›

The "Blofeld Trilogy" and was Diamonds are Forever a dream?

135

Comments

  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    Posts: 238
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Huh, because even James Bond needs to sleep sometimes?
    So you are saying that out of the million and one other ways to start the movie, with an action scene maybe, they chose for the one and only time in the history of the entire franchise to start the film with Bond asleep and that this had no other significance other than Bond needs to sleep sometimes? What utter nonsense.

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    What utter nonsense is that you give a particular significance to something that is completely trivial and devoid of any esoteric significance. LALD DID start with an action scene, a triple murder in fact, but Bond was not in it. You first see him in a scene reminiscent of his introduction in DN, where he is with a Bond girl at home. Period. Maybe not the greatest and most exciting for a first introduction to the new Bond, but it has no hidden meaning. If it does, you failed to demonstrate it.
  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    Posts: 238
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What utter nonsense is that you give a particular significance to something that is completely trivial and devoid of any esoteric significance. LALD DID start with an action scene, a triple murder in fact, but Bond was not in it. You first see him in a scene reminiscent of his introduction in DN, where he is with a Bond girl at home. Period. Maybe not the greatest and most exciting for a first introduction to the new Bond, but it has no hidden meaning. If it does, you failed to demonstrate it.

    You can't have read this thread if that is what you are saying. This is just a part of the jigsaw that proves that DAF was a dream. All you have done is looked at the proof that has been presented and then dismissed each point in turn by saying "yeah but that doesn't count"

    It is beyond me why you are unable to grasp this one. It is not nearly as complex as you seem to think.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    MartinAston wrote: »
    they chose for the one and only time in the history of the entire franchise to start the film with Bond asleep and that this had no other significance other than Bond needs to sleep sometimes? What utter nonsense.

    Guy Hamilton wanted to move away from the traditional 'M's office' opening, and rather wanted M to catch Bond in a compromising situation. Hence why Bond is with a woman in his own flat. That's Guy Hamilton. The director.

  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    Posts: 238
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    they chose for the one and only time in the history of the entire franchise to start the film with Bond asleep and that this had no other significance other than Bond needs to sleep sometimes? What utter nonsense.

    Guy Hamilton wanted to move away from the traditional 'M's office' opening, and rather wanted M to catch Bond in a compromising situation. Hence why Bond is with a woman in his own flat. That's Guy Hamilton. The director.
    That is just disinformation, the decision came from the producers, not the Director.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited January 2015 Posts: 15,124
    MartinAston wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What utter nonsense is that you give a particular significance to something that is completely trivial and devoid of any esoteric significance. LALD DID start with an action scene, a triple murder in fact, but Bond was not in it. You first see him in a scene reminiscent of his introduction in DN, where he is with a Bond girl at home. Period. Maybe not the greatest and most exciting for a first introduction to the new Bond, but it has no hidden meaning. If it does, you failed to demonstrate it.

    You can't have read this thread if that is what you are saying. This is just a part of the jigsaw that proves that DAF was a dream. All you have done is looked at the proof that has been presented and then dismissed each point in turn by saying "yeah but that doesn't count"

    It is beyond me why you are unable to grasp this one. It is not nearly as complex as you seem to think.

    I have read it. Unfortunately. I think you are making a jigsaw out of four different pictures. You shown no proof, not even evidence.

    And no, it is not complex. It is ridiculously convoluted.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Or is it? Perhaps the entire Connery era was a dream. Am I dreaming? Oh, look, a unicorn. How very vexing.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    they chose for the one and only time in the history of the entire franchise to start the film with Bond asleep and that this had no other significance other than Bond needs to sleep sometimes? What utter nonsense.

    Guy Hamilton wanted to move away from the traditional 'M's office' opening, and rather wanted M to catch Bond in a compromising situation. Hence why Bond is with a woman in his own flat. That's Guy Hamilton. The director.
    That is just disinformation, the decision came from the producers, not the Director.

    How many strikes does the troll have, Mods?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I have been convinced. How about that astronaut sequence for instance, and how about the missing Willard Whyte/Blofeld-like straight out of The Wizard Of Oz! And that was a dream Dorothy had.

    Maybe he dreamt about plastic surgery because he just had one himself? After all, he is suddenly more reminiscent of Simon Templar for some strange reason. And the light tone when talking to Blofeld is the way his sleeping brain deals with the emotional trauma.

