There is a concept in screenwriting called unity of action - it is something which can override some plot holes and illogical moments because the impetus of the drama overcomes them. For instance in Star Wars IV, when Luke and Leia are trapped and the storm troopers are trying to re-open the door, the door lifts part way but the storm troopers don't squat down and fire their guns through the gap. This would go against the grand drama of the story and undermine the unity of action.
That's not necessarily a plothole though; I can't remember much of the film but the storm troopers suits are very stiff as I recall. If they'd shown the storm troopers to be able to bend down and shoot, then it would be a plothole. As it is, we just assume that they can't bend down to do that for some reason.
Characters not doing the logical thing is not a plothole- people aren't always logical in life and we can't assume that characters will always make the right decision. It's when characters defy their own logic/the logic of the story that there's an issue, when there is contradictory information in the film.
There is a concept in screenwriting called unity of action - it is something which can override some plot holes and illogical moments because the impetus of the drama overcomes them. For instance in Star Wars IV, when Luke and Leia are trapped and the storm troopers are trying to re-open the door, the door lifts part way but the storm troopers don't squat down and fire their guns through the gap. This would go against the grand drama of the story and undermine the unity of action. Whenever you watch a move with a really picky person, they are usually oblivious to the unity of action and can only see the story in terms of absolute logic. A good story always balances logic and detail with drama and emotion - if there's too much of one, the drama stalls, if there's too much of the other, the story becomes too unbelievable. Romantic films (including most Bond ones) place the drama and emotion ahead of the logic and detail whereas realistic films place more emphasis on the logic and detail.
If we are applying that logic then it explains why no one ever just shoots Bond and always comes up with some convoluted way to kill him which enables him to escape. )
I don't pay any attention to plot holes ( or don't notice) if the story flows properly.
Hang on - dont the storm troopers bend down and shoot eventually (but too late)
*Off to find out lol
*Update - thought I was right (after all I watched it everyday as a kid). The Storm Troopers do indeed bend down / lie down under the door to shoot however it is too late.
I never really thought about the Stormtrooper outfit as "awkward" I always put them in the stupid category instead!!
Hang on - dont the storm troopers bend down and shoot eventually (but too late)
*Off to find out lol
*Update - thought I was right (after all I watched it everyday as a kid). The Storm Troopers do indeed bend down / lie down under the door to shoot however it is too late.
I never really thought about the Stormtrooper outfit as "awkward" I always put them in the stupid category instead!!
That is because for our heroes to be shot in the legs would betray the unity of action and the rules for the genre which is space opera, or romantic sci-fi.
There is a concept in screenwriting called unity of action - it is something which can override some plot holes and illogical moments because the impetus of the drama overcomes them. For instance in Star Wars IV, when Luke and Leia are trapped and the storm troopers are trying to re-open the door, the door lifts part way but the storm troopers don't squat down and fire their guns through the gap. This would go against the grand drama of the story and undermine the unity of action. Whenever you watch a move with a really picky person, they are usually oblivious to the unity of action and can only see the story in terms of absolute logic. A good story always balances logic and detail with drama and emotion - if there's too much of one, the drama stalls, if there's too much of the other, the story becomes too unbelievable. Romantic films (including most Bond ones) place the drama and emotion ahead of the logic and detail whereas realistic films place more emphasis on the logic and detail.
If we are applying that logic then it explains why no one ever just shoots Bond and always comes up with some convoluted way to kill him which enables him to escape. )
I don't pay any attention to plot holes ( or don't notice) if the story flows properly.
I'm overlapping genre rules and plot holes here.
We subconsciously accept the rules of genres so when people shoot at Bond we expect him to not be hit and we also expect him to be killed in convoluted ways by gloating monologuing super-villains.
Eddie Izzard has done a lot of great comedy examining the rules of film genres - for instance in horror films when the main characters deliberately walk into creepy places despite the inevitable cello music. he also takes a swipe at Coppola's "Dracula" and the Original Star Trek. See his "Unrepeatable" DVD show.
