Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Sam Mendes Commentary = AMAZING!


110 replies to this topic

#61 Mr Teddy Bear

Mr Teddy Bear

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1154 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:48 AM

Different people reach different conclusions. I think of that scene as being intentionally flirtatious and ambiguous, and I think there is an excitement to that. Regardless of what happened after, in that scene, Eve was a flirt and a tease. Then again, my voice might not hold much weight considering I haven't listened to the Mendes commentary.

 

I'm a huge fan of The Avengers and the chemistry between Steed and Ms Peel, so that tells you something about me. Sometimes all the thrill is from flirtation and foreplay. Just because it may not have ended a certain way doesn't mean Bond is disappointed  Maybe he gets something more from the relationship because she is able to resist? As far as I'm concerned, the film left either possibility open. I thought at the time they didn't do 'the deed', so that is what I'll take with me unless a future interaction between the characters suggests otherwise. The film invites your to draw your own conclusions despite what Mendes says.



#62 Professor Pi

Professor Pi

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:09 PM

The other thing is they probably had to go to the Macao casino promptly.  Hardly enough time to umm ... "find the stationary!" :D



#63 Bucky

Bucky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 21 February 2013 - 08:07 PM

Getting back to the commentary, I really liked it. It is obvious from the commentary as well as his interviews that Mendes has a lot of love for Bond and had a great time making this one.



#64 delfloria

delfloria

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:10 PM

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.

It's a  stretch to think he could turn Pussy Galore against Goldfinger and have Strawberry Fields after much protesting but not to be able to seduce Eve. Mendes needed hold the audiences hand on this one. It didn't help that Bond was interested in unbuttoning her blouse. THAT is Mendes fault for sending a wrong signal as to Bond intentions.



#65 winstoninabox

winstoninabox

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 64 posts
  • Location:Tokyo

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:57 AM

Bringing it back to the commentary, what does Mendes say about the second to last scene outside of M's office with Bond and Eve?

 

The dialogue cannot be interrepted literally for It would be crazy to think that Bond has now had two missions with Eve and he still doesn't know her name.

To me the dialogue where he says they haven't been formally introduced was his way of saying what happens in Maccau stays in Maccau. They're now going to act as if they are meeting for the first time and forge a new, platonic and formal working relationship.



#66 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 22 February 2013 - 09:59 AM

 

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.

It's a  stretch to think he could turn Pussy Galore against Goldfinger and have Strawberry Fields after much protesting but not to be able to seduce Eve. Mendes needed hold the audiences hand on this one. It didn't help that Bond was interested in unbuttoning her blouse. THAT is Mendes fault for sending a wrong signal as to Bond intentions.

Absolutely! It's naive to expect otherwise of the average popcorn munching member of the audience.

 

Bringing it back to the commentary, what does Mendes say about the second to last scene outside of M's office with Bond and Eve?

 

The dialogue cannot be interrepted literally for It would be crazy to think that Bond has now had two missions with Eve and he still doesn't know her name.

To me the dialogue where he says they haven't been formally introduced was his way of saying what happens in Maccau stays in Maccau. They're now going to act as if they are meeting for the first time and forge a new, platonic and formal working relationship.

 

I thought the same - that they were trying to be professional, putting Maccau behind them as they look forward to their more formal relationship, which is the traditional one the audience knows so well. However, the very need to 'put Maccau behind them', which seemed the sum inference of their 'formal introduction at the end, suggests their may well have been a little rumpy-pumpy ;)

 

Regarding names, as someone who spent a few years of my youth in an organisation which uses surnames only it is very easy indeed to never even learn a colleague's christian name; one doesn't think of the surname as such, becoming a person's only necessary moniker. Even in a social situation you'll still finding everyone using surnames - it's very habit forming.


Edited by Odd Jobbies, 22 February 2013 - 10:05 AM.


#67 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 22 February 2013 - 10:52 AM

Have to admit I always assumed Bond missed the glass on purpose. That said I'm not sure if the whole 'Bond is over the hill' thing wasn't intended as a ploy, as M assumed the attacker must have access to SIS systems anyway. I seem to remember Bond doing the quick-draw drill and ending up without a single shot hitting the 10-field, which seems unlikely. To me the marks looked as if Bond missed on purpose, misleading Silva into underestimating him. But that kind of ploy-within-a-ploy would probably have given away too much too early, so it either was changed or cut.

Edited by Dustin, 22 February 2013 - 10:53 AM.


