The James Bond Questions Thread

13637394142210

Comments

  • Hi everyone,
    are there any interviews or statements from the earlier movies/Cold War movies why they changed the storyline or the origin of the villains? In many novels (nearly all I think) the Soviets are the baddies (SMERSH) but in the movies they aren't. Why? Was there an intention of the producers/directors/screenwriters?
    Regards, Miranda

    Basically they wanted to avoid any controversy involved in making the Russian government the villains. Probably because the movies would also be released in Russia. The only interview I can remember this being mentioned is in "The Making of From Russia With Love" on the dvd/bluray special features.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Hi everyone,
    are there any interviews or statements from the earlier movies/Cold War movies why they changed the storyline or the origin of the villains? In many novels (nearly all I think) the Soviets are the baddies (SMERSH) but in the movies they aren't. Why? Was there an intention of the producers/directors/screenwriters?
    Regards, Miranda

    Basically they wanted to avoid any controversy involved in making the Russian government the villains. Probably because the movies would also be released in Russia. The only interview I can remember this being mentioned is in "The Making of From Russia With Love" on the dvd/bluray special features.

    Except the films weren't released in Russia.

    I can't remember precisely off the top of my head but the first Bond film shown there was something like TMTGG and that was only in the Kremlin to the politburo. And given that Bond is the very definition of western decadence I doubt they were in any hurry to let their population be distracted from their Ladas and borsch by Aston Martins, Rolexes and Bollinger - the irony of course being that these days the Russians are probably the biggest customers of these companies (well except perhaps for the last few days).

    The first film to be shown to the general public was presumably GE - although maybe they held that back due to Bond massacring a load of Russian soldiers in the archives?

    Actually I remember when I used to teach English in St Petersburg one day I had a shocking hangover and couldn't be arsed so I just slapped GE in the DVD player and said they could watch a film but they had to write a review afterwards. When it got to the archive scene one lad stormed out. When I went after him he said he refused to watch a western film where Russian's were slaughtered! And this was in 2003 so the kid was born in about 1988 and could have no knowledge of the Cold War but he'd been brought up to distrust the west.

    Anyway the introduction of SPECTRE in FRWL has always irked me as it makes the plot needlessly more complicated and doesn't really serve any narrative purpose.

    I guess in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis they took the view not to annoy the Russians, although they made the same decision in DN to replace the Russians with SPECTRE yet that film was released a week before the Cuban missile crisis indicating that even without escalation in Cold War hostilities relations were still very fragile and no one wanted to risk antagonising them.

    Given the furore over this film just out about Kim Jong Un I guess there's some sense to it because, bear in mind that the Russians couldve wiped us all off the face of the earth, and unlike North Korea are not, to paraphrase General Medrano, some flyspeck sandwiched between China and South Korea.

    I remember the fear of the Russians even in the 80s so at the very height of the Cold War maybe they really did think a film about a spy fighting the fearsome SMERSH would not go down well.

    I'd be interested as to who took the decision though. Was it Cubby and Harry on there own? Did the studio bring pressure to bear? Or one day did a guy from MI6/the CIA show up at their offices and say 'we'd really rather you didn't have the Russians as the baddies in this'?

    I'd also be interested to find out (no idea how this could be achieved though) what effect the Cuban missile crisis had on DN's box office. Given DN was released on Oct 5th and the 13 days ran from 14th - 28th you could literally watch the news then go to the cinema and see a heightened, fantastical version of the same story play out to a peaceful resolution.

    Did this up to the second topicality pack more people in to watch DN or did people say 'we could all die literally any minute so do I want to go and watch a film about reminding me of what's going on in the real world? Bugger that - let's go and watch Carry On Cruising instead.'
  • Hi everyone,
    are there any interviews or statements from the earlier movies/Cold War movies why they changed the storyline or the origin of the villains? In many novels (nearly all I think) the Soviets are the baddies (SMERSH) but in the movies they aren't. Why? Was there an intention of the producers/directors/screenwriters?
    Regards, Miranda

    Basically they wanted to avoid any controversy involved in making the Russian government the villains. Probably because the movies would also be released in Russia. The only interview I can remember this being mentioned is in "The Making of From Russia With Love" on the dvd/bluray special features.