There is a concept in screenwriting called unity of action - it is something which can override some plot holes and illogical moments because the impetus of the drama overcomes them. For instance in Star Wars IV, when Luke and Leia are trapped and the storm troopers are trying to re-open the door, the door lifts part way but the storm troopers don't squat down and fire their guns through the gap. This would go against the grand drama of the story and undermine the unity of action.
That's not necessarily a plothole though; I can't remember much of the film but the storm troopers suits are very stiff as I recall. If they'd shown the storm troopers to be able to bend down and shoot, then it would be a plothole. As it is, we just assume that they can't bend down to do that for some reason.
Characters not doing the logical thing is not a plothole- people aren't always logical in life and we can't assume that characters will always make the right decision. It's when characters defy their own logic/the logic of the story that there's an issue, when there is contradictory information in the film.
Exactly. A plot hole is a major disconnect in the story that can't be explained away -- it's like having a 20-car train but then someone unhooks a car in the middle. There's no way the rest of the train can now move with the other part. In the same way, a plothole disconnects the unity of the story.
What seems to have gotten popular in the past 10 years or so is people arguing that something done differently than they would have done or written is a plothole. It's not. It's simply an alternative. You may not like it, but if it doesn't substantively affect the plot, it is not a plot hole. It's like the train is still hooked together but the car is carrying lawn mowers instead of fireworks. The train still rolls.
It's similar to the way "camp" has been altered from its original meaning. Camp is intentional exaggeration to the point of absurdity, generally to lampoon the subject, its audience, or both. The 1960s TV show Batman was campy because they sought not only to poke fun at the idea of grown people running around in tights and make up but also the audience who believed in such things. That's why the show so frequently winked at those who got the joke. Everything else was exaggerated, from the plots to the costumes to the gadgets. But more recently, people claim anything that seems silly or cheesy to them is camp, simply because the aesthetic is different than the current taste. So, someone will laugh at the poor special effects of a cheap old movie and claim they are campy. They're not. They were doing the best they could according to the aesthetic of the day. Tastes will always change. That's why few things survive more than their immediacy. Those that do become classics.
Plot holes are pretty rare. Arguments for or against characters doing this or that are common, to the degree that nitpickers miss the forest for the trees but pat themselves on the back for their claims. It's silly. We can carp about we might have done this or that differently, sure. But to call it a plot hole makes no sense for what the concept means.
I just didn't like it. I found myself looking at my watch a couple of times during it. Which is never a good thing whilst in the cinema as far as I am concerned.
I just felt there was nothing really there to hold my interest.
I watched Skyfall once at the cinema, and once on DVD I think. I'm not planning on watching it again any time soon.
Over hyped, dull, lacking substance and character depth I would say.
CR is a classic for me and let's hope SPECTRE might beat it.
Agree completely.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I do believe that SF will be regarded as a classic by many, once a few more years have passed and it finds a natural placement in the Bond pantheon. Most classics have their fair share of detractors as well
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I do believe that SF will be regarded as a classic by many, once a few more years have passed and it finds a natural placement in the Bond pantheon. Most classics have their fair share of detractors as well
No I think it will go the other way. My screen-writing teacher uses it as an example of how not to write a screenplay. e.g. don't betray your main character with themes that don't suit him/her, don't be lazy in your writing, make the audience care about the hero and what he/she is striving to accomplish, respect the rules of the genre, etc etc. All fails in SF.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I do believe that SF will be regarded as a classic by many, once a few more years have passed and it finds a natural placement in the Bond pantheon. Most classics have their fair share of detractors as well
No I think it will go the other way. My screen-writing teacher uses it as an example of how not to write a screenplay. e.g. don't betray your main character with themes that don't suit him/her, don't be lazy in your writing, make the audience care about the hero and what he/she is striving to accomplish, respect the rules of the genre, etc etc. All fails in SF.
That's fair, but to be honest Bond isn't the best example for a screenwriting class. For one thing, some of your points are arguable. Secondly, the Bond series flies in the face of convention in that regard, because we already root for Bond, so built-in shortcuts are pre-existing. IMO this is why it's such a plumb gig for hacks like Purvis & Wade (did I say that out loud? Yes I did).
