Is Bond the worst spy in the world in Skyfall?

12467

Comments

  • Posts: 908
    RC7 wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Speak plainly

    I'm glad it's not just me who was having trouble wading through the layers of riddles.

    On a more series note, @Matt_Helm, you'd seriously do yourself a favour by attempting, as best you can, to engage in some positive discussions regards Bond.

    Again! I have done so plenty of times, so it is just up to you guys to simply read my posts and not just accusing me of whatever strikes your fancy.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited March 2014 Posts: 12,459
    Dench's M was an awesome M, and I very much appreciate her portrayal. Skyfall was a fitting and excellent finish to her run. You and I agree pretty much about her, @BAIN123.

    No, Mallory was not trying to get rid of her, that's not plausible to me at all.

    It did make sense for Bond to take her away from the city. First, to get that madman further away from where he could do more harm, to more people, and secondly to give him a chance to get at him with the least amount of distractions/obstacles. Bond took her to a place he knew well and it was remote.
    I rather agree with @RC7's observations at the 2nd part below - although I do feel that Bond was very much trying to protect M, yet I feel that they did both know it was "her last hurrah" ... not necessarily meaning she would die, but her time as M was finished, they both knew it. I do agree the poignancy is strongest because she did die.

    (quoting a quote is a bit tricky to get into readable format):

    Matt007 : Look I understand the need to place Bond in jeopardy. There is no film otherwise.
    This thread came from something my mate said in the pub. Namely Bond kidnaps his boss to protect her and ends up getting her killed while Silva succeeds in his mission.
    It's the equivalent of goldfingers bomb going off, but Bond killing him.
    Or the goldeneye satellite exploding over London, but trevelyan dying.
    Just an observation. The villains plot is fulfilled. [/i]
    **********
    RC7: It's nothing of the sort. Firstly, he doesn't kidnap her, to protect her. She's the pawn, he knows it and she knows it. It's her last hurrah. So, the villain's plot isn't fulfilled. Silva never sees 'M' die and he has no idea she's gravely injured - so in his final moment he has lost.

    If Silva had wanted to merely kill her, he could have done it any point. MI6/M's apparent incompetence is brought in to view via Silva and his scheme. So when the time is right - the hearing - he strikes, but Bond screws it for him. Bond then takes the initiative, wanting to get her out of the highly surveilled city and on to a level playing field. That's why it's poetic that Bond takes him down, in front of 'M', with something as primitive as a knife. Had 'M' survived, the film wouldn't have had nearly the same resonance. It would have been a predictable, tired excuse for a conclusion. As it is, it delivers something a little more 'nuanced', although some detractors would of course disagree. If one doesn't like this narratively, that's fine, but it makes sense. [/quote]
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,657
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Again! I have done so plenty of times, so it is just up to you guys to simply read my posts and not just accusing me of whatever strikes your fancy.

    I just scrolled through your posts and it *seems* to me that you're here for the combat. I see no posts concerning Bond films you like, nor much of anything in defence of one or more being put down by someone. If you're here for the Fight Club, at least be honest and admit it. Blasting away at a film or an actor endlessly that many people enjoy immensely turns into an exercise in redundancy at some point. It's just not that interesting in the long run.

    Try this: What's your favourite Bond film? And why (and by that I mean what do you like about it, not just it's better than that piece of crap "_______".)

    Can you even do this simple thing?
  • Posts: 1,394
    Given that M's stubborn refusal not to stop the enquiry due to the imminent arrival of Silva resulted in innocent lives lost, im surprised that MI6 was not dismantled soon after the events of the film.Surely Bond would have been court martialled/fired for his kidnapping of his boss and idiotic decision to take her to a remote location in scotland and putting her right in the line of fire of a terrorist with a small army of mercenaries?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,316
    AstonLotus wrote:
    Given that M's stubborn refusal not to stop the enquiry due to the imminent arrival of Silva resulted in innocent lives lost, im surprised that MI6 was not dismantled soon after the events of the film.Surely Bond would have been court martialled/fired for his kidnapping of his boss and idiotic decision to take her to a remote location in scotland and putting her right in the line of fire of a terrorist with a small army of mercenaries?

