Sebastian Faulks ridicules 'distasteful' Bond film 'Skyfall'

1468910

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    The plot does make it clear that Bond is outnumbered in the William Tell scene itself.
    But after Severine is killed he goes all Wolverine, and is saved in the nick. Why not go all Wolverine BEFORE she's killed so they can BOTH be saved in the nick??

    Oh, and shagging her should be no issue here if she had not been killed IMO.

  • Posts: 11,189
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    This world, which now includes this Forum, has gone completely PC crazy. And not in a good way.
    There IS a bit of that going around, eh?
    Bottom line, why set her up as a sympathetic character in need of saving just to kill her off in such a sadistic meaningless way when she a) could have been there of her own will so her dying is more of less on her, or b) written to actually make it through the situation so she could live to die another day?
    IMO the PC reactions here are an intellectual smokescreen for pure dislike of the simplistic audience manipulation. Dark for the sake of dark is beginning to wear thin, as I believe we are seeing on this thread.

    Yes, this death scene and the shower scene seem to be the two main points of contention, but Bond films have been on this brutal path since at least the senseless Zorin miners massacre in AVTAK way back in 1985, let us not forget that even for a moment. Yes, her character went through a lot only to be brutally and needlessly killed by Silva seemingly just in order to "up" his villainous profile and credentials. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of many, however. On the positive side, I do think the debate is very intellectual here on MI6 Community - there is no smokescreen there to be found, @chrisisall. No minds lost
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Dragonpol wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    This world, which now includes this Forum, has gone completely PC crazy. And not in a good way.
    There IS a bit of that going around, eh?
    Bottom line, why set her up as a sympathetic character in need of saving just to kill her off in such a sadistic meaningless way when she a) could have been there of her own will so her dying is more of less on her, or b) written to actually make it through the situation so she could live to die another day?
    IMO the PC reactions here are an intellectual smokescreen for pure dislike of the simplistic audience manipulation. Dark for the sake of dark is beginning to wear thin, as I believe we are seeing on this thread.

    Yes, this death scene and the shower scene seem to be the two main points of contention, but Bond films have been on this brutal path since at least the senseless Zorin miners massacre in AVTAK way back in 1985, let us not forget that even for a moment. Yes, her character went through a lot only to be brutally and needlessly killed by Silva seemingly just in order to "up" his villainous profile and credentials. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of many, however. On the positive side, I do think the debate is very intellectual here on MI6 Community - there is no smokescreen there to be found, @chrisisall. No minds lost here either, Sir Henry.

    I also have a bitter taste in my mouth about Severine, but that's only with her being the sacrificial lamb that Bond fails to save. The shower scene is nothing more than two people who consensually want to get it on, and arguments to the contrary are complete BS unless one has an agenda or too inexperienced to know any better when it comes to what happens between a man and a woman.

    Well, I am a woman and a lifelong Bond fan - and I loved Skyfall and had no problem at all, not a second thought or bad feeling, when Bond came on board and stepped into the shower with Severine. I actually liked the way it was handled.

    So I agree with @Perilagu_Khan and @SirHenryLeeChaChing. Both summed up pretty much how I feel about this "issue". I, too, just wanted Severine on screen longer. Bereniece was great in her too-brief role.
  • Posts: 2,483
    chrisisall wrote:
    This world, which now includes this Forum, has gone completely PC crazy. And not in a good way.
    There IS a bit of that going around, eh?
    Bottom line, why set her up as a sympathetic character in need of saving just to kill her off in such a sadistic meaningless way when she a) could have been there of her own will so her dying is more of less on her, or b) written to actually make it through the situation so she could live to die another day?
    IMO the PC reactions here are an intellectual smokescreen for pure dislike of the simplistic audience manipulation. Dark for the sake of dark is beginning to wear thin, as I believe we are seeing on this thread.

    I think the reason it was done the way it was done is to make the viewer despise Silva all the more. The more loathsome the villain, the more the viewer is emotionally invested in the plot. Besides, Silva arguably came across as rather chummy and pansified to begin with; the brutality he displayed vis-à-vis Severine imparted a much needed diabolism to the character.

