28 replies to this topic

[Trevelyan 006]

The Brosnan era is constantly under scrutiny for including over-the-top plots and unbelievable situations. Personally, I've never really considered that the case (except for Die Another Day). However, I thought it'd be interesting to see just which one of Brosnan's four films everybody finds the most plausible, considering the film's PLOT only.

That being said, here is my pick:

The World Is Not Enough (1999)
Comparatively speaking, I'd say TWINE has the most plausible plot. A high-profile terrorist hijacking a sub's nuclear reactor and using it to cause a meltdown, in order to make a certain oil figure very rich is somewhat believable in my opinion. As far as Renard simply doing it for a lover (and because he has nothing to lose), that's where things kind of fall off the believable scale but, nonetheless I'd still say out of the four, it has my vote.

[DamnCoffee]

Tomorrow Never Dies, I'd say. I say a someone going mad with power is very believable in this day and age, and it's definately not impossible to steal a couple of missiles.

[AMC Hornet]

Using an EMP to crash every computer in London could be done - it's only the way Trevelyan went about it that makes GE OTT.

[Dustin]

Blood diamonds are financing a vast number of dubious activities, groups and regimes, so at least that part of DAD is not far fetched at all. Still, I'm going with TND. Controlling a significant part of the media is quite a reality. Using that power to various different means - providing justification for several wars included - is practically what our headlines are all about. The only fantastic element is active participation and provocation by a media mogul; that is an unnecessary move and mainly there to provide the action segment.

[Matt_13]

TND.

[SecretAgentFan]

Blood diamonds are financing a vast number of dubious activities, groups and regimes, so at least that part of DAD is not far fetched at all. Still, I'm going with TND. Controlling a significant part of the media is quite a reality. Using that power to various different means - providing justification for several wars included - is practically what our headlines are all about. The only fantastic element is active participation and provocation by a media mogul; that is an unnecessary move and mainly there to provide the action segment.

The interesting thing is: at the time of TND´s release the plot was criticized as too far fetched. Who could know that only a few years later...

[DR76]

I didn't know there was such a thing as a plausible plot in a James Bond movie.

[Odd Jobbies]

Blood diamonds are financing a vast number of dubious activities, groups and regimes, so at least that part of DAD is not far fetched at all. Still, I'm going with TND. Controlling a significant part of the media is quite a reality. Using that power to various different means - providing justification for several wars included - is practically what our headlines are all about. The only fantastic element is active participation and provocation by a media mogul; that is an unnecessary move and mainly there to provide the action segment.

The interesting thing is: at the time of TND´s release the plot was criticized as too far fetched. Who could know that only a few years later...

Elliot Carver was inspired by, if not marginally based upon Robert Maxwell.

Hence the gag that is M's line at the end of the movie about having the press statement say that Carver had fallen off his yacht while on holiday, presumed drowned, a'la Robert Maxwell.

In the light of the Leveson Inquiry (i.e. government smoke screen) it now seems plausible that Murdoch (along with his puppet British government, since it's doubtless his tentacles stretch back that far) may have had a hand in snuffing his arch rival Maxwell.

That's complete conjecture btw

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 19 June 2012 - 11:03 PM.

[mrevans]

GE. That a former Soviet emp satlalite could be stolen from the Russians and used on London. its a cousin to cyperterrorism and realistic.

[Jim]

Yes, wiping out the British economy will make all that money you've just stolen worth so much more, won't it?

[marktmurphy]

I didn't know there was such a thing as a plausible plot in a James Bond movie.

See Quantum of Solace: where the plot is to drive up the cost of water? In an evil way.

[mrevans]

Yes, wiping out the British economy will make all that money you've just stolen worth so much more, won't it?

Good point. Wasn't even thinking about the bank robbery scheme. I think the idea is good if you're seeking revenge and want to devastate the economy. Very relevant to today also.

[Dustin]

Yes, wiping out the British economy will make all that money you've just stolen worth so much more, won't it?

Good point. Wasn't even thinking about the bank robbery scheme. I think the idea is good if you're seeking revenge and want to devastate the economy. Very relevant to today also.