    An elephant playing the slot machine, speaking German inHolland, Moneypenny insinuating marriage, fake fingerprints and a rat trap conveniently placed in his pocket and later he is caught with a rat in the pipeline, even talking to him like an old friend, Bambi and Thumper are suddenly female humans, Blofeld is mixed up with Dikko Henderson, Q has a voice machine that changes your voice and not only for the recipient of the call the whole sinister gay subcontext, caught in a burning coffin but rescued by St Peter, what would Jung have to say about all that?

    The only thing that bugs me is that I did not think of it myself.
  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    Posts: 238
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    I have been convinced. How about that astronaut sequence for instance, and how about the missing Willard Whyte/Blofeld-like straight out of The Wizard Of Oz! And that was a dream Dorothy had.

    Maybe he dreamt about plastic surgery because he just had one himself? After all, he is suddenly more reminiscent of Simon Templar for some strange reason. And the light tone when talking to Blofeld is the way his sleeping brain deals with the emotional trauma.

    An elephant playing the slot machine, speaking German inHolland, Moneypenny insinuating marriage, fake fingerprints and a rat trap conveniently placed in his pocket and later he is caught with a rat in the pipeline, even talking to him like an old friend, Bambi and Thumper are suddenly female humans, Blofeld is mixed up with Dikko Henderson, Q has a voice machine that changes your voice and not only for the recipient of the call the whole sinister gay subcontext, caught in a burning coffin but rescued by St Peter, what would Jung have to say about all that?

    The only thing that bugs me is that I did not think of it myself.
    They are some good points and thank you for sharing them. You are quite right, everyone has had a dream where things are sort of familiar, but something is just not right haven't they.
  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    Posts: 238
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    they chose for the one and only time in the history of the entire franchise to start the film with Bond asleep and that this had no other significance other than Bond needs to sleep sometimes? What utter nonsense.

    Guy Hamilton wanted to move away from the traditional 'M's office' opening, and rather wanted M to catch Bond in a compromising situation. Hence why Bond is with a woman in his own flat. That's Guy Hamilton. The director.
    That is just disinformation, the decision came from the producers, not the Director.

    How many strikes does the troll have, Mods?

    Oh so I am a troll because you don't like what I am saying? And it's hardly controversial or offensive is it? That is very lame.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    A very interesting theory. ;)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    they chose for the one and only time in the history of the entire franchise to start the film with Bond asleep and that this had no other significance other than Bond needs to sleep sometimes? What utter nonsense.

    Guy Hamilton wanted to move away from the traditional 'M's office' opening, and rather wanted M to catch Bond in a compromising situation. Hence why Bond is with a woman in his own flat. That's Guy Hamilton. The director.
    That is just disinformation, the decision came from the producers, not the Director.

    How many strikes does the troll have, Mods?

    Oh so I am a troll because you don't like what I am saying? And it's hardly controversial or offensive is it? That is very lame.

    The thread started off in amusing fashion, but you're now claiming your 'theory' was an active decision by the producers. You're therefore either an idiot, or a troll. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    they chose for the one and only time in the history of the entire franchise to start the film with Bond asleep and that this had no other significance other than Bond needs to sleep sometimes? What utter nonsense.

    Guy Hamilton wanted to move away from the traditional 'M's office' opening, and rather wanted M to catch Bond in a compromising situation. Hence why Bond is with a woman in his own flat. That's Guy Hamilton. The director.
    That is just disinformation, the decision came from the producers, not the Director.

    How many strikes does the troll have, Mods?

    Oh so I am a troll because you don't like what I am saying? And it's hardly controversial or offensive is it? That is very lame.

    The thread started off in amusing fashion, but you're now claiming your 'theory' was an active decision by the producers. You're therefore either an idiot, or a troll. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

    I lean for the former. He said he proved his theory beyond the shadow of a doubt and he claims that this was a decision by the producers that spawned a decade, was an integral yet hidden part of three Bond movies (at least) and involved two different directors.
  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    edited January 2015 Posts: 238
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    they chose for the one and only time in the history of the entire franchise to start the film with Bond asleep and that this had no other significance other than Bond needs to sleep sometimes? What utter nonsense.

    Guy Hamilton wanted to move away from the traditional 'M's office' opening, and rather wanted M to catch Bond in a compromising situation. Hence why Bond is with a woman in his own flat. That's Guy Hamilton. The director.
    That is just disinformation, the decision came from the producers, not the Director.

