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
Heaven forbid.
In OHMSS he gets his wife killed and the villain gets away at the end of the movie. I would say that he failed more in that film than he did in SF ultimately.
And he tries to resign on a whim too at the beginning, due to his constant failure trying to get to Blofeld.
I see where you're coming from with this but I think a lot of the issues you raise are there to progress the plot. Somewhat clumsily in certain cases and this is where the logic is slightly amiss. The whole premise is that Bond is effectively buggered, he couldn't really care less and the only thing dragging him back into action is 'M'. He calls her a bitch but in reality the sole reason he returns to MI6 is her. To have him 'regain his step' so to speak is supposedly an arduous process and I would say it wasn't necessarily well executed. Missing Severine's head and then taking down Silva's goons is utterly bizarre. But, having set the film up on the basis he's gone AWOL and become a borderline alcoholic I'd have said he probably should have been even worse than he was for potentially longer.
That in itself is at odds with the idea of what 'Bond' is for some people. So I sympathise. I'd like the hard edged efficient killer back next time. I admire what they tried to do with SF, some of it worked for me. Some of it didn't.
And yes, the first thing Bond does when sent on a mission after having failed all his tests because he is still a wash-up, is to outfight and kill the same guy in 20 seconds, that he was unable to kill on top of the train when he was active and fit for duty. Why? Because "he needed." Makes perfect sense!
IMO it was clear to every logic thinking human, that when M says, I want to know, whats on the comp etc, that they will be able to retrive the list. Don't forget, that Q is a comp genius, too.
When M asked about what was on the computer, how do you and all the other "logic thinking humans" know that this exact computer contained the exact harddisk that was stolen?
And if we really were to apply logic here, Silva, who has a full array of computers on his island, would surely have made backups.
Yeah, but it's a Bond movie. Not only is it a pretty natural assumption to make that they took everything that was important, but logic isn't always the most important thing in a Bond movie, they're hardly going to spell every little thing out.
I think in this case if you look at anything too long you're bound to see problems that aren't necessarily there.
1 computer? I am sure, they looked at ALL of them. Don't you?
And if we really were to apply logic here, Silva, who has a full array of computers on his island, would surely have made backups. [/quote]
Right and I am sure, MI6 has their ways, too to find them. But if you want ALL of that shown and explained, this movie would be 6 hours long. I would assume, they trusted the audiences to realize, what happened without showing it, as its the logic consequence.
Like I said many times here, I don't care about logic in Bond-movies if they compensate by making a full blown escapist action adventure.
But SF tries to pass as a "serious" and more gritty and realistic thriller - an Oscar contender - so as a matter of fact I do think that logic is more important here, than in other Bond movies. And there's very little of it in SF. So many things just doesn't make any sense, like the examples I posted earlier. I'm all for suspension of disbelief, but this was insulting my intelligence!
I dug this up just for you 0Brady
\m/
Secondly, as long as a movie stays true to its own internal structure, I'm fine with it. Nothing Hollywood is putting out is "realistic", at least not in this genre.
I am heading for my covers!!! X_X
Very much agree, if he didn't have the hard drive Bond would never have come after him. The hard drive and the leaking of the agents was just the bait to put the rest of his plan into effect.
Not the same as the DAD one but we're getting there. Who knows, maybe in 20 years or so the DAD car will be seen as ahead of it's time?
To be honest the invisible car never bothered me much, I don't find it anymore unrealistic then a helicopter in a suitcase or a car that turns into a submarine (I think we have that now but we didn't in the 70s).
There's much worse stuff in DAD.