Hashima 'Ghost' Island and the death of Severene.

2

Comments

  • edited April 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Siberia wrote:
    It wasn't a quip. It wasn't supposed to be funny (gosh, who would even think it was intended to be?). It was meant to demonstrate Bond's desire to shut himself off from what had just happened, and his clear failure to do so. Nothing more or less.

    It's unfortunate how many people misinterpret the line (or conversely, try to defend it on utilitarian grounds). The reason it comes across so badly to many fans is that it's a vicious play on a franchise cliché. It's not "they're on their way to a funeral", but its complete inverse - the breakdown of a coping strategy. If you've spent years soaking in the Bond formula, it can be hard to see that.

    If it made you uncomfortable, good, that was the point. Complaining about the "waste of scotch" is like complaining about Bond not making love to Tracy's limp body at the end of OHMSS. Neither were intended as conventions; rather, they demolished conventions to display James Bond as an ordinary man.

    Interesting thoughts. I had issues with the scene until some users pointed out that Bond was upset and unsure how to express himself. I've re-watched the scene and accept that now. Craig's response is very subtle and it's easy to miss.

    I think it's a good scene in many ways (perhaps the last point at which the film really holds together), but don't think the actual execution of Bond's quip is well done. Whatever the intention was with that line, it's not conveyed very clearly. For many, it's distasteful. I agree with @LegateDemur that Mendes and Logan were perhaps trying to convey some of the fragility of Bond's defence mechanisms and play with the formula, but it falls a bit flat and is too easily misconstrued. In a film full of slightly off notes, this just adds to the confusion.

    I also hate the way he's wearing sunglasses. If we could see Craig's eyes I think we'd understand more clearly what's going. Bad product placement at a very inappropriate moment.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Speaking of Severine, there appeared to be a deleted scene with her in it, as I saw this pic of her walking through this huge cavernous lobby with her body guards walking a distance behind her.

    When I first saw the film my initial feeling was that Mendes had cut a lot of Marlohe's scenes. They built her up as such a central character in the marketing it seemed to be the only explanation. In terms of the plot, she's pretty irrelevant. But may that was just a smoke screen for the M dying thing.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Getafix wrote:
    Speaking of Severine, there appeared to be a deleted scene with her in it, as I saw this pic of her walking through this huge cavernous lobby with her body guards walking a distance behind her.

    When I first saw the film my initial feeling was that Mendes had cut a lot of Marlohe's scenes. They built her up as such a central character in the marketing it seemed to be the only explanation. In terms of the plot, she's pretty irrelevant. But may that was just a smoke screen for the M dying thing.
    There was also a foto of her standing on an escalator, carrying a briefcase. I think it was one of the very first shots officially released during production. When I saw the film I always thought they had tried several things with Severine, with the plan from the start to use only part of them in the film. Much like the different ending possibilities of QOS.
    It´s not very clever to trust the Bond producers these days on what they say during production. In QOS, the pts car chase was hyped endlessly during production, and then everybody was disappointed because it was over in a blink, even though it was a very splendid chase.

  • TokolosheTokoloshe Under your bed
    Posts: 2,667
    Speaking of Severine, there appeared to be a deleted scene with her in it, as I saw this pic of her walking through this huge cavernous lobby with her body guards walking a distance behind her.

    I believe this was only a tiny deleted scene, where Patrice arrives at Shanghai airport and Severine is there to hand him the briefcase containing his gun for the assassination.

    Without that scene it's difficult to see how he came straight out of the airport, got into a taxi and arrived at the skyscraper with something which wouldn't make it through customs.

  • Tokoloshe wrote:
    Speaking of Severine, there appeared to be a deleted scene with her in it, as I saw this pic of her walking through this huge cavernous lobby with her body guards walking a distance behind her.

    I believe this was only a tiny deleted scene, where Patrice arrives at Shanghai airport and Severine is there to hand him the briefcase containing his gun for the assassination.

