Why does Mr. White have to get away at the end of the film? He's chicken feed. We don't even know if he'll reveal anything about his organization in the next film.
Well, I don't think he's particularly chicken feed, as might play out in Bond 22. However, that is one of the flaws of the film. He's obviously a baddie, but is he THE baddie? Not in CR. Le Chiffre got to torture bond. Gettler put a gun to Vesper's head. Demetrios tried to blow up an airliner. We never truly get a picture of who he is, which to me makes the ending too ambiguous when Bond shoots him in the leg and utter's his iconic line. We can assume that he's a really nasty guy...but the audience shouldn't have to do that. I could have stayed home and assumed what happens in the whole movie and saved myself the price of admission. If you want me to cheer Bond, I'm going to need him to do a lot more than shoot some old guy in the leg. I need to see him be victorious over an enemy that would appear to have Bond down for the count.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
and how did V get recruited as a double agent when Bond only ran into LC in the last fornight, that's pretty fast work...
Could Vesper not have met LeChiffre before, perhaps through her boyfriend ? Surely that's not too much of a stretch ?
Remember that M tells Bond that some organisation kidnapped Vesper's boyfriend to put pressure on her.
Next problem please
YNWA 97
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
Well, I don't think he's particularly chicken feed, as might play out in Bond 22. However, that is one of the flaws of the film. He's obviously a baddie, but is he THE baddie? Not in CR. Le Chiffre got to torture bond. Gettler put a gun to Vesper's head. Demetrios tried to blow up an airliner. We never truly get a picture of who he is, which to me makes the ending too ambiguous when Bond shoots him in the leg and utter's his iconic line. We can assume that he's a really nasty guy...but the audience shouldn't have to do that. I could have stayed home and assumed what happens in the whole movie and saved myself the price of admission. If you want me to cheer Bond, I'm going to need him to do a lot more than shoot some old guy in the leg. I need to see him be victorious over an enemy that would appear to have Bond down for the count.
Didn't Mr White kill LeChiffre and some of his thugs ? That's pretty nasty - unless it stops you having your bits whacked by a heavy rope )
However I don't understand at all WHY the tiger sat? I mean, what was it's motivatation? Wasn't it working for Kahn? It should have tore Bond to pieces. Was the tiger betraying Kahn? Was it's mate being held against it's will by Octopussy's circus, and was scheming for his release? Was there a relation between the tiger and the trophy rug that Bond used as a diversion in the Monsoon Palace. This whole bit really lessens my viewing enjoyment of OP!
Just think it's funny is all, you going on about character motivation and good story-telling when three of your top five Bond films are Glen Bonds, all of which I can hardly consider films much less Bond films they're so across-the-board bad IMO--writing, acting, directing, the whole deal...:s But to each his or her own. {[]
I'm pretty sure the whole point of there being questions at the end of CR is that they'll get answered in the next one...and there certainly seem to be enough variations to choose from that members of this board can think of, simple thru complex. Can't imagine Bond 22 won't tie those loose ends up in a nice neat package--for Bond to burst through! In other words, we're SUPPOSED to be left wondering...and if that doesn't work for you then it doesn't work for you. For me, I understood that:
Vesper betrayed Bond and stole the money, and;
Mathis may or may not have also betrayed Bond, separately or in cahoots with Vesper.
Doesn't seem like rocket science, just spy film stuff. For the rest, Vesper in the road, etc., well it is a movie, guess those points don't register with or bother me, the filmmakers had me and I zipped right along with them. Nothing stuck out and shattered the verisimilitude like, oh, Bond asking a wild tiger to sit, and the tiger sits. That kinda stuff makes me check out from the film for the next 20 or 30 minutes, as obviously nothing happening in the film really matters, the filmmakers just told me so by inserting abject sillyness. Oh yeah, the Tarzan yell...classic Bond. Those moments don't bother you, okay. We have different standards and expectations regarding good story-telling I guess.
You sound as if you want a movie with no mistakes and in which everything neatly fits everything else. I have NEVER seen this kind of perfection in any movie to come out of Hollywood or anywhere else in the world. NEVER. Even those movies that are deemed among the best have some kind of flaw.
Perfect isn't the issue, appropriate is. CR is a good film with a tight script for what it is--a Bond movie--IMO. Nobody yells like Tarzan in it, which IMHO is about as 180 degrees wrong for a Bond film as can be. I've said CR is flawed, as you so rightly point out that all movies are. The "flaws" being discussed in this thread, I don't see them as flaws, that's all. If people don't like the film, for whatever reason, fine. I was merely making a point about MY acceptable/non-acceptable flaws in a Bond film, and that I just didn't see any flip-me-out-of-my-seat ones in CR. Dopey sillyness in a Bond film drives me nuts, I just never remember Fleming ever writing Bond like that. I also never remember him rewriting the same save-the-world plot over and over and over...stuff like that.
Personally, I believe there was just the one suitcase, and Mr. White ended up with it. Magic? Great fly fishing skills? A big magnet? I don't care, it was a great moment, Bond crying over his lost love and the bad guy getting away (for the moment ) with the money. It's easy for me to believe that Mr. White got the money, because that moment was so perfect, it made such good emotional sense I didn't need all the blanks filled in about how it came to be. Simply, while Bond was after the girl, someone else had been after the money...and all I see is the end result with the dramatic payoff. Good writing, that.
Personally, I believe there was just the one suitcase, and Mr. White ended up with it. Magic? Great fly fishing skills? A big magnet? I don't care, it was a great moment, Bond crying over his lost love and the bad guy getting away (for the moment ) with the money. It's easy for me to believe that Mr. White got the money, because that moment was so perfect, it made such good emotional sense I didn't need all the blanks filled in about how it came to be. Simply, while Bond was after the girl, someone else had been after the money...and all I see is the end result with the dramatic payoff. Good writing, that.
