The James Bond Questions Thread

1148149151153154210

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    Very true. The smart blood in SP served no purpose whatsoever.

    Most things in SP served no purpose whatsoever,alas.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    No arguments from me, Barry.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    Didn't the smart blood highlight the point to M that MI6 shouldn't want to watch their own agents.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    edited January 2018 Posts: 2,730
    Didn't the smart blood highlight the point to M that MI6 shouldn't want to watch their own agents.

    OMG that just occurred to me, purvis and wade are such fools
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Didn't the smart blood highlight the point to M that MI6 shouldn't want to watch their own agents.
    OMG that just occurred to me, purvis and wade are such fools
    Well... at least he told Q to delete the smart blood files. ;)
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Didn't the smart blood highlight the point to M that MI6 shouldn't want to watch their own agents.

    That would be C recording MP speaking to Bond on the phone wouldn't it?

    I possibly think you're reading too deeply into a script that doesn't even get the basics right let alone has hidden subtleties such as this.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited January 2018 Posts: 13,807
    Nope. Simple stuff. Ties right back to Bond's meeting with M after the titles. Then C's meddling.

    Not liking the film is one thing. Referring to other content to deny a simple point made is another thing entirely.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Nope. Simple stuff. Ties right back to Bond's meeting with M after the titles. Then C's meddling.

    Not liking the film is one thing. Referring to other content to deny a simple point made is another thing entirely.

    I'm obviously incredibly thick so can you please walk me through it?

    How does the opening scene with M refer to the smart blood highlighting 'the point to M that MI6 shouldn't want to watch their own agents.'?

    The whole 'point' (using that loosely as IMO it serves practically zero purpose) of the smart blood is that M does want to keep track of his agents isn't it? It's only later when he realises C watches everyone that he perhaps starts to have misgivings of the intrusive surveillance agenda C is pushing.

  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    I must admit that even after having seen SPECTRE twice (for lack of desire to see it a third time since it came out) I cannot recall anything about "smart blood" or the like. I must have been distracted by other things that bothered me deeply about the movie. But thank you for bringing it to my attention. I vill investigate at vunce.
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    edited January 2018 Posts: 2,005
    delete
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    Reference made to not getting the script basics right, as a denial of possible relationships/subtleties within the plot.

    Then you pretty much stated my point. M was mistaken, and reconsidered his approach to Bond.

    I'm referring to the concept that no M should know everything Bond does in the field (though any M can be compelled to ask/pursue a little too much, under pressure from bureaucrats or otherwise). It's not limited to Spectre. And it's related to the M-OO7 meeting. Then later the M-C exchange. Then finally M having dinner wanting to be rid of the smart blood capability and recognizing Bond is best left to his own devices. Smart blood is decent brainstorming of a concept. To apply to potential victims of kidnapping, not MI6 agents acting off the official record books.

    But hey, like Dr. Sigmund Freud said to his daughter regarding her dream: sometimes a banana is just a banana.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Reference made to not getting the script basics right, as a denial of possible relationships/subtleties within the plot.

    Then you pretty much stated my point. M was mistaken, and reconsidered his approach to Bond.

    I'm referring to the concept that no M should know everything Bond does in the field (though any M can be compelled to ask/pursue a little too much, under pressure from bureaucrats or otherwise). It's not limited to Spectre. And it's related to the M-OO7 meeting. Then later the M-C exchange. Then finally M having dinner wanting to be rid of the smart blood capability and recognizing Bond is best left to his own devices. Smart blood is decent brainstorming of a concept. To apply to potential victims of kidnapping, not MI6 agents acting off the official record books.

    But hey, like Dr. Sigmund Freud said to his daughter regarding her dream: sometimes a banana is just a banana.

    That's only because the smart blood is compromised because C is feeding the data back to Blofeld. There's no reason M should really change his mind except that the smart blood was now undermining Bond's chances of success.

    But this whole thing goes back to the start of the Craig era and the obsession (largely borne of wanting to give Judi Dench more screentime) that Bond be in contact with HQ at all times and which reached its zenith in the Mendes era with Bond constantly wearing an earpiece like a CIA agent and the Scooby gang going mobile on the streets of London.

    Bond should by and large be on his own and left to sort things out for himself.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    So it is but it isn't. And the Scooby Gang. And the plot played out to support your last statement.

    Fiennes M saw the big picture. That's not limited to any single item in the plot.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Sometimes a bannana is just a banana.
    Sometimes a film is so god damn retarded that it is a disgrace on a 50+ year franchise.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    I've got two questions regarding DAF:

    - Did Connery perform the gun barrel walk for this film during its production or is that recycled material?

