pointless scenes
crawfordboon
Posts: 126MI6 Agent
If you think about when watching Bond, there are quite a number of scenes and sequences which, whilst interesting or exciting in their own right, have no bearing whatsoever on the plot and might as well not be in the film at all.
A good example is the casino scene in FYEO, before Bond meets Julian Glover. Sure we see Bond playing cards, but what does it add? We meet the COuntess here, but again it's for nothing because her character only meets Bond properly after his dinner with Kristatos.
What are the scenes you would pinpoint as being superluous to their main plot? A few suggestions would be the teasers of GF, MR, FYEO, and OP, the whole horse riding business in AVTAK, and the scene in DAF where Bond meets Leiter at the ar rental agency (as i Bond would have to rent his own car, what wasthat about?) to be told Tiffany has vanished - the very next scene Bond is Tiffany's house!
A good example is the casino scene in FYEO, before Bond meets Julian Glover. Sure we see Bond playing cards, but what does it add? We meet the COuntess here, but again it's for nothing because her character only meets Bond properly after his dinner with Kristatos.
What are the scenes you would pinpoint as being superluous to their main plot? A few suggestions would be the teasers of GF, MR, FYEO, and OP, the whole horse riding business in AVTAK, and the scene in DAF where Bond meets Leiter at the ar rental agency (as i Bond would have to rent his own car, what wasthat about?) to be told Tiffany has vanished - the very next scene Bond is Tiffany's house!
Comments
Some depth to the characterisation of Lisl and more interplay between her and 007, who will become lovers a few scenes later; sophistication; some mild humour; a change of pace felt necessary by the director and/or screenwriters. (But apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?)
And I never in a million years thought I'd be defending AVTAK, but the horseracing business is key to the story in that it gives Bond a cover to use when he investigates Zorin in France, it illustrates Zorin's eagerness to cheat to win, and the doping of the horses is a reflection of Zorin's own status as a genetically-enhanced "superior" being. Now, if you want something completely superfluous to that film, try the interlude with Pola Ivanova. She fails to steal the tape, so the plot is neither advanced nor changed; she's there just to provide a hot tub scene.
Hardy, I was so tempted to be happy with you but that last sentence just killed it.
Anyway, I'm really tempted to say all of LTK, but I'm not going to.
...And you call that pointless. tsk tsk!
"Forever hold your piece"
"Better make that two."
FRWL-The Helicopter chasing Bond.
Goldfinger-M talking to Leiter on the phone.
Thunderball-Bond turning up the heat on Count Lippe's steam bath.
YOLT-Bond getting his ticket for the Sumo Match.
OHMSS-Bond sitting at the dinner table with the girls for 2-3 hours telling them a boring story about geneology and the college of arms.
DAF-The obnoxious kid with the water gun at Circus Circus.
LALD-Leiter talking to an angry Mr. Bleeker on the phone, while Bond tries on some new ties.
TMWTGG-Pepper and the Elephant. "You Is Ugly."
TSWLM-The navy Leitenant seeing Anya in the shower.
Moonraker-The fight scene in the ambulence. All that product placement is annoying.
FYEO-The scene where Bond battles the hockey killers.
Octopussy-Magda asking the general how long would she be in prison if she stole his wallet.
AVTAK-The Russian babe Paula.
TLD- The scene where Necros fights that 00 agent in the kitchen.
LTK-The short scene where Truman Lodge and Sanchez are giving the Asains a tour through the bank.
GoldenEye-The Bond and Xenia chase after the title sequence. Although it is kind of fun, it still serves no purpose.
TND-Wai Lin karate fighting General Chang's men.
TWINE-The scene with the sexy doctor in the MI6 headquarters in Scotland section.
DAD-The Madonna cameo.
Casino Royale-Maybe the pre-title scene, but this is the film with the least number of pointless moments. I have only seen the film once, so I can not think of much at the moment. I'll just have to wait until the DVD.
I have often questioned whether you understood the Bond movies. Now I know for sure. You don't
Why was the spider in DN, other than to have Ken Adam build a cool interior? After all, it didn't kill Bond, so didn't advance the plot in any way. Come to think of it, why did they need Potter and Playdell-Smith? Potter was useless, and Playdell-Smith wasn't much help either. Dent and Strangways could have been playing gin at the club instead. And what about that annoying hotel desk clerk -- all she does is stare at Connery's backside...pointless!! And the dragon tank -- just an excuse to see Sean with no shirt and waste 30 minutes on some swamp scenes and a silly backstory for Honey. And Quarrel was in the film...why? To say "cap'n" a lot? To fetch Bond's shoes? To have that racist Terence Young shoot the whites of his eyes in darkness, as if he were Al Jolson in blackface?
There -- Dr. No is now 30 minutes long. No one need worry about having a nature call interrupt their enjoyment.
Stay tuned for my similar removal of pointless scenes from the other films! When I'm done, the Bond series will fit on a single DVD -- think of the saved shelf space!!!
Take the first 10 minutes of Dr. No. How does the interaction with Silvia advance the plot. From a pure plot perspective, it would have been more efficient to have Bond summoned from the club, show up immediately at MI6, then go to Jamaica. Why do we need leggy Silvia in Bond's shirt surprising him at his flat?
The answer is, of course, because that whole sequence establishes a mood and sense of who Bond is, and so it's unreasonable to imagine the movie without it. My problem is, I can't determine where "unreasonable" ends and "reasonable" begins.
I do agree that the visit to Tiffany's house is bizarre. But it's not a case of that scene being pointless or superfluous, but rather that the film was poorly edited. There was originally an explanation for how Bond found her house and why Plenty was in the pool.
No the gaming table scene sets up Lisl. She appears, overeggs Bunky into blowing his money, then disappears......
We are intrigued by this woman. Why did she do that? Why question a man so much he bets rashly.
Of course we find out in the next scene that she schills for the house.
How can you call a beautiful leading lady in a Bond movie pointless? It's an important aspect of the entire series. You may not like the characterization, fine. But to call the character pointless just illustrates that you don't buy into the fantasy element that the series has always had. Namely, that Bond is going to get involved with a beautiful woman before the mission is over. Obviously it fits well with your tendency to call term some of the events in the movies stupid, simply because you can't grasp the fantasy the movies are offering.
It's called entertainment. It may not be your cup of tea, but try looking at the big picture of what the series is. The very pointless Honey Rider started the trend that has continued through every movie. Pointless? No way. Good Night, Irene.
So that Bond can wind up with a girl in the end. If there was no Honey Ryder, he would have no love interest. There is nothing interesting about Bond being alone at the end of a film. That shouldn't be difficult to figure out.