I like that. That's a good explanation of the ending timeline. It's a pity they didn't do it that way. Your right, it would have been good writing...if it had actually been written. EON should put you on their payroll.
Well, I don't think he's particularly chicken feed, as might play out in Bond 22. However, that is one of the flaws of the film. He's obviously a baddie, but is he THE baddie? Not in CR. Le Chiffre got to torture bond. Gettler put a gun to Vesper's head. Demetrios tried to blow up an airliner. We never truly get a picture of who he is, which to me makes the ending too ambiguous when Bond shoots him in the leg and utter's his iconic line. We can assume that he's a really nasty guy...but the audience shouldn't have to do that. I could have stayed home and assumed what happens in the whole movie and saved myself the price of admission. If you want me to cheer Bond, I'm going to need him to do a lot more than shoot some old guy in the leg. I need to see him be victorious over an enemy that would appear to have Bond down for the count.
I'm sorry Darenhat, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Are you telling me in all seriousness that in, say FRWL, the best the audience could do was "assume" that the guy stroking the goddamn cat was the big cheese in the story, the power behind the throne, while Klebb and Kronsteen were minor players? I think it was obvious that he was and that it was obvious to the audience, too. And it's just as obvious in Mr. White's case. This is exactly the kind of unreasonable complaint that I'm talking about. Maybe EON should put a big sign on Mr. White's neck in Bond 22 that says "great big bad guy" so the audience can figure it out. I'm accused of questionning people's intelligence, but what I'm really questionning is the sincerity of that kind of criticism. It goes beyond common sense. It's one thing to not care for P&W's writing (I'm not familiar with them beyond CR, so you may be right in a general sense), but it's another to let that general perception color your opinion of CR. It deserves a fair shake on its merits. I get the feeling they could have written "War and Peace" and you'd say it sucked.
Well, I don't think he's particularly chicken feed, as might play out in Bond 22. However, that is one of the flaws of the film. He's obviously a baddie, but is he THE baddie? Not in CR. Le Chiffre got to torture bond. Gettler put a gun to Vesper's head. Demetrios tried to blow up an airliner. We never truly get a picture of who he is, which to me makes the ending too ambiguous when Bond shoots him in the leg and utter's his iconic line. We can assume that he's a really nasty guy...but the audience shouldn't have to do that. I could have stayed home and assumed what happens in the whole movie and saved myself the price of admission. If you want me to cheer Bond, I'm going to need him to do a lot more than shoot some old guy in the leg. I need to see him be victorious over an enemy that would appear to have Bond down for the count.
I'm sorry Darenhat, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Are you telling me in all seriousness that in, say FRWL, the best the audience could do was "assume" that the guy stroking the goddamn cat was the big cheese in the story, the power behind the throne, while Klebb and Kronsteen were minor players? I think it was obvious that he was and that it was obvious to the audience, too. And it's just as obvious in Mr. White's case. This is exactly the kind of unreasonable complaint that I'm talking about. Maybe EON should put a big sign on Mr. White's neck in Bond 22 that says "great big bad guy" so the audience can figure it out. I'm accused of questionning people's intelligence, but what I'm really questionning is the sincerity of that kind of criticism. It goes beyond common sense. It's one thing to not care for P&W's writing (I'm not familiar with them beyond CR, so you may be right in a general sense), but it's another to let that general perception color your opinion of CR. It deserves a fair shake on its merits. I get the feeling they could have written "War and Peace" and you'd say it sucked.
Of course in this version of War and Peace, a giant satellite utilizing the power of diamonds has threatened all mankind!
Honestly, though, I must admit that I was in a state of utter contempt for P&W after DAD, and after seeing CR for the 4th time I have to say they've made up for it.
Honestly, though, I must admit that I was in a state of utter contempt for P&W after DAD, and after seeing CR for the 4th time I have to say they've made up for it.
Well, I'm with you most of the way - the first hour or so of DAD isn't too bad. Cr is a great script and, IMO, the best that P&W have managed so far - but just how much of that is down to Haggis ?
Honestly, though, I must admit that I was in a state of utter contempt for P&W after DAD, and after seeing CR for the 4th time I have to say they've made up for it.
Well, I'm with you most of the way - the first hour or so of DAD isn't too bad. Cr is a great script and, IMO, the best that P&W have managed so far - but just how much of that is down to Haggis ?
Good point, and watching DAD again a few days ago I did notice that the beginning wasn't horrible. The fencing scene IMO will go down as perhaps one of the greatest scenes in the franchise. But once they end up at the ice palcace everything they had going for them melted away before their eyes.
As for the suit case, I'm of the opinion that they wouldn't get too deep into any stories that happened in the previous film, maybe references. The suitcase showing up in Mr. White's hand struck me at first, but soon afterwards I was caught up in the story again so it didn't bother me much.
"Guns make me nervous!"
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
Good point, and watching DAD again a few days ago I did notice that the beginning wasn't horrible. The fencing scene IMO will go down as perhaps one of the greatest scenes in the franchise.
IMO, the fencing scene in DAD is one of the single worst scenes in the entire franchise - I can't understand why people like it so much ?:)
There is no conviction to their moves and you can clearly see one wait for the other to get their sword in position - horrible, horrible, horrible X-(
IMO, the fencing scene in DAD is one of the single worst scenes in the entire franchise - I can't understand why people like it so much ?:)
There is no conviction to their moves and you can clearly see one wait for the other to get their sword in position - horrible, horrible, horrible X-(
It's not a brilliant scene but I like it because it's an opportunity for Bond to engage in hand-to-hand combat (Well, except he's using a sword.) It's the best scene in DAD IMO.
