains the elaborate, deadly situations he puts Bond in.

    I mean, I thought it explained it anyway. It's all very silly, but that's part of the fun.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,809
    007HallY wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Ah, its the old story, "Why doesn't the villain just shoot Bond in the head?"

    I suppose that's a criticism that could be levelled at many Bond films, although some have more egregious examples than others. If they just took the simple option and shot Bond there would of course be no story so some plot contrivances are to be expected in these type of stories.

    Worthy discussion point, which Bond movie has the most of these? My money is on MR because of all the times Drax catches Bond. But maybe I am forgetting some. For those that have trouble with GF at least the villain had a somewhat valid reason to keep Bond alive for the movie.

    To be entirely fair to MR, Drax does have that pretty funny line, "you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you" which I suppose kind of explains the elaborate, deadly situations he puts Bond in.

    I mean, I thought it explained it anyway. It's all very silly, but that's part of the fun.

    Ow, the big cliché of why not just shoot Bond? Yes, it's a difficult one, isn't it? Look at Goldfinger. Auric had Bond strapped on a table with a deadly laser aimed at his thunderballs--a laser so slow, in fact, its tedious ride up the pelvic hill gave Bond just enough time to talk the villain out of frying his peanuts. Why not just shoot Bond? Well, because a) the film would've been over too soon; b) we'd have missed a great opportunity to create a very tense situation; and c) the audience has to be reminded that Bond is, in the end, just a man of flesh and blood.

    Such a scene is a well-known cliché of the Bonds; and yet, it occurs less often than we might think. Plenty of films never go there. One of my least favorite films in the series, for example, TMWTGG, gives us a perfectly satisfying reason for taking Bond to the villain and not having him shot right away.

    Others do prolong Bond's life for no reason. GF does it twice, in fact! But there's always the psychological bit where the villain is so full of himself, so sure he'll win, so satisfied that he's finally got Bond in captivity, he's going to toy a bit with his food rather than eat it immediately. That's why Mr. Big first explains his big plan and then prepares to feed Bond and Solitaire to the sharks.

    I think Riddler says it best in Batman Forever: "Just think of it, a few bullets hit home, a quick splash of blood, and then what? Wet hands... post-homicidal depression." To be frank, when I think of people I'd love to exact some revenge on--say Belgium's most notorious pedophile--I'm not fantasizing about the satisfaction of a quick bullet through the head; rather, I'm thinking about all sorts of pain sensations for as long as they can be supplied and felt. (Please don't mistake me for a psychopath. ;-))

    In truth, I think the cliché resides not so much in the fact that the villain wants to give Bond a slow death, but in the fact that these perilous situations are too often resolved too quickly and too easily. The laser table scene in GF forced Bond to be amazingly inventive and convincing; his sweat is my own. However, the MR ordeal, with Bond and Holly trapped underneath the shuttle's exhaust pipes, is dealt with in a stupid manner: use a gadget (and it won't even be the last time in the movie.) This one hurts me especially because Fleming wrote a darn good and exciting, similar escape-from-certain-death chapter in his third book. Another case is SP--and I hate to admit it since I will defend the film for as long as I'm alive--where Blofeld's torture scene is also wrapped up very suddenly by a simple trick with a magic watch (and none of the promised forms of brain damage.)

    For me, it all comes down to how the scene is handled. We understand why Alec wants Bond to witness the downfall of England; half of it is personal to him. Then he has to keep Bond and Natalya there because Boris can't stop the retrorockets. And yes, Bond does fix things by means of a Q gadget, but this scene is so tensely shot, it's actually a very thrilling moment in the film, so we can excuse the cliché, surely. And what about Sanchez keeping Bond around during the tour? Well, perhaps because it wouldn't seem like he's got his business in order if he has to start shooting infiltrators right in front of his partners. And what about locking Bond up in the cable car room in OHMSS? Well, it takes Bond several attempts to achieve the impossible, and he faces death while doing it, and getting out of there is just the start of another half an hour of tense moment after tense moment. See, give me either a reason just credible enough, or a scene just thrilling enough, and I don't mind one of the biggest Austin Powers clichés of them all. But when poorly done--I'm looking at you, DAF, and your improvised lock-up room with an open hatch--it can really play to the detriment of the film.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,720
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Ah, its the old story, "Why doesn't the villain just shoot Bond in the head?"

