Too much more focus on Bond's childhood, and any flashbacks, would just be too close to the depiction of Bruce Wayne's childhood in Batman Begins and subsequent Batmovies.
We don't need to explain Bond's behaviour as being the result of a traumatised childhood - he's not some driven, borderline psychologically- challenged individual like Batman. IMO Bond's parents' death made him become tough and independent - his service experience and unique inherent characteristics made him who he is (a double-O) ... And maybe a little intervention by Kincaid.
Yes, I agree. I think we've been given enough on Bond's background.
The problem is the story wanted to go there but just decided not to -- a cop out. Friends who are not Bond fans had no idea what was going on -- they got the gist that Bond was haunted somehow, but they didn't understand why. They couldn't even picture what his parents looked like. If they did the same thing with the action scenes -- with M telling us about a battle that Bond was fighting offscreen, for instance, instead of actually showing the battle -- people would see quickly that that is cheap storytelling. But glossing over emotional issues that were supposed to be central to the character's angst is the same thing and what keeps the Bond films from being truly great. Of course, this is hallmark of a John Logan script.
One of my disappointments with SKyfall was how glossed over Bond's past was. We basically get a little bit of dialogue and the Kincaid character that are somehow supposed to fill in significant details rather than just show us actual scenes. Good story is showing rather than telling.
Bad idea. Bond is not the kind of films where you show long flashbacks of the lead's childhood. Flashbacks has only been used once (in OHMSS) and only to visualize what was on Bond's mind. I think the little insights we got from dialogue was quite enough, not only because his childhood wasn't central to the plot but mainly because Bond's background should be a bit of a mystery.
Doesn't have to be long. Batman Begins, which the Bond reboots take a lot from, managed to do it in a few key scenes, and Bond wouldn't have needed half that amount of time. Just doing lip service to something that is supposed to be vital to the story is cheap storytelling, common as it is in the modern era.
Yes, but Bruce Wayne's childhood is central to Batman. James Bond's childhood, while not irrelevant, is not central to the 007 character.
Bad idea. Bond is not the kind of films where you show long flashbacks of the lead's childhood. Flashbacks has only been used once (in OHMSS) and only to visualize what was on Bond's mind. I think the little insights we got from dialogue was quite enough, not only because his childhood wasn't central to the plot but mainly because Bond's background should be a bit of a mystery.
Doesn't have to be long. Batman Begins, which the Bond reboots take a lot from, managed to do it in a few key scenes, and Bond wouldn't have needed half that amount of time. Just doing lip service to something that is supposed to be vital to the story is cheap storytelling, common as it is in the modern era.
Yes, but Bruce Wayne's childhood is central to Batman. James Bond's childhood, while not irrelevant, is not central to the 007 character.
I agree, and that's why I didn't have a problem with the way it was handled in Skyfall. That's also the reason I'm not keen on the idea of delving more into Bond's childhood in future films.
It's relevant if the story brings it up as a major component of the character arc; it's disappointing if the story brings it up as such but then only pays lip service to the idea.
I'd have preferred they not discuss it at all if they weren't willing to do more than lip service. In it's present form, Skyfall could easily have been written to have the climax take place somewhere else, even at Silva's abandoned headquarters. All it really needed was a remote location. Kincaid simply serves as a shortcut to Bond's past, so he could be written out. A reason I am not as impressed with Skyfall as others might be is that the script tries to dress up an otherwise fairly formulaic actioner with what appears to be depth.
Contrast this with Casino Royale, a better constructed story. The opening scene actually shows us Bond's first two kills -- to the degree that it is almost a flashback within a flashback. The title sequence gives us elements of this Bond's character and promotion to 00. Imagine if instead of those bits we'd just had a dialogue scene between M and Bond later, reminiscing about how Bond had almost botched his first assignment. Sure, for the sake of plot, we'd get it, but it certainly wouldn't have been as fulfilling. A similar approach would have been to cut to the first scene with White but just show him later killing LeChiffre. The audience would get from the line that they knew each other and LeChiffre screwed up, but they wouldn't have seen any hint of their relationship to that point. Story works best when it shows, not tells.
But Skyfall, as is typical of a Logan script, pulls this dodge and hustle several times: Silva explaining in expository dialogue the cyanide issue, for instance, or Bond telling M she knows the story of his childhood when the rest of us may not. It's a cheap way to not have to dramatize events.
Before someone says, "But they don't have time for all," my point would be to watch great films that take a couple of hours -- somehow, they manage to pull it off. It's all about the construction, and especially the writing. But if the writing lacks "meat," so will the final product. A good screenwriter can pull off in 15 minutes what a bad writer needs two hours to show.
It's relevant if the story brings it up as a major component of the character arc; it's disappointing if the story brings it up as such but then only pays lip service to the idea. (...) A good screenwriter can pull off in 15 minutes what a bad writer needs two hours to show.
Fantastic post Gassy Man. I couldn't have said it any better and because of that I never tried.
