110 replies to this topic

[Odd Jobbies]

RE: the alleged Bond-Moneypenny "hookup."

 

Bond and Eve did NOT do it.  First off, she thwarts him with the "tricky part" when he makes an overture toward her bra.  But more importantly, she wouldn't be so nonchalant with her flirtatious banter with him in the casino afterward.  "She's pretty...if you're into that sort of thing."  If they had been intimate and then he went off with another woman, even in the line of duty,  there would be some SERIOUS HELL TO PAY, gentlemen!

Not in my (now long ago) experience - sometimes it's just for fun, no ties, and such banter is part of that fun.

Oh, and about the shaving. Of course they did it. A sexy woman comes to Bond's hotel room at night, flirts and shaves him while bare-chested, and then shortly after makes innuendo about an extra pair of hands! Mendes must be making fun of the listener if he says that nothing happened.

 

Otherwise how does the scene continue after we leave? Bond thanks her for the shave, finally decides to put a shirt on, escorts her to the door and says see you later at the casino. We know Bond is bouncing back after a bad case of the blues, but still...

 

This.

[thecasinoroyale]

I myself just took solace in the fact Eve isn't as easy as Bond thinks, and she doesn't just jump into bed with him after a bit of eroticism. They're human after all, and enjoy the thrill, but she's not easy, and she has self-respect and dignity not to do something as stupid as sleep with a fellow agent after so little time together, which makes her character, in my opinon, a strong, moral character who is perfect to work with Bond and not fall into continuous lust for him, as Samantha Bond's Moneypenny started to do towards the end.

 

It makes Eve the perfect woman to work safely around Bond with no compromise.

[Orion]

don't quite get why Skyfall gets called out on illogical plot devices, Goldfinger and Thunderball have plots that hinge on them. As does Casino Royale come to think of it. James Cameron's films are wall to wall of plot points that scream DO NOT THINK ABOUT THIS AT ALL OR IT WOULD FALL APART, yet they remain unquestioned.

[Odd Jobbies]

don't quite get why Skyfall gets called out on illogical plot devices, Goldfinger and Thunderball have plots that hinge on them. As does Casino Royale come to think of it. James Cameron's films are wall to wall of plot points that scream DO NOT THINK ABOUT THIS AT ALL OR IT WOULD FALL APART, yet they remain unquestioned.

It's a good question. I think the answer is that the rebooted Bond sells itself on grit and 'realism' ('realism' in terms of character development and violence as exemplified by the two Paul Greengrass Bourne movies).

 

Since Bond has become so associated with high camp over the years these are difficult tones to reconcile. I think CR  was low on camp, thus less to reconcile. QoS  [love it or hate it] was absent of camp. SF  attempted to reintroduce some of the old school camp; at times it worked perfectly (readjusting his shirt cuffs as the train is ripped apart behind him), other times it was pretty awkward (the old couple's slapstick comment as Bond jumped on the underground train, followed by the naff 'health & safety' gag, which sent a tumble weed rolling across the cinema both times i saw it).

 

The former, shirt-cuff gag fitted Craig well, as it did the new gritty tone, which is far more in keeping with the source material and Fleming's  sardonic wit employed as one of Bond's mechanisms for coping with the extreme and often surreal situations. High points of wit in the whole franchise are the initial ['gay'] encounter with Silva and the initial meeting with Q. Both prickled with wit and tension and had me swooning at the quality of dialogue, acting, direction, everything.... Long may this brand of wit inhabit Craig's scripts.

 

The latter, underground train slapstick would probably not have made the final draft if this were not the 50th anniversary movie and therefore burdened with the odd inexplicable shift in tone, as a nod to the diverse eras of Bond.

 

So, i don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water and exorcise wit wholesale. Instead i think these moments usefully inform Logan & Mendes what Bond's comedic limits are in this incarnation. For sure no one has ever really seen their own film until they watch with a real, impartial audience and what you thought worked and didn't work can sometimes swap places before your eyes as you begin to make the transition from film-maker to film-viewer. And so i expect these kinks will be smoothed out considerably in Logan's next script and in Mendes direction, should he [hopefully] do another, when they have this experience to inform them, as well as not having the burden of needing to acknowledge a 50th anniversary with odd shifts in tone.

