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
More daring? I don’t think most people picked up on that aspect in CR, as that’s more subtextual. SF straight up having Silva caressing Bond’s legs and undoing his shirt, along with Bond’s “what makes you think this is my first time?” got a LOT more people talking.
For CR it was mainly guys talking about how they squirmed in the theater at Bond getting his balls smashed.
Yeah to be fair I am surprised it’s taken them this long haha. I think it’s just taken them a while to figure out what to do with it. I read that there were script disputes holding it up, because the writer was finding it difficult keeping Spielberg, Ford and Disney all happy. And then Spielberg deciding not to direct after all probably threw another wrench in things.
My bet, since they’ve emphasised this is the “final film”, is that Waller Bridge’s character will be spun off into the lead of a new franchise at the end, and we’ll see films in that universe more regularly from then on. Could be wrong but I really can’t see them just leaving it be after the next one.
Also, considering Silva, as much as I love Skyfall and I really do, if given more time with him, it would've been nice to have seen more of Silva's flamboyance. I do like the subtlety, like in the way he talks and dresses (especially his first outfit), but I would've loved a bit more.
Well, they were both henchmen for Blofeld and Spectre.
Come on. Audiences are more intelligent than that.
We’re they as dismissive of SF as you are?
The torture scene in CR came from source material.
Le Chiffre could even have just been slightly bitter about it.
Indeed, and there was no subtext in the original source novel about Le Chiffre being a homosexual and being attracted to Bond. Quite the opposite in fact as he was a pimp with a chain of brothels and had a "large sexual appetite" for women. As you say, a case of looking for more than is there on the page or in this case the film script. Silva is a different matter as was the Scaramanga of the original TMWTGG novel.
There was some behaviour/body language from Elvis in QoS that stood out and was never elaborated on. The scene where he gazes fondly at the opera is an example.
Yeah, I think so. It may have some implications but I never took it as anything other than mind games on Le Chiffre's part. A tease that Bond is now exposed and at his mercy; his life now in his hands. After all the work Bond put in to taking care of himself, it would be a shame to have to cut his body up. Also, as @Denbigh mentioned, there's maybe a little envy.
I completely understand why a different reading might come out of it, though.
Similar to Silva, I always thought these were unnerving tactics rather than genuine advances. Unlike Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd, whose orientation is hammered home to us, the others have moments but those moments are fleeting and tactical.
Of course, us even being here and talking about it shows that it worked!
I think he was quirky and different enough from previous henchmen in that he's incompetent and kind of still training on the job that he's woefully unqualified to do. It does make a refreshing change from the henchman who is super efficient and a real threat to Bond. In a way it harks back to Fleming where some of the henchmen were rather easily dispatched and made a very short and unremarkable appearance. I'm particularly thinking of Tee Hee in Live and Let Die who Bond kills fairly quickly and Vargas in Thunderball who both only made fleeting appearances in their novels compared with their film incarnations.
#ReleaseTheElvisCut
There’s quite a lot in the movie which wasn’t in the book though. In this case it’s right there on the screen.
It’s a weird thing for him to say, and then after that he seems a little obsessed with Bond’s manhood: first smashing it and then he moves to trying to cut it off. Something of the psychopath destroying what he wants but can’t have.
Yes that’s a good point, there are a few longing looks there from him.
I think Elvis most of all represents what a mess that film was. It’s never really clear what the joke is supposed to be with him, or rather it never actually arrives. Clearly the director wanted to do something with him, but we end up barely seeing him and being a bit confused every time he does something weird. Like the wig thing.. it doesn’t really function as a joke the way it’s cut- it cuts away so quickly it’s hard to tell what we even saw!
Indeed, Elvis left the building too soon and we didn't see enough of him before he did. Maybe there were some cut scenes that featured him? Hard to know as they've never released any cut scenes with the DVD.
Hmm. You know, I could really do with rewatching all of the Craig Bond era again then. I've not seen each of them enough times yet to pick up on any nuances that may exist. I'll certainly keep an eye out for this the next time I watch Casino Royale.
I agree about the wig thing. In fact when I first saw QoS in the cinema in 2008 I didn't even notice that his wig had come off. It was my friend who pointed it out afterwards. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who missed it initially then!
Even though nowhere in the film is it hinted at that that's the case.
Correction: just read this on James Bond wiki:
Yes, I've read in the kind of press release that came with the film that they're meant to be cousins and this was the only reason Greene employed Elvis. It's not mentioned in the film itself of course but it is a nice little contextual detail through which to view their relationship. It helps tie up a few little loose ends in the story.
I never knew that. It does explain a lot!
Yes, I was just about to quote that but you beat me to it! It's nice that the actors were invested enough in their roles to have this "buy in" to the relationship between the main villain and his henchman. Sometimes actors need this kind of connection to really get under the skin of their characters and bring them to life. Sadly, like much else in QoS, a lot of the detail is off the page or rather off the screen. It does work on a kind of mildly expanded universe sort of sense though. I like those little additional off-stage details.
I don’t really think of eon as particularly capable anymore - or more so than a regular studio model
Also, within that thirty years, whether people like them or not, they've managed to keep the franchise going despite everything, and have had nine very popular films come out between now and 1991 in an industry that has changed so significantly since then and it's still going. What other franchises can also say they've achieved that without having had taken a long break when those other franchises had seemingly ended? Bond has never stopped.