I've never considered myself to be that great at constructing my posts and wished I had the talent of being as succinct as many do, but as usual I'll end up just flaying about.
You bring up very good points on the SF scripting. However, from my own view, it didn't bother me in that respect any more than the rest of the series has.
There are many, many times after I've seen films I've enjoyed (not just this series) where the artist in me gets on my shoulder and whispers in my ear.."why did they DO that?", or "why didn't they just do this", or "why didn't they explain that?"...and on and on.
Now, the part of me that has cried out over the years for the series to show more of Fleming's Bond and his personal side - which Fleming actually does in the novels - has only been answered a few times:
OHMSS, obviously. GF - Bond playing golf (heaven forbid if they tried doing anything like that now). DN/LALD - Bond at his flat. These scenes did not take anything away from Bond being 007 for me, nor did I need there to be anything more added.
Fleming mentions Bond earning his 00 status via the two assassinations he performs, but he does not create them as scenes that needed to be part of the actual plot of any of the novels. However, in the film we actually see the wet work being done (though they differ from Fleming's version). Was this necessary? Not really, but it certainly gave the film a slam bang opening.
In SF, the death of Bond's parents and how it changed his childhood are made to be a pivotal point of the plot, his character and how he relates to M. Good grief, the title of the film is the name of his childhood home and where he end's up losing M and killing Silva.
So why not go into more detail over his parent's death and his childhood? Why not explain how they died, how he ended up in his aunt's custody? Why just do "window dressing" to give the appearance of a Bond film having more depth?
Because I believe the Bond series since the reboot is trying to walk a thin line between being the broad, commercially-appealing-to-all-entertainment that is has been for the past fifty years, while at the same time trying to appeal to the Fleming fans (who include the current producers, casts and crews on the productions).
Of course, this balance is going to seem a bit too much off kilter for some, and the writing is certainly not going to come up to snuff for many. I believe screenwriters often drop the ball when it comes to plotting when there are obviously clear and more logical solutions in the writing. If scripts go through so many rewrites as they usually do, how could there ever be any plot holes? Even the best novelists have tripped up in there plotting, and Fleming was not an exception.
I am one of those easily pleased masses who enjoyed SF thoroughly, especially the third act. I thought they brought just enough gravitas to Bond and his personal life to suit the film as it was. To go any deeper would have seemed too much out of the style of the series. Call it cheap window dressing, but for me it did not come across as a deceptive effort to just make the film more interesting. For me, it made Bond's character seem more real by adding an extra dimension to his character that had been in the novels but missing from the series. Yes, I realize that the mainstay of the series up until Craig had been to have Bond have NO dimensions and just be an action figure to carry the plot to it's same, explosive climax. I'm glad they finally moved beyond that, even if it might seem to some to be just a flimsy deception.
I will take a film like SF over the bloated, sci-fi parodies like MR, YOLT, TMWTGG, TSWLM or DAF anyday. I'm not saying these are not entertaining films - I'm only saying if I had to choose between watching those over and over or SF, I'd watch SF, because at least I feel that I'm getting the appearance of seeing Fleming's Bond.
I am one of those easily pleased masses who enjoyed SF thoroughly, especially the third act. I thought they brought just enough gravitas to Bond and his personal life to suit the film as it was. To go any deeper would have seemed too much out of the style of the series. Call it cheap window dressing, but for me it did not come across as a deceptive effort to just make the film more interesting. For me, it made Bond's character seem more real by adding an extra dimension to his character that had been in the novels but missing from the series. Yes, I realize that the mainstay of the series up until Craig had been to have Bond have NO dimensions and just be an action figure to carry the plot to it's same, explosive climax. I'm glad they finally moved beyond that, even if it might seem to some to be just a flimsy deception.
I've never considered myself to be that great at constructing my posts and wished I had the talent of being as succinct as many do, but as usual I'll end up just flaying about.
You bring up very good points on the SF scripting. However, from my own view, it didn't bother me in that respect any more than the rest of the series has.
There are many, many times after I've seen films I've enjoyed (not just this series) where the artist in me gets on my shoulder and whispers in my ear.."why did they DO that?", or "why didn't they just do this", or "why didn't they explain that?"...and on and on.
Now, the part of me that has cried out over the years for the series to show more of Fleming's Bond and his personal side - which Fleming actually does in the novels - has only been answered a few times:
OHMSS, obviously. GF - Bond playing golf (heaven forbid if they tried doing anything like that now). DN/LALD - Bond at his flat. These scenes did not take anything away from Bond being 007 for me, nor did I need there to be anything more added.
Fleming mentions Bond earning his 00 status via the two assassinations he performs, but he does not create them as scenes that needed to be part of the actual plot of any of the novels. However, in the film we actually see the wet work being done (though they differ from Fleming's version). Was this necessary? Not really, but it certainly gave the film a slam bang opening.
In SF, the death of Bond's parents and how it changed his childhood are made to be a pivotal point of the plot, his character and how he relates to M. Good grief, the title of the film is the name of his childhood home and where he end's up losing M and killing Silva.
