It's not a logical inconsistency. You just expected the character to do something different. But what he did was certainly within the realm of possibility, even if it seems idiotic. A true plot hole is when this isn't possible. For instance, if Bond had gone to see White after he'd already disposed of himself, but then the video later showed them having a conversation. There would be no way to reconcile this error within the story. Another issue would be if in Skyfall, we were told that Bond was raised solely by his great aunt, but in Spectre, the sequel, we're told the contradictory information that Bond was raised in part by Oberhauser.
This is how the concept has been defined traditionally. However, as I said, in popular terms, especially on the Web, people apply it simply to things they don't agree with. It's similar to the misuse of "canon" and "continuity," especially among Star Trek fans.
The way I see it, there is little difference, if any, between something idiotic and a logical inconsistency. You now seem to be linking a plot hole with an impossibility, which is only part of the definition. According to Wikipedia, “In fiction, a plot hole or plothole is a logical inconsistency within a story. Such inconsistencies include such things as illogical or impossible events, and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.” Bond leaving such an obvious trace behind is not impossible, of course, but highly improbable (especially without a reason), and idiotic – therefore a logical inconsistency. It would not be a logical inconsistency if Bond was a village idiot, of course – but he is a top secret agent with a licence to kill! So, essentially, while your examples are correct, they do no illustrate all aspects of a plot hole. But that just a name. We can forget it for a while, and it still does not change the fact that this particular scene that lets the whole script down.
It's not a logical inconsistency. You just expected the character to do something different. But what he did was certainly within the realm of possibility, even if it seems idiotic. A true plot hole is when this isn't possible. For instance, if Bond had gone to see White after he'd already disposed of himself, but then the video later showed them having a conversation. There would be no way to reconcile this error within the story. Another issue would be if in Skyfall, we were told that Bond was raised solely by his great aunt, but in Spectre, the sequel, we're told the contradictory information that Bond was raised in part by Oberhauser.
This is how the concept has been defined traditionally. However, as I said, in popular terms, especially on the Web, people apply it simply to things they don't agree with. It's similar to the misuse of "canon" and "continuity," especially among Star Trek fans.
The way I see it, there is little difference, if any, between something idiotic and a logical inconsistency. You now seem to be linking a plot hole with an impossibility, which is only part of the definition. According to Wikipedia, “In fiction, a plot hole or plothole is a logical inconsistency within a story. Such inconsistencies include such things as illogical or impossible events, and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.” Bond leaving such an obvious trace behind is not impossible, of course, but highly improbable (especially without a reason), and idiotic – therefore a logical inconsistency. It would not be a logical inconsistency if Bond was a village idiot, of course – but he is a top secret agent with a licence to kill! So, essentially, while your examples are correct, they do no illustrate all aspects of a plot hole. But that just a name. We can forget it for a while, and it still does not change the fact that this particular scene that lets the whole script down.
Yeah, Wikipedia, which allow users regardless of credentials to create the definitions, including the popular ones. Those aren't the traditional definitions. An impossibility is exactly right, and that would include contradictions that can't be reconciled within the logic of the story. But there is no requirement that James Bond be perfect, and certainly we've seen him make poor judgments through Craig's run. In fact, as some people have pointed out, his Bond is quite possibly the most incompetent when you stop to think about how many times he fails or causes something bad to happen to someone else because of his decisions.
On the other hand, Bond's dumb decisions are the result of crappy writing. It's not so much that Bond lacks competence or intelligence as the screenwriters do. So, I wouldn't say that Bond's decision to return to his familial home with no plan, army, or reason to believe he could realistically fight Silva in Skyfall a plothole so much as just stupid writing. It lacks common sense, let alone professional sense, but Bond was free to make that choice, stupid as it was. There is nothing illogical about the fact that he is imperfect. And he was free to do equally stupid things in Spectre.
Now, if Bond suddenly said he didn't know how to shoot a pistol, that would contradict established skill. That wouldn't be logical. Unless he had amnesia, we wouldn't be able to reconcile that within the story. But nothing has been established that he always erases video and this time, for some reason, chose not to.
What we have is lazy writing. Rather than develop the story around the character, they manipulate the character to fit the story. Bond is supposed to be the best of the best, but making him that way makes it tough to find ways for him to make plausible mistakes. So, how does a lazy writer deal with this? Just have him make the mistake and don't deal with it. And if audiences are distracted enough, they won't care. In Casino Royale, Bond makes mistakes, but the combination of being headstrong but unseasoned and being blinded by ego and love makes those mistakes make sense. We can sympathize. Arguably, that's also true in Quantum of Solace. But by the time Skyfall and Spectre roll around, Bond is no longer unseasoned. And the writers who aren't very swift to begin with can't figure out how to structure the story so it's plausible. So, what they do instead is invest in spectacle and sentimentality, and many audiences won't notice because they're caught up in the emotional of it all. The casual viewer isn't even following who Mr. White is and why so much as he's just a bad guy, and Bond is off on his next adventure.
