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
Yes, the bomb was about to be planted off shore near Miami. As for how it got there, first, it was taken from its hiding place in the Bahamas, then loaded in the hull of the Disco Volante, and then the Disco Volante brought it near Florida, and then Lardo's frogmen took it to its final place. But of course, they were intercepted by the "aquaparas". Hope I answered your question.
Thank you, yes that's I what thought but I have read some on the thunderball thread saying a bomb had already been planted. Anyway thanks for clearing that up.
After watching it I have a few new thoughts about it. Mostly positive.
@fjdinardo yes largo managed to get one bomb on board. The professor said he had thrown away the fuses so did that lessen it's impact? Sorry, science isn't a strong point.
True. They are much safer than American car fuel.
Thank you Birdleson and thank you for your earlier reply.
The Spy Who Loved Me stunt was quite feasible, assuming Bond knew the landscape.
The Goldeneye Stunt was also feasible and it would be assumed the depth of the drop and the bungee had been precisely calculated and tested elsewhere in advance.
Sure, OHMSS has a good degree of realism. But nobody just grabs a piece of rope and jumps out of a window. That would be a stupid thing for anybody to do, unless they wanted to commit suicide. Therefore, it undermines the character of Bond. Bond essentially becomes a cartoon character like Bugs Bunny with unrealistic stunts. He can do stupid things that would seem certain to kill or injure him. Like a cartoon character, he just gets up and keeps on going. I didn't see that in the early Bond movies.
What would I like him to do? Anything. It can be as inventive as the limits of the imagination of the writers, as long as it doesn't defy logic. Look at Jason Bourne's Waterloo Train Station sequence - powerful tension is created without any silliness - just great direction, camerawork, choreography, editing, and music that sets the beat to the action, almost like a racing heartbeat, and to the tone and pace of the sequence. It is thrilling simply seeing Bourne in action without ever defying logic, moving across a crowded train station, outsmarting his predators, dodging surveillance, trying to save his contact and beating up CIA agents and at all times being consistent as a character.
Even if you look at nonsense writers like Lewis Caroll there is an inner logic. Once you cross that boundary, credibility is lost - it becomes absurd. I don't want an absurd Bond. Bond was not absurd in the 1960s.
I don't want stunts for the sake of stunts. Thinking of stunts and then applying it to the screenplay is incredibly lazy and incredibly cheap. It should always start with the character, and asking what would this character actually do in this situation?
Fleming said his stories were highly improbable, but possible. It is not possible that somebody like Bond would choose to jump out of a window attached to a piece of cord of unknown length in that situation. That would make no sense. There are hundreds of more realistic ways Bond could have escaped.
It is possible he would ski over a cliff in TSWLM if he had a parachute on his back and was being chased by men who were shooting him. There were no other options available.
Utter bollocks.
The TSWLM ski jump took weeks to set up waiting for the right conditions before it could be filmed.
The notion that Bond could just pull it off on any random day without the wind blowing him into the rock face is very questionable to say the least. But we go with it because of something called suspension of disbelief.
Yet for some reason you have a raging hard on for the TWINE bankers office escape as being the most preposterous stunt ever committed to celluloid.
Why aren't you concentrating on the TWMTGG car jump as this took MIT computers to work out in reality but in the film Bond just floors it and everything works out OK (aside from the slide whistle).
The Bourne Waterloo sequence you quote is all well and good but you're comparing apples and oranges. In that scene Bourne just walks across the station concourse. It's a decent scene I grant you but for a Bond PTS I think something more spectacular is expected.
In the TWINE scene we can assume Bond evaluates the length with his eyes and then uses the unconscious guard as ballast to slow down the impact and stop him from breaking his spine. Any other variables are accounted for by suspension of disbelief.
Not sure why you've got such a downer against this scene but if you're going to kick off against this then at least apply your logic to all the other stunts in Bond history which are equally
implausible.
A tad presumptuous if you don't mind me saying.
At what point in the film is it stated that the Disco Volante took the bomb to Miami?
And at what point does someone state that the 'aquaparas' intercepted it
I'm afraid this is all speculation (admittedly credible speculation) on your part.
http://movie-sounds.org/spy-movie-sound-clips/sound-clips-from-thunderball-1965/warn-them-the-target-is-miami-the-bomb-is-transferred
I don't deny it's logical, just that there's no evidence in the film that it happened so its pure speculation. It could just easily have been loaded onto a cargo ship in Nassau and then transported to Miami.
As for the 'big underwater battle'; yeah I did notice that that happened thanks. But that is to retrieve the 2nd bomb. Keep up.
The 1st bomb which was targeted at Miami is captured and defused offscreen. One of the main reasons the TB climax is utterly devoid of tension IMO. SPECTRE never come close to detonating either bomb.