  • [quote="4EverBondedWell, I am a woman and a lifelong Bond fan - and I loved Skyfall and had no problem at all, not a second thought or bad feeling, when Bond came on board and stepped into the shower with Severine. I actually liked the way it was handled.

    [/quote]

    I don't remember seeing it being handled. Who did that, Bond before he went in the shower to warm it up a bit, or Severine? Or are you suggesting Craig had a fluffer on set?
  • Posts: 6,396
    chrisisall wrote:
    The plot does make it clear that Bond is outnumbered in the William Tell scene itself.
    But after Severine is killed he goes all Wolverine, and is saved in the nick. Why not go all Wolverine BEFORE she's killed so they can BOTH be saved in the nick??

    Oh, and shagging her should be no issue here if she had not been killed IMO.

    Am I to assume then that the issue you have is Bond can only take shag any woman he wants as long as she makes it to the end of the movie in one piece?

  • Posts: 11,189
    chrisisall wrote:
    This world, which now includes this Forum, has gone completely PC crazy. And not in a good way.
    There IS a bit of that going around, eh?
    Bottom line, why set her up as a sympathetic character in need of saving just to kill her off in such a sadistic meaningless way when she a) could have been there of her own will so her dying is more of less on her, or b) written to actually make it through the situation so she could live to die another day?
    IMO the PC reactions here are an intellectual smokescreen for pure dislike of the simplistic audience manipulation. Dark for the sake of dark is beginning to wear thin, as I believe we are seeing on this thread.

    I think the reason it was done the way it was done is to make the viewer despise Silva all the more. The more loathsome the villain, the more the viewer is emotionally invested in the plot. Besides, Silva arguably came across as rather chummy and pansified to begin with; the brutality he displayed vis-à-vis Severine imparted a much needed diabolism to the character.

    That's a good point, but nonetheless she's never mentioned again after the William Tell scene which I think is a bit of a shame.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited August 2013 Posts: 17,691
    I don't remember seeing it being handled.
    See the Director's Cut.
    chrisisall wrote:
    The plot does make it clear that Bond is outnumbered in the William Tell scene itself.
    But after Severine is killed he goes all Wolverine, and is saved in the nick. Why not go all Wolverine BEFORE she's killed so they can BOTH be saved in the nick??

    Oh, and shagging her should be no issue here if she had not been killed IMO.

    Am I to assume then that the issue you have is Bond can only take shag any woman he wants as long as she makes it to the end of the movie in one piece?
    You logic here escapes me...
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,804
    chrisisall wrote:
    This world, which now includes this Forum, has gone completely PC crazy. And not in a good way.
    There IS a bit of that going around, eh?
    Bottom line, why set her up as a sympathetic character in need of saving just to kill her off in such a sadistic meaningless way when she a) could have been there of her own will so her dying is more of less on her, or b) written to actually make it through the situation so she could live to die another day?
    IMO the PC reactions here are an intellectual smokescreen for pure dislike of the simplistic audience manipulation. Dark for the sake of dark is beginning to wear thin, as I believe we are seeing on this thread.

    I think the reason it was done the way it was done is to make the viewer despise Silva all the more. The more loathsome the villain, the more the viewer is emotionally invested in the plot. Besides, Silva arguably came across as rather chummy and pansified to begin with; the brutality he displayed vis-à-vis Severine imparted a much needed diabolism to the character.

    Yes, I made this point above - it's much like the Zorin miners massacre, only on a much smaller scale, of course. Perhaps you could call it the script making allowances for the slack in the Silva character construct and little more - another sacrificial lamb trope in a new James Bond film that surely must have thought it had put those days behind it?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    The way the director and actors handled it of course, @NapoleonPlural . :)
  • Posts: 2,483
    Another mention of Severine wouldn't have gone amiss as long as it wasn't M scolding him with "See how well your charm works" and then blaming their deaths on him.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited August 2013 Posts: 17,804
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    This world, which now includes this Forum, has gone completely PC crazy. And not in a good way.
    There IS a bit of that going around, eh?
    Bottom line, why set her up as a sympathetic character in need of saving just to kill her off in such a sadistic meaningless way when she a) could have been there of her own will so her dying is more of less on her, or b) written to actually make it through the situation so she could live to die another day?
    IMO the PC reactions here are an intellectual smokescreen for pure dislike of the simplistic audience manipulation. Dark for the sake of dark is beginning to wear thin, as I believe we are seeing on this thread.