So why not go into more detail over his parent's death and his childhood? Why not explain how they died, how he ended up in his aunt's custody? Why just do "window dressing" to give the appearance of a Bond film having more depth?
Because I believe the Bond series since the reboot is trying to walk a thin line between being the broad, commercially-appealing-to-all-entertainment that is has been for the past fifty years, while at the same time trying to appeal to the Fleming fans (who include the current producers, casts and crews on the productions).
Of course, this balance is going to seem a bit too much off kilter for some, and the writing is certainly not going to come up to snuff for many. I believe screenwriters often drop the ball when it comes to plotting when there are obviously clear and more logical solutions in the writing. If scripts go through so many rewrites as they usually do, how could there ever be any plot holes? Even the best novelists have tripped up in there plotting, and Fleming was not an exception.
I am one of those easily pleased masses who enjoyed SF thoroughly, especially the third act. I thought they brought just enough gravitas to Bond and his personal life to suit the film as it was. To go any deeper would have seemed too much out of the style of the series. Call it cheap window dressing, but for me it did not come across as a deceptive effort to just make the film more interesting. For me, it made Bond's character seem more real by adding an extra dimension to his character that had been in the novels but missing from the series. Yes, I realize that the mainstay of the series up until Craig had been to have Bond have NO dimensions and just be an action figure to carry the plot to it's same, explosive climax. I'm glad they finally moved beyond that, even if it might seem to some to be just a flimsy deception.
I will take a film like SF over the bloated, sci-fi parodies like MR, YOLT, TMWTGG, TSWLM or DAF anyday. I'm not saying these are not entertaining films - I'm only saying if I had to choose between watching those over and over or SF, I'd watch SF, because at least I feel that I'm getting the appearance of seeing Fleming's Bond.
To me, it's just lazy storytelling -- and it's cheaper to film a dialogue scene than to actually do the work of re-creating the event on the screen. If most audiences don't care -- and that's typical of the mass audience for action movies -- then to the producers, no harm, no foul. They save more; we get less.
But lazy storytelling is often what keeps a very good film, like many of the Bonds,from being truly great. It's interesting that the ones that so many fans cite again and again as the greatest Bond films are, in fact, the ones that show us the scenes that the script calls for. FRWL, GF, OHMSS, and so forth resonate the most because they do the best job of actually living up to what their stories require. We wouldn't, for instance, have feared Red Grant as much if the scenes with him in training and later assassinating the Bulgarian agent hadn't been shown, but the film could just as easily have simply had M tell us about some faceless assassin that Bond might come up against. We could figure out it was Grant. In GF, the scene where the villain kills the gangsters could have been cut and the plot would have continued unheeded -- yet Goldfinger's killing them was wonderfully illustrative of his egomania. The same goes for the golf scene, which is largely there to show us what a childish bully and cheat Goldfinger is.
SF brings up important personal details but does very little with them. They're just shorthand to service the plot. If audiences are willing to make up the rest in their heads, that is up to them, but I would rather the film actually do the work of showing us. But modern audiences don't seem to demand much beyond a thin plot and lots of action and special effects. It's one of the reasons I prefer old movies -- even when they are bad, they often at least try to illustrate what they suggest in their stories.
SF brings up important personal details but does very little with them.
I understand your point, Gassy, and I have tremendous respect for your opinions and the manner in which you express them. In this case, I guess it depends on just how important one thinks those personal details are, and how effectively one believes they are used. In my opinion they are important enough so that they give meaning to Bond's decision to seek refuge at Skyfall in the film's climax, and I believe those details are used effectively for that purpose. The fact that the personal tidbits about Bond's life aren't explored more deeply does not dinimish my enjoyment of the film at all, but I can see how it might for someone who attaches more importance to those details.
I appreciate that, Blackleiter, and the feelings are mutual. I tend to fall into the "Chekhov's Gun" camp, where if a writer brings something up, he or she should do something meaningful with it. But you're right that different audiences will have different expectations.
I still don't quite see why Bond would seek refuge at Skyfall -- the plot intimates that he thinks he will have an advantage of some kind there, but I still can't figure out exactly what it was. That M dies there doesn't exactly make it seem like a good plan nor a good resolution to Bond's situation except to give reason to introduce the new M.
What it really feels like is something shoehorned into the plot to give the illusion that Bond's personal and professional lives are intertwined, and that facing one of those issues allows him to face the other. The construction seems flimsy at best, and only gets flimsier the more I think about it -- the audience has to do most of the work to fill in the blanks.
I guess this is why I am looking so hard for more. Beyond just fleshing out the ideas the story brings up, more would clarify just what was going on and why.
Let's say, for instance, that we saw a brief scene after the titles where Kincaid takes Bond hunting as a boy. Under his tutelage, Bond kills a stag, but he is shaken by the event -- taking a life for the first time. He wants to talk to his parents, but they are away skiing. His room is decorated with old tall ships and martial scenes, and we realize that while his childhood is surrounded by images of death, he has never really faced it in any meaningful way. Let him fall asleep uneasily reading some boy's adventure story that suggests killing is what a man does.