    I think M let Silva and his men to prove a point and frankly while it did in with lots of lives lost, she was able to prove that we don't know who our enemies are.
  • Posts: 908
    chrisisall wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Again! I have done so plenty of times, so it is just up to you guys to simply read my posts and not just accusing me of whatever strikes your fancy.

    I just scrolled through your posts and it *seems* to me that you're here for the combat. I see no posts concerning Bond films you like, nor much of anything in defence of one or more being put down by someone. If you're here for the Fight Club, at least be honest and admit it. Blasting away at a film or an actor endlessly that many people enjoy immensely turns into an exercise in redundancy at some point. It's just not that interesting in the long run.

    Try this: What's your favourite Bond film? And why (and by that I mean what do you like about it, not just it's better than that piece of crap "_______".)

    Can you even do this simple thing?

    Then scroll better! I am one of the very few staunch defenders on this forum of QoS and TWINE, have contributed to "what novels you would recommend" threat and quite a few others. I'm the one who always argued that QoS only would need roughly three minutes and a handful of extended or changed lines to become an absolute gem of the franchise and even took the time to work it out, when somebody asked me to elaborate on it. Hardly that negative and destructive!)
    I might have a tendency of going against the grain, but honestly these are my opinions, which are never offered just to stear things up. Think whatever you want from me,but my reasoning is always sound from a purely logical point of view (proven by the simple fact that the most offered argument to me is something like "this is a Bond movie").
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 1,394
    Murdock wrote:
    AstonLotus wrote:
    Given that M's stubborn refusal not to stop the enquiry due to the imminent arrival of Silva resulted in innocent lives lost, im surprised that MI6 was not dismantled soon after the events of the film.Surely Bond would have been court martialled/fired for his kidnapping of his boss and idiotic decision to take her to a remote location in scotland and putting her right in the line of fire of a terrorist with a small army of mercenaries?

    I think M let Silva and his men to prove a point and frankly while it did in with lots of lives lost, she was able to prove that we don't know who our enemies are.

    Thats a pretty messed up way of going about it.Its the equivalent of setting off a nuclear bomb in a city just to demonstrate how dangerous they are! Its another reason why i was glad she died in the end.'' The bitch is dead ''.

    Mod Edit - Removed profanity.

  • edited March 2014 Posts: 5,767
    Ludovico wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    She was OK, but hardly a father figure or even commanding the same respect as the former M s.
    She didn´t need to be a father figure. Mysoginist Bond having a female boss provided for enough entertaining tension.

    I always wonder why many people complain about M not being a man, while Bond's ultimate boss has always been, since Fleming, a woman.
    Bond didn´t have to deal with her on a personal level. With the old male M, even though they had their differences, the two of them always were a sworn male friendship. Book Bond, and to a certain degree also film Bond always looked up to M. With Dench, this was of course totally put upside down.


    AstonLotus wrote:
    Given that M's stubborn refusal not to stop the enquiry due to the imminent arrival of Silva resulted in innocent lives lost, im surprised that MI6 was not dismantled soon after the events of the film.Surely Bond would have been court martialled/fired for his kidnapping of his boss and idiotic decision to take her to a remote location in scotland and putting her right in the line of fire of a terrorist with a small army of mercenaries?
    You could argue analogue to this about every Bond film. One major dramaturgical element in Fleming´s novels as well as in the films (as well as in most dramatic film scripts for that matter) is that the hero gets in such a dire situation that even though he´s such a hero he barely escapes by the skin of his teeth, sustaining a variety of losses on the way. It´s nothing so special.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited March 2014 Posts: 17,657
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Then scroll better! I am one of the very few staunch defenders on this forum of QoS and TWINE, have contributed to "what novels you would recommend" threat and quite a few others.

    Then I stand partially corrected. Look, I don't hate any Bond movie, so let me provide an example from a science fiction site I belong to: I hate Star Trek: Generations with a fiery passion. Whenever I see people praising it I feel the urge to let loose on it, but I rarely do. It's too easy, and I end up repeating myself. I'd much rather discover interesting new tidbits about my favourite films than go over old territory on films I dislike.