    How many strikes does the troll have, Mods?

    Oh so I am a troll because you don't like what I am saying? And it's hardly controversial or offensive is it? That is very lame.

    The thread started off in amusing fashion, but you're now claiming your 'theory' was an active decision by the producers. You're therefore either an idiot, or a troll. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
    Clearly you are only capable of ad hominem attacks calling me an idiot and a troll rather than engaging in sensible debate and instead you run off to teacher pointing "troll! troll!" in my direction. No one is forcing you to contribute to this thread.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    they chose for the one and only time in the history of the entire franchise to start the film with Bond asleep and that this had no other significance other than Bond needs to sleep sometimes? What utter nonsense.

    Guy Hamilton wanted to move away from the traditional 'M's office' opening, and rather wanted M to catch Bond in a compromising situation. Hence why Bond is with a woman in his own flat. That's Guy Hamilton. The director.
    That is just disinformation, the decision came from the producers, not the Director.

    How many strikes does the troll have, Mods?

    Oh so I am a troll because you don't like what I am saying? And it's hardly controversial or offensive is it? That is very lame.

    The thread started off in amusing fashion, but you're now claiming your 'theory' was an active decision by the producers. You're therefore either an idiot, or a troll. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
    Clearly you are only capable of ad hominem attacks calling me an idiot and a troll rather than engaging in sensible debate and instead you run off to teacher pointing "troll! troll!" in my direction. No one is forcing you to contribute to this thread.

    RC7 is contributing to this thread and in a very constructive way. In fact, the only way one could contribute to it.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Oh, I would love to read @TheWiz's response to this..
  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    Posts: 238
    Evidently I have inadvertently ran into this forums clique.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Quantum theory proves that this theory is both false and true simultaneously. So there, everyone is happy. You can have your cake and eat it too.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Stupid. Beyond stupid, really. This makes the commanderbond forums look like rocket scientists. I didn't think anyone could do that. Way to go
  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    edited January 2015 Posts: 238
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Stupid. Beyond stupid, really. This makes the commanderbond forums look like rocket scientists. I didn't think anyone could do that. Way to go

    This labelling of you to me as stupid and other's to me as being and idiot or a troll only serves to demonstrate that your simply lacking the intellectual capacity to grasp what is a very simple fact. That you then try to lampoon others is very rich.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    MartinAston wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Stupid. Beyond stupid, really. This makes the commanderbond forums look like rocket scientists. I didn't think anyone could do that. Way to go

    This labelling of you to me as stupid and other's to me as being and idiot or a troll only serves to demonstrate that your simply lacking the intellectual capacity to grasp what is a very simple fact. That you then try to lampoon others is very rich.
    DAF is not a dream: case closed. Anyone seen a padlock?
  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    Posts: 238
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Stupid. Beyond stupid, really. This makes the commanderbond forums look like rocket scientists. I didn't think anyone could do that. Way to go

    This labelling of you to me as stupid and other's to me as being and idiot or a troll only serves to demonstrate that your simply lacking the intellectual capacity to grasp what is a very simple fact. That you then try to lampoon others is very rich.
    DAF is not a dream: case closed. Anyone seen a padlock?
    It is a dream and that is the end of it.

    You think your so clever but your not. Just because you can't understand you feel the need to argue anyway. I have put all the facts out, you don't agree. That's fine but why do you feel the need to carry on arguing. Does it make you feel important or something?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Stupid. Beyond stupid, really. This makes the commanderbond forums look like rocket scientists. I didn't think anyone could do that. Way to go

    This labelling of you to me as stupid and other's to me as being and idiot or a troll only serves to demonstrate that your simply lacking the intellectual capacity to grasp what is a very simple fact. That you then try to lampoon others is very rich.
    DAF is not a dream: case closed. Anyone seen a padlock?
    It is a dream and that is the end of it.

    You think your so clever but your not. Just because you can't understand you feel the need to argue anyway. I have put all the facts out, you don't agree. That's fine but why do you feel the need to carry on arguing. Does it make you feel important or something?

