The biggest issue with SF (though currently I have only had the one viewing on release night, Blu-ray in UK soon), is that it lacks the two most important aspects of any film; narrative and jeopardy.
Think of previous Bond films and the basic narrative is clear;
LTK, Bond seeks revenge for the brutality against a personal friend by a corrupt drug Lord organising an illegal deal. Bond's vendetta whilst working outside of MI6 provides the jeopardy.
GE, ex-agent seeks revenge by stealing Russian satellite weapon and intends to bankrupt England. The fact Bond has to deal with friend becoming foe provides the jeopardy.
CR, a banker to terrorists attempts to reclaim lost funds at a poker game. The fact Bond is an arrogant rookie unaware of the higher criminal powers at work provides the jeopardy.
SF just isn't too sure whether its trying to be a standard Bond film or whether its being explicitly 'clever' and 'modern'.
The data being lost introduces an initial jeopardy, but is soon forgotten. Arguably the fact Bond's abilities are being questioned introduces jeopardy - but come on, this is a Bond film, we cant begin to question whether 007 is still capable (and infact just hold on until after the PTS and he's suddenly 'back in action'). Then we get M being hunted by Silva - another possible jeopardy - But, at no point do we really feel like Silva is truly a threat to M. In fact, it seems Mallory and the Government powers offer more of a threat to her pension than Silva does for her life. If we accept that the film's jeopardy is meant to derive from the 'will she be killed/ will she survive' of M in the hands of 007, then the films climax offers no resolution - the jeopardy is lost both in M's demise and in Bond's failure to avert the demise.
So what is the films basic narrative? The data plot is dropped early on and so all we're left with is Bond finding Silva, losing Silva and then the showdown at the film's namesake. Other than this I struggle to find any other clear narrative plot that strings the sequences together. At this point the film instead decides its had enough of a standard narrative and wants to play 'clever'. The film is full of themes and motifs - the tired and outdated, no longer fit for service agent and M, represented in 007's literal and symbolic 'fall', M's political reputation all present in the painting of the decrepid warship. The need for resurrection, new life and prosperity in a new MI6, new M and all who sail in her (another painting). The Oedipal relationship of two agents and their figarative mother. The need to re-visit the past and reconcile with its demons in the country homestead of Bond's family and M's ever-blotted C.V.
SF sometimes seems so determined to be 'clever', to harness something deeper and more serious than a secret agent saving the world and getting the girl, that it forgets to tell a story. The film is structured by its need to focus on motifs and themes and so evidently it never settles longer enough to get a plot straight and instead attempts to shoe-horn in a DB5, a MoneyPenny a Martini and a "Bond... James, Bond", to fill the gaps and remind you, "Yes, its a Bond film but haven't we been clever in repackinging it!?".
That, ofcourse, is determined only by you.
You’ve hit the nail on the head—there’s absolutely nothing at stake in this film. In “Moonraker”, at least the survival of the world was.
I think that the attempted murder of M and other MI6 personnel is a pretty big "stake" on the poker table, if you ddon't mind me pointing out!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Then after all that M died and the hard disk plotline was never resolved?
Have any of you ever seen the ending of OHMSS as a film - no happy ending!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
SeanConnery007The Bond Archive - London, EngPosts: 169MI6 Agent
SILHOUETTE MAN: I think that the attempted murder of M and other MI6 personnel is a pretty big "stake" on the poker table, if you ddon't mind me pointing out!
The attack on MI6 was a one-off - had Silva attempted to attack MI6 or MI6 staff/agents through out the film, and it was up to Bond to stop him, then there would have been some jeopardy. In the end, the attack was just a single 'jump-off' sequence that tied the data theft and Silva's intended target of M together and did not progress into a sustained narrative thread.
Imagine if Silva had continued to attack other staff (Tanner and MoneyPenny perhaps) and Bond foiled his attempts each time before Bond realised it was M he was truly after? That could have been a strong narrative with real jeopardy.
Nobody Writes Threads Better.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,844MI6 Agent
SILHOUETTE MAN: I think that the attempted murder of M and other MI6 personnel is a pretty big "stake" on the poker table, if you ddon't mind me pointing out!
The attack on MI6 was a one-off - had Silva attempted to attack MI6 or MI6 staff/agents through out the film, and it was up to Bond to stop him, then there would have been some jeopardy. In the end, the attack was just a single 'jump-off' sequence that tied the data theft and Silva's intended target of M together and did not progress into a sustained narrative thread.
Imagine if Silva had continued to attack other staff (Tanner and MoneyPenny perhaps) and Bond foiled his attempts each time before Bond realised it was M he was truly after? That could have been a strong narrative with real jeopardy.
Yes, well I see your point - this might have smacked of padding, though, a near fatal flaw of some earlier Bonds!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
The biggest issue with SF (though currently I have only had the one viewing on release night, Blu-ray in UK soon), is that it lacks the two most important aspects of any film; narrative and jeopardy.
Think of previous Bond films and the basic narrative is clear;
LTK, Bond seeks revenge for the brutality against a personal friend by a corrupt drug Lord organising an illegal deal. Bond's vendetta whilst working outside of MI6 provides the jeopardy.
GE, ex-agent seeks revenge by stealing Russian satellite weapon and intends to bankrupt England. The fact Bond has to deal with friend becoming foe provides the jeopardy.
CR, a banker to terrorists attempts to reclaim lost funds at a poker game. The fact Bond is an arrogant rookie unaware of the higher criminal powers at work provides the jeopardy.
SF just isn't too sure whether its trying to be a standard Bond film or whether its being explicitly 'clever' and 'modern'.