Later, Kincaid comes to deliver the news to Bond about his parents. We see the boy Bond immediately know what he's going to say, but before he can say it, Bond retreats to the caves. There, we see him cry, perhaps for days, and then maybe he swears aloud that he will never allow himself to care for anyone again. That would be nice because it would dovetail with Bond in Casino Royale being so cold, as well as why he has a love-hate relationship with M, his surrogate mother. When Bond emerges he is as Kincaid later describes and looks at a concerned Kincaid and says simply, "I'm leaving. Stay if you want. But this place is dead to me, and it will always be a place of death."
Later, all the psychobabble about Skyfall with the psychiatrist would make more sense. So would Bond's lines about "Enjoying death" and his hobby being resurrection. If they tuned up some of the later dialogue -- Bond could say "Back in time. Where we'll have the advantage. Where Silva can face death for a change."
Not great dialogue, I admit, but I'm just saying this for illustration. A better writer would excel. Maybe an additional five minutes of screen time. But then I'd see where all of this psychologically was supposed to combine.
Anyway, I just think Skyfall is sloppy. Sometimes films give us too much and are insulting with pandering. But Skyfall wants to be more than it is.
I wouldn't have changed SF at all. I don't think melodramatic, psychoanalytic childhood flashbacks are necessary in what are still primarily action films. I like Bond to have a little bit of depth and history - and a lot of mystery. If you include too much self-indulgent biography, you lift the veil that encloses the suspension of disbelief that is necessary to properly enjoy a Bond film and suddenly we can't enjoy anything at all because so much is totally and transparently implausible if fully scrutinised.
Besides, if movies like 'Argo' and 'Lone Survivor' which claim to be true stories can be so woefully inaccurate in detail when they had the real events upon which to be based, how could we ever hope for a somewhat-fantastical action movie to make complete sense?
I appreciate that, Blackleiter, and the feelings are mutual. I tend to fall into the "Chekhov's Gun" camp, where if a writer brings something up, he or she should do something meaningful with it. But you're right that different audiences will have different expectations.
I still don't quite see why Bond would seek refuge at Skyfall -- the plot intimates that he thinks he will have an advantage of some kind there, but I still can't figure out exactly what it was. That M dies there doesn't exactly make it seem like a good plan nor a good resolution to Bond's situation except to give reason to introduce the new M.
What it really feels like is something shoehorned into the plot to give the illusion that Bond's personal and professional lives are intertwined, and that facing one of those issues allows him to face the other. The construction seems flimsy at best, and only gets flimsier the more I think about it -- the audience has to do most of the work to fill in the blanks.
I guess this is why I am looking so hard for more. Beyond just fleshing out the ideas the story brings up, more would clarify just what was going on and why.
Let's say, for instance, that we saw a brief scene after the titles where Kincaid takes Bond hunting as a boy. Under his tutelage, Bond kills a stag, but he is shaken by the event -- taking a life for the first time. He wants to talk to his parents, but they are away skiing. His room is decorated with old tall ships and martial scenes, and we realize that while his childhood is surrounded by images of death, he has never really faced it in any meaningful way. Let him fall asleep uneasily reading some boy's adventure story that suggests killing is what a man does.
Later, Kincaid comes to deliver the news to Bond about his parents. We see the boy Bond immediately know what he's going to say, but before he can say it, Bond retreats to the caves. There, we see him cry, perhaps for days, and then maybe he swears aloud that he will never allow himself to care for anyone again. That would be nice because it would dovetail with Bond in Casino Royale being so cold, as well as why he has a love-hate relationship with M, his surrogate mother. When Bond emerges he is as Kincaid later describes and looks at a concerned Kincaid and says simply, "I'm leaving. Stay if you want. But this place is dead to me, and it will always be a place of death."
Later, all the psychobabble about Skyfall with the psychiatrist would make more sense. So would Bond's lines about "Enjoying death" and his hobby being resurrection. If they tuned up some of the later dialogue -- Bond could say "Back in time. Where we'll have the advantage. Where Silva can face death for a change."
Not great dialogue, I admit, but I'm just saying this for illustration. A better writer would excel. Maybe an additional five minutes of screen time. But then I'd see where all of this psychologically was supposed to combine.
Anyway, I just think Skyfall is sloppy. Sometimes films give us too much and are insulting with pandering. But Skyfall wants to be more than it is.
I must make this last point - you are a terrific writer! I don't know if the scenario you describe would have worked in the film or not, and I tend to think it would have slowed things down a bit more than I would like. But I'll admit you have done an impressive job of mapping out your vision in just a few sentences. Does EON know about you? )
I appreciate that, Blackleiter, and the feelings are mutual. I tend to fall into the "Chekhov's Gun" camp, where if a writer brings something up, he or she should do something meaningful with it. But you're right that different audiences will have different expectations.