 

As for the plot holes, they are not so much plot-holes as they are lazy writing. As winstoninabox already pointed out on p.1 of this thread regarding M & Kinkade using a torch on the moors, this would not be contentious moment had some effort been made to give the two of them some short dialogue regarding the torch - put voice to this, such as Kinkade being reluctant, but being forced to because of M's wound. Perhaps the writers didn't want to remind us too much of the wound and end up telegraph the tragic ending. Therefore they could've had Kinkade/M believing everyone at the house had been killed. Just a little finessing and viewers wouldn't be questioning this moment, as did the people i saw the film with as well as several in these forums.

 

Absent these slightly out of place moments SF  is a great movie and so, as i've said here before, because the flaws in this diamond are so few, they are all the more obvious.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 19 February 2013 - 11:31 AM.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I wouldn't call that lazy writing, though. If the plot detail is small enough and the audience could reasonably deduce an explanation themselves, why should the film makers divert the films narrative? A line has to be drawn and I think Skyfall did it  in the appropriate places.

[Odd Jobbies]

I wouldn't call that lazy writing, though. If the plot detail is small enough and the audience could reasonably deduce an explanation themselves, why should the film makers divert the films narrative? A line has to be drawn and I think Skyfall did it  in the appropriate places.

 

The balancing act is between knowing when they don't need to expedite something and when not expediting something is itself the thing that diverts the audience perception of the narrative, as they waste time wondering about the what's and whys. I think the facts that some here are debating this is proof enough that a simple, elegant piece of dialogue might've been less distracting than it's omission in this case.

[Orion]

I wouldn't call that lazy writing, though. If the plot detail is small enough and the audience could reasonably deduce an explanation themselves, why should the film makers divert the films narrative? A line has to be drawn and I think Skyfall did it  in the appropriate places.

 

The balancing act is between knowing when they don't need to expedite something and when not expediting something is itself the thing that diverts the audience perception of the narrative, as they waste time wondering about the what's and whys. I think the facts that some here are debating this is proof enough that a simple, elegant piece of dialogue might've been less distracting than it's omission in this case.

you would end going mad trying to guess what is going to be clear to every audience member, for example i got that two 80 year olds walking across the Scottish moors would need a torch at night, and that the train crash was to get the police away from the enquiry, but apparently some didnt. I wouldnt have thought to explain, as i thought it was obvious.

[Baccarat]

All this fretting about the torch baffles me. An elderly man struggles to help a wounded elderly woman across rugged terrain in the pitch-black of night. They use a torch. Silva sees it. The finale is set up. And so ends a fantastic Bond film. No dialogue, explanation, or analysis needed.

[PPK_19]

So glad that Mendes confirmed that Bond and Penny didn't hook up. I thought it was extremely obvious that they didn't sleep together, i'm baffled as to why other people think the opposite. The way the scene ended, after she finishes shaving him, and something about the edit made it even more obvious. I guess i'm just more intelligent than most people. And in my eyes, the director's word IS final.

[Odd Jobbies]

 

I wouldn't call that lazy writing, though. If the plot detail is small enough and the audience could reasonably deduce an explanation themselves, why should the film makers divert the films narrative? A line has to be drawn and I think Skyfall did it  in the appropriate places.

 

The balancing act is between knowing when they don't need to expedite something and when not expediting something is itself the thing that diverts the audience perception of the narrative, as they waste time wondering about the what's and whys. I think the facts that some here are debating this is proof enough that a simple, elegant piece of dialogue might've been less distracting than it's omission in this case.

you would end going mad trying to guess what is going to be clear to every audience member...

This is why they get paid so much.

 

All this fretting about the torch baffles me. An elderly man struggles to help a wounded elderly woman across rugged terrain in the pitch-black of night. They use a torch. Silva sees it. The finale is set up. And so ends a fantastic Bond film. No dialogue, explanation, or analysis needed.

Yes, let not mention that assassins were just a little way down the moor still trying to kill them.

 

I guess i'm just more intelligent than most people. And in my eyes, the director's word IS final.

Such hubris only comes with youth and ignorance. By your avatar i'm glad to see you are the former and hopefully experience will teach you that filmmaking (as well as many other things) are never so black and white.

 

For example, riddle me this, if it's the Producers that pick up the awards for best film (which means best production) and that is the top award, then is it not, by your logic, the producers' word that is final?

 

Everyone behind the cam will tell you that it's the audience that decide what a film is - if they don't agree with you, then you made badly.

[The Shark]

All this fretting about the torch baffles me. An elderly man struggles to help a wounded elderly woman across rugged terrain in the pitch-black of night. They use a torch. Silva sees it. The finale is set up. And so ends a fantastic Bond film. No dialogue, explanation, or analysis needed.

Yes, let not mention that assassins were just a little way down the moor still trying to kill them.

