› ›

How should the 00 section be handled in future movies?

124»

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,356
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    But why is it wrong to reuse Arnold's James Bond theme? It is a very good arrangement. Monty Norman's was used prominently in the Connery days.

    Why couldn't Newman make up his own arrangement and put his own personal spin on it? Arnold was able to make a new arrangement each film he worked on.
  • JawsIsAliveJawsIsAlive
    Posts: 233
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Here's my wish/suggestion about the 00 section: please don't turn 00 agents into cannon fodder or red shirts. That is all.

    Exactly. We don't need anything like that. Double-O agents are the cream of the crop and so shouldn't be killed off at the drop of a hat. Sadly, this is often what has happened to them when they have appeared in the Bond films.
    That's why the last one was afraid to come out of the hideout and allowed his car to be stolen by his colleague. ;)

    Yes, though perhaps times have changed with even soldiers potentially facing legal action if they kill on the battlefield. It's a further example of the "safety first" climate we live in as well ass the misapplication of human rights legislation.

    Looks like Grandad forgot to take his medicine today.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited August 2016 Posts: 18,299
    JawsIsAlive wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Here's my wish/suggestion about the 00 section: please don't turn 00 agents into cannon fodder or red shirts. That is all.

    Exactly. We don't need anything like that. Double-O agents are the cream of the crop and so shouldn't be killed off at the drop of a hat. Sadly, this is often what has happened to them when they have appeared in the Bond films.
    That's why the last one was afraid to come out of the hideout and allowed his car to be stolen by his colleague. ;)

    Yes, though perhaps times have changed with even soldiers potentially facing legal action if they kill on the battlefield. It's a further example of the "safety first" climate we live in as well ass the misapplication of human rights legislation.

    Looks like Grandad forgot to take his medicine today.

    Come again? I have written a Law Masters dissertation in this area. Also, I have no grandchildren and I believe that this is one of the main indicators that one is a grandfather.
  • MilovyMilovy
    Posts: 676
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    Once Craig leaves I expect we'll get some sort of reboot so the building being destroyed won't matter. And whether he stays or not I highly doubt we're ever going to see the CGI Nine Eyes building again. Expect this stuff to be ignored.

    And I don't see why M has to be the head of all of MI6 rather than a certain division (not just the 00s but some sort of special ops division). It'd make the close relationship with Bond more believeable if he didn't have the whole of the service to run and allow them to shift back to the old Universal Exports building (if M is the head of the whole of MI6 then it'd be hard to shift away from what's widely known as their real headquarters, especially after two decades of acknowledging it).

    I agree, but I admit it all gets jumbled. Probably the simplest is just move back into Vauxhall and keep that connection to reality.

    But then you'd loose the old office which I love. Can't have everything I guess.
    What I'd like best is if they reestablished the Vauxhall Cross building (as in real life), but then just put M's classic office inside that building. Is there a reason they can't do this? I'm not familiar with the real life interior of Vauxhall Cross... Is the design of the interior so well-known to the British public that putting a fictional office inside would make it hard for folks to suspend disbelief?
Sign In or Register to comment.