    Yes, this death scene and the shower scene seem to be the two main points of contention, but Bond films have been on this brutal path since at least the senseless Zorin miners massacre in AVTAK way back in 1985, let us not forget that even for a moment. Yes, her character went through a lot only to be brutally and needlessly killed by Silva seemingly just in order to "up" his villainous profile and credentials. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of many, however. On the positive side, I do think the debate is very intellectual here on MI6 Community - there is no smokescreen there to be found, @chrisisall. No minds lost

    Not sure what this means, @BAIN123?

    Do this quote mean you are in agreement with what I said here, a +1 as I believe they call it these days on Bond and other forums.

    Just curious...
  • Posts: 908
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    bondsum wrote:
    And I'd love to hear your suggestions for how Bond was meant to protect Severine at that point when it was pretty clear he had no chance in saving her, being outnumbered.
    I wouldn't have made Severine a sex-slave supposedly rescued from Macau for starters, especially if I was going to have Bond fail to save her, therefore she would have been just another femme fatale who doesn't make it to the 2nd reel like Andrea Anders. Seriously, do you expect me to rewrite what's already been written by the script writers?

    Looks like @doubleoego doesn't get it either. "Severine was collateral damage in the middle of a huge mission." Good job Fleming didn't think like you otherwise Pussy Galore, Tiffany Case and Honey Rider would have all been dispensed with after he'd given them a good "porking" as you so eloquently put in your best Fleming prose.

    PS. It doesn't offend me. Good god, it'd take more than a PG13 movie to upset my sensibilities. I'm merely pointing out that it's not in keeping with Fleming when dealing with an emotionally damaged woman, for which I've included examples in previous posts. Is it so hard for some of you to work out?

    Well, what is it about having consensual sex with her that is so evil? For crying out loud, he made love to her, he didn't beat her to a pulp, rape her and murder her. It seems far too many people have internalized the fatuous feminist fiction that heterosexual sex is hate crime against women.

    If she had been working as a Sex Slave since her childhood it stands to reason, that her mind and will have been broken a long time ago. So even if she had offered herself to Bond on a Silver tablet it would not equal something like Lust or willingness. It's just that simple!

    No, it's not that simple. You are imputing in Severine's psyche only what you suspect but do not know. None of us have any way of knowing how resilient or fragile Severine--a fictional character, BTW--is.

    That's why I wrote "stands to reason" and I would argue that my chances of being right on this Point are more than fair. I really wonder about the complete lack of emphathy you and quite a few others display. Does any of you really thinks,that a women abused since childhood does develop a normal relationship towards Sex. Even if she was the one Out of a Million who does,the likelyhood is so low,that no one deserving respect or even admiration (as is the Case in other Bond Flics) should consider screwing her. I am the worst Enemy Political Corectness has ever had,but the arguments raised here comparing it with Events from other Bond Films are simply ridiculous (and I won't even dwell on what plans Severigne, Bond or Silva had in regards to the whole boat and island Thing ,because from the Point Bond arrives in Shanghai there is no Force in the whole Universe that could explain the mess of a Story that develops from here)
  • Posts: 11,189
    Dragonpol wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    This world, which now includes this Forum, has gone completely PC crazy. And not in a good way.
    There IS a bit of that going around, eh?
    Bottom line, why set her up as a sympathetic character in need of saving just to kill her off in such a sadistic meaningless way when she a) could have been there of her own will so her dying is more of less on her, or b) written to actually make it through the situation so she could live to die another day?
    IMO the PC reactions here are an intellectual smokescreen for pure dislike of the simplistic audience manipulation. Dark for the sake of dark is beginning to wear thin, as I believe we are seeing on this thread.