 

I think they must have assumed that Silva and his goons were killed off by the helicopter explosion.

[Odd Jobbies]

 

All this fretting about the torch baffles me. An elderly man struggles to help a wounded elderly woman across rugged terrain in the pitch-black of night. They use a torch. Silva sees it. The finale is set up. And so ends a fantastic Bond film. No dialogue, explanation, or analysis needed.

Yes, let not mention that assassins were just a little way down the moor still trying to kill them.

 

I think they must have assumed that Silva and his goons were killed off by the helicopter explosion.

I'm sure that's probably the logic behind it, but it did issue a few dumbfounded gasps around me and i wonder if it would be left that way were they to remake it.  As i keep saying around here, SF is a superb Bond flick, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the imperfections, even if some around here have already decided for all of us that SF is perfect.

[tdalton]

 

 

All this fretting about the torch baffles me. An elderly man struggles to help a wounded elderly woman across rugged terrain in the pitch-black of night. They use a torch. Silva sees it. The finale is set up. And so ends a fantastic Bond film. No dialogue, explanation, or analysis needed.

Yes, let not mention that assassins were just a little way down the moor still trying to kill them.

 

I think they must have assumed that Silva and his goons were killed off by the helicopter explosion.

I'm sure that's probably the logic behind it, but it did issue a few dumbfounded gasps around me and i wonder if it would be left that way were they to remake it.  As i keep saying around here, SF is a superb Bond flick, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the imperfections, even if some around here have already decided for all of us that SF is perfect.

 

Going back and looking at the film, Kincaide appears to be using the flashlight before the explosion.  It's in his hand as he and M are watching Skyfall explode and then it's on when he turns around and they begin walking towards the church.  I suppose that it's possible he made the split second decision to turn it on as he turned around to continue walking, but I doubt that's something he would think of mere seconds after watching the home that he's taken care of for his entire life, in addition to thinking the child he spent a good deal of time with as well, go up in flames.

Edited by tdalton, 19 February 2013 - 05:01 PM.

[Professor Pi]

Amidst all the debate about the torch, did anyone else notice this oddity:

 

M and Kincade head for the church from the tunnel.  Silva heads for the church from Skyfall.  Bond heads for the church but...there's suddenly a frozen lake he must cross that the others bypassed?!

 

Just wondering...

[Orion]

 

 

All this fretting about the torch baffles me. An elderly man struggles to help a wounded elderly woman across rugged terrain in the pitch-black of night. They use a torch. Silva sees it. The finale is set up. And so ends a fantastic Bond film. No dialogue, explanation, or analysis needed.

Yes, let not mention that assassins were just a little way down the moor still trying to kill them.

 

I think they must have assumed that Silva and his goons were killed off by the helicopter explosion.

I'm sure that's probably the logic behind it, but it did issue a few dumbfounded gasps around me and i wonder if it would be left that way were they to remake it.  As i keep saying around here, SF is a superb Bond flick, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the imperfections, even if some around here have already decided for all of us that SF is perfect.

it bothered people i know aswell, just wasn't something that bothered me (hello underused Severine) I think, much like the train and the missed shot, i got the logic behind it.

[Spectre Cat]

Well, maybe if Bond had cleverly waved a flashlight all over creation, he could have avoided the lake.  

[Orion]

Amidst all the debate about the torch, did anyone else notice this oddity:

 

M and Kincade head for the church from the tunnel.  Silva heads for the church from Skyfall.  Bond heads for the church but...there's suddenly a frozen lake he must cross that the others bypassed?!

 

Just wondering...

Kincade was grounds keeper, he knew it was there. Silva didnt bypass it, he was stood next to it.

[The Shark]

Amidst all the debate about the torch, did anyone else notice this oddity:

 

M and Kincade head for the church from the tunnel.  Silva heads for the church from Skyfall.  Bond heads for the church but...there's suddenly a frozen lake he must cross that the others bypassed?!

 

Just wondering...

 

The frozen lake was the short cut from the tunnel exit to the chapel. Everyone except Bond took the longer route across the marshland.

[Orion]

http://www.digitalsp...moneypenny.html

 

Harris mentions cut scene saying they specifically didnt have sex, was later decided it should be ambiguous.

[Odd Jobbies]

Amidst all the debate about the torch, did anyone else notice this oddity:

 

M and Kincade head for the church from the tunnel.  Silva heads for the church from Skyfall.  Bond heads for the church but...there's suddenly a frozen lake he must cross that the others bypassed?!

 

Just wondering...

Kincade was grounds keeper, he knew it was there.....