And when I say 'classic,' I mean it in terms of Bond, not necessarily in terms of 'Citizen Kane' or 'Seven Samurai.'
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
[
No I think it will go the other way. My screen-writing teacher uses it as an example of how not to write a screenplay. e.g. don't betray your main character with themes that don't suit him/her, don't be lazy in your writing, make the audience care about the hero and what he/she is striving to accomplish, .
You mean you don't care about the hero? 8-) 8-)
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
There's been (as you all know) an ongoing debate as to whether Daniel Craig's bond is the same bond as all the others, or if EON just decided to wipe the slate clean and start over. The cool thing about SF is that it allows for both theories to exist. It may not obtain classic status (frankly if none of the post 60s Bond movies have by now, none of them will probably) but personally I think it was the best so far for Craig and it was damn sure better than CoS. You can't ask much more out of the series these days. Because unlike the early 60s when Bond mania infected the whole movie going world, we now have a few dense pockets of obsessed Bond fans (like the ones on this site) that view it as more than just the next forgettable action movie of the season.
There is a concept in screenwriting called unity of action - it is something which can override some plot holes and illogical moments because the impetus of the drama overcomes them. For instance in Star Wars IV, when Luke and Leia are trapped and the storm troopers are trying to re-open the door, the door lifts part way but the storm troopers don't squat down and fire their guns through the gap. This would go against the grand drama of the story and undermine the unity of action.
That's not necessarily a plothole though; I can't remember much of the film but the storm troopers suits are very stiff as I recall. If they'd shown the storm troopers to be able to bend down and shoot, then it would be a plothole. As it is, we just assume that they can't bend down to do that for some reason.
Characters not doing the logical thing is not a plothole- people aren't always logical in life and we can't assume that characters will always make the right decision. It's when characters defy their own logic/the logic of the story that there's an issue, when there is contradictory information in the film.
Exactly. A plot hole is a major disconnect in the story that can't be explained away -- it's like having a 20-car train but then someone unhooks a car in the middle. There's no way the rest of the train can now move with the other part. In the same way, a plothole disconnects the unity of the story.
What seems to have gotten popular in the past 10 years or so is people arguing that something done differently than they would have done or written is a plothole. It's not. It's simply an alternative. You may not like it, but if it doesn't substantively affect the plot, it is not a plot hole. It's like the train is still hooked together but the car is carrying lawn mowers instead of fireworks. The train still rolls.
It's similar to the way "camp" has been altered from its original meaning. Camp is intentional exaggeration to the point of absurdity, generally to lampoon the subject, its audience, or both. The 1960s TV show Batman was campy because they sought not only to poke fun at the idea of grown people running around in tights and make up but also the audience who believed in such things. That's why the show so frequently winked at those who got the joke. Everything else was exaggerated, from the plots to the costumes to the gadgets. But more recently, people claim anything that seems silly or cheesy to them is camp, simply because the aesthetic is different than the current taste. So, someone will laugh at the poor special effects of a cheap old movie and claim they are campy. They're not. They were doing the best they could according to the aesthetic of the day. Tastes will always change. That's why few things survive more than their immediacy. Those that do become classics.
Plot holes are pretty rare. Arguments for or against characters doing this or that are common, to the degree that nitpickers miss the forest for the trees but pat themselves on the back for their claims. It's silly. We can carp about we might have done this or that differently, sure. But to call it a plot hole makes no sense for what the concept means.
the Bond series flies in the face of convention in that regard, because we already root for Bond, so built-in shortcuts are pre-existing. IMO this is why it's such a plumb gig for hacks like Purvis & Wade (did I say that out loud? Yes I did).
I do believe that SF will be regarded as a classic by many, once a few more years have passed and it finds a natural placement in the Bond pantheon. Most classics have their fair share of detractors as well
No I think it will go the other way. My screen-writing teacher uses it as an example of how not to write a screenplay. e.g. don't betray your main character with themes that don't suit him/her, don't be lazy in your writing, make the audience care about the hero and what he/she is striving to accomplish, respect the rules of the genre, etc etc. All fails in SF.
