› ›

I've never noticed that before...

1…115116118120121…170

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I agree @bondjames the way that ending is shot, it has significance beyond "they live happily ever after. Almost as if they are evoking the same "air punching" spirit from the last scene of CR, to bring things full circle. I can only think that the lukewarm reception of SP was what caused them to think twice.
    Agreed @Mendes4Lyfe. There are a lot of closure callbacks to the other Craig films in SP, and most notably to CR as you mention.

    It's either the lukewarm reception or business reasons. I believe it's the latter. This is a one contract film, and we mustn't forget that the studio behind this does not have a CEO (and rather, is being run by a lawyer who is skilled in M&A). I worked for a company which had a similar scenario in place for over a year. They fed all staff a line that they were looking to IPO (the b/s was off the charts), but eventually they sold, which is what we knew they were going to do all along. This film will inflate MGM's numbers and position themselves for the next phase.

    Interesting. So you think that there is some kind of behind the scenes reason why they wanted to hold onto Craig for one more film, that MGM be sold to a Disney or Warner Bros.?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I agree @bondjames the way that ending is shot, it has significance beyond "they live happily ever after. Almost as if they are evoking the same "air punching" spirit from the last scene of CR, to bring things full circle. I can only think that the lukewarm reception of SP was what caused them to think twice.
    Agreed @Mendes4Lyfe. There are a lot of closure callbacks to the other Craig films in SP, and most notably to CR as you mention.

    It's either the lukewarm reception or business reasons. I believe it's the latter. This is a one contract film, and we mustn't forget that the studio behind this does not have a CEO (and rather, is being run by a lawyer who is skilled in M&A). I worked for a company which had a similar scenario in place for over a year. They fed all staff a line that they were looking to IPO (the b/s was off the charts), but eventually they sold, which is what we knew they were going to do all along. This film will inflate MGM's numbers and position themselves for the next phase.

    Interesting. So you think that there is some kind of behind the scenes reason why they wanted to hold onto Craig for one more film, that MGM be sold to a Disney or Warner Bros.?
    There's a lot we don't know, that's all I can say. They tried to sell to a Chinese company in 2016. Who would have expected that? The incoming Trump administration blocked it. Expect the unexpected after B25 is released, although I have no idea what or how it will play out. I'm just sure that the status quo won't hold. The dispatched CEO had a clause in his massive payout noncompete contract that he wouldn't make a play for MGM for 3 years. By the time this film is released and out there that time will be up.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited December 2018 Posts: 8,395
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I agree @bondjames the way that ending is shot, it has significance beyond "they live happily ever after. Almost as if they are evoking the same "air punching" spirit from the last scene of CR, to bring things full circle. I can only think that the lukewarm reception of SP was what caused them to think twice.
    Agreed @Mendes4Lyfe. There are a lot of closure callbacks to the other Craig films in SP, and most notably to CR as you mention.

    It's either the lukewarm reception or business reasons. I believe it's the latter. This is a one contract film, and we mustn't forget that the studio behind this does not have a CEO (and rather, is being run by a lawyer who is skilled in M&A). I worked for a company which had a similar scenario in place for over a year. They fed all staff a line that they were looking to IPO (the b/s was off the charts), but eventually they sold, which is what we knew they were going to do all along. This film will inflate MGM's numbers and position themselves for the next phase.

    Interesting. So you think that there is some kind of behind the scenes reason why they wanted to hold onto Craig for one more film, that MGM be sold to a Disney or Warner Bros.?
    There's a lot we don't know, that's all I can say. They tried to sell to a Chinese company in 2016. Who would have expected that? The incoming Trump administration blocked it. Expect the unexpected after B25 is released, although I have no idea what or how it will play out. I'm just sure that the status quo won't hold. The dispatched CEO had a clause in his massive payout noncompete contract that he wouldn't make a play for MGM for 3 years. By the time this film is released and out there that time will be up.

    Yeah, I totally forgot about that chinese purchase attempt. Perhaps that is what held up development of B25 early on...
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,250
    What was that 'all the time in the world' thing that was suposed to be in there?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    What was that 'all the time in the world' thing that was suposed to be in there?
    I believe that was the last line from the film in the original script. Bond says it to Madeleine before they drive off in the Aston.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited December 2018 Posts: 7,021
    I'm strongly against the idea, just as I was against the suggestion made elsewhere of mentioning Strangways in a future film. It's another continuity, but these are past stories and past characters. Invent new ones. Don't imitate old films in such crucial aspects.
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited December 2018 Posts: 6,709
    I'm actually hating the (overly inflated narrative wise) continuity they injected in the Bond films. I used to love each film as an iconic possibility of film history. This continuity business is ruining things. I hope they drop it for the next Bond actor era.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited December 2018 Posts: 17,753
    Univex wrote: »
    I'm actually hating the (overly inflated narrative wise) continuity they injected in the Bond films. I used to love each film as an iconic possibility of film history. This continuity business is ruining things. I hope they drop it for the next Bond actor era.