The data being lost introduces an initial jeopardy, but is soon forgotten. Arguably the fact Bond's abilities are being questioned introduces jeopardy - but come on, this is a Bond film, we cant begin to question whether 007 is still capable (and infact just hold on until after the PTS and he's suddenly 'back in action'). Then we get M being hunted by Silva - another possible jeopardy - But, at no point do we really feel like Silva is truly a threat to M. In fact, it seems Mallory and the Government powers offer more of a threat to her pension than Silva does for her life. If we accept that the film's jeopardy is meant to derive from the 'will she be killed/ will she survive' of M in the hands of 007, then the films climax offers no resolution - the jeopardy is lost both in M's demise and in Bond's failure to avert the demise.
So what is the films basic narrative? The data plot is dropped early on and so all we're left with is Bond finding Silva, losing Silva and then the showdown at the film's namesake. Other than this I struggle to find any other clear narrative plot that strings the sequences together. At this point the film instead decides its had enough of a standard narrative and wants to play 'clever'. The film is full of themes and motifs - the tired and outdated, no longer fit for service agent and M, represented in 007's literal and symbolic 'fall', M's political reputation all present in the painting of the decrepid warship. The need for resurrection, new life and prosperity in a new MI6, new M and all who sail in her (another painting). The Oedipal relationship of two agents and their figarative mother. The need to re-visit the past and reconcile with its demons in the country homestead of Bond's family and M's ever-blotted C.V.
SF sometimes seems so determined to be 'clever', to harness something deeper and more serious than a secret agent saving the world and getting the girl, that it forgets to tell a story. The film is structured by its need to focus on motifs and themes and so evidently it never settles longer enough to get a plot straight and instead attempts to shoe-horn in a DB5, a MoneyPenny a Martini and a "Bond... James, Bond", to fill the gaps and remind you, "Yes, its a Bond film but haven't we been clever in repackinging it!?".
That, ofcourse, is determined only by you.
You’ve hit the nail on the head—there’s absolutely nothing at stake in this film. In “Moonraker”, at least the survival of the world was.
The survival of MI-6 was at stake.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,844MI6 Agent
The biggest issue with SF (though currently I have only had the one viewing on release night, Blu-ray in UK soon), is that it lacks the two most important aspects of any film; narrative and jeopardy.
Think of previous Bond films and the basic narrative is clear;
LTK, Bond seeks revenge for the brutality against a personal friend by a corrupt drug Lord organising an illegal deal. Bond's vendetta whilst working outside of MI6 provides the jeopardy.
GE, ex-agent seeks revenge by stealing Russian satellite weapon and intends to bankrupt England. The fact Bond has to deal with friend becoming foe provides the jeopardy.
CR, a banker to terrorists attempts to reclaim lost funds at a poker game. The fact Bond is an arrogant rookie unaware of the higher criminal powers at work provides the jeopardy.
SF just isn't too sure whether its trying to be a standard Bond film or whether its being explicitly 'clever' and 'modern'.
The data being lost introduces an initial jeopardy, but is soon forgotten. Arguably the fact Bond's abilities are being questioned introduces jeopardy - but come on, this is a Bond film, we cant begin to question whether 007 is still capable (and infact just hold on until after the PTS and he's suddenly 'back in action'). Then we get M being hunted by Silva - another possible jeopardy - But, at no point do we really feel like Silva is truly a threat to M. In fact, it seems Mallory and the Government powers offer more of a threat to her pension than Silva does for her life. If we accept that the film's jeopardy is meant to derive from the 'will she be killed/ will she survive' of M in the hands of 007, then the films climax offers no resolution - the jeopardy is lost both in M's demise and in Bond's failure to avert the demise.
So what is the films basic narrative? The data plot is dropped early on and so all we're left with is Bond finding Silva, losing Silva and then the showdown at the film's namesake. Other than this I struggle to find any other clear narrative plot that strings the sequences together. At this point the film instead decides its had enough of a standard narrative and wants to play 'clever'. The film is full of themes and motifs - the tired and outdated, no longer fit for service agent and M, represented in 007's literal and symbolic 'fall', M's political reputation all present in the painting of the decrepid warship. The need for resurrection, new life and prosperity in a new MI6, new M and all who sail in her (another painting). The Oedipal relationship of two agents and their figarative mother. The need to re-visit the past and reconcile with its demons in the country homestead of Bond's family and M's ever-blotted C.V.
SF sometimes seems so determined to be 'clever', to harness something deeper and more serious than a secret agent saving the world and getting the girl, that it forgets to tell a story. The film is structured by its need to focus on motifs and themes and so evidently it never settles longer enough to get a plot straight and instead attempts to shoe-horn in a DB5, a MoneyPenny a Martini and a "Bond... James, Bond", to fill the gaps and remind you, "Yes, its a Bond film but haven't we been clever in repackinging it!?".
That, ofcourse, is determined only by you.
You’ve hit the nail on the head—there’s absolutely nothing at stake in this film. In “Moonraker”, at least the survival of the world was.
The survival of MI-6 was at stake.
Abso-bloody-exactly!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
... And, consider, what Hollywood action did Bond do in Fleiming's MOONRAKER? Played cards, drove a car, swam a bit, rolled from under a rock-fall, kicked Krebbs up the arse, climbed a rocket gantry and an air-escape tube? Even Bogarde-Bond could have handled this....
I seem to recall a rather bad incident with a blow torch trying to get zip ties off him and the girl.... Still gives me shivers, and I haven't read the book in over 30 years.
Regarding SF being "lame"...