The first might well be a thrilling countdown where the bomb is stopped on 007 seconds but as we don't see it and Bond is not involved in it there is no excitement for the audience.
The second never even gets armed as the fuse is chucked in the sea so again zero excitement.
When you reply with a phrase like "Utter bollocks," it makes you appear very disrespectful.
As I said, in The Spy Who Loved Me, Bond was running out of options. Yes, Bond would jump out of a window if it was either that or die, or ski off a cliff if he had a parachute. But the window jump was not the only option.
I am happy to concentrate on the car jump in Golden Gun if you like. That was ridiculous as well.
If you watch the window jump, you will see it is at least seven stories high. With high ceilings, the rope would have to be at least seventy foot long. When was the last time you saw a seventy foot rope that could be ripped away from a window? [/quote]
In the world is not enough : did M new Bond cheated in his medical check up ??
When she gets the results from James Tomography and she says something like it seems like you healed very quick. Did she knew those results were fake and still let him go to protect Elektra ??
She(M) first made it clear Bond shouldn't go back to work till he recovered from the incident but did she changed her mind thought what the hell he is a professional and sent him knowing he didnt fully recover yet ????
just like in Skyfall who sent Bond to a mission even though he didnt past the tests.
Even if some claim Judi played two different M both versions were very similar.
First in Casino Royale and Goldeneye
She tells him she wouldn't hesitate to send him to his death
In the World is not enough and Quantum she tells both Bonds she won't tolerate Subordination.
In Skyfall and Die another day she tells them textually she doesn't apologize
And she ask to both what did you expect an apology.
[/quote]
If you want me to admit that that rope was a bit on the long side then fine I agree with you. I like a gritty realistic Bond as much as the next man but if you can't extend your suspension of disbelief to a longer window pull that is strictly accurate then you're not going to have a lot of fun.
The question is why you bother watching Bond films seeing as you find everything he does so ridiculous?
Thank you for admitting "that the rope was a bit on the long side." IMO, that was so unrealistic, he may as well have pulled a rope out of his backside. Stuff that you need in an emergency, like a rope, doesn't just magically appear, in the real world or in the early films or novels. I love James Bond movies and I love the books. I never said that I find "everything he does so ridiculous." Even the things I think could be better in the movies don't prevent my enjoyment. I am not one of those who are highly critical of Spectre. Overall, I think it was terrific. If I could only ever watch another 25 movies, I would choose to watch only Bond movies. My credentials as a Bond fan should not be questioned.
He was trying to save his own skin. Not very believable, though.
By the time M had seen the results she had already had a conversation with Bond about her involvement in Electra's kidnapping, and the fact that 'your terrorist is back'.
As such and because Bond had figured so much out I think M was more than willing to overlook Bond's clean bill of health. She needed him more than ever.
Or at least I think that was the order of events.
Sorry, but I thought this thread was about questions relating to James Bond. I asked some questions and then replied to some of the answers. What's your beef exactly?
Just trying to figure out if you're a covert comedian. Fixating and labouring on something 99.9% of people wouldn't give a toss about is like a Stewart Lee set.
I am not a great fan of the 'few seconds to disaster' conclusions which to my mind are gratingly contrived and often do not produce excitement, not least because they usually are preceded by a turgid gunfight (yes I'm looking at you YOLT and TSWLM).
The thunderball finale is not great because the underwater battle goes on too long and is not half as interesting as the filmmakers seem to think it is. Plus the awkward speeded up and poorly edited fight onboard. A better finale could have been conceived but imo its not necessary to have imminent danger to the world for the finale to be exciting.
I am pleased that I am providing you with amusement. However, I am not sure what point you are making.
Are you claiming I am "fixated" on the sequence in which Bond jumps out of a window?
Are you saying that questions on this thread and comments should only be about things that meet your standard of having a certain percentage of people who agree? If so, I humbly apologize for failing to meet your standard.
Maybe I could look back at some of your past comments and give an opinion of how petty I think they are, but I am not petty enough or rude enough to do that.
Where do you get your figure of 99.9 percent? Is that a wild guess? Or did you conduct a survey?
Even if one-tenth of one percent see it as an issue, as you suggest, that would be millions of people worldwide. Personally, I think that is a little bit silly to estimate how many people "wouldn't give a toss," about things discussed on this forum, as you have done. I wouldn't do that.
I am sorry if you feel you have to belittle what I write, but perhaps that gives you pleasure. I see you have a bit of a reputation as a bully.
We have covered the query about Bond's escape from the bank, so we can move on.
Thanks.
I sense you are correct.
Thank you Nic Nac. I came here to talk about James Bond, not to be attacked. From this point on I will exercise restraint and not respond to those kind of attacks.