    Absolutely agree. A big draw for me towards the Bond film is the fact that they're standalone films. The Craig era has ruined that.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,785
    Oh, I think they still work as standalone films each viewing.

    On the other hand the continuity is actually a return to what went on in the 60s with Doctor No, From Russia With Love, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    bondjames wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    What was that 'all the time in the world' thing that was suposed to be in there?
    I believe that was the last line from the film in the original script. Bond says it to Madeleine before they drive off in the Aston.

    It wasn't in the original script(s) done by Logan, but in a draft that was close to a shooting draft that included P&W efforts. I think they added it in.

    And by ending a film with this line it would have indicated Maddy's murder and a definitive return for DC.

    DC returning for an optional fifth film has always been in play-- him returning, or not, is no surprise based on his contractual obligations.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    peter wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    What was that 'all the time in the world' thing that was suposed to be in there?
    I believe that was the last line from the film in the original script. Bond says it to Madeleine before they drive off in the Aston.

    It wasn't in the original script(s) done by Logan, but in a draft that was close to a shooting draft that included P&W efforts. I think they added it in.
    Thanks for the clarification.
    peter wrote: »
    And by ending a film with this line it would have indicated Maddy's murder and a definitive return for DC.
    I disagree. Leaving it would not have necessarily indicated a definite return by Craig. On the contrary this scenario would have left things open to interpretation by the viewer should he not have returned. The general public would have then assumed it was an expression of commitment and that they lived happily ever after (since few have seen OHMSS) and the die harders would have assumed she met a fateful end due to that statement, but would never have known for sure - as open ended as could be.

    Leaving it in would have probably boxed them in narratively if he chose to return, and that's perhaps why it wasn't included. In retrospect, it was wise not to include it because they have more options now.
    peter wrote: »
    DC returning for an optional fifth film has always been in play-- him returning, or not, is no surprise based on his contractual obligations.
    He had a contract for one more and so always could have returned, depending on how they approached the distribution negotiation. With a one picture deal, it all fits.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I disagree. Leaving it would not have necessarily indicated a definite return by Craig. On the contrary this scenario would have left things open to interpretation by the viewer should he not have returned. The general public would have then assumed it was an expression of commitment and that they lived happily ever after (since few have seen OHMSS) and the die harders would have assumed she met a fateful end due to that statement, but would never have known for sure - as open ended as could be.

    I suppose so, although that would have been terribly dissatisfying for the die-harders-- at least it would be for this one!
    Leaving it in would have probably boxed them in narratively if he chose to return, and that's perhaps why it wasn't included. In retrospect, it was wise not to include it because they have more options now.

    Absolutely agree with this. And now since so much time has gone by, there's even more room for CF to move.
    He had a contract for one more and so always could have returned, depending on how they approached the distribution negotiation. With a one picture deal, it all fits.

    Lets hope they make the most of it. Kitchen sink and all.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,250
    Hmm, it could've worked, but might as much have tanked and tbh I don't think Bond needs more legacy reminders. We've had that enough since DAD. Keeping the crew, the barrel, line and music is more then enough to remind us who we're looking at. I'm longing for a standaloe mission.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    Hmm, it could've worked, but might as much have tanked and tbh I don't think Bond needs more legacy reminders. We've had that enough since DAD. Keeping the crew, the barrel, line and music is more then enough to remind us who we're looking at. I'm longing for a standaloe mission.

    You'll 99% get one with Bond #7.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    PropertyOfALady wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    Hmm, it could've worked, but might as much have tanked and tbh I don't think Bond needs more legacy reminders. We've had that enough since DAD. Keeping the crew, the barrel, line and music is more then enough to remind us who we're looking at. I'm longing for a standaloe mission.

    You'll 99% get one with Bond #7.

    Yeah, that's right around the corner hopefully.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited December 2018 Posts: 6,288
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I know that I am alone in this, but I wish that they had left the line. That way I would have at least have the satisfaction of knowing that she was destined to be killed off.

    She will be.

    Could "All The Time In The World" be the title of B25?

    In the middle of my Christmas OHMSS watch and wondering: why does the gunbarrel break to show Saltzman and Broccoli's credit? Was it to show that even though it is a new Bond, it is the same producers?
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,753
    echo wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I know that I am alone in this, but I wish that they had left the line. That way I would have at least have the satisfaction of knowing that she was destined to be killed off.

    She will be.

    Could "All The Time In The World" be the title of B25?

    In the middle of my Christmas OHMSS watch and wondering: why does the gunbarrel break to show Saltzman and Broccoli's credit? Was it to show that even though it is a new Bond, it is the same producers?