    Yes, this death scene and the shower scene seem to be the two main points of contention, but Bond films have been on this brutal path since at least the senseless Zorin miners massacre in AVTAK way back in 1985, let us not forget that even for a moment. Yes, her character went through a lot only to be brutally and needlessly killed by Silva seemingly just in order to "up" his villainous profile and credentials. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of many, however. On the positive side, I do think the debate is very intellectual here on MI6 Community - there is no smokescreen there to be found, @chrisisall. No minds lost

    Not sure what this means, @BAIN123?

    Do this quote mean you are in agreement with what I said here, a +1 as I believe they call it these days on Bond and other forums.

    Just curious...

    I'm sorry I think that was a muck up on my part.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Dragonpol wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    This world, which now includes this Forum, has gone completely PC crazy. And not in a good way.
    There IS a bit of that going around, eh?
    Bottom line, why set her up as a sympathetic character in need of saving just to kill her off in such a sadistic meaningless way when she a) could have been there of her own will so her dying is more of less on her, or b) written to actually make it through the situation so she could live to die another day?
    IMO the PC reactions here are an intellectual smokescreen for pure dislike of the simplistic audience manipulation. Dark for the sake of dark is beginning to wear thin, as I believe we are seeing on this thread.

    Yes, this death scene and the shower scene seem to be the two main points of contention, but Bond films have been on this brutal path since at least the senseless Zorin miners massacre in AVTAK way back in 1985, let us not forget that even for a moment. Yes, her character went through a lot only to be brutally and needlessly killed by Silva seemingly just in order to "up" his villainous profile and credentials. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of many, however. On the positive side, I do think the debate is very intellectual here on MI6 Community - there is no smokescreen there to be found, @chrisisall. No minds lost here either, Sir Henry.

    I also have a bitter taste in my mouth about Severine, but that's only with her being the sacrificial lamb that Bond fails to save. The shower scene is nothing more than two people who consensually want to get it on, and arguments to the contrary are complete BS unless one has an agenda or too inexperienced to know any better when it comes to what happens between a man and a woman.

    Well, I am a woman and a lifelong Bond fan - and I loved Skyfall and had no problem at all, not a second thought or bad feeling, when Bond came on board and stepped into the shower with Severine. I actually liked the way it was handled.

    So I agree with @Perilagu_Khan and @SirHenryLeeChaChing. Both summed up pretty much how I feel about this "issue". I, too, just wanted Severine on screen longer. Bereniece was great in her too-brief role.

    Thank you my friend, I knew that you would be a woman with a reasonable and real world considered POV when it comes to situations such as these.

    For me, it simply boiled down to this- Severine was no angel despite these pathetic attempts to make her into one and Bond into some kind of lout for taking her up on her offer. Considering her past, I assume he protected himself too! You can't be too careful these days. She had her own agenda and used Bond to get it, just as Miss Anders did. Unfortunately it didn't work out for either of them.

    The one improvement over Skyfall next time should be that Bond shags 3 or more women, if for nothing else than to piss more people off :))

    @Dragonpol- well said about Severine's killing to put some extra heat on Silva as a ruthless character. Unfortunately, your premise about reasonable assumptions is clearly lost on some people. You lack empathy you know ;) Bad! Bad Dragonpol! Go sit in the corner and read the PC handbook again :))



  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited August 2013 Posts: 17,804
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    This world, which now includes this Forum, has gone completely PC crazy. And not in a good way.
    There IS a bit of that going around, eh?
    Bottom line, why set her up as a sympathetic character in need of saving just to kill her off in such a sadistic meaningless way when she a) could have been there of her own will so her dying is more of less on her, or b) written to actually make it through the situation so she could live to die another day?
    IMO the PC reactions here are an intellectual smokescreen for pure dislike of the simplistic audience manipulation. Dark for the sake of dark is beginning to wear thin, as I believe we are seeing on this thread.

    Yes, this death scene and the shower scene seem to be the two main points of contention, but Bond films have been on this brutal path since at least the senseless Zorin miners massacre in AVTAK way back in 1985, let us not forget that even for a moment. Yes, her character went through a lot only to be brutally and needlessly killed by Silva seemingly just in order to "up" his villainous profile and credentials. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of many, however. On the positive side, I do think the debate is very intellectual here on MI6 Community - there is no smokescreen there to be found, @chrisisall. No minds lost

    Not sure what this means, @BAIN123?