    Except the films weren't released in Russia.

    I can't remember precisely off the top of my head but the first Bond film shown there was something like TMTGG and that was only in the Kremlin to the politburo. And given that Bond is the very definition of western decadence I doubt they were in any hurry to let their population be distracted from their Ladas and borsch by Aston Martins, Rolexes and Bollinger - the irony of course being that these days the Russians are probably the biggest customers of these companies (well except perhaps for the last few days).

    The first film to be shown to the general public was presumably GE - although maybe they held that back due to Bond massacring a load of Russian soldiers in the archives?

    Actually I remember when I used to teach English in St Petersburg one day I had a shocking hangover and couldn't be arsed so I just slapped GE in the DVD player and said they could watch a film but they had to write a review afterwards. When it got to the archive scene one lad stormed out. When I went after him he said he refused to watch a western film where Russian's were slaughtered! And this was in 2003 so the kid was born in about 1988 and could have no knowledge of the Cold War but he'd been brought up to distrust the west.

    Anyway the introduction of SPECTRE in FRWL has always irked me as it makes the plot needlessly more complicated and doesn't really serve any narrative purpose.

    I guess in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis they took the view not to annoy the Russians, although they made the same decision in DN to replace the Russians with SPECTRE yet that film was released a week before the Cuban missile crisis indicating that even without escalation in Cold War hostilities relations were still very fragile and no one wanted to risk antagonising them.

    Given the furore over this film just out about Kim Jong Un I guess there's some sense to it because, bear in mind that the Russians couldve wiped us all off the face of the earth, and unlike North Korea are not, to paraphrase General Medrano, some flyspeck sandwiched between China and South Korea.

    I remember the fear of the Russians even in the 80s so at the very height of the Cold War maybe they really did think a film about a spy fighting the fearsome SMERSH would not go down well.

    I'd be interested as to who took the decision though. Was it Cubby and Harry on there own? Did the studio bring pressure to bear? Or one day did a guy from MI6/the CIA show up at their offices and say 'we'd really rather you didn't have the Russians as the baddies in this'?

    I'd also be interested to find out (no idea how this could be achieved though) what effect the Cuban missile crisis had on DN's box office. Given DN was released on Oct 5th and the 13 days ran from 14th - 28th you could literally watch the news then go to the cinema and see a heightened, fantastical version of the same story play out to a peaceful resolution.

    Did this up to the second topicality pack more people in to watch DN or did people say 'we could all die literally any minute so do I want to go and watch a film about reminding me of what's going on in the real world? Bugger that - let's go and watch Carry On Cruising instead.'

    Thankyou for that informative and eloquent response @TheWizardOfIce. Come to think of it I remember hearing in the TMWTGG documentary that it was the first film to be released in the Kremlin.

    Than I guess they simply turned Smesh into Spectre to avoid controversy and upsetting the temperamental Russian populace. As you mentioned Sony is going thru something similar right now. As a life-long New Yorker threats of "another 9-11" over a silly movie is beyond crossing the line.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 368
    Than I guess they simply turned Smesh into Spectre to avoid controversy and upsetting the temperamental Russian populace.
    I also thought that but are there any proofs? I need it for my dissertation and I need quotes or sources!
    I'd be interested as to who took the decision though. Was it Cubby and Harry on there own? Did the studio bring pressure to bear? Or one day did a guy from MI6/the CIA show up at their offices and say 'we'd really rather you didn't have the Russians as the baddies in this'?

    I'd also be interested to find out (no idea how this could be achieved though) what effect the Cuban missile crisis had on DN's box office. Given DN was released on Oct 5th and the 13 days ran from 14th - 28th you could literally watch the news then go to the cinema and see a heightened, fantastical version of the same story play out to a peaceful resolution.