    *steps off soapbox now* ;)
  • Posts: 5,767
    chrisisall wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Then scroll better! I am one of the very few staunch defenders on this forum of QoS and TWINE, have contributed to "what novels you would recommend" threat and quite a few others.

    Then I stand partially corrected. Look, I don't hate any Bond movie, so let me provide an example from a science fiction site I belong to: I hate Star Trek: Generations with a fiery passion. Whenever I see people praising it I feel the urge to let loose on it, but I rarely do. It's too easy, and I end up repeating myself. I'd much rather discover interesting new tidbits about my favourite films than go over old territory on films I dislike.

    *steps off soapbox now* ;)
    Not that I want to keep this topic up forever, but there are a number of threads doing exactly what you try to avoid, with films like QOS.
    What I guess I´m trying to say is, everybody should say what he wants and put it into reasonable sentences.
    *maybe we should get rid of that soap box*

  • edited March 2014 Posts: 29
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Anyone, who has got the intellectual capability to understand them, may read through my posts to make his own mind up.

    That rules you out then.
    He can't understand his own posts? At least make your useless putdowns good.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,657
    boldfinger wrote:
    Not that I want to keep this topic up forever
    Why not? I'm frankly kind of tired of the multiple SF hate threads by now.
    boldfinger wrote:
    , but there are a number of threads doing exactly what you try to avoid, with films like QOS.
    What I guess I´m trying to say is, everybody should say what he wants and put it into reasonable sentences.
    *maybe we should get rid of that soap box*

    Hulk_zps17f595bc.jpg
    HULK SMASH SOAP BOX!!!!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited March 2014 Posts: 23,327
    Benny wrote:
    barryt007 wrote:
    Absolutely !! In GF Bond does hardly anything but stand around and had zero chance of stopping Goldfingers plan,apart from 'turning' Pussy Galore.

    Not at all my favourite film,if any Bond film is over-rated its this one.

    Spot on @barryt007
    You could also include AVTAK into that line of reasoning. It's only after Mayday has decided to switch teams after Zorin leaves her for dead, that Bond gains the upper hand. Before that, the booby trapped bomb is going off.
    Only with the use of her brute strength is Bond able to foil Zorins plan.
    And let's not forget that everyone knows who Bond is in AVTAK. From the San Francisco police department, to a geologist in city hall.

    A wise assessment, gentlemen!

    I don't think Bond is at his worst in SF but I would have liked for the film to give him more of a chance to shine. The moment when he takes out Silva's island thugs and in a way Silva himself, is one moment too late IMO. I would have loved to see him shoot the glass from Severine's head. Silva could have killed her after that any way, if the plot so demanded. A missed opportunity I'd say. And perhaps a better way to deal with the guy on the ice than the truly questionable plunge in a frozen lake, questionable because he miraculously survives it, might have given more convincing proof that good old James is back.

    That said, he almost single-handedly took out Silva's army - I think we can agree that M and Kincaid's contributions were overall minor compared to Bond's - and he kept going throughout the entire film despite his formal medical position. Bond does play an active part in giving Silva a hard time and eventually, though not without a grave sacrifice, he beats Silva.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I also found the survival after the Scottish lake plunge a little unbelieveable. It sort of mirrors his 'death fall' into the river at the start for implausibility. One minute he's metres below the surface of a frozen loch, then the next he's suddenly in the chapel. All a bit unexplained and unconvincing. And yes, a missed opportunity in terms of showing us a little bit of Bond ingenuity in terms of how he gets out.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote:
    I also found the survival after the Scottish lake plunge a little unbelieveable. It sort of mirrors his 'death fall' into the river at the start for implausibility. One minute he's metres below the surface of a frozen loch, then the next he's suddenly in the chapel. All a bit unexplained and unconvincing. And yes, a missed opportunity in terms of showing us a little bit of Bond ingenuity in terms of how he gets out.

    I have to wonder why this would bother you? Maybe they should have shown him making several awkward attempts to haul himself out, before talking a piss in the bushes and dashing to the chapel.
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    I also found the survival after the Scottish lake plunge a little unbelieveable. It sort of mirrors his 'death fall' into the river at the start for implausibility. One minute he's metres below the surface of a frozen loch, then the next he's suddenly in the chapel. All a bit unexplained and unconvincing. And yes, a missed opportunity in terms of showing us a little bit of Bond ingenuity in terms of how he gets out.

