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
I agree it's possible he'd look after it himself: he's a military man so would be used to a bit of cleaning work. But then equally getting a cleaner in isn't that unusual in London: the question is whether he'd need one. I expect he'd make an occasional simple meal for himself, breakfast and the like, but would probably be dining out most of the time.
I don't think his neighbours would give him a second thought to be honest. It wouldn't be unusual for someone in a reasonably rich bit of London to have a flat there as a pied-à-terre and not be there a lot of the time. And it's London: you don't talk to your neighbours! :)
Forgot about M saying that in SF. Bond presumably owns it then.
And yes, as someone who used to live in London, very true about neighbours. Lived in the same place there for 3 years. Only had two other flats in the building. Never once spoke to any other renter there aside from my flatmate. Couldn’t even tell you what they looked like.
I've never quite understood his place in LALD: it looks more like a countryside cottage than a London flat; I'd be curious to know what the thinking was as to where it's located. It doesn't quite look like a mews flat or anything.
Looks like a bungalow to me. Even the one in DN looks too big for a London flat. Presumably they were shot in studios which explains it. I suspect the logic/design intention went more into making it look trendy than realistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofane
In fact, the message should read : TOFANA 10 AM
https://spymovienavigator.com/spydata/tofana-1000-a-m/
If Luigi had written the message correctly, Bond could've saved valuable time for his mission, instead of drifting aimlessly through Cortina, trying to find one of them 'ioams'.
But has any Bond actor besides Sean Connery had a second Bond film as good as, if not better than their first?
Connery
DN then FRWL
Moore
LALD then TMWTGG
Dalton
TLD then LTK
Brosnan
GE then TND
Craig
CR then QOS
Don't get me wrong I enjoy most of their follow up films. But do fans and more likely the general audiences rank the second film as the actor as well as their debut?
GE and CR are favourites in general and TLD has a lighter touch than LTK, which is also helpful.
I would say it is also true for the fans but LTK is maybe almost as much appreciated as TLD (?)
And for some people, they think GE was a film made with Dalton in mind, and TND is where Brosnan cemented his own iteration of Bond.
This is about the introduction of the Bond locations, especially in the PTS.
An example of this is in The World Is Not Enough, when Azerbaijan was introduced, there's the name, displayed.
Die Another Day, also did this in the PTS when Puk'chong, North Korea was introduced by displaying the name of the location below.
And I don't know how many Bond films did this trick, to inform the viewers where Bond is.
Now, this is my question:
When I've watched A View To A Kill, what about years ago, and the Pre title sequence displays the name of Siberia (just like what TWINE did), for us to know of what location is it, but looking into the AVTAK Pre title sequence modern releases (particularly in YouTube), that part is missing, the name display of Serbia is missing.
I know there's the Siberia name displayed below right after the gunbarrel sequence for us to know where Bond is.
I mean, is it depending upon the versions? DVD editions for example?
Like in some editions, the name of a country was shown upon introduction? But at some editions, there's nothing?
Please, guys help me.
Thank you for the response.
For what it's worth, a lot of filmmakers do not like using location identifiers and feel like the narrative itself should be showing you where the story is, without the need for a subtitle.
It's the same reason that some filmmakers don't like flashbacks and voiceovers--it can be seen as a crutch.
Not on TV broadcasts, VHS, DVD or Blu-Ray. I suppose it's possible in different regions for this, though it's possible that Dolly had braces. ;)
But anyways, thank you for the clarification. 😊
That time, Sanchez was piloting the plane alone, then he was captured, so it's all a chance and opportunity for Lupe to escape and go to a place where Sanchez couldn't see her, but why she didn't do that? She's free.
I am not sure why the gun change. For realistic purposes the PPK hasn't been the gun of the British Secret Service since the mid 70's(?). I would think it was a way for them to further cement a return to Fleming. But I am not an munitions expert @Benny so someone else is welcome to chime in.
I remember stumbling upon an article a few years ago in which it was related that sometime in the early '80's, a British film director had supposedly been approached by Eon Productions to direct a Bond film concurrently with another one that John Glen was directing. This very specifically referred to what was to be an Eon-produced Bond film and not NSNA; in fact I even think this was after NSNA, as I vaguely remember the film that Glen was directing was mentioned to be AVTAK. Needless to say, the other film would have starred someone other than Roger Moore, but I also can't remember who that was to have been. I'm not sure if the story even bothered to explain why this had all come to nothing.
The biggest problem here is that I can't remember the name of the director who made this claim. I do know it was, unsurpisingly, a British director, and I seem to remember he was mostly known for horror films and, also to the surprise of nobody, possessing of a filmography that consisted largely of relatively little seen films, again, as I recall it.
I found it such a ludicrous notion at the time that I must have immediately parked it in a very dark corner of my mind, from which retrieval is turning out to be a bit of a hassle now.
Why did the pringle jumper man assume Bond was the car parking attendant?
I mean, I like the scene, and the pay-off later is great. But I can't see why the pringle guy would automatically assume Bond's the car-parker.
I expect he was the same build and age too. Thanks.
Pinder has another assistant - confirmed to be Bari Jonson - who shows up in brief scenes intercut with Largi's retrieval of the bombs, including at around 1:44:50 (and pictured below).
Pinder has a different assistant during an earlier scene (around 59:10), but this guy doesn't look anything like Lloyd Reckord.
Any idea what I'm missing? (And extra credit, if you can help me ID the unknown assistant from the 59:10 scene.)
Thanks!
@Bigglesworth great screen capture of the helpers, definitely not the same dude as the one listed. All I can think of is that a mistake was made back in the day with the cast listing? Or there was an omission and someone just erroneously added info?
We know Pushkin of the KGB is already suspicious and investigating him so even if Pushkin had been assassinated the Soviets would have known what he was up to. I also don't get how he would have explained away the time he spent with the British.
Is there any rational explanation for these things I haven't thought of or are they simply plot holes?
I think that Koskov says at one point that he told his Soviet paymasters that he was on a misinformation operation to fool the British and his defection was therefore fake and this explains why he was able to return to the Soviet side as he'd completed his mission successfully and even apprehended the "assassin" of Pushkin.
Sharkey was a whizz with a thread and needle?
Not what it meant to Bond and his subsequent story arc, but why--in her own probable reasoning--she actually did it?
To avoid a ruined life, significant jail time ... or is something else going on?
I think I understand her self-sacrifice for both boyfriend and Bond, but she didn't actually have to die to achieve that, did she?
What am I missing?