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
That Guy Hamilton trilogy is really the golden era in terms of one-liners, even if some ("Alimentary", for one example) might be missed by many. For me at least, it's key to the extreme rewatchability of those films. I can watch any of those movies twice in a row any day of the week!
Cubby Broccoli pointed out to Guy Hamilton the fact that some in the cinema audience were laughing at that line was merely because they were doctors and actually got what it meant!
And did Bond mention the name after at the hotel reception or not? If not he might have made up that name on the spot to tease her. Either way, they both know it's an awful name and make a point about it.
Kind of related to this, and certainly an unpopular opinion, one of the reasons I don't really care for either of Martin Campbell's films is the palpable embarrassment they seem to have about being James Bond movies. Goldeneye in its bizarre and rather inaccurate deconstruction of the James Bond character, and CR in its refusal to resemble a James Bond film at all. Skyfall has a moment as well, with Q's "exploding pen" quip, but it doesn't saturate the film.
I don’t think CR is as dark and serious as people hype it up. It’s still ultimately about a government agent sanctioned to spend their money in a game of luck. It may have a grittier aesthetic, but it’s still ultimately a fantasy spy film.
'A normal person'? Are you being needlessly insulting again? It's just a silly conversation about old movie lines: calm down.
And yes, if you take the line out of context, that's what it means. However in the actual film it is in reply to "You wouldn't kill me after we...": Bond's line is replying to the word 'after' in that sentence. After / before - the two are antonyms, that's how the line works, it's a direct reply to what Hendry says and how she says it.
It has nothing to do with necrophilia: it means that Bond wanted to shag her, nothing more. You're taking it way too literally and missing the context.
I don't think you quite understand what parody is. Anyway, you're moving towards insults for some reason, so this is done.
Precisely, it's literally a joke that Bond is making.
And it works in a way that M's line cut from TWINE about hollowed-out volcanoes and big-breasted women wouldn't have: I think they were right to remove that.
I disagree, but I can easily see why some people don’t like it. Personally I think the scores of the more recent films are much worse, but then I am a grumpy old man.
The most controversial opinion I have is that only the Eon films up to and including MR are authentic James Bond films. All films from AVTAK onwards are fanfiction. Yes they are officially approved, canon, very enjoyable and watchable films, but they are still fanfiction.
I have no logical arguments or evidence to support this other than my own feelings.
It feels to me that something was lost after MR. I cannot put my finger on it at all, perhaps an aesthetic, or a confidence, or a swagger or something. But to me everything after MR is trying to be a James Bond film whereas everything up to MR is a James Bond film.
You see. I actually see it as DN thru AVTAK being the “classic era” in that it was largely dominated by Connery and Moore playing an unflappable agent that was always cool as a cucumber and never had a hair out of place. Beginning with Dalton brought a new take on the character with Bond having more of a personal stake and allowed to be more emotionally shaken in a way Connery and Moore typically weren’t. It’s never been the same since.
Maybe, I really try to take people as if they're joking but I couldn't work that one out.
I don't agree, but I can see where you're coming from. There's an aesthetic which is lost after that (obviously the big link there is Ken Adam not doing any more after that which really does change them) but also Lewis Gilbert gives them an elegance and epic quality that Glen can't quite match.
I like the feel of the 80s films, but I know what you mean about those 'old guard' Bond movies ending around that point, and the last one to have Bernard Lee, Ken Adam and Shirley Bassey is a bit of a minor end of an era.
Exactly. It had to be done.
It's easy to look back now and realize the role can always be recast. But in 1969 Eon must have been scared to death that the golden goose of Bond walked out the door with Connery.
The moment also does work as a riff on Cinderella, as stated above. Fairy tales persist for a reason...and ironically the film ends up being the rare Bond without a fairy tale ending.
Indeed. When I said "if having sex with you and killing you are both going to happen, the order of events should be clear for a normal person", I was referring to the common opinion of normal people, including Bond. I wasn't commenting on whether or not @mtm was a normal person or trying to suggest anything at all about him. Basically, the sex is a given, and the killing would certainly not come before.
While I suppose it's possible that the funny and clever Tom Mankiewicz intended a less funny/clever interpretation of his line, I find it more plausible that he is being interpreted as wrongly as I have been here! ;)
Okay thanks, sorry to misinterpret you.
Bond is just saying "I would hardly kill you before I got the chance to shag you" which is a joke about his character. He's not saying that the sex would happen regardless (especially as the point of his comment is that he wouldn't). You are interpreting it wrongly, as you say.
If it was Brosnan, it might be different.
Yes he does have a bit of a habit of nuzzling pretty lady corpses! :D
*Kidd takes photos of Mrs Whistler’s corpse*
Kidd: “Mrs. Whistler did wante photos of the canal for the children.”
Wint: “How kind of you Mr. Kidd. The children will be so thrilled.”
Now, that was funny!
:)) I have no doubt Pierce would kill before or after.
@mtm, if Bond had said what your paraphrase says, you'd be absolutely right. As is, he's saying what he's saying, and it's an actual joke. I'm not the only person to (correctly) interpret it this way, either!
Isn't it shot as day-for-night or something? Or dawn? I think they're trying to make it look like a certain time of day, and that sort of thing didn't usually look quite right in that era.
If it works for you to think it works that way then fine, please stop being so antagonistic about it. Everyone else finds it funny the way it actually is in the film (because it certainly is a joke that Bond says he would never kill someone if there was a chance of getting his leg over first, because that's what he's like), we're all happy.
Well I look at that passport and it kind of makes sense.
I think it works because 1)it's acknowledged as an awful name in universe and 2)as awful as it is... it's still a plausible enough surname. In my life I've known a Miss Crook, a Mr Pink and a few Guays (pronounced gay).
I think the idea is it's very early morning: Bond is in a dinner suit driving back to his hotel so he's presumably been up all night at some casino or other. OHMSS is good but it is a bit ragged in some of these aspects, like the tyres screeching on the sand, Bond and his assailant suddenly being up the waist in the water etc.
And he does it a lot. Car keys in CR, wallet contents in QOS, and in SP, more wallet contents as well as his Walther. They seem to like having Craig fling his wrists around.
Holy crap, you're right! What's his deal?!