#68 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 22 February 2013 - 10:56 AM

I agree: Bond misses on purpose. But also because he does not really know whether he could hit it without hurting Severine. Also, since he is forced to shoot, he obliges - but on his own terms. He does not want to actually play Silva´s game - he rather shoots anywhere but at the glass (or Severine).

 

Interestingly, I never had a problem with his comment after Silva kills Severine. For me, it´s the typical Bond statement, deflecting his real feelings.

 

Getting back to the commentary: Looking forward to listening to it. In Germany, we´ll have to wait one more week until the BD is released.



#69 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 22 February 2013 - 11:25 AM

If nothing else, Bond is always resourceful (making him never more interesting than when he's the underdog, out of his depths, his gadgets removed).

 

We've seen how shaky a marksman Bond has become thanks to the wound, pain killers and booze, so we infer that he doesn't trust his aim. I definitely don't see this being part of a bigger twist / bluff devised earlier by Bond and M. Mendes may have accidentally misled with his final cut of the Bond /Moneypenny rumpy-pumpy, but he and Logan are far too good to let such a major plot point slip under the radar.

 

Being resourceful, he uses his lack of confidence to lure Silva et al into false security, gaining surprise when he makes his move. Turning Severin's death to his advantage is a little cold - ever the survivor - but that's what makes Craig's Bond exciting.

 

What's so interestingly unpredictable about Craig's Bond is that he doesn't do any comic book damsel saving before Silva made the shot - instead he lets Silva take it, knowing he'll likely kill her. All the other Bond's since Connery would've attempted to somehow save the girl first. I found this diversion from the usual Bond formula incredibly refreshing, thinking that from that point on anything can happen - no one is safe because they're part of the format. And indeed they weren't....



#70 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:01 PM

What's so interestingly unpredictable about Craig's Bond is that he doesn't do any comic book damsel saving before Silva made the shot - instead he lets Silva take it, knowing he'll likely kill her. All the other Bond's since Connery would've attempted to somehow save the girl first.

 

WWFBD - What Would Fleming's Bond Do?

 


Sat through it the other day, and enjoyed it immensely. Mendes iswitty, personable, articulate and sharp as a tack. A 21st centuryTerence Young or Peter Hunt. I honestly take back anything I've said about the guy in the past.

What also impressed me was the technical insight he gave, and a fine attention to detail. For example he talked about how Kubrick and Ken Adam's oppresive use of overhead strip lighting in DR. STRANGELOVE's war room inspired the MI6 underground bunker sets, or how he and Deakins modelled the shot of Bond pulling into the street facing the Shanghai skyscraper on a similar shot in CHINATOWN. Plus he talked about Thomas Newman's score a number of times, along with favourable comparisons to Bernard Herrmann.



#71 delfloria

delfloria

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 22 February 2013 - 07:19 PM

WWFBD: The films have never really been 100% Fleming's Bond which is what makes them unique.



#72 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 22 February 2013 - 08:09 PM

Just finished my first listen to Sam's commentary. Absolutely marvelous, a real joy to listen to him speak. I really hope we get him back again, he absolutely gets it in every possible way.



#73 AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän

AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 493 posts
  • Location:Oulu, Finland

Posted 22 February 2013 - 08:13 PM

I don't buy that Bond and Eve didn't "do it" in Macau, and that "formal introduction" in the end means to me that both of them know that whatever happened it is now in the past as Eve is now a secretary for M. I have no problems with Bond and Moneypenny having one night fling - that refers to the backstory Sean Connery and Lois Maxwell thought out when working out the backstory of their characters. Not exactly what Fleming wrote, but something Connery/Maxwell came up with in early 1960's, thus "canon". :) 



#74 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 22 February 2013 - 08:28 PM

My impression too was Eve and Bond did have a very close shave. Not that I bothered much, it's no big deal as such with the chemistry of those two. Samantha Bond's Moneypenny being hopelessly in love with Bond I found more troubling, especially since it came out of the blue; before DAD she wasn't depicted as the craving kind.



#75 AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän

AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 493 posts
  • Location:Oulu, Finland

Posted 22 February 2013 - 09:02 PM

The dialogue between Craig and Harris was several notches above the crass pornotalk we got with Brosnan and Bond.



#76 Revelator

Revelator

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 22 February 2013 - 09:31 PM

WWFBD: The films have never really been 100% Fleming's Bond which is what makes them unique.

 


Unique compared to what exactly? Skyfall obviously owes more to Fleming than, say, Moonraker, But I also think Fleming's Bond would have engaged in some "comic book damsel saving."  I don't find "refreshing" the idea that Bond would stand by and let a woman die despite knowing that the cavalry is on its way.



