The James Bond Questions Thread

1103104106108109210

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    It's a similar situation to Penelope Smallbone in OP..she was to be a regular and was dropped straight after...
  • RareJamesBondFanRareJamesBondFan Touch it. You can touch it if you want.
    Posts: 132
    Why oes Bond bristle everytime someone mentions his parents ? lol
  • RareJamesBondFanRareJamesBondFan Touch it. You can touch it if you want.
    Posts: 132
    HE WAS?? DID NOT KNOW.. Boy this changes things!
  • Posts: 1,296
    Was there nay further reason given for Hunt never returning to the series after OHMSS, besides oh I'm busy?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Probably David Picker.
  • Posts: 1,296
    Who is that?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Executive producer who still regrets OHMSS was ever made.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I wonder why does he think that.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    He and Brosnan both think it was a disaster of a film.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Brosnan thinks that?! That damned Paddy!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    He said he would like to remake it, as it wasn t very good.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited September 2016 Posts: 15,423
    It had its share of bad moments, but OHMSS is a damned great film!

    As bad as some of the films are, I wouldn't remake any Bond film... Well, perhaps Die Another Day with more coherent story (removing the main title sequence, and Bond's capture in North Korea, rewrite the first half of the first act) and improve the CGI... Oh, and reshoot the parasurfing scene with actual stunt.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    When M sits behind his desk, does he wear pants?
  • Posts: 19,339
    Well,once when i was with M in Tokyo,we had an interesting experience.....
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Shut your ears, Miss Moneypenny!
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    In Pearson's biography it is said that "Boofy" was changed as a name for Mr. Kidd in Diamonds are Forever.

    Could someone confirm this, please? In my Spanish version, it is translated as "Dolly" ??? and in my pdf online-downloaded version "Boofy" it is, so there would be no change.

    ?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited September 2016 Posts: 28,694
    One thing that has only annoyed me more over time, and really bugs me about SP is this:

    The PTS is really interesting, I like the intro to it, as do I Bond's classification as an agent of Death, the vibrancy of the Mexican culture, the action with the helicopter and more, but the one section I can't stand is the bombing of the hotel.

    I've talked to many here since the film came out about that moment, and in my first viewing in the theater of the movie, I wasn't even aware that Bond shot the briefcase and triggered the explosion, it all went so fast for me. It wasn't until later discussions that I was informed that Bond had indeed shot it, and my confusion has only mounted since.

    So, my question is this: Did Bond know the case had an explosive in it? I've watched this scene endlessly, and I have to argue that he didn't, because nothing else makes sense otherwise.

    How I view it, is this: Bond tracks Sciarra to Mexico and tails him around the city to see what his business is there, waiting for an opportunity to kill him. He must know the building Sciarra is heading back to (his hotel room, at least), as he appears to have it bugged for audio. When Bond cuts across the buildings and gets in place, there's mention of a stadium bombing, and then the case is sat on the table. Bond prepares to fire on Sciarra, is seen, and engages the men. He shoots first the man who saw him immediately, then kills another gunman shooting from another window. He then turns his sights on a third man as Sciarra runs. The third shooter is in cover behind the briefcase after firing a shot, and I think Bond fires a shot at him trying to get him through the briefcase, accidentally setting off the bomb and triggering the collapse afterward.

    Why I feel this is an accident is because of two reasons. One, I think Bond originally thinks that the case may be an initial payment for the job at the stadium or something else related to the mission, and doesn't think the bomb is actually on site and in the room. And the obvious, bigger reason is I seriously don't think Bond would explode a bomb in a city where innocents could be harmed. When I think about that scene and go into analyzing it with Bond knowing the bomb is in the case, nothing adds up and it makes Bond looks like a fool, quite cold and beyond dangerous.

    Bond is always in dangerous situations and those situations can often carry into the eyes of the public, but something Bond would never do is risk the lives of innocents if he could do anything to stop it.