    I have to wonder why this would bother you? Maybe they should have shown him making several awkward attempts to haul himself out, before talking a piss in the bushes and dashing to the chapel.

    I have to say, I find this line of argument bizarre. Honestly. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just have to wonder why it doesn't bother you. Is it normal in film-making to not show how the lead character survives an apparent death or life-threatening situation? Hardly, but the defenders of SF insist that it is. In fact it's showing how Bond escapes/survives/outwits that has made the films so much fun over the years.

    Imagine the PTS of TSWLM where Sir Rog skis over the cliff and then... we cut to the title credits. Or where the Broz motorcycles after the plane at the start of GE, falls to the bottom of the cliff and his apparent death, and then reappears back in M's office a few minutes later... with nothing, no explanation needed. I could go on ad infinitum.

    Falling through the ice is a bit of a movie set-piece. We all know the perils of going through the ice and the challenge is not just finding your way back to the open water at the surface, but getting back onto the ice itself. It sort of requires explanation.

    It's just not how films are normally made. You can claim it doesn't bother you until you're blue in the face, but it's absurd to pretend that it fits into the conventional norms of movie storytelling.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited March 2014 Posts: 17,657
    RC7 wrote:
    Maybe they should have shown him making several awkward attempts to haul himself out, before talking a piss in the bushes and dashing to the chapel.

    That's silly. If he had to go, surely he would have done it in the water.
  • Posts: 19,339
    chrisisall wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Maybe they should have shown him making several awkward attempts to haul himself out, before talking a piss in the bushes and dashing to the chapel.

    That's silly. If had to go, surely he would have done it in the water.

    He would have frozen his knob off either way.

  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2014 Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote:
    Is it normal in film-making to not show how the lead character survives an apparent death or life-threatening situation? Hardly, but the defenders of SF insist that it is.

    It's got nothing to do with defending SF. It's this 'Us vs. Them' mentality that is making such discussions tedious. I've no interest in defending SF for the sake of it.
    Getafix wrote:
    Falling through the ice is a bit of a movie set-piece. We all know the perils of going through the ice and the challenge is not just finding your way back to the open water at the surface, but getting back onto the ice itself. It sort of requires explanation.

    It's just not how films are normally made. You can claim it doesn't bother you until you're blue in the face, but it's absurd to pretend that it fits into the conventional norms of movie storytelling.

    Not everything has to be 'told', the key to good scriptwriting is allowing the audience to fill in the gaps, rather than slavishly explaining every detail. It's not a stretch of the human imagination to take a split second and assume Bond hauled his ass out of the lake. It's hardly the same as plummeting to earth with no apparent hope in hell of survival. For that reason alone it's in no way narratively similar to your comparison of TSWLM or GE, because their respective narratives were concluded in the form of a mini-climax before the title sequence. In SF the narrative dictates that Bond is in grave peril, so why resolve that by showing him exit the lake, when it can be resolved in more dramatic fashion - namely arriving at the chapel in line with the 'emotional' climax?

    There are many ways the scene could have played out, but it played out the way it did because that was Mendes' directorial choice. It doesn't need explaining.
  • Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Is it normal in film-making to not show how the lead character survives an apparent death or life-threatening situation? Hardly, but the defenders of SF insist that it is.

    It's got nothing to do with defending SF. It's this 'Us vs. Them' mentality that is making such discussions tedious. I've no interest in defending SF for the sake of it.
    Getafix wrote:
    Falling through the ice is a bit of a movie set-piece. We all know the perils of going through the ice and the challenge is not just finding your way back to the open water at the surface, but getting back onto the ice itself. It sort of requires explanation.

    It's just not how films are normally made. You can claim it doesn't bother you until you're blue in the face, but it's absurd to pretend that it fits into the conventional norms of movie storytelling.