I've just about written off QoS in my mind, and bought the BD of CR today at Target ($10). I have grown to like more and more that Craig (accomplished actor that he is) was able to pull off some of the Bond internal dialog and thought process that Fleming did so entertainingly, and I find was rather missing in Connery's performances under Terence Young. Not that Connery's Bond wasn't compelling and believable; au contraire, I grew up with and love the first 2-3 films. But Craig translates Bond to a film performance in the way Dalton did, and I think a bit better. Dalton played a reserved, confidant, established OO7 ... Craig (and the rest of the CR staff) introduced him as pretty green and rough around the edges. I.e. not getting the big picture instinctively, letting his ego intrude in his strategy, etc. Celebrating his OO status by shooting up an embassy, etc.
The whole sex thing with Gemma in QoS was sudden, abrupt, inexplicable (she's clearly angry with him), and totally pointless, unless you accept two adults taking time out in a dangerous mission to indulge in recreational sex with hardly a thought to who they're having it with. Maybe that WAS the point, but the sex scene, and her death, really just spoilt the film for me. Fewer action scenes, more character business, and no "every film has to have an 'X' scene, and a 'Y' scene" BS would've won me over.
I want to see SF again if only to see it in this light ... it's really an oddball Bond film in that it's missing some of the usual elements, has a very fresh take on classic tropes (e.g. Mendes' long single take on Bond's fight with the hitman, silhouetted against the neon city lights), and doesn't plod loud and heavy with some of the familiar elements (Q Branch equipment intro, for example). It's missing much of what viewers were trained to expect in many, many years of rehashing the GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL storylines ad nauseam. The novels aren't like that. THUNDERBALL is pretty boring, as is GOLDFINGER to me (lots of Bond sitting around waiting to make his move, Goldfinger monologing for pages at a time). Some of the short stories aren't adventures at all.
I suspect that in years to come, SF will be seen less as "lame" and more as an adventurous departure from formula in order to move the reboot and the character forward. I certainly hope Broccoli and Wilson see SF's success as a validation that it's okay to make a Bond film that is true unto itself and not chained to the overwrought and overused GOLDFINGER formula.
I tend to agree with many of SeanConnery007's analysis. The film takes a bold new direction, but forgot that there are a few basic rules in Bond movie storytelling and SF seems to be missing some plot points.
The hard drive theft may've just been a Hitchcockian McGuffin ... perhaps Bond 24 will be SSDs Are Forever. Or You Only Wipe Twice....
I get it. You don't like Daniel Craig as Bond. Many other Bond fans, myself included, quite enjoy Craig's portrayal. If that makes me a "nuthugger" then so be it, but it sounds like it's intended as an insult, which isn't unnecessary. After all, I am pretty critical of Roger Moore's version of Bond, but I realize he has legions of fans who think he's great and although I express my disagree I try not to condescend to them. All in all, I think Craig has acquitted himself quite well thus far in his tenure as Bond, and I have no fear of this impending storm of "truth" you speak of. I still prefer Connery and I rank Dalton high on my list as well, but I think history will be kind to the Craig era. Of course only time will tell.
I dont think it is lame at all I think it is a fantastic film with plenty of everything that should be in a bond film , its a film that gave me that feeling I used to get years ago when I was young when watching a bond film .dsn is the best bond since connery. The first 20 bond films should be put aside these new films are nothing to do with them its a new beginning. After all this needed bto happen or bond would be an old man.
Everybody says Craig is the best Bond since Connery but I don’t know why. What has Craig got that remotely echoes Connery’s performance to make such a comparison? Lazenby had more in common with Connery than Craig has. Perhaps people mean that Craig is the best because he’s “tougher” than Moore or Brosnan—if so does that alone make for a good Bond? I don’t see Bond as merely a tough guy.
Of course, every Bond, with the obvious exception of Connery himself, has been annointed by the public and press as "the best Bond since Connery", including Lazenby.
And, I confidently predict, so will Craig's successor.
At which time Craig nuthuggers will have to prepare themselves for a storm of "truth" about Craig's films and the usual revisionism every Bond suffers on his departure.
I get it. You don't like Daniel Craig as Bond. Many other Bond fans, myself included, quite enjoy Craig's portrayal. If that makes me a "nuthugger" then so be it, but it sounds like it's intended as an insult, which isn't unnecessary. After all, I am pretty critical of Roger Moore's version of Bond, but I realize he has legions of fans who think he's great and although I express my disagree I try not to condescend to them. All in all, I think Craig has acquitted himself quite well thus far in his tenure as Bond, and I have no fear of this impending storm of "truth" you speak of. I still prefer Connery and I rank Dalton high on my list as well, but I think history will be kind to the Craig era. Of course only time will tell.
Everybody says Craig is the best Bond since Connery but I don’t know why. What has Craig got that remotely echoes Connery’s performance to make such a comparison? Lazenby had more in common with Connery than Craig has. Perhaps people mean that Craig is the best because he’s “tougher” than Moore or Brosnan—if so does that alone make for a good Bond? I don’t see Bond as merely a tough guy.
Of course, every Bond, with the obvious exception of Connery himself, has been annointed by the public and press as "the best Bond since Connery", including Lazenby.
And, I confidently predict, so will Craig's successor.
At which time Craig nuthuggers will have to prepare themselves for a storm of "truth" about Craig's films and the usual revisionism every Bond suffers on his departure.
Blackleiter, I do not know you so I do not know whether you are a "fundamentalist" DC fan who will not her a word against him. I suspect you are not as you seem perfectly reasonable; the Craig "nuthuggers" to which I refer are those nutcases who will not hear a single criticism of Craig as Bond and somehow contort everything that has gone before as just a prelude to Craig turning up, saving Bond, and that everything IF wrote REALLY was about DC Bond.
Personally, I like Craig, and as I have said elsewhere on this thread, its only looks which puts Dalton ahead on him inmy opinion.
