Myth of Unreality
chrisno1
LondonPosts: 3,601MI6 Agent
We had a discussion about how unrealistic movies are today (we'd just seen Unstoppable), during which one of my mates raised the issue of Bond films not being particularly realistic, especially as the plots were all ridiculous. As it was a social occasion I uttered some insignificant reply and held my thoughts, otherwise I'd be hogging the conversation for an hour trying to justify my point.
My point is: consider each movie in turn and with only FIVE exceptions, there is hardly anything unrealistic in Bond movies; over the top maybe, but in terms of plotting they are remarkably grounded.
DR NO: missile toppling - not unknown; certainly No's hideout and the reactor room are extravagant but if you consdier the technology available both then and now, it is not outside the realm of possiblity.
FROM RUSSIA...: very realistic. There is nothing unlikely here.
GOLDFINGER: okay, the gadgets are far fetched (but they did work - allbeit in stages) and the laser still feels a bit sci-fi (but not out of this world as we know) otherwise this is another very rounded and believable story. There are narrative flaws like the nerve gas, but nothing here is completely unfathomable.
THUNDERBALL: again, the gadgets all worked (except for the rebreather) and the plot is plausible. The narrative flaw with the facial surgery was a bit OTT in 1965, but doesn't feel so bizarre now.
ON HER MAJESTY'S: very down to earth.
LIVE AND LET DIE: I struggle to find anything ridulous in this one other than the stunts, and even they were performed for real! The plot is very believable.
GOLDEN GUN: Well, the solex-thingummy is very small, and the solar reactor seems undermanned, also seems a waste to utilize all that power on one laser gun, however generally this has a very acceptable plot.
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY: No issues here. ATAC sounds unlikely, but it isn't ever utilised in the movie.
OCTOPUSSY: Despite my hatred of this movie (Bond in a safari suit? ugh) I can't see anything untoward in its plot. It's a bit dense, but the premise is wholeheartedly realistic. This was exactly how people used to start wars, border skirmishing and false plots. The plot is probaby one of the better things about OP.
THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS: Confusing as hell, but very believable; arms selling in Afghanistan was a $$$ goldmine in the '80s and '90s and the heroin trade was always there. Very competent ideas.
LICENCE TO KILL: A basic revenge thriller. Stunts apart, very realistic.
TOMORROW NEVER DIES: Carver is a bit nuts and his method's are extreme, but his aim is patently believable. We all know he's based on Rupert Murdoch, but Murdoch wasn't the first media magnate and he won't be the last. I agree the stealth boat takes a pinch of salt, but we have stealth planes....
THE WORLD ...: Take away the stunts and we have a simple terrorist plot. While its locations are designed for visual impact, the basic elements are sound; industrial espionage on a massive scale. Not sure about the bullet in the brain idea, but isn't there a medical condition which prevents some people feeling pain?.
CASINO ROYALE: We might laugh at the tracer M injects in 007's arm, but we all laughed when people suggested mobile phones would become so tiny. There's nothing unlikely here, although it is made somewhat more detailed than necessary with the aeroplane /stock market stuff.
QUANTUM...: Again, I don't have any reason to disbelieve what I see on screen. Very acceptable.
ONE DADGY PREMISE:
A VIEW TO A KILL: I don't know the science. I don't think you could start an earthquake with a bomb, but I certainly think you could drown a valley - it's been done to make reservoirs - while I agree much of this film appears to be silly (stunts and gadgets) even the idea of living, breathing genetic experiments seems not outside the realm of science fact in 2010.
THE BONKERS PLOTS:
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE: I struggle to believe anything in this movie.
DIAMONDS...: Basically the massive laser controlled by a C60 cassette tape. Really? And the voice box jobby. Also, while I don't deny plastic surgery has come on in leaps and bounds, the method used in DAF still seems rather unlikely.
THE SPY WHO LOVED ME: Submarine tracking devices were well established, even before 1977, but the idea of an oil tanker being able to disable and capture one is hopeless. Oil tankers simply don't move or manoeuvre adroitly enough. Atlantis still looks too big and seems a very impracticle design. Jaws? I think not. The Lotus? Well, it worked using 3 different models, but in practice I don't think it's a realistic car.
MOONRAKER: No, no, definatley not.
GOLDENEYE: The science for the Goldeneye weapon is good, as I understand it neutering an enemy's communications network is standard practice in warfare, and electronic pulses (or whatever) are already being used on a smaller scale, but it all seems hopelessly off scale here.
DIE ANOTHER DAY: Less said.
So out of 22 movies that's a 75% positive return.
As far as I'm concerned there is certainly a 'Myth of Unreality': 75% of these films have plots which may appear to be somewhat daft, but actually have basis in sound solid fact.
My point is: consider each movie in turn and with only FIVE exceptions, there is hardly anything unrealistic in Bond movies; over the top maybe, but in terms of plotting they are remarkably grounded.
DR NO: missile toppling - not unknown; certainly No's hideout and the reactor room are extravagant but if you consdier the technology available both then and now, it is not outside the realm of possiblity.
FROM RUSSIA...: very realistic. There is nothing unlikely here.
