10 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

Some villains are stupid, especially villains that are pretending to be good. Just watching, TWINE and I came to the sudden realisation that Elektra's character is just plain silly. Take the snow sequence for example. Her and Bond are attacked by a wave of enemies in parahawks. So Elektra has basically told them "When you see me and Bond. Fire bullets at me!"

Why is she putting herself in such mortal danger?

Awful scripting.

[Cody]

I'm watching TWINE right now myself. They don't fire bullets at Elektra, the parahawks focus entirely on Bond while she goes off in her own direction. She isn't in danger until Bond causes the explosion that sets off the avalanche.

[iexpectu2die]

I think the real question is how they even knew to attack at all. When did Elektra get chance to organise an assault? One assumes Bond was with her the whole time, did she disappear and make a cheeky phone call?

[Mr Teddy Bear]

If this sort of thing bothers you, it must be difficult to enjoy any of the Bond films.

[THX-007]

Also she just met Bond. In that instance did she decide to get rid of him because he might be a problem? But if he had survived that would only make him more determined to stay with her, protect, and give him a chance to snoop around. You could say she called in the parahawks to play up the disguise that Renard is after her, but her father was murdered in London. I think that's enough of a reason. And really there's no reason to because having Bond and MI6 around would only slow down her and Renard's plans. No reason for the parahawks.

The real stupidity is the casino scene. Bond tells Elektra he'll protect her and then goes to the casino to meet with Valentin Zukovsky. He doesn't get any real information from Valentin because Valentin just repeats to Bond what Elektra told him a couple scenes back: that certain people would want to see her pipeline destroyed. Then Elektra shows up, Bond questions why she's there and she responds that she's doing what Bond is doing, trying to figure who killed her father and is trying to kill her.... How? What answers are going to find out in Valentin's casino?
She meets Valentin and decides to play a high stakes game of (insert game name here). She loses over a million dollars to Valentin and she leaves with Bond. Later we find out that it was payment for Valentin's submarine. Now why did she have to personally go and give to Valentin? Why couldn't she just get one of her henchmen to do herself? Maybe Bond spots Elektra's henchman at the casino passing something to one of Valentin's men. If Elektra had to go to the casino personally why not just give the check to Valentin and explain to Bond that it was either to pay off some debts she owed or Valentin did her favor (just don't mention the submarine). Let's do a not so subtle rigged card game and then leave immediately.

If this sort of thing bothers you, it must be difficult to enjoy any of the Bond films.

For me it isn't.
I'm sorry I disagree. There are nitpicks and then there are serious plot faults. Usually the counter argument is that in the Bond universe we have flying cars, henchmen in metal teeth, etc. and the notion of how can one complain about A when you're dealing with a film franchise with the already mentioned fantastical stuff. But the Bond film stories, sometimes fantastical ones, but still stories. They have to draw you in and make you believe in whats happening on screen.
The scene in question and the scene I brought up shows a real flaw in the plot. I guess one could say that the parahawks scene was a reference to one of those over the top methods that villains have tried to kill Bond in the past films but in this film it doesn't mesh well with the overall scheme. Elektra isn't an eccentric villain in an elaborate hide out pushing buttons. With those villains no one is going to be knocking on their lair door wanting to ask questions. She's the head of major corporation. There are going to be questions about how 007 died during skiing. It'll would've been easier to have a sniper try and kill a Bond rather than a fleet of parahawks.

Let's compare TWINE to another Bond film where someone who was originally thought to be good turns out to the villain. The Living Daylights: Its set up pretty well that and we're led to believe Koskov is the good guy and that Pushkin is trying to eliminate him and members of MI6. We're led to believe that Koskov's kidnapping from MI6's mansion was genuine.

I really feel that during the Brosnan era character actions were askewed in order to put an action sequence. Another example from TWINE is the Cigar Girl sitting in the middle of the Thames on a boat with a machine gun and a grenade launcher outside of MI6 when it blows up. The bomb was already primed to go off as soon as it came into contact with Sir Roger's lapel. The explosion dealt with him. Why the need to be camped outside with a machine gun in plain sight? She could've just stood on the bridge and observed the explosion and just walked away. Its because we needed an action scene. Granted it was impressive but not necessary in the scheme of things.

Edited by THX-007, 04 November 2012 - 02:28 AM.

[Pussfeller]

I always assumed the parahawks were a false-flag psych-out thing arranged by Elektra to cloak herself in the illusion of innocence. It's silly, but only in the sense of being impractical and inefficient. By Bond villain standards, it's sound practice to waste resources in order to stage a flamboyant, marginally effective troll of 007.

[Iceskater101]

I thought it was Renard, she was working with him the whole time..?

[Double-0-Seven]

Most of the action sequences in The World Is Not Enough, while impressive, have clunky build-ups in my view. It's almost like they wanted to try giving Brosnan a movie with more depth but wanted to keep the formula of action that they had established with GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies. As a result, The World Is Not Enough is kind of uneven. Another good example is the caviar factory scene. Granted, it sets up one of my favorite lines in the film (Valentin's line about the insurance company) but it comes out of nowhere. After the attack, Bond literally says "Now, where were we?" going right back to the conversation they were having before. I get it, Bull sees Bond's car and calls it to Renard and Elektra who obviously order the attack. Still, it's an awkwardly placed scene.

Funny enough, The World is Not Enough is my favorite Brosnan Bond film, but I think it would have benefited from a little less action.

[stamper]

Renard is a Z grade kind of vilain, you feel almost sorry for him rather than threatened or dangerous. Elektra is a prick, but M takes the cake, against all reasons.

Plus M clothes suck.

[SecretAgentFan]

I thought it was Renard, she was working with him the whole time..?

That´s what I think, too. He observed them and set the guys to shoot at Bond.

[George Kaplan]

I don't think that it was necessary for Renard to see Bond.

Elektra says that M mentioned she'd be sending someone when he shows up. They know their original plan (which Elektra later admits) to kill her dad AND M didn't work.

So all Elektra had to do was to make a plan before the "someone" M sent gets there. Get him killed, and then ask for M's direct help. Only Bond didn't cooperate then, so Elektra tries to get Bond on her side (she's rather pushy in getting Bond to seduce her ) and then when he disappears and her man with Renard is found dead and Bond isn't around...Elektra uses that rather than Bond's death to get M to come to her.