And you will not I use inverted "commas" around "the truth"? Opinions will suddenly change when Craig leaves,as they did with Dalton and Brosnan, as if the press and public had really been holding back the "truth" during the incumbents reign. Not necessarily correctly so. Doesn't that sound familiar?
the Craig "nuthuggers" to which I refer are those nutcases who will not hear a single criticism of Craig as Bond and somehow contort everything that has gone before as just a prelude to Craig turning up, saving Bond, and that everything IF wrote REALLY was about DC Bond.
Spot on. This is exactly my problem with those sorts of Craig fans. It’s as if they have been brainwashed by the media which has elevated Craig to a saint-like status based probably on little more than relief that Brosnan is no longer playing the part.
Not the whole of MI6, just M and the building. If M were killed she would simply be replaced with another M, as did eventually happen in SF; and the building would have been reconstructed and those few staff killed in the explosion replaced. Besides, MI6 will probably have a decentralised structure in case such an attack occurred. So the threat was not that great in comparison to the mass world genocide that was the threat in Moonraker.
the Craig "nuthuggers" to which I refer are those nutcases who will not hear a single criticism of Craig as Bond and somehow contort everything that has gone before as just a prelude to Craig turning up, saving Bond, and that everything IF wrote REALLY was about DC Bond.
Spot on. This is exactly my problem with those sorts of Craig fans. It’s as if they have been brainwashed by the media which has elevated Craig to a saint-like status based probably on little more than relief that Brosnan is no longer playing the part.
Or maybe 'they' (god forbid) actually think that he nails the part well, has brought a good intensity to the character & (shock horror) is actually doing a pretty good job at bringing the franchise back to the fore - irrespective of his hair colour or so-called craggy looks??
I'm a big fan of DC and what he's brought to the party. He's by no means flawless & there's a few things I'd change about his manner, but he's playing Bond in a new & up-to-date way. Some love it, some are so-so about it & others hate it. The same can be said throughout the actors to date to have assumed the role. For every DC 'sympathiser' there's an 'antagonist' who will try to nail him for everything that isn't Connery. I'm just glad we've got the Bond series back on screen & it's alive + kicking again, without endless cheesiness or extremely daft gimmicks.
I get it. You don't like Daniel Craig as Bond. Many other Bond fans, myself included, quite enjoy Craig's portrayal. If that makes me a "nuthugger" then so be it, but it sounds like it's intended as an insult, which isn't unnecessary. After all, I am pretty critical of Roger Moore's version of Bond, but I realize he has legions of fans who think he's great and although I express my disagree I try not to condescend to them. All in all, I think Craig has acquitted himself quite well thus far in his tenure as Bond, and I have no fear of this impending storm of "truth" you speak of. I still prefer Connery and I rank Dalton high on my list as well, but I think history will be kind to the Craig era. Of course only time will tell.
Of course, every Bond, with the obvious exception of Connery himself, has been annointed by the public and press as "the best Bond since Connery", including Lazenby.
And, I confidently predict, so will Craig's successor.
At which time Craig nuthuggers will have to prepare themselves for a storm of "truth" about Craig's films and the usual revisionism every Bond suffers on his departure.
Blackleiter, I do not know you so I do not know whether you are a "fundamentalist" DC fan who will not her a word against him. I suspect you are not as you seem perfectly reasonable; the Craig "nuthuggers" to which I refer are those nutcases who will not hear a single criticism of Craig as Bond and somehow contort everything that has gone before as just a prelude to Craig turning up, saving Bond, and that everything IF wrote REALLY was about DC Bond.
Personally, I like Craig, and as I have said elsewhere on this thread, its only looks which puts Dalton ahead on him inmy opinion.
And you will not I use inverted "commas" around "the truth"? Opinions will suddenly change when Craig leaves,as they did with Dalton and Brosnan, as if the press and public had really been holding back the "truth" during the incumbents reign. Not necessarily correctly so. Doesn't that sound familiar?
Okay? -{
Glad you cleared that up DS, I too tgt your comment was rude and disparaging against those who simple harbor an opinion.
But your apology makes a lot of sense and is generally wll written.
It even makes a good point (that post-incumbent viewpoints are inevitably very different)
the Craig "nuthuggers" to which I refer are those nutcases who will not hear a single criticism of Craig as Bond and somehow contort everything that has gone before as just a prelude to Craig turning up, saving Bond, and that everything IF wrote REALLY was about DC Bond.
Spot on. This is exactly my problem with those sorts of Craig fans. It’s as if they have been brainwashed by the media which has elevated Craig to a saint-like status based probably on little more than relief that Brosnan is no longer playing the part.
Or maybe 'they' (god forbid) actually think that he nails the part well, has brought a good intensity to the character & (shock horror) is actually doing a pretty good job at bringing the franchise back to the fore - irrespective of his hair colour or so-called craggy looks??
I'm a big fan of DC and what he's brought to the party. He's by no means flawless & there's a few things I'd change about his manner, but he's playing Bond in a new & up-to-date way. Some love it, some are so-so about it & others hate it. The same can be said throughout the actors to date to have assumed the role. For every DC 'sympathiser' there's an 'antagonist' who will try to nail him for everything that isn't Connery. I'm just glad we've got the Bond series back on screen & it's alive + kicking again, without endless cheesiness or extremely daft gimmicks.
Just my thoughts ...
I can’t argue with that. It’s all a matter of taste at the end of the day, and can’t be decided using too much reasoning. I suppose I will eventually get used to Craig after a couple more films.