    I suppose that's a criticism that could be levelled at many Bond films, although some have more egregious examples than others. If they just took the simple option and shot Bond there would of course be no story so some plot contrivances are to be expected in these type of stories.

    Worthy discussion point, which Bond movie has the most of these? My money is on MR because of all the times Drax catches Bond. But maybe I am forgetting some. For those that have trouble with GF at least the villain had a somewhat valid reason to keep Bond alive for the movie.

    To be entirely fair to MR, Drax does have that pretty funny line, "you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you" which I suppose kind of explains the elaborate, deadly situations he puts Bond in.

    I mean, I thought it explained it anyway. It's all very silly, but that's part of the fun.

    Ow, the big cliché of why not just shoot Bond? Yes, it's a difficult one, isn't it? Look at Goldfinger. Auric had Bond strapped on a table with a deadly laser aimed at his thunderballs--a laser so slow, in fact, its tedious ride up the pelvic hill gave Bond just enough time to talk the villain out of frying his peanuts. Why not just shoot Bond? Well, because a) the film would've been over too soon; b) we'd have missed a great opportunity to create a very tense situation; and c) the audience has to be reminded that Bond is, in the end, just a man of flesh and blood.

    Such a scene is a well-known cliché of the Bonds; and yet, it occurs less often than we might think. Plenty of films never go there. One of my least favorite films in the series, for example, TMWTGG, gives us a perfectly satisfying reason for taking Bond to the villain and not having him shot right away.

    Others do prolong Bond's life for no reason. GF does it twice, in fact! But there's always the psychological bit where the villain is so full of himself, so sure he'll win, so satisfied that he's finally got Bond in captivity, he's going to toy a bit with his food rather than eat it immediately. That's why Mr. Big first explains his big plan and then prepares to feed Bond and Solitaire to the sharks.

    I think Riddler says it best in Batman Forever: "Just think of it, a few bullets hit home, a quick splash of blood, and then what? Wet hands... post-homicidal depression." To be frank, when I think of people I'd love to exact some revenge on--say Belgium's most notorious pedophile--I'm not fantasizing about the satisfaction of a quick bullet through the head; rather, I'm thinking about all sorts of pain sensations for as long as they can be supplied and felt. (Please don't mistake me for a psychopath. ;-))

    In truth, I think the cliché resides not so much in the fact that the villain wants to give Bond a slow death, but in the fact that these perilous situations are too often resolved too quickly and too easily. The laser table scene in GF forced Bond to be amazingly inventive and convincing; his sweat is my own. However, the MR ordeal, with Bond and Holly trapped underneath the shuttle's exhaust pipes, is dealt with in a stupid manner: use a gadget (and it won't even be the last time in the movie.) This one hurts me especially because Fleming wrote a darn good and exciting, similar escape-from-certain-death chapter in his third book. Another case is SP--and I hate to admit it since I will defend the film for as long as I'm alive--where Blofeld's torture scene is also wrapped up very suddenly by a simple trick with a magic watch (and none of the promised forms of brain damage.)

    For me, it all comes down to how the scene is handled. We understand why Alec wants Bond to witness the downfall of England; half of it is personal to him. Then he has to keep Bond and Natalya there because Boris can't stop the retrorockets. And yes, Bond does fix things by means of a Q gadget, but this scene is so tensely shot, it's actually a very thrilling moment in the film, so we can excuse the cliché, surely. And what about Sanchez keeping Bond around during the tour? Well, perhaps because it wouldn't seem like he's got his business in order if he has to start shooting infiltrators right in front of his partners. And what about locking Bond up in the cable car room in OHMSS? Well, it takes Bond several attempts to achieve the impossible, and he faces death while doing it, and getting out of there is just the start of another half an hour of tense moment after tense moment. See, give me either a reason just credible enough, or a scene just thrilling enough, and I don't mind one of the biggest Austin Powers clichés of them all. But when poorly done--I'm looking at you, DAF, and your improvised lock-up room with an open hatch--it can really play to the detriment of the film.

    This was so well written and incredibly interesting I feel like I owe you money for it. Do you take Paypal?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,809
    chrisisall wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Ah, its the old story, "Why doesn't the villain just shoot Bond in the head?"

    I suppose that's a criticism that could be levelled at many Bond films, although some have more egregious examples than others. If they just took the simple option and shot Bond there would of course be no story so some plot contrivances are to be expected in these type of stories.