    You started this thread by posing a theory, albeit a very far-fetched one. A lot of people indulged you with detailed responses, based on fact, that debunked the theory. You're now proposing that it wasn't actually a theory, but fact. You've also referenced this on other threads, and indicated something regards Oberhauser in SP and dreams. That leads to the conclusion that you're a) A troll, or b) Mentally ill. Either way, I'll leave you to it.
  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    Posts: 238
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Stupid. Beyond stupid, really. This makes the commanderbond forums look like rocket scientists. I didn't think anyone could do that. Way to go

    This labelling of you to me as stupid and other's to me as being and idiot or a troll only serves to demonstrate that your simply lacking the intellectual capacity to grasp what is a very simple fact. That you then try to lampoon others is very rich.
    DAF is not a dream: case closed. Anyone seen a padlock?
    It is a dream and that is the end of it.

    You think your so clever but your not. Just because you can't understand you feel the need to argue anyway. I have put all the facts out, you don't agree. That's fine but why do you feel the need to carry on arguing. Does it make you feel important or something?

    You started this thread by posing a theory, albeit a very far-fetched one. A lot of people indulged you with detailed responses, based on fact, that debunked the theory. You're now proposing that it wasn't actually a theory, but fact. You've also referenced this on other threads, and indicated something regards Oberhauser in SP and dreams. That leads to the conclusion that you're a) A troll, or b) Mentally ill. Either way, I'll leave you to it.
    Fine, please do leave me to it, that is an indication that I am right and a final admission that you were wrong. No hard feelings :-)
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Stupid. Beyond stupid, really. This makes the commanderbond forums look like rocket scientists. I didn't think anyone could do that. Way to go

    This labelling of you to me as stupid and other's to me as being and idiot or a troll only serves to demonstrate that your simply lacking the intellectual capacity to grasp what is a very simple fact. That you then try to lampoon others is very rich.
    DAF is not a dream: case closed. Anyone seen a padlock?
    It is a dream and that is the end of it.

    You think your so clever but your not. Just because you can't understand you feel the need to argue anyway. I have put all the facts out, you don't agree. That's fine but why do you feel the need to carry on arguing. Does it make you feel important or something?

    You started this thread by posing a theory, albeit a very far-fetched one. A lot of people indulged you with detailed responses, based on fact, that debunked the theory. You're now proposing that it wasn't actually a theory, but fact. You've also referenced this on other threads, and indicated something regards Oberhauser in SP and dreams. That leads to the conclusion that you're a) A troll, or b) Mentally ill. Either way, I'll leave you to it.

    Spot on. I think it is time to lock this sorry excuse of a thread.
  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    edited January 2015 Posts: 238
    Ludovico wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    MartinAston wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Stupid. Beyond stupid, really. This makes the commanderbond forums look like rocket scientists. I didn't think anyone could do that. Way to go

    This labelling of you to me as stupid and other's to me as being and idiot or a troll only serves to demonstrate that your simply lacking the intellectual capacity to grasp what is a very simple fact. That you then try to lampoon others is very rich.
    DAF is not a dream: case closed. Anyone seen a padlock?
    It is a dream and that is the end of it.

    You think your so clever but your not. Just because you can't understand you feel the need to argue anyway. I have put all the facts out, you don't agree. That's fine but why do you feel the need to carry on arguing. Does it make you feel important or something?

    You started this thread by posing a theory, albeit a very far-fetched one. A lot of people indulged you with detailed responses, based on fact, that debunked the theory. You're now proposing that it wasn't actually a theory, but fact. You've also referenced this on other threads, and indicated something regards Oberhauser in SP and dreams. That leads to the conclusion that you're a) A troll, or b) Mentally ill. Either way, I'll leave you to it.

    Spot on. I think it is time to lock this sorry excuse of a thread.
    As I say, feel free to admit defeat and leave me alone. And I in turn will leave you and the rest of your little clique to intellectualise and use big words that make you feel all clever and important elsewhere. No need to close this thread, yes, you and your mates have clearly been foxed by someone outside of your happy little group and I understand you feeling a bit irritated by that, but there is no need to be little cry babies by running off asking for the thread to be locked.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    IFM..... :)>-
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited January 2015 Posts: 45,489
    chrisisall wrote: »
    IFM..... :)>-
    Institute For Manufacturing or the Institute for Financial Management?
    They are both wonderful
    :)>- but a bit off topic. This thread is clearly popular. Shut down the football thread instead. I find it idiotic.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Can't believe it took Scotty a whole day before breaking.
Sign In or Register to comment.