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
This was the worst moment in the entire Craig era, and rivals the likes of Brozza's worst moments (CGI surfing, etc.)
Utterly shocking!
I think what would have been more fitting for the added realism of the Craig era, where he feels injuries, recovers in hospital from torture, loses his mojo in SF after being shot and falling hundreds of feet into a river, etc. would be to see Craig on his knees, shaking his head to bring him round, slightly off-balance, etc. and where Madeleine helps him stand up.
That would have served the torture scene far better, instead of the ridiculous spectacle of what we saw. Once all sense of realism is taken out of the equation, we are right back into DAD/MR territory again.
There's leaving things up to interpretation and just not doing your job as a storyteller. A lot of SP leans towards the latter.
Doesn´t make sense at all to me. All that expensive equipment, all those workers, Blofeld being injured inside... and they decide to blow everything up within a minute or two? If you want to abandone the establishment, at least take time to regroup, make sure people have the time to get out, perhaps save some equipment. Besides, this is the organization that has just taken controll over MI6 and soon the entire, combined surveilance system of the sivilized world. They have all the power. So what if Bond knows the lair exists? He has no power, no one to report to except his previous boss who is now dismissed from his position. They have absolutely no reason to press the panic button like that.
No, I´m not buying it, thank you
No I agree. It was bad storytelling, bad script, and an oversight. This was one of the main issues with the film overall - a feeling of making it up as they go along.
They drive Blofeld out as the building explodes, you can see it. All the expensive equipment and workers... blowing it all up only further illustrates the entire lair is just a drop in the bucket for Spectre.
The arm of Spectre that has just taken control over MI6 has it's headquarters in London and is headed by C.
Like I said, I didn't stretch myself to come up with an excuse for the building exploding, I thought it was pretty clearly illustrated by the film on first watch.
What the hell are you talking about?
At the end of the day, nitpicking the scale and exact reason for an explosion in a Bond film is a pretty sad position to be in. I saw it in the film, thought about it for two seconds, and moved on. And now it's become one of the film's breaking points for people who didn't enjoy it. I should think there are other things to discuss; there are other, worse problems with Spectre's narrative ;)
EDIT: I just realized what thread we were in: you people really think a big explosion in Spectre is the most dire moment in a Bond film? You really can't be helped.
I think people forget that Bond is sleeping with the girls, not for pleasure, but as part of his investigation. Basically he is a male honey trap. Pretty grim, being required to prostitute himself for Queen & country
TSWLM was a remake by the Director of his own earlier Bond film, YOLT
Correct. Pussy was part of a gang holding Bond hostage, and the following day she was going to gas to death 10 000s of people. Bond was fully justified in forcing her to have sex in order to try and avert that. People forget that Bond films and books were at heart very dark, even if they are given a family-orientated sheen
Er, no, none of the 60s films were dark, and rape would not be a practical way to stop Goldfinger's plan (or any other plan I can imagine) and the film isn't presenting it that way in any case. Just no.
Bond is all about sex and death. He is a predator. A psychopath. He uses violence against men and sex against women.
The point in Goldfinger is that he recognised the weak point of his enemy - that Pussy secretly fancied him. He had little time, so he forced the issue, and Pussy responded as he thought - she fell for him and he managed to then convince her to betray Goldfinger and put her trust in Bond to save her from Oddjob.
You may think his actions were not justified. Would you prefer he sat back and let the soldiers die? And allow the western economies to collapse?
And I suppose you think murder is not justified either - all those men he killed
This would have worked a lot, lot better if they had managed to make it convincing. There are absolutely no clues at all in their interraction prior to this scene which indicates Pussy has any feelings towards Bond whatsoever. On the contrary she seems to find him annoying.
It is a common trait among the most disgusting mysoginists out there to believe a no is never a no, and that you have all the right as a man to never back off. That makes the scene even more uncomfortable. Not only has the scene aged very badly, one would also argue such behaviour was completely inappropriate in the 60s or in any era for that matter.
You can push the narrative that this is about Bond cleverly "recognizing a weak point in the enimy". I will push the narrative that it is simply a case of bad and lazy scriptwriting. "Bond has to solve this somehow and save the day and we have no idea how, so lets just make Pussy compromise the mission. And oh yeah, of course she fancied him from the beginning, *cough, cough..." It is a very unconvincing and unsatisfying twist.
Indeed.
In any case, at the very most, the film shows Bond forcing a kiss upon Pussy, at the end of which she's enjoying it. It does not show him forcing her to have sex, nor does it suggest that he is going to, nor that such a course of action would make any sense. Troy, you may think rape can win a woman over, but it's a hard sell to mainstream audiences the film was made for.
