But it is hard to use ellipses in a poetic way, and prevent them from deteriorating into plot holes. Hamilton was the first Bond master of this technique in GOLDFINGER: Goldfinger’s car being loaded onto a plane–cut–Bond and the Aston Martin DB5 on the road above Goldfinger in Switzerland.
In DAF, Hamilton takes the ellipsis to new heights, notably in the sequence at Willard Whyte’s laboratories.
Bond goes five levels down
Bond acquires a white lab coat and clipboard
Bond discovered–lab alerted
Bond ascends five levels
Bond breaks through an exterior wall on ground level in the moon buggy
I think that can be part of it. But a more significant contribution is the director’s ability to marshal the formal elements of their film and its mise en scene to prevent ellipses from being experienced as plot holes. I think Mendes does a superb job of this in SP. The surreal/horror/operatic stylings, score, and editing patterns carry a viewer through the ellipses, providing a continuity that allows Mendes to selectively depict his narrative. The ellipses allow a viewer to think “This is what must have happened to bring Bond here,” while at the same time enjoying the journey to the new action. When an ellipses fails, and devolves into a plot hole, the viewer is given both too much time and not enough cinematic pleasure, resulting in them thinking: "“How the hell did this happen?”
I will add that I do not feel that Mendes does this nearly as well in SF, which is much choppier to me (based on my last viewing of about one year ago). SF is also a much talkier movie in places than SP, which, for me, makes SF a bumpier cinematic experience. In SP, Mendes seems to find the sweet spot of all the elements he employs, and keeps them in an exquisite balance for more than two hours.
Given the allegedly grumpy way and mood with which Amazon parted company with the Broccolineage, one suspects that they might justify to themselves not hanging onto any of the distinguishing features of The Family Silver and present us with something “James Bond: Reimagined” or equivalent.
You may have seen your last gunbarrel.
That might not necessarily be a bad thing; the Broccoli ones will stand out and the new ones can be new things without looking over their shoulder all the time, No Time to Die as a whole being a crude metaphor for the series being perpetually chased by its past and needing to die.
If they’re not good pals, nothing to feel obliged to do or honour.
I think we could be in for something entirely new here which doesn’t impact the qualities of what has gone before, and doesn’t feel obliged to.
I am adopting this as a word that I plan to use often enough for it to enter into popular vernacular for those in my immediate circle of influence. So let it be written; so let it be done.
„Many people say“ is never a sound argument (as we have sadly come to experience in a terrible loop).
And here I see that you have a false definition.
You basically describe an ellipsis: something is deliberately left out because a) it is so obvious that it would become boring to show it or b) it is left to your imagination to fill the gap because you surely can do that based on the information given - or it is just not relevant to experience the story and it would slow the pace down.
A plot hole happens when there is no way the story could have developed logically from point A to B and therefore the film leaves out things because a) nobody could come up with a solution, b) nobody noticed it or c) scenes were edited out and nobody thought it would matter.
So, in your example - Bond surviving the fall - is easily explained: he wasn‘t that badly hurt. And you also can easily deduct that he bought a plane ticket to get back to London - but you don’t have to show his traveling plans.
Judging fom the consumer oriented pandering Amazon is known for I doubt this.
I predict we get a huge gunbarrel at the beginning and every fan service amped up to the max, scored with the loudest Bond theme ever. Probably Adele is bought back for the song.
Forgive me, and I don’t mean to annoy anyone, but I don’t think either of the examples I cited could be seen as ellipses.
For one thing, Silva getting passed two armed guards would surely be interesting to see, so it might as well be shown. Or else not include the scene at all.
Bond’s survival from the fall can’t just be because he wasn’t hurt - the height he fell from, and certainly the water and falls he then endured, are there so we think he’s dead. With good reason, because any one of those three things could’ve killed him. The fact he didn’t die presents, at best, a massive implausibility at odds with the film’s tone, and at worst a plot hole. Either way, it’s odd. It’s like having the TSWLM ski jump without the parachute.
An ellipsis would be, as you involve, a plane journey which we do not need to see. We rarely, in fact, see Bond traveling between countries for this reason (DAD and TSWLM are two exceptions that I can think of off-hand). But I don’t think an ellipsis is what we’re seeing here.