But are these plotholes? No. The story can still forge ahead, creaikly as it does.
The bottom line: A lazy, underdeveloped script.
But, they threw enough money and action in to help us overlook it.
The money and action helped a lot!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Also your point about Blofeld visiting Madeline's... I took this as meaning he was there when men came to kill her father and she was forced to shoot someone, therefore Blofeld was responsible for Madeline's mental scar.
I got the impression it was a completely unrelated visit to the one Madeline told Bond about.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Mr White divulged a big secret to Bond, allowed it to be recorded by his own surveillance system, and then killed himself. What a stupid idea. White should know what SPECTRE is about and should either provide Bond with the information out of reach of cameras and microphones, or should have erased the records before killing himself. Why kill himself in front of Bond anyway? Bond should have destroyed the records as a matter of professional precaution - how could he let secret information remain recorded and available to whoever found the body? This is the single piece of bad scriptwriting that lets down the whole movie - I would be able to forgive the other plot holes, but not this.
Craig's Bond simply isn't a good agent. He's done stupider things and makes big mistakes in every film. People these days also consider perfect characters to be poor writing. Fleming wrote plenty of faults into his Bond, but his Bond also didn't so consistently make huge mistakes.
That's interesting, what other big mistakes would you say he made before? I must admit that I didn't really notice the surveillance system mistake. I rather thought about it as a plot hole considering White who must have known Spectre had access to it.
"You don’t make art out of good intentions." - Gustave Flaubert;
Mr White divulged a big secret to Bond, allowed it to be recorded by his own surveillance system, and then killed himself. What a stupid idea. White should know what SPECTRE is about and should either provide Bond with the information out of reach of cameras and microphones, or should have erased the records before killing himself. Why kill himself in front of Bond anyway? Bond should have destroyed the records as a matter of professional precaution - how could he let secret information remain recorded and available to whoever found the body? This is the single piece of bad scriptwriting that lets down the whole movie - I would be able to forgive the other plot holes, but not this.
Craig's Bond simply isn't a good agent. He's done stupider things and makes big mistakes in every film. People these days also consider perfect characters to be poor writing. Fleming wrote plenty of faults into his Bond, but his Bond also didn't so consistently make huge mistakes.
That's interesting, what other big mistakes would you say he made before? I must admit that I didn't really notice the surveillance system mistake. I rather thought about it as a plot hole considering White who must have known Spectre had access to it.
Blowing up the embassy in CR, trusting Vesper with the money in CR (which lead to him failing his mission), killing people he shouldn't have in QOS, leading Silva to Skyfall in SF. But in SF, M and Q are worse at their jobs.
One thing to consider, though, is in this reboot version of Bond, he's not the same guy exactly we've seen before. He certainly has many of the traits, and more so in this film than before, but he's still not the same agent, and we could argue that this one is meant to be less capable in this respect than his doppelganger. However, I think it's really just the poor quality of screen writers today. They don't seem to have much depth of instinct when it comes to story, but rather learn some formula about a script structure and then overlook meaningful details. It doesn't seem to stop their success or the films from making money, so no one really cares, but quality is, in my opinion, suffering terribly.
I'm afraid I disagree. I don't think it's just due to bad scriptwriting that Bond is different from the other Bonds we've known before. I am certain it's deliberate.
He was modernized as a character to adapt to nowaday's modern ways of story telling which involve psychological character "depth" and "authenticity". Nowaday's audiences don't expect flawless, immaculate human beings without any significant past or future. It's not considered believable anymore. Freud has pushed forward into the entertainment industry, so to say.
Speaking of it, there was a psycho analysis hype during the 1960s (they even analyised "Alice in Wonderland" under the terms of Freud), but it was more of an academic trend and not so commonly known amongst regular people. Needing a shrink was still something to be ashamed of. Nobody talked about depression or anxiety and it stayed that way up until the late 1990s. The closest you'd get to common psychological knowledge were reports on famous psychological experiments such as the Milgram experiment which was supposed to shed some light on the gruel deeds of the Nazis, lots of such experiments were conducted after WW II (people just couldn't grasp that the Nazis were loving fathers in the evening while killing millions of children during the day - we still can't btw; as for social-psychological studies have shown, there isn't a higher rate of mental illness amongst terrorist groups e.g., but most people would insist on all of them being psychopaths, it's also a way to distance yourself from a life threatening monstrosity - it gets more threatening the closer it feels and admitting that regular people do these things, people without any major mental problems, hints that it could be everybody around you doing such things... and you wouldn't want to live in fear all the time - if that makes sense).