    Not everything has to be 'told', the key to good scriptwriting is allowing the audience to fill in the gaps, rather than slavishly explaining every detail. It's not a stretch of the human imagination to take a split second and assume Bond hauled his ass out of the lake. It's hardly the same as plummeting to earth with no apparent hope in hell of survival. For that reason alone it's in no way narratively similar to your comparison of TSWLM or GE, because their respective narratives were concluded in the form of a mini-climax before the title sequence. In SF the narrative dictates that Bond is in grave peril, so why resolve that by showing him exit the lake, when it can be resolved in more dramatic fashion - namely arriving at the chapel in line with the 'emotional' climax?

    There are many ways the scene could have played out, but it played out the way it did because that was Mendes' directorial choice. It doesn't need explaining.

    I see the way it was done as more symptomatic of a slipshod approach to storytelling throughout the film. But I agree, this is not the most annoying instance. That is obviously Bond's unexplained survival at the start of the film (which I think does bare comparison with skiing off the mountain and biking off the cliff). And it's the fact that you have two unexplained close death experiences in one film that makes the second escape stand out more than it would otherwise.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    There is no slipshod storytelling. Plotting, yes. Storytelling, no. I don't believe at any point its unclear what the narrative thrust is. Mendes does not linger on unnecessary details. The thrust of SF's opening dictates that Bond is dead. How he survived is of absolutely no relevance to the story. How do the mechanics of his survival add anything to the story or propel it forward? All that matters is, he is alive. The same applies to the frozen lake. The mechanics of his survival are irrelevant and don't inform the story one bit.
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote:
    There is no slipshod storytelling. Plotting, yes. Storytelling, no. I don't believe at any point its unclear what the narrative thrust is. Mendes does not linger on unnecessary details. The thrust of SF's opening dictates that Bond is dead. How he survived is of absolutely no relevance to the story. How do the mechanics of his survival add anything to the story or propel it forward? All that matters is, he is alive. The same applies to the frozen lake. The mechanics of his survival are irrelevant and don't inform the story one bit.

    Really?

    This is a totally absurd line of reasoning. Why explain anything at all in a film?

    Why show Bond's funeral and underwater escape at the start of YOLT? Admitedly, the film title wouldn't make much sense without it, but that's the only reason for having it in the film. It doesn't 'add' much in your line of reasoning. But it does prevent you from having to do a double take and ask 'what the heck just happened there?'

    SF is clearly 'borrowing' from YOLT, but leaves out critical storytelling pieces.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Its the same situation in AVTAK.

    Bond is in the lake with the rolls royce and a dead Tibbett and uses the air in the tyres to survive.

    He then later on pops up in San Francisco with no explanation at all of what happened .
    It's a Bond film,viewers imaginations are sometimes needed.
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 11,425
    barryt007 wrote:
    Its the same situation in AVTAK.

    Bond is in the lake with the rolls royce and a dead Tibbett and uses the air in the tyres to survive.

    He then later on pops up in San Francisco with no explanation at all of what happened .
    It's a Bond film,viewers imaginations are sometimes needed.

    Haven't seen it for years so not sure how the scene compares. Key point in my mind would be whether the water is covered in ice.

    Suspending disbelief and the odd leap of faith are certainly part of enjoying a movie, but there are limits and you can only (IMO) get away with this a certain number of times in a film. When I watched SF I was very conscious that Bond's plunge into the loch echoes the 'death' sequence at the start. I don't think that Mendes is such an unthinking director that he does something like that without it having some thematic meaning - death, re-birth, etc. So the two scenes are linked in my mind at least, which just meant that while watching the end sequence I was reminded about the unexplained survival at the start.

    Any way, you only have to look at various other sites to see that there a lot of people who found it odd the way he 'just survives' at the start. So whether you think it's good film-making or not, a lot of people were asking the same question that I was.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    There is no slipshod storytelling. Plotting, yes. Storytelling, no. I don't believe at any point its unclear what the narrative thrust is. Mendes does not linger on unnecessary details. The thrust of SF's opening dictates that Bond is dead. How he survived is of absolutely no relevance to the story. How do the mechanics of his survival add anything to the story or propel it forward? All that matters is, he is alive. The same applies to the frozen lake. The mechanics of his survival are irrelevant and don't inform the story one bit.