I get it. You don't like Daniel Craig as Bond. Many other Bond fans, myself included, quite enjoy Craig's portrayal. If that makes me a "nuthugger" then so be it, but it sounds like it's intended as an insult, which isn't unnecessary. After all, I am pretty critical of Roger Moore's version of Bond, but I realize he has legions of fans who think he's great and although I express my disagree I try not to condescend to them. All in all, I think Craig has acquitted himself quite well thus far in his tenure as Bond, and I have no fear of this impending storm of "truth" you speak of. I still prefer Connery and I rank Dalton high on my list as well, but I think history will be kind to the Craig era. Of course only time will tell.
Blackleiter, I do not know you so I do not know whether you are a "fundamentalist" DC fan who will not her a word against him. I suspect you are not as you seem perfectly reasonable; the Craig "nuthuggers" to which I refer are those nutcases who will not hear a single criticism of Craig as Bond and somehow contort everything that has gone before as just a prelude to Craig turning up, saving Bond, and that everything IF wrote REALLY was about DC Bond.
Personally, I like Craig, and as I have said elsewhere on this thread, its only looks which puts Dalton ahead on him inmy opinion.
And you will not I use inverted "commas" around "the truth"? Opinions will suddenly change when Craig leaves,as they did with Dalton and Brosnan, as if the press and public had really been holding back the "truth" during the incumbents reign. Not necessarily correctly so. Doesn't that sound familiar?
Okay? -{
Glad you cleared that up DS, I too tgt your comment was rude and disparaging against those who simple harbor an opinion.
But your apology makes a lot of sense and is generally wll written.
It even makes a good point (that post-incumbent viewpoints are inevitably very different)
Clearly on the road to recovery.. :007)
Well, it wasn't an apology, Paul, as you know, more a clarification, an explantion for those who failed to understand the point I was trying to make about the more extreme, fundamentalist Craig fans.
If anyone wants to feel that applies to them, it is their choice. I don't think there are any on AJB who fall into that category, though I think there are numerous PURELY DC fans on other fourm.
Unfortuantely, I hoped that most would be able to differentiate that in the points I was making. Guess the odd one porbably didn't want to, sadly, eh?
Not the whole of MI6, just M and the building. If M were killed she would simply be replaced with another M, as did eventually happen in SF; and the building would have been reconstructed and those few staff killed in the explosion replaced. Besides, MI6 will probably have a decentralised structure in case such an attack occurred. So the threat was not that great in comparison to the mass world genocide that was the threat in Moonraker.
The point of taking out M would be to end the way she and her agents believed in running MI6 in the midst of a calculated scandal and threat. The organization's effectiveness using physical and field investigations was being challenged and she was the most knowledgeable advocate.
Her replacement threatened the agents, investigations, and MI6 as the type of department it was under her reign. There was no guarantee that her replacements would share her views on MI6 and not the views of other bureaucracy who were judging from the scandal.
The ability to stop men like Silva hinged on M and Bond's MI6 being preserved.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
Spot on. This is exactly my problem with those sorts of Craig fans. It’s as if they have been brainwashed by the media which has elevated Craig to a saint-like status based probably on little more than relief that Brosnan is no longer playing the part.
This is the sort of comment which I find ridiculous, it does you NO credit 8-)
I think you'll find us Craig fans are generally kicking against the grain...most of you can't get past his looks - which makes you all VERY shallow people...and makes you 'blind' to his acting talents...and if you decide to check the 'media' out when Craig was introduced as Bond - you'll find the media being overly negative...something to which ALL you Craig-detractors have become 'brain-washed' to...
If you don't like DC - fine...I have no problem with that....but I do have a problem with the stupid comments that are trotted out...
Not the whole of MI6, just M and the building. If M were killed she would simply be replaced with another M, as did eventually happen in SF; and the building would have been reconstructed and those few staff killed in the explosion replaced. Besides, MI6 will probably have a decentralised structure in case such an attack occurred. So the threat was not that great in comparison to the mass world genocide that was the threat in Moonraker.
No, in addition to the headquarters being blown up and the life of M being threatened, all of MI-6's undercover agents world wide had been compromised. They were either dead, captured or on the run. MI-6's computers and security systems had been fully penetrated and the government was prepared to shut down MI-6 entirely. I guess you missed those bits.
Also, Moonraker book or novel? In the novel it was one nuclear weapon aimed at London. In the movie "Moonraker" it was Dr. Noah, who turns out to be Sir James Bond's nephew Jimmy Bond planning to use biological warfare to make all women beautiful and kill all men over 4-foot-6-inches. Or maybe it was something else. All those James Bond spoofs run together.
People are entitled to like or dislike Skyfall but my fear is the longer the franchise endures - and it's been going for half a century (!) - the more moribund it becomes and yet, paradoxically, all the obvious flaws in this film are ignored by most in the media. I wouldn't be surprised if Adele's song gets the Oscar for best song from a motion picture just to compound the fact that Skyfall is blessed with outrageous - and in my humble opinion - undeserved good fortune.
Skyfall has won the 2013 BAFTA for best film score which proves my point that this film is getting undeserved good fortune. Is Thomas Thoman's Skyfall score better than some or all of John Barry's? Of course not but John Barry's Bond work never got a BAFTA. Heck, I doubt most of the BAFTA people deciding best score can even remember much of Barry's Bond work such is the fickle world of backslapping 'luvvie' awards.
