76

Re: Question regarding Plot

Sir Miles wrote:

IMO, the fencing scene in DAD is one of the single worst scenes in the entire franchise - I can't understand why people like it so much ajb007/confused
There is no conviction to their moves and you can clearly see one wait for the other to get their sword in position - horrible, horrible, horrible ajb007/mad

Anyway....back on track.

back off-track...

I disliked that scene simply for the sheer over-acting. Brosnan must have thought that snarling through the whole scene would heighten it, but it seemed very out of character.

77

Re: Question regarding Plot

And the way they smash up the place, priceless pictures, like it's funny and no one in the place is gonna get miffed, it's like a Walt Disney film, and Brosnan looking all tubby like a teddy bear opposite a lithe Stephens, but still winning the duel.

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017

78

Re: Question regarding Plot

Perhaps I just liked that scene because in the mess of all the others that comprise of DAD, this one stood out as one of the only at least halfway decent ones. As such, through my desperate search for something good about DAD, I overrated this particular scene.

Last edited by zebond (22nd Dec 2006 17:54)

"Guns make me nervous!"

79

Re: Question regarding Plot

zebond wrote:

As such, through my desperate search for something good about DAD, I overrated this particular scene.

Kudos! I thought it was a great idea for a scene...amd very typical in the Bond formula where Bond meets the villian for the first time in some type of competitive setting, like the golf game in GF or the backgammon game in OP. Unfortunately in the sword fight, Bond seemed unreasonably angry at Graves. One of the things I like about Bond is that he portrays the ability to win or lose gracefully. In the swordfight, I envisioned Brosnan pitching a fit like a child if he were to lose. In fact, it seemed Graves was more gracious than Bond after the duel.

Last edited by darenhat (22nd Dec 2006 16:30)

80

Re: Question regarding Plot

darenhat wrote:

Well, apparently you didn't read my post. I said it was obvious that he was bad. But in FRWL we actually see 'Blofeld' giving orders, setting up the plot to bring down Bond, ordering Kronsteen's death, and sending Klebb on a mission to kill. Mr White on the other hand really just hangs out in the background. The flaw in the writing is this: the film ends with Bond standing over Mr. White and uttering the name 'James Bond', but the story fails to set the stage for that point. The film spends a great deal of time setting up Le Chiffre as the bad guy, some time letting us get to know Demetrios, even the Uganda freedom fighter gets adequate coverage, so there's some payoff for the audience when we see these characters 'get theirs'. When I say 'THE baddie' I primarily mean the 'focus' of the story. I know White is a bad guy, but the confrontation at the end has no drama in it because the story switched gears from the characters the audience had been focusing on for the past two hours.

Bond didn't confront Blofeld in FRWL. Perhaps the reason for that is the screenwriter's knew that the audience would be more interested in seeing Bond take out Grant, Klebb, and the other SPECTRE agents who he actually faced in the film.

The point of my post was that ending lacked any dramatic punch for me simply becuase I wasn't sitting on the edge of my seat through the whole moving saying "I can't wait to see Bond get that Mr White guy!"

I'm not sure you read your own posts. Practically every point you make about the handling of Blofeld in FRWL, a film that I assume was dramatically satisfying for you, could be said about Mr. White's character in CR: we see at the beginning of the film that Mr. White's organization arranged the meeting between LC and the Ugandans; he not only orders but personally kills LC, telling him his organization values trust more than money; he "hangs out in the background," like Blofeld in FRWL, etc ...

Now I'll grant you: Mr. White didn't have that darn cat. (Memo to P&W: heighten drama, introduce fluffy kitten into Bond 22 script) ajb007/lol

But if I understand you correctly, if FRWL, like CR, had a coda and Bond had somehow obtained a line on Blofeld's whereabouts and confronted him just before the end credits -- keeping in mind that a direct sequel was to follow -- the "dramatic punch" of everything that came before would have been muted? The whole Klebb-Kronsteen angle -- the "focus" of the FRWL story that you say audiences were primarily interested in, just as the LC-Vesper-poker game is the focus of CR -- would have been diminished? I think most people's reaction would be "Wow ... I can't wait for the next movie to find out more about this Blofeld guy ... " But if that isn't sitting on the edge of your seat, I don't know what is.

81

Re: Question regarding Plot

Maybe, but why would a Blofeld type character personally take out Le Chiffre? Surely he'd delegate it, makes White seem more like a cog in a machine, esp as that's how it is in the book... a middle man at best. Can't prove that mind, besides the Reservoir Dogs-style name also gives a lowly impression...

Here's another plothole for you 'hopes... and I reckon it's a good one! (I don't have time today to address your splentic tirade, it's busy at the moment... ajb007/biggrin )

How do the terrorists get the money transferred? Bond keys in the mysterious password, and as it's Vesper's dodgy account number, then ta-da!

