18 replies to this topic

[DavidJones]

It's one of the most complex Bond films, and I've heard some say that it just plain doesn't make sense. I wouldn't quite say that, but it is very complicated. What does everyone else think?

[AMC Hornet]

Sure it makes sense.

 

It's just that, unlike no-brainers such as Moonraker, we're seeing the plot unfold from an outsider's POV.

 

I loved when, after all the defections and assassination attempts, upon being told Pushkin is dead, Whittaker says "I'll signal Amsterdam to ship the diamonds." I thought, "what? Now what?!" Then suddenly we're off to Afghanistan.

 

Bond movies shouldn't be predictable. There should always be more going on than we're aware of from the start.

[Guy Haines]

It's not that difficult a plot and it follows the line established in the film (rather than the book) From Russia With Love of  middle men playing off the East and the West. A "00" agent is killed. A Soviet defector, Koskov, points the figure at his boss, Pushkin. Bond isn't convinced. Koskov is "abducted", supposedly by his own side. Bond still isn't convinced. He tracks down the innocent girl being used by the villains. He uses her to try and get to the truth.

 

TLD diverts from the FRWL template in that the villains aren't after Bond as a target for revenge but are using him to get rid of someone else, Pushkin. By the time he's in Tangier Bond probably knows he's being used but doesn't know why, and uses his fake assassination of Pushkin to get closer to the truth. Along the way we learn that Brad Whitaker has ripped off his Russian clients over an arms deal, but again we don't know why - until we get to Afghanistan, and discover the "arms money for drugs deal". And that's it.

[tdalton]

It's not difficult to follow at all.  None of the Bond films are, really. 

[The Krynoid man]

It didn't make any sense to me when I first saw it (I was like 10 at the time) but now I can follow it quite easily.

[Grard Bond]

I agree, there's nothing difficult about the story.

Maybe the sceme is a little too much, an easier way to have dealt with things would have had not so many problems for the bad guys and involving Bond was also not very clever in hindsight.

But then.... you don't have a good story and movie....

Edited by Grard Bond, 25 May 2014 - 09:43 AM.

[DavidJones]

It's not difficult to follow at all.  None of the Bond films are, really. 

 

Well, The World Is Not Enough is a bit tricky with all those oil pipelines etc.

 

And I just saw The Living Daylights, for the first time in nine years. I like the story to it; I think it works well. As I see it: Koskov and Whittaker frame the Soviets for the deaths of British agents and basically try to get the two of them at each others' throats, so when they arm the Mujahideen (indirectly fianced by the Soviets) the Mujahideen will have a good chance of beating the Soviets.

Edited by DavidJones, 25 May 2014 - 09:10 PM.

[Aziz Fekkesh]

Mr. Jones, I thought this a very interesting thread - thanks for starting it. At around the time when the action shifts to Afghanistan I find myself wondering how the hell we got there and what everyone up on the screen is so upset about. When I really make an effort I can pull it all together, but it requires an effort.

 

Even WITH an effort, I haven't been able to make much sense of "Skyfall", though.

 

Have you seen "The Third Man"? I'm convinced that "balloon, mein herr?" is a salute to that film.

 

Aziz

[DavidJones]

I missed that Third Man reference! I loved the bit when Bond and Saunders shake hands and Bond thanks him: we'd seen these two meet at the beginning, take an instant dislike to one another, and then develop a mutual respect. That relationship could easily have been without any substance at all, but instead it has spades of the stuff! Also, the bit when Bond bursts the balloon and holds that venomous stare must be one of the best character-moments in the series.

 

When they get to Afghanistan, I do think the film sags. Apart from the fight on the plane, obviously. The machine guns and explosions are so at odds with the rest of the film, which is mostly a slightly less action-oriented affair (gadget-cars aside and cello-riding aside). The fight with the butler at the safe house has to have a special mention, though - it's rare that we see a fight without Bond but it's nevertheless such a compellingly brutal and fluid one.

 

Although I understood it a heck of a lot more this time - totally, I think - I was at the ready, when usually with some films you don't expect them to be particularly intricate and don't realise until much of the exposition has gone and have to play catch-up. Some films - Clear and Present Danger, for example - I have less fun with because of the dexterity of the plot.

 

As for Skyfall, my relationship with that one has been difficult, to say the least. Saw it three times in the cinema, and the plot holes looked big to me but not to anyone else - it was almost like an optical illusion! I've discussed them on another forum, though, and actually made notes of the other fans' help and will give it a fourth viewing some time with an open mind. I just don't want to miss out on liking it as everyone else has had such fun with it and it's ages till the next film.

 

Re TLD, I can't believe Roger was in the frame to star in it, as some have stated. At 59, I doubt he would have been able to jump over those rooftops and dangle from that cargo net.

Edited by DavidJones, 25 May 2014 - 10:42 PM.

[AMC Hornet]

And I just saw The Living Daylights, for the first time in nine years. I like the story to it; I think it works well. As I see it: Koskov and Whittaker frame the Soviets for the deaths of British agents and basically try to get the two of them at each others' throats, so when they arm the Mujahideen (indirectly fianced by the Soviets) the Mujahideen will have a good chance of beating the Soviets.

I don't think arming the Mujahadin was Koskov & Whittaker's aim.

 

Koskov was using Soviet money - intended to buy weapons from Whittaker to arm the Russian troops - to buy diamonds to trade for opium to sell anywhere at a huge profit. The original money could then still be used to buy the arms. As it was, Pushkin cancelled the order and demanded the money returned, before the deal was scheduled to go through. That's why Koskov wanted Pushkin assassinated - to buy time for completing the deal first. Hence the whole Smiert Spionam fiction.

