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, such an iconic image with the golden gun, and of course Lee is an iconic actor anyway.
I suppose for me it's a case of wanting to see how the broad plot points could be redone in another film. Just the basic idea of Bond going head to head with an assassin who has an obsession with him (and has seemingly murdered another 00 agent - a plot point that feels wasted in that film) feels like a great starting point.
Yes, it was a bit more groundbreaking than usual. It was the first time a non action director was directing. It features one of the first recurring female characters with in-depth personalities. Overall, TWINE is more unique than people realize.
Yeah and certainly an assassin who should be planning... an assassination! :)
It is a good setup, and as I said before, the way into the plot with Bond apparently being his next target and M giving him time away to sort it out, and it turning out to be a traitor who is actually trying to get Bond's help... that's all really lovely stuff and a genuinely fresh way to get Bond into the story (well, maybe a twist on FRWL, but still an original one).
But maybe people would moan about it being 'too personal'...
It was ahead of its time certainly. I actually enjoy the film quite a bit, but it’s also easy to see some of the criticisms lodged at it. Having said that, some of Brosnan’s best moments as Bond are in TWINE.
I agree with you. I’m a bit biased, as it was my first James Bond cinematic experience. Same with Carte Blanche for the novels.
I think the female villain was a great idea but for the emotional depth it needed, it would have worked better with a different Bond
That makes my head shoulder hurt.
Just don't let them see you bleed.
Careful: they may know exactly where to huwwrt you.
Random question as we’ve been talking about Spectre: why does Bond call Denbigh ‘C’? I’m sure it made sense at the time, but I can’t quite work out the reasoning now…?
Edit: (brain fart): thinly veiled profanity, calling Denbigh the c-word?
The proposed merging of 5 and 6 and ‘C8 being in the mix reminded me of the 80’s British spy series The Sandbaggers, though sadly the scripts weren’t of that kind of quality.
Yes, that was it.
Well yeah, but his line is “I suppose we’ll have to call you C” as if that’s next in line or short for something, abd C agrees, but it isn’t..? The joke doesn’t actually make sense, does it..?
I love the version M makes at the end, but does the setup actually work?
He could just say 'I suppose we'll have to call you 'tw*t'' but why would Denbeigh agree to that?
Anyway, I tried watching Citadel ep 4 this evening and gave up: I feel like we can at least tick Richard Madden off the list. Charisma deadzone.
Yes, definitely this. And it would be absolutely fine if Bond had known him for more than 10 seconds. :))
I suppose in that case, one of the film's biggest weakenesses ends up being the reason that the joke works. C is so obviously a villain from the off because of Scott's performance that we know Bond is right. If the character/performance had any sort of subtlety about them at all, it would have been very off-putting for Bond to make that personality jab so quickly.
I don't give a damn that C is obviously a villain from the off, because we're all aware that he is a villain from the off. Bond and M might not know he is working for Spectre at first, but they see him as an adversary right from the start... I accept the lack of subtlety because he's clearly an ass, so it's natural for him to turn out to be a full on bad guy. I also accept it because Andrew Scott is a lot of fun to watch.
*The English subtitles on my copy of the film capitalize the word 'new' in New Centre for National Security. I don't know if this was indeed the intention of the script -- it makes more sense that Tanner is just using the word as a qualifier, rather than it being part of the name of the organization.
I'm still puzzling over M's "standard issue ring finger" as well.
Yes, I guess that must be it. It’s very odd.
:))
I never got what makes the word so offensive, to be honest.
Why wouldn't I come first?
Because you're a C-word.
It depends on the context it's used in. I once had an interesting dilemma in an editing bay where an actor, who was fond of improv, used it twice. One was in a comedic way during a chase sequence, and the other was more vicious during a conversation scene; both were great scenes. However, because of the implications of the word (a vulgar description of a female organ) we had to cut the line during the conversation scene and find ways to make it work without the line. You're down to fine margins at that point.
When Connery departed the series, EON tried to find another actor who could emulate what Connery had done. When that didn't work, they threw everything at getting Connery back.
After this each actor has been allowed to play the part, for the most part to their own strengths. Some better than others, but all of them have left their own mark on the series I feel.
So is it probable that after Daniel Craig, the series moves in yet another direction?
As @sandbagger1 mentioned above, “C” is the designation letter for the head of SIS in the real world. Denbigh tries to insist that Bond call him by his first name, Max. Bond never refers to his bosses by their name informally, so he prefers calling him “C”.