    Do this quote mean you are in agreement with what I said here, a +1 as I believe they call it these days on Bond and other forums.

    Just curious...

    I'm sorry I think that was a muck up on my part.

    Did you mean to agree or disagree, though?
  • Posts: 6,396
    chrisisall wrote:
    I don't remember seeing it being handled.
    See the Director's Cut.
    chrisisall wrote:
    The plot does make it clear that Bond is outnumbered in the William Tell scene itself.
    But after Severine is killed he goes all Wolverine, and is saved in the nick. Why not go all Wolverine BEFORE she's killed so they can BOTH be saved in the nick??

    Oh, and shagging her should be no issue here if she had not been killed IMO.

    Am I to assume then that the issue you have is Bond can only take shag any woman he wants as long as she makes it to the end of the movie in one piece?
    You logic here escapes me...

    No clearly your logic escapes you seeing as what you said above.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    No clearly your logic escapes you seeing as what you said above.
    "Seeing as what I said above"?
    I'm talking about this isolated incident and you draw a conclusion from it that covers all past & future female character death-related incidents? Really?
    Okay then, let Bond 'take shag' whomever YOU want him to, K?
  • Posts: 11,189
    Dragonpol wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    This world, which now includes this Forum, has gone completely PC crazy. And not in a good way.
    There IS a bit of that going around, eh?
    Bottom line, why set her up as a sympathetic character in need of saving just to kill her off in such a sadistic meaningless way when she a) could have been there of her own will so her dying is more of less on her, or b) written to actually make it through the situation so she could live to die another day?
    IMO the PC reactions here are an intellectual smokescreen for pure dislike of the simplistic audience manipulation. Dark for the sake of dark is beginning to wear thin, as I believe we are seeing on this thread.

    Yes, this death scene and the shower scene seem to be the two main points of contention, but Bond films have been on this brutal path since at least the senseless Zorin miners massacre in AVTAK way back in 1985, let us not forget that even for a moment. Yes, her character went through a lot only to be brutally and needlessly killed by Silva seemingly just in order to "up" his villainous profile and credentials. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of many, however. On the positive side, I do think the debate is very intellectual here on MI6 Community - there is no smokescreen there to be found, @chrisisall. No minds lost

    Not sure what this means, @BAIN123?

    Do this quote mean you are in agreement with what I said here, a +1 as I believe they call it these days on Bond and other forums.

    Just curious...

    I'm sorry I think that was a muck up on my part.

    Did you mean to agree or disagree, though?

    I agree
  • Posts: 6,396
    chrisisall wrote:
    "Seeing as what I said above"?

    This: "Oh, and shagging her should be no issue here if she had not been killed IMO".

    It is why I highlighted it in my last post!

    What does it mean exactly?
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 3,494
    chrisisall wrote:
    "Seeing as what I said above"?

    This: "Oh, and shagging her should be no issue here if she had not been killed IMO".

    It is why I highlighted it in my last post!

    What does it mean exactly?

    I'm sure Chris will explain himself, I'm curious about why Bond shouldn't have shagged
    the sacrificial lamb when he has plenty of times before.
  • Posts: 908
    chrisisall wrote:
    "Seeing as what I said above"?

    This: "Oh, and shagging her should be no issue here if she had not been killed IMO".

    It is why I highlighted it in my last post!

    What does it mean exactly?

    I'm sure Chris will explain himself, I'm curious about why Bond shouldn't have shagged
    the sacrificial lamb when he has plenty of times before.

    The Key Word here is not sacrificial lamb, it is Sex Slave (since childhood).Just try to wrap your mind around it.
  • Posts: 14,824
    Ludovico wrote:
    It's hard to be a Bond fan and a feminist at the same time and I can't ignore the problematic stuff envolving Severine in SF. I can't say I didn't like her (God, that beautiful piece from SF score still manages to make me cry), but Severine compared to Camille in QoS is a big backpedal. They don't need to be sexualized! I hope they will bring us girls with more attitude in the next films because the old damsel in distress archetipe is so boring and so last century. But still, I have seen worse, tbh.