 

Kamran - rather naively - assumed Koskov was buying the opium to sell to the Russian troops. All he cared about was using his commission to buy weapons for his own men (possibly from Whittaker as well, who knows?). Both Koskov and Whittaker were selfish opportunists - they didn't care who got hurt or killed as long as they got rich. They were taking advantage of the occupation of Afghanistan, without taking sides.

 

Kamran was only an ally by default (plus he was Oxford educated, which means he had to be good). As the Russians were a common enemy it was natural for he and Bond to work together to disrupt the occupation in any way possible.

 

I admit it was a bit much for me to take in at the first viewing too, but I don't worry about that much, as I know I'll be back at least three more times during each new movie's run (which is also, as you mentioned, when the plot holes become more and more apparent).

[DavidJones]

Thank you AMC, that's very good of you to go through it. It's certainly cleared up a couple of things for me.

[Messervy]

 

 

I admit it was a bit much for me to take in at the first viewing too,

 

Same here. First time(s) I saw it, I had difficulties grasping the whole plot. There are so many subplots that one can easily get lost; one gets the overall idea, but not every detail. But then, after rewatching it a few times, one does understand the evolution of the plots and how they interact with one another.

 

So, even if it does make sense, we actually have to admit that it's one of the most complex plots in the franchise.

 

 

 

Well, The World Is Not Enough is a bit tricky with all those oil pipelines etc.

 

 

 

What is it you don't understand in TWINE? It's quite straightforward, really.

[DavidJones]

Well, there's the stolen report

 

 

 

 

I admit it was a bit much for me to take in at the first viewing too,

 

Same here. First time(s) I saw it, I had difficulties grasping the whole plot. There are so many subplots that one can easily get lost; one gets the overall idea, but not every detail. But then, after rewatching it a few times, one does understand the evolution of the plots and how they interact with one another.

 

So, even if it does make sense, we actually have to admit that it's one of the most complex plots in the franchise.

 

 

 

Well, The World Is Not Enough is a bit tricky with all those oil pipelines etc.

 

 

 

What is it you don't understand in TWINE? It's quite straightforward, really.

 

 

As Sinclair McKay says in The Man With the Golden Touch, it is 'fiendishly complex'. From the stolen report and what it contains, to the money being a 'message' and the motive for King's death, right the way to Renard wanting to destroy the pipeline leading to the Bosphorus. Like Koskov in The Living Daylights, Electra is pretending to be on Bond's side, so the viewer has to go back and take a look at everything she's done while she was ostensibly a 'goodie' and second-guess everything. Winning at cards against Zukovsky, for example, is not as innocuous as it first appeared. Even the attempted assasination with the parahawks looks like it was meant to kill Electra, but it actually wasn't.

 

I understand it now, but I had to look it up. If I may say, it does take some cajules for one to step up and say he doesn't understand something as seemingly trivial as a James Bond film, as it can be tempting for others to answer smugly that they understand it perfectly and without any perceivable effort, with the implication that the other person must be quite dim. Fortunately, that hasn't happened here.

Edited by DavidJones, 26 May 2014 - 02:46 PM.

[Grard Bond]

What do you mean with "dim"? Not clever? Well that's not the case ofcourse.

 

Bond movies are not always told in the most plain way.

 

Even after thirty years I'm in doubt if the real egg is destroyed, or the fake one, in Octopussy. For years I thought Bond got the fake egg with him to India, but for a couple of years now I think it's the real one which is destroyed by Orlov (but I'm not 100% sure).

Edited by Grard Bond, 26 May 2014 - 05:25 PM.

[Messervy]

What do you mean with "dim"? Not clever? Well that's not the case ofcourse.

Bond movies are not always told in the most plain way.

Even after thirty years I'm in doubt if the real egg is destroyed, or the fake one, in Octopussy. For years I thought Bond got the fake egg with him to India, but for a couple of years now I think it's the real one which is destroyed by Orlov (but I'm not 100% sure).

I'm 100% positive that it's the real egg being smashed to pieces. I think.

To come back to the topic at hand, there's absolutely nothing wrong in saying you didn't get everything at first viewing. I sure didn't, and it took me several viewings (and talking with friends) to really get all the subplots. But that's actually a good thing, as it means the film is not too cartoonish/simplistic.

[DavidJones]

Even after thirty years I'm in doubt if the real egg is destroyed, or the fake one, in Octopussy. For years I thought Bond got the fake egg with him to India, but for a couple of years now I think it's the real one which is destroyed by Orlov (but I'm not 100% sure).

 

Tell me about it! That confused the heck out of me! I do love Octopussy, and it's one of my favourite films ever, but I have to say that part of the story makes me dizzy. I'm not even convinced Wilson and Maibaum were. That beginning is very Avengers-esque, though, so I can forgive it a little, perhaps. The general plot of it did take me a little while to figure out properly, as I like to get every detail sorted in my head simply as I find plots to be remarkable pieces of construction. 

 

I've just read the book 'The James Bond Movies of the 1980s' by Thomas A Christie. It's 13 quid, so I took a deep breath before getting it, but it's a scholarly look at the political and cultural influences the series experienced through that decade, along with a scene-by-scene narrative of  The Living Daylights (which, naturally, I'm finding very handy at the moment!).

[Grard Bond]

Is that a new released book? I 've never heard of it, but it sounds interesting.

[DavidJones]

Is that a new released book? I 've never heard of it, but it sounds interesting.

 

Came out a few months ago:

 

http://www.amazon.co...es of the 1980s

[Grard Bond]

Ok, thanx for let me know!