So if that's the case, why on earth did they need to fake kidnap Vesper, torture Bond and so on to get him to hand over the password? Why not just wait for him to do what he later does anyway while recuperating, which is key in the password and it's done.

Or am I missing something? 

ajb007/confused

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017

82

Re: Question regarding Plot

highhopes wrote:

But if I understand you correctly, if FRWL, like CR, had a coda and Bond had somehow obtained a line on Blofeld's whereabouts and confronted him just before the end credits -- keeping in mind that a direct sequel was to follow -- the "dramatic punch" of everything that came before would have been muted? The whole Klebb-Kronsteen angle -- the "focus" of the FRWL story that you say audiences were primarily interested in, just as the LC-Vesper-poker game is the focus of CR -- would have been diminished? I think most people's reaction would be "Wow ... I can't wait for the next movie to find out more about this Blofeld guy ... " But if that isn't sitting on the edge of your seat, I don't know what is.

Everything you say about FRWL is correct. Why is that film more dramatically satisfying for me than CR? Because the emphasis was in Bond snatching the cipher machine and foiling SPECTRE's plan to defame Bond. Bond achieved that. What was the emphasis of CR? I can see two. The first one was to defeat LC at the casino. Bond does that. Yippee! The second, and I would consider it equally as important, was to tell a story about Bond's tragic relationship with Vesper. The story does that, albeit not as satisfactorily as the first IMO. These are the two 'storylines' which, and perhaps you see it differently, are the most important. But the film seems to put too much emphasis on the confrontation of Mr. White. I think it inevitable that Bond face Mr. White, but not at the ending of CR. In the early films, Bond never physically confronted Blofeld until the fifth film. Over a period of five films, we learn more about SPECTRE and we have an evolving animosity towards the character. With Mr. White?...only a few minutes of screen time...not enough for me to cheer Bond and say 'WAY TO GO!'. And since Bond had no connection or idea that Mr. White even existed, the relevance of 007 saying "Bond, James Bond" at the end seemed to me to fall flat. I half suspect that the editor cut the film just as Mr. White was about to say. "Yeah, so what?"

The ending simply played out awful for me. It would have been better IMO had they ended the film with Vesper's suicide note and Bond returning to the service. Save Mr. White for a later film. Just like they did with guy with the cat.

Last edited by darenhat (22nd Dec 2006 18:03)

83

Re: Question regarding Plot

On that same note, I noticed the last time I saw the film that when Vesper and Bond were underwater just before Vesper dies, she kissed bond's "little finger." And I believe Vesper's comment after the "perfectly formed arse" one ("even accountants have imaginations") explains that she hadn't yet seen it, she was just "imagining."

"Guns make me nervous!"

84

Re: Question regarding Plot

zebond wrote:

As such, through my desperate search for something good about DAD, I overrated this particular scene.

I don't think you did. I think it is a very good scene, albeit not among the all-time greats. I also think that Brosnan's performance in it was absolutely fine. It was Toby Stephen's performance that was horrifying; he came across to me as a spoilt brat. ajb007/crap ajb007/lol

Last edited by Dan Same (23rd Dec 2006 08:04)

"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman

85

Re: Question regarding Plot

Napoleon Plural wrote:

......How do the terrorists get the money transferred? Bond keys in the mysterious password, and as it's Vesper's dodgy account number, then ta-da!

So if that's the case, why on earth did they need to fake kidnap Vesper, torture Bond and so on to get him to hand over the password? Why not just wait for him to do what he later does anyway while recuperating, which is key in the password and it's done.

Or am I missing something? 

ajb007/confused

I know what you are getting at with this, on face value it could appear that it was more to do with dramatic licence and fitting in of the torture scene as part of the book than necessity to the plot.

However, LC knows he has lost. He knows that Bond is the key to the money. The Ugandans are dead which he knows as he has seen them from the window of his hotel but the LRA obviously have a next in line who would still be looking for the money. LC had promised them that he would have the money 'tomorrow' when Valenka lures him to the room.

One would assume that the Freedom Fighters Fund that LC is punting with is not just the LRA money so he would be keen to get the funds back where they should be to provide his famed worldwide access to it - you can't get to money that isn't there.

I take it to be that LC wanted the money asap. Their initial plan was to kidnap Vesper and wait for Bond to hand over the password and then release/kill Vesper - standard hostage plot stuff which they are assuming would be a quick thing as he would be concerned for her welfare. Instead Bond catches them in the act and pursues. He swerves, gets captured, we all know the rest ajb007/wink.