That's fair, but to be honest Bond isn't the best example for a screenwriting class. For one thing, some of your points are arguable. Secondly, the Bond series flies in the face of convention in that regard, because we already root for Bond, so built-in shortcuts are pre-existing. IMO this is why it's such a plumb gig for hacks like Purvis & Wade (did I say that out loud? Yes I did).
And when I say 'classic,' I mean it in terms of Bond, not necessarily in terms of 'Citizen Kane' or 'Seven Samurai.'
I disagree. We do not automatically root for Bond - our loyalty needs to be re-engaged every time and this is accomplished (or not) by the way the story is written. I only care about Bond because of his goals - that is, the villain and his/her goal defines Bond's. I don't care about Bond as a personality - he's not likeable like a Forrest Gump, a Mr Spock or even a Jason Bourne. Bond is an arrogant, aggressive, alcoholic womaniser - I care about him only because his personality and skills are needed to overcome the villain. I care about what the villain threatens which is usually civilisation itself. I also care about him because he takes me into a world of excitement that I could never enter myself - that is, he is a vehicle for my vicarious pleasure.
I too have to agree with Loeffelholz, I never have to reengage with
Officer John McClane in the Die Hard films. Basically in shorthand,
I immediately know who the hero is, what he stands for, and even
the likely outcome of the story. same with Bond.
Theatre uses similar " Audience cues" to help move the story
along, even Shakespeare used them.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
That's not necessarily a plothole though; I can't remember much of the film but the storm troopers suits are very stiff as I recall. If they'd shown the storm troopers to be able to bend down and shoot, then it would be a plothole. As it is, we just assume that they can't bend down to do that for some reason.
Characters not doing the logical thing is not a plothole- people aren't always logical in life and we can't assume that characters will always make the right decision. It's when characters defy their own logic/the logic of the story that there's an issue, when there is contradictory information in the film.
Exactly. A plot hole is a major disconnect in the story that can't be explained away -- it's like having a 20-car train but then someone unhooks a car in the middle. There's no way the rest of the train can now move with the other part. In the same way, a plothole disconnects the unity of the story.
What seems to have gotten popular in the past 10 years or so is people arguing that something done differently than they would have done or written is a plothole. It's not. It's simply an alternative. You may not like it, but if it doesn't substantively affect the plot, it is not a plot hole. It's like the train is still hooked together but the car is carrying lawn mowers instead of fireworks. The train still rolls.
It's similar to the way "camp" has been altered from its original meaning. Camp is intentional exaggeration to the point of absurdity, generally to lampoon the subject, its audience, or both. The 1960s TV show Batman was campy because they sought not only to poke fun at the idea of grown people running around in tights and make up but also the audience who believed in such things. That's why the show so frequently winked at those who got the joke. Everything else was exaggerated, from the plots to the costumes to the gadgets. But more recently, people claim anything that seems silly or cheesy to them is camp, simply because the aesthetic is different than the current taste. So, someone will laugh at the poor special effects of a cheap old movie and claim they are campy. They're not. They were doing the best they could according to the aesthetic of the day. Tastes will always change. That's why few things survive more than their immediacy. Those that do become classics.
Plot holes are pretty rare. Arguments for or against characters doing this or that are common, to the degree that nitpickers miss the forest for the trees but pat themselves on the back for their claims. It's silly. We can carp about we might have done this or that differently, sure. But to call it a plot hole makes no sense for what the concept means.
I do believe that SF will be regarded as a classic by many, once a few more years have passed and it finds a natural placement in the Bond pantheon. Most classics have their fair share of detractors as well
No I think it will go the other way. My screen-writing teacher uses it as an example of how not to write a screenplay. e.g. don't betray your main character with themes that don't suit him/her, don't be lazy in your writing, make the audience care about the hero and what he/she is striving to accomplish, respect the rules of the genre, etc etc. All fails in SF.
That's fair, but to be honest Bond isn't the best example for a screenwriting class. For one thing, some of your points are arguable. Secondly, the Bond series flies in the face of convention in that regard, because we already root for Bond, so built-in shortcuts are pre-existing. IMO this is why it's such a plumb gig for hacks like Purvis & Wade (did I say that out loud? Yes I did).