Giving Bond a traumatizing childhood, flaws, mistakes and thoughts about his future makes him more understandable to a 21st century's audience. Mental illness these days is a commonly known thing, also people suffering from it still are discriminated. But, while in the 1960s and before, ALL people suffering from mental problems would have been stigmatised as freaks, we do have some "trendy" and "cool" mental problems nowadays. Having a difficult childhood to deal with is one of them, just hardly staying within the borderline between "mental illness" and "mental issues that come with understandable situations". Some of his mistakes actually connect to his backstory. That being said, Bond wouldn't work anymore as Bond if he had a real mental illness such as depression etc. - but I'm thrilled what the future has in store for us considering that.
Societies change. And the films wouldn't be as successful if we still had the old invulnerable Bond. That's why CR worked to reintroduce Bond to the 21st century.
"You don’t make art out of good intentions." - Gustave Flaubert;
What countries did you spot in Nine Eyes? I only remember China (becuse it's incredibly unbelievable that the UK woud ever share all their intel with them) the UK and South Africa.
) China will own Britain's nuclear power plants, so it will basically control us in a few years,
So they'll have access to all our intelligence information anyway.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sorry Justonequestion, My Ignorance in not look where people are from sorry about that.
To be called a "C" is short hand for another word, it rhymes with "Runt", and is a rude word
for a lady's reproductive naughty bits ;% , and yes it is an insult, Hence why Bond saying he'll
be calling him a C, he's wittily insulting him
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sorry Justonequestion, My Ignorance in not look where people are from sorry about that.
To be called a "C" is short hand for another word, it rhymes with "Runt", and is a rude word
for a lady's reproductive naughty bits ;% , and yes it is an insult, Hence why Bond saying he'll
be calling him a C, he's wittily insulting him
Ah, I already understood it before as somebody wrote down the word rhyming with "runt" a few posts after your joke hint, but thank you nevertheless!
I thought Bond meant to establish/keep some personal distance to Denbigh by settling for calling him C. Could be both - the witty joke and the distance if you know what I mean.
"You don’t make art out of good intentions." - Gustave Flaubert;
I love how M points out he's having a meeting and is going to have to
Explain what Bond was doing there, and how awkward it was going to
Be. As Bond sarcastically says" You are going to have a tricky day" -{
Both great actors, but I think Craig is brilliant here with his delivery and
tone, as he deftly insults C. {[]
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
yes i agree it is one of the best scenes in the film and it is good it is near the beginning and after the amazing opening scene. :007)
What would we do without craig? )
James Bond: That’s a Smith & Wesson, and you’ve had your six.
Comments
The way I see it, there is little difference, if any, between something idiotic and a logical inconsistency. You now seem to be linking a plot hole with an impossibility, which is only part of the definition. According to Wikipedia, “In fiction, a plot hole or plothole is a logical inconsistency within a story. Such inconsistencies include such things as illogical or impossible events, and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.” Bond leaving such an obvious trace behind is not impossible, of course, but highly improbable (especially without a reason), and idiotic – therefore a logical inconsistency. It would not be a logical inconsistency if Bond was a village idiot, of course – but he is a top secret agent with a licence to kill! So, essentially, while your examples are correct, they do no illustrate all aspects of a plot hole. But that just a name. We can forget it for a while, and it still does not change the fact that this particular scene that lets the whole script down.
I thought that was a missed opportunity; maybe a bit obvious but like you say, it would totally have fit with his destroying Bond plan.
On the other hand, Bond's dumb decisions are the result of crappy writing. It's not so much that Bond lacks competence or intelligence as the screenwriters do. So, I wouldn't say that Bond's decision to return to his familial home with no plan, army, or reason to believe he could realistically fight Silva in Skyfall a plothole so much as just stupid writing. It lacks common sense, let alone professional sense, but Bond was free to make that choice, stupid as it was. There is nothing illogical about the fact that he is imperfect. And he was free to do equally stupid things in Spectre.
Now, if Bond suddenly said he didn't know how to shoot a pistol, that would contradict established skill. That wouldn't be logical. Unless he had amnesia, we wouldn't be able to reconcile that within the story. But nothing has been established that he always erases video and this time, for some reason, chose not to.
What we have is lazy writing. Rather than develop the story around the character, they manipulate the character to fit the story. Bond is supposed to be the best of the best, but making him that way makes it tough to find ways for him to make plausible mistakes. So, how does a lazy writer deal with this? Just have him make the mistake and don't deal with it. And if audiences are distracted enough, they won't care. In Casino Royale, Bond makes mistakes, but the combination of being headstrong but unseasoned and being blinded by ego and love makes those mistakes make sense. We can sympathize. Arguably, that's also true in Quantum of Solace. But by the time Skyfall and Spectre roll around, Bond is no longer unseasoned. And the writers who aren't very swift to begin with can't figure out how to structure the story so it's plausible. So, what they do instead is invest in spectacle and sentimentality, and many audiences won't notice because they're caught up in the emotional of it all. The casual viewer isn't even following who Mr. White is and why so much as he's just a bad guy, and Bond is off on his next adventure.