As for the first half, well, I think that the only good thing about the first half is that it isn't the second half.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Well, I don't think he's particularly chicken feed, as might play out in Bond 22. However, that is one of the flaws of the film. He's obviously a baddie, but is he THE baddie? Not in CR. Le Chiffre got to torture bond. Gettler put a gun to Vesper's head. Demetrios tried to blow up an airliner. We never truly get a picture of who he is, which to me makes the ending too ambiguous when Bond shoots him in the leg and utter's his iconic line. We can assume that he's a really nasty guy...but the audience shouldn't have to do that. I could have stayed home and assumed what happens in the whole movie and saved myself the price of admission. If you want me to cheer Bond, I'm going to need him to do a lot more than shoot some old guy in the leg. I need to see him be victorious over an enemy that would appear to have Bond down for the count.
I'm sorry Darenhat, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Are you telling me in all seriousness that in, say FRWL, the best the audience could do was "assume" that the guy stroking the goddamn cat was the big cheese in the story, the power behind the throne, while Klebb and Kronsteen were minor players? I think it was obvious that he was and that it was obvious to the audience, too. And it's just as obvious in Mr. White's case. This is exactly the kind of unreasonable complaint that I'm talking about. Maybe EON should put a big sign on Mr. White's neck in Bond 22 that says "great big bad guy" so the audience can figure it out. I'm accused of questionning people's intelligence, but what I'm really questionning is the sincerity of that kind of criticism. It goes beyond common sense. It's one thing to not care for P&W's writing (I'm not familiar with them beyond CR, so you may be right in a general sense), but it's another to let that general perception color your opinion of CR. It deserves a fair shake on its merits. I get the feeling they could have written "War and Peace" and you'd say it sucked.
Well, apparently you didn't read my post. I said it was obvious that he was bad. But in FRWL we actually see 'Blofeld' giving orders, setting up the plot to bring down Bond, ordering Kronsteen's death, and sending Klebb on a mission to kill. Mr White on the other hand really just hangs out in the background. The flaw in the writing is this: the film ends with Bond standing over Mr. White and uttering the name 'James Bond', but the story fails to set the stage for that point. The film spends a great deal of time setting up Le Chiffre as the bad guy, some time letting us get to know Demetrios, even the Uganda freedom fighter gets adequate coverage, so there's some payoff for the audience when we see these characters 'get theirs'. When I say 'THE baddie' I primarily mean the 'focus' of the story. I know White is a bad guy, but the confrontation at the end has no drama in it because the story switched gears from the characters the audience had been focusing on for the past two hours.
Bond didn't confront Blofeld in FRWL. Perhaps the reason for that is the screenwriter's knew that the audience would be more interested in seeing Bond take out Grant, Klebb, and the other SPECTRE agents who he actually faced in the film.
The point of my post was that ending lacked any dramatic punch for me simply becuase I wasn't sitting on the edge of my seat through the whole moving saying "I can't wait to see Bond get that Mr White guy!"
Well here's another plot hole! Bond should actually be THANKING Mr White because didn't he come in and save his life and knackers by shooting Le Chiffre.
IMO, the fencing scene in DAD is one of the single worst scenes in the entire franchise - I can't understand why people like it so much ?:)
There is no conviction to their moves and you can clearly see one wait for the other to get their sword in position - horrible, horrible, horrible X-(
Anyway....back on track.
back off-track...
I disliked that scene simply for the sheer over-acting. Brosnan must have thought that snarling through the whole scene would heighten it, but it seemed very out of character.
And the way they smash up the place, priceless pictures, like it's funny and no one in the place is gonna get miffed, it's like a Walt Disney film, and Brosnan looking all tubby like a teddy bear opposite a lithe Stephens, but still winning the duel.
Perhaps I just liked that scene because in the mess of all the others that comprise of DAD, this one stood out as one of the only at least halfway decent ones. As such, through my desperate search for something good about DAD, I overrated this particular scene.
As such, through my desperate search for something good about DAD, I overrated this particular scene.
Kudos! I thought it was a great idea for a scene...amd very typical in the Bond formula where Bond meets the villian for the first time in some type of competitive setting, like the golf game in GF or the backgammon game in OP. Unfortunately in the sword fight, Bond seemed unreasonably angry at Graves. One of the things I like about Bond is that he portrays the ability to win or lose gracefully. In the swordfight, I envisioned Brosnan pitching a fit like a child if he were to lose. In fact, it seemed Graves was more gracious than Bond after the duel.
Well, apparently you didn't read my post. I said it was obvious that he was bad. But in FRWL we actually see 'Blofeld' giving orders, setting up the plot to bring down Bond, ordering Kronsteen's death, and sending Klebb on a mission to kill. Mr White on the other hand really just hangs out in the background. The flaw in the writing is this: the film ends with Bond standing over Mr. White and uttering the name 'James Bond', but the story fails to set the stage for that point. The film spends a great deal of time setting up Le Chiffre as the bad guy, some time letting us get to know Demetrios, even the Uganda freedom fighter gets adequate coverage, so there's some payoff for the audience when we see these characters 'get theirs'. When I say 'THE baddie' I primarily mean the 'focus' of the story. I know White is a bad guy, but the confrontation at the end has no drama in it because the story switched gears from the characters the audience had been focusing on for the past two hours.
Bond didn't confront Blofeld in FRWL. Perhaps the reason for that is the screenwriter's knew that the audience would be more interested in seeing Bond take out Grant, Klebb, and the other SPECTRE agents who he actually faced in the film.
The point of my post was that ending lacked any dramatic punch for me simply becuase I wasn't sitting on the edge of my seat through the whole moving saying "I can't wait to see Bond get that Mr White guy!"