    Without that scene it's difficult to see how he came straight out of the airport, got into a taxi and arrived at the skyscraper with something which wouldn't make it through customs.


    I think they cut that scene to make Severine's entrance a bit more memorable.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Unfortunately all Severine will eventually be remembered for is the pistol duel between Bond and Silva.
  • Posts: 2,483
    barryt007 wrote:
    Unfortunately all Severine will eventually be remembered for is the pistol duel between Bond and Silva.

    Not by anybody who actually paid attention to the film. Her performance in the casino was, IMO, the greatest sequence by any Bond girl ever.

  • Posts: 19,339
    barryt007 wrote:
    Unfortunately all Severine will eventually be remembered for is the pistol duel between Bond and Silva.

    Not by anybody who actually paid attention to the film. Her performance in the casino was, IMO, the greatest sequence by any Bond girl ever.

    I should have been more precise..i mean by the general public rather than Bond enthusiasts.
    Personally i agree with you PK,i love the whole casino scene,right from Bond collecting the briefcase,dropping the earpiece in Moneypenny's glass,the fight in the pit etc.

    The lighting in that scene makes it very atmospheric,a good piece of work there.

    And of course,Severine talking to Bond while trying to keep a calm persona in front of the watching 'bodyguards' just adds to it.

  • Posts: 2,483
    barryt007 wrote:
    barryt007 wrote:
    Unfortunately all Severine will eventually be remembered for is the pistol duel between Bond and Silva.

    Not by anybody who actually paid attention to the film. Her performance in the casino was, IMO, the greatest sequence by any Bond girl ever.

    I should have been more precise..i mean by the general public rather than Bond enthusiasts.
    Personally i agree with you PK,i love the whole casino scene,right from Bond collecting the briefcase,dropping the earpiece in Moneypenny's glass,the fight in the pit etc.

    The lighting in that scene makes it very atmospheric,a good piece of work there.

    And of course,Severine talking to Bond while trying to keep a calm persona in front of the watching 'bodyguards' just adds to it.

    It is very near to perfection.

  • edited April 2014 Posts: 5,767
    barryt007 wrote:
    Unfortunately all Severine will eventually be remembered for is the pistol duel between Bond and Silva.

    Not by anybody who actually paid attention to the film. Her performance in the casino was, IMO, the greatest sequence by any Bond girl ever.
    Agreed 100%!

    barryt007 wrote:
    I should have been more precise..i mean by the general public rather than Bond enthusiasts.
    I don´t see why the general public wouldn´t notice or remember that scene and her performance? It´s bloody brilliant, not just in a Bond context.

  • Posts: 11,425
    I quite enjoyed SF up until the choppers appeared at the end island scene. After that it begins to falls to pieces, IMO.
  • Posts: 2,483
    I do agree that SF's first half was stronger than its second.
  • edited April 2014 Posts: 14,816
    I do agree that SF's first half was stronger than its second.

    I think it is the case of many, many movies, especially genre movies. Anyway, I love Skyfall, but I do find Silva's escape very far fetched and the timing far too convenient.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote:
    I do agree that SF's first half was stronger than its second.

    I think it is the case of many, many movies, especially genre movies. Anyway, I love Skyfall, but I do find Silva's escape very far fetched and the timing far too convenient.

    True, and there are a fair few Bond movies that this applies to as well. There aren't many third acts that really stand up to scrutiny. TLD is perhaps a case in point, although the fight on the back of the plane revives the flagging half hour quite nicely. I just think with SF it's both the second and third acts that are a let down. It's a shame as there's so much potential there. Who hadn't wished for Bond to have some classic London scenes - it's been on my wish list for years. And the John Buchan style homage at the end is a brilliant idea - just lamely executed.
  • Posts: 14,816
    I far prefer SF in general to TLD, including the second and third acts, but this may be due to the superior villain (I like TLD, but the villains are rather weak, except Necros, but even he is somewhat of a Grant clone).
  • edited April 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote:
    I far prefer SF in general to TLD, including the second and third acts, but this may be due to the superior villain (I like TLD, but the villains are rather weak, except Necros, but even he is somewhat of a Grant clone).