    Did this up to the second topicality pack more people in to watch DN or did people say 'we could all die literally any minute so do I want to go and watch a film about reminding me of what's going on in the real world? Bugger that - let's go and watch Carry On Cruising instead.'
    These are also very interesting questions. Is there any chance to find it out? Letter to EON? :)
  • Than I guess they simply turned Smesh into Spectre to avoid controversy and upsetting the temperamental Russian populace.
    I also thought that but are there any proofs? I need it for my dissertation and I need quotes or sources!
    I'd be interested as to who took the decision though. Was it Cubby and Harry on there own? Did the studio bring pressure to bear? Or one day did a guy from MI6/the CIA show up at their offices and say 'we'd really rather you didn't have the Russians as the baddies in this'?

    I'd also be interested to find out (no idea how this could be achieved though) what effect the Cuban missile crisis had on DN's box office. Given DN was released on Oct 5th and the 13 days ran from 14th - 28th you could literally watch the news then go to the cinema and see a heightened, fantastical version of the same story play out to a peaceful resolution.

    Did this up to the second topicality pack more people in to watch DN or did people say 'we could all die literally any minute so do I want to go and watch a film about reminding me of what's going on in the real world? Bugger that - let's go and watch Carry On Cruising instead.'
    These are also very interesting questions. Is there any chance to find it out? Letter to EON? :)

    It looks like MGM has taken "Inside From Russia With Love" off of youtube. That was the only source I can think of. It's the only link I could find on wikipedia. All it says is "Ian Fleming's novel was a Cold War thriller; however, the producers named the crime syndicate SPECTRE instead of the Soviet undercover agency SMERSH so as to avoid controversial political overtones.[4]"

    All that link leads to is the IMDB page for FRWL.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Anyway the introduction of SPECTRE in FRWL has always irked me as it makes the plot needlessly more complicated and doesn't really serve any narrative purpose.


    I disagree. Making SPECTRE the villain is pure genius in my opinion! It adds even more fuel to the plot, and makes the 'Cold war' in Istanbul much more interesting.
  • jobo wrote: »
    Anyway the introduction of SPECTRE in FRWL has always irked me as it makes the plot needlessly more complicated and doesn't really serve any narrative purpose.


    I disagree. Making SPECTRE the villain is pure genius in my opinion! It adds even more fuel to the plot, and makes the 'Cold war' in Istanbul much more interesting.

    I preferred it aswell. Giving Bond one continuous threat throughout the sixties was a smart move and Spectre had already been established in Dr.No so it made sense within the context of the plot.
  • Posts: 6,022
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'm with @jobo to some extent. Though I love the film FRWL and think those secenes of SPECTRE and Blofeld are among the best in the franchise, the scheme itself seems small and petty for SPECTRE. It is far more in line with what we would expect from Smersh, as per the book.

    Well, so do drug smuggling, blackmail, and giving advice to the robbers of the Glasgow-London postal train. Those little things allow for SPECTRE to fill their treasure chest in order t carry out the bigger plans we see in the movies from TB on.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    Actually I remember when I used to teach English in St Petersburg
    Wait, stop.
    An English teacher from Russia (with love)?
    Whoah.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Birdleson wrote: »
    the scheme itself seems small and petty for SPECTRE

    Apart from anything (and this is a flaw with both book and film) what value does the Spektor/Lektor actually have?

    Once the Russians realise it is gone they would just discontinue the machine. OK its a minor coup that they would force Russia to replace all their machines but this idea that MI6 could read all the Soviet traffic is complete bollocks unless the machine is nicked on the sly which it is not. And why would the Russians pay SPECTRE to get the machine back? The moment it has been stolen it is compromised and hence useless.
    chrisisall wrote: »
    An English teacher from Russia (with love)?

    Probably more with lust in those days old chap. ;)
  • Posts: 6,022
    Birdleson wrote: »
    the scheme itself seems small and petty for SPECTRE

    Apart from anything (and this is a flaw with both book and film) what value does the Spektor/Lektor actually have?

    Once the Russians realise it is gone they would just discontinue the machine. OK its a minor coup that they would force Russia to replace all their machines but this idea that MI6 could read all the Soviet traffic is complete bollocks unless the machine is nicked on the sly which it is not. And why would the Russians pay SPECTRE to get the machine back? The moment it has been stolen it is compromised and hence useless.