And when I say 'classic,' I mean it in terms of Bond, not necessarily in terms of 'Citizen Kane' or 'Seven Samurai.'
Loeff, I think you just explained why the Connery Bonds were so subversive (and therefore popular) -- his Bond behaved at times as much like a villain as a hero, yet because we were primed to root for him, it gave people a weird thrill. He was a bad boy, for lack of a better term, though Connery played him with exactly the right level of wit and charm to make him likable. That he was supposed to be British made him also work against the stereotype in America of the pasty teetotaling Englishman (sorry, UK friends, not my estimation but simply the stereotype). Bond wasn't the classic anti-hero because he still operated in a classic hero universe, and he wasn't a hard-boiled Mike Hammer or Sam Spade type, either. Yours is an excellent explanation for why he worked so well.
I don't know if SF will be regarded in the future to a standard similar to that of FRWL, GF, OHMSS, or TSWLM (which are probably the Bond "classics" that are near-indisputable due to their iconic status).
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
No I think it will go the other way. My screen-writing teacher uses it as an example of how not to write a screenplay. e.g. don't betray your main character with themes that don't suit him/her, don't be lazy in your writing, make the audience care about the hero and what he/she is striving to accomplish, respect the rules of the genre, etc etc. All fails in SF.
That's fair, but to be honest Bond isn't the best example for a screenwriting class. For one thing, some of your points are arguable. Secondly, the Bond series flies in the face of convention in that regard, because we already root for Bond, so built-in shortcuts are pre-existing. IMO this is why it's such a plumb gig for hacks like Purvis & Wade (did I say that out loud? Yes I did).
And when I say 'classic,' I mean it in terms of Bond, not necessarily in terms of 'Citizen Kane' or 'Seven Samurai.'
I disagree. We do not automatically root for Bond - our loyalty needs to be re-engaged every time and this is accomplished (or not) by the way the story is written. I only care about Bond because of his goals - that is, the villain and his/her goal defines Bond's. I don't care about Bond as a personality - he's not likeable like a Forrest Gump, a Mr Spock or even a Jason Bourne. Bond is an arrogant, aggressive, alcoholic womaniser - I care about him only because his personality and skills are needed to overcome the villain. I care about what the villain threatens which is usually civilisation itself. I also care about him because he takes me into a world of excitement that I could never enter myself - that is, he is a vehicle for my vicarious pleasure.
None of which contradicts my point, really. I guess I myself (and the majority of his fans) do not need to have their loyalty reengaged. We know the character - his virtues AND his vices. How else to explain so much success despite a plethora of mediocre writing? I know I won't change your mind; it's only my two cents' worth.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
That's not necessarily a plothole though; I can't remember much of the film but the storm troopers suits are very stiff as I recall. If they'd shown the storm troopers to be able to bend down and shoot, then it would be a plothole. As it is, we just assume that they can't bend down to do that for some reason.
Characters not doing the logical thing is not a plothole- people aren't always logical in life and we can't assume that characters will always make the right decision. It's when characters defy their own logic/the logic of the story that there's an issue, when there is contradictory information in the film.
If we are applying that logic then it explains why no one ever just shoots Bond and always comes up with some convoluted way to kill him which enables him to escape.
I don't pay any attention to plot holes ( or don't notice) if the story flows properly.
*Off to find out lol
*Update - thought I was right (after all I watched it everyday as a kid). The Storm Troopers do indeed bend down / lie down under the door to shoot however it is too late.
I never really thought about the Stormtrooper outfit as "awkward" I always put them in the stupid category instead!!
That is because for our heroes to be shot in the legs would betray the unity of action and the rules for the genre which is space opera, or romantic sci-fi.
I'm overlapping genre rules and plot holes here.
We subconsciously accept the rules of genres so when people shoot at Bond we expect him to not be hit and we also expect him to be killed in convoluted ways by gloating monologuing super-villains.
Eddie Izzard has done a lot of great comedy examining the rules of film genres - for instance in horror films when the main characters deliberately walk into creepy places despite the inevitable cello music. he also takes a swipe at Coppola's "Dracula" and the Original Star Trek. See his "Unrepeatable" DVD show.