#77 MajorB

MajorB

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3700 posts
  • Location:Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, USA

Posted 22 February 2013 - 09:55 PM

I assumed that Bond and Eve did, um, complete their intention, since the "helping hands" comment doesn't seem to make sense otherwise. But I don't think it's a crucial point either way. It's still a wonderful scene.

 

My take on the marksmanship scene is that Bond did miss on purpose, that he would have prevented Severeine's death if he could have, but that only after she was shot and the gun was no longer pointed at his head could he do anything. And I think the callous remark was meant to relax Silva's men for a split second--even Craig's Bond would feel some regret about Severine, IMO. I wouldn't call him a complete bastard.



#78 delfloria

delfloria

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 22 February 2013 - 09:58 PM

WWFBD: The films have never really been 100% Fleming's Bond which is what makes them unique.

 


Unique compared to what exactly? Skyfall obviously owes more to Fleming than, say, Moonraker, But I also think Fleming's Bond would have engaged in some "comic book damsel saving."  I don't find "refreshing" the idea that Bond would stand by and let a woman die despite knowing that the cavalry is on its way.

Unique, in that they are not exact copies of Fleming's portrayal of Bond in the books. Never have been and I doubt they ever will. I don't defend what he did in regards to Severine because his actions make him less of a "hero" than other secret agents such as Napoleon Solo.



#79 Matt_13

Matt_13

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5969 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 February 2013 - 12:35 AM

So, it seems that John Logan was responsible for some of the more memorable dialogue exchanges, such as the word association game and Bond's first encounter with Q in the National Gallery. I can safely say that I'm more than a little excited at the prospect of him taking the reigns on a screenplay of his own. He seems to be a master at creeping toward the edge of camp but never really toppling over the side. I expect big things from Bond 24.



#80 Revelator

Revelator

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 23 February 2013 - 04:38 AM

Unique, in that they are not exact copies of Fleming's portrayal of Bond in the books. Never have been and I doubt they ever will. I don't defend what he did in regards to Severine because his actions make him less of a "hero" than other secret agents such as Napoleon Solo.

 

Once again, how does that make the films unique? It's not as if there's another series of James Bond films that slavishly adhere to Fleming's Bond. And it would be impossible for any film of a book to exactly copy its source material anyway. So the "unique" doesn't make any sense here, unless one wishes to say that the Bond films are unique in being the only film series based off of Fleming's books.

Why should Bond be less of a hero anyway? He can be a bit ruthless, but he is quite obviously a good guy--we never doubt his patriotism; while violent he is not a sadist; though he likes women, he is not a cad (not the original character anyway) or a sexual predator. Bond is undoubtedly a hero, and the bizarreness and mixed tones of the Severine death scene, which feels half-written yet heavily cut (especially compared with the rest of the film) just leave a bad taste.



#81 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:52 AM

WWFBD: The films have never really been 100% Fleming's Bond which is what makes them unique.

 


Unique compared to what exactly? Skyfall obviously owes more to Fleming than, say, Moonraker, But I also think Fleming's Bond would have engaged in some "comic book damsel saving."  I don't find "refreshing" the idea that Bond would stand by and let a woman die despite knowing that the cavalry is on its way.

It's not morally refreshing, it's dramatically refreshing. It breaks the mould and that is always good in dramatic terms - maybe you don't like Bond doing this, but i'll bet Craig likes Bond doing this. Originality helps him to make his Bond his own, rather than an impersonation of previous Bonds who all always do the predictable [cinematic] Bondian thing.

So, it seems that John Logan was responsible for some of the more memorable dialogue exchanges...

such as the word association game and Bond's first encounter with Q in the National Gallery. I can safely say that I'm more than a little excited at the prospect of him taking the reigns on a screenplay of his own. He seems to be a master at creeping toward the edge of camp but never really toppling over the side. I expect big things from Bond 24.

No surprise to me at all - some of the best dialogue in the franchise, and yes, i too expect great things from the solo-Logan script


Edited by Odd Jobbies, 23 February 2013 - 10:54 AM.


#82 Professor Pi

Professor Pi

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 05:53 PM

Listened to the the commentary last night.  Mendes sold me on why the gunbarrel was at the end of this particular film, ending Skyfall the way most Bond films begin.  Was struck by how subtle many of the visual effects were (helicopters over the dead city, some of the mountains in Scotland, the pool being in London, the Macau waterway being indoors, even some of the outdoor moors scenes shot indoors.)