    - Why was the line, "... even though the industry prides itself on the loyalty and devotion of its workers" repeated so shortly after it had been spoken once already by Sir Donald? I understand the necessity of emphasising something but the entire sentence is repeated verbatim. Is there an artistic point to it that I've been missing for all these years or is it lazy screen writing? Furthermore, that line is neither particularly well-written, nor funny, nor crucial to the scene, is it? Why, in a film that cost 7 million dollars in 1971, is this line spoken twice? What don't I understand? AAAH!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @DarthDimi, I had initially thought it was a goof of error (in regards to your second point), but I believe it's reiterated because it's narrated over the footage that shows just how un-loyal and un-devoted the workers are, as they steal diamonds for their own gain, with the good Dr. Tynan getting in on the action, too.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    @Creasy47
    Could be. I don't like it though. ;-)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Creasy47
    Could be. I don't like it though. ;-)

    My brain definitely doesn't like it, but that's the closest I've come to putting some logic behind him repeating it. I remember the first time it clicked for me that he was repeating himself, I thought it was a disc error or something.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I think Connery only shot one gunbarrel, for TB, and they used that footage for his next two as well.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Ok, thanks guys.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    - Why was the line, "... even though the industry prides itself on the loyalty and devotion of its workers" repeated so shortly after it had been spoken once already by Sir Donald? I understand the necessity of emphasising something but the entire sentence is repeated verbatim. Is there an artistic point to it that I've been missing for all these years or is it lazy screen writing? Furthermore, that line is neither particularly well-written, nor funny, nor crucial to the scene, is it? Why, in a film that cost 7 million dollars in 1971, is this line spoken twice? What don't I understand? AAAH!

    I think you have hit the nail on the head.

    Just symptomatic, I think, of the complacent and lazy way the three 70s Hamilton films were put together.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Come on. With the purpose of ensuring the films are of the best quality, the producers at EON exert personal supervision on the directors, writers, actors and other crew members. It's a necessary precaution, even though EON prides itself on the dedication and devotion of its workers. Of course, the supervision tends to ensure that dedication, and the whole filmmaking process, from start to finish, is subject to personal supervision from the producers at EON. It's a necessary precaution, even though EON prides itself on the dedication and devotion of its workers.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2018 Posts: 15,423
    Guys, did you know Christoph Waltz was in Goldeneye: The Secret Life of Ian Fleming? :D

    Cdwjt6N.png
    1ClvUdQ.png
  • Posts: 19,339
    Interesting...I've never seen that I have to admit.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Thanks, @Birdleson!

    I wonder if this one opens new doors to the brothergate angle for a few amount of harmless laughs.

    Waltz here is playing a Nazi sailor who's having a dinner with Fleming and Lady O'Neill.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Thanks, @Birdleson!

    I wonder if this one opens new doors to the brothergate angle for a few amount of harmless laughs.

    Waltz here is playing a Nazi sailor who's having a dinner with Fleming and Lady O'Neill.

    Waltz as a Nazi having dinner? He's probably just waiting for the cream.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2018 Posts: 15,423
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Thanks, @Birdleson!

    I wonder if this one opens new doors to the brothergate angle for a few amount of harmless laughs.

    Waltz here is playing a Nazi sailor who's having a dinner with Fleming and Lady O'Neill.

    Waltz as a Nazi having dinner? He's probably just waiting for the cream.
    He's even flirting with the future Mrs. Fleming.

    He really must've been the author of all his pain. :))
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Yes, great find. Haven t seen that since it came out on video. It is a very poor film, as bad as the other Goldeneye.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    I found that Goldeneye very interesting.

    It is based on Pearson's bio, it was filmed in the real Goldeneye and it doesn't end with CR, as usual, but includes also the Goldeneye times with Noel Coward or Ivar Bryce. Even the real James Bond (the ornithologist) appears as a character!

    Ah, and apart from Waltz there was also a role for Deborah Moore.

    Quite entertaining... for connosieurs, of course.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The first half is rather good, actually. It's the second half that gets rather boring and introduces some homages we are to buy as inspirations for Fleming putting elements in his later novels.

    Stellar cast, though. And Charles Dance is very pleasant to watch, it's almost like watching Fleming's Bond wandering around the screen. I like the film for what it is, and it's a lot better than most of the subsequent efforts, excluding the BBC miniseries.
Sign In or Register to comment.