Easier done if you pay a Credit Rating Agency to do it for you. Crashes the economy and the currency in one swift move. Ideally you buy the whole CRA, they are going to be the only ones able to restore some worth to the remaining ashes, so you can have your revenge and get paid handsomely to undo the damage afterwards.

Not likely to provide a climactic battle on Cuba though...

Edited by Dustin, 20 June 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[DR76]

I didn't know there was such a thing as a plausible plot in a James Bond movie.

See Quantum of Solace: where the plot is to drive up the cost of water? In an evil way.

Like I said . . . I didn't know there was such a thing as a plausible plot in a Bond movie.

[Mickeba]

Goldeneye!

[Janus Assassin]

Hmm so no one here knows how to build a giant mirror.. have it reflect the sun and use the power to destroy the DMZ minefields and a giant ice hotel and have your weird 60's style hair assistant work on robot armor with the ability to throw 100,000 volts of electricity through you? My vote is TND

[Double-0-Seven]

Tomorrow Never Dies. The media is a very powerful tool, especially nowadays. I'd say it's one of the most plausible Bond plots overall, not just the Brosnan era.

GoldenEye isn't too far fetched either. The actual plot is plausible but as others have pointed out, the way it's carried out is flawed.

[Pussfeller]

Everything emanates from the villain, and Carver is the most plausible villain. I won't say he's my favorite villain of the Brosnan era, but he's the most well-conceived. His brand of villainy seems like it might exist in the real world. His scheme has historical precedents and contemporary resonance. His character is psychologically coherent, with a single motive that drives all of his actions and determines all his character traits.

Trevelyan is not so much implausible as he is anachronistic and contradictory. It's hard to get past the fact that the character's WWII-era backstory is blatantly contradicted by the casting of a baby-boomer in the role. But that's not the real flaw. Trevelyan is also weakened by his seesawing between romantic spite and unromantic greed. It's as if they couldn't decide between Captain Ahab and Gordon Gekko, so they combined them into a single character. It really saps the intensity of the personal conflict between Trevelyan and Bond. If Trevelyan is basically a crook, then Bond is basically just doing a job. "This time it's sort of personal but maybe not." That kind of ambiguity can theoretically add to the sense of a complex, plausible character, but in this case it doesn't. The writers aren't that ambitious.

TWINE has always struck me as fairly down-to-earth. The plot seems like it could happen, even though the motivations of the villains don't make much sense. Renard is merely a stock character - the supercharged, ideology-free terrorist that exists only in action movies. His whole personality is implausible, but after all, he's more of a glorified henchman than a villain. Elektra King is one of the better ideas for a Bond villain, but she is spread too thinly, with a half-dozen different motives dragging her every which way. And no sooner is her villainy exposed than she deteriorates into a crazy dork who commits suicide-by-Bond. One suicidal villain is okay, but two suicidal villains, sacrificing themselves to blow up a Turkish thing to annoy some British people? Not the most compelling story. When it's over, I almost feel embarrassed for Bond. He went looking for supervillains and found a couple of self-harming emo underachievers.

Gustav Graves is just plain ridiculous, even by the elevated standards of robot-suited Freudian transracial billionaire supervillains. Even in the context of DAD, which is obviously a "heightened reality", his character is an incomprehensible jumble of sci-fi and action movie tropes. I vaguely recollect that he built his space laser thing in order to impress his father or something, but his father barely registers as a character, so his motives might as well be arbitrary. With a film like DAD, it's hard to separate the implausibility from the silliness, but even ignoring the gene therapy and invisible car and space laser and ice hotel, the underlying plot - "spoiled brat fakes death, assumes radically different identity, amasses huge fortune, and commits atrocity to win father's respect" - is nothing more than a string of improbable events with no logical connection.

[hilly]

I'd say Goldeneye. It caught the post-Cold war feel of the time and the emergence of the " new" Russia very well, plus the increasing reliance on the internet ( even though the technology seems hilariously primitive now) and the whole e-financial transactions boom that was ripe for criminal exploitation

[marktmurphy]

I didn't know there was such a thing as a plausible plot in a James Bond movie.