    With me it's vice versa. Much prefer TLD to SF. Bond remains the focus of the movie in TLD throughout, which is always a plus, IMO. And Necros is a brilliant henchman, who to a large degree makes up for the lame villains. Silva starts very strongly but rapidly tails off as his 'plan' deteriorates into tedious machine-gunning of everything and anything in sight, and he has no identifiable henchmen, which is a shame. The best henchmen have always been as memorable (if not more so) than the central villans. Is Grant or Rosa Klebe or Blofeld the most memorable character in FRWL? Perhaps they would both be less well remembered if it wasn't for the other. Goldfinger and Oddjob are perhaps the perfect example of this interdependency. Btw, comparing Necros to Grant is high praise indeed!

    Maybe Purvis, Wade and Logan thought proper henchmen were a cliche, but if so, I miss the cliches!
  • Posts: 14,816
    FRWL is very different though, a class of its own: the henchman may be considered the main villain. That is, if Grant is the main villain and not Rosa Klebb. I actually do not think Blofeld is the main villain: he gives his blessing to a plan he did not organize and does not confront Bond in any way. I don't think you have something that well balanced in TLD, or indeed any other Bond movie.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote:
    FRWL is very different though, a class of its own: the henchman may be considered the main villain. That is, if Grant is the main villain and not Rosa Klebb. I actually do not think Blofeld is the main villain: he gives his blessing to a plan he did not organize and does not confront Bond in any way. I don't think you have something that well balanced in TLD, or indeed any other Bond movie.

    I agree. I'm just saying that when your henchman is as good as Necros, it goes a long way towards making up for the failings of the main villains, who are admitedly pretty poor. Joe Don Baker in particular is really bad - was very annoyed when they brought him back during the Brosnan era. Why did they do that?
  • Posts: 11,189
    I prefer him in GE actually.
  • edited April 2014 Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I prefer him in GE actually.

    He reminds me of the annoying Sheriff character in the early Rog movies. I'm not generally a fan of having too many American characters in the movies, especially the daft/goofy types.
  • edited April 2014 Posts: 11,189
    I think he's alright in GE, he helps Bond and is efficient ally.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Why doesn't that surprise me?!
  • Posts: 14,816
    Getafix wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    FRWL is very different though, a class of its own: the henchman may be considered the main villain. That is, if Grant is the main villain and not Rosa Klebb. I actually do not think Blofeld is the main villain: he gives his blessing to a plan he did not organize and does not confront Bond in any way. I don't think you have something that well balanced in TLD, or indeed any other Bond movie.

    I agree. I'm just saying that when your henchman is as good as Necros, it goes a long way towards making up for the failings of the main villains, who are admitedly pretty poor. Joe Don Baker in particular is really bad - was very annoyed when they brought him back during the Brosnan era. Why did they do that?

    I wonder. Maybe they thought a more serious Bond needed less serious villains? I think it didn't help Dalton, they looked far too weak for him. Jeroen Krabbe is an amazing actor, he could have easily been far more menacing, had Koskov been better written. Heck, my dream would have been a recurring adversary with Koskov, far more serious and nasty, during both Dalton's and Brosnan's tenure.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Ludovico wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    FRWL is very different though, a class of its own: the henchman may be considered the main villain. That is, if Grant is the main villain and not Rosa Klebb. I actually do not think Blofeld is the main villain: he gives his blessing to a plan he did not organize and does not confront Bond in any way. I don't think you have something that well balanced in TLD, or indeed any other Bond movie.

    I agree. I'm just saying that when your henchman is as good as Necros, it goes a long way towards making up for the failings of the main villains, who are admitedly pretty poor. Joe Don Baker in particular is really bad - was very annoyed when they brought him back during the Brosnan era. Why did they do that?