    Btw, yes, it's just a movie, but you know... It's frustrating when they be could exploring different types of women. I care about this franchise and I want to be able to say that I'm proud of everything they do.

    But damsel in distress are a classic archetypes and Fleming used them very well. Why can't they show up in Bond movies? If done right of course. Just like femmes fatales, they have their place in fiction. Superwomen in contemporary fiction are often nothing more than male fantasies anyway, more mensuration with guns (or knives, or swords) than proper characters.

    Sure! I'm not saying they shouldn't have space on the franchise anymore. And that's exactly my point. If they're not damsels in distress they're the femme fatales. How about actually use more of their time and make something different. It's 2013, come on.

    I don't think there were many femmes fatales done in recent year. Rightly I mean. Except Vesper, but I consider her more of a tragic heroin, in the very classical sense (and a perfect tragic character actually). I think they did very well with Severine, who is also a tragic character.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,804
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Dragonpol wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    This world, which now includes this Forum, has gone completely PC crazy. And not in a good way.
    There IS a bit of that going around, eh?
    Bottom line, why set her up as a sympathetic character in need of saving just to kill her off in such a sadistic meaningless way when she a) could have been there of her own will so her dying is more of less on her, or b) written to actually make it through the situation so she could live to die another day?
    IMO the PC reactions here are an intellectual smokescreen for pure dislike of the simplistic audience manipulation. Dark for the sake of dark is beginning to wear thin, as I believe we are seeing on this thread.

    Yes, this death scene and the shower scene seem to be the two main points of contention, but Bond films have been on this brutal path since at least the senseless Zorin miners massacre in AVTAK way back in 1985, let us not forget that even for a moment. Yes, her character went through a lot only to be brutally and needlessly killed by Silva seemingly just in order to "up" his villainous profile and credentials. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of many, however. On the positive side, I do think the debate is very intellectual here on MI6 Community - there is no smokescreen there to be found, @chrisisall. No minds lost

    Not sure what this means, @BAIN123?

    Do this quote mean you are in agreement with what I said here, a +1 as I believe they call it these days on Bond and other forums.

    Just curious...

    I'm sorry I think that was a muck up on my part.

    Did you mean to agree or disagree, though?

    I agree

    Oh, OK. Thanks for that clarification there, Bain.
  • Ludovico wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    It's hard to be a Bond fan and a feminist at the same time and I can't ignore the problematic stuff envolving Severine in SF. I can't say I didn't like her (God, that beautiful piece from SF score still manages to make me cry), but Severine compared to Camille in QoS is a big backpedal. They don't need to be sexualized! I hope they will bring us girls with more attitude in the next films because the old damsel in distress archetipe is so boring and so last century. But still, I have seen worse, tbh.

    Btw, yes, it's just a movie, but you know... It's frustrating when they be could exploring different types of women. I care about this franchise and I want to be able to say that I'm proud of everything they do.

    But damsel in distress are a classic archetypes and Fleming used them very well. Why can't they show up in Bond movies? If done right of course. Just like femmes fatales, they have their place in fiction. Superwomen in contemporary fiction are often nothing more than male fantasies anyway, more mensuration with guns (or knives, or swords) than proper characters.

    Sure! I'm not saying they shouldn't have space on the franchise anymore. And that's exactly my point. If they're not damsels in distress they're the femme fatales. How about actually use more of their time and make something different. It's 2013, come on.

    I don't think there were many femmes fatales done in recent year. Rightly I mean. Except Vesper, but I consider her more of a tragic heroin, in the very classical sense (and a perfect tragic character actually). I think they did very well with Severine, who is also a tragic character.