    Worthy discussion point, which Bond movie has the most of these? My money is on MR because of all the times Drax catches Bond. But maybe I am forgetting some. For those that have trouble with GF at least the villain had a somewhat valid reason to keep Bond alive for the movie.

    To be entirely fair to MR, Drax does have that pretty funny line, "you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you" which I suppose kind of explains the elaborate, deadly situations he puts Bond in.

    I mean, I thought it explained it anyway. It's all very silly, but that's part of the fun.

    Ow, the big cliché of why not just shoot Bond? Yes, it's a difficult one, isn't it? Look at Goldfinger. Auric had Bond strapped on a table with a deadly laser aimed at his thunderballs--a laser so slow, in fact, its tedious ride up the pelvic hill gave Bond just enough time to talk the villain out of frying his peanuts. Why not just shoot Bond? Well, because a) the film would've been over too soon; b) we'd have missed a great opportunity to create a very tense situation; and c) the audience has to be reminded that Bond is, in the end, just a man of flesh and blood.

    Such a scene is a well-known cliché of the Bonds; and yet, it occurs less often than we might think. Plenty of films never go there. One of my least favorite films in the series, for example, TMWTGG, gives us a perfectly satisfying reason for taking Bond to the villain and not having him shot right away.

    Others do prolong Bond's life for no reason. GF does it twice, in fact! But there's always the psychological bit where the villain is so full of himself, so sure he'll win, so satisfied that he's finally got Bond in captivity, he's going to toy a bit with his food rather than eat it immediately. That's why Mr. Big first explains his big plan and then prepares to feed Bond and Solitaire to the sharks.

    I think Riddler says it best in Batman Forever: "Just think of it, a few bullets hit home, a quick splash of blood, and then what? Wet hands... post-homicidal depression." To be frank, when I think of people I'd love to exact some revenge on--say Belgium's most notorious pedophile--I'm not fantasizing about the satisfaction of a quick bullet through the head; rather, I'm thinking about all sorts of pain sensations for as long as they can be supplied and felt. (Please don't mistake me for a psychopath. ;-))

    In truth, I think the cliché resides not so much in the fact that the villain wants to give Bond a slow death, but in the fact that these perilous situations are too often resolved too quickly and too easily. The laser table scene in GF forced Bond to be amazingly inventive and convincing; his sweat is my own. However, the MR ordeal, with Bond and Holly trapped underneath the shuttle's exhaust pipes, is dealt with in a stupid manner: use a gadget (and it won't even be the last time in the movie.) This one hurts me especially because Fleming wrote a darn good and exciting, similar escape-from-certain-death chapter in his third book. Another case is SP--and I hate to admit it since I will defend the film for as long as I'm alive--where Blofeld's torture scene is also wrapped up very suddenly by a simple trick with a magic watch (and none of the promised forms of brain damage.)

    For me, it all comes down to how the scene is handled. We understand why Alec wants Bond to witness the downfall of England; half of it is personal to him. Then he has to keep Bond and Natalya there because Boris can't stop the retrorockets. And yes, Bond does fix things by means of a Q gadget, but this scene is so tensely shot, it's actually a very thrilling moment in the film, so we can excuse the cliché, surely. And what about Sanchez keeping Bond around during the tour? Well, perhaps because it wouldn't seem like he's got his business in order if he has to start shooting infiltrators right in front of his partners. And what about locking Bond up in the cable car room in OHMSS? Well, it takes Bond several attempts to achieve the impossible, and he faces death while doing it, and getting out of there is just the start of another half an hour of tense moment after tense moment. See, give me either a reason just credible enough, or a scene just thrilling enough, and I don't mind one of the biggest Austin Powers clichés of them all. But when poorly done--I'm looking at you, DAF, and your improvised lock-up room with an open hatch--it can really play to the detriment of the film.

    This was so well written and incredibly interesting I feel like I owe you money for it. Do you take Paypal?

    Thank you, @chrisisall. And no, no money. Just set me up for a date with Kendall Jenner and we're even. 😉
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited July 2023 Posts: 5,124
    Excellent post @DarthDimi It reminded me of a great episode from Batman the Animated Series. The Man Who Killed Batman. Joker is beside himself thinking that Batman may be dead!

    "Without Batman, crime has no punchline."

Sign In or Register to comment.