I'm not sure you read your own posts. Practically every point you make about the handling of Blofeld in FRWL, a film that I assume was dramatically satisfying for you, could be said about Mr. White's character in CR: we see at the beginning of the film that Mr. White's organization arranged the meeting between LC and the Ugandans; he not only orders but personally kills LC, telling him his organization values trust more than money; he "hangs out in the background," like Blofeld in FRWL, etc ...
Now I'll grant you: Mr. White didn't have that darn cat. (Memo to P&W: heighten drama, introduce fluffy kitten into Bond 22 script) )
But if I understand you correctly, if FRWL, like CR, had a coda and Bond had somehow obtained a line on Blofeld's whereabouts and confronted him just before the end credits -- keeping in mind that a direct sequel was to follow -- the "dramatic punch" of everything that came before would have been muted? The whole Klebb-Kronsteen angle -- the "focus" of the FRWL story that you say audiences were primarily interested in, just as the LC-Vesper-poker game is the focus of CR -- would have been diminished? I think most people's reaction would be "Wow ... I can't wait for the next movie to find out more about this Blofeld guy ... " But if that isn't sitting on the edge of your seat, I don't know what is.
Maybe, but why would a Blofeld type character personally take out Le Chiffre? Surely he'd delegate it, makes White seem more like a cog in a machine, esp as that's how it is in the book... a middle man at best. Can't prove that mind, besides the Reservoir Dogs-style name also gives a lowly impression...
Here's another plothole for you 'hopes... and I reckon it's a good one! (I don't have time today to address your splentic tirade, it's busy at the moment... )
How do the terrorists get the money transferred? Bond keys in the mysterious password, and as it's Vesper's dodgy account number, then ta-da!
So if that's the case, why on earth did they need to fake kidnap Vesper, torture Bond and so on to get him to hand over the password? Why not just wait for him to do what he later does anyway while recuperating, which is key in the password and it's done.
But if I understand you correctly, if FRWL, like CR, had a coda and Bond had somehow obtained a line on Blofeld's whereabouts and confronted him just before the end credits -- keeping in mind that a direct sequel was to follow -- the "dramatic punch" of everything that came before would have been muted? The whole Klebb-Kronsteen angle -- the "focus" of the FRWL story that you say audiences were primarily interested in, just as the LC-Vesper-poker game is the focus of CR -- would have been diminished? I think most people's reaction would be "Wow ... I can't wait for the next movie to find out more about this Blofeld guy ... " But if that isn't sitting on the edge of your seat, I don't know what is.
Everything you say about FRWL is correct. Why is that film more dramatically satisfying for me than CR? Because the emphasis was in Bond snatching the cipher machine and foiling SPECTRE's plan to defame Bond. Bond achieved that. What was the emphasis of CR? I can see two. The first one was to defeat LC at the casino. Bond does that. Yippee! The second, and I would consider it equally as important, was to tell a story about Bond's tragic relationship with Vesper. The story does that, albeit not as satisfactorily as the first IMO. These are the two 'storylines' which, and perhaps you see it differently, are the most important. But the film seems to put too much emphasis on the confrontation of Mr. White. I think it inevitable that Bond face Mr. White, but not at the ending of CR. In the early films, Bond never physically confronted Blofeld until the fifth film. Over a period of five films, we learn more about SPECTRE and we have an evolving animosity towards the character. With Mr. White?...only a few minutes of screen time...not enough for me to cheer Bond and say 'WAY TO GO!'. And since Bond had no connection or idea that Mr. White even existed, the relevance of 007 saying "Bond, James Bond" at the end seemed to me to fall flat. I half suspect that the editor cut the film just as Mr. White was about to say. "Yeah, so what?"
The ending simply played out awful for me. It would have been better IMO had they ended the film with Vesper's suicide note and Bond returning to the service. Save Mr. White for a later film. Just like they did with guy with the cat.
On that same note, I noticed the last time I saw the film that when Vesper and Bond were underwater just before Vesper dies, she kissed bond's "little finger." And I believe Vesper's comment after the "perfectly formed arse" one ("even accountants have imaginations") explains that she hadn't yet seen it, she was just "imagining."
As such, through my desperate search for something good about DAD, I overrated this particular scene.
I don't think you did. I think it is a very good scene, albeit not among the all-time greats. I also think that Brosnan's performance in it was absolutely fine. It was Toby Stephen's performance that was horrifying; he came across to me as a spoilt brat. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
......How do the terrorists get the money transferred? Bond keys in the mysterious password, and as it's Vesper's dodgy account number, then ta-da!
So if that's the case, why on earth did they need to fake kidnap Vesper, torture Bond and so on to get him to hand over the password? Why not just wait for him to do what he later does anyway while recuperating, which is key in the password and it's done.
Or am I missing something?
?:)
I know what you are getting at with this, on face value it could appear that it was more to do with dramatic licence and fitting in of the torture scene as part of the book than necessity to the plot.
However, LC knows he has lost. He knows that Bond is the key to the money. The Ugandans are dead which he knows as he has seen them from the window of his hotel but the LRA obviously have a next in line who would still be looking for the money. LC had promised them that he would have the money 'tomorrow' when Valenka lures him to the room.
One would assume that the Freedom Fighters Fund that LC is punting with is not just the LRA money so he would be keen to get the funds back where they should be to provide his famed worldwide access to it - you can't get to money that isn't there.
I take it to be that LC wanted the money asap. Their initial plan was to kidnap Vesper and wait for Bond to hand over the password and then release/kill Vesper - standard hostage plot stuff which they are assuming would be a quick thing as he would be concerned for her welfare. Instead Bond catches them in the act and pursues. He swerves, gets captured, we all know the rest .
