It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The DC Bond is the only one to show a breadth of character. He's clearly not the same man as the he was in CR, quite different and carefree following years of psychological torment. The fact he hops in bed with Swann is pure, unfiltered Bond. It's a great moment.
It's a minor, insignificant detail to me. Had he bled, cool, but it's not something that is going to stem my enjoyment of this fine movie.
However, during the scenes set in England nobody is wearing Remembrance Poppy, which is traditionally worn in November to remember war dead (or service person who has died in conflict). Here's Daniel Craig wearing his:
Whilst it's in no way required to be worn (it's down to personal preference) I find it unthinkable that those working in the government - M, Moneypenny, Denby etc. would not be wearing theirs. M not wearing his is especially incongruous, as he is not only an ex-serviceman himself but if a political figure does not wear theirs it becomes a major talking point in the UK.
Like I said it doesn't affect the plot, and I am sure there is a good reason why they do not feature (perhaps they wanted to make the film feel 'timeless,' (despite the Day of the Dead section, or perhaps they were not given licence to use the poppies in the film).
It's just a little bit interesting!
You're right and there's a lot of fine, subtle and nuanced detail in the direction and performances in this movie. So I don't feel too aggrieved by the odd perceived misstep.
Indeed. Same thing happened in DN. No even puts Bond to bed!
A reasonable hypothesis but blown out of the water by Mendes inexplicably allowing Rory Kinnear to skulk around in the background of scenes all the time serving no discernible purpose except to piss on Fleming's character of Bill Tanner.
Oh very good!
The very best you can say is that by the time they had shipped Sciarra's body back to Rome it was after November the 11th? The meeting with M was the 12th the day everyone stops wearing the poppies and and the funeral was the next day the 13th? Only 11 days after his death so possible. Of course it could be that there was a long drawn out inquest in Mexico (likely given the public circumstances and the mysterious man who flew away in a helicopter) so it took a month to get the body back to Rome.
Actually this is more plausible because, as someone who goes skiing in Austria every year, I have noticed that the snow is getting less reliable before Christmas. Whether its down to global warming or whatever but 10 years ago you would get enough snow to ski in November. These days you are better going in Jan-March (says the mug who has booked a Blofeld-esque mountaintop hotel in Kitzbuhel at Christmas but hopefully the altitude will ensure snow!). If the Austria scenes are only mid to late Nov then there does seem a bit too much snow for my liking! Or course it could just be a very snowy season so its not exactly a plot hole.
Anyone else consider that we might be over thinking these things sometimes?
The location is left a the top of the stair on the first entrance. The room would have been the reception area. As someone pointed out its the most secure building in the UK, the screen would be bullet proof to protect staff from threat or someone attempting to enter and press the required open buttons to access the rest of the building.
Furthermore if we are playing by those rules then Bond would be dead before the events of SPECTRE as he would have been dead within the PTS of Skyfall Being hit with a depleted uranium shell , commonly used to destroy army tanks, he would have“turned his lungs inside out and killed him”, the panel of experts have concluded "he would have been dead within 7 minutes of being shot".
Good explanations there! I suppose that it all rests on when the funeral was - it can take weeks for one of these to be arranged so it is conceivable that all the action takes place after the 11th/12th November.
However, the 'debrief' scene with M and Bond must surely take place within days of the Mexico scene - not only would M demand Bond to be there ASAP to explain himself, but the energy of the scene makes me think it happened recently.
At the end of the day the Bond Universe is not the real world so we can forgive it the lack of poppies and the abundance of snow in the alps! ;-)
PS "third time lucky?" would have been a better satirical line (rather than pussy) IMHO
Well it is pointed out quite clearly (an ultra rare example of Rory actually contributing to the film rather than just standing there looking gormless) than the depleted uranium shell that hits Bond is a ricochet. So I'm quite happy to believe that it had lost enough velocity so it wouldnt tear Bond in half but still had enough to pierce his skin.
Perhaps we are missing a bit where Bond has to escape the Mexican authorities hunting for the man who threw a body into a crowd. Someone filmed Bond in the helicopter on their phone and Bond cant risk the airport so has to lie low for a few days and then stow away on a ship that takes a week to get to Southampton?
Err I think hes just trying to undo the strap of his watch so he can activate the bomb.
I know Bond is a cool customer but I think having a madman drilling into your brain would probably be a sufficient adrenaline rush in its own right.
off day and missed ? Softwear problem most likely, probably had the VW Tec team in to fix his computers. :D
"You really are a pain in the neck"
I'll tell you something if someone was drilling holes in my head there'd certainly be some emission to test :))
Or does our overthinking extend to the assumption that the papers are a few days old by that point? :-)
Your failing to get the science, is not the impact of the bullet which kills, is the poisoning from the Uranium in the blood stream. DU used in munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium.