    The machine itself is compromised, but not the old messages that can still be decyphered using it. All the old communications that MI6 couldn't read until they got the Lektor/Spektor can be read now, and with them, the Intelligence Service will get a lot of things the Russians would have liked to keep secret. It's not only the decoding machines that they would need to change, but all of their networks, and agents, which have now been exposed thanks to those old messages. All long term operations blown to hell thanks to the theft of the Lektor. Think about it.

  • Posts: 15,229
    Gerard wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    the scheme itself seems small and petty for SPECTRE

    Apart from anything (and this is a flaw with both book and film) what value does the Spektor/Lektor actually have?

    Once the Russians realise it is gone they would just discontinue the machine. OK its a minor coup that they would force Russia to replace all their machines but this idea that MI6 could read all the Soviet traffic is complete bollocks unless the machine is nicked on the sly which it is not. And why would the Russians pay SPECTRE to get the machine back? The moment it has been stolen it is compromised and hence useless.

    The machine itself is compromised, but not the old messages that can still be decyphered using it. All the old communications that MI6 couldn't read until they got the Lektor/Spektor can be read now, and with them, the Intelligence Service will get a lot of things the Russians would have liked to keep secret. It's not only the decoding machines that they would need to change, but all of their networks, and agents, which have now been exposed thanks to those old messages. All long term operations blown to hell thanks to the theft of the Lektor. Think about it.

    Exactly. The Lektor may be a MacGuffen, it is a device of vital importance. You can't replace it easily and it gives vital information about the enemy.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    How are title songs selected?
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    edited December 2014 Posts: 2,541
    Who designed the original logo of SPECTRE in FRWL? Who designed the ring? Is is a Spectre or an Octopus?
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    The original logo is an octopus. I would have to say that it'd be the work of Ken Adam, as he was the production designer. (Production designers are responsible for not only sets, but also the look and feel of the films.)
  • Does anyone know why they had Bond use a Walther P-5 instead of his usual PPK in Octopussy? I'm not sure it was even intentional as Bond refers to it as his PPK in the Q-Lab scene. It's just hard for me to believe that they could make such a huge goof.

    Funnily enough Sean Connery also switched to a P-5 for NSNA. Were PPK's out of style that year or something?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Does anyone know why they had Bond use a Walther P-5 instead of his usual PPK in Octopussy? I'm not sure it was even intentional as Bond refers to it as his PPK in the Q-Lab scene. It's just hard for me to believe that they could make such a huge goof.

    Funnily enough Sean Connery also switched to a P-5 for NSNA. Were PPK's out of style that year or something?

    From what I've read the Walther P-5 was a new handgun put out by Walther and wanted to advertise and show it off to potential buyers. A shame Connery didn't get to use it in NSNA.
  • Murdock wrote: »
    Does anyone know why they had Bond use a Walther P-5 instead of his usual PPK in Octopussy? I'm not sure it was even intentional as Bond refers to it as his PPK in the Q-Lab scene. It's just hard for me to believe that they could make such a huge goof.

    Funnily enough Sean Connery also switched to a P-5 for NSNA. Were PPK's out of style that year or something?

    From what I've read the Walther P-5 was a new handgun put out by Walther and wanted to advertise and show it off to potential buyers. A shame Connery didn't get to use it in NSNA.

    Ah that makes sense. I guess Moore calling it a PPK was a goof no one picked up on. The scripted line was probably correct as I assume the script had Bond using a PPK but as you said for probable business reasons they decided to use the P-5.

    Connery did get to use it in NSNA. He never uses the classic PPK.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited December 2014 Posts: 16,359
    Murdock wrote: »
    Does anyone know why they had Bond use a Walther P-5 instead of his usual PPK in Octopussy? I'm not sure it was even intentional as Bond refers to it as his PPK in the Q-Lab scene. It's just hard for me to believe that they could make such a huge goof.

    Funnily enough Sean Connery also switched to a P-5 for NSNA. Were PPK's out of style that year or something?