The tones we are using here are quite curious contrasts. In my posts, I’m conciliatory and take pains to be polite. I use phrases like, “Forgive me, I don’t want to annoy anyone” and “With all the respect in the world”, and even “You may be right.” And your tone is quite curt, cold and aloof, even rude.
As someone who only wrote their first post the other day, I find that disappointing.
Silva escaping is a plot point that comes up from time to time, but I’ve never been bothered by it. I certainly don’t think it’s a plot hole.
We see the cell open and the guards incapacitated… Silva was an MI6 agent. A James Bond of another era. Surely we can assume that him subduing 2 guards is well within his abilities, no?
I guess so, yeah, but maybe it’d be good to have shown it. We could see at least one of the guards was no real match for him. Maybe he hesitated too long before aiming his gun.
It’s not a big, big deal, but it did kind of take me out of the film, but then most of the plot is a bit of a cheese dream to me.
Though I didn’t rate the film for that reason, I was nonetheless very pleased it did so well. Maybe one day I’ll revisit it - as I haven’t seen it since its release in cinemas - and like it. I flippin’ loved the cottage sequence (torches aside).
Fairly sure I will still dislike the shower scene, though…
This conversation has made me realize that ellipses and plot holes are two different points on a continuum called “Things that Must Happen, but which the Audience Does Not Witness.” Where these points fall on the continuum is determined by a combination of viewer preferences and directorial skill.
Taking the example of Bond surviving the plunge in SF: viewers are presented with a serious fall (serious enough to lead to a presumption of death), and then Bond’s recovery. @secretagentfan says the audience will assume that Bond wasn’t badly hurt. The question is: does Mendes’ mise en scene support this reading, and ease the movement from intense fall to recovery. I am with @Luigi here–Mendes does not make the unshown plausible. Bond survives because there is no movie if he doesn’t.
Mendes has a much better grip on this aspect of Bond filmmaking in SP. In the PTS, Bond destroys a couple of buildings, goes hurtling down with the debris, and lands safely on a comfy, conveniently placed sofa. With this scene, Mendes declares all gaps to be ellipses. Whatever has to happen between scenes will occur–no matter how far-fetched or unlikely–and accepted as plausible by viewers, if they have already accepted Bond landing on the couch. Of course, viewers who are discomfited by SP’s PTS will be in for a long screening, since, as Luigi notes, they will be taken out of the movie.
Bond films need to take some outrageous leaps, and it is up to the director to clear a pathway of acceptance for viewers–both the forgiving and the hard-nosed–to travel.
Agree. The framing of the scene is that Q and MI6 have been taken off guard. It happens quickly and they don’t have time to react. Seeing the aftermath of Silva’s deed makes him more wraith like. We just need to know he escapes. Bond’s fall during the PTS should have been fatal, and I think that’s the point. Moneypenny reports back what she saw, with MI6 deeming their agent dead. A theme of the film is resurrection.
According to the Hollywood Reporter article listed above, Amazon had "approached the Broccolis with pitches for a TV series based on Moneypenny, another about Felix Leiter, and “maybe even something involving a female 007.” Of course this met with disapproval.
Then Amazon hoped that Courtenay Valenti, “who had come aboard MGM about a year after Amazon bought it, and whom Broccoli was said to have liked” could loosen up Barbara, but this didn’t pan out.
Relations got even worse when Jennifer Salke, head of Amazon Studios, referred to Bond as “content” and offended Broccoli. Wilson was also unhappy, because he was “unable to set up meetings with Amazon’s top brass.”
Amazon suggested several Bond actors, “but none the Broccolis would sign off on.” Wilson decided to retire, and this
was said to be a big factor in Broccoli’s ultimate decision to walk away from the franchise. After 30 years of Bond movies, she no longer had the stomach or stamina for the endless studio battles or the years-long Bond production marathons, certainly not on her own. And there was no obvious successor — not even Wilson’s son, Greg, who’s been working on the recent films but who, insiders say, wasn’t considered ready to step into his father’s shoes.
Bezos then read Broccoli’s Wall Street Journal quote about Amazon executives being “****ing idiots,” got on the phone, and said “I don’t care what it costs, get rid of her.” This is according to an insider who confirmed that her go-away price was “close to a billion dollars.”
I’m curious why Greg Wilson wasn’t considered “ready.” There is surely a deeper story here.