    I've thought about that myself, and I think that may be the reason. Either that or just a different take on the gunbarrel given that it's a new actor.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,753
    Just finished my annual viewing of OHMSS, and found something I haven't noticed before (surprisingly so, as it was so obvious watching the film this afternoon):
    What's up with the way Telly Savalas holds and smokes his cigarettes?

    You see it at 3:14 in this clip, but also elsewhere in the film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Just finished my annual viewing of OHMSS, and found something I haven't noticed before (surprisingly so, as it was so obvious watching the film this afternoon):
    What's up with the way Telly Savalas holds and smokes his cigarettes?

    You see it at 3:14 in this clip, but also elsewhere in the film.

    It is jazz tobacco.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    I always figured it was because of his hand issue too, but either way, it makes for another little intricate detail a Bond villain has in my book.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,568
    Interestingly, he holds the cigarette unconventionally like this with both hands, and also holds the cigarette in two other ways while smoking, during the curling scenes: Normally, between the index and middle finger of the right hand, and between the middle and third index of the left, deformed hand.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    edited December 2018 Posts: 17,753
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Torgeirtrap wrote: »
    Just finished my annual viewing of OHMSS, and found something I haven't noticed before (surprisingly so, as it was so obvious watching the film this afternoon):
    What's up with the way Telly Savalas holds and smokes his cigarettes?

    You see it at 3:14 in this clip, but also elsewhere in the film.

    It is jazz tobacco.

    :))
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Part of it comes form his hand deformity I believe. Maybe they're unrelated.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I always figured it was because of his hand issue too, but either way, it makes for another little intricate detail a Bond villain has in my book.

    That might be why! Have to agree @Creasy47 – even if it isn't supposed to be, it's a nice little detail to Blofeld. Charles Gray had his own way of smoking cigarettes too, of course:

    Charles-Grey-Blofeld-Costume.jpg
    QBranch wrote: »
    Interestingly, he holds the cigarette unconventionally like this with both hands, and also holds the cigarette in two other ways while smoking, during the curling scenes: Normally, between the index and middle finger of the right hand, and between the middle and third index of the left, deformed hand.

    Good point! Didn't think of whether he held the cigarettes in both hands.
  • SuzanneStoneSuzanneStone
    Posts: 372
    As I'm watching TWINE: when Bond gifts Moneypenny the cigars and she responds 'I know exactly where to put those'. Cue to her throwing them in the trash.

    The movie came out in 1999 so I'm pretty sure this was a reference to the Lewinsky scandal. I only just got the joke.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I can't believe that I've never caught this. In QOS, as Craig tears out his earpiece and and is about to leave the Opera house, the camera cuts back to Mr. White still in his seat, and Bond (out of focus) can be seen going up the staircase in the background. I never noticed Bond before. Is this one of this things that everyone else saw all along?

    Yes... always noticed.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,568
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I can't believe that I've never caught this. In QOS, as Craig tears out his earpiece and and is about to leave the Opera house, the camera cuts back to Mr. White still in his seat, and Bond (out of focus) can be seen going up the staircase in the background. I never noticed Bond before. Is this one of this things that everyone else saw all along?

    Yes... always noticed.
    Yep - not on the very first watch at the cinema, but on subsequent viewings. And the attractive woman sitting next to Mr White is his gf.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,568
    That moment reminds me of TSWLM, when Bond walks down the aisle while Anya talks to Fekkesh.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    SuzanneStone wrote: »
    As I'm watching TWINE: when Bond gifts Moneypenny the cigars and she responds 'I know exactly where to put those'. Cue to her throwing them in the trash.

    The movie came out in 1999 so I'm pretty sure this was a reference to the Lewinsky scandal. I only just got the joke.

    How? I'm lost.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    Oh....a quick Google says more clearly what you mean. ;)
  • FrankXavierFrankXavier
    Posts: 678
    SuzanneStone wrote: »
    As I'm watching TWINE: when Bond gifts Moneypenny the cigars and she responds 'I know exactly where to put those'. Cue to her throwing them in the trash.

    The movie came out in 1999 so I'm pretty sure this was a reference to the Lewinsky scandal. I only just got the joke.
    HA. I didn't know this.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,250
    FrankXavier wrote: »
    SuzanneStone wrote: »
    As I'm watching TWINE: when Bond gifts Moneypenny the cigars and she responds 'I know exactly where to put those'. Cue to her throwing them in the trash.

    The movie came out in 1999 so I'm pretty sure this was a reference to the Lewinsky scandal. I only just got the joke.
    HA. I didn't know this.

    Oh there's plenty of those winks in Bond films. Perhaps someone should make a list of them. From the stolen painting in Dr. No to the 'returning the money to it's rightful owner''and we all know how hard that can be for a Swiss banker' lines. There must be a lot I also don't know as the wink dissapears in the mists of time...
Sign In or Register to comment.