Yes, again, I think there's some serious division over QoS because there's some serious, highly thoughtful plot development going on in QoS. No offense to anyone, but if you're a thinker, the plot and various plot points are glaringly obvious and hit you like a brick between the eyes, but if subtlety and analytical thinking are not your strong point, you may be confused and fail to see what's going on and therefore be turned off by the movie. Some actually haven't been able to pick up on such points like how Bond knew Camille was to be killed or how the motorbike flipped and did a wheelie. I'm just scratching my head thinking, "You've got to be kidding, does someone need to explain this???" Please, no offense, just exercise that gray matter and QoS is clear as a bell.
So people who didn't like it are stupid? Or perhaps you're not clever enough to realise tha it's bad, no? Not saying that you are, just that you leave yourself open when you start saying stuff like that.
Was it you who was saying that Bond pops the clutch on the bike causing it to flip? Because I'm not sure that's right- he's standing on the wrong side. I just took it as him giving it gas. So even from that it would seem it's not entirely clear as to what's happened and even those calling others stupid for not understanding aren't actually 100% clear on it. How did he cause the other plane to crash, for instance? I have an explanation worked out for it- do you? How does the other boat flip? I know what I think must have happened, but do our ideas agree? If even simple action stuff isn't communicated effectively you've got to wonder if it's really the audience's fault.
This whole guy Bond kills thing is yet another undercooked, unexplored, quickly swept under the carpet moment. It's a film which feels rushed and thrown together full of half-formed ideas and concepts for action scenes which are nearly good but needed more work.
No, I don't think they're stupid. Note that I never once said they are stupid, just that they were not as attentive as they should be and that this film requires real thought. Even the smartest of us can fail to pay attention at times. Most people do not go into a movie with their brains working hard, they relax and take it in. This is a movie that requires thinking to truly enjoy it for what it is. In one post I was careful to point out that I understand people disliking the film for other reasons, but several of the objections have been over plot points that seem obvious to a lot of us, but seemed to have escaped the notice of several others. Also, some people think more analytically than others, that doesn't mean they're stupid.
It's hard not to take the implication that people who don't think this movie is very well worked-out or resolved aren't 'thinkers'. That's insulting: your opinion isn't the only correct one, not need to insult those who don't agree with it.
No, I didn't say Bond popped the clutch. However, it is clear that the movie makers intended to imply that when Bond knocked the other killer off the motorcycle, his strength did not cause the bike to lurch, but rather something mechanical in the bike caused it to take off and flip up briefly. And it didn't go that far. I thought the move was brilliant.
And yet you don't actually know what happened? I thought you were a thinker with an analytical mind?
Regarding the plane, with some skillful flying Bond got the other plane underneath him and was forcing him down into the rocks, the other pilot got out from under the larger plane at the last moment, but too late, he veered off and crashed.
You missed the bit with the airspeed dial, then? Having had to think about this after the film (yes, I can think!) as it was so poorly communicated, the only explanation is that Bond's plane is capable of flying at slower speeds before it stalls- Bond slows down the other plane to a speed at which it cannot make tight turns; the other pilot panics and has to speed up in order to make the turn but Bond's larger plane makes it. But of course, your subtle and analtytical mind was just happy with 'he got forced down onto the rocks'.
The small boat flips because it is anchored to whatever heavy item Bond threw into the water at the other end of the rope. I'm actually surprised more people haven't brought this up, because this one is more problematic, but not problematic enough to make this great film a bad film.
Well, us analytical thinkers would come up with the only logical explanation, which is that Bond reaches into the baddies' boat which has mounted his and throws their anchor into the water, causing their boat to flip when it gains purchase. But, as with most plot points and emotional moments in this film, that's poorly communicated and requires the audience to fill in the gaps afterwards. I'm not even sure that's the explantion the filmmakers were intending (I certainly didn't see him reach up into the other boat): again, as with many of the other important character moments and plot points, fans have had to make up the explanation themselves because the film gives so little to work with.
It's like a Rorschach film; everyone sees want they want to see, but there's actually nothing there.
And, I thought the pacing was great, everything was concluded to my satisfaction at least.
Yes, obviously. Those of us who really like to think weren't satisfied by it all.
Sorry if this all comes across as a little harsh, Daddio, but I hope you can see how your implication that people who don't agree with are not 'thinkers' is insulting, no matter how many times you write 'no offence'. Hope to see you around.
