Why have Eve shoot Bond?
Kent007
Posts: 338MI6 Agent
Is it just me that doesn't see why Eve has to shoot Bond?
I get why he has to be shot by Patrice, so they can use the shrapnel to trace him but I don't get why they couldn't just combine the two so Bond only gets shot once.
Him being shot twice and surviving the fall off the bridge is just overly unrealistic in my opinion, I know it's symbolic of Bond surviving against all odds on the screen and everything but they could've still done that if he had only been shot once.
I get why he has to be shot by Patrice, so they can use the shrapnel to trace him but I don't get why they couldn't just combine the two so Bond only gets shot once.
Him being shot twice and surviving the fall off the bridge is just overly unrealistic in my opinion, I know it's symbolic of Bond surviving against all odds on the screen and everything but they could've still done that if he had only been shot once.
"You are about to wake when you dream that you are dreaming"
Comments
Pushed him off the train, Then Bond would of Failed, But by having
Him accidently shot by Eve, Means Bond faliure wasn't his Fault. Just
the inexperience of a rookie agent.
As for being shot twice and surviving a huge fall, Well he is James Bond.
So can do things we simple Mortals would fail at. )
She wasn't aiming to hit Bond, she was aiming to hit Patrice.
Instead giving her best agent every opportunity to retrieve the hard drive she orders an out-of-her-depth rookie to have a go at possibly helping Bond, or possibly guaranteeing the loss of the hard drive. Utterly preposterous.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
+1. Really well put
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Agree
The whole PTS showed how far the Bond series has fallen in the 50 years. Nothing about it can attach itself to Bond legacy. It is a mishmash of action that the producers demonstrated their lack of respect for the audience. If there is any message is in it, it gets lost in the product placement and totally lack of credulity.
Can you explain why you think that?
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
I couldn't disagree more. I'm sorry that for you the message got "lost in the product placement", but it was pretty clear to me as the film progressed that the message was precisely as Asp9mm described it. The PTS was as exciting and "Bond-like" as those in many of the previous Bond films.
The comparison I gave earlier regarding the PTS was Dalton-Bond role in Bratislava in The Living Daylights.
In TLD, Dalton-Bond took charge of situation as opposed in SF where Bond has been reduced to just a member of functional collective. Bond is no longer the focal point of his movie, he is now somewhat like Ethan Hunt in the Mission Impossible movies.
Maybe EON really doesn't have the confidence in Craig they claim.
Credulity? As in Bond seeing an assassin reflected in a girl's pupils; Bond breaking down the "fourth wall" to reference "the other fella;" Bond packing a parachute in his skiing gear; Bond scooping up a wheelchair-bound man with a helicopter strut; Bond "towing" a runaway airplane, etc., etc. . . .
I have to admit, the complaint about product placement is becoming tired. Yes, Bond films are notorious for product placement, but they've done it almost since the beginning; and they're neither better nor worse than any other films. I saw Iron Man 3 this afternoon, and it's loaded with brand names--beers, computers, cars, gasoline companies, you name it.
As for the PTS itself, the more I see it the more I like it. It's a series of beautifully-executed action pieces. It's well-shot, well-edited, and fast-moving. It's also over-the-top in a way that's reminiscent of the Moore or Brosnan films, with this difference: Brosnan and especially Moore would be winking at the audience, but Craig grits his teeth and takes it all seriously, as if he could actually be killed, and that conviction makes a fun series of sequences into an exciting one.
I don't see how one could come to that conclusion. Even if one were to agree that Bond isn't the focus of Skyfall, which I don't, is there any doubt that Bond is the focus of CR and QOS? So clearly from the start the producers had confidence in Craig's ability to carry the films. And just because there are other agents and personnel involved in the PTS. that doesn't diminish the fact that Bond is indeed the primary driving force as he pursues Patrice in an effort to retrieve the hard drive. There doesn't appear to me to be such a tremendous shift away from PTSs in other Bond films, and certainly nothing to suggest that Bond's role is being downplayed.
Yeah, it's a pity Bond didn't have a woman with big boobs to distract someone. Q standing nearby to complete the mission for him, and an overriding reliance on the audience not picking apart a very silly scene.
I am not sure what you referring to about women having big boobs. I don't recall saying anything about women with boobs.
Very well-said! -{
It was one of the main devices in the PTS of Living Daylights. If you are going to suggest that PTS is superior to Skyfall's, then you can't ignore the exceptionally weak points like this.
raised By Hardyboy. How DC takes it very seriously.
http://youtu.be/_hw9ZDJO0E8
and another short one, Showing how When not working ( I'm always
Bond ) he's not so serious. )
http://youtu.be/IFzjl8YJ5YE
It's not in TLD's pts though is it?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I agree about the tiredness regarding product placement. Has no one read the
bloody novels? Fleming threw them in all over the place. The point of doing it was to ground the adventures in reality. He wasn't the first to do it but he sure
used it well.