Last edited by lavabubble (23rd Dec 2006 11:14)

86

Re: Question regarding Plot

darenhat wrote:

[Everything you say about FRWL is correct. Why is that film more dramatically satisfying for me than CR? Because the emphasis was in Bond snatching the cipher machine and foiling SPECTRE's plan to defame Bond. Bond achieved that. What was the emphasis of CR? I can see two. The first one was to defeat LC at the casino. Bond does that. Yippee! The second, and I would consider it equally as important, was to tell a story about Bond's tragic relationship with Vesper. The story does that, albeit not as satisfactorily as the first IMO. These are the two 'storylines' which, and perhaps you see it differently, are the most important.

I'm with you -- those are indeed the "stories" of CR.

Darenhat wrote:


But the film seems to put too much emphasis on the confrontation of Mr. White. I think it inevitable that Bond face Mr. White, but not at the ending of CR. In the early films, Bond never physically confronted Blofeld until the fifth film. Over a period of five films, we learn more about SPECTRE and we have an evolving animosity towards the character. With Mr. White?...only a few minutes of screen time...not enough for me to cheer Bond and say 'WAY TO GO!'. And since Bond had no connection or idea that Mr. White even existed, the relevance of 007 saying "Bond, James Bond" at the end seemed to me to fall flat. I half suspect that the editor cut the film just as Mr. White was about to say. "Yeah, so what?"

The ending simply played out awful for me. It would have been better IMO had they ended the film with Vesper's suicide note and Bond returning to the service. Save Mr. White for a later film. Just like they did with guy with the cat.

And preferring they they save Mr. White for the next film is fair enough. But that's a simple editorial decision by the writers and filmmakers. I happened to like it, in large part because those kinds of endings (Bond unconscious and perhaps dead at the end of FRWL) are the province of the books, not the movies. Remember -- the genesis of our whole discussion is that I took exception to the ending being characterized as leaving "a plot hole." (i.e. a mistake) It's not -- it's a story thread that will be picked up in the next film, just as Dr. No (the novel) picks up with Bond's recuperation from Klebb's near fatal stabbing.


Napoleon Plural wrote:

Why would a Blofeld type character personally take out Le Chiffre? Surely he'd delegate it, makes White seem more like a cog in a machine, esp as that's how it is in the book... a middle man at best. Can't prove that mind, besides the Reservoir Dogs-style name also gives a lowly impression...

You're right. I'm not suggesting, nor does the movie, that Mr. White is the top man in his organization the way that Blofeld was to SPECTRE, only that Mr. White represented a shadowy group that is higher on the food chain than LeChiffre

napoleonplural wrote:

Here's another plothole for you 'hopes... and I reckon it's a good one! (I don't have time today to address your splentic tirade, it's busy at the moment... ajb007/biggrin )

No need. My spleen is rhetorically powered.


[quote=napoleonplural}How do the terrorists get the money transferred? Bond keys in the mysterious password, and as it's Vesper's dodgy account number, then ta-da!

So if that's the case, why on earth did they need to fake kidnap Vesper, torture Bond and so on to get him to hand over the password? Why not just wait for him to do what he later does anyway while recuperating, which is key in the password and it's done.

Or am I missing something? 
ajb007/confused

You certainly are, as we all are: we know there was at least one double-cross, but exactly how it transpired -- the precise sequence of events,  motivations and alliances -- is not crystal clear and could go several ways. Which, BTW, is not such a stretch in the world of espionnage. CR is the first Bond film in years in which there is actually some real intrigue. I think that is what will be explained by Vesper in Bond 22, which is why Green is slated to be back.

This is an edit:

Sorry I couldn't be more specific about your plothole, NP: I was on my way to the gym at the time. But here a theory (and it's just one of several scenarios):
Vesper was recruited by LeChiffre and blackmailed. Her role in the affair was pretty simple: she was not to give Bond the additional buy-in. That's it. By doing so, she could save her boyfriend's life and no one at MI6 would suspect that she was in cahoots with LC. There was no phony bank account number from LeChiffre. Had LC given her a phony bank number and told her to enter it into the computer, it would have alerted MI6 that she was a traitor. She would no doubt have balked at such an arrangement, and besides, LC never really doubted he would win the game. She was just a little bit of an edge, just in case (and this really is not P&W's conceit, it's Fleming's: LC seems to believe the only possible outcomes are that either he or Bond will win -- none of the other players has a chance). There's another angle as well: it might be nice to have a "mole" in MI6, so why would LC want her  busted if he doesn't have to?

The phony account number that she enters into te machine, if you ask me, is Mr. White's. He gave it to her in the barge when she made the deal to save Bond's life. Mr. White witdraws the money and places it in the suitcase we see him carry off, while Vesper takes an empty one to Gettler (an LC accomplice?), expecting -- as M suggests -- to lose her life.

Last edited by highhopes (23rd Dec 2006 16:56)