    Really?

    This is a totally absurd line of reasoning. Why explain anything at all in a film?

    Why show Bond's funeral and underwater escape at the start of YOLT? Admitedly, the film title wouldn't make much sense without it, but that's the only reason for having it in the film. It doesn't 'add' much in your line of reasoning. But it does prevent you from having to do a double take and ask 'what the heck just happened there?'

    SF is clearly 'borrowing' from YOLT, but leaves out critical storytelling pieces.

    I'm not interested in your comparisons with other films. I'm talking about SF and my question was, 'How do the mechanics of Bond's survival matter in any way to the narrative of the film?' It's not necessary. The viewer fills in the gap.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote:
    barryt007 wrote:
    Its the same situation in AVTAK.

    Bond is in the lake with the rolls royce and a dead Tibbett and uses the air in the tyres to survive.

    He then later on pops up in San Francisco with no explanation at all of what happened .
    It's a Bond film,viewers imaginations are sometimes needed.

    Haven't seen it for years so not sure how the scene compares. Key point in my mind would be whether the water is covered in ice.

    Suspending disbelief and the odd leap of faith are certainly part of enjoying a movie, but there are limits and you can only (IMO) get away with this a certain number of times in a film.

    John Logan take note. @Getafix is not going to be happy if B24 has any unresolved ice issues.
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    There is no slipshod storytelling. Plotting, yes. Storytelling, no. I don't believe at any point its unclear what the narrative thrust is. Mendes does not linger on unnecessary details. The thrust of SF's opening dictates that Bond is dead. How he survived is of absolutely no relevance to the story. How do the mechanics of his survival add anything to the story or propel it forward? All that matters is, he is alive. The same applies to the frozen lake. The mechanics of his survival are irrelevant and don't inform the story one bit.

    Really?

    This is a totally absurd line of reasoning. Why explain anything at all in a film?

    Why show Bond's funeral and underwater escape at the start of YOLT? Admitedly, the film title wouldn't make much sense without it, but that's the only reason for having it in the film. It doesn't 'add' much in your line of reasoning. But it does prevent you from having to do a double take and ask 'what the heck just happened there?'

    SF is clearly 'borrowing' from YOLT, but leaves out critical storytelling pieces.

    I'm not interested in your comparisons with other films. I'm talking about SF and my question was, 'How do the mechanics of Bond's survival matter in any way to the narrative of the film?' It's not necessary. The viewer fills in the gap.

    It's relevant, because this is how most films are traditionally made - i.e. one sequence of events leads to another, with sufficient explanation to not require the audience to quesiton what is going on. If a character appears to die, you normally require explanation if that same character then appears alive again in a later scene.

    Ed Wood might not have worried about that kind of stuff, but it's fairly common place in the majority of mainstream movies.

    But continue with your own illogical contortions if you must - it's faintly amusing.
  • Posts: 908
    RC7 wrote:
    There is no slipshod storytelling. Plotting, yes. Storytelling, no. I don't believe at any point its unclear what the narrative thrust is. Mendes does not linger on unnecessary details. The thrust of SF's opening dictates that Bond is dead. How he survived is of absolutely no relevance to the story. How do the mechanics of his survival add anything to the story or propel it forward? All that matters is, he is alive. The same applies to the frozen lake. The mechanics of his survival are irrelevant and don't inform the story one bit.

    It's not about being unclear, what the narrative thrust may be. It's that the whole narrative and coherence spells CHEAP ( make that a very cheap!). There is no other Bond movie (and hardly any other at all,for that matter) that flies so consequently in the face of logic ( and ethics too, I might add). If it had stroke their fancy they would have Bond find a flying carpet to escape from the island and it wouldn't feel totally out of place in THIS Bond film!
    Oh,and btw - I'm not even dwelling on the fall from the bridge,since I expect my Bond to survive such trifles. Just to show that I am not fanatical bonded to iron hard logic, but there is only so much the discriminating cinema goer should tolerate (since after all it is his money they get very well paid from.)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    There is no slipshod storytelling. Plotting, yes. Storytelling, no. I don't believe at any point its unclear what the narrative thrust is. Mendes does not linger on unnecessary details. The thrust of SF's opening dictates that Bond is dead. How he survived is of absolutely no relevance to the story. How do the mechanics of his survival add anything to the story or propel it forward? All that matters is, he is alive. The same applies to the frozen lake. The mechanics of his survival are irrelevant and don't inform the story one bit.