 

He gave insights to the title sequence with Bond looking through the cracks at his childhood home.  He commented on Berenice's performance with Severine's dragon like appearance and how Bond deconstructs her front.  I did pick up on Silva emulating Bond's appearance as a doppelganger with the blonde hair dye, but missed how his wardrobe is the 'negative' of Bond's on the island.  There is a lot of play between light and dark evident in the transitions from London to Shanghai, Macao to the Dead City, and finally from Scotland back to London. 

 

I appreciate the conclusion more each time I see this film, allowing its metaphoric and cinematic import to outweigh criticisms about its logic (e.g. why do trained mercenaries walk as open targets through a valley?!)  This film reveals something on each repeated viewing. 



#83 Hockey Mask

Hockey Mask

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 24 February 2013 - 06:35 PM

1. On first viewing I didn't think Bond missed on purpose until he went all Bond-gun-Ninja crazy on everyone a few moments later. Then it all made sense. It seemed clear at that point that he had regained his skills and it had been all for show.

2. I think Bond and Eve's encounter was left ambiguous and I hope future Bonds keep us guessing and expand on the their ambiguous history.

3. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the use of a torch in Skyfall. It is in the movie so it is so. At this point put the blame of torch use on the character and not the creators. People do a lot of unbelievably stupid stupid every day. Is it so farfetched that a character made a choice that you wouldn't have?

4. I love using the word "torch".

Edited by 00Hockey Mask, 24 February 2013 - 06:36 PM.


#84 delfloria

delfloria

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 08:16 PM

Listened to the the commentary last night.  Mendes sold me on why the gunbarrel was at the end of this particular film, ending Skyfall the way most Bond films begin.  Was struck by how subtle many of the visual effects were (helicopters over the dead city, some of the mountains in Scotland, the pool being in London, the Macau waterway being indoors, even some of the outdoor moors scenes shot indoors.)

 

He gave insights to the title sequence with Bond looking through the cracks at his childhood home.  He commented on Berenice's performance with Severine's dragon like appearance and how Bond deconstructs her front.  I did pick up on Silva emulating Bond's appearance as a doppelganger with the blonde hair dye, but missed how his wardrobe is the 'negative' of Bond's on the island.  There is a lot of play between light and dark evident in the transitions from London to Shanghai, Macao to the Dead City, and finally from Scotland back to London. 

 

I appreciate the conclusion more each time I see this film, allowing its metaphoric and cinematic import to outweigh criticisms about its logic (e.g. why do trained mercenaries walk as open targets through a valley?!)  This film reveals something on each repeated viewing. 

A lot more thought was put into this film than many of the ROMPS that preceded it.

 

BTW Naomi said in a recent interview they edited out the end of the scene where it shows that Bond and Eve do not have sex. 



#85 Hockey Mask

Hockey Mask

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 24 February 2013 - 08:54 PM

Listened to the the commentary last night.  Mendes sold me on why the gunbarrel was at the end of this particular film, ending Skyfall the way most Bond films begin.  Was struck by how subtle many of the visual effects were (helicopters over the dead city, some of the mountains in Scotland, the pool being in London, the Macau waterway being indoors, even some of the outdoor moors scenes shot indoors.)
 
He gave insights to the title sequence with Bond looking through the cracks at his childhood home.  He commented on Berenice's performance with Severine's dragon like appearance and how Bond deconstructs her front.  I did pick up on Silva emulating Bond's appearance as a doppelganger with the blonde hair dye, but missed how his wardrobe is the 'negative' of Bond's on the island.  There is a lot of play between light and dark evident in the transitions from London to Shanghai, Macao to the Dead City, and finally from Scotland back to London. 
 
I appreciate the conclusion more each time I see this film, allowing its metaphoric and cinematic import to outweigh criticisms about its logic (e.g. why do trained mercenaries walk as open targets through a valley?!)  This film reveals something on each repeated viewing. 

A lot more thought was put into this film than many of the ROMPS that preceded it.
 
BTW Naomi said in a recent interview they edited out the end of the scene where it shows that Bond and Eve do not have sex. 
Was that tongue in cheek or was something really filmed?

#86 winstoninabox

winstoninabox

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 64 posts
  • Location:Tokyo

Posted 25 February 2013 - 01:56 AM

This is what she says from the Digital Spy interview:

 

Harris admitted that her favourite scene to film was the cutthroat shaving sequence with Daniel Craig because it provided an "intimate" break from all the high-octane action set pieces. The moment has prompted much debate among 007 fans about whether or not Bond and Moneypenny spent the night together.