I still don't quite see why Bond would seek refuge at Skyfall -- the plot intimates that he thinks he will have an advantage of some kind there, but I still can't figure out exactly what it was. That M dies there doesn't exactly make it seem like a good plan nor a good resolution to Bond's situation except to give reason to introduce the new M.
What it really feels like is something shoehorned into the plot to give the illusion that Bond's personal and professional lives are intertwined, and that facing one of those issues allows him to face the other. The construction seems flimsy at best, and only gets flimsier the more I think about it -- the audience has to do most of the work to fill in the blanks.
I guess this is why I am looking so hard for more. Beyond just fleshing out the ideas the story brings up, more would clarify just what was going on and why.
Let's say, for instance, that we saw a brief scene after the titles where Kincaid takes Bond hunting as a boy. Under his tutelage, Bond kills a stag, but he is shaken by the event -- taking a life for the first time. He wants to talk to his parents, but they are away skiing. His room is decorated with old tall ships and martial scenes, and we realize that while his childhood is surrounded by images of death, he has never really faced it in any meaningful way. Let him fall asleep uneasily reading some boy's adventure story that suggests killing is what a man does.
Later, Kincaid comes to deliver the news to Bond about his parents. We see the boy Bond immediately know what he's going to say, but before he can say it, Bond retreats to the caves. There, we see him cry, perhaps for days, and then maybe he swears aloud that he will never allow himself to care for anyone again. That would be nice because it would dovetail with Bond in Casino Royale being so cold, as well as why he has a love-hate relationship with M, his surrogate mother. When Bond emerges he is as Kincaid later describes and looks at a concerned Kincaid and says simply, "I'm leaving. Stay if you want. But this place is dead to me, and it will always be a place of death."
Later, all the psychobabble about Skyfall with the psychiatrist would make more sense. So would Bond's lines about "Enjoying death" and his hobby being resurrection. If they tuned up some of the later dialogue -- Bond could say "Back in time. Where we'll have the advantage. Where Silva can face death for a change."
Not great dialogue, I admit, but I'm just saying this for illustration. A better writer would excel. Maybe an additional five minutes of screen time. But then I'd see where all of this psychologically was supposed to combine.
Anyway, I just think Skyfall is sloppy. Sometimes films give us too much and are insulting with pandering. But Skyfall wants to be more than it is.
I must make this last point - you are a terrific writer! I don't know if the scenario you describe would have worked in the film or not, and I tend to think it would have slowed things down a bit more than I would like. But I'll admit you have done an impressive job of mapping out your vision in just a few sentences. Does EON know about you? )
Haha, thanks. I teach college writing for a living, among other things. I've got publications under my belt, though nothing in the movie arena, as well as a successful textbook. I know screenwriters who tell me about the business, and years ago, I helped some people pitch a movie idea, which came awfully close to making it to the development stage. I'm in my 40s but may just retire soon -- my second life is going to be devoted to writing novels and, perhaps, screenplays. I've certainly been studying the craft long enough, but rather than pay my dues through a bunch of odd jobs, I wanted to establish a comfortable life first. When I get to that point where Hollywood beckons, I'll let you know, haha.
I too would like to say , that I love reading your posts Gassy man. -{
Always brilliantly written, very informative and you regularly point out
Things I didn't even notice ! )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
I too would like to say , that I love reading your posts Gassy man. -{
Always brilliantly written, very informative and you regularly point out
Things I didn't even notice ! )
Why are you spelling my name wrong in that post, TP ?:)
I appreciate that, Blackleiter, and the feelings are mutual. I tend to fall into the "Chekhov's Gun" camp, where if a writer brings something up, he or she should do something meaningful with it. But you're right that different audiences will have different expectations.
I still don't quite see why Bond would seek refuge at Skyfall -- the plot intimates that he thinks he will have an advantage of some kind there, but I still can't figure out exactly what it was. That M dies there doesn't exactly make it seem like a good plan nor a good resolution to Bond's situation except to give reason to introduce the new M.
What it really feels like is something shoehorned into the plot to give the illusion that Bond's personal and professional lives are intertwined, and that facing one of those issues allows him to face the other. The construction seems flimsy at best, and only gets flimsier the more I think about it -- the audience has to do most of the work to fill in the blanks.
I guess this is why I am looking so hard for more. Beyond just fleshing out the ideas the story brings up, more would clarify just what was going on and why.
Let's say, for instance, that we saw a brief scene after the titles where Kincaid takes Bond hunting as a boy. Under his tutelage, Bond kills a stag, but he is shaken by the event -- taking a life for the first time. He wants to talk to his parents, but they are away skiing. His room is decorated with old tall ships and martial scenes, and we realize that while his childhood is surrounded by images of death, he has never really faced it in any meaningful way. Let him fall asleep uneasily reading some boy's adventure story that suggests killing is what a man does.