I get your point and I respect you're reasoning. Although I am a Craig fan, based on your clarification I am by no means a "Craig nuthugger". In fact, some in this group might call me a "Connery nuthugger" since I tend to rush to his defense whenever I feel he's being unfairly maligned or marginalized (that "you only think he's the best because he was first" nonsense). I'll admit I probably overreacted to your comments, as I generally find your posts to be thoughtful and interesting, even when I disagree. So we're good. -{
I get it. You don't like Daniel Craig as Bond. Many other Bond fans, myself included, quite enjoy Craig's portrayal. If that makes me a "nuthugger" then so be it, but it sounds like it's intended as an insult, which isn't unnecessary. After all, I am pretty critical of Roger Moore's version of Bond, but I realize he has legions of fans who think he's great and although I express my disagree I try not to condescend to them. All in all, I think Craig has acquitted himself quite well thus far in his tenure as Bond, and I have no fear of this impending storm of "truth" you speak of. I still prefer Connery and I rank Dalton high on my list as well, but I think history will be kind to the Craig era. Of course only time will tell.
Of course, every Bond, with the obvious exception of Connery himself, has been annointed by the public and press as "the best Bond since Connery", including Lazenby.
And, I confidently predict, so will Craig's successor.
At which time Craig nuthuggers will have to prepare themselves for a storm of "truth" about Craig's films and the usual revisionism every Bond suffers on his departure.
Blackleiter, I do not know you so I do not know whether you are a "fundamentalist" DC fan who will not her a word against him. I suspect you are not as you seem perfectly reasonable; the Craig "nuthuggers" to which I refer are those nutcases who will not hear a single criticism of Craig as Bond and somehow contort everything that has gone before as just a prelude to Craig turning up, saving Bond, and that everything IF wrote REALLY was about DC Bond.
Personally, I like Craig, and as I have said elsewhere on this thread, its only looks which puts Dalton ahead on him inmy opinion.
And you will not I use inverted "commas" around "the truth"? Opinions will suddenly change when Craig leaves,as they did with Dalton and Brosnan, as if the press and public had really been holding back the "truth" during the incumbents reign. Not necessarily correctly so. Doesn't that sound familiar?
Okay? -{
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
The biggest issue with SF (though currently I have only had the one viewing on release night, Blu-ray in UK soon), is that it lacks the two most important aspects of any film; narrative and jeopardy.
Think of previous Bond films and the basic narrative is clear;
LTK, Bond seeks revenge for the brutality against a personal friend by a corrupt drug Lord organising an illegal deal. Bond's vendetta whilst working outside of MI6 provides the jeopardy.
GE, ex-agent seeks revenge by stealing Russian satellite weapon and intends to bankrupt England. The fact Bond has to deal with friend becoming foe provides the jeopardy.
CR, a banker to terrorists attempts to reclaim lost funds at a poker game. The fact Bond is an arrogant rookie unaware of the higher criminal powers at work provides the jeopardy.
SF just isn't too sure whether its trying to be a standard Bond film or whether its being explicitly 'clever' and 'modern'.
The data being lost introduces an initial jeopardy, but is soon forgotten. Arguably the fact Bond's abilities are being questioned introduces jeopardy - but come on, this is a Bond film, we cant begin to question whether 007 is still capable (and infact just hold on until after the PTS and he's suddenly 'back in action'). Then we get M being hunted by Silva - another possible jeopardy - But, at no point do we really feel like Silva is truly a threat to M. In fact, it seems Mallory and the Government powers offer more of a threat to her pension than Silva does for her life. If we accept that the film's jeopardy is meant to derive from the 'will she be killed/ will she survive' of M in the hands of 007, then the films climax offers no resolution - the jeopardy is lost both in M's demise and in Bond's failure to avert the demise.
So what is the films basic narrative? The data plot is dropped early on and so all we're left with is Bond finding Silva, losing Silva and then the showdown at the film's namesake. Other than this I struggle to find any other clear narrative plot that strings the sequences together. At this point the film instead decides its had enough of a standard narrative and wants to play 'clever'. The film is full of themes and motifs - the tired and outdated, no longer fit for service agent and M, represented in 007's literal and symbolic 'fall', M's political reputation all present in the painting of the decrepid warship. The need for resurrection, new life and prosperity in a new MI6, new M and all who sail in her (another painting). The Oedipal relationship of two agents and their figarative mother. The need to re-visit the past and reconcile with its demons in the country homestead of Bond's family and M's ever-blotted C.V.
SF sometimes seems so determined to be 'clever', to harness something deeper and more serious than a secret agent saving the world and getting the girl, that it forgets to tell a story. The film is structured by its need to focus on motifs and themes and so evidently it never settles longer enough to get a plot straight and instead attempts to shoe-horn in a DB5, a MoneyPenny a Martini and a "Bond... James, Bond", to fill the gaps and remind you, "Yes, its a Bond film but haven't we been clever in repackinging it!?".
That, ofcourse, is determined only by you.
I agree. I have to say that I love Craig's take on Bond, and I rate both CR and QOS very highly. I thought SF was a perfect addition right up until they messed it up after the Macau Casino scene. And my gripe is not about plot vs. character, or action vs. themes and motifs. A good film has both. If you hang strong motifs onto an illogical, inconsistent plot (see the numerous plotholes that have already been discussed, the incredible chain of coincidences Silva's overly elaborate plan must rely on, the lame derivative nature of his "willed escape", the anticlimax of finding out that the first, excellent half of the action was completely inconsequential to the second half) all you get is a pretentious mess.
Not the whole of MI6, just M and the building. If M were killed she would simply be replaced with another M, as did eventually happen in SF; and the building would have been reconstructed and those few staff killed in the explosion replaced. Besides, MI6 will probably have a decentralised structure in case such an attack occurred. So the threat was not that great in comparison to the mass world genocide that was the threat in Moonraker.
The point of taking out M would be to end the way she and her agents believed in running MI6 in the midst of a calculated scandal and threat. The organization's effectiveness using physical and field investigations was being challenged and she was the most knowledgeable advocate.