    Really?

    This is a totally absurd line of reasoning. Why explain anything at all in a film?

    Why show Bond's funeral and underwater escape at the start of YOLT? Admitedly, the film title wouldn't make much sense without it, but that's the only reason for having it in the film. It doesn't 'add' much in your line of reasoning. But it does prevent you from having to do a double take and ask 'what the heck just happened there?'

    SF is clearly 'borrowing' from YOLT, but leaves out critical storytelling pieces.

    I'm not interested in your comparisons with other films. I'm talking about SF and my question was, 'How do the mechanics of Bond's survival matter in any way to the narrative of the film?' It's not necessary. The viewer fills in the gap.

    It's relevant, because this is how most films are traditionally made - i.e. one sequence of events leads to another, with sufficient explanation to not require the audience to quesiton what is going on. If a character appears to die, you normally require explanation if that same character then appears alive again in a later scene.

    Ed Wood might not have worried about that kind of stuff, but it's fairly common place in the majority of mainstream movies.

    But continue with your own illogical contortions if you must - it's faintly amusing.

    You're like a broken record. Answer my question. 'How do the mechanics of Bond's survival matter in any way to the narrative of the film?' Just because 'you' want to know, doesn't mean it's a necessary component. If his manner of survival fed into the narrative later on, it would be strange to have not witnessed it, but it doesn't. He falls off a bridge and doesn't die. That's all we need to know.

    For the record - you resurrected a thread today about the velocity at which QoS flies by. Why then are you so desperate to load in more unnecessary exposition with SF?
  • Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    There is no slipshod storytelling. Plotting, yes. Storytelling, no. I don't believe at any point its unclear what the narrative thrust is. Mendes does not linger on unnecessary details. The thrust of SF's opening dictates that Bond is dead. How he survived is of absolutely no relevance to the story. How do the mechanics of his survival add anything to the story or propel it forward? All that matters is, he is alive. The same applies to the frozen lake. The mechanics of his survival are irrelevant and don't inform the story one bit.

    Really?

    This is a totally absurd line of reasoning. Why explain anything at all in a film?

    Why show Bond's funeral and underwater escape at the start of YOLT? Admitedly, the film title wouldn't make much sense without it, but that's the only reason for having it in the film. It doesn't 'add' much in your line of reasoning. But it does prevent you from having to do a double take and ask 'what the heck just happened there?'

    SF is clearly 'borrowing' from YOLT, but leaves out critical storytelling pieces.

    I'm not interested in your comparisons with other films. I'm talking about SF and my question was, 'How do the mechanics of Bond's survival matter in any way to the narrative of the film?' It's not necessary. The viewer fills in the gap.

    It's relevant, because this is how most films are traditionally made - i.e. one sequence of events leads to another, with sufficient explanation to not require the audience to quesiton what is going on. If a character appears to die, you normally require explanation if that same character then appears alive again in a later scene.

    Ed Wood might not have worried about that kind of stuff, but it's fairly common place in the majority of mainstream movies.

    But continue with your own illogical contortions if you must - it's faintly amusing.

    You're like a broken record. Answer my question. 'How do the mechanics of Bond's survival matter in any way to the narrative of the film?' Just because 'you' want to know, doesn't mean it's a necessary component. If his manner of survival fed into the narrative later on, it would be strange to have not witnessed it, but it doesn't. He falls off a bridge and doesn't die. That's all we need to know.

    For the record - you resurrected a thread today about the velocity at which QoS flies by. Why then are you so desperate to load in more unnecessary exposition with SF?

    Pot, kettle, black.

    It's not what the explanation would add, it's what the lack of it takes away - the void and the big question mark right at the start of the film.

    I really don't understand what you're arguing about. Google the question - How did Bond survive? - and you'll see it's been asked literally thousands of times, which proves my point as far as I'm concerned.
Sign In or Register to comment.