    From what I've read the Walther P-5 was a new handgun put out by Walther and wanted to advertise and show it off to potential buyers. A shame Connery didn't get to use it in NSNA.

    Ah that makes sense. I guess Moore calling it a PPK was a goof no one picked up on. The scripted line was probably correct as I assume the script had Bond using a PPK but as you said for probable business reasons they decided to use the P-5.

    Connery did get to use it in NSNA. He never uses the classic PPK.

    Connery didn't get to shoot it though. He had it but never used it. He did use a Mauser HSc in a training scene though which looks alot like a PPK.

    Nsna-maus1.jpg
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    The original logo is an octopus. I would have to say that it'd be the work of Ken Adam, as he was the production designer. (Production designers are responsible for not only sets, but also the look and feel of the films.)

    Ken Adam didn't worked in FRWL:

    408145-3.jpg?1376498666

    And that design is the one that is more similar to an spectre than an octopus...
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    edited December 2014 Posts: 3,675
    Sorry, you're right. Ken Adam was unavailable as he was working on Dr. Strangelove. Thus, it was probably Syd Cain that came up with the logo. I thought you meant this logo.

    SPECTRE_Logo.png
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    With regards to the lektor decoder people should bear in mind that while it seems somewhat pedestrian today, in the early 60's most people still remembered WWII, and the importance of deciphering the Enigma and Purple ciphers to the allied war effort.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    Sorry, you're right. Ken Adam was unavailable as he was working on Dr. Strangelove. Thus, it was probably Syd Cain that came up with the logo. I thought you meant this logo.

    SPECTRE_Logo.png
    Well, this octopus is, I think, from TB and Ken Adam worked in TB! He was obviously inspired by the previous one (FRWL) that is a mix of an spectre and an octopus. Syd Cain?? Maybe...

    It's quite iconic for us to not knowing...
  • Posts: 15,229
    ggl007 wrote: »
    The original logo is an octopus. I would have to say that it'd be the work of Ken Adam, as he was the production designer. (Production designers are responsible for not only sets, but also the look and feel of the films.)

    Ken Adam didn't worked in FRWL:

    408145-3.jpg?1376498666

    And that design is the one that is more similar to an spectre than an octopus...

    Mixing a skull and a squid actually. Brilliant.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 1,778
    I've got another gun related question. Does anyone know the kind of gun Pam hands Bond in the elevator in LTK for the "proper family reunion"? It's one the smallest guns I've ever seen let Dalton still makes it seem badass.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    I've got another gun related question. Does anyone know the kind of gun Pam hands Bond in the elevator in LTK for the "proper family reunion"? It's one the smallest guns I've ever seen let Dalton still makes it seem badass.

    Beretta 950 Jetfire. Complements of IMFDB.
    Beretta_950BS_Jetfire_Stainless.jpg
  • I've got another gun related question. Does anyone know the kind of gun Pam hands Bond in the elevator in LTK for the "proper family reunion"? It's one the smallest guns I've ever seen let Dalton still makes it seem badass.

    It's a stainless steel Beretta 950 Jetfire.

    imfdb.org/wiki/Licence_To_Kill
  • Thankyou @Murdock and @Some_Kind_Of_Hero. I thought Pam and Bond had different guns as for some reason I remember it looking different when Bond held it. But looking at the pictures that seems to be the gun. I can't believe it hold 7 rounds. I'd have thought 3 or 4 at the most.
  • Posts: 6,022
    Thankyou @Murdock and @Some_Kind_Of_Hero. I thought Pam and Bond had different guns as for some reason I remember it looking different when Bond held it. But looking at the pictures that seems to be the gun. I can't believe it hold 7 rounds. I'd have thought 3 or 4 at the most.

    Well, like Bond's first weapon (in the books), it's a .25 ACP. Small caliber, then. And according to Wikipedia, it can hold 8 rounds (9 if you chamber one first).

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_950

    I wouldn't count on it to save my life, but as a deterrent, and for close work, it could do the trick.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    Is there a glitch with the view counter? One thread, there's 88 comments, but 1 view? That doesn't make sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.