[Everything you say about FRWL is correct. Why is that film more dramatically satisfying for me than CR? Because the emphasis was in Bond snatching the cipher machine and foiling SPECTRE's plan to defame Bond. Bond achieved that. What was the emphasis of CR? I can see two. The first one was to defeat LC at the casino. Bond does that. Yippee! The second, and I would consider it equally as important, was to tell a story about Bond's tragic relationship with Vesper. The story does that, albeit not as satisfactorily as the first IMO. These are the two 'storylines' which, and perhaps you see it differently, are the most important.
I'm with you -- those are indeed the "stories" of CR.
But the film seems to put too much emphasis on the confrontation of Mr. White. I think it inevitable that Bond face Mr. White, but not at the ending of CR. In the early films, Bond never physically confronted Blofeld until the fifth film. Over a period of five films, we learn more about SPECTRE and we have an evolving animosity towards the character. With Mr. White?...only a few minutes of screen time...not enough for me to cheer Bond and say 'WAY TO GO!'. And since Bond had no connection or idea that Mr. White even existed, the relevance of 007 saying "Bond, James Bond" at the end seemed to me to fall flat. I half suspect that the editor cut the film just as Mr. White was about to say. "Yeah, so what?"
The ending simply played out awful for me. It would have been better IMO had they ended the film with Vesper's suicide note and Bond returning to the service. Save Mr. White for a later film. Just like they did with guy with the cat.
And preferring they they save Mr. White for the next film is fair enough. But that's a simple editorial decision by the writers and filmmakers. I happened to like it, in large part because those kinds of endings (Bond unconscious and perhaps dead at the end of FRWL) are the province of the books, not the movies. Remember -- the genesis of our whole discussion is that I took exception to the ending being characterized as leaving "a plot hole." (i.e. a mistake) It's not -- it's a story thread that will be picked up in the next film, just as Dr. No (the novel) picks up with Bond's recuperation from Klebb's near fatal stabbing.
Why would a Blofeld type character personally take out Le Chiffre? Surely he'd delegate it, makes White seem more like a cog in a machine, esp as that's how it is in the book... a middle man at best. Can't prove that mind, besides the Reservoir Dogs-style name also gives a lowly impression...
You're right. I'm not suggesting, nor does the movie, that Mr. White is the top man in his organization the way that Blofeld was to SPECTRE, only that Mr. White represented a shadowy group that is higher on the food chain than LeChiffre [/quote]
Here's another plothole for you 'hopes... and I reckon it's a good one! (I don't have time today to address your splentic tirade, it's busy at the moment... )
No need. My spleen is rhetorically powered.
[quote=napoleonplural}How do the terrorists get the money transferred? Bond keys in the mysterious password, and as it's Vesper's dodgy account number, then ta-da!
So if that's the case, why on earth did they need to fake kidnap Vesper, torture Bond and so on to get him to hand over the password? Why not just wait for him to do what he later does anyway while recuperating, which is key in the password and it's done.
Or am I missing something?
?:)[/quote]
You certainly are, as we all are: we know there was at least one double-cross, but exactly how it transpired -- the precise sequence of events, motivations and alliances -- is not crystal clear and could go several ways. Which, BTW, is not such a stretch in the world of espionnage. CR is the first Bond film in years in which there is actually some real intrigue. I think that is what will be explained by Vesper in Bond 22, which is why Green is slated to be back.
This is an edit:
Sorry I couldn't be more specific about your plothole, NP: I was on my way to the gym at the time. But here a theory (and it's just one of several scenarios):
Vesper was recruited by LeChiffre and blackmailed. Her role in the affair was pretty simple: she was not to give Bond the additional buy-in. That's it. By doing so, she could save her boyfriend's life and no one at MI6 would suspect that she was in cahoots with LC. There was no phony bank account number from LeChiffre. Had LC given her a phony bank number and told her to enter it into the computer, it would have alerted MI6 that she was a traitor. She would no doubt have balked at such an arrangement, and besides, LC never really doubted he would win the game. She was just a little bit of an edge, just in case (and this really is not P&W's conceit, it's Fleming's: LC seems to believe the only possible outcomes are that either he or Bond will win -- none of the other players has a chance). There's another angle as well: it might be nice to have a "mole" in MI6, so why would LC want her busted if he doesn't have to?
The phony account number that she enters into te machine, if you ask me, is Mr. White's. He gave it to her in the barge when she made the deal to save Bond's life. Mr. White witdraws the money and places it in the suitcase we see him carry off, while Vesper takes an empty one to Gettler (an LC accomplice?), expecting -- as M suggests -- to lose her life.
Hmm. So no explanation - at least not for a couple of years! And even then probably not...
What a shame Campbell didn't return for TND after GE. Then he could have explained that the Russians had a prototype tank with a jet engine, thus explaining how Bond was able to get it onto the railway tracks ahead of Trevelyn's speeding locomotive...
Hmm. So no explanation - at least not for a couple of years! And even then probably not...
What a shame Campbell didn't return for TND after GE. Then he could have explained that the Russians had a prototype tank with a jet engine, thus explaining how Bond was able to get it onto the railway tracks ahead of Trevelyn's speeding locomotive...
I know this is off topic, but if you read Gardner's Goldeneye (Based in the movie of the same name and in the scrip written by that guy who wrote it) there are LOTS of answers about that and how Bond and Natalya, who were chasen by Russian Military and Police leave Russia. but yes, is a ahame neither the scriptwriters or the director worked again. there is NO CONTINUATION between Brosnan Films (but that sees to be a long flaw in the series)
what i mean is than the script (probably) had that explained (beats me is that's Gardner imagination though) as probably it does in CR, but in order to make the movie they put that away... it really beats me.