From the same wiki entry you got that stat from;
The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.[78] Militaries have long had risk-reduction procedures for their troops to follow,[79] and studies are in consistent agreement that veterans who used DU-enhanced munitions have not suffered, so far, from an increased risk of cancer (see the Gulf War and Balkans sections below). The effects of DU on civilian populations are, however, a topic of intense and ongoing controversy.
As early as 1997, British Army doctors warned the British MoD (Ministry of Defence) that exposure to depleted uranium increased the risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancer, and recommended a series of safety precautions.[80] According to a report issued summarizing the advice of the doctors, "Inhalation of insoluble uranium dioxide dust will lead to accumulation in the lungs with very slow clearance—if any. … Although chemical toxicity is low, there may be localised radiation damage of the lung leading to cancer." The report warns that "All personnel … should be aware that uranium dust inhalation carries a long-term risk … [the dust] has been shown to increase the risks of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers."[80] In 2003, the Royal Society called, again, for urgent attention to be paid to the possible health and environmental impact of depleted uranium, and added its backing to the United Nations Environment Programme's call for a scientific assessment of sites struck with depleted uranium.[81] In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[82][83] Also, a 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10] Studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.
OK that's the US Defence Dept that is quoting that so I agree it has to be treated with a pretty hefty dose of scepticism and Bond does leave the round in there for several weeks/months (?) but the point made earlier that he should be dead within 7 minutes of being hit refers to the colossal trauma caused by a DU round. Even Louis Slotin who was exposed to an exposed core about to go critical on the Manhattan Project took a week to die so Bond may well develop some sort of cancer a few years down the line but I doubt the radioactivity would have any relevance in the time span of SF.
And its still probably not as big a cancer risk as 60 Morlands specials a day!
No, what are you talking about, that's all about being around something "airborne radiation risk exposure" what Bond suffered was the effect of it entering directly in to his blood stream through the wound, the contaminated shrapnel was lodged in his shoulder. If your around people with the flu sneezing and coughing you might catch something from them. If you drink their saliva your pretty much guaranteed to get ill do you get me?
Well the original post I was responding to stated this: Bond would be dead before the events of SPECTRE as he would have been dead within the PTS.
I'm far from an expert at all but given one of the technicians at Chernobyl who received 'Deep Radiation Burns on 100% of his body' took 2 weeks to die I dont see how Bond could have died by the end of the PTS due to radiation poisoning alone?
I've had a quick scan here: http://www.ccnr.org/du_hague.html
And here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/depleted-uranium-du-general-information-and-toxicology
Mostly its concerned with inhalation (probably because most people who get hit by a DU round dont survive so radiation poisoning is irrelevant) and the long term effects.
A few key paragraphs here though:
If DU enters the body, it can potentially cause damage from the inside (internal exposure) either through irradiation or by chemical action. It can enter the body by inhalation (breathing in fine dust), ingestion via the mouth, contamination of an open wound, or, on the battlefield, by the embedding of shrapnel fragments. Because uranium has been used extensively as a nuclear fuel, and many workers involved in processing uranium have been potentially exposed to dusts containing uranium, over many years, there have been many studies carried out on the behaviour of uranium in the body. In particular, there have been numerous studies conducted to determine the behaviour of uranium in the body after deposition in the lungs of a wide range of different uranium compounds, including the various oxides produced by the use of DU munitions.
Most of the uranium absorbed into blood is rapidly excreted, mainly in urine. About 65% is excreted during the first day, another 10% during the rest of the first week. There is a continuing slow excretion, about 0.002% of the original uptake to blood per day after a year. That is why measurements are often made on urine to estimate the amount of uranium in the body.
Note the sentence in bold. Even when DU is inside the body it is still only 'potentially' harmful.
As I say I am far from even approaching being an expert in the slightest so I dare say you know more than me. I would be grateful (and happy to stand corrected) therefore if you could point me in the direction of some sources that indicate that DU in the bloodstream is as fatal as you seem to be suggesting because I still contend that the dose Bond would've received would have been irrelevant for the duration of SF. Maybe he would be suffering some effects by SP - difficult to say. Any experts on radioactive toxicology on the boards?
Well you say that but this line has always made me wonder:
'My work has given me a unique knowledge of radioactivity,but not without cost, as you see.'
He then raises his hand as if to say that his radioactivity work was the reason his hands were cut off not the Tongs.