Later, Kincaid comes to deliver the news to Bond about his parents. We see the boy Bond immediately know what he's going to say, but before he can say it, Bond retreats to the caves. There, we see him cry, perhaps for days, and then maybe he swears aloud that he will never allow himself to care for anyone again. That would be nice because it would dovetail with Bond in Casino Royale being so cold, as well as why he has a love-hate relationship with M, his surrogate mother. When Bond emerges he is as Kincaid later describes and looks at a concerned Kincaid and says simply, "I'm leaving. Stay if you want. But this place is dead to me, and it will always be a place of death."
Later, all the psychobabble about Skyfall with the psychiatrist would make more sense. So would Bond's lines about "Enjoying death" and his hobby being resurrection. If they tuned up some of the later dialogue -- Bond could say "Back in time. Where we'll have the advantage. Where Silva can face death for a change."
Not great dialogue, I admit, but I'm just saying this for illustration. A better writer would excel. Maybe an additional five minutes of screen time. But then I'd see where all of this psychologically was supposed to combine.
Anyway, I just think Skyfall is sloppy. Sometimes films give us too much and are insulting with pandering. But Skyfall wants to be more than it is.
Totally see your point on this. However, we all know that they will never go to that literary depth in this series because it is marketed as an action film series. If this had been done as a series on HBO, your narrative would perfected be suited - because they do more literate work on television. I always point this out by illustrating the difference between the way the Hollywood versions of the Sherlock Holmes stories were done as opposed to the literary care they were treated for PBS in the Granada productions.
I appreciate that, Blackleiter, and the feelings are mutual. I tend to fall into the "Chekhov's Gun" camp, where if a writer brings something up, he or she should do something meaningful with it. But you're right that different audiences will have different expectations.
I still don't quite see why Bond would seek refuge at Skyfall -- the plot intimates that he thinks he will have an advantage of some kind there, but I still can't figure out exactly what it was. That M dies there doesn't exactly make it seem like a good plan nor a good resolution to Bond's situation except to give reason to introduce the new M.
What it really feels like is something shoehorned into the plot to give the illusion that Bond's personal and professional lives are intertwined, and that facing one of those issues allows him to face the other. The construction seems flimsy at best, and only gets flimsier the more I think about it -- the audience has to do most of the work to fill in the blanks.
I guess this is why I am looking so hard for more. Beyond just fleshing out the ideas the story brings up, more would clarify just what was going on and why.
Let's say, for instance, that we saw a brief scene after the titles where Kincaid takes Bond hunting as a boy. Under his tutelage, Bond kills a stag, but he is shaken by the event -- taking a life for the first time. He wants to talk to his parents, but they are away skiing. His room is decorated with old tall ships and martial scenes, and we realize that while his childhood is surrounded by images of death, he has never really faced it in any meaningful way. Let him fall asleep uneasily reading some boy's adventure story that suggests killing is what a man does.
Later, Kincaid comes to deliver the news to Bond about his parents. We see the boy Bond immediately know what he's going to say, but before he can say it, Bond retreats to the caves. There, we see him cry, perhaps for days, and then maybe he swears aloud that he will never allow himself to care for anyone again. That would be nice because it would dovetail with Bond in Casino Royale being so cold, as well as why he has a love-hate relationship with M, his surrogate mother. When Bond emerges he is as Kincaid later describes and looks at a concerned Kincaid and says simply, "I'm leaving. Stay if you want. But this place is dead to me, and it will always be a place of death."
Later, all the psychobabble about Skyfall with the psychiatrist would make more sense. So would Bond's lines about "Enjoying death" and his hobby being resurrection. If they tuned up some of the later dialogue -- Bond could say "Back in time. Where we'll have the advantage. Where Silva can face death for a change."
Not great dialogue, I admit, but I'm just saying this for illustration. A better writer would excel. Maybe an additional five minutes of screen time. But then I'd see where all of this psychologically was supposed to combine.
Anyway, I just think Skyfall is sloppy. Sometimes films give us too much and are insulting with pandering. But Skyfall wants to be more than it is.
I must make this last point - you are a terrific writer! I don't know if the scenario you describe would have worked in the film or not, and I tend to think it would have slowed things down a bit more than I would like. But I'll admit you have done an impressive job of mapping out your vision in just a few sentences. Does EON know about you? )
Haha, thanks. I teach college writing for a living, among other things. I've got publications under my belt, though nothing in the movie arena, as well as a successful textbook. I know screenwriters who tell me about the business, and years ago, I helped some people pitch a movie idea, which came awfully close to making it to the development stage. I'm in my 40s but may just retire soon -- my second life is going to be devoted to writing novels and, perhaps, screenplays. I've certainly been studying the craft long enough, but rather than pay my dues through a bunch of odd jobs, I wanted to establish a comfortable life first. When I get to that point where Hollywood beckons, I'll let you know, haha.
I'll be keeping an eye out for your work (although you'll have to alert me who I should be looking for because I doubt we'll see a credit that reads "Screenplay by Gassy Man"!) )
Comments
Yes, but Bruce Wayne's childhood is central to Batman. James Bond's childhood, while not irrelevant, is not central to the 007 character.
I agree, and that's why I didn't have a problem with the way it was handled in Skyfall. That's also the reason I'm not keen on the idea of delving more into Bond's childhood in future films.