    Vesper was so well constructed. The perfect tragic character, yes.
    Just like I said before, it's not that I dislike Severine but I can still see the issues. She's the weakest Bond girl from Craig's era, IMO. But she had potential.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Timmer,

    It was death by black widow, not scorpion.
    Thanks Khanners! But I was talking book, so aren't I right there? ie scorpion in book, black widow in film, as someone else posted. I am too lazy to flip through the book, right about now, so I defer to anyone that is real sure.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited August 2013 Posts: 17,691
    What does it mean exactly?
    It means IMO the only reason anyone has an issue with Bond shagging her is that she was used badly, not by Bond, but by the film makers. They set her up as broken, hanging on by her fingernails, and then Bond doesn't save her. If he's set up to NOT save her, then shagging her previously is what? A glorious last boink? No, it's either her 'selling herself' to gain his help, or her genuinely reaching out emotionally to a possible caring soul, either of which evaporate into a simple realization upon her death that she just a tool to tell you how BAAAAD Silva is. Lazy crap screenwriting. At least in TMWTGG the tone of the whole movie was somewhat fantastic; SF pretends seriousness in patches amongst the ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, SF is pretty good overall, but for a BILLION dollar take I would have expected better.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,804
    chrisisall wrote:
    What does it mean exactly?
    It means IMO the only reason anyone has an issue with Bond shagging her is that she was used badly, not by Bond, but by the film makers. They set her up as broken, hanging on by her fingernails, and then Bond doesn't save her. If he's set up to NOT save her, then shagging her previously is what? A glorious last boink? No, it's either her 'selling herself' to gain his help, or her genuinely reaching out emotionally to a possible caring soul, either of which evaporate into a simplistic realization upon her death that she just a tool to tell you how BAAAAD Silva is. Lazy crap screenwriting. At least in TMWTGG the tone of the whole movie was somewhat fantastic; SF pretends seriousness in patches amongst the ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, SF is pretty good overall, but for a BILLION dollar take I would have expected better.

    I largely concur.

    On Silva's badness see my post above:

    "Yes, I made this point above - it's much like the Zorin miners massacre, only on a much smaller scale, of course. Perhaps you could call it the script making allowances for the slack in the Silva character construct and little more - another sacrificial lamb trope in a new James Bond film that surely must have thought it had put those days behind it?"
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 4,622
    chrisisall wrote:
    That wasn't even the question! I asked you how Bond was supposed to have prevented Silva from murdering her?

    Suddenly, Bond spotted Severing being marched out, blood tinkling down her lip. He'd seen this march before, he knew what this was leading to. An execution. He glanced at his hand. Still shaking a bit, too much for the twisted William Tell nonsense he imagined was coming from where they were setting her up. Words were coming from Silva's mouth, but Bond didn't hear them, he was too deep into calculations, angles that might save them both. As the gun neared him, he didn't wait for it; he snatched it and shot at Silva's chest. The vest Silva wore saved his life, but he fell back hard. Even before the men began firing, Bond was seeking cover. He caught a glance from Severine as she shrunk behind the rock as best she could. He was being surrounded. Before he could formulate a new plan with what pitifully little he had to work with, the sound of helicopter blades ripped through the air...
    I do like this version @chrsisall. Much more inspiring and less callous than the Mendes presentation. And we could add that Bond blows away all the bad guys too, just like he does in the Mendes version. Severine is rescued. We could even contrive a whole new final act, whereby Severine gets more screentime, instead of Mommy M. Mommy M gets parked and later retires for whatever reason. Don't really care why.
    Severine accompanys Bond for the final showdown at SF. Silva dies. Bond and Severine ala classic Bond finale ( both books and films) finish up together, exhausted from such a tough battle. What a great finish that would have been. But no its too conventional for the Craig era. Can't have Bond finishing up with the girl. God forbid. The Craig era must be seen to be groundbreaking and different.
    Apologies to anyone that loves SF, but I'm about ready for gunbarrel at the front again and a normal Bond movie. M as lead Bond-girl is done. Check that off. Now let's get back to basics please.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Dragonpol wrote:
    I largely concur.
    Thanks. I mean, Anders dying was unsettling, but at least Moore *seemed* to be swallowing his remorse to search her purse... (cough cough)

    Y'know, if Bernice wasn't so good in the movie, I mean if she were just another wooden pretty face, this discussion wouldn't even be happening IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.