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
They got the wrong scene for this video. It's actually the scene where Bond goes up against Patrice in Shanghai. He is wearing gloves in the publicity stills released from the movie but in post-production they realised that the gun is programmed to Bond's fingerprints so they had to remove the gloves digitally.
Bond wouldn't wear gloves to a casino.
Well, I did know the reports that Craig couldn't 'drive stick' were baloney. They used more than two Aston Martins for CR, though. A handful, I believe. I mean, they wrote-off one or two for the crazy barrel-roll stunt, which was pulled off by launching
Clang! Clang-a-lang-a-lang-a-lang, lang-a-lang!
Almost my favourite bit of Bond... Certainly of Bond Camps. :D
When Bond retires in OHMSS, he cleans out his desk. They are just props from previous films. We are clearly shown three of them:
1. Honey's knife from DR. NO
2. Grant's wrist watch from FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
3. the re-breather from THUNDERBALL,
And there are two other things seen on top of the desk but Bond was not shown removing them from the drawer. (Edited out for time, I suppose).
One of them, after freezing the frame, I was able to decipher. It is the shoe heel in which Bond hides the homing device from GOLDFINGER. The other...I can't figure out.
All the other previous films were covered (DN, FRWL, GF, TB....) so logic would dictate that the other prop on top of the desk is from YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. I didn't post a screenshot (go watch the scene if you must) but the item is a white curly cord with something attached to it. Anybody know what the fifth item is that Bond kept in his desk?
Did I say suck her whole hand? I meant all of her fingers.
Yes, it is indeed a YOLT prop. The metallic box with white spiral cords, is Bond's safe cracker, which he used to steal Osato's documents.
Ah, that's it. Yes. Thanks.
The five items Bond kept in his desk:
1. Honey's knife
2. Grant's wristwatch
3. Bond's shoe heel
4. Bond's re-breather
5. Bond's safe cracker
3 and 5 requires a sharp eye to figure out. I love finding out goofy stuff like this from the films. Thanks again for item 5.
This item below is already on the desk when Lazenby starts going through his desk drawer. Why Bond would save it is really odd...but what other prop could they have used from GOLDFINGER?
+1 , thanks for that
I joke! I find the whole thing of Bond having these "keepsakes" rather much. Might have been better if he has remembrances of the women he had relations with:
DN Honey's knife
FRWL Tatiana's choker
GF Pussy's ????
TB Domino's starfish...though he did give it to her
YOLT Aki's kimono?
To let North Korea invade the South unchallenged.
In TSWLM the Liparus supertanker captures a British and Russian submarines in the PTS. Later in the film the Liparus captures an American submarine. After Bond escapes capture the British and American crews are released. But what happens to the Russian submarine crews? It's left unclear.
Especially as Claudio Santamaria could pass for Middle Eastern.
This seems rather political and dangerous a sentiment to have in a film.
Considering it was only 5 years after 9/11 i have to agree with you.
Certainly a gamble,especially as it is US airport as well.
I've looked at his IMDB and Santamaria doesn't seem to have any Middle Eastern blood. He's only ever been primarily cast as Italian characters.
Though maybe it's me but he looks a little like the leading terrorist in United 93. It's probably just my ignorance speaking there. Just would have been a little more comfortable if they cast someone without a Middle Eastern look. Though I suppose the character is called 'Carlos'. Creepy looking dude though....................
However, the decision to have a terror threat at an airport is truly brave and gives a lot of real world texture to the film. It certainly brings Craig's film sharply into a post-9/11 world.
I'm surprised this point isn't discussed more on these forums, especially considering people's "keep politics out of my escapism!" argument.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Bond 25 (or future films) tackle the current events and/or political climate, in one way or the other. The Porton Down sequence might do so…?
Edited! :-)
Sorry.
I wasn't trying to say anything negative about either of the political issues I mentioned. I've also deleted the gif.
It was just that i was thinking after watching United 93 how brave it was for Eon to include the airport sequence.
It's certainly a way to bring Bond into a post-9/11 world. There is certainly a timely, political context at play. Of course, it's divorced from the reality of the real world situation. In the film, we are witnessing European bombmakers for hire operating for financial gain over any ideological belief.
However, it's certainly a bold notion to include such a sequence. Does anyone else think Claudio Santamaria's casting is a tad dubious?
That i believe is a very good point. The fallout of the Iraq invasion certainly changed the feeling around the event itself. Also, CR makes a point to say that the terrorist has been hired as a middleman and isn't carrying out the event with any religious ideological in mind. The incentive for Carlos is purely financial. He's a hitman for hire.
Though, on second thoughts, do we think Santamaria's casting is a little curious. He does resemble a bit the lead terrorist in United 93.
I'm not entirely comfortable the would-be notion that may be hinted at here. Though, it's a thought that's only just occurred to me after having seen this film numerous times over the last 13 years.
Surely not. He's a seriously creepy looking dude.
Both of them are obviously Latin American. In GF's case I think one can assume it's Colombia or Ecuador.
In OP's it might be Cuba, as we have a communist Latin American country close to the US. Though it puzzles me why there is a land border between them.
I'd say they're both non-descript Latin-American-cliché banana republics that could be anywhere. Sort of like Isthmus City and San Monique, only without a name.
I'd find it highly unlikely that the OP PTS is actually meant to refer to Cuba, in spite of the Fidel/Che type officers present. Why would Cuba set up a horse show or race for obvious capitalists who come with their Range Rovers, and there is not a single 1950s-vintage car in the park? Plus how did they get the Acrostar and fake horse to the island? Nicaragua might make a bit more sense. They had a Sandinista government at the time that probably didn't look much different from the Cubans, have several land borders, and might still have been trying to make money from horse breeding and racing. But it is really not relevant, with the PTS the best thing (among very few good aspects) of the entire movie.
IIRC, the GF PTS is more or less taken from the novel (it's been at least fifteen years since I read it), but I don't recall if Fleming mentioned a specific country there. Anyway, since it's about heroin being used to finance a revolution, it could also be any place where they grow bananas - Colombia would probably make more sense if it were cocaine.
I always took it to be Mexico, as Bond reflects heavily on "killing the Mexican" in the book. The OP pts could just as well be Argentina as Great Britain was at war with them just before production started.