Harris offered up her own theory on the ambiguous scene, saying: "In the script they don't because they get interrupted and it never happens. That was cut out of the script and it was left up to the viewers' imaginations, but in my mind nothing happened. I think it would spoil their relationship, it's nice that they have that sexual tension that they've never actually fulfilled."

 
So it looks like at some point the decision was made to make the scene ambiguous. Harris says it was cut out of the script, but does that mean it was removed from the script, or left in but never filmed, or is it just her way of saying that it was filmed but then never made the final cut. Between what she says and Mendes seems to say (BTW I haven't heard Mendes) it would seem that the decision to make it ambiguous was made after the filming was done. I'd guess that it was thought that just by cutting the conclusion to the scene it would appear ambiguous, and so no futher rewriting or refilming was done.
 
If that's the case IMHO the current edit is not very ambiguous and is much more on the 'they did it' side.
 
If you never knew that that was Moneypenny in the scene, in other words if you thought that she was just another agent in a hotel room with Bond, would that incline you to beleive that they did it? I think so. There's nothing there to suggest that they didn't do it, except for the fact that they don't show them doing it...
That said, whichever way one thinks the scene ends it would have been nicer to be a little clearer about the ambiguity, if you know what I mean.
 


#87 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 25 February 2013 - 09:44 AM

I appreciate the conclusion more each time I see this film, allowing its metaphoric and cinematic import to outweigh criticisms about its logic (e.g. why do trained mercenaries walk as open targets through a valley?!)  This film reveals something on each repeated viewing. 

I don't think this scene defies logic at all:

 

I think the mercs were sent in for the same reason a hunter/gameskeeper sends in the dogs - to bring the 'game' out of their hiding place.

 

Thanks to this first shootout Silva was able to assertion what was waiting for him at Skyfall - for all he knew there could've been a squad of marines with ground-to-air missiles waiting for him. So by sacrificing the initial strike force he ascertained his own military superiority from the comfort of the heavily armed helicopter.

 

If the mercs hadn't approached so openly, but stealthily instead and gained entry to the building before the ensuing fire fight began it would've been obscured and Silva may not have been any the wiser about his opponents strength had his team been killed inside.

 


3. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the use of a torch in Skyfall. It is in the movie so it is so. At this point put the blame of torch use on the character and not the creators. People do a lot of unbelievably stupid stupid every day. Is it so farfetched that a character made a choice that you wouldn't have?
 

 

That's just not good enough for a movie at this level (or any level if you care about your movie being a good one). In a good movie character drives the action and thus the plot. Character and plot are inseparable and just like the plot needs a reason for happening, so to do characters need a reason for doing everything they do. This is called character motivation and is vital to every good movie and performance down to the smallest detail (hence the greatest compliment you can pay an actor is to tell them their work is very detailed).

 

Above all, these motivations and thus their actions must be reasonable or at least plausible in the established logic of each character. You can't simply say that whatever a character does, however implausible or inexplicable in terms of what we the audience have been told about that character is simply up to them - that they 'made a choice that i wouldn't have...'

 

It's not about choices that  would make - i'm not in the movie !  It's about choices the characters make actually making sense in their  own minds and this being clear to the audience. What we have here is a character doing an implausible thing because it allows the story to move on (and makes for a pretty shot). That is poor, very lazy script writing. If you don't believe me, then try writing a feature script in which the characters just do whatever you need them to do in order to push your story along, regardless of whether in seems plausible.... And then try selling that scrip.....

 

Defy logic at your peril - a script is a house of cards and playing loose with the logic you establish for your characters is like playing loose with the laws of physics for your deck of cards. Go too far and it all comes crashing down. I don't think that 'torch-gate' has brought Skyfall  crashing down, indeed, apart from a few small hiccups it's a good script and the dialogue is among the best in the franchise. But it would be a better film had Britain's head of intelligence and an experienced gameskeeper not inexplicably been throwing a torch beam around the moors like a bat signal desperately looking for Christian Bale to save them.


Edited by Odd Jobbies, 25 February 2013 - 10:08 AM.


#88 Bucky

Bucky

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1031 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:08 AM

On the torch, I think it made sense that they were using it. Even though Kincade is familiar with the grounds it was still dark and they want to make sure they are careful where they are walking, especially since they both more advanced in years and may not have the best eyesight. We saw Silva trip and fall so we know when he was pursuing them.