See Quantum of Solace: where the plot is to drive up the cost of water? In an evil way.

Like I said . . . I didn't know there was such a thing as a plausible plot in a Bond movie.

That did actually happen in Boliva, I believe. Only they tried to triple the price of the water, not just double it like Quantum wanted to!

TWINE has always struck me as fairly down-to-earth. The plot seems like it could happen, even though the motivations of the villains don't make much sense. Renard is merely a stock character - the supercharged, ideology-free terrorist that exists only in action movies. His whole personality is implausible, but after all, he's more of a glorified henchman than a villain. Elektra King is one of the better ideas for a Bond villain, but she is spread too thinly, with a half-dozen different motives dragging her every which way.

I kind of like that she's actually properly unhinged. They say all the villains are 'mad' or whatever, but she's absolutely barking.

[Dustin]

Everything emanates from the villain, and Carver is the most plausible villain. I won't say he's my favorite villain of the Brosnan era, but he's the most well-conceived. His brand of villainy seems like it might exist in the real world. His scheme has historical precedents and contemporary resonance. His character is psychologically coherent, with a single motive that drives all of his actions and determines all his character traits.

Trevelyan is not so much implausible as he is anachronistic and contradictory. It's hard to get past the fact that the character's WWII-era backstory is blatantly contradicted by the casting of a baby-boomer in the role. But that's not the real flaw. Trevelyan is also weakened by his seesawing between romantic spite and unromantic greed. It's as if they couldn't decide between Captain Ahab and Gordon Gekko, so they combined them into a single character. It really saps the intensity of the personal conflict between Trevelyan and Bond. If Trevelyan is basically a crook, then Bond is basically just doing a job. "This time it's sort of personal but maybe not." That kind of ambiguity can theoretically add to the sense of a complex, plausible character, but in this case it doesn't. The writers aren't that ambitious.

TWINE has always struck me as fairly down-to-earth. The plot seems like it could happen, even though the motivations of the villains don't make much sense. Renard is merely a stock character - the supercharged, ideology-free terrorist that exists only in action movies. His whole personality is implausible, but after all, he's more of a glorified henchman than a villain. Elektra King is one of the better ideas for a Bond villain, but she is spread too thinly, with a half-dozen different motives dragging her every which way. And no sooner is her villainy exposed than she deteriorates into a crazy dork who commits suicide-by-Bond. One suicidal villain is okay, but two suicidal villains, sacrificing themselves to blow up a Turkish thing to annoy some British people? Not the most compelling story. When it's over, I almost feel embarrassed for Bond. He went looking for supervillains and found a couple of self-harming emo underachievers.

Gustav Graves is just plain ridiculous, even by the elevated standards of robot-suited Freudian transracial billionaire supervillains. Even in the context of DAD, which is obviously a "heightened reality", his character is an incomprehensible jumble of sci-fi and action movie tropes. I vaguely recollect that he built his space laser thing in order to impress his father or something, but his father barely registers as a character, so his motives might as well be arbitrary. With a film like DAD, it's hard to separate the implausibility from the silliness, but even ignoring the gene therapy and invisible car and space laser and ice hotel, the underlying plot - "spoiled brat fakes death, assumes radically different identity, amasses huge fortune, and commits atrocity to win father's respect" - is nothing more than a string of improbable events with no logical connection.

Splendid analysis, addresses many of my own feelings about Brosnan's villains there. He was seriously let down in the 'impressive antagonist' department and it's perhaps that what makes his tenure underwhelming for some. With a little more attention to detail and screen presence the result could have been more convincing. DAD's example is truly horrible from this point of view, despite the inevitable going-back-to-Fleming bit.

[Golddragon71]

Plus a diamond-based laser firing satellite is hardly a new weapon in the Bond franchise. (DAF)
As to most plausible I think Goldeneye for the mere idea of the weapon itself. (which I started thinking about in 85 when I saw AVTAK)

[marktmurphy]

It funny how over-the-top and ridiculous the concept of Carver seemed at the time: now everyone thinks an evil media baron is a pretty plausible thing!