    The bombing in Mexico City just makes Dan's Bond look unprofessional and right back to square one where he started in CR, as if he's learned nothing. Him storming into the embassy chasing the bomber, while justified to stop Mollaka from killing any more people, is just as above and recklessly beyond as Bond intentionally setting off a bomb to kill a SPECTRE agent and risking who knows how many innocent lives to ensure his mission's completion. That's not cool, and that's not Bond.

    Is anybody else as conflicted and confused on this as I am?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    One thing that has only annoyed me more over time, and really bugs me about SP is this:

    The PTS is really interesting, I like the intro to it, as do I Bond's classification as an agent of Death, the vibrancy of the Mexican culture, the action with the helicopter and more, but the one section I can't stand is the bombing of the hotel.

    I've talked to many here since the film came out about that moment, and in my first viewing in the theater of the movie, I wasn't even aware that Bond shot the briefcase and triggered the explosion, it all went so fast for me. It wasn't until later discussions that I was informed that Bond had indeed shot it, and my confusion has only mounted since.

    So, my question is this: Did Bond know the case had an explosive in it? I've watched this scene endlessly, and I have to argue that he didn't, because nothing else makes sense otherwise.

    How I view it, is this: Bond tracks Sciarra to Mexico and tails him around the city to see what his business is there, waiting for an opportunity to kill him. He must know the building Sciarra is heading back to (his hotel room, at least), as he appears to have it bugged for audio. When Bond cuts across the buildings and gets in place, there's mention of a stadium bombing, and then the case is sat on the table. Bond prepares to fire on Sciarra, is seen, and engages the men. He shoots first the man who saw him immediately, then kills another gunman shooting from another window. He then turns his sights on a third man as Sciarra runs. The third shooter is in cover behind the briefcase after firing a shot, and I think Bond fires a shot at him trying to get him through the briefcase, accidentally setting off the bomb and triggering the collapse afterward.

    Why I feel this is an accident is because of two reasons. One, I think Bond originally thinks that the case may be an initial payment for the job at the stadium or something else related to the mission, and doesn't think the bomb is actually on site and in the room. And the obvious, bigger reason is I seriously don't think Bond would explode a bomb in a city where innocents could be harmed. When I think about that scene and go into analyzing it with Bond knowing the bomb is in the case, nothing adds up and it makes Bond looks like a fool, quite cold and beyond dangerous.

    Bond is always in dangerous situations and those situations can often carry into the eyes of the public, but something Bond would never do is risk the lives of innocents if he could do anything to stop it.

    The bombing in Mexico City just makes Dan's Bond look unprofessional and right back to square one where he started in CR, as if he's learned nothing. Him storming into the embassy chasing the bomber, while justified to stop Mollaka from killing any more people, is just as above and recklessly beyond as Bond intentionally setting off a bomb to kill a SPECTRE agent and risking who knows how many innocent lives to ensure his mission's completion. That's not cool, and that's not Bond.

    Is anybody else as conflicted and confused on this as I am?

    I would say you have it about right.

    Bond gets spotted and it all kicks off and he inadvertently shoots the briefcase.

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited September 2016 Posts: 10,591
    It's definitely inadvertent (Bond's look of shock afterwards says it all). But it doesn't bother me too much as Bond would have no way of knowing that the bomb Sciarra planned on using was a suitcase bomb.
  • Posts: 5,990
    Myself, I thought that it was Sciarra who detonated the bomb so as to cover his escape (a timer would have given him the time to do that). But Bond shooting the suitcase inadvertently would work to, if that bomb had a mercury detonator (not my choice, but...), or if it was filled with nitrogycerin (a big no no for any explosive expert worth its salt).
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Bond shot the briefcase to get through it to the armed goon. He didn't know it was a bomb.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @TheWizardOfIce, @jake24, glad I'm not alone on this, as I've heard people argue many times that Bond did it purposefully as a strategic move.

    @jake24, Dan's performance in that scene (his look of shock) was what made me think people's theories of Bond doing it on purpose were daft. That's not the face of a man that planned to do what he just did.

