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
As was pointed out to me by my dear and learned friend Major Tallon (from CBn) the two subs were still too close to the Liparus for the nuclear explosions not to have killed Bond, Carter and the crews. Still, it's a film and as a Bond film there are often absurdities in the plot when you sit down to think it through even a little bit.
As an aside I suppose that Bond did a similar thing at the climax of the novel Moonraker although that involved only one submarine but much more realistically sadly killed hundreds of people in the process. Such a thing would never happen in a Bond film. But there is at least some Fleming authority for what Bond and Carter did in the film of TSWLM.
+++++++
300 debates - that's great, DarthDimi! =D>
Well yes, that is very true of course.
Actually, @Thunderfinger, if Bond can reprogram the subs' commands, he can simply order them not to launch. I agree that wouldn't have been very exciting but on the other hand we've time and again seen Bond stop a bomb from going off with only one or a few seconds left. Setting off two nuclear explosions of this magnitude will surely wipe out a lot of sea life and contaminate the oceans for centuries. ;-)
Good point. The screenwriters could have gone that route, but in the film Bond has to flip through a user manual that is handily there (Gee!), and did not have much time.
Now that you mention it, fish did taste better before 77.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Renard's "invulnerability" is a redundant character trait in the final script of TWINE.</b></font>
It did not add anything, and actually was not fully played out.
GE, starring Sean Bean as James Bond and Robert Carlyle as 006.
Sean Bean is an intriguing pick as Bond with Carlyle as Trevelyan.
I'm in.
Intriguing. I'm not sure that I like it better than what we have but I can definitely see the potential there.
The proposal of Sean Bean as Bond and Robert Carlyle as 006 would definitely be a fascinating change to watch, both for that movie and for the remainder of Bean's tenure as Bond. But as an avowed fan of Brosnan, it's tough to want to remove his tenure completely.
Agree, but only in the sense that the trait was not exploited enough in the film for me. All we had was the introduction where he held the scolding rocks. They could have done so much more with it!
I think it might have worked better if Renard had been played by someone with more cinematic presence, rather than a TV star made good putting on a dodgy accent. Carlyle is alright but lacks that sense of 'otherness' that a villain might have. They could have played up his wimpy figure maybe, made him more of a worm. As written, I think he was meant to be a hulking guy. Facially, Carlyle looked right, though, and he did have some good moments.
<font color=blue size=7><b>CR is the only Craig Bond in which the second half is narratively stronger than the first half.</b></font>
Skyfall has a terrific first half, but the plotting once the film reached London was so-so.
Casino Royale was a well written film, full stop. I only thing I would change about is the climax.
QoS, I thought it got better as it went along.
Disagree
QoB was sh&t all over the place with some good scenes here and there
CR was excellent with the exception of the sinking house scene which lets the whole climax of the movie sixzzle out like a wet candle.
Disagree