I'd have preferred they not discuss it at all if they weren't willing to do more than lip service. In it's present form, Skyfall could easily have been written to have the climax take place somewhere else, even at Silva's abandoned headquarters. All it really needed was a remote location. Kincaid simply serves as a shortcut to Bond's past, so he could be written out. A reason I am not as impressed with Skyfall as others might be is that the script tries to dress up an otherwise fairly formulaic actioner with what appears to be depth.
Contrast this with Casino Royale, a better constructed story. The opening scene actually shows us Bond's first two kills -- to the degree that it is almost a flashback within a flashback. The title sequence gives us elements of this Bond's character and promotion to 00. Imagine if instead of those bits we'd just had a dialogue scene between M and Bond later, reminiscing about how Bond had almost botched his first assignment. Sure, for the sake of plot, we'd get it, but it certainly wouldn't have been as fulfilling. A similar approach would have been to cut to the first scene with White but just show him later killing LeChiffre. The audience would get from the line that they knew each other and LeChiffre screwed up, but they wouldn't have seen any hint of their relationship to that point. Story works best when it shows, not tells.
But Skyfall, as is typical of a Logan script, pulls this dodge and hustle several times: Silva explaining in expository dialogue the cyanide issue, for instance, or Bond telling M she knows the story of his childhood when the rest of us may not. It's a cheap way to not have to dramatize events.
Before someone says, "But they don't have time for all," my point would be to watch great films that take a couple of hours -- somehow, they manage to pull it off. It's all about the construction, and especially the writing. But if the writing lacks "meat," so will the final product. A good screenwriter can pull off in 15 minutes what a bad writer needs two hours to show.
Fantastic post Gassy Man. I couldn't have said it any better and because of that I never tried.
You bring up very good points on the SF scripting. However, from my own view, it didn't bother me in that respect any more than the rest of the series has.
There are many, many times after I've seen films I've enjoyed (not just this series) where the artist in me gets on my shoulder and whispers in my ear.."why did they DO that?", or "why didn't they just do this", or "why didn't they explain that?"...and on and on.
Now, the part of me that has cried out over the years for the series to show more of Fleming's Bond and his personal side - which Fleming actually does in the novels - has only been answered a few times:
OHMSS, obviously. GF - Bond playing golf (heaven forbid if they tried doing anything like that now). DN/LALD - Bond at his flat. These scenes did not take anything away from Bond being 007 for me, nor did I need there to be anything more added.
Fleming mentions Bond earning his 00 status via the two assassinations he performs, but he does not create them as scenes that needed to be part of the actual plot of any of the novels. However, in the film we actually see the wet work being done (though they differ from Fleming's version). Was this necessary? Not really, but it certainly gave the film a slam bang opening.
In SF, the death of Bond's parents and how it changed his childhood are made to be a pivotal point of the plot, his character and how he relates to M. Good grief, the title of the film is the name of his childhood home and where he end's up losing M and killing Silva.
So why not go into more detail over his parent's death and his childhood? Why not explain how they died, how he ended up in his aunt's custody? Why just do "window dressing" to give the appearance of a Bond film having more depth?
Because I believe the Bond series since the reboot is trying to walk a thin line between being the broad, commercially-appealing-to-all-entertainment that is has been for the past fifty years, while at the same time trying to appeal to the Fleming fans (who include the current producers, casts and crews on the productions).
Of course, this balance is going to seem a bit too much off kilter for some, and the writing is certainly not going to come up to snuff for many. I believe screenwriters often drop the ball when it comes to plotting when there are obviously clear and more logical solutions in the writing. If scripts go through so many rewrites as they usually do, how could there ever be any plot holes? Even the best novelists have tripped up in there plotting, and Fleming was not an exception.
I am one of those easily pleased masses who enjoyed SF thoroughly, especially the third act. I thought they brought just enough gravitas to Bond and his personal life to suit the film as it was. To go any deeper would have seemed too much out of the style of the series. Call it cheap window dressing, but for me it did not come across as a deceptive effort to just make the film more interesting. For me, it made Bond's character seem more real by adding an extra dimension to his character that had been in the novels but missing from the series. Yes, I realize that the mainstay of the series up until Craig had been to have Bond have NO dimensions and just be an action figure to carry the plot to it's same, explosive climax. I'm glad they finally moved beyond that, even if it might seem to some to be just a flimsy deception.
I will take a film like SF over the bloated, sci-fi parodies like MR, YOLT, TMWTGG, TSWLM or DAF anyday. I'm not saying these are not entertaining films - I'm only saying if I had to choose between watching those over and over or SF, I'd watch SF, because at least I feel that I'm getting the appearance of seeing Fleming's Bond.