    I wonder. Maybe they thought a more serious Bond needed less serious villains? I think it didn't help Dalton, they looked far too weak for him. Jeroen Krabbe is an amazing actor, he could have easily been far more menacing, had Koskov been better written. Heck, my dream would have been a recurring adversary with Koskov, far more serious and nasty, during both Dalton's and Brosnan's tenure.
    And think Sanchez more than makes up for the lacking in the villain department during TLD. Intimidating, dangerous, complex; I love him.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I think many of you do Koskov a disservice, he's a slimy little rat played to perfection. He's a very distinctive villain in the canon and adds a different facet to what is traditionally expected. I don't want/need every villain to deliver the same threat. I quite enjoy the fact he's an intelligent coward, protected by the physical menace of Necros. Great villains and superb film IMO.
  • Posts: 14,816
    Ludovico wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    FRWL is very different though, a class of its own: the henchman may be considered the main villain. That is, if Grant is the main villain and not Rosa Klebb. I actually do not think Blofeld is the main villain: he gives his blessing to a plan he did not organize and does not confront Bond in any way. I don't think you have something that well balanced in TLD, or indeed any other Bond movie.

    I agree. I'm just saying that when your henchman is as good as Necros, it goes a long way towards making up for the failings of the main villains, who are admitedly pretty poor. Joe Don Baker in particular is really bad - was very annoyed when they brought him back during the Brosnan era. Why did they do that?

    I wonder. Maybe they thought a more serious Bond needed less serious villains? I think it didn't help Dalton, they looked far too weak for him. Jeroen Krabbe is an amazing actor, he could have easily been far more menacing, had Koskov been better written. Heck, my dream would have been a recurring adversary with Koskov, far more serious and nasty, during both Dalton's and Brosnan's tenure.
    And think Sanchez more than makes up for the lacking in the villain department during TLD. Intimidating, dangerous, complex; I love him.

    But that was a different movie and a different approach. My hypothesis about TLD is that they tried to have lighter villains to balance with Dalton's more serious Bond.
  • Posts: 14,816
    RC7 wrote:
    I think many of you do Koskov a disservice, he's a slimy little rat played to perfection. He's a very distinctive villain in the canon and adds a different facet to what is traditionally expected. I don't want/need every villain to deliver the same threat. I quite enjoy the fact he's an intelligent coward, protected by the physical menace of Necros. Great villains and superb film IMO.

    He was still poorly written. Great idea, flawless casting, but flawed writing. And with Krabbe's physique, he could have played the physical menace quite well too. As I mentioned, written differently, with the same actor, Koskov could have been the next Blofeld, so to speak.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Ludovico wrote:
    My hypothesis about TLD is that they tried to have lighter villains to balance with Dalton's more serious Bond.
    I agree. TLD was targeted at the same audience as the Moore films, so a villain as dark as Bond would have totally shocked the majority of fans. Or not, it could have been an amazing film, we´ll never know. I still like it as it is. I fact, I like it better than when it came out. Back then I thought Baker´s Whittaker was aweful. Now I love Baker´s performance, I think its absurdness (which in fact could be straight from Fleming!) makes up for the lack of menace.
    At all, I enjoyed Baker´s appearances a lot, I wish Wade would have recurred more often. I even think he could be a great ally for Craig´s Bond. Wade´s goofiness meeting Craig´s darkness could be hilarious.

  • Posts: 14,816
    Darker villains for TLD would have made the film better (not that it was not good, but I mean really better, like maybe classic), but I think it would then have suffered the same fate as OHMSS: audiences would have disliked it at first.
  • edited April 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote:
    Darker villains for TLD would have made the film better (not that it was not good, but I mean really better, like maybe classic), but I think it would then have suffered the same fate as OHMSS: audiences would have disliked it at first.

    Joe Don Baker is the main weakness for me. Koskov I think plays dumb for a reason - he is still obviously a nasty piece of work though.
Sign In or Register to comment.