But are these plotholes? No. The story can still forge ahead, creaikly as it does.
Men would ride horses " Side saddle "
The money and action helped a lot!
I got the impression it was a completely unrelated visit to the one Madeline told Bond about.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Called round to borrow some bleach
Actually, that was Le Chiffre- he was a little confused between Bleach and Bond....
That's post of the day already
Or bleached blonde
I'm guessing with Blofeld, it would be cat food..........
Why should that stop him?
Under the sink items kept by Bond villains along with guns (and maybe bleach):
Dr No: rubber gloves
Red Grant: kitchen matches
Largo, Blofelds '67 and '15, and Le Chiffre: eye baths
Blofeld '71: mud pack
Stromberg: kitchen scales
Renard: headache pills
:007)
That's interesting, what other big mistakes would you say he made before? I must admit that I didn't really notice the surveillance system mistake. I rather thought about it as a plot hole considering White who must have known Spectre had access to it.
Blowing up the embassy in CR, trusting Vesper with the money in CR (which lead to him failing his mission), killing people he shouldn't have in QOS, leading Silva to Skyfall in SF. But in SF, M and Q are worse at their jobs.
I'm afraid I disagree. I don't think it's just due to bad scriptwriting that Bond is different from the other Bonds we've known before. I am certain it's deliberate.
He was modernized as a character to adapt to nowaday's modern ways of story telling which involve psychological character "depth" and "authenticity". Nowaday's audiences don't expect flawless, immaculate human beings without any significant past or future. It's not considered believable anymore. Freud has pushed forward into the entertainment industry, so to say.
Speaking of it, there was a psycho analysis hype during the 1960s (they even analyised "Alice in Wonderland" under the terms of Freud), but it was more of an academic trend and not so commonly known amongst regular people. Needing a shrink was still something to be ashamed of. Nobody talked about depression or anxiety and it stayed that way up until the late 1990s. The closest you'd get to common psychological knowledge were reports on famous psychological experiments such as the Milgram experiment which was supposed to shed some light on the gruel deeds of the Nazis, lots of such experiments were conducted after WW II (people just couldn't grasp that the Nazis were loving fathers in the evening while killing millions of children during the day - we still can't btw; as for social-psychological studies have shown, there isn't a higher rate of mental illness amongst terrorist groups e.g., but most people would insist on all of them being psychopaths, it's also a way to distance yourself from a life threatening monstrosity - it gets more threatening the closer it feels and admitting that regular people do these things, people without any major mental problems, hints that it could be everybody around you doing such things... and you wouldn't want to live in fear all the time - if that makes sense).
Giving Bond a traumatizing childhood, flaws, mistakes and thoughts about his future makes him more understandable to a 21st century's audience. Mental illness these days is a commonly known thing, also people suffering from it still are discriminated. But, while in the 1960s and before, ALL people suffering from mental problems would have been stigmatised as freaks, we do have some "trendy" and "cool" mental problems nowadays. Having a difficult childhood to deal with is one of them, just hardly staying within the borderline between "mental illness" and "mental issues that come with understandable situations". Some of his mistakes actually connect to his backstory. That being said, Bond wouldn't work anymore as Bond if he had a real mental illness such as depression etc. - but I'm thrilled what the future has in store for us considering that.
Societies change. And the films wouldn't be as successful if we still had the old invulnerable Bond. That's why CR worked to reintroduce Bond to the 21st century.
So they'll have access to all our intelligence information anyway.
I don't get it due to the language barrier I guess, English isn't my first language. Could anybody explain it to me? ?:)
Like, does it stand for C*ck? ?:) Or something similar?
Ah - okay. Nevermind my other post. I get it now.
To be called a "C" is short hand for another word, it rhymes with "Runt", and is a rude word
for a lady's reproductive naughty bits ;% , and yes it is an insult, Hence why Bond saying he'll
be calling him a C, he's wittily insulting him
Ah, I already understood it before as somebody wrote down the word rhyming with "runt" a few posts after your joke hint, but thank you nevertheless!
I thought Bond meant to establish/keep some personal distance to Denbigh by settling for calling him C. Could be both - the witty joke and the distance if you know what I mean.
I love that establishing scene first with Bond and M, then Denbigh.
some good dialogue in it.
I think there should be more scenes in M's office! :007)
http://www.james-bondco.yolasite.com/
Explain what Bond was doing there, and how awkward it was going to
Be. As Bond sarcastically says" You are going to have a tricky day" -{
Both great actors, but I think Craig is brilliant here with his delivery and
tone, as he deftly insults C. {[]
What would we do without craig?
http://www.james-bondco.yolasite.com/