Vesper was captured not for the account (remember Mendel says that it can be transferred to any account they give) but to get a password from Bond. if he just killed her in the road, i believe he would kind of stop to see her and ... there you go, he gets captured. i don't think she was working for Le Chiffre.
Mr. White is Mister White, probably is married with Mrs black and had a little child (young Grey).. i mean, he might be nobody... a nobody who happen to work in a hardly legal but big organization that does bag things (as using Le Chiffre to get funds) and won't stop to make what it does. and what it does' is that answer that MI6 looks for.
In that order of ideas... why Le Chiffre gets Ugandan Freedom Fighters' money in the fist place... why he didn't get a loan from a bank? Why the evil Organization (which is not Ellipsis, that's a password-) go in illegal things like -again- Ugandan Freedom Fighters? and if they do, why MI6 won't go after them?
Bond confronting Mr White is more like a vendetta, but he will get some info that it will work in Bond 22.
I will be verry disappointed if Bond 22 pretends that CR didn't exist (like, you know, going after a media magnate, an oil family kidnappers or that sort of enemies instead the one they are fighting right now)
P.S. regarding the acting in DAD, the fencing part was more than ok, is like the last part of the movie that has sense
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
I will be verry disappointed if Bond 22 pretends that CR didn't exist (like, you know, going after a media magnate, an oil family kidnappers or that sort of enemies instead the one they are fighting right now)
Then you won't be disappointed - Bond22will continue from where CR left off
Then you won't be disappointed - Bond22will continue from where CR left off
I know is hard to think of it, but maybe (why not) the end of CR will appear in the PTS of Bond 22, - like it was intended in OHMSS and DAF - well, is not the same but you get my point (like somebody questioning Mr White)
Comments
Well, I don't think he's particularly chicken feed, as might play out in Bond 22. However, that is one of the flaws of the film. He's obviously a baddie, but is he THE baddie? Not in CR. Le Chiffre got to torture bond. Gettler put a gun to Vesper's head. Demetrios tried to blow up an airliner. We never truly get a picture of who he is, which to me makes the ending too ambiguous when Bond shoots him in the leg and utter's his iconic line. We can assume that he's a really nasty guy...but the audience shouldn't have to do that. I could have stayed home and assumed what happens in the whole movie and saved myself the price of admission. If you want me to cheer Bond, I'm going to need him to do a lot more than shoot some old guy in the leg. I need to see him be victorious over an enemy that would appear to have Bond down for the count.
Could Vesper not have met LeChiffre before, perhaps through her boyfriend ? Surely that's not too much of a stretch ?
Remember that M tells Bond that some organisation kidnapped Vesper's boyfriend to put pressure on her.
Next problem please
Didn't Mr White kill LeChiffre and some of his thugs ? That's pretty nasty - unless it stops you having your bits whacked by a heavy rope
Perfect isn't the issue, appropriate is. CR is a good film with a tight script for what it is--a Bond movie--IMO. Nobody yells like Tarzan in it, which IMHO is about as 180 degrees wrong for a Bond film as can be. I've said CR is flawed, as you so rightly point out that all movies are. The "flaws" being discussed in this thread, I don't see them as flaws, that's all. If people don't like the film, for whatever reason, fine. I was merely making a point about MY acceptable/non-acceptable flaws in a Bond film, and that I just didn't see any flip-me-out-of-my-seat ones in CR. Dopey sillyness in a Bond film drives me nuts, I just never remember Fleming ever writing Bond like that. I also never remember him rewriting the same save-the-world plot over and over and over...stuff like that.
Personally, I believe there was just the one suitcase, and Mr. White ended up with it. Magic? Great fly fishing skills? A big magnet? I don't care, it was a great moment, Bond crying over his lost love and the bad guy getting away (for the moment
I like that. That's a good explanation of the ending timeline. It's a pity they didn't do it that way. Your right, it would have been good writing...if it had actually been written. EON should put you on their payroll.
I'm sorry Darenhat, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Are you telling me in all seriousness that in, say FRWL, the best the audience could do was "assume" that the guy stroking the goddamn cat was the big cheese in the story, the power behind the throne, while Klebb and Kronsteen were minor players? I think it was obvious that he was and that it was obvious to the audience, too. And it's just as obvious in Mr. White's case. This is exactly the kind of unreasonable complaint that I'm talking about. Maybe EON should put a big sign on Mr. White's neck in Bond 22 that says "great big bad guy" so the audience can figure it out. I'm accused of questionning people's intelligence, but what I'm really questionning is the sincerity of that kind of criticism. It goes beyond common sense. It's one thing to not care for P&W's writing (I'm not familiar with them beyond CR, so you may be right in a general sense), but it's another to let that general perception color your opinion of CR. It deserves a fair shake on its merits. I get the feeling they could have written "War and Peace" and you'd say it sucked.
Honestly, though, I must admit that I was in a state of utter contempt for P&W after DAD, and after seeing CR for the 4th time I have to say they've made up for it.
Actually, that not a half bad idea ... (Somewhere in cyberspace, Purvis and Wade are frantically scribbling down your concept ...)
Well, I'm with you most of the way - the first hour or so of DAD isn't too bad.
Cr is a great script and, IMO, the best that P&W have managed so far - but just how much of that is down to Haggis ?
Good point, and watching DAD again a few days ago I did notice that the beginning wasn't horrible. The fencing scene IMO will go down as perhaps one of the greatest scenes in the franchise. But once they end up at the ice palcace everything they had going for them melted away before their eyes.
As for the suit case, I'm of the opinion that they wouldn't get too deep into any stories that happened in the previous film, maybe references. The suitcase showing up in Mr. White's hand struck me at first, but soon afterwards I was caught up in the story again so it didn't bother me much.