Her replacement threatened the agents, investigations, and MI6 as the type of department it was under her reign. There was no guarantee that her replacements would share her views on MI6 and not the views of other bureaucracy who were judging from the scandal.
The ability to stop men like Silva hinged on M and Bond's MI6 being preserved.
Not the same level of threat as the end of the world, though.
There seems a bit of problem with Craig and the whole sex thing... It's very much start as you mean to go on. So once you have the first girl dying, it's hard to change tack and have a nice, happy finale for the next one. I for one would not really want that silly sex farce 'Really, 007!' ending for a Craig film. It belongs to another era. But the sex in his films just doesn't quite work, it doesn't have a context imo.
I suppose once you stop treating sex as the punchline in your movie you have probs with how to present it. But it's also one area where the past films weigh heavily on the present.
Yes, well give me character over sex etc. any day! Long live King Daniel Craig.
Ms Silhoutte Lady, in bed, lights dimmed: Not tonight, you can have character instead!
People are entitled to like or dislike Skyfall but my fear is the longer the franchise endures - and it's been going for half a century (!) - the more moribund it becomes and yet, paradoxically, all the obvious flaws in this film are ignored by most in the media. I wouldn't be surprised if Adele's song gets the Oscar for best song from a motion picture just to compound the fact that Skyfall is blessed with outrageous - and in my humble opinion - undeserved good fortune.
Skyfall has won the 2013 BAFTA for best film score which proves my point that this film is getting undeserved good fortune. Is Thomas Thoman's Skyfall score better than some or all of John Barry's? Of course not but John Barry's Bond work never got a BAFTA. Heck, I doubt most of the BAFTA people deciding best score can even remember much of Barry's Bond work such is the fickle world of backslapping 'luvvie' awards.
Extremely depressing news. I fear you are correct in that SF is becoming way overrated. The score was abysmal—worse than the Bill Conti one for FYEO, in my view.
Comments
I think that the attempted murder of M and other MI6 personnel is a pretty big "stake" on the poker table, if you ddon't mind me pointing out!
Well, I thought it was pretty effective, but I know that Skyfall has caught a lot of Bond fans unaware!
Movies: The Spy Who Loved Me. Actor: Pierce Brosnan. Theme: You Only Live Twice. :D
Have any of you ever seen the ending of OHMSS as a film - no happy ending!
The attack on MI6 was a one-off - had Silva attempted to attack MI6 or MI6 staff/agents through out the film, and it was up to Bond to stop him, then there would have been some jeopardy. In the end, the attack was just a single 'jump-off' sequence that tied the data theft and Silva's intended target of M together and did not progress into a sustained narrative thread.
Imagine if Silva had continued to attack other staff (Tanner and MoneyPenny perhaps) and Bond foiled his attempts each time before Bond realised it was M he was truly after? That could have been a strong narrative with real jeopardy.
Yes, well I see your point - this might have smacked of padding, though, a near fatal flaw of some earlier Bonds!
The survival of MI-6 was at stake.
Abso-bloody-exactly!
Regarding SF being "lame"...
I've just about written off QoS in my mind, and bought the BD of CR today at Target ($10). I have grown to like more and more that Craig (accomplished actor that he is) was able to pull off some of the Bond internal dialog and thought process that Fleming did so entertainingly, and I find was rather missing in Connery's performances under Terence Young. Not that Connery's Bond wasn't compelling and believable; au contraire, I grew up with and love the first 2-3 films. But Craig translates Bond to a film performance in the way Dalton did, and I think a bit better. Dalton played a reserved, confidant, established OO7 ... Craig (and the rest of the CR staff) introduced him as pretty green and rough around the edges. I.e. not getting the big picture instinctively, letting his ego intrude in his strategy, etc. Celebrating his OO status by shooting up an embassy, etc.
The whole sex thing with Gemma in QoS was sudden, abrupt, inexplicable (she's clearly angry with him), and totally pointless, unless you accept two adults taking time out in a dangerous mission to indulge in recreational sex with hardly a thought to who they're having it with. Maybe that WAS the point, but the sex scene, and her death, really just spoilt the film for me. Fewer action scenes, more character business, and no "every film has to have an 'X' scene, and a 'Y' scene" BS would've won me over.
I want to see SF again if only to see it in this light ... it's really an oddball Bond film in that it's missing some of the usual elements, has a very fresh take on classic tropes (e.g. Mendes' long single take on Bond's fight with the hitman, silhouetted against the neon city lights), and doesn't plod loud and heavy with some of the familiar elements (Q Branch equipment intro, for example). It's missing much of what viewers were trained to expect in many, many years of rehashing the GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL storylines ad nauseam. The novels aren't like that. THUNDERBALL is pretty boring, as is GOLDFINGER to me (lots of Bond sitting around waiting to make his move, Goldfinger monologing for pages at a time). Some of the short stories aren't adventures at all.
I suspect that in years to come, SF will be seen less as "lame" and more as an adventurous departure from formula in order to move the reboot and the character forward. I certainly hope Broccoli and Wilson see SF's success as a validation that it's okay to make a Bond film that is true unto itself and not chained to the overwrought and overused GOLDFINGER formula.
I tend to agree with many of SeanConnery007's analysis. The film takes a bold new direction, but forgot that there are a few basic rules in Bond movie storytelling and SF seems to be missing some plot points.
The hard drive theft may've just been a Hitchcockian McGuffin ... perhaps Bond 24 will be SSDs Are Forever. Or You Only Wipe Twice....