If he knew the land so well, why'd he need a torch?  

 

http://www.digitalsp...moneypenny.html

 

Harris mentions cut scene saying they specifically didnt have sex, was later decided it should be ambiguous.

Great find. The scene is indeed ambiguous and means Mendes commentary about it as reported in this thread is either mis-reported, or Mendes 'mis-remembered' it, or most likely he's simply letting us know their original intention here, fully aware that thanks to the final edit omitting this information (of a lack of sex) it is now wholly ambiguous.

 

Since the vast majority of the audience for Bond 24 won't have listened to Mendes audio commentary, they will take in with them the baggage of a possible sexual liaison between the two, and so in their minds the relationship should reflect this and possibly reveal the outcome of that shave.

 

I imagine Sony thought it much sexier to leave it ambiguous, but this will come back to haunt Logan when he has to either explain it in retrospect or pretend it didn't happen; probably the latter - just another anomaly of inconsistency for the Bond canon.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 19 February 2013 - 05:49 PM.

[PPK_19]

Well obviously it's up to the audience to perceive a film in any way they wish (take the ending of Inception for example) , but all i'm saying Odd Jobbies is that I immediately thought that they definitely didn't hook up, and i'm glad that the film's DIRECTOR said the same. 

 

Alas, at nearly 26 i'm hardly deemed young anymore...

 

And as for this coming back to haunt Logan, i doubt it. Inconsistency litters the Bond canon due to numerous actors of all ages portraying 007 and non-nonsensical plots. They can simply do as they please without little thought to past films.

[Odd Jobbies]

Well obviously it's up to the audience to perceive a film in any way they wish (take the ending of Inception for example) , but all i'm saying Odd Jobbies is that I immediately thought that they definitely didn't hook up, and i'm glad that the film's DIRECTOR said the same. 

Indeed, congrats for being on the same page as Mendes in terms of how this should've been - i'm sure most of us here are in agreement that Bond & Moneypenny should never consummate.

However, this point is at best ambiguous and so many will assume they probably did. The fact that Mendes points out that they didn't consummate may illustrate that he didn't agree with the decision to remove that information from the script's final draft, as Orion's sourced article makes clear:  http://www.digitalsp...moneypenny.html

 

Alas, at nearly 26 i'm hardly deemed young anymore...

My commiserations, PPK, you are indeed over the hill  

 

And as for this coming back to haunt Logan, i doubt it. Inconsistency litters the Bond canon due to numerous actors of all ages portraying 007 and non-nonsensical plots. They can simply do as they please without little thought to past films.

You are absolutely right, of course. It's just a shame that they're already throwing consistency to the wind, since Craig's first two films hinted at the exciting prospect of narrative and character arc running through his films.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 19 February 2013 - 07:14 PM.

[delfloria]

Torch aside, what about Bond leaving Eve back at the casino where killers have already tried to retrieve the case. How come they don't go after her? Mendes said....................

[Orion]

Torch aside, what about Bond leaving Eve back at the casino where killers have already tried to retrieve the case. How come they don't go after her? Mendes said....................

arn't they all dead in the komodo dragon pit?

[The Shark]

Torch aside, what about Bond leaving Eve back at the casino where killers have already tried to retrieve the case. How come they don't go after her? Mendes said....................

arn't they all dead in the komodo dragon pit?

 

One killed by Komodo dragons - two unconscious.

[Leon]

 

It was a very good listen. What I found interesting was the fact that Bond missed shooting the glass on Severine's head on purpose, did not pick up on that.

 

 

Well how could we pick up on that... it wasn't made clear at all. If that was the intention, they should have made it so.

I thought it was obvious Bond missed on purpose, trying to undersell his skills to get the jump on Silva and his men. Hence his aim seemingly improving between shooting at Severine and killing Silva's henchmen less than 5 minutes later.

 

I also totally picked up on Bond missing deliberately. I will add that I felt there was not just a sense of underselling his skills but that he was also still shakey, the gun was a terrible gun for such a stunt and a slight miss would mean death for her.
 

I got the impression Bond wasn't so sure he could pull that shot off given the gun and his physical state, so he deliberately misses rather than take the big risk of shooting a frightened woman in the face. He's still not at the top of his game in this scene and I'll say again.. those guns are really not accurate compared to modern pistols.. I actually also thought that Silva deliberately chose those things to annoy Bond - both men would be very well aware of the extra danger of attempting that shot with those pistols.

[Orion]

 

Torch aside, what about Bond leaving Eve back at the casino where killers have already tried to retrieve the case. How come they don't go after her? Mendes said....................

arn't they all dead in the komodo dragon pit?