IMO, the fencing scene in DAD is one of the single worst scenes in the entire franchise - I can't understand why people like it so much ?:)
There is no conviction to their moves and you can clearly see one wait for the other to get their sword in position - horrible, horrible, horrible X-(
Anyway....back on track.
As for the first half, well, I think that the only good thing about the first half is that it isn't the second half.
Well, apparently you didn't read my post. I said it was obvious that he was bad. But in FRWL we actually see 'Blofeld' giving orders, setting up the plot to bring down Bond, ordering Kronsteen's death, and sending Klebb on a mission to kill. Mr White on the other hand really just hangs out in the background. The flaw in the writing is this: the film ends with Bond standing over Mr. White and uttering the name 'James Bond', but the story fails to set the stage for that point. The film spends a great deal of time setting up Le Chiffre as the bad guy, some time letting us get to know Demetrios, even the Uganda freedom fighter gets adequate coverage, so there's some payoff for the audience when we see these characters 'get theirs'. When I say 'THE baddie' I primarily mean the 'focus' of the story. I know White is a bad guy, but the confrontation at the end has no drama in it because the story switched gears from the characters the audience had been focusing on for the past two hours.
Bond didn't confront Blofeld in FRWL. Perhaps the reason for that is the screenwriter's knew that the audience would be more interested in seeing Bond take out Grant, Klebb, and the other SPECTRE agents who he actually faced in the film.
The point of my post was that ending lacked any dramatic punch for me simply becuase I wasn't sitting on the edge of my seat through the whole moving saying "I can't wait to see Bond get that Mr White guy!"
Daniel Craig - the graceless, ungrateful Bond.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
back off-track...
I disliked that scene simply for the sheer over-acting. Brosnan must have thought that snarling through the whole scene would heighten it, but it seemed very out of character.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Kudos! I thought it was a great idea for a scene...amd very typical in the Bond formula where Bond meets the villian for the first time in some type of competitive setting, like the golf game in GF or the backgammon game in OP. Unfortunately in the sword fight, Bond seemed unreasonably angry at Graves. One of the things I like about Bond is that he portrays the ability to win or lose gracefully. In the swordfight, I envisioned Brosnan pitching a fit like a child if he were to lose. In fact, it seemed Graves was more gracious than Bond after the duel.
I'm not sure you read your own posts. Practically every point you make about the handling of Blofeld in FRWL, a film that I assume was dramatically satisfying for you, could be said about Mr. White's character in CR: we see at the beginning of the film that Mr. White's organization arranged the meeting between LC and the Ugandans; he not only orders but personally kills LC, telling him his organization values trust more than money; he "hangs out in the background," like Blofeld in FRWL, etc ...
Now I'll grant you: Mr. White didn't have that darn cat. (Memo to P&W: heighten drama, introduce fluffy kitten into Bond 22 script)
But if I understand you correctly, if FRWL, like CR, had a coda and Bond had somehow obtained a line on Blofeld's whereabouts and confronted him just before the end credits -- keeping in mind that a direct sequel was to follow -- the "dramatic punch" of everything that came before would have been muted? The whole Klebb-Kronsteen angle -- the "focus" of the FRWL story that you say audiences were primarily interested in, just as the LC-Vesper-poker game is the focus of CR -- would have been diminished? I think most people's reaction would be "Wow ... I can't wait for the next movie to find out more about this Blofeld guy ... " But if that isn't sitting on the edge of your seat, I don't know what is.
Here's another plothole for you 'hopes... and I reckon it's a good one! (I don't have time today to address your splentic tirade, it's busy at the moment...
How do the terrorists get the money transferred? Bond keys in the mysterious password, and as it's Vesper's dodgy account number, then ta-da!
So if that's the case, why on earth did they need to fake kidnap Vesper, torture Bond and so on to get him to hand over the password? Why not just wait for him to do what he later does anyway while recuperating, which is key in the password and it's done.
Or am I missing something?
?:)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Everything you say about FRWL is correct. Why is that film more dramatically satisfying for me than CR? Because the emphasis was in Bond snatching the cipher machine and foiling SPECTRE's plan to defame Bond. Bond achieved that. What was the emphasis of CR? I can see two. The first one was to defeat LC at the casino. Bond does that. Yippee! The second, and I would consider it equally as important, was to tell a story about Bond's tragic relationship with Vesper. The story does that, albeit not as satisfactorily as the first IMO. These are the two 'storylines' which, and perhaps you see it differently, are the most important. But the film seems to put too much emphasis on the confrontation of Mr. White. I think it inevitable that Bond face Mr. White, but not at the ending of CR. In the early films, Bond never physically confronted Blofeld until the fifth film. Over a period of five films, we learn more about SPECTRE and we have an evolving animosity towards the character. With Mr. White?...only a few minutes of screen time...not enough for me to cheer Bond and say 'WAY TO GO!'. And since Bond had no connection or idea that Mr. White even existed, the relevance of 007 saying "Bond, James Bond" at the end seemed to me to fall flat. I half suspect that the editor cut the film just as Mr. White was about to say. "Yeah, so what?"
The ending simply played out awful for me. It would have been better IMO had they ended the film with Vesper's suicide note and Bond returning to the service. Save Mr. White for a later film. Just like they did with guy with the cat.
I know what you are getting at with this, on face value it could appear that it was more to do with dramatic licence and fitting in of the torture scene as part of the book than necessity to the plot.
However, LC knows he has lost. He knows that Bond is the key to the money. The Ugandans are dead which he knows as he has seen them from the window of his hotel but the LRA obviously have a next in line who would still be looking for the money. LC had promised them that he would have the money 'tomorrow' when Valenka lures him to the room.