The idea of using rape as a weapon may be an intriguing or attractive one to some, but it defies reason to think that light entertainment such as Goldfinger would implement it in a plot, and it's clear from the performances and score of the film that nothing approaching this is being suggested.
I'd also like to push back on this idea that Bond is a psychopath. He is not. A willingness (and a reluctant one at that) to kill in the line of duty does not make someone a psychopath. Furthermore, a psychopath would not be motivated by duty or patriotism and would not have any specific concern about thousands of people being gassed.
And I don't think "murder" is the correct word for the killing Bond does. In any case, when you snarkily suggest, Troy, that I would find Bond's killing unjustified, it's a strange point. Killing a person is an excellent way to stop them from doing something. Raping them, not so much, except in the minds of some very peculiar people.
It’s part of the running gag, that women find Bond irresistible. And he uses his sex appeal against his female adversaries. Just as it’s part of the running gag that Bond is invincible, and uses his invincibility against his male adversaries. Hence the joke in Thunderball, when after seducing Fiona, he fails to turn her
Standards change. That’s why we laugh at the Hays code for, as an example, insisting that in a bed scene , both actors had to keep one foot on the floor. That’s why old movies do mo5 have any swearing, as it was considered disgusting, whereas now it’s commonplace.
That is why TV stations, such as TalkingPictures routinely show warnings to any programmes made before 1980, often stating “...contains some offensive and discriminatory language which reflects the prevailing attitudes of the time”
I understand the need to reinforce the message that sexual violence is a bad thing. That we need to give clear message around consent. And why a modern audience would find that scene difficult.
Even in war, rape and murder of civilians is disgusting and illegal. As you say, rape is not an effective way of controlling people and stopping them from doing something. Just as torture is also not an effective tool, and is outlawed by all right-minded countries
I agree that it would be inappropriate in a modern film to show this kind of behaviour as being successful, which could therefore encourage viewers to behave that way in real life.
However, this is a scene from another age, when films were concerned with different moral messages, such as never allowing bad people to triumph. The film is what it is, it cannot be re-edited or re-shot.
So we should set current moral messages aside, and to say this is inappropriate behaviour in absolute terms means that Bond should not have done that, despite that this would lead to the deaths of 10 000s of people, and collapse of the western economies. Ridiculous.
As for being unconvincing, as I said earlier, it was part of the joke that Bond is irresistible to women. Remember, in the early 1960s, with the arrival of the pill and penicillin, before the arrival of AIDS, women had become liberated and could pursue independent sex lives. Without fears of pregnancy or disease, and without chaperones.
I have the axact opposite view.
That's my point to begin with: This particular plot twist is ridiculous!
I like Goldfinger and I think the first half is splendid! The segment in Kentucky, however, always feels like a let down.
Oh, I know Bond didn't rape anyone. I was responding to the imagined idea that Bond would be justified in raping Pussy Galore because it would somehow thwart Goldfinger. Conceiving of scenarios for a heroic rape is pretty off-putting.
Anyway, for something more on-topic: the fact that everyone in YOLT seems to have a copy of the film on DVD, and watches it during the film, was a sign that the producers didn't always care if stupidity came into the films. That was really the first occasion.
Sorry, but i just don't understand that last sentence...
Sorry! I meant the first dire occasion.
Aki, Tiger, and Blofeld all watch scenes from the film on TV monitors and none of it is possible.
It's the first time the series was lazy and stupid like that.
Totally. YOLT is where it all started. Once they departed from Fleming, in favour of more outlandish stories, the naff slapstick era of Bond started.
I always thought the scene when Connery has the face mask on (quite apt for now) and gets carried in by the big Japanese guy before they break in to a fight as silly.
The fight itself is good, but the fact that the guy would carry Connery over his shoulder and not realise it is a different person is just plain ridiculous.
Yeah, and the Chinese not only built a rocket-swallowing ship but a satellite that was able to show it on camera. And Blofeld had the nerve to ask for an advance after that type of service.
YOLT is the one film in the series I could pick through just about every scene and find flaws in it, which is why it's so far down in my ratings. All style and flash and no substance. Ken Adam should have the lead credit instead of Connery.
As a fan, I enjoy moments, but YOLT and TSWLM are just not good films. The stupidity is out of control. Moonraker, on the other hand, is probably the silliest of the bunch but manages to be more self-aware, and crucially, the internal logic mostly stands up.
I have to include one more dire moment from TSWLM, which is full of them. The scene where everyone is together looking at the blueprints, and unwrap the mystery of what "oratory" could mean. It's like the world's dumbest detective agency. Ugh
Ah, now i understand! :)
But by 1967 the spy world and its parodies had exploded, so the only thing to do was to go bigger and bigger, unless they wanted to copy their own Harry Palmer. I don't think you could have done a FRWL-type low-key film by 1967.