“It reads better than it lives.” T. Case
Blackleiter, I do not know you so I do not know whether you are a "fundamentalist" DC fan who will not her a word against him. I suspect you are not as you seem perfectly reasonable; the Craig "nuthuggers" to which I refer are those nutcases who will not hear a single criticism of Craig as Bond and somehow contort everything that has gone before as just a prelude to Craig turning up, saving Bond, and that everything IF wrote REALLY was about DC Bond.
Personally, I like Craig, and as I have said elsewhere on this thread, its only looks which puts Dalton ahead on him inmy opinion.
And you will not I use inverted "commas" around "the truth"? Opinions will suddenly change when Craig leaves,as they did with Dalton and Brosnan, as if the press and public had really been holding back the "truth" during the incumbents reign. Not necessarily correctly so. Doesn't that sound familiar?
Okay? -{
Spot on. This is exactly my problem with those sorts of Craig fans. It’s as if they have been brainwashed by the media which has elevated Craig to a saint-like status based probably on little more than relief that Brosnan is no longer playing the part.
Not the whole of MI6, just M and the building. If M were killed she would simply be replaced with another M, as did eventually happen in SF; and the building would have been reconstructed and those few staff killed in the explosion replaced. Besides, MI6 will probably have a decentralised structure in case such an attack occurred. So the threat was not that great in comparison to the mass world genocide that was the threat in Moonraker.
Or maybe 'they' (god forbid) actually think that he nails the part well, has brought a good intensity to the character & (shock horror) is actually doing a pretty good job at bringing the franchise back to the fore - irrespective of his hair colour or so-called craggy looks??
I'm a big fan of DC and what he's brought to the party. He's by no means flawless & there's a few things I'd change about his manner, but he's playing Bond in a new & up-to-date way. Some love it, some are so-so about it & others hate it. The same can be said throughout the actors to date to have assumed the role. For every DC 'sympathiser' there's an 'antagonist' who will try to nail him for everything that isn't Connery. I'm just glad we've got the Bond series back on screen & it's alive + kicking again, without endless cheesiness or extremely daft gimmicks.
Just my thoughts ...
Glad you cleared that up DS, I too tgt your comment was rude and disparaging against those who simple harbor an opinion.
But your apology makes a lot of sense and is generally wll written.
It even makes a good point (that post-incumbent viewpoints are inevitably very different)
Clearly on the road to recovery.. :007)
I can’t argue with that. It’s all a matter of taste at the end of the day, and can’t be decided using too much reasoning. I suppose I will eventually get used to Craig after a couple more films.
Well, it wasn't an apology, Paul, as you know, more a clarification, an explantion for those who failed to understand the point I was trying to make about the more extreme, fundamentalist Craig fans.
If anyone wants to feel that applies to them, it is their choice. I don't think there are any on AJB who fall into that category, though I think there are numerous PURELY DC fans on other fourm.
Unfortuantely, I hoped that most would be able to differentiate that in the points I was making. Guess the odd one porbably didn't want to, sadly, eh?
But glad I got your approval though. Really.
The point of taking out M would be to end the way she and her agents believed in running MI6 in the midst of a calculated scandal and threat. The organization's effectiveness using physical and field investigations was being challenged and she was the most knowledgeable advocate.
Her replacement threatened the agents, investigations, and MI6 as the type of department it was under her reign. There was no guarantee that her replacements would share her views on MI6 and not the views of other bureaucracy who were judging from the scandal.
The ability to stop men like Silva hinged on M and Bond's MI6 being preserved.
This is the sort of comment which I find ridiculous, it does you NO credit 8-)
I think you'll find us Craig fans are generally kicking against the grain...most of you can't get past his looks - which makes you all VERY shallow people...and makes you 'blind' to his acting talents...and if you decide to check the 'media' out when Craig was introduced as Bond - you'll find the media being overly negative...something to which ALL you Craig-detractors have become 'brain-washed' to...
If you don't like DC - fine...I have no problem with that....but I do have a problem with the stupid comments that are trotted out...
No, in addition to the headquarters being blown up and the life of M being threatened, all of MI-6's undercover agents world wide had been compromised. They were either dead, captured or on the run. MI-6's computers and security systems had been fully penetrated and the government was prepared to shut down MI-6 entirely. I guess you missed those bits.
Also, Moonraker book or novel? In the novel it was one nuclear weapon aimed at London. In the movie "Moonraker" it was Dr. Noah, who turns out to be Sir James Bond's nephew Jimmy Bond planning to use biological warfare to make all women beautiful and kill all men over 4-foot-6-inches. Or maybe it was something else. All those James Bond spoofs run together.
Skyfall has won the 2013 BAFTA for best film score which proves my point that this film is getting undeserved good fortune. Is Thomas Thoman's Skyfall score better than some or all of John Barry's? Of course not but John Barry's Bond work never got a BAFTA. Heck, I doubt most of the BAFTA people deciding best score can even remember much of Barry's Bond work such is the fickle world of backslapping 'luvvie' awards.
I agree. I have to say that I love Craig's take on Bond, and I rate both CR and QOS very highly. I thought SF was a perfect addition right up until they messed it up after the Macau Casino scene. And my gripe is not about plot vs. character, or action vs. themes and motifs. A good film has both. If you hang strong motifs onto an illogical, inconsistent plot (see the numerous plotholes that have already been discussed, the incredible chain of coincidences Silva's overly elaborate plan must rely on, the lame derivative nature of his "willed escape", the anticlimax of finding out that the first, excellent half of the action was completely inconsequential to the second half) all you get is a pretentious mess.
Not the same level of threat as the end of the world, though.
Ms Silhoutte Lady, in bed, lights dimmed: Not tonight, you can have character instead!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Extremely depressing news. I fear you are correct in that SF is becoming way overrated. The score was abysmal—worse than the Bill Conti one for FYEO, in my view.