One would assume that the Freedom Fighters Fund that LC is punting with is not just the LRA money so he would be keen to get the funds back where they should be to provide his famed worldwide access to it - you can't get to money that isn't there.
I take it to be that LC wanted the money asap. Their initial plan was to kidnap Vesper and wait for Bond to hand over the password and then release/kill Vesper - standard hostage plot stuff which they are assuming would be a quick thing as he would be concerned for her welfare. Instead Bond catches them in the act and pursues. He swerves, gets captured, we all know the rest
I'm with you -- those are indeed the "stories" of CR.
And preferring they they save Mr. White for the next film is fair enough. But that's a simple editorial decision by the writers and filmmakers. I happened to like it, in large part because those kinds of endings (Bond unconscious and perhaps dead at the end of FRWL) are the province of the books, not the movies. Remember -- the genesis of our whole discussion is that I took exception to the ending being characterized as leaving "a plot hole." (i.e. a mistake) It's not -- it's a story thread that will be picked up in the next film, just as Dr. No (the novel) picks up with Bond's recuperation from Klebb's near fatal stabbing.
You're right. I'm not suggesting, nor does the movie, that Mr. White is the top man in his organization the way that Blofeld was to SPECTRE, only that Mr. White represented a shadowy group that is higher on the food chain than LeChiffre [/quote]
No need. My spleen is rhetorically powered.
[quote=napoleonplural}How do the terrorists get the money transferred? Bond keys in the mysterious password, and as it's Vesper's dodgy account number, then ta-da!
So if that's the case, why on earth did they need to fake kidnap Vesper, torture Bond and so on to get him to hand over the password? Why not just wait for him to do what he later does anyway while recuperating, which is key in the password and it's done.
Or am I missing something?
?:)[/quote]
You certainly are, as we all are: we know there was at least one double-cross, but exactly how it transpired -- the precise sequence of events, motivations and alliances -- is not crystal clear and could go several ways. Which, BTW, is not such a stretch in the world of espionnage. CR is the first Bond film in years in which there is actually some real intrigue. I think that is what will be explained by Vesper in Bond 22, which is why Green is slated to be back.
This is an edit:
Sorry I couldn't be more specific about your plothole, NP: I was on my way to the gym at the time. But here a theory (and it's just one of several scenarios):
Vesper was recruited by LeChiffre and blackmailed. Her role in the affair was pretty simple: she was not to give Bond the additional buy-in. That's it. By doing so, she could save her boyfriend's life and no one at MI6 would suspect that she was in cahoots with LC. There was no phony bank account number from LeChiffre. Had LC given her a phony bank number and told her to enter it into the computer, it would have alerted MI6 that she was a traitor. She would no doubt have balked at such an arrangement, and besides, LC never really doubted he would win the game. She was just a little bit of an edge, just in case (and this really is not P&W's conceit, it's Fleming's: LC seems to believe the only possible outcomes are that either he or Bond will win -- none of the other players has a chance). There's another angle as well: it might be nice to have a "mole" in MI6, so why would LC want her busted if he doesn't have to?
The phony account number that she enters into te machine, if you ask me, is Mr. White's. He gave it to her in the barge when she made the deal to save Bond's life. Mr. White witdraws the money and places it in the suitcase we see him carry off, while Vesper takes an empty one to Gettler (an LC accomplice?), expecting -- as M suggests -- to lose her life.
What a shame Campbell didn't return for TND after GE. Then he could have explained that the Russians had a prototype tank with a jet engine, thus explaining how Bond was able to get it onto the railway tracks ahead of Trevelyn's speeding locomotive...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I know this is off topic, but if you read Gardner's Goldeneye (Based in the movie of the same name and in the scrip written by that guy who wrote it) there are LOTS of answers about that and how Bond and Natalya, who were chasen by Russian Military and Police leave Russia. but yes, is a ahame neither the scriptwriters or the director worked again. there is NO CONTINUATION between Brosnan Films (but that sees to be a long flaw in the series)
what i mean is than the script (probably) had that explained (beats me is that's Gardner imagination though) as probably it does in CR, but in order to make the movie they put that away... it really beats me.
Vesper was captured not for the account (remember Mendel says that it can be transferred to any account they give) but to get a password from Bond. if he just killed her in the road, i believe he would kind of stop to see her and ... there you go, he gets captured. i don't think she was working for Le Chiffre.
Mr. White is Mister White, probably is married with Mrs black and had a little child (young Grey).. i mean, he might be nobody... a nobody who happen to work in a hardly legal but big organization that does bag things (as using Le Chiffre to get funds) and won't stop to make what it does. and what it does' is that answer that MI6 looks for.
In that order of ideas... why Le Chiffre gets Ugandan Freedom Fighters' money in the fist place... why he didn't get a loan from a bank? Why the evil Organization (which is not Ellipsis, that's a password-) go in illegal things like -again- Ugandan Freedom Fighters? and if they do, why MI6 won't go after them?
Bond confronting Mr White is more like a vendetta, but he will get some info that it will work in Bond 22.
I will be verry disappointed if Bond 22 pretends that CR didn't exist (like, you know, going after a media magnate, an oil family kidnappers or that sort of enemies instead the one they are fighting right now)
P.S. regarding the acting in DAD, the fencing part was more than ok, is like the last part of the movie that has sense
Then you won't be disappointed - Bond22 will continue from where CR left off
I know is hard to think of it, but maybe (why not) the end of CR will appear in the PTS of Bond 22, - like it was intended in OHMSS and DAF - well, is not the same but you get my point (like somebody questioning Mr White)
And even if there are explanation's there is no guarantee that they will be to one's satisfaction.
My advice, for what it's worth, is don't expect to get all the answers in Bond 22. Otherwise, you are liable to be disappointed.