 

One killed by Komodo dragons - two unconscious.

Upon rewatching, id assume Eve left not long after Bond, she was aware of the danger having knocked out the last thug herself

[delfloria]

 

 

It was a very good listen. What I found interesting was the fact that Bond missed shooting the glass on Severine's head on purpose, did not pick up on that.

 

 

Well how could we pick up on that... it wasn't made clear at all. If that was the intention, they should have made it so.

I thought it was obvious Bond missed on purpose, trying to undersell his skills to get the jump on Silva and his men. Hence his aim seemingly improving between shooting at Severine and killing Silva's henchmen less than 5 minutes later.

 

I also totally picked up on Bond missing deliberately. I will add that I felt there was not just a sense of underselling his skills but that he was also still shakey, the gun was a terrible gun for such a stunt and a slight miss would mean death for her.
 

I got the impression Bond wasn't so sure he could pull that shot off given the gun and his physical state, so he deliberately misses rather than take the big risk of shooting a frightened woman in the face. He's still not at the top of his game in this scene and I'll say again.. those guns are really not accurate compared to modern pistols.. I actually also thought that Silva deliberately chose those things to annoy Bond - both men would be very well aware of the extra danger of attempting that shot with those pistols.

That was the way I interpreted it as well.

Does Mendes talk about the writers telling him that the DB-5 was won in a card game in the Bahamas but he wanted the "Goldfinger" DB5 anyway?

[winstoninabox]

Well obviously it's up to the audience to perceive a film in any way they wish (take the ending of Inception for example) , but all i'm saying Odd Jobbies is that I immediately thought that they definitely didn't hook up, and i'm glad that the film's DIRECTOR said the same. 

 

Alas, at nearly 26 i'm hardly deemed young anymore...

 

And as for this coming back to haunt Logan, i doubt it. Inconsistency litters the Bond canon due to numerous actors of all ages portraying 007 and non-nonsensical plots. They can simply do as they please without little thought to past films.

 

"but all I'm saying Odd Jobbies". Ahhh, the passive / aggresive approach. Let's take a look at all you're saying. "So glad that Mendes confirmed that Bond and Penny didn't hook up. I thought it was extremely obvious that they didn't sleep together, i'm baffled as to why other people think the opposite. The way the scene ended, after she finishes shaving him, and something about the edit made it even more obvious.

I guess i'm just more intelligent than most people. And in my eyes, the director's word IS final."

 

Mendes confirms. You think it's obvious. Baffling others don't. Even more obvious if you look at it. And the corker - you're more intelligent than most. Do I even need to mention that you clam, with no evidence at all, that the directors word is final. Really? The actor has no input, the scriptwriter says he or she wanted to do it this way, the audience should just forget the personal experiences they bring to the viewing and the history of the filmic Bond character and his sexual experiences with women are just ignored because the director says "I see it this way". If there were no debate about the scene, there'd be no debate. In a film that has some cracking dialogue doesn't it seem like a missed opportunity to finish the scene off with Eve leaving the hotel room and a frustrated Bond with a one liner of her own?

 

What we do have is a scene where two unattached adults, one who is semi-naked, are in a hotel room on the other side of the world from anyone who knows what they're doing. They engage in an intimate activity (yes, shaving someone you hardly know is pretty intimate) while having a little bit of verbal fun along the way. Even at the age of 26, you've gotta admit that this is sending pretty strong signals to the audience that something is going to happen. That the audience knows that one of these characters is famous for his sexual conquests and 2 plus 2 equals 4. If the scene had ended with the camera floating out the window then you wouldn't even be questioning it. That it doesn't suddenly changes the scene into a platonic encounter...

 

BTW, you're only as young as the maturity you display.

[Odd Jobbies]

BTW, you're only as young as the maturity you display.

 

Or as Indy  once said,  "It's not the years, it's the milage."

 

Anyone that doesn't see that the above scenario you describe, winstoninabox, would likely lead to sex for the majority of red blooded individuals (and Bond is pretty red blooded), needs to get a few more miles on the clock (and have some fun). I think most of us would be surprised and very disappointed to be in that scenario and then be sexually rejected. Moneypenny should be a flirt, not a tease.

 

So if this particular scenario did indeed end, in the filmmaker's eyes, with such an unlikely rejection, then the onus is on the filmmaker to impart that information. Expecting your audience to reach the unlikely  outcome by themselves is unrealistic.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 21 February 2013 - 10:23 AM.