Count me in with that group. -{
But lazy storytelling is often what keeps a very good film, like many of the Bonds,from being truly great. It's interesting that the ones that so many fans cite again and again as the greatest Bond films are, in fact, the ones that show us the scenes that the script calls for. FRWL, GF, OHMSS, and so forth resonate the most because they do the best job of actually living up to what their stories require. We wouldn't, for instance, have feared Red Grant as much if the scenes with him in training and later assassinating the Bulgarian agent hadn't been shown, but the film could just as easily have simply had M tell us about some faceless assassin that Bond might come up against. We could figure out it was Grant. In GF, the scene where the villain kills the gangsters could have been cut and the plot would have continued unheeded -- yet Goldfinger's killing them was wonderfully illustrative of his egomania. The same goes for the golf scene, which is largely there to show us what a childish bully and cheat Goldfinger is.
SF brings up important personal details but does very little with them. They're just shorthand to service the plot. If audiences are willing to make up the rest in their heads, that is up to them, but I would rather the film actually do the work of showing us. But modern audiences don't seem to demand much beyond a thin plot and lots of action and special effects. It's one of the reasons I prefer old movies -- even when they are bad, they often at least try to illustrate what they suggest in their stories.
I understand your point, Gassy, and I have tremendous respect for your opinions and the manner in which you express them. In this case, I guess it depends on just how important one thinks those personal details are, and how effectively one believes they are used. In my opinion they are important enough so that they give meaning to Bond's decision to seek refuge at Skyfall in the film's climax, and I believe those details are used effectively for that purpose. The fact that the personal tidbits about Bond's life aren't explored more deeply does not dinimish my enjoyment of the film at all, but I can see how it might for someone who attaches more importance to those details.
I still don't quite see why Bond would seek refuge at Skyfall -- the plot intimates that he thinks he will have an advantage of some kind there, but I still can't figure out exactly what it was. That M dies there doesn't exactly make it seem like a good plan nor a good resolution to Bond's situation except to give reason to introduce the new M.
What it really feels like is something shoehorned into the plot to give the illusion that Bond's personal and professional lives are intertwined, and that facing one of those issues allows him to face the other. The construction seems flimsy at best, and only gets flimsier the more I think about it -- the audience has to do most of the work to fill in the blanks.
I guess this is why I am looking so hard for more. Beyond just fleshing out the ideas the story brings up, more would clarify just what was going on and why.
Let's say, for instance, that we saw a brief scene after the titles where Kincaid takes Bond hunting as a boy. Under his tutelage, Bond kills a stag, but he is shaken by the event -- taking a life for the first time. He wants to talk to his parents, but they are away skiing. His room is decorated with old tall ships and martial scenes, and we realize that while his childhood is surrounded by images of death, he has never really faced it in any meaningful way. Let him fall asleep uneasily reading some boy's adventure story that suggests killing is what a man does.
Later, Kincaid comes to deliver the news to Bond about his parents. We see the boy Bond immediately know what he's going to say, but before he can say it, Bond retreats to the caves. There, we see him cry, perhaps for days, and then maybe he swears aloud that he will never allow himself to care for anyone again. That would be nice because it would dovetail with Bond in Casino Royale being so cold, as well as why he has a love-hate relationship with M, his surrogate mother. When Bond emerges he is as Kincaid later describes and looks at a concerned Kincaid and says simply, "I'm leaving. Stay if you want. But this place is dead to me, and it will always be a place of death."
Later, all the psychobabble about Skyfall with the psychiatrist would make more sense. So would Bond's lines about "Enjoying death" and his hobby being resurrection. If they tuned up some of the later dialogue -- Bond could say "Back in time. Where we'll have the advantage. Where Silva can face death for a change."
Not great dialogue, I admit, but I'm just saying this for illustration. A better writer would excel. Maybe an additional five minutes of screen time. But then I'd see where all of this psychologically was supposed to combine.
Anyway, I just think Skyfall is sloppy. Sometimes films give us too much and are insulting with pandering. But Skyfall wants to be more than it is.
Besides, if movies like 'Argo' and 'Lone Survivor' which claim to be true stories can be so woefully inaccurate in detail when they had the real events upon which to be based, how could we ever hope for a somewhat-fantastical action movie to make complete sense?
I must make this last point - you are a terrific writer! I don't know if the scenario you describe would have worked in the film or not, and I tend to think it would have slowed things down a bit more than I would like. But I'll admit you have done an impressive job of mapping out your vision in just a few sentences. Does EON know about you?
Always brilliantly written, very informative and you regularly point out
Things I didn't even notice !
Why are you spelling my name wrong in that post, TP ?:)
:v
You just keep missing the trap door.
I bet it's the first time someone has told you your trap is too small
Totally see your point on this. However, we all know that they will never go to that literary depth in this series because it is marketed as an action film series. If this had been done as a series on HBO, your narrative would perfected be suited - because they do more literate work on television. I always point this out by illustrating the difference between the way the Hollywood versions of the Sherlock Holmes stories were done as opposed to the literary care they were treated for PBS in the Granada productions.
I'll be keeping an eye out for your work (although you'll have to alert me who I should be looking for because I doubt we'll see a credit that reads "Screenplay by Gassy Man"!)
Until then shall we just call you Number 6? :007)
Never have my heart !