What seems to have gotten popular in the past 10 years or so is people arguing that something done differently than they would have done or written is a plothole. It's not. It's simply an alternative. You may not like it, but if it doesn't substantively affect the plot, it is not a plot hole. It's like the train is still hooked together but the car is carrying lawn mowers instead of fireworks. The train still rolls.
It's similar to the way "camp" has been altered from its original meaning. Camp is intentional exaggeration to the point of absurdity, generally to lampoon the subject, its audience, or both. The 1960s TV show Batman was campy because they sought not only to poke fun at the idea of grown people running around in tights and make up but also the audience who believed in such things. That's why the show so frequently winked at those who got the joke. Everything else was exaggerated, from the plots to the costumes to the gadgets. But more recently, people claim anything that seems silly or cheesy to them is camp, simply because the aesthetic is different than the current taste. So, someone will laugh at the poor special effects of a cheap old movie and claim they are campy. They're not. They were doing the best they could according to the aesthetic of the day. Tastes will always change. That's why few things survive more than their immediacy. Those that do become classics.
Plot holes are pretty rare. Arguments for or against characters doing this or that are common, to the degree that nitpickers miss the forest for the trees but pat themselves on the back for their claims. It's silly. We can carp about we might have done this or that differently, sure. But to call it a plot hole makes no sense for what the concept means.
I just didn't like it. I found myself looking at my watch a couple of times during it. Which is never a good thing whilst in the cinema as far as I am concerned.
I just felt there was nothing really there to hold my interest.
I would say the classics are:
DN
FRWL
GF
TB
OHMSS
LALD
TLD
LTK
GE
CR
But that's just my opinion
DN, FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TSWLM, CR.
7. LALD 8. TWINE 9. Skyfall 10. AVTAK 11. CR 12. TLD 13. YOLT
14. TMWTGG 15. Moonraker 16. TSWLM 17. Thunderball 18. FRWL
19. Dr. No 20. DAF 21. LTK 22. DAD 23. QoS 24. Spectre 25. NTTD
Agree completely.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
No I think it will go the other way. My screen-writing teacher uses it as an example of how not to write a screenplay. e.g. don't betray your main character with themes that don't suit him/her, don't be lazy in your writing, make the audience care about the hero and what he/she is striving to accomplish, respect the rules of the genre, etc etc. All fails in SF.
That's fair, but to be honest Bond isn't the best example for a screenwriting class. For one thing, some of your points are arguable. Secondly, the Bond series flies in the face of convention in that regard, because we already root for Bond, so built-in shortcuts are pre-existing. IMO this is why it's such a plumb gig for hacks like Purvis & Wade (did I say that out loud? Yes I did).
And when I say 'classic,' I mean it in terms of Bond, not necessarily in terms of 'Citizen Kane' or 'Seven Samurai.'
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You mean you don't care about the hero? 8-) 8-)
Very astute analysis, as usual. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I disagree. We do not automatically root for Bond - our loyalty needs to be re-engaged every time and this is accomplished (or not) by the way the story is written. I only care about Bond because of his goals - that is, the villain and his/her goal defines Bond's. I don't care about Bond as a personality - he's not likeable like a Forrest Gump, a Mr Spock or even a Jason Bourne. Bond is an arrogant, aggressive, alcoholic womaniser - I care about him only because his personality and skills are needed to overcome the villain. I care about what the villain threatens which is usually civilisation itself. I also care about him because he takes me into a world of excitement that I could never enter myself - that is, he is a vehicle for my vicarious pleasure.
Officer John McClane in the Die Hard films. Basically in shorthand,
I immediately know who the hero is, what he stands for, and even
the likely outcome of the story.
Theatre uses similar " Audience cues" to help move the story
along, even Shakespeare used them.
You make it sound like it's a bad thing
"- That is something to be afraid of."
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
None of which contradicts my point, really. I guess I myself (and the majority of his fans) do not need to have their loyalty reengaged. We know the character - his virtues AND his vices. How else to explain so much success despite a plethora of mediocre writing? I know I won't change your mind; it's only my two cents' worth.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
It is.
Thats the character...