Gustav Graves was very silly, but I did quite like the idea of a baddie who modelled himself on Bond. Implausible to extreme of course, but a nice idea and Stephens played it really well I think.

[Dustin]

It funny how over-the-top and ridiculous the concept of Carver seemed at the time: now everyone thinks an evil media baron is a pretty plausible thing!

Painful experience.

[Mr_Wint]

Carver is closer to the more traditional Bond-villain so he is easier to accept - they didn't try so hard to make him "believable". I wouldn't say that the plot for TND is a plausible plot, but it works as a coherent fantasy story.

Elektra King is one of the better ideas for a Bond villain, but she is spread too thinly, with a half-dozen different motives dragging her every which way. And no sooner is her villainy exposed than she deteriorates into a crazy dork who commits suicide-by-Bond. One suicidal villain is okay, but two suicidal villains, sacrificing themselves to blow up a Turkish thing to annoy some British people?

Not sure if Elektra committed suicide. It looked like she was convinced that Bond wouldn't shoot... Poor girl, she thought she had a "power over men" until the very end.

[AMC Hornet]

Plus a diamond-based laser firing satellite is hardly a new weapon in the Bond franchise. (DAF)

Again with the diamond-based laser satellite.

This is an assumption based on the premise that
a) Graves was dealing in diamonds, as was Blofeld in DAF, and
he had a laser-equipped satellite, as did Blofeld in DAF.

In all the times I've seen DAD, I've never seen any evidence that the reflective screen (which was far bigger than the panels on Blofeld's model) was covered with diamonds. The satellite was financed by conflict diamond trading, yes, but I have yet to read anywhere in EON's publicity material that it used them in its construction (apart from a few within its beam-generating machinery).

Of all the vitriol heaped upon DAD for its lack of originality, this is one criticism which is unfairly leveled against it.

Okay, rant over. Nothing more to see here, folks. Move along now...

[Golddragon71]

Actually I hadn't intended any criticism of DAD (in fact on the whole I really enjoy the film a great deal) and whether or not diamonds were used in the satellite at all was really a non issue (however arguments could be made that they were but that's for another time.)
I really saw the satellite the same way I saw the walk through the Q-Branch archives As an homage to the 40 year history of the Bond films (Don't forget DAD was the big 40th Anniversary bond film the way Skyfall is the 50th)

[Mr_Wint]

Out of sheer curiosity, how did Graves manage to build and place that satellite in space? And what is he going to do with it now that it is there? None of these things are properly explained in the film.

Some people imply that DAD is a modern MR, but that is really unfair against MR. The final battle in MR revolves around the globes with the nerve gas. If you think about it, the whole film has been spent on providing a back-story for them. We have seen how they have been moved around from Venice, Rio to the Brazilian jungle. The octagonal glass cylinders are Bond’s first lead from Drax's office, which then takes us to Venice. Here we see what the nerve gas can do ("Tell him to exercise caution. It is lethal."). We then arrive to the jungle to be told the history with the orchids ("The curse of a civilization"). Finally, Drax explain how and why he will use them. So it makes sense that the drama revolves around the globes until the very end - that is the payoff.

Then you go back to DAD. Here we are in a climactic battle where Graves is playing around with a satellite which we know absolutely nothing about. Do not call it an homage, it is just poor writing.

[Golddragon71]

The Satellite is a MacGuffin, a mere plot device. We don't need to know every little detail about how it got there where it was built/launched from etc..
Graves/Moon's reason for the satellite was to clear the minefield and allow his army to re-invade South Korea. (and possibly use the satellite to support his war against the west)
The Satellite itself is, if not in actual construction than at least in capability, very much like Blofeld's. This is why I referred to it as an Homage. Because it refers (perhaps obliquely or more directly to a previous Bond Movies.
As much as Halle berry's walking out of the Waters of the Caribbean wearing a bikini and a knife belt.
As Much as John Cleese quoting "i never joke about my Work"
and as much as the Gadget Archives itself.