    With this in mind, I wish Mendes and co. would've played the aftermath of that moment differently. I wanted hints of chaos after that moment, in a big way. People running past Bond in hysteria, almost knocking him over, with him feeling the disaster he'd brought on as he has to move past it and continue on chasing Sciarra to finish his mission (he plays it too cool and collected in the moments afterward for my tastes). Maybe a moment after he's back in London where he gets angry at himself for letting innocents die. Something that would've shown us through Bond's eyes the difficulties that can arise in the field with agents, and the unexpected disasters that can arise from human error.

    C's introduction in the film would've been better suited in a heated inquiry featuring him and other higher ups in British intelligence where they put Bond under the spotlight and criticize his actions in the field and rescind his 00 status. That would have far better set up the gravity of Bond's screw up and reinforced why M thinks he needs to be taken out of field duty.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Is Quantum of Solace the most "modern" Bond film? All the other Craig films seem to be going for a retro-classic type feel, whereas QoS is clearly making an effort to be as contemporary as possible, both in terms of plot, style, fashions, etc.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117

    With this in mind, I wish Mendes and co. would've played the aftermath of that moment differently. I wanted hints of chaos after that moment, in a big way. People running past Bond in hysteria, almost knocking him over, with him feeling the disaster he'd brought on as he has to move past it and continue on chasing Sciarra to finish his mission (he plays it too cool and collected in the moments afterward for my tastes). Maybe a moment after he's back in London where he gets angry at himself for letting innocents die. Something that would've shown us through Bond's eyes the difficulties that can arise in the field with agents, and the unexpected disasters that can arise from human error.

    Afraid that was impossible as the general public don't exist in SP.

    Did they spend all the money on the explosion and there was none left to pay for any extras to make it look like Rome and London are actual capital cities full of people?

    Or maybe there was an extras budget which was all used up in the opening shot?
  • Posts: 1,296
    Why is Bond's face covered in dirt at the end of the getting ready montage at Skyfall?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694

    With this in mind, I wish Mendes and co. would've played the aftermath of that moment differently. I wanted hints of chaos after that moment, in a big way. People running past Bond in hysteria, almost knocking him over, with him feeling the disaster he'd brought on as he has to move past it and continue on chasing Sciarra to finish his mission (he plays it too cool and collected in the moments afterward for my tastes). Maybe a moment after he's back in London where he gets angry at himself for letting innocents die. Something that would've shown us through Bond's eyes the difficulties that can arise in the field with agents, and the unexpected disasters that can arise from human error.

    Afraid that was impossible as the general public don't exist in SP.

    Did they spend all the money on the explosion and there was none left to pay for any extras to make it look like Rome and London are actual capital cities full of people?

    Or maybe there was an extras budget which was all used up in the opening shot?

    That's a good one, Wiz, but you and I both know what the money was really saved for (aside from destroying way too many Astons):



    Outside of world wars where generals raved triumphantly at the destruction of an enemy barrier by a missile, I've never seen a group of people so thrilled to be flushing money down the drain when miniatures and minor effects would've done the job for pennies in comparison.

    Cubby would have sooner killed his Bond director than let Mendes do what he was allowed to do there by EON. And then when SP comes out and doesn't profit as much from its bloated budget as bean counters desired, they're all crying on each other's shoulders? I'd like to tell them, "Deal with it; you let it happen."
  • Posts: 1,296
    I don't know , I like the explosion... Friends have we ever had a Bond score elimination game?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited September 2016 Posts: 28,694
    @IGUANNA, there have been a series of elimination games on the forum for the better part of a year and a half or so, and I'm sure there has been a score-based on as well.

    EDIT: Found these two music related games-

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/15809/composers-elimination-game/p10

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10615/the-great-bond-soundtrack-elimination-game
  • Posts: 1,296
    Oh that's too bad, but it looks like the results were good anyway.
  • The Great James Bond Explosions Elimination Game anybody? lol
Sign In or Register to comment.