 

There is also the fact that M was seriously wounded so they had to get to the chapel as quickly as possible since that was their only real hope of finding anything that could possibly help her. At that point it was either not use the torch and take longer to get to the chapel which would not really give her much of a chance, or use the torch on the risk of being seen by Silva so that they can get to the chapel with enough time to give M a chance.

 

That is how I saw it at least, could be wrong.



#89 Hockey Mask

Hockey Mask

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1027 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 25 February 2013 - 12:57 PM

I appreciate the conclusion more each time I see this film, allowing its metaphoric and cinematic import to outweigh criticisms about its logic (e.g. why do trained mercenaries walk as open targets through a valley?!)  This film reveals something on each repeated viewing. 

I don't think this scene defies logic at all:

 

I think the mercs were sent in for the same reason a hunter/gameskeeper sends in the dogs - to bring the 'game' out of their hiding place.

 

Thanks to this first shootout Silva was able to assertion what was waiting for him at Skyfall - for all he knew there could've been a squad of marines with ground-to-air missiles waiting for him. So by sacrificing the initial strike force he ascertained his own military superiority from the comfort of the heavily armed helicopter.

 

If the mercs hadn't approached so openly, but stealthily instead and gained entry to the building before the ensuing fire fight began it would've been obscured and Silva may not have been any the wiser about his opponents strength had his team been killed inside.

 

>
3. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the use of a torch in Skyfall. It is in the movie so it is so. At this point put the blame of torch use on the character and not the creators. People do a lot of unbelievably stupid stupid every day. Is it so farfetched that a character made a choice that you wouldn't have?
 

 

That's just not good enough for a movie at this level (or any level if you care about your movie being a good one). In a good movie character drives the action and thus the plot. Character and plot are inseparable and just like the plot needs a reason for happening, so to do characters need a reason for doing everything they do. This is called character motivation and is vital to every good movie and performance down to the smallest detail (hence the greatest compliment you can pay an actor is to tell them their work is very detailed).

 

Above all, these motivations and thus their actions must be reasonable or at least plausible in the established logic of each character. You can't simply say that whatever a character does, however implausible or inexplicable in terms of what we the audience have been told about that character is simply up to them - that they 'made a choice that i wouldn't have...'

 

It's not about choices that  would make - i'm not in the movie !  It's about choices the characters make actually making sense in their  own minds and this being clear to the audience. What we have here is a character doing an implausible thing because it allows the story to move on (and makes for a pretty shot). That is poor, very lazy script writing. If you don't believe me, then try writing a feature script in which the characters just do whatever you need them to do in order to push your story along, regardless of whether in seems plausible.... And then try selling that scrip.....

 

Defy logic at your peril - a script is a house of cards and playing loose with the logic you establish for your characters is like playing loose with the laws of physics for your deck of cards. Go too far and it all comes crashing down. I don't think that 'torch-gate' has brought Skyfall  crashing down, indeed, apart from a few small hiccups it's a good script and the dialogue is among the best in the franchise. But it would be a better film had Britain's head of intelligence and an experienced gameskeeper not inexplicably been throwing a torch beam around the moors like a bat signal desperately looking for Christian Bale to save them.

 

I don't think the torch was that big a leap.  So he used a torch.  I can see that happening without leaps in logic. Two old people in an uneven terrain at night, one critically wounded, trying to get to safety.  Sounds like they were motivated to get out quickly. It seems you're grasping at things to complain about, especially for a Bond movie.

 

P.S. I don't need you to give me lessons on Character Motivation.



#90 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 25 February 2013 - 01:25 PM

I don't think the torch was that big a leap.  So he used a torch.  I can see that happening without leaps in logic. Two old people in an uneven terrain at night, one critically wounded, trying to get to safety.  Sounds like they were motivated to get out quickly. It seems you're grasping at things to complain about, especially for a Bond movie.

 

P.S. I don't need you to give me lessons on Character Motivation.

 

No, indeed it wasn't a big leap - as i said, just a hiccup.  But when you make a general statement that' 'At this point put the blame of torch use on the character and not the creators. People do a lot of unbelievably stupid [things] every day'  then you can't really blame me for feeling that perhaps 'lessons in Character Motivation' are indeed called for. You really can't just blame the 'characters' and let the writer off scot free. I don't wish to sound condescending, but the characters aren't real, the writers write them - unless acting out of character is part of a particular character, then anything they do that's out of character is a fault in the writing.


Edited by Odd Jobbies, 25 February 2013 - 01:30 PM.