GOLDFINGER: okay, the gadgets are far fetched (but they did work - allbeit in stages) and the laser still feels a bit sci-fi (but not out of this world as we know) otherwise this is another very rounded and believable story. There are narrative flaws like the nerve gas, but nothing here is completely unfathomable.
THUNDERBALL: again, the gadgets all worked (except for the rebreather) and the plot is plausible. The narrative flaw with the facial surgery was a bit OTT in 1965, but doesn't feel so bizarre now.
ON HER MAJESTY'S: very down to earth.
LIVE AND LET DIE: I struggle to find anything ridulous in this one other than the stunts, and even they were performed for real! The plot is very believable.
GOLDEN GUN: Well, the solex-thingummy is very small, and the solar reactor seems undermanned, also seems a waste to utilize all that power on one laser gun, however generally this has a very acceptable plot.
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY: No issues here. ATAC sounds unlikely, but it isn't ever utilised in the movie.
OCTOPUSSY: Despite my hatred of this movie (Bond in a safari suit? ugh) I can't see anything untoward in its plot. It's a bit dense, but the premise is wholeheartedly realistic. This was exactly how people used to start wars, border skirmishing and false plots. The plot is probaby one of the better things about OP.
THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS: Confusing as hell, but very believable; arms selling in Afghanistan was a $$$ goldmine in the '80s and '90s and the heroin trade was always there. Very competent ideas.
LICENCE TO KILL: A basic revenge thriller. Stunts apart, very realistic.
TOMORROW NEVER DIES: Carver is a bit nuts and his method's are extreme, but his aim is patently believable. We all know he's based on Rupert Murdoch, but Murdoch wasn't the first media magnate and he won't be the last. I agree the stealth boat takes a pinch of salt, but we have stealth planes....
THE WORLD ...: Take away the stunts and we have a simple terrorist plot. While its locations are designed for visual impact, the basic elements are sound; industrial espionage on a massive scale. Not sure about the bullet in the brain idea, but isn't there a medical condition which prevents some people feeling pain?.
CASINO ROYALE: We might laugh at the tracer M injects in 007's arm, but we all laughed when people suggested mobile phones would become so tiny. There's nothing unlikely here, although it is made somewhat more detailed than necessary with the aeroplane /stock market stuff.
QUANTUM...: Again, I don't have any reason to disbelieve what I see on screen. Very acceptable.
ONE DADGY PREMISE:
A VIEW TO A KILL: I don't know the science. I don't think you could start an earthquake with a bomb, but I certainly think you could drown a valley - it's been done to make reservoirs - while I agree much of this film appears to be silly (stunts and gadgets) even the idea of living, breathing genetic experiments seems not outside the realm of science fact in 2010.
THE BONKERS PLOTS:
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE: I struggle to believe anything in this movie.
DIAMONDS...: Basically the massive laser controlled by a C60 cassette tape. Really? And the voice box jobby. Also, while I don't deny plastic surgery has come on in leaps and bounds, the method used in DAF still seems rather unlikely.
THE SPY WHO LOVED ME: Submarine tracking devices were well established, even before 1977, but the idea of an oil tanker being able to disable and capture one is hopeless. Oil tankers simply don't move or manoeuvre adroitly enough. Atlantis still looks too big and seems a very impracticle design. Jaws? I think not. The Lotus? Well, it worked using 3 different models, but in practice I don't think it's a realistic car.
MOONRAKER: No, no, definatley not.
GOLDENEYE: The science for the Goldeneye weapon is good, as I understand it neutering an enemy's communications network is standard practice in warfare, and electronic pulses (or whatever) are already being used on a smaller scale, but it all seems hopelessly off scale here.
DIE ANOTHER DAY: Less said.
So out of 22 movies that's a 75% positive return.
As far as I'm concerned there is certainly a 'Myth of Unreality': 75% of these films have plots which may appear to be somewhat daft, but actually have basis in sound solid fact.
Comments
Those are incidentals to the overall arc of the story.
I agree I should have clarified exactly which part of the PLOT I am referring to.
I'm not talking about the narrative flow, which you refer to above, I'm talking about the PLOT, specifically the VILLIAN'S PLOT.
How they go about it, to greater or lesser degrees certainly has an air of unreality, as does how Bond foils it. The incidentals in a narrative are always where most plot holes arise!
The science of invisible camouflage (the most over the top Bond moment yet) doesn't seem like something humanity can rule out. But it definitely doesn't exist yet!
Heh. A movie in which Bond dresses as a clown and you have a problem with the safari suit?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Eg. In the Dr No novel Bond goes through an obsticle course which see's him go through various traps before falling off a cliff and into the sea where he battles a giant squid.
Similarly in FRWL Bond avoids being killed by putting a cigarette case against his heart to stop a bullet.
There are several others aswell. My point being that Fleming's novels were never about "realism".
"Realism" is overrated anyway.
When did Bond murder a special branch officer? He helped him off the roof at the opera, the guy was alive on Greene's car bonnet...
http://apbateman.com
I don't think you are far off the mark. I understand what you are saying if others do not. The basis is there, the fabrication merely makes it enjoyable.
http://apbateman.com
"Helped him off the roof" ?
Ah, but the clown outfit